5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...2017/08/05 · GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS January 2015 Page 5.5-3...

P A S A D E N A G E N E R A L P L A N D R A F T E I R C I T Y O F P A S A D E N A

5. Environmental Analysis

January 2015 Page 5.5-1

5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS This section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluates the potential for implementation of the City of Pasadena General Plan Update (proposed General Plan Update) to cumulatively contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts. Because no single project is large enough to result in a measurable increase in global concentrations of GHG emissions, climate change impacts of a project are considered on a cumulative basis. This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Transportation-sector impacts are based on average daily vehicle miles traveled (VMT) provided by Fehr & Peers (see Appendix I) for trips generated in the City of Pasadena. GHG emissions modeling for the project is included in Appendix D of this DEIR.

5.5.1 Environmental Setting Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

Climate change is the variation of earth’s climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activities. Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global climate change by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases, known as GHGs, to the atmosphere. The primary source of these GHGs is fossil fuel use. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified four major GHGs—water vapor,1 carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and ozone (O3)—that are the likely cause of an increase in global average temperatures observed in the 20th and 21st centuries. Other GHGs identified by the IPCC that contribute to global warming to a lesser extent are nitrous oxide (N2O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (IPCC 2001).2

Carbon dioxide (CO2) enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees, and wood products; respiration; and as a result of other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture of cement). CO2 is removed from the atmosphere (sequestered) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.

Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from livestock and other agricultural practices and from the decay of organic waste in municipal landfills and wastewater treatment facilities.

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.

1 Water vapor (H2O) is the strongest GHG and the most variable in its phases (vapor, cloud droplets, ice crystals). However, water vapor is not considered a pollutant, but part of the feedback loop rather than a primary cause of change. 2 Black carbon contributes to climate change both directly, by absorbing sunlight, and indirectly, by depositing on snow (making it melt faster) and by interacting with clouds and affecting their formation. Black carbon is the strongest light-absorbing component of particulate matter (PM) emitted from burning fuels such as coal, diesel, and biomass. Reducing black carbon emissions globally can have immediate economic, climate, and public health benefits. California has been an international leader in reducing emissions of black carbon, with close to 95 percent control expected by 2020 due to existing programs that target reducing PM from diesel engines and burning activities (CARB 2014a). However, state and national GHG inventories do not yet include black carbon due to ongoing work resolving its precise global warming potential. Guidance for CEQA documents does not yet include black carbon.


5. Environmental Analysis GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Page 5.5-2 PlaceWorks

Fluorinated gases are synthetic, strong GHGs that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances. These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but they are potent GHGs, sometimes referred to as high global warming potential (GWP) gases.

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are GHGs covered under the 1987 Montreal Protocol and used for refrigeration, air conditioning, packaging, insulation, solvents, or aerosol propellants. Since they are not destroyed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), CFCs drift into the upper atmosphere where, given suitable conditions, they break down the ozone layer. These gases are therefore being replaced by other GHG compounds covered under the Kyoto Protocol.

• Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are a group of human-made chemicals composed only of carbon and fluorine. These chemicals (predominantly perfluoromethane [CF4] and perfluoroethane [C2F6]) were introduced as alternatives, along with HFCs, to ozone-depleting substances. In addition, PFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. PFCs do not harm the stratospheric ozone layer, but they have a high GWP.

• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) is a colorless gas soluble in alcohol and ether, slightly soluble in water. SF6 is a strong GHG used primarily as an insulator in electrical transmission and distribution systems.

• Hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) contain hydrogen, fluorine, chlorine, and carbon atoms. Although ozone-depleting substances, they are less potent at destroying stratospheric ozone than CFCs. They have been introduced as temporary replacements for CFCs and are also GHGs.

• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) contain only hydrogen, fluorine, and carbon atoms. They were introduced as alternatives to ozone-depleting substances to serve many industrial, commercial, and personal needs. HFCs are emitted as by-products of industrial processes and are used in manufacturing. They do not significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, but they are strong GHGs. (USEPA 2012, IPCC 2001)

GHGs are dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere. Some GHGs have a stronger greenhouse effect than others. These are referred to as high GWP gases. The GWP of GHG emissions are shown in Table 5.5-1, GHG Emissions and Their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2. The GWP is used to convert GHGs to CO2-equivalence (CO2e) to show the relative potential that different GHGs have to retain infrared radiation in the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect.3 For example, under IPCC’s Second Assessment Report’s GWP values for CH4, a project that generates 10 metric tons (MT) of CH4 would be equivalent to 210 MT of CO2 (210 MTCO2e).

3 The global warming potential of a GHG is also dependent on the lifetime, or persistence, of the gas molecule in the atmosphere.




Table 5.5-1 GHG Emissions and their Relative Global Warming Potential Compared to CO2

GHGs Atmospheric Lifetime

(Years)

Second Assessment Report Global Warming

Potential Relative to CO21

Fourth Assessment Report Global Warming

Potential Relative to CO21 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 50 to 200 1 1 Methane2 (CH4) 12 (±3) 21 25 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 120 310 298 Hydrofluorocarbons: HFC-23 264 11,700 14,800 HFC-32 5.6 650 675 HFC-125 32.6 2,800 3,500 HFC-134a 14.6 1,300 1,430 HFC-143a 48.3 3,800 4,470 HFC-152a 1.5 140 124 HFC-227ea 36.5 2,900 3,220 HFC-236fa 209 6,300 9,810 HFC-4310mee 17.1 1,300 1,030 Perfluoromethane: CF4 50,000 6,500 7,390 Perfluoroethane: C2F6 10,000 9,200 12,200 Perfluorobutane: C4F10 2,600 7,000 8,860 Perfluoro-2-methylpentane: C6F14 3,200 7,400 9,300 Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 23,900 22,800 Source: IPCC 2001 and IPCC 2007 Note: In its Fifth Assessment Report (2013), the IPCC has published updated global warming potential (GWP) values that reflect new information on atmospheric lifetimes

of GHGs and an improved calculation of the radiative forcing of CO2. However, GWP values identified in the Second Assessment Report are still used by SCAQMD to maintain consistency in GHG emissions modeling. In addition, the 2008 Scoping Plan was based on the GWP values in the Second Assessment Report.

1 Based on 100-year time horizon of the GWP of the air pollutant relative to CO2 (IPCC 2001 and IPCC 2007). 2 The methane GWP includes direct and indirect effects due to the production of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor. The indirect effect due to the

production of CO2 is not included.

California’s GHG Sources and Relative Contribution

California is the tenth largest GHG emitter in the world and the second largest emitter of GHG emissions in the United States, only surpassed by Texas. However, California also has over 12 million more people than Texas. Because of more stringent air emission regulations, in 2001 California ranked fourth lowest in carbon emissions per capita and fifth lowest among states in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption per unit of Gross State Product (total economic output of goods and services) (CEC 2006a).

The California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) last update to the statewide GHG emissions inventory, which used the Second Assessment Report GWPs, was conducted in 2012 for year 2009 emissions.4 In 2009, California produced 457 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e GHG emissions. California’s transportation sector is the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 37.9 percent of the state’s total emissions. Electricity consumption

4 Methodology for determining the statewide GHG inventory is not the same as the methodology used to determine statewide GHG emissions under Assembly Bill 32.




is the second largest source, producing of 22.7 percent. Industrial activities are California’s third largest source of GHG emissions at 17.8 percent (CARB 2012a).

In 2013, the statewide GHG emissions inventory was updated for 2000 to 2012 emissions using the GWPs in IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Based on these GWPs, California produced 459 MMTCO2e GHG emissions in 2012. California’s transportation sector remains the single largest generator of GHG emissions, producing 36.5 percent of the state’s total emissions. Electricity consumption makes up 20.7 percent, and industrial activities produce 19.4 percent of the state’s total emissions. Other major sources of GHG emissions include commercial and residential activities, recycling and waste, high GWP GHGs, agriculture, and forestry (CARB 2014b).

Human Influence on Climate Change

For about 1,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere remained relatively constant. During the 20th century, however, scientists observed a rapid change in the climate and climate-change pollutants that are attributable to human activities. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 35 percent since preindustrial times and has increased at an average rate of 1.4 parts per million (ppm) per year since 1960, mainly due to deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels (IPCC 2007). These recent changes in climate-change pollutants far exceed the extremes of the ice ages, and the global mean temperature is warming at a rate that cannot be explained by natural causes alone. Human activities are directly altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of climate-change pollutants (CAT 2006).

Climate-change scenarios have varying degrees of uncertainty. IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report projects that the global mean temperature increase from 1990 to 2100, under different climate-change scenarios, will range from 1.4 to 5.8°C (2.5 to 10.4°F). In the past, gradual changes in the earth’s temperature changed the distribution of species, availability of water, etc. However, human activities are accelerating this process so that environmental impacts associated with climate change no longer occur in a geologic time frame, but within a human lifetime (CAT 2006).

Potential Climate-Change Impacts for California

Like the variability in the projections of the expected increase in global surface temperatures, the environmental consequences of gradual changes in the Earth’s temperature are also hard to predict. In California and western North America, observations of the climate have shown: 1) a trend toward warmer winter and spring temperatures, 2) a smaller fraction of precipitation is falling as snow, 3) a decrease in the amount of spring snow accumulation in the lower- and middle-elevation mountain zones, 4) an advance snowmelt of 5 to 30 days earlier in spring, and 5) a similar shift (5 to 30 days earlier) in the timing of spring flower blooms (CAT 2006). According to the California Climate Action Team, even if actions could be taken to immediately curtail climate-change emissions, the potency of emissions that have already built up, their long atmospheric lifetimes (see Table 5.5-1), and the inertia of the Earth’s climate system could produce as much as 0.6°C (1.1°F) of additional warming. Consequently, some impacts from climate change are now considered unavoidable. Global climate-change risks are shown in Table 5.5-2, Summary of Global Climate-Change Risks to California, and include impacts to public health, water resources, agriculture, sea level, forest




and biological resources, and electricity. Specific climate-change impacts that could affect the project include health impacts from a reduction in air quality, water resources impacts from a reduction in water supply, and increased energy demand.

Table 5.5-2 Summary of Global Climate Change Risks to California Impact Category Potential Risk

Public Health Impacts • Poor air quality made worse • More severe heat

Water Resources Impacts

• Decreasing Sierra Nevada snow pack • Challenges in securing adequate water supply • Potential reduction in hydropower • Loss of winter recreation

Agricultural Impacts

• Increasing temperature • Increasing threats from pests and pathogens • Expanded ranges of agricultural weeds • Declining productivity • Irregular blooms and harvests

Coastal Sea Level Impacts

• Accelerated sea level rise • Increasing coastal floods • Shrinking beaches • Worsened impacts on infrastructure

Forest and Biological Resource Impacts

• Increasing risk and severity of wildfires • Lengthening of the wildfire season • Movement of forest areas • Conversion of forest to grassland • Increasing threats from pest and pathogens • Declining forest productivity • Shifting vegetation and species distribution • Altered timing of migration and mating habits • Loss of sensitive or slow-moving species

Electricity • Potential reduction in hydropower • Increased energy demand

Sources: CEC 2006b; CEC 2008.

5.5.1.1 REGULATORY SETTING

Regulation of GHG Emissions on a National Level

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced on December 7, 2009, that GHG emissions threaten the health and welfare of the American people and that GHG emissions from on-road vehicles contribute to that threat. The EPA’s final findings respond to the 2007 US Supreme Court decision that GHG emissions fit within the Clean Air Act definition of air pollutants. The findings do not in and of themselves impose any emissions-reduction requirements, but allow the EPA to finalize the GHG standards proposed in 2009 for new light-duty vehicles as part of the joint rulemaking with the Department of Transportation (EPA 2009).




The EPA’s endangerment finding covers emissions of six key GHGs—CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6—which have been the subject of scrutiny and intense analysis for decades by scientists in the United States and around the world. The first three are applicable to the proposed project.

US Mandatory Reporting Rule for GHGs (2009)

In response to the endangerment finding, the EPA issued the Mandatory Reporting of GHG Rule that requires substantial emitters of GHG emissions (large stationary sources, etc.) to report GHG emissions data. A facility that emits 25,000 MTCO2e or more per year is required to submit an annual report.

Update to Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (2010/2012)

The current Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards (for model years 2011 to 2016) incorporate stricter fuel-economy requirements promulgated by the federal government and California into one uniform standard. Additionally, automakers are required to cut GHG emissions in new vehicles by roughly 25 percent by 2016 (resulting in a fleet average of 35.5 miles per gallon [mpg] by 2016). Rulemaking to adopt these new standards was completed in 2010. California agreed to allow automakers who show compliance with the national program to also be deemed in compliance with state requirements. The federal government issued new standards in 2012 for model years 2017–2025, which will require a fleet average of 54.5 mpg in 2025.

EPA Regulation of Stationary Sources under the Clean Air Act (Ongoing)

Pursuant to its authority under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has been developing regulations for new stationary sources such as power plants, refineries, and other large sources of emissions. Pursuant to the President’s 2013 Climate Action Plan, the EPA will also be directed to develop regulations for existing stationary sources.

Regulation of GHG Emissions on a State Level

Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in Executive Order S-03-05, Assembly Bill (AB) 32, and Senate Bill (SB) 375.

Executive Order S-03-05

Executive Order S-3-05, signed June 1, 2005, set the following GHG reduction targets for the state:

2000 levels by 2010

1990 levels by 2020

80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050

Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act (2006)

Current State of California guidance and goals for reductions in GHG emissions are generally embodied in AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act. AB 32 was passed by the California state legislature on August 31, 2006, to place the state on a course toward reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. AB 32 follows the 2020 tier of emissions-reduction targets established in Executive Order S-3-05.




CARB 2008 Scoping Plan

The final Scoping Plan was adopted by CARB on December 11, 2008. AB 32 directed CARB to adopt discrete early-action measures to reduce GHG emissions and outline additional reduction measures to meet the 2020 target. In order to effectively implement the emissions cap, AB 32 directed CARB to establish a mandatory reporting system to track and monitor GHG emissions levels for large stationary sources that generate more than 25,000 MTCO2e per year, prepare a plan demonstrating how the 2020 deadline can be met, and develop appropriate regulations and programs to implement the plan by 2012.

The 2008 Scoping Plan identified that GHG emissions in California are anticipated to be approximately 596 MMTCO2e by 2020. In December 2007, CARB approved a 2020 emissions limit of 427 MMTCO2e (471 million tons) for the state. The 2020 target requires a total emissions reduction of 169 MMTCO2e, 28.5 percent from the projected emissions of the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario for the year 2020 (i.e., 28.5 percent of 596 MMTCO2e) (CARB 2008).5

Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the statewide GHG emissions inventory to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and of measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The updated forecast predicts emissions to be 545 MMTCO2e by 2020. The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.7 percent from BAU. The new inventory also identifies that if the updated 2020 forecast includes the reductions assumed from implementation of Pavley (26 MMTCO2e of reductions) and the 33 percent renewable portfolio standard (RPS) (12 MMTCO2e of reductions) the forecast would be 507 MMTCO2e in 2020, and an estimated 80 MMTCO2e of additional reductions would be necessary to achieve the statewide emissions reduction of AB 32 by 2020, or a 15.7 percent of the projected emissions compared to BAU in year 2020 (i.e., 15.7 percent of 507 MMTCO2e) (CARB 2012b).6

Key elements of CARB’s GHG reduction plan that may be applicable to the proposed project include:

Expanding and strengthening existing energy efficiency programs and building and appliance standards (adopted and cycle updates in progress).

Achieving a mix of 33 percent of energy generation from renewable sources (anticipated by 2020).

A California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system for large stationary sources (adopted 2011).

5 CARB defines BAU in its Scoping Plan as emissions levels that would occur if California continued to grow and add new GHG emissions but did not adopt any measures to reduce emissions. Projections for each emission-generating sector were compiled and used to estimate emissions for 2020 based on 2002–2004 emissions intensities. Under CARB’s definition of BAU, new growth is assumed to have the same carbon intensities as was typical from 2002 through 2004. 6 See the Assembly Bill 1493 and Executive Order S-01-07 discussions below for further details on Pavley and the LCFS. A description of the RPS is found in the Senate Bills 1078 and 107 and Executive Order S-14-08 discussion.




Establishing targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets (several Sustainable Communities Strategies have been adopted).

Adopting and implementing measures pursuant to state laws and policies, including California’s clean car standards (amendments to the Pavley Standards adopted 2009; Advanced Clean Car standard adopted 2012), goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (adopted 2009).7

Table 5.5-3, Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target, shows the proposed reductions from regulations and programs outlined in the Scoping Plan. While local government operations were not accounted for in achieving the 2020 emissions reduction, CARB estimates that land-use changes implemented by local governments that integrate jobs, housing, and services result in a reduction of 5 MMTCO2e, which is approximately 3 percent of the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goal. In recognition of the critical role local governments play in the successful implementation of AB 32, CARB is recommending GHG reduction goals of 15 percent of today’s levels by 2020 to ensure that municipal and community-wide emissions match the state’s reduction target.8 Measures that local governments take to support shifts in land use patterns are anticipated to emphasize compact, low-impact growth over development in greenfields, resulting in fewer VMT (CARB 2008).

7 On December 29, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued several rulings in the federal lawsuits challenging the LCFS. One of the court’s rulings preliminarily enjoins the CARB from enforcing the regulation during the pendency of the litigation. In January 2012, CARB appealed the decision and on April 23, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court granted CARB’s motion for a stay of the injunction while it continues to consider CARB’s appeal of the lower court’s decision. On July 15, 2013, the State of California Court of Appeals held that the LCFS would remain in effect and that CARB can continue to implement and enforce the 2013 regulatory standards while it corrects certain aspects of the procedures by which the LCFS was adopted. Accordingly, CARB is continuing to implement and enforce the LCFS while addressing the court’s concerns. 8 Although the Scoping Plan references a goal for local governments to reduce community GHG emissions by 15 percent from current (interpreted as 2008) levels by 2020, it does not rely on local GHG reduction targets established by local governments to meet the state’s GHG reduction target of AB 32. Table 5.5-3 lists the recommended reduction measures, which do not include additional reductions from local measures.




Table 5.5-3 Scoping Plan GHG Reduction Measures and Reductions toward 2020 Target

Recommended Reduction Measures Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target of 169 MMTCO2e

Percentage of Statewide

2020 Target Cap and Trade Program and Associated Measures California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards 31.7 19% Energy Efficiency 26.3 16% Renewable Portfolio Standard (33 percent by 2020) 21.3 13% Low Carbon Fuel Standard 15 9% Regional Transportation-Related GHG Targets1 5 3% Vehicle Efficiency Measures 4.5 3% Goods Movement 3.7 2% Million Solar Roofs 2.1 1% Medium/Heavy Duty Vehicles 1.4 1% High Speed Rail 1.0 1% Industrial Measures 0.3 0% Additional Reduction Necessary to Achieve Cap 34.4 20%

Total Cap and Trade Program Reductions 146.7 87% Uncapped Sources/Sectors Measures High Global Warming Potential Gas Measures 20.2 12% Sustainable Forests 5 3% Industrial Measures (for sources not covered under cap and trade program) 1.1 1% Recycling and Waste (landfill methane capture) 1 1%

Total Uncapped Sources/Sectors Reductions 27.3 16% Total Reductions Counted toward 2020 Target 174 100%

Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target State Government Operations 1.0 to 2.0 1% Local Government Operations To Be Determined NA Green Buildings 26 15% Recycling and Waste 9 5% Water Sector Measures 4.8 3% Methane Capture at Large Dairies 1 1%

Total Other Recommended Measures – Not Counted toward 2020 Target 42.8 NA Source: CARB 2008. Notes: The percentages in the right-hand column add up to more than 100 percent because the emissions reduction goal is 169 MMTCO2e and the Scoping Plan

identifies 174 MMTCO2e of emissions reductions strategies. MMTCO2e: million metric tons of CO2 equivalent 1 Reductions represent an estimate of what may be achieved from local land use changes. It is not the SB 375 regional target. 2 According to the Measure Documentation Supplement to the Scoping Plan, local government actions and targets are anticipated to reduce vehicle miles by

approximately 2 percent through land-use planning, resulting in a potential GHG reduction of 2 MMTCO2e (or approximately 1.2 percent of the GHG reduction target). However, these reductions were not included in the Scoping Plan reductions to achieve the 2020 target.

2014 Update to the 2008 Scoping Plan

CARB has completed a five-year update to the 2008 Scoping Plan, as required by AB 32. The final Update to the Scoping Plan was released in May and CARB adopted it at the May 22, 2014, board hearing. The Update to the Scoping Plan defines CARB’s climate-change priorities for the next five years and lays the groundwork to reach the post-2020 goals in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-16-2012. The update includes the latest




scientific findings related to climate change and its impacts, including short-lived climate pollutants. The GHG target identified in the 2008 Scoping Plan is based on IPCC’s GWP as identified in the Second and Third Assessment Reports. IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports identified more recent GWP values based on the latest available science. As a result, CARB recalculated the 1990 GHG emission levels with the updated GWPs in the Fourth Assessment Report, which was available at the time of the report preparation. Using the new GWPs in the Fourth Assessment Report, the 427 MMTCO2e 1990 emissions level and 2020 GHG emissions limit, established in response to AB 32, would be slightly higher, at 431 MMTCO2e (CARB 2014a).

The Update to the Scoping Plan highlights California’s progress toward meeting the near-term 2020 GHG emission reduction goals defined in the original 2008 Scoping Plan. As identified in the Update to the Scoping Plan, California is on track to meet the goals of AB 32. However, the Update to the Scoping Plan also addresses the state's longer-term GHG goals in a post-2020 element. The post-2020 element provides an overview of a long-term strategy for meeting the 2050 GHG goals, including a recommendation for the state to adopt a midterm target. According to the Update to the Scoping Plan, local governments’ reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is consistent with, or exceeds, the trajectory created by statewide goals (CARB 2014a).

According to the Update to the Scoping Plan, reducing emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels will require a fundamental shift to efficient, clean energy in every sector of the economy. Progressing toward California’s 2050 climate targets will require significant acceleration of GHG reduction rates. Emissions from 2020 to 2050 will have to decline several times faster than the rate needed to reach the 2020 emissions limit (CARB 2014).

Senate Bill 375

In 2008, SB 375 was adopted to achieve the GHG reduction targets in the Scoping Plan for the transportation sector through local land-use decisions that affect travel behavior. Implementation is intended to reduce VMT and GHG emissions from light-duty trucks and automobiles (excluding emissions associated with goods movement) by aligning regional long-range transportation plans, investments, and housing allocations with local land-use planning. Specifically, SB 375 requires CARB to establish GHG emissions-reduction targets for each of the 18 regions in California managed by a metropolitan planning organization (MPO). The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the MPO for the Southern California region, which comprises the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial.

Pursuant to the recommendations of the Regional Transportation Advisory Committee, CARB adopted per capita reduction targets for each of the MPOs rather than a total magnitude reduction target. SCAG's targets are an 8 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and a 13 percent per capita reduction from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035.

The 2020 targets are smaller than the 2035 targets because a significant portion of the built environment in 2020 has been defined by decisions that have already been made. In general, the 2020 scenarios reflect that more time is needed for large land-use and transportation infrastructure changes. Most of the reductions in




the interim are anticipated to come from improving the efficiency of the region's existing transportation network. The targets would result in 3 MMTCO2e of GHG reductions by 2020 and 15 MMTCO2e of GHG reductions by 2035. Based on these reductions, the passenger-vehicle target in CARB's Scoping Plan (for AB 32) would be met (CARB 2010).

SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS

SB 375 requires the MPOs to prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy in their regional transportation plan. For the SCAG region, the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) was adopted in April 2012 (SCAG 2012). The RTP/SCS establishes a development pattern for the region, which, when integrated with the transportation network and other measures and policies, would reduce GHG emissions from transportation (excluding goods movement). The RTP/SCS is meant to provide growth strategies that will achieve the regional GHG emissions-reduction targets for the SCAG region. The RTP/SCS does not require that local general plans, specific plans, or zoning be consistent with it, but provides incentives for consistency for governments and developers.

Assembly Bill 1493

California vehicle GHG emission standards were enacted under AB 1493 (Pavley I), which is a clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light- to medium-duty) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA. In 2012, the EPA issued a Final Rulemaking that sets even more stringent fuel economy and GHG emissions standards for model years 2017 through 2025 light-duty vehicles. In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program (formerly known as Pavley II) for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global warming gases and requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles into a single package of standards. Under California’s Advanced Clean Car program, by 2025, new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions.

Executive Order S-01-07

On January 18, 2007, the state set a new LCFS for transportation fuels sold within the state. Executive Order S-1-07 sets a declining standard for GHG emissions measured in CO2e grams per unit of fuel energy sold in California. The LCFS requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and a reduction of at least 10 percent by 2020. The LCFS applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels and would use market-based mechanisms to allow these providers to choose how they reduce emissions during the fuel cycle, using the most economically feasible methods.

Executive Order B-16-2012

On March 23, 2012, the state identified that CARB, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the Public Utilities Commission, and other relevant agencies worked with the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Collaborative and the California Fuel Cell Partnership to establish benchmarks to accommodate zero-emissions vehicles in




major metropolitan areas, including infrastructure to support them (e.g., electric vehicle charging stations). The executive order also directs the number of zero-emission vehicles in California’s state vehicle fleet to increase through the normal course of fleet replacement so that at least 10 percent of fleet purchases of light-duty vehicles are zero-emission by 2015 and at least 25 percent by 2020. The executive order also establishes a target for the transportation sector of reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector 80 percent below 1990 levels.

Senate Bills 1078 and 107 and Executive Order S-14-08

A major component of California’s Renewable Energy Program is the RPS established under Senate Bills 1078 (Sher) and 107 (Simitian). Under the RPS, certain retail sellers of electricity were required to increase the amount of renewable energy each year by at least 1 percent in order to reach at least 20 percent by December 30, 2010. Executive Order S-14-08 was signed in November 2008, and expands the state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. In 2011, the state legislature codified this higher standard in adoption of SBx1-2. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable sources for electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects, because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.

California Building Code

Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and are updated triannually (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 24, Part 6,). Title 24 requires the design of building shells and other building components to conserve energy. The standards are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficiency technologies and methods. On May 31, 2012, the CEC adopted the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, which went into effect on July 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

On July 17, 2008, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the nation’s first green building standards. The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) was adopted as part of the California Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11). CALGreen established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.9 The mandatory provisions of CALGreen became effective on January 1, 2011.

9 The green building standards became mandatory in the 2010 edition of the code.




2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations

The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations (CCR Title 20, Sections 1601 through 1608) were adopted by the California Energy Commission on October 11, 2006, and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on December 14, 2006. The regulations include standards for federally and nonfederally regulated appliances.

Regulation of GHG Emissions on a Local Level

Pasadena Green Building Ordinance

The City green building ordinance is Municipal Code Sections 14.04-500 through 14.04-526 (as amended). The ordinance incorporates the 2013 CALGreen and 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. Under the ordinance, nonresidential development that is over 25,000 square feet would be subject to the mandatory Tier 1 CALGreen standards, and nonresidential development over 50,000 square feet would be subject to the mandatory Tier 2 CALGreen standards (Section 14.04.504). The prerequisite and elective measures of the ordinance include:

Designated parking requirements encompassing a minimum of 7 (Tier 1) to 10 (Tier 2) percent of parking capacity for electric vehicles.

Use of roofing materials with a high solar reflectance index (i.e., cool roofs).

City of Pasadena Green City Action Plan

The City of Pasadena developed and adopted the Green City Action Plan on September 18, 2006 (Pasadena 2006). The plan, which contains various actions and goals applicable on a local level, was prepared to create a more sustainable City capable of meeting growing demand and reducing impacts to natural resources. There are seven focus areas within the plan: 1) Energy, 2) Waste Reduction, 3) Urban Design, 4) Urban Nature, 5) Transportation, 6) Environmental Health, and 7) Water. Each of these focus areas contains actions and goals. A partial list of these actions and goals related to GHG emissions is:

Action 1: Increase the use of renewable energy to meet 10 percent of the city’s peak electric load within seven years.

Action 2: Reduce the city’s peak electric load by 10 percent within seven years through energy efficiency, shifting the timing of energy demands and conservation measures.

Action 3: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2030, and include a system for accounting and auditing these emissions.

Action 4: Achieve zero waste to landfills and incinerators by 2040.




Action 5: Reduce the use of disposable, toxic, or non-renewable product category by at least 50 percent in seven years.

Action 8: Advance higher density, mixed use, walkable, bikeable, and disabled accessible neighborhoods which coordinate land use and transportation with open space systems for recreation and ecological restoration.

Action 13: Expand affordable public transportation coverage to within ½ kilometer of all city residents in ten years.

Action 15: Implement a policy to reduce the percentage of commute trips by single occupancy vehicles by 10 percent in seven years.

Action 21: Adopt municipal wastewater management guidelines and reduce the volume of untreated wastewater discharges by 10 percent in seven years through the expanded use of recycled water and the implementation of a sustainable urban watershed planning process that includes participants of all affected communities and is based on sound economic, social, and environmental principles.

5.5.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS

An emissions inventory of the City of Pasadena was conducted based on the existing land uses and is shown in Table 5.5-4, Existing City of Pasadena Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. The existing land uses are the residential, institutional, commercial, office, and industrial uses identified in Table 4-1. Criteria air pollutant emissions generated in the City were estimated using EMFAC2011, OFFROAD2007, and data provided by the City of Pasadena Water and Power and the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) for electricity and natural gas use, respectively. Emissions for the City come from the following sources:10

Transportation: Emissions from vehicle trips beginning and ending in the City and from external/internal vehicle trips (i.e., trips that either begin or end in the City).

Area Sources: Emissions generated from lawn and garden, commercial, and construction equipment use in the City.

Energy: Emissions generated from purchased electricity and natural gas consumption used for cooking and heating in the City.

10 Life-cycle emissions include indirect emissions associated with materials manufacture. However, these indirect emissions involve numerous parties, each of which is responsible for GHG emissions of their particular activity. The California Resources Agency, in adopting the CEQA Guidelines Amendments on GHG emissions, found that life-cycle analysis was not warranted for project-specific CEQA analysis in most situations, for a variety of reasons, including lack of control over some sources and the possibility of double-counting emissions (see Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009). Because the amount of materials consumed during the operation or construction of the proposed project is not known, the origin of the raw materials purchased is not known, and manufacturing information for those raw materials are also not known, calculation of life-cycle emissions would be speculative. A life-cycle analysis is not warranted (OPR 2008).




Solid Waste Disposal: Indirect emissions from waste generated in the City.

Water/Wastewater: Emissions from electricity used to supply, treat, and distribute water based on the overall water demand and wastewater generation in the City.

Table 5.5-4 Existing City of Pasadena Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

Sector Existing (CEQA Baseline) 2013 GHG Emissions

MTCO2e/year Percent of Total Transportation1 972,665 52% Energy – Residential2 290,660 16% Energy – Nonresidential2 497,823 27% Energy – City2 22,278 1% Waste3 3,880 0% Water/Wastewater4 63,530 3% Other – Off-Road Equipment5 4,073 <1%

Existing Community-Wide Emissions Total 1,854,908 100% Service Population (SP)6 247,286 NA

MTCO2e/Year/SP 7.5 MTCO2e/Year/SP NA Note: Emissions may not total 100 percent due to rounding. 1 EMFAC2011. Model runs were based on daily per capita VMT data provided by Fehr & Peers. 2 Electricity and natural gas usage data provided by City of Pasadena Water and Power and SoCal Gas, respectively. The carbon intensity of the purchased electricity

is provided by Pasadena Water and Power. For natural gas, the intensity factors for CO2, CH4 and N20 are from the LGOP, Version 1.1 (May 2010). 3 Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1.3 and CalRecycle. Waste generation based on three-year average (2010–2012) waste commitment for the City of Pasadena

obtained from CalRecycle. Assumes 75 percent of fugitive GHG emissions are captured within the landfill's Landfill Gas Capture System. The landfill gas capture efficiency is based on CARB’s Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1. Significant CH4 production typically begins one or two years after waste disposal in a landfill and continues for 10 to 60 years or longer. Therefore, the highest CH4 emissions from waste disposal in a given year are reported.

4 LGOP, version 1.1, based on the City’s 2010 urban water management plan (UWMP) for water demand and City-provided wastewater generation rates. 5 OFFROAD2007. Consists of landscaping, light commercial, and construction equipment. Landscaping and light commercial equipment emissions based on

population and employment for the City of Pasadena as a percentage of Los Angeles County. Construction equipment emissions based on housing permit data for Los Angeles County and the City of Pasadena from the US Census. Area sources exclude emissions from fireplaces and consumer products.

6 Consists of approximately 135,938 residents and 111,348 employees.

5.5.2 Thresholds of Significance According to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if the project would:

GHG-1 Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

GHG-2 Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCAQMD has adopted a significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year for permitted (stationary) sources of GHG emissions for which SCAQMD is the designated lead agency. To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents, SCAQMD




convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). Based on the last Working Group meeting (Meeting No. 15) in September 2010, SCAQMD identified a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where it is not the lead agency:

Tier 1. If a project is exempt from CEQA, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.

Tier 2. If the project complies with a GHG emissions reduction plan or mitigation program that avoids or substantially reduces GHG emissions in the project’s geographic area (i.e. city or county), project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.

For projects that are not exempt or where no qualifying GHG reduction plans are directly applicable, SCAQMD requires an assessment of GHG emissions. SCAQMD is proposing a “bright-line” screening-level threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e annually for all land-use types or the following land-use-specific thresholds: 1,400 MTCO2e for commercial projects, 3,500 MTCO2e for residential projects, or 3,000 MTCO2e for mixed-use projects. This bright-line threshold is based on a review of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research database of CEQA projects. Based on their review of 711 CEQA projects, 90 percent of CEQA projects would exceed the bright-line thresholds identified above. Therefore, projects that do not exceed the bright-line threshold would have a nominal, and therefore, less than cumulatively considerable impact on GHG emissions:

Tier 3. If GHG emissions are less than the screening-level threshold, project-level and cumulative GHG emissions are less than significant.

Tier 4. If emissions exceed the screening threshold, a more detailed review of the project’s GHG emissions is warranted.

SCAQMD has identified an efficiency target for projects that exceed the screening threshold. The current recommended approach is per capita efficiency targets. SCAQMD is not recommending use of a percentage emissions-reduction target. Instead, SCAQMD identified a 2020 efficiency target of 4.8 MTCO2e per year per service population (MTCO2e/year/SP) for project-level analyses and 6.6 MTCO2e/year/SP for plan-level projects (e.g., general plans). Service population is defined as the sum of the residential and employment populations provided by a project. For purposes of this analysis, as the buildout year for the proposed General Plan Update is 2035, its per capita emissions rate is evaluated to an interim year 2035 efficiency target as discussed below.




Consistency with the Statewide GHG Reduction Targets

The per capita efficiency targets are based on the AB 32 GHG reduction target and 2020 GHG emissions inventory prepared for CARB’s 2008 Scoping Plan.11 Because the project is a revision of the existing General Plan, project emissions are compared to the SCAQMD’s plan-level efficiency threshold. However, the General Plan Update buildout horizon goes beyond the 2020 target year of AB 32. The proposed General Plan horizon year is 2035; therefore, the SCAQMD efficiency target has been extrapolated to 2035 based on the GHG reduction goal of Executive Order S-03-05, to reduce GHG emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is consistent with the CARB’s update to the Scoping Plan, which recommends that local governments’ reduction targets should chart a reduction trajectory that is consistent with, or exceeds, the trajectory created by statewide goals (CARB 2014a). Based on the horizon year for the General Plan Update and an efficiency target that matches the recommended trajectory identified under Executive Order S-03-05, the following threshold is the applicable GHG threshold for the proposed project:

2035 GHG efficiency target of 4.0 MTCO2e per service population, per year

If the community GHG emissions exceed this per capita efficiency target in 2035, GHG emissions would be considered potentially significant in the absence of mitigation measures.

5.5.3 Environmental Impacts Methodology

This GHG evaluation was prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA to determine if significant GHG impacts are likely to occur in conjunction with future development that would be accommodated by the proposed General Plan.12 The City’s GHG emissions inventory includes the following sectors:

Transportation: Transportation emissions forecasts were modeled for vehicle trips beginning and ending within the City of Pasadena and from external/internal vehicle trips (i.e., trips that either begin or end within the City) using CARB’s EMFAC2011-PL. Model runs were based on VMT and speed bin data provided by Fehr & Peers using the Pasadena Traffic Demand Model and 2013 (existing) and 2035 emission rates. The VMT provided, per Regional Transportation Advisory Committee recommendation, includes the full trip length for land uses in the City (origin-destination approach) and a 50 percent reduction in the trip length for external/internal trips. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population in the City. Adjusted daily VMT was multiplied by 347 days per year to account for reduced traffic on weekends and holidays to estimate annual emissions. This assumption is consistent with CARB’s methodology within the Climate Change Scoping Plan Measure Documentation Supplement. In addition,

11 SCAQMD took the 2020 statewide GHG reduction target for land-use-only GHG emissions sectors and divided it by the 2020 statewide employment for the land-use sectors to derive a per capita GHG efficiency metric that coincides with the GHG reduction targets of AB 32 for year 2020. 12 The methodology used in completing the GHG inventory was employed for purposes of fulfilling the requirements of CEQA and may differ from the methodology used in completing the GHG inventory found in the City’s Climate Action Plan.




VMT from special events at the Rose Bowl were incorporated into the model (Pasadena 2013). Modeling was conducted for an adjusted BAU scenario, which includes GHG emissions reduction from the Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standard and LCFS.

Energy: Natural gas and electricity use for residential and nonresidential land uses in the City were modeled using data provided by SoCal Gas and Pasadena Water and Power, respectively. Natural gas and electricity use are based on three-year averages to account for fluctuation in annual use as a result of natural variations in climate. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population in the City. The intensity factor of the purchased electricity is based on the 2012 CO2e intensity factor provided by Pasadena Water & Power. Intensity factors for CO2, CH4 and N2O provided in CARB’s Local Governments Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1, were used for natural gas. Reductions from BAU for residential electricity use include a reduction in carbon intensity of the energy supply required under the 33 percent RPS (CEC 2012), an increase in building energy efficiency as a result of changes to the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards, and energy conservation measures.

Waste: Modeling of landfilled waste disposed of by residents and employees in the City is based on the waste commitment method using the CARB’s Landfill Emissions Tool model, version 1.3, based on waste disposal (municipal solid waste and alternative daily cover) and waste characterization data from CalRecycle (CalRecycle 2014). Landfills in California have gas capture systems, but because the landfill gas captured is not under the jurisdiction of the City, the emissions from the capture system are not included in the City's inventory. Only fugitive sources of GHG emissions from landfills are included. Modeling assumes a 75 percent reduction in fugitive GHG emissions from the landfill's gas capture system. The landfill gas capture efficiency is based on CARB’s LGOP, version 1.1. Biogenic CO2 emissions are not included. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment in the City.

Water/Wastewater: GHG emissions from water and wastewater include indirect GHG emissions from the embodied energy (i.e., energy required for treatment and distribution) of water and wastewater. Total water generation in the City is based on the three-year water-demand average data provided by Pasadena Water and Power and also on the generation rate provided in the City’s 2010 urban water management plan (UWMP). Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment and are based on the target per capita SBx7-7.13 Energy use from water use and wastewater treatment is estimated using energy rates identified by the CEC (CEC 2006c) and carbon intensity of energy as provided and identified by Pacific Gas and Electric and EPA e-GRID data (see Residential and Nonresidential discussion). In addition to the indirect emissions associated with the embodied energy of water use and wastewater treatment, wastewater treatment also results in fugitive GHG emissions. Fugitive emissions from wastewater treatment associated with the Plan Area were calculated using the emissions factors in

13 SBx7-7 (2009) requires all water suppliers to reduce per capita urban water use by 20 percent by 2020, with incremental progress toward this goal (10 percent by 2015). The 2010 UWMPs contain water-use targets to meet this requirement. Effective 2016, urban retail water suppliers who do not meet the water conservation requirements established by SBx7-7 are not eligible for state water grants or loans.




CARB’s LGOP, version 1.1. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment in the Plan Area.

Other Sources: OFFROAD2007 was used to estimate GHG emissions from landscaping equipment, light commercial equipment, and construction equipment in the City. OFFROAD2007 is a database of equipment use and associated emissions for each county, compiled by CARB. Annual emissions were compiled using OFFROAD2007 for the County of Los Angeles for the year 2013. In order to determine the percentage of emissions attributable to the City, landscaping and light commercial equipment is estimated based on population (Landscaping) and employment (Light Commercial Equipment) for the City of Pasadena as a percentage of Los Angeles County. Construction equipment use is estimated based on building permit data for the City of Pasadena and County of Los Angeles from data compiled by the US Census. Daily emissions from off-road construction equipment are multiplied by 347 days per year to account for reduced/limited construction activity on weekends and holidays. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment in the City, with the exception of construction activities. It is assumed that construction emissions for the forecast year would be similar to historical levels.

Industrial sources of emissions that require a permit from SCAQMD are not included in the City’s community inventory. However, due to the 15/15 Rule, natural gas use data for industrial land uses may also be aggregated with the nonindustrial land uses in the data provided by Pasadena Water and Power.14 Life-cycle emissions are also not included in this analysis because not enough information is available for the proposed project, and therefore they would be speculative.

The following impact analysis addresses thresholds of significance for which the Initial Study disclosed potentially significant impacts. The applicable thresholds are identified in brackets after the impact statement.

Impact 5.5-1: Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a reduction of GHG emissions per service population, however, there would be a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Additionally, community-wide GHG emissions would not meet the long-term GHG reductions goal under Executive Order S-03-05. [Threshold GHG-1]

Impact Analysis: Implementation of the proposed Land Use Plan would contribute to global climate change through direct and indirect emissions of GHG from land uses within the City of Pasadena. The change in GHG emissions is based on the difference between existing land uses and those associated with the proposed General Plan Update. The community-wide GHG emissions inventory for the City of Pasadena at buildout in year 2035 compared to existing conditions and year 2035 without state and federal reductions (BAU) is included in Table 5.5-5, General Plan Update Buildout 2035: City of Pasadena GHG Emissions Inventory. The adjusted BAU (ABAU) buildout inventory includes reductions from federal and state measures identified

14 The 15/15 Rule was adopted by the California Public Utilities Commission in the Direct Access Proceeding (CPUC Decision 97-10-031) to protect customer confidentiality. The 15/15 rule requires that any aggregated information provided by a utility must be made up of at least 15 customers, and a single customer’s load must be less than 15 percent of an assigned category. If the number of customers in the complied data is below 15, or if a single customer’s load is more than 15 percent of the total data, categories must be combined before the information is released. The Rule further requires that if the 15/15 Rule is triggered for a second time after the data has been screened once already using the 15/15 Rule, the customer be dropped from the information provided.




in CARB’s Scoping Plan, including the Pavley fuel efficiency standards, LCFS for fuel use (transportation and off-road), and a reduction in carbon intensity from electricity use.

As shown in this table, state measures identified in the Scoping Plan and federal measures would result in a reduction of 483,341 MTCO2e emissions (20 percent reduction) for full buildout compared to BAU. On a per capita basis, buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would reduce the GHG emissions from 7.5 MTCO2e/year/SP under existing conditions down to 6.1 MTCO2e/year/SP. However, buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would result in an increase of 76,525 MTCO2e of GHG emissions (4 percent increase in GHG emissions) from existing conditions and would exceed the 3,000 MTCO2e SCAQMD bright-line screening threshold. Consequently, the implementation of the proposed General Plan Update would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions within the City.

Consistency with the Long-Term Goal of Executive Order S-03-05

Executive Order S-03-05 identified a long-term goal of reducing GHG emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050. As shown in Table 5.5-5, the community-wide GHG emissions with reduction measures incorporated in the City for buildout year 2035 would not meet the interim efficiency threshold of 4.0 MTCO2e/year/SP. This interim efficiency threshold measures progress in meeting the Executive Order S-03-05 reduction target.

The proposed General Plan Update includes various policies that would contribute to reduced GHG emissions. These policies cover areas such as higher-density mixed use neighborhoods (Policy LU 18.1), complete street design principles (Policy LU 18.3), and improved pedestrian and bike corridors and connectivity throughout the City (Policies LU 5.1 and 25.8). Policies also include creating transit villages (Policy 4.4), which would place development near the Metro Gold Line stations. These policies would encourage active transit (e.g., walking and biking) and reduce overall VMT per capita. However, while these policies would contribute to reduced GHG emissions, the City would require assistance from additional federal and state programs and regulations to achieve the long-term GHG emissions goal. Due to the magnitude of emissions reductions required statewide to achieve an interim target consistent with Executive Order S-03-05, it is unlikely that the majority of jurisdictions in California would achieve an interim target without additional federal and state programs and regulations. While the 2014 Scoping Plan Update assessed programs to achieve the 2020 targets for the state, at this time, no additional GHG reductions programs have been outlined that get the state to the post-2020 targets identified in Executive Order S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advances in technology (CCST 2012). Therefore, GHG impacts within the City of Pasadena from the overall growth under the proposed General Plan Update would not achieve the long-term GHG reductions goals under Executive Order S-03-05 and would cumulatively contribute to the long-term GHG emissions in the state.




Table 5.5-5 General Plan Update Buildout 2035: City of Pasadena GHG Emissions Inventory

Pollutant

Buildout GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/Year)

2013

General Plan Update Buildout 2035 Without

State and Federal Reductions (BAU)

General Plan Update Buildout 2035 With State and Federal Reductions

(ABAU) Percent Total Reductions from State and Federal Measures

Change from 2013

Transportation1 972,665 1,283,126 948,594 49% -334,532 -24,071 Energy – Residential2 290,660 349,402 314,374 16% -35,029 23,714 Energy – Nonresidential2 497,823 678,102 582,396 30% -95,706 84,573 Energy – City/Municipal 22,278 28,386 24,122 1% 4.264 1,844 Waste3 3,880 4,944 4,944 <1% 0 1,064 Water/Wastewater4 63,530 63,757 53,264 3% -10,494 -10,266 Other – Off-road Equipment5 4,073 4,155 3,740 <1% -416 -333 Total Community Emissions 1,854,908 2,411,872 1,931,433 NA -480,439 76,525 Net Change in Percentage NA NA NA NA -20% 4% Service Population (SP)6 247,286 315,082 315,082 NA N/A N/A Emissions per Service Population 7.5 MTCO2e/Year/SP 7.6 MTCO2e/Year/SP 6.1 MTCO2e/Year/SP NA N/A N/A SCAQMD Proposed Plan-Level Efficiency Standard N/A 4.0 MTCO2e/Year/SP 4.0 MTCO2e/Year/SP NA N/A N/A

Notes: Emissions forecast based on changes in population (residential energy), employment (nonresidential energy), or service population (City energy, waste, water/wastewater, transportation). ABAU includes reductions identified in the Scoping Plan associated with transportation (Pavley+LCFS), energy & water/wastewater (33% RPS), and other (LCFS). The current inventory does not account for reductions in building

energy use from Title 24 cycle updates. Emissions may not total 100% due to rounding. 1 EMFAC2011 based on daily per capita VMT data provided by Fehr & Peers. Modeling was conducted for both a BAU scenario, which does not include GHG emissions reduction from the Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standard and LCFS,

and for the ABAU scenario, which includes these statewide regulations. 2 Electricity and natural gas usage data provided by City of Pasadena Water and Power and SoCal Gas, respectively. The carbon intensity of the purchased electricity is provided by Pasadena Water and Power. For natural gas, the

intensity factors for CO2, CH4, and N20 are provided by the EPA’s e-GRID data for year 2009. The ABAU scenario for residential electricity use includes a reduction in carbon intensity of Pasadena Water and Power’s energy supply required under the 33 percent RPS (CEC 2012).

3 Landfill Emissions Tool Version 1.3 and CalRecycle. Waste generation based on three-year average (2010–2012) waste commitment for the City of Pasadena obtained from CalRecycle. Assumes 75 percent of fugitive GHG emissions are captured in the landfill's Landfill Gas Capture System. The landfill gas capture efficiency is based on CARB’s LGOP, version 1.1. Significant CH4 production typically begins one or two years after waste disposal in a landfill and continues for 10 to 60 years or longer. Therefore, the highest CH4 emissions from waste disposal in a given year are reported.

4 LGOP, version 1.1, based on the three-year water demand data as provided by Pasadena Water and Power and City’s 2010 UWMP. Forecasts are adjusted for increases in population and employment and are based on the target per capita of SBx7-7. The ABAU scenario for residential electricity use includes a reduction in carbon intensity of Pasadena Water and Power’s energy supply required under the 33 percent RPS (CEC 2012).

5 OFFROAD2007. Consists of landscaping, light commercial, and construction equipment. Landscaping and light commercial equipment emissions based on population and employment for the City of Pasadena proportioned to Los Angeles County. Construction equipment emissions based on housing permit data for Los Angeles County and the City of Pasadena from the US Census. Area sources exclude emissions from fireplaces and consumer products. The ABAU includes reductions from the LCFS.

6 Based on an existing SP of 247,286 people (135,938 residents and 111,348 employees); and a projected 2035 SP of 315,082 people (163,411 residents and 151,671 employees).




This page intentionally left blank.




Impact 5.5-2: The proposed General Plan Update would not conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan or SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS. [Threshold GHG-2]

Impact Analysis: The following discusses the consistency of the proposed General Plan Update to the CARB Scoping Plan and SCAGs 2012 RTP/SCS in addition to the City’s Green Action City Plan.

CARB Scoping Plan

In accordance with AB 32, CARB developed the Scoping Plan to outline the state’s strategy to achieve 1990-level emissions by year 2020. To estimate the reductions necessary, CARB projected statewide 2020 BAU GHG emissions and identified that the state as a whole would be required to reduce GHG emissions by 28.5 percent from year 2020 BAU to achieve the targets of AB 32 (CARB 2008). Since release of the 2008 Scoping Plan, CARB has updated the 2020 GHG BAU forecast to reflect GHG emissions in light of the economic downturn and measures not previously considered in the 2008 Scoping Plan baseline inventory. The revised BAU 2020 forecast shows that the state would have to reduce GHG emissions by 21.6 percent from BAU or 15.7 percent from the adjusted baseline (i.e., with Pavley and 33 percent RPS) (CARB 2012b).

Since adoption of the 2008 Scoping Plan, state agencies have adopted programs identified in the Scoping Plan, and the legislature has passed additional legislation to achieve the GHG reduction targets. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions include the LCFS and changes in the corporate average fuel economy standards (e.g., Pavley I and 2017–2025 CAFE standards). These statewide measures are applicable uniformly throughout the state, and all future developments under the proposed Land Use Plan would be in compliance. Table 5.5-6, Statewide GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies, provides a summary of the statewide strategies and the associated GHG emissions reductions when integrated into the proposed General Plan Update. In addition to these statewide strategies, the proposed General Plan Update policies listed in Section 5.5.4 would also contribute to reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update would be consistent with the Scoping Plan, and impacts are considered less than significant.




Table 5.5-6 Statewide GHG Emissions Reduction Strategies

Policy/Action Policy/Implementation Action Description Reduction in MTCO2e

Buildout Circulation/Land Use -334,532 MTCO2e

Pavley I A clean-car standard that reduces GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles (light- to medium-duty) from 2009 through 2016 and is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions from new passenger vehicles by 30 percent in 2016. California implements the Pavley I standards through a waiver granted to California by the EPA.

Advanced Clean Car (Pavley II)

A multifaceted approach focused on controlling smog and soot and reducing GHG emissions from passenger vehicles for model years 2015–2025. It is designed to extend beyond Pavley I (i.e., 2016). The program is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions by 12 percent in year 2025.

LCFS Requires a reduction of 2.5 percent in the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels by 2015 and of at least 10 percent by 2020. Applies to refiners, blenders, producers, and importers of transportation fuels and uses market-based mechanisms to allow providers to use the most economically feasible methods to reduce emissions during the fuel cycle.

Energy Efficiency and Use Buildout

-145,492 MTCO2e Title 24 Energy Standards

Energy conservation standards for new residential and nonresidential buildings were adopted by the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in June 1977 and are updated triannually to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy-efficiency technologies and methods. The 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards went into effect on January 1, 2014. Buildings that are constructed in accordance with the 2013 Building and Energy Efficiency Standards are 25 percent (residential) to 30 percent (nonresidential) more energy efficient than the 2008 standards as a result of better windows, insulation, lighting, ventilation systems, and other features that reduce energy consumption in homes and businesses.

Title 24 CALGreen

Adopted in 2008 as part of the California Building Standards Code. Established planning and design standards for sustainable site development, energy efficiency, water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants.

33% RPS Executive Order S-14-08 was signed in November 2008 and expands the state’s renewable energy standard to 33 percent renewable power by 2020. Renewable sources of electricity include wind, small hydropower, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biogas. The increase in renewable electricity production will decrease indirect GHG emissions from development projects, because electricity production from renewable sources is generally considered carbon neutral.

Title 25 The 2006 Appliance Efficiency Regulations were adopted by the California Energy Commission and approved by the California Office of Administrative Law in 2006. The regulations include standards for both federally and nonfederally regulated appliances.

Total Overall GHG Reductions Buildout

-480,439 MTCO2e

SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS

SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS is a regional growth-management strategy that targets per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks in the Southern California region. The 2012 RTP/SCS incorporates local land-use projections and circulation networks in city and county general plans. The projected regional development pattern, including locations of land uses and residential densities included in local general plans, when integrated with the proposed regional transportation network identified in the 2012 RTP/SCS, would reduce per capita vehicular travel-related GHG emissions and achieve the GHG reduction per capita targets for the SCAG region of 8 percent per capita from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2020 and 13 percent per capita from 2005 GHG emission levels by 2035. Section 5.8, Land Use and Planning, Table 5.8-1, Consistency with SCAG’s 2012–2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Goals, provides an assessment of the proposed project’s relationship to applicable RTP/SCS goals. As identified in this table,




the proposed General Plan Update and its policies would be consistent with the applicable RTP/SCS goals. Implementation of Policies LU 32.3, 36.2, and 37.1 would create higher density mixed-use communities centered around the Metro Gold Line stations. These policies, in addition to Policies LU 4.6, 18.1, and 21.6, which also call for creation of more mixed-use and walkable communities, would contribute to reduced VMT per capita and overall GHG emissions from passenger vehicles. Therefore, the proposed General Plan Update is consistent with SCAG’s 2012 RTP/SCS.

City of Pasadena Green City Action Plan

The Green City Plan is a City-adopted plan to guide the City in becoming more sustainable. The plan identifies a wide range of goals and implementation actions to conserve energy and water, reduce solid waste, address global warming, tailor urban design, protect natural habitats, improve transportation options, and reduce risks to human health. Specific goals related to GHG include increasing the use of renewable energy in Pasadena and reducing the City’s overall electric load by 10 percent. Other goals include reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips by 10 percent and advancing higher density mixed-use neighborhoods that are bike- and pedestrian-friendly. The proposed General Plan Update includes various policies that are and would be consistent with these goals and initiatives of the Green City Action Plan. For example, Policy LU 18.1 pertains to accommodating a mix and density of land uses and urban forms that would promote active transit and higher utilization of public transportation. Policies ME 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 pertain to improving access to and creating more public transit. These policies, in addition to the other policies of the proposed General Plan as outlined in Section 5.5.4, are consistent with the goals and initiatives of the Green City Plan.

5.5.4 Relevant General Plan Policies Adopted

Open Space & Conservation Element

Policies

Energy

Increase conservation, efficiency and sustainability.

Adopt and implement objectives and policies to reduce the City’s peak electric load, and maximize the energy efficiency of new and existing buildings.

Water

Increase the efficiency of water use among Pasadena residents, and commercial and industrial organizations.

Greenhouse Gas

Preserve and plant trees that absorb carbon dioxide and pollutants.




Encourage and provide incentives for the use of alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle use, including using public transit, carpooling, vanpooling, telecommuting, bicycling and walking.

Encourage the transition of municipal fleet to electric, hybrid and natural gas. Support the expansion of electric vehicle infrastructure throughout the City.

Environmental Health and Solid Waste

Increase the diversion of waste materials from landfills through the reduction, reuse, and recycling of wastes to the highest and best use.

Achieve zero waste to landfills and incinerators by 2040.

Implementation Measures

The following is partial list of applicable implementation measures from the Open Space & Conservation Element.15

Energy

Continue to enforce the Title 24 and CalGreen requirements for cool roofs in new buildings and remodeling projects. After some experience with CalGreen, evaluate the effectiveness of this measure and determine if it should be strengthened.

Continue to enforce the CALGreen Code voluntary measures for reducing heat island effects and optimizing energy efficiency in new construction. After some experience with CALGreen evaluate the effectiveness of this measure and determine if it should be strengthened.

Continue to implement the CALGreen requirement that Tier 1 buildings must exceed the California Energy Code (2008) by 20% and Tier 2 Buildings must exceed the California Energy Code by 30%.

Promote photocells, timers or motion sensors on all permanently installed exterior lighting.

Continue to prohibit wood-burning fireplaces in new buildings.

Alternative Energy

Investigate potential alternative energy generation locations for residential, institutional, commercial and municipal.

15 The measures in their entirety can be found in the Open Space & Conservation Element (http://cityofpasadena.net/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=6442473022&libID=6442472989).




Review and revise building and development codes, design guidelines, and zoning ordinances to remove barriers to alternative energy generation.

By 2020, establish a feed-in tariff program offering to purchase up to 10 MW of qualifying renewables of all technologies located inside Pasadena (Power IRP).

By 2024, develop programs to add at least 19 MW of solar photovoltaic installations in Pasadena according to the following timeline: 3 MW by 2010; 10 MW by 2015; 15 MW by 2020; 19 MW by 2024 (Power IRP).

Water

Continue to implement the CALGreen Code mandatory water efficiency measures to achieve a 20% reduction.

Landscaping

Include low-water landscaping in place of hardscaping around transportation infrastructure, institutions, and in city-owned properties.

Require that all new single-family homes shall have drought tolerant landscaped front yards, and warm season lawn (model landscape compliant) back yards – through ordinances for new development and PWP rebates (WIRP).

Proposed

Land Use Element

Goal 4: Elements Contributing to Urban Form. A safe, well-designed, accessible City with a diversity of uses and forms. These diverse forms include distinct, walkable districts, corridors, and transit and neighborhood villages and cohesive, unique single and multi-family residential neighborhoods and open spaces where people of all ages can live, work, shop and recreate.

Policy LU 4.1: Sustainable Urban Form. Provide an overall pattern of land uses and densities that encourages sustainable development; offers convenient alternatives to auto travel; ensures compatibility among uses; enhances livability and public health; sustains economic vitality; and reduces air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy consumption.

Policy LU 4.4: Transit Villages. Accommodate and intensify a mix of local and regional commercial, residential, and public uses close to the Metro Gold Line stations. Design these areas to accommodate safe and convenient walking, bicycling, and transit use. Include gathering places and amenities to enhance their quality and livability.




Policy LU 4.6: Neighborhood Villages. Support neighborhoods through the intensification of development at major intersections to serve as centers of neighborhood identity and activity. Encourage the clustering of community-oriented commercial services, housing, and community gathering places with pedestrian-oriented amenities that are accessible and walkable.

Policy LU 4.8: Complete and Livable Neighborhoods. Maintain the pattern of distinct residential neighborhoods oriented around parks, schools, and community meeting facilities that are connected to and walkable from neighborhood-serving businesses and public transit.

Goal 5: Pedestrian-Oriented Places. Development that contributes to pedestrian vitality and facilitating bicycle use in the Central District, Transit Villages, Neighborhood Villages, and community corridors.

Policy LU 5.1: Walkable City. Maintain and improve sidewalks and pedestrian paths in Pasadena’s neighborhoods and business districts by incorporating street trees, landscaping, and pedestrian-oriented amenities.

Policy LU 5.2: Pedestrian-Oriented Development. Require buildings in the Central District, Transit Villages, Neighborhood Villages, and along corridors specified by the adopted specific plans to be located along the street/sidewalk and designed to promote pedestrian activity. This can be accomplished by incorporating transparent facades, small plazas, and dining areas; while locating parking to the rear or underground and placing primary entries on the street.

Policy LU 5.4: Community Connectivity. Improve corridors crossing the 210 Freeway to accommodate safe and convenient walking and bicycling with landscape, trees, street furniture, and other amenities. This will improve the visual and physical connectivity of neighborhoods to the north and south. Consider the feasibility for constructing a landscaped deck over the freeway as an open space amenity and as a means of improving the connections between neighborhoods on either side of the 210 freeway.

Goal 10: City Sustained and Renewed. Development and infrastructure practices that sustain natural environmental resources for the use of future generations and, at the same time, contribute to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and impacts on climate change.

Policy LU 10.2: Land Uses Supporting Sustainability. Encourage land uses and improvements that reduce energy and water consumption, waste and noise generation, air quality impacts and support other comparable resource strategies for a sustainable Pasadena; including alternative energy generation, electric vehicle parking and charging, recycling, and similar facilities.

Policy LU 10.20: Alternative Fuel. Provide locations for alternative fuel facilities, such as charging stations for electric vehicles.

Goal 18: Land Use/Transportation Relationship. Pasadena will be a City where there are effective and convenient alternatives to using cars and the relationship of land use and transportation is acknowledged




through transit-oriented development, multi-modal design features and pedestrian and bicycle amenities in coordination with and accordance with the Mobility Element.

Policy LU 18.1: Development Mix Densities. Accommodate the mix and density of land uses and urban form that induce walking, bicycling, and transit use as an alternative to the automobile, as specified by the Land Use Diagram.

Policy LU 18.2: Mobility. Correlate land use development intensities with adequate infrastructure improvements and transportation strategies to ensure mobility in all areas of Pasadena.

Policy LU 18.3: Modal Choices. Promote the development of infrastructure supporting walking, bicycling, and transit use and complete streets as specified by the Mobility Element.

Policy LU 18.4: Transit-Pedestrian Coordination. Implement physical improvements facilitating pedestrian access from development projects to the street, bus stops, and/or transit stations.

Policy LU 18.5: Land Use-Mobility Compatibility. Manage vehicle traffic volumes and speeds to improve their compatibility with the character of the adjacent land uses, the function of the street(s), and bicycle and pedestrian traffic.

Goal 19: Parking Availability. The supply of parking will reflect Pasadena’s objective to protect residential neighborhoods; create a vital, healthy, and sustainable economy; establish Pasadena as a leader in environmental stewardship; encourage physical activity and a commitment to health and wellness; and encourage walking, biking, and transit. The supply of parking in an area will also reflect the type, mix, and density of uses; the availability of shared facilities; and the proximity to transit.

Policy LU 19.2: Parking Limits. Establish limits to the amount of parking that may be developed for projects in the Central District and Transit Villages to promote walking, bicycling, and use of transit as an alternative to the automobile.

Policy LU 19.3: Park Once. Provide the opportunity for residents, patrons, and visitors to park once and visit many destinations in the Central District, Transit Villages, and Neighborhood Villages through centrally located shared parking while providing additional flexibility for businesses to provide parking off-site or participate in other alternative parking funding mechanisms.

Policy LU 19.5: Bicycle Parking. Accommodate the development of bicycle parking centers in the Central District, Transit Villages, and Neighborhood Villages and require larger development projects to incorporate secured and convenient bicycle parking facilities.

Goal 21: Desirable Neighborhoods. A City composed of neighborhoods with a variety of housing types that are desirable places to live, contribute to the quality of life, and are well maintained.




Policy LU 21.6: Walkable Neighborhoods. Manage vehicle speeds and maintain sidewalks, parkways, street tree canopies, and landscaping throughout residential neighborhoods. Encourage walking as an enjoyable and healthy activity and alternative to automobile use.

Goal 25: Vital Districts and Corridors. Diverse, active, prosperous, and well-designed commercial corridors and districts that provide a diversity of goods, services, and entertainment and contribute to a positive experience for residents and visitors.

Policy LU 25.8: Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Transit Access. Require commercial projects to be designed to promote convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to and from nearby neighborhoods, transit facilities, bikeways, and other amenities.

Goal 29: Transit Villages. Moderate to high density mixed-use clusters of residential and commercial uses developed in an integrated “village-like” environment with buildings clustered on common plazas and open spaces in proximity to Metro Gold Line stations capitalizing on their induced market demands and land values, facilitating ridership, and reducing automobile use while increasing walkability.

Policy LU 29.2: Neighborhood Identity. Design Transit Villages to be distinct, cohesive, and pedestrian-oriented places that are linked with and walkable from adjoining neighborhoods.

Policy LU 29.3: Pedestrian Orientation. Require the inclusion of improvements and amenities to create a safe and comfortable environment for sitting, meeting neighbors and friends, walking and providing easy access to Metro Gold Line station areas and a mix of uses in close proximity to the station.

Policy LU 29.4: Bicycle Facilities. Provide adequate bicycle facilities within one mile of Metro Gold Line station areas and throughout transit villages.

Goal 30: Neighborhood Villages. Lower density mixed-use clusters of residential and commercial uses developed in an integrated “village-like” environment with buildings clustered on common plazas and open spaces designed as communal places that are walkable from surrounding neighborhoods.

Policy LU 30.3: Neighborhood Identity. Design neighborhood villages to be distinct, cohesive, and pedestrian-oriented places that are linked and walkable from nearby residential neighborhoods.

Policy LU 30.5: Connectivity to Neighborhoods. Link to neighborhood villages to adjoining residential neighborhoods through safe, convenient, well-designed pedestrian sidewalks and bicycle facilities.

Policy LU 30.6: Pedestrian Orientation. Encourage neighborhood serving land uses to provide access to services and goods by walking or bicycle.




Goal 31: Central District. The primary civic, business, financial, retail, entertainment, and cultural center of Pasadena with supporting housing enabling residents to live close and walk to these uses and access regional transit.

Policy LU 31.5: Transit Options. Increase the network of transit, walking, and bicycling opportunities between sub-areas within the Central District through expanded services, additional rights of way/pathways with corresponding signage.

Policy LU 31.10: Building Orientation. Require businesses to be oriented primarily to pedestrian streets and urban spaces and secondarily to parking lots and to provide visibility and accessibility to customers arriving on foot, by bicycle, and by automobile.

Goal 32: East Colorado. A series of pedestrian-oriented villages and districts with unique identities, bolstered by their vibrant mix of uses, amenities and streetscapes improving their walkability and appearance.

Policy LU 32.3: Allen Transit Village. Support a mix of retail, office, and multi-family housing uses adjoining the Allen Metro Gold Line station providing opportunities for people to live or work close to and use transit, contributing to reductions in vehicle trips, energy consumption, and GHG emissions.

Goal 33: East Pasadena. A semi-urban environment with higher-density mixed-use developments incorporating retail, office and housing uses to provide increase opportunities encourage transit use and walking.

Policy LU 33.2: Sierra Madre Villa Transit Village. Provide for the clustering of pedestrian-oriented retail, office, and multi-family housing uses adjoining the transit station. Provide places where nearby residents can eat, shop, and meet friends. Improve access to local and regional transit by providing convenient options to reduce driving, contributing to reductions in vehicle trips, energy consumption, and GHG emissions.

Policy LU 33.5: Street Grid and Blocks. Promote the redevelopment of the large commercially-developed parcels with a network of internal pedestrian ways and sidewalks along which buildings will be clustered, establishing a smaller, walkable block grid comparable to the Central District.

Policy LU 33.6: Major Corridors. Redevelop Foothill Boulevard and East Colorado Boulevard as multi-modal corridors that enhance opportunities for walking, bicycling, and transit use.

Goal 35: Lincoln Avenue. A vibrant neighborhood-oriented district, with new housing options and a complement of localserving retail and service businesses, office spaces, and community uses, all tied together with public improvements that create a vibrant and enjoyable pedestrian environment.

Policy LU 35.10: Mobility Choices. Redesign Lincoln Avenue to accommodate a mix of mobility choices including walking, bicycling, and transit in addition to the automobile.




Goal 36: North Lake. A well-designed and attractive corridor supporting multiple travel modes including transit, bicycling, and walking with clusters of distinctive places for shopping, dining, and living.

Policy LU 36.2: Lake Transit Village. Provide for the development of higher intensity mix of retail, office, and multi-family housing uses in proximity to the Metro Gold Line station that expand the customer base for local businesses and support Metro Gold Line ridership contributing to the reduction of vehicle trips, energy consumption, and GHG emissions.

Policy LU 36.5: Accessibility. Design Lake Avenue and Washington Boulevard as complete streets that accommodate transit, bicycle, and pedestrian use. Include wider sidewalks, public plazas, parks and parklets, bike lanes, bicycle parking and wayfinding signage for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Goal 37: South Fair Oaks Avenue. Concentration of mixed-use development adjoining the Fillmore Metro Gold Line station; expanded housing opportunities for seniors, students, or employees of the major institutions; and redevelopment of underutilized industrial areas for new businesses and job-generating uses leveraged by the medical and creative office uses.

Policy LU 37.1: Fillmore Transit Village. Provide for the development of higher density, transit-oriented uses with a mix of retail, office, and multi-family housing uses that expand the customer base for local retail uses and support Metro Gold Line ridership; while contributing to reductions in vehicle trips, energy consumption, and GHG emissions.

Goal 38: Washington and Allen. A distinctive pedestrian “village-like” environment that fosters neighborhood identity and activity, is a place for gathering with walkable streets connected to adjacent single-family neighborhoods, and improves the area’s appearance.

Policy LU 38.3: Accessibility. Design East Washington Boulevard and North Allen Avenue to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian amenities, including wider sidewalks with sidewalk dining, public plazas, parklets, bike lanes, and ample bicycle parking.

Mobility Element

Objective 1. Enhance livability.

Policy ME 1.1. Encourage connectivity and accessibility to a mix of land uses that meet residents' daily needs within walking distance.

Policy ME 1.2. Promote greater linkages between land uses and transit, as well as non-vehicular modes of transportation to reduce vehicular trip related emissions.

Policy ME 1.5. Consider the transportation needs of the disabled, students and especially seniors.

Policy ME 1.6. Continue to invest in information technology to help improve access to all transportation choices.




Policy ME 1.7. Design streets to achieve safe interaction for all modes of travel particularly for pedestrians and bicycle users.

Policy ME 1.8. Improve safety for all modes by developing and coordinating between the Police Department and the Transportation Department the implementation of traffic management, education and enforcement initiatives Increase options for walking and bicycling to recreate, shop and services while improving safety for all modes.

Policy ME 1.9. Support local and regional air quality, sustainability, and GHG emission reduction goals through management of the City's transportation network.

Policy ME 1.10. Continuously evaluate the operation of the City's transportation system to manage the speed of travel at or below the speed limit, manage queues at intersections and develop improvements to increase safety of all transportation services.

Policy ME 1.11. Design Streets to reflect individual neighborhood character and needs, and support healthy activities such as walking and bicycling.

Policy ME 1.12. Apply traffic management measures to manage vehicular speeds as a function of designated street type to ensure safe and orderly movement of all modes of travel.

Policy ME 1.15. Provide programs, transit and traffic management services, residential parking management, and bicycle improvements that are compatible with neighborhood needs and are developed in collaboration with the community.

Policy ME 1.17. Design streets to improve access to destinations by transit, bicycle and walking.

Policy ME 1.18. Increase walking and bicycling to local destinations and regional transportation services by developing wayfinding signage for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Policy ME 1.19. Develop measures to reduce conflict areas for bicyclist such as driveways and right turn lanes.

Policy ME 1.20. Develop measures that would reduce conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians on sidewalks in commercial areas.

Policy ME 1.21. Inform and involve neighborhood residents in transportation programs such as the Suggested Safe Routes to School Program to help ensure that students can safely walk or bicycle to and from school.

Policy ME 1.23. Improve public health by supporting walking and bicycling throughout the city.

Policy ME 1.25. Assess ways to improve availability of transit for underserved populations




Policy ME 1.28. Coordinate transportation services and programs with all City departments.

Policy ME 1.29. Coordinate transportation options for major community and commercial events to increase transit access, ridesharing and bicycle access and parking options.

Policy ME 1.30. Pursue funding opportunities such as grants, impact fees or fair share contributions from development to implement programs and projects that contribute to the City’s Mobility Element objectives.

Policy ME 1.31. Emphasize transportation projects and programs that will contribute to a reduction in vehicles miles traveled per capita, while maintaining economic vitality and sustainability.

Objective 2. Encourage walking, biking, transit and other alternatives to motor vehicles.

Policy ME 2.1. Continue to support the construction of the Gold Line Foothill Extension transit service and the expansion and use of regional and local bus transit service.

Policy ME 2.2. Seek funding to enhance accessibility by increasing routes, frequency and hours of operation for Pasadena’s transit system throughout the community.

Policy ME 2.3. Provide convenient safe and accessible transit stops.

Policy ME 2.4. Facilitate coordination between transit providers to improve seamless transit service.

Policy ME 2.5. Develop and maintain a comprehensive and integrated system of reduced stress bikeways and increase bicycle parking at destinations to promote bicycle riding as a mode of transportation.

Policy ME 2.6. Continue to strengthen the marketing and promotion of non-auto transportation to residents, employees and visitors.

Policy ME 2.7. Support neighborhood walk-to-school efforts.

Policy ME 2.8. Maintain existing and identify new opportunities for biking infrastructure.

Policy ME 2.9. Ensure that secure and convenient bicycle parking at destinations. Explore bicycle share programs or any other bicycle programs that will provide greater access to bicycles for visitors and those that may not own a bicycle.

Policy ME 2.10. Amend the existing transportation impact fee to include pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

Policy ME 2.11. Implement a citywide car sharing system to support the Mobility Element objectives.




Objective 3. Create a supportive climate for economic viability.

Policy ME 3.5. Continue to impose Trip Reduction Ordinance (TRO) requirements for regulated new development.

Policy ME 3.10. Support public and private efforts to implement the Pasadena Streetcar.

5.5.5 Existing Regulations and Standard Conditions State

Executive Order S-3-05: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets

AB 32: California Global Warming Solutions Act

SB 375: Sustainable Communities Strategies

AB 1493: Pavley Fuel Efficiency Standards

Title 20 California Code of Regulations: Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards

Title 17 California Code of Regulations: Low Carbon Fuel Standard

AB 1881: California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006

SB 1368: Statewide Retail Provider Emissions Performance Standards

SB 1078: Renewable Portfolio Standards

Title 24, Part 6, California Code of Regulations: Building and Energy Efficiency Standards

Title 24, Part 11, California Code of Regulations: Green Building Standards Code

Local

Green Building Ordinance: City of Pasadena Municipal Code Title 14, Chapter 14.04, Sections 14.04.500 to 14.04.526

5.5.6 Level of Significance Before Mitigation Upon implementation of regulatory requirements and standard conditions of approval, the following impact would be less than significant: 5.5-2.

Without mitigation, the following impacts would be potentially significant:

Impact 5.5-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Additionally, community-wide GHG emissions would not meet the long-term GHG reductions goal under Executive Order S-03-05.




5.5.7 Mitigation Measures Impact 5.5-1

5-1 Within approximately 18 months of adoption of the proposed General Plan Update, the City of Pasadena shall prepare and present to the City Council for adoption a community climate action plan/greenhouse gas reduction plan (Plan). The Plan shall identify strategies to be implemented to reduce GHG emissions associated with the City, and shall include as one alternative a program that achieves the AB 32 targets. In addition, the City shall monitor GHG emissions by updating its community-wide GHG emissions inventory every five years upon adoption of the initial Plan. Upon the next update to the Plan, the inventory, GHG reduction measures, and GHG reductions shall be forecast to year 2035 to ensure progress toward achieving the interim target that aligns with the long-term GHG reduction goals of Executive Order S-03-04. The Plan update shall take into account the reductions achievable from federal and state actions and measures as well as ongoing work by the City and the private sector. The 2035 Plan update shall be completed by January 1, 2021, with a plan to achieve GHG reductions for 2035 or 2040, provided the state has an actual plan to achieve reductions for 2035 or 2040. New reduction programs in similar sectors as the proposed Plan (building energy, transportation, waste, water, wastewater, agriculture, and others) will likely be necessary. Future targets shall be considered in alignment with state reduction targets, to the maximum extent feasible, but it is premature at this time to determine whether or not such targets can be feasibly met through the combination of federal, state, and local action given technical, logistical and financial constraints. Future updates to the Plan shall account for the horizon beyond 2035 as the state adopts actual plans to meet post-2035 targets. In all instances, the Plan and any updates shall be consistent with state and federal law.

5.5.8 Level of Significance After Mitigation Impact 5.5-1

Buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would result in a substantial increase in GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Additionally, community-wide GHG emissions would not meet the long-term GHG reductions goal under Executive Order S-03-05. The climate action plan/GHG reduction plan required by Mitigation Measure 5-1 would ensure that GHG emissions from buildout of the proposed General Plan Update would be minimized. However, the climate action plan may not feasibly obtain the AB 32 targets. Also, additional statewide measures would be necessary to reduce GHG emissions under the proposed General Plan Update to meet the long-term GHG reduction goals under Executive Order S-03-05, which identifies a GHG reduction target of 80 percent from 1990 levels by year 2050. At this time, there is no plan past 2020 that achieves the long-term GHG reduction goal established under Executive Order S-03-05. As identified by the California Council on Science and Technology, the state cannot meet the 2050 goal without major advances in technology (CCST 2012). Since no additional statewide measures are currently available, Impact 5.5-1 would remain significant and unavoidable.




5.5.9 References California Climate Action Team. 2006, March. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger

and the Legislature.

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2014a, May 15. Proposed First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm.

———. 2014b, March 24. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2009: By Category as Defined by the Scoping Plan, March 24.

———. 2012a, April. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2009: By Category as Defined by the Scoping Plan.

———. 2012b, Status of Scoping Plan Recommended Measures. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/status_of_scoping_plan_measures.pdf.

———. 2010, August. Staff Report Proposed Regional Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets for Automobiles and Light Trucks Pursuant to Senate Bill 375.

———. 2010, May. Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP), Version 1.1.

———. 2008, October. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan, a Framework for Change.

California Council on Science and Technology (CCST). 2012, September. California’s Energy Future: Portraits of Energy Systems for Meeting Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets. http://www.ccst.us/publications/2012/2012ghg.pdf.

California's Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2014, Disposal Reporting System, Jurisdiction Reporting by Facility. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx.

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2012, May. Renewables Portfolio Standard Eligibility, Fifth Edition Commission Guidebook. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-300-2012-002/CEC-300-2012-002-CMF.pdf.

———. 2008. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science, Impacts, and Response Options for California. CEC-500-2008-0077.

———. 2006a, December. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990 to 2004. Report CEC-600-2006-013-SF.

———. 2006b. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. 2006 Biennial Report, California Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2006-077.




———. 2006c, December. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. CEC-500-2006-118. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. Based on the electricity use for northern California.

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). Accessed February 2014. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2008, June. Technical Advisory, CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through CEQA Review. http://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/pdfs/june08-ceqa.pdf.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. New York: Cambridge University Press.

———. 2001. Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pasadena, City of. 2006. Green City Action Plan. http://cityofpasadena.net/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6442458275.

———. 2013, January. City of Pasadena Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. http://cityofpasadena.net/WorkArea/linkit.aspx?LinkIdentifier=id&ItemID=6442471951&libID=6442471918.

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2010, September 28. Greenhouse Gases (GHG) CEQA Significance Thresholds Working Group Meeting 15. http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/sept29.html.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2012, April. 2012-2035 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). http://rtpscs.scag.ca.gov/Pages/default.aspx.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html.

———. 2009, December. EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment, Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252.

Date post:	14-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

5.5 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS...2017/08/05 · GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS January 2015 Page 5.5-3...

Documents