Comment Log Display

Land Use and Local Government

1.	General Comment:  All City and County governments over a
certain size range should report their internal operations
greenhouse gas emissions to the California Climate Action
Registry.  Perhaps on a schedule based on population; where:
•	>= 500,000 report for 2011
•	>= 250,000 report for 2012
•	Etc to a minimum of 100,000 or so

Please note other comments that indicate that cash-strapped cities
may have a difficult time funding this process.  In Sacramento’s
case; the time and resources required to do an annual CCAR
inventory are approximately 0.25 FTE AND $15,000 per year.

2.	Page 31, Local Government Actions: There are many actions that
local governments can take to assist in meeting AB32, many of
these actions are identified in the plan.  To maximize buy-in from
local governments, a sustainable funding mechanism needs to be
developed.  See additional comments on funding.

3.	Page 33, Recommended Regional Targets:  For regional target
concept to be deployed, every County in the State needs to have a
countywide greenhouse gas inventory completed, preferably using a
consistent method and using a consistent baseline year.  Ideally,
each incorporated City within the County should also have an
inventory completed.  In addition, several metrics need to be
developed in order to understand, what each City and County might
be able to do to address greenhouse gas reduction.  For example:
•	Growth patterns between now and 2020 (built out or still
growing?; 1990 is irrelevant)
•	Energy efficiency installed in the past (i.e. to understand
future capability)
•	Energy use per sf per year for different types of buildings
(i.e. to gage potential improvements)
•	Metric tons per person per year
•	Amount of money spent each year on NEW roads vs MAINTENANCE of
roads, new light rail and buses, bike lane miles added, etc.

4.	Page 33, Recommended Regional Targets:  Please provide more
information on how regional targets will be developed.
•	Please clarify baseline years that are to be used; 1990 data is
not widely available; City of Sacramento is working with County
and 6 other Cities to determine baseline for calendar year 2005
•	IF 1990 baseline is used, consider regional population growth
between 1990 and 2020 as a factor when calculating targets
•	Past efforts that have been implemented

5.	Page 33, Recommended Regional Targets:  Please discuss the
consequences of not meeting the regional targets.  The AB32
process has consistently been portrayed as voluntary for local
governments; however there must be some types of carrots and
sticks that will be employed to assist.  Please see additional
comments on funding for potential carrots and sticks.

6.	Page 41: Consider recommending to local governments that they
include VOLUNTARY carbon surcharges on services that they provide
to:
•	Provide source of new revenue
•	Gage residents acceptance of addressing climate change in their
community
•	Some examples might include:
•	Water Services:  Water pumping is approximately 25% of the City
of Sacramento’s municipal operations carbon footprint.  Less than
a 2% surcharge on typical City water bill would allow the City to
purchase renewable power for all City potable, sanitary and storm
treatment and pumping.  
•	Solid Waste Services:  Solid Waste Operations (fuel,
electricity, etc.) and methane generation at landfill accounts for
approximately 10% of City of Sacramento’s municipal operations
carbon footprint.  Less than a 10% surcharge on typical City solid
waste bill would allow the City to purchase renewable power for all
City solid waste operations and to plant additional urban forest to
offset fuel used by trucks and fugitive methane generation from
landfill.  
•	Room/ Site Rental Fees:  Libraries and Community Centers can
offer carbon neutral room rentals
•	Convention Center Rental Fees:  Convention Centers can offer
carbon neutral events.

7.	Page 41 and 47:  For carbon fees that are collected from
imports into California, consider:
•	Providing sustainable community grants to local governments
•	Funding county-wide and city-wide greenhouse gas inventory
efforts and annual reporting
•	Granting funds to local jurisdictions based on their efforts to
move their community towards sustainable operations (see
additional comments on developing a sustainability matrix).

8.	Page 47: under “Incentives To Local Governments”:  For cities
to assist  in meeting the goals of AB32, a sustainable funding
mechanism needs to be developed.  Below are some concepts that
might be considered.
•	New Construction: Recommend using PUC or POU collected Public
Goods Charge (PGC) to provide incentives to local governments to
ensure that energy efficient construction that exceeds Title 24
requirements is achieved; perhaps $0.10 per square foot for
minimum compliance of Title 24 + 15%, $0.15 per square foot for
20%, $0.25 per square foot for 30%.  Residential incentives might
be per unit instead of per square foot.
o	Oversight needed (perhaps) by State to ensure validity of Title
24 calculations and inspections.
•	Point Of Sale (POS) Ordinances: Energy efficiency targets for
existing building stock identified on page 21 indicate that
Sacramento’s share of the requested improvements, on the average,
will require EVERY BUILDING IN THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO to be 10% to
12% more efficient than current.  Recommend using PUC or POU
collected Public Goods Charge (PGC) to fund enforcement of point
of sale ordinances for residential and commercial construction;
perhaps on a cost per square foot level.  Residential incentives
might be per unit instead of per square foot.
o	Implement a statewide public relations campaign to identify
advantages of POS ordinances to stakeholders, including realtors
and BIA.
o	BIA might be an ally if fees are NOT collected from new
development.
•	Solar Water Heating and Solar Photovoltaic:  Solar targets
identified on page 21 are daunting for City of Sacramento, as an
example (i.e. 2,500 solar water heaters and 13,000 solar
photovoltaic systems); recommend using PUC or POU collected Public
Goods Charge (PGC) to provide incentives to local governments to
assist in achieving goals.  Incentive to local governments should
be based on annual solar fraction installed, say $100 per kW.
•	Carbon Neutral Land-Use Ordinance (CNLO):  Improving the
efficiency of new and existing building stock addresses a portion
of the workload of local governments; another portion of the
workload that affects energy usage is land use planning and
transportation options that are available to the community.  
o	See Attachment A

9.	Page 47, Incentives to Local Governments:  Property Taxes,
Feebates and Land Use:  It is somehow necessary to defiscalize
land use so that cities are not joyous when big boxes and auto
malls come to town. It may be possible to incent local governments
to enforce a CNLO by applying a feebate type concept to property
tax DISBURSEMENTS, not collections.  For example, a project that
is built that STRONGLY meets the intent of a CNLO might cause 120%
of the normal property tax disbursements to be made to the local
jurisdiction from the County; a project that is built that LIGHTLY
meets the intent of a CNLO might cause 80% of the normal property
tax disbursements.
•	This could have a cascade effect in that the local jurisdiction
could then provide incentives to project developers for projects
that heavily meet the CNLO AND/OR could charge higher fees for
projects that lightly meet the CNLO.
•	Feebate concept might also be applied to property tax
COLLECTIONS and thus motivate project developers to meet AB32, but
this would have to be coordinated with Proposition 13.
•	The problem with the use of feebates is that many projects need
to NOT comply (or lightly comply) to an action so that they can be
charged higher fees in order for other projects to receive a rebate
for heavily complying with the action.
•	Additional problem with feebates is that somebody has to
determine which projects heavily comply or lightly comply with
CNLO… perhaps IPLACE3S might be used for this determination? 

10.	Page 47, Incentives to Local Governments:  Sales Taxes,
Feebates, and Land Use:  This concept is similar to Property Taxes
and Feebates concept identified above, except that by applying to 2
sources of a local jurisdictions income (Property Taxes and Sales
Taxes), the overall unit rate for each would be lower.

11.	Page 47, Incentives to Local Governments:  Property Taxes,
Sales Taxes, Feebates and General Sustainability:  The concept of
sustainability goes far beyond land use decisions.  For property
tax disbursements and for sales tax disbursements that are not
subject to land-use feebates, consider developing a matrix of
general sustainability issues (landfill diversion, per capita
waste reduction improvements, meeting communitywide greenhouse gas
reduction goals, water use efficiency improvements, etc.) and use
the results of the matrix annually to adjust property tax
disbursements to local jurisdictions… higher than normal if they
do well and lower than normal if they don’t do well:
•	Potential program should be designed so that local jurisdictions
would tend to work with each other and not against each other
(perhaps use regional information instead of jurisdictional
information?).
•	Potential program should start out with a range of 99% to 101%
of normal property tax disbursements to be used as a shake-down
period and increase over time to say 95% to 105% (or whatever is
necessary).
i.	Ideally, the State could find additional funds (e.g. fees from
carbon imports) to supplement sales tax disbursements to Cities
such that all cities are made whole and that initial range of
disbursements starts at 100% to 102% instead of 99% to 101%

12.	Page 47, Incentives to Local Governments:  Local governments,
as tax exempt corporations, have to resort to convoluted
lease-to-own or Power Purchase Agreements in order to install
solar energy systems cost effectively.  Solar photovoltaic systems
are NOT rocket science and our building maintenance folks are eager
to install solar project, could do a wonderful job at installing,
would learn and become more aware of the issues, BUT THEY CAN’T DO
THE WORK AS IS BECAUSE FEDERAL TAX CREDITS DRIVE THE COST
•	Consider working with Federal government to allow tax exempt
corporations (like Cities) to auction, sell, or otherwise benefit
from tax credits without having to engage third parties.
•	Develop state tax credits that tax exempt organizations can take
advantage of (similar to Oregon law- check).

13.	Page 47: It would be reasonable to use carbon fees that are
collected from a new construction project to fund the incremental
cost of a renewable power plant.  The City believes that this may
be similar to Indirect Source Rules that some air quality
districts are developing.

Example: SMUD’s Greenergy renewable energy product costs a premium
of 1c/kWh; a typical new building uses 15 kWh per SF per year and
will operate for approximately 50 years.  A carbon fee of $7.50
per square foot (1c/kWh * 15 kWh/SF * 50 years) would allow the
new construction project in question to be considered near-carbon
free. 

Attachment A- CNLO 

Attachment A

Carbon Neutral Land Use Ordinance (or other reasonable name)

The Carbon Neutral Land Use Ordinance (CNLO) is intended to
encourage community planning as opposed to project-by-project
planning.

CEQA Significance Threshold:  Any new construction or major
remodeling project that generates new carbon dioxide emissions is
significant due to the cumulative, non-dissipating effects of
carbon dioxide.  Any project that :

[emits less than [50 ] metric tons per year of direct and indirect
carbon dioxide emissions]
[has less than 100 peak hour trips or 1,000 daily trips]

may use the Prescriptive method of compliance and avoid the need
to perform an EIR unless other aspects of project require EIR. 
Projects larger than the:

[50] metric tons per year emissions threshold]
[has greater than 100 peak hour or 1,000 daily trips]

must use the Performance based approach identified below.

Carbon Dioxide Mitigation Time Table:  All new construction
projects:

[emitting greater than [50] metric tons per year of CO2 emissions,
but less than [900] metric tons per year of CO2 emissions]
[greater than 100 peak hour trips/day or 1,000 trips per day but
smaller than a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan (or
similar), or a Project as defined by SB 221 or 610]

must mitigate 35% of their carbon emissions in 2008 and increase
at the rate of 5% per year until all new construction projects are
carbon neutral by 2026.  The applicable time date for this
requirement is date of permit issuance.  

All projects:
[greater than [900] metric tons of CO2 emissions per year]
[equivalent to a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan (or
similar), or a Project as defined by SB 221 or 610]

must mitigate 100% of their emissions through a combination of
on-site and off-site measures.

In 2007, the per capita emissions rate for Californians was 14
metric tons per person per year; in the absence of better data on
project carbon dioxide emissions, this default value will be used
to achieve 10.5 metric tons per person per year in 2008 and
ratcheting down to 0 metric tons per person per year by 2026.

Compatibility with Title 24 :  This ordinance is intended to
complement Title 24 and does not conflict.  If any incompatibility
is found between Title 24 and this ordinance, Title 24 rules.  This
ordinance addresses several issues not covered by Title 24:
•	This ordinance address vehicle miles travelled in order to
properly use the development. Vehicle use- both company owned and
staff owned.
•	Building energy use is covered by Title 24
•	Comparing project characteristics to those in the nearby
community
•	[indirect emissions associated with procurement and contracting
choices]

Leakage Clause  :  This ordinance will not take effect until [75%]
of the jurisdictions (by population) within the 6 county SACOG
planning region adopt a similar ordinance or unless the State (or
AQMD?) passes a law (or regulation) that supersedes the need for
this ordinance.

Direct Emissions (Scope 1 ):  Direct emissions are those that are
generated on-site through burning of fossil fuels in stationary
and mobile equipment.

Indirect Emissions (Scope 2):  Indirect emissions are those that
are generated by a utility company that provides energy services
to the project, most commonly electricity services

Indirect Emissions Associated With Procurement And Contracting
Choices (Scope 3): Building users can reduce their carbon
footprint based on products that they purchase and in choosing the
businesses that they contract with.  For example the use of 100%
recycled content paper produces fewer carbon dioxide emissions
than regular paper.; fuel used by contractors to deliver/haul
firms products... how to measure and regulate… BERC
certification??

Pre-Approved Land Use Designations: To assist in making sites
shovel ready for development, the City has the option of doing the
required study indicated under the Performance compliance method
and to identify acceptable projects that meet the requirement of
this ordinance, thus eliminating the need for the project to do
this study in the CEQA document.

Climate Action Trust Fund (CATF ):  The CATF is used to mitigate
the carbon dioxide emissions of projects by installing projects
off-site that reduce emissions locally.  Examples of these
projects include: (1) low income home weatherization; (2) funding
incremental cost of renewable power plants; (3) planting trees;
(4) water conservation.
•	An alternative compliance mechanism will be provided for those
that wish to perform off-site mitigation through a CARB/AQMD
certified process

Mandatory Measures Checklist:  All items on this checklist must be
complied with whether the Prescriptive or Performance Compliance
methods are used.
•	Projects exempt from Title 24 must be at least [15%] more
efficient than business as usual design.
•	Projects must be at least [15%] more efficient than Title 24
requires.
•	Firms with greater than [25] employees will have a
Transportation Systems Management Plan that reduces single
occupant vehicle usage by [35%] relative to business as usual.
•	Firms with greater than [25] employees that has a company fleet
will have it’s fleet evaluated at least once every four years by
the Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD.  The overall make-up of the
corporate fleet will comply with Rule xxx .
•	Firms must purchase at least [80%] of their printer and copier
paper as 100% recycled content, post consumer content waste, and
unbleached.

Prescriptive Compliance Approach: This section of the ordinance
will be updated tri-annually to ensure that this simpler
compliance method meets the intent of the Carbon Dioxide
Mitigation Time Table.  For projects installed after 2008, the
following is required in addition to the Mandatory Measures
checklist:
•	Project must conform with Pre-Approved Land Use Designation for
the site.
and
•	Project must be at least [15%] more efficient than the 2005
Title 24 energy code requires or Project must pay $[0.20] per
gross square foot of floor space into the CATF for each percentage
point (or part of) that the project falls below the [15%] minimum
efficiency threshold to a maximum of [$3.00] per gross square
foot.

Performance Compliance Approach:  This approach requires a project
that exceeds the threshold identified above to include a carbon
analysis in the CEQA documentation of actual and proposed
development within 2 mile radius of CEQA regulated project.  At a
minimum, the following shall be included in the study:
(a)	actual job count and living unit count 
(b)	estimated salary ranges of dwellers in the study area and
rental/mortgage costs
(c)	projected job count and living unit count when study area is
built out per requirements of General Plan
(d)	number of amenities within ½ mile of each residential unit;
(e)	percentage of dwelling units that are within ½ mile of a RT
designated transit stop that has a level of service (LOS) A = >
150 stops per week(??); and LOS B (120-150??), C (80-120?), D
(50-80?), E (20-50?) and F = < 20 stops per week ??
(f)	percentage of businesses that are within ½ mile of a transit
stop that has a level of service (LOS) A = > 150 stops per week;
and LOS B, C, D, E and F = < 20 stops per week??
(g)	??

Based on accepted planning criteria(?), the study shall use the
above facts and estimates to determine :
(a)	Correlation between estimated salary ranges of workers and
rental/mortgage costs and how that correlation affects vehicle
miles travelled within the study area
(b)	Vehicle miles travelled per year to work within the study area
and per household
(c)	Bar graph of the number of amenities that are located within ½
mile of each living unit in the study area (both actual and built
out).
(d)	Per capita emissions of project in most significant units,
usually in metric tons per person per year.

If analysis proves to be beneficial to the study area, development
fees will be reduced by xx%; if analysis proves to not be
beneficial to the study area, development fees are to be increased
by yy%.  In either case, compliance with the Carbon Dioxide
Mitigation Table is required for direct and indirect emissions
associated with the project.