1. That the above recitations are true and correct.
2. The proposed CAP update is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15308, Class 8, Actions By Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment.
3. The City of Solana Beach Climate Action Plan Update is hereby approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of October, 2024, at a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
______________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ _______________________________ JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk Comment/Edit Section - Page Staff Response Commentor
using less energy and driving less only help if the energy is sourced from fossil fuels. Should mention replacing
methane burning appliances with electric and ICE cars
with EV’s, referencing, "By changing habits to consume
less energy; producing less waste through recycling,
organics processing, and conserving water; and driving
less by choosing to carpool, take transit, or walk and
bike more frequently, individuals and businesses can
work towards reducing their carbon footprint." Suggest
adding: Meeting the Cities goals requires residents to
replace methane burning appliances with electric
appliances at the end of life and to purchase an electric vehicle. 0 Exec Sum - ES-4
Good comment, but not the appropriate place to include. This is the executive summary and not meant to be an exhaustive list of actions. Replacing natural gas appliances and converting to EVs are both within the implementation matrix. Additionally, our CAP will not require (only encourage) replacement of natural gas appliances with electric or gas cars with electric during this five year implementation period, so it would be inaccurate to add this statement. Additionally, it is important to leave "consume less energy" as energy efficiency is important for grid stability as we switch to 100% renewables. Commissioner McClune
Is there a reference? "As discussed in Chapter 4, the
effects of climate change on the City may be severe.
Possible impacts include sea-level rise between 2.4 and
6.9 feet by 2100, increased annual average
temperatures up to 10 degrees Farenheit by 2090,.." 1 Intro - 1-1 The reference is to Chapter 4. If you go to Chapter 4, you will see complete references. General: Some of the climate change effects in this report refer to this Fourth California Climate Change Assessment (CRNA 2018b) and references therein. Additional references are as noted. Furthermore, Cal-Adapt (Cal-Adapt 2019) a climate change scenario planning tool, was used to acquire city and location specific information which was not available in the Assessment. Using Localized Constructed Analogs (LOCA), CalAdapt downscales global climate simulation model data to local and regional resolution for two possible climate change projections, one in which emissions peak around 2040 and then decline (Representative Concentration Pathway [RCP] 4.5) and another in which emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century (RCP 8.5) in a business-as-usual scenario.
For that specific fact: While future projections vary, especially because of uncertainties in the rate of ice loss in the major ice sheets of the world, the recent report developed by the California Ocean Protection Council (OPC) projects that by the year 2100, sea levels may rise by approximately 2.4 to 6.9 feet, with the potential for an extreme scenario of 10.2 feet of sea level rise caused by more rapid ice sheet loss in Greenland and Antarctica (Ocean Protection Council 2018). Commissioner Nagamine
Top section only talks about Clean and Green. A few
bullets below the Climate Action Commission is
mentioned. Seemed odd 1 Intro - 1-8 Staff made edits within text, removing Clean and Green call out. Councilmember Zito Typo: Should it be 127,000 or 12,700 (not 127,00) acres of US forest 2 GHG - 2-3 Fixed to 127,000 Commissioner Nagamine This seems to indicate that, from 2035 to 2045, there is only 1% of increase. In this case, "modest population
growth until 2035 and leveling-off", instead of modest
growth by 2035 and 2045? Current text: "Based on
data used by EPIC to estimate projections, the city's
population is expected increase by 10 percent by 2035
and 11 percent by 2045 from 2016 levels." 2 GHG - 2-4
Change made to: "modest population growth until 2035 and leveling-off", as this is what the SANDAG projection data showed Commissioner Nagamine Dicussion of population trends. Model was built on old
SANDAG data and current data indicates a 3% growth in
population by 2050 vs. the 10% number used in the
document. Seems like updating the document is
unlikely but I'd like to make sure any presentation
includes a discussion of what would be effected in the
document by the reduced population estimate. In
particular if any changes would likely be "material" with respect to the notable reduction in the estimated
growth. 2 GHG - 2-4
Discussed during the CAC April meeting, the population forecast in the CAP is a more conservative approach, i.e., with higher population growth and higher GHG emissions projections, compared with the latest SANDAG projection data, i.e., lower population growth and lower GHG emissions projections. The city meets the CAP targets under the more conservative apporach, so it should be able to meet the targets under the lower population growth scenario.
Also, CAPs incorporate the best available population trends at the time, the city can monitor the GHG emisisons trend through GHG inventories and CAP implementation progress after the CAP adoption. If there is any "material" change, a CAP update might be needed. Councilmember Zito
From 2016 to 2035, GHG reduction is about 3140 per
year on average ((106100 - 43300)/20), but between
2035 and 2045, GHG reduction is 1550 per year on
average ((43300-27800)/10). Why the per-year
reduction between 2035 and 2045 gets almost ½ of the
one between 2016 and 2035? Why the reduction rate
per year slows down so much? 2 GHG - 2-5 (Table 2-2)
As we approach carbon neutrality, it gets harder and harder to reduce emissions. We've already done really large, low-hanging fruit like create and switch to a CCA that has a much cleaner electricity source, which reduced emissions quickly over a short period of time. The process isn't linear. Switching out natural gas appliances in existing homes and getting people out of gasoline cars will be much harder, and thus slower process.
Additionally, most actions start in the next five years/right after the CAP adoption and level off, so the reductions between 2035-2045 are lower than earlier years. Commissioner Nagamine
These policies include the promotion of EV? Maybe
include what policies might be helping BAU GHG
reduction. Reference: "The overall decrease in
emissions is primarily due to State and federal policies in place in 2023." 2 GHG - 2-5
These are listed under "Legislative Reductions" on page 2-5 above Table 2-2. Commissioner Nagamine
118,334 MTCO2e/year in 2020: I am curious … did we
achieve this target? 2 GHG - 2-6
California, as a whole, achieved its AB32 target for 2020.
Additionally SANDAG completed an inventory for Solana Beach that showed that the City reduced emissions by 40% from 2010 to 2020. We use a different baseline in the CAP Update (2016), so looking at percentages, yes.
Will update text box with the 2035 and 2045 targets. Commissioner Nagamine typo? 106100 (2016 level in Table 2-2) - 53100 = 53000 2 GHG - 2-6 This is a matter of rounding. 50% of 2016 emissions gets rounded to 53,100. We rounded the numbers to the hunderds, the 106,100 MT CO2e in 2016 in Table 2-2 is also a rounded number. Commissioner Nagamine So … the red line in the chart is BAU forecast with
Federal/State legislative measures? In this case … it
might be better that the chart presents how much
emission can be reduced if the City also takes actions? 2 GHG - 2-7 (Figure 2-2) No, the red line is the City's GHG Reduction Targets. The black line is the BAU forecast. All the other sectors presented show the sector specific levels expected after the influence of already adopted State and federal legislation. Figure 3-1 and 3-2 both show expected GHG emissions reductions if the CAP Update measures and actions are implemented. Commissioner Nagamine
I don’t see a way for the city to measure its
contribution? How will we know if we are making
progress? Like goal T-1R (residents telecommute) 3 Reduction - 3-1 How the city measures GHG emissions is through a combination of direct data sources and modeling. As a part of the CAP, we have listed completing inventories every two years to check progress on GHG emissions. We will, as appropriate, be reporting on implementation of measures listed in the CAP to the CAC. The City also includes the CAP within it's Annual Workplan, another opportunity to provide updates on progress. Additionally, some measures are difficult to measure progress, i.e., resident's voluntary actions, but the City will be conducting outreach, eduction, etc. for voluntary actions and will track those relevant performance metrics. Commissioner Coleson
It is unclear to me how the numbers in this table relate to the 11,900 MTCO2e target described in the
paragraph above. I also am unsure of what time period
is covered by each column in the table, when discussing MTCO2e/yr. Does that mean that in the years between
now and 2035 total reductions will be 49,100 each
year, or that by 2035 a total of 49,100 MTCO2e will
have been reduced. Similarly for 2045, is that
describing reductions each year from 2035 to 2045, or
that in the subsequent 10 years another 70,900
MTCO2e will be removed? I think what is confusing me
is the "/year" in the table heading. It makes it seem that what is reported in each column is a reduction per year, which then leads one to ask which years does that refer to.
3 Reduction - 3-1 (Table
3-1)
Updated Table 3-1 heading to "(MT CO2e)" instead "(MT
CO2e/year)" similar to the heading of Table 3-2
The GHG reduction numbers are the reductions in that year, i.e., GHG reductions in year 2035 and year 2045, not during a time period. Commissioner Buchanan
Where is the source of this data, provide a link? 3 Reduction - 3-3 (Figure 3-1)
The Source is listed right below the figure, from our consultant EPIC. Additionally, the data will be further broken down in Appendix A, which EPIC is still finalizing (expected to have by May 20). Commissioner Coleson
It is unclear that the width of each line represents the drop due to that particular measure. I had to look at
the graph several times to see this. I wonder if it could be spelled out somehow.
Why does the top of the graph (the light gray area)
drop in the first few years, what does the white (that
replaces where the light gray would have been,
between 80,00 and about 85,000) represent?
Also, I don't understand what the large dark gray area is comprised of.
3 Reduction - 3-4 (Figure
3-2)
Large dark gray area is the remaining emission and the top light gray area is the reduction from federal and state legislations as indicated in the legend. There are significant GHG reduction in the next few year from state actions, which is why the top of the graph drops in the first few yeras.
This chart is to show the contribution from each of the CAP strategies, e.g., which strategy is contributing to what level of GHG reduction. The details are discussed in the later tables. Commissioner Buchanan Where is the source of this data, provide a link?
3 Reduction - 3-4 (Figure
3-2)
The Source is listed right below the figure, from our consultant EPIC. Additionally, the data will be further broken down in Appendix A, which EPIC is still finalizing. The information is coming from multiple data sources, there is not "one link." All data will be outlined in Appendix A. Commissioner Coleson
I'm surprised we can't calculate a number for MTCO2e
reduction for electrifying school buses. That seems like it should be easy to calculate. Refering to Electrify
School Buses. Also, is there any initiative in electrifying other government vehicles like mail trucks or police
cars?
3 Reduction - 3-5 (Table
3-3)
Because it is a supporting measure, we could not count the GHG emission reductions associated with electrifying school buses. The City has no jurisdiction over USPS vehicles. Also, we were unable to get any data from school districts re school bus electrification. Also, the Solana Beach School District does not have any busses at this time (other than maybe special needs busses, and they don't have many). Commissioner Buchanan
Referencing T-1.1 (Provide incentives to businesses to
adopt a telecommute program/remote work policy):
The plan includes several general statements along
these lines. It would probably benefit from specifics.
What are some examples of incentives that the city
could implement?
Currently, a company like Amazon can externalize the
costs of a back-to-the-office policy: we all pay for the increased emissions, pollution, and road use. The
company’s only cost is losing some employees. What
could the city do to reverse that incentive structure?
Are there rewards the city could offer for a
telecommuting policy? Resources it could make
available, such as subsidizing walkable co-working
spaces? Penalties it could apply like a road use tax?
3 Reduction - 3-6 (Table
3-4)
Staff will research potential incentives and funding at time of implementation. Those potential incentives and potential funding sources will be brought to the Climate Action Commision and/or City Council for input and adoption.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
Referencing T-2 (Use alternative modes for non-work
trips): Promoting alternative modes of transportation,
such as biking and walking, seem like an opportunity for a quick hit. However, safety and speed are both
important.
For example, we live east of I-5. It takes about 20
minutes to half an hour to walk to the train station
compared with 5 minutes to drive and park at the
station.
Biking is much faster, but there are no protected bike
lanes on Lomas Santa Fe. When going west, the
entrance onto I-5 south presents a challenge. (Drivers
frequently don’t check for bikes before turning.) When
coming east, turning left from Lomas Santa Fe onto
Santa Helena, where you have to cross multiple lanes of traffic while going under the I-5 overpass, can be nervewracking at most times and terrifying during rush hour.
If you instead use the cross-walks, that adds an
additional 5 minutes to the trip, shifting the time
balance back towards driving. 3 Reduction - 3-6 (Table
3-5)
This is CalTrans right away. Improving bike lanes and provide a multimodal path as a part of the Lomas Santa Fe improvement project. To learn more abou tthe Lomas Santa Fe improvement project, check out the City's website here:
https://www.cityofsolanabeach.org/en/city-services/cityprojects/lomas-santa-fe-corridor-improvement-projectPublic Comment received via email 5/20
Please add definition to "15-Minute City concept"
3 Reduction - 3-6 (Table
3-5)
This is refering to the concept that most daily trips in the city, e.g., work, shop, can be reached by 15 mins via walk, bike, or public transit. This action was recommended by the Commission. Commissioner Nagamine Referencing Measure T-4 (Electrify school buses): A
short-term alternative that the city could implement
right away would be a bike bus, also known as a bike
train: adult leaders follow a defined route. At different “stops,” kids on bikes join the “bus”. The “bus” ends at the school. Reverse the process in the afternoon. 3 Reduction - 3-7 Due to public concern about student safety getting to school, the Solana Beach School District and City created the crossing guard program in 2018. Additionally, in 2024, the City partnered with the San Diego County Bike Coalition to create a citywide bike education program. The City would be supportive of the schools and/or School District implementing bike and/or walk trains.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
Referencing Measure T-5 (Increase electric vehicles and electric vehile charging infrastructure): Lack of chargers is one of the things hampering EV adoption (e.g.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20231108-threebig-reasons-americans-havent-rapidly-adopted-evs).
This seems like an area where the city could have a
large impact quickly, by increasing the number of level 2 chargers accessible to apartment dwellers, making it
more practical for them to buy EVs. 3 Reduction - 3-7 Listed as action T-5.2 Public Comment received via
email 5/20
Curious how the number of 253 public charging stations
was arrived at (by 2030). Seems aggressive for the size of our City 3 Reduction - 3-8
This number came from Vice Chair Nagamine who did a
presentation to the Commission in 2023. Councilmember Zito Do these two lines mean that in the coming years each
time appliances are at the end of their lives 50% of
them will be replaced with efficient ones, so that
gradually we reach 100% replacement? Or does it mean
that by 2035, 50% of the end of life appliances that
were replaced, were replaced with energy efficient
ones? I think these two interpretations could lead to
very different outcomes. Referencing actions B-1 OB
and B-1 R.
3 Reduction - 3-9 (Table
3-10)
One of these actions is specifically for Organizations/Businesses.
One of these actions is specifically for Residents. They are the same action with different target audiences, so they would not add up to 100%. Commissioner Buchanan
Action B-1.1: Suggest changing the action to
"Implement Energy and Water Building Benchmarking
and Performance Standards for existing buildings."
Other cities in the San Diego area are already in the
process of doing this
3 Reduction - 3-9 (Table
3-10)
At this time, the City needs to do research and cost-effectiveness studies to evaluate if it would be feasible to implement in Solana Beach. The City remains committed to consider and do the research and bring to City Council.
San Diego Building
Electrification Coalition
(SDBEC)
Action B-1.3: Suggest changing this action to: "Promote rate structures that incentivize shifting of loads to
reduce grid impacts (e.g., dynamic pricing)"
3 Reduction - 3-9 (Table
3-10) Change made.
San Diego Building
Electrification Coalition
(SDBEC)
Under Measure B-2: suggest that the KPI should
become the action and a more aggressive timetable be
adopted. The action and KPI would become: Action B2.1 Implement Ordinance Replacement Options [Associated KPI's for City Manager: New Ordinance
Adoption sometime in 2025]
3 Reduction - 3-10 (Table
3-11)
Action B-2.1 modified to acknowledge was is not currently being enforced due to legal feasibility. Action B-2.2 added to research ordinance replacement options.
San Diego Building
Electrification Coalition
(SDBEC)
Discusses replacing gas appliances with electric and
includes space conditioning and pool pumps as
examples. Don't believe there are any non-electric air
conditioners and pool pumps today. Probably should
remove those examples or replace with dryers and
ranges 3 Reduction - 3-10 Change made. Councilmember Zito Referencing Measure B-3 (Replace gas appliances at
end of life with electric applicances): Furnaces last
about 40 years. Water heaters last about 10. Focusing
on heat pump water heaters might be one way to bend
the curve quickly. Home Depot sells heat pump water
heaters, including some models specifically intended
for natural gas conversions: they’re designed to plug
into 110 volt electric supplies. However, when we
investigated it last year, we discovered it’s difficult to find qualified installers (except for one, who quoted us $5000 for a water heater installation). Perhaps the city could help with finding reasonably-priced installers,
maybe by keeping a list of them. 3 Reduction - 3-10
The Switch is On (www.switchison.org) is the comprehensive marketing partner for the TECH Clean California program, a statewide initiative accelerating the adoption of clean water and space heating technology across California. You can find a list of qualified contractors on their website.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
Referencing Measure E-2 (Increase installation of
photovoltaic and battery storage): The CPUC’s recent
changes to solar incentives have reduced solar panel
installations, and the adoption of the flat rate proposal seems likely to reduce them even further. Should the
city revisit these sections in light of changing state
incentives? How would the flat rate proposal interact
with adopting microgrids? If microgrids provided a way
to avoid the flat-rate connection charge, would that
increase adoption?
3 Reduction - 3-11 (Table
3-13)
Despite the CPUC rulings, there are still many local benefits to promoting increased solar adoption on rooftops citywide.
Increasing the amount of local solar power that is produced, along with expanding the use of decentralized, clean energy storage, can simultaneously reduce GHG emissions and build longer-term resilience to potential planned or unplanned grid outages.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
Under Action E-1.1: suggest to "make CEA's 100
percent renewable/carbon free electricity option the
default for Solana Beach by 2025"
3 Reduction - 3-12 (Table
3-14) The target is currently 2035 to align with CEA's goals.
San Diego Building
Electrification Coalition
(SDBEC)
Can we include an item addressing financial difficulties that some residents might experience for install PV /
battery? ...something like “Identify and cultivate
programs that help the residents financing PV / battery installation”
3 Reduction - 3-13 (Table
3-15) Included within Action E-2.3 Commissioner Nagamine This is awfully weak. Couldn’t we say the city will install solar PV on all city buildings? Referencing: E-2.5:
Complete an analysis to identify and evaluate
opportunities to install renewable energy generation
and energy storage projects at municipal facilities,
including parking lots
3 Reduction - 3-13 (Table
3-15)
The City should complete an analysis first to make sure the addition of solar (+ storage) is geographically and fiscally feasible. Commissioner McClune Is there any discussion to be had here about the size of trees? The Council has had a habit of restricting
vegetation from blocking views in development and
does that potentially conflict with these objectives? 3 Reduction - 3-14 Those discussions would take place when implementing CS-1.3 (developing a comprehensive communitywide urban forestry plan and adopt a tree canopy coverage percentage target). Councilmember Zito Need to add an action to add more tree covered
walking paths/sidewalks. More “rail trail” type paths.
Refering to Measure CS-1 (Increase Urban Canopy
Cover)
3 Reduction - 3-14 (Table
Referencing CS-2 (Use native or drought tolerant 3-17) Included within Action CS-1 OB, CS-1R, and CS-1.4 Commissioner McClune species at landscaping areas): Focus on native
perennials. In general, they have much deeper root
structures than less-adapted species. The deeper roots
sequester more carbon in addition to needing less
water once established. 3 Reduction - 3-15
Change not made. If this is through a water benchmarking program, the language would have to be drought tolerate and low water. Proposing higher use of native plants would have to be done through a different mechanism (within Chapter 4 - Adaptation,
4.2.8 Strategy 1).
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
I think it is important to prioritize or at least make it clear that native is more beneficial than simply drought tolerant. At the very least in this sentence I would say "native" before "drought tolerant" 3 Reduction - 3-15
Change not made. If this is through a water benchmarking program, the language would have to be drought tolerate and low water. Proposing higher use of native plants would have to be done through a different mechanism (within Chapter 4 - Adaptation,
4.2.8 Strategy 1). Commissioner Buchanan
Discussion around possibly promoting green roofs.
Not exactly sure what that means but we should be
clear that our first priority for rooftop space is solar generation. Other green roof strategies should take
second tier to this. 4 Adaptation - 4-3
After discussion at the Climate Action Commission meeting on 5/15, promoting green roofs to be removed in favor of prioritizing roof space for solar. Councilmember Zito
Gray water is no longer recommended, referencing
"Other programs which may be accessed from the
City's website include an online water waste reporting
form; a City app with a feature to report water waste;
information about the potential to capture and use
graywater for irrigation, and requirements that new
homes use drought tolerate landscape alternatives." 4 Adaptation - 4-4 Gray water reference removed. Commissioner McClune In addition to increasing supply, should reducing
[water] demand play a role in adaptation? For example,
promoting native plants in landscaping, or adopting
permaculture techniques for locations that don’t use
native plants. 4 Adaptation - 4-4
In Chapter 3, there is the Land Use & Natural Climate Solutions Pathway, with measure CS-2: Use native or drought tolerant species at landscape areas. Additionally, within Chapter 4, section
4.2.8 Coastal Habitat includes a strategy around landscaping.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
The emphasis must be on potable water. No more
recycled/purple pipe wate. Referencing Strategy 3:
Enchance recycled water infrastructure and
distribution. 4 Adaptation - 4-5
Changed language from "enhanced" to "maintain recycled water infrastructure" in Strategy 3. And added: The City will continue to work with SFID to explore which water strategies are best as technology improves and changes. Commissioner McClune
I'm not sure the viability of this strategy. I think that our focus should be soley around Strategy 2 (potable
reuse.) Today we already recycle 100% of our waste
water during some summer months so there isn't much
room for expansion of purple pipe. 4 Adaptation - 4-5 See comment above. Councilmember Zito www.alertwildfire.org is not active 4 Adaptation - 4-5 Updated to alertca.live Commissioner Dewar Referencing Increased Risk of Wildfire: It’s striking that none of these measures look at the real issue: we
should adjust building codes to reduce our buildings’
vulnerability to fire. Fire is a reality in San Diego County, and the return frequency will increase as we get more
rain/drought extremes. You can fight nature for a while, but it’s hard work (meaning energy-intensive and
expensive), and nature will eventually win anyway. As
with earthquakes, the smarter strategy is to adapt our
structures to be less vulnerable. 4 Adaptation - 4-5
Buildings are addressed in Strategy 1 (increase fire resistance through landscaping and building materials). The City enforces the state's Fire Code.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
Referencing Coastal Erosion and Sea Level Rise: What
would be the effect of such sea level rise on the ability to get into and out of the city? What would happen to
the Coast Highway or the I-5 bridge (and the pedestrian bridge beneath it--remember we are trying to promote
alternative modes of transportation)? What effect
would access limitations have on the city’s tax base?
Would sea level rise impair the city’s drainage or water treatment systems? What effect might it have on the
risk of leakage from San Onofre’s dry storage
containers, such as through increased corrosion or
flooding? The California Current generally flows northto-south. If those containers were to leak, would the California Current transport the leaking materials here? Does the city need to review its disaster plans,
coordinate with other coastal cities on monitoring, or
increase pressure on regulatory agencies and other
political forces charged with moving the waste to more
permanent storage as part of this climate mitigation
plan? 4 Adaptation - 4-6
These scenarios will be looked at more closely when the City develops a sea level rise adaptation plan (per SB272). Additionally, Strategy 4 is regional coordination.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
Referencing section 4.2.5 Flooding: Has the city
considered what effect increasing groundwater
permeability might have on the hills around the city? Is there an increased chance of slope failure? Is there an aquifer under the city we need to recharge? If not, it
might make more sense to focus on getting more water
into natural creaks (as opposed to concrete-lined
culverts) to slow its flow and capturing rainwater for
reuse. Also consider deep-rooted native perennial
plants to help anchor slopes in place and permaculture
techniques to use runoff directly for irrigation, keeping as much as possible out of the storm drains. 4 Adaptation - 4-8 There is a balancing act between allowing infiltration and adverse effects on nearby slopes. Near the coastal bluffs or inland slopes, the City discourages infiltration. In other areas, infiltration may not be used as sole mean of discharge but may be used as an alternative tool to minimize runoff from the site. The use of detention basins is a tool used to limit the rate of runoff to the predevelopment condition and allow for infiltration where appropriate. Details on detention basins can be found in the City’s BMP Design Manual, which is located in the Storm Water Program section of the Engineering page on the City’s website
(https://www.cityofsolanabeach.org/en/government/departments /engineering-public-works/engineering/storm-water-program).
Near the coastal bluffs or inland slopes, the City discourages infiltration. When a development project is proposed near an existing steep slope or proposed to create a steep slope, the City requires a comprehensive geotechnical report supported by subsurface exploration to analyze the stability of affected slopes and if warranted, provide appropriate measure to increase the stability of all slopes consistent with City Standards. In general, as part of the City’s development process, all existing or proposed slopes are properly evaluated and constructed in a manner that the final stability conditions are enhanced consistent with the City’s standards. The City is not aware of any springs or aquifer in the City. The City does not have any maps of historical reports specifically identifying or indicating existence of aquifer under the City of Solana Beach.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
Referencing section 4.2.8 Coastal Habitat: What will the impact of sea level rise be on these areas? As I recall, the San Elijo lagoon includes some buffering against sea level rise, but probably not against 6-10 feet of it.
Should the city be coordinating with surrounding
communities and the county to prepare? 4 Adaptation - 4-14 These scenarios will be looked at more closely when the City updates its Safety Element. Additionally, Strategy 4 is regional coordination within the Coastal Erosion and Sea Level Rise section.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
Add Seaweeders to: There are a number of
organizations that promote bird and insect friendly
vegetation for landscaping including Xerces (xerces.org) and The National Wildlife Federation (nwf.org). Plant
selection, particularly trees, has the added advantage
of increasing shade and reducing localized
temperatures and can also reduce fire risk. 4 Adaptation - 4-14 Seaweeders added in text. Commissioner Buchanan It’s hard to meet an un-measured goal. How frequently
will the city provide progress reports? What are the
other accountability measures? I would suggest that
the city provide quarterly updates on its progress, so
that they occur frequently enough to stay fresh in the
council members’ minds. Annual updates are too slow--
it’s too easy to forget about the need six months into
the cycle. I would also suggest that each update include where the city needs to be and how its current progress measures against the plan. More frequent updates
would also help to engage the community, a goal
section 5.4 mentions.
5 Implementation - 5-4
Within the CAP Implementation section, the City promises to update it's inventory every 2 years and prepare a CAP update every 5 years. These are both staff intensive processes, that current staff would be unable to do at greater frequency.
Not mentioned within the CAP, the City has a Climate Action Commission that meets monthly. The majority of the Climate Action Commission agenda topics are related to the Climate Action Plan and act as progress updates. Additionally, City staff updates the Work Plan annually, where the Climate Action Plan is listed.
Within that annual report, accomplishments and upcoming projects are listed.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
An additional accountability measure for the
community as a whole might be a large sign, maybe at
the fire station or Skyline Elementary (they certainly
have a vested interest!). It might display some or all of the following data:
● Real time carbon dioxide measurement (in parts per
million). A real-time measurement will fluctuate with
the amount of traffic and might also discourage idling
parked cars. Air quality sensors that include carbon
dioxide measurements are widely available and might
also allow adding particulate matter measurements to
the sign.
● Current estimated emissions for the city, taken from
the most recent quarterly update.
● Vehicle traffic, such as
○ number of cars getting on and off I-5 at Lomas Santa
Fe in the last 24 hours,
○ number of cars passing on Lomas Santa Fe in the last
24 hours, and
○ number of bicycles passing on Lomas Santa Fe in the
last 24 hours (much easier to measure if there’s a
dedicated, protected bike lane).
● Ocean temperature versus a baseline. (The ocean is
currently absorbing much of the excess heat. If the sign showed how the current temperature compares to the
1990-2000 average for the same time of year, that
might provide a sense of how we’re doing.) 5 Implementation - 5-4 The City will conduct greenhouse gas emission inventories every other year, as real time data is very difficult to obtain and many times has a time lag, as well as being a staff intenstive process. The City could explore a pedestrian and cyclist tracker along the Coastal Rail Trail. However, there is no budget currently allocated.
Public Comment received via
email 5/20
This action is to identify with SDGE if we have enough
power for the planned charging stations. However,
action T-5.2 which is the implementation of these
charging stations has exactly the same timeline
specified. Does this one have to finish before the other starts? Appendix B - T-5.4
These would go hand in hand. There may be areas where we can install EV chargers that don't require updated infrastructure and could be started before T-5.4 is completed. Councilmember Zito The description lists 50% EV's purchased by 2024.
However the timeframe listed doesn't start until 2025. Appendix B - T-5.5 The City does not have any plans to update any fleet vehicles in 2024. If any fleet vehicles are replaced, an EV alternative, if available, will be the preferred option. Councilmember Zito Suggest adding B-3.3 to the implementation matrix
(under exiting measure B-3) to streamline the
permitting process, particularly for furnace and hot
water heater replacement. This process is currently too long and complicated in Solana Beach. Appendix B - Add B-3.3 The City is currently exploring online permitting and streamlining the solar permitting process. As the new online permitting and solar streamlining process are rolled out, the City will continue to explore other permits that could be streamlined, including appliance replacement.
San Diego Building
Electrification Coalition
(SDBEC)
The description states that all of SB should be moved to the 100% renewable by 2035, but the timeframe listed
shows 2028. Seems like these should be consistent?
Also, should we have a target opt-in rate to CEA as
well? Appendix B - E-1.1
The implementation plan is only for the next five years, so 2024- 2028. In 2028, staff would begin the research and outreach that would be required for the City to change the default option by 2035. Councilmember Zito
Description says "incentives" and the performance
indicators state "interventions". Suspect this is
supposed to be the same Appendix B - E-2.3
Interventions would be the type of things receiving incentives. For example, the performance indicator "# of interventions" could be # of energy storage systems installed. Councilmember Zito CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ AGENDA ITEM # C.2.
STAFF REPORT
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Alyssa Muto, City Manager
MEETING DATE: October 9, 2024
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager/City Attorney
SUBJECT: Discuss and Consider Introduction of Ordinance 535 Related to City Council Monthly Compensation
BACKGROUND:
The monthly compensation for each Councilmember is $860.00. The monthly compensation for the Mayor is $960.00. The City Council last adjusted the monthly salaries in 2019, and the salaries became effective in December 2020.
Under state law, as a general law city, the City Council is to establish by ordinance a salary up to a ceiling dependent on the population of the city. The salary established by the City Council may be increased, “but the amount of the increase may not exceed an amount equal to five percent for each calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment of salary” unless the electorate approves a higher salary. 1 The five percent
increase is non-compounded.2 The adjustment is computed as five (5) percent multiplied by the number of years since the last salary adjustment. Alternatively, the Council may adjust the salary in an amount equal to inflation since January 1, 2024, but not exceeding 10 percent, based upon the California Consumer Price Index.3 The last adjustment from $712.58 to $860.00 took effect in December 2020 when the new term commenced for three councilmembers4. The last increase prior to 2019 was in 2008. The monthly compensation was increased from $593.82 to $712.58 and took effect after the November 2008 election.
1 Gov. Code, § 36516, subd.(a)(4)(A).
2 89 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 159 (2006).
3 Gov. Code, § 36516, subd. (a)(4)(B).
4 Ordinance 485 was adopted on February 13, 2019 and took effect after the 2020 election.
October 9, 2024
Ordinance 535-City Council Compensation
The item is before the City Council to discuss and consider changes, if any, to its monthly compensation.
DISCUSSION:
City Council Salary. As noted above, any increase to the Council monthly compensation is dictated by a formula established in state law—either five percent multiplied by the number of years since the last adjustment or adjusted for inflation since January 2024 according to the Consumer Price Index.
Using the traditional method, five percent of $860.00 is $43.00. If the Council adopts the salary adjustment to be effective in December 2024, four years will have passed since the last adjustment became operative in December 2020. Thus, the Council may adjust its monthly compensation by up to $172.00 ($43.00 x 4 = $172.00) for a maximum total monthly compensation of $1,032.00.
The City Council may also choose a percentage increase below the maximum threshold provided in state law if so desired.
Mayoral Salary. The City has directly elected the Mayor since the first district elections in 2020. A directly elected mayor may receive additional compensation with the consent of the electorate or by ordinance of the Council. (Govt. Code 36516.1.) As such, the Council can choose to provide additional compensation above the current salary of $960.00 per month to the separately-elected mayor should Council desire.
Using the first method above, five percent of $960.00 is $48.00. If the Council adopts the salary adjustment to be effective in December 2024, four years will have passed since the last adjustment became operative in December 2020. Thus, the Council may adjust its monthly compensation by up to $192.00 ($48.00 x 4 = $192.00) for a maximum total monthly compensation of $1,152.00
Effective Date. Per Government Code section 36516.5, a change in compensation does not apply to an elected official during their term in office. However, the compensation of all members of a City Council serving staggered terms can be adjusted by virtue of the beginning of a new term of office for a single member. Therefore, any approved salary increase will not take place until the new terms begin in December.
Attached for introduction is Ordinance 535 amending Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) section 2.04.020 to reflect an increase in the Mayor’s salary from $960.00 to an amount not to exceed $1,152.00 per month, and the salaries of each of the members of the City Council from $860.00 to an amount not to exceed $1,032.00 per month, to take effect when a new term of office commences in December 2024, should the Council decide to make adjustments to its monthly compensation.
October 9, 2024
Ordinance 535-City Council Compensation
CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT:
This action is not a “project” as defined by CEQA; a salary adjustment measure will not have a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical impact on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The maximum fiscal impact to the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2025 would be $6,160. If this item is approved, the budget will be amended at mid-year.
WORKPLAN: N/A
OPTIONS:
• Discuss and consider changes, if any, to Councilmember and Mayoral compensation.
• Provide direction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Discuss and consider changes, if any, to Councilmember and Mayoral compensation.
2. If desired, introduce Ordinance No. 535 amending Solana Beach Municipal Code (SBMC) section 2.04.020 to reflect the compensation adjustment to take effect when a new term of office commences in December 2024. _________________________
Alyssa Muto, City Manager
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 535
2. San Diego County Small City Salary Survey (09-2024)
ORDINANCE 535
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SOLANA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER
2.04 OF THE SOLANA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE
AMENDMENT OF SECTION 2.04.020 TO ADJUST THE AMOUNT
OF MONTHLY COMPENSATION PAID TO THE MAYOR AND THE
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS AUTHORIZED BY
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 36516 AND 36516.1
WHEREAS, Section 2.04.020 of the Solana Beach Municipal Code sets forth the salary of the Mayor and for each member of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously established the salary of the Mayor at $960.00 per month, and its members $860.00 per month, pursuant to the applicable statutory formula; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has not increased the amount of monthly compensation paid to its members and the Mayor since February 2019, which increase became operative in December 2020, and now desires to provide a salary increase as authorized by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Title 2, Chapter 2.04, Section 2.04.020.A. is amended to read as follows:
A. Each member of the City Council shall receive as salary the sum of $860.00 $1,032.00 per month.
1. The separately elected mayor shall receive the sum of $960.00 $1,152.00 per month.
Section 2. Title 2, Chapter 2.04, Section 2.04.020.D. is amended to read as follows:
D. The salary authorized by subsection A of this section shall become operative only on and after the date upon which one or more of the members of the City Council becomes eligible for such increase pursuant to Government Code Section 36516.5 by virtue of beginning a new term of office following the election to be held in November, 2024. Until subsection A of this section becomes Ordinance 535
City Council and Mayoral Compensation
operative, the salary of the Mayor shall be $960.00 per month and the salaries of each of the members of the City Council shall be $860.00 per month.
This ordinance shall become effective thirty days following its adoption. Within fifteen days after its adoption the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be published pursuant to state law.
INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California held on the 9th day of October, 2024, and thereafter, PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Solana Beach, California, on the ___ day of ______, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers –
NOES: Councilmembers –
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers –
ABSENT: Councilmembers –
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
JOHANNA N. CANLAS, City Attorney
____________________________
LESA HEEBNER, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
ANGELA IVEY, City Clerk
CITY MAYOR PAY PER MONTH COUNCIL PAY PER MONTH NOTES CITATIONS Coronado $913.50 $913.50 Councilmembers also receive a $150 monthly allowance, and the Mayor receives a $225.00 allowance. CMC §§ 2.02.030, 2.03.030 Del Mar $300.00 $300.00 Apparently not updated since popular vote in April 1988. DMMC § 2.20.030 Encinitas $1,819.70 $1,719.70 Mayor gets $100 more than councilmembers. EMC §§ 2.20.035 Imperial Beach $800.00 $950.00 Annual review March 31; cannot exceed 5% increase. Council pay increases to $950 in 12/2024. IBMC §§ 2.08.020, 2.11.010 National City $5,211.95 $1,546.71 Set by ordinance; last adopted apparently March 2023/Ordinance 2023-2517. NCMC § 2.36.010; Ordinance No. 2023-2517 Solana Beach $960.00 $860.00 Salaries last adjusted in 02-2019 and took effect in 12/2020. SBMC § 2.04.020 Averages: $1,667.53 $1,048.32
SAN DIEGO COUNTY SMALL CITY ELECTED OFFICIAL COMPENSATION RATES 2024