Summary of Comments on the Draft Climate Ready Fremont Plan Received from the Environmental Sustainability Commission
At the Thursday, June 1, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Environmental Sustainability Commission, staff presented a public-facing draft of the Climate Action Plan update for the Commission’s consideration and recommendation to Council. Each Commissioner was provided an opportunity to share their comments, ask questions, and offer feedback to staff regarding the draft plan and any potential changes they would like to see incorporated into the final version. A summary of the Commission’s overall comments, organized into general themes, is presented below.
Please note that specific comments related to spelling and grammar, as well as suggestions for action-level specific modifications, are not included in this summary, but have been recorded by staff and will be considered alongside comments from the Council and the public-at-large in the preparation of the final draft of the plan.
ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN
1. The plan is well-organized and visually appealing.
Several Commission members stated that the draft document is well-organized, clear, easy-to-read, and presented in a visually appealing manner. Specifically, Commissioners appreciated the organization of strategies and measures within key focus areas, the use of vision statements at the strategy level to summarize what a 2045 carbon neutral Fremont would look like if the strategy was fully realized, the use of icons at the measure level to signify the co-benefits to residents and businesses of implementing that measure, and the use of graphics for depicting the percentage of emissions reductions expected from quantified measures.
2. The plan should be more intentional with how actions are presented.
Actions are grouped into two categories: Community-Level and City Operations.
Some Commissioners noted that it might be helpful to differentiate between Community-Level actions where the City has considerable influence vs. those where the City has no direct influence. Regarding the language used for actions, some direct actions are in the form of mandates (e.g. adopt, enforce) while some utilize direct implementation language (e.g. expand, update). Then there are actions that are exploratory in nature (e.g. consider, investigate), actions that are dependent on collaboration with other organizations (e.g. consult, partner), and actions that are about engaging the community (e.g. educate, promote). Some Commissioners noted that the use of verbs within the action level should be reviewed for consistency, and that the plan should provide rationale regarding the use of different action verbs.
CONTENT OF THE PLAN
3. The plan should have a stronger focus on climate equity.
Currently, the plan designates measures that offer an equity co-benefit through the use of an icon. Commissioners stated that to the Plan should define what climate equity means to the City of Fremont. There are some measures that show equity as a co-benefit, but some Commissioners noted that the actions within those measures do not directly discuss how they will protect vulnerable communities or support underserved populations. Also, there are some measures where equity does not show up as a co-benefit where Commissioners stated that it should.
4. The plan should include both producer and consumer-facing actions.
The plan utilizes a production-based greenhouse gas inventory that takes into account upstream emissions of Scope 1 (direct emissions from owned or controlled sources) and Scope 2 (indirect emissions from the generation of purchased energy) as the baseline for development strategies, measures, and actions Fremont can take to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions impact. A consumption-based approach would include the downstream emissions of Scope 3 indirect emissions related to goods and services that are consumed within a defined geographic territory, regardless of where they are produced). While the plan itself does not quantify Scope 3 emissions, local consumer-facing actions can have a large impact on global GHG emissions. An example of this is the emissions associated with air travel, which can be quite substantial but are not included in the local GHG inventory. Some Commissioners noted that the plan should include more actions associated with consumer choices, even if those emissions are not directly accounted for in our current GHG inventory methodology.
5. The plan should include more engagement with the business sector.
The plan includes numerous actions related to working with partner organizations to educate the public about various sustainability opportunities and resources. Some Commissioners stated that there is less of a focus on the outreach and education of the business sector, and that there should be a firmer call to action for the business sector to participate directly in the implementation of climate solutions.
6. The plan should emphasize the use of low carbon materials.
The plan includes low carbon design as a goal within a number of the measures in the buildings and energy focus area. Commissioners noted that there could be a more concentrated focus on the reduction of embodied carbon in the built environment, particularly starting with municipal projects.
7. The plan should address both the physical and emotional harms caused by climate change.
The plan discusses how the City can prepare for, adapt to, and respond to the risks posed by climate change to the physical environment. Some Commissioners commented that there should be greater focus on the health impacts of climate change, including planning for the mental and emotional harms caused by climate change such as anxiety, depression, isolation, and grief.
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
8. How the plan will be implemented should be clarified.
Chapter 2 of the plan presents greenhouse gas emissions forecasts for the years 2030 and 2045, which are the years the City has established GHG emissions reductions targets. Chapter 3 of the plan presents strategies, measures, and actions for implementation toward achieving these targets, specifically quantifying the emissions reductions achievable by the year 2030. Chapter 4 of the plan presents the “Game Plan,” a short-term implementation plan of actions to be achieved within the first three years of plan adoption. Some Commissioners stated it is unclear how the City will prioritize implementation of the actions in Chapter 3 that are not included in the Game Plan, and that the plan should identify a path for implementation beyond the three year horizon of the Game Plan.
9. Successful implementation of the plan will require robust community outreach, education, and engagement.
The plan presents a series of measures that, if implemented, should result in Fremont achieving its 2030 GHG emission reduction target and put it on the pathway toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. Achieving these goals will require investments and long-term commitments from the City. The success of the plan will also depend on the participation of residents, businesses, and other stakeholders in the City and region. Commissioners commented that some of the proposed actionssuch as direct mandatescould cause community backlash and suggested that community outreach, education, and engagement will be necessary as a means of encouraging widespread participation in the plan’s implementation.
10. The plan’s alignment with CEQA will support successful implementation.
As currently proposed, the plan will be a “qualified” climate action plan that will enable development projects to align with the measures within the plan that have been already been quantified for their greenhouse gas emissions reduction impacts for the purposes of GHG mitigation under CEQA. Several Commissioners expressed support for this strategic approach by the City to streamline new development that aligns with the carbon neutrality vision presented in the plan.