Costs of Far-Reaching Climate Change Plan Could Hit Homeowners, Businesses, School Districts

Details of the Pacifica Climate Action Plan Task Force's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions citywide have emerged.

The strategy, in five parts, has been over a year in the making and would impact the gamut of greenhouse gas emitters in town from school districts and new developers to residential property owners and existing businesses. Some of the proposals in the strategy, which the city council will consider passing later this year, could compel those parties to spend money to make their property more eco-friendly.

The Climate Action Plan Task Force first met in March 2010 and is now readying its draft proposals for the eyes of a consultant who will tell them which are viable and which to throw out.

After the consultant’s work is finished, the task force will present its strategy to the city council for modification and approval.

Details about the draft proposal have not been widely publicized by the task force until now, and some residents have argued that documents were intentionally kept from the public in defiance of California open records laws.

The controversy

The trouble started, said Mark Stechbart, a political consultant and Pacifica resident, in November 2010 when the task force took a vote in reaction to a conflict with a Pacifica School District (PSD) Board member.

The conflict with the PSD Board member, and the motivation behind this vote, arose when one task force member took preliminary draft language of the strategy to him that requested that the school district purchase new busses. The PSD Board member became upset because the district could not afford new busses and contacted the a city official who contacted the task force and asked that it remove the language.

According to the minutes from that meeting where the vote in question took place, “Timothy Cowan made a motion that individual Task Force members not disseminate preliminary draft language to members of the public and public agencies for the purposes of garnering input. Remi Tan seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved 6/0.”

The “preliminary draft language” mentioned in this vote comes from subcommittees that the task force established at a meeting on April 21 of that year. The subcommittees were to address different facets of the task force's mission and present draft language for the larger committee's discussion and approval.

“That [vote] arose in a situation where we had a task force member who took a subcommittee draft that something that had not come to the full committee and shared it outside, and created a lot of upset,” said Carlos Davidson, task force chair. 

Davidson went on to say that the committee’s intent by approving the motion was to prevent the dissemination of draft language by subcommittee members before the task force at a whole had a chance to take a look at it.

Following the vote, draft language handed out at meetings was not necessarily made available to members of the public at the meeting and until the most recent task force agenda, all attachments, which would have included draft language and other reports, were marked as “TASK FORCE ONLY”.

But according to Elizabeth Claycomb, the city staff member in charge of this task force in the Pacifica Planning Department, drafts have always been available by request through her. She distributed them to Pacifica Patch freely. 

Stechbart said he has put in two requests on March 16 and April 5, 2011, to City Manager Stephen Rhodes, Claycomb and City Clerk Kathy O’Connell for the draft language. He said he’s received no response. 

The availability of the documents through city staff aside, the November vote by the task force was contrary to California public records law. 

Because the draft language was made available to the task force as a whole at public meetings, it is therefore public record and the task force cannot require that its members not distribute it to the public.

Only “pre-decisional” documents can be withheld from the public eye, but nothing can be considered pre-decisional if it was handed out to the task force at a public meeting.

“The "pre-decisional" reference is entirely inapplicable to records made available to the majority of a city council or other body under the Brown Act,” said Terry Francke, general counsel at Californians Aware, a public-disclosure watchdog organization based in Carmichael, CA. “The relevant provision in the Act requiring disclosure of such records applies notwithstanding Gov. Code Section 6255, which is the provision enabling the protection of certain pre-decisional documents. Withholding such documents violates both the Brown Act and the California Public Records Act."

According to Claycomb, city staff notified the task force that it could not enforce the sanction against public disclosure shortly after the vote was taken and City Attorney Cecilia Quick is currently working on an internal memo about the issue to be distributed Wednesday morning to pertinent staff. 

Davidson, chair of the task force, said that the body might take a vote at Wednesday’s meeting to void November’s vote.

But, he said, he still feels as if draft language ought to be less-than-publicized in cases like these. 

“It’s not a good process,” he said. “I have to say, people have been making a big stink about this, but do you know any subcommittees that put [draft language] out to the public? It just seems like that’s unnecessary, causes confusion and upset.”

When asked why the task force didn’t vet draft language from subcommittees in closed session prior to open meetings, Davidson said it didn’t think it was necessary but might start doing that.

Residents also complain that the language was not made available on the city’s website, but no public records laws in California require this.

“That would take a lot of staff time,” Claycomb said. “If that’s the direction the city manager wants us to take, that’s what we’ll do. Everything is available if you ask me for it, or go through the city clerk, but I would be more expeditious because there’s not the 10-day public records act wait.”

The Plan

Draft language of the Climate Action Plan Task Force’s strategy for reducing Pacifica’s greenhouse gas emissions is more or less complete right now. It could change at Wednesday night’s task force meeting and will likely change, perhaps radically, after a meeting with a consultant that the city has hired to evaluate the viability of each proposal.

Within the strategy are a slew or proposals covering a broad base of greenhouse gas emitters from private homeowners to new commercial developers.

The draft strategy is broken up into five parts, each coming from a subcommittee: Building & Energy, City Operations, Transportation, Solid Waste Management and Consumption/Air Travel and Education and Outreach.

Following is an overview of some of the proposals made in each section. For a more complete list, see the attached PDFs in the gallery to the right.

Building & Energy

Out of the entire strategy, the draft language from the Building & Energy subcommittee would likely impact residents of Pacifica and business owners the most.

A major reason for that is a proposed “point of sale” energy retrofit for residential and commercial property that could be mandatory or voluntary. This means that either the seller or the buyer would have to, or could, bring a property into compliance with Title 24 requirements for energy efficiency and water conservation either when the property is sold or when a title is transferred. There is no language in the proposal indicating to what threshold the potential cost would go i.e. 10 percent of sale price, etc.

Such a program would be similar to Berkeley’s Residential Energy-Efficiency and Conservation Ordinance (RECO), which was implemented there in the early 1980s and remains to this day. The Berkeley measure caps total costs for a residential energy upgrades under the ordinance at three fourths of one percent of total sale price of the residence, said Davidson. 

At the December 2010 meeting where this draft language was introduced, task members Gil Anda and Ray Ramos tried to have it stricken, but at the subsequent meeting in January, the committee as a whole decided to keep it in the draft proposal.

The subcommittee is also proposing that the city provide incentives for new large commercial developments in Pacifica to be located within walking or biking distance to transit services and be LEED “Neighborhood Development” certified.

Draft language suggests penalizing development projects that are located more than one-quarter of a mile from transit and more than one-half of a mile from shopping centers or job locations.

The subcommittee also wants the city council to consider encouraging Pacificans to take advantage of Go Solar California Tax credits and other federal, state, local and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) solar credits in order to expand solar energy production in town.

Along those lines, it  suggests that Pacifica participate in a program called California First Energy Retrofit Financing that would allow property owners to finance the up-front costs for solar and energy efficiency improvements through their property tax bill, thus minimizing cost-related barriers.

It also suggests that the city obtain the latest studies on coastal erosion and adjust its General Plan and zoning ordinances to enable bluff space in Pacifica to be returned to open space or populated with portable buildings that can be moved in an emergency.

According to the draft language, a “Sustainability Coordinator” may need to be hired by the city to act as the central person behind all of these changes.

The subcommittee also incorporated some cost estimates for its proposals en masse for both the city and private sector, which are really those of Burlingame’s Climate Action Plan.

“There has been some training already done for City of Pacifica staff in regards to Green Building,” reads the draft proposal section on costs. “Burlingame included the following for its Green Building Ordinance: ‘Cost Estimates. The costs are estimated at $12,000 and include the cost of City staff training, staff costs to modify the model green building ordinance and evaluation of potential requirements.’”

As for the private sector, the draft proposal states:

“Excerpt from the Burlingame CAP: ‘Cost Estimates. The estimated cost for both programs is $17,500. The voluntary phase would require staff time for the development of the Commercial Green Building Policy and include staff time estimated at $2,000 for adding LEED resources, checklists on the City’s Web site and permit documents. The ordinance would include costs for staff training by a LEED Accredited Professional (LEED AP) and staff time for development of new commercial green building ordinance, estimated to be approximately $13,500. Staff could reduce preparing time by reviewing commercial green building ordinances that have been adopted by neighboring jurisdictions. The cost of staff time for plan checks is estimated at $200 per plan check ($2,000 for 10 plan checks) and could be absorbed by application fees.’”

City Operations

The City Operations subcommittee wants the city to install energy efficient equipment in its buildings and facilities, weatherize its facilities, replace incandescent streetlights and signal lights with more energy-efficient LED models and establish a sustainability staff with a coordinator, among other things.

Transportation

The Transportation subcommittee’s proposals include increasing biking and walking paths in Pacifica to enable greater non-automobile access, implementing more stringent evaluation of new development for greenhouse gas emissions, that new development have bike racks and parking for bikes, encouraging students in Pacifica to take public transportation through incentives, and implementing a strategy by which students will attend the school nearest to their home.

It also proposes staggering school start times so they do not coincide with rush hour and that school districts investigate the “feasibility” of purchasing busses.

The subcommittee recommends that the city establish and maintain a shuttle service, which could be based on grant money and through involvement by community groups.

 This subcommittee also takes a firm position against CalTrans’s proposal to widen Highway 1:

“As the largest single contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Pacifica is car and truck traffic, the City of Pacifica should focus on transportation planning measures that result in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions through reduced vehicle traffic trips throughout the city, but mainly on Highway 1. Support for any transportation project resulting in either a direct or indirect increase in greenhouse gas emissions would be in direct contravention with the mandates of AB 32 and SB 375. As one such project, the widening of Highway 1, would likely result in increased vehicle miles traveled and therefore, a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, the City of Pacifica should analyze recommend alternatives to this proposed project from both a local and regional transportation planning perspective. The City should choose an alternative that results in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions.”

According to the draft language, the city should also incentivize the installation of electric car charging stations at local hotels and in new major developments and use hybrid or alternatively fueled vehicles in its fleet.

Additionally, it recommends the city find a way to incentivize higher density development near existing shopping areas.

Consumption/Air Travel and Education and Outreach

The consumption/Air Travel and Education and Outreach subcommittee mainly dealt with educational outreach and the amount of air travel that Pacificans utilize.

It has suggested that the city find a way to create “Staycations” for its residents by offering discounts at local hotels for natives.

It also suggests a carbon-offset program similar to San Francisco’s for Pacifica.

According to the draft proposal, the city would need to launch and maintain a website to educate the public about greenhouse emissions and carbon consumption.

Solid-Waste Management

The Solid-Waste Management subcommittee wants the city to mandate that businesses recycle and that a higher rate of construction and demolition waste is diverted away from landfills.

In addition, it suggests that recycling be mandatory at major public events and that the city establish an “aggressive” waste-diversion policy that would cut the amount of garbage heading to a landfill by 75 percent by 2015 and eliminate landfill waste by 2030.

The subcommittee advocates for a gradual ban on Styrofoam and plastic bags in town, plus a tax on paper bags. 

In the end, these proposals are merely that: proposals. After Wednesday night’s meeting, a consultant will evaluate them and give feedback. Then the task force will make a presentation to the city council, which will work out the details of each suggestion and approve the sections it deems appropriate.

The Climate Action Plan Task Force will meet at 7p.m. at 1080 Francisco Boulevard in Pacifica. See the attached agenda in the gallery to the right.

All of the draft proposals written about in this article can be found in the gallery to the right as well.