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!