The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.6 Energy GHG_112309 3.6 Energy and Greenhouse Gases ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PHYSICAL SETTING Natural Gas and Electricity Pacific Gas and Electricity Company (PG&E) currently provides gas and electric services to South San Francisco homes and businesses and is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). With a few exceptions, PG&E's service area extends north to south from Eureka to Bakersfield, and east to west from the Sierra Nevada to the Pacific Ocean. The company controls 123,054 circuit miles of electric distribution lines and 18,610 circuit miles of interconnected transmission lines, as well as 40,123 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines and 6,136 miles of transportation pipelines. j PG&E obtains its energy supplies from power plants and natural gas fields in northern California and from energy purchased outside its service area, and delivers energy through high voltage transmission lines. PG&E purchases electrical power from a variety of sources, including PG&E owned, independent, and out-of-state generators. Natural gas comes from three major sources: California, Southwestern U.S., and Canada2 To promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of utility facilities, the CPUC has mandated specific clearance requirements between utility facilities and surrounding objects or construction activities. Between 2003 and 2006, demand for electricity in the City of South San Francisco has gradually increased approximately 11.4% from 447 million kWh to 798 million kWh. The demand for natural gas has increased more slowly, only 4.9% over the same period, from 28 million therms to 30 million therms. Table 3.6-1 provides a breakdown of annual energy use in South San Francisco by sector. The demand for energy in the city, particularly electricity, is slowly increasing as the number of residential and commercial users rises. 1 PG&E, Company Profile, available at http://lA'V\'V\'.pge.com/about/company/profile/,accessed October 10,2008. Ibid. Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.6-1: Energy Use in the City of South San Francisco, 2003-2006 % Change from 2003 2004 2005 2006 2003 to 2006 Elearicity (kWh) Residential 95,040,951 98,868,932 100,353,753 101,457,169 6.8% Commercial! Industrial 352,325,909 382,191,538 386,359,393 396,964,787 12.7% Total 447,366,860 481,060,470 486,713,146 498,421,956 11.4% Natural Gas (therms) Residential 9,045,046 9,175,597 9,007,377 9,146,915 1.1% Commercial! Industrial 19,751,705 20,489,184 20, I 12,050 21,072,421 6.7% Total 28,796,751 29,664,781 29,119,427 30,219,336 4.9% Source: /CLE// City of South San Francisco, 2009. Transportation Energy California's demand for gasoline and diesel has nearly doubled over the last 20 years. In 2007, the State consumed almost 15.7 billion gallons of gasoline and 3.1 billion gallons of diesel fuel.' Energy for transportation comprised approximately 39% of all energy that the State consumed in 20054 The California Energy Commission (CEC) has predicted that on-road gasoline use in California will increase steadily from 2005 levels (15.9 billion gallons) to 2010 (between 16.6 billion and 17.5 billion gallons.) This represents an increase ranging from 3.8% to 9.8%. CEC further estimates that that total gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel demand will increase 13.5% to 42.8% by 2030, to between 26.3 billion and 33.1 billion gallons per year.5 In the Bay Area, as in most other places in the United States, automobiles and commercial vehicles (composed of small, medium, and large trucks) are the largest energy consumers in the transportation sector. Automobiles and commercial vehicles are generally fueled by diesel or gasoline. Other transit modes in the Bay Area include ferries, buses, light rail (San Francisco MUNI and SCVTA rail cars), BART, and commuter rail (Caltrain, Amtrak, and ACE). These transit modes also consume gasoline, diesel, and electricity. Global Climate Change Global climate change (GCC) is currently one of the most important and widely debated scientific, economic, and political issues in the United States. The anticipated impacts of climate change on California range from water shortages to inundation from sea level rise. 3 California Energy Commission (CEC). California's Major Sources of Energy. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/ overview/ energy _sources.html, 2008. '1 US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) State Energy Data 2005: Consumption, http://lA'V\'V\'.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/html/pdf/rank_use.pdf, accessed September 16,2008. California Energy Commission (CEC). Transportation Energy Forecasts for the 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report, available at http://lA'V\'V\'.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-600- 2007 -009/CEC-600- 2007 -009-SF .PDF, September, 2007. 3.6-2 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures GCC refers to a change in the average air temperature that may be measured by wind patterns, storms, precipitation, and temperature. The baseline by which these changes are measured originates in historical records identifying temperature changes that have occurred in the distant past, such as during previous ice ages. Over the last 10,000 years, the rate of temperature change has typically been incremental, with warming and cooling occurring over the course of thousands of years. During this period, the earth has experienced incremental warming as glaciers retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed an unprecedented increase in the rate of warming over the past 150 years, roughly coinciding with the global industrial revolution. GCC is now a widely accepted phenomenon. While scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere and that increasing concentrations of GHGs (defined below) will change the planet's climate, they are less certain about how much the climate will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact global, or even regional, effects will be. Nonetheless, the world's leading climate scientists-the IPCC'-have reached consensus that GCC is "very likely" caused by humans, and that hotter temperatures and rising sea levels will continue for centuries no matter how much humans control their future emissions. In particular, human influences have: . very likely contributed to sea level rise and increased storm surge during the latter half of the 20th century; . likely contributed to changes in wind patterns, affecting extra - tropical storm tracks and temperature patterns; . likely increased temperatures of extreme hot nights, cold nights and cold days; . more likely than not increased risk of heat waves, area affected by drought since the 1970s, and frequency of heavy precipitation events.' The IPCC predicts that global mean temperature increase from 1990-2100 could range from 2.0 to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit. They project a sea level rise of seven to 23 inches by the end of the century, with a greater rise possible depending on the rate of polar ice sheet melting. According to the California Climate Action Team, accelerating GCC has the potential to cause a number of adverse impacts in California, including but not limited to: a shrinking Sierra snowpack that would threaten the state's water supply; public health threats caused by higher temperatures and more smog; damage to agriculture and forests due to reduced water storage capacity, rising temperatures, increasing salt water intrusion, flooding, and pest infestations; () The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the \-Vodd Meteoro- logical Organization and by the United Nations Environment Programme. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, ob- jective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide re- levant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts, and op- tions for adaptation and mitigation. 7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Summary for Policymakers," Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, November 2007. 3.6-3 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures critical habitat modification and destruction; eroding coastlines; increased wildfire risk; and increased electricity demand8 While all of these impacts may be felt to some extent in the Bay Area, of particular concern are sea level rise and increased storm surge with the resulting potential for increased coastal erosion, higher storm-surge flooding, more extensive coastal inundation, changes in surface water quality and groundwater characteristics, loss of property and coastal habitats, increased flood risk and potential loss of life, loss of nonmonetary cultural resources and values, impacts on agriculture and aquaculture through decline in soil and water quality, and loss of tourism, recreation, and transportation functions. Also of concern is the potential for GCC to increase fire threat at the urban-wildland interface, and the potential for an imbalance between electricity supply and demand. Greenhouse Gases Gases that trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs). These gases playa critical role in determining the Earth's surface temperature. Part of the solar radiation that enters Earth's atmosphere from space is absorbed by the Earth's surface. The Earth reflects this radiation back toward space, but GHGs absorb some of the radiation. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is retained, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. Without natural GHGs, the Earth's surface would be about 610F cooler9 This phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. However, many scientists believe that emissions from human activities-such as electricity generation, vehicle emissions, and even farming and forestry practices-have elevated the concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere beyond naturally-occurring concentrations, contributing to the larger process of GCc. The six primary GHGs are: . Carbon Dioxide (C02), emitted when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and wood and wood products are burned; . Methane (CH4), produced through the anaerobic decomposition of waste in landfills, animal digestion, decomposition of animal wastes, production and distribution of nat- ural gas and petroleum, coal production, and incomplete fossil fuel combustion; . Nitrous oxide (N20), typically generated as a result of soil cultivation practices, partic- ularly the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning; . Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), primarily used as refrigerants; . Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), originally introduced as alternatives to ozone depleting sub- stances and typically emitted as by-products of industrial and manufacturing processes; . Sulfur hexafluoride (SF,), primarily used in electrical transmission and distribution. ~ California Climate Action Team. Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature, April 2006. 9 Ibid. 3.6-4 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures Though there are other gases that can contribute to global warming,!o these six are identified explicitly in California legislation and litigation as being of primary concern. GHGs have varying potentials to trap heat in the atmosphere, known as global warming potential (GWP), and atmospheric lifetimes. GWP ranges from one (carbon dioxide) to 23,900 (sulfur hexafluoride). GHG emissions with a higher GWP have a greater global warming effect on a molecule-by-molecule basis. For example, one ton of CH, has the same contribution to the greenhouse effect as approximately 21 tons of CO2. jj GWP is alternatively described as "carbon dioxide equivalents", or C02e. The parameter "atmospheric lifetime" describes how long it takes to restore the system to equilibrium following an increase in the concentration of a GHG in the atmosphere. Atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs range from tens to thousands of years. California and Bay Area GHG Emissions GHG emissions contributing to GCC are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors12 The State of California alone produces about 2% of the entire world's GHG emissions, with major emitting sources here including fossil fuel consumption from transportation (41%), industry (23%), electricity production (20%), and agricultural and forestry (8%). The State of California is looking at options and opportunities for drastically reducing GHG emissions with the hope of thereby delaying, mitigating, or preventing at least some of the anticipated impacts of GCC on California communities. In 2008, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) completed a baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the year 2007. According to that inventory, 102 million metric tons of C02e were emitted in the Bay Area that year.13 Table 3.6-2 shows the emissions breakdown by pollutant. 10 Diesel particulate matter, which is also referred to as black carbon, is a strong absorber of solar radiation; scientists have known for many years that when black carbon particles combine with dust and chemicals in air they become more efficient in absorbing solar radiation, and black carbon mixtures may be the second biggest contributor to global warming. See California Air Resources Board, Health Effects of Diesel Particulate Matter pages 4-5, available at http://lA'V\'V\'.arb.ca.gov/research/diesel/dpm_drafC3-01-06.pdf [as of October 14, 2008]. 11 California Climate Action Registry, General Reporting Protocol Version 2.2, 2006. 12 California Energy Commission (CEC). California's Major Sources of Energy. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/ overview/ energy _sources.html, 2008. 13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, De- cember 2008. 3.6-5 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.6-2: 2007 Bay Area CO,e Emissions by Pollutant CO,e (Million Metric Pollutant Percentage Tons/Year) Carbon Dioxide 91.4 93.7 M.~~ M U Nitrous Oxide 2.2 2.3 HFC, PFC, SF6 3.9 4.0 Total 100 102.6 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. The Bay Area's transportation sector contributes 40% of the C02e GHG emissions, followed by industrial and commercial sources (34%), electricity and co-generation (15%), residential fuel usage (7%), off-road equipment (3%), and agriculture and farming (1 %). Bay Area emissions by sector are illustrated in Chart 3.6-1. Absent policy changes, Bay Area GHG emissions are expected to grow at a rate of 1.4% a year due to population growth and economic expansion. l' Economic activity variations and the fraction of electric power generation in the region will cause year-to-year fluctuations in the emissions trends. Chart 3.6-2 shows the emission trends by major sources for the period of 1990 to 2029. Chart 3.6-1: Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector, as a Percent of Total Emissions Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. 1-1 Ibid. 3.6-6 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures Chart 3.6-2: Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends by Sector 160 '" c 140 0 'ij 'E w 120 - c .. ~ 100 'S oE' ... 80 8 '" c ~ 60 .!O! ~ - .. 40 :!: c ~ 20 :!E o 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 2008. Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South San Francisco In 2005, the City of South San Francisco emitted approximately 526,766 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (C02e). As shown in Table 3.6-3, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to GHG emissions, responsible for 46% of all emissions, with emissions from cars traveling on State highways within the city almost twice as much as emissions from cars traveling on city roads. This reflects the regional nature of trip making in South San Francisco and through-traffic through the city. The commercial/industrial sector accounts for approximately 35% of emissions, while the residential sector accounts for 13% of total emissions. Emissions from natural gas usage are higher than emissions from electricity usage for both the residential and commercial sectors. The waste sector accounts for 6% of total emISSIOns. 3.6-7 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures Table 3.6-3: 2005 South San Francisco Community Emissions 2005 GHG Emissions (C02e) Residential Electricity Natural Gas 70,059 22,258 47,801 185,240 80,723 104,517 240,257 87,406 152,851 31,210 31,210 GHG Emissions (% C02e) 13% Sectorl 4% 9% Commercial/l ndustrial Electricity Natural Gas Transportation City Roads (Non-Highway) State Highways Waste2 Solid Waste 35% 15% 20% 46% 17% 29% 6% 6% Total 526,766 100% GHG Emissions Per Capita 8.5 I. Emission Factors and Calculation Methods: ICLEI, Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory Methodology for Bay Area Governments, prepared as part of the BMQMD-ICLEI Work- shop, December 6, 2007. 2. EPA WARM Model was used. Model accessed: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calcu latorslWarm_Fotm.html, May 2009. Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2009; ABAG Projections 2007; City of South San Francisco/ /CLE/, 2009. REGULATORY SETTING Federal Regulations Global Change Research Act (1990) (15 United States Code Sections 2921 et seq.) In 1990, Congress passed and the President signed Public Law 101-606, the Global Change Research Act. The purpose of the legislation was: "...to require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions towards international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes." To that end, the Global Change Research Information Office (GCRIO) was established in 1991 (it began formal operation in 1993) to serve as a clearinghouse of information. The Act requires a report to Congress every four years on the environmental, economic, health and safety consequences of climate change; however, the first and only one of these reports to-date, the National Assessment on Climate Change, was not published until 2000. In February 2004, operational responsibility for GCRIO shifted to the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the Act, 3.6-8 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures consumers and businesses can attain federal tax credits for purchasing fuel-efficient appliances and products. Because driving fuel-efficient vehicles and installing energy-efficient appliances can provide many benefits, such as lower energy bills, increased indoor comfort, and reduced air pollution, businesses are eligible for tax credits for buying hybrid vehicles, building energy efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are given for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment. Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) (549 U.S. 497) In this U.S. Supreme Court case, 12 states, three cities, and 13 environmental groups filed suit that the US. Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) should be required to regulate carbon dioxide and other GHGs as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act. In April 2007, the US. Supreme Court found that the EP A has a statutory authority to formulate standards and regulations to address GHG emissions, which it historically has not done. In April 2009, EP A released an Endangerment Finding that GHGs significantly contribute to air pollution, triggering the process under the Clean Air Act for potentially developing National Ambient Air Quality Standards for GHGs and establishing emissions standards for stationary and mobile sources. Federal Fuel Efficiency Standards In December 2007, President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140, at 42 USC Section 7545(0) (2)). This energy bill increased the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. It also tightened the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards that regulate the average fuel economy in the vehicles produced by each major automaker, requiring that these standards be increased such that, by 2020, the new cars and light trucks sold each year deliver a combined fleet average of 35 miles per gallon. In mid-May 2009, President Barack Obama ordered vehicle makers to increase mileage standards to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than required by law. The nationwide fuel-economy standards would be phased in beginning in 2012. Rules are to be finalized by the end of March 2010. Carmakers had wanted a national standard, saying that meeting a quilt of state standards would be too difficult. The EP A in June 2009 approved California's rules to regulate GHG emissions from cars and light trucks, putting the standards into effect immediately for much of the nation and reversing a Bush administration policy. California had urged the EPA to allow the state's rules to go into effect immediately, arguing that the lengthy federal rulemaking process would delay action that could begin immediately. California's rules apply beginning with the sale of 2009 model year cars, and extend to much of the nation, since 13 other states and the District of Columbia have adopted the California standard. In 2012, companies may comply with the national standard in place of the state standard. 3.6-9 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures State Regulations California Public Utilities Commission As a public utility, PG&E is under the jurisdiction of the CPUC. PG&E provides service in accordance within the policies and extensions rules on file with the CPuc. Senate Bill 1771 Sher (Chapter 1018, Statutes of2000) SB 1771 requires the CEC to prepare an inventory of the state's GHG emissions, to study data on GCc, and to provide government agencies and businesses with information on the costs and methods for reducing GHG emissions. It also established the California Climate Action Registry to serve as a certifying agency for companies and local governments to quantify and register their GHG emissions for possible future trading systems. State of California Integrated Energy Policy (2002) The CEC adopts and transmits to the Governor and Legislature a report of findings biannually. In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389. The legislation reconstituted the state's responsibility to develop an integrated energy plan for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, or Energy Report. At a Special Business Meeting on November 12, 2003, the CEC adopted the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy. The 2004 Update to the Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 3, 2004. The 2005 Integrated Energy Policy was adopted by the Energy Commission on November 21,2005. The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicle and addressing their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access. Assembly Bill 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of2002) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sections 42823 and 43018.5) Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (Pavley) amended California Health & Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5 requiring the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and adopt, by January 1, 2005, regulations that achieve maximum feasible reduction of GHGs emitted by passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California. The regulations apply to motor vehicles manufactured in the 2009 or later model year. In September 2004, pursuant to AB 1493, the ARB approved regulations to reduce GHG emissions from new motor vehicles. Under the regulation, one manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for passenger cars and the lightest trucks, and a separate manufacturer fleet average emission standard is established for heavier trucks. The regulation took effect on January 1, 2006 and set near-term emission standards, phased in from 2009 through 2012, and mid-term emission standards, phased in from 2013 through 2016 (referred to as the Pavley Phase 1 rules). The ARB intends to extend the existing requirements to obtain 3.6-10 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures further reductions in the 2017 to 2020 timeframe (referred to as Pavley Phase 2 ruJes). The ARB has included both Pavley 1 and 2 rules in its Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan (October 2008), pursuant to the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), which outlines the State's strategy to achieve 2020 GHG emission reductions. After initially refusing to grant a waiver, on June 30, 2009 the EP A granted a waiver that allows California to implement these standards. The ARB calculates that in calendar year 2016, the Pavley Phase 1 ruJes will reduce California's GHG emissions by 16.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, and by 2020, Pavley Phase 2 would reduce emissions by 31.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. Further, the AB 1493 new vehicle requirements would cumulatively produce 45% more GHG reductions by 2020 compared to the federal CAFE standard in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (above) 15 Without Pavley rules, both state and regional CO2 emissions would increase steadily between now and 2035 as VMT increases with population growth; with Pavley rules, CO2 emissions are projected to decrease between now and 2035. This decrease in regional 2035 CO2 emissions compared to current levels is in large part a result of technological changes expected to reduce CO2 emissions per VMT. The regulations would reduce climate change emissions from the light duty passenger vehicle fleet by 12.6% statewide and 22.9% in the Bay Area in the 2035 calendar year compared to 2006. Senate Bill 1078 Sher (Chapter 516, Statutes of2002) Established a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), requiring electricity providers to increase purchases of renewable energy resources by 1 % per year until they have attained a portfolio of 20% renewable resources by 2010. Executive Order S-20-04 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, July 2004) Executive Order S-20-04, signed on July 27, 2004, requires that the State commit to aggressive action to reduce state building electricity use, and more specifically, that State agencies, departments and other entities take measures to reduce energy use by 20% by 2015. In addition, the Order requires that the CEC increase energy efficiency standards by 20% by 2015, compared to the 2003 Titles 20 and 24 standards. Executive Order S-3-05 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, June 2005) Executive Order S-3-05, signed on June 1, 2005, recognizes California's vulnerability to climate change, noting that increasing temperatures could potentially reduce snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, which is a primary source of the State's water supply. Additionally, according to this Order, climate change could influence human health, coastal habitats, microclimates, and agricultural yield. The Order set the GHG reduction targets for California: by 2010, reduce 15 California Air Resources Board (ARB). Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Reductions for the United States and Canada Under ARB GHG Regulations and Proposed Federal 2011-2015 Model Year Fuel Economy Standards, Addendum to Feb- ruary 25 Technical Assessment, 2008. 3.6-11 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020 reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050 reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (2005) Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations is the California Building Code, governing all aspects of building construction. Included in Part 6 of the Code are standards mandating energy efficiency measures in new construction. Since its establishment in 1977, the building efficiency standards (along with standards for energy efficiency in appliances) have contributed to a reduction in electricity and natural gas costs in California. The standards are updated every three years to allow new energy efficiency technologies to be considered. The latest update to Title 24 standards became effective on October 1, 2005. The standards regulate energy consumed in buildings for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Title 24 is implemented through the local plan check and permit process. California Global Warming Solutions Act of2006 (AB 32) (Calif. Health & Safety Code Sec- tions 38500 et seq.) In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act (Health and Safety Code Section 38500 et. seq.). The Act requires the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This change, which is estimated to be a 30% reduction from business as usual emission levels projected for 2020, will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. The Act also directs the ARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources and address GHG emissions from vehicles. The ARB has stated that the regulatory requirements for stationary sources will be first applied to electricity power generation and utilities, petrochemical refining, cement manufacturing, and industrial/commercial combustion. The second group of target industries will include oil and gas production/distribution, transportation, landfills and other GHG-intensive industrial processes. The ARB developed a Climate Change Scoping Plan, finalized in December 2008, outlining the State's strategy to achieve 2020 greenhouse gas emission limits. The Plan proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions. Senate Bill 1368 (Chapter 598, Statutes of2006) (Calif. Public Utilities Code Sections 8340 et seq.) Senate Bill (SB) 1368 required the CPUC to establish a GHG emissions performance standard for "baseload" generation from investor-owned utilities by February 1, 2007. The CEC was required to establish a similar standard for local publicly-owned utilities by June 30, 2007. The legislation further required that all electricity provided to California, including imported electricity, must be generated from plants that meet or exceed the standards set by the CPUC and the CEC. In January 2007, the CPUC adopted an interim performance standard for new long-term commitments (1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour), and in May 2007, the CEC approved reguJations that match the CPUC standard. Executive Order S-01-07 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, January 2007) In January 2007, a Low-Carbon Fuel Standard was established by Executive Order S-01-07. The Order calls for a statewide goal to be established to reduce the carbon intensity of California's 3.6-12 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures transportation fuels by at least 10% by 2020 ("2020 Target"), and that a Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for transportation fuels be established for California. Further, it directs the ARB to determine if an LCFS can be adopted as a discrete early action measure pursuant to AB 32, and if so, consider the adoption of a LCFS on the list of early action measures required to be identified by June 30, 2007, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 38560.5. The LCFS applies to all refiners, blenders, producers or importers ("Providers") of transportation fuels in California, will be measured on a full fuels cycle basis, and may be met through market-based methods by which Providers exceeding the performance required by a LCFS shall receive credits that may be applied to future obligations of traded to Providers not meeting the LCFS. In June 2007, the ARB approved the LCFS as a Discrete Early Action item under AB 32. It is expected that the regulatory process at the ARB to implement the new standard will be completed no later than December 2008. Senate Bill 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes of2007) (Calif. Public Resources Code Sections 21083.5 and 21097) Senate Bill (SB) 97 directs the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the California Resources Agency guidelines for feasible mitigation of GHG emissions or the effects of GHG emissions, by July 1, 2009. The Resources Agency is required to certify and adopt amendments to the Guidelines implementing the CEQA Guidelines on or before January 1, 2010. These new CEQA Guidelines will provide regulatory guidance on the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. In the interim, the OPR offered informal guidance regarding steps lead agencies should take to address climate change in their CEQA documents.16 Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Statutes of2008) On September 30, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill (SB) 375 into law. This legislation links transportation and land use planning with the CEQA process to help achieve the GHG emission reduction targets set by AB 32. Regional transportation planning agencies are required to include a sustainable community strategy (SCS) in regional transportation plans. The SCS must contain a planned growth scenario that is integrated with the transportation network and policies in such a way that it is feasible to achieve AB 32 goals on a regional level. SB 375 also identifies new CEQA exemptions and stream lining for projects that are consistent with the SCS and qualify as Transportation Priority Projects (TPP). TPPs must meet three requirements: 1) contain at least 50% residential use; commercial use must have floor area ratio (FAR) of not less than 0.75; 2) have a minimum net density of 20 units per acre; and 3) be located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high quality transit corridor included in the regional transportation plan. Executive Order S-14-08 (Gov. Schwarzenegger, November 2008) Executive Order S-14-04, signed on November 17, 2008, mandates a RPS of33% by 2020. II) Governor's Office of Planning and Research. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review Technical Advisory, June 19,2008. 3.6-13 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures Regional Coordination In the Bay Area, the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) coordinates the regional planning efforts of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the BAAQMD, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). In fall 2006, the JPC commenced a six-month program to study the issue of climate change and to recommend an initial set of actions to be pursued jointly by the four regional agencies. The study recommends that the regional agencies build their Joint Climate Protection Strategy in service of this key goal: To be a model for California, the nation and the world. It then organizes initial actions by six strategy elements: establish priorities, increase public awareness and motivate action, provide assistance, reduce unnecessary driving, prepare to adapt, and break old habits17 As part of the proposed investments in the Transportation 2035 Plan, the region plans to invest $400 million towards a 5-year Transportation Climate Action Campaign aimed at smart traveling and smart driving in an effort to reduce GHG emissions from the transportation sector. This action campaign, to be implemented by the four regional agencies, focuses on outreach/education, Safe Routes to Schools, Safe Routes to Transit, transit priority measures (TPMs) for local bus transit, and grants/incentive programs. Local Regulations City of South San Francisco The City of South San Francisco does not currently have any adopted policies or plans regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City participated in a training workshop held by BAAQMD and ICLEI on community GHG emission inventories in December 2007 to begin the process of conducting a government and community-wide GHG emissions baseline inventory. South San Francisco is currently in the process of completing the baseline inventory. Transportation Demand Management Ordinance (Chapter 20.120 of the Municipal Code) South San Francisco's current Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance states that for non-residential sites generating more than 100 daily trips, a minimum of 28% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use. For projects that seek a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus in accordance with the General Plan, 30% to 45% of all trips must be made through alternative mode use, depending on the type of development and requested FAR. IMPACT ANALYSIS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The significance criteria for this analysis were developed from criteria presented in the CEQA Guidelines and based on Preliminary Draft CEQA Guidelines Amendments for GHG 17 Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air quality Management District, Bay Conservation and Development Commission, Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Joint Policy Committee memo regarding "Bay Area Regional Agency Climate Protection Program - Consolidated Recommendations," available at http://lA'V\'V\'.abag.ca.gov/jointpolicy/jpcagenda_packages.htm, accessed May 4,2007. 3.6-14 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures emissions, developed by OPR for public workshop and approval in January 2009, as updated and announced on April 13, 200918 A significant impact would occur with full implementation of the proposed Amendment if it would do one or more of the following: . Result in a substantial increase in per capita energy consumption in the city, compared to existing conditions; . Result in the need for additional energy infrastructure or facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; . On a cumulative basis, increase per capita GHG emissions, either directly or indirect- I 19 y; or . Conflict with goals, objectives, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of re- ducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS Application of Regulatory Framework ARB has indicated that it will be able to enforce AB 1493, and recently advised MTC, the regional transportation planning agency for the Bay Area, to factor in reductions in CO2 emissions that would result from the regulation in its most recent DEIR. Therefore, MTC's most recent EIR included transportation modeling that estimated average fuel efficiency for the Bay Area for future years considering Pavley Rules and improvements in technology. Given the recent waiver by the EP A that allows California to implement these standards, it is even more likely that they will be successfully implemented. Therefore, this EIR takes a similar approach and includes Pavley Phases 1 and 2 in the GHG and energy analyses. This EIR uses fuel efficiency estimates for No Pavley, Pavley Phase 1, and Pavley Phase 2 as developed by MTC as l~ OPR submitted to the Secretary for Natural Resources its proposed amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions, as required by SB 97. The Natural Resources Agency will conduct formal rulemaking in 2009, prior to certifying and adopting the amendments, as required by Senate Bill 97. 19 The selection of a threshold that considers any increase in greenhouse gas emissions is based, in part, on guidance is- sued by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) in the white paper entided CEQA and Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environ- mental Quality Act, published in January 2008. This white paper discusses evaluating and addressing greenhouse gas emissions under CEQA in order to provide a common platform of information and tools to support local govern- ments. The CAPCOA white paper discusses three basic paths lead agencies could take when contemplating CEQA thresholds of significance for GHG emissions (CAPCOA, 2008): 1. A "no threshold" approach, wherein the lead agency determines there are sufficient reasons to not specify a universal threshold for GHG emissions, and instead requires analysis on a project-by-project basis; 2. A "zero emissions" threshold, wherein the leady agency finds that any increase in GHG emissions is potentially significant under CEQA and therefore all projects under the lead agency must quantify and mitigate GHG emissions regardless of the size of the project, or prepare EIRs to disclose the unmitigable signifi- cant impact; or 3. A "nonzero" threshold, wherein the lead agency decides that there are certain GHG emission sources that are so small they will not contribute substantially to the global GHG problem, and sets thresholds of significance, or a de minimis value for cumulative impact. 3.6-15 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures a means of incorporating State regulations into this analysis.'" The GHG analysis also considers the implementation of SB 107833% Renewables Portfolio and Executive Order S-01-07 Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Forecasts for transportation energy use and emissions are based on annual rate of increase of peak hour VMT between 2005 and 2030, about 1.3% for both the proposed Amendment and for the No Project. Growth rates for transportation were based on 2030 projections because the current C/CAG model projects traffic to year 2030. Peak hour VMT data was provided by DKS Associates and the increase in VMT to 2020 was interpolated. 2005 Baseline emissions for this analysis are based on the analysis by ICLEI and the City of South San Francisco's baseline emissions inventory. Energy The energy analysis is based on information provided by PG&E, DKS, the existing General Plan, the proposed Amendment, and applicable regulations and guidelines. The analysis assumes that electricity and natural gas use increases at the same rate as population, while transportation energy use is based on annual VMT. Greenhouse Gases The climate change analysis is provided in response to the most recent recommendations and guidance materials from the OPR, ARB, the Attorney General, and other responsible agencies." Forecast emissions for residential, commercial/ industrial, and waste are based on annual growth rate of population between 2005 and 2020, 0.8% with the proposed Amendment, and 0.6% for the No Project. The GHG analysis focuses on C02, CH" and N20 emissions. These are the gases that make up the overwhelming majority of GHGs. These gases are described in terms of C02e, in order to combine these gases and more easily compare total emissions. The analysis uses projected VMT, baseline calculations developed by ICLEI and the City of South San Francisco, and State regulations to calculate C02e for South San Francisco. Comparison with the No Project Alternative The impact analysis, for purposes of determining the significance of impacts in a cumulative context, will include a comparison of the proposed Amendment with the No Project Alternative in addition to a comparison with existing conditions as of 2005. This comparison 20 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Draft Environmental Impact Report for Transportation 2035 Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area, December 2008. 21 OPR issued a Technical Advisory entitled CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California EllviromrJeIltal Quality Act (CEQA) Review (June 19, 2008). OPR's recommended approach is for each CEQA lead agency needs to develop its own approach to performing a climate change analysis for projects that generate GHG emissions. 3.6-16 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures provides a meaningfuJ perspective on the potential impacts and benefits of the proposed Amendment. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Energy Energy use under the proposed Amendment would be moderated by the application of State regulations, specifically AB 1493: Pavley. Energy use under the proposed Amendment, if Pavley 1 and 2 are applied, will decrease when compared to existing conditions and will be slightly higher than the No Project Alternative, due to the increase in population. However, per capita energy use under the proposed Amendment is expected to decrease when compared to both the existing condition and No Project Alternative. This results in a less than significant impact for energy use. In addition, because energy use for electricity and natural gas are expected to increase at the same rate as the population, the incremental population difference between the No Project and proposed Amendment (3.4%) is not expected to be substantial enough to require new energy facilities that could potentially have a negative impact on the environment. Greenhouse Gases The emissions reductions as a result of State programs will result in 2020 emission levels that are below existing condition levels under both the No Project and the proposed Amendment. While total emissions are slightly lower in the No Project Alternative than under the proposed Amendment, per capita emissions are lower with the proposed Amendment, indicating a more efficient accommodation of growth in the proposed Amendment. Due to emission reductions that would result from State regulations and the implementation of the proposed Amendment, emissions in 2020 would not exceed existing levels. In addition, per capita emissions are lower with the proposed Amendment when compared to existing conditions and the No Project condition. While regional GHG emissions are on a whole are a significant cumulative impact, these comparisons indicate that the proposed Amendment does not make a considerable contribution to the impact. The City of South San Francisco currently does not have an adopted policy or plan regarding the reduction of GHG emissions, though the City is currently in the process of establishing a baseline government emissions inventory and is planning a community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. The proposed Amendment does not conflict with any of the actions in the Scoping Plan developed by ARB under AB 32, resulting in a less than significant impact in regard to existing GHG plans, policies and regulations. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 3.6-1 New development under the proposed Amendment may increase per capita energy use. (Less than Significant) Analysis of transportation energy use considers projected VMT resulting from the proposed Amendment as a metric for determining transportation energy demand at buildout. Adding 8,110 new residents between 2005 and 2020 would likely require additional energy for 3.6-17 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures transportation uses within the City of South San Francisco. DKS estimated a 1.3% annual increase in peak hour VMT. Building on baseline daily VMT provided by ICLEI and the City of San Francisco for 2005, it is estimated that annual VMT will increase from 491,093,000 in 2005 to 597,911,000 in 2020 under the proposed Amendment, a 22% increase in VMT. As shown in Table 3.6-4, annual fuel consumption under the proposed Amendment will decline if Pavley Phase 1 and 2 are applied. Transportation BTUs decline by 22%, and per capita BTUs decline by 31 % when compared to existing conditions. It should be noted, however, that in the case where Pavley is not applied, daily BTUs would increase by 17% and per capita BTUs would increase by 3.5%. Table 3.6-4: Transportation Energy Use in BTUs Per Annual CaPita Fuel BTU BTU Efficiency Annual Change Change (miles per Annual Fuel BTUs from Per CaPita from Annual VMT gallon) Consumption (Billions) 2005 BTU 2005 Existing (2005) Conditions 491,093,265 17.5 28,062,472 3,507.81 56,852,659 Project No Pavley 597,911,370 18.2 32,852,273 4, I 06.53 17.1% 58,824,440 3.5% Pavley I 597,911,370 24.6 24,305,340 3,038.17 -13.4% 43,520,520 -23.5% Pavley I and /I 597,911,370 27.3 21,90 I ,515 2,737.69 -22.0% 39,216,293 -31.0% No Project No Pavley 597,540,157 18.2 32,83 1,877 4, I 03.98 17.0% 60,889,979 7.1% Pavley I 597,540,157 24.6 24,290,250 3,036.28 -13.4% 45,048,684 -20.8% Pavley I and /I 597,540,157 27.3 21,887,918 2,735.99 -22.0% 40,593,3 19 -28.6% Source: Oyett & Bhatia, 2009; OKS, 2009, MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009. The analysis of electricity and natural gas consumption uses a business as usual methodology to project future demand, with electricity and natural gas use increasing at the same rate as the population. The analysis does not account for improvements in energy efficiency, which are difficult to quantify; therefore, these results may be considered a worst case scenario for electricity and natural gas use. For this analysis, the annual growth rate was calculated based on population estimates for 2005 and for 2020 under the proposed Amendment, which reflects a 0.87% annual growth rate. Since energy is projected to grow at the same rate as the population, per capita energy use remains constant for electricity and natural gas. Therefore, development considered under the proposed Amendment could potentially increase the total demand for gas and electrical services. Despite the business as usual approach in this analysis, it is expected that energy efficiency will improve in the future, for instance through the application of California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24, Part 6), which outlines improved site planning and building design as well as energy conservation measures. Table 3.6-5 shows electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy use in annual BTUs and per capita BTUs. Annual BTUs decrease when compared to the existing condition for both the proposed Amendment and the No Project setting, largely due to the application of State 3.6-18 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures regulations. However, because the proposed Amendment accommodates a larger popuJation without a commensurate increase in annual VMT, the proposed Amendment is expected to result in fewer BTU per capita when compared to both the existing condition and No Project. Transportationl Table 3.6-5: Annual BTU use and BTU per Capita Projections 2005 Annual BTUs 2020 No Projea Annual BTUs (billions) (billions) 1,661 1,814 2,912 3,181 3,508 2,736 8,080 7,731 0.131 0.115 Electricity Natural Gas 2020 proposed Amendment Annual BTUs (billion) 1,879 3,295 2,738 7,911 0.113 Total BTU Per Capita I. Transportation BTU estimates assume Pavley I and 2 as shown in Table 3.6-4. Source: Oyett & Bhatia, 2009; OKS, 2009, MTC, 2008, ICLEI/ City of South San Francisco, 2009. This analysis concludes that, when statewide regulations are accounted for, the proposed Amendment's contributions to inefficient energy use are less than significant. Mitigation Measures None required. Impact 3.6-2 New development under the proposed Amendment, along with regional population and employment growth, may require the construction of additional energy infrastructure facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant) To meet potential energy demand as a result of build out under the proposed Amendment and regional population and employment growth, PG&E could be required to upgrade its existing infrastructure and construct new electrical substations as necessary. The company would also upgrade local gas lines to accommodate growth and increase supply and service reliability. PG&E does not evaluate whether specific proposed developments would require the construction of additional energy infrastructure facilities; rather, PG&E's long-term energy forecasts are conducted on a system-wide basis. PG&E consistently monitors and evaluates the need for serving new customers and will propose projects based on need. Given that the proposed Amendment only increases the projected population of South San Francisco by 13% from existing conditions and 3.6% from the 2020 No Project, it is unlikely that development from the proposed Amendment alone would require the construction of additional energy infrastructure facilities. Some of this population may otherwise be accommodated in outlying Bay Area communities that are also served by PG&E, resulting in neutral impact for construction of new energy-generating facilities. Mitigation Measures None required. 3.6-19 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures Impact 3.6-3 Implementation of the proposed Amendment may increase total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in South San Francisco, compared to existing conditions, but would result in fewer per capita emissions. (Cumulatively Significant, Project Contribution Less than Considerable) Concurrent implementation of the proposed Amendment and forecast development of residential and employment land uses in the region could result in increased GHG emissions, thereby contributing to GCc. It is reasonable to generalize that GCC is a significant cumulative impact, as the scientific community has acknowledged its detrimental effects on ecosystems and human communities, and it is caused by the cumulative GHG emissions from human activities across the globe and over many decades. Furthermore, as GCC is accelerated by GHG emissions, any emissions in addition to what exists today in the atmosphere can generally be considered to contribute somewhat to this significant cumulative impact. For the purposes of this EIR, this analysis makes a determination about whether the proposed Amendment makes a cumulatively considerable contribution to the overall cumulative impact. Under the proposed Amendment, future emissions are estimated to increase to 616,684 metric tons of C02e in 2020 under a business-as-usual scenario, absent policy changes. This is an increase of approximately 1.1 % per year. Table 3.6-6 shows the increases in each sector. Per capita emissions will also increase from 8.5 metric tons of C02e in 2005 to 8.8 metric tons of C02e in 2020 under a business-as usual scenario. There are several State mandates that will significantly reduce GHG emissions by 2020. A total reduction of 98,709 metric tons C02e can be attributed to California's Renewables Portfolio Standard, Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, and Pavley 1 and 2 when considering the proposed Amendment. Table 3.6-6 also shows the estimated emissions reductions that result from these standards for each sector. Reduction factors for each standard were based on GHG reductions attributed to each standard in the Climate Change Scoping Plan, developed by ARB pursuant to AB 32.22 Senate Bill 1 078 Sher and Executive Order S-14-08: Renewables Portfolio Standard Based on Governor Schwarzenegger's call for a statewide 33% Renewables Portfolio Standard, the Scoping Plan anticipated that California will have 33% of its electricity provided by renewable resources by 2020, and included the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions based on this level. Therefore, a 33% reduction was applied to the GHG emissions generated from residential electricity use and commercial/industrial electricity use in South San Francisco. Executive Order S-01-07: Low-Carbon Fuel Standard The Scoping Plan estimates that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard would result in a reduction of 15 million metric tons of C02e in 2020. This represents a reduction of approximately 6.6% in GHG emissions from the State's transportation sector. Therefore, a 6.6% reduction was applied to the GHG emissions generated from South San Francisco's transportation sector. 22 California Air Resources Board (ARB). Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008. 3.6-20 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures Assembly Bill 1493: Pavley Phase 1 and 2 The Scoping Plan estimates that Pavley Phases 1 and 2 will result in a reduction of 31.7 million metric tons C02e in 2020. This represents a reduction of approximately 14% in GHG emissions from the State's transportation sector. Therefore, a 14% reduction was applied to the GHG emissions generated from South San Francisco's transportation sector. 3.6-21 " ..<>.. 1':1': "6 ' t: ~ QJ "S E "S: ~ " ~ LU ..<U " E ~<C N C> N .0 .;, M '" :;; .. I- ~ ~ ""- " " "Vi :J .~ :s LU i'l o ~ N ~ o <U N " ." " '" ]t:~ ~ <U 0 %~ N ~ " Q" E <C ^ ~ o o N ~ S U ""! .... '" '" ci .... 00 o '" cO -.0 M '4 .... '" o '4 00 -.0 '" .,; .... M '" '" .... '" '" o ci .... " ." " o o '" '" ci 'f .,; ~ 00 00 '" .,; o '" '" '" '" M N'a..n" '" M '" M '" M '" o '" .... M M '" M 0 r"f..f '" M '" o .... '" '" 00 .... '" '" ci - .... '" ~ " 'u L " Q) "C E ~ E "l o ." U " " o ." " !: &. N(]) ~ ~ " ~ " " ~ 5: -.0 M M '" M '" M M '" o ... M o "'. M C> '" "': '" .... '" ..... '" .... '" '" ..... C> '" '" C> .... ,,; ":' '" .... M ..... ":' .... '" ",' '" M ",' C> '" '" '" .... ",' N '" ;;; ... o I- "! M .... ,.: '" ,.: <0 <0 C> .,.: '" <0 .. ... '5. .. U .. '" c. '" " o .<;; '" 'E w M <? C> <0 "'! .... M .... M M ... .... ... on '" v .~ '" III .. '" c.~ " '" 0 " .- o ... .- .. '" - '" " .- c. E 0 wa.. ~ L o ~ OJ -' u 2; L (] <1; ;a . ~ ~ '5 t . Q, . . " . L . Q, . L Q, .,; ~ c . E c L . ~ l? . ~ <1; >- . 00 L .2 E ~ ~ E L o ~ E' L ~ . L o ~ ... o u ... ~ . ~ 1 " u .t . '" c . ~ ~ rij ~ ~ .~ ~ 15 u c ~ '> 0 ~ ~ -0 b rei ~ c c.. l'll rij j 1 ~ l i:i.] jj ~ ~ ... 'u L . E E o u oj " c " ~ o "6 " o ~ ~ . L t- o ~ c . > c . . l? . . o o ~ c . . L l? >- ~ 'c o E E o U w -' u ;,; " o ~ ~ . L '" o o N >- . L c:. o ~ . " " c . >- u c . 'u '" . ... .2 ~ u . '" . L C o ." . t o Q, . c . L f- ~ L .2 > . L C o 0 o ',j:i ~ u -" 0 . " . . 0.. '" .,; . ~ . 'u o . . <1; '" '" o E " . " '> e Q, . ~ . " o N o N ci a::i " M .... coo . N '" " o c o . N '" c 0 o 0 ',j:i N . c 'S . Q, . ~ ~ .c f- L > '5 . ~ . L ~ ~ o L '" L o o ~ -" . . Q, M "' ... .2 c o .c L . U ~ ..Q iil . ~ . c . "',..: BC? " 0 ~vi . L .c . ...;"E ~o ':; Q) ~ .<:: .~a u . '5 ~ u ." Q) ;;; tN ~-o . c L . '" o o N .' <U \j 'u o ~ <C '" " a 0..' o o N 8' . 'u c o .:: c o '" '" 'J o '" '- o a o o N o N L .2 . c o ." u . '0 L Q, LiJ .c ~ .Q.. ~ .,; '" c .~ . "', o o N . C .g U - :c E 1! . ~ ~ .!!! <1; - a ^ .,; ~ ~ " o '" Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures The emissions reductions as a result of State programs will result in 2020 emission levels that are below existing condition levels for both the No Project and the proposed Amendment. While No Project emissions are expected to be slightly lower than the proposed Amendment, per capita emissions and emissions per service population are lower with the proposed Amendment than under existing conditions or the No Project, indicating that the proposed Amendment is more efficient at accommodating a mix of population and employment growth. Emission levels in 2020 could potentially be even lower under the proposed Amendment. The Office of the California Attorney General has a list of measures to offset or reduce global warming impacts and several of these measures would be implemented with the proposed Amendment.23 . Adopt land use designations to carry out policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., policies to minimize or reduce VMT, expand development near existing public transportation corridors, encourage alternative modes of transportation, and in- crease infill, mixed use, and higher density development. . Identify and facilitate the development of land uses not already present in local districts - such as residential uses in business districts or supermarkets, parks and recreation fields, and schools in neighborhoods- to reduce vehicle miles traveled and allow bicycl- ing and walking to these destinations. . Enact policies to limit or discourage low density development that segregates employ- ment, services, and residential areas. . Provide permitting-related and other incentives for energy efficient building projects. The proposed Amendment would introduce a new land use designation in the Planning Area, allowing for mixed-use development at high intensities along EI Camino Real, a major transportation corridor with several bus lines and BART stations to the north and south. The current land use along EI Camino Real is community commercial and industrial; the proposed Amendment would allow new residential as well as commercial in the Planning Area, enabling walking between residences and services. The proposed Amendment would also require active uses along EI Camino Real. Active uses are those that are accessible to the general public, generate walk in pedestrian clientele, and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity, such as retail shops and restaurants. The proposed Amendment also includes a mlmmum FAR requirement, which limits low density development in the area. In addition, the proposed Amendment would make available FAR bonuses for projects that meet specific criteria, such as participation in the TDM program or incorporation of design measures, such as green building. Each of these approaches would allow an additional FAR bonus of 0.5, totaling in an FAR bonus of 1.0 if both approaches apply. Some mandatory provisions for encouraging alternative transportation uses include: bicycle parking spaces; free parking for carpools and vanpools; shuttle programs; pedestrian 23 Office of the California Attorney General. Global y...rarming Measures, Updated December 9, 2008, available at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GvV_mitigatioll_measures.pdf, accessed June 9, 2009. 3.6-23 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures connections; and direct routes to transit. The FAR incentives offered by the proposed Amendment would further encourage high density development in the area and encourage projects to implement TDM programs. Green building and design elements would be discretionary. As described above, GHG emissions are in and of themselves a significant cumulative impact. However, due to emission reductions that would result from State regulations and the implementation of the proposed Amendment, emissions in 2020 would not exceed existing levels. In addition, per capita emissions are lower with the proposed Amendment when compared to existing conditions and the No Project condition. These comparisons indicate that the proposed Amendment does not make a considerable contribution to the impact. Applicable Proposed Amendment Policies Guiding Policies 3.4-G-5 Develop the South EI Camino area as a vibrant corridor with a variety of residential and non-residential uses to foster a walkable and pedestrian-scaled environment. Area Wide Policies 3.4-1-17 Require that any redevelopment of the low-intensity commercial uses in this area is in the form of high intensity active use or mixed-use development, with active uses such as retail shops, restaurants, bars, theaters and the performing arts, commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services, hotels, banks, travel agencies, airline ticket agencies, child care services, libraries, museums and galleries fronting EI Camino Real at the ground level, and a range of compatible uses such as residential, office, and hotels/motels at upper levels and in portions not fronting EI Camino Real. For parcels on the east side of EI Camino Real, between First Street and West Orange Drive, either a mix of uses is permitted or residential use only is permitted. 3.4-1-18 Require any development/redevelopment on sites larger than three acres at an FAR of no less than 0.6, exclusive of substantially above-grade structured parking, of which a minimum 0.3 FAR shall be devoted to active uses. 3.4-1-19 In addition, for sites larger than three acres, require a minimum FAR of 0.30 be devoted to active commercial uses. 3.4-1-20 Maintain large lot sizes to accommodate high-intensity mixed-use development. Discourage the subdivision of lots larger than two acres. 3.4-1-23 Maintain an open, walkable environment throughout the area by providing space at the ground level for enhanced pedestrian connections, either through open promenades or internal semi-public pathways. 3.4-1-26 Establish development standards in the Zoning Ordinance for South EI Camino Real: . Require a minimum percentage of the frontage of a site along EI Camino Real to be de- voted to active uses. Ensure that depth and height of the provided space is adequate to accommodate a variety of tenants and provide flexibility for the future. 3.6-24 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures . Allow buildings up to 80 feet by right, and up to 120 feet (along with a higher FAR as specified in Chapter 2) based on discretionary design review and approval by the Plan- ning Commission. . Maintain a consistent building base/streetwall along EI Camino Real and side streets, ranging in height between 25 and 35 feet. . Maintain build-to lines, with step-backs for development exceeding 35 feet in height. . Require buildings to be finely articulated and visually engaging. Mitigation Measures The above policies included as part of the proposed Amendment, along with existing General Plan policies, help to alleviate the cumulative impact. Given that the project's contribution is less than considerable, no additional mitigation measures are required. Impact 3.6-4 Implementation of the proposed Amendment may conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. (Less than Significant) The City of South San Francisco currently does not have any adopted policy or plan regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. The City is currently in the process of establishing a baseline government and community-wide inventory of GHG emissions. Under AB 32, which requires a statewide reduction of GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, ARB has developed a Scoping Plan outlining the State's strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit, which proposes a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California. AB 32 does not require individual sectors or jurisdictions to reduce emissions by a specific amount. However, as discussed for Impact 3.6-3, South San Francisco GHG emissions will be reduced to below current levels as a result of State mandates, and GHG emissions would be further reduced as a result of implementing the proposed Amendment. These reductions will assist California in achieving its reduction goal and will be consistent with existing plans and policies. The proposed Amendment will not conflict with any actions in the Scoping Plan, resulting in less than significant impacts. Mitigation Measures None required. 3.6-25 Draft Environmental Impact Report for South EI Camino Real General Plan Amendment Chapter 3: Settings, Impaas, and Mitigation Measures This page intentionally left blank. 3.6-26