Finalization of the CCAP is being funded 100% from Land Development Fund, FY 2015/16 Budget.
On November 3, 2015, the Board accepted an update from DCD and Health Services Department staff on their progress toward completing the County's CCAP (Attachment A). The Board Order for that hearing (Attachment B) detailed the County's efforts to-date to complete the CCAP and highlighted some of the document's important elements. Staff also gave a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment C) that described the regulatory setting in California related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their reduction [Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Executive Order S-3-05, etc.], and described the CCAP in more detail.
The primary purpose of the November 3 hearing was to provide the Board with an opportunity to review and to become familiarized with the draft CCAP, as well as provide input prior to DCD bringing the final document before the Board for adoption.
Board Comments at the November 3 Hearing
Board members made several comments on the draft CCAP, which are restated below along with staff's responses:
1. Supervisor Andersen indicated that the community of Canyon was not included in the list of unincorporated communities to which the CCAP would be applicable.
Staff Response: Canyon was added to the version of the CCAP that was posted on-line for public review and is listed in the final version of the CCAP that is before the Board for adoption.
2. Supervisor Andersen asked staff to verify whether the statement on page 7 of the CCAP that the median income in Contra Costa County has declined since 2012, remains accurate.
Staff Response: Staff reviewed the latest data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which indicates that the median income in Contra Costa County decreased in 2013 and 2014, but has risen in 2015. The text of the CCAP has been revised accordingly.
3. Supervisor Andersen asked for clarification of Table 3.7 on page 34 of the CCAP, which indicates that there would be a zero percent change in agricultural emissions from 2005-2035.
Staff Response: The CCAP provides agriculture inventories for the 2005 baseline year and the 2013 GHG emissions update. Because of the small size of the agricultural sector relative to the overall inventory and the variability/uncertainty that comes with agricultural forecasts using best available methods, our consultants advocated holding agricultural emissions constant through future years.
4. Supervisor Andersen suggested adding text to the CCAP regarding Community Choice Aggregation, reflecting that the County is examining the opportunities afforded by this method of purchasing electricity.
Staff Response: The following action item has been added to the CCAP under Reduction Measure Renewable Energy 3 - Alternative Energy Financing: Continue exploring options for implementing Community Choice Aggregation within the unincorporated area of the County.
5. Supervisor Andersen suggested adding an action item under Reduction Measure Land Use and Transportation (LUT) 4 - Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction, supporting continuation of a County policy to encourage Priority Economic Development Areas in residential communities.
Staff Response: The following action item has been added to the CCAP under Reduction Measure LUT 4: Continue the County's policy of encouraging the establishment of Priority Economic Development Areas in residential communities.
6. Supervisor Andersen asked for additional details on the Bay Area Regional Outreach Campaign (BAROC) referenced on page 64 of the CCAP.
Staff Response: BAROC is a consortium of Bay Area cities and counties who pool resources to pay for regional media outreach regarding waste prevention, such as informational radio spots, that each could not afford individually. For example, in 2015 and 2016 BAROC is providing outreach regarding food waste. The County contributed $3,000 in 2015 and will contribute the same amount in 2016. The contributions are paid for with money collected from solid waste franchise fees. BAROC has a steering committee, on which the County sits, that decides how the pooled resources will be utilized.
7. Supervisor Gioia indicated that the CCAP should provide a better explanation of the link between a climate action plan and the Bay Area's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
Staff Response: The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) discussion on page 19 of the CCAP had previously stated only that each SCS is required to demonstrate how the region will achieve the GHG emissions reduction target set by the California Air Resources Board for 2020 and 2035. The discussion has been revised to provide a more in-depth explanation of the relationship between the County’s CCAP and the SCS for the Bay Area.
8. Supervisor Gioia asked how many cities in Contra Costa County have adopted a climate action plan.
Staff Response: According to the Contra Costa County Climate Leader's Climate Action Planning Map, six cities in the county have adopted CAPs: Danville (2009), Martinez (2009), Antioch (2011), San Ramon (2011), Walnut Creek (2012), and Concord (2013). Twelve other cities are at various stages of completing a CAP.
Public/CEQA Review of the CCAP
On October 29, 2015, DCD released the CCAP and a CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Attachment D) for a dual public/environmental review. The CEQA document was submitted to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research/State Clearinghouse for distributing amongst State agencies and notification of the review period for the CCAP and CEQA document was sent to an extensive list of recipients (Attachment E). The review period ended November 30, 2015. The County received comment letters from three agencies: Delta Protection Commission, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Mt. View Sanitary District (Attachment F).
The Delta Protection Commission and Mt. View Sanitary District letters were supportive of the CCAP and the County’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The RWQCB’s letter states that the environmental document should evaluate potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality; however, because the CCAP is a policy-level document that does not involve any type of physical development or any particular project site, there are no such impacts to evaluate. Water quality impacts are already evaluated through the review process for individual projects. The RWQCB letter was otherwise neutral. No revisions to the CCAP or CEQA document are necessary based on the written comments received.
Re-reviewing the Draft CCAP, staff realized Measure LUT 5 on page 65 (Agricultural Land Uses - Provide opportunities to grow, sell and purchase local food) includes a list of means to accomplish this goal but does not mention the value of retaining agricultural land. The recommended CCAP includes a new item 7 under Measure LUT 5 which says, "Encourage retention of agricultural land to maintain the County's agricultural base and enable long-term carbon sequestration."
Conclusion
The CCAP provides the County with a roadmap for reducing GHG emissions in accordance with AB 32 and Executive Orders issued by Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown. The draft CCAP has been revised in response to comments provided by the Board at the November 3, 2015 hearing. The draft CCAP was released for a public/environmental review and three comments were received, all of which were either supportive or neutral. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board adopt the final CCAP (Attachment A).
If the Board votes not to adopt the CCAP, then the County will lack a cohesive plan to reduce GHG emissions from non-County government sources in the unincorporated area. Though some of the GHG reduction measures listed in the CCAP are already authorized and would continue to be implemented, without approval of the full suite of measures it would not be possible for the County to meet the Assembly Bill 32 target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The County also would not be on a trajectory to meet State GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2050.
Many of the GHG reduction measures in the CCAP have co-benefits for the community. For example, retrofitting energy-inefficient buildings will add comfort to homes and save on future utility costs, planting additional trees will beautify urban areas, replacing gas-powered gardening equipment with electric equipment will reduce pollution and noise, and improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure will facilitate more active and healthy lifestyles. Thus, the CCAP will support at least three of the community outcomes established in the Children's Report Card: 2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood, 3) Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient, and 5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families.