HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 26-2014RESOLUTION NO. 26 -2014
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND ADOPTING THE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND
PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of South San Francisco ( "City ") and the City's consultants have
prepared a draft Climate Action Plan ( "CAP ") and draft Pedestrian Master Plan ( "PMP "), and
adoption and implementation of the CAP and PMP will require amendments to the City's General
Plan ( "Project "); and,
WHEREAS, the draft CAP provides goals, policies, and actions designed to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, adapt to climate change, and support the goals of Assembly Bill
32 and Senate Bill 375; and,
WHEREAS, the draft PMP identifies provides a citywide blueprint to guide pedestrian
programs and improvements designed to encourage safe walking, improve pedestrian access, and
facilitate grant funding to construct needed pedestrian improvements throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA, an initial study was performed, the result of which
was preparation and circulation of a mitigated negative declaration ( "IS/MND ") analyzing the
proposed Project and concluding that approval of the Project could not have a significant effect on
the environment because the impacts of the Project could all be mitigated to levels below established
CEQA thresholds of significance with the adoption of mitigation measures; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 16,
2014, to consider the IS /MND, the proposed General Plan Amendments, the CAP, and the PMP, and
to take public testimony, and made a recommendation to the City Council on the IS/MND and the
Project; and,
WHEREAS, on February 12, 2014, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to
take public testimony and consider the IS /MND, the proposed General Plan Amendments, the CAP,
and the PMP; and,
WHEREAS, as required by State law and the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the City
Council has independently reviewed the Project and the IS /MND, and makes the findings contained
herein in support of the General Plan Amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the entirety of the record before it,
which includes without limitation, the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
§ § 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA ") and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations § 15000,
et seq.; the South San Francisco General Plan and General Plan EIR; the South San Francisco
General Plan Update and General Plan Update EIR; the South San Francisco Municipal Code; the
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, prepared for the Project, including all written
comments received; all reports, minutes, and public testimony submitted as part of the Planning
Commission's duly noticed public hearing on January 16, 2014; all reports, minutes and public
testimony submitted as part of the City Council's duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014;
and any other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco hereby finds as follows:
I. General Findings
The foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. The Exhibits attached to this Resolution, including the proposed General Plan Amendments
(Exhibit A), the proposed Climate Action Plan (Exhibit B), and the proposed Pedestrian
Master Plan (Exhibit C) are each incorporated by reference into this Resolution, as if set
forth fully herein.
3. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at
the Planning Division for the City of South San Francisco, 315 Maple Avenue, South San
Francisco, CA 94080, and in the custody of Chief Planner, Susy Kalkin.
II. General Plan Amendments
1. As described in Exhibit A, the General Plan Amendments propose modifications intended to
implement the proposed CAP and PMP. The amendments would not include any changes to existing
land use designations. The proposed Amendments relate to two elements, Transportation and the Air
Quality section of the Open Space & Conservation Element. The Amendments include new guiding
and implementing policies that promote the objectives of the Climate Action Plan and the Pedestrian
Master Plan, and confirm that once adopted, the CAP and PMP shall be the guiding policy
documents for the matters covered in the respective documents.
2. As required under State law, the South San Francisco General Plan, and the South San
Francisco Municipal Code, in support of the General Plan Amendments, the Planning Commission
finds that the proposed General Plan Amendments are otherwise consistent with the South San
Francisco General Plan, and furthers General Plan Policies set forth in the Transportation Element
and Open Space and Conservation Element (Air Quality Section), and does not obstruct or impede
achievement of any other General Plan policies. The General Plan Amendments are therefore
consistent with the City's General Plan (as proposed for amendment).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby
recommends that the South San Francisco City Council approve the General Plan Amendments
attached as Exhibit A, and adopt the Climate Action Plan , attached as Exhibit B, and adopt the
Pedestrian Master Plan, attached as Exhibit C.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Resolution shall become effective immediately upon
its passage and adoption.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the
City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 12ffi day of
February, 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers Mark N. Addiego, Pradeep Gupta, and Liza Normandy
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
Vice Mayor Richard A. Garbarino and Mayor KgMI Matsumoto
None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: C- • -6-�
Anna Brown, Deputy City Clerk
Exhibit A
General Plan Amendments
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP) AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN (PMP)
The proposed General Plan Amendments provide recommended policy updates to
the City of South San Francisco's existing General Plan, including goals and
policies upon which proposed CAP reduction measures and actions are based. The
General Plan Amendments include edits and additions to existing text and policies
in the following elements:
• Transportation;
• Air Quality section of the Open Space and Conservation Element.
Together, these amendments integrate the objectives of the CAP and the PMP into
the City's long -term planning framework. The proposed General Plan
Amendments are provided in the attached document in redlined format. The
General Plan can be viewed using the following link: http: / /ca-
southsanfrancisco .civicplus.com/index.aspx ?NID =360.
1.5 PLAN ORGANIZATION
GENERAL PLAN STRUCTURE
The South San Francisco General Plan is organized into nine chapters:
1) Introduction and Overview. This includes General Plan themes, requirements for Plan monitoring,
review, and amendments.
2) Land Use. This chapter provides the physical framework for development in the Planning Area. It
establishes policies related to location and intensity of development, and citywide land use policies.
3) Planning Sub - Areas. This chapter includes detailed policies for each one of the 14 sub -areas that the
Planning Area is divided into.
4) Transportation. This Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and
circulation. It identifies future improvements and addresses alternative transportation systems.
bicycling and pedestrian facilities, and parking.
5) Parks, Public Facilities, and Services. The chapter outlines the policies and standards relating to parks
and recreation, educational facilities, and public facilities.
6) Economic Development. Although not required by State law, this Element outlines the City's
economic development objectives and serves to ensure that economic decision - making is integrated
with other aspects of the city's development.
7) Open Space and Conservation. This chapter outlines policies relating to habitat and biological
resources, water quality, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and historic and cultural resources
conservation.
8) Health and Safety. This chapter addresses the risks posed by geologic and seismic hazards, flooding,
hazardous materials and waste, and fire.
17
9) Noise. This required Element promotes a comprehensive, long -range program of achieving acceptable
noise levels throughout the city.
Arrangement of Required General Plan Elements
The General Plan includes six of the seven elements required by State law (Land Use, Circulation, Open
Space, Conservation, Noise and Safety) and other elements that address local concerns and regional
requirements. The Housing Element is a separately published volume. The State - required mandatory
elements are included in the General Plan, as outlined in Table 1 -1.
ORGANIZATION OF THE ELEMENTS; POLICY STRUCTURE
Each chapter or element of the General Plan includes brief background information to establish the
context for policies in the Element. This background material is neither a comprehensive statement of
existing conditions nor does it contain any adopted information. Readers interested in a comprehensive
understanding of issues related to a particular topic should refer to South San Francisco General Plan:
Existing Conditions and Planning Issues (September 1997). This background information is followed by
two sets of policies:
• Guiding policies are the City's statements of its goals and philosophy.
• Implementing policies represent commitments to specific actions. They may refer to existing
programs or call for establishment of new ones.
Together, the guiding and implementing policies articulate a vision for South San Francisco that the
General Plan seeks to achieve. They also provide protection for the city's resources by establishing
planning requirements, programs, standards, and criteria for project review.
Explanatory material accompanies some policies. This explanatory material provides background
information or is intended to guide Plan implementation. The use of "should" or "would" indicates that a
statement is advisory, not binding; details will need to be resolved in Plan implementation. Where the
same topic is addressed in more than one chapter, sections and policies are cross - referred, typically in
italics for easy reference.
18
Policy Numbering System
Policies in the General Plan are organized using a two -part numbering system. The first part refers to the
section and the second the order in which the policy appears in the chapter, with a letter designation to
distinguish guiding policies from implementing policies. For example, the first guiding policy in Section
3.2 is numbered 3.2 -G.1 and the first implementing policy is 3.2 -I.1. In Chapter 2: Land Use, Chapter 6:
Economic Development, and Chapter 9: Noise, the policies are all numbered with the chapter number.
Thus, each policy in the Plan has a unique number.
1.6 RELATED STUDIES
As part of the General Plan preparation, several technical studies were conducted to document
environmental conditions, and analyze prospects for economic development, community character and
growth, and development alternatives. Studies prepared include:
• Existing Conditions and Planning Issues; September 1997;
• Fiscal Evaluation of Land Uses; January 1998;
• Sketch Plans; February 1998;
• Draft Environmental Impact Report; June 1999; and
• Final Environmental hnpact Report; September 1999.
While these background studies and environmental documents have guided Plan preparation, they do not
represent adopted City policy.
19
4 TRANSPORTATION
Transportation has long played a key role in shaping South San Francisco. Like much of the rest of San
Mateo County, South San Francisco initially developed as a "railroad suburb" to San Francisco. The
Caltrain service that now uses the Union Pacific (formerly Southern Pacific Railroad) tracks continues
that early commute pattern; the earlier train route is paralleled by El Camino Real (State Route 82), the
first highway and automobile route through the Peninsula. Since World War II, these early commute
routes have been replaced by freeways – first, U.S. 101 (the Bayshore Freeway) east of El Camino Real
and Caltrain and, later, I -280, which defines much of the western edge of the City.
South San Francisco has extraordinary access to all transportation modes, including air, water, rail, bus,
and automobiles, though capacity and access to the principal route —U.S. 101 —is constrained. With the
f entl • underw BART extension, the soon to be constructed Airport Rail Transit (ART) System, and
plans fe ferry service en the her-izea, access to the City has been Will be enhanced even further in the
last decade.
The Transportation Element includes policies, programs, and standards to enhance capacity and provide
new linkages to further an integrated multi -modal transportation system that encourages transit and meets
the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as programs to help reduce transportation demand. Issues
from a citywide to a neighborhood- and block -level scale are addressed. The relationship between the
local and the regional system and agencies is also examined. The element contains policies to ensure that
existing uses and neighborhoods are not unduly impacted as the city grows.
The Transportation Element identifies future circulation needs for a long -range planning horizon. The
City is implementing these long -range objectives through numerous near -term strategic planning
documents. The South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP) are two
examples, both providing detailed recommendations and concept plans that support General Plan
objectives. Building on the General Plan's overarching vision for safe and convenient pedestrian
facilities the PMP provides tools that respond to the City's current pedestrian challenges Similarly the
Bicycle Master Plan supports the General Plan, identifying actionable near -term objectives to expand and
enhance the City's network of bicycle paths. In addition, the City Council adopted a Citywide Complete
Streets policy (Resolution 86 -2012, October 24, 2012) in accordance with the guidelines provided by
MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission).
Many of the improvements identified will be studied later in greater detail, and funding and
implementation sources will be identified. Some of these projects, in order to be funded, must be part of
local and regional programs, including the City's Capital Improvement Program and the County
Congestion Management Program (CMP). Strategic plans such as the Bicycle Master Plan and PMP assist
the City with project prioritization for funding and implementation.
IKY]
Policies related to the physical framework for development that the circulation system is designed to
serve are included in Chapter 2: Land Use Element and Chapter 3: Planning Sub -Areas Element. Included
in these elements are policies to promote transit - supportive land uses, creation of pedestrian- friendly
environments, and design to promote alternate modes.
Light congestion on Miller Avenue, an alternative route to Grand Avenue in Downtown.
140
GUIDING POLICIES: STREET SYSTEM AND STANDARDS OF
SERVICE
Also see Chapter 3: Planning Sub -Areas Element, for policies related to streets in specific areas. Truck
movement issues in Lindenville are addressed in Section 3.2: Lindenville.
151
Street System
4.2 -G -1 Undertake efforts to enhance transportation capacity, especially in growth and emerging
employment areas such as in the East of 101 area.
4.2 -G -2 Improve connections between different parts of the city. These would help integrate
differentparts of the city. Connections between areas west and east of U.S. 101
(currently limited to streets that provide freeway access) would also free -up capacity
along streets such as Grand Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard that provide access to
U.S. 101. Connections are also critical across El Camino Real and Junipero Serra
Boulevard and from Westborough to Downtown. Connections should provide access foL
multiple modes of transportation including bicycle and pedestrian access.
4.2 -G -3 Where appropriate, use abandoned railroad rights -of -way and the BART right -of -way to
establish new streets.
4.2 -G -4 Use the El Camino Real /Chestnut Area Plan as a guide for detailed implmenta
implementation of General Plan transportation policies for the El Camino Real /Chestnut
Area. (Amended by City Council Resolutions 97 -2011 and 99 -2011, Adopted July 27,
2011)
4.2 -G -5 Use Figure 4 -1: Street Classifications, to identify, schedule, and implement roadway
improvements. Use the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan to identify, schedule,
and implement roadway improvements for the El Camino Real /Chestnut Area. (Amended
by City Council Resolutions 97 -2011 and 99 -2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
4.2 -G -6 Use the Bicycle Master Plan (refer to Figure 4 -2 ) to identify schedule and implement
roadway improvements that enhance bicycle access.
4.2 -G -7 Use the Pedestrian Master Plan (re er to Figure 4 -3) to identify schedule and implement
roadway improvements that enhance pedestrian access.
4.2 -G -8g Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the arrangement of
land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced integration of various transportation
systems serving South San Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle -miles traveled.
4.2 -G -9 -7 Coordinate local actions with regional agencies, and undertake active
152
Figure 4-2 Bicycle Facilities
'44
it 7
'o
S,
, xv.
Street Improverninw.
4 Lanes
0 Interhange/
Intersection
Improvement
Source: Dyett & Bhatia
153
rZ,
IR
r
_7-
-Z' i
IN
Figure 4-3 Prioritized Pedestrian Facilities
Ih
South,--San Fra'ncisco'
cps
154
S..'dewalk Gap Priority
Second ?nasty
School
Park
Frwfty Development Area
FNIR A" PEERS
154
efforts to undertake transportation improvements.
4.2 -G-810 Provide fair and equitable means for paying for future street improvements including
mechanisms such as development impact fees. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98-
2001, Adopted September 26, 2001)
Traffic Operations and Service Standards
4.2- G-9-11 Strive to maintain LOS or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections,
and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours.
4.2 -G -4812 Accept LOS E or F after finding that:
• There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the lower level of service; and
• The uses resulting in the lower level of service are of clear, overall public benefit.
4.2 -G -4413 Exempt development within one - quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City -
designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards.
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: STREET SYSTEM AND STANDARDS
OF SERVICE
Street System and Improvements
4.2 -I - -1 Continue using the Capital Improvement Program to program and implement needed
improvements to the street system.
4.2 -I - -2 Undertake street improvements identified ink Figures 4 -1 and 4 -2. (Amended by
City Council Resolution 31 -2002, Adopted April 24, 2002)
Impmvements identified include:
155
Connection between Hillside Boulevard and El Camino Real near the BART station (see Chapter 3
for policies for pedestrian- oriented nature of the segment near the BART station).
• Arroyo Drive/ Oak Avenue connection. This short connection will relieve pressure off the Chestnut
Avenue/ El Camino Real intersection. Signal coordination will help to ensure that El Camino Real
traffic flow is not impeded. Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area Plan to guide the development of
the Arroyo /Oak Avenue connection. (Amended by City Council Resolution 97 -2011 and 99 -2011,
Adopted July 27, 2011)
• Mission Road extension from Chestnut Avenue to South Linden Avenue extension. This will be on
the BART right -of -way. The General Plan proposes additional uses for the right -of -way —a bikeway
and a linear park as well —a coordinated design strategy and joint efforts by the Public Works and
Parks and Recreation departments will be needed.
• Myrtle Avenue extension to South Linden Avenue. This will run parallel (on the north side) of the
former Zellerbach Paper plant. Alignment study will be needed, and some small existing structures
may need to be removed.
• South Maple Avenue extension to Noor Avenue at Huntington Avenue. While this connection is short
and within the City limits, it may be -viable only at the time of redevelopment of the site along
Browning Way (designated for high- intensity office development, as it is adjacent to the San Bruno
BART Station). This connection should be a condition of redevelopment of sites in the area.
• South Linden Avenue extension to Sneath Lane. This would dramatically increase access to
Lindenville and enable trucks to get to I -380 without going through Downtown. This connection is
also extremely critical to ensure connection between Downtown and the (San Bruno) BART Station.
x
Spruce Avenue looking towards Downtown.
156
Railroad Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to East Grand Avenue, following the general
alignment of an abandoned railroad right -of -way. This would be the first non - freeway related
connection between the areas east and west of U.S. 101. The street will go under U.S. 101. Either a
depressed intersection at Railroad Avenue or an elevated section that goes above the Caltrain tracks
would be needed. This will probably be an expensive improvement ($15 -20 million), requiring
detailed studies. However, it is expected to accommodate more than 20,000 trips per day and existing
structures will not need to be removed. Consideration should be given to providing a bikeway and
pedestrian access in conjunction with the street design.
• Victory Avenue extension from South Linden Avenue to South Airport Boulevard. This will need to
be undertaken in conjunction with development of the regional commercial facilities designated on
the General Plan Diagram.
• New interchange at Victory Avenue and U.S. 101. This will provide direct connection between
Lindenville and U.S. 101, and be the primary truck ingress /egress point in South San Francisco,
obviating the need for trucks to negotiate Downtown streets. As with Victory Avenue extension,
development will need to occur in conjunction with development of regional commercial facilities.
• Produce Avenue extension to Shaw Road. This will run parallel to U.S. 101 on the western side.
4.2 -I - -3 Undertake studies to establish precise alignments for streets in order to identify future
right -of- -way needs. Locate future arterials and collectors according to the general
alignments shown in Figure 4 -2.
Minor variation from the depicted alignments will not require a General Plan amendment.
4.2 -I - -4 Establish priorities for transportation improvements, and prepare an action program to
implement identified street improvements.
-L
El Camino Real, a major arterial,
increasing parking demand.
157
will undergo major development in the future, adding trips and
This would require working with other agencies, including BART for the Mission Road
extension on the BART right -of -way, CaITTens Caltrans on the new U.S. 101
interchange, and with C /CAG on several other projects.
4.2 -I - -5 Establish accessibility requirements for all streets designated as arterial or collector on
Figure 4 -1. As part of development review of all projects along these streets, ensure that
access to individual sites does not impede through trafjac flow.
The General Plan anticipates development along several arterial and collector streets,
including in much of Downtown, and along El Camino Real, Gellert Boulevard, Arroyo
Drive, Victory Avenue extension, Hillside Boulevard, Mission Road extension, and East
Grand Avenue. Accessibility requirements should ensure that ingress /egress from sites
along arterial and collector streets is limited to a few locations, and residential
developments do not have driveways lined up along the streets, which would represent a
safety hazard and impede traffic flow.
4.2 -I - -6 Incorporate as part of the City's Capital Ievrnent Improvement Program (CIP)
needed intersection and roadway improvements to enhance mobility in the East of 101
Area. These improvements shall include consideration of bike lanes and pedestrians
routes. (Amended by City Council Resolution 98 -2001, Adopted September 26, 2001)
The East of 101 traffic study, prepared by the City in April 2001, identifies improvements
that would result in better traffic flow and a reduction of congestion during peak hours.
The following improvements have been proposed and evaluated:
• Bayshore Boulevard and US 101 South Hook Ramp(s);
• Bayshore Boulevard and Sister Cities /Oyster Point Boulevard;
• Dubuque Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard;
158
• Eccles Avenue and Oyster Point Boulevard;
• Gull Drive and Oyster Point Boulevard;
• Airport Boulevard and Miller Avenue/US 101 Southbound offramp;
• Airport Boulevard and Grand Avenue;
• Dubuque Avenue and East Grand Avenue;
• Gateway Boulevard and East Grand Avenue
• Forbes Boulevard/Harbor Way and East Grand Avenue;
• East Grand Avenue and Grandview Drive;
• Airport Boulevard and San Mateo Avenue;
• South Airport Boulevard/Mitchell Avenue and Gateway Boulevard;
• South Airport Boulevard and Utah Avenue;
• Harbor Way;
• Mitchell Avenue;_
4.2 -I - -7 Continue to require that new development pays a fair share of the costs of street and other traffic
and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on service levels. Explore the
feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for improvements required in the Lindenville area.
(Amended by City Council Resolution 98 -2001, Adopted September 26, 2001)
4.2 -I - -7a Establish a tragic improvement fee to fund transportation improvements in the East of 101 area.
The fee should be updated to also fund enhancements to pedestrian and bic cy le infrastructure consistent
with the objectives of the Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan (Amended by City Council
Resolution
159
98 -2001, Adopted September 26, 2001)
4.24- -8 Develop and implement a standard method to evaluate the traffic impacts of individual
developments.
Currently, the City does not have an adopted LOS calculation method or a traffic analysis
procedure. Therefore, it is difficult to ensure that impacts and appropriate mitigation
measures are identified and that developers pay their fair share of the transportation
system improvement costs.
4.2 -I - -9 Where appropriate, consider upfronting portions of improvement costs where the City's
economic development interests may be served.
This technique may be appropriate for improvements such as the Victory Avenue
extension, the Railroad extension and U.S. 101 interchange to facilitate development of a
regional commercial center, sales tax revenues from which (potentially in excess of $1
million per year) could help retire the improvement debt.
Level of Service
4.2 -I - -10 Design roadway improvements and evaluate development proposals based on LOS
standards.
4.2 -I - -11 Implement, to the extentfeasible, circulation system improvements illustrated in figures
FF 4 -1 and 4 -2, and 4 -3 prior to deterioration in levels of service below the stated
standard.
160
4.3 ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND PARKING
See Section 4.5 for transit.
Shuttle buses, vanpools, bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities and informal carpools; also serve the travel
needs of South San Francisco. These modes provide an alternative to the single - occupant automobile.
These modes, plus programs to promote their use, are discussed in this section.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Classification System
Bicycle facilities include bike paths, bike lanes, and bike routes:
• Bike Paths (Class I facilities) are paved facilities that are physically separated from roadways
used by motor vehicles by space or a physical barrier and are designated for bicycle use.
Bike Lanes (Class II facilities) are lanes on the outside edge of roadways reserved for the exclusive use of
bicycles, so designated with special signing and pavement markings.
• Bike Routes (Class III facilities) are roadways recommended for use by bicycles and often
connect roadways with bike lanes and bike paths. Bike routes are designated with signs.
Existing and Proposed Bikeways
South San Francisco has The -3v@ few existing bicycle facilities within geu4h San FFaaeisee. Figure 4-34 -4
depicts the locations of the existing and proposed bike lanes and bike paths. General Plan proposals
include: Bike Path on linear park on the BART right -of -way, extending between the South San Francisco
and San Bruno BART stations; paths or lanes along proposed Bay Trail; and Bike Lanes along the
proposed Railroad Avenue extension. Additional facilities, including those connecting portions of the city
on
159
N
C
N
N
m
3
/)
W
r
M
W
J
a
O
s
a
:.
0
a+
C
O
U)
V,w
V
V
I
O
c
LL
cc
O C14 —
O
mEs °`a��CL "° c3 3 �� � N >,
mE3°v, -C �,oQ 0m.NQc- CD w-,(D °O° m
�O .- CO •C .� -0 m m C a) � rn E � m O
E m ° CM C 4� °� ° L _ QED 0 c FE 012 a) V E a r O C 0 Y a) m C
a)
E Lo a)
(D E Env �3-5 EAO cn � a cn .E N m E� 3� cL x ca
3aQ ` aa0a�Qm3 UcaQoco°M.E°a.NV& Z
N
4-- L
°
L
°
4
U O
V
°m
L �
Q
a)
..
M
f
ca
O
CU
�La)
O ,�.
rn
0
c o .D E a) •`
°
-C cu
m —
cu
O
3 0 1
> O
�0E-
L O
,�
�a�miai °w
-0--a
3 U
&
x��
cn
������
- CUcuo
m
a)
����
o> CD
Do ca
E
E cu
o
o
= E
v
-O
H-0 co .0
�
LL m >
U m
O
L O U O
m
� U tm .Q-
m
m
0)
m
n
-2
� 02
O
O *La)
O (n .
=
O
-p U
m m
m t5 :5 "
o
L
0) -C -0
0
o -° CM
CU
4--
N a)
CL
U w -0 ca
m
0
•y
-C
O
U t CD O
•N
C C C
O O
�O
C a) '-
--
-0
"0 Ima)
cm 0m
�'a)�a)
�
UC
_C
��.E�
.N
a)
a)U_.C�
q.CCN
viEm�
E
�-'�a)oCQ-.-
wE
N�
m
a) �" m
a)
L m UL
Y U
U Q�
U
L•�E o
O
E
U
U
y
Q U �i fA
Q
D
a)
U
"O'' 0 O w
U
T
3 0 m
4-- L
°
L
°
a)
V
°m
L �
N a P O
U
0c�u
O U
f
ca
O
CU
�La)
mmsm��
rn
� � �
c o .D E a) •`
°
-C cu
O C ,�
'M
r- Q a) D O
°�
3 0 1
> O
�0E-
L O
,�
�a�miai °w
-0--a
3 U
&
x��
cn
������
- CUcuo
m
a)
����
o> CD
Do ca
E
E cu
o
o
= E
v
.0-4--
H-0 co .0
�
LL m >
N
:v
O
a)
V
°m
L �
0.1-0
U
0c�u
C —
O
0- N
J O
of U1
Y
pO
Y N
Fn C)
a) m
mU
W
N
y:r
LL
4)
V
A
MV
W
�I4
1
W
L
LL
N
T
either side of El Camino Real, will be delineated as part of the City's Bikeway Master Plan. Future
bicycle facilities will focus on abandoned railroad tracks, located in the East of 101 area and throughout
the city, which can be converted to bicycle paths as part of a rails -to- trails program.
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, paths, pedestrian bridges, crosswalks, pedestrian signals and
resting areas. South San Francisco offers many great walking environments. The Downtown area
provides a well - connected street network complete with sidewalks commercial activity, destinations and
public amenities. Shared multi -use paths run along the waterfront and connect San Bruno and South San
Francisco BART stations. Many streets throughout 84feets in fflu the city and the Downtown have
sidewalks on beyes, affd pedestrian signals, and crosswalks at the sigiialized in4e- seefie to
accommodate pedestrian circulation.
Pedestrian facilities include the following elements:
— Pedestrian right -of -way (sidewalk bulbout curb ramp median islands etc.);
— Traffic control measures (strip , signs, ); and
— Amenities (benches, trash receptacles, water fountains, etc.).
Many streets in the East of 101 area and in Lindenville do not have sidewalks. Busy, car- oriented streets
such as El Camino Real Junipero Serra South Spruce South Linden Avenue Westborough Boulevard
and streets east of U.S. 101 have gaps in the sidewalk network. Pedestrian facility improvements will
improve safety for pedestrians and also encourage the use of alternative modes throughout the
community.
SHUTTLE BUS SERVICE
Another alternative mode is the shuttle bus system. The PCRA coordinates with SamTrans to ensure
adequate funding for the shuttle buses. There are three shuttle bus routes that serve employees of the East
of 101 area: the Gateway /Genentech Shuttle, the Oyster Point Shuttle, and the Utah/Littlefield Shuttle The
service is fixed- route, fixed schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute periods.
Currently, the shuttles carry 700 riders per workday. They are free to the riders. The operating costs are
borne by the JPB, SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City /County
Association of Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent).
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are provided by employers to reduce the amount
of peak period traffic by encouraging their employees to use modes other than the single - occupant
automobile for transportation to the workplace and to travel during non -peak times. According to PCMA,
162
South San Francisco hosts the region's largest employers and the best - developed TDM programs. The
largest increases in work - related trip diversion to alternative modes are
163
likely to be through carpooling and employer shuttle programs, on which TDM efforts should be focused.
While mandated requirements for TDM programs have been overturned in the State legislature,I the
General Plan establishes an incentives -based land use intensity program with bonuses for projects
meeting identified TDM objectives (see Table 2.2 -3) that does not discriminate between small and large
employers.
PARKING
The City's Zoning Ordinance has parking requirements to ensure that adequate numbers of parking spaces
are provided on -site for most uses. Downtown has a parking district as well. Instead of individual
property owners providing their own parking, parking is consolidated into 13 City lots. These lots contain
approximately 420 spaces, of which 270 are available for long -term employee parking. In general, the
amount of parking in Downtown is sufficient; however, there are a few locations with capacity shortages.
The industrial areas of the city experience on- street truck parking. The parked trucks and
loading/unloading activities associated with many industrial uses interfere with vehicular circulation.
GUIDING POLICIES: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
4.3 -G -1 Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote bicycle riding
for transportation and recreation.
4.3 -G -2 Provide safe and direct pedestrian routes and bikeways between and through residential
neighborhoods, and to transit centers.
4.4 -G -3 Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan as a guide for detailed
implementation of General Plan alternative transportation system policies for the El
Camino Real / Chestnut Area. (Amended by City Council Resolution 97 -2011 and 99-
2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
I Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Regulation 13, Rule 1, requiring employers with over 100 employees to decrease
the average vehicle ridership was overturned. However, the City can encourage TDM programs and require TDM measures as
mitigation measures to transportation and air quality impacts.
164
4.3 -G -4 In partnership with employers, continue efforts to expand shuttle operations.
4.3 -G -5 In partnership with the local business community, develop a transportation systems
management plan with identified trip- reduction goals, while continuing to maintain a
positive and supportive business environment.
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Bikeways
4.3 -I -1 Prepare and adopt a Bikeways Master Plan that includes goals and objectives, a list or
map of improvements, a signage program, detailed standards, and an implementation
program. Once adopted, the Bicycle Master Plan shall be the guiding policy document
regarding bicycling matters that are within the scope of the adopted Bicycle Master Plan.
(Amended by City Council Resolution 237= 2011, Adopted February 9, 2011)
A Bikeways Committee that includes citizens, officials, and staff may be appointed for
the purpose. The Bikeways Master Plan should be consistent with the General Plan; if
necessary, the General Plan can be amended at the time of adoption of the Bikeway
Master Plan to ensure this consistency. An approved Bikeway Master Plan is needed to
be eligible for State and federal funding programs.
4.3 -I -2 As part of the Bikeways Master Plan, include improvements identified in Figure 444 =4
in the General Plan and in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan, and identify
additional improvements that include abandoned railroad rights -of -way and other
potential connections. (Amended by City Council Resolution 97 -2011 and 99 -2011,
Adopted July 27, 2011)
165
Improvements identified on Figure 4 ---4 -44 include:
0 Bike Path on linear park on the BART right -of -way, extending from the South San Francisco
BART Station to the San Bruno BART station;
Paths or lanes along proposed Bay Trail, with continuous shoreline access; and
Bike Lane along the proposed Railroad Avenue extension, which would provide the first bikeway
connection linking the eastern and western parts of the city and provide shoreline bikeway access
from residential neighborhoods west of U.S. 101.
Improvements identified in the El Camino Real /Chestnut Avenue Area Plan include: (Amended by City
Council Resolution 97 -2011 and 99 -2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
a Bike connections between Mission Road and El Camino Real; and
• Bike connection between Camaritas Avenue and El Camino Real
4.3 -I -3 Make bikeway improvements a funding priority by:
Continuing to consider financing bikeway design and construction as part of the
City's annual construction and improvement fund;
• Incorporating bikeway improvements as part of Capital Improvement Program; and
Pursuing regional funding and other sources for new bikeways to the extent possible
under federal and State law.
4.3 -I -4 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and future multifamily
residential, commercial, industrial, and office / institutional uses.
Secure parking means areas where bicycles can be secured to a non- movable rack to prevent theft.
M-11
Pedestrian Circulation
4.3 -I -5 Prepare, adopt and maintain a PMP as along -term vision for supporting and improving
pedestrian access in South San Francisco, including goals policies and strategic near-
term implementation measures that encourage pedestrian activity and prioritizes
pedestrian improvements for funding,
4.3 -I -6 Expand pedestrian facilities in new development using the PMP for pedestrian design
guidelines and to identify other improvements that should be considered for projects
proposed in areas that are identified in PMP concept plans.
4.3 -I -7 Continue to work with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (or other advisory
committee) to monitor progress toward the City's pedestrian objectives identified in the
PMP, with annual reviews to evaluate progress effectiveness of implementation and the
efficient use of local resources.
4.3 -I -8 Track and implement pedestrian improvements through municipal projects and
operations on an ongoing basis, including monitoring and updating of the PMP for
project prioritization, funding opportunities, and project readiness.
4.3 -I -9 Promote pedestrian safety and access through education, collaboration with C /CAG an d
regular public awareness efforts that advocate walking_
4.3 -I -1510 As part of redesign of South Linden Avenue (see Section 3.2), provide continuous
sidewalks on both sides of the street, extending through the entire stretch of the street
from San Bruno BART Station to Downtown.
4.3 -I-611 As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 101, require project proponents to
provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for new development
and redevelopment projects.
4.3 -I-712 Use the El Camino Real/Chestnut Avenue Area Plan to identify, schedule, and implement
pedestrian improvements for the El Camino Real/ Chestnut Area. (Amended by City
Council Resolution 97 -2011 and 99 -2011, Adopted July 27, 2011)
4.3 -I -913 Undertake a program to improve pedestrian connections between the rail stations —South
San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations and the Caltrain Station —and the
surroundings. Components of the program should include:
• Installing handicapped ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being
installed;
• Constructing wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian
use;
167
• Providing intersection "bulbing" to reduce walking distances across streets in
Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission Road, and other high use areas;
• Continuing with the City's current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all
signalized intersections; and
• Providing landscaping that encourages pedestrian use.
168
Transportation Demand Management
4.3 -I -914 Adopt a TDM program or ordinance which includes, but is not limited to, the following
components:
• Methodology to determine eligibility for land use intensity bonuses for TDM
programs identified in the Land Use Element_
• Procedures to ensure continued maintenance of measures that result in intensity
bonuses.
• Requirements for off site improvements (such as bus shelters and pedestrian
connections) that are directly necessary as a result of development.
• Establishment of baseline TDM requirements for all new projects generating more
than 100 peak period trips.
• Establishment of additional requirements for all new projects seeking a FAR bonus.
• An ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure TDM measures are
actually implemented.
• Reduce parking requirements for new projects implementing a TDM Program in
proximity to fixed guide way transit or those with demonstrated measures that would
reduce trip generation.
(Amended by City Council Resolution 98 -2001, Adopted September 26, 200 1)
4.3 -I -4-815 Favor Transportation Systems Management TM programs that limit vehicle use over
those that extend the commute hour.
This would have added air quality benefits.
4.3 -I -4416 Undertake efforts to promote the City as a model employer and further alternative
transportation use by City employees by providing:
169
• A designated commute coordinator /manager;
• A carpool/vanpool match program;
• Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools at City Hall;
• Secure bicycle storage facilities;
• On -site shower facilities at City Hall for employees;
• A commitment to future shuttle ser6ce to BART stations;
• Guaranteed ride home program;
• Transit subsidies;
• On -site transit pass sales; and
• Incentives /educational program.
Parking
4.3 -I -4-217 Establish parking standards to support trip reduction goals by:
• Allowing parking reductions for projects that have agreed to implement trip reduction
methods, such as paid parking, and for mixed use de' elopment.
• Requ ieng-Re uiring_prcjects larger than 25 employees to provide preferential
parking for ear-pell&-camools and vanpools.
(Amended by City Council Resolution 98 -2001, Adopted September 26, 200 1)
4.3 -I -4-318 Amend the Zoning Ordinance to reduce minimum parking requirements for projects
proximate to transit stations and for projects implementing a TDM program.
Parking is limited in many areas of the city - especially in
industrial areas with auto repair facilities or freight forwarding.
170
Periodically examine these standards as transit service changes. Parking above a
minimum amount should be allowed only if additional amenities for bicyclists,
pedestrians, transit and/or landscaping are provided. (Amended by City Council
Resolution 98 -2001, Adopted September 26, 2001)
4.3- I-4-419 Investigate opportunities for shared parking facilities whenever possible to reduce the
number of new parking stalls required.
Potential for this exists for the area near the South San Francisco BART Station and in
the El Camino Real/Chestnut Area.
4.3 -I -4320 Establish off - street truck parking standards for industrial developments.
While the City maintains loading requirements for industrial and warehousing uses, truck
parking on streets continues to be a problem in many areas. Some neighboring cities,
such as Burlingame, maintain off - street truck parking standards. Stricter enforcement of
on- street parking measures, especially during the peak hours, would also further mobility.
171
7 OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATIN
This element outlines policies relating to habitat and biological resources, water quality, air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions and historic and cultural resources conservation. Background information is
included to establish the context for the policies. Regulatory authority over environmental resources
within the city is shared among various agencies; the City itself offers protection of natural resources
through its land use and development policies, particularly in areas not protected under State or federal
legislation. In addition, the City can also participate actively in restoring degraded habitat areas. The risks
and opportunities presented by various environmental factors —such as seismicity and biotic habitats
would necessitate different kinds of assessments and reviews. These requirements are consolidated and
presented in Figure 7 -2.
7.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Air and climate are important resources affecting the local quality of life. While changes in the climate
and air quality are affected by local activities, they are regional and even global issues Greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions have contributed to the creation of a barrier that prevents heat from escaping the earth's
atmosphere in a process known as the greenhouse gas effect. Scientific consensus maintains that human
activities are rapidly increasing the concentrations of GHG emissions in the atmosphere resulting in a
warming of the planet and altering the earth's climate systems. Climate change is projected to cause
hotter and drier conditions in California, resulting in more extreme heat events an increased risk of
drought, more intense weather events, flooding of low -level coastal areas as a result of sea level rise and
less available water due to a decrease in snowfall. The combined impacts of these risks pose a significant
threat to economic and natural systems both lg obally and locally. Yet South San Francisco is making
strides in reducing the local contribution to climate change and preparin to o adapt to new climate change
conditions.
Although both climate change and air quality are broader issues they affect the local quality of life
Protecting these resources is vital
to the overall health of the environment. While the local impact of climate change can be indirect and
more long -term, air quality has directly observable impacts affecting and the attractiveness of any
locality. South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality, due largely to the presence of the San
Bruno Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds to flow easily into San
Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants.
Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in pollutant exposure for
residents and workers. These areas include the U.S. 101, I -280, and El Camino Real corridors, which
experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to heavy traffic volumes, particularly during peak
237
periods. In addition, wind blowing out of the south and southeast exposes the city to emissions from the
San Francisco International Airport (SFO).
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
South San Francisco is located within the nine- county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. Air quality in
the basin is monitored by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD), which operates a
regional network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for
criteria air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved.
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can classify an air
basin or a portion thereof, as either in "attainment" or "nonattainment." This classification is based on
whether or not the basin meets national ambient air quality standards. Likewise, a basin is classified under
the California Clean Air Act with respect to the achievement of State ambient air quality standards. The
Bay Area is considered "attainment" for all of the national standards, with the exception of ozone. It is
considered "nonattainment" for State standards for ozone and suspended particulate matter (PM -10).
In 1991, the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan was developed to address the State requirements of the
California Clean Air Act. The Plan has been updated twice, in 1994 and 1997, with the continued goal of
improving air quality through tighter industry controls, cleaner fuels, and combustion in cars and trucks,
and increased commute alternatives.
Criteria Air Pollutants
The federal Clean Air Act requires the EPA to identify National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The
EPA has established national standards for six criteria air pollutants, including ozone, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, PM -10, and lead. In addition, under State law, the Air Resources Board
has established State standards for ambient air quality that are more stringent than the corresponding
national standards. The Air Resources Board also sets standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl
chloride, pollutants for which no national standards have been set.
While no monitoring station is located in South San Francisco, BAAQMD samples local air quality from
the nearby Arkansas Street station in San Francisco. Monitoring station measurements indicate that air
quality in the vicinity of South San Francisco performs well against State standards for criteria air
pollutants. No violations of the State standard for ozone occurred between 1993 and 1997, although
locally generated emissions of ozone precursors, reactive gases (ROG), and nitrogen oxides (NOx), affect
downwind areas where violations do occur.
With respect to carbon monoxide, again the State standard was not exceeded. However, since 71 percent
of the carbon monoxide emitted in the Bay Area comes from on -road motor vehicles, concentrations in
the vicinity of congested intersections and highway segments would be expectedly higher than the
monitoring data indicates.
Ambient PM -10 concentrations do violate the State standard on occasion in the vicinity of South San
Francisco. PM -10 in the atmosphere is the result many of dust- and fume- producing industrial and
238
agricultural operations, construction, fugitive sources (such as roadway dust), and atmospheric
photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx.
239
Toxic Air Contaminants
Unlike criteria air pollutants, ambient air quality standards have not been established for toxic air
contaminants. These pollutants are typically carcinogens, mutagens, or reproductive toxins. Regulation of
toxic air contaminants is achieved through federal and State controls on individual sources.' The preferred
technique for reducing toxic air emissions is source reduction, and as part of a local control strategy in the
Bay Area, all applications for new stationary sources are reviewed to ensure compliance with required
emission controls and limits.
BAAQMD maintains an inventory of stationary sources of toxic air contaminants in the Bay Area. There
are 17 such sources listed within South San Francisco, 14 of which are dry cleaners. The remaining
sources include the South San Francisco San Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Shell Oil Company
Distribution Plant, and the Superior Aluminum Body Corporation.
Many other commercial/industrial facilities in South San Francisco are sources of toxic air contaminants,
but none result in a substantial risk to the public. As noted, BAAQMD regulates toxic air contaminants
from stationary sources through a permit process. Mobile sources of toxic air contaminants are regulated
indirectly through vehicle emissions standards and fuel specifications.
Sensitive Receptors
Some people are more sensitive than others to air pollutants. Heightened sensitivity may be caused by
health problems, proximity to the emissions source, and duration of exposure to air pollutants. Sensitive
receptors are facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are
especially sensitive to the effects of air pollution. Hospitals, schools, convalescent facilities, and
residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air
quality as people in residential areas are often at home for extended periods.
2 Federal environmental laws refer to "hazardous air pollutants" and California environmental laws refer to "toxic air
contaminants ". Each of these two terms encompasses the same constituent toxic compounds.
240
Climate Chance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG emissions result from da -thy activities within the community. Key sectors that locally
contribute GHG emissions include energy, transportation, and solid waste. These sectors cause emissions
through activities such as the combustion of natural gas or fuel, and the decomposition of solid waste.
Standards for GHG emissions and guidance for addressing climate change primarily come from regional
and state agencies. In 2006, California established itself as a national leader on climate change with the
adoption of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB
32), which sets statewide targets for GHG emissions reductions and initiated numerous programs and
standards for GHG emissions. AB 32 provides a statewide directive to achieve 1990 GHG emissions
levels by 2020, equivalent to a 15% reduction below baseline 2005 -2008 emissions levels. Statewide
new projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must analyze GHG emissions
and contribution to climate change. Section 15183.5(b) of the CEQA guidelines also allows jurisdictions
to use a GHG emissions reduction plan consistent with CEQA guidelines for assessing cumulative project
impacts on climate change.
In 2010, the BAAOMD updated its air quality guidelines to include guidance on assessing GHG- and
climate change- related impacts consistent with CEQA Section 15183.5(b). BAAOMD also adooPted
thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. These thresholds can be used to determine that a proposed
project's impact on GHG emissions is less than significant if the project is in compliance with a Qualified
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, as outlined by BAAOMD and the CEQA Guidelines.
241
South San Francisco Climate Action Plan
On (ADOPTION TO BE INSERTED), the City of South San Francisco adopted a Climate Action Plan
(CAP) that follows both the State and BAAOMD CEOA guidelines. The pumose of the CAP is to
demonstrate the City of South San Francisco's commitment to reduce GHG emissions while protecting
the unique resources of the community. As an implementation tool of the General Plan the CAP provides
specific programs and measures that the City will implement to reduce GHG emissions and achieve
General Plan goals and policies. The CAP and General Plan function together, with the General Plan
providing an overarching framework to reduce GHG emissions and the CAP identifying near -term actions
to _implement the General Plan. Technical analysis in the CAP also demonstrates the impact of South San
Francisco policies and programs on GHG emissions. The CAP is a tool that allows the City to understand
its impact on GHG emissions, establish goals for GHG emissions reductions and create steps to achieve
these reduction tarsets. Maintaining the CAP as a separate plan provides flexibility to the City as
regulations change, guidance evolves, and new opportunities emerge.
GUIDING POLICIES: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7.3 -G -1 Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State
ambient air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from
stationary and mobile sources, where feasible.
While South San Francisco's air quality is generally good due to climatic conditions,
local concentrations of toxic air contaminants, odors and dust are relatively high around
certain uses and transportation corridors. In addition, the City has a responsibility to
contribute to regional air quality improvement efforts.
242
7.3 -G -2 Mitigate the community of South San Francisco's impact on climate change by reducing
greenhouse gas emissions consistent with state guidance.
AB 32 calls for the reduction of GHG emissions to 15% below 1990 levels by the year
2020. This state target is also consistent with BAAQMD's CEQA compliance guidelines.
The City commits to ongoing GHG emissions reductions consistent with state directives
for the year 2020 and beyond.
7.3 -G -3 Reduce energy use in the built environment.
The energy sector is the single largest GHG emissions sector within South San Francisco
contributing approximately 47% of emissions in 2005. This sector consists of energy
used in local homes and businesses that are generated from a mix of nonrenewable
fossil -fuel based sources, such as coal and natural gas and renewable sources such as
biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wind. The amount of energy used in South San
Francisco homes and businesses determines how much power utility companies must
generate and the quantity of GHGs emitted. Energy efficiency, conservation and
renewable energy systems can reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of
electricity or natural gas that must be generated and supplied to the city. Optimizing
energy use throughout the community also provides the benefit of improved building
quality and indoor comfort. The City can support energy reductions through programs
such as education, outreach, and incentives. Such efforts will draw on the Ci , 's long
tradition of collaboration and outreach like the Green X -Ray House, a City project with
exposed green remodel improvements that showcase energy improvements. Standards
and regulations are also important opportunities to facilitate energy reductions in
development. The Economic Development Element and the Housing Element also
support business operations and improve the quality of the housing stock.
7.3 -G -24 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the
automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling.
Motor vehicles, regulations of whose emissions is preempted by State laws, are the major
source of criteria air pollutants in the Bay Area Air Basin, accounting for the vast
majority of carbon monoxide and particulate matter and over a quarter of the reactive
organic gases and nitrogen oxides in the region. The transportation sector also was the
second largest community -wide source of GHG emissions in South San Francisco in
2005, contributing approximately 45% of emissions. A majority of automobile emissions
in the city result from regional through -trips. Thus, while reduced traffic congestion or
vehicle miles traveled in South San Francisco will only minimally impact the Bay Area's
air quality, the City's planning decisions can help to moderately reduce motor vehicle
use, contributing to cumulative reductions in emissions across the entire Bay Area.
Increased use of transit and carpooling, coupled with land use and circulation patterns
that promote walking and bicycling, can lead to a decrease in daily trips, less emissions,
and improved air quality.
243
The Transportation Element (Section 4.3) includes policies for bicycle and pedestrian
circulation, and Transportation Demand Management designed to reduce emissions and
alleviate traffic congestion. The Land Use Element includes policies that encourage
pedestrian and transit travel between home and work, reducing negative air quality
impacts.
7.3 -G -5 Promote clean and alternative fuel combustion in mobile equipment and vehicles.
Combustion of fuels in mobile equipment and vehicles is a contributor to GHG emissions
throughout the community and affects local air quality. BAAQMD provides guidance for
the mitigation of construction- related impacts that may result from fuel combustion of
heavy -duty equipment such as tractors and generators. The City of South San Francisco
can also reduce fuel combustion by promoting idling dling time reductions, expanding the use
of alternative fuels, and facilitating use of clean or plug -in electric vehicles and
equipment.
7.3 -G-36 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing
them from one another.
Development of sensitive receptors in close proximity to the South San Francisco San
Bruno Wastewater Treatment Plant and other potential emissions sources is restricted by
land use policies in Chapter 2: Land Use. Residential uses, as well as most other types of
sensitive receptors except hotels, are not permitted east of 101.
IMPLEMENTING POLICIES: AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS
7.3 -1 -1 Cooperate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District to achieve emissions
reductions for nonattainment pollutants and their precursors, including carbon
monoxide, ozone, and PM -10, by implementation of air pollution control measures as
required by State and federal statutes.
7.3 -1 -2 Use the City's development review process and the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) regulations to evaluate and mitigate the local and cumulative effects of new
development on air quality and GHG emissions.
The BAAQMD's CEQA Guidelines could be used as the foundation for the City's review
of air quality and GHG emissions impacts under CEQA. With the City's CAP
serving as the tool for addressing cumulative GHG emissions. The City
should continue to include responsible agencies in the review of proposed land uses that
would handle, store, or transport any potential air pollutant sources such as, but not
limited to, lead, mercury, vinyl chloride, benzene, asbestos, beryllium, and all fuels.
244
7.3 -I - -3 Adopt the standard construction dust abatement measures included in BAAQMD's CEQA
Guidelines.
These measures would reduce particulate emissions from construction and grading
activities.
7.3 -I - -4 Require new residential development and remodeled existing homes to install clean -
burningfireplaces and wood stoves.
Residential woodburning is a growing source of localized air pollution. Woodsmoke
released from fireplaces and wood stoves contains carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
and PM -10. Pollution can be reduced by installing gas fireplaces or EPA certified wood
heaters and operating existing fireplaces and wood stoves more efficiently.
7.3 -I - -5 In cooperation with local conservation groups, institute an active urban forest
management program that consists ofplanting new trees and maintaining existing ones.
South San Francisco has few street trees compared to other Bay Area cities. Trees
growing in urban settings provide environmental benefits including energy carbon -
dioxide absorption, reduced air and noise pollution, and erosion control. Trees also
beautify, shade, and mitigation the `urban heat island effect' by shading pavement and
other dark surfaces and through the cooling effects of their evapotranspiration. Funding
should be sought from a variety of sources. Businesses or new development should also
be encouraged to plant more trees in parking lots and building landscaping.
7.3 -I -6 Periodically update the inventory of community -wide GHG emissions and evaluate
appropriate GHG emissions reduction targets, consistent with current State obiectives
statewide ,guidance, and regulations.
The CAP can provide_ streamlining to new development only if it provides a process for
evaluating and updating the CAP. Accordingly, the City will monitor progress toward
CAP targets and provide a mechanism to revise the CAP, should programs and measures
not be achieving anticipated reductions. Conducting regular inventories allows the City to
monitor progress toward the reduction target. Inventory updates also provide an
opportunity to evaluate the Citv's reduction target based on current State guidance and
best practices.
73 -1-7 Adopt and implement the Q& of South San Francisco's CAP, which will identify a GHG
emissions reduction tar—aet and measures and actions to achieve the reduction tares
To meet CEQA guidelines and provide streamlining benefits, the CAP must identify
and quantify actions that will reduce emissions to a less than significant level. The
Cily will ensure that the CAP meets these necessary criteria of the CEOA Guidelines
to provide streamlining benefits to new development.
245
_73 -1 -8 Evaluate and regularly report to City Council, or its designee, on the implementation
status of the CAP and update the CAP as necessary should the ON find that adopted
strategies are not achieving anticipated reductions, or to otherwise incorporate new
opportunities.
Regular monitoring and reporting on CAP progress allows the Citv to capitalize on
new opportunities and evaluate the results of programs intended to reduce GHG
emissions. Revisiting the CAP helps identify new opportunities to leverage CAP
programs with other efforts address challenges, and ensure success as the Citv works
toward CAP reduction targets.
7.3 -1 - -9 Promote land uses that facilitate alternative transit use, including high- density
housing, mixed uses, and affordable housing served by alternative transit
infrastructure.
The City's location and the predominance of large -scale industrial and commercial
activities with a large commuting workforce are factors that have resulted in a high
number of vehicle miles traveled throughout the community. In concert with the
Transportation Element and Specific Plans, the City is facilitating the development of
transit - oriented and mixed -use development in distinct and vital neighborhoods. This
implementing_ policy supports the development of interconnected neighborhoods that
reduce car travel and improve the local quality of life.
73 -1-10 Facilitate enere aciencv in building regulations and streamlined review processes
providing flexibility to achieve specified eneay performance levels and re uq firing
eneM e ciency measures as appropriate.
The regulatory permit process can be a disincentive to easv and feasible energv efficient
improvements. South San Francisco will support energy efficiency through effective and
flexible processes. To the extent feasible, simple permits and checklists for energy-
related improvements will be convenient and user - friendly. Through the CAP the City
will evaluate the lowest - burden programs or standards to achieve energy efficiencv while
supporting the growth objectives of the ci
73 -1 -11 Coordinate with the business community to encourage eneW efficiency in the CitL
largest energy users while supporting economic .growth objectives.
The biotechnology and industrial sectors are pillars of South San Francisco's identity and
local economy. Policies promoting the success of these and other economic sectors are
provided in the Economic Development Element. Understanding and addressing the
distinct energy needs of the City's economic sectors is critical to ensure ongoing
economic success while supporting efficient energy use. Top nonresidential energy
sectors include biotechnologL high technology industries, food processing, offices, and
hospitality. The City will implement a collaborative approach to achieve nonresidential
`,11
energy reductions, strengthening partnerships with companies and businesses to
understand efficiency opportunities, identify funding opportunities, and implement
efficiency standards and programs tailored to local practices and facilities.
73 -1 -12 Adopt guidelines, standards, and flexible regulations that promote on -site renewable
enerysystems while strengthening South San Francisco's economic competitiveness.
South San Francisco's large nonresidential energy users can benefit from the installation
of on -site renewable energy systems with short payback that reduce expenditures on
electricity and natural gas. City standards and development programs will encourage
and/or require the use of on -site renewable energy ystems to meet local energy needs,
focusing on options that maximize benefit to the community.
73 -1 -13 Encourage efficient, clean energy and fuel use through collaborative pro r� ams
award programs, and incentives, while removing barriers to the expansion of
alternative fuel facilities and infrastructure.
By acting as a leader and educator, the Citv can promote voluntary reductions in GHG
emissions. The City can share information through the City website, public events, and
other materials. City staff can also work with project applicants during the CEOA review
process to encourage use of alternative, Arid- connected, and low- emissions eauipment for
construction activities.
73 -1 -14 Ensure that design guidelines and standards support operation of alternative fuel
facilities, vehicles, and equipment.
Simple requirements such as requiring electrical outlets on building exteriors can remove
barriers to the use of electric or clean fuel equipment options. South San Francisco is also
implementing new CALGreen state requirements that support electric vehicle- charging in
new homes. The City_ will continue to provide code incentives that address barriers to
lower - emissions equipment and vehicles.
73 -I -15 Demonstrate e ffective operations in municipal facilities that reduce GHG emissions.
The City has taken a number of steps to reduce enerav use and improve sustainabilitv at
municipal facilities and in the community. By demonstrating leadership in addressing
sustainability issues and providing an example to the community of South San Francisco
and other municipal governments in the Bay Area, the City will foster an environment
where GHG emissions considerations become a part of the Citv. business. and citizen
decision - making rop cess.
247
Exhibit B
Climate Action Plan
CITY OF
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
�pvj0x SANS,
IFOO
i
1
.i
I3yfi.�:�t
�pvj0x SANS,
IFOO
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CLIMATE ACTION PLANT
Draft
November 2013
Prepared by:
PMC�"
500 12" Street, Suite 250
Oakland, CA 94607
www.pmcworld.com
With Assistance from:
Fehr & Peers
The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by
the Strategic Growth Council.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Disclaimer
The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the City of South San Francisco and /or PMC and
not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of Conservation or its
employees. The Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no warranties, express or implied, and
assume no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
)F CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Listof Abbreviations ............................................................................................. ............................... v
Executive Summary ......................................................................................... ............................... ES -1
Chapter 1 - Introduction ....................................................................................... ..............................1
Purpose...........................................................................................................................................................
..............................1
Scope............................................................................................................................................................
..............................1
Preparationof This Plan ............................................................................................................................
..............................2
Useof This Plan ............................................................................................................................................
..............................2
Transportationand Land Use .................................................................................................................
..............................4
City's Sustainability Efforts .......................................................................................................................
..............................7
Public Participation and the Planning Process .................................................................................
..............................9
Roleof the Climate Action Plan ............................................................................................................
.............................12
Chapter2 - Scientific and Regulatory Framework
............................................. .............................15
Legislative Background and Regulatory Framework ....................................................................
.............................18
RegionalPartnerships ...............................................................................................................................
.............................20
CEQAGuidance for CAPs .........................................................................................................................
.............................24
Chapter3 - Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
........................................... ............................... 27
Inventory- Background and Approach .............................................................................................
.............................27
2005 Community -Wide Baseline Inventory Results .......................................................................
.............................28
GHG Emissions Forecast - 2020 and 2035 ........................................................................................
.............................30
GHGReduction Targets ...........................................................................................................................
.............................32
Chapter4 - GHG Reduction Strategy ................................................................. ............................... 35
GHGReduction Summary .......................................................................................................................
.............................35
MunicipalAchievements .........................................................................................................................
.............................40
ExistingActivities .......................................................................................................................................
.............................41
GHGReduction Strategies ......................................................................................................................
.............................45
Chapter 5 - Adaptation and Resiliency ............................................................... .............................63
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................
.............................63
ClimateChange and Adaptation ..........................................................................................................
.............................63
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 6 — Implementation .............................................................................. ............................... 71
ImplementationMatrix ............................................................................................................................ .............................71
Glossary ............................................................................................................... ............................... 77
References ........................................................................................................... ............................... 99
AppendixA: Scientific and Regulatory Background ........................................ ............................... 93
ClimateChange Overview ...................................................................................................................... .............................93
Legislative Background and Regulatory Framework .................................................................... .............................95
AppendixB: GHG Inventory and Forecast Report .............. ............................... ............................101
Appendix D: GHG Methods and Assumptions .................... ............................... ............................135
Appendix E: Development Review Checklist ...................... ............................... ............................169
LIST OF TABLES
Table ES -1: 2005 Community -Wide Baseline Emissions by Sector ......................................... ...........................ES
-4
Table ES -2: GHG Reduction Summary by Topic ( MTCO2e) ........................................................ ...........................ES
-6
Table 1: Labor and Employment Efficiency in South San Francisco ......................................... ..............................5
Table 2: Land Uses, South San Francisco ............................................................................................ ..............................6
Table 3: 2005 Community -Wide Baseline Emissions by Sector ................................................. .............................29
Table 4:2005 Community -Wide Baseline Emissions, Excluding Informational Items ....... .............................29
Table 5:2020 and 2035 BAU Emissions ( MTCO2e) .......................................................................... .............................31
Table 6:2020 and 2035 ABAU Emissions ( MTCO2e) ....................................................................... .............................32
Table 7: Gap Between ABAU Emissions and AB 32 Goal, 2020 .................................................. .............................32
Table 8: GHG Reduction Summary by Topic (MTCO2e) ................................................................ .............................35
Table 9: Municipal Energy Efficiency and GHG Reduction Projects ......................................... .............................40
Table10: Implementation Matrix ......................................................................................................... .............................73
Table B -1: Community -Wide Emissions by Sector ......................................... ............................... ............................106
Table B -2: 2005 Community -Wide Activity, Emissions, and Data Sources by Subsector ...........................107
Table B -3: Demographic Projections for South San Francisco, 2005 -2035 ........................ ............................114
Table B -4: BAU Emissions by Sector, 2005 -2035 (MTCO2e) ....................... ............................... ............................115
Table B -5: GHG Impacts of State Reduction Efforts, 2020 and 2035 (MTCO2e) .................. ............................117
Table B -6: ABAU Emissions by Sector, 2005 -2035 (MTCO2e) .................... ............................... ............................117
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
TABU )F CONTENTS
Table B -7: Comparison of BAU and ABAU Emission Scenarios, 2005 -2035 (MTCO2e) .... ............................118
Table B -8: ABAU Emissions and AB 32 Goal, 2020 ......................................... ............................... ............................118
Table C -1: Community -Wide 2005 Emissions by Sector ............................. ............................... ............................123
Table C -2: 2005 Community -Wide Emissions by Sector, Excluding Informational Items ..........................126
Table C -3: South San Francisco Community Growth Indicators .............. ............................... ............................127
Table C -4: BALI GHG Emissions Comparison by Sector, 2005 - 2035 ....... ............................... ............................128
Table C -5: Summary of State Reductions, 2005 -2035 ( MTCO2e) ............. ............................... ............................129
Table C -6: GHG Reduction Summary by Topic ............................................... ............................... ............................131
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure ES -1: Comparison of Emissions Scenarios and Reduction Targets, 2005 -2020 (MTCO2e) ..........
ES-5
Figure ES -2: Sample of CAP Co- Benefits .......................................................................................... ...........................ES
-7
Figure ES -3: 2020 GHG Emissions Targets and Reductions ( MTCO2e) ................................... ...........................ES
-8
Figure ES -4: GHG Emissions per Service Population (MTCO2e) ............................................... ...........................ES
-9
Figure 1: Highlights of Key CAP Topics by Stakeholder ................................................................ ..............................3
Figure 2: Racial and Ethnic Characteristics of South San Francisco, 2010 .............................. ..............................4
Figure 3: Inflow /Outflow of Commuters for Labor Market in South San Francisco, 2010 ..............................5
Figure 4: Timeline of South San Francisco Sustainability Efforts ............................................... ..............................8
Figure 5: Climate Change Impacts in California, 2070 - 2099 ...................................................... .............................16
Figure 6: South San Francisco: Community -Based Transportation Plan Study Area ......... .............................23
Figure 7: 2005 Community -Wide Baseline Emissions, Excluding Informational Items ..... .............................30
Figure 8: Comparison of Emissions Scenarios and Reduction Targets, 2005 -2020 (MTCO2e) ....................33
Figure 9: GHG Emission Targets and Reductions ( MTCO2e) ........................................................ .............................36
Figure 10: Local Reductions by Topic (MTCO2e), 2020 ................................................................. .............................37
Figure 11: Local Reductions by Topic (MTCO2e), 2035 ................................................................. .............................37
Figure12: Strategy Topic Areas ............................................................................................................ .............................38
Figure13: The Energy Loading Order ................................................................................................. .............................54
Figure 14: Cal -Adapt Sea Level Rise Map and Projections, South San Francisco ................ .............................64
Figure 15: Complementary and Conflicting Adaptation and Reduction Actions ............... .............................65
FigureA -1: The Greenhouse Effect ...................................................................................................... .............................94
Figure A -2: California Regulatory Framework .................................................................................. .............................99
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure B -1: 2005 Community -Wide Emissions by Sector ............................ ............................... ............................106
Figure B -2: 2005 Energy Emissions by Subsector .......................................... ............................... ............................108
Figure B -3: 2005 Transportation Emissions by Subsector .......................... ............................... ............................110
Figure B -4: 2005 Solid Waste Emissions by Subsector ................................. ............................... ............................111
Figure B -5: 2005 Off -Road Emissions by Subsector ...................................... ............................... ............................112
Figure B -6: 2005 Water and Wastewater Emissions by Subsector ........... ............................... ............................113
Figure B -7: BAU GHG Emissions, 2005 -2035 ( MTCO2e) ............................... ............................... ............................115
Figure B -8: Comparison of Emission Scenarios and Reduction Targets, 2005 - 2020 ....... ............................119
Figure C -1: Community -Wide 2005 Emissions by Sector ............................ ............................... ............................122
Figure C -2: Nonresidential 2005 Energy Emissions, Genentech Separate (MTCO2e) ....... ............................125
Figure C -3: Community -Wide 2005 Emissions by Sector, Genentech Separate (MTCO2e ) ........................125
Figure C-4:2005 Community -Wide Emissions by Sector, Excluding Informational Items (MTCO2e) ....126
Figure C -5: BALI GHG Comparison, 2005 - 2035 .............................................. ............................... ............................128
FigureC -6: GHG Reduction Topics ...................................................................... ............................... ............................130
Figure C -7: 2020 Local and State GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) ................... ............................... ............................131
Figure C -8: 2020 CAP GHG Reductions by Topic (MTCO2e) ....................... ............................... ............................132
Figure C -9: GHG Emissions per Service Population, 2005 -2035 ( MTCO2e ) ......................... ............................133
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ABBREVIATIC � T
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AB
Assembly Bill
ABAG
Association of Bay Area Governments
ABAU
adjusted business as usual
AB 32
Assembly Bill 32 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006)
AB 811
Assembly Bill 811 (Property Assessed Clean Energy programs)
AB 1493
Assembly Bill 1493 (Clean Car Fuel Standard, also known as the Pavley bill)
ADC
alternative daily cover
ANIP
Aircraft Noise Insulation Program
ARRA
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
ABAG
Association of Bay Area Governments
BAAQMD
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART
Bay Area Rapid Transit
BAU
business as usual
BCDC
Bay Conservation and Development Commission
BPAC
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
C &D
construction and demolition
CaIEPA
California Environmental Protection Agency
Cal Water
California Water Service Company
CAP
Climate Action Plan
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CBTP
Community -Based Transportation Plan
C /CAG
City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
CEC
California Energy Commission
CEQA
California Environmental Quality Act
CH4
methane
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
ABBREVIATIONS
CO,
carbon dioxide
COZe
carbon dioxide equivalent
CPUC
California Public Utilities Commission
CSI
California Solar Initiative
EECBG
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant
EIR
environmental impact report
EO S -03 -05
Executive Order S -03 -05 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Initiative)
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
GHG
greenhouse gas
GWP
global warming potential
HFC
hydrofluorocarbon
HVAC
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ICLEI
ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kW
kilowatt
kWh
kilowatt -hour
LCFS
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
LED
light- emitting diode
LEED
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
MG
million gallons
MT
metric tons
MTC
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTCO2e
metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent
N20
nitrous oxide
OPR
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
PACE
Property Assessed Clean Energy
PFC
perfluorocarbon
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ABBREVIATIC h, T ell
PG &E
Pacific Gas and Electric
PMP
Pedestrian Master Plan
PV
photovoltaic
RICAPS
Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite
RPS
Renewables Portfolio Standard
SamTrans
San Mateo County Transit District
SB
Senate Bill
SCS
Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6
sulfur hexafluoride
SGC
Strategic Growth Council
TAC
Technical Advisory Committee
TDM
Transportation Demand Management
VMT
vehicle miles traveled
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
ABBREVIATIONS
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Climate Action Plan (CAP) is to demonstrate the City of South San Francisco's
continued commitment to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while protecting the unique
resources of the community. This Plan is intended to build upon existing environmental preservation,
public health, and energy- saving efforts. The CAP will provide goals, policies, and programs to reduce
GHG emissions, adapt to climate change, and support the goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate
Bill (SB) 375. The City will also use this CAP to simplify the development review process. Measures and
standards identified in this Plan allow the City to determine whether projects are eligible for
streamlining incentives. By preparing this CAP consistent with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) expectations for
a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the City can provide streamlining incentives for project -level GHG
emissions analysis.
The CAP includes the following chapters:
• Introduction (Chapter 1)
• Scientific and Regulatory Framework (Chapter 2)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (Chapter 3)
• GHG Reduction Strategy (Chapter 4)
• Adaptation and Resiliency (Chapter 5)
• Implementation (Chapter 6)
• Glossary and appendices provide additional details
and information, which are referenced later in this
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION: BUILDING ON
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO'S
STRENGTHS
South San Francisco builds on a
strong sustainability history.
Early efforts of the City and its
partners are estimated to have
reduced approximately 4,600
metric tons of carbon dioxide
equivalent (MTCOZe), and have
contributed over 20% of the
total local reductions identified
in this Climate Action Plan.
The City has prepared the CAP as a plan to address GHG emissions generated within the city limits of
South San Francisco. The CAP meets the requirements of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy but also
outlines a clear path for the City to successfully implement policies, programs, and activities that will
achieve the City's GHG reduction target. Consistent with the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,
this CAP presents a target reduction of 15% below baseline 2005 GHG emissions levels by 2020.
As described in Chapter 1, the CAP serves as the City's primary tool to integrate all City and
community efforts to reduce GHG emissions. The CAP addresses existing environment, new
development, and City government operations. Programs in the CAP are based on the City's
leadership to date. Prior to undertaking this CAP, the City had already supported the community's
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
overall reduction in the carbon footprint through policies, grants, and its own operational practices.
Notable projects include creation of the Green X -Ray House, a demonstration project created in
partnership with local green service and materials companies that displays low- impact renovations
and energy- and water - efficient appliances to the public.
South San Francisco's distinctive land use patterns and community assets shape key opportunities
that are targeted in this CAP, including the community's core industrial projects and transportation
patterns. Several large advanced technology and life sciences companies are primary community
employers. Three companies— Genentech, HCP Inc., and Biomed Realty —own nearly 175 acres of land
for their campuses. Genentech, a biotechnology firm, is the community's largest employer with
approximately 9,000 full -time employees working in South San Francisco. To support the
transportation needs of these employees and residents, in 2001 the City adopted an aggressive
Transportation Demand Management ordinance which requires that every large industrial and
commercial business implement plans to reduce employee commute trips, with alternative mode shift
requirements of 28 -40 %. The City also began planning for additional development around the
Caltrain station in the downtown, helping to meet revitalization goals through an increased level of
use and pedestrian access in the surrounding area. Building on these numerous efforts, the CAP
strengthens the City's commitment to fostering alternative transportation that efficiently connects
people to their destinations.
The community only achieves the goals of this Plan through partnership with the broader community.
As a result, the CAP also serves as an educational document for the community. The South San
Francisco business community and residents, as well as other stakeholders and members of the
public, can use the Plan to identify programs and opportunities or learn about local conditions and
priorities.
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY CONTEXT
Chapter 2 describes the scientific and regulatory context guiding the preparation of this CAP. A brief
overview of the science behind climate change is provided, including its potential implications, as well
as relevant federal, state, regional, and local regulatory framework. This context helps to support
South San Francisco's action to address climate change.
While the State of California has passed landmark legislation related to climate change, such as AB 32,
SB 375, and SB 97, regulatory agencies are also implementing several other state laws related to
climate change, land use and transportation, energy and renewable energy, water conservation, and
waste and recycling at both the state and local levels. In addition to statewide efforts, the CAP also
builds on local planning efforts that the City is actively supporting through the regional climate
planning collaborative, the Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite effort. The City also
continues to partner with the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County and other
jurisdictions in San Mateo County to achieve its sustainability goals
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY
In order to develop appropriate GHG emissions reduction strategies, the City must first understand
existing and future GHG emissions. Chapter 3 provides an inventory of community -wide emissions for
baseline year 2005, projects emissions using assumptions about economic and demographic growth
as well as state and federal policies, and compares the emissions forecast to the City's goals. This
information is summarized in Table ES -1 and Figure ES -1.
Table ES -1: 2005 Community -Wide Baseline Emissions by Sector
*Due to rounding, the total may not be the sum of component parts.
The community -wide inventory includes GHG emissions from activities such as electricity use, natural
gas use, on -road transportation, solid waste disposal, direct landfill emissions, water and wastewater,
off -road equipment, and stationary sources. The baseline inventory estimates that community -wide
activities generated 548,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) in 2005. For the
purposes of this CAP, stationary sources, direct landfill emissions, and energy use at the Genentech
campus are excluded from this inventory, resulting in a community -wide total of 442,400 MTCO2e.
Stationary sources and direct landfill emissions are excluded from the CAP because the stationary
sources are regulated by the BAAQMD and CARB. The Genentech facility is also a stationary emitter
that CARB will regulate through California's cap- and -trade program.
Community -wide GHG emissions were forecast for 2020 and 2035 using 2005 energy consumption
rates, demographic and economic projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments, and
estimated growth in off -road equipment and vehicle miles travelled. This forecast was adjusted to
include GHG reductions that will occur as a result of state and federal policy. The difference between
these forecasts and the City's reduction target is the GHG emissions reduction needed to achieve that
target. Figure ES -1 illustrates the GHG emissions forecast, the adjusted forecast, and the reductions
required to achieve the City's target, a 15% reduction below baseline 2005 GHG emissions.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Energy
263,780
48%
Transportation
196,910
36%
Stationary Sources
35,580
6%
Off -Road
22,400
4%
Solid Waste
14,780
3%
Landfill
13,220
2%
Water and Wastewater
1,940
<1%
Total*
548,600
100%
*Due to rounding, the total may not be the sum of component parts.
The community -wide inventory includes GHG emissions from activities such as electricity use, natural
gas use, on -road transportation, solid waste disposal, direct landfill emissions, water and wastewater,
off -road equipment, and stationary sources. The baseline inventory estimates that community -wide
activities generated 548,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) in 2005. For the
purposes of this CAP, stationary sources, direct landfill emissions, and energy use at the Genentech
campus are excluded from this inventory, resulting in a community -wide total of 442,400 MTCO2e.
Stationary sources and direct landfill emissions are excluded from the CAP because the stationary
sources are regulated by the BAAQMD and CARB. The Genentech facility is also a stationary emitter
that CARB will regulate through California's cap- and -trade program.
Community -wide GHG emissions were forecast for 2020 and 2035 using 2005 energy consumption
rates, demographic and economic projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments, and
estimated growth in off -road equipment and vehicle miles travelled. This forecast was adjusted to
include GHG reductions that will occur as a result of state and federal policy. The difference between
these forecasts and the City's reduction target is the GHG emissions reduction needed to achieve that
target. Figure ES -1 illustrates the GHG emissions forecast, the adjusted forecast, and the reductions
required to achieve the City's target, a 15% reduction below baseline 2005 GHG emissions.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES -1: Comparison of Emissions Scenarios and Reduction Targets, 2005 -2020
(MTCO2e)
500,000
480,000
460,000
440,000
Aqmwo
400,000
380,000
360,000
State Measures
Local Actions
2005 2010 2015 2020
-Baseline Business -As -Usual (BAU) Adjusted Business -As -Usual (ABAU) AB 32 Target
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
In order to achieve the State - recommended AB 32 reduction target of 15% below 2005 emissions
levels by 2020, the City will need to continue implementation of existing programs and implement the
recommended goals, policies, and actions set forth in this document. Chapter 4 presents the City's
reduction strategy to achieve the AB 32 target. The reduction measures included in this Plan build
upon existing efforts and provide a diverse mix of regulatory and incentive -based programs for both
new and existing development. The reduction measures also aim to reduce GHG emissions from each
source to avoid reliance on any one strategy or sector to achieve the target.
In total, state actions and GHG reduction measures in the CAP will reduce GHG emissions in the
community of South San Francisco by 116,040 MTCOze by 2020, a 15% reduction below baseline 2005
emissions (see Table ES -2). Local actions will contribute approximately 40% of 2020 reductions, while
state actions will contribute approximately 60% of 2020 reductions. The City has already made
significant progress towards the 2020 reduction target. Existing programs initiated after 2005 will
contribute approximately 22% of total local reductions necessary to achieve the AB 32 reduction
target. These existing programs include public - private partnerships, municipal retrofits, and other
quasi - public projects the City has supported. In addition to achieving GHG reductions, both existing
actions and measures create numerous co- benefits for the community, including reduced household
costs, improved public health, and reduced fuel use. Co- benefits and participation metrics are
presented for all measures identified in Chapter 4. Icons are used to generally represent co- benefits.
Figure ES -2 presents a sample of co- benefit icons contained in this CAP.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES -2: GHG Reduction Summary by Topic (MTCOZe)
1. Note that existing municipal activities are quantified under existing local programs, municipal reduction
measures are considered supportive, and GHG reductions are not quantified.
2. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of the component parts.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
State Reduction Efforts
- 69,770
- 104,590
Existing Local Programs
- 10,090
- 13,020
Alternative Transportation
-4,470
-4,380
Land Use and Parking
-2,660
-2,600
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
-2,770
-6,530
Off -Road Vehicles and Equipment
-2,670
-5,880
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
- 11,810
- 30,100
Renewable Energy
-5,100
- 11,760
Waste Minimization
-6,720
- 10,950
Water and Wastewater
-250
-530
Municipal Operations]
—
—
Total GHG Reductions2
- 116,310
- 190,340
1. Note that existing municipal activities are quantified under existing local programs, municipal reduction
measures are considered supportive, and GHG reductions are not quantified.
2. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of the component parts.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES -2: Sample of CAP Co- Benefits
CAP measures do more than reduce GHG emissions.
They make sense for the community.
Extra "co- benefits" of the measures identified in this CAP include:
IQ) C3 Lit] 10
Reduces
Revitalizes Urban Saves Money Automobile Reduces Water
and Community Use and Fuel Use
Centers Consumption
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure ES -3: 2020 GHG Emissions Targets and Reductions (MTCO2e)
490,000
470,000
450,000
430,000
410,000
390,000
370,000
350,000
2005 2010
Baseline
Adjusted BAU (ABAU)
AB 32 Target
State Measures
Existing focal Actions
CApMedsUr
e
A832-Target: 15%
Reduction Below Baseline
2015 2020
Business -As -Usual (BAU)
ABAU and Existing Activities
ABAU, Existing Activities, and CAP
Figure ES -3 shows the contribution of state activities, existing programs, and CAP measures to the
2020 reduction target. Achievement of a 15% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 will achieve state
recommendations and BAAQMD threshold requirements for developing a Qualified GHG Reduction
Strategy. As shown in Figure ES -4, through the implementation of this Plan, South San Francisco's per
capita GHG emissions will decrease from 4.66 MTCO2e annually in 2005 to 3.49 MTCO2e annually in
2020 and 3.07 MTCO2e annually in 2035.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Figure ES -4: GHG Emissions per Service Population (MTCOZe)
2005 2020 2035
ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCY
Even if global GHG emissions ceased immediately, the already elevated levels of carbon dioxide and
other GHGs in the atmosphere are expected to have significant impacts on the earth's climate.
Specifically, South San Francisco is expected to experience the following impacts from climate change:
• Greater frequency of extreme heat events
• Decline in air quality
• Greater frequency and severity of storms
• Increase in sea level
• Decrease in water and electricity supply
• Ecosystem damage
Chapter 5 presents adaptation policies to equip the city as it prepares for and adapts to the impact of
climate change. Ongoing coordination with regional partners and assessment of local vulnerabilities
are identified as critical strategies for success.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IMPLEMENTATION
To ensure successful achievement of the City's reduction target, Chapter 6 of the CAP identifies
implementation strategies, implementation partners, and supporting actions. This chapter also
includes an implementation matrix with details specific to each measure, including the responsible
department and implementation time frame. The implementation matrix will be a critical tool to
monitor the City's progress toward implementing the CAP.
GLOSSARY, APPENDICES, AND SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS
To streamline the main document, several technical appendices provide additional detail and
information regarding GHG reductions, plan development, and sources. This CAP includes the
following appendices:
• Glossary of key terms used throughout the document (Glossary)
• List of references for the CAP and GHG inventory (References)
• Additional information on the scientific and regulatory context, expanding on the information
presented in Chapter 2 (Appendix A: Scientific and Regulatory Background)
• Technical GHG emissions inventory results and methods (Appendix B: GHG Inventory and
Forecast Report)
• Detailed discussion of how the CAP addresses BAAQMD requirements for a Qualified GHG
Reduction Strategy (Appendix C: BAAQMD Appendix)
• Summary of sources and assumptions used to estimate GHG reductions for each reduction
measure (Appendix D: GHG Methods and Assumptions)
• A checklist to be completed by project development applicants to demonstrate compliance
with the CAP (Appendix E: Development Review Checklist)
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
Chapter 1 provides a brief overview of the purpose and scope of this Climate Action Plan (CAP or
Plan) and describes how it will build off of the City's existing efforts toward environmental
stewardship and leadership. The City has prepared the CAP to not only meet the requirements of a
Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy but to also outline a clear path to successfully
implementing policies, programs, and activities that will achieve the South San Francisco's
greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this Climate Action Plan is to demonstrate the City of South San Francisco's continued
commitment to reduce GHG emissions while protecting the unique resources of the community. This
Plan is intended to build upon existing environmental preservation, public health, and energy- saving
efforts. The Climate Action Plan will provide goals, policies, and programs to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, adapt to climate change, and support the goals of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB)
375.
Strategies in this Plan build on the City of South San Francisco's innovative work to reduce air
pollution, decrease waste, provide a range of commute and circulation options, improve the energy
efficiency of buildings, and develop access to reliable, clean, and affordable energy. The Plan also
outlines the City's strategy to adapt to a changing climate by protecting the built environment, public
health, and natural resources from the vulnerabilities caused by changing climate conditions.
SCOPE
Local governments play a primary role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the
potential impacts of climate change. South San Francisco has a demonstrated commitment to
implementing sustainability programs and proactively working to reduce GHG emissions. This Plan
recognizes the importance of City leadership and indicates how the City will reduce GHG emissions
through strategies that are tailored to the community's living and working characteristics. The CAP
builds upon the City's completed Government Operations Emissions Inventory, a community -wide
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory, the Bicycle Master Plan, the Community -Based Transportation
Plan, and the El Camino Real Master Plan.
In addition to reducing GHG emissions, the strategies in this Plan will provide additional benefits to
the community such as lower energy bills, greater transportation options, improved air quality,
expanded economic growth, protection of bay -front resources, and enhanced quality of life.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
PREPARATION OF THIS PLANT
The California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) awarded South San Francisco a Planning Grant
providing the bulk of the funding for the preparation of this Plan. The grant also funded the creation
of a Pedestrian Master Plan conducted in concert with the development of the CAP. The purpose of
the SGC Grant Program is to help local jurisdictions in planning sustainable communities to meet
AB 32 goals and generally help to:
• Improve air and water quality
• Protect natural resources and agriculture lands
• Increase the availability of affordable housing
• Promote public health
• Improve transportation
• Encourage greater infill and compact development
• Revitalize community and urban centers
This Plan achieves the intent of the SGC program by creating a strategy to reduce community -wide
energy use, to reduce fuel combustion through more efficient transportation and land use patterns,
and to spur growth in local energy efficiency industries.
USE OF THIS PLANT
The CAP serves as South San Francisco's greenhouse gas reduction strategy. The Plan is primarily a
tool to identify the City's plan to reduce GHG emissions. But the City will only achieve the goals of this
Plan through partnership with the broader community. As a result, the CAP also serves as an
educational document for the community. The South San Francisco business community and
residents, as well as other stakeholders and members of the public, can use the Plan to identify
programs and opportunities or learn about local conditions and priorities.
Figure 1 highlights the key considerations for a variety of stakeholders.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Figure 1: Highlights of Key CAP Topics by Stakeholder
LOCAL SETTING
South San Francisco, California, known as "The Industrial City," is located on the San Francisco
Peninsula and occupies 9.63 square miles of land touching the San Francisco Bay. As of 2010, the city
has a population of 63,632.
Situated about 10 miles south of the City of San Francisco, South San Francisco is located immediately
north of the San Francisco International Airport. The community is connected to much of the Bay Area
through roads and alternative transit networks, as discussed below. Incorporated in 1908, the city has
developed both its industrial and residential sectors, and has a high degree of cultural, social, and
economic diversity. The ethnic diversity of South San Francisco is shown in Figure 2, with Hispanic,
White, and Asian peoples comprising about one -third each of the city's residents.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Figure 2: Racial and Ethnic Characteristics of South San Francisco, 2010
Native
Hawaiiar
other Pa
Island(
2%
Asian
30%
American
Indian and
Alaska Native
<1 % Black or
African
American
3%
Source: US Census Bureau 2010
Some other
'ace
White
32%
Hispanic or
Latino (of any
race)
33%
With its prime location on the Bay, by the beginning the twentieth century, South San Francisco was a
thriving stockyard and marketplace. The 1950s brought modern industrial parks to the city's port -side
area, and freight forwarding, light industries, and other airport - related businesses thrived. In 1976, the
biotechnology firm Genentech was founded in the city, pioneering research on DNA technologies and
earning the city the moniker "the Birthplace of Biotechnology." South San Francisco remains a strong
market industrial center, with major biotech and pharmaceutical businesses at the heart of the city's
economy.
TfLkNSPORTATION AND LAND USE
South San Francisco is located adjacent to the San Francisco International Airport and is served by US
Route 101 and Interstate 280. The city is also a stopping point on major transit lines, including the Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART) network, Caltrain commuter rail, San Mateo County's SamTrans passenger
bus service, and a ferry providing service to the cities of Alameda and Oakland. As shown in Figure 3
and Table 1, commuting is a major component of transportation (and by extension, greenhouse gas
emissions) in South San Francisco. Each day, about 24,600 employees commute to jobs located
outside of the city.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 1
Figure 3: Inflow /Outflow of Commuters for Labor Market in South San Francisco, 2010
I "" San I
South San Fracisc
Source: US Census Bureau 2012
Table 1: Labor and Employment Efficiency in South San Francisco
Source: US Census Bureau 2012
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Labor Force Efficiency
Living in South San Francisco
28,131
100%
Living and working in South San Francisco
3,531
12.6%
Living in South San Francisco and working elsewhere
24,600
87.4%
Employment Efficiency
Working in South San Francisco
42,416
100%
Working and living in South San Francisco
3,531
8.3%
Working in South San Francisco and living elsewhere
38,885
91.7%
Net Job Inflow
14,285
-
Source: US Census Bureau 2012
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
South San Francisco has made a number of investments to improve and expand the transportation
infrastructure, including an expansion and overpass for Oyster Point Boulevard completed in 2004, the
planned modernization of the Caltrain station, and improvements to 22 major intersections.
South San Francisco has a distinctive and diverse land use pattern, reflecting the decision to initially
locate industrial areas east of US Route 101 in order to take advantage of topography and winds on
Point San Bruno. Consequently, land uses in South San Francisco tend to be clearly divided and single -
use, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the city, single - family homes to the
north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multi - family housing
clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides. Single- family residences occupy approximately a
third of city land. Industrial uses — warehouses, manufacturing areas, and business parks— comprised
nearly a quarter of the land (see Table 2).
Table 2: Land Uses, South San Francisco
WEENNEWrype IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"Wentage
Single- Family Residential
33%
Multi - Family Residential
15%
Industrial
26%
Commercial
8%
Parks and Open Space
10%
Vacant
4%
Other
5%
Tota 1
100%
Source: City of South San Francisco 2011
Several large advanced technology and life sciences companies maintain campuses in the areas of the
city designated for industrial and commercial land uses. Three companies— Genentech, HCP Inc., and
Biomed Realty —own nearly 175 acres of land for their campuses.
With approximately 9,000 full -time employees working in South San Francisco, Genentech is the
largest employer in the community. As of 2012, Genentech operates 2.8 million square feet of
manufacturing, office, and laboratory space, and generates an estimated 60 million vehicle miles
traveled each year. The company's Ten Year Facilities Master Plan will more than double the campus's
operating square footage. Due to the size and type of operations, the Genentech campus has been
listed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) as an entity covered by California's cap- and -trade
program (see Chapter 2 for details).
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GROWTH EXPECTATIONS
The City's current General Plan includes goals and implementation policies to guide planning for
residential and job growth through its horizon year of 2020. As of 2011, development approved or
under review included 1,745 housing units and 3.4 million square feet of nonresidential space. The
largest growth project in the works is the 6 million square feet of office and R &D space approved for
Genentech as part of the company's Master Plan buildout. According to the General Plan, in 2020,
South San Francisco is expected to have a residential population of approximately 69,800, an increase
of 15% over the 2000 population of 59,200.
CITY'S SUSTAINABILITY EFFORTS
South San Francisco is focused on sustainability. The City has created a Sustainability Division that aids
staff in pursuing grants, conducts outreach to the community regarding sustainable practices, and
provides resources for green building practices. Prior to undertaking this Climate Action Plan and the
new Pedestrian Master Plan, the City had already aided in the reduction of the community's overall
carbon footprint through policies, grants, and its own operational practices. The City has completed a
range of notable projects to help reach its goal.
The City has made aggressive efforts to reduce transportation emissions. A Transportation Demand
Management ordinance passed in 2001 requires that every large industrial and commercial business
implement plans to reduce employee commute trips, with alternative mode shift requirements of 28-
40%. In 2012, the City began planning for additional development around the Caltrain station in the
downtown, helping to meet revitalization goals through an increased level of use and pedestrian
access in the surrounding area.
As a means to combat traffic congestion and improve air quality, South San Francisco has also passed
an ordinance banning drive - through facilities. This prohibition also encourages a more pedestrian -
friendly environment and helps to promote healthier lifestyles. The City adopted the prohibition in
2011 to preclude additional drive - through facilities as part of the comprehensive update to the City
Zoning Ordinance.
A recently completed public parking garage, the Miller Avenue Parking Structure, provides the first
electric vehicle charging stations in the area and has other environmentally responsible features
including bicycle parking, sustainable building materials, geothermal wells for heating and cooling,
energy- efficient lighting, and water - efficient landscaping.
Buildings in South San Francisco are becoming more environmentally responsible as well. The City
operates the Green X -Ray House, which in partnership with local green service and materials
companies offers a demonstration of low- impact renovations and energy- and water - efficient
appliances. The City recently welcomed its first Gold -rated building under the Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED) New Construction green building rating system, the Oyster Point
Marina Plaza, a two - building, five -story office complex situated on the San Francisco Bay. The City is
also coordinating with the San Francisco International Airport on the Aircraft Noise Insulation Program
(ANIP), a program to insulate homes near the airport against noise, which is expected to have the side
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
benefit of increasing the energy efficiency of the retrofitted homes by up to 30 %. Approximately 250
homes have been retrofitted since 2005, with another 500 set to receive retrofits in the future.
Sixty solar photovoltaic (PV) installations have been permitted in the city, including on a number of
municipal buildings. The solar panels on the City Hall Annex alone are helping the City save $12,000 in
annual energy costs. Changes to light fixtures and a variety of other cost - saving measures resulted in
an $80,000 rebate from Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E). Since 1992, the City has operated a 400 kW
cogeneration engine system at the South San Francisco /San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant, a City -
owned and operated plant that serves the communities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and
Colma. The cogeneration system produces approximately a third of the electrical demand of the plant.
In addition, the South San Francisco Unified School District has the largest K -12 school solar and
energy efficiency program in San Mateo County.
Other sustainable projects carried out by the City include revitalizing downtown and reducing waste
through a construction and demolition recycling ordinance, a green food packaging ordinance which
includes a ban on Styrofoam, and an ordinance banning single -use plastic bags, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Timeline of South San Francisco Sustainability Efforts
Climate Land Use & Building Energy Waste
Change Transportation & Renewables Reduction
ZULU: Annex
building solar 2008: Green Food
installation Packaging
Ordinance
2011: Miller
Avenue Parking 2012: Regional
Structure
completed with EV single use bag ban
charging and green
features
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 1
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND THE PLANNING PROCESS
The City of South San Francisco engaged community members in CAP development through an
ongoing public outreach campaign. Community feedback helped to provide community education
and identify community priorities and interests. While the public outreach process does not
necessarily provide input representative of the entire community of South San Francisco, outreach
events nonetheless provided key opportunities to engage the community in CAP development.
Outreach efforts included four community workshops, convening of a Technical Advisory Committee,
input from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and Planning Commission,
development of a project website, interagency coordination, and conversations with local and
regional partners.
The ongoing outreach provided direction for the CAP and helped to confirm community perceptions
and interests. Using this input, City staff and the consultant team were able to prepare a document
that reflects the diverse characteristics of residents, local businesses, employees, City staff, and key
stakeholders. One theme identified through the outreach process includes the community's
expectations of City staff leadership in ongoing education and outreach to achieve climate action
objectives.
CAP ADVISORY GROUPS
Two advisory committees participated in the development of the CAP and Pedestrian Master Plan: the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and the Technical Advisory Committee. These groups
provided initial guidance, confirmed recommendations, and reviewed draft documents. Each
committee provided a unique perspective for the CAP.
• The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) is an existing City committee,
consisting of seven members appointed by the City Council. The BPAC works with City staff to
provide guidance on bicycle and pedestrian improvements, identify capital improvement
projects, receive input, promote educational awareness, and review and recommend grant
applications. BPAC members provided input on the CAP at committee hearings on April 4,
2012, and October 4, 2012.
• The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is an ad hoc group of City staff members that
supported the development of the CAP. The TAC played a key role in recommending,
reviewing, and refining reduction strategies for the Climate Action Plan.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
Workshop 1: March 10, 2012, Community Open House,
Municipal Services Building, South San Francisco
The first of three community workshops was held Saturday,
March 10, 2012, from 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. for the public to
learn more about and provide input on the City of South San
Francisco's CAP and Pedestrian Master Plan. This first workshop
took place at the meeting room in the Municipal Services
Building located at 33 Arroyo Drive in South San Francisco.
Approximately 20 people participated in the open house.
The community members and interested stakeholders were
given an opportunity to provide input on how to improve
pedestrian access and safety and ways to conserve energy
resources. As an open house event, participants could drop in
throughout the day. Posters and displays allowed participants to
take part in big - picture visioning activities and policy ideas.
Large -scale aerial maps allowed people to creatively identify
pedestrian issues, opportunities, and constraints at specific
locations throughout the community. Participants also provided
input through a 35- question multiple- choice survey.
Workshop 2: May 6, 2012, Streets Alive! Parks Alive! at
Orange Memorial Park
The second workshop was held Saturday, May 6, 2012, from 10:00
a.m. to 1:00 p.m. for the public to learn more about and provide
input on the City's CAP and Pedestrian Master Plan (PMP). This
second workshop took place during the Streets Alive! Parks Alive!
event at Orange Memorial Park located at the southwest corner
of Orange Avenue and Tennis Drive. Streets Alive! Parks Alive! is
an initiative hosted by cities in San Mateo County, which began in
2010 to emphasize the importance of parks and open spaces in
fostering healthy activities and improving the overall quality of
life. Many cities have opened streets and highlighted public places
such as parks, plazas, and trails as a way to promote fitness and
mobility. The City held the May 6 event to coincide with World
Health Day.
Community members provide visioning
direction for the City's CAP at the March 10
workshop.
The CAP /PMP outreach team engaged 115 individuals who completed surveys and provided feedback
on the proposed greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction measures. Many survey respondents have already
completed energy efficiency improvements at their homes or businesses and showed interest in
additional energy- conserving behaviors.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 1
Workshop 3: May 2, 2013, Planning Commission and Open
House
The third workshop was an open house event held in conjunction with
a Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, May 2, 2013, at 6:30 p.m.
This event focused on the proposed reduction measures, presenting
examples of key items along with their anticipated GHG reductions,
levels of participation, and co- benefits to the community. Participants
were invited to give feedback on these measures, including the
appropriate balance between encouraged and required actions. This
event also included an update on the progress of the CAP and the
strategy for implementing it.
Workshop 4: July 17, 2013, Business Community Workshop
The fourth outreach event was a stakeholder event for South San
Francisco's business community on July 17, 2013, with representatives
from some of South San Francisco's largest employers attending. This
event focused on the CAP's applicability to businesses, including its
impact on future commercial and industrial development. Business
representatives were invited to give feedback on several proposed
reduction measures, helping to identify ways the City could achieve its
GHG reduction goals and assist businesses to become more
environmentally responsible while simultaneously helping to promote
economic growth in South San Francisco.
A family completes a CAP survey at the May 6, 2013,
Streets Alive! Parks Alive! event.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
ROLE OF THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
The CAP is meant to be used in coordination with, and be incorporated into, other planning efforts for
the City. GHG benefits will be realized from updates to the General Plan, Specific Plans, and the Zoning
Code, as well as from the new Pedestrian and Bicycle master plans. The CAP will build upon and
incorporate these related City efforts. It will provide the framework connecting the range of planning
efforts already under way in South San Francisco and translate them into numeric estimates of overall
GHG reduction potential across different emissions sectors.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLANT AND ZONING CODE
Numerous policies already in the updated South San Francisco General Plan will help reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. The General Plan identifies vehicle trip and emissions reductions, energy
efficiency, waste reductions, and compact commercial and residential growth as priorities for the city.
The City recently amended multiple sections of the General Plan throughout 2010 and 2011, including
the Land Use, Transportation, Housing, and Parks elements, as well as various Sub -Area Plans. The
General Plan attempts to balance regional growth objectives with conservation of residential and
industrial neighborhoods. Development is targeted in centers and corridors to fulfill the City's
objectives of enhancing quality of life and economic vitality, to ensure that established areas are not
unduly impacted, and to support the regional investments in transit represented by the extension of
BART to the city.
Several General Plan policies are designed to encourage development that reduces vehicle miles
traveled, through shorter trips, and walkable and bikeable amenities. They include:
Neighborhood- Oriented Development — Land uses are designated to ensure balanced
neighborhood development with a mix of uses and provision of parks, stores, and offices in
neighborhoods that presently lack them. The General Plan also includes detailed policies for
each of the city's neighborhoods. Neighborhood- oriented developments can help reduce
vehicle trips by allowing residents to meet all their basic needs through short walking or
biking trips nearby.
• Economic Development and Diversification — Articulates the City's leadership role. The
General Plan also designates a new live /work district adjacent to downtown. Live /work
developments encourage less use of single- occupant vehicles and can result in lower vehicle
miles traveled within the city.
• Land Use /Transportation Correlation and Promotion of Transit — Land uses, mixes, and
development intensities in the General Plan have been designed to capitalize on major
regional transit improvements under way and to promote alternative forms of transit. High -
intensity, mixed -use districts are proposed near BART stations, and incentives are offered for
specific transit - oriented amenities.
• Performance -Based Standards for Services to Ensure Sustainability — The General Plan
includes standards for capital facilities and public services, such as streets.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 1
Based on these General Plan updates, the City amended the Zoning Code in 2011, including key
amendments for the El Camino Real corridor. The El Camino Real corridor also includes land zoned for
mixed -use high intensity and high density, where most of South San Francisco's future development is
expected to occur. Together, the Zoning Code revisions and General Plan updates represent
important efforts the City has taken to reduce GHG emissions since the baseline year of 2005. These
efforts are further credited toward the City's reduction target in Chapter 4.
RELATIONSHIP TO TRANSPORTATION PLANNING EFFORTS
In addition to General Plan and Zoning Code updates, the City of San Francisco is working to improve
walkability and bikeability, through the development of a Traffic Calming Plan, Bicycle Master Plan,
and Pedestrian Master Plan.
Completed in 2011, the South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan sets forth a comprehensive and
integrated system of bikeways intended to provide safer, more direct bicycle routes through
residential neighborhoods, to employment and shopping areas, and to transit stops. The Pedestrian
Master Plan (PMP) is a similar community -wide plan for providing a network of sidewalks and paths to
facilitate increased walking to local destinations. The plan includes an inventory and assessment of
current pedestrian facilities and a gap analysis, identifies and prioritizes needed improvements, and
provides goals moving forward. While the primary purpose of the PMP is to improve the safety and
comfort of pedestrians in South San Francisco, it does serve to support GHG reduction efforts. A
number of potential strategies in the PMP, including improving walkability in new developments and
promoting "complete streets," would help to reduce GHG emissions. The PMP identifies the specific
programs and other actions to implement the policies put forward in the General Plan and in this CAP.
These planning actions are separate from the Climate Action Plan but contain related components of
the City's sustainability strategy, especially in relation to programmatic actions to address
transportation emissions. All such actions are addressed and, to the extent possible, quantified in the
CAP. Refer to Chapter 4 for further discussion of these efforts.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 2
SCIENTIFIC AND
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CHAPTER 2
In order to make informed, meaningful, and effective decisions about greenhouse gas (GHG)
reductions, it is important to understand the scientific background and regulatory framework
supporting this Climate Action Plan (CAP or Plan). This chapter provides a brief summary of climate
change and its implications, as well as an overview of the federal, state, regional, and local regulations
that guided and informed the development of this CAP.
CLIMATE CHANGE OVERVIEW
When sunlight strikes the earth, a portion of the energy is absorbed and reflected back as heat. A layer
of GHGs in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CHJ, and nitrous oxide (N20),
reflect this heat back toward the earth, preventing the heat from escaping into space and helping to
maintain the planet's temperature. This process, known as the greenhouse effect, occurs naturally and
is necessary for life on earth. However, scientific consensus states that human activities are rapidly
increasing the concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere, resulting in a warming of the planet and
altering the earth's climate systems.
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS
Global Impacts
The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
released in 2007, is the largest summary of the science of climate change and its impacts. If trends
remain unchanged, the AR4 projects that the warming of the earth and the resulting changes to the
planet's climate will accelerate, with significant consequences for the world's population and
ecosystems (IPCC 2007). For a more detailed explanation of the global impacts of climate change, see
Appendix A.
California Impacts
Climate change is projected to cause generally hotter and drier conditions in California, resulting in
more extreme heat events, an increased risk of drought, more intense weather events, flooding of low -
level coastal areas as a result of sea level rise, and less available water due to a decrease in snowfall.
The combined impacts of these risks pose a significant threat to the economic and natural systems of
the state. It is estimated that not taking substantial action to address climate change will cause direct
economic losses of tens of billions of dollars annually and put trillions of dollars of assets at risk
(California Natural Resources Agency 2009).
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
FP%,AMEWORK
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IMPACTS
Because of the diversity of California's natural and built environments, the specific impacts of climate
change will vary from place to place. This section discusses the most relevant impacts to South San
Francisco, including extreme heat, sea level rise, and reduced water supply. Several key climate
change impacts are presented below in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Climate Change Impacts in California, 2070 -2099
13T
12
11
Higher Higher
10 Warming Range
Emissions IS- 10.5 °F
Scenario
9
9
Medium
Emissions Medium
Scenario
T Warming Range
15,5 -a-F)
e
Lower- 5
Emissions
Scenario 4
Lower
Warming Range
3 0 -5.51)
2
0
a
Source: California Energy Commission 2006
More Extreme Heat
Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of extreme heat events, including in South San
Francisco. Heat waves can have significant direct impacts to human health; a 2006 event in California
killed 140 people and may have been indirectly responsible for over 600 additional deaths afterward.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 2
Although heat events usually occur in warmer, inland parts of California, coastal areas are expected to
see a greater increase in the number of heat waves because the temperature threshold for such
events is lower. Because many in the coastal areas of the San Francisco Bay Area have only limited
experience with extreme heat, the potential risk is greater, particularly among already vulnerable
populations such as infants and the elderly.
In addition to the direct consequences, extreme heat also contributes to deteriorating air quality.
Rising temperatures increase the concentration of ground -level ozone, along with a number of other
harmful airborne particles. Other effects of climate change, such as increased electricity demand and a
decrease in water availability, are exacerbated by extreme heat events.
Greater Storm Frequency and Severity
While precipitation levels are expected to change the most in Southern California, South San Francisco
and other communities around the San Francisco Bay will likely be affected as well. The greatest
change is to "atmospheric river" storms: a successive series of large weather events that are associated
with flooding and California's most intense precipitation. Atmospheric river storms are expected to
occur more frequently as a result of climate change; additionally, the individual storms are projected
to be up to 11 % more intense. Precipitation levels in the spring are expected to decrease.
Sea Level Rise
The sea level in the San Francisco Bay Area is expected to rise 11 to 19 inches compared to 2000 levels
by 2050, and 30 to 55 inches by 2100. While much of California's coastal areas are at risk of sea level
rise, South San Francisco and other communities around the San Francisco Bay are particularly at risk.
Currently in San Mateo County, an estimated $16 billion of property on the Bay is currently at risk of a
100 -year flood. A 55 -inch rise in sea levels would put an additional $7 billion of property at risk; even a
20 -inch increase would threaten another $2 billion in property.
Flooding
The increase in storm intensity, combined with rising sea levels, is expected to increase the risk of
flooding in South San Francisco and around the San Francisco Bay. Currently in South San Francisco,
the 100 -year flood zone (the area where there is a 1% chance of a flood level being exceeded in any
given year) is confined mostly to the area around Colma Creek. It is projected that by 2100, 100 -year
floods in the San Francisco Bay Area will be occurring annually. In addition to the human health risk
and damage to private property, flooding may also disrupt important infrastructure in South San
Francisco, including railways, road networks, and water and sewage infrastructure such as the South
San Francisco /San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant.
Water Supply
Most of South San Francisco's water is purchased from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission,
which gets its water largely from reservoirs in the Sierra Nevada. Warmer temperatures are expected
to result in less snow in the Sierra Nevada, and snow that does fall will likely melt faster, decreasing the
amount of available water during the dry season. By 2050, it is estimated that the Sierra snowpack will
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
FP%,AMEWORK
be 25% to 40% smaller than the current average. Lower water levels may also decrease the power
output of hydroelectric power plants.
Natural Resources
Changing temperatures are expected to cause a shift in the ecosystems in and around South San
Francisco, as members of a species move to new areas to stay within their preferred climate zone.
Species unable to move fast enough or adapt to a changed climate are likely to see their numbers
decline. As a result, areas that are currently protected for conservation purposes may no longer be
sufficient; it is estimated that by 2100, as little as 8% of the San Francisco Bay Area's existing
conservation areas will still span the same climate range. Warmer temperatures may also increase the
spread of invasive species and are partially linked to the decline of oak trees due to Sudden Oak
Death.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
In 2006, California established itself as a national leader on climate change with the adoption of the
California Global Warming Solutions Act, also known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which sets statewide
targets for GHG emissions reductions. AB 32 is the key piece of legislation supporting this CAP,
although there are a number of federal, state, and local influences. This section discusses the existing
legislative framework guiding the development and implementation of the Climate Action Plan. See
Appendix A for additional information on this topic.
FEDERAL FRAMEWORK
At the moment, there is no comprehensive GHG reduction program at the federal level. However,
various federal agencies have been using existing regulations and programs to support state and local
governments, residents, and businesses in reducing their GHG emissions and plan for climate change.
The federal government also supplies a number of educational resources and analytical tools to
support GHG analysis and climate action planning.
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act — Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grants
The American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) supports GHG reduction activities as part of the
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funding. This program, managed by the US
Department of Energy, has provided about $3.2 billion to cities and counties across the country for
energy efficiency and fossil fuel use reductions in buildings and vehicles, reducing GHG emissions in
the process.
Clean Air Act
In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a set of regulations to reduce GHG
emissions from stationary sources under the New Source Performance Standards of the Clean Air Act,
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 2
which are expected to be finalized in 2013. Stationary sources are fixed -site sources of pollution, such
as power plants, manufacturing facilities, and other industrial sites.
CALIFORNIA FRAMEWORK
There have been a number of California laws and other actions to address GHG emissions at the state
and local levels. This section discusses three of the primary actions: Executive Order S -3 -05, AB 32, and
Senate Bill (SB) 375.
Executive Order S -3 -05
Signed in 2005, Executive Order S -3 -05 established a series of GHG emissions reduction targets for
California. It calls for a reduction of emissions to year 2000 levels by 2010, a reduction to 1990 levels by
2020, and a reduction of 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32)
AB 32, officially known as the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, requires the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop the regulatory and market -based mechanisms that will reduce
statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 contains a number of specific requirements,
including:
Establishing a scoping plan that establishes the most technically feasible and cost - effective
ways to reduce GHG emissions. The plan covers a variety of activity areas, including
transportation, buildings and energy use, waste, and water use. The scoping plan identifies
local governments as strategic partners to achieve the state goal, translating the reduction
goal to 15% below baseline emissions by 2020. Additionally, the scoping plan calls for the
creation of a cap- and -trade program for California's largest emitters, enforceable beginning in
2013.
Requiring the largest industrial sources of emissions in California to report and verify their
GHG emissions annually.
• Requiring CARB to identify and adopt early actions that could begin to reduce GHG emissions
by 2010. These actions cover subjects such as refrigerants in cars, landfills, and increased use
of electric equipment at shipping ports.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375)
SB 375 establishes a nexus between transportation funding and land use planning to reduce GHG
emissions. It requires the metropolitan planning organizations such as the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) to create Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) in their regional
transportation plans. Each SCS is required to show how the region will meet CARB's greenhouse gas
reduction targets through land use, transportation, and housing planning.
In addition to these three efforts, California has passed further legislation to address climate change
through a number of other issues, including water, solid waste, and energy use. A summary of the
State's recent efforts by topic is shown in Appendix A.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
FP%,AMEWORK
Cap and Trade
Cap and trade is a market -based approach to reduce GHG emissions, identified by the AB 32 scoping
plan as a way to achieve California's desired reductions, which enables industrial emitters to reduce
overall emissions and invest in cleaner fuels and energy efficiency. Under a cap- and -trade program, a
regulatory agency sets an enforceable limit on the amount of emissions that can be produced by large
industrial emitters, known as a "cap," which will be gradually reduced over time. Each emitter will
receive permits for the amount of emissions allowable under their cap. Emitters that do not use all
their permits can auction them off to other emitters, who can use the additional permits to exceed
their cap.
California's cap- and -trade program has been designed by CARB in conjunction with stakeholders over
several years. Beginning in 2013, CARB will set a cap on large industrial emitters of 2% below their
2012 GHG emissions levels. CARB will also collect revenue from the permit auctions, estimated to
generate about $1 billion for the state in the 2012 -2013 auction, and possibly up to $10 billion
annually by 2020. One emitter in South San Francisco, the Genentech campus, will be participating in
the cap- and -trade program.
Several pieces of legislation seek to guide revenue from the cap- and -trade program toward programs
to reduce pollution in disproportionately impacted communities. One such example is the California
Global Solutions Act of 2006 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (AB 1532), which requires administering
agencies to allocate funds from the cap- and -trade program to measures that meet specific criteria and
are to be implemented in specific areas, including:
• Areas in close proximity to sources that produce toxic levels of air pollution, and other hazards
that can lead to negative public health effects.
Areas that contain or produce materials posing a significant hazard to human health and
safety.
• Areas with an elevated concentration of people who experience low income, high
unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high costs of rent, and other socioeconomic
challenges.
AB 1532 also requires that the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) develop a method
for identifying priority communities for cap- and -trade revenue investment opportunities based on a
variety of factors, including geographic, environmental, and socioeconomic conditions. An additional
measure, SB 535, builds off of AB 1532 by requiring 10% of revenue from the cap- and -trade program
to be allocated for projects located within disadvantaged communities, and 25% for projects that
benefit disadvantaged communities, to reduce pollution levels and develop clean energy.
REGIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
The City of South San Francisco is actively involved in regional energy and sustainability planning. This
commitment to regional partnerships helps maximize the efforts of municipal, county, regional,
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 2
nonprofit, and public utility entities. The following efforts provided a foundation for the development
of the Climate Action Plan and offer opportunities for future dialogue.
SAN MATEO COUNTY ENERGY STRATEGY 2012
Created by the County of San Mateo Utilities and Sustainability Task Force, with support from the
County of San Mateo, the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG), and
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the San Mateo County Energy Strategy 2012
is a guidance document that identifies general energy reduction strategies appropriate for San Mateo
County, regional organizations, and municipalities. While most goals, strategies, and actions focus on
reducing municipal energy use, several actions aim to reduce community energy use, including:
• Reduce or eliminate permitting fees for the investment of clean energy systems
• Adopt green building standards and ordinances
• Provide financial incentives and rebates for water - conserving products
• Update general plans and municipal codes to include water conservation policies
• Consider incentives for businesses to achieve Green Business Certification
After releasing the document, C /CAG provided additional educational materials to cities and the
County and provided incentives to promote the completion of government operation inventories for
cities in the county.
SAN MATEO COUNTY ENERGY WATCH
San Mateo County Energy Watch is a partnership between C /CAG and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E).
The program's goal is to reduce energy usage through energy efficiency in San Mateo County cities
and unincorporated areas. San Mateo County Energy Watch provides energy efficiency services to
public agencies, nonprofits, small businesses, and residential customers. These program elements
include:
• A direct - install program for lighting and refrigeration measures for public agencies, nonprofits,
and small businesses
• Comprehensive audits for public agencies and nonprofits
• Technical assistance for more complex energy efficiency projects for public agencies and
nonprofits through PG &E's Customized Retrofit Incentives program
• A direct - install program for lighting and weatherization measures for moderately low- income
residents
• Climate action program assistance for cities and the County
• Energy efficiency training and education workshops and classes
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
FP%,AMEWORK
As part of the Energy Watch program, PG &E and the BAAQMD have provided support to C /CAG to
develop the Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (RICAPS). The County provides
standardized tool kits for cities and towns in San Mateo County to create climate action plans. Tool kits
include inventory tools, suggestions for quantified reduction measures, and climate action plan
language. C /CAG and the County have been actively engaged in the development of these tools.
REGIONALLY INTEGRATED CLIMATE ACTION PLANNING SUITE
(RICAPS)
South San Francisco has participated in the development of the Regionally Integrated Climate Action
Planning Suite project, the RICAPS. C /CAG has led this project to provide a climate action planning
template for local governments in San Mateo County. Funded by grants from the BAAQMD and PG &E,
RICAPS tools will help participating jurisdictions to assess GHGs and meet the BAAQMD's California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.
RICAPS provides standardized tool kits for creation of local, streamlined climate action plans. The City
has actively participated in the development of these tools.
Tools developed through the RICAPS effort include a template of proposed GHG reduction measures
with calculations, a forecast and reduction target workbook, and an online calculation tool to track
progress over time, the Hara ESS Tool. These tools were developed with the input of participating local
governments.
While the City participates in the RICAPS effort, South San Francisco has also developed an
independent, customized Climate Action Plan for the community. With receipt of a highly competitive
state grant, the City has been able to benefit from the RICAPS effort while developing effective GHG
strategies tailored to the community. It is anticipated that the City may use the online Hara ESS Tool to
support regional GHG tracking and monitoring.
SAN BRUNO /SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY -BASED
TRANSPORTATION PLANT (CBTP)
Completed in early 2012, the CBTP looks at the transportation needs of the community and
recommends steps to address these needs. The project is part of the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission's Community -Based Planning Program in collaboration with C /CAG, SamTrans, and the
San Mateo County Human Services Agency. The CBTP provides a framework for transportation
providers and various agencies to work together to better understand the transportation needs of
low- income populations. Key strategies in the plan include improving transit stops and amenities,
improving transit affordability, and improving access and connectivity to transit stops. Targeting the
eastern portion of South San Francisco, the CBTP also informs broader community -wide strategies.
The CBTP focuses on the area east of El Camino Real and Chestnut Avenue, south of Miller and Maple
avenues, north of San Juan Avenue, and extending to the San Francisco Bay (see Figure 6).
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
ER 2
Figure 6: South San Francisco: Community -Based Transportation Plan Study Area
Source: C/CAG2012
BART SERVICE BLUEPRINT
Facing a significant jump in expected ridership by 2025, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) has
been working with South San Francisco and all populations it serves to accommodate new demand. In
2012, BART increased service on its Richmond - Millbrae line and released a draft study titled BART
Metro: Sustainability Communities Operational Analysis. The study aims to identify necessary service
and operational improvements, as well as capital programs BART needs to implement in order to
prepare for the 560,000 daily riders the Metropolitan Transportation Commission predicts BART will
need to carry by 2025.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
FP%,AMEWORK
ONE BAY AREA
One Bay Area is a joint initiative and experiment in good governance by the San Francisco Bay Area's
four regional government agencies —ABAG, the BAAQMD, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC), and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). One Bay
Area has published several guiding documents for development in the region, including the region's
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which identifies housing opportunities, a conservation
strategy, emissions performance measures, and other sustainability measures to meet regional needs
by 2040. One Bay Area is also responsible for developing the region's Complete Streets Policy, which
aims to provide guidance to local jurisdictions on developing local complete street policies.
CEC�A GUIDANCE FOR CAPS
CECA GUIDELINE AMENDMENTS (SB 97)
SB 97, adopted in 2007, directs the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to amend the
guidelines for CEQA to address GHG emissions. The revised CEQA Guidelines were adopted in
December 2009 and went into effect March 18, 2010. If the adopted CAP includes a certified
environmental impact report (EIR) or other environmental document, local governments may use the
CAP in a manner consistent with the CEQA Guidelines to assess the cumulative impacts of proposed
projects on climate change. In order to use a CAP for this purpose, the CAP must accomplish the
following:
• Quantify GHG emissions, both existing and projected over a specific time period, attributable
to activities within a defined geographic area.
• Identify and analyze the GHG emissions from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the plan area.
• Establish a level, based on substantive evidence, below which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities covered by the CAP would not be cumulatively considerable.
• Identify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards that substantial
evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project -by- project basis, would collectively
achieve the specified emissions level.
• Establish a mechanism to monitor the CAP's progress toward achieving the specific level and
to require an amendment if the plan is not achieving the GHG emissions reduction goals.
• Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 2
BAAC±MD GUIDANCE AND CECATIERING
In response to the updated CEQA Guidelines, the BAAQMD in 2010 updated its Air Quality Guidelines
to include guidance on assessing GHG and climate change - related impacts as required under CEQA
Section 15183.5(b). The BAAQMD also adopted thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. These
thresholds can be used to determine that a proposed project's impact on GHG emissions is less than
significant if the project is in compliance with a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.
This CAP follows both the state and BAAQMD CEQA guidelines by incorporating the standard
elements of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. As a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the City can
use the CAP as a tool for determining project CEQA compliance, streamlining development review.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
FP%,AMEWORK
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 3
GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS INVENTORY
CHAPTER 3
A greenhouse gas emissions inventory (Inventory) lays the groundwork for the entire Climate Action
Plan (CAP) planning process. This Inventory catalogues greenhouse gas emissions for 2005 and then
projects emissions levels for 2020 and 2035. In order to comply with state guidance, the CAP identifies
emissions reduction targets for 2020. The difference between the emissions projection and the
reduction target is the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that need to be reduced.
INVENTORY - BACKGROUND AND APPROACH
The Inventory is the foundation of South San Francisco's CAP by informing the local government and
the community of South San Francisco's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sources, and therefore the
primary opportunities for GHG reductions. The Inventory presents community -wide emissions caused
by activities occurring within the political boundary of South San Francisco and provides a baseline
against which future progress can be measured.
The Inventory presents GHGs from community -wide activities in the calendar year 2005. It forecasts
how community -wide emissions will change by 2020 and 2035, both if no behavioral or regulatory
changes are made (known as a business -as -usual or BAU scenario) and to account for reduction efforts
mandated by the State of California such as new vehicle standards and renewable energy
requirements (known as the adjusted business -as -usual or ABAU scenario). Additionally, the Inventory
provides City staff, decision - makers, and Technical Advisory Committee members with adequate
information to direct the development of a CAP and establish additional emissions reduction targets.
The Inventory includes all major sources of GHGs caused by activities in the jurisdictional boundary of
South San Francisco and is consistent with the methodology recommended by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), ICLEI -Local Governments for Sustainability, and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD). The Inventory analyzes the following emissions sources:
• Energy — Electricity and natural gas used by residential and nonresidential buildings in South
San Francisco.
• Transportation — Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) within and to /from the community by on -road
vehicles, as well as trips to and from the South San Francisco BART and Caltrain commuter rail
stations.
• Solid Waste — Methane emissions from the decomposition of waste sent to landfills from
South San Francisco.
• Landfills — Direct emissions from the Oyster Point Landfill, which is no longer operational but
continues to release methane emissions.
• Water and Wastewater — The amount of energy required to extract, filter, move, and treat all
water used by, as well as the wastewater produced in, South San Francisco. This sector also
includes direct methane emissions caused by the treatment of South San Francisco's
wastewater at the South San Francisco /San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant located within
the community.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
• Stationary Sources - Direct emissions from large, stationary, fixed emitters of GHGs permitted
by the BAAQMD.
• Off -Road - Emissions from construction and lawn & garden equipment /vehicles.
The GHG emissions inventory starts with collecting activity data for each sector listed above, such as
the kilowatt -hours (kWh) of electricity or therms of natural gas used for the residential, commercial,
and industrial energy sectors, the vehicle miles traveled for the transportation sector, or million
gallons (MG) of water used by the community in a single calendar year. These activities are converted
into GHG emissions using an emissions factor or coefficient.
The Inventory measures three primary GHG emissions — carbon dioxide (CO,), methane (CHJ, and
nitrous oxide (NZO). These greenhouse gases are then converted to carbon dioxide equivalents (COZe),
enabling the City to consider different greenhouse gases in comparable terms. The conversion of
greenhouse gases is done by comparing the global warming potential (GWP) of each gas to CO, For
example, methane is 21 times more powerful than CO2 on a per weight basis in its capacity to trap
heat, and therefore one metric ton of CH, would be calculated as 21 metric tons of CO2e.
2005 COMMUNITY -WIDE BASELINE INVENTORY RESULTS
The City of South San Francisco emitted 548,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) in
2005, as depicted in Table 3. This table includes all sources of GHGs, including stationary sources, the
Oyster Point Landfill, and the energy use at the headquarters of Genentech. In 2005, stationary sources
were responsible for 35,580 MTCO2e, energy use at Genentech headquarters resulted in 57,410
MTCO2e, and the landfill contributed another 13,220 MTCO2e. The City has very little direct control
over these sources; stationary sources are regulated by the BAAQMD and CARB, the Oyster Point
Landfill is already closed, and emissions resulting from Genentech will be regulated under California's
cap- and -trade program. They are mentioned here as informational items only. For additional
discussion of the informational items and further details about the inventory, refer to Appendix B.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Table 3: 2005 Community -Wide Baseline Emissions by Sector
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
For the purposes of the CAP, excluding informational items as mentioned above, the City of South San
Francisco emitted approximately 442,400 MTCO2e in 2005. Table 4 and Figure 7 report MTCO2e by
sector, rank of sector, and sector percentage of overall GHG emissions in the city. Energy use was the
single largest source of emissions, responsible for 206,370 MTCO2e, or about 47% of the community
total. Emissions from transportation were the second - largest category, totaling 196,910 MTCO2e, or
about 45% of community -wide emissions. Off -road emissions were third (22,400 MTCO2e, or 5 %),
emissions from solid waste came fourth (14,780 MTCO2e, or 3% of the total), and emissions from water
and wastewater were last (1,940 MTCO2e, or less than I%).
Table 4: 2005 Community -Wide Baseline Emissions, Excluding Informational Items
'W Sector �VMTCO2e
Energy
206,370
Percentage of TotaX
47%
Transportation
Energy
263,780
48%
Transportation
196,910
36%
Stationary Sources
35,580
6%
Off -Road
22,400
4%
Solid Waste
14,780
3%
Landfill
13,220
2%
Water and Wastewater
1,940
<1%
Total*
548,600
100%
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
For the purposes of the CAP, excluding informational items as mentioned above, the City of South San
Francisco emitted approximately 442,400 MTCO2e in 2005. Table 4 and Figure 7 report MTCO2e by
sector, rank of sector, and sector percentage of overall GHG emissions in the city. Energy use was the
single largest source of emissions, responsible for 206,370 MTCO2e, or about 47% of the community
total. Emissions from transportation were the second - largest category, totaling 196,910 MTCO2e, or
about 45% of community -wide emissions. Off -road emissions were third (22,400 MTCO2e, or 5 %),
emissions from solid waste came fourth (14,780 MTCO2e, or 3% of the total), and emissions from water
and wastewater were last (1,940 MTCO2e, or less than I%).
Table 4: 2005 Community -Wide Baseline Emissions, Excluding Informational Items
'W Sector �VMTCO2e
Energy
206,370
Percentage of TotaX
47%
Transportation
196,910
45%
Off -Road
22,400
5%
Solid Waste
14,780
3%
Water and Wastewater
1,940
<1%
Total*
442,400
100%
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
Figure 7: 2005 Community -Wide Baseline Emissions, Excluding Informational Items
Transportation
45%
Solid Waste Water and
Wastewater
Off -Road 30� f <1%
5%
11 0
Energy
r47%
GHG EMISSIONS FORECAST - 2020 AND 2035
A GHG emissions forecast is an estimate of future GHG emissions for the community based on the
anticipated changes in population, number of households, employment, driving behavior, and other
activities. The forecast in this Inventory focuses on two target years: 2020 and 2035. 2020 is used
because it is consistent with the targets for Assembly Bill (AB) 32. 2035 has been chosen for
consistency with Senate Bill (SB) 375 (see Chapter 2 for more information on these pieces of
legislation).
BUSINESS -AS -USUAL GHG EMISSIONS
The business -as -usual (BAU) scenario assumes that there will be no influence on GHG emissions from
local, state, or federal reduction efforts. Under the BAU scenario, figures such as the amount of energy
used per job or the amount of trash generated per household remain constant; changes in the
amount of emissions are largely the result of demographic changes as predicted by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Appendix B and Appendix C provide additional information on
forecast assumptions. As shown in Table 5, the BAU scenario anticipates that emissions will grow to
11% above baseline by 2020 and to 24% above baseline by 2035.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Table 5: 2020 and 2035 BAU Emissions (MTCO2e)
* Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
ADJUSTED BUSINESS -AS -USUAL EMISSIONS
The adjusted business -as -usual (ABAU) forecast includes a number of reduction programs
implemented by the State of California, as discussed below. The inclusion of these items is intended to
present a more realistic estimate of South San Francisco's future emissions. Additional information on
these state actions is included in Appendix B. Relevant state actions assessed in the CAP include the
following:
• California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS): One of the most ambitious renewable
energy standards in the country, RPS mandates that 33% of electricity delivered in California
be generated by renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal by 2020.
• AB 1493 ( Pavley) Vehicle Standards: California's Pavley regulations, established by AB 1493
in 2002, require new passenger vehicles to reduce tailpipe GHG emissions from 2009 to 2020.
• Executive Order S- 01 -07, Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Beyond including vehicle efficiency
improvements through AB 1439, CARB developed a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to
reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Under the BAAQMD's guidance, the LCFS
is likely to reduce emissions by at least 7.2 %. There is a chance this regulation may be struck
down as a result of a case pending in federal court.
• Title 24, Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24 is a state standard, implemented at the local
level by city and county agencies through project review, to increase energy efficiency in new
buildings. The energy reductions quantified in the forecast are the mandatory improvements
over the 2005 Title 24 code that were established by a 2008 update.
Table 6 shows the individual and cumulative impact of these state reduction efforts.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Energy
206,370
226,990
255,820
Transportation
196,910
219,270
243,620
Off -Road
22,400
26,610
30,530
Solid Waste
14,780
16,310
18,190
Water and Wastewater
1,940
2,140
2,380
Total*
442,400
491,310
550,540
Percentage Increase from Baseline
—
11%
24%
* Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
ADJUSTED BUSINESS -AS -USUAL EMISSIONS
The adjusted business -as -usual (ABAU) forecast includes a number of reduction programs
implemented by the State of California, as discussed below. The inclusion of these items is intended to
present a more realistic estimate of South San Francisco's future emissions. Additional information on
these state actions is included in Appendix B. Relevant state actions assessed in the CAP include the
following:
• California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS): One of the most ambitious renewable
energy standards in the country, RPS mandates that 33% of electricity delivered in California
be generated by renewable sources like solar, wind, and geothermal by 2020.
• AB 1493 ( Pavley) Vehicle Standards: California's Pavley regulations, established by AB 1493
in 2002, require new passenger vehicles to reduce tailpipe GHG emissions from 2009 to 2020.
• Executive Order S- 01 -07, Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Beyond including vehicle efficiency
improvements through AB 1439, CARB developed a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) to
reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuels. Under the BAAQMD's guidance, the LCFS
is likely to reduce emissions by at least 7.2 %. There is a chance this regulation may be struck
down as a result of a case pending in federal court.
• Title 24, Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24 is a state standard, implemented at the local
level by city and county agencies through project review, to increase energy efficiency in new
buildings. The energy reductions quantified in the forecast are the mandatory improvements
over the 2005 Title 24 code that were established by a 2008 update.
Table 6 shows the individual and cumulative impact of these state reduction efforts.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
Table 6: 2020 and 2035 ABAU Emissions (MTCO2e)
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
GHG REDUCTION TARGETS
South San Francisco has determined reduction targets for 2020.Achieving this reduction target is the
goal of the CAP and a way of measuring its success. The community reduction target is 15% below
baseline (2005) emissions by 2020. This is consistent with AB 32, which calls for a reduction of 15%
below current (2005 -2008) levels as the local government equivalent of 1990 GHG emissions levels.
This state target also satisfies the BAAQMD's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance
guidelines.
Table 7 and Figure 8 show the comparison between 2020 emissions under the ABAU scenario and
the 15% reduction target. The reduction target calls for emissions of 376,040 MTCOZe by 2020, which
would require a 45,500 MTCOZe decrease below the projected 2020 emissions under the ABAU
scenario.
Table 7: Gap Between ABAU Emissions and AB 32 Goal, 2020
2005 Baseline
442,400
BAU Emissions
442,400
491,310
550,540
RPS
—
- 14,200
- 22,880
Pavley and the LCFS
—
- 53,580
- 80,430
Title 24
—
-1,990
-1,280
Total State Reduction Efforts
—
- 69,770
- 104,590
ABAU Emissions*
442,400
421,540
445,950
Percentage Increase from Baseline
—
-5%
1 %
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
GHG REDUCTION TARGETS
South San Francisco has determined reduction targets for 2020.Achieving this reduction target is the
goal of the CAP and a way of measuring its success. The community reduction target is 15% below
baseline (2005) emissions by 2020. This is consistent with AB 32, which calls for a reduction of 15%
below current (2005 -2008) levels as the local government equivalent of 1990 GHG emissions levels.
This state target also satisfies the BAAQMD's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance
guidelines.
Table 7 and Figure 8 show the comparison between 2020 emissions under the ABAU scenario and
the 15% reduction target. The reduction target calls for emissions of 376,040 MTCOZe by 2020, which
would require a 45,500 MTCOZe decrease below the projected 2020 emissions under the ABAU
scenario.
Table 7: Gap Between ABAU Emissions and AB 32 Goal, 2020
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2005 Baseline
442,400
2020 BALI
491,310
2020 ABAU
421,540
2020 AB 32 Reduction Target
376,040
Local Reductions Needed from ABAU
45,500
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Figure 8: Comparison of Emissions Scenarios and Reduction Targets, 2005 -2020
(MTCO2e)
500,000
480,000
460,000
440,000
MMCQW
400,000
380,000
360,000 r
State Measures
Local Actions
2005 2010 2015 2020
Baseline Business -As -Usual (BAU) Adjusted Business -As -Usual (A BALI) AB 32 Target
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
INVENTORY
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 4
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
CHAPTER 4
GHG REDUCTION SUMMARY
In order to achieve the state - recommended reduction target of 15% below 2005 emissions levels by
2020, the City of South San Francisco will implement the goals, policies, and actions set forth in this
chapter. The reduction measures included in this Climate Action Plan (CAP or Plan) are a diverse mix of
regulatory and incentive -based programs for both new and existing development that build off of
existing policies and programs. The reduction measures also aim to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from all sources to avoid reliance on any one strategy or sector to achieve the target.
There are two categories of reduction policies in this CAP: (1) existing activities and (2) CAP measures.
Existing activities are projects and programs which will result in future GHG reductions and were
enacted prior to the creation of this CAP in 2013 but after the 2005 baseline year. Such projects
include municipal energy efficiency retrofits, the City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program, and community -wide solar installations. CAP measures were created for this document
through a collaborative planning process and will be implemented through new and existing
programs.
In total, existing actions, state programs, and GHG reduction measures in this Plan are estimated to
reduce GHG emissions in the City of South San Francisco in 2020 by 116,040 metric tons of carbon
dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) by 2020 and by 191,540 MTCO2e by 2035 (see Table 8), achieving the AB
32 target of a 15% emissions reduction below baseline 2005 levels by 2020. Figure 9 compares
projected emissions reductions from existing actions and CAP measures to the AB 32 reduction target
and forecasts, the business -as -usual (BAU) and adjusted business -as -usual (ABAU) scenarios. Figures
10 and 11 show the respective 2020 and 2035 GHG reductions by CAP measure topic.
Table 8: GHG Reduction Summary by Topic (MTCO,e)
Goal Topic
State Reduction Efforts
- 69,770
- 104,590
Existing Local Programs
- 10,090
- 13,020
Alternative Transportation
-4,470
-4,380
Land Use and Parking
-2,660
-2,600
Alternative -Fuel Vehicles
-2,770
-6,530
Off -Road Vehicles and Equipment
-2,670
-5,880
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
- 11,810
- 30,100
Renewable Energy
-5,100
- 11,760
Waste Minimization
-6,720
- 10,950
Water and Wastewater
-250
-530
Municipal Operations'
—
—
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
1. Note that existing municipal activities are quantified under existing local programs, municipal reduction measures
are considered supportive, and GHG reductions are not quantified.
2. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of the component parts.
Figure 9: GHG Emission Targets and Reductions (MTCOZe)
490,000
470,000 "
State Measures
450,000
430,000 Existin
Local Actions
410,000 CAP
390,000
370,000 AB 37 Target: 15%
Reduction Below Baseline
350,000
2005 2010 2015 2020
— Baseline Business -As -Usual (BAU)
Adjusted BAU (ABAU) ABAU and Existing Activities
AB 32 Target ABAU, Existing Activities, and CAP
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Figure 10: Local Reductions by Topic (MTCOZe), 2020
Existing Activities
22%
Water Efficiency
1%
Waste
14%
Renewable
Energy
11%
Land Use and
Transportation
27%
Energy Efficiency
25%
Figure 11: Local Reductions by Topic (MTCOZe), 2035
Renewabl(
Energy
15%
Land Use and
Transportation
23%
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
'gy
Miclency
35%
Existing
Activities
Water
15%
Efficiency
<1%
Waste
12%
Renewabl(
Energy
15%
Land Use and
Transportation
23%
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
'gy
Miclency
35%
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
REDUCTION STRATEGY STRUCTURE
The following chapter describes the process for developing, refining, and quantifying the GHG
reduction goals, strategies, and actions identified to achieve the City's GHG reduction targets. The
City's strategy is structured around nine strategy topic areas, as shown in Figure 12.
r2.
Figure 12: Strategy Topic Areas
Alternative Transportation
• Land Use and Parking
3. Alternative -Fuel Vehicles
• Off -Road Vehicles and Equipment
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation
8.
9.
• Renewable Energy
• Waste Minimization
• Water and Wastewater
• Municipal Operations
_71
Each strategy topic area has corresponding reduction measures and supporting actions necessary for
implementation. The process for developing GHG reduction measures included a review of existing
policies, activities, and programs; identification of topic areas or goals based on South San Francisco's
emissions inventory and sustainability vision; consideration of countywide or regional initiatives; and
preparation of preliminary reduction measure language with performance targets and indicators. The
preliminary measures were refined through the staff and community engagement process and
evaluated for political, technical, and financial feasibility. Additional information on measure
quantification methods is included in Appendix D. See Chapter 6 for more details on measure
evaluation and implementation.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 4
COMMUNITY CO- BENEFITS
In addition to the GHG reductions, each measure also has one or more multiple ancillary benefits for
the community. For example, a program to improve bicycle and pedestrian networks in South San
Francisco will provide health benefits from increased physical activity, improve air quality by reducing
dependency on cars, and increase mobility for community members who do not have reliable access
to cars. The co- benefits of each measure will be noted throughout this chapter with the icons shown
below.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
A
Provides Educational Opportunities
Conserves Energy
Improves Air Quality
Improves Public Health
i
7
Lk
Supports Local
Economy
Reduces Automobile
U
Use and Fuel
Saves Money
Conserves Natural
Resources
Consumption
14
-z
Promotes Eqc
Implements State
Reduces Water b
Ada,
�d
•
oil:
0
Improves
Increases Housing
Promotes Infill and
Compact
Revitalizes Urban and
Infrastructure
Affordability
Development
Community Centers
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
MUNICIPAL ACHIEVEMENTS
The City has taken a number of steps to reduce energy use and improve sustainability at municipal
facilities and in the community. By demonstrating leadership in addressing sustainability issues and
providing an example to the community of South San Francisco and other municipal governments in
the Bay Area, the City is hoping to foster an environment where GHG emission considerations become
a part of the City, business, and citizen decision - making process. Some of these actions have resulted
in measurable GHG emissions reduction to help the community achieve its reduction target under
AB 32 (discussed in greater detail in the Existing Activities section below), while others are supportive
of the City's sustainability efforts and the measures put forward in this CAP. Most of the achievements
discussed here were begun after the 2005 baseline; some are ongoing efforts, while others have been
completed. Municipal achievements are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9: Municipal Energy Efficiency and GHG Reduction Projects
Annual Reductions
q1W Project Namir (MTCO,e/Year) Status
Public- Private Partnerships
South San Francisco Unified School District - Chevron solar PV
installations
460
Done
Aircraft Noise Insulation Program (ANIP)
540
Active
Bioswales at private development
Supportive
Active
Construction and demolition (C &D) waste recycling ordinance
50
Active
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) ordinance
4,210
Active
Electric vehicle charging stations and green design, Miller Avenue
Parking Structure
10
Active
Green X -Ray House
Supportive
Active
Government Operations
San Mateo County Energy Watch retrofits at City facilities (Round 1)
210
Done
San Mateo County Energy Watch retrofits at City facilities (Round 2)
100
Active
400 kW cogeneration at Water Quality Control Plant *
Supportive
Done
Solar PV panels at City Hall Annex
20
Active
Total
5,600
*This plant has been in operation since 7992 and is reflected in the City's GHG baseline inventory.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 4
PUBLIC - PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS
The first seven achievements shown in the previous table are examples of successful ventures
between the City and the private sector. The City is able to take a supportive role on some of these
programs, providing private organizations and companies with assistance in implementing their own
sustainability actions. On other programs, the City acts as a facilitator between the private sector and
community members, allowing private groups to accomplish actions that benefit the community at
large, such as the installation of electric vehicle charging stations for public use.
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
The municipal achievements highlighted in Table 9 consist of actions the City has taken to improve
sustainability within its own facilities and operational practices. These actions include replacing old
City -owned electric devices with more energy efficient models and installing renewable energy
systems on City properties. At 2010 energy rates, these programs save the City an estimated $182,000
annually and are expected to reduce 2020 community -wide GHG emissions by 330 MTCOze. South San
Francisco has also taken internal steps not shown here, including the creation of a citywide Green
Committee.
EXISTING ACTIVITIES
South San Francisco is focused on sustainability. To help reach its emissions reduction goals, the City
has already completed a range of notable projects and policies since 2005 and continues to
implement reduction policies. Major activities undertaken by the City since the baseline year of 2005
are detailed below.
AIRCRAFT NOISE INSULATION PROGRAM (ANIP)
ANIP is an ongoing program funded
by the San Francisco International
Airport and the Federal Aviation
Administration to insulate homes
near the airoort aaainst noise. As
part of the process, eligible homes
have their attics insulated, doors
and windows replaced with
insulating models, and noise baffles
installed on their roofs. Intended
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 540
Participation Metrics: 290 homes receiving full retrofits and 460
homes receiving partial retrofits
00
primarily to reduce noise inside the
home, many of the upgrades are very similar to a residential energy retrofit program and help to
reduce the amount of energy needed for heating and cooling. Homes that participate in the program
can see their energy use drop by as much as 30 %. As of October 2012, about 250 homes have been
upgraded under ANIP since 2005, and over 500 are expected to receive upgrades in the next several
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
years. Emissions savings for the ANIP only account for additional improvements completed after the
City's baseline year of 2005.
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) ORDINANCE
In California, about 29% of all waste
produced in the state is from Existing Activity 2: C&D Ordinance
construction and demolition. These
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 50
materials, often called C &D waste,
include lumber, metal, stone, Participation Metrics: 9,310 additional tons of recycled C &D
concrete, pipes, and other common waste
elements used in building
construction. The vast majority of 0(3
these materials can be reused or
recycled, reducing the amount of
waste sent to landfills and making new buildings more sustainable. South San Francisco has embraced
C &D recycling by requiring 100% of all inert solids (building materials) and 65% of non -inert solids (all
other materials) from a construction or demolition project to be recycled. All demolition projects
costing over $5,000 are subject to this ordinance, as are construction projects of 2,000 square feet or
more in size. Additionally, eligible projects must submit a Waste Management Plan.
CALIFORNIA SOLAR INITIATIVE (CSI)
The CSI is a program through the
California Public Utilities Commission Existing Activity 3: CS1
that provides financial rebates for the —
installation of solar energy systems, 2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOze): 890
including solar photovoltaic arrays Participation Metrics: 70 solar panel arrays installed to date
and solar water heaters. There are
also specific categories of rebates for 006C33
low- income single - family
homeowners and multi - family
affordable housing units. The CSI began in 2007 and is expected to conclude no later than 2016.
MUNICIPAL ENERGY PROGRAMS
South San Francisco has made a
number upgrades to municipal
facilities, saving an estimated
$182,000 in energy costs each year.
Some of these programs, including
replacing old lights with more energy
efficient models and upgrades to the
City's computer network, allow the
City to use less energy by increasing
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 330
Participation Metrics: Not applicable
ODA
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 4
energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions 330 MTCOze by 2020. Other programs, including the
installation of a solar panel array on the City Hall Annex, allow the City to make increased use of
renewable energy. At present, approximately 30 projects have been completed at municipal facilities.
COMMUNITY -BASED TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Community -Based
Transportation Plan is a collaborative Existing Activity 5: Community Transportation Plan
planning effort with the
Metropolitan Transportation 2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): Supportive —Not quantified
Commission (MTC) to identify and Participation Metrics: Supportive — Not applicable
address the existing transportation
needs in South San Francisco, 00(..8
particularly for lower- income
individuals. The plan includes
increased access to transit stops, improving connectivity between transit modes, and ways to make
transit more affordable. It is primarily focused on the eastern portion of the community.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT- CHEVRON
ENERGY SOLUTIONS PARTNERSHIP SOLAR PROJECT
In 2012, the South San Francisco
Unified School District partnered Existing Activity 6: SSFUSD-Chevron Partnership
with Chevron Energy Solutions to
install the largest K -12 solar and 2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 460
energy efficiency program in San Participation Metrics: Not applicable
Mateo County. The project was
funded through Measure J, a local coma
bond measure that raised $162
million specifically to improve school
infrastructure and enhance the student learning environment. Chevron Energy Solutions, the largest
installer of solar power in the US education market, installed the system and will be responsible for
operating, maintaining, and guaranteeing the solar system's performance for 20 years. The system is
expected to cut utility costs by $20 million over the next 25 years. In addition to savings for the district,
the project has significantly improved the classroom learning environment through the integration of
energy- efficient technologies, promoting environmental awareness and energy consciousness while
increasing in -class comfort.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
To help reduce traffic, air pollution,
and emissions, and to provide _ Activity 7: TDM
greater commuting alternatives for
its working community, the City of 2020 GHG Reduction (MTCO2e): 4,210
South San Francisco has Participation Metrics: Not applicable
implemented a Transportation
Demand Management program. - r •�
Adopted in 2001, TDM guidelines k
reduce daily vehicle trips per day by
T
requiring that all projects that
generate greater than 100 daily trips •.
achieve a minimum 28% to 40%
alternative mode use by employees
depending on intensity of development. Employers develop and implement a TDM plan with requisite
carpooling, shuttle, and biking options as well as providing public transit, biking, and walking
incentives to employees. Annual reports on each TDM's implementation levels are submitted to the
City to ensure compliance. The TDM program is supported by a number of other efforts, including the
Community -Based Transportation Plan.
MULTI - FAMILY ENERGY EFFICIENCY THROUGH GENERAL PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
Amendments to South San
Francisco's General Plan throughout
2010 -2011 will change the
trajectory of development 2020 GHG Reduction (MTCO2e): 3,610
significantly and reduce energy use Participation Metrics: 440 single - family homes and 3,350 multi -
in the community. Approximately family homes built since 2005
72% of the community's existing
housing stock is single - family
homes. With the adoption of the
recent General Plan amendments,
the community is shifting to more •,
compact, multi - family units. t
Approximately 88% of the post -
2005 houses in South San Francisco
are expected to be multi - family, which use significantly less energy than single - family homes. This
shift away from larger single - family homes to more compact multi - family units is expected to reduce
2020 GHG emissions by 3,610 MTCO2e.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 4
GREEN X —RAY HOUSE
In 2009, the City of South San
Francisco initiated a public - private Existing Activity 9: Green X-Ray House
partnership project to demonstrate 2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): Supportive – Not quantified
a green home renovation. The goal
Participation Metrics: Supportive –Not applicable
of the project has been to
demonstrate how a typical older
California home can be remodeled
in a green way without being too 39
complicated or costly. The Green
X -Ray House was a small 3- bedroom, 1- bathroom bungalow built in 1952 — typical of homes in the
neighborhood and throughout the region, with old appliances, heat and energy leaks, and no
irrigation. The City partnered with local energy service providers, green building organizations,
interior designers, and green product vendors to secure over $150,000 of green product and labor
donations to renovate the house. Available for tours, the Green X -Ray House now showcases the
energy analysis, on -site recycling and processing of construction materials used during renovation, a
solar PV installation, insulation, recycled glass countertops, energy- efficient water heaters, and water -
and energy- efficient appliances, among other features. Visitors to the house can tour the interior and
exterior upgrades, and obtain information on other resources for remodeling their own homes.
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGIES
LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Goal LUT1: Reduce Emissions from Transportation.
Transportation is among the largest contributor of GHGs within South San Francisco and one of the
most complex sectors to address. The city's location and the predominance of large -scale industrial
and commercial activities with a large commuting workforce are factors that have resulted in a high
number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and are challenges requiring a multifaceted approach. This
goal builds off of a number of aggressive existing City policies to reduce VMT for employees and
residents by facilitating multiple opportunities for mobility besides single- occupant vehicle travel.
Through the adopted Bicycle Master Plan (2012) and Pedestrian Master Plan (2013), South San
Francisco is taking a comprehensive approach to encouraging non - motorized circulation options and
infrastructure. In concert with other transportation policies, the City's General Plan and Specific Plans
facilitate the development of transit - oriented and mixed -use development in distinct and vital
neighborhoods. This goal supplements these ongoing efforts to decrease emphasis on car - dependent
lifestyles. The goal will be accomplished through measures that incentivize alternative transportation
modes in residential, industrial, and office development, as well as by encouraging the location of
homes near schools, public services, entertainment activities, and shopping to catalyze
neighborhoods with pedestrian -scale activity and identity.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
Measure 1.1: Expand active transportation alternatives by providing infrastructure and enhancing
connectivity for bicycle and pedestrian access.
Actions
1. Partner with the Peninsula
Alliance and other regional
partners to implement the
Bicycle Master Plan and the
2012 San Bruno /South San
Francisco Community -Based
Bicycle Transportation Plan
to expand bicycle facilities
and increase bicycle mode -
share.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 890
Participation Metrics: Implement regional transportation plans
and existing programs
i K6
2. Work with local school
districts to encourage safe pedestrian and bicycle travel for students, using programs such as
Safe Routes to School and other public transportation policies to remove barriers, improve
connectivity, and provide infrastructure to support bicycle and pedestrian access.
3. Following adoption of a "complete streets" policy in 2012 for transportation consistent with
the C /CAG criteria for One Bay Area funding opportunities, establish citywide design standards
to incorporate all modes of transportation (public transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile)
into "complete streets" designs.
4. Promote local bike -share or bike rental programs in key activity areas such as downtown to
expand the use of bicycles for employee commutes, integrating with regional efforts and
collaborating with private employers such as Genentech.
Measure 1.2: Support expansion of public and private transit programs to reduce employee
commutes.
Actions
1. Collaborate with the
Peninsula Alliance, BART,
SamTrans, Caltrain, other
transit agencies, and
neighboring jurisdictions to
improve transit service
connections and frequency.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 3,580
Participation Metrics: Expansion of TDMs to affect 25-44% of all
local employment
At
2. Work with businesses to support and expand shuttle connections to transit.
3. Continue to enforce the City's Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to
require employers to demonstrate achieved mode share and to continually adjust their
programs to meet the requisite goals.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 4
4. Partner with local businesses to expand private shuttle programs for employee commutes,
share local lessons learned, and connect businesses to shuttle resources.
5. Implement programs and encourage employers to provide additional voluntary subsidies or
incentives.
Measure 13: Integrate higher- density development and mixed -use development near transit facilities
and community facilities, and reduce dependence on autos through smart parking practices.
Actions
1. Implement Priority
Development Areas and
Station Area Plans,
including the El Camino
Real Master Plan, including
the General Plan and
Zoning Code amendments
adopted by the City in 2010
and 2011, respectively.
2. Complete and adopt the
Downtown Station Area
Plan to encourage transit -
oriented development in
downtown.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCO2e): 2,660
Participation Metrics: 8.5% of city is transit - oriented, mixed -use
development, achieving 30 units /acre in the ECR/Chestnut Plan and
a 10% reduction in parking supply for reductions in vehicle miles
traveled
11
3. Encourage ground - floor, street - oriented commercial uses in higher- density residential,
industrial, and office zones.
4. Establish criteria to ensure that libraries, schools, parks, and other community facilities are
available within reasonable proximity to higher- density development areas.
5. Encourage alternative transit use by continuing to zone for and facilitate the provision of
diverse housing types near transit that are affordable to a range of household types.
6. Streamline permit requirements to allow for temporary uses that supply essential goods and
services in accessible public areas such as parking lots, including local food programs and
farmers markets that are convenient and accessible to nearby neighborhoods.
7. Revise the existing traffic impact fee for development east of US Route 101 to fund the bicycle
and pedestrian improvements for the portions of the city identified in the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plans.
8. Provide flexibility for shared parking in areas that contain mixed -use development.
9. Establish an in -lieu parking fee to develop concentrated parking in the city's Downtown
Parking District, the downtown station area, and other areas as appropriate, encouraging
opportunities for car -share and public transit use.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
Goal LUT2: Improve Vehicle Efficiency.
While more efficient land use planning and increased circulation and transportation options will
reduce vehicle trips within, and commuting to, South San Francisco, they cannot eliminate all vehicle
trips. GHG emissions reductions will also rely on increases in vehicle fuel efficiency and expansion of
alternative -fuel uses by providing the necessary infrastructure to support alternative -fuel and low -
emissions vehicles. Although the state and federal governments hold the primary responsibility to
increase the fuel efficiency standards of new vehicles and support the development of cost -
competitive alternative fuels, the City of South San Francisco and neighboring cities can take several
actions to further support and spur the use of more efficient vehicles, by providing the infrastructure
and programs to help make use of low- emissions vehicles more feasible and easy for the community.
These policies apply to on -road vehicles, as well as to off -road vehicles such as construction and
landscaping equipment. Strategies under this goal include increasing the number of charging stations
for electrical vehicles and reducing idling time for construction equipment.
Measure 2.1: Expand the use of alternative -fuel vehicles.
Actions
1. Adopt policies that support
alternative -fuel vehicle
infrastructure such as
biofuels and electric vehicle
charging stations.
2. Revise parking design
guidelines to include
designated spaces for
electric vehicles, carpool
vehicles, and other low -
emissions vehicles.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 2,770
Participation Metrics: 80 public EV charging stations, and 950
houses (4%) and 90 EV charging stations installed at businesses
r A o
C
3. Work with regional partners and electric vehicle charging companies to expand the network
of electric car charging stations in public places.
4. Expand facilities for vehicle sharing at transit nodes and at business and commercial
destinations.
5. Require new large -scale nonresidential developments to provide a conduit for future electric
vehicle charging installations, and encourage the installation of conduits or electric vehicle
charging stations for all new development.
6. Work with the South San Francisco Scavenger Company, other waste haulers, and other
organizations that maintain a vehicle fleet to use less carbon - intensive fuels such as biofuels
from waste oil.
7. Explore opportunities to use City franchise agreements or other mechanisms with cab and
other service companies to require a minimum of 25% of clean vehicles in the company fleet.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Measure 2.2: Reduce emissions from off -road vehicles and equipment.
Actions
1. Support the BAAQMD's
voluntary exchange
program and other
exchange and rebate
programs for garden
equipment as opportunities
become available. Consider
adopting a leaf blower
ordinance to ban or increase
limitations on the use of leaf
blowers.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 2,670
Participation Metrics: 1,670 lawnmowers (20 %) and 430 leaf
blowers (20 %) traded in; 40% of equipment used in construction
converted to alternative fuels and a 25% reduction in construction
idling time
I'%
2. Include information on limiting idling time and regarding electric, non - powered, and other
energy- efficient lawn and garden equipment in public education efforts.
3. Adopt a purchasing policy for City operations to expand the City's use of clean equipment.
4. Model the use of electric and energy- efficient equipment in City operations.
5. Work with applicants through the CEQA review process to reduce construction equipment
emissions by encouraging the use of alternatively powered or grid- connected equipment.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Goal EE1: Increase Building Energy Efficiency.
Energy used in local homes and businesses is provided by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E). PG &E
generates energy from a mix of nonrenewable, fossil -fuel based sources, such as coal and natural gas,
and renewable sources, such as biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric, and wind. The amount of energy
used in South San Francisco homes and businesses determines how much power PG &E must generate
and the quantity of GHGs emitted. Energy efficiency and conservation in daily actions can reduce
GHGs by reducing the amount of electricity or natural gas that PG &E needs to generate, obtain, and
transmit.
The City of South San Francisco is dedicated to improving efficiency and achieving energy savings of
both existing and new buildings through diverse strategies that support operations both at large
industrial and biotech firms and in smaller businesses and residential development. Nonresidential
energy use contributes approximately 31% of baseline emissions. Reflecting the city's strong
biotechnology industry, the biotechnology and manufacturing sectors are among the highest
consumers of electricity and natural gas. Top nonresidential energy sectors include biotechnology,
high technology industries, food processing, offices, and hospitality. Measures for industry sector
energy efficiency include partnerships with companies and businesses to identify high energy uses,
and implementation of retrofits programs tailored to industry practices and facilities.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
Residential energy use is responsible for approximately 16% of baseline emissions. Nonetheless,
residential energy efficiency also provides the benefit of improving indoor comfort and building
quality while reducing household energy costs. Measures to support residential energy efficiency
focus on participation in energy efficiency programs that provide education, incentives, and financing
for homeowners and aid to low- income residents to conserve energy and weatherize homes.
The City also recognizes that as a growth community, there is a significant opportunity for ensuring
new development utilizes the most energy- efficient building materials and practices available.
Enforcing code standards and providing incentives to encourage the use of sustainable building
construction techniques will help to accomplish this goal.
Measure 3.1: Maximize energy efficiency in the built environment through standards and the plan
review process.
Actions
1. Provide incentives (e.g.,
priority or expedited permit
processing) to encourage
new development to exceed
Title 24 energy efficiency
standards, such as expedited
permitting and fee
reductions, and promote
utility- sponsored and
statewide incentives for
energy efficiency in new
construction and remodels.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 250
Participation Metrics: 90 new single - family houses (20 %), 670
new multi - family units (20 %), and 40 new businesses (20 %)
achieving the CALGreen Tier I standards
11
2. Work with developers of multi - family properties and nonprofit groups to maximize energy
efficiency in new construction.
3. Encourage the use of CALGreen energy efficiency measures as a preferred mitigation for CAP
streamlining.
4. Encourage the use of energy- efficient or smart -grid- integrated appliances in new
development.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAP]
Measure 3.2: Support retrofits to existing residential structures.
Actions
1. Increase
participation
efficiency
residential
y
in energy Implementation Metrics
rebate and
financing programs such as
Energy Upgrade California,
PACE, and the Grow
American Fund.
2. Leverage home
improvement funding to
accomplish energy efficiency
objectives, including funding
for low- and moderate -
income households.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 1,900
Participation Metrics: 300 low- income homes (40 %)
weatherized; 1,450 households (10 %) participating in the basic -level
Energy Upgrade CA program, and 720 households (5 %)
participating in the advanced program; 990 homes (4 %) upgrading
appliances, and 780 new and existing homes (3 %) using smart grid
appliances; 40 for -sale homes (5 %) receiving upgrades as part of the
sales process
WroTt�,f E_'Z;
3. Work with PG &E, San Mateo County Energy Upgrade, and other partners to provide free to
low -cost energy audits that identify improvements which could reduce natural gas and
electricity consumption.
4. Continue to seek funding to support green building and weatherization- training programs
from local community colleges and partnerships like the Clean Energy Programs at the San
Jose /Evergreen Community College District and the California Green Jobs Corp training.
5. Encourage all residential properties that are greater than 10 years old to provide an energy
audit or EPA Home Energy Score to interested buyers at the time of sale, and encourage the
implementation of recommended energy efficiency measures provided by the energy audit,
home energy score, or similar program.
6. Provide resources for individuals to self -audit their homes.
7. Require alterations or additions at least 50% the size of the original building to comply with
minimum CALGreen requirements.
8. Promote rebate programs for household appliances such as refrigerators, kitchen appliances,
and washers and dryers as programs are available, including rebates from the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District.
9. Provide educational information on the use of smart -grid- integrated appliances through the
City's website and during the plan review process.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
ITCTIO __L L
Measure 33: Encourage energy efficiency retrofits to the existing nonresidential building stock that
reduce operating costs and increase industry competitiveness.
Actions
1. Work with PG &E to
implement smart grid
technology in nonresidential
properties.
2. Encourage all nonresidential
properties to provide buyers
or tenants with the previous
year's energy use by
documenting use through
the EPA's EnergyStar
Portfolio Manager.
--qw r Measure 3.3: Implementation Metrics
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 9,470
Participation Metrics: 360 businesses (15 %) upgrading
appliances; 50 existing businesses (2%) and 10 new businesses (5%)
using smart grid appliances; 3 million nonresidential square feet
(20 %) being retrocommissioned; 50% of all nonresidential boilers
upgraded to higher- efficiency models; 470 businesses (20 %)
undergoing structural retrofits, and 90 businesses (4%) undergoing
deep retrofits
3. Adopt energy efficiency
streamlining provisions that encourage energy retrofits, such as an online building permit
application with minimal criteria and review.
4. Create a special business designation to recognize businesses that complete energy efficiency
improvements, and create an annual voluntary competition to encourage businesses to
disclose annual energy use for recognition of the highest efficiencies gained.
5. Provide self- auditing forms during the tenant improvement process that target buildings 10
years old or older, providing recommendations of potential retrocommissioning, retrofits, and
deep retrofit opportunities.
6. Require nonresidential alterations or additions of at least 5,000 square feet or greater in size to
comply with minimum CALGreen requirements.
7. Encourage the use of smart grid, energy- efficient, or Energy Star appliances in new
development.
8. Work with utilities and third -party service providers to encourage new and replacement
boilers and water heaters to exceed minimum efficiency standards.
9. Actively engage the nonresidential sector and work with PG &E to implement deep retrofits
and retrocommissioning in the existing nonresidential building stock.
10. Educate businesses about financing options for energy improvements, including California
FIRST property assessed clean energy financing, energy service contracts, and traditional
mortgages and leases.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 4
11. Promote free and low -cost programs, such as RightLights, which provides no -cost energy
assessments in addition to energy- efficient lighting, refrigeration, and other energy- saving
improvements.
Measure 3.4: Address heat island issues and expand the urban forest.
Actions
1. Encourage the use of high -
albedo surfaces and
technologies as appropriate,
as identified in the voluntary
CALGreen standards.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCO2e): 60
Participation Metrics: 810 existing houses (4%) and 50 existing
businesses (2%), and 570 new houses (15 %) and 20 new businesses
(10 %), reducing energy use through cooling strategies
2. Continue to require tree
planting in new
development in accordance
with Chapter 13.30 of the
Zoning Code, and encourage tree placement to maximize building shading.
3. Continue to support private tree planting efforts through the City's urban forestry programs
(e.g., adopt a tree) to maximize the tree canopy within the city and reduce the urban heat
island effect.
4. Continue and expand the local commitment to the urban forest and continue to maintain
South San Francisco's status as a Tree City USA.
Measure 3.5: Promote energy information and sharing, and educate the community about ene
efficient behaviors and construction.
Actions
1. Expand City education
efforts through the City's
Green X -Ray House, a City
project with exposed green
remodel improvements that
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCO2e): 130
Participation Metrics: 2,010 houses (10 %) engaging in
behavioral -based energy reduction efforts
showcase energy
improvements. Y - 3 a C3
2. Encourage South San
Francisco's neighborhoods to use private networking tools such as Nextdoor to share
successful energy efficiency retrofits.
3. Partner with local Realtors, the San Mateo County Association of Realtors, and regional green
building groups to encourage market -based programs for green building labeling as a tool to
encourage energy efficiency through property sales.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
4. Provide outreach and education to encourage behavioral changes (e.g., air - drying clothes,
unplugging appliances, daylighting strategies) that save energy.
Goal EE2: Increase Alternative Energy Options in South San Francisco.
To maximize energy savings and minimize added costs, the energy loading order identifies a scale of
recommended actions, as shown in Figure 13. This goal category follows the energy loading order,
providing renewable energy strategies to reduce the wedge of energy that cannot be eliminated
through energy efficiency.
Before turning to the more costly strategies of renewable energy systems such as solar photovoltaic
systems, the City will encourage low -cost conservation strategies that may include unplugging
appliances and turning off lights when not in use or weatherization improvements. Enhancing
efficiency through energy retrofits yields additional savings when conservation cannot be realized.
These improvements optimize the building envelope, maximizing the efficiency of energy use. The
use of renewable energy systems can then offset remaining energy. Following the loading order
ensures the installation of cost - effective and appropriately sized renewable energy systems.
Figure 13: The Energy Loading Order
• Insulation
Major
• Air & Duct Sealing •Solar Photovoltaic
• Lighting& Plug •Solar Thermal
•Heating
Loads •Wind
•Air Conditioning
• Appliances •Water Catchment
•Ventilation
• Behavior •Water Heating
•Windows
Fundamentals .•
The City of South San Francisco's coastal location and advanced industrial community make the
community well suited to become a leader in innovative renewable energy applications. The intent of
this goal is to increase the adoption of renewable energy technologies at reduced cost as well to
continue growing green industries and local business opportunity. Through this goal, the City will
promote the production of local, on -site, renewable energy for both residential and nonresidential
uses. The goal also identifies a number of financing and streamlining policy tools that will help cut
costs and spur the use of renewable energy.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
F R 4
Measure 4.1: Promote installation of alternative energy facilities.
Actions
1. Continue to provide zoning
that allows appropriate small
and medium -sized
alternative energy
installations.
2. Require the construction of
any new nonresidential
conditioned space 5,000
square feet or more, or the
conversion of unconditioned
space 5,000 square feet or
more, to comply with one of
the following standards:
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 5,100
Participation Metrics: 80,440 (2 %) square feet of nonresidential
roof space converted to solar panels; 1,390 (6 %) houses with solar
panel arrays; 38% of electricity demand for new large -scale
nonresidential development supplied by on -site renewables; 1,050
houses (4 %) with solar water heaters
13
• Meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building
electricity needs with on -site renewable energy
sources. To calculate 50% of building electricity
needs for the new conditioned space, the
applicant shall calculate building electricity use
as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Total
electricity use shall include total use for the new
conditioned space excluding process energy.
• Participate in a power purchase agreement to
offset a minimum of 50% of modeled building
electricity use. Building electricity use shall be
calculated using the method identified above.
• Comply with CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency
requirements to exceed mandatory energy efficiency requirements by 20% or more. For
additions to existing development of 5,000 square feet or more, CALGreen Tier 2 shall be
calculated as part of the Title 24 compliance process. Existing building space already
permitted shall not be subject to CALGreen Tier 2 requirements.
3. Require all new development to install conduit to accommodate wiring for solar.
4. Promote on -site renewable energy or distributed generation energy systems in new and
existing residential and nonresidential projects. Encourage developers of multi - family and
mixed -use projects to provide options for on -site renewable electricity or install distributed
generation energy systems, similar to the statewide Homebuyer Solar program.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
5. Update the City's discretionary review guidelines to recommend the use of on -site renewable
energy facilities for residential development as a preferred mitigation measure for
environmental review and to meet a substantial amount of energy needs with on -site
renewable energy systems, including solar photovoltaics or solar water heaters.
6. Promote the State's CSI - Thermal program, which provides rebates to utility customers who
install solar thermal systems to replace water - heating systems powered by electricity or
natural gas.
Measure 4.2: Reduce the cost of alternative enerav installations.
Actions
1.
Establish a renewable energy
strategy to streamline the
approval of appropriately
sized residential and
commercial renewable
energy projects. _ n
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): Supportive — Not quantified
Participation Metrics: Supportive — Not applicable
2. Participate in regional
programs to facilitate the
bulk purchase of alternative energy equipment (e.g., solar panels through SunShares or similar
programs) to defray the cost of installation for interested businesses, institutions, and
residents.
3. Continue to encourage installation of renewable energy systems through the City's
participation in PACE and Energy Upgrade programs.
4. Educate the community's large business operators about the benefits of tankless and solar
water heaters, and consider working with partners such as San Mateo County Energy Watch
and local contractors to aggregate purchasing demand and negotiate lower equipment and
installation rates.
Measure 43: SUDDort areen industries.
Actions
1. Capitalize on the
sustainability leadership of
local businesses through
economic recruitment and
marketing to green tech and
other competitive industries
for the new green economy.
■ Measure 4.3: Implementation Metrics _7
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): Supportive — Not quantified
Participation Metrics: Supportive — Not applicable
y
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 4
2. Create an annual awards program to recognize ten local businesses a year that have
implemented energy efficiency, waste reduction, or other sustainability efforts.
3. Partner with the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce to create a local business -to-
business network, connecting local contractors to high- energy- consuming businesses with an
interest in efficiency.
4. Partner with the Chamber of Commerce to promote new energy efficiency and renewable
energy technologies that reduce business operation costs.
WASTE
Goal W1: Reduce Waste Disposal Rates and Volumes.
When waste is sent to a landfill, much of it will eventually decompose and emit methane gas (CH4),
which is over 20 times more potent as a GHG than CO2. By reducing the amount of waste sent to a
landfill, the GHG emissions associated with waste disposal can be cut significantly. The measures in
this goal seek to divert waste away from a landfill through increased recycling and the creation of a
citywide composting program. Additionally, this goal promotes the capture and use of methane
emissions to generate alternative energy.
Measure 5.1: Develop a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling and reuse of materials to
achieve a 75% diversion of landfilled waste by 2020.
Actions
1. Continue to work with
property owners and the
South San Francisco
Scavenger Company to
provide recycling and
compost bins to all tenants.
2.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): 6,720
Participation Metrics: 21,520 households (90%) and 2,290
businesses (90%) participating in composting program; all
community residents and employees participating in the increased
recycling efforts
Continue to enforce the
existing construction and
demolition recycling
ordinance, requiring 100% of
inert waste and 65% of non -
inert waste to be recycled from all eligible projects.
(33
3. Continue to work with the South San Francisco Scavenger Company and other waste haulers
to establish new and innovative residential and commercial green waste
recycling /composting services for the city.
4. Continue collaboration with waste haulers to expand educational efforts to increase recycling
and decrease contamination of bins.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
5. Coordinate with the Chamber of Commerce, the existing Bay Area Green Business program, or
CalRecycle's WRAP to establish a program that recognizes and rewards local businesses that
reduce waste associated with their products and services.
6. Implement the City's green 2008 food packaging ordinance and the City's 2012 reusable bag
ordinance.
Measure 5.2: Reduce landfill emissions.
Actions
1. Explore opportunities to
increase methane capture at
the Oyster Point Landfill.
2. Encourage the use of
innovative technologies to
capture landfill emissions
and reuse landfilled waste.
WATER EFFICIENCY
Goal WE1: Conserve Water.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCO2e): Supportive – Not quantified
Participation Metrics: Supportive – Not applicable
0 r
Water consumption requires energy to pump, treat, distribute, collect, and discharge water as it is
used by the community, which results in greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions also
occur as a direct process from wastewater treatment. Outdoor water use for landscaping in both the
industrial and residential areas of South San Francisco is a significant portion of overall water
consumption. Conservation and more efficient outdoor water use are the focus of strategies to reduce
GHG emissions for the City.
Measure 6.1: Reduce water demand.
Actions
1. Continue to support Implementation
implementation of the — 2020 GHG Reduction (MTCO2e): 250
Urban Water Management Participation Metrics: 1.03 billion gallons of water and 1,346,020
Plan to reduce potable water kWh saved annually
use by at least 20 %.
2. Revitalize implementation u ::
and enforcement of the LJ
Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance by undertaking the following:
• Establishing a variable -speed pump exchange for water features.
• Limiting turf area in commercial and large multi - family projects.
• Restricting hours of irrigation to occur between 3:00 a.m. and two hours after sunrise.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
• Installing irrigation controllers with rain sensors.
• Landscaping with native, water - efficient plants.
• Installing drip irrigation systems.
• Reducing impervious surfaces.
3. Work with water providers to support the installation of smart water meters on all water
accounts in the city.
Measure 6.2: Provide alternative water resources for irrigation.
Actions
1. Create water policies for the
stormwater management'
strategy that seek to capture
storm runoff (e.g., bioswale,
rainwater collection, and
irrigation programs).
2. Continue to implement the
City's Water Efficient
Landscape Guidelines.
Measure 6.2: Implementation Ad&
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOze): Supportive — Not quantified
Participation Metrics: Supportive — Not applicable
il•
3. Continue to pursue long -term opportunities to implement the Recycled Water Project in
collaboration with the City of San Bruno, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, and
the California Water Service Company (Cal Water).
MUNICIPAL OPERATIONS
Measures addressing municipal operations are important to reduce the City's own GHG emissions and
stand as a model for the community. This goal includes measure to reduce City emissions from all
sectors including building energy and water use, waste, and fleet activities.
Measure7.1: Promote energy efficiency policies at municipal facilities.
Actions
1. Conduct audits of existing
facilities, prioritize
improvements, and upgrade
facilities to save energy.
2. Continue to upgrade traffic
signals, street lighting, and
outdoor lighting with more
efficient equipment.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): Supportive — Not quantified
Participation Metrics: Supportive — Not applicable
to O
3. Continue increase solar electricity use for City operations.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
4. Develop policies related to powering off lights and appliances after hours and after dark.
5. Continue to improve efficiency at the water treatment facility.
Measure 7.2: Conserve municipal
water.
Actions
1. Install
landscaping
properties.
water- efficient
on City
2. Where possible, remove turf
from municipal facilities.
Measure 7.2: Implementation Metrics A-
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOze): Supportive — Not quantified
Participation Metrics: Supportive — Not applicable
3. Retrofit all municipal toilets to low -flow /water- saving models.
4. Conduct training of staff for the use and installation of water - saving irrigation technology and
auditing.
Measure 73: Reduce municipal
waste.
Actions
1. Create a pilot program to
evaluate the issues
associated with running a
composting program.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOZe): Supportive — Not quantified
Participation Metrics: Supportive — Not applicable
i
2. Develop a long -term composting program for municipal facilities.
Measure 7.4: Establish budaetina and administrative practices that support the CAP.
Actions
1. Establish a purchasing policy
that includes:
a. Green office supplies:
Purchase energy -
efficient appliances,
recycled- content
products, and recyclable
and compostable
supplies.
2020 GHG Reduction (MTCOze): Supportive — Not quantified
Participation Metrics: Supportive — Not applicable
A� p
C
b. Green fleet and equipment: Create purchasing orders for replacing less- efficient vehicles
with fuel- efficient vehicles (e.g., hybrids, electric vehicles, and biofuel vehicles).
2. Reduce municipal fleet use by a designated percentage by the year 2020.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 4
3. Create administrative instructions to support telecommuting and flexible work hours for
employees that reflect the culture and practices which are unique to South San Francisco.
4. Develop a process for sharing information on energy and water use in municipal operations
with the public as an educational tool.
5. Establish budgeting and administrative practices that support the CAP.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG REDUCTION STRATEGY
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 5
ADAPTATION AND
RESILIENCY
CHAPTER 5
INTRODUCTION
Even if global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ceased immediately, the already elevated levels of
carbon dioxide (CO,) and other GHGs in the atmosphere are expected to have significant impacts on
the earth's climate. Specifically, South San Francisco is expected to experience the following impacts
from climate change (see Chapter 2 and Appendix A for more details):
• Greater frequency of extreme heat events
• Decline in air quality
• Greater frequency and severity of storms
• Increase in sea level
• Decrease in water and electricity supply
• Ecosystem damage
While the state and local reduction efforts discussed in this Climate Action Plan (CAP or Plan) can help
to reduce the impacts of climate change on South San Francisco, the community is still likely to be
affected. This chapter discusses efforts South San Francisco can take to adapt to the changing climate
and become more resilient to the projected changes.
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ADAPTATION
Existing Climate Adaptation Efforts
California Climate Adaptation Strategy
In 2009, the California Natural Resources Agency released the California Climate Adaptation Strategy
as a guide to state and local agencies on appropriate strategies to adapt to the impacts of climate
change. The guide discusses potential adaptation strategies for biodiversity, oceanic and coastal
resources, energy infrastructure, public health, transportation networks, water management,
agriculture, and forestry.
Cal -Adapt
Cal -Adapt is a website developed by the California Energy Commission and the California Natural
Resources Agency, focusing on climate change effects and adaptation, that presents climate change
data from historical observations and computer models. It allows users to view historic and future
temperature, wildfire risk, rainfall, and other metrics at a range of scales, as shown in Figure 14. The
tool also provides access to scholarly papers to supplement the maps and other data.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCY
Figure 14: Cal -Adapt Sea Level Rise Map and Projections, South San Francisco
LOCAL CLIMATE SNAPSHOTS South San Francisco, CA
' Sea Level Rise
Areas vulnerable to a 100- yearflood event as sea level rises
� ston �meFO
�Gr
a•�n 5¢r -since
9 Carders
9�
Serra oy po-
v�e GW.,•� rgl�•va,
��[D�h, Rvalon
Inundation
Area
` S'.1n HIII F'erx:: ise
Park 1 Valley
• r- .:,,_. f ter I
Sign Hill
Downtown n The -act
Sida
Lindenv. Ie i � • :yi -
3 � t
-' ❑ Use Metric Units
G The Shnpr.
� Curren[ ��
14 In. I'15?
an 6n. ' •
a39, In. I'Ise .& 1
nutty a ai ob-
k. ?' p
Jn j
Mdp dAa 42012 Google -Terms of U Report a map erro
Source: California Energy Commission 2011
❑ SAN MATEO COUNTY
Land Vulnerable to a 100 -Year Flood Event
Estimated
Estimated
IAcreage
Acreage
Percent
in 2000
in 2100
Change
Bay
Area 18,140
23,190
+22°%
coast 2,800
3,470
+19°%
24000ac
16000ac
B000ac
Sac
Coastline Bay Area
Current area at risk
Area at nsk with a 1.4 m sea level rise
disclaimer
As illustrated in Figure 14, one of the important local impacts of climate change is flooding. Because
South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco Bay, much of the city's critical infrastructure and
economic activity is situated along the eastern shore and has heightened risks associated to sea level
rise as a result of climate changes. It is predicted by the State of California that sea levels will rise by
approximately 22% in the Bay Area. This is one of several risk areas. The discussed resources and
measures in this Plan will help South San Francisco reduce its risk through adaptation.
California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide
The California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide, released in 2012 by the California Natural
Resources Agency„ is a document intended to guide local governments in planning how best to adapt
to the impacts of climate change, including discussions of how to conduct a vulnerability assessment
and develop adaptation strategies. The document discusses seven key sectors that are projected to be
impacted by climate change: Public Health, Socioeconomic, and Equity Impacts; Ocean and Coastal
Resources; Water Management; Forest and Rangeland; Biodiversity and Habitat; Agriculture;
Infrastructure. The Climate Adaptation Planning Guide includes information on the sensitivity and
adaptive capability of each sector, the potential risk to each, and additional resources.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 5
Differentiating Reduction and Adaptation Measure:
Reduction and adaptation strategies are closely tied, but whereas reduction measures address the
cause of climate change (energy use, vehicle travel, etc.), adaptation measures address the effects.
Some measures can be both reductive and adaptive; for example, encouraging the use of passive solar
techniques in new development decreases the amount of energy used for heating and cooling (a
reduction measure) and helps protect the building from extreme temperatures (an adaptive strategy).
At times, reduction and adaptation measures can be in conflict (e.g., encouraging an increase in air
conditioner use to address extreme heat). Figure 15 presents examples of complementary and
conflicting adaptation and reduction efforts. Not all adaptation measures are reduction measures, and
vice versa.
Figure 15: Complementary and Conflicting Adaptation and Reduction Actions
Favorable for
adaptation and
reduction efforts
Favorable for
reduction, but
unfavorable for
adaptation efforts
Peak energy
demand
management
Energy- efficient
buildings
Water
conservation
Smart growth I
principles
Source: Bedswortth and Hanak2008
Forestry with non-
native species
Urban forestry
(shade trees)
with high water
demand
Certain biofuels
production
oo
Favorable for
adaptation, but
unfavorable for
reduction efforts
Meeting peak
energy demand
with fossil fuels
Water
desalination
F creased air
nditioner use
Use of drainage
pumps in low -
lying areas
Unfavorable for
adaptation and
reduction efforts
Development in
floodplains
Traditional sprawl
development
Development in
hotter regions
There are two types of adaptation measures: operational changes and increase to adaptive capacity.
Operational measures assess the risk from climate change on sensitive populations and infrastructure,
including addressing climate adaptation in planning and public safety documents. Adaptive capacity
actions help a community prepare for and address the impacts of climate change. Examples include
setting up cooling centers during heat waves and encouraging the use of low- impact development to
help recharge local groundwater supplies.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCY
The measures included in this chapter are meant to serve as a starting point for South San Francisco
by directing operational changes to identify potential impacts and vulnerabilities, but the chapter
does not include adaptive capacity measures to address specific climate change impacts. These
measures are not harmful to or in conflict with the proposed GHG reduction efforts discussed in
Chapter 4 at this time. The adaptation measures are presented in a different format than the GHG
reduction efforts, as they have not been quantified for GHG reductions or cost savings.
PROPOSED POLICIES
To help ensure that climate change adaptation is sufficiently incorporated into future planning efforts,
the following measures are provided to guide the involvement of City staff in coordinating, preparing
for, and educating the public on the potential impacts that climate change may have on South San
Francisco.
Adaptation Measure 1: Participate in regional efforts to analyze and prepare for the impacts of climate
change in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Actions
• Join regional adaptation and resiliency task forces such as that of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Joint Policy Committee (JPC).
• Appoint a staff liaison to attend and participate in regional meetings focusing on adaptation
and resilience, and to report to staff on a regular basis.
Adaptation Measure 2: Ensure that South San Francisco is prepared for the environmental risks and
hazards related to climate change, with particular emphasis on the impacts from sea level rise and the
threats to vulnerable Doaulations.
Actions
• Assess the vulnerability of City facilities and services to anticipated climate change.
• Revise the South San Francisco Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and other applicable documents,
including long -range capital improvement plans, to prioritize climate change issues and best
practices during required updates and as funding permits.
• Regularly train, inform, and solicit feedback from the South San Francisco Fire and Police
departments, as well as other first responders, on the potential risks posed by climate change.
• Incorporate training on and discussion of climate change issues into the Community
Emergency Response Team program.
• Monitor emerging science and public policy related to climate change, and regularly inform
relevant stakeholders of new information.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 5
Adaptation Measure 3: Integrate possible and projected impacts of climate change into local planning
documents and processes.
Actions
• Integrate adaptation to climate change into future updates to the South San Francisco General
Plan, Zoning Code, and other related documents.
• During the development review process, consider possible impacts of climate change on the
project or plan area.
Adaptation Measure 4: Engage the community in preparing for climate change through education for
residents and emDlovees in South San Francisco.
Actions
• Distribute information related to climate change on the City's website and through local
media.
• Continue to promote sustainability education in the South San Francisco Unified School
District.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
ADAPTATION AND RESILIENCY
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 6
IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 6
This chapter identifies the procedure South San Francisco will use to monitor implementation of this
Climate Action Plan (CAP) and presents methods for evaluating the effectiveness of CAP measures as
well as potentially adjusting reduction measures in the future. These procedures are consistent with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15183.5(b)(1)(E) and Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Guidelines Section 4. This chapter also identifies the
standards South San Francisco will implement on a case -by -case basis and identifies initial milestones
for the City to accomplish in using this CAP as a basis for project -level CEQA review.
To ensure the success of this Plan in reducing GHG emissions to 15% below 2005 levels by 2020, South
San Francisco will integrate CAP goals, measures, and actions into other local and regional plans,
programs, and activities. As the City moves forward with updates to the Zoning Code, the General
Plan, Specific Plans, the Housing Element, and other planning efforts, City staff will make sure that
these efforts support and are consistent with the CAP.
IMPLEMENTATION POLICIES AND ACTIONS
Implementing the CAP will require City leadership to execute these measures and report on their
progress. This Plan identifies the responsible department for each measure and offers time frames for
implementing each strategy. Successful implementation also requires regular reporting; staff will
monitor progress toward implementing the CAP and report the progress to the City Council annually.
The CAP monitoring tool being developed in conjunction with this Climate Action Plan will assist
South San Francisco in tracking progress.
Implementation Policy 1: Annually monitor and report progress toward achieving the reduction
target.
Actions
1. Prepare an annual progress report for review and consideration by the City Council.
2. Use the monitoring and reporting tool to assist with annual reports.
3. Identify key staff responsible for annual reporting and monitoring, including members of the
South San Francisco Green Team.
4. Integrate CAP monitoring and reporting into the annual General Plan reporting process, using
the CAP monitoring tool to provide metrics for the annual report to the City Council on
General Plan implementation.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation Policy 2: Update the baseline GHG emissions inventory and Climate Action Plan every
five years.
Actions
1. Prepare an inventory of 2010 community -wide GHG emissions no later than 2018.
Update the CAP no later than 2018 to incorporate the 2010 inventory and to reflect the adoption and
implementation of new technologies, programs, and policies to reduce GHG emissions.
Continue to update and amend the CAP as necessary if the City finds that individual measures are not
achieving the intended GHG emissions reductions.
Implementation Policy 3: Continue to develop partnerships that support implementation of the
Climate Action Plan.
Actions
1. Continue formal memberships and participation in, as well as informal collaboration with,
local and regional organizations that provide tools and support for energy efficiency,
alternative transit, waste minimization, water conservation, renewable energy, GHG emissions
reduction, climate change adaptation, sustainability education, and implementation of this
Plan.
2. Work with the BAAQMD to ensure new guidelines and opportunities are integrated into the
CAP.
3. Continue to participate in the Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (RICAPS) to
monitor CAP implementation and support regional progress toward GHG reductions.
Implementation Policv 4: Secure necessary funding to implement the Climate Action Plan.
Actions
1. Identify funding sources for reduction measures as part of the annual reporting.
2. Ensure implementation by including emissions reduction objectives in department budgets
starting in the 2014/2015 fiscal year, the capital improvement program, and other City plans as
appropriate.
3. Pursue local, regional, state, and federal grants as appropriate to support implementation.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
TER 6
Implementation Policy 5: Integrate the Climate Action Plan development checklist (Appendix E) into
the plan review process and assessment of progress toward Climate Action Plan goals.
Actions
1. Work with South San Francisco residents and developers to use the development checklist to
ensuring project consistency with the CAP and, as appropriate, for CEQA streamlining.
2. Track development checklist metrics to monitor compliance General Plan policies and
objectives, such as the increase of multi - family units in the El Camino Real area.
3. Monitor project compliance with the CAP through the development checklist and, as
necessary, to guide updates to the CAP that - reflect lessons learned through implementation.
4. Monitor state and BAAQMD actions to identify future changes and modifications to the state
or BAAQMD CEQA guidelines that affect implementation of the CAP.
5. Create a case study highlighting the benefits, lessons learned, and feedback from
implementation of the development checklist, and distribute to regional partners.
IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
The implementation matrix below is intended to provide an overall, planning -level framework for
achieving the reductions discussed in this Plan. This matrix discusses each measure, a proposed time
frame for implementation, the responsible City agency, possible partner agencies, and the
community -wide financial costs and savings. Note that most community costs are upfront one -time
expenses, while savings are achieved each year. A measure that has a high cost but medium -high
savings may be initially be more expensive to implement, but is likely to save money in the long term
as annual savings are factored in.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
In order to ensure successful implementation and evaluation of the GHG reduction measures included
in this Climate Action Plan, the following criteria have been identified in this Plan or the associated
implementation matrix:
• Time Frame
• Responsible Department
• Partner Agencies
• Community Costs
• Community Savings
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation Time Frame is established for each measure based on community priorities, local
goals, and the availability of technological innovations to implement each measure. Time frames are
presented as the following ranges:
Time Frame
Ongoing
YearRange
Existing effort that will continue to be implemented
Near -Term
Implemented between 2013 and 2015
Mid -Term
Implemented no later than 2020
Long -Term
Implemented by 2035
Responsible Department will identify the City department that will be responsible for implementing
each measure, securing funding resources, reporting on annual progress, and coordinating with the
supporting agencies.
Partner Agencies are the public and private local and regional entities that will be a partner or lead in
the implementation of certain actions. Examples of supporting agencies are San Mateo County Energy
Watch, PG &E, or the South San Francisco Scavenger Company.
Community Costs and Savings are included when applicable. This analysis identifies the added costs
for purchasing or incorporating more expensive, energy- saving materials and technology such as
hybrid or electric vehicles, equipment to reduce or monitor energy use, and renewable energy
installations. It is anticipated that any added costs identified in this analysis should be offset through
future energy, fuel, water, or other savings, providing monetary savings that outweigh the added
upfront costs. These cost estimates are provided as a range or scale to emphasize the estimated
nature of this indicator and allow for cross - sector comparisons. Note that municipal costs for City
government activities are not estimated, since costs will vary greatly based on the range of
implementation. All municipal costs will also be further analyzed through subsequent department
budgets and capital improvement programs.
The following cost ranges are presented for community costs:
Costs —AM
0 -1,000
Range
Minimal
1,000- 25,000
Low
25,001- 100,000
Low -Mid
100,001- 200,000
Medium
200,001- 500,000
Medium -High
Over 500,000
High
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 6
For some measures, there are too many uncertainties to accurately estimate costs and /or savings.
Costs and savings have not been estimated for supportive measures. For more details on the specific
actions of each measure, the expected savinqs, and the methods used to estimate costs, see
Appendix D. The implementation matrix is presented in Table 10.
Table 10: Implementation Matrix
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Time
Res p on s i b1jjF"Pa`rtn
e r
Community
Community
L!LasureM
Frame
Department
Agencies
Costs
Savings
1.1 Alternative
Mid -Term
Economic &
MTC, Peninsula
Minimal
High
Transportation
Community
Alliance,
Development
C /CAG
1.2
Employee
Mid -Term
Economic &
MTC, Peninsula
Minimal
High
Commutes
Community
Alliance, BART,
Development
SamTrans,
Caltrain, C /CAG
1.3
High- Density
Long -Term
Economic &
ABAG„ MTC
Minimal
High
and Mixed -Use
Community
Development
Development
2.1
Alternative-
Mid -Term
Economic &
South San
High
Medium -High
Fuel Vehicles
Community
Francisco
Development
Scavenger Co.,
South San
Francisco
Yellow Cab
Company
2.2
Off -Road
Mid -Term
Economic &
BAAQMD
Unknown
Unknown
Vehicles and
Community
Equipment
Development/
Public Works
3.1
New
Near -Term
Economic &
San Mateo
High
Medium -High
Construction
Community
County Energy
Energy
Development
Watch, PG &E
Efficiency
3.2
Residential
Near -Term
Economic &
PG &E, San
High
High
Energy
Community
Mateo County
Efficiency
Development
Energy Watch,
BAAQMD, San
Mateo County
Association of
Realtors
3.3
Nonresidential
Mid -Term
Economic &
PG &E,
High
High
Energy
Community
BAAQMD,
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Time
..
Community
Measure
Frame
D ..
r g
Efficiency
Development
South San
Francisco
Chamber of
Commerce,
Bay Area Green
Business
Program
3.4
Urban Cooling
Mid -Term
Economic &
Arbor Day
Unknown
Medium -Low
Community
Foundation
Development/
Parks and
Recreation
3.5
Energy
Mid -Term
Economic &
PG &E, San
High
Medium -High
Efficiency
Community
Mateo County
Behavior and
Development
Association of
Education
Realtors
4.1
Alternative
Long -Term
Economic &
PG &E
Unknown
High
Energy
Community
Development
4.2
Alternative
Near -Term
Economic &
PG &E, San
Supportive -
Supportive -
Energy Cost
Community
Mateo County
Not quantified
Not quantified
Development
Energy Watch
4.3
Green Industry
Mid -Term
Economic &
South San
Supportive -
Supportive -
Community
Francisco
Not quantified
Not quantified
Development
Chamber of
Commerce
5.1
Waste
Mid -Term
Public Works
South San
Minimal
Minimal
Reduction
Francisco
Scavenger Co.,
South San
Francisco
Chamber of
Commerce,
CalRecycle
5.2
Landfill
Mid -Term
Public Works
Supportive -
Supportive -
Emissions
Not quantified
Not quantified
6.1
Water Demand
Near -Term
Public Works
Cal Water,
Minimal
High
Westborough
Water District
6.2
Irrigation
Long -Term
Public Works/
SFPUC, Cal
Supportive -
Supportive -
Economic and
Water, City of
Not quantified
Not quantified
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CHAPTER 6
DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
City staff will take a lead role integrating CAP actions into plans, programs, and policies. In addition,
City staff will use the development checklist provided in Appendix E to identify applicable CAP
measures for ministerial and discretionary projects. The checklist serves as a tool for City staff to
identify required mitigation standards. The checklist also helps project applicants understand
additional voluntary measures that would support sustainability. City staff will use the checklist to
encourage optimal development patterns within the community.
The checklist serves as the summary of project -level standards from the CAP, functioning as the City's
one -stop shop for greenhouse gas analysis and mitigation under CEQA. The City will ensure
appropriate use of the CAP for CEQA streamlining by maintaining the prerogative to identify
appropriate mandatory and voluntary measures to integrate into project design or mitigation on a
project -by- project basis. The City will use the development checklist and work with project applicants
to determine the appropriate use of the CEQA benefits of the Climate Action Plan.
For discretionary projects seeking to use CEQA streamlining provisions, the City may require measures
in this CAP as mandatory conditions of approval or as mitigation identified in a mitigated negative
declaration or in an environmental impact report, as appropriate, on a project -by- project basis. This
approach allows the City to ensure that new development can benefit from CEQA streamlining
provisions while also ensuring that the City can achieve the reduction targets outlined in this Plan.
While the checklist is an important tool to assist City staff with CAP implementation, City staff will use
it in conjunction with the CAP monitoring tool described earlier. The development checklist allows the
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Time
Responsible
.
Measure
Frame
16
D .. irtment
"gencies
a
Community
San Bruno
Development
7.1
Municipal
Near -Term
Public Works
San Mateo
Supportive -
Supportive -
Energy
County Energy
Not quantified
Not quantified
Efficiency
Watch, PG &E
7.2
Municipal
Near -Term
Public Works
San Mateo
Supportive -
Supportive -
Water
County Energy
Not quantified
Not quantified
Conservation
Watch, C /CAG,
PG &E
7.3
Municipal
Mid -Term
Public Works
South San
Supportive -
Supportive -
Waste
Francisco
Not quantified
Not quantified
Reduction
Scavenger Co.
7.4
Municipal
Near -Term
City Manager
San Mateo
Supportive -
Supportive -
Administration
County Energy
Not quantified
Not quantified
Watch
DEVELOPMENT CHECKLIST
City staff will take a lead role integrating CAP actions into plans, programs, and policies. In addition,
City staff will use the development checklist provided in Appendix E to identify applicable CAP
measures for ministerial and discretionary projects. The checklist serves as a tool for City staff to
identify required mitigation standards. The checklist also helps project applicants understand
additional voluntary measures that would support sustainability. City staff will use the checklist to
encourage optimal development patterns within the community.
The checklist serves as the summary of project -level standards from the CAP, functioning as the City's
one -stop shop for greenhouse gas analysis and mitigation under CEQA. The City will ensure
appropriate use of the CAP for CEQA streamlining by maintaining the prerogative to identify
appropriate mandatory and voluntary measures to integrate into project design or mitigation on a
project -by- project basis. The City will use the development checklist and work with project applicants
to determine the appropriate use of the CEQA benefits of the Climate Action Plan.
For discretionary projects seeking to use CEQA streamlining provisions, the City may require measures
in this CAP as mandatory conditions of approval or as mitigation identified in a mitigated negative
declaration or in an environmental impact report, as appropriate, on a project -by- project basis. This
approach allows the City to ensure that new development can benefit from CEQA streamlining
provisions while also ensuring that the City can achieve the reduction targets outlined in this Plan.
While the checklist is an important tool to assist City staff with CAP implementation, City staff will use
it in conjunction with the CAP monitoring tool described earlier. The development checklist allows the
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION
City to track compliance for projects through the plan review process. Other individual and private
actions do not go through plan review, such as behavioral changes in energy use or increased public
transit ridership. The City will estimate the impact of these actions through the CAP monitoring tool
described above.
MONITORING AND UPDATING THE PLAN
South San Francisco will use the multiple tools provided by this CAP to track, monitor, and update the
Plan. As the City reports implementation progress, staff will evaluate the effectiveness of each
measure to ensure that the anticipated GHG reductions are occurring. In the event that GHG
reductions are less significant than expected, South San Francisco is able to modify existing policies or
add additional policies to the CAP in order to ensure that the community achieves its local reduction
target.
The City of South San Francisco has multiple opportunities to track and implement this CAP. In
addition to the CAP monitoring tool, implementation matrix, and development checklist, the City is
also participating in the Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (RICAPS) effort led by San
Mateo County Energy Watch and the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County
(C /CAG). The City will use outputs from the CAP monitoring tool to participate in the regional RICAPS
implementation effort. RICAPS will provide an online platform to track regional GHG reductions.
Additionally, RICAPS will also serve as a forum for ongoing regional partnerships. Together with other
agencies participating in the RICAPS effort, the City will work to identify new opportunities to support
CAP implementation.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GLOSSARY
GLOSSARY
GLOSSARY
Air Basin: A land area with generally similar meteorological and geographic conditions throughout.
To the extent possible, air basin boundaries are defined by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
along political boundary lines and include both the source and receptor areas. California is currently
divided into 15 air basins. South San Francisco is in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
Air Pollutants: Amounts of foreign and /or natural substances occurring in the atmosphere that may
result in adverse effects to humans, animals, vegetation, and /or materials.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA): Commonly referred to as the Stimulus Plan or
Recovery Act, ARRA is an economic stimulus package enacted by the federal government in 2009. The
intent of the stimulus is to create jobs and promote investment and consumer spending during the
economic recession.
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Establishes a
comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to achieve real, quantifiable, cost -
effective reductions of greenhouse gases (GHG) for the State of California. AB 32 designates the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) as the responsible agency for monitoring and reducing
statewide GHG emissions to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Assembly Bill (AB) 811: Authorizes all cities and counties in California to designate areas within
which willing property owners may finance the installation of distributed renewable energy
generation, as well as energy efficiency improvements, through low- interest loans. These financing
programs are commonly referred to as Property Assessed Clean Energy, or PACE, programs.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG): The regional planning agency for the 9 counties and
101 incorporated cities in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Buildout: Development of land to its full potential or theoretical capacity as permitted under current
or proposed planning or zoning designations.
Business -as -Usual (BAU): A business -as -usual projection forecasts greenhouse gas emissions without
regulatory or technical intervention to reduce GHG emissions.
California Air Resources Board (CARB): A division of the California Environmental Protection Agency
charged with protecting public health, welfare, and ecological resources through the reduction of air
pollutants.
California Climate Adaptation Strategy (CAS): Summarizes the best -known science on climate
change impacts to California and provides recommendations on how to manage the risks.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): A state law requiring state and local agencies to
regulate activities with consideration for environmental protection. If a proposed activity has the
potential for a significant adverse environmental impact, an environmental impact report (EIR) must
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GLOSSARY
be prepared and certified as to its adequacy before action can be taken on the proposed project.
General plans require the preparation of a program EIR.
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen): The 2010 California Green Building
Standards Code, commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction
code that was developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the
Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new
residential and commercial buildings to comply with mandatory measures under the topics of
planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and
resource efficiency, and environmental quality. CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures
that local governments may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green
building topics.
California Solar Initiative (CSI): Allows the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to provide
incentives to install solar technology on existing residential, commercial, nonprofit, and governmental
buildings if they are customers of the state's investor -owned utilities: Pacific Gas & Electric (PG &E), San
Diego Gas & Electric (SDG &E), or Southern California Edison (SCE).
Carbon Dioxide (CO2): A colorless, odorless gas that occurs naturally in the earth's atmosphere.
Significant quantities are also emitted into the air by fossil fuel combustion.
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent KOM: A metric measure used to compare the emissions from various
greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential (GWP).The carbon dioxide equivalent for a
gas is derived by multiplying the tons of the gas by the associated GWP.
Carbon Sequestration: The process through which agricultural and forestry practices remove carbon
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. The term "carbon sinks" is also used to describe agricultural and
forestry lands that absorb CO2.
Car Sharing: A type of car rental where people rent cars for short periods of time, often by the hour.
Clean Air Act: Requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for six common air pollutants, known as "criteria pollutants," that are found all over
the United States: particle pollution (particulate matter), ground -level ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur
oxides, nitrogen oxides, and lead. The EPA regulates the pollutants by developing human health —
based and /or environmentally based criteria (science -based guidelines) for setting permissible levels.
Clean Car Fuel Standards (AB 1493, Pavley): Signed into law in 2002 and commonly referred to as
Pavley standards. Requires carmakers to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger cars and light
trucks beginning in 2011. CARB anticipates that the Pavley standards will reduce GHG emissions from
new California passenger vehicles by about 22% in 2012 and by about 30% in 2016, all while
improving fuel efficiency and reducing motorists' costs.
Climate Action Plan (CAP): A strategic plan that establishes policies and programs for reducing (or
mitigating) a community's GHG emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GLOSSARY
Climate Change (also referred to as global climate change): The term "climate change" is
sometimes used to refer to all forms of climatic inconsistency, but because the earth's climate is never
static, the term is more properly used to imply a significant change from one climatic condition to
another. In some cases, climate change has been used synonymously with the term "global warming ";
scientists, however, tend to use the term in the wider sense to also include natural changes in climate.
Climate Change Adaptation: The adjustment in natural or human systems to respond to actual or
expected climate changes to minimize harm or take advantage of beneficial opportunities.
Climate Change Mitigation: A technical or behavioral intervention to reduce the sources of
greenhouse gas emissions in order to reduce the potential effects of climate change.
Climate Zone: The California Energy Commission (CEC) has classified the distinct climates throughout
California by climate zone to recognize the variability in energy use based on local weather patterns.
The CEC uses these climate zones to determine energy budgets for new and renovated buildings and
prescriptive packages for each climate zone to ensure that they meet the State's Title 24 energy
efficiency standards.
Co- Benefits: An additional benefit occurring from the implementation of a GHG reduction measure
that is not directly related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Complete Streets: Complete streets policies ensure that transportation planners and engineers
consistently design and operate the entire roadway with all potential users in mind. This includes private
vehicles, bicyclists, public transportation vehicles and riders, and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. In
2007, the State of California adopted AB 1358, which directs the legislative body of a city or county, upon
revision of the circulation element of its general plan, to identify how the jurisdiction will provide for the
routine accommodation of all users.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): A fossil fuel substitute for gasoline, diesel, or propane that can be
used in passenger and heavy -duty vehicles.
Conditioned Space: An enclosed space capable of being heated or cooled. Directly conditioned
space contains heating and /or cooling equipment of a set capacity. Indirectly conditioned space is
either naturally ventilated or is located adjacent to a directly conditioned space and allows for
sufficient heat transfer. Precisely defined in the California Building Standards Code.
Conservation: Planned management of a natural resource to prevent exploitation, destruction, or
neglect.
Construction and Demolition Waste (C &D): C &D materials consist of the waste generated during
the construction, demolition, or renovation of buildings, roads, and other construction projects. C &D
materials may include heavy, bulky materials such as concrete, glass, wood, and metal, among other
materials.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GLOSSARY
Deep Retrofit: A building retrofit that includes extensive upgrades to a building's shell and
distributed systems, including heating /ventilation /air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting. Deep retrofits
require more resources than a standard retrofit, but result in greater energy and cost savings.
Distributed Energy Resources (DER): Small, modular, energy generation and storage technologies
that provide electric capacity or energy located where it's needed. DERs typically produce less than 10
megawatts (MW) of power and include wind turbines, photovoltaic (PV), fuel cells, micro turbines,
reciprocating engines, combustion turbines, cogeneration, and energy storage systems. DER systems
may be either connected to the local electric power grid or isolated from the grid in stand -alone
applications.
Emission Standard: The maximum amount of pollutant legally permitted to be discharged from a
single source, either mobile or stationary.
Energy Conservation: Reducing energy waste, such as turning off lights, heating, and motors when
not needed.
Energy Efficiency: Doing the same or more work with less energy, such as replacing incandescent
light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs or buying an Energy Star appliance to use less energy
for the same or greater output.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant ( EECBG): The EECBG program was funded through
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and is managed by the US Department of Energy to
assist cities, counties, states, and territories to develop, promote, and implement energy efficiency and
conservation programs and projects.
Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6): Title 24 standards were first adopted in 1978 and
established minimum energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. These
standards are updated continually by providing more stringent energy budgets for new buildings in
an effort to reduce California's energy consumption.
Energy Star: A joint program of the US Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of
Energy to provide consumers with information and incentives to purchase the most energy- efficient
products available.
Energy Star Portfolio Manager: An online management tool that allows nonresidential building
owners and tenants to track and assess energy and water use over time. Benchmarking energy and
water use allows building owners to identify investment priorities, determine underperforming
buildings, and verify efficiency improvements.
Environment: In CEQA, "the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by
a proposed project, including land, air, water, mineral, flora, fauna, noise, and objects of historic or
aesthetic significance."
Environmental Impact Report (EIR): A report required by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) that assesses all the environmental characteristics of an area and determines what effects or
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GLOSSARY
impacts will result if the area is altered or disturbed by a proposed action or project. See California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP): California law requires state government to practice
environmentally preferable purchasing, which is the procurement of goods and services that have a
reduced impact on human health and the environment as compared to other goods and services
serving the same purpose.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable time taking into
account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.
Fossil Fuel Facilities: Include, but are not limited to, oil and gas wells, separators, and refineries.
Global Warming Potential (GWP): An index used to translate the level of emissions of various gases
into a common measure in order to compare the relative potency of different gases without directly
calculating the changes in atmospheric concentrations. Greenhouse gases are expressed in terms of
carbon dioxide equivalent. Global warming potentials are expressed in terms relative to carbon
dioxide, which has a global warming potential of 1.
Graywater: Wastewater collected from showers, bathtubs, bathroom sinks, and clothes washing
machines that is reused on site for irrigation purposes.
Green Building: Sustainable or "green" building is a holistic approach to design, construction, and
demolition that minimizes the building's impact on the environment, the occupants, and the
community. See the California Green Building Standards Code for green building regulations in
California.
Greenhouse Gas or Greenhouse Gases (GHG): Gases which cause heat to be trapped in the
atmosphere, warming the earth. Greenhouse gases are necessary to keep the earth warm, but
increasing concentrations of these gases are implicated in global climate change. Greenhouse gases
include all of the following: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The majority of greenhouse gases come from natural
sources, although human activity is also a major contributor.
Greenhouse Gas Inventory: A greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory provides estimates of the amount of
GHGs emitted to and removed from the atmosphere by human activities. A city or county that
conducts an inventory looks at both community emission sources and emissions from government
operations. A base year is chosen and used to gather all data from that year. Inventories include data
collection from such things as vehicle miles traveled (VMT), energy usage from electricity and gas, and
waste. Inventories include estimates for carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CHJ, nitrous oxide (N,O),
sulfur hexafluoride (SFJ, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), which are referred
to as the six Kyoto gases.
Green Waste: Refers to lawn, garden, or park plant trimmings and materials and can be used in home
composters or picked up curbside by municipal waste haulers.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GLOSSARY
Indicator: Types of data or information that can be used to determine the progress or success of each
reduction measure.
LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a standard established by the US Green
Building Council.
Life -Cycle Costing (LCC): The process of evaluating the total overall costs and benefits of buildings or
equipment over time, including initial costs of design and construction; operating costs; long -term
costs of maintenance, repair, and replacement; and other environmental or social costs over its full life,
rather than simply based on purchase cost alone.
Light- Emitting Diode (LED): A lower energy consuming and longer - lasting alternative to
incandescent and compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (S- 01 -07): An executive order from former Governor Schwarzenegger,
the Low Carbon Fuel Standard established the goal of reducing the carbon intensity of transportation
fuels in California by 10% by 2020.
Low Impact Development (LID): An innovative stormwater management approach with a basic
principle to design the built environment to remain a functioning part of an ecosystem rather than
exist apart from it. LID's goal is to mimic a site's predevelopment hydrology by using design
techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to its source.
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): A federally funded transportation planning
organization comprising representatives from local government agencies and transportation
authorities. See Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) for more information on the local MPO.
Mixed Use: Properties on which various uses such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential
are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with
significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A single site may include
contiguous properties.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: The prescribed level of pollutants in the outside air that
cannot be exceeded legally during a specified time in a specified geographical area.
Native Species: A species within its natural range or natural zone of dispersal, i.e., within the range it
would or could occupy without direct or indirect introduction and /or care by humans.
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV): Small, battery - powered, low -speed electric vehicles. NEVs are
typically limited to streets with a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less. NEVs are classified by the
California Air Resources Board as zero - emissions vehicles, as they do not produce any tailpipe
emissions.
Nonattainment: The condition of not achieving a desired or required level of performance.
Frequently used in reference to air quality.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GLOSSARY
Nonrenewable Energy: Energy from sources that use a nonrenewable natural resource such as
uranium or fossil fuels such as coal, oil, or natural gas.
Operations and Maintenance (O &M): Refers to the activities related to the routine, preventive,
predictive, scheduled, and unscheduled actions aimed at preventing equipment failure or decline
with the goal of increasing efficiency, reliability, and safety.
Ordinance: A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or
county.
Ozone: Produced when gases or vapors created by cars, solvents, factories, and pesticides mix and
react in the presence of sunlight. This results in certain health effects such as breathing difficulties,
lung damage, coughing, and chest pains.
Particulate Matter (PM,,) and Fine Particulate Matter (PM,.,): Fine mineral, metal, smoke, soot, and
dust particles suspended in the air. In addition to reducing visibility, particulate matter can lodge in
the lungs and cause serious, long -term respiratory illness and other health problems. The smaller the
size of the particle, the deeper it can penetrate into the lungs and the more difficult it is to expel.
Preservation: To keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction.
Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE): See Assembly Bill 811.
Recycled Water: Wastewater from tubs, toilets, and sinks inside homes and offices that is cleaned
through a treatment process, producing non - potable water that is safe for landscapes, raw vegetable
crops, and agricultural crops.
Reduction Measure: A goal, strategy, program, or set of actions that target and reduce a specific
source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): A long -term blueprint of the region's transportation systems.
The RTP is a federally mandated comprehensive long -range regional planning document that
identifies the region's transportation needs, sets forth an action plan of projects, determines actions
and programs to address the needs and issues, and documents the financial resources needed to
implement the RTP.
Renewable Energy: Energy from sources that regenerate and are less damaging to the environment,
such as solar, wind, biomass, and small -scale hydroelectric power.
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS): A regulation requiring utility companies in California to
increase the production of renewable energy from solar, wind, biomass, or geothermal sources.
Retrofit Upon Sale: Requirements on real property to replace inefficient water or energy fixtures as a
condition of escrow. Retrofit upon sale requirements typically require a certificate or other form of
verification from local government agencies to ensure that the fixtures are replaced and meet
minimum efficiency requirements.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GLOSSARY
Regionally Integrated Climate Action Planning Suite (RICAPS): A project led by the County of San
Mateo Public Works Department and the City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo
County (C /CAG) to provide GHG reduction measures and tools for quantification to jurisdictions in San
Mateo County.
Safe Routes to School (SR2S or SRTS): A national movement aimed at providing safe environments
to encourage walking and bicycling surrounding local schools through engineering, enforcement,
education, encouragement, and evaluation. Safe Routes to School programs are typically funded
through federal, state, and local grants. SR2S is the California program; SRTS is the national program.
San Mateo County Energy Watch: A partnership between the City /County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) and PG &E to promote energy efficiency programs,
including energy audits, trainings, and the installation of energy- efficient appliances.
Senate Bill (SB) X7 -7: Passed in 2009, SB X7 -7 requires the state to achieve a 20% reduction in per
capita water use by 2020. This law also requires local water providers to set an interim 2015 and a final
2020 community -wide target and demonstrate that projected water use is in compliance with that
target, otherwise funding will be affected.
Senate Bill (SB) 97: Requires lead agencies to analyze GHG emissions and climate change impacts
under CEQA.
Senate Bill (SB) 375: Directs the metropolitan planning organizations in California to create a
Sustainable Communities Strategy as part of the Regional Transportation Plan. The SCS will
demonstrate how the region will achieve the 2020 and 2035 GHG reduction targets for the region set
by CARB.
Senate Bill (SB) 1016: Adopted in 2008, SB 1016 establishes per capita waste disposal rate
requirements and goals for local agencies in California. The requirements are expressed in a pounds
per person per day measurement.
Smart Grid: The smart grid delivers electricity from suppliers to consumers using two -way digital
communications. The smart grid is envisioned to overlay the ordinary electrical grid with an
information and net metering system, which includes smart meters. Smart meters will allow
consumers to become more aware of their energy use and in the future will allow smart grid enabled
appliances to be pre - programmed to operate at a time when electricity use or costs are lowest.
Sustainability: Community use of natural resources in a way that does not jeopardize the ability of
future generations to live and prosper.
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS): The land use element of each MPO's Regional
Transportation Plan as required by SB 375. The SCS will demonstrate how the region will achieve the
2020 and 2035 VMT and GHG reduction targets for the region set by CARB.
Sustainable Development: Development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
GLOSSARY
Transit- Oriented Development (TOD): A mixed -use residential or commercial area designed to
maximize access to transit options.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan: A voluntary or mandatory program developed
by local agencies, large employers, or high traffic commercial services to limit the amount of
congestion and pollution related to transportation demand. TDM plans may include incentives,
regulations, and education about transportation alternatives.
Unbundled Parking: A parking strategy in which parking spaces are rented or sold separately, rather
than automatically included with the rent or purchase price of a residential or commercial unit.
Urban Heat Island: The term "heat island" describes built -up areas that are hotter than nearby rural
areas. On a hot, sunny summer day, roof and pavement surface temperatures can be 50 -90 °F (27-
50 °C) hotter than the air, while shaded or moist surfaces remain close to air temperatures. These
surface urban heat islands, particularly during the summer, have multiple impacts and contribute to
atmospheric urban heat islands. Heat islands can affect communities by increasing summertime peak
energy demand, air conditioning costs, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, heat - related
illness and mortality, and water quality.
Urban Reserve: An area outside of an urban service area but within an urban growth boundary, in
which future development and extension of municipal services are contemplated but not imminent.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A key measure of overall street and highway use. Reducing VMT is
often a major objective in efforts to reduce vehicular congestion and achieve regional air quality goals.
Vulnerable Populations: There are three primary segments of vulnerable populations: those at risk to
adverse climate change impacts due to exposure, sensitivity, or adaptive capacity.
Exposure: Physical conditions may put particular populations at risk to the impacts of climate
change. For instance, populations living in low -lying or coastal areas may be more exposed to
flooding events and sea level rise, while those who work outside may suffer from health - related
issues due to increased temperatures and decreased air quality.
Sensitivity: Certain populations, including young children and those over the age of 65, are
physiologically more sensitive to extreme temperatures and increased instances of air pollution.
Adaptive Capacity: The adaptive capacity of lower- income and institutionalized populations can
be limited due to lower access to the resources necessary to prepare for or react to the long -term
impacts of climate change and the increased frequency of disasters.
Water Conservation: Reducing water use, such as by turning off taps, shortening shower times, and
reducing outdoor irrigation demand.
Water- Efficient Landscape: Native or low- water -using landscapes. Water- efficient landscapes are
required by law in all cities and counties in California to conserve water.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GLOSSARY
Water Use Efficiency: Replacing older technologies and practices in order to accomplish the same
results with less water, for example, by replacing toilets with new high efficiency models and by
installing "smart controllers" in irrigated areas.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Bedsworth, L., and E. Hanak. 2008. Preparing California for a Changing Climate. San Francisco: Public
Policy Institute of California. http: / /www.ppic.org/ content /pubs /report /R_l 108LBR.pdf.
Bromirski, et al. 2012. Coastal Flooding — Potential Projections: 2000 -2100. CEC- 500 - 2012 -011.
Sacramento: CEC. http://www.energy.ca.gov/20]2publications/CEC-500-2012-01 I/CEC-500-2012-
01 I.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012. Additional Auction 1 Summary Statistics. Sacramento:
CARB.
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /cc /capandtrade/ auction /november_ 2012 /auction1_summary _ statistics_2
012g4nov.pdf.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2006a. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. Web
document. Sacramento: CEC.
- -. 2011. Cal- Adapt: Exploring California's Climate Research. Sacramento: CEC. http: / /cal-
adapt.org/.
- -. 2012. Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from
Climate Change in California. CEC- 500 - 2012 -007. Sacramento: CEC.
http: // www .energy.ca.gov /2012pu blications /CEC- 500 - 2012- 007 /CEC- 500 - 2012- 007.pdf.
California High -Speed Rail Authority. 2012. Interactive Route Map. Sacramento.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip—planner.aspx.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2009. California 2008 Statewide Waste
Characterization Study. Sacramento.
http: / /www.calrecycle.ca.gov /Publications /Documents /General /2009023.pdf.
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA). 2009.2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy.
Sacramento: CNRA.
http: / /resou rces.ca.gov /cli mate_ adaptation /docs/ Statewide _Adaptation_Strategy.pdf.
- -. 2012. California Climate Adaptation Planning Guide. Sacramento: CNRA.
http: / /resources.ca.gov /climate_ adaptation /local_ government /adaptation_policy _ guide.html.
Cayan, D., et al. 2012. Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for California Vulnerability and
Adaptation Assessment. CEC- 500 - 2012 -008. Sacramento: CEC.
http: / /www.energy.ca.gov /2012pu blications /CEC- 500 - 2012- 008 /CEC- 500 - 2012- 008.pdf.
City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG). 2012. San Bruno /South San
Francisco Community -Based Transportation Plan.
City of South San Francisco. 2010. South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance. South San Francisco, CA.
http://zoning.ssf.net/zopdfs/complete.pdf.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
REFERENCES
- -. 2011. City of South San Francisco General Plan. South San Francisco, CA.
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360
- -. 2012. Aircraft Noise Insulation Program. South San Francisco, CA.
http://ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=249.
2012. Green X -Ray House. South San Francisco, CA. http : / /www.ssf.net /index.aspx ?NID =1027.
- -. 2012. October 2012 Genentech Draft Supplemental EIR & Appendices. South San Francisco,
CA. www.ssf.net /DocumentCenter /View /4054.
- -. 2012. August 2012 Genentech Final Supplemental EIR. South San Francisco, CA.
http: / /www.ssf.net /DocumentCenter /View /3911.
n.d. South San Francisco Fast Facts. South San Francisco, CA.
Ekstrom, J. A., and S. C. Moser. 2012. Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerabilities, and Adaptation in the
San Francisco Bay Area: A Synthesis of PIER Program Reports and Other Relevant Research. CEC -
500- 2012 -071. Sacramento: CEC. http:/ /www. energy .ca.gov /2012publications /CEC- 500 -2012-
071 /CEC- 500 - 2012- 071.pdf.
Feely, R. A., et al. 2004. Impact of Anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 System in the Oceans. Science 305
(5682): 362 -366.
Garbarino, R. 2012. Industrial City's Sustainability Initiatives. The Daily Energy Report.
http : / /www.dailyenergyreport.com / industrial - citys- sustainaibiIity- initiatives /.
Genentech, Inc. 2012. Annual Report 2012: Genentech Facilities Ten Year Master Plan. South San
Francisco, CA.
Hadley Centre for Climate Protection and Research. 2009. Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom: Met Office.
http: / /www.metoffice.gov.uk /climate- change /resources /hadley.
Hansen, J., et al. 2008. Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? Atmospheric and Oceanic
Physics 2: 217 -231.
Heberger, M., et al. 2009. The Impacts of Sea -Level Rise on the California Coast. CEC- 500 - 2009 - 024 -F.
Sacramento: CEC. http:/ /www. energy .ca.gov /2009publications /CEC- 500 - 2009 - 024 /CEC- 500 -2009-
024-F.PDF.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007 Synthesis Report:
Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Jacobson, M. Z. 2005. Correction to control of fossil -fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter,
possibly the most effective method of slowing global warming. Journal of Geophysical Research
110:5.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REFERENCES
Margolis, H., A. Gershunov, T. Kim, and R. Trent. 2008. "2006 California Heat Wave High Death Toll:
Insights Gained from Coroner's Reports and Meteorological Characteristics of Event." Epidemiology
19 (6): 363 -364.
http: / /jou rnals.lww.com /epidem /Fu lltext /2008/1 1 001 / 2006_ California _Heat_Wave_High_Death_
Toll_.1000.aspx.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2008. National Climactic Data Center.
Asheville, NC: NOAA. http: / /www.ncdc.noaa.gov /.
One Bay Area. 2012. Final Jobs - Housing Connection Strategy (May 16, 2012). One Bay Area.
http: / /onebayarea.org /regional- initiatives /plan- bay- area /plan - elements /Housing- and - Jobs.html.
Roland - Holst, D., and F. Kahrl. 2008. California Climate Risk and Response. San Francisco: Next 10.
http : / /www.next10.org /california- climate- risk - and - response.
San Mateo County RecycleWorks. n.d. Understanding C &D Recycling Requirements. Redwood City, CA.
http://www.recycleworks.org/pdf/CD—office—guide—pg--�4-5.pdf.
US Census Bureau. 2010.2010 Census, Table DP -1: Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics, South San Francisco, CA. Suitland, MD: US Census Bureau.
- -. 2012. On the Map: South San Francisco, CA. Suitland, MD: US Census Bureau.
http : / /onthemap.ces.census.gov /.
INVENTORY SOURCES
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2009. South San Francisco Population Projections.
Oakland, CA: ABAG.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2012.2008 South San Francisco GHG Inventory.
San Francisco: BAAQMD.
Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART). 2008. BART Greenhouse Gas Inventory Results Report. Oakland,
CA: BART. http: / /www.bart.gov /docs/ BART_ Greenhouse _Gas_Inventory_Report.pdf.
- -. 2010. August 2010 Monthly Ridership Report. Oakland, CA: BART.
http:// 173. 236. 146.14/ ridership /Ridership_August2010.x1sx.
Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency. 2010. Annual Survey and Water Conservation Report.
San Mateo, CA: BAWSCA. http: / /bawsca. org / docs / BAWSCA_ Survey_08_09_FINAL_rev_5_3.pdf.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Clean Car Standards — Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.
- -. 2010. Local Government Operations Protocol, Version I.I.
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /cc/ protocols /localgov /pubs /Igo_protocol_vl _1 _2010- 05- 03.pdf.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
REFERENCES
.2010.OFFROAD 2007. http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /msei /offroad /offroad.htm.
2011. Landfill Emissions Tool, Version 1.3.
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /cc/ protocols /localgov/ pubs /landfill_emissions _ tool_v1 _3_2011- 11- 14.xls.
- -. 2012. Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act.
http: // www .arb.ca.gov /cc /ab32 /ab32.htm.
2012. EMFAC2011. http: // www .arb.ca.gov /msei /modeling.htm.
- - -. 2012. Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program. http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /fuels /lcfs /lcfs.htm.
- -. 2012. Mandatory GHG Reporting Data: Emissions Reported for Calendar Year 2008.
http: / /www.a rb.ca.gov /cc /repo rti n g/g hg-
rep/ reported_ data / mandatory_ reporting_ facility _2008_summary_2012- 03- 12.xlsx.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2010. Disposal Reporting
System: Facility Reports. http: / /www.calrecycle.ca.gov
/LGcentral/ Reports /DRS /Origin /FacSummary.aspx.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2005. California's Water — Energy Relationship.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-01 I /CEC- 700 - 2005 - 011- SF.PDF.
- -. 2006. Refining Estimates of Water - Related Energy Use in California.
http: / /www.energy.ca.gov /2006pu blications /CEC- 500 - 2006 - 118 /CEC- 500 - 2006- 118.PDF.
- - -. 2012. Building Energy Efficiency Program. http : / /www.energy.ca.gov /title24 /.
California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2012. California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS).
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/index.htm.
Caltrain. 2006.2005 Annual Passenger Counts. http: / /www.caltrain.com /Assets
/Stats+ and+ Reports / Ridership / 2005 _Caltrain_Ridership_Counts.pdf.
Federal Transit Administration. 2009. National Transit Database: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit
District (BART) 2008 Agency Profile.
http: // www .ntdprogram.gov /ntdprogram /pu bs/ profiles /2008 /agency profiles /9003.pdf.
Fehr & Peers. 2010. South San Francisco Transportation Baseline and Future Year Inventory
Memorandum. San Francisco: Fehr & Peers.
Gabewell, Inc. 2000. Final Closure and Post - Closure Maintenance Plan, Oyster Point Landfill. San
Francisco: Gabewell, Inc.
ICLEI — Local Governments for Sustainability USA. 2009. City of South San Francisco 2005 Government
Operations Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Oakland, CA: ICLEI. http: / /ca-
southsanfrancisco .civicplus.com /DocumentCenter /Home /View /2473.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
REFERENCES
National Resources Defense Council. 2004. Energy Down the Drain: The Hidden Cost of California's
Water Supply. New York City: NRDC. http: / /www.nrdc.org/ water / conservation /edrain /edrain.pdf.
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E). 2010. Rate Data Analysis: GHG Phase 1 Gas and Electric GHG Summary
for South San Francisco. San Francisco: PG &E.
- -. 2011. Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors Info Sheets.
http: / /www.pge.com /includes /docs /pdfs/ shared / environment / calculator /pge_ghg_emission_ fact
or_info_sheet.pdf.
US Census Bureau. 2011.2009 -2011 American Community Survey, Table 52504: Physical Housing
Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units, South San Francisco, CA. Suitland, MD: US Census
Bureau. http: / /factfinder2 .census.gov /bkmk/table /1.0 /en/ ACS /11_3YR/S2504/1600000US0673262.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development. n.d. SOCDS Building Permit Database.
Washington, D.C.: HUD. http: / /socds.huduser.org /permits /index.html.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
REFERENCES
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX A
SCIENTIFIC AND
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
APPENDIX "
APPENDIX A: SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
In order to develop and implement meaningful and
effective strategies for greenhouse gas reduction and
climate adaptation, it is necessary to understand the
science of climate change and the associated policy
framework. This appendix summarizes the scientific
research of the causes of climate change and its global
implications, providing the rationale behind climate
planning efforts. The discussion of federal, state, regional,
and local regulations regarding climate change from
Chapter 2 should be considered in tandem with this
appendix as the background of this Climate Action Plan's
development.
CLIMATE CHANGE OVERVIEW
The earth's atmosphere contains a number of gases that are
collectively known as greenhouse gases, or GHGs. When sunlight hits the earth, a portion of it is
absorbed and radiated back into the atmosphere as heat. GHGs reflect some of this heat energy into
the atmosphere and down toward the earth's surface instead of allowing it all to escape into space, a
process known as the greenhouse effect as shown in Figure A -1. The greenhouse effect is a natural
and necessary process, as the plane's average temperature would be about -2 degrees Fahrenheit
without the influence of GHGs. However, it is scientific consensus that human activities are rapidly
increasing the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere, resulting in a warming planet. Because the
earth's climate system is driven by the flow of heat, the increasing temperatures result in changes to
the global climate.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
Figure A -1: The Greenhouse Effect
Incoming
Solar
Radiation
Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2008
Absorbed in
atmosphere
by green
bouse gasA
41pr
These changes are often interchangeably referred to as "climate change" and "global warming,"
although there is an appreciable difference. Global warming refers to the average increase of the
earth's temperature caused by increased GHG emissions. Climate change refers to any significant,
lasting, and measurable change in climate caused by either natural factors or human activities.
Climate change is becoming the more prevalent term because it encompasses all changes to the
climate and not only temperature.
Prior to the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere was
approximately 280 parts per million (ppm). In 2012, the average global atmospheric CO2 level was 394
ppm, an increase of about 40 %. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has noted
that this is far above CO2 levels at any time in the past 650,000 years and likely for much longer.
Numerous scientists have advocated that CO2 levels should be reduced to 350 ppm to avoid the most
significant effects of climate change. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of regional climate change
impacts.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIXI
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND AND REGULATORY
FRAMEWORK
In order to lessen the impacts discussed above, efforts are under way at the federal, state, regional,
and local levels. This section discusses the GHG reduction actions of the federal and state
governments. See Chapter 2 for information on regional and local efforts.
FEDERAL FRAMEWORK
Currently, the federal government has not adopted a comprehensive GHG reduction program.
However, there have been a number of efforts, using existing regulations and programs, to reduce
nationwide emissions. The federal government also supports to the efforts of state and local
governments, businesses, and individual residents to reduce their GHGs and plan for climate change,
including by providing educational resources, funding, and analytical tools.
American Reinvestment and Recovery Act — Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block
Grants
Some of the funds authorized by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA, also referred to
as the federal stimulus) of 2009 has been used to support GHG reduction activities as part of the
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) funding. This program, managed by the US
Department of Energy, has provided about $3.2 billion to cities and counties across the country for
energy efficiency and fossil fuel use reductions in buildings and vehicles, reducing GHG emissions in
the process.
Clean Air Act
The Clean Air Act, first signed in 1963, is a federal law used to regulate air pollution at the national
level. One section of the Clean Air Act requires the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
regulate and set emission standards "applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from... new motor
vehicles... which... cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare." In 2003, the EPA declared that CO2 and other GHGs were not air
pollutants and could not be regulated under the act. Several states, including California, filed suit to
reverse this determination. In 2007 the US Supreme Court ruled that GHGs were defined as an air
pollutant under the Clean Air Act, ultimately leading to the EPA reversing its decision.
In 2012, the EPA released a draft set of regulations for new power plants, known as the Carbon
Pollution Standard, requiring all future power plants to release less than a certain volume of GHGs per
amount of electricity generated. These regulations are currently being reviewed and are anticipated to
be implemented in 2013. The EPA has also indicated that it may seek to regulate other sources of
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
California is the fourteenth - largest emitter of GHGs in the world and the second - largest emitter of any
US state. However, California's per capita emissions are lower than all but four states as a result of an
aggressive, proactive, and long- running effort to address climate change at the state level. In 1988,
Assembly Bill (AB) 4420 designated the California Energy Commission as the state's lead agency for
climate change. Since that time, and particularly in the past ten years, there have been numerous
efforts to evaluate, mitigate, and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Some of the primary orders
and laws are summarized below.
Executive Order S -3 -05
Signed in 2005, Executive Order S -3 -05 set the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
• Reduce emissions to 2000 levels by 2010
• Reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020
• Reduce emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050
S -3 -05 also required California's Environmental Protection Agency (CaIEPA) to coordinate with
numerous other state agencies and officials to meet these targets.
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly known as AB 32, is the most well
known of the state's climate change efforts. This landmark piece of legislation requires the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop the regulatory and market -based mechanisms that will allow
the state to meet the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. There are a number of
mandatory actions in AB 32, including:
• Identifying and adopting early actions to begin reducing GHG emissions by 2010. CARB put
forward nine separate measures, including capturing methane from landfills, requiring large
diesel ships to reduce emissions while docked at California ports, and reducing GHG emissions
from air conditioners.
The creation of a scoping plan, identifying the most technically feasible and cost - effective
ways to reduce GHGs. This scoping plan, approved in 2008, includes measures such as the
Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), the Pavley vehicle emissions standards, and a cap -and-
trade program. The plan identifies local governments as a strategic partner in achieving the
statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. The scoping plan also establishes a 15% reduction
below 2005 GHG emissions levels as being the local equivalent of returning to 1990 emissions
levels.
• Requiring the largest industrial sources of GHGs in California to annually report and verify their
emissions.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX A
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, or Senate Bill (SB) 375, is an effort linking
land use, transportation, and housing planning with GHG emissions to support California's reduction
targets. It requires the state's 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to include a Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS) in their regional transportation plans. The SCS is intended to show how
the region will achieve the GHG reduction target set by CARB through various planning - related
strategies.
Cap and Trade
Cap and trade is a mechanism that uses market forces to reduce GHG emissions. Under this type of
program, a government agency sets an enforceable limit on the amount of emissions that can be
produced by a particular source (the "cap "). The agency then allocates a certain number of emissions
allowances to each source, representing the total number of emissions that the source is allowed to
produce. A source that emits less than its cap can auction its extra allowances to another source,
which can use the purchased allowances to temporarily exceed its cap.
In California, a cap- and -trade program was identified as a statewide GHG emissions reduction measure
in the AB 32 scoping plan. CARB, the government agency responsible for the program, developed
California's cap- and -trade mechanism over a multiyear process. Large industrial sources, including
power plants, oil refineries, and factories, are directly responsible for 85% of California's GHG
emissions and will be regulated under the cap- and -trade program. Beginning in 2013, CARB will set a
cap on the participating emission sources, which will be 2% below each source's 2012 emissions
levels. CARB plans to reduce the cap by 2 -3% annually to help achieve the statewide reduction target.
CARB will collect a percentage of the sale price from each allowance auction, which is estimated to
create $1 billion in state revenue for the 2012 -2013 auction period and up to $10 billion annually by
2020. The first auction, which was held on November 14, 2012, resulted in the auction of over 23
million allowances with a mean price of $15.60 each.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (AB 1532),
signed in 2012, guides the revenue generated by the cap- and -trade program. It requires these funds
to be allocated toward measures that meet specific criteria and would be implemented in specific
areas, including:
• Areas in close proximity to sources that produce toxic levels of air pollution and other hazards
that can lead to negative public health effects.
• Areas that contain or produce materials posing a significant hazard to human health and
safety.
• Areas with an elevated concentration of people who experience low income, high
unemployment, low levels of homeownership, high costs of rent, and other socioeconomic
challenges.
Another measure, SB 535, expands upon the effort created by AB 1532. SB 535 requires 10% of the
revenue from cap and trade to be allocated for projects located within the disadvantaged
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
communities as identified by AB 1532. Of the revenue from cap and trade, 25% must be allocated to
projects that benefit such disadvantaged communities.
Senate Bill 97
In 2007, California adopted Senate Bill (SB) 97, which directed the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research (OPR) to amend the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to
address GHG emissions. These guidelines went into effect in 2010 and allow a local government to use
an adopted plan to reduce GHG emissions that is consistent with the CEQA Guidelines in order to
address the cumulative impact of projects on climate change, provided that the reduction plan
includes a certified environmental impact report or other environmental document. In order to benefit
from this streamlining process, a GHG reduction plan must accomplish the following:
• Quantify GHG emissions attributable to activities within a defined geographic area (such as a
city), both existing and projected for future dates.
• Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
that are anticipated within the set geographic area.
• Use substantive evidence to establish a level for GHG emissions below which the contribution
to GHG emissions from activities covered by the reduction plan would not be cumulatively
considerable.
• Establish measures, including performance standards, that substantial evidence shows would
collectively reduce GHG emissions to the set level if implemented on a project -by- project
basis.
• Create a mechanism to monitor the reduction plan's progress toward achieving the level, and
to require amendments if the plan is not achieving the specific levels.
• Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
BAAQMD Guidance and CEQA Tiering
In response to the updated CEQA Guidelines, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
has developed CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to assist a lead agency in evaluating air quality impacts for
projects and plans in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. These guidelines were updated in 2010 to
establish thresholds of significance for impacts related to GHG emissions. These thresholds can be
used to assess plan -level and project -level impacts, allowing a lead agency to determine that a
project's impact on GHG emissions is less than significant if it is in compliance with a Qualified
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy.
This CAP has been written to follow both the state CEQA Guidelines and the BAAQMD Guidelines by
incorporating the standard elements of a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. Because the
Climate Action Plan satisfies the BAAQMD's requirements for a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the
City will be able to determine that future development projects in South San Francisco will have a less
than significant impact on GHG emissions if they comply with this CAP. See Appendix C for details on
how this CAP meets the BAAQMD requirements.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2005 -
E.O. S -3 -05
_
2011-
Establishes GHG
AB B 1 14 493
SB X -1 -2
reduction target
9
CodifiesCARB's
and creates
Requires CARB to
33% Renewables
2006 -
Climate Action
achieve passenger
Portfolio Standard
AB 1881
Team
vehicles and light-
Mandates
duty trucks GHG
landscaping water
reductions
conservation for
new and existing
1989-
2010 & 2012-
development
AB 939
2006 -2008
Updated Title 24
Creates the
AB 32
Increases energy
Integrated Waste
and water
Management
Sets statewide
efficiency in the
Board; requires
GHG reduction
state building
local jurisdictions
targets, and
code
2007-
to meet waste
adoption of AB 32
AB 1420
diversion goals
scoping plan in
Requires urban
2008 identifies
water suppliers to
role of local
2007-
implementwater
governments in
EO S -01 -07
2002-
demand
achieving GHG
Establishes Low
SB 1078
management
g
reductions
Carbon Fuel
Establishesthe
measures
Standard
California
Renewables
Portfolio Standard
Program
2008-
2007 -2010
2009-
SB 1016
SB 97
2008 -
SB X7 -7
Changes statutory
SB 97 directed
SB 375
2006
Sets reduction
waste diversion
updates toCEQA
SB 1368
targets per-
g p
mandates
guidelinesfor
Requires CARB to
Limits long-term
capita urban
progress
GHG guidance;
set regional GHG
g
investments in
water use
measurement
California Natural
reduction targets
power plants that
from absolute to
Resources Agency
for passenger
exceed emissions
percapita
adopts updated
vehicles
standards
guidance
99
SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY
BACKGROUND
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX B
GHG INVENTORY AND
FORECAST REPORT
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B: GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST REPORT
This appendix is intended to discuss the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory in greater detail,
as well as to provide transparency to the Inventory, outline the limitations to the data used in the
Inventory, and provide guidance for future City inventories to maintain consistency in the methods
used. The inventory itself summarizes the results of the City of South San Francisco's baseline GHG
emissions, GHG emissions forecasts, and the setting of GHG emissions reduction targets. Specifically,
the Inventory in this appendix presents the findings and recommendations of the following:
• 2005 Baseline Community -Wide GHG Inventory
• 2020 and 2035 Community -Wide GHG Inventory Forecasts
• GHG reduction targets
This Inventory is a revised draft that incorporates new methods for quantifying emissions, makes use
of newly available data, and is intended to be consistent with current Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) guidance. For more information on BAAQMD compliance, see
Appendix C. The following changes have been made:
• A methane capture rate has been attributed to landfill emissions, reducing GHGs from solid
waste by 75 %. This change was made to comply with standard protocol.
• Direct wastewater emissions (methane produced at the South San Francisco /San Bruno Water
Quality Control Plant) have been added.
• The coefficients used for converting electricity and natural gas activity into GHGs have been
adjusted slightly because PG &E has produced revised figures.
• Point source data, which previously was from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), has
been replaced with data from the BAAQMD for improved accuracy.
• The 2020 and 2035 adjusted business -as -usual (ABAU) scenarios were re- evaluated to include
savings from the implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) and updates to
Title 24.
• Emissions resulting from energy use at the Genentech campus have been removed.
BASELINE GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY BACKGROUND
Purpose
The Inventory is the foundation of South San Francisco's CAP by informing the local government and
the community of South San Francisco's GHG emissions sources, and therefore the primary
opportunities for GHG reductions. The Inventory presents community -wide emissions caused by
activities occurring within the political boundary of South San Francisco and provides a baseline
against which future progress can be measured.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
REPORT
The Inventory presents GHGs from community -wide activities in the calendar year 2005. It forecasts
how community -wide emissions will change by 2020 and 2035, both if no behavioral or regulatory
changes are made (known as a business as usual or BALI scenario) and to account for reduction efforts
mandated by the State of California such as new vehicle standards and renewable energy
requirements (known as the ABAU scenario). Additionally, the Inventory provides City staff, decision -
makers, and Technical Advisory Committee members with adequate information to direct the
development of a CAP and establish additional emissions reduction targets.
The Inventory includes the major sources of GHGs caused by activities in South San Francisco in a
manner consistent with the methods recommended by CARB, ICLEI -Local Governments for
Sustainability, and the BAAQMD. The Inventory analyzes the following emissions sources:
• Energy: Electricity and natural gas used by residential and nonresidential buildings in South
San Francisco.
• Transportation: Vehicle miles traveled (VMTs) within and to /from the community by on -road
vehicles, as well as trips to and from the South San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
and Caltrain commuter rail stations.
• Solid Waste: Methane emissions from the decomposition of waste sent to landfills from South
San Francisco.
• Landfills: Direct emissions from the Oyster Point Landfill located within South San Francisco,
which is no longer in operation but continues to release methane emissions.
• Off -Road: Emissions from construction and lawn & garden equipment and vehicles.
• Water and Wastewater: The amount of energy required to extract, filter, move, and treat all
water used by, as well as the wastewater produced in, South San Francisco. This sector also
includes direct methane emissions caused by the treatment of South San Francisco's
wastewater at the South San Francisco /San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant located within
the community.
• Stationary Sources: Direct emissions from industrial processes located in the city that are
permitted by the BAAQMD.
Relationship to Municipal Inventory
In 2009, the City partnered with ICLEI -Local Governments for Sustainability to create a 2005 GHG
inventory caused by the operations of South San Francisco's municipal government. Many of the
activities and resulting emissions presented in the municipal inventory are part of the categories in
this Inventory (emissions from the municipal vehicle fleet are part of community VMT, energy use at
City facilities is part of community -wide nonresidential energy use, etc.). One source of emissions from
the municipal inventory, direct wastewater, has been called out in this Inventory and presented as a
separate category, as emissions from this activity would not have been represented otherwise.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX B
Data Parameters
The Inventory was developed using the best - available tools, data, and methods. However, as with any
GHG inventory, there are limitations to representing all sources of emissions in a local jurisdiction. The
main factors that limit GHG inventories include data availability, privacy laws, and the lack of a
sufficient method. This section highlights data that cannot be included in the Inventory for these
reasons. Activities excluded due to data availability and privacy laws are expected to total less than 5%
of community -wide emissions, and therefore it is anticipated that their exclusion will have a minimal
impact. Emissions from activities excluded due to the lack of sufficient methods may be considerable,
but it is not possible to estimate their impact on South San Francisco's community inventory as a
result of method constraints.
Data Availability
GHG emissions from the following activities could not be calculated due to the lack of available data.
Propane use: Except for storage and safety issues, propane is generally unregulated in
California, and so no data is collected on sales or usage. Propane is known to be used in South
San Francisco, but an accurate calculation cannot be made. Because propane use is likely to be
quite low in the community, it is expected to contribute only minimally to total emissions.
Refrigerants: Many refrigerants are potent GHGs and can be released into the atmosphere
through leaks or other activities. Because refrigerant sales are not tracked, similar to propane,
emissions resulting from refrigerants cannot be determined.
Privacy Laws
Commercial, industrial, and institutional electricity and natural gas are combined into a
nonresidential category due to the California 15/15 rule, which requires that any aggregated
information provided by the utilities must include at least 15 customers and that a single
customer's load must be less than 15% of an assigned category. If the number of customers in
the compiled data is below 15, or if a single customer's load is more than 15% of the total data,
categories must be combined before the information is released. The rule further requires that
if the 15/15 Rule is triggered for a second time after the data has been screened already using
the 15/15 Rule, the customer must be dropped from the information provided.
Lack of Sufficient Methods
Industry protocol at this time does not recommend inclusion of life -cycle emissions in
community -wide local government GHG inventories. Life -cycle emissions are emissions
associated with the production and disposal of items consumed by a community (sometimes
called "cradle -to- grave "). For instance, a life -cycle assessment of vehicle emissions would
include those from designing, extracting raw materials, producing, delivering, and disposing
of each car in the city. In contrast, this Inventory only captures how much that car is driven in
the community, in a manner consistent with standard protocols. A method for estimating life -
cycle emissions is still under development at this time.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
REPORT
• A variety of off -road equipment, including airplanes, marine vessels, and various recreational
vehicles, contributes to South San Francisco's GHG emissions. However, as of yet, no method
has been devised that would accurately reflect the impacts of these activities.
Informational Items
This category includes emissions from activities that occur within South San Francisco and can be
accurately calculated, but are excluded from the Inventory because the City has little or no ability to
influence the emissions.
• Landfill: The Oyster Point Landfill opened in 1956 and accepted 1.4 million tons of solid waste
before closing at the end of 1969. Although no more waste is being deposited at the site,
material already in place continues to decompose, releasing methane in the process. In the
baseline year of 2005, the Oyster Point Landfill emitted approximately 13,220 MTCO2e. These
emissions will decrease over time and eventually cease automatically. The landfill has been
covered and partially developed, with additional development expected in the future, further
limiting the City's ability to reduce emissions.
• Point Sources: Point sources are large, fixed emitters of GHGs (oil refineries, power plants, and
other significant industrial activities). In 2005, point sources in South San Francisco were
directly responsible for 35,580 MTCO2e. These facilities are regulated by the BAAQMD and
CARB.
• Genentech: South San Francisco is home to the headquarters of Genentech, a large
biotechnology firm. The Genentech campus will be covered under California's cap- and -trade
program, administered by CARB, which is set to reduce the emissions from large sources
significantly by 2020 (see Chapter 2 for more on cap and trade). Based on data from
Genentech's publicly available sustainability reports,' the company's South San Francisco
campus emitted 57,410 MTCO2e in 2005 from electricity and natural gas use. Because the
authority for regulating Genentech's emissions lies with CARB, Genentech's emissions related
to energy use have been removed from the Inventory.2 Additionally, so that Genentech's
growth does not affect the forecast, Genentech's current and projected future employment
numbers have been removed from the community's job figures. For more detail on how
Genentech was removed from the inventory and forecast, see Appendix C.
Key Terms and Timelines
The following terms are used throughout this Inventory and are fundamental to understanding its
contents.
' Sustainability reports available at: http: / /www.gene.com /good /sustainability
2 Based on consultation between the City's consultant, PMC, and BAAQMD during CAP preparation.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX B
Baseline year: The baseline year helps to set the target for GHG reduction efforts, as well as giving the
City a point of comparison for future inventories. This Inventory uses the calendar year 2005 as a
baseline, due to data availability and consistency with Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32).
Carbon dioxide equivalent KOM: A means for representing the six different GHGs (see definition
below) in a single unit by converted the potency of each gas into the equivalent amount of carbon
dioxide. CO2e is often expressed in metric tons (MT), equal to about 2,205 pounds.
Greenhouse gases (GHGs): Gases that trap heat in the earth's atmosphere rather than allowing it to
escape into space, a process known as the greenhouse effect. While this is a naturally occurring
process, human activities are rapidly increasing the concentration of these gases, increasing the
amount of heat held in the atmosphere and affecting global climate patterns. The six common GHGs
are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH,), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF,), although others exist. GHGs are often measured
in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e).
Sector: Emissions are grouped by the type of activity that was responsible for the emissions
(transportation, energy use, etc.), known as sectors. Each sector may have multiple subsectors; for
example, the energy sector contains the subsectors for residential and nonresidential electricity and
natural gas use.
BASELINE COMMUNITY GHG INVENTORY
Summary
Emissions from South San Francisco in the baseline year of 2005 totaled 442,400 MTCO2e, excluding
informational items, as shown in Figure B -1 and Table B -1. Energy use was the single largest source
of emissions, responsible for 206,370 MTCO2e, or about 47% of the community total. Emissions from
transportation were the second - largest category, totaling 196,910 MTCO2e, or about 45% of
community -wide emissions. Off -road emissions were third, at 22,400 MTCO2e (5% of community
emissions). Emissions from solid waste came fourth (14,780 MTCO2e, or 3% of the total), with
emissions from water and wastewater coming in last (1,940 MTCO2e, or less than I%).
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
REPORT
Figure B -1: 2005 Community -Wide Emissions by Sector
Solid Waste
3 %�
Off -Road
5%
L ir
Transportation
45%
Water and
W;;CtPVV;;tPr
Energy
47%
Table B -1: Community -Wide Emissions by Sector
Sector
6m.
Energy
MTCO2e
206,370
Percentage of Total
AIL
47%
Transportation
196,910
45%
Solid Waste
14,790
3%
Off -Road
22,400
5%
Water and Wastewater
1,940
<1%
Total*
442,400
100%
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
As noted previously, individual sectors can often be divided into multiple subsectors. Table B -2
illustrates the activities and emissions from each subsector in the baseline year. On -road
transportation is responsible for the most GHG emissions, contributing 195,790 MTCO2e, or 44% of all
community emissions. Nonresidential natural gas use is second (79,810 MTCO2e, or 18% of the total)
and nonresidential electricity use is third (56,190 MTCO2e, or 13% of the total). Emissions from
residential natural gas (47,920 MTCO2e, 11 %) and residential electricity (22,450 MTCO2e, 5 %) are fourth
and fifth, respectively. All the remaining activities are responsible for a combined 40,240 MTCO2e, or
about 9% of the total.
' SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX J
Table B -2: 2005 Community -Wide Activity, Emissions, and Data Sources by Subsector
F_ 1111
a"
Coefficient lnr�
Percentage
Source
MTCO2e
of Total
Emissions
Energy
Residential
AL
100,353,340
wjML
PG &E
11111
22,450
5%
Electricity
kWh
Residential
9,007,350
PG &E
47,920
11%
Natural Gas
therms
Nonresidential
251,184,690
PG &E
56,190
13%
Electricity
kWh
Nonresidential
15,003,610
PG &E
79,810
18%
Natural Gas
therms
Transportation
On -Road
400,243,680
Fehr & Peers
195,790
44%
Transportation
VMT
BART
20,339,850 PMT
BART
610
<1%
Caltrain
7,612,510 PMT
CARB
510
<1%
Solid Waste
Community-
85,090 tons
CalRecycle, CARB
14,110
3%
Generated Solid
Waste
ADC- Green
110 tons
CalRecycle, CARB
10
<1%
Waste
ADC - Sludge
10,720 tons
CalRecycle, CARB
660
<1%
Off -Road
Lawn and
CARB
1,100
<1%
Garden
Construction
CARB
21,300
5%
Water and
Indirect Water
7,053,910 kWh
PG &E
1,580
<1%
Wastewater
and Wastewater
Direct
ICLEI
360
<1%
Wastewater
Total*
442,400
100%
* Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the parts.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
108
REPORT
SECTOR DETAILS
Energy
Energy use in the built environment (excluding point sources) is the single largest contributor to GHG
emissions in South San Francisco, as it is responsible for about 47% of the community total. The built
environment includes residential and nonresidential buildings, and energy use includes electricity and
natural gas. As shown in Figure B -2, nonresidential natural gas use is responsible for the greatest
amount of emissions within the energy sector (79,810 MTCO2e, or 39% of energy - related emissions).
Nonresidential electricity, residential natural gas, and residential electricity use are a respective
second, third, and fourth (27 %, 23 %, and 11 % of energy - related emissions).
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E) provided data on electricity and natural gas consumption on
August 30, 2010. Commercial and industrial electricity were combined in the nonresidential category
due to the California 15/15 Rule (see Privacy Laws subsection). PG &E also provided a 2005 CO2
coefficient for electricity and natural gas. Emissions coefficients for CH4 and nitrous oxide (N20)
emissions were provided by CARB's Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) version 1.1 and
were converted into carbon dioxide equivalents and added to the CO2 coefficient to create a CO2e
coefficient. To remove Genentech energy use, data from the company -wide 2005 sustainability report
was used to determine electricity and natural gas use at the South San Francisco campus. These
figures were converted to carbon dioxide equivalents using the CO2e coefficient discussed above.
Figure B -2: 2005 Energy Emissions by Subsector
Residential
Natural Gas Commercial/
23% Industrial
Electricity
27%
Residential— '
Electricity
11%
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Commercial/
Industrial
Natural Gas
39%
APPENDIX B
Transportation
Emissions from transportation (comprising on -road transportation, BART, and Caltrain) are the second
largest source of GHGs attributable to South San Francisco. Emissions from this sector totaled 196,910
MTCOZe, or about 45% of the community total. On -road transportation is by far the largest subsector
in this group, responsible for 195,790 MTCOZe (more than 99% of transportation - related emissions),
with BART and Caltrain each making up less than 1 % of transportation - related emissions, as illustrated
in Figure B -3.
A transportation demand model provided by the City /County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C /CAG) and the Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data provided by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was used to determine the number and distance of
vehicle trips in three categories:
• Trips that remained within the boundaries of South San Francisco for the entire duration
(internal - internal). Emissions from these trips are attributed entirely to South San Francisco.
• Trips beginning in South San Francisco but ending elsewhere, or trips beginning outside of
the community but ending in it ( internal - external /external - internal). Half of the emissions from
these trips are attributed to South San Francisco.
• Trips beginning and ending elsewhere, but passing through South San Francisco (external -
external). None of the emissions from these trips are attributed to South San Francisco.
Emissions from on -road transportation were calculated using the CARB Emissions Factor (EMFAC)
2011 software, which provides daily carbon dioxide emissions according to the vehicle composition of
each county in California. These figures were converted to annual emissions using a conversion factor
of 347 days per year, accounting for decreased travel on weekends. Individual GHGs were converted
to CO2e by multiplying the CO2 emissions by a conversion factor of 100/95.
Emissions from BART activity are the result of electricity and natural gas used to operate the agency's
trains and facilities. BART ridership data from August 2010 was used to determine the number and
length of trips beginning and ending at the South San Francisco BART station. Weekday, Saturday, and
Sunday trips were summed to determine the number of annual trips and miles traveled to or from
South San Francisco. Half of each trip was attributed to South San Francisco (the other half would be
attributed to the origin or destination community). Total emissions were determined by multiplying
attributed passenger miles traveled by a coefficient as reported in the BART 2008 GHG Inventory.
Caltrain emissions are the result of burning diesel fuel to power the system's locomotive fleet. 2005
annual weekday ridership counts were used to identify the number of trips and trip lengths beginning
or ending at the South San Francisco Caltrain station. Weekday trips were summed to determine the
annual number of trips and trip lengths. Half of each trip was attributed to South San Francisco (the
other half attributed to the origin or destination community). GHGs were calculated by multiplying
attributed passenger miles by a diesel locomotive emissions coefficient provided by the Local
Government Operations Protocol.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
REPORT
Figure B -3: 2005 Transportation Emissions by Subsector
BART Caltrain
On -Road Vehicles
>99%
Solid Waste
Solid waste is made up of three distinct subsectors: community - generated solid waste (materials thrown
away in a trash can), average daily cover (ADC) — green waste (organic material laid down on top of the
landfill to cover up other material), and ADC — sludge (waste material that serves the same purpose). The
waste sector is responsible for 3% of all community emissions. Community - generated solid waste is
responsible for about 95% of the solid waste sector's GHG emissions, followed by ADC — sludge (5 %) and
ADC — green waste (<1 %), as shown in Figure B -4.
In 2005, South San Francisco sent 85,090 tons of solid waste to various landfills across the state. Cover
for the community - generated solid waste comprised 110 tons of green waste and 10,720 tons of
sludge. Methane generation from the decomposition of this waste was calculated using the CARB
Landfill Emissions Calculator v1.3 and an average methane recovery or capture factor of 75 %, which is
consistent with commonly accepted methods.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX B
Figure B -4: 2005 Solid Waste Emissions by Subsector
ADC - Green ADC - Sludge
Waste 5%
Off -Road
Community -
Generated Solid
Waste
95%
The off -road sector comprises emissions from two subsectors: lawn and garden (lawnmowers, leaf
blowers, chain saws, etc.) and construction equipment (bulldozers, tractors, cranes, etc.). These
emissions account for 5% of all community emissions. As shown in Figure B -5, construction is the
larger of the two subsectors, being responsible for 95% of all off -road emissions.
CARB's OFFROAD 2007 model provides construction and lawn & garden activity for each county in
California, along with fuel consumption and emissions output for each type of equipment. Although
other types of off -road equipment contribute to emissions, as noted previously, the lack of an effective
method prevents them from being included. For construction and lawn & garden equipment, the
BAAQMD provided guidance to calculate emissions at ajurisdiction level.
Total city construction equipment emissions were determined using the US Department of Housing
and Urban Development's (HUD) State of the Cities Data Systems building permit inventory to
ascertain how many new San Mateo County structures were built in South San Francisco.
Total lawn & garden emissions were attributed using the proportion of existing households within the
community compared to all of San Mateo County, based on California Department of Finance
population figures.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
REPORT
Figure B -5: 2005 Off -Road Emissions by Subsector
Lawn & Garden
Enuipment
Water and Wastewater
Construction
Equipment
95%
The water and wastewater sector is responsible for less than I% of South San Francisco's 2005 GHG
emissions. It comprises two subsectors: indirect water and wastewater (energy needed to move and
treat the water used in, and the wastewater produced by, the community) and direct wastewater
(methane emissions from the treatment of the community's water in the South San Francisco /San
Bruno Water Quality Control Plant). Some of the energy included in the indirect subsector was not
used within the borders of South San Francisco. Of this sector's emissions, 81 % is the result of indirect
activities, as shown in Figure B -6.
While this sector may potentially double -count electricity captured in the energy sector, water and
wastewater emissions are calculated separately to comply with BAAQMD guidance. Due to the small
size of this sector, any overlap is expected to have a negligible effect on the Inventory.
Most of the water used in South San Francisco is purchased by the California Water Service Company
(Cal Water) and the Westborough Water District from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
( SFPUC), which delivers water from the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park. Information
related to SFPUC - delivered water is provided by the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA) for 2005. The electricity per gallon of delivered water coefficient is provided in the
California Public Utilities Commission's 2010 water intensity study and the California Energy
Commission's (CEC) 2006 water - related energy inventory.
The South San Francisco /San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant collects and treats wastewater from
South San Francisco before discharging the water into the San Francisco Bay. Electricity used in the
process of treating and moving the wastewater is part of the indirect emissions sector. The direct
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX B
emissions as a result of South San Francisco's wastewater rely on the 2005 municipal GHG inventory
for the City.
Figure B -6: 2005 Water and Wastewater Emissions by Subsector
Direct
Wastewater
19%
GHG EMISSIONS FORECAST
Indirect Water
and Wastewater
81%
A GHG emissions forecast is an estimate of South San Francisco's future emissions, based on projected
changes in population, household, and job (excluding Genentech, see Appendix C) numbers, as
shown in Table B -3. Emissions are forecast for 2020 and 2035. Population projections were provided
by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), while the number of households and jobs are
taken from ABAG's Final Jobs - Housing Connection Strategy, which was adopted in May 2012 for
preparation f the Bay Area's Sustainable Communities Strategy. As the One Bay Area plan provides
2040 projections, 2020 and 2035 figures were extrapolated using 2040 growth rates and the results
from the 2010 Census. For consistency with the Inventory's exclusion of Genentech emissions, all jobs
associated with Genentech have been excluded from the community -wide forecast.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
REPORT
Table B -3: Demographic Projections for South San Francisco, 2005 -2035
Business -as -Usual GHG Emissions Forecast
A business as usual (BAU) forecast analyzes how emissions are projected to grow if per capita behavior
and efficiencies remain at the 2005 level while the number of jobs, households, and people in South
San Francisco continues to grow. The BAU scenario represents the status quo before state reduction
efforts are accounted for, as shown in Table B -4 and Figure B -7. Under the BAU growth scenario,
South San Francisco's overall GHG emissions are projected to increase 11% by 2020 and 24% by 2035
compared to the baseline 2005 levels. BAU emissions associated with energy, water and wastewater,
off -road equipment, BART, Caltrain, and solid waste are projected to grow linearly with household,
employment, and service population growth. BAU emissions associated with on -road transportation
were determined by running the C /CAG transportation model to 2030 and extrapolating 2020 and
2035 vehicle miles traveled by linearly interpolating between the 2005 and 2030 results.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Population
61,700
69,700
77,700
26%
Association of Bay
Area Governments
Households
20,130
23,910
27,440
36%
One Bay Area
Total Jobs
42,240
49,650
55,360
20%
One Bay Area
Genentech Jobs
9,000
14,600
16,280
54%
Estimated, based
on Genentech
Master
Environmental
Impact Report
Net Jobs,
33,240
35,050
39,080
18%
Excluding
Genentech
Service Population
94,940
104,750
116,780
23%
Business -as -Usual GHG Emissions Forecast
A business as usual (BAU) forecast analyzes how emissions are projected to grow if per capita behavior
and efficiencies remain at the 2005 level while the number of jobs, households, and people in South
San Francisco continues to grow. The BAU scenario represents the status quo before state reduction
efforts are accounted for, as shown in Table B -4 and Figure B -7. Under the BAU growth scenario,
South San Francisco's overall GHG emissions are projected to increase 11% by 2020 and 24% by 2035
compared to the baseline 2005 levels. BAU emissions associated with energy, water and wastewater,
off -road equipment, BART, Caltrain, and solid waste are projected to grow linearly with household,
employment, and service population growth. BAU emissions associated with on -road transportation
were determined by running the C /CAG transportation model to 2030 and extrapolating 2020 and
2035 vehicle miles traveled by linearly interpolating between the 2005 and 2030 results.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
Table B -4: BAU Emissions by Sector, 2005 -2035 (MTCO2e)
ec Its t7x=M..A"=
2005
2020
'=RVF2005-2035
2035
41
Percentage Change
h..'
Energy
206,370
226,990
255,820
24%
Transportation
196,910
219,270
243,620
24%
Solid Waste
14,780
16,310
18,190
23%
Off -Road
22,400
26,610
30,530
36%
Water and Wastewater
1,940
2,140
2,380
23%
Total*
442,400
491,310
550,540
Total Percentage Change
-
11%
24%
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
Energy
Figure B -7: BAU GHG Emissions, 2005 -2035 (MTCOZe)
2005 2020
Transportation Solid Waste Off -Road
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
2035
Water and Wastewater
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
REPORT
Adjusted Business -as -Usual GHG Emissions Forecast
The State of California has been proactive in reducing GHG emissions. A number of regulations and
efforts at the state level, including changes to vehicle fuel standards, building codes, and the
renewable energy content of electricity, are expected to lessen South San Francisco's future GHG
emissions. The adjusted business -as -usual (ABAU) forecast, as illustrated in Table B -5, shows the
projected impacts of state actions on South San Francisco's 2020 and 2035 GHG emissions. The actions
incorporated into the ABAU scenario are discussed below.
California's Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS): A majority of states have passed renewable
energy standards, with California's being one of the most ambitious. The California RPS mandates that
33% of the electricity delivered in California be generated by renewable sources (solar, wind,
geothermal, etc.) by 2020. The California RPS was first codified in 2002 by Senate Bill 1078, requiring
20% of electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2010. In April 2011, Senate Bill X 1 -2
added the 2020 target.
AB 1493 (Pavley) Vehicle Standards: AB 1493, known as the Pavley standard, was passed in 2002
and requires new passenger vehicles to reduce tailpipe GHG emissions from 2009 to 2020. Changes to
vehicle emissions as a result of the Pavley standard are included in the emissions coefficients
generated by the EMFAC 2011 model.
Executive Order S- 01 -07, Low Carbon Fuel Standards (LCFS): In 2007, then - Governor
Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S- 01 -07, requiring that the carbon intensity of all fuels used
for transportation in California be reduced at least 10% by 2020. The 10% reduction is included in the
emission coefficients generated by the EMFAC 2011 model, but following guidance from the
BAAQMD, the standard has been adjusted to account for a 7.2% reduction. As of September 2013, the
LCFS is being challenged in federal court. It was overturned by a district court in December of 2011
and the case is currently pending before the 9t" Circuit Court of Appeals. It remains in effect, but there
is a reasonable chance this regulation may be overturned.
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards: Title 24 is an energy efficiency standard for new buildings,
applied at the local level through project review. Title 24 was updated in 2008; these new standards
went into effect in 2010 and represent an improvement over the 2005 Title 24. The reductions
quantified in the ABAU scenario are due to the increase in the Title 24 efficiency standards and assume
that all growth in electricity and natural gas use is a result of new construction.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
Table B -5: GHG Impacts of State Reduction Efforts, 2020 and 2035 (MTCO2e)
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts
These state actions will have a significant impact on South San Francisco's future GHG emissions, as
shown in Tables B -6 and B -7. In 2020, state actions are expected to keep the community's GHG
emissions below baseline levels despite the increases in household, population, and employment. In
2035, GHG emissions are projected to rise despite state actions, although emissions are expected to
remain well below the levels forecast in the BALI scenario.
Table B -6: ABAU Emissions by Sector, 2005 -2035 (MTCO2e)
Renewables Portfolio Standard
14,200
22,880
AB 1493 (Pavley) and Low Carbon Fuel Standard
53,580
80,430
Title 24
1,990
1,280
Total*
69,770
104,590
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts
These state actions will have a significant impact on South San Francisco's future GHG emissions, as
shown in Tables B -6 and B -7. In 2020, state actions are expected to keep the community's GHG
emissions below baseline levels despite the increases in household, population, and employment. In
2035, GHG emissions are projected to rise despite state actions, although emissions are expected to
remain well below the levels forecast in the BALI scenario.
Table B -6: ABAU Emissions by Sector, 2005 -2035 (MTCO2e)
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Energy
206,370
211,080
232,110
12%
Transportation
196,910
168,340
165,100
-16%
Solid Waste
14,790
16,310
18,190
23%
Off -Road
22,400
23,960
28,620
28%
Water and Wastewater
1,940
1,860
1,930
-1%
Total*
442,400
421,540
445,950
1 %
Total Percentage Change
—
-5%
1 %
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
REPORT
Table B -7: Comparison of BAU and ABAU Emission Scenarios, 2005 -2035 (MTCO2e)
GHG Reduction Targets
AB 32 recommends a reduction of 15% below current (2005 -2008) emissions by 2020 as the local
government equivalent of the statewide reduction target, which calls for California to return to 1990
levels by 2020. The AB 32 local government goal is used as the 2020 reduction target in this CAP and is
a way to measure the CAP's success. This target also satisfies the BAAQMD's California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) compliance guidelines.
California has not currently adopted any GHG reduction goals beyond 2020, although former
Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -03 -05 in 2005, calling for the state to reduce GHG
emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The equivalent of this target for South San Francisco is a
95% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050.
Table B -8 and Figure B -8 show the comparison between the 2020 ABAU emissions scenario and the
15% reduction target. The reduction target calls for South San Francisco to emit 376,040 MTCO2e by
2020, 40,560 MTCO2e below the projected 2020 GHG emissions under the ABAU scenario. This CAP
identifies local reduction efforts that will allow South San Francisco to achieve this target.
Table B -8: ABAU Emissions and AB 32 Goal, 2020
lr�T�l
442,400
BAU Emissions Scenario
442,400
491,310
550,540
Sum of State Reduction Efforts
—
- 69,770
- 104,590
ABAU Emissions Scenario
442,400
421,540
445,950
Percentage Increase from Baseline
—
-5%
1 %
GHG Reduction Targets
AB 32 recommends a reduction of 15% below current (2005 -2008) emissions by 2020 as the local
government equivalent of the statewide reduction target, which calls for California to return to 1990
levels by 2020. The AB 32 local government goal is used as the 2020 reduction target in this CAP and is
a way to measure the CAP's success. This target also satisfies the BAAQMD's California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) compliance guidelines.
California has not currently adopted any GHG reduction goals beyond 2020, although former
Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S -03 -05 in 2005, calling for the state to reduce GHG
emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. The equivalent of this target for South San Francisco is a
95% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050.
Table B -8 and Figure B -8 show the comparison between the 2020 ABAU emissions scenario and the
15% reduction target. The reduction target calls for South San Francisco to emit 376,040 MTCO2e by
2020, 40,560 MTCO2e below the projected 2020 GHG emissions under the ABAU scenario. This CAP
identifies local reduction efforts that will allow South San Francisco to achieve this target.
Table B -8: ABAU Emissions and AB 32 Goal, 2020
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2005 Baseline
442,400
2020 BAU
491,310
2020 ABAU
421,540
2020 AB 32 Reduction Target
376,040
Local Reductions Needed
45,500
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX B
Figure B -8: Comparison of Emission Scenarios and Reduction Targets, 2005 -2020
500,000
480,000
460,000
440,000
400,000
380,000
360,000
State Measures
Local Actions
2005 2010 2015 2020
• Baseline - Business -As -Usual (BAU) Adjusted Business -As -Usual (ABAU) - AB 32 Target
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG INVENTORY AND FORECAST
This page intentionally left blank.
REPORT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX C
BAAQ,MD COMPLIANCE
APPENDIX C
The City of South San Francisco developed this Climate Action Plan (CAP or Plan) to meet the
requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) criteria for a Qualified
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy, as defined in the BAAQMD's California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Air Quality Guidelines. The CEQA Air Quality Guidelines were updated in 2010 in response to
the passage of Senate Bill 97 (SB 97), which requires all projects subject to CEQA to analyze and
mitigate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are expected to occur.
The purpose of the BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines is to assist lead agencies in evaluating the
air quality impacts of proposed projects and plans within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The
guidelines were updated to establish thresholds of significance for impacts related to GHG emissions,
in order to be consistent with the requirements of CEQA. These thresholds can be used to assess plan -
level and project -level impacts, and allow a lead agency to determine that a project's impact on GHG
emissions is less than significant if the project is in compliance with a Qualified GHG Reduction
Strategy.
South San Francisco's CAP follows both the state CEQA Guidelines and the BAAQMD's guidelines by
incorporating the standard elements of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy into the Plan. The
standard elements of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy include the following steps:
1. Quantify GHG emissions resulting from activities within a defined geographic range, both
existing and projected over a specific time period.
2. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to GHG
emissions from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively considerable.
3. Identify and analyze the GHG emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions
anticipated within the defined geographic area.
4. Specific measures or a group of measures, including performance standards that, if
implemented on a project -by- project basis, would collectively achieve the specified emissions
level as demonstrated by substantial evidence.
5. Monitor the plan's progress.
6. Adopt the GHG reduction strategy in a public process following environmental review.
This appendix describes in detail how South San Francisco's CAP has been developed to satisfy the
requirements of the BAAQMD's guidelines on the standard element of a Qualified GHG Reduction
Strategy. Because it satisfies those requirements, the Climate Action Plan will allow the City to
determine that future development projects have a less than significant impact on GHG emissions as
long as they are in compliance with the CAP.
GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY
The first component of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy is to conduct an inventory of GHG
emissions within a specific geographic boundary. The City of South San Francisco's GHG inventory
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
BAAQ,.MD COMPLIANCE
uses a base year of 2005 to inventory carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH,), and nitrous oxide (N20)
generated from the activities of the community.
The emissions sources calculated in South San Francisco include residential and nonresidential energy
use, transportation (on -road vehicles, BART, and Caltrain), disposal of solid waste, energy use and
biogenic methane emissions related to water and wastewater, off -road equipment used for
construction and landscaping purposes, and stationary sources. The emissions from these sources,
totaling 548,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), are detailed in Figure C -1 and
Table C -1.
Figure C -1: Community -Wide 2005 Emissions by Sector
Solid Waste
3%
Off -Road -
4%
Water and
Wastewater
�-1o/
Stationary
Sources Landfill
6% 2%
Transportation
36%
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Energy
48%
APPEND _W_1%_
Table C -1: Community -Wide 2005 Emissions by Sector
Energy
263,780
48%
Transportation
196,910
36%
Off -Road
22,400
4%
Solid Waste
14,790
3%
Water and Wastewater
1,940
<1%
Stationary Sources
35,580
6%
Landfill
13,220
2%
Total*
548,600
100%
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
Three emissions sources presented here are included for informational purposes only: stationary
sources, direct landfill emissions (a subset of the solid waste sector), and facilities subject to cap and
trade.
Stationary sources are fixed emitters of pollutants, including power plants, refineries, and other large
industrial activities. 2005 data was unavailable for the stationary sources in South San Francisco, and
so 2008 data from the BAAQMD, totaling 35,580 MTCO2e, has been used as a proxy. Emissions from
stationary sources are most effectively addressed and regulated by the BAAQMD or by federal and
state programs. Direct landfill emissions result from the decomposition of waste in a landfill within the
borders of South San Francisco, regardless of where the waste originated. The only landfill within the
community, the closed Oyster Point landfill, emitted 13,220 MTCO2e in 2005. As the waste continues
to decompose, emissions from this source will decline and eventually cease.
The third informational item is the volume of emissions as a result of energy use at facilities subject to
the cap- and -trade program being administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). South
San Francisco has elected to exclude the energy use at such facilities from the GHG inventory and
forecast for the following reasons:
• These facilities are subject to air quality and emissions standards set by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), CARB, and the BAAQMD. The approach of excluding energy use from
sources that are outside of the City's jurisdictional control is consistent with ICLEI's Draft
Community -Wide Protocol.
• Cap and trade is a new program which provides multiple avenues for compliance, including
options that will be shaped by market factors and the preferences of the individual
participating entities. The City is therefore limited in its ability to accurately estimate how
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
BAAQ,.MD COMPLIANCE
facilities subject to cap and trade will comply with the program. The inclusion of such facilities,
lacking an accurate reflection of how cap and trade will reduce GHG emissions, would make it
difficult for South San Francisco to set an achievable GHG reduction target that matches the
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) goal or to use this CAP for future CEQA tiering or streamlining.
The cap- and -trade program is a method to achieve the statewide reduction goal set forth in
AB 32. Excluding the emissions from facilities subject to this program from South San
Francisco's local reduction target does not conflict with the overall AB 32 reduction target, but
instead allows the City to focus on the emissions sectors that are otherwise not as directly
influenced by AB 32.
Excluding energy use of local facilities regulated by cap and trade more accurately reflects the
electricity and natural gas use from nonresidential customers in South San Francisco and
allows the City to focus on actions that are within its control.
CARB's list of entities covered by cap and trade was used to identify the entities in South San Francisco
that will be subject to this program. Sufficient data was available to remove energy - related emissions
from the headquarters of the biotechnology firm Genentech, which is located in South San Francisco
and is subject to cap and trade.3 In order to isolate Genentech's GHG emissions from the rest of the
nonresidential electricity and natural gas emissions, the publicly available Genentech 2009 Corporate
Sustainability Update report was used to identify how much electricity and natural gas were used by
the South San Francisco campus.' In 2005, Genentech was responsible for 35% of all nonresidential
electricity use and 25% of nonresidential natural gas use, or about 30% of all nonresidential energy
GHG emissions as shown in Figure C -2. Genentech's 2020 and 2035 energy - related emissions were
removed from the forecast using Genentech's projected employment, which was determined using
One Bay Area projections from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the firm's
expected change in employment for environmental review purposes.
' Consistent with the verbal direction provided by Abby Young, Principal Environmental Planner, Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (November 27, 2012).
'The 2009 Genentech Corporate Sustainability Update is available at:
http: / /www.gene.com /gene/ about /environmental /past- reports /. According to the report, the South San
Francisco Genentech campus is responsible for 68% of total Genentech GHG emissions from all facilities.
Similarly, it was assumed that the South San Francisco campus was responsible for 68% of total Genentech
Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions from energy use. The calculated energy emissions associated with the South San
Francisco campus were then excluded from the baseline inventory.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPEND _W_1%_
Figure C -2: Nonresidential 2005 Energy Emissions, Genentech Separate (MTCO2e)
Genentech
Electricity
Other 16%
Nonresidential
Natural Gas
41% Other
Nonresidential
Electricity
29%
Genentech
Natural Gas
14%
When included as part of the overall community -wide inventory, Genentech's energy use accounts for
10% of all GHG emissions attributable to South San Francisco, as shown in Figure C -3.
Figure C -3: Community -Wide 2005 Emissions by Sector, Genentech Separate (MTCO2e)
Water and
Wastewater
<19
Solid Waste
3%
Off -Road J
4%
Transportal
36%
Stationary
) Landfill
Sources
6% 2%
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Energy
;Excluding
3enentech)
38%
Energy
(Genentech)
10%
BAAQ,.MD COMPLIANCE
The official Inventory discussed in the remainder of this appendix and in all other sections of this CAP
excludes emissions from landfills, Genentech, and other stationary sources. A summary of emissions
excluding the informational sources is given in Figure C -4 and Table C -2.
Figure C -4: 2005 Community -Wide Emissions
by Sector, Excluding Informational Items (MTCO2e)
Solid Waste
IOff -Road 3% _
5%
Transportation1
45% \
Waterand
Wastewater
Energy
47%
Table C -2: 2005 Community -Wide Emissions by Sector, Excluding Informational Items
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1q=_N
Energy
206,370
47%
Transportation
196,910
45%
Solid Waste
14,790
3%
Off -Road
22,400
5%
Water and Wastewater
1,940
<1%
Total*
442,400
100%
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX C
GHG EMISSIONS PROJECTIONS
The basis for all growth scenarios is a business -as -usual (BAU) projection. The BAU scenario reflects
South San Francisco's growth projections without any regulatory, behavioral, or technical intervention
to reduce GHG emissions. The BAU forecast is based on projections for population, housing,
employment, and vehicle miles traveled for 2020 and 2035. The population, housing, and
employment forecasts are based on demographic projections from ABAG as shown in Table C -3,
while vehicle miles traveled (VMT) projections are derived from the City /County Association of
Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) Transportation Demand Model. To prevent growth at
Genentech from influencing the employment figures and the forecasts as a result, employees at
Genentech have been removed from this table. Refer to Appendix B and Table B -3 for additional
discussion.
Table C -3: South San Francisco Community Growth Indicators
These indicators are applied to the 2005 GHG emissions inventory to determine emissions under the
BAU scenario. The BAU forecast projects that community -wide emissions will grow to 491,310 MTCO2e
(an 11% increase) by 2020 and to 550,540 MTCO2e (a 24% increase) by 2035. These projections are
illustrated in Figure C -5 and Table C -6.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
a 6
Population
61,700
69,700
77,700
26%
Households
20,130
23,910
27,440
36%
Jobs, excluding
Genentech
33,240
35,050
39,080
18%
Service Population
94,940
104,750
116,780
23%
These indicators are applied to the 2005 GHG emissions inventory to determine emissions under the
BAU scenario. The BAU forecast projects that community -wide emissions will grow to 491,310 MTCO2e
(an 11% increase) by 2020 and to 550,540 MTCO2e (a 24% increase) by 2035. These projections are
illustrated in Figure C -5 and Table C -6.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
BAAQ,.MD COMPLIANCE
Figure C -5: BAU GHG Comparison, 2005 -2035
500,000 —�
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2005 2020 2035
Energy Transportation Solid Waste Off -Road Water and Wastewater
Table C -4: BAU GHG Emissions Comparison by Sector, 2005 -2035
Sect
Energy
206,370
2020 Iq
A[
226,990
2035
:1
255,820
2005-2035
Percentage Change
A
24%
Transportation
196,910
219,270
243,620
24%
Solid Waste
14,790
16,310
18,190
23%
Off -Road
22,400
26,610
30,530
36%
Water and Wastewater
1,940
2,140
2,380
23%
Total*
442,400
491,310
550,540
24%
Total Percentage Change
—
11%
24%
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX C
In addition to AB 32, California has adopted and begun to implement several statewide programs that
will help reduce local GHG emissions. To effectively determine the emissions reductions that will need
to be implemented at the local level in order to meet South San Francisco's emissions reduction
target, the impact of these state -level programs has been incorporated into a scenario known as the
adjusted business -as -usual (ABAU) forecast. The state -level programs included in the ABAU scenario
are the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), the implementation of the Clean Car Fuel Standard
(often called the Pavley standard), the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS),5 and updates to the Title 24
Energy Efficiency Standards. The impacts of these programs, shown in Table C -7, play a critical role in
helping South San Francisco achieve its GHG reduction target.
Table C -5: Summary of State Reductions, 2005 -2035 (MTCOze)
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts
GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGET
Following the Local Scoping Plan for AB 32, the City of South San Francisco is seeking to achieve a
GHG emissions reduction target of 15% below the baseline 2005 levels by 2020.
The GHG reduction measures included in this CAP demonstrate South San Francisco's ability to reach
the GHG reduction target outlined above. Emissions reductions were quantified for 2020 and 2035,
and are the potential reductions that could be achieved through implementation of these measures.
The GHG reduction strategies are classified by goal or topic area, as shown in Figure C -6, to
correspond with the sectors and sources of GHG emissions.
5 The LCFS is currently being implemented, but is facing legal challenges in federal court.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
2005
BALI Scenario
442,400
491,310
550,540
Renewables Portfolio Standard
—
- 14,200
- 22,880
AB 1493 ( Pavley) and Low Carbon Fuel Standard
—
- 53,580
- 80,430
Title 24
—
-1,990
-1,280
Summary of State Reduction Efforts
—
- 69,770
- 104,590
ABAU Scenario*
442,400
421,540
445,950
Percentage Change from 2005 Levels
—
-5%
1 %
*Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the component parts
GHG EMISSIONS REDUCTION TARGET
Following the Local Scoping Plan for AB 32, the City of South San Francisco is seeking to achieve a
GHG emissions reduction target of 15% below the baseline 2005 levels by 2020.
The GHG reduction measures included in this CAP demonstrate South San Francisco's ability to reach
the GHG reduction target outlined above. Emissions reductions were quantified for 2020 and 2035,
and are the potential reductions that could be achieved through implementation of these measures.
The GHG reduction strategies are classified by goal or topic area, as shown in Figure C -6, to
correspond with the sectors and sources of GHG emissions.
5 The LCFS is currently being implemented, but is facing legal challenges in federal court.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
BAAQ,.MD COMPLIANCE
Figure C -6: GHG Reduction Topics
• Alternative Transportation
• Land Use and Parking
• Alternative -Fuel Vehicles
• Off -Road Vehicles and Equipment
• Energy Efficiency and Conservation
• Renewable Energy
�. Waste Minimization
• Water and Wastewater
It is important to identify how South San Francisco will meet or exceed the minimum GHG reduction
target of 15% below baseline 2005 levels by 2020, in order to ensure the City can use the CAP as a
Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. This Plan identifies a clear path to allow the City to reach the
community -wide target, which meets the state target as well.
The reduction measures included in this Plan are a diverse mix of regulatory and incentive -based
programs. The reduction measures aim to reduce GHG emissions from each source to avoid reliance
on any one strategy or sector. In total, state programs, existing local actions, and GHG reduction
measures in this Plan are projected to reduce GHG emissions in South San Francisco in 2020 by
116,070 MTCO2e by 2020, equal to a 15% reduction and consistent with the AB 32 reduction target
(see Figure C -7 and Table C -8). Figure C -8 Identifies the local reduction strategies in the CAP by topic
area.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPEND -W-,%-
Figure C -7: 2020 Local and State GHG Reductions (MTCO2e)
Existing Local
Water Activities
Efficiency
<I%
Waste
5%
Renewable —Z
Energy
5%
Energy
Efficiency
10%
Land Use and
Transportation
11%
Table C -6: GHG Reduction Summary by Topic
State Actions
60%
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
BAU Scenario
491,310
550,540
State Reduction Efforts
- 69,770
- 104,590
Existing Local Programs
- 10,090
- 13,020
Alternative Transportation
-4,470
-4,380
Land Use and Parking
-2,660
-2,600
Alternative Fuel Vehicles
-2,770
-6,530
Off -Road Vehicles and Equipment
-2,670
-5,880
Energy Efficiency and Conservation
- 11,810
- 30,100
Renewable Energy
-5,100
- 11,760
Waste Minimization
-6,720
- 10,950
Water and Wastewater
-250
-530
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
BAAQ,.MD COMPLIANCE
1. Note that municipal reduction measures are considered supportive and GHG reductions are not quantified.
2. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of the component parts.
Figure C -8: 2020 CAP GHG Reductions by Topic (MTCOZe)
Water and
W!'1CiPU /aiPr
1%
Waste
Minimization
17%
Renewable.
Energy
15%
Energy Efficiency
and Conservation
33%
Alternative
Transportation
12%
[land Use and
Parking
7%
Alternative -Fuel
Vehicles
8%
\-Off -Road Vehicles
and Equipment
7%
Achievement of South San Francisco's target by 2020 will meet state recommendations and BAAQMD
threshold requirements for developing a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. Implementation of this
Plan will decrease per capita emissions from 4.66 MTCO2e annually in 2005 to 3.49 MTCO2e in 2020
and 3.07 MTCO2e in 2035. These decreases are illustrated in Figure C -9.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Municipal Operations'
-
-
Total Local GHG Reductions'
- 46,540
- 85,750
Total Local and State Reductions'
- 116,310
- 190,340
1. Note that municipal reduction measures are considered supportive and GHG reductions are not quantified.
2. Due to rounding, totals may not equal the sum of the component parts.
Figure C -8: 2020 CAP GHG Reductions by Topic (MTCOZe)
Water and
W!'1CiPU /aiPr
1%
Waste
Minimization
17%
Renewable.
Energy
15%
Energy Efficiency
and Conservation
33%
Alternative
Transportation
12%
[land Use and
Parking
7%
Alternative -Fuel
Vehicles
8%
\-Off -Road Vehicles
and Equipment
7%
Achievement of South San Francisco's target by 2020 will meet state recommendations and BAAQMD
threshold requirements for developing a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy. Implementation of this
Plan will decrease per capita emissions from 4.66 MTCO2e annually in 2005 to 3.49 MTCO2e in 2020
and 3.07 MTCO2e in 2035. These decreases are illustrated in Figure C -9.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDILI'i
Figure C -9: GHG Emissions per Service Population, 2005 -2035 (MTCO2e)
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
IN
2005 2020 2035
In addition to quantifying the emissions reductions associated with each measure in the CAP, the
BAAQMD recommends that the City clearly specify the measures within the CAP that are applicable to
new construction projects in order to demonstrate compliance with South San Francisco's GHG
emissions reduction strategy and determine that the project's GHG emissions are less than significant. To
ensure that each new construction project complies with South San Francisco's CAP, a checklist has been
developed to be submitted by an applicant for each new development project (see Appendix E).
IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
To ensure the timely implementation of South San Francisco's CAP, the City will identify staff to
coordinate and track implementation of GHG reduction strategies and progress toward GHG
reduction targets and to prepare annual reports to the City Council on CAP implementation and
progress. To assist in this reporting, the City has developed CAP monitoring tool that identifies the
major implementation milestones and the necessary actions to be taken for each reduction measure.
This tool enables the City to quickly update the GHG emissions inventory and streamline the annual
reporting of CAP implementation. The monitoring tool also outlines the necessary procedures to
update the inventory and reduction measures every three to five years. This tool will serve as the
primary instrument in measuring South San Francisco's progress toward achieving emissions
reduction targets and to ensure timely implementation occurs.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
BAAQ,.MD COMPLIANCE
PUBLIC PROCESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The final requirement of a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy is to adopt the Climate Action Plan
through a public hearing process following environmental review. South San Francisco has involved
numerous stakeholders throughout the development of the CAP. This Plan will undergo
environmental review as part of the public hearing and adoption process.
During the development of the CAP, the City has engaged stakeholders and interested community
members through public meetings, workshops, and other events. The public has also had
opportunities to participate in the development at Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC),
Planning Commission, and City Council meetings.
In order to operate effectively as a programmatic tiering document, the California Attorney General's
Office and the BAAQMD both recommend integration of components of the GHG emissions reduction
strategy into the General Plan. The GHG emissions reduction strategy will contribute to the General
Plan's policies and will serve as mitigation for South San Francisco's GHG emissions.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX D
GHG METHODS AND
ASSUMPTIONS
APPENDIX
APPENDIX D: GHG METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE
This appendix summarizes the data sources and methods used to calculate GHG emissions reductions
for the South San Francisco Climate Action Plan, as well as the performance metrics and expected
rates of participation. These calculations are primarily supported by four types of data and research:
(1) GHG emissions and activity data from the South San Francisco emissions inventory and forecast,
(2) government agency tools and reports, (3) case studies in similar jurisdictions, and (4) scholarly
research.
Activity data from the inventory, including vehicle miles traveled, kWh and therm use, and tons of
waste disposed, forms the basis for the quantification of each measure. Activity data was combined
with the performance targets and indicators to calculate the GHG reduction benefit of each measure.
This approach ensures that South San Francisco's GHG reductions are tied to the baseline and to
future activities that are actually occurring within the community. Furthermore, this approach to
quantification is consistent with the guidance provided by the BAAQMD for the development of a
Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, as discussed in Appendix C. All information is organized by
measure.
SUPPORTIVE MEASURES
Some reduction measures are not expected to result in direct and quantifiable GHG emissions
reductions on their own, although they play an essential role in enabling the reported GHG reductions
for quantified measures. These measures are known as supportive measures and have no reportable
methods, metrics, and sources. For this reason, they are listed immediately below and are not included
among the technical information which follows.
• Measure 4.2: Alternative Energy Cost Reduction
• Measure 43: Green Industry
• Measure 5.2: Landfill Emissions Reduction
• Measure 6.2: Alternative Sources of Irrigation Water
• Measure 7.1: Promote Municipal Energy Efficiency
• Measure 7.2: Conserve Municipal Water
• Measure 73: Reduce Municipal Waste
• Measure 7.4: Supportive Municipal Practices
• Existing Activity 5: Community Transportation Plan
• Existing Activity 9: X -Ray House
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
TECHNICAL DATA FOR QUANTIFIED MEASURES
Expand active transportation alternatives by providing
Policy infrastructure and enhancing connectivity for bicycle and
pedestrian access.
2020 MTCOze Reductions
890
2035 MTCOze Reductions
870
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
2020 Participation Target(s)
Implement regional transportation plans and existing
programs
2035 Participation Target(s)
Implement regional transportation plans and existing
programs
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
High (Over $500,000)
To determine VMT reductions from increased access to
mass transit, South San Francisco's specific area plans
were used to estimate what percentage of new
development will be in close proximity to transit. The
City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo
County (C /CAG) travel demand model was used to
determine the expected VMT reductions from these
actions during peak periods. These figures were
converted to average VMTs using the California
Reduction Method
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 4
Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data.
To calculate savings from traffic calming, South San
Francisco's specific area plans were used to estimate
what percentage of streets and intersections would
receive traffic calming treatments. The expanded traffic
calming was used as an input in the C /CAG travel
demand model to determine VMT reductions during
peak periods, which was converted to an average VMT
reduction using PeMS data.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Policy
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
( CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
Measures. Sacramento. http://www.capcoa.org /wp-
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
content /uploads /2010/11 / CAPCOA- Quantification-
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Report- 9- 14- Final.pdf.
Reduction Sources
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans). 2012.
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS).
Participant
Sacramento. http: / /pems.dot.ca.gov.
2020 Participation Target(s)
City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San
Francisco General Plan.
2035 Participation Target(s)
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360.
There are not expected to be any costs to the community
Cost Method
from this policy. The projected savings in VMTs were
2020 Community Savings
multiplied by the standard IRS tax reimbursement rate
for miles traveled to determine community savings.
Internal Revenue Service. 2011. IRS Announces 2012
Cost Sources
Standard Mileage Rates. Washington, D.C.
http: / /www.irs.gov /uac /IRS -Annou nces- 2012- Standard-
M i leage- Rates,- Most - Rates -A re- the - Same -as -i n -July.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Policy
Support expansion of public and private transit
programs to reduce employee commutes.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
3,580
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
3,510
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
2020 Participation Target(s)
Expansion of TDMs to affect 25 -44% of all local
employment
2035 Participation Target(s)
Expansion of TDMs to affect 25 -44% of all local
employment
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
High (Over $500,000)
Using the South San Francisco Municipal Code and
employment data provided by the City, the number of
Reduction Method
employees eligible for participation in the program was
calculated. Figures provided by CAPCOA were used to
convert these figures into average VMT reductions.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
G METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
Policy
(CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures. Sacramento. http://www.capcoa.org /wp-
Reduction Sources
content/ uploads /2010 /11 /CAPCOA- Quantification-
2020 MTCOze Reductions
Report -9 -14- Final.pdf.
2035 MTCOze Reductions
City of South San Francisco. 2012. City of South San
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Francisco Municipal Code.
Participant
http: / /gcode.us /codes /southsanfrancisco /.
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
There are not expected to be any costs to the
Participant
community from this policy. The projected savings in
Cost Method
VMTs were multiplied by the standard IRS tax
2020 Participation Target(s)
reimbursement rate for miles traveled to determine
community savings.
Internal Revenue Service. 2011. IRS Announces 2012
Cost Sources
Standard Mileage Rates. Washington, D.C.
2035 Participation Target(s)
http: / /www.i rs.g ov /u ac /I RS -An n ou nces- 2012 -Sta nda rd-
M i leage- Rates,- Most - Rates - Are - the - Same -as -i n -July.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Integrate higher- density development and mixed -use
Policy
development near transit facilities and community
facilities, and reduce dependence on autos through
smart parking practices.
2020 MTCOze Reductions
2,660
2035 MTCOze Reductions
2,600
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
8.5% of city is transit - oriented, mixed use development,
2020 Participation Target(s)
achieving 30 units /acre in the ECR /Chestnut Plan, and a
10% reduction in parking supply for reductions in
vehicle miles traveled
8.5% of city is transit - oriented, mixed use development,
2035 Participation Target(s)
achieving 30 units /acre in the ECR /Chestnut Plan, and a
10% reduction in parking supply for reductions in
vehicle miles traveled
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
High (Over $500,000)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Using South San Francisco's specific area plans, the
amount of new commercial, mixed -use, and higher -
density development was estimated. Additionally, the
amount of below- market -rate housing was determined
Reduction Method
using the South San Francisco Housing Element. Using
the City /County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C /CAG) travel model, peak -time VMT
reductions from these developments were calculated.
Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) data
was used to convert these figures to average VMTs.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures. Sacramento.
http://www.capcoa.org /wp-
content /uploads /2010/11 /CAPCOA- Quantification-
Report-9-14- Final.pdf.
California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans).
2012. Caltrans Performance Measurement System
Reduction Sources
(PeMS). Sacramento. http: / /pems.dot.ca.gov.
City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San
Francisco General Plan.
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360.
City of South San Francisco. 2009. City of South San
Francisco Housing Element.
http://ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360.
City of South San Francisco. n.d. City of South San
Francisco Downtown Station Area Specific Plan.
http://ssf.net/index.aspx?nid=l 365.
There are not expected to be any costs to the
community from this policy. The projected savings in
Cost Method
VMTs were multiplied by the standard IRS tax
reimbursement rate for miles traveled to determine
community savings.
Internal Revenue Service. 2011. IRS Announces 2012
Cost Sources
Standard Mileage Rates. Washington, D.C.
http: / /www.i rs.gov /uac /I RS -An nou nces- 2012- Standard-
M i leage- Rates,- Most - Rates - Are - the - Same -as -i n -July.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
G METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Policy
Expand the use of alternative fuel vehicles.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
2,770
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
6,530
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
390 gallons of fuel per public EV charging station
Participant
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
390 gallons of fuel per public EV charging station
Participant
2020 Participation Target(s)
80 public EV charging stations, 950 houses with EV
chargers, and 90 EV chargers at businesses
2035 Participation Target(s)
150 public EV charging stations, 2,650 houses with EV
chargers, and 180 EV chargers at businesses
2020 Community Costs
High (Over $500,000)
2020 Community Savings
Minimal ($0)
Data from the Energy Information Administration was
used to determine the annual VMT reduction per
charging station and the gallons of fuel saved as a
result. Figures from the EPA were used to translate the
reduced fuel into electricity. Emissions factors were
Reduction Method
applied to determine emissions savings from lower fuel
use, as well as new emissions from increased electricity
use, for each charging station. The net difference was
then multiplied by a number of new public charging
stations and participation rates for pre -wired new
development.
US Energy Information Administration, Department of
Energy. 2001. Transportation Energy Consumption
Surveys. Washington, D.C.
http://www.eia.gov/emeu/rtecs/nhts—survey/2001/tabl
Reduction Sources
efiles /t0464(2005).pdf.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. 2011. Fact Sheet: New
Fuel Economy and Environmental Labels for a New
Generation of Vehicles. Washington, D.C.
http: / /www.epa.gov /otaq /carlabel /420f] 1017.htm.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Policy
An average cost for each public charging station and
pre- wiring of new buildings was determined based on
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
case studies and reports. These figures were multiplied
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
by the number of participants to obtain community
Cost Method
costs. Using state projections for electricity and
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
gasoline costs, the cost savings from lower gasoline use
Participant
and increased electricity costs from charging stations
were calculated. The difference between the two was
reported as the net savings.
Association of Bay Area Governments, et al. 2011.
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Ready, Set, Charge California: A Guide to EV -Ready
Participant
Communities.
http://www.rmi.org/Content/Files/Readysetcharge.pdf.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2010.
Transportation Energy Forecasts and Analyses for the
Cost Sources
2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Sacramento.
http: / /www.energy.ca.gov /2010pu blications /CEC -600-
2010- 002 /CEC- 600 - 2010- 002- SF.PDF.
Hagerty, J. R., and Ramsey, M. 2011. "Charging Stations
Multiply, But Electric Cars Are Few." Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SBI 000142405297020340
5504576599060894172004.html.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Policy
Reduce emissions from off -road vehicles and
equipment.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
2,670
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
5,880
For the trade -in program, 0.02 MTCO2e per lawnmower
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
and 0.01 MTCO2e per leaf blower. A 25% emissions
Participant
reduction per converted piece of equipment and a
0.1% reduction in emissions per 1% reduction in idling
time.
For the trade -in program, 0.02 MTCO2e per lawnmower
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
and 0.01 MTCO2e per leaf blower. A 25% emissions
Participant
reduction per converted piece of equipment and a
0.1 /o reduction in emissions per 1 /o reduction in idling
time.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Measure 2.2
1,670 lawnmowers traded in and 430 leaf blowers
traded in. For construction equipment, 40% of
2020 Participation Target(s)
equipment converted to alternative fuels and a 25%
reduction in construction equipment idling time.
4,190 lawnmowers traded in and 1,080 leaf blowers
2035 Participation Target(s)
traded in. For construction equipment, 75% of
equipment converted to alternative fuels and a 40%
reduction in construction equipment idling time.
2020 Community Costs
Unknown
2020 Community Savings
Unknown
To determine emissions reductions from lawnmower
and leaf blower trade -in, population data and results
from the CARB Off -road model were used to determine
the number of lawnmowers and leaf blowers in South
San Francisco, along with the average annual emissions
for each piece of equipment. A participation rate was
applied to determine how many pieces of equipment
would be removed as a result of the program, which
was then multiplied by a per- equipment emissions
factor to calculate community GHG reductions.
Reduction Method
For construction equipment trade -in, EPA figures were
used to determine the average reductions of hybrid,
natural gas, electrical, and biodiesel construction
equipment compared to conventional diesel power.
These reductions were combined with a participation
rate to determine overall savings.
To calculate emissions from reduced idling of
construction equipment, EPA figures were used to
determine the reduction in emissions per I% reduction
in idling time. This was then multiplied by a target
percent reduction in idling time.
Nealon, S. 2011. "Hybrid Construction Vehicle Emissions
to be Analyzed." UCR Today, University of California at
Riverside. http: / /ucrtoday.ucr.edu /213.
US Environmental Protection Agency, National
Reduction Sources
Construction Sector. 2009. Potential for Reducing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Construction Sector.
Washington, D.C.
http://www.epa.gov / sectors /pdf /construction - sector-
report.pdf.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX D
Measure 2.2
Due to a number of uncertainties associated with the
Cost Method financial component of this policy, community costs
and savings cannot be quantified.
Cost Sources Not Applicable
1"
Policy
Maximize energy efficiency in the built environment
through standards and the plan review process.
2020 MTCOze Reductions
250
2035 MTCOze Reductions
1,350
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
30 kWh and 60 therms for a single - family home, 40 kWh
Participant
and 30 therms for a multi - family home, and 2,950 kWh
and 470 therms for the average business
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
30 kWh and 60 therms for a single - family home, 40 kWh
Participant
and 30 therms for a multi - family home, and 6,420 kWh
and1,060 therms for the average business
2020 Participation Target(s)
90 new single - family houses, 670 new multi - family
houses, and 30 new businesses
2035 Participation Target(s)
280 new single - family houses, 2,190 new multi - family
houses, and 130 new businesses
2020 Community Costs
High (Over $500,000)
2020 Community Savings
Medium -High ($200,001- 500,000)
Savings from CALGreen base and Tier 1 standards were
calculated by determining the average electricity and
natural gas use of new houses and businesses, using
the Inventory forecast and demographic projections.
Standard CALGreen Tier 1 reduction factors were
Reduction Method
multiplied by an assumed efficiency increase to
determine overall per - building electricity and natural
gas reductions for commercial buildings, single - family
detached houses, townhomes, and multi - family
residential units. Lastly, these per - building reductions
were combined with a citywide participation rate to
determine overall community savings.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Reduction Sources
Mitigation Measures. Sacramento.
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/201 0/11 /CAPCOA- Quantification-
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
G METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Repo rt- 9- 14- Final.pdf.
For CALGreen costs, a standard additional per- square-
foot cost for energy efficiency was applied to the
projected increase in residential and nonresidential
Cost Method
square footage in South San Francisco. The calculated
reductions in electricity and natural gas use as a result
of the CALGreen Tier 1 standard were multiplied by
projected energy costs to determine savings.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. California
Energy Almanac. Utility -wide Weighted Average Retail
Electricity Prices. Sacramento.
http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov /electricity /index.html.
City of South San Francisco. 1999. South San Francisco
General Plan. http : / /www.ssf.net /index.aspx ?NID =360.
Cost Sources
Local Governments for Sustainability USA. Climate and
Air Pollution Planning Assistant v. 1.3.
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2012. Gas Rate Forecast. San
Francisco. http: / /www.pge.com /tariffs /rateinfo.shtml.
Zillow.com. 2012. South San Francisco Homes & Real
Estate Data. http: / /www.zillow.com /local- info /CA-
South- San - Francisco - homes /r 13929/.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX IF
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Policy
Support retrofits to existing residential structures.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
1,900
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
6,090
1,600 kWh and 140 therms for low- income
weatherization participants, 500 kWh and 40 therms for
basic program participants, and 1,990 kWh and 180
therms for advanced participants in the Energy Upgrade
CA /Energy Financing program. 170 kWh for a single -
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
family detached house, 210 kWh for a single - family
Participant
attached house, and 220 kWh for a multi - family
residential unit participating in the appliance upgrade
program. 350 kWh and 4 therms per household
participating in the Smart Grid Appliance program, and
1,550 kWh and 140 therms per house undergoing a
retrofit as part of a sale.
1,600 kWh and 140 therms for low- income
weatherization participants, 500 kWh and 40 therms for
basic program participants, and 1,990 kWh and 180
therms for advanced participants in the Energy Upgrade
CA /Energy Financing program. 170 kWh for a single -
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
family detached house, 210 kWh for a single - family
Participant
attached house, and 220 kWh for a multi - family
residential unit participating in the appliance upgrade
program. 350 kWh and 5 therms per household
participating in the Smart Grid Appliance program, and
1,570 kWh and 140 therms per house undergoing a
retrofit as part of a sale.
300 participating households in the low- income
weatherization program. For the Energy Upgrade
CA /Energy Financing program, 1,450 households in the
basic program and 720 households in the advanced
2020 Participation Target(s)
program. 600 single - family detached houses, 130 single -
family attached houses, and 260 multi - family residential
units participating in the appliance upgrade program.
For the Smart Grid Appliance program, 780 new and
existing houses. 40 for -sale homes being upgraded as
part of the sale process.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
G METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Measure 3.2 M
450 participating households in the low- income
weatherization program. For the Energy Upgrade
CA /Energy Financing program, 3,620 households in the
basic program and 2,890 households in the advanced
2035 Participation Target(s)
program. 4,760 single - family detached houses, 1,020
single - family attached houses, and 2,050 multi - family
residential units participating in the appliance upgrade
program. For the Smart Grid Appliance program, 3,650
new and existing houses. 140 for -sale homes being
upgraded as part of the sale process.
2020 Community Costs
High (Over $500,000)
2020 Community Savings
High (Over $500,000)
For low- income weatherization, energy reduction
figures from PG &E case studies were combined with
inventory data to determine energy use per house, and
then a participation rate was applied to determine
overall savings.
For Energy Upgrade CA and similar programs, reduction
figures from the program were applied to per- residence
Reduction Method
energy use figures, and then multiplied by participation
rates for both basic and advanced retrofits.
To determine reductions from home sale energy audits,
historical home sale data in South San Francisco was
used to determine the yearly percentage of homes in
the community that are sold. ABAG figures were used to
calculate the average kWh and therm reductions for
each home. A participation rate was then applied to
determine community reductions.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2012.
Retrofit Bay Area Final Report: ABAG Report to CEC on
Energy Upgrade California. Oakland, CA.
https: / /www.pge.com/ regulation /EnergyEfficiency2013-
2014- Portfolio /Pleadings /LGSEC /2012
/EnergyEfficiency2013-2014-
Portfolio Plea LGSEC 20120803 245608Atch01 24560
9.pdf.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures. Sacramento. http://www.capcoa.org /wp-
content /uploads /2010/11 /CAPCOA- Quantification-
Report- 9- 14- Final.pdf.
Reduction Sources
Energy Upgrade California. 2012. Advanced Upgrade
Package. San Mateo County.
https:Henergyupgradeca.org /county /san_mateo /about
_advanced.
Energy Upgrade California. 2012. Basic Upgrade
Package. San Mateo County.
https: / /energyupgradeca.org /county /san_mateo /about
_basic.
KEMA, Inc. 2010.2009 California Residential Appliance
Saturation Study, Volume 2: Results. CEC- 200 - 2010 -004
http: / /www.energy.ca.gov /appliances /rass /.
Zillow.com. 2012. South San Francisco Homes & Real
Estate Data. http: / /www.zillow.com /local- info /CA- South-
San- Francisco - homes /r 13929/.
Low- income weatherization is funded by state and
federal sources, so there are no community costs.
Community savings were determined by multiplying
electricity and natural gas savings by projected energy
Cost Method
rates.
For the cost of other retrofit programs, an ABAG cost -
per- retrofit figure was multiplied by a participation rate.
To determine savings, electricity and natural gas
reductions were multiplied by projected energy rates in
2020 and 2035.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
G METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2012.
Policy
Retrofit Bay Area Final Report: ABAG Report to CEC on
Energy Upgrade California. Oakland, CA.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
https://www.pge.com / regulation /EnergyEfficiency2013-
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
2014-
Portfolio/ Pleadings /LGSEC /2012 /EnergyEfficiency2013-
2014-
Cost Sources
Portfolio Plea LGSEC 20120803 245608Atch01 24560
9.pdf
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. California
Participant
Energy Almanac. Utility -wide Weighted Average Retail
Electricity Prices. Sacramento.
http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov /electricity /index.html
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2012. Gas Rate Forecast. San
Francisco. http: / /www.pge.com /tariffs /rateinfo.shtml.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Encourage energy efficiency retrofits to the existing
Policy
nonresidential building stock that reduce operating
costs and increase industry competitiveness.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
9,470
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
22,190
For the appliance upgrade program, 6,570 kWh and
220 therms per participating business. For the Smart
Grid Appliance program, 7,420 kWh and 60 therms for
existing businesses, and 5,300 kWh and 40 therms for
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
new businesses. For retrocommissioning, 8,230 kWh
Participant
and 410 therms per average participating business. A
6% improvement in efficiency for new boilers for the
boiler upgrade program. 24,120 kWh and 30 therms for
participants in the structural retrofit program, and
56,170 kWh and 3,360 therms for participants in the
deep retrofit program.
For the appliance upgrade program, 6,570 kWh and
220 therms per participating business. For the Smart
Grid Appliance program, 7,420 kWh and 60 therms for
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
existing businesses, and 11,520 kWh and 100 therms
Participant
for new businesses. For retrocommissioning, 8,230 kWh
and 410 therms per average participating business. A
6% improvement in efficiency for new boilers for the
boiler upgrade program. 24,120 kWh and 30 therms for
participants in the structural retrofit program, and
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX D
Measure 3.3 W"Or
56,170 kWh and 3,360 therms for participants in the
deep retrofit program.
360 participating businesses for the appliance upgrade
program, 50 existing businesses and 10 new businesses
participating in the Smart Grid Appliance program, 3
million participating nonresidential square feet for the
2020 Participation Target(s)
retrocommissioning program, and 50% of boilers
participating in the high- efficiency boiler upgrade
program. 470 participating businesses in the structural
retrofit program and 90 participating businesses in the
deep retrofit program.
830 participating businesses for the appliance upgrade
program, 190 existing businesses and 60 new
businesses participating in the Smart Grid Appliance
program, 9 million participating nonresidential square
2035 Participation Target(s)
feet for the retrocommissioning program, and 100% of
boilers participating in the high- efficiency boiler
upgrade program. 950 participating businesses in the
structural retrofit program and 240 participating
businesses in the deep retrofit program.
2020 Community Costs
High (Over $500,000)
2020 Community Savings
High (Over $500,000)
For nonresidential appliances, inventory and case study
data was used to determine how much nonresidential
natural gas and electricity are used for various
purposes. Additional case studies were used to
calculate the potential savings from appliance
upgrades for each energy use. These potential savings
were multiplied by an average implementation rate, as
most businesses only upgrade some appliances, to
determine per- business savings. Lastly, this was
multiplied by a participation rate to calculate
Reduction Method
community -wide reductions.
For smart grid appliances, inventory and demographic
data was used to determine the energy use of new and
existing businesses. These factors were combined with
smart grid reduction factors to determine per- business
savings. Lastly, these savings were multiplied by a
participation rate to calculate the community -wide
reduction.
To calculate the reductions from retrocommissioning,
inventory data and the South San Francisco General
Plan were used to calculate the average business size.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Measure 3.3
Case studies were used to determine the per- square-
foot reduction in energy use as a result of
retrocommissioning. These figures were combined
with a participation rate to determine the number of
participating businesses and overall community
reductions.
For reductions from boilers inventory and case study
data was used to determine the amount of natural gas
consumed by boilers. Additional case studies were
used to calculate the average life cycle of a boiler,
current boiler efficiency, and projected efficiency of
new boilers. Lastly, the change in efficiency and
average life cycle were used to determine the total
decrease in natural gas as a result of boiler upgrades.
For retrofits, a number of case studies, scientific
research papers, and surveys were used to indentify the
amount of energy used by different activities in a
commercial setting and what degree of savings could
be achieved through retrofits. These savings were then
multiplied by a participation rate to determine the
community savings.
Brown, Rich, Sam Borgeson, Jon Koomey, and Peter
Biermayer. 2008. U.S. Building- Sector Energy Efficiency
Potential. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, University of California.
http://enduse.Ibl.gov /info /LBNL- 1096E.pdf.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures. Sacramento.
http://www.capcoa.org /wp-
content /uploads /2010/11 /CAPCOA- Quantification-
Reduction Sources Repo rt- 9- 14- Final.pdf.
Itron, Inc. 2007. California Commercial End -use Survey -
Results Page.
http: // capabilities .itron.com /CeusWeb /Chart.aspx.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2011. Advanced
Energy Retrofit Guide: Practical Ways to Improve
Energy Performance - Office Buildings. Building
Technologies Program, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy.
http: / /www.pnnl.gov/ main /publications /external /tech
n i ca I_re po its /P N N L- 20761. pdf.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
To calculate the cost from the appliance upgrade and
Smart Grid Appliance programs, standard new
appliance costs were multiplied by the number of
participating businesses. Costs from
retrocommissioning were determined by reviewing
case studies of similar projects in California. Costs of the
Cost Method
boiler replacement program cannot be accurately
determined at this time. The projected kWh and therm
savings from each program were multiplied by
estimated future energy costs to determine community
savings. Costs and savings from commercial and
structural retrofits are based on recent academic and
government studies.
Brown, Rich, Sam Borgeson, Jon Koomey, and Peter
Biermayer. 2008. U.S. Building- Sector Energy Efficiency
Potential. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, University of California.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
(CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas
Mitigation Measures. Sacramento.
http://www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/201 0/11 /CAPCOA- Quantification-
Report- 9- 14- Final.pdf.
California Department of General Services. n.d. Retro-
Commissioning Fact Sheet. Sacramento.
Cost Sources
http: / /www. documents .dgs.ca.gov /green /eeproj /retroc
ommfactsheet.doc.
California Energy Commission. 2012. California Energy
Almanac, Utility -wide Weighted Average Retail
Electricity Prices. Sacramento.
http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov /electricity /index.html.
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2012. Gas Rate Forecast. San
Francisco. http: / /www.pge.com /tariffs /rateinfo.shtml.
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 2011. Advanced
Energy Retrofit Guide: Practical Ways to Improve
Energy Performance. Richland, WA.
http: / /www.pnnl.gov/ main /publications /external /tech
nical_ reports /PNNL- 20761.pdf.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
G METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Policy
Address heat island issues and expand the urban forest..
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
60
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
140
120 kWh per existing house, 2,360 kWh per existing
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
business, 120 kWh per new house, and 1,960 kWh per
Participant
new business. Additionally, 30,580 kWh community -
wide due to a decrease in the urban heat island effect.
120 kWh per existing house, 2,360 kWh per existing
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
business, 120 kWh per new house, and 3,670 kWh per
Participant
new business. Additionally, 72,480 kWh community -
wide due to a decrease in the urban heat island effect.
2020 Participation Target(s)
810 existing houses, 50 existing businesses, 570 new
houses, and 20 new businesses
2035 Participation Target(s)
2,010 existing houses, 120 existing businesses, 880 new
houses, and 30 new businesses
2020 Community Costs
Unknown
2020 Community Savings
Low -Mid ($25,001- 100,000)
To determine the reductions from cool roofs, inventory
and case study data was used to determine the average
amount of electricity used for cooling on residences
and businesses. A reduction rate for cool roofs based on
case studies was multiplied by the average cooling
electricity use to determine per - participant savings. This
was then multiplied by a participation rate.
To calculate the impacts on cool roofs to the overall
Reduction Method
urban heat island effect, the South San Francisco
General Plan and Zoning Code were used to estimate
the amount of community roof area that would be
converted to a cool surface. This area was combined
with the change in solar reflective index as a result of
cool roofs to determine the citywide increase in albedo.
Scientific constants were used to convert the change in
albedo to a decrease in temperature, and a decrease in
kWh as a result of a lower cooling demand.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San
Policy
Francisco General Plan.
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360.
Reduction Sources
Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2012. Cool Roofs.
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
Sacramento.
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
https: / /www.smud.org /en /residential /save-
Participant
energy/ rebates - incentives - financing /cool - roofs.htm.
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Community costs for this measure cannot be accurately
Cost Method
determined. Cost savings were determined by
2020 Participation Target(s)
multiplying the estimated electricity savings by the
projected electricity rates in 2020 and 2035.
2035 Participation Target(s)
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. California
Energy Almanac. Utility -wide Weighted Average Retail
Cost Sources
Electricity Prices. Sacramento.
2020 Community Savings
http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov /electricity /index.html
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2012. Gas Rate Forecast. San
Francisco. http: / /www.pge.com /tariffs /rateinfo.shtml.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Promote energy information sharing and educate the
Policy
community about energy- efficient behaviors and
construction.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
130
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
330
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
100 kWh and 10 therms per participating house for the
Participant
behavioral energy reduction efforts
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
100 kWh and 10 therms per participating house for the
Participant
behavioral energy reduction efforts
2020 Participation Target(s)
2,010 houses engaging in behavioral -based energy
reduction efforts
2035 Participation Target(s)
5,030 houses engaging in behavioral -based energy
reduction efforts
2020 Community Costs
High (Over $500,000)
2020 Community Savings
Medium -High ($200,001- 500,000)
Savings from educational efforts were calculated by
reviewing case studies of environmental education
Reduction Method
programs and determining average per -home
reductions, which were then multiplied by a
participation rate to arrive at community -wide savings.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
G METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Policy
Davis, Matt. n.d. Behavior and Energy Savings: Evidence
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
from a Series of Experimental Interventions.
Reduction Sources
Environmental Defense Fund.
http : / /blogs.edf.org /energyexchange /files /2011/05/Beha
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
viorAndEnergySavings.pdf.
Participant
Costs cannot be accurately calculated for environmental
education due to uncertainties. The projected kWh and
Cost Method
therm savings for each program were multiplied by
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
estimated future energy costs to determine community
Participant
savings.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). 2012.
Retrofit Bay Area Final Report: ABAG Report to CEC on
Energy Upgrade California. Oakland, CA.
https://www.pge.com / regulation /EnergyEfficiency2013-
2014-
Portfolio /Pleadings /LGSEC /2012 /EnergyEfficiency2013-
2014-
Cost Sources
Portfolio Plea LGSEC 20120803 245608Atch01 24560
9.pdf.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. California
Energy Almanac. Utility -wide Weighted Average Retail
Electricity Prices. Sacramento.
http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov /electricity /index.html
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2012. Gas Rate Forecast. San
Francisco. http: / /www.pge.com /tariffs /rateinfo.shtml.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Policy
Promote installation of alternative energy facilities.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
5,100
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
11,760
180 kWh per square foot of nonresidential roof space
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
converted to solar panels, 5,190 kWh per house with a
Participant
solar panel array, and 90 therms per participating house
with a solar hot water heating system
180 kWh per square foot of nonresidential roof space
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
converted to solar panels, 5,190 kWh per house with a
Participant
solar panel array, and 90 therms per participating house
with a solar hot water heating system
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
80,440 square feet of nonresidential roof space
converted to solar panels, 1,010 existing houses and 380
2020 Participation Target(s)
new houses with solar panel arrays, 38% of electricity
demand for new large -scale nonresidential development
supplied by on -site renewables, and 1,050 houses with
solar hot water systems
215,700 square feet of nonresidential roof space
converted to solar panels, 2,010 existing houses and 880
2035 Participation Target(s)
new houses with solar panel arrays, 45% of electricity
demand for new large -scale nonresidential development
supplied by on -site renewables, and 2,410 houses with
solar hot water systems
2020 Community Costs
Unknown
2020 Community Savings
High (Over $500,000)
Using data from the inventory and South San Francisco
General Plan, the amount of nonresidential roof space
was calculated and projected forward to 2020 and 2035.
Information from the National Renewable Energy
Reduction Method
Laboratory was used to determine the average annual
kWh per square foot of solar panel in the San Francisco
Bay region. These factors were combined with a
participation rate to determine community reduction in
kWh.
City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San
Francisco General Plan.
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=360.
City of South San Francisco. 2010. South San Francisco
Zoning Ordinance.
http: / /gcode.us /codes /southsanfrancisco.
Gil, C. E., and D. S. Parker. 2009. Geographic Variation in
Potential of Residential Solar Hot Water System
Reduction Sources
Performance in the United States. Florida Solar Energy
Center.
http: / /www.fsec.ucf.edu /en /publications /pdf /FSEC -CR-
1817- 09.pdf.
Renewable Resource Data Center, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. 2009. PVWATTS Solar Calculator for
San Francisco, CA. Golden, CO.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version
1 /US /California /San Francisco.html.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
G METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Costs of installing the panels cannot be accurately
Policy
determined due to a number of uncertainties. Cost
Cost Method
savings were determined by multiplying the projected
2020 MTCOze Reductions
kWh generated by the panels by the expected cost of
2035 MTCOze Reductions
electricity.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. California
Cost Sources
Energy Almanac. Utility -wide Weighted Average Retail
Participant
Electricity Prices. Sacramento.
http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov /electricity /index.html.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Develop a waste reduction strategy to increase recycling
Policy
and reuse of materials to achieve a 75% diversion of
landfilled waste by 2020.
2020 MTCOze Reductions
6,720
2035 MTCOze Reductions
10,950
650 pounds of compostables per household and 5,110
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
pounds of compostables per business. For increased
Participant
recycling, the amount of waste thrown away should be
reduced to 1,570 pounds per resident or 3,120 pounds
per employee annually.
650 pounds of compostables per household and 7,380
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
pounds of compostables per business. For increased
Participant
recycling, the amount of waste thrown away should be
reduced to 990 pounds per resident or 1,960 pounds per
employee annually.
21,520 households and 2,290 businesses participating in
2020 Participation Target(s)
the composting program. All community residents and
employees participating in the increased recycling
efforts.
26,890 households and 2,490 businesses participating in
2035 Participation Target(s)
the composting program. All community residents and
employees participating in the increased recycling
efforts.
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
Minimal ($0)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Policy
Reduce water demand.
For composting, statewide figures were used to
250
determine the total tonnage of compostable materials
530
from residential and nonresidential sources. A
20 gallons per person per day and 10 kWh per person
compliance rate was applied to determine how much of
these compostables would actually be composted if a
40 gallons per person per day and 30 kWh per person
program was established, and then an emissions factor
Reduction Method
was applied to calculate GHG savings.
1,030 megagallons (MG) annually and 1,346,020 kWh
For improved recycling, daily pounds of waste produced
saved
per South San Francisco resident was calculated using
2,370 megagallons (MG) annually and 3,096,000 kWh
inventory data and projected out to 2020 and 2035.
saved
Once a target was adopted, the difference between the
target and the projected per- capita waste was
determined and multiplied by an emissions factor to
obtain a GHG reduction.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2011. Method for
Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions from
Compost from Commercial Organic Waste. Sacramento.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/protocols/localgov/pubs/com
post_method.pdf.
Reduction Sources
California Integrated Waste Management Board. 2009.
California 2008 Statewide Waste Characterization Study.
Sacramento.
http: / /www.calrecycle.ca.gov /Publications /Documents/
General /2009023.p4f.
Cost Method
There are no community costs or savings directly
associated with waste minimization.
Cost Sources
Not Applicable
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
Policy
Reduce water demand.
2020 MTCOze Reductions
250
2035 MTCOze Reductions
530
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
20 gallons per person per day and 10 kWh per person
Participant
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
40 gallons per person per day and 30 kWh per person
Participant
2020 Participation Target(s)
1,030 megagallons (MG) annually and 1,346,020 kWh
saved
2035 Participation Target(s)
2,370 megagallons (MG) annually and 3,096,000 kWh
saved
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
High (Over $500,000)
2035 MTCOze Reductions
Baseline inventory figures were used to calculate the
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Participant
gallons of water per capita per day (GPCD) for South San
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Participant
Francisco. A target reduction rate was then used to
2020 Participation Target(s)
determine the target reduction in GPCD. Inventory
Reduction Method
figures were used to calculate emissions factors for
potable water and wastewater, which were multiplied by
the target reduction in GPCD. Lastly, a compliance rate
was applied to determine the overall emissions
reduction.
Heaney, J. P., et al. (1998). Nature of Residential Water
Reduction Sources
Use and Effectiveness of Conservation Programs.
http: / /bcn. boulder .co.us /basin /local /heaney.html.
There are no costs to the community associated with this
policy. To determine community savings, the average
Cost Method
water rate for South San Francisco was calculated and
converted into a cost per gallon. This was then
multiplied by the reduction in gallons.
California Water Company. 2012. South San Francisco
Rates and Tariffs.
Cost Sources
http://www.calwater.com/rates/rates—tariffs/index.php
Westborough Water District. 2012. Services and Billing
Information.
http://www.westboroughwater.com/services.htm#ql.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Policy
Aircraft Noise Insulation Program (ANIP)
2020 MTCOze Reductions
540
2035 MTCOze Reductions
520
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Participant
1,390 kWh and 140 therms for a full retrofit, and 700
kWh and 70 therms for a partial retrofit
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Participant
1,390 kWh and 140 therms for a full retrofit and 700 kWh
and 70 therms for a partial retrofit
2020 Participation Target(s)
290 homes participating in the full retrofit and 460
homes participating in the partial retrofit
2035 Participation Target(s)
290 homes participating in the full retrofit and 460
homes participating in the partial retrofit
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX P
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
Medium -High ($200,001- 500,000)
Using details provided by the City about the ANIP
program, PG &E case studies of residential retrofits in the
Bay Area, and inventory data, the electricity and natural
Reduction Method
gas savings from an ANIP upgrade were determined for
each participating house. This was then multiplied by
the number of participating residences to determine
community savings.
Association of Bay area Governments (ABAG). 2012.
Retrofit Bay Area Final Report: ABAG Report to CEC on
Energy Upgrade California. Oakland, CA.
https://www.pge.com / regulation /EnergyEfficiency2013-
2014-
Reduction Sources
Portfolio/ Pleadings /LGSEC /2012 /EnergyEfficiency2013-
2014-
Portfolio_ Plea _LGSEC_20120803_245608Atch01 _24560
9.pdf.
City of South San Francisco. 2012. South San Francisco
Aircraft Noise Insulation Program.
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=249.
There are no community costs associated with this
policy, as it is being funded by the San Francisco
Cost Method
International Airport and the Federal Aviation
Administration. To determine savings, the reductions in
electricity and natural gas use were multiplied by
projected energy rates and summed.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. California
Energy Almanac. Utility -wide Weighted Average Retail
Electricity Prices. Sacramento.
http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov /electricity /index.html.
Cost Sources
Gas Rate Forecast. 2012. Pacific Gas & Electric. San
Francisco, CA.
http://www.pqe.com/tariffs/rateinfo.shtml.
City of South San Francisco. 2012. Aircraft Noise
Insulation Program (ANIP).
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=249.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Policy
Recycle waste from construction and demolition
projects.
2020 MTCOze Reductions
50
2035 MTCOze Reductions
50
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
2020 Participation Target(s)
9,310 additional tons of C &D waste being recycled
2035 Participation Target(s)
10,380 additional tons of C &D waste being recycled
2020 Community Costs
Unknown
2020 Community Savings
Unknown
Statewide waste composition data was used to
determine the existing recycling rate of inert and non -
inert C &D material. Using South San Francisco's C &D
recycling ordinance, a compliance rate, and inventory
Reduction Method
data, the 2020 and 2035 amount of C &D waste was
calculated, both with and without the ordinance in
place. An emissions factor was applied to the difference
to determine the overall savings as a result of the C &D
ordinance.
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2010. Local
Government Operations Protocol, Version 1.1.
Sacramento.
http: / /www.arb.ca.gov /cc /protocols /localgov /pubs /Igo_
protocol_v1 _1 _2010- 05- 03.pdf.
California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle). 2004. Statewide Waste
Characterization Study. Sacramento.
http: / /www.calrecycle.ca.gov /publications /Detail.aspx ?P
Reduction Sources
ublicationlD =1097.
California Department of Resources Recycling and
Recovery (CalRecycle). 2006. Targeted Statewide Waste
Characterization Study: Detailed Characterization of
Construction and Demolition Waste. Sacramento.
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/
Disposal /34106007.pdf.
San Mateo County RecycleWorks. n.d. Understanding
C &D Recycling Requirements. Redwood City, CA.
http://www.recycleworks.org/pdf/CD—office—guide—pg-
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
Existing
Policy
4_5.pdf.
Cost Method
There are no community costs or savings directly
associated with this policy. Indirect costs and savings
cannot be accurately quantified.
Cost Sources
Not Applicable
Existing
Policy
Participate in the California Solar Initiative (CSI).
2020 MTCOze Reductions
890
2035 MTCOze Reductions
810
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
An average of 64,100 kWh per installation
Participant
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
An average of 64,100 kWh per installation
Participant
2020 Participation Target(s)
70 solar panel arrays installed to date under the CSI
program
2035 Participation Target(s)
70 solar panel arrays installed to date under the CSI
program
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
Medium -High ($200,001- 500,000)
The most recent (as of 10/15/12) participation data for
South San Francisco was downloaded, and cancelled
projects were removed. Using this data, the overall kW
per solar installation and the number of installations
Reduction Method
annually was determined. Data from the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory was used to determine
the average annual kWh per kW in the San Francisco Bay
region The to -date kW figures were converted to kWh to
calculate the total reduction.
California Energy Commission and California Public
Utilities Commission. 2012. Current (10/15/12) Working
Data Set. 2012. California Solar Statistics. Sacramento.
http: / /www.ca I ifo rn iasola rstatistics.ca.gov /cu rrent_ data_
Reduction Sources
files /.
Renewable Resource Data Center, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. 2009. PVWATTS Solar Calculator for
San Francisco, CA. Golden, CO.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATTS/version
1 /US /California /San Francisco.html.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
G METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Due to uncertainties about the cost of installation and
the size of the rebates, the cost of this program cannot
be accurately calculated. To determine savings, the
annual kWh generated by the solar panels installed due
Cost Method to the CSI program was multiplied by the projected cost
of energy. City savings represent the reduction in
electricity costs from the panels installed by the City of
South San Francisco. Community savings represent the
costs from installations on private property.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012. California
Energy Almanac. Utility -wide Weighted Average Retail
Electricity Prices. Sacramento.
Cost Sources http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov /electricity /index.html.
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2012. Gas Rate Forecast. San
Francisco. http: / /www.pge.com /tariffs /rateinfo.shtml.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Policy
Retrofit municipal facilities for energy efficiency.
2020 MTCOze Reductions
330
2035 MTCOze Reductions
310
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Participant
On average, 69,050 kWh for electricity efficiency projects
and 3,980 therms for natural gas efficiency projects
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Participant
On average, 69,050 kWh for electricity efficiency projects
and 3,980 therms for natural gas efficiency projects
2020 Participation Target(s)
Not Applicable
2035 Participation Target(s)
Not Applicable
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
Minimal ($0)
Reduction Method
The San Mateo County Energy Watch program provided
data detailing all municipal energy efficiency programs in
South San Francisco and the reduction in electricity or
natural gas that each program had achieved. These
reductions were summed to determine overall savings.
Reduction Sources
San Mateo County Energy Watch. 2012.
Cost Method
The San Mateo County Energy Watch data included cost
savings, which are used here. Costs to the City cannot be
accurately determined.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX
Cost Sources San Mateo County Energy Watch. 2012.
Existing
Policy
SSFUSD- Chevron partnership
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
460
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
420
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
Not Applicable
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
Not Applicable
2020 Participation Target(s)
Not Applicable
2035 Participation Target(s)
Not Applicable
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
Minimal ($0)
The annual kWh output of the South San Francisco
Unified School District's solar arrays was determined
Reduction Method
using data from the district and solar constants specific
to the San Francisco Bay region from the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Renewable Resource Data Center, National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. 2009. PVWATTS Solar Calculator for
Reduction Sources
San Francisco, CA. Golden, CO.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/calculators/PVWATrS/version
rS /version
I/US/California/San—Francisco.html.
Cost Method
Not Applicable
Cost Sources
Not Applicable
Existing
Policy
Implement the City's Transportation Demand
Management Program.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
4,210
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
4,070
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
Participant
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Existing
2020 Participation Target(s) Not Applicable
2035 Participation Target(s)
Not Applicable
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
High (Over $500,000)
Not Applicable
Using the South San Francisco Municipal Code and
Not Applicable
employment data provided by the City, the number of
employees eligible for participation in the program was
calculated. Figures provided by CAPCOA were used to
Reduction Method
convert these figures into average VMT reductions.
Additionally, case studies were used to estimate the
expected ridership of work shuttles and the average
length of each trip. These figures were then converted
into average daily VMT reductions.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association
( CAPCOA). 2010. Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Measures. Sacramento. http://www.capcoa.org /wp-
content /uploads /2010/11 / CAPCOA- Quantification-
Report-9-14- Final.pdf.
Reduction Sources
City of South San Francisco. 2012. City of South San
Francisco Municipal Code.
http: / /gcode.us /codes /southsanfrancisco /.
Genentech. Inc. 2006. Genentech South San Francisco
Transportation Demand Management Plan. South San
Francisco, CA.
There are not expected to be any costs to the community
Cost Method
from this policy. The projected savings in VMTs were
multiplied by the standard IRS tax reimbursement rate
for miles traveled to determine community savings.
Internal Revenue Service. 2011. IRS Announces 2012
Cost Sources
Standard Mileage Rates. Washington, D.C.
http: / /www.i rs.gov /uac /I RS -An nou nces- 2012- Standard-
M i leage- Rates,- Most - Rates - Are - the - Same -as -i n -July.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Policy
Expansion of multi - family development.
2020 MTCO2e Reductions
3,610
2035 MTCO2e Reductions
6,840
2020 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Participant
Not Applicable
2035 Assumed Activity Reduction per
Not Applicable
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX D
Existing Activity 8
Participant
2020 Participation Target(s)
440 new single - family homes and 3,350 new multi - family
homes
2035 Participation Target(s)
840 new single - family homes and 6,470 new multi - family
homes
2020 Community Costs
Minimal ($0)
2020 Community Savings
High (Over $500,000)
PG &E data was used to determine the difference in
energy use between single - family and multi - family
houses in South San Francisco, and Census data was used
to identify the current breakdown between housing
types in the community. These figures were projected
forward to 2020 to calculate residential energy use if the
Reduction Method
current housing balance remained unchanged. South
San Francisco's post -2005 residential development
trends were used to estimate the change in housing type
breakdown for new development, projected forward to
2020 and 2035. Energy use under this new development
scenario was estimated, and the difference between the
two was attributed to the General Plan as a reduction
measure.
City of South San Francisco. 1999. City of South San
Francisco General Plan.
Reduction Sources
http : / /www.ssf.net /index.aspx ?NID =360.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2011. South San
Francisco City Residential Energy Overview v1.3. San
Francisco, CA.
Because this is an existing component of the City's
Cost Method
General Plan, costs cannot be accurately determined.
Savings were calculated by multiplying the expected
energy savings by projected energy rates.
California Energy Commission. 2012. California Energy
Almanac. Utility -wide Weighted Average Retail Electricity
Cost Sources
Prices. Sacramento.
http: / /energyalmanac.ca.gov /electricity /index.html.
Pacific Gas & Electric. 2012. Gas Rate Forecast. San
Francisco. http: / /www.pge.com /tariffs /rateinfo.shtml.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
GHG METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX E
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
CHECKLIST
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST
APPENDIX E: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST
This appendix presents the items that City staff will monitor to track implementation of the Climate
Action Plan. On a project -by- project basis, City staff will monitor these criteria using a separate
development checklist that identifies departmental responsibility and project -level measures. The
following tables identify the illustrative criteria necessary for tracking project -level contributions to
the Climate Action Plan target. Yet the separate development checklist will clearly identify applicable
measures by project type, providing a streamlined process for applicants and City staff using a simple
checklist format. By maintaining the development checklist as a separate, stand -alone implementation
item of the Climate Action Plan, the City will have flexibility to modify the checklist over time and
adapt to the information that applicants can easily provide.
PROJECT INFORMATION FOR ADDITIONS, ALTERATIONS, AND
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS
This list includes project -level criteria from the Climate Action Plan relevant to additions, alterations,
and tenant improvements. City staff will use a separate development checklist to monitor project
compliance with these key actions.
Climate Action Plan Measures for Additions, Alterations, and Tenant Improvements
Does the project provide bicycle facilities, bicycle lanes, or other facilities?
Will the project provide a bike share program for employees or residents?
Will there be a commute shuttle or public transit stop within 500 feet?
Is the project subject to a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program?
Will the project provide incentives for commuters?
Is the project subject to a traffic impact fee?
How will the net number of parking spaces change on -site?
Is the project located within a specific plan area, station area, or Priority Development Area?
Will this project provide any alternative -fuel stations?
Will the project have any pre- wiring or conduits to accommodate renewable energy facilities or
electric vehicle charging stations in the future?
Will project construction activities implement best management practices, such as the BAAQMD's
recommended construction mitigations identified in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines?
Is the building more than 30 years old?
Will certification of the building be sought under LEED or another green building criteria?
Will the project be built to CALGreen Tier 1 energy efficiency standards?
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX E
Does the project include any energy- efficient improvements (e.g., double -paned windows, increased
insulation, weatherization)?
Does the project include any upgrades of appliances to more energy efficient models?
Will mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment, boilers, water heaters) be upgraded to more
energy efficient models?
Will roofs or surface paving be replaced with high - reflectivity ( "cool ") surfaces?
How will the net number of trees change on -site?
Will any renewable energy system be installed as part of this project?
Is the project a new conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more?
Is there a plan for construction and demolition waste recycling?
Will there be composting on -site?
Will any water fixtures be replaced with more efficient fixtures?
Will there be any effort to educate occupants and tenants about water conservation?
Does the project incorporate low- impact development (LID) practices?
Will any xeriscaping be installed?
Will captured rainwater or graywater be used for irrigation?
PROJECT INFORMATION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT
This list includes criteria from the Climate Action Plan that are applicable to new development. These
measures should be included in the project design as feasible.
Development
Does the project include bicycle facilities (e.g., bicycle lanes, parking, lockers)?
Will the project support bike sharing /rental programs?
Will there be a commute shuttle or public transit stop on -site or within 500 feet?
Is the project within 1/4 mile of a Caltrain or BART stop?
Will the project include high- density housing and a diverse range of housing?
Will the project provide traffic calming treatments?
Is the project paying a traffic impact fee to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements?
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW CHECKLIST
Will the project provide shared or reduced parking?
Will the project provide designated parking spaces for electric vehicles, carpool vehicles, or other low -
emissions vehicles?
Will the project have any ground -level commercial space?
Does the project include any alternative -fuel stations?
Will the project have any pre - wiring or conduit construction to easily add electric vehicle charging
stations or alternative energy facilities at a later date?
If this project is replacing an existing building, is the building being replaced more than 30 years old?
Will certification of the building be sought under LEED or other green building criteria?
Will the project include any high - reflectivity ( "cool ") roof or surface paving?
Will there be a net increase in the number of mature trees on -site once the project is completed?
Will any renewable energy system be installed as part of this project?
Is the project a new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more?
Will this project use renewable energy generated off -site?
Will there be composting collection on -site?
Will any water fixtures exceed CALGreen standards?
Will the project incorporate low- impact development (LID) practices?
Will any xeriscaping be installed?
Will captured rainwater or graywater be used for irrigation?
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX E
This page intentionally left blank.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Imo' 1�■fP.�'�P�!� ci
Exhibit C
Pedestrian Master Plan
.t: r
' :41 .. ;,y^x •• y, two �� �
Ir �f�
1R Mt� ,
� i y
j
...;.y _
h � t
� M S
� y 1
The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whole or in part through a grant awarded by the Strategic
Growth Council.
Disclaimer
The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the City of South San Francisco
and /or PMC and not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of
Conservation or its employees. The Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no
warranties, express or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the
succeeding text.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter1: Planning Context ............................................................................................................................. ............................I -1
1.1 Citywide Plans .................................................................................
............................... 1 -2
1.2 County Plans ...................................................................................
............................... 1 -6
1.3 Regional Plans .................................................................................
............................... 1 -9
1.4 Statewide Initiatives and Plans ......................................................
............................... 1 -11
1.5 Federal Initiatives ...........................................................................
............................... 1 -13
Chapter 2: Existing Pedestrian Environment .......................................................................................... ............................... II -1
2.1 South San Francisco Today ............................................................ ...............................
II -1
2.2 Pedestrian Collision Reports ........................................................... ...............................
II -5
2.3 Existing Programs, Policies and Practices Benchmarking Analysis ..............................
II -10
Chapter3: Existing Conditions ......................................................................................... ............................... ..........................III
-1
3.1 Pedestrian Needs .......................................................................... ...............................
III -1
3.2 Walking in South San Francisco .................................................... ...............................
III -2
3.3 Pedestrian Environment ................................................................. ...............................
III -5
3.4 Identification of System Gaps ...................................................... ............................... III -12
3.5 Summary of Opportunities and Constraints .................................. ............................... III -17
Chapter 4: Recommended Improvements ................................................................................................ ...........................IV -1
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... ............................... IV -1
4.2 Citywide Project Recommendations ............................................... ............................... IV -1
4.3 Site - Specific Recommendations .................................................... ............................... IV -5
Chapter5: Concept Plans ................................................................................................................................. ............................V -1
5.1 Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closure Project .......................................... ............................... V -1
5.2 Neighborhood Retail Corridor ......................................................... ............................... V -4
5.3 BART Station and El Camino High School Access Improvements .. ............................... V -6
CLIMATE ACTION PLA AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.4 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Improvements .................. ............................V -8
5.5 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Improvements ................. ...........................V -10
5.6 Complete Streets /Gateway Improvements ........................................ ...........................V -12
5.7 Centennial Way Access Improvements ............................................. ...........................V -15
5.8 Prototypical Arterial intersection Improvements ................................. ...........................V -17
Chapter6: Policy Framework .......................................................................................................................... ...........................VI -1
6.1 Goals & Objectives ............................................................................ ...........................VI -1
Chapter 7: Funding and Implementation .................................................................... ............................... ..........................VII -1
7.1 Planning Implementation ..................................... ............................... ..........................VII
-1
7.2 Funding .............................................................. ............................... .........................VII
-12
7.3 Implementation Steps ........................................ ............................... .........................VII
-20
Chapter8: Support Programs ......................................................................................... ...............................
......................... VIII -1
8.1 Existing Programs ............................................... ............................... .........................VIII
-1
8.2 Recommendations .............................................. ............................... .........................VIII
-3
Appendix A: South San Francisco Pedestrian Design Guidelines ..................................................... ............................A -1
CompleteStreets ..................................................................................... ............................A
-1
Streetsand Sidewalks ............................................................................. ............................A
-2
Crosswalk Installation Guidelines ............................................................ ...........................A
-10
Uncontrolled Intersections and Mid -block Crossing Treatments .............. ...........................A
-10
Controlled Crossing Treatments / Intersection Design ............................ ...........................A
-23
Resource Documents ............................................................................. ...........................A
-34
AppendixB: Ranked Projects .......................................................................................................................
............................... B -1
Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates ..........................................................................................................
............................0 -1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
CHAPTER 1: PLANNING CONTEXT
This chapter summarizes the policies in existing planning documents related to pedestrian activity in
South San Francisco, and summarizes how future infrastructure investments will improve the City's
pedestrian conditions. The existing plans have been grouped into City -wide plans, County Plans,
Regional Plans, State Plans and Federal Initiatives. Table 1 lists the existing planning and policy
documents that are addressed in this chapter.
Table 1 -1: Summary of Relevant Plans and Policies
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Statewide
City-wide
Plans
County Plans
Regional Plans
Initiatives and
Plans
Federal
Initiatives
City of South San
San Mateo County
San Francisco Bay
Caltrans'
Department of
Francisco General
Comprehensive
Trail
Complete Streets
Transportation
Plan
Bicycle and
Policy
Policy Statement on
Pedestrian Plan
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
South San
South San
Grand Boulevard
California
Accommodation
Francisco El
Francisco /San
Plan
Complete Streets
Regulations and
Camino Real
Bruno Community-
Act
Recommendations
Master Plan
Based
Transportation
El Camino Real /
plan Draft
MTC Complete
Assembly Bill 32
Chestnut Avenue
Streets and Routine
and State Bill 375
Area Plan
Accommodation
Policy
South San
Regional Ferry Plan
Assembly Bill 1581
Francisco Bicycle
and Caltrans'
Master Plan
Policy Directive
09 -06
Caltrain Station
High Speed Rail
Area Plan
Plan
(forthcoming)
East of 101 Area
Strategic Growth
Plan
Council Health in
All Initiative
Traffic Calming
Plan
MTC Walking and
Bicycling Training,
South San
Francisco
El Camino Real
Signal Timing
Program
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
1.1 CITYWIDE PLANS
A number of local and regional plans and studies address the pedestrian environment in South San
Francisco. This section discusses adopted plans and policies that relate to pedestrians in South San
Francisco. These documents set precedent for how the City plans for and manages its walking
infrastructure.
City of South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan, October 1999)
Vision
. Pedestrian facility improvements will improve safety for pedestrians and
also encourage the use of alternative modes
• Improve pedestrian connections across Hwy 101
• Establish pedestrian routes between and through residential
neighborhoods, and to transit centers
Guiding Policy
. Exempt development within one - quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART
station, or a City- designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards.
• Accept LOS E or F if the uses resulting in the lower level of service are of
clear, overall public benefit
• As part of redesign of South Linden Avenue, provide continuous
sidewalks on both sides of the street, extending through the entire
stretch of the street from San Bruno BART Station to Downtown.
• The General Plan recommends locations for traffic calming as part of
development in Lindenville or East of 101: require project proponents to
provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements for
new development and redevelopment projects.
• The General Plan recommends improvements to pedestrian connections
between the rail stations and the surroundings: install handicapped
ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed;
construct wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased
pedestrian use; providing intersection "bulbing" to reduce walking
distances across streets in Downtown, across El Camino Real and Mission
Road, and other high use areas; continue with the City's current policy of
providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; and provide
landscaping that encourages pedestrian use.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan (ECRMP, July 2006)
Existing
conditions
. Many El Camino Real intersections within the corridor are between 115
and 140 feet in width, and pedestrians must cross three lanes of traffic to
reach a median
• Between Arlington Drive and Hickey Blvd there are guardrails on each
side and no pedestrian amenities
• There are a limited number of street trees adjacent to sidewalks
• Pedestrian amenities are present within the corridor, but not contiguous
Planned and
. Arlington Drive to Hickey Blvd - streetscape improvements, improved
Proposed
signage, pedestrian links to Hickey Blvd, and improved safety of crossing
Streetscape
at El Camino and Arlington Drive
improvements
. Hickey Blvd to BART - improved signage to BART station, landscaping
and street trees, street furniture such as bus shelter
• BART to Arroyo Drive - sidewalk extension, infill planting in median and
adjacent hillside, unified median and streetscape design
• Arroyo Drive to West Orange Avenue - improve street trees, install
barriers to prevent midblock pedestrian crossings, improve crossing
safety at intersection of El Camino Real and Westborough Blvd, install
signalized intersection at Southwood Drive
• West Orange Avenue to Francisco Drive - traffic calming near the high
school, sidewalk and curb repair /improvement and installation where
necessary, marked pedestrian crossings and accessibility at Francisco
Drive, improve aesthetics of median barrier
• Francisco Drive to Noor Avenue - create pedestrian connections to San
Bruno BART station 1/2 mile to the south, improve transitions south of
Spruce, add landscaping and gateway marking, address large setbacks
on private property with public art or other streetscape improvements
Design Goals and
. Improve streetscape aesthetics
Objectives
. Increase pedestrian circulation and safety: provide accessible sidewalks
throughout the corridor; expand sidewalks at intersections to reduce
crossing length; install additional signaled crosswalks; provide shade and
bus shelters; install pedestrian barriers along medians to discourage
unsafe midblock crossing; buffer sidewalks with parking and vegetation
• Increase the use of the public transit system with more visibility and
pedestrian amenities
• Recapture vehicular right of way in areas in excess of current Caltrans
standards for pedestrian facilities and traffic calming
• Create an identifiable streetscape that focuses on South San Francisco's
unique character
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
Design Concept I . Throughout corridor — install street trees and remove billboards to
Descriptions improve pedestrian environment; install bus shelters.
• Arlington Drive to Hickey Blvd — ADA compliant sidewalks on north east
side of El Camino Real; 5' sidewalk with a retaining wall on west side;
prune trees and remove billboard to improve visibility; provide lighting,
street trees, and street furniture.
• Hickey Blvd to BART — install median from corner of Hickey to Costco
Drive; reduce lane widths and widen sidewalks on both sides; install
wayfinding signage to BART station; require landscaping frontage
improvements for development and permit applications.
• BART to Arroyo Drive — install sidewalk from Greedridge stairs to Arroyo
Drive; remove on street parking between BART and the north entrance of
Kaiser to install expanded sidewalks and street trees; encourage Kaiser to
maintain planting area; create plaza on El Camino Real frontage road.
• Arroyo Drive to West Orange Avenue — install street trees and low screen
fence along Buri -Burl parking lot; install street trees on west side from
West Borough St to 1 st Ave; install four -way signalized intersection at 1 st
Ave; install sidewalk bulb -outs on east side of 1 st Ave intersection; widen
sidewalk and add street trees on west side from 1 st Ave to mid - block.
• West Orange Avenue to Francisco Drive — widen sidewalk on east side
from West Orange Ave to Ponderosa Dr; install sidewalk on east side
along high school and from Cortez Ave to Francisco Dr; Provide bulb -
outs at intersection of Country Club Rd.
• Francisco Drive to Noor Avenue — remove parking and widen sidewalk
along See's Candies; create dense canopy of trees, accent nosing, and
signage on both sides of street at city gateway; widen sidewalks on both
sides of gateway.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (ECR /CAP, July 2011)
Vision for El
. Higher density residential development and additional retail, office and
Camino corridor
public space
from SSF BART
. Increase pedestrian focus
station to
Chestnut Ave
• Increase commercial activity for both destination and neighborhood
serving retail
• Add continuous green space along Centennial Way and along BART right
of way, to serve as a connector
• Create pedestrian connections along Mission Road and El Camino Real
Existing
. Pedestrians have access to BART station from El Camino Real
conditions for El
Camino corridor
from SSF BART
station to
Chestnut Ave
East of 101 Area Plan (July 1994)
The East of 101 Area Plan focuses on the unique character and economic resources located east of U.S.
101. The plan outlines circulation goals for future development in the East of 101 Area, which include
minimizing vehicular impact, encouraging transportation modes other than single occupancy
vehicles, and promoting use of public transit and shuttles to and within the area. The plan also
includes a design element and policies that identify the need for a streetscape plan for several key
streets and encourages campus planning (e.g. Genentech Master Plan).
South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan (2011)
A detailed Bicycle Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2011. This plan prioritizes
improvements and will eventually be adopted as an amendment to the City of South San Francisco
General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element.
Downtown Station Area Plan (forthcoming)
The Downtown South San Francisco Station Area Plan will focus on improving access and connectivity
between the station, the downtown area near Grand Avenue and Airport Boulevard, and employment
centers east of U.S. 101.
Traffic Calming Plan
The City of South San Francisco has established an ongoing Traffic Calming program, accompanied by
a local Traffic Calming Plan. This program was developed to provide policies and procedures that will
act as guidelines to address traffic complaints related to excessive speeding, cut - through traffic, and
high vehicular volumes while maintaining pedestrian and vehicular safety. The Traffic Calming Plan
provides a toolkit for implementing solutions, however the City has no dedicated funding source for
implementation at the present time.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
MTC Walking and Bicycling Training, South San Francisco (presented October 2010)
A series of trainings with a focus on improving the Pedestrian and Bicycle environments was
presented to practicing transportation, urban planning, engineering and design professionals from
South San Francisco and adjacent jurisdictions. The presentation focused on a number of planning
tools and design innovations that may increase pedestrian safety and mobility throughout the city.
These include: scramble treatments at intersections to allow for diagonal pedestrian crossing; leading
pedestrian signals to give pedestrians a head start on turning vehicles; advance yield and limit lines at
pedestrian crossings to improve visibility from approaching vehicles; flashing beacons and High
Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) to alert approaching vehicles when a pedestrian is in the
intersections; split pedestrian crossover to reduce crossing distance and improve visibility and wide or
confusing intersections; and ADA innovations and updates at push button crosswalks.
El Camino Real Signal Timing Program
South San Francisco and MTC have developed optimized signal timing plans for seven intersections
along El Camino Real, and three intersections along Chestnut Avenue/ Westborough Boulevard near El
Camino Real. The project goal was to develop signal coordination plans for AM, mid -day and PM peak
periods to improve timing and reduce vehicle delay. Pedestrian signal timing at crosswalks was
adjusted to accommodate a slower walking speed, and the new signal timing reduces transit travel
time on the corridor.
1.2 COUNTY PLANS
This section describes the plans and policies related to pedestrian activity within San Mateo County.
San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (SM CCBP, September
2011)
The San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (SM CCBP) was adopted by the
City /County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C /CAG) and the San Mateo County
Transportation Authority (SMCTA) in September 2011. This plan addresses the planning, design,
funding and implementation of bicycle and pedestrian projects of countywide significance by
updating the 2000 San Mateo County _
Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan, and adding,�••'� •Sa�,�,
a pedestrian component. The City's Bicycle - --
Master Plan and the forthcoming Pedestrian •' ` r ••�••�.•••
Plan provide more up -to -date and accurate •- ,.•. -•'•
network maps and policies. Ave �" _ South San
,P .80 FrancWw
-vim ^ •� 15 r
f�
Station ,
01 ^ G
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
Existing
. The largest population and employment densities in the county are
Conditions for all
concentrated along the El Camino Real corridor
of San Mateo
. A Class I path has been constructed between South San Francisco and
County
San Bruno BART as part of the Colma- Millbrae Bikeway Project
• Employment density around SSF Caltrain station is high on the east side
of the freeway
• Multi -use paths (Class I facilities) are in place along the bay shoreline and
between the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations, but there
is less coverage extending beyond the transit centers and limited
opportunity given the development pattern
Goals to improve
. Goal 1: A Comprehensive Countywide System of Facilities for Bicyclists
active
and Pedestrians
transportation
. Goal 2: More People Riding and Walking for Transportation and
Recreation
• Goal 3: Improved Safety for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
• Goal 4: Complete Streets and Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists and
Pedestrians
• Goal 5: Strong Local Support for Non - Motorized Transportation
The vision most relevant to South San Francisco will be implemented through the countywide Grand
Boulevard Initiative, a regional collaboration dedicated to revitalizing the El Camino Real corridor
through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (see Regional Plans, below, for details).
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
South San Francisco /San Bruno Community -Based Transportation Plan Draft (SSF -SB
CBTP, January 2011)
;dr IL
Existing
. The east portion of South San Francisco is not well served by public
Conditions in
transit
South San
• Several major employers are located east of Hwy 101; major retail is
Francisco
mostly located along the El Camino Real and BART corridors
• Residents need increased sense of security while walking and more
pedestrian amenities and streetscape improvements
Transportation
. Improve transit stops and amenities; and improve transit affordability for
Strategies
low income users
• Implement improvements such as pedestrian count down signals,
additional crossing time, sidewalk and accessibility improvements, street
lighting, benches, and median refuges
• Link Caltrain station to Grand Avenue and downtown South San
Francisco with pedestrian connections
Specific locations
. Across U.S. Route 101 from downtown South San Francisco to the South
for Traffic
San Francisco Caltrain station and east of U.S. Route 101 (South San
Calming
Francisco)
• Westborough Boulevard between Camaritas Avenue and Junipero Serra
Boulevard
• El Camino Real from Hickey Boulevard to Serramonte Boulevard
Gaps in the
• Across U.S. Route 101 from downtown South San Francisco to the South San
pedestrian
Francisco Caltrain station and east of U.S. Route 101 (South San Francisco)
environment
• Westborough Boulevard between Camaritas Avenue and Junipero Serra
Boulevard
• El Camino Real from Hickey Boulevard to Serramonte Boulevard
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
1.3 REGIONAL PLANS
The Plans summarized in this section affect jurisdictions throughout the nine county Bay Area region,
including the City of South San Francisco.
San Francisco Bay Trail (Ongoing)
The Bay Trail is a planned continuous multi -use trail
that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and ■ �nk_ giro-, -,F) °�,
San Pablo bays. Approximately 500 miles long, the ' It $ `°
trail's planned alignment connects the bay shoreline
of all nine Bay Area counties, links 47 cities, and x
crosses all the toll bridges in the region. The
alignment includes a continuous "spine" along or�w
near the shoreline and many short "spurs" to the waterfront itself. Planning for the Bay Trail is
coordinated by the nonprofit San Francisco Bay Trail Project, a project of the Association of Bay Area
Governments.
To date, approximately 290 miles of the Bay Trail alignment have been developed as either off - street
paths or on- street bicycling lanes or routes. South San Francisco's bay waterfront is home to a Class I
section of the Bay Trail, running between San Bruno Point and Oyster Cove. The City of South San
Francisco has completed its portion of the Trail with the exception of a vacant parcel near North
Access Road. The City will review the Bay Trail within areas subject to sea level rise.
Grand Boulevard Initiative (ongoing)
The Grand Boulevard Initiative focuses on encouraging multimodal access
and a boulevard street environment along El Camino Real in both San
Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Street Design Guidelines for street
improvement projects promote the basic elements of the Grand Boulevard
vision, with common Design Issues and accompanying Recommendations.
Vision for San Mateo County . Grand Boulevard Initiative is a regional
collaboration dedicated to dramatically
intensifying the development within
portions of the El Camino Real corridor
through San Mateo and Santa Clara
Counties
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
Shorter blocks with median - obstructed
• Signalized mid -block and /or median -
crossings are more common in San Mateo
obstructed crossings in node areas should be
County
installed to provide for a maximum distance
between crossings of approximately 660 feet
(1/8 mile), or a 3.5- minute walk.
• In addition to traffic and countdown
pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb -outs,
advanced stop lines, safety lighting, and
special paving treatments should be
provided to encourage walking.
Pedestrian crossing distances on SR 82 are
• At signalized crossings 80 feet long or
relatively long
greater, or at un- signalized intersection
crossings, pedestrian refuge islands should
be installed as local conditions allow.
Existing sidewalks throughout the SR 82
• New and re- development projects along the
corridor are generally too narrow to support
corridor frontage should provide a 10 -foot or
the "boulevard" street environment required to
greater setback as needed to create a
promote investment in transit - oriented mixed-
minimum 18 -foot frontage sidewalk.
use and infill residential development
Sidewalks provide a linear through - circulation
• Sidewalks should be configured to reflect the
route for pedestrians, "spillout" space, and area
three basic sidewalk functions note above,
for boulevard amenities
with a 4 -foot spillout zone adjacent to
frontage buildings, a minimum 8 -foot
through walking zone, and a 6 -foot amenity
zone adjacent to the curb line for street trees,
street lighting, and spillout area for curbside
parking.
Lighting conditions do not encourage
0 Pedestrian- oriented street lighting should be
pedestrian circulation, support investment in
installed throughout the corridor, with
frontage properties, or promote the boulevard
supplemental highway -type lighting located
image desired for the corridor
at intersections if required.
• A minimum setback of 2 feet 6 inches is
recommended to allow for curbside parking
door swing and /or frontage visibility.
MTC's Complete Streets /Routine Accommodation Policy
"Routine accommodation" refers to the practice of considering the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists
habitually in the planning, design, funding and construction of transportation projects. "Complete
streets" is a related concept that describes roadways designed and operated for safe and convenient
access by all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.
In June 2006, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission —the regional transportation planning
agency for the Bay Area — adopted a complete streets /routine accommodation policy for the region.
The policy states that projects funded all or in part with regional funds "shall consider the
accommodation of bicycling and walking facilities, as described in Caltrans Deputy Directive 64" (see
below) in the full project cost. The policy requires that sponsors of transportation projects — including
the City of South San Francisco — complete a project checklist for any project submitted for funding to
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
MTC that has the potential to impact bicycle or pedestrian use negatively. The checklist is meant to
ensure that project sponsors evaluate the need for bicycling and walking facilities as part of project
planning — ideally at the earliest stage —and accommodate such facilities in the design and budget of
their projects.
Regional Ferry Plan (September 1992)
This plan outlines goals for Ferry service in the San Francisco Bay, including improved mobility and
reduction on single occupancy vehicle dependence. A new ferry terminal is being constructed on the
South San Francisco waterfront at Oyster Point, and pedestrian access between the terminal and
employment destinations in the East of 101 Area will be very important. Ferry service to and from
South San Francsico is maintained by the Water Emergency Transporattion Agency (WETA). WETA
operates ferry service throughout the bay.
1.4 STATEWIDE INITIATIVES AND PLANS
Caltrans is responsible for building and maintaining state - funded transportation infrastructure. Within
the City of South San Francisco, Caltrans maintains El Camino Real (CA Highway 82), US 101, Interstate
280, and Interstate 380. The following policies affect strategic planning decisions on those corridors. In
conjunction with Caltrans, the State has also passed legislation that affects all streets in South San
Francisco.
Caltrans' Complete Streets Policy
In 2001, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted a routine accommodation
policy for the state in the form of Deputy Directive 64, "Accommodating Non - motorized Travel." The
directive was updated in 2008 as "Complete Streets — Integrating the Transportation System." The
new policy reads in part:
The Department views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve safety, access,
and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicycling, pedestrian, and transit modes
as integral elements of the transportation system.
The Department develops integrated multimodal projects in balance with community goals, plans,
and values. Addressing the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users in
all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in these objectives. Bicycle, pedestrian and transit
travel is facilitated by creating "complete streets" beginning early in system planning and
continuing through project delivery and maintenance and operations....
The directive establishes Caltrans' own responsibilities under this policy. Among the responsibilities
that Caltrans assigns to various staff positions under the policy are:
• Ensure bicycling, pedestrian, and transit interests are appropriately represented on
interdisciplinary planning and project delivery development teams.
• Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit user needs are addressed and deficiencies identified during
system and corridor planning, project initiation, scoping, and programming.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
• Ensure incorporation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel elements in all Department
transportation plans and studies.
• Promote land uses that encourage bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel.
• Research, develop, and implement multimodal performance measures.
California Complete Streets Act
Assembly Bill 1358, the "California Complete Streets Act of 2008," requires "that the legislative body of
a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, modify
the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the
needs of all users [including] motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities,
seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation...." This provision of the law
goes into effect on January 1, 2011. The law also directs the Governor's Office of Planning and
Research to amend its guidelines for the development of circulation elements so as to assist cities and
counties in meeting the above requirement.
Assembly Bill 32 and State Bill 375
Senate Bill (SB) 375 is the implementation legislation for Assembly Bill (AB) 32. AB 32 requires the
reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) by 28 percent by the year 2020 and by 50 percent by the year
2050. GHGs are emissions — carbon dioxide chief among them — that accumulate in the atmosphere
and trap solar energy in a way that can affect global climate patterns. The largest source of these
emissions related to human activity is generated by combustion - powered machinery, internal
combustion vehicle engines, and equipment used to generate power and heat. SB 375 tasks
metropolitan and regional planning agencies with achieving GHG reductions through their Regional
or Metropolitan Transportation Plans. The reduction of the use the automobile for trip making is one
method for reducing GHG emissions. This can be achieved through the use of modes other than the
automobile, such as walking, bicycling, or using transit.
Assembly Bill 1581 and Caltrans Policy Directive 09 -06
Assembly Bill (AB) 1581 provides direction that new actuated traffic signal construction and
modifications to existing traffic signals include the ability to detect bicycles and motorcycles. It also
calls for the timing of actuated traffic signals to account for bicycles. In response to AB 1581, Caltrans
has issued Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09 -06, which has proposed modifications to Table 4D-
105(D) of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The California Traffic Control
Devices Committee is considering the proposed modifications.
High Speed Rail Plan
A statewide high speed rail system is in the concept phase, and recommends that rail a corridor
connecting San Francisco and San Jose run through South San Francisco. The plan is undergoing
design changes involving a shared rail system. Studies are currently underway to examine access
across the tracks and potential local traffic impacts. Caltrain is developing a list of improvements. More
specific accommodations for the local pedestrian environment will be considered as plans for
implementation are developed.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
1 PLANNING CONTEXT
Strategic Growth Council Health in All Initiative
California's Health in All Policies Task Force was established in 2010, under the auspices of the
Strategic Growth Council (SGC). The Task Force was charged with identifying priority actions and
strategies for State agencies to improve community health while also advancing the other goals of the
SGC. The policy recommendations address two strategic directions, which both relate to the
Pedestrian Master Plan:
• Building healthy and safe communities with opportunities for active transportation; safe, healthy,
affordable housing; places to be active, including parks, green space, and healthy tree canopy; the
ability to be active without fear of violence or crime; and access to healthy, affordable foods.
• Finding opportunities to add a health lens in public policy and program development and
increase collaboration across agencies and with communities.
1.5 FEDERAL INITIATIVES
The United States Department of Transportation has issued the following statement on pedestrian
and bicycling activity and planning.
Department of Transportation Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations,
Requlations and Recommendations
In 2010, the United States' Department of Transportation (DOT)
announced a policy directive to demonstrate the DOT's support
of fully integrated active transportation networks by
incorporating walking and bicycling facilities into transportation
projects. The statement encourages transportation agencies to
go beyond minimum standards in the provision of the facilities.
The DOT further encourages agencies to adopt policy statements
that would affect bicycling and walking, such as:
OF TRANSA
W O
• a z
Considering walking Y
and bicycling as equals with other �4U
S P
transportation modes T A TES �
• Ensuring availability of transportation choices for people of
all ages and abilities
• Going beyond minimum design standards
• Integrating bicycling and pedestrian accommodations on new, rehabilitated, and limited access
bridges
• Collecting data on walking and biking trips
• Setting mode share for walking and bicycling and tracking them over time
• Removing snow from sidewalks and shared use paths
• Improving non - motorizes facilities during maintenance projects
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
CHAPTER 2: EXISTING PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
The City of South San Francisco, incorporated in 1908, is located on the west shore of the San
Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The City is built upon the Bay Plain and the northern
foothills of the Coastal Range, and the El Camino Real and Union Pacific Railroad helped to establish its
position as a hub of economic activity. The City became a significant regional shipbuilding hub during
the two World Wars, the population boomed after World War II, and both residential and industrial
areas developed. Now it is home to major transportation corridors and destinations, including U.S.
101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280, Caltrain, BART, and airport related industries. Genentech
moved to the East of 101 business area in the 1970s and introduced the biotechnology sector to the
region, and there are now more than 30 biotech companies located in South San Francisco. The City
encompasses 9.63 square miles and has a population of approximately 63,000 (2010 Census), which
swells to approximately 75,000 during the day due to an influx of workers in the admistrative,
biotechnical and industrial sectors.
2.1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TODAY
South San Francisco is already home to many great walking environments. The downtown area is a
well connected street network complete with sidewalks, commercial activity, destinations, and public
amenities. Multi -use shared paths along the waterfront and connecting the San Bruno and South San
Francisco BART stations have already been built, and a number of new trail and on -road bikeway
projects were recommended in the South San Francisco Bicyle Master Plan. Some of these have
already been implemented, or are simply a conversion from a recommended route to a marked bike
lane. Long -term implementation of bikeway projects will depend on availability of funding and
opportunities presented by future development. The Caltrain station is adjacent to the downtown,
and the forthcoming Station Area Plan will identify key pedestrian connections and opportunities. The
Grand Boulevard Initiative provides guidelines and priorities to define El Camino Real as a destination
and human -scale street. All of these assets can contribute to a vibrant street environment and civic
life.
The City of South San Francisco has identified the impotrance of building walkable communities and
defines the Downtown, the City's historic commercial center, as a primary focus area for revitalization.
The area includes City Hall, small commercial retail businesses, the Caltrain station, and a residential
area. Figure 2 -1 illustrates these existing activity generators throughout South San Francisco, as well
as schools, major employers, other commercial districts, parks, and recreation centers.
South San Francisco includes a variety of land uses and walking environments. From the commercial
corridor along El Camino Real, to the industrial development east of US 101, the scale and pedestrian
level of service vary greatly. Many of the residential streets in South San Francisco, located primarily to
the west of U.S. 101, are well suited for walking, but some busy car - oriented streets such as El Camino
Real, Junipero Serra, South Spruce, South Linden Avenue, Westborough Boulevard and streets east of
U.S. 101 have gaps in the sidewalk network, and highways and some local arterials such as Junipero
Serra Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard create pedestrian barriers between residential and
employment destinations.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Q,P
'O c 0 �
U � U
O L
O LL A
■M 0 ° w C N LL m(0 >, — >
Q = O p
_ t CL 0
Lj m U m O m W (n d d
d 0
Z
r. ■ o°. bSa L O �
� O �
L4eM aogaeH LL C) OIN
ml� S
p
�o�` 2 �b Gonads
_ L L S
L
4'M ;
✓b'''a ��y a O O) �'
0
o co
7-0 LL J�A
i
a)
U
�U
O
U Up
I
°a
o
J
o`
Ou,
V)
O
Q
w
W
Q
V)
W
w
N
N
w
w
CL
A-.14
0
w�
LL
�N
`o
m
�
Q
a�i
U
LL
U)
N
E
>
Q
�
O
O
O
E
�
�
—
■M 0 ° w C N LL m(0 >, — >
Q = O p
_ t CL 0
Lj m U m O m W (n d d
d 0
Z
r. ■ o°. bSa L O �
� O �
L4eM aogaeH LL C) OIN
ml� S
p
�o�` 2 �b Gonads
_ L L S
L
4'M ;
✓b'''a ��y a O O) �'
0
o co
7-0 LL J�A
i
a)
U
�U
O
U Up
I
°a
o
J
o`
Ou,
V)
O
Q
w
W
Q
V)
W
w
N
N
w
w
CL
A-.14
0
w�
LL
�N
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
In recent years, there has been a focus on transit oriented development around the South San
Francisco and San Bruno BART stations, and local parks and bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been
completed. For example, Centennial Way Park, a 2.85 mile linear park and Class I multi -use path
connects many of the destinations and amenities between the two BART stations. The City has
recently received grant funding to develop a detailed land use plan for the Downtown Station Area,
and is completing a land use plan for the northern portion of the El Camino Real Corridor. The cities of
South San Francisco and San Bruno collaborated with the San Mateo County Transit District to
develop a Community Transportation Plan (CMP) for a portion of the southeastern area of South San
Francisco west of US 101 (along with northern San Bruno).
In addition to the commercial corridors and neighborhood serving retail, schools are a primary
walking destination. The South San Francisco Unified School District includes nine elementary schools,
three middle schools, and three high schools; South San Francisco is also home to six private
elementary schools and one private high school. All of these schools are important pedestrian
destinations.
Table II -1 shows the population age groups for South San Francisco compared to other nearby
jurisdictions. School age children make up a 22% of the local population.
Table II -1: Population Age Groups
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 -2010 American Community Survey
Walking to Work
Knowing how many people walk, and for what purposes, can help South San Francisco develop
effective and targeted programs to better service residents and resident - employees. A common term
used in describing travel demand is "mode- split." Mode split refers to the form of transportation a
person chooses to take, such as walking, bicycling, public transit, or driving, and is often used in
evaluating commuter alternatives such as walking, where the objective is to increase the percentage
of people selecting an alternative means of transportation to the single- occupant (or drive - alone)
automobile. Table II -2 presents Census data for the commute mode split for the City of South San
Francisco, compared to the United States, California, San Mateo County, and the City of San Mateo.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
Table II -2: Existing Journey to Work
Mode
United
States
California
San Mateo
County
City of San
Mateo
City of
South San
Drive Alone
76%
73%
71%
72%
Francisco
67%
Carpool
11%
12%
11%
11%
14%
Transit
5%
5%
8%
8%
11%
Bicycle
<1%
I %
I %
I %
.5%
Walk
3%
3%
3%
3%
3.5%
Other
5%
6%
6%
5%
4%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 -2010 American Community Survey
As shown, driving alone is the predominant means of commuting in South San Francisco, though at a
slightly lower share compared to county, state, and national levels. Carpool and transit are also higher
than county, state, and national levels. However, bicycle and walk are as low as the regional and
national levels, representing only four percent of work trips in South San Francisco.
Journey -to -work mode share is not always an accurate indicator of overall walking activity, since
commute trips only represent a portion of all trips taken by residents. Residents also take walking trips
when traveling between their home and transit, or between their vehicle and transit. Additionally, the
journey -to -work data does not represent the trips South San Francisco residents take to go shopping,
to school, or to social activities. This should not be misinterpreted as the non - motorized mode share of
all trips for several reasons:
Journey -to -work data only represents commute trips, which tend to be longer than shopping,
school, recreation, and other trips, and therefore less compatible with active transportation.
• Journey -to -work data does not account for commuters with multiple modes of travel to and from
work, such as commuters who walk to a bus stop before transferring to transit for the remainder of
their journey to work.
No separate accounting of shopping, school, or recreational trips is made in the Census; these trips
make up more than half of the person trips on a typical weekday and a significantly greater
portion on the weekend. These trips also tend to be short to medium in length and are therefore
very well suited to walking.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
• Journey -to -work reports information for adult work trips, but does not request data on school
trips, which are much more likely to be walking trips because school -aged individuals cannot drive
until the latter half of their high school years.
The Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Department of Transportation released in May 2010 the
National Bicycle & Walking Study: 15 Year Status Report. The agencies found that between the initial
report in 1995 and household survey data collected in 2009, walking activity grew from 7.2 percent of
all trips to 10.9 percent of all trips. Meanwhile, the total number of pedestrian fatalities has decreased
22.3 percent, from 5,638 1993 to 4,378 in 2008. Estimates of pedestrian injuries fell approximately 17.8
percent, from 84,000 in 1995 to 69,000 in 2008.
Future walking trips will depend on a number of factors such as the availability of well- connected
facilities; appropriate education and promotion programs designed to encourage walking; and
location, density, and type of future land development. The 2010 National Bicycle & Walking Study: 15
Year Status Report found correlation between funding for bicycling and walking projects and the
number of walking and bicycling trips.
With appropriate walking facilities in place and implementation of employer trip reduction programs,
the number of people walking to work, school, or to shop could increase significantly in future years.
By setting aggressive goals and implementing the recommendations in this plan, South San Francisco
could substantially increase the number of daily walking trips, especially if this plan's goals, policies
and recommendations are directed at people who would mostly likely switch to walking, including
those making trips that are under one mile, workers who work within five miles of South San
Francisco, school children, and transit riders.
Estimating and projecting how many people walk for all trips, including non -work trips, in a targeted
study area is difficult, but Bay Area Travel Survey (BATS) provides a baseline. According to the most
recent BATS data, walking represented 9.3 percent of all Bay Area trips in 2000. If South San Francisco
can achieve success similar to other cities and national goals, the walk travel mode share could double
to nearly 20 percent of all trips taken.
2.2 PEDESTRIAN COLLISION REPORTS
Data on collisions and a brief analysis of collision reports maintained by the Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS) show trends in vehicle - pedestrian collisions in South San Francisco,
and help planners and decision - makers identify specific locations and support programs. While traffic
collisions can affect anyone, they have a disproportionate impact on pedestrians and bicyclists, the
most vulnerable users on the road. Figure 2 -2 identifies the locations of pedestrian - involved collision
reports between 2005 and 2010. Pedestrian - involved collisions make up 5.5 percent of all collisions in
South San Francisco during this period. Among all collisions with injuries recorded during this period,
12.2 percent are pedestrian - involved collision.
The collision reports identify crash locations; however, many factors that influence collision rates are
not location- specific, such as time of day, weather conditions, condition of the driver, degree of
sobriety and attention, and age of parties involved. For example, in this data set, more pedestrian
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
collisions take place during p.m. peak travel hours (38 percent of all pedestrian collision take place
between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.) than during a.m. peak (only 16 percent of all pedestrian collisions take
place between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m.). Furthermore, collisions that involve stationary objects do not
typically get recorded in the SWITRS database. Collision on off - street trails and shared -use paths often
go unreported as well. Therefore, a small number of data points may not indicate much about a
specific location.
While the collision locations identified in this section help identify "hotspots," they should not be
assumed to be the most hazardous or risky locations. For a more meaningful evaluation, the data
would need to be adjusted for the number of pedestrian or bicyclists to account for "exposure." At
best, a group of data points at a single location reveals that there is a tendency for collisions to occur
relative to the number of pedestrians or bicyclists in the area. For example, El Camino Real (State
Route 82) has more pedestrian - involved collision reports than other areas of South San Francisco, but
it is a primary corridor for shopping, transit, school, and employment, with likely greater numbers of
walkers the more residential areas of the City. Absent a complete database of pedestrian and bicyclist
volumes, there is no reliable way to adjust for exposure and relative safety. Thus, the data in the
following section is presented for informational purposes only, and does not necessarily identify a
certain location as unsafe.
Collision data includes the roadway where the incident occurred. "Corridors" can be used to target
collision reduction programs. Table II -3 summarizes the 12 streets that were reported most frequently
in the 2005 to 2010 pedestrian - involved collision data. These corridors include the entire length of the
streets that are within the South San Francisco city boundaries.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
O
.N
U
i P
J
;:t
0
O v
a -o
0- a%
U
o
v r AeM aogaeH
�8 �ennar
cu
L
Q
LL
>, cn U) N
�= c c U) E
O O c E-r O
CU LL cn cn O -r-
cu
N
O O •� d >
C _ N
cU U U O — 0
N d d 00 i
0 (. co d U •O
z d 4 N m (n d d
o
q) ul Wad t<i S Lt �
O
Na ^ba�q�W
� a •(� :,P � � a ^buapu��S
C
~ m �NQ Vo a
i
O
�o�bs�ld.Qeo�� m
s 4r F
15binu�sa
o oy� • Li
oaa✓ �� p0y O
G� FC o
-��0,
• LL co y mtc�wo O� U C�
vo .•
L _
�o
A hid
/Q 0 Ol
(�}J� o c
O O o cco
� yr
o
-0 77
a=i •
• CALTRAIN 6pRj
Q
C O
V% 00
R
J �
� U
O
Vo' SeCCa
'O
2
•
ril
M
O
O
(\1
0
Q
z
O
V)
J
O
U
z
Q
V)
W
N
N
N
i�
N
AC
W
LL]
D..
A-.14
fs]
LL
�N
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
Table II -3: Top 12 Pedestrian - Involved Collision Corridors — 2005 to 2010
Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010
Almost all collisions are assigned to the nearest intersection, defined as the combination of primary
and secondary roadway; incidents as far away as half the distance to the next nearest intersection will
be so assigned. Table II -4 summarizes the intersections that were reported most frequently in the 2005
to 2010 pedestrian - involved collision data.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Collisions
Collisions
Street
Reported
Street
..
El Camino Real/ Rt 82
21
Miller Ave
7
Grand Ave
16
Baden Ave
7
Spruce Ave and South
12
West Orange Blvd
7
Spruce Ave
Maple Ave
11
Airport Blvd
6
Arroyo Dr
9
Callan Blvd
5
Linden Ave
9
Hickey Blvd
5
Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010
Almost all collisions are assigned to the nearest intersection, defined as the combination of primary
and secondary roadway; incidents as far away as half the distance to the next nearest intersection will
be so assigned. Table II -4 summarizes the intersections that were reported most frequently in the 2005
to 2010 pedestrian - involved collision data.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
Table II -4: Top Pedestrian - Involved Collisions by Intersection — 2005 to 2010
Source: SWITRS, 2010
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Collisions
Collisions
Street
Reported
Street
..
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Hickey Blvd and Junipero
Arroyo Dr
6
Serra Blvd
3
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
2
Linden Ave and Miller Ave
3
Country Club Cr
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Linden Ave and California
Hickey Blvd
2
Ave
2
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Myrtle Ave and Spruce or
Mc Lellan Dr
2
South Spruce Ave
2
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Myrtle Ave and West Orange
Noor Ave
2
Ave
2
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Alida Way and Country Club
Southwood Dr
2
Dr
2
Rt 82/El Camino Real and
Antoinette Ln and Chestnut
Spruce Ave
2
Ave
2
Grand Ave and Spruce or
3
Maple Ave and Miller Ave
2
South Spruce Ave
Grand Ave and Airport Blvd
3
Callan Blvd and Carter Dr
2
Grand Ave and Linden Ave
2
Gellert Blvd and Westboro Dr
2
Grand Ave and Magnolia
2
Mission Rd and Evergreen Dr
2
Ave
East Grand Ave and
Grand Ave and Maple Ave
2
2
Dubuque Ave
Baden Ave and Maple Ave
4
Spruce Ave and Commercial
2
Ave
Keoncrest Dr and San Felipe
Baden Ave and Airport Blvd
2
2
Ave
Source: SWITRS, 2010
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
Locations with multiple pedestrian collisions indicate dangerous conditions; locations with fatalities
may not include multiple collisions, but indicate conditions that may lead to severe collisions. These
locations should be closely analyzed and considered for interventions. Six fatalities were recorded in
South San Francisco from 2005 to 2010. These were located at the following intersections:
• Route 82/EI Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard
• Myrtle Ave and Spruce or South Spruce Avenues
• Callan Boulevard and Carter Drive (two fatalities within the same block)
• Oyster Point and Eccles Avenue
• Commercial and Chestnut Avenues
Collisions are due to a wide variety of unsafe conditions and behavior. In approximately 41 percent of
reported pedestrian - involved collisions a motorist failed to yield to a pedestrian with the right of way.
Pedestrians who cross outside a crosswalk must yield to vehicles; in approximately 35 percent of these
collisions a pedestrian failed to yield to a motorist with the right of way. Motorists starting, backing,
speeding, or turning unsafely were responsible for approximately 11.2 percent of these collisions, and
nearly 3 percent were due to a motorist driving under the influence. Location data and primary
collision factors are used to evaluate and prioritize improvements as part of the Implementation Plan.
2.3 EXISTING PROGRAMS, POLICIES AND PRACTICES BENCHMARKING
ANALYSIS
The City of South San Francisco has already made significant investments in making its streets
friendlier to pedestrians. The following section summarizes the City's pedestrian safety policies,
programs, and practices. The City's current operations were reviewed with a benchmarking matrix1
that compares the City's policies, programs, and practices with national best practices. The
benchmarking analysis categorized the City's programs, practices, and policies into three groups:
Key strengths — areas where the City is exceeding national best practices
Enhancements — areas where the City is meeting best practices
Opportunities — areas where the City appears not to meet best practices (often this is due to limited
staff resources)
1 National Best Practices are defined in the California Pedestrian Safety Assessment Program:
h ttp: / /www. tech transfer. berkel ey. edu/pedsafety/psa_ handbook. pd f
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
Table II -5: Summary of Benchmarking Analysis
Category
Opportunities
Design Standards
ADA Transition Plan
Overcoming Institutional
Complete Streets Policy
Barriers
Crosswalk Policy
Policies
Climate Action Plan
Speed Surveys /Speed
General Plan
Limits
Safe Routes to Transit
Transportation Demand
Warrants for Traffic
Management
Control Devices
Collision History and
Data
Bicycle Facility Inventory
Pedestrian Volumes
Reports
Collection
Sidewalk Inventory
Trails and Paths Inventory
Trip and Fall Reports
Safe Routes to School
Pedestrian, Bicycle and
Programs
Walking Audits
Program
TDM Coordinator
Traffic Calming Program
Pedestrian Education
Pedestrian - Oriented
Enforcement
Involving Enforcement in
Enforcement
Shared Pedestrian
Pedestrian Safety Course
Design
Enforcement
Traffic Safety Officers
Coordination with Health
Agencies Promotional
Economic Vitality
Promotion
Giveaways Y
Signage and Wayfinding
Public Involvement
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
Table II -6: Existing Policies and Benchmarking Analysis
Plan or Policy
Benchmark
South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities
Climate Action Plan
Key Strength
The City of South San Francisco
Ensure that the
A Climate Action Plan is
is currently developing a
recommendations made in the
comprised of policies and
Climate Action Plan.
Climate Action Plan
measures that address
complement those made in the
climate change. Climate
Pedestrian Master Plan
Action Plans often work
in tandem with other
policies and plans,
including the General
Plan, Circulation Element,
Bicycle Master Plan,
Pedestrian Master Plan,
and transit - related plans.
Policies in Climate Action
Plans often address
greenhouse gas
emissions (GHGs),
including enhancing local
transportation options,
energy efficiency and
green building, open
space, low- impact
development, waste, and
natural environmental
features.
Design Standards
Enhancement
The City does not currently
• Consider developing a
Design policies and
have a Streetscape Master Plan,
Streetscape and /or Landscape
development standards
but a set of streetscape
Architecture Master Plan for the
can improve the walking
guidelines is included in the El
City.
experience, encourage
Camino Master Plan. The East
. Consider developing a street
walking, enhance
of 101 Area Plan identifies the
trees policy for the City.
economic vitality, and
need for Streetscape Plans, but
. Consider developing a parklets
offer funding
the City has yet to develop any.
program for the City. See San
opportunities for walking
The City Council has adopted
Francisco's program as a best
improvements.
p
the Grand Boulevard
practice example:
Landscape Plan for El Camino
http: / /sfpavementtoparks.sfplan
Real. Also, the City's parking
ning.org/
ordinance designates the
. During the next General Plan
number of driveway curb cuts
update, include goals and
allowed in residential areas and
actions for new development
limits the amount of paving
standards and guidelines for
allowed in front yards. Curb
walking friendly development.
cuts in commercial areas are
decided on a case by case
basis, but the City is sensitive to
pedestrian needs when making
decisions.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLkN
Overcoming
Institutional Barriers
Numerous agencies have
jurisdiction over
components of the South
San Francisco
transportation network,
including Caltrain, BART,
SamTrans, BCDC,
Caltrans, neighboring
communities, and SFIA.
Institutional coordination
associated with multiple
agencies is necessary
because of non -local
control of right -of -way
and differing policies
regarding walking
accommodation. For
example, Caltrans policies
have historically
discouraged proposals
for bulbouts, wider
sidewalks, and other
walking- oriented
improvements.
ENVIRONMENT
Enhancement
The City of South San
Francisco coordinates between
departments and external
agencies and is currently
coordinating with Caltrain,
C /CAG and other agencies on
High Speed Rail and on a
Caltrain Station Area Plan. The
City identified the following
obstacles to overcome:
• Challenges with state policies
(i.e., Caltrans standards)
• Challenges with other
agencies orjurisdictions
regarding high speed rail
coordination
• Challenges with SFIA in
developing better pedestrian
and bicycle access
• Shortage of trained staff (for
bicycling and walking issues)
• Lack of design standards for
pedestrian facilities
• Inadequate or non - uniform
traffic calming
• Lack of understanding of
economic benefits of increased
walking and reduced minimum
parking requirements by the
residents and business
community
• Inadequate funding
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
• Continue to seek opportunities
to collaborate with Caltrain,
SamTrans and BART to improve
personal and walking safety
around transit hubs.
• Proactively collaborate with
the Cities of San Bruno, Colma,
Daly City, Pacifica, Brisbane and
C /CAG on walking
improvements and safety
measures beneficial to the
jurisdictions.
• Proactively seek opportunities
to collaborate with Caltrans to
identify and improve walking
safety along El Camino Real,
freeway interchanges and other
Caltrans right -of -way.
Recent Context Sensitive
Solutions and Routine
Accommodations policies
within Caltrans (refer to the
revised Deputy Directive 64:
www.calbike.org/pdfs/DD-64-
Rl.pdf) now require the agency
to consider multimodal needs
and engage in collaborative
community planning. These
new policies may reduce
institutional challenges, and the
City should continue to work
with Caltrans and other
agencies and neighboring
communities to identify new
opportunities forjoint
transportation facilities
planning.
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLAN
ENVIRONMENT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Speed Surveys and
Enhancement
In South San Francisco, speed
• Consider walking volumes
Speed Limits
surveys are conducted every
when setting speed limits and
Pedestrian fatality rates
five years by a registered civil
employ traffic calming
increase exponentially
engineer, following MUTCD
strategies in locations where
with vehicle speed. Thus,
guidelines. Speed limits are
speed surveys suggest traffic
reducing vehicle speeds
occasionally reviewed in
speeds are too high for walking
in walking zones may be
response to citizen requests.
areas.
one of the most
The default speed limit in the
• Consider establishing 15 MPH
important strategies for
city when no sign is posted is
school zones during school bell
enhancing walking
25mph, even near schools.
times, as was recently
safety.
Speed limit signs are not
implemented in San Francisco:
posted in these areas unless
http: / /www.sfmayor.org /index.a
there is a demonstrated need
spx ?page =537
for a sign. The City has adopted
• Ensure design standards/
a Traffic Calming Policy that
design speeds in walking areas
justifies improvements on local
do not contribute to a routine
streets or residential collectors
need for traffic calming.
where City- conducted speed
surveys show that the 85th
percentile speed is in excess of
the posted speed limit by more
than 10mph.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLkN
ENVIRONMENT
Plan or Poli
!Afi=:L.
Benchmark
Response
Transportation Demand
Key Strength
The City has a citywide TDM
• Implement Citywide TDM
Management
program. Any project
policies (per SSFMC 20.400).
Transportation Demand
expected to generate greater
• Consider establishing a
Management (TDM)
than 100 ADT over the previous
Citywide TDM Coordinator
programs encourage
use is required to prepare a
position and potentially
multi -modal travel by
TDM plan, implement the plan
combine with a Pedestrian and
incentivizing non -auto
for the life of the project, and
Bicycle Coordinator.
options. As new
conduct on -going monitoring.
• Consider establishing a
development occurs, the
The city provides shower and
Transportation Management
TDM program can be
locker facilities and secure
Association (TMA) for key
expanded and
bicycle parking at most
commercial and business areas
strengthened.
locations. Many employers
to coordinate parking, transit,
within the city provide TDM
and other TDM strategies and
programs. Genentech operates
policies.
a comprehensive TDM
• The City provides free parking
program, including
to employees and does not
complementary shuttle service
have a parking cash -out
connecting to transit stations,
program. Consider establishing
alternative commute
a parking cash -out program.
incentives such as parking
cash -out and incentives for
carpooling, and offers
guaranteed ride home services.
The City has a guaranteed ride
home program and a
commuter check program. The
City belongs to the Congestion
Management Alliance and
works with the Alliance on
TDM review.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLAN
ENVIRONMENT
Plan or Policy
Benchmark
..
Improvements
ADA Plan
Opportunity
The City does not currently
. Develop an ADA Transition
An ADA Transition Plan
have an ADA Transition Plan for
Plan that includes public rights -
sets forth the process for
Municipal Facilities. Such a plan
of -way (intersections and
bringing public facilities
is required by Federal Law.
sidewalks especially).
into compliance with
However, the City does provide
. Develop design guidelines for
ADA regulations. An ADA
ADA upgrades such as curb
items such as directional curb
Transition Plan addresses
ramps in conjunction with
ramps and audible pedestrian
public buildings,
other projects such as road
signals. The San Francisco
sidewalks, ramps, and
resurfacing projects and some
Better Streets Plan can be seen
other walking facilities.
new developments. These are
as a best practice example:
An ADA Coordinator is
typically funded with gas tax
http: / /www.sf-
typically responsible for
money.
planning.org /ftp /BetterStreets /i
administering a City's
ndex.htm
ADA Transition Plan.
• Ensure that the ADA Transition
Compliance with the
Plan provides an inventory,
Americans with Disability
prioritization plan, and funding
Act (ADA) guidelines is
source for improvements.
important not only to
The Standard Drawings for the
enhance community
City of Sacramento include best
accessibility, but also to
practices for directional curb
improve walking
ramp design (see drawing T -77
conditions for all
http: / /www.cityofsacramento.or
/utilities /pubs /stdspecs/Transp
pedestrians.
_a
ortation.pdfl.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLkN
ENVIRONMENT
Plan or Poli
!Afi=:L.
Benchmark
Response
Complete Streets Policy
Key Strength
The City of South San Francisco
Update the City's Street Design
Routine
adopted a Complete Streets
Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter
Accommodations or
Policy in October 2012.
19.20) to reflect the adopted
Complete Streets Policies
Complete Streets Policy and
accommodate all modes
incorporate the design
of travel and travelers of
recommendations included in
all ages and abilities.
the Pedestrian Master Plan.
The following cities have
established practices for
"Complete Streets and Routine
Accommodations," and may
serve as models for South San
Francisco:
• Sacramento Transportation
and Air Quality Collaborative
Best Practices for Complete
Streets:
www.completestreets.org /docu
ments /FinalReportll_BPComplet
eStreets.pdf
• San Francisco, California,
Department of Public Health's
Pedestrian Quality Index:
www.sfphes.org/HIA Tools/PEQ
I.pdf
• San Francisco County
Transportation Authority's
Multi -modal Impact Criteria:
www.sfcta.org /images /stories /PI
anning /CongestionManagemen
tPlan /2007 %20 -
%20a p p e n d i x %2005 %20-
%20tia.pdf
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLAN
ENVIRONMENT
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Response
Crosswalk Policy
Opportunity
The City of South San Francisco
Consider creating a crosswalk
A formal policy for
does not have a formal
toolbox that reflects best
crosswalk installation,
crosswalk policy beyond
practices and recent research
removal, and
installing crosswalks on all
with respect to the installation,
enhancement provides
approaches of signalized
removal, and enhancement of
transparency in decision-
intersections. Decisions
crosswalks, including criteria for
making and adopts best
regarding installation, removal
installing crosswalk
practices in pedestrian
and enhancements for
enhancements, such as flashing
safety and
uncontrolled crosswalks are
beacons, in- roadway warning
accommodation.
made on a case by case basis
lights, or in- roadway pedestrian
and are generally complaint
signs. Crosswalk policy
driven. Crosswalk removal
resources include:
requires a long process and is
.Sacramento Crosswalk Policy:
extremely rare; only one
www.cityofsacramento.org /tra
crosswalk has been removed in
nsportation /dot media /engine
the past several years. The
er_media /pdf /PedSafety.pdf
general practice is to not install
midblock crossings except
•Stockton Crosswalk Policy:
under extreme circumstances,
www.stocktongov.com /public
such as the one recently
works /publications /PedGuideli
installed near El Camino High
nes.pdf
school across from the BART
.Federal Highway
station.
Administration Study on
Marked versus Unmarked
Crosswalks:
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped
bike /docs /c ros.pdf
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLkN
ENVIRONMENT
Plan or Policy
Benchmark
Response
General Plan
Opportunity
The City of South San Francisco
During the next General Plan
Planning principles
General Plan: Circulation
update, the City could consider
contained in a city's
Element (1999) describes the
including the following items in
General Plan can provide
existing bicycling, walking,
its Circulation Element, or other
an important policy
transit riding, and driving
sections, of the Plan:
context for developing
facilities within the City and
• Identify existing and future
walking- oriented,
establishes the goals and
priority walking areas in the City
walkable areas. Transit-
policies for future
through specific plans, where
oriented development,
transportation needs. Transit-
varied densities and mixed -uses
higher densities, and
oriented development (TOD) is
could accommodate or attract
mixed uses are important
addressed in the General Plan.
pedestrian activity.
planning tools for
A TOD currently exists around
• Consider additional
walking- oriented areas
the South San Francisco BART
opportunities for mixed -uses
station and a station area plan
with new development,
A city's General Plan is a
is being developed for the
particularly in walking
key opportunity to
South San Francisco Caltrain
districts /nodes and transit -rich
establish the framework
Station.
areas. Consider opportunities
for walking orientation.
El Camino Real is considered an
for density bonuses in walking
The Circulation Element
important pedestrian corridor
friendly areas.
of the Plan typically
and pedestrian
• Consider an overlay district for
assigns roadway
accommodation is considered
walking districts with special
typologies, which can
in the South San Francisco El
walking- oriented guidelines,
include a layered network
Camino Real Master Plan
such as adopting multi -modal
approach with prioritized
(2006).
level of service practices
corridors for transit,
(perhaps in combination with a
pedestrian, bicycle, and
layered network approach), and
auto travel.
prioritizing sidewalk
improvement and completion
projects.
Safe Routes to Transit
Opportunity
The City of South San Francisco
Apply for grant funding,
Safe Routes to Transit is a
has not been awarded any Safe
particularly for projects
grant program that
Routes to Transit Grants.
mentioned in the San
awards funds to projects
Bruno /South San Francisco
that make it easier to
Community -Based
walk and bike to transit
Transportation Plan (January
throughout the Bay Area
2011).
Region.
http: / /transformca.org /campaig
n /sr2t
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLAN
ENVIRONMENT
f!]A=
Response
Traffic Signal Warrants /
Opportunity
The City of South San Francisco
The new California Manual on
Traffic Control Devices
follows Caltrans warrants for
Uniform Traffic Control Devices
Best practices include:
traffic signals.
(CA- MUTCD) was adopted by
• Requiring a crash history
the California Department of
of three instead of five
Transportation in January 2012.
collisions based on
The most significant changes for
routine underreporting
pedestrians are:
• Reducing traffic volume
• Reduction of the pedestrian
thresholds based on
walking speed (used to calculate
latent demand
traffic signal pedestrian
• Providing consideration
clearance intervals) from four
for school
feet per second to 3.5 feet per
children /pedestrians and
second
traffic speeds
• Provision that all new and
retrofit signals should have
pedestrian countdowns signal
heads
Allowance of the HAWK
pedestrian beacon at mid -block
locations has been included in
the national MUTCD and is likely
to be included in the CA -MUTCD
shortly.
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
(LPI) provide pedestrians with a
"head start" signal timing before
vehicles on the parallel street
are allowed to proceed through
an intersection. A 2000 study by
the Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety found that the
LPI reduces conflicts between
turning vehicles and
pedestrians by enhancing the
visibility of the pedestrian in the
crosswalk.
• Include maintenance records
within a GIS database inventory
of signs, markings and signals.
• Develop a proactive
monitoring program for traffic
control devices.
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLkN
ENVIRONMENT
Table II -7: Existing Data Collection Practices Benchmarking Analysis
Plan or Policy
Benchmark
South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities
Collision History and
Key Strength
The Police Department has
Geo- coding and comprehensive
Reporting
access to collision data by
monitoring using Crossroads
location. Injury accident reports
software would allow for more
are routinely pulled. The police
proactive walking safety
department has the ability to
projects and best practices
check if a collision involved a
implementation, such as crash
pedestrian or bicycle, but this is
typing for countermeasure
a manual process and this
selection. A field inventory of
information is not generally
collision locations and walking
accessed unless it's asked for.
volume counts could enhance
Statewide Integrated Traffic
comprehensive monitoring.
Records System (SWITRS) data
With sufficient walking volume
on collisions will be analyzed in
data, the City could prioritize
the PMP to create a GIS
collision locations based on
shapefile of pedestrian collision
collision rates (i.e.,
locations throughout the city
collisions /daily walking volume),
between 2005 -2010 as well as
a practice that results in a more
an analysis of the locations with
complete safety needs
the highest pedestrian collision
assessment. Treatments could
rates.
then be identified for each
location and programmatic
funding allocated in the City's
Capital Improvements Program
(C I P).
Trip and Fall Reports
Key Strength
The Department of Public Works
Include these records as a sub -
maintains a database of trip
category within the sidewalk
hazard removal projects
inventory in order to better
including the location of the
prioritize improvement areas.
hazard, the project status and
the cost for repairs.
Bicycling Facility
Enhancement
The South San Francisco Bicycle
Update current bicycle facility
Inventory
Master Plan includes a map of
GIS shapefile. Add signs,
existing and proposed bicycle
markings and loop detectors to
facilities, and these networks are
inventory and create GIS
available in GIS format, however
shapefiles of these features.
parts of the layer may be out of
date.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRIAN
ENVIRONMENT
Plan
f!A&
Benchmark
..
Improvements
Sidewalk Inventory
Enhancement
The City of South San Francisco
Ensure that the current sidewalk
A GIS -based sidewalk
currently has an inventory of
inventory includes both existing
inventory enables project
missing sidewalks in list form.
and missing sidewalks and is
identification and
available in GIS format. Expand
prioritization, as well as
the sidewalk inventory to
project coordination with
include informal pathways and
new development,
key pedestrian opportunity
roadway resurfacing, etc.
areas in the City.
City sidewalks should be
evaluated for age and condition,
slope, and a data base
established and maintained as
part of the pavement
management program.
Coordinate the data base with
Encroachment Permits issued
for sidewalk repairs and
replacement.
Pedestrian Volumes
Opportunity
The City does not currently
• Consider routinely collecting
Pedestrian volume data is
conduct pedestrian volume
walking and bicycling volumes
important for prioritizing
counts and new developments
by requiring them to be
projects, developing
are not required to take bicycle
conducted in conjunction with
collision rates, and
or pedestrian counts. Some
manual intersection counts,
determining appropriate
bicycle counts are being
such as those conducted for
infrastructure
conducted as part of the bicycle
transportation impact analyses
master plan.
and area plans and include in an
annual report.
• Geo -code walking volume data
with GIS software along with
other data such as pedestrian -
involved collisions.
Trails and Paths
Opportunity
The City does not currently
Update the existing inventory to
Inventory
maintain an inventory of trails,
include all pedestrian paths and
but does have an inventory of
trails and create a GIS -based
bicycle facilities which includes
map of existing and proposed
combined walking and biking
off - street paths and trails within
paths.
the City.
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLkN
ENVIRONMENT
Table II -8: Existing Programs Benchmarking Analysis
Plan or .,
Response
Opportunities
Walking Audits
Key Strength
Sixteen walking audits were
Consider establishing a program
Walking audits provide
conducted in 2012 as part of
of conducting regular walking
an interactive
the PMP. These audits focused
audits and establishing a
opportunity to receive
on positive practices, issues
Citywide pedestrian safety
feedbackfrom key
and opportunity areas, and
program to include during
stakeholders about the
possible recommendations to
regular walking audits by City
study area as well as
address pedestrian safety
staff and an annual reporting
discuss potential
concerns.
program.
solutions and their
feasibility. They can be
led by city staff, advocacy
groups, neighborhood
groups, or consultants.
Safe Routes to School
Enhancement
The City recently won a Safe
• Continue applying for grant
Safe- Routes -to- School
Routes to School grant for
funding; apply for non -
programs encourage
pedestrian infrastructure
infrastructure as well as
children to safely walk or
investments on West Orange
infrastructure projects.
bicycling to school. The
Street and C Street. However,
• Consider developing a
Marin County Bicycle
the City and school district
citywide Safe- Routes -to- School
Coalition was an early-
(SSFUSD) do not have an
program that encourages
adopter of the concept,
ongoing safe routes to school
walking to school and highlights
which has spread
program.
preferred walking routes. Marin
nationally (refer to best
County's program is considered
practices at
a best practice example:
www.saferoutestoschools
http: / /www.saferoutestoschools
.org). Safe- Routes -to-
org/
School programs are
• Form a steering committee for
important both for
the program (or each school)
increasing physical
comprised of City staff, BPAC,
activity (and reducing
SSFUSD staff, PTA leaders,
childhood obesity) and
County Health Services and
for reducing morning
other stakeholders. Consider
traffic associated with
scheduling regular ongoing
school drop -off. Funding
meetings to maintain
for Safe- Routes -to- School
stakeholder involvement,
programs and /or projects
determine level of interest, and
is available at the
identify areas with the highest
regional, state, and
need
federal levels.
• Consider developing a "Street
Smarts" program, such as those
developed by the City of San
Jose or Marin County:
http://www.getstreetsmarts.org
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLAN
ENVIRONMENT
Plan or Policy
Traffic Calming
Program
Traffic Calming Programs
and Policies set forth a
consensus threshold on
neighborhood requests
and approvals, as well as
standard treatments and
criteria for traffic calming
Benchmark
Enhancement
Me ..
The City of South San Francisco
has a traffic calming program
and established policy for
addressing traffic calming
concerns; however, no funding
source is dedicated to this
program.
Improvements
Identify a dedicated funding
source and implementation
plan for the traffic calming
program.
Pedestrian/ Bicycle
Opportunity
The City does not have a full-
With a population of
Coordinator
time Bicycle or Pedestrian
approximately 64,000, and over
In a sampling of walking-
Coordinator on staff, though
45,000jobs, South San Francisco
oriented California cities,
several staff assist on bicycle or
should consider employing a
a full -time
pedestrian related projects. A
City Pedestrian and Bicycle
pedestrian /bicycle
part- or full -time coordinator
Coordinator and combining the
coordinator is typically
could be tasked with
position with TDM coordination
provided at a ratio of one
convening the Bicycle and
when resources become
per 100,000 population.
Pedestrian Advisory
available. Such a staff member
Committee and implementing
could be involved in activities
many of the recommendations
such as outreach,
included in this report.
interdepartmental coordination,
inter - agency coordination, grant
writing, project management,
and staff liaison to the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee, the C /CAG BPAC,
local non - profits and advocacy
groups, and local schools.
Pedestrian Education
Opportunity
The City does not offer any
Consider creating an education
classes or programs to provide
program to provide information
information or instructions
to residents and employers
about pedestrian laws or
about pedestrian laws and
ordinances.
ordinances. Consider providing
traffic education curriculum to
schools, community centers,
and /or senior centers.
Establish a BPAC webpage to
provide an electronic media
outlet for outreach and
education.
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLkN
ENVIRONMENT
Table II -9: Existing Enforcement Programs Benchmarking Analysis
Plan or Policy
Benchmark
South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities
Involving Law
Key Strength
The police department is
Maintain regular contact with
Enforcement in
occasionally consulted on
law enforcement during the
Design /Operation of
facility design, usually through
design of new facilities,
Facilities
the Traffic Advisory Committee.
especially those that might not
Walking and bicycling
The police department has a
include typical roadway design
facility design is
liaison working closely with the
features.
constantly evolving.
planning division on
Having officers
development review, focused
understand how specific
primarily on security and traffic
facilities operate is
safety concerns.
essential knowledge for
them to know how to
enforce laws.
Pedestrian - Oriented
Enhancement
The Community Assisted
Implement sustained
Enforcement Activities
Reactive (CARE) program can
enforcement efforts and involve
(crosswalk stings, focused
include pedestrian issues.
the media. Use enforcement as
school drop -off
Through the Traffic Accident
an opportunity for education by
enforcement, etc.)
Reduction Plan (TARP), officers
distributing walking safety
Enforcement of
review collision data in order to
pamphlets in -lieu of, or in
pedestrian right -of -way
determine high accident areas
addition to, citations.
laws and speed limits is
and enforcement is increased
an important
in these areas. The police
The Miami -Dade Pedestrian
complement to
department participates in the
Safety Demonstration Project
engineering treatments
GRADE program, which
provides a model for the role of
and education programs.
provides education in schools,
media in the sustained
particularly kindergartens,
effectiveness of enforcement.
about "stranger danger."
Information is available at:
http: / /www.miamidade.gov /MP
O /docs /M PO_ped_safety_dem o
_eva I_report_200806.pdf.
Shared Pedestrian
Enhancement
The City currently shares
Consider working with the San
Enforcement with Other
pedestrian related police
Bruno or Colma Police
Jurisdictions
resources and data with
Departments to organize
Sharing officers with
neighboring cities on request
pedestrian related enforcement
specific bicycling and
for DUI enforcement as part of
activities.
walking focus with other
the OTS grant process.
jurisdictions can help the
Police Department
increase service without
needing to budget for a
new officer.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLAN
ENVIRONMENT
Plan
f!]&
Benchmark
..
Improvements
Traffic Safety Officers
Enhancement
The City does not have a traffic
Identify a key traffic safety
These officers focus on
safety officer dedicated to
officer that dedicates a
enforcing pedestrian-
pedestrian issues. The
meaningful percentage of his
involved violations.
department has a responsive
time to walking and bicycling
approach: when a pedestrian
issues.
safety complaint is made, an
Work with Police Department
officer will go out to check the
staff to identify particular
complaint.
violation types that officers
might have difficulty enforcing.
The Sunnyvale police
department has a Traffic Safety
Unit whose objective is to
ensure the safe and orderly flow
of pedestrian, bicycle, and
vehicular traffic:
http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Depart
me nts/Pub licSafety/DPS Division
s /PoliceandTechnicalServices.as
px #traffic %20 safety %20 unit
Pedestrian Safety
Opportunity
Officers do not participate in a
Create a workshop for officers
Course for Law
course specific to pedestrian
that discusses the specific
Enforcement
issues.
pedestrian safety and right -of-
Oftentimes, laws related
way issues. A sample guide
to pedestrian right -of-
book for such a course was
way issues are
prepared by the Florida Bicycle
misunderstood, or worse,
Association:
not known. These courses
http: / /www.dot.state.fl.us /safety
are designed to educate
/ped_ bike /brochures /pdf /Pedes
officers about specific
trian %20LEGuide- 08.pdf
issues related to
pedestrian safety and
laws.
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLkN
ENVIRONMENT
Table II -10: Existing Promotion Programs Benchmarking Analysis
Plan or Policy
Benchmark
South San Francisco
Response
Opportunities
Coordination Health
Key Strength
The City has a good
Continue to seek opportunities
Agencies
relationship with Kaiser
for technical collaboration and
Involving non - traditional
Permanente and the San
funding with public health and
partners such as
Mateo County Health Services
health care professionals. Work
Emergency Medical
Agency, which provides public
proactively with the County
Service personnel, public
health programs, and is looking
Health Services Agency to
health agencies,
for opportunities to partner on
ensure policies reflect good
pediatricians, in the
community or public health
health. Establish a Health
planning or design of
programs. The City is also a
Agency liaison to facilitate
walking facilities may
partner in the League of
communication and
create opportunities to
California Cities' HEAL Initiative
coordination efforts to improve
be more proactive with
Campaign (Healthy Eating
walking opportunities and
walking safety, identify
Active Living)
public information.
walking safety challenges
The Santa Clara County Public
and education venues,
Health Department has
and secure funding.
organized the Traffic Safe
Under - reporting of
Communities Network (TSCN), a
pedestrian - involved
collaborative of traffic safety
collisions could be a
stakeholders aimed at reducing
problem that may be
motor vehicle crashes and
partially mitigated by
improving bicycle and
involving the medical
pedestrian safety:
community in walking
http: / /www.sccgov.org /sites /scc
safety planning.
phd /en-
us /Partners/TrafficSafety /Pages/
default.aspx
The Pedestrian Plan
recommendations should
support the Strategic Growth
Council's Health in All Initiative
Promotional Giveaways
Key Strength
The City has partnered with the
Continue seeking partnerships
(maps, pedometers, etc.)
Alliance on congestion relief
with local organizations willing
and Bike to Work Day and
to sponsor safety item
partnered with Kaiser
giveaways to encourage
Permanente to create a
walking and other alternative
walking and biking map for
transportation modes.
South San Francisco which is
distributed to residents at
various locations and events.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLAN
ENVIRONMENT
Plan
f!A&
Benchmark
F-oulh
Response
Public Involvement
Key Strength
The City as well as C /CAG
Coordinate outreach with
Responding to public
currently both have a Bicycle
neighborhood advocacy
concerns through public
and Pedestrian Advisory
groups. Consider organizing
feedback mechanisms
Committee (BPAC).
neighborhood groups that
represents a more
Additionally, citizens can call
identify street needs, including
proactive and inclusive
the public works department
greening and traffic calming.
approach to bicycling
with complaints. The
Provide information and
and walking safety
department has a system to
conduct outreach in multiple
compared to a
document complaints and
languages.
conventional approach of
send an automatic response to
proactively, work with schools
reacting to pedestrian-
the person who made the
and employers, residents,
involved collisions.
complaint when the issue is
neighboring communities and
Advisory committees
resolved.
C /CAG to facilitate public
serve as important
involvement and more closely
sounding boards for new
coordinate efforts to improve
policies, programs, and
pedestrian facilities.
practices. A citizens'
Establish a BPAC webpage to
bicycling and walking
facilitate access to pedestrian
advisory committee is
information.
also a key component of
proactive public
involvement for
identifying bicycling and
walking safety issues and
opportunities
Economic Vitality
Opportunity
The City has an active Chamber
• Encourage the creation of BIDs
Improving walking safety
of Commerce.
in commercial areas of the City
and walkability can
The City has an on -going
and apply funds towards
enhance economic
fa4ade improvement program.
walking- related improvements.
vitality. Similarly,
enhancing economic
vitality through
innovative funding
options such as Business
Improvement Districts
(BIDs), parking
management, and fa4ade
improvement programs
can lead to more active
walking areas and
encourage walking
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
2 EXISTING PEDESTRLkN
ENVIRONMENT
Plan or Poli
Benchmark
Response
Signage /Wayfinding
Opportunity
The City does not have specific
Develop wayfinding signage
wayfinding signage. There are
with South San Francisco -
some signs along Centennial
specific graphic design. The
Way directing traffic to the
signage program should be
BART station and some Bay
consistent with other locally
Trail signage.
used design standards, so that
pedestrians and motorists are
familiar with different sign
types. Example signage
programs include the City of
Berkeley
(http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/C
ontentDisplay.aspx ?id =6684 ),
and the West Contra Costa
Transportation Advisory
Committee (WCCTAC)
Wayfinding Plan, which will add
pedestrian and bicycle signage
throughout west Contra Costa
County:
http: / /www.wcaccesstransit.co
m /wayfinding/
Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared by Fehr & Peers 2012
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
CHAPTER 3: EXISTING CONDITIONS
This chapter documents the existing pedestrian conditions, issues and opportunities for South San
Francisco.
3.1 PEDESTRIAN NEEDS
A well- connected pedestrian network is a vital component to livable communities, which thrive on
multimodal travel for all roadway users, regardless of age or ability. A complete street should offer
equal accessibility for the young and old, disabled and not, and should consider the needs of
pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders. Designing streets for our most vulnerable
populations means that they are safe and accessible for everyone. For all pedestrians, the most
important aspects of good design include providing a pleasant and attractive pathway system, free of
obstructions and room for pedestrians to walk side -by -side. However, pedestrians with special needs
require additional considerations. By designing streets for the most vulnerable users, South San
Francisco can provide an environment that will be comfortable and accessible for all. The following
describes different pedestrian types and considerations for each.
Children
Children have special needs in the pedestrian realm and thus have
unique considerations to accommodate their sensitive demands.
This becomes apparent in school zones (particularly for the
Kindergarten through 6th grade population) where a safe
pedestrian environment is vital. Young children are often too small
to be in the line of sight of drivers, so without proper designs,
streets surrounding schools may not be safe for these young
pedestrians. In addition, children walk slower than adults and may
not be able to gauge the amount of time needed to cross an
intersection. When streets surrounding schools have inadequate
pedestrian facilities, parents may be reluctant to allow their
children to walk to school, and will decide to drive children to
school for even short distances.
Accommodating children and other vulnerable populations
requires special provisions to remove barriers to pedestrian travel.
These special provisions include measures such as reducing vehicle Source: Dan Burden
speeds and enhancing street crossings around schools. Reduced
speed zones near schools, using striping patterns and colors to communicate to drivers that they are
within a school zone, and traffic calming measures can facilitate slower vehicle speeds. Reducing
crossing lengths through bulb -outs, special crosswalk striping, and median refuges provide shorter
crossings for children. Technical assistance and funding to implement these enhancements can be
done through Safe Routes to School programs. Adequate sidewalk facilities and crosswalks are
particularly important to separate children from vehicle traffic around school neighborhoods where
children walk and ride their bicycles.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Seniors
Poor sidewalk and crossing conditions may foster
isolation with limited opportunities for seniors'
mobility; they need travel options other than driving,
whether it be walking or taking transit. Seniors have
slower walking speeds and reaction times, and may
have other impairments that restrict their mobility,
vision, and hearing. Sidewalks and street crossings
should be sensitive to these barriers and how they
affect the aging population.
Opportunities to orient streets to provide senior
mobility include: shortening street crossings with
median refuges, sidewalk bulb -outs and adequate
curb ramps; installing sidewalk furniture to make
walking more comfortable by providing places to rest;
and adjusting signal timing to account for slower
walking speeds. Treatments like pedestrian refuge
islands are particularly important to help seniors cross
a street since they tend to walk at slower speeds; if
they are unable to make the crossing during the
available signal time, a refuge provides a separated
place to wait.
Persons with Disabilities
Source: Dan Burden
Source: Dan Burden
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects the rights of people with disabilities, requiring
public entities to develop transition plans to bring existing public facilities up to ADA standards. A key
component to adequate ADA provision includes plans to improve curb ramps. It sets guidelines for
people with disabilities to access public accommodations and commercial facilities. Disconnected
sidewalks and unpaved surfaces can prove frustrating to disabled pedestrians. Additionally,
pedestrian crossings may not address the needs of those with poor vision without audible or vibro-
tactile enhancements. Creating a comfortable and well- connected pedestrian network is important
for addressing the needs of users with disabilities. A key recommednation of this Plan is the
development of an ADA Transition Plan, which will evaluate South San Francisco's complaince with
these standards.
3.2 WALKING IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Walking as a form of transportation is enjoyable, energizing, environmentally friendly and free.
Walking is part of virtually every trip a person takes; however, pedestrians are often the most
vulnerable roadway users. Although a fundamental form of any transportation system, pedestrian
infrastructure has only recently been given much attention by transportation planners and engineers.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
In particular, walking to and from destinations less than 1/2 mile from home or work is often the
quickest and most efficient way for a person to travel in an urban community like South San Francisco.
For the purposes of this memo, the City has been divided into five areas for analysis. Each area has a
distinctive character, and pedestrian related themes are generally repeated throughout.
Downtown: The Downtown area is the civic
and commercial center of the City. It is also
the most walkable area of South San
Francisco. The street network is a traditional
t
®_
grid network with narrow street widths. The
main streets, such as Grand Avenue and
Linden Avenue, are fronted by commercial
uses, and have many pedestrian amenities
including street furniture, decorative brick
_ �-
crosswalks, landscaping, and street trees.
— _
Side streets primarily have residential uses
- -'
and some landscaping. The Caltrain station is
- -
located just to the east of Downtown, on the
east side of Highway 101. The pedestrian
...-
connection between the station and Grand Avenue features many excellent pedestrian amenities
Downtown has several issues, including
difficult crossings at Airport Boulevard and E. Grand Avenue, high -speed traffic, and generally
lacks a feeling of personal security due to poor lighting and obstructed sightlines.
• Lindenville: The area immediately south of
Downtown, identified in the City's General
Plan as Lindenville, is primarily an industrial
employment area. It is the only industrial
area of the City west of US 101. The San
Bruno BART station is located immediately
south of the area. Walking conditions are
difficult in the area. Many sidewalks are
missing, and where they do exist, cars are
frequently parked on sidewalks and block
pathways.
Walking audit in Lindenville
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
0
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
East of Hwy 101: The area east of Hwy 101 is primarily comprised of industrial uses and office
parks. The area is home to several of the City's major employers, including Genentech, Amgen Inc.,
Columbus Manufacturing Inc., Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc., and a Costco retail store,. In addition,
the South San Francisco Conference Center, many large and medium sized hotels, and the Oyster
Point Ferry Terminal are located here, and the San Francisco International Airport is located
immediately south. Due to these types of land uses, missing sidewalks throughout the area are
problematic. The Bay Trail is located along the shoreline, but walking connections to the trail from
other parts of the City are limited.
Highway 101 is a major barrier between
this area and the rest of the City; limited
pedestrian access points exist across the
highway. A few mixed use pathways
exist, particularly in the northwest
r corner of the area, however, these
pathways often have cracks or other
obstacles and are not maintained by the
City. Block sizes are large in this area, so
often walking paths cross through
private campuses. Since it is the
responsibility of each property owner to
maintain pathways on their land, the
Multi -use path in east of 101 area quality of these paths varies.
•
El Camino Real: El Camino Real, or SR 82, runs north -south through South San Francisco. The
route was originally developed parallel to the former Southern Pacific railroad tracks and
continues to be an important regional
route through the Peninsula. The corridor
includes a diverse mix of land uses
including hotels, restaurants, both small
and large scale retail, the Kaiser
.A Permenente Medical Center, civic
buildings, two BART stations and both of
,1 s South San Francisco's public high schools.
Despite these diverse land uses along the
corridor, the walking environment along El
Camino Real can be challenging. Sidewalks
_ are narrow and limited buffers exist
between the sidewalk and moving traffic.
Florist shop on El Camino Real
Crossing distances are extremely wide, with
few pedestrian refuges. Since traffic speeds can be high along the corridor, this creates an
uncomfortable environment for pedestrians.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
0
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Residential Areas: The rest of the City is
primarily residential with localized commercial
uses, schools and parks. For the most part, traffic
speeds and volumes are lower in these areas
than along the major arterials. Landscaping or
on- street parking frequently serve as a buffer !
between the sidewalks and travel lanes. -
However, in many areas with rolled curbs and
no landscaping, cars park on the sidewalks,
blocking the pedestrian path of travel. Another
common issue is vehicles parked in driveways
and blocking the sidewalk. This is common in
older neighborhoods where garages and
driveways were not built to accommodate
larger vehicles. In addition, vehicles were
observed driving at higher speeds on several Residential neighborhood in South San Francisco
residential collector streets that had few speed
control measures, signals or stop signs. Higher speeds can discourage walking trips, particuarly for
children, seniors, and people with disabilities.
3.3 PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
In order to evaluate walking conditions and collect inventory data throughout South San Francisco, 16
walking audits were conducted over the course of a week in May, 2012. The walking audit locations
were selected to cover a range of neighborhood and street types and to target areas of concern. The
list of sites are illustrated in Figure 3 -1. Four walking audits were conducted per day on May 1, 3, 4
and 6, 2012. City staff, City Council members, BPAC members and other stakeholders participated in a
number of the audits.
This section provides an overview of the citywide pedestrian network trends based on the audit
findings. Where appropriate, concerns specific to the five area types discussed above are discussed.
While there are many components that contribute to a great walking environment, this section
focuses on following key elements:
• Sidewalks and Pathways
• Intersection Crossing Treatments
• ADA Access
• High Speed Traffic
• Linear Barriers
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
x
w
Q
J
Q
cn
AC
W
W
CL
A- 14
id 9
0
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
Sidewalks and Pathways
Sidewalks provide pedestrians with a separated
travel path from vehicles on the road. Within an
urban area, sidewalks should be provided where
feasible, but especially around schools, transit stops,
parks, and along mixed -use commercial corridors. In
the case of schools, safety considerations are a
primary concern when families make the decision
whether children should walk (or be driven) to
school. Transit stops are also locations of high
pedestrian activity, as every transit rider is a
pedestrian both before and after taking a trip by
transit. Commercial areas should not only
accommodate pedestrian travel but also serve as
gathering places for pedestrians. Providing
sidewalks will increase the safety and convenience
of pedestrian travel for all users.
South San Francisco's pedestrian network consists of
a system of sidewalks and off - street pathways and
trails. Sidewalks are included on both sides of streets
throughout most of the City with a few exceptions,
particularly in the area east of Highway 101 and in
Lindenville, as well as portions of El Camino Real,
Westborough Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, Junipero
Serra Boulevard, Gellert Boulevard, King Drive and
Carter Drive. Filling these sidewalk gaps is important
to the safety and comfort of all roadway users. Off -
street pathways and trails provide additional
pedestrian connections through the City, including
short -cuts within large blocks and accessible routes
across barriers such as freeways and railroad tracks.
South San Francisco features two extensive off - street
pathways: the Centennial Trail and the Bay Trail.
The majority of sidewalks in South San Francisco are
typically five feet wide or less. Sidewalks less than
five to six feet wide make it difficult for people to
walk side -by -side, and can often be difficult for
persons with mobility impairments to navigate,
particularly when additional barriers are blocking the
route, such as parked vehicles, street furniture or
utility poles. Ensuring that pathways are clear from
obstructions is important for assuring access to all
users. There are several locations throughout the City
The Centennial Way Trail is a great pedestrian amenity
Missing sidewalk
Vehicles often park on sidewalks
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
where utility poles are located in the middle of the sidewalk, limiting the usable width of the sidewalk
and potentially prohibiting wheelchair users from passing. Furthermore, multiple neighborhoods
have issues with cars blocking the sidewalk either by parking in a driveway so that the back of the
vehicle blocks the sidewalk, or from cars parallel parking on the street with two wheels on the
sidewalk and two wheels on the road. This is particularly a problem in areas with rolled curbs, such as
West Orange, Spruce and Alta Loma Avenue.
Buffers between the sidewalk and the roadway can help to increase pedestrian safety and comfort.
Common buffers include:
• Landscaping or street trees, which have been applied on several streets in downtown South San
Francisco, including Grand Avenue.
• Parallel or angled parking, which has been applied on most streets throughout the City.
• Striped bike lanes, which have been installed along sections of Airport Boulevard.
Sidewalks in several neighborhoods of the City could be further enhanced by buffering sidewalks from
moving traffic, as discussed in the following chapter.
Intersection Crossing Treatments
Well- designed street crossings are vital for improving
pedestrian mobility and connecting neighborhoods. Well-
marked, high visibility pedestrian crossings accomplish dual
goals. They prepare drivers for the likelihood of encountering a
pedestrian, and they create an atmosphere of walkability and
accessibility for pedestrians. As with sidewalks, street crossings
are particularly important near schools, transit stops, parks, and
where there are many pedestrians. The addition of new street
- crossings may be most effective where there are existing safety
deficiencies and a high demand for street crossings.
In California, it is legal for pedestrians to cross any street,
except at unmarked locations between immediately adjacent
signalized crossings or where crossing is expressly prohibited.
Marked crossings reinforce the location and legitimacy of a
crossing, and are essential links in a pedestrian network.
Common
practice in
Decorative brick crosswalk across Grand California is to
Avenue with in- pavement flashers
place
crosswalks on all four legs of an intersection, otherwise
the crossing should be closed with a barrier at the curb.
South San Francisco does not have an established
crosswalk policy for when, where and how to mark
Pedestrian actuated flashing beacon on Miller Avenue
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
crossings, however the City typically uses two parallel white lines to mark crosswalks. Decorative brick
treatments are used along the downtown commercial area of Grand Avenue to mark crosswalks, and
several crosswalks within school zones and other high activity areas use high visibility yellow or white
ladder design crosswalks.
Several intersections were observed with pedestrians crossing at unmarked locations, typically where
crosswalks were marked on some, but not all, legs of the intersection. In many cases these are legal
crossing locations (where drivers are required to yield to pedestrians), but the lack of a marked
crosswalk creates ambiguity for pedestrians and drivers about who has the right -of -way. Consistent
marking of crosswalks is important to both increase
driver awareness of the pedestrian right -of -way and to
improve safety.
Most signalized intersections in South San Francisco
are pedestrian actuated, meaning the pedestrian must
push a button to trigger the walk phase. A few signals
throughout the City have pedestrian countdown
timers, which let the pedestrian know how much
crossing time is left in the signal phase. Pedestrian
countdown signals are now required to be installed
whenever signals are upgraded. The City has also
installed a number of traffic control devices at
unsignalized locations. In- pavement flashers are
installed along Grand Avenue, Orange Avenue and
other locations throughout the City. A flashing beacon
with pedestrian signage at the intersection of Miller
Avenue and Cypress Avenue also helps to improve
visibility of pedestrians.
ADA Access
Diagonal curb ramp without tactile domes
The United States Access Board is the federal
agency in charge of accessibility for persons with
disabilities. The Board develops and maintains
design criteria for the built environment, transit
vehicles, telecommunications equipment, and for
electronic information technology. The Board is
currently developing an amendment to its Public
Rights -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines. These
include standards for sidewalks, street crossings, ,
and other elements of the roadway. The Guidelines
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTEIPLA l — - —
Accessible bi- directional curb ramp with tactile domes
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
include clarifying the placement of detectable warnings, and limiting pedestrian signalization at
roundabouts and channelized turn lanes to crossings of two lanes of traffic or more. Both the Access
Board Guidelines and the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUCTD) recommend
setting pedestrian signals based on a maximum of 3.5 feet /second walking speed (rather than 4.0 feet
per second). All new facilities that have any federal funding must meet the Access Board's guidelines.
In addition, when any physical changes are made to an existing facility, the facility must be upgraded
to the Access Board's current standards.
South San Francisco does not have an established
policy for timing pedestrian signals. The pedestrian
crossing time at many signals thoughout the City is
shorter than what is recommended in the ADA
guidelines.This can lead to certain pedestrians not
having enough time to cross the street during the
pedestrian signal phase, making them vulnerable
to oncoming traffic once the light turns green.
According to ADA guidelines, sidewalk curb ramps
should have both a ramp and detectable warnings
(also known as truncated domes) to ensure access
between the sidewalk and street for people with
disabilities. The majority of curbs throughout South
San Francisco have curb ramps; areas lacking curb
ramps are difficult for those with mobility Cars blocking sidewalk on a residential street
impairments to navigate. Few curb ramps in the
City have truncated domes which alert those with visual impairments that they are about to enter the
street. Ideally, curb ramps should be bi- directional and guide pedestrians into the marked crossings,
rather than diagonally across an intersection. While the sidewalk corner area often limits the direction
of curb ramp, bi- directional ramps are the best practice and should be installed wherever feasible.
Audible pedestrian crossing signals also help those with visual impairments know when it is safe to
cross the street. South San Francisco has audible signals at a few intersections.
Many residential areas in the City, particularly in older areas,
have garages that do not accommodate larger cars. However,
many people park in driveways, blocking the sidewalk. There
is likely a lack of knowledge that the sidewalk is public right -
of -way and blocking it with a vehicle is illegal. "Friendly"
enforcement of this issue is needed to reduce this problem.
Additionally, the City's driveway standards should be
reviewed and potentially updated to ensure that they meet
ADA standards.
High Speed Traffic
Speeding traffic can negatively affect the pedestrian
experience, and is a primary indicator for the severity of a
pedestrian injury as the result of a collision. Arterial streets Cars parked on sidewalks with rolled curbs
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
such as El Camino Real, Airport Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard, and East Grand Avenue were
designed for higher vehicle speeds. On streets such as these it is best to provide a buffer between the
sidewalk and moving traffic in order to protect pedestrians and maximize comfort. Buffers can include
landscaping or street trees, bike lanes, or parked cars. In addition, conflicts between vehicles and
pedestrians can occur at crossing locations. At these locations, vehicle speeds should be controlled
through design measures and signal timing to reduce the number and severity of concflicts.
Residential streets are not meant to accommodate vehicles at high speeds. However, high traffic
speeds were noted on several residential streets throughout the City, particularly on streets such as
Spruce Avenue and Del Monte Avenue, which have long stretches without speed reduction measures
or stop signs. These areas also have rolled curbs. In these locations, vehicles were frequently parked on
sidewalks, likely a result of wanting to avoid getting hit by speeding vehicles. The rolled curbs also
increase the ease of parking on sidewalks. However, this limits the accessibility of the sidewalks, which
are sometimes completely blocked by vehicles.
Linear Barriers
Highway 101, Interstate 280, El Camino Real, and the
Caltrain railroad tracks physically separate different parts of
the City, and present obstacles to walking between
neighborhoods. Pedestrian paths across these barriers are
provided in limited locations, forcing pedestrians to travel
longer distances to reach their destinations, and are often
unpleasant places to walk due to the narrow pathways,
high- speeds and high volumes of vehicles, and lack of
pedestrian amenities.
Pedestrian connection on Grand Avenue under Hwy 101
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.4 IDENTIFICATION OF SYSTEM GAPS
Pedestrian infrastructure gaps were inventoried across South
San Francisco during the walking audits. Addressing these gaps
is an important component in developing a safe and accessible
walking environment.
Missing Sidewalks
Figure 3 -2 shows sections of South San Francisco where
sidewalks are missing; this inventory is a comprehensive list of
sidewalks throughout the entire City. While most of the areas
with missing sidewalks are located in the area east of Highway
101, other areas with significant gaps include several streets in
Lindenville, as well as portions of El Camino Real, Westborough
Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Gellert
Boulevard, Chestnut Avenue, Hillside Boulevard, King Drive and
Carter Drive. Filling these sidewalk gaps is important to the
safety and comfort of all roadway users.
Missing Curb Ramps
Curb ramps were also inventoried across the City.
While the missing sidewalk inventory includes the
entire City, curb ramps were only inventoried in the
areas where walking audits were conducted. Figure
3 -3 shows the locations of all of the intersections
where a curb ramp inventory was conducted. Each
intersection has four corners; ideally curb ramps with
tactile domes would be included at each corner.
Each circle on the map represents one intersection,
with each quarter of the circle representing one
corner. Each circle is color -coded to show the status
of the corner among the following options:
• Curb ramp with tactile domes
• Curb ramp without tactile domes
• Missing curb ramp
,a.
Discontinuous sidewalk segment
War-
Missing curb ramp in Lindenville neighborhood
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The downtown area generally has curb ramps at each of its
intersections, but without tactile domes. Lindenville has a mix;
while some curb ramps have tactile domes, some intersections are
missing curb ramps altogether. The surveyed areas east of 101
generally have curb ramps without tactile domes, wherever
sidewalks exist. Intersections along El Camino Real generally have
curb ramps and some have tactile domes. The quality of curb ramps
varies in the residential areas. In the Sunshine Gardens
neighborhood, near the South San Francisco BART station, many
intersections have curb ramps with tactile domes, however some
corners are missing curb ramps. Curb ramps are also missing in
sections of the Westborough, Avalon, and Paradise Valley
neighborhoods. A more comprehensive inventory of missing curb
ramps is needed. Curb ramps and tactile domes should be installed
at any intersection where they currently do not exist.
Missing Crosswalks
The presence of crosswalks was also inventoried at intersections
along the walking audits. It is generally recommended to locate
marked crosswalks across all four legs of an intersection. Where
crosswalks are not marked, a barrier should be placed to discourage
pedestrians from crossing. Figure 3 -4 shows, for the intersections
inventoried, which intersections have no crosswalk gaps, and which
intersections have at least one leg missing a marked crosswalk.
Crosswalk gaps exist in all areas of the City. At some intersections the
gap only exists at one of three legs, but at some intersections no legs
are marked with a crosswalk. Marking crosswalks is important to
demonstrate both to vehicles and pedestrians where the pedestrian
right -of -way exists. At several locations throughout the walking
audits pedestrians were observed crossing the street at unmarked
crosswalk locations, despite uncomfortable conditions. Marking
crosswalks is important for improving safety of all roadway users.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Pedestrian walking at unmarked crossing location at
Chestnut Avenue and Mission Road
Fencing barrier where pedestrian crossing is prohibited
x
O
z
w
z
w
0
Q
w
0
z
NO
N
m
ii
W
LLI
a-
A-
0
LL
�N
a
N
0
s
O
.N
U
w
CO
0
-CIO 09-0
c
a�bSa
o �- • N
> A,0
-7
M aOgaeH d ~
CO C U, S�Oed �� 0
• LL
-0 06°00 0
/ 1•4CIL 000 0 �a
S ,(z : , �aP Zi •
m ' moo`Onaass •
3:
�M •• a
bs� Q im Q ?I-x
ld 3 a ° Gam O
C7 ;' S d
IL a � , A
ol
00,10 0
L O
L e e mF
0
N
00
O
�U
0
U Up
Fig131VU
O
r
E\ so
� Cl)
� (D O
c
O M
V
a
sxvS
11111
N
a)
0
a -
E U
Q' Q
Q p E U
U 3 n
m a D J
. U
N_ N m
Q N
O 3 N /
z ' C)
j I__I 1
r
x
O
z
w
z
r
m
U
m
ii
F.�
LLI
a-
0
LL
�N
N
r
x
0
Q�
V)
V)
O
U
.,
m
ii
V']
W
LL]
a-
A-.14
0
LL
3 EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.5 SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS
The following table summarizes the opportunities and constraints for addressing the issues discussed
in the previous sections.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
OPPORTUNITIES
CONSTRAINTS
• Complete sidewalk gaps
• The pedestrian right -of -way is
• Provide buffers /barriers such as
physically constrained in some areas,
landscaping or bike lanes
limiting opportunities to provide new
• Consider an encouragement or
sidewalks
enforcement program to reduce
• Sidewalk gap projects will require an
parking on sidewalks in residential
ongoing funding source, such as
Sidewalks
neighborhoods
private development and Capital
Improvement Project funds
• New sidewalks and /or types of buffers
may require some on street parking to
be removed
• Parking enforcement requires
coordination with the Police
Department
• Implement crossing
• Intersection crossing improvements
improvements such as marked
may affect auto vehicle operations in
crossings on all intersection legs,
high volume areas
Pedestrian
signal countdowns, and increase
• Crossing improvements may require
Crossings
pedestrian signal lengths at high-
coordination with other agencies such
priority intersection locations
as Caltrans, Caltrain, City of Daly City
• Develop a crosswalk policy to
and City of San Bruno
guide the installation of marked
crosswalks
• Develop an ADA Transition Plan
• Improvements will require a dedicated
• Install curb ramps with detectable
funding, ongoing funding source
ADA Access
warnings
• Parking enforcement requires
• Review and revise driveway design
coordination with the Police
standards as needed
Department
• Increase parking enforcement
• Fund Traffic Calming Program
• Enforcement requires coordination
High Speed
• Perform enforcement activities at
with the Police Department
Traffic
high - priority locations
• Traffic Calming Program will require an
ongoing, dedicated funding source
• Enhance crossings at linear
• Crossing improvements may require
Linear
barriers
coordination with other agencies such
Barriers
as Caltrans, Caltrain, City of Daly City
and City of San Bruno
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
CHAPTER 4: RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
The pedestrian improvements recommended in this chapter are aimed to enhance pedestrian access,
safety and circulation within South San Francisco.
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section documents the recommended pedestrian improvements throughout the City including
closing the key pedestrian network gaps, programmatic improvements, as well as specific site
improvements. Projects were selected based on review of previous plans, City and BPAC input and
findings from the walking audits.
4.2 CITYWIDE PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Existing Conditions chapter identified key issues and gaps in the pedestrian network. Certain
issues reoccur throughout the City. Recommended improvements for these citywide issues are
divided into five categories, each of which is identified and discussed below:
• Sidewalks
• Intersection Crossing Treatments
• ADA Access
• Speed Reduction Measures
• Linear Barriers
Sidewalks
Two types of sidewalk improvements are recommended: those
that fill in the gaps where sidewalks do not currently exist, and
those that improve existing sidewalks that do not meet ADA
standards. Sidewalk gaps are areas in South San Francisco where
there are either no sidewalks on a street or where sidewalks only
exist on one side of the street, as shown in Figure 3 -2. The
Downtown area has a complete sidewalk network, but there are
many sidewalk gaps in the East of 101 area and the western side
of the City. Completing sidewalk gap closures will be an ongoing
effort by the City and will require a sustained funding source.
Sidewalk gaps that have been previously approved and those on
private streets in residential subdivisions may remain
unchanged, but future development should require sidewalks
on both sides of the street to maximize connectivity to existing
and future pedestrian facilities. The Implementation Chapter of
this plan will address prioritization and funding of these projects.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Grand Avenue sidewalk in Downtown South San Francisco
4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Sidewalks should be installed in all areas of the City
where they are currently missing. ADA accessible
curb ramps should be included with any new ; 's
sidewalk construction. Many existing sidewalks in
the City are narrow and some are blocked by -
obstacles such as utility poles, which are a major
barrier to pedestrians with visual impairments. New
developments should be required to install ADA _
accessible sidewalks as a requirement for
development approval. A recommended minimum -
sidewalk width for new residential development is
six feet. Sidewalks in existing residential Y
developments may remain at current widths (city -
approved minimum of 48 inches, or 4 feet) unless a Example of bulb out with curb ramp and tactile domes
substantial new development of multifamily
dwelling units is planned. ADA sidewalk regulations specify that routes with less than 1.525 meters
(60 inches, or 5 feet) of clear width must provide passing spaces at least 1.525 meters (60 inches) wide
at reasonable intervals not exceeding 61 meters (200 feet), and a 5 feet by 5 feet turning space should
be provided where turning or maneuvering is necessary. At locations where obstacles are blocking the
sidewalk, the obstacles should either be removed, or the sidewalk should be widened to provide
sufficient width for ADA access. In some cases, such as around utility poles and boxes, this may require
a curb extension or bulb out. Sidewalks along arterials should have buffers between pedestrians and
moving traffic. Buffers may include landscaping or street trees, parallel or angled parking, and striped
bike lanes.
Intersection Crossing Treatments
Intersections should be designed to enable access
for all users. Best practices include providing
uniform crosswalk markings, providing high visibility
crossing treatments at high risk unsignalized
crossings, providing pedestrian countdowns at
signalized intersections, and providing pedestrian
islands or median tips. Intersection crossing
enhancement projects will be an ongoing effort by
the City. Potential funding sources for these projects
will be discussed in the Implementation chapter.
Crosswalks should be marked across all legs of an
intersection. The walking audits inventoried the
locations of crosswalk gaps at some intersections, as Ladder crosswalk and ADA accessible curb ramp with
shown in Figure 3 -4 of Chapter 3. However, a tactile domes
thorough citywide inventory is recommended. A uniform crosswalk policy should be implemented
across the City, which is useful for building future crosswalks at development and road improvement
sites. A citywide inventory can be used to identify priority locations for periodic upgrades.. Currently
the City provides crosswalks in the form of two whiteparallel lines at most intersections. This could be
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
designated as the default treatment. At stop controlled intersections, is recommended to replace all
crossings marked with a stop bar and the word "STOP" and replace this with the uniform crosswalk
treatment identified by the City. At signalized intersections, all crossings are legal and should be
marked. If the City chooses not to mark a crosswalk, the crossing should be closed to pedestrians with
a barrier and signage directing them to the closest legal crossing.
High visibility crosswalks, such as ladder striped crosswalks,
should be considered at unsignalized crossings with high
pedestrian volumes. One uniform high visibility crossing
treatment should be used throughout the City. Crossings near
schools should be marked in yellow to designate that they are
located in a school zone. Additional crossing treatments may be
applied in school zones to ensure safe crossing of students or at
other unsignalized crossings designated as high risk areas. This
may include advanced yield lines, commonly referred to as
"sharks teeth ", advanced stop bars, pedestrian signage, or
flashing beacons. These treatments are described in detail in the
Design Guidelines (Appendix A).
In order to ensure that pedestrians are aware of the remaining Pedestrian countdown signal
crossing time, pedestrian countdowns should be installed at all signalized intersections. California law
requires that countdown signals be installed whever signal control devices are being upgraded. At
pedestrian actuated crossings, one pedestrian push button should be located adjacent to the curb
ramp. Pedestrian push buttons for separate directions should not be located on the same pole. For
audible pedestrian signals at corners of signalized locations where two pedestrian pushbuttons are
provided, the pushbuttons should be separated by a distance of at least 10 feet in order to distinguish
between the audio sources.
Many arterial streets in South San Francisco have medians which terminate in the crosswalk, partially
blocking the crosswalk. These medians should be trimmed back so that they do not block the
crosswalk, and a median tip or "thumbnail" should be added on the outer edge of the crosswalk to
provide additional pedestrian protection. Pedestrian
refuge islands can also be installed to provide
pedestrians with a protected place to wait between
walk signals while crossing a long intersection.
3\
A mobility assisted pedestrian waits to cross the street
ADA Access
Pedestrian facilities should be designed to
accommodate pedestrians with mobility impairments
and should meet Americans with Disability Act
guidelines. Best practices include upgrading curb
ramps, providing adequate pedestrian clearance
intervals, providing accessible pedestrian signals, and
removing obstacles on sidewalks. It is recommended
that the City develop an ADA Transition Plan that
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
comprehensively addresses these issues.
Many intersections throughout the City are either missing curb ramps or the existing curb ramps are
missing truncated domes. The walking audits inventoried missing curb ramps at some intersections,
as shown in Figure 3 -3 of Chapter 3, but a thorough curb ramp inventory of the entire City should be
conducted in order to identify priority locations for periodic curb ramp upgrades. Truncated domes
provide a tactile signal to the visually impaired as they transition between walking paths or sidewalks
and conflict areas such as intersections. Bi- directional curb ramps (i.e., two ramps per corner) are
preferred whenever possible, to direct pedestrians into a crosswalk instead of diagonally into the
intersection. Curb ramps should be provided at all intersections where they are currently missing in
order to provide an accessible pedestrian network. This is important not just for people with
disabilities, but for people with strollers, children and seniors.
As mentioned in Chapter 3, both the Access Board Guidelines and the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUCTD) recommend setting pedestrian signals based on a maximum of 3.5
feet /second walking speed (rather than 4.0 feet per second). All new facilities that have any federal
funding must meet the Access Board's guidelines. In addition, when any physical changes are made to
an existing facility, the facility must be upgraded to the Access Board's current standards. Long
crosswalks throughout the City at signalized intersections should include a pedestrian signal phase
based on a 3.5 feet /second walking speed to ensure that pedestrians have sufficient time to cross the
intersection.
Accessible pedestrian signals communicate information about crossings to pedestrians with visual
impairments with audible tones or vibrating systems. These accessible pedestrian signals should be
placed with guidance from the Accessibility Disability Commission.
Cars parked in driveways, or on rolled curbs, blocking the sidewalk is a common obstacle in residential
neighborhoods in South San Francisco. Education programs can help to make residents aware that the
sidewalk is public right -of -way and blocking it with a vehicle is illegal. Enforcement and
encouragement efforts should be implemented to help alleviate this problem. Enforcement could
start with "friendly" warnings to alert violators, followed by ticketing for repeat offenders. Additionally,
the City's driveway standards should be reviewed and potentially updated to ensure that they meed
ADA ctanrlarric
Speed Reduction Measures
High vehicle speeds were noted in many areas of the
City, both on arterials and in residential neighborhoods.
The City currently has a traffic calming program with
specific standard treatments. These treatments should
be used to reduce vehicle speeds in neighborhoods of
concern. Measures included in the traffic calming
program are divided into three categories: education
and enforcement, speed reducing tools, and cut -
through traffic reducing tools. Education and
enforcement tools include neighborhood speed watch
programs, neighborhood pace car programs, and
An edgeline demarcates the parking lane & edge
of travel lane to reduce vehicle conflicts
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
targeted police enforcement. Speed reducing tools include high visibility crosswalks, textured
pavements, in- pavement flashers, signage, radar display units, edgeline striping, curb extensions,
traffic circles, raised crosswalks and raised intersections. Cut - through reduction tools include turn
restrictions, median barriers, and channelizing barriers. Refer to the South San Francisco Traffic
Calming Program for details about these measures and their implementation. Many residential
neighborhoods with high vehicle speeds also have rolled curbs. As a result, cars are frequently parked
on the sidewalk to avoid getting hit by oncoming vehicles, however this blocks the sidewalk for
pedestrians. One simple measure included in the traffic calming program is to stripe edgelines along
the roadway. Edgelines have the apparent effect of narrowing the roadway and therefore encourage
drivers to drive more slowly. Painting edgelines with sufficient space for vehicles to park outside the
sidewalk would also encourage vehicles to park on the street, rather than on the sidewalk. Education
and enforcement measures can also be cost effective solutions, especially when residents are willing
to volunteer for programs to address issues on their own streets.
Linear Barriers
Linear barriers physically separate different parts of the City and present obstacles to walking between
neighborhoods. Four major transportation routes create linear barriers in South San Francisco:
Highway 101, Interstate 280, El Camino Real, and the Caltrain railroad tracks. Colma Creek also
presents a linear barrier through part of the City. Crossings at linear barriers should be enhanced to
improve pedestrian comfort and safety. This can include bridges, pedestrian scale lighting, widening
sidewalks, and removing obstacles.
4.3 SITE - SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
This section provides recommendations for site - specific projects within the City. Some of the citywide
themes discussed above are reiterated in this project list, including opportunities to fill specific
sidewalk, curb ramp and crosswalk gaps, particularly when these gaps coincide with other adjacent
pedestrian improvement opportunities. These recommendations were identified during the 16
walking audits and from input from the City and BPAC members. Therefore this project list is not a
comprehensive citywide list, but rather is focused on key pedestrian areas, which are located
throughout the city and represent a range of neighborhoods and issues.
The project table includes a project ID, which is the walking audit number and the project reference
number within that walking audit. The location column describes either the intersection or the street
segment. The issue column describes issues or opportunities noted at the location. The
recommendations column summarizes the recommended improvements for the location. The cost
column provides a concept -level cost estimate (forthcoming). The notes column lists additional
considerations involved in implementing the recommendatiosn.
The recommendations are divided into five color coded categories:
• Construction of pedestrian right -of -way (sidewalk, bulb -out, curb ramp, median island, etc.)
• Traffic control measures
• Striping
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
4 RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
• Signage
• Other measures including enforcement and amenities
The organization of the table will help to facilitate grouping of recommendations into grant ready
projects, since projects in the list can either be grouped by location or project type. Projects may be
funded through grants, new development and other capital improvement funding opportunities.
Project prioritization and funding is discussed in detail in the Implementation chapter. The following
section outlines a set of eight conceptual plans, which provide a comprehensive description of
recommendations for eight geographic areas of the City. These concept plans can be used as project
sheets for the purpose of pursuing grants.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
5 CONCEPT PLANS
CHAPTER 5: CONCEPT PLANS
This chapter outlines eight concept plans to provide site - specific recommendations based on
assessments of pedestrian facilities and field work completed during the walking audits. Concept
plans include corridors, large intersections, sections of neighborhoods and areas around activity
nodes. These plans can be applied to the specific locations described, and can be used as a general
guide for similar settings as the City finds opportunities for pedestrian improvements in additional
locations.
5.1 CITYWIDE SIDEWALK GAP CLOSURE PROJECT
Missing sidewalks
Closure of sidewalk gaps throughout the City will provide basic pedestrian connectivity and create
opportunities for pedestrian trips between existing and future destinations. This is especially effective
in the near -term through areas with high pedestrian demand, as the investment will be immediately
relevant by providing pedestrian access between existing origins and destinations that may lead to a
switch to pedestrian mode.
Pedestrian demand was evaluated in the San Mateo County Pedestrian INDEX Walking Demand Score
analysis using a number of variables in a GIS model. The built environment, proximity to destinations,
demographics, and street design were all considered. The built environment factors include
population and employment density, as well as land use mix. The proximity factors include schools,
parks, transit, commercial centers, and employment, Demographics factors include age, income and
vehicle ownership, thereby incorporating need -based demand in the analysis. Street design factors
include intersection density and street connectivity. The factors were weighted and given points, so
each street segment in South San Francisco has a total Pedestrian INDEX Demand Walking Score.
These scores were grouped according to natural breaks to great three categories: high priority,
medium priority, and long -term sidewalk gap closures. Professional judgment and proximity to
recorded pedestrian collisions were taken into consideration where the scores were close to the cut-
off point. High priority sidewalk gaps, shown on the figure in red, are located on segments with the
highest demand scores, which are primarily streets near the downtown core, in the older, denser
residential neighborhoods and adjacent to major transit hubs. Medium priority sidewalk gaps, shown
on the figure in yellow, are located on segments with the mid -range scores, which are primarily streets
that connect to residential development or economic activity, and some that are located in areas
slated for near -term future development. Long -term sidewalk gap closures, show on the figure in
green, are located on street segments with low pedestrian demand. This evaluation may change
depending on future development and transportation patterns, and opportunities to close sidewalks
in conjunction with development, at a reduced cost to the City, should be taken into consideration.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
5 CONCEPT PLANS
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
• There are gaps in the sidewalk network throughout the
City, especially outside of Downtown
Issues and Opportunities
• Many of these sidewalk gaps overlap with areas of high
pedestrian demand, or intersections with recorded
pedestrian collisions
• Develop a prioritization system to systematically close
Proposed Improvements
sidewalk gaps and identify development opportunities
to close additional gaps
Cost
• TBD
• Costs will vary depending on project
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
s
s
0
I
m
a9-
� a�
o saw 1
o aA w
T LLfeM aogaeH d f
P�rP� 1
Q)
L� S CALTRAIN
co
LL
00
Q ,Q)
0
LL r_
Cos
o
t,
Blvd
ip00 o a f o CL
jur P c o >
C) .0 D
a
o s Y o
CD 3 E rn rn
CP
cn
4-j Q.)
_0
Q�
O �
Q� U
N
V) —
_O
U �
Q �
c6
� N
0
0
U
a�
a�
O
a�
v
O
v
U)
me
LLJ
w
a..
Z�
0
w�
ii
5 CONCEPT PLANS
5.2 NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CORRIDOR
Linden Avenue Improvements
Linden Avenue between Aspen Street and Grand Avenue in downtown South San Francisco is a
secondary commercial corridor connecting to the busier Grand Avenue corridor. This section of
Linden Avenue is a key transit corridor and presents opportunities for increased commercial activity
and pedestrian connections to nearby destinations, including small parks, schools, City buildings, local
businesses and the walkable residential neighborhoods of this part of South San Francisco.
Issues and Opportunities
• Opportunity to improve pedestrian amenities,
encourage economic development and enhance access
to transit stops along corridor
Proposed Improvements
• Relocate bus stop at Miller Avenue to far side of
intersection
• Add bus stop shelters at Miller Avenue and Aspen
Avenue
• Install bus bulbs at Miller Avenue and Aspen Avenue
bus stops
• Install traffic calming treatments such as curb
extensions at the corners of crossings along Linden
Avenue
• Install median pedestrian refuge islands at yield
controlled crossing (Lux Avenue), and advanced stop
bars at stop - controlled crossings
• Install advanced pedestrian signage at key unsignalized
crossings.
• Update curb ramps
• Install high visibility crosswalks
Estimated Cost
• $543,440 construction costs
• $326,064 soft costs*
• Total cost: $869,504
*Soft costs include the following:
• Traffic control (5 9/6)
• Design and Environmental Review (20%
• Mobilization (5 9/6)
• Construction Management (10 9/6)
• Contingency (20 916)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
� Jfanfp�er Aire
Install bus bulb with seating, shelter,
# real -time transit information and
other amenities at transit stop
nom..,.., n.,
Install bulb -out
r
4 `
w
Consider active uses and public space
treatments such as "parklets ", murals,
landscaping and green stormwater
management along Linden Avenue
and in alleyways. Install ADA accessible
ramps at all pedestrian crossings
A
d 0l' Pin A e
7
M
7
M
Install crosswalks on east and west legs;
install advanced stop bars on all approaches
r �
7th La'i1' n
r �
1
f
W_ *
i�ki
Install bulb -outs and y I
advanced stop bars <� fi
.F ur
T,, California Aue F
I
Install high visibility ladder crosswalks, median pedestrian f
refuge islands, advanced yield lines and signage at
uncontrolled crossings. Add advanced stop bars on
.,.A stop - controlled approaches
Lux
.w Ta ra k Lane ,
r P
' Relocate bus stops to far f '
' side of intersection #
�. rr -I 4+ -.
Install bulb -out at Install bus bulbs; evaluate removal of LEGEND
r southwest intersection right -turn lane on Miller Avenue to Fffffffi Sidewalk Expansion
install bulb -out Landscaping
+ F
ADA Curb Ramps
Not to Scale
FEHR,' PEERS -
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics
NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL CORRIDOR
LINDEN AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS
CONCEPT PLAN TWO
5 CONCEPT PLANS
5.3 BART STATION AND EL CAMINO HIGH SCHOOL ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Mission Road Corridor
Mission Road between El Camino High School and McLellan Drive at the north and Holly Avenue at
the south is a key transit access corridor with a variety of local connections. The South San Francisco
BART station, related transit oriented development, El Camino High School, the Centennial Way Trail,
scattered local- serving commercial uses and residential development are all located directly on
Mission Road. Side streets also connect to a neighborhood elementary school, additional TOD
commercial development and El Camino Real.
Issues and Opportunities
• Multiple opportunities to improve pedestrian access to
the BART station and High School
Proposed Improvements
• Consider reducing Mission Road to one lane in each
direction by removing outside lanes and either widen
sidewalks, add corner bulb -outs, or add a median to
narrow the vehicle right of way and create pedestrian
refuge islands at Mission Road crossings
• At Sequoia Avenue install curb extension, especially at
northeast and southeast corners to reduce the turning
radii and pedestrian crossing distance
• At Sequoia Avenue add all -way stop control, or install
sharks teeth and advanced pedestrian crossing signage
if roadway is reduced to a single lane in each direction
• At Holly Avenue straighten crosswalk at east leg to
shorten crossing distance, consider adding curb
extensions to northeast and southeast corners, add
crosswalk to south leg and install advance stop bars at
north and south legs
Estimated Cost
• $559,758 construction costs
• $335,854 soft costs*
• Total Cost: $895,612
*Soft costs include the following:
• Traffic control (5 9/6)
• Design and Environmental Review (20%
• Mobilization (5 9/6)
• Construction Management (10 9/6)
• Contingency (20 916)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Vi
A
S
pmt 4
r
Match Line
McLellan Dr
I �
Evergreen Dr
r ;x
Match Line
r'.W it j
r�
allLlUuIa rive N
i
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
m Landscaping
ADA Curb Ramps
WA
.P
N ot oS—,e BART STATION AND EL CAMINO HIGH SCHOOL
FEHR,'PEERS ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS MISSION ROAD CORRIDOR
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics CONCEPT PLAN THREE
5 CONCEPT PLANS
5.4 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS
Sunshine Gardens
Residential streets connecting Sunshine Gardens Elementary School, El Camino High School and
Mission Road, including Holly Avenue, Crestwood Drive and Evergreen Drive present key
opportunities to implement neighborhood traffic calming improvements. These local streets connect
schools and residential neighborhoods to the nearby BART station and the high volume Hillside
Boulevard, to the north. The current configuration allows for high speed vehicles with few stop
controlled intersections and some blocks stretching more than 900 feet long, three times longer than
typical downtown residential blocks. Traffic calming improvements implemented here at
intersections, key crossings and along the length of blocks can be replicated throughout similar
neighborhoods in South San Francisco.
Issues and Opportunities
• High speed vehicles cutting through the neighborhood
at dangerous speeds
• No buffer between sidewalks and vehicles (other than
occasional on- street parking)
Proposed Improvements
• Install traffic calming treatments along collector streets;
consider small traffic circles, edge lines to visually
narrow roadway, speed humps, or other speed
reduction measures
• Mark northeast leg of crosswalk at Baywood Avenue
entrance to El Camino HS on Evergreen Drive
• Install stop sign or sharks teeth /advance pedestrian
crossing signage at Baywood Avenue and Evergreen
Drive intersection (check stop sign warrant)
Estimated Cost
• $64,280 construction costs
• $38,568 soft costs*
• Total cost: $102,848
*Soft costs include the following:
• Traffic control (5 9/6)
• Design and Environmental Review (20%
• Mobilization (5 9/6)
• Construction Management (10 9/6)
• Contingency (20 9/6)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
.T•i�li� ♦ t
• < ...fMS � •w
<..
2 Consider reducing speed limit
to 15 mph through ..
Install traffic circles or other traffic
•�� �t � �Yf �lIIM��
I
r 1
YP t } 1
i
M
�i
�• '.iII�N� y
„•: Mark high - visibility yellow
ladder crosswalks on all legs
OW
Ba�uvood
Evaluate intersection for stop _ !�
i sign warrant; otherwise install
" i . advanced yellow lines
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
Fdgelines
v� .�_P ADA Curb Ramps $.
Not to Scale RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS
FEHR,' PEERS _.._ SUNSHINE GARDENS
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics CONCEPT PLAN FOUR
5 CONCEPT PLANS
5.5 RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING IMPROVEMENTS
Spruce Avenue
The residential neighborhood along Spruce Avenue north of Downtown, from Lux Avenue to Maple
Avenue represents typical residential streets in the older north section of South San Francisco. These
streets present opportunities for strong pedestrian connections to downtown , and the South San
Francisco Caltrain station is located within approximately one mile or less from most points along this
corridor.
Issues and Opportunities
• High speed vehicles
• Vehicles parked on the sidewalk instead of in the
roadway, blocking the already narrow pedestrian right
of way
Proposed Improvements
• Install edge line striping to reduce traffic speeds and
encourage vehicles to park on the street rather than the
sidewalk; consider parking restrictions on one side of
the street or converting Spruce to one -way traffic in
order to maintain adequate travel way widths. Note
that while narrow lane widths may require two -way
traffic to slow and pass very carefully, this will have only
a very minor impact on local residential streets
• Consider adding staggered landscaped bulbs on
alternating sides of the street
• Extend existing traffic calming medians between Beech
Avenue and Hemlock Avenue
• Install crosswalk striping at Maple Avenue and Hemlock
Avenue intersection
Estimated Cost
• $54,447 construction costs
• $32,668 soft costs*
• Total cost: $87,115
*Soft costs include the following:
• Traffic control (5 9/6)
• Design and Environmental Review (209/6
• Mobilization (5 9/6)
• Construction Management (10 9/6)
• Contingency (20 9/6)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
t,3 11 V..
�yl
l4� f
it
Install D. accessible
IL 11 ramps at all crossings
! g.
AIL_ i
Install high visibility crosswalk
treatment with pedestrian
actuated flashing beacon;
Install median refuge at ; or consider all -way stop
wide intersection control
Diamond Ave
Stripe edgline along corridor;
preserve 10' -11' for each
■ . travel lane
c
n
M
G
i
Install staggered sidewalk
bulbs on alternating sides �!
to reinforce edgeline
F f
Pine Ave
•alifornia A
L
w
r
A y,�
• f.
44
w
0o
Mark high visibility, yellow
All
Lux Au
}
crosswalk on south leg
}
M.
h
tt a
T
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
- -
•
AW^
All" }
Landscaping
F
,
t,l L1
, _
Edgelines
ADA Curb Ramps
Not to Scale RESIDENTIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC
CALMING IMPROVEMENTS
FEHR,' PEERS
_,
SPRUCE AVENUE
CONCEPT PLAN FIVE
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics
5 CONCEPT PLANS
5.6 COMPLETE STREETS /GATEWAY IMPROVEMENTS
South Spruce Avenue
South Spruce Avenue from Victory Avenue to El Camino Real, connecting the El Camino Real corridor
to Downtown South San Francisco through the industrial neighborhood south of downtown serves as
a primary gateway between El Camino Real and Downtown. It is also a busy industrial corridor, linking
El Camino Real with the industrial and office park uses south of Railroad Avenue. These corridors
represent part of the South San Francisco employment base, and create a significant amount of
related commercial and truck traffic. The Centennial Way Trail crosses South Spruce Avenue along this
segment, and the nearby shopping districts downtown and on El Camino Real could generate
additional pedestrian activity.
Issues and Opportunities Pedestrian crossing at Victory Avenue is dominated by
local truck traffic and high speed South Spruce Avenue
traffic
• Heavy truck traffic encroaches on sidewalk at southeast
corner of Spruce Avenue and Victory Avenue
intersection
• Major opportunity for stronger gateway identity
• Narrow pedestrian right of way and wide street
• Spruce is a designated bike route but there is no
infrastructure in place
• Short pedestrian signal timing and high pedestrian
exposure at corners and medians crossing at El Camino
Real
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
5 CONCEPT PLANS
Proposed Improvements
• Remove pork chops, relocate signals to corners and
update crosswalk alignment accordingly at Victory
Avenue
• Install ADA curb ramps at the Victory Avenue
crosswalks
• Consider median treatment and road diet on the entire
corridor to calm traffic and narrow pedestrian crossings
• Install bike lanes, buffered when possible, on Spruce, to
establish bike way and connect to Centennial Trail
• Widen sidewalk on southeast side between Myrtle Ave
and Centennial Way Trail, or update to underground
utilities to address utility pole and ADA access issues;
the existing street right -of -way is wide enough to
accommodate one traffic lane and one buffered bike
lane in each direction and a center median through the
length of the corridor — the median could be narrowed
along this section where the sidewalk expansion takes
over a portion of that right -of -way
• Consider striping crosswalk at northeast leg at
Huntington, or close crosswalk
• Increase pedestrian crossing time at all signals on El
Camino Real intersections
• Install median tips at El Camino Real crossings
Estimated Cost
• $949,585 construction costs
• $569,751 soft costs*
• Total Cost: $1,519,336
*Soft costs include the following:
• Traffic control (5 9/6)
• Design and Environmental Review (20%
• Mobilization (5 9/6)
• Construction Management (10 9/6)
• Contingency (20 916)
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
wr
Match Line
+ *_:eati 1
Match Line
i
1
i �r
Increase pedestrian crossing time at all signals t
for EI Camino Real/ S Spruce Ave crossing
LEGEND
Sidewalk Expansion
Landscaping
Bike Lanes
ADA Curb Ramps
COMPLETE STREETS/GATEWAY
Not to Scale �/� IMPROVEMENTS
FEHR/' PEERS SOUTH SPRUCE AVENEUE
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics CONCEPT PLAN SIX
5 CONCEPT PLANS
5.7 CENTENNIAL WAY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Centennial Way Trail through Chestnut Avenue crossing
Centennial Way Trail crosses Chestnut Avenue at the intersection of Antoinette Lane, approximately
175 feet east of El Camino Real. This section of the Centennial Way trail is immediately adjacent to a
few commercial developments on Chestnut Avenue, including a restaurant and carwash, and a cluster
of strip development on El Camino Real. Beyond these blocks, the nearby land use is predominantly
residential on both sides of El Camino Real. The lot adjacent to the trail crossing on the north side of
Chestnut Avenue is currently being used as a construction staging area, and may present some
opportunities for realigning the current link between trail sections north and south of Chestnut
Avenue. Note that a traffic analysis will be necessary to evaluate the impact that these changes may
have on eastbound traffic at the Antoinette Lane /Chestnut Avenue intersection.
Issues and Opportunities
• Crosswalk gap along Centennial Trail
• Utility pole blocking sidewalk
Proposed Improvements
• Extend Centennial Trail along sidewalk alignment on
west side of Antoinette Lane, south to intersection.
Prohibit on- street parking through this segment to
provide right of way for pathway extension; by shifting
travel lanes on Antoinette Lane, the same number of
on- street parking spaces can likely be maintained with
angle -in parking on the east side of the street
• Install a staggered crosswalk across western leg of
Chestnut Avenue to connect Centennial Trail
• Extend median islands on both legs of Chestnut
Avenue and include median tips to provide pedestrian
refuge and improve safety
• Install bulb -out on southeastern corner to provide
access around utility pole
• Consider consolidating driveway access of property on
the SE corner of Chestnut Ave and El Camino Real to
reduce pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with vehicles.
(Will require coordination with property owner)
• Update curb ramps
Estimated Cost
• $228,334 construction costs
• $137,000 soft costs*
• Total Cost: $365,334
*Soft costs include the following:
• Traffic control (5 9/6)
• Design and Environmental Review (20%
• Mobilization (5 9/6)
• Construction Management (10 9/6)
• Contingency (20 916)
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Incorporate widened sidewalks at'
new development site to connect
to existing Centennial Way Trail at
north side of cul -de -sac
Y
•
Install curb extension to M
align new west leg of
crosswalk at 90 degree # JAM
angle
too
40n fhe .
,t..,..r" tout qve.
at
h
`E�x�isting Cee
,t; Provide ADA accessible connection
between Centennial Way Trail and
Mission Road
1;
�S
'fj r
jL
r
. 4"v
Remove parallel parking from east side of street
and shift travel lanes east to accommodate widened
sidewalk. Provide diagonal parking on west side.
r
Install curb extension to
educe crossing distances
Install staggered crosswalk on west leg to provide.
direct trail connection and reduce crossing
distances across diagonal cross - section
Install curb extensioZADA
utility pole to providcess
and realign crosswal
W.Y• R
���rQ1{�
LEGEND
S idewalk Expansion
ay Trail ADA Curb Ramps
1;
1i -.--
W
CENTENNIAL WAY ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
Not to Scale
CENTENNIAL WAY TRAIL AT CHESTNUT AVENUE CROSSING
FEHR,' PEERS
CONCEPT PLAN SEVEN
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics
5 CONCEPT PLANS
5.8 PROTOTYPICAL ARTERIAL INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard
The intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard, between Interstate 280 and El
Camino Real represents a number of arterial intersection challenges found throughout South San
Francisco. The signalized Junipero Serra Boulevard approach includes two through lanes and one left
turn lane in each direction, and a separated stop controlled right turn pocket in each direction. The
signalized Hickey Boulevard approach includes also includes two through lanes in each direction, one
left turn lane in the eastbound direction, and separated stop controlled right turn pockets in each
direction. This configuration creates long pedestrian crossing distances across multiple directions. This
intersection was selected for development of prototypical improvements because similar treatments
can be repeated at many other arterial intersections.
Issues and Opportunities
• Challenging pedestrian crossing conditions
• Limited visibility and short sight distance for oncoming
traffic approaching pedestrian crossing
• Opportunity for a physically separated bicycle and
pedestrian pathway
Proposed Improvements
• Extend curb and move crosswalk back at pork chop on
north leg of intersection (northwest corner)
• Install advanced pedestrian crossing signage at north
leg of intersections
• Install median tip and pull median back (out of
crosswalk) at west leg
• Install "close crosswalk" signage at east leg
• Install remaining sidewalk to Colma City limits; there
are grading and drainage issues present on the north
side of Hickey Boulevard that lead to sidewalk
installation challenges
• Consider physically separated bikeway and /or Class I
shared use pathway on Junipero Serra Boulevard where
traffic volumes are low and excess road capacity exists
Estimated Cost
• $52,333 construction costs (does not include Junipero
Serra Blvd bikeway or sidewalk gap projects)
• $31,400 soft costs*
• Total Cost: $83,733
*Soft costs include the following:
• Traffic control (5 9/6)
• Design and Environmental Review (20%
• Mobilization (5 9/6)
• Construction Management (10 9/6)
• Contingency (20 916)
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
:f
f
_ ; ..
Yf'
- r
OS
f �a
t ,k. � mot•' Ot
- -
�
Complete sidewalk
gap to city limits
Install advanced yield lines and,
high - visibility ladder crosswalk _- r
f
S
•
*4- S `
.T
Add crosswalk to east leg or close
Consider installing a physically
- crosswalk by installing signage
separated bikeway or Class I
{f shared use path along Junipero
Serra Blvd
Extend curb and realign crosswalk at pork chop
island to improve visibility from southbound
traffic on Junipero Serra Boulevard. Use high t
visibility crosswalks. Remove shrubbery and
— ' -
landscaping to further improve sightlines at
corner
-
- Add median tips at all crosswalks
and pull median islands back to
Install advanced yield line and
provide accessible crosswalks
pedestrian signage at approach
and "Yield to Pedestrians"
signage at right turn
Advance pedestrian f
-
Realign north and west legs at
signage
"3
• necessary to match up with new
` l
pork chop islands
L • ng ord Dr
4
;�
LEGEND
rrt
Sidewalk Expansion
Landscaping
Bike Lanes
■ ADA Curb Ramps
Not to Scale
FEHR,' PEERS -
SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan\Graphics
PROTOTYPICAL ARTERIAL INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS HICKEY BOULEVARD
AND JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD
CONCEPT PLAN EIGHT
6 POLIcy FRAmEwoRK
CHAPTER 6: POLICY FRAMEWORK
This chapter lays out the policy framework for the South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan. The
framework provides a set of seven overarching goals designed to support implementation of the
long -term vision for walking in South San Francisco over the next 10 years. Each goal is accompanied
by an objective designed to gauge progress in achieving the goals. Goals are typically implemented
through policies and implementation measures dealing with more specific issues. Subsequent
chapters of the Pedestrian Master Plan include recommendations, implementation tasks and next steps
that are even more specific.
6.1 GOALS & OBJECTIVES
Goal 1 Promote and Encourage Walking
Objective: Double the number of walking trips in South San Francisco by 2023.
Goal 2 Improve Pedestrian Safety
Objective: Reduce the rate of pedestrian - involved collisions by 25% by 2023.
Goal 3 Improve Pedestrian Access
Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestrian projects annually.
Goal Identify and Pursue Funding Sources to Construct and Maintain Pedestrian
Facilities
Objective: Identify and secure funds for pedestrian projects annually.
Goal 5 Maintain Pedestrian Facilities
Objective: Track and evaluate maintenance of pedestrian facilities annually.
Goal 6 Periodically Review the Pedestrian Master Plan and Keep It Relevant
Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestrian projects annually.
Goal 7 Encourage Public Participation and Stay Informed
Objective: Meet or exceed 75 percent of the BPAC Action Plan goals annually.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
6 POLIcy FRAmEwoRK
Goal 1: Promote and Encourage Walking
Objective: Double the number of walking trips in South San Francisco by 2023.
Policy 1.1: Integrate pedestrian facilities and planning into all of the City's planning
review and construction activities, legitimizing walking as a transportation
mode.
Implementation Measures:
1.1 -1 All development projects shall be required to conform to the
Pedestrian Master Plan goals, policies and implementation measures.
1.1 -2 All public and private street projects shall incorporate pedestrian
improvements and amenities.
Policy 1.2: Reduce reliance on travel by single occupant passenger vehicles.
Implementation Measures:
1.2 -1 All major developments shall be required to establish and maintain a
Transportation Demand Management Plan as prescribed in the South
San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 Zoning Regulations.
1.2 -2 All developments with approved Transportation Demand
Management Plans shall be required to prepare periodic reports as
prescribed in the SSFMC Zoning Regulations.
1.2 -3 As part of the review of the Pedestrian Master Plan stated in Goal 6, the
BPAC shall review and make recommendations on the effectiveness of
local TDM Plans in supporting walking as a transportation mode.
Policy 1.3: Encourage residents and employees to walk for journeys to work, shopping,
school and recreation.
Implementation Measures:
1.3 -1 Sponsor and /or support at least one local annual event promoting
walking such as Streets Alive.
1.3 -2 Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District and private
schools to implement programs and events to support walking
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
6 POLIcy FRAmEwoRK
including regular contests, and challenging students to walk to
school?
1.3 -3 Develop and implement incentive based walking programs to
encourage and increase walking.
1.3 -4 Maintain, update and publish a City Pedestrian Map.
Goal 2: Improve Pedestrian Safety
Objective: Reduce the rate of pedestrian - involved collisions by 25% by 2023.
Policy 2.1: The BPAC and City staff shall continually seek to improve pedestrian safety.
Implementation Measures:
2.1 -1 City staff, assigned to support the BPAC, shall establish and maintain a
current pedestrian data base. The data base shall include, but not be
limited to, an annual pedestrian volume count, analysis of pedestrian
collision rates and locations, and a review of facility conditions.
2.1 -2 Focus pedestrian safety improvements measures at hot spot collision
locations, and around schools and senior facilities, as children and
seniors are disproportionately represented in pedestrian collisions.
2.1 -3 Identify an annual funding source for the City's Traffic Calming
Program.
2.1 -4 City staff shall establish and maintain a BPAC webpage to disseminate
walking information and elicit community input.
2.1 -5 The BPAC shall annually review efforts to improve pedestrian safety
and make recommendations for improving pedestrian safety,
maintaining existing pedestrian facilities, and constructing new
pedestrian facilities especially ADA accessible ramps.
2 Encouraging students to bicycle can be implemented and funded through Safe Routes to School programs.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
6 POLIcy FRAmEwoRK
Policy 2.2: Enforce pedestrian related traffic laws to maintain and improve traffic safety.
Implementation Measures:
2.2 -1 The Police Department shall enforce the vehicle code for pedestrians.
2.2 -2 Provide pedestrian safety training to police officers and pursue
enforcement activities such as pedestrian stings and speeding
campaigns.
2.2 -3 The BPAC webpage shall be utilized to provide public information
pertaining to laws regarding walking.
Policy 2.3 Provide security on pedestrian paths.
Implementation Measure
2.3 -1 The city shall establish and maintain a security program for remote
paths including the Bay Trail, Centennial Path and future conversion of
former rail spur tracks.
2.3 -2 Expand the Police Department Bike Patrol to include pedestrian paths
and evaluate other methods to improve security such as establishing a
Citizen Bike Patrol, installing cameras and lighting on pedestrian paths.
Goal 3: Improve Pedestrian Access
Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestrian projects annually.
Policy 3.1: The city shall expand the existing pedestrian network and improve access
throughout the community with a special emphasis on connections to places
of work, transit, commercial centers and community amenities and on ADA
accessibility.
Implementation Measure:
3.1 -1 Construct pedestrian facilities in accordance with a prioritized list of
facilities.
3.1 -2 Adopt a citywide ADA Transition Plan.
3.1 -3 Update the City's Street Design Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter 19.20) to
reflect the adopted Complete Streets Policy and incorporate the
design recommendations included in the Pedestrian Master Plan.
Policy 3.2: Pedestrian facilities and amenities should be provided at schools, parks and
transit stops, and shall be required to be provided at private developments
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
6 POLIcy FRAmEwoRK
including places of work, commercial shopping establishments, parks,
community facilities and other pedestrian destinations.
Implementation Measure:
3.2 -1 Amend the City's Transportation Demand Management Ordinance to
clarify and quantify the requirements for pedestrian amenities and
facilities within individual development projects and access to other
destinations. (i.e. connections to transit, safe crossing treatments for
pedestrians, and continuous sidewalks).
3.2.2 Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District and private
schools to provide and improve pedestrian facilities at schools and
provide safe access to schools.
Policy 3.2: Install pedestrian amenities including street furniture, street trees and
wayfinding and destination signage in commercial areas, transit hubs and
other major destinations.
Implementation Measure:
3.2 -1 Establish a pedestrian wayfinding program in key commercial, historic
and transit hub locations.
3.2 -2 Install pedestrian wayfinding and destination signage on all public
paths and require that privately sponsored path projects implement
the same type of signage.
3.2 -3 Establish a citywide street tree program.
3.2 -4 Establish a street furniture ordinance.
Goal 4: Identify and Pursue Funding Sources to Construct and Maintain
Pedestrian Facilities
Objective: Identify and secure funds for pedestrian projects annually.
Policy 4.1: City sponsored pedestrian facilities shall include, to the extent feasible and
available, Federal, State and /or local grant funding to augment city funding.
Implementation Measures:
4.1 -1 City staff shall establish and maintain a data base of funding sources to
support planning, design, construction and maintenance of pedestrian
facilities.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
6 POLIcy FRAmEwoRK
4.1 -2 Pedestrian improvement and maintenance projects shall be included in the
City's Capital Improvement Plan.
Goal 5: Maintain Pedestrian Facilities
Objective: Track and evaluate maintenance of pedestrian facilities annually.
Policy 5.1 Maintain sidewalks, marked crossings, pedestrian traffic control devices and
paths as a high priority.
Implementation Measures:
5.1 -1 Establish a regular maintenance program including pavement, pedestrian
traffic control devices, marked crossings, signs and lighting to keep the
pedestrian facilities in good condition.
Policy 5.2 The BPAC shall conduct regular evaluations of the pedestrian facilities.
Implementation Measures
5.2 -1 Conduct an annual review of the pedestrian maintenance program and make
recommendations to improve maintenance.
5.2 -2 The BPAC, with the assistance of city staff, shall conduct and document a
regular review of pedestrian surface conditions.
Policy 5.3 Keep the City's Sidewalk Management Plan relevant to pedestrian
transportation.
Implementation Measure:
5.3 -1 The city staff shall revise the City's Sidewalk Management Plan to include
pedestrian facilities, pavement marking, signage and lighting maintenance as
a high priority.
Goal 6: Periodically Review the Pedestrian Master Plan and Keep It Relevant
Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestrian projects annually.
Policy 6.1 Maintain the Pedestrian Master Plan and the implementation schedule and
keep the plan current and relevant.
Implementation Measure
6.1 -1 BPAC shall conduct an annual review of the Pedestrian Master Plan, including
achievement of the goals and policies, effectiveness of the implementation
measures, the progress of implementation and the efficient use of local
resources.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
6 POLIcy FRAmEwoRK
6.1 -2 The BPAC shall make recommendations to improve the plan, achievement of
the goals and policies, and its implementation.
6.1 -3 As part of the annual review, the BPAC shall prioritize pedestrian
improvements and identify external funding sources.
6.1 -4 Make recommendations to undertake periodic pedestrian planning studies to
update the plan and achieve greater effectiveness.
Policy 6.2 Maintain a focus on pedestrian issues.
Implementation Measures
6.2 -1 The BPAC shall adopt an annual work program to guide its efforts to improve
walking and to focus on pedestrian issues, programs and projects, and the
progress of implementation.
6.2 -4 Make recommendations to the City Council on all public and privately
sponsored pedestrian /development projects.
Goal 7: Encourage Public Participation and Stay Informed
Objective: Meet or exceed 75 percent of the BPAC Action Plan goals annually.
Policy 7.1 Promote public awareness of walking and increase public participation.
Implementation Measure:
7.1 -1 Establish and maintain a BPAC webpage to disseminate information and elicit
community input.
7.1 -2 Notify the community of BPAC meetings and encourage public attendance of
the meetings through various media including the city website.
Policy 7.2 Develop a BPAC Action Plan to establish goals and activities on an annual
basis.
Implementation Measures:
7.2 -1 Establish and maintain a community data base of BPACs, interested residents,
and organizations.
7.2 -2 Establish and maintain contact with BPACs within San Mateo County, bicycle
organizations, SamTrans, BART, Caltrain and FHWA, interested citizens and
businesses.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
6 POLIcy FRAmEwoRK
7.2 -3 BPAC shall conduct a periodic joint meeting with the neighboring
communities, including Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, Pacifica and San Bruno
BPAC's, and local bicycle groups to review establishing better connections
between bikeways and programs to improve walking, coordinating
improvements and co- sponsoring joint projects.
7.2 -4 BPAC shall propose joint meetings with the C /CAG and all local community
BPACs within San Mateo County to discuss walking issues including
coordinating bicycle projects and have more voice in pedestrian issues.
7.2 -5 Work with other City Boards and Commissions to coordinate efforts to
implement the plan and improve pedestrian facilities.
Policy 7.3 BPAC shall take a proactive approach to stay informed on best practices in
pedestrian and bicycle planning.
Implementation Measure
7.3 -1 Participate in regional pedestrian conferences and increase awareness,
knowledge and technical pedestrian expertise. On an annual basis, attend at
least one public event including pedestrian fairs and /or conferences to
establish and maintain connections with the larger walking and transportation
planning communities. Attend regional and national walking related
conferences, such as the California Walks "Peds Count" Conference.
7.3 -2 Take an active leadership role by directing the planning, implementation and
maintenance of pedestrian improvements and programs.
7.3 -3 Monitor and review pedestrian demonstration and cutting edge projects and
programs in other communities.
7.3 -4 BPAC shall keep current on advancements, walking information and new and
pending Federal and State pedestrian legislation.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 7: FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of the proposed pedestrian improvements included in this Plan will require funding
from local, state, and federal sources and coordination with multiple agencies. To facilitate this, this
chapter presents a method of prioritizing local pedestrian improvement projects, construction cost
estimates for the proposed improvements, a brief overview of funding strategies and sources, and
implementation strategies.
7.1 PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION
Prioritization
The proposed projects outlined in the Recommended Improvements chapter, would enhance the
pedestrian experience, safety and access throughout South San Francisco. Recommended projects
were scored and ranked in order to prioritize their implementation. While the City of South San
Francisco may find opportunities to implement a number of projects through resurfacing or in
conjunction with other street improvements regardless of project rank, this prioritization process
identifies projects with the greatest potential to impact the pedestrian environment by scoring each
project according to several factors.
The prioritization scoring method outlined below was developed specifically for the City of South San
Francisco with special consideration given to local priorities with input from other regional pedestrian
plans. Pedestrian demand, designated pedestrian focus areas, and pedestrian safety are identified as
priority factors in the C /CAG San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and have
been included in the prioritization methodology for South San Francisco projects. In addition to these
county -wide priorities this prioritization considers gap closures and potential for funding.
All projects receive a score between 10 and 100 based on the following factors:
Existing pedestrian demand (10 -30 points)
Each project was assessed according to its location and corresponding pedestrian demand. Pedestrian
demand is based on a number of geographically -based factors that are considered indicators for
pedestrian activity. These include housing and employment density, population density, incomes,
vehicle ownership, proximity to recreation, proximity to commercial districts, and proximity to
schools. During the development of the C /CAG Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, each street segment in
South San Francisco was assigned a pedestrian demand value, which is illustrated in Figure 7 -1. The
following points were assigned to each pedestrian project:
• Projects located primarily within the red and orange street segments are high demand, and
received 30 points
• Projects located within the yellow street segments are considered to have medium demand and
received 20 points
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
s
s
0
I
o,
Vj a
LL
i
..
.0 N
7
T�
aP
Sp
a
i
�eM JO H
," k
r"
gpRS
s` � CALTRAIN
m
INX
i
0. 76
co V�
co _ •i
,
T
Oy
N
00
U
2�
Il� Blv�
rse
io
,T•y � c
A o gr
��q
Iu
I a —.— 77 O
C: M
N
t
0
.N
U
w
O
E Nm
N
O
r
Ln
Q)
0
Q)
r
x
a
a�
L�
GC
W
rz
0
W�
LL
�N
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
• Projects located within the green street segments are considered to have low demand and
received 10 points
Access to key destinations (0 -20 points)
Additional points were assigned to projects located within a Priority Development Area, or that
provide direct access with frontage on schools, parks, commercial centers, transit and other key
destinations:
• 15 -20 points for direct access to two or more key destinations
• 5 -10 points for direct access to one key destination
• 0 points for no access to key destinations
Closure of a critical gap (0 -20 points)
Additional points were assigned to projects that close a gap in the pedestrian network, including
sidewalk gaps, improved pedestrian access across interchanges or other physical barriers, and gaps in
access to the Centennial Way Trail:
• 15 -20 points for directly closing a gap
• 5 -10 points for improving access and reducing the impact of a gap
• 0 points for no gap closure
Immediate safety need (0 -20 points)
Additional points were assigned to projects in areas where pedestrian safety is a primary concern,
including proximity to recent pedestrian collisions and streets with high speed traffic or pedestrian
exposure to high volumes of traffic:
• 15 -20 points for locations near pedestrian collisions AND high speed /high volume streets
• 5 -10 point for locations near pedestrian collision OR high speed /high volume streets
• 0 points for locations where collisions and traffic speed /volume are not a concern
Overall feasibility (0 -10 points)
Finally, additional points were assigned to projects with potential funding sources:
• 10 points for projects that are both feasible (in terms of engineering feasibility and /or strong
political support) and fundable (strong contenders for grant opportunities, could be built with
new development opportunities, or are relatively affordable and could be included in the City's
annual CIP program)
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
• 1 -9 points for projects with some degree of political and financial support (as outlined above)
• 0 points for projects with no support and not associated with funding opportunities
As an example, recommended Project # 10 -1, located on Linden Avenue from Grand Avenue to Aspen
Avenue, was scored in the following way:
Table VII -1: Project 10 -1 Priority Scoring
Scoring Criteria
Assessment of Project 10-1
Score
Pedestrian demand
High Demand - Linden Avenue from Grand to Aspen is
30
entirely within red street segments
Access to key destinations
Linden and Grand is the center of Downtown, a
20
gateway between Downtown and East of 101 and
provides access to transit stops along the corridor
Closure of critical gap
No critical gap at this location
0
Serves immediate safety need
High incidence of pedestrian collisions at this
10
intersection; no high speed traffic noted
Feasibility
Recommendations are not capital intensive (most
10
related to curb ramp and pavement markings) and
located within the Downtown Improvement District
Total
70
Each recommended project was scored according to these criteria, and highest scores indicate highest
priorities. Projects with the same score are ranked according to estimated cost (i.e., less expensive
projects are ranked higher.) The resulting ranked list is not intended to be a static document, as new
opportunities for funding and improved access will emerge. However, the list will provide a starting
point for determining project priorities and implementation. Unit costs are summarized in Table 2.
Table 3 provides a list of the top tier ranked pedestrian projects. A complete list of ranked projects is
included in Appendix B. More details about the recommended project list can be found in the
Recommended Improvements Chapter.
Cost of New Facilities
A list of unit costs was developed based on recent projects and cost estimates throughout the Bay
Area, and input from the South San Francisco Engineering Division. These unit costs provided the
basis for total cost estimates for each recommended project. Table 2 provides a unit cost summary for
the construction of pedestrian, bicycle and traffic calming facilities in South San Francisco.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Table VII -2: Unit Costs
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
Wayfinding /Destination Sign
Each
$500
Standard Class I Path
Mile
$800,000
Class 11 Bike Lanes (Both Roadway
Sides)
Includes $2.50 LF striping, $150
marking (8 per mile), $250 sign
(8 per mile)
Mile
$29,120
Curb extension/ Bulb -Out
Each
$50,000
Sidewalk
Square Foot
$30
Remove concrete sidewalk
Square Foot
$3
Curb and Gutter
Linear Foot
$52
Signal Modification /New Signal
Each
$250,000
Slurry Seal
70 ft paved width
Mile
$184,800
Advance Stop Bars
Each
$400
Advance Yield Lines
Each
$400
Crosswalk Striping
Linear Foot
$7
High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping
Linear Foot
$5
Solid Edge Line
Linear Foot
$4
Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping
Linear Foot
$1
Speed Table
Each
$30,000
Median
Includes vertical median concrete surface to fill, depending on
dimensions
Vertical Median
Linear Foot
$22
Concrete Surface
Square Foot
$11
New Pedestrian Signal with
Countdown
Each
$1,000
Pedestrian Push Buttons
Each
$2,000
Upgrade to Pedestrian Countdown Heads
Each
$1,000
Pedestrian Barricade and signs (close
crossing)
Each
$1,000
ADA Curb Ramps
Each
$5,000
HAWK Beacon
Each
$120,000
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Includes installation
Each
$27,000
New Signage
Each
$700
New Sign on Existing Post
Each
$500
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Item
Assumptions
Relocate Sign and Post
Each
$400
Remove and Salvage Sign and Post
Each
$150
Traffic Circle
Includes $52 /LF for curb and
Each
$5,000
gutter, $8 /SF for landscaping,
10 FT diameter and $700 sign
(4 per intersection)
Lighting
Each
$10,000
Bus Shelter
Each
$6,500
Paint Curb
Linear Foot
$10
For the purposes of this Pedestrian Master Plan, construction cost estimates for the proposed
improvements were based on the following assumptions:
• Sidewalk paving does not include demolition costs and new sidewalks are 6 feet wide unless other
dimensions are required due to site specific constraints
• Relocation of utility poles and fire hydrants does not include design and engineering costs
Detailed cost estimates based on the unit costs and assumptions summarized above have been
developed for all recommended projects included in this Pedestrian Master Plan. A table summarizing
cost estimates for all recommended projects is included in Appendix C. Projects with the highest
prioritization scores (51 to 100 points), or First Tier Projects, are considered short- to medium -term
projects that typically provide access to existing pedestrian - generators and are more easily
constructed, such as gap closures in already developed areas.
If the City meets the goal of constructing at least three of these projects per year (Goals /Objectives 3
and 6), then this Tier 1 project list could be completed within nine years. The Tier 1 list can be
completed much more rapidly if additional projects are constructed, support programs and funding
mechanisms are pursued more aggressively, or the City can commit more funds per year. Several Tier
1 projects are lower -cost improvements that could likely be implemented more immediately as
funding allows. For example, ten of the top 11 projects could be implemented in year one if $600,000
was secured for the improvement.
First Tier recommended projects, priority scores, and associated project cost estimates are
summarized in Table VII -3.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Table VII -3: South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan First Tier Prioritized Projects
ID#
Location
.2 .0
iA
iA
1-2
McLellan Drive from Mission
$154,900
30
20
10
10
5
75
Road to El Camino Real
11 -1
Chestnut Avenue and
$228,300
20
20
10
15
5
70
Antoinette Lane
12 -1
Spruce Avenue between Lux
$15,300
30
15
0
15
5
65
Avenue and Maple Avenue
9 -1
Grand Avenue and Airport
$19,500
30
10
0
15
10
65
Boulevard
Westborough Boulevard
13 -1
from Callan Boulevard to
$368,400
20
15
10
15
5
65
Gellert Boulevard
9 -4
East Grand Avenue and
$13,800
30
15
0
15
1
61
Dubuque Avenue
10 -3
Airport Boulevard and Miller
$500
30
15
0
10
5
60
Avenue
E Grand Avenue between
14 -3
Grand Avenue and Dubuque
$1,400
30
10
0
15
5
60
Avenue
1 -1
McLellan Drive and Mission
$14,000
30
20
0
0
10
60
Road
Pedestrian crossing under
9 -3
Hwy 101 along East Grand
$20,000
30
10
0
15
5
60
Avenue
10 -2
Airport Boulevard at Pine
$137,200
30
15
0
10
5
60
Avenue
10 -1
Linden Avenue from Grand
$543,400
30
15
0
10
5
60
Avenue to Aspen Avenue
Del Monte Avenue from
6 -1
Arroyo Drive to Alta Loma
$40,000
20
15
5
15
1
56
Drive
2-1
Mission Road from McLellan
$197,900
30
20
0
5
1
56
Drive to Holly Avenue
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Location
r 1A
M
CL
Grand Avenue between
9 -2
Airport Boulevard and
$275,900
30
15
0
10
1
56
Walnut Avenue
12 -3
School Street and Olive
$20,000
30
10
0
10
5
55
Avenue
Oyster Point Boulevard from
16 -1
Eccles Avenue to driveway
$35,700
10
15
10
15
5
55
immediately east
12-2
School Street and Maple
$39,100
30
10
0
10
5
55
Avenue
2-2
Mission Road and BART
$50,000
30
20
0
0
5
55
entrance
12 -4
Grand Avenue and Spruce
$204,000
30
10
0
10
5
55
Avenue
2-5
Holly from Mission Road to
$346,000
30
10
0
10
1
51
Crestwood Drive
2-6
Crestwood Drive from Holly
$10,000
30
10
0
10
1
51
Avenue to Evergreen Drive
1 -3
El Camino Real and McLellan
$900
20
20
0
10
1
51
Drive
15 -3
S Airport Boulevard and
$91,600
20
5
15
10
1
51
Highway 101 off -ramp
2-3
Mission Road and Sequoia
$209,700
30
20
0
0
1
51
Avenue
El Camino Real from
8 -1
Hazelwood Drive to
$271,400
10
15
10
15
1
51
Ponderosa Road
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Additional soft costs for design, environmental review, mobilization and contingency must also be
taken into consideration when developing practical cost estimates for recommended projects. The
following table summarizes these cost increases.
Table VII -4: Design and Construction Costs
Category
Traffic Control
a percentage of construction cost)
5%
Design and Environmental Review
20%
Mobilization
5%
Construction Management
10%
Contingency
20%
Maintenance costs should also be incorporated into project budgets. As with all infrastructure,
pedestrian facilities require maintenance for long -term function, including cleaning, resurfacing, re-
striping, repair, drainage, trash removal, and landscaping. These efforts are most effective when
incorporated into larger infrastructure maintenance routines and budgets, and are best done
periodically to keep expenses down.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Table VII -5: Total Costs for Recommended Projects
First Tier: Short-Term Projects (51 00
Construction Costs $2,997,600
Additional Soft Costs:
Traffic Control
5%
$149,880
Design and Environmental Review
20%
$599,520
Mobilization
5%
$149,880
Construction Management
10%
$299,760.00
Contingency
20%
$599,520
Total First Tier Costs
$4,796,160
points) Second Tier: Medium-Term Projects (41-50
Construction Costs
$2,175,000
Additional Soft Costs
Traffic Control
5%
$108,750
Design and Environmental Review
20%
$435,000
Mobilization
5%
$108,750
Construction Management
10%
$217,500
Contingency
20%
$435,000
Total Second Tier Costs
$3,480,000
Third Tier: Long-Term & •... points)
Construction Costs
$2,855,600
Additional Soft Costs
Traffic Control
5%
$142,780
Design and Environmental Review
20%
$571,120
Mobilization
5%
$142,780
Construction Management
10%
$285,560
Contingency
20%
$571,120
Total Third Tier Costs
Total Cost for All Projects
$4,568,960
00
Many of the recommended projects include site - specific sidewalk gap closure projects. These sidewalk
costs are incorporated in the project level cost summaries. The Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closure Project
(Chapter 5, Concept Plan 5.1) also provides a comprehensive inventory of sidewalk gaps. Sidewalk
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
gaps throughout the City were mapped, ranked according to priority, and designated as high - priority,
medium - priority and long -term sidewalk gap closures. The costs of each sidewalk gap closure will vary
depending on the specifics of the project. A conceptual -level cost estimate for completing these
closures is summarized below. As there is some overlap with site - specific recommendations, these
citywide costs should not be double counted.
Table VII -6: Sidewalk Gap Closure Projects Cost Estimate Summary
First Priority Sidewalk Gaps - 54,037 linear feet
Construction Costs
$9,726,660
Additional Soft Costs:
Traffic Control
5%
$486,330
Design and Environmental Review
20%
$1,945,330
Mobilization
5%
$486,330
Construction Management
10%
$972,670
Contingency
20%
$1,945,330
Total First Tier Costs
$15,562,656
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Second Priority Sidewalk
Construction Costs $11,359,980
Additional Soft Costs
Traffic Control
5%
$568,000
Design and Environmental Review
20%
$2,272,000
Mobilization
5%
$568,000
Construction Management
10%
$1,134,000
Contingency
20%
$2,212,000
Total Second Tier Costs
$18,175,968
Third Priority Sidewalk :0
Construction Costs
$1,044,360
Additional Soft Costs
Traffic Control
5%
$52,220
Design and Environmental Review
20%
$208,870
Mobilization
5%
$52,220
Construction Management
10%
$104,440
Contingency
20%
$208,870
Total Third Tier Costs
$1,670,976
Total Cost for All Citywide Sidewalk Gaps - 12Z950 feet
$35,409,600
7.2 FUNDING
Past Funding Strategies and Expenditures in South San Francisco
South San Francisco can build on funding sources and strategies that have been used for past
pedestrian expenditures. These include a variety of local and regional funds:
• Capital Improvement Program - The South San Francisco Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
outlines planned local infrastructure improvements for the upcoming fiscal year. The CIP is
reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. Several approved
projects for the 2012 -13 Fiscal Year will improve the pedestrian environment in South San
Francisco, including:
- Pedestrian crossing improvements at El Camino High School
- Annual Street Rehabilitation Program
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
— Gateway Assessment Improvement Projects.
• Private Development — Current property owners and developers are required to include specific
upgrades and additional pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidewalks, for approval of development
projects.
• Grants — a variety of grant funding sources have been used in South San Francisco:
— San Mateo County's Measure A Sales Tax — A local sales tax increase to fund for
transportation improvements designated in the Transportation Expenditure Plan. This is
described in greater detail below.
— Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) —The South San Francisco CDBG program is
designed to address four specific core areas:
• Basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing and legal services
• Senior services
• Youth services
• Housing and /or community rehabilitation
These funds have been used in the past to provide ADA accessible ramp upgrades to
improve pedestrian accessibility.
— Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds have been pursued. These are
described in greater detail below.
• Gas tax revenue has been used as a funding source for curb ramp upgrades and as part of larger
overlay projects.
• Public Works Operating Budget — The South San Francisco Department of Public Works is
responsible for maintenance of the city's streets, vehicles, infrastructure, and local water quality.
The Public Works Department creates and carries out the CIP.
Funding Sources
There are numerous funding sources at the federal, state, regional, county and local levels that are
potentially available to the City of South San Francisco to implement the projects and programs in the
Pedestrian Master Plan. Below is a description of the most promising funding programs available for
the proposed projects. Most of these sources are highly competitive and require the preparation of
extensive applications.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Federal Funding Sources
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 S` Century (MAP -21)
The new federal transportation bill, MAP -21, was signed into law in July, 2012 and will be in effect from
October 2012 through September 2014, funding surface transportation programs for fiscal years 2013
and 2014.
A new program, Transportation Alternatives (TA), consolidates pedestrian and bicycle programs
formerly funded under the Transportation Enhancements program (part of SAFETEA -LU, the previous
transportation bill authorized in 2005). Funding through TA is lower than in the previous bill, and
states may opt out of funding. There are six eligible categories for funding under Transportation
Alternatives, including:
• Safe Routes for Non - Drivers — the former Safe Routes to School program is no longer a stand -alone
program with dedicated funding, but is still eligible under the Safe Routes for Non - Drivers
program.
• On -road and Off -road Trail Facilities - construction, planning, and design of pedestrian
infrastructure is eligible. This includes a Recreational Trails Program continued at current funding
levels through 2014.
• Abandoned Railroad Corridors for Trails - conversion of rail corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists,
or other non - motorized transportation users is eligible.
• Environmental Mitigation and Community Improvement Activities — improvements related to
stormwater management, landscaping, and rights -of —way improvements, including historic
preservation, and vegetation management and erosion control are eligible.
The TA program falls under the general provisions for federal share payable for non - interstate system
projects at 80 %, with the remaining 20% being local match funding. Because states can opt out of
MAP -21 funds, available money may be lower than estimated based on formula calculations. MAP -21
is authorized for two years, and the specifics of the funding programs are likely to change by the end
of FY 2014.
Transportation Enhancements Program (TE)
Unlike the previous federal legislation, MAP -21 does not provide funding specifically for
Transportation Enhancements. Instead, TE activities will be eligible to compete for funding alongside
other programs as part of the new TA program.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ)
The CMAQ program is continued in MAP -21 to provide a flexible funding source to State and local
governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter
(nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance
areas).
Safe Routes to Schools
Unlike the previous federal legislation, MAP -21 does not provide funding specifically for Safe Routes to
School (SRTS). Instead, SRTS activities will be eligible to compete for funding alongside other
programs, including the Transportation Enhancements program and Recreational Trails program, as
part of the new TA program.
Statewide Funding Sources
Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
California's Safe Routes to Schools program (SRTS) is a Caltrans- administered grant- funding program
established in 1999 (and extended in 2007 to the year 2013). Eligible projects include walkways,
crosswalks, traffic signals, traffic - calming applications and other infrastructure projects that improve
the safety of walking and biking routes to elementary, middle and high schools, as well as "incidental"
education, enforcement and encouragement activities. Planning projects, on the other hand, are not
eligible. For funding Cycle 10, fiscal years 2011/12 and 2012/13, approximately $48.47 million was
available in grant funding.
• Caltrans Safe Routes to School program:
www.dot.ca.ciov /hq /LocalProcirams /saferoutes /saferoutes.htm
Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3
TDA Article 3 is perhaps the most readily available source of local funding for pedestrian and bicycle
projects. TDA funds are derived from a statewide quarter -cent retail sales tax. This tax is returned to
the county of origin and distributed to the cities and county on a population basis. Under TDA Article
3, two percent of each entity's TDA allocation is set aside for pedestrian and bicycle projects; this
generates approximately $3 million in the Bay Area annually. Eligible projects include the design and
construction of walkways and safety education programs. According to MTC Resolution 875, these
projects must be included in an adopted general plan or bicycle plan and must have been reviewed
by the relevant city or county bicycle advisory committee.
MTC's Procedures and Project Evaluation Criteria for the TDA Article 3 program:
www.mtc.ca.aov/fundina/STA-TDA/RES-0875.doc
Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) program was established as part of SAFETEA -LU in
2005 to implement infrastructure - related highway safety improvements to significantly reduce traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on public roads.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Caltrans expects the available funding apportioned to local agencies in the 2013 Federal Statewide
Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP), which is a four -year funding cycle from 2012/13
through 2015/16, to be approximately $100 million for the four -year HSIP plan.
• Highway Safety Improvement Program:
• http:// www.dot.ca.aov /hq /LocalProarams /hsip.htm
Regional Funding Sources
Transportation for Livable Communities (One Bay Area)
MTC created the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) program in 1998. It provides technical
assistance and funding to cities, counties, transit agencies and nonprofit organizations for capital
projects and community -based planning that encourage multimodal travel and the revitalization of
town centers and other mixed -use neighborhoods. The program funds projects that improve bicycling
to transit stations, neighborhood commercial districts and other major activity centers. One Bay Area
(OBA) grants are now an umbrella for the previous MTC grant programs. It combines funding for
Transportation for Livable Communities, Bicycle, Local Streets and Roads Rehabilitation, and Safe
Routes to School for the FY 2012 -13 through 2015 -16 funding cycles. This program is administered by
MTC and awards funding to counties based on progress toward achieving local land -use and housing
policies. Cities and counties can still use OBA funds for projects described under these programs.
• MTC's TLC program:
• http: / /www.mtc.ca.ciov /funding /onebayarea/
Climate Action Program
In partnership with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Conservation Development
Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, MTC is sponsoring a transportation -
oriented Climate Action Program, designed to reduce mobile emissions through various strategies,
including a grant program. The grant program will provide funding for bicycle projects through new
Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit programs, with total funding expected to be
approximately $400 million. This funding will be in addition to the state and federal Safe Routes to
School programs and MTC's existing Safe Routes to Transit program.
Safe Routes to Transit (SR27)
SR2T is a grant- funding program that emerged out of the Bay Area's Regional Measure 2, which
instituted a $1 toll increase on the Bay Area's seven state -owned toll bridges. Through the SR2T
program, up to $20 million is to be allocated through 2013 on a competitive basis to programs,
planning efforts and capital projects designed to reduce congestion on toll bridges by improving
bicycling and walking access to regional transit services that serve toll- bridge corridors. Funds can be
used for safety enhancements and system -wide transit enhancements to accommodate pedestrians.
The SR2T program is administered by two nonprofit organizations, TransForm and the East Bay Bicycle
Coalition, with MTC serving as the fiscal agent. Regional Measure 2 provides $20 million for the SR2S
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
program, to be distributed over five funding cycles with $4 million available during each cycle. Fiscal
year 2011/12 was the fourth of five funding cycles. The final cycle will occur in fiscal year 2013/14.
• Bay Area Safe Routes to Transit funding program: www.transformca.orci/campaign /sr2t
Bay Trail Grants
The San Francisco Bay Trail Project —a non - profit organization administered by the Association of Bay
Area Governments — provides grants to plan, design, and construct segments of the Bay Trail. The
amount, and even availability, of Bay Trail grants vary from year to year, de- pending on whether the
Bay Trail Project has identified a source of funds for the program. In recent years, grants have been
made using funds from Proposition 84, the 2006 Clean Water, Parks and Coastal Protection Bond Act;
however, this is a limited -term source of funds.
• Bay Trail grants: www.baytrail.org /cirants.html
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)
TFCA is a grant program administered by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
The purpose of the program, which is funded through a $4 surcharge on motor vehicles registered in
the Bay Area, is to fund projects and programs that will reduce air pollution from motor vehicles. Grant
awards are generally made on a first -come, first - served basis to qualified projects. A portion of TFCA
revenues collected in each Bay Area county is returned to that county's congestion management
agency (CMA) for allocation (The City /County Association of Governments, or C /CAG, in San Mateo
County). Applications are made directly to the CMAs, but must also be approved by the BAAQMD.
• TFCA County Program Manager Fund: http: / /www.baagmd.ciov /Divisions /Strategic-
Incentives/ Funding- Sources/TFCA /County- Program- Manager- Fund.aspx
Surface Transportation Program
The Surface Transportation Program (STP) block grant provides funding for transportation projects,
including pedestrian projects. This program is administered by MTC, which can prioritize projects for
RSTP funding.
• MTC program information: http: / /www.mtc.ca.ciov /funding /STPCMAQ/
Measure A
San Mateo County's Measure A sales tax increase of one -half of one percent was approved by San
Mateo County voters in 1988 to fund transportation improvements designated in the Transportation
Expenditure Plan. This measure was reauthorized in 2004 to extend through 2033, is administered by
the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA), and funds a wide variety of transportation
projects, including pedestrian projects.
• SMCTA program information: http: / /www.smcta.com /about /About Measure A.html
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Local Funding Sources
A variety of local sources may be available for funding pedestrian improvements; however, their use is
often dependent on political support.
New Construction
Future road repaving, widening and construction projects are methods of upgrading or installing new
pedestrian facilities. To ensure that roadway construction projects provide pedestrian facilities where
needed, it is important that the review process includes a review of the City's proposed pedestrian
project list. Planned roadway improvements in South San Francisco should provide pedestrian
facilities consistent with the Pedestrian Master Plan in the City. Typically, new development projects
are required to install sidewalks or bus pullouts. MTC provides a typical routine accommodations
checklist that describes the items that the City should look for when reviewing projects.
• MTC Routine Accommodations Checklist:
http: / /www.mtc.ca.ciov /planning /bicyclespedestrians /Routine Accommodation checklist.pdf
Capital Improvement Plan
The South San Francisco CIP outlines planned needed infrastructure improvements throughout the
community. The program funding only includes Fiscal Year 2012 -2013 and the projects in the future
years will be appropriated in future budget cycles. The CIP shall be adopted and annually updated by
a resolution at a noticed public hearing. The City may use the CIP to formulate its budget, but it does
not preclude "opportunistic projects," such as a street resurfacing or development project.
Opportunistic projects are unanticipated projects where the City may incorporate pedestrian facilities,
even if the projects occur out of sequence.
Assessment Districts
Different types of assessment districts or special improvement districts can be established to provide
finding for specific public improvement projects within the districts. Property owners in the districts
are assessed for the improvements, and can make payments immediately or over a number of years.
Street pavement, sidewalk repair, curb ramps and streetlights are commonly funded through
assessment districts. Business Improvement Districts in commercial centers are funded this way. The
1982 California State Legislature Mello -Roos Community Facilities District Act allows communities to
establish districts for special property tax assessments.
Impact Fees
Another potential local source of funding is developer impact fees, typically tied to trip generation
and traffic impacts as a result of proposed projects.
Open Space District
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
Local Open Space Districts may float bonds that go to acquiring land or open space easements, which
may also provide for some improvements to the local trail system.
Other Funding Sources
Local sales taxes, developer or public agency land dedications, private donations, and fund - raising
events are other local options to generate funding for pedestrian projects. For example, Kaiser
Permanente Community Health Initiatives grants are available to public agencies to support increased
physical activity in San Mateo County. Creation of these potential sources usually requires substantial
local support.
Funding Strategy
Grant funding is highly competitive and the following options should be considered by the City in
pursuing the funding necessary to complete the proposed improvements:
For multi- agency and cross - jurisdictional projects, prepare joint applications with other local and
regional agencies, such as the Cities of Daily City, Colma and San Bruno, San Mateo County, and
local and regional park and open space organizations. Joint applications often increase the
competitiveness of projects for funding; however, coordination amongst the participating
jurisdictions is often challenging. The City should act as the lead agency, with a strong emphasis
on coordination between participating jurisdictions and agencies (including SamTrans, Caltrain,
BART and Public Health organizations) on important projects to ensure they are implemented as
quickly as possible.
• Use existing funding sources as matching funds for State and Federal funding.
• Include pedestrian projects in local traffic impact fee programs and assessment districts. When
traffic improvement mitigations are proposed to address level of service, potential impacts to
pedestrians at the intersection should be considered. If pedestrians will be impacted, this may be
reason to override traffic improvement mitigations.
• Continue to require construction of pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, street trees and
marked crossings, as part of new development.
• Continue to include proposed pedestrian improvements as part of roadway projects involving
widening, overlays, or other improvements.
The City should also take advantage of private contributions, if appropriate, in developing the
proposed system. This could include a variety of resources, such as volunteer labor during
construction, right -of -way donations, or monetary donations towards specific improvements
associated with improving pedestrian access near private developments.
Projects should be funded opportunistically. If funding becomes available for a Second or Third Tier
priority project before a First Tier priority project, the funding should be used. Easy "quick fix" projects
should be funded before larger construction projects, especially when they can be included with other
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
First Tier projects. All pedestrian project implementation moves South San Francisco closer to meeting
the goals of the Pedestrian Master Plan.
7.3 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
To fully achieve the vision set forth in this Plan, close coordination among City agencies and
neighboring jurisdictions will be required. Recommended projects fall into two categories:
• Citywide recommendations
• Site - Specific recommendations
Citywide Recommendations
Citywide recommendations include basic pedestrian upgrades to ramps, marked crosswalks and
sidewalks throughout the City. All curb ramps should be upgraded to ADA compliant ramps, missing
crosswalks should be marked according to the criteria outlined in the Plan Design Guidelines, and
sidewalk gaps should be filled and sidewalks should be enhanced to meet the most current ADA
standards. These citywide improvements should be made as funding is available and when street
improvements and property development provide an opportunity to construct new curbs and
sidewalks.
Opportunities to implement sidewalk and street improvements included in the Recommended
Projects list should be included in street reconstruction projects identified by the City's pavement
management model.
Pedestrian Master Plan recommendations and issues related to the pedestrian environment in South
San Francisco are part of the local planning fabric and can be addressed through zoning updates, local
land use plans, public health education and outreach efforts.
Site - specific Recommendations
Site - specific recommendations have been outlined in the Concept Plans and Recommended Projects
List. These have been evaluated according to the prioritization method described earlier in this
chapter and cost estimates are provided. Site - specific recommendations can be implemented
according to the three tiers of project priorities and as funds become available for project elements
associated with other infrastructure projects.
Concept plans can be used in grant applications to illustrate how funding will be used for site specific
and corridor specific recommendations.
In addition, the potential loss of on- street parking related to new bulb outs, traffic circles and medians
has presented challenges to building local support for past projects. This should be addressed early in
the planning process when site - specific recommendations are considered, and residents, merchants
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
7 FUNDING AND
IMPLEMENTATION
and property owners should be engaged and informed about design alternatives and potential
benefits as part of the process. Broad proactive public outreach empowers the community to identify
solutions and to be prepared for changes.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
8 SUPPORT PROGRAMS
CHAPTER 8: SUPPORT PROGRAMS
This chapter outlines existing programs and recommendations for successful implementation of the
Pedestrian Master Plan.
8.1 EXISTING PROGRAMS
Education is a critical element for a complete and balanced approach to improving pedestrian safety.
Education campaigns should include residents of all ages, especially emphasizing safe walking habits
to school children where habits may be instilled as lifelong lessons. South San Francisco participates
and /or coordinates the following walking education initiatives and programs:
• Safe Routes to School
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
• Involving Law Enforcement in Design /Operation of Facilities
• Promotional Giveaways, including a Citywide Walking & Bicycling Map, in collaboration with Kaiser
and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (the Alliance), etc.
Safe Routes to School
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs promote safe walking or bicycling habits to school children
SRTS programs are important both for increasing physical activity (and reducing childhood obesity)
and for reducing morning traffic associated with school drop -off. Funding for SRTS programs and
projects is available at the regional, state, and federal levels. The South San Francisco Unified School
District Board has officially adopted a SRTS policy, and provides information about safe walking and
biking to school online:
http: / /www.ssfusd.orci/cros /page view ?d =x &piid = &vpid= 1296916223887
The City of South San Francisco recently received a SRTS grant award for pedestrian infrastructure
investments on West Orange Avenue and C Street, including speed feedback signs, bulbouts and new
crosswalk paint. The City and school district (SSFUSD) do not have an ongoing and funded program,
but the City often receives letters of support for SRTS projects from school principals. The City could
consider the following SRTS program enhancements as part of the pedestrian master plan:
• Consider developing a citywide SRTS program that encourages walking to school and highlights
preferred walking routes. Local best practices include Marin County's program:
http: / /www.saferoutestoschools.orci .
• Form a steering committee for the program (or each school) comprised of City staff, BPAC, SSFUSD
staff, PTA leaders, County Health Services and other stakeholders. Consider scheduling regular
ongoing meetings to maintain stakeholder involvement, determine level of interest, and identify
areas with the highest need.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
8 SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Consider developing a "StreetSmarts" program, such as those developed by the City of San Jose or
Marin County: http : / /www.cietstreetsmarts.orcl/.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Advisory committees serve as important sounding boards for new policies, programs, and practices,
and many smaller and medium -sized communities form advisory committees that jointly consider
pedestrian and bicycling issues.. A citizens' bicycling and walking advisory committee is a key
component of proactive public involvement for identifying walking safety issues and opportunities.
South San Francisco and C /CAG currently both have a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC).
A citywide Pedestrian Coordinator on the City staff would typically be responsible for implementing
and monitoring the status of this plan, as well as other pedestrian improvement projects and grants
that support the goals of this plan. Often, this position is a joint bicycle and pedestrian coordinator.
The City does not have a full -time Pedestrian Coordinator, though several staff within the City's
Engineering and Planning Divisions assist with pedestrian - related projects. With 64,000 residents and
over 45,000 jobs, South San Francisco should consider employing a City Pedestrian and Bicycle
Coordinator.
A part- or full -time coordinator would be tasked with convening the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee and implementing many of the recommendations included in this report.. Such a staff
member could be involved in activities such as outreach, interdepartmental coordination, inter-
agency coordination, grant writing, project management, and staff liaison to the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the C /CAG BPAC, local non - profits and advocacy groups, and local
schools. This position could also be a joint TDM coordinator that oversees the City's existing TDM -
related ordinances and assists projects developing TDM plans.
Involving Law Enforcement in Design /Operation of Facilities
Having officers understand how specific facilities operate is essential knowledge for them to know
how to enforce laws related to pedestrian and bicyclist movement. Oftentimes, laws related to
pedestrian right -of -way issues are misunderstood, or worse, not known. Walking and bicycling facility
design is constantly evolving beyond basic crosswalk and bicycle lane right -of -way. Maintaining
regular contact with law enforcement during the design of new facilities, especially those that might
not include typical roadway design features, will ensure more successful implementation and
adaptation to the new facilities.
The South San Francisco Police Department is occasionally consulted on facility design, usually
through the Traffic Advisory Committee. The Police Department has a liaison who works with the
Planning Division on development review, providing feedback about both personal safety for
pedestrians and potential compliance issues for motoristst. Pedestrian safety courses for law
enforcement are designed to educate officers about specific issues related to pedestrian safety and
laws so that the Police Department responds to changes in the pedestrian environment in a way that
supports personal safety and security.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
8 SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Promotional Giveaways
The City has partnered with the Alliance to promote alternative transit, congestion relief and Bike to
Work Day.
The City has partnered with Kaiser Permanente to create a walking and biking map for South San
Francisco, which includes walking and biking trails, as well as locations of resources and public
transportation, public art sites and tips on safe bicycling and walking in both English and
Spanish. Maps are available at most City buildings, at various special events and online:
http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=481
• The City should continue to teamwith local organizations willing to sponsor safety item giveaways
that encourage walking and other active transportation modes.
8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Support programs are important tools for increasing the safety, utility and viability of capital
infrastructure projects, such as new crosswalks, bulbouts, and sidewalks. Municipalities can provide
support and administer a range of programs and activities related to pedestrian safety, education,
promotion and law enforcement as a way to complement their infrastructure improvements. Below is
a list of programs and activities that have been effective in other jurisdictions and which the City of
South San Francisco could choose to offer.
Education and Encouragement
Street Smarts Program
Street Smarts ( http : / /www.cietstreetsmarts.orci ) is a safety program first designed and implemented
by the City of San Jose, California and launched in November 2002. Street Smarts was designed as
both a media and a community relations campaign. It uses education to raise awareness of certain
problem behaviors that contribute to traffic crashes and aims to change those behaviors over time.
Behaviors addressed by the campaign include: red -light running, speeding, stop sign violations,
school zone violations, and crosswalk violations. In addition to a media campaign, a community
relations campaign is conducted, working with schools, neighborhood associations, businesses, and
community organizations to create a public forum to address this community issue.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
8 SUPPORT PROGRAMS
One part of this program is use of electronic message boards to display safety messages at various
safety hot spots. Messages on the signs were changed regularly and boards were moved to different
locations routinely to increase their exposure to different drivers and maximize their impact. The
Street Smarts campaign in San Jose has received positive feedback from the public, and the program
is being copied in other jurisdictions throughout California, including the Bay Area's City of San
Ramon, City of Cupertino and City of Santa Rosa.
The Street Smarts program has the following advantages:
• The program provides multiple messages using a single tool
• The high - quality campaign materials were designed to be used regionally by any public agency
• Media campaigns use a wide variety of communication tools, including flyers, classroom kits for
elementary schools, lawn signs, safety presentations at the workplace and online games and
activities.
• The Street Smarts campaign materials are designed for use by any public agency for any
community and are available from the City of San Jose. Materials are available in English, Spanish
and Vietnamese.
• Graphic materials are available from the City of San Jose for $3,500
Although the Street Smarts campaign requires staff resources, the overall cost is low to implement.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
8 SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Brochures and Pamphlets
Brochures and pamphlets are helpful to educate
residents and visitors on topics such as (1) how
traffic signals work for pedestrians and the best
way to be detected at intersections, (2) pedestrian
rights and responsibilities when sharing the road,
(3) motorists' rights and responsibilities when
sharing the road. They can be distributed at
locations with high volumes of pedestrians and on
the City's website, as part of a general education
campaign.
rYqurrso.r. �r. ma, �of�s'e�ea.,ee�e.rawn�en�l�,.�r
1�w
TO REQUEST
GREEN
WAIT
01CLI
ON 0
R 10 -22
One limitation to this approach is that the
materials may not reach a wide audience.
Brochures are available from the Federal Highway Administration, AAA, and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration:
• http: / /safety.fhwa.dot.ciov /ped bike /ped bike order/
• http: / /www.aaafoundation.orci/products
• http: / /www.nhtsa.ciov /Pedestrians
Public Service Announcements
Public service announcements (PSAs) can provide accurate and current information to the public via
public access television or online web channels (such as YouTube). PSAs are valuable as they are
versatile and can reach a large audience on walking issues, education, and announcements. One
challenge is that PSAs can require great effort and may not reach the intended audience. This
approach may not be as effective as using a public relations firm and purchasing advertising time
targeted to a specific audience.
Perils for Pedestrians (http: / /www.pedestrians.org /), a monthly television series, promotes awareness
of issues affecting the safety of people who walk and bicycle. Many cities in California, including
Berkeley and Davis, are already taking part through cable stations and webcasts. A typical series
consists of interviews with walking and bicycling advocates, planners, engineers, and local and
international public officials. They talk about important issues affecting active transportation, such as:
walking hazards, infrastructure, bicycles, transit, and more. This program helps raise awareness of local
and international issues through a common form of interface.
Walking Mascot
Bellevue, Washington has a great example of an encouragement program in their walking mascot.
This elementary school campaign is conducted in conjunction with roadway improvements. The
mascot, called PedBee, is on school safety signs and makes personal appearances at school safety
days. Safety days include local staff from the City's Transportation and Police Departments. Children
are taught bicycling, walking, and traffic safety basics, such as crossing the street safely. Children are
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
8 SUPPORT PROGRAMS
also given traffic safety workbooks that provide guidance with hands -on activities such as coloring
and safety procedure quizzes.
Educational Signs for Pedestrian Signal Indications
Educational signs can be installed above pedestrian push buttons or integrated into the push button
housing to improve understanding of pedestrian signal indications. Signs improve public
understanding of pedestrian signal indications and encourage pedestrian compliance at the signals.
Signs should be considered where ten or more pedestrian crossings per hour are anticipated. In areas
with a high concentration of multilingual or non - English speaking households, non -word intensive or
multilingual signs in common languages should be considered. The cost of a sign is approximately
$200 plus installation.
Walk Wise, Drive Smart
Nationally and regionally, the number of senior citizen pedestrians is growing. Walk Wise, Drive Smart
is a program in North Carolina aimed to improve the walking environment not only for senior adults,
but for all residents and visitors. It is a community program that holds educational workshops, walking
audits, and feedback surveys. Activities are aimed at senior citizens providing exercise at a pace and
location comfortable to the participants, but are open to all. More information about this how
Hendersonville, NC develops and implements this model is available at http: / /www.walk- wise.orUZ.
Trip Reduction Incentive Programs
South San Francisco, like many cities, has single occupancy vehicle trips as the primary mode of
transportation. In San Mateo County the Alliance sponsors a range of trip reduction incentive
programs, including the Carpool Incentive Program, the Vanpool Incentive Program, the Schoolpool
Incentive Program, free transit tickets for new transit riders, reduced price bike parking, and rebates
for new vanpool participants. These programs are provided at no cost to employers throughout San
Mateo County, and include gas card incentives for carpooling, employer incentive programs with cash
rewards, online guides to transit alternatives, rideshare matching and links to bike commute
information, just to name a few.
http://www.commute.orci/procirams
Wayfinding Signage
People are more likely to consider walking when they know that a trip is short and convenient. The
City of South San Francisco could develop wayfinding signage with City- specific graphic design and
consistent with other locally used design standards so that pedestrians and motorists are familiar with
different sign types. Typically, these wayfinding programs are most effective in areas where there are
multiple destinations within a reasonable walking distance, such as around transit stations, downtown
commercial districts, or job centers. This example shows a bilingual wayfinding sign in Oakland's
Chinatown, providing pedestrians with directional information for nearby cultural and transportation
destinations.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
8 SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Example signage programs include the City of
Oakland, which has established design standards
(http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakcal/ciroups/pwa/d
ocuments /report /oak025118.pdfl, and the City of
Berkeley
( http:// www. ci. berkeley .ca.us /ContentDisplay.aspx ?id
=6684 ). These examples focus on bicycle wayfinding,
but the information about distances and connections
between key destinations is also very helpful for
pedestrians. The City of Portland, OR has established a
pedestrian focused wayfinding program. Examples of
the signs and design standards can be found online:
http: / /www.portlandorecion.gov /transportation /40500
12th St. Station
1J' Asian Public Library
Asian Cultural Center
Pacific Renaissance
Plaza
In South San Francisco wayfinding signage can be used to direct people to specific destinations such
as the BART station and to corridor destinations such as El Camino Real. Signs should be placed within
walking distance of pedestrian destinations, and spaced out further afield along bicycle routes
connecting to destinations (for example, a range of 1/4 mile to 2 miles).
Pedestrian Flag Program
The purpose of a pedestrian flag program is to make pedestrians more visible as they cross the street.
Hand -held flags are located in containers at both sides of the crosswalk and can be carried by
pedestrians as they cross the street. The brightly colored flags can make pedestrians more visible to
drivers and alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians. Depending on the number of intersections
involved, start -up costs for this type of program are relatively low. This program has been
implemented at other cities in the U.S., including Kirkland, Washington, Berkeley, California, and Salt
Lake City, Utah.
Billboards and Electronic Message Boards
Billboards and electronic message boards promote safety in the community, inform the public about
bicycling and walking safety programs, and provide feedback on the program's effects. StreetSmarts is
one example of a public education campaign targeted toward changing driver, pedestrian, and
bicyclist behavior to improve safety on city streets.
Law Enforcement
Enforcement tools have been demonstrated to be very effective in improving safety for road users.
However, some programs can require a significant investment from local agencies. Newer
enforcement tools like red -light running cameras and radar "wagons" can minimize the amount of
time required for local law enforcement agencies.
Increased Fines
An increase in traffic fines has been shown to discourage driver violations against pedestrians in
crosswalks. For example, in Salt Lake City, Utah, fines were increased from $34 to $70 for driver
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
8 SUPPORT PROGRAMS
violations against pedestrians in crosswalks. A lowering of fines for jaywalking from $70 to $10 was
also implemented. Variations on this include double fines in school zones and construction zones.
Pedestrian Sting Operations
Pedestrian sting operations target motorists who violate the right -of -way of pedestrians crossing the
street, and especially motorists who do not stop for the pedestrian when the cars in the adjacent
(same direction of travel) lane have stopped on multi -lane roads. Such operations can also target
pedestrians who make unsafe crossings. Stings are most effective on roadways and intersections with
high walking volumes, such as on Grand Avenue or other Downtown South San Francisco streets.
Pedestrian stings increase drivers' awareness of pedestrians at intersections; however, as the program
is not an ongoing operation, changes in motorist behavior can be short -term. The cost of the program
could range from $3,000 to $5,000 for a six -week operation and includes the cost of police officer
staffing time.
Pedestrian Safety Course for Law Enforcement
Oftentimes, laws related to pedestrian right -of -way issues are misunderstood, or worse, not known.
These courses are designed to educate officers about specific issues related to pedestrian safety and
laws. Create a workshop for officers to discuss the specific pedestrian safety and right -of -way issues. A
sample guide book for such a course was prepared by the Florida Bicycle Association:
http: / /www.dot.state.fl.us /safety//ped bike / brochures /pdf /Pedestrian %20LEGuide- 08.pdf
Photo Red Light Enforcement Programs
Activated by loops in the pavement, red light cameras photograph the license plate and sometimes
the driver of any vehicle entering an intersection after the signal has turned red. Warnings or citations
can be sent to offenders. Speeding and double - parking can be discouraged with similar measures.
Red light cameras are appropriate for locations with speeding or red - light- running issues. Fines from
citations help pay for the red -light camera system. While the threat of a ticket prevents deliberate
traffic violations, the program is repeatedly tested in court.
Tattletale Lights
To help law enforcement officers catch red -light runners safely and more effectively, a "rat box" is
wired into the backside of a traffic signal controller and allows enforcement officers stationed
downstream to identify, pursue, and cite red -light runners. Warning signs may be set up along with
the box to warn drivers about the fine for red -light violations. Rat boxes are a low -cost initiative
(approximately $100 to install the box), but do require police officers for enforcement.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA.- DESIGN GUIDELINES
APPENDIX A. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO PEDESTRIAN
DESIGN GUIDELINES
A well- connected pedestrian network is a vital component to livable communities, which thrive on
multimodal travel for all roadway users, regardless of age or ability. Multimodal travel incorporates the
needs of not just motor vehicles in roadway design, but the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and
transit users as well. The primary goal of the Pedestrian Design Guidelines is to assist the City of South
San Francisco in creating streets that accommodate pedestrians through a set of recommended
practices that enhance the walkability of all streets within the City. These guidelines will help the City
make decisions about the preferred application of pedestrian treatments in the following areas:
• Streets and Sidewalks
• Uncontrolled Intersections / Mid -block Crossing Treatments
• Controlled Intersections
The pedestrian enhancements described throughout these guidelines provide street design best
practice guidance, which can enhance the safety, convenience, and mobility for pedestrians. In
particular, they provide guidance on appropriate treatments for the various "areas of focus"
throughout South San Francisco, including downtown districts, access to transit stations, bay front
areas, school zones, barrier crossings, and the El Camino Real corridor. Potential treatment types for
each of these areas include different design options for streets /sidewalks, pedestrian crossings,
multimodal connections and community vitality.
COMPLETE STREETS
The pedestrian enhancements described throughout these guidelines provide street design best
practice guidance, which can enhance the safety, convenience, and mobility for pedestrians. In
particular, they provide guidance on appropriate treatments for the various locations identified for
pedestrian improvements throughout South San Francisco. Potential treatment types for each of
these areas include different design options for streets /sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, multimodal
connections and community vitality.
Complete streets practices improve the pedestrian realm because they encourage the design of
streets with well- connected and comfortable sidewalks, traffic calming measures to manage vehicle
speeds and enhanced pedestrian crossings. Streets without accomodations for transit, pedestrians
and cyclists can be a barrier, particularly for people with disabilities, older adults, and children, who
may not travel by car.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
STREETS AND SIDEWALKS
Streets and sidewalks should support the activities and pedestrian levels along the street. Streets
should be well- connected to ensure that destinations are within walking distance. Sidewalks should
be wide enough to support the expected pedestrian volumes. South San Francisco's Municipal Code
specifies a 10 foot sidewalk width in the downtown, and a minimum sidewalk width of four feet
elsewhere. In addition, several adopted Specific Plans have specified sidewalk widths. This Plan
recommends a minimum width of six feet for the pedestrian pathway section of a sidewalk, which is
wide enough for two people to walk side by side, and can be navigated by persons with mobility
impairments and meets current ADA requirements.
a _ o
.wr_ � l ll L ,mtow6
a,
6. KE
6AHE
Sidewalks in existing residential developments may
remain at current widths (city approved minimum of 48
inches, or 4 feet) unless a substantial new development
of multifamily dwelling units is planned. ADA sidewalk
regulations specify that routes with less than 1.525
meters (60 inches, or 5 feet) of clear width must provide
passing spaces at least 1.525 meters (60 inches) wide at
reasonable intervals not exceeding 61 meters (200 feet),
and a 5 feet by 5 feet turning space should be provided
where turning or maneuvering is necessary. This section
provides guidelines to the design of sidewalk widths
that meet walking demand and provide buffer space
between motor vehicle lanes and sidewalks and space
for walking, sitting, and lingering.
Typical Sidewalk Cross Section and Layout that Provides Space for
Different Walking Oriented Activities
Source: Creating Livable Streets, Portland Metro
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -1: Street Connectivity
Discussion
A well- connected street network has seamless connections for pedestrians through
continuous sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. A grid -like street network is easy for
pedestrians to navigate and distributes traffic evenly. In such a network, frequent crossings
and short block lengths result in high connectivity. Travel times and distances for
pedestrians decrease with connected streets because there are more opportunities for
direct paths of travel.
Design Example
F7 n�n
E DO ED P, U
3r ��� tic Mvt
Wi+4N
FE: r] C�l P� I
0
Design Summary
Internal street connectivity provides connections between streets within a particular area,
while external connectivity provides connections to other neighborhoods. New road and
pedestrian paths can increase pedestrian activity by creating better connections. If
possible, cul -de -sacs should be avoided. However, if dead ends are unavoidable, there are
alternatives to provide pedestrian connections.
• Pedestrian Pathways- Connects a pedestrian routes to a building entrance when a
direct connection is lacking.
• Cul -de -sac connectors- Pathways where streets dead -end to connect people on foot or
bicycle to other streets or land uses.
Avoid large blocks- Buildings on "superblocks" are less connected to the street.
Connectivity is important along the street as well as between buildings. An intersection
density of at least 150 -400 intersections per square mile is recommended for pedestrian -
friendly blocks and street networks.
Image Source: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -2: Traffic Calming
High vehicle speeds reduce pedestrian comfort and increase injury severity in collisions.
Controlling speeds is a critical element to ensure the pedestrian feels comfortable walking
in a sidewalk or within a crosswalk. Traffic calming treatments are physical elements that
alter the streetscape to manage vehicle speeds. As a result, driver awareness of pedestrians
increases, and the improvements may have an effect on slowing speeds.
Speed Table Traffic Circle
Chicane
i�
�zf 4pg��-
Speed tables/ raised crosswalk - An elevated surface above the travel lane attracts the
attention of the driver and encourages lower speeds. It is useful in areas with high
pedestrian activity by essentially raising the road surface over a short crossing distance.
Traffic Circles - Traffic circles are located in the middle of an intersection to slow traffic.
Generally 10 -20 feet in diameter, they typically have landscaping in the middle that
reduces sight length down the street to slow vehicles. Traffic circles also manage speeds
by forcing vehicles to drive around them. Traffic circles are typically placed within an
existing intersection and do not require any physical modifications to the roadway beyond
the installation of the circle itself. Traffic circles differ from modern roundabouts in that
they are often stop controlled and do not have splitter islands on the
approaches. Pedestrians cross at the intersection in the same wav thev would at a tvoical
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
side street or all -way stop controlled intersection. Unlike a roundabout, installation of a
neighborhood traffic circle does not require modification to the pedestrian path of travel,
and can be installed on streets as narrow as 24' -36'.
Pedestrian Bulb -outs - Extend sidewalks into the street to create shorter crossing
distances for pedestrians and smaller vehicle turning radii at intersections. More detail may
be found in the Intersections Section.
Refuge Islands - Provide a space in the middle of an intersection for pedestrian to
comfortably wait until traffic clears and they can finish crossing the intersection. More
detail may be found in Intersections Section.
Image Source: (Speed Table and Chicane): Valley Transportation Authority Pedestrian Technical Guidelines; (Traffic Circle) San
Diego Street Design Manual
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -3: Sidewalk Zones
The sidewalk zone is the portion of the street right -of -way between the curb and building
front. Within this zone, there are four distinct areas that serve different organizational
purposes (see below for more detail about how these apply to different settings).
l
Edge Furnishings Throughway Frontage
y �
These designs are recommended minimums, and ideally sidewalks with high pedestrian
volumes should be 16 to 18 feet wide, and could include wider landscaped buffers, a seven
and a half to 11 foot wide pedestrian pathway, and / or vegetative strips along the building
face,
• Edge/ Curb Zone - At a minimum, such as in areas with lower pedestrian activity, there
should be a 6 -inch wide curb. Other areas, such as downtowns, should have at least an
extra foot to accommodate car doors to not conflict with the sidewalk.
Furnishing /Landscape Zone - This area acts as a buffer between the curb and
throuahwav zone. This is the areas where trees should be planted and benches should
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
be located. Any sidewalk amenities should be located within this area and should not
interfere with the throughway zone. Streets with higher speeds should have larger
furnishing zones.
• Throughway, zone - The minimum width of this zone should be at least 6 feet or wider
for higher volume areas. See sidewalk width discussion above (page A -2) for
exceptions and details about ADA compliance.
• Frontage Zone - This area borders the building facade or fence. The primary purpose of
this zone is to create a buffer between pedestrians walking in the throughway zone
from people entering and exiting buildings. It provides opportunities for shops to
place signs, planters, or chairs that do not encroach into the throughway zone.
Some zones are more important in specific settings; for example, most residential streets
will not include a frontage zone and will only include a furnishing /landscape zone on
streets with higher speeds. Only the curb and throughway zone have minimum widths
specified, so there are no implications for residential areas.
Image Sources: Valley Transportation Authority Pedestrian Technical Guidelines; Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan; Fehr & Peers
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -4: Pedestrian Amenities
Discussion
Providing amenities for pedestrians along their route makes for a more enjoyable and
comfortable walking experience, thus encouraging more walking. They are an essential
aspect of street infrastructure which makes pedestrians a priority within the streetscape.
These elements serve as functional aspects for walkers while enhancing the character of
the street.
Design Example
Wayfinding and Signage High Quality Street Furniture Pedestrian Scale Lighting
• •y _ _
Y
• Wayfinding & Signage - Wayfinding signage should cater to both vehicles and
pedestrians, particularly in districts where there are high levels of walking activity.
Signs and routes that direct pedestrians to specific destinations are key to providing
adequate way finding for pedestrians.
• Street Furniture - Street furniture is normally placed on a sidewalk in the Frontage
Zone to provide additional comfort for pedestrians and enhance place making within
the pedestrian realm. Street furniture makes pedestrians feel welcome, but it is
important that they do not conflict with the pedestrian travel path. Street furniture can
include benches, specially designed newspaper racks, fountains, special
garbage /recycling containers, etc.
• Street Trees - Street trees are an important aspect of the pedestrian realm as they
increase the comfort for pedestrians, providing shade and a buffer from vehicles,
ultimately enhancing the streetscape. Stormwater practices such as applying
vegetated swales, planters, rain gardens, pervious paving, stormwater curb extensions,
and green gutters to streets should also be considered.
• Li htin - Pedestrian scale lighting provides a better -lit environment for pedestrians
while improving visibility for motorists. Sidewalks with frequent nighttime pedestrian
activity should have pedestrian lighting. Pedestrians tend to observe more details of
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA.- DESIGN GUIDELINES
the street environment since they travel at a slower pace than vehicles, and thus
pedestrian scale lighting should have shorter light poles and shorter spacing between
posts. A height of 12- 20 feet is common for pedestrian lighting. The level of lighting
should reflect the location and level of pedestrian activity.
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA.- DESIGN GUIDELINES
CROSSWALK INSTALLATION GUIDELINES
Candidate crosswalk locations are initially identified by understanding pedestrian desire lines (i.e., the
places people would like to walk). A person's decision to walk is affected by local land uses (homes,
schools, parks, commercial establishments, etc.) and the location of transit stops and parking facilities.
This information forms a basis for identifying pedestrian crossing improvement areas and prioritizing
such improvements, thereby creating a convenient, connected, and continuous walking environment.
Once candidate crosswalk locations are identified, the second step is identifying the locations safest
for people to cross. Of all road users, pedestrians have the highest risk because they are the least
protected. National statistics indicate that pedestrians represent 14 percent of all traffic incident
fatalities while walking accounts for only three percent of total trips. Pedestrian collisions occur most
often when a pedestrian is attempting to cross the street at an uncontrolled intersection or mid -block
location.'
UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS AND MID -BLOCK CROSSING
TREATMENTS
Uncontrolled intersections are locations without a stop sign or signal. Mid -block crossings are
locations where there is marked crosswalk in between intersections. Without a formal signal to control
traffic, uncontrolled locations and mid -block crossings require unique treatments to ensure that
pedestrians are visible within the roadway.
A crosswalk's primary function is to channelize pedestrians. Well- marked pedestrian crossings prepare
drivers for the likelihood of encountering a pedestrian, and create an atmosphere of pedestrian
walkability and accessibility. Marked crossings reinforce the location and legitimacy of a crossing.
However, the California Vehicle Code requires vehicles to yield the right -of -way to pedestrians at any
intersection where crossing is not prohibited (regardless of markings).' Crossing between adjacent,
signalized intersections or anywhere crossing is prohibited, is considered jaywalking.
Pedestrians tend to walk in the path that provides the shortest distance. If intersection crossings are
too far apart, mid -block crossings may be necessary to accommodate these paths. Streets with lower
speeds and volumes and narrower cross - sections are better suited for marked crosswalks than multi-
lane, high volume streets. Marking a crosswalk helps to identify the most appropriate place to direct
the pedestrian to find their way across the street. However, crosswalks need to be marked properly
and placed in a location with proper sight lines. In order to identify the need to mark a crosswalk at an
uncontrolled location, the following conditions should occur:
Pedestrian Crash Types, A 1990's Information Guide, FHWA; This paper analyzed 5,076 pedestrian crashes that occurred during the early
1990's. Crashes were evenly selected from small, medium, and large communities within six states: California, Florida, Maryland,
Minnesota, North Carolina, and Utah. http : / /drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu /cros/ downloads /PedCrashTypesl997.pdf
' More information on the California Vehicle Code sections related to pedestrian right -of -way is available at
httl2://www.walksf.org/vehicleCodes.html.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA.- DESIGN GUIDELINES
• Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk
• The location has sufficient sight distance (as measured by stopping sight distance calculations)
and /or sight distance will be improved prior to crosswalk marking
• Safety considerations do not preclude a crosswalk
Mid -block crossings must provide adequate sight distance so
pedestrians can be clearly viewed by motorists, and vice versa.
Additionally, it is important to consider challenges of "multiple
threat" collisions in designating crosswalk locations and
treatments. Multiple threat collisions occur on multi -lane roadways
where a vehicle in the adjacent lane blocks the view of a crossing
pedestrian from an approaching driver. South San Francisco has
areas that are likely to have multiple- threat conflicts, including
freeway interchanges, such as at the Highway 101 ramps at Grand
Avenue, and multi -lane arterials, like Airport Boulevard.
Multiple Threat Risk on a Multi -lane Street
Source: FHWA
Street design should minimize conflict points with pedestrians. A highly visible marked crosswalk can
reduce these conflicts by warning drivers that they are within a pedestrian realm. Advance yield lines
(described within the Intersections Section) can create a buffer between the areas where the vehicle
has to wait and the pedestrian crossing area. Other design strategies at uncontrolled locations include
pedestrian bulb outs and restricting parking at corners, such as a 30 foot minimum, to improve
visibility between motorists and pedestrians. The Federal Highway Administration has conducted
research on the safety effects of marking crosswalks at uncontrolled locations (summarized in the
following table). This research provides a framework for local jurisdictions seeking to establish
guidelines for installing new crosswalks to facilitate pedestrian connectivity.
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -5: Generalized Crosswalk Installation Guidelines
Table 1. Recommendations for installing marked crosswalks and
other needed pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations.*
Roadway Type
(Number of Travel Lanes
and Median Type)
Vehicle ADT
< 9,000
Vehicle ADT
>9000 to 12,00
Vehicle ADT
>12 000- 15 000
Vehicle ADT
> 15,000
Speed Limit —
< 30
mi/h
35
mi/h
40
mi/h
t 30
milk
35
mi/h
40
ml/h
< 30
mi/h
35
mi/h
40
mi/h
< 30
mi/h
35
mi/h
40
mi/h
2 Lanes
C
C
P
C
C
P
C
C
N
C
P
N
3 Lanes
C
C
P
C
P
P
P
P
N
P
N
N
Multi-Lane (4 or More Lanes)
With Raised Median* **
C
C
P
I
C
P
N
P
I
P
I
N
N
N
N
Multi-Lane (4 or More Lanes)
Without Raised Median
C
P
I N
fftP]
N
N
I
I N
N
i
N
rN
N
* These guidelines include intersection and miElack iocations with no IratFc signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to
These guidelines include intersection and mid -block locations with no traffic signals or
stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to school crossings. A two -
way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks should not be installed at
locations that could pose an increased safety risk to pedestrians, such as where there is
poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial volume of heavy trucks, or
other dangers, without first providing adequate design features and /or traffic control
devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossing safer, nor will they necessarily
result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not marked crosswalks are
installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility enhancements (e.g., raised
median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic - calming
measures, curb extensions), as needed to improve the safety of the crossing. These are
general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be used in individual cases
for deciding where to install crosswalks. ** Where the speed limit exceeds 40 m/h (64.4
km /h) marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations.
C= Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must be installed carefully
and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an engineering study is needed
to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked crosswalk. For an engineering
study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while a more in -depth study of
pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, etc., may be needed at other
sites. It is recommended that a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or
more elderly and /or child pedestrians) exist at a location before placing a high priority on
the installation of a marked crosswalk alone.
P= Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without
other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should be closely monitored and
enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessary, before adding a
marked crosswalk.
N= Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be increased
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
due to providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other treatments, such as
traffic - calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals where warranted, or other
substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedestrians.
— — — Locations with predominantly young,
elderly, or handicapped pedestrians.
Other locations
BASIC CRITERIA
Speed limit t 45 mi /h
Adequate slopping sigh! distance
• For midhlock, preferred block lwlgth a 600'
' Crosswalk adequately illuminated
Minimal conflicting attention demands
I
4 LANE WITHOUT MEDIAN OR 8-LANE WITH MEDIAN
160 j 2-LANE, 34ANE, OR 4 TO 5 LANE WITH MEDIAN
t �
HOURLY PED. L 1,
VOLUME X
(PEAK FOUR HOURS) 1
1 � � INSTALL CROSSWALK
26 DO NOT N
iNSTAU CROSSWALK _-
� 1
�4 �4
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 5.000 10,1330 12,000 14,000
HOURLY VEHICULAR VOLUME
{PEAK FOUR HOURS]
1. IF using only the peak hour, threshold muss be increased by 1.5
2. FoF streets with median, use one way (directional) ADT volume
Other noses: Minimum striping is 6' parallel lines. Consider balder markings and/or supplememary
advance markings or signing at unconbrolled locations where speed limits exceed 35 mi /hr.
Image Source: FHWA
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -6: Identifying Uncontrolled Crosswalk Placement
Recommendations for ideal crosswalk spacing are different depending on the area of focus
(e.g. 300 — 600 ft in high /medium demand areas and rural town centers; at key crossing
locations elsewhere). Providing a more direct path of travel may improve pedestrian
accommodation and decrease jaywalking. Areas with low street network connectivity may
benefit from the use of a mid -block crossing to help pedestrians take the most direct path.
Sight distance and vehicle speed are two important factors to consider when installing a
mid -block crossing. If speeds are more than 40 mph or volumes higher than 20,000
vehicles per day, mid -block crossings may not be the most suitable treatment. The two
charts below provide guidance for the feasibility of crosswalks at uncontrolled and mid -
block locations.
Potential Selection Process for Uncontrolled and Mid -Block Crosswalk Locations
City Staff
- Citizen walkability
Citizen surveys
ion analysis
receives request
audits identify a
identify a key
tifies one or
for a crosswalk
location for
location for
pedestrian
r.d
installation or
crosswalk
crosswalk
es or injuries
improvement
installation or
installation or
cation within
improvement
improvement
5 years
Compute Staff
Field Visit
YES
Use Crosswalk Treatment
Identification Tool and
Engineering Judgment to
determine treatment
options
........ optional
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
Na. This is not
Are demand
NO
a goad location
considerations met
for a marked
(see Chart 2)?
crossing.
YES
Use Crosswalk Treatment
Identification Tool and
Engineering Judgment to
determine treatment
options
........ optional
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations
Location is near 20 pedestrians
an existing or per hour (15 Pedestrian Citizen surveys or ,
proposed park: elderly andlor injuries or walkability audits
school, hospital NO children) or 60 in NO fatalities have NO overwhelmingly NO No action
or other mapor 4 hours cross at occurred at this suggest the need recommended
pedestrian location and ADT location in the for proactive
generator/ a 150p vpd past 5 years treatment
attradar ;
YES
YES YES
40 pedestrians per Direct pedestrians
Nearest appropriately hour {30 elderly no to the nearest
YES marked orprotected No andlorchildren) or marked or
crosswalk is at least 120 in hours protected
300 feet away cross at location' crosswalk
YES
YES
Is 1 1.ssible to Di re ct pedestria ns
remove sight to the nearest
Pedestrians can be easily distance �n =easn� marked crosswalk
seen from o distance 10v Ko obstruction or or consider
the speed limit or 250 feet 0 lower speed msta Ili ng signal or
limit? grade separation
YES
f—Ide
Use Crosswalk
Treatment
Identification Taal
and Engineering
Judgment to
determine
treatment options
Consider lowering the volume requirements in rural locations or to meet local opti _,r
ranges for pedestrian volumes m ° ® ° . .
The City of Sacramento currently has adopted Pedestrian Safety Guidelines document that
incorporates the framework described in the flow charts. It can be accessed at:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org /transportation /dot media /engineer media /pdf /PedSaf
ety_pdf
The City of San Mateo is also currently in the process of developing its own Pedestrian
Master Plan, part of which will include Crosswalk Installation Guidelines.
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -7: Median Island / Pedestrian Refuge
Refuge islands provide a designated space in the middle of a crosswalk to allow
pedestrians to wait halfway between crossings. Refuge islands are raised islands in the
center of a roadway that separate opposing lanes of traffic with a cutout or ramp for an
accessible pedestrian path. They reduce pedestrian exposure to motor vehicles, and allow
a pedestrian to cross a roadway in two stages. Their application is most pertinent in higher
traffic volume areas that have four -lane or wider streets or when crossing distances exceed
60 feet.
Pedestrian Refuge Island
Split Pedestrian Cross -Over
The minimum recommended width for a median island is 5 -8 feet based on the average
roadway speed, as shown in the table below. This minimum width accommodates
bicyclists. In different contexts, the refuge island can be extended if there are higher
amounts of pedestrian activity or additional travel lanes.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA.- DESIGN GUIDELINES
Recommended Median Widths
Speed
Width
• 25 -30 MPH
• 5 Feet
• 30 -35 MPH
• 6 Feet
• 35 -45 MPH
• 8 Feet
A special application of the median island is the two -stage crossing where the crosswalk is
staggered such that a pedestrian crosses the street halfway and then is directed to walk
towards the direction of traffic to reach the second half of the crosswalk. This
channelization effect, typically described as a split - pedestrian cross -over, allows for the
pedestrian to easily view traffic while completing the second part of the crossing.
• Pedestrian Pathways- Connects a pedestrian routes to a building entrance when a
direct connection is lacking.
• Cul -de -sac connectors- Pathways where streets dead -end to connect people on foot or
bicycle to other streets or land uses.
Avoid large blocks- Buildings on "superblocks" are less connected to the street.
Connectivity is important along the street as well as between buildings. An intersection
density of at least 150 -400 intersections per square mile is recommended for pedestrian -
friendly blocks and street networks.
Image Source: www.tfhrc.gov,www.flickr.com /photos /luton
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -8: High Visibility Crosswalk Striping
In areas with high pedestrian volumes and where land uses may generate significant
pedestrian activity (at least 15 ph), high visibility striping is a tool that brings attention to
pedestrians crossing typically at an uncontrolled or mid -block location and helps to direct
pedestrian traffic to specific locations. It should be used in combination with other design
treatments, like refuge islands, bulb -outs, and other active device enhancements for
roadways with more than four lanes or speeds over 40 mph.
Example Crosswalk Types Approved by FHWA
Continental Crosswalk High Visibility Ladder Crosswalk (school zone)
The use of high visibility striping is recommended at uncontrolled crossing locations, and
other locations as traffic volumes, speeds, and vehicle - pedestrian conflicts require. There
are several treatments for high visibility markings, including the ladder, continental, and
zebra designs. Continental, zebra and ladder striping are often chosen to communicate
sensitive pedestrian crossing areas as the designated high visibility tool. Communities
should choose a preferred style to use in these circumstances so it is consistently applied.
The City of Sacramento, for example, developed its own standard high visibility striping
treatment for uncontrolled locations called the triple -four. The City has implemented this
treatment citywide, involving three four -foot segments, two dashed lines on the outside
with a clear space in the center to direct pedestrian traffic.
Image Source: FHWA, Fehr & Peers
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -9: In- Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs
This tool involves placing regulatory pedestrian signage in the middle of the roadway
centerline, either in front or behind the crosswalk. It is MUTCD- approved and assists to
remind road users of laws regarding to the right of way at unsignalized pedestrian
crossings.
STATE
kk LAW
YIELD
TO
i
WITHIN
CROSSWALK
Signs may be placed on the roadway centerline directly, as in the picture below. Careful
placement is necessary to avoid maintenance issues with vehicles knocking down the sign.
One option is to temporarily place the sign during specific time periods, such as when
school is in session. Another option is to put the sign within a raised median or place in-
pavement raised markers around the sign. They can be placed either at mid -block
locations or intersections with significant pedestrian activity, such as near transit stations
or schools.
Image Source: FHWA, Fehr & Peers
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -10: Enhanced Uncontrolled Crossing Treatments
At uncontrolled locations, enhanced treatments beyond striping and signing may be
needed for candidate marked crosswalk locations under the following conditions:
• Multi -lane streets (three or more lanes); or
• Two -lane streets with daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 12,000; or
• Posted speed limit exceedina 30 miles per hour
In- Pavement Flashers
Overhead Flashing Beacon
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Mid -Block Pedestrian Signal
HAWK Signal
ON
AYT
Am
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA.- DESIGN GUIDELINES
Image Source: Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan,tti.tamu.edu; Fehr & Peers
Design Summary
In-Pavement flashers
This enhanced treatment helps to improve the visibility of pedestrians at uncontrolled
crosswalks. In- pavement markers are lined on both sides of a crosswalk, often containing
an amber LED strobe light. They can either be actuated by a push- button or using remote
pedestrian detection.
Flashing Beacons
This treatment enhances driver visibility of pedestrians by installing flashing amber lights
either overhead or on a post- mounted sign before a vehicle approaches the crosswalk or
at the crossing.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
The RRFB, also known as a stutter flash, enhances the flashing beacon by replacing the
slow flashing incandescent lamps with rapid flashing LED lamps. The lights can be
activated either by a push- button or with remote pedestrian detection. This treatment is
included in the 2009 Federal MUTCD, and has received interim approval for use in
California. There are also versions with LED lights placed within the pedestrian crossing
sign.
High- Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK)
This enhanced signal treatment is used in circumstances where there are high vehicle
speeds as well as a high demand for pedestrian crossings. It combines the beacon flasher
with a traffic control signal to generate a higher driver yield rate. They are pedestrian
activated and will display a yellow indication to warn vehicles, then a solid red light. While
pedestrians are crossing, the driver sees a flashing red light in a "wig wag" pattern until the
pedestrian clearance phase has ended, then returns to a dark signal. The HAWK is now
included in the 2009 Federal MUTCD and 2012 CA MUTCD.
Mid -Block Pedestrian Signal
A pedestrian signal may be used to provide the strictest right -of -way control at a
pedestrian crossing. Warrants for placement are defined within the MUTCD (a new warrant
is provided in the 2009 Federal MUTCD).
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -11: Grade Separated Crossin
A grade- separated pedestrian crossing provides a complete separation of pedestrians from
vehicles through a pedestrian -only overpass or underpass (generally bicycles are
permitted as well). Grade separations are a tool to help overcome barriers and help
pedestrians connect to sidewalks, off -road trails and paths. It should be used where
topography is supportive and no other pedestrian facility is available.
,Y_
Grade separated crossings should be constructed within the most direct path of a
pedestrian. They should have visual appeal and entrances that are visible so pedestrians
feel safe and not isolated from others.
Because they can be costly (typically from $2M to $8M or more), it is recommended that
grade separated crossings be used in instances where there are unsafe vehicle speeds and
volumes or no convenient substitute for the pedestrian.
Image Source: Fehr & Peers, http://wwwwalkinginfo.org /library /details.cfm ?id =2882,
h ttp://www. opacengin eers. com /features /Berke) eyPOC
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
CONTROLLED CROSSING TREATMENTS / INTERSECTION DESIGN
Pedestrian treatments at signalized locations throughout South San Francisco may be used to:
Improve the visibility of pedestrians to motorists and vice -versa
Communicate to motorists and pedestrians who has the right -of -way
Accommodate vulnerable populations such as people with disabilities, children, and seniors
Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles
Reduce vehicular speeds at locations with potential pedestrian conflicts
Improving Pedestrian Visibility — Shorten Crossing Distance
Intersections should be as compact as possible to minimize pedestrian crossing distances. Shorter
crossing distances ultimately reduce the exposure time of pedestrians within the roadway and are
easier to navigate. Consequently, compact intersections are more comfortable for pedestrians and
improve visibility between motorists and pedestrians.
Reducing turning radii is one tool to foster compact intersection design and improve sight distance, in
which dimensions of the curb at the intersection directly affects the speed of the approaching vehicle.
A large turning radius (generally 30 feet or greater) allows vehicles to turn at high speeds. Reducing
the radius forces approaching vehicles to slow down while still accommodating larger vehicles, thus
reducing the frequency and severity of pedestrian collisions at intersections. As shown below, on-
street parking and bicycle lanes can allow for smaller curb radii while maintaining the same effective
curb radius. Note that on- street parking should be restricted in advance of crosswalks, to improve
visibility for pedestrians.
Actual
Radius
Actual Effective
+ Radius Radius with Parking
and Bike Lanes
:F
Free right turns should be restricted whenever possible as they encourage fast turning movements
and present a challenging uncontrolled crossing for pedestrians. When they are necessary, design
strategies can enhance the pedestrian crossing and improve visibility of bicyclists on intersecting
streets (illustrated below).
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Right -Turn Slip Lane
Preferred Design
Cut Through Tar
Pedestrians
-�.3m (46') Radius
I
Island Angle or 50" to 66°
84.6m (275') Radius
I
I s
I �
Bicycle Lane
I
I
Source: Fehr & Peers
Improving Pedestrian Visibility - Reducing Sight Distance Barriers
Compact intersection design can also improve pedestrian visibility by removing barriers to sight
distance, including parked cars, roadway geometry, terrain, vegetation, sun glare, insufficient building
setbacks, inadequate roadway lighting, poor signal visibility, signal controller cabinets /poles, and
cluttered signage. Improving sight distances gives motorists a clear view of pedestrians, while
allowing the pedestrian to observe and react to any hazards. Free vehicle right turns and permitted
lefts are two situations that often create conflicts with pedestrians. Ensuring proper sight distances
between pedestrians and vehicles can decrease the rate and severity of turning related pedestrian -
vehicle collisions.
Removing barriers to sight distance
requires careful design when vehicles
approach other vehicles and
pedestrians. Design elements should be
considered at intersections as well as
mid -block crossings. Designers must
particularly consider the needs of those
pedestrians with special needs,
including older adults, children, and
people with disabilities. For example,
children and people using wheelchairs
have a lower eye height than standing
adults.
Source: Sacramento City
Pedestrian Master Plan
EFFECTS OF CURB EXTENSIONS ON SIGHT DISTANCE
Sight Distance Blocked
By Parked Car*
Line of Sight
Pedestrian
Extended Curb
Shortens Crossing
Distance and Increases
Pedestrian Visibility
*Parking space can be added closer to intersection
when curb extensions are installed.
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX A: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -12: Pedestrian Bulb -Outs
Also known as curb extensions, bulb -outs increase driver awareness of pedestrians and
help slow traffic. They provide a larger space for pedestrians to wait before crossing an
intersection and prevent cars from parking near the crosswalk. Bulb -outs are highly
beneficial in downtown or transit station areas, which generate significant pedestrian
activity. They may also be beneficial in school zones or neighborhood districts, which have
vulnerable pedestrians, such as children or older adults that would benefit from an
enhanced treatment that reduces crossing distances.
F/
ft i = =_ 0 490 �W_
Bulb -outs involve extending the curb space into the street to create a shorter pedestrian
crossing. They should not extend into the bicyclist line of travel to avoid impeding
bicyclists and motorists. This can be achieved by designing the bulb -out width to be the
same as the adjacent on- street parking (7 -8' for parallel parking, or wider as necessary at
locations with angled parking). They may also require removal of on street parking.
Landscaping within bulb -outs, as depicted at right, can further enhance the character and
comfort of the pedestrian realm. Bulb -outs may also create space for pedestrian amenities
or bicycle parking. Bulbouts typically range in cost from between $10,000- 50,000 per
corner.
Image Source: Dan Burden (top left), Fehr & Peers (top right and bottom)
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -12: Special Paving Treatments
Special paving treatments include adding texture to surfaces or coloring pavement to
distinguish the sidewalk or crosswalk. This treatment enhances the character of the overall
pedestrian environment. The rougher roadway surface may also slow vehicles and draw
more attention to the pedestrian realm.
Brick Pattern Streetprint Design
Brick, Pavers and Concrete
Decorative Streetprint
Types of special paving treatments typically include:
• Colored concrete
• Stamped asphalt or concrete painted to resemble bricks.
• Pavement stencils
Designers must be careful to not confuse the visually impaired and cause problems for
people with disabilities. Surfaces should be adapted to accommodate people using
wheelchairs. A standard white stripe is recommended on either side of the crosswalk even
when special paving treatments are used to enhance the contrast between the crossing
and the roadway.
Image Source: Fehr&Peers (top left and top right), http://www.visualtexture .net /page /2 /(bottom)
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -13: Standard Crosswalk Striping
Crosswalks should be marked on all approaches where feasible to delineate space for
pedestrians to cross. While heavy vehicle volumes may present an exception, they are
discouraged and should only be considered when all other options to accommodate
motor vehicle demand have been considered.
At intersections, crosswalks are essentially an extension of the sidewalk; if the sidewalk
extends to the intersection, proper striping should continue to direct the pedestrian to the
other side of the intersection.
Advanced stop bars are another standard crosswalk treatment to discourage vehicles from
encroaching into the crosswalk. They may be useful at signalized intersections and stop
controlled intersections with multiple lanes. A yield line should be used as a replacement
at uncontrolled intersections.
xesign example
Standard Crosswalk Crosswalk with Advance Stop Bar
PWI
Design Summary
Standard dual while lane stripes are recommended for pedestrian crossings at signalized
intersections. These bars should be one foot wide and extend from curb ramp to curb
ramp.
Advanced stop or yield limit lines solid white lines extending through the traffic lane to
communicate to drivers where they should stop. MUTCD requires they be placed at least 4
feet before the crosswalk, although placement at greater distances can enhance
pedestrian visibility and vehicle reaction times.
Image Source: Fehr & Peers (above), Sacramento City Pedestrian Plan (below)
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -14: Curb Ramps
Pedestrians with mobility impairments, such as people using wheelchairs or those with
canes, need curb ramps to safely access a sidewalk.
Recommended Not Recommended for
New Construction:
(existing constrained
situations only)
� s
Preferred for
radii of 5'
Preferred for areas
with fandscaped area
Preferred for radii > 15'
r _�
The appropriate curb ramp design depends on the geometry of the intersection.
Recommended practices for various sidewalk conditions are shown below. As depicted in
the illustration, directional ramps are preferred over diagonal ramps as they provide direct
access to each crosswalk. Curb ramps should be ADA compliant to accommodate mobility
and visually impaired pedestrians. Detectable warnings are required by the ADA
Accessibility Guidelines with any new curb ramp or reconstruction. These guidelines call
for raised truncated domes of 23 mm diameter and 5mm height. Curb ramps should align
in the direction of the crosswalk and have enough clear space beyond the curb line so the
pedestrian is not drawn right into the line of traffic.
Image Source: Valley Transportation Authority Technical Pedestrian Guidelines, Fehr& Peers
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -15: Pedestrian Friendly Signal Treatments
Discussion
There are several innovative treatments that enhance the visibility and convenience of
pedestrian crossings at traffic signals. These treatments can be applied in a variety of
contexts depending on the pedestrian demand and vehicle movement within the
streetscape.
Design Example
Leading Pedestrian Interval Countdown Signal
s:.
Scramble Phasing ±
t
,k
ry
Design Summary
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
• An enhanced pedestrian treatment that gives pedestrians a walk indication while
other approaches are red to prevent advancing. Crossing with this "head start" allows
pedestrians to be more visible to motorists approaching an intersection.
• Should be used at locations with heavy right turn vehicle volumes as well as frequent
pedestrian crossings.
• Vehicles are stopped for 2 -4 seconds while pedestrians are allowed to begin crossing.
• May require restricting right -turn on red at some locations.
Countdown signals
• Displays a "countdown" of the number of seconds remaining for the pedestrian
crossing interval.
• Information about the amount of time left to cross is particularly helpful when crossing
multi -lane arterials.
• Can improve pedestrian compliance while reducing the number of pedestrians
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
"dashing" across an intersection.
Scramble Phasing
• This enhanced crossing treatment allows pedestrians to walk in all directions while all
vehicle approaches have a red phase. Pedestrians may cross the street orthogonally or
diagonally, providing a direct and efficient walking route.
Audible Signal
• Pedestrian phases are typically difficult to recognize for those with visual impairments.
• MUTCD 2003, Section 4A.01 specifies that signals that communicate to pedestrians in a
non - visual way can include verbal messages or vibrating surfaces.
• Should be implemented on a separate pole close to the crosswalk line. If two are
placed on the same corner, they should be 10 feet apart to distinguish between
directions.
• Speaker on top of the signal can give a bell, buzzer, speech message during walk
interval or vibrate when walk signal is on, or a personal individual receiver can
communicate by infrared or LED to the signal.
Pedestrian Friendly Signal Timing
See "Pedestrian Friendly Signal Timing" below.
Image Source: http ✓lwww.walkinginfo.org, Fehr & Peers, www.streetswiki.wikispaces.com
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -16: Pedestrian Friendly Signal Timing
Signal timing typically favors vehicle travel. However, in areas with high pedestrian activity,
there are methods to alter signals to better meet the needs of pedestrians. The walk
interval of a pedestrian phase is, at a minimum, four to seven seconds, followed by a
pedestrian clearance interval, called the "flash don't walk" (FDW) phase. The FDW phase
uses a standard rate to determine the amount of time provided for the pedestrian to clear
an intersection. It is determined by dividing the width of an intersection by the pedestrian
walking speed. The solid "Don't Walk" sign typically coincides with the yellow vehicle
signal. The pedestrian timing is an important element to traffic signals since the green
time for cars might not be sufficient for pedestrians to cross an intersection.
® START CROSSING H FOR
WATCH FOR
TURNING CARS
A RAWN FONT START Ff L, CROSSING
. IF 5TARTED IF
PEDESTRIANS
11
11 C1aSSWALR d R1]T BE
STEADY !N CR
The standard for walking speeds at signalized intersections has changed from 4 feet per
second to 3.5 feet per second to more accurately reflect the average pedestrian walking
speed and aging population. The 2009 Federal MUTCD requires this reduction, although
the change has not yet been adopted in California.
A slower walking rate of 2.8 feet per second ( MUTCD 4E.10(CA)) is recommended in areas
with a high number of children, older adults, or disabled pedestrians crossing. Pre -timed
signals may warrant a longer walk phase in order to accommodate pedestrians. This
should ultimately be at the discretion of the local agency's traffic engineer.
Image Source: Dan Burden
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
Table A -17: Pedestrian Friendly Signal Phasing
Left- and right- turning vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk.
Different signal phasing sequences accommodate pedestrian crossing intervals differently:
• Protected left turns allow vehicles turning left an exclusive phase, ultimately
eliminating conflicts between pedestrians in the crosswalk; left- turning vehicles will
never cross at the same time as the pedestrian signal.
• Split phasing, allows each intersection approach to receive a dedicated phase
Pedestrian phases for parallel crosswalks will be activated at different times. This
phasing can reduce intersection capacity.
Permitted left turn phasing, where vehicles turning must yield to through traffic and
pedestrians, can reduce pedestrian delay and improve traffic operational efficiency by
minimizing the impact of pedestrian timing through allowing two pedestrian crossings
at once.
Other types of pedestrian signal phasing, including "scramble" phasing and leading
pedestrian intervals, are described in the "Pedestrian Friendly Signal Treatments" guideline
above.
Example of a Pedestrian Signal Head Mounted on a Signal Pole
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDixA: DESIGN GUIDELINES
In urban or downtown settings where pedestrian volumes are high, using permitted signal
phasing is generally preferred because it reduces pedestrian delay. In less urban settings,
providing protected left -turn phasing to eliminate pedestrian - vehicle conflicts is
recommended where feasible.
At intersections with heavy vehicle traffic volumes, providing convenient and comfortable
pedestrian crossings must be balanced with the need to maintain intersection capacity
and operations for automobiles. In these instances, it is important to incorporate
additional treatments to enhance pedestrian visibility, such as special striping or signage. If
a permitted left turn phase is used, the traffic and pedestrian signal should be located next
to each other on the corner pole (as depicted in the picture) to attract driver's attention.
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
APPENDixA.- DESIGN GUIDELINES
RESOURCE DOCUMENTS
Federal Standards and Resource Documents:
Guide to the Development of Pedestrian Facilities, American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, 2000
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Federal Highways Administration, December 2009.
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, 2004.
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). United States Access Board.
California Standards and Resource Documents:
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Caltrans, January 2010.
Highway Design Manual, California Department of Transportation.
Other Guidelines and Resource Documents:
TCRP Report 112 /NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Washington
D.C.: TCRP and NCHRP, 2006.
Pedestrian Technical Guideilnes: A Guide to Planning and Design for Local Agencies in Santa Clara City,
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, October 2003.
Routine Accommodations of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Area, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, Available:
http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/routine accommodations.htm, 2006.
Pedestrian Safety Resource Guide, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Pedestrian
Committee, Available:
http: / /www.mtc.ca.ciov/ planning/ bicyclespedestrians /PEDSAFETYRESOURCEGUIDE.doc/ 2004.
San Mateo County Sustainable Green Streets and Parking Lots Design Guidebook, San Mateo Countywide
Water Pollution Prevention Program, First Edition: January 2009, Available:
http: / /www.flowstobay.orci/ms sustainable guidebook.php
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
APPENDIX B: RANKED PROJECTS
APPENDIX B: RANKED PROJECTS
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Prioritized Projects
. • Location
Pedestrian Access to Key Closure of Serves Safety Feasibility (0-
Cost Demand Destinations
First Tier: Short-Term Projects
(51 00
McLellan Drive from
1 -2
Mission Road to El Camino
$154,961
30
20
10
10
5
75
Real
Chestnut Avenue and
11-1
$228,334
20
20
10
15
5
70
Antoinette Lane
Spruce Avenue between
12 -1
Lux Avenue and Maple
$15,312
30
15
0
15
5
65
Avenue
Grand Avenue and Airport
91
$19,517
30
10
0
15
10
65
Boulevard
Westborough Boulevard
13 -1
from Callan Boulevard to
$368,360
20
15
10
15
5
65
Gellert Boulevard
East Grand Avenue and
9-4
$13,750
30
15
0
15
1
61
Dubuque Avenue
Airport Boulevard and
10 -3
$500
30
15
0
10
5
60
Miller Avenue
E Grand Avenue between
14 -3
Grand Avenue and
$1,400
30
10
0
15
5
60
Dubuque Avenue
McLellan Drive and
1-1
$14,042
30
20
0
0
10
60
Mission Road
Pedestrian crossing under
9 -3
Hwy 101 along East Grand
$20,000
30
10
0
is
5
60
Avenue
Airport Boulevard at Pine
10-2
$137,232
30
15
0
10
5
60
Avenue
Linden Avenue from
10 -1
Grand Avenue to Aspen
$543,440
30
15
0
10
5
60
Avenue
Del Monte Avenue from
6 -1
Arroyo Drive to Alta Loma
$40,000
20
15
5
is
1
56
Drive
Mission Road from
2 -1
McLellan Drive to Holly
$197,923
30
20
0
5
1
56
Avenue
Grand Avenue between
9 -2
Airport Boulevard and
$275,850
30
15
0
10
1
56
Walnut Avenue
School Street and Olive
12-3
$20,000
30
10
0
10
5
55
Avenue
Oyster Point Boulevard
16 -1
from Eccles Avenue to
$35,695
10
15
10
is
5
55
driveway immediately east
School Street and Maple
12-2
$39,135
30
10
0
10
5
55
Avenue
Mission Road and BART
2-2
$50,000
30
20
0
0
5
55
entrance
Grand Avenue and Spruce
12-4
$204,000
30
10
0
10
5
55
Avenue
Holly from Mission Road to
2-5
$34,600
30
10
0
10
1
51
Crestwood Drive
Crestwood Drive from
2 -6
Holly Avenue to Evergreen
$10,000
30
10
0
10
1
51
Drive
El Camino Real and
1-3
$875
20
20
0
10
1
51
McLellan Drive
S Airport Boulevard and
15 -3
$91,558
20
5
is
10
1
51
Highway 101 off -ramp
Mission Road and Sequoia
d
2-3
$209,665
30
20
0
0
1
I
51
I
Avenue
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Prioritized Projects
Pedestrian Access to Key Closure of Serves Safety Feasibility (0-
. • Location
Cost
Demand D-
(20/15/10/5/0) r r
EI Camino Real from
8 -1 Hazelwood Drive to
$271,404
10 15 10 15 1 51
Ponderosa Road
1
Cypress Avenue from
10 -4
California Avenue to
$17,280
30
15
0
0
5
So
Grand Avenue
Hazelwood Drive from El
5 -5
Camino Real to Pinehurst
$24,140
20
10
5
10
5
So
Way
Produce Avenue and S
15-1
$45,012
30
0
0
10
10
So
Airport Boulevard
E Grand Avenue from
14 -2
Forbes Boulevard to
$66,850
20
10
0
10
10
So
Gateway Boulevard
Mission Road and Oak
11-4
$93,610
20
10
0
15
5
So
Avenue
Mission Road and Holly
2-4
$102,170
30
15
0
0
5
So
Avenue
El Camino Real from
5 -7
Brentwood Drive to Noor
$213,300
20
10
0
15
5
So
Avenue
Westborough Avenue and
11-2
$258,708
20
10
0
15
5
So
Camaritas Avenue
Hickey Boulevard and El
3 -4
$4,886
20
5
0
20
1
46
Camino Real
Chestnut Avenue from
4 -4
Miller Avenue to Sunset
$161,724
30
5
0
10
1
46
Avenue
El Camino Real and Kaiser
1-4
$577
20
10
0
5
10
45
entrance
S Airport Blvd btwn Airport
15-2
$6,816
30
0
0
10
5
45
Blvd and Gateway Blvd
Arroyo Drive between
1 -8
Camaritas Avenue and El
$54,400
20
10
0
10
5
45
Camino Real
Grand Avenue and Oak
42
$122340
30
0
0
10
5
45
Avenue/ Aldenglen Drive
Chestnut Avenue and
4 -3
$131,013
30
0
0
10
5
45
Miller Avenue
Mission Road and
11-3
$348,462
20
10
0
10
5
45
Chestnut Avenue
Evergreen Drive from
2 -7
Crestwood Drive to
$19,680
20
10
0
10
1
41
Mission Road
Victory Avenue and South
5 2
$503,981
20
0
0
20
1
41
Spruce Avenue
El Camino Real and Arroyo
11-5
$1,214 20 10 0 5 5 40
Drive
El Camino Real and
1 6
$2,068
20
10
0
5
5
40
Chestnut Avenue
South Linden Ave and
7-1
$7,320
20
0
is
0
5
40
Railroad Ave
Mission Road and Grand
4-1
$53,136
20
10
0
5
5
40
Avenue
Forbes Boulevard from
14 -1
Corporate Drive to E Grand
$62,575
20
10
0
0
10
40
Avenue
El Camino Real from
1-7
$229,680
20
10
0
5
5
40
Mission to Chestnut
South Linden Ave from
7 -3
South Canal St to Tanforan
$256,200
20
0
15
0
5
40
Ave
South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Prioritized Projects
. •
Location
Cost
Pedestrian
Demand
Access to Key
Destinations
Closure of
Serves Safety
Feasibility (0-
Hickey Boulevard at
3-1
$261,133
20
0
S
10
S
40
Junipero Serra Boulevard
Ponderosa Road from El
8 -2
Camino Real to Alhambra
$557,890
10
15
10
0
S
40
Road
South Spruce Avenue and
5 -4
$1,034
10
10
0
15
1
36
El Camino Real
Brentwood Dr from
5 -6
Pinehurst Way to El
$1,400
20
10
0
0
S
35
Camino Real
Gellert Boulevard from
13 -2
Westborough Boulevard
$3,834
20
0
0
10
S
35
to Marbella Drive
15 -4
S Airport Boulevard and
$33,727
20
0
0
10
S
35
Marco Way
El Camino Real and Costco
3 -5
$42,640
20
5
0
5
S
35
Warehouse driveway
3 -3
Hickey Boulevard and
$158,885
20
5
0
5
S
35
Hilton Avenue
South Spruce Avenue
5 -3
from Victory Avenue to El
$444,570
10
10
0
10
S
35
Camino Real
South Linden Avenue at
7 -2
North Canal Street and
$26,880
20
15
S
15
1
56
South Canal Street
16-2
Oyster Point Boulevard at
$3,278
10
15
0
0
S
30
Oster Point Park
Junipero Serra, south of
3-2
$640,000
20
0
0
0
S
25
Hickey Boulevard
Victory Avenue and South
5-1
$5,532
10
0
0
0
S
15
Maple Avenue
South Linden Avenue and
7 -4
San Mateo Avenue/
$62,579
10
0
0
0
S
15
Tanforan Avenue
APPENDIX C: DETAILED COST
ESTIMATES
APPENDIX C: DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
3 3
3
E E
3 E E 3
3 — a a a 3 V V
E - 0. E 0. E E
E E 3 E 0 E E E E E E
¢ ¢ = ¢ m ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢
S
s _ - s az
01 1
Ro
Y
> V
E >
3> 3
V
Z
Q
Y
> V
3 E
Y
22 22
E Y
22
Y
3
> 3
Y
V Z
_
E
m4
E
°
A
o
_
>
a
aE
E —
E
fz
3
E °
.E v .E v
.E °.
.�
E o
.V
o
'�
o
V
w V
w
¢`
:5 v
S
oo
w J J J- w w J J w J w w w J w J J w w J J w J w J
3
-
3
E
E_
E
_
- 3
E
-
3
E
E 3
_
v
-
E
¢
E E
¢ ¢
S
oo
w J J J- w w J J w J w w w J w J J w w J J w J w J
3
-
v
-
z
¢ �n > V
Q
¢ V
z V Q
Q �n �n V z
E
z rc
z E z
V ¢ > V n V n
Im
sm
�6
�° ¢>
E «
ao v ao
o 3 0
0 3 0 3
n V Q 2 n V > V Q u Z, V Q n V > V z rt V > V V Q 2 Q
- — Sm =1 ° a 3 >
o E V —x
u E «
ac o 0
i i i w V a �5 Q' 0 Q' l
E
Z
3
_
.E
3 c
v
a
E
v _ _
_
-
E
E
-
E -
3
E E
_
E E E E
E 3
0
Q
0 3 0 3
n V Q 2 n V > V Q u Z, V Q n V > V z rt V > V V Q 2 Q
- — Sm =1 ° a 3 >
o E V —x
u E «
ac o 0
i i i w V a �5 Q' 0 Q' l
3
E
r 3 3 r a a
E E E
a a a
x l tt x x x w w w x x x x cc Ic cc x tt x tt x cc
w
> > _ 3 - E E
_ _ 3
m 3 cm CM 3
o - 3 - - + a
o v v o M M
Im
3 3
> V V Q Q V u V i > V -
Cc C
_ ■ o
E - o E x =
c
E o - � = c a o o. � - = � ■ -o
CC C
oc
E w
EV H T
Y
x
3
E E
-
-
3 3 3 3 3
E E 1 E a E E E E
0
3
z - 3
« 3 «
- 3 3
3
3
3
E
E
E
3
3
3
3
3r
3
.n u
0 =
¢
E
p
d
E
p
o
¢
E
p
o
¢
a¢
> U d a¢ -1 U-
m Z
m
L_
a E a v E o
El
I
E
o
\
o
c o '-
�
U U
z
U
-
E
3
v v
3 _
y _ 3
- - - E °c E
E E E E 3 E
Q
3 _
v -
Q
3
_ 3
3 v
_
3
-
-
m
m
cm
x
a
m
cm
- a -
v
c
n V
�n V
�n V
Z
-
Z m 2 Q
V
> V
Q
2
Q
m Q
lm
Ic
E
-
a 3
_
Q_
oo
3
N
o
a
o Y
�� - "c `S,a
am° °a
� E
�a
v
-
-
-
t V
-
Qo
a
m 3
_ L
c
E
3 c
C E
a r
`v ij
C V Q
:-
\\ } \ \\ \ \ } v }
\ § / f /_, ! / §/
E
E E
c E E a E a a 3
E E E E E E E
S
01 .3 o .3 a - _ _ _ _ -
�
oo
oo
Ea Ea E
3
3 -
3 .z > a -
0 0 y o v o -
Y 3 c a Z3 -
3 v V E > >
- - Z3
jF
u < 3 u ¢> ¢>
Y Y Y Y Y Y
3 3 3
_ 3 m _
-
E 3 E E 3 E E E E 3
_
3 v
S
ol
Q
S
ol
Q
E v E E _
E
_ 42
42
m m 2 v Q F Q Z
Q
> V Q
V > V Q 2
E v E E _
E
_ 42
42
m m 2 v Q F Q Z
Q
> V Q
V > V Q 2
Y Y
3
3 =
E 3
a c
3 v
IJ
3
3
3
E
k
3
E
Q Q
3 _
3 r 3 ol
3
3 =
E 3
a c
_ a E Ol a 3 _
_ c _ E V = 3
E
a Q'
Y m Y T Y
v 3
a N a a« N a � N o
Z
Y Y Y Y Y Y
- 3 3
3 V —
— 3
a 3
a
3 3
3 >
> V a
Y E >
2 >
> V Q Q Q I V I
I V V
V rc rc 2 Q
Z
Y Y Y Y Y Y
W
S
E
E
3
E _
_ 42 _
E _
p >
> u
3 -
E
_
E
-
E E
E
E E
E 3
S
E _
_ 42 _
E _
p >
> u
3 -
_
_
3 =
3
v E a
m° a E