[Please
note: I have submitted this document on behalf of the Menlo Park Green
Ribbon Citizens' Commitee. Mitch Slomiak, Co-Chair]
Menlo Park’s Draft Climate Action Plan:
Menlo Park Green Ribbon Citizens’ Committee
Viewpoint and Recommendations
February 27, 2009
The Menlo Park Green Ribbon Citizens’ Committee
(GRCC) is delighted and gratified by the City staff’s Draft Climate Action Plan
(CAP) for our community. The GRCC’s November 2007 Climate Action Report
& Recommendations, which
addressed risks of climate change for Menlo Park, called for the creation of a
Climate Action Plan for Menlo Park, with an aggressive goal of neutralizing our community’s greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions by 2030. That
goal requires significant initiatives for energy and water efficiency,
reduction in single rider car trips, waste reduction, sustainable building and
land use measures, adoption of renewable energy technology, and purchase of
offsets to neutralize remaining GHGs. The following three sections describe the
GRCC’s CAP recommendations:
·
Setting a Menlo Park
GHG reduction target
·
Using the CAP as a
budgeting tool by Council and City staff
·
Specific CAP project
recommendations
1. Setting a Menlo
Park GHG reduction target
We recognize that the need for a community CAP may
be unclear to some residents, as the scale of Menlo Park’s municipal GHG
emissions, as well as our entire community’s contribution to global GHG, is so
small. However, GHG emissions are generated at all levels of society (national,
state, municipal, commercial, residential, etc.). Every single person and institution in our energy-intensive
society contributes to climate change and should be part of the solution, which
is to dramatically reduce GHG emissions and conserve natural resources, and to
thereby avert catastrophic environmental and economic consequences. Menlo Park
can have an influence far greater than its size because it is a world renowned
center of venture capital, technological innovation and progressive leadership.
We first urge City Council to allocate time for sufficient dialogue so that
community members and our City Council can have their concerns addressed and
understand the need to support the CAP. Yet, the timeframe for this dialogue
needs to be balanced by a sense or urgency to avoid inordinate delays in
realizing the GHG reduction benefits within our CAP. Climate change science and
policy can be challenging, and so requires continued public education and
outreach.
We also recommend that the introductory section
provide a brief context for our community’s CAP and targets. It is important to
highlight the emerging consensus regarding necessary GHG reductions required to
effectively mitigate the worst consequences of climate change. This consensus
includes the great majority of climate scientists and related disciplines,
national political leaders (nearly all countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol
and President Obama is committed to aggressive action), and California’s
Governor. While there is no exact target, the consensus appears to be that a
reduction of global GHG emissions by at least 80% below 2005 levels by the year
2050 is imperative. Such a brief discussion will provide context for Council to
select a meaningful CAP target.
The target discussion within the current CAP is
confusing and does not provide a useful decision making framework. We suggest
that the target designated by Council be defined as an “aspirational” target for
the entire Menlo Park community. The target would be the sum of actions
anticipated from these sources:
·
Federal
initiatives are evolving,
primarily because: GHG emissions are just now, apparently, going to be treated
as regulated pollutants; new
international targets and cooperative efforts are now underway. While these
changes are encouraging, the lack of support in earlier administrations for
controlling GHG emissions means the problem has become even more pressing
today.
·
State initiatives, as described in the CAP, will result in
substantial GHG reductions within our community. (The estimate in the CAP is
more than 120,000 metric tons of CO2e annually by 2020.)
·
City initiatives,
for both municipal operations and
the community, as described in the various CAP strategies and tables. This
portion of the target could most reasonably be based on a subset of the
strategies that have been identified within the CAP. (We further recommend that
a rough estimate be determined for the strategies that have not yet been
detailed so that the subset will be based upon a larger potential CO2
reduction outcome.)
·
Voluntary
community initiatives. By setting
a CAP target that assumes some voluntary action independent of City and State
initiatives, City Council can motivate residents, business, and institutions
within our community to reduce their carbon footprint. The GRCC will continue
to support and extend such action.
In other words, Menlo Park’s GHG reductions should
be seen as an action “tier” working in concert with actions initiated by
individuals, the State of California, and, eventually, the federal
government. Local but significant
choices possible for a municipality occur here, as well as creating a city
environment supportive of individual reduction efforts. Given that perspective, how should a
GHG reduction target be defined?
If Menlo Park’s goal is also to attain the emerging
national, state, and scientific goal of 80% reduction in GHG emissions below
2005 levels by 2050, a simple pathway to that goal is a 2% cumulative annual
reduction starting in 2010.This target is calculated by a straight-line
approximation of 2% x 40 years = 80% total. Attaining the 80% future target can be compared to a long-term
“R&D” project, in which substantial investment in early years leads to more
significant outcomes in later years. A proactive early reduction strategy will
increase the likelihood of attaining the overall goal. Such a strategy will
also place Menlo Park in a leadership position, and provide developers and
businesses with the confidence they desire to make substantial investments in
our city. This strategy will also
enable Menlo Park to address baseline increases in GHG anticipated from
residential and commercial development, as described in the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) study cited in the CAP.
A minimal GHG reduction target would result in a 2%
annual reduction to 2020, or 20% cumulatively. A doubling of this target to 40%
would certainly be aggressive, though perhaps unrealistic. The GRCC, therefore,
recommends that City Council sets a goal of reducing GHG in the Menlo Park
community by 30% below 2005 levels by 2020. This goal assumes a 15%-20%
reduction from State actions, a reduction of 5%-10% from City initiatives, and
the balance from voluntary community initiatives. While this 30% reduction by
2020 seems reasonably aggressive, we have not yet completed research regarding
GHG reduction targets adopted by other communities and therefore are not yet
certain whether Menlo Park would be perceived as a leader in addressing climate
change by adopting such a target.
(And, we recommend this goal with the understanding that regular reviews
of our progress as well as federal contribution my impel future Councils to
modify the goal, whether upward or downward.)
To further clarify the GHG reduction target, we
recommend that the target be stated both in terms of percentage reduction in CO2
emissions below 2005 levels and also in absolute terms (maximum metric tons of
CO2 emissions that will be acceptable from the community by the 2020
conclusion of the current CAP). A 30% reduction below 2005 CO2e
emission levels of approximately 500,000 metric tons results in community-wide
emissions no greater than 350,000 metric tons of CO2e for the year 2020.
Since Menlo Park’s GHG inventory indicates that
75% of our community emissions are from transportation or
commercial/institutional, we recommend that initiatives be prioritized to
target GHG reduction in these two areas. These overall emission percentages and
priorities are similar to California as a whole.
2. Using the CAP
as a budgeting tool by Council and City staff
We would like to see the CAP used, by Council and
City staff, as a framework for selecting or prioritizing projects with the
greatest potential for reducing Menlo Park’s carbon footprint. By combining CAP’s initial cost and CO2
reduction estimates with other budget criteria, successive Councils will have
an objective planning tool for integrating climate change initiatives with
other priorities. The simplest approach is for CAP projects to be evaluated
individually as part of the yearly budgeting process. Also possible is to look
for projects that contribute to long-term City development strategies, such as
the El Camino Real Specific Plan process, and to evaluate the GHG impacts. Such
a broader strategic approach helps place the environmental value of emissions
reductions in the context of other City benefits and goals.
The current measurements or metrics used within
the draft CAP appear to be inconsistent, as several measure the cost of an
investment yielding multi-year benefits versus the impact of only the first
year’s CO2 reduction benefit to derive cost per metric ton of CO2
mitigated, while others measure full lifecycle costs versus full lifecycle
benefits We do agree that “cost per metric ton of CO2 mitigated” is
a critically important metric. This metric will be particularly meaningful when
lifecycle costs of an initiative are consistently compared to lifecycle CO2
mitigation benefits. GRCC member Tom Kabat has developed a lifecycle calculator
that he has shared with City staff that enables lifecycle costs to be compared
with lifecycle mitigation.
When determining investment costs for purposes of
calculating these metrics, it is important to state costs after deducting
anticipated rebates or other benefits from PG&E and the local water
district for energy and water conservation actions. If not already included in
the cost calculations, this will provide more accurate, and in some cases more
favorable, metrics for applicable strategies within the CAP.
In setting CAP budgeting priorities, it is
important to see that many CAP projects provide benefits other than GHG
emission reductions. Many energy use reduction projects have ongoing cost
saving components, especially for municipal and commercial buildings. Transit
management opportunities have quality of life benefits associated with a more
walkable and bikeable community. Lower-income families spend a disproportionate
part of their time and income on transit, so projects making public transit
easier, less expensive and more reliable address an important economic
inequity. Maintaining and enhancing Menlo Park’s considerable foliage has
obvious aesthetic benefits but also acts as a “sink” for GHG emissions.
Increase in long-term commercial and residential real estate values, while
indirect, may in turn accrue from such changes. In general, all these benefit
categories — environmental, cost savings, quality of life — can be considered when
evaluating CAP projects.
Some projects contribute directly by reducing
energy consumption or vehicle miles driven. Some projects involve operations or
infrastructure needs faced by the City; the CAP can help evaluate different
options in terms of their emissions reduction benefit. Other projects,
particularly CAP management, are needed to create a long-term foundation
through Staff support and training, project evaluation criteria, and community
communication essential to successful implementation. Those activities do not
need to be evaluated as having their own “reduction”, but should instead be
thought of as part of a strategic plan to integrate climate reduction goals
into City planning and decision-making.
The
success of many projects, such as bicycle lanes or residential energy audits,
depends on individual participation. Council or other decision-makers can
consider whether additional supporting communication or motivation is needed to
ensure high levels of participation, or if gradual adoption is to be expected.
For budgeting or priority-setting, the estimates provided here should be
considered a starting point which can be easily scaled based on different
assumptions or City scenarios, including those for projected growth.
Several other strategic perspectives are useful
for considering CAP project opportunities:
·
New and existing
development strategies. Starting from scratch, new development
along the El Camino Real corridor offers considerable opportunities for energy
efficient building design and transit-oriented development. A challenge will be
to ensure new development contributes to a net reduction of GHG from the 2005
baseline. Higher density in the downtown area may then motivate approaches to
improving Menlo Park “connectivity” as a whole. Ultimately, Menlo Park’s large
existing housing stock of “drivable suburban” neighborhoods will require
different, but complementary, strategies to reduce vehicle miles traveled by
residents or commuters.
·
Energy savings
and transit strategies. As for
the rest of the nation, the State and Peninsula, these are the two areas where
significant emissions reductions are both needed and possible. Two “bottom
lines” — energy use and vehicle miles traveled reductions — can be thought of
as major measurable targets. City
departments, programs and budget strategies can all be thought of in terms of
having greater or lesser roles for these two major types of emission reduction
approaches.
·
Municipal
projects. As documented by the CAP, municipal
contributions to CO2 emissions, though significant, are modest in
comparison to community-wide energy use and transportation. However, the City
does have direct control over its many operations, providing opportunities for
relatively efficient and cost effective emission reductions. It also has a unique opportunity to
address its largest GHG contributor, the Marsh Road Landfill. In addition,
Menlo Park’s own actions can be taken as a model of municipal level
environmental responsibility.
·
“Nudge.” Some activities described in the CAP can be initiated by individual
developers, building owners, and/or residents, regardless of City
policies. In those situations, the
City always has opportunities for encouraging the use of various technologies,
building practices, or even personal behaviors (e.g. commuting or auto use),
through voluntary standards as well as explicit regulation. Through proactive communication,
including community forums, the City can “nudge” individuals and businesses
toward CAP outcomes.
A particular challenge for CAP implementation is
the consideration of the current financial crisis facing both California and
the nation’s economy. Here too there are options. Many projects can be scaled
to create “pilot” versions during lean budget times to learn how they can be
implemented, and to obtain business, developer, or community feedback.
Additionally, success stories of positive cost/benefit measures can be
identified and shared to inspire action.
A theme of the national fiscal stimulus package is
to invest now in developing a new energy economy in order to reduce oil demand.
Federal, state and municipal governments all have important roles to play in
achieving energy independence. The projects described in the CAP are very much
like ones either being considered, or already being implemented, by
municipalities with similar demographics, and suburban transit styles
characteristic of Menlo Park.
3. Two specific
recommendations
A number of GRCC members have provided comments on
specific strategies, as well as details of the CAP. These comments will be
submitted on an individual basis.
The GRCC as a whole has two specific recommendation to propose.
i) It would be very useful to institute an annual review and
accountability process to assess the effectiveness of existing actions and to
adapt the plan to current conditions, such as changing technologies, and
national state policy changes. For example: What has resulted from reduced
solar permit fees and green building checklists since their implementation?
During this review, priorities may be shifted and Menlo Park’s strategy toward
reaching its GHG reduction target, as well as the target itself, can be
considered.
ii)
The GRCC strongly
recommends creating and filling a Climate and Energy Coordinator position, as
described in the CAP. This role is critical to our community’s success in
reducing GHG emissions cost-effectively and in ways supportive of the City’s
residential, commercial, and social objectives. The Coordinator’s primary role is to facilitate CAP project
or program implementation and execution in the context of City government and
financing. A staff member with sufficient overview can champion the CAP, be the
key community contact, and implement CAP in the context of Menlo Park’s ongoing
development. Because ICLEI has already identified a grant funding source for
Menlo Park, we recommend that this grant option be pursued in 2009 by City
staff. The individual hired can also be tasked to obtain longer term grants,
matching funds, or similar means to avoid undue pressure on the City’s general
budget during the current financial
recession and eventual recovery.
In
conclusion, the GRCC is very proud of our City Council, staff, and community
for moving forward with coordinated and concerted action to address climate
change. In addition to doing our part to address this pressing societal need,
these actions will also undoubtedly improve the quality of life in our
community for subsequent generations.
Submit your own comments about the Climate Action Plan by March 1st to climateactionteam@menlopark.org
