Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.06.22@600 SP Joint CC & PlanningWednesday, April 6, 2022 6:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA Municipal Services Building, Council Chambers 33 Arroyo Drive, South San Francisco, CA Joint Special Meeting City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING April 6, 2022Joint Special Meeting City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda HYBRID IN-PERSON/VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff and the public while allowing for public participation. Councilmembers Coleman, Flores and Addiego, Vice Mayor Nicolas, Mayor Nagales, Planning Commissioners De Paz Fernandez, Funes, Evans, Murphy and Faria, Vice Chair Tzang, Chair Shihadeh and essential City staff may participate via Teleconference. Pursuant to Ralph M. Brown Act, Government Code Section 54953, all votes shall be by roll call due to council members participating by teleconference. The City Council and Planning Commission may meet by teleconference, consistent with the Brown Act as amended by AB 361 (2021). Under the amended rules, the City will not provide a physical location for members of the public to participate in the teleconference meeting. American Disability Act: The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at [email protected]. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the meeting. Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability -related modification or accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the City Clerk by email at [email protected], 24-hours before the meeting. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City of South San Francisco to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2022 April 6, 2022Joint Special Meeting City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda ZOOM LINK BELOW - NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED Join Zoom meeting https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88554071801 Passcode: 486034 (Enter your email and name) Join by One Tap Mobile : US: +16699006833,,88554071801# or +13462487799,,88554071801# Join by Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or 833 548 0276 (Toll Free) Webinar ID: 885 5407 1801 How to observe the Meeting (no public comment): 1) Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26, Comcast, Channel 27, or AT&T, Channel 99 2) https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council How to submit written Public Comment before the City Council Meeting: Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting via the eComment tab by 4:00 p.m. on the meeting date. Use the eComment portal by clicking on the following link : https://ci-ssf-ca.granicusideas.com/meetings or by visiting the City Council meeting's agenda page. eComments are also directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff. How to provide Public Comment during the City Council Meeting: 1) By Phone: (669) 900-6833. Webinar ID is 885 5407 1801. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. Click *6 to unmute when called. By One tap mobile: US: +16699006833,,88554071801# or +13462487799,,88554071801# 2) Online at: https://ssf-net.zoom.us/j/88554071801?pwd=MDAraitOUklSSmpISlc1aXJ1MFF4UT09 a. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. b. When the Clerk calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on "raise hand." Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. c. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. IN-PERSON: Please complete a Digital Speaker Card located at the entrance to the Council Chamber ’s. Be sure to indicate the Agenda Item # you wish to address or the topic of your public comment. When your name is called, please come to the podium, state your name and address (optional) for the Minutes. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER. Thank you for your cooperation. Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2022 April 6, 2022Joint Special Meeting City Council and Planning Commission Special Meeting Agenda Call to Order. Roll Call. Agenda Review. PUBLIC COMMENTS - Comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS Report on General Plan Update Study Session - Climate Action Plan (Lisa Costa Sanders, Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Principal Planner) 1. Adjournment. Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 5/4/2022 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:22-225 Agenda Date:4/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:1. Report on General Plan Update Study Session -Climate Action Plan (Lisa Costa Sanders,Project Administrator and Billy Gross, Principal Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council and Planning Commission receive a presentation on the Draft Climate Action Plan and provide comments to Staff. Introduction The Draft General Plan and Draft Climate Action Plan are now available for public review and comment.The City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session on March 2,2022 to initiate the community outreach process.The General Plan Community Advisory Committee held a virtual community outreach meeting on March 8,2022 and a well-attended in-person community outreach meeting was held on March 22, 2022 from 3:00pm until 7:00 pm. This meeting is focused on the Draft Climate Action Plan. Background/Discussion A General Plan is the local government’s long-term blueprint for the community’s vision of future growth.Each city is required by California law to have a General Plan to guide its future land use decisions.South San Francisco’s last comprehensive General Plan update occurred in 1999. The Climate Action Plan (CAP)outlines how the City will create new policies,programs and services that will support the community in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions.The current CAP was prepared in 2014 which set emission targets to the year 2020. The Draft CAP provides programs to reduce emissions by 40%by year 2030 and 80%by the year 2040 with a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045.The goals of the Draft CAP are to equitably mitigate and address the impacts of climate change and realize the co-benefits of climate mitigation actions that help create a sustainable community.The Draft CAP programs covers the areas of clean energy;energy efficient building construction;multimodal,sustainable,livable and connected transportation;water efficiency and a safe and resilient water supply;diversion of solid waste and organics from landfill;and increases carbon sequestration in public lands, open spaces and urban forest through marsh enhancement and tree planting. The Draft CAP is the City’s plan to meet several State regulations incorporates existing City plans and policies and programs as well as plans for future programs. The following additional meetings are planned to receive feedback on the Draft General Plan,Climate Action Plan, Zoning Code and EIR: ·April 12 GPCAC meeting on Climate Action Plan ·April 20 City Council/Planning Commission Study Session on land use and mobility City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/2/2022Page 1 of 2 powered by Legistar™ File #:22-225 Agenda Date:4/6/2022 Version:1 Item #:1. ·May 7 Downtown sub area pop-up event ·May 9 Sub-area meeting ·May 10 GPCAC meeting ·May 12 East of 101 & Lindenville sub area meeting ·May TBD Westborough sub area meeting ·May TBD Spanish Downtown sub area meeting ·June 6 GPCAC/Community meeting on Draft Zoning Code ·June Planning Commission on Draft EIR ·June City Council/Planning Commission Study Session on Zoning Code The Draft Zoning Code Update and Draft EIR will be released for public review and comment in June 2022.It is anticipated that the General Plan adoption hearings will occur in August/September 2022. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact at this time. RELATIONSHIP TO STRATEGIC PLAN The General Plan and Climate Action Plan includes goals,policies and actions that are related to each of the Strategic goals of Workforce Development,Quality of Life,Public Safety,Financial Stability,Economic Vitality and Community Connections. CONCLUSION It is recommended that the City Council and Planning Commission receive a presentation on the Draft Climate Action Plan and provide comments to staff. Attachment 1.Draft Climate Action Plan available here: <https://shapessf.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SSFCAP_PublicDraft_2022_02.pdf> 2.Staff Presentation City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/2/2022Page 2 of 2 powered by Legistar™ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2040 GENERAL PLAN CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOClimate Action Plan CONTENTS CH.1 BACKGROUND 4 1.1 Overview 1.2 Purpose 1.3 How do the Climate action Plan and General Plan Relate? CH.2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 9 2.1 Climate Change in South San Francisco 2.2 State Regulatory Framework 2.3 Sustainability in South San Francisco CH.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 17 IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 3.1 2017 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 3.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Forecast 3.3 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets CH.4 GREENHOUSE GAS 22 REDUCTION STRATEGIES 4.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Pathway 4.2 Reduction Approach 4.3 Reduction Strategies and Actions CH.5 IMPLEMENTING THE CAP 47 5.1 Partnerships 5.2 Equitable Program Implementation 5.3 Cost Effectiveness 5.4 Funding Opportunities 5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation GLOSSARY 54 APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 58 B. COST ESTIMATE DATA 77 C. GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 79 TABLES 1. Total Annual Community GHG Emissions (2017) 192. Community Forecast 2020-1040 in MTCO2e 203. CAP Implementation Cost Effectiveness 514. CAP Implementation Cost Estimates 785. GHG Reduction Analysis 80 FIGURES 1: Sea Level Rise Risk (2100 Mid-level Scenario) 122: 2017 Community GHG Emissions by Sector 193: Emissions Reductions from CAP Actions 244: Approach to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions 255: Disadvantaged Communities 50 CHAPTER 1 Background 4 SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND 5 1.1 OVERVIEW Climate change is already affecting California and the San Francisco Bay Area, and these impacts are projected to worsen, even with only moderate increases in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Climate change is not only impacting our natural environment, but also threatening the health and economic vitality of communities across the state. The extent to which South San Francisco is impacted by climate change is dependent on our actions today. By curbing GHG emissions and adapting our community to the already changing environment, we can significantly reduce the damages incurred from climate change. South San Francisco is in a unique position to become a regional climate leader by implementing city-wide policies, incentives, and education programs to deploy new technologies, to pilot regulatory mechanisms, and spark behavioral change to meet the deep greenhouse gas reduction targets established by the State of California. South San Francisco has prepared this Climate Action Plan (CAP) to be a guide for the community’s response to challenges posed by climate change, and to build on the City’s ongoing efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Developed in concert with the City’s General Plan Update, South San Francisco’s CAP helps to achieve the community’s vision for the future of South San Francisco: “South San Francisco is a place where everyone can thrive. Its high quality of life, diverse and inclusive community, livable neighborhoods and excellent services, culture of innovation, and environmental leadership ensure all people have the opportunity to reach their full potential.” Additionally, the CAP is designed to fulfill the community’s vision for sustainability: “We strive to build and maintain a healthy and safe city. Our actions reduce climate pollution, adapt to climate disruptions, preserve natural resources, foster a prosperous and just economy, and meet the needs of current and future generations to ensure all people have the opportunity to reach their full potential.” South San Francisco BART Station SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND 6 The CAP intends to create a more sustainable community, to equitably mitigate and address the impacts of climate change, and to realize the co-benefits of climate mitigation actions. To meet this vision by 2040, the CAP lays out strategies and actions to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 by increasing waste diversion, reducing energy and water use, and increasing resiliency across multiple sectors. The CAP technical GHG reduction analysis is based on the City’s most recent community GHG inventory from 2017 and the forecast of future community emissions based on the General Plan update projections. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), emissions reductions are compared to the City’s 1990 emissions levels. What is a Climate Action Plan? A Climate Action Plan is the City’s strategic planning document that outlines: • Current and projected greenhouse gas emissions • Greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets • Strategies and actions for reducing emissions • Projected changes to natural hazards from climate change The CAP is reflective of South San Francisco’s unique environment and community, and it reaffirms the City’s environmental leadership in the region. 1.2 PURPOSE Why Update the CAP? The City of South San Francisco already plays an important role in shaping community services, including electricity provision, building construction, land use and development, transportation, infrastructure maintenance, solid waste management, parks and open space management and maintenance, and water and wastewater management and treatment. The City is uniquely positioned to lead on climate action, facilitate collaboration and partnerships, and engage residents, businesses, community groups, and other partners, including regional agencies, to join these efforts. The City of South San Francisco is updating its original 2014 CAP to align with new State regulations and targets related to climate change. Furthermore, the 2014 CAP set an emissions target for 2020 and this updated CAP extends the horizon year to 2040 and sets a long-term goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 to align with State targets. The 2014 CAP set the 2020 target of a 15% decrease in emissions from the baseline year of 2005. Although the City implemented many policies and programs identified in the 2014 CAP, the City experienced steady economic and population growth over that time period. The City’s most recent inventory estimates that the City reduced emissions by 2.3% per service population in 2017 as compared to 2005. This CAP update outlines how the City of South San Francisco will create new policies, programs, and services that will support the community in taking strong action to reduce GHG emissions. By updating its existing CAP, the City of South San Francisco reaffirms its commitment to leading the way to a more sustainable future. CAP Outcomes The City has set bold targets and developed strategies for reducing GHG emissions while increasing the city’s resilience to climate change impacts. This updated CAP aims to: Achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, reduce emissions 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2040 Equitably mitigate and address the impacts of climate change Realize the co-benefits of climate mitigation actions that help create a sustainable community 1 2 3 SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND 7 Through the evaluation of best practices, existing local actions, and State and regional policies, this CAP has identified 62 actions to achieve the following sector specific objectives and mitigate emissions. They are organized into seven topic areas: Clean energy »Goal: A resilient and fossil fuel free energy system. Buildings (existing + new) »Goal: Green buildings are the standard in South San Francisco for new construction and major renovations. »Goal: Existing buildings in South San Francisco perform more efficiently and are decarbonized. Transportation »Goal: Transportation in South San Francisco is safe, multimodal, sustainable, livable, and connected. Water »Goal: Water is used efficiently in South San Francisco to help ensure a safe and resilient water supply. Solid waste »Goal: The City continues to divert solid waste and organics from landfill in accordance to State targets. Carbon sequestration »Goal: The City increases carbon sequestration in public lands, in open spaces, and in the urban forest though marsh enhancement and tree planting. City Leadership »Goal: The environmental performance of municipal buildings and facilities in South San Francisco is more efficient. »Goal: The South San Francisco – San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant is a model for sustainable, resilient operations. 1.3 HOW DO THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN RELATE? South San Francisco’s CAP update has happened concurrently with the General Plan Update process. The General Plan is a long- range policy document that maps out how the City of South San Francisco serves its community. California law requires that every city and county in the state develop and maintain a General Plan. Everything, from our parks to shopping centers to roads, is a result of similar planning efforts. The General Plan sets forth a shared 20-year vision for the future. It builds on community strengths and assets, while tackling new and emerging challenges like climate change. The South San Francisco General Plan Update articulates its vision for the future through the following twelve elements: • Land Use and Community Design • Sub-Areas • Housing • A Prosperous Economy For All • Mobility and Access • Abundant and Accessible Parks and Recreation • Community Health and Wellbeing • Community Resilience • Equitable Community Services • Climate Protection • Environmental and Cultural Stewardship • Noise Throughout the General Plan process, community members identified many shared values and beliefs. These cross-cutting community values include diversity and inclusion, livability, sustainability, and innovation. While each guiding principle, goal, policy, and action outline what the City wants to achieve and plans to do, these values describe how future actions should be implemented. Complementing the vision and direction established in the General Plan, the CAP is a key mechanism to promote climate action. The CAP represents the City’s program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with State targets, contributing to statewide efforts to address climate change. The CAP’s focus is on a shorter time scale from 1-10 years. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND 8 The co-creation of the General Plan and CAP, initiated in 2019 and concluding in 2022, has allowed General Plan and CAP- related analyses to inform the development of both plans and create consistency across long-range planning documents. This consistency will create opportunities to streamline General Plan and CAP policy and program implementation by aligning climate goals with opportunities identified in the General Plan. Greenhouse gas reduction-related policies and actions are integrated throughout the General Plan. This includes: • GHG reduction: see Climate Protection Chapter. • Landscape design standards: see Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Chapter Goal ES-5. • Urban forests, landscape design and Colma Creek: see Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Chapter Goals ES-3, ES-4, and ES-5. • Building and facility maintenance: see Equitable Community Services Chapter Goal ECS-4 and Abundant and Accessible Parks and Recreation Goal PR-7. • Transportation: see Mobility and Access Chapter. Community Engagement As a community-centered plan, the CAP has been informed by community outreach and engagement. Since the CAP has been developed as part of the General Plan Update process, many of the CAP’s overarching goals and targets were informed through the General Plan’s outreach. CAP-specific outreach has included: »General Plan Community Advisory Committee (CAC) Meetings – Components of the CAP have been presented to the CAC throughout the development process. • Meeting 1: Sustainability • Meeting 2: Adaptation • Meeting 3: Climate Protection policy framework • Meeting 4: CAP goals and GHG reduction targets, CAP strategies and actions, and GHG reduction analysis »CAC Forum on sea level rise »Planning Commission meetings »Targeted Outreach – To ensure that the perspectives of specific groups were considered in CAP development meetings were conducted with: • Nonresidential building electrification reach code stakeholders • South San Francisco Scavengers »Public Workshop on climate protection policy framework In addition, many ideas incorporated into this CAP were from community engagement gathered from the following General Plan Update activities: »Policy frameworks »Surveys »Community workshops Shape SSF Visioning Workshop Attendee CHAPTER 2Current Conditions 9 SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 10 The City of South San Francisco is located on the San Francisco Peninsula in San Mateo County, about 2.5 miles south of San Francisco, and encompasses approximately 5,000 acres. It is in a basin bounded by San Bruno Mountain to the north, the Coast Range to the west, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. The city is bordered by the cities of Brisbane to the north, Daly City, Pacifica, and Colma to the west, and San Bruno to the south. The land now known as South San Francisco was inhabited by Ohlone Indians until the late eighteenth century, when Spanish settlers moved into their land. During the 1800s, the area was owned by the Mexican government, then divided into ranches mostly used for cattle grazing, dairy operations, stockyards, and packing plants. During the first half of the twentieth century, steel manufacturers, shipbuilders, lumber companies, and other industries began to call South San Francisco home. The Chamber of Commerce promoted local business by declaring South San Francisco “The Industrial City” and building a large cement sign with this nickname on Sign Hill in 1923. Today, South San Francisco continues to be a place where people, employers, and others can find opportunities to thrive. As evidenced by South San Francisco’s transition from a ranch to the “Industrial City” to the “Birthplace of Biotechnology,” the City’s identity has evolved significantly over time and will continue to do so in perpetuity. South San Francisco has undergone much change since the end of the 20th century. As South San Francisco has continued to grow, the demographic characteristics of the City’s residents have continued to evolve. The continued growth of jobs has boosted South San Francisco’s economy, but the lack of new housing on the Peninsula has contributed to the region’s jobs-housing imbalance. The regional jobs-housing balance, as well as the rise in housing costs regionally, has led to increasingly unaffordable housing for many long-time residents and displacement of businesses and residents. Given the enormous growth of the city, its thriving economy, and its core of residential uses, buildings and transportation are the city’s greatest contributors to GHG emissions that cause climate change. The risks associated with climate change hazards have also increased, with sea level rise posing the greatest risk to South San Francisco. (Left) San Bruno Mountain; (Right) Bay Trail 1. History of South San Francisco. (2019). City of South San Francisco. Retrieved From: http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=128 2. City of South San Francisco General Plan. (1999). City of South San Francisco. Retrieved From: http://www.ssf.net/home/showdocument?id=478 3. History. (2019). City of South San Francisco. Retrieved From: http://www.ssf.net/our-City/about-south-san-francisco/history SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 11 2.1 CLIMATE CHANGE IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Climate is the long-term behavior of the atmosphere – typically represented as averages – for a given time of year. This includes average annual temperature, snowpack, or rainfall. Human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions (greenhouse gases) are important drivers of global climate change, and recent changes across the climate system are unprecedented. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, resulting in warming over time. This atmospheric warming leads to other changes in the earth systems, including changing patterns of rainfall and snow, melting of glaciers and ice, and warming of oceans. Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. Evidence of observed changes include heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and hurricanes.4 California and South San Francisco are already experiencing the effects of a changing climate. Both gradual climate change (e.g., sea level rise) and climate hazard events (e.g., extreme heat days) expose people, infrastructure, buildings and properties, and ecosystems to a wide range of stress-inducing and hazardous situations. These hazards and their impacts disproportionately affect the most sensitive populations in the city, including children and elderly adults, low-income populations, renters, immigrants, and Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) residents, among others. While climate projections cannot predict what will happen at a certain date in the future, projections can provide cities with information about what to expect from the climate in the future. For example, climate projections can estimate how much warmer the temperature will be in summer or how many more extreme weather events are likely to occur in the future. Climate projections, however, cannot forecast with precision when those events will actually occur. Future climate projections are created using global climate models. These models simulate climate conditions both in the past and in the future. Climate scientists can use these models to test how the climate will change (or not) based on scenarios of GHG emissions. 4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press.People Conversing on Grand Ave. in Downtown San Bruno Mountain State & County Park San Francisco Bay Ferry Terminal San Bruno Creek C o l m a C r e e k AirportBlvdChestnut AveE Grand Ave Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd SAi rpor t Bl vd H il ls id e B lv d Forbes Blvd Gateway B lv d DNAWaySisterCitiesBlvd E l Ca mi n o R e a lJunipero Ser r a Bl vdW e s tb o roughBlvdC a ll a n B l v d H i c k e y B l v d SpruceA v e S Linden AveUtah AveSSpruceAveGellertBlvd §¨¦380 §¨¦280 ¬«35 ¬«82 £¤101 Unincorporated Area City of Pacifica City of San Bruno City of Colma City of Daly City City of Brisbane San Francisco International Airport °0 0.5 10.25 Miles !!!!!City of South San Francisco Unincorporated Area in City Sphere Ferry Terminal Caltrain Station Caltrain BART Station BART Highway Arterial Roads Local Roads City Parks and Joint Facilities Context Parks Waterbody Streams Sources: Adapting to Rising Tides (2021); City of South San Francisco (2019); County of San Mateo (2019); ESRI (2021). 100-year Flood Zones 52 Inches (100-year flood + 2040 sea level rise) 77 Inches (100-year flood + 2100 sea level rise) NavigableSlough Sea Level Rise Risk SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 12 Some of the climate impacts South San Francisco has experienced, and will continue to experience, include: Sea level rise: In the last 100 years, sea level in the nine county Bay Area has risen over eight inches.5 San Mateo County recently released a vulnerability assessment that projected a mid-level end of century scenario with about 77 inches of sea level rise.6 The city is already seeing annual impacts of sea level rise with 1-foot King Tides (extremely high tides) in Oyster Point. 5. Ackerly, D and et. al. 2018. California Fourth Climate Change Assessment: San Francisco Bay Area Region Report. State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Retrieved from https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-07/Reg%20Report-%20SUM-CCCA4-2018-005%20SanFranciscoBayArea.pdf 6. Sea Change San Mateo County. 2018. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment. Retrieved from https://seachangesmc.org/vulnerability-assessment/ City of South San Francisco BART Station City Parks, Open Space, & Joint Facilities Caltrain Station Arterial Road Streams Unincorporated Area in City Sphere BART Context Parks Caltrain Local Road Ferry Terminal Station Highway Waterbody 77 Inches (100-year flood + 3ft sea level rise)100-year Flood Zones 52 Inches (100-year flood + 2040 sea level rise) Sources: Adapting to Rising Tides (2021); City of South San Francisco (2019); County of San Mateo (2019); ESRI (2021). Figure 1: Sea Level Rise Risk (2100 Mid-level Scenario) SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 13 Extreme heat days: Extreme heat days and heat waves are predicted to impact larger areas, last longer, and have higher temperatures. In particular, coastal areas in Northern California are projected to experience an increase in humid nighttime heat waves.7 Historically (1960-1990), there have been four annual average extreme heat days. The number of extreme heat days is anticipated to increase significantly across the Bay Area region during the next century, but more so in inland areas than coastal cities. Even with lower projections along the coast, by mid-century (2040-2060), South San Francisco is expected to have an average of nine extreme heat days under a business- as-usual scenario. By the end of century (2080-2100), South San Francisco is projected to experience an average of twenty-four extreme heat days. Poor air quality: Air quality is expected to worsen with climate change. Air quality is strongly dependent on weather, and climate change is expected to impact air quality through warming temperatures and more frequent episodes of stagnant air. Regional wildfire also contributes to poor air quality in the Bay Area. Periods of drought: Climate change is likely to increase the duration and severity of droughts in California. Increasing temperatures and changing precipitation patterns can create periods of abnormally dry weather that produce hydrologic imbalances and result in water supply shortages. Reduced water supplies can have direct and indirect impacts on natural vegetation, wildlife, agricultural yields, and water supply. Drought can also increase the risk of wildland fires due to dry vegetation, lack of moisture replenishment from overnight humidity typical of coastal areas. Flooding: Periodic flooding occurs in the City of South San Francisco but is confined to certain areas along Colma Creek, Oyster Point Marina, and East of 101. Colma Creek handles much of the urban runoff generated in the city; since the City of South San Francisco is highly urbanized, runoff levels are high and there is increased potential for flood conditions during periods of heavy rainfall. These hazards and their impacts disproportionately affect the most vulnerable and marginalized populations in the city. Historical policies rooted in segregation, discrimination, and oppression have caused certain populations to bear a disproportionate share of the consequences of climate change. Although climate hazards have the potential to affect all South San Francisco residents, the severity of impacts is heavily shaped by demographic factors like race, socioeconomic status, gender, housing status, and more. Moreover, sensitive populations have less capacity to adapt to climate hazards, because of long-standing structural and institutional inequities. Although this CAP does not directly address climate adaptation measures, many strategies that are used to reduce greenhouse gases complement the policies and actions in the Community Resilience Element of the General Plan and will increase resiliency to the climate hazards outlined above. 7. Gershunov, A., and Guirguis, K. (2012). California heat waves in the present and future. Geophysical Research Letters, 39(18), 7. * Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015 Annual Average Maximum Temperature in South San Francisco* Effects of Drought on Folsom Lake Source: “Folsom Lake, California Drought” by Alan Grinberg, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 14 2.2 STATE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK California has established itself as a national leader on climate action. The following section describes key elements of the legislative and regulatory context in California. This legislative framework guided the development of the CAP and GHG forecasting. Climate Action Targets Assembly Bill 32 (2006): California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. This Assembly Bill requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to adopt a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the statewide greenhouse gas emissions levels in 1990 to be achieved by 2020. It was California’s first GHG reduction target. Senate Bill 379 (2015): Adaptation and Resiliency Planning This Senate bill requires cities and counties to include climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in the Safety element of their general plan updates. It must include a set of goals, policies, and objectives based on a vulnerability assessment. Senate Bill 32 (2016): Greenhouse Gas emission reduction target for 2030 This Senate Bill establishes a statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017) The Climate Change Scoping Plan was approved by CARB in December 2008 and outlines the State’s plan to achieve the GHG reductions required in AB 32. The plan directed municipal governments to reduce their emissions by at least 15% by 2020 compared to 2008 levels or earlier. The Scoping Plan was updated in 2017 to reflect the SB 32 target of reducing emissions by 40% under 1990 levels by 2030. Executive Order B-55-18 (2018): Carbon neutrality by 2045 This Executive Order set a target of statewide carbon neutrality by 2045 and to maintain net negative emissions thereafter. Clean Energy Senate Bill 100 (2018): Renewable Portfolio Standard This Senate bill requires that 100% of all electricity within California be carbon-free by 2040. Electricity providers must procure from eligible renewable energy sources, with interim goals of 40% by 2024 and 50% by 2030. Transportation Senate Bill 375 (2008): Greenhouse Gas emission reduction targets for vehicles The Sustainable Communities & Climate Protection Act of 2008 requires CARB to develop regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for passenger vehicles. CARB is to establish targets for 2020 and 2035 for each region covered by one of the State’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations. Senate Bill 743 (2013): Transportation Impacts Introduces a new performance metric, vehicle miles traveled (VMT), as a basis for determining significant transportation impacts under CEQA. Projects that are projected to increase VMT may mitigate their impacts through measures such as car-sharing services, unbundled parking, improved transit, and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Assembly Bill 2127 (2018): Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure The California Energy Commission is required to prepare and biennially update a statewide assessment of the electric vehicle charging infrastructure needed to support the levels of electric vehicle adoption for the state to meet its goal of putting at least 5 million zero-emission vehicles on California roads by 2030. Innovative Clean Transit (2018): Zero emission bus fleets CARB adopted this rule requiring public transit agencies to gradually transition to 100% zero-emissions bus fleets by 2040. This regulation applies to all transit agencies that own, operate, or lease buses with GVWR above 14,000 lbs. Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule (2018) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the SAFE Vehicles Rule. This rule set a vehicle fleet efficiency standard increase of 1.5% per year above 2020 standards through 2026. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 15 Executive Order N-79-20 (2020): Zero Emission Vehicles In line with the carbon neutrality goal, this Executive Order requires the elimination of new, internal combustion passenger vehicles by 2035 Advanced Clean Truck Rule (2020): Zero emission trucks CARB adopted this rule requiring manufacturers of heavy-duty, on-road trucks to sell an increasing number of zero-emission trucks. By 2035, zero-emission truck/chassis sales would need to be 55% of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75% of Class 4 – 8 vocational truck sales, and 40% of Class 7-8 truck tractor sales. Solid Waste Assembly Bill 341 (2012) and Assembly Bill 1826 (2016): Mandatory Recycling AB 341 requires all commercial businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week and all multi-family apartments with five or more units are also required to have a recycling program in place to help meet the state’s recycling goal of 75% diversion by 2020. AB 1826 requires all commercial businesses to collect yard trimmings, food scraps, and food-soiled paper for composting Senate Bill 1383 (2016): Short-lived Climate Pollutants - Organic Waste Reductions This Senate Bill establishes a statewide target to reduce the disposal of organic waste by 75% by 2025 to reduce methane emissions from organic material in landfills. 2.3 SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO The City of South San Francisco has a strong history of climate action, having made significant progress implementing the measures included in its 2014 Climate Action Plan, as well as various interrelated environmental sustainability and adaptation objectives throughout the years. Existing Plans + Policies 2014 CAP: The 2014 CAP served as the City’s primary tool to integrate all City and community efforts to reduce GHG emissions. It set the GHG reduction target in line with AB 32 at 15% below 2005 levels by 2020. Park and Recreation Master Plan The Parks and Recreation Master Plan adopted in 2015 provides both a long-term vision for the city’s park system, and specific policies and standards to direct day-to-day decisions. It identifies a planning blueprint to improve, protect and expand the city’s network of parks, facilities and recreational services for the future. Resilient South City: Resilient South City is a community-based design challenge aimed at strengthening the City’s resilience to sea level rise and climate change by managing flooding along Colma Creek, creating multifunctional green spaces, creating school resilience hubs, and restoring native riparian ecosystems. East of 101 Mobility Plan: The Plan developed an implementation strategy for future Capital Improvement Program budgets by evaluating multi- modal transportation improvements for the job rich area east of US-101 and the Bay waterfront and by incorporating feedback from city residents and employees. Solid Waste Receptacles SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 2 CURRENT CONDITIONS 16 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan Active South City is the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for the City of South San Francisco, currently in development and expected to be completed in early 2022. It will update existing plans and identify needs and opportunities to improve walking and bicycling in South City. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) South San Francisco adopted MWELO in 2016 to increase landscape water efficiency and provide many other related benefits such as improvements to public health and quality of life, climate change mitigation, replace habitat, and increased property values. Recovered Organic Waste Product Procurement Policy Adopted in 2021, the City of South San Francisco incorporated environmental considerations applicable to all City departments and divisions, including recycled-content and recovered Organic Waste Product use into purchasing practices and procurement. This policy will help the City to protect and conserve natural resources, water, and energy; minimize the City’s contribution to climate change, pollution, and solid waste disposal; and comply with State requirements as contained in SB 1383 procurement regulations to procure a specified amount of recovered organic waste products to support organic waste disposal reduction targets and markets for products made from recycled and recovered organic waste materials, and to purchase recycled-content paper products. Urban Forest Master Plan Adopted in 2020, the Urban Forest Master Plan guides future forestry practices, including maintenance and planting efforts. It includes short-term actions and long-range planning goals to promote sustainability, species diversity, and greater canopy cover throughout South San Francisco. Tree Preservation Ordinance The City of South San Francisco updated the Tree Preservation Ordinance in 2016. Under this ordinance essentially no “protected tree” shall be removed or more than one-third of canopy or roots pruned without a permit. All Electric Residential Reach Code The City of South San Francisco adopted an all-electric reach code for residential new construction and significant renovations in May 2021. The ordinance also requires EV charging stations to be included in new residential development. Existing City programs Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) The City joined PCE in 2016 at the default ECO100 tier. This tier provides the City access to carbon free electricity generated 100% by renewable sources. Participating in PCE significantly reduces emissions associated with electricity use in the city. Public EV Charging Stations The City has installed 13 EV publicly accessible EV charging stations as part of PG&E’s EV Charge Network Program in Miller Garage to promote EV use and ownership in SSF. Seasonal farmers market The City hosts a seasonal farmers market to help connect residents to healthy, local food options, bolster the local food system, and reduce food related GHG emissions. The farmers market was put on hold due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but is proposed to be reinstated. Colma Creek The City convenes the Colma Creek Advisory committee to guide revitalization and flood mitigation efforts. It also hosts clean up events to improve the creek’s ecosystems. Orange Memorial Park Stormwater Capture Project In 2018, the City began a stormwater capture and cleaning project managed by the Department of Public Works that will provide reclaimed water for reuse in parks and water quality benefits to the community. South San Francisco Community Garden Established in 1984 to provide residents with the opportunity to grow their own food, cultivate community cohesion, and enhance overall wellbeing. Wastewater Treatment Plant Anerobic digesters at the City’s water quality control plant generate renewable biogas that is used to power the plant’s 400 kilowatt (kW) generator, significantly offsetting operational energy use and purchases. Free South City Shuttle The City began this program in 2014, which provides free transportation to local stores, libraries, schools, downtown, senior centers, and parks in South San Francisco. It is also a connector to other modes of transportation including SamTrans and BART, leading to reduced traffic congestion. CHAPTER 3Greenhouse Gas Emissions in South San Francisco 17 SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 18 This chapter summarizes the methodology for accounting 2017 GHG emissions from community activities as well as backcasting to 1990 emissions levels. The 2017 inventory serves as the foundation for projecting emission trends and informing measures and actions that the City needs to implement to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The City conducted its first inventory in 2005. See Appendix A for the full 2017 inventory report. Note that the numbers in the 2017 report may differ from the CAP as a result of the CAP using the more recent best available data. The 2017 total community emissions were 609,452 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e), an increase of 91,695 MTCO2e from 2005. This inventory is an estimate based on the best available data. As in 2005, transportation was the largest contributor to total GHG emissions with an estimated 268,787 MTCO2e or 44% of the City’s total 2017 emissions. Nonresidential energy was the second largest sector with estimated emissions of 193,910 MTCO2e or 32% of emissions. Although the second largest contributor to emissions, nonresidential energy emissions are likely an underestimate due to incomplete data caused by customer data aggregation laws. The remaining 24% of emissions include residential energy, solid waste, water, and off-road transportation (see Table 1). Figure 2 depicts the proportion of emissions by sector for 2017. Centennial Way Trail 3.1 2017 COMMUNITY GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY The 2017 City of South San Francisco greenhouse gas emissions inventory captures communitywide emissions generated from transportation, energy consumption in homes and buildings, solid waste, water, and off-road transportation (e.g., emissions from construction, landscaping equipment) within the city. It was developed using the ICELI Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventories. Additionally, in order to be consistent with the City’s 2014 CAP, 2005 emissions are used as a proxy for the estimated 1990 level of emissions.8 8. ICLEI. (2010). Quick State Guide for Setting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target. Note: Methodology is consistent with quantification guidance provided by ICLEI. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 19 Table 1: Total Annual Community GHG Emissions (2017) Figure 2: 2017 Community GHG Emissions by Sector Community Sector Subsector Subsector MTCO2e Sector MTCO2e Percent of Total Transportation On-Road Transportation 268,222 268,787 44%BART 157 CalTrain 407 Nonresidential Energy Electricity 119,700 193,910 32%Natural Gas 42,310 Residential Energy Electricity 17,500 57,870 9%Natural Gas 40,370 Solid Waste Landfilled Waste 48,623 61,854 10%Closed Landfill 13,231 Water Water Use 2,092 2,092 0.3% Off-Road Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,180 24,940 4%Construction Equipment 23,760 Total 609,452 100% Source: South San Francisco community GHG emissions inventory (2020) Community-wide, the City of South San Francisco emitted 609,452 MTCO2e in 2017, up 18% from the 2005 greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 517,757 MTCO2e. Despite an 18% increase in overall emissions, annual per service population emissions only increased from 2005 to 2017 by 3% from 4.8 MTCO2e in 2005 to 4.94 MTCO2e in 2017. The service area population is a sum of the populations that live and/ or work in the city (population and jobs). These numbers show that population, job growth, and a strong regional economy are the primary drivers of emission increases and that emissions reduction strategies in the 2014 CAP were not able to keep up with growth. Source: South San Francisco community GHG emissions inventory (2020) On-Road Transportation 44% Nonresidential Natural Gas 19% Nonresidential Electricity 13% Landfill Waste 10% Residential Natural Gas 7% O Road 4% Residential Electricity 3% Water and Wastewater 0.34% 44% 19% 13% 10%7%4% 0.34% 3% SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 20 3.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FORECAST Two emissions forecasts were prepared to estimate South San Francisco’s emissions from 2020-2040 as presented in Table 2. These forecasts show the emissions reductions the CAP actions will need to achieve to become carbon neutral by 2045. Business-As-Usual (BAU): The BAU scenario projects future emissions based on current population and regional growth trends, climate patterns and their impacts on energy use, and regulations (Federal, State, and local) introduced before the 2017 inventory year. BAU projections demonstrate the expected growth in GHG emissions if no further action is taken by the State or at the local level after 2017. Under this “do nothing” scenario, the City’s emissions are estimated to increase by 96% by 2040. Adjusted Business-as-Usual (ABAU): The ABAU forecast shows how South San Francisco’s emissions are anticipated to change accounting for the impacts of adopted State climate-related policies if no action is taken at the local level. Based on the results of the ABAU forecast, emissions are expected to increase by 40% by 2040.Electric Vehicle Fast Chargers Bike Lane in East of 101 Sub-Area Table 2: Community Forecast 2020-1040 in MTCO2e 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 BAU 636,007 755,941 875,877 961,915 1,191,518 ABAU 612,412 649,113 685,814 705,340 851,550 Source: South San Francisco community GHG emissions inventory (2020) SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS IN SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 21 3.3 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION TARGETS The bold targets set forth in this plan demonstrate South San Francisco’s commitment to mitigating climate change and the adverse impacts it causes. South San Francisco has set the following GHG reduction targets: • 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32) • 80% reduction by 2040 (Interim) • Carbon neutrality by 2045 (EO B-55-18) This CAP includes innovative strategies and actions to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the future—but technological constraints may prevent reducing emissions to absolute zero by 2045. As a result, to achieve carbon neutrality, the City may need to offset remaining tons of GHGs emitted with an equivalent amount of GHGs removed through a combination of nature-based solutions, carbon capture technology, and other carbon offset options.Wetland Cleanup Tree Planting Colma Creek CHAPTER 4Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies 22 SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 23 One of the primary objectives of this CAP is to identify pathways for reducing local GHG emissions from the City of South San Francisco. This chapter summarizes the mitigation measures and sub-actions that the City needs to implement to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The following strategies achieve a 9% mass emissions reduction compared to 1990 levels in 2030 and a 63% reduction in 2040. On a per capita basis, implementing these measures does achieve a 69% reduction in emissions by 2030, which emphasizes the importance of pairing climate mitigation measures with growth in order to counteract the adverse effects on the environment. However, additional action will be needed to close the gap of 315,869 MTCO2e to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. See Appendix C for more detailed emissions reduction estimates. Person Installing Solar Panels 4.1 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS REDUCTION PATHWAY As illustrated in Figure 3 on the following page, the City will need to proactively take local climate action to reduce and offset greenhouse gas emissions to achieve GHG reduction targets. State and regional policies and regulations are projected to reduce 2040 business-as-usual (BAU) emissions by 39%. Implementing these measures can put the City on path to achieving the SB 32 goal of a 40% reduction in mass emissions by 2030 and the interim goal of 80% reduction by 2040. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 24 Figure 3: Emissions Reductions from CAP Actions 1990Per Capita Emissions (MTCO2e)0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2005 2017 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 BAU ABAU CAP Actions Targets Source: R+A CAP and GPU Technical Analysis (2022) Note: • Business-As-Usual (BAU): An estimate of how emissions would grow over time without any climate action. • Adjusted Business-as-Usual (ABAU): The influence of federal, statewide, and regional policies (e.g., Pavley Clean Car Standards) will have on the City’s projected emissions. • CAP Actions: The estimated collective impact of the actions identified in this CAP. The strategies and actions in this Plan reflect South San Francisco’s unique context and role in taking climate action. Considerations include: Progressive state and regional activities California has introduced ambitious climate policies and regulations, as well as tools and resources for supporting local climate action. South San Francisco’s strategies align with other California cities—setting ambitious emissions reduction targets and leading the nation in local climate action planning. Bay Area Biotech hub South San Francisco is home to a biotech cluster with specific energy and personnel needs. This plan focuses on sustainable solutions for energy use and transportation that still allows for future growth of the sector. The Industrial City South San Francisco has legacy industrial commercial uses. The CAP accommodates these businesses while proposing alternative energy sources and waste mitigation strategies. Workforce housing South San Francisco has long been a relatively affordable community in the Bay Area that also offers easy access to the region’s most significant job centers. Much of the city’s housing stock was originally built to accommodate the workforce for the city’s factories and warehouses. This relatively modest workforce housing has continued to support middle income households over the decades. A community concerned about equity It is important to ensure that climate benefits are experienced equitably for all populations and geographic regions of the city. Implementation of policies will focus on community members most impacted by climate change and pollutants, as identified in the General Plan Update process, including those living and working in the sub-areas of Orange Park, Downtown, Sign Hill, Paradise Valley/Terrabay, El Camino Real, Lindenville, and East of 101. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 25 The following strategies and actions collectively work toward achieving the near team goal of 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and carbon neutrality by 2045. 4.2 REDUCTION APPROACH South San Francisco will work to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and an 80% reduction of emissions by 2040 by building upon the progress the City has already made and adopting new emissions reduction strategies and actions. Together, these strategies and actions: (1) provide a framework for reaching carbon neutrality; (2) make South San Francisco more resilient to future climate impacts; and (3) have important social and economic benefits, such as addressing historic inequities, creating green jobs, increasing community green spaces, and improving public health. Figure 4 outlines the City’s five step approach to reducing community GHG emissions. Figure 4: Approach to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Phase 1 Foundational focus on maintaining South San Francisco’s access to carbon free electricity by expanding participation in Peninsula Clean Energy. Clean energy is key to reducing emissions from both buildings and transportation and meeting the City’s long-term goals. Phase 2 Meanwhile, significantly reduce emissions from energy by making buildings more energy efficient while electrifying appliances and infrastructure. At the same time, reduce transportation emissions by expanding electric vehicle adoption and shifting away from single occupancy vehicles. Phase 3 To take advantage of the City’s access to carbon free electricity and experience all the co-benefits associated with it, the community will phase out natural gas infrastructure and fossil fuel-based transportation. This transition will include electrifying new and existing buildings and transitioning to electric vehicles. Phase 5 Throughout this process, there will be efforts to pursue local carbon sequestration projects, including expanding local tree planting programs and adopting nature-based solutions that protect and restore natural systems and naturally capture and store carbon. Carbon sequestration is vital in reaching carbon neutrality and will help South San Francisco close any gaps left by other initiatives. Phase 4 Additionally, the City will also expand zero waste and sustainable consumption programs. These programs will divert organic waste from landfills, where it produces potent methane emissions, and will help community members to buy less generally, which reduces upstream emissions from material production and consumption. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 26 4.3 REDUCTION STRATEGIES AND ACTIONS In order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to a changing climate, the City intends to move forward with 62 mitigation actions organized into seven categories. Implementing these actions will put South San Francisco on the path to carbon neutrality by 2045. This section presents the mitigation measures and their GHG emission reduction potential, co- benefits, implementation costs, and lead City department. GHG Reductions Key: Supportive—no direct emissions reductions but aid the implementation of measures with direct emissions reductions. Low—less than 15,000 MTCO2e Medium—16,000–40,000 MTCO2e High—more than 40,000 MTCO2e Cost Key: $—less than $100,000 $$—$100,000–$500,000 $$$—$500,000–$2,500,000 $$$$—over $2,500,000 Electric Vehicle Charging Bee Hives SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 27 Clean Energy INTENT: A resilient and fossil-free energy system to reduce energy related greenhouse gas emissions as well as improve local air quality and public health. Residential and nonresidential energy use, including electricity and natural gas, account for 41% of South San Francisco’s greenhouse gas emissions.9 These emissions are mainly driven by the burning of fossil fuel natural gas, which accounts for 60% of energy-related emissions in the city. The proportion of natural gas to overall energy use is expected to increase because the City has joined Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE), which supplies 100% carbon-free electricity to its customers. As of 2020, the community wide participation rate in PCE is 96%. Clean grid electricity, including the installation of distributed energy resources (DERs) such as local solar projects, is a keystone effort being led by the State to achieve its climate goals. Senate Bill 100’s renewable portfolio standard will require that supplied energy not only be 100% carbon-free by 2045 but also 100% generated from renewable sources like wind, solar, and local biogas. Additionally, having access to clean electricity makes supporting the transition to electric vehicles across South San Francisco more beneficial. Although transportation demand policies are addressed in the Mobility and Access Element of the General Plan, transportation is the largest contributor to community emissions accounting for 44% of total emissions. Transportation is also projected to account for most emissions in 2040. To date, the City has adopted an Electric Vehicle Master Plan and is installing electric vehicle charging stations in public parking facilities. The City also provides alternative transportation choices, including the Free South City Shuttle, and is currently developing an active transportation plan to encourage walking and biking. Performance Metrics • Participation rate in PCE ECOPlus tier and ECO100 tiers • Number of (or size of) solar installations on commercial buildings • Number of battery storage systems installed Local Solar Installation Actions • CE 1.1 Solar reach code for nonresidential buildings • CE 1.2 Streamlined approval process for battery storage systems • CE 1.3 Streamlined photovoltaic (PV) system permitting and approval • CE 1.4 Energy resilience via back-up energy systems, microgrids, and other measures • CE 1.5 Public Safety Power Shutoffs • CE 1.6 Community scale solar and other renewable energy Carbon-Free Electricity Actions • CE 2.1 Peninsula Clean Energy Membership 9. Raimi + Associates. (2021). South San Francisco 2017 Greenhouse Gas Inventory. 1. LOCAL SOLAR INSTALLATION ACTIONS CE 1.1 Adopt solar reach code for nonresidential buildings GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Resilience City Manager, Building Require the construction of any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more, to meet a minimum of 50% of modeled building electricity needs with on-site renewable energy sources, as is feasible. 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. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 28 CE 1.2 Streamline permitting and approval processes for battery storage systems GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Resilience City Manager, Building Establish a streamlined approval process for battery storage systems and reduce or eliminate permitting fees to encourage the addition of battery storage. CE 1.3 Streamline PV system permitting and approval GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Resilience City Manager, Building Establish a streamlined PV system permitting and approval process to encourage the addition of solar PV systems. CE 1.4 Develop a program to provide energy resilience via back-up energy systems, microgrids, and other measures GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$-$$$Resilience Public Works Provide energy resilience via back-up energy systems, microgrids, and other measures that serve the community during emergency events, particularly supporting disadvantaged communities, including considering creating a financial incentive program for existing and new solar/battery backup system installations. CE 1.5 Work with PG&E to minimize the impacts of Public Safety Power Shutoffs GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Resilience City Manager, Public Works Work with PG&E to minimize the impacts of Public Safety Power Shutoffs and to prevent utility shutoff during extreme heat events. CE 1.6 Explore community scale solar and other renewable energy implementation GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $-$$$Resilience Public Works Explore the opportunities to install community scale solar PV or other renewable energy systems including biogas to support local energy resiliency and provide renewable energy to disadvantaged communities. 2. CARBON FREE ELECTRICITY ACTION CE 2.1 Achieve and maintain 95% participation in PCE 100% RE tier GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department High $City Manager Maintain City membership in Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and continue to work to maintain a minimum of 95% of private property owner participation in PCE. 2040 Clean Energy GHG Reduction Potential Supportive Cost $-$$$ SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 29 Built Environment Buildings are the primary users of energy within the city and the main vehicle to reduce energy-related emissions. Electricity use in residential and nonresidential buildings accounts for 16% of community emissions and natural gas use accounts for 26% of community emissions. There are two main approaches to reduce emissions in buildings. The first is improved energy efficiency of new and existing buildings and the second is through the electrification of buildings. Electrification removes natural gas systems from buildings and uses electric alternatives to take advantage of the 100% carbon-free electricity provided by PCE. Aerial of East of 101 Source: "Aerial View of Coastline, East of 101" by Chiara Coetzee SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 30 Performance Metrics • Number of all-electric new development projects • Citywide natural gas use • Number of new development projects that exceed CALGreen energy efficiency standards Improved Energy Efficiency of New Construction Action • BNC 1.1 Energy Efficient New Construction All-Electric New Construction Action • BNC 2.1 Nonresidential All-Electric New Construction 1. IMPROVED ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF NEW CONSTRUCTION BNC 1.1 Improve the energy efficiency of new construction GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $Resilience, air quality, public health Planning Provide a combination of financial and development process incentives (eg. expedited permitting, FAR increases, etc.) to encourage new development to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standard 2. ALL-ELECTRIC NEW CONSTRUCTION BNC 2.1 Adopt an all-electric reach code for nonresidential new construction GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $Resilience, air quality, public health City Manager, Building Implement residential all-electric reach code and adopt all-electric reach code for nonresidential new construction. Exempt occupancies must install electric building systems (e.g. space and water heating equipment) where feasible. Until the adoption of the nonresidential all-electric reach code, require any new nonresidential conditioned space of 5,000 square feet or more, or the conversion of unconditioned space 5,000 square feet or more to 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. 2040 New Construction GHG Reduction Potential 4,900 MTCO2e Cost $ New Construction INTENT: Green buildings are the standard in South San Francisco for new construction and major renovations. The number of employees and residents in South San Francisco is expected to grow through 2040, and this growth will result in the construction of new residential and commercial buildings. New construction is governed by the California Building Code and must meet the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen), which include requirements for energy performance. The building code is updated every three years to reflect industry best practices and increase the sustainability of new construction. However, to avoid developing GHG-emitting buildings and infrastructure with useful lives beyond the City’s emissions reduction goals, the City will make enhanced green building the standard for all new construction and major remodels in SSF. Going beyond CALGreen includes promoting all-electric new construction for both residential and nonresidential buildings by adopting a reach code. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 31 Existing Buildings INTENT: The performance of existing buildings in South San Francisco is improved and decarbonized. Most building-related emissions are attributable to the existing building stock, which is much less efficient than new construction due to being built when building energy standards were nonexistent (CALGreen was adopted by the State in 2008). Decarbonizing existing buildings is critical to meeting emissions reduction goals. There are many challenges associated with improving the performance of existing buildings including costs, rental/ownership status and split incentives, and technological constraints. However, benefits include healthier indoor air quality, reduced energy use and lower utility bills, and more resilient building systems. Improving existing buildings in South San Francisco would focus on equitable electrification and promoting existing energy efficiency programs offered by utility companies. Equitable electrification achieves building decarbonization, promotes affordable housing and anti-displacement, equal access to health and safety benefits, economic benefits, and maximizes the ease of installation for everyone, but focuses resources for underserved communities. Performance Metrics • Number of electric panel upgrades • Number of building electrification retrofits • Number and type of retrofits in disadvantaged communities • Citywide natural gas use Improved Energy Efficiency of Existing Buildings Actions • BE 1.1 EPA Home Energy Score • BE 1.2 CALGreen standards for major renovations • BE 1.3 Energy Efficiency Programs • BE 1.4 Low-Cost Energy Audits • BE 1.5 Deep Energy Retrofits • BE 1.6 Commercial Benchmarking Ordinance • BE 1.7 Retrocommissioning Partnership • BE 1.8 Transition to carbon-free back-up power Electrify Existing Buildings Actions • BE 2.1 Existing Building Electrification Plan • BE 2.2 Electric Panel Upgrade • BE 2.3 Burnout Ordinance • BE 2.4 All-Electric Major Renovations 1. IMPROVED ENERGY EFFICIENCY BE 1.1 EPA Home Energy Score GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Economic and Community Development Encourage residential properties older than 10 years to provide an energy audit or EPA Home Energy Score at time of sale. BE 1.2 Require major renovations to meet CALGreen standards GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $$ Lower utility costs, indoor air quality Planning, Building Update zoning and building codes to require alternations or additions at least 50% the size of the original building to comply with minimum CALGreen requirements. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 32 BE 1.3 Energy efficiency programs GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $Lower utility costs City Manager Promote rebate programs for household appliances including those from Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). BE 1.4 Low-cost energy audits GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $City Manager Work with Peninsula Clean Energy and San Mateo County Energy Upgrade to provide free to low-cost energy audits. BE 1.5 Deep energy retrofits GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $$Lower utility costs, indoor air quality City Manager Work with PG&E and PCE to implement deep retrofits in the existing building stock, focusing resources in the most disadvantaged communities. BE 1.6 Commercial Benchmarking Ordinance GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Lower utility costs City Manager, Building Adopt energy and water benchmarking ordinance for commercial buildings over 10,000 square feet to empower owners to control utility costs. BE 1.7 Retrocommissioning partnership GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Lower utility costs City Manager, Building Work with PG&E and PCE to implement retrocommissioning in the existing building stock. BE 1.8 Transition to carbon-free back-up power GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Air quality, resilience City Manager Work with PG&E and PCE to transition backup generators from diesel to carbon-free sources including battery storage systems. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 33 2. ELECTRIFY EXISTING BUILDINGS BY 2040 BE 2.1 Existing Building Electrification Plan GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department High $$Resilience, air quality, public health City Manager, Building Develop a date certain, phased-in Existing Building Electrification Plan to retrofit 90% of existing homes and businesses to all electric by 2040. BE 2.2 Electric Panel Upgrade GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Air quality, public health City Manager, Building Require electric panel upgrades upon sale and/or rental turnover for single family and low-rise residential. BE 2.3 Burnout Ordinance GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $$Resilience, air quality, public health City Manager, Building Require gas appliances (stove, clothes dryer, water heater) to be replaced with an electric alternative when they fail or reach the end of their useful life. BE 2.4 All-electric major renovations GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $$Resilience, air quality, public health City Manager, Building Adopt an all-electric reach code for major renovations, alterations, additions. 2040 Built Environment GHG Reduction Potential 235,450 MTCO2e Cost $-$$ SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 34 Transportation and Land Use INTENT: Transportation in South San Francisco will be safe, multimodal, sustainable, livable, and connected. Transportation-related emissions are the largest contributor to communitywide emissions, accounting for 44%. There are two main levers to reduce emissions associated with transportation. The first is to “clean” vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through vehicle electrification and access to carbon- free electricity from PCE. Second, is to reduce VMT through transportation demand programs and policies. Vehicle electrification can result in immediate emissions reductions as a result of using the carbon-free electricity available in the city. However, EV adoption is not directly within the City’s control. Transportation demand measures (TDMs) to reduce VMT, on the other hand, take longer to implement but can generate many co-benefits in addition to reducing GHG emissions. VMT reduction strategies align with the General Plan Mobility and Access Element target that aims for transit, walk, and bike trips to account for 40% of all trips by 2040. Performance Metrics • Transit, walk, and bike trips account for 40% of all trips • Double SamTrans and BART ridership, quadruple ferry ridership, and achieve 10x growth in Caltrain ridership by 2040 • Reduction in East of 101 Area peak hour traffic volumes Clean VMT through Electrification • TL 1.1 Electric Vehicle Charging Reach Code • TL 1.2 Electric Vehicle Chargers at Municipal Facilities Reduced VMT through Mode Shift • TL 2.1 Trip CAP on East of 101 • TL 2.2 TDM Program • TL 2.3 Improve Curb Management • TL 2.4 Parking Demand Management Strategy • TL 2.5 Development along Transit Corridors • TL 2.6 Complete Streets Policy • TL 2.7 Free Local Bus Service • TL 2.8 Transit Station Access • TL 2.9 Transit Service Levels 1. CLEAN VMT THROUGH ELECTRIFICATION TL 1.1 Electric Vehicle Charging Reach Code GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $Air quality, public health Planning, Building Implement EV reach code. TL 1.2 Electric Vehicle Chargers at Municipal Facilities GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $$Air quality, public health Public Works, City Manager Seek opportunities to install additional electric vehicle chargers at suitable public facilities, including Downtown parking structures and community and regional parks. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 35 2. REDUCED VMT THROUGH MODE SHIFT TL 2.1 Trip CAP on East of 101 GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $Air quality, public health, reduced congestion Planning Implement an East of 101 area trip cap with triennial monitoring and corrective actions if exceeded to manage the number of vehicles entering the area. TL 2.2 TDM Program GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $Air quality, public health, reduced congestion Planning Implement, monitor, and enforce compliance with the City’s TDM Ordinance. TL 2.3 Improve Curb Management GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $$Reduced congestion Planning, Public Works Evaluate the current and best use of curb space in the city’s activity centers and repurpose space to maximize people served (i.e. for loading, bikeways, bike parking, bus lanes, EV charging, or parklets). TL 2.4 Parking Demand Management Strategy GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Air quality, public health, reduced congestion Planning Incorporate maximum parking requirements for new residential and office/R&D projects. TL 2.5 Development along Transit Corridors GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $Air quality, public health, reduced congestion Planning For all new land use and transportation projects, adhere to the City’s VMT Analysis Guidelines and qualitatively assess the project’s effect on multimodal access. Use the development review process to identify opportunities to enhance bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connectivity. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 36 TL 2.6 Complete Streets Policy GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Medium $$Air quality, public health, reduced congestion, safety Planning, Public Works Ensure that all roadway and development projects are designed and evaluated to meet the needs of all street users, and that development projects contribute to multimodal improvements in proportion to their potential impacts on vehicle miles traveled. Develop a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) prioritization criteria, including equity considerations for SB 1000 neighborhoods, to strategically advance multimodal complete streets projects. All capital improvements and development projects incorporate bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Active South City Plan, such as trails, bikeways, bicycle detection at traffic signals, high-visibility crosswalks, and pedestrian-oriented site plans. TL 2.7 Free Local Bus Service GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$Resilience, air quality, public health City Manager, Public Works Develop a dedicated funding source or leverage private sector contributions to fund the South City shuttle and free bus service for South City residents. TL 2.8 Improve Transit Station Access GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$Resilience, air quality, public health Planning, Public Works Leverage public-private partnerships to increase transit ridership and improve transit station access by incorporating first/last mile bus, shuttle, and active transportation connections between employment hubs and regional transit stations. TL 2.9 Scale Transit Service Levels GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Resilience, air quality, public health City Manager, Planning Continue collaboration with Caltrain, SamTrans, WETA, and shuttle providers to scale service levels in growing areas and leverage private sector subsidies of transit fares to support BART, Caltrain, SamTrans, and WETA ridership. 2040 Transportation GHG Reduction Potential 220,820 MTCO2e Cost $-$$ SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 37 Solid Waste INTENT: The City continues to divert organics from landfill in accordance with State targets, meeting the requirements of SB 1383 Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Act and reducing greenhouse gas emissions related to landfilled waste as well as cultivating behavior change around resource consumption. Solid waste accounts for 10% of South San Francisco’s overall emissions. By consuming less materials and recycling and composting more, the community will be able to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill and eventually become a zero-waste city. Specifically, diverting organic material including food waste is a crucial step to meeting long-term goals, because organic materials produce methane, which is a more potent GHG than carbon dioxide. The State adopted Senate Bill 1383, the Short-Lived Climate Pollutants Act, that requires jurisdictions to divert 75% of food waste from landfills by 2025, and jurisdictions must also recover food waste that can be repurposed. Moreover, organics recycling can provide useful byproducts including compost and biogas, which can further reduce emissions and provide economic benefits. Performance Metrics • Communitywide waste generation • Tons of edible food recovered and redistributed Increase diversion from landfill • SW 1.1 Zero-Waste Plan • SW 1.2 SSF Scavenger Partnership • SW 1.3 Waste Reduction Compliance Pathways • SW 1.4 Educational outreach about waste diversion • SW 1.5 Waste rate structures • SW 1.6 City green purchasing program 1. INCREASED DIVERSION FROM LANDFILL SW 1.1 Zero-Waste Plan GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$Public Works Adopt an SB 1383 compliant zero-waste plan for municipal operations and the community that includes: mandatory residential and commercial recycling and collection of organics/food waste, mandatory commercial edible food recovery program (per MOU with San Mateo County Office of Sustainability), and updated trash enclosure space and access requirements based on hauler recommendations to accommodate all waste streams (e.g., recycling, trash, and organics). SW 1.2 SSF Scavenger Partnership GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Public Works Continue to work with SSF Scavenger to ensure implementation of waste reduction targets. SW 1.3 Waste Reduction Compliance Pathways GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Public Works Establish compliance pathways and enforcement mechanisms for mandatory organics and food waste diversion. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 38 Compost, Recyclable, and Landfill Waste Receptacle SW 1.4 Educational outreach about waste diversion GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $$Public Works Develop education and technical assistance programs to help all residents and businesses to compost and recycle. SW 1.5 Waste rate structures GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$Public Works Explore modifying waste rate structures to encourage efficiency in future franchise agreements. SW 1.6 City green purchasing program GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Public Works, Finance Establish a green purchasing program for City of South San Francisco municipal operations. 2040 Built Environment GHG Reduction Potential 12,840 MTCO2e Cost $-$$ SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 39 Water and Wastewater INTENT: Water is used efficiently in South San Francisco to help ensure a safe and resilient water supply. Water is a critical resource in California and South San Francisco. Regional water supplies are already being adversely affected by climate change induced drought and decreased snowpack. South San Francisco’s water supplier, California Water Service, meets 20% of the city’s demand with locally pumped groundwater. Climate change may impact local hydrology and affect natural recharge to the local groundwater aquifers and the quantity of groundwater that could be pumped sustainably over the long-term. Lower rainfall and/or more intense runoff, increased evaporative losses, and warmer and shorter winter seasons can alter natural recharge of groundwater. Although water related emissions in South San Francisco account for less than 1% of the communitywide total emissions, the ecosystem and quality of life benefits that reliable clean water provide are important to protect. Thus, reducing indoor and outdoor water use through fixture upgrades and climate- appropriate landscaping for both residential and nonresidential buildings is incorporated in the General Plan. Performance Metrics • Gallons per capita per day (GPCD) • Number of WELO compliant landscape renovations • Number of plumbing fixture upgrades Reduce Outdoor Water Use • WW 1.1 Landscaping Water Requirements • WW 1.2 Alternative Water Sources • WW 1.3 Greywater Systems • WW 1.4 Landscaping Plant List • WW 1.5 Smart Meters Reduce Indoor Water Use • WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards • WW 2.2 Water Supplier Rebates 1. REDUCE OUTDOOR WATER USE WW 1.1 Landscaping Water Requirements GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Resilience Planning, Building, Parks & Recreation Achieve greater water use reductions than WELO by requiring all landscapes obtain a landscape permit, decreasing the size threshold to capture all landscape renovations, adding prescriptive irrigation plant lists, or water budget requirements. WW 1.2 Alternative Water Sources GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Resilience Public Works Explore options at the South San Francisco - San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant for delivering non-potable, recycled water for cooling towers, processes, and irrigation in East of 101 (e.g., flow pipe water). Maximize available non-potable water reuse from Orange Park Stormwater Capture project, at Orange Memorial Park, Centennial Way, and new Civic Campus. WW 1.3 Promote Greywater Systems GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Resilience Building, Public Works Create a streamlined permit process for laundry-to-landscape greywater systems. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 40 WW 1.4 Landscaping Plant List GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Resilience Parks and Recreation, Planning Develop a plant list, landscaping palette for efficiency and habitat/wildlife for new development and landscape retrofits. WW 1.5 Install Smart Meters GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Lower utility costs Public Works Partner with CalWater to install smart water meters throughout the city. 2. REDUCE INDOOR WATER USE WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Lower utility costs Building Require high-efficiency fixtures in all new construction and major renovations, comparable to CALGreen Tier 1 or 2 standards. WW 2.2 Promote available Rebates GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Lower utility costs City Manager, Public Works Promote available water conservation rebates from BayREN, CalWater, and other sources focusing resources in the most disadvantaged communities. 2040 Water + Wastewater GHG Reduction Potential 700 MTCO2e Cost $ Drought Tolerant Landscaping SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 41 Carbon Sequestration and Natural Systems INTENT: The City increases carbon sequestration in public lands, open spaces, and the urban forest through the enhancement of natural systems and provide many quality-of-life and resiliency benefits in addition to emissions reductions. Carbon sequestration is the long-term removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the earth’s natural systems including trees, grasses, soils, and riparian areas, thereby slowing the accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere. Since carbon sequestration involves habitats within the city, these topics are further explored as part of the General Plan’s Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Element. There are several forms of carbon sequestration, including planting trees, applying compost to open spaces, reusing tree biomass (tree chips) as mulch, and restoring and protecting natural areas such as Colma Creek and Sign Hill. Carbon sequestration through the enhancement of natural systems provides many quality-of-life and resiliency co-benefits in addition to emissions reductions. For example, expanding the urban forest can help mitigate the urban heat island, improve air quality, provide traffic calming, and reduce energy use. Similarly, protecting open space can provide increased opportunities for outdoor recreation and promote biodiversity. Performance Metrics • Number of trees planted • Canopy coverage in disadvantaged communities • Number of riparian restoration projects completed in Colma Creek watershed Store Carbon on Protected Lands through Carbon Farming • CS 1.1 Carbon Farming Increase Tree Canopy • CS 2.1 Public Tree Planting • CS 2.2 Tree Standards for New Development Restore Colma Creek as an Ecological Corridor • CS 3.1 Colma Creek Restoration 1. STORE CARBON ON PROTECTED LANDS THROUGH CARBON FARMING CS 1.1 Carbon Farming GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Resilience Public Works, Parks and Recreation Explore compost application on available acres of appropriate open space. 2. INCREASE TREE CANOPY CS 2.1 Public Tree Planting GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$Resilience, air quality, public health Parks and Recreation Expand the canopy cover to reach the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan and increase environmental benefits, prioritizing disadvantaged communities and connected wildlife corridors. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 42 CS 2.2 Tree Standards for New Development GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Resilience, air quality, public health Planning, Parks & Recreation For nonresidential and residential new construction, require silva cell structures and soil compaction plan for tree growth, and require the preservation and addition of trees on private property in residential neighborhoods through design review where appropriate. Incorporate Parks and Recreation urban forest staff in the review process. 3. RESTORE COLMA CREEK AS AN ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR CS 3.1 Colma Creek Restoration GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$$Resilience City Manager, Planning, Public Works Enhance Colma Creek as an ecological corridor, restoring 5 miles of creek ecologies and creating transitional habitat zones to build resilience and ecosystem services. Protect and expand existing marsh and wetland habitat to improve water quality, adapt to climate change, and provide habitat for wildlife. 2040 Carbon Sequestration GHG Reduction Potential 3,320 MTCO2e Cost $-$$$ Colma Creek in Lindenville SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 43 1. IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFICIENCIES AND PERFORMANCE OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS, FACILITIES, LANDSCAPING, AND PARKS CL 1.1 Minimum LEED certification or equivalent for new buildings GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$Air quality, public health, resilience Public Works, City Manager Require all new municipal buildings and facilities to meet a minimum LEED silver standards as outlined by the US Green Building Council or equivalent green building rating system. Require feasibility studies for zero net energy use, on-site renewable energy generation, and on-site batteries. City Leadership INTENT: The City demonstrates leadership with high-performing sustainable municipal buildings, facilities, landscaping, and parks. The ability to meet South San Francisco’s goals of mitigating carbon emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change will be demonstrated by City actions. The City will implement a series of actions that will both reduce carbon emissions from municipal operations and enhance resiliency. These actions include energy and water efficiency upgrades for City facilities, parks, and landscapes, sustainable new construction, the electrification of buildings and fleet vehicles, supporting electric vehicle adoption through charger installation, and the installation of resilience measures including solar plus storage projects. These policies will not only reduce emissions but create community benefits through leading by example. Performance Metrics • Number City buildings retrofitted to eliminate natural gas use • Percent of City fleet powered by clean energy • Reduction in GHG emissions from City operations Improve the environmental efficiencies and performance of municipal buildings, facilities, landscaping, and parks in South San Francisco • CL 1.1 Minimum LEED certification or equivalent for new buildings • CL 1.2 Environmental performance of municipal buildings and facilities • CL 1.3 Municipal building retrofits and operational changes • CL 1.4 Requirements for municipal construction and demolition projects • CL 1.5 Energy resilience of municipal buildings • CL 1.6 Zero Emission Fleet Vehicles • CL 1.7 TDM Program Maintain and regularly update the City’s Climate Action Plan and Greenhouse Gas Inventory with new and emerging practices • CL 2.1 Carbon neutrality goal monitoring. • CL 2.2 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory maintenance • CL 2.3 Municipal Greenhouse Gas inventory preparation • CL 2.4 Innovative pilot programs • CL 2.5 Funding to support greenhouse gas emission reductions • CL 2.6 Community education about greenhouse gas reduction incentives City Building with Solar Panels SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 44 CL 1.2 Environmental performance of municipal buildings and facilities GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Air quality, public health, resilience Public Works, Parks and Recreation Regularly benchmark the environmental performance of municipal buildings, landscaping, parks and facilities, including energy and water use. CL 1.3 Municipal building retrofits and operational changes GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Parks and Recreation To reduce operating and maintenance costs, use the benchmarking data to identify opportunities for environmental performance improvements through audits, retro-commissioning, and building efficiency and electrification retrofits. CL 1.4 Requirements for municipal construction and demolition projects GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Public Works, City Manager Require municipal construction projects to achieve 75% waste diversion from the landfill. CL 1.5 Energy resilience of municipal buildings GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $$Resilience Public Works, City Manager Require municipal building and facility new construction and major renovation projects to evaluate the feasibility of incorporating onsite batteries that store electricity from onsite renewable energy generation to supply the building and community with electricity in the event of a disaster. CL 1.6 Zero Emission Fleet Vehicles GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$Air quality, public health Public Works Transition fleet vehicles from gasoline and diesel to ZEV (CNG, fuel cell, electric) as feasible ZEV alternatives become available and no later than 2040. Transition City owned and operated small gas engines (eg. push mowers, trimmers, blowers etc) to all- electric by 2024 in line with state mandate. CL 1.7 TDM Program GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Air quality, public health, reduced congestion City Manager Adopt municipal TDM policy or participate in City ordinance that encourages alternatives to SOVs and established telecommute policy to allow remote work when feasible. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 45 2. MAINTAIN AND REGULARLY UPDATE THE CITY’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY CL 2.1 Carbon neutrality goal monitoring GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Planning, City Manager Track and report progress towards achieving the City’s greenhouse gas reduction goal. CL 2.2 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory maintenance GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Resilience, air quality, public health City Manager Update the community greenhouse gas inventory every five years. CL 2.3 Municipal Greenhouse Gas inventory preparation GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Resilience, air quality, public health City Manager Prepare an inventory of emissions from municipal operations, establish a GHG reduction target, and develop a work plan to reduce municipal emissions to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. CL 2.4 Innovative pilot programs GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $$Resilience, air quality, public health, safety City Manager Explore the potential for innovative greenhouse gas reduction pilot programs, including collaborations and partnerships, in each emissions sector (e.g., buildings and energy, transportation, solid waste, water, and carbon sequestration). CL 2.5 Funding to support greenhouse gas emission reductions GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Low $Resilience, air quality, public health, safety City Manager Seek additional sources of funding to support implementation of greenhouse gas reduction projects, exploring grant funding, rebates, and other incentive opportunities. CL 2.6 Community education about greenhouse gas reduction incentives GHG Reduction Potential Cost Co-Benefits Responsible Department Supportive $Resilience, air quality, public health, safety City Manager Educate residents and businesses about opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through grant funding, rebates, and other incentive opportunities. Establish an environmental interpretative program to raise awareness about environmental issues and climate adaptation throughout the city. 2040 City Leadership GHG Reduction Potential Not modeled Cost $-$$ SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 4 GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES 46 Performance Metrics Metric Available Baseline Data (2017) Participation rate in PCE ECOPlus tier 96% Number of (or size of) solar installations on commercial buildings Number of battery storage systems installed Citywide electricity use 489,460,969 kWh Citywide natural gas use 29,866,596 therms Number of all-electric new development projects Number of new development projects that exceed CALGreen energy efficiency standards Number of electric panel upgrades Number of building electrification retrofits Number and type of retrofits in disadvantaged communities Transit, walk, and bike mode split Carpool = 29%, transit = 3%, walk and bike = 7% Double SamTrans and BART ridership, quadruple ferry ridership, and achieve 10x growth in Caltrain ridership by 2040 Reduction in East of 101 Area peak hour traffic volumes Community waste generated 89,136 tons Tons of edible food recovered and redistributed Gallon per capita per day (GPCD)86 gpcd Number of MWELO compliant landscape renovations Number of plumbing fixture upgrades Number of trees planted 15,000 trees Canopy coverage in disadvantaged communities Number of riparian restoration projects completed in Colma Creek watershed SamTrans Stop on Grand Ave. 47 CHAPTER 5Implementing the CAP SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING THE CAP 48 The CAP directs City staff to develop and implement specific policies, plans, programs, and projects over the next 10 years to achieve the City’s climate goals. Successful implementation of the CAP strategies will require commitment and coordination from staff throughout the City. Although the City will initiate climate action, community involvement is an essential component of the CAP implementation process, as many strategies depend on active participation by residents and businesses. Equity vs. Equality Though equity is like equality, they are not the same thing. Equality means everyone receives the same thing regardless of any other factors. Equity, on the other hand, is about ensuring that people have access to the same opportunities to thrive and succeed. A climate equity lens recognizes that people may have different starting points and may need different types and levels of support to adapt to climate change in order to achieve fairness in climate outcomes. Thus, climate equity is achieved when socioeconomic and environmental factors, such as race, income, education, or place, can no longer be used to predict the health, economic, or other wellbeing outcomes from climate change. For the purposes of the CAP, the following dimensions of equity are considered: Procedural Create processes that are transparent, fair, and inclusive in developing and implementing any climate program, plan, or policy. This dimension of equity focuses on ensuring that all people are treated openly and fairly, and on increasing opportunities for engagement and ownership in decision-making in all phases of climate resilience planning and CAP implementation. Structural: Address the underlying structural and institutional systems that are the root causes of social and racial inequities. It is a dimension of equity that makes a commitment to correct past harms and prevent future unintended consequences from climate-related decision-making, such as in the CAP implementation. Distributional: Fairly distribute resources, benefits, and burdens. This dimension of equity focuses on prioritizing resources for communities that experience the greatest climate and environmental inequities, disproportionate impacts, and have the greatest unmet environmental health needs. Community Participation at Shape SSF Meeting 5.1 PARTNERSHIPS Partnerships are an integral part of CAP implementation. They allow the City to leverage existing programs and funding opportunities and take advantage of state and regional efforts. Many of the programs and incentives outlined in the CAP will come from the utilities including PG&E and PCE, CalWater, and SSF Scavengers. Furthermore, creating these partnerships will help the City stay updated about new program development and foster relationships to improve data collection processes. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING THE CAP 49 5.2 EQUITABLE PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION Achieving climate equity will require careful design and execution of policies and programs to improve outcomes for disadvantaged populations in all stages of CAP implementation. When equity is prioritized, climate mitigation strategies can address and lessen existing social, racial, and health disparities. Implementation of this CAP will be guided by two equity guardrails: 1. A majority of the local benefits resulting from CAP implementation will be focused in disadvantaged communities by meeting priority community needs, improving public health, building on community assets and values, and increasing community resilience. 2. Required measures do not present an undue cost burden on those least able to afford implementation. Financial and technical assistance will be prioritized for disadvantaged communities and sensitive populations, including renters, to allow them to participate in CAP programs and fully realize all benefits. As part of the General Plan Update process, the City has undertaken studies related to health and environmental justice. These analyses can guide CAP implementation program design to ensure that the above equity guardrails are being followed. The General Plan Update has identified many of the City’s neighborhoods as of particular concern related to environmental justice. In South San Francisco, the sub-areas of Avalon-Brentwood, Downtown, East of 101, Lindenville, Orange Park, Paradise Valley/Terrabay, and Sign Hill are identified as disadvantaged communities (Figure 5). In addition, the sub-areas of El Camino, Sunshine Gardens, Westborough, and Winston Serra also have small areas that are identified as disadvantaged communities. These disadvantaged communities were identified based on the State’s recommended screening methods,10 which includes CalEnviroScreen 4.0 and low-income areas with high pollution burden, in accordance with The Planning for Healthy Communities Act of 2016 (Senate Bill 1000). 10. California Office of Planning and Research. General Plan Guidelines Chapter 4: Required Elements. 2020. Retrieved from: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20200706-GPG_ Chapter_4_EJ.pdf. Shape SSF Community Conversation Presentation in Spanish on Climate Adaptation and Safety Downtown SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING THE CAP 50 Figure 5: Disadvantaged Communities City of South San Francisco BART Station City Parks, Open Space, & Joint Facilities Caltrain Station Arterial Road Streams Unincorporated Area in City Sphere BART Context Parks Caltrain Local Road Ferry Terminal Station Highway Waterbody Disadvantaged Communities Sub-areas Low Income Areas with High Pollution Burden CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results Sources: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (2021); ACS15-19 (5yr); City of South San Francisco (2019); County of San Mateo (2019); ESRI (2021). San Bruno Mountain State & County Park San Francisco Bay Ferry Terminal San Bruno Creek C o l m a C r e e k AirportBlvdChestnut AveE Grand Ave Grand Ave Oyster Point Blvd SAi rpor t Bl v dH ills id e B lv d F orbes Blvd Gateway B lv d DNAWaySisterCitiesBlvd E l Ca mi n o R e a lJunipero Ser r a Bl vdW e s tb o roughBlvdC a ll a n B lv d H i c k e y B l v d SpruceA v e S Linden AveUtah AveSSpruceAveGellertBlvd §¨¦380 §¨¦280 ¬«35 ¬«82 £¤101 Unincorporated Area City of Pacifica City of San Bruno City of Colma City of Daly City City of Brisbane San Francisco International Airport Paradise Valley/Terrabay Winston Serra Downtown Sign HillEl CaminoLindenville Orange Park Avalon-Brentwood East of 101 Sunshine Gardens Westborough °0 0.5 10.25 Miles !!!!!City of South San Francisco Unincorporated Area in City Sphere Ferry Terminal Caltrain Station Caltrain BART Station BART Highway Arterial Roads Local Roads City Parks and Joint Facilities Context Parks Waterbody Streams Sources: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (2021); ACS15-19 (5yr); City of South San Francisco (2019); County of San Mateo (2019); ESRI (2021). Sub-areas Low-Income Areas with High Pollution Burden CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results Disadvantaged Communities Disadvantaged Communities NavigableSlough Implementing measures in this plan can enhance climate equity in the City’s disadvantaged communities in the following ways: Measures TL 1.1 (pg.34) and TL 2.1 (pg.35) are designed to not only reduce transportation related emissions but improve air quality in the East of 101 neighborhood by reducing VMT and promoting electric vehicle adoption. According to CalEnviroScreen 4.0, South San Francisco’s East of 101 neighborhood is in the 95th percentile for diesel particulate matter (PM), which means that 95% of communities in California have less diesel PM pollution than the East of 101 neighborhood. Measures BE 2.1–BE 2.4 (pg.33) related to the electrification of existing buildings will be implemented through a phased-in methodical approach, leveraging available energy efficiency resources, to ensure that renters and other vulnerable populations can enjoy improved indoor environmental health and safety while being protected from housing dislocations that might otherwise arise from the transition. Measure CS 2.1 (pg.41) is designed to increase tree canopy throughout the city by planting new trees in accordance with the Urban Forest Master Plan. Climate equity can be achieved by prioritizing tree planting in disadvantaged communities with low access to open space, such as Downtown. New trees will capture carbon, help to reduce the urban heat island effect, make walking and biking more pleasant on hot days, and improve local air quality; all of which improve public health and wellbeing. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING THE CAP 51 5.3 COST EFFECTIVENESS There are many different approaches to establishing implementation cost estimates for CAP strategies. Implementation costs include both administrative and programmatic costs to the City, and equipment and services costs to residents and businesses. Costs can be expressed as relative costs to a determined baseline, up-front first costs or the direct costs of implementation, or long-term cost effectiveness, the total cost of action implementation over time accounting for cost savings over the lifetime of the intervention. All these costs estimates differ. Table 3 shows the estimated cost effectiveness of CAP strategies expressed as potential GHG reductions relative to cost. These cost estimates may change as the market adjusts to future technological adoption and advancements or additional climate measures are pursued. The GHG abatement cost for South San Francisco is in line with that of the state. However, the two analyses (cite CEC analysis) differ based on the GHG sectors and reduction measures included. Table 3: CAP Implementation Cost Effectiveness CAP Outcome Cost GHG Reduction Potential (MTCO2e) Relative Cost Effectiveness (GHG Reduction/Cost) Clean Energy Local Solar Installations High Low Low Clean Energy EcoPlus - PCE Low High High Buildings New Building Electrification Low Medium Medium Existing Building Electrification High High Low Existing Building Energy Efficiency Medium Low Medium Transportation EV Adoption Medium Low Medium Mode Shift High High High Solid Waste SB 1383 Compliance High Low Low Water Outdoor Water Use Low Low High Sequestration Trees High Low Low Creek Restoration High Low Carbon Farming TBD SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING THE CAP 52 5.4 FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES The actions in this CAP do not necessarily represent the lowest cost pathway to achieve South San Francisco’s GHG targets. Instead, the actions were chosen to reflect local conditions and priorities, address equity, and to create multiple benefits in addition to emissions reductions. However, implementing the CAP can also provide economic benefits across the city including expanding the local green economy, job creation, and reducing costs for South San Francisco residents and businesses. For example, making walking and biking safer and transit more accessible can reduce the costs of traveling around South San Francisco, while promoting an active lifestyle that can help improve health outcomes. Below is a list of potential funding sources as well as available incentive programs to help reduce the cost of implementing CAP actions: City’s General Fund This is the primary source of funding for City operations and can be used for any public purpose. It is allocated as part of the overall City budget, approved by City Council. The large number of competing priorities for General Fund dollars requires that the City seek out other sources of funding wherever possible to increase the likelihood of successful implementation for each action. Bonds Local governments can sell bonds to investors that raise capital for a specific objective. Bonds must be approved by voters and may have additional oversight or administration requirements. Taxes Taxes generate revenue to support local, regional, and state operations. Taxes can be used either for general purposes (e.g. any city service as needed) or specific purposes (e.g. climate change mitigation) but require voter approval. Examples of taxes include: • Utility User Tax • Real Estate Transfer Tax • Parcel Tax State and Federal Grants Grants are usually given without expectation of repayment, but often require either matching funds from the City and/or staff time to administer the grants. Grants often fund new and innovative programs. However, grants are also competitive and are not a guaranteed source of funding. The following agencies offer climate related grants: • Department of Energy • California Energy Commission • PG&E • Bay Area Air Quality Management District • Electrify America • FTA Planning Grants • CARB • CalFire • FEMA • CDFA Healthy Soils Initiative • CalRecycle Incentives and Rebates Incentives and rebates are usually monetary motivators that can help cover the cost of implementing specific programs or equipment. Many utilities have incentive programs to help spur investment, pay for equipment, and expand various markets for newer technologies. Existing programs include: • PCE Residential and Commercial Rebates • BayREN Home+ Rebates • California Water Service rebates • CA Clean Vehicle Rebate Project • Single-family Solar Affordable Solar Housing (SASH) Program • Multifamily Affordable Solar Housing (MASH) Program • Residential and Commercial Federal ITC for solar photovoltaics • New local incentives programs as needed • PACE financing SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CHAPTER 5 IMPLEMENTING THE CAP 53 5.5 MONITORING AND EVALUATION Monitoring of the CAP’s performance involves tracking the performance of individual strategies and estimating the GHG emissions reductions resulting from their implementation. The performance metrics identified for each strategy will be tracked using readily accessible data that is useful for estimating emissions reductions. Periodic re-inventorying of local government and community- wide emissions will also be needed to validate overall progress toward the City’s GHG reduction targets. Monitoring of and reporting on the CAP’s performance involves tracking the implementation of individual strategies and estimating the GHG emissions reductions resulting from them. The performance metrics identified for each strategy will be tracked using readily accessible data that is useful for estimating emissions reductions. Periodic re-inventorying of local government and community-wide emissions will also be needed to validate overall progress toward the City’s GHG reduction targets. GHG Inventory: Staff will update the City’s community and municipal operations emissions inventory every three to five years. Inventory updates will encompass all inventory sectors (residential energy, commercial/industrial energy, large industrial energy, on- and off-road transportation, solid waste, wastewater, water, and municipal operations). Annual CAP Progress Report: The City’s Chief Sustainability Officer will prepare annual progress reports on CAP implementation to be presented to City Council, Planning Commission, and other stakeholders as needed. The report will evaluate the successes and challenges in meeting the City’s GHG reduction targets (as they become known or apparent), provide the status of implementing actions for each reduction strategy in the CAP (e.g., initiated, ongoing, completed), assess the effectiveness of each strategy, and recommend adjustments to programs or actions as needed. CAP Updates: A comprehensive revision of the CAP should occur at least every five to ten years to monitor progress of GHG reductions against the 2030 target and 2045 goal of carbon neutrality, to account for the impact of new legislation and state programs on GHG targets and emissions reductions, and to adjust strategies and actions as needed to reach the targets. In preparation for the 2030 update and annual reporting to the Planning Commission and City Council, staff will use greenhouse gas inventories and CAP measure implementation to track South San Francisco progress in reducing emissions, VMT, waste generation, and energy use over time using readily available data. Oversight and Accountability Options for an ongoing structure for oversight in CAP implementation and long-term plan updates: • Create an internal Sustainability and Climate Action Team (led by the City’s Chief Sustainability Officer) to assist in coordinating and implementing actions across departments, identifying synergies/collaboration opportunities, and identifying funding sources. • Develop and maintain a community-facing Climate Action Tracking Dashboard for transparency. • Prepare annual updates for the Planning Commission and City Council on CAP progress. City Hall Glossary 54 SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN GLOSSARY 55 A Active transportation This is a non-motorized form of transportation, primarily made up of walking and bicycling. Adjusted Business-as-Usual Forecast (ABAU) The influence of federal, statewide, and regional policies (e.g., Pavley Clean Car Standards) will have on the City’s projected emissions. B Business-as-Usual (BAU) A GHG emissions scenario that is based on the assumption that no mitigation policies or measures will be implemented beyond those that are already in progress that can serve to highlight the level of emissions that would occur without further policy effort. C Carbon neutrality The balance between carbon emissions and carbon absorption from the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration The process of capturing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Climate change Climate change refers to changes in the average and/or the variability of temperature, rainfall, and extreme weather that persist for an extended period Climate hazard Short or long-term climate events that have the potential to cause damage or harm to humans and natural systems. These include meteorological, climatological, hydrological, geophysical or biological events. Co-benefit Non-greenhouse gas-related benefits of climate actions. Measuring co-benefits examines how climate action is interrelated with and delivers outcomes for provision of basic services, health, prosperity and other sustainable development agendas. Community solar A solar power project where the energy and benefits of that project go towards multiple energy customers (e.g., individuals, businesses, nonprofits). D Decarbonization Process of reducing embodied or operational GHG emissions. Typically refers to a reduction of the carbon emissions associated with energy consumption, industry and transportation. The intention to decarbonize the electric power grid is often referred to as Grid Decarbonization. Disadvantaged community A disadvantaged community is defined as “a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. Distributed Energy Resource (DER) These resources are small, modular energy generation and storage systems that provide electricity or energy and can be connected or independent from the larger electrical power grid. E Electrification The process of transitioning away from technologies that use fossil fuels to technologies that use electricity. Electrification of systems paired with a power grid with 100% renewable energy sources can significantly reduce GHG emissions. Emissions inventory A quantified list of a city’s GHG emissions and sources. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN GLOSSARY 56 Emissions reduction potential A measurement of the potential to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from a particular sector or through an action. The abatement potential is measured in GHG emissions (e.g. tons of carbon dioxide equivalent). Equity The absence of avoidable or remediable differences among groups of people, whether those groups are defined socially, economically, demographically or geographically. As opposed to the concept of equality where everyone is given equal access, equity provides proportional access to redress historical and current disparities and ensure the same level of opportunity for all. G Green building Green building is a holistic concept that starts with the understanding that the built environment can have profound effects, both positive and negative, on the natural environment, as well as the people who inhabit buildings every day. Green building is an effort to amplify the positive and mitigate the negative of these effects throughout the entire life cycle of a building. Considerations include energy use, water use, indoor environmental quality, material section and the building’s effects on its site. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) These are gases within the atmosphere that accelerate the warming of the Earth and are released from human activities that burn fossil fuels or from historic carbon sinks, such as melting permafrost. Greywater The water generated from buildings that is not contaminated (e.g., sinks, dishwashers). Greywater systems This system collects domestic, uncontaminated wastewater and reuses it for irrigation or toilet flushing. Sources of greywater include sinks, showers, washing machines, and dishwashers. L LEED The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system is used to evaluate the sustainable design strategies of new and retrofitted projects. M Mode shift The transition from using one habitual form of travel, or mode, to another. Transportation modes include mass transit, non-motorized transit and automobiles. Mode share A number or percentage of users or trips, using a particular type of transportation such as driving a single-occupancy vehicle, carpooling, riding public transit, walking or cycling R Reach code A local building energy code that sets targets beyond the state requirements for energy use or energy efficiency. Resilience Resilience is the ability of an individual, a community, an organization, or a natural system to prepare for disruptions, to adapt to changing conditions, withstand and rapidly recover from shocks and stresses, and to adapt and grow from a disruptive experience. Retrocommissioning The process of improving and retrofitting building equipment and operation systems. S Sustainability Sustainability focuses on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN GLOSSARY 57 T Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies to change travel behavior in order to reduce traffic congestion, increase safety and mobility and conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Strategies may include ridesharing, telecommuting, park-and-ride programs and alternative work schedules. V Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) A measurement of miles traveled by vehicles within a specified area for a specified time period. Z Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Vehicles that produce no tailpipe emissions. Generally, ZEVs feature electric powertrains either from a battery or a hydrogen fuel cell. ZEVs may still be responsible for some greenhouse gas emissions, if the GHG content from the electricity generation comes from fossil fuel sources. 58 APPENDICESA. 2017 Inventory Report SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 59 11 Safety Element Policy Framework Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory This memorandum provides an overview of community-wide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by sector that were emitted in 2005 (baseline emissions) and 2017 within the City of South San Francisco. The five emissions sectors that are included in this report are energy, transportation, off-road transportation, solid waste, and water. This report presents a summary of the 2005 GHG emissions and details the 2017 data year community GHG inventory completed in 2019. It also provides an emissions forecast to 2040 and suggests GHG reduction targets for the forthcoming Climate Action Plan (CAP). Key Findings • Community-wide, the City of South San Francisco emitted 609,452 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2017, up 18% from the 2005 greenhouse gas emissions estimate of 517,757 MTCO2e. • Greenhouse gas emissions from transportation were the largest sector, accounting for 44% of all community emissions (268,787 MTCO2e). • Nonresidential energy use including electricity and natural gas accounted for the second largest amount of emissions 32% or 193,190 MTCO2e. • Despite a 18% increase in overall emissions, annual per service population emissions only increased from 2005 to 2017 by 3% from 4.81 MTCO2e in 2005 to 4.94 MTCO2e in 2017. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 60 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 22 Community GHG Inventory Overview 2005 Community GHG Inventory The community of South San Francisco total 2005 GHG emissions were estimated to be 517,757 MTCO2e. The inventory included energy (residential and nonresidential), transportation, off-road transportation,1 solid waste, and water. Of the six sectors, transportation accounted for the largest amount of GHG emissions with estimated emissions of 196,910 MTCO2e or 38% of total emissions. The second largest sector was nonresidential energy use with estimated emissions of 160,960 MTCO2e or 31% of total emissions. The remaining 31% of emissions were made up by the residential energy, solid waste, water, and off-road transportation sectors. Table 1 shows the 2005 total community emissions by sector. Table 1: Total Annual Community GHG Emissions (2005) CCoommmmuunniittyy SSeeccttoorr SSuubbsseeccttoorr SSuubbsseeccttoorr MMTTCCOO22ee SSeeccttoorr MMTTCCOO22ee PPeerrcceenntt ooff TToottaall Transportation On-Road Transportation 196,910 196,910 38% Nonresidential Energy Electricity 56,150 160,960 31% Natural Gas 104,810 Residential Energy Electricity 22,430 70,370 14% Natural Gas 47,940 Solid Waste Landfilled Waste 52,323 65,540 13% Closed Landfill 13,216 Water Water Use 1,580 1,580 0.3% Off-Road Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,110 22,400 4% Construction Equipment 21,300 TToottaall 551177,,776600 110000%% Source: South San Francisco GHG Inventory (2011). The 2005 emissions presented in Table 1 differ from those presented by the City in the 2005 GHG Inventory Report because as part of the 2017 inventory, 2005 energy emissions were updated to reflect more current use and emissions data. Similarly, solid waste emissions were updated to maintain consistency with 2017 methodology. As a result of these adjustments, the community base year greenhouse gas inventory decreased. 1 The off-road transportation sector includes construction and landscaping emissions.0, SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 61 33 Safety Element Policy Framework Community emissions fell from the 2005 reported base year emissions of 560,414 MTCO2e to the 2005 adjusted base year total of 517,760 MTCO2e, a 7.6% reduction. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 62 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 44 2017 Community GHG Inventory This report summarizes the community-wide inventory of GHG emissions using data from calendar year 2017, the most recent year for which complete data is available.2 Table 2 provides the 2017 GHG emissions inventory results by sector. In 2017, South San Francisco’s estimated total GHG emissions were 609,452 MTCO2e, an increase of 91,695 MTCO2e. This inventory is an estimate based on the best available data. As in 2005, transportation was the largest contributor to total GHG emissions with an estimated 268,787 MTCO2e or 44% of the City’s total 2017 emissions. Nonresidential energy was the second largest sector with estimated emissions of 193,910 or 32% of emissions. Although the second largest contributor to emissions, nonresidential energy emissions are likely an underestimate due to incomplete data caused by customer data aggregation laws. The remaining 24% of emissions include residential energy, solid waste, water, and off-road transportation (see Table 2). Figure 1 depicts the proportion of emissions by sector for years 2005 and 2017. Table 2: Total Annual Community GHG Emissions (2017) CCoommmmuunniittyy SSeeccttoorr SSuubbsseeccttoorr SSuubbsseeccttoorr MMTTCCOO22ee SSeeccttoorr MMTTCCOO22ee PPeerrcceenntt ooff TToottaall Transportation On-Road Transportation 268,222 268,787 44% Bart 157 CalTrain 407 Nonresidential Energy Electricity 119,700 193,910 32% Natural Gas 42,310 Residential Energy Electricity 17,500 57,870 9% Natural Gas 40,370 Solid Waste Landfilled Waste 48,623 61,854 10% Closed Landfill 13,231 Water Water Use 2,092 2,092 0.3% Off-Road Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,180 24,940 4% Construction Equipment 23,760 TToottaall 660099,,445522 110000%% 2 Energy data from calendar year 2016 was used as a proxy when 2017 data was unavailable. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 63 55 Safety Element Policy Framework Figure 1: South San Francisco Total Annual Community GHG Emissions in 2005 and 2017 2005 Annual Community Emissions 2017 Annual Community Emissions Residential Energy 14% Nonresidential Energy 31% Transportation 38% Solid Waste 13% Waste Water Treatment 0% Off-Road 4% SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 64 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 66 9%, Residential Energy 32%, Nonresidential Energy 44%, Transportation 10.1%, Solid Waste 0.3%, Waste Water Treatment 4.1%, Off-Road SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 65 77 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Furthermore, per service population emissions increased by 3% over the same period. The service area population includes the populations that live and/or work in the City. It is the sum of population and jobs. These numbers show that population, job growth, and a strong regional economy are the primary drivers of emissions increases. Table 3: South San Francisco Total Annual Community GHG Emissions in 2005 and 2017 (in MTCO2e) CCoommmmuunniittyy SSeeccttoorr 22000055 22001177 22000055 PPeerr SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa 22001177 PPeerr SSeerrvviiccee AArreeaa TToottaall PPeerrcceenntt CChhaannggee Transportation 196,910 268,787 1.83 2.18 19% Nonresidential Energy 160,960 193,910 1.50 1.57 5% Residential Energy 70,370 57,870 0.65 0.47 -28% Solid Waste 65,540 61,854 0.61 0.50 -18% Water 1,578 2,092 0.01 0.02 16% Off-Road 22,400 24,490 0.21 0.20 -3% TToottaall 551177,,776600 557733,,999988 44..8811 44..9944 33%% Community Sector Analysis Community Energy This section presents GHG emissions for the energy sector, specifically emissions generated from residential and nonresidential energy use that occurred within City limits. This section provides electricity and natural gas activity data and emissions estimates for the baseline year 2005 and 2017. Calendar year 2016 electricity data is used as a proxy for 2017. Electricity Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) provide electric service to the community and offer community electricity data to local agencies. The electricity data (presented in kWh) in Table 4 is separated between residential and nonresidential uses, which is the most detailed level available to prevent data from being removed for privacy purposes. 3 However, nonresidential energy is likely underestimated due to some energy use data being 3 In California, individual energy (electricity and natural gas) account data is protected as private information. For specific purposes, certain groups may access detailed information. For example, academic researchers can access disaggregated data to conduct analyses as long as protected information remains confidential. To ensure the confidentiality of each individual customer's SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 66 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 88 masked for failing to meet aggregation standards. Residential data includes single family homes and multi-family dwellings, while nonresidential data includes commercial and industrial uses. From 2005 to 2016 residential electricity usage decreased by 22% and nonresidential electricity usage increased by 36%. Between 2005 and 2016 total electricity use increased by 20%. Residential energy emissions have decreased because the City transitioned to carbon-free energy provided by PCE. The 20% increase in electricity use may be the result of a growing economy with more local jobs. Table 4: Total Annual Community Electricity Usage (2005-2016) YYeeaarr RReessiiddeennttiiaall ((kkWWhh)) NNoonnrreessiiddeennttiiaall ((kk WWhh)) TToottaall ((kkWWhh)) 2005 100,353,340 251,184,690 351,538,030 2006 101,399,397 372,435,624 473,835,021 2007 104,223,659 387,842,380 492,066,039 2008 103,842,286 392,244,819 496,087,105 2009 105,758,034 436,875,374 542,633,408 2010 106,464,526 443,190,514 549,655,040 2011 104,499,692 440,751,036 545,250,728 2012 103,261,346 437,502,145 540,763,491 2013 101,585,127 429,935,561 531,520,688 2014 96,368,597 436,098,366 532,466,963 2015 95,163,263 437,758,557 532,921,820 2016 91,189,412 398,271,557 489,460,969 2017 466,334,769 Note: Only total electricity use data is available for 2017 because that is the year South San Francisco transitioned from PG&E to PCE. To calculate GHG emissions, an emissions factor is applied to the activity data. Electricity suppliers provided CO2 emissions factor. In addition to carbon dioxide (CO2), small amounts of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are released in the electricity generation process. CH4 and N2O emissions factors are provided by the ICLEI Community Protocol. Variability of the emissions factors occur primarily due to fluctuations in suppliers’ energy portfolio each year. CO2 is the most commonly referenced GHG, however, numerous gasses have greenhouse characteristics. CH4 and N2O are commonly accounted for in GHG inventories. These gasses have a greater global warming potential; CH4 traps approximately 28 times as much heat as CO2 over a 100-year period and N2O traps approximately 265 times as much heat. To account for these differences, a factor is applied to the gasses emissions to calculate a CO2 equivalence. consumption information, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) masks data that does not meet minimum aggregation thresholds. For more information about these privacy regulations, please visit CPUC decision (D.14-05-016). SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 67 99 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Table 5 provides the emission factors and GHG emissions from electricity use in the city by residential and nonresidential subsectors from 2005-2016. Over this period, electricity related GHG emissions increased by 9%. Table 5: Total Annual Community GHG Emissions from Electricity Use (2005-2016) YYeeaarr EEmmiissssiioonnss FFaaccttoorr RReessiiddeennttiiaall ((MMTTCCOO22ee)) NNoonnrreessiiddeennttiiaall ((MMTTCCOO22ee)) TToottaall ((MMTTCCOO22ee)) 2005 0.000224 22,430 56,150 78,580 2006 0.000208 21,120 77,580 98,700 2007 0.000290 30,220 112,440 142,660 2008 0.000292 30,330 114,570 144,900 2009 0.000262 27,700 114,430 142,130 2010 0.000203 21,610 89,940 111,550 2011 0.000179 18,740 79,050 97,790 2012 0.000203 20,950 88,780 109,730 2013 0.000195 19,780 83,700 103,480 2014 0.000198 19,100 86,440 105,540 2015 0.000185 17,570 80,820 98,390 2016 0.000192 17,500 76,420 93,920 Note: 2016 data is used as a proxy since complete 2017 data was unavailable due to aggregation laws. Figure 2 illustrates GHG and kWh activity data trends between 2005 and 2017. It is important to note that while energy use has been increasing, GHG emissions have been more variable due to changes in PG&E and PCE’s power portfolio and the related carbon intensity of its electricity supply. Figure 2: Total Annual Community Electricity Use and GHG Emissions (2005-2016) 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 0 100,000,000 200,000,000 300,000,000 400,000,000 500,000,000 600,000,000 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015kWhMTCO2e SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 68 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 1100 Natural Gas PG&E provides natural gas utility services to South San Francisco. Table 6 provides the natural gas activity data in therms from 2005-2017 separated by residential and nonresidential uses. Nonresidential use combines commercial and industrial use. The natural gas data in Table 6 shows a residential decrease of 13%, a nonresidential increase of 12%, and a combined decrease of 4% for the sector. The reduction in residential natural gas usage reflects increased energy efficiency of residential appliances, mainly water heating and space heating, as well as a propensity for new construction to be built with electric appliances rather than those that use natural gas. The increase in nonresidential natural gas use reflects the strong and growing economy in South San Francisco and the Bay area as a whole. Over this period biotech companies have expanded operation within the City. However, this increase may be underestimated because the nonresidential sector in South San Francisco is dominated by a few large users of natural gas, thus the data may have been “masked” due to aggregation laws. This explanation would suggest that only partial data was provided for 2005-2017 in order to protect user privacy, which results in an incomplete picture of community natural gas use and associated emissions. Table 6: Total Annual Community Natural Gas Use (2005-2017) YYeeaarr RReessiiddeennttiiaall ((TThheerrmmss)) NNoonnrreessiiddeennttiiaall ((TThheerrmmss)) TToottaall ((TThheerrmmss)) 2005 9,007,350 19,691,037 28,698,387 2006 9,140,829 20,643,362 29,784,191 2007 9,532,983 22,478,454 32,011,437 2008 9,586,261 22,245,647 31,831,908 2009 9,384,862 21,984,803 31,369,665 2010 9,428,453 21,416,373 30,844,826 2011 9,471,296 21,538,379 31,009,675 2012 9,208,755 21,384,744 30,593,499 2013 9,129,777 21,048,332 30,178,109 2014 7,379,115 - - 2015 7,310,064 - - 2016 7,585,487 - - 2017 7,793,747 22,072,849 29,866,596 Note: Nonresidential data is not available for years 2014-2016. As with electricity, GHG emissions are estimated from activity data by applying an emission coefficient. Unlike electricity, the inventory does not assume changes in the carbon intensity of natural gas in any given year, as the carbon intensity of the combustion of natural gas does not vary annually. Table 7 provides the GHG emissions estimates for natural gas consumption in the city from 2005 to 2017. These estimates are using the most current emissions coefficient for natural gas. Similar to the activity data, residential emissions decreased while nonresidential emissions increased with a total increase in natural gas-related emissions of 4%. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 69 1111 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Table 7: Total Annual Community GHG Emission from Natural Gas (2005-2017) YYeeaarr RReessiiddeennttiiaall ((MMTTCCOO22ee)) NNoonnrreessiiddeennttiiaall ((MMTTCCOO22ee)) TToottaall ((MMTTCCOO22ee)) 2005 47,940 104,810 152,750 2006 48,650 109,880 158,530 2007 50,740 119,640 170,380 2008 51,020 118,410 169,430 2009 49,950 117,020 166,970 2010 50,180 113,990 164,170 2011 50,410 114,640 165,050 2012 49,010 113,820 162,830 2013 48,590 112,030 160,620 2014 39,280 - - 2015 38,910 - - 2016 40,370 - - 2017 41,480 117,490 158,970 Note: Nonresidential data from 2014-2016 is not available. Figure 3: Total Annual Community Natural Gas Use and GHG Emissions (2005-2017) Total Energy GHG Emissions Table 8 shows the total energy related GHG emissions separated by energy type and subsector. Residential energy use subsector emissions decreased by 18% between 2005 and 2017 and nonresidential energy use subsector emissions increased by 20%. Overall energy GHG emissions increased by 9% from 2005 to 2017. The reduction in residential energy emissions is the result of a less carbon intensive energy supply from PCE in 2017 as compared to 2005. Residential electricity emissions will continue to decline as the City fully transitions to carbon-free electricity from PCE. As discussed above, nonresidential energy use has increased most likely due to a strong, growing economy between 2005 and 2017. 150,000 155,000 160,000 165,000 170,000 175,000 180,000 0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 Therms MTCO2e SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 70 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 1144 Table 9 shows that VMT has increased in South San Francisco by 48% from 2005 to 2017 and associated GHG emissions have increased by 37%. 2005 activity data for BART and Caltrain was not available but table 9 also shows that emissions from the two transit services has decreased from 2005 to 2017. Table 9: Total Annual Community GHG Emissions from Transportation in 2005 and 2017 Transit Type 2005 2017 Total VMT MTCO2e/ VMT Total Emissions Total VMT MTCO2e/ VMT Total Emission s Vehicles 400,243,680 0.000670 195,790 591,821,296 0.000453 268,222 BART 612 1,701,012 0.0000925 157 Caltrain 508 3,059,743 0.000133 407 Total Sector 196,910 268,787 The smaller increase in GHG emissions is attributed to State and Federal regulations. This includes improved fuel efficiency standards, low carbon fuel standards, and an increasingly efficient overall fleet of vehicles (including an increased uptake of electric, hybrid, and high efficiency vehicles) within the city that is resulting in fewer emissions per mile of VMT, despite an increase in miles driven. The reduction in emissions from BART and Caltrain is also most likely due to cleaner electricity with a proportion coming from carbon-free sources including renewables. Water Use The water sector uses energy to collect, convey, treat, and deliver water to users, and then it uses additional energy to collect, treat, and dispose of the resulting wastewater. This energy use yields both direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. Water service is provided to the City of South San Francisco by California Water Service’s South San Francisco District. Water use was not originally included in the 2005 baseline year inventory, so the 2017 inventory process updated it to include for comparison. Table 10 provides the total water use and associated GHG emissions for the population of South San Francisco. GHG emissions were calculated by combining the amount of water used with emissions factors. Emissions from the water sector increased by 33% from 2005 to 2017 despite a decrease in total water use. This difference may be the result of different data sources and differences in emissions calculation methodology. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 71 1155 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Table 10: Total Annual Community Water Use and GHG Emissions in 2005 and 2017 2005 2017 Water Use (million gallons) Total Emissions (MTCO2e) Water Use (million gallons) Total Emissions (MTCO2e) 2,841 1,578 2,115 2,092 Source: 2010 and 2015 California Water Service South San Francisco District UWMP Solid Waste This section presents GHG emissions for the solid waste sector, specifically emissions from the disposal of solid waste produced within the City limits into a landfill as well as fugitive emissions from the closed Oyster Point Landfill, which was open from 1956-1969 and contains about 1.4 million tons of solid waste. This section provides solid waste activity data for the baseline year 2005 as well as emissions estimates for years 2005 and 2017. Landfilled waste data was provided by CalRecycle for the City of South San Francisco and Oyster Point Landfill emissions were calculated using CARB’s Landfill Emissions Tool. The amount of waste generated and sent to landfill in South San Francisco has decreased by 7% since 2005. As shown in Table 11, solid waste disposal emissions decreased by 5.6% from 2005 to 2017. This decrease in emissions is most likely due to increased recycling and composting efforts. Table 11: Total Annual Community Solid Waste Tons and GHG Emissions (2005-2017) Off-Road This section presents the GHG emissions for off-road activity, specifically emissions from construction and lawn and garden equipment use within the City. Off-road emissions data for San Mateo County was gathered from the CARB OFFROAD2007 modeling tool. Since the CARB tool models emissions for the entire county, city specific emissions data was proportioned using demographic housing data. Data from the tool was compiled and summed according to emissions type. Emissions were then converted into carbon dioxide equivalents. The large decrease in off-road emissions shown in Table 12 may be a result of difference in methodology. Solid Waste 2005 2017 Tons Emissions MTCO2e Tons Emissions MTCO2e Landfilled Waste 95,920 52,323 89,136 48,623 Closed Landfill 13,216 13,231 Total Sector 65,539 61,854 SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 72 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 1166 Table 12: Total Annual Off-Road GHG Emissions in 2005 and 2017 2005 2017 Construction Lawn & Garden Construction Lawn & Garden t CO2/day 453.5 33.4 546.2 37.1 t CH4/day 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.06 t N2O/day 0.003 0.03 0.003 0.02 t CO2e/day 456.7 42.1 548.4 45.0 t CO2e/year 166,706.9 15,363.6 200,171.9 16,415.4 MTCO2e/year 151,235.5 13,937.7 181,594.8 14,891.9 Source: CARB OFFROAD2007 modeling tool (San Mateo County) From 2005 to 2017, the City experienced a 19% increase in emissions from construction equipment and lawn and garden equipment. This increase in emissions is likely due to an increase in construction activity due to a strong local economy and an increase in housing. Table 13 shows the total GHG estimates from off-road sources. Table 13: Total Annual Off-Road GHG Emissions in 2005 and 2017 2005 2017 Construction Equipment 19,790 23,760 Lawn and Garden Equipment 1,090 1,180 Total 20,880 24,940 Source: SSF 2005 GHG Inventory Report and CARB OFFROAD2007 modeling tool (San Mateo County) Greenhouse Gas Emissions Forecast The emissions adjusted business-as-usual (ABAU) forecast for the City of South San Francisco is based on the demographic projections for the preferred land use plan for the General Plan update. These projections assume that the anticipated development is fully implemented by 2040. Table 14 shows the assumed demographic changes. Table 14: South San Francisco 2040 General Plan Demographic Projections DDeemmooggrraapphhiicc IInnddiiccaattoorr 22000055 22001177 22004400 Population 60,172 67,232 107,208 Housing Units 20,832 21,995 38,972 Jobs 42,240 56,093 105,723 Service Population 102,412 123,213 212,931 Note: Service population is the sum of population and jobs within the City. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 73 1177 Greenhouse Gas Inventory The Adjusted Business as Usual (ABAU) forecast shows how South San Francisco’s emissions are anticipated to change accounting for the impacts of adopted State climate-related policies if no action is taken at the local level. There are three major policies that the State has adopted to reduce community GHG emissions: 1. Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS): This law requires that electrical utilities provide an increased amount of electricity from eligible renewable sources. SB 100 requires that 33% of electricity sold by utilities in 2020 be renewable, 60% be renewable in 2030, and 100% be carbon-free in 2045. 2. Title 24: Title 24 is the set of regulations that specifies how new buildings must be constructed, including specifying minimum energy efficiency standards. These standards are updated triennially to be more stringent. California has set a goal for zero-net energy new construction by 2030. 3. Pavely Clean Car Standards: These standards require that vehicles sold in California meet minimum fuel efficiency requirements, and that fuel sold in the state emits less GHGs during production and use Based on the results of the ABAU forecast, emissions are expected to increase from 609,452 MTCO2e in 2017 to 706,280 MTCO2e in 2040. Table 15 shows the forecasted ABAU emission levels for each sector in future years and Table 16 shows the forecasted annual emissions per capita and per service population. The ABAU forecast illustrates the importance of supporting the State’s climate targets to reduce emissions statewide and kickstart local actions. By inventorying community-wide greenhouse gas emissions, the City of South San Francisco is taking an important step towards understanding its emissions profile. This emissions inventory provides the baseline of information necessary to evaluate greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, to identify and implement key mitigation measures, and to monitor the effectiveness of South San Francisco’s actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Table 15: Forecasted Adjusted Business as Usual Total Annual Community GHG Emissions in 2040 (in MTCO2e) CCoommmmuunniittyy SSeeccttoorr 22001177 22004400 Residential electricity 17,500 4,707 Residential natural gas 40,370 60,375 Nonresidential electricity 76,420 21,499 Nonresidential natural gas 117,490 178,817 On-Road Transportation 268,787 229,707 Landfilled Waste 61,854 82,947 Water Use 2,092 2,989 Lawn/Garden Equipment 1,180 2,037 Construction Equipment 23,760 41,024 Total 609,452 624,102 Change from 2017 - 2% SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 74 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 1188 Table 16: Forecasted ABAU Annual Community GHG Emissions in 2040 Per Capita and Per Service Area (in MTCO2e) 2005 2017 2040 Total Emissions (MTCO2e) 517,757 609,452 624,102 Per Service Population 4.81 4.94 2.9 Change from 2017 per SP -41% SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 75 City of South San Francisco General Plan Update 2200 GHG Reduction Targets California’s Regulatory Landscape California has been a leader in climate action since early 2000. AB 32 set California’s first GHG target to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Greenhouse gas reduction targets can be defined as emission reduction levels that governments set out to achieve by a specified time. In this memo, the terms goals and targets are used interchangeably; however, the term “goals” is also used to refer to desired climate action achievements more broadly. California is on track to exceed its 2020 climate target, while the economy continues to grow. SB 32 extended the goals of AB 32 and established a mid-term 2030 goal of reducing emissions 40% from 2020 levels and a long-term goal of reducing emissions 80% by 2050. In 2018, Executive Order B-55-18 set the target of statewide carbon neutrality by 2045. The reduction targets specified by the State are consistent with substantial scientific evidence published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) regarding the need to ultimately reduce global GHG emissions down to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This consistency is important for creating a “qualified” Climate Action Plan (CAP). The concept of having a “qualified” CAP means that a CAP meets the criteria specified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b) for a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, such that a “qualified” CAP may then be used for the specific purpose of streamlining the analysis of GHG emissions in subsequent projects. Local governments have discretion on what levels or targets are established in a “qualified” CAP, provided they are based on substantial evidence. Furthermore, some GHG reduction measures applicable to new development can be implemented through codes, ordinances, or other rating systems. GHG reduction measures in a CAP that are determined to be applicable at the project-level and could be used for tiering by future projects should be specified as mandatory in the CAP (through building performance standards or building code requirements, for example), and not as voluntary measures that may not be enforced during development review. Ultimately, local agencies should put forth their best efforts to make sure that GHG reductions associated with the primary measures in a CAP are quantifiable and based on substantial evidence. Recommended GHG Targets Based on the review of the City’s GHG forecasts and community input, there are four options for climate targets. OOppttiioonn 11:: South San Francisco adopts the goal of carbon neutrality by 2045. This target is based on Former Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-55-18, which is likely to become law based on the State’s current trends and actions around climate change. Many local jurisdictions have already adopted the goal of carbon neutrality including the cities of Fremont, San Luis Obispo, Sacramento, Menlo Park, and the County of Santa Clara. Furthermore, this target would create a stronger basis on which to qualify the CAP in terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and provide for future streamlining and tiering of projects. By 2040, the City would need to implement additional local climate action measures to reduce emissions to zero. Carbon neutral SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES A. 2017 INVENTORY REPORT 76 by 2045 is the recommended option because it aligns the City with the State as well as its peer cities in the Bay Area and cities across California. OOppttiioonn 22:: South San Francisco adopts the State’s emissions reduction targets set forth in SB 32. These targets include a mid-term and long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions 40% below baseline levels by 2030 and 80% by 2050. The City should adopt measures in their CAP that close the gaps in emissions between the ABAU forecast and SB 32 target emissions level by 2040. Table 17 shows the forecasted emissions gaps in 2040 for total and per service population that would need to be reduced using local climate action measures in order to meet the 2040 emissions reduction target. Table 17: Forecasted Total and Per Service Population Annual 2040 Community GHG Emissions Targets (in MTCO2e) 2040 22004400 GGooaall Adjusted Business-as- Usual Forecast Total Emissions 624,102 - Per Service Population 2.9 - SB 32 Emissions Gap (60% by 2040) Emissions 297,915 326,187 Per Service Population 1.1 1.2 B-55-18 Emissions Gap (80% by 2040) Emissions 515,373 108,729 Per Service Population 2.4 0.5 OOppttiioonn 33:: Demonstrate leadership by setting a target in excess of State guidance. For example, carbon neutrality by 2035. This is a realistic goal for some cities that have access to 100% carbon-free and/or renewable electricity. OOppttiioonn 44:: Set a target that is less than the State’s emissions reduction goals. For example, 50% reduction in baseline GHG levels by 2050. There is currently no requirement that the City match the State’s climate goals and there are currently no repercussions for not meeting these targets. Although setting a lower target is an option available to the City, there are some drawbacks, and it is not recommended. If the City were to set GHG reduction targets less than those adopted by the State, the CAP would not be eligible for CEQA streamlining so responsibility would fall on individual projects to demonstrate that their mitigated impacts are in alignment with State GHG standards, which can be very burdensome, including for City projects. It is recommended that the City adopt OOppttiioonn 11, the State’s emissions reduction targets set forth in Executive Order B-55-18, which best positions it to adapt to future State climate guidance and regulations. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES B. COST ESTIMATE DATA 77 APPENDICESB. Cost Estimate Data SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES B. COST ESTIMATE DATA 78 Table 4: CAP Implementation Cost Estimates CAP Outcome Cost to City Cost to Individual 2040 GHG Reductions (MTCO2e) Clean Energy Local Solar Installations $9,000,000 community solar $1.72-2.77/W $ $17,538 to $23,458 10kW system13 – Clean Energy EcoPlus - PCE $0.0054/kWh less than PG&E $0.0056/kWh less than PG&E – Buildings New Building Electrification -$3,000 SFR $1,800 LRMF16 4,891 Existing Building Electrification $195,000-$275,000 $14,000-50,000/unit18 193,022 Existing Building Energy Efficiency residential: $3,750-4,000/unit (-$188.50/ton reduced) commercial: $206-232/kBTU/hr19 42,426 Transportation EV Adoption level 2 $400-$6,500 DCFC $10,000-$40,00020 $1,110-1,500 PCE reach code new construction $4,000-4,500 PCE reach code retrofit21 14,506 Mode Shift $400,000-1,000,000/year22 220,820 Solid Waste SB 1383 Compliance $135,000-240,000/year23 12,840 Water Outdoor Water Use $550-2,500 SFR laundry to landscape24 701 Sequestration Trees $1500-2000/tree planted25 $19-24/tree planted + cost of tree26 3,315Creek Restoration $5,000,000+27 Carbon Farming TBD 12. County of San Diego. (2017). Climate Action Plan Implementation Cost Report. 13. Energy Sage. (2022). “How much do solar panels cost in 2022?” Accessed from: https://news.energysage.com/how-much-does-the-average-solar-panel- installation-cost-in-the-u-s/. 14. Electricity rates based on PCE and PG&E data from April 2021. Accessed from: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/for-businesses/. 15. Electricity rates based on PCE and PG&E data from February 2021. Accessed from: https://www.peninsulacleanenergy.com/for-residents/. 16. County of San Mateo. (2020). San Mateo County EV and Building Electrification Ordinance, Attachment D. 17. County of San Diego. (2017). Climate Action Plan Implementation Cost Report. 18. Estimates derived from City and County of San Francisco. (2021). Decarbonizing Residential Buildings by Eliminating Natural Gas Usage Policy Analysis Report; City of San Jose. (2021). Pocket Guide to All-Electric Retrofits of Single-Family Homes; and E3. (2019). Residential Building Electrification in California. Accessed from: https://www.ethree.com/e3-quantifies-the-consumer-and-emissions-impacts-of-electrifying-california-homes/. 19. Gillingham, Stock. (2018). The Cost of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 20. County of San Diego. (2017). Climate Action Plan Implementation Cost Report. 21. County of San Mateo. (2020). San Mateo County EV and Building Electrification Ordinance, Attachment D. 22. Estimates derived from City of Walnut Creek. (2012). Climate Action Plan; City of San Francisco. (2021). Transportation Demand Management Program. Accessed from: https://sfplanning.org/transportation-demand-management-program#program-applicability-process; and City of Oakland. (2020). Oakland 2030 ECAP. 23. City of Oakland. (2020). Oakland 2030 ECAP. 24. Greywater Action. “Laundry to Landscape Greywater System.” Accessed from: https://greywateraction.org/laundry-landscape/. 25. Estimates from Joshua Richardson, City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Staff 26. City of Walnut Creek. (2012). Climate Action Plan 27. CA Dept. Water Resources (2022). Urban Stream Restoration Program. Accessed from: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Integrated-Regional-Water-Management/ Urban-Streams-Restoration-Program. SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES C. GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 79 APPENDICESC. GHG Reduction Analysis SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES C. GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 80 Table 5: GHG Reduction Analysis Strategy Assumptions Cumulative Participation Rate 2035 Cumulative Participation Rate 2040 Annual Participation GHG Reductions 2030 (CEQA) GHG Reductions 2035 GHG Reductions 2040 Buildings + Energy Existing commercial building electrification Voluntary: assume 2.5% annual participation rate 67%61%210 buildings 81,633 119,431 196,281 Existing residential building electrification Mandatory: assume 5% annual participation rate 70%84%1,550 homes 36,124 52,849 69,365 All-electric reach code Mandatory: assume 100% participation 90%90% 5,015 4,547 13,761 Existing building EE programs Voluntary: assume 2.5% annual participation 67%78%770 homes 105 nonres 44,487 61,174 74,580 Benchmarking Ordinance Mandatory: assume 100% participation of buildings over 10,000 sf 35%32%200 buildings 357 518 842 Maintain participation in PCE 96%96% Transportation + Land Use EV adoption + Equipment Electrification Voluntary: 50% of households 2020-2030 1,287 cars 2030-2040 650 cars 42,411 51,809 31,999 Mode Shift Voluntary: Carpool: 27.5% Transit: 9.5% Walk/Bike: 10% Carpool: 26% Transit: 16% Walk/Bike: 13% -10,471 74,704 125,959 SHAPE SSF: CLIMATE ACTION PLAN APPENDICES C. GHG REDUCTION ANALYSIS 81 Strategy Assumptions Cumulative Participation Rate 2035 Cumulative Participation Rate 2040 Annual Participation GHG Reductions 2030 (CEQA) GHG Reductions 2035 GHG Reductions 2040 Materials + Consumption Comply with SB 1383 Mandatory: compliance 13,416 14,918 18,877 Natural Systems + Water Resources Sequestration Voluntary 900 trees + 20 acres carbon storage 1,232 1,801 3,315 Reduce Outdoor + Indoor Water Use Voluntary: assume 2.5% annual participation 35%50%1,165 homes 165 nonres 1,313 1,147 701 Total Reductions (MTCO2e)215,244 382,534 535,001 Forecasted ABAU emissions 685,814 705,340 851,550 Remaining ABAU emissions 470,297 322,441 315,869 2017 % Reduction -23%-47% 1990 % Reduction -9%-38% Total Reduction -63% CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCOCLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2040 GENERAL PLAN TONIGHT’S ROADMAP 1.Provide background on greenhouse gases and climate change 2.Review the Greenhouse Gas Inventory 3.Discuss Key Greenhouse Gas Reduction Analysis 4.Highlight What’s Happening Next and How to Provide Feedback on the Draft General Plan and Climate Action Plan 5.Solicit feedback from Planning Commission and City Council on the Climate Action Plan CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION ENGAGEMENT •Kick-off the public review process •Review the General Plan process •Discuss the General Plan structure •Highlight key quality of life components •Review greenhouse gas inventory and reduction measures •Discuss greenhouse gas reduction analysis March 2: Kick-Off Tonight: Climate Action Plan •Review land use designations and map and land use policy •Discuss complete streets mobility network and mobility policy April 20: Land Use & Mobility •Review the draft Zoning Code, including new zones and allowed uses TBD Q2: Zoning Code •Discuss changes made to the Public Draft plans based on public comment •Review and adopt plans TBD Q3: Adoption Hearings PLAN UPDATES •Sets the 20-year vision for the city •Address current and future challenges, building on community assets •Provides policy direction for future decision-making across 12 chapters •Establishes pattern of future development in the city (where, what kind, and how much) •Out for public review •Acts as the City’s greenhouse gas reduction program •Inventories current emissions •Estimates future emissions •Establishes greenhouse gas reduction measures •Assesses the effectiveness of greenhouse gas reduction measures at meeting State targets •Out for public review General Plan Update Climate Action Plan Update •Establishes development standards and process •Release date anticipated in Q2 Zoning Code Update •Evaluates and discloses the potential impact of plan buildout •Release date anticipated in Q2 Environmental Impact Report Background on Climate Change WHAT IS CLIMATE AND THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT? •Climate is the long-term behavior of the atmosphere –typically represented as averages •Includes average annual temperature, snowpack, and rainfall •Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, resulting in warming over time •Most common greenhouse gases, include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons and Hydrofluorocarbons (HCFCs and HFCs) CHANGE IN GREENHOUSE GASES •GHGs have been relatively constant throughout history but have increased sharply •Since the industrial revolution, human- caused GHG emissions have sharply increased driven by: •Fossil fuel combustion •Deforestation other land use changes •Agricultural practices GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AND CARBON DIOXIDE WHY DO WE NEED TO CARE ABOUT GHGS? •Aggressive strategies are needed to meet the city’s climate goals and combat GHG emissions •Climate change resulting from GHG emissions leads to more frequent extreme-weather events, with localized impacts •Example climate hazards in SSF include: •Sea level rise and flooding •Wildfire and poor air quality from smoke •Excessive heat days •Periods of drought •Climate change will not affect everyone equally •California passed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) which requires the State to reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 CURRENT STATE OF THE CLIMATE •It is “unequivocal” that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land •Recent changes across the climate system are unprecedented. Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe •Evidence of observed changes include heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts, and hurricanes CLIMATE CHANGE IMPLICATIONS FOR HAZARDS Increasing Temperatures •Extreme heat days will increase considerably in the city •Increasing temperatures and changing precipitation patterns can create periods of abnormally dry weather that create drought •Warmer, drier summers, high wind events, such as the Diablo winds, and increased vegetation growth, can create conditions suitable for wildfires Changing Precipitation Patterns •The Bay Area will continue to see larger precipitation fluctuations over the next century with very wet and very dry years •Boom to bust rainfall patterns will make it far more likely for wildfires to occur in the region and for “atmospheric rivers”, which can bring up to 50% of the region’s rainfall in a few days Rising Sea Levels •More extensive coastal and river flooding during storm events •Higher groundwater table •Stormwater flooding may increase as high bay levels can impede drainage of stormwater runoff Source: Ackerly, D and et. al. 2018. California Fourth Climate Change Assessment: San Francisco Bay Area Region Report. WHAT IS A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN? •Creates a path for reducing the community’s greenhouse gas emissions and increases resiliency across multiple sectors •Encompasses the entire community & reflects its values •Leverages existing plans/programs •Ranks opportunities & priorities •Maximizes cost-benefit STEP 1 Inventory Emissions STEP 2 Establish Emissions Reduction Target STEP 3 Develop Strategies + Measures STEP 4 Implement Strategies + Measures STEP 5 Monitor/ Evaluate Progress VALUES A Resilient Community …. South San Francisco takes a leadership role in the region in creating a cleaner, healthier, and more economically viable future through conscious investments and regulatory measures. The City adopts innovative practices and partnerships aimed at climate pollution reduction, efficient energy and water use, and clean air. These sustainability and climate actions aim to fight climate change and increase community resilience. WHAT WE’VE HEARD Establish the City as an environmental leader Access to public transit including BART, Caltrain, buses, and free shuttles Pedestrian and cyclist safety The need for improved parks and open spaces – preserve views and trail system The need for additional public and civic spaces Bring nature and biodiversity back into the City Preserve and enhance historic and cultural resources including public art Revitalize Colma Creek Climate threats including sea level rise, emergency preparedness, and wildfires 1.Achieve carbon neutrality by 2045, reduce emissions 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2040 2.Equitably mitigate and address the impacts of climate change 3.Realize the co-benefits of climate mitigation actions that help create a sustainable community KEY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN OUTCOMES 1 2 3 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions and Target Setting 14%, Residential Energy 31%, Nonresidential Energy38%, Transportation 13%, Solid Waste 0.3%, Waste Water Treatment 4%, Off-Road 9%, Residential Energy 32%, Nonresidential Energy44%, Transportation 10.1%, Solid Waste 0.3%, Waste Water Treatment 4.1%, Off-Road GHG EMISSIONS (2005 AND 2007) 2017 Emissions (609,452 MTCO2e, 4.9 MTCO2e per service pop.) 2005 Emissions (517,757 MTCO2e, 4.8 MTCO2e per service pop.) 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000 1990 (Backcast) 2005 2017 2040 (Forecast) GHG EMISSIONS (1990 BACKCAST AND 2040 FORECAST) +59% 1990-2040+37% 1990-2017 +16% 1990-2005 GHG EMISSIONS (TRENDS) •By 2040 emissions are projected to increase as a result population and economic growth •Transportation is the largest contributor to emissions every year, increasing over time •Emissions from natural gas use are the second largest contributor to emissions •Emissions from electricity use have decreased as a result of joining Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and will continue to fall GHG REDUCTION TARGETS (STATE TARGETS) 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 SB 32 Requirements 80% reduction in emissions by 2040 Interim Target Carbon neutrality by 2045 EO B-55-18 Target Emission Reduction Pathway 1.Clean energy 2.Buildings (existing and new) 3.Transportation and land use 4.Water and wastewater 5.Solid waste 6.Carbon sequestration 7.City leadership KEY CLIMATE ACTION SECTORS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CLEAN ENERGY ACTION PLAN Local Solar Installation and Carbon-Free Electricity Cost GHG Reduction Potential •CE 1.1 Solar reach code for nonresidential buildings Supportive $ •CE 1.2 Streamlined approval process for battery storage systems Supportive $ •CE 1.3 Streamlined photovoltaic (PV) system permitting and approval Supportive $ •CE 1.4 Energy resilience via back-up energy systems, microgrids, and other measures Low $$-$$$ •CE 1.5 Public Safety Power Shutoffs Supportive $ •CE 1.6 Community scale solar and other renewable energy Supportive $-$$$ •CE 2.1 Peninsula Clean Energy Membership High $ NEW BUILDING ACTION PLAN New Construction Cost GHG Reduction Potential •BNC 1.1 Energy Efficient New Construction Medium $ •BNC 2.1 Nonresidential All-Electric New Construction Medium $ EXISTING BUILDING ACTION PLAN Improved Energy Efficiency Cost GHG Reduction Potential •BE 1.1 EPA Home Energy Score Supportive $ •BE 1.2 CALGreen standards for major renovations Medium $$ •BE 1.3 Energy Efficiency Programs Medium $ •BE 1.4 Low-Cost Energy Audits Low $ •BE 1.5 Deep Energy Retrofits Medium $$ •BE 1.6 Commercial Benchmarking Ordinance Supportive $ •BE 1.7 Retrocommissioning Partnership Low $ •BE 1.8 Transition to carbon-free back-up power Low $ EXISTING BUILDING ACTION PLAN Electricity Existing Buildings Cost GHG Reduction Potential •BE 2.1 Existing Building Electrification Plan High $$ •BE 2.2 Electric Panel Upgrade Supportive $ •BE 2.3 Burnout Ordinance Medium $$ •BE 2.4 All-Electric Major Renovations Medium $$ TRANSPORTATION ACTION PLAN Clean VMT and Reduced VMT Cost GHG Reduction Potential •TL 1.1 Electric Vehicle Charging Reach Code Medium $ •TL 1.2 Electric Vehicle Chargers at Municipal Facilities Medium $$ •TL 2.1 Trip CAP on East of 101 Medium $ •TL 2.2 TDM Program Medium $ •TL 2.3 Improve Curb Management Supportive $$ •TL 2.4 Parking Demand Management Strategy Supportive $ •TL 2.5 Development along Transit Corridors Medium $ •TL 2.6 Complete Streets Policy Medium $$ •TL 2.7 Free Local Bus Service Low $$ •TL 2.8 Transit Station Access Low $$ •TL 2.9 Transit Service Levels Low $ SOLID WASTE ACTION PLAN Increased Diversion from Landfill Cost GHG Reduction Potential •SW 1.1 Zero-Waste Plan Low $$ •SW 1.2 SSF Scavenger Partnership Low $ •SW 1.3 Waste Reduction Compliance Pathways Low $ •SW 1.4 Educational outreach about waste diversion Supportive $$ •SW 1.5 Waste rate structures Low $$ •SW 1.6 City green purchasing program Low $ WATER AND WASTEWATER ACTION PLAN Water Use Cost GHG Reduction Potential •WW 1.1 Landscaping Water Requirements Low $ •WW 1.2 Alternative Water Sources Low $ •WW 1.3 Greywater Systems Low $ •WW 1.4 Landscaping Plant List Supportive $ •WW 1.5 Smart Meters Low $ •WW 2.1 Indoor Water Efficiency Standards Low $ •WW 2.2 Water Supplier Rebates Supportive $ CARBON SEQUESTRATION ACTION PLAN Carbon Farming, Tree Canopy, and Restoration Cost GHG Reduction Potential •CS 1.1 Carbon Farming Low $ •CS 2.1 Public Tree Planting Low $$ •CS 2.2 Tree Standards for New Development Supportive $ •CS 3.1 Colma Creek Restoration Low $$$ CITY LEADERSHIP ACTION PLAN Building, Facilities, and Landscaping Cost GHG Reduction Potential •CL 1.1 Minimum LEED certification or equivalent for new buildings Low $$ •CL 1.2 Environmental performance of municipal buildings and facilities Supportive $ •CL 1.3 Municipal building retrofits and operational changes Low $ •CL 1.4 Requirements for municipal construction and demolition projects Low $ •CL 1.5 Energy resilience of municipal buildings Supportive $$ •CL 1.6 Zero Emission Fleet Vehicles Low $$ •CL 1.7 TDM Program Low $ CITY LEADERSHIP ACTION PLAN CAP, GHG, and Innovation Cost GHG Reduction Potential •CL 2.1 Carbon neutrality goal monitoring Supportive $ •CL 2.2 Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory maintenance Supportive $ •CL 2.3 Municipal Greenhouse Gas inventory preparation Supportive $ •CL 2.4 Innovative pilot programs Low $$ •CL 2.5 Funding to support greenhouse gas emission reductions Low $ •CL 2.6 Community education about greenhouse gas reduction incentives Supportive $ EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM CAP ACTIONS Implementation and Monitoring 1.Partnerships 2.Equitable program development 3.Cost-effectiveness 4.Funding opportunities 5.Monitoring and evaluatio n IMPLEMENTING THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 1 2 3 4 5 EQUITABLE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT •Implementation guided by two guardrails •Local benefits resulting from CAP implementation will be focused in disadvantaged communities •Measures do not present an undue cost burden on those least able to afford implementation COST-EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING AND EVALUATION 1.GHG inventory updates 2.Annual CAP Progress Reports 3.CAP updates 1 2 3 DISCUSSION QUESTIONS Given the identified disadvantaged communities, how should this analysis inform the City’s implementation strategy? Are there policy ideas or emerging practices that are not listed here that should be incorporated? What are your priority 3 actions? What should the City commit to doing first? What’s Up Next UPCOMING EVENTS •April 12: Community Advisory Committee on the Climate Action Plan, 6-8pm •April 20: Planning Commission / City Council Study Session on the Land Use and Mobility, 6-8pm •May 7: Meeting in Downtown (Ra-Viva Pop-up Event), 11am -3pm •May 9: Meeting at the Municipal Services Building, 6-8pm •May 10: Community Advisory Committee on the General Plan, 6-8pm •June 14: Community Advisory Committee / Community Open House on the Zoning Code •June 16: Planning Commission Environmental Impact Report •June 29, Planning Commission / City Council Study Session on the Zoning Code Stay tuned for additional meetings in May and June! COMMENTS ON THE PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN Visit: https://shapessf.com/ Provide Comments by May 15, 2022 RE-LAUNCHED DIGITAL PLAN Visit: https://shapessf.com/ THANK YOU!