Measure BE-3: Decarbonize existing commercial and multi-family buildings in order to achieve 53 therms per service person in 2030 and 0 therms per service person in 2045.
City Costs High Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to develop strategic plant such as Decarbonization Strategy - Staff time to enforce ordinance
- Staff time to produce collateral for education and engagements
City Cost
Discussion
Creating a Decarbonization Strategy, while high cost to the city to create, is an important step informing subsequent actions to decarbonize existing commercial and multi-family buildings.
The proposal to enforce compliance of a newly adopted electrification ordinance may likely come at high a cost to the City, particular with increased staff time. Enforcement may require additional staff training. Preparation, distribution, and sharing of collateral will also impact key departments such as the City Manager and Development Services.
Community Cost Moderate Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost savings of all electric homes compared to mix fuel - Long-term costs on energy bills
Community Costs
Discussion
Cost effectiveness studies completed for Hayward’s climate zones show that new building electrification costs less to build than mixed fuel buildings. Multi-family homes are $3,361 dollars, office buildings are $75,337 dollars, and retail buildings are $28,308 dollars less expensive to build all-electric compared to a mixed fuel home. However, annual energy bills are expected to increase by $176 for multi-family homes, $4,774 for office buildings and $481 for retail buildings in an all-electric new home versus a mixed fuel home.1 Therefore, this measure is considered a moderate cost.
Source:
1. Local Energy Codes. City of Hayward Cost Effectiveness Explorer. https://explorer.localenergycodes.com/jurisdiction/hayward- city/study-results/3-PGE?only_study_type=new-buildings. Accessed August 2022
Measure BE-4: Support Ava Community Energy in providing 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030.
City Costs Moderate Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to manage development of Resolution Plan for 100% Carbon- free Electricity and identify funding and subsidy plan
- One-time staff time to develop process to monitor rates
City Cost Discussion The adoption of a City resolution to be 100% carbon-free electricity must include identification of funding and subsidy plan to ensure cost continuity. The effort to identify funds, manage continued partnerships with Ava Community Energy, and authoring a resolution is typical to the City’s process today, and is not expected to significantly impact staff resources. More significant, however, is the time that will be required to develop a process and enabling the monitoring of annual opt- out rates in the City of Hayward.
Community Cost Low Cost
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
Community Costs Variables - Electricity Costs per Rate Plan Community Costs Discussion Decarbonizing Ava Community Energy’s electricity may cost the community a marginal increase in money spent per kWh. However, this increased electricity cost depends on the rate plans used by the household/business. Based on the rate schedule of Measure BE-1, Measure BE-2, and Measure BE-3 and an average monthly usage of 416 kWh, monthly bills would increase approximately $4 per month under the Ava Community Energy Renewable 100 rate plan for both standard and CARE rates.1
Sources:
1. PG&E. EBCE Joint Rate Comparisons. https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/customer-service/other-services/alternative- energy-providers/community-choice-aggregation/ebce_rateclasscomparison.pdf. Accessed August 2022.
Measure BE-5: Continue to promote energy efficiency improvement, in alignment with the existing the 2014 Climate Action Plan
City Costs Moderate Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to manage multiple programs - Staff time to procure funding
City Cost
Discussion
Continuing to promote energy efficiency improvements will lead to moderate costs to the City.
Primarily, costs are associated with staff time needed to manage programs (e.g., weatherization program and energy benchmarking trainings) and time needed to obtain funding for the weatherization program.
Community Cost Moderate Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost associated with procuring energy efficient equipment and appliances - Cost associated with energy benchmarking programs
Community Costs
Discussion
Community costs are associated with the upfront costs related to procurement of energy efficient equipment and appliances. However, over time, energy efficient upgrades lead to electricity and natural gas resource and cost savings to community members. Nonresidential building owners may face costs associated with energy benchmarking programs.
Measure BE-6: Generate carbon-neutral electricity on City facilities meeting 80% of the municipal operational electricity needs by 2030.
City Costs Moderate Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to streamline permitting for battery storage - Staff time to manage inventory of and implementation at key locations for energy storage and/or generation projects (solar projects; inventory of appliance; others) - Staff time to advocate for smooth integration of identified solar projects into the grid
City Cost
Discussion
Creating a streamlined permitting process for battery storage is a new process and requires staff training. The development of energy resiliency strategies, a transition of natural gas appliances to electric in City facilities plan, and the plan and schedule for future solar projects will also require substantial staff time to complete but is an important skeleton to implement actions outlined.
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
Community Cost No expected community costs
Community Costs
Variables
No expected community costs
Community Costs
Discussion
There are no community costs associated with this measure. The City is not expected to raise local taxes to fund this measure. The City would have to receive voter approval to raise local taxes.
Measure T-1: Increase active transportation mode share to 15% by 2030 and to 20% by 2045.
City Costs High Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to develop and adopt an ordinance and code amendments - Staff time to procure funding (i.e., grant management) - Cost and staff time to manage and implement Street Improvements Priority List
City Cost Discussion Actions required to develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan will require staff time for oversight. The City will also need time to adopt new policies, such as the micromobility policy and mobility share policy, as well as review and update regulations in the Transportation Demand Plan, Zoning Codes, and Building Code. Further, the implementation of a pilot bike-share program will require oversight from the City staff; however, this are typically one-time costs. The table notes below showcase typical funding received by municipalities in for these policies.1
Amending the Off-Street Parking Regulation of Municipal Code to update ongoing incentives and requirements for transportation will also incur City costs as the program already faces limited staffing and fiscal resources. Staff time will also need to be devoted to identifying, applying, and monitoring compliance for grant opportunities to improve mobility in the community (1 FTE) is anticipated given the typical size of funds received.
Additionally, developing a priority list of street improvements will be an added time cost for the City, depending on the City’s current method for tracking street conditions. Identifying streets for permanent active transportation traffic may also be politically challenging; and thus, require additional staff time for engagement and stakeholder management.
Community Cost Low Cost
Community Costs Variables Costs associated with funding mechanism, e.g. sales tax or parcel tax Community Costs Discussion Community costs may include potential funding mechanisms for this infrastructure, such as a parcel tax, sales tax, and more. However, substantial cost savings opportunities exist within diverting drivers from the road to improve health and quality of life. Additionally, the institution of car-free days downtown can enable more active transportation and pedestrian-friendly events (e.g., farmers markets).
Notes:
1. Orange County, California, employs several transit incentives programs for individuals, including monetary incentives for starting a carpool, online platforms for connecting carpool and vanpool partners, reimbursements for bus and train passes, monetary incentives for electric vehicles, Club Rideshare which offers monthly prize drawings and merchant discounts, and reimbursements for emergency rides home.
Participation levels in these programs is not reported. The City of Palo Alto, CA, has received $1.1 million in federal USDOT Mobility on Demand funding for developing a pilot program involving commuter trip reduction software, a mobility aggregation multimodal trip planning app, workplace parking rebates and analytics to compare commutes in order to reduce vehicle commuting.
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
Measure T-2: Implement public and shared transit programs to increase mode shift to public and shared transit mode to 15% by 2030 and 30% by 2045.
City Costs High Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to develop and adopt an ordinance and code amendments - Staff time to manage multiple programs
- Staff time to procure funding (i.e., grant management) - Student Transit Pass Program cost
City Cost Discussion Staffing time and expanding city staff capacity are two key drivers of City costs for this measure. Of lower magnitude costs is the required policy work such as: adopting a policy or code for transit accessible public spaces, adopting parking requirements for mixed-use consistent with the Parking Management Plan, adopting an ordinance to require carshare in new developments, and implementing a requirement for employer developed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Additional time will be required to identify and pursue funding for City transit and TDM projects (anticipated as 1 FTE), as well as for obtaining grant funds for AC Transit expansion (1 FTE).
The City will also need to expand oversight of transit programs. This includes additional responsibilities for transit stops, evaluating needed renovations to meet Pedestrian Design Standards for transit stops. Further, expansion of the Student Transit Pass Program will be completed by the City.
Lastly, actions required to implement transit programs include at least three feasibility studies that City staff will need to oversee in some capacity.
Community Cost Low Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Transit Passes
Community Costs
Discussion
Community members will incur costs from transit passes. A monthly local transit pass and a monthly Transbay pass from AC Transit are $84.60 and $216 respectively.1 Savings opportunities exist through less driving and better health outcomes resulting from better air quality and more active transportation methods, like share bike lanes. Variable costs stem from new requirements resulting from future ordinances that consider a shift away from single occupancy vehicles, such as parking reductions or minimums, bike parking requirements, parking prices, and more.
Source:
1. AC Transit. Fares. https://www.actransit.org/fares. Accessed August 2022
Measure T-3: Develop disincentives for driving single passenger vehicles to support the bicycle/pedestrian and public transit mode share goals of Measures T-2 and T-3
City Costs Low Cost
City Cost Variables - Cost of updating Transportation Demand Management Plan - Cost of setting up and disseminating disincentive programs City Cost Discussion Updating the City’s TDM Plan that includes strategies to reduce peak-hour traffic will require significant City time to author and subject matter expertise. Political challenges involved in reducing parking minimums and maximums may also be a cost to the City staff in meeting this measure, requiring coordination across key departments such as Public Works and Development Services.
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
Measure T-4: Increase passenger zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 15% by 2030 and 50% by 2045 City Costs Moderate Cost
City Cost Variables - Cost of EV chargers
- Staff time to establish partnerships and produce collateral for education programs and engagements
City Cost Discussion Costs incurred by the City in increasing passenger zero-emissions vehicle adoption will depend on various factors. The total cost of purchasing and installing EV chargers will depend on the number of chargers in City-owned properties determines is feasible and the capacity for Ava Community Energy to support the City. An example of municipal EV infrastructure funding is showcased below.1
Also related to this measure, the City will likely need to dedicate significant time to forming partnerships with ZEV car share companies, but may leverage collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions.
Community Cost Moderate Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost of charging infrastructure
- Marginal cost of EV selected (Cost of combustion vehicle compared to EV alternative) - Lifecycle costs of EV ownership
- Lifecycle costs of combustion vehicle ownership
Community Cost Moderate Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Costs associated with disincentive programs or mechanisms - TDM Compliance
Community Costs
Discussion
The cost to the local business community due to the implementation of a TDM Plan requirement may vary depending on the transportation management measures, including cost of transit passes and cost of compliance. For example, allowing employees to continue telecommuting 1-2 days a week could cost employers nothing, while providing transit subsidies could be $100 per employee per month, and charging for parking could generate revenue for a monthly bike commute competition. Implementation costs will be developed as part of the TDM plan. The community may also face costs from specific disincentive programs. For example, as stated in action T-3.5, a congestion charge program would charge drivers a fee to drive in congested areas of the City during rush areas. Program revenue would be used to expand active and transit services. San Francisco’s current proposed pricing chargers based on income levels with middle and high-income drivers being charge the most at $6.50 to low-income drivers being charged $2.17 and very low-income driver not being charged.1 Additionally, as stated in T-3.9, a Transportation Network Company (TNC) user tax would impose a fee for ride-hail vehicle trips. San Francisco County imposes a 3.25% surcharge on all individual rides and a 1.5% surcharge on shared rides that originate in San Francisco.2 Program revenue would also be utilized to expand active and transit services. Savings opportunities exist through less driving and better health outcomes resulting from better air quality and more active transportation methods, like shared bike lanes.
Sources:
1. San Francisco County Transportation Authority- Downtown Congestion Pricing. https://www.sfcta.org/downtown#:~:text=Congestion%20pricing%20involves%20charging%20drivers,used%20to%20improve% 20transit%20service. Accessed August 2022
2. San Francisco County Transportation Authority – TNC Tax. https://www.sfcta.org/funding/tnc- tax#:~:text=The%20tax%20imposes%20a%203.25,that%20originate%20in%20San%20Francisco. Accessed August 2022.
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
Community Costs
Discussion
The community may see increased upfront costs associated with the purchase of an EV. The cost of an electric vehicle varies significantly depending on the EV chosen. Since the purchase of an EV will likely offset the purchase of an internal combustion vehicle, the marginal cost should be considered here. EVs also offer considerable opportunities for lifecycle cost savings compared to their internal combustion (ICE) or hybrid vehicle counterparts since they do not need oil changes, transmission fluid changes, spark plugs etc. For example, the electric MINI cooper emits approximately half of the greenhouse gas emissions than that of its ICE and hybrid models while costing considerably less per month in fuel, maintenance, and total vehicle costs per month.1 In general, new electric vehicles may or may not cost more upfront, but generally cost less over their lifetime compared to combustion vehicles.
There will also be community costs associated with EV charging stations. While community members may utilize public charging stations, many need to utilize charging at home overnight. Installing a Level 2 charger at home is about $2,000 for parts and installation.2
Notes:
1. The County of San Diego procured $21.7 million in funds to support EV infrastructure needs. The California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP), a program funded by CEC that provides incentives for EV charger installations, provided the county with $15.8 million in funds. The San Diego Association of Governments and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District provided the remaining $5.9 million through sales tax revenue and motor vehicle fees. These funds were used to provide individual rebates up to $6,000 for Level 2 charger.
Sources:
1. MIT Trancik Lab. Carbon Counter. Accessed at https://www.carboncounter.com/#!/explore?cars=35870;35756;36427. Accessed August 2022.Property Manager Insider. 2019. How Much do EV Charing Stations Cost? https://www.propertymanagerinsider.com/how-much-do-ev-charging-stations-cost/. Accessed August 2022.
2. How much does it cost to charge an electric car? https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/how-much-does-it-cost-to-charge-an-ev/.
Accessed August 2022
Measure T-5: Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption by businesses to 10% by 2030 and 80% by 2045.
City Costs Low Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to produce collateral for education programs and engagements City Cost Discussion Actions required to increase business zero-emission vehicle adoption require significant engagement efforts for city personnel with local stakeholders. Depending on current staff capacity to conduct additional engagement and outreach, as well as current relationships with key community employers, the magnitude of this cost may vary.
Community Cost Moderate Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost of charging infrastructure
- Marginal cost of EV selected (Cost of combustion vehicle compared to EV alternative) - Lifecycle costs of EV ownership
- Lifecycle costs of combustion vehicle ownership
Community Costs
Discussion
The community costs to businesses for increased ZEV adoption is expected to be the same as the cost to passengers.
Measure T-6: Transition 15% of off-road equipment to zero-emission by 2030 and 80% by 2045.
City Costs Moderate Cost (Near-term)
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
City Cost Variables - Staff time to develop and adopt an ordinance - Staff time to manage programs and feasibility studies - Cost to develop City-owned End-of-Life Off-Road Equipment Plan - Staff time to produce collateral for educational programs and engagements City Cost Discussion The development and implementation of a City-owned End-of-Life Off-Road Equipment Plan and the Small Off-Road Equipment Ordinance that includes evaluation of current equipment, alternative options, and replacement timeline will require significant time for City personnel to create, including staff in-reach and training campaign. Oversight of the replacement program will also be a significant for the Maintenance Services department.
Community Cost Moderate Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost of charging infrastructure
- Marginal cost of electric off-road equipment selected (Cost of combustion equipment compared to electric alternative)
- Lifecycle costs of electric off-road equipment ownership - Lifecycle costs of combustion equipment ownership
Community Costs
Discussion
The community may incur upfront costs associated with electric off-road equipment. The cost of electric off-road equipment varies depending on the type of off-road equipment and version chosen. Off-road equipment includes landscape equipment, such as leaf blowers and lawn mowers, tractors, forklifts, construction equipment, and agricultural equipment. Some electric off-road equipment has lower upfront costs than combustion off-road equipment, whilst other electric off-road equipment has significantly higher upfront costs. For example, a battery- powered leaf blower has an average cost of $137 and a gas leaf blower has an average cost of $206. An electric forklift cost varies between $20,000 and $45,000, with the additional cost of a battery and charger, while an internal combustion forklift cost varies between $20,000 and $50,000. In many cases the upfront cost of electric large construction and agricultural equipment is higher than combustion options. However, generally, the operational and maintenance costs of combustion off-road equipment are higher than electric alternatives.
Electric off-road equipment such as tractors and forklifts often require additional charging equipment which poses an additional upfront cost to the owner.
Sources:
1. Lawn Starter. Pricing Guide. https://www.lawnstarter.com/blog/cost/leaf-blower-price/. Accessed August 2022.
2. Toyota Forklifts. Forklift Pricing 101. https://www.toyotaforklift.com/resource-library/material-handling- solutions/finance/forklift-pricing-101-what-you-should-know. Accessed August 2022.
Measure T-7: Increase municipal passenger zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 75% by 2030 and 100% by 2045 and decarbonize emergency and heavy-duty vehicles as feasible.
City Costs High Cost
City Cost Variables - Cost of Zero-Emission Fleet Conversion and Purchase Policy Development - Staff time to manage feasibility studies
- Staff time to procure funding (i.e., grant management from CARB) City Cost Discussion Establishing a Zero-Emission Fleet Conversion and Purchase Policy that includes replacement schedule will require staff time, however the additional costs are not significant as this policy supports existing Policy N.R-2.9 for City purchase of zero-emission vehicles.
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
The most significant cost to the City in meeting this measure will be determined by the number of EV/ZEV chargers needed to meet the City’s transition goals and any additional ZEV infrastructure determined through the conversion plan. Upfront costs of implementing the transition will be high. As an example, the cost of Level 2 charging station is $5,000 to $10,000 and cost of electricity over an eight-year period is $4,000.1 Disregarding the future costs to purchase charging infrastructure, the costs are low for this measure.
Community Cost Low Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost associated with funding mechanism, e.g. sales tax or parcel tax Community Costs
Discussion
Community costs may include potential funding mechanisms for this investment, such as a parcel tax, sales tax, and more. The City, however, may opt to utilize grant funding or other funding mechanisms to pay for costs associated with decarbonizing the municipal fleet.
Notes
1. Cost of Level 2 charging station are average. Assumes 100,000 miles traveled over 8-year period. Maintenance costs include insurance, routine service and engine wear. Electric prices based on July 2019 average for LA-Long Beach-Anaheim. Electricity and maintenance may vary. San Francisco Department of Environment Services; Bureau of Labor Statistics
Measure SW-1: Implement and enforce SB 1383 requirements to reduce communitywide landfilled organics by 75% by 2030 and 90% by 2045.
City Costs Moderate Cost
City Cost
Variables
- Staff time to produce collateral for educational programs and engagements - Staff time to adopt an ordinance
- Staff time to manage programs and policies
- Cost of compost bins and food waste containers
City Cost
Discussion
The primary cost variable for this measure is time. Enforcing a fee for incorrectly sorted materials as well as implementing a monitoring and quality control program will be ongoing costs to the City, including the time to vet existing vendors’ practices.
City staff will also need to dedicate additional time to manage and oversee the various partnerships outlined to reduce landfill organics to create diversion and prevention programs, investigate funding opportunity for food recovery, and conduct feasibility studies. Additional policy work required includes adopting procurement policies in compliance with SB 1383. The City will also incur costs in providing free outdoor compost bins and kitchen-top food waste containers to low-income communities of colors and elderly households.
Example estimate costs of outdoor waste, compost, and recycling receptables are as follows:2 ▪ Outdoor waste receptacles – landfill, recycling & compost: $1,750 - $4,000 ▪ Outdoor waste receptables – regular/single stream: $660 - $970 Community Cost Moderate Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost to implement composting at home
- Cost to businesses to implement composting
- Cost of businesses to implement waste diversion techniques Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
Community Costs
Discussion
To satisfy the requirement of SB 1383, Cal Recycle estimates the cost to the community to be $17 per household per year after full implementation, and $662 annually for small businesses.1 However, the costs for individuals will vary significantly, as the cost is dependent on the amount of waste that is currently disposed and the ability of the business to reduce the amount of organic disposal.
1. CalRecycle. 2020. Proposed Regulation for Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: Organic Waste Methane Emissions. https://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Economics/Major_Regulations/Major_Regulations_Table/documents/Final_Sria_11- 16%20.pdf#search=%22SB%201383%20Economic%20Analysis%22. Accessed August 2022
2. Based on current market sales from select vendors: Trashcan Warehouse and Waste360. Accessed August 2022
Measure SW-2: Increase communitywide overall landfill diversion of waste to 75% by 2030 and 85% by 2045.
City Costs Moderate Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to update and adopt an ordinance - Staff time to produce collateral for educational programs and engagements - Staff time to develop Zero Waste Strategic Plant
- Cost of re-routing collected landfill waste hauling to Material Recovery Facility
City Cost Discussion City time will be required to complete policy actions that increase communitywide landfill diversion that include adopting a Waste Diversion Ordinance, updating municipal codes and hauling agreements to reflect recent legislation, creating waste management requirements for large events, establishing a post-consumer recycled content requirement, and increasing bans on “problem materials”.
The development of a Zero-Waste Strategic Plan will also require significant initial staff time, though it will inform subsequent actions in meeting the target. These actions require numerous partnerships and exploration of funding opportunities, which may require additional time to oversee.
Staff will also need to oversee the implementation of a single-use food ware fee. The City may also incur a cost in re-routing collected landfill waste to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF).
Community Cost Moderate Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost to implement composting at home
- Cost to businesses to implement composting
- Increased cost of food items served in reusable/compostable food ware - Cost to businesses to implement waste diversion techniques
Community Costs
Discussion
Community costs associated with organic waste diversion are explained in the community costs discussion for Measure SW-1. Community costs are moderate while providing beneficial emission reductions to the City. Ordinances are known to be an effective means to influence consumer behavior. For example, after the passing of the 2013 Alameda County Reusable Bag Ordinance, which charged $0.10/bag, bag purchases by affected retail stores declined 85%.1 For businesses, costs include the marginal cost of providing compostable foodware compared to the cost of foodware already in practice. In Alameda County, the Rethink Disposable program, in partnership with StopWaste, demonstrated that several businesses that voluntarily minimized single-use foodware saw net cost savings of $1,000 to -$22,000 per year.2 Developers may see additional operating costs associated with the separation of waste for proper reuse and recycling for better rates of waste diversion and consumers may see variable cost increases to food items as a result of these food items being provided in new compostable foodware.
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
Sources:
1. City of Berkeley Zero Waste Department. 2020. Passing a Single-Use Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance in Berkeley, CA. Accessed at https://zwconference.org/wp-content/uploads/presentations/nrc-nzwc_detournay_c.pdf. Accessed August 2022
2. City of Berkeley. 2018. Single Use Disposable Foodware and Litter Reduction Ordinance. Accessed at https://ecologycenter.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/Disposable-Free-Dining-Ordinance.pdf. Accessed August 2022
Measure WW-1: Reduce water consumption by 15% by 2030 and maintain it through 2045.
City Costs Moderate Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to produce collateral for educational programs and engagements - Recycled Water Plan Development
City Cost Discussion To implement this measure, the City will need to dedicate staff to overseeing numerous engagement and partnership efforts to continue and implement water conservation and water recycling programs. Managing numerous engagements to oversee feasibility studies and work with community stakeholders may be an added cost. A city authored Recycled Water Master Plan, while requiring significant staff time to create, will serve as a useful roadmap in overseeing these engagement and partnership efforts.
Community Cost Low Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost of water conservation efforts
- On-bill water savings
Community Costs
Discussion
Decreasing water consumption directly leads to lower water bills for the community. Community costs may include investment into water conservation practices such as a City high water efficient washer rebate or lawn conservation rebate. Incentives provided to the community by the City lead to relatively fast returns in water savings and water bill savings long-term. Some outdoor watering conservation practices may reduce bills by 50%.1
Notes:
1. The City of Mountain View estimated that the costs associated with a water conservation program that included outreach and technical assistance would be equivalent to 80% to 100% FTE.
Source: EPA. 2022. WaterSense. https://www.epa.gov/watersense/start-saving. Accessed August 2022.
Measure CS-1: Increase carbon sequestration by planting and maintaining 1,000 new trees annually through 2030 to sequester carbon and create urban shade to reduce heat island effect.
City Costs Moderate Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to update an ordinance - Staff time to manage programs and policies
- Staff time to procure funding
- Cost of tree maintenance
- Staff cost to develop Hayward Urban Forest Management Plant City Cost Discussion Policy actions for this measure include expanding Hayward Street Tree Ordinance, updating Hayward Tree Preservation Ordinance, adopting policy and practices for expanding tree canopy, creating cool roof requirements, and creating a code to preserve trees on homeowners’ land, which will need to be adopted by the City.
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
The City will incur capital costs in increasing the tree canopy through planting and maintenance.
Tree care activities include pest management, watering, pruning, and removal when necessary.
Annual maintenance costs for urban street trees are estimated below. Cost estimates are based on a nationwide survey of municipal in-house budgets for street tree maintenance and the associated number of street trees with each tree care activity.1
▪ Tree Pest Management (Per tree per year): $36
▪ Tree Watering (Per tree per year): $62
▪ Tree Pruning (Per tree per year): $139
▪ Tree Removal (Per tree per year): $368
There are examples of municipal tree pruning and maintenance costs/tree planting partnerships.1 City staff will also need to dedicate time to implement and enforce the tree removal in-lieu fee and oversee both the tree planting and adopt-a-tree program, and manage the Tree Trust or Fund established for this measure. Lastly, City staff will need time to explore grant funding for tree planting (anticipated as 1 FTE).
Community Cost Moderate Cost
Community Costs
Variables
- Cost of trees
- Cost of water/maintenance of trees
Community Costs
Discussion
Community members may incur costs associated with planting trees, conducting maintenance and watering over time. The cost of planting a new tree varies between $150 to $3,000 depending on variety factors including size, species, location, labor costs, equipment costs, and permit or inspection fees.2 City programs may provide incentives or subsidies for residents to plant and/or maintain trees. Watering and other maintenance is likely to be minimal (a few dollars a summer) while trimming costs may increase in the future once the tree is larger. Co-benefits of carbon sequestration projects to the community include more open spaces, savings on electricity bills if trees help shade your home, more greenery in the surrounding environment, and enhanced climate resiliency against natural disasters, like flooding, urban wildfires, and drought, improving the overall health and well-being of the community.
Notes:
1. The City of Claremont contracts with West Coast Arborist for pruning and other maintenance and pays $67 (2016) per tree for pruning services. The San Francisco Department of Public Works has partnered with a nonprofit, Friends of Urban Forest (FUF), to manage tree planting and establishment. The municipal government provides FUF with 60% of their annual revenue. The Department of Public Works manages a municipal program that aims to take the burden of maintenance off of property owners.
Sources:
1. Based on the Urban Forest Management information from San Mateo County. Accessed August 2022
2. Bob Villa. How Much Does it cost to Plant a Tree? 2022. https://www.bobvila.com/articles/cost-to-plant-a-tree/. Accessed August 2022.
Measure CS-2: Increase carbon sequestration by applying 0.08 tons of compost per capita annually in the community through 2030 and 2045.
City Costs Low Cost
City Cost Variables - Staff time to produce collateral for educational programs - Cost of collateral materials
- Staff time to enforce policy compliance
City Cost Discussion City staff will need time to complete actions towards this measure. A lower cost to the City includes time needed to adopt procurement requirements of SB 1383 and distribute educational materials regarding compost. Greater costs to the City include time to develop and adopt urban park guidelines, implementation of shoreline master plan. Enforcing compliance with SB 1383 by establishing a minimum level of annual compost application would be the greatest requirement and may require applying outside City.
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
Community Cost No expected community costs
Community Costs
Variables
No expected community costs
Community Costs
Discussion
There are no expected community costs associated with the City applying compost in the community to sequester carbon.
Conclusion Summary
A summary of estimated City and community cost range for each measure is shown in the table below.
For building energy and transportation measures, there’s a low to high community cost range. For waste measures there’s a moderate community cost range. For water/wastewater and carbon sequestration measures, there’s a low community cost range.
ID # Measure City Cost Range Community Cost Range
Building Energy
BE-1
Continue the all-electric requirement for new residential construction.
Adopt an all-electric requirement for new non-residential construction to take effect by 2026.
Moderate Moderate
BE-2 Electrify existing single-family residential buildings in order to achieve 100 therms/person/year by 2030 and 0 therms/person in 2045.
High High
BE-3
Decarbonize existing commercial and multi-family buildings in order to achieve 53 therms per service person in 2030 and 0 therms per service person in 2045.
High Moderate
BE 4 Support Ava Community Energy in providing 100% carbon-free electricity by 2030.
Moderate Low
BE 5 Continue to promote energy efficiency improvement, in alignment with the existing the 2014 Climate Action Plan.
Moderate Low
BE-6 Generate carbon-neutral electricity on City facilities meeting 80% of the municipal operational electricity needs by 2030.
Moderate Low
Transportation
T-1 Increase active transportation mode share to 15% by 2030 and to 20% by 2045.
High Low
T-2 Implement public and shared transit programs to increase mode shift to public and shared transit mode to 15% by 2030 and 30% by 2045.
High Low
T-3
Develop disincentives for driving single passenger vehicles to support the bicycle/pedestrian and public transit mode share goals of Measures T-1 and T-2.
Low Moderate
T-4 Increase passenger zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 15% by 2030 and 50% by 2045
Moderate Moderate
T-5 Increase zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption by businesses to 10% by 2030 and 80% by 2045.
Low Moderate
T-6 Transition 15% of off-road equipment to zero-emission by 2030 and 80% by 2045.
Moderate Moderate
T-7
Increase municipal passenger zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 75% by 2030 and 100% by 2045 and decarbonize emergency and heavy-duty vehicles as feasible.
High Low
Waste
Hayward CAP Update
GHG Measures Cost Ranges
SW-1 Implement and enforce SB 1383 requirements to reduce communitywide landfilled organics by 75% by 2030 and 90% by 2045.
Moderate Moderate
SW-2
Increase communitywide overall landfill diversion of waste to 75% by 2030 and 85% by 2045. Reduce water consumption by 15% by 2030 and maintain it through 2045.
Moderate Moderate
Water and Wastewater
WW-
1 Reduce water consumption by 15% by 2030 and maintain it through 2045.
Moderate Low
Carbon Sequestration
CS-1
Increase carbon sequestration by planting and maintaining 1,000 new trees annually through 2030 to sequester carbon and create urban shade to reduce heat island effect.
Moderate Low
CS-2 Increase carbon sequestration by applying 0.08 tons of compost per capita annually in the community through 2030 and 2045.
Low Low
Given the number of the GHG measures contemplated by the City of Hayward for the CAP Update that involve creation and enforcement of new building codes, the City is anticipated to need additional staff, particularly in the Development Services department. The City is also likely to need resources to design educational and outreach programs, adding to the need for staff with skills in community and stakeholder engagement. Key departments responsible for interface with stakeholders such as the public and partner organizations such as the City Manager’s Office, Communications and Media Relation division, Information Technology, among others will likely see an increase in staff costs. Select subject matter experts, such as the Environmental Services and Code Enforcement divisions, will be required to provide insights in collateral material associated with these programs. Additional outreach and engagement efforts may cost up to $0.84 per communication depending on the type of outreach.3 While GHG measures proposed as part of the CAP Update (such as those related to off-road City-owned equipment) will require some capital investment, the City’s budget and capital improvement plans are not expected to be significantly affected within the near-term (next 5 years) timeframe of the CAP Update.
Community costs are expected to be the highest for building electrification and decarbonization measures, which, depending on the measure, require notable capital investments and pose lifecycle costs associated with energy bills (BE-1, BE-2, and BE-3). Additionally, the community may face significant upfront costs associated with procurement of new decarbonized vehicles and equipment (T-4, T-6, and T-7). They may also face ongoing costs from future single passenger driving disincentive programs and mechanisms (T-3).
Measures that aim to reduce City operational GHG emissions pose low costs to the community as the community is not likely to bear a cost burden associated with implementing these measures.
3 Email (per household) cost: $0.00 - $0.01; Direct Mail (per household) cost: $0.60 - $0.66; Phone Call (per household) cost: $0.74 - $0.83