HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/07/10 Agenda Packet
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am
employed by the City of Chula Vista in the
Office of the City Clerk and that I posted~ ~ f/..
ument on the bulletin board accord~
Act requirements. --= _"""-_
'1)"/01> Signed~~~A
Cheryl Cox, Mayor
Rudy Ramirez, Councilmember David R. Garcia, City Manager
John McCann, Councilmember Bart Miesfield, Interim City Attorney
Jerry R. Rindone, Councilmember Donna Norris, Interim City Clerk
Steve Castaneda, Counci Imember
July 10, 2008
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
City Hall
276 Fourth Avenue
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, Rindone, and Mayor Cox
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Persons speaking during Public Comments may address the Council on any subject
matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State
law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking action on any issue not
included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future
discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes.
ACTION ITEM
If you wish to speak on the following item, please fill out a "Request to Speak" form
(available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting.
1. REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
In May 2007 staff reported to City Council that Chula Vista's citywide greenhouse gas
emissions had increased by 35% (mainly due to residential growth) from 1990 to 2005,
while emissions from municipal operations decreased by 18%. As a result, City Council
directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to develop
recommendations to reduce the community's greenhouse gas emissions or "carbon
footprint" in order to meet the City's 2010 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
The CCWG - comprised of residential, business and community-group representatives-
selected seven measures which City Council adopted on April I, 2008. The report
outlines staffs strategy to implement the measures including an analysis of each
measure's budget, timeline and performance criteria. In addition, the report evaluates
fmancing options which the City could pursue to fully fund the measures'
implementation. (Conservation and Environmental Services Director, Public Works
Director, Acting Planning Director)
. -
Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA
(I) ADOPTING THE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS FOR THE CLIMATE
CHANGE WORKING GROUP MEASURES, (2) APPROVING PARTIAL
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MEASURES BASED ON CURRENT
FUNDING LEVELS, (3) AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURSUE ADDITIONAL
FUNDING OPTIONS AND (4) DIRECTING STAFF TO RETURN TO
COUNCIL WITHIN 180 DAYS WITH AN IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE
CLOSED SESSION
Announcements of actions taken in Closed Session shall be made available by noon on
Wednesday following the Council Meeting at the City Attorney's office in accordance
with the Ralph M Brown Act (Government Code 54957.7).
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a)
Robert Carman Y. City of Chula Vista San Diego Superior Court, Case No. GIS 28421
Deanna Mory. et a!. Y. City of Chula Vista. et a!., United States District Court, Case No.
06 CV 1460 JAH (BLM)
Deanna Mory. et a!. Y. City of Chula Vista. et a!., United States District Court, Case No.
07-CV-0462 JLS (BLM)
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF
LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(c)
One case
ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of July IS, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chambers.
Materials provided to the City Council related to any open-session item on this agenda are
available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, located in City Hall at 276 Fourth Avenue,
Building 100, during normal business hours.
In compliance with the
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
The City of Chula Vista requests individuals who require special accommodations to access,
attend, and/or participate in a City meeting, activity, or service request such accommodation at
least forty-eight hours in advance for meetings and jive days for scheduled services and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk for specific information at (619) 691-5041 or
Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5655. California Relay Service is
also available for the hearing impaired
Page 2 - COWlcil Agenda
htto://www.chulavistaca.2:0V
July 10, 2008
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~\~CITYOF
~CHUIA VISTA
JULY 10, 2008, ItemL
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA (1) ADOPTING THE IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS FOR THE CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP
MEASURES, (2) APPROVING PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE MEASURES BASED ON CURRENT FUNDING
LEVELS, (3) AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURSUE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING OPTIONS AND (4) DIRECTING
STAFF TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITHIN 180 DAYS WITH
AN IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE
DIR. OF CONSERVATION & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ~
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS b~
ACTING DIRECTOR OF BUI.LD. ING ~/~- c-J
ACTING DIRECTOR OF P .. fl~
CITY MANAGER !
,
ASSISTANT CITY MA AGER
4/STHS VOTE: YES D NO 0
SUMMARY
In May 2007 staff reported to City Council that Chula Vista's citywide greenhouse gas
emissions had increased by 35% (mainly due to residential growth) from 1990 to 2005,
while emissions on a per capita basis and from municipal operations decreased by 17%
and 18%, respectively. As a result, the City Council directed staff to convene a Climate
Change Working Group (CCWG) to develop recommendations to reduce the
community's greenhouse gas emissions or "carbon footprint" in order to meet the City's
2010 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The CCWG - comprised of residential, .
business and community-group representatives - selected seven measures which City
Council adopted on April I, 2008. The attached report outlines staff s strategy to
implement the measures including an analysis of each measure's budget, timeline and
performance criteria. In addition, the report evaluates financing options which the City
could pursue to fully fund the measures' implementation.
1-1
JULY 10, 2008, Item~
Page 2 of5
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project
for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has
determined that the project qualifies for a Class 8 categorical exemption pursuant to
Section 15308 [Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment] of
the State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council adopt the resolution.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
In developing the implementation plans, staff made presentations at the following
commissions to review the Council-adopted climate protection measures and receive
feedback on their implementation:
Board of Appeals & Advisors
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
Design Review Committee
Redevelopment Advisory Committee
Planning Commission
Resource Conservation Commission
While no formal approvals were solicited from the commissions, their comments are
outlined in the attached Stakeholder Comments Summary Report. In addition, staff met
with over 22 stakeholder and community groups to receive feedback on implementation
of the CCWG measures (also summarized in Stakeholder Comments Summary Report).
DISCUSSION
Historically, Chula Vista has been engaged in multiple climate change forums including
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, ICLEI Cities for Climate
Protection Campaign and the Conference of Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement.
Through this involvement, the City has committed itself to reducing its citywide
greenhouse gas (GHG) or "carbon" emissions 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. The
2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory was the first formal evaluation of the City's
progress in reaching its emissions goals. The 2005 inventory indicated that Chula Vista's
annual citywide GHG levels had increased by 35% since 1990 due primarily to
residential growth. However, the City did make significant progress in reducing annual
per capita emissions by 17% and avoiding nearly 200,000 tons of GHG emissions
annually. GHG emissions from municipal sources also decreased by 18% mainly due to
energy-efficient traffic signal retrofits.
As a result, the City Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group
(CCWG) to develop recommendations to reduce the community's greenhouse gas
emissions or "carbon footprint" in order to meet the City's 2010 greenhouse gas
1-2
. -
JULY 10,2008, Item--L
Page 3 of 5
emISSIOns reduction targets. The CCWG - comprised of residential, business and
community-group representatives - evaluated over 90 climate protection measures based
on the follow criteria: 1) the measure had been previously implemented successfully by
an ICLEI local government or California Climate Action Registry business, 2) the
measure would be financially feasible (i.e. require little or no additional General Fund
support), 3) the measure could be quickly implemented to have immediate impact on the
City's efforts to reduce emissions by 2010, 4) the measure's impacts could be quantified
using the City's emissions inventory protocol and 5) the measure would not cause a
significant adverse community impact. The CCWG chose seven measures which it felt
could slow the rate of future GHG emissions increases and could ultimately lead to
lowering emissions to below 1990 levels. On April 1, 2008, City Council adopted the
CCWG's seven recommendations and directed staff to develop more detailed
implementation plans that included input from a broader range of stakeholders, identified
potential funding mechanisms and established a timeline, budget, and evaluation criteria
for each measure to present to Council within 90 days.
The CCWG Measures' Implementation Plans (attached) outlines staff's strategy to
implement the seven climate protection measures. The report includes an analysis of the
budget needs, timeline and performance criteria for each measure. In drafting the plans,
staff strived to address the concerns and suggestions of various stakeholder and
community groups (see Stakeholder Comments SUlllillary Report), while ensuring the
plans met the original intent of the Climate Change Working Group. Staffalso strived to
integrate the measures' implementation into existing City programs, policies and
regulatory processes to avoid duplication of efforts and to increase cost-effectiveness.
Finally, although some proposed policies and programs may require further development
(such as municipal code revisions), the plans represent an overall "roadmap" for
implementing, tracking and adaptively managing the seven measures and for ultimately
reducing Chula Vista's greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposed implementation plans, if fully implemented, are estimated to cost
$1,479,380 in one-time expenditures and $2,419,150 in annual expenditures. These s:;osts
do not include the upfront capital for residents and businesses to install renewable and
energy-efficiency improvements as proposed under Measure #5 (see Fiscal Impact
section below). Implementation costs would be supplemented by applicable local, state
and federal incentives for energy efficiency, renewable energy, alternative fuels and
water use efficiency. In addition, the costs may be partially offset by municipal savings
resulting from energy, fuel and water use reductions. Staff is recommending that the
measures are implemented in a "phased" manner to allow the City an opportunity to
pursue a variety of funding sources to meet both the long-term, ongoing program
management costs as well as the short-term, large upfront capital improvement costs
required to fully implement the seven measures. Specifically, the measures'
implementation would be divided into 2 phases and be commensurate with available
funding levels:
1-3
. -
JULY 10,2008, Item_
Page 4 of 5
PHASE IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
# LEVEL DESCRIPTION BACK TO
COUNCIL
Partial - Implement measures based on existing funding
1 (Existing Funding) - Identify, determine the viability of and pursue July 2008
additional funding sources
- Franchise fee negotiations
Partial - Local fee authority discussions
2 (Additional Funding) - Development fee increases Jan 2009
- CPUC/SDG&E Partnership funding extension
- Expanded implementation of measures
Phase 1 would involve partially implementing the climate protection measures
immediately based on existing funding. In addition, it would authorize staff to work with
the Finance and City Attorney departments to identify, determine the viability of and
pursue additional funding sources such as grants, local fee authority, and franchise and
development fee increases. Within 180 days (Phase 2), staff would return to City Council
to report on the progress of obtaining additional funding for expanded implementation.
Staff would also present to Council any related funding documents (i.e. revised
development fee schedule or renegotiated franchise fee agreement) for review and
adoption.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has determined that the recommendations requiring Council action are not site
specific 'and consequently the 500 foot rule found in California Code of Regulations
section I 8704.2(a)(I) is not applicable to this decision.
FISCAL IMP ACT
The estimated funding required to fully implement the seven measures is $1,479,380 in
one-time costs and $2,419,150 in annual costs. These costs include staff time, materials
and contractor services to implement the programs as well as capital improvement
projects. Additional costs associated with providing upfront capital for residents and
businesses to install renewable and energy-efficiency improvements (Measure #5) is not
included and would be dependent on the level of community program participation, but
could easily reach $500,000,000 over 10-20 years (assumes 5,000 homes/businesses
participating per year at $10,000 per property). As described above, staff is
recommending that partial implementation of the measures occur immediately using
existing departmental budgets and grant funds, thus not creating a new impact to the
General Fund. This will provide an opportunity for staff to begin developing and
implementing the new programs and policies, while additional funding sources are
pursued to finance full implementation.
1-4
. -
JUL Y 10,2008, ItemL
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - CCWG Measures' Implementation Plans - July 2008
Attachment B - Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
Attachment C - Climate Change Working Group Final Recommendations Report-
April 2008
Prepared by: Brendan Reed, Environmental Resource Manager, Conservation & Environmental Services
1-5
I ATTACHMENT A
cnv OF
CHULA VISTA
CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
July 2008
SUMMARY
In May 2007 staff reported to City Council that Chula Vista's citywide greenhouse gas emissions
had increased by 35% (mainly due to residential growth) from 1990 to 2005, while emissions on
a per capita basis and from municipal operations decreased by 17% and 18%, respectively. As a
result, the City Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to
develop recommendations to reduce the community's greenhouse gas emissions or "carbon
footprint" in order to meet the City's 2010 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The
CCWG - comprised of residential, business and community-group representatives - selected
seven measures which City Council adopted on April I, 2008. This report outlines City staffs
strategy (surmnarized in Table 1) to implement the measures and inclUdes an analysis of each
measure's funding needs, financing options, timeline and performance criteria:
Table 1: Summary of proposed climate-related programs and their estimated Implementation costs
CCWG POLICY/PROGRAM PROGRAM STRATEGY ONE-TIME ANNUAL
MEASURE # COSTS COSTS
Track progress in reducing carbon emissions through
Administration Emissions Tracking & Reporting ICLEI and California Climate Action Registry program --- $93,300
participation
1 100% Clean Vehicle Replacement Replace vehicles through the purchase or lease of $350,000 $160,000
Policy for City Fleet alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles
100% Clean Vehicle Replacement Work with current and future vendors to Include a "Clean
2 Policy for City-Contracted Fleet' Vehicle" replacement policy into the bid and contracting $43,000 $144,000
Services process
Through an ordinance addition, require businesses to
3 Business Energy Assessments participate in a no cost assessment as part of the _n__ $321.400
business licensing process
Through a building code revision, require new and
4 Green Building Standards renovated buildIngs to increase their energy efficiency $235,000 $647,500
and meet stat~wide green building standards
Provide a cost.effectve, streamlined mechanism for
6 Solar & Energy Efficiency property owners to implement solar and energy efficiency $76,000 $347,600
Conversion* upgrades and create a municipal code requiring pre-
wiring for solar electric systems
6 Smart Growth Around Trolley Implement the 'smart growth' design principles outlined in $620,000 h______
Stations** municipal planning documents
Provide a cost effective, streamlined mechanism for
7 Outdoor Water Conservation installing water saving plants at private/public sites and $156,380 $705,150
create new municipal landscape regulations
TOTAL $1,479,380 $2,419,150
* In addition to annual costs presented. implementation of measure #5 would require issuance of a public bond to cover upfront capital costs for
solar and energy efficiency upgrades
** The City has already secured approximately $20.3 million for related regional smart growth efforts such as the 1-5 Corridor Study and the
Trolley Grade Separations (E SI. & H SI.)
CCWG Implementation Plans I of 59
July 1,2008
"
.'
OVERVIEW
Since the early 1990s, Chula Vista has been engaged in multiple climate change forums
including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the ICLEI Cities for
Climate Protection campaign and the U.S. Conference of Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement
and has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions or "carbon footprint" 20% below
1990 levels by 20IO. To accomplish this carbon reduction goal, the City adopted a Carbon
Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan in 2000 which outlined steps for Chula Vista to reduce energy
consumption, promote alternative transportation and design transit-friendly, walkable
communities.
Recently, staff conducted a GHG emissions inventory for 2005 to evaluate the City's progress in
reaching its emissions goals. The 2005 inventory indicated that Chula Vista's annual citywide
GHG levels had increased by 35% since 1990 due primarily to residential growth. During the
same period, the City did make significant progress in reducing annual per capita emissions by
17% and avoiding nearly 200,000 tons of GHG emissions annually. In addition, GHG emissions
from municipal sources decreased by 18% mainly due to traffic signal energy-efficiency
improvements. As a result of the 2005 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Report, the City
Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change Working Group (CCWG) to develop
recommendations to reduce the community's greenhouse gas emissions or "carbon footprint" in
order to meet the City's 20 I 0 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
The CCWG - comprised of residential, business and community-group representatives _
reviewed over 90 possible carbon-reducing measures from July 2007 through March 2008. The
group evaluated these measures based on five primary criteria: I) the measure had been
previously implemented successfully by an ICLEI local government or California Climate
Action Registry business, 2) the measure would be financially feasible (i.e. require little or no
additional General Fund support), 3) the measure could be quickly implemented to have
immediate impact on the City's efforts to reduce emissions by 2010, 4) the measure's impacts
could be quantified using the City's emissions inventory protocol and 5) the measure would not
cause a significant adverse community impact. From this analysis, the CCWG selected seven
measures (see Table I) to recommend to City Council. Council adopted all the measures on
April I , 2008.
This document outlines the City's general strategy for implementing the seven measures, for
financing their further design and implementation and for tracking the resulting emissions
reductions at municipal operations and citywide scales. In addition, each measure's specific
implementation plan provides further clarification and includes the following sections:
Overview - A review of the original CCWG recommendation and how it relates to the
proposed program/policy
Program Strategy - An in-depth description of the programmatic approach for
implementing the proposed program/policy including outreach activities and required
municipal code or regulatory steps
Peiformance Metrics - The metrics which will be tracked and reported to quantify the
performance of the program/policy and its impact on GHG emissions
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008
2 of 59
"
. -
Timeline - A general timeline of important milestones as the program/policy IS
implemented
Budget & Financing - The required funding to implement the program/policy as
proposed by City staff
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
Since City Council approved the Climate Change Working Group's recommendations on April
1,2008, staff has met with a variety of additional community and stakeholder groups. These
meetings were designed to allow interested parties an opportunity to provide feedback on the
development and implementation of the seven Council-approved measures. Stakeholder groups
included:
Building Owners & Managers Association
Board of Appeals & Advisors
Brehm Communities
Building Industry Association (Green
Building Task Force)
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
(policy Committee & Board of Directors)
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation
Community Housing Works
Corky McMillan Companies
Crossroads IT
Design Review Committee
Interagency Water Task Force
Jackson Pendo Development Co.
National Association of Industrial &
Office Properties (Legislative Affairs
Committee)
Northwest Civic Association
CCWG Implemenlation Plans
July 1, 2008
J,
Otay Ranch Company
Otay Water District
Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors
Pacifica
Planning Commission
ProTec Building Services
Redevelopment Advisory Committee
Resource Conservation Commission
San Diego County Apartment Association
South County Economic Development
Council (Transportation Committee)
Sunrise Rotary Club
Suntrek Industries
Sweetwater Authority
Third Avenue Village Association
(Design Committee)
3 of 59
MEASURE #1: HIGH EFFICIENCY OR ALTERNATIVE FUEL
REPLACEMENT VEIDCLES FOR THE CITY FLEET
OVERVIEW
Recommendation #1 of the Climate Change Working Group states that the City Council should
"require that 100% of the replacement vehicles purchased for the municipal fleet be high
efficiency (hybrid) or alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs)." Factors such as the appropriateness for
the vehicle task, fueling infrastructure, petroleum displacement, and the overall cost and
environmental benefit must be considered in implementing this recommendation. Although the
initial costs for each replacement vehicle could be higher than a conventional replacement, fuel
savings may offset this initial price difference (ranging between $5,000 for small sedans to
$70,000 for heavy-duty trucks) over the vehicle's lifetime. Some alternative fuels may also be
less expensive than conventional fuels on a price per gallon and price per gasoline-gallon
equivalent.
There are many fuel alternatives available, and each fuel or technology has positives and
negatives associated with it. For example, ethanol is more readily available commercially than
some other fuels, but ethanol requires more energy to produce it than it delivers when burned.
Also, the ethanol production process generates greenhouse gases and ethanol production may be
partially responsible for food shortages that are currently driving up the cost and availability of
food. Finally, ethanol fuel has special storage and handling requirements that the City is not
currently capable of meeting.
Hybrid vehicles use less fuel than regular gasoline vehicles, which results in lower exhaust
emissions per mile driven. One negative factor is that hybrid vehicles rely on batteries for part of
their motive power, and those batteries pose an additional maintenance expense and disposal
issue. Hybrid vehicles are also more expensive to purchase than regular gasoline powered
vehicles. Therefore, the City is investigating the possibility of leasing hybrid vehicles to avoid
the upfront capital costs and hedge against the resale value of these vehicles as it is unclear what
the resale market for hybrid vehicles will be in five or ten years.
Vehicles that operate on compressed natural gas (CNG) are less readily available for purchase
than hybrids or ethanol fuel vehicles, and there is very little fueling infrastructure in place.
While no American auto manufacturer builds a light-duty vehicle powered by CNG, Honda has
released a commercially-available Civic which uses CNG. The City operates its own CNG fuel
facility at the Public Works Corp Yard (PWC), but the dispensing capacity is not sufficient for
large-scale fueling operations. The cost to up-grade the facility would be several hundred
thousand dollars. Another factor mitigating against purchasing or using CNG powered vehicles
is that the resale value of such vehicles could be low.
Biodiesel is a good alternative to regular diesel fuel. The fuel is created by mixing vegetable fats
from a variety of sources with low sulphur diesel fuel in ratios of up to 1:5 to form B20 biodiesel
fuel. The fuel can be used, in most cases, without modification to existing engines, as long as
certain operating precautions are followed. At present, it will be necessary to increase fuel
storage tank capacity at the Public Works Corp Yard to accommodate biodiesel. The ideal
capacity would be 10,000 gallons for each fuel type.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I. 2008 "
40f59
. -
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of this policy will require a multi-faceted approach. Each alternative fuel or
high efficiency technology has issues that must be considered, such as the carbon footprint of
one type of fuel versus another, or extraneous environmental issues or unintended consequences
that will arise, as a result of actions taken in support of this implementation plan. The three
implementation approaches are:
(1) The Fleet Management Division will replace cars and light-duty trucks with high
efficiency, alternative fuel or ultra-low emissions vehicles as the existing City vehicles
become due for replacement, with careful consideration for the total cost to the Vehicle
Replacement Fund, and ensuring that replacement vehicles are appropriate for their
intended use. This iterative process will take approximately ten (10) years to fully
replace existing light-duty vehicles with alternative fuel or hybrid substitutes. Leasing
vehicles (instead of purchasing) may require a smaller initial capital outlay, shorten the
implementation time and provide greater flexibility to transition to future alternative fuel
or hybrid options.
(2) The existing diesel-fueled vehicles in the City fleet will be converted to operate on
B20 biodieseI. This step can be implemented as soon as fuel storage tank capacity is
addressed, since there is insufficient fuel storage capacity currently available at the Public
Works Corp Yard.
(3) For heavy-duty trucks for which no adequate alternative fuel or high efficiency
technology currently exists, the City will wait to include these vehicle types in the fleet
clean vehicle replacement process. It is unknown at this time what or when technology
will become available in the coming years to convert these vehicles to alternate fuels. In
addition, hybrid heavy-duty trucks are not fmancially viable at this time. Economies of
scale should cause the incremental price difference to drop dramatically in the near future
as more truck manufacturers offer hybrid or alternative fuel options.
An important consideration in the implementation of this policy is to avoid a large commitment
to any particular alternative fuel or technology, until it becomes clearer what fuel or technology
will be the "fuel of the future" for reasons of environmental benefit, availability and reasonable
cost. It may very well be that hydrogen fuel is financially feasible and readily available within
ten years, though it is not feasible now. Whatever the ideal or best fuel or technology may be, a
large investment by the City in a different fuel or technology would delay migrating to the most
preferred fuel or technology in the future. Although beyond the scope of this implementation
plan, the City may need to consider other policy options (such as video teleconferencing by City
employees) to also help reduce vehicle usage and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
The new policy's performance will be measured compared to a baseline by the following
metrics: number of hybrid vehicles in the City fleet, number of other alternative fuel vehicles in
the City fleet, number of ultra low emissions vehicles (as defined by the federal and state EPA)
in the City fleet, number of gallons of fuel used (by type), average fuel economy for the City
fleet (by class of vehicle) and the reduction in greenhouse gases emitted by City vehicles.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
5 of 59
TIMELINE
The timeline (summarized below) is based upon the basic fleet replacement schedule, and uses
the replacement guidelines contained therein, modified to reflect current economic conditions. It
will take approximately ten (10) years to completely replace the fleet's car and light-duty truck
vehicles with hybrid or alternative fuel substitutes. Diesel-powered, heavy-duty vehicles will
begin converting to biodiesel once the pertinent infrastructure is installed. More detailed
information regarding the municipal fleet replacement schedule (Appendix A) is also included as
a reference in this document. The schedule assumes the availability of hybrid or alternative fuel
vehicles when vehicle replacement is planned although currently there are not options for all
vehicle types. It is anticipated that availability will improve rapidly in the next few years. In
addition, the schedule does not include police patrol sedans nor special assignment undercover
investigation vehicles. Although police sedans having Flex Fuel capabilities (i.e. able to use
gasoline or ethanol) will be available in 2009, ethanol will not be used as an alternative fuel for
reasons previously mentioned.
CCWG MEASURE #1: HIGH EFFICIENCY & ALTERNATIVE
FUEL REPLACEMENT VEHICLES FOR CITY FLEET
Implementation Tlmellne
PROGRAM MilESTONES
-Initial purchase
of 4 hybrids in
2005
.$350k needed to install
fuel tanks at the P'VVC to
accarrnodate biodiesel
. Remaining City
sedans & light-duty
trucks replaced or
leased with hybrids.
orAfVs
July 'OS
July '08
July '12
July'18
. Vehicle Replacement
Fund needs to be adjusted
annually to reflect higher
purchase!lease prit:es of
hybrids or/IFVs
For some off-road construction and maintenance equipment, it will be many years before these
vehicle and equipment classes are replaced in the fleet with newer, less polluting substitutes.
However, for some high usage equipment classes (such as riding lawn mowers and sewer
cleaning trucks), they could be replaced within a relatively short period of time (possibly within
six years). In both cases, it is highly unlikely that hybrids or alternative fuel replacement options
will be available for those equipment types in the near future. In the interim, diesel-powered
equipment will be operated on B20 biodiesel, as soon as the fuel storage capacity issue is
addressed.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008 "
6 of 59
.'
BUDGET & FINANCING
Over the ten years during which vehicles and equipment will be replaced with hybrid and/or
alternative fuel substitutes, the cost difference between purchasing "clean" vehicles and regular
gasoline/diesel vehicles is estimated to be $1.6 million (averaging $160,000 annually). In
addition, approximately $350,000 will be required to install tanks to provide biodiesel fueling
opportunities. Appendix B (attached) outlines the incremental cost difference each year. It is
expected that incremental pricing will decline over time as the technology becomes more
widespread and more hybrid models become available for purchase. The program's budget is
outlined below:
CCWG #1 - Clean Vehicle Replacements for City Fleet - Budget
Item One-Time Annual Cost
Cost
AFV/Hybrid Replacement Premium ---.-. $160,000
Biodiesel Fuel Tanks $350,000 ----.-
TOTAL $350,000
$160,000
The Vehicle Replacement Fund will need to be adjusted beginning this year, to ensure that
sufficient funds are available to implement measure #1. At present, the Vehicle Replacement
Fund is under-funded and currently only has a fund balance of approximately $950,000. Charges
to vehicle user departments must be adjusted to reflect the higher purchase prices that will be
experienced as hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles are assimilated into the fleet. This will have a
negative impact on the General Fund, since the majority of fleet vehicles are operated by General
Fund departments. Projections for the next two or three fiscal years show that there will not be a
large number of hybrid vehicles brought into the fleet, based upon recently revised vehicle
replacement schedules. Therefore, the immediate impact on the Vehicle Replacement Fund will
not be significant. Furthermore, municipal fuel cost savings (estimated at $306,277 over 10
years based on current fuel prices) from incorporating alternative fuel and higher efficiency
vehicles into the fleet will offset a portion of the increased replacement costs.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 .,
7 of 59
. -
.'
MEASURE #2: ENCOURAGE CITY-CONTRACTED FLEET
OPERATORS TO ADOPT THE USE OF HIGH EFFICIENCY (HYBRID)
OR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES
OVERVIEW
Climate Change Working Group's recommendation #2 states that "the City ofChula Vista work
with fleets under City authority to influence their expanded use of alternative fuels and high-
efficiency/alternative fuel vehicles including electric, biodiesel, ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen and
natural gas based on appropriateness for vehicle task, fueling infrastructure, petroleum
displacement, overall cost and environmental benefit." Generally, the implementation of this
policy will require amendments to the City's contracting and bid specifications, requiring
contractors to incorporate high efficiency (hybrid) and alternative fuel vehicles into their fleet
when new contracts are negotiated. The effectiveness of this implementation is dependant upon
the alternative fuels infrastructure and vehicle classes in which there are operationally-practical,
technically-feasible hybrid or alternative fuel options.
Staff had already begun discussions concerning alternative fuels and hybrid/alternative fuel
vehicles with some of the City contractors prior to the Climate Change Working Group's
recommendation. City staff reviewed current contracts and permit processes in relationship to
this climate protection measure. Each of these permitted or contracted fleets' implementation
status is detailed below.
IMPLEMENTATION
Transit
In FYI 998/99, City Council authorized staff to convert the Chula Vista Transit (CVT) fleet from
diesel to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). The first delivery of 15 full-size CNG buses took
place in 2001 and 10 more arrived in 2002. In 2005, seven mid-size CNG buses were delivered.
Six of these buses were incorporated into the Transit fleet and one was turned over to the Nature
Center to be utilized as their shuttle. The current Transit fleet, as summarized in Table 2 below,
now consists of37 buses of which 31 buses are CNG.
Table 2: Current Transit Fleet Inventory
Year Fuel Type No. of Buses
Bus Type
30' Low Floor 2005 CNG 6
40' Low Floor 2001 CNG 10
40' Low Floor 2000 CNG 15
40' Low Floor 2000 Diesel(') 2
35' High Floor 1995 Diesel(2) 2
40' High Floor 1991 Diesel(2) 1
35' High Floor 1991 Diesel(2) I
TOTAL 37
"J Will remain in fleet. Needed to meet 20% spare ratio.
(2) Scheduled for replacement.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008 "
8 of 59
. -
.'
Street Sweeping
Cannon-Pacific, the City's contracted street sweeper, currently operates three street sweepers
within City limits. The contractor is looking into alternative fuel trucks and related fueling
options available for street sweepers and has expressed interest in using alternative fuel vehicles
within the current contract term, which may require "significant" contract amendments. Cannon-
Pacific fully understands the need for alternative fuel vehicles and is willing to work with the
City of Chula Vista to comply with climate protection measure #2.
Trash Hauler
The City's contract with Allied Waste Services is in its first eight-year contract extension, which
expires June 30, 2015. There is a "Clean Fuel Source" clause in the current contract with Allied
Waste Services:
6.2.24 Clean Fuel Source. Pacific shall develop a pilot project for Collection vehicle replacement or
conversion to a clean fuel service in cooperation with City within 180 days which identifies
Collection vehicles for conversion and provides that conversion will occur if City and Pacific can
identify outside funding to pay for (a) the vehicle conversion, (b) incremental cost of new vehicles
and (c) costs for a centrally located fueling station. Pacific or its Affiliate will promptly implement a
program regarding the purchase of new clean fuel source (~ E-rated electricity, propane, natural
gas, liquid natural gas, hydrogen fuel cell, CNG, or equivalent clean power and fuel source) for non-
Collection support vehicles and on-site equipment using gasoline or diesel (such as fork lifis or
generators) upon the replacement of such support vehicles and on-site equipment. Pacific will
immediately establish service with a California Green E Utility provider for its on-site electrical power
source needs at Chula Vista facilities. City shall permit Pacific and its Affiliates to purchase clean fuel
sources from City at a price that does not include any profit for City.
Allied Waste Services began using biodiesel (B20 Blend) seven years ago and more recently
began adding a fuel reformulator, Ethos RF, to improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions
(non-greenhouse gas). This fuel combination, in tandem with all the California Air Resources
Board-required equipment (such as particulate traps and catalytic converters), has reduced their
opacity readings fleet-wide by 74.5% since 2001 and already placed them in full compliance
with 2010 air emission standards. Allied Waste Services operates 52 collection vehicles in the
City of Chula Vista.
Taxis
The City does not currently contract with any taxi service, but does license taxis to operate
within the City's boundaries. In order to obtain a license to perform taxi service within Chula
Vista, the cab company must submit their cab(s) to a thorough vehicle inspection and fill out the
required licensing paperwork with the City of Chula Vista Police Department's Traffic
Enforcement Unit. Of the 179 taxi cabs that are currently licensed to operate within the City of
Chula Vista, approximately 51% of the taxis are independently owned and operated. The
remaining taxis belong to one of three different taxi cab companies: Red Cab (45 taxis), Eritrean
Cab (23 taxis) and Yellow Cab (20 taxis).
In discussions with the three major cab companies, City staff learned that the companies do not
directly purchase vehicles, rather they independently contract with individuals to provide
insurance, dispatching and name recognition. It is up to each individual cab owner to replace
his/her vehicle. All three companies indicated that currently moving to alternative fuels is
problematic because there is not an established network of fueling infrastructure to support
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
9 of 59
. -
.'
vehicle fleets throughout San Diego County. In the past, Yellow Cab tried switching their fleets
to CNG but frequently had their vehicles running out of fuel due to the limited infrastructure. As
a result, their towing expenses increased dramatically and they reverted back to conventional fuel
vehicles.
Another obstacle to incorporating "clean" vehicles into the taxi fleet is the cost increase to
individual cab operators. Taxi vehicles are typically purchased as used vehicles. By requiring
new AFV /Hybrid vehicles to be purchased instead, operators would not be able to make enough
revenue to offset the cost premium of purchasing the new vehicle. This could result in lower
service levels within City limits which may directly affect Chula Vista residents and businesses.
Tow Trucks
The City currently contracts with four tow companies to provide police-initiated tows such as
vehicle accident removal, abandoned vehicle removal, negligent vehicle impounds and towing
inoperable department vehicles. Staff met with the tow companies to discuss alternative fuel or
hybrid options for their fleets. Because the majority of tow vehicles use diesel-based engines,
the only practical alternative fuel option for the tow fleet at this time is biodiesel. The closest
biodiesel fueling station to Chula Vista is off Interstate 15 at El Cajon Boulevard. Because of the
distance (approximately 10 miles) and the limited operating hours (7 am - 10 pm), this is not an
economically or environmentally feasible option. Until the appropriate fueling infrastructure is
built in Chula Vista, biodiesel use is impractical for the tow truck fleet. For the few non-diesel
based tow vehicles, there currently are no alternativelhybrid options for these sized vehicles.
However, manufacturers of larger trucks are now developing hybrid vehicles which ultimately
could be placed into fleet use sometime in the future.
The current contract with the tow companies expires June 30, 2011. As a new contract is
eventually pursued, staff will reassess local biodiesel availability and other relevant AFV /Hybrid
replacement options. If there are feasible options, language will be added to the Request for
Proposals outlining the City's Policy for AFV/Hybrid vehicles.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
As a performance measure, the City will require an annual vehicle list from contractors which
may contain, but is not limited to, the vehicle fleet number, make, model, age and fuel type of
each vehicle. Through this annual inventory, the City will be able to track each contractor's
progress in incorporating hybrid and alternative vehicles into their fleets.
TIMELlNE
Transit
The Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) has approved the funds to purchase six additional CNG
buses for the Chula Vista Transit fleet during CY 2009 which will result in 95% of the fleet
being powered by an alternative fuel. Additionally, Chula Vista and MTS are under the
California Air Resource Board's (CARB) Alternative Fuel Path, which commits both agencies to
purchase only alternative fuel buses. Chula Vista Transit's contractor, Veolia Transportation
Inc., has also committed to purchasing five (5) hybrid vehicles for their road supervisor staff.
The implementation timeline for transit vehicle replacement is summarized below:
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 ;.
100f59
CCWG MEASURE #2: ENCOURAGE CITY-CONTRACTED FLEET OPERATORS
TO ADOPT THE USE OF HIGH EFFICIENCY OR ALTERNATIVE FUEL
VEHICLES
Implementation Tlmellne
TRANSIT - PROGRAM MILESTONES
.lnitia! purchase
ot15 fulj..size
CNG buses in
2001
.10tull-size
CNG buses
purchased in
2002
.1 micJ..size CNG
buses purchased in
2005
. MTS to purchase 6
more CNG buses In
2009
July '01
July '05
. HydrogenICNG blend - 2 buses to
be recaDbrated tor 20IBD fuel blend
'fia grant from Congressman F~ner's
office
. MTS transit provider. Veolia
Transportation. Inc.. has
corrmftted to purchasing hybrid
vehicles for supef\lisors (5)
Street Sweeping
Cannon-Pacific is willing to start converting to alternative fuel vehicles prior to the end of their
current contract term which expires June 30, 2011. The implementation timeline for street
sweeper vehicle replacement is summarized below:
CCWG MEASURE #2: ENCOURAGE CITY-CONTRACTED FLEET OPERATORS
TO ADOPT THE USE OF HIGH EFFICIENCY OR ALTERNATIVE FUEL
VEHICLES
Implementation Tlmellne
STREET SWEEPERS - PROGRAM MILESTONES
. Current contra~ expire
June 30, 2011
July '09
July '10
July '12
. Initial discussion with
conrractoraboutC~
measure & future
equipment cOl'lVersion
. New contracts with
alternative fuel or high
efficiency vehicle
requirement begins
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 '.
II of 59
, -
Trash Hauler
Over the last two years, Allied Waste has continued to evaluate biodiesel suppliers who could
provide a consistent, high quality fuel source. One potential source is a company called New
Leaf which is building a biodiesel manufacturing facility in Otay Mesa. The facility will use
cooking oil as its fuel base. Allied Waste Services has already begun to meet with New Leaf to
work on establishing standards and a possible purchasing agreement. The implementation
timeline for trash hauler vehicle replacement is summarized below:
CCWG MEASURE #2: ENCOURAGE CITY-CONTRACTED FLEET OPERATORS
TO ADOPT THE USE OF HIGH EFFICIENCY OR ALTERNATIVE FUEL
VEHICLES
Implementation Tlmellne
TRASH HAULERS. PROGRAM MILESTONES
. Contractor began use of
biodlesel in collection...-ehlcles
f(Jra~contract
.1- Contract extension for 9 years
July'01
July'Q4
July '07
July '10
Ju '15
. Restarting biodieseJ from
more consistent supplier ~
November 2008
. Ne:d; contract renewal
date July 1,2015
. Contractor ~ceived bad load
of biodiesel which caused
major fleet problems-
clogged ftml systems.
Taxis
The time line for transitioning taxi vehicles to AFV /hybrids is unknown due to the reasons stated
above (cost effectiveness & fueling infrastructure).
Tow Trucks
When the current tow services contract expires in June 2011, there should be greater biodiesel
availability in Chula Vista as well as greater availability of other AFV/Hybrid truck options
capable of performing tow operations.
BUDGET & FINANCING
While there is some grant funding available for specific equipment/models and conversions, it is
expected that there will be some cost increases or longer contract terms required for contractors
to be able to amortize the capital investments from complying with the City's "clean" vehicle
replacement policy. The program's budget is outlined below:
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
12 of 59
, .
CCWG #2 . Clean Vehicle Replacements for City-Contracted
Fleets - Budget
Item One-Time Annual Cost
Cost
HCNG Blend Project - Buses ----- $144,000
H21CE - Van $43,000 -----
TOTAL $43,000
$144,000
Transit
The Metropolitan Transit System has approved the funds to purchase six CNG buses for Chula
Vista Transit which are anticipated to arrive in 2009. The City has received a $738,000 earmark
from Congressman Bob Filner's office for a Hydrogen/Compressed Natural Gas (HCNG) blend
project. Two CNG buses will be recalibrated to operate on a 20/80 HCNG fuel blend. Using the
HCNG blend reduces all emissions. An immediate and significant benefit comes from a 50%
reduction in nitrogen oxides (NOx) compared to CNG. Approximately $5,000 - 6,000 per busl
month will be required to produce the hydrogen required to operate the buses. Transit funds will
continue to be able to fund the CNG fuel use, but additional funds will be needed to cover the
incremental cost of the hydrogen production.
Ford Motor Company has provided the City one (I) experimental Ford Hydrogen Internal
Combustion Engine (H2ICE) l2-passenger shuttle van, which will be based on the Ford E450
platform for the purpose of aiding both Ford and the City to demonstrate and evaluate the
performance characteristics of such a vehicle. The City of Chula Vista proposes to use the
H2ICE as the transportation means for visitors to the Chula Vista Nature Center. The cost of
electricity to generate the hydrogen by the City's hydrogen electrolyzer is estimated at $2,400
per month. The extended cost over the term of the project is estimated to be $43,000.
Street Sweeping
Cannon-Pacific has expressed an interest in starting the alternative fuel vehicle implementation
within the current contract term, which may require "significant" contract amendments such as
additional fees or costs.
Trash Hauler
Allied Waste Services has recently submitted a grant application to the Air Pollution Control
District's Carl Moyer Fund to purchase 25 CNG trucks and a fueling station for its Chula Vista
fleet. They are also researching the feasibility of using landfill methane gas for fueling purposes.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
13 of 59
. -
MEASURE #3: BUSINESS ENERGY ASSESSMENTS
OVERVIEW
Climate Change Working Group's Recommendation #3 states that all City-licensed businesses
should "be required to participate in an energy assessment of their physical premises every three
years and upon change of ownership." The measure was intended to help businesses identify
energy efficiency opportunities at their facilities and, if desired, take advantage of applicable
rebate and incentive programs for energy efficiency improvements. The assessments, which
would be offered at no cost, would only apply to businesses with a physical storefront and/or
office and would be required when a new license is issued or every three years for a renewed
business license. Failure to comply with the energy assessment requirement would result in a
penalty fee, but would not cause a suspension of a business license or preclude the business
premises from being occupied. The business energy assessment process is graphically
summarized below:
CCWG MEASURE #3: BUSINESS ENERGY ASSESSMENTS
ImplementatIon Plan Summary
I
I
PROGRAM I FOR EXIST/foG LiCEiNSES: PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
DEVELOPMENT I
I Bu,lneu A.ns$ment Nctko
I (November)
I Susma.. Auessment
~ Sent in conjunction with N_
MunkJp.l Code ReYlsIon. Finance Department's annual Scheduling Period (within Calendar Year)
business license renewal netice
. Amendment to Chapter 20 (30 days) . City staff performs energy
Energy ConseJVation of the . Business sets assessments assessment & review
Municipal code appointment f- results with business
. Possible cross references . Assessment can occur representative
added to section 5.02 & 5_04 anytime during their regular . City staff assists business
of Business Ucense code hours of operation with energy efficiency
. Public Readings and rev; f!'N FOR NEW UCENSES: ! incentive and rebate
periods Bu./na. Asse..ment application at the discretion
of the business
N_ FOR I>DN-RESFONSIVE
(Dependent of Application BUSINESSES:
I
Submittal Date) AddItIon,l Notk:u
. Applicant ilOtlfied of (up to 60 days)
assessment requirement when
new business license is issued . T'Ml additiona I notices sent to
unresponsive businesses
. Cily sets appointment tor
businesses
. After 60 days, unresponsive
businesses assessed a 10%
I penalty per month (not to exceed
I 100% of the original bUSiness
I license fee which averages $75)
,
IMPLEMENTATION
The Department of Conservation & Environmental Services will administer the program with
anticipated support provided by the Finance (Business License Division) and Information
Technology Services (IT Programming Division) Departments. Staff is recommending that the
new business energy assessment requirement be codified through Title 20 - "Energy
Conservation" of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (see Appendix C for example of conservation-
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
140f59
-
focused municipal code applying to all Chula Vista businesses). Specifically, the municipal code
would be augmented to include the following concepts:
All commercial and industrial businesses in the City of Chula Vista shall cooperate with
City staff or their delegate to conduct a free energy assessment of their facilities when a
new business license is issued or once every three years for an existing license by
providing; I) a date and time for the assessment convenient for the business, 2) access to
their facilities for the assessment during their regular business hours, 3) authorization
(voluntary) to access their Energy Waves account (a San Diego Gas & Electric energy
analysis tool), and 4) a signature and title of a facility manager on a completed
assessment form acknowledging that the business has received a completed assessment
and relevant information about potential energy efficiency improvements to implement at
the business's discretion. For multi-tenant commercial buildings, the property manager
may authorize a whole building assessment replacing the need for individual tenant
assessments.
Assessment Notification Process: The City will send a written notice to each business at
least once every three years in conjunction with the City's annual business license
renewal mailer informing the business of the pending assessment requirement and
providing information that allows a business to schedule an appointment at their
convenience. The advance notice shall be at least 15 days and the appointment
scheduling period shall be at least an additional 30 days. A business shall also receive a
business assessment notice whenever a new business license is required such as the
establishment of a new business or transfer of ownership for an existing business (see
Exemptions section below for more information about new businesses occupying
commercial space which has been recently assessed).
The City will re-contact businesses that do not set an appointment during the 45-day
notice period for appointment scheduling, and shall provide at least two weeks notice that
an assessment appointment has been tentatively set for them. The business may confirm
or reschedule the meeting at a time of their choice within the next 30 days.
Assessment Deliverables: The assessment findings shall be provided to the business on a
form established by the City Manager in conjunction with the local utility and business
representatives, including a chart of their energy consumption over the past 18 months
(extracted from their Energy Waves account) and an estimate of their potential energy
and financial savings as well as the corresponding greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions
based on state-approved GHG accounting protocols. The assessment may also review
alternative transportation options which the business could implement and/or promote to
its employees and customers and the resulting GHG reductions. The City shall provide
any available forms and an offer of assistance to complete the forms and process for
accessing available state and/or local rebates that reduce the cost of implementing the
voluntary energy efficiency improvements.
Businesses are not required to implement improvements, however, businesses may at
their discretion request additional assistance from the City or its designee to be trained on
how to use Energy Waves and implement any or all of the measures selected by the
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
15 of 59
. -
.'
business as the most cost effective choices for reducing energy consumption. The City
shall also provide contact information for the local Utility's Account Executive or other
staff designated by the Utility for a specific program that may assist the business in
reducing its energy costs.
Enforcement: Businesses that do not cooperate in establishing a time and coordinating
access for the assessments will be sent a follow-up notice with a 30 day opportunity to
cure. Businesses that do not respond to that notice will be sent a second reminder notice.
Businesses that do not cooperate with notices will be assessed a penalty of 10 percent and
an additional penalty of 10 percent on the first day of each month thereafter; provided
that the amount of such penalty to be added shall in no event exceed 100 percent of the
original business license fee due inunediately and collectable on the following year's
business license fee. Although some annual business license fees may be as much as
$2,500, the average business license fee is $75. Staff retains the option to reduce or
eliminate any portion of the enforcement measures for any business that completes the
process. Failure to participate in the business energy assessment process shall not result
in the suspension of a business license or permit to occupy or operate the business
premises.
Exemptions: New businesses occupying a commercial space which has already received
an energy assessment within the last 3 years will be exempt from the new regulation.
The City shall also grant any business with an exemption of up to 3-years when
occupying newly constructed and remodeled facilities that filed an approved Title 24
energy efficiency report with their building plans. In addition, the City would provide an
exemption to businesses that participate in the multi-national Climate Registry or
California Climate Action Registry's GHG emissions reporting process or occupy a green
building certified through a City-recognized third party program such as LEED (US
Green Building Council), Green Globes (Green Building Initiative), GreenPoint (Build It
Green) or similar process. Home offices, mobile businesses and other business entities
that do not have a utility gas or electric meter on a commercial rate schedule are exempt.
Home offices may receive a similar energy assessment at their discretion on a first-come,
first-serve basis if they participate in the Solar & Energy Efficiency Conversion program
(see CCWG Measure #5 for more details).
PERFORMANCE METRICS
The business energy assessment program's performance will be measured by a suite of metrics
including the number of assessments performed, number of energy efficiency improvements
identified and the corresponding potential kWhlTherm savings. In addition, the number of
businesses implementing new alternative transportation policies or programs will be tracked.
Staff will investigate the possibility of receiving aggregated customer information from SDG&E
to quantify the number and amount of incentive funds solicited as a result of the business
assessment process.
In the City's current greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory protocol, the business sector's carbon
emissions are directly quantified by extrapolating business energy use from aggregated
community data provided by SDG&E. While the proposed program does not require businesses
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
16 of 59
. -
to adopt energy efficiency improvements, it does help them to understand and apply for SDG&E
rebate and incentive programs that could lead to increased energy conservation. Over the last
two years, City staff has visited over 2,000 businesses and identified over 800,000 kWh in
potential annual energy savings (equivalent to over 700,000 Ibs of carbon emissions) as part of
the current program. Requiring an energy assessment as part of the business license renewal
process will greatly expand the potential for immediate emissions reductions and provide
opportunities for businesses to lower their monthly energy costs.
TlMELINE
Implementation would require an amendment to Chapter 20 "Energy Conservation" of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code and potentially a cross reference amending the Business License code
sections (5.02 & 5.04), Ordinance notice, first reading and second reading would take
approximately 40 days. Some items may require review by other agencies which may also take
an estimated 45 to 60 days. The program's timeline is summarized below:
CCWG MEASURE #3: BUSINESS ENERGY ASSESSMENTS
Implementation Plan Tlmellne
PROGRAM MILESTONES
J
""g'08 Jan'09
. Draft Br.presentto . New SOG&E
Partnership funding
Council muniCipal begins & continues
code revisions throughDec'11
I . I
I I I
uly'Oe Jar '09 July'
Oct'OB Nov'08 Jan'09
o Hire & train staff o Notices sent to -Business
. Develop program businesses & assessments begin &
materials assessment continue throughout
scheduling begins year
09
BUDGET & FINANCING
The proposed program's implementation cost is estimated to be $321,400 per year in staffing,
supplies and services (summarized in table below). This program cost assumes full funding of
all seven CCWG measures and will leverage each measure's budget to provide partial cost
sharing of staff time and program materials. For example, staff visiting businesses to perform
energy assessments will also be able to promote other climate-related programs such as the Solar
Conversion (CCWG Measure #5) and Turf Lawn Conversion (CCWG Measure #7) programs
leading to lower implementation costs for each program and increased program participation. A
portion of each measure's budget will also partially cover overall administrative and
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I. 2008 "
17 of 59
performance tracking costs associated with the City's climate protection efforts. The program's
budget is outlined below:
CCWG #3 - Business Energy Assessment - Budget
Item One-Time Annual Cost
Cost
City Staff ----- $111,600
Interns --- $146,800
Marketing ------ $16,000
Other Commodities --- $47,000
TOTAL
$321,400
'Assumes cost sharing between CCWG Measures #3, 5 & 7
Probable funding by SDG&ElCPUC through Dec 2011
The City, through the Department of Conservation & Environmental Services, currently offers a
voluntary business energy assessment program which is funded through a California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC)/San Diego Gas &Electric (SDG&E) grant through December 31,
2008. The grant only provides funds for the assessments and not incentives for businesses to
implement the identified energy efficiency improvements. Staff has submitted a new grant
proposal to the CPUC/SDG&E to continue funding the business assessment program through
December 31, 20 11. To ensure the program continues beyond future grant funding cycles, staff
would recommend that the program should be funded through a more broadly applied Fee
Authority structure. A Fee Authority would provide staff with greater flexibility to address
future business growth and increased personnel and supply costs as the program and economy
evolve.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
18 of 59
."
MEASURE #4: GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
OVERVIEW
The City ofChula Vista Climate Change Working Group's (CCWG) recommendation #4 urges
the City to adopt community-wide green building standards that are comprehensive in coverage
and mandatory. It was recommended that new and substantially renovated structures will be
required to be built to LEED silver or to an equivalent third party certification green building
program, with the effect of having an energy efficiency impact of at least 20% over current Title
24 requirements. However, there is not a straight-line relationship between green program
certification or Title 24 performance and carbon reductions. For this reason, we recommend an
approach that focuses directly on carbon emission reductions. Reductions in energy use by
buildings are among the easiest carbon-reducing actions to quantify and lessen the community's
"carbon footprint." As proposed, the Chula Vista Green Building Standard will complement
green building measures at the state and national level, and place a high priority on reducing the
carbon emissions of buildings in Chula Vista. The innovative program provides an equitable
solution for new and retrofit, as well as residential, industrial and commercial buildings.
Furthermore, the proposed program meets, and in the case of commercial projects exceeds, the
initial reduction targets outlined by Architecture 2030, a nationally-recognized movement in the
building/architectural community to make new buildings "carbon neutral" by 2030 (Appendix
D).
The program will require both public and private development to participate and will be
comprehensive in the size and types of structures covered. When developing Chula Vista's
Green Building Standard, consideration was given to National and State programs and industry
best practices and care was taken to avoid measures which might be redundant.
IMPLEMENTATION
The City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department, Building Division, is responsible for
confirming that all commercial, industrial and residential construction projects meet the
minimum requirements of the State and locally mandated construction codes. They also provide
plan check and associated inspections. The Planning Division is responsible for promulgating
policy and regulations and administering them for land use, site design and zoning. Building
Codes, land use policies, zoning ordinances and design guidelines all can contribute to the goal
of meeting this objective. The Chula Vista Green Building Standards program will focus on
reducing carbon emissions and contains the following four components: (I) Develop and
implement a Chula Vista Building Carbon Reduction Benchmark Program, (2) Early adoption of
the California Green Building Code, (3) Preparation and Implementation of a Green Awareness
program for homeowners and building operators, and (4) Adoption of new zoning ordinances
and design guidelines. The implementation process is graphically depicted below.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
190f59
CCWG MEASURE #4: GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
Implementation Plan Summary
Building Carbon
RedUCllon Benchmark
Program
. Devefop end 0$tabIi$h the
_._end
tt'I'e8hcJds for cerbon recldlon
orOevetop an energy $llIvilgs
""",ooertlhale_
eo"u,U'liy__
__endenergy
e1l1clency
-Prepare guidehs fer bUlding
perml revierN and re1be the
Dfe1t Carbon RedUctIon
Clleelciost
. Evaluate and deY\!l1op a
mligelloo tee componert
Green Building Stendards Program
. Promctesthe CfJII"itf'iebIe reduttk1n.of carbcnOl"l'is:sloos for
~. ildustrlaf erntcommerciolbUldlr'.g$
-Complrnertsthe meetSl..I'e$ at It steteWld nationallevellllf'ld redt.lce#
the """'lIU'lly's _looIprtl.'
Early C....n Building
Code Adoption
. Adop the Collom. "'"""
NkIng Codeprioflo
i....mertetion of Jenuery
21111
. AdoP: 1JI F'ndlngs: ot Fact In
-..........Jt.....itWlhthc Heath
endSalelyCode17958.5
end.8
CrHn Aw.....ness
Program
. Prepere and ItI13JeInel1 an
_end_
program for homeo~ner$ 4nd
building operetors
. CDcrd~ and collaborate
wlh5OO&EIor__1
efforts
Policy Culdellnes and
RegUllllory
Amendmtnts
. Update AQlP guklellnes to
'''''''men! green buld""
3tcnderds1Ot~
_ment
. Pr-., .., ,"IIoMl poley
lll'OQI'1IIllilUldellnes 10_...
am.ner deveIopmeri or AB32
_ents
. Amend appllcable
devdopmer1: re~,dations (I.e,
Iomg code desI!r'I ,,-,ldefilo$,
GMOC ordilonceJgo.jd"_ or
I'I'U'lIcipaI code to Implemert
Corbon Rod<ldlon Pw7.m
Development of a Building Carbon Reduction Benchmark Program
Staff will work to develop and implement a Building Carbon Reduction Benchmark Program,
which would recommend that all new construction and remodels reduce and document
reductions in carbon emissions compared to the minimum results that would be achieved through
compliance with the applicable version of California Title 24 energy standards. The proposed
program will allow developers the flexibility to determine how best to meet these requirements,
which will offset the burden associated with meeting an additional procedural requirement. This
program would provide a level playing field for new and retrofit, as well as residential, industrial
and commercial buildings, and would help accomplish the goals of the Chula Vista CO2
Reduction Plan.
In coordination with stakeholders, staff would begin with developing the framework of the
Building Carbon Reduction Benchmark Program to attain 15% greater carbon reduction than
current and preliminary 2008 Title 24 requirements and establish the goals, objectives and
proposed thresholds to accordingly reduce overall carbon emissions for all new development.
Staff will then prepare an energy savings component that includes both community/site design
guidelines and energy efficiency measures. As a part of this effort, staff will prepare guidelines
for building permit review and further refine and/or supplement the Chula Vista Carbon
Checklist (Appendix E). This checklist shows emission reductions for various Development
Credits as well as Energy Efficiency Credits for both Prescriptive and Performance Paths. As a
part of this program, staff will evaluate a range of proposed carbon emission thresholds. As an
example, proposed thresholds may require a reduction in carbon emissions of 15 pounds per 100
square foot in Climate Zone 7 and a reduction of 35 pounds per 100 square foot in Climate Zone
10 based on the applicable version of Title 24 (2005 to 2008). Chula Vista straddles two
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I. 2008 "
, -
20 of 59
different climate zones. The bulk of the City rests within Climate Zone 7 while the far east of
the City is in the more rigorous Climate Zone 10 (Appendix F). These values represent the
approximate carbon savings achieved when exceeding Title 24 by 15%. The Chula Vista Carbon
Reduction Checklist will need to be completed by the builder for each permit.
The savings can be accomplished in two different areas: (1) community/site design and (2)
energy efficiency. The first typically applies to larger scale projects, and the Planning and
Building Department will ensure that future long range plans such as Specific Plans and
Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plans include community/site design and energy efficiency
components through policy and regulatory changes as presented in the "Policy Guidelines and
Regulatory Amendments" section. Community/site design features generally manifest carbon
savings through reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and associated tail pipe emissions, by
increasing emphasis on other travel modes such as walking and transit use through means
including: expanded pedestrianlbike connections, expanded transit plans, mixed-use
development, and increased density. Additional efficiency can also be gained through site
design features that optimize the potential for renewable and advanced energy-efficient
technology uses (i.e. solar orientation, cogeneration and district energy systems).
While all of these features can lead to carbon savings, the establishment of baselines and the
quantification of savings for community design measures are less direct than with energy
efficiency measures, and at present there are not well established metrics. This is one of the
primary focuses of the active Chula Vista Research Project (CVRP) with the National Energy
Center (NEC). The CVRP/NEC team is currently conducting studies to produce a set of clear
modeling assumptions, a detailed description of their methodology and specific emission
reduction values for alternative community/site design features. Their work will not be
completed for several months. Staff will also need to carefully work with the CVRP outputs and
the NEC team to define and establish these baselines and features, and balance their use along
with desired energy efficiency savings. To accomplish development of the community/site
design component of the Green Building Standards Program, staff envisions a multi-step process
which will include the following: (1) establishment of a community/site design Working Group,
(2) scoping and evaluation workshops, (3) compose a draft standard and conduct a rating
simulation, (4) revise the draft standard and solicit stakeholder input and (5) complete and issue
the final community/site design standard for Council consideration as part of the overall Green
Building Standards Program. Individual project savings will need to be quantified by the
developer or builder with PLACE3S, Community Viz, URBEMlS or other appropriate software
used to calculate energy generation and efficiency options as a function of land use and
development choices as determined through the CVRP. The Planning and Building Department
will evaluate these products to determine which is preferable for use in the Program.
Builders will also be able to accumulate carbon savings through energy efficiency. There will be
three avenues for them to accomplish this: (1) a prescriptive path where the builder selects
features that will deliver the necessary savings, (2) a performance path where the builder uses
California Energy Commission-approved software to quantify the energy savings (and thus
carbon savings) of specific efficiency measures and (3) renewable energy production. The
prescriptive path is available to residential construction and remodels; however, commercial
buildings must follow the performance path. The third method for builders to reduce carbon
emissions is to include on-site renewable energy. Technologies that shall qualify include: solar
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008 "
21 of 59
photovoltaic systems, solar hot water systems, geothermal systems (geoexchange) and small
scale wind turbines. The building will be credited with carbon savings based on the size of the
system installed. This compliance method will be available to all building types.
The program will include a mitigation fee component should a builder choose or otherwise not
be able to effectively meet the additional CO2 savings requirement on-site. The fee will equate to
the cost of exceeding the applicable edition of Title 24 by 15%. The fee will establish a dollar
value per pound of necessary carbon offset by building type. Preliminary estimates from our
consultant ConSol indicate that the fee may be approximately $2.50 per pound of carbon plus
administrative costs. By focusing on pounds of carbon per square foot, the City can utilize the
same set of ground rules for residential and commercial construction, new construction and
remodels, custom homes and large developments. Builders shall also have the option of opting
out of the checklist if they demonstrate through CEC certified software that they exceed Title 24
by 15% or more.
Earlv Adoption of California Green Building Code
The Building Standards Commission (BSC) and Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) have developed a California Green Building Code (CGBC), which will
apply to non-residential and residential construction, respectively. The BSC regulations for non-
residential buildings is currently intended to be a voluntary code, while the HCD version for
housing three stories or less will become mandatory by State Law on January 1, 2011. Since the
mix of Chula Vista permits weighs heavily on residential (80/20), it is. recommended that the
California Green Building Code requirements be used for both residential and commercial
buildings.
Please note that the plumbing provisions of CGBC do not become effective until July I, 2011.
The plumbing measures have a delayed adoption to ensure that enough of the required product
(fixtures, showerheads and toilets) will be available to meet market demand when the code is
adopted. The CGBC includes many best practices among the existing green programs. The
water savings, construction waste reductions, and the Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) limits
for paints, adhesives, and carpets can be mainstreamed into construction practice with minimal
cost impact. The provision of the CGBC that has the largest cost impact is the requirement for
1.28 gallon per flush toilets. Currently, a 1.28 gallon per flush toilet is -$250 more expensive
than a current 1.6 gallon per flush toilet.
It is recommended that Chula Vista adopt the HCD California Green Building Code as it will be
approved this summer. If Chula Vista adopts this code before the implementation date of
January 1,2011 and/or expands its scope to include commercial buildings, the City will need to
adopt a Findings of Fact per Health and Safety Code 17958.5 and 17958.7. This is a finding that
states that the new municipal code is reasonably necessary for climatic, geologic or topographic
conditions. The new code would not be effective until the Findings of Fact were filed along with
the ordinance to the Building Standards Commission.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
22 of 59
The requirements of the HCD California Green Building Code are:
Plan for storm water drainage and retention during construction;
406.2 Site Development: retention basins; storm water filtered by a barrier system to public
drainage; comp liance with storm water management ordinances
503 Enel'l!Y Efficiency Performance requirements meet current T -24
506.1 Air Sealing Package Joints and openings must be sealed to the CEC energy standards
currentlv in effect
20% reduction in potable water use; each plumbing fixture 20%
reduced flow rate: showerheads - 2.5 to 2.0 gpm, bathroom and
603 Indoor Water Use kitchen faucets - 2.2 to 1.8 gpm, toilets - 1.6 to 1.28 gal/flush.(1.28
gpf toilets are required by code as of 7/1111) or calculation
demonstrating 20% reduction in water use baseline
705.3 Covering of Ducts & From rough until fmal all ducts shall be covered to reduce dust and
Mechanical Eauinment debris which may collect in the svstem
50% reduction of non-hazardous construction and demolition
709.2 Construction Waste Reduced waste or local ordinance, whichever is more stringent (exception:
excavated soil and land-clearinl! debris)
711.2 Building & Maintenance Provided to building owner
Manual
Adhesives and sealants used on the project shall meet the
requirements of the following standards: 1. Adhesives, adhesive
804.1.1 Adhesives and Sealants bonding primers, adhesive primers, sealants and sealant primers
shall comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) Rule #1168; and 2. Aerosol adhesives shall meet the
reauirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 17
804.1.2 Paints & coatings Architectural paints and coatings shall comply with South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule #1113.
804.1.3 Carpet & carpet systems Shall be low VOC
804.1.4.1 Particlehoard and medium Shall be certified to ANSI A208.l and A208.2 (low formaldehyde
density fiberboard (MDF) used in emission standards)
interior finish systems
804.1.4.2 Hardboard plywood used in Shall be certified and comply with ANSIIPHVA HP-I-2204 and
U.S. BUD Title 24, Part 3280 (low formaldehyde emission
interior finish systems standards)
805.2.1 Vapor retarder and capillary Min. 4" of \1," clean aggregate base between vapor retarder and
break installed for slab on grade slab
foundations
Building materials with visible signs of water damage, mold or
805.3 Moisture content of building other biological growth shall not be installed; interior walls and
floors shall not be enclosed if framing members exceed 18%
materials moisture content or if insulation is wet or have a high moisture
content
Exhaust fans shall be provided from each room containing a
bathtub, shower, or tub/shower combination; exhaust fans shall
806.3 Bathroom exhaust fans comply with ASHRAE 62.2, Section 5; exhaust fans shall be
ENERGY compliant; exhaust fans shall terminate outside the
building
HV AC filters shall be rated at MERV 6 or higher. Filter grills and
806.4 Filters duct systems shall be sized to prevent pressure drop across the
filter.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
23 of 59
Unlike other green programs, however, there is no requirement in the HCD portion of the
California Green Building Code to exceed Title 24. It is the energy efficiency portion of any
green program that is responsible for the carbon dioxide savings. Thus, the HCD program on its
own will do little to combat global warming, but when paired with a City requirement to reduce
carbon, the HCD program is on par with the other green programs found nationally and
throughout the state. The HCD language is closely modeled on the soon to be published ANSI
700 National Green Building Standard. The City of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance
currently requires a Water Conservation Plan (WCP) to be submitted with all Sectional Planning
Area plans, tentative subdivision maps, or with major development projects. In May 2003, the
City adopted WCP guidelines in order to implement this requirement. As a companion
component to this program in the Turf Lawn Conversion program (measure #7), the City would
review the state Model Landscape Ordinance and update the Landscape Manual and WCP
guidelines to encourage additional water savings.
City staff and builders will need to be trained on the requirements of the California Green
Building Code. Since this training will ultimately be necessary, focusing on the California Code
eliminates the need to train for a local green building code now, and the California code later.
Green Awareness Program
An education and outreach effort will help to highlight energy saving steps homeowners and
building operators can take to help reduce their carbon footprint. The science and findings
behind the CCWG's measures should be made available to the public. Education and outreach
efforts should include what the CCWG recommendations say and why they should be
implemented. Distinctions should be presented between basic Energy Code compliance, the
Chula Vista Green Building Standard and the upcoming California Green Building Code.
Between these standards, a new or substantially remodeled structure will combine an energy
efficient building envelope, building systems, water conservation, increased comfort and cost
savings as well as a much healthier indoor environment and provide measure implementation
timelines and guidelines for all aspects of the outreach and education program. Information
dissemination should be through the City's Building and Planning Departments many outreach
resources such as their "Sustainability Website," newsletters, seminar series, news releases,
brochures and fact sheet stations as well as other marketing approaches and media. A carbon
calculator is another way to encourage those not building or retrofitting to start thinking about
reducing their footprint. Green Awareness will be spread through training City staff and builders
on the requirements of the California Green Building Code. All new buildings in Chula Vista
shall include a Green Awareness section in the Homeowner or Maintenance and Operations
Manual. This would contain an overview of the energy and cost saving features as well as
factoids such as that a Plasma screen television uses as much electricity as a refrigerator.
Policv Guidelines and Regulatorv Amendments
In order to implement the Building Carbon Reduction Benchmark Program, several policy
documents and development regulations will need to be modified to reflect new green building
standards. This program will likely require amendments to the City's adopted Air Quality
Improvement Plan (AQIP) guidelines, Growth Management Ordinance, Design Manual and
Guidelines, and the City's Municipal Code. The Green Building Standards Program will also
require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in order to implement any proposed community
and/or site and building design standards. LEED-NC (New Construction) and LEED-ND
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008 "
24 of 59
(Neighborhood Development) will continue to be considered and encouraged as the City amends
the Zoning Ordinance and Design Manuals. Although Chula Vista is creating its own Green
Building Standards program consistent with the direction of State legislation for building codes,
Chula Vista will continue to use and consider (according to General Plan policy) LEED-NC and
LEED-ND, as long as they are national standards embraced by the broader architectural and
development community. These LEED standards are now included and available through the
Urban Core Specific Plan as options and are coupled with development incentives.
All proposed regulatory amendments will be vetted through a public process that will encourage
community and stakeholder input. Following adoption of these proposed changes to the City's
policy guidelines and development regulations, staff will evaluate and implement a process to
align the Green Building Standards program and the Zoning Ordinance and Design Manual
modifications with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) environmental review
process.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
The implementation of this measure requires an addition to the City's municipal code outlining
the new green building standard. Performance would be gauged by the sum of carbon savings of
each permit granted and building built in comparison to the anticipated savings achieved through
compliance with the minimum requirements of the applicable version of Title 24.
TIMELINE
The program's implementation timeline is graphically summarized below. The CGBC is
currently in a I5-day comment period, but once it is approved, the Chula Vista City Council
could also approve the code. The implementation of the Chula Vista Green Building Standards
could occur as soon as municipal codes are amended and adequate notice is given to the public.
The fact that the implementation and enforcement process for building new structures is already
in place shortens the recommendation's implementation. Findings of Fact would need to be filed
with the BSC. Authoring and creation of fliers (builder, homeowner, building operator and
carbon reduction checklist) could be done by staff or outsourced, depending on capabilities and
time. In addition, Planning and Building Department staff will need to be trained on CGBC, the
Chula Vista Carbon Reduction Checklist, 2008 Title 24 code changes and ASHRAE 62.2.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008 "
25 of 59
. -
CCWG MEASURE #4: GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
ImplementatIon Plan Tlmellne
PROGRAM MILESTONES
June
Feb09
. Adopt .Communiiy
Sust&inQbilWyprovisions
Oct(l3 M<ly09 July 09 -I
. Adopt Carbon Reduclion
8enchmarklEsrly Green . Provide S1a'&industry . Implement New Title 24
Bldg~8 training on rn
I I I I I
I I I I'
'08 J n'09 April 09 July '0
. Adopt enhilnced
12. for71CBerrettivt
dot.
DecOO JuneCB
. File raquest to adop! . P<rtentlal AS 32
SeplOB Green Bldg Standard compUance
. Oistribute Green Building
Awareness M:aterials . Update"l schedule
to reftett additional PC
& lnsp w~lfldoad
9
BUDGET & FINANCING
Cost for carrying out the four main implementation components vary by component and are
outlined below. Final costs and budget implications will need to be determined and presented as
the various program components are finalized and returned for Council action.
Building Carbon Reduction Benchmark Program-
The Building Carbon Reduction Benchmark Program does not require additional field
inspections by Chula Vista inspectors so additional staff should not be necessary. Inspection
criteria and documentation, however, will expand requiring more time per project. Information
dissemination can occur in printed form at the permit counter, vendor and material outlets, and
professional meetings. Information can also be distributed on the City website.
Early Green Building Code Adoption-
Staff will be working with our consultant ConSol to identify associated costs and will return
those to Council when available.
Green Awareness Program-
Staffing at 15% of a Building Inspector III: $22,500 annually
Outreach and awareness publications: $15,000 annually
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
26 of 59
. -
The City currently has a grant application in under the 2009-11 SDG&E Partnership Program
funding cycle to cover these costs, and should hear back by July 2008 if we are successful.
Policy Guidelines and Regulatory Amendments-
The Planning Division staffing cost estimate for implementation of the "Policy Guidelines and
Regulatory Amendments" is approximately $75,000. An additional $2,500 will be needed for
publications of revised documents, bringing the total one time budget cost to $77,500.
CCWG #4 . Green Building Standards. Budget
Item One-Time Annual Cost
Costs
City Staff $15,000 $280,000
Consulting Services $25,000 $20,000
Carbon Reduction Marketing $20,000 $5,000
Benchmark Program
Other Commodities $15,000 $4,000
TOTAL $75,000 $309,000
City Staff $15,000 $280,000
Early Green Building Other Commodities $15,000 $5,000
Code Adoption
TOTAL $30,000 $285,000
City Staff $22,500 $22,500
Green Awareness Marketing $20,000 $15,000
Program Other Commodities $10,000 $5,000
TOTAL $52,500 $42,500
City Staff $75,000 $10,000
Policy Guidelines &
Regulatory Other Commodities $2,500 $1,000
Amendments
TOTAL $77 ,500 $11,000
TOTAL $235,000
$647,500
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008 "
27 of 59
MEASURE #5: SOLAR & ENERGY EFFICIENCY CONVERSION
OVERVIEW
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group's (CCWG) recommendation #5 urges
the City to facilitate widespread installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, thermal solar
(hot water) and other non fossil fuel-based renewable energy options on commercial, residential
and municipal facilities by developing and implementing a renewable energy conversion
program. As proposed, the "Solar & Energy Efficiency Conversion" (SEEC) program is
intended to help the average residential and commercial consumer overcome institutional
barriers, upfront capital costs and time constraints to installing renewable energy, water
conservation and energy efficiency upgrades. The program provides participants a cost-
effective, less time-consuming installation and fmancing option for upgrading their homes and
facilities, while creating a sustainable economic stimulus and job creation program for Chula
Vista. The program's primary components include (1) Identifying the energy and water
upgrades that help reduce ratepayers monthly costs, (2) Executing a competitive bid process that
identifies participating contractors and establishes maximum prices and minimum warranty and
service standards, (3) aggregating participants geographically to harness their collective
purchasing authority and maximize the potential for installation efficiency and savings, (4)
Establishing voluntarv special assessment districts to provide participants with a financing option
to fund their improvements, (5) Linking local vocational job training in energy and water
conservation with focused business recruitment and (6) Updating municipal codes to encourage
renewable energy and conservation product installations and to remove institutional barriers.
The proposed program is graphically summarized below:
CCWG MEASURE #5: SOLAR & ENERGY EFFICIENCY CONVERSION
Implementation Plan Summary
Solar & EnellJY Eff1c1ency Conversions (SEEC)
. Provide cost-effective installation and financing opportunities for residents
and businesses interested in energy efficiency and solar energy retroftts lM1i1e
creating an economic stmulus for the ccrrrnunity
. Promote the future installation of solar energy systems through revisions to
the municipal code
T
J ... ... J
AggregatJon Blocks Assessment VocatJonaJ Training MunICIpal Energy &
Identify Enel1Jf UpgIOdes Districts & Job Ctellt/on Water Codes
-Identify energy and water . Participants are able to . With Sout:hwestem College . Update 'Solar Hot Water
upgrades and potential energy finance SEEC retrofits and local high school district, Pre-Plumbing" code to add
costsa'Yings through a 'to luntary re e link vocational training with specificity about orientation
assessment which is added program implementation & siting
Competitive Bid Process to property tax rolls - Use program as leverage - Create .Solar Electric
-Initiate a bid process to qualify . Assessment fee is tax to recruit contractors, P~VVlrtng.codeto
contractors deductible for participants equipment vendors & promote future installation
. Ensure proper warranty' & and retrofits do not trigger a manufacturing facilities to - Update Municipal &.
County property tax Chula Vista
liablllty coverage reappraisal ZOning codes to reflect
. Streamline permitting and solar requirements
incentive application process
Aggregate Parlicipanls
- Geographically aggre gate to
further lower costs
. Ensure equitable opportunities
for all interested consumers
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008 "
28 of 59
."
IMPLEMENTATION
The Department of Conservation & Environmental Services (CES) will administer the SEEC
Aggregation Blocks, Assessment Districts and Vocational Training/Job Creation components
with support from the Finance Department, Office of Budget & Analysis and Office of
Economic Development. CES will also work with Planning & Building Department to update
Title 20 Energy Conservation and Title 9.7 Water Conservation as well as related sections of the
City's Municipal Code. The implementation process for each component is outlined below:
Aggregation Blocks
The proposed program will geographically aggregate home and business owners who voluntarily
choose to retrofit their homes and businesses with energy and water efficiency upgrades and/or
install solar photovoltaic (electric) and solar hot water systems. By combining energy and water
efficiency upgrade options with solar panel installation, the consumer will be presented with
options that minimize their total project cost, maximize their monthly savings and emphasize a
balance of greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and lifestyle choices (Appendix G). Aggregating
block areas will also allow staff to naturally phase the program into the community on a block-
by-block basis and to adaptively manage its implementation.
CES will implement an open and competitive bid process to identify contractors, who understand
the required local installation standards and are committed to assisting staff market the
energy/water efficiency upgrades and renewable energy systems to interested property owners.
Although the contract for installation work will be between the property owner and the City-
qualified contractor, the City will be able to add additional value to consumers by negotiating a
lower cost for equipment and installation, establishing minimum installation warranty, service
and liability standards, streamlining the contract, rebate application and permit process and
saving consumers the time associated with researching, analyzing and executing these phases of
their projects. Staff will work closely with the City Attorney's Office in establishing the
specialized contractor bid process or similar approach and staff anticipates that participating
contractors will be qualified through a 3rd party program such as the California Center for
Sustainable Energy, California Energy Commission, US Department of Energy and US
Environmental Protection Agency.
Initially, participating contractors would be assigned to a limited geographic area. Contractors,
who demonstrate high levels of service quality, customer outreach and warranty support and
successfully meet the performance standards outlined in the competitive bid process, will be
permitted to expand into other geographic areas. Staff hopes to ensure that all geographic and
socio-economic sectors of the City receive equitable access to the program. The City will also
use aggregation to provide an incentive to ensure that equipment, materials and supplies are
purchased from a Chula Vista business that provides comprehensive warranty and service for
their supplies and equipment. Additionally, the City will use the competitive bid process to help
connect employers with the local vocational education program to foster growth in a new sector
of "clean technology" jobs and further reduce the program's carbon footprint by facilitating the
use oflocallabor.
Assessment Districts
The City will offer participating property owners the option of financing the energy and water
efficiency and renewable energy upgrades through a voluntary fee assessment. Participating
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I. 2008 "
29 of 59
property owners would add the costs of investing in energy and water improvements to their
property's tax roll (see Budget & Financing section for discussion of general bond issuance).
These costs will be paid back over time through semi-annual tax payments and can be structured
to be offset by the energy and water savings generated by the improvements chosen by the
participant. This process is designed to overcome the barrier of upfront costs for installing
renewable energy technologies which many industry experts and regulators have identified as a
significant barrier to broad renewable energy adoption. Participants would also have the option
of participating in the aggregation process and funding the improvements on their own.
According to the County Tax Assessor, the energy and water efficiency upgrades and renewable
energy installations proposed by the program will not trigger a property tax re-appraisal.
Vocational Training & Job Creation
In coordination with Southwestern College and the local high school district, staff will link
vocational training opportunities with the program's implementation. Specifically, contractors
qualified by the City to perform energy efficient upgrades and solar energy installations (as part
of the SEEC Aggregation Blocks) will be encouraged to hire new employees from the vocational
education program as the program matures and produces qualified graduates. Staff will work
with the vocational education program, local contractors and local suppliers to establish
incentives in the bid and marketing assignment process to establish incentives for local hiring.
Staff will use the SEEC program as an economic stimulus and business recruitment tool for
Chula Vista. As previously mentioned, contractors qualified by the City to perform installations
will be required to purchase related program materials and equipment through a Chula Vista-
licensed business. Staff will use the SEEC program as leverage to recruit solar and energy
efficient equipment installers, distributors and manufacturers to establish a "clean technology"
business division within Chula Vista. In addition to generating employment opportunities and
sales tax revenues, the new business's proximity could lower overall equipment, installation and
transportation costs and GHG impacts for SEEC program participants. Once the size of the
Chula Vista and regional market potential is established, staff will re-contact renewable energy
and water energy product manufacturers and suppliers about establishing manufacturing and
assembly plants within the Chula Vista and south San Diego County area.
Municipal Energv and Water Conservation Codes
Chula Vista's Municipal Code (20.04.030) requires that "all new residential units shall include
plumbing specifically designed to allow the later installation of a system which utilizes solar
energy as the primary means of heating domestic potable water" (Appendix H). To maximize
the effectiveness of the "Solar Hot Water Pre-plumbing Standard," staff will update the code to
include additional language about site orientation and solar access. Staff may also need to make
revisions to the City's Zoning Ordinance, accordingly. To expand opportunities for the cost-
effective installation of solar energy systems in the future, City staff will also develop an
amendment to the Municipal Code's Title 20 "Energy Conservation" section in order to require
pre-wiring for solar photovoltaic systems in new and remodeled residential units. The code
amendment will include specific guidance about site orientation and solar access. In addition,
the code will complement sections of the Municipal Building and Zoning Code being updated as
part of CCWG Measure #4 (Green Building Standard) which will likely address passive solar
building design, new solar photo voltaic installation, energy efficiency and green building
standards being promulgated by state and local agencies.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
30 of 59
PERFORMANCE METRICS
The results of this program will be tracked on a project-by-project basis and summarized to
identify its "net" impact on the City's GHG emissions reduction goal. Specifically, the Solar &
Energy Efficiency Conversion program's performance will be measured by a suite of metrics
including the number of energy efficiency improvements, participating homes/businesses, solar
systems installed, renewable generation kilowatts installed and the corresponding kWh/Therm
savings. Staff will also work with San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) and the California
Center for Sustainable Energy to quantify the number and amount of incentive funds solicited as
a result of the program.
In the current greenhouse gas inventory protocol, the community's carbon emissions are directly
extrapolated from citywide energy use, which is provided in an aggregated format by SDG&E.
Because the SEEC program will improve energy efficiency and/or replace grid-source energy
with on-site renewable energy, it will lead to overall energy use reductions in existing individual
homes and businesses that participate in the program. Because the program is voluntary and
incentive driven, its final impact on citywide "net" GHG emission reductions will depend on the
level of community participation and the effectiveness of other CCWG Measures (such as the
Green Building Standard) to ensure that future growth is carbon neutral.
TIMELINE
Prior to enrolling interested property owners into the program, components #1 (Aggregation
Blocks) and #2 (Assessment Districts) would first require establishment of financing
mechanisms and a contractor bid process which is estimated to occur in summer 2009.
Component #3 (Vocational Training) would be integrated as the program is launched and
implemented. Local educators have estimated that it would take 2-3 years to establish a
curriculum and matriculate the first class of qualified energy efficiency/solar apprentices.
Finally, refining the current solar hot water standard and creating a solar electric pre-wiring code
(component #4) would take approximately 3-6 months and would require the necessary public
notice periods and public readings before Council action. The program's timeline is below:
CCWG MEASURE #5: SOLAR & ENERGY EFFICIENCY CONVERSION
Implementation Plan T1mellne
PROGRAM MILESTONES
Sept 'os Juty'09 Oct '09
. Draft & present to . Secure bond andror . Establish special
Council solar code local fee authority for
revisions financing assessment distn::ts
I I I I
I I I I
Ju '08 June 'OS June
June '08 Aug'09 Sept '09
-Implement Solar Hot . Initiate contractor -Hire & train staff
Water pre-plumbing bid process . Develop program
requirement materials
. Develop guides for
Solar PV pre-vwiring
'10
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
31 of 59
. -
BUDGET & FINANCING
The SEEC program's implementation cost (exclusive of energy efficiency and solar energy
equipment and installation) is estimated to be $347,800 per year in staffing, supplies and
services. An additional $75,000 may also be needed initially to provide resources to update and
create the aforementioned energy-related municipal codes. This program cost assumes full
funding of all seven CCWG measures and will leverage each measure's budget to provide partial
cost sharing of staff time and program materials. For example, staff enrolling homes and
businesses.in the Solar & Energy Efficiency Conversion program will also promote the Turf
Lawn Conversion (CCWG Measure #7) program to property owners leading to lower
implementation costs for each program and increased program participation. A portion of each
measure's budget will also partially cover overall administrative and performance tracking costs
associated with the City's climate protection efforts. The program's budget is outlined below:
CCWG #5 . Solar & Energy Efficiency Conversion Program - Budget
Item One-Time Annual Cost
Cost
City Staff M_~___ $219,000
SEEC Aggregation Interns ----- $49,000
Blocks, Assessment Marketing $50,000
Districts & Vocational ----.
Training. Other Commodities.. ----- $29,800
TOTAL ----. $347,800
City Staff $70,000 ----
Municipal Energy Codes Other Commodities $5,000 ----
TOTAL $75,000 ------
TOTAL
$75,000
$347,800
.Assumes cost sharing between CCWG Measures #3, 5 & 7 for staff time & program materials
"Budget does not include capital costs for solar & energy efficiency improvements (dependent on
participation levels)
To fund the program, staffis recommending that a combination of bond and local "fee authority"
funding be pursued. The bond would be used to cover the initial capital costs associated with
energy efficiency and solar retrofits for public/private facilities and will allow this measure to
establish an economy of scale that can maximize the benefits of aggregated and competitive
purchasing to reduce consumer and City costs. A fee authority would provide long-term,
sustainable funding for the program to supplement the initial bond authority and provide a
complementary revenue source to fund a portion of the costs for transitioning to on-site
renewable energy at City facilities. Both funding mechanisms will also be complemented by
local, state and federal rebates, tax incentives and credits. In addition, carbon emissions
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
32 of 59
. -
mitigation or offset fees being developed through CCWG Measure #4 (Green Building Standard)
could be applied to the SEEC program to subsidize energy efficiency and renewable energy
upgrades at municipal facilities or within existing building stock preferably targeting lower
income families and service institutions (such as low income housing, shelters etc.)
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
33 of 59
MEASURE #6: SMART GROWTH AROUND TROLLEY STATIONS
OVERVIEW
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group's (CCWG) recommendation #6 states
that the City should "facilitate 'smart growth' around the H St., E St. and Palomar St. trolley
stations." This recommendation embodies the fact that smart growth is typified by a compact,
efficient and environmentally sensitive pattern of development that provides housing,
employment, service uses and public facilities in a mixed-use format close to transit and other
modes of alternate transportation. This improves and promotes the ability to conveniently access
uses by walking and/or transit, thereby reducing automobile use and the associated burning of
fossil fuels that contribute to greenhouse gas production. Transportation emissions represent
approximately 48% of the Chula Vista community's carbon footprint, whereby reduction in
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) through promoting pedestrian and transit friendly smart growth
environments, can have a meaningful effect on carbon emissions.
The staff agenda report which accompanied the Climate Change Working Group's
recommendations also noted that Recommendation #6 would not require much further
implementation action because mixed-use, transit-oriented land use designations, policy and
zoning has already been incorporated into City planning documents for the subject areas; namely
the updated General Plan (GP) and the Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP). While those plans
have been adopted, there are several work efforts necessary in order to move from those plans to
facilitate the envisioned smart growth development with the E, H and Palomar St. Transit Focus
Areas (TFAs). The four areas of work presented in this implementation plan include (I)
implementation of the UCSP through preparation of a framework plan for redevelopment of the
area around the E St. station, (2) completion of the H St. Corridor Study called for in the General
Plan to address more detailed land use and transportation planning provisions along H St. from
the trolley station east to Third Ave., (3) preparation of Specific Plans within the Southwest area,
and (4) other related regional efforts to prepare design studies for needed improvements along
the 1-5 corridor to serve the sites.
As described further in this document, some aspects of these four efforts are included in the
current Work Programs of the involved Departments, while others will require further work
program and budget authorizations by Council.
IMPLEMENTATION
The Planning and Building Department will primarily administer the City's Smart Growth
planning and zoning efforts outlined below but will need to work, and is already working, in
partnership with the City's Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority, Engineering
Department and others to develop and implement related plans, programs and projects. The
implementation process for each component is outlined below:
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
34 of 59
CCWG MEASURE #6: SMART GROWTH AT TROLLEY STATIONS
Implementation Plan Surnmuy
Updated City General Plan (Dec. 2005)
. Promotes Smart GrO'Nlh and Trend Oriented OeYeIopment <<omd
__ end...... T_eRT _. end....._ "llh dendy
end mlxed-use land use deaignot_ ond _ pollcles.
UrlJlln Core Specific
Plan tmpIe/llflTltJJtfon
-Prepwe frMlework
dlWeJopment plen 10t Sl4)er~
bIoclc.... """"d E 51. trolley
stellon.
~P<<I/eClIlfOllOftl
l.I"ldet' review for pottlon of Cly
corpaelIon yard ole SOl.lh ct
the ESt. stetIon.
-Ex,,,,,,I. 2.D ........1.."'"
_lA1der SANDAG
l>'onl.
H strHt COrridor
study
-Ft.I'ld Md corduct Uban
lend,,_ (ll.Q
ccIo_"'I!;/:l~.
-Prepare emendmeris to the
GenetII PI<<l endlor UCSP
tcif considentfon bRed on
the charrette oc.tcomas,
-COmplete example 3-D
__U'1der
SANDAG !lJMl.
Southwest Specific
Plan(s)
. Complete frst phueo1
Southwest lilhd in AdIcn
pI'Ol>'am CU'NlliIy \Mldolwey.
'l'repare wortl pI'Ol>'am end
blJdgel ftt Cwx:lI
co.~atIol\tol.lldertakee
SpeeIflc PIllln tor the Palont
Gel8W8If TF A to iqllemert
theGPU.
other RelIIted
RegionIIl Errorts
"1donlI1yend_ay
metch f\I1dhg to commence I.
5 COrrkOlr SludyWlh SAl'<<)AG
end CoIrons.
"Y<<lfk wthSAN>AGJMTS to
rob, _. fUIy fo.nd end
schecIuIo troley 9'-
......uon P<<I/eCl. ftt bath E
S1......HSl.
1. Urban Core Specific Plan Implementation
E Street Transit Focus Area I Galaxy ENA - The adopted General Plan identifies the area
surrounding the E St. trolley station as the E St. Transit Focus Area and calls for high
intensity mixed use development within the superblock between 1-5, F St., Woodlawn Ave.
and E St. The area was subsequently zoned as part of the UCSP's UC-I5 District. While
much of the land area is owned by the City and MTS as part of the City's old corporation
yard and trolley station site respectively, there are several other privately held parcels.
Successful redevelopment as a high intensity TF A will require joint coordination and
planning for matters such as infrastructure, circulation, site design, building massing, and
parking.
The Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation is currently under a 120-day Exclusive
Negotiating Agreement with Galaxy Commercial Holding, LLC to explore a transit-oriented
development project on the City's former corporation yard ("Corp Yard") located
immediately adjacent to the E Street Trolley Station. A premise of the ENA and
development of the Corp Yard site is that they will create momentum and market confidence
for private investment in the rest of the E Street Visitor Transit Focus Area ("TF A"). The
ENA requires a Comprehensive Site Design Study to consider such factors as the City's
adopted land use plans and policies, adjacent land ownerships and property interests in the
subdistrict, parcel configurations, circulation and traffic patterns, environmental factors,
plans for regional transportation facilities, Bayfront planning and redevelopment activities,
and public input. The Study will also include proposed Floor Area Ratio ("FAR")
distributions, phasing strategies and pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns on the
Property and surrounding properties within the UC-I5 Subdistrict, along with site plans
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
35 of 59
depicting Developer's proposed development scenarios. Staff is currently working with
Galaxy on the Study and their project development proposals which are due between now
and mid-July 2008 when the current ENA period expires. Based on progress of the work, the
Agency will then need to consider whether to extend the ENA.
2-D Visual Simulations of E Street TFA - As part of SANDAG's Smart Growth
Implementation program, the City has recently received grants for the preparation of
computer visual simulation models for both the E Street TF A and the H Street Corridor.
Under the grants, SANDAG's consultant Urban Advantage will prepare a computer
generated visual simulation of urban redevelopment of the E St. TF A. From a chosen
vantage point at E St and Woodlawn Ave., the computer simulation will depict photo-
realistic phased development intensification of the area consistent with the GP and UCSP
visions. The simulation will assist staff in working with the public and decision makers to
better envision and understand how urban redevelopment of the site may look, particularly
from the standpoint of building massing and building heights.
Initial work by the consultant Urban Advantage has been completed, and staff is currently
reviewing a draft of the modeling work. A final product will be available by July 2008.
2. H Street Corridor Studv
Urban Land Institute Program - The December 2005 General Plan designates the H St.
corridor between the H St. trolley station and Third Ave. as a Study Area. H St. serves as the
major commercial and office corridor connecting the Bayfront and the H Street TFA with the
downtown Third Avenue area. Considering the large property ownerships and potential for
expansions and redevelopment involving the South County Court House, Scripps Hospital,
Chula Vista Center, and a new hoteVconvention center on the Bay Front, H Street provides
great opportunity for revitalization. While the General Plan and UCSP provided a
framework, they did not provide a cohesive road map to physically and economically
proceed with actual redevelopment including land assembly, parcel configuration,
environmental factors, floor area ratio (FAR) distributions, circulation and traffic patterns,
and plans for regional transportation facilities.
In order to move development efforts forward, the Redevelopment Agency is currently
pursuing sponsorship of an Urban Land Institute's (ULl) panel that will bring planning and
real estate experts to Chula Vista to conduct a five-day Advisory Services Program. The
Program will use a public charrette-type process to identify and address relevant
issues/challenges, and provide an implementation strategy for the revitalization of the
Corridor. From staffs perspective, the process will playa key role in working to bring the
community together on a workable vision for pursuing projects within the Corridor. Staff
will be coming forward to the Agency on July 22,2008 to appropriate $120,000 to fund the
ULl program. If approved, the ULl program is currently anticipated to take place the week
of October 12 -17, 2008.
Potential General Plan and/or UCSP amendments - Dependent upon the outcomes of the
ULl program, it may be necessary to undertake revisions to the General Plan and/or UCSP to
effect land use and regulatory changes to support desired redevelopment. Following the
October session, staff would need approximately 45 days to develop a work program for any
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
36 of 59
. -
..
potential GP and/or UCSP amendments, and could return to Council in January 2009 to
present that. Dependent upon the nature and extent of the potential amendments, it could
take 6 to 9 months or more to complete them, with staff returning for Planning Commission
and Council public hearing consideration of amendments beginning no sooner than Fall
2009.
3-D Visual Simulations of H Street Corridor - As noted above, the City also received a
SANDAG grant for consultant Urban Advantage to prepare a photo-realistic visual
simulation of a redeveloped H Street corridor. Staff currently intends to tie the visualization
work to completion of the ULI effort, whereby the SANDAG modeling efforts would
incorporate land use and building form outputs from the ULI charrette, and provide 3-D
visual imaging of the potential redevelopment of the Corridor to enhance public
understanding and build support for subsequent planning and project work. Staff has already
begun work with SANDAG's consultant with regard to their scanning and input of base
information of existing conditions. Completion of the modeling would take place during
November and December 2008.
3. Preparation of Southwest Specific Plane s)
With regard to the Palomar Gateway TF A, the General Plan calls for the preparation of a
Specific Plan or other comprehensive zoning and design tool to carry out urban revitalization
and redevelopment within the TF A which includes the Palomar trolley station and
surrounding areas. The General Plan also identified the need for Specific Plans in several
additional locations within the Southwest Planning Area. While current Planning and
Building Department work programs generally identify the need for these Plans, there is not
available staffmg, consulting and budget resources available to prepare them. The shaping of
those work programs and budgets will also depend on whether one overall Southwest
Specific Plan is undertaken, or as staff currently envisions, the preparation of individual,
smaller Specific Plans focused on particular areas such as the Palomar TF A.
Southwest United in Action program priority setting - Prior to proceeding with further
detail work program and budget planning for Specific Plans, staff is currently engaged in
completing the first phases of the Southwest United in Action (SUA) program to gauge the
range of community issues, and related community priorities. Initial community inputs on
issues were solicited at a Community Convention on March 15, 2008, and staff will be
holding a second Community Convention on June 21, 2008, to solicit input on action items
that are most important to the community, including preparation of Specific Plans. Staff will
subsequently return to Council by fall 2008 to present community priority inputs.
Palomar Gateway TFA Specific Plan - Should the community identify a priority for
preparation of this Specific Plan through the above SUA work, and upon subsequent
direction from the City Council, staff will prepare a work program and budget for a Palomar
Gateway TF A Specific Plan for review and consideration by Council. Some work towards a
Specific Plan for this area (entitled the Palomar Gateway Conceptual Design Study) was
prepared during the General Plan Update, and could be used to jump start the effort. If Plan
preparation is identified as a community priority, and supported by Council, it would take
approximately 60 days for staff to return with a work program and budget proposal.
Assuming Council considers and provides direction on community priorities by the end of
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
37 of 59
. -
2008, staff could return the work program for consideration by March 2009 as part of the
FY09-10 budget proposals. If approved, preparation of a Specific Plan would take
approximately 12-18 months and could commence after July 2009.
4. Other Related Regional Efforts
There are also two major regional efforts that must be undertaken and completed in order to
ultimately develop and build out the smart growth land use plans and intensities for the
trolley station areas, particularly those at E St. and H St. These include undertaking the 1-5
Corridor Study with SANDAG, and securing a funding program for the grade separation of
the trolley crossings at E and H Streets.
1-5 Corridor Study - This Corridor Study is a needed prerequisite in the planning and design
of future transportation improvements along the 1-5 corridor necessary to ultimately serve
development in western Chula Vista and the Bayfront. The improvements would encompass
highway travel lanes, HOV and transit, as well as reconfiguration of ramping, the bridge
decks, and grade separation of the trolley crossing at E and H Streets. Considerations for one
component affect the rest, and the Corridor Study serves as a mechanism to review and
address the interrelationships prior to proceeding with the next phases of design.
Staff began meeting almost two years ago with SANDAG regarding the scoping, cost and
timing for the work, and has since developed a work program and budget with SANDAG and
Caltrans. The Study has a matching component for Chula Vista. Staff has been working
with Congressman Filner's office over the last year to see through legislation that was
approved on June 6, 2008, that redesignated approximately $2 million in federal SAFETEA-
LU funds to cover our matching component. SANDAG, Caltrans and City staff will now be
refining the scope of work. The Corridor Study project was defined as a project in the
Western CV TDIF program approved by Council in March 2008. The 24-month Study will
commence in FY08-09, with completion anticipated by FY 2010-11.
Trolley Grade Separation funding - Grade separation of the trolley crossings at both E St.
and H St. will be needed to accommodate urban development intensification in western
Chula Vista by allowing traffic to access and cross 1-5 absent the current impediment of the
trolley gates. This also affects the design for redevelopment at both of these TF As. Costs for
the separations are estimated at $36 million for H St. and $40 million for ESt. SANDAG
has identified funding for approximately 50% of the costs, while 28% of the costs are
identified as ultimately being funded through the WCV TDIF approved by Council in March
2008. Staff is currently working with SANDAG to make grant applications to the State for
additional funding, and requires a letter of approval from the Mayor to make the application
that is due by June 19, 2008. Notification of any grant awards is anticipated in Sept./Oct.
2008, and staff will report back to Council at that time. In the event that sufficient grant
monies are not received, staff will need to work with the Council to identify and pursue other
sources.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008
38 of 59
.,
. -
PERFORMANCE METRICS
Given that the items under this Implementation Measure involve proposed planning and project
efforts, the performance metrics would be completion of each of the above identified planning
and study components.
TIMELINE
Following is an overview of milestones associated with each implementation component
pursuant to the prior discussions and reflected in the accompanying timeline graphic:
CCWG MEASURE #6: SMART GROWTH AROUND TROLLEY STATIONS
Implementation Plan Tlmellne
Mica
. Complete E St. TF A PROGRAM MILESTONES
Comprehensive Design
Study Nov f Dee DB
. Complete initial Galaxy I Oct. De I
site plan tor old Corp. . Conduct UU H St SbJdy .3-0 visualization for H
Yard site Street Corridor
. Consider whether to Oct. De
e>.tend Galaxy ENA
. Grade separation
grant notification
I I I I, I .
I I I , I -1
July 'OS Sept.Oe Jan'09 uly'
. Start 24-month 1..5
Corridor SbJdy FYOe-l0
July De Dee OS . Prepare Palomar TFA
Specific Plan
. Request to Agency to . Council action on SWUA
fund H St. ULI Study priorities
JulyOe Mar 09
. E St. 2-D visual simulation . Work program & budget
from SANDAG for Palomar Gateway SP
09
Implementation component #1 - the E S1. TFA Framework Plan is due to the City from
Galaxy by mid-July 2008 per the current ENA. This includes their development of an initial
site plan for development ofthe City's prior corporation yard site. If more time is needed or
desired, the Agency would need to extend the ENA. The 2-D visual simulation work with
SANDAG will be completed by July 2008.
Implementation component #2 - The request for Agency funding of the ULI Study will be
brought forward on July 22, 2008. If approved, the ULI activities would be conducted during
the week of October 12-17,2008. Based on outcomes of the ULI efforts, any desired
General Plan and/or UCSP amendments would take a minimum of approximately 6 to 9
months to complete, with the earliest hearings starting in fall 2009. Per agreements with
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
39 of 59
SANDAG, the 3-D visual simulations would follow the ULI work, and be completed by
December 2008.
Implementation component #3 - If identified as a community priority through the SUA work
by August 2008, the earliest a work program and budget for a Palomar Gateway Specific
Plan could be returned for Council consideration would be November 2008. If authorized,
preparation of the Specific Plan would take 12 to 18 months. Assuming a January 2009 start,
the earliest time for completion would be spring 2010.
Implementation component #4 - Work program and funding clarifications with SANDAG for
the 1-5 Corridor Study are anticipated over the next 2 months, with the Study getting
underway in FY2008-09. The 24-month Study would be anticipated for completion some
time in FY201 0-11. State grant applications for trolley grade separation funding are due
June 19. Notification on grant awards is currently scheduled for Sept./Oct. 2008.
BUDGET
Costs associated with carrying out implementation are comprised of several components, some
of which are funded and budgeted, and others which will require future budget and funding
considerations as follows:
Implementation component #1
Galaxy Framework Plan and Corp Yard Site Plan; privately funded.
2-D Visual Simulation; SANDAG consultant services (grant)
Implementation component #2
ULI Program; $120,000 funding to be requested from Redevelopment Agency.
Potential General Plan or USCP amendments; costs unknown pending outcome of ULI
program. Partial Redevelopment Funding possible, otherwise will be General Fund
request.
3-D Visual Simulation; SANDAG consultant services (grant)
Implementation component #3
Southwest United in Action program; approved Redevelopment Agency funding.
Palomar Gateway Specific Plan; estimated $250,000 for planning, $250,000 for EIR to be
sought at a future date when work program and budget presented. Partial Redevelopment
Agency funding possible, otherwise will be General Fund request. State law allows for
reimbursement district to be formed encompassing parcels within the Specific Plan.
Some grant funds may be possible, but have not yet been identified:
Implementation component #4
1-5 Corridor Study; $1.987 million in federal funding approved June 6, 2008. Balance of
costs by SANDAG.
Trolley grade separations; City WCV TDIF to pay 28% of costs currently estimated at
$18.344 million for both E and H St. Should cost estimates rise, adjustments to the
WCV TDIF would be necessary. SANDAG to pay 50% of project costs. Balance of
funds currently being sought via State grants.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
40 of 59
CCWG #6 - Smart Growth Around Trolley Stations - Budget.
Item One-Time Annual Cost
Cost
UCSP E Street ----- -----
Implementation TOTAL -----
----
ULJ Program $120,000 -----
H Street Corridor GP/UCSP Amendments ---- ----
Study Simulation ---- -._-
TOTAL $120,000 --
Palomar Gateway SP $250,000 ----
Southwest Specific EIR $250,000
Plans ----
TOTAL $500,000 ---
1-5 Corridor Study ---- ---
Other Related Trolley Grade Separations
Regional Efforts" ---- ---
TOTAL ----- -._-
TOTAL $620,000
. These projects' costs are necessary to implement the Council-approved General
Plan & Urban Core Specific Plan and would be incurred whether or not the CCWG
Implementation Plans are approved
.. The City has already secured approximately $20.3 million for related regional
smart growth efforts such as the 1-5 Corridor Study and the Trolley Grade
Separations (E St. & H St.)
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
41 of 59
MEASURE #7: TURF LAWN CONVERSION
OVERVIEW
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group's (CCWG) recommendation #7 states
that the City should "coordinate with Otay Water District, San Diego County Water Authority
and the Sweetwater Authority on turf lawn conversions for commercial and residential
properties." The measure was intended to help residents and businesses replace turf lawn areas
with drought-tolerant plants (commonly referred to as "xeriscape" or "California-Friendly"
landscaping). Pumping and treating water throughout California requires large amounts of
energy and subsequently is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed
outdoor water conservation program complements the local water districts' efforts and builds
upon the City's existing NatureScape program. Specifically, the program's components include
(1) continuation and expansion of the NatureScape program to promote water conserving and
nature-friendly landscaping, (2) coupling of residential and business turf lawn replacement with
the solar conversion aggregation block process (Measure #5), (3) converting select municipal
facilities to low water use plantings and irrigation, and (4) updating various municipal landscape
regulations and guidelines to comply with new state requirements and further promote outdoor
water use efficiency. Components #1 and #2 would be voluntary and would be available to all
Chula Vista residents and businesses, while Component #3 would apply only to City properties
and rights-of-way. Component #4 would apply to new developments through updated municipal
regulations. The proposed outdoor water conservation program is graphically summarized
below:
CCWG MEASURE '1fT: TURF LAWN CONVERSION
Implementation Plan Summary
NatuteScape
. On-site assessment by City
staff at no cost to evaluate
whether landscaping meets
-Backyard Wildlife Habitar and
water conservation criteria
.. Education about additional
water-saving opportunities and
applicable incentives
.. Certified sites are pnMded a
National Wildlife Federation
yaro~gnandcertfficare
.. Demonstration sites created
throughout community
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008
Outdoor Water Conservation Program
.. Promotes the replacement at turf lawn areas with water-saving plants
and irrigation systems
ResldenUal & Business
Turf Conversion
. Aggregate homes and
buslnesses interested In
replacing water"thirsty turf lawn
areas (in conjunction with Solar
Conversion Program - CONG
Measure #5)
. City initiates a contractor bid
process to install water-wise
plants and irrigation systems for
aggregated properties
. ParticIpants costs redtced
through aggregation an d City
ensures proper warranty and
purchase of plants and
equipment locally
. Participants also have option
of retrofftting interior faucets and
toilets at reduced prices
"
-
MunJc{pal FeciIllJes
Turf ConversIon
. Convert turf lawn areas at
select municipal sites to
mteFMse plants and
irrigation systems
. Potential sites Include
municipal parks, medians and
public rights-of-way
Landscape
Regu/allons Update &
Outreach
. Reo.;ew and evaluation of
newOtVR Model Landscape
Ordinance
. Update Municipal Landscape
Manual & Water Conservation
Plan Guidelines accordingly tor
Council review
. Educate residents,
businesses. co~tors,
developers and HOAs about
new landscape regulations and
AB,881
. Promotion of NabJreScape
and Turf Conversion
Aggregation Blocks programs
to HOAs and their residents
42 of 59
IMPLEMENTATION
The Department of Conservation & Environmental Services will administer the NatureScape and
Residential & Business Turf Conversion components, while the Planning & Building
Department and Engineering Department will coordinate the update of the City's landscape
regulations. In addition, the Engineering Department will coordinate the Municipal Facilities
Turf Conversion. All departments will work closely together to implement outreach and
marketing efforts to maximize the program's cost effectiveness. The implementation process for
each component is outlined below:
NatureScape Certified Properties
The current NatureScape program works to promote nature-friendly gardening and
landscaping throughout the community by educating property owners and "certifying"
their properties. Specifically, residents and businesses that voluntarily elect to participate
in the program receive, at no cost, an on-site assessment by a City staff member who
reviews their landscaping for the presence of food, water and cover for wildlife and the
incorporation of water-conserving features such as low water-use plants, mulching and
water efficient irrigation. Staff also educates participants about possible water-saving
improvements and available incentives and rebates, if applicable. Residential or business
properties who successfully meet the program's criteria are certified through the National
Wildlife Federation's "Backyard Wildlife Habitat" program and receive an aluminum
yard sign and certificate. The current program was developed and is being implemented
with the support of Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority, Chula Vista Garden Club,
Bonita Valley Garden Club, UC Master Gardeners and the South Bay YMCA Earth
Service Corps.
As part of CCWG Recommendation #7's implementation, the current NatureScape
program would be continued and expanded through additional staff and program funding
for supplies and services. The new program would reach a broader audience through
comprehensive marketing efforts and produce greater water savings (and related energy
savings) through increased staff technical support and program participation. The
program will also engage the community through creation of water-saving garden and
landscape demonstration sites at various community locations. The program would
continue to collaborate closely with the local water districts to leverage resources and to
increase the program's cost effectiveness adding value for participants. The program's
goal is to be the community with the highest number of certified properties in the United
States.
Residential & Business Turf Conversions
Similar to the Solar & Energy Efficiency Conversion program (Measure #5), the
proposed program will aggregate existing homes and businesses who are interested in
replacing portions of their turf lawn areas with water-saving plant palettes and irrigation
systems. Through a competitive bid or negotiation process, a single or multiple
contractors will assist City staff in enrolling interested property owners and installing
more water-efficient landscaping. By aggregating the participants, the City will be able
to negotiate a lower cost (on a per square footage basis) for program participants. Staff
will also be able to help reduce participants' costs by streamlining the application process
for applicable incentives offered through Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority, San
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008 "
43 of 59
~
Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California.
The aggregated bid process will allow the City to ensure that the contractor is using
appropriate plant material and irrigation equipment purchased from a business located
within Chula Vista, providing a comprehensive warranty for their supplies and services
and following proper municipal landscape plan approval procedures. To further
maximize water use efficiency, participating businesses and homeowners may also elect
to have the contractor replace old interior water fixtures and toilets with new water-
saving models (see Measure #5). This approach satisfies real estate and developer
representatives' request to not use change of property ownership to trigger mandatory
retrofits of indoor plumbing fixtures.
Municipal Facilities Turf Conversions
The proposed program aims to replace turf lawn areas at select municipal sites with
water-saving plants and irrigation systems. In addition to reducing the City's water costs,
the re-Iandscaped areas will further provide a public demonstration of water-conserving
landscape design principles and may reduce landscape maintenance costs. Selected
municipal sites would be limited to turf lawn areas which are not actively used by the
public for recreation and would potentially include certain municipal buildings, park
areas, medians and public rights-of-way.
Landscape Regulations Update & Outreach
By January 1, 2009 the Department of Water Resources (DWR) will be releasing an
updated Model Landscape Ordinance, which outlines statewide water-conserving
landscape design criteria. Local governments will be required to adopt the model
ordinance or develop a new ordinance that is at least as effective as the statewide model
ordinance by January 1,2010. The ordinance would generally apply to landscaping for
all new developments over 2,500 ft2 in area and to re-landscaping of some existing
properties (certain property types are exempt), and would base design thresholds on a
maximum water allowance.
Outdoor water use throughout Chula Vista is mainly regulated through the City's
Landscape Manual which outlines landscaping and irrigation requirements for all public
projects and certain private projects and the Water Conservation Plan Guidelines which
outlines water-conserving measures that need to be integrated into Sectional Planning
Area (SPA) Plans, Tentative Subdivision Maps and major development projects with at
least 50 dwelling units or equivalent water demand. The proposed program would
provide funding for City staff to update these existing municipal regulations to meet and
potentially exceed the new statewide Model Landscape Ordinance. The updated
regulations would strongly emphasize additional outdoor water savings by further
minimizing turf lawn areas, using water-wise plant types and installing weather-based
and low-water irrigation systems.
The program component will also involve actively educating Chula Vista residents,
businesses and developers of the new landscape regulations. Outreach efforts will also
help disseminate information about California Assembly Bill (AB) 1881 which made it
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 ;.
44 of 59
unlawful for homeowner associations that run common interest developments to restrict
the use oflow water-using plants through covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs)
if the plants meet maintenance standards. Although the new law has been enacted,
residents continue to face challenges in obtaining approval from HOAs for the
installation of low water-use plant palettes and many HOAs remain unaware of the new
legislation. Associations will be informed about AB 1881 and will also be encouraged to
participate in and promote the City's water-saving programs to their residents.
PERFORMANCE METRICS
The program performance for all four components - NatureScape, Residential & Business Turf
Conversion, Municipal Facilities Turf Conversion and Landscape Regulations Update - will be
measured by a suite of metrics. The NatureScape and Residential & Business Turf Conversion
components will be assessed based on the number of participants, square footage of landscaping
certified/converted and the resulting estimated water savings. The Municipal Turf Conversion
component will also be evaluated based on the square footage of landscaping converted and the
estimated water savings. Actual water savings from program implementation may also be
quantifiable through the assistance of the local water districts. The Landscape Regulations
Update will be evaluated based on its incorporation of new water-conserving landscape design
elements that comply with new state regulations, if approved and implemented by City Council.
In relation to the City's current greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory protocol, emissions from water
use (i.e. energy used to import, treat and dispose of water) are not directly quantified, rather the
protocol only includes emissions from energy associated with locally pumping and treating water
within municipal boundaries. However, City staff will be able to estimate the program's carbon
reductions based on the California Energy Commission's kWh per gallon conversion factor
currently in development. Likewise, staff is now working with the California Air Resources
Board, ICLEI and the California Climate Action Registry to develop new local government GHG
emissions protocols which would integrate water use into emissions estimates.
TIMELlNE
Component #1 (NatureS cape), #2 (Residential & Business Turf Conversion) and #3's (Municipal
Facilities Turf Conversion) implementation could be commenced within a few months after
receiving Council approval and the necessary funding. Finally, the Landscape Regulations
Update (#4) could commence immediately, but would require evaluation of DWR's model
ordinance (released on January 1, 2009) before development of a City-specific standard and
revisions to the Landscape Manual and the Water Conservation Plan Guidelines (estimated to
take 6 months) could occur. In addition, Council action on a new landscape ordinance, if
deemed necessary, would require public notice and public readings before formal adoption. The
program's timeline is summarized below:
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008 '.
45 of 59
CCWG MEASURE 'In: TURF LAWN CONVERSION
Implementation Plan Tlmellne
PROGRAM MILESTONES
July
Ju~'09
Jan '09 . Present Council new Water
. Secure financing for Conservation Plan. Landscape
programs Manual & Possible ordinance
I I I
I I I
'08 Ja '09 July '09
I
Jan '09 Feb'OS Mar '09
. Begin evaluation of -Initiate contractor bid . Hire & train staff
ONR Model Landscape process for carmunity for NatureScape &
Ordinance lawn conversions COlT'munityla\l'm
. COnTnence design conversion
work on municipal turf program
conversion projects
BUDGET
The annual program costs associated with the NatureScape and Residential & Business Turf
Conversion components combined are $202,800. It is estimated that the Municipal Facilities
Turf Conversion would cost $300,000 annually, while the Landscape Regulations Update
component is estimated to cost $156,380. These cost estimates would cover all personnel,
supplies and services. These program costs assume full funding of all seven CCWG measures
and will leverage each measure's budget to partially cover administrative and performance
tracking costs. While components #1 and #2 would need funding indefInitely to maintain them,
the Landscape Regulations Update component would only continue until the ordinance was
developed and possibly adopted (approximately through CY 2010). However, the State's
proposed Model Water Conservation Ordinance includes a requirement for ongoing community
water auditing generating a need for an extra Open Space Division staff person estimated at
$202,350 annually. The Municipal Facilities Turf Conversion would continue only until all
selected sites had been re-Iandscaped with water-saving plants and effIcient irrigation systems,
Implementation costs would be partially offset by available water district incentives. In addition,
municipal water cost savings would average approximately $7,900 annually for every acre of turf
lawn area converted to water-wise landscaping. There are potentially a variety of possible
funding sources for Measure #7 including a carbon offset fee, franchise fee, local fee authority
and a general obligation bond. The program's budget is outlined below:
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
46 of 59
CCWG #7 - Outdoor Water Conservation Program - Budget
Item One-Time Annual Cost
Cost
City Staff ----- $88,000
Interns ---- $49,000
NatureScape,
Residential & Business Marketing ----- $20,000
Turf Conversions.
Other Commodities ---- $45,800
TOTAL --- $202,800
City Staff --- $50,000
Municipal Facilities Turf Other Commodities ----- $250,000
Conversion
TOTAL ---- $300,000
Landscape Regulations City Staff $156,380 $202,350
Update TOTAL $156,380 $202,350
TOTAL $156,380
$705,150
"Assumes cost sharing between CCWG Measures #3, 5 & 7 for staff time & program materials
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008 "
47 of 59
. -
OVERALL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
FINANCING OPTIONS
To fund the program, staff has identified and analyzed a variety of financing options
(summarized in Table 3) to support the seven measures and their budgets estimated at
$1,479,380 in one-time costs and $2,419,150 in annual costs. These budgets include costs
associated with staff time, materials and contractor services to implement the programs as well
as capital improvement .projects. Additional costs associated with providing upfront capital for
residents and businesses to install renewable and energy-efficiency improvements (Measure #5)
is not included and would be dependent on the level of community program participation, but
could easily reach $50,000,000 over 5-10 years (assumes 5,000 homeslbusinesses participating at
$10,000 per property). If additional funds are not secured, there would be significant
implications on the level of implementation possible for the seven measures (Table 4).
As a result, staff is recommending that the City pursue a variety of funding sources to meet both
the long-term, ongoing program management costs as well as the short-term, large upfront
capital improvement costs required to implement the seven measures. Sustainable, long-term
funding could be secured through establishment of a "local fee authority" and/or increasing the
City's energy franchise fee. A local fee authority has been granted in the past by the state
legislature to enable local governments to fund environmental programs and services. For
example, Chula Vista received fee authority under Assembly Bill 939 to fund municipal solid
waste, recycling and household hazardous waste programs. To secure funding for the seven
proposed climate-related programs, the City could engage state representatives to pursue
legislation allowing fee authority for local greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts. The
City's current energy franchise fee - paid by SDG&E (and passed through to the customer) for
the nonexclusive right to install and maintain equipment on highways, streets or public rights of
way - is 1.25% and 2% of citywide annual gross electricity and natural gas revenues,
respectively. In 2002, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved a SDG&E
franchise fee increase for the City of San Diego of 3.53% (electricity revenues) in order to
underground power lines in residential areas. Chula Vista could pursue CPUC approval to
increase the City's energy franchise fees to support its greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
Because a local fee authority and franchise fees are based on each individual ratepayer's
consumption level, both funding mechanisms also help promote energy conservation in the
community by rewarding ratepayers who consume less energy with lower fee amounts. Both
potential revenue sources would be used to reimburse the City for staff time and materials costs
associated with ongoing program implementation and reporting.
Unlike a local fee authority or franchise fee, a public bond issued by the City and secured
through increased sales tax, transient occupancy tax and/or property taxes could quickly provide
large, upfront capital improvement funds required to implement some of the seven measures.
The bonds could have two specific applications: (1) provide capital funds for energy efficiency
and solar retrofits for residential and business facilities (Measure #5) and (2) provide funds for
public purpose climate-related programs such as municipal renewable energy installation,
alternative fuel fleet improvements and turf conversion. Under application #1, participating
property owners would elect to be part of a special assessment district and their increased
property fees would be applied to the bond's debt service. Under application #2, all Chula Vista
property owners would vote in a general election whether to authorize a municipal bond issuance
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008
48 of 59
"
Table 3: Summary of financing options and their applicability to the CCWG measures
FUNDING DESCRIPTION ANALYSIS
SOURCE' CCWG MEASURES
The City's building permit fees could be increased Because there is a nexus between permit fee revenues
Building Permit to cover the additional costs associated with and city development levels, permit fees may not
Fees implementing a citywide, mandatory green building provide a consistent funding source. Therefore, it may 4,5
be more useful as a supplement to another long-term
standard. funding source.
These funds would be used to pay for on-the-ground
Carbon Offset A fee for developers and builders to "offsef' their energy efficiency, renewable energy and alternative fuel
Fee carbon emissions if they are unable to meet vehicle improvement projects. The fund could also be 1,2,4,5,7
citywide, green building standards. incorporated into the CEQA project review and
mitigation process.
The City's franchise fee with SDG&E for gross
electricity and natural gas delivery could be Currently, the City of San Diego has a higher SDG&E All - Staff & Resources
Franchise Fee increased (currently at 1.25% and 2% of citywide franchise fee than Chula Vista (5.78% of electricity and
annual gross electricity and natural gas receipts, 1.03% of natural gas revenues). 1,5,7 - Public Improvements
respectivelv).
Grant funding is typically short-lived and project-specific
Grants Grant funding could be solicited from local, state (Le. not for ongoing programs). Therefore, it may be All
and federal agencies. more useful as a supplement to another long-term
funding source.
Similar to how AS 939 created a fee authority for local
A fee authority would enable the City to place a governments to fund solid waste/recycling programs,
Local Fee local surcharge on utility bills and would require the City could pursue local fee authority for greenhouse All - Staff & Resources
Authority state legislature approval. gas emissions reduction programs. The City would 1, 5, 7 - Public Improvements
need to engage local state legislators to pursue the fee
authority.
A bond could have two possible applications:
(A) Pay for financing energy efficiency & renewable
energy improvements on private properties and the
A public bond could be issued and secured through participating property owners would elect to be part of a Assessment Districts:
Public Bond increased sales tax, transient occupancy tax and/or special assessment district to payback the bond. S - Staff & Private Improvements
property tax. (B) Through a general election, all Chula Vista property General Obligation:
owners could elect to issue a bond to fund public 1,5,7 - Staff & Public Improvements
purpose climate change-related programs (such as
municipal renewable energy and alternative fuel fleet
improvements).
*Additional research is needed to ensure that City is in compliance with Proposition 218 and applicable tax laws
and assess themselves an additional fee to repay the debt service. The amortization schedule for
either bond application is estimated to be between 10-15 years (solar energy systems are required
by State legislation to have at least 25-year warranties). Staff is recommending that the fee
assessment be structured to include solar energy system replacement costs adding extra value for
program participants and ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future.
Other potential funding sources for the seven climate-related measures include establishing a
City-controlled carbon offset fund, increasing building permit fees and applying for public
grants. As part of the City's CEQA environmental review process and new Green Building
Standard (Measure #4), the City could create a fee system for developers and builders to "offset"
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
49 of 59
their carbon emissions if they are unable to meet CEQA significance thresholds for a project's
greenhouse gas emissions impacts or comply with the new citywide building standards. These
funds would be used to subsidize on-the-ground energy efficiency, renewable energy and
alternative fuel vehicle improvements at municipal facilities or within existing building stock
preferably targeting lower income families and service institutions. Increasing building permit
fees would have a more limited application and be mainly used to cover the additional costs
associated with administering a citywide, mandatory green building standard. It should be noted
that both CEQA reviews and permit fees are directly linked to development levels and may not
provide consistent, long-term funding. Finally, grant funds could be solicited from local, state
and national sources, but the funds are typically short-lived and project-specific (Le. not for
ongoing programs). Therefore, staff recommends that a carbon offset fund, increased building
permit fees and public grant funds be pursued as part of the measures' financing strategy, but
should be used primarily to supplement other long-term funding sources such as a local fee
authority or a franchise fee increase.
Table 4: Implications on program implementation if no new funds are secured
CURRENT
MEASURE POLICY/PROGRAM FUNDING? IMPLICATIONS
# (SOURCE)
Partial - Only ICLEI participation
Admin. Emissions Tracking & Reporting (General Fund) - No 3rd party verification
- No future AB32 compliance
100% Clean Vehicle Partial - Delayed implementation
1 Replacement Policy for City Fleet (Vehicle Replacement - No biodiesel use
Fund)
100% Clean Vehicle Partial - No H21CE van project
2 Replacement Policy for City- (General Fund) - No H2CNG bus project
Contracted Fleet Services
3 Business Energy Assessments Full Expected - Funding only thru 12/11
(SDG&E)
4 Green Building Standard Full Expected - Funding only thru 12/11
(Permit Fees/ SDG&E)
5 Solar & Energy Efficiency None - Only solar PV code creation
Conversion - No community solar program
Smart Growth Around Trolley Partial - Delayed implementation
6 Stations (Various)
- Limited NatureScape program
Outdoor Water Conservation Partial - Delayed regulations update
7 (General Fund) - No community turf replacement
- No municipal turf replacement
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008
50 of 59
.,
IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION, EMISSIONS TRACKING & REPORTING
While various departments will be responsible for implementing the specific measures (see
individual implementation plans for details on departmental roles and responsibilities), the
Department of Conservation & Environmental Services will coordinate overall measurement,
evaluation and reporting of the seven climate protection measures and the resulting greenhouse
gas emissions reductions. The primary tool for tracking the emissions reductions will continue
to be an annual, citywide greenhouse gas emissions inventory with technical assistance provided
by ICLEI and the California Climate Action Registry. Staff is currently working with ICLEI, the
California Air Resources Board and the California Climate Action Registry to develop a more
robust emissions protocol specifically for local governments. With the new protocol, staff will
be able to more accurately track and report the impacts of the seven climate protection measures.
The City will also begin to participate in the verification process under the California Climate
Action Registry program. Verification is performed by an approved third-party contractor to
insure that the emissions data is accurate, transparent and consistent with all reporting guidelines.
Participation in the California Climate Action Registry will help the City measure and manage
emissions from municipal operations and facilities, while preparing Chula Vista for potential
new regulations under the California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32). Registry
participation will also enable Chula Vista to document carbon reductions for consideration under
any future emissions trading system.
The annual cost for implementation coordination, emissions tracking and reporting is estimated
to be $93,300. This cost assumes full funding for CCWG measures #3, 5 and 7 in order to
partially cover these administrative and performance tracking costs. The program's annual
budget is outlined below:
CCWG Admin - Coordination, Tracking & Reporting -
Budget
Item One-Time Annual Cost
Cost
City Staff ----- $64,000
Registry Memberships ------ $4,900
Emissions Inventory Verification ------ $10,000
Other Commodities ------ $14,400
TOTAL
$93,300
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008
51 of 59
APPENDIX A - Quantity of vehicles to be replaced each year with hybrid,
alternative fuel or ultra low emissions substitutes (by vehicle class)
,
2009 20 )() 2011 2012 2013 201.. 2015 20)(, 2lJl 7 2018
Intermediate Sedan 3 7 6 3 2 0 7 0 5 5
Full Size Sedan 0 0 2 3 I 0 0 0 0 0
Compact SUV 1 0 3 3 0 1 1 4 3 2
Large SUV 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
Intermediate Pickup 4 12 5 6 7 0 14 1 2 0
Truck
Full Size Pickup Truck 0 1 5 11 14 8 9 5 3 2
Full Size Crew Cab 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 2 3 I
Pickup Truck
Intermediate Van 0 2 I 1 0 0 0 2 I 2
Cargo Van 3 1 3 7 0 1 3 I 0 0
Full Size Passenger Van 0 0 I 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Walk-in Van 0 1 0 I I I 0 I 0 0
Survey Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0
Full Size Utility Truck 2 I I 2 3 I I 0 0 0
Large Utility Truck 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 I 0 0
Flatbed Truck 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
TOTAL 13 28 31 37 35 14 38 17 18 12
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
52 of 59
APPENDIX B - Incremental cost difference (in dollars) each year for
replacing existing fleet vehicles with hybrid, alternative fuel or ultra low
emissions substitutes (by vehicle class)
2009 2010 2011 21112 2013 2111~ 2015 21116 2017 2018
Intermediate Sedan 15,000 35,000 30,000 15,000 10,000 0 35,000 0 25,000 25,000
Full Size Sedan 0 0 10,000 15,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 0
Compact SUV 7,000 21,000 21,000 0 7,000 7,000 28,000 21,000 14,000
Large SUV 0 7,000 0 0 0 14,000 7,000 0 0 0
Intermediate Pickup 28,000 84,000 35,000 42,000 49,000 0 98,000 7,000 14,000 0
Truck
Full Size Pickup 0 7,000 35,000 77,000 98,000 56,000 63,000 35,000 21,000 14,000
Truck
Full Size Crew Cab 0 7,000 0 0 14,000 0 7,000 14,000 21,000 7,000
Pickun Truck
Intermediate Van 0 14,000 7,000 7,000 0 0 0 14,000 7,000 14,000
Cargo Van 21,000 7,000 21,000 49,000 0 7,000 21,000 7,000 0 0
Full Size Passenger 0 0 7,000 0 14,000 0 0 0 0 0
Van
Walk-in Van 0 7,000 0 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 7,000 0 0
Survey Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 0 0 0
Full Size Utility 14,000 7,000 7,000 14,000 21,000 7,000 7,000 0 0 0
Truck
Large Utility Truck 0 0 21,000 0 21,000 0 0 7,000 0 0
Flatbed Truck 0 7,000 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 0
TOTAL 85,000 182,000 201,000 247,000 222,000 98,000 252,000 119,000 116,000 74,000
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008
53 of 59
"
APPENDIX C - Conservation-focused municipal code related to businesses
Municipal Code 8.23 - 8.25: Solid Waste
All commercial and industrial establishments shall submit recycling tonnage documentation on
an annual basis to the city's conservation coordinator, due on or before January 31st, for the
previous year. Annual reporting shall be on the form promulgated by the city manager, and
commence on the first anniversary of the date set forth in the mandatory recycling
implementation schedule as established in this chapter as July 1,1993. Voluntary reporting prior
to the required mandatory recycling is encouraged. Card. 2992 S I, 2005; Ord. 2740 S 3, 1998;
Ord. 2492 S I, 1992).
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008
54 of 59
,~
APPENDIX D - Table A from "Architecture 2030: Meeting the 2030
Challenge through Building Codes"
Table A: 2030 Challenge Interim Code EquIvalents
CODE I STANDARD
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
ASHRAE 90.1-2004
30% below
ASH RAE 139 (In progress)
o
California Title 24 2005
i5% - 20~ belowl:>
Oregon Energy Codel~
25% below
30% below
RESNET HERS Index
65 or less
lEED 2009 (In progress)
New - EA Credit '1: 7 pts
Reno't'stlon - EA Crtdit #1: 9pts
EECC Op1lon18 (prescriptive path)
EC . 154
NOTE: Table A above represents a 8&tof guidelines. Each entity shoUld assess its particular code and building energy
consumption patterns and edjust 1.11& code equivalentJ; provided in the tl!Ible as approprlerte. Forexnmple. those entities
With aggr8$Sive GHG and energy reduction initiatives ma, want to Increase the recommended percentage reductions.
Entities with detailed Information on code performance compared to their buildings10ck are encouraged to adjust the
pElrcentage reductions to meet the 2030 Challenge targets.
13 The City of Santa Barbara established meeting the 2030 Challen~ 1ar~t for single-family residential units at 20% below Title 24 and
for high-rise residential, at 15% below TIlle24,
1.<!- Based on preliminary code analysis for the Califomia Energy Commission by Charles Eley of ArchitecbJral Energy Corporation.
1!j Oregon Department of Energy, ~Comparlson of Oregon Energ,- Code 2005 & ASH RAE Standard 90.1-2004".
1~ For residentJal buildings east of the Cascade Mountains. use 25% below. For residential buildings west of the Cascades, use 30% bel(
U Green Building initiative. Proposed American National Standard 01-2008P.
UI Alliance 10 Save Energy, Energy Efficient Codes Coalition (EEee). ~The 30%Solution?Ec-154. This option provides a method for
modifying the prescriptive path of the .code to meet or exceed the 2030 Challenge 50% reduction target.
HI New Buildings Institute, .Advanced Buildings Core Performance Guide with enhanced measures. This option provides a method for
modifyint: the prescriptive path of the code to meet or exceed the 2030 Challenge 50% reduction target.
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1, 2008
55 of 59
"
APPENDIX E - Draft Carbon Reduction Checklist
CARBON REDUCTION CHECKLIST
~lf?
~
CHOl'A~A
FILL OUT COMPLETELY - PLEASE PRINT
COMPANY NAME:
COMPANY ADDRESS:
CITY:
CONTACT:
STATE:
'".
0 Commerdal
0 Resldentl31
0 Retrofit
SOFTWARE 0 URBEM1S
0 PlACE>
0 ou,r.
SQUARE FOOTAGE:
PART OF DEVELOPMB\lT/
alMATE ZONE:
7(.1511nhq.ft.i
10 (.3S lba/sq. ft.)
o
o
EM,..l5fdNs REDuc:nolirr_et (~dl OfCOJ~
o
o
o
LaS OF COli
lBSOFCO.;
LBSOfCO,:
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT CREDITS
T~nldelS ~'er Hener (EF>=.85)
CoolP.oof
I.Co;rtSWc:cO
f\-381nAttlc
R--491nAttlc
.JO/,2SWlndow U.fa<::torISHGC
.9AFUEFwnace
.92AFUEFumac:e
IHEERAC
lSSEERAC
16SEEP..AC
o .41bslsq.ft.ofCO~
o .llbslsq.ft.ofCO,
o ,I Ibslsq. fL of CO,
o ,llbcJsq.ft.ofCO,
o .llbs/lq.fLoreo,
o .21bslsq.ft.ofCO,
o ,rs Ibs/sq. ft. of C01
o ,18Ibc1sq.ft.ofC01
o .llbslsq.ft.ofCOl
o .ISlIn/lq.ft.ofC01
o .2 Ibsllq. ft. of CO,
(TOt..... x,il; ft="LBSOF-CO)
o ."lbl/sq.fLoreo,
o ,11bslsq,fufCOl
o .2 Ibl/leI'ft. or eo,
o .1 Ibs/lq.fL or co:
o ,llbs/,q,fLoreO,
o ,3 Ib1/~q. ft. of co:
o .2Ibs1lq.ft.ofC01
o .2SIIn/Iq.ft.ofCq
o .2Ibsllq.ft.ofC01
o .2Slba/tq.ft.ofC01
o .3Ibsllq.fLofC01
(T<italx;lq.ft::LBSOFc:;O):
Solar Panel KWlnrtalled 0 1,2001bs1KW
Sol..... Hot'H.Iter Heilter; Solar Factor 0 ,12Iba/sq.ft.per.ISolarFactor
WlndTurblneKWltwulled 0 1,400IbaIKW
Geothermal Synem Size 0 1.7lbVsq. Ii.
TOTAL OnSI", G.n.ration CREDlTS-S4'ftQbaofCO,)i::18S0j:<::O~~
_TC!T:~_LBS-PF;CQi;
------
o 1.7001bs1KW
o .12Ibs/sq.ft.pet'.ISolarFactOl"
o l,ofOOlbslKW
o 2.3Ibs/sq.ft.
Sq.Ft (lbiQf CO;) :: L.BS'C:>f t::O~~
$2.5OIIbi::
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008
56 of 59
"
APPENDIX F - Chula Vista Climate Zone Map
Q
cd'~
Climate Zones Map
~ of CIlula Vlsla
1::I0Imb Ztt'lI!laUl'dllty
...
\,--"""'"
---
._._ II _ ...
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008 "
57 of 59
APPENDIX G - Draft Existing Building Efficiency Retrofit Options
Tier 1: Minimum Renuirement$ Cost Notes
Wall insulation, water pipe insulation,
replace windows, weather stripping,
Weatherization' $12,000 caul kino
Attic Insulation rm $99/sn It $800 $99 oer souare foot
Low Flow Faucets/Showers $30 $10 faucet, $20 showerhead
DuaULow Flow Toilets $250 $250 oer unit
Proarammable Thermostat $50
Waterless Urinal $350
Variable Frenuencv or Dual Saeed Pool Motor $250
Outdoor CFL or LED Enuivalent $40
TOTAL $13,770
$1,500
$700
$900
$5,000
$5,000
$300
$300
$900
$5,000
TOTAL $19,600
$42,000
$65,000
$8,000
TOTAL $115,000
'Federal Weatherization Assistance Program - $2750 avg
(based on 2,500 sq foot residence w/2.5 bathrooms)
CCWG Implementation Plans
July I, 2008
58 of 59
"
. -
APPENDIX H - Existing municipal code requiring solar hot water pre-
plumbing on all new residential buildings
Municipal Code 20.04.030: Solar Water Heater Preplumbing
All new residential units shall include plumbing specifically designed to allow the later
installation of a system which utilizes solar energy as the primary means of heating domestic
potable water. No building permit shall be issued unless the plumbing required pursuant to this
section is indicated on the building plans. Preplumbing shall extend through the roof when the
slope of the roof is less than four inches and 12 inches and when the roof covering is of clay or
concrete tile. Preplumbing pipes for domestic solar hot water heating shall be insulated. This
section shall apply only to those residential dwelling units for which a building permit was
applied for after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter.
Exception: The provisions of this chapter can be modified or waived when it can be
satisfactorily demonstrated to the building official that the solar preplumbing is impractical due
to shading, building orientation, construction constraints or configuration of the parcel. (Ord.
1973 S I, 1982).
CCWG Implementation Plans
July 1,2008,
59 of 59
CCWG MEASURES
STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT B
Since City Council adopted the Climate Change Working Group's (CCWG) seven
recommendations on April I, 2008, City staff has actively engaged the community in the
measures' implementation planning process. A Climate Change Public Forum was held on June
16, 2008 to provide staff an opportunity to present the draft implementation plans to the
community and to receive feedback. In addition, staff met individually with numerous
community groups and municipal commissions to explain the measures and receive suggestions
on their implementation. Below are summaries of the comments received by staff during these
implementation planning meetings. Some stakeholder groups also submitted formal comment
letters outlining their concerns and suggestions (attached).
COUNCIL MEETING - April!, 2008
Public Comments
Alan Ridley (CCWG member)
I. City should adopt a regular "Earth Hour" in which all lights are turned off
2. City should investigate the possibilities for wind-generated electricity in Chula Vista
3. He hopes that if City adopts the CCWG's recommendations it will truly become an
"enlightened" city
Andrea Cook (CA Center for Sustainable Energy, CCWG Ex-Officio Member)
I. She has spent the last 16 years involved with climate change research and the science is
"solid"
2. City should adopt the recommendations and continue its environmental leadership role
both regionally and nationally
Andrew McAllister (CA Center for Sustainable Energy)
]. City should adopt the CCWG's recommendations and the California Center for
Sustainable Energy (CCSE) is willing to assist in anyway possible
Daniel Sturdy (Building Owners & Managers Association)
1. City should have business assessments every 2 years (instead 00) and not upon change
of ownership
2. He believes proposed energy code/green building standard is too strict and costs
associated with LEED too high
3. Commercial real estate interests were not represented on the CCW G
Georgie Stillman (Northwest Civic Association)
1. City should adopt the CCWG's recommendations as written (i.e. not "water down" the
recommendations)
Hugo Ivan Salazar (Environmental Health Coalition)
1. EHC is supportive of Council's adoption tonight of the CCWG recommendations and
believes that the recommendations are feasible
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
1 of 41
"
2. EHC endorses the CCWG Report, but not the revisions produced by City staff
Leo Miras (Environmental Health Coalition, CCWG Member)
1. City staff should develop actual implementation plans over the next 90 days, not just
further analyze the measures
Leticia Ayala
1. City should adopt the CCWG's recommendations, especially the solar energy conversion
program (#5) because Chula Vista's sunny climate increases its ability to benefit from
solar
Mariana Lopez
1. City should adopt the CCWG's recommendations especially for the resulting public
health benefits
Martha Besano (Environmental Health Coalition)
I. Lower income families are suffering and City should adopt the CCWG's
recommendations
Matt Adams (Building Industry Association)
1. Building industry was not part of Working Group process, but hopes to be included in
future discussions concerning implementation
2. City's measures should focus on existing structures because they provide the greatest
energy savings potential
Mica Mistroski (Sierra Club)
1. Sierra Club is supportive of Council's adoption tonight ofthe CCWG recommendations
especially in regard to citywide Green Building Standards
Risa Baron (San Diego Gas & Electric, CCWG Ex-Officio Member)
1. Energy efficiency has immediate greenhouse gas reduction benefits
2. SDG&E is tentatively committed to funding the business energy assessment portion of
the CCWG recommendations, but still needs to receive CPUC approval
Sean Kilkenny (Otay Ranch Development Company)
1. Otay Ranch is supportive of Green Building Standards as a way to reduce the
community's carbon footprint, but does not believe that it should be mandated
Steve Kapp (CA Center for Sustainable Energy, US Green Building Council)
I. There are numerous secondary benefits of carbon reduction including improved public
health and decreased building operational costs
2. The City may want to consider using the following metrics to gauge progress in reducing
emissions from buildings - energy/sq ft, water/sq ft or GHG/sq ft
3. The City will need to determine how it will assess ifnew development is "meeting"
standards and how new development will document it
Theresa Accero (Southwest Civic Association)
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
2of41
,~
1. SW CA is supportive of Council's adoption of the CCW G recommendations and staff s
amendment to recommendation #2 (which would require City-contracted fleets to phase
in hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles as vehicles are replaced)
2. SWCA believes strongly in retrofitting existing buildings to improve energy efficiency
3. City should establish a building moratorium based on water availability (i.e. current
residents should not be asked to conserve so that new homes can be built)
Vivian Blackman (Environmental Health Coalition)
I. She moved her family from San Ysidro for better environmental/air quality, but feels that
Chula Vista is getting worse
2. City should adopt the CCWG's recommendation (especially the Green Building Standard
and Solar Energy Conversion program) for the public health benefits
Councilmember & City Manager Comments
Councilmember Castaneda
I. Green buildings are one ofthe few housing market sectors not being impacted by housing
slump
2. Staff should closely analyze the cost as the implementation plans are developed over the
next 90 days
Councilmember McCann
1. Staff should include all stakeholders as the detailed implementation plans are created
2. Staff should make sure that the most cost-effective implementation is pursued
Councilmember Ramirez
1. He believes that the City Council can adopt all of the CCWG's recommendations tonight
(as written) and have staff figure out the details over the next 90 days
Councilmember Rindone
I. He strongly believes that the implemented recommendations can be both fiscally-sound
and environmentally beneficial
2. Recommendation #1 & #2 (Municipal & City-Contracted Fleets) - Staff should consider
the increased use of hydrogen fuel cell technologies as part of vehicle replacement
process
3. There is a possibility that increased contractors costs from measure implementation could
be passed onto City ratepayers through higher fees
4. Recommendation #3 (Business Assessments) - He is comfortable with business
assessments upon change of ownership, but believes regular assessments should be
performed every 5 years
5. Recommendation #4 (Green Building Standard) - He likes the idea of incentives for
developers exceeding Green Building Standards and directs staff to work with the BIA in
creating an implementation strategy
David Garcia (City Manager)
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
3of41
)~
, -
I. Recommendation #2 - The City could determine price difference between contractor bids
using AFV /hybrids versus conventional fuel vehicles and have Council review price
difference if it exceeds some cost threshold
2. Recommendation #3 - StafflCCWG should have discussed the recommendations
(especially the business energy assessment) with the business community and Chamber
of Commerce before finalizing the measures
Mayor Cox
I. Staff should have consulted the Planning Commission and Resource Conservation
Commission before bringing the item to Council
2. She is concerned with funding the recommendations and the "mandatory nature" of some
measures
3. Recommendation #3 (Business Assessments) - She directs staff to include small
businesses in the implementation planning process and to make sure that the process and
standards are not onerous
4. Recommendation #7 (Lawn Turf Conversion) - Staff should work with local plant
nurseries and home improvement stores to make sure native/water-wise plants are
commercially-available and prominently displayed
INDIVIDUAL MEETINGS
Building Owners & Managers Association (Board Meeting) - June 16, 2008
I. The City should have engaged the developer community sooner in the Climate Change
Working Group and implementation planning processes
2. Financial support for the proposed measures will basically result in an additional tax on
businesses (in reference to a possible franchise fee increase)
3. In addition to the implementation plans, Council should be presented additional
background and reference information (such as an economic analysis report and a
summary of stakeholder comments) before they make a final decision on the seven
measures
4. Evaluation of the proposed Green Building Standard (#4) is impossible without having
the proper backup documentation (such as the consultant report)
Building Industry Association (Green Building Task Force) - May 6, 2008
I. BIA should be informed when implementation plans are available in order to review and
provide additional feedback
2. Supports the linking ofCCWG measures with economic development opportunities and
vocational training, especially CCWG Recommendation #5 (Solar Conversion)
3. In developing a green building standard and promoting smart growth, City should ensure
that it is comprehensive in its approach (i.e. no internal conflicting municipal policies)
4. One possible incentive for builders is reducing the minimum parking requirements for
development projects
5. With incorporating solar energy systems into common property areas of developments,
some BlA members have found that the system replacement costs (which must be
factored into HOA dues) negates any energy cost savings for residents
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
40f41
"
, -
6. Members encourage the City to consider how statewide building energy codes will be
changing in the near future as CCWG Recommendation #4 (Green Building Standard) is
more fully developed
7. Developers and builders are generally opposed to the idea of a new fee levied upon them
8. Some BIA members do not support having a "3d Party Certification" requirement as part
of a Green Building Standard because of the added costs and project delays, but would
rather see City inspectors fulfill the role
9. Because energy efficiency codes in new homes are so stringent, some BIA members
would like to see more transpOliation-focused programs and incentives
10. Some members suppOlted further enhancing Title 24 requirements at the statewide level
in order avoid a piecemeal approach
II. City needs to show the building industry that "going green" makes "green"
12. The City should focus their effOlts in getting SDG&E to incorporate more dynamic
pricing to encourage conservation in existing building stock
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce (Board Meeting) - May 14,2008
I. The Chamber requests that City Council receive all stakeholder comments when they are
presented the implementation plans for the CCWG measures
2. Members expressed concern that while climate change is currently a very politically
popular topic, any new programs or policies should be economically-feasible and not
detrimental to Chula Vista businesses
3. Some members expressed that they were not comfortable with the City being on the
"cutting-edge" of local government climate change mitigation efforts
4. The Chamber will submit a formal letter outlining its concerns at the Planning
Commission meeting on May 14th
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce (Public Policy Committee) - April 30, 2008
1. The Climate Chamber Working Group should have presented its recommendation to
various community stakeholder groups prior to releasing their report
2. The Chamber and business-related stakeholders (such as business owners, property
managers, developers and builders) should be consulted and more involved in the
implementation plan process and defining what is economically achievable
3. Some members expressed frustration that there can be a disparity between what City
departments are telling businesses to do
4. General issues with the business assessments include the process (especially for larger
businesses, multi-tenant office complexes and tenant occupied businesses), relation to
other municipal inspections, effect on business license issuance & ability to operate
5. The Chamber is concerned about the ambiguity of the "Green Building Standard" and the
possible discouragement of builders and developers due to increased building costs
6. The group does not support additional mandates for businesses and is concerned about
who will pay for the programs after the SDG&E Partnership funds expire
7. The Committee inquired about how they should submit formal comments whi ch staff
suggested be written (via email or hard copy) to the Department of Conservation &
Environmental Services
8. The Chamber would like to help the Ciry reach out to all business sectors as well as
Chula Vista residents
Chula Vista Design Review Committee - April 21, 2008
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
50f41
..
I. Committee was generally supportive that the City is continuing its environmental
leadership role in the area of Climate Change
2. Implementation of Measure #5 (Solar & Energy Efficiency Conversion) should be
focused on giving homeowners cost-effective opportunities to save energy
3. From a design perspective, implementation should take into account the variety of
building materials used in construction
4. The Committee had questions about how the Climate Change Working Group defined
"City Jurisdiction"
Chula Vista Planning Commission - April 23, 2008
I. The Planning Commission voted to not hear the CCWG presentation and directed City
staff and the CCWG to seek the feedback of other community stakeholders (specifically
Northwest Civic Association, Southwest Civic Association, Building Industry
Association, Chamber of Commerce and Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors)
before returning to the Commission
Chula Vista Planning Commission - May 14,2008
I. The Planning Commission voted to not hear the CCWG presentation and requested that
City staff return only when they have received all stakeholder comments
2. The Commission was concerned that staff was only including positive feedback in their
planned presentation
3. Staff responded that they would return to the Planning Commission on June 25th with
drafted implementation plans and a compilation of stakeholder comments received during
the planning process
Chula Vista Planning Commission - June 25, 2008
J. Having access to the draft implementation plans and stakeholder comments has helped
the Planning Commission in its review
2. Mandatory business assessments (Measure #3) should be less often than every 3 years (5
years recommended)
3. City should analyze cost and economic impact to businesses and developers from
implementing the seven measures
4. Staff should incorporate the City's cost savings from implementing some of the measures
(such as alternative fuel vehicles/hybrids and turf lawn conversion)
5. For Measure #2, contractors use of AFV /hybrids should be incorporated into the bid
evaluation process
6. One Commissioner stressed that incentives are better than mandatory approach
7. One Commissioner supported the use of mandated policies and programs in order to
expedite emissions reductions and was disappointed that staff reduced the Green Building
Standard (#4) to 15% above Title 24 and did not require a 3rd Party certification
8. One Commissioner stated that the Carbon Offset option (Measure #4) should be used
only as a "last resort" and developers should still need to exceed Title 24 by a minimum
amount
9. One Commissioner asked whether on a per capita basis GHG emissions had been reduced
and suggested that it may be a better indicator ofthe City's past progress
10. For Measure #4's 15% above Title 24 standard, one Commissioner asked whether
different percentages for residential versus commercial buildings should be used instead
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
6 of 41
,.
II. Staff should note that the costs for Measure #6 (Smart Growth Around Trolleys) would
be incurred whether or not the implementation plans are adopted by Council because of
previously-approved planning documents
12. As originally stated in the Climate Change Working Group's report, the Resource
Conservation Commission's oversight role should be required in the implementation
plans
13. Staff should have an alternative implementation strategy developed for Measure #5
(Solar Energy Conversion) if there are no new funding mechanisms secured
14. Some Commissioners expressed concern that Measure #7 (Lawn Turf Conversion) would
promote barren landscaping designs or lead-laden artificial turf which could effect public
health
15. One Commissioner suggested that traffic light synchronization is another opportunity to
reduce carbon emissions
Chula Vista Redevelopment Advisory Committee - May 1,2008
1. City staff needs more stakeholder input as it works to develop implementation plans for
the Council-approved CCWG measures
2. One RAC member stated that rather than use language under Measure #2 like
"encourage" the hybrid and alternative fuel vehicle use, the City should use stronger
language, but still not make it required
3. The City should fully explore using incentives to implement the CCWG's seven
recommendations
4. One RAC member has concerns of linking business assessments to property point-of-sale
Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation - April 24, 2008
I. The CYRC stated that the proposed business assessment program will have to be flexible
because different business types and sizes will require different approaches and that the
assessment should not be linked to property or business point-of-sale
2. A Committee member explained that more businesses. residents and developers would
invest in renewable energy (such as solar and wind) if SDG&E would agree to buy the
excess energy generation
3. The City should work with a public-private partnership to develop and implement a cost-
effective green building standard which may include builder incentives such as
development density bonuses and technology rebates
4. Staff should engage developers into the implementation planning process because of their
natural economic interests and should make any new policies/programs harmonious with
state regulations
Corky McMillan Company - April 23, 2008
I. The Company expressed some of the approaches it will be taking to address greenhouse
gas emissions as part of its Eastern Urban Center development
2. The City should also expand Measure #5 to incorporate a financing mechanism for new
homes and developments
3. The City should consider incorporating a neighborhood-scale approach to its green
building standard (such as LEED-ND) to avoid piecemeal implementation which burdens
large developers
Interagency Water Task Force - April 28, 2008
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
7of41
"
I. Both local water districts support the Water Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca Garden
which may be a great resource for the Turf Lawn Conversion Program
2. The City may want to consider promoting water-saving landscaping practices through an
updated landscape ordinance for new construction
3. Sweetwater Authority does not support using artificial turf in lieu ofturflawns
4. It may be most cost effective for developers to install all landscaping for new homes
which currently is the responsibility of new homeowners and required within 6 months of
purchase
National Association of Industrial & Office Properties (Legislative Affairs Committee)-
June 5, 2008
1. Some developers would rather do LEED (because there are more options) than having to
exceed Title 24 by a certain percentage in order to comply with a new citywide green
building standard
2. It is important for the City to offer or provide information for businesses to upgrade with
energy efficiency technologies during the business energy assessments
3. It will be extremely difficult for developers and builders to exceed Title 24 once the 2008
California building standards are implemented
4. The group does not agree with the Climate Change Working Group's assessment that a
mandatory, citywide building standards will not have adverse socio-economic impacts
because it will greatly affect development and construction in Chula Vista (i.e. major
employment source)
5. The development community is concerned and opposed to each City developing its own
green building standards and would rather have a regional/state standard to provide
consistency
6. In analyzing the fiscal impact of a green building standard, the Climate Change Working
Group and City staff s analysis is too limited and should include data from the California
Building Standards Commission
7. Developers do not want a green building standard with a third party certification program
due to the added costs of certification
8. If a 3'd party certification component is included, the City should not be prescriptive in
the component because there is not a single certification program that can meet all
building types and situations
Northwest Civic Association - May 12, 2008
1. City may wantto look into using a percentage of the "Traffic Impact Fees" to fund
implementation of climate change reduction measures
2. An audience member urged the City to act quickly because federal and state subsidies for
energy efficiency, renewable energy and alternative fuel vehicles is waning
Pacifica Corporation - May 14,2008
1. Pacifica generally supports the City's efforts to reduce the community's carbon footprint
and hopes to work collaboratively to achieve this goal
Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors - MaJ' 7,2008
J. The organization expressed disappointment that the business community wasn't
represented on the CCWG and has concerns regarding the cost of implementing the
CCWG's seven recommendations
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
80141
"
2. Incentives focused on moving employment closer to residents should be explored
3. The group wants more clarity concerning the use ofthe term "smart growth" as part of
Measure #6 and does not want the City to retroactively begin enforcing the solar pre-
plumbing building standard as part of Measure #5
4. The PSAR strongly opposes the requirement of point- of-sale conservation measures
implementation (such as toilet retrofits and business assessments) and fears another layer
of bureaucracy with mandatory business assessments
Resource Conservation Commission - April 21, 2008
I. The Resource Conservation Commission should provide ongoing oversight of the
climate protection measures' implementation due to the clear nexus with the
Commission's chatier
2. A Commissioner stated that the measures all seemed feasible and practical even with
the City's current financial constraints
San Diego County Apartment Association - May 6, 2008
I. The SDCAA appreciates the City's business-friendly, cost conscience, equitable
approach to implementing the CCWG recommendations
2. The group wants the Business Assessment (#3) and Solar & Energy Efficiency
Conversion (#5) programs to include clear information about potential cost-savings and
payback periods, whenever possible
3. A member had a question about the feasibility of using a solar thermal system in
conjunction with a tankless water heater
4. Group was encouraged to submit formal comments within the next 30 days to help guide
development of the CCWG measures' implementation plans
South County Economic Development Council (Transportation Comm.) - April 25, 2008
1. The SCEDC applauds the City for their forward-thinking on conservation measures and
environmentally-minded community partners for their involvement
2. The group has general concerns about the impact of the CCWG recommendations on the
business community through more regulatory hurdles and the resulting compliance costs
which could make Chula Vista less competitive
3. The SCEDC requests that a cost analysis be performed to determine additional cost
placed on businesses for compliance (both City approval costs and private sector costs)
Sunrise Rotary Club - June 12, 2008
I. City has historically and should continue to lead by example in regards to environmental
protection measures
2. In regards to Recommendation #5, City staff should be very transparent and conservative
in estimating the energy cost savings and payback period associated with renewable
energy and energy efficiency improvements
Third Avenue Village Association (Design Committee) - April 11, 2008
1. T A VA supports the City's actions in developing a series of forwarding thinking concepts
as a way to reduce energy and impacts to our environment through the CCWG program
2. TA V A is very concerned about the impacts (such as cost impacts and future growth
impacts) to the Third A venue Village business owners and tenants
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
90f41
1,.
3. Organization still has questions about the Business Energy Assessment and how this
would be implemented (such as cost and associated requirements)
4. Organization needs clarification about the proposed Green Building Standards and how it
will specifically apply to new development, renovations, storefront enhancements etc.
5. City needs to clearly describe which green building standard will be applied (such as
LEED or Build it Green)
6. TA V A would ask that the City unde11ake a detailed cost analysis to address the fiscal
impacts of these CCWG conditions and the estimate should include a cross sample of
Third Avenue Village businesses
Water Districts (Sweetwater Authority & Otay Water District) - May 2, 2008
I. The City should be aware that both water districts will offer all Metropolitan Water
District & San Diego County Water Authority incentive and rebate programs next year,
including the "Cash for Plants" and "Weather-Based Irrigation Controller" programs
2. As part of CCWG Recommendation #7, the City should include homeowners
associations in their outreach plans to help promote new regulations under AB 1881
3. Focusing on the proper water-wise plant palette and irrigation system is a cost-effective
approach to outdoor water conservation
PUBLIC FORUM - June 16,2008
Alan Ridley (CCWG member)
I. Staff should explore the full range of low or no cost energy efficiency options to
implement before installing renewable energy (such as day lighting and natural
ventilation)
2. He expressed concerns about how the City would verify energy efficiency/green building
standards witbout a 3'd party certification component
Alma Agnilar (CCWG Member)
1. Commended City staff for the efforts put forth in the CCWG implementation plans and
the forum presentation
Andrea Cook (CA Center for Sustainable Energy, CCWG Ex-Officio Member)
I. It is unclear whether the proposed Green Building Standard of at least 15% over Title 24
would apply for both residential and non-residential construction
2. Staff needs to be clearer in the relationship between 15% above Title 24 and the
associated carbon emissions equivalent as well as the average costs associated with
meeting the standard
3. The incorporation of vocational educational training into the CCWG measures'
implementation is an innovative component
4. She asked about the annual implementation costs in relationship to the City's General
Fund budget
Frank Zimmerlee
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
"
10 of 41
I. In regards to the CCWG measures, it is all "in the box" thinking and should be expanded
to include traffic reduction and rapid transit expansion measures
Hector Reyes (Chula Vista Redevelopment Corporation, CCWG Member)
I. Staff should look at a more inclusive citywide approach to measure implementation
through inclusion of school district and other local agencies
Leo Miras (Environmental Health Coalition, CCWG Member)
I. The proposed Green Building Standard does not meet the CCWG's original
recommendation of20% over Title-24 and 3'd party certification
2. In regards to the carbon offset option, using the funds for existing building energy
efficiency incentives would only be productive if there are palticipants taking advantage
of the incentives (SDG&E has similar incentive programs and are unable to get enough
participants)
3. He would be willing to potentially support the proposed Green Building Standard, but
staff needs to clearly demonstrate that the same greenhouse gas emission reductions can
be achieved in comparison to the CCWG's original recommendation
4. Staff needs to clarify what is actually being presented to City Council on July 10, 2008
Mariana Lopez
I. The City needs to do a better job at promoting environmental information and related
meetings to the community, especially to the Spanish-speaking residents
2. She wondered how the City would implement the measures (especially #5) ifno
additional funding was secured
3. She asked about whether home businesses were exempt from the energy assessment
requirement
4. A general obligation bond doesn't seem fair because it would require a person living in
Climate Zone 7 to subsidize residents' high-energy consumption in Climate Zone 10
5. She asked whether a subcontractor would be responsible for performing outreach tasks
associated with the measures' implementation
6. The public should be given a longer period (such as a month) to submit comments instead
of just one week
Matthew Adams (Building Industry Association)
I. The City should explicitly describe and quantify the type of incentives which will be
offered to developers and builders to comply with the proposed Green Building Standard
2. Due to the state of the economy and development in Chula Vista, any new Green
Building Standard should be a revenue neutral policy in which increased costs to
developerslbuilders to comply with policy should be fully offset by the City
Richard D'Ascoli (pacific Southwest Association of Realtors)
I. He has concerns about the Business Assessment requirement and how it would be
implemented in regards to a multi-tenant building or a tenant-occupied office space
2. One apparent contradiction is that the City is encouraging property owners to remove turf
lawn areas (Measure #7), but also fining Real Estate-O"''I1ed properties for not watering
their laV>'l1s
3. As Measure #3 is currently proposed, it is not clear what would happen to the business
assessment requirement if external funding does not exist
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
11of41
l~
Sean Kilkenny (Otay Ranch Development Company)
1. The City should not limit the promotion of "Smart Growth" community design to the
three trolley stations, but rather promote it at all transit nodes
Steve Kapp (CA Center for Sustainable Energy, US Green Building Council)
1. The proposed Green Building Standard is less comprehensive and less stringent than
LEED Silver (which was the CCWG's original recommendation), but would allow
building inspectors to be trained on only one green building rating system
2. The City should consider aligning their carbon emissions building benchmark with those
established by Architecture 2030 which dictates a 20% energy reduction
William Granger (Otay Water District)
1. Because the San Diego County Water Authority's (CW A) recent grant will be limited in
the number of turf grass conversions for its entire service area and will mainly be
targeting larger sites (in order to demonstrate quantifiable water savings to their
wholesaler), the City of Chula Vista may want to consider partially funding turf lawn
conversions for customers with smaller sites
2. With reference to using "estimated water savings" as a performance metric (p. 45), CW A
and its member agencies will be closely examining the actual water use before and after
turfgrass retrofits, so real water savings data will be available
3. Depending upon the scope of the turfgrass replacement at the City ofChula Vista's
municipal sites, the water savings should be significant and should be highlighted in the
Measure #7 budget table
4. There will be significant water savings from replacing Chula Vista's old sprinkler
controllers and less efficient irrigation equipment and there is upfront funding available
through the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (application available at
hm;/ /www.bewaterwise.comlPubSectorProg/ Application.pdt)
5. Related to the previous comment, it is crucial that the water wise landscapes are watered
appropriately because they are often over-watered
6. Because replacement of turf grass with water-wise plants at municipal sites will result in
less lawn to mow with gas-powered lawn mowers, the emissions reductions should be
highlighted and linked to Measure #1 's performance criteria
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
;~
12of41
Fax sent b!j 'lI"",,IiIill.t- 'II SEH CHRISTIHE KEHOE
ATTACHMENT 1 - Senator Christine Kehoe Comment Letter
fl'\HI1-8a 16:89
Pg' 2/4
STANOING COMMITTe;:e:S,
. ENERGY, UTILITIES A.ND
COI-IIMLJNICAiIONS, CHAIA;
. BUDGEi A.ND F-'19CAL REVIEW
. L-OCAL GOYERNt.1~N'T
. NA....VRAL RESOURCES AND
WATE:J:l.
. TRANSPORTA'tION AND
~OUSrNG
JOINT COMMITTEES,
. LEGISLATIVE BUOo;c;T
COMMITTEE
. EME"RGeNCY SERVICES AND
~OMe:LAND SI;;:CURITY
6 ARTS
MEM6ERl
. CALIFORNIA CULTURAL AND
HISTORICAl. ENDuwMENT
. CALIFORt-J1A LEGI5l,AirVE:
LESBIAN. GAY, 8ISEX;llAL
ANQ TRANSGG:NDER CAUC:U$
. LE.GISLATIVE:: WOMEN'S
CAUCUS
. SG:A GRANT AOVI50~'( PANEL
. BROAD6AND TASK PO~CE
CAPITOL OFF'ICE.,
STATE CAPITOL
SACAAM'C';NTO, CA 96&14.
TE:U9\S) 6!S\-4039
FAX.(;,\fiJ :a~7.2\BB
DISTRICT OF'P'ICEI
2445 5TH AVENUE:, SUITE 200
SAN DIE(;O. CA 92101
TEL {(;;191 e45-313~
FA;' {f;191 645-31.44
<llalHurnia: ~b:t.e ~.enat.e
SENATOR
CHRIS,INE KEHOE
THIRTY.NINTH SENATE DISTRICT
April 1 , 2008
The Honorable Cheryl Cox
Mayor, City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Dear Mayor Cox and Members of the Chula Vista City Council:
As Chair of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Communication, and as a
former member of the San Diego City Council, I commend you on the major decision you
are about to make regarding long-term reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Chula
Vista has an impressive history when it comes to strategic planning for energy sources and
consumption reduction.
I have followed Chula Vista's work on climate change since the early 1990s when the city
participated in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the
Kyoto Protocol Conference, and was glad to see that Chula Vista was the first local
government with under one million residents to become a founding member of the
International Council for Local Government Initiatives and its Cities for Climate Protection
campaign, Your support of the landmark California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
and efforts to reduce local emissions to pre-1990 levels set an example for local
governments. .
At the same time that the city experienced tremendous growth that led to increases in
greenhouse gas emissions, steps were aiso successful in reducing per capita emissions
and avoiding new sources, The work of the Climate Change Working Group established by
the city has resulted in a set of recommendations to assist Chula Vista In meeting its 2010
greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal.
The recommendations by the Climate Change Working Group, along with the suggested
implementation strategy inciuded in the staff report, establish a clear method by which
Chula Vista can meet its goal of reducing emissions by 2010:
. Require that 100% of replacement vehicles purchased for the municipal fleet be high
efficiency (hybrid) or alternative fuel vehicles, with the staff recommendation that the
use of alternative fuels, hybrids and electric vehicles be tested and phased in for
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
'"
.'-
13 of 41
Fax sent. h!:J : 'i({itt.~t.lt~
SEM CHRISTIME KEHOE
'64-61-68 16:69
Pg: 31'4
· public safety vehicles and large equipment classes to ensure that they are
operationally-practical and technically feasible.
. Encourage City-contracted fleet operators to adopt the use of high
efficiency/Alternative Fuel Vehicles, with the staff recommendation that this be
required when it can be demonstrated that they are operationally practical and
technically feasible. .
. Facilitate smart growth around the H Street, E Street and Palomar Street Trolley
Stations.
. Adopt community-wide green building standards that are comprehensive in
coverage and mandatory, New structures wilt be required to be built to LEED Silver
or to an equivalent third party certification green building program, with the effect of
having an energy efficiency impact of at least twenty-percent over Title 24. Staff is
recommending that this policy be implemented via a phased and tiered approach,
with the option to provide additional incentives to those builders who exceed the
city's green building standards,
. Require City of Chula Vista-licensed businesses to participate in an energy audit of
their physical premises every three to four years and upon change of ownership,
with the recommendation that businesses occupying newly constructed or
remodeled facilities that meet the green building standards (above) be granted a
three-year exemption; and an annual exemption for those businesses registering
with the California Climate Action Registry's GHG emissions reporting process.
· Facilitate widespread installation of solar photovoltaic (PV} systems on commercial,
residential and municipal facilities by developing and implementing a solar energy
cOlwersion program. Proactively enforce existing codes requiring pre-plumbing for
solar hot water. Staff reOommends that this policy also include ,m energy
conservation component.
· Coordinate with the Otay Water District, San Diego County WaterAuthority and the
Sweetwater Authority to convert turf lawns to xerlscape. Converting lawns to water-
wise landscaping has been shown to reduce outdoor residential water use by forty-
percent. Staff recommends that this policy be expanded to include a comprehensive
water conservation strategy that could include mandatory toilet retrofits, commercial
garbage disposal prohibitions and additional new construction and landscaping
requirements.
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
140141
"
Fax sent b~ : ~~
SEN CHRISTINE KEHOE
'EH-a i-aS 16: a9
Pg: 4/4
In adopting these reccmmendations, Chula Vista would provide a strong example of
leadership at the local level just as the State Legislature, California Public Utilities
Commission, California Air Resources Board and California Energy Commission work to
implement strategies to comply with the AB 32 requirements, I encourage your support.
Sincerely,
~/ik-
CHRISTINE KEHOE
Senator, 39'h District
cc: Councllmember Steve Castaneda
Councilmember John McCann
Councilmember Rudy Ramirez
Councilmember Jerry Rindone
CK:ds
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
150f41
"
ATTACHMENT 2 - American Lung Association Comment Letter
2750 Fourth Avenue
San Diego, CA 92103
Phone: 619-297-3901
Fax: 619-297-8402
1-800-LUNG-USA
www.californiaJung.org
POBox 977
E1 Centro, CA 92244
Phone: 760-356-5656
Fax: 760-353-8109
Jan Cortez, MPH, CHES
Area Director
-~
.
United Way of
San Diego County
improving Life,
One Breath at a Time
f
.....-... --- .......~. ..
LUNG
ASSOCIATION@
of California
March 31, 2008
Mayor Cheryl Cox and City Council members
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: SUPPORT Adoption of Climate Change Working Group recommendations
on the Carbon Reduclion Plan update.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
The American Lung Association of California, San Diego office is writing to
express our support for and to urge the city council to adopt the Climate
Change Working Group's recommendations for reaching greenhouse gas
emission reduction goals. Chula Vista is to be applauded for its leadership in
addressing global warming. However, strong measures, such as those
recommended by the Working Group, are necessary to ensure the success of
this effort.
Actions to curb greenhouse gas generation are critically needed now. Global
wamning is well recognized by scientists around the world as a serious pubiic
health and environmental concern. As atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases rise globally, temperatures on earth are increasing. Hotter
! temperatures cause a rise in air pollution levels, which in turn is expected to
lead to worsening of lung health.
In 2000, the city took an important step and adopted a goal of reducing
carbon emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010. The city held itself to a
high standard of action and emissions attributable to city buildings and
operations went down 18%. Unfortunately, emissions from the private sector
(wher"e the plan relied exclusively on voluntary actions) emissions went up 35%.
Another troubling trend is that. since 1990. comrnercial sector emissions in
Chula Vista are up 211%. This demonstrates that to be effective, measures to
reduce emissions must be mandatory and be applied citywide.
A growing number of cities throughout the country are implementing
greenhouse gas emission control measures; Chula Vista should count itself
among the vanguard that has made plans prior to mandates that AB32 will
bring. The American Lung Association of California will enthusiastically highlight
Chula Vista as the leader in the county should each of the vital measures
recommended by the Working Group be adopted.
Sincerely,
/7
//~-
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
160/41
"
ATTACHMENT 3 - Surfrider Foundation Comment Letter
. II1II P.O.BoxI5ll
Swfr.ider Solana Beach, California 92075
Fomidation. Phone (858) 792-9940 Fax (858) 755-5627
Delivered via u.s. Mail
March 25, 2008
Mayor Cheryl Cox and City Councilmembers
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: SUPPORT Adoption of Climate Change Working Group recommendations on the
Carbon Reduction Plan update.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
The San Diego Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation is writing to express our support for and urge
the city council to adopt the Climate Change Working Group's recommendations for the Chula
Vista Carbon Reduction Plan update. These recommendations are necessary for Chula Vista (0
meet the emission reductions in accordance with goals adopted in the city's original Carbon
Reduction Plan.
It is important for Chula Vista to take meaningful actions a( this point. In 2000, the city took an
important step and adopted a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 20% (to 1990 levels) by 2010.
The city held itself to a high standard of action and emissions attributable to city buildings and
operations went down 18%. Unfortunately, emissions from the private sector (where the plan relied
exclusively on voluntary actions) emissions went up 35%. Another troubling trend is that, since
1990, commercial Sector emissions in Chula Vista are up 211 % and can be expected to continue this
path if actions are not required. These facts demonstrate that to be effective measures to reduce
emissions must be mandatory and must be applied citywide. The thoughtful, well-researched, arid
strong recommendations by the working group are the best way the city can meet its own carbon
reduction targets.
The green building standards section of these recommendations, in particular, are crucial given the
fact that a majority of the city's greenhouse gas emissions come from the operation of buildings.
Strong citywide green building requirements with a focus on maximizing energy efficiency are
especially important if the city is to meet its emission reduction goals and to ensure the timely
removal of the aging South Bay Power Plant. Ultimately, any strategy to remove the old plant, and
make sure it is not replaced by another large plant on the bayfront, must include citywide and
comprehensive green building requirements.
The Surfrider Foundation is a non-profir grassroat' organization dedicated to the protection and preservation of our
wor/d', ocean.<, waves and beaches. Founded in /984 by a handful of visionary surfers, the SurfrirJer Foundation now
maintains over 35,000 members and 60 chapters across the United States and Puerto Rico, with international qffiliates
in Australia, Europe, Japan and Brazil. For an ovel'view of the San Diego Chapter's current programs and events, log
on to our website at www.surfrideT"sd.o1"'f! or sena' emailto info@Surfridersd.org,
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
17 of41
"
SUPPORT Adoption of Climate Change Working Group recommendations on the Carbon
Reduction Plan update
March 25, 2008
Page 2 of2
Finally, by adopting these measures the city will be joining the distinguished company of a growing
number of cities throughout the country that are recognizing that citywide green building
requirements are necessary for building healthy communities. The recommendations of the Climate
Change Working Group will help the city meet its important and laudable goal of 20% reduction by
2010 and we urge their adoption.
J ia Chunn
Policy Coordinator
San Diego Chapter
SurfiiderFoundation
The SUlfrider Foundation is a non-prqfit grassroots organization dedicated to the protealion and p'eservation of ow
worid's oceans, MImes and beaohe.c Founded in /984 by a han4ful of visionary swiers, the Swfrider Foundation now
mainiains uver 35,000 members and 60 chapters ac,o", the United States and Puerto Rica, with lniernatlanal affiliates
In Australia, Europe, Japan and BNZZil. Fa, an overview of the San Diego Chapter's current programs and events, iog
012 to our website at www.surfridersd.org or send email to info@SUrf,.;dersd.m-v..
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
18 of 41
"
ATTACHMENT 4 - California Center for Sustainable Energy Comment Letter
\
#l\.
~p .
Center for
Sustainable Energy
(",\] II ORNIA
8690 l3<IIl)l)<l Av/..'
'llJile 100
~11I\I)il'fjt).( ^ l.l)l:lj
mnil! /,61:\.,1'101.111/
fax WlfL)44.11lR
\\'ww.elJe'Yyc~llref.!)ltj
Mayor Cheryl Cox and City Council Members
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 9]910
RE: SUPPORT Adoption of Climate Change Working Group recommendations
on the Carbon Reduction Plan update.
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) is writing to express our support for
and urge the city council to adopt the Climate Change W orlcing Group's
recommendations for the Chula Vista Carbon Reduction Plan update. These
recommendations are necessary for Chula Vista meet the emission reductions in
accordance with goals adopted in the city's original Carbon Reduction Plan,
These recommendations are consistent with CCSE's mission to foster public policies and
provide programs, services, information and forums that facilitllte the adoption of clean,
reliable, renewable, sustainable, and efficient energy technologies and practices, As
energy and sustainability gain ground as issues of societal importance, the time is now for
Chula Vista to take bold measures in furthering these same objectives. Since passing their
first set of carbon reduction measures, heavily reliant on encouraging voluntary action,
the city's overall emissions increased by 35%, Furthermore, since 1990, Chula Vista's
commercial sector emissions rose over 200%, signaling that unless changes are made the
city's carbon emissions will continue to grow exponentially, The thoughtful, well.
researched, and strong recommendations by the working group are the best way the city
can meet its own carbon reduction targets and make great strides in promoting energy
efficiency and renewable energy development in the region,
The green building standards section of these recommendations, in particular, are crucial
given the fact that a majority of the city's greenhouse gas emissions come from the
operation of buildings, Strong citywide green building requirements with a focus on
maximizing energy efficiency are especially important if the city is to meet its emission
reduction goals, and establish a long-tean sustainable energy plan,
Finally, by adopting these measures the city will be joining the distinguished company of
a growing number of cities throughout the country that are recognizing that citywide
green building requirements are necessary for building healthy communities. The
recommendations of the Climate Change Working Group will help the city meet its
important and laudable goal of20% below 1990 levels by 2010, and we urge their
adoption.
S ineereJ y,
~'1n
19 of 41
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summa
"
,ATTACHMENT 5 - Assemblymember Mary Salas Comment Letter
SACAAI.._.,,~, _.. __.__<_ YV'V
(9l6) 319-2079
FAX (916) 319-2179
DISTRICT OFFICE
67BTHIRD AVENUE, SUITE 105
GHULA VISTA, CA 91910
(6191409-7979
FAX (6t9) 409.9270
Oklifrrruht (~Itgfl?llctfut~
VI: I t:.HAN'=i At"rAIH::>
MEMBER
HEALTH
JOBS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND
THE ECONOMY
WATER. PARKS AND WilDLIFE
SELECT COMMITIEE ON BIOTECHNOLOGY
March 27, 2008
MARY SALAS
ASSEMBLYMEMBER, SEVENTY.NINTH DISTRICT
The Honorable Cheryl Cox, Mayor
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Support Adoption of Climate Change Working Group recommendations on the Carbon Reduction Plan
Update
Dear Mayor Cox:
As a member of the City Council in 2000, I remember how strongly we felt that it was necessary to act on the
global issue of climate change at the local level. So we took the important step of adopting the original Chula
Vista Carbon Reduction Plan and set a goal to reduce carbon emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2010.
Through the 2005 midway assessment, it seems clear that additional measures must be taken if the city is to
reach the original goal. I'm writing today to voice my support for a strong update of the plan and to commit to
helping and assisting the city in every way I can to achieve that goal.
Chula Vista has always prided ourselves as leaders on energy policy in the reg ion and on our commitment to
reflecting community input. The recommendations of the Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group,
comprised of residents and organizations, are solid and necessary recommendations that have been
thoughtfully crafted. I believe that these actions are the best next steps the city can take to meet its carbon
reduction targets.
The green building recommendation, in particular, is crucial given the fact that a majority of the city's
greenhouse gas emissions come from the operation of buildings. As a city, we demonstrated that building
green is beneficial and possible. There is a lot of interest at the state-level for higher levels of energy efficiency
in many activities as well as the AB 32 mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The citywide green
building requirements, with a focus on maximizing energy efficiency, are especially important if the city is to
meet its emission reduction goals and to ensure the timely removal of the aging South Bay Power Plant.
I am proud of the work we did to address climate change when I was on the Council and will continue
supporting your work at the state level. Once again, I urge Chula Vista to lead the region by adopting the best
green building standards of any city in the county. The recommendations of the Climate Change Working
Group will help the city secure the vision we started eight years ago.
1ii~~1 0h
~A~;;Als ~
Assemblymember, 791h District
cc:
Rudy Ramirez, Council Member
Steve Castaneda, Council Member
Jerry Rindone, Council Member
John McCann, Council Member
David Garcia, City Manager
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
"
~~...
Primed on Recycled Paper
20 of 41
A TT ACHMENT 6 - Environmental Health Coalition Comment Letter (1)
Envl.ronmen1:at J::leal1:n \.,;Oall."l:.l.On
;:l.01 Mile of Cars Way, Suite 310 .. Nal;onal City, CA 91950 .. (619) 474-0220 . fAX: (619) 474-1210
ehc@environmentalheaLth_org .. www.environmentalhealtll.org __.
April I ,2008
Honorable Mayor Cheryl Cox and CityCouncilmembers
City ofChula Vista
276 Fomth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
t.1 Pi? ..' ----------.----
1 2008
REece
LC;/I;E:D
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
Environmental Health Coalition is in strong support of the Climate Change Working Group (CCWG)
recommendations and urges city council to approve all of the measures. As a mcmber of the CCWG,
EHC joined the group in taking our responsibility seriously in coming up with measures that will
ensure that Chula Vista will get back on track to meeting its greenhouse gas reduction goals. These
recommendations are a culmination of months of passionate debate, careful deliberation, and careful
research and we are extremely proud to be part ofthis process. We would also like to thank your
staff for their excellent work in this effOlt.
Since more than half of Chula Vista's carbon emissions come from energy generation, a large pOltion
of these recommendations are focused on energy. The recommendation regaJ'ding green building, as
proposed by the CCWG, is especially crucial in order to lower carbon emissions and reduce the
community's el1ergy demand. According to US Department of Energy numbers, over 75% of power
plant-generated electricity goes to the operation of buildings. Furthermore, the experience with the
previous Cm-bon Reduction Plan illustrates that for reductions to take place; measures must cover the
entire city, be comprehensive in scope, and require specific actiOll. Thus, the city must pass mandatory
aJld citywide standards to ensure that emissions begin to decrease, not continue to increase as
occurred following the passage of the first carbon reduction plan.
The final set of recommendations present the city of Chula Vista with an extraordinary opportunity to
cement its position as a leader in fighting global warming aJ1d join a growing and distinguished list of
cities that have proven that environmental sustainability and economic growth are complementary
values. However, it should noted that the City should not stop here and that these recommendations
are simply a stalt. We encourage to city to continue to evaluate reasonable, effective measnres to
secure even more reductions. One measure that has been raised by our members is to eX]JaJld the
city's program to provide energy efficiency retrofits in old bnildings aJld in low incOll1e areas.
We have a serious challenge ahead of us, but we know we are up to the task. By passing these
measures, Chula Vista is back on course to meeting its goal of decreasing its carbon emissions to 20%
below 1990 levels. We look forward to passage ofthese measures and to begin tbe process of
implementation. We thank you for your vision and leadership.
ThaJ1k You,
>--~\~
IZ.o-Mirn"-- c..---
Policy Advocate, Environmental Health Coalition
cc.F~ ~1@!lI3Gt<<r@lt)"tlv!'!!M:~ort
"
21 of 41
ATTACHMENT 7 - Environmental Health Coalition Comment Letter (II)
Environn"len.tal Health Coalition.
-- . C 0 A l:I c.t 0 N d'e SA L U 0 AM B IE N TAL
....01 Mile <:Jf Cal'$ Way, Suit-=: .)10. National Cir.y, 0\ 91950 .. (61.9) 471j~02.20 .:. FA)~: (0.19) <:;;4-12:10
ehc@~nvironmel1talh~alt:l"l.Q(g . www.ellvir!lnmenl:alhea:lttr,org
]lUle 19,2008
Mr. David Garcia
City Manager
City ofChuta Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 919]0
Dear Mr. Garcia:
Emironmental Health Coalition (EHC) is submitting this comment letter in
tesponse to Staffs release of the Climate Change Working Group Measures Praft
Implementation Plans as directed by the Chula Vista City Council. This direction was
provided as part of the resolution council unanimously passed in April 2008 adopting all
seven of the Climate Change \Vorking Group's (CCWG) recommendations to the Carbon
Reduction Plan. "lhis letter summarizes EHe's comments and concerns relating to the
implementation plans and directs staff to the cbanges we would like to see in order to
SUppOlt these measw-es as consistent with both the CCWG's and City Council's intent.
Measure #4- Green Buildin!! Standard
15% over Title 24 rather than 20%
11te largest and most egregious change from the original version passed by
council and this version draftcd by staff is the lowering tbe percentage over Title 24
requirement, from 20% to 15%. For the green building standard, staff decided to change
the format of the green building program arguing that their version would have lbe effect
of reducing more carbon than the original CCWG version. This indeed may be true.
However, the Title 24 requirement is not merely different in tbe staff version- it is
considerably weaker. TIus is, in the most obvious and blatant manner, a dilution of what
the Working Group and Council intended in passing the green building measure,
Staff uses passage of the new Title 24 requirements to justiry this reduction,
however, they 21'e not applicable here b~cause initially and in this regard the City will still
use the 2005 version. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the 20% number was not
just taken out of thin air. The 20% beyond Title 24 represents the identified need that to
mana!!e the electricity load and meet greenhouse gas reductions, there needs to be at least
a 20% reduction of energy consumption.
Offset Pl"Ograrn/Mitigntion Fee
ln addition to lowering the Title 24 requirement, staff rejected the LEED silver
requirement of the oliginal CCWG and rej)laced it with a Carbon Reduction Benchmark
Program. Tlus program has two major parts to it- a carbon reduction checklist and an
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Sfimmary Report
'.
22 of 41
OS/28/2088 18:25
5194748228
EHC
PAGE 82/84___
offset program. EHC is still analyzing the carbon reduction checklist component to
detennine whether it will be just as or more effective Ulan a LEED silver requirement in
terms of reducing carbOll emissions. The offset program, on the other hand. is not
consistent with the original measure and will undermine the effectiveness ~fthe measure
to reduce the City's overall carbon emissions.
As it is currently proposed. the offset program or mitigation fee as it has been
called will render the green building measure meaningless and must be wholly
overhauled. As prescribed currently, a developer can purchase themselves out of
compliance with the Carbon Reduction Checklist and put it in to an Energy Efficiency
fimd. There are many problems with relying on such a fund to meet carbon reduction
goals.
First, staff is enoneom in describing the fund as allowing developers to have
"more bang for their buck" by pUlling money into a fund to go to energy efficiency
measures primarily on the Westside where the older homes provide a greater opportunity
for energy ~avings. The problem with this assertion is that the carbon reduction is
dependent on if and how this fund is actually utilized. Under tbis program, the city
would be trading in the certain carbon reductions of a checklist-approved new
development for apossible reduction in carbon that mayor may not OCCur.
Assuming though that the fee ,,~1I go to such a fund, San Diego Gas and Electric
already has programs in place to aid businesses and homeowners in making energy
efficiency upgrades. These programs include rebates and incentives that are available.
These programs are by SDG&E's own claims undelutilized and so the City should make
an effort in promoting them. The City should not, however, supplant these programs by
creating another yet another energy efficiency fund. FurthelDlore, this fund will allow
developers to continue creating new carbon footprints where there were none before with
Greenfield development. Thus, the issue of emissions from new development will not be
adequately dealt with.
Staffs creation of an option where any project could opt to buyout of the
requirements by using the fund is t,xtremely flawed. A fund may be desirable to
accommodate a very limited set of exceptions where the project simply cannot be built to
be 20% over Tit!e 24 or to the specifications required in Ole checklist. Once again, this
should only be offered for a small, narrow set of exceptions and only after findings are
made that show Ule project cannot meet the requirement. Even then. there should be still
be a minimum percentage abo,'e Title 24 that still must be met, with the rest offset
tilrougb payment ofthe fee. Again, this should be reserved for only certain
circumstances. Administrative costs must al~o be fully borne by the developer ill
addition to the offset fee.
EHC also has major concems with the logistics of forming such an offset program
and energy efficiency fund. Staff has asserted that there will be an energy efficiency fund,
however, the draft implementation plan only makes passing reference to it. There is lillle
discussion regarding the details of such a fund- including but not limited to who will
administer it, what projects will qualify for funding, how will the city prevent developers
from paying into the fee and then utilizing that same funding, and what happens if the
fund is not being utilized. These are all questions that remain unanswered. Such a fund
would be extren~ely problematic in its operation and would create a new, larger bnrden
for the city.
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Stimmary Report
230141
..
0G/20/2009 10:2G
G1g4740220
EHC
PAGE 03! 04
To clari!)', EH:C is not necessarily rejecting the C,ll'bon Reduction Checklist
component as it may prove to be more effective in directly reducing carbon emissions
than the original CCWG version ofrelyillg on LEED silver certification. To this point,
staff should show a carbon reduction an.alysi~, proving that Staff's version is more
effective in getting Chula Vista to meet its 20 I 0 Carbon Redu~tjon goals. Regardless
whether the Carbon Reduction Checklist or LEED silver requirern1?llt arc adopted,
however, an offset program should not be a patt of that program except for a very limited
number of exceptions.
No 3'. Party Certification
Staff rejected the use ofLEED and other 3'0 patty certification programs, siting
cost and efficacy in carbon reduction. However, by rejecting the inclusion of the 3"' party
certification programs in the green building measure, staff seeks to eliminate a sourCe of
transparency and accountability. Without 3m patt)' certification, the public puts all its
faith in a cit)' and developers that together led the city to increase its Cal'bon emissions by
35% even after the city passed a carbon reduction plan. There needs to be a third party
verification that the building plans being deyeloped and executed do indeed lower
emissiQns at the alUount stated,
Lack of OverSight
Originally the CCWG requested that the city assign oversight responsibilities to the
Resource ConseJvatiun Commission (ReC). This request was not included in the draft
implementation plan. EHC, strongly believes that an oversight body be set up for the
CCWG measures generally and for the green building program specifically,
Alternatively, a new commUllity body dealing specifically with this measUre could be
created, assuming it is both transparent and balanced ,,~th all appropriate stakeholders,
Califomiu Green Building Standard.
The California Green Building Standards (CGBS) are designed to meet AB 32,
not the Chula Vista standard- 1990 levels by 2017 for state v. 20% below 2010. The
standards alone are not strong enough to get the city of Chula Vista to be On course to
substantially meet its 2010 reduction goals. Thus, this further underscores the necessity
that the Title 24 and carbon reduction checklist components are strong and consistent
with tbe intent of the working group and council when the measure was originally
adopted in April 2008, Moreover, the CGBS must remain mandatory and comprehensive
in the types of Structures covered.
Apart from Measure #4, we also have comments relating to some of the other programs:
Measure #3- Business Enerl1:V Assessment
EHC agrees with the size and scope of the penalties assessed and would not
snpport an)thing less than what is currently proposed, However, ERC docs disagree wit.h
staff s elimination of the change of ownership provision. This does not conform with he
FINAL Stakeholder Comments S'tlmmary Report
24 of 41
J~
@5/2@/2@@8 1@:25
519474@22@
EHe
PAGE 0~/0~
Working Group recommendations as adopted by the City Council. There is not n
rationale offered for why this requirement was eliminated.
.Measure #5- Solar and Enerl!Y Efficiency Conversion Program
There should be a provision taking into accouut that the boud measure may fail
and in that event a Plan B lower cost alternative could still go forward. The way measure
!i5 is designed currently has three major componenlS- aggregation block, assessment
district, and vocational training. Two of the three of these programs- the aggregation
blocks and vocational training, could he done with little extra financing since it places the
city as more of a 3'"(\ party broker. This is more akin to the Solar Santa Monica program
where little city money is actually used in the soJar program. This issue is especially of
concem to many of our members who have specifically contested staffs arritude that
with no funding there will be no program. The program, albeit slightly modified, could
and should still survive. A specific provision in the draft implementation plan should
allow for such a contingency.
Furthennore, EHC urges staff to keep the requirement of "pre-witing for solar
photovo]taic systems in new and remodeled residential units." Such a provision is
extremely important in facilitating an increase in solar energy amongst city residents.
Furthermore, such a requirement would be an even larger and more imporlant part of the
solar conversion program ifthe bond measure does not pass.
EHC looks forward to further participation with staff and other stakeholders in
finalizing these implementation plans and ensuring that Chula Vista will have strong,
comprehensive, and meaningful carbon reduction measures.
Thank you,
~
~
Leo Miras
Policy Advocate, Clean Bay Campaign
En\'ironmental Health Coalition
Cc: Brendan Reed
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Stlmmary Report
250f41
"
ATTACHMENT 8 - San Diego Regional Asthma Coalition Comment Letter
?'"
San .Diego J{egi(Jnal
Asthma Coalition
March 28, 2008
CO-chairs
Lottie Harris, RN
San Diego Black Health Associates
Community Co.Chair
Michael Kelly, MD
Kaiser Permanente
Clinical Co-Chair
Steering Committee Members
Eleanor Alcones
Council of Community Clinics
Jan Cortez MPH
American Lung Association
Amethyst CUreg MD
County of San Diego
Noah Friedman MD
Kalser Permanente
Pradeep Gidwani, MD, MPH
American Academy of Pediatrics
Lorna Hardin MPH
American Lung Association
Danna Murphy RCP
Sharp-Grossmont Hospital
Christy Rosenberg, MPH
Council of Community Chnics
Diane Stmm
Kaiser Permanente
Joy Williams MPH
Environmental Health Coalition
Scaff
Luis Lechuga MPH
American Lung Association of
California
w'l'Pw,AsthmaSanDiego.org
Mayor Cheryl Cox and City Councilmembers
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
'\I-'R 0 ! 200~
'7 IIIIIIII'" j ~
"'", ~ ,,0
4 ,,'"
^'<t Co~v
RE: Adoption of Climate Change Working Group recommendations
on the Carbon Reduction Plan update.
Dear Mayor and Council members:
I am writing on behalf ofthe San Diego Regional Asthma Coalition to express
our support for the adoption of the Climate Change Working Group's
reeommendations for the Chul. Vista Carbon Reduction Plan update. These
recommendations are necessary for Chula Vista to meet the emission reductions in
accordance with goals adopted in the city's original Carbon Reduction Plan.
We believe that it is important for Chula Vista to take meaningful actions at this
point. In 2000, the city took an important step and adopted the goal of reducing
carbon emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 20 I 0 (presently that means
approximately a 40% reduction from current levels). The eity held itself to a high
standard of action and emissions attributable to city buildings and operations
decreased by 18%. Unfornmate1y, emissions from the private sector (where the
plan relied exclusively on voluntary actions) increased by 35%. Anothertroubling
trend is that, since 1990, commereia1 sector emissions in Chula Vista have
increased by 211 % and can be expected to continue increasing if actions are not
required. These facts demonstrate that to be effective, measures to reduce
emissions must be mandatDlY and applied citywide. We believe that the wel1-
researched and strong recommendations of the working group are the best way the
city can meet its ovm carbon reduction targets.
We believe that the green building standards section of these recommendations,
in particular, are crucial given the fact that a majority of the city's greenhouse gas
emissions come from the operation of buildings. Strong citywide green building
requirements with a focus on maximizing energy efficiency are especially
important if the city is to meet its emission reduction goals and to ensure the
timely removal of the aging South Bay Power Plant. Ultimately, any strategy to
remove the old plant, and make sure it is not replaced by another large plant on the
bay-front, must include citywide and comprehensive green building requirements.
Finally, we would like to add that by adopting these measures the city will be
joining the distinguished company of a growing number of cities tlu'oughout the
country that are recognizing that citywide green building requirements are
necessary for buildmg healthy communities. The recommendations of the Climate
Change Working Group will help the city meet its important and laudable goal of
a 40% reduction by 2010 and we str'ongly support their adoption.
-~
Luis Lechuga, MPH
San Diego Regional Asthma Coalition
2750 Fourth Avenue San Diego. CA 92103
Phone: 619.297.3901 Fax: 619.297.8402
w\fII\N.lungsandiego.org
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
260f41
"
ATTACHMENT 9 - Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Commeut Letter
May 14,2008
Michael Meacham
City of Chula Vista
Via Personal Delivery
Dear Michael,
On behalf of the Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce, I am writing you today regarding the
Climate Control Working Group recommendations that were presented at our Board of Directors
meeting today and at our Public Policy meeting on April 30, 2008.
The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce is an 81 year-old community organization that serves as
the voice for over 1,000 local businesses that provide jobs, generate tax revenue, build
infrastructure, and provide consumer services for the City of Chula Vista.
Our members are a key contributor to Chula Vista's economy and help foster the growth of new
business and commerce throughout the region. They also make significant contributions to the
local economy, employing more than 30,000 individuals in Chula Vista.
We advocate for programs, projects and public policy that adequately plans for the future and
protects Chula Vista's quality of life as well as those impacting the South County region.
To that end, we are greatly concerned about the Climate Control Working Group recommendations
that were presented by Michael Meacham, Brendan Reed and Hector Reyes. We strongly believe that
reducing greenhouse gasses is a laudable goal but attempting to create public policy in a compressed
timeline may produce unintended consequences. For example, city staff originally identified 90
different possible methods to reduce greenhouse gasses. Of these 90 potential methods, seven were
selected by a smaller group of individuals that did not consist of appropriate representation from the
business community.
It is our hope that the City of Chula Vista should be working on becoming more business-
friendly and providing incentives to cultivate these opportunities. Implementing harmful
policies, i.e. "Point of Sale" fees that could create additional costs for businesses moving into the
city, may impede Chula Vista's ability to attract new business. Now is not the time -- in the
midst of a housing crisis -- to implement a Point of Sale fee in order to enforce a new mandate.
The Chamber also questions what plans are in place with respect to a future funding mechanism,
when grants for these programs diminish. Implementing new fees to create any of these
programs that are then passed along to business owners and residents would simply not be
advantageous for the city, businesses or residents of Chula Vista.
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
270141
"
. -
.'
In addition to the aforementioned concerns and questions, the Chamber is also interested in the
analysis regarding the City's potential liability on issues that may arise from city inspectors
discovering items that are not in compliance with other city codes. What liability will be placed
on city staff and city contractors to report such items? If they do not report other violations, is
liability placed on the city? These legal issues need to be thoroughly vetted and the City
Attorney will need to provide assurance to residents and businesses that this is not going to
become a way for government to invade private property.
Lastly, as Chula Vista is experiencing budget issues, we feel that it would be prudent to examine
said initiatives in the context of the greater city budget, as residents and businesses in Chula
Vista can not afford to supplement funding for new government programs.
Due to the short time frame, it is our recommendation that the City work closely, in a well-
thought out process, with the stakeholders, business owners, developers, property owners and
managers in the upcoming months to thoroughly develop responsible policies that address our
previously mentioned concerns and questions.
We look forward to partnering with you on this endeavor and greatly appreciate your time with this
matter. If we could be of further assistance to you in your efforts, please feel free to contact me
directly at 619.420.6602.
Sincerely,
Lisa Cohen
Chief Executive Officer
Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce
CC: Chula Vista Planning Commission
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
280f41
,.
A TT ACHMENT 10 - Pacific Southwest Association of Realtors Comment Letter
June 12, 2008
Michael T. Meacham
Director
Conservation & Environmental Services Department
276 fourth Avenue, Chula Vista,
VIA Email
Dear Mr. Meacham,
The Pacific Southwest Association ofREALTORS@ (PSAR) appreciates the City ofChula
Vista's efforts to be become more responsible stewards of our environment. We are fortunate to
do business in a City that is making greenhouse gas reduction a priority. This document contains
a list of our concerns regarding the Climate Control Working Groups Final Recommendations
Report. These concerns were relayed to you during a meeting here at PSAR on May 7th. PSAR
recommends that Chula Vista takes its time in formulating these new regulations so that they can
be implemented correctly the first time.
Public Input:
PSAR was troubled about the lack of public input during the policy creation stage of this
ordinance. Although the environmental community and interests from outside of Chula Vista
were represented in the Climate Control Working Group. many of the stakeholders who will be
impacted by newly proposed ordinances were not invited to participate. Chula Vista is fortunate
to have well organized business organizations like PSAR and the Chamber of Commerce who
would be willing to find volunteers knowledgeable in the needs of small business owners.
Balance on working groups of this nature will help form the best public policy with transparency.
Thank you for committing to working with business groups in the future and PSAR welcomes
the invitation.
Point of Sale Enforcement:
Energy assessments are a great way to improve efficiency. Many REAL TORS@ suggest an
energy assessment for new buyers. Upgrading to more efficient appliances and lighting can save
businesses and homeowner's a great deal of money while reducing greenhouse gasses. The City
should continue its efforts in this area. Mandates should not be enforced at the point of sale.
Chula Vista's home buyers and new businesses do not need more bureaucracy at the point of
sale. Placing the burden on buyers and sellers only makes the Chula Vista market less attractive
and more encumbered. If Chula Vista does choose to have an enforcement component, PSAR
recommends that the City enforce the ordinance some time other then at the point of sale. During
the transaction process most home ovmers and business owners have not yet installed appliances
or lighting. The point of sale is a good time to educate buyers and sellers with information not to
mandate inspections.
Requiring licensed businesses to participate in an energy assessment of their physical premise
every three years doesn't take into consideration property ownership, property management
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
290f41
"
agreements, and different tenancy responsibilities. Some businesses may share space with other
businesses and the property management company is responsible for lighting and or appliances.
Some property owners have multiple tenants. If an office building has twenty businesses in it and
each business has a license that expires at different times when will the property manager be
required to be on site? How will Chula Vista determine whether the property manager, the
property owner, or the tenant is responsible for an assessment? How will the city of Chula Vista
handle office suites? How will Chula Vista handle home based businesses? These details are
important. It will be costly, difficult to manage, and logistically cumbersome for the City,
propel1y owners, property managers, and business tenants to meet with city officials every time a
tenant either moves in or renews a business license. This process would need a lot more work.
Inspection Liability:
When City inspectors enter the private property ofresidents or business owners and discover
other possible violations of city code will they be required to report it to the appropriate city
department? If they do not report it will the city be liable? PSAR is concerned that Chula Vista
will use this ordinance to violate the private property of residents. Chula Vista needs to tread
lightly when mandating access to private property. Chula Vista can not afford increased exposure
to litigation resulting from mandated inspections. Inspections should be incentivized because
they make good business sense.
Smart Growth
PSAR encourages more density around mass transit centers including the area around Hand E
streets. Chula Vista should be cautious. not to limit density to this one area. There are other areas
in the city where density has been proposed. for example the Eastern Urban Center. Chula Vista
should continue to focus on bringing mass transit to these areas to help reduce greenhouse gasses
and not simply limit development to areas where mass transit currently exists.
Facilitate widesoread installation of solar ohotovoltaic svstems:
The proposal doesn't meet the Working Groups own selection criteria. This proposal needs more
work. The exact fiscal impact of developing and implementing a solar energy conversion
program is unknown" and "the measure's cost would be fully borne by residential, commercial
and industrial developers" The second criteria used to help the Climate Control Working Group
indentifY effective emissions reduction proposals was that the measure would be financially
feasible (i.e. require little or no additional General Fund support). An estimate of the cost of this
proposal must be worked out prior to moving forward with this initiative. These ideas are simply
ideas until a cost can be attributed to them. Although housing costs have come down, financing
has become more difficult to establish. It is very difficult and expensive for first time home
buyers to purchase a home in Chula Vista. City officials should consider this when writing the
ordinance.
Cost
PSAR's Board of Directors has concerns about the cost of the proposals. Chula Vista's current
fiscal condition warrants caution. During the past two years Chula Vista residents have suffered
through added deferred maintenance and cuts in public safety. public services. and libraries. This
is not the time to add more bureaucracy and overhead. Chula Vista needs to be prudent and make
fiscally sound and responsible decisions.
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
30 of 41
"
Sincerely,
Richard D' Ascoli
Director of Government Affairs
The Pacific Southwest Association of REAL TORS@
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
31of41
.
ATT ACHMENT 11- San Diego County Apartment Association Comment Letter
~I'V'A A
P...l~
San Diego County Apartment Association@
N'A.~
~JwI'I_ ....AATilltIIT
~. ~$""""-
s~ /919
May 22. 2008
Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group
Attn: Brendan J. Reed
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista. CA 91910
RE: Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group Recommendations
Dear Mr. Reed:
On Tuesday, May 6, representatives from the City of ChuJa Vista's Climate Change Working Group gave a
presentation to the San Diego County Apartment Association (SDCAA) Legislative Steering Committee about
the group's efforts to create the seven recommendations of ways to reduce carbon emissions in the city.
The SDCM is supportive of the city's proactive efforts to address this important issue. Many of the group's
recommendations are inventive and resourcefuL The SDCM members 1n attendance did, however, have some
logistical concerns and suggestions about several of the recommendations:
Recommendation #3: Buslness Enerav Assessments
. If the current identified funding source becomes no longer available, will there be a cost~recovery fee
imposed on business owners to continue the energy assessments?
. The business license owner may be the one to participate in the assessment. but how would the
recommended upgrades be completed if the building is owned or managed by a different person or entity?
Is the City going to forward the suggestions to the building owners/managers?
.. Would energy efflCiency inspectors also inspect for any other code violations? If so. are they going to cite
the business owner or the building owner, if it is a tenant situation?
. The city should incorporate into the assessments a way to inform business owners about universal waste
disposal.
Recommendation #5: Solar Conversion
. What is the average life expectancy of solar technology in relation to the time it takes to reaUz:e a return on
the initial investment? (Le. is it worth it to put the time into an effort to promote solar conversion if it's
something that doesn't make financial sense for peop\e to invest in?)
Recommendation #7: Turf Lawn
. What is the scientific benefit of decreasing energy usage as a result of not having to import water vs
having real grass lawns that absorb C02 and emit oxygen?
It was the consensus of the SDCAA Legislative Steering Committee members in attendance that most business
owners are willing to adopt efficiency practlc::es that lower their energy usage and the cost of dom9 business so
long as it does not have a negative impact on their ability to successfully operate their businesses.
I hope these questionsJconcems are useful when considering the recommendations If you have any questions.
please do not hesitate to contact me at (858) 751-2213.
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
32 of 41
"
A TT ACHMENT 12 - Clean Energy Fuel Comment Letter (Via Email)
From: Derek Turbide [mailto:dturbide@c1eanenergyfuels.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 8:20 PM
To: Brendan Reed
Subject: FW: Climate Change Measures - Draft Implementation Plans
Comments pertinent to Measures I & 2
With conventional fuel prices approaching or over $5 a gallon; increasing demand to reduce
emissions; likeness between compressed natural gas (CNG) and hydrogen (H2) fueling; and
CNG models available in all classes of vehicle, there has never been a better time to use natural
gas vehicles (NGVs).
Major original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and small volume manufacturers (SVMs) offer
a CNG option for fleet type vehicles including sedans, police cruisers/taxis, light, medium and
heavy trucks (http://www.baftechnologies.comlafsJord.htm). CNG engines are an option on
nearly all original equipment manufactured medium to heavy duty vehicles because it is the
cleanest alternative to diesel fuel. GM and Ford will not warranty parts failures if a fleet is using
over B5 (5% Biodiesel- 95% diesel). Using over B5 increases oxides of nitrogen emissions
(NOx). NOx emissions contribute to smog and climate change. Biodiesel is good for energy
independence but NOx emissions can be an issue and it is currently priced higher than diesel fuel
at retail stations in San Diego. Today's medium- to heavy-duty CNG engine
(http://www.cumminswestport.comlproducts/islg.php) is the only engine on the market today
that is meeting the Environmental Protection Agency's 20 I 0 standards for NOx emissions.
Today, CNG offers a retail savings of$1 to $2 per gallon equivalent over gasoline and diesel.
Substantial tax credits between $4,000 and $32,000 based on Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR) are also available for CNG vehicles. These tax credits can be taken by the lessor or
seller of a vehicle and passed through to tax exempt customers (i.e. City of CV). The tax credits
are set to expire in 2010 so now is the time to take advantage of them. The City should also
explore options for leasing light- to heavy-duty CNG vehicles. The City should consider CNG
for all high-mileage applications because of associated fuel cost and emissions savings. With a
private CNG station, the City stands to save up to $3 on every gallon fuel used at today's prices
for gasoline and diesel. Ifthere is adequate fleet demand for CNG in Chula Vista, private
industry will partner with the City and fleets to construct fueling infrastructure and retail for less
than gasoline or diesel.
Taxis - there are over 50 CNG taxis and shuttles running successfully on the streets of SD
County today. All are saving up to $2 per gallon or more in fuel costs for driving CNG vehicles.
At a typical 5,000 gallons a year, that's up to $10,000 a year, a cab. Alternative fuel cabs must
be newer but that is the point of this program - to get old dirty vehicles off the road. There are
currently seven public CNG stations throughout the County; two are in Chula Vista (Elementary
School District and CV Transit, which has a public dispenser that could be opened or the City
can issue fuel key cards). If there is adequate fleet demand, private industry will partner with the
City and fleets to construct fueling infrastructure. A phased in approach with time to build
necessary infrastructure is a common implementation method for this type of policy.
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
33 of 41
"
In all cases above, incremental cost of CNG vehicles, which can be substantial, can be offset
with tax credits, grant funding and fuel savings. The state has focused a great deal of attention
on increasing the use of alternative fuels and grant programs exist currently and are expected to
become more prevalent in order to meet state alternative fuels penetration goals. If the City and
fleets commit to fuel diversity by using CNG, they will be able to save money and do a great
deal to meet the desired goals of this program.
Best regards,
Derek D. Turbide
Account Manager, San Diego
~~
Clean Energy"
l1,iJ<1h AG'lI"ri(p~ I$;lrkr0m".'r1l~<~~').'rt~~
6 I 2 Overlook Place
Chula Vista, CA 91914 USA
Telephone: (619) 651-7031
Fax: (619) 869-7573
dturbide@cleanenergyfuels.com
htto ://www.cleanenergvfuels.com
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
34 of41
,.
ATTACHMENT 13 - Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association Comment Letter
~,~
~
SOUTHWEST (HULA VISTA
CIVIC ASSOCIATION
PO Box 6064, Chula Vista, CA 91909,
(619) 425-5771, htto:l/swcvca.org
June 20, 2008
Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association would like to comment on the Climate Change
working Group Measures Draft Implementation Plans. This Implementation Plan is a response to
the Council's unanimous adoption of all seven of the Working Group's recommendations.
It is extremely disappointing that staff for some odd reason has lowered the required
percentage above Title 24 to 15% from the council adopted 20%. This is not the way to make up
a 35% gap. The working group understood that Title 24 was getting stricter, but still felt that
20% was the minimal amount that would give the city any chance of meeting its Kyoto goals.
This is a minimal amount. There is no room for lowering the percentage without losing
effectiveness.
The carbon reduction checklist developed as a substitute for LEED silver mayor may not
be just as good as LEED silver requirements. Somehow unbiased third party verification needs to
be part of this component. Developers and the City are the reason we ended up with a 35%
increase instead of a decrease.
The offset program is very troubling. In theory it makes sense to spend money on
upgrading older buildings if for some strange reason a builder can not manage to exceed Title 24
sufficiently in a new building, but the concern is that the administration expenses of such a fund
could be substantial considering the city's "Total Cost Recovery Program" that charges
exorbitant amounts for staff time. Also having a fund does not guarantee that the funds would
ever be used to actually reduce carbon emissions in any building or at least a sufficient number
of buildings to equal the carbon reduction that was required. Ifit was more a program of the city
having a list of homeowners wanting to take advantage of such a program and making that list
available to builders wanting to pay for upgrades to buildings other than the one they were
building, the builder could then fund those reductions by paying a contractor of hislher choice to
do the project or do it him/herself.
Leaving the city and its administration fee out of the picture and guaranteeing the money would
actually go immediately to carbon reduction would satisfy our concern with the program. The
way it is set up now seems like it would be a burden upon the city and would not guarantee
carbon reduction.
Why was the requirement that the RCC be assigned oversight responsibilities eliminated?
It is important to have oversight of the green building standards.
Why was the change of ownership language dropped from the original recommendations
in Measure 3? There needs to be a rationale for this, since the way it was written originally
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
350141
"
seemed to be necessary. Again the aim of the report was to write a blueprint for achieving the
city's goals.
The city needs a Solar and Energy Efficiency Conversion Program (measure #5) whether
a bond issue passes or not. It is important that the version implemented contains other
possibilities such as aggregation block, assessment district, and vocational training. The city can
copy Santa Monica and become a third party broker instead of expending city funds. The
provision for "pre-wiring for solar photovoltaic systems in new and remodeled residential units"
is important in order to help keep costs down and actually facilitate some owners being able to
do the installation themselves.
Please make sure that the city adopts a strong, comprehensive and meaningful
carbon reduction program. The voluntary Green Star program simply did not work. We need
mandatory standards with some teeth.
Sincerely,
?<-/~
Theresa Acerro
President,
Southwest Chula Vista Civic Association
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
36of41
"
ATTACHMENT 14 - Otay Ranch Company Comment Letter
rrr~~1
I~I
June 19,2008
THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY
Mr. Brendan Reed
Department of Conservation
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
RE: Comments on Climate Change Working Group Draft Implementation Plans
Dear Mr. Reed,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Climate Change Working
Group Measures Draft Implementation Plans. The public process is paramount in
creating comprehensive solutions to major challenges and, as the City Council has made
clear, emissions reductions is a major challenge the City of Chula Vista must overcome.
Moving forward, these Draft Implementation Plans will be the first step in meeting that
challenge.
We certainly appreciate staffs willingness to meet with stakeholders during this 90-day
implementation plan period and allow us to provide input during the development of
these implementation plans. Staff has performed admirably, given the limited time
allocated for completing these plans.
Having reviewed the Draft Implementation Plans, please consider the following
comments.
Measure #4: Green Building Standards
o Has the City performed any analysis on what the costs of this program will be to
developers and how these costs will affect the availability of housing in Chula
Vista and City revenues from new development?
o Will the carbon reduction program apply to affordable housing and if so, what
effect will this program have on the affordable housing stock in Chula Vista?
o Will the City establish incentives to help developers offset the increased costs of
construction associated with these requirements?
610 W. ASH STREET, SUfTE 1500, SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 . PH: {619} 234-4050 . FX: (6'9) 234-4088 . WWW.OTAYRANCH.COM
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report 37 of 41
"
June 19, 2008
Page 2
o Because 2008 Title 24 is already 17-22% more stringent than existing Title 24,
and because the software needed to ensure compliance is not available, tbe City
should consider allowing a one year time period for builders to become familiar
with the updated Code before any mandate to exceed the Code becomes effective.
o How will projects approved before the adoption of the carbon reduction plan be
treated? There should be some type of grandfather clause which exempts projects
which had previously been approved.
o Having flexibility to reduce carbon emiSSIOns through multiple avenues is
critically important; however, flexibility alone in determining how best to meet
the requirement of reducing carbon emissions does not offset the increased costs
of meeting those requirements, it only allows developers to decide how
additional costs are allocated. A potential solution to this would be to offer cost-
savings or incentives for developers to choose City-preferred carbon reduction
practices, i.e.-reduced permit fees or expedited processing for projects which pre-
wire for a PV system.
o To equitably distribute the costs associated with reducing carbon emissions city-
wide, the definition for "retrofit" should be as inclusive as possible. Older
buildings are a greater contributor to carbon emissions per square foot than
buildings built to updated codes. Older buildings also have a higher carbon
reduction per dollar spent ratio than new homes (according to ConSol, it costs 8
times less to achieve the same energy saving in older buildings than it does in new
buildings).
o Projects should be allowed to combine carbon reductions from both the
community/site design and energy efficiency categories, as well as any other
reductions in carbon which can be documented. This will provide more flexibility
for developers to achieve carbon emissions reductions.
o How will increased building permit review costs be offset? Also, if a project is
able to document through a third party the required carbon reductions, there
should nOI be any additional City review.
o Is the Chula Vista Carbon Checklist program mandatory? If a project
participates in an independent program with the same effect of the Chula Vista
Carbon Checklist, will the project be exempt from also participating in the Chula
Vista Carbon Checklist? Emissions reductions, whether achieved through
Program A or Program B, should be treated equally.
o How have the numbers in the Draft Implementation Plan (15 lbs and 35 lbs of
carbon per 100 ft. sq. in Climate Zones 7 and 10 respectively) been calculated and
how will the carbon emissions threshold be developed?
FINAL Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
380f41
"
June 19, 2008
Page 3
o Will the Community/Site Design Working Group include representatives from the
building industry? Any group or committee established as a result of the
Implementation Plans should include a representative from the building industry.
o For demonstrating energy efficiency, can developers combine the prescriptive,
performance and lor the renewable energy production paths? This would allow
more flexibility to meet the carbon reduction requirements.
o How was the $2.50 per lb of carbon fee calculated and is this fee subject to
change in the future? What are the anticipated administrative costs? What would
these administrative costs cover?
o As noted in the Draft Implementation Plan, the California Green Building Code
will not have much of an effect on reducing carbon emissions. Why is early
adoption of the CGBC being considered for a Carbon Reduction Program?
o Will the City change existing codes to allow developers to more cost effectively
meet these requirements? One example would be related to street widths; a 26 ft
wide street promotes walking and bicycling (and thus reduces auto-related carbon
emissions) and reduces the urban heat island effect, which reduces the need to use
air conditioning which also reduces carbon emissions.
Thank you again for providing the opportunity to review and comments the Draft
Implementation Plans. We look forward to working with the City to develop an effective
Program. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
~<:: FIb
Sean F. Kilkenny
Project Assistant
FINAl Stakeholder Comments Summary Report
390141
"
9201 SpectrATTACHMENT 15 - Building Industry Association Comment Letter
San Diego, (
P 858.450.1..,
F 858.552.1445
www.biasandiego.org
PRESIDENT
Shennan D. Harmer, Jr.
Urban Ho~sing Partners, Inc.
VICE PRESIDENT
Andrew Murphy
American Property Enterprises
TREASURER / SECRETARY
Bob Cummings
Barratt American
IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT
Scott Brusseau
Newport National Corporation
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Paul A, Tryon
AFFIUATES
Californiz Building
Industry ~sociation
Nationai Association
of Home Builders
National Association
of Industrial and
Office Properties
June 18, 2008
Mr. Brendan Reed
Departrnent of Conservation
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
Re: Climate Change Working Group Draft Implementation Plans
Dear Mr. Reed,
The Building Industry Association of San Diego County
represents 1,250 member companies and a workforce of 100
thousand men and women. As representatives of the regulated
community, we would like to offer our initial response to the
Draft Climate Change Implementation Plans presented by city
staff at its June 16u, workshop.
Our comments are broad in scope given the limited time to
respond to the proposal and we will expand on them as the
process unfolds. We are concerned with the apparent accelerated
effort to craft regulations considering the complexity and
economic consequences involved. We urge the city and its staff to
temper this process in order for a thorough vetting of the process
to take place.
Vv'hile Chula Vista seeks to take a leadership role in the area of
climate change, it is important to recognize that multiple state
and federal efforts are underway to craft regulations that respond
to the challenge in a realistic and comprehensive manner.
It is our hope that Chula Vista mirrors state and federal objectives
to craft uniform remedies that are consistent from jurisdiction to
jmisdiction. With an issue as complex as climate change, it
would be a logistical and economic challenge for any industry to
comply with rules and regulations that change depending upon
location.
Chula Vista's plan to raise the bar above the state's Building
Standards Commission threshold is a significant regulatory leap
'""DING INDUs9/A1~ili'l~B!liIiH's\iiR'ilI'EtI/l\::ii~li'PI"ry Report
400141
"
that far exceeds the intent of the Govemor and CalifOlTlia State Legislature. TIle
standards developed by the Commission, along with implementation plans
being crafted under AB 32, are intended to responsibly address climate change
and provide regulatory consistency in order to clearly prescribe the fair-share
responsibility of new development.
The state recognizes that under the rules set forth by Title 24, homes constructed
today are 33% more energy efficient than any other homes in the nation. The July
2009 revisions will improve efficiency an additional 15% - 20% beyond that.
The City's plan to exceed those standards places a significant and unnecessary
economic hardship on its own funds, its citizens and the economic base it
professes to support. Simply put, neither the city, its citizens and the local
economy can afford a significant hit in these perilous economic times.
The BIA believes that rules set forth in the revised Title 24 standards should be
given the opportunity to suceed before adding additional regulatory hardship on
its citizens or the economy. We are prepared to support an early adoption of
the new Title 24 standards in Chula Vista in order to expedite more efficient
development.
We ask that the city recognize the serious economic state of the building industry
during its deliberations of more aggressive mandates. We continue to languish in
the most serious depression in the last 50 years and can ill afford another
impediment to recovery.
The BlA looks forward to working with the city on green building standards that
address the environmental and economic impacts of all concerned.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to provide comments and we look
forward to a continued dialogue on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Matt w J. Adams
Staff ice President Government Affairs
cc: Mayor Cox
Council Members
David Garcia, City Manager
FINAL Stak.eholder Comments Summary Report
41 of 41
,~
ATTACHMENT C
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP
Final Recommendations Report
April 2008
Summary:
The Climate Change Working Group of the City of Chula Vista was tasked with
identifying climate protection actions that provide the best opportunity for the City to
meet, or make the most progress towards meeting its ICLEIlKyoto commitment of
reducing citywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 20% below 1990 levels. After
reviewing over 90 climate protection actions implemented by other cities, the Climate
Change Working Group has selected the following measures that it feels are most likely
to reduce Chula Vista's greenhouse gas emissions in the next few years:
Require that 100% of the replacement vehicles purchased for
1 the municipal fleet be high-efficiency (hybrid) or alternative fuel
vehicles.
Encourage City-contracted fleet operators to adopt the use of
2 high-efficiency (hybrid) or alternative fuel vehicles, by
stipulating that 1 00% of replacement vehicle purchases should
be alternative fuel or hvbrid vehicles.
Require City of Chula Vista-licensed businesses to participate
3 in an energy assessment of their physical premises every three
vears and upon chanoe of ownershio.
Adopt community-wide green building standards that are
comprehensive in coverage and mandatory. New and
4 substantially remodeled structures will be required to be built
to LEED silver or to an equivalent 3rd party certification green
building program, with the effect of having an energy efficiency
impact of at least 20% over Title.24.
Facilitate widespread installation of solar photovoltaic (PV)
systems on commercial, residential and municipal facilities by
5 developing and implementing a solar energy conversion
program. Proactively enforce existing codes requiring pre.
olumbing for solar hot water.
6 Facilitate "Smart Growth" around the H Street, E Street and
Palomar Street Trolley Stations
Coordinate with Otay Water District, San Diego County Water
7 Authority and the Sweetwater Authority to convert turf lawns to
xeriscape.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
lof30
"
Backe:round:
The Climate Change Working Group was convened in July 2007 under the direction of
the Council's ICLEI representatives, Councilmember Castaneda and Councilmember
McCann, who serve as the City's Climate Change Subcommittee. The Subcommittee
and their staff took an active role in establishing the sectors to be represented in the
Working Group, submitting participant names and reviewing all potential representatives.
The Planning Department, General Services, Public Works and Community Development
were also invited to participate. The final ten-member group included seven Chula Vista
residents and three members who lived elsewhere, but were involved in the Chula Vista
community. In addition, three ex-officio members with strong interests in Chula Vista's
climate reduction actions supported the Working Group (see Appendix A for full
participant list).
To help direct the Working Group in their task of identifYing. effective emissions
reduction strategies, City staff provided the following five criteria to guide
recommendations: 1) the measure had been previously implemented by an ICLEI local
government or California Climate Action Registry business, 2) the measure would be
financially feasible (i.e. require little or no additional General Fund support, 3) the
measure could be quickly implemented to have immediate impact on the City's efforts to
reduce emissions by 2010, 4) the measures' impacts could be quantified using the City's
emissions inventory protocol and 5) the measure would not cause a significant adverse
community impact. CCWG meetings were initially moderated by a professional City
facilitator (Dawn Beintema), while Conservation and Environmental Services
Department staff provided administrative support.
The Working Group process was divided into three sets of meetings. The first set was
spent reviewing the City's 2005 GHG emissions inventory, learning about each of the
sectors that generate emissions (energy, land use/transportation, waste and water) and
investigating what actions other cities had taken to reduce emissions from each sector.
These actions were compiled into a list of 90 measures (see Appendix E) which could
then be evaluated by the five criteria listed above. In the second set of meetings the
Group reviewed these lists, and selected the measures from each sector that had the most
potential to reduce emissions significantly while still meeting the five criteria (the list
was narrowed to approximately 20 recommendations). The final set of meetings was
spent distilling the list down to seven recommendations, and collaboratively writing and
editing the text explaining these recommendations.
In writing the recommendation text, the Climate Change Working Group strove to create
implementation strategies that were neither overly specific and prescriptive, nor overly
general. The Working Group's goal was to create recommendations detailed enough to
lay the groundwork for speedy implementation, but also general enough to be adaptable
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1, 2008
2 of 30
"
under changing circumstances. In the end, the Working Group's approach to the
recommendation text was guided by its original charter, which was to create
recommendations for Council but to leave the implementation details to staff specialists
who are more familiar with municipal codes and processes.
Many broader climate reduction actions, such as recommendations to re-organize Chula
Vista's land use and transportation systems to favor transit, are absent from this list.
While large-scale, system-level changes of this nature are likely to be necessary for
sustained GHG emissions reductions, the Group felt that these recommendations were
often too complex to be implemented and measured in the short term. The Chula Vista
Carbon Dioxide (C02) Reduction Plan (2000) contains an excellent list of broader
policies that should guide the City in the 21 st century as it seeks to reduce its "carbon
footprint" (See Appendix C). The Climate Change Working Group would like to reiterate
the importance of these broader policies, while at the same time acknowledging that the
implementation of these policies is often outside of the City's purview.
The Climate Change Working Group's recommendations represent an important strategic
opportunity for the City. Council has reiterated its commitments to reducing GHG
emissions, yet if the City continues with a "business as usual" approach, emissions are
sure to increase further. On the other hand, if the City follows the Working Group's
recommendations (especially pertaining to Green Building standards and solar energy
conversion), Chula Vista could begin to slow its community-wide increase in GHG
emissions and eventually lead to reduced citywide emissions. Council is strongly
encouraged to adopt the Climate Change Working Group's recommendations, and to
speed their implementation into municipal code and practice.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1,2008
3 of 30
I'
Recommendation 1: Require that 100% of replacement vehicles purchased for
municipal fleet be hie:h efficiency (hvbrid) or alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs).
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula
Vista require all replacement vehicles purchased for the municipal fleet be either high
efficiency (hybrid) or alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs).
Background:
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City of
Chula Vista expand its use of high efficiency fuel vehicles including electric, biodiesel,
ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen and natural gas' based on appropriateness for vehicle task,
fueling infrastructure, petroleum displacement, overall cost and environmental benefit.
Further, the Group recommends that the City develop policies to efficiently use the
vehicles that it currently has, implementing concepts like "right sizing", "trip chaining"
and maintenance in order to derive the most benefit from each "vehicle miles traveled"
(VMTs ).
The City of Chula Vista has long been a pioneer in the use of high efficiency/alternative
fuels. The City's transit fleet and some light-duty vehicles run on compressed natural gas
and the City has its own compressed natural gas fueling station and hydrogen fueling
station. Many cities throughout California have also successfully adopted the use of high
efficiency/alternative fuel vehicles from passenger cars to heavy-duty trucks.
Additionally, the State of California has made the growth of the use of alternative fuels
and alternative fuel vehicles a high priority and passed myriad legislation creating
funding mechanisms to drive this growth. Alternative fuel vehicle options exist in most
every class of vehicle in use by the City of Chula Vista., so it is recommended that the
City consider all high-efficiency/alternative fuel appropriate options when considering all
future vehicle acquisitions.
Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure:
Performance could be measured by setting aggressive goals for increasing the City's use
of alternative fuel vehicles (i.e. number of AFVs/high efficiency vehicles) and alternative
fuels (i.e. gallons used), as well as development of associated fueling infrastructure. The
effectiveness of the new measure could also be measured by tracking the average fleet
"miles per gallon" (MPG) in gasoline, and setting ambitious goals to lower this MPG.
Not only would this measure encourage greater adoption of AFVs, it would also focus the
City on making the existing fleet as efficient as possible.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
4 of 30
"
. -
Fiscally Feasible:
The City can purchase high efficiency/alternative fuel vehicles as vehicle replacement
funds become available. Substantial grant funding and incentives for light, medium and
heavy duty alternative fuel vehicles are also cunently available and expected to increase
in years to come. Grant funding for fueling infrastructure may be available and private
industry may also invest in necessary fueling infrastructure with local commitment to
use. Because high-efficiency vehicles use less gasoline and alternative fuels are typically
less expensive than conventional fuels, hybrid and AFVs can often recoup any additional
upfront costs over their lifetime. Tax rebates on qualifying alternative fuels also exist,
bringing their cost below that of petroleum-based fuels.
Short Timeframe:
Hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles can be implemented into the fleet immediately as
vehicles are replaced, or new vehicles are purchased. Alternative fuel vehicle fueling
infrastructure can be accomplished in 2008 and 2009.
Quantifiable Results:
The use of hybrid and alternative fuel vehicles will permit a reduction in the use of
petroleum-based fuels. All targeted alternative technologies/fuels can have significant
greenhouse gas emissions benefits over petroleum-based fuels such as gasoline and
diesel.
Prior Execution:
Various cities including Burbank, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Vacaville, CA, as well
as Boulder, CO.
No Adverse Effects:
While some alternative fuel vehicles may cost more than their gasoline and/or diesel
counterparts, billions of dollars in cunent and future State and Federal incentives, grants
and tax credits can bring the cost of those alternative fuel vehicles near or below that of a
comparable gasoline or diesel-powered vehicle. In some cases, grant applications may
need to be written and reports may need to be filed in the process of securing funding for
vehicles and/or infrastructure; however, an increase in City staff would not be
anticipated. Additionally, private industry may invest in necessary fueling infrastructure
to meet the City's needs. Many alternative fuel vehicles cunently offer significant fuel
and maintenance cost savings over gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1, 2008
5 of 30
"
Recommendation 2: Encouraee City-contracted fleet operators to adopt the
use of hieh efficiencv (hvbrid) or alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs), stipulatine
that 100% of replacement vehicle purchases be alternative fuel or hvbrid
vehicles.
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City of
Chula Vista work with fleets under City authority and influence their expanded use of
alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs). All replacement vehicles
purchased by City-contracted fleets should be either AFV s, high efficiency vehicles or
vehicles otherwise able to demonstrate significant reductions in carbon emissions.
Background:
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City of
Chula Vista work with fleets under City authority to influence their expanded use of
alternative fuels and high-efficiency/alternative fuel vehicles including electric, biodiesel,
ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen and natural gas based on appropriateness for vehicle task,
fueling infrastructure, petroleum displacement, overall cost and environmental benefit.
While there are a number of fleets operating in the City of Chula Vista, few are under
direct authority of the City with the exception of taxis and refuse trucks. There are
currently over 200 taxis permitted by the Police Department to pick up passengers in the
City of Chula Vista and over 50 refuse trucks authorized to collect household discards.
There are currently hundreds of alternative fuel taxis and refuse trucks operating
throughout California. Helping these fuel-intensive fleets adopt hybrid/alternative fuel
vehicles should be the City's near-term priority. Additional fleet operators not directly
under the City's authority that the City may be able to influence include United Parcel
Services (UPS) (which uses alternative fuel vehicles at various hubs throughout the
country), as well as other local manufacturers, distributors and service providers.
Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure:
Performance could be measured by setting aggressive goals for increasing fleet operators'
use of high-efficiency/alternative fuel vehicles (i.e. number of hybrid and AFVs) and
alternative fuels (i.e. gallons used), as well as associated fueling infrastructure.
Fiscally Feasible:
Fleet owners can purchase alternative fuel vehicles with existing vehicle replacement
funds, ultimately meeting percentage targets set through contract negotiations.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April l, 2008
6 ono
"
Substantial grant funding and incentives for light, medium and heavy duty alternative
fuel vehicles are also currently available and expected to increase in years to come.
Grant funding for fueling stations may be available and private industry may also invest
in necessary fueling infrastructure with local commitments to use. High-
efficiency/alternative fuel vehicles often recoup their higher initial costs by life-cycle
savings on fuel. Tax credits on qualifYing alternative fuels also exist, bringing their cost
below that of petroleum-based fuels.
Short Timeframe:
High-efficiency/alternative fuel vehicles can be implemented into fleets immediately with
all scheduled vehicle replacements and/or new vehicle acquisitions. Alternative fuel
vehicle fueling/charging infrastructure expansion can be accomplished in 2008 and 2009.
Quantifiable Results:
The conversion to high-efficiency/alternative fuel vehicles will reduce the use of
petroleum-based fuels. All targeted alternative fuels have significant greenhouse gas
emissions benefits over petroleum-based fuels such as gasoline and diesel.
Prior Execution:
Various cities and agencies in our neighboring South Coast Air Quality Management
District, as well as Smithtown and Brookhaven, NY and San Antonio, TX.
No Adverse Effects:
While some high-efficiency/alternative fuel vehicles may cost more than their gasoline
and/or diesel counterparts, billions of dollars in current and future State and Federal
incentives, grants and tax credits can bring the cost of those alternative fuel vehicles near
or below that of a comparable gasoline or diesel-powered vehicle. In some cases, grant
applications may need to be written and reports may need to be filed in the process of
securing funding for vehicles and/or infrastructure; however, an increase in staffing
would not be anticipated and private industry partnerships are available to incur these
costs on behalf of fleet owners. Additionally, private industry may invest in necessary
fueling infrastructure to meet fleet owners' needs. Many alternative fuel vehicles
currently offer significant fuel and maintenance cost savings over gasoline and diesel-
powered vehicles.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
7 of 30
"
Recommendation 3: Require City of Chula Vista-licensed businesses to
participate in an enerl!V assessment of their physical premises eyery three
years and upon chane:e of ownership.
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula
Vista-licensed businesses be required to participate in an energy assessment of their
physical premises every three years and upon change of ownership.
Background:
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula
Vista-licensed businesses be required to participate in an energy assessment of their
physical premises every three years as a way of helping businesses take advantage of
rapidly evolving energy-efficiency practices and technologies. The City of San Diego
has had a similar code in place since the early nineties requiring that all buildings
receiving water service from the City of San Diego obtain a Water Conservation
Plumbing Certificate upon change of ownership. This requirement has led to widespread
installation of water-conserving equipment in the building stock. The City of Berkeley
has a similar municipal code in place requiring businesses to complete an energy
assessment upon change of ownership. This code has been shown to create a heightened
awareness of energy conservation among citizens.
The proposed recommendation is based on the City of San Diego/ City of Berkeley codes
and would require assessments for businesses every three years and upon change of
ownership. The proposed code would integrate the assessments into the existing
Business License Renewal Program, with assessments to be conducted by City staff with
support from the SDG&E Partnership Program. Energy assessments would vary by
business type, but would be designed for flexibility in order to help take advantage of
available incentive and rebate opportunities. Because water use and energy consumption
are directly linked, water-conserving practices and technologies would also be
encouraged under this program.
Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure:
The implementation of this measure requires a change to the City's business licensing
code stipulating the energy assessment requirement. Before the code could be written it
would be necessary to establish who would perform the assessments (likely City staff
supported by SDG&E), what standards were to be met and how the assessments would be
integrated into the business licensing process. Once the code was in place, performance
could be gauged by measuring the number of assessments completed.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
8 of 30
"
Fiscally Feasible:
City staff currently conduct energy assessments as part of the SDG&E-City of Chula
Vista Energy Efficiency Partnership Program. The required business assessments would
be an outgrowth of that effort. In the last year, the City has completed approximately 400
business assessments. The City currently licenses approximately 3,500 businesses with
physical premises, meaning that the assessment efforts would need to be stepped-up to
assess an additional 700-800 businesses per year. This is not unmanageable under the
existing program format, but would require efforts to be re-focused on business
assessments rather than residential lighting exchanges.
Sbort Timeframe:
Increased business energy assessments could result almost immediately in energy
conservation behaviors and efficiency improvements. Reduction in carbon emissions can
reasonably be expected within a 2-3 year time frame.
Quantifiable Results:
Reductions in energy use are among the easiest measures to quantify in the City's GHG
emissions inventory. Effective energy assessments that change business behaviors can be
expected to yield quantifiable, albeit modest, GHG reductions.
Prior Execution:
Berkeley, CA, San Jose, CA, San Diego, CA (water assessment)
No Adverse Effects:
While requiring businesses to complete an energy assessment every three years would
add an additional complication to the business licensing process, the benefit to businesses
in cost savings through energy use reduction can be expected to overwhelm the hassle of
completing the assessment. It is possible that the assessments would create additional
complexity for the City's business licensing staff.
Relevant Links:
1) City of San Diego Plumbing Retrofit Ordinance:
http://wv..'W.sandiego.gov Iwaterl conservationlselling.shtml
2) City of Berkeley Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance
hrtp:llwww.ci.berkeley.ca.us/C ontentDisplay .aspx?id=] 5474
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April ], 2008
9 of 30
111'
. .
Recommendation 4: Adopt communitv-wide l!:reen buildinl!: standards that
are comprehensive in coveral!:e and mandatory. New and substantiallv
renovated structures will be reQuired to be built to LEED silver or to an
eQuivalent 3rd party certification green building program, with the effect of
havinl!: an energy efficiencv impact of at least 20% over Title-24.
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula
Vista adopt community-wide green building standards that are comprehensive in
coverage and mandatory. Permits shall not be given to a building unless it is designed and
built as LEED silver, or equivalent from another 3rd party certification green building
program, with the effect of having an energy efficiency impact of at least 20% over Title-
24. This requirement would then be regularly updated to meet Architecture 2030 goals of
energy net zero construction by 2020 for homes and 2030 for businesses.
Background:
Energy use by existing building stock accounts for half of Chula Vista's community
greenhouse gas emissions. The City's Climate Change Working Group recommends that
the City take action to reduce emissions from buildings by changing the municipal code
stipulations to require builders to exceed Title-24 standards. Requiring builders and
building managers to meet higher energy efficiency standards would help support the
long-term value of the City's building stock by encouraging upkeep and assuring the
future reliability and comfort of structures.
Building energy efficiency standards are currently set by California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Title 24.12. Though Title-24 energy standards are among the most rigorous
energy codes in the U.S., buildings constructed to LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) standards are at least 14% more efficient than buildings simply
built to current Title-24 standards. Opportunities for energy savings are particularly great
in the residential sector, where Title-24 requirements are comparatively less stringent.
The Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City take advantage of this
potentially tremendous energy savings by creating a municipal code requiring buildings
to exceed Title-24 standards.
A variety of different approaches could be taken to mandate the construction of energy
efficient structures within the City of Chula Vista. Requiring that builders construct green
buildings, which are designed to maximize energy efficiency and sustainability, can be an
effective way to exceed Title-24 requirements. The Working Group's recommendation
both encourages the use of green building methods and focuses specifically on energy
efficiency.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I. 2008
100f30
"
Furthermore, the Climate Change Working Group recommends the following guidelines
for implementation of these recommendations as to properly capture the letter and spirit
of the Working Group's findings:
1. Any energy code/green building measure must be required for both public and
private development.
2. The requirements must be comprehensive in the size and types of structures
covered.
3. The requirements should include participation in an already existing green
building 3rd party certification program with an energy efficiency component.
If there is a phase-in period, it must be relatively short as to be relevant to the 2010 GHG
emission deadline and must be connected to a clear and concise timetable for
implementation.
Prior Execution:
While the Climate Change Working Group strongly recommends that the City enact
codes to make both new and remodeled buildings more efficient, the logistics of creating
a Green Building Code for Chula Vista require research time and effort beyond the scope
of the Working Group. By approving this measure, Council will direct staff to research
and develop an implementation plan for this recommendation.
Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure:
The implementation of this measure requires an addition to the City's municipal code
outlining the new green building standard. Performance would be gauged by the number
of building permits applied for, the number accepted, and the number of compliant
buildings built.
Fiscally Feasible:
The City of Chula Vista currently has building code requirements that must be met before
a building can be permitted. This recommendation would require a modest addition to
these existing building standards. The new codes should be designed to work within pre-
existing implementation and compliance mechanisms to allow for cost-effective
enforcement. While additional training for existing staff may be required, it is not likely
to impose significant additional costs upon the City.
Short Timeframe:
The implementation of these standards could occur as soon as municipal codes are
amended and adequate notice is given to the public. The fact that the implementation and
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April L 2008
] 1 of30
~
enforcement process for building new structures IS already in place shortens the
recommendation's implementation
Quantifiable Results:
Reductions in energy use by buildings are among the easiest carbon-reducing actions to
quantifY. Credible sources ranging from the Department of Energy to the California
Attorney General have endorsed green buildings standards as an effective means of
reducing carbon emissions.
Prior Execution:
Mandatory green building standards have been adopted in Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Los
Angeles, San Diego, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Boston and Washington D.C. (to
name a few). (Please see Appendix B)
No Adverse Effects:
While these standards require project applicants to meet additional requirements before
they can be issued a building permit, the areas to be regulated by these green building
codes are no different than other building requirements currently imposed on developers
including structural, lighting, earthquake safety and ventilation requirements. Such
standards have proven to have little, if any, adverse effects on the number of permits
sought. Studies by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have shown that
building to basic "LEED certification" can be done at virtually no extra cost. The fact
that the proposed standards allow developers the flexibility and autonomy to determine
how best to meet these requirements will offset the burden associated with meeting an
additional procedural requirement. This recommendation is consistent with the CPUC
and California Energy Commission's stated goal to make new residential and commercial
buildings "carbon-neutral" by 2020 and 2030, respectively. In addition, such a
requirement will reduce the future growth in peak demand for electricity thus reducing
the future need for the South Bay Power Plant.
Relevant Links:
I. Boston Green Building Program:
http://www .cityofboston.gov !bra! gbtf!GB TFhome.asp
2. Santa Monica Municipal Code:
http://www.qcode.us/codes/santamonica!index.php?topic=8-8 _108-8_108_060
3. Los Angeles Bar Association Review of California Municipal Green Building Codes:
http://wvcw .lacba.org!showpage. cfm ?pageid=8922
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1, 2008
12 000
"
, -
4. Santa Barbara Green Building Code
http://wwv\T.santabarbaraca.gov/Documents/Sustainable _Santa_Barbara/In _the _ News!O 1_
Press Re1eases!2007-10-
29_ Santa_Barbara _Energy_Ordinance _Beats _ Ca1ifomia_ Bui1ding_ Code.pdf
5. San Francisco Green Building Codes
http://www.sfenvironment.org/our_progranls/topics.html ?ssi=O&ti= 19
Please see Appendix B for further links to municipal green building programs.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
13 of 30
J'"
. .
Recommendation 5: Facilitate widesoread installation of solar ohotovoltaic
(PV) systems on commercial, residential and municioal facilities bv
develooine: and imolementine: a solar enerl!V conversion orOl!:ram. Proactivelv
enforce existinl!: codes reauirinl!: ore-olumbine: for solar hot water.
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City of
Chula Vista facilitate widespread installation of solar photovoltaic (PV) systems on
commercial, residential and municipal facilities by developing and implementing a solar
energy conversion program. The Group also recommends that the City more proactively
enforce existing codes requiring pre-plumbing for solar hot water.
Background:
Developing cleaner energy sources is an essential tool for slowing climate change. Solar
energy remains a largely untapped resource for generating clean energy. According to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
· Each day more solar energy hits the Earth than its inhabitants could consume in 27
years.
· Solar energy technologies produce minor amounts of greenhouse gases, generated
mostly during the manufacturing process.
· A 100-megawatt solar thermal electric power plant, over 20 years, will avoid more
than 3 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions when compared to the cleanest
conventional fossil fuel-powered electric plants.
Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels convert sunlight directly into electricity. PV panels can be
mounted to commercial, residential and municipal buildings and connected directly to the
energy grid. For residential applications, armual audits by the energy company provide a
comparison between the energy contributed from the solar system to the amount of
energy used. If there is a shortfall, the user then pays for the difference. Energy
conservation is also an important part of an efficient solar system.
Financing Options
The primary barrier to the installation of solar PV systems is cost. The average 2
kilowatt (kW) solar system can cost between $16,000-$26,000 to install. The payback
period for a solar system can be anywhere from 15-30 years, depending on location, type
of panels used, maintenance and weather. Options for overcoming this barrier include:
1) Power Purchase Agreement (PPA): In a PPA, a property owner allows a solar
energy contractor to install and operate PV solar panels on their property. Though energy
produced by the panels is used on-site, the property owner continues to pay their electric
bills, this time to the solar installer rather than the utility company. Once the cost of the
solar installation has been paid back, the property owner generally has the option of
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
14 of 30
"
taking over the ownership/operation of the solar panels. This type of solar agreement is
most often used on large structures such as schools, municipal facilities and retail stores.
Application: This type of solar financing would be most practical for City facilities with
large roof areas, such as parking garages.
Implementation: The City could require a certain percentage of its municipal energy to
be generated on-site with solar PV panels. PP As are a tool which could be used to help
the City reach this solar goal, especially if the City was not able to afford Solar through
other means.
2) City Solar Financing/Special Assessment: The City of Berkeley is helping residents
afford solar by paying up-front for the cost and installation of residential solar systems,
and then recouping the cost by assessing an additional tax on participating properties
which would pay back the cost of the system over a 20 year period. Residents benefit
immediately from reductions on their energy bills. The City of Berkeley won a $200,000
solar grant from the EP A to help cover the start-up costs for the program.
Application: This type of solar financing would help surmount the costs of solar system
installation for individual homeowners. By helping spread the cost of the solar system
across a 20 year period, residents are able to experience the solar system payback more
immediately.
Implementation: The City could establish a program like the one in Berkeley, giving
Chula Vista property owners the option to install City-financed solar systems on their
buildings. These systems would then be paid off over a set tirneframe through special
property assessments.
3) Community Solar Program and Trust Fund: The City of Santa Monica's
comprehensive solar program helps lower the cost of solar by simplifYing the permitting
process for solar construction, identifYing solar contractors who are willing to do
installations at a reduced "Santa Monica" rate, identifYing banks/lenders to help residents
finance solar installation costs and by providing free energy assessments to residents.
Energy assessments help residents reduce their energy consumption through conservation
first, thereby reducing the size of the solar system they will eventually install. For
residents who rent their homes, or have a site that is not suitable for the installation of
solar panels, the City offers the option of buying shares in a Community Solar System
Fund. This fund helps buy down the cost of solar installation for the City overall.
Application: This tool could be used to create funds for the general establishment of
solar programs, to buy down the cost of solar installation in the City and to expedite the
processing of solar permits.
Implementation: The City could establish a solar program modeled on "Solar Santa
Monica," with an option that allows residents to buy into the "Solar Trust Fund."
Determining the appropriate combination of financing options and program designs for
the City would require research and policymaking beyond the scope of the Climate
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1, 2008
15 of 30
"
Change Working Group. The group does recommend that the City hasten to adopt a solar
energy conversion plan that incorporates the strategies listed above. At the same time,
there are a variety ofless elaborate actions that the City can take to ensure the adoption of
solar technologies:
Pre-Plumbl Pre-Wire for Solar
Since 1982 the City has had a code in place requiring pre-plumbing for solar hot water on
new homes. Though this code has been in place since the early '80s, it has received little
to no enforcement. The Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City
enforce this code requirement going forward. Furthermore, the Group recommends that
this code be amended to require that new homes are also pre-wired for solar PV. Pre-
plumbing and pre-wiring for solar reduces barriers to the installation of these
technologies, and ensures that conventional homes can be easily converted to alternative
energy sources as funds become available.
Require Solar Installation as an "Upgrade Option" on New Homes:
Some homebuilders (ex. Pardee Homes) offer solar PV systems as an "upgrade" option
on new homes. However, this option is not offered by any developers in the City of
Chula Vista at this time. The Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City
require new home developers in Chula Vista to offer solar PV systems as an "upgrade"
option.
Provide Residents Free Home Energy Assessments:
Home energy efficiency can reduce the cost to make homes "net zero energy" by
reducing the size of the solar system needed to offset energy use. Any solar PV program
should be complemented by energy conservation programming. The City's Conservation
and Environmental Services Department currently offers home energy assessments as
part of the City's partnership with SDG&E. The Group recommends that the City
continue to provide these assessments going forward.
Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure:
Performance can be measured by the number of commercial, residential and municipal
facilities installing solar PV systems each year. Performance can also be measured by the
number of megawatts produced by program-installed PV systems. Citywide clean energy
generation goals could be established (ex: 100 megawatts of solar generation by 2012).
Fiscally Feasible:
In addition to the financing mechanisms mentioned above, a variety of federal, state and
non-profit funds for solar programs are available. In addition to receiving a $160,000
"Solar America" grant from the EP A for the administrative costs of establishing a solar
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1, 2008
16 of 30
"
program, Berkeley also received a $75,000 grant from its regional Air Quality
Management District. The Berkeley Program also benefits from the California Solar
Initiative rebate, which is applied to the total cost Berkeley pays for the solar systems.
Solar systems installed on municipal facilities can take advantage of a similar State and
Federal incentives. Because the amount of these incentives and rebates is designed to
decrease over time, the Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City work
to take advantage of these financing opportunities while they are still significant.
Short Timeframe:
If aggressively pursued, a basic program could be put in place in 12 to 18 months.
Developing a more elaborate program with financing for residential solar installation
would be more within the 2 to 4 year timeframe.
Quantifiable Results:
Widespread solar energy conversion in the City of Chula Vista would help shift energy
production away from greenhouse gas producing power plants. (See the discussion of
performance metrics above).
Prior Execution:
City of Santa Monica "Solar Santa Monica" program, City of San Francisco "Climate
Action Plan".
No Adverse Effects:
Facilitating solar energy conversions would not cause adverse economic or social impacts
or shift negative environmental impacts to another sector. Creating a robust solar energy
conversion program would encourage economic development and create opportunities for
the struggling housing construction industry.
Relevant Links:
1. U.S. EP A Fact Sheet: Climate Change Technologies, Solar Energy
http://yosemite.epa.gov loar/ globalwarming.nsflUniqueKeyLookup/SHSU 5B VR3 A/$F iJel
solarenergy .pdf
2. Solar Santa Monica
http://vvv.'W.soJarsantamonica.comlmain/index.html
3. The GfK Roper Yale Survey on Environmental Issues
http://environment.yale.eduldocuments/ downloadslh-nlLocalActionReport.pdf
4. San Francisco Solar Plan Press Release
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
Aprill,2008
17 of30
"
http://www.sfgov.org/site/assessoryage.asp?id=723 3 2
5. City of Berkeley Solar Plan Press Release
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/Mayor/PRlpressrelease2007-l 023 .html
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
18 of 30
"
Recommendation 6: Facilitate "Smart Growth" around the H Street. E Street
and Palomar Street Trollev Stations.
The City of Chula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City of Chula
Vista facilitate smart growth around the H Street, E Street and Palomar Street Trolley
Stations.
Background:
Chula Vista's trolley stations offer a unique smart growth opportunity. Smart growth is a
compact, efficient and environmentally sensitive pattern of development that provides
people with additional travel, housing and employment choices by focusing future growth
away from rural areas and closer to existing and planned job centers and public facilities.
Smart growth reduces dependence on the automobile for travel needs. Automobile travel
reductions prevent the burning of fossil fuels that contribute to greenhouse gases and
climate change.
The E Street and H Street trolley stations are defmed as "Primary Gateways" within the
Promenade Vision Area in the City of Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan. The vision
description is as follows.
"A dynamic mix of regional transit centers, visitor serving uses and a retail
complex surrounds an enhanced, medium-rise residential quarter. Circulation
is improved by re-establishing the traditional street grid. A tree-lined,
extended linear park offers both neighborhood and community serving
amenities supported by mid-block paseos. The park transitions from an
active community venue with a more formal landscape to recreational
features such as tennis and basketball courts to passive greens. Anchoring the
park, the retail plaza links the Bayfront to the regional mall. Ample public
spaces provide for open air markets, mercados, cultural festivals, art exhibits
and other community events."
The Palomar Station is already zoned as a "Gateway Transit District" under the current
zoning plan, with densities up to 40 dwelling units per acre permissible by code.
Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure:
Performance could be measured by the number of building permits issued within one-
quarter mile of the trolley stations.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
190f30
"
. -
Fiscally Feasible:
Yes.
Short Timeframe:
If aggressively pursued, new building permits could be issued in 18 to 24 months.
Quantifiable Results:
Possible. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions could be quantified by developing an
estimated emission value per square foot of smart growth residential space and an
estimated emission value per square foot of more traditional suburban residential space.
The difference between the two could be used to calculate the emissions reduction due to
new residential smart growth around the trolley stations.
Prior Execution:
"New Places, New Choices: Transit-Oriented Development in the San Francisco Bay
Area, November 2006" www.mtc.ca.gov/library/TOD/index.htm. transitvillages.org,
transitorienteddevelopoment.org.
No Adverse Effects:
A difficult topic to address with any smart growth project is traffic impact. This issue
would be easier to address if a trolley station were made an integral part of the smart
growth project. Interstate 5 and a robust grid network of local streets are also in close
proximity to the E Street, H Street and Palomar Street Trolley Stations. Implementing
smart growth around trolley stations would potentially cause adverse economic or social
impacts and potentially shift negative environmental impacts to another sector.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
20 of 30
II!"
Recommendation 7: Coordinate with Otav Water District, San Diel!o County
Water Authority and the Sweetwater Authority to convert turf lawns to
xeriscape.
The City ofChula Vista Climate Change Working Group recommends that City ofChula
Vista coordinate with Otay Water District, San Diego County Water Authority and the
Sweetwater Authority on turf lawn conversions for commercial and residential properties.
Pumping water is a significant contributor to GHG emissions in California. Converting
lawns to water-wise gardens and/or artificial turf has been shown to reduce outdoor
residential water use by 40%, thereby reducing emissions from this sector.
Background:
The pumping of water and wastewater in California is estimated to take up at least seven
percent of the State's total energy usage, making water use a significant contributor to the
State's overall CO2 emissions. (2007 PIER Report). According to the San Diego County
Water Authority, up to fifty percent of household water use goes to thirsty turf grass
lawns. The Climate Change Working Group recommends that the City support and
coordinate with existing programs aimed at reducing the amount of water used in
landscaping.
The Otay Water District's "Cash for Plants" program pays residents and businesses up to
$2,200 to convert turf lawns or other high water-use plants to drought-tolerant plants.
This type of landscaping is often called "xeriscaping" and utilizes San Diego native and
California-friendly plants. However, the program is restricted to turf grass lawns larger
than 750 square feet. This restriction prevents many smaller residential and commercial
properties from participating in the program. Otay Water District has recently begun a
second program that pays single-family homeowners to replace their lawns with artificial
turf, with a $l/sf incentive. This program only applies to lawns smaller than 1,000 SF,
though it supplements programs that pay schools to convert their fields to artificial turf.
Ideally, the Climate Change Working Group would like to see the City develop its own
program to supplement the rebates offered by the local water districts, and to extend the
programs to parts of the City under the jurisdiction of the Sweetwater Authority which
currently doesn't offer the programs.
If developing an independent incentive program is not fiscally possible, the Climate
Change Working Group encourages the City to work with Otay Water District to help
promote its program to all residents and businesses. The City could help by integrating
the information into existing community outreach activities, thereby increasing the
numbers of Chula Vista lawns converted to xeriscapes. The City could also help
residents overcome Home Owner Association rules and other logistical barriers to
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1, 2008
21 000
"
xeriscape conversion. Additionally, the City might act as a facilitator helping to aggregate
participating homes to buy-down the cost of contractor efforts.
Recommended Performance Metrics for Measure:
Effective implementation of this measure could be gauged by comparing current numbers
of existing turf-to-xeriscape incentive applications with the numbers of applications 2 or
3 years into the future, with the expectation that the City's efforts would result in an
increase in applications.
Fiscally Feasible:
The recommendation's fiscal impact would vary depending on the degree (and type) of
support the City provided. At present, the City has a nature-friendly gardening program
(Naturescape) that encourages residents to adopt water-saving gardening practices. This
program could be easily adapted to put an even greater focus on turf-to-xeriscape
conversion programs. The Naturescape program is expected to end in June 2008,
however, primarily due to lack of funding. The City could re-instate this program with
potential financial support from the local water districts.
Short Timeframe:
Because the City has funding in place for the Naturescape program until June 2008,
support and promotion of Otay Water District's "Cash For Plants" program could begin
at once. It is expected that increased promotion would lead to an accelerated pace of
landscape conversion in the next 2-3 years.
Quantifiable Results:
A study from the Southern Nevada Water Authority shows a net average residential water
use savings of 30% for homes that have converted turf to xeriscape. Large scale
implementation of the Water Authority "Cash For Plants" Program would likely have an
impact on GHG emissions from water use, though the overall effect on the City's GHG
emissions would be relatively small.
Prior Execution:
Similar programs have been implemented with success in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
Mesa, Arizona and Cathedral City, California.
No Adverse Effects:
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1, 2008
22 of 30
"
While some studies show that well-watered turf lawns function as a carbon sink in some
areas, we can reasonably assume that the CO2 cost of importing water, maintaining the
lawns (requiring gas-powered mowers and travel by landscaping crews) and then
managing runoff outweigh any carbon sequestration benefits the turf might have in Chula
Vista.
Relevant Links
1. Otay Water District Flyer promoting Xeriscape Conversion Incentives:
http://wWw.otaywater.gov /owd/pages/waterconservation/Cash%20for%20plants.pdf
2. Southern Nevada Water Authority Study on residential water savings from xeriscape
conversion: hltp://www.snwa.com/assets/pdlixeri_sludy_table.pdf
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
23 of 30
J~
Aooendix A: Climate Chanl!e Workinl! Grouo Members List
NAME ORGANIZATION SECTOR ALTERNATE
Lynda Gilgun Resource Conservation Commission ResidentIRCC
Alan Ridley Cuyamaca College Resident/Energy
Chris Schodowski Leviton Manufacturing Inc. ResidentIBusiness
Erin Pitts South Bay YMCA/Earth Service Corps Youth
Leo Miras Environmental Health Coalition Environmental Laura Hunter
Cesar Rios ECM Networks Energy
Alma Aguilar Southwestern College Y outhlEnvironmental
Hector Reyes Reyes Architects Resident! Architect
Richard Chavez SANDAG ResidentITransportation
Derek Turbide Clean Energy Resident/Transportation
Brian Holland SANDAG Ex Officio
Risa Baron SDG&E Ex Officio Julie Ricks
Andrea Cook CA Center for Sustainable Energy Ex Officio
Michael Meacham CV Conservation& Environm ental Serv. Staff
Brendan Reed CV Conservation& Environmental Serv. Staff
Carla Blackmar CV Conservation& Environmental Serv. Staff
Richard Hopkins CV Public Works Operations Staff
Marisa Lundstedt CV Planning & Building Staff Josie McNeeley
Lynn France CV General Services Staff Manuel Medrano
Denny Stone CV - National Energy Center for Sustainable Staff
Communities
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
24 of 30
"
.'
Appendix B: Municipal Green Buildinl! Standards Summary
MANDATORY RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS AND ORDINANCES
Boulder, CO- created their own point-based system for ALL residential development within the
city. The bigger the project, the more points they must acquire. The system is essentially based
on LEED criteria. It should be noted that one of the largest categories in which to get possible
points is focused completely around solar- solar energy, passive solar, solar hot water, etc.
http://wVvw . bou Iderco lorado. gov /index. ph p? option=col11_ content&task=v i ew & id=2 0 8& I tern id=
489
West Hollywood, CA- also created a custom-made point-based system. Requires new residential
development with three or more units to submit a green building plan and meet a minimum
number of points. All covered projects must be solar-ready.
http://VvWVv . weho .org/index. cfm/fuseacti on/Detai I Gro up/na vi d/ 53/ c i d/44 9 3 /
Santa Cruz, CA- all new residential development are required to obtain a certain number of
points from GreenPoint. http://Vv'Ww.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/pllbuilding/green.html
Marin County, CA- all new residential development in unincorporated sections of the county
are required to achieve a certain number of GreenPoint points. All single family dwellings larger
than 3,500 sq. ft. are subject to the energy efficiency budget of a 3,500 sq. ft. building.
http://wW\N.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/ comdev / adv ance/S u stainabi I ity .cfm
Santa Barbara, CA- The ordinance mandates building regulations, based on Architecture 2030
principles, which exceed Title 24 requirements by 20 percent for low-rise residential buildings,
15 percent for high-rise residential buildings and 10 percent for nonresidential buildings, among
other measures. http://sbdailysound.blogspot.com/200 7/] O/santa-barbara-boosts-green-
building.html
Chicago, IL- requires all residential development to meet energy requirements more stringent
than the IL state standard.
Palm Desert, CA- requires all new residential development less than 4000 sq. ft. to meet energy
requirements 10% beyond Title 24, and residential development greater than 4000 sq. ft. to meet
energy requirement 15% beyond Title 24.
Santa Monica, CA- requires all new multi-family homes to meet a series of energy efficiency
requirements that are 15% above Title 24.
http://www . green bui I dings .santa-moni ca.org/whatsnew / green-buil ding -ordinance/ green-
building-Ord-I-5-2002.pdf
Austin, TX- recently began adopting a series of building code requirements designed to create
net zero energy homes. These are related to duct system leakage, HV AC sizing calculations, new
lighting requirements, and building thermal envelope testing.
http://action.nwf.org/ct/CI_aQw5JlaZd/
CCWG Final Recommendations Report 250DO
April I, 2008
"
MANDATORY COMMERCIAL STANDARDS AND ORDINANCES
West Hollywood, CA- requires all new commercial development to meet a certain number of
points within their custom-made point system.
Chicago, IL- requires all commercial development to meet energy code requirements that are
more stringent than the IL energy conservation code.
Santa Monica, CA- requires all new commercial development to meet energy code
requirements that are 15% above Title 24 requirements.
Washington, DC- requires LEED certification or LEED silver (depending on the project type)
for commercial development above 50,000 sq. ft. httD://action.nwf.org/ct/Cd aOw5! laZe/
Boston, MA- requires LEED certification for commercial development above 50,000 sq. ft.
http://v,''Nw . bostongreenbui Iding.org/
Seattle, W A- required all commercial development to meet energy code requirements that are
20% above American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) standards.
http://v,ww . seattle. gov ID PD/ stellentl groups/pan/@pan/@codes/@energycode/documents/webj
nformational/2006SECsummary.pdf
Santa Barbara, CA- The ordinance mandates building regulations, based on Architecture 2030
principles, which exceed Title 24 requirements by 20 percent for low-rise residential buildings,
15 percent for high-rise residential buildings and 10 percent for nonresidential buildings, among
other measures. http://sbdailysound.blogspot.com/200711 O/santa-barbara-boosts-green-
building.html
cewa Final Recommendations Report
April!,2008
26 of 30
"
Aooendix C: Recommendations from 2000
C02 Reduction Plan
Table 6.3
ACTION MEASURES
,. MUnicipar clu" fuel vehicle purchases.
2. G/'Il!etI Pow8r. (Replaced .PTiwlle Fieet Clean Fuel Vehicle Purch_" GIllS)
3. Municipa! Cleo" Fuel DemOllslnrtic>n PtcIect
4. TeJe<:omtJIutingiilld Telecet,.rers
5. Mu"lcipal Building Vpgrades8"d Trip Redur:tlrm
6. Einhanced ~ ConnllCtion.. To Transit
7. hlcrNsed Housing Density Near Transit
B. Site DesIgn with. Transit Orientation
i. Increased Land Use Mix
10. Green Power Public Educalton PrognJm (R6IpIaced "Reduced eommercilll
PaJ1rjnll Requinlments" 6IllB)
11. ~ Design with _anISicycIe Orienl.Olion
1 Z. Bicycle InlegtatJon will! Translt...1f Smp/oyment
13. Sicyclel.anes, Patb$ anlf Routes
14. Enetl7y Emotent Landscaping
15. Solar Pool HutJng
16. Traffic Signal "nit Sylmom Upgrades
17. SIudIont r....$/t Subsidy
1 B. En..-gy Efficient Building RecogflitJon Prog.-
19. Municipal Life-Cycle PurchaSIng stande_
20. IncreR<Kt EmpIoymenr DensIty N"", Transit
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1, 2008
"
27 of 30
Aooendix D: Refutinf! the Denialists from the San Dieeo Union-Tribune
CLIMATE CHANGE
Refuting denialists: an inconvenient truth
By Richard C. J. SomervilleOJuly 12, 2006
AB a climate scientist, I am often asked, "Do you believe in global warming?" Climate
change, however, is not a matter of personal belief.
Instead, among experts, it's just settled science that people are changing the climate.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, reported in 2001 that, "There
is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities."
Every reputable scientific organization that has studied the IPCC conclusion has
endorsed it. Recent research (http://realclimate.org) reinforces this assessment. The next
major IPCC report, due in 2007, is likely to cite more supporting evidence.
Al Gore's film and book, "An Inconvenient Truth," do a fine job of summarizing the
science. You may agree or disagree with Gore politically, but nobody can deny that he
has maintained a serious interest in climate change for some two decades and has
become quite knowledgeable about it.
For San Diegans, it's a fascinating bit of history that Gore first learned about this issue
as a Harvard student in the 1960s. His teacher was our own Roger Revelle. Before
moving to Harvard, Revelle had been director of Scripps Institution of Oceanography
and a founder of the University of California San Diego.
The Earth as a whole is always in approximate energy balance, absorbing energy from
sunlight and emitting an equivalent amount of energy to space as infrared radiation.
Some infrared energy is emitted directly from the surface of the Earth. The rest is
emitted from the atmosphere, by clouds and particles and the gases (chiefly water vapor
and carbon dioxide) that contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, we know that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has
increased substantially in recent decades, because this increase has been measured very
accurately. The measurements were initiated by Charles David Keeling (1928-2005)
whom Revelle brought to Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the 1950s. Keeling,
who spent his entire career at Scripps, discovered that human activities are changing the
chemical composition of the global atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide is produced by burning fossil fuels. Adding carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere means that more of the energy emitted to space must come from higher
(hence colder) levels of the atmosphere. The Earth ",>:ill respond to this new situation by
warming up, thus emitting more infrared energy, until the equilibrium is restored.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report 28 of 30
April l, 2008
"
That's our fundamental scientific understanding. It comes from rock-solid, well-
understood physics. Everything else, from heat waves to hurricanes, is fascinating and
important, but that is really just the details, scientifically speaking.
Working out all the details will take a long time. But a promising start has been made,
and climate science can already usefully inform policy.
In a similar way, you might say that an ultimate goal of medical science is to eliminate
all disease. That this task is incomplete is no reason to treat your physician with disdain.
A group of people dispute the scientific consensus. They like to call themselves skeptics.
A healthy skepticism, however, is part of being a good scientist, so I am unwilling to
surrender this label to them. Instead, I call them denialists.
You don't get anything like a balanced view from climate denialists. Their only goal is
finding ways why the climate might be resistant to human activities. By and large, these
denialists have convinced very few knowledgeable scientists to agree with them.
Experience shows that in science, it tends to be the exception rather than the rule when
a lone genius eventually prevails over conventional wisdom. An occasional Galileo does
come along, but not often, and nearly all the people who think they are a Galileo are
actually just wrong.
Science is very much a cooperative process and is largely self-correcting. We publish our
research methods and our findings in detail and invite other scientists to confirm or
disprove them. Incorrect science ultimately gets rooted out and rejected.
What of the future? I can imagine both an optimistic and a pessimistic scenario.
In my optimistic scenario, climate science informs the making of wise public policy.
Technological creativity then leads to rapid development of practical energy alternatives
to fossil fuels. We stabilize the Earth's greenhouse effect before it gets too strong.
My pessimistic scenario is a different planet, with sea level much higher and
dangerously altered weather patterns. You cannot fool nature. Climate science warns us
that strengthening the greenhouse effect must eventually produce serious consequences.
That's not radical environmental alarmism. It's physics. For me, the issue then becomes
one of guessing whether we get wise before that day, or whether we must wait for some
shocking and unpleasant climate surprise that wakes us all up.
For my children's sake, I hope that the optimistic scenario is the one that develops. The
choice is ours to make.
Somerville is distinguished professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April I, 2008
29 000
"
.'
Aooendix E: Full List of Climate Protection Actions Reviewed bv the Climate
Chanl!:e Workinl!: Grouo
CCWG Final Recommendations Report
April 1, 2008
30 ono
"
Appendix E: CLIMATE PROTECTION MEASURES REVIEWED BY CCWG
1 Promote purchase of ranewable energy In community
II Purchase green electricily from solar, geothermal, 'Niod or hydroelectric sources
b Provide community with oplion of purchasing "Green Tags" or "Renewable
Energy Certificates" (REC)
.
c CreaUon of Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) 10 facilitate "defivered"
renewable energy purchases
d Create "Carbon Tax" on conventional energy use
2 Promote solar PV & hot water systems In community
a Develop comprehensive community solar program to facilitate financing &
installation
>
i
..
::J
'"
>
&!
w
z
w
b Complete a siting survey & ongoing solar monitoring 10 identify suitable areas
c Create community solar trust fund
~furlher details below in efficienc i rean buildin section
3 Retrofit buildings with passive solar lighting & heating
... Promote wind power generation In community
a Complete a siting survey & ongoing wind monitoring to identify suitable areas
b Facilititate installalion of small wind power systems
5 Investigate potential for small hydropower generation from water supply
6 Investigate potential for geothennal generation
7 Increase use of direcUdlstrlbuted generation lOG) & co-generBtton using
biofuel and waste gas
a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Generation
b Biofuels Fuel Cell
c Investigate use of DG and co-generation in new community design
Energy
Efficiency
8 Create green building standards for major construction & renovation
projects
cCWG FIno! ReoommertdoUons Repot1
AprRI.2011ft
lCLEI
IPCC
Portland
Fort Collins
ICLEI
Seallle
Ashland
fCLEI
lGG
SF PUC
fPCC
Boulder
ICLEI
fPCC
Santa Monica
Marin
SF PUC
Sanla Monica
Navy San Diego
SF PUC
NJ - Clean Energy
IPCC
NY Power Authority
!PCC
San Bernardino
IPCC
Sheraton Hotels
IPce
Portland
MIT
% of total purchased
% participation rate
Green...e certified
# of participating customers
Add'l funding amount
% of potential participants
Full time staff & dedicated
website
Survey entire City using GIS
Web presence & sale of 100
pkges
#ofbuildings
htlo:llcifort-
collin5.co.us/ulllitiesfe
nercvDolicv.DhD
EPAdescriDlionof
Green Taos
Portland
Seattle
CCP - Example
Reduction Measures
Bonneville
Foundation/Ashland
Websile
htlD:fl1oc.orarccaJdocs
fCGa enercv faelshee San Francisco pue
!.&!;!f
hIlD:flwww.boulderco
orada.lIovlindex.oho? htlD:!fwww.iocc.ch!SPM040507.Ddf
o tion=com conlent&-
hllD:flwww.salarsanta
monica.comfmainflnd
ex.html
: wwwvoesoar.oSanFranciscoSOlar
rc/resourcesfdownloa MonHorinll
Solar Santa Monica
0: eere.enel
ov.aovlfell1DfservicesJ
ecp - Example
ReduclionMeasures
cCP - Example
ReduclionMeasures
Survey entire city using GIS & Wind Monitorina and hltD:ffrredc.nrel.aovlwl htlc:/lwww.hullwind.or
monitor most promising areas SF Zoo nd/oubsJaUasfmacs/c fl!..
# of participants
# of turbines
Kilowatt Hours
% of total energy
Annual kVVh
% incease in efficiency
htto'flwww.niceD.comr
htmVenerllv.html
httc:f{WWW.nvo8 oovlf htw'lfwww.iDCC.ch/SP
acililies/hvdros.htm M040507.Dd!
: .renewa E htto:ffwww-iocc.ch/SP
sa ora/docslWebfGeo M040507.Ddf
'.
k D: IS' ue ce 5,'"', htto:ffwww.fuelcells.orhllo.I~.IDCc.chlSPMO..
rs.comUDDDaae g1 ~
0: .00 anon
ine.comfoscllindex.cf hllo:/1Www ru@lc@lIs0ml
,-
hIlD:ffcooen.mit.edul
htlD-{lenwikimldiaorn/wiki hllo'/IenwikiDedlaorn!wikl
lDistriblIledoeneraUon lCoaenerollon
htlo:/~.iDCC.c.hISPMO"
""""'"
Apptlndlx E
MnSUfllS Reviewed by CCWG
Appendix E: CLIMATE PROTECTION MEASURES REVIEWED BY CCWG
a Require LEED or equivalent standards for commercial or industrial projects
Santa Monica
80ston
b Require LEED or equivalent standards for residential projects
Santa Monica
80slon
c Require LEED or equivalent stBndsrds for City-sponsored projects
Sanla Monica
Boston
ChulaVista
.
9 Integrate green building standards Into permtttfng process
a Promote green buildings through municipal programs
rCLEI
IPee
Chula Visla-GreenStar
b Adopt strict community-wide energy code requirements
IClEl
IPee
c Train City employees at all levels to understand & promote green building
Portland
o
z
..
'"
w
o
..
1;
z
w
o
u:
~
w
>-
li!
w
z
w
d Provide green building pre-application consultation & user-friendly guide~nes
Portland
e Provide density bonus to green building projects
Seattle
Arlington
Sunnyvale
f Establish City position for an Energy Specialist to help citizens with EE design
San Francisco
g Provide energy efficient modeling of large construction projects
Chula Vista
10 Develop programs to mitigate Urban Heat Island Effects
a Promote cool roof & paving technologies
CARB
Chicago
ICLEI
IPCC
CARB
Los Angeles
Chula Vista
b Expand urban forests on public & private properties
11 Promote energy efficiency to residents In community
a Provide free energy audits to residents
IClEI
Chute Vista
Austin
b launch an "energy efficiency challenge" campaign
rClEI
Salem
IClEI
SDG&E
IClEI
Chula Vista
c Implement a low.income weatherization program
d Promote purchase of ENERGY 8T AR appliances
CCWG Flngl ReeommelldgliDns Reporl
Aprll1.200e
% Ofl~u~6:~~=i~~~1 size :rwwwsmaovneveDd/ ::~=~:;~::::: hllo-lIv.ww u~bcoral
% of buildings over ,specific size htlo:/Iwww.smaov.neVeDdI htlo:/fwww c~vofbaslon.llo hllo'/Iwww lI~lIbc oml
lEED certification level ~ vlbrg/ablfIGBTFhome.aso
% of buildings over specific size
lEED certification level
# of participants
% over Tille 24
Floor Area Ratio
FTE position
# of buildings/homes
k'NhfTherm savings
Total square feet
# of trees planted
# of participants
# of participants
k'Nhllhenn savings
kVlJhlthenn savings
kVlJhltherm savings
hllo:/fwwwc ulavlstaca.aq
hllD:f1www smaov neUeDdI hllo:II_1'I c~vDlbo~on DO ~~ve:~~:='::m~
m vlbraloblffGBTFhome lI5D eveloomenUPDFs/7-
'e s,O
~~~II~:~~i~~~~~ODB~i hllo:/Iw.vw.iocc.ch/SP CCP - ~xample
k:IinofDellt'Joomenl SlIrvlc M040507.Dd! Reduction Measures
CCP - Example htlo:/Iwww.iDcc.ch/SP
Reduction Measures M040507.Ddf
o a on
inecomfosdlindex.cf
www.o an on
ine.com/osdlindex.cf
,.
O' ....rmoanva.lI O:SUnnVVlleca.aove
dlloartmentsfEnvironmenl Dgrtment$/Commun~v+De
Seattle Densit Bonus alServlcestenolF.nvironme veloomenUPlannina+DMsl
nlaIServicesEtl<llnCl!lnUveP~
htto:/Iwww .necsc.u.~l<:locsn
nlearalino REEE lech co
mm dev.odf
caaovfclmatll aClion lea
;;w...oonsI2007-04-
hllD:/1www .eca.oovlheatlsl hllo:/Jwww.a~i.c:edutwebs
and! ~::f~reenln~lallvesfaree
hllo:/Iwww.climalechanoe.
ca.oov/clmale aClion lea
mfreoort!/2007-04_
20 ARB ea action re
!l!Lm!1
hltD:/fwww mimonlreesla.o hUa:ffwww.chulavlslaCa.lIo
mlmlabOlll1 hIm ~~~:~::::~aUonMl8Ie
CCP - Example
ReduclionMeasures
htlo:/fwww.chulavislaca.ao omlEnemv%20Efficiencv/
v/clean/conservallonlC maproaramsIRebaleslReskle
lelEnemv8SO 0 %
hllo:/Iwww.enaoovfReolo
n1/ecolenemvlenemv-
challtlooehlml
CCP. Example
ReduclionMeasures
CCP - Example hllO:f/www.sdae.comfform
Reduction Measures sfenemvTeam.odl
CCP - Example
ReduclionMeasures
hllo'/Iwww.chulavlstaca.lIo
vii / n ali nma
lelEnemvasn
App-endlx E
Measures Revlewoo by CCWG
,
c
z
"
ill
c
..
1;
z
w
iJ
iL
~
w
>-
"
'"
w
z
w
z
c
F
;!
'"
o
..
..
z
g
Appendix E: CLIMATE PROTECTION MEASURES REVIEWED BY CCWG
e Provide free CFllighl bulbs to City residents
ICLEI
ChulaVista
Boulder
reLEI
SDG&E
IClEf
SDCWA
rClEf
Port Angeles
Provide free fluorescent lorchfere lamps 10 City residents
9 Promote water conservation through teChnological & behavioral modificiallon
h Impement lime-or-use or peak demand energy pricing
12 Promote energy efficiency to businesses In community
B Promote participalion in green business program
reLEt
San Diego (County)
San Ramon
Mesa
Wilson
ChulaVista
SDG&E
Chuta Vista
SDG&E
reLEt
Chura Vista
SDG&E
b Provide free energy audits to local busiosses
c Provide free lherm-saving retrofits to local businesses
d Provide free CFL light bulbs to local businesses
1 Promote Improved vehicle fuel efficiency
a Promote purchases of compact & hybrid vehicles
ICLEI
Chula Vista
Austin
New York
Vacaville
Boston
San Jose
lCLEI
Chula Visla
Grants Pass
b Offer preferred parking for hybrid vehicles
c Use fuel-efficient vehicles (e.g. scooters) for parking enforcement
2 Promote Artematlve Fuel Vehicles AFV
a Initiate a communily biodiesel co-.op Of fueling station
ICLEI
San Francisco
LosAn eles
Navy San Diego
Oakland
b Provide a community CNG fueling station
c Ensure building codes pennit at-home CNG fuel stations
Chino
d Incorporate AFV (electric, biodiesel, ethanol, hydrogen, CNG) into municipal neet
ICLEI
Chula Visla
Boulder
Los An eles
J Reduce motorized vehicle trl s In communi
a Inslall new ~ght rail systems
ICLEI
Seattle
Portland
lCLEI
Phoenix
b Expand bus service In range and frequency
CCWG Final Recommendallons Report
Aprill.200ft
kWh savings
klNh savings
# of participants
kWhltherm savings
# of participanls
# of participants
Therm larget savings
kWh target savings
% of new vehicles
% of City Fleel
# of dedicated spaces
% of lolal spaces
% of trips in vehicles
% of neel USing AFV
#ofmiles
# of added routes
# of expanded schedules
# of lines al15 min intervals
CCP - Example
Reduction Measures
CCP - Example
Reduction Measures
nuoJIwww.sdcwa.ortJ/man
aoslconservallon.oll1ml
~~:=;~~~~~~:sO hl!P;{~sdilll.c"mlsma[
edResldenliaL df Imelerv2/imlaxshlml
CCP - Example
Reduction Measures
ht1o./lwww.sdCOllnlveaao hllo:/1Www r.i ~a"_ hllo-/ldlv"rmesa ora/utllllla
Yldehlhmd/meenbu_~lnass ramon.C8.uslrecvelelnreen slwaterllldflazoreenaul08_
!!ll!!! .hlm ~
hlta-/lwww.chulavisl"C8.l10 hllo:/Iwww wilsonnc.oralWl hllD-/lwww.sdoe cornlbtJsl
videa / Ilservation/CIi a lsonanerav/enemvaudR.as nesSl1lus exmessefficlenc
leJEnelUvasD I! vaudlls.shlml
hUn:/Iwww.cl1ulavislaeaao
v/elea/ nsrvationlC
leIEner .as
htlo:ffwww.ehulavislaCII.oo
vlcleanfconservalionlClma
~
hItoJ/dvofvacavillll eoml 1111o:ltwww.aUstlnene~v c
docurrnlnls/PrcssRelease OmlAbDut%20U~.JnI!!P./! ttt1D:IIw!"w~,gOVnllmVol
51030607<;;'20_ ~enlaI%201n'bat'w~luo' anvr.2030lhtmllhomlllhollJ
~ ,% OH bnd%20V leslie.shtml
oomrhlm
htto:/fwww.massnortcom!hlt:/lwwwsa.ca. evil
about/cress "lOWS t:leanv ransoortatlon/whalsnewlhv
hi hlml.hlml bri<1~nde .hl
CCP - Example hllc'I/www.visl1oranlsnass
ReduclionMeasures ornllmlexasox?Daoe=860
CCP - Example hllo:/IvMw.sfbiofuels. hllo:/lw'NwbiodieseJ-
ReductionMeasures !WI! won ora/
hlloJIWww ncln naw mlVo htto'IIwww.Dortoloakland c
df C8seslP2 ComDrllssed omlnewsroomlDres~r~Vvie
Nalural Gas. r W.8S ?id=71
hUD'fIwNw.aomd.Dovfoubi
nfolPlIblicalionsfAdvlsorn
006/AdvTsorSe 6. r
CCP - Example
Reduction Measures
Il1taJIwww.boulderc.:lor~d ttllD:fJ_dacltvora/RadlE
0.0'" d l< 1170 '0 -coADWeb-
~7c:~~:i~~~;~~ew&id= AaO/afvehicles hIm
CCP - Example hIto:/1Www sea.llle.llovllran hllD://www.nortlandmall.or
Reduction Measures sDortation~ohtraiJ.hlm lIf.
CCP ~ Example hllo:/fohoenix oolllPUBlIC
Reduction Measures TRANSITnndex hlml
AppendIx E
MeasullIsRllvlawedbyCC'MJ
Appendix E: CLIMATE PROTECTION MEASURES REVIEWED BY CCWG
d Provide Inlelllgenl Transportation Systems (ITS)
San Francisco
Alameda County
Chicago
Seattle Portland
hltDJ/www.actransilora/rid
httD:l!clab')~lracker.conll1l hllo:/IWww.slmla.comJcm!l erinfolnel<!bu! wu?PHPSE
u.slrnelhameJsD /mroutes/indxroul him SSID~leBca7bd1l6b736~
S3 e7r7c61b55a
e Provide free bus service within center oil "free ride" zone
.
g Expand end improve community bicycle infrastrudure (lockers. paving, lanes)
rCLEf
San Francisco
#ofmiles
# of new lockers
IlItn1/www.ohilvcomfohill
vlwiresJaDlnewslslateloen
h1tD:/lC4.Sanla-rosa.CII.usl ~fv:tiai~S~~~~~I~~aD e~ =~=~:~i~~Vl\rflns;
eeridesloschoolonseDtahl
"
hIlD:f1WWW.sfaOV.orals -'/www a "IS e
CCP - Example 'teJb' d ?ld clal Promolions and Na~
Reduction Measures' ae In eX.aso. ProoralmlBike 10 wor1l
11525 d lindell.as
htlo:/fwww,visltoooenh
CCP. Example aoen.comltourisUolan httD:/lnews.bbc.co.ukl
Reduction Measures and bookfhow 10 a 2Jhl/euroDeJ6699062.
et aroundlbikeslfree 1m
ci bikes
htlo:l/v.ww.slcla ora/conle M!o'/fwww nvc.aovlhlmVol hllo:llwww cclondon comll
ntMew/415/2411 :ns~~30IhlmVhomelhom nd".".shlml
f Provide students/employees with free or discounted transit passes
Santa Rosa
Philadelphia
Albuquerque
h Provide free bicycles for public use
ICLEI
Copenhagen
Paris
z
o
F=
;!
'"
i?
Ul
z
Dl
>-
Encourage carpooling/vanpooling
San Francisco
New York
ICLEI
ChulaVista
Santa Monica
29 Palms
ICLEI
San Ramon
Portland
ICLEI
Los Angeles
Austin
% of patrols
CCP - Example
Reduction Measures
hllO:/fwww.~llnlamoI11ceod ::~^:::,~:v~~:~11
.orniunl1slB,kePa\rol.hlm menl410hlml
i Create congestion fees for downtown metropolitan zones! inc. parking cost
Implement a police on bicycles program
k
CCP - Example
Reduction Measures
ht1o"lIwwwcisan_
ramon causliransDlfaahi
ml
hllo'/lwwwoolllandonlne
coml\ran~Dollallonllnde>l c
rm7c=dllih
Encourage telecommuting or allernative warle: schedules
CCP - Example
Reduction Measures
htlo:/Iwww.lac~v.oro/Perlw :::~=O:n~U:I~~~:1I
orllsChJllm doc
4 Reduce IdUn times for vehicles
a Create "No Idling" codes & policies
ICLEI
Spokane
Washington
ICLEI
Santa Clarita
S okane
# of schools
CCP"- Example
Reduction Measures
htln:/Iwww.alrl-
hi. 'lwwws ka c I onWne oro/re~earcl\lk:lHno/l
rorn/documenl5/onlhllelrl dHno%20Reoulallon.s%2D
OTA%2DSr>rinn%2D06.odr Comaendium%20Dec%20
.
hll.'....... 1_ hI .s kanllcleanai
0; '.......san a roraldo<:umllnl$/C/loICAP
clarita comlcnvhalVnwllraff %20UDdale'lo20Summ%2
IcJslonat.svnd1asD OS I
b Improve traffic signal synchronization
CCP - Example
Reduction Measures
5 Limit suburban s rawl
a Create growth boundaries through ordinances and general plans
ICLEI
ChulaVista
San Jose
CCP - Example
ReduclionMeasures
hllD'/fwwwchulavislaca.110
v/cnv sllrvicllsJdllWIOnnlll hllD"llwwwsaniosecaooV!
~o;t;::l~~~~'::n"::~me~~~v Dlannirw/Ddf/smalluab odl
documenls/Fia1-2.odl
'.
b Foster mixed-use development
ICLEI
Chula Vista
hl\o'/Iwww chulavi~lar... 0"
vlC~~ SllrviceslDllveloom
ent ServiCllslCommunnv
Dl!veloDn'lllnllRedeveloDm
enVCVRC/Delaull aSO
~;~~~~rv~::::~:o: hl1o:llwww aus~nchambllr hllo'/Iwww slcoov comllra
! S . slPI . B' comITheChamberlAboulT IlsoollallonlBlc~cleTralllcl
~~ ;IMC~ ICanDlnn 'lu;hl!chambl!rlDcnve.os Inl PDF/SICbik... Fioure7_
OI:n.llSanl1lnr> omOlu", v arcilvlTOD,lldf Ll2!!!
w
Ul
"
o
z
:l
CCP . Example
ReduclionMeasures
C Foster transit & pedestrian-oriented development
ChulaVista
Denver
Salt Lake
ICLEI
Dallas
Somerville
CCP - Example hllo:/iwww.daUas-
ReductionMeasures eddorolbroWllfieldsnlml
hllDJIwww somervillllma 0
ov/Secllonclm?orn=econd
evel&oaoll=193
d Target new developments to Brownfield sites
CCVYG Final RllCtlmmendallons Reporl
",prlll,2001!
AppendiX E
Measures Revlewed by CCWG
Appendix E: CLIMATE PROTECTION MEASURES REVIEWED BY CCWG
w
Ul
=>
C
z
:'i
e Institute programs & policies to preserve open space
fCLEI
Chula Vista
CCP - Example
ReduclionMeasures
Establish maximum (vs. minimum) parking requiremenls
Increase rate of re-use/dlverslon from waste stream
Seattle
Boston
htlD"/lIransloolkil.maDC.OI0 ll11o:/lwww.ciSf!alae"'RUs
lParkinalStrateoieslPar1dn /IT\l;odelsmc1S3S81000ht
Maximums hIm m
a Expand recycling programs
ICLEI
San Francisco
Santa Monica
ICLEI
Portland
San Francisco
% of total waste recycled
.
b Ex and reen waste collection and fe-use residences, businesses, schools
c EslabNsh food waste collection/composling program
% total waste diverted
httJ/woHwsfrecc"n
ICOlnDostino.htm
hll \11 a ae c
om/media k~.llhll?kjl"'Bnn
~
Ul
~
b Require municipal purchasing to focus on re-used/recycled products (for both
office suppMes, and for road building and construction materials)
Davis
Code in Place
http://vMw.meadowla
nds.slale.ni.usfnalural
resourcesfsolid was
efmelhane recovery.
1m
htlD:ltwww.sfenvironm hItD:ltwNw.sfenvironm
enl.oralour Droarams enl.oro/do'M'lloadsJIibr ~5;lle5Sloonla~:rn reas.:1
Iinleresls.hlml?ssi-3& arv/2hfoodservicewar rn
1i"'6&ii=127 eflier0507. dl
hIlD:ftwww.citv.davis.c
a.uslcmo/cilvcodeldel
ail.cfm?D=15&1I"'473
hlto:llwww.resourceva hlto:lfwww.resource~a
rd I rd.oro/carael recvclin hllD:llwww.bkmvc.om/
m&[gL ~
hll ''fwww.on d ontOIJ hlto:l/www.revenueJ
er.calnewsoho?lvDe~2&ld jndex.hlm?/revauidefe
-1011 nvironmentallew.htm
2 Reduce amount of waste generated
San Diego
New Jersey
a Create municipal ordinance requiring recyclablefcompostable food containers in
lake-out restaurants (banning styrofoam)
San Francisco
Santa Monica
c Develop building material recycHng program
Ft. Collins
Boulder
New York
d Implement a municipal sales lax on plastic bags
Vancouver
Ireland
Code in Place
5 Reduce water use
IClEI
San Diego
Santa Monica
Phoenix
Alamagordo
Phoenix
Austin
largo
Tuscon
% reduction
hllocllwww.sunlimes.toml
newslmelroJ50119117CST.
NWS-waterU, rlide
htlo:/fwww.sandieao.lI hllo:flwww.meadowla
ovlenvironmental- nds.state.m.us~natural hllojIwwwS~ndil!'tJo.oovl
services/sustainable/o resources/solid was ~rlf1~laIMlS/ene .sh
dfl h. I <If e/metl1ane recovery.
a amvenOIV.D 1m
hllo'/lwwwsandiaoo.aovl
mwwo/facilllie"-'r1lelrobios
oAds.shlml
h1tn:i/oenci.SHnlil_ , htloJ/cialamoooroo.nm.us
monka.ca.usfeod/residenl h\lo1/ohoenr)(.oovMATER /Water COnS~Mlllo~al
~M~.lerlir'lde)( him {Walemln hlml :: h;~ll$eMlllOn Overvte
hllD:lfohoen;x.aovmATER
(Walemln_hlml
'.
e Implement a municipal sales tax on bottled water
Chicago (proposed)
3 Establish methane recovery at landfill
ICLEI
Chula Vista
San Diego
4 Install an anaerobic digester at local wastQwater treatment plant
a Collaborate with water authorities to establish shared conservation goals'
rams
0:
~
..
..
b Investigate broader use of reclaimed water
hUo:ilwww.ti.auslin.\)(.l)sl
wrifdelaull.hlm
h\to:/f209,43.125.200/daD<lhtlD-J/wwwcl.tutsona7usl
rtmenVdMsion as 1100-6 water/reclaimed water hi
'" m
d Require new buildings/developments to plan for grey or recycled water systems
Chula Vista
Phoenix
htlo:l/tLalamooordonmus
htlo:l/ohoenix.oovlWATER Maler ConservationlWat
Iwalcroln.html er COnSClvaliOn Overvie
w.l1lm
htto://www.otavwaler.arwl
htlD:lIDhoenix.oovIWATER owd/oanesIHomelNewsSI
Iwatemlnhlml arieslNewsSlorvuolOld=
'"
C Prioritize water conservation in municipal code
Alamagordo
e Require buildings 10 obtain a ~water conservation certificate" upon change of
ownerShip
San Diego
hllll:JIWww_sandieao.aov/
waler/conservalianJsemno
shlml
CCWG FInal Reoommendations Reporl
Aprlll.20l16
AppandixE
Measures Reviewed by CCWG
Appendix E: CLIMATE PROTECTION MEASURES REVIEWED BY CCWG
6 Develop renewable energy pumping programs
identification of off-grid pumps,
e5tb. of renewable pumping
s stem
a Re-apply pumping program to golf courseJJarge landscaptng--type situations
7 Work for hi her saturation of water conservatton measures
Santa Monica
New Mexico
hlln"ffnencis3nla_ htlD:li'owiwsandiaoovlme
monicar.ausleDdl,esidenl diaINewsReVNR7000IMex
slWaler~ndex.hlln renew.hlm
a Promote Water Authority's free water audit program
Chule Vista
htlo"/lwwwchulavislaca.ao
vleleanlcons@rvaijonlWale
hedlWaler.as
hIlD:llwwwehulavislaca.oo
vlcleallfconscNalionlWale
edlWa .as
0:
~
~
b Integrale water conservation measures into CES energy assessments
Chuta Vista
Improve visibiHly of water conservation on city websile/collatorallpublicity
Nevada
Austin
Naples
EPA
Sweetwater
San Diego
Miami-Dade
Denver
III :/'-.snwa.con
ItIrnuoht wlIlerinllhlml
I hllll:flWwwci.austinlxustn
ewsf2007/Walerinorulesh
,
.
c Develop residential watering schedule
d Require Landscape Companies to obtain certification showing that they have
completed water management BMP course
Promote educalionallours of water resources for publici students to encourage
e behavioral modificalion
IIttoJIwww.n3Dlesllov.com htto:flwww.eca lI11y/Walers
fLan<:lscace Cert FAQodfensefcDlirrnrof.hlm
IItto:ffwww_~wee!wat&r oro httoJi'owrw otaYWa~er lI11vl
feducaticn/eoucatton.hlml ~/o:,:::~u~alrOnfBdUC
hl1o./lwww.miamidade ooy IIllDJIwww.oenverwaler or
Ir.ons"rvnlion! 9!
CCIIYG Final Recommendalions ReP'\!rt
Aprlll,201l!
App&ndilt E
M&lI$ures Reviewed by CCWG
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA (I) ADOPTING THE IMPLEMENTATION
PLANS FOR THE CLIMATE CHANGE WORKING GROUP
MEASURES, (2) APPROVING PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE MEASURES BASED ON CURRENT FUNDING
LEVELS, (3) AUTHORIZING STAFF TO PURSUE
ADDITIONAL FUNDING OPTIONS AND (4) DIRECTING
STAFF TO RETURN TO COUNCIL WITHIN 180 DAYS WITH
AN IMPLEMENTATION UPDATE
WHEREAS, in May 2007 staff reported to City Council that Chula Vista's citywide
greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 35% (mainly due to residential growth) from 1990 to
2005, while emissions from municipal operations decreased by 18%; and
WHEREAS, as a result, the City Council directed staff to convene a Climate Change
Working Group (CCWG) to develop recommendations to reduce the community's greenhouse
gas emissions or "carbon footprint" in order to meet the City's 2010 greenhouse gas emissions
reduction targets; and
WHEREAS, the CCWG - comprised of residential, business and community-group
representatives - evaluated over 90 climate protection measures based on the follow criteria: I)
the measure had been previously implemented successfully by an ICLEI local government or
California Climate Action Registry business, 2) the measure would be financially feasible (i.e.
require little or no additional General Fund support), 3) the measure could be quickly
implemented to have immediate impact on the City's efforts to reduce emissions by 2010, 4) the
measure's impacts could be quantified using the City's emissions inventory protocol and 5) the
measure would not cause a significant adverse community impact; and
WHEREAS, the CCWG chose seven measures which it felt could slow the rate of GHG
emissions increases and could ultimately lead to lowering emissions to below 1990 levels; and
WHEREAS, on April I, 2008, City Council adopted the CCWG's seven
recommendations and directed staff to develop detailed implementation plans in 90 days; and
WHEREAS, the CCWG Measures' Implementation Plans outlines staffs strategy to
implement the seven climate protection measures; and
WHEREAS, the proposed implementation plans, if fully implemented, are estimated to
cost $1,479,380 in one-time expenditures and $2,419,150 in annual expenditures; and
J:\A.ttomey\FINAL RESOSI2008\07 10 08\Implemenation Plans Climate Change Working Group,doc
Resolution No. 2008-
Page 2
WHEREAS, staff is recommending that the measures are implemented in a "phased"
manner to allow the City an opportunity to pursue, and work with the City Attorney's department
to determined the viability of, a variety of funding sources to meet both the long-term, ongoing
program management costs as well as the short-term, large upfront capital improvement costs
required to fully implement the seven measures; and
WHEREAS, Phase 1, as identified in the Staff Report and in Table 4 ofthe CCWG Draft
Implementation Plans attached to the Staff Report and on file in the City Clerk's office, would
involve partially implementing the climate protection measures immediately based on existing
funding and authorizing staff to pursue additional funding sources such as grants, local fee
authority, and franchise and development fee increases; and
WHEREAS, within 180 days (Phase 2), staff would return to City Council to report on
the progress of obtaining additional funding for expanded implementation; and
WHEREAS, staff would also present to Council any related funding documents (i.e.
revised development fee schedule or renegotiated franchise fee agreement) for review and
adoption.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
that it hereby:
1. Adopts the Implementation Plans for the Climate Change Working Group
Measures;
2. Approves partial implementation of the measures based on current funding levels,
identified as Phase 1 in the Staff Report and detailed in Table 4 of the CCWG Draft
Implementation Plans attached to the Staff Report and on file in the City Clerk's office;
3. Authorizes staffto pursue additional funding options; and
4. Directs staff to return to Council within 180 days with an implementation update.
Presented by Approved as to form by
Michael Meacham
Director of Conservation and
Environmental Services
. -