HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12152015 - D.4RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. OPEN the public hearing on the Contra Costa County Community-wide Climate Action Plan (CCAP) and accept
public testimony.
2. CLOSE the public hearing.
3. FIND that on the basis of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
significant effect on the environment, the proposed Negative Declaration reflects the County’s independent judgment
and analysis, and the proposed Negative Declaration was prepared in accordance with the State and County
guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and ADOPT the proposed
Negative Declaration as adequate for compliance with CEQA.
4. ADOPT the CCAP.
5. DIRECT the Department of Conservation and Development (DCD) to file a CEQA Notice of Determination with
the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Finalization of the CCAP is being funded 100% from Land Development Fund, FY 2015/16 Budget.
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 12/15/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:See Addendum
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Will Nelson (925)
674-7791
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: December 15, 2015
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D.4
To:Board of Supervisors
From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Date:December 15, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Adoption of Community-wide Climate Action Plan
BACKGROUND:
On November 3, 2015, the Board accepted an update from DCD and Health Services Department staff on their
progress toward completing the County's CCAP (Attachment A). The Board Order for that hearing (Attachment
B) detailed the County's efforts to-date to complete the CCAP and highlighted some of the document's important
elements. Staff also gave a PowerPoint presentation (Attachment C) that described the regulatory setting in
California related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and their reduction [Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Executive Order
S-3-05, etc.], and described the CCAP in more detail.
The primary purpose of the November 3 hearing was to provide the Board with an opportunity to review and to
become familiarized with the draft CCAP, as well as provide input prior to DCD bringing the final document
before the Board for adoption.
Board Comments at the November 3 Hearing
Board members made several comments on the draft CCAP, which are restated below along with staff's responses:
1. Supervisor Andersen indicated that the community of Canyon was not included in the list of unincorporated
communities to which the CCAP would be applicable.
Staff Response: Canyon was added to the version of the CCAP that was posted on-line for public review
and is listed in the final version of the CCAP that is before the Board for adoption.
2. Supervisor Andersen asked staff to verify whether the statement on page 7 of the CCAP that the median income
in Contra Costa County has declined since 2012, remains accurate.
Staff Response: Staff reviewed the latest data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development, which indicates that the median income in Contra Costa County decreased in 2013 and 2014,
but has risen in 2015. The text of the CCAP has been revised accordingly.
3. Supervisor Andersen asked for clarification of Table 3.7 on page 34 of the CCAP, which indicates that there
would be a zero percent change in agricultural emissions from 2005-2035.
Staff Response: The CCAP provides agriculture inventories for the 2005 baseline year and the 2013 GHG
emissions update. Because of the small size of the agricultural sector relative to the overall inventory and
the variability/uncertainty that comes with agricultural forecasts using best available methods, our
consultants advocated holding agricultural emissions constant through future years.
4. Supervisor Andersen suggested adding text to the CCAP regarding Community Choice Aggregation, reflecting
that the County is examining the opportunities afforded by this method of purchasing electricity.
Staff Response: The following action item has been added to the CCAP under Reduction Measure
Renewable Energy 3 - Alternative Energy Financing: Continue exploring options for implementing
Community Choice Aggregation within the unincorporated area of the County.
5. Supervisor Andersen suggested adding an action item under Reduction Measure Land Use and Transportation
(LUT) 4 - Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction, supporting continuation of a County policy to encourage Priority
Economic Development Areas in residential communities.
Staff Response: The following action item has been added to the CCAP under Reduction Measure LUT 4:
Continue the County's policy of encouraging the establishment of Priority Economic Development Areas in
residential communities.
6. Supervisor Andersen asked for additional details on the Bay Area Regional Outreach Campaign (BAROC)
referenced on page 64 of the CCAP.
Staff Response: BAROC is a consortium of Bay Area cities and counties who pool resources to pay for
regional media outreach regarding waste prevention, such as informational radio spots, that each could
not afford individually. For example, in 2015 and 2016 BAROC is providing outreach regarding food
waste. The County contributed $3,000 in 2015 and will contribute the same amount in 2016. The
contributions are paid for with money collected from solid waste franchise fees. BAROC has a steering
committee, on which the County sits, that decides how the pooled resources will be utilized.
7. Supervisor Gioia indicated that the CCAP should provide a better explanation of the link between a climate
action plan and the Bay Area's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS).
Staff Response: The Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) discussion on page 19 of the CCAP had
previously stated only that each SCS is required to demonstrate how the region will achieve the GHG
emissions reduction target set by the California Air Resources Board for 2020 and 2035. The discussion
has been revised to provide a more in-depth explanation of the relationship between the County’s CCAP
and the SCS for the Bay Area.
8. Supervisor Gioia asked how many cities in Contra Costa County have adopted a climate action plan.
Staff Response: According to the Contra Costa County Climate Leader's Climate Action Planning Map, six
cities in the county have adopted CAPs: Danville (2009), Martinez (2009), Antioch (2011), San Ramon
(2011), Walnut Creek (2012), and Concord (2013). Twelve other cities are at various stages of completing
a CAP.
Public/CEQA Review of the CCAP
On October 29, 2015, DCD released the CCAP and a CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Attachment D)
for a dual public/environmental review. The CEQA document was submitted to the Governor's Office of Planning
and Research/State Clearinghouse for distributing amongst State agencies and notification of the review period
for the CCAP and CEQA document was sent to an extensive list of recipients (Attachment E). The review period
ended November 30, 2015. The County received comment letters from three agencies: Delta Protection
Commission, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and Mt. View Sanitary District
(Attachment F).
The Delta Protection Commission and Mt. View Sanitary District letters were supportive of the CCAP and the
County’s efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The RWQCB’s letter states that the environmental document should
evaluate potential impacts to surface and groundwater quality; however, because the CCAP is a policy-level
document that does not involve any type of physical development or any particular project site, there are no such
impacts to evaluate. Water quality impacts are already evaluated through the review process for individual
projects. The RWQCB letter was otherwise neutral. No revisions to the CCAP or CEQA document are necessary
based on the written comments received.
Re-reviewing the Draft CCAP, staff realized Measure LUT 5 on page 65 (Agricultural Land Uses - Provide
opportunities to grow, sell and purchase local food) includes a list of means to accomplish this goal but does not
mention the value of retaining agricultural land. The recommended CCAP includes a new item 7 under Measure
LUT 5 which says, "Encourage retention of agricultural land to maintain the County's agricultural base and enable
long-term carbon sequestration."
Conclusion
The CCAP provides the County with a roadmap for reducing GHG emissions in accordance with AB 32 and
Executive Orders issued by Governors Schwarzenegger and Brown. The draft CCAP has been revised in response
to comments provided by the Board at the November 3, 2015 hearing. The draft CCAP was released for a
public/environmental review and three comments were received, all of which were either supportive or neutral.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Board adopt the final CCAP (Attachment A).
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the Board votes not to adopt the CCAP, then the County will lack a cohesive plan to reduce GHG emissions
from non-County government sources in the unincorporated area. Though some of the GHG reduction measures
listed in the CCAP are already authorized and would continue to be implemented, without approval of the full
suite of measures it would not be possible for the County to meet the Assembly Bill 32 target of reducing GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The County also would not be on a trajectory to meet State GHG reduction
goals for 2030 and 2050.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Many of the GHG reduction measures in the CCAP have co-benefits for the community. For example, retrofitting
energy-inefficient buildings will add comfort to homes and save on future utility costs, planting additional trees
will beautify urban areas, replacing gas-powered gardening equipment with electric equipment will reduce
pollution and noise, and improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure will facilitate more active and healthy
lifestyles. Thus, the CCAP will support at least three of the community outcomes established in the Children's
Report Card: 2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing for Productive Adulthood, 3) Families that are
Economically Self-Sufficient, and 5) Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children
and Families.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Contra Costa County CCAP
Attachment B - November 3, 2015, Board Order on Community-wide Climate Action Plan
Attachment C - CCAP PowerPoint Presentation
Attachment D - CEQA Initial Study and Negative Declaration
Attachment E - Notice of CEQA/Public Review and Notification List
Attachment F - CAP CEQA Comment Letters
C O N T R A C O S TA C O U N T Y
C L I M AT E A C TION PLA N
Los Vaqueros Reser voir, Contra Costa County
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT
DECEMBER 2015
Acknowledgements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Cover and section break photos courtesy of Kristin McCleery.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy under Award
Number DE- EE0000888.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily
constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency
thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United
States Government or any agency thereof.
Acknowledgements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
PREPARED BY:
Contra Costa County
Department of Conservation and Development
Community Development Division
30 Muir Road
Martinez, CA 94553
www.cccounty.us/dcd
AND
Michael Baker International
500 12th Street
Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
www.mbakerintl.com
WITH ASSISTANCE FROM
ESA
350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Suite 300
Oakland, CA 94612
www.esaassoc.com
Fehr and Peers
1330 Broadway
Suite 833
Oakland, CA 94612
www.fehrandpeers.com
Acknowledgements
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
John Gioia*, District I
Candace Anderson, District II
Mary Nejedly Piepho, District III
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Federal Glover*, District V
*Denotes Ad Hoc Sustainability Committee Members
Participating County Departments
Department of Conservation and Development
John Kopchik, Director
Catherine Kutsuris, Director (Retired)
Jason Crapo, Deputy Director/Chief Building Official
Aruna Bhat, Deputy Director
Maureen Toms, Deputy Director
Steve Goetz, Deputy Director (Retired)
Will Nelson, Principal Planner
Deidra Dingman, Principal Planner
John Cunningham, Principal Planner
Patrick Roche, Principal Planner (Retired)
John Oborne, Senior Planner
Demian Hardman, Planner
County Administrator’s Office
Lara Delaney, Senior Management Analyst
Public Works Department
Julia Bueren, Director
Brian M. Balbas, Deputy Director
Stephen Kowalewski, Deputy Director
Joe Yee, Deputy Director
Jerry Fahy, Supervising Civil Engineer
Health Services Department
Wendel Brunner, MD, Public Health Director (Retired)
Michael Kent, Hazardous Materials Ombudsman
Abigail Kroch, Director of Epidemiology
Will Dominie, Built Environment Program Specialist (Former County Employee)
Special acknowledgment for providing assistance to the health co-benefit evaluation goes to Jennifer Lifshay, Martin
Lynch, Joanne Genet, and the members of the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB)
Department of Agriculture/Weights and Measures
Chad Godoy, Agricultural Commissioner/Director of Weights and Measures
Matthew Slattengren, Assistant Agricultural Commissioner
Table of Contents
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Chapter 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
Plan Area ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Local Setting ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
CAP Challenges for Contra Costa County ........................................................................................................................... 7
Preparation of the CAP ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Using this CAP ................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Chapter 2 – Scientific and Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 13
Climate Change Overview ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Climate Change Impacts ................................................................................................................................................... 13
Climate Change and Public Health ................................................................................................................................... 17
Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
Chapter 3 – GHG Inventory and Forecast ............................................................................................... 27
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Inventory Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 27
Data Collection Methods and Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 29
2005 Baseline Inventory Results ...................................................................................................................................... 29
2013 Inventory Update .................................................................................................................................................... 31
GHG Emissions Forecast ................................................................................................................................................... 33
Existing State GHG Reduction Programs .......................................................................................................................... 34
GHG Reduction Targets .................................................................................................................................................... 37
Chapter 4 – GHG Reduction Strategy ...................................................................................................... 39
Reduction Strategy Structure ........................................................................................................................................... 37
Healthy Community Strategies ......................................................................................................................................... 43
Existing Local Actions ....................................................................................................................................................... 47
GHG Reduction Strategies ................................................................................................................................................ 49
GHG Reduction Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 74
Chapter 5 – Implementation .................................................................................................................... 77
Implementation Policies ................................................................................................................................................... 77
Implementation Matrix .................................................................................................................................................... 82
Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................... 89
Table of Contents
Works Cited ............................................................................................................................................... 99
Appendix A - Health Co-Benefit Evaluation ......................................................................................... A-1
Appendix B - BAAQMD Appendix ......................................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C - Inventory & Forecast Report ........................................................................................... C-1
Appendix D- GHG Reduction Tech Appendix ....................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E – Development Checklist .................................................................................................... E-1
TABLES
Table 1.1. Unincorporated Places in Contra Costa County ................................................................................................ 2
Table 1.2. Largest GHG Emitting Stationary Sources, Unincorporated Contra Costa County ............................................ 8
Table 1.3. Unincorporated Contra Costa GHG Emissions including Stationary Sources
and Major Industrial Energy Use ........................................................................................................................................ 8
Table 2.1. Human Health Effects of Climate Change in California ................................................................................... 17
Table 2.2. Criteria Air Pollutants ...................................................................................................................................... 19
Table 2.3. California Regulatory Framework .................................................................................................................... 22
Table 3.1. 2005 Activity Data and GHG Emissions by Sector and Subsector ................................................................... 30
Table 3.2. 2013 Activity Data and GHG Emissions by Sector and Subsector ................................................................... 32
Table 3.3. Comparison of 2005 and 2013 GHG Emissions by Sector ............................................................................... 32
Table 3.4. ABAG Projections for Unincorporated Contra Costa County, 2005–2035 ...................................................... 33
Table 3.5. GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005–2035 ............................................................................................................. 34
Table 3.6. Expected GHG Reductions from State Policies, 2020 and 2035 ...................................................................... 35
Table 3.7. GHG Emissions with State Reduction Actions, 2005–2035 ............................................................................. 36
Table 3.8. Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecasts, and Reduction Goals .............................................................................. 38
Table 4.1. Example Measure Quantification .................................................................................................................... 42
Table 4.2. GHG Reduction Summary by Topic (MTCO2e) ................................................................................................. 7 4
FIGURES
Figure 1.1. County Map ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.2. Race and Ethnic Composition of Unincorporated Contra Costa County, 2014 ................................................ 6
Figure 1.3. Age Composition of Contra Costa County Residents, 2010 ............................................................................. 6
Figure 2.1. Climate Change Impacts, 2070-2099 .............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 3.1. 2005 GHG Emissions by Sector ....................................................................................................................... 30
Table of Contents
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Figure 3.2. 2013 GHG Emissions by Sector ....................................................................................................................... 31
Figure 3.3. Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecasts, and Reduction Goals ............................................................................. 38
Figure 4.1. GHG Reduction Measure Development Process ............................................................................................ 40
Figure 4.2. GHG Quantification Sources and Tools .......................................................................................................... 41
Figure 4.3. GHG Reduction Summary (MTCO2e) .............................................................................................................. 75
Introduction #1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Climate change is expected to have significant adverse impacts locally, throughout
California, and worldwide unless considerable steps are taken to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This Climate Action Plan (CAP) demonstrates
Contra Costa County’s (County) commitment to addressing the challenges of
climate change by reducing local GHG emissions while improving community
health. Additionally, this CAP meets the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) requirements for developing a qualified GHG reduction strategy, and is
consistent with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD)
guidance on preparing a qualified GHG reduction strategy. A qualified reduction strategy provides CEQA tiering, or
streamlining, benefits to subsequent development projects that are consistent with the CAP. Appendix B outlines
BAAQMD’s guidance and describes how this CAP is consistent.
This CAP identifies how the County will achieve the AB 32 GHG emissions reduction target of 15% below baseline
levels by the year 2020, in addition to supporting other public health, energy efficiency, water conservation, and air
quality goals identified in the County’s General Plan and other policy documents. In addition to reducing GHG
emissions, this CAP includes actions that improve public health and result in additional benefits to the community
such as lower energy bills and enhanced quality of life. The CAP also lays the groundwork for achieving long-term
state GHG reduction goals for 2035. Specifically, this CAP:
Provides the scientific, regulatory, and public health framework for addressing climate change and GHGs at the
local level (Chapter 2).
Identifies sources of GHG emissions within the unincorporated areas of the county and estimates how these
emissions may change over time (Chapter 3).
Assembly Bill (AB) 32
The California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006
represents California’s effort to
reduce GHG emissions and
combat global climate change.
#1 Introduction
2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Provides energy use, transportation, land use, water use, and solid waste strategies to reduce community-wide
GHG emissions consistent with AB 32, BAAQMD guidance, and Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 (CEQA)
(Chapter 4).
Proposes an approach to addressing climate change-related public health issues, which increases the county’s
resiliency to climate change, establishes priorities for improving public health, and identifies public health
benefits that are expected to result from implementing the CAP (Chapter 4).
Presents an implementation program to assist with monitoring and prioritization of the reduction strategies and
public health goals through 2020 (Chapter 5).
PLAN AREA
This CAP inventories emissions from, provides GHG reduction measures for, and is applicable to all unincorporated
areas of Contra Costa County, including the unincorporated communities identified in Table 1.1. Incorporated cities
are responsible for preparing and implementing their own climate action plans.
Table 1.1. Unincorporated Places in Contra Costa County
Acalanes Ridge Clyde North Gate
Alamo Contra Costa Centre North Richmond
Alhambra Valley Crockett Pacheco
Bay Point Diablo Port Costa
Bayview Discovery Bay Reliez Valley
Bethel Island East Richmond Heights Rodeo
Blackhawk El Sobrante Rollingwood
Briones Kensington San Miguel
Byron Knightsen Saranap
Camino Tassajara Montalvin Manor Shell Ridge
Canyon Mountain View Tara Hills
Castle Hill Norris Canyon Vine Hill
Source: Contra Costa County General Plan Housing Element
Figure 1.1 displays the jurisdictional boundaries of Contra Costa County, its incorporated cities, and the
unincorporated area. In cases where the County lacks direct regulatory authority to require GHG emissions
reductions, staff will collaborate with local, county, state, and/or federal agencies to promote the emission reduction
goals in this CAP beyond the unincorporated area. Figure 1.1 also displays disadvantaged communities, which are
eligible for climate change–related funding. For more information, see the Public Health section in this chapter.
Introduction CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Figure 1.1. County Map #1 3
Introduction #1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 5
LOCAL SETTING
Contra Costa County is one of the original 27 counties in the state of California, incorporated in 1850 with the City of
Martinez as the county seat. The county is located in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area. It is bounded
on the northwest and north by the San Pablo Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, respectively; on the east by
the Middle River and San Joaquin County; on the south by Alameda County; and on the west by Alameda County and
the San Francisco Bay.
PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY
Contra Costa County's physical geography is dominated by its extensive waterfront on the San Francisco and San
Pablo Bays and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. These waterfront areas are home to heavy industry, including
active oil refineries and power plants. The other dominant geographic feature is Mount Diablo, a 3,849-foot peak
near the county’s geographic center. The summit of Mount Diablo is the origin of the Mount Diablo Meridian and the
basis for many of the California and western Nevada surveys. Lesser topographic features, such as the Diablo Range
and the Oakland/Berkeley Hills, are also important elements of the natural landscape.
LOCAL CLIMATE
The climate varies greatly depending on location in the county. Areas closer to the coast have moderate
temperatures year-round with mild, wet, and frostless winters and fog conditions in the cool summer months. Along
the bay shore, the fog and marine air create a moderate climate with mild winters and summers. Inland valleys have
less humidity and tend to experience colder winters and hotter summers.
DEMOGRAPHICS
According to the Association of Bay Area Governments’ (ABAG) 2013 regional projections, in 2010, the
unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County had approximately 159,780 residents living in approximately 57,706
households. As reported in the 2014 General Plan Housing Element, and illustrated in Figure 1.2, approximately 56%
of the population was white, 22% was Hispanic or Latino, 11% was Asian, 6% was black or African American, and 5%
were “other.” Racial composition varies greatly by community in the unincorporated county.
#1 Introduction
6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Figure 1.2. Race and Ethnic Composition of Unincorporated Contra Costa County, 2014
Source: Contra Costa County General Plan 2014
As shown in Figure 1.3, the majority of Contra Costa County’s residents are working adult age. Children and young
adults age 19 and younger make up approximately 27% of the population and seniors (70 and older) make up
approximately 9% of the population. Like race and ethnicity, the general population age characteristics belie the
great diversity in age compositions that exist across the different communities in the county.
Figure 1.3. Age Composition of Contra Costa County Residents, 2010
Source: US Census 2010
White, 56%
Hispanic or Latino,
22%
Asian, 11%
Black or African
American, 6%
Other, 5%
13%
14%
12%
13%
15%
14%
10%
5%
4%
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%
Under 10 years
10 to 19 years
20 to 29 years
30 to 39 years
40 to 49 years
50 to 59 years
60 to 69 years
70 to 79 years
80 and over
The US Department of Housing and Urban Development establishes median incomes annually. In 2015, the median
household income in the Oakland – Fremont HUD Municipal Area (which includes Contra Costa County) was $92,900,
down slightly from the 2012 median of $93,500 but up from the 2014 median of $88,500 (HUD 2015). Contra Costa’s
median income is higher than California statewide averages and higher than neighboring Alameda and Solano
Counties.1
As noted by the 2014 Contra Costa Housing Element, single-family homes are the dominant housing type in the
county. In unincorporated areas of the county, single-family units comprise nearly 80% of the entire housing stock.
Multifamily units and mobile homes comprise 14% and 6% of total housing units, respectively. Adequate affordable
housing is a challenge in the county, with an estimated 45% of households (74% of extremely-low income, 65% of
very low-income, and 48% of low-income households) spending more than one-third of their incomes on housing.
Both rental costs and home prices have increased in recent years due to low vacancy rates and increasing regional
housing demand (Contra Costa County 2014).
Contra Costa County is home to emissions from refineries, power plants, and other stationary source facilities.
Although these emissions are largely regulated at a state and federal level, Contra Costa County is working to
understand these sources and to address public health-related climate change issues stemming from these facilities.
As illustrated in Table 1.2, Contra Costa County is home to some of the largest GHG-emitting stationary source
facilities in the state of California. Stationary sources are non-moving, fixed-site producers of pollution such as power
plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, manufacturing facilities, and other industrial facilities (EPA 2010). In 2013, the
unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County had 20 stationary source facilities that were required to report
emissions to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), including the second, ninth, thirteenth, and fifteenth largest
emitters in the state. Emissions from stationary source facilities and from the energy used by those facilities and
other major industrial sites accounted for 93% of all emissions within the unincorporated county in the baseline year
of 2005 and 92% in 2013. Table 1.3 illustrates the 2005 baseline GHG inventory and the 2013 GHG inventory update
with stationary source emissions included. Acknowledging that local governments have little influence or control
over energy use at or emissions from large stationary sources, the state of California has developed a market-based
program created through the AB 32 2006 Scoping Plan, often referred to as the “cap-and-trade” program, designed
to reduce those emissions. In order to identify a GHG reduction target attainable through local action, stationary
source emissions and emissions from energy used at stationary source facilities were excluded from the baseline
GHG inventory and forecasts used in this CAP.
1 According to the 2014 Housing Element, the income profile of the unincorporated county is similar to the incorporated cities in the county;
therefore, countywide data is used as a proxy for the unincorporated county.
#1 Introduction
8 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Table 1.2. Largest GHG Emitting Stationary Sources, Unincorporated Contra Costa County
Facility
Total 2005
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Total 2013 Emissions
(MTCO2e) Facility Type
Shell Oil Products US, Martinez Refinery 3,619,640 4,190,690 Refinery
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Co., Golden Eagle
Refinery 2,097,140 2,443,970 Refinery
Philips 66 (Conoco Phillips) Refinery at Rodeo 1,866,110 1,363,290 Refinery
PG&E Gateway Generating Station 0 1,238,540 Power Plant
Air Liquide 0 884,930 Gas Manufacturing
Crockett Cogeneration Plant 678,010 735,330 Power Plant
Martinez Cogen Limited Partner 412,100 386,220 Power Plant
GWF Power Systems, LP (site 5) 200,690 0 Power Plant
GWF Power Systems, LP (site 4) 190,640 0 Power Plant
GWF Power Systems, LP (site 3) 181,520 0 Power Plant
Source: Environmental Protection Agency 2012
Table 1.3. Unincorporated Contra Costa GHG Emissions including Stationary Sources and
Major Industrial Energy Use
Total 2005 Emissions (MTCO2e) Total 2013 Emissions (MTCO2e)
Stationary sources 13,983,030 11,873,500
Energy use of major industrial facilities 3,344,000 5,026,560
Total of excluded sectors 17,327,030 16,900,060
Emissions from included sectors 1,403,610 1,392,450
Total of included and excluded sectors 18,730,640 18,292,510
Percent of emissions from excluded sectors 93% 92%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Introduction #1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 9
PUBLIC HEALTH
Stationary source emissions have a significant impact on public
health in Contra Costa County. Although the County has limited
power to influence stationary source emissions, public health
impacts may be partially mitigated through cap-and-trade
funding. Some of the revenue generated through the cap-and-
trade program is designated to be returned to communities
where the emissions occur to fund climate change- or pollution-
related projects. In addition to reducing GHG emissions, the
County is also using this CAP to support public health goals. The
Contra Costa County CAP includes:
Indicators that examine the public health benefits of GHG
mitigation strategies.
Healthy community strategies that support County efforts to
address potential public health impacts from climate
change.
Recommendations to further public health goals during CAP implementation.
Chapter 4 provides a summary of public health recommendations.
PREPARATION OF THE CAP
The CAP has built upon early work of the County to plan for climate change, including the Contra Costa County
Climate Protection Report released in 2005, which provided an initial GHG inventory, reported existing County
operations and projects to reduce GHGs emissions, and recommended County operations and actions that could
reduce GHGs emissions in the future.
In 2009, the County was awarded a $3.57 million Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) from the
US Department of Energy. In 2011, the County dedicated a portion of its EECBG funds to prepare a CAP. In support of
this effort, the County updated its GHG inventory and forecasts and developed draft measures to achieve a Year 2020
GHG reduction target consistent with AB 32.
The 2011 effort relied on a comprehensive public participation strategy to engage residents, business owners, and
other stakeholders in identifying and refining goals, programs, activities, and projects to reduce emissions. The public
participation process included two rounds of County-sponsored community workshops. The first round was hosted in
Rodeo, Oakley, and Richmond in June and July 2012, and the second round was hosted in Richmond, Concord, and
Oakley in September 2012. The County maintained a project website to provide access to all workshop and meeting
notices and materials, links to resources, and a forum to submit comments and questions to staff. The County
Disadvantaged Communities
Funds received by the State from the distribution of
emissions allowances as part of the cap-and-trade
program are deposited in the Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Fund. Upon appropriation by the
Legislature, this fund must be used to further
reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Senate Bill
535 (Leon 2012) directed that, in addition to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a quarter of
the proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Fund must also go to projects that provide a
benefit to disadvantaged communities and a
minimum of 10% of the funds must be for projects
located within those communities. The legislation
gives the California Environmental Protection
Agency responsibility for identifying those
communities. As previously mentioned, Figure 1-1
illustrates the areas identified as disadvantaged
communities in Contra Costa County.
#1 Introduction
10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
released the public draft CAP for public review in
December 2012; however, budget and staffing
constraints at the time prevented a final CAP from
being adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
In January 2015, the County reengaged the CAP
project. County staff and the project consultant
assessed the 2012 public draft CAP for consistency
with state regulations and guidance, current County
operations and procedures, and industry best
practices for GHG emissions inventories and climate
action plans. The County also convened an
interdepartmental staff working group to assist with
review and update of the draft CAP. The working
group included representatives from departments
that ultimately would be responsible for implementing the CAP. The group met three times between April and
August 2015 to review preliminary drafts of the CAP to ensure that it was representative of current community
needs, consistent with existing local actions, and feasible for implementation across County departments.
On September 14, 2015, County staff presented a draft CAP to the Board of Supervisors Ad Hoc Committee on
Sustainability. Comments from the committee were incorporated into the public draft CAP released in October 2015.
The County conducted an environmental review of the 2015 draft CAP pursuant to CEQA and the results are
presented in the initial study and negative declaration that were circulated for public review with the draft CAP from
October 29, 2015, to November 30, 2015. The draft CAP and CEQA document were submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for distribution to state agencies and a notice of the documents’ availability was mailed to a list of
nearly 130 recipients including, but not limited to, government agencies, utility providers, business interests, and
environmental organizations.
On November 3, 2015, County staff presented the draft CAP to the Board of Supervisors so that board members
could familiarize themselves with the document and provide comments prior to the CAP coming before the board for
adoption. The final CAP, incorporating comments received at the November 3 hearing, was adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on December 15, 2015.
USING THIS CAP
This CAP serves as the County’s qualified GHG reduction strategy. This CAP provides a GHG emissions inventory, GHG
forecast, GHG reduction target, and a set of strategies to respond to local contributions to climate change. The CAP
focuses especially on the beneficial effects of reducing GHG emissions on public health. The primary objective of this
CAP is to identify the County’s strategy for addressing climate change locally.
Participants provide feedback on reduction measures during the first
round of open houses at public outreach events.
Introduction #1
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 11
GHG REDUCTION MEASURES
The GHG reduction strategy consists of GHG reduction measures and actions
to reduce GHG emissions from community-wide sources. Reduction
measures are organized by key issue or goal area. Each reduction measure is
presented with a set of actions, a summary or description of the measure,
an implementation table, and a summary of reductions and co-benefits.
Emissions reduction measures have been quantified to indicate the
contribution that a measure will have on overall GHG reductions. This
number is presented in metric ton equivalents of carbon dioxide (MTCO2e)
reduced per year. In some cases, the GHG reduction benefit is included in
another strategy. In other instances, measures may not have a direct GHG
reduction benefit, but are critical to the success of other reduction
strategies. In addition to reducing GHG emissions, many measures will
provide numerous co-benefits to the community while furthering the
sustainability goals of the County. The ancillary public health benefits of CAP
measures are analyzed in Chapters 4 and 5, and Appendices A and D.
Implementation details are compiled in a summary implementation table in Chapter 5.The implementation table
identifies the GHG reduction of each measure. In addition, the table includes:
Responsible Department(s): Responsible departments are identified for each measure. In some cases,
involvement from multiple departments may be required to effectively implement the measure.
Implementation Time Frame: The implementation time frame indicated for each measure will assist with
budgetary and decision-making processes and ensure that measures are implemented in a logical order and
timely manner.
Performance Indicators: Indicators provide a quantitative measurement of the progress of each reduction
measure. The progress indicators in the implementation plan are used to demonstrate how participation in a
particular program is related to reaching the GHG reduction target. The progress indicators used in this CAP rely
on data that is already tracked by the County through annual reporting or would be readily available through
partner agencies or data requests to utility providers.
What Is a Metric Ton?
The international reporting standard
for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is in
metric tons. There are 2,204 pounds
per metric ton.
Reducing 10 metric tons (MT) CO2 is
equivalent to:
· Saving 1,125 gallons of gasoline
· Taking 2.1 passenger vehicles off
the road
· 1.4 homes’ worth of electricity for
one year
#1 Introduction
12 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
This page has been intentionally left blank.
Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 13
In order to make meaningful and effective decisions regarding greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, it is important to
understand the scientific and regulatory framework under which this Climate Action Plan (CAP) has been developed.
This chapter provides a brief summary of climate change and its implications, as well as an overview of federal, state,
regional, and local regulations that provide guidance and inform the development of this CAP. This chapter also
explains climate change-related public health impacts; Chapter 4, GHG Reduction Strategy, provides a path to a
more resilient and healthy Contra Costa County through CAP measures.
CLIMATE CHANGE OVERVIEW
Scientific consensus holds that human activity is increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations to levels far above what
would be expected given natural variability. These gases are released as byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, waste
disposal, energy use, land use changes, and other human activities. GHGs, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), create a blanket around the earth that allows light to pass through but traps heat at
the surface, preventing its escape into space. While this is a naturally occurring process known as the greenhouse
effect, human activities have accelerated the generation of GHGs beyond natural levels. The overabundance of GHGs
in the atmosphere has led to an unexpected warming of the earth and has already started impacting the earth’s
climate system.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
GLOBAL IMPACTS
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report summarizes current scientific
understanding of global climate change and projects future climate change using the most comprehensive set of
recognized global climate models (2013). As asserted in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, if trends remain
#2 Scientific 
14
unchanged, continued GHG emissions above current rates will induce further warming changes in the global climate
system and pose even greater risks than those currently witnessed.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN CALIFORNIA
Research suggests that as a result of climate change, California will experience hotter and drier conditions, reductions
in winter snow, increases in winter rains, sea level rise, significant changes to the water cycle, and an increased
occurrence of extreme weather events. Such compounded impacts will affect economic systems throughout the
state. The California Climate Adaptation Strategy estimates that failing to take action to address the potential
impacts of climate change will lead to economic losses of
“expose trillions of dollars of assets to collateral risk” (California Natural Resources Agency 2009). An abridged list of
potential impacts in California due to climate change
Figure 2.1.
Source: California Energy Commission
Scientific & Regulatory Setting
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
unchanged, continued GHG emissions above current rates will induce further warming changes in the global climate
system and pose even greater risks than those currently witnessed.
CTS IN CALIFORNIA
Research suggests that as a result of climate change, California will experience hotter and drier conditions, reductions
in winter snow, increases in winter rains, sea level rise, significant changes to the water cycle, and an increased
ccurrence of extreme weather events. Such compounded impacts will affect economic systems throughout the
state. The California Climate Adaptation Strategy estimates that failing to take action to address the potential
economic losses of “tens of billions of dollars per year in direct costs” and
“expose trillions of dollars of assets to collateral risk” (California Natural Resources Agency 2009). An abridged list of
potential impacts in California due to climate change is presented in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. Climate Change Impacts, 2070-2099
Source: California Energy Commission
Regulatory Setting
unchanged, continued GHG emissions above current rates will induce further warming changes in the global climate
Research suggests that as a result of climate change, California will experience hotter and drier conditions, reductions
in winter snow, increases in winter rains, sea level rise, significant changes to the water cycle, and an increased
ccurrence of extreme weather events. Such compounded impacts will affect economic systems throughout the
state. The California Climate Adaptation Strategy estimates that failing to take action to address the potential
“tens of billions of dollars per year in direct costs” and
“expose trillions of dollars of assets to collateral risk” (California Natural Resources Agency 2009). An abridged list of
Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 15
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Due to the diverse geographical conditions of California, potential impacts to ecosystems, the built environment, and
human activities will vary. This CAP focuses on impacts that are most relevant to Contra Costa County, particularly as
they relate to public health. The county will likely experience more extreme heat events, reduced air quality, changes
in sea level, less predictable water supply, and increases in storm severity and frequency of flood events. Even with
significant efforts to mitigate GHG emissions today, future climate projections anticipate significant effects on
California and Contra Costa County’s precipitation, temperature, and weather patterns, which in turn will have
dramatic impacts on public health.
More Extreme Heat
The State of California Climate Action Team Biennial Report predicts that higher temperatures will increase in
frequency (2009). Higher temperatures can decrease the water supply through increased evaporation rates and
irrigation demand, and lead to an increased incidence of wildfires.
Extreme heat events also have dramatic human health impacts. For example, a heat wave in 2006 directly resulted in
over 140 deaths in California and may have been indirectly responsible for upwards of 600 deaths in the 17-day
period following the event (Margolis et al. 2008). Although the majority of casualties occurred in high temperature
areas, there are health affects due to heat waves in both inland and coastal areas, demonstrating that Contra Costa
County as a whole is at risk. During the 2006 heat wave, residents of Contra Costa County experienced negative
health outcomes (CCHS 2015). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), increased
temperatures and more frequent and severe heat events produce increased risks of heat-related illness and death.
Extreme temperature can exacerbate the following health risks:
Heat aggravating chronic cardiovascular and respiratory disease.
Heat increasing lung injury due to higher ground-level ozone concentrations and increasing the severity of
respiratory diseases (e.g., asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease).
Higher temperatures leading to increased demand for energy, which can strain the electric grid and increase
energy prices. Increases to cost of living can negatively impact the ability of low-income residents to adapt to
higher temperatures, especially from reduced access to air conditioning.
Air Quality
According to Mahmud et al. (2008), the warming climate will increase ozone levels in California’s major air basins,
leading to upwards of 6 to 30 more days per year with ozone concentrations that exceed federal clean air standards.
Cost-effective measures to reduce GHG emissions and protect public health are important for local governments. The
Mahmud study also provides evidence of what is becoming known as the “climate penalty,” where rising
temperatures increase ground-level ozone and airborne health-damaging particles, despite the reductions achieved
by programs targeting smog-forming emissions from cars, trucks, and industrial sources. This is especially true in
eastern Contra Costa County, where ozone levels are highest due to regional wind patterns.
#2 Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
16 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Decreased Supply of Fresh Water
The state’s water supply is already under stress and is anticipated to shrink under even the most conservative climate
change scenario. Warmer average global temperatures cause more rainfall than snowfall, making the winter snowfall
season shorter and accelerating the rate at which the snowpack melts in the spring. The Sierra snowpack is estimated
to experience a 25-40% reduction from its current average by 2050. With rain and snow events becoming less
predictable and more variable, the rate of flooding could increase and California’s ability to store and transport fresh
water for consumption could decrease. Furthermore, warmer weather will lead to longer growing seasons and
increased agricultural demand for water (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).
The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) are the main providers of
water to unincorporated Contra Costa County. EBMUD’s primary water supply comes from the Mokelumne River
watershed on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada; CCWD’s primary water supply comes from the Central Valley
Project, which is supplied by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Both sources of water have the potential to be
impacted by climate change.
Increased Storm Severity and Frequency of Flood Events
Climate change models predict more intense rainfall events, more frequent or extensive runoff, and more frequent
and severe flood events. Localized flood events may increase in periods of heavy rain. As explained by the Climate
Adaptation Strategy, California’s water system is structured and operated to balance between water storage for dry
months and flood protection during rainy seasons (California Natural Resources Agency 2009). Although climate
change is likely to lead to a drier climate overall, risks from regular, more intense rainfall events can generate more
frequent and/or more severe flooding that upsets this managed balance between storage and protection.
Additionally, erosion may increase and water quality may decrease as a result of increased rainfall amounts.
Rising Sea Levels
Sea level rise occurs as a result of rising average ocean temperatures, thermal expansion, and melting of snow and
ice. While many different climate change effects will impact Contra Costa County, sea level rise has been extensively
researched and quantified, allowing for a clearer geographic understanding of its effects. The rate and amount of sea
level rise will be influenced by rising average temperatures and the speed of melting glacial ice. There is a degree of
uncertainty in many projections, and the present rate of sea level rise is faster than many previous projections have
estimated. On average, it is projected that Contra Costa County will experience a 40% increase in acreage vulnerable
to a 100-year flood event between 2000 and 2100 (Cal-Adapt 2015).
Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 17
CLIMATE CHANGE AND PUBLIC HEALTH
The climate change impacts detailed above are likely to have a substantial negative effect on public health outcomes,
including respiratory illnesses from decreased air quality, communicable disease from new vectors, and heat stroke
from extreme heat events, demonstrated in Table 2.1 (California Natural Resources Agency 2009). While climate
change is likely to impact the health of all Contra Costa residents, many aspects will affect some vulnerable groups—
such as low-income people, older people, children, agricultural workers, and others already suffering from poor
health—more than others. Many communities with high concentrations of these vulnerable groups already suffer an
increased burden of chronic disease and are especially vulnerable to the negative health effects of climate change.
For a more extensive discussion on the public health impacts of climate change and how this CAP addresses those
impacts, refer to Appendix A, Health Co-Benefit Evaluation.
Table 2.1. Human Health Effects of Climate Change in California
Climate
Change
Impacts
Health Impacts Population
Most Affected
All Impacts
Mental health disorders (e.g., depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress
disorder, substance abuse) and other conditions caused by:
· Disruption, displacement, and migration
· Loss of home, lives, and livelihood
Healthcare impacts:
· Increased rates of illness and disease, emergency room use, and
related costs borne by employers, health plans, and residents
· Damage to health facilities
All populations
Low income
Healthcare staff
Agricultural
Changes
Changing patterns and yields of crops, pests, and weed species, resulting
in higher prices for food and food insecurity, hunger, and malnutrition
Changes in agriculture/forestry, leading to lost or displaced jobs and
unemployment
Agricultural workers
Rural communities
Low income
Elderly
Children
Air Quality/Air
Pollution
Increased asthma, allergies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
and other cardiovascular and respiratory diseases
Children
Elderly
People with respiratory
diseases
Low income
Those active outdoors
Drought
Hunger and malnutrition caused by disruption in food and water supply
and increased costs
Food- and water-borne disease
Emergence of new contagions and vector-borne disease
Low income
Elderly
Children
#2 Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
18 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Climate
Change
Impacts
Health Impacts Population
Most Affected
Extreme Heat
Premature death
Cardiovascular stress and failure
Heat-related illnesses such as heat stroke, heat exhaustion, and kidney
stones
Elderly
Children
Diabetics
Low-income urban
residents
People with respiratory
diseases
Agricultural workers
Those active outdoors
Increased
Average
Temperature
Cardiovascular disease
Increased number and range of:
· Vector-borne disease, such as West Nile virus, malaria, hantavirus,
or plague
· Water-borne disease, such as cholera and E. coli
· Food-borne disease, such as salmonella poisoning
· Allergies caused by pollen, and rashes from plants such as poison
ivy or stinging nettle
· Vulnerability to wildfire and air pollution
Children
Elderly
Agricultural workers
Those active outdoors
People with respiratory
disease
People with acute allergies
Severe
Weather,
Extreme
Rainfall, Floods,
Water Issues
Population displacement, loss of home and livelihood
Death from drowning
Injuries
Damage to potable water, wastewater, and irrigation systems resulting in
decrease in quality/quantity of water supply and disruption to agriculture
Water- and food-borne diseases from sewage overflow
Coastal residents and
residents in flood prone
areas
Elderly
Children
Low income
Wildfires
Injuries and death from burns and smoke inhalation
Eye and respiratory illnesses due to air pollution
Exacerbation of asthma, allergies, COPD, and other cardiovascular and
respiratory diseases
Risk from erosion and land slippage after wildfires
Displacement and loss of homes
People with respiratory
diseases
Source: California Department of Public Health
All of these climate change impacts are important public health issues in Contra Costa County. Due to industrial
activity in the county and high-volume transportation corridors, air quality is a particularly pressing public health
issue. The following section provides an expanded discussion on air quality and its relation to climate change and
public health.
Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 19
AIR QUALITY AND CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
As noted in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD 2010), air quality and GHG emissions are closely related.
Many of the activities that produce GHGs, including vehicle use, electricity production, burning natural gas, and
industrial processes, also produce what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) refer to as criteria air pollutants.
Criteria air pollutants include particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), particulate matter smaller than 10
microns (PM10), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and ground-level ozone. Ground-
level ozone is created when NOx and reactive organic gases interact with sunlight. Although ozone levels in the Bay
Area have been steadily declining, the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area region is designated as a nonattainment
area for ozone as well as for PM2.5—meaning that the region does not meet state and federal standards. Table 2.2
explains the public health problems and source of each criteria air pollutant.
Table 2.2. Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria Air
Pollutant Explanation and Health Impact Source
PM2.5 and
PM10
Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids
(such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust
particles that are small enough to pass through the throat and nose and
enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and
lungs and cause serious health effects.
Dust, motor vehicles,
combustion processes, industrial
processes
CO CO can cause harmful health effects by reducing oxygen delivery to the
body's organs (like the heart and brain) and tissues.
Combustion processes, motor
vehicles
NOx
NOx is the sum of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). In
addition to combining with TOG to contribute to the formation of
ground-level ozone and fine particle pollution, NO2 is linked with a
number of adverse effects on the respiratory system. Studies also show a
connection between breathing elevated short-term NO2 concentrations,
and increased visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions
for respiratory issues, especially asthma.
Electricity production, industrial
processes, motor vehicles (near-
roadway [within about 50
meters] concentrations of NO2
have been measured to be
approximately 30 to 100%
higher than concentrations
away from roadway)
SO2
Current scientific evidence links short-term exposures to SO2, ranging
from 5 minutes to 24 hours, with an array of adverse respiratory effects
including broncho-constriction and increased asthma symptoms. Studies
also show a connection between short-term exposure and increased
visits to emergency departments and hospital admissions for respiratory
illnesses, particularly in at-risk populations including children, the elderly,
and asthmatics.
Industrial processes, motor
vehicles
Ozone
Ground-level ozone is created by chemical reactions between reactive
organic compounds and NOx in the presence of sunlight. Breathing
ozone can aggravate asthma and other respiratory diseases, irritate the
eyes, reduce visibility, and damage vegetation.
Industrial facilities, electric
utilities, motor vehicle exhaust,
chemical solvents, gasoline
vapors
#2 Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
20 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Ozone is at the center of the climate change, air quality, and public health issue. Children, the elderly, people with
lung diseases such as asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are at risk for adverse effects from ozone.
These effects include reduction in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms as well as respiratory-related
emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and possibly premature deaths. These effects may lead to
increased school absences, medication use, visits to doctors and emergency rooms, and hospital admissions.
Research also indicates that ozone exposure may increase the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease.
Ozone is more likely to reach unhealthy levels on hot sunny days in urban environments. However, ozone can also be
transported long distances by wind; even rural areas can experience high ozone levels. The warming climate will
increase ozone levels in California’s major air basins, causing 6 to 30 more days per year with ozone concentrations
that exceed federal clean air standards (Mahmud et al. 2008). It is estimated that in 2020, California will have nearly
443,000 additional annual cases of acute respiratory symptoms leading to a $729 million increase in healthcare
expenditures as a result of climate change exacerbating ground-level ozone (Perera and Sanford 2011).
Populations at Risk
While climate change will impact the health of all Contra Costa residents, its effects are likely to affect some groups—
such as low-income people, older people, children, agricultural workers, and others already suffering from poor
health—far more than others (CCHS 2015). Due to longstanding inequities in health risks and resource distribution,
these vulnerable groups also have the fewest resources to adapt to a changing climate. Attention, strategies, and
resources are required to address the disproportionate impacts of climate change in vulnerable communities.
REGULATORY SETTING
California established itself as a national climate leader when it adopted GHG emissions reduction targets in 2006
under Assembly Bill (AB) 32. Although AB 32 is the key piece of legislation guiding this CAP, there are numerous other
state and local influences. This section highlights the state and local legislative framework guiding the preparation
and implementation of this CAP.
California Framework
California legislation related to climate change includes AB 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 375, which direct the state and
relevant local agencies to reduce GHG emissions. In addition, state agencies are guided by executive orders that
direct GHG emissions reductions statewide, prioritize climate change adaptation, and provide an overarching
executive framework to address climate change.
California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
AB 32, known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act, requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to
develop regulatory and market mechanisms that will reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (BAAQMD 2010).
Actions include:
Items that can be quickly implemented to achieve GHG reductions through regulating landfill operations, motor
vehicle fuels, car refrigerants, and port operations.
A Scoping Plan that identifies the most technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to achieve emissions
reductions. The Scoping Plan employs direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, incentives,
voluntary actions, and market-based approaches like a cap-and-trade program, and must be updated by CARB
every five years. The Scoping Plan identifies local governments as strategic partners to achieving the state goal
and translates the reduction goal to a 15% reduction of current emissions by 2020.
Regulations to require the state’s largest industrial emitters of GHG to report and verify their GHG emissions on
an annual basis.
CARB issued its first Scoping Plan in 2009, and the first Scoping Plan update in 2014. This most recent update
identifies progress made to date, recommends additional actions to meet the statewide reduction goal, and states
the need for establishing a GHG emissions reduction goal beyond 2020, although a post-2020 goal is not set by this
update. The updated Scoping Plan also revises the method used to quantify GHG emissions, relying on more recent
scientific data concerning the potency of different GHGs by determining their global warming potential (GWP).
SB 375 aims to reduce GHG emissions by linking transportation funding to land use planning, with an aim to minimize
vehicle miles traveled. It requires metropolitan planning organizations, like the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG), to create sustainable communities strategies (SCS) in their regional transportation plans for the purpose of
reducing urban sprawl. Each SCS is required to demonstrate how the region will achieve the GHG emissions reduction
target set by CARB for 2020 and 2035. In 2013, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG
adopted the final Plan Bay Area, which includes the region’s SCS and the 2040 Regional Transportation Plan.
Plan Bay Area highlights Contra Costa County as an important hub for future job and population growth in the Bay
Area. Plan Bay Area identifies Priority Development Areas (PDA). Generally, PDAs are areas of at least 100 acres
where there is local commitment to developing housing, amenities, and services to meet the needs of residents in a
pedestrian-friendly environment served by transit. There are five PDAs in unincorporated Contra Costa County. Three
of these PDAs, Contra Costa Centre, Pittsburg/Bay Point BART, and West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory
Committee San Pablo Avenue Corridor, are already planned. Two other potential PDAs, North Richmond and
Downtown El Sobrante, are located in the planning area (ABAG 2015). These PDAs concentrate growth in mixed-use,
transit-oriented corridors, allowing for reduced emissions, healthier communities, and more land preserved for
conservation. This CAP includes policies that support the transit- and pedestrian-oriented developments identified by
the region’s SCS.
In addition to AB 32 and SB 375, the state has enacted legislation related to transportation and vehicle efficiencies,
energy-efficient building and appliances, renewable energy portfolios, renewable energy access, water conservation,
and solid waste reduction and recycling.
#2 Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
22 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05
EO S-3-05 establishes the following greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets:
By 2010, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 2000 levels.
By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.
By 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
In addition to AB 32 and SB 375, the state has enacted legislation related to transportation and vehicle efficiencies,
energy-efficient buildings and appliances, renewable energy portfolios, renewable energy access, water
conservation, and solid waste reduction and recycling (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3. California Regulatory Framework
Law Year
Passed Description Topic
AB 1493 2002 Requires CARB to achieve passenger vehicles and light-duty
trucks GHG reductions
Transportation and Vehicle
Efficiencies
EO S-1-07 2007 Establishes Low Carbon Fuel Standard Transportation and Vehicle
Efficiencies
SB 375 2008 Requires CARB to set regional GHG reduction targets for
passenger vehicles
Transportation and Vehicle
Efficiencies
SB 1078 2002 Establishes the California Renewables Portfolio Standard
Program Energy and Renewables
SB 1368 2006 Limits long-term investments in power plants that exceed
emissions standards Energy and Renewables
Title 24
Updates
2010 &
2012
Increases energy and water efficiency in the state building
code Energy and Renewables
SB X-1-2 2011 Codifies CARB's 33% Renewables Portfolio Standard Energy and Renewables
AB 1881 2006 Mandates landscaping water conservation for new and
existing development Water Conservation
AB 1420 2007 Requires urban water suppliers to implement water
demand management measures Water Conservation
SB X7.7 2009 Sets reduction targets for per capita urban water use Water Conservation
SB 407 2009 Sets water-efficiency standards during retrofit Water Conservation
AB 939 1989 &
2011
Creates the Integrated Waste Management Board; requires
local jurisdictions to meet waste diversion goals Waste and Recycling
SB 1016 2008 Changes statutory waste diversion mandates progress
measurement from absolute to per capita Waste and Recycling
Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 23
Cap-and-Trade
Emissions from oil refineries and power plants are regulated at the regional and state levels. This regulatory
environment makes it difficult for the County to control or influence the sector that produces the majority of GHG
emissions except through participating in the cap-and-trade programs administered by the state or through
conditions and mitigation measures placed in land-use permits. Cap-and-trade is a market-based approach to
reducing GHG emissions. In California, the Cap-and-Trade Program sets an enforceable limit, or the cap, on the
amount of emissions that can be produced by large industrial emitters. The program then authorizes a number of
permits that allow additional emissions that can then be traded, bought, or sold.
Cap-and-trade programs enable industrial emitters to reduce overall emissions and to invest in cleaner fuels and
energy efficiency. The AB 32 Scoping Plan update identifies California’s Cap-and-Trade Program as a key component
in reaching the state’s near- and long-term GHG emissions targets. California’s Cap-and-Trade Program has been
designed by CARB in conjunction with stakeholders through a multiyear process and calls for a statewide limit on the
sources that create 85% of California’s GHG emissions including electricity generation, large industrial sources,
transportation fuels, and residential and commercial use of natural gas. Starting in 2013, the CARB program began
regulating utilities and large industrial facilities with a cap 2% below 2012 emissions levels. Starting in 2015, fuel
distributors were also brought under the cap. CARB estimates that the Cap-and-Trade Program will generate about
$1 billion in state revenue from the auction of emissions allowances for 2012-13, and possibly up to $10 billion
annually by 2020.
Several pieces of legislation, including AB 1532 and SB 535, seek to allocate cap-and-trade revenue for programs that
reduce pollution in disproportionately impacted communities. AB 1532, the California Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, addresses how funds related to market-based compliance mechanisms,
such as cap-and-trade, can be used. The bill requires administering agencies to allocate these funds to measures and
programs that meet specific criteria, including:
Areas that are in close proximity to sources that produce toxic air levels, pollution, and other hazards that can
lead to negative public health effects.
Areas that contain or produce materials that pose a significant hazard to human health and safety.
Areas with a concentration of people that experience low income, high unemployment, low levels of
homeownership, high-rent burden, and other socioeconomic challenges.
The bill also stipulates that the California Environmental Protection Agency must develop a method for the
identification of priority communities for investment opportunities based on a variety of geographic,
socioeconomic, and environmental factors. SB 535 builds off AB 1532 and requires 25% of the available funds to
go to projects that provide benefits to disadvantaged communities, and that 10% of the available funds go to
projects located within disadvantaged communities. These funds may be allocated to disadvantaged
communities through projects that reduce pollution and develop clean energy. In addition to identifying
strategies to reduce local emissions, this CAP includes policies to support local programs that could be funded by
potential cap-and-trade revenue.
#2 Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
24 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CEQA Guidelines
SB 97 was adopted in 2007 and directed the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the CEQA
Guidelines to address GHG emissions. The CEQA Guidelines prepared by OPR were adopted in December 2009 and
went into effect March 18, 2010. The updated guidelines include provisions for local governments to use adopted
plans for the reduction of GHG emissions to address the cumulative impacts of individual future projects on GHG
emissions (see State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1)). In order to benefit from the streamlining provisions of
the updated CEQA Guidelines, a CAP for the reduction of GHG emissions must accomplish the following:
Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from activities within
a defined geographic area.
Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG emissions from activities
covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within
the geographic area.
Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence
demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions
level.
Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the specified level and to require an
amendment if the plan is not achieving specified levels.
Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
BAAQMD Guidance
In response to the updated CEQA Guidelines, BAAQMD has adopted thresholds of significance for GHG emissions.
These thresholds are used by local governments in the environmental review process for plans and projects and may
streamline the environmental review process.
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were updated in 2010 to include guidance on assessing GHG and climate
change impacts as required under CEQA Section 15183.5(b) and to establish thresholds of significance for impacts
related to GHG emissions. These thresholds can be used to determine that a project’s impact on GHG emissions is
less than significant if it is in compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. Air districts such as BAAQMD do
not officially certify Qualified GHG Reduction Strategies, but they play a critical role in providing support to local
communities.
This CAP follows both the CEQA Guidelines and the BAAQMD guidelines by incorporating the standard elements of a
Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. Appendix B describes in detail how the County’s CAP satisfies BAAQMD’s
requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy and will allow the County to determine that a development
project has a less than significant impact on GHG emissions if it complies with the CAP.
Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 25
EXISTING EFFORTS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
In 2005 the County established a Climate Change Working Group to coordinate County efforts to respond to climate
change, and to guide practices that result in more sustainable actions. Many County policies and initiatives support
this CAP, including:
The 2007 Municipal Climate Action Plan.
Energy conservation policies and programs designed to reduce energy demand through a home weatherization
programs and green building guidelines.
Alternative energy policies that will reduce GHG emissions through supporting appropriate renewable energy
projects and encouraging energy recovery projects.
A comprehensive approach to water conservation.
Transportation policies that support a balanced transportation system including bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and
carpooling facilities, transportation and parking demand management, and support for rail and bus transit.
Waste reduction strategies that reduce landfill disposal by supporting recycling and waste diversion.
Land use policies that encourage transit-oriented, mixed-use, and infill development, and support local
agricultural operations and production.
Participation in regional energy efficiency efforts, such as the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN).
A more detailed list of existing County policies and practices that support the reduction of GHG emissions from
community-wide sources are identified in Appendix C.
#2 Scientific & Regulatory Setting #2
26 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
This page has been intentionally left blank.
GHG Inventory & Forecast #3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 27
INTRODUCTION
The greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) inventory identifies the major sources of GHG emissions from activities
occurring within unincorporated Contra Costa County. This chapter presents the results of 2005 inventory, which will
serve as a baseline against which future progress can be measured, and a 2013 inventory, which will assist with the
assessment of measure interim progress toward future GHG reduction targets. The chapter also presents the results
of the forecasts of GHG emissions for the years 2020 and 2035. Specifically, this chapter:
Presents GHG emissions from community-wide activities in the calendar years of 2005 and 2013.
Identifies GHG emissions from activities which the County can reasonably influence, and excludes all other
sources that are primarily regulated by other agencies (e.g., major industrial facilities).
Summarizes GHG emissions by sector to compare the relative impact between sectors.
Provides forecasts of how emissions will grow in the community under various scenarios.
Provides County decision-makers and the community with adequate baseline and forecast information to inform
policy decisions.
INVENTORY BACKGROUND
As recommended by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, many communities in California use the US
Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (the US Community Protocol) to
identify and assess GHG emissions. This protocol provides guidance on how to measure and report community-wide
GHG emissions, including identification of relevant sources or activities and methods used to calculate emissions. The
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has also issued a GHG Plan Level Quantification Guidance
document, which provides guidance for Bay Area communities to develop GHG inventories. The 2005 and 2013
inventories are consistent with the recommended practices in these two documents. In accordance with the US
#3 Climate Action Plan
28 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Community Protocol and BAAQMD guidance, these
inventories include emissions from the following sources,
or sectors:
Residential energy: Electricity and natural gas used in
residential buildings.
Nonresidential energy: Electricity and natural gas
used in nonresidential buildings, including offices,
retail stores, government facilities, institutional
facilities, and some industrial buildings.
Solid waste: Emissions from waste produced in the
county for the inventory year.
Landfills: Emissions from the decomposition of waste
deposited in landfills from prior years.
On-road transportation: On-road vehicle trips,
including cars and trucks.
Off-road equipment: Portable equipment and
vehicles not used for transportation on roads,
including construction and landscaping equipment.
Water and wastewater: Energy used to pump and
treat water and wastewater, and emissions from the
processing of wastewater.
BART: Energy used by BART trips beginning or ending
in the unincorporated area.
Agriculture: Emissions from fertilizer use, farming
equipment, and the digestive processes of livestock.
In addition to the above activities and GHG sources, the
County identified GHG emissions from the following
sources as informational items:
Stationary Source GHG Emissions—Direct process emissions and energy used by industrially classified uses
including petroleum refineries, power plants, chemical manufacturing plants, and wastewater treatment plants
in the unincorporated county.
Energy Use by Major Industrial Facilities—Electricity and natural gas use by refineries, chemical facilities, and
major manufacturing plants in the unincorporated county.
Stationary Sources
Contra Costa County is home to some of the largest GHG-
emitting stationary source facilities in the state of
California. Stationary sources are nonmoving sources,
fixed-site producers of pollution such as power plants,
chemical plants, oil refineries, manufacturing facilities, and
other industrial facilities. Emissions from stationary source
facilities and from the energy required to power those
facilities accounted for the majority of all emissions within
the unincorporated county.
Acknowledging that local governments have little
influence over energy use at or emissions from stationary
sources, the state of California has developed a market-
based program created through the Assembly Bill (AB) 32
2006 Scoping Plan, often referred to as the “cap-and-trade”
program. In order to identify a GHG reduction target
attainable through local action, stationary source
emissions and emissions from energy used at stationary
source facilities were not included in the baseline
inventory used in this CAP.
Stationary sources, such as this refinery near Martinez, are
some of the biggest GHG emitters in the county.
GHG Inventory & Forecast #3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 29
The stationary source totals identified by BAAQMD for facilities in unincorporated Contra Costa County, as well as the
electricity and natural gas used by these facilities, have been excluded from the County’s GHG inventory as they are
existing sources regulated by BAAQMD and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). For a more detailed discussion
of how these sources were analyzed and excluded from the baseline inventory, see Appendix C.
DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND ANALYSIS
The GHG emissions inventory starts with collecting activity data for each sector listed above, such as the kilowatt-
hours (kWh) of electricity used or therms of natural gas used for the residential, commercial, and industrial energy
sectors, the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the transportation sector, or million gallons of water used by the
community in a single calendar year. These activities are converted into GHG emissions using an emissions factor or
coefficient. These emissions factors are supplied by the energy provider or emissions modeling software and indicate
the GHGs that are emitted for every kWh produced, mile traveled, or ton of waste disposed.
The inventory measures three primary GHG emissions: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).
These GHGs are then converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), enabling the County to consider different GHGs
in comparable terms. The conversion is done by comparing the global warming potential (GWP) of each gas relative
to CO2. For example, a single metric ton (MT) of methane traps 28 times as much heat over a 100-year time frame as
a ton of CO2, meaning that the GWP of methane is 28. As a result, a single MT of methane is equal to 28 MTCO2e.
Similarly, nitrous oxide has a GWP of 265, and so a single MT of nitrous oxide is equal to 265 MTCO2e. The values of
GWPs change as a result of improved scientific research and understanding. The GWPs used in this inventory are
from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC).
2005 BASELINE INVENTORY RESULTS
This section provides a brief overview of the 2005 baseline GHG emissions for unincorporated Contra Costa County.
For a more detailed explanation of how each sector of GHG emissions was calculated, see Appendix C. In 2005,
activities in the unincorporated county and within the County’s jurisdictional land use control generated
approximately 1,403,610 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e).
On-road transportation was the largest source of 2005 GHG emissions in Contra Costa County, contributing
approximately 628,200 MTCO2e, or 45% of emissions. The next-largest source of emissions, residential energy use,
contributed approximately 274,960 MTCO2e, or 20% of emissions. Landfills were the third-largest sector, contributing
193,950 MTCO2e or 14% of emissions. The nonresidential energy use sector was the fourth-largest emissions source,
contributing 118,740 MTCO2e (8%); off-road emissions were the fifth-largest emissions source (71,880 MTCO2e, or
5%); agriculture was the sixth-largest emissions source (57,320 MTCO2e, or 4%). The solid waste, water and
wastewater, and BART sectors represented 3%, 1%, and less than 1% of emissions, respectively. Figure 3.1 shows
2005 emissions by sector, while Table 3.1 shows 2005 activity data and emissions by sector and subsector.
#3 Climate Action Plan
30 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Figure 3.1. 2005 GHG Emissions by Sector
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Table 3.1. 2005 Activity Data and GHG Emissions by Sector and Subsector
Sector Subsector Activity Data Unit MTCO2e Total
MTCO2e
Percent of
Total
MTCO2e
Residential
energy
Residential electricity 488,236,740 kWh 110,120
274,690 20%
Residential natural gas 30,919,160 Therms 164,570
Nonresidential
energy
Nonresidential electricity 284,558,070 kWh 64,180
118,740 8%
Nonresidential natural gas 10,251,360 Therms 54,560
Solid waste Waste disposed 170,780 Tons disposed 48,450 48,450 3%
Landfill Waste in place 34,455,010 Tons in place 193,9500 193,950 14%
On-road
transportation On-road transportation 1,291,819,230 Annual VMT 628,200 628,200 45%
Off-road
equipment
Lawn and garden equipment - None 3,820
71,880 5%
Construction equipment - None 68,060
Water and
wastewater
Indirect water use 26,443,770 kWh 5,960
8,080 1% Indirect wastewater use 6,199,120 kWh 1,400
Direct wastewater emissions - None 720
BART BART trips 38,111,050 Passenger miles 2,300 2,300 <1%
Agriculture
Fertilizer application 200,980 Crop acres 3,920
57,320 4% Agriculture equipment - None 23,960
Livestock 16,500 Heads of livestock 29,440
TOTAL 1,403,610 100%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
MTCO2e
Residential energy
20%
Nonresidential energy
8%
Solid waste
3%
Landfill
14%
On-road transportation
45%
Off-road equipment
5%
BART
<1%
Agriculture
4%
Water and wastewater
1%
GHG Inventory & Forecast #3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 31
2013 INVENTORY UPDATE
The 2013 inventory provides an interim update toward the 2020 GHG reduction target and identifies how sources of
emissions have changed since 2005, which can help direct future GHG reduction policies. In 2013, activities in the
unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County within the County’s jurisdictional control resulted in 1,392,450
MTCO2e, a 1% decrease from 2005 levels.
The on-road emissions sector was again the largest, contributing 651,130 MTCO2e, or 47% of the county’s emissions.
Residential energy was the second-largest source of emissions with approximately 258,420 MTCO2e or 19% of
emissions, followed by landfills with approximately 196,500 MTCO2e or 14% of emissions. Nonresidential energy was
the fourth-largest source of emissions with approximately 125,350 MTCO2e (9%); off-road equipment contributed
approximately 66,230 MTCO2e (5%) and agriculture contributed approximately 58,200 MTCO2e (4%). The smallest
sources of emissions, solid waste, water and wastewater, and BART, were responsible for 2%, 1%, and less than 1% of
emissions, respectively. 2013 emissions by sector are shown in Figure 3.2, and activity data and emissions by
subsector for 2013 are shown in Table 3.2. Table 3.3 shows the difference in emissions by sector between 2005 and
2013.
Figure 3.2. 2013 GHG Emissions by Sector
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
MTCO2e
Residential energy
19%
Nonresidential energy
9%
Solid waste
2%
Landfill
14%
On-road transportation
47%
Off-road equipment
5%
BART
<1%
Agriculture
4%
Water and wastewater
1%
#3 Climate Action Plan
32 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Table 3.2. 2013 Activity Data and GHG Emissions by Sector and Subsector
Sector Subsector Activity
Data Unit MTCO2e Total
MTCO2e
Percent of
Total MTCO2e
Residential
energy
Residential electricity 478,219,710 kWh 93,380
258,420 19%
Residential natural gas 31,007,110 Therms 165,040
Nonresidential
energy
Nonresidential electricity 266,216,660 kWh 51,980
125,350 9%
Nonresidential natural gas 13,784,410 Therms 73,370
Solid waste Waste disposed 92,780 Tons disposed 26,540 26,540 2%
Landfill Waste in place 41,785,650 Tons in place 196,500 196,500 14%
On-road
transportation On-road transportation 1,349,279,980 Annual VMT 651,130 651,130 47%
Off-road
equipment
Lawn and garden
equipment - None 3,180
66,230 5%
Construction equipment - None 63,050
Water and
wastewater
Indirect water use 28,004,290 kWh 5,470
7,400 1% Indirect wastewater use 6,198,590 kWh 1,210
Direct wastewater emissions - None 720
BART BART trips 44,417,320 Passenger miles 2,680 2,680 <1%
Agriculture
Fertilizer application 204,030 Crop acres 4,280
58,200 4% Agriculture equipment - None 18,910
Livestock 19,110 Heads of
livestock 35,010
TOTAL 1,392,450 100%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Table 3.3. Comparison of 2005 and 2013 GHG Emissions by Sector
Sector 2005 MTCO2e 2013 MTCO2e Percent Change,
2005–2013
Residential energy 274,690 258,420 -6%
Nonresidential energy 118,740 125,350 6%
Solid waste 48,450 26,540 -45%
Landfill 193,950 196,500 1%
On-road transportation 628,200 651,130 4%
Off-road equipment 71,880 66,230 -8%
Water and wastewater 8,080 7,400 -8%
BART 2,300 2,680 17%
Agriculture 57,320 58,200 2%
Total 1,403,610 1,392,450 -1%
GHG Inventory & Forecast #3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 33
GHG EMISSIONS FORECAST
A GHG emissions forecast is an estimate of how emissions will change in the future based on anticipated population
and jobs growth in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, absent of any actions taken at the federal,
state, regional, or local level to reduce emissions. This forecast is often referred to as a business-as-usual forecast. A
GHG emissions forecast allows elected officials, County staff, and community members to determine the volume of
reductions needed to meet GHG reduction goals.
Consistent with state and regional guidance, as well as widely accepted forecasting methods including the
Association of Environmental Professionals white paper on GHG forecasts, the GHG emissions forecast for Contra
Costa County assumes that per capita activity data remains constant at 2005 baseline levels. Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) demographic growth projections is the primary data source used to forecast GHG emissions.
These growth projections are given in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4. ABAG Projections for Unincorporated Contra Costa County, 2005–2035
2005 2013 2020 2035 2005–2035 Change
Population 159,650 162,230 166,100 173,500 6%
Households 57,980 58,550 59,720 61,740 9%
Jobs 41,270 43,210 47,670 50,330 22%
Service
Population 200,920 205,440 213,770 223,830 11%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments 2009, 2013
The anticipated growth scenario identified by ABAG for unincorporated Contra Costa County provides the basis for
the County’s GHG emissions forecast for the years 2020 and 2035. Emissions in 2020 are forecasted to increase to
1,483,720 MTCO2e, a 6% increase from 2005 levels. Emissions in 2035 are projected to rise to 1,545,980 MTCO2e, a
10% increase from 2005 levels. Table 3.5 shows emissions by sector for the 2005 baseline inventory and the two
forecasted years.
#3 Climate Action Plan
34 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Table 3.5. GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005–2035
Sector 2005 MTCO2e 2013 MTCO2e 2020 MTCO2e 2035 MTCO2e Percent Change,
2005–2035
Residential energy 274,690 258,420 282,930 292,500 6%
Nonresidential energy 118,740 125,350 137,150 144,810 22%
Solid waste 48,450 26,540 51,550 53,970 11%
Landfill 193,950 196,500 204,560 218,560 13%
On-road transportation 628,200 651,130 662,820 687,370 9%
Off-road equipment 71,880 66,230 76,340 79,890 11%
Water and wastewater 8,080 7,400 8,600 9,000 11%
BART 2,300 2,680 2,450 2,560 11%
Agriculture 57,320 58,200 57,320 57,320 0%
TOTAL 1,403,610 1,392,450 1,483,720 1,545,980 10%
Percent Change from
2005 - -1% 6% 10% -
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Emissions associated with energy, water, wastewater, BART, solid waste, and off-road equipment are anticipated to
grow linearly with household, employment, and service population growth. Emissions from the landfill subsector
were forecasted using the landfill modeling software developed by CARB to estimate net fugitive methane emissions
in 2020 and 2035, based on the total amount of waste disposed in the landfills located in the unincorporated county.
On-road VMT in the GHG forecast were modeled using the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Travel Demand
Forecasting Model and include regional transportation improvements identified in the Comprehensive
Transportation Project List.
EXISTING STATE GHG REDUCTION PROGRAMS
The state of California has been proactive in reducing GHG emissions. Several regulations and efforts at the state
level will lessen Contra Costa County’s future GHG emissions, including vehicle standards, building standards, and the
renewable energy content of electricity. As a result, an initial step in the assessment of GHG reductions in the
unincorporated county is to apply the potential effects of these activities on Contra Costa County’s forecasted
emissions. The state programs analyzed are limited to those programs that have been formally adopted the state
legislature and governor and implemented by state agencies, except as noted. These results are detailed in Table 3.6.
The state programs evaluated in the forecast are briefly discussed below, and explained in more detail in Appendix C.
GHG Inventory & Forecast #3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 35
California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)
Governor Jerry Brown established a goal to increase the RPS, which is the percentage of electricity delivered in
California generated by renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal, to 50% by 2030. On September 11, 2015,
the California legislature passed Senate Bill 350 to codify the governor’s executive order. The forecast in this Plan
assumes the RPS goal of 50% by 2030.
AB 1493 Clean Car Standards and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard
California’s Clean Car Standards were established by AB 1493 in 2002, requiring new passenger vehicles to reduce
tailpipe GHG emissions from 2009 to 2020. These standards are also often referred to as the Pavley standards, after
State Senator Fran Pavley, who authored AB 1493 when she was a member of the state assembly. A related program,
the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), establishes a goal of a 10% reduction in carbon intensity in transportation fuels.
Reductions from the Clean Car Standards and the LCFS were calculated using the EMFAC2011 modeling software
created by CARB.
Title 24, Energy Efficiency Standards
California’s Title 24 (CalGreen) energy standards are updated every few years (the most recent update went into
effect on July 1, 2014). These are statewide standards applied at the local level by city and county agencies through
project review. The California Energy Commission (CEC) provides information on the energy efficiency of each new
set of Title 24 standards relative to the previous standards. The calculation of CalGreen energy reductions assumes
that all development occurring after 2005 will comply with the version of the Title 24 standards which apply at the
time of construction. It also assumes that all growth in natural gas and electricity sectors is from new construction.
Table 3.6. Expected GHG Reductions from State Policies, 2020 and 2035
State Policy or Program 2020 (MTCO2e) 2035 (MTCO2e)
Renewables Portfolio Standard -41,620 -78,030
Clean Car Standard and LCFS -173,480 -236,270
Title 24 Standards -2,840 -7,970
TOTAL -217,940 -322,270
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
The regulations implemented by the state will have a profound impact on Contra Costa’s GHG emissions. As shown in
Table 3.7, reductions from state activities are expected to reduce emissions below baseline levels by 2020, and to
continue to decrease emissions by 2035 despite population growth.
#3 Climate Action Plan
36 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Table 3.7. GHG Emissions with State Reduction Actions, 2005–2035
Sector 2005 (MTCO2e) 2013 (MTCO2e) 2020 (MTCO2e) 2035 (MTCO2e) Percent Change,
2005–2035
Residential energy 274,690 258,420 257,310 242,280 -12%
Nonresidential energy 118,740 125,350 119,980 112,170 -6%
Solid waste 48,450 26,540 51,550 53,970 11%
Landfill 193,950 196,500 204,560 218,560 13%
On-road transportation 628,200 651,130 489,340 451,100 -28%
Off-road equipment 71,880 66,230 76,340 79,890 11%
Water and wastewater 8,080 7,400 6,930 5,860 -27%
BART 2,300 2,680 2,450 2,560 11%
Agriculture 57,320 58,200 57,320 57,320 0%
TOTAL 1,403,610 1,392,450 1,265,620 1,223,170 -13%
Percent Change from
2005 - -1% -10% -13% -
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
GHG Inventory & Forecast #3
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 37
GHG REDUCTION TARGETS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require that a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy contain
a goal for substantive GHG reductions. The CEQA Guidelines do not identify GHG reduction targets or reduction
target years; the State’s GHG reduction targets and target years are established through executive order and statute
and codified in state codes, regulations, and implementation programs. The key targets and target years are noted in
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Executive Order (EO) 1-03-05, and EO B-30-15.
- EO S-03-05, signed by former Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, establishes a statewide GHG reduction goal
of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
- The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) established a statewide GHG reduction goal of returning
to 1990 levels by 2020. The AB 32 Scoping Plan provides the State’s strategy to achieve the AB 32 reduction
goal and documents progress toward the goal through updates. The first Scoping Plan, released in 2008 and
approved in 2011, recommends a greenhouse gas emissions target for local government municipal and
community-wide emissions of a 15% reduction from current levels by 2020 to parallel the State’s target. Best
practice for local climate action planning has interpreted “current” year to be a baseline year of 2005, 2006,
or 2007, with 2005 being the most commonly used year.
- EO-B-30-15, signed by Governor Brown in 2015, establishes a statewide GHG reduction goal of 40% below
1990 levels by 2030.
This Plan presents a 2020 GHG reduction target consistent with AB 32 and the AB 32 Scoping Plan, which is to reduce
community-wide emissions 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. The Plan also provides a set of GHG reduction measures
to achieve the 2020 reduction target.
In addition, the CAP forecasts the potential GHG emissions and estimated GHG reductions from proposed measures
through 2035. A potential option for the County’s 2035 goal is one that reduces emissions to the level specified in EO
B-30-15 by 2030 and then continues to reduce on a trajectory that would meet the 2050 target. For 2035, such a goal
is equal to 50% below 1990 levels, or approximately 57% below baseline levels. Table 3.8 and Figure 3.3 show the
difference between the baseline, forecast, and forecast with state reductions relative to the recommended goals,
along with the volume of GHG reductions needed from local activities. Chapter 4 provides a GHG reduction strategy
to achieve the goals identified in this chapter.
#3 Climate Action Plan
38 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Table 3.8. Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecasts, and Reduction Goals
2020 MTCO2e 2035 MTCO2e
2005 Baseline Emissions 1,403,610 1,403,610
Forecasted Emissions 1,483,720 1,545,980
Forecasted Emissions Minus Estimated Statewide Reductions 1,265,620 1,223,170
Reduction Target 1,193,070 596,540
Local Reductions Needed -72,550 -626,630
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Figure 3.3. Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecasts, and Reduction Goals
500,000
700,000
900,000
1,100,000
1,300,000
1,500,000
2005 2013 2020 2035MTCO2e
State Actions Forecast Progress to target
Baseline Level
2020 Goal
2035 Goal
2035reductions
from state actions:
322,810 MTCO2e.
2035 reductions
needed from local
actions:
626,630 MTCO2e.
This chapter details actions and policies that Contra Costa County can use to achieve necessary greenhouse gas
(GHG) reductions. Additionally, this chapter identifies how the suggested reduction measures will also increase public
health in Contra Costa County. The reduction measures in this Climate Action Plan (CAP) provide a diverse mix of
programs for both new and existing development. The reduction measures also aim to reduce GHG emissions from
each sector to avoid reliance on any one strategy or sector to achieve the target.
In order to achieve the state-recommended reduction target of 15% below 2005 emissions levels by 2020, Contra
Costa County will implement the goals, policies, and actions set forth in this chapter. The County’s strategy is
structured around the following six topic areas:
Each topic area has a corresponding goal, reduction measures, and supporting actions necessary for implementation.
The process for developing GHG reduction measures includes a review of existing policies, activities, and programs,
identification of topic areas or goals, and preliminary reduction measure language with performance targets and
indicators. Preliminary measures are then refined and evaluated for political, technical, and financial feasibility (see
Figure 4.1). Finally, a path to the successful implementation of each GHG reduction measure is identified by
determining the GHG reduction benefit, the time frame for implementation, potential sources of funding, the
department responsible for implementation, and the additional benefits, or co-benefits that may occur from the
implementation of each measure.
The GHG reduction benefit of each measure is determined by changes in operation, activity, or efficiency. In general,
there are three types of reductions in climate action plans: (1) avoided emissions (e.g., walk instead of drive), (2)
greater efficiency (e.g., drive an electric vehicle), and (3) sequestration (e.g., increase carbon storage through
planting trees). GHG reduction estimates are identified for 2020 and 2035.
The information used to estimate GHG emissions reductions is summarized in Figure 4.2. The baseline GHG inventory
and forecast serves as the foundation for quantifying the County’s GHG reduction measures. Activity data from the
inventory (e.g., vehicle miles traveled and kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity) is combined with the performance
targets and indicators identified in this CAP to calculate the GHG reduction benefit of each measure. This approach
ensures that the County’s GHG reductions are tied to the baseline and future activities in Contra Costa County.
Whenever possible, emissions reduction estimates are based on tools and reports provided by government agencies
such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California EPA, California Energy Commission (CEC), California
Air Resources Board (CARB), California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), and local air districts. If
accurate reduction estimates are not available through these tools, a case study with comparable characteristics may
be used. Finally, for long-range reduction measures that lack on-the-ground testing or analysis, current scholarly and
peer-reviewed research is combined with knowledge of existing County practices to create a defensible estimate of
future emissions reductions.
To demonstrate the types of information and performance indicators that go into quantifying each measure, a
detailed example calculation is provided in Table 4.1.
The method for determining the GHG reduction benefit from each measure is detailed in the GHG Technical
Appendix D, which summarizes the sources and assumptions used to estimate the GHG reductions from ea ch
measure.
In order to ensure successful implementation and evaluation of the GHG reduction measures included in this CAP,
the following criteria have been identified in this CAP or the associated implementation matrix (Chapter 5).
GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) are estimated, as explained above, and reported for 2020 and 2035.
Supportive Measures are measures without identified GHG reductions. Measures that are not quantified because
their implementation directly supports other measures are labeled “Supportive of (Measure Title).” Measures that
are not quantified because no defensible quantification method exists for unincorporated Contra Costa County are
labeled “Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions.” These measures may become quantifiable as research, technology,
and methods progress.
Implementation Time Frame is identified for each measure based on community priorities, local goals, and the
availability of technological innovations to implement each measure. Time frames will be presented as a range similar
to the following:
Implementing Department/Responsible Agencies will identify the County department that will be responsible for
implementing each measure, securing funding resources, reporting on annual progress, and coordinating with the
supporting agencies.
Supporting Agencies are the public and private local and regional entities that will be a partner or lead in the
implementation of certain actions. Examples of supporting agencies to Contra Costa County include the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG), the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), Contra Costa County Climate Leaders,
and other municipal organizations in the county.
Community Co-Benefits will be included to identify the ancillary benefits that each measure may have for the
community. Potential co-benefits will be identified if the policy (1) conserves energy, (2) improves air quality, (3)
supports local economy, (4) reduces water use, (5) provides educational opportunities, (6) saves money, (7) improves
mobility, (8) improves community livability, (9) conserves resources, (10) improves public health, or (11) improves
community resiliency to climate change.
Public Health Priority Benefits will be included to demonstrate where the community would experience a positive
impact on healthy living. These measures include elements determined by Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) to
provide the highest benefit to human health in the county.
In this CAP, reduction measures and public health measures are closely tied. Many of the GHG reduction measures
reduce GHG emissions and have public health co-benefits. Healthy community measures, identified in Chapter 5,
address the public health impacts of a changing climate, but do not have GHG emissions reductions as the primary
goal. Public health measures of this type are commonly referred to as “adaptive measures” because they help the
county adapt to a changing climate.
This chapter explains the actions already taken to encourage a more resilient and healthy Contra Costa County and
proposes seven additional measures to ensure that climate change-related public health responses are adequately
incorporated into future planning efforts.
While this CAP focuses on reducing GHG emissions, many of the proposed policies have secondary benefits to public
health. By including health considerations in the CAP, the County has the ability to target implementation efforts to
realize potential health benefits. To paraphrase from Perera and Sanford (2011), the good news is that both health-
harming air pollution and climate change are generally caused by the same activities: human beings burning fossil
fuels to generate energy and run their vehicles. Similarly, many solutions to reduce GHG emissions involve activities
with positive public health outcomes. Working with the Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board (PEHAB),
CCHS has led an effort to ensure that the public health impacts of climate change are identified and addressed in this
CAP by establishing health indicators against which County actions could be measured and using them to identify
priority areas that will have the greatest benefit on public health, and discussing the potential effect of GHG
reduction measures on criteria pollutants (Chapter 2 and Appendix A).
Health indicators were developed in consultation with PEHAB and refined to reflect input from community
workshops. The indicators were used to evaluate the relative public health benefit of goals and policies that would
reduce GHG emissions by determining whether there is a primary link between the action and the health indicator.
Because the relative value of a health benefit involves subjective determinations, ratings were not quantified but
rather were used to provide structure for assessing the relative merit of the various actions. Based on the evaluation
of the potential health benefits of the CAP’s reduction measures, CCHS has determined four types of reduction
measures that provide the highest benefit to human health. These reduction measures significantly promote the
following outcomes: Increased Walking & Biking, Increased Public Transportation, Increased Infill Development, and
Health Equity.
Throughout this chapter, public health priority benefits will be indicated alongside GHG reduction measures. This
section provides descriptions of each priority benefit. For an expanded discussion of public health and GHG reduction
measures, see Appendices A and D.
The CCHS evaluation found walking and biking improvement measures to be associated with multiple health
indicators. These improvements enhance physical activity and make it safer, by making walking and biking easier and
increasing the number of people doing so. By replacing some vehicle trips, bicycle and pedestrian improvements can
increase air quality. While these improvements are sometimes targeted toward recreation, they can also facilitate
access to goods and services by making it easier and safer to walk or bike to jobs, schools, healthcare, family, transit
stops, or other destinations. Also, since lower-income people may be more dependent on walking (and to a lesser
extent, biking) to get around, investments in walking and biking have the potential to contribute to health equity.
CCHS identified a wide range of health indicators associated with transit improvement measures. First, public transit
encourages physical activity because transit users usually walk or bike to their stop, an effect which is likely to have a
significant impact on human health. On average, transit users spend 19 minutes a day walking to their public
transportation stop. Of these users, 29% met the Surgeon General’s recommendation of 30 minutes of daily physical
activity as a result of walking to public transportation (Besser and Dannenberg 2005). As shown above, increasing
physical activity is expected to lead to positive public health outcomes. Public transit can also help create an urban
environment where it is possible to live without an automobile, and can significantly improve air quality by shifting
trips from cars. By creating a viable alternative to using a car, public transportation can help improve access to jobs,
healthcare, and other essential goods and services. Increased access to shopping, jobs, schools, and other key
destinations is especially important for Contra Costa households with zero or one vehicles (6% and 29%,
respectively). A number of researchers have found that accessible and reliable transportation is essential to finding
and keeping jobs, which in turn, facilitates the economic well-being that is essential for good health (Kawabata 2002;
Ong and Houston 2002). Similarly, public transportation (not school district buses) currently carries 6% of Contra
Costa County students to school (Contra Costa County Safe Routes to School Master Plan 2009).
CCHS found infill development measures to be associated with four health indicators. Dense neighborhoods have
been consistently found to increase physical activity by bringing people closer to destinations, making it easier to
travel by foot or by bike. Higher-density development also improves access to essential destinations, such as grocery
store, schools, and jobs, particularly for those without cars (Ewing and Cervero 2010; Walker 2011). Similarly, higher-
density neighborhoods improve regional air quality by discouraging car trips. Additionally, by focusing growth in
defined centers rather than outward sprawl, infill development can help to preserve open space, which can preserve
local character and improve air quality.
While changes to urban form often take decades to solidify, infill development is likely to have significant positive
long-term impacts on human health. In a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature, Ewing and Cervero (2010)
found that, on average, density yields a 7% increase in walking and a 5% decrease in vehicle miles traveled. This
suggests that long-tem changes to Contra Costa County’s built environment are likely to yield real, if modest,
increases in physical activity and decreases in air pollution.
In conjunction with other policies, such as enhanced transit service and bicycle and pedestrian improvements,
increasing infill development can also help to alter the long-term patterns of automobile dependence and sprawl that
exact high societal health costs such as air pollution, accidents/injuries, diabetes and obesity, cardiovascular disease,
urban heat island effects, poor mental health, and exclusion from opportunity (Frumpkin 2001). Encouraging infill
development is consistent with the goals and strategy of CCHS’s Injury Prevention and Physical Activity Promotion
Project, and related measures received moderate to high public support during the open house process (managing
parking was a notable exception).
Unlike the other priority measure types, which focus on single issues, a wide variety of measures may influence
health equity by placing the emphasis on the most vulnerable populations in the county. These may include young
children, the elderly and disabled, low-income residents, and minorities. The reduction measures in the CAP that
directly contribute to improving health equity do so through targeted job creation, increased access to goods and
services, economic incentives for sustainable behavior, and programs that protect vulnerable populations from
indoor and outdoor air pollution.
The root causes of most health disparities are the broader, more historic inequalities within society, such as poverty
and discrimination. Health disparities are often called health inequities because they result from these broader
inequities within society. Poverty and discrimination lead to stress, greater exposure to environmental toxins and
poor air quality, and less access to high-quality goods and services including education, health services,
transportation, food, and recreation. Health studies have shown that these inequalities and injustices are strongly
related to higher rates of injury, illness, and premature death. Therefore, prioritizing measures that counter the
effects of these social inequities can help change the underlying conditions that contribute to poor health.
In April 2003, after extensive review and discussion, CCHS adopted a department -wide plan called Reducing Health
Disparities: Diversity and Cultural and Linguistic Competence in Contra Costa Health Services. One goal of this plan
for reducing health disparities is to engage and partner with other public entities to support healthier environments.
In response to this element of the CCHS mission, each GHG reduction measure in the CAP was evaluated for its
potential to reduce health inequities. This is especially appropriate since many of the impacts of climate change that
are associated with air pollution. such as increased death, disease, and injury from heat waves, floods, storms, and
fires, decreased food quality and security, and increased morbidity and mortality—are predicted to
disproportionately affect those who are socially and economically disadvantaged. “Reducing health disparities”
received extremely high support during the open house process and from PEHAB.
Contra Costa County has already taken strides to reduce energy use and promote sustainability in the community.
The County’s actions, specifically the success of the California Solar Initiative (CSI) and the Bay Area Regional Energy
Network (BayREN), have led to measureable reduction in GHG emissions since 2005. These reductions are applied to
the overall emissions reduction to avoid double-counting.
The CSI allows the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to provide
incentives to install renewable energy technologies on existing homes and
businesses in PG&E territory. Participation in the CSI program by Contra Costa
County residents has increased the amount of renewable solar power available
in the community. By displacing demand for fossil-based power, these
installations will lead to reductions through 2035.
BayREN is a collaboration of the nine counties that make up the San Francisco
Bay Area. Led by ABAG, BayREN hosts energy saving programs on a regional
level, including in Contra Costa County. Since BayREN program implementation
began in Contra Costa County in 2013, nearly 30 residences have received
incentives to increase home energy efficiency. On average, these projects have
saved over 200 therms and 1,500 kWh per home. BayREN will continue to play
an important role in encouraging home and business owners in Contra Costa
County to implement improvements to decrease energy consumption.
The County has begun to address vulnerable populations in its overall emergency planning efforts, including those
related to climate change. Additionally, the County has adopted, or is in the process of completing, several public
health and climate change-related strategic plans, including the following:
Contra Costa County Operational Area Excessive Heat Emergency Plan (2010) amends the County’s Eme rgency
Operations Plan to include specific extreme heat event strategies.
Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan (2011) addresses climate change as a subset, or secondary impact,
for each identified hazard of concern.
Regional Health Risk Assessment (in progress) will establish a coordinated and synchronized community
preparedness planning effort in the region, conduct a regional public health risk assessment, identify the specific
health threats and risks that will be addressed by the region, propose strategies and activities designed to reduce
and/or mitigate the threats and risks, and develop a regional risk mitigation plan to specifically address the
health needs and risks of the community, including vulnerable populations (Cox 2012).
Increase energy efficiency in residential and commercial building stock, and reduce community -wide electricity
and natural gas use.
Residential and nonresidential buildings in the county depend on electricity and natural gas for lighting, heating,
cooling, and running appliances. Energy efficiency is a key component of any strategy that seeks to reduce energy
use. According to the 2014 Contra Costa County Housing Element, approximately “60 percent of the housing stock in
unincorporated areas is thirty years or older, the age when most homes begin to have major repair or updating
needs.” Older homes also tend to be less energy efficient than new homes and provide significant opportunities to
reduce energy consumption.
Energy efficiency has the potential to affect public health by reducing the energy cost burden experienced by low-
income families and by allowing for a more affordable comfortable indoor climate. With expected increases in severe
weather, including increased extreme heat days, the ability for all families to affordably and efficiently maintain a
comfortable climate in their homes is critical. Additionally, reductions in electricity and natural gas use have direct
impacts on the amount of criteria air pollutants being released into the environment. As demonstrated in Chapter 2,
reducing the amount of criteria pollutants in a community’s atmosphere can increase public health, especially for
vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and those with existing respiratory illnesses.
Provide opportunities for residential buildings to become more energy
efficient.
Action items:
1. Continue and expand single-family participation in established energy
efficiency rebate programs, including BayREN and East Bay Energy Watch.
Collaborate with local organizations like Contra Costa County
Climate Leaders and PG&E to develop comprehensive and
appropriate outreach efforts that effectively reach all segments of
the community.
Monitor participation in energy efficiency programs.
2. Continue and expand multi-family participation in established energy efficiency rebate programs, including
BayREN and East Bay Energy Watch.
3. Increase participation in the existing low-income weatherization program and seek additional program funding.
4. Identify disadvantaged individuals and households for increased participation in energy efficiency programs.
5. Work with PG&E to advertise and promote a residential appliance rebate program with a focus on properties
with potential high appliance energy use (e.g., homes with pools would receive a flyer about available pool pump
rebates and return on investment information).
6. Participate in one or more Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing programs.
Provide opportunities for nonresidential buildings to become more energy
efficient.
Action Items:
1. Continue expanding nonresidential participation in energy efficiency
rebate and financing programs, including East Bay Energy Watch, BayREN,
low-interest California Energy Commission (CEC) loans, and PG&E on-bill
financing opportunities. Create a prioritized list of energy-intense facilities
to target for additional education and/or financial support for energy
efficiency improvements, while complying with existing privacy
regulations.
2. Provide focused outreach to local businesses describing PACE program opportunities, constraints, and benefits.
3. Develop outreach materials that explain the opportunities for financing energy efficiency retrofits such as a PACE
program, low-interest energy efficiency loans through the CEC, integration of energy efficiency retrofit projects
into capital lease structures, and mortgage refinancing.
4. Identify staffing and a revenue stream to develop a shared landlord-tenant program to support the financing of
energy efficiency retrofits to renter-occupied buildings.
5. Inform nonresidential building owners about the savings potentials from retrocommissioning, retrofits, and deep
retrofits.
6. Inform the business community about the monetary benefits associated with energy-efficient appliances.
7. Collaborate with local organizations like 4CL and PG&E to develop and implement the outreach approaches
outlined in this measure.
Provide education and outreach highlighting the benefits of energy
conservation.
Action Items:
1. Engage with PG&E to provide multilingual and culturally relevant
educational material to residents and businesses to increase the
community’s awareness and utilization of real-time energy consumption
data available through the SmartMeter program.
2. Work with the Bay Area Green Business Program to highlight examples of
energy-efficient local businesses.
Reduce urban heat islands through vegetation management and cool
surfaces.
Action Items:
1. Encourage multi-family residential and nonresidential development to
increase use of higher-albedo materials for surfaces including roofs,
parking areas, driveways, roads, and sidewalks.
2. Encourage developments with parking lot areas to shade these areas with
vegetation or solar panels when appropriate.
3. Continue to promote the use of low-impact development (LID) strategies
and reduction in impervious surface area of new development.
4. Encourage increased use of cool roof materials on new and existing buildings to reduce the urban heat island
effect and corresponding cooling energy consumption.
5. Support various programs to plant and maintain trees in urban and rural areas.
Increase Contra Costa County’s capacity for energy efficiency through
financing opportunities and workforce training.
Action Items:
1. Monitor grants from cap-and-trade revenue and other funding sources,
and inform applicable County agencies.
2. Create a framework for revenues from cap-and-trade offsets or allocations
to fund energy efficiency and resource conservation programs, such as
those proposed in this CAP, to be used locally, particularly within
recognized impacted communities or areas.
3. Work with the Contra Costa Community College District and the Contra
Costa Workforce Development Board to encourage and develop
workforce training programs for green jobs, including energy efficiency
audits, energy retrofits, and renewable energy installation.
Support the statewide transition to net zero energy construction for new
residential buildings by 2020 and new nonresidential buildings by 2030.
Action Items:
1. Identify and remove barriers to zero net energy construction in the
County’s regulatory framework.
2. Work with developers, property owners, and financial donors to construct
and publicize example zero net energy homes prior to the adoption of
zero net energy building codes by the California Energy Commission.
3. Provide information about zero net energy buildings at public events, on
the County website, and in the development review process, including
publicizing information about the cost effectiveness of zero net energy buildings. Include information about zero
net energy buildings in other energy efficiency education efforts.
4. Explore making new and significantly retrofitted County buildings zero net energy.
Increase the production of renewable energy from small-scale and commercial-scale renewable energy
installations.
The County provides a diverse mix of opportunities for renewable energy resource installations. This goal seeks to
shift a portion of energy production and consumption away from electricity and natural gas to renewable energy
sources. Both natural gas and electricity can be offset with renewable sources of energy that are profitable, yield cost
savings to users, and spur local energy independence. Through this goal, the county will reduce GHG emissions from
traditional electricity production and natural gas by promoting the production of local, on-site renewable energy for
both residential and nonresidential uses. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar do not emit criteria air
pollutants and therefore have the positive health impact of reducing the amount of criteria air pollutants released
into the local environment. Programs that incentivize renewable energy installation on low-income residences can
help households save money. Job training programs can also increase the community’s economic health and
providing viable employment for Contra Costa residents.
Promote installation of alternative energy facilities on homes and
businesses.
Action Items:
1. Amend the County Zoning Code to designate areas and development
standards that are appropriate for and supportive of small- and medium-
sized alternative energy and energy storage installations not covered by
AB 2188.
2. Train planning staff to provide guidance and information on the
streamlined process and available incentives.
3. Create development standards allowing for the ministerial approval of
rooftop energy systems on commercial buildings, with a focus on warehouses and other structures with large
surface area roofs.
4. Encourage participation in PG&E’s green tariff program.
Promote installation of alternative energy facilities on public land.
Action Items:
1. Continue to install alternative energy facilities (e.g., photovoltaic panels
and electric vehicle charging stations) on public buildings and lands in the
unincorporated county
2. Continue to participate in the Regional Renewable Energy Procurement
Project or similar bulk purchasing programs to purchase solar photovoltaic
systems for on-site generation at public facilities.
3. Work with East Bay Municipal Utility District and other wastewater
processors to install cogeneration infrastructure on wastewater treatment
facilities.
Lower barriers to entry for the installation of alternative energy systems.
Action Items:
1. Improve participation in existing and planned financing mechanisms for
renewable energy and energy storage systems, such as PACE and BayREN.
2. Connect low-income homeowners with renewable energy rebate and
financing programs.
3. Work with local governments in Contra Costa County and neighboring
areas to participate in a regional solar photovoltaic energy systems bulk-
buying program.
4. Connect business owners with available finance and rebate programs.
5. Work with PG&E to identify areas where grid capacity may be insufficient to accommodate an increase in
renewable energy capacity, and encourage PG&E to upgrade such areas to reduce barriers.
6. Continue exploring options for implementing Community Choice Aggregation within the unincorporated area of
the county.
Reduce transportation emissions.
The intent of this goal is to reduce transportation emissions,
primarily through improvements in vehicle efficiency, reduction in
single-occupant vehicle use, and support of mixed-use
communities (where appropriate) throughout the unincorporated
county and in identified “priority development areas.” This goal
promotes the location of homes in close proximity to schools,
employment centers, transit centers, and shops, while protecting
the unique characteristics of the county’s neighborhoods and rural
areas. Policies and actions for mobility and connectivity in new
development build on these strategies, developed to respect the
specific challenges and opportunities of the county’s
unincorporated communities.
In addition to lowering criteria air pollutants associated with
automobiles, this goal facilitates active transportation and reduced
vehicle dependence, both of which have documented public health benefits. By strategically locating people closer to
services and revising development standards to create pedestrian-oriented streetscapes, this goal also helps improve
community health by encouraging walking and bicycling.
Physical activity has been shown to have powerful influence on a variety of health outcome s including lower
mortality, lower risk of cardiovascular diseases, lower risk of diabetes, lower risk of some cancers, improved mental
health, and healthier bones, muscles and joints. A recent study (Maizlish et al. 2011) estimated the potential cost
savings from the health benefits of dramatically increasing Bay Area physical activity at $34 billion annually.
Improving walking and biking safety can also have a significant effect on injury rates. As of 2007, traffic accidents
(involving cars, bikes, and people) were the leading cause of injury deaths in Contra Costa County (CCHS 2010).
Investments in bike and pedestrian safety can dramatically reduce these rates.
In baseline year 2005, on-road and off-road vehicles emitted 628,200 MTCO2e. While policies that seek to reduce
vehicle miles traveled are necessary and useful, the quickest way to reduce transportation emissions is by operating
cleaner, more efficient vehicles and equipment. This goal seeks to reduce emissions associated from on-road and off-
road vehicles by encouraging the use of less carbon-intensive fuel sources such as electricity.
As mentioned in Chapter 2, climate change is expected to have a direct impact on public health through increases of
urban ozone levels. Decreasing emissions typically associated with carbon-intensive vehicles and equipment would
reduce the amount of criteria air pollutants that exacerbate ozone-related public health issues.
In conjunction with other policies, such as infill development and bicycle
and pedestrian improvements, improving transit service can also help to
alter the long-term patterns of automobile dependence and sprawl that
exact high societal health costs such as air pollution, accidents/injuries,
diabetes and obesity, cardiovascular disease, urban heat island effects,
poor mental health, and exclusion from opportunity. Improving public
transit is consistent with the goals and strategy of CCHS’s Injury Prevention
and Physical Activity Promotion Project and related measures received
extremely high public support during the open house process (Frumpkin
2001).
Maintain and expand access to goods, services, and other destinations
through increased transportation alternatives (mobility improvements) and
improved proximity (land use improvements).
Action Items:
1. Collaborate with local transportation, land use agencies, nonprofits, and
other stakeholders to expand bicycle and pedestrian facilities and existing
public transportation (BART, Amtrak, AC Transit, County Connection, and
Tri Delta Transit).
2. Assist with Safe Routes to School program implementation.
3. Work with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, local school
districts, and advocacy organizations such as the East Bay Bicycle Coalition
to encourage bicycle safety classes in all schools.
4. Update County road standards, as opportunities arise, to accommodate all modes of transportation in local
street designs (i.e., complete streets). Implement standards as part of routine maintenance and striping.
5. Through periodic updates to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan, identify opportunities to improve access to community-wide bicycle and pedestrian networks by closing
gaps in the network, removing barriers, and providing additional bike- and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure.
6. Cooperate with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and adjoining jurisdictions in updating and
implementing the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and local plans.
7. Revise the County CEQA guidelines to reflect implementation of Senate Bill 743.
8. Establish a 2020 mode share goal for bicycling by a Board of Supervisors resolution, identify specific actions to
reach the goal, integrate the goal into future General Plan updates, and appeal to other agencies to adopt the
same goal.
9. Identify funding sources to support increased walking and bicycling activity.
Expand the use of alternative fuels in vehicle travel.
Action Items:
1. As opportunities arise, include alternative-fuel use goals in franchise
agreements for waste hauling and contracts with other vehicle fleets.
2. Support development of alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure such as
biofuel and electric vehicle (EV) charging stations and designated parking
spots with chargers, including amending parking design and layout section
(82-16-404) of the County Zoning Code to locate alternative fuel vehicle
infrastructure in areas of high visibility and easy access.
3. Pursue grant funding opportunities to install public EV chargers or other
alternative fuel charging stations.
Reduce emissions from off-road vehicles and equipment.
Action Items:
1. Work with BAAQMD to incentivize the use of battery-powered lawn and
garden equipment.
2. Provide support for BAAQMD’s voluntary exchange program for
residential lawn mowers.
3. Work with BAAQMD to increase the use of alternatively fueled equipment
in agricultural operations through education, incentives, or revisions to
existing regulations.
4. Consider an amendment to the County Building Code that would prohibit unnecessary idling of off-road and
heavy equipment.
Reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Action Items:
1. Collaborate with BART and other transit providers to increase ridership in
the county.
2. Partner with waste haulers and other fleets with regular routes to reduce
the frequency of routes where possible.
3. Support and increase the use of carpooling services such as rideshare or
casual carpool.
4. Continue to promote voluntary trip reduction programs such as school
buses, Rideshare, Spare-the-Air Days, Bike to Work Day, employer
shuttles, and alternative work schedules.
5. Work to increase densities within half a mile of BART and Amtrak stations, and within a quarter of a mile of stops
for express bus routes.
6. Prioritize alternative mode access to BART and other transit stations.
7. Continue to explore funding transit with development applications and other alternative transportation finance
methods.
8. Continue the County's policy of encouraging the establishment of Priority Economic Development Areas in
residential communities.
GHG Reduction Strategy #4
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 65
Measure LUT 5: Agricultural Land Uses
Provide opportunities to grow, sell, and purchase local food.
Action Items:
1. Continue to support local farmers markets, local community gardens,
school gardens, and other urban agricultural practices, including in areas
with poor food access.
2. Amend the Zoning Code to allow urban agriculture in appropriate areas.
3. Amend the General Plan to add a policy that encourages community
gardens in new residential developments as appropriate.
4. Encourage partnerships between local food growers and local food
retailers.
5. Encourage partnerships between local food growers and local institutions
such as schools, hospitals, colleges, and correctional facilities.
6. Continue to discourage schools being sited in agricultural areas.
7. Encourage retention of agricultural land to maintain the County's agricultural base and enable long-term carbon
sequestration.
MEASURE LUT 5
2020 GHG Reduction
Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
2035 GHG Reduction
Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
Responsible Department(s)
Agriculture, Conservation &
Development, County Administrator’s
Office
Co-Benefits
Supports Local Economy, Provides
Educational Opportunities, Improves
Community Livability, Improves Public
Health
Public Health Priority Benefits
Infill Development Potential, Health
Equity
Reduce waste disposal.
Both the consumption and the disposal of resources require energy and emit GHGs. Most waste is sent to the landfill,
decomposes, and emits methane gas over time. By providing additional opportunities to recycle and compost, the
amount of waste disposed can be reduced, thereby reducing GHG emissions associated with waste disposal.
Additionally, the impact of collecting and transporting waste from homes and businesses by waste fleet vehicles can
be reduced through increased diversion and cleaner vehicle fleets. A reduction in emissions from refuse trucks and
landfills in Contra Costa County may lead to a decrease in criteria air pollutants, thus increasing public health.
Develop a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials.
Action Items:
1. Achieve a local 75% waste diversion rate, in support of the 2020 state target
diversion rate of 75%, as identified in AB 341.
Establish new and enhanced programs to collect organic material from
businesses and residents in order to recover their material, energy, and
nutrient values.
2. Increase public outreach to promote participation in existing waste diversion
and prevention programs.
Continue promoting and supporting proper backyard composting, grass-cycling, and low-maintenance gardening
programs, and greater participation in other recycling and composting programs. Consider outreach campaigns
targeted to low-income or non-English-speaking residents.
Continue participating in the Bay Area Regional Outreach Campaign by serving on the steering committee and
contributing funding.
Continue to offer and promote the Environmental Action Program for Schools as a way to achieve waste
prevention reduction and recycling in K–12 schools.
3. Work with private owners and operators of solid waste transfer stations and landfills, as well as with publicly
owned wastewater treatment plants, to establish anaerobic digesters to treat and recover energy from food
waste and other organic waste.
4. Update the County’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Household Hazardous Waste Element, and other
relevant components of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan to include an updated list of
measures, actions, and programs supportive of this CAP.
5. Identify best practices and reduce the amount of wastewater treatment sludge (biosolids) that is disposed of in
landfills.
Reduce fugitive methane emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions
from solid waste landfills.
Action Items:
1. Annually verify compliance with the California Air Resource Board‘s landfill
methane control measures.
2. Request that landfill operators consider implementing additional
reduction actions, including but not limited to:
Reducing landfilled materials with high methane-generation potential.
Reducing idling time for diesel equipment.
Encouraging adequate maintenance of rolling stock.
Establishing standards beyond those required by regulation for landfill gas collection system leak detection
and prevention.
Excluding the use of green waste as a material for alternative daily cover (ADC), consistent with AB 1594.
3. Amend the General Plan and Zoning Code to allow renewable energy generation, such as solar and wind, on
closed landfill areas. Market renewable energy on closed landfill areas to potential stakeholders (energy
providers and landfill owners).
Conserve Water
Water consumption requires energy to pump, treat, distribute, collect, and discharge water as it is used by the
community, which results in GHG emissions. GHG emissions also occur as a direct process from wastewater
treatment. Despite a fragmentation of water service providers throughout the unincorporated county, conservation
and more efficient use of water are both important strategies to reducing GHG emissions from water use. Water
reductions also prepare the County to adapt to the reduced water availability that may occur due to a changing
climate.
This goal identifies opportunities to reduce energy-intensive water consumption from both new construction projects
and existing development. Through the implementation of water efficiency measures and increased use of recycled
water, the need to procure additional water sources in the future will be reduced. Climate change impacts, such as
extreme drought conditions, are expected to impact low-income communities first. Conservation of water resources
helps ensure sustained access for all members of the community.
Reduce water demand.
1. Continue to reduce potable water use by at least 20% by 2020 through
conservation efforts in new and existing development.
2. Continue to enforce water conservation requirements in new
developments per the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Provide alternative water resources for irrigation in residential and
nonresidential areas.
1. Promote rainwater collection for irrigation purposes.
2. Update the Dual Water Systems Ordinance to allow the use of recycled
water for irrigation in residential and nonresidential areas.
Conserve Resources
The 2007 Municipal Climate Action Plan illustrates the County’s leadership in GHG reductions. The 2007 Municipal
Climate Action Plan offered a suite of municipal strategies including existing measures, planned measures, and
potential measures. Potential measures are similar to the types of measures in this CAP. The development of this CAP
provides an opportunity for the County to add to its “potential measures” list. The Government Operations measures
in this CAP should be seen as supportive of and in addition to the 2007 Municipal Climate Action Plan.
Save energy used for public lighting.
Action Items:
1. Complete LED upgrade of traffic signals, street lighting, and other public
lighting located in the unincorporated areas of the county.
Promote energy-saving tools and practices.
Action Items:
1. Continue to conduct audits of existing and recently acquired facilities,
prioritize improvements, and upgrade facilities to save energy.
2. Increase solar electricity use for County and agency operations.
3. Develop policies related to powering off lights and appliances after hours
and after dark.
4. Site facilities that have more than 50 personnel in close proximity to
infrastructure and services that support alternative commute modes.
Conserve water.
Action Items:
1. Continue to install water-efficient landscaping on County properties.
2. Where possible, remove turf from County-owned facilities.
Reduce waste.
Action Items:
1. Develop a recycling and composting program for County facilities.
2. Educate and train staff to recycle and compost appropriately.
3. Develop interim waste diversion/reduction goals.
4. Achieve zero-waste operations by 2035.
Establish budgeting and administration practices to support the Climate
Action Plan.
Action Items:
1. Ensure that the Environmental Purchasing Policy includes:
Green office supplies: Purchase energy-efficient appliances and
recycled/recyclable and compostable supplies.
Green fleet and equipment: Evaluate progress of hybrid and
compressed natural gas (CNG) fleet measures in the 2007 Municipal
Climate Action Plan. Create purchase orders for replacing less efficient
vehicles with fuel-efficient vehicles (e.g., hybrids, electric vehicles, and
biofuel vehicles) and old office machines with energy-efficient
machines.
2. Reduce County fleet use of traditional fuels 25% by the year 2020.
3. Evaluate progress of Measure 13 from the 2007 Municipal Climate Action Plan (30% of employees
telecommuting two days a week). If the target has not been achieved, establish policies to further support
telecommuting and flexible work hours for employees. If the target has been achieved, consider increasing the
target to 40% employee participation.
4. Develop a process for sharing information on government operations’ energy and water use and efficiency and
conservation measures with the public as an educational tool.
5. Advocate for regional, state, and federal activities that support GHG emissions in the county, including but not
limited to the following:
Work with BAAQMD to support reductions in process emissions from industrial entities.
Where appropriate, adopt language in the County’s state and federal legislative platforms that directs
support and lobbying for local GHG reductions.
Advocate for additional transit funding sources concurrently with the development of priority development
areas.
This CAP identifies a clear path to allow the County to reach the community-wide GHG reduction target of 15% below
baseline levels by 2020 to ensure the County can utilize the CAP as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy for use in
environmental review of projects for new development.
The reduction measures included in this CAP are a diverse mix of regulatory and incentive-based programs for both
new and existing development. The reduction measures also aim to reduce GHG emissions from each source to avoid
reliance on any one strategy or sector to achieve the target. In total, existing actions, state programs, and GHG
reduction measures in this CAP will reduce GHG emissions in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County by
86,300 MTCO2e in 2020 (see Table 4.2).
Complete implementation of this CAP will allow the County to achieve a 16% reduction of GHG emissions below 2005
levels by 2020 and will set the County on a trajectory to achieve the state GHG reduction target set by Executive
Order S-3-05 of reducing GHG emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Figure 4.3 illustrates the County’s
anticipated progress toward achieving the GHG reduction target of 15% below baseline through the implementation
of this CAP.
This page has been intentionally left blank.
This chapter outlines a path for the County to implement the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and reduce greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions at least 15% below 2005 baseline levels by 2020. Additionally, this chapter outlines the ways in
which the County can incorporate the public health priority areas identified in Chapter 4 into implementation efforts.
This ensures that public health benefits are considered during CAP implementation.
CAP implementation will require County leadership to execute these measures and report on the progress of their
implementation. This CAP identifies the responsible department for each measure and offers time frames and cost
estimates for implementing each strategy. To assist with implementation, a development checklist that verifies a
project’s consistency with the CAP is included in Appendix E. Lastly, successful implementation requires regular
reporting. Staff will monitor the CAP’s implementation progress on an annual basis and report to the Board of
Supervisors on the progress made each year. The following policies are presented to ensure the County is successful
in implementing the CAP.
Annually monitor and report the County’s progress toward achieving the greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction target.
Implementation Action 1.1. Facilitate implementation of measures and actions related to municipal operations.
Implementation Action 1.2. Prepare an annual implementation progress report for review and consideration by the
Board of Supervisors with direction to:
Modify or strengthen actions if expected results aren’t being achieved.
Initiate CAP revisions, as necessary, to respond to significant changes to the regulatory framework (at the
regional, state, or national level) or other unforeseen events that render the CAP ineffective or obsolete.
Implementation Action 1.3. Utilize the implementation matrix and reduction measure workbook to assist with
annual reports.
Implementation Action 1.4. Identify key staff, such as members of the Climate Action Plan Interdepartmental
Working Group, responsible for annual reporting and monitoring.
Update the baseline GHG inventory and CAP at a minimum every five years.
Implementation Action 2.1. Inventory 2018 GHG emissions no later than 2020.
Implementation Action 2.2. Update the CAP no later than 2020 to incorporate new technology, programs, and
policies to reduce GHG emissions.
Implementation Action 2.3. Consider updating and amending the CAP should the County find that specific reduction
measures are not meeting intended GHG reductions.
Continue to develop partnerships that support implementation of the CAP.
Implementation Action 3.1. Continue formal memberships and participation in local and regional organizations that
provide tools and support for energy efficiency, energy conservation, GHG emissions reductions, adaptation,
education, and implementation of this CAP.
Secure necessary funding to implement the Climate Action Plan.
Implementation Action 4.1. Participate in cap-and-trade implementation to ensure that funds are returned to areas
where GHG emissions are generated and used to fund projects and programs that benefit the communities impacted
by emissions.
Implementation Action 4.2. Identify funding sources for reduction measures as part of annual reporting.
Implementation Action 4.3. As identified in Reduction Measure GO 5, ensure implementation through the inclusion
of emissions reduction and adaptation measures in department budgets, the capital improvement program, and
other plans as appropriate.
Implementation Action 4.4. Pursue local, regional, state, and federal grants as appropriate to support CAP
implementation.
To ensure climate change-related public health responses are adequately incorporated into future planning efforts,
the following measures have been provided to guide County staff involvement in coordinating, preparing for, and
educating the public on the potential impacts that climate change may have on community health.
Promote health equity by applying Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grants and other sources of funding to
vulnerable communities.
Healthy Community Action 1.1. Identify areas with a disproportionate health burden and, when appropriate,
prioritize projects that would be eligible for and benefit from cap-and-trade and other grant funding.
Participate in regional efforts to analyze and prepare for the impacts of climate change in the Bay Area.
Healthy Community Action 2.1. Continue participation in regional adaptation and resiliency task forces such as those
of the San Francisco Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission and the Bay Area Regional Collaborative
(formerly Joint Policy Committee).
Healthy Community Action 2.2. Continue participation in regional meetings focusing on adaptation and resilience,
and ensure that relevant information is conveyed to the Board of Supervisors and appropriate staff.
Ensure that Contra Costa County is prepared for potential environmental risks and hazards related to climate change,
with a special emphasis on vulnerable populations.
Healthy Community Action 3.1. Explore preparing a climate adaptation plan or similar analysis to assess potential
climate change impacts and identify responses.
Healthy Community Action 3.2. Update the 2016 County Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and other applicable
documents such as long-range capital improvement plans to include climate change issues and best practices during
required revisions/updates and as funding allows.
Healthy Community Action 3.3. Monitor climate change science and policy to inform implementation of the CAP.
Consider potential climate change impacts in local planning documents and processes.
Healthy Community Action 4.1. During the development review process, consider possible impacts of climate change
on the project or plan area.
Healthy Community Action 4.2. Consider integrating climate change adaptation into future updates of the Zoning
Code, General Plan, and other related documents.
Update or expand County planning tools to support implementation of measures that address public health issues.
Healthy Community Action 5.1. Expand vulnerability assessments of the public health infrastructure, facilities, and
services to evaluate needs given anticipated changes to the climate.
Healthy Community Action 5.2. Continue Contra Costa Health Services efforts to create a geographic database
identifying areas that are vulnerable to health impacts associated with climate change, with emphasis on health
equity.
Engage the community in preparing for climate change through distribution of information and promotion of
Climate Action Plan measures.
Healthy Community Action 6.1. Explore utilizing the County’s website and local media channel to:
Provide information on climate change and promote GHG reduction and energy efficiency programs.
Allow the public to follow implementation of the CAP.
Provide media communication that is linguistically and culturally appropriate to vulnerable populations.
Healthy Community Action 6.2. Promote sustainability education in schools through green competitions that
encourage recycling, walking, and biking.
Healthy Community Action 6.3. Target outreach to areas projected to be most impacted by climate change.
Healthy Community Action 6.4. Expand partnerships with community-based organizations to implement GHG
reduction and climate change adaptation programs.
Ensure that actions to address climate change are equitably applied throughout the county and take special care to
protect vulnerable populations.
Healthy Community Action 7.1. Incorporate the needs of vulnerable populations in the design and implementation
of projects and programs addressing climate change. Vulnerable populations include the following:
Low-income households
Seniors
People with disabilities
Linguistically, culturally, or historically disadvantaged groups
Communities exposed to unsafe conditions as exhibited by high crime, accident, and hospitalization rates
Residents with limited access to vehicles
Communities exposed to climate change impacts as identified in a vulnerability assessment
Healthy Community Action 7.2. Work to minimize possible negative health impacts from implementation of the CAP.
For examples, bicycle and pedestrian safety must be optimized when designing and installing bicycle and pedestrian
improvements, and indoor air-quality impacts should be minimized when locating housing near comparatively high
vehicle emissions (e.g., transportation corridors and facilities).
Healthy Community Action 7.3. Employ culturally appropriate, multilingual training and communication tools to
support participation by low-income and historically disadvantaged communities.
Healthy Community Action 7.4. As healthy community strategies are implemented, consider prioritizing projects and
programs that conserve and/or construct green spaces.
Healthy Community Action 7.5. Work to minimize potential neighborhood destabilization and displacement resulting
from infill development.
This matrix contains the information regarding GHG reduction, performance target, implementation time frame, and the responsible and supporting agencies
for the year 2020. This matrix allows County staff to effectively integrate these actions into budgets, other programs, and projects. The County will use the
implementation matrix to track, monitor, and update the CAP. As the County reports on progress in implementing the CAP, staff will evaluate the
effectiveness of each measure to ensure that the anticipated GHG reductions are occurring. In the event that GHG reductions do not occur as expected, the
County will be able to modify and add policies to the CAP.
Conserve water.
Reduce waste.
Establish budgeting and administration practices to
support the Climate Action Plan.
Adjusted Business-as-Usual: A projection that includes expected reductions from state regulations and programs in
the greenhouse gas emissions forecast.
Air Basin: A land area with generally similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout. To the extent
possible, air basin boundaries are defined by the California Air Resources Board along political boundary lines and
include both the source and receptor areas. California is currently divided into 15 air basins. Contra Costa County is in
the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Air Pollutants: Amounts of foreign and/or natural substances occurring in the atmosphere that may result in adverse
effects to humans, animals, vegetation, and/or materials.
Alternative Energy: See “Renewable Energy.”
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 : Establishes a comprehensive program of
regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases for
the state of California. AB 32 designates the California Air Resources Board as the responsible agency for monitoring
and reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 requires the
California Air Resources Board to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California will take to reduce
greenhouse gases (GHG) to achieve the goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The Scoping Plan was first
considered by the California Air Resources Board in 2008 and must be updated every five years. The California Air
Resources Board approved the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan on May 22, 2014.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG): The regional planning agency for the nine counties and 101
incorporated cities in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Build-out: Development of land to its full potential or theoretical capacity as permitted under current or proposed
planning or zoning designations.
Business-as-Usual (BAU): A business-as-usual projection forecasts greenhouse gas emissions without regulatory or
technical intervention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
California Air Resources Board: A division of the California Environmental Protection Agency charged with protecting
public health, welfare, and ecological resources through the reduction of air pollutants.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A state law requiring state and local agencies to regulate activities with
consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the potential for a significant adverse
environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must be prepared and certified as to its adequacy
before action can be taken on the proposed project. General plans require the preparation of a program EIR.
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen): The 2013 California Green Building Standards Code,
commonly referred to as the CALGreen code, is a statewide mandatory construction code that was developed and
adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community
Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory
measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material
conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and
measures that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building
topics.
California Solar Initiative: Allows the California Public Utilities Commission to provide incentives to install solar
technology on existing residential, commercial, nonprofit, and governmental buildings if they are customers of the
state’s investor-owned utilities.
Cap and Trade: Refers to a market based regulation that is designed to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs) from
multiple sources. Cap-and-trade sets a firm limit or cap on GHGs and minimize the compliance costs of achieving AB
32 goals.
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): A colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the earth’s atmosphere. Significant quantities
are also emitted into the air by fossil fuel combustion.
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e): A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases
based on their global warming potential (GWP).The carbon dioxide equivalent for a gas is derived by multiplying the
tons of the gas by the associated GWP.
Carbon Sequestration: The process through which agricultural and forestry practices remove carbon dioxide (CO2)
from the atmosphere. The term “carbon sinks” is also used to describe agricultural and forestry lands that absorb
CO2.
Car Sharing: A type of car rental where people rent cars for short periods of time, often by the hour.
Clean Air Act: Requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for six common air pollutants, known as "criteria pollutants," that are found all over the United States: particle
pollution (particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The
EPA regulates the pollutants by developing human health-based and/or environmentally based criteria (science-
based guidelines) for setting permissible levels.
Clean Car Fuel Standards (AB 1493, Pavley): Signed into law in 2002 and commonly referred to as Pavley standards.
Requires carmakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new passenger cars and light trucks beginning in 2011.
The California Air Resources Board anticipates that the Pavley standards will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from
new California passenger vehicles by about 22% in 2012 and about 30% in 2016, all while improving fuel efficiency
and reducing motorists’ costs.
Climate Action Plan: Strategic plans that establish policies and programs for reducing (or mitigating) a community’s
greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change.
Climate Change (also referred to as global climate change): The term “climate change” is sometimes used to refer to
all forms of climatic inconsistency, but because the earth’s climate is never static, the term is more properly used to
imply a significant change from one climatic condition to another. In some cases, climate change has been used
synonymously with the term “global warming”; scientists, however, tend to use the term in the wider sense to also
include natural changes in climate.
Climate Change Adaptation: The adjustment in natural or human systems to respond to actual or expected climate
changes to minimize harm or take advantage of beneficial opportunities.
Climate Change Mitigation: A technical or behavioral intervention to reduce the sources of greenhouse gas
emissions in order to reduce the potential effects of climate change.
Climate Zone: The California Energy Commission (CEC) has classified the distinct climates throughout California by
climate zone to recognize the variability in energy use based on local weather patterns. The CEC uses these climate
zones to determine energy budgets for new and renovated buildings and prescriptive packages for each climate zone
to ensure that it meets the state’s Title 24 energy efficiency standards.
Co-Benefits: An additional benefit occurring from the implementation of a greenhouse gas reduction measure that is
not directly related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Community Choice Aggregation (CCA): CCA allows communities or groups of communities to procure electricity for
customers within their boundaries, often with the intention of providing a higher percentage of power from
renewable sources. This provides an option for customers to purchase energy from the CCA rather than their existing
utility. The existing utility is still responsible and able to charge for utility services, including delivering energy,
maintaining the grid, and billing customers.
Complete Streets: Complete streets policies ensure that transportation planners and engineers consistently design
and operate the entire roadway with all potential users in mind. This includes private vehicles, bicyclists, public
transportation vehicles and riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. In 2007, the state of California adopted
AB 1358, which directs the legislative body of a city or county, upon revision of the circulation eleme nt of its general
plan, to identify how the jurisdiction will provide for the routine accommodation of all users.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): A fossil fuel substitute for gasoline, diesel, or propane that can be used in passenger
and heavy-duty vehicles.
Conservation: Planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.
Construction and Demolition Waste (C&D): C&D materials consist of the waste generated during the construction,
demolition, or renovation of buildings, roads, and other construction projects. C&D materials may include heavy,
bulky materials such as concrete, glass, wood, and metal, among other materials.
Criteria Air Pollutant: The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for six common air pollutants, commonly referred to as “criteria air pollutants”. The criteria air
pollutants are particle pollution (often referred to as particulate matter), ground-level ozone, carbon monoxide,
sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. Disadvantaged Communities: For the purposes of cap and trade funding,
“disadvantaged communities” refers to communities disproportionately burdened by and vulnerable to multiple
sources of pollution. Disadvantaged communities in California are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds
from the State’s cap-and-trade program. These investments are aimed at improving public health, quality of life and
economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities at the same time they’re reducing pollution that
causes climate change.
Distributed Energy Resources (DER): Small, modular, energy generation and storage technologies that provide
electric capacity or energy located where it’s needed. DERs typically produce fewer than 10 megawatts of power and
include wind turbines, photovoltaic, fuel cells, micro turbines, reciprocating engines, combustion turbines,
cogeneration, and energy storage systems. DER systems may be either connected to the local electric power grid or
isolated from the grid in stand-alone applications.
Emissions Standard: The maximum amount of pollutant legally permitted to be discharged from a single source,
either mobile or stationary.
Energy Conservation: Reducing energy waste, such as turning off lights, heating, and motors when not needed.
Energy Efficiency: Doing the same or more work with less energy, such as replacing incandescent lightbulbs with
compact fluorescent light bulbs or buying an Energy Star appliance to use less energy for the same or greater output.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG): The EECBG program was funded through the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act and is managed by the US Department of Energy to assist cities, counties, states, and
territories to develop, promote, and implement energy efficiency and conservation programs and projects.
Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6): Title 24 standards were first adopted in 1978 and established minimum
energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. These standards are updated continually by
providing more stringent energy budgets for new buildings in an effort to reduce California’s energy consumption.
Environment: In the California Environmental Quality Act, “the physical conditions which exist within the area which
will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, noise, and objects of historic
or aesthetic significance.”
Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A report required by the California Environmental Quality Act that assesses all
the environmental characteristics of an area and determines what effects or impacts will result if the area is altered
or disturbed by a proposed action or project. See California Environmental Quality Act.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP): California law requires state government to practice environmentally
preferable purchasing, which is the procurement of goods and services that have a reduced impact on human health
and the environment as compared to other goods and services serving the same purpose.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time taking into account
economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Feed-In Tariff: A market mechanism designed to encourage the installation of renewable energy by setting a fixed
rate for excess energy generated through local renewable energy systems and fed back into the grid for distribution
and other uses.
Fossil Fuel Facilities: Include, but are not limited to, oil and gas wells, separators, and petroleum refineries.
Global Warming Potential (GWP): An index used to translate the level of emissions of various gases into a common
measure in order to compare the relative potency of different gases without directly calculating the changes in
atmospheric concentrations. Greenhouse gases are expressed in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent. GWPs are
expressed in terms relative to carbon dioxide, which has a GWP of 1.
Green Building: Sustainable or "green" building is a holistic approach to design, construction, and demolition that
minimizes the building’s impact on the environment, the occupants, and the community. See the California Green
Building Standards Code for green building regulations in California.
Greenhouse Gas/Gases (GHGs): Gases which cause heat to be trapped in the atmosphere, warming the earth. GHGs
are necessary to keep the earth warm, but increasing concentrations of these gases are implicated in global climate
change. Greenhouse gases include all of the following: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The majority of greenhouse gases come from natural sources, although
human activity is also a major contributor.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory: A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory provides estimates of the amount of GHGs emitted to
and removed from the atmosphere by human activities. A city or county that conducts an inventory looks at both
community emissions sources and emissions from government operations. A base year is chosen and used to gather
all data from that year. Inventories include data collection from such things as vehicle miles traveled, energy usage
from electricity and gas, and waste. Inventories include estimates for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).
Green Tariff: A program provided by PG&E that allows customers to pay a monthly premium to receive 50% to 100%
renewable energy.
Green Waste: Refers to lawn, garden, or park plant trimmings and materials and can be used in home composters or
picked up curbside by municipal waste haulers.
Greywater: Wastewater collected from showers, bathtubs, bathroom sinks, and clothes washing machines that is
reused on site for irrigation purposes.
Indicator: Types of data or information that can be used to determine the progress or success of each reduction
measure.
Infill Development: Refers to development occurring in unused and underutilized lands within existing development
patterns, typically but not exclusively in urban areas.
Investor Owned Utility: Refers to private electricity and natural gas providers. The California Public Utilities
Commission has broad constitutional and statutory powers to regulate investor owned utilities. LEED: Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design, a standard established by the US Green Building Council.
Life-Cycle Costing (LCC): The process of evaluating the total overall costs and benefits of buildings or equipment over
time, including initial costs of design and construction; operating costs; long-term costs of maintenance, repair, and
replacement; and other environmental or social costs over its full life, rather than simply based on purchase cost
alone.
Light-Emitting Diode (LED): A lower-energy consuming and longer-lasting alternative to incandescent and compact
fluorescent lightbulbs.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (S-1-07): An executive order from former Governor Schwarzenegger, the Low Carbon Fuel
Standard established the goal of reducing the carbon intensity of transportation fuels in California by 10% by 2020.
Low Impact Development (LID): An innovative stormwater management approach with a basic principle to design
the built environment to remain a functioning part of an ecosystem rather than exist apart from it. LID’s goal is to
mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by using design techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and
detain runoff close to its source.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): A federally funded transportation planning organization comprising
representatives from local government agencies and transportation authorities. See Association of Bay Area
Governments for more information on the local MPO.
Mixed Use: Properties on which various uses such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential are combined
in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional
interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A single site may include contiguous properties.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: The prescribed level of pollutants in the outside air that cannot be
exceeded legally during a specified time in a specified geographical area.
Native Species: A species within its natural range or natural zone of dispersal, i.e., within the range it would or could
occupy without direct or indirect introduction and/or care by humans.
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV): Small, battery-powered, low-speed electric vehicles. NEVs are typically limited
to streets with a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less. NEVs are classified by the California Air Resources Board as
zero-emissions vehicles, as they do not produce any tailpipe emissions.
Nonattainment: The condition of not achieving a desired or required level of performance. Frequently used in
reference to air quality.
Nonrenewable Energy: Energy from sources that use a nonrenewable natural resource such as uranium or fossil fuels
such as coal, oil, or natural gas.
Operations and Maintenance: Refers to the activities related to the routine, preventive, predictive, scheduled, and
unscheduled actions aimed at preventing equipment failure or decline with the goal of increasing efficiency,
reliability, and safety.
Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.
Ozone: Produced when gases or vapors created by cars, solvents, factories, and pesticides mix and react in th e
presence of sunlight. This results in certain health effects such as breathing difficulties, lung damage, coughing, and
chest pains.
Particulate Matter (PM10) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5): Fine mineral, metal, smoke, soot, and dust particles
suspended in the air. In addition to reducing visibility, particulate matter can lodge in the lungs and cause serious,
long-term respiratory illness and other health problems. The smaller the size of the particle, the deeper it can
penetrate into the lungs and the more difficult it is to expel.
Preservation: To keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction.
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE): Refers to a financing method of providing loans to property owners to
finance permanent energy efficiency improvements on real property. A property owner who obtains a PACE loan
repays the loan by entering into an agreement that allows an assessment to be levied on the property. These
assessments are known as voluntary contractual assessments.
Recycled Water: Wastewater from tubs, toilets, and sinks inside homes and offices that is cleaned through a
treatment process, producing nonpotable water that is safe for landscapes, raw vegetable crops, and agricultural
crops.
Reduction Measure: A goal, strategy, program, or set of actions that target and reduce a specific source of
greenhouse gas emissions.
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): A long-term blueprint of the region’s transportation systems. The RTP is a
federally mandated comprehensive long-range regional planning document that identifies the region’s transportation
needs, sets forth an action plan of projects, determines actions and programs to address the needs and issues, and
documents the financial resources needed to implement the RTP.
Renewable Energy: Energy from sources that regenerate and are less damaging to the environment, such as solar,
wind, biomass, and small-scale hydroelectric power.
Renewables Portfolio Standard: A regulation requiring utility companies in California to increase the production of
renewable energy from solar, wind, or biomass, or geothermal sources.
Safe Routes to School (SR2S or SRTS): A national movement aimed at providing safe environments to encourage
walking and bicycling surrounding local schools through engineering, enforcement, education, encouragement, and
evaluation. Safe Routes to School programs are typically funded through federal, state, and local grants. SR2S is the
California program; SRTS is the national program.
Safeguarding California Plan: Summarizes the best-known science on climate change impacts to California and
provides recommendations on how to manage the risks. This plan is an update to the 2009 California Climate
Adaptation Strategy.
Senate Bill (SB) X7-7: Passed in 2009, SB X7-7 requires the state to achieve a 20% reduction in per capita water use
by 2020. This law also requires local water providers to set an interim 2015 and a final 2020 community -wide target
and demonstrate that projected water use is in compliance with that target; otherwise funding will be affected.
Senate Bill (SB) 97: Requires lead agencies to analyze greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts under
the California Environmental Quality Act.
Senate Bill (SB) 375: Directs the metropolitan planning organizations in California to create a Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. The SCS will demonstrate how the region will
achieve the 2020 and 2035 greenhouse gas reduction targets for the region set by the California Air Resources Board.
Senate Bill (SB) 407: Adopted in 2010, SB 407 requires inefficient indoor plumbing fixtures be replaced with more
efficient models by 2014. Starting in 2017 for single-family property sales and 2019 for multi-family sales, the seller
must disclose inefficient indoor plumbing fixtures at the time of sale.
Senate Bill (SB) 610 (Chaptered at Water Code 10910): Requires proposed projects subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act to include a water supply assessment that proves adequate water exists for the project.
Senate Bill (SB) 1016: Adopted in 2008, SB 1016 establishes per capita waste disposal rate requirements and goals
for local agencies in California. The requirements are expressed in a pounds-per-person-per-day measurement.
Smart Grid: The smart grid delivers electricity from suppliers to consumers using two -way digital communications.
The smart grid is envisioned to overlay the ordinary electrical grid with an information and net metering system,
which includes smart meters. Smart meters will allow consumers to become more aware of their energy use and in
the future will allow smart grid-enabled appliances to be preprogrammed to operate at a time when electricity costs
are lowest.
Stationary Sources: Nonmoving sources, fixed-site producers of pollution such as power plants, chemical plants, oil
refineries, manufacturing facilities, and other industrial facilities.
Sustainability: Community use of natural resources in a way that does not jeopardize the ability of future generations
to live and prosper.
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS): The land use element of each metropolitan planning organization’s
Regional Transportation Plan as required by Senate Bill 375. The SCS will demonstrate how the region will achieve the
2020 and 2035 vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas reduction targets for the region set by the California Air
Resources Board.
Sustainable Development: Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs.
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): A mixed-use residential or commercial area designed to maximize access to
transit options.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan: A voluntary or mandatory program developed by local agencies,
large employers, or high-traffic commercial services to limit the amount of congestion and pollution related to
transportation demand. TDM plans may include incentives, regulations, and education about transportation
alternatives.
Urban Heat Island: The term "heat island" describes built-up areas that are hotter than nearby rural areas. On a hot,
sunny summer day, roof and pavement surface temperatures can be 50–90°F (27–50°C) hotter than the air, while
shaded or moist surfaces remain close to air temperatures. These surface urban heat islands, particularly during the
summer, have multiple impacts and contribute to atmospheric urban heat islands. Heat islands can affect
communities by increasing summertime peak energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions, heat-related illness and mortality, and water quality.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A key measure of overall street and highway use. Reducing VMT is often a major
objective in efforts to reduce vehicular congestion and achieve regional air quality goals.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC): A variety of chemicals with both short- and long-term adverse health effects.
VOCs are emitted as gases from a wide array of products such as paints, lacquers, cleaning supplies, markers, and
office equipment and furnishings.
Vulnerable Populations: There are three primary segments of vulnerable populations: those at risk to adverse
climate change impacts due to exposure, sensitivity, or adaptive capacity.
Exposure: Physical conditions may put particular populations at risk to the impacts of climate change. For
instance, populations living in low-lying or coastal areas may be more exposed to flooding events and sea
level rise, while those who work outside may suffer from health-related issues due to increased
temperatures and decreased air quality.
Sensitivity: Certain populations, including young children and those over the age of 65, are physiologically
more sensitive to extreme temperatures and increased instances of air pollution.
Adaptive Capacity: The adaptive capacity of lower-income and institutionalized populations can be limited
due to lower access to the resources necessary to prepare for or react to the long-term impacts of climate
change and the increased frequency of disasters.
Water Conservation: Reducing water use, such as by turning off taps, shortening shower times, and reducing
outdoor irrigation demand.
Water-Efficient Landscape: Native or low-water-using landscapes. Water-efficient landscapes are required by law in
all cities and counties in California to conserve water.
Water Use Efficiency: Replacing older technologies and practices in order to accomplish the same results with less
water, for example, by replacing toilets with new high efficiency models and by installing “smart controlle rs” in
irrigated areas.
Zero-Emissions Vehicle (ZEV): A vehicle that does not emit any tailpipe emissions from the on-board source of
power. Both electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are classified as ZEVs.
Zero Net Energy (ZNE): A ZNE building has a ZNE consumption, meaning that the energy the building uses each year
is equal to the amount of renewable energy that the building generates. In 2007, the California Public Utilities
Commission adopted the goals that all new residential construction in California will be zero net energy by 2020, and
all new commercial construction in California will be zero net energy by 2030.
ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). 2015. Priority Development Area Showcase.
http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/PDAShowcase/#
American Public Health Association. 2011. Climate Change: Mastering the Public Health Role. http://www.apha-
environment.org/pdf/APHA_ClimateChg_guidebook.pdf.
BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2010a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality
Guidelines. San Francisco: BAAQMD.
———. 2010b. The Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-
Research/Plans/Clean-Air-Plans.aspx.
———. 2010c. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
http://gismap.ccmap.us/imf/imf.jsp?site=ccmap.
Besser, Lilah and Andrew Dannenberg. 2005. “Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity
Recommendations.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 29(4): 273-280.
Butrick, Elizabeth. 1999. “Factors in Nonattendance in Extended Evening Clinics in Contra Costa County.” Unpublished
internal CCHS paper.
California Climate Action Team. 2009. Biennial Report. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CAT-1000-2009-
003/CAT-1000-2009-003-D.pdf.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Sacramento.
Cal-Adapt. 2015. http://www.cal-adapt.org.
CalRecycle. 2011. Disposal Reporting System. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov.LGCentral/Reports/DRS/.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2009. California’s 1990–2004 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and 1990
Emissions Level Technical Support Document. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/doc
/methods_v1/ghg_inventory_technical_support_document.pdf.
———. 2010a. Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
———. 2010b. Clean Car Standards—Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.
———.2010c. Pavley I and Low Carbon Fuel Standard Postprocessor Version 1.0.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/tools/postprocessor.htm.
———.2010d. ARB Landfill Emissions Tool. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov.htm.
———.2010e. Local Government Operations Protocol Version 1.1.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/lgo_protocol_v1_1_2010-05-03.pdf.
CCHS (Contra Costa Health Services). 2008. Health Disparities in Contra Costa.
http://cchealth.org/groups/rhdi/pdf/health_disparities_in_cc.pdf
———.2010. Fatal and Non-Fatal Unintentional Injury. http://cchealth.org/health-data/hospital-
council/2010/pdf/40_fatal_and_nonfatal_injury.pdf.
———.2015. Interview with CCHS Staff.
CDPH (California Department of Public Health). 2012. Climate Action for Health: Integrating Public Health into
Climate Action Planning.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2006a. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. Web document.
Sacramento: California Energy Commission.
———.2006b. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. PIER Final Project Report. Prepared by
Navigant Consulting, Inc. CEC-500-2006-118.Contra Costa County. 2005. Contra Costa County General Plan
2005-2020. http://www.co.contra-costa.ca.us/depart/cd/current/advance/GeneralPlan/CCCGeneralPlan.pdf.
———. 2011a. "Water Use and Energy Intensity Data." Memo to County staff.
———. 2011b. Urban Water Management Plan. https://www.ccwater.com/files/UWMP.pdf.
———. 2014. Housing Element of the General Plan. http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/30916Contra Costa Water District.
Cox, Kim. 2012. Contra Costa Health Services Emergency Services Manager. Interpersonal communication, October 8,
2012.
Cravens, Marisa, Miriam Chion, Michael Reilly, Gukkuab Adams, Sailaja Kurella, Lauren Baranco, and Sarah Truehaft.
2009. “Development without Displacement, Development with Diversity.”
http://www.bayareavision.org/initiatives/dwd-final.pdf
DOF (California Department of Finance), Demographic Research Unit. 2010. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for
Cities, Counties and the State, 2001–2010, with 2000 Benchmark.
http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/view.php#objCollapsiblePanelEstimatesAnchor.
Downs, A. 2004. “Remedies that increase residential densities” in Downs (ed.), Still stuck in traffic: Coping with peak-
hour traffic congestion. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2011. Urban Water Management Plan, 2010. http://www.ebmud.com/our-
water/water-supply/long-term-planning/urban-water-management-plan.
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2010. Sources of Pollutants in the Ambient Air - Stationary Sources.
http://www.epa.gov/apti/course422/ap3b.html.
———. 2012. What Are the Six Common Air Pollutants?. http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair.
Ewing, Reid and Cervero, Robert. 2010. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American
Planning Association 6(3): 265-294.
Fehr & Peers. 2012. Contra Costa County Baseline and Future Year VMT Estimates Inventory.
Frumpkin, Howard. 2001. “Urban Sprawl and Public Health.” Public Health Reports p. 117.
Garzón, Catalina. 2011. “At a Crossroads in Our Region’s Health: Freight Transport and the Future of Community
Health in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Oakland, Calif.: Pacific Institute.
http://pacinst.org/reports/crossroads_for_health/report_without_maps.pdf.
HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development). 2015. Income Limits.
http://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1997. Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/gl/invs1.html.
———. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. IPCC Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Joseph, John. 2011. Pacific Gas and Electric Company. E-mail correspondence. Oct 2011.
Kawabata, M. 2002. “Job accessibility by travel mode in U.S. metropolitan areas.” Papers and Proceedings of the
Geographic Information Systems Association (11): 115-120.
Maizlish, Neil, James Woodcock, Sean Co, Bart Ostro, Amir Fanai, and David Fairley. 2011. Health Co-Benefits in
Transportation-Related Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Bay Area: Technical Report.
Richmond, CA: Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, California Department of Public
Health. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CCDPHP/Documents/ITHIM_Technical_Report11-21-11.pdf
Mahmud, Abdullah, Mary Tyree, Dan Cayan, Nehzat Motallebi, and Michael Kleeman. 2008. “Statistical Downscaling
of Climate Change Impacts on Ozone Concentrations in California.” Journal of Geophysical Research (113):
D21103.
Margolis, H., A. Gershunov, T. Kim, and R. Trent. 2008. “2006 California Heat Wave High Death Toll: Insights Gained
from Coroner's Reports and Meteorological Characteristics of Event.” Epidemiology 19(6): 363-364.
http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Fulltext/2008/11001/2006_California_Heat_Wave_High_Death_Toll_.1000
.aspx
Meyer, Edward P. 2005. Contra Costa County 2005 Crop Report. http://www.co.contra-
costa.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=2207.
Moreland, Kimberley. 2002. “Access to Healthy Foods Limited in Poor Neighborhoods.” American Journal of
Preventative Health 92(11):1761-7.
Ong, P. and D. Houston. 2002. “Transit, employment, and women on welfare.” Urban Geography (23): 344-364.
Perera, Elizabeth and Todd Sanford. 2011. Rising Temperatures, Worsening Ozone Pollution. Union for Concerned
Scientists. http://access2healthinfo.wordpress.com/2011/06/06/climate-change-ozone-pollution-threaten-
public-health-report-says/
Schweitzer, Lisa and Zhou, Jiangping. 2010. “Neighborhood Air Quality, Respiratory Health, and Vulnerable
Populations in Compact and Sprawled Regions.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76(3): 363-371.
Walker, Jarrett. 2011. Human Transit. Island Press, Washington.
Appendix A:
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-1
INTRODUCTION
In the coming years, scientists predict dramatic changes to take place in the world’s climate, changes that are likely to
have significant consequences for the health and economy of Contra Costa County (see Chapter 2 of the Climate
Action Plan for more details). Specifically, these changes are predicted to cause increases in droughts, heat waves,
sea level rise, degraded air quality, infectious disease and allergies, and extreme weather events.1 The County
prepared its Climate Action Plan (CAP) to reduce the emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHG) from the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County to help slow,
and eventually reduce, these impacts.
While successful implementation of the CAP will allow Contra Costa County to do
its part to help reduce climate change on a global scale, it will not directly or
immediately impact local weather or conditions. However, implementing the
individual GHG reduction actions contained in the CAP does have the potential to
directly and immediately improve the health of Contra Costa County residents by
making changes to the built environment and to the social, economic, and
ecological conditions that affect health.2 These potentially better health outcomes
are referred to in this analysis as health co-benefits.
1 CDPH (California Department of Public Health). 2012. Climate Action for Health: Integrating Public Health into Climate Action Planning.
2 “The built environment includes all of the physical parts of where we live and work (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, open spaces, and infrastructure).”—Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/publications/factsheets/impactofthebuiltenvironmentonhealth.pdf
What is a
health “co-benefit”?
Strategies to prevent further
climate changes that also have
a beneficial effect on human
health and quality of life.
—California Department of
Public Health
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) undertook this analysis to identify these health co-benefits in order to give
policy-makers and the general public a richer understanding of the proposed GHG reduction actions beyond their
potential to reduce GHG emissions, and to identify which actions should be prioritized for implementation based on
their potential to improve public health.
Additionally, this analysis is intended to support health equity in Contra Costa County. While CCHS works to improve
the health of all county residents, not all groups of people experience similar health outcomes. Indeed, significant
differences (or “health inequities”) in illness, injury, life expectancy, and cause of death exist among different groups
of people. Often these inequities occur by race/ethnicity, income, gender, sexual orientation, or neighborhood—
mirroring and exacerbating already existing societal inequalities.3 CCHS has an important role in reducing health
inequities, and has adopted a mission to eliminate health inequities by caring for and improving the health of all who
live in Contra Costa County.4 Toward this end, this evaluation specifically considered the impact of implementing the
GHG reduction actions on reducing health inequities. This is especially appropriate since many of the impacts of
climate change—such as increased death, disease and injury from heat waves, floods, storms, and fires; decreased
food quality and security; and increased morbidity and mortality—associated with air pollution are predicted to
disproportionately affect those who are socially and economically disadvantaged.5
METHODS
Overall Approach
This analysis was designed to qualitatively identify the health co-benefits that could result from the GHG reduction
actions contained in the CAP. No attempt was made to quantify the amount of health benefits that might result from
the implementation of these GHG reduction actions, in either sickness avoided, lives saved, or dollars saved. While
other studies have attempted to conduct this type of quantification6,7 it was both outside the scope of this analysis to
do so, and considered to be potentially misleading given the limited research linking GHG reduction actions to
3 Wilkinson R., Marmot, M. (Eds.) 2003. Social Determinants of Health: The Solid Facts, 2nd Edition. Copenhagen: World Health Organization.
4 Contra Costa Health Services. 2005. Reducing Health Disparities Initiative Progress Report and Plan for 2005 and 2006.
http://cchealth.org/groups/rhdi/pdf/rhdi_report_2005_09.pdf
5 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2010. Indicators of Climate Change in California: Environmental Justice Impacts.
6 Maizlish, Neil, James Woodcock, Sean Co, Bart Ostro, Amir Fanai, and David Fairley. 2011. Health Co-Benefits in Transportation-Related
Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Bay Area: Technical Report. Richmond, CA: Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
Promotion, California Department of Public Health. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/CCDPHP/Documents/ITHIM_Technical_Report11-21-
11.pdf
7 ICF International. 2012. Evaluation of the Air Quality Co-Benefits of Local Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures: A Case Study of San Francisco.
San Francisco, Calif.: Prepared for US Environmental Protection Agency Region 9.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-3
quantifiable health outcomes. There is, however, precedent to conduct a qualitative assessment of the health co-
benefits of a CAP.8
Additionally, the actual health benefits that will result from the implementation of any of the GHG reduction actions
in this CAP will depend on many factors including the extent of action implementation, the geographic area or
population targeted by the action, the timing of action implementation, and the duration of action implementation.
Despite these qualifications, this analysis has attempted to prioritize the actions based on their potential to provide
health benefits as explained below.
Health Indicators
The first step in this analysis was to select the health indicators by which each GHG reduction action would be
evaluated. Health indicators are defined as changes in the natural environment, built environment, or social and
economic conditions that are linked with positive health benefits. Based on a review of the literature and
consultation with staff of the Public Health Division of CCHS, the public in the community open houses, and the
County’s Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board, nine health indicators were selected to be used in the
evaluation. These indicators were chosen because of their potentially significant link to health benefits, and because
they may potentially be affected by the GHG reduction strategies proposed in this document.
Because there is little chance that this plan will affect other aspects of human health that are high priorities for
CCHS—such as smoking prevention, immunization, or violence reduction—many potential health indicators were not
included in this analysis.
The nine health indicators selected for this evaluation are defined below. The link between each health indicator and
the health benefits it provides is documented in the next section.
1. Healthy Food: Does the action increase the availability of affordable, healthy food to Contra Costa
neighborhoods—particularly in areas currently without adequate access?
2. Physical Activity, Walkability, and Bikeability: Does the action make it more likely, easier, or safer to walk/bicycle
for exercise or transportation?
3. Outdoor Air Quality: Does the action directly or indirectly reduce regional air pollution?
4. Indoor Air Quality: Does the action improve indoor air quality?
5. Improved Access: Does the action make it easier to reach jobs, services, and other necessities—either by making
travel easier, or by placing housing and destinations closer together?
6. Green Space: Does the action encourage the planting of vegetation, or create or preserve open space or parks?
7. Job Creation: Does the action directly increase opportunities for new job creation for Contra Costa residents?
8 City of Eugene. 2010. A Community Climate and Energy Action Plan for Eugene. http://www.eugene-
or.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/565
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
8. Climate Risk Reduction (Adaptation): Does the action help deal with the impacts of climate change such as
extreme heat, drought, sea level rise, degraded air quality, flooding, increases in infectious disease and allergies,
and extreme weather events?
9. Health Equity: Does the action directly contribute to reducing health inequities by race, income, age,
neighborhood or other factors?
LITERATURE REVIEW: LINKING HEALTH INDICATORS AND HEALTH
BENEFITS
Healthy Food
Definition—Greenhouse gas reduction actions that increase the availability of affordable, healthy food to Contra
Costa neighborhoods—particularly in areas currently without adequate access.
The Link to Health Benefits
Healthy food has long been understood to be essential for human health, and has been linked to diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, cancer, and obesity prevention.9 To an extent, eating a nutritious diet is a personal choice.
However, many communities lack access to nutritious food altogether—making healthy eating impossible. A growing
body of research has documented these so-called “food deserts” and noted their disproportionate occurrence in low-
income neighborhoods and communities of color.10,11,12,13 There is a strong base of evidence for a correlation
between unhealthy food environments and unhealthy diets.14 However, the evidence causally linking food deserts to
diet, and in turn to health outcomes, is considerably less robust. Few studies have yet attempted to draw these
links.15 While the evidence base is sparse and evolving, it is nonetheless highly plausible that the availability of
healthy food does, to some degree, shape health outcomes through diet. It is therefore prudent to seek GHG
reduction actions that promote healthy food availability.
9 Ploeg, Michele, Vince Breneman, Tracey Farrigan, Karen Hamrick, David Hopkins, Phillip Kaufman, Biing-Hwan Lin, Mark Nord, Travis A. Smith,
Ryan Williams, Kelly Kinnison, Carol Olander, Anita Singh, and Elizabeth Tuckermanty. 2009. Access to Affordable and Nutritious Food:
Measuring and Understanding Food Deserts and Their Consequences. Washington, DC: US Department of Agriculture.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AP/AP036/AP036.pdf.
10 Ibid. 18-20.
11 Beaulac, Julie Kristjansson and Steven Cummins. 2009. “A Systematic Review of Food Deserts, 1966- 2007.” Preventing Chronic Disease:
Public Health Research, Practice and Policy 6(3): 1-10.
12 Larson, Nicole, Mary Story and Melissa Nelson. 2009. “Neighborhood Environments Disparities in Access to Healthy Foods in the U.S.”
American Journal of Preventative Medicine 36(1): 74-81.
13 Nayga, Rodolpho and Zy Weinberg. 1999. “Supermarket Access in the Inner Cities.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 6(3):141-145.
14 Ploeg, et al. 2009.
15 Ploeg, et al. 2009.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-5
Physical Activity, Walkability, and Bikeability
Definition—Greenhouse gas reduction actions that increase physical activity, including both intentional exercise and
walking and biking for transportation.
The Link to Health Benefits
There is a large body of evidence linking physical activity to health. In 1996, the Surgeon General considered
hundreds of studies evaluating the links between physical activity and health outcomes.16 While most studies
considered were cross-sectional, the report nonetheless found sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a clear
causal pathway between physical activity and a variety of outcomes, including:
· Lower mortality, longer life spans.
· Reduced risk of premature death from cardiovascular diseases.
· Reduced risk of developing non-insulin-dependent diabetes.
· Reduced risk of high blood pressure or hypertension.
· Reduced risks of developing colon and breast cancers.
· Slowed development of osteoarthritis and osteoporosis.
· Reduced fall-related injuries.
· Help maintaining a healthy weight.
· Increased bone, muscle, and joint health.
· Reduced depression and anxiety and better physiological well-being.
These findings are reinforced by Warburton, Nicol, and Bredin’s more recent (2006) review of the literature. The
authors found “irrefutable evidence” that physical activity is effective in reducing all-cause mortality and in the
primary and secondary prevention of many of the diseases identified by the Surgeon General’s study.17
Based on an analysis of 40 population-based studies, Williams18 cautions that the effects of moderate amounts of
physical activity on coronary heart disease and cardiovascular diseases are likely overstated in many studies, since
16 US Department of Health and Human Services. 1996. Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, Georgia: US
Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
17 Warburton, Darren, Crystal Nicol and Shannon Bredin. 2006. “Health Benefits of Physical Activity: The Evidence.” Canadian Medical Journal.
174(6):801-809.
18 Williams, Paul. 2001. “Physical Fitness and Activity as Separate Heart Disease Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis.” Med Sci Sports Exerc. 33(5): 754-
61.
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
many researchers conflate physical activity with physical fitness.19 While it is important to note this qualification, the
overwhelming bulk of evidence nonetheless supports a strong link between physical activity and health.
More recently, other authors have specifically examined the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation
strategies designed to increase biking and walking. In synthesis of systematic reviews of the medical literature,
Woodcock et al. found that moderate levels of physical activity reduced rates of cardiovascular disease, colon and
breast cancers, diabetes, dementia, lung cancer and respiratory diseases.20 Building on Woodcock’s analysis, Maizlich
estimated the potential health benefits of GHG reduction strategies in the Bay Area, suggesting that bringing walking
and biking rates from 2% to 15% would yield approximately 2,000 fewer deaths and 22,000 years of life gained
annually.21
Outdoor Air Quality
Definition—Greenhouse gas reduction actions that reduce the amount of air pollutants, other than greenhouse
gases, being emitted, either directly or indirectly.
The Link to Health Benefits
Carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, is formed during the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel fuel
and natural gas in cars, trucks, construction equipment, power plants and other sources. Also formed during the
combustion of these fuels are byproducts such as volatile organic compounds, nitrous oxides, sulfur oxides,
particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. They are considered air pollutants because they have all been found to
have acute and/or long-term health impacts. The burning of fossil fuels also creates toxic air contaminants—
pollutants that may cause serious effects, such as cancer, with long-term low levels of exposure. Also, when landfills
generate methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the decomposition of garbage, other volatile hydrocarbons that
are toxic are also generated.
There is a large body of evidence linking air pollutants to health impacts.22 Both federal and state laws have set
ambient air quality standards for many air pollutants at levels intended to adequately protect the health of the
public, including infants and children, with an adequate margin of safety.23 These standards have been set for ozone,
two forms of particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, lead, sulfates,
19 Physical activity shows a linear relationship, while physical fitness exhibits a non-linear response in which increases at lower levels of fitness
show greater responses than those at higher levels of fitness.
20 Woodcock, James, Phil Edwards, Cathryn Tonne, Ben Armstrong, Olu Ashiru, David Banister, Sean Beevers, Zaid Chalabi, Zohir Chowdhury,
Aaron Cohen, Oscar H Franco, Andy Haines, Robin Hickman, Graeme Lindsay, Ishaan Mittal, Dinesh Mohan, Geetam Tiwari, Alistair Woodward
and Ian Roberts. 2009. “Public Health Benefits of Strategies to Reduce Greenhouse-Gas Emissions: Urban Land Transport.” The Lancet
374(9705): 1930-1943.
21 Maizlish, 2011.
22 California Air Resources Board. 2012. Health Effects of Air Pollution. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/health.htm.
23 Ibid.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-7
hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. The major pollutants of concern associated with the
burning of fossil fuels are ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. Ozone itself isn’t generated
by the combustion of fossil fuels, but the volatile organic hydrocarbons and nitrous oxides generated from the
combustion process, known as precursors, react in the air with sunlight to form ozone. Some of the major health
impacts of these pollutants are24, 25:
· Particulate matter—Increased respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, premature death
· Ozone—breathing difficulties, lung tissue damage
· Nitrogen dioxide—lung irritation and damage
· Sulfur dioxide—increased lung disease, breathing problems for asthmatics
The Bay Area is currently out of attainment with the state and federal ozone and particulate matter health-based
standards.26 Ambient air quality-monitoring stations in Concord and Bethel Island have some of the highest values for
ozone in the Bay Area, and these stations violated health-based standards for both ozone and particulate matter in
2011.27
Since Contra Costa County is home to five major fossil fuel-based power plants and a number of other smaller power
plants,28 any reduction in electrical use can potentially reduce levels of ozone precursors and particulate in the
county, and can potentially help bring the Bay Area closer to attainment with these health-based standards. The
complexities of the power production grid make it extremely difficult to determine from which energy source air
pollution reductions will occur due to local energy conservation actions.29 However, local reductions in pollution
emissions from cars, industries, and landfills resulting from implementation of the CAP will directly contribute to
improving local air quality.
The major toxic air contaminants created by the burning of fossil fuels in cars, trucks power plants, and industrial
facilities are diesel particulate matter; 1,3 butadiene; benzene; formaldehyde; and acrolein. Health risks posed by
these compounds include cancer risks; chronic, non-cancer risks, such as diseases of the lungs, liver, and kidneys; and
acute risks, such as eye and respiratory irritations. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has
24 California Air Resources Board. 2012. ARB Fact Sheet, Air Pollution and Health. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs1/fs1.htm.
25 California Air Resources Board. 2012. ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm.
26 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status. http://192.69.142.5/pln/air_quality
/ambient_air_quality.htm.
27 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2011. Bay Area Air Pollution Summary.
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Communications
%20and%20Outreach/Annual%20Bay%20Area%20Air%20Quality%20Summaries/pollsum11_rev2.ashx.
28 California Energy Commission. 2012. Annual Energy Generation by County.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/web_qfer/Annual_Generation-County.php.
29 I. Rhyne, California Energy Commission., telephone interview, September 2012.
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-8 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
conducted complete reviews of the toxic properties of these compounds.30 The Bay Area Air Quality Management
District has developed an emissions model for these contaminants, ozone and particulates to determine the cancer
and non-cancer risk to communities in the Bay Area. Typically, these risks are highest in close proximity to major
sources such as highways and ports, and in the eastern portions of the County for ozone. The Bay Area Air Quality
Management District has established seven high priority areas in the Bay Area based on risk and demographic
factors. Three of these areas, portions of Richmond, Antioch/Pittsburg/Bay Point and Concord, are in Contra Costa
County. Therefore, any emissions reduction of these pollutants resulting from implementation of the CAP will help
lessen the toxic burden from these contaminants, including in these already overburdened areas of the county.31
Indoor Air Quality
Definition—Greenhouse gas reduction actions that improve indoor air quality.
The Link to Health Benefits
Some of the air pollutants that are created when fossil fuels are burned can affect indoor air quality, particularly
nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter.32 Of particular concern is a subset of particulate that is formed from the
combustion of diesel fuel in trucks, buses, ships, trains, construction equipment, and generators called diesel
particulate matter (DPM).
Many studies have documented the health impacts of DPM.33 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) declared
diesel particulate matter a toxic air contaminant in 1998 based on these health risks.34 Exposure to diesel exhaust can
have immediate health effects. CARB estimates that about 70% of the cancer risk to the average Californian from
breathing toxic air pollutants is from diesel particulate matter. Exposure to diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose,
throat and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, light-headedness, and nausea. In studies with human
volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are
allergic, such as dust and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may
30 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Toxics Air Contaminants Reports. 2012. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/toxic
_contaminants/tactable.html.
31 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2014. Improving Air Quality & Health in Bay Area Communities. Community Air Risk Evaluation
Program Retrospective & Path Forward (2004-2013).
32 Suh, Helen, Petros Koutrakis and Stephanie Ebelt. 2004. Detailed characterization of indoor and personal particulate matter concentration.
Boston, MA: Final report contract no. 00-302 prepared for the California Air Resources Board.
33 California Air Resources Board. 2012. Diesel and Health Research. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/diesel-health.htm.
34 California Air Resources Board. 2012. Rulemaking Identification of Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines as a Toxic Air
Contaminant. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-9
aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks. Other research
has suggested that diesel exhaust may even cause asthma.35
Diesel engines are a major source of fine-particle pollution. The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and
chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine-particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked
elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and
premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because children’s lungs and respiratory
systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine
particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children.36
Because of the physical properties of DPM, the exposure risks significantly diminish a short distance from the source.
Many studies have documented greater health impacts to people living near sources of air pollution, such as
DPM.37,38 For this reason, CARB has issued guidelines for how close sensitive receptors such as homes, schools, and
hospitals should be located to sources of pollution.39 GHG reduction actions in the CAP that either reduce the
emissions of DPM and nitrogen dioxide or mitigate the impacts of these pollutants on indoor environments will
lessen the health impacts of these pollutants.
Improved Access
Definition—Greenhouse gas reduction actions that make it easier to reach jobs, services, and other necessities. This
includes actions which make traveling a given distance easier, as well as those that reduce the distance between
destinations (i.e., infill development). While access to jobs and services is important to all people, this criteria is
particularly important for people with disabilities, elderly people, those with few resources or no cars, and others for
whom travel may be difficult or prohibitively expensive.
The Link to Health Benefits
Access contributes to health by allowing people to reach the basic necessities of a healthy life, such as healthcare,
food, economic opportunity, and social/familial interaction. Few if any studies attempt to link access overall to
health outcomes. Rather, researchers in a variety of fields have assessed the health effects of access to specific
categories of services. These are briefly elaborated below.
35 Pandya, Robert, Gina Solomon, Amy Kinner and John Balmes. 2002. “Diesel Exhaust and Asthma: Hypotheses and Molecular Mechanisms of
Action”. Environmental Health Perspectives 110 (Sup 1):103 -111.
36 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the American Lung Association. Undated. Health Effects of Diesel Exhaust
Factsheet.
37 Health and Clean Air. Spring-Summer. 2004. Health and Clean Air Newsletter. http://www.healthandcleanair.org/newsletters/issue6.pdf
38 Kim, Janice, Svetlana Smorodinsky, Michael Lipsett, Brett Singer, Alfred Hodgson and Bart Ostro. 2004. “Traffic-related Air Pollution near Busy
Roads, the East Bay Children’s Respiratory Health Study”. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (170): 520-526.
39 California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
While there is an intuitive link between geographic access to healthcare and health outcomes—patients cannot be
treated if they cannot reach healthcare providers—there is sparse literature documenting this link. The few reviews
published have largely reported on the state of the practice and have not offered conclusions about the relationship
between access to healthcare and health outcomes.40,41,42,43
However, a number of individual studies do suggest that lack of access can significantly contribute to poor healthcare
and health. Baker, for instance, found that long transportation times were associated with increased reliance on the
emergency room44, while Meden found them to change cancer treatment choices.45 In this county, patients in
evening clinics reported that 24% of their missed appointments were due to transportation difficulties.46 These
difficulties are often exacerbated for those without cars; Rask found low-income patients who depend on transit or
their feet to be less likely to receive consistent, timely care.47
As discussed in the healthy food section above, many neighborhoods—especially low-income neighborhoods and
communities of color—are not adequately served by affordable, healthy food retailers. This situation is often
exacerbated by poor transportation access. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes, “A poor
transportation system cuts off access to many food outlets—especially for those who do not own a car or have no
access to reliable and affordable public transportation.”48 This statement is echoed by several reviews of the food
access literature, which conclude that healthy food access is mediated by transportation availability and
affordability.49,50
40 McLafferty, Sara. 2003. “GIS and Health Care”. Annual Review of Public Health (24):25-42.
41 Higgs, Gary. 2004. “A Literature Review of the Use of GIS-Based Measures of Access to Health Care Services.” Health Services and Outcome
Research Methodology (5): 125-145.
42 Graves, Barbara. 2008. “Integrative Literature Review: A Review of Literature Related to Geographical Information Systems, Healthcare
Access, and Health Outcomes.” Perspectives in Health Information Management 5(11).
43 Nykiforuk Candace and Laura Flaman. 2011. “Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for Health Promotion and Public Health: A Review.”
Health Promotion Practice 12(1):63–73
44 Baker, David, Carl Stevens and Robert Brook. 1996. “Determinants of Emergency Department Use: Are Race and Ethnicity Important?”
Annals of Emergency Medicine 28(6):667-682.
45 Meden, Terry. Celeste St John-Larkin, Deborah Hermes and Stephen Sommershield. 2002. “Relationship between Travel Distance and
Utilization of Breast Cancer Treatment in Rural Northern Michigan.” Journal of the American Medical Association 287(1):111.
46 Butrick, Elizabeth. 1999. “Factors in Nonattendance in Extended Evening Clinics in Contra Costa County,” Unpublished paper for Contra Costa
Health Services. This study examined the reasons patients missed appointments at CCHS’s Extended Evening Clinics located in Richmond,
Martinez, and Pittsburg.
47 Rask, Kimberly, Mark Williams, Ruth Parker, and Sally McNagny. 1994. “Obstacles Predicting Lack of a Regular Provider and Delays in Seeking
Care for Patients at an Urban Public Hospital.” Journal of the American Medical Association 1(24):1931-3.
48 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. Transportation and Food Access.
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/healthyfood/transportation.htm
49 Beaulac, Julie Kristjansson and Steven Cummins. 2009. “A Systematic Review of Food Deserts, 1966- 2007.” Preventing Chronic Disease:
Public Health Research, Practice and Policy 6(3): 1-10.
50 Nayga, Rodolpho and Zy Weinberg. 1999. “Supermarket Access in the Inner Cities.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 6(3):141-145.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-11
Access is also a primary factor in determining economic opportunity, which in turn is linked to health outcomes.
There is a large body of planning literature on the so-called spatial mismatch hypothesis, which suggests that
proximity to jobs is a strong predictor of employment, earnings, and job security.51,52,53,54 More recently, scholars
have proposed a “modal mismatch” faced by carless workers and dispersed employment opportunity, finding strong
evidence that low access to automobiles shapes economic outcomes.55 These socioeconomic outcomes have, in turn,
a strong and well-documented link to health.56,57,58
Green Space
Definition—Greenhouse gas reduction actions that encourage the planting of trees or vegetation, or create or
preserve open space or parks.
The Link to Health Benefits
A number of studies have drawn links between green space and health outcomes. In general, researchers have
identified statistically significant associations between green spaces and health, although the exact causal pathways
remain somewhat murky. That said, the links between green space and physical activity, and to corresponding
improvements in health, are relatively clear and well established.59 Green space is also thought to increase
perceptions of safety, attractiveness, and calm,60 and most studies do find positive, self-reported mental health
benefits such as increased relaxation, attention, energy, and feelings of well-being.61 There is less evidence for
physiological effects such as reduced blood pressure or lower cortisol levels, although research is, as yet,
underdeveloped.62 Green spaces may also improve health outcomes by mitigating the harmful effects of noise, heat,
51 Holzer, Harry J. 1991. “The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: What Has the Evidence Shown?” Urban Studies 28 (1): 105-22.
52 Ihlanfeldt, Keith and David Sjoquist. 1998. The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: A Review of Recent Studies and their Implications for Welfare
Reform. Housing Policy Debate 9 (4): 849-92.
53 Kain, John. 1992. The Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis: Three Decades Later. Housing Policy Debate 3 (2): 371-460.
54 Preston,Valerie, and Sara McLafferty. 1999. Spatial Mismatch Research in the 1990s: Progress and Potential. Papers in Regional Science
28:387-402.
55 Blumenberg, Eveyln and Manville, Michael. 2004. “Beyond the Spatial Mismatch: Welfare Recipients and Transportation Policy.” Journal of
Planning Literature 19(2): 182-205.
56 Marmot Michael, Manolis Kogevinas and Mary Ann Elston. 1987. “Social/economic Status and Disease.” Annual Review of Public Health
8:111–135.
57 Feinstein JS. 1993. The relationship between socioeconomic status and health: a review of the literature. Milbank Q. 71:279–322.
58 Yen IH, Syme SL. 1999. The social environment and health: a discussion of the epidemiologic literature. Annu Rev Public Health 20:287–308.
59 Lee, Andrew and Maheswaren, Ravi. 2011. “The Health Benefits of Urban Green Spaces: A Review of the Evidence.” Journal of Public Health
22(2):212-222. http://jpubhealth.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/2/212.full.
60 Ibid.
61 Bowler, et al. 2010. “A Systemic Review of Evidence for the Added Benefits to Health of Exposure to Natural Environments.” BMC Public
Health 10: 456. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/456
62 Ibid.
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-12 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
and air and water pollution.63 In particular, research suggests that green space can help cool urban heat islands, a
role that will increase in importance as the climate continues to change.64,65,66
Job Creation
Definition—Greenhouse gas reduction actions that directly increase opportunities for new job creation for Contra
Costa residents.
The Link to Health Benefits
Because they are essential to economic security in this country, jobs are an essential precondition of good health. A
wide range of research has established the links between employment and health. Overall, researchers have
consistently found a strong relationship between socioeconomic status and health.67,68,69 More specifically, increases
in income are associated with better health outcomes, particularly near the bottom of the income scale.70
Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis found that income inequality negatively impacted both self-rated health and
overall mortality risk, implying that it might be particularly important to create jobs for low-income individuals and
communities.71 Research also suggests that job insecurity is associated with increased risk of poor health, and that
unemployment is associated with decreased mental health.7273,
Climate Risk Reduction (Adaptation)
Definition—Greenhouse gas reduction actions that help communities deal with the impacts of climate change such as
extreme heat, drought, sea level rise, degraded air quality, flooding, and increases in infectious disease and allergies.
63 http://www.hiaconnect.edu.au/files/Guide_to_HIA_of_Greenspace.pdf
64 Department of Transport Local Government and Regions. 2002. Green spaces, better places: final report of the Urban Green Spaces
Taskforce: Department of Transport Local Government and Regions.
65 Countryside and Community Research Unit University of Gloucester. 2003. Community forestry delivering sustainable regeneration project
evaluation. Edinburgh: Forestry Commission.
66 Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Reducing Urban Heat Islands: Compendium of Strategies: Trees and Vegetation.
http://www.epa.gov/hiri/resources/compendium.htm
67 Marmot MG, Kogevinas M, Elston MA. 1987. Social/economic status and disease. Annual Review of Public Health 8:111–135.
68 Feinstein JS. 1993. The relationship between socioeconomic status and health: a review of the literature. Milbank Q. 71:279–322.
69 Yen IH, Syme SL. 1999. The social environment and health: a discussion of the epidemiologic literature. Annual Rev Public Health 20:287–308.
70 Bhatia, Rajiv and Katz, Mitchell. 2001. “Estimation of Health Benefits from a Local Living Wage Ordinance.” American Journal of Public Health
91(9): 13987-1402.
71 Kondo, N., Sembaje G., Kawachi, I., van Dam R.M., Subramanian, S.V. and Yamagata, Z. 2009. “Income Inequality, Mortality, and Self Rated
Health: A Meta-Analysis of Multilevel Studies.” BMJ Nov 10;339:b4471.
72 László, Kristina, Pikhart, Hynek, Kopp, Mária, Bobak, Martin, Pajak, Andrezej, Malyutina, Sofia, Gyöngyvér Salavecz, and Michael Marmot.
2010. “Job insecurity and health: a study of 16 European countries.” Social Science Medicine 70: 867–874.
73 McKee-Ryan, Frances; Song, Zhaoli; Wanberg, Connie R.; Kinicki, Angelo J. 2005. “Psychological and Physical Well-Being During
Unemployment: A Meta-Analytic Study.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90(1), 53-76.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-13
The Link to Health Benefits
As detailed in Chapters 2 and 4 of the CAP, the changing climate is projected to have wide-ranging negative impacts
that will affect public health. These include negative impacts on air quality; increases in extreme heat, average
temperature, and severe weather events such as flooding and wildfires; and risks to food security from drought, and
changing patterns and yields of crops.74 Therefore, any action could potentially help reduce the health risks from
climate change by addressing any one of these impacts.
Actions that directly reduce outdoor air pollution are those that reduce the use of cars, trucks, or other sources that
burn fossil fuels, or reduce the emissions of air pollutants from sources at the same time as reducing their GHG
emissions through control technologies or efficiency, such as at landfills or industrial sources. Indirect reductions
occur when the implementation of an action reduces the need to generate electricity through conservation or energy
efficiency actions, or creates alternative sources of energy that do not burn fossil fuels. Increased levels of air
pollution are predicted because of hotter temperatures driving up ozone levels and additional pollution generated by
the increased need for electricity to cool homes during extreme heat events.75 The links to health benefits from
reducing air pollution are detailed in the Outdoor Air Quality section above.
Increasing energy conservation through better insulation and weatherization practices can have the added benefit of
keeping homes and commercial buildings without air conditioners cooler during extreme heat events and make it
more cost-effective to cool building with air conditioners. A broad spectrum of health impacts have been associated
with exposure to heat, ranging from mild heat cramps to severe, life-threatening heat stroke. Children and the
elderly, socially isolated populations, outdoor workers, the poor, the chronically ill, and the medically underserved
are more vulnerable to the effects of heat than the general population.76 Heat waves are expected to occur more
frequently and grow longer and more intense, posing particular risk to the most vulnerable.77 One study of the 2003
heat wave in France that killed thousands of people found that an inefficient amount of building insulation was one
factor associated with death.78
Reducing the risk from extreme heat has been identified as an important steps to counter the heat island effect.79,80
On a hot, sunny summer day, roof and pavement surface temperatures can be 50–90°F (27–50°C) hotter than the air,
74 California Department of Public Health. 2012. Climate Action for Health: Integrating Public Health into Climate Action Planning.
75 California Climate Change Center. 2006. Public Health-related Impacts of Climate Change in California. CEC-500-2005-197-SF
76 California Department of Public Health. 2007. Public Health Impacts of Climate Change in California: Community Vulnerability Assessments
and Adaptation Strategies. Report No. 1: Heat-Related Illness and Mortality. Http://www.ehib.org/paper.jsp?paper_key=Climate_change_2008
77 California Climate Change Center. 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012 Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change
in California - Brochure. Publication # CEC-500-2012-007.
78 Vandentorren S, Bretin P, Zeghnoun A, Mandereau-Bruno L, Croisier A, Cochet C, Ribéron J, Siberan I, Declercq B, Ledrans M. 2003. “Heat
wave in France: risk factors for death of elderly people living at home.” Eur J Public Health. 16(6):583-91. Epub 2006 Oct 6.
79 California Department of Public Health. 2007. Public Health Impacts of Climate Change in California: Community Vulnerability Assessments
and Adaptation Strategies. Report No. 1: Heat-Related Illness and Mortality. Http://www.ehib.org/paper.jsp?paper_key=Climate_change_2008
80 EPA. Heat Island Effect web site. http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/mitigation/index.htm
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-14 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
while shaded or moist surfaces—often in more rural surroundings—remain close to air temperatures.81 These surface
urban heat islands, particularly during the summer, have multiple impacts and contribute to atmospheric urban heat
islands. Air temperatures in cities, particularly after sunset, can be as much as 22°F (12°C) warmer than the air in
neighboring, less developed regions.82
Increasing water conservation or improving access to locally grown food reduces the risk from drought. Climate
change is projected to reduce freshwater supplies. As surface water supplies are reduced, groundwater pumping is
expected to increase, resulting in potentially lower water tables and adverse impacts on water quality. Drought
conditions may lead to increased concentrations of contaminants in drinking water supplies.83 In addition, drought
could lead to hunger and malnutrition caused by disruption in food and water supply, increased cost and conflict over
food and water, food and water-borne disease, and the emergence of new contagious and vector-borne disease.84
The state’s climate change adaptation strategy for addressing projected impacts on water supply calls for aggressive
conservation and efficiency strategies.85
Health Equity
Definition—Greenhouse gas reduction actions that directly reduce health inequities by race, income, gender,
disability, age, neighborhood, or other factors.
The Link to Health Benefits
The vision for Healthy People 2020, the official document that defines the nation’s goals for health,86 is a society in
which all (emphasis added) people live long, healthy lives. Two of the four main goals of Healthy People 2020 are:
· Achieving health equity, eliminating disparities, and improving the health of all groups.
· Creating social and physical environments that promote good health for all.
Therefore, implementing actions that will help reduce health inequities will move the county closer to meeting these
national health goals. Unequal access to healthy food, jobs, services, and opportunities for physical activity, and
unequal exposure to indoor and outdoor air pollution all contribute to health inequity.87
81 Berdahl P. and S. Bretz. 1997. Preliminary survey of the solar reflectance of cool roofing materials. Energy and Buildings 25:149-158.
82 Akbari, H. 2005. Energy Saving Potentials and Air Quality Benefits of Urban Heat Island Mitigation (PDF) (19 pp, 251K). Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory.
83 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2010. Indicators of climate change in California: Environmental Justice Impacts.
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/multimedia/epic/epic123110.html
84 California Department of Public Health. 2012. Climate Action for Health: Integrating Public Health into Climate Action Planning.
85 California Department of Water Resources. 2008. Managing an Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s
Water. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/ClimateChangeWhitePaper.pdf
86 Federal Interagency Working Group. Undated. Healthy People 2020 Framework. http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/Consortium/
HP2020Framework.pdf
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-15
Contra Costa County suffers from serious health inequity. The Public Health Division of Contra Costa Health Services
publishes a periodic report detailing health outcomes in the county.88 According to this report, 29% of the poorest
adults self-reported their health as fair or poor, while only 8% of those in the highest category reported their health
as fair or poor. Life expectancy in the wealthiest census tracts in the county was 81.4 years, while in the poorest
census tracts it was 74.9 years. Only 5.3% of adults with at least a master’s degree or professional degree self-
reported poor or fair health while 22.6% of adults with a high school diploma or less self-reported poor or fair health.
For the best-educated census tracts the life expectancy is 84 years, while those census tracts with the lowest levels of
education have a life expectancy of 74.6 years. Health expectancy also differs by race in the county. Life expectancy
for Asian/Pacific Islanders is 86 years, while for Hispanics it is 85.7 years; for whites it is 84 years, and for African
Americans it is 73.1 years.
In addition, health outcomes varied by race. African Americans have significantly higher rates than the county as a
whole for risk of death from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke, and homicide, unintentional injury, fetal and
infant death, childhood asthma hospitalization, being overweight and obese, assault hospitalization, low birth weight,
teen births and AIDS. Hispanics have significantly higher rates than the county as a whole for risk of teen birth.
People living in certain cities also have higher risks than the county as a whole for certain health outcomes. As an
example, San Pablo residents have a higher risk than the county as a whole for death from heart disease, cancer,
stroke, and homicide, overweight and obese fifth-graders, and teen births. In addition, Contra Costa County as a
whole has a worse rate of homicide, cases of all types of cancer, and childhood asthma hospitalizations than the
California average.
EVALUATION OF GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION MEASURES
The second step in the process was to evaluate each proposed GHG reduction measure in the CAP to determine if
they were likely to affect each health indicator. This evaluation was made through a review of the literature, and in
consultation with staff of the Public Health Division of Contra Costa Health Services and the County’s Public and
Environmental Health Advisory Board.
The following criteria for evaluating each GHG reduction measure were developed:
1) The measures themselves were individually evaluated, not the sub-actions or goals.
2) There had to be a primary link between the measure and the health indicator for there to be considered a
positive effect.
87 Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative. 2008. Health Inequities in the Bay Area.
http://www.barhii.org/press/download/barhii_report08.pdf.
88 Community Health Indicators for Contra Costa County. 2010. Community Health Assessment, Planning and Evaluation (CHAPE) Unit of Contra
Costa Health Services’ Public Health Division. http://cchealth.org/health-data/hospital-
council/2010/pdf/2010_community_health_indicators_report_complete.pdf
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-16 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
3) The number of health indicators positively affected by each measure was not totaled because this would give
the false impression that a measure affecting multiple health indicators necessarily provided more health benefits
than a measure which affected fewer health indicators.
4) For a measure to positively affect the equity health indicator, the implementation of the measure as
described had to have an explicit benefit to a vulnerable or disproportionately impacted population.
5) For a measure to have a positive effect on any health indicator, the health benefit derived from the
implementation of the measure had to occur within Contra Costa County. Outdoor air quality was considered an
exception because the complexities of the power production grid make it extremely difficult to determine from
which energy source air pollution reductions will occur due to local energy conservation actions.89
GHG reduction measures that met the above criteria for a given health indicator were considered to have a positive
effect on that indicator. GHG reduction measures could have an effect on more than one health indicator. If a
measure could potentially affect a health indicator, but did not explicitly do so as written, it was marked as P (for
potential). Measures that could have potential negative impacts on health were marked as PN for that category.
Notes were provided as to how measures could be modified so that potential positive effects could be changed to
positive effects and potential negative impacts could be addressed.
RESULTS
This section summarizes the results of the evaluation of the 93 greenhouse gas reduction measures contained in the
CAP. All of the measures had a positive effect on the health indicators to a varying degree. Table A.1 summarizes the
measures that affected each health indicator. These effects are described below.
89 I. Rhyne, California Energy Commission, telephone interview, September 2012.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-17
Table A.1. Summary of Measures by Health Criteria
Health
Indicator
Healthy
Food
Physical
Activity,
Walkability,
Bikeablility
Outdoor
Air
Quality
Indoor
Air
Quality
Improved
Access
Green
Space
Job
Creation
Climate
Risk
Adaptation
Health
Equity
Reduction
Measures
LUT 5.1
LUT 5.2
LUT 5.3
LUT 5.4
LUT 5.5
LUT 5.6
EE 4.1
EE 4.5
LUT 1.1
LUT 1.2
LUT 1.3
LUT 1.4
LUT 1.5
LUT 1.6
LUT 1.7
LUT 1.8
LUT 4.1
LUT 4.4
LUT 4.5
LUT 4.6
GO 2.4
ALL EE 1.1
EE 1.2
EE 1.3
EE 1.4
EE 1.6
EE 2.1
EE 2.2
EE 2.3
EE 2.4
EE 2.5
EE 2.6
EE 2.7
EE 3.1
EE 3.2
EE 5.3
RE 3.1
RE 3.2
LUT 2.1
LUT 3.1
LUT 3.2
LUT 3.3
LUT 3.4
LUT 4.2
LUT 4.4
W 1.5
W 2.2
GO 2.1
LUT 1.1
LUT 1.4
LUT 1.5
LUT 1.6
LUT 1.8
LUT 4.1
LUT 4.5
EE 4.1
EE 4.5
LUT 5.1
LUT 5.2
LUT 5.3
LUT 5.4
LUT 5.5
LUT 5.6
EE 5.3 EE 1.1
EE 1.2
EE 1.3
EE 1.4
EE 1.6
EE 2.1
EE 2.2
EE 2.3
EE 2.4
EE 2.5
EE 2.6
EE 2.7
EE 3.1
EE 3.2
EE 4.1
EE 4.2
EE 4.3
EE 4.4
EE 4.5
EE 5.3
RE 3.1
RE 3.2
LUT 5.1
LUT 5.2
LUT 5.3
LUT 5.4
LUT 5.5
WE 1.1
WE 1.2
WE 2.1
WE 2.2
GO 2.1
GO 3.1
GO 3.2
EE 1.3
EE 1.4
EE 5.2
RE 3.2
LUT 1.2
LUT 1.7
LUT 2.1
LUT 3.1
LUT 3.3
LUT 4.2
W 1.5
W 2.1
W 2.2
GO 5.5
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-18 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measures that Increased the Availability of Healthy Food—Only six measures explicitly increased the availability of
healthy food. These measures call on the county to support farmers markets, community and school gardens, and
other agricultural practices; create partnerships and discourage schools from being sited in agricultural areas.
Measures that Promote Physical Activity, Walkability and Bikeability—Fifteen of the measures promoted physical
activity, walkability, and bikeability. Some measures did so directly, by proving safer and more convenient sidewalks,
streets, and paths on which to walk and bike. Some measures recommend improving transit service which can also
increase physical activity because transit users must walk or bike to transit stops, and because good transit can make
it possible to live without a car. Other measures increased physical activity in less intuitive, but no less powerful
ways. Some measures, for instance, recommended increasing density near public transportation which can increase
physical activity by allowing more people to live within walking distance of transit stops.
Eight measures that promoted physical activity, walkability, and bikeability also had the potential to have a negative
health impact. By increasing the number of walkers and bikers these actions also increased the risk of accidents,
especially between bikers and walkers, and cars. This potential negative impact could be mitigated by ensuring that
proper actions are taken to improve bike and pedestrian safety.
Measures that Improved Outdoor Air Quality—All of the proposed measures reduced outdoor air pollution, either
directly or indirectly. Measures that directly reduce outdoor air pollution are those that reduce the use of cars, trucks
or other sources that burn fossil fuels, or reduce the emission of air pollutants from sources at the same time as
reducing their GHG emissions through control technologies or efficiency, such as at landfills or industrial sources.
Indirect reductions occur when the implementation of a measure reduces the need to generate electricity through
conservation or energy efficiency actions, or creates alternative sources of energy that do not burn fossil fuels. Since
much of the electricity used in Contra Costa County is currently generated by the burning of fossil fuels, increasing
energy conservation, increasing efficiency, or creating alternative sources of electricity will result in the reduction of
the pollution associated with the burning of fossil fuels.
Two measures had the potential to increase outdoor air quality risks by possibly creating new sources of outdoor air
pollution within the county. Two other measures had the potential to increase outdoor and indoor air quality health
risks by encouraging housing and work production in areas potentially located too close to sources of air pollution.
These risks could be minimized by limiting development close to sources of air pollution, and/or through appropriate
mitigation measures (see Priority Measures 3 for more details).
Measures that Improved Indoor Air Quality—Twenty seven of the measures improved indoor air quality. Seventeen
of these measures would help improve energy efficiency in buildings which can also help prevent the intrusion of
particulate matter. Ten of the measures reduced sources of particulate matter near residential areas, which will help
reduce indoor levels of these pollutants.
Two measures had the potential to increase indoor air quality health risks by encouraging housing and commercial
production in areas potentially located too close to sources of air pollution.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-19
Measures that Improved Access to Jobs, Services, and Other Necessities—Seven measures improved access to jobs,
services, and other necessities. There are two types of measures that increase access to jobs and services. The first
type includes actions that increase mobility. In other words, these measures make it easier for Contra Costa residents
to travel to their destinations. Some of the measures proposed in the CAP, particularly those in the Land Use and
Transportation section, help to increase mobility—for instance, by providing more transit options and establishing
walking and biking connections, or enabling “virtual mobility” through telecommuting.
Other recommended measures increase access by reducing the distance to destinations. Jobs, housing, healthcare, or
other services are far easier to reach when they are clustered near housing. This clustering is particularly important
for people without cars, who must depend on transit, bicycles, carpools, or their own feet to reach destinations. A
number of the actions included in this plan help to achieve this result by increasing densities and infill development,
ensuring that housing and services are co-located .90
Measures that Increased Green Space—Eight measures increased green space. One measure recommended creating
greener urban spaces, sidewalks, and streets by increasing shading vegetation. Several measures promoted
community gardens and other agricultural spaces. A third measure promoted infill development which can preserve
green spaces by diverting development that would otherwise be built on “greenfield” lots. Four other measures had
the potential to increase green space, primarily by ensuring that development plans specifically address the
development of green space.
Measures that Promoted Job Creation—One energy-efficiency measure in the CAP had a job creation element in it.
This measure calls for programs to train local residents in energy-efficiency retrofits, weatherization, and green
building careers. Three other measures had the potential to promote job creation if they were modified to include
job training and development programs.
Measures that Addressed Climate Risk Reduction—Thirty four measures addressed climate risk reduction. As
detailed in Chapter 2 of the CAP, the changing climate is projected to have wide-ranging negative public health
impacts. These include negative impacts on air quality; increases in extreme heat, average temperature, severe
weather events such as flooding and wildfires; and risks to food security from drought, and changing patterns and
yields of crops. Therefore, a measure could help reduce the health risks of climate change by addressing any one of
these impacts.
All of the proposed measures reduced outdoor air pollution, either directly or indirectly, as discussed in the Outdoor
Air Quality section above. This will be most beneficial for reducing the predicted increases in ozone pollution caused
by hotter weather. (See Chapter 2 of the CAP for more details.) Seventeen measures included elements to reduce
building energy use through better insulation and weatherization practices. This can help keep homes and
commercial buildings without air conditioners cooler during extreme heat events, and lower the cost of cooling for
those buildings with air conditioners. Two measures encouraged the shading of buildings and pavement with
vegetation, and two measures encouraged the increased use of cool roofs and cool pavement materials in order to
90 Shoup, Donald. 2011. The High Cost of Free Parking. Chicago, Il: American Planning Association.
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-20 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
reduce the urban heat island effect. All of these measures will help keep internal building temperatures lower during
extreme heat events. Eleven measures encouraged water conservation or urban agriculture, which will help reduce
the impacts of drought.
Measures that Improved Health Equity— Fourteen of the measures improved health equity. Five of these measures
specifically benefited low-income populations, and eight targeted air quality improvements for low-income, minority
populations,
Twenty five measures had the potential to improve health equity if they were modified appropriately, primarily by
targeting the benefit of the action more specifically to a vulnerable population or area. These modifications included
such factors as targeting training programs specifically in low-income areas, targeting built environment
improvements for vulnerable populations, emphasizing increased bus ridership, and incorporating crime prevention
actions and targeting outreach in culturally appropriate ways in multiple languages. Two measures were also
identified as having the potential to increase health inequity by increasing air pollution in already impacted
predominately low-income, minority communities.
PRIORITY MEASURES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the above evaluation of the potential health benefits of the CAP’s GHG reduction measures, CCHS has
concluded that four types of measures provided the highest benefit to human health. These were measures that
significantly promoted the following outcomes:
· Increased Walking and Biking
· Increased Public Transportation
· Increased Infill Development
· Health Equity
In prioritizing these types of measures, CCHS considered several factors:
Health Indicators: In the evaluation above, did measures show the potential to positively affect a number of health
indicators?
Significant Impact: Where the evaluation found the measures had potential positive effects, were these effects likely
to have a significant impact on human health?
Structural Change: Will the effects of the measures be wide-scale and long-lasting, and will they help to change the
underlying conditions that contribute to poor health?
Public Health Mission Consistency: Do the measures match CCHS’s policies, mission, and mandate?
Community Input: Were the measures supported by Contra Costa residents during community workshops and by the
Public and Environmental Health Advisory Board?
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-21
This section outlines why these outcomes are priorities. It also lists the individual measures which promoted each
outcome. It is the intention of this document to help guide Contra Costa County in the adoption and implementation
of its CAP. Toward this end, this section also makes recommendations about how these measures can best support
health and safety. Table A.2 identifies priority measures for each of the priority outcomes.
Table A.2. Measures to Achieve Priority Outcome
Walking and Biking Public Transportation Infill Development Health Equity
EE 4.1
EE 4.5
LUT 1.1
LUT 1.2
LUT 1.3
LUT 1.4
LUT 1.5
LUT 1.6
LUT 1.7
LUT 1.8
LUT 4.1
LUT 4.4
LUT 4.5
LUT 4.6
GO 2.4
GO 5.5
LUT 1.1
LUT 1.7
LUT 4.1
LUT 4.5
LUT 4.6
GO 5.5
LUT 4.5
LUT 5.6
GO 2.4
GO 5.5
EE 1.3
EE 1.4
LUT 1.7
EE 5.2
RE 3.2
LUT 1.2
LUT 2.1
LUT 3.1
LUT 3.3
LUT 4.2
W 1.5
W 2.1
W 2.2
GO 5.5
1. Increased Walking and Biking
Health Indicators
This evaluation found the walking and biking improvement measures to be associated with four health indicators. By
their nature, these actions improve physical activity, as well as make such activity safer. By shifting some trips from
cars, bike and pedestrian improvements can also improve air quality. While these improvements are sometimes
targeted toward recreation, they can also facilitate access to goods and services by making it easier and safer to walk
or bike to jobs, schools, healthcare, family, transit stops, or other destinations. Finally, since lower-income people
must often depend on walking (and to a lesser extent biking) to get around, investments in walking and biking have
the potential to contribute to health equity.
Significant Impact
Physical activity has been shown to have a powerful influence on a variety of health outcomes including lower
mortality, lower risk of cardiovascular diseases, lower risk of diabetes, lower risk of some cancers, improved mental
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-22 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
health, and healthier bones, muscles and joints (see Section III for more details). A recent study estimated the
potential cost savings from the health benefits of dramatically increasing Bay Area physical activity at $34 billion
annually.91
Improving walking and biking safety can also have a significant effect on injury rates. As of 2007, traffic accidents
(involving cars, bikes, and pedestrians) were the leading cause of injury deaths in Contra Costa County.92 Investments
in bike and pedestrian safety can dramatically reduce these rates.
Structural Change
In conjunction with other policies, such as infill development and transit service, improving walking and biking
conditions can also help to alter the long-term patterns of automobile dependence and sprawl that exact high
societal health costs such as air pollution, accidents/injuries, diabetes and obesity, cardiovascular disease, urban heat
island effects, poor mental health, and exclusion from opportunity.93
Contra Costa Health Services Mission Consistency
Improving biking and walking conditions is consistent with the goals and strategies of the Community Wellness and
Prevention Program’s Injury Prevention and Physical Activity Promotion Project.94
Community Input
“Diverse, low-cost transportation options” received extremely high public support during the open house process, as
did “bicycle and pedestrian improvements” specifically.
Priority Walking and Biking Measures
EE 4.1 - Encourage multi-family residential and nonresidential development to increase use of higher-albedo
materials for surfaces including roofs, parking areas, driveways, roads, and sidewalks.
EE 4.5 - Support community programs to plant and maintain trees in urban and rural areas.
LUT 1.1 - Collaborate with local transportation, land use agencies, nonprofits, and other stakeholders to expand
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and existing public transportation (Bay Area Rapid Transit, Amtrak, AC Transit, County
Connection, and Tri Delta Transit).
LUT 1.2 - Identify funding sources and assist with Safe Routes to School Program implementation.
LUT 1.3 - Work with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, local school districts, and advocacy organizations
such as the East Bay Bicycle Coalition to encourage bicycle safety classes in all schools.
91 Maizlish, Niel. 2011. Health Co-Benefits in Transportation-Related Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Bay Area: Technical
Report. Richmond, Ca: Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, California Department of Public Health.
92 Contra Costa Health Services. http://cchealth.org/health-data/hospital-council/2010/pdf/40_fatal_and_nonfatal_injury.pdf.
93 Frumpkin, Howard. 2001. “Urban Sprawl and Public Health” Public Health Reports 117.
94 See for instance: http://cchealth.org/injury-prevention/pdf/life_cycle.pdf
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-23
LUT 1.4 - Update County road standards, as opportunities arise, to accommodate all modes of transportation in local
street designs (i.e., complete streets). Implement standards as part of routine maintenance and striping.
LUT 1.5 - Through periodic updates to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Bicycle and
Pedestrian Plan, identify opportunities to improve access to community-wide bicycle and pedestrian networks by
closing gaps in the network, removing barriers, and providing additional bike- and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure.
LUT 1.6 - Cooperate with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and adjoining jurisdictions in updating and
implementing the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and local plans.
LUT 1.7 - Revise the County CEQA guidelines to reflect implementation of Senate Bill 743.
LUT 1.8 - Establish a 2020 mode share goal for bicycling by a Board of Supervisors resolution, identify specific actions
to reach the goal, integrate the goal into future General Plan updates, and appeal to other agencies to adopt the
same goal.
LUT 4.1 - Collaborate with BART and other transit providers to increase ridership in the county.
LUT 4.4 - Continue to promote voluntary trip reduction programs such as school buses, Rideshare, Spare-the-Air
Days, Bike to Work Day, employer shuttles, and alternative work schedules.
LUT 4.5 - Work to increase densities within half a mile of BART and Amtrak stations, and within a quarter of a mile of
stops for express bus routes.
LUT 4.6 - Prioritize alternative mode access to BART and other transit stations.
GO 2.4 - Site facilities that have more than 50 personnel in close proximity to infrastructure and services that support
alternative commute modes.
GO 5.5 - Advocate for regional, state, and federal activities that support GHG emissions in the county, including but
not limited to the following:
· Work with BAAQMD to support reductions in process emissions from industrial entities.
· Where appropriate, adopt language in the County’s state and federal legislative platforms that directs
support and lobbying for local GHG reductions.
· Advocate for additional transit funding sources concurrently with the development of priority development
areas.
Implementation Recommendations to Best Support Health and Safety
There are a number of ways in which bike and pedestrian improvement measures can be implemented in such a way
as to improve health and safety in Contra Costa County. Specifically, these measures should target areas where low
rates of car-ownership, high biking and walking rates, and inappropriate infrastructure yield high injury rates.
Improvements should also be targeted and designed to facilitate access for seniors and people with disabilities who
might otherwise be unable to navigate their neighborhoods. Additionally, as more people begin to walk and bike,
more people will be exposed to potential injury by automobiles. Therefore, GHG reduction measures should be
implemented in a manner that makes it safer, as well as easier, to walk and bike. Finally, Contra Costa County should
take every opportunity to provide additional green space when implementing bike and pedestrian plans, particularly
in areas with few parks.
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-24 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
2. Increased Public Transportation
Health Indicators
This evaluation identified a wide range of health indicators associated with transit improvement measures.
Specifically, public transit encourages physical activity because transit users usually walk or bike to their stop and
helps to create an urban environment where it is possible to live without an automobile. Transit can also significantly
improve air quality by shifting trips from cars. Perhaps most importantly, public transportation can help to improve
access to jobs, healthcare and other services. Since transit often provides access to these necessities to those
without cars or with limited mobility, it can also help to improve health equity.
Significant Impact
The effects above are likely to have a significant impact on human health. A 2005 study found that transit users
spend an average of 19 minutes a day walking to transit, and that 29% met the Surgeon General’s recommendation
of 30 minutes of daily physical activity simply by riding transit.95 As illustrated in the section above, increasing
physical activity is expected to yield especially large health dividends.
Transit service can also have a large impact on health by providing access to essential goods and services. This is
particularly true for Contra Costa households with no (6%) or only one (29%) household vehicle96 (see Figure A.13). A
number of researchers have found that good transportation is essential to finding and keeping jobs, facilitating the
economic well-being that is essential for good health.97,98 Similarly, public buses (as opposed to yellow school buses)
currently carry 6% of Contra Costa County students to school.99
While many Contra Costa residents also depend on public transit to get to healthcare services and healthy food,
significant improvements are needed. In a study of low-income Bay Area neighborhoods, researchers found that only
20% of Contra Costa neighborhoods studied had transit access to a hospital, and only 33% had access to a clinic.100
These numbers are confirmed by another study that found that 24% of missed appointments at Contra Costa County
95 Besser, L and Dannenberg, A. 2005. “Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations.” American Journal of
Preventative Medicine 29(4),273-280.
96 United States Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey.
97 Kawabata, M. 2002. “Job accessibility by travel mode in U.S. metropolitan areas.” Papers and Proceedings of the Geographic Information
Systems Association. Vol. 11, p115-120,
98 Ong, P., D. Houston. 2002. “Transit, employment, and women on welfare.” Urban Geography Vol. 23, p344-364.
99 Contra Costa County Transportation Authority. 2012. Contra Costa County Draft Safe Routes to School Master Plan.
100 Center for Third World Organizing, People United for a Better Oakland, and the Transportation and Land Use Coalition. 2002. Roadblocks to
Health. Oakland, CA: Transportation and Land Use Coalition. http://transformca.org/files/reports/roadblocks-to-health.pdf.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-25
evening clinics were due to transportation difficulties.101 Similarly, many Contra Costa County neighborhoods have
few affordable, healthy stores, forcing residents to shop at stores with higher prices and less healthy foods.102
Structural Change
In conjunction with other policies, such as infill development and bike and pedestrian improvements, improving
transit service can also help to alter the long-term patterns of automobile dependence and sprawl that exact high
societal health costs such as air pollution, accidents/injuries, diabetes and obesity, cardiovascular disease, urban heat
island effects, poor mental health, and exclusion from opportunity.103
Contra Costa Health Services Mission Consistency
Improving public transit is consistent with the goals and strategies of the Community Wellness and Prevention
Program’s Injury Prevention and Physical Activity Promotion Project.104
Community Input
“Diverse, low-cost transportation options” received extremely high public support during the open house process.
Priority Public Transit Measures
LUT 1.1 - Collaborate with local transportation, land use agencies, nonprofits, and other stakeholders to expand
bicycle and pedestrian facilities and existing public transportation (Bay Area Rapid Transit, Amtrak, AC Transit, County
Connection, and Tri-Delta Transit).
LUT 1.7 - Revise the County CEQA guidelines to reflect implementation of Senate Bill 743.
LUT 4.1 - Collaborate with BART and other transit providers to increase ridership in the county.
LUT 4.5 - Work to increase densities within half a mile of BART and Amtrak stations, and within a quarter of a mile of stops for
express bus routes.
LUT 4.6 - Prioritize alternative mode access to BART and other transit stations.
GO 5.5 - Advocate for additional transit funding sources concurrently with the development of priority development areas.
Implementation Recommendations to Best Support Health and Safety
This evaluation suggests that improving public transit has the potential to dramatically improve the health of Contra
Costa residents. However, these potential benefits will only be realized if these measures are implemented
101 Butrick, Elizabeth. 1999. “Factors in Nonattendance in Extended Evening Clinics in Contra Costa County.” Unpublished paper for Contra
Costa Health Services. This study examined the reasons patients missed appointments at CCHS’s Extended Evening Clinics located in Richmond,
Martinez, and Pittsburg.
102 Morland, Kimberly, et al. 2002. “Access to Healthy Foods Limited in Poor Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Preventative Health.
103 Frumpkin, Howard. 2001. “Urban Sprawl and Public Health.” Public Health Reports 117.
104 http://cchealth.org/injury-prevention/pdf/planning_healthy_communities.pdf
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-26 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
strategically and with an attention to health. In order to accomplish this goal, CCHS suggests public transit measures
be implemented with the following considerations in mind:
· First, the health benefits of public transit accrue only to the extent that people use it. Therefore, the County
should prioritize cost-effective transit service (such as basic bus service) that maximizes patronage for a minimum
investment.
· Second, since transit improves health largely by increasing access, investments should be focused on areas with
low access—where car ownership is low (see Figure A.13) and where people with disabilities and seniors are
concentrated (see Figure A-10).
· Third, the potential negative health effects of public transit also deserve consideration. By its nature, transit
encourages walking or biking, exposing more people to automobile traffic. Transit improvements should
therefore be accompanied by investments in bike and pedestrian safety. While many transit vehicles produce no
or few emissions, many still burn diesel fuel. Every effort should be made to encourage clean fuel use, and to
assign cleaner vehicles to areas already overburdened by poor air quality.105
3. Increased Infill Development
Health Indicators
This evaluation found the infill development measures to be associated with four health indicators. Dense
neighborhoods have been consistently found to increase physical activity by bringing people closer to destinations,
making it easier to travel by foot or by bike,106 and improving access,107 particularly for those without cars. In the
same way, these neighborhoods discourage car trips, improving regional air quality. Finally, by focusing growth in
defined centers rather than sprawling outward, infill development can help to preserve open space.
Significant Impact
While changes to urban form often take decades to solidify, infill development is likely to have a significantly positive
long-term impact on human health. In an exhaustive analysis of existing literature, Ewing and Cervero found that
doubling density yields, on average, a 7% increase in walking and a 5% decrease in vehicle miles traveled.108 This
suggests that long-term changes to Contra Costa County’s built environment are likely to yield significant, if modest,
increases in physical activity and decreases in air pollution.
105 See for instance: Muni’s Clean Air Programs : http://www.sfmta.com/cms/rclean/cleanairb.htm
106 Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. 2010. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American Planning Association
6(3) 265-294.
107 Walker, Jarrett. 2011. Human Transit. Island Press, Washington.
108 Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. 2010. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of the American Planning Association
6(3) 265-294.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-27
Structural Change
In conjunction with other policies, such as enhanced transit service and bike and pedestrian improvements,
increasing infill development can also help to alter the long-term patterns of automobile dependence and sprawl that
exact high societal health costs such as air pollution, accidents/injuries, diabetes and obesity, cardiovascular disease,
urban heat island effects, poor mental health, and exclusion from opportunity.109
Contra Costa Health Services Mission Consistency
Encouraging infill development is consistent with the goals and strategy of the Community Wellness and Prevention
Program’s Injury Prevention and Physical Activity Promotion Project.110
Community Input
Most measures encouraging infill development received moderate to high public support during the open house
process.
Priority Infill Development Actions
LUT 4.5 - Work to increase densities within half a mile of BART and Amtrak stations, and within a quarter of a mile of
stops for express bus routes.
LUT 5.6 - Continue to discourage schools being sited in agricultural areas.
GO 2.4 - Site facilities that have more than 50 personnel in close proximity to infrastructure and services that support
alternative commute modes.
GO 5.5 - Advocate for additional transit funding sources concurrently with the development of priority development
areas.
Implementation Recommendations to Best Support Health and Safety
While infill development has the potential to dramatically improve the health of Contra Costa County residents, it can
also negatively impact health if implemented without proper protections. When cities are successful in attracting
new, dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, lower-income residents—those most vulnerable to health
problems—are often pushed out by new, unaffordable housing and rising rents. These residents are therefore not
able to benefit from the new, healthier environment. They may be separated from jobs, schools, healthcare, healthy
food access, social and familial networks, and are often displaced to a neighborhood or community with its own
specific health risks. Dislocation itself may also expose former residents to isolation, stress, injuries, violence, and
other health impacts. As the risks of displacement are well documented in the Bay Area,111 Contra Costa County
should be careful to implement infill development in low-income neighborhoods only when accompanied by
109 Frumpkin, 2001
110 See for instance: http://cchealth.org/injury-prevention/pdf/planning_healthy_communities.pdf.
111 Cravens, M., et al. 2009. Development Without Displacement, Development with Diversity. Oakland, CA: Association of Bay Area
Governments.
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-28 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
measures to stabilize renters and homeowners, and to encourage the development of housing affordable to all
income levels—especially current residents.
Care must also be taken to mitigate the potential for infill development to increase exposure to air pollution. While
infill development has been shown to decrease regional vehicle travel and emissions, by placing more people close to
streets, highways, transit and freight lines, it can increase local exposure to pollutants.112,113 Several of the
unincorporated areas currently designated for infill development (Priority Development Areas, or PDAs) such as
North Richmond are already considered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to be burdened by high air
pollution.114 Nearly all other PDAs in Contra Costa County are adjacent to freeways, industrial uses, and/or freight
facilities. Further analysis should be conducted to evaluate the relative risks in these areas and determine areas
appropriate for development. In the absence of such detailed analysis, the County should require developers to use
appropriate mitigation measures when building within 500 feet of freeways or designated truck routes, 1,000 feet of
distribution centers or rail yards, or adjacent to ports, refineries or similar facilities, as per CARB’s
recommendations.115
4. Health Equity
Health Indicators
Unlike the other priority measure types discussed above, which focused on single issues, a wide variety of measures
may influence health equity by placing the emphasis on the most vulnerable populations in the county. These may
include young children, the elderly and disabled, the poor, and minorities. The 13 measures in the CAP that directly
contributed to improving health equity did so through programs that protected vulnerable populations from indoor
and outdoor air pollution and targeted job creation. However, 25 other measures had the potential to improve
health equity if they were modified appropriately, primarily by targeting the benefit of the action more specifically to
a vulnerable population or area. These modifications include such factors as targeting training programs specifically
in low-income areas, targeting built environment improvements toward vulnerable populations, emphasizing
increased bus ridership, and incorporating crime prevention measures.
112 Schweitzer, Lisa and Jiangping Zhou. 2010. “Neighborhood Air Quality, Respiratory Health, and Vulnerable Populations in Compact and
Sprawled Regions.” Journal of the American Planning Association 76( 3) 363-371.
113 Downs, A. 2004. “Remedies that increase residential densities.” In A. Downs (ed.), Still stuck in traffic: Coping with peak-hour traffic
congestion (pp. 200-227). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
114 Garzón, Catalina and The Ditching Dirty Diesel Freight Transport Committee. 2011. At a Crossroads in Our Region’s Health: Freight Transport
and the Future of Community Health in the San Francisco Bay Area. Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute.
115 See: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-29
Significant Impact
The Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative has created a model for understanding that health inequities are
primarily caused by social and environmental conditions, called the social determinants of health.116 Social
determinants of health are conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship,
and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes and risks. Conditions (e.g., social,
economic, and physical) in these various environments and settings (e.g., school, church, workplace, and
neighborhood) have been referred to as “place.” In addition to the more material attributes of “place,” the patterns
of social engagement and sense of security and well-being are also affected by where people live. Resources that
enhance quality of life can have a significant influence on population health outcomes. Examples of these resources
include safe and affordable housing, access to education, public safety, availability of healthy foods, local
emergency/health services, and environments free of life-threatening toxins.117 Therefore, prioritizing actions that
address these resources can have a significant impact on reducing health inequity.
116 Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative. 2008. Health Inequities in the Bay Area.
http://www.barhii.org/press/download/barhii_report08.pdf.
117 US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020.
http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/overview.aspx?topicid=39.
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-30 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Structural Change
The root causes of most health disparities are the broader, long-term inequalities within society including poverty
and discrimination. Health disparities are often called health inequities, because they result from these broader
inequities within society. Poverty and discrimination lead to stress, greater exposure to environmental toxins and
poor air quality and less access to high-quality goods and services including education, health services,
transportation, food and recreation. Health studies have shown that these inequalities and injustices are strongly
related to higher rates of injury, illness, and premature death.118 Therefore, prioritizing measures that counter the
effects of these social inequities can help change the underlying conditions that contribute to poor health.
Contra Costa Health Services Mission Consistency
In April 2003, after extensive review and discussion, CCHS adopted a department-wide plan called Reducing Health
Disparities: Diversity and Cultural and Linguistic Competence in Contra Costa Health Services.119 CCHS is committed
to eliminating health disparities because its mission is to care for and improve the health of all who live in Contra
Costa County with special attention to those who are most vulnerable to health problems. Disparities based on race,
ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, or other reasons are inconsistent with the CCHS mission.120 One of the
goals of this plan for reducing health disparities is to engage and partner with other public entities to support
healthier environments.121 The evaluation of each GHG reduction measure in the CAP for its potential to reduce
health inequities was added as a health indicator in response to this element of CCHS’ mission. This is especially
appropriate since many of the impacts of climate change such as increased death, disease and injury from heat
waves, floods, storms, and fires; decreased food quality and security; and increased morbidity and mortality
associated with air pollution are predicted to disproportionately affect those who are socially and economically
disadvantaged.122
118 Contra Costa Health Services, Health Disparities Working Group: http://cchealth.org/groups/rhdi/pdf/health_disparities_in_cc.pdf
119 Reducing Health Disparities: Diversity and Cultural and Linguistic Competence in Contra Costa Health Service. 2003.
http://cchealth.org/groups/rhdi/pdf/reducing_health_disparities_article_nov03.pdf.
120 Contra Costa County Health Services. 2006. Reducing Health Disparities Initiative Progress Report and Plan for 2005 and 2006.
http://cchealth.org/groups/rhdi/pdf/rhdi_report_2005_09.pdf
121 Contra Costa County Health Services. 2007. Overview of Five-year Plan for Reducing Health and Health Care Disparities, 2007-2012.
http://cchealth.org/groups/rhdi/pdf/5_year_plan_pullout_2007.pdf
122 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2010. Indicators of Climate Change in California: Environmental Justice
Impacts.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-31
Community Input
“Reducing health disparities” received extremely high support during the open house process and from the Public
and Environmental Health Advisory Board.
Priority Health Equity Actions
EE 1.3 - Increase participation in the existing low-income weatherization program and seek additional program
funding.
EE 1.4 - Identify disadvantaged individuals and households for increased participation in energy efficiency programs.
EE 5.2 - Create a framework for revenues from cap-and-trade offsets or allocations to fund energy efficiency and
resource conservation programs, such as those proposed in this CAP, to be used locally, particularly within
recognized impacted communities or areas.
RE 3.2 - Connect low-income homeowners with renewable energy rebate and financing programs.
LUT 1.2 - Identify funding sources and assist with Safe Routes to School Program implementation.
LUT 1.7 - Revise the County CEQA guidelines to reflect implementation of Senate Bill 743.
LUT 2.1 - As opportunities arise, include alternative-fuel use goals in franchise agreements for waste hauling and
contracts with other vehicle fleets.
LUT 3.1 - Work with BAAQMD to incentivize the use of battery-powered lawn and garden equipment.
LUT 3.3 - Work with BAAQMD to increase the use of alternatively fueled equipment in agricultural operations
through education, incentives, or revisions to existing regulations.
LUT 4.2 - Partner with waste haulers and other fleets with regular routes to reduce the frequency of routes where
possible.
W 1.5 - Identify best practices and reduce the amount of wastewater treatment sludge (biosolids) that is disposed of
in landfills.
W 2.1 - Annually verify compliance with the California Air Resource Board‘s landfill methane control measures.
W 2.2 - Request that landfill operators consider implementing additional reduction actions, including but not limited
to:
· Reducing landfilled materials with high methane-generation potential.
· Reducing idling time for diesel equipment.
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-32 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
· Encouraging adequate maintenance of rolling stock.
· Establishing standards beyond those required by regulation for landfill gas collection system leak detection
and prevention.
· Excluding the use of green waste as a material for alternative daily cover (ADC), consistent with AB 1594.
GO 5.5 - Work with BAAQMD to support reductions in process emissions from industrial entities.
Implementation Recommendations to Best Support Health and Safety
Health inequities in Contra Costa County are significant, and will only be exacerbated by the effects of climate
change. County government should take steps in all of its plans and programs to address these increased pressures
on health inequities, including in this CAP. The state of California has embarked upon a similar process called Health
in All Policies.123
To enable the GHG reduction actions in this plan to more thoroughly address health inequities in the unincorporated
portions of the county to which the plan applies, steps need to be taken to better document those inequities, identify
vulnerable populations, and prioritize actions that can have the greatest benefit. The Contra Costa Health Services
Department has been a recipient of the California Department of Public Health BRACE (Building Resilience Against
Climate Change Effects) grant. Through this grant, the department produced a report describing heat vulnerability in
the County and the potential health risks of excessive heat and high heat days predicted in Climate Change. Through
BRACE, the County is encouraged to begin an adaptation planning process.
The analysis carried out by CCHS on vulnerability to heat employs biological, socio-economic, medical and living
condition indicators to access heat vulnerability at the census tract and city/place level. Several unincorporated
places rank high for vulnerability to heat, including, North Richmond, Bay Point, and Bethel Island. These areas rank
highly for biological and socio-economic vulnerabilities which indicate that other climate change effects will impact
these populations as well. However, a more thorough analysis to expand to all climate change impacts and specific to
health disparities and vulnerable populations is necessary for the rest of the unincorporated parts of the county.
While it is beyond the scope of this document to conduct this analysis, it can begin to lay the groundwork for further
study. Toward this end, the maps at the end of this report illustrate some of the areas with characteristics making
them particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change. Poverty, low educational attainment, race, age, social
isolation, housing quality, and linguistic isolation are characteristics that have been identified as being vulnerable to
the impacts of climate change.124,125 Once a better understanding of the populations and areas most vulnerable to
123 Health in All Policies Task Force. 2010. Health in All Policies Task Force Report to the Strategic Growth Council Executive Summary,
Sacramento, CA.
124 Climate Change: Mastering the Public Health Role. 2011. American Public Health Association pp. 79.
125 Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. 2012. Climate Change, Environmental Challenges and Vulnerable Communities: Assessing
Legacies of the Past, Building Opportunities for the Future. http://www.jointcenter.org/docs/Climate_Change_Full_Report.pdf
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-33
the impacts of climate change and health inequities is established, actions can be modified to address these
populations and areas.
Figure A.1 identifies the percent of individuals living below two times the federal poverty level for the census tracts
in the unincorporated areas of the county. Figure A.2 identifies the percent of the population over 25 years old with
less than a high school education in the census tracts of the unincorporated areas of the county. Figures A.3 through
A.6 identify the percent of individuals that are non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific
Islanders and Hispanic respectively by census tract in the unincorporated areas of the county.
Figure A.7 identifies the percent of population under 5 years old by census tract in the unincorporated areas of the
county. Figure A.8 identifies the percent of population age 60 and older by census tract in the unincorporated areas
of the county. Figure A.9 identifies the percent of household with individuals 65 years and older living alone by
census tract in the unincorporated areas of the county. Figure A.10 identifies the percent of the population 65 years
and older living alone by census tract in the unincorporated areas of the county.
Figure A.11 identifies the percent of population in renter-occupied housing by census tract in the unincorporated
areas of the county. Figure A.12 identifies median home values by census tract in the unincorporated areas of the
county. Figure A.13 identifies the percent of occupied housing units with at least one vehicle available by census tract
in the unincorporated areas of the county. Figure A.14 identifies percent of the population 5 years and older in
linguistically isolated households by census tract in the unincorporated areas of the county.
Transportation access has also been identified as an indicator of vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,126 but
creating this map for the unincorporated portions of the county was outside the scope of this report.
CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS
This CAP represents an opportunity to contribute to the global effort to slow and reduce climate change. It is also an
opportunity to improve the short- and long-term health of county residents. By carefully considering and integrating
health concerns into the actions proposed above, the County can maximize these opportunities.
This evaluation sought to meet this goal by identifying and prioritizing actions with the highest health co-benefits,
and by working alongside planners to integrate a health focus into as many actions as possible. Health-promoting
actions were identified based on their capacity to influence any of the nine health indicators, as described in the
methods section. These health indicators each have a demonstrable link to improved health benefits. The detailed
results of this analysis were presented in Table A.1 at the end of this report. Additionally, this evaluation identified
four types of actions (Increased Walking and Biking, Increased Public Transportation, Increased Infill Development,
and Health Equity) with particularly high health co-benefits. Since many health benefits follow only from careful
implementation, this analysis also suggests strategies the County should follow to ensure these benefits.
126 ASTHO Climate Change Population Vulnerability Screening Tool. California Department of Public Health.
http://www.ehib.org/projects/ehss01/Climate%20change%20vulnerability%20report_ASTHO.pdf
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
A-34 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Unfortunately, however successful Contra Costa County is in reducing regional GHG emissions and maximizing health
co-benefits, the fact is that the climate will nonetheless change. Decreased air quality, increased average and
extreme temperatures, severe weather events such as flooding and wildfires, increased risks to food security from
drought, and changing patterns and yields of crops are all likely as climate change unfolds.127 The County will need to
take strong steps and adapt to these impacts. A number of efforts are already underway. Already the County has a
heat plan128 in place and is in the process of developing a heat monitoring checklist. The heat checklist will
incorporate addressing vulnerable populations. The County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan addresses climate change as a
subset, or secondary impact, for each identified hazard of concern129 and updates to that plan will continue to
consider climate change.
These efforts will need to be augmented by efforts to specifically understand the threats posed by climate change
and to identify strategies to minimize these threats. The California Department of Public Health has published
guidelines for developing local adaptations plans for climate change130 and the County should use this guide to
participate in regional adaptation efforts currently getting underway,131 and to develop its own specific adaptation
plan.
127 California Department of Public Health. 2012. Climate Action for Health: Integrating Public Health into Climate Action Planning.
128 Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff, Emergency Services Division. 2010. Contra Costa County Operational Area Excessive Heat
Emergency Plan.
129 Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan update, Vol. 1 Planning area wide updates. 2011. Prepared by Tetra Tech, Project #135-23736-
08-090.
130 California Adaptation Planning Guide. 2012.
http://www.resources.ca.gov/climate_adaptation/local_government/adaptation_policy_guide.html.
131 Bay Area Joint Policy Committee, Bay Area Climate & Energy Resilience Project. http://www.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy/projects.html#climate.
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-35 Figure A.1. Percent of Individuals Living Below Two Times the Federal Poverty Level, 2006-2010
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A-36 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Figure A.2. Percent of Individuals over 25 Years with Less than a High School Education, 2006-2010
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-37 Figure A.3. Percent of Non-Hispanic White, 2010
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A-38 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Figure A.4. Percent of Non-Hispanic Black, 2010
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-39 Figure A.5. Percent of Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, 2010
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A-40 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Figure A.6. Percent of Hispanic, 2010
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-41 Figure A.7. Percent of Population Under 5 Years Old, 2010
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A-42 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Figure A.8. Percent of Population 60 Years and Older, 2010
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-43 Figure A.9. Percent of Households with Individuals 65 Years and Older Living Alone, 2010
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A-44 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Figure A.10. Percent of Population 65 Years and Older Living Alone
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-45 Figure A.11. Percent of Population in Renter-Occupied Housing, 2010
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A-46 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Figure A.12. Median Home Values, 2006-2010
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A CONTRA COSTA COUNTY A-47 Figure A.13. Percent of Occupied Housing Units with at Least One Vehicle Available, 2006-2010
A Health Co-Benefit Evaluation A-48 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Figure A.14. Percent of Population 5 Years and Older in Linguistically Isolated Households, 2006-2010
Appendix B:
BAAQMD Appendix
B
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY B-1
Contra Costa County developed this Climate Action Plan (CAP) to meet the requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMD) criteria for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy as defined in the
BAAQMD’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were
updated in 2010 in response to the state of California’s amendment to the State CEQA Guidelines through Senate Bill
(SB) 97. SB 97 requires all projects subject to CEQA to analyze and mitigate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that
will occur.
The purpose of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines is to assist lead agencies in evaluating the air quality
impacts of proposed projects and plans within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The guidelines were updated to
establish thresholds of significance for impacts related to GHG emissions to be consistent with the requirements of
CEQA. These thresholds can be used to assess plan-level and project-level impacts and allow a lead agency to
determine that a project’s impact on GHG emissions is less than significant if it is in compliance with a Qualified
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.
The County’s CAP follows both the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15183.5(b)) and BAAQMD’s guidelines by
incorporating the standard elements of a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy into the CAP. The standard
elements of a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy include the following steps:
Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time period, resulting from
activities within a defined geographic range.
Establish a level, based on substantial evidence below which the contribution to greenhouse gas emissions from
activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the geographic area.
B BAAQMD Appendix
B-2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards that substantial evidence
demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions
level.
Monitor the plan’s progress.
Adopt the greenhouse gas reduction strategy in a public process following environmental review.
This appendix describes in detail how the County’s CAP has been developed to satisfy the requirements of BAAQMD’s
guidelines on the standard elements of a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.
GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY
The first component of a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy is to inventory GHG emissions within a
specified geographic boundary. Contra Costa County’s GHG inventory utilizes a baseline year of 2005 to inventory
carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) generated from activities by Contra Costa County
community members in unincorporated areas of the county.
The emissions sources calculated in the baseline GHG inventory include commercial, residential, and industrial
electricity and natural gas use, on-road transportation, solid waste disposal, energy use related to water and
wastewater, agricultural off-road equipment and emissions associated with fertilizer application, and off-road
equipment use for construction and lawn and garden activities. GHG emissions from these activities were calculated
from activity data such as kilowatt hours of electricity (kWh), therms of natural gas, tons of waste disposed, and
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from trips with an origin or destination in Contra Costa County.
To comply with updates to the regulatory structure and incentives to address GHG emissions since the creation of
this initial inventory, changes have been incorporated in the 2005 inventory to comply with the US Community
Protocol, BAAQMD’s suggested guidelines for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, and the state CEQA
Guidelines Section 15185.5(b). The 2005 inventory has been updated to include the following:
New emissions sources not previously inventoried (off-road equipment, BART, water and wastewater, and
agriculture).
Emissions from direct access customers in the commercial/industrial sector as reported by Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E).
Analysis of stationary source emissions (note that these emissions are analyzed, but not included in the baseline
inventory).
Calculation of waste emissions using the California-specific 2009 Landfill Emissions Tool developed by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Updates to the global warming potentials (GWP) of emissions to account for the most recent scientific
understanding.
BAAQMD Appendix B
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY B-3
Integration of improved emissions factors from the US Community Protocol and the Local Government
Operations Protocol.
Additionally, the County prepared a 2013 inventory to provide an interim update on GHG emissions in
unincorporated Contra Costa County, approximately halfway between the 2005 baseline year and the target year of
2020. It includes all of the same sectors as the 2005 inventory and uses the same methods. Like the 2005 inventory,
the 2013 inventory is consistent with the US Community Protocol and with BAAQMD guidance. Emissions from the
2005 inventory are shown below in Table B.1 and Figure B.1 and emissions from the 2013 inventory are shown in
Table B.2 and Figure B.2.
Table B.1. 2005 Community-Wide Baseline Emissions by Sector
Sector Metric Tons CO2e/year Percentage of Total
Residential Energy 274,690 20%
Nonresidential Energy 118,740 8%
Solid Waste 48,450 3%
Landfill 193,950 14%
On-road Transportation 628,200 45%
Off-Road Equipment 71,880 5%
Water and Wastewater 8,080 1%
BART 2,300 <1%
Agriculture 57,320 4%
TOTAL 1,403,610 100%
* Due to rounding, the total may not be the sum of component parts.
Table B.2. 2013 Community-Wide Baseline Emissions by Sector
Sector Metric Tons CO2e/year Percentage of Total
Residential Energy 258,420 19%
Nonresidential Energy 125,350 9%
Solid Waste 26,540 2%
Landfill 196,500 14%
On-road Transportation 651,130 47%
Off-Road Equipment 66,230 5%
Water and Wastewater 7,400 1%
BART 2,680 <1%
Agriculture 58,200 4%
TOTAL 1,392,450 100%
* Due to rounding, the total may not be the sum of component parts.
B BAAQMD Appendix
B-4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Figure B.1. 2005 Community-Wide Baseline Emissions by Sector*
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of component parts.
Figure B.2. 2013 Community-Wide Baseline Emissions by Sector*
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of component parts.
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
MTCO2e
Residential energy
20%
Nonresidential energy
8%
Solid waste
3%
Landfill
14%
On-road transportation
45%
Off-road equipment
5%
BART
<1%
Agriculture
4%
Water and wastewater
1%
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
MTCO2e
Residential energy
19%
Nonresidential energy
9%
Solid waste
2%
Landfill
14%
On-road transportation
47%
Off-road equipment
5%
BART
<1%
Agriculture
4%
Water and wastewater
1%
BAAQMD Appendix B
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY B-5
Reflecting the unique characteristics of the unincorporated county, the inventory excludes several emissions sources
as described below:
Stationary Source GHG Emissions—Direct process emissions and energy used by industrially classified uses
including refineries, power plants, chemical manufacturing plants, and wastewater treatment plants in the
unincorporated county.
Energy Use by Power Plants and Refineries—Electricity and natural gas use by power generation plants or
refineries in the unincorporated county.
Refinery and power-generating facilities in Contra Costa County use electricity and natural gas in response to market
demand for petroleum and electricity. The power-generating facilities in Contra Costa County primarily utilize natural
gas to generate electricity, resulting in much higher than average natural gas use in the jurisdictions where these
facilities are located.
When including stationary sources and all electricity and natural gas, the GHG emissions from all other sectors are
overshadowed, as shown in Table B.3, and total roughly 18.7 million MTCO2e annually from the unincorporated
county.
Table B.3. Emissions from Excluded Sectors
2005 (MTCO2e) 2013 (MTCO2e)
Stationary sources 13,983,030 11,873,500
Energy use of major industrial facilities 3,344,000 5,026,560
Total of excluded sectors 17,327,030 16,900,060
Included sectors 1,403,610 1,392,450
Total of included and excluded sectors 18,730,640 18,292,510
Percent of emissions from excluded
sectors 93% 92%
There are several factors outside of the County’s control that influence the energy use at these facilities. The County
has therefore elected to exclude the energy use at these facilities from consideration of a GHG reduction target for
the following reasons:
These facilities are regulated primarily through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the California
Energy Commission, and are subject to air quality and emissions standards set forth by the Environmental
Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, and BAAQMD.
The energy used at these facilities fluctuates from year to year, making it difficult to accurately forecast,
depending on the demand for resources and the availability of other electricity-generating sources such as
hydropower or renewable resources.
The County has limited jurisdictional authority to reduce GHG emissions from these sources as they will be
subject to cap and trade regulations set forth by the California Air Resources Board.
B BAAQMD Appendix
B-6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Inclusion of these facilities, without an accurate reflection of how emissions will be reduced through cap-and-
trade regulation, would make it difficult for the County to set an achievable GHG reduction target to comply with
Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and SB 97 and use the CAP for future CEQA tiering or streamlining.
The approach to excluding energy from sources that are outside of the County’s jurisdictional control is
consistent with ICLEI’s Draft Community-wide Protocol.
The resultant jurisdictional inventory more accurately reflects the natural gas use from nonresidential customers in
unincorporated Contra Costa County and allows the County to focus on actions that are within its control. Appendix
C provides further justification for excluding these sources.
GHG EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS
The basis for all growth scenarios is a business-as-usual (BAU) projection. The BAU scenario forecasts emissions to
reflect the County’s growth projections without regulatory or technical intervention to reduce GHG emissions. The
BAU forecast for all other sectors rely on the demographic projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) 2013 regional forecasts (see Table B.4).
Table B.4. Unincorporated Contra Costa County Growth Indicators, 2005-2035
2005 2013 2020 2035 2005–2035 Change
Population 159,650 162,230 166,100 173,500 6%
Households 57,980 58,550 59,720 61,740 9%
Jobs 41,270 43,210 47,670 50,330 22%
Service Population 200,920 205,440 213,770 223,830 11%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments 2009, 2013
Under the growth projections identified by ABAG, emissions in the unincorporated area are forecasted to increase to
1,483,720 MTCO2e by 2020, a 6% increase from 2005 levels. Emissions in 2035 are projected to rise to 1,545,980
MTCO2e, a 10% increase from 2005 levels. Table B.5 and Figure B.3 show emissions by sector for the 2005 baseline
inventory and the two forecasted years.
BAAQMD Appendix B
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY B-7
Table B.5. Contra Costa Community GHG Emissions Forecast
Sector 2005 MTCO2e 2013 MTCO2e 2020 MTCO2e 2035 MTCO2e Percent Change,
2005–2035
Residential energy 274,690 258,420 282,930 292,500 6%
Nonresidential energy 118,740 125,350 137,150 144,810 22%
Solid waste 48,450 26,540 51,550 53,970 11%
Landfill 193,950 196,500 204,560 218,560 13%
On-road transportation 628,200 651,130 662,820 687,370 9%
Off-road equipment 71,880 66,230 76,340 79,890 11%
Water and wastewater 8,080 7,400 8,600 9,000 11%
BART 2,300 2,680 2,450 2,560 11%
Agriculture 57,320 58,200 57,320 57,320 0%
TOTAL 1,403,610 1,392,450 1,483,720 1,545,980 10%
Percent Change from
2005 - -1% 6% 10% -
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Figure B.3. Business-As-Usual GHG Forecast 2005–2035
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
1,403,610 1,392,450
1,483,720
1,545,980
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2005 2013 2020 2035MTCO2e
Residential energy Nonresidential energy Solid waste
Landfill On-road transportation Off-road equipment
Water and wastewater BART Agriculture
B BAAQMD Appendix
B-8 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
In addition to AB 32, California has adopted and started to implement several state-level programs that will impact
local GHG emissions. In order to effectively determine the emissions reductions that will need to be implemented at
the local level to meet the County’s emissions reduction target, the impact of state-level programs has been
incorporated into an adjusted BAU forecast. The state-level programs included in this adjusted forecast include the
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), updates to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standards,
and the implementation of the Clean Car Fuel Standard, commonly referred to as the Pavley standards. The impact of
these state programs (shown in Table B.6) will play a critical role in helping Contra Costa achieve the emissions
reduction target.
Table B.6. State Reductions Summary, 2020 and 2035
State Policy or Program 2020 (MTCO2e) 2035 (MTCO2e)
Renewables Portfolio Standard -41,620 -78,030
Clean Car Standard and LCFS -173,480 -236,270
Title 24 Standards -2,840 -7,970
TOTAL -217,940 -322,270
The regulations implemented by the state will help further reduce Contra Costa’s GHG emissions. As shown in Table
B.7, reductions from state activities are expected to reduce emissions below baseline levels by 2020, and to continue
to decrease emissions by 2035 despite population growth.
Table B.7. State Reductions Summary, 2020 and 2035
Sector 2005 (MTCO2e) 2013 (MTCO2e) 2020 (MTCO2e) 2035 (MTCO2e) Percent Change,
2005–2035
Residential energy 274,690 258,420 257,310 242,280 -12%
Nonresidential energy 118,740 125,350 119,980 112,170 -6%
Solid waste 48,450 26,540 51,550 53,970 11%
Landfill 193,950 196,500 204,560 218,560 13%
On-road transportation 628,200 651,130 489,340 451,100 -28%
Off-road equipment 71,880 66,230 76,340 79,890 11%
Water and wastewater 8,080 7,400 6,930 5,860 -27%
BART 2,300 2,680 2,450 2,560 11%
Agriculture 57,320 58,200 57,320 57,320 0%
TOTAL 1,403,610 1,392,450 1,265,780 1,223,710 -13%
Percent Change from
2005 - -1% -10% -13% -
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
BAAQMD Appendix
GHG EMISSIONS REDUCT
Contra Costa is following state guidelines by seeking to achieve a GHG emissions reduction target of 15% below 2005
baseline levels by 2020.
The GHG reduction measures included in th
target of 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. Emissions reductions were quantified for two different years: 2020 and
2035. The 2020 and 2035 emissions reductions are the potential reductions tha
implementation of these measures. The GHG reduction strategies are separated by goal or topic area to correspond
with the sectors and sources of GHG emissions, as identified in
Figure B.4.
It is important to identify how the County will meet or exceed the minimum GHG reduction target of 15% below
baseline levels by 2020 to ensure the County can utilize the CAP as a Qualified
for use in environmental review of projects. This plan identifies a clear path to allow the County to reach the
community-wide GHG reduction target of 15% below baseline levels which, in turn, meets the state targets as well.
The CAP contains a diverse mix of incentive
emissions from each source to avoid reliance on any one strategy or sector to achieve the target. As
B-8, after state reductions, local measures must reduce 72,550
measures detailed in this CAP are expected to reduce
baseline by 2020. Achievement of the County’s adopted target by 2020 will meet state recommendations and
BAAQMD threshold requirements for developing a Qualified
1. •Energy Efficiency and Conservation
2. •Renewable Energy
3. •Land Use and Transportation
4. • Waste
5. •Water Conservation
6.•Government Operations
BAAQMD Appendix
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGET
Contra Costa is following state guidelines by seeking to achieve a GHG emissions reduction target of 15% below 2005
The GHG reduction measures included in this CAP demonstrate the County’s ability to reach the GHG reduction
target of 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. Emissions reductions were quantified for two different years: 2020 and
2035. The 2020 and 2035 emissions reductions are the potential reductions that will be achieved through the
implementation of these measures. The GHG reduction strategies are separated by goal or topic area to correspond
with the sectors and sources of GHG emissions, as identified in Figure B.4.
Figure B.4. GHG Reduction Topics
It is important to identify how the County will meet or exceed the minimum GHG reduction target of 15% below
baseline levels by 2020 to ensure the County can utilize the CAP as a Qualified Greenhouse Gas
f projects. This plan identifies a clear path to allow the County to reach the
wide GHG reduction target of 15% below baseline levels which, in turn, meets the state targets as well.
The CAP contains a diverse mix of incentive-based reduction measures. The reduction measures aim to reduce GHG
emissions from each source to avoid reliance on any one strategy or sector to achieve the target. As
after state reductions, local measures must reduce 72,550 MTCO₂e by 2020. Table B-9 dem
measures detailed in this CAP are expected to reduce 86,300 MTCO₂e by 2020, achieving the target of 15% below
Achievement of the County’s adopted target by 2020 will meet state recommendations and
rements for developing a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Renewable Energy
Land Use and Transportation
Water Conservation
Government Operations
B
B-9
Contra Costa is following state guidelines by seeking to achieve a GHG emissions reduction target of 15% below 2005
is CAP demonstrate the County’s ability to reach the GHG reduction
target of 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. Emissions reductions were quantified for two different years: 2020 and
t will be achieved through the
implementation of these measures. The GHG reduction strategies are separated by goal or topic area to correspond
It is important to identify how the County will meet or exceed the minimum GHG reduction target of 15% below
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy
f projects. This plan identifies a clear path to allow the County to reach the
wide GHG reduction target of 15% below baseline levels which, in turn, meets the state targets as well.
sures. The reduction measures aim to reduce GHG
emissions from each source to avoid reliance on any one strategy or sector to achieve the target. As shown in Table
9 demonstrates that the
by 2020, achieving the target of 15% below
Achievement of the County’s adopted target by 2020 will meet state recommendations and
Reduction Strategy.
B BAAQMD Appendix
B-10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Table B.8. Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecast, and Reduction Goals
2020 MTCO2e 2035 MTCO2e
2005 Baseline Emissions 1,403,610 1,403,610
Forecasted Emissions 1,483,720 1,545,980
Emissions with Statewide Reductions 1,265,620 1,223,170
Reduction Target 1,193,070 596,540
Local Reductions Needed -72,550 -626,630
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Table B.9. GHG Reduction Summary by Topic (MTCO2e)
Topic 2020 2035
Energy Efficiency 7,510 14,000
Renewable Energy 9,090 15,470
Land Use and Transportation 12,630 23,380
Solid Waste 55,280 79,430
Water 1,210 940
Government Operations1 580 450
Total 86,300 133,670
1Not quantified; supportive goal topic
In addition to quantifying the emissions reductions associated with each strategy in the CAP, BAAQMD guidance
recommends that the County clearly specify the measures within the CAP applicable to new construction projects to
demonstrate compliance with the County’s GHG emissions reduction strategy and determine that the project’s GHG
emissions are less than significant. To ensure that each new construction project complies with the County’s CAP, a
checklist has been developed to be submitted by an applicant for each new development project (Appendix E).
IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
To ensure the timely implementation of the CAP, the County will identify staff to coordinate implementation of GHG
reduction strategies and progress toward GHG reduction targets (see Implementation Action Item 1.4 in Chapter 5)
and prepare annual reports to the Board of Supervisors on CAP implementation and progress. To assist in this
reporting, the CAP contains an implementation matrix that identifies actions necessary to implement the CAP, the
responsible agency, and the implementation time frame. The CAP implementation chapter also outlines the
necessary procedures to update the inventory and reduction measures every 3–5 years. The implementation matrix,
BAAQMD Appendix B
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY B-11
combined with the reduction measure workbook, will serve as the primary instrument in measuring the County’s
progress toward achieving emissions reduction targets and to ensure timely implementation occurs.
PUBLIC PROCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The final component of a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy is to adopt the plan through a public hearing
process following environmental review. The County has involved numerous stakeholders throughout the
development of the CAP. The CAP will undergo environmental review as part of the public hearing and adoption
process.
Appendix C:
Inventory & Forecast Report
C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C-1
The greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) inventory identifies the major sources of GHG emissions from activities
occurring within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County in 2005 and 2013, and provides a baseline against
which future progress can be measured. Specifically, the inventory:
Presents GHG emissions from community-wide activities in the calendar years of 2005 and 2013.
Identifies GHG emissions from activities which the County can reasonably influence, and excludes all other
sources that are primarily regulated by other agencies (e.g., major industrial facilities).
Summarizes GHG emissions by sector to compare the relative impact between sectors.
Provides forecasts of how emissions will grow in the community under various scenarios.
Provides County decision-makers and the community with adequate baseline and forecast information to inform
policy decisions.
INVENTORY BACKGROUND
In California, and as recommended by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, many communities use the US
Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (the US Community Protocol) to
identify and assess GHG emissions. This protocol provides guidance on how to measure and report community-wide
GHG emissions, including identification of relevant sources or activities and methods used to calculate emissions. The
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has issued a GHG Plan Level Quantification Guidance
document, which also provides recommendations for Bay Area communities to develop GHG inventories. The 2005
and 2013 inventories are consistent with the recommended practices in these two documents. The 2005 and 2013
inventories also assist in allowing this Climate Action Plan (CAP) to function as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy for
Contra Costa County, allowing for the streamlining of the environmental review process for projects located in the
C Climate Action Plan
C-2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
unincorporated area, in accordance with the standards identified in the state California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b). Under these guidelines, a qualified strategy must meet the following
requirements:
Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and forecast over a set time period, from activities within a defined
geographic area.
Establish a level below which GHG emissions from activities covered by the plan are not cumulatively
considerable, based on substantive evidence.
Identify and analyze the GHG emissions as a result of specific actions or categories of actions anticipated within
the defined geographic area.
Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, which would collectively achieve the
specified emissions level if implemented on a project-by-project basis, as demonstrated by substantive evidence.
Establish a mechanism to monitor the plan’s progress toward achieving the level and to require revisions to the
plan if it is not achieving the specified levels.
Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
The 2005 and 2013 inventories discussed in this appendix meet the first of the three requirements identified above.
In accordance with the US Community Protocol and BAAQMD guidance, these inventories include emissions from the
following sources, or sectors:
Residential energy: Electricity and natural gas used in residential buildings.
Nonresidential energy: Electricity and natural gas used in nonresidential buildings, including offices, retail stores,
government facilities, institutional facilities, and some industrial buildings.
Solid waste: Emissions from waste produced in the county for the inventory year.
Landfills: Emissions from the decomposition of waste deposited in landfills from prior years.
On-road transportation: On-road vehicle trips, including cars and trucks.
Off-road equipment: Portable equipment and vehicles not used for transportation on roads, including
construction and landscaping equipment.
Water and wastewater: Energy used to pump and treat water and wastewater, and emissions from the
processing of wastewater.
BART: Energy used by BART trips beginning or ending in the unincorporated area.
Agriculture: Emissions from fertilizer use, farming equipment, and the digestive processes of livestock.
Inventory & Forecast Report C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C-3
DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND ANALYSIS
The GHG emissions inventory starts with collecting activity data for each sector listed above. Activity data includes
the amounts of electricity used (measured in kilowatt-hours or kWh), vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or gallons of
water used. This information is for all activities occurring within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County and
comes from multiple sources, including private utilities, local governments, and state and regional agencies. The
activity data is converted into GHG emissions using an emissions factor, which is a numerical constant that describes
how many GHGs are emitted per unit of activity data (for example, how many GHGs per kWh of electricity used).
Utility companies or other providers of activity data may also provide emissions factors for their data. Alternatively,
state or federal agencies or the US Community Protocol may recommend specific emissions factors in their guidance
documents. The emissions factors include the three primary GHGs: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous
oxide (N2O).
These GHGs have different global warming potentials (GWPs), which refers to how much heat each gas can trap over
a 100-year period, relative to CO2. For example, methane traps 28 times as much heat as CO2, and so methane has a
GWP of 28. GHG emissions are presented as units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which accounts for the varying
GWPs of each gas type. A metric ton (MT) of methane will trap 28 times as much heat as an MT of CO2, and so one
MT of methane is equal to 28 MTCO2e. The GWPs in the 2005 and 2013 inventories are from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report.
In keeping with best practices and recommended guidance, the 2005 and 2013 inventories include emissions
resulting from activities occurring within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, even if the emissions
themselves do not occur in the unincorporated areas. For example, if a home in Bay Point uses electricity, the power
plant that provides the electricity may not be located within the unincorporated areas, and so any emissions from
generating the electricity (e.g., the burning of natural gas to run the generators) may occur in a distant community.
However, because the activity resulting in these emissions occurred within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa
County, it is included in the County’s GHG inventory.
2005 INVENTORY
This Inventory builds on an inventory prepared by the County evaluating 2005 community-wide GHG emissions for
the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Changes to the regulatory structure and incentives to address GHG
emissions since the creation of this initial inventory have been incorporated in this Inventory to comply with the US
Community Protocol, BAAQMD’s suggested guidelines for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, and the state CEQA
Guidelines Section 15185.5(b). The 2005 inventory has been updated to include the following:
New emissions sources not previously inventoried (off-road equipment, BART, water and wastewater, and
agriculture).
Emissions from direct access customers in the commercial/industrial sector as reported by Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E).
C Climate Action Plan
C-4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Analysis of stationary source emissions (note that these emissions are analyzed, but not included in the baseline
inventory).
Calculation of waste emissions using the California-specific 2009 Landfill Emissions Tool developed by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Updates to the GWPs of emissions to account for the most recent scientific understanding.
Integration of improved emissions factors from the US Community Protocol and the Local Government
Operations Protocol.
2013 INVENTORY
The County prepared the 2013 inventory to provide an interim update on GHG emissions in unincorporated Contra
Costa County, approximately halfway between the 2005 baseline year and the target year of 2020. It includes all of
the same sectors as the 2005 inventory and uses the same methods. Like the 2005 inventory, the 2013 inventory is
also consistent with the US Community Protocol and with state and regional guidance.
EXCLUDED SECTORS
The inventories were developed with the best available tools, data, and methods; however, as with any GHG
inventory, there are limitations to representing all sources of emissions in a local jurisdiction. There are two
emissions sources which were analyzed for Contra Costa County and are presented here for informational purposes,
but are not included in the official inventory:
Stationary Source GHG Emissions—Direct process emissions and energy used by industrially classified uses
including petrolium refineries, power plants, chemical manufacturing plants, and wastewater treatment plants in
the unincorporated county.
Energy Use by Major Industrial Facilities—Electricity and natural gas use by refineries, chemical facilities, and
major manufacturing plants in the unincorporated county.
The stationary source totals identified by BAAQMD for facilities in unincorporated Contra Costa County, as well as the
electricity and natural gas used by these facilities, have been excluded from the County’s GHG Inventory.
When deciding which sectors to include in an inventory for a local community, the US Community Protocol
recommends including those which are subject to “significant local government influence.” There are five criteria for
determining this influence; a source which satisfies at least one of these criteria is deemed subject to significant local
government influence and so should be included in the inventory:
Ownership (does the local government own the emissions source?)
Operational control (does the local government operate or manage the emissions source?)
Regulatory authority (does the local government have the authority to enact regulations, incentive programs, or
other mechanisms that could reduce emissions?)
Enforcement authority (does the local government enforce regulations that could reduce emissions?)
Budgetary authority (does the local government have monetary influence over the emissions source?)
Most sectors included in the 2005 and 2013 inventories are subject to regulatory and enforcement authority by
Contra Costa County, even if the County chooses not to enact policies to reduce emissions from these sources.
However, the stationary sources and major industrial facilities are primarily subject to regulation by other agencies,
including CARB, BAAQMD, and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and so fall generally outside of the
County’s regulatory and enforcement authority.
Exclusion of these emission sources allows the County to prepare a CAP that focuses on actions within its control.
Emissions from many of these facilities are being reduced under California’s statewide cap and trade program.
BAAQMD provided emissions from stationary sources for the 2005 inve ntory; CARB provided stationary source
emissions data for the 2013 inventory. The list of facilities included in the 2005 stationary source data do not match
those in the 2013 data, as facilities open and close and regulatory standards change.
PG&E provided information on energy use by major industrial facilities. Although PG&E was unable to provide data
on the specific amounts of energy used by major industrial facilities, it did provide information on the relative
amount of energy used by various types of nonresidential facilities. The County used this information to identify the
proportion of nonresidential electricity and natural gas used by major industrial activities, including petroleum
refining, chemical and mineral processing, and manufacturing. This information was used in conjuction with PG&E
data on total nonresidential energy use in the unincorporated areas to identify the energy use of major industrial
facilities. The percent of nonresidential energy use used by major industrial activities is shown in Table C.1.
2005 2013
Electricity (kWh) Natural Gas
(therms) Electricity (kWh) Natural Gas
(therms)
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
C Climate Action Plan
C-6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
The emissions from stationary sources and energy use of major industrial facilities, relative to the emissions of all
other included activities, is shown in Table C.2.
Table C.2. Emissions from Excluded Sectors
2005 (MTCO2e) 2013 (MTCO2e)
Stationary sources 13,983,030 11,873,500
Energy use of major industrial facilities 3,344,000 5,026,560
Total of excluded sectors 17,327,030 16,900,060
Included sectors 1,403,610 1,392,450
Total of included and excluded sectors 18,730,640 18,292,510
Percent of emissions from excluded sectors 93% 92%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Additional Activities
Emissions from some additional sectors were not analyzed, and so cannot be included. These sectors were excluded
because their emissions cannot be accurately analyzed using available data and/or methods, or because emissions
from these sectors are negligible in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. The exclusion of these
additional sectors is consistent with the US Community Protocol and with state and regional guidance:
Propane use: Propane is occasionally used by homes (and, more rarely, by nonresidential buildings) as a fuel,
typically as a substitute for natural gas for heating and cooking purposes. Although propane is largely
unregulated and so data on its sales and use are not tracked, methods do exist to estimate emissions from
propane use. However, US Census data indicates that propane is not widely used in Contra Costa County to any
significant degree. As emissions from this source likely have a minimal contribution to community-wide
emissions, propane-related emissions were not estimated.
Refrigerants: Refrigerants are materials commonly used in machinery designed to keep people and equipment
cool, such as air conditioning units in buildings and vehicles. There are numerous types of refrigerants, including
CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons, now being phased out due to the damage they cause to the ozone layer), HFCs
(hydrofluorocarbons), and PFCs (perfluorocarbons). Even in normal conditions, a small amount of refrigerant
material leaks from the equipment it is used in or from the containers it is stored in, creating what are called
“fugitive emissions.” Refrigerants often have very high GWPs (thousands of times as potent as CO2 in some
instances) and these fugitive emissions contribute to climate change; approximately 4% of California’s 2013 GHG
emissions were from refrigerants. However, refrigerants are not generally regulated in California, and no reliable
data source exists to estimate fugitive refrigerant emissions in Contra Costa County.
Inventory & Forecast Report C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C-7
Life cycle emissions: Industry protocol at this time does not recommend inclusion of life-cycle emissions in
community-wide local government GHG inventories. A protocol for estimating life-cycle emissions is under
development. Life-cycle emissions are emissions associated with the production and disposal of items consumed
by a community (i.e., “cradle-to-grave”). For instance, a life-cycle assessment of vehicle emissions would include
those from designing, extracting raw materials, producing, delivering, and disposing of each car in the county. In
contrast, this analysis only captures how much that car is driven in the county consistent with standard protocol.
Other sources: Other GHG emissions sectors have been excluded from the 2005 and 2013 inventories, as they are
negligible in size or relevance. Amtrak operates within Contra Costa County but only passes though
unincorporated areas briefly along its route, and there are no stations located within the unincorporated areas.
Considering the amount of time and effort it would take to quantify these emissions with marginal impact in the
baseline emissions inventory and limited control over Amtrak operations, these emissions have been omitted.
Emissions from air travel are also currently excluded from countywide inventories due to lack of accepted
methodology and data to apportion the emissions to the county and its residents.
INVENTORY RESULTS
2005 INVENTORY
This section provides a brief overview of the baseline GHG emissions for unincorporated Contra Costa County. In
2005, activities in the unincorporated county and within the County’s jurisdictional land use control generated
approximately 1,403,610 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e). On-road transportation was the largest
source of 2005 GHG emissions in Contra Costa County, contributing approximately 628,200 MTCO2e, or 45% of
emissions. The next largest source of emissions, residential energy use, contributed approximately 274,690 MTCO2e,
or 20% of emissions. Landfills were the third-largest sector, contributing 193,950 MTCO2e or 14% of emissions. The
nonresidential energy use sector was the fourth-largest emissions source, contributing 118,740 MTCO2e (8%);off-
road emissions were the fifth-largest emissions source (71,880 MTCO2e, or 5%); agriculture was the sixth-largest
emissions source (57,320 MTCO2e, or 4%). The solid waste, water and wastewater, and BART sectors represented 3%,
1%, and less than 1% of emissions, respectively. 2005 emissions by sector are shown in Figure C.1, and Table C.3
shows 2005 activity data and emissions by sector and subsector.
C Climate Action Plan
C-8 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Figure C.1. 2005 GHG Emissions by Sector
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Table C.3. 2005 Activity Data and GHG Emissions by Sector and Subsector
Sector Subsector Activity
Data Unit MTCO2e Total
MTCO2e
Percent of
Total MTCO2e
Residential
energy
Residential electricity 488,236,740 kWh 110,120
274,690 20%
Residential natural gas 30,919,160 Therms 164,570
Nonresidentia
l energy
Nonresidential electricity 284,558,070 kWh 64,180
118,740 8%
Nonresidential natural gas 10,251,360 Therms 54,560
Solid waste Waste disposed 170,780 Tons disposed 48,450 48,450 3%
Landfill Waste in place 34,455,010 Tons in place 193,950 193,950 14%
On-road
transportation On-road transportation 1,291,819,230 Annual VMT 628,200 628,200 45%
Off-road
equipment
Lawn and garden
equipment - None 3,820
71,880 5%
Construction equipment - None 68,060
Water and
wastewater
Indirect water use 26,443,770 kWh 5,960
8,080 1% Indirect wastewater use 6,199,120 kWh 1,400
Direct wastewater emissions - None 720
BART BART trips 38,111,050 Passenger miles 2,300 2,300 <1%
Agriculture
Fertilizer application 200,980 Crop acres 3,920
57,320 4% Agriculture equipment - None 23,960
Livestock 16,500 Heads of
livestock 29,440
TOTAL 1,403,610 100%
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
MTCO2e
Residential energy
20%
Nonresidential energy
8%
Solid waste
3%
Landfill
14%
On-road transportation
45%
Off-road equipment
5%
BART
<1%
Agriculture
4%
Water and wastewater
1%
Inventory & Forecast Report C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C-9
2013 INVENTORY
In 2013, activities in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County within the County’s jurisdictional control
resulted in 1,392,450 MTCO2e, a 1% decrease from 2005 levels. The on-road emissions sector was again the largest,
contributing 651,130 MTCO2e, or 47% of the county’s emissions. Residential energy was the second-largest source of
emissions with approximately 258,420 MTCO2e or 19% of emissions, followed by landfills with approximately 196,500
MTCO2e or 14% of emissions. Nonresidential energy was the fourth-largest source of emissions with approximately
125,350 MTCO2e (9%);off-road equipment contributed approximately 66,230 MTCO2e (5%) and agriculture
contributed approximately 58,200 MTCO2e (4%). The smallest sources of emissions, solid waste, water and
wastewater, and BART, were responsible for 2%, 1%, and less than 1% of emissions, respectively. 2013 emissions by
sector are shown in Figure C.2, and activity data and emissions by subsector for 2013 are shown in Table C.4. Table
C.5 shows the difference in emissions by sector between 2005 and 2013.
Figure C.2. 2013 GHG Emissions by Sector
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
0 200,000 400,000 600,000 800,000 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,400,000
MTCO2e
Residential energy
19%
Nonresidential energy
9%
Solid waste
2%
Landfill
14%
On-road transportation
47%
Off-road equipment
5%
BART
<1%
Agriculture
4%
Water and wastewater
1%
C Climate Action Plan
C-10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Table C.4. 2013 Activity Data and GHG Emissions by Sector and Subsector
Sector Subsector Activity
Data Unit MTCO2e Total
MTCO2e
Percent of
Total MTCO2e
Residential
energy
Residential electricity 478,219,710 kWh 93,380
258,420 19%
Residential natural gas 31,007,110 Therms 165,040
Nonresidentia
l energy
Nonresidential electricity 266,216,660 kWh 51,980
125,350 9%
Nonresidential natural gas 13,784,410 Therms 73,370
Solid waste Waste disposed 92,780 Tons disposed 26,540 26,540 2%
Landfill Waste in place 41,785,650 Tons in place 196,500 196,500 14%
On-road
transportation On-road transportation 1,349,279,980 Annual VMT 651,130 651,130 47%
Off-road
equipment
Lawn and garden
equipment - None 3,180
66,230 5%
Construction equipment - None 63,050
Water and
wastewater
Indirect water use 28,004,290 kWh 5,470
7,400 1% Indirect wastewater use 6,198,590 kWh 1,210
Direct wastewater emissions - None 720
BART BART trips 44,417,320 Passenger miles 2,680 2,680 <1%
Agriculture
Fertilizer application 204,030 Crop acres 4,280
58,200 4% Agriculture equipment - None 18,910
Livestock 19,110 Heads of
livestock 35,010
TOTAL 1,392,450 100%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Table C.5. Comparison of 2005 and 2013 GHG Emissions by Sector
Sector 2005 MTCO2e 2013 MTCO2e Percent Change,
2005–2013
Residential energy 274,690 258,420 -6%
Nonresidential energy 118,740 125,350 6%
Solid waste 48,450 26,540 -45%
Landfill 193,950 196,500 1%
On-road transportation 628,200 651,130 4%
Off-road equipment 71,880 66,230 -8%
Water and wastewater 8,080 7,400 -8%
BART 2,300 2,680 17%
Agriculture 57,320 58,200 2%
Total 1,403,610 1,392,450 -1%
Inventory & Forecast Report C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C-11
GHG EMISSIONS ANALYSIS BY SECTOR ACTIVITY
RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL ENERGY
The residential and nonresidential energy use sectors include the natural gas and electricity consumed by residents
and various nonresidential facilities (excluding major industrial facilities) in the unincorporated county. Both
electricity and natural gas services are provided in Contra Costa County by PG&E. PG&E provided both the activity
data and the emissions factors for the residential and nonresidential energy sectors.
PG&E also supplied data on the relative amount of nonresidential energy used in petroleum refining, chemical
processing, and manufacturing; the 2005 and 2013 inventories exclude energy used by these three sectors, as
previously discussed. Table C.6 shows activity data for the residential and nonresidential energy sectors, while Table
C.7 shows emissions from these activities.
Table C.6. Residential and Nonresidential Energy Activity Data, 2005 and 2013
Subsector 2005 2013 Units Percent Change,
2005–2013
Residential electricity 488,236,740 478,219,710 kWh -2%
Nonresidential electricity 284,558,070 266,216,660 kWh -6%
Residential natural gas 30,919,160 31,007,110 Therms <1%
Nonresidential natural gas 10,251,360 13,784,410 Therms 34%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Table C.7. Residential and Nonresidential Energy GHG Emissions, 2005 and 2013
Subsector 2005 (MTCO2e) 2013 (MTCO2e) Percent Change,
2005–2013
Residential electricity 110,120 93,380 -15%
Nonresidential electricity 64,180 51,980 -19%
Residential natural gas 164,570 165,040 <1%
Nonresidential natural gas 54,560 73,370 34%
Total 393,430 383,770 -2%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
C Climate Action Plan
C-12 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
SOLID WASTE
Solid waste refers to all material thrown away in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County during the
inventory year that is deposited in a landfill. As organic material decomposes in a landfill, it produces methane, some
of which escapes into the atmosphere. These emissions may occur anywhere the community sends its waste,
whether it is in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County or not. These emissions occur over the lifetime of
the waste, not only in the calendar year of the inventory, but they are included in the inventory because the activity
responsible for these emissions occurred in the specific calendar year (2005 or 2013).
The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery provided data on the amount of solid waste
generated in Contra Costa County. CARB’s publicly available landfill modeling tool was used to calculate emissions
resulting from this waste. In accordance with guidance from CARB and EPA, it is assumed that 25% of the methane
generated by a landfill escapes to the atmosphere (the rest is captured and used for energy). Table C.8 shows activity
data and emissions for solid waste.
Table C.8. Solid Waste Activity Data and GHG Emissions, 2005 and 2013
2005 2013 Units Percent Change,
2005–2013
Activity data 170,780 92,780 Tons disposed -46%
Emissions 48,450 26,540 MTCO2e -45%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
.
LANDFILL
Landfill emissions are also emissions resulting from the decomposition of organic material in a landfill, although they
differ from solid waste emissions in a few regards. Landfill emissions include all emissions at landfills in the
unincorporated area of Contra Costa County, regardless of where the waste in the landfills came from. Additionally,
these emissions occur in a specific calendar year regardless of when the waste creating the emissions was originally
deposited in the landfill (by contrast, solid waste emissions occur over the lifetime of all decomposing waste
deposited in the landfill during a specific calendar year).
The landfill sector includes emissions from the two remaining operating landfills located within the unincorporated
county, Keller Canyon Landfill and Acme Landfill, as well as from the West Contra Costa Sanitary Landfill, which
ceased accepting waste in 2006 but which continues to generate emissions as the waste decomposes. The California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery provided data on the amount of waste deposited in these landfills;
in some instances, this data had to be estimated based on the best available information on the total volume of
waste-in-place, or based on the amount disposed in particular years which was used to estimate annual disposal
amounts back to the date that the landfill first began accepting waste (or was known to accept waste).
Future projections of disposed waste are based on recent disposal levels, assumed rates of increase, and the
estimated closure date for the remaining operating landfills. Disposed waste volumes used as model inputs included
Inventory & Forecast Report C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C-13
those materials used as alternative daily cover that generate methane, including green waste, compost, and sewage
sludge (biosolids). CARB’s landfill model was used to calculate emissions from all waste deposited in the landfills,
again assuming 25% of all emissions enter the atmosphere in accordance with EPA and CARB recommendations.
Table C.9 shows activity data and emissions for the landfill sector.
Table C.9. Landfill Activity Data and GHG Emissions, 2005 and 2013
2005 2013 Units Percent Change,
2005–2013
Activity data 34,455,010 41,785,650 Tons in place 21%
Emissions 193,950 196,500 MTCO2e 1%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
ON-ROAD TRANSPORTATION
On-road transportation generates GHG emissions from the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel use by vehicles
operating on roads within Contra Costa County. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Travel Demand Model
was used to calculate activity data for on-road transportation; this model generated three types of vehicle trips:
Internal-Internal: Vehicle trips that remained in the unincorporated county.
Internal-External and External-Internal: Vehicle trips that have an ending or a beginning in the unincorporated
and another within an incorporated city or outside of Contra Costa County.
External-External: Vehicle trips with neither end of the trip beginning or ending in the unincorporated county.
In accordance with best industry practice, all internal-internal trips and half of the internal-external/external-internal
are included in these inventories. External-external trips are excluded because the County cannot directly influence
these activities, even though part of the trip occurs within the unincorporated area. CARB provided the emissions
factors through the EMFAC 2011 emissions database, which provides these factors based on the unique vehicle
composition of each county in California. Weekday VMT and emissions are converted to annual figures using a
conversion factor of 347 days/year to account for lessened travel on weekends, per the Assembly Bill (AB) 32
Technical Appendix. Individual GHGs such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide are converted to CO2e by
multiplying the CO2 emissions by a conversion factor of 100/95. Activity data and emissions for on-road
transportation are shown in Table C.10.
C Climate Action Plan
C-14 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Table C.10. On-Road Transportation Activity Data and GHG Emissions, 2005 and 2013
2005 2013 Units Percent Change,
2005–2013
Activity data 1,291,819,230 1,349,279,980 Annual VMT 4%
Emissions 628,200 651,130 MTCO2e 4%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
OFF-ROAD EQUIPMENT
Off-road equipment includes vehicles and portable equipment used for construction and lawn and garden activities
(agricultural off-road equipment is included in the agriculture sector). There is no activity data for off-road
equipment. CARB provides countywide emissions using the OFFROAD2007 software. In accordance with the
Community Protocol, BAAQMD guidance, and best practices, a portion of the countywide emissions was attributed to
the unincorporated areas using the following methods:
Countywide construction equipment emissions were accredited to the unincorporated county using the
proportion of the service population in the unincorporated county compared to the entire county using data
provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
Total County lawn and garden emissions were attributed to the unincorporated county using the proportion of
existing households within the unincorporated county compared to the entire county, according to ABAG figures.
Table C.11 shows the emissions from off-road equipment in 2005 and 2013.
Table C.11. Off-Road Equipment Emissions, 2005 and 2013
Subsector 2005 (MTCO2e) 2013 (MTCO2e) Percent Change,
2005–2013
Lawn and garden equipment 3,820 3,180 -17%
Construction equipment 68,060 63,050 -7%
Total 71,880 66,230 -8%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Inventory & Forecast Report C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C-15
WATER AND WASTEWATER
The water and wastewater sector includes three subsectors: (1) indirect water emissions, (2) indirect wastewater
emissions, and (3) direct wastewater emissions. Indirect water emissions result from the energy used to transport
and process water, while indirect wastewater emissions occur as a result of the energy used to transport and process
wastewater. Direct wastewater emissions occur at the wastewater treatment plant as a result of the decomposition
of organic materials in the wastewater.
Water providers supplied information on the amount of water used in the unincorporated areas and the sources of
this water, while the California Energy Commission (CEC) provided information on the amount of energy used per
gallon depending on the source. CEC data was used to calculate indirect wastewater energy used, based on estimates
of wastewater volume that were calculated from water usage figures. PG&E provided the emissions factors to
convert energy use factors into emissions. Direct wastewater emissions were calculated from information provided
by wastewater service providers and data in the US Community Protocol. Table C.12 shows activity data for indirect
water and wastewater emissions (there is no activity data for direct emissions), while Table C.13 shows GHG
emissions for the water and wastewater sectors.
Table C.12. Water and Wastewater Activity Data, 2005 and 2013
Subsector 2005 2013 Units Percent Change,
2005–2013
Indirect water 26,443,770 28,004,290 kWh 6%
Indirect wastewater 6,199,120 6,198,590 kWh -<1%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Table C.13. Water and Wastewater GHG Emissions, 2005 and 2013
Subsector 2005 (MTCO2e) 2013 (MTCO2e) Percent Change,
2005–2013
Indirect water 5,960 5,470 -8%
Indirect wastewater 1,400 1,210 -14%
Direct wastewater 720 720 0%
Total 8,080 7,400 -8%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
BART
Emissions from BART (the Bay Area Rapid Transit District’s mass transit system) occur as a result of the energy used
to power the trains and operate the system’s facilities. Activity data for BART is measured in passenger miles, which
BART publishes monthly. Although there are ten BART stations in Contra Costa County, only the Pleasant Hill/Contra
Costa Centre station is located within the unincorporated area. In accordance with best practices, only half of all
passenger miles from trips beginning or ending at this station are included in the 2005 and 2013 inventories; the
other half are attributed to the other station where the trip began/ended. BART also supplied an emissions factor for
C Climate Action Plan
C-16 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
trips on the system, and although this factor has not been updated since 2007, it has been verified by BAAQMD and
remains the most accurate available factor. Activity data and emissions for BART are shown in Table C.14.
Table C.14. BART Activity Data and GHG Emissions, 2005 and 2013*
2005 2013 Units Percent Change,
2005–2013
Activity data 38,111,050 44,417,320 Passenger miles 17%
Emissions 2,300 2,680 MTCO2e 17%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
*Note: Activity data is for the Pleasant Hill/Contra Costa Centre station only
AGRICULTURE
The agriculture sector includes an analysis of the GHG emissions occurring from fertilizer application on crops, the
use of agricultural equipment, and from livestock, which produce methane and N2O through digestive processes.
The Contra Costa County Agriculture Department provided information on crop acreage and heads of livestock in the
unincorporated area. The University of California Cooperative Extension provided information on the amounts of
fertilizer applied to various types of crops, while the US Community Protocol supplied additional data needed to
calculate emissions from fertilizer use. CARB, the EPA, and the IPCC supplied information on the amounts of GHGs
produced per head of livestock due to digestive processes. CARB’s OFFROAD2007 software supplied emissions for
agricultural equipment; there is no activity data for agricultural equipment. Activity data for agricultural activities is
shown in Table C.15 and GHG emissions for agricultural activities are included in Table C.16.
Table C.15. Agriculture Activity Data, 2005 and 2013
Subsector 2005 2013 Units Percent Change,
2005–2013
Fertilizer application 200,980 204,030 Crop acres 2%
Livestock 16,500 19,110 Heads of livestock 16%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Table C.16. Agriculture GHG Emissions, 2005 and 2013
Subsector 2005 (MTCO2e) 2013 (MTCO2e) Percent Change,
2005–2013
Fertilizer application 3,920 4,280 9%
Agriculture equipment 23,960 18,910 -21%
Livestock 29,440 35,010 19%
Total 57,320 58,200 2%
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Inventory & Forecast Report C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C-17
GHG EMISSIONS FORECAST
A GHG emissions forecast is an estimate of how emissions will change in the future based on anticipated population
and jobs growth in the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County, absent of any actions taken at the federal,
state, regional, or local level to reduce emissions. This forecast is often referred to as a business-as-usual forecast. A
GHG emissions forecast allows elected officials, County staff, and community members to determine the volume of
reductions needed to meet GHG reduction goals.
Consistent with state and regional guidance, as well as widely accepted forecasting methods including the
Association of Environmental Professionals white paper on GHG forecasts, the GHG emissions forecast for Contra
Costa County assumes that per capita activity data remains constant at 2005 baseline levels. Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) demographic growth projections is the primary data source used to forecast GHG emissions.
These growth projections are given in Table C.17.
Table C.17. ABAG Projections for Unincorporated Contra Costa County, 2005–2035
2005 2013 2020 2035 2005–2035 Change
Population 159,650 162,230 166,100 173,500 6%
Households 57,980 58,550 59,720 61,740 9%
Jobs 41,270 43,210 47,670 50,330 22%
Service Population 200,920 205,440 213,770 223,830 11%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments 2009, 2013
Under the growth projections identified by ABAG, emissions in the unincorporated area are forecasted to increase to
1,483,720 MTCO2e by 2020, a 6% increase from 2005 levels. Emissions in 2035 are projected to rise to 1,545,980
MTCO2e, a 10% increase from 2005 levels. Table C.18 and Figure C.3 show emissions by sector for the 2005 baseline
inventory and the two forecasted years.
C Climate Action Plan
C-18 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Table C.18. GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005–2035
Sector 2005 MTCO2e 2013 MTCO2e 2020 MTCO2e 2035 MTCO2e Percent Change,
2005–2035
Residential energy 274,690 258,420 282,930 292,500 6%
Nonresidential energy 118,740 125,350 137,150 144,810 22%
Solid waste 48,450 26,540 51,550 53,970 11%
Landfill 193,950 196,500 204,560 218,560 13%
On-road transportation 628,200 651,130 662,820 687,370 9%
Off-road equipment 71,880 66,230 76,340 79,890 11%
Water and wastewater 8,080 7,400 8,600 9,000 11%
BART 2,300 2,680 2,450 2,560 11%
Agriculture 57,320 58,200 57,320 57,320 0%
TOTAL 1,403,610 1,392,450 1,483,720 1,545,980 10%
Percent Change from
2005 - -1% 6% 10% -
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
Figure C.3. GHG Emissions by Sector, 2005–2035
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
1,403,610 1,392,450
1,483,720
1,545,980
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
1,800,000
2005 2013 2020 2035MTCO2e
Residential energy Nonresidential energy Solid waste
Landfill On-road transportation Off-road equipment
Water and wastewater BART Agriculture
Emissions associated with energy, water, wastewater, BART, solid waste, and off-road equipment are anticipated to
grow linearly with household, employment, and service population growth. Emissions from the landfill subsector
were forecasted using the landfill modeling software developed by CARB to estimate net fugitive methane emissions
in 2020 and 2035, based on the total amount of waste disposed in the landfills located in the unincorporated county.
On-road VMT in the GHG forecast were modeled using the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Travel Demand
Forecasting Model and include regional transportation improvements identified in the Comprehensi ve
Transportation Project List. The forecast assumes that agricultural activities (including off -road agricultural
equipment) do not change from baseline levels.
The state of California has been proactive in reducing GHG emissions. Several regulations and efforts at the state
level will lessen Contra Costa County’s future GHG emissions, including vehicle standards, building standards, and the
renewable energy content of electricity. As a result, an initial step in the assessment of GHG reductions in the
unincorporated county is to apply the potential effects of these activities on Contra Costa County’s forecasted
emissions. The state programs analyzed are limited to those programs that have been formally adopted the state
legislature and governor and implemented by state agencies, except as noted. These results are detailed in Table
C.19.
One of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country, RPS mandates that 33% of electricity
delivered in California be generated by renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal by 2020. The California
RPS was first codified in 2002 by Senate Bill (SB) 1078 (requiring 20% renewable electricity mix by 2010) and further
strengthened in April 2011 with the adoption of SB X 1-2 (requiring 33% renewable electricity mix by 2020). The RPS
intended to boost the economy and establish California as a center for the development and use of renewable
energy.
Governor Jerry Brown established a goal to increase the RPS to 50% by 2030, and on September 11, 2015, the
California legislature passed Senate Bill 350 to codify the governor’s executive order. T his forecast assumes the RPS
goal of 50% by 2030.
California’s Clean Car Standards were established by AB 1493 in 2002, requiring new passenger vehicles to reduce
tailpipe GHG emissions from 2009 to 2020. These standards are also often referred to as the Pavley standards, after
State Senator Fran Pavley who authored AB 1493 when she was a member of the state assembly. A related program,
the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), establishes a goal of a 10% reduct ion in carbon intensity in transportation fuels.
Reductions from the Clean Car Standards and the LCFS were calculated using the EMFAC2011 modeling software
created by CARB , which provides an emissions coefficient that accounts for the impact of these state policies.
Emissions reductions per model year and vehicle class were applied to Contra Costa County’s transportation
emissions.
C Climate Action Plan
C-20 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Emissions reductions per model year and vehicle class were applied to Contra Costa County’s transportation
emissions.
Title 24, Energy Efficiency Standards
California’s Title 24 (CalGreen) energy standards are updated every few years (the most recent update went into
effect on July 1, 2014). These are statewide standards applied at the local level by city and county agencies through
project review. The CEC provides information on the energy efficiency of each new set of Title 24 standards relative
to the previous standards. The calculation of CalGreen energy reductions assumes that all development occurring
after 2005 will comply with the version of the Title 24 standards which apply at the time of construction. It also
assumes that all growth in natural gas and electricity sectors is from new construction. As a conservative estimate
and to avoid creating additional uncertainty in the forecast, reductions from Title 24 assume that the requirements
do not become stricter after the 2022 standards go into effect.
Table C.19. GHG Reductions from State Policies, 2020 and 2035
State Policy or Program 2020 (MTCO2e) 2035 (MTCO2e)
Renewables Portfolio Standard -41,620 -78,030
Clean Car Standard and LCFS -173,480 -236,270
Title 24 Standards -2,840 -7,970
TOTAL -217,940 -322,270
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
The regulations implemented by the state will have a profound impact on Contra Costa’s GHG emissions. As shown in
Table C.20, reductions from state activities are expected to reduce emissions below baseline levels by 2020, and to
continue to decrease emissions by 2035 despite population growth.
Table C.20. GHG Emissions with State Reduction Actions, 2005–2035
Sector 2005
(MTCO2e)
2013
(MTCO2e)
2020
(MTCO2e)
2035
(MTCO2e)
Percent Change,
2005–2035
Residential energy 274,690 258,420 257,310 242,280 -12%
Nonresidential energy 118,740 125,350 119,980 112,170 -6%
Solid waste 48,450 26,540 51,550 53,970 11%
Landfill 193,950 196,500 204,560 218,560 13%
On-road transportation 628,200 651,130 489,340 451,100 -28%
Off-road equipment 71,880 66,230 76,340 79,890 11%
Water and wastewater 8,080 7,400 6,930 5,860 -27%
BART 2,300 2,680 2,450 2,560 11%
Agriculture 57,320 58,200 57,320 57,320 0%
TOTAL 4,403,610 1,392,450 1,265,620 1,223,170 -13%
Inventory & Forecast Report C
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY C-21
Sector 2005
(MTCO2e)
2013
(MTCO2e)
2020
(MTCO2e)
2035
(MTCO2e)
Percent Change,
2005–2035
Percent Change from 2005 - -1% -10% -13% -
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
GHG REDUCTION TARGETS
The CEQA Guidelines require that a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy contain a goal for substantive GHG reductions.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) established a statewide GHG reduction goal of returning to 1990
levels by 2020. The AB 32 Scoping Plan, which lays out the strategy to achieve the AB 32 reduction goal, identifies a
goal of 15% below baseline levels by 2020 for local communities as being comparable to the 1990 statewide goal for
GHG reductions. Executive Order (EO) S-03-05, signed by former Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, establishes a
statewide GHG reduction goal of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. A 2015 executive order by Governor Brown, EO B-
30-15, establishes a statewide reduction goal of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030; legislation codifying both goals is
currently being considered by the state legislature. No current or pending legislation would create a statewide goal
for 2035. A potential option for a 2035 goal is one that reduces emissions to the level specified in EO B-30-15 by
2030, then continues to reduce emissions on a trajectory that would meet the 2050 target. For 2035, such a goal is
equal to 50% below 1990 levels, or approximately 57% below baseline levels. Table C.21 and Figure C.4 show the
difference between the baseline, forecast, and forecast with state reductions relative to the recommended goals,
along with the volume of GHG reductions needed from local activities.
Table C.21. Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecasts, and Reduction Goals
2020 MTCO2e 2035 MTCO2e
2005 Baseline Emissions 1,403,610 1,403,610
Forecasted Emissions 1,483,720 1,545,980
Emissions with Statewide Reductions 1,265,620 1,223,170
Reduction Target 1,193,070 596,540
Local Reductions Needed -72,550 -626,630
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
C Climate Action Plan
C-22 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Figure C.4. Baseline GHG Emissions, Forecasts, and Reduction Goals
Source: Michael Baker International 2015
500,000
700,000
900,000
1,100,000
1,300,000
1,500,000
2005 2013 2020 2035MTCO2e
State Actions Forecast Progress to target
Baseline Level
2020 Goal
2035 Goal
2035reductions
from state actions:
322,810 MTCO2e.
2035 reductions
needed from local
actions:
626,630 MTCO2e.
Appendix D:
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-1
This technical appendix provides a summary of the data sources, assumptions, and performance metrics used in this
Climate Action Plan (CAP) for the County of Contra Costa to quantify estimated greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.
The sources and metrics are organized by policy and rely on four primary types of data and research: (1) the County’s
GHG emissions inventory and forecast, (2) government agency tools and reports, (3) case studies in similar
jurisdictions, and (4) scholarly research. The approach to quantification is consistent with the guidance provided by
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for the development of a Qualified GHG Reduction
Strategy.
The baseline GHG inventory and forecast serve as the foundation for the quantification of the County’s GHG
reduction measures. Activity data from the inventory forms the basis of measure quantification, including vehicle
miles traveled, kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity or therms of natural gas consumed, and tons of waste disposed.
Activity data was combined with the performance targets and indicators identified by the County and Michael Baker
International staff. Together, the metrics of activity data and performance targets and indicators were used
throughout the quantification process to calculate the GHG reduction benefit of each measure. This approach
ensures that the County’s GHG reductions are tied to the baseline and future activities that are actually occurring
within Contra Costa County. The approach to quantification is further described in Chapter 4.
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure EE 1: Energy-Efficient Retrofits – Residential Buildings
Policy Language: Provide opportunities for residential buildings to become more energy efficient.
GHG Reduction Action items:
1. Continue and expand single-family participation in established energy efficiency rebate programs, including
BayREN and East Bay Energy Watch.
Collaborate with local organizations like Contra Costa County Climate Leaders and PG&E to develop
comprehensive and appropriate outreach efforts that effectively reach all segments of the community.
Monitor participation in energy efficiency programs.
2. Continue and expand multi-family participation in established energy efficiency rebate programs, including
BayREN and East Bay Energy Watch.
3. Increase participation in the existing low-income weatherization program and seek additional program funding.
4. Identify disadvantaged individuals and households for increased participation in energy efficiency programs.
5. Work with PG&E to advertise and promote a residential appliance rebate program with a focus on properties
with potential high appliance energy use (e.g., homes with pools would receive a flyer about available pool pump
rebates and return on investment information).
6. Participate in one or more Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing programs.
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-3
Measure EE 1 Continued
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
SFR basic retrofit participation rate 7% 10%
SFR advanced retrofit participation rate 0.5% 1%
MFR retrofit participation rate 5% 10%
Homes undergoing appliance upgrades 5% 10%
Home appliance upgrade infiltration rate 25% 25%
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of single -family homes receiving basic
retrofits
3,000 (average reduction of 840
kWh and 50 therms per home)
4,290(average reduction of 840
kWh and 50 therms per home)
Number of single-family homes receiving advanced
retrofits
210 (average of 3,370 kWh and
210 therms per home)
430 (average of 3,370 kWh and
210 therms per home)
Number of multi-family homes receiving retrofits 700 1,400
Number of single-family homes receiving pool pump
upgrades 150 150
Number of homes receiving appliance upgrades 2,010 4,030
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure EE 1Continued
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 2,140
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 3,160
GHG Method:
Reductions are based on expected increases in energy efficiency as a result of residential
participation in educational and incentive programs. Reductions were applied to forecasted
energy usage. Reduction rates for low-income weatherization, whole-house retrofits, and energy-
efficient appliances were identified from case studies and program-specific information. These
reductions were applied to participating households, which were identified by applying target
participation rates to relevant residential building types. The sum of these reductions was then
converted to MTCO2e.
GHG Sources:
BayREN. 2015. Advanced Home Upgrade Assessment Incentive.
https://www.bayareaenergyupgrade.org/sites/default/files/BayRenAdvancedHomeUpgradeInfov
9.pdf
Brown, Rich, Sam Borgeson, Jon Koomey, and Peter Biermayer. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector Energy
Efficiency Potential. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of
California. http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-1096E.pdf
Energy Upgrade CA. 2013. Bay Area Multifamily Program.
http://multifamily.energyupgradeca.org/#bayarea
KEMA, Inc. 2010. 2009 California Residential Appliance Saturation Study, Volume 2: Results. CEC-
200-2010-004 http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/
Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Sempra Energy. 2007. Draft Report: Residential Swimming
Pools. http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2008standards/prerulemaking/documents/2007-02-26-
27_workshop/supporting/PGE-DRAFT_REPORT_RESIDENTIAL_SWIMMING_POOL.PDF
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development
Community Co-Benefit
1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-Benefit
2: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-Benefit
3: Saves Money
Community Co-Benefit
4: Improves Public Health
Community Co-Benefit
5: Adaptive Measure
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-5
Measure EE 2: Energy-Efficient Retrofits – Nonresidential Buildings
Policy Language: Provide opportunities for nonresidential buildings to become more energy efficient.
Action Items:
1. Continue expanding nonresidential participation in energy efficiency rebate and financing programs, including
East Bay Energy Watch, BayREN, low-interest California Energy Commission (CEC) loans, and PG&E on-bill
financing opportunities. Create a prioritized list of energy-intense facilities to target for additional education
and/or financial support for energy efficiency improvements, while complying with existing privacy regulations.
2. Provide focused outreach to local businesses describing PACE program opportunities, constraints, and benefits.
3. Develop outreach materials that explain the opportunities for financing energy efficiency retrofits such as a PACE
program, low-interest energy efficiency loans through the CEC, integration of energy efficiency retrofit projects
into capital lease structures, and mortgage refinancing.
4. Identify staffing and a revenue stream to develop a shared landlord-tenant program to support the financing of
energy efficiency retrofits to renter-occupied buildings.
5. Inform nonresidential building owners about the savings potentials from retrocommissioning, retrofits, and deep
retrofits.
6. Inform the business community about the monetary benefits associated with energy-efficient appliances.
7. Collaborate with local organizations like 4CL and PG&E to develop and implement the outreach approaches
outlined in this measure.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Percent of existing businesses undergoing
retrocommissioning 8% 15%
Percent of existing businesses undergoing standard
retrofits 4% 10%
Percent of existing businesses undergoing deep
retrofits 1% 3%
Businesses completing appliance upgrades 10% 20%
Appliance upgrade infiltration rate 25% 25%
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-6 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure EE 2 Continued
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of businesses receiving retrocommissioning 240 (average of 23,190 kWh and
840 therms per business)
450 (average of 23,190 kWh and
840 therms per business)
Number of businesses receiving standard retrofits 120 (average of 39,280 kWh and
1420 therms per business)
300 (average of 39,280 kWh and
1420 therms per business)
Number of businesses receiving deep retrofits 30 (average of 49,690 kWh and
1,790 therms per business)
90 (average of 49,690 kWh and
1,790 therms per business)
Number of businesses receiving appliance upgrades
300 (average of 2,560 kWh and
90 therms per business)
600 (average of 2,560 kWh and
90 therms per business)
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 4,630
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 9,310
GHG Method:
Reductions are based on expected increases in energy efficiency as a result of nonresidential
participation in educational and incentive programs. Reductions were applied to forecasted
energy usage.
GHG Sources:
Brown, Rich, Sam Borgeson, Jon Koomey, and Peter Biermayer. 2008. U.S. Building-Sector
Energy Efficiency Potential. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of
California. http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-1096E.pdf
Itron, Inc. 2007. California Commercial End-use Survey - Results Page.
http://capabilities.itron.com/CeusWeb/Chart.aspx
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2011. Advanced Energy Retrofit Guide - Practical Ways to
Improve Energy Performance: Office Buildings.
http://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-20761.pdf
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development
Community Co-Benefit1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-Benefit 2: Supports Local Economy
Community Co-Benefit 3: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-Benefit 4: Saves Money
Community Co-Benefit 5: Improves Public Health
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-7
Measure EE 3: Energy Conservation Awareness
Policy Language: Provide education and outreach highlighting the benefits of energy conservation.
Action Items:
1. Engage with PG&E to provide multilingual and culturally relevant educational material to residents and
businesses to increase the community’s awareness and utilization of real-time energy consumption data
available through the SmartMeter program.
2. Work with the Bay Area Green Business Program to highlight examples of energy-efficient local businesses.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Residential Participation Rate 5% 10%
Commercial Participation Rate 2% 5%
Residential energy reduction rate 3% 3%
Nonresidential energy reduction rate 2.5% 2.5%
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of participating homes 2,900 (annual average of 250
kWh and 20 therms per home)
5,800 (annual average of 250
kWh and 20 therms per home)
Number of participating businesses 60 (average of 2,370 kWh and
90 therms per business)
150 (average of 2,370 kWh and
90 therms per business)
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-8 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure EE 3 Continued
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 430
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 810
GHG Method:
A participation rate was applied to baseline kWh. Studies of energy reductions from energy use
awareness campaigns for both residential and nonresidential buildings were used to guide
estimate reductions.
GHG Sources:
Green, J. & Skumatz, L. 2000. "Evaluating the Impacts of Education/Outreach Programs: Lessons of
Impacts, Methods, and Optimal Education."
http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2000/data/papers/SS00_Panel8_Paper10.pdf
US Department of Energy. 2013. "Leading by Example: Better Buildings Challenge Partners Cut
Energy Use". http://energy.gov/articles/leading-example-better-buildings-challenge-partners-cut-
energy-use
Implementation Time
Frame: Near-Term (by 2018)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development, Health Services
Community Co-Benefit
1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-Benefit
2: Supports Local Economy
Community Co-Benefit
3: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-Benefit
4: Saves Money
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-9
Measure EE 4: Urban Forestry and Paving and Roofing Materials
Policy Language: Reduce urban heat islands through vegetation management and cool surfaces.
Action Items:
1. Encourage multi-family residential and nonresidential development to increase use of higher-albedo materials
for surfaces including roofs, parking areas, driveways, roads, and sidewalks.
2. Encourage developments with parking lot areas to shade these areas with vegetation or solar panels when
appropriate.
3. Continue to promote the use of low-impact development (LID) strategies and reduction in impervious surface
area of new development.
4. Encourage increased use of cool roof materials on new and existing buildings to reduce the urban heat island
effect and corresponding cooling energy consumption.
5. Support various programs to plant and maintain trees in urban and rural areas.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Percent of existing houses adding a cool roof 3% 5%
Percent of existing nonresidential buildings adding a
cool roof 2% 4%
Number of new shade trees planted 500 1,000
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of existing homes completing cool roof
retrofits
1,790 (average of 10 kWh per
home)
3,090 (average of 10 kWh per
home)
Number of existing businesses completing cool roof
retrofits
9 (average of 1,450 kWh per
business)
17 (average of 1,450 kWh per
business)
Number of new shade trees 500 (average of 200 kWh per
tree)
1,000 (average of 200 kWh per
tree)
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-10 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure EE 4 Continued
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 20
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 40
GHG Method:
Reductions associated with lowering electricity for cooling use was applied to a proportion of
homes and businesses retrofitting their buildings with cool roofs and surfaces. The Brown et al.
and California End Use Survey (CEUS) studies were used to determine the percentage of
residential and nonresidential energy used for cooling. These reductions were applied to
households and businesses in 2020 and 2030. CAAPA 1.5 was used to determine the kWh saved
from cooling as a result of planting shade trees.
GHG Sources:
California Energy Commission. 2012. Cool Roofs. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-
400-2012-003/CEC-400-2012-003-BR.pdf
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. n.d. “Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant v
1.5.”
Implementation Time
Frame: Near-Term (by 2018)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development, Public Works
Community Co-Benefit
1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-Benefit
2: Improves Air Quality
Community Co-Benefit
3: Saves Money
Community Co-Benefit
4: Improves Community Livability
Community Co-Benefit
5: Improves Public Health
Community Co-Benefit
6: Adaptive Measure
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-11
Measure EE 5: Energy Efficiency Capacity Building
Policy Language: Increase Contra Costa County’s capacity for energy efficiency through financing opportunities and
workforce training.
Action Items:
1. Monitor grants from cap-and-trade revenue and other funding sources, and inform applicable County agencies.
2. Create a framework for revenues from cap-and-trade offsets or allocations to fund energy efficiency and
resource conservation programs, such as those proposed in this CAP, to be used locally, particularly within
recognized impacted communities or areas.
3. Work with the Contra Costa Community College District and the Contra Costa Workforce Development Board to
encourage and develop workforce training programs for green jobs, including energy efficiency audits, energy
retrofits, and renewable energy installation.
Participation Assumptions and Performance Targets:
Supportive Measure
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
GHG Method: Supportive, not quantified
GHG Sources: Supportive, not quantified
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development, Health Services, Public Works; additional departments
depending on grant resources
Community Co-Benefit 1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-Benefit 2: Supports Local Economy
Community Co-Benefit 3: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-Benefit 4: Saves Money
Community Co-Benefit 5: Improves Public Health
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-12 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure EE 6: Energy-Efficient New Buildings
Policy Language: Support the statewide transition to net zero energy construction for new residential buildings by
2020 and new nonresidential buildings by 2030.
Action Items:
1. Identify and remove barriers to zero net energy construction in the County’s regulatory framework.
2. Work with developers, property owners, and financial donors to construct and publicize example zero net energy
homes prior to the adoption of zero net energy building codes by the California Energy Commission.
3. Provide information about zero net energy buildings at public events, on the County website, and in the
development review process, including publicizing information about the cost effectiveness of zero net energy
buildings. Include information about zero net energy buildings in other energy efficiency education efforts.
4. Explore making new and significantly retrofitted County buildings zero net energy.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
ZNE retrofits - nonresidential 0.02% 0.04%
ZNE new construction - nonresidential 1.00% 3.00%
ZNE retrofits - residential 0.02% 0.04%
ZNE new construction - residential 3.00% 10.00%
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of new ZNE homes 30 100
Number of new ZNE businesses 3 10
Number of retrofitted ZNE homes 12 23
Number of retrofitted ZNE businesses 1 1
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-13
Measure EE 6 Continued
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 290
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 680
GHG Method:
Reduction rates for zero net energy (ZNE) retrofits and construction were identified from program-
specific information, namely projections of GHG reductions per home or business based on
existing and future use. These reductions were applied to participating households and
businesses which were identified by applying target participation rates to relevant residential and
nonresidential building types. The sum of these reductions was then converted to MTCO2e.
Because ZNE depends on renewable energy generation, RE measures were adjusted to avoid
double counting.
GHG Sources:
California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission. 2015. California Zero Net
Energy Residential Action Plan. http://www.californiaznehomes.com/
California Public Utilities Commission. 2015. "Zero Net Energy Buildings."
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Energy+Efficiency/Zero+Net+Energy+Buildings.htm
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development, Public Works
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-
Benefit 3: Saves Money
Community Co-
Benefit 4: Conserves Resources
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-14 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure RE 1: Alternative Energy Installations
Policy Language: Promote installation of alternative energy facilities on homes and businesses.
Action Items:
1. Amend the County Zoning Code to designate areas and development standards that are appropriate for and
supportive of small- and medium-sized alternative energy and energy storage installations not covered by AB
2188.
2. Train planning staff to provide guidance and information on the streamlined process and available incentives.
3. Create development standards allowing for the ministerial approval of rooftop energy systems on commercial
buildings, with a focus on warehouses and other structures with large surface area roofs.
4. Encourage participation in PG&E’s green tariff program.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Percent of new houses with solar arrays 5% 12%
Percent of existing houses with solar arrays 4% 8%
Percent of new businesses with solar arrays 3% 10%
Percent of existing businesses with solar arrays 2% 5%
Participation multiplier for PG&E Green Tariff program 1.5 1.5
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of new homes with solar arrays 50 (average of 7 kW per array) 350 (average of 7 kW per array)
Number of existing homes with solar arrays 2,500 (average of 7 kW per
array)
4,690 (average of 7 kW per
array)
Number of new businesses with solar arrays 10 (average of 154 kW per
array)
50 (average of 154 kW per
array)
Number of existing businesses with solar arrays 60 (average of 154 kW per
array)
160 (average of 154 kW per
array)
Number of kW supplied by PG&E Green Tariff program 3,740 3,740
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-15
Measure RE 1 Continued
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 8,820
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 14,840
GHG Method:
Forecasted residential and nonresidential solar installations as a result of the California Solar
Initiative and BayREN programs were used to identify solar installations in 2020 and 2035. The
county identified a target increase from that number and reductions were estimated based on
average kW by installation type. Green tariff reductions are based on expected increases in
renewable energy as a result of residential and nonresidential participation in educational and
incentive programs. Reductions were applied to forecasted energy usage. These reductions were
applied to participating households and businesses, which were identified by applying target
participation rates to relevant building types. The sum of these reductions was then converted to
MTCO2e.
GHG Sources:
California Public Utilities Commission. 2015. Decision Approving Green Tariff Shared Renewables
Program for San Diego Gas and Electirc Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern
California Edison Company Pursuant to Senate Bill 43.
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M146/K250/146250314.PDF
California Solar Initiative. 2014. Annual Program Assessment.
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/9FBE11AB-1120-4BE1-8C66-
8C239E36A641/0/CASolarInitiativeReport2014_0701.pdf
Go Solar California. 2015. “Current Working Dataset – California Solar Initiative.”
http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/current_data_files/
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2015. PVWatts Calculator. http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Supports Local Economy
Community Co-
Benefit2: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-
Benefit3: Conserves Resources
Community Co-
Benefit4: Adaptive Measure
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-16 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure RE 2: Alternative Energy Facilities
Policy Language: Promote installation of alternative energy facilities on public land.
Action Items:
1. Continue to install alternative energy facilities (e.g., photovoltaic panels and electric vehicle charging stations) on
public buildings and lands in the unincorporated county.
2. Continue to participate in the Regional Renewable Energy Procurement Project or similar bulk purchasing
programs to purchase solar photovoltaic systems for on-site generation at public facilities.
3. Work with East Bay Municipal Utilities District and other wastewater processors to install cogeneration
infrastructure on wastewater treatment facilities.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
MW at public facilities in the unincorporated area 1 3
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
MW at public facilities in the unincorporated area 1 3
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 270
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 630
GHG Method:
Assumptions of future solar photovoltaic installations on public land and facilities was applied to
future energy use, demonstrating a reduction in kWh used from nonrenewable sources. These
kWh savings were then converted into MTCO2e.
GHG Sources: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2015. PVWatts Calculator. http://pvwatts.nrel.gov/
Implementation Time
Frame: Near-Term (by 2018)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development, Public Works
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Supports Local Economy
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-
Benefit 3: Conserves Resources
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-17
Measure RE 3: Alternative Energy Financing
Policy Language: Lower barriers to entry for the installation of alternative energy systems.
Action Items:
1. Improve participation in existing and planned financing mechanisms for renewable energy and energy storage
systems, such as PACE and BayREN.
2. Connect low-income homeowners with renewable energy rebate and financing programs.
3. Work with local governments in Contra Costa County and neighboring areas to participate in a regional solar
photovoltaic energy systems bulk-buying program.
4. Connect business owners with available finance and rebate programs.
5. Work with PG&E to identify areas where grid capacity may be insufficient to accommodate an increase in
renewable energy capacity, and encourage PG&E to upgrade such areas to reduce barriers.
6. Continue exploring options for implementing Community Choice Aggregation within the unincorporated area of
the county.
Participation Assumptions and Performance Targets:
Supportive Measure
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
GHG Method: Supportive, not quantified
GHG Sources: Supportive, not quantified
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation and Development
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Supports Local Economy
Community Co-
Benefit 3: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-
Benefit 4: Saves Money
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-18 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure LUT 1: Mobility and Land Uses
Policy Language: Maintain and expand access to goods, services, and other destinations through increased
transportation alternatives (mobility improvements) and improved proximity (land use improvements).
Action Items:
1. Collaborate with local transportation, land use agencies, nonprofits, and other stakeholders to expand bicycle
and pedestrian facilities and existing public transportation (BART, Amtrak, AC Transit, County Connection, and Tri
Delta Transit).
2. Assist with Safe Routes to School program implementation.
3. Work with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, local school districts, and advocacy organizations such as
the East Bay Bicycle Coalition to encourage bicycle safety classes in all schools.
4. Update County road standards, as opportunities arise, to accommodate all modes of transportation in local
street designs (i.e., complete streets). Implement standards as part of routine maintenance and striping.
5. Through periodic updates to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan, identify opportunities to improve access to community-wide bicycle and pedestrian networks by closing
gaps in the network, removing barriers, and providing additional bike- and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure.
6. Cooperate with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and adjoining jurisdictions in updating and
implementing the Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan and local plans.
7. Revise the County CEQA guidelines to reflect implementation of Senate Bill 743.
8. Establish a 2020 mode share goal for bicycling by a Board of Supervisors resolution, identify specific actions to
reach the goal, integrate the goal into future General Plan updates, and appeal to other agencies to adopt the
same goal.
9. Identify funding sources to support increased walking and bicycling activity.
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of average countywide bike trips per
weekday
33,630 (average of 3.3 vehicle
miles replaced daily per trip)
67,260 (average of 3.3 vehicle
miles replaced daily per trip)
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-19
Measure LUT 1 Continued
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 910
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 2,680
GHG Method:
Projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based on increased transit, bicycling, and walking
commuting was subtracted from adjusted business as usual VMT forecasts to identify VMT
reductions as a result of this policy. Existing County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan policies were used
to guide estimates of VMT reductions.
GHG Sources: Contra Costa Transportation Authority. 2009. Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan. www.ccta.net/about/download/5297adc44d334.pdf
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development, Health Services, Public Works
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Improves Air Quality
Community Co-
Benefit2: Improves Mobility
Community Co-
Benefit3: Improves Community Livability
Community Co-
Benefit4: Improves Public Health
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-20 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure LUT 2: Alternative-Fuel Infrastructure
Policy Language: Expand the use of alternative fuels in vehicle travel.
Action Items:
1. As opportunities arise, include alternative-fuel use goals in franchise agreements for waste hauling and contracts
with other vehicle fleets.
2. Support development of alternative-fuel vehicle infrastructure such as biofuel and electric vehicle (EV) charging
stations and designated parking spots with chargers, including amending parking design and layout section (82-
16-404) of the County Zoning Code to locate alternative fuel vehicle infrastructure in areas of high visibility and
easy access.
3. Pursue grant funding opportunities to install public EV chargers or other alternative fuel charging stations.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Number of public EV charging stations 20 50
EV ownership rate 3% 5%
Percent of trips made by an EV among EV-owning
households 62% 60%
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Annual VMT per public charging station 4,700 4,070
VMT per EV 14,220 13,800
Electricity use per EV 4,830 4,690
Number of households with an EV 1,790 3,090
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-21
Measure LUT 2 Continued
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 7,630
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 11,670
GHG Method:
Used CAAPA v. 1.5 and EMFAC to determine emissions savings from conversion to EV.
Conservative behavioral estimates were used, including assuming no increase in EV capacity or
efficiency and that EV owners are not more inclined to use their EV more than their other
vehicle(s).
GHG Sources:
California Air Resources Board. 2015. EMFAC Emissions Database. http://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/
Davies, J. 2014. “How Assumptions About Consumers Influence Estimates of Electric Vehicle Miles
Traveled of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles.”.UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies.
http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/download_pdf.php?id=2036
ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability. n.d. “Climate and Air Pollution Planning Assistant v
1.5.”
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. “Fuel Economy and Environment Labels – Electric
Vehicles.” http://www.epa.gov/carlabel/electriclabelreadmore.htm"
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development, Public Works, Additional departments depending on grant
resources
Community Co-Benefit
1: Improves Air Quality
Community Co-Benefit
2: Conserves Resources
Community Co-Benefit
3: Improves Public Health
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-22 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure LUT 3: Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment
Policy Language: Reduce emissions from off-road vehicles and equipment.
Action Items:
1. Work with the BAAQMD to incentivize the use of battery-powered lawn and garden equipment.
2. Provide support for the BAAQMD’s voluntary exchange program for residential lawn mowers.
3. Work with the BAAQMD to increase the use of alternatively fueled equipment in agricultural operations through
education, incentives, or revisions to existing regulations.
4. Consider an amendment to the County Building Code that would prohibit unnecessary idling of off-road and
heavy equipment.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Percent of lawn mowers traded in for electric models 5% 10%
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of lawn mowers traded in
50 (average reduction of 0.15
MTCO2e and average increase
of 60 kWh per lawn mower)
100 (average reduction of 0.15
MTCO2e and average increase
of 60 kWh per lawn mower)
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-23
Measure LUT 3 Continued
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 10
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 10
GHG Method:
Estimated GHGs from lawn mowers reported by OFFROAD2007 for 2020, and applied assumed
participation rates and kWh/electric mowers. 2035 lawn mowers were extrapolated from 2020
data.
GHG Sources:
California Air Resources Board. 2011. OFFROAD model. http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/categories.htm
Salem Electric. n.d. “Home Energy Use Guide”.
https://www.salemelectric.com/sites/default/files/downloads/HomeEnergyUseGuide_0.pdf
US Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Potential for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in
the Construction Sector. http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/construction-sector-report.pdf
Implementation Time
Frame: Near-Term (by 2018)
Responsible Agencies: Agriculture, Conservation & Development
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Improves Air Quality
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Conserves Resources
Community Co-
Benefit 3: Improves Public Health
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-24 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure LUT 4: Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction
Policy Language: Reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Action Items:
1. Collaborate with BART and other transit providers to increase ridership in the county.
2. Partner with waste haulers and other fleets with regular routes to reduce the frequency of routes where
possible.
3. Support and increase the use of carpooling services such as rideshare or casual carpool.
4. Continue to promote voluntary trip reduction programs such as school buses, Rideshare, Spare-the-Air Days, Bike
to Work Day, employer shuttles, and alternative work schedules.
5. Work to increase densities within half a mile of BART and Amtrak stations, and within a quarter of a mile of stops
for express bus routes.
6. Prioritize alternative mode access to BART and other transit stations.
7. Continue to explore funding transit with development applications and other alternative transportation finance
methods.
8. Continue the County's policy of encouraging the establishment of Priority Economic Development Areas in
residential communities.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Increase in per capita bus ridership from 2005 levels 10% 20%
Increase in BART ridership from 2005 levels
(independent of East Contra Costa Extension) 15% 30%
Number of new homes within 1/2 mile of a BART or
Amtrak station, or within ¼ mile of a bus stop 230 1,120
Estimated HOV lane cost per mile $0.22 $0.22
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of BART extension trips taken by
unincorporated county residents
54,400 (average of 40 miles per
trip)
143,310 (average of 40 miles
per trip)
Number of new bus ridership miles taken by
unincorporated county residents 3,274,820 9,728,220
Number of new BART ridership miles taken by
unincorporated county residents 1,202,980 4,112,830
Estimated decrease in VMT from HOV lanes 1,170,070 2,678,280
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-25
Measure LUT 4 Continued
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 4,080
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 9,020
GHG Method: VMT reductions are identified based on the County's single-occupancy vehicle mode share target.
Countywide AC Transit and BART data was used to estimate increased ridership.
GHG Sources:
Bay Area Rapid Transit District. 2008. East Contra Costa BART Extension Draft EIR, Summary.
http://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/000_Summary.pdf
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2010. “Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures.”
Federal Transit Administration. 2009. Public Transportation's Role in Responding to Climate
Change.
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/PublicTransportationsRoleInRespondingToClimateChange.pdf
ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability USA. 2012. US Community Protocol for Accounting
and Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://icleiusa.org/publications/us-community-
protocol/
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2015. "Express Lanes."
http://mtcexpresslanes.org/projects/express_lanes/
National Transit Database. 2006. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District.
http://www.actransit.org/wp-content/uploads/2005.pdf
US Census Bureau. 2010. US 2010 Census, Table DP-1 [data table].
Implementation Time
Frame: Long-Term (by 2035)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development
Community Benefits 1: Improves Public Health
Community Benefits 2: Improves Air Quality
Community Benefits 3: Improves Mobility
Community Benefits 4: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Benefits 5: Improves Community Livability
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-26 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure LUT 5: Agricultural Land Uses
Provide opportunities to grow, sell, and purchase local food.
Action Items:
1. Continue to support local farmers markets, local community gardens, school gardens, and other urban
agricultural practices, including in areas with poor food access.
2. Amend the Zoning Code to allow urban agriculture in appropriate areas.
3. Amend the General Plan to add a policy that encourages community gardens in new residential developments as
appropriate.
4. Encourage partnerships between local food growers and local food retailers.
5. Encourage partnerships between local food growers and local institutions such as schools, hospitals, colleges,
and correctional facilities.
6. Continue to discourage schools being sited in agricultural areas.
7. Encourage retention of agricultural land to maintain the County's agricultural base and enable long-term carbon
sequestration.
Participation Assumptions:
Supportive Measure
Performance Targets:
Supportive Measure
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-27
Measure LUT 5 Continued
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
GHG Method: Supportive, not quantified
GHG Sources: Supportive, not quantified
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Agriculture, Conservation & Development, County Administrator’s Office
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Supports Local Economy
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-
Benefit 3: Improves Community Livability
Community Co-
Benefit 4: Improves Public Health
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-28 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Reduction Measure W 1: Waste Reduction and Recycling
Policy Language: Develop a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials.
Action Items:
1. Achieve a local 75% waste diversion rate, in support of the 2020 state target diversion rate of 75%, as identified
in AB 341.
· Establish new and enhanced programs to collect organic material from businesses and residents in order to
recover their material, energy, and nutrient values.
2. Increase public outreach to promote participation in existing waste diversion and prevention programs.
· Continue promoting and supporting proper backyard composting, grass-cycling, and low-maintenance
gardening programs, and greater participation in other recycling and composting programs. Consider
outreach campaigns targeted to low-income or non-English-speaking residents.
· Continue participating in the Bay Area Regional Outreach Campaign by serving on the steering committee
and contributing funding.
· Continue to offer and promote the Environmental Action Program for Schools as a way to achieve waste
prevention reduction and recycling in K–12 schools.
3. Work with private owners and operators of solid waste transfer stations and landfills, as well as with publicly
owned wastewater treatment plants, to establish anaerobic digesters to treat and recover energy from food
waste and other organic waste.
4. Update the County’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element, Household Hazardous Waste Element, and other
relevant components of the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan to include an updated list of
measures, actions, and programs supportive of this CAP.
5. Identify best practices and reduce the amount of wastewater treatment sludge (biosolids) that is disposed of in
landfills.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Target diversion rate 75% 85%
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-29
Measure W 1 Continued
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Tons of waste reduced 90,850 (average of 0.42 tons of
waste reduced per person)
133,180 (average of 0.59 tons of
waste reduced per person)
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 25,780
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 37,780
GHG Method: Waste stream diversion reductions were based on County-identified targets. Existing
improvements to waste diversion rates in the county were incorporated to avoid double counting.
GHG Sources:
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2015. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal
Rate Summary.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/reports/diversionprogram/JurisdictionDiversion.aspx
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Improves Air Quality
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-
Benefit 3: Conserves Resources
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-30 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure W 2: Landfill Management
Policy Language: Reduce fugitive methane emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste
landfills.
Action Items:
1. Annually verify compliance with the California Air Resource Board‘s (ARB) landfill methane control measures.
2. Request that landfill operators consider implementing additional reduction actions, including but not limited to:
Reducing landfilled materials with high methane-generation potential.
Reducing idling time for diesel equipment.
Encouraging adequate maintenance of rolling stock.
Establishing standards beyond those required by regulation for landfill gas collection system leak detection
and prevention.
Excluding the use of green waste as a material for alternative daily cover (ADC), consistent with AB 1594.
3. Amend the General Plan and Zoning Code to allow renewable energy generation, such as solar and wind, on
closed landfill areas. Market renewable energy on closed landfill areas to potential stakeholders (energy
providers and landfill owners).
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Landfill methane capture rate 85% 85%
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Increase in captured landfilled gas (MTCO2e) 29,500 41,650
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-31
Measure W 2 Continued
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 29,500
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 41,650
GHG Method: Fugitive emissions capture targets were identified and converted to GHG reductions.
GHG Sources: California Air Resources Board. 2014. Landfill Gas Emissions Tool Version 1.3.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/landfills/landfills.htm
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development, Health Services
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Improves Air Quality
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-
Benefit 3: Conserves Resources
Community Co-
Benefit 4: Improves Public Health
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-32 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure WE 1: Water Conservation
Policy Language: Reduce water demand.
1. Continue to reduce potable water use by at least 20% by 2020 through conservation efforts in new and existing
development.
2. Continue to enforce water conservation requirements in new developments per the State Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Reduction from 2013 water use 20% 20%
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 1,210
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 940
GHG Method: Applied the 20% reduction target to the 2013 actual MG water use in Contra Costa County.
GHG Sources:
California Department of Water Resources. 2015. The Water Conservation Act of 2009.
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/
———. 2015. Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/landscapeordinance
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Reduces Water Use
Community Co-
Benefit 3: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-
Benefit 4: Saves Money
Community Co-
Benefit 5: Conserves Resources
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-33
Measure WE 2: Alternative Water Supplies
Policy Language: Provide alternative water resources for irrigation in residential and nonresidential areas.
1. Promote rainwater collection for irrigation purposes.
2. Update the Dual Water Systems Ordinance to allow the use of recycled water for irrigation in residential and
nonresidential areas.
Participation Assumptions:
Supportive Measure
Performance Targets:
Supportive Measure
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) Supportive of Measure WE 1
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Measure WE 1
GHG Method: Supportive, not quantified
GHG Sources: Supportive, not quantified
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: Conservation & Development
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Reduces Water Use
Community Co-
Benefit 3: Saves Money
Community Co-
Benefit 4: Conserves Resources
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-34 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure GO 1: Government Operations – Public Lighting
Policy Language: Save energy used for public lighting.
Action Items:
1. Complete LED upgrade of traffic signals, street lighting, and other public lighting located in the unincorporated
area of the County.
Participation Assumptions:
2020 2035
Hours of Use Per Day 12 12
Performance Targets:
2020 2035
Number of light bulbs replaced
7,210 (average of 100 watts per
replaced bulb, or 450 kWh
annually)
7,210 (average of 100 watts per
replaced bulb, or 450 kWh
annually)
2020 GHG
Reductions (MTCO2e) 580
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) 450
GHG Method: Expected wattage saving estimates were converted to kWh, allowing for annual kWh savings and
MTCO2e reductions to be calculated.
GHG Sources: Balbas, Brian M. 2015. Deputy Public Works Director, County of Contra Costa. Personal
correspondence to Chris Read, Michael Baker International senior planner.
Implementation Time
Frame: Near-Term (by 2018)
Responsible Agencies: Public Works
Community Co-
Benefit 1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-
Benefit 2: Saves Money
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-35
Measure GO 2: Government Operations – Energy Efficiency
Policy Language: Promote energy-saving tools and practices.
Action Items:
1. Continue to conduct audits of existing and recently acquired facilities, prioritize improvements, and upgrade
facilities to save energy.
2. Increase solar electricity use for County and agency operations.
3. Develop policies related to powering off lights and appliances after hours and after dark.
4. Site facilities that have more than 50 personnel in close proximity to infrastructure and services that support
alternative commute modes.
Participation Assumptions:
Supportive Measure
Performance Targets:
Supportive Measure
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
GHG Method: Supportive, not quantified
GHG Sources: Supportive, not quantified
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: County Administrator’s Office, Public Works
Community Co-Benefit 1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-Benefit 2: Saves Money
Community Co-Benefit 3: Improves Mobility
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-36 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure GO 3: Government Operations – Water Conservation
Policy Language: Conserve water.
Action Items:
1. Continue to install water-efficient landscaping on County properties.
2. Where possible, remove turf from County-owned facilities.
Participation Assumptions:
Supportive Measure
Performance Targets:
Supportive Measure
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
GHG Method: Supportive, not quantified
GHG Sources: Supportive, not quantified
Implementation Time
Frame: Near-Term (by 2018)
Responsible Agencies: Public Works
Community Co-Benefit 1: Reduces Water Use
Community Co-Benefit 2: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-Benefit 3: Saves Money
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-37
Measure GO 4: Government Operations – Waste Reduction
Policy Language: Reduce waste.
Action Items:
1. Develop a recycling and composting program for County facilities.
2. Educate and train staff to recycle and compost appropriately.
3. Develop interim waste diversion/reduction goals.
4. Achieve zero-waste operations by 2035.
Participation Assumptions:
Supportive Measure
Performance Targets:
Supportive Measure
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
GHG Method: Supportive, not quantified
GHG Sources: Supportive, not quantified
Implementation Time
Frame: Long-Term (by 2035)
Responsible Agencies: Public Works
Community Co-Benefit 1: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-Benefit 2: Conserves Resources
D GHG Reduction Tech Appendix
D-38 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Measure GO 5: Government Operations – CAP Implementation Support
Policy Language: Establish budgeting and administration practices to support the Climate Action Plan.
Action Items:
1. Ensure that the Environmental Purchasing Policy includes:
Green office supplies: Purchase energy-efficient appliances and recycled/recyclable and compostable
supplies.
Green fleet and equipment: Evaluate progress of hybrid and CNG fleet measures in the 2007 Municipal
Climate Action Plan. Create purchase orders for replacing less efficient vehicles with fuel-efficient vehicles
(e.g., hybrids, electric vehicles, and biofuel vehicles) and old office machines with energy-efficient machines.
2. Reduce County fleet use of traditional fuels 25% by the year 2020.
3. Evaluate progress of Measure 13 from the 2007 Municipal Climate Action Plan (30% of employees
telecommuting two days a week). If the target has not been achieved, establish policies to further support
telecommuting and flexible work hours for employees. If the target has been achieved, consider increasing the
target to 40% employee participation.
4. Develop a process for sharing information on government operations’ energy and water use and efficiency and
conservation measures with the public as an educational tool.
5. Advocate for regional, state, and federal activities that support GHG emissions in the county, including but not
limited to the following:
Work with the BAAQMD to support reductions in process emissions from industrial entities.
Where appropriate, adopt language in the County’s State and Federal legislative platforms that directs
support and lobbying for local GHG reductions.
Advocate for additional transit funding sources concurrently with the development of priority development
areas.
Participation Assumptions:
Supportive Measure
Performance Targets:
Supportive Measure
GHG Reduction Tech Appendix D
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY D-39
Measure GO 5 Continued
2020 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
2035 GHG Reductions
(MTCO2e) Supportive of Overall GHG Reductions
GHG Method: Supportive, not quantified
GHG Sources: Supportive, not quantified
Implementation Time
Frame: Mid-Term (by 2020)
Responsible Agencies: County Administrator’s Office, Public Works
Community Co-Benefit
1: Conserves Energy
Community Co-Benefit
2: Improves Air Quality
Community Co-Benefit
3: Reduces Water Use
Community Co-Benefit
4: Provides Educational Opportunities
Community Co-Benefit
5: Improves Mobility
Appendix E:
Development Checklist
E
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY E-1
The development checklist (Table E.1) was created to help both project applicants and County staff determine where
a proposed new development project is consistent with Contra Costa County’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). This
checklist should be filled out for each new project subject to discretionary review. The County will work with
applicants on a project-by-project basis to identify appropriate measures to integrate with the project through
conditions of approval or project design, or other techniques as applicable. This approach allows the County to
ensure that new projects are consistent with and do not compromise the County’s ability to attain the greenhouse
gas (GHG) reduction targets outlined in this CAP. To assist with implementation, the checklist provides descriptions
and performance criteria that explain how individual projects can comply with requirements. The individual project
criterion clarifies implementation of the CAP, providing additional information that is consistent with the
assumptions identified in Appendix D.
E Development Checklist
E-2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
Project Description Characteristics
Please identify the applicable land uses included in the proposed project and provide a brief description of the
proposed project (or the project description to be used for the associated environmental document).
1) What is the size of the project (in acres)?:
2) Identify the applicable land uses:
□ Residential
□ Commercial
□ Industrial
□ Manufacturing
□ Other
3) If there is a residential component to the project, how many units are being proposed?
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES:
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCES:
4) Please provide a brief project description:
5) Does the project require any amendments to the General Plan or specific plans?
□ Yes □ No
If yes, please explain:
Development Checklist E
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY E-3
6) Is the project located in a specific plan area?
□ Yes □ No
If yes, which one?
7) Please complete the following table to identify project compliance with any applicable CAP measures.
Table E.1. Standards for CAP Consistency – New Development
Reduction Measure and Applicable Standard Does the
Project Comply? Notes & Comments
EE 1 & EE 6. New residential development will install
high-efficiency appliances and insulation to prepare for
the statewide transition to zero net energy.
□ Yes
□ No
□ N/A
Additional Notes:
EE 1. New nonresidential development will install high-
efficiency appliances and insulation.
□ Yes
□ No
□ N/A
Additional Notes:
RE 1. New residential and nonresidential
development will meet the standards to be solar ready
as defined by the California Building Standards Code.
□ Yes
□ No
□ N/A
If yes, how many kW of solar will be installed?
Additional Notes:
LUT 2. New single-family houses and multi-family
units with private attached garages or carports will
provide prewiring for EV charging stations inside the
garage or carport.
□ Yes
□ No
□ N/A
If yes, how many spaces are prewired?
Additional Notes:
LUT 2. New multi-family (greater than five units) and
nonresidential (greater than 10,000 square feet)
developments will provide EV charging stations in
designated parking spots.
□ Yes
□ No
□ N/A
If yes, how many spaces are prewired?
Additional Notes:
LUT 4. New residential and nonresidential
development will be located within one half-mile of a
BART or Amtrak station, or within one quarter-mile of bus
station.
□ Yes
□ No
□ N/A
If yes, what is the vehicle miles traveled
reduction from the project?
Additional Notes:
Los Vaqueros Reservoir, Contra Costa CountyLos Vaqueros Reservoir, Contra Costa County
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. ACCEPT the report on the status of the Community-wide Climate Action Plan (CCAP).
2. PROVIDE comments on the draft CCAP and any necessary direction to Department of
Conservation and Development (DCD) staff.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Finalization of the CCAP is being funded from 100% Land Development fund, FY 2015/16
Budget.
BACKGROUND:
On April 17, 2012, the Board of Supervisors directed DCD to prepare a CCAP to address
climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) in the unincorporated area.
This directive to prepare a CCAP built upon previous climate change initiatives by the
Board dating back to 2008, when the Board accepted a report and recommendation from the
County’s Climate Action Working Group to approve the Municipal Climate Action Plan
(MCAP).
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 11/03/2015 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:See Addendum
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: Will Nelson (925)
674-7791
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: November 3, 2015
David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
D.5
To:Board of Supervisors
From:John Kopchik, Director, Conservation & Development Department
Date:November 3, 2015
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Climate Action Plan Update
The purpose of the MCAP was to quantify the GHG emissions from County government
operations, identify GHG emission reduction measures for County operations, and prioritize
implementation of these reduction measures. The MCAP was developed in large part by an
interdepartmental working group convened by DCD. The purpose of the CCAP is to address
GHG emissions from non-governmental sources and activities.
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
>
Responding to the Board’s April 2012 direction, DCD retained Pacific Municipal
Consultants (PMC), conducted public outreach, and worked with other County
departments to prepare a CCAP that would serve as the County’s roadmap for reducing
GHG emissions within the unincorporated areas. Measures in the CCAP to reduce GHG
emissions included, but were not limited to, energy retrofits for older buildings,
installation of residential alternative energy systems (solar, wind, etc.), conserving water,
reducing waste, and providing public information regarding energy efficiency. On
December 26, 2012, DCD released a draft CAP for public review. Concurrent with that
review, and in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), DCD issued an Initial Study/Negative Declaration. However, a final CAP
was never prepared or adopted. Staff recognized that the draft CCAP needed refinement
to be more practical to implement, but the federal grant funds used for the draft CCAP
were depleted and DCD was not in a position to complete the document due to
constrained budget and staff.
In January 2015, in preparation for reporting to the Ad Hoc Sustainability Committee 1
on the status of the CCAP, DCD reengaged PMC and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District with the intention of completing the CCAP in 2015. On March 23,
2015, DCD staff went before the Ad Hoc Committee on Sustainability to provide an
update on the CCAP and receive direction.
On April 28, 2015, DCD reconvened the interdepartmental working group consisting of
County departments anticipated to be responsible for implementing the CCAP’s GHG
reduction measures. The group consists of DCD, the County Administrator’s Office,
Public Works Department, Agriculture Department, and Health Services Department.
The meeting included review of the statutes related to GHG reduction efforts in
California, discussion of the continued applicability of the GHG reduction measures
identified in the 2012 draft CCAP, and discussion of the County’s current GHG
reduction efforts.
On May 11, 2015, DCD staff again went before the Ad Hoc Committee to provide an
update on the CCAP.
On May 28 and August 19 DCD hosted additional meetings of the interdepartmental
working group. The purpose of these meetings was to identify GHG reduction measures
and efforts implemented by the County since the 2012 draft CCAP was written and
formulate new measures. These meetings resulted in a revised draft CCAP (see
Attachment A), highlights of the which include:
Proposed GHG reduction measures that will allow the County to meet the Assembly
Bill 32 target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
A GHG emissions inventory that has been updated with information from 2013 (the
2012 draft CCAP included information only from 2005).
Community health-related content that has been integrated more thoroughly. In the
2012 draft CCAP the health-related information was contained in its own chapter
and appendix and was not well integrated into document. The 2015 draft CCAP
integrates the community health information throughout the document.
For ease of understanding, each GHG reduction measure includes a summary box
indicating the measure’s anticipated 2020 and 2035 GHG reductions; the County
departments responsible for implementation; the co-benefits, such as improved
public health, energy conservation, money savings, etc.; and public health priority
benefits, such as health equity and increased walking and biking.
Select GHG reduction measures include a text box explaining that measure’s
community benefits so that the public can easily understand the tangible benefits of
the CCAP.
The draft CCAP was brought to the Ad Hoc Committee on September 14 for review and
comment. After incorporating comments received at that meeting, staff released the draft
CCAP for CEQA/public review and comment in late October. Comments and
suggestions from the Board would be appreciated. The public review period ends in late
November, and staff intends to place the CCAP on the Board’s agenda for consideration
in December.
1The Ad Hoc Committee on Sustainability is composed of Supervisors John Gioia and
Federal D. Glover. Note that Supervisor Glover was not in attendance at the
March-September meetings.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
None. The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Board of Supervisors.
CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT:
Many of the GHG reduction measures in the CCAP have co-benefits for the community.
For example, retrofitting energy-inefficient buildings will add comfort to homes and save
on future utility costs, planting additional trees will beautify urban areas, replacing
gas-powered gardening equipment with electric equipment will reduce pollution and
noise, and improving pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure will facilitate more active and
healthy lifestyles. Thus, the CCAP will support at least three of the community outcomes
established in the Children's Report Card: 2) Children and Youth Healthy and Preparing
for Productive Adulthood, 3) Families that are Economically Self-Sufficient, and 5)
Communities that are Safe and Provide a High Quality of Life for Children and Families.
CLERK'S ADDENDUM
Will Nelson, Department of Conservation and Development, presented the staff report.
Supervisor Andersen requested language be added to the CCAP to reflect the County's
exploration of community choice aggregation program possibilities, the County's
support for Priority Economic Development Area's in residential areas to achieve
lower vehicle miles traveled, and additional information on who the Bay Area
Outreach Campaign is and how the County contributes to it. Chair Gioia requested
information on how many cities have adopted a CCAP.
The CCAP is out for public and CEQA review/commentary. The review period will
come to a close on November 30 2015. Staff will incorporate all commentary received
from those and today’s input from the Board in its next report to the Board at the end
of the year. ACCEPTED the report; and DIRECTED staff to return with the
amendments and informational requests made today.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Climate Action Plan
Presentation: Contra Costa County Climate Action Plan
Climate Action Plan
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, enacted in 2006, sets a statewide goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Executive Order S-3-05 establishes a statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The County adopted a Municipal CAP in 2007 to address GHG emissions from government operations.
The proposed community-wide CAP would address GHG emissions from most non-governmental sources and activities in the unincorporated area.
The CAP will also be used to streamline certain environmental reviews.
2
Scientific and Regulatory Setting
GHG Inventory and Forecast
GHG Reduction Strategy
Implementation
Health Co-Benefit Evaluation
3
MTCO2e
4
1,000,000
1,100,000
1,200,000
1,300,000
1,400,000
1,500,000
1,600,000
2005 2010 2015 2020
Baseline Emissions BAU Forecast
ABAU Forecast AB 32 GHG Reduction Target
GHG Reduction Scenario (CAP)
Identifies nine broad sources/sectors of GHG emissions that are within the County’s jurisdictional control, such as Residential, Nonresidential, On-road Transportation, and Agriculture.
Stationary sources, such as refineries, power plants, and chemical plants are excluded because these facilities are primarily subject to regulation by agencies other than the County.
2005 is the baseline year for quantifying GHG emissions. To return to 1990 levels, emissions must drop at least 15% below 2005 levels.
In order to track the trend in emissions in the County, the CAP includes a 2013 inventory update.
5
The GHG reduction strategy focuses on six
topic areas:
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Renewable Energy
Land Use and Transportation
Solid Waste
Water Conservation
Government Operations
6
Reduce vehicle miles
traveled
Reduce emissions through
land use changes
Reduce residential building
energy use
Urban greening
More sustainable local
food systems
•Increase physical activity
•Reduce chronic disease
•Improve mental health
•Increase local access to essential services
•Enhance safety
•Reduce household energy costs
•Promote healthy homes
•Create local green jobs
•Reduce temperature and urban heat island
health effects
•Reduce air pollution and noise
•Increase access to healthy, fresh foods
•Reduce cardiovascular disease
•Increase local social cohesion
•Increase resilience
7
Health Criteria
Healthy Food
Physical Activity
Outdoor Air Quality
Indoor Air Quality
Climate Risk Adaptation
Improved Access
Green Space
Job Creation
Health Equity
8
Priority Outcomes
Walking and Biking
Public Transportation
Infill Development
Health Equity
Various departments will be responsible for
implementing the GHG reduction measures.
The Interdepartmental Working Group will
continue to meet to review progress and
make adjustments.
Implementation will be facilitated by the
County Sustainability Coordinator.
9