transportation in the City of Santa Cruz planning area.1 The GHG emissions sectors and associated sources included in this analysis are provided in Table 1.
Table 1 Santa Cruz GHG Emissions Sectors and Sources
GHG Emissions Sector GHG Emissions Source
Transportation Aggregated On-Road Transportation
Aggregated On-Road Transportation – EV Adjustment
Off-Road – Diesel
Off-Road – Gasoline
Off-Road - Natural Gas (LPG)
Residential Residential Electricity Consumption1
Residential Natural Gas Consumption
Commercial Commercial Electricity Consumption1
Commercial Natural Gas Consumption
Wastewater Effluent from Treatment and Discharge of Wastewater Solid Waste Methane Commitment of Solid Waste Generated by Community Notes: EV = electric vehicle; LPG = liquefied petroleum gas 1 Electricity Consumption includes electricity provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Central Coast Community Energy.
Santa Cruz 2019 GHG Emissions Inventory
The GHG emissions forecast analysis presented here is based on the emissions levels from each emissions source included in the 2019 GHG emissions inventory. Sources updated for the 2019 GHG Inventory baseline year include both on-road transportation and off-road vehicle emissions.
Off-Road Transportation Sector Updates
All historical GHG emissions inventories (2005, 2010, 2015, 2018, and 2019) were updated to include off-road emissions sources. Off-road activity data, measured in U.S. gallons of fuel consumed by fuel type, was estimated using a combination of outputs from the CARB OFFROAD2021 Model (V1.0.1), per CARB recommendations. The updated inventories aggregate off-road activity by fuel type and allocate these emissions to the transportation sector. A summary of Santa Cruz historical off-road emissions for each inventory year is provided in Table 2.
1 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available <https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf>. Accessed December 7, 2021.
26.437
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Table 2 Santa Cruz Historical Off-Road Transportation Emissions Summary Off-Road GHG Emissions Source 2005 2010 2015 2018 2019
Annual Activity Data (U.S. Gallons of Fuel) 985,725 1,069,503 1,030,882 1,015,670 1,008,050 Off-Road - Diesel 316,027 417,137 396,579 369,444 357,192 Off-Road - Gasoline 449,531 434,952 428,799 446,059 452,948 Off-Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 220,167 217,414 205,503 200,168 197,910 CO2 Emissions (MT) 8,424 9,313 8,981 8,825 8,748
Diesel 3,227 4,259 4,049 3,772 3,647
Gasoline 3,947 3,819 3,765 3,916 3,977
Natural Gas 1,251 1,235 1,167 1,137 1,124
CH4 Emissions (MT) 4.34 4.23 4.16 4.30 4.36
Diesel 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09
Gasoline 4.09 3.96 3.83 3.92 3.97
Natural Gas 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15
N2O Emissions (MT) 0.28 0.32 0.32 0.31 0.30
Diesel 0.15 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.17
Gasoline 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06
Natural Gas 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.08
Total CO2e Emissions (MT) 8,624 9,521 9,183 9,028 8,951 Diesel 3,268 4,313 4,101 3,820 3,693
Gasoline 4,077 3,945 3,889 4,046 4,108
Natural Gas 1,279 1,263 1,194 1,163 1,150
Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding.
CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
26.438
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
On-Road Transportation Sector Updates
All historical GHG emissions inventories (2005, 2010, 2015, 2018, and 2019) were updated to include new on-road transportation data that follows the U.S. Community Protocol-recommended origindestination methodology. Previously, the City’s inventories included VMT data from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HMPS) and accounted for travel on Santa Cruz’s local roads only, otherwise known as in-boundary methodology. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) received a public records act request from Land Watch relating to Monterey County GHG inventories as well as pushback on the idea of cities not using an origin destination methodology as part of their climate action plan. To address the concerns raised by Land Watch, Kimley-Horn provided new daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data for the years 2019, 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040, and 2045, and associated documentation describing the origin-destination methodology used to obtain the data for the City of Santa Cruz using the Santa Cruz County travel demand model (SCC TDM). Reference Appendix A for the detailed VMT methodology.
A summary of Santa Cruz on-road VMT emissions for each inventory year is provided in Table 3. To update the 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2018 inventories, average VMT per capita was calculated (6,504) and multiplied by the city population for each of the inventory years and daily VMT was converted to annual VMT. On-road transportation emissions were calculated using the updated VMT data and updated emissions factors were derived from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) EMission FACtor (EMFAC) 2021 on-road model. In addition, passenger and commercial electric vehicle (EV) electricity consumption was updated using EMFAC 2021. Passenger and commercial EV emissions from electricity consumption are subtracted from residential and commercial energy emissions respectively and then added to the transportation sector for 2019. In forecast years, emissions from EV charging are attributed to the transportation sector. This emissions reallocation is labeled as an “EV adjustment” in the forecasts.
Table 3 Santa Cruz Historical On-Road Annual VMT and GHG Emissions On-Road Total Annual VMT 2005 2010 2015 2018 2019
On-Road Total Annual VMT 397,305,791 397,057,721 396,809,806 396,561,890 406,985,890 On-Road Total CO2e Emissions (MT) 204,940 198,684 184,181 177,773 179,967 Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding.
CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent
26.439
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Updated Santa Cruz 2019 GHG Emissions Inventory
A detailed summary of the updated 2019 GHG emissions inventory, incorporating the aforementioned on-road and off-road transportation updates, is provided in Table 4.
Table 4 Santa Cruz 2019 GHG Emissions Inventory Summary GHG Emissions Sector/Source
CO2
(MT)
CH4
(MT)
N2O
(MT)
CO2e
(MT)
Activity Data Activity
Data Units
Transportation
Aggregated On-Road Transportation 176,445.5 14.1 11.8 179,966.9 406,985,890 VMT Aggregated On-Road Transportation – EV
Adjustment
9.9 0.0 0.0 11.9 2,186,508 kWh
Off-Road - Diesel 3,646.9 0.09 0.17 3,693.3 357,192 U.S. Gallons Off-Road - Gasoline 3,976.9 4.12 0.06 4,108.1 452,948 U.S. Gallons Off-Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 1,124.1 0.15 0.08 1,149.8 197,910 U.S. Gallons Residential
Residential Electricity - 3CE 288.2 0.95 0.12 345.4 63,591,331 kWh Non Government Electricity - PG&E 3.0 0.04 0.00 5.2 2,452,316 kWh Residential Electricity – EV Adjustment -8.0 -0.03 0.00 -9.6 -1,771,071 kWh County Natural Gas 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 1 Therms
Non Government Natural Gas 42,244.0 3.98 0.08 42,377.0 7,967,582 Therms Commercial
County Electricity - 3CE 20.5 0.07 0.01 24.6 4,523,275 kWh City Electricity - 3CE 49.8 0.16 0.02 59.7 10,985,268 kWh Non Government Electricity - 3CE 709.9 2.35 0.28 850.9 156,663,619 kWh District Electricity - 3CE 22.2 0.07 0.01 26.6 4,901,850 kWh City Electricity - PG&E 0.3 0.00 0.00 0.5 236,870 kWh
District Electricity - PG&E 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 8,552 kWh County Electricity - PG&E 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 5,140 kWh
Commercial Electricity – EV Adjustment -10.4 -0.03 0.00 -12.5 -437,286 kWh County Natural Gas 791.1 0.07 0.00 793.6 149,201 Therms City Natural Gas 591.5 0.06 0.00 593.4 111,569 Therms
District Natural Gas 978.7 0.09 0.00 981.7 184,583 Therms Non Government Natural Gas 19,825.0 1.87 0.04 19,887.0 3,739,129 Therms Wastewater
Emissions from the Combustion of
Digester Gas
2,633.1 0.16 0.03 13.0 84,002,000 scf/Year
Process N2O Emissions from Wastewater
Treatment
N/A N/A 0.43 114.9 108,393 population
in service
area
Emissions Associated with Effluents to
Ocean
N/A N/A 2.36 626.5 825 kg N/day
26.440
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Solid Waste
Solid Waste Disposed of Outside
Jurisdiction
N/A 138.71 N/A 3,883.8 13,575 wet tons of
waste
City of Santa Cruz Resource Recovery
Facility
N/A 539.01 N/A 15,092.0 52,751 wet tons of
waste
Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding.
NA = not applicable; CO2 = carbon dioxide; CH4 = methane; N2O = nitrous oxide; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company; 3CE = Central Coast Community Energy; kWh = kilowatt-hour Business-as-Usual GHG Emissions Forecast
A Business as Usual (BAU) GHG emissions forecast uses demographic projections and modeled on-road and off-road transportation emissions to estimate future GHG emissions without also considering the influence that compliance with adopted GHG reduction legislation or policies may have to reduce GHG emissions in the future. The BAU forecast is based on projected growth trends in population, and employment over time, consistent with local and regional projections. The BAU forecast does not account for GHG emissions reductions associated with local GHG reduction measures or legislative actions. BAU forecasts were estimated for 2025, 2030, 2035, 2040 and 2045. The BAU GHG emissions projections were calculated based on the guidance of the Association of Environmental Professionals 2012 whitepaper Forecasting Communitywide GHG Emissions and Setting Reduction Targets.2 To develop a GHG emissions forecast, the appropriate “growth metrics” (e.g., population, housing, and employment projections) are multiplied by BAU “growth indicators,” (e.g., kilowatt hours of electricity used in households in 2019 divided by the number of households in 2019). This allows for projections of activity data that can be converted into GHG emissions estimates using specific GHG emissions factors, which is assumed to be the same in the future as in the 2019 GHG emissions inventory for most sectors.
The result is a BAU forecast in which GHG emissions change with time in relation to demographics, with the assumption that per capita activity data will continue in the future as it was in 2019, the year of the most recent GHG emissions inventory. This methodology is used for most GHG emissions sectors and sources included in the 2019 GHG emissions inventory. Exceptions include:
▪ 3CE emissions factors, which are projected to increase through 2025 before decreasing again due to 3CE’s published procurement strategy – more detail provided in the Emissions Factors section below.
▪ On-road transportation emissions, which are projected using the EMFAC Model, which models a business-as-usual scenario.
▪ Off-road transportation emissions, which are forecasted using the OFFROAD 2021 model, which models a business-as-usual scenario.
The following provides an overview of the growth metrics, growth indicators, and GHG emissions factors used to project GHG emissions for the BAU forecast calculations.
Growth Metrics
In this BAU GHG emissions forecast, GHG emissions are assumed to be largely driven by consumption of fuel and energy, and generation of solid waste and wastewater by residents, households, and 2 Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). Forecasting Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Setting Reduction Targets.
Available: <https://califaep.org/docs/Forecasting_and_Target_Setting.pdf>. Accessed December 8, 2021.
26.441
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
employees in a jurisdiction.3 As such, this forecast assumes that as population and employment grow over time, it is expected that without changes to behaviors, policies, or technologies, GHG emissions will also grow. In a BAU forecast, this growth is assumed to be the primary metric for determining changes in future GHG emissions. For the Santa Cruz planning area, the growth and demographic projections used as the growth metrics for the BAU GHG emissions forecast were drawn from the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) 2022 Regional Growth Forecast. AMBAG updates its regional forecast for population, housing, and employment to support planning efforts. A yearly increase in housing stock commensurate with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocations for 2015- 2023 is attributed yearly from 2015 to 2045. Santa Cruz growth metrics for the BAU forecast are provided in Table 5.
Table 5 Growth Metrics for Santa Cruz BAU GHG Emissions Forecast Growth Metric 2019 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Population1 65,041 68,845 72,218 75,257 78,828 79,534
Housing2 24,193 25,465 26,045 26,441 26,762 26,992
Employment3 40,343 44,317 45,594 46,863 48,203 49,636
Service Population4 105,384 113,162 117,812 122,120 127,031 129,170 Notes: Service Population = Population + Employment
1-4. The compound growth rate for 2015-2020 period was used to estimate 2019 values.
Source:
Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). 2020. Final 2022 Regional Growth Forecast. Available:
<https://www.ambag.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/Final%20Draft%202022%20Regional%20Growth%20Forecast_PDF_A.pdf>. Accessed August 24, 2021
3 All GHG emissions and forecasts are in the context of a CEQA-qualified Climate Action Plan and follow guidance from California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which excludes sources largely outside of jurisdictional control, such as consumption-related emissions.
26.442
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Growth Indicators
Growth indicators were developed from the baseline 2019 GHG emissions inventories by dividing the activity data for each emissions source by the appropriate growth metric for the year 2020. The appropriate growth metric used for each growth indicator is developed based on the relevance of the GHG emissions source. For example, residential energy consumption would be expected to grow with the number of new households, commercial energy consumption would be expected to grow with the number of new jobs, and total solid waste generation would be expected to grow with both residents and employment (service population). Table 6 provides the growth metrics that were associated with each GHG emissions sector to develop growth indicators and project GHG emissions from each GHG emissions source in the respective sectors. Table 7 provides the growth indicators for Santa Cruz for each GHG emissions source.
Table 6 Growth Metrics and Associated GHG Emissions Sectors GHG Emissions
Sector GHG Emission Source Associated Growth Metric
Growth Metric Data
Source
Transportation All GHG Emissions Sources Service Population AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast
Residential
All GHG Emissions Sources except EV
Adjustment Households AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast Residential Electricity - EV Adjustment Service Population AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast
Commercial
All GHG Emissions Sources except EV
Adjustment Employment AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast Commercial Electricity – EV Adjustment Service Population AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast
Wastewater All GHG Emissions Sources Service Population AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast
Solid Waste All GHG Emissions Sources Service Population AMBAG 2022 Regional Growth Forecast
26.443
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Table 7 Growth Indicators for BAU GHG Emissions Forecast GHG Emissions Source Growth Indicator Units
Residential
Non Government Electricity - PG&E 98.6 kWh/Household
County Natural Gas 0.0 Therms/Household
Non Government Natural Gas 329.3 Therms/Household
Commercial
City Electricity - PG&E 5.9 kWh/Employee
District Electricity - PG&E 0.2 kWh/Employee
County Electricity - PG&E 0.1 kWh/Employee
County Natural Gas 3.7 Therms/Employee
City Natural Gas 2.8 Therms/Employee
District Natural Gas 4.6 Therms/Employee
Non Government Natural Gas 92.7 Therms/Employee
Wastewater
Emissions from the Combustion of Digester Gas 797.1 scf/Year/Person Served Process N2O Emissions from Wastewater
Treatment
1.0 Population in Service Area/Person
Served
Emissions Associated with Effluents to Ocean 0.0 kg N/day/Person Served Solid Waste
Solid Waste Disposed of Outside Jurisdiction 0.1 Wet Tons of Waste/Person Served City of Santa Cruz Resource Recovery Facility 0.5 Wet Tons of Waste/Person Served Notes: PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company; 3CE = Central Coast Community Energy; EV = electric vehicle; kWh = kilowatt-hour; scf = standard cubic foot; kg N = kilograms of nitrogen.
On-road transportation and off-road transportation BAU growth indicators not provided because BAU projections were modeled using the EMFAC and OFFROAD2021 models, respectively. 3CE BAU growth indicators not provided because 3CE energy BAU projections were estimated using 3CE published emissions factors based on confirmed changes in procurement strategy. 1 Person Served includes residents and employees (service population)
26.444
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
On-Road Activity Data
Activity data for the forecast of on-road transportation was modeled separately from the above growth metrics and growth indicators, using the Santa Cruz County travel demand model. Trip data was allocated based on whether the entirety of a trip took place within the City of Santa Cruz transit area, started or ended within the transit area, or started and ended outside of the transit area. 100 percent of daily trips completely within the jurisdiction, 50 percent of partially-within trips, and 0 percent of outside trips were allocated to the city. Reference Appendix A for the detailed VMT methodology. Daily VMT data was annualized using the annualization factor of 347, described in the EMFAC 2017 documentation for Light Duty Autos and Light Duty Trucks 1 and 2. The results are summarized in Table 8.
Table 8 Santa Cruz BAU GHG Emissions Forecast On-Road Transportation Data Growth
Metric
2019 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
VMT 406,985,890 427,528,637 444,647,535 461,766,086 478,884,984 496,003,882 Notes: VMT = vehicle miles traveled
Off-Road Activity Data
Activity data for the off-road GHG emissions forecast was modeled separately from the above growth metrics and growth indicators, using the outputs from the CARB OFFROAD2021 model. The OFFROAD2021 model was run for Santa Cruz County for the forecast years to obtain fuel consumption for gasoline, diesel, and natural gas. The equipment sectors drawn from the OFFROAD2021 model include:
▪ Construction and Mining Equipment
▪ Industrial Equipment
▪ Lawn and Garden Equipment
▪ Light Commercial Equipment
▪ Pleasure Craft
▪ Recreational Equipment
▪ Portable Equipment
▪ Transportation Refrigeration Units
The results of the OFFROAD2021 model were summarized for the above equipment sectors in Santa Cruz County. Santa Cruz City was allocated a percentage of county fuel consumption for each sector relative to Santa Cruz City’s proportion of jobs or population in the county. The results are summarized in Table 9.
26.445
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Table 9 Santa Cruz BAU GHG Emissions Forecast Off-Road Fuel Consumption Off-road Fuel Category 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Diesel 361,388 408,104 432,205 459,180 486,713 541,090
Gasoline 459,542 486,615 504,663 521,901 537,927 555,690 Natural Gas 206,367 207,364 207,852 210,232 211,353 213,175 Notes: All values are of the unit U.S. gallons of fuel.
Source: California Air Resources Board. 2021. OFFROAD2021 – ORION. Available: <https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissionsinventory/43c4fb407b5290c4aa6bc403e03c79c39ed6224a/>. Accessed November 2, 2021.
Emissions Factors
The BAU GHG emissions forecast is representative of a scenario where per capita community activities are generally similar to that of the baseline 2019 GHG emissions inventory and GHG emissions change based on projected population and job growth. As such, BAU activity data is multiplied by the emissions factors used to calculate GHG emissions from the baseline GHG emissions inventory to generate an estimate of future GHG emissions without influence from GHG reduction policies at the State or local level. The BAU GHG emissions factors for the relevant GHG emissions sources and sectors are provided in Table 10, reported in MT CO2e.
Table 10 BAU GHG Emissions Factors
GHG Emissions Source GHG Emissions Factor Units
Transportation
Aggregated On-Road Transportation 0.0004421945 MT CO2e/VMT Aggregated On-Road Transportation - EV Adjust 0.0000054266 MT CO2e/kWh Off-Road - Diesel 0.0103397100 MT CO2e/U.S. Gallons
Off-Road – Gasoline 0.0090696385 MT CO2e/U.S. Gallons
Off-Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 0.0058095100 MT CO2e/U.S. Gallons Residential
Residential Electricity - 3CE 0.0000054312 MT CO2e/kWh
Non Government Electricity - PG&E 0.0000021156 MT CO2e/kWh County Natural Gas 0.0053187000 MT CO2e/Therms
Non Government Natural Gas 0.0053186776 MT CO2e/Therms
Commercial
County Electricity - 3CE 0.0000054312 MT CO2e/kWh
City Electricity - 3CE 0.0000054314 MT CO2e/kWh
Non Government Electricity - 3CE 0.0000054313 MT CO2e/kWh District Electricity - 3CE 0.0000054314 MT CO2e/kWh
City Electricity - PG&E 0.0000021155 MT CO2e/kWh
District Electricity - PG&E 0.0000021155 MT CO2e/kWh
County Electricity - PG&E 0.0000021156 MT CO2e/kWh
Commercial Electricity - EV Adjust 0.0053186641 MT CO2e/kWh County Natural Gas 0.0053186817 MT CO2e/Therms
26.446
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
City Natural Gas 0.0053186371 MT CO2e/Therms
District Natural Gas 0.0053186183 MT CO2e/Therms
Non Government Natural Gas 0.0000054312 MT CO2e/Therms
Wastewater
Emissions from the Combustion of Digester Gas 0.0000001544 MT CO2e/scf/Year Process N2O Emissions from Wastewater
Treatment 0.0010600316 MT CO2e/population in service area Emissions Associated with Effluents to Ocean 0.7598059430 MT CO2e/kg N/day Solid Waste
Solid Waste Disposed of Outside Jurisdiction 0.2860994475 MT CO2e/wet tons of waste City of Santa Cruz Resource Recovery Facility 0.2860988417 MT CO2e/wet tons of waste Notes: MT CO2e = metric ton carbon dioxide equivalent; PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company; 3CE = Central Coast Community Energy; kWh = kilowatt-hour; scf = standard cubic foot; kg N = kilograms of nitrogen Electricity BAU GHG Emissions Factors
GHG emissions associated with electricity provided by Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) are expected to change between the baseline 2019 GHG emissions inventory and the 2030 forecast year, and as such are accounted for in the BAU GHG emissions forecast. 3CE has published the expected GHG emissions factor associated with its electricity procurement between 2018 and 2030, with the GHG emissions factors increasing between 2020 and 2025, before decreasing again from 2026 to 2030.
These changes to the emissions factor are expected to occur regardless of the effects related to compliance with local policies and state legislation. As such, it would not be appropriate to account for these adjustments in the legislative reductions in the Adjusted forecast, and they are instead accounted for here in the BAU forecast. GHG reductions associated with 3CE electricity and the requirements of SB 100 beyond 2030 are accounted for in the Adjusted Forecast. PG&E emissions factors are applied to all PG&E energy provided, meaning for any customers opting out of 3CE energy.
Table 11 provides the GHG emissions factors used in the BAU forecast for 3CE and PG&E provided electricity for each of the forecast years. The weighted average of the two providers is used to project BAU electricity emissions from electric vehicles.
Table 11 BAU GHG Emissions Factors for Electricity
Electricity Provider 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Central Coast
Community Energy
(3CE)
0.000005431 0.000176000 0.000003725 0.000000000 0.000000000 0.000000000 Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E)
0.000002116 0.000002116 0.000002116 0.000002116 0.000002116 0.000002116 Weighted Average 0.000005308 0.000169544 0.000003665 0.000000079 0.000000079 0.000000079 Notes: All values are of the unit metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour.
Source:
Reference 3CE power content label
26.447
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
BAU GHG Emissions Forecast Results
The following provides a summary of the results of the BAU GHG emissions forecast for each source in Santa Cruz. The results are reported in MT CO2e. The BAU forecast projects an increase in GHG emissions above the baseline 2019 GHG emissions inventory from transportation, wastewater, and solid waste. In terms of residential and commercial energy, emissions increase from 2019 to 2025, decrease from 2025 to 2030, and then slowly increase through 2045. An increase in the GHG emissions factor for 3CE electricity leading up to 2025 is expected to create a sharp increase in GHG emissions associated with electricity and the overall GHG emissions for the City of Santa Cruz. The subsequent decrease of the 3CE electricity GHG emissions factor results in a leveling off of GHG emissions levels in 2030, at which point steady growth in GHG emissions continues through 2045. Energy provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), though only a small proportion of the total energy provided in Santa Cruz, shows an increase over time due to population and job growth. Table 12 and Figure 1 provide a summary of the Santa Cruz BAU GHG emissions forecast.
Table 12 Santa Cruz BAU GHG Emissions Forecast Summary (MT CO2e) GHG Emissions Source 2019 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Transportation 188,930 199,287 206,883 214,893 222,900 231,203 Aggregated On-Road Transportation 179,967 189,051 196,621 204,190 211,760 219,330 Aggregated On-Road Transportation - EV Adjustment 12 398 9 0 0 0 Off-Road – Diesel 3,693 4,220 4,469 4,748 5,032 5,595
Off-Road – Gasoline 4,108 4,413 4,577 4,733 4,879 5,040 Off-Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 1,150 1,205 1,208 1,221 1,228 1,238 Residential 42,718 56,057 46,319 46,881 47,284
Residential Electricity - 3CE 336 11,448 200 0 0 0
Non Government Electricity - PG&E 5 5 5 6 6 6
County Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non Government Natural Gas 42,377 44,604 45,620 46,314 46,876 47,279 Commercial 23,216 25,753 25,853 26,592 27,383
County Electricity - 3CE 25 872 15 0 0 0
City Electricity - 3CE 60 2,119 37 0 0 0
Non Government Electricity - 3CE 849 531 0 0 0
District Electricity - 3CE 27 945 17 0 0 0
City Electricity - PG&E 0 1 1 1 1 1
District Electricity - PG&E 0 0 0 0 0 0
County Electricity - PG&E 0 0 0 0 0 0
County Natural Gas 794 872 897 922 948 976
City Natural Gas 593 652 671 689 709 730
District Natural Gas 982 1,078 1,110 1,140 1,173 1,208
Non Government Natural Gas 19,887 21,846 22,475 23,101 23,761 24,468 30,218
58,603
45,826
26.448
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Wastewater 754 810 843 874 909 925
Emissions from the Combustion of Digester Gas 13 14 15 15 16 16 Process N2O Emissions from Wastewater Treatment 115 123 128 133 139 141 Emissions Associated with Effluents to Ocean 626 673 700 726 755 768 Solid Waste 18,976 20,376 21,214 21,989 22,874 23,259
Solid Waste Disposed of Outside Jurisdiction 3,884 4,170 4,342 4,501 4,682 4,760 City of Santa Cruz Resource Recovery Facility 15,092 16,206 16,872 17,489 18,192 18,498 TOTAL
Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding All values are of the unit metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) To avoid double counting EV emissions in 2019 (the inventory year) and to attribute these emissions to the transportation sector, EV emissions were added to the transportation and removed from residential and commercial electricity. Forecast years do not require an adjustment, but rather an addition in emissions based on projected EV adoption, and consequent energy usage, to the transportation sector.
PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company; 3CE = Central Coast Community Energy; N2O = nitrous oxide; EV = electric vehicle Figure 1 Santa Cruz BAU GHG Emissions Forecasts (MT CO2e) through 2045 -
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
2019 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MT CO2e
Year
Transportation Residential Commerical Wastewater Solid Waste 274,594 335,150 300,519 309,929 320,156 330,054
26.449
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecasts
The Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast accounts for GHG emissions reductions that can be reasonably expected from local compliance with State legislation and regulations. These forecasted projections were calculated based on the guidance of the Association of Environmental Professionals 2012 whitepaper Forecasting Communitywide GHG Emissions and Setting Reduction Targets.4 The following section describes the State legislation and regulations that are expected to reduce Santa Cruz’s future GHG emissions.
GHG Reduction Legislation Included in Santa Cruz GHG Emissions Forecasts
The State of California has enacted regulations intended to reduce the state’s future GHG emissions. The impact of compliance with these regulations was quantified and incorporated into an Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast to provide an alternate forecast of future GHG emissions growth based on the City's commitment to achieve a 30% reduction in GHG emissions beyond established State regulations by 2020. The following State legislation were accounted for in the Adjusted Forecasts for Santa Cruz.
They represent currently adopted State legislation with clear implementation and enforcement mechanisms at the regional/state scale.
▪ 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
▪ Senate Bill (SB) 100 - California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases
▪ SAFE Part One - U.S. EPA and NHTSA Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient or SAFE Vehicles Rule Part One ▪ Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) Regulation
▪ Pavley Regulation
▪ Advanced Clean Cars Program
▪ Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) Regulation
GHG Reduction Legislation Calculations
EMFAC2021 was used to model transportation-related GHG emissions for the Santa Cruz forecasts. In addition, the following methodology was used to calculate energy-related GHG emissions reduction related to Title 24 and SB 100.
▪ Title 24: It is assumed that all growth in the residential sector is from new construction. Accordingly, Title 24 GHG emissions reduction for natural gas and electricity are calculated as a percentage of the projected increase in energy consumption beyond the baseline 2019 GHG emissions inventory, under the BAU forecast, as provided in Table 12. Overall, the energy consumption reduction impact of Title 24 is:
53 percent reduction beyond the 2019 baseline for residential electricity and 4 Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). Forecasting Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Setting Reduction Targets.
Available: <https://califaep.org/docs/Forecasting_and_Target_Setting.pdf>. Accessed December 8, 2021.
26.450
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
7 percent reduction beyond the 2019 baseline for residential natural gas.5 ▪ SB 100: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Central Coast Community Energy (3CE) currently provide electricity in Santa Cruz and are subject to SB 100 requirements. GHG emissions from electricity consumption are largely determined by the emissions factor associated with the supplied electricity. Legislative GHG emissions reductions from compliance with SB 100 are calculated as the difference between GHG emissions under the BAU GHG Emissions Forecast electricity and GHG emissions calculated using a SB 100-adjusted GHG emissions factor for a given forecast year. An adjusted GHG emission factor is calculated by scaling the baseline electricity GHG emissions factor with the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) 6 percentage for eligible
renewable electricity required for compliance with SB 100. Both of the electricity providers for Santa Cruz had different electricity emissions factors due to different RPS percentages in their electricity delivery mix. The RPS percentages and associated GHG emissions factors used to determine the Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast electricity emissions are provided in Table 13. GHG emissions factors were converted from kilowatt-hour (kWh) to Megawatt-hour (MWh) in the table. Note that while both Title 24 and SB 100 compliance influence GHG emissions reductions in the electricity sector, double counting of these reductions is avoided by accounting for Title 24 compliance reductions first and then accounting for reductions from SB 100 compliance.
Table 13 Electricity Provider Forecasted RPS and Electricity GHG Emissions Factors Energy Provider 2019
(Baseline)
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Percentage
29% 45% 60% 73% 87% 100%
Adjusted Electricity Emission
Factor (MT CO2e/MWh)
0.0021156 0.0016537 0.0011919 0.0007946 0.0003973 0.0000000 Central Coast Community Energy (3CE)
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Percentage
33% 60% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Adjusted Electricity Emission
Factor (MT CO2e/MWh) 0.005431 0.176000 0.003007 0 0 0
Notes: MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; MWh = Megawatt-hour 5 California Energy Commission. 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. Available:
<https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf>. Accessed June 21, 2021. 6 The RPS is one of California’s key programs for advancing renewable energy. The program sets continuously increasing renewable energy procurement requirements for the state’s load-serving entities.
26.451
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast Results
Compliance with state legislation is expected to result in GHG emissions reduction from the BAU GHG Emissions Forecast in the transportation, residential, and commercial sectors. Compliance with both the Pavley regulation, which requires automakers to control GHG emission from new passenger vehicles for the 2009 through 2016 model years, and the Advanced Clean Car Program, which combines the control of smog-causing (criteria) pollutants and GHG emissions into a single package of regulations, are expected to reduce GHG emissions from transportation. Compliance with Title 24 requirements are expected to reduce GHG emissions from reduced electricity and natural gas consumption in new residential housing units. Compliance with SB 100 requirements are expected to further reduce GHG emissions in the residential sector through reduced GHG emissions associated with electricity generation, as well as similar reductions in the commercial sector. The expected legislative reductions from SB 100 and Title 24 are summarized in Table 14.
Table 14 Santa Cruz Adjusted GHG Emissions Reductions
GHG Emissions Source 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Transportation Rules Reductions 23,601 43,799 60,091 71,589 79,479 Aggregated On-Road Transportation 24,571 43,830 60,091 71,589 79,479 Aggregated On-Road Transportation – EV Adjust1-970 -30 0.18 0.19 0.21 Title 24 Reductions 304 2 0 0 0
Residential 304 2 0 0 0
Residential Electricity - 3CE 303 2 0 0 0
Residential Electricity - PG&E 0 0 0 0 0
County Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
Non Government Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
SB 100 Reductions 1 3 4 5 6
Residential 1 2 3 5 6
Residential Electricity - 3CE 0 0 0 0 0
Residential Electricity - PG&E 1 2 3 5 6
Commercial 0 0 0 1 1
County Electricity - 3CE 0 0 0 0 0
City Electricity - 3CE 0 0 0 0 0
Non Government Electricity - 3CE 0 0 0 0 0
District Electricity - 3CE 0 0 0 0 0
City Electricity - PG&E 0 0 0 0 1
District Electricity - PG&E 0 0 0 0 0
County Electricity - PG&E 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL REDUCTIONS 23,906 43,804 60,095 71,594 79,485
Notes:
1 Negative emissions reduction indicate an increase in emissions from electric vehicle adoption, and consequently energy usage. This adjustment goes to zero as the electricity emissions factor goes to zero.
PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; 3CE = Central Coast Community Energy; EV = electric vehicle; SB = Senate Bill
26.452
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Figure 2 shows the GHG emissions trends in terms of MT CO2e for the Adjusted Forecast. Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast emissions trend downward over time through 2045.
Figure 2 Santa Cruz Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecasts (MT CO2e) through 2045 Figure 3 shows the GHG emissions trends in terms of MT CO2e over the course of the BAU and Adjusted forecasts to illustrate the influence of compliance with state legislation on projected GHG emissions. The BAU GHG Emissions Forecast projects an overall increase of GHG emissions with population, housing, and employment growth. A substantial increase in GHG emissions is expected between 2019 and 2025 due to increased GHG emissions associated with electricity delivered by 3CE caused by a potential increase in GHG-generating electricity sources. However, these emissions are projected to decrease again leading up to 2030 and are expected to remain low compared to 2025 levels for the remainder of the forecast period. Compliance with SB 100 and Title 24 are expected to provide some reductions in GHG emissions resulting from reduced electricity consumption and a reduction in residential natural gas consumption required in association with new construction. However, since GHG emissions associated with electricity consumption are already low, the GHG reduction impact of these programs may be minimal.
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
2019 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MT CO2e
Year
Transportation Residential Commerical Wastewater Solid Waste
26.453
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
Figure 3 Santa Cruz BAU and Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecasts (MT CO2e) through 2045 Table 15 provides the results summary of the GHG emissions forecast for Santa Cruz, including the BAU GHG Emissions Forecast, the Adjusted GHG Forecast, and the expected percentage GHG emissions reduction based on compliance with state GHG legislation.
Table 15 Santa Cruz GHG Emissions Forecast Results Summary 2019 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Business-as-Usual Forecast 335,150 300,519 309,929 320,156 330,054 Transportation Reductions 0 23,601 43,799 60,091 71,589 79,479 Title 24 Reductions 0 304 2 0 0 0
SB 100 Reductions 0 1 3 4 5 6
Legislative Adjusted Forecast 311,244 256,715 249,834 248,562 250,569 Percent Reduction in GHG
Emissions from Legislation
0.0% 7.1% 14.6% 19.4% 22.4% 24.1%
SB = Senate Bill; GHG = greenhouse gas
0 50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
350000
400000
2019 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Business-as-Usual GHG Emissions Forecast Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast 274,584
274,584
26.454
City of Santa Cruz
Climate and Energy Action Plan
GHG Emissions Source
Transportation 188,930 199,287 206,883 214,893 222,900
Aggregated On-Road Transportation 179,967 189,051 196,621 204,190 211,760 Aggregated On-Road Transportation - EV Adjust 12 398 9 0 0 Off-Road - Diesel 3,693 4,220 4,469 4,748 5,032
Off-Road - Gasoline 4,108 4,413 4,577 4,733 4,879
Off-Road - Natural Gas (LPG) 1,150 1,205 1,208 1,221 1,228 Residential 42,718 56,074 45,826 46,319 46,881
Residential Electricity - 3CE 336 11,464 200 0 0
Non Government Electricity - PG&E 5 5 5 6 6
County Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
Non Government Natural Gas 42,377 44,604 45,620 46,314 46,876 Commercial 23,216 58,603 25,753 25,853 26,592
County Electricity - 3CE 25 872 15 0 0
City Electricity - 3CE 60 2,119 37 0 0
Non Government Electricity - 3CE 849 30,218 531 0 0
District Electricity - 3CE 27 945 17 0 0
City Electricity - PG&E 0 1 1 1 1
District Electricity - PG&E 0 0 0 0 0
County Electricity - PG&E 0 0 0 0 0
County Natural Gas 794 872 897 922 948
City Natural Gas 593 652 671 689 709
District Natural Gas 982 1,078 1,110 1,140 1,173
Non Government Natural Gas 19,887 21,846 22,475 23,101 23,761 Wastewater 754 810 843 874 909
Emissions from the Combustion of Digester Gas 13 14 15 15 16 Process N2O Emissions from Wastewater Treatment 115 123 128 133 139 Emissions Associated with Effluents to Ocean 626 673 700 726 755 Solid Waste 18,976 20,376 21,214 21,989 22,874
Solid Waste Disposed of Outside Jurisdiction 3,884 4,170 4,342 4,501 4,682 City of Santa Cruz Resource Recovery Facility 15,092 16,206 16,872 17,489 18,192 TOTAL 335,150 300,519 309,929 320,156
Notes: Values in this table may not add up to totals due to rounding All values are of the unit metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric; 3CE = Central Coast Community Energy; N2O = nitrous oxide 274,584
2019 2025 2030 2035 2040
Table 16 provides more detail including emissions (in MT CO2e) by sector for milestone years from 2025 through 2040.
Table 16 Santa Cruz Adjusted GHG Emissions Forecast Detail (MT CO2e)
26.455
APPENDIX F:
Equity Screening Tool
26.456
26.457
Equity Screening Tool
The equity screening tool consists of a process and criteria to ensure the CAP is equitable in both process and outcomes, achieving an equitable and just transition for all communities. The equity screening tool was used to screen all proposed actions to ensure all actions in the CAP address equity considerations and do not negatively impact - and lift up - frontline communities. Each of the CAP actions were evaluated against all criteria categories and questions and given a score of positive impact, negative impact, neutral or not applicable. No negative scores were accepted. The screening criteria that were selected and used to review the CAP measures and actions are discussed in further detail below.
Screening Criteria
Community Health and Safety
Actions can be intentionally drafted to provide pathways to improve the health impacts that the frontline communities in the City experience resulting from climate change. • Does the proposed action reduce air pollution and reduce asthma and other respiratory-related hospital visits?
• Does the proposed action extend expected longevity and/or quality of life (including physical and mental health) for populations experiencing health disparities? • Does the proposed action reduce vulnerability to climate hazards (extreme heat, flooding, wildfire), particularly for low income communities, communities of color, and other frontline groups?
• Does the proposed action help restore or protect ecosystem health (air, land, water, soil), particularly in low income communities, communities of color, and other relevant frontline communities?
Green Job Facilitation and Creation
This criterion serves to ensure that the CAP measures account for local job development and accessibility during the transition to a greener economy, particularly for people experiencing barriers to employment.
• Does the proposed action support or invest in communities of color, other frontline groups and low-income populations through workforce development, contracting opportunities, small business support, or the increased diversity of city staff? • Does the proposed action increase availability and accessibility of existing green jobs or create new local opportunities for livable wage jobs for low-income communities, other frontline groups and communities of color?
Cultural Vibrancy
This criterion will require stakeholder and community input to understand how the culture of the City can be leveraged and strengthened by this CAP.
26.458
• Does the proposed action acknowledge/respect/honor the culture, historic assets, and traditions of low income and communities of color, including traditional ecological knowledge from indigenous communities?
• Does the proposed action improve social cohesion (engagement and connection within/to the community) among low income communities, communities of color, and frontline groups? • Does the proposed action’s decision-making processes go beyond dollars and cents to address shared values and cultural differences in order to support implementation? • Does the proposed action help to restore or support the culture and historic places or neighborhoods of low income and communities of color?
Accessibility
The proposed CAP actions will consider the accessibility of frontline groups, for example, in the design and deployment of policies, programs, and infrastructure considering age, income, language, and ability.
Maximizing the accessibility of the documents, outreach, and resulting CAP measures will increase the reach, and therefore, the success of the CAP.
• Does the proposed action expand access to healthy/clean active transportation systems, such as walking paths, bike routes, shared vehicles, public transit in order to access essential services (hospital, school), amenities, and/or jobs?
• Does the proposed action improve amenities and essential services in traditionally underserved geographies/neighborhoods?
• Does the proposed action increase equitable participation in economic benefit programs (i.e., tax revenues, job creation or incentives) from low income communities, frontline groups and communities of color?
• Does the proposed action remove any barriers that might prevent individuals in low income communities, communities of color, and other frontline groups (consider language, gender, socio-economic status (SES), digital inequality, LGBTQ status, different abilities, employment status, immigration status, education level, home ownership and housing status, geography, environment, religious beliefs, culture, history of incarceration, etc.) from benefiting fully if this strategy were implemented as written?
• Does the proposed action increase equitable access to information/education around climate, i.e. impacts, benefits, and programs?
Accountability
The City aims to ensure that equity is considered from CAP inception and that equity actions are properly implemented, tracked, and reported.
• Does the proposed action have provisions to ensure ongoing collection of data (that can be disaggregated by race/ethnicity/income) and public reporting of data? Can this data be validated qualitatively by community members?
• Does the proposed action have clear markers of short-term and long-term success as well as timelines for meeting markers of success? If so, what are the mechanisms we will utilize to ensure that targets are met (successful implementation and enforcement)? • Does the proposed action address consequences if targets are not met? Is there a process for those impacted by the policy to express grievances or satisfaction and to ensure that concerns are met?
• Is the proposed action adequately funded to achieve its designed targets?
26.459
Affordability
Actions should be designed such that any policy or program will not be implemented until accessible funding and financing mechanisms are in place to prioritize and support frontline community transition. • Could this action limit the displacement of residents and small businesses when surrounding property values rise?
• Is the proposed action affordable to all community members, and/or does this offer inclusive financing strategies that prioritize the most income-burdened populations? • Does the proposed action reduce cost burden and the number of families that are costburdened by housing (including utilities) and transportation (defined as spending more than 33 percent of income on housing and transportation)?
• Does the proposed action reduce burdens (including financial, health costs), either directly or indirectly, to communities of color, low-income populations, and other frontline communities? If no, how will the Plan mitigate these impacts?
26.460
APPENDIX G:
Green Jobs Analysis
26.461
26.462
Santa Cruz
Green Economy
and
Jobs Analysis:
Part 1
A report for
June 2022 | FINAL 26.463
Table of
Contents
Context
1 Executive Summary
2 Existing Economic Conditions in the City
3 Existing Labor Force Base and Workforce Dynamics
2 4
Existing State of the Green Economy in the City
5 National and State-wide Trends: Potential Impacts of
Transformative Climate Investments to the City and its Existing Economy June 2022 | FINAL
Key Terms and Concepts
26.464
Context
3 Rincon Consultants, Inc. has retained Hatch to conduct a Green Economy and Jobs Analysis for the City of Santa Cruz.
The analysis aims to provide an understanding of economic outcomes and opportunities presented by the City path to carbon neutrality through proposed measures in its Climate Action and Energy Plan 2030.
This two-part analysis will examine the proposed
measures—their ensuing policies and transformative
climate investments—in the context of the City’s existing economy to comprehend which sectors and industries may
experience growth and what new industries may appear.
Specifically, this assessment addresses green jobs and
equitable opportunities that could result from each
proposed measure including an understanding of potential skill and training gaps.
Green Economy and Jobs Analysis Part 1:
This document is the first part of two assessments on the City’s green economy and jobs. It focuses on the City’s existing economic context as well as larger trends in the green economy and their relevance to the City’s Climate Action and Energy Plan 2030.
June 2022 | FINAL 26.465
Section 1
4 Executive Summary
The aim of this study is to examine the potential impacts to jobs resulting from measures from the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP). Increased spending on certain capital projects related to climate actions are expected to increase
employment in construction and manufacturing sectors in Santa Cruz and surrounding geographies.
While increased jobs are generally viewed as a positive impact, the City can take measures to ensure equitable
outcomes, such as implementing retraining programs and
outreach for underrepresented communities.
The following report highlights the current state of green jobs in the state of California, estimates job growth in California from three selected CAP measures, and provides recommendations on how the City can begin to prepare the workforce for these new jobs.
June 2022 | FINAL 26.466
Section
2 5
Existing Economic
Conditions in the City
Ensuring equitable outcomes result from transformative
climate investments is critical for the City of Santa Cruz especially as it makes decisions consistent with its Health in All Policies workplan. To evaluate healthy, equitable, and sustainable economic outcomes of the Climate Action and Energy Plan 2030, the City will require an understanding of its existing economic conditions.
The following section sets the overall economic context within the City. It defines the City’s existing economic framework—its job sectors and industries as well as their projected growth. The baseline set in this section will be used to assess the key areas of the economy that may be influenced by the proposed climate greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures in the next part of this analysis. The assessment is informed by the City’s ongoing economic
development strategy, the county’s state of the workforce study, and metropolitan area job growth numbers.
June 2022 | FINAL 26.467
Employment Overview
Understanding baseline employment conditions in the City is a critical step for distinguishing impacts of climate investments to future job trends and employment growth. The adjacent figure provides a current employment overview in Santa Cruz.
Businesses and Jobs
As of 2021, there are over 3,500 businesses within City limits that provide about 39,000 jobs. Those employed in the City are typically highly educated, white-collar workers. When compared to the nation, the share of white-collar workers is 14 percent higher while the share of blue-collar workers in Santa Cruz, at 10 percent, is 11 percent lower than the US average. Service industry workers compose of 13% of total employment.
Education
Compared to the rest of California and nation, the workforce of Santa Cruz is highly educated. Fifty-six percent of the employed have a Bachelor’s, Graduate, or Professional Degree and 27 percent with some college experience. Ten percent of those employed have a High School diploma. Comparatively, California and the US have 21% and 27%, respectively, of the workforce employed with High School diplomas.
Income and Wages
The City’s median household income is $81,163, a figure above the national and state median household incomes of $64,730 and $80,044 respectively. The annual average wage in the County reached $60,055 in the year 2020, increasing from $41,274, or 37%, from 2010.
June 2022 | FINAL Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2021 6 City of Santa Cruz
BUSINESS
3,562
total businesses
39,085
total employees
$42,098
per capita income
INCOME
$81,163
median household income
$95,699
median net worth
EDUCATION
27%
some college
56%
bachelor’s/grad/prof degree
no high school diploma
10%
high school diploma only
5%
KEY FACTS
22,077
households
$64,394
median disposable income
31.5 median age
63,167
population
EMPLOYMENT
13%
services
10%
blue collar
77%
white collar
unemployment rate
5%
COMMUTERS
16%
Spend 7+ hours commuting
to and from work per week
58.7%
drive alone to work
26.468
7 Employing Industries, Largest to Smallest, Santa Cruz City, 2021 Industry by NAICS Codes Employment
Santa Cruz City
Employment
Santa Cruz City
% of Total
Businesses
Santa Cruz City
Businesses
Santa Cruz City
% of Total
Educational Services 6,523 19% 117 3%
Retail Trade 4,816 14% 456 13%
Accommodation & Food Services 4,450 13% 315 9%
Health Care & Social Assistance 3,566 11% 268 8%
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 2,683 8% 443 13% Manufacturing 1,950 6% 123 4%
Other Services (except Public Administration) 1,882 6% 358 10% Wholesale Trade 1,255 4% 96 3%
Transportation & Warehousing 1,163 3% 35 1%
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 1,099 3% 109 3%
Information 1,072 3% 95 3%
Construction 795 2% 164 5%
Finance & Insurance 776 2% 124 4%
Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 750 2% 160 5%
Admin & Support & Waste Management & Remediation Services 447 1% 117 3% Unclassified Establishments 407 1% 433 13%
Utilities 143 less than 1% 6 less than 1%
Mining 80 less than 1% 6 less than 1%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 72 less than 1% 16 less than 1% Management of Companies & Enterprises 17 less than 1% 7 less than 1% Mining 6 less than 1% 1 less than 1%
June 2022 | FINAL
Employment by Industry
Largest Employing Industries
The top sectors for employment in Santa Cruz are Education, Retail Trade, Accommodation & Food Services, and Health Care Services.
These sectors alone account for about 19,350 jobs, representing 57 percent of the employment in the City. This corresponds with the large presence of businesses oriented towards tourism and hospitality located in the City.
While these top four industries provide the most employment for residents, the City’s Manufacturing and Professional, Scientific & Tech Services also provide unique opportunities. These two industries employ about 4,600 employees or 14 percent of total jobs.
Employers range from those who specialize in biotechnology and life sciences, sports and outdoor recreation, technology and innovation, and artisanal production that require small-scale manufacturing. As discussed in the following page, the City likely has benefitted from regional growth trends in the Manufacturing industry.
City Employment and Public Administration
Public Administration employment is excluded in the adjacent table; however, the City currently provides over 750 full-time jobs.
While state and local economic development strategies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic include provision of employment opportunities in the public sector, most of the job growth will continue to be sourced from the private sector.
City of Santa Cruz
Activities in the new green economy will cover a broad
spectrum. The following industries, however, are anticipated to play an active role in the green economy: Professional, Scientific, & Tech Services, Manufacturing, Transportation & Warehousing, Construction, and Utilities.
Source: ESRI Business Analyst, 2021; Santa Cruz Economic Development Strategy, February 2021 26.469 Employment by Industry
Industry by NAICS Codes Employment
MSA
Employment
MSA
% of Total
Employment
Santa Cruz City
Employment
Santa Cruz City
% of Total
Educational Services 12,421 11% 6,523 19%
Retail Trade 14,760 13% 4,816 14%
Accommodation & Food Services 12,707 11% 4,450 13%
Health Care & Social Assistance 13,991 12% 3,566 11%
Professional, Scientific & Technical Services 7,043 6% 2,683 8% Manufacturing 6,639 6% 1,950 6%
Other Services (except Public Administration) 6,788 6% 1,882 6% Wholesale Trade 5,684 5% 1,255 4%
Transportation & Warehousing 2,201 2% 1,163 3%
Arts, Entertainment & Recreation 3,076 3% 1,099 3%
Information 2,411 2% 1,072 3%
Construction 5,477 5% 795 2%
Finance & Insurance 2,623 2% 776 2%
Real Estate, Rental & Leasing 2,783 2% 750 2%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 2,206 2% 72 less than 1% Admin & Support & Waste Management & Remediation Services 2,107 2% 447 1% Unclassified Establishments 960 1% 407 1%
Utilities 284 less than 1% 143 less than 1%
Mining 80 less than 1% 80 less than 1%
Management of Companies & Enterprises 51 less than 1% 17 less than 1% Given the reciprocity of economic trends between the City of Santa Cruz and the broader region, a baseline analysis of employment conditions for the Santa Cruz-Watsonville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) provides further understanding of current economic trends in the City. The adjacent table compares the largest employing industries in the metropolitan and the City as of 2021.
Regional and Local Employing Industries
Like the City, the top sectors for employment in the Santa Cruz-Watsonville MSA are Educational Services, Retail Trade, Accommodation & Food Services, and Health Care & Social Assistance. These sectors alone account for almost 54,000 jobs in the region, or nearly half of the employment.
Unlike the City, however, the region has a larger share of employment in the Health Care & Social Assistance, Construction, Wholesale Trade, Administration and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services, and Agriculture industries. The main employment drivers in the region include large employers such as the following in the table are located and headquartered within the region’s boundaries.
Source: ESRI Business Analyst , 2021, Santa Cruz County Planning 8 Employing Industries, Largest to Smallest, Santa Cruz – Watsonville MSA, 2021 June 2022 | FINAL
City and the Region
Largest Employers in Santa Cruz County, 2011
# Employer # of Employees
1 University of California, Santa Cruz 7,364
2 County of Santa Cruz 2,319
3 City of Santa Cruz 780
4 Plantronics 505
5 Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk 347
6 Costco 239
7 Threshold Enterprises 213
8 Community Bridges 212
9 New Teacher Center 211
10 Santa Cruz Biotechnology 204
26.470
Growth by Industry
$44,125
$28,461
$108,115
$34,739
$58,039
$30,222
$34,820
$114,576
$72,633
$57,451
$25,352
$36,386
$33,869
$51,226
$51,940
$31,438
$90,357
$83,105
$41,450
$96,537
$60,940
$97,896
-2,000
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Change in Metro Area Occupational Employment 2018 to 2028 Base Year Employment Estimate (2018) Change (2028) Median Annual Wage June 2022 | FINAL 9
Growing Industries in the County
A 2019 State of the Workforce Report for Santa Cruz County shows that occupations in personal care and food preparation and serving industries in the county are projected to see the highest rate of increase by 2028 from 2018. Based on data from the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the two industries will see a 21 percent and 10 percent of growth respectively or almost 3,000 additional jobs over the five-year period analyzed by the agency. Architecture and Engineering as well as Life, Physical and Social Science occupations are expected to increase close to 20 percent over this period, however, the industry remains a small part of the county’s economic ecosystem.
While the ongoing pandemic might influence these projections, occupations in the Healthcare Practitioners and Technical as well as the Healthcare Support industry is also projected to see an increase of 14 percent in jobs, or just over 1,000. Meanwhile, occupations in the Farming, Fishing, and Forestry industry might see a 5% retraction of employees by 2028, or an equivalent of 270 fewer jobs.
Policy change and economic investments borne out of the City’s climate action plan should recognize the trajectory of growth for these select industries, and leverage these trends while planning for an equitable, carbon neutral future..
Median Annual Wage
Evaluating job growth through the lens of wages provides one insight to whether investments lead to equitable outcomes. It is worth noting that industries projected to experience the highest growth in the county are those with jobs that provide a low median annual wage. The median annual wage for the food
preparation and personal care industries are below the
+1.6K
by 2028
+1.3K
by 2028
-0.3K
by 2028
+0.7K
by 2028
national median compensation of almost $35,000, at
roughly $28,500 and $30,000 respectively.
County of Santa Cruz
Source: 2019 State of the Workforce Report Santa Cruz County; California Employment Development Department; see Appendix B.
Industries projected to experience
the highest growth in Santa Cruz county
are those with jobs that provide a low
median annual wage.
26.471
Section 3
Existing Labor Force Base
and Workforce Dynamics
This section describes the current labor force
characteristics and workforce development dynamic within the City of Santa Cruz. The discussions in this section will serve as a baseline for understanding how anticipated
growth—particularly ones spurred by transformative
climate investments—can create employment
opportunities that connect with historically underrepresented, under-served and under-resourced members of the community.
The section determines the types of occupations within key industries in the City and the typical characteristics of workers in each occupations. The goal is to set the context in which industry and workforce—and vice versa—can
support a zero-carbon economy as described by the City’s Climate Action and Energy Plan 2030.
June 2022 | FINAL 10 26.472
Types of Occupations: the City’s Civilian Labor Force
11 Occupation Employed % of All
Employed
Education/Training/Library 3,992 12%
Management 3,888 12%
Sales and Sales Related 3,202 10%
Office/Administrative Support 2,940 9%
Computer/Mathematical 2,048 6%
Healthcare Practitioner 1,843 6%
Business/Financial 1,511 5%
Arts/Design/Entertainment 1,281 4%
Life/Physical/Social Sciences 1,205 4%
Community/Social Service 934 3%
Architecture/Engineering 737 2%
Legal 440 1%
White Collar Total 24,021 75%
Occupation Employed % of All
Employed
Construction/Extraction 1,388 4%
Transportation/Material Moving 920 3%
Production 641 2%
Installation/Maintenance/Repair 285 1%
Farming/Fishing/Forestry 109 0%
Blue Collar Total 3,343 10%
Source: ESRI Business Analyst
Civilian Labor Force:
White Collar Occupations
Occupation Employed % of All
Employed
Food Preparation/Serving 1,983 6%
Protective Service 716 2%
Personal Care/Service 712 2%
Healthcare Support 636 2%
Building Maintenance 626 2%
Services Total 4,673 15%
June 2022 | FINAL
Most jobs in the City of Santa Cruz are white-collar.
Occupations in Education/Training/Library services and
Management are the most common white-collar jobs held by residents of the City, with about one of four residents employed in these two occupation types.
Civilian Labor Force:
Blue Collar Occupations
Occupations in the Construction/Extraction services are the most common blue-collar jobs held by residents of the City of Santa Cruz. This is followed by occupations in the
Transportation/Material Moving services. Blue-collar jobs are significantly less prevalent than white-collar occupations in the City.
Civilian Labor Force:
Service Occupations
Service occupations are the second most common group of occupations in the City. Occupations in the Food
Preparation/Serving services employ almost 2,000 people, which equates to 6 percent of the total jobs in the City. This service sector is expected to experience the highest rate of growth by 2028.
In the City of Santa Cruz, jobs in the Construction/Extraction industry earn median annual wage of $57,000, nearly half of the compensation for Healthcare Practitioners or those in Management occupations, which earn $115,000 and 108,000 annual average wage respectively.
26.473
Gender Composition of
All Industry Employment
City of Santa Cruz
92%
79%
75% 75%
71% 69%
67% 67% 65%
63%
58%
53%
50% 48% 46% 45%
41%
38% 37% 36%
8%
21%
25% 25%
29% 31%
33% 33% 35%
37%
42%
47%
50% 52% 54% 55%
59%
62% 63% 64%
0%
50%
100%
Industry Employment by Gender Composition: City of Santa Cruz, 2021 % Male % Female
June 2022 | FINAL 12
Overall Composition
In Santa Cruz, women are well-represented across the City’s industries. In total, women make up 46 percent of the full-time, year-round civilian employed population 16 years and over.
Industries with One Dominant Gender Opportunities
Although women are a large part of the workforce, historically male-dominated industries continue to exist in the City. In the Construction, Transportation/Warehousing, and Utilitiesindustries of the City, women compose only eight, 21, and 25 percent of jobs, respectively. These industries have yet to see equal representation as it relates to gender. Meanwhile, female-dominated industries such as Health Care and Social Assistance, and Management are high-earning occupations, earning 50 percent more than the average annual wage in the City of Santa Cruz.
Overall, educational attainment rates increased for
both females and males aged 25- to 29-year-old across all attainment levels. However, the differences between
attainment rates for females and males, referred to as
gender gap, also increased during the same period.
Women attained higher levels of education—Associate’s,
Bachelor’s, and Master’s degree or higher—faster than
men between 2010 and 2020. Twelve percent of female 25- to 29-year-olds received a Master’s degree or higher
degree in 2020, while only 7 percent of their male
counterparts did during the same year.
Source: United States Census 2019 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, Table ID S2404; National Center for Education Statistics. 26.474 Workforce Dynamics:
Stakeholder Groups and
Workforce Development
13 City of Santa Cruz
June 2022 | FINAL
Workforce development ensures and expands employability by aligning skills of employees with business needs and labor market trends.
Workforce development initiatives take form multiple ways including apprenticeship programs, targeted development programs, and funding incentives.
City Workforce Development Goals and Strategies
Businesses in the City have had problems attracting and retaining talent due to the region’s high costs for housing and exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic. As part of its February 2021 Economic Development Strategy, the City set a goal to mitigate this concern and improve workforce development through better coordination of education and business partners. More recently, to close the fiscal gaps exacerbated by COVID-19, the City has doubled-down on workforce development initiatives through its “Re-Envision Santa Cruz” recovery plan.
An internal City working team has also begun highlighting opportunities for improving skilled trades and employability in the green economy as part of its Climate and Energy Action Plan. One of the first resulting programs the City is supporting is the Pre-Apprenticeship Program for Construction Trades.
Workforce Development Network
Coordination among business and education communities, labor and trade groups as well as the local and regional governments ensure sound delivery of workforce development initiatives. For the City of Santa Cruz, forging partnerships among the following critical actors in the adjacent graphic will continue to prove vital as the City supports in transformative climate investments through its Climate Action and Energy Plan 2030.
Source: City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz Workforce
Development Board
Center for Employment
Training
Fortress and Flourish
El Pajaro Community
Development Corporation
Monterey Bay Central
Labor Council
IBEW Local 234
Community Action Board
Carpenters, Local 505
Watsonville/Aptos/Santa Cruz
Adult Education
Other Actors
Santa Cruz Construction
Guild
Monterey Bay Economic
Partnership (Career Connect)
Santa Cruz Developer’s
Round Table
Labor Unions
Monterey/Santa Cruz Building and Construction Trades Council BEW Local 234 and
Carpenters Local 505
Apprenticeships
Tri-County Apprenticeship
Prep
Monterey/Santa Cruz Building and Construction Trades Council Watsonville/Aptos/Santa Cruz
Adult Education Apprenticeship
Program
Pre-Apprenticeship Program
for Construction Trades
Santa Cruz
Green Economy
Workforce
Development
Ecosystem
26.475
June 2022 | FINAL 14
Section 4
Existing Green Economy
in the City
To meet the City’s goals in the Climate Action and Energy Plan 2030, the City will need to transform its economy into one that supports a zero-carbon future and moves toward energy efficiency. This greener economy will involve an increasing number of sectors with lower carbon outputs
and support the stabilization of global temperatures. Early studies show that there will be some economic decline in certain industries and limited job losses; however, the impact is expected to be net positive. For this reason, policy needs to address equity explicitly in the green transition.
This section examines how the City’s green economy is
currently defined. It also outlines an approach to
characterize and quantify green jobs.
26.476
June 2022 | FINAL 15
Green Economy Analysis:
Defining the Green Economy
Overview
The United Nations Environment Program defines the green economy as one that is low-carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive. This type of economy typically includes sectors that generate clean energy from the renewable energy sector to energy-efficient infrastructure and transportation. Green building and energy recycling or waste-to-energy sectors are also typical sectors of the green economy. However, the definition of the green economy needs to be tailored to the existing economic context to be locally meaningful.
Green Jobs
Green jobs are broadly defined as occupations that include tasks associated with meeting green economic goals and improving the environment. This could be jobs in businesses that produce goods or provide services that conserve natural resources or reduce the environmental impact of production processes. Green goods, services, and production processes typically fall into the following categories of economic activity: renewable energy; energy efficiency; greenhouse gas reduction; pollution reduction and cleanup; recycling and waste reduction; natural resources conservation; and education, compliance, public awareness and training.
It is critical to distinguish between green activities versus green jobs and employment. Difficulties can arise in making this type of distinction; for example, a trucker may deliver solar panels during 30% of their working hours, making other types of deliveries in the remaining time. The flexibility of the economy can create challenges in defining green jobs, as trucking is not necessarily a “green job”, though part of the worker’s time is supporting the green economy.
Green Jobs may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Clean renewable energy
• Public transportation
• Waste management/recycling
• Eco-tourism
• Sustainable agriculture
• Land conservation/remediation
• Construction/Building remediation
As part of Climate Action Plan 2030 update, the City of Santa Cruz defines the green economy as one that results to low to no carbon use, resource efficiency, and social inclusivity. Through the effort, the City has indicated that jobs related to renewable energy, building and transportation energy, other environmental industries and programs as top green economic priorities.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; PERI: A Program for Economic Recovery and Clean Energy Transition in California, Pollin et. al., June 2021 26.477 Sample Occupations
Electricians,
Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers and Repairers, Production, Planning and Expediting Clerks
Green Emerging + New Jobs
Definition
With Green Emerging + New Jobs, climate investments and resulting green economic activities and green
technologies create the need for new or unique or
specialized work and job, which result in the generation of a new occupation relative to existing job sectors or industries.
The resulting occupations generated could be entirely
new or derived from existing occupation
Green Economy Analysis: Qualifying Increased, Enhanced, and Emerging Green Jobs Green Increased Jobs
June 2022 | FINAL 16
Outlook
With Green Increased Jobs, climate investments and the
resulting green economic activities and green
technologies increase the employment demand for an
existing occupation.
The increase in jobs will result in no significant change in the work and job requirements of the existing
occupation. Work environments and context may change,
but the job description and tasks themselves do not.
Increased, Enhanced, and Emerging Green Jobs
To quantify the number of green jobs in existence in Santa Cruz today, the City must first determine which jobs qualify to readily support the green economy and which are currently lacking. This study utilizes work performed by Occupational Information Network or O*Net to identify existing economic sectors and occupations considered part of the green economy. Specifically, this study refers to three green occupational categories determined by O*Net. The graphic below describes each category, its impact to job requirements, and sample occupations.
Green Enhanced Jobs
Outlook
With Green Enhanced Jobs, climate investments and
resulting green economic activities and green
technologies significantly change the work and job
requirements of an existing occupation. This may or may not lead to increase in employment demand for the
existing occupation.
The purposes and definition of the occupation remain the same; however, tasks, skills, knowledge, educational and professional requirements need to be altered.
Sample Occupations
Solar Photovoltaic Installers
Sample Occupations
Construction Laborers and Construction Managers
Maintenance and Repair Workers, General
Training and Development Specialists
Refuse and Recyclable Material Collectors
Source: O*Net; Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey 26.478 June 2022 | FINAL 17
SOC Codes of
O*Net “Green
Occupations”
MSA-to-City
Multiplier
Using ACS County Business
Patterns:
# of Jobs in the City / # of
Jobs in MSA
using ACS County Business
Pattern
City of Santa
Cruz
Green Jobs
Conservative lower bound
estimate
SOC Codes of
BLS MSA
Green Economy Analysis:
Quantifying Green Jobs
Associating Existing Jobs with Green Jobs
Each of the three green occupational category from O*Net includes a set of standard occupational classification (SOCs). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses the same classification system when they track employment data. To match the number of jobs that are green, the methodology pairs the O*Net’s green SOC categories and BLS’ employment data for the Santa Cruz-Watsonville MSA. See Appendix C for comprehensive list of green SOCs in the MSA.
From Green MSA Jobs to City Green Jobs
To convert the results from SOC green jobs and jobs in the MSA into the City of Santa Cruz’ green jobs, this study first assumes the percentage of green jobs within the City is the same as the Santa Cruz-Watsonville MSA. It then uses a multiplication factor derived from the American Community Survey’s County Business Patterns data to estimate the number of green jobs in the City alone. See adjacent diagram and Appendix D on how the multiplier is applied.
Due to the availability of data and the multi-step process required to assign green occupations, the resulting green jobs in the City of Santa Cruz must be observed as a conservative lower bound estimate.
Green and New
Emerging
Green Enhanced
Demand
Green Increased
Demand
Source: O*Net; Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey 26.479 Estimated Green
Employment
10%
Esitmated Non-Green
Employment
90%
Estimate of Total Jobs in the City of Santa Cruz*
Green Enhanced Jobs
June 2022 | FINAL Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics 18 Green Jobs
City of Santa Cruz
35,000
Total Jobs in the
City of Santa Cruz ~990
of total existing jobs
In the City of Santa Cruz
~2,600
of total existing jobs
In the City of Santa Cruz
~20
of total existing jobs
In the City of Santa Cruz
*Based on the methodology previously described.
Green Emerging + New Jobs
Green Increased Jobs
Existing Green Jobs
Based on the methodology previously described and available data as of 2019, the total green jobs in the City of Santa Cruz is estimated to be currently 10 percent of the total employment in the City, or an estimated 3,600 jobs.
The largest share of existing green jobs in the City falls under the Green Enhanced Job category. As mentioned prior, Green Enhanced Jobs are those existing occupations that will experience significant change in work requirements. The purposes and definition of the occupation will remain the same; however, tasks, skills, knowledge, educational and professional requirements need to be altered. The City’s moderate share of technical professions that service the built environment makes up the bulk of this category. This means occupations in the Professional, Scientific & Technical Services and the Construction sectors—such as Construction Laborers, General Operations Managers, Maintenance & Repair Workers, Inspectors, and Urban & Regional Planners to name a few—might need new skills or expect additional training as the City adopts measures that result to more green economic activities.
Green Increased Jobs represents a third of the City’s existing green jobs. This includes existing occupations—such as Customer Service Representatives, Mechanics, and Electricians amongst others—that have tasks and job requirements that will stay largely the same though in new contexts.
26.480
02/12/2021 | Final Report 19
Section 5
Trends from Climate
Investments in the United
States and California
This section provides a snapshot of national and state-wide research and trends in climate investment and resulting impact to job creation and economic development. The
broad discussion aims to put in context the types and
characteristics of emerging occupations that the City of Santa Cruz might expect as it strives for a zero-carbon economy and as the City enacts the proposed climate
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures in the next part of this analysis. The discussion of nation- and state-wide initiatives in this section will also inform potential funding sources for regional climate plans and local climate change investments resulting from the City’s Climate Action and Energy Plan 2030.
26.481
20 Employs 9.5 million, over 4%
of the working age
population.
$1.3 trillion in annual sales
revenue in the United States,
about 7% of annual GDP
June 2022 | FINAL
National Green Economy
and Jobs Overview
Source: University College London, 2019; CNBC; *G-20 is defined as the intergovernmental forum comprised of the world’s largest economies and accounts for 90 percent of the gross world product.
The response to climate change will play an increasingly important role in the current economy and will likely expand its influence on job markets of the future.
Green Economy and Green Jobs in the United States
In the United States, the green economy is estimated to employ more than 9.5 million people full-time. This data was compiled from subsections of the broader economy such as electric vehicles, renewable energy, environmental protection, and low carbon goods and services. This green economy, in turn, generates $1.3 trillion in annual sales revenue in the United States. To put these numbers in context, the 9.5 million jobs represent over 4 percent of the working age population in the United States, while $1.3 trillion is a little under 7 percent of annual GDP, a rate higher than China or any other country in the G-20.* These estimates underscore the need for choreographed approach to develop energy, environment, and education policies that support the expected economic growth that comes with the scale of the green economy in the United States.
Limitations of Potential Impact
Estimating jobs from the green economy requires, however, further refinement. As mentioned in the previous section, there are broad and varied definitions of what constitutes as a green job or sales.
Also, the federal government currently does not track green-specific economic indicators. Estimating methodologies here and employed in the previous section may result to under or double counting of impact. Moreover, nationwide estimates do not yet account for impact from innovation and technology advancements at the forefront of the green economy including advancements in hydrogen technologies with no measurable economic impact yet to-date.
26.482
418,000 jobs
Clean Energy Efficiency
Projects Investments
21 The state of California also provides key context for the potential economic impacts of transformative climate investments to the City.
Job creation in California that will likely result from combined climate investment programs through 2030 is illustrated in the adjacent flow chart.
There are two major categories the state is looking to invest in. The first is in Clean Energy and Efficiency Projects while the second are those investments that promote transition into green activities in existing Manufacturing/Infrastructure and Land Restoration/Agriculture sectors.
Combined, the investments will create one million jobs per year through 2030. This equals 5 percent of California’s labor force in 2019.
Examples of jobs resulting from the first category, Clean Energy Efficiency investments, include those occupations involving building retrofits, industrial efficiency, electrical grid upgrades, public transportation expansion and upgrades, efficient automobile fleet, among others. Investment in the first category alone will support the state in achieving 50 percent reduction in the state’s carbon emissions by 2030.
Note. the impact of climate investment is calculated using a multiplier effect via IMPLAN.
June 2022 | FINAL Sources: PERI: A Program for Economic Recovery and Clean Energy Transition in California, Pollin et. al., June 2021 $76B
per year over 2021 to 2030
created per year in the state
626,000 jobs
Manufacturing/Infrastructure &
Land Restoration Agriculture
$62B
per year over 2021 to 2030
created per year in the state
Over 1 million jobs
per year less than ten-year period
The combined one million jobs created per year
equals 5.4% of California’s labor force (2019)
Statewide Trends:
California Green Investments
26.483
$73,700
$91,900
$83,300
$37,600
$88,700
$96,500
$94,000
$83,500
$92,600
$79,700
$39,800
$85,400
$82,900
$87,500
$80,800
$76,700
$69,800
$77,300
$52,900
$87,900
$59,400
$189,400
$93,900
$55,800
$60,200
$55,800
$50,300
$92,800
$70,200
$153,000
$46,900
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Green Jobs in California
Indicators of Job Quality: California Green Employment
Health insurance coverage, percentage Retirement plans, percentage Union membership, percentage Defining Job Quality
Indicators for job quality typically include the average total compensation, percentage of workers receiving health insurance coverage, percentage of workers with employer-provided retirement plans, and percentage of workers that are union workers. A study PERI reported the adjacent indicators for workers currently employed in California’s existing energy efficiency and clean renewable sectors. These numbers only include direct jobs.
Trends in California
The range of average annual wages for jobs in the state’s green economy is wide, from $38,000 in the mass transit sector to $153,000 for closing orphaned wells. Include all green sectors, the average annual wage is $80,000.
As PERI found, the range of workers with employer-based health insurance coverage is also wide. When all areas of green employment, 43 percent of all employees are provided with employer-sponsored health insurance.
In the meantime, the share of workers with retirement plans is lower than the percentage with employer-based health insurance.
Including all green sectors, just over thirty percent of employees have access to private retirement plans. Workers in the green agriculture business such as organic farming and regenerative agriculture have the lowest share of only 18 percent.
Union membership is relatively low when analyzing all sectors of the green economy defined by PERI in California. The rail sector has the highest share of its employees with union membership at 32 percent. 22 Are Green Jobs Good Jobs?: Indicators of Job Quality in Green Jobs Sources: PERI: A Program for Economic Recovery and Clean Energy Transition in California, Pollin et. al., June 2021 June 2022 | FINAL Median Annual Wage
The gas distribution and pipelinesleak repair sector average an annual State of California compensation of $190,000.
26.484
College degree jobs Some college jobs High school or less jobs Operations managers Construction managers Agricultural workers Human resource managers Farmers and ranchers Janitors
Sales managers First-line supervisors of office workers Machinery assemblers Lawyers First-line supervisors of production workers Grounds maintenance workers Accountants Engineering technicians Material movers
Architects Computer support specialists Cashiers
Civil engineers Accounting clerks Customer service representatives Electrical engineers Payroll clerks Retail salespersons Mechanical engineers Secretaries Shipping clerks
Computer programmers Paralegals Stock clerks
Carpenters
Construction laborers
Electricians
Insulation workers
Roofers
Machinists
Sheet metal workers
Bus drivers
Industrial truck drivers
Truck and bus dispatchers 23
Workforce Needs: Education Credential Composition of Green Jobs June 2022 | FINAL
Defining Educational Credentials
The following analysis of the educational characteristics of green jobs in California is based on a 2021 study. Educational characteristics are broken down into three groups: high school diploma or less, some college or Associate degrees, and Bachelor’s degree or higher.
Trends in California
As the adjacent graph shows, the level of education for green employment is generally similar across California’s green sectors.
More than one third of the workers in the green sectors analyzed have a high school degree or less except for the industrial efficiency sector. Over 60 percent of workers of this sector have a Bachelor’s degree or higher.
Sources: PERI: A Program for Economic Recovery and Clean Energy Transition in California, Pollin et. al., June 2021, Pollin et. al, September 2014 State of California
19%23%
31%32%32%35%36%37%40%43%44%45%47%49%49%50%51%51%51%53%53%54%55%56%57%57%61%61%61% 70%70%
20%
23%
25%
38%
22%
25%31%
35%
20%
34%34%
20%22%
26%
16%19%23%27%25%27%26%24%24%
29%25%26%25%24%24%
17%17%
62%
54%
44%
31%
46%40%34%28%
40%
23%23%
35%32%
25%
35%31%26%22%23%20%21%22%21%15%18%17%14%15%15%14%14%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Educational Composition: California Green Employment
Share with high school degree or less Share with some college or Associate degree Share with Bachelor's degree or higher
26.485
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Race and Gender Composition: California Green Employment Percent Black, Indigenous and People of Color Percent Female June 2022 | FINAL Sources: PERI: A Program for Economic Recovery and Clean Energy Transition in California, Pollin et. al., June 2021; 24 Race and Gender Composition of Green Jobs
Defining Racial and Gender Composition
The adjacent chart depicts the gender and racial composition of green sectors in California studied by PERI. Racial composition is analyzed through the number of jobs held by Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC).
Trends in California
In the State of California, green sectors employ a large share of BIPOC workers. For the green sectors analyzed, the group is well represented with the share of jobs held by BIPOC falling between 60 and 70 percent. This tracks with the 63 percent share of jobs held by BIPOC in any sector throughout the state. One exception to this, however, is the Industrial Efficiency sector where jobs held by BIPOC is 45 percent of the total. Note that this sector is the same sector with the highest share of workers with a Bachelor’s degree.
The representation of women in the green sectors of the state’s economy, on the other hand, is low. The highest share of jobs held by women is in the Industrial Efficiency sector with 35 percent of total workers in the industry. Overall, the share of female workers in the other green sector industries range between 9 to 22 percent while women make up about 45 percent of the state’s total workforce.
To ensure the continued participation of BIPOC workers and encourage increased participation in green jobs by female workers, the City of Santa Cruz should consider implementing apprenticeship programs specifically targeted to the needs of female workers. This consideration is especially relevant in the recovery from COVID-19, which had a disproportionate impact on women in the workforce.
State of California
26.486
Appendix
02/12/2021 | Final Report 25 26.487
Blue
-collar workers
Definition: includes workers in Farming/Fishing/Forestry, Construction/Extraction, Installation/Maintenance/Repair, Production, and Transportation/Material Moving industries
Direct Jobs
Jobs that are fully integrated within the investment activities Just Transition
Definition: A program to ensure equitable transition of workers from industries expected to contract from specific investment scenarios.
NAICS codes
Definition: The standard classification used by Federal statistical agencies in classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy.
SOC codes
Definition: A federal statistical standard used by federal agencies to classify workers into occupational categories for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data White-collar workers
Definition: includes workers in Management/Business/Financial, Professional, Sales, and Administrative Support industries
Services workers
Definition: includes workers in Healthcare support, Protective service, Food preparation and serving related occupations, building and grounds cleaning and maintenance, and personal care and service occupations
26 Appendix A: Key Terms and Concepts
June 2022 | FINAL 26.488
27 Appendix B: Employment in Santa Cruz-Watsonville MSA Detail Source: State of California Employment Development Department Occupational Title Base Year Employment
Estimate (2018)
Projected Year Employment
Estimate (2028) Numeric Change Percentage Change
Median Annual
Wage
Management Occupations 10,490 10,720 230 2% $108,115
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 4,820 5,360 540 11% $72,633 Computer and Mathematical Occupations 2,310 2,600 290 13% $90,357 Architecture and Engineering Occupations 1,470 1,710 240 16% $96,537 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 1,800 2,150 350 19% $83,105 Community and Social Service Occupations 3,410 3,910 500 15% $51,226 Legal Occupations 650 650 0 0% $97,896
Education, Training, and Library Occupations 9,200 9,890 690 8% $58,039 Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 1,610 1,660 50 3% $60,940 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 4,920 5,630 710 14% $114,576 Healthcare Support Occupations 2,490 2,810 320 13% $31,438 Protective Service Occupations 1,780 1,870 90 5% $41,450 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 12,840 14,180 1,340 10% $28,461 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 4,270 4,600 330 8% $33,869 Personal Care and Service Occupations 7,620 9,220 1,600 21% $30,222 Sales and Related Occupations 10,520 10,640 120 1% $34,739 Office and Administrative Support Occupations 16,190 16,340 150 1% $44,125 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 5,230 4,960 -270 -5% $25,352 Construction and Extraction Occupations 4,770 5,150 380 8% $57,451 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 3,430 3,550 120 3% $51,940 Production Occupations 4,550 4,770 220 5% $36,386
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 5,210 5,690 480 9% $34,820 Change in Industry Employment 2018-2028 & Industry Median Annual Wages June 2022 | FINAL
Personal Care and Service Occupations and Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations are expected to grow at the
highest rates in the Santa Cruz-Watsonville MSA.
26.489
28 Disclaimer
Notice to Reader
This report was prepared by Hatch for the sole and exclusive use of City of Santa Cruz. (the “Client”).
Hatch acknowledges that this report may be provided to third parties provided that all such parties shall rely upon this report at their own risk and shall (by virtue of their receipt of the report) be deemed to have (a) acknowledged that Hatch shall not have any liability to any party other than the Client in respect of the report and (b) waived and released Hatch from any liability in connection with the report.
This report contains the expression of the opinion of Hatch using its professional judgment and reasonable care based on information available and conditions existing at the time of preparation.
The use of or reliance upon this report is subject to the following:
• This report is to be read in the context of and subject to the terms of the relevant services agreement between Hatch and the Client (the “Hatch Agreement”), including any methodologies, procedures, techniques, assumptions, and other relevant terms or conditions specified in the Hatch Agreement;
• this report is meant to be read as a whole, and sections of the report must not be read or relied upon out of context; and • unless expressly stated otherwise in this report, Hatch has not verified the accuracy, completeness or validity of any information provided to Hatch by the Client and Hatch does not accept any liability in connection with such information.
June 2022 | FINAL 26.490
Santa Cruz
Green Economy
and
Jobs Analysis:
Part 2
A report for
June 2022 | FINAL 26.491
June 2022 | FINAL
2 Green Jobs Analysis:
Assumptions & Methodology
Any increase in government and private sector
spending related to the Climate Action Plan and
associated greenhouse gas reduction measures
will generate economic activity, resulting in
changes to employment. For the City of Santa Cruz’
Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030, Hatch evaluated
the number of jobs that may be created by three
CAP measures: • BE-2 and 3: Electrify31% of existing residential and 26% of commercial buildings by 2030 and
53% and 45% by 2035 for residential and
commercial buildings, respectively,
• T-1: Implement programs for active
transportation, such as walking and biking, that
achieve 23% of bicycle mode share by 2030 and
30% by 2035, and
• T-4: Increase passenger zero-emission vehicle
use and adoption to 35% by 2030 and 40% by
2035.
To estimate the employment impacts that may
result from the City of Santa Cruz CAP measures,
Hatch has used Type I employment multipliers
from the Regional Input-Output Modeling System
(RIMS II) for the State of California. Hatch used Type
I employment multipliers to account for direct and
indirect impacts of City spending to jobs.
Type I employment multipliers include impacts
from direct and indirect spending but exclude
induced impacts that result from increase
household income. More detail on methodology
and the input-output framework related to RIMS
can be found here.
Assumptions
This type of analysis requires several inputs. Hatch
has assumed the following: • The spending related to these measures would not have occurred without the Climate Action
Plan in place.
• Investments made by private entities that would
have occurred regardless of CAP measures are
excluded from this analysis. This includes the
electrification of new construction and the
adoption of electric vehicles by private citizens.
• The spending related to these measures does
not represent a reduction in spending in other
sectors.
• A local spending factor of 95% for construction
related activities and 50% for component
manufacturing. This is meant to approximate
how much of the spending will be within the
State of California.
Source: Rincon, RIMS II
Overview
26.492
Hatch performed this green jobs analysis to support the City in its pursuit to meet the green economy goals identified with stakeholders as part of the CAP 2030 process. • Support the reduction targets set in CAP 2030 particularly highest mitigating measures and actions
• Seek large-scale investments and partnerships that help achieve economies of scale
• Give attention to pressing issues regarding unequal conditions in the labor market namely on job quality
• Balance climate action plans and climate stabilization programs with complementary economic development strategies
• Implement local hire provisions and related measures when expanding climate/green job opportunities
• Ensure job access by historically under-represented, under-served, and underresourced members of the community • Address equitable access to high-quality training and workforce development programs
To ensure an accountable process, the City, in turn, incorporated green economy goals as measures and actions in its CAP update. These measures are listed in the adjacent blue box. Through the City’s CAP DASH and measures/actions metrics, the City will be able to track the impact of the CAP to the green economy beyond the estimated jobs resulting from this report.
June 2022 | FINAL 3
Green Jobs Analysis:
Green Economy Goals
CAP 2030 Green Economy Measures and Actions
• Measure CE-1-1: Prioritize opportunities for greatest climate benefit and economic inclusion especially for minority, veterans, and women-owned businesses in climate related sectors
Actions
• Accelerate housing development within City limits, concentrating the most intensive growth in central areas of the City to promote walking and biking to nearby jobs, entertainment, goods, services, and public transportation • Prioritize expansion of affordable housing stock
• Address pressing issues regarding local purchasing, local hire, supply chain, and unequal conditions in the labor market
• Encourage lifestyle choices that reduce consumption-based emissions including plant-based diets, travel alternatives and local purchasing by leveraging community activation platform and community partners
• Measure CE-1-2: Support equitable access to high-quality training and workforce development programs in climate related sectors
Actions
• Equitably support entrepreneurship and increase in quality of jobs and access to local jobs and business development
• Support regional collaboration regarding climate, jobs, housing and economic development
26.493
June 2022 | FINAL 4
Green Jobs Analysis:
Building Electrification
Overview
This measure is expected to result in increased spending on building retrofits. Because of this, Hatch has only considered the retrofit of existing buildings, as electrification of new construction is not associated with a significant increase in spending compared to mixed-fuel building. TRC has estimated that the electrification of eligible existing residential buildings will cost an average of $300 million and commercial building an average of $10.5 million. Based on TRC assumptions, Hatch has estimated that 70% of this spending will be toward material ($218 million) and 30% toward labor ($93 million).
Employment Impacts
This spending will create an estimated 1,600 to 1,850 jobs in total. About 700 to 850 of these jobs will be in the Construction sector, and 900 to 1,000 in electrical equipment manufacturing. Assuming a time period of 20 years for the electrification of eligible existing buildings in Santa Cruz, this translates to a total of 50 to 55 jobs annually, 20 to 25 in construction and 30 in manufacturing. Electrification of new buildings is expected to be cost effective, and will not represent any new additional spending, so it is excluded from this analysis.
Job Quality Impacts
This measure, particularly for existing buildings, is associated with increased capital expenditures during building retrofits and renovations. The job skills, including electric retrofitting, appliance installation, remain relatively constant between a scenario with this measure implemented and a scenario without this measure. In California, direct jobs related to building retrofits have an average annual salary of $73,700, and about 19% of workers in this field are members of a union. Almost 40% of workers in this field have healthcare coverage and a quarter have a retirement plan. Workers in electricity manufacturing in California earn average salaries of $82,900 and 16 percent of those workers have union membership. Nearly 42% of these workers have health insurance coverage, and 27% have retirement plans. These indicators show relatively high job quality, with salaries over the state average of $65,500.
Workers in these sectors are diverse, with over 60% being Black, Indigenous and People of Color.
However, women make up only 9% of building retrofit employees and 11% of electricity production workers. The City of Santa Cruz may consider workforce development programming to encourage better access for women in these types of jobs.
Source: TRC: City of Santa Cruz Existing Building Electrification Analysis 2021; Bureau of Labor Statistics; PERI: A Program for Economic Recovery and Clean Energy Transition in California, Pollinet. al., June 2021 Building Electrification Capital Spending Low High
Labor Capital Expenditures Infrastructure (Net) $83.3M $102.5M Construction Jobs Created (Labor Spending) 525 650
All Jobs Created (Labor Spending) 700 850
Material Capital Expenditures Infrastructure (Net) $195.6M $239.1M Manufacturing Jobs Created (Material Spending) 600 700
All Jobs Created (Material Spending) 900 1,003
Note: low and high cost estimates are generated by adjusting provided cost estimates by 10%. Job estimates are within the Stateof California.
Annual Job Creation Low High
Jobs Created Over Year(s) Investments 20 20
Construction Jobs Created Annually 26 32
All Jobs Created Annually (Labor Spending) 35 42
Manufacturing Jobs Created Annually 30 37
All Jobs Created Annually (Material Spending) 41 50
26.494
June 2022 | FINAL 5
Green Jobs Analysis:
Active Transportation
In the City of Santa Cruz, this measure is associated with approximately $48.3M in capital spending in the short and long term on various improvements to transit infrastructure within City limits to encourage the adoption of active modes of transportation as well as increasing the use of public transportation systems. Most of these costs are associated with construction projects, such as adding bike lanes, traffic signal modifications, pedestrian safety improvements, and programming to improve the overall safety of transit infrastructure. It is unlikely that this capital spending will result in any decreased spending in other sectors.
Employment Impacts
Most of the City of Santa Cruz new active transportation projects are related to construction activities, so Hatch has used the construction industry multipliers to estimate the employment impacts from this measure. The $48.3M capital investment by the City of Santa Cruz on active transportation projects is expected to result in approximately 360 to 430 jobs, 270 to 330 of which are construction jobs. The source for cost data references a 2040 regional transportation plan.
Provided this, Hatch assumed an annual time period of 20 years for this project, this translates to 20 to 22 jobs annually, 15 to 17 of which are in construction trades.
Job Quality Impacts
In the City of Santa Cruz, laborers in construction and extraction occupations earn a median annual salary of $55,770, below the state, but above the city median annual salary of $41,610. In the State of California, surface transportation workers, i.e., laborers that work on surface transportation (road repair, light rail, etc.), earn an average salary of $39,800, which is well below the statewide average. Roughly a fifth of the workers are members of a union, 34% have health insurance coverage and 19.9% have retirement plans. Nearly 65% of these workers are Black, Indigenous and People of Color, and 19.1% are women.
Source: SCCRTC SC County Active Transportation Plan February 2022; City of Santa Cruz Capital Investment Program FY 2022-2026 with CAP Implementing Projects List; Bureau of Labor Statistics; PERI: A Program for Economic Recovery and Clean Energy Transition in California, Pollinet. al., June 2021 Active Transportation Capital Spending Low High
Capital Expenditures Infrastructure (Net) $43.5M $53.1M Construction Jobs Created 270 330
All Jobs Created 360 430
Note: low and high cost estimates are generated by adjusting provided cost estimates by 10%. Job estimates are within the State of California
Overview
Annual Job Creation Low High
Jobs Created Over Year(s) Investments 20 20
Construction Jobs Created Annually 15 17
All Jobs Created Annually (Labor Spending) 20 22
26.495
June 2022 | FINAL 6
Green Jobs Analysis:
Electric Vehicle Adoption
Overview
This measure will include increased spending on charging and maintenance infrastructure, potentially increased spending on vehicle service, and decreased spending on vehicle maintenance. Electrifying the City of Santa Cruz’ fleet of eligible vehicles (EVs) is estimated to generate nearly $1 million in total cost of ownership savings, even when considering the need for charging infrastructure and higher capital cost of electric vehicles compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Models estimate that California will need more than 700,000 shared private and public chargers in 2030 to support 5 million ZEVs, and nearly
1.2 million chargers to support 8 million ZEVs. Santa Cruz has estimated that 1,250 commercial EVSE (electric vehicle supply equipment) will need to be installed citywide, with an estimated cost of $50,000 per charging station. Hatch has assumed that 50 percent of the costs related to charger installation will be spent in California.
Employment Impacts
For the purposes of this analysis, Hatch used the City’s known investments in electric vehicle infrastructure to estimate job generation. The City of Santa Cruz estimated that it will need to spend roughly $31.3 million on EV charging infrastructure to meet the charging demands of electric vehicles in the community. This spending will result in the estimated generation of 120 to 150 new jobs, 95 to 115 of which are in the construction sector. Hatch has excluded the procurement of new vehicles from this analysis, as an alternative scenario with the procurement of ICE vehicles would result in a similar level of spending, generating a comparable level of employment impacts.
Job Quality Impacts
In California, workers in the electric vehicle sector or the high-efficiency auto sector earn average salaries of $88,700, nearly 70% have health insurance coverage, and over half have a retirement plan. Union membership in this sector is 7.2%. Nearly 70% of these workers are Black, Indigenous and People of Color, and 22.4% are women, which is comparatively high to other “green” sectors.
Widespread EV adoption is not expected to significantly impact jobs in auto sales or repair, as the demand for service and repairs is likely to remain the same or even increase relative to ICE vehicles. While maintenance costs might be lower for EVs, service costs are anticipated to be higher and require more labor hours. With service costs typically higher for EVs, higher wages may be expected for auto mechanics that can service EVs. The City of Santa Cruz may consider subsidized Certified EV Technician (CEVT) programs to local auto mechanics to aid in reskilling the local workforce for increased adoption of EVs.
Electric Vehicle Adoption Low High
Capital Expenditures Infrastructure (Net) $28M $34M
Construction Jobs Created 95 115
All Jobs Created 120 150
Note: low and high cost estimates are generated by adjusting provided cost estimates by 10%. Job estimates are within the State of California. EV charging infrastructure estimates are based on anticipated commercial EVSE targets of 1,250 and assumes installation of DCFC after rebates.
Case Study: CALeVIP
California Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP) currently provides incentives for EV charger installations and works with local partners on projects that support regional EV needs for Level 2 and direct current fast charging (DCFC). The program to date has spent $8 million statewide on Level 2 chargers and $34 million on DCFC statewide.
Source: City of Santa Cruz Electrification Feasibility Assessment October 2021; City of Santa Cruz Climate Action Program Staff; Bureau of Labor Statistics; PERI: A Program for Economic Recovery and Clean Energy Transition in California, Pollinet. al., June 2021; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 26.496 June 2022 | FINAL 7
Green Jobs Analysis:
Skills Training and Conclusion
Skills Training
Reskilling workers is a key component in supporting green jobs. As legacy technologies are phased out and replaced with more sustainable or renewable options, workers in industries likely to phased out need to hone their transferable skills and gain new skills that can be applied to growing industries, in order to limit the impacts of unemployment and job loss that could result from Climate Action Plans or Greenhouse Gas emissions reductions targets. The CAP measures analyzed here do not have a significant negative impact on jobs in Santa Cruz. In fact, the increase in spending associated with these measures is likely to result in expanded jobs as discussed in this report. Regardless, it is important to consider workers that may be left behind in a shift to a green economy and provide them with the tools and programming necessary to ensure their ability to participate in a shifting labor market.
Sample Reskilling Programs
A joint proposal is an excellent mechanism to develop a just transition program while generating buy-in among key stakeholders – workers, community members, advocacy groups, employers, and the government – and securing diverse sources of funding.
The Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County used a joint proposal to coordinate key stakeholders - Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), environmental advocacy organizations (the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental California, and the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility), unions (IBEW Local 1245 and the Coalition of California Utility Employees) – as both units at the plant are set to be decommissioned by 2025. Their joint proposal includes an employee program with a severance package, a retention program (until closure), and a retraining and development program so workers can move to other PG&E locations. Approximately $222.6 million was approved for this program, allocating about $150,000 for each employee. This was recovered through funds from taxpayers. Furthermore, PG&E also came to an agreement with labor and environmental groups to create a Community Impacts Mitigation Program, costing $85 million, to ease local economic impacts that may arise from the plant's closure.
The private realm may also support workforce development programs. Bosch, headquartered in Germany, has planned to spend €2 billion on reskilling workers as car industry shifts to electric, retraining some of its 400,000 staff. Bosch has already spent €1 billion on programs to reskill those working on legacy technologies over the past five years (from 2017 to 2022) and plans to spend a similar sum over the next five years. This equates to roughly €500 spent per employee per year.
Conclusion
Based on the assessments in prior sections, known investments resulting from the adoption of the City’s CAP 2030 measures related to building electrification, active transportation, and electric vehicles would represent no negative impact to the City’s existing green jobs. These three select measures alone may have the potential to generate over 2,000 jobs during the allocated project timelines.
Any future investments in addition to those referenced in this study have the potential to impact the City’s job growth. Working with the City’s Economic Development Office, the Finance Department, and the Community Development Department, the Climate Action Program management should consider formalizing the means to identify and track progress of CAP measure-related projects during the citywide Capital Investment Project and annual budget process. The process of tracking should include any increase or decrease of funds for CAP measure-related projects approved in City budgets. The multiplier method to estimate the jobs resulting from tracking CAP measure-related projects can then be applied to adjust any job growth forecast over the lifespan of the CAP.
Further, the City’s Economic Development Office should consider updating the Economic Development Strategy, or any related plan and or policy document that guides the City’s economic development, to incorporate green economy goals and climate actions’ impact to the City’s workforce. With the green economy incorporated in the Economic Development Strategy, the City may begin to use job generation and job quality resulting from climate measures as an additional metric to evaluate socioeconomic conditions in the City.
Source: Financial Times; UC Berkeley Labor Center; Note: The funding required for just transition programs in the City of Santa Cruz may differ from the examples provided the scale of industries and job sectors affected in the City compared to the example geographies. 26.497 8 Disclaimer
Notice to Reader
This report was prepared by Hatch for the sole and exclusive use of City of Santa Cruz. (the “Client”).
Hatch acknowledges that this report may be provided to third parties provided that all such parties shall rely upon this report at their own risk and shall (by virtue of their receipt of the report) be deemed to have (a) acknowledged that Hatch shall not have any liability to any party other than the Client in respect of the report and (b) waived and released Hatch from any liability in connection with the report.
This report contains the expression of the opinion of Hatch using its professional judgment and reasonable care based on information available and conditions existing at the time of preparation.
The use of or reliance upon this report is subject to the following:
• This report is to be read in the context of and subject to the terms of the relevant services agreement between Hatch and the Client (the “Hatch Agreement”), including any methodologies, procedures, techniques, assumptions, and other relevant terms or conditions specified in the Hatch Agreement;
• this report is meant to be read as a whole, and sections of the report must not be read or relied upon out of context; and • unless expressly stated otherwise in this report, Hatch has not verified the accuracy, completeness or validity of any information provided to Hatch by the Client and Hatch does not accept any liability in connection with such information.
June 2022 | FINAL 26.498
APPENDIX H:
Funding and Financing
Implementation
Memorandum
26.499
26.500
Climate Action Plan 2030: Funding and
Financing and Implementation Memo
City of Santa Cruz
July 2022
26.501
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Overview .....................................................................................................................................................................3 Funding and Financing Approaches ................................................................................................................................3 Implementation Commitments ........................................................................................................................................4
2.0 Funding and Financing Approaches.....................................................................................................................4
2.1 Federal and State Funding .........................................................................................................................................5
2.2 Municipal Funds and Financing ................................................................................................................................5 Bonds 5
Fees and Rates...............................................................................................................................................................7
2.3 Private Funding .............................................................................................................................................................7
2.4 Overcoming Challenges for Funding and Financing ............................................................................................9 Transfer Knowledge Regarding CAP 2030 Update, Internally and Externally ...............................................10 Recommendation(s): 10
Example(s): 11
Pros/Cons: 11
Engage the Private Realm.........................................................................................................................................11 Recommendation(s): 11
Example(s): 12
Pros/Cons: 12
Pool Internal and External Resources ....................................................................................................................12 Recommendation(s): 12
Example(s): 12
Pros/Cons: 13
Engage with Community to Build Community Support....................................................................................13 Recommendation(s): 13
Pros/Cons: 14
Update Financial Standards.....................................................................................................................................15 Recommendation(s): 15
Example(s): 15
Pros/Cons: 16
Fund the Lifecycle.......................................................................................................................................................16 Recommendation(s): 16
Example(s): 16
3.0 Committing to Implementation and Accountability ......................................................................................18 Commitments to Accountability.....................................................................................................................................20
26.502
2 4.0 Disclaimer and Limitations of Use ......................................................................................................................21
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
CAP 2030 Climate Action Plan 2030
CDP Carbon Disclosure Project
CCCE Central Coast Community Energy
EP3 Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy
ESCO Energy Service Companies
EV Electric Vehicle
GHG Greenhouse Gas
LIFT Low-Income Families and Tenants
MCE Marin Clean Energy
P3/PPP Public-Private Partnership
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric
KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS
Although the terms funding and financing are often used interchangeably in policy contexts, for the purposes of this analysis, funding is defined distinctly from financing. Funding refers to the money used for a specific purpose or project, raised at one time or over time through methods like grants or taxes, while financing refers to the process of receiving money that must eventually be paid back to the financial institutions lending it, such as banks. As a result of this payback requirement, financing presupposes an underlying revenue source available for repayment over time. This memo focuses on funding sources that will be pursued, received, managed, and/or tracked by the City of Santa Cruz, not by the private realm or individuals, to support CAP 2030 measures.
26.503
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
3 1.0 Overview
Implementation of the climate action plan is a pivotal step in meeting the established emissions reduction targets set forth as part of the City of Santa Cruz’ Community-wide Climate Action Plan 2030 (CAP 2030). For the major measures analyzed, the City of Santa Cruz is facing a $1 billion community wide gap to implements the plan over the next eight to ten years. This memo identifies select funding tools and financing mechanisms. It also highlights implementation steps that support achievement of the City’s CAP 2030 measures, namely investments in buildings, transportation, energy generation and other infrastructure or programs that result in emissions reductions and priority co benefits like jobs generation and resiliency.
Funding and Financing Approaches
Because municipalities around the world already face challenges in meeting their residents’ needs for investment in many types of critical infrastructure and programs, this document examines funding and financing approaches that go beyond the use of citywide general or enterprise funds to pay for climate-related programs. Stacking and leveraging funding and financing from beyond municipal sources are central to unlocking investments that generate benefits for a wide group of constituencies, especially historically underrepresented or other marginalized residents in the City and just beyond its borders.
In the case of the City, a California municipality with high tax rates compared to the rest of the state,1 City officials must supplement traditional municipal fundraising mechanisms, such as taxes and fees, with other sources such as public-private partnerships, grants, or community funds to name a few.
Grants from government agencies and philanthropies historically have been favored in Santa Cruz. Grants have been useful in funding technical assistance and capacity building programs in the City. The accompanying Funding and Financing Pathways Matrix (Pathways Matrix) provides a list of grants supported by varying levels of government and different private organizations. While grants identified are viable options for funding CAP measures, some funds are competitive and, often, funds received do not cover the full costs of larger projects. In general, these types of funds also do not serve as a long-term resource for municipalities since sources have term limits and are sensitive to organizational changes. Grants also require high capacity to apply, manage, and report on funds and funding sources.
Residents and business owners may also privately support the City in achieving goals of the CAP 2030 using individual contributions. These community funds have been shown as a resourceful means to attracting additional capital and financing supported by large organizations and municipalities. This document, for example, mentions novel climate investment tools, such as Climatize, that help streamline crowdsourcing and private investment in climate action projects. While it remains vital that the City identify beneficiaries of investments who may be able to invest in or advocate for public funding for a given project, the City should be wary of how these investments are subject to market conditions and the availability of discretionary income of private participants, factors typically not within the City’s control. For example, it can be difficult to estimate the amount of funds that can be raised through micro loans and crowdsourcing if the goals are not met. 1 Santa Cruz sales tax is 9.25%, and currently already has active business improvement districts in certain areas. In June 2022, Santa Cruz voters rejected Measure F, which would have authorized an additional 0.5% sales tax in the City.
26.504
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
4 Implementation Commitments
In general, access to sources of financing is not the only challenge for communities seeking to implement CAPs; rather the bigger issue is the shortage of funding that can pay back financing (such as the bonds mentioned below, mainstream, or otherwise) and, more importantly, the staffing capacity required to monitor the lifecycle of the CAP, from pooling resources, building community support, securing partnerships, raising funds, implementing measures, and tracking progress against targets. While it is critical the City overcome key financing challenges and identify innovative funding tools, communities can best meet the challenge of project development by paying close attention to ensuring organizational capacity is available and accountability is built-in as part of the implementation process.
2.0 Funding and Financing Approaches
To hone the City’s ability to secure funds and financing for CAP 2030, this memo summarizes three categories of major funding and financing tools: Federal and State Funding; Municipal Funds and Financing; and Public-Private Partnerships. Grouping the tools enables the City to coordinate and prioritize key stakeholders that could be willing to provide monetary, political or other support for implementation more readily.
The accompanying Funding and Financing Pathways Matrix (Pathways Matrix) provides a more detailed list of funds or financing. Hatch identified these funds and financing tools based on their compatibility with the CAP 2030 and their applicability given the City’s financial policies. The Pathways Matrix includes tools and mechanisms currently in-use by the City as well as those available at the time of this writing.
Table 1: Priority Actions for Funding and Financing
Funding
and
Financin
g Group
Description Time
Frame
Examples
Federal and
State
Funding
These are typically in the form of grants awarded by the state or federal government. These funds are best suited for capital expenditures, as they are usually granted on a one-time basis and cannot be relied upon for ongoing operations expenses.
Short-term
to
Long-term
Surface Transportation
Block Grant (Federal);
Building Electrification and
Storage Program (State)
Municipal
Funds and
Financing
This broad category includes bonds to borrow against revenue stream from various municipally charged fees and taxes as well as development impact fees.
The commonality is each fee are imposed on individual properties and/or property owners that pays for a service or for use of a City-owned asset. Except for impact fees, municipal bonds and tax rates are typically set against the citywide budget.
Mid-term to
Long-term
Developer Impact Fees;
Green Bonds; Taxincrement Financing (e.g.,
Enhanced Infrastructure
Finance Districts,
Community Revitalization,
and Investment
Authorities); Carbon Fund
(internal surcharges)
Private
An example of a private funding tool is a public-private partnership (P3). A P3 is a contractual relationship between the public owner and one or more private sector entities. P3s can have many different contracting approaches and are typically unique for different scenarios. Other mechanisms to encourage or enforce private investment into the CAP measures are building codes, public incentives, business improvement districts, and community benefit agreements.
Private and individual philanthropic involvement is also included in this category.
Short-term
to Mid-term
Community Benefit
Agreements; Public Private
Partnerships (P3s); Energy
Efficiency Programs with
utilities
26.505
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
5 2.1 Federal and State Funding
State and Federal grant programs have the potential to provide a significant amount of funds for capital investments related to CAP 2030 measures. This may include building retrofits, active transportation infrastructure, capital projects related to waste reduction, and infrastructure to support EV adoption in the City. Federal and state grants included in the Pathways Matrix range in size from under $1 million to $35 million per award. Refer to the Pathways Matrix for more detail on available grants.
There are opportunities to raise significant funds through grants, but many of them require matching from municipalities, meaning that some grant projects may require additional funding sources. Despite this, grants can help significantly alleviate the pressure on municipal funding sources such as the general fund or reduce the need to levy new taxes or fees.
Some grants are available only on a one-time basis while others have recurring funds for many years. The City should identify which grants are feasible for CAP 2030 measure projects to develop a more specific timeline for funding.
Municipalities also typically see benefits in bundling grant and incentive funding. For example, the Low-Income Families and Tenants (LIFT) Pilot Program from Marin Clean Energy (MCE) has bundled grant and incentive funding from the federal Energy Savings Assistance Program (ESAP), the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative, and other energy efficiency incentives to benefit multifamily properties that are left out of existing low-income programs. The program provides several services, including upgrading gas furnaces to electric heat pumps, weatherization services, and other home rehabilitation service to improve resident’s health such as pest management and roof repairs. In addition, bundling building electrification with other capital projects, such as weatherization, roof repairs, road repair, and other utility upgrades may aid in building public support of funding and financing measures that require voter approval.
Key stakeholders for receipt of grants differ based on the grant requirements and measures associated. For building electrifications, as an example, key stakeholders include tenants, property owners, PG&E and its ratepayers, energy developers, and adjacent businesses depending on the approach taken to achieve district-wide building electrification. Tenants, property owners, BWP and ratepayers are all entities who will be involved regardless of scale or funding and financing approach, while energy developers and adjacent businesses may only be involved to the extent that they can participate in retrofits/renewable energy installation or a district-scale approach to electrification, respectively.
2.2 Municipal Funds and Financing
While there are many competing municipal budgetary needs, the City should continue employing municipal funds and financing methods to support future funding needs of projects borne out of the City’s CAP 2030.
Bonds
For the purposes of this memo, municipal financing, on the other hand, allows the City to use funds generated over time as a form of repayment of capital investments. Bonds, particularly General Obligation (GO) bonds, are a commonly used financing tool where a municipality borrows from investors who are paid back with interest.
In the City, a two-thirds voter approval is required for the issuance of new GO bonds. The amount is dependent on a municipality’s debt capacity. As of today, the City has $4 million in total debt service from a previously issued GO
26.506
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
6 bonds and a debt limit that cannot exceed the sum of 15 percent of the total assessed property valuation, a limit that has not been reached. As of 2019, the City of Santa Cruz has a credit rating of AA- from S&P and A+ from Fitch.
The City’s strong credit ratings allow for favorable borrowing rates.2 Municipalities have also recently issued newer Environmental Impact or Sustainability Bonds which funds projects with environmental goals, including adaptation and resilience. These so-called “green” bonds can be issued as municipal bonds, allowing for low-cost financing. Municipalities can use funds raised to cover capital expenses and would be applicable to all capital-intensive measures and actions that are part of CAP 2030. The City of Santa Cruz Water Department has issued green bonds previously. Green bonds are paid back the same way a traditional bond would be, through taxation and the general fund.
There are investors who seek to align their values and finance in climate-related investments. Disclosure of bond proceeds and performance as well as the assessment of climate needs that come with the issuance of green or sustainability bonds may also strengthen municipalities’ bond rating over time.
However, it is important to note that green bonds are not mainstream in the financing market, and as a result, not feasible in the near term. The main reasons for low near-term feasibility of such finance tools include the presence or perception of risk given the lack of a data on performance, and the need for additional data and management requirements that increase administrative burdens and costs.
In the event the City chooses to use bonds, general or special, to pay for capital-intensive CAP 2030 projects, the City’s upcoming Long-Range Financial Plan project may guide that process and the related rate setting exercise (to define revenue sources that will service the debt, see section below).
For a typical municipality, the municipal staff who is typically involved in the process of green bond issuance is a long-range financial planner typically staffed under a Finance department. This staff typically reviews the City’s financial policies, its reserves, and debt service coverage goals against the CAP and related Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) defined by various departments. It is critical to note that bonds may be used only for capital-intensive public programs, not on private property.
For implementation of green bonds, and to avoid “greenwashing,” several certification processes have been created to define eligible green projects, but issuers have not adopted a single standardized process to date; the external review and additional reporting requirements can be seen as increasing administrative burden of the issuance.
Cities like Vancouver have developed an eligibility framework for their Sustainability Bond to define and track use of proceeds.
Timelines for bond issuance vary and depend on the interest rates since bond terms are inversely correlated with interest rates.
2 Based on the Climate Bonds Initiative and the Green Bond Fact Sheet on the City of Santa Cruz
26.507
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
7 Fees and Rates
Beyond municipal financing tools, municipal funds are those that are city-imposed tax or fee that fund services or projects or use of public facility. This includes special taxes such as utility tax, franchise tax, among others. The City has precedence on issuance of socially and environmentally-focused special taxes through the City’s Clean River, Beaches, and Ocean Tax Ordinance with a purpose, in part, to meet federal and state mandate to protect water resources. This tax ordinance includes a parcel tax in Santa Cruz. A similar ordinance may be contemplated for measures and actions that may be mandated by the State, provided the public support and addressing impact to affordability.
The City of Santa Cruz implemented a Carbon Fund in 2016. The fund’s revenue includes an internal, municipal fossil fuel surcharge of five percent that is allocated to the fund annually and an energy efficiency rebate check deposit.
The fund receipts are allocated to CAP projects after prioritization by the Sustainability team and approval by the City Manager. recommendation and prioritization by the Sustainability Team. Any fund balance at end of the year gets rolled over to the following year. It is expected that the City will continue the internal Carbon Fund for the implementation of CAP 2030.
The City also uses developer impact fees through licenses and permits to pay for infrastructure and public services expansion related to the development. This mechanism can be used for capital costs and does not require voter approval. However, these funds are tied to new developments and increase the cost of development. The fee cannot exceed the reasonable cost of service or facility provision. As these are fees paid by a developer related to a specific project, the funds are dependent on the market conditions and developable land capacity. In addition, the scale of projects paid for using impact fees will be limited to areas with potential for new development.
The City has an upcoming Master Fee Evaluation project slated for FY 23-24, which will include the evaluation of both existing and new fees and how high potential climate-related fees might be included. These fees might include both taxes or impact fees to development, property-related fees such as water, stormwater, and wastewater fees, and non-property related fees, such as gas and electric fees. 3 2.3 Private Funding
Public-private partnerships, or P3s, can be a useful tool for municipalities looking to close funding gaps for a variety of capital projects as well as programming. These types of partnerships can assume many forms and typically require negotiation and complex contracts. P3 agreements can range from minimal involvement, such as providing garbage collection services, to significant involvement, such as building and operating a facility or facilitating and performing infrastructure improvements. In a typical public-private partnership between municipalities and private 3 Detail on specific types of fees can be found in the Funding and Financing Pathways Matrix. A summary of department roles by measure can be found in the CAP Google Sheet.
There is precedence in the City to use
impact fees for climate-related
endeavors. The City’s Planning and
Community Development Fee Schedule
includes a charge of 0.25 percent of
overall project valuation with a
maximum of $50,000 for its Green
Building Program Management.
26.508
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
8 organizations, municipalities are tasked with project management.4 Timelines for private-public partnerships vary but usually they are one-off and are completed based available funding from the partner.
City officials can begin the process by identifying projects that private entities may have an interest in, quantifying the amount of funding needed, and reaching out to key contacts. As a first step, the City can identify private stakeholders that may be interested in getting involved, such as Community Choice Aggregation or CCA, such as CCCE, ESCOs, The University of California at Santa Cruz, private businesses, and others. The City can prioritize fostering relationships with organizations that have existing climate-related commitments and align CAP goals where feasible.
Despite a more complex structure, P3s usually allow municipalities to ensure private partners meet performance standards as part of the agreement.
While there can be benefits from the participation of the City’s private sector in public infrastructure projects, including access to financing that can support multi-function projects at large scale and more flexibility in raising and deploying funds in support of projects, it is important to acknowledge that private sector participation in any type of investment is heavily influenced by the private sector entity’s ability to secure a positive financial return.
There are a growing number of P3s are structured in a manner that can result in undesirable public outcomes, including relinquishing decision-making control of local assets, long-term payment commitments that can lock in government budgets for decades, and a requirement for payment regardless of the future level of public demand for the infrastructure service.
It is critical that all types of P3 agreements in support of CAP infrastructure projects include metrics and processes to evaluate whether the private provision of service is meeting the public partner’s goals for service provision.
Evaluation metrics and KPIs will vary at the project level.
For example, City of Cupertino in California has tapped private partners to help in meeting their CAP targets.5 One of the key measures from Cupertino’s CAP include supporting Apple, the City’s largest employer, in continuing to procure biofuel for the company’s fuel cell located in Cupertino. Cupertino will verify Apple’s process for procuring biofuel and Apple’s reporting methodologies prior to accounting the biofuel purchase directly in the City’s emissions inventory. To reduce GHG emissions, Apple procures biofuel through a book and claim agreement to power their fuel cell. Because the biogas avoids natural gas usage equal to Apple’s fuel cell usage within the geographical boundaries of the United States, which is not being claimed by anyone else, natural gas fuel cell combustion emissions are considered zero. This process is verified annually through Apple’s regular sustainability reporting. This approach to accounting for biofuels is supported by the California Air Resources Board as part of their Low Carbon Fuel Standard program, a program which the City commits to exploring as part of the Climate Action Plan 2030. 6 Furthermore, while the U.S. Community Protocol for greenhouse gas emissions accounting “does not provide 4 Other private sources of funding, such as grant programs through Medicaid, can be used by Santa Cruz residents to electrify their homes. Santa Cruz may consider providing resources to increase awareness of their residents to these types of programs. This memo focuses on funding and financing mechanisms that will be primarily implemented by city government and not by individuals. 5 City of Cupertino CAP Update: GHG Emissions Reductions Technical Evidence 6 The LCFS program can be used to help fund development of EV charging infrastructure in Santa Cruz. The LCFS program aims to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels sold in-state by 20 percent by 2030 through annually declining targets. Petroleum fuel importers, refiners, and wholesalers in California are required to reduce carbon intensity across their product lines under the LCFS as a means to reduce the overall GHG emissions generated from the transportation sector at the state level. To ensure that the carbon intensity of its overall fuel pool meets the annual LCFS target, a regulated entity must lower the carbon intensity of its fuel pool (by substituting cleaner fuels) and/or purchase LCFS credits from other regulated entities.
26.509
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
9 guidance on quantifying or reporting on GHG benefits associated with actions that have been or could be taken to reduce emissions, carbon offset projects, purchased carbon credits, or renewable energy credits” they do state that information on these types of activities is “best presented in the context of climate action plans”.
In another example, the City of Sacramento developed an agreement that would authorize a partnership with EVgo, for EVgo’s development and operation of up to six direct current (DC) fast chargers and ten designated EV parking spaces in the public right-of-way in 2017.
In addition, Californian Investor Owned Utility PG&E’s program was designed to address barriers to EV adoption in Low-Income communities by providing EV financing, education, and development of charging infrastructure.
Customers are automatically enrolled in time of use charging, which provides low-cost rates for charging while strengthening the grid through flexible storage and demand shifting. The program encouraged the development of Level 2 chargers in neighborhoods and multifamily homes while supporting DC Fast Chargers in public areas like grocery stores and parking lots.
Locally, CCCE launched a New Construction Electrification Program which provide a maximum of $150,000 for developers looking to construct new, all-electric affordable housing units within the CCCE service area through a first come, first served application process. The program has $1.5 million in funding and is open until the funds are reserved. CCCE also partnered with TECH Clean California to provide cash incentives to contractors who qualify for heat pump electrification projects within their service area.
These are just a couple examples of how P3s can support Climate Action Plan measures. While P3s have the potential to fund projects partially or even completely, they may require municipal resources to cover transaction costs for negotiation, contract management, project management, and communication of logistics for receipt of funds with residents and private businesses.
2.4 Overcoming Challenges for Funding and Financing
Funding and financing should be considered as an integrated component of the CAP 2030 and doing so increases the number of paths to paying for these investments. This is a particularly relevant consideration given that fully funding CAP 2030 actions will require multiple sources of funding, and each could draw on numerous financing mechanisms.
However, the challenges to investment in the CAP 2030 are many, as described in the discussion of major funding and financing tools in the previous sections of this memo. These challenges are also interconnected, and failure to address them collectively could stall the implementation of climate action.
This section discusses steps, shown in the flow diagram below, the City can take to more effectively employ funding tools and financing mechanisms given existing resources and constraints at the City. The City may consider the steps illustrated as preparation for availing funds or integrating the CAP into the City’s recurring processes for financial planning including the City’s Master Investment Strategy/Financial Plan in fiscal year 2023.
26.510
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
10 Definitions, example actions, benefits, and drawbacks of each step follow.
Transfer Knowledge Regarding CAP 2030 Update, Internally and Externally Recommendation(s):
● The City should continue to develop and maintain venues for sharing climate change information, emissions reduction targets, as well as ongoing lessons learned from CAP 2030. These tools educate the community on the resources required for implementation of contemplated CAP measures and could deepen the locality’s understanding of critical needs for public funds to enact the CAP, see note below on CAP Dash.
● The City and the City’s private sector both have a stake in the CAP 2030. The City should continue to be in dialogue with the business community, especially about how risk management approaches evolve with developing knowledge of climate change and its potential impacts. The City can do so through its existing collaborative networks and working groups, internally and externally. ● To disseminate CAP-related information more effectively to the private realm, the City should update sections on Small Businesses and Commercial District and City Services and Processes of the City’s Economic Development Strategy to include CAP 2030 related actions. ● Transferring knowledge on CAP 2030 should also happen internally and across different departments in the City. Section 3.0 describes cross-departments touchpoints that will only City staff learn, support, and advance goals of the CAP 2030 and the Sustainability Team. For example, the CAP Implementation 101 in November 2022 can provide internal training on the goals and actions surrounding the CAP 2030 Update.
Transfer Knowledge Engage the Private
Realm Pool Resources
Build Community Update Financial
Standards Fund the Lifecycle
26.511
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
11 Example(s):
● As part of CAP 2030, the City will track performance of measures through key metrics set by the City and
tracked through the CAP Dash tool (to be developed in
Summer 2022). To the extent possible, outputs of the CAP Dash could be made public to share progress towards
targets and accountability among stakeholders including the business community.
● Once launched in September 2022, the City can also
reference and provide access to the BrightAction, a Resilient Central Coast community activation platform that provides links to rebate programs and incentives for community
members.
● The City can work with not-for-profits to educate the public and property owners in the City of any funding and financing tools available cross-sector or direct from the private sector to individuals. While not entirely related to climate action, groups provide funding and financing toolkits that assemble a list of sustainable resources to specific causes. For example, the Green and Healthy Homes Initiative showcases a toolkit aimed for lead poisoning prevention using an array of funds from Medicaid to opportunity zones.
Pros/Cons:
● Conscious and comprehensive transfer of knowledge allows those within the City with fewer resources and less capacity to independently access climate-related information when developed accessibly and with cultural sensitivity. It is critical, however, that technical aspects of the CAP 2030 are translated into other languages as to support these communities’ understanding of the relative impacts of the CAP 2030 to their day-to-day lives – whether that is monetarily, economically, or otherwise. ● Including CAP 2030 measures in the Economic Development Strategy or other major planning documents will ensure City staff communicate the potential impacts of the climate action plan to the private sectors, particularly the business community and property owners, and the resources the City may be making available in response to those impacts.
Engage the Private Realm
Recommendation(s):
● Government regulations and policies alone are not sufficient to promote understanding and investments in CAP 2030 at a scale that will meet the needs of the City. The City should follow their previous strategy and communicate with the private realm and/or business community the benefits of actions that address the risks posed by a changing climate as those risks are better understood. See Section 3.0 for suggested private realm touch points.
● More specifically, the City should highlight the CAP 2030 and the associated actions as risk reduction, which can result in cost differentials that can then incentivize private sector investment in projects that respond to climate change.
As part of its 2021 Economic
Development Strategy, the City has
developed strategies for small
businesses to get improved access
technical and financial City resources
and for general business owners to
overcome challenges when navigating
City services. These existing strategies
should apply towards the City’s effort to
implement the CAP 2030.
26.512
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
12 Example(s):
● As an example, the City of Philadelphia addressed major deferred maintenance issues with its stormwater system by adopting and implementing the Green City, Clean Waters program. This initiative couples a green stormwater infrastructure plan with regulations and incentives that encourage private investment in stormwater management and decrease future demand on citywide infrastructure that must function today and in future climate conditions. Under this plan, the City requires large developments to manage rainwater onsite. The program succeeded in communicating to the public and private realm the economic impact of the program including studies that showed estimated property value impact of green stormwater infrastructure investments for private and public projects. While this example relates primarily with resiliency, and not geared towards the implementation of a CAP, it illustrates how private sectors can be engaged through policy.
In 2012, the City of Philadelphia launched a Stormwater Grants Program with the Philadelphia Industrial Corporation with the goal of reducing the price of green infrastructure. Philadelphia has grant programs that encourage private investments in green infrastructure since the City’s water utility, Philadelphia Water Department, found it to be cheaper to invest in private property than construct green infrastructure projects on public lands. The grants are funded partly by the City’s stormwater management service charges which charge non-residential properties and condominiums a rate based on a property’s size and its impervious area.
Pros/Cons:
● Underscoring the risks of climate change to their businesses or properties would allow for the private realm to understand the costs associated to enacting policies and actions from CAP 2030. ● Private sector involvement can support multi-function projects at large scale and provide more flexibility in raising and deploying funds in support of public projects. ● Relinquishing decision-making and control of local assets may occur in public-private partnerships and can lead to undesirable public outcomes if private goals are not aligned property with the public’s.
Pool Internal and External Resources
Recommendation(s):
● The City should continue to collaborate with regional partners as well as institutions in neighboring communities to help achieve multiple benefits for CAP 2030 implementation. This includes district-scale systems and funding or financing that can support coordination between geographies, allow for cost sharing, and reduce the need for new project investment. ● The City should continue to pursue partnerships with workforce development groups who may be able to provide the resources to the City for transition training for emerging green jobs borne out of the CAP 2030 implementation, see Green Jobs Analysis Parts 1 and 2.
● Internally, the City should plan for varying degrees of coordination between departments that are actively working to incorporate CAP 2030 measures, see Section 3.0 of this memo for details on City department coordination.
Example(s):
● The City has created an internal CAP 2030 Implementation Matrix that shows the role of different departments and highlights the need for coordination among internal City departments.
26.513
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
13 ● The City should continue its Climate Action Program management and provide resources for program management to support in climate-related capital planning and resilience policies, initiatives, and financial needs.
● The City should continue actively partnering with neighboring jurisdictions such as the City of Watsonville to secure funds for CAP related pilot programs such as the recent partnership proposal to Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program (DOE WAP) for low-income green and health electrified pilot program and the Rocky Mountain Institute’s equitable existing home electrification programs (supported by equity partners such as the NAACP of Santa Cruz County and Regeneracio of Pajaro Valley). ● The City is in the initial stages of standing up a Regional Climate Project Working Group in the Monterey Bay area including City of Watsonville and the Counties of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and nonprofit partner Ecology Action, to hire a regional grant writer and administrator. The Community Foundation of Santa Cruz County (CFSCC) is the fiscal sponsor. Formalized with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and seeking funds for climate projects ranging from $10 million in its first year alone. Each jurisdiction in the CFSCC has made three fiscal years of funding commitments that was recently supplemented by a $100,000 grant from Central Coast Community Energy. The partnership is selecting consultants to work with as of the writing of this plan. The partnership eyes working CFSCC to also launch a philanthropic giving campaign at the end of calendar year 2022.
Pros/Cons:
● The advantages of having a dedicated program management for the Climate Action Program to coordinate cross-department, resilience-related infrastructure activities are many, yet this arrangement may not be suitable and/or feasible for many communities given resources. ● Pooling external resources and working with regional partners have already proved beneficial to the City. As part of the Monterey Bay Regional Climate Project Working Group, the City has been able to seek funds for CAP related activities, such as regional climate and electrification program. \ ● Bringing together external resources also mean engaging the broader Santa Cruz community, see next strategy “Build Community Support?”.
Engage with Community to Build Community Support
Recommendation(s):
● To complement the strategies, the City should continue to invest in community engagement regarding CAP 2030 as engagement has potential to provide longer-term co-benefits of building local capacity and pursuing more community-based financial resources (that require additional administration), such as philanthropic giving or grants. Section 3.0 describes contemplated public and external touchpoints to transfer knowledge on CAP 2030 and build community support. ● Building community does not need to happen locally nor regionally. The City should consider making its CAP 2030 projects eligible through investment platforms or software applications such as Climatize to seek project support from individual investors, engaging a larger set of community and casting a wider net to raise funds outside of the City’s boundaries.
● The City is in the first of a two-year process to integrate Health in All Policies (HiAP) into its budget process.
This process aims to ensure sustainability, public health, and equity in the City’s policy making process. The goal for year two is to allow HiAP to prioritize budgetary decisions. This approach should be adopted and applied as part of the CAP prioritization and implementation process.
26.514
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
14 ● Community engagements related to CAP 2030 should involve the City’s Public Relations and related communications team to improve coordination, tools, and access across departments. This process also ensures climate considerations are embedded in other forms of engagements being led by other departments within the City.
● The City should engage with the community with equity in mind. For each grant proposal related to CAP 2030 or outreach regarding CAP, especially available funding resources that will help frontline and underrepresented communities, the City should allocate budget for interpretation and culturally appropriate design and promotion of materials as well as improve City staff capacity to do so.
Example(s)
● Through the CAP 2030 process, the City is engaging with Blue Point Planning to utilize the Bright Action Community Activation Platform to continue engage the community on all its climate action initiatives. The platform, CAPDash (to be developed in Summer 2022), may be made publicly available and allow the community to understand the progress the City is making on reducing it’s emissions, the scale of actions related to emissions reductions for the CAP 2030 measures and the funding required for associated projects. Also the City will also be providing community well-being indicators on a website dashboard, as part of Health in All Policies (HiAP). Lastly, the City also has a Climate Action Task Force that meets with the City regularly to participate in all sustainability-related initiatives including the development of the CAP 2030.
● The Fresno Transformative Climate Communities Engagement Process is perhaps the largest communitybased participatory budgeting example in the country. The participatory budgeting process allows the public to provide direct input on which climate action is priority based on the community’s context and needs unlike closed-door project prioritization processes undergone by a typical municipality.
Neighborhood residents, workers, and businessowners participated in project proposal development and prioritization to identify 25 projects worth $216 million, of which $77 million came from the state’s Transformative Climate Communities, which is funded by proceeds from California’s cap-and-trade auction program.
Pros/Cons:
● A comprehensive approach to community engagement in the City with its partners can help to account for the priorities of frontline communities as it relates to the CAP 2030 measures and can promote equitable outcomes in implementation of actions.
● Effective community engagement can strengthen the relationship between the public and government which can build trust and engender support for future projects. ● While participatory budgeting and funding may provide outsized funds, such as the example from the City of Fresno and Climatize, staffing resources should be made available to identify projects and manage funds in a collaborative and nimble way. To address this issue in Santa Cruz, the City has incorporated an additional Management Analyst role in Fiscal Year 2023 to address CAP program capacity. The City has also issued a Request for Qualifications for grants writers, administrators, and trainers for on-call services across departments.
26.515
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
15 Update Financial Standards
Recommendation(s):
● The City should continue to incorporate the City’s CAP 2030 measures and resulting actions into existing funding and budget processes, encourage CAP actions as priorities for departments that have already securing finding through adoption into general plans, capital plans, and other City-led policies to ensure that all projects and programs account for climate action components in existing and budgeted City projects.
● The City should remain diligent in reviewing the applicability of financing tools such as bonds to climate investments.
● In addition, new or more flexible methods for procurement may be incorporated in the City’s fiscal policies to pursue public private partnerships. Developing data that define the benefits and costs of the investments called for by the CAP 2030 actions could help in establishing eligibility criteria, securing grant programs for funding, or in pursuing partnerships with private entities. Resources from FEMA,7 particularly the BCA Toolkit, provide guidance and examples on how to structure benefit-cost analysis related to infrastructure investments.
● The City should continue disclosing climate risks through annual reporting to the Carbon Disclosure Project through the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. Adopted by the City by resolution in 2016, the disclosure reporting allows the City to, in return, receive an annual grade on its actions to combat climate change.
8 This grade is distributed to institutional investors. To further this, the City can adopt a resolution that requires a more expansive climate risks and opportunities disclosure reporting as part of the City’s Debt Management Policy, illustrating how climate change factors are incorporated into the City’s investment practices.
Example(s):
● The City of Vancouver, Canada uses a “green bond” they call the “Sustainability Bond” and defines a “Sustainability Bond Framework” to align financing and investment
activities with long-term environmental and social
sustainability goals. To issue the green bonds, Vancouver set within its framework a list of eligibility criteria that identify eligible capital projects. The criteria are guided by green bond principles set by a consortium of banks and
local government coalitions. Their Sustainability Bonds may include “Green Bonds” that include projects related to renewable energy, energy efficiency, green buildings,
climate change adaptation, etc. as well as “Social Bonds” may include efforts to provide affordable access to
infrastructure. These bonds are paid back similarly to any other bond, through taxation and the general fund.
7 Benefit-Cost Analysis | FEMA.gov
8 In California, some transparency around climate risk is mandated as the state requires insurers to disclose their climate risk through an annual Climate Risk Disclosure Survey.
The Sustainability team identifies
climate supportive projects annually.
The team identified over $65 million of
new and existing Capital Investment
Projects (direct expenditures only) in
the City’s FY 2023 budget that support
the Climate Action Plan 2030. The City
should consider formalizing this
identification and quantification
process as part of its recurring
budgeting process, resources
permitting. This process may also be
the basis for green bond eligibility
framework.
26.516
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
16 ● The country of France requires institutional investors to report on how climate change factors are incorporated into investment policies.
Pros/Cons:
● Adapting the standards of existing funding and financing tools such as the City’s budgetary policies to include clear, measurable, and consistent criteria for evaluating and comparing project risks could help reduce the burden of understanding the impact of measures and actions to reduction of emissions, direct existing resources in support of projects that minimize climate change exposure and limit the need for future costly interventions.
● Tools, including bonds and municipal funding sources, would benefit from the approach above. ● As discussed in the previous section, green bonds are an example of a potentially valuable tool for incorporating CAP measures and resulting actions into the City’s financial strategy. It should be noted, however, that green bonds are not a new type of financing tool, but are a restructuring of traditional bonds with specific goals and objectives related to environmental (or social) benefits. The City must ensure incorporation of CAP goals into its financial policies and goals does not negatively impact the City’s financial integrity.
● Disclosure of climate risk may help the City and its ratepayers recognize investments and associated benefits of climate action. Tools including P3s, and some municipal funding sources would benefit from the transparency that comes with this approach.
Fund the Lifecycle
Recommendation(s):
● After establishing pathways for incorporating CAP 2030 goals into City’s financial policies and processes, the City may contemplate requiring the funding of the full lifecycle costs, i.e. capital costs and ongoing operational costs during the full useful life of a project, of measure and actions that matches local priorities in both the near-and longer term, and the design and selection of projects that are eligible for a wide range of funding sources. Full lifecycle cost analysis also includes evaluation of benefits over time and social cobenefits such as social cost of carbon. As an example, the City estimated citywide emissions resulted in $25 million in social costs. See Section 3.0 (Committing to Implementation and Accountability) of the document for more details for implementation and accountability details. ● The scale of investment required to implement the CAP 2030 will result in a phased implementation approach, though additional implementation capacity from public private partnerships could alleviate the upfront costs of investment. To develop priorities in a phased implementation approach, consideration of changes in costs for technologies like battery storage over the next several years, resilience benefits— particularly for frontline communities, and potential changes in the ability to borrow/cost of borrowing for the City over the implementation timeframe should be used.9 Example(s):
● Bringing more transparency to the full life-cycle costs of a measure and action could help to prevent situations where the public sector must scramble to find funding in ways that increase overall costs or that result in unplanned financial burdens for the public.10 9 The timeframe for when certain technologies become feasible is not well documented or well understood. 10 see City of Santa Cruz Green Jobs Analysis for some of the overall cost anticipated for key measures including building electrification, electric vehicle adoption, and active transportation.
26.517
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
17 26.518
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
18 3.0 Committing to Implementation and Accountability
To accompany financial strategies, additional work to support CAP 2030 measures and associated actions should include enacting policies to support the CAP 2030 actions. For example, introducing guidelines and policies highlighted in this section and other changes to policies that define and enable the use of recent technologies in buildings, transportation, and active transportation.
The following near-term implementation work plan (2023 to 2026) is based on a series of internal City department meetings and external community listening sessions. Each of the following policies, programs, and projects are prioritized by year and departments responsibilities. This effort also concluded with tentative agreements on municipal accountability and implementation structure. For more detail on lead departments and phasing of each CAP measure, see Implementation section of the CAP 2030 Plan.
Work Plan Activities Department (s) Funding Staffing Timeline $ = lowest
cost and $$$
highest cost
to City
Low,
Medium,
High need
for staffing
or staff
capacity
FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
Leverage grant writing
resources to fund priority
measures
Climate Action
Program
$$ Medium ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Develop and implement fossil
fuel divestment policy
Finance $ High ☐
Evaluate feasibility of
completing a life cycle
inventory at least once in the
CAP 2030 implementation
period
Climate Action
Program, City
Manager’s
Office
$ Medium ☐
Complete of Active
Transportation Plan Update
Public Works $$$ Medium ☐
Complete and implement fleet
electrification master plan
(including landscaping
equipment. [funded]
Public Works,
Parks &
Recreation
$$$ Medium ☐
Update food waste to energy
feasibility and design facilities;
Public Works $$$ High ☐
Complete Equitable Existing
Building Roadmap with
phased approach to
electrifying for existing
residential and commercial
buildings. Provide appropriate
training to building
department staff
Planning, City
Manager’s
Office,
Economic
Development
$$$ High ☐ ☐
Adopt Existing Building
Electrification Reach Code
ordinance
Planning, City
Manager’s
Office
$ High ☐
26.519
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
19 Integrate the Climate Action
Plan into the City's upcoming
Master Investment
Strategy/Financial Plan
Finance, All
Departments
$ Medium ☐ ☐
Evaluate compost application
requirement of SB1383 and
obtain funding for tree
projects
Public Works,
Parks &
Recreation, All
Departments
$$ High ☐ ☐
Consider CAP 2030 in Master
Fee Evaluation and Cost
Evaluation Plan and its change
management process
Finance, City
Manager’s
Office
$$ High ☐ ☐
Establish a plan to electrify
and improve health and safety
of the City’s existing affordable
housing stock at
neighborhood level by 2035
Planning, City
Manager’s
Office,
Economic
Development
$ Medium ☐ ☐ ☐
Complete municipal building
electrification master plan
Public Works,
City Manager’s
Office
$ High ☐
Fund and hire an Energy
Manager (aiming to be a cost
neutral position)
Public Works,
City Manager’s
Office, Finance,
Human
Resources
$$ Medium ☐
Update the EP3 with EV first,
electric building first,
increasing plant-based food
purchasing
Public Works,
City Manager’s
Office, Finance
$$$ High ☐
Develop and implement a
Municipal Transportation
Demand Management Plan
Public Works,
Human
Resources
$$ High ☐
Develop Urban Forest Master
Plan and plant ~400 trees per
year
Parks and
Recreation
$$$ High ☐
Develop a remote work
program plan with milestones
over time and evaluate coworking sites
IT, City
Manager’s
Office, Finance,
Human
Resources
$ High ☐ ☐ ☐
Procure and apply compost to
the exterior of suitable
facilities in accordance with
SB 1383 landscape
management needs and plans
evaluate co-working sites
Public Works,
Parks &
Recreation
$$ High ☐ ☐ ☐
26.520
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
20 Complete assessment of
Solar, battery storage,
microgrid feasibility, genset
replacement at municipal
facilities
Public Works,
All Departments
$$$ High ☐ ☐ ☐
Complete all bikeway portions
of Rail Trail and work with
partners to plan light transit to
Rail line
Public Works $$$ High ☐ ☐ ☐
Pursue green workforce
development opportunities
Public Works,
City Manager’s
Office,
Economic
Development,
Water
$ Medium ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐
Complete community wide
greenhouse gas emissions
inventory every three years
Climate Action
Program, City
Manager’s
Office
$$ High ☐ ☐
Commitments to Accountability
In addition to near-term municipal and community-wide actions, the City should also consider recurring steps to establish internal and external accountability towards meeting targets set in CAP 2030. The following touchpoints will allow City leadership and staff to review availability of funds and financing thresholds, track progress against metrics set in the CAP 2030 and tracked in CAP Dash, and adjust priorities as necessary to meet targets set in the CAP.
● Continue membership with Green Cities California
● Continue membership with Urban Sustainability Directors Network ● Continue membership with Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) ● Continue and promote staff membership to Central Coast Climate Collaborative ● Staff participation in CAP 2030 implementation/tracking training from November 2022 onwards ● Full department participation in Sustainability Team
● Annual City Council and Commission presentations
● Participation of departments in the annual risk and progress disclosure submission to the Carbon Disclosure Project
● Participation in the Climate Action Task Force and/or other climate advisory body with bimonthly to quarterly meetings
● Participation in HiAP (Health in All Policies) City Council Committee bimonthly meetings ● (New) Participation in the Annual CAP Implementation Partners Roundtable ● (New) Review and provision of content in the Sustainability Dashboard on Website ● (New) Explore launching a future Master City Wellbeing Dashboard with HiAP, Budget, Energy, etc. t) ● (New) Review and provision of content to the internal CAP Dash Implementation /Funding Tracking ● Participation of CAP x Department Heads Bimonthly Meetings
26.521
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
21 ● Regular City Manager Employee Newsletter posts bimonthly or as activities dictate ● Participation in the Santa Cruz City Schools Green Committee, Citywide Workforce development team, Central Coast Climate Collaborative, and other climate networks.
4.0 Disclaimer and Limitations of Use
This Report was prepared for the City of Santa Cruz (the “Client”) by Hatch Associates Consultants, Inc. (“Hatch”) based in part upon information believed to be accurate and reliable from data supplied by or on behalf of Client, which Hatch has not verified as to accuracy and completeness. Hatch has not made an analysis, verified or rendered an independent judgment as to the validity of the information provided by or on behalf of the Client. While it is believed that the information contained in this Report is reliable under the conditions and subject to the limitations set forth herein, Hatch does not and cannot warrant nor guarantee the accuracy thereof or any outcomes or results of any kind.
Hatch takes no responsibility and accepts no liability whatsoever for any losses, claims, expenses or damages arising in whole or in part from any review, use of or reliance on this Report by parties other than Client.
This Report is intended to be read in its entirety, and sections should not be read or relied upon out of context, and any person using or relying upon this Report agrees to be specifically bound by the terms of this Disclaimer and Limitations of Use. This Report contains the expression of the professional opinions of Hatch, based upon information available at the time of preparation. Unless specifically agreed otherwise in Hatch’s contract of engagement with the Client, Hatch retains intellectual property rights over the contents of this Report.
The Report must be read considering:
● the limited readership and purposes for which it was intended; ● its reliance upon information provided to Hatch by the Client and others which has not been verified by Hatch and over which it has no control;
● the limitations and assumptions referred to throughout the Report; ● the cost and other constraints imposed on the Report; and ● other relevant issues which are not within the scope of the Report.
Subject to contrary agreement between Hatch and the Client:
Hatch makes no warranty or representation to the Client or third parties (express or implied) in respect of the Report, particularly regarding any commercial investment decision made on the basis of the Report; ● use of the Report by the Client and third parties shall be at their own and sole risk, and ● extracts from the Report may only be published with permission of Hatch.
It is understood that Hatch does not warrant nor guarantee any specific outcomes or results, including project estimates or construction or operational costs, the return on investment if any, or the ability of any process, technology, equipment or facility to meet specific performance criteria, financing goals or objectives, or the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of any of the data contained herein. Hatch disclaims all responsibility and liability whatsoever to third parties for any direct, economic, special, indirect, punitive or consequential losses,
26.522
CAP 2030: FUNDING AND FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FINAL | JULY 2022 | REV. 1
22 claims, expenses or damages of any kind that may arise in whole or in part from the use, review of or reliance upon the Report or such data or information contained therein by any such third parties. The review, use or reliance upon the Report by any such third party shall constitute their acceptance of the terms of this Disclaimer and Limitations of Use and their agreement to waive and release Hatch and its Client from any such losses, claims, expenses or damages. This Report is not to be referred to or quoted in whole or in part, in any registration statement, prospectus, fairness opinion, public filing, loan agreement or other financing document Readers are cautioned that this is a preliminary Report, and that all results, opinions and commentary contained herein are based on limited and incomplete data. While the work, results, opinions and commentary herein may be considered generally indicative of the nature and quality of the subject of the Report, they are by nature preliminary only and are not definitive. No representations or predictions are intended as to the results of future work, nor can there be any promises that the results, opinions and commentary in this Report will be sustained in future work.
This Disclaimer and Limitations of Use constitute an integral part of this Report and must be reproduced with every copy.
26.523
26.524
APPENDIX I:
Implementation +
Monitoring Plan
26.525
26.526
Implementation and Monitoring Plan
The City of Santa Cruz developed the CAP to be a visionary yet feasible roadmap with specific implementable actions that will both decrease GHG emissions within the City as well as improve overall resilience to climate change. This appendix describes the overall implementation approach for the CAP.
The measures and actions included in this CAP provide a framework for how the City plans to reach its GHG emissions reduction targets, as required for a qualified GHG reduction plan by CEQA Guidelines § 15183.5(b) while improving resilience to a changing climate. While substantial evidence suggests that the measures and actions outlined in this CAP will achieve the State-mandated goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, consistent with SB 32, uncertainty increases over time. The adoption rates of each measure, cost of technology, legislative environment, and benefits assumed in this report will continue to evolve as new information becomes available. Therefore, this CAP should be viewed as a strategic framework that will be reevaluated over time. This Implementation and Monitoring Plan outlines the roles and responsibilities and funding and financing mechanisms that will allow for active implementation of the CAP. This Implementation and Monitoring Plan also outlines a timeline for CAP updates that will allow the City to respond to changes in legislation and technologies and help ensure the City achieves their GHG reduction targets.
This Implementation and Monitoring Plan includes the following for each action as described in the CAP:
ID The Action ID number unique to each Action
Action The action the City established to reduce GHG emissions Lead Department City department responsible for implementing the action Potential Funding Tool Provides the general type of funding tool(s) that can be used to implement the action. N/A (not available) indicates that a specific funding tool has not yet been identified for the action Phase Timing of when the City plans to initiate and/or complete each action o Phase 1 ● 2022 – 2024
o Phase 2 ● 2025 – 2027
o Phase 3 ● 2028 – 2030
Implementation Notes/Comments Provides notes on where additional details can be found As part of this CAP, the City will complete an annual progress report using CAPDash. The annual progress reports will include calculating an annual communitywide GHG emissions inventory in CAPDash, as well as updating the progress of the emissions reduction measures in the tool. Monitoring will be completed by the appointed leaders within each lead department and data will be shared with the City’s Manager’s Office. Lead departments will have the tools necessary to monitor and track the implementation of the measures that their department is responsible for and will be supported by the City’s Manager’s Office that guides and oversees the process. This table will be updated in future reports to reflect the current implementation status of each action.
26.527
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Measure BE-1: Enforce the City’s new construction natural gas prohibition ordinance (SCMC 6.100) and inform the community regarding the available technology and benefits of electrification.
Metric: Enforcement of SCMC 6.100
and inform public.
Action
BE1.1
Enforce the new construction natural gas prohibition ordinance through the development of a comprehensive permitting compliance program that includes routine training for City staff, dedicating staff time for building inspections, charging fees for noncompliance, providing easy-to-understand compliance checklists online and with permit applications and facilitating permitting online.
Planning Grants,
Grants/Accelerator
1 See Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo,
for additional detail.
Measure BE-2: Electrify 31% of existing residential buildings by 2030 and 53% by 2035. Metric: Increase percentage of electrified existing residential
buildings by 2035.
Action
BE2.1
Develop, implement and enforce phased and equitable electrification ordinance(s) for existing residential buildings by the start of 2023. Maximize permit compliance through streamlining the compliance process, improving third-party enforcement, and advanced training for enforcement staff.
Steps to be completed to adopt the ordinance(s) are as follows:
Step 1: Work with stakeholders in developing an idea for a reach code electrification ordinance(s)
Step 2: Complete a cost effectiveness study
Step 3: Develop and draft the ordinance(s) and go through the public process, incorporating revisions as necessary
Step 4: Go through the formal adoption process
Step 5: Apply for approval by the California Energy Commission.
Planning,
City Manager’s
Office
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants, Assessment,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Utility Fee,
State Funds
1-3 See Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo,
for additional detail.
Action
BE2.2
Identify and partner with local community-based organizations with connections to frontline communities to assist in development of the existing building electrification strategy.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants, Assessment,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Utility Fee,
State Funds
2 See Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo,
for additional detail.
Action
BE2.3
By 2024, establish a plan to electrify and improve health and safety of the city's existing affordable housing stock at a neighborhood level by 2035.
Provide detailed information on the City website including descriptions of the health and environmental benefits of electrification, links to 3CE and PG&E resources on electrification, up-to-date lists of local contractors that perform electric retrofits, and information about the most cost-competitive residential electrification technologies currently available.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants, Assessment,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Utility Fee,
State Funds
2 See Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo,
for additional detail.
26.528
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Action
BE2.4
Work with PG&E and CCCE to identify opportunities to remove obsolete natural gas infrastructure, to redirect PG&E funding allocated for pipeline maintenance to electrification retrofit projects instead. Work with PG&E to identify funding, as needed, for the removal of the infrastructure. Consider a pilot to remove obsolete natural gas infrastructure from municipal buildings.
City Manager’s
Office, Econ Dev.
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants, Assessment,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Utility Fee,
State Funds
2 - 3 See Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo,
for additional detail.
Action
BE2.5
Work with PG&E and CCCE to deploy community solar and electrify existing buildings in residential neighborhoods. Incentivize all-electric retrofits through rebates, on-bill financing, and other mechanisms.
City Manager’s
Office
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants, Assessment,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Utility Fee,
State Funds
2 - 3 See Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo,
for additional detail.
Measure BE-3: Electrify 26% of existing commercial buildings by 2030 and 45% by 2035. Metric: Increase percentage of electrified existing commercial
buildings by 2035.
Action
BE3.1
Adopt, implement and enforce an electrification ordinance for existing commercial buildings by the beginning of 2024.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants, Assessment,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Utility Fee, State
Funds
1-3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
BE3.2
Work with partners to mitigate potential equity impacts of existing commercial building electrification ordinance. Facilitate equitable and inclusive funding opportunities for commercial building electrification.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants, Assessment,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Utility Fee, State
Funds
2 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
BE3.3
Support commercial battery storage installations and business district scale microgrid opportunities.
City Manager’s
Office
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants, Assessment,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Utility Fee, State
Funds
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
BE3.4
Establish a building emissions performance standard for commercial buildings over 20,000 square feet.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants, Assessment,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Utility Fee, State
Funds
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
26.529
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Measure BE-4: Maintain Central Coast Community Energy (CCCE) opt-out rates at or below 4% for residential and 2% for commercial. Metric: Maintain low percentage of 3CE opt-out rates.
Action
BE4.1
Support annual analysis of CCCE opt-out rates in the City and encourage opting up to CCCE prime 100 percent renewable energy option.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 1
Action
BE4.2
Increase uptake of 100 percent renewable energy option from CCCE, incentivizing households in affordable housing units.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 2-3
Action
BE4.3
Promote benefits of opting in to CCCE service, particularly those in frontline neighborhoods and small businesses and veteran, woman and minority owned businesses.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 1
Measure BE-5: Increase resiliency through equitable energy efficiency and local solar programs. Metric: Increased resiliency through equitable programs.
Action
BE5.1
Partner to deliver weatherization, healthy home retrofits, energy efficiency and solar system installs to low-income homeowners and rental units.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 1
Action
BE5.2
Advocate to reform community solar policies and rates, enabling residential and commercial renters to participate in benefits of local solar.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 1
Action
BE5.3
Establish rental building energy performance standards to increase adoption of rebated energy efficiency and electrification measures.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 1
Measure BE-6: Provide inclusive engagement, equitable process and regional coordination to maximize building electrification carbon reduction and other co-benefits.
Metric: Improved engagement and
processes and increased regional
coordination.
Action
BE6.1
Define equity metrics for new and existing building electrification ordinances' implementation and enforcement based on feedback from frontline communities, successful examples from other jurisdictions, and structure ordinances and permitting compliance programs to meet these metrics.
Equity metrics should be designed to prevent displacement and lead to enduser costs for low-income populations that are lower after electrification than before.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 1-2
Action
BE6.2
Partner with CCCE to develop all-electric rates by income-level and incentivize equitable all-electric retrofits.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 1
Action
BE6.3
Advance new and existing building electrification as a priority at all scales. City Manager’s Office,
Econ Dev.
N/A 1-3
26.530
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Action
BE6.4
Advocate for state and federal regulatory changes to enable neighborhood level electrification, community solar, natural gas pruning, and rates stabilization policies.
City Manager’s
Office,
Planning,
Econ Dev.
N/A 1
Action
BE6.5
Conduct a study to evaluate the need to increase fees to provide outreach, trainings, and additional staff for building electrification compliance.
City Manager’s
Office,
Planning
N/A 2
Action
BE6.6
Facilitate equitable access to accurate and current information about electrification programs, incentives and opportunities. Develop induction cooktop loaner programs.
City Manager’s
Office
Planning
N/A 1
Action
BE6.7
Participate in regional workforce development opportunities for building electrification.
Public Works,
Planning,
Econ Dev.,
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 1
Action
BE6.8
Work with partners to establish a Regional Energy Network for energy efficiency and electrification building resources, expand education on subsidized rate programs, code compliance training and apprenticeship program.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 1
Measure T-1: Implement programs for active transportation (walking and biking) that achieve 23% bicycle share by 2030 and 30% by 2035.
Metric: Implement active
transportation programs.
Action
T1.1
Fund, staff and implement the Active Transportation Plan Update, Vision Zero, Safe Routes to School and the 2030 General Plan update.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T1.2
Complete all portions of Rail Trail and work with partners to plan active and public transportation to Rail line.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
2-3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T1.3
Require secure bike parking near public transportation and in major activity centers. Require bike parking installation in new commercial developments and existing commercial renovations.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T1.4
Re-establish citywide e-bike share with explicit consideration of how to make accessible to frontline groups.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
26.531
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T1.5
Build new infrastructure that provides equitable access to safe bicycle and pedestrian pathways throughout the City, prioritizing frontline neighborhoods.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T1.6
Pilot Neighborhood Greenways to slow traffic and improve walking and biking and evaluate piloting time based closures to vehicles primarily in business districts.
Planning, Public
Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
2-3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T1.7
Accelerate housing development and support commercial and industrial development in city limits, concentrating the most intensive growth in transit corridors and central areas of the city to promote walking and biking to nearby jobs, entertainment, goods, services, and public transportation, through the General Plan Housing Element Update to be approved in 2023.
Prioritize expansion of affordable housing stock.
Partner to incentivize 15-minute neighborhoods, particularly within frontline neighborhoods communities, supported by dense housing and buildings, provision of locally sited essential services and amenities, and connected by a network of bike, pedestrian, and transit services.
Planning Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
2-3 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, and Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Measure T-2: Implement programs for public transportation that achieve 8% public transportation mode share by 2030 and 12% public transportation mode share by 2035.
Metric: Implement mode share
public transportation programs.
Action
T2.1
Support countywide coordination to fund and implement Bus Rapid Transit. Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private, Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T2.2
Support public transportation prioritizing serving major corridors, destinations, and frontline neighborhoods. Advocate for enhanced and increased public transportation service with improved customer serving amenities (e.g., all door boarding, on demand, online ticketing, Wi-Fi).
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T2.3
Require more employers to develop education and financial incentives for employees to bike, walk, carpool, or take the bus to work. Require large employers to subsidize alternative modes.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, and Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
26.532
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Action
T2.4
Advocate for METRO to fund and implement a free public transit pilot program for students, foster youth, and unhoused youth in the City.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
2-3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T2.5
Support funding for public transportation fleet electrification. City Manager’s Office, Public
Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T2.6
Equitably market and publicize public transportation improvements and incentive programs as they are planned and implemented.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T2.7
Partner with Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission, Santa Cruz County, and Regional Agencies to expand citywide transportation communications and marketing programs to residents commuting outside of the City for work.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Assessment, Grants,
Grants (Competitive),
Grants (Formula), Bonds
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Measure T-3: Develop programs and policies to discourage driving single-occupancy passenger vehicles. Metric: Decrease number of singleoccupancy passenger vehicles/increase public
transportation use.
Action
T3.1
Partner with community groups to develop programs and policies that discourage single-passenger vehicles while addressing equity concerns and tracking through equity metrics.
Public Works N/A 1-2
Action
T3.2
Explore implementing a local gasoline and diesel car registration tax with exemption for low-income people.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works
N/A 1
Action
T3.3
Discourage single passenger vehicles in high traffic zones considering a congestion charge program, limiting parking options, bans in high traffic zones or public/multimodal transportation routes, and rideshare user taxes.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office,
Public Works
N/A 1
Action
T3.4
Reduce off-street parking requirements for new housing developments close to frequent transit service, with sensitivity to low-income neighborhoods whose parking is already constrained.
Planning, Public
Works
N/A 1
Action
T3.5
Consider limiting parking options for single-passenger vehicles in downtown and other commercial areas of the city balanced with needs of sustaining downtown employees, businesses and tourists.
Planning, Public
Works
N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
26.533
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Action
T3.6
Adjust parking rates dependent on demand and supply in all downtown parking locations and evaluate whether revenue may be used to fund active transportation or public transportation projects.
Planning, Public
Works
N/A 1
Action
T3.7
After implementing action 4, eliminate parking minimums citywide and develop parking maximums, while pricing all public parking spaces based on available transportation options, travel demand, and land use.
Planning, Public
Works
N/A 1
Action
T3.8
Support the City’s tourism economy by exploring and implementing neighborhood or zone based parking solutions and use of electric trolleys in high traffic and walkable areas.
Planning, Public
Works, Econ Dev.
N/A 1
Action
T3.9
Remove parking to accommodate multimodal improvements, including protected bike lanes and transit improvements, taking into account business impact.
Planning, Public
Works, Econ Dev.
N/A 1
Measure T-4: Increase passenger electric vehicle (EV) adoption to 35% mode share by 2030 and 40% by 2035. Metric: Increase percentage of passenger electric vehicles by 2035.
Action
T4.1
Install at least 1,247 new public EV charging stations prioritizing frontline neighborhood and high usage areas by 2030.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Private
3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T4.2
Update municipal code to require new residential multifamily housing and large commercial building owners to install chargers in 20 percent of parking spaces and secure electric service capacity is sufficient so that >20 percent of marking spaces are EV ready.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Private
2-3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T4.3
Advocate for programs and incentives for income tiered residential EV charger installations and EV purchases.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Private
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T4.4
Pursue partnership with affordable EV car share to serve affordable housing and multifamily developments in frontline neighborhoods, while also promoting EV car share citywide, for example by requiring car share for certain new projects.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Private
2-3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T4.5
Partner with CCCE, PG&E, and community groups to increase adoption rates of EVs in frontline neighborhoods by stacking incentives and leveraging on-bill financing for EV chargers.
City Manager’s
Office
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Private
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T4.6
Partner to conduct EV and public transportation education events in frontline neighborhoods.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
26.534
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Private
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T4.7
Engage compensated frontline communities in regional and local vehicle electrification strategy development.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds, Private
2 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Measure T-5: Increase commercial EV adoption to 25% by 2030 and 35% by 2035. Metric: Increase percentage of commercial electric vehicles by
2035.
Action
T5.1
Engage with local employers and business fleet owners in the City to identify opportunities for accelerated fleet electrification, prioritizing small businesses, and veteran, woman or minority-owned businesses. Provide information on the requirements of the Advanced Clean Truck regulation and available funding sources for fleet replacements (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard).
City Manager’s
Office, Econ Dev.
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds
1-2 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, and Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T5.2
Conduct a study of business vehicle fleets in the City and identify employers and businesses subject to the Advanced Clean Truck regulation as well as those to target for accelerating zero-emission vehicle adoption. With stakeholder support, use the results from the study to develop and implement a plan for City-supported accelerated fleet electrification in business and municipal fleets.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works, Econ Dev.
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds
2-3 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, and Appendix H,
Funding and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
T5.3
Prioritize commercial EVs for loading zone access and use other curbside management practices.
City Manager’s
Office,
Planning,
Econ Dev.,
Public Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Grants,
Grants/Accelerator,
Bonds
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Measure T-6: Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 50% of off-road equipment by 2030 and 75% by 2035. Metric: Increase percentage of electrified off-road equipment by
2035.
Action
T6.1
Explore ways to mitigate equity impacts of electrifying and upgrading off-road equipment and harbor vessels.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works, Parks and
Rec.,
Econ Dev.
N/A 1
Action
T6.2
Engage with small business, women, veteran, or minority owners of off-road equipment fleets and others with highest decarbonization potential to City Manager’s
Office, Econ Dev.
N/A 1
26.535
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
promote equitable fleet electrification through outreach and pursuing grants or other funding.
Action
T6.3
Access funding to decarbonize off-road equipment, including investigating state funding to decarbonize off-road equipment as a result of Executive Order N-79-20 and State Climate Funding Package.
City Manager’s
Office,
Econ Dev.
N/A 2
Action
T6.4
Support transition of local employers to zero-emission off-road equipment.
Provide online resources and a test demonstration site for landscaping industry.
City Manager’s
Office,
Econ Dev., Parks
and Rec.
N/A 2 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
T6.5
Develop an ordinance to phase out gas and diesel-powered off-road equipment starting in 2024, partnering to provide income tiered incentives for small businesses. Ordinance language to include allowance for biofuels for equipment for which zero emission alternatives are not available.
Planning, Parks and
Rec., Econ Dev.,
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 2-3
Measure T-7: Advocate for remote work policy & infrastructure. Metric: Increase number of remote work employees.
Action
T7.1
Work with the County, the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, AMBAG, and the City’s larger employers to support remote work programs, while seeking to address remote work equity issues such as internet access.
City Manager’s
Office,
Econ Dev.
N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
T7.2
Participate in regional advocacy for development of a statewide remote work policy.
City Manager’s
Office,
Econ Dev.
N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Measure W-1: Maintain gallons per capita water use for the residential sector at a level that is at least 10% below the state goal. Metric: Maintain per capita residential water use at 10% lower
than the state goal or lower.
Action
W1.1
Continue to provide free water conservation devices and rebates for water conservation and continue targeted outreach to frontline communities.
Water Department N/A 1
Action
W1.2
Continue to promote available City rebates and educate residents on the benefits of water conservation and its connection to climate change benefits.
Water Department N/A 1
Action
W1.3
Expand watershed stewardship school program to include water conservation.
Water Department N/A 3
26.536
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Measure W-2: Reduce organic waste by 75% by 2030 and 90% by 2035; and reduce inorganic waste by 35% by 2030 and 40% by 2035. Metric: Reduce organic and inorganic waste by 2035.
Action
W2.1
Partner to develop a regional compost trading program to meet state organic procurement target.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Bonds, Grants
2-3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
W2.2
Expand enforcement and implement fee for incorrectly sorted materials with sensitivity to shared collection.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Bonds, Grants
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
W2.3
Pursue funding to conduct detailed planning of food waste to energy infrastructure and process to meet state food waste diversion targets.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Bonds, Grants
2 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
W2.4
Continue to participate in Countywide Solid Waste Task Force consortium to plan and pursue funding for infrastructure beyond state 2025 organic waste diversion targets.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Bonds, Grants
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
W2.5
Conduct waste characterization studies annually to understand the waste stream and plan to increase waste diversion and reduce contamination.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Bonds, Grants
2 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
W2.6
Provide training resources to businesses and large institutions on organic waste diversion.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Bonds, Grants
2 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
W2.7
Continue multi-lingual engagement with multi-family property owners/managers and developing waste handling signage for their properties.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Bonds, Grants
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
W2.8
Continue to conduct targeted, multi-lingual, culturally appropriate, and geographically diverse waste diversion educational and technical assistance campaigns.
Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private,
Bonds, Grants
1 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
W2.9
Expand the Recycling Boot Camp and Master Recycler's Programs. Public Works Taxes, Fees, Private, Bonds, Grants
2-3 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
26.537
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Action
W2.10
Pilot and evaluate emerging technologies to reduce organic waste by restaurants and other major food waste producers.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works, Econ Dev.
Taxes, Fees, Private,
Bonds, Grants
2 See Appendix H, Funding
and Financing
Implementation Memo, for
additional detail.
Measure W-3: Set long-term target to reduce waste generation growth. Metric: Reduce waste generation growth.
Action
W3.1
Continue free training and education program accessible to all residents and employees to learn about waste prevention and diversion strategies and effects of overconsumption.
Public Works N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
W3.2
Work collaboratively and leverage grants to prevent food waste and rescue edible food.
Public Works N/A 1
Action
W3.3
Enforce implementation of a fee at point of use for single-use food ware by food service providers.
Public Works, Econ
Dev.
N/A 3
Action
W3.4
Conduct a consumption-based emissions inventory and promote a closedloop circular economy.City Manager’s Office
N/A 2
Action
W3.5
Leverage community activation platform and community partners to encourage lifestyle choices that reduce consumption based emissions including plant based diets, travel alternatives and local purchasing. Explore policy options to increase adoption plant-based, and plant-strong diets.
City Manager’s
Office, Information
Technology
N/A 1
Action
W3.6
Expand edible food recovery program to all restaurants and food generating businesses and incentivize small businesses who otherwise could not participate.
Public Works, Econ
Dev.
N/A 2
Action
W3.7
Evaluate and implement a program for reusables for restaurant to-go containers.
Public Works, Econ
Dev.
N/A 2-3
Action
W3.8
Explore opportunities to promote a “circular economy” among local manufacturers and industry.
Public Works, Econ
Dev., City
Manager’s Office
N/A 1-2
Measure W-4: Reduce or capture GHG emissions from wastewater treatment emissions. Metric: Increased capture of wastewater treatment emissions.
Action
W4.1
Explore opportunities related to methane capture and conversion to biofuel through the state's Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) program.
Public Works N/A 1-2
26.538
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Action
W4.2
Collaborate with surrounding cities and the County to advocate and support emissions reduction at wastewater facilities.
Public Works N/A 1
Measure CS-1: Develop an Urban Forest Master Plan and plant 3,000 new trees by 2030. Metric: Plant 3,000 new trees by 2030.
Action
CS1.1
Prioritize planting trees in and with low income or frontline neighborhoods and other neighborhood groups as per the Street Tree Master Plan and protect and replace urban trees on public and private property per Ordinance Chapter 9.56.
Parks and Rec.,
Econ Dev.
N/A 3
Action
CS1.2
Ensure that the city has the resources and staff to effectively plant and maintain street trees and landscape.
Parks and Rec. N/A 1
Action
CS1.3
Pursue funding to expand forest management to promote carbon sequestration and reduce threat of intense fires.
Parks and Rec., Fire
Department
N/A 2
Action
CS1.4
Implement the City’s Street Tree Master Plan 2021 and address barriers to implementation.
Parks and Rec. N/A 3
Action
CS1.5
Increase urban forest restoration outreach opportunities with frontline and other neighborhood groups.
Parks and Rec., City
Manager’s Office
N/A 3
Measure CS-2: Explore new carbon sequestration and carbon capture opportunities. Metric: Develop new carbon capture opportunities.
Action
CS2.1
Partner to conduct carbon sequestration and carbon capture and storage opportunities in the City and regionally.
City Manager’s
Office, Parks &
Recreation, Econ
Dev., Public Works
N/A 1
Action
CS2.2
Pilot and promote carbon sequestering construction materials like low-carbon concrete and mass timber.
City Manager’s
Office, Econ Dev.,
Planning
N/A 2-3
Action
CS2.3
Work with local building professionals to expand knowledge and adoption of carbon sequestering building materials and techniques and support reduction of embodied carbon.
Planning, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2-3
Action
CS2.4
Partner with local lumber companies to promote sustainable and locally harvested lumber for timber construction to reduce emissions from materials transportation and reduce the price premium of emerging timber construction.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 2-3
Measure CS-3: Increase carbon sequestration by applying compost throughout the community. Metric: Spread compost throughout community.
26.539
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Action
CS3.1
Explore making compost available at no or low cost to community gardeners.
Continue to operate the compost bin rebate program.
Public Works, Parks
and Rec.
N/A 1
Action
CS3.2
Engage with community gardeners, agriculture industry, master gardeners and Homeless Garden Project to plan and set goals around compost development and application.
Public Works, Parks
and Rec.
N/A 1
Action
CS3.3
Explore collaborating with UCSC to pilot opportunities for regenerative agriculture and permaculture.
City Manager’s
Office, Public
Works, Parks and
Rec.
N/A 1
Action
CS3.4
Adopt regenerative landscaping policies and promote trainings to support commercial and residential land owners to better maintain native and carbon sequestering landscapes.
City Manager’s
Office, Planning,
Parks and Rec.
N/A 1-2
Action
CS3.5
Reforest or afforest areas of the City that are currently mowed in line with other City parks and open space plans.
Parks and Rec., Fire
Department
N/A 3
Action
CS3.6
Evaluate policies to strengthen current open space habitat preservation. Parks and Rec. N/A 3 Measure CE-1: Prioritize opportunities for greatest climate benefit and economic inclusion especially for minority, veteran and women owned businesses in climate related sectors.
Metric: Utilize greatest climate
benefit opportunities that center
economic inclusion for minority
groups in climate related sectors.
Action
CE1.1
Address pressing issues regarding local purchasing, local hire, supply chain, and unequal conditions in the labor market.
Econ Dev., City
Manager’s Office
N/A 1
Action
CE1.2
Encourage lifestyle choices that reduce consumption-based emissions including plant-based diets, travel alternatives and local purchasing by leveraging community activation platform and community partners.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 1
Measure CE-2: Support equitable access to high-quality training and workforce development programs in climate related sectors. Metric: Develop and utilize equitable training and workforce
development programs.
Action
CE2.1
Equitably support entrepreneurship, workforce diversity, increased quality of jobs and access to local jobs and business development.
Econ Dev. N/A 1-3 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
CE2.2
Support regional collaboration regarding jobs, housing and Econ Dev.. Econ Dev., City Manager’s Office
N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
26.540
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Measure M-1: Decarbonize municipally owned buildings by 2030 and remaining municipal facilities by 2045. Metric: Decarbonization of municipally owned buildings by
2030.
Action
M1.1
Develop a plan to decarbonize, electrify, and improve indoor air quality in all municipal buildings by 2030 and electrify any remaining facilities by 2045.
Public Works, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2
Action
M1.2
Evaluate the feasibility and cost of phasing out diesel and natural gas generators and put policy in place to decommission and replace diesel generators with solar and battery storage by 2030 as feasible. .
Public Works N/A 2
Action
M1.3
Adopt and implement a municipal building electrification plan to electrify 100% of municipal buildings by 2040.
Public Works, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2-3
Action
M1.4
Adopt and implement a plan for retrofitting all remaining streetlights, facility lighting, and traffic signals to LEDs by 2040.
Public Works N/A 2-3
Action
M1.5
Implement an “electric first” commitment for building projects and other major retrofits of municipal buildings unless otherwise infeasible.
City Manager’s
Office, Econ Dev.,
Public Works,
Water Department,
Parks and Rec.,
Finance
Department
N/A 3
Action
M1.6
Fund and hire an energy manager and dedicate staff time for obtaining grant funding for municipal electrification.
Public Works, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2-3
Measure M-2: Procure carbon free or 100% renewable electricity for municipal operations by 2030. Metric: Carbon free or 100% renewable for municipal operations
by 2030.
Action
M2.1
Consider opting up to CCCE Prime for 100 percent renewable energy now. City Manager’s Office
N/A 1
Action
M2.2
Continue to purchase CCCE’s electricity for all municipal accounts. Public Works N/A 1 Measure M-3: Increase municipally owned renewable energy. Metric: New municipally owned renewable energy infrastructure.
Action
M3.1
With community partners, redevelop Pacific Station as a net zero energy transit center with mixed use and affordable housing.
Econ Dev. N/A 3
Action
M3.2
Conduct a feasibility study to understand opportunities for installing additional solar and battery storage, or other renewable energy generation Public Works, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2
26.541
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
infrastructure at municipally owned facilities (e.g., generators and renewable energy at critical facilities).
Action
M3.3
Identify and implement near term microgrid opportunities that align with resiliency objectives and conduct a microgrid pilot program (e.g., at City Hall for critical loads).
Public Works, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2-3
Measure M-4: Develop and implement a Municipal Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan by the end of 2023. Metric: Completion and implementation of TDM Plan by the
end of 2023.
Action
M4.1
Continue to conduct a detailed survey of City staff commute data annually and report findings to employees.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
M4.2
Investigate and implement opportunities for installing secure bike parking, fixit stations, and showers at municipal work sites that do not currently have these facilities.
Public Works N/A 2-3
Action
M4.3
Expand provision of free public transit passes to all municipal employees as demand necessitates.
Public Works N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
M4.4
Develop a remote work program plan with milestones that educates and enables eligible municipal employees to work from home for part of their work schedule including alternative work schedules in order to further sustainability and employee retention goals.
Human Resources,
City Manager’s
Office, Information
Technology
N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
M4.5
Include alternative modes or incentives for employees to bike, walk, and carpool to work.
Human Resources,
Public Works
N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
M4.6
Consider flex-work/co-working satellite offices or access at libraries and in nearby communities like the San Lorenzo Valley or South County to reduce commute times.
Human Resources N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
M4.7
Promote opportunities for housing in affordable housing developments to employees to live close to their City work sites.
Econ Dev., City
Manager’s Office
N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Measure M-5: Electrify or otherwise decarbonize the municipal fleet by 2035 Metric: Decarbonization of municipal fleet by 2035.
Action
M5.1
Adopt and implement the City's Fleet Electrification Plan to convert fossil fuel municipal fleet vehicles to electric or otherwise decarbonize the fleet by 2035, evaluating phasing and the potential for regional bulk procurement.
Public Works N/A 2-3
26.542
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Action
M5.2
Plan for and install EV ready infrastructure and additional EV chargers in municipal parking lots for fleet, employee and public use, and pilot curbside installations.
Public Works,
Planning
N/A 1 See Appendix G, Jobs
Analysis, for additional
detail.
Action
M5.3
Procure 100 percent renewable diesel as a transition fuel until complete fleet electrification in 2035.
Public Works N/A 3
Action
M5.4
Adopt an electric vehicle first policy, unless infeasible for the use case, for all municipal vehicles by end of 2023.
Finance, Public
Works, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2-3
Measure M-6: Electrify or otherwise decarbonize all municipal off-road equipment (landscaping equipment, construction equipment, marine diesel engines) by 2040.
Metric: Decarbonization of all
municipal off-road vehicles by 2040.
Action
M6.1
Complete an inventory of all municipal off-road equipment, specifying which equipment types are possible to electrify based on existing technologies, experience and cost, and adopt an implementation plan to decarbonize by 2040.
Public Works, Parks
and Rec., Water
Department, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2
Action
M6.2
Adopt an emissions-free equipment preference purchasing policy for offroad equipment for City departments.
Finance, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 1
Action
M6.3
Evaluate and procure biofuels (renewable diesel and biogas) to operate municipally owned off-road equipment as feasible for use cases that cannot be electrified. Re-evaluate decarbonization opportunities regularly to ensure biofuels are not being used for equipment that could otherwise be electrified.
Public Works, Parks
and Rec., Water
Department
N/A 2-3
Action
M6.4
Dedicate staff time to obtain grant funding for decarbonization of off-road equipment.
Parks and Rec.,
Public Works, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2
Measure M-7: Increase municipal procurement of recovered organic waste products. Metric: Increased percentage of recovered organic waste products.
Action
M7.1
Require City agencies to procure and apply compost to the exterior of suitable facilities in accordance with landscape management needs and plans.
Public Works, Parks
and Rec.
N/A 1
Action
M7.2
Investigate opportunities for generating and procuring recovered organic waste products.
Public Works, Parks
and Rec.
N/A 2
Action
M7.3
Update food waste to energy feasibility studies and design and construct facilities to accommodate food waste.
Public Works, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2-3
Measure M-8: Promote efficient municipal water consumption. Metric: Decreased municipal water consumption.
26.543
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Action
M8.1
Evaluate replacement of existing municipal watering/irrigation infrastructure and schedules as water reduction strategies.
Parks and Rec.,
Water Department
N/A 1
Action
M8.2
Continue to implement landscaping that utilizes drought-tolerant landscaping techniques for parks, medians, and fields.
Parks and Rec. N/A 1
Action
M8.3
Evaluate and increase green stormwater infrastructure on City facilities. Public Works, Parks and Rec.
N/A 1
Action
M8.4
Identify funding to dedicate staff time to obtain grant funding for implementing efficient municipal water consumption.
Parks and Rec.,
Water Department
N/A 2
Measure M-9: Support climate action planning. Metric: Continuation of climate action planning and expansion of
climate action goals.
Action
M9.1
Update the Climate Action Plan every 5 years, report annually and integrate climate action into the budget decision making process.
City Manager’s
Office, Finance
N/A 2
Action
M9.2
Explore adding life cycle emissions into the decision-making process as data becomes available.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 1-2
Action
M9.3
Implement a fossil fuel divestment policy and provide update to City Council on status of divestment from fossil fuel banking.
Finance N/A 2-3
Action
M9.4
Evaluate plant-strong and plant-based diets strategies, procurement and policies.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 2
Action
M9.5
Explore inclusion of plant-strong and plant-based diets and menu choices as a measure in the City’s Green Business Program.
Public Works N/A 1
Action
M9.6
Consider staffing, structure and integration of Climate Action Program throughout organization, including consideration of public advisory formats, and modify as needed to meet increasing demands on integration, coordination, reporting and engagement.
City Manager’s
Office
N/A 2-3
Action
M9.7
Develop a green event checklist/guide and consider conditions of use for special event permits that support climate action.
Public Works, Parks
and Rec.
N/A 1
Action
M9.8
Integrate the Climate Action Plan into the City's upcoming Master Investment Strategy/Financial Plan Development, Master Fee Evaluation and Cost Evaluation Plan and its change management process.
Finance, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 2
Action
M9.9
Update and enforce the City's environmentally preferable purchasing policy to include electric first vehicles and building commitments, as well as plant based/strong diet recommendations.
Finance, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 1
26.544
ID Action
Lead
Dept.
Potential Funding
Tool Phase
Implementation
Notes/Comments
Action
M9.10
Monitor supply chain and end of life handling of renewable energy and other climate supportive products and technologies to avoid slave labor, environmental degradation from extraction and/or disposal in frontline communities, and advocate for the elimination of these processes globally.
Finance, City
Manager’s Office
N/A 1-2
26.545
26.546
APPENDIX J:
City’s Health in All
Policies Crosswalk
26.547
26.548
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
Building Energy
- Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better - Renters spending 30% of more of household income on rent -Median household income (2014-18)
- People living below poverty level (2014-18)
-Children living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Families living below poverty level (2014-18)
- People 65+ living below poverty level (2014-18)
-People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
- AARP Livability Index (2018)
-Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
- Residents that installed higher efficiency water fixture inside their homes (2019) - Residents that learned about local wildlife, birds, or fish (2019) - Residents who reduced storm water and irrigation run-off (2019) - Residents who attended a cleanup event, habitat restoration, or active volunteer day (2019) -Greenhouse gas emissions
-Renters spending 30% or more of household income on rent Measure BE-1
Adopt an electrification ordinance for new residential and commercial construction and inform the community regarding the available technology and benefits of electrification. - People with a usual source of care (2016-18)
- Adults needing AND receiving behavioral health care services (2016-17) - Consumer expenditures: Fruits and vegetables (2020)
- Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) - Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
- Average annual cost of child care for an infant - family child care home (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for an infant - child care center (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - family child care home (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - child care center (2018) - People living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Children living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Families living below poverty level (2014-18)
- People 65+ living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Food insecurity (2018)
- Households receiving SNAP with children (2014-18)
- Renters spending 30% of more of household income on rent (2014-18) - Households with an internet subscription (2014-18)
- Households with one or more types of computing devices - Adults needing AND receiving behavioral health care services (2016-17) - People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
- AARP Livability Index (2018)
- Support person available in times of need (2019)
- Concern about litter (2019)
- Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
- Residents that installed higher efficiency water fixture inside their homes (2019) - Greenhouse gas emissions
- Age-adjusted death rate due to motor vehicle traffic collisions per 100,000 population (2016-18) - Bicycle-involved collision rate per 100,000 population (2017) - Number of housing units
- Growth in low-income and affordable housing units
- Renters spending 30% or more of household income on rent Measure BE-2
Electrify 31% of existing residential buildings by 2030 and 53% by 2035 - Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
- Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - child care center (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for an infant - child care center (2018) - Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Measure BE-3
Electrify 26% of existing commercial buildings by 2030 and 45% by 2035
26.549
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
- Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for an infant - family child care home (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for an infant - child care center (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - family child care home (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - child care center (2018) - Quality of educator-learner relationships at school: Caring adult/7th grade (2017) - Quality of educator-learner relationships at school: Caring adult/9th grade (2017) - Quality of educator-learner relationships at school: Caring adult/11th grade (2017) - People living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Children living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Families living below poverty level (2014-18)
- People 65+ living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Food insecurity (2018)
- Households receiving SNAP with children (2014-18)
- Renters spending 30% of more of household income on rent (2014-18) - Households with an internet subscription (2014-18)
- Households with one or more types of computing devices (2014-18) - People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
- AARP Livability Index (2018)
- Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
- Residents that installed higher efficiency water fixture inside their homes (2019) - Greenhouse gas emissions
- Renters spending 30% or more of household income on rent - Home affordability
- Homeownership – occupied by homeowners (2014-18)
Measure BE-5
Increase resiliency through equitable energy efficiency and local solar programs - Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for an infant - family child care home (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for an infant - child care center (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - family child care home (2018) - Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - child care center (2018) - Quality of educator-learner relationships at school: Caring adult/7th grade (2017) - Quality of educator-learner relationships at school: Caring adult/9th grade (2017) - Quality of educator-learner relationships at school: Caring adult/11th grade (2017) - People living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Children living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Families living below poverty level (2014-18)
- People 65+ living below poverty level (2014-18)
- Food insecurity (2018)
- Households receiving SNAP with children (2014-18)
- Renters spending 30% of more of household income on rent (2014-18) - Households with an internet subscription (2014-18)
- Households with one or more types of computing devices (2014-18) - People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
- AARP Livability Index (2018)
- Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
- Residents that installed higher efficiency water fixture inside their homes (2019) - Greenhouse gas emissions
- Renters spending 30% or more of household income on rent - Home affordability
- Homeownership – occupied by homeowners (2014-18)
Measure BE-6
Provide inclusive engagement, equitable process and regional coordination to maximize building electrification benefits.
26.550
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
Transportation
Measure T-1 Implement programs for active transportation (walking and biking) that achieve 23% of bicycle mode share by 2030 and 30% by 2035
1) Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better 2)Access to affordable, quality educational opportunities 3) Affordability of Early Childhood Education (ECE)
4)Chronic absenteeism from school
5)Connected to school, work, and social activities
6)On-time high school graduation
7)Unemployment
8)Median income
9)People living below poverty level
10)Renters spending 30% of more of household income on rent 11)Children who are resilient
12)People 65+ living below poverty level (2014-18)
13)Families living below poverty leve;
14) Support person available in times of need
15)Access to culturally responsive and appropriate forms of expression, arts, music, culture 16) Participation in arts, music, and culture
17)Concern for the environment
18) Air quality
19) Environmental stewardship
20)Greenhouse gas emissions
21) Access to exercise opportunities
22)Mean travel time to work (2014-18)
23) Workers commuting by public transportation (2014-18) 24) Equity dimensions: Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity
25)Workers who drive alone to work (2014-18)
26) Equity dimensions: Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity
27) Workers who walk to work (2014-18)
28) Equity dimensions: Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity
29)Age-adjusted death rate due to motor vehicle traffic collisions per 100,000 population (2016-18) 30) Bicycle-involved collision rate per 100,000 population (2017) 31) Appropriate shelter utilization
32) Average annual cost of child care for an infant - family child care home (2018) 33) Average annual cost of child care for an infant - child care center (2018) 34) Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - family child care home (2018) 35) Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - child care center (2018) Measure T-2
Implement programs for public transportation that achieve 8% of public transit mode share by 2030 and 12% by 2035
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better Access to affordable, quality educational opportunities Affordability of Early Childhood Education (ECE)
Chronic absenteeism from school
Access to exercise opportunities (2020)
Recreation and fitness facilities per 1,000 population (2016) Adults who walk regularly (2015-16)
Mean travel time to work (2014-18)
Workers commuting by public transportation (2014-18)
Workers who drive alone to work (2014-18)
Workers who walk to work (2014-18)
Age-adjusted death rate due to motor vehicle traffic collisions per 100,000 population (2016-18) Bicycle-involved collision rate per 100,000 population (2017) Adults who walk regularly (2015-16) Access to exercise opportunities (2020) Children and teens who engage in regular physical activity (2015-16) Measure T-3
Implement programs and policies to discourage driving single-occupancy passenger vehicles Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions"Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Median household income (2014-18)
People living below poverty level (2014-18)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure T-4
Increase passenger electric vehicle (EV) adoption to 35% by 2030 and 40% by 2035
26.551
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Median household income (2014-18)
People living below poverty level (2014-18)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Children living below poverty level (2014-18)
Families living below poverty level (2014-18)
People 65+ living below poverty level (2014-18)
Measure T-5
Increase commercial EV adoption to 25% by 2030 and 35% by 2035 Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure T-6
Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 50% of off-road equipment by 2030 and 75% by 2035 Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions
Access to exercise opportunities (2020)
Recreation and fitness facilities per 1,000 population (2016) Adults who walk regularly (2015-16)
Mean travel time to work (2014-18)
Workers who drive alone to work (2014-18)
Workers who walk to work (2014-18)
Age-adjusted death rate due to motor vehicle traffic collisions per 100,000 population (2016-18) Bicycle-involved collision rate per 100,000 population (2017) AARP Livability Index (2018)
Support person available in times of need (2019)
Adults who walk regularly (2015-16)
Access to exercise opportunities (2020)
Measure T-7
Advocate for telework policy & infrastructure
Solid Waste and Wastewater
- Greenhouse gas emissions
- Residents that installed higher efficiency water fixture inside their homes (2019) Residents that learned about local wildlife, birds, or fish (2019) Residents who reduced storm water and irrigation run-off (2019) Residents who attended a cleanup event, habitat restoration, or active volunteer day (2019) Residents who installed a rainwater harvesting system
Concern about water pollution (2019)
Concern about litter (2019)
Concern about water availability/saltwater intrusion
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Children living below poverty level (2014-18)
Families living below poverty level (2014-18)
People 65+ living below poverty level (2014-18)
Median household income (2014-18)
People living below poverty level (2014-18)
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Measure W-1
Maintain gallons per capita water use for the residential sector at a level that is at least 10% below the state goal of 55 gallons per person per day.
26.552
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Food insecurity (2018)
People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
AARP Livability Index (2018)
Concern about water pollution (2019)
Concern about litter (2019)
Concern about water availability/saltwater intrusion
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Residents that learned about local wildlife, birds, or fish (2019) Residents who reduced storm water and irrigation run-off (2019) Residents who attended a cleanup event, habitat restoration, or active volunteer day (2019) Residents who installed a rainwater harvesting system
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure W-2
Reduce organic waste by 75% by 2030 and 90% by 2035; and reduce inorganic waste by 35% by 2030 and 40% by 2035
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Food insecurity (2018)
People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
AARP Livability Index (2018)
Concern about water pollution (2019)
Concern about litter (2019)
Concern about water availability/saltwater intrusion
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Residents that learned about local wildlife, birds, or fish (2019) Residents who reduced storm water and irrigation run-off (2019) Residents who attended a cleanup event, habitat restoration, or active volunteer day (2019) Residents who installed a rainwater harvesting system
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure W-3
Establish a long-term target to reduce waste generation growth Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Food insecurity (2018)
People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
AARP Livability Index (2018)
Concern about water pollution (2019)
Concern about litter (2019)
Concern about water availability/saltwater intrusion
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Residents that learned about local wildlife, birds, or fish (2019) Residents who reduced storm water and irrigation run-off (2019) Residents who attended a cleanup event, habitat restoration, or active volunteer day (2019) Residents who installed a rainwater harvesting system
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure W-4
Reduce or capture wastewater process emissions
Carbon Sequestration
26.553
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
Workers who walk to work (2014-18)
Age-adjusted death rate due to motor vehicle traffic collisions per 100,000 population (2016-18) Bicycle-involved collision rate per 100,000 population (2017) Concern about crime: Very concerned (2019)
Violent crime rate per 100,000 population (2019)
Suspected gang membership (2019)
Feelings of safety at school
Adults who walk regularly (2015-16)
Access to exercise opportunities (2020)
Children and teens who engage in regular physical activity (2015-16) Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
AARP Livability Index (2018)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Residents that learned about local wildlife, birds, or fish (2019) Residents who reduced storm water and irrigation run-off (2019) Residents who attended a cleanup event, habitat restoration, or active volunteer day (2019) Residents who installed a rainwater harvesting system
Coastal bluff erosion
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure CS-1
Develop Urban Forest Master Plan and plant 3,000 new trees by 2030 Workers who walk to work (2014-18)
Age-adjusted death rate due to motor vehicle traffic collisions per 100,000 population (2016-18) Bicycle-involved collision rate per 100,000 population (2017) Concern about crime: Very concerned (2019)
Violent crime rate per 100,000 population (2019)
Suspected gang membership (2019)
Feelings of safety at school
Adults who walk regularly (2015-16)
Access to exercise opportunities (2020)
Children and teens who engage in regular physical activity (2015-16) Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
AARP Livability Index (2018)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Residents that learned about local wildlife, birds, or fish (2019) Residents who reduced storm water and irrigation run-off (2019) Residents who attended a cleanup event, habitat restoration, or active volunteer day (2019) Residents who installed a rainwater harvesting system
Coastal bluff erosion
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure CS-2
Explore new carbon sequestration and carbon capture opportunities Greenhouse gas emissions
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
Measure CS-3
Increase carbon sequestration by applying compost throughout the community.
26.554
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
Municipal
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure M-1
Decarbonize municipal buildings by 2030 and remaining municipal facilities by 2045 Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Average annual cost of child care for an infant - child care center (2018) Concern about litter (2019)
Measure M-2
Procure carbon free or 100% renewable electricity for municipal operations by 2030 Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure M-3
Increase municipally-owned renewable energy
26.555
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
People with a usual source of care (2016-18)
Adults needing AND receiving behavioral health care services (2016-17) Adult fast food consumption (2016)
Adults who walk regularly (2015-16)
Access to exercise opportunities (2020)
Children and teens who engage in regular physical activity (2015-16) Chronic absenteeism from school (2018-19)
Youth not in school or working (2014-18)
Students prepared for college/career (2019)
High school graduation (2018-19)
Unemployed workers in civilian labor force (Aug 2020)
Median household income (2014-18)
People living below poverty level (2014-18)
Children living below poverty level (2014-18)
Families living below poverty level (2014-18)
People 65+ living below poverty level (2014-18)
Food insecurity (2018)
Households receiving SNAP with children (2014-18)
Renters spending 30% of more of household income on rent (2014-18) Households with an internet subscription (2014-18)
Households with one or more types of computing devices (2014-18) Homeownership – occupied by homeowners (2014-18)
Adults needing AND receiving behavioral health care services (2016-17) People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
AARP Livability Index (2018)
Support person available in times of need (2019)
Concern about water pollution (2019)
Concern about litter (2019)
Concern about water availability/saltwater intrusion
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Residents that installed higher efficiency water fixture inside their homes (2019) Residents that learned about local wildlife, birds, or fish (2019) Residents who reduced storm water and irrigation run-off (2019) Residents who attended a cleanup event, habitat restoration, or active volunteer day (2019) Residents who installed a rainwater harvesting system
Coastal bluff erosion
Greenhouse gas emissions
Access to exercise opportunities (2020)
Recreation and fitness facilities per 1,000 population (2016) Adults who walk regularly (2015-16)
Mean travel time to work (2014-18)
Workers commuting by public transportation (2014-18)
Workers who drive alone to work (2014-18)
Workers who walk to work (2014-18)
Age-adjusted death rate due to motor vehicle traffic collisions per 100,000 population (2016-18) Bicycle-involved collision rate per 100,000 population (2017) Renters spending 30% or more of household income on rent Measure M-4
Develop and implement an Municipal Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan by end of 2023
26.556
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Measure M-5
Electrify or otherwise decarbonize the municipal fleet by 2040 Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Workers who walk to work (2014-18)
AARP Livability Index (2018)
Adults needing AND receiving behavioral health care services (2016-17) Measure M-6
Electrify or otherwise decarbonize all municipal off-road equipment by 2040 Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Concern about water pollution (2019)
Concern about litter (2019)
Concern about water availability/saltwater intrusion
Residents that installed higher efficiency water fixture inside their homes (2019) Residents that learned about local wildlife, birds, or fish (2019) Residents who reduced storm water and irrigation run-off (2019) Residents who attended a cleanup event, habitat restoration, or active volunteer day (2019) Residents who installed a rainwater harvesting system
Measure M-7
Increase municipal procurement of recovered organics waste products Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Concern about water pollution (2019)
Annual particle pollution (2016-18)
Greenhouse gas emissions
Concern about water availability/saltwater intrusion
Measure M-8
Promote efficient municipal water consumption
26.557
Community Well-Being Indicator Metrics (adopted Nov 2021) Supported by Climate Action Plan Measure
Measure
Sector
Measure
Description
Adults (19-64), any type of health insurance (2018)
Children under age 19, any type of health insurance coverage (2018) People with a usual source of care (2016-18)
Adults needing AND receiving behavioral health care services (2016-17) Consumer expenditures: Fruits and vegetables (2020)
Adult fast food consumption (2016)
Adults who walk regularly (2015-16)
Access to exercise opportunities (2020)
Children and teens who engage in regular physical activity (2015-16) Adults who binge drink (2015)
Teens who have used alcohol (2011-12)
Liquor store density per 100,000 population (2018)
Babies with low birth weight (2016-18)
Self-reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better (2018) Poor mental health: Average number of days (2017)
Children in working families that don’t have licensed child care (2019) Average annual cost of child care for an infant - family child care home (2018) Average annual cost of child care for an infant - child care center (2018) Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - family child care home (2018) Average annual cost of child care for a preschooler - child care center (2018) Quality of educator-learner relationships at school: Caring adult/7th grade (2017) Quality of educator-learner relationships at school: Caring adult/9th grade (2017) Quality of educator-learner relationships at school: Caring adult/11th grade (2017) Chronic absenteeism from school (2018-19)
Youth not in school or working (2014-18)
3rd grade students proficient in English/Language Arts (2019) 3rd grade students proficient in math (2019)
8th grade students proficient in English/Language Arts (2019) 8th grade students proficient in math (2019)
11th grade students proficient in English/Language Arts (2019) 11th grade students proficient in math (2019)
Students prepared for college/career (2019)
High school graduation (2018-19)
Unemployed workers in civilian labor force (Aug 2020)
Median household income (2014-18)
People living below poverty level (2014-18)
Children living below poverty level (2014-18)
Families living below poverty level (2014-18)
People 65+ living below poverty level (2014-18)
Food insecurity (2018)
Households receiving SNAP with children (2014-18)
Renters spending 30% of more of household income on rent (2014-18) Households with an internet subscription (2014-18)
Households with one or more types of computing devices (2014-18) Homeownership – occupied by homeowners (2014-18)
Substantiated child abuse rate per 1,000 children (2019) Foster care entry among infants and toddlers per 1,000 children 0-3 years old (2018)Children with 2 or more Adverse Childhood Experiences, parent reported (2016-18) via http://kidsdata.org Prevalence of 4+ ACEs during childhood, adult retrospective (2011-17) via http://kidsdata.org People 65+ living alone (2014-18)
AARP Livability Index (2018)
Support person available in times of need (2019)
Measure M-9
Support climate action planning
26.558
This page intentionally left blank
26.559
26.560
City of Santa Cruz
809 Center Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
cityofsantacruz.com
26.561
Santa Cruz Public Review Draft CAP 2030 Comment Summary There were 542 comments received in the online Konveio document comment platform and 12 individual emails received offering comments. The project team compiled all comments together and filtered comments into two categories: comment type and comment theme.
Filtering by comment type helped identify specific priority comments to address directly. The priority categories include relevant comments, clarifications, and edits. The other categories are general comments (the most common category), general agreement and general disagreement. These are nonpriority comments to address, as many of these offer suggestions are outside the scope of the CAP 2030 or include statements without concrete suggestions. However, comment themes have been assessed through all categories, so many ideas in general comments have been addressed under the theme section.
Filtering by theme helped staff assess whether certain topic areas need to be addressed, and include themes mainly from the relevant comments, clarifications, and general comments categories. Many comments in the general agreement and general disagreement category do not have a theme attached, as there is no response required. Some general comments that do not relate to another broad category are also listed without a theme.
Themes
Below are the following comment themes, ordered based on most common theme to the least common. Additional sub-themes are listed under each theme. Comments in RED CAPS are staff responses to public review comments.
Emissions Forecast (33) – ADDRESSED VIA CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATION EDITS TO CAP. Emissions forecast graph (Figure 2) does not show an aggressive trajectory for emissions reductions in Santa Cruz, nor does it include a 1990 baseline Historical mass emissions graph (Figure 6) shows future per capita goal is higher than current Historical mass emissions graph (Figure 6) and Page 13 executive summary total emissions do not add up
Support for an earlier carbon neutrality goal
“Net Zero” as a goal should not be used DEFINITION / DISTINCTION MADE.
Support/fund Metro (21) – CLARIFY ROLE OF CITY IN METRO AND TRANSIT DECISION MAKING. Support for better transportation services from Metro INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Employers need to support and encourage public transit INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Free bus passes (including for youth). INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Support for AB1919 INCLUDED AS AN ACTION
Busses are only efficient if they are full
General Transit (21) - CLARIFY ROLE OF CITY IN METRO AND TRANSIT DECISION MAKING. Miscellaneous transportation measures that were not captured in other categories NOTED General support for alternative transportation NOTED
EV Infrastructure (20)
Support for more EV-only parking INCLUDED AS AN ACTION
26.562
Support for charging infrastructure INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Support for a faster transition to an electric City fleet INCLUDED AS AN ACTION; IN PROGRESS
WITH GRANT FROM CCCES FOR FLEET ELECTRIFICATION ROADMAP TO BE COMPLETE IN EARLY 2023
Implementation (17)
Concerns for implementation of actions SEE APPENDICES: IMPLEMENTATION MEMO AND
FUNDING/FINANCING PLAN IN DOCUMENT BOX AT
CITYOFSANTACRUZ.COM/CLIMATEACTIONPLAN FOR DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION AND FUNDING PLANS.
City Composting (14)
Support to expand City composting program (including to Multifamily buildings) CITY DOES NOT DO COMPOSTING. CITY INSTEAD COLLECTS FOOD SCRAPS AND CONVERTS TO ENERGY AT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY. PER SB 1383 FOOD SCRAP COLLECTION STARTS IN 2022 INCLUDING TO MF HOUSING.
Against Lower Parking (12) – TO BE EVALUATED INCLUDING COMMUNITY OUTREACH AS PART OF
SPECIFIED ACTION DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Opposition to parking minimums and decreasing parking NOTED Perceived discrepancy between achieving EV goals and decreasing parking NOTED Environmental Restoration (12)
Support for increased green space INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Support for regenerative landscaping and agriculture INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Support for food gardens
Climate science (12) – VERIFIED CLIMATE SCIENCE IS DEPICTED ACCURATELY AND CURRENT Updated information around current climate science
Desire for greater explanation of climate science in the plan Lower Parking Requirements (11) - TO BE EVALUATED INCLUDING COMMUNITY OUTREACH AS PART OF
SPECIFIED ACTION DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Support for lower (or no) parking minimums for developments Opposition to reliance on/ promotion of EVs to achieving increased public transit and lower parking
Plant-based diet (11) – HIGHLIGHTED EARLIER IN PLAN AS PART OF 8 MOST IMPACTFUL ACTIONS IN
CALL TO ACTION IN EXEC SUMMARY, LINKING MOST IMPACTFUL ACTIONS FROM COMMUNITY ACTIVATION PLATFORM, RESILIENT SC LAUNCHING IN SEPTEMBER. Support for emphasizing the need for plant-based diets to reduce GHG emissions in the Plan
INCLUDED AS AN ACTION
Support for specific measures the City can take to encourage Plant-based diets INCLUDED AS AN ACTION
Image (10) – ALL NON SC IMAGES REPLACED; GRAPHICS CLARIFIED A non-Santa Cruz image should be replaced
An info-graphic was confusing and should be edited
Safe Biking (10)
More bike lockers and bike parking INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Greater explanation of “Vision Zero” SEE GLOSSARY
Increasing Electrification (9)
Support to speed rate of electrification, especially for homeowners, such as through greater incentives, door-to-door sign ups, and others INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Equity (9)
26.563
General concerns around equity not tied to a specific topic area EVERY MEASURE AND ACTION WAS DESIGNED THRU THE USE OF AN EQUITY SCREENING TOOL (SEE RELATED APPENDIX). NO
ACTION THAT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON EQUITABLE OUTCOMES WAS
ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE EQUITY CONCERN WITHIN THE ACTION OR WITH A COMPLEMENTARY ACTION.
Consumption Inventory (8)
Support for creating a consumption-based inventory INCLUDED AS AN ACTION; CITY STAFF ARE
TESTING LOW COST OPTIONS TO ESTIMATE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE CONSUMPTION BASED EMISSIONS CURRENTLY. INCLUDED CLARIFICATION THAT CITY CAP MEASURES PRIMARILY
ADDRESS EMISSIONS SOURCES FROM THE STATE SCOPING PLAN BUT THAT THEY ARE ONLY A PORTION OF OVERALL EMISSIONS. ENCOURAGES HOLISTIC APPROACH TO EMISSIONS
REDUCTIONS VIA RESILIENT SANTA CRUZ
Battery storage (8)
Support for including battery storage requirements for solar (esp. behind the meter battery storage) INCLUDED AS AN ACTION
Light Rail (7)
Support for light rail TO BE EVALUATED WITH ACTION SPECIFIED PERTAINING TO RAIL TRAIL.
Climate Impacts (7)
Additional climate impacts, (including air pollution impacts, flooding and sea level rise impacts)
ADDRESSED
Microgrids (6)
Support for more microgrids in the City INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Greywater (6)
Desire for more greywater infrastructure (rain barrels, catch basins) available for homes
INCLUDED AS AN ACTION
Circular Economy (6)
Support for reducing waste and increasing the reuse of goods in the City INCLUDED AS AN ACTION
Carbon Sequestration (6)
Support for further carbon sequestration opportunities INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Opposition to using treating carbon sequestration efforts as carbon offsets that could still cause damage by allowing emissions to occur THE ONLY OFFSET PROGRAM THE CITY WILL EXPLORE IS A REGIONAL CARBON SEQUESTRATION OFFSET PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE SB1383 COMPLIANCE STATUS. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE CEQA DEFENSIBLE EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS QUANTIFIED SINCE IT IS OUTSIDE THE STATE SCOPING PLAN.
City Achievement Section (6)
Confusion around many of the metrics listed in City Achievements section - CLARIFIED Desire for greater context around metrics- what were previous baseline metrics? SEE THE CITY’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2020 CLOSEOUT REPORT
Electrification and Equity (5)
Concerns about equitable electrification - INCLUDED AS AN ACTION; THIS ISSUE IS BEING
FURTHER EVALUATED AND DESIGNED INTO THE EXISTING BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION
ROADMAP IN DEVELOPMENT
Telework (4)
Comments clarifying teleworking policy NOTED
Support for City employee teleworking INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Sidewalks (4)
26.564
Support for ensuring well-maintained sidewalks to promote accessibility and walking INCLUDED
AS AN ACTION
No Idling (3)
Support for enforcement of anti-idling policies. ENFORCEMENT IS A FUNCTION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE CITY CONDUCTED AN EDUCATION CAMPAIGN WITH SCHOOLS ON THIS TOPIC, PLACING SIGNAGE IN LOADING ZONES AND PARKING LOTS. THIS IS PART OF THE COMMUNITY ACTIVATION PLATFORM, RESILIENT SC TO CREATE AWARENESS.
No Parking Garage (3)
Against development of downtown parking garage NOTED
Streamline Permitting (2)
Support to fast-track solar permits and reduce cost of permitting ALREADY IN PLACE Parking Revenue (2)
Desire for revenue from parking enforcement to go directly to more active transportation programs INCLUDED AS AN ACTION TO EXLORE
Clarification about what taxes/ fees discussed in the transportation section actually mean
INCLUDED AS AN ACTION TO EXPLORE FURTHER
Water (2)
General comments about concern of lack of water in Santa Cruz THE WATER DEPARTMENT IS STUDYING WATER SUPPLY IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE CHANGE CURRENTLY.
Transportation into SC (2)
Concerns about how transportation into Santa Cruz will be addressed NOTED Adaptation (2)
Desire for more adaptation actions in the Plan THIS IS NOT A COMBINED EMISSIONS REDUCTION / CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN. CLIMATE ADAPTATION PLAN UPDATE WILL START AT END OF 2022
Desire to make explicit the need for adaptation NOTED eBike Incentives (2)
Increased incentives for electric bikes INCLUDED AS AN ACTION Community Health (2)
Desire for resilience and community health to be co-benefits THESE ARE ALREADY LISTED AS CO BENEFITS.
26.565
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 09, 2022 9:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 9.13.22 Agenda Item #26 Climate change (activist) doom
9.13.22 Agenda Item #26 Climate change (activist) doom
Dear Council,
I fully support efforts to increase the supply of electricity, but not at the expense of individual rights, common sense, and head in the sand mandates.
Gov Newsom typifies climate change hysteria banning gas car sales by 2035. What he doesn't address:
) Only 14% of people intend to buy and EV car. Most can't afford one, and never will. ) EV cars cost $60,000 now, more later, and when Biden's ridiculously named "Inflation Reduction Act" EV rebates were announced, car makers promptly raised EV car prices by $8000, the entire amount of the rebates. Since Biden will be hiring 87,000 more IRS agents, we will all have less to buy that EV car with.
) No one really knows what to do with old Lithium car batteries and they are quite explosive. Same-o with used solar panels. ) the environmental cost of producing EV cars is quietly hidden, but the mining that will have to occur to go all electric will be possibly 4000% of what it is now. ) Communist China produces 80% of EV batteries, not exactly our friends, not exactly on board with the agenda.
) Good luck getting everyone to ride bikes and mass transit. )Maybe we can all live in our small downtown apartments and all be bartenders and waiters to each other, and walk to work?
) None of the climate hysterics know the difference between weather and climate. It is 100% truth no matter what you propose or enact, there will be no proof whatsoever it has any measurable effect on climate.
) The sea will rise regardless as it has been for 20,000 years. ) Migration is NOTHING compared to the effects of the climate change agenda which will include
26.566
2 economic financial collapse, political upheaval, famine, pandemic, war, and yes, mass migration because of those.
The climate change agenda is a far left agenda. Do you see the damage caused ALREADY in just two years of far leftist ideas being enacted? The list is too long to include here. You want MORE OF THAT?
We already see the effects of energy via fossil fuel starvation in the near collapse of Europe (the Germans are burning wood, the poles are lining up in mile long cues to buy coal),
the insurrection and famine in Sri Lanka,
the insurrection in Holland's farmers who's lively hoods and land will be toast, our already continual grid failures.
Clearly, the climate change agenda is not ready for prime time, but there are those like the idiot Emperor Newsom, and kooky barista AOC don't seem to get it.
We need energy and all we can get.
I'm not interested in being cold.
I'm not interested in paying outrageous artificially high prices for gas or unreliable solar electricity.
I'm not interested in blackouts, I'm not interested in turning down the AC , or not using electricity when I need it.
I'm not interested in food shortages.
I'm not interested in globalist tyrannical agendas masquerading as science that's "good for me" (see government Covid response).
I'm not interested in riding a bike.
I'm not interested in going vegan. 33-40% of the earth is good for nothing except as possibly ranching grassland, and herd animals (i.e. food to us) are the only ones who can produce food on it. Good luck changing that fact.
I'm not interested in spending outrageous amounts of money I don't have, on programs that are unproven to make one iota of difference, spearheaded by ambition, power, money, and unproven assumptions about the future of either technology or the effects of CO2 . CO2 is not a pollutant. It is plant food.
The promises that solar can provide all the electricity we need are pipe dreams, and those who say it will happen by 2030 or 2035 are stone faced bull shitters with an agenda that has nothing to do with climate change.
Feel free to ban gas powered leaf blowers, they (literally) blow (suck) dirt, especially at 8am.
26.567
3 Garrett Philipp (I think I'll bar-b-que some ribs now)
26.568
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Don Honda <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 9:17 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 2030 Climate Action Plan
Dear Council Members,
I don't believe you realize that to require electrification of all residential buildings would increase costs for renters and other residents exponentially. I have friends now that use their gas oven for heat because the cost of electricity for heat is five times the cost and keeps going up. If all electric is required, they will freeze because they can't afford to heat. This is besides the extra cost of cooking, hot water, and laundry electrically.
Being concerned for the climate is all well and good but to do the above is drastic measures that will cause much suffering for residents.
We are still recovering from inflation. This will cause more hardships for many.
Please rethink this misguided good intentioned and feel‐good plan at the cost of the quality of life for many.
Please!
If this passes, I will endeavor to fight against ALL tax and fee increases. Enough is Enough! Don Honda
26.569
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Dusten Dennis <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 2:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 2030 Climate Plan- Electrification of Existing Residences Hello City Council,
I am reading about the proposed climate plan. While many of the proposals I support. I am not in favor of a requirement that existing residences be converted to all electric at this time. This is a potential huge expense for many old houses in our neighborhood. This would be premature and misguided considering that our electricity often comes from greenhouse gas producing sources currently. We need to be sure that our electricity is truly from renewable sources before we embark on these requirements.
Dusten Dennis
920 Cayuga St.
26.570
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: lou <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 8:11 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 2030 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Council Members:
I consider your policy to enact requiring ALL residences and ALL commercial properties to be ALL electric within the next decade starting next year to be overreaching and a way over-the-top response. This will cause many residents to not afford living here and you will see a mass exodus, except, of course, UCSC students who are funded by their parents, if not the university, for the most part.
I say this because not just the city of Santa Cruz, but the county of Santa Cruz has already exceeded its state mandate of GHG emissions by almost 20%. This is due to the closure of the Davenport cement plant.
Your plans on pushing an agenda that would be detrimental to the quality of life for many is frankly, shocking, disappointing, and atrocious..
Please reconsider your drastic intentions. Even though it may look good on paper, there will be an immediate human cost.
Sincerely,
Lou DeLucia
26.571
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Catherine Hodges <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 6:39 AM
To: City Council
Cc: David Hodges
Subject: All Electric Conversion NOT possible for all residents Dear Mayor and City Council:
For many residents, converting from gas to electric appliances is not feasible. I can speak for our household, that we cannot afford to convert our appliances. Cost of living has outpaced our earnings and we have not recovered since pandemic. In addition the cost of electricity is far more costly than gas.
We use everything until it no longer works and it is not “green” to throw working appliances away.
Is the City or State going to pay to replace appliances in all homes that cannot afford to do so? Is the City/State/Utility Company going to offer energy discounts for those who cannot afford to pay more for power? Most residents are stretched to cover living expenses, inflation and high taxes.
Please focus on fixing the City’s current problems: housing, homelessness, wildfires caused by illegal camping, water supply, before implementing a new policy.
Catherine and David Hodges
26.572
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Mitch Bramlett <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 7:43 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 2030 climate action plan
City council members,
If it is true that the council is seeking to approve an ordinance that all structures remove gas heaters, water heaters, stoves, laundry within the next couple years I hope you understand how prohibitively expensive this would be. There is no way our family could afford to make this change in a couple years, or decade for that matter.
I agree we, as a community, need to work towards reducing ghg’s, but we need practical and affordable solutions.
I believe we need to work towards increasing financial incentives to enable people to convert to electronic cars as a 1st priority, then work on increasing subsidies for solar conversion and provide a meaningful subsidy for electric appliance conversion.
This needs to be done in a way that will not make an already highly expensive cost of living worse! It certainly needs to be done in a way people can afford without severe financial hardship! For certain, any member that supports this impractical electric conversion will not get my vote. I will work hard to make sure the public knows of any council member that supports it.
Thanks,
Mitch
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
26.573
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Don Honda <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 8:55 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Additional 2030 Climate Action Plan
Dear Council Members:
The main rebuttal to this is that you decided to declare a local Climate Emergency when there is in fact not one. In fact, the whole county of Santa Cruz has already far exceeded the state mandate of GHG emissions by 20% by the closure of the cement plant in Davenport: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox‐b‐1‐ d&q=santa+cruz%2C+ca+closue+of+the+davenport+cement+plant+reduces+emissions It is beyond draconian and beyond wasteful social engineering to expect residents and commercial businesses to even start to comply with your utopian demands. Please realize we can only do so much with diminishing returns while causing great hardships to many.
Don Honda
26.574
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Polhamus <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 10:16 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 26 - Climate Action Plan
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I believe in climate change. I have solar panels on my house. I drive my hybrid sparingly and walk everywhere I can. I do what I can and try to be mindful of my personal contribution to the problem and minimize whatever I can. And I really appreciate all the hard work staff has done and that has gone into this plan.
I support the goals of the Climate Action Plan and its reduction of GHG, and I am supportive of many of the goals outlined in the CAP. However, I am very concerned about two specific things:
I support your goal that "no measure or action will yield adverse impacts on equitable community wellbeing outcomes", which of course is ambiguous enough to be subject to personal interpretation. However, to me that says that mitigation requirements should not unduly burden those with lesser incomes, since most, if not all of your goals are extremely expensive to implement.
Action BE-2-1: Develop, implemenet and enforce phased and equitable electrification ordinances.......
At a time when our electric grid is less reliable than it has been for some time, I feel it extremely short sighted to be moving so quickly to all electric power without a plan for public battery storage for solar, without a plan for helping homes become truly independent by providing incentives for purchasing battery storage to save the excess energy produced by our solar panels. The last time I checked, it would cost me over $11,000 to put in modest battery storage capability on my solar system. I grew up in Florida, an "all electric" state even back in the 70's. Any time there was a hurricane or a tornado, which happened several times every year, our power was out sometimes for many days in a row, sometimes several weeks at once. This is not just an inconvenience, which it definitely is, it is a "life or death" situation for some. What about people on medical equipment? Oxygen delivery systems? What about power wheelchairs? What about cell phone chargers? What about people who have electric cars and need to charge them to get to work? As we saw recently when Governor Newsome asked people not to charge their electric cars to avoid blackout, we are not ready for prime time yet in this regard. If we don't have financially accessible private and free public battery storage, people are going to go out and buy gasoline generators to use when the power goes out, definitely a step backward.
Action BE-2-5: ....."remove obsolete natural gas infrastructure".......
I think it's absolutely short sighted to remove all the "obsolete" gas lines before we have a plan in place to make our electricity more reliable, including storage capacity for everyone in the city, not just the rich. We need to have sufficient solar systems and battery storage capability in place BEFORE any removal of other infrastructure.
I oppose movements and ordinances that sound good at the expense of being good. Greenwashing is a real thing and in my opinion greatly damages the credibility and overall effort to reduce climate impacts because it makes people suspicious and cynical. I am not the only one who switched back to PG&E from CCCE after I took a deeper look at where CCCE really gets its power, largely from big hydroelectric plants, and after I learned that PG&E actually has "greener" energy than CCCE does. I get that CCCE sounds great but is it great? I get that this action plan also sounds great, but I would need much more specific financial and logistical information to fully support it, particularly the "aspirational" items. To complete all the action items listed
26.575
2 would cost an enormous sum of money, both from the city and from its residents. We need to figure out how we are going to fund this first. Much more information dissemination to city residents, much more education needs to happen before you take some of these steps, which will absolutely impact those with fewer resources the most, especially when the power goes out.
Thank you for all your work on this, and thank you for listening.
Carol Polhamus
26.576
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Kerry Njust <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 10:32 AM
To: City Council
Subject: 2023 electric conversion requirement
I object to the requirement to convert gas appliances to electric by 2023. I can’t afford to replace my propane stove and heater. Also, given the unreliability of PG &E and their power outages, I depend on them. I can’t imagine that the current power grid would be able to accommodate it.
Thank you, Kerry Njust
Sent from my iPhone
26.577
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: eric grodberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 10:35 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Item 26 - Building Electrificiation
Dear Mayor Brunner and Council Members,
I strongly favor the transition to carbon free energy sources and the reduction of GHG emissions. To that end, I own two 100% EVs, a Solar Photovoltaic system and a Solar Thermal (i.e., hot water system.) However, it is important to analyze the actual facts before making big and complicated policy changes in energy systems.
Currently California has neither the grid resiliency nor renewable energy generation capacity to make abandonment of natural gas viable. In fact, abandoning natural gas will likely result in increased GHG emissions.
Grid Reliability: Just last week, CAL ISO narrowly averted rolling blackouts amid record electrical demand. The California grid also regularly experiences Public Safety Power Shutoffs, and equipment failures causing massive wildfires. With California's aggressive move towards Battery EVs, electricity demand is set to dramatically increase in the coming years.
Natural Gas Backup: Important infrastructure, such as the Central Library, used gasoline, diesel and gas generators for backup when the grid fails. Natural Gas generators are much cleaner (from many perspectives including GHG) than diesel and gasoline generators. Elimination of Natural Gas from buildings will force these buildings to use much more polluting gasoline and diesel generators.
Natural Gas also allows individual businesses and residences to cook, heat their buildings and water when the grid fails. Again, the alternative is much more polluting portable generators.
GHG Free Generation: California still relies largely on non-renewable sources and though renewable generation and battery storage is increasing, it is no where near close to being able to meet current demand, not to mention future increased demand.
Clean Hydrogen: It is a long way off, but likely at some point in the future. It is unwise to remove gas lines now when they could be repurposed for Clean Hydrogen.
Please examine the actual facts of our grid and generation. Don't put the cart before the horse. We are not yet ready for accelerated elimination of natural gas infrastructure.
Sincerely,
-Eric Grodberg
26.578
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Christopher Gentry <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 2:27 PM
To: City Council
Subject: City Climate Action Plan
I strongly disagree with this plan, especially the conversion to all-electric for existing dwellings.
Will the City be footing the bill for this pipe dream?
I am a senior on a fixed income. I worked hard my whole life to be able to afford a tiny home here, and I take in a boarder to make ends meet. How am I and people like me supposed to afford this C.A.P. utopia? If you don't have realistic, concrete plans for addressing your "aspirations", your time would probably be better spent cleaning up the transient, drug, and crime epidemics we are confronted with daily.
Thank you,
Chris Gentry
903 Nobel Dr.
26.579
From: eric grodberg
To: City Council
Subject: Item 26 addition - City GHG emitting fossil fuel generators Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 4:37:59 PM
26.580
26.581
26.582
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
26.583
City Council Meeting
September 13, 2022
Climate Action Plan 2030 Adoption
26.584
Overview
➢ Acknowledgments
➢ Background
➢ Climate Action Plan Process + Content
➢ “Qualified” Climate Action Plan and Environmental Review ➢ Public Review Comments and Themes
➢ Accountability + Implementation
➢ Community Activation!
26.585
Acknowledgements
Consultant
Team
Amah
Mutsun
Tribal Band
Consultation
> 50 staff
Mayor’s
Community
Climate Action
Task Force
Equity
Advisors
10 interns +
fellows
26.586
Humans are the main drivers of
climate change
The IPCC report 2022 warned that the world
is set to reach the 1.5ºC level within the next
two decades and said that only the most
drastic cuts in carbon emissions from now
would help prevent an environmental disaster
Climate Science +
Impacts
26.587
Climate Science +
Impacts
26.588
Background
26.589
Launch of Central Coast Community Energy
Over 30 projects with UCSC in last 10 years
Achievement of 2020 GHG emissions target of 30%
reduction from 1990
Completion of urban tree inventory/Street Trees
Plan
Rail Trail completion
Municipal HVAC + water heater electrification
$5M investment in EV charging infrastructure + fleet
electrification
Internal Carbon Fund invested $250k in 6 yrs
Recent Accomplishments
26.590
• Equity in all policies
• Accessible people -centric transportation infrastructure • Efficient and low carbon/no carbon energy and water
• Protect and enhance natural resources and urban parks • Eliminate food waste and support local food sources
Guiding Principles
26.591
Climate Action Plan Process - Resilient Together
16 Climate Action Task Force Meetings
16 Talks in Community
29 Outreach Events + Focus Groups
9 Frontline Group Listening Sessions
11 Commission and Council Mtgs
>24 Internal Staff Meetings
26.592
Santa Cruz Community-wide Emissions (2019)
26.593
Projected Community-wide Emissions
26.594
WELCOME! MEET OUR TEAM
www.cityofsantacruz.com/climateactionplan
CEQA Qualified Target (legally defensible, minimum for CEQA):
40% emissions reduction by 2030 from 1990 levels (9% reduction 1990 to 2020) Aspirational Target of Carbon Neutral by 2035 (voluntary) 1 2 26.595
85,810 >
26.596
Emissions Reduction Target Summary
2035
2035
0 0
MT CO2e
MT CO2e
Per Capita
26.597
At-a-Glance CAP Measures + Actions
26.598
CAP 2030 Measures
26.599
Emissions Reductions by Measure
Insert new stacked bar / wedge
diagram here
26.600
8 High Impact Actions
Choose Renewable Electricity from Central Coast Community Energy Reduce Air Travel
Eat more Plant-based Meals
Take Public Transportation
Buy or lease an Electric Vehicle
Electrify: Install Electric Heat Pump Water Heater or Space Heating Use Active Transportation: bike, walk, skateboard, or scooter Install Solar Panels
26.601
% of CAP Actions with Co-Benefits
65%
70%
40%
31%
15%
91% of Actions advance
progress on the
Health in All Policies
Community-Well Being
Outcome Indicators
26.602
>2,000 Green Jobs Projected
BUILDING
ELECTRIFICATION
BY 2030
$100M investment
~1,700 jobs
ELECTRIC
VEHICLE
ADOPTION
BY 2030
$31M investment
~150 jobs
ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
BY 2030
$48M investment
~400 jobs
> 2,000 Jobs Projected
26.603
Environmental Review - IS/ND
"Concludes that
implementation of
the CAP 2030
and checklist
would not result
in potentially
significant
impacts on the
environment”
26.604
CEQA GHG Emissions Checklist
1. “Qualified” CAP may be used for tiering + streamlining GHG emissions analysis in future CEQA project evaluations
2. CEQA Project Review Checklist
a. Consistent with GP land use and zoning; would not result in greater GHG emissions; and
b. Consistent with CAP measures
26.605
Public Review Draft – comment themes
Emissions Forecast
Public Transportation
EV Infrastructure
Parking
Implementation
Composting
Environmental Restoration
Plant Based Diets 26.606
✔ Encourage staff participation in CAP 2030 implementation/tracking training ✔ Sustainability Dashboard on Website (new)
✔ Internal CAPDash Implementation /Funding Tracking (new) ✔ Regular CM Employee Newsletter posts (bimonthly or as needed) Tools &
Training
✔ 100% Department participation in Sustainability Team
✔ Climate Action Task Force bimonthly/quarterly meetings ✔ HIAP City Council Committee Bimonthly meetings
✔ CAP x Department Heads Bimonthly Meeting
Regular
Meetings
✔ City Council and Commission presentations
✔ Departmental workplans and ½ year progress check ins
✔ Carbon Disclosure Project submission
✔ CAP Implementation Partners Roundtable (new)
Annual
Activities
Accountability Accountability
26.607
Sustainability Dashboard: Tracking + Reporting
26.608
Implementation
Everyone in the community and all
departments have a role in CAP 2030
Implementation
(150+ actions!)
26.609
Bolded are HIGH IMPACT ACTIONS
26.610
Bolded are HIGH IMPACT ACTIONS
26.611
2022 Grant progress
Fleet Electrification Roadmap ($75k)
Low Income Green + Healthy home electrification ($2M)
Mobile Solar Battery EV/Equipment Charger ($110k)
Equitable Climate Response ($15k)
E-Refuse trucks + other heavy-duty equipment ($250k)
Regional Climate Project Working Group grant support ($100k) Net Positive Resilient All-Electric Affordable Housing at Pacific Station North ($1.8M)
26.612
Community Activation + Call to Action! Community Activation - Call to Action https://resilientsantacruzcounty.org/santacruz 26.613
2. Form/ Join a Team
1. Create an Account
3. Discover Your Impact
4. Create a Plan - Choose Actions
5. Take + Track Action!
Community Activation + Call to Action!
Goal: 1.32 - 2.74 by 2030 26.614
26.615
26.616
Recommendation
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) to:
1. Adopt an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (Attachment 2); and
2. Approve the Climate Action Plan 2030 (Attachments 3 and 4) including the California Environmental Quality Action (CEQA) Project Review Checklist (Attachment 2)
Next Plan Update in 2028 (with Climate Adaptation Plan Update) 26.617
City Council
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: 9/2/2022
AGENDA OF:
DEPARTMENT:
9/13/2022
Planning & Community Development
SUBJECT: Amendments to Municipal Code Titles 6, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 24 Related to Objective Development Standards for Multi-Family Housing, New Mixed Use Zoning Districts, Development Review Process Changes, Street Trees, Right-of-Way Improvements, and the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; Associated Updates to the Zoning Map; and Establish In-Lieu Fees for Street Tree Removals (File No. FP20-0002) and Additional Modifications to Municipal Code Title 24 to Clarify and Update Various Code Sections, Remove Obsolete Sections and References, Streamline Application Processes, and Bring the Zoning Ordinance into Conformity with State Law (File Nos. A22-0002 and A22-0003) (PL)
RECOMMENDATION: Motion to continue item to a date certain on November 15, 2022.
BACKGROUND: On August 23, 2022, the City Council received a report and presentation on the subject item, heard public comment, and moved to continue the item to the next available meeting.
This report will address the most common misunderstandings about the proposal that were raised in public correspondence and during the August 23, 2022 public comments on the item. Those items include development intensity, complexity of the objective standards, the development review process, the Planning Commission review, and environmental review.
DISCUSSION:
General Plan Development Intensities
Several members of the community expressed concerns regarding the level of development intensity and suggested that the conforming rezonings as part of the Objective Development Standards project represented an increase of development potential for these sites. This is a misunderstanding of the facts. This project is not increasing development potential on any sites in the City. The project is merely making the Zoning Ordinance consistent with development potential that is already allowed under State law.
27.1 The 2030 General Plan and City zoning map have been out of sync since the adoption of the 2030 General Plan ten years ago. The initial effort to incorporate the General Plan land use pattern into the City’s zoning map was known as the Corridors Plan and was focused on developing a plan for the four major transportation corridors through the City: Mission Street, Ocean Street, Water Street, and Soquel Avenue. This work was paused in 2017 and then officially halted by the City Council in August of 2019 due to concern over the level of housing intensity included in the adopted General Plan.
With passage of AB 3194 (Daly), the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and changes to the Housing Accountability Act, the discrepancy between the City’s land use regulating policies means that the development capacity in the land use designation in the General Plan must be allowed on a property regardless of any limitations in the Zoning Ordinance. State law requires that development allowances in place on January 1, 2018, be the baseline and that reductions in citywide housing capacity cannot be made below that level.
The City currently has many objective standards in its Zoning Ordinance and General Plan that have long been part of the development review process. Where these objective development standards cannot “facilitate and accommodate” (CA Gov. Code Section 65589.5(f)(1)) the development allowed by 2030 General Plan, they cannot be applied. In other words, a development proposal can ignore standards in the Zoning Ordinance that would prevent the building intensity called for in the General Plan. That means without objective design standards and zoning standards that fit, the City has little control over development outcomes.
The below table compares current development allowances under the General Plan with that same location’s new development allowances under the proposed zone districts in the Objective Development Standards project.
Allowed Today by General Plan (MXHD) Allowed by Proposed Zoning (MU-H)
2.75 FAR 2.75 FAR
55 dwellings/acre for 2+ bedroom units 55 dwellings/acre for 2+ bedroom units No density limit for Single Room Occupancy
(SROs), Flexible Density Units (FDUs),
1 bedroom units
No density limit for SROs, FDUs, 1 bedroom
units
No height limit 5-story height limit
0’-5’ setbacks 20’ rear setback minimum
No open space requirement 120 square feet of open space per unit No neighborhood transition requirement Above 3 stories, transition at 45 degrees No building articulation requirement Articulation of building face and roof Local control is significantly increased if the proposed project is approved. Developers have more say in setting standards for height, setbacks, transitions, and open space without the proposed zoning standards in place.
Complexity of Design Standards
27.2 Some members of the community raised concerns that the amendment package was too complex and difficult to follow. Staff acknowledges that the proposed amendments are extensive. They represent two years of work with the community and decision-makers. The standards reflect the goals and direction heard throughout this project. In the end, the proposed standards are more complex than some sets of objective standards in other cities but also less complex than some others.
The Objective Design Standards for Multifamily Housing are the heart of this project. These are the changes proposed in code section 24.12.185, and they are also available as a stand-alone document on the project website at www.cityofsantacruz.com/OBJ. This stand-alone document of the design standards was updated to include a Planning Commission recommendation.
These standards express the values of the community determined through extensive outreach.
Draft standards were developed following a community meeting, a survey with 800+ respondents, and six unique focus group events. Staff and consultants then walked the community through the draft standards in detail in November 2021 at a separate community meeting, Planning Commission Study Session, and City Council Study Session. Staff then held office hours at two different times to answer questions and support readers of the document as they worked their way through it. These design standards have been available to the public since November of 2021. Many community members submitted comments on them in the past 10 months, and staff has responded to those comments.
Through this extensive outreach, it was apparent to staff that the community strongly values a mix of architectural styles and setting a range of flexible options for developers. Achieving this community goal requires the standards to be more complex. For instance, several of the standards have multiple options to achieve compliance. This adds to the length of the standards but strongly supports flexibility and variety in the resulting built form.
The Standards themselves begin with a statement of purpose and some definitions, and then cover the following aspects of Site and Building Design:
Maximum Building Length
Walkability
New Public Connections (aka. sidewalks, alleys, and pathways) Public Frontages
Parking Location and Screening
Landscape and Buffering
Useable Open Space
Neighborhood Transitions
Roof Form
Building Modulation
Corridor Frontage
Ground Floor Design
Architectural Detail
27.3 Building Materials
Lighting
Santa Cruz has previously relied on subjective requirements to manage these features of development. The process to develop these standards into objective ones requires some detail and creating objective requirements that meet the community’s high standards of design and architectural variety creates added complexity.
A few community members cited standards for cities like Santa Rosa and Santa Barbara as being easier to understand. Upon review of those cities’ standards, staff finds they are narrower in scope, because those standards are only intended for SB35 applications, whereas the proposed City of Santa Cruz standards would apply to both SB35 applications and all other multifamily development. The cited standards also do not include illustrations or photographs to demonstrate how standards should be applied, while the proposed standards do include them. Further, the standards for Santa Barbara are similar in length to the standards for Santa Cruz but are detailed to reflect a very specific design and architectural style, rather than Santa Cruz’s eclecticism.
In addition to the design standards, this project also includes sections from the Public Works and Parks Departments relating to issues of local infrastructure and street frontage. These sections were added a bit over a year ago based on community comment and concerns during the review of the City’s first SB35 application at 831 Water Street. That project review process showed that many of the City’s regulations for street improvements were not written in such a way that they could be applied effectively to SB35 applications, so the staff began working through those existing regulations to propose standards that would provide more certainty for future projects.
Through the community outreach, staff also heard just how important trees and landscaping are to Santa Cruz and that they should be maintained and enhanced with new development. Based on this feedback, Planning staff invited Parks and Recreation staff to collaborate on creating new standards to help ensure the City’s urban forest stays healthy and diverse, with street trees required with most new multifamily development.
Adding these Public Works and Parks and Recreation standards has lengthened the proposed amendments, but staff believes this is process is an ideal way to address other development components that the community values such as sidewalk standards, roadway improvement triggers, street tree requirements, lighting standards, and extensions to the City’s fiber optic communication network.
One final note in terms of the presentation of the package: the ordinances are split into two separate documents due to a request by the Coastal Commission staff to maintain separation between the sections of the Municipal Code that are subject to California Coastal Commission (CCC) review and those that are not subject to their review. The ordinance containing the Local Coastal Program (LCP) sections of the code will need to be reviewed and approved by the Coastal Commission before it can take effect inside the Coastal Zone. Both ordinances will apply outside the Coastal Zone 30 days after final approval by City Council, and the non-LCP ordinance will also apply inside the Coastal Zone at that time. Following approval by the CCC, both ordinances will be effective citywide.
27.4 Development Review Process/Public Hearings
One of the most prevalent concerns raised at the prior hearing relates to a proposed change in public hearing requirements that would streamline review for proposals that meet all of the local zoning regulations, including every one of the new design standards that are being proposed.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommended this streamlining approach in order to provide an incentive for projects to fully conform to the standards that were developed with much community input. The proposed approach would reserve public hearings for projects that are not meeting the code requirements in any way, along with projects that require public hearings as a result of other required permits. For example, applying for a Density Bonus automatically requires a public hearing. Under the proposal, the City’s current community outreach policies, a neighborhood notice, the community meeting requirement, the environmental review requirement, and the right to appeal all remain in place. This is the same streamlining that has been used for conforming development in the multifamily R-L (Multiple Residence Low Rise) and R-M (Multiple Residence Medium Rise) zones for at least the past 30 years.
The idea is that the streamlining might encourage some developers to use that process instead of seeking a Density Bonus Application. Currently, the City’s 20% inclusionary rate (which requires that permanent affordable housing for low-income households be included with new market-rate homes) means that nearly all new multifamily housing qualifies for a State Density Bonus. A Density Bonus lets developers add more market rate housing and waives development standards like height and parking so that the additional housing can fit on the property.
Density Bonus projects require a public hearing under existing regulations, and they would continue to require a public hearing under the proposed regulations. Because the Density Bonus will still be more financially appealing for most development, staff expects that only a limited number of development proposals would be both fully conforming and not request a Density Bonus Law. Of the 19 significant projects with 20+ units submitted to the City since 2020, 16 were Density Bonus projects. Other development triggers that require a public hearing under the proposed process include but are not limited to: a Coastal Permit, Planned Development Permit, Historic Alteration Permit, Variance, Slope Development Permit, and various other permit and public hearing triggers. Based on these triggers, none of the 19 significant projects submitted since 2020 would have qualified for the proposed streamlined review.
Because of the limited scope of the proposed streamlining process, staff is open to removing that part of the proposal. At the November 15, 2022 meeting, staff will include an alternative to the proposed development review process code section that will allow the City Council to make a policy choice related to incentivizing conforming development or to creating hearings for conforming development.
Planning Commission Review
27.5 At the prior hearing on August 23rd, questions came up regarding the completeness of the Planning Commission recommendation communicated to the City Council. The recommendations of the Commission that were passed on June 2 were discussed on page 9 of the prior agenda report and the recommendations that were passed on June 30 and July 21 were discussed on page 12 of that report. The minutes from each of the hearings were also included as attachments.
Inclusionary/Affordable Housing Motion
Some public comments raised concerns about development providing a fair share of affordable housing along with market rate housing. The City has an inclusionary housing ordinance (a minimum percentage of affordable units that are required with each development proposal) that requires that any development proposal of five or more units includes a minimum of 20% of the units at a price affordable to local Low-Income households (defined as households earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income). This is the strongest inclusionary ordinance in Santa Cruz County. Nothing in the proposal would change that existing policy.
With regard to the two provisions relating to the City’s affordable housing inclusionary rate recommended by the Planning Commission, staff has not included these measures in the staffrecommended ordinance amendments for several reasons. Staff is concerned that there is no evidence in the record to support this recommendation. No financial feasibility analysis has been conducted for such a change, so there is no way to confirm that housing development would continue at the current (or accelerated, as required under the 6th Cycle RHNA obligation) rate or not.
Staff has looked for examples of inclusionary housing rates similar to the ones recommended by the Planning Commission and found none that were established without a supporting nexus study. Recently, the City of San Francisco saw housing production fall by as much as 50% in the wake of increasing inclusionary housing requirements1. While many factors could contribute to that decrease, staff is concerned that the increase in inclusionary rates and its associated increase in development costs did play a role given the timing of the slowdown. Santa Cruz could experience similar reductions in housing production if increases to the inclusionary requirements such as those recommended by Planning Commission were adopted. Such a change would require careful study of the potential impacts and unintended consequences.
The financial analyses of development completed as part of this project showed tenuous project feasibility due to development costs relative to returns. An increase in inclusionary requirements could easily bring with it a slowdown in development similar to that seen in San Francisco. The potential for a 50% slowdown creates a policy choice between producing affordable housing at a rate of 20% of 100 units (20 affordable units and 80 market rate units) versus 30% of 50 units (15 affordable units and 35 market rate units).
1 “San Francisco housing development has slowed to a crawl, with no uptick in sight: ‘The costs are simply too high’”, San Francisco Chronicle. June 27, 2022
27.6 Since the adjustment to the City’s inclusionary rate from the historic rate of 15% to the current 20% rate citywide, nearly all large development proposals have used Density Bonus applications, as discussed in the previous section. Utilizing the State Density Bonus Law often has the effect of reducing the overall affordability rate to 15% or less – which is similar to the previously established inclusionary requirement and a rate close to that supported by the 2018 analysis completed by an economic consulting firm.
For these reasons, it is the professional opinion of staff that the staff recommendation better supports the production of affordable units than the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
Staff does not recommend increasing the inclusionary rate without substantially more evidence showing that such a move will not have a cooling effect on housing production.
Because of the City’s 20% inclusionary requirement, more affordable, inclusionary housing will be produced in conjunction with higher levels of market rate housing construction than will be the case if market rate housing development slows. Development of new affordable housing units will also be more successfully addressed through the creation of new or increased federal, state, and local funding sources that can fund the construction or acquisition of housing that can be deed restricted to remain affordable over the long term.
Environmental Review
Given that the amendments do not increase already studied and allowed development intensity evaluated as part of the General Plan, no further environmental review is required pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
Regarding the amendments relating to fences, accessory structures, and children’s play equipment, the proposed amendments do not change the level of impact these structures would have on the natural environment. Due to their small size; temporary, ancillary nature; and the fact that they do not effect the intensity of the primary residential use, such structures will not create a significant environmental impact. Section 15303(e) of the CEQA Guidelines states that accessory structures are categorically exempt from CEQA review. Minor amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to the location, size, and physical characteristics of such accessory structures are also exempt from CEQA under Section 15061(b)(3), the “common sense” exemption, which states that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Some community members raised concerns about one specific standard included with the new regulations for sidewalk installation, and those concerns misunderstand the application of the standard. The section reads as follows:
Section 15.20.060(d)
…
All Other Roadways
Unless specified in an Area Plan, sidewalk widths along all other roadways for all new multi-family and mixed use residential with 3 or more residential units or any commercial development shall be a minimum of 8 feet.
27.7 Commenters were concerned that requiring an 8-foot sidewalk on their single-family residential roadways would require the elimination of trees and landscaping. Note that the above standard does not apply in single-family zone districts. The term “multifamily” in the municipal code means three equivalent attached units. Duplexes, ADUs, and Jr. ADUs will not trigger this requirement. Further, regulations for tree removal include accommodations for maintaining existing trees when new sidewalks are required, so long as the finished product complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and where tree removals may ultimately be allowed as part of a multi-family development, the City has standard measures applicable to any such tree removals that require replacement trees (or proposed in-lieu payments that would go towards planting and maintaining trees off-site) to mitigate any potential impacts. Wide sidewalks are an essential feature of walkable neighborhoods that meet the needs of all residents, and the proposal seeks to support this infrastructure investment.
Recommendation and Next Steps
The City and its consultants have led a robust community engagement effort over the past two years as part of the objective standards process. While the draft standards have been available for nearly a year, with many public comments having been received and responded to, staff recognizes that the amount of work in the objective standards package is large, particularly for those who are reviewing the information for the first time. While over 1,000 individuals participated in the process that led to the draft standards, people who are learning of the standards now may not have the full background on the current regulations, the proposed regulations, and how they relate. Given the number of public comments that misunderstood basic components of the proposal, staff is recommending a brief delay in the Council’s consideration of the standards and is requesting a continuance to the Council’s meeting on November 15, 2022. While the standards are in a state where the Council could adopt them now, a brief delay will afford staff the opportunity to reach out to those who provided comments so that they can better understand the proposal. Additional comments will be considered; however, staff does not anticipate making substantive changes that would trigger additional Planning Commission review, as such changes would cause substantial delays in the adoption of the overall standards. Instead, any substantive change recommendations will be added to the list of items that will be evaluated for future action. As noted at the August 23, 2022 hearing, staff is planning for these standards to be updated as staff, applicants, community members, and decision makers learn from their application.
Staff does strongly advise against any delay beyond November 15, 2022. As detailed herein and in the prior report, the application of these standards will provide the City with more control over the design and materials of projects. They will result in higher quality architectural and site design and higher quality materials that reflect the values filtered from over 1,000 participants in the process. Per state law, these new standards will not apply to any projects that have a complete preliminary review application (meeting applicable state-identified standards) or a complete formal application prior to the effective date of the standards. The standards will apply outside the Coastal Zone 30 days after approval at two Council meetings (first and second readings). They will apply inside the Coastal Zone only after the Coastal Commission approves them, which will at minimum be several months after the Council’s second reading. Thus, the potential exists for the quality of the City’s built form to suffer as a result of delays in the adoption of these standards, and in fact, proposals continue to be received that, if deemed
27.8 complete before the standards apply, will not have to comply with the more stringent design criteria. While the final push of community engagement is important enough to warrant a brief pause, any further delay is and will be strongly discouraged.
Health in All Policies
The items relating to the creation of objective standards that are currently before Council are consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health, and sustainability in that they were developed through equitable outreach to a broad population (including those historically underrepresented) and create development standards that may encourage the construction of needed housing, particularly multi-family housing units that serve a broad range of the community and that incorporates sustainable design outcomes.
The proposed amendments to public right-of-way improvements are consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health and sustainability in their promotion of wider access to high-speed internet through requirements for fiber optic conduit, their support of walkable neighborhoods by increasing the width of sidewalks in many neighborhoods to make walking a safer and more accessible mode of transit.
The standards requiring street trees in Title 24, the changes to the Tree Ordinance, and the Street Tree In-lieu Fee Resolution support the Health in All Policies sustainability pillar and the Collective of Results and Evidence-based (CORE) goal of Healthy Environments by insuring that the multiple environmental benefits brought by trees are included in development projects, that industry standard care is given to street trees, and that street tree replacement is prioritized.
The items relating to the miscellaneous Zoning changes are consistent with the Health in All Policies pillars of equity, public health, and sustainability in that they improve the usability of the Zoning Ordinance for all people. The proposed amendments, while relatively minor in nature, will help bring the Zoning Ordinance into conformance with State law, streamline processing of specific permits, more clearly define certain processes and standards, and remove obsolete phrases and sections.
FISCAL IMPACT: The project itself had a minimal direct fiscal impact, as the vast majority of consultant costs were covered by grant funds. The draft objective standards seek to align the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan standards while also adding transparency to the development review process. Streamlining of conforming projects is also proposed. This may incentivize and induce new mixed-use and multi-family housing development proposals, so the City could receive greater permit fees and impact fees associated with new development. New residents would also result in additional sales tax revenues associated with those residents’ spending. However, new residents also bring additional service demands, so any new revenues associated with new residential development would come with new service delivery costs. The establishment of a Street Tree In-lieu Fee will lead to additional funding for planting and establishment of trees on public lands in the City.
27.9 Prepared by:
Sarah Neuse
Senior Planner
Matt VanHua
Principal Planner
Submitted by:
Lee Butler
Planning and Community
Development Director
Approved by:
Matt Huffaker
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
None.
27.10 38
Rosemary Balsley
From: Howard Eddy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 7:33 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Howard Eddy Sent from my iPad
27.11 39
Rosemary Balsley
From: Annie Shaw <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 10:48 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection to new developments
Hello,
I'm writing in objection to the continual new developments in the city that are undermining the character of Santa Cruz, threatening the livelihoods of small businesses, and unnerving locals.
It is being made very clear that the focus is not on affordable housing and small business. Santa Cruz does not need new buildings that will (not) actually be filled with affordable units. Santa Cruz does not need more hotels! Santa Cruz needs to address the issue of UCSC taking too many students. Santa Cruz needs to address the issue of second homes and Airbnb. Santa Cruz needs to support small businesses and the local economy. I am in absolute objection to the tall buildings in proposal on lower Front street. To me this does not address the actual issue of housing. There should be rental control, less students, and tax on second homes that subsidizes rent for lower income locals.
Thank you for your time,
Annie Shaw
Santa Cruz city resident
27.12 40
Rosemary Balsley
From: Tyler Olson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 7:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 21
I am writing on Agenda Item 21 ‐ Objective Standards ‐ and urge adoption. They are the product of a community that came together to discuss and give feedback to the city’s planning project. I support the staff's recommendation as proposed to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts the Objective Standards for multi‐family and mixed‐use housing projects. These standards will help us build the housing we desperately need.
I further support the recommendation from the city’s Transportation and Public Works Committee (and supported by Santa Cruz YIMBY) that staff adjust implementation of site public improvements and fees based upon building square footage in accordance with AB 602. ‐Tyler Olson
27.13 41
Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2022 12:35 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities. Thank you for taking my objections seriously! Charles Dixon
27.14 42
Rosemary Balsley
From: Sharon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2022 4:51 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection To "Objective Standards" Proposal
I strongly support the position of Save Santa Cruz. Please don't pass the so‐called "Objective Standards" proposal in its current form. I feel very strongly about this, and particularly object to eliminating many public hearing opportunities.
Thank you for taking my objections seriously!
Please refer to the letter drafted by Save Santa Cruz to learn more about my objections Thank you again.
Sent from Mail for Windows
27.15 43
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 3:32 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 9.13.22 Council meeting Objective Standards
9.13.22 Council meeting Objective Standards
Dear Council,
I feel it is worthwhile to strongly object the the proposed tree ordinance as written, but before that I would urge the various ordinances to be broken up into separate council items, so people can discuss more than one small topic in a HUGE ordinance extravaganza. Surely you don't intend to pass 100% of all this in one meeting without a word of changes. It might be possible to approve some, but not all the more controversial ones this way. In particular, the tree ordinance.
Literally in the ordinance itself it states in general the city will not be planting trees, watering trees, maintaining trees, assigning itself any duties, or accept any responsibility or liability for what you describe as street trees. All of that is put on anyone requesting a permit, or really as a condition of getting a permit for other things (such as a new development).
It is my belief that with ZERO "skin in the game" the city really has to claim to the trees themselves, but are the personal private property of those who plant, maintain, accept responsible duties and liability of the trees as long as they are planted and alive.
The ordinance reads like trees have more rights than people. Note "(3) Notifying the director of any diseased street tree or hazard posed to street trees or vegetation; " used to read "posed by street trees". Trees apparently can do no wrong now.
The idea then that you have any moral right to force people to maintain trees PERPETUALLY, and issue enormous FINES in in-lieu fees for removing I say their personal property is morally bankrupt and a simple money grab via something akin to extortion.
I feel this will have a chilling effect on anyone who wanted to plant a street tree in an existing residential parkway.
This is ALL STICK and NO CARROT to promote a tree canopy. You should be thanking them for however long they maintain their (note not your) trees.
27.16 44
I suggest changing the definition of street tree from "capable of reaching ten feet or more in height" to "becomes more than 10 feet in height" as any tree under 10 feet is really a zero issue whether it can grow higher or not. In fact, maybe make that 12 feet.
In general it is a mistake to combine objective standards that are intended to be used on new developments with regulations that effect existing properties. They can be split. Otherwise, you are "changing the deal" with existing street tree regulations where their really is no "consent" given as per the new permit process. The existing trees were planted under the old ordinance, or even before that. I suppose in any case, they have 30 days to cut their trees down before this takes effect if they don't want perpetual obligations.
In the last meeting it was presented that Los Gatos charges around $3500 for an "inlieu" fee.
This seems like misinformation several ways.
There is no real comparison to Los Gatos. Los Gatos is a heavily forested city with many native trees both on private and public property. Los Gatos is involved heavily in all aspects of street trees, sometimes planting them, definitely doing maintenance on them.
They have "skin in the game". I also read their in-lieu fees are based on the size of the canopy of the tree replaced, and cost of the replacement tree, and replacement trees start at $250 to $500, although more trees need to be planted depending on the size of the original tree to be more equivalent. I'm not so thrilled with their ordinance either, but they have a valid claim on a tree they have expended quite a bit of maintenance effort on, unlike Santa Cruz. Yes, Los Angeles charges $250.
It would seem then, for several reasons, your proposed schedule of in-lieu fees have no justifiable basis and is really a money grab.
This "perpetual obligation" to plant trees placed on a minority of property owners (who made the mistake of wanting a street tree) while everyone else just enjoys the trees is wrong and I would point out..
YOU WORK FOR US, WE DON'T WORK FOR YOU.
Indeed , it seems "money CAN grow on trees" for the city. I think that is the point of this ordinance.
The approved street tree list is about 30 trees long. The Los Angeles list is 150 trees long. Seems different huh?
It's possible there should be a list of NUISANCE TREES. While I don't have a list, I nominate what is called a "sap bush tree" as they dump sticky purple sap mess and have quite strong roots for a small tree, capable of breaking cement.
Los Gatos bans fruit trees and I have mixed feelings about that. It is true if nobody picks up the fruit that falls, they can be messy. However, we're talking growing FOOD here, so please don't ban those. Many people do plant apple trees and wire train them to grow
27.17 45
along the parkway and not into the street or sidewalk. I doubt the trees have "feelings" about that, so your code about wires would ban that.
So, yes the perpetual tree planting obligations and in-lieu fees are an abomination for a city to impose that otherwise DOES NOTHING to grow and maintain street trees.
Garrett Philipp - Westside
27.18 46
Rosemary Balsley
From: Pauline Seales <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2022 11:50 AM
To: City Council; Tiffany Wise-West; Lee Butler; Matt Huffaker Cc: SC CAN discussion; Rick Longinotti
Subject: Municipal Code Changes
Dear Lee Butler, Tiffany Wise-West, Matt Huffaker, and City Council
I attended most of the Aug 23 council meeting regarding the proposed Amendments to Municipal Code.
Thank you for your work. We recognize the need to update and streamline project approval, address new state laws and the urgent need for more housing within the city boundaries. However, despite the lengthy presentation, it seemed that many important changes were omitted. Therefore I am writing to request that more considerations be added.
The complete 2030 Climate Action Plan needs to be incorporated into planning guidelines. Here are just a few necessary items.
a. Electrification of all new buildings AND requiring electrification of existing buildings whenever permits are issued for significant alterations and scheduling mandated retrofits in order to meet the Climate Plan goals by 2035.
b. Additional stress on making streets safer for biking and sidewalks wider and safer for walking, strollers, and wheelchair users, including all forms of active transportation. c. Greatly increasing the tree canopy, especially in lower income areas where creative approaches should be used, as the sidewalks are often narrow but the need for increased shade is a significant public health factor.
d. Low lying areas, south of Laurel/Broadway, could be frequently or permanently flooded by 2070, well within the lifespan of new buildings Ideally these areas should NOT be developed for residential use. They could, for example, be developed as sponge parks.
Residential developments should be expanded in higher elevations areas of the City such as along Soquel or Water east of North Branciforte.
e. The need to reduce water usage should be addressed further, including not only low flow fixtures but expanded greywater reuse for landscaping and low water use designs. f. Multiple considerations regarding transportation and parking as will be outlined in a coming municipal code letter by Rick Longinotti, which we support.
Since the draft Climate Action Plan has been available since the end of June it should have been incorporated into the new municipal code plan. Following up with additional changes is not the most effective way to proceed.
Pauline Seales
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
27.19 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Garrett <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2022 7:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: 9.13.22 Agenda Item # 27 Muni Code
9.13.22 Agenda Item # 27 Muni Code
Dear Council,
I strongly suggest you split the question on this agenda item to split it into 6 items, once for each chapter of the proposed ordinance changes, and allow public comment on each, for whenever this item is heard.
It is far to complex and far reaching for the public to comment in 2 or 3 minutes each, and an up down vote on such a volume of legislative changes all at once is problematic.
One almost gets the idea you would like to limit public comment.
Thanks,
Garrett Philipp - Westside
[ ]
27.20 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Janine Roeth <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2022 9:54 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Adopt the Objective Standards!
Santa Cruz Mayor, Vice Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing to urge you to adopt the Objective Standards.
I support the staff's recommendation to the City Council which aligns zoning code with the general plan and adopts Objective Standards for multi-family and mixed-use housing projects.
These standards will help us build the housing we need.
They facilitate the development of more multi-family and mixed-use housing which is already allowed in the city. The standards are the product of lots of community discussion and feedback to the city’s planning project.
Increased inclusionary percentages sound good, but if too high, it discourages housing production. Our housing and affordability crisis is real, and stopping housing production does nothing to address it.
Thank you.
Janine Roeth
[email protected]
Santa Cruz, California 95062
27.21 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Tara Manuel <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 6:51 AM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Donna Meyers; Justin Cummings; Martine Watkins; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sandy Brown; Renee Golder
Subject: Mayors Message - Zoning
I am a resident of the east side of Santa Cruz. Some of my neighbors have made me aware of the new objective standards that are being proposed in town and I also read your message yesterday in the Sentinel.
I am trying to understand how the zoning is designated. Why are all the high density areas concentrated on the east side with zero on the west side? I envision that much of the housing may be used for students so wouldn’t it be better suited closer to the university?
Also, the area along Water/Branciforte is designated as high density, but looking at the zoning map is seems like it would be better suited as medium density to match the area along Ocean.
The area along Soquel is almost seeming like a mini downtown with all the high density zooming but it shouldn’t extend to the Water/Branciforte parcels.
Thank you for your time,
Tara
27.22 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Henry Hooker <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 4:29 PM
To: City Council; Sonja Brunner; Bonnie Bush
Subject: Objective Development Standards, Item 27, September 13, 2022 Dear Mayor and Council,
I write in support of the Objective Standards.
First, thanks to the Planners for their extraordinary efforts to provide a framework encouraging housing where it is most needed and sustainable, near public services and public transportation. Thanks also to the hundreds of engaged citizens who did study sessions and questionnaires to make this project a success. Although disappointing that action may be delayed until November 15, there does seem to be more than enough confusion around the standards to warrant the delay.
Much of the opposition to these standards is based on a misconception: that the City can legally decrease the amount of housing that is already permitted in the General Plan. State Law prevents the City from downzoning to permit fewer plans than are already allowed. The Objective Standards establish rules that encourage the kind of development we want in Santa Cruz, to facilitate the implementation of new housing and to mitigate the impacts.
Hindering the production of housing in Santa Cruz seems to be the goal of groups such as Save Santa Cruz. While understandable for those who have secured their place here, it's terrible policy for those who work but cannot afford to live here. Let’s be clear; “no growth” is not environmentalism and is indefensible if we want to keep our planet habitable for our children and succeeding generations. Multi‐family housing on transportation corridors, facilitated by the Objective Standards, uses dramatically less land, infrastructure, water, power, and fuel for transportation than single family homes.
We hear: “The Objective Standards are nothing more than a rerun of the Corridors Plan, which we already defeated”. Of course it’s like the Corridors Plan! It’s trying to thread the same needle. The questions are:
“Where would you like housing to be? How should it look?” For both the Corridors Plan and the Objective Standards, the answers are similar. Putting housing near transit makes sense. The Objective Standards go further, answering how that housing should look.
Please reject the effort to increase the inclusionary rate for new multi‐family units. There is good reason to believe that an increase will discourage the production of new entry level housing. While it is tempting to think of inclusionary units as “free” affordable housing, subsidized by the developers, it is in fact subsidized by those who would like to purchase the market rate units. Middle income people who may earn too much to qualify for affordable housing are, in effect, paying a surcharge on their apartment purchase. It’s notable that no such surcharge exists for those purchasing single family homes.
The City of Santa Cruz needs to permit the housing we have planned, and, in fact, the Objective Standards facilitate what is already allowed in the City. The Council’s approval of the Objective Standards would improve the quality and efficacy of new housing in Santa Cruz, and would make a big step toward increased equity and sustainability.
27.23 1
Rosemary Balsley
From: Joan Timpany <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 6:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Objection to Objective Standards Proposal
Dear Mayor Brunner and Santa Cruz Council Members,
We, as tax‐paying members of the public and residents of the City of Santa Cruz, need more voice in the direction of building projects within the city. We need maximum opportunity to express our concerns for the building options which are on the table currently.
The Objective Standards are just a new name for the previous Corridors plan and are an extremely flawed attempt to change the City's Planning code and eliminate public hearing opportunities.
Our city has undergone too many changes for the worse and we want our say in how are neighborhoods are impacted.
NO on Objective Standards as the current set is written ‐ back to the drawing board for a more inclusive solution.
Sincerely,
Joan DJ Timpany
Resident of Santa Cruz
27.24 2
Thank you for your consideration,
Henry Hooker
27.25 28.1
28.2 28.3
28.4 28.5
29.1 29.2