HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08162005 - D3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS _w,..
Contra
FROM: Climate Change Work Group o; Costa
�August 16
DATE: Aug 2005 �s-
rCounty
SUBJECT: Report on Inventory of the County's Current Policies and Programs that co Impact
Climate Change
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION
1. ACCEPT report on inventory of policies and programs, and list of issues and initiatives that
could be used to develop a model ordinance to reduce climate change.
2. DIRECT the Climate Change Work Group to develop a draft outline of the elements of a
model ordinance and report back to the Board in three months.
FISCAL IMPACT
There will be some staff costs associated with drafting a model ordinance.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS AND BACKGROUND
Climate Change
The need to address the impacts of climate change is very real. The international climate
protection goal is to not increase the average temperature more than 2 degrees centigrade
worldwide, relative to pre-industrial times. We are currently 0.8 degrees centigrade higher and
we will increase another 0.8 degrees centigrade due to activities that have occurred that we
cannot reverse. This only leaves a 0.4 degree centigrade available increase for the future. We
must manage our future activities to not exceed that small temperature change. To accomplish
this goal, a diversified strategy is needed to reduce all relevant county-specific greenhouse gas
and aerosol emissions. In addition, long-term planning will be necessary to offset climate
change impacts within the county or in areas that eventually affect the county (e.g., upstream
water resources).
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: Ej YES F-I NO SIGNATURE
r
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO MITTEE
rP`PROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE (S): --
ACTION OF B A D ON1!:>Ooq�, APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED4. OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND
UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �� CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Deidra 925
Dingman -335-1224 �
g ( ) ATTESTED � � 0
cc: John Sweeten,County Administrator JOHN SWEET N, CLERK OF THE
Silvano Marchesi, County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
Maurice Shiu, Public Works Department(PWD) COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Mitch Avalon, PWD
Dennis Barry,Community Development Department(CDD)
Dr. Bill Walker, Health Services Department(HSD)
Dr.Wendel Brunner, HSD-Public Health
Bart Gilbert,General Services Department
Jack Broadbent,Bay Area Quality Management District(BAAQMD)via CDD
Jean Roggenkamp, BAAQMD via CDD
David Shearerli
Ca forma Environmental Associates via CDD C
RMAIDD:Izlgms BY , DEPUTY
hldmbdocs\dimate chg 8-16-05 BO
Report on Inventory of the County's Current Policies and Programs that could Impact Climate Change
August 16, 2005
Page 2 of 5
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS — Continued
The recently released California Water Plan (Bulletin 160) from the California Department of
Water Resources includes information that climate change is causing water levels to rise in the
Delta and the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada's to shrink. This will have a huge impact on water
resources in California and another sign that climate change is a real concern.
Effective action against climate change can protect public health. Global warming can introduce
tropical diseases to new areas and promote the spread of established diseases such as West
Nile Virus. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will not only slow global warming, but will
greatly improve air quality, thereby promoting community health by reducing asthma and other
respiratory diseases. Strategies around "Smart Growth" and the "Built Environment' promote
clean air and encourage walkable communities and a healthier lifestyle.
Model Ordinance
On May 24,2005, Supervisor DeSaulnier introduced an item to the Board of Supervisors on the
issue of climate change. The Board considered the item and formed the Climate Change Work
Group, comprised of the heads of the Departments of Community Development, General
Services, Health Services and Public Works, plus representatives of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District and the California Air Resources Board. The Work Group was directed to
produce an inventory list of the County is current policies and programs that reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, or that could be augmented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to bring
the inventory list back to the Board.
On July 14, 2005, the Work Group met with Supervisor DeSaulnier, including Jack Broadbent
and Jean Roggenkamp with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and David Shearer,
an air quality scientist, to better define the role and objectives for the Work Group. The task of
the Work Group is to ultimately develop a model ordinance on climate change that identifies
best practices for the County to utilize to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has started developing a Climate Protection
program to provide support to existing local government efforts and to encourage further efforts
to reducegreenhouse gas emissions in the region. The Air Districts program will include an
"information clearinghouse" concept in which they will be collecting and sharing examples of
different approaches adopted by local governments to encourage collaboration among Bay Area
stakeholders. This "information clearinghouse" is expected to include examples of various
potential approaches used by Bay Area counties and local governments including best
practices, case studies, ordinances, climate action plans, General Plans and other information.
The Air District has not decided whether it would create a model ordinance on Climate Change.
Because so many municipalities in the region have already begun a variety of climate protection
programs, and because climate protection efforts include so many different areas (energy use,
transportation planning, vehicle emissions, green buildings, adaptation to impending changes,
agriculture, etc.) the Air District may decide that developing a single model ordinance for on
climateprotection would not be the appropriate approach. However, the Air District staff has
indicated that they would like to be able to include any climate protection ordinance Contra
Costa County adopts in their "information clearinghouse", as an example of one approach.
INVENTORY OF EXISTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
The first task of the Work Group is to inventory the County's existing policies and programs that
could impact climate change. The inventory below includes a list of prior Board directives,
programs, issues and initiatives that the Board has considered in the past that would be useful
resources in developing a model ordinance.
Board Directives
The Board of Supervisors, in the past, has considered several items related to climate change,
which can be used as a resource for developing a model ordinance for climate change. Those
directives include the following:
Report on Inventory of the County's Current Policies and Programs that could Impact Climate Change
August 16, 2005
Page 3 of 5
• Zero Emission Vehicle Loan Program—This Board Order dated October 6, 1998,outlines
a loan program by the California Air Resources Board for Zero Emission Vehicles.
(Attachment 1)
• Zero Emission Vehicles for County Fleet — This Board Order dated August 1, 2000,
requires at least 10%of all County purchases of automobiles and light duty trucks to be zero
emission vehicles. (Attachment 2)
• Sustainable County Buildings—This Board Order dated December 5, 2000, initiates the
process to develop principles, policies, and design guidelines for sustainable County
buildings. (Attachment 3)
• Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area — This Board Order dated December 11, 2001
outlines the compact developed by the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development and
outlines the three "E's" of sustainable development; a prosperous economy, a quality
environment, and social equity. (Attachment 4)
E Greenhouse Gas Emissions Legislation — This Board Order dated May 14, 2002
supported legislation, which would require the California Air Resources Board to adopt
regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. (Attachment 5)
• Sport Utility Vehicles — This Board Order dated June 15, 2004 initiates the process to
develop a policy to reduce the purchase of sport utility vehicles unless they are specifically
justified based on a verified work assignment. (Attachment 6)
• Recycled Paper Business Cards—This Board Order dated September 18, 1990, directed
that all business cards for County Government employees be printed on recycled paper.
Using recycled paper rather than cutting trees to produce new paper reduces greenhouse
gases by increasing carbon uptake by forests, and reducing energy consumption, as well as
minimizing disposal and related methane. (Attachment 7)
Policies
Below is a'list of policies:
• Strategic Energy Plan — This Plan, adopted by the Board on February 10, 2004, builds
upon an ongoing program to reduce energy use at County facilities that began with the
adoption of the Energy Reduction Action Plan in March 2001 and policy mandating specific
temperatures in County buildings. The purpose of the Strategic Energy Plan is to evaluate
and recommend strategies that will provide the County with a proactive and comprehensive
energy management program. (Attachment 8)
• Green Building Program—On June 14, 2005,the Board adopted the Contra Costa County
Residential Green Building Program Implementation Plan,which outlines the County's goals
and objectives for a green building program. (Attachment 9)
• Voluntary Clean Air Plan — On July 26, 2005, the Board accepted the final report on the
Voluntary Clean Air Plan for North Central Contra Costa County. (Attachment 10)
• Conditions of Approval for the 21st Century—These conditions adopted by the Board of
Supervisors outlines requirements for development that reduce energy consumption and
increase bicycle and pedestrian access. (Attachment 11)
N Low Emissions Vehicles—On September 21, 2004, the Board adopted the Contra Costa
County Low Emission Vehicle and Fleet Policy, which requires the County to purchase low
emission vehicles for a portion of its fleet. (Attachment 12)
• Sport Utility Vehicles — The Low Emissions Vehicles policy mentioned above also
eliminates the purchase of SUV's for the County fleet unless there is a justified need based
upon work assignments. (Attachment 12)
• Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance — In 1994, the Board of Supervisors
approved the"Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance"(added as Chapter 816-6 in the
County Code) which provides for the preservation of certain protected trees in the
unincorporated area of the County. Trees take carbon from the atmosphere and store it in
their tissues for long periods. It is estimated that each tree absorbs over 10 pounds of
carbon-dioxide each year, so protecting trees reduces the global greenhouse effect.
• Wood Burning Appliances Ordinance—On November 14, 2000 the Board of Supervisors
approved Ordinance 2000-35 (added as Chapter 718-10 in the County Code) to regulate
new construction or replacement of wood burning appliances in the unincorporated area of
the County for the purpose of limiting and/or reducing particulate emissions.
Report on Inventory of the County's Current Policies and Programs that could Impact Climate Change
August 16, 2005
Page 4 of 5
Programs
The following are programs that the County engages in that have an impact on*climate change.
The information and ideas generated through these programs could be utilized in the
development of a model ordinance on climate change.
0 Building Upgrades—General Services has routinely performed energy upgrades in County
buildings including changing out lights and light fixtures, upgrading fan motors and controls,
and installing solar panels on rooftops.
0 Control Systems — General Services routinely upgrades control systems for heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning systems in County buildings for greater energy efficiency.
0 Traffic Signal Lights—Traffic signal light bulbs throughout the County have been upgraded
to light emitting diodes (LED's) that save significant amounts of energy.
N Fuel Tanks — All underground fuel tanks have been retrofitted to a double-walled
underground tank or to an above ground tank. This eliminates fuel leaks into the soil and
ground'water, and vapors leaking into the atmosphere.
0 Countywide Bicycle Action Plan — This plan adopted by the Board included goals and
objectives to increase bicycle use within the County. (Attachment 13)
0 Recycling Market Development Zone—In 1992, Contra Costa County's request to become
designated as a Recycling Market Development Zone was approved by the State. If located
within one of the State's Recycling Market Development Zones, eligible manufacturers using
recycled materials to create new products potentially qualify for low-interest loans and other
assistance. Manufacturing using recycled rather than virgin material reduces emissions,for
example net carbon emissions are four to five times lower when materials are produced from
recycled steel, copper, glass,, and paper and 40 times lower for aluminum.
■ Curbside Recycling— Curbside recycling is not an optional service, but rather a component
of solid waste collection services provided to residences located in areas governed under the
County's collection franchise agreements. Recycling reduces the need for energy-intensive
resource extraction. Recycling the following materials has the greatest climate benefit(from
greatest to least): aluminum cans, paper materials (office paper, phonebooks, textbooks,
magazines), mixed recyclables, dimensional lumber, steel cans and plastic containers.
■ Telecommuting Program — On July 13, 1993 the Board of Supervisors approved the
Telecommuting Program for the primary purposes of reducing peak hour traffic congestion
and air pollution.
■ Home Composting Program — Contra Costa County sponsors free home composting
workshops to teach residents how to compost their yard debris at home. Home composting
can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by eliminating the need to transport the material for
processing or disposal, increasing the carbon storage in soils and reducing methane
generated from landfilling.
• Car & Vanpool Program - On November 4, 2003 the Board of Supervisors approved a
change to the County Car&Vanpool Program to allow a County employee that signs up for
a car or van pool through Enterprise Rideshare,to qualify for 25%off monthly vanpool costs.
The County also offers preferred parking in downtown Martinez for carpool vehicles.
• Transportation Demand Management Program-Contra Costa County co-sponsors 11511
Contra Costa", a comprehensive transportation demand management program, which
promotes alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. These efforts, which include financial
incentives for using transit or forming a new carpool, reduce traffic congestion and improve
air quality by maximizing the use of the existing roadway system.
• General Services Department Recycling Program—Ongoing program intended to collect
and recycle various materials from County Buildings. In 2004, a total of 343 tons of
cardboard, 1,000 tons of paper, 109 tons of scrap metal, 3.8 tons of bottles and cans as well
as almost 2,000 computer monitors and toner cartridges were recycled.
E Freon/Refrigerant Capture and Recovery— General Services utilizes vehicle refrigerant
units that capture evacuated air conditioning Freon (R-12)and refrigerant(R-134A)and then
it is reused when needed. General Services does not expel vehicle refrigerant into the
atmosphere; it is a completely sealed system of recovery and installation. General Services
contracts for the removal of large equipment refrigerant, however they remove refrigerant
from smaller units and stores the refrigerant until enough has been accumulated to ship out
for destruction.
Report on Inventory of the County's Current Policies and Programs that could Impact Climate Change
August 16, 2005
Page 5 of 5
compatible Initiatives and Issues
The County has explored several very complex issues and developed initiatives on subject
matters that impact climate change. Significant research and work has been done on these
issues and initiatives that could be utilized in the development of a model ordinance for climate
change.
0 Smart Growth and the Built Environment-- Planning and design guidelines that improve
pedestrian and bicycle access, and reduce distances from housing to services and therefore
reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.
N Jobs-Housing Balance — The creation of jobs and housing in the same vicinity, with the
intention to reduce commute distances and thereby reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.
8 Landscaping Requirements—The living process for plant life(photosynthesis)combats the
affects of carbon dioxide buildup that results from consumption of fossil fuels.
a Methane Recovery-Landfilling waste results in emission of methane {CH4), a greenhouse
gas that is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
State law and local air district regulations require landfills to collect and process landfill gases
through a gas collection system and emission control system. Two of the three operating
landfills in Contra Costa County use methane to produce electricity; the third landfill is
currently pursuing the development of a landfill gas power plant.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
The report on climate change would not be accepted and the Climate Change Work Group
would not have direction to develop a model ordinance.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.3
August 16, 2005
On this day,the Board of Supervisors considered accepting a report from the Climate Change Work
Group on the inventory of current County policies and programs affecting climate change,and directing
the Group to begin work on a model ordinance identifying best practices to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Dennis Barry,Director of Community Development,presented staff s report and recommendation that the
Board accept the inventory report that could be used in the development of an ordinance.
Supervisor Piepho asked how much the administrative costs would be to develop such an ordinance.
Mr. Barry responded that the cost would be approximately$20,000430,000.
Supervisor Piepho asked why the County,rather than the Air Board,was developing this model
ordinance.
Mr.Barry noted that at this time,the Air Board was not far along in its development of a model
ordinance, and that this development of a draft ordinance could be used as a model by other agencies.
Supervisor DeSaulnier suggested that the County not incur more than one-third of the costs of developing
of a model ordinance,noting that this is a collaborative effort with the Air Board and the Air District.
Supervisor DeSaulnier moved approval, and the motion was seconded by Supervisor Uilkema. By
unanimous approval with none absent, the Board of Supervisors took the following action:
ACCEPTED report from the Climate Change Work Group on the inventory of current County policies
and programs affecting climate change,and DIRECTED the Group to begin work on a model ordinance
identifying best practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and report back to the Board in three
months,additionally stipulating that the County should not incur more than approximately one-third of
the costs for developing this ordinance in an equitable fiscal partnership with the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District and the California Air Resources Board.
Attachment 1
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
FROM:
Mark DeSaulnier
October 6, 1998
Costa
DATE:
County
SUBJECT: Participation in California Air Resources
Board Zero Emission Vehicle Loan Program
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
"COMMENDATION:
Direct the County Administrator to participate in the California Air Resources Board (CARE
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Loan Program. Encourage department heads to use the loaned
vehicle and to contribute to a report from the CAO to the Board of Supervisors on how ZEVs
could benefit the County.
BACKGROUND:
GARB has a new program to stimulate the use of ZEVs. It will provide a ZEV and a charging
unit for one month free of charge. Then, if the participant is interested in leasing a vehicle(s),
CARE will arrange the lease(s).
The reasons to use a ZEV are numerous: benefits public health; saves the County money; and
creates a positive image for citizens to follow.
ZEVs are good for public health because they contribute to better air quality. They have no
tailpipe ernissions, no evaporative or fuel marketing emissions, and no emission control
equipment that can deteriorate or fail; and they reduce toxic and greenhouse gas emissions.
Also, ZEVs indirect (power plant) emissions are extremely low.
Using ZEVs would save the County money in fuel and maintenance costs, after an initial
investment in the vehicles and the recharging stations.
Use of ZEVs is good promotion of energy diversity and the reduction of dependence on
imported oil. The County's environmental leadership and progressive spirit Would be enhanced
with the use of ZEVs and perhaps encourage more members of the public to also purchase the
vehicles.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON OCp r'b".�� 2.PPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER-X
IT IS By THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommended is APPROVED; the County
Administrator is DIRECTED to share Zero Emission Vehicle .information with the
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS Association of Bay Area Governments.
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
_UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTEDe:)t Z� -- %W- /"
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF E BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Contact: Valerie Matlock, Dist. 4
cc: GAO �--
c
BY ,DEPUTY
r `
OV rview W y Lease a ZEV?
■Flublic health benefits
■Why lease a Zero Emission Vehicle? ■ ood for California's economy
■Available vehicles ■I istrict and State policy commitment
■No-cost short term loan program ■Flositive image
■F un to drive
ZEIT Air Quality Benefits Lifetime Vehicle Emissions
■No ailpipe emissions
■No vaporative or fuel marketing emissions 600-
Sa-
■No mission control equipment that can 400
deteriorate or fail 300
$ 200
■Rec uced toxic and greenhouse gas
emi sions 0
1997 0% UtEV 2EV in
■I ndi ect(powerplant)emissions extremely v�t,icle SCAB
low
Good for California's District and State Policy
Ec nomy Commitment
■ alifornia companies have technical ■District Policy
nd scientific leadership In emerging 1997 Bay Area Clean Air Plan encourages
low emission fleet vehicle demonstration
ew markets programs
■ EVs promote energy diversity and ■ tate Policy
r duce dependence on imported oil ZEVs are an important element of State
Implementation Plan to achieve the ozone
standard
Ir
:
Positive Image F to Drive
■ Environmental leadership ■ZEVs meet all vehicle safety standards
■Progressive spirit ■Cuffing-edge technology
■High-tech ■C lean, quiet and quick
■N o more trips to the gas station
■Employees like them
■Kids love them
rt..„•.
: N.
wt ,
HOIN Do I Recharge? Charging - {
Stations-- r`
Y'.
■Charging stations >A - San Francisco
'a
at state garages
Region
■Charging stations
at work sites y �k.
:;y ..�:
■Charging stations
in the community
/lyds
General Motors EV-1 Honda EV Plus
■ Introc aced December k~ �7�.....;� ��� ,.,.�;,';.frAt as
■ Introduced May ,k.,,..,,,.<,.� � � AW
1996 �..a`Pry;^j�F i". S2,r" vi V
199 M ���o- !
■ Lead acid batteries; 1 � ..; A
■Advanced nickel_
���” ''
adva ced batteries
available fall 1998 met -hydride
batt ies
■ Range of at least 60
■ Ran eofatleast 80�
miles will increase
with advanced mile ;
batte ies ■ Leas price$499
■ Leas price$504 per per month
mont
J�
rf
i
To ,ota Electric RAV4 Ford Ranger EV
■ Introduced fail 1997 ■ Intro uced January
199
■Adv uced nickel- ■ Leac acid batteries;
met -hydride advanced batteries
batt ies available 9/98
■ Ran a of at least 75 ■ Ran a of at least 50
mile mile will increase
■ Fleet use only ` with dvanced
y
batte ries
■ Lease price$487 .. �z.. ..,.�::. .:;..::;�H�...:.
■ Lease price$455
per month per month
Chevrolet S-10 Ch#sler EPIC
■ Introduced May ■I o be introduced
1997 fill 1998
■ Leal I acid batteries;. '' ` ■ dvanced nickel-
adv nced batteries ` etal-hydride y
ava fable fall 1998 tteries
■ Ra a of 30-40 ■ Range of at least 80
w ... ._
M,
s;will increase lies
wit advanced
batt ries ■ 1
ase price to be
etermined
■ Lea 51e price$439
per onth
Ve •cle Mileage as Tested by
Sot there California Edison
I
i
SCE Test Data
ElectricGasoline vehicle
120
•, ..t $170-300
100 105.3
90.5 93
t $0 :0 Included
in lease
CL 72.1
Ui 60
0 51.6 Tires S140Included in lease
m 40
30.3
Total ! ! $170-300
0
GM EV-1 Honda Toyota Ford chewdet
EV Pkrs RAW Ranger &10
A//
Vel 'cles Available for Lease Who is Using EVs Today?
■ aster Service Agreement in Place ■Department of General Services
General Motors EV-1 ■Air Resources Board
Honda EV Plus ■Department of Water Resources
■California Energy Commission
■ aster Service Agreement Under ■CalTrans
Development
Chevrolet S-10 ■California State Assembly and State
Toyota RAW Senate
Ford Ranger EV
W1 o is Using EVs Today? EV!Advantages
■Local Governments ■flow operating cost
■Utility Companies ■Low maintenance
■Local Air Quality Management Districts ■domplete warranty--no risk
■Private Customers ■Employee satisfaction
■ Positive image
Short Term Loan Program Short Term Loan Program
■ ro ram 9oafs ■ Program logistics
9
Vehicles loaned at no cost for one
• Encourage EV leasing by providing : month
no-risk opportunity to see if vehicles 1 Access to charger provided; charger
meet agency needs g
i may be temporarily installed on-site if
• Familiarize senior officials with ! site meets criteria
vehicle capabilities No obligation to lease
• Publicize availability of vehicles ? Customer support provided
I
/s.
If 'You Decide To Lease Forl More Information
■G.onsultation and technical support ■(shuck Shulock,Air Resources Board
vailable from ARB, DGS, utility
companies,vehicle manufacturers X916} 32-fi94
■Use Master Service Agreement to
procure vehicle(s) � cshulock@arb.ca.gov
■Permanently instau charging station;
tate incentives may be available
i
�6-
V1111Y let�11S,(". ('I /-Cro I Vehicle? good fol ("alifortlia,(-, �(.,otlnmy
Av,-1i1,1hle vcliicleI)ic;tli(-t -Ind statE-" policy commitment
No-c.ost short teff i loan ptoqtam [--)o(-,Itive Ima(jr,-,
f-[III to(11WI
No tailpipf-, ellw'-slons
No evapoi(ative', eM fuel m(aiketing
No eIT1i(,---,SiOI1 C-011ttOl tjj�jt Can
dete.tiorate f)i fail
I'leduced tnxi(-, Fwd r1reenhoilop (1-1c,
Indirecl (povjeiplant) emissions- extrelijely
I
In empf(Iffm
(Irld (-'Ci(Intifir I d e 1 111 p r e-� 1,
tievy maiketc,
ZFV(,; ptomofr- enerp diversity and ;state F)o I icy
7P I-
reduce dependence on 1111pot-ted oil
r-,l r) •;L,
stIIttit iIli r A nrippwt t:.li�.tr��, ��I��il���:�; Ail R�"�'WI1C�e�,
avall ale floor AM)) [ nfility
(;oirlt»n&s, vcTich invinnfactmels;
Use 41r1ster Selvit,(, Actleenmelit tri t��ll��r;k�,r<Al1) UA !1(111
ploctile vellicle(s)
Ileffmillently irnstsill divirclky stnticirl
state 1►1 -plitives Inst J be �3Vc�ll�3f)lr'
Attachment 2
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
..•f �,- Contra
FROM: Mark DeSaulnier
'+�"- Costa
DATE: August 1, 2000
Count
,, y.
SUBJECT: Purchase of Zero Emission Vehicles for ---
County Fleet
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
REQUIRE that beginning in fiscal year 2003-2004, at least 10%of all County purchases of
automobiles and light-duty trucks shall be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) as certified by the
California Air Resources Board. Six percent out of the 10%requirement may be met by the
purchase of super ultra low emission vehicles (SULEVs), as certified by the California Air
Resources Board, at the rate of five(5) SULEVs for each required ZEV. The remaining 4%must
be actual ZEVs.
Background and Justification:
On September 7, 2000, the California Air Resources Board will be reviewing its 10%ZEV sales
mandate for cars and light-duty trucks in California. This mandate requires that beginning in
2003, 10% of all cars and light duty trucks sold in California must be zero emission vehicles.
This mandate affects only those automakers selling at least 3,000 cars per year in the state. Six
percent out of the 10%requirement may be met by the sale of super ultra low emission vehicles,
with 5 SULEVs replacing each required ZEV. Major automakers have resisted the mandate,
claiming that the market demand for these vehicles is not adequate, therefore they cannot meet
the requirement.
As a fleet purchaser of cars and light-duty trucks, Contra Costa County has the opportunity and
responsibility to play a leadership role in the reduction of mobile source pollution and to
demonstrate to the Bay Area, the Air Resources Board and automakers that there is adequate
demand for zero emission vehicles.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURES
ACTION OF BOARD ON PiloIst 1.7 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER__
-
IT IS BY HE BaCD WERM that the abuvv- remuipl-' tion is APERUM); " that the Garral Savi-ces Dixec-tor
" the CoLuty Ad&dstmtor are T to regiest, DepartmEnt Heads to 1 t 0 potential pLwdyLqes and
r to the Board of gqrxvisars in six nuiffis; and RU ERRID to the Thternal Operaticns Ccnidttee the
issLie of devehping the of the costs associated and the potential for fine tering 4iat is able
to be do ne alb with Seri ces Dixectcr's recamEnclaticns.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED AlPtnt 1,6 200C)
%.1 1
PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Contact:
cc: 11MUnLv Administrator
General Services Director BY CiAMO-11iL 9DEPUTY
Internal Operations Commiittee
The emphasis on increased use of ZEVs and SULEVs is necessary because:
♦ Over 95% of Californians live in areas that do not meet health-based federal or state air
quality standards. This air pollution causes or aggravates lung illnesses such as asthma,
chronic bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer. Children, the elderly, those engaging in
athletics and those with compromised immune systems suffer the worst problems caused by
poor air quality.
♦ Approximate 50% of smog-forming pollutants come from gasoline and diesel-powered
vehicles.
♦ In the past five years, the Bay Area has violated the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for ozone twenty-nine times, causing the US Environmental Protection Agency to classify the
Bay Area as a Nonattainment Area for the federal one-hour ozone standard. The loss of
attainment status will force the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to adopt stricter
regulations from a list of measures in the State Implementation Plan(SIP), a requirement
under the Clean Air Act. New regulations may have adverse effects on automobile owners
and businesses.
CONSIDER WR
SD.
Maximum and Minimum Application of Proposed
Zero Emission Vehicle Requirement for Contra Costa County
The requirement is for 10% of all cars and light-duty trucks purchased to be zero
emission vehicles (ZEVs). Up to G% out of the 10% may be super ultra low
emission vehicles (SULEVs), at the rate of 5 SULEVs for each remaining required
ZEV. If the SULEV option is used for G%, the remaining 4% must be true ZEVs.
R E G
Maximum ayolication —if no SULEVs are used:
E 3 I 70)
If the County plans to buy 100 cars and tight duty trucks: _
Lj(
10% would be true ZEVs = 10 ZEVs
90% would be conventional vehicles = 90 conventional vehicles
100
Minimum application -if SULEVs are used as much as allowed.,,
If the County plans to buy 100 cars and light-duty trucks:
4% must be true ZEVs = 4 ZEVs
G% may be SULEVs at the rate of 5 SULEVs
for each remaining required ZEV = G X 5 = 30 SULEVs
The remainder may be conventional vehicles = GG conventional vehicles
100
Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier 81112000
..o- •.. ..........; x:}j-.3...:. � •"xsS .. ..E..'sc '?frys C - f sv/
�'�,``3.}o t �, ill. -1 ..... i�,'.� '• �! � •':...:•:•:::.
� •1Nz a[
1
Buyer's Guide to Cleaner Cars
This page updated December 6, 1999.
Cleaner cars mean cleaner air!
When shopping for a new or used vehicle keep in mind that while all California cars have
advanced emission control systems, many newer vehicles are designed to produce even lower
levels of emissions. These vehicles are called "Low-Emission Vehicles" and the following
guide can help quickly identify them.
How clean are California "Low-emission vehicles"?
California's innovative Low-Emission Vehicle regulations provide for four increasingly
cleaner emission standards for new cars. Vehicles meeting these standards have even lower
emissions than the tough basic standards all new vehicles must meet to be sold in California.
These standards provide manufacturers the flexibility to phase-in a new generation of clean
vehicles. For example,passenger cars and light-duty trucks certified to California's
low-emission vehicle standards provide the following emissions reductions when compared
to the basic standard:
Passenger car emissions reductions HC CO NOx
Transitional Low-Emission Vehicle(TLEV) 50% = _
Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV) 70% = 50%
Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (ULEV) 85% 50% 50%
Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV) 96% 70% 95%
Zero-Emission Vehicles (ZEV) 100% 100% 100%
= equivalent emissions to vehicles meeting the basic standard
The Vehicle Emissions Control Information Label has all the information.
A quick and easy way to find out what standards a vehicle has been certified to is to check the
underhood Vehicle Emission Control Information Label. This label clearly shows what
standards a vehicle was designed to meet and includes important tune up and engine
identification information.
View a sample Emission Control Information label.
Know before you buy.
The following lists of vehicles provide information that can be used to identify vehicles that
meet Low-emission standards.To view a list of California certified Low-Emission Vehicles
please choose from one of the following Lists:
Califoi-n.ia. Guide to Zero-Einission Vehicles (ZEVs)
2000 model year lower emission passenger cars
1 of 2 07/05/2000 2:23 PM
California Guide to Zero-Emission Vehicles
This page updated March 21, 2000.
zero-emission vehicles (zEvs)
These vehicles produce no tailpipe emission's at all, and are 100%cleaner than
California's clean basic new car standard.
Hybrid vehicles that create emissions from internal combustion engines are listed by
model year under their respective certification category.
make and model Battery type range (city/ highway)
Dodge Caravan Lead Acid 70/65
Dodge Caravan Nickel Metal Hydride 92/97
Ford Ranger pick-up Lead Acid 81 /68
GEM E 580 Lead Acid
GEM E825 Lead Acid
General Motors EV-1 Lead Acid 75 / 78
General Motors EV-1 Nickel Metall,Hydride 143 / 152
General Motors 5-10 pick-up Lead Acid 45 /43
General Motors S-10 pick-up Nickel Metal:Hydride 92 /99
Honda EV Plus Nickel Metal'Hydride 115
Hyundai Accent EV Nickel Metal±Hydride 87/85
Nissan Altra EV Lithium-ion 121/107
Plymouth Voyager Epic EV Lead Acid 70/65
Plymouth Voyager EV Nickel Metal Hydride 92/97
Toyota RAV 4 EV Nickel Metal Hydride 143/116
Solectria FORCE Lead Acid 58/50
Bombardier Sporte-e Lead Acid 15 at 25 mph (top speed)
Bombardier Class-e Lead Acid 15 at 25 mph(top speed)
I of 1 07/05/2000 2:27 PM
ft
i -ANh5
�4 Sut� Sb u� - ��yy.r �71M I ,w,�.:i-'.x.. �'•�r.. ...�,
2CYDEL UID %W&W I ff-%%MW%0&= ARS
This page updated January 20, 2000.
....r..�..._V,.r....�..n�......�.M.,.....�.�....�.w...�..k.........�.µ.......�........�...�.r�...�..�.....�......r...r�. ...�...V,...._w.»M.�.�...r..�.�......�,....._.»..;...,.r...,,..�.wn.....�.�._......w»...�...wn�.......�...�,...�»�.��..w.....�................��..�.�,�,,.r.......v.....��._.��...�...wM��...�....H�.._.�....�•.
Super Ultra Low-Emissioll VehideS (SULEVs)
These vehicles are 90%cleaner than the average;new 2000 model year car.
model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
Honda
Accord 2.3 L gas A4 YHN.XV02.3NI,5
*Civic G.X 1.6 L CNG L4 YHNXVo 1.6KA5
a model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
Nissan
Sentra CA 1.8 L gas A4 YNSXV0l.85BA
* alternative fuel vehicle
Ultra Low-Eillission Vehicles (u'trvos)
These cars are 50%cleaner than the average new X000 model year car.
Acura model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
3.2 TL 3.2 L gas A4 YHNXV03.2+GL4
Buick model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
Le Sabre 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8901
Le Sabre 3,8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8044
Park Avenue 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8901
Park Avenue 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8044
Chevrolet model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
Impala 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8901
Impala 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8044
Lumina 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8044
1 of 3 07/05/2000 2:26 PM
Monte Carlo 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8044
Dodge model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
Neon 2.0 L gas A4 YCRXVO122V40
Neon 2.0 L gas A4 YCXRV0122V41
Honda model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
Accord-EX 2.3 L gas A4 YHNXV02.3PL4
Accord LX 2.3 L gas A4 YHNXV02.3PL4
Insight 1.0 L ** M5 YHNXV0.I OLA4
** hybrid vehicle
gas Welectric assist
Ford model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
*Crown Victoria 4.6 L CNG A4 YFMXV04.6VP5
Mazda model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
626 2.0 L gas A4 YTKXV02.OVJM
Protoge 1.6 L gas A4 YTKXV01.6VJM
Plymouth model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
Neon 2.0 L gas A4 YCRXV0122V40
Neon 2.0 L gas A4 YCRXV0122V41
Pontiac model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
Bonneville 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8901
Bonneville 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8044
Regal 3.8 L gas A4 YGMXV03.8044
Toyota model displacement fuel transmission engine family number
Camry 2.2 L gas A4 YTYXV02.2JJB
Camry Solara 2.2 L gas A4 YTYXV02.2JJB
Camay Solara conv 2.2 L gas A4 YTYXV02.2JJB
Camry 2.2 L CNG A4 YTYXV02.2PPA
* alternative fuel vehicle
2 of 3
07/05/2000 2:26 PN1
Attachment 3
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
. �} - . Contra
FROM: Mark DeSaulnier • '�� '� .
John Gioia • Costa
DATE: December 5, 2000 County
SUBJECT: Sustainable County Buildings
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
REFER to the Internal Operations Committee responsibility and oversight for the development of
principles,policies and design guidelines for sustainable County buildings,with staff support
drawn from appropriate County Departments and programs as needed. The principles,policies
and guidelines are to be completed and brought to the Board for review by December 31, 2001
and should include: a life cycle approach to cost estimates;performance criteria for building
materials and operation and a requirement for commissioning of buildings once completed.
Bac round and Justification
Sustainable(also known as "whole" or"green")buildings are those are designed, constructed and
operated as a single integrated system to conserize energy and natural resources, protect human
health,preserve local and regional environmental quality and maximize durability and long-term
value.
Sustainable buildings achieve these aims because they:
0 Maximize energy efficiency, durability, renewable energy use and water conservation through
their design, construction materials, accommodation of alternative modes of transportation
(e.g. bicycle racks, electric vehicle charging,stations), siting/orientation and landscaping
e Reduce, reuse and recycle materials in all phases of construction, operation and demolition
and-minimize harmful wastes produced during construction and use;
Make the best use of space efficiency through reduced footprints and simplified building
shapes;
• Ensure a healthy and comfortable working environment with eliminated or reduced toxic and
harmful materials, inclusion of facilities for Ichild care and use of ergonomic principles in
work station and meeting space design;
• Have their total cost based on the their entire life-cycle of construction, operation and
demolition,,not just construction costs alone;
Are commissioned on completion to ensure they meet operation and maintenance standards
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:_X YES SIGNATU •
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEWTION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(SI;
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
See Addendum for Board action
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT J AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE D TE SHOWN.
.'NDistrict V Seat Vacant ATTESTED ;�Boo
_
PHIL B XT CHELOR,CLER THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Contact:
CC: Internal Operations Cte. 00
County AdministraBy tor Lw/1" 9DEPUTV
Why should Contra Costa County invest in sustainable buildings?
• From FY 1995-1996 through FY 1999-2000, Contra Costa County spent an average of
$32,500,000 annually on building construction, acquisition and renovation; given the
ambitious facilities plans for the next five to ten years,this figure is not likely to reduce.
(CCC General Services Department).
• The County spends ends thousands of dollars each year through its Risk Management Department
on investigation, medical and renovation costs of Workers' Compensation claims by
employees related to their work buildings. In addition, other costs of poorly designed and
functioning buildings include increased staff turnover, lowered productivity and mistrust
between labor and management regarding response to employee health and safety concerns
(CCC Risk Management Department).
• Other infrastructure costs related to buildings that are poorly designed and operate
inefficiently include hazard identification and abatement, fines for releases and improper
disposal of hazardous materials,needless utility and waste charges and employee downtime
due to renovations and evacuations (CCC Risk Management Department).
Looking at the US and the world:
• Buildings consume 1/3 of all energy and 2/3 of all electricity in the US
• Constructing and operating buildings accounts for 70%-80%of mineral and fiber
consumption in the US
• Buildings account for 35% of US CO2 emissions, 47%of sulfur dioxide emissions, 22% of
nitrous oxide emissions and 10%of particulate emissions
• 20%-30% of US landfill space is taken up by construction and demolition debris, at least half
of which could have been recycled.
• 30%of new and renovated buildings in the US have poor indoor air quality
• Buildings account for 1/6 th of the world's freshwater withdrawals
• Buildings use 25%of all the world's wood harvest
• Buildings consume 40%of all material and energy flows worldwide
On August 2, 2000, Governor Gray Davis signed Executive Order D-16-00 (attached)
establishing a state sustainable building goal, "to site, design, deconstruct, construct,renovate,
operate and maintain state buildings that are models of energy, water, and materials efficiency;
while providing healthy, productive and comfortable indoor environments and long-term benefits
to Californians". It is the Governor's intention that California maintain its commitment to
providing leadership on energy, environmental and public health issues by implementing
innovative and resource-efficient public building design practices.
The economic benefits of sustainable building design have been measured in a number of
locations:
• The West Bend Mutual Insurance Company experienced a 40%reduction in energy
consumption and a 16% increase in claims processing in a sustainably designed new claims
processing facility;
• Lockheed Missiles and Space Company experienced$500,000 in annual energy savings in a
new sustainable building with$2 million in extra first costs for sustainable features. Costs
were thus repaid in four years, if only energy and construction costs are taken into account.
A 15%measured reduction in absenteeism actually paid back the extra costs in one year—an
example of how all costs and savings needed to be included in examining cost-benefit ratios
for sustainable buildings;
• The Bullocks Department Store in San Jose,renovated an existing building with sustainable
features, including replacing the roof with tensile fabric to allow maximum daylight. Sales in
the section of the store lit through the roof increased by 15%regardless of what merchandise
was placed there.
Given Contra Costa County's reputation for innovation, as well as the financial resources
invested in County buildings and those who work in them, it is humane, environmentally
responsible and fiscally prudent for Contra Costa County to develop and implement sustainable
building principles, policies and guidelines for the acquisition,renovation and construction of
County buildings.
Children's Impact Statement
This board order addresses the following community outcomes of the Children's Accountability
Act:
4. Families that are Safe, Stable and Nurturing: workplace comfort and safety have a direct
impact on the health of those employees with children—they will be healthier and
productive and thus able to play a strong nurturing role in the lives of their children.
5. Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for children and Families.
Buildings that reduce/reuse/recycle precious resources allow for more resources to be
directed to other aspects of life for children and families.
ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.6
DECEMBER 55 2000
On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered Supervisor DeSaulnier's
recommendation of referring to the Internal:Operations Committee responsibility and
oversight for the development of principles;policies and design guidelines for sustainable
County buildings.
Supervisor DeSaulnier presented the item and suggested that item 0.135 on today's
agenda be considered at the Internal Operations Committee along with this item.
Supervisor Gioia expressed concurrence with Supervisor DeSaulnier and seconded the
motion.
Supervisor Uilkema suggested that the materials on provided at the CSAC workshop be
given to the Internal Operations Committee for use in their consideration of this matter.
Supervisor DeSaulnier amended the motion to include that during the time this is being
referred to Internal Operations that the County Administrator be sensitive to any capital
projects that are going out to incorporate any kind of general direction we can.
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the responsibility and oversight for the
development of principles,policies and design guidelines for sustainable County
buildings is REFERRED to the Internal Operations Committee with staff support drawn
from appropriate County Departments and programs as needed. The principles,policies
and guidelines are to be completed and brought to the Board for review by December 31,
2001 and should include: a life cycle approach to cost estimates; performance criteria for
building materials and operation and a requirement for commissioning of buildings once
completed; and that during the time this is being referred to the Internal,'Operations
Committee, the County Administrator is DIRECTED to be sensitive to any capital
projects that are going out to incorporate any kind of appropriate general direction.
CA Home Page:Governor Gray Davis-Executive Order D-16-00 http://www.governor.ca.gov/briefing/execorder/d 1600,htmi
Execut"ive Order
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
mow.
r .
r i ;
9
EXECUTIVE ORDER D-16-00
by the
Governor of the State of California
WHEREAS, California is committed to providing leadership on energy, environmental and public
health issues by implementing innovative and resource-efficient public building design practices and
other state government programs that improve the lives of California's 34.5 million residents; and
WHEREAS,the state invests approximately two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000)annually for design,
construction and renovation, and more than six hundred million dollars ($600,000,000) annually for
energy, water, and waste disposal at state-funded facilities; and
WHEREAS,a building's energy, water, and waste disposal costs are computed over a twenty-five
year period, or for the life of the building, and far exceed the first cost of design and construction; and
WHEREAS, an opportunity exists for the State of California to foster continued economic growth and
provide environmental leadership by incorporating sustainable building practices into the state capital
outlay and building management processes; and
WHEREAS, sustainable building practices utilize energy, water, and materials efficiently throughout
the building life cycle; enhance indoor air quality; improve employee health, comfort and productivity;
incorporate environmentally preferable products; and thereby substantially reduce the costs and
environmental impacts associated with long-term building operations, without compromising building
performance or the needs of future generations; and
1 of 3 11/13/2000 11:20 AM
Home Page:Governor Gray Davis-Executive Order D-16-00 http://www.governor.ca.gov/briefing/execorder/d1600.html
g
WHEREAS the widespread adoption of sustainable building principles would result in significant
long-term benefits to the California environment, including reductions in smog generation, runoff of
water pollutants to surface and groundwater sources,the demand for energy,water and sewage
treatment services, and the fiscal and environmental impacts resulting from the expansion of these
infrastructures; and
WHEREAS,it is critical that my Administration provide leadership to both the private and public
sectors in the sustainable building arena;
NOW THEREFORE, I, GRAY DAVIS, Governor of the State of California, by virtue of the power
and authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California, do hereby
establish a state sustainable building goal and issue this order to become effective immediately:
The sustainable building goal m oal of administration is to site, design, deconstruct,
y
construct, renovate, operate, and maintain state buildings that are models of energy,water,
and materials efficiency; while providing healthy,productive and comfortable,indoor
environments and long-term benefits to Californians.
The Secretary for State and Consumer Services (hereinafter referred to as "the Secretary")
shall facilitate the incorporation of sustainable building practices into the planning,
operations,policymaking, and regulatory functions of State entities. The objectives are to
implement the sustainable building goal in a cost effective manner,while considering
p g
externalities; identify economic and environmental performance measures; determine cost
savings; use extended life cycle costing; and adopt an integrated systems approach. Such
an approach treats the entire building as one system and recognizes that individual
building features, such as lighting, windows,heating and cooling systems, or control
systems, are not stand-alone systems.
In carrying out this assignment, the Secretary shall broadly consult with appropriate
private sector individuals and public officials, including the Director of the Department of
Finance; the Secretary of Business, Transportation, and Housing, the Secretary for
Education; the Secretary for Environmental Protection;the Secretary of Health and
Human Services; and the Secretary for Resources. The Secretary shall submit a report to
the Governor within six months of the date of this order, containing a recommended
strategy for incorporating sustainable building practices into development of State
facilities including leased property.
Thereafter, on an annual basis,the Secretary shall report on the activities and on the
efforts of all State entities under the Governor's jurisdiction to implement the Governor's
sustainable building strategy. The Secretary shall devise a method for compiling such
information and reporting it to the Governor and the Legislature.
All State entities under the Governor's jurisdiction shall cooperate fully with the Secretary
and provide assistance and information as needed. The Regents of the University of
California,Boards of Governors of Community College Districts, Trustees of the
California State Universities, the State Legislature, and all Constitutional Officers are
encouraged to comply with the Executive Order.
Nothing in this Order shall be construed to confer upon any state agency decision-making
authority over substantive matters within another agency's jurisdiction, including any
informational and public hearing requirements needed to make regulatory and permitting
2 of 3 l 1/13/2000 11:20 AM
A Home P 11 age:Governor Gray Davis-Executive Order D-16-00 http://www.governor.ca.gov/briefing/execorder/d 1600.htm1
decisions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and caused
the Great Seal of the State of California to be affixed this 2nd day of
August 2000.
Governor of California
ATTEST:
Secretary of State
3 of 3 11/13/2000 11:21 AM
Attachment 4
.:-=T� ���=�°�. -
TO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
•ter �, _
Costa
FROM: Mark DeS aulnier
County
DATE:
September 11, 2001 M,''
SUBJECT: DRAFT COMPACT FOR A SUSTAINABLE BAY AREA
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMRNDATION_
ADOPT Resolution No. 2001/418, endorsing and joining in the overall goal of stakeholder
organizations and civic leaders regarding a new shared local vision rooted in common values
about how the Bay Area can grow in a more sustainable manner, and building a consensus of this
vision through the development and adoption of the Bay Area Alliance Draft Compact that can
become the foundation for implementation actions by both the public and private sector at the
local, regional, state and national levels.
BACKGROUND:
The Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development is a multi-stakeholder coalition established in
1997 to develop and implement a sustainability action plan for the Bay Area. The Bay Area
Alliance has embraced the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development
definition of sustainable development as the ability"...to meet the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
For the past three years, Bay Area Alliance members-public and private sector leaders who
represent the environment, equity, the economy, government, and other interests-and many other
participants have worked collaboratively to craft a Draft Compact for a Sustainable Bay Area.
The Draft Compact identifies key regional challenges and recommends a package of 10 strategic
commitments to meet those challenges and.put the Bay Area on a more sustainable path.
The Bay Area Alliance is committed to facilitating a region-wide dialogue on how the region can
grow in a more sustainable manner, and to taking actions commensurate with achieving that goal.
In all its activities and deliberations the Bay Area Alliance is employing e-vision, integrating the
essential three E's of sustainability in order to achieve and maintain a prosperous economy,
quality environment, and social equity.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 11 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED mac:OTHER.._
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY AN ACTION TAKEN
A UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None } AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED September 11'2001
JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY
Resolution No. 2001/418
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County's economy, environmental resources, cultural amenities,
educational institutions and diversity of the population make this region a unique and special
place; and
WHEREAS, the entire Bay Area is undergoing rapid changes and facing serious challenges; and
WHEREAS, traffic congestion, long commutes and overburdened transit systems, the lack of
-sufficient housing and skyrocketing housing costs, loss of open space, declining neighborhoods,
air and water pollution and the increasingly inequitable distribution of the benefits of our economy
are interrelated problems that require integrated solutions; and
WHEREAS, sustaining the region's environment and economy in a way that ensures equity for all
residents, requires innovative thinking and"e-vision" -- a balanced, integrated, inclusive,
co llabo rat ive approach; and
WHEREAS, e-vision is a vision of the future that integrates the Three Es of Sustainable
Development: prosperous economy, quality envirc,nment and social . "e-vision" is inclusive
of all stakeholders and celebrates the region's diverse social, environmental and economic
strengths; and
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development is a multi-stakeholder coalition
established in 1997 to develop and implement a sustainability action plan for the Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development defines sustainable development
as the ability"...to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs;" and
WHEREAS, the overall goal of the Bay Area Alliance Draft Compact is to reach consensus
among a critical mass of stakeholder organizations and civic leaders regarding a new shared vision
rooted in common values about how the region can grow in a more sustainable manner;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County
joins the overall goal of stakeholder organizations and civic leaders regarding a new shared local
vision rooted in common values about how the region can grow in a more sustainable manner,
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County endorses
and joins in building a consensus of a new shared vision through the development and adoption of
the Bay Area Alliance Draft Compact that can become the foundation for implementation actions
by both the public and private sector at the local, regional, state and national levels.
Attachment 5
-� Contra
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
-- Costa
FROM: Mark DeSaulnier
County
DATE: May 14, 2002 ------'
SUBJECT: SUPPORT AB 1058 (PAVLEY) RELATED TO GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATIONS)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECC)MMENDATTON:
Support of AB 1058 (Pavley), which would require the California Air Resources Board to adopt
regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and direct County
Administrator to immediately communicate our support to the state Legislature.
RACK(IRQ[.IND--
California's carbon dioxide emissions from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks are
responsible for about 40 percent of the total greenhouse gas pollution in the state—more than
twice the amount in other parts of the country. This bill would require the California Air
Resources Board to develop and adopt,by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve the
maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light-duty
trucks and any other vehicles determined by the state board to be vehicles whose primary use is
noncommercial personal transportation in the state.
Passage of this bill would make California the first state in the nation to ask for higher standards
regarding carbon dioxide emissions, which are said to vastly contribute to global warming also
known as the greenhouse effect. Although the debate over global warming continues, it is known
that too much carbon dioxide in the air does impact the public's health.
Among the bill's 177 supporters are: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, East Bay
Municipal Utility District, Bluewater Network, Coalition for Clean Air, Natural Resources
Defense Counsel, Sierra Club, American Lung Association, California League of Conservation
Voters, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, and 160 individuals from all across the U.S.
The bill's opponents include: the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, California Chamber of
Commerce, Daimler Chrysler Corporation, General Motors Corporation, Western States
Petroleum Association and California Motor Car Dealers Association.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT* YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON Mal 14.2002 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED axe OTHER,
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY AN ACTION TAKEN
_X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT None ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
AYES: NOES: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED Ma;14. 2002
JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY _DEPUTY
Attachment 6
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Mark DeSaulnier
Contra
Costa
DATE: June 15, 2004
�q-noun -
County
SUBJECT: Policy to limiting the purchase Of _
Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and promote fuel economy in the County fleet
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
REC`OMMENDATIO
DIRECT the Director of the Department of General Services develop a policy which would
determine the appropriate size of vehicle for each County vehicle assignment.
Implementation would specifically evaluate efficiency, emissions and
standardization of maintenance in arriving at the decision of the appropriate
vehicle. The goal would be to purchase the most fuel efficient, lowest emission
vehicle available within the class of vehicle that is available through the County's
acquisition contract.
Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) will not be purchased unless justified based on
verified work assignment. When such vehicles are a necessity every effort should
be made to explore the purchase of a hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles. Also in
all fleet purchases, to the extent practical, Contra Costa County will continue to
support Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFV) and strategies to reduce the consumption
of petroleum fuels. Law Enforcement and Fire District vehicles will be exempt
from this policy. Others could be exempted only where need could be absolutely
proven.
BACKGRC)[TND
Evidence has shown SUVs consume more gas and cause more emissions that negatively affect
our air quality. As a member of the California Air Resources Board, I have reviewed extensively
the serious impacts of deteriorating air quality on our community. The number of children and
adults suffering from asthma and other serious respiratory illnesses continues to climb. Our area
struggles to meet federal clean air standards.
Our Board now faces a grave fiscal crisis and may soon be forced to make many harsh budget
decisions. With the rising cost of gasoline in California, I believe it is incumbent upon us, as
stewards of the public trust, to explore all areas where we can reduce expenditures. A good start
would be a Board policy to limit the purchase of SUVs for only those functions that require the
unique features of such a vehicle.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REICOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREft
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 15, 2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER 4of"
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENTNcme ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED June 15, 2004
JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Contact:
cc: County Administrator
County Counsel
General Services
- -BY ✓ ccdoeooll
,DEPUTY
ADDENDUM TO ITEM SD.2
June 15, 2004
The Board of Supervisors considered the policy to limiting the purchase of Utility Vehicles
(SUVs) and promote fuel economy in the County fleet.
Supervisor DeSaulnier presented the staff report and recommendations.
The Board discussed the matter and took the following actions:
• DIRECTED the General Services Director to develop a policy on determining the
appropriate size of vehicle for each County vehicle assignment that considers emissions,
fuel efficiency, and standardization of maintenance;
• REFERRED to County Administrator evaluation of Fleet Management Policy to be
included in the review of the overall global policy,
• DIRECTED staff to combine final work into the purchasing policy;
• REQUESTED staff to DEVELOP a policy for identifying the appropriate vehicle for an
assignment that has the least emission.
Attachment 7
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
SUPERVISOR TOM TORLAKSON, CHAIR
SUPERVISOR NANCY FAHDEN
DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO USE RECYCLED PAPER FOR COUNTY GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
Authorize the Community Development and General Services
Departments to launch and implement the use of recycled paper for
County Government activities in the following phases:
Phase I (September, 19 9 0 to October 31, 19 9 0)
- All photocopying work in the Community Development Department
will be on recycled paper (10% post-consumer content and 40%
recovered materials)
- All business cards for County Government employees shall be on
recycled paper
Selected printing and photocopying projects performed by
Central Services for other County departments shall be on
recycled paper and the selection of the projects shall be
determined by the Central Service Manager.
Phase II (November 1, 1990 to December 31, 19 9 0)
- Report to the Environmental Affairs Committee regarding the
quality and costs in using recycled paper during Phase I and
projected on a countywide basis
- Reviews with County Administrator, Department Heads, and
appropriate staff in all departments regarding County
recycling efforts and use of recycled paper on a countywide
basis.
Phase I I I (January 19 91)
Implementation on a County department-wide basis, in use of
recycled paper to the extent feasible based on quality and
costs.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: xx YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR xxx RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
LN
SIGNATURE(S) .
Supervisor Tom Torlakson, Chair Super isor Nancy Fanden
ACTION OF BOARD ON September 18, 1990 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT III TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Ori.g: Community Development Department ATTESTED )' I & -4
cc: County Administrator PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF
General Services Department THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Central Services Division (VIA GSD) AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
LPA:gms BY , DEPUTY
ea:RecyPapr.bo
i
j
i
i
i
Authorization to Use Recycled Paper
for County Government Activities
j (Continued) - Page Two
r
I
i
i
FISCAL IMPACT
I
The use of recycled paper for business cards will be no greater
than current costs based upon volume estimates and discussions with
printing company.
I
Cost estimates for recycled piper use in photocopying and/or
printing projects is contingent upon volume. Further estimates
will be provided in Phase II, b t for Phase I, costs are expected
to be no more than 4% greater th n current costs for virgin paper.
I
r
BACKGROUND REASONS FOR RECOMMEN ATIONS
I
Under Public Contract Code Section 12168, public agencies are now
required to purchase recycled paper when the total cost is no more
than that of non-recycled paper and the quality is the same.
Additionally, the implementation of AB939 -- the California
Integrated Waste Management Act -- requires reductions in solid
waste ' of which paper, and paper products represent a significant
portion.
The experience of the City of San Jose in using recycled paper for
the last five (5) years has demon trated that quality, availability
and costs are not significantly different from the use of
non-recycled, or virgin, paper. The City of San Jose departments
use the same wide variety of photocopy equipment used throughout
Contra Costa County departments no equipment problems have been
experienced by the City resulting from use of recycled paper.
The volume of paper used by County Government provides an
opportunity for the cost-effective use of recycled paper.
CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Source reduction requirements of AB939 must be met. Use of
recycled paper within County Government represents both a
substantial contribution to sour a reduction as well as provides an
example for other public agencies and private businesses. Without
such an effort, meeting the AB939 goals will be even more
difficult,
LPA:gms
ea:RecyPapr.bo
i
4
i
I
I
I
3
i
f
i
i
I
!
I
f
i
I
i
I
I
i
i
e
i
Attachment 8
} '
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS f' � �}- -•�_�� CONTRA
COSTA
FROM: John Sweeten, County Administrator r;,
� ~ ' ! COUNTY
DATE. February 10, 2004 '
SUBJECT: STRATEGIC ENERGY PLAN FOR COUNTY FACILITIES
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS :
1. ACCEPT the findings and recommendations of the Strategic Energy Plan for County facilities,
produced by the finn AEPC Group, LLC, in consultation with the County General Services Department
and County Administrator's Office;
2. ACKNOWLEDGE that the County currently spends $9.5 M annually on electricity and natural gas
necessary to operate County facilities;
3. CONSIDER that the County can reduce annual energy costs by an estimated$1.2 M through
implementation of efficiency measures recommended in the Strategic Energy Plan;
4. ACKNOWLEDGE that implementation of the recommended energy efficiency measures will have an
initial cost to the County of approximately$4.5 M;
5. RECOGNIZE that this cost will be offset by$3.5 M the County will receive through January 1, 2007
from the legal settlement with the Williams Company and that such funds are restricted under the terms
of the settlement for use on energy efficiency improvements;
6. CONSIDER that the remaining$1.0 M cost of the recommended improvements will be more than
offset over time from energy savings achieved through implementation of such measures;
7. AUTHORIZE the Director of General Services, or designee, to implement the recommendations of the
Strategic Energy Plan;
8. DIRECT the County Administrator, or designee, to proceed with developing a financing plan necessary
to fund the recoimnended energy efficiency measures.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _X_YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR REC7MENDATION OF BOARD C MMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S) r
ACTION OF BO D N F`F:1iTAKY 10�.2004 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
Xi UNANIMOUS(ABSENT NONE ) TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ON MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact:Jason Crapo,335-1021
ATTESTED YEF ILIARY 104 2004
JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
cc: CAO,Capital Facilities and Debt Management 1
General Services,Capital Project Management _
BY ,DEPUTY
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Contra Costa County spends $9.5 million annually on electricity and natural gas to provide heating, cooling,
ventilation, hot water, lighting and other conditions necessary to operate County facilities. Implementation of
the energy efficiency measures recommended in the Contra Costa County Strategic Energy Plan will reduce the
County's annual energy costs by an estimated $1.2 million, or 12%of total. AEPC estimates that
implementation of these measures will have an estimated initial cost to the County of$4.5 million.
Many of the recommended measures can be implemented within the next several months, resulting in energy
savings to the County beginning in FY 04-05. Other projects will require a second level of analysis to verify
estimated project costs and resulting energy savings. Assuming initial estimates are confirmed,these projects
will be implemented over the course of the next two fiscal years.
The proposed financing plan calls for the recommended energy efficiency measures to be financed over 10
years. Through FY 09-10, debt service will be fully offset by Williams Settlement funds, allowing the County
to realize the full annual savings of$1.2 million upon implementation. From FY 10-11 through FY 14-15,
energy savings will be offset by$540,000 in annual debt service, resulting in a net savings of$660,000.
Beyond FY 14-15, debt service will be repaid and the County will receive the full savings of its investment for
the remaining useful life of the improvements. The table below summarizes the cash flows and energy savings
to the County under the proposed financing plan:
Table 1
Contra Costa County Energy Efficiency Improvement Program—
Proposed Financing Plan and Cash Flows
Total Debt Pay-As-You- Balance Net Energy
Year Revenue (1) Service (2) Go Costs (3) Of Funds Savings (4)
FY 02-03 110009000 11000,000
FY 03-04 520,000 200,000 113209000
FY 04-05 526,400 270,000 200,000 11376,400 450,000
FY 05-06 27,528 540,000 2009000 663,928 950,000
FY 06-07 19 513,279 540,000 196377207 1,200,000
FY 07-08 32,744 540,000 1,129,951 1,200,000
FY 08-09 229599 540,000 612y550 1,200,000
FY 09-10 129251 540,000 84y801 1,200,000
FY 10-11 1,696 540,000 746,497
FY 11-12 540,000 660,000
FY 12-13 540,000 6609000
FY 13-14 540,000 660,000
FY 14-15 270,000 9309000
FY 15-16 11200,000
FY 16-17 102009000
FY 17-18 1,200,000
FY 18-19 1,200,000
FY 19-20 11200,000
FY 20-21 11200,000
FY 21-22 1,200,000
Total $3,656,49711 $5,400,0001 $600,0001 $18,256,497
(1) Williams Settlement funds plus interest earned at 2% annually.
(2) $4.26 million financed over 10 years at 4.5%.
(3) Cash-funded improvements, consultants and project management.
(4) Assumes three-year implementation schedule.
BACKGROUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
On December 17, 2002, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors accepted the terms of a settlement
agreement with the Williams Company related to their business practices during the recent California energy
crisis. The agreement includes a series of payments to the County between December. 31, 2002 and January 1,
2007 totaling$3.5 million. The funds are restricted by terms of the settlement"to activities that promote
alternative energy production or improved energy efficiency."
Following resolution of the settlement agreement, County staff began a planning process for use of the
settlement funds. The County General Services Department conducted an RFP for an energy consultant to
develop a Strategic Energy Plan(SEP) for the County. After receiving nearly twenty proposals and
interviewing six highly qualified firms, staff recommended the energy engineering firm AEPC Group, LLC of
San Ramon, California to provide consulting services to the County in development of the SEP. On June 10,
2003 the Board of Supervisors approved a contract with AEPC to provide such services.
In developing the SEP, AEPC Group surveyed the County's 34 largest facilities,representing nearly 60%of the
County's annual energy consumption. In this survey, AEPC confirmed that the County has implemented a large
number of energy efficiency projects in its facilities over the past decade,which have significantly reduced
energy consumption. However, AEPC also found that the County has the opportunity to implement a number
of additional improvements that can save the County an estimated$1.2 million in annual energy costs.
The energy efficiency improvements recommended in the SEP fall into four categories, as summarized below:
1. Energy Efficiency Projects:
❑ Install computerized controls on the heating,ventilating and air conditioning(HVAC)
systems in a larger number of the County's facilities so that temperature can be more
precisely regulated and energy consumption can be optimized;
❑ Implement lighting standards for County facilities and install automated sensors to maintain
appropriate lighting levels and to reduce electricity use when natural light penetration from
windows is high;
❑ Remove older, inefficient equipment and replace with newer and more efficient equipment
that capitalizes on recent technological advances.
2. Supply Side Opportunities:
❑ Implement"cogeneration"projects at the County's major 24-hour facilities utilizing natural
gas-powered generators to produce electricity and utilize waste heat from such electricity
generation to heat hot water for these facilities.
❑ Participate in one of the State-sponsored "demand response"programs,whereby the County
would receive a payment in exchange for agreeing to reduce energy consumption by
approximately 5% at times when statewide energy demand is high.
3. Organizational Advancement:
❑ Consolidate energy management activities under a single employee in the General Services
Department to be hired on a contract basis as the County Energy Manager;
❑ Enhance staff training to take full advantage of automated control systems.
4. New Construction and Facility Renewal:
❑ Apply new energy efficient technologies when they become commercially viable and
economically feasible;
❑ Install latest energy efficient technologies when remodeling existing facilities.
Contra Costa County Strategic Energy Plan
MM MMMM-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .... . . . . ..1
SECTION 1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . ....10
SECTION 2 The County's Energy Context. . . 12
SECTION 3 Strategies. . . . . . . . . . . Oman was 8@8 0@24
Strategy 1 — Energy Efficiency Projects...................27
Strategy 2 — Supply Side Opportunities..................36
Strategy 3 — Organizational Advancement...............43
Strategy 4— New Construction and Renewal...........46
SECTION 4 Economic Summary. . . . .. .. ... .... ... .. . . . ... . .50
SECTIONS Summary and Recommendations. 53
APPENDIX I County Data
APPENDIX II Other Information
AEPCGroup,LLC. January 22,2004
DESIGN CON3TNl;:1I0A M4N:.GE l:F.IVI
Contra Costa County Strategic Energy Plan
Executive Summary
OVERVIEW
Similar to other government entities in California,Contra Costa County is presently experiencing a
challenging fiscal environment. Decreasing energy costs through energy efficiency improvement measures is
one way the County can reduce spending without sacrificing public services.
A recent legal settlement between the Williams Company and several California jurisdictions, including
Contra Costa County,has afforded an opportunity to evaluate potential investments in energy efficiency and
alternative energy generation in County operated facilities. In response to this opportunity,the County is
now developing its energy cost reduction program such that energy efficiency and alternative generation
become an integral and strategic aspect of its annual capital planning and facility operations processes. This
program capitalizes upon opportunities for the County to reduce energy consumption, decrease operating
costs, and minimize impacts to the environment, while maintaining the County's leadership in the area of
energy efficiency, alternative energy generation and organizational advancements.
The purpose of this Strategic Energy Plan(SEP) is to evaluate and recommend strategies that will provide
Contra Costa County with a proactive and comprehensive energy management program. AEPC Group,Inc.,
supported by Cogent Energy, Inc.,produced the Plan,-with valuable assistance from the General Services
Department and the County Administrator's Office. With authorization from the Board of Supervisors,
AEPC was hired by the General Services Department to evaluate County facilities and to explore savings
opportunities. The AEPC/Cogent team was chosen based upon their unique combination of energy
engineering analytical skills, engineering design, locality and ability to identify and address the complex
issues and opportunities facing Contra Costa County.
Contra Costa County is to be commended for its successful,on-going energy cost reduction program. Started
several years ago,many countywide initiatives have been implemented including employee awareness and
incentive programs, and energy efficiency and generation projects. Because of these past initiatives,the
County has reduced its annual energy costs(CY 2002)by an estimated$1,739,000 or 18%at current energy
prices. Examples of Contra Costa County's initiatives include:
- Selecting a single source provider(Alerton)for an Energy Management Control Systems (EMCS)and
promoting its use throughout the County
- Dedicating the necessary resources to achieve and maintain energy savings by having a full-time
EMCS specialist on staff to facilitate the installation, operation and staff training of these building
automation systems
- Spending additional funds to install these computerized controls down to the zone level(although this
level of control entails a marginal cost,the County realizes its operational and financial benefits)
- Mandating space temperatures of 767 for comfort cooling and 67°F for comfort heating
- Embracing and achieving a solid working knowledge of the Alerton EMCS
The County currently spends $9.5 million annually in electricity and natural gas. The SEP's strategies
represent an opportunity for the County to achieve an annual cost reduction of$1,170,000 or 12% of
current energy costs.
A- _EJPCGrotip,I,I.c.
1 January 22, 2004
C0i*-JSf14;JCT10N•t�ANAGE.%PI Ji
Contra Costa County Strategic Energy Plan
This scenario assumes that all SEP recommendations are implemented at an approximate expenditure of$5.0
million in capital costs. It also provides the County with an overall net present value(NPV) of$6.9 million
in savings assuming a 20-year amortization of costs.
Although the California energy market remains uncertain, one fact holds true: reducing energy usage will
always be the best hedge against price uncertainty. The Strategic Energy Plan was developed to become the
backbone of the County's short and long-term energy planning process and is consistent with,and
complements,the visions, objectives and efforts to reduce energy consumption initiated by the County in
recent years. The Plan's recommended strategies fail into four categories:
1. Energy Efficiency Projects
2. Supply Side Opportunities (including energy generation)
3. Organizational Advancement
4. New Construction and Facility Renewal
Successful implementation of the Plan is predicated upon the following:
— First,the SEP's general strategies and specific tactical recommendations must be embraced by
County staff and become part of the County's planning and operating processes. Addressing the
County's energy infrastructure issues comprehensively and effectively will require updating the Plan
at least annually so that it becomes an integral part of the County's overall facility and budgetary
planning process.
— Second,this document is intended to inform the County of the potential benefits and impacts of
adopting the recommended Strategies. Some of the document's specific project recommendations
are preliminary in,nature, and should not be implemented without a more detailed level of analyses.
— Third,the County will need to continue to develop supportive policies, operating procedures,and
funding strategies that are championed,monitored and controlled by senior management.
Implementing the tactics recommended in the four Strategies, coupled with adoption of new management
guidelines,will enable the County to:
— Significantly reduce energy consumption
— Implement financially beneficial distributed generation projects
— Renew existing, aging infrastructure
Specific recommendations for each of the four key strategies are highlighted below.
STRATEGY ONE— ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROJECTS
While the County has exhibited a `continuous improvement' mindset with regards to pursuing energy
efficiency over the past decade, significant potential remains to reduce energy costs of its heating,ventilating
and air conditioning(HVAC)equipment and lighting systems.
HVAC and Control Systems Recommendations:Building HVAC and control systems offer distinct
opportunities for reducing energy consumption and cost. These opportunities generally fall in several
categories, including:
AEPC..Grpqp,...LLC 2 JanuaryJanuary22, 2004
............-.1-1..C=i1;,tti•CONISTWXTION •M-AMAGE-SAENT
4. 3. Contra Costa County Strategic is Ener y Plan
9'
— Expanded use of direct digital control systems(DDC)and maximizing benefit of existing
controls
— Expanded implementation of variable speed drives on air handling and pumping systems
Modification or replacement of inefficient existing equipment and/or systems
Approximately 75%of net energy reduction potential exists at facilities that operate continuously, such as
the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center(CCRMC)and Martinez Detention Facility. The targeted savings
from HVAC related measures over a 2-year timeframe is shown in Exhibit 1.1.
Exhibit 1.1—Summary of HVA C and Contra/In vestments and Sa wings Potentiai, by Year
Tota I Peak Total
Electric -ctric Total TotalTotal
Energy Demand Electric Cost Energy Cost Gas Cost Simple
Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings Total Project Payback
Cost (Years)
2004 1,245,570 69 $ 151,307 190,075 $ 1399860 $ 2939878 $ 1,385,140 4.71
1
2005 3039125 13 $ 479739 39626 $ 31204 $ 54 215 $ 418,186 7.7
Total 1,548,69-6-F 82 $ 199,046 F 193,70--1T—$ 143,065-T—$ 348,093 1 $ l,'803,326-1- 5.2
Implementing these HVAC projects will require a phased approach,including:
— Investment grade audits on select projects
— Identifying all funding and rebate opportunities
— Selecting design and implementation resources and schedules
Lighting System Recommendations:Building lighting systems offer a significant potential for saving
energy. Advanced lighting measures considered in this plan include:
— Develop and implement a plan to attain 0.6 watts/sq.ft.lighting energy density in common areas
at all County facilities
— Develop and implement a daylight harvesting program
— Replace 32W T8 lamps with 28W T8 lamps during the course of normal group relamping
activity
The targeted savings from implementing these measures over a three year timeframe is shown in Exhibit 1.2
Exhibit 1,2 Summary of Lighting In vestments and Sa vings Potential,by Year
Tota I Peak Tota
Electric •ta I Total Gas Total
Energy • Electric Cost • •st Gas Cost Simple
Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings Savings Total Project Payback
Year - • •
2004 11542,577 138 $ 221,058 0 $ - $ 221,058 $ 571,464 2.6
2005 104799557 138 $ 211,926 0 $ - $ 211,926 $ 584,140 2.8
2006 4152364, 138 $ 52 743 0 $ $ 52,743 $ 78,326 , 1.5
Total 3,437,498 414 $ 485,727 0 $ - $ 4857727 1 $ 112339929T
2.5
3 Janc�ar��22, 2004
__AEPCGro_. t�p,I1I,C�.
Contra Costa County Strategic Energy Plan
Implementing these lighting projects will require a phased approach, including
— Identify `best-in-class' lamps,ballasts and control technologies.
— Implement test sites to verify technology selections.
— Develop a design template to provide standard guidelines for each building and technology.
— Identify all funding and rebate opportunities.
— Develop an implementation schedule based on self funding projects and projects that occur as normal
maintenance activity.
STRATEGY TWO-SUPPLY SIDE OPPORTUNITIES
Electricity supply side opportunities are currently limited to either purchasing electricity from PG&E or
generating electricity on-site. The County's ability to purchase electricity from alternative suppliers remains
in doubt in the near term due to the regulatory climate in California's energy markets. Because of limited
purchasing opportunities,the SEP advocates a focus on developing County-managed power generating
options (such as cogeneration)and implementing load management strategies(such as thermal energy
storage and participation in demand response programs). For example, cogeneration systems at West County
Detention Facility,the CCRMC, and Martinez Detention Facility,provide good economic potential,as
summarized in Exhibit 1.3.
Exhibit 1,3—Summary of Cogeneration Investments and Savings Potentia/
. OMS MOTMONEEMMItittito
Project Cost($) : $657,003 $186,697 $5339736 $1,377,436
Incentive($1,000/kW to 30% Const. Cost)($) : $197,114 $80,013 $150,000 $427,127
Adjusted Project Cost $459,889 $106,684 $383,736 $950,310
Payback with incentives(in Years) 3.0 4.0 5.5 3.8
Payback without incentives(in Years) 4.2 7.0 7.6 5.5
In addition to cogeneration projects, the County can reduce utility costs through other supply side measures
such as implementing a Demand Response Program. Demand Response(DR)refers to an energy
management practice whereby facility operators to reduce their energy usage if requested to do so by a utility
or other energy agency. The facility operator typically receives a financial reward for this activity, either in
the form of a more favorable rate structure,or a fixed payment for participation coupled with a discrete
payment each time they are asked to reduce consumption. Contra Costa County has an excellent opportunity
to participate in demand response programs for several reasons:
— It has a substantial electric load and presents a valuable market for parties that develop and market
DR programs. The County currently requires 17 MW at summer peak, and therefore has the ability
to deliver a one MW reduction without causing discomfort to facility occupants. Comfort issues can
be minimized because a one MW load reduction can come from small incremental reductions from
numerous facilities,versus large reductions from a small number of facilities
(;roup,I,I,C'
4 J:�nuary 22, 2004
..-.......I............-................
V ESI M•CONST11JC'TION •NAANI:1GUME'41
t
: . Contra Costa County Strategic Energy Plan
---------------
- The County has an excellent facility controls infrastructure that could be leveraged to effectively
curtail load at multiple facilities from a single control location. This makes the logistics of
complying with a demand response program easy to implement
There are currently two demand response programs available to the County.
The Demand Bidding Program (DBP): This is a voluntary,web-based demand and energy bidding
program that offers incentives for reducing energy consumption and demand during specific DBP
event periods
—
California Power Authority Demand Reserves Partnership (DRP): The California Power Authority
(CPA)administers this program under contract with the California Department of Water Resources
(DWR). DRP participants are given a reservation payment in return for a commitment to shed pre-
designated amounts of load when called upon
The Demand Reserves Partnership program is an established program while the Demand Bidding Program is
a pilot project administered by PG&E that has only recently been implemented. This report advocates that
both programs be fully researched and implemented where feasible.
STRATEGY THREE-ORGANIZATIONAL ADVANCEMENT
The County has the ability to further reduce costs and improve operations by undertaking new organizational
initiatives focused on energy management. These initiatives should be coordinated by an Energy Manager
within the County's General Services Department.
Consolidate Energy Management Function Under One Position: The function of managing energy
consumption within County facilities is currently divided among several individuals each responsible for a
particular aspect of energy management. Consolidating these roles under a single contract or permanent
employee dedicated to energy management would result in a more comprehensive and coordinated approach
and allow the County to take full advantage of numerous energy saving opportunities.
There are currently several energy programs operated by various State agencies that offer the County
opportunities for energy savings. These include:
— Statewide programs sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission and administered by
PG&E to fund energy efficiency and distributed generation projects
— EPA Energy Star building certification programs
— California Power Authority bonding and demand response capacity reserve program
— Local programs sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission for a wide variety of
opportunities ranging from Building Operator Certification programs to vending machine efficiency.
initiatives
At present,there is no position in the County to monitor these programs on an ongoing basis. At risk is that
relevant funding and training opportunities may go unnoticed. Creating and filling the position of a County
Energy Manager provides a means to focus on these various energy saving opportunities.
Also, it will be critical to the success of many of the recommendations of this report to promote training and
communication within the County's organization structure.For example,in both the common area lighting
and the daylight harvesting efforts described above, it is imperative that employees understand the intent of
the energy management strategy, and facilitate its application.
5 J��nctai y�22, 20104
_AEPCC,r0tjp.,_ LLC .
Contra Costa County Strategic Energy Plan
x
In addition,there is a need for ongoing promotion and recognition of energy saving efforts throughout the
County. If employee efforts to save energy are not recognized and rewarded, such efforts will decrease and
energy consumption will rise.
Finally, as the energy market in California continues to evolve in the coming years,the County will need to
stay informed of changes in the market and opportunities that present themselves for energy purchasing. The
Energy Manager would be the County's internal energy expert and help position the County to take
advantage of new opportunities in California's dynamic energy market.
Expand Staff Training and Certification:The energy systems in over 1.5 million square feet of County
facility space are currently managed through digital control systems. This is an increase of over 1 million
square feet in the past decade. These control systems are now capable of providing additional energy
management functions, such as load shedding. Maintenance staff training and certification is critical in
maintaining and expanding this capability. The SEP recommends that funds derived from participation in
demand response programs be used to further the professional development of the County personnel who
support and maintain these building systems. At risk is the potential for decreased effectiveness of controls
systems, diminished capacity when personnel changes occur, and limited ability to use the system to capture
additional opportunities, such as demand response.
Establish a Building System and Equipment Tracking System:At present,the County has no formal
lifecycle tracking and budgeting format for energy-related building systems. The risk is that opportunities to
replace old, inefficient equipment may be missed, and budgeting in a `triage' mode may not allow for
adequate lifecycle analysis and appropriate funding for replacement equipment.
STRATEGY FOUR— NEW CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITY RENEWAL
New construction and facility renewal projects in County facilities offer limited energy savings potential due
to budget constraints and a limited number of new construction projects. Tangible gains can be made
through continuing existing policies and practices including:
— Continuing to place emphasis on high-efficiency design standards, especially.pertaining to air
conditioning system on new installations in East County
— Energy-efficient equipment purchasing policies
— Explore and implementing'a commissioning process on a trial basis on a new construction project.
— Apply new and emerging energy technologies,as they become commercially available and
economically beneficial
— Develop a comprehensive energy policy for new leased facilities
— An incremental funding increase of$508,000 for energy infrastructure in planned new construction.
This would save an estimated$72,600 annually in energy cost at full build-out. These estimates
assume a 20% increase over Title 24 for new buildings,which leads to an approximate seven-year
payback at current energy costs.
6 January 22, 20014
.......,4EPC Croup,LLCM..
1NJSTt4JC'rJ0!4 V.AIJAGEME?JT
Contra Costa County Strategic Ener Plan
� tY 9' 9Y
SEP IMPLEMENTATION IMPACTS -
Exhibit 1.4 summarizes the financial impacts of Strategies 1,2 and 4. Due to the difficulty in quantifying
recommendations made in Strategy 3, Organizational Advancement,only qualitative benefits are presented
within this Plan, though financial gains will certainly be realized. For Strategy 4,New Construction and
Facility Renewal,the planned energy infrastructure investment by the County is shown in Column 2.
Column 3 indicates the additional incremental investment recommended for implementation of the given
Strategy. The projected energy and expenditure impacts of the Strategy implementation are then
economically assessed relative to the incremental investment in the energy infrastructure, and financial
benefits are provided,including Net Present Value(NPV) and by the simple payback period.
Exhibit 1,4- Tota/Impacts by Strategy
Energy Efficiency Projects $ - $ 3,037,256 496 4,9821040 193,701 $830,54 $5,395,49 3.
Supply Side Opportunities $ - $ 11462,851 - - (250,913) $266,463 $1,293,981 5.
New Construction $ 101075,000 $ 508,504 116 479,699 12,650 $72,64 $186,24 7.
(1)These numbers are Inclusive of mechanical and electrical energy Infrastructure only
Exhibit 1.5 provides a ten-year projection of County energy costs from 2004 to 2014. The"Business-as-
usual"line provides an indication of likely energy costs based on County growth projections and energy
prices in the absence of the recommended Strategies.
The declining energy expenditures of the"business as usual"case are primarily due to anticipated PG&E
electricity rate reductions. It is critical to note that the electricity pricing projections used in this report are
the most recent available from the California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC). This CPUC report
indicates that electricity prices may fall as the energy problems encountered by the State in 2001 abate.
While electricity in the State of California is now a regulated market and prices can be projected accurately
over a 1 to 2 year horizon, it should be remembered that energy remains among the most volatile
commodities, and prices could,move up as unforeseen events occur.
7 J��n tia f y�22, 2004
_.AEPCGroppJ1.,C.
i-() !J14;JC710N I-AANAGEMEVT
.y', nJC"`•Iii'
Contra Costa County Strategic Energy Plan
As discussed in detail in Section 3, `County Overview',Exhibit 1.5 provides a ten-year projection of County
electricity demand from 2004 to.2014. The"Business-as-usual"line assumes that electricity demand will
increase based on County's facilities growth projections.
Exhibit 1.5—Projected Electric Demand and SEP Impacts
t;.00
xCY.
4y•C.
Baseline "Business-as-usual" Electric Demand
.y
r
k,
1i 1
:i
f
Projected Demand after SEP Implementation
is
4
G,
{r.
The SEP process has identified significant potential avoided costs that can be reinvested in critical facility
initiatives such as replacing and upgrading utilities infrastructure,promoting energy efficiency, improving
facility operations, meeting the requirements of anticipated growth and protecting the environment. The
benefits include accomplishing the following:
— Upgrade the County energy infrastructure and reduce the operational costs associated with
maintaining the existing infrastructure
— Support ongoing County participation in development of sustainable design standards consistent with
the California High Performance Schools (CHPS)design standards program
— Improve the physical environment of the facilities to better support the County's vision, goals and
objectives
— Increase the reliability of the infrastructure and the ability to support more efficiently the public goals
of the County
— Further enable the County to be a leader in the promotion of energy efficiency and the application of
energy policies being promoted by the State of California Public Utilities Commission(CPUC),the
California Energy Commission(CEC),and the California Power Authority(CPA)
— Enhance the relationship between the County and the community it serves,while minimizing the
impact of the County on the environment
8 January 22, 2004
........r_r�up......I T,r..
CONSTHJCTION •VANAGENAENI
•s{, :,`cam:•
. ":.: Contra Costa County Strategic Energy Plan
— Saving electricity through conservation reduces the amount of pollution that results from the
generation of electricity. Exhibit 1.6 shows the amount of greenhouse gas that could be avoided
annually through reduced generation if all of the energy savings recommended in this report are
achieved. The greenhouse gas reductions noted in Exhibit 1.7 have the same positive environmental
impact as removing the annual pollution from nearly 300 automobiles -permanently.
Exhibit 1,6—Annual Greenhouse Emissions Reduced through SEP
REBATES AND INCENTIVES
There are several programs funded through the CPUC that provide financial incentives for energy
conservation projects, including:
— Standard Performance Contracting(SPC)—This program provides performance based incentives for
projects that are larger, and considered custom in that they require skilled design teams to implement.
Controls projects and chiller replacements are examples of projects that would qualify for SPC
funding.
— Express Efficiency—Express efficiency is design for smaller projects,which do not require extensive
engineering, and are considered `off the shelf type installation. Variable speed drives and many
lighting projects are considered good candidates for the Express Efficiency program.
The County should aggressively pursue incentive funds to offset County capital requirements.
9 Januar}�22, 2004_
_...AEPCC,-rou1P,L1,C..... ... ...
r0"1S-T1+:1 C'1"10P4 •W-ANAGEMENT
Attachment 9
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS j i ....,,•
Contratroll
Costa
s
FROM: Dennis M. Barry, AICP
County
J�� rq __.t-
Community Development Dire 5 cov
�
"'
DATE: June 14, 2005 : : {
SUBJECT: ADOPT THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RESIDENTIAL GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPT the Contra Costa County Residential Green Building g p Program Implementation Plan
(Attachment 1).
FISCAL IMPACT
No impact to the County General Fund. Community Development Department(CDD)staff
costs associated with participation in local green building meetings/workshops,
maintenance of green building website and printing of educational green building materials
will be funded using existing solid waste/recycling franchise fees.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Frontier Associates is a consulting firm that received a grant from the California Public
Utility Commission (CPUC) to assist a limited number of Bay Area jurisdictions in the
development of their own local green building programs. The County was one of the
jurisdictions selected to receive assistance from Frontier Associates through the CPUC
Grant. In November 2002, the County Board of Supervisors authorized execution of an
agreement with Frontier Associates to develop a green building program for the County.
The primary emphasis of this effort would be to develop a voluntary program for single-
family residential projects, which is the subject of this Implementation Plan. A portion of
Frontier Associates assistance was allocated to assist the Architectural Division of the
General Services Department in the development of a-green building program for County-
owned buildings.
CONTINUED ON ATTR
CHMENT. X YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR - RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMITTEE
=/APPROVE OTHER -
SIGNATURES :ar
ACTION OF BO b ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDEDOTHER
S
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
NANIMOUS (ABSENT ' } AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
A y
ES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Kae Ono (925) 335-1230 ATTESTED <t4C
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) JOHN SWEET , CLERK OF THE
Building Inspection Department (BID) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND
CQUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY , DEPUTY
G:IConservation\Kae\Deidra\Green Building Program\GB Implementation Plan Board Order-May2005.d= ,
Contra Costa County Residential Green Building Program Implementation Plan
June 12, 2.005
Page 2 of 2
BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.)
The City of San Ramon is one of the other Bay Area jurisdictions selected to receive assistance
from Frontier Associates through the CPUC Grant. Like the County, the City entered a contract
with Frontier Associates to develop a residential green building program in 2002. Staff from the
City and the County decided to combine efforts to jointly develop our voluntary residential green
building programs, while agreeing to maintain our autonomy and customize the program to suit
our respective jurisdiction. The agreement with Frontier Associates expired in the spring of
2004.
An integral component of the process used by Frontier Associates to develop the residential
green building program was the use of stakeholder groups to help identify an approach that
could meet local needs while respecting current funding limitations. Frontier Associates
facilitated meetings with these stakeholder groups to help develop the residential green building
programs for the City and County. The first stakeholder group was the Development Team,
which included representatives of the private building industry as well as City and County
planners, building inspectors and recycling staff. The Development Team, acted as the working
group responsible for developing the Conceptual Plan, identifying suggested changes to the
Green Point Checklist', and identifying priority actions to be included in the Implementation Plan.
The second stakeholder group was the Advisory Task Force, which included representatives of
the private building industry, City and County staff and commission members as well as
interested persons from the general public. The Advisory Task Force met less frequently and
reviewed the work of the Development Team. In June 2003, the County Board of Supervisors
voted to accept the Conceptual Plan {Attachment 2} developed by the Development Team and
Advisory Task Force, which includes additional background about green building including many
of its benefits.
Since the agreement with Frontier Associates expired, CDD staff has conducted additional
research regarding local green building efforts to identify additional opportunities for collaboration
and remain informed regarding the changing green building movement. The proposed Contra
Costa County Residential Green Building Program Implementation Plan Attachment 1 was
developed based on priorities established by the Development Team/Advisory Task Force. The
Implementation Plan specifies seven actions that can be implemented by the County using
existing resources. The purpose of the actions proposed in the Implementation Plan are to raise
awareness, increase supply and create consumer demand for homes built using green building
techniques, all without establishing any mandates.
Among the actions proposed in the Implementation Plan is continued participation in ongoing
collaborative efforts at the Bay Area and State level to share information and help establish
consistent green building standards that can be utilized throughout the State. Some details
regarding current Bay Area and State efforts related to green building are included in Sections
I I.A, I I.B and l I.E of the Implementation Plan.
Additionally, the Implementation Plan calls for ongoing efforts to educate the building industry
and public about green building techniques and their benefits. These efforts include making the
Green Building Guidelines available, maintaining the County's green building website and
referring interested persons to relevant green building resources offered by other
organizations/agencies (such as the Green Resource Center's "Ask an Expert" program). The
proposed outreach and education efforts can be found in Sections II.A, il.B, II.C, II.D and II.F of
the implementation Plan.
The County Hazardous Materials Commission was provided with a copy proposed
of the
Implementation Plan pursuant to their request. A copy of the Hazardous Materials Commission's
letter of support is attached as Attachment 3.
As conditions warrant and fundingallows, CDD staff plans on bringing p ging to the Board for
consideration proposed amendments to the Implementation Plan identifying additional actions
that can improve or enhance the County's Residential Green Building Program.
G:1Conservation\Kae\Deidra\Green Building Program\GB Implementation Pian Board Order-May2005.doc.
The Green Point Checklist is a rating system developed by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
Y
as a companion tool to their Green Building Guidelines, the Checklist is described in more detail in Section 11.13 of
the Implementation Plan.
Attachment 1
Contra Costa County
Residential Green BuildingProgram'
Implementation Plan
June 2005
1. Goals
Encourage residential homebuilders, including developers and small homebuilders,
to build homes using green building techniques.
O Encourage home rernodelers, including professional contractors and homeowners, to
remodel homes using green-building techniques.
Educate county residents about the benefits of green building.
11. Actions
A. Adopt and encourage the voluntary usage of the New Home Constr«ction
Green Building Guidelines and Home Remodeling Green Building Guidelines
Timeline: Spring 2005
The New Home Construction Green Building Guidelines and Home Remodeling Green
Building Guidelines were developed by the Alameda County Waste Management
Authority (ACWMA) in 2001. They are widely used in the Bay Area to educate people in
the building industry, public agency staff (e.g. planners and inspectors), and individuals
who purchase homes. The Guidelines describe both the benefits of using green building
techniques as well as how to apply those techniques. The Guidelines are available on
the web and flyers promoting their availability are on display at the Application and
Permit Center in Martinez as well as the satellite Building Inspection Department offices
in Lafayette and Brentwood. By providing these Guidelines to the public, people will be
informed about how to build environmentally sustainable buildings, and hopefully result
in the use of techniques listed in the Guidelines. People can easily apply many of the
techniques listed, such as installing a low flow showerhead and a toilet, which saves
natural resources, but also save money for homeowners.
The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) is in the process of
updating the Green Building Guidelines originally developed by the ACWMA. Tile
CIWMB's goal is to provide one set of Guidelines that can be used by cities and counties
throughout the State. A standardized set of Guidelines should benefit consumers and
the building industry by establishing a consistent means for evaluating environmental
sustainability. Specifically, developers and building professionals can use the same
Guidelines everywhere they go in the state and consumers can compare and contrast
green building features using a consistent method. Staff recommends that Contra Costa
County utilize the State's revised version of the Guidelines when they become available.
This Residential Green Building Program focuses on single-family residential housing projects.
Contra Costa County Residential Green Building Program Implementation Plan
B. Encourage the voluntary usage of the Green Point Checklist
Timeline: Spring 2005
The Green Point Checklist was developed by the ACWMA, to compliment the
Guidelines. Each green building technique is assigned a certain number of green points.
A building is considered "green" if it passes the minimum threshold of 50 points. For
example, if a building exceeds California Energy Code Standards (Title 24) requirement
by 15%, 15 points can be obtained. By using this system, builders and homebuyers can
compare which buildings are greener than others. The New Home Construction Green
Building Guidelines and Home Remodeling Green Building Guidelines explain each
technique identified in the Checklist in more detail.
Voluntary submission of the Checklist means that a building permit applicant can elect to
submit a completed Checklist to the Residential Green Building Coordinator2
In the Bay
Area, the dties of Pleasanton and Santa Rosa accept voluntary submission of Green
Point Checklists completed by building permit applicants.
Until funding is obtained to pay for s'taff time or other designated experts to certify
buildings using the Checklists, building permit applicants would use the Checklist as a
resource to help determine which green building methods are appropriate for the
particular project and to become familiar with the use of a points system. Green Point
Checklists that have not been certified by the County or other designated experts are not
intended to be used as official documents to certify buildings for environmental
sensitivity.
When a building permit applicant has specific questions about green building
techniques, they can be referred to the Residential Green Building Coordinator or the
Green Resource Center in Berkeley to non-profit organization that prornotes green
building in the Bay Area). The Green Resource Center runs the "Ask an Expert"
program that allows people to ask technical green building questions by phone or e-mail.
Currently, this service is free to people throughout the Bay Area.
The Green Point Checklist may be updated and improved by fie (CIWMB) after they
have updated the Green Building Guidelines. Staff recommends that Contra Costa
County utilize the State's revised version of the Checklist when it becomes available so
that local builders and homebuyers/homeowners have the benefit of consistent
standards.
I
C. Provide educational prograrns to residents, County staff, contractors, and
builders/developers who do construction related business in the County
Timeline: On-going I
Education is by far the most effective tool to help people make an informed decision
about whether to build using conventional or environmentally sustainable techniques. In
2003, Frontier Associates created several types of presentations about green building
that can be used for audiences with different backgrounds. The presentation for
homeowners, for example, focuses on the benefits of living in a green building. In
contrast, the presentation for building inspection officials focuses more on [low to inspect
2 The County's current Residential Green Building Coordinator is Kae Ono from the Solid
Waste/Recycling Division of the Community Development Department(CDD)
Revision Date: May 30, 2005 Page 2 of 2
Contra Costa County Residential Green Building Prograrn Impleinentation Flan
green building features. In 2003, Frontier Associates made their presentation to many
employees of the County's Building Inspection Department. In the winter of 2004,
Frontier Associates made several green building presentations to the Cities of Antioch
and Pittsburg.
The County's Residential Green Building Coordinator, Frontier Associates (some
restrictions may apply depending on funding availability) and a small group of trained
volunteers are available to provide green building presentations to interested individuals
(including but not limited to residents, County staff, builders and contractors). The
County's green building brochure and website promote the availability of these free
presentations.
D. Create a forum in the County to gather interested individuals from the building
industry, environtiiental organizations and public agencies to snare green
building experiences and information
Timeline: Summer/ Fall 2005
Currently, there is no local forum for interested parties to gather and share experiences
and information regarding green building. Some interested groups, such as
environmental organizations or private building industry, have their own meetings to
share information among their peers. Additionally, there are some workshops related to
sustainable development offered by private entities, however they are often costly to
participants. It would be beneficial to organize a local forum to involve interested parties
including public agencies; this forum is intended to be a neutral place for people to share
green building information and experiences and work together to meet their goals.
Aside from creating a place where people can listen and learn about green building
techniques, this forum will be a place where professionals can learn from one another
about marketing green buildings and/or green building features. Realtors can help with
marketing green buildings to their customers; if informed, they can highlight green
building features as options to prospective homebuyers. By successfully marketing
green building to homebuyers, they will be more likely to ask for contractors who know
about green building techniques or purchase green building materials when remodeling
their homes
This forum can also serve as a forum for public agencies to notify and remind
contractors about existing and new ordinances related to green building, such as water
conservation measures for landscaping for new development projects and construction
and demolition (C&D) debris recovery. The County and some local cities have adopted
ordinances requiring reuse and/or recycling of construction and demolition debris.
These ordinances have not been in place for a long time, and some applicants might not
be aware of the requirements or how to comply with the new ordinance. This forum
would be an ideal place for public agency staff to make presentations about these
requirements and how to comply with these ordinances. By educating contractors and
builders about these requirements, they may decide to recycle construction and
demolition debris for projects not covered under local ordinances.
The Contra Costa Watershed Forum is a very good example of a local forum used for
information exchange. The County Board of Supervisors recognized the Watershed
Forum in . 2000 as a valuable committee for coordinating creek and watershed
discussions and planning in the County. Community Development Department (CDD)
Revision Date: May 30, 2005 Page 3 of 3
Contra Costa Counter Residential Green lBuiiding Program Implementation Plan
staff organize bimonthly Watershed Forum meetings, where local creek groups and
government agencies meet and exchange useful information about creek and watershed
management. Staff proposes that the watershed Forum be used as a model for the
fort-nation of a local forum for green building.
E. Participate in the Bay,Area green building prograi n
Timeline: Ongoing
There are several efforts in the Bay Area, the State of California and the Nation, to
develop a comprehensive green building program. Bay Area Build It Green (BIG) is a
non-profit organization responsible for prornoting green building throughout.-the Bay Area.
BIG has formed the Public Agency council. This council has about fifteen to twenty
public agency staff mainly from the Bay Area, but also from Truckee, Santa Cruz,
Modesto and Sacramento. The county's Residential Green Building Coordinator has
attended Public Agency council meetings since its inception in the summer of 2004.
As discussed above in Section B, the CIWMB is currently revising the Green Building
Guidelines. The BIG Public Agency Council reviewed the existing Green Building
Guidelines and provided their recommendations to the State. As a part of this effort, the
County's residential Green Building Coordinator shared comments from the county's
green building program members, including CDD current Planning Division,
Redeveiopment Agency, Building Inspection Department and representatives of local
developers. The state is planning to finalize the StatE.3's Green Building Guidelines in the
summer of 2005.
Members of Bay Area Build It Green (BIG) are able to get free presentations and training
programs offered by Frontier Associates. BIG, working with the Sonoma State
University, is also creating a database of green building programs in the Bay Area. The
County will receive a database once it is completed in summer of 2005.
F. flake available existing green building resources and services to interested
individuals
Tip 7eline: Ongoing
There are a few existing resources that help people learn more about green building. in
addition to the free Green Building Guidelines discussed in Section A, the Green
Resource center offers free technical advice and assistance to Bay Area residents
through their "Ask an Expert" program. Frontier Associates still offers some free
consulting to government agencies in the Bay Area. CDD advertises these existing
services through our green building website and brochure. Additional free publicity will
be pursued to promote green building, including improving the County's green building
website and possibly bill messages/inserts sent out by garbage and recycling haulers
and water providers in the County.
The county purchased a Green Building Materials Display to increase awareness about
green building materials. Although there is not sufficient space to locate the Display in
the Application and Permit center (APC) on the second floor of the North Wing, there is
a poster in the APC and the elevator serving the APC encouraging interested persons to
visit the Display located on the fourth floor of the North Wing.
Revision Date. May 30, 2005 Page 4.of 4
Contra costa County Residential Green Building Program Implementation Pian
C. Continuously seek funding resources andior partners to tielp support green
building
Timeline: Ongoing
CDD staff will conduct ongoing research regarding grant opportunities that could help
fund increased public education and outreach for green building. Staff is hopeful that as
green building maintains momentum at the Bay Area, State and National level that new
grant opportunities will arise to meet the increasing demand.
Although this Plan is for a Residential Green Building Program focused on single family
homes, green building techniques and concepts are not only applicable to residential
projects. Municipal buildings, commercial buildings, multi-family and affordable lousing
projects can also be constructed as green buildings. The county General Services
Department (CSD) is in the process of incorporating green building techniques to the
existing building guidelines for county owned buildings and lands. Whenever feasible
and applicable, the GSD plans to utilize green building techniques prescribed in the
Collaborative for High Performance Schools (Cl-IPS) Program, which are a set of green
building guidelines for schools. CDPS can be easily applied to county awned buildings
that are designed and built for long-term durability,just like school buildings.
Benefits of green building can help forward the missions of various departments and
public agencies. Entities that could benefit from more green buildings being constructed
in the County include the CDD Solid Waste/Recycling Division (reduced waste during
the construction process), County clean Water & Watershed Programs (reduced run-off
from project sites), the County Health Services Department (improved indoor air quality
and reduced toxic material usage), the State Department of Energy and the California
Public Utility Commission (reduced energy consumption) and East Bay Municipal Utility
District and Contra Costa Water District (water conservation). Involving these entities is
expected to create a more comprehensive green building program for the County.
To encourage use of rrjore green building techniques in future multi-family and
affordable projects, green building guidelines specifically designed for multi-family
projects were published by the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(ACWMA) in 2004. The county Redevelopment Agency helps fund multi-farrlily and
affordable housing projects and the Dousing Authority also deals with affordable housing
issues. Staff plans to contact the Agency and the Authority to offer information and
assistance regarding resources available related to green building for multi-family
projects.
Green building really compliments the Smart Growth concept. The Smart Growth
Program, initiated by the Association of Bay Area Government's (ABAG's) Bay Area
Alliance for Sustainable communities, is supported by contra costa Council, Contra
Costa Economic Partnership, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District, Bay Conservation and Development commission and the
Regional Water Resources Control Board. Therefore, these agencies are all potential
green building partners.
Other entities to consider as green building partners include homebuilder associations,
National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI), US Green Building Council
(USGBC), Architects Designers and Planners for Social Responsibility (ADPSR),
American Institute of Architects (AIA), American Society of Interior Designers (ASID),
Revision Date: May 30, 2005 Page 5 of 5
Contra Costa County Residential Green Building Program Implementation Plan
International Society of Interior Designers {ISDA), Association of Energy Engineers
(AEE), and American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA).
H. Identify existing County ordinances, policies and plans that help encourage
the development of environmentally SLIstainable I)uildings
Timeline: Ongoing
Contra Costa County's General Plan has several Elements that include policies that
encourage more environmentally sustainable development:
Land Use Element (Section 3)
Housing Element (Section 6)
Public Facilities /Services Element (Section 7)
Conservation Element (Section 8)
Some ordinances have been adopted by the County that also encourage the use of
certain environmentally sustainable building techniques, these include:
Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments, Chapter 82-26 of
County Code: requires water conservation methods for landscaping of new
developments by regulating turf areas, planting materials and irrigation practices
Wood-Burning Appliances, Chapter 718-10 of County Code: prohibits the
installation or replacement of any wood-burning appliance, other than pellet
fueled wood heaters, unless the wood-burning appliance meets specified criteria
Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery, Chapter 418-14 of County Code:
requires projects over 5,000 square feet to reuse and/or recycle 50% of the
construction and demolition debris generated by the project
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A—New Home Construction Green Building Guidelines
Exhibit B— Home Remodeling Green Building Guidelines
Exhibit C—Green Point Checklist
Exhibit D—Green Building Brochure
Exhibit E—Green Building Display Photo
Revision Date: May 30, 2005 Page 0 of 0
L Attachment 10
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
41
- Contra
FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP
osta
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
.-County
DATE: JULY 269 2005 oU''"
SUBJECT: VOLUNTARY CLEAN AIR PLAN FOR NORTH CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACCEPT report on the Voluntary Clean Air Plan for North Central Contra Costa County
(see Exhibit A);
2. AUTHORIZE Supervisor Uilkema and Supervisor DeSaulnier to sign letters
transmitting the Plan to City Councils and School Districts requesting that they adopt
the plan and support certain changes in the policies of regional agencies that will help
implement the plan (see Exhibit B);
3. DIRECT the Community Development Director to provide a report on the responses
received to the Board's requests and to work with the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (Air District) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on items
related to funding opportunities that will help implement the plan.
FISCAL IMPACT
None to the General Fund
The County received a $20,000 grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to hire
a consultant to prepare the plan. Any staff costs to administer the contract must be absorbed by
the Department's budget.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In November of 2004 the Board of Supervisor's was given a presentation of the draft version of
the Voluntary Clean Air Plan for North Central Contra Costa County.The presentation provided an
overview of the plan that was modeled after a Clean Air Plan for the Tri-Valley Area of Alameda.
The Board authorized Supervisors Uilkema and DeSaulnier to sign letters transmitting the draft
version of the Voluntary Clean Air Plan for North Central Contra Costa County to various
stakeholder groups within the study area requesting their comment and review of the plan.
Additionally the Board requested some minor edits to the plan itself,which staff have incorporated,
and recommended that if future Clean Air Plans are developed they should include the eastern
portion of Contra Costa County.The Board made a request that staff provide them with historical air
quality data for monitoring stations Countywide over the last ten years. Staff did make a request to
the Air District for this information but unfortunately this information is n t available at this time.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE •
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COM ITTEE
APPROVE .-OTHER
SIGNATURES :
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
— UNANIMOUS (ABSENT } AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN.
Contact: Hillary Heard (925-335-1278)
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED
Transportation Planning Division JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF
Advance Planning Division THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Current Planning Division AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Public Works Department
General Service Department BY , DEPUTY
G:\TranSr)ortation\Hillary\Board Orders and Greenies0rafffinal VCAP Board Order.doc
Voluntary Clean Air Plan for North Central Contra Costa County
July 26, 2005
Page 2
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued)
Staff and the consultant, Ellen Garvey, have met and discussed the plan with several of the
stakeholder groups and integrated their comments, concerns and recommendations into the final
version of the plan which is before you today.
Correspondence has been drafted transmitting the final version of the plan to the stakeholder
groups. A sample of this letter is attached (Exhibit B). The correspondence recognizes the
stakeholder groups for their participation in the development of the final plan. Their comments
helped to ensure that the plan would be applicable to the study area and a useful tool in
improving air quality in the region.
The letter makes two requests. It asks the cities and the school districts if they would adopt the
plan. It also asks if they would support a request to our regional agencies to help implement the
plan by making three changes in their policies as described below:
1. The Air District should revise is policy for the Transportation Fund for Clean Air(TFCA)
Program to award additional points to projects proposed by agencies that have adopted
a Voluntary Clean Air Plan.
The Air District makes nearly$20 million annually available to agencies and organizations in the
region to implement various projects that can reduce transportation-related air pollution. Most of
these funds are awarded on a competitive basis using a point system established by the Air
District's policy and evaluation criteria for the TFCA program. The Air District could revise this
policy to award additional points to agencies that have adopted a Voluntary Clean Air Plan.This
would provide an incentive to local agencies to participate in Voluntary Clean Air Plans.
2. The Air District should dedicate additional funds to local agencies for implementing
voluntary measures to reduce air pollution through its annual budget or its policy on
Supplemental Environmental Projects.
Some Air District activities to reduce air pollution are included in the settlement of enforcement
actions that occur when air quality requirements are violated. These settlements can provide
funds for projects to off-set the impact of the violation. These projects are referred to as
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs). The Air District has a policy on SEPs that
governs the use of these funds. The Air District could revise this policy to give priority
consideration to measures included in Voluntary Clean Air Plans as SEPs, especially if they are
located in an area were the air quality violation occurred. In addition, the Air District could
consider dedicating discretionary funds in its annual budget to local agencies for implementing
voluntary measures to reduce air pollution.
3. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission should revise its occupancy requirement
for High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)bypass lanes at toll bridges to be consistent with the
occupancy requirements for HOV lanes that feed into these bridges.
During review of the draft plan,the Transportation and Land Use Partnership Committee(Transpac),
suggested that the plan include voluntary measures that local agencies believe should be
considered by regional agencies. MTC is responsible for establishing the occupancy requirement for
HOV bypass lanes at toll bridges. In some cases, these requirements are not consistent with the
occupancy requirement established for HOV lanes that feed into these bridges. For instance,the
occupancy requirement for the HOV bypass lanes at the Benicia-Martinez bridge toll plaza is 3-
persons. This varies from the occupancy requirement for the HOV lanes on 1-680 south of the
bridge, which is 2-persons. Having a different occupancy requirement between the freeway and
connecting bridge facilities could potentially hurt efforts to encourage carpooling. Revising the
occupancy requirements governing the HOV bypass lanes at the toll plazas to match the
requirements of the HOV lanes feeding into these toll plazas would help establish a seamless
connection of regional HOV facilities and mitigate the production of nitrogen oxides,one of the main
ozone precursor emissions.
County staff is willing to report to the Board on the responses we receive from the cities and the
school districts to the above requests. We are also willing to work with the Air District and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission to advise the cities and the school districts on the funding
opportunities available to them to implement the voluntary measures in the plan.
Ms. Ellen Garvey was hired to prepare the plan, and has been invited to make a brief
presentation to the Board. Ms. Garvey is a former Executive Officer of the Air District and also
assisted Supervisor Haggerty with the preparation of the Clean Air Plan for the Tri-Valley Area.
Exhibit A:Voluntary Clean Air Plan for North Central Contra Costa County
Exhibit B: Sample Letter transmitting the Voluntary Clean Air Plan for North Central Contra Costa County to
stakeholders and stakeholder distribution list.
Attachment 11
21 " Century Conditions.
TDM & Growth Management
The project proponents shall participate in a regional transportation mitigation program
as determined through the Measure C-88 growth management process to ensure
each project proponent is paying their share of the costs associated with the project.
The amount of any regional transportation fee or assessment shall be calculated by
using the rate in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit or certificate of
occupancy for this project, or as otherwise determined by the agency with legal
authority to set such fees.
The project shall incorporate provisions to accommodate alternate forms of
transportation such as construction of park-and-ride lots, bikeways and pedestrian
paths linking residential areas to major activity centers, bicycle parking, commercial
and service facilities to serve the project and nearby neighborhoods, bus turn-outs and
passenger shelters, and reservation of right-of-way for future rail transit.
The [development plan] [vesting] [tentative] map shall include provisions for
construction of a collector road system that provides efficient and convenient bus
routing within [_] mile of 80% of the project households. Where feasible, cul-de-sacs
that back up to arterial or collectors shall have a pedestrian/bicycle path between the
cul-de-sac and the road to allow convenient access to transit stops. Transit providers
shall be consulted to ensure that the circulation plans will allow them to provide
efficient service.
The bikeway system shall be supplemented by on-street bicycle lanes, in which
parking is prohibited, on appropriate local roads to access all neighborhood
commercial areas, parks, schools, convenience retail areas, transit stops, and park-
and-ride lots. Bicycle lockers and sheltered bicycle racks shall be provided at
convenience retail areas, commercial areas, transit hubs, and park and ride lots.
Bicycle racks shall also be provided at all transit stops.
The project proponents shall cooperate with an ongoing transportation demand
management (TDM) programs during the buildout of the project. The TDM monitoring
program shall include, but not be limited to, data on Average Vehicle Ridership, as
defined by the BAAQMD, for the work trips of residents.
The project proponents shall work with the local telephone company to ensure that all
housing units are wired for electronic technologies that accommodate telecommuting
by residents.
The project proponents shall work with the regional bodies to study the feasibility of
light rail or other appropriate transit alternatives.
Ensure that transit service shall be provided at a level that will collectively, with other
transportation strategies, achieve the Bay Area Air Quality Management District goal
for it vehicle ridership (AVR)" or "vehicle to employee ratio (VER)'.
GAConservation\Deidra121 st Century-Standard COA\21 st Century COA.doc Page 1 of 8
_
21st rY Centu Cond•t•i ion s
Traffic signals at major thoroughfares shall be designed with transit preemption
devices.
Transit stops and bus pullouts shall be installed along the project frontage at locations
designated by the transit provider. The transit stop shall include covered bicycle racks
and pedestrian shelters.
Construct park and ride lot within the project area.
Construct improvements necessary to provide the levels of service on the road
network required by the Growth Management Program (Measure C-88).
Dedicate all rights of way necessary for the ultimate expansion of the transportation
and transit network.
The developers shall provide, within the garage area of the home(s), a separate
electrical conduit for charging of electric-powered vehicles.
Internal Road System
Construct bicycle and pedestrian facilities that provide safe access to neighborhood
commercial areas, parks, schools, convenience retail areas, transit stops, and park
and ride lots.
Provide levels of service on the basic routes outlined in the Growth Management
(Rural.Pro rampeak hour = LOS C; Semi-rural = High LOS C; Suburban = Low
g
LOS D; Urban = High LOS D; Central Business District = Low LOS E)
Water
The developer, in consultation with the water purveyor, shall require installation of dual
main lines (latest available and approved technology) to allow for the use of reclaimed
and/or recycled water for irrigation of public landscaping and recreation areas
All units shall be equipped with low-flow toilets and restricted water devices.
Prior to recording the final map, provide proof that adequate water facilities can be
provided.
All open space, median strip, and private lot landscaping shall consist of non-invasive,
drought-tolerant, low-water use plant species.
The jurisdiction shall require that all open space, median strip, and private lot
landscaping consist of non-invasive, drought-tolerant, low-water-use plant species
consistent with the Water Conservation and Landscape Ordinance.
G:1Conservation\Deidra121 st Century-Standard COA121 st Century COA.doc Page 2 of 8
21 St Century Conditions
Sanitary Sewer
Prior to recording the final map, provide proof that adequate sanitary sewer quantity
and quality can be provided.
Jurisdiction shall identify opportunities for using reclaimed wastewater and develop in
cooperation with project proponent, sewer service, and water service agencies.
Reclaimed Water
The developer, in consultation with the water purveyor, shall provide installation of
dual main lines to allow for the use of reclaimed water for irrigation of [common
outdoor landscaping] [recreation areas] and [ ], in addition to front yard
landscape for private residences.
Recycled water shall be required, where feasible, for irrigation of open space areas,
i.e. golf courses, parks, water features, school playing fields, and median strips. The
jurisdiction shall also require the maximum use of recycled water for irrigation,of
private-lot landscaping, where feasible.
The project proponents shall develop all onsite recycled water service improvements
necessary to serve the planning area.
Flood Control
The project proponents shall construct onsite detention basins to Flood Control District
standards. The detention basins shall reduce post project peak floodflows to predicted
preproject levels. Each phase of development shall be reviewed to ensure compliance
with this condition. NOTE: Any detention basins or flood control facilities constructed
as part of an adopted Drainage Area Plan shall be subject to the review and approval
of the Contra Costa County Flood Control District.
Construct a storm drain infrastructure system throughout the proposed project that
safely conveys runoff from individual homes, lots, and streets to the major creeks via a
system of culverts, gutters, and swales constructed to jurisdictional standards.
During project construction, or to satisfy the NPDES requirements, the project
proponents shall construct, as appropriate, onsite retention or detention facilities or
install silt or grease traps in the storm drain system for the proposed project drainage.
The project proponents shall develop a hazardous materials control program for
construction activities to reduce potentially significant impacts on water quality caused
by a chemical spill. This program should require safe collection and disposal of
hazardous materials generated during construction activities and should include an
emergency response program to ensure quick and safe cleanup of accidental spills.
Bridges shall be designed to jurisdictional standards such that they do not constrict
flows, including the 100-year flood flow. Design of bridges must be reviewed and
GAConservation\Deidra121 st Century-Standard COA121 st Century COA.doc Page 3 of 8
21St rY Centu Conditions
approved by the County Public Works Department.
The project proponents shall form a Benefit Assessment District, or other funding
mechanism with a guaranteed revenue source, to fund the maintenance of the
detention basins and flood control structures. The funding mechanism shall be of a
type acceptable to the County Public Works Department and the entity responsible for
maintaining other facilities.
The project proponents may propose joint use of the detention basins for drainage
purposes and for recreational, golf course, or passive uses, if the land rights,
maintenance, and liability issues are addressed in an agreement with the fee-title
owner and the entity responsible for maintaining the basin.
Where appropriate, the project proponents shall design stormwater detention facilities
to fit the area's natural landform patterns and be curvilinear in form and with
undulating sideslopes averaging 3:1 or less in steepness, use.natural-appearing
materials and colors for drainage facility structures, and screen all drainage facility
structures from important viewpoints using native vegetation.
All storm drainage facilities shall be designed to accommodate the ultimate
development of the watershed.
Police
The project proponent shall mitigate the impacts accrued on the County Sheriff and
Justice services (i.e. funding or additional personnel).
Fire Protection/Emergency Medical Service Response
Fire stations shall be located within one and one-half miles of developments. in urban,
suburban and central business district areas, with a total response time of 3 minutes
for 90% of all emergency responses.
Ensure fire protection through careful treatment of transitions between development
and open space areas through a comprehensive prevention and emergency response
system.
The developers shall construct the fire station(s) and fund acquisition of equipment
needed to provide adequate fire and emergency medical response to the planning
area based on local growth management standards.
The Fire District shall review all plans for development of the planning area (e.g., final
development plans and tentative map plans and subdivision maps).
The responsible open space management agency shall incorporate fire prevention
measures approved by the Fire District into its management of planning area open
space areas.
G:1Conservation\Deidra121 st Century-Standard COA121 st Century COA.doc Page 4 of 8
21 St Century Conditions
Sprinkler systems shall be required in new residential construction, if the response
time identified in Condition of Approval (#76-A) cannot be met.
Schools
Locations of necessary schools shall be formalized concurrent with the tentative map
approval. Access, configuration, size, useable space and basic infrastructure needs
(including timing and delivery of utilities) shall also be determined at this time.
A financing and cost distribution plan (construction and equipment) shall be
established prior to the recording of the final map.
Site(s) shall be transferred to the District at the time of the final map by offer for
dedication.
Community Facilities
Child Care. The developer shall address and mitigate all child care needs associated
with the project for infant, preschool, and school-age child care.
Library. The jurisdiction shall require the project proponents to mitigate the impacts
accrued on County library services. (Library Master Plan - Anne Marie Gold)
Parks
Provide adequate facilities consistent with adopted growth management standards.
Open Space &Trails
The jurisdiction shall ensure that the open space areas are properly managed and
may designate an appropriate agency for management.
In conjunction with the County and affected jurisdiction, cooperate in establishing trail
linkages to trail systems within the County.
Design Characteristics
The project proponents shall design grading to emulate natural landforms in the
immediate vicinity of the graded area. Manufactured slope edges should be rounded
and slope percentages varied to create.undulating cut-and-fill slopes where feasible
and approved by a Geotechnical Engineer.
The project proponents shall revegetate graded areas with species and patterns
designed to emulate natural native vegetation patterns of the region. The revegetation
program should be designed by a qualified revegetation specialist and is subject to
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
The project proponents shall dedicate the remaining open space areas to a qualified
GAConservation\Deidra121st Century-Standard COA121st Century COA.doc Page 5 of 8
21 " CenturyConditions
agency or organization to be conserved and managed to maintain the remaining open
space areas in perpetuity.
The project proponents shall screen [residential] and [commercial development] and
other built facilities with landscaping or other appropriate measures as approved by
staff where these features will be visible from [entrances into the planning area],
[recreation areas and features] [ I
The project proponents shall restore native habitat types, especially wetland, riparian,
and oak woodland types, for key areas within the scenic corridor to create greater
diversity of high-quality visual resources in the planning area.
The project proponents shall ensure that no buildings, roads, or structures (including
water tanks) interrupt the continuous unbroken ridgelines.
The project proponents shall design erosion control and drainage features to conform
to the natural topography. Natural vegetative patterns, earth berms, or other
appropriate measures as approved by staff, should be used whenever feasible to
screen these features.
The project proponents shall site facilities in locations of low visual sensitivity and
below ridgelines so that they do not visually interrupt the continuous unbroken lines of
ridge tops when viewed from important locations both onsite and offsite.
The project proponents shall site facilities•such as water storage tanks by minimizing
sidewall exposure through methods such as full or partial burial, constructing berms,
planting native vegetative screens, and using earthtone colors that blend closely with
the natural surroundings.
The project proponents shall minimize visual impacts of access and maintenance
roads by minimizing sidecast and cut-and-fill requirements, revegetating disturbed
areas with species and patterns emulating native vegetation, and siting roads and
varying their width to fit closely with the natural topography.
The project proponents shall provide a setback for roads in creek corridors a minimum
of 100 feet and establish and maintain a vegetation buffer utilizing species and
patterns emulating natural native vegetation patterns in the setback area between the
creek and the road.
The project proponents shall retain and revegetate with native vegetation existing
natural drainages where feasible.
The project proponents shall maintain existing drainageways above ground where
feasible (i.e., use bridges at street crossings of major drainages and place culverts
only at minor road crossings over minor drainages and only for the minimum required
crossing distance).
G:1Conservation\Deidra\21 st Century-Standard COA121 st Century COA.doc Page 6 of 8
21St Century Conditions
The project proponents shall establish a native vegetation buffer of a minimum width
of 50 feet between creek centerlines and recreation features (e.g. volleyball courts,
tennis courts, and other active recreation features).
The project proponents shall stabilize creek banks and make other improvements in
recreation areas using only native-appearing construction materials (e.g., timber,
rocks, and textured, earth-tone concrete) and native vegetation where feasible.
Affordable Housing
Allocate a proportion of project units to meet the jurisdictions' applicable share of
regional housing needs of providing affordable housing to very low, low, and moderate
income levels. Affordable units shall be provided for in each phase of the
development.
For all work-site/jobs tax base projects, the jurisdiction shall ensure that the cost of the
planned housing in the jurisdiction is related to the incoming employees or employed .
residents in the jurisdiction.
Waste Minimization/Energy Conservation
Protect solar access. Each tentative map for residential developments over 10 units
should incorporate design features wherever feasible to protect solar access.
The developer(s) shall comply with the California Energy Commission energy budget
limits by utilizing the most current CEC prescriptive packages available. The
developer(s) will indicate what package (or performance standard)they are utilizing
during the Building Department plan checking process.
Include fluorescent fixtures. In addition to the requirements for fluorescent lighting in
kitchens and bath as prescribed by the Energy Standards, all fixed lighting in non-
living space (i.e., closets, garages, utility rooms, or storerooms) shall accept
fluorescent bulbs. This use would not be included in the Title 24 compliance package
for the home; it would be included as an additional conservation measure. All homes
should initially be outfitted with fluorescent bulbs where appropriate. This shall be a
condition of final map approval and verified before issuance of the occupancy permit.
Consider the inclusion of solar hot water heaters, high efficiency gas water heaters
and/or high efficiency furnace to reduce the energy budget goal by a minimum of 7%
for 100% of the homes in the planning area. Alternative measures to achieve the 5%
overall reduction should receive equal consideration. Inclusion of these measures
would not be part of Title 24 compliance, but rather an additional conservation
measure. In addition, all pools built in the planning area should be heated using solar
heaters or equipped with a solar blanket.
Provide all new homeowners with a copy of Home Energy Manual (California Energy
Commission 1992a), as currently required by the Energy Standards. The manual
GAConservation\Deidra121 st Century-Standard COA121 st Century COA.doc Page 7 of 8
St
21 CenturyConditions
provides useful information to homeowners on a wide variety of energy-conserving
features, designs, appliances, and practices. This pamphlet should,be provided in the
home as any other home/appliance warranty documentation. Compliance should be
verified by the County before issuance of an occupancy permit.
The developers shall provide, within the garage area of all new homes, a separate
electrical circuit for charging of electrical-powered vehicles.
Where feasible, provide refueling service station for alternate fuels, including
compressed natural gas, within the planned community.
Other
This application is subject to an initial application fee of [INSERT CORRECT $
AMOUNT] which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs
if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee
due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the
permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five
working days for file preparation. Current costs may be obtained by contacting the
project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant
shortly after permit issuance.
GAConservat1on\Deidra121 st Century-Standard COA121 st Century COA.doc Page 8 of 8
Attachment 12
CONTRA
TO; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: BARTON J. GILBERT, DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES
COSTA
�
DATE: SEPTEMBER 21, 2004
COUNTY
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF LOW EMISSION VEHICLE AND FLEET •
ACQUISITION POLICY TO LIMIT THE PURCHASE OF SPORT
UTILITY VEHICLES (SUVs) TO PROMOTE FUEL ECONOMY IN
THE COUNTY FLEET
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
APPROVE the attached Contra Costa County Low-Emission Vehicle and Fleet Policy governing the
selection and purchase of County vehicles.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
• increased vehicle purchase costs and decreased fuel costs. Air
Policy implementation may result in
quality grant funds may be available to mitigate increased vehicle purchase costs.
BACKGROUND
BY Board Order dated June 6, 2004, Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier related that evidence has shown
Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) consume more gas and emit more toxins that deteriorate air quality and
p Y
harm our health. In an effort to reduce negative impacts to air quality by the County fleet and reduce
fuel costs, Supervisor DeSaulnier directed the General Services Department to create a policy
governing overnin theappropriate ro riate size of vehicle for each County vehicle assignment and prohibiting the
purchase of SUVs except in very limited circumstances.
Under the recommended policy, more emphasis will be placed on fuel efficiency, emissions, and
standardization of maintenance in determining the appropriate vehicle for any assignment. The
policy goal oal would be to purchase the most fuel efficient and lowest emission vehicle available within
the class of vehicle that is available through the County's acquisition contracts and that meets the
customer's operational needs.
Following Board direction, the General Services Department and the County Administrator's Office
developed the attached policy entitled "Contra Costa County Low-Emission Vehicle & Fleet Policy.
The policy requires the purchase of low-emission vehicles when practical, promotes fuel economy in
the County fleet, and requires that existing vehicles be retrofitted whe ra tical.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: Lam'
__,44t-COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):( /oilOV
ACTION OF BO ^' --�rZ .� � APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT
AYES: NOES:
ABSENTS: ABSTAIN:
MEDIA CONTACT:BARTON J.GILBERT(313-7100)
Originating Dept.:General Services Department I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
cc: General Services Department AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
Administration AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
Accounting OF SUPERVISOR THE DATE SHOWN.
County Administrator's Office _ .
Y
Count Counsel ATTESTED .t�-
Auditor-Controller(via GSD) JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
r
�r
BY �'J� !r..-!`' _ -�- ,DEPUTY
APPROVAL OF LOW EMISSION VEHICLE AND FLEET September 21, 2004
ACQUISITION POLICY TO LIMIT THE PURCHASE OF
SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES (SUVs) TO PROMOTE FUEL
ECONOMY IN THE COUNTY FLEET
The proposed policy also prohibits the purchase of SUVs unless a department can demonstrate to
p p P Y
the Fleet Manager that only an SUV can meet its operational needs and specifications. In recognition
of a demonstrated operational requirement, the recommended policy exempts law enforcement and
fire district vehicles from this provision.
Effective immediate) upon adoption of the policy, all new light and medium-duty vehicles purchased
Y P p
or leased by Contra Costa County shall be low-emission vehicles when practical, as determined by
the Fleet Manager — that is, when a low-emission vehicle is available that achieves the essential
vehicle specifications for the use or the application .in which the vehicle is assigned.
CADocuments and SettingslmlangolLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKE1BO LowEmissionVeh-FltPolicy92104.doc Page 2 of 2
SD.3
ADDENDUM
SD.3 September 21,2004
Supervisor DeSaulnier introduced the recommendation to the Board regarding approval of low emission
vehicle and fleet acquisition policy to limit the purchase of sport utility vehicles(SUVs).
He suggested that the policy could be brought to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the
Association of Bay Area Governments as a model policy that all the local jurisdictions in the Bay Area
could consider implementing.
The Supervisor also noted that the policy included allowances and purchasing discretion in some
guidelines, particularly in the area of public safety, for continued use of SUVs where unique needs are
better served by that type of vehicle.
Supervisor DeSaulnier recommended two changes to the policy under consideration. First, to amend
language that refers to"fuel efficiency" to be"efficiency" to reflect that overall efficiency was to be
considered, not limited to fuel consumption. Secondly, to amend section 3 (b) regarding the Fleet Manager
(known in the policy as the Program Manager),to substitute"General Services Director, or designee," as
the individual to approve waivers submitted for-exemptions to Section 3 (a).
The Chair invited the public to comment. The following person presented testimony:
Charlie Peters, Clean Air Performance Professionals,, 84 Hoy Avenue, Fords,New Jersey.
Mr. Peters noted that caution should be observed in purchasing low' -emission vehicles, noting that while
imported models might be slightly more fuel efficient, domestic models could be less expensive to
maintenance in the long term. He also noted that the smog-check program had problems that if addressed
would also contribute significantly to lower emission levels.
Having discussed the matter and all persons desiring to comment having been heard, the Board ADOPTED
the amended policy by unanimous vote, with all Supervisors present.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE & FLEET POLICY
This policy establishes a Low-Emission Vehicle & Fleet Program that requires the
purchase of low-emission vehicles when practical, Promotes fuel economy in the
County fleet, requires that existing vehicles be retrofitted when practical, and
requires the agency to pursue low-emission fleet status for its on-road heavy-
duty fleet and its off-road equipment fleet.
LOW EMISSION VEHICLE & FLEET PROGRAM
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors finds that:
a) Air pollution is a major public health concern in California. Air pollution can
cause or aggravate lung illnesses such as acute respiratory infections,
asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer. In addition to
health impacts, air pollution imposes significant economic costs and negative
impacts on our quality of life.
b Motor vehicle emissions, both on- and off-road, are the primary source of
ozone precursors in the Bay Area. Motor vehicle emissions are also a source
of carbon monoxide, particulate matter, toxic air contaminants, and
greenhouse gases. Evidence has shown that vehicles like Sport Utility
Vehicles (SUVs) consume more gas and cause more emissions that
negatively affect our air quality. Even though new vehicles have become
cleaner due to improved emission control technologies, the rapid growth in
motor vehicle population and in the number of miles Californians drive is
eroding progress in improving regional air quality. In addition, conventional
vehicles produce higher emissions as their emission control systems wear out
over time.
c) Public agencies can play an important role in improving air quality by
procuring and operating low-emission vehicles, by retrofitting existing vehicles
to make them low-emission vehicles, which would allow the agencies to
obtain low-emission fleet status. Public agencies have the responsibility to
lead the effort to improve air quality by implementing a low-emission vehicle
and fleet program.
d) Grant funding and incentive programs may be available from federal, state, or
local sources to cover the incremental cost of acquiring and operating low-
emission vehicles and to install retrofit devices on existing vehicles.
e) Under this policy, a Low-Emission Vehicle & Fleet Program is established by
the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors to promote the procurement
and use of low-emission vehicles in the Contra Costa County motor vehicle
fleet; to promote installing retrofit devices on existing vehicles in the Contra
Costa County motor vehicle fleet; and to promote the obtainment of low-
emission fleet status, when practical.
SECTION 2. LOW-EMISSION VEHICLE & FLEET PROGRAM
a) There is hereby established a program to be known as the Low-Emission
Vehicle & Fleet Program to be administered by the General Services
Department, Fleet Management Division, under the direction of the Fleet
Manager, hereafter referred to as the Program Manager. The Program
Manager shall be responsible for implementing the provisions of this Chapter,
including: developing and implementing a plan for the acquisition of low-
emission vehicles by all departments, when practical; developing and
implementing a plan for the installation of California Air Resources Board
verified and/or certified retrofit devices on existing heavy duty vehicles that
are not low-emission vehicles, when practical; developing and implementing a
2
plan to obtain low-emission fleet status, when practical; training staff in the
use of such vehicles and retrofit devices; identifying necessary budgetary
resources for vehicle purchases and retrofit device purchase and installation;
analyzing and installing infrastructure to support low-emission vehicles, when
practical; developing a maintenance plan needed to ensure proper operation
of low-emission vehicles and retrofit devices. In developing the low-emission
vehicle & fleet program, emphasis should be placed on replacing and/or
retrofitting the oldest, most highly polluting vehicles in the Contra Costa
County fleet.
b) Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) shall not be purchased unless justified based on
verified work assignment. When such vehicles are a necessity every effort
shall be made to explore the purchase of a hybrid or alternative fuel vehicle.
Also in all fleet purchases, to the extent practical, Contra Costa County will
continue to support Alternate Fuel Vehicles (AFV) and strategies to reduce
the consumption of petroleum fuels. Law enforcement and Fire District
vehicles will be exempt from this policy. Others could be exempted only when
operational need is justified by the requesting department and approved by
the Program Manager.
c) Rules and Procedures. The Program Manager may promulgate ' such
administrative, management memorandum and/orprocedures as may be
necessary to carry out the requirements of this Policy.
SECTION 3. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
a) Effective immediately upon adoption of this policy, all new light- and medium-
duty vehicles purchased or leased by Contra Costa County shall be low-
emission vehicles, when practical, as determined by the Fleet Manager.
3
b) section 3{a} shall be waived by the Program Managers on a case-by-case
basis when no low-emission vehicle is available that achieves the essential
vehicle specifications for the use or the application in which the vehicle will be
employed.
SECTION 4. ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT
Each fiscal year, the Program Manager shall submit a report to the Board of
Supervisors on the emission status of the fleet as part of the budget submittal
process.
4
REQUEST To SPEAK FORM
(THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT)
Complete this form as place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board.
Name . Phone:
AddressCitv••• �=�
• t � s.
f
l Ile
am speaking for myself or organization. , —
►�x
CHECK ONE:
❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item Date:
My comments will be: El General El For EYA,gainst
El I wish to speak on the
p subject of. .,
❑ I do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comma '
p comments far the Board to consider:
Please see reverse for instructions and important information
Clu
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0719-Ol.htmSEP
New York
2 1 2004
:,
ipp-
B K
When a Cro P ecomes ing
by Michael Pollan/Published on Friday, July 19, 2002
CORNWALL BRIDGE, Conn. cereal crop. But nowhere have makers that rely on cheap
Here in southern New humans done quite as much to corn. For zea mays has
England the corn is already advance the interests of this triumphed by making itself
waist high and growing so plant as in North America, indispensable not to farmers
avidly you can almost hear the where zea mays has insinuated (whom it is swiftly and surely
creak of stalk and leaf as the itself into our landscape, our bankrupting) but to the Archer
plants stretch toward the sun. food system —and our federal Daniels Midlands, Tysons and
The ears of sweet corn are just budget. Coca-Colas of the world.
starting to show up on local
farm stands, inaugurating one One need look no further than Our entire food supply has
of the ceremonies of an the $190 billion farm bill undergone a process of
American summer. These President Bush signed last "cornification" in recent years,
days the nation's nearly 80 month to wonder whose without our even noticingit.
million-acre field of corn rolls interests are really being served That's because, unlike in
across the countryside like a here. Under the 10-year Mexico, where a corn-based
second great lawn, but this program, taxpayers will pay diet has been the norm for
wholesome, all-American farmers $4 billion a year to grow centuries, in the United States
image obscures a decidedly ever more corn, this despite the most of the corn we consume
more dubious reality. fact that we struggle to get rid of is invisible, having been
the surplus the plant already heavily processed or passed
Like the tulip, the apple and produces. The average bushel through food animals before it
the potato, zea mays (the of corn (56 pounds) sells for reaches us. Most of the
botanical name for both sweet about $2 today; it costs farmers animals we eat (chickens, pigs
. pg
and feed corn) has evolved more than $3 to grow it. But and cows) today subsist on a
with humans over the past rather than design a program diet of corn, regardless of
10,000 years or so in the great that would encourage farmers to whether it is good for them. In
dance of species we call plant less corn which would the case of beef cattle, which
domestication. The plant have the benefit of lifting the evolved to eat grass, a corn
gratifies human needs, in price farmers receive for it— diet wreaks havoc on their
exchange for which humans Congress has decided instead digestive system, makingit
expand the plants habitat, to subsidize corn by the bushel, necessary to feed them
moving its genes all over the thereby insuring that zea mays antibiotics to stave off illness
world and remaking the land dominion over its 125,000- and infection. Even farm-
(clearing trees, plowing the square mile American habitat raised salmon are beingbred
ground, protecting it from its will go unchallenged. to tolerate corn not a food
enemies) so it might thrive. their evolution has prepared
At first blush this subsidy might them for. Why feed fish corn?
Corn, by making itself tasty look like a handout for farmers, Because it's the cheapest
and nutritious, got itself noticed but really its a form of welfare thing you can feed any animal,
by Christopher Columbus, who for the plant itself and for all thanks to federal subsidies.
helped expand its range from those economic interests that But even with more than half of
the New World to Europe and profit from its overproduction: the 10 billion bushels of corn
beyond. Today corn is the the processors, facto farms, produced annually being fed to
. factory p Y 9
worlds most widely planted and the soft drink and snack animals, there is plentyleft
over. So companies like food system is doing to our greediest of plants, demanding
A.D.M., Cargill and ConAgra health, there's cause for more nitrogen fertilizer than
have figured ingenious new concern. It's probably no any other crop. Corn requires
ways to dispose of it, turning it coincidence that the wholesale more pesticide than any other
into everything from ethanol to switch to corn sweeteners in the food crop. Runoff from these
Vitamin C and biodegradable 1980's marks the beginning of chemicals finds its way into the
plastics. the epidemic of obesity and groundwater and, in the
Type 2 diabetes in this country. Midwestern corn belt, into the
By far the best strategy for Sweetness became so cheap Mississippi River, which
keeping zea mays in business that soft drink makers, rather carries it to the Gulf of Mexico,
has been the development of than lower their prices, super- where it has already killed off
high-fructose corn syrup, sized their serving portions and marine life in a 12,000 square
which has all but pushed sugar marketing budgets. Thousands mile area.
aside. Since the 1980's, most of new sweetened snack foods
soft drink manufacturers have hit the market, and the amount To produce the chemicals we
switched from sugar to corn of fructose in our diets soared. apply to our cornfields takes
sweeteners, as have most vast amounts of oil and natural
snack makers. Nearly 10 This would be bad enough for gas. (Nitrogen fertilizer is
percent of the calories the American waistline, but made from natural gas,
Americans consume now there's also preliminary pesticides from oil.) America's
come from corn sweeteners; research suggesting that high- corn crop might look like a
the figure is 20 percent for fructose corn syrup is sustainable, solar-powered
many children. Add to that all metabolized differently than system for producing food, but
the corn-based animal protein other sugars, making it it is actually a huge, inefficient,
(corn-fed beef, chicken and potentially more harmful. A polluting machine that guzzles
pork) and the corn qua corn recent study at the University of fossil fuel -- a half a gallon of
(chips, muffins, sweet corn) Minnesota found that a diet high it for every bushel.
and you have a plant that has in fructose (as-compared to
become one of nature's glucose) elevates triglyceride So it seems corn has indeed
greatest success stories, by levels in men shortly after become king. We have given it
turning us (along with several eating, a phenomenon that has more of our land than an
other equally unwitting been linked to an increased risk other plant, an area more than
species) into an expanding of obesity and heart disease. twice the size of New York
race of corn eaters. Little is known about the health State. To keepit
well fed and
effects of eating animals that safe from predators we douse
So why begrudge corn its have themselves eaten so much it with chemicals thatp oison
phenomenal success? Isn't corn, but in the case of cattle, our water and deepen our
p
this the way domestication is researchers have found that dependence on foreign oil.
supposed to work? corn-fed beef is higher in And then in order to dispose of
saturated fats than grass-fed all the corn this cracked
The problem in corn's case is beef. system has produced, we eat it
that we're sacrificing the health as fast as we can in as many
of both our bodies and the We know a lot more about what ways as we can —turning the
environment by growing and 80 million acres of corn is doing fat of'the land into, well, fat.
eating so much of it. Though to the health of our environment: One has to wonder whether
we're only beginning to serious and lasting damage. corn hasn't at last succeeded
understand what our cornified Modern corn hybrids are the in domesticating us.
Michael Pollan is the author, most recently, of"The Botany of Desire:A Plant's-Eye View of the World."
(CAPP contact: Charlie Peters/ (510) 53 7-1796/ca charlie��ea
rthlinl.net
Friday, September 17, 2004 rudUnd ehicles.com Daily Updates
High Emissions From Ethanol Confirmed; Califor1iaXaiyqC1pe S en Bolstered
Anew study that confirms long-awaited study, saying: the saes_-'-*:= reduce the amount of ethanol used in
considerable evaporative already accounts for ethanol's..::.:::_.:_:, w CWff._Q
0,ia..gasoline annually to lower
hydrocarbon emission increases from permeation emissions in its regulation the permeation emissions. Last
California vehicles running on and mitigates it with vapor pressure month, staff raised the potential for
ethanol-containing reformulated limits; that permeation emissions play such amendments at a workshop
gasoline (RFG) may bolster the a very small role in smog formation; attended by petroleum industry
state's push for a wavier to the and that the evaporative hydrocarbon representatives. "We are still
federal RFG oxygen mandate, and emissions will decrease significantly evaluating our options" regarding
may confirm the need to amend the as older vehicles are phased out of potential amendments to the fuel
state's Phase 3 RFG rules to reduce the California fleet. "The minor rules, the CARB source said this
ethanol use overall, sources said. increase in permeation is more than week.
offset by reductions in carbon
The study, sponsored by the monoxide and other more reactive Permeation is a diffusion process
California Air Resources Board tailpipe emissions," stated Bob whereby fuel molecules migrate
(CARB) and Georgia-based Dinneen, president of the Renewable through the rubber and plastic parts
Coordinating Research Council, finds Fuels Association (RFA). Dinneen that make up a vehicle's fuel and fuel
that a 5.7%-by-volume ethanol blend, added that when a higher ethanol vapor systems, according to the
which is the standard in California, blend is used --say, 10% ethanol study. The need for a study of the
increases permeation emissions 65% content-- permeation emissions permeation effects of ethanol became
compared with MTBE-blended RFG actually decrease. apparent in late 1999 when California
and 45% over non-oxygenated fuels, banned the use of MTBE in gasoline.
on average. The study, Fuel But a CARB source said that while With the ban --which became
Permeation from Automotive the state's RFG Phase 3 regulation effective starting in calendar year
Systems, was carried out and drafted vapor pressure rules"provide some 2004, but was essentially in place in
by Harold Haskew&Associates, Inc., emissions reductions that help offset 2003 because most of the refiners in
of Milford, MI, and Automotive a portion of the increase we are the state replaced MTBE with ethanol
Testing Laboratories, Inc., of Mesa, seeing from permeation . . . it is far that year--ethanol became the only
AZ. The test was designed to less than what the newly released oxygenate approved for use in
determine the magnitude of the study suggests is occurring from the California gasoline. "California must
permeation differences between three current fleet. Therefore, we cannot quantify the permeation effects of
fuels, containing either MTBE, agree with the conclusion" reached ethanol because California's statutes
ethanol, or no oxygenate, in the by RFA regarding vapor pressure require that any increase in fuel
selected test fleet. The testing was impacts. emissions be offset with a similar
conducted on a sample of 10 reduction from other sources,"the
California vehicles chosen to CARB officials may use the results of report states. The year-round use of
represent the light-duty, in-use fleet the study to bolster their request to oxygenated gasoline in severe and
as it existed in 2001. The oldest U.S. EPA for a waiver to the federal extreme ozone nonattainment areas
vehicle was a 1978 Oldsmobile RFG oxygen mandate, which requires is a federal requirement that applies
Cutlass, and the newest was a 2001 ethanol or MTBE use in gasoline. The to,about 80% of the gasoline sold in
Toyota Tacoma pick-up truck, study"supports our previous analysis California.
according to the study. that permeation emissions are
increased considerably when ethanol California officials have argued for
"Emissions increased on all 10 mixtures are used, and therefore several years that refiners should be
vehicle fuel systems studied when strengthens the technical basis for given maximum flexibility to meet the
ethanol replaced the MTBE in the test the emissions benefits that could state's strict RFG pollutant emission
gasoline,"the study concludes. The occur if a waiver is granted," the limits, including the ability to produce
average permeation emissions CARB source said. However, non-oxygenated fuel if they desire.
increase with ethanol gasoline was numerous sources have said they do
1.4 grams/day (g/d) higher than not expect EPA to make a decision Environmental groups are split over
emissions with the MTBE gasoline, on the state's renewed oxygen waiver the required use of ethanol in RFG,
and 1.1 g/d higher than emissions request before November's election. with the Natural Resources Defense
with a non-oxygenated gasoline. Council and other major groups
The study may also convince CARB opposed, and Bluewater Network and
Ethanol industry representatives this staff to draft amendments to the other water-focused groups strongly
week downplayed the results of the state's Phase 3 RFG regulation to in favor.
LAPP contact: Charlie Peters / 510 537-1796/Cc,,j1)char1ie@e:3arth1ink.ne
t
http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/article.cfm?issue=09-17-04&stor ID=19654 -- -�-�- TM. ...�
4
. e e
ei
B rkel Dal ly Plan
Y :_.
All 2 1 2 �
s wi c o ano
ue s on e..
By ANNA OBERTHUR/Special to the Planet (09-17-04)
Growing corn in America's California refiners have been using consumes more fossil fuel energy
heartland, distilling it into alcohol ethanol to meet a federal than the product can provide, in
and mixing it with gasoline to oxygenate requirement. addition to destroying the
power vehicles may sound like an environment.
ingenious way to be freed from Although it's supposed to help
dependency on foreign oil, cut reduce emissions, California "The most importantp art of the
down on air pollution and begin officials believe gasoline would story is that while we are
the transition to a renewable actually burn cleaner without the producing ethanol we are using
energy source. two percent mandate and have up resources," Patzek said.
requested a waiver. "Don't think for a second you are
But depending on where you getting a free ride."
stand, ethanol, a grain alcohol While touted as a renewable,
usually made from corn, is either cleaner burning fuel, critics call In his paper"Thermodynamics of
the answer to the United State's ethanol fundamentally the Corn-Ethanol Biofuel Cycle,it
energy concerns or a too-good- unsustainable and argue its which is to be published in the
to-be-true boondoggle that serves production is fouling the water and journal Critical Reviews in Plant
only to pad the pockets of those polluting the air. What's worse, Sciences in December, Patzek
who manufacture it. they say, it's propped up by billions argues that energyfrom corn
of dollars n subsidies. ethanol is fundamentally
Regardless of who' i
s right, unsustainable.
production and consumption of' "It's a real boondoggle, no question
ethanol is on the rise, doubling about it," said David Pimentel, a With the corn crop's heavy need
p Y
since 2001. Eighty-one plants in professor of agricultural sciences for insecticides, herbicides and
20 states are expected to at Cornell University, who has fertilizers, theroduction depletes
p p
produce more than 3.3 billion chaired two Department of Energy the soil and pollutes the air and
gallons of ethanol b the end of "It's
g Y studies on ethanol. Its going to water, also contributing to
2004, according to the take a good deal of fossil energy greenhouseases in the
Renewable Fuels Association g
(to make it) and we're going to atmosphere, he said.
the national trade group for import energy from the Saudis to
ethanol. do it." "Theworst thing is, we are doing
it for no good reason. It's of no
The Lawrence Berkeley National Most ethanol in the U.S. comes -benefit to anyone in this country,"
Y ry,
Laboratory is now running about from corn, the nation's biggest Patzek said. "Nobodains
one-fifth of its vehicle fleet on E- y gains,
crop. The plant and how it is grown nobody."
85, a gasohol blend of 85 percent are key elements in the debate
ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. over the subject, which ranges This is aoin '
p t vehemently denied
The lab made the switch in July from the meaning of sustainability b the ethanol industry,
with an $83,000 Department of to how best Y ustry, which
t o tackle the country's says the product reduces smog-
Energy grant, building Northern energy needs as cheap oil supplies formingpollution,
California's first ethanol fueling p on, displaces
dwindle. imported fossil fuels and lowers
station.
prices for consumers.
Pimentel and UC Berkeley
Nearly every gas tank in engineering professor Tad Patzek
Numerous studies, including one
California has some ethanol in it. argue in separate studies that the by the USDA, have shown that
Since the state banned MTBE, production of corn ethanol actual) ethanol "
Y has a large and growing
positive energy balance," said California, accounting for the the Clean Air Trust, a Washington
Monte Shaw of the Renewable dramatic increase in its use, Shaw DC group dedicated to protecting
Fuels Association. said. the-provisions of the Clean Air
Act.
"Is ethanol a perfect product? I California first requested a waiver
guess you could argue no, from the U.S. Environmental Ethanol may be entirely
because you use fossil fuels to Protection Agency in 1999. The appropriate for use with gasoline,
create it," Shaw said. "But if you waiver was denied, and a second but that shouldn't be decided by
want to criticize ethanol, it's fair to request is pending, said Gennet statute, he said. But because of
say, What's the cost of continued Paauwe of the California Air the sway ethanol makers have in
reliance on fossil fuels?We're Resources Board. Washington and among Corn Belt
going to put something in the state politicians, it is, said Billings.
tanks today. I think which is more "The California Air Resources
environmentally friendly is Board has demonstrated that the "ADM has an enormous stake in
obvious." oxygenate requirement is the production of ethanol, and
detrimental to our efforts to achieve they are a very high powered
Roland Hwang, vehicles policy healthy air quality," Gov. Arnold lobby," said Billings. "If you look
director for the Natural Resources Schwarzenegger wrote in a Jan. 28 at the U.S. Congress you see the
Defense Council in San letter to the EPA. The oxygenate fine handiwork of ADM on the
Francisco, said the organization "greatly increase the costs born by ethanol mandate."
doesn't support ethanol from corn California motorists,"
because of the environmental Schwarzenegger wrote. Perhaps as important is the grain
effects of production. state electorate corn growers
The Renewable Fuels Association who see ethanol as a secure
"We're supportive of a long-term opposes the waiver and has market for their product.
biofuel future, but not from corn," submitted arguments to the EPA
Hwang said, noting that more urging the denial of California's "Any politician who doesn't
sustainable crops like poplar request. support ethanol would be a
trees can be made into ethanol. recovering politician," Billings
"Our primary concern is the fact California's gasoline vendors are said.
that the way ethanol is being important customers to ethanol
used right now is making the air giants like Decatur, III.-based Buck at the in Berkeley lab, fleet
dirtier." Archer Daniels Midland Co. (more manager Don Prestella said
commonly known as ADM), which ethanol wasn't his first choice to
That's California's concern, too. Shaw estimates controls about 30 comply with a 1999 presidential
percent of the market. order to reduce fossil fuel
Since former Gov. Gray Davis consumption at federal facilities.
banned use of the oxygenate California produces only 10 million
MTBE by 2003, California's had gallons of ethanol per year, so it He'd have preferred electric or
to rely on ethanol to comply with must buy the other 890 million hybrid vehicles, but E-85 was his
the federal requirement for two gallons it needs from Corn Belt only realistic option.
percent oxygenate in the state's states like Iowa, Nebraska and
smoggiest areas. Oxygenates are South Dakota. That's a pretty big "When you're up against the
supposed to make gas burn chunk of the 3.3 billion gallons bureaucracy, when you have to
cleaner, but the state has argued Shaw expects will be produced go up against an executive order
California would be better off nation-wide by the end of the year. from the president, you have to
without them. go with what you got," Prestella
Technicians, and not politicians, said. "Ethanol was our best
New York and Connecticut have should determine what is the strategy at the time."
also switched to ethanol after appropriate formulation of fuel,
banning MTBE, along with says Leon G. Billings, president of
(CAPP contact: Charlie Peters/(510 53 7-1796/cappcharfie@)earthfink.
net
httv://www.imreview.ca.p,ov/meetings/transcripts/transcript may1704.doc
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MEETING OF:
THE CALIFORNIA INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE
Monday, May 17, 2004 ,..���.��..z...�_�... ...._-��
Sacramento, California F SLP 1. 2004
AFTERNOON SESSION u�_�:FIK P01'.�~t{O S.", ;isoRs
VICE CHAIR COVELL: We'll MR. CARLOCK: Then the benefit
switch positions a little bit in MR. CARLOCK: If you double the would increase.
terms of who's asking the number of vehicles going to test
questions at this point and only; is that what the question is? MR. PETERS: So the program
provide an opportunity now for performance will improve if the
those of you who listened to the MR. PETERS: The question was, if emissions readings in the
presentation this morning as part you double the failure rate in the program, the data going into the
of the audience to ask any program, will the program program, doubles on failing cars,
questions that you have. The performance go up or down in the then the program performance
CARB representatives are seated model? will increase.
and ready to go, so who would
like to go first? Charlie, you're up. MR. CARLOCK: It'll go up. MR. OARLOCK: In general, yes.
MR. PETERS: Yes, Mr. MR. PETERS: So the more failing MR. PETERS: My, that's
Chairman, Mr. Covell and cars we have, the more credit we interesting data. So if we have a
committee, I'm Charlie Peters, get for emission reductions for the program that were to immediately
Clean Air Performance SIP; is that what you're saying? determine when a car was failing
Professionals, and we represent and where it can immediately get
motorists. I found an awful lot of MR. CARLOCK: In general, yes. fixed and we were to give
very interesting comments here That is, it depends on what you're appropriate credit to thero ram
p g
today. Obviously some people failing as far as whether you get an the program credit would
have done some very hard work, additional benefit or not. probably be zero.
sweat over a lot of data and
information, making a lot of MR. PETERS: Question number MR. CARLOCK: I don't follow.
suggestions. But I'm confused by two. If the emissions failure result No, it would not be zero.
some of the things that I don't becomes twice as high,
hear, some of the things that are hydrocarbons, NOX readings on MR. PETERS: Every car that fell
not included, and I'd just like to the failure are twice as high, and out of compliance with state
start with a little question for if that's the only change that's going standard was immediately
there's anybody on this panel or into the model, will the program identified and immediately fully
y
in the committee that could
performance go up or down. repaired.
maybe give me a little help.
MR. CARLOCK: If the average MR. CARLOCK: By who?
What happens if you were to take failing vehicle has higher emissions
the model that we're discussing that what we assume now; is that MR. PETERS: Doesn't oesn t matter. By
and evaluating this program and what you're asking? God.
you increase the failure rate by
double? Would that make the MR. PETERS: That's exactly what 1 MR. OARLOCK: If it's identified
program performance go up or said. within the program, then there
down? would be benefit within the
program. If you as the owner of MR. CARLOCK: Yes. MR. PETERS: But that should be
that vehicle was to identify and some data that is available.
repair it, then the only thing that MR. PETERS: to evaluate it?
we could credit the program with MR. CARLOCK: Sure.
is possibly a motivation for you to MR. CARLOCK: Yes.
do that. MR. PETERS: And is it possible
MR. PETERS: Have you also for you to share that data with the
MR. PETERS: You indicated, I evaluated whether or not what was committee and with myself, if
believe, Mr. Carlock, that there broken got fixed? possible?
were ongoing program
evaluations where you are MR. CARLOCK: Yes. MR. CARLOCK: Sure.
sending cars out in the Absolutely.
marketplace to determine MR. PETERS: And can you share
whether or not they get fixed for with us what that result looked MR. PETERS: So the failure rate,
the program performance; is that like? the emissions readings, the
correct? whether or not what's broken is
MR. CARLOCK: That's difficult to being repaired, I think would be
MR. CARLOCK: We do that tell you. I can tell you in very beneficial to the decision
periodically, we don't do it all the generalities is the higher the process of the committee and
time. vehicle emits, the more likely it is to behavior of the public and the
fail. The more likely it is to fail, the industry and whether or not they
MR. PETERS: How long has it more likely it is to receive an actually fixed what's broken
been since you've done that? emissions benefit as far as repair. think would be a key issue as to
There are instances where what appropriate kinds of actions
MR. CARLOCK: The last large vehicles that are marginal are are necessary here to improve
item evaluation that we did was in failed, and when you try to fix those how the public's being treated,
the late nineties. the results are mixed. improve the air and improve the
total emissions. Would you say
MR. PETERS: And did you MR. PETERS: But I believe when a that would be a reasonable
determine specifically what was car is out of compliance that has possibility?
wrong with those cars and what it specific things that are wrong.
took to repair them before they MR. CARLOCK: I can say that
went out for evaluation? MR. CARLOCK: Yes. the data is available to anyone
that would like to request the
MR. CARLOCK: Dave corrects MR. PETERS: And the question is data.
me. He points out that we are about whether or not those specific
doing such an evaluation of the things that are wrong are MR. PETERS: And under what
(SBD cars. determined before the evaluation kind of timeframe might I expect
and whether or not the specific to be able to get that data?
MR. PETERS: I'm sorry, I didn't things that are at fault on the car
hear that. get fixed. That's not a very complex MR. CARLOCK: Let's see, my
question. I think that should be flight is about three. If you call me
MR. CARLOCK: We are doing fairly simple data as to whether or tomorrow, I think you'd have it by
such an evaluation where we not what's broken is actually the end of the week.
send the cars out with an OBD getting fixed. You're talking about
specific fleet right now, so we are emissions readings and the level of MR. PETERS: That would be
doing an analysis right now. emissions readings, you're not delightful. Thank you, Mr.
talking about specific failure Chairman.
MR. PETERS: But my question readings.
is, when you do that, do you VICE CHAIR COVELL: All right,
determine what the car needs MR. CARLOCK: There's a very Charlie, thank you. If you have
repaired in order to fix it before simplistic answer. Sometimes they further questions you want to hold
you send it out— get fixed, sometimes they don't. them and we'll move around the
room and pick you up again.
(CAPP contact: Charlie Peters / (510) 53 7-1796/ca. i,:.,-hai-1 ie(c le(ii•thliiiik.net
5,0
http://www2.ocregister.com/ocrweb/ocr/article.do?id=94359§ion=COMMENTARY&subsection=COMMENTARY&year=2004&month=5&day=10
■
i sThe Oran e Count R el e
Monday, May 10, 2004 SEP21304
Cleaning the air at ve itt e---C-L.1`10-zi
• • • _`'i._S=''..y�t:'y.`e.f_u:r�_ C',�1�, Y�..,};a c' •,'"•5;.;
ry
A number of bills are now rampant. As writer Torn Elias him or her know another test
pg
endin in the state reported last year, the Bureau of vehicle would be coming
Legislature to try to put Automotive Repair conducted through soon, and three or four
g
together an ambitious anti- undercover checks at 1,500 of failures to fix things properly
smog pro ram aimed mainly at 8,000 testing stations, and would lead to a loss of Smog
g
automobiles. All of them found discrepancies - from Check license.
involve spending more money testing a clean car in place of
- $200 million to $400 million a one that's dubious to charging "That would change behavior
year, according to those for fixes that are never made - in the direction of doing the job
writing bills and putting at most of them. right, Mr. Peters told us.
together coalitions to support "Considering how much bad
them. And the question is Clean Air Performance work is done now, we figure
where to get it. Among the Professionals, a smog check this approach would reduce
proposals are a higher fuel tax, provider industry and motorist toxic emissions by 50 percent
higher car-registration fees, or group, estimates that at least in a year. It wouldn't cost
higher Smog Check fees. some cheating goes on at 80 more, it would just involve
percent of Smog 'Check changing how smog Check is
The intention behind this effort stations. But the administered."
is commendable, given the
large share of responsibility group has a proposal to fix Before embarking on a
that autos bear for poor air things. program to scrap more old
quality. But before the cars or barge onto a hydrogen
Schwarzenegger CAPP president Charlie Peters highway, the governor should
administration signs on, it has for years been proposing a consider CAPP's relatively
would do well to look into a quality audit of all Smog check simple fix.
simpler approach. stations. It would be simple.
Send in a car with a known If it works, we'll have cleaner
California already has a Smog problem. If the known problem air and a more honest smog
Check program under which is identified and fixed, fine. Check program.
motorists are required to have
their car's emissions tested If it isn't fixed, the Bureau of If it doesn't show results within
every other year. Automotive Repair regulators a couple of years, then we can
would inform the operator and consider more ambitious and
The trouble is that it isn't very give him the opportunity to more expensive approaches.
reliable and cheating is make the fix properly - and let
('APP contact: Charlie Peters / (510 53 7-1796 ii-thl ink.neJ1
TO: BOARD OF SUPER\r iSORS Attachment 13
FROM: D�.wrr�NNIS M. BARRY, A)iiGP Contra
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR costa,
DATE: November 2, 2004 04 NOV.8 A14 10' 4 County
7
SUBJECT.- ADOPTION OF CONTRA Cos CQUNTYWIDE':I3ICY PEDESTRIAN PLAN
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDAY: ION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION—
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPT the Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Ped estrian Plan (CBPP).
FISCAL IMPACT
None to.the General.Fund. If all necessary parties approve the CBPP, the County will be
eligible to apply for bikeway grants from the State Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA)
program.
BACKGROUND/REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS-
Earlier this year the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA finalized and adopted
the CBPP (see Exhibit A). In order to be eligible for state Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA) funds individual jurisdictions are required to adopt approved bicycle plans for their
area. The recommended action fulfills this requirement.
On a concurrent path, OCTA is obtaining the required Metropolitan' Transportation
Commission and California Department of Transportation approvals for the plan.
At this time the plan is being brought to the Board in the same form as approved by the
OCTA Board in order to expedite processing enabling the County to apply for BTA funds in
the current cycle. Applications for funds must be submitted to Caltrans by February 1
2005. Previously, the Board of Supe;rvisors authorized staff to incorporate the relevant
portions of the CBPP into the County's General Plan. County staff will present those
amendments to the General Plan in 2005.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Failure to adopt this plan will prohibit the County from obtaining BTA funds during the
current cycle.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
,�APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATUREJS):
APPROVED_ ___ - AS RECOMMENDED
ACTION OF BOARD ONOTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
VUNANIMOUS (ABSENT nuuu I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THEM INUTES OF THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
SHOWN,
Contact: John Cunningham {925-335-'1243}
cc: Community Development Department (CDD) ATTESTED �o0
Steve Kowalewski, PWD JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF
Brad Beck, OCTA (via CDD) THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
J
BY, L Ld__ DEPUTY
G:\Transportatic)n\Cunningham\bikeplan\ccc—bpp_adoption\greenie—bo\ccc—bpp_adoption.doc