HomeMy WebLinkAboutCM Climate Change Action Plan 2030 & GHG Report 2019____________________________________________________________________________________
FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: 05/06/2019
Disposition: Resolution 14668, Resolution 14669, accepted reports
Agenda Item No: 6.b
Meeting Date: May 6, 2019
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: City Manager’s Office
Prepared by: Cory Bytof,
Sustainability & Volunteer Program Coordinator
City Manager Approval: ____ _____
TOPIC: CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN ADOPTION AND GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS REPORT
SUBJECTS:
1. RESOLUTION ADOPTING ADDENDUM NO. 4 TO GENERAL PLAN 2020
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030
3. SAN RAFAEL GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY REPORT
4. 2019-2020 TWO-YEAR WORK PLAN PRIORITIES REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution adopting Addendum No. 4 to the General Plan 2020 Environmental Impact
Report.
2. Adopt a resolution adopting San Rafael’s new Climate Change Action Plan 2030.
3. Accept the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Strategy Annual Report for 2016.
4. Accept the 2019-2020 Two-Year Work Plan Priorities Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
San Rafael’s current Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was adopted in 2009 and contains 48
actions or “measures” meant to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 25% below 2005 levels
by 2020. Forty of those measures have either been completed, are in progress, or have become
ongoing in nature. In 2016, the State of California adopted new targets for GHG emissions
reductions of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In 2017, Councilmember Kate Colin and the City
Manager’s Office convened a community Working Group to revise the current CCAP to meet
these new 2030 targets.
The final draft Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (CCAP 2030) identifies a set of activities that, if
successfully implemented, would meet and potentially exceed the 2030 goal and reduce
emissions through low-carbon transportation, energy efficiency, renewable energy, waste
reduction, and water conservation, and sequestration. The CCAP 2030 also contains measures
to help San Rafael adapt to a changing climate.
Similar to the current Climate Change Action Plan, CCAP 2030 has been prepared as a plan to
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
reduce GHG emissions pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15183.5. This means that a qualifying
development project will be able to continue to streamline their greenhouse gas analyses required
by CEQA. In order to conduct the necessary environmental review of CCAP 2030, the City has
prepared an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report for the current General Plan.
The Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2016 shows an overall emissions reduction of approximately
18% since 2005. With continued effort, and if reductions continue at the current rate, the City will
hopefully be able to accomplish its interim goal of a 25% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020.
The City Manager’s Office, in conjunction with Councilmember Colin, received extensive
community input and developed a two-year priorities work plan (Attachment G) for early
implementation of the new CCAP 2030. This work plan takes the place of the annual priorities
document, acknowledging that most items in the work plan span multiple years.
BACKGROUND:
Climate change continues to be one of the most significant issues of our time. 2018 was the fourth
warmest year since 1880, and the last five years are the warmest years on modern record.
Meanwhile, 2018 was the hottest year on record for the world’s oceans – a significant fact since
warmer oceans affect weather patterns, cause more powerful tropical storms, and impact sea
life. Warmer oceans are also one of the main causes of rising sea levels. Human-induced climate
change has doubled the area affected by forest fires in the Western U.S. over the last 30 years.
Other significant impacts due to climate change include major humanitarian crises as mass
migration and conflicts over scarce resources occur.
Financially, the World Economic Forum issued a report contending that environmental threats
due to extreme weather, natural disasters, and failure to mitigate climate change are the biggest
risks to the global economy. Locally, the BayWAVE report on Marin’s sea level rise vulnerability
shows that billions of dollars of private property and public infrastructure are threatened, with
12,000 structures and over 13,500 acres of land at risk in worst-case projections. Greenhouse
gas reduction strategies are aimed at reducing the emissions that cause climate change in an
effort to keep the climate from warming 2° Celsius above preindustrial times, which is what
scientists say needs to happen in order to stave off the worst effects of climate change. To date,
the planet has warmed 1° Celsius.
State Emissions Reduction Targets
The State of California has responded to growing concerns over the effects of climate change by
adopting a comprehensive approach to addressing emissions in the public and private sectors.
This approach was officially initiated with the passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (AB 32), which requires the state to reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990
levels by 2020. The AB 32 Scoping Plan was developed to identify strategies for meeting the AB
32 goal and was adopted by the California Air Resources Board in December 2008. Among many
other strategies, it encourages local governments to reduce emissions in their jurisdictions by 15
percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2020, and proposed longer-term goals established by
Executive Order S-3-05 to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. In 2016, the
State Legislature passed SB 32, which set interim targets of 40% reductions below 1990 levels
by 2030.
1. San Rafael’s Climate Change Action Plan
The first Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was developed by a 17-member Green Ribbon
Committee in 2008 and adopted by the City Council in 2009. It contained 48 measures – or actions
– aimed at reducing community-wide and municipal greenhouse gas emissions such as carbon
dioxide, methane, and refrigerants. These measures included items such as opting in to MCE
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
Clean Energy, approving Property Assessed Clean Energy financing for building upgrades for
energy efficiency, and adopting a construction demolition and debris recycling ordinance among
others. To date 40 of the 48 measures are either complete, in progress, or have been moved to
an ongoing status.
In 2011, the City adopted a new Sustainability Element of the San Rafael General Plan and
incorporated the CCAP measures into the General Plan. A GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy
was also prepared to provide technical support to the Sustainability Element and adopted
CCAP. The strategy was included as a technical appendix (Appendix E) to the adopted CCAP
to meet the BAAQMD requirements for a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy.
In late 2017, Sustainability Liaison to the City Council Kate Colin and the City Manager’s Office
convened a 20-member community Working Group to update the current CCAP to meet the new
2030 State targets. The Working Group developed the greenhouse gas reduction
measures/activities with the assistance of 19 local subject matter experts. A CCAP survey was
developed as part of the effort and over 350 San Rafael residents and business representatives
gave input on the Plan. The Draft CCAP 2030 was brought to Council on October 15, 2018. The
Planning Commission reviewed the Draft CCAP on February 26, 2019 and offered supportive
comments and suggestions mainly focused on the need for increased community engagement.
2. Environmental Review
The 2009 Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was developed as a “strategy for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions” in 2011 pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. This provided the City with
a valuable streamlining tool for reviewing new development and building projects. It allows
certain applicants to demonstrate that they comply with greenhouse gas reduction strategy
measures through utilization of a compliance checklist, saving time and cost for contractors and
staff, while ensuring that GHG emissions reduction activities are included in projects.
A strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions requires a quantified analysis of GHG
emissions reductions for measures in the CCAP as well as ongoing monitoring and reporting.
When the CCAP was incorporated into the General Plan 2020 in 2011, environmental review
was conducted via an addendum to the General Plan’s Environmental Impact Report.
3. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports
In order to monitor progress on meeting its GHG reduction goals, the City annually conducts
community-wide GHG emissions inventories and prepares a report identifying changes in
emissions from various sectors and sources and the activities the City has undertaken to reduce
emissions. The last community-wide emissions inventory was conducted for 2015 emissions and
presented to the City Council on March 19, 2018. At that time the City’s community-wide
emissions reductions were 16% below a baseline of 2005.
Every five years the City conducts a greenhouse gas inventory for municipal operations and
facilities. The last greenhouse gas inventory and analysis to include municipal operations was
done for the 2010 calendar year and compared emissions to the 2005 baseline. Emissions from
the City’s municipal facilities and operations were 19% below 2005 levels in 2010.
Greenhouse gas inventories are conducted by the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP)
of which the City has been a member since its inception in 2008. MCEP is a staff working group
that utilizes small contributions by each member jurisdiction to secure grant and other funding to
help jurisdictions create and implement climate action plans and to conduct greenhouse gas
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
inventories for each. Consequently, small contributions can go a long way and cities and the
County can work together to find economies of scale and achieve goals efficiently. Inventories
and reports are conducted by MCEP’s Sustainability Coordinator Christine O’ Rourke in
conjunction with City staff, eliminating the need for outside consultants to help do the work.
4. 2019-2020 Two-Year CCAP 2030 Work Plan Priorities
The City Council’s Sustainability Liaison provides guidance and support to the City’s sustainability
programs and activities by helping set agendas for community meetings and reviewing and setting
priorities for work projects. As Sustainability Liaison, Councilmember Colin meets quarterly with
primary staff involved with implementing the CCAP as well as the president of Sustainable San
Rafael, with occasional additional meetings as needed to address specific initiatives of high
importance. The Liaison also chairs the quarterly public CCAP implementation forums comprised
of staff and interested members of the community, although other Councilmembers fill in when
she is not available. The Liaison’s role is critical in helping staff prioritize requests from the public
and in shaping projects and programs for City Council action.
Each year staff works with the City Manager’s office to identify key priorities taken from our
Climate Change Action Plan to be implemented during the year. These are reviewed with our
City Council Sustainability Liaison and at our Climate Change Action Plan quarterly community
forum for review before finalizing and bringing to Council. This establishes a work plan for staff
so that we can be efficient with City resources and not get sidetracked by other activities.
ANALYSIS:
1. New Climate Change Action Plan 2030
As stated above, Councilmember Colin and the City Manager’s Office convened a community
Working Group in summer 2017 to update the current CCAP to meet the new 2030 State targets.
The Working Group developed 54 greenhouse gas reduction measures/activities with the
assistance of local subject matter experts. The attached Final Draft CCAP 2030 incorporates
measures to meet the 2030 targets while continuing the ongoing activities from the original CCAP,
such as implementing green building ordinances and improving our bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure. The Final Draft also incorporates comments and suggestions from the October 15,
2018 City Council meeting and from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD).
It became apparent in Working Group deliberations that the City will need to increase collaborative
efforts with utilities, other agencies, business representatives, residents, and nonprofit partners if
we hope to achieve success. Community engagement was key in developing the GHG reduction
measures and formulating the CCAP 2030 but will be even more important in implementing it.
The City only has direct control of its facilities and operations, which contribute less than 1% to
the overall community-wide GHG emissions. However, the City has opportunities to encourage,
incentivize, regulate, and promote sustainable programs and behavior, and can be a model for
the community by showing leadership and taking action at the municipal level.
Toward that end, staff has been working to publish the CCAP 2030 as an online engagement tool
rather than simply a document so that each visitor that views the plan can see their role in our
community’s emissions and be directed to actions and opportunities to contribute toward their
reduction. In addition, several other Marin County municipalities will be using San Rafael’s CCAP
2030 as a template for their climate action plans, and several have indicated their desire to utilize
our online platform as well. Co-branding and using the same messages across the County will be
a valuable tool for our engagement efforts.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
In addition to robust community engagement, the Working Group identified a few other overall
priorities for development and implementation of the measures. First, it is important to view all of
them through the lens of Economy and Social Equity so that measures and programs benefit
all and avoid unintended negative consequences as much as possible. The City will need to
engage stakeholders in our under-represented and disadvantaged communities as well
as our local business community so efforts to lower our carbon footprint ensure a strong, diverse
local economy. In addition, it will be important to find co-benefits such as improved comfort,
health, and cost-savings since most people do not make lifestyle or purchasing choices based on
the impact of their decisions on the climate.
There are eight major sections in the CCAP 2030. Below is a table listing those sections and the
corresponding emissions reductions. Three show no specific reductions because they support
measures in other sections (e.g., Community Engagement) or the reductions cannot be quantified
for use in our standard GHG inventory and reporting (e.g., Sequestration and Adaptation). Please
note that this table has been updated since the Draft CCAP 2030 was brought to Council on
October 15, 2018, to reflect some additions incorporated from public comment and BAAQMD
review. Should all measures be accomplished successfully, the City would be on track to reduce
emissions 42% below 1990 levels, just above the State targets.
Strategy
GHG Reductions by
2030
(MTCO2e)
Percent of
Reductions
Low Carbon Transportation 37,030 38%
Energy Efficiency 18,280 19%
Renewable Energy 31,925 33%
Waste Reduction 10,025 10%
Water Conservation 830 1%
Sequestration and Adaptation n/a n/a
Community Engagement n/a n/a
Implementation and Monitoring n/a n/a
Total 98,085 100%
Note: Numbers may not total and percentages my not total to 100% due to rounding.
Attachment C to this report is a proposed resolution for the City Council to adopt the CCAP 2030.
The full text of the CCAP 2030 and associated data are included as Attachment D. This also
includes the full appendices:
Appendix A: Program Calculations
Appendix B: Implementation Matrix
Appendix C: CCAP 2020 Program Status
Similar to the current Climate Change Action Plan, CCAP 2030 has been prepared as a plan to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15183.5. Should the CCAP 2030
be adopted, future project-specific environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by
reference the CCAP 2030, thereby streamlining the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions
impacts for those projects. In San Rafael this is mainly done through our compliance checklist
referenced above.
2. General Plan Environmental Impact Report Addendum No. 4
The San Rafael General Plan 2020 Final EIR was prepared in 2004 and certified by the San
Rafael City Council on November 15, 2004 by adoption of Resolution No. 11664. Similar to the
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
current Climate Change Action Plan, an Addendum to the General Plan 2020 EIR has been
prepared in order to analyze the environmental impacts of the CCAP 2030. The analysis found
only positive environmental impacts would result from implementation of the Climate Change
Action Plan 2030 and determined that the plan met both the statewide GHG reduction target of
40% below 1990 levels by 2030 as well as an emissions threshold recommended by the California
Air Resources Board 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, adjusted for San Rafael, of no more
than 2.97 MTCO2e per service population (residents plus employees) by 2030. In order to adopt
the CCAP 2030, Council must first adopt a resolution adopting EIR Addendum No. 4, included
with the Staff Report as Attachments A and B.
3. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report
The 2016 Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report (Attachment F) provides the City Council with an
overview of community-wide emissions as well as status of City actions accomplished in that
same year. The report also fulfills the City’s requirement to report annual emissions for the
strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2016 report includes an inventory for
municipal emissions from City facilities and operations. Emissions factors are not yet available
from all of the utilities for 2017 and 2018, and thus there is always a lag period.
As noted, the City of San Rafael partners with the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP)
for conducting the inventory and developing the report. MCEP publishes all the results on the
MCEP website, marinclimate.org, and at MarinTracker.org so that members of our community
can easily access the data using an interactive map.
2016 GHG Inventory Report Results
The 2016 Report provides broad category, best-estimate community-wide emissions data for the
years 2005-2016 based on publicly available data. This data shows an overall reduction of
approximately 18% of community-wide emissions since 2005, including an approximate 2%
reduction between 2015 and 2016. The chart below shows where our emissions reductions came
from.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
The government operations inventory shows an overall reduction of approximately 16% since
2005. The chart below shows where our emissions reductions came from.
Following are a sampling of programs and policies the City undertook to reduce GHG emissions
in 2016:
• Continued design and operation work for SMART rail planning
• Completed additional LED/high-efficiency streetlight and traffic light conversions
• Adopted a new Green Building ordinance, including Tier 1 requirements for new
construction
• Hosted electric vehicle ride-and-drive events in downtown San Rafael
• Conducted commercial / multi-family recycling outreach
• Continued development of solar energy systems at Boro Center and Public Works facilities
• Purchased and installed public recycling containers in City facilities & public areas
• Hired a Fellow to assist with Zero Waste efforts in City departments and in the community
• Supported residential and commercial outreach programs such as Resilient
Neighborhoods, California Youth Environmental Services’ Green House Calls, the
Chamber Green Business Committee, the Electric Vehicle Working Group, and Marin
School of Environmental Leadership, among others
The City has made significant progress towards implementation of its CCAP and has a strong
commitment toward continuing to implement policies and programs. The designation of a City
Council Sustainability Liaison and annual adoption of Sustainability Priorities, as well as the
Council’s decision to have staff dedicated to sustainability, demonstrates that commitment. In
addition, City management and staff across all departments have embraced a sustainability ethos
and provide staff time and resources toward accomplishing our sustainability goals.
This report shows a community-wide reduction of 18% in eleven years, between 2005-2016. If
emissions reductions continue at the current rate, the City could accomplish its interim goal of a
25% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020. However, some of the emissions reductions may be
related to economic and other conditions, and changes in these conditions could slow the rate of
reductions and require further actions to keep on track. In addition, in order to meet our CCAP
targets of 80% reductions by 2050, San Rafael will need to continue to innovate and be at the
forefront of local GHG reduction strategies.
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
4. 2019-2020 TWO-YEAR WORK PLAN PRIORITIES
Each year staff proposes work plan priorities from the CCAP in order to be efficient with City
resources and stay focused on key initiatives. These are reviewed with our Sustainability Liaison
to the Council and at the quarterly CCAP implementation forums, which are open to the public,
as a means of aligning the work plan with other City priorities and with community concerns. This
year the consensus was to establish two-year priorities due to the fact that most items span more
than one year. This will not preclude annual review by City Council, however, and the intention is
to bring status reports on the priorities annually, along with the annual greenhouse gas inventory
reports described above.
These priorities include the following:
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9
The 2019-2020 Two-Year Priorities document is attached as Attachment G. In addition to the
priorities outlined in this document, a high-level financial assessment is included for each. These
are intended as overview documents for the purposes of describing the financial and co-benefits
landscape for each action. A deeper financial analysis will accompany any proposed future
actions that are brought to the City Council for consideration. For example, Priority #3,
“Encouraging the adoption of electric vehicles,” includes developing an electric vehicle plan for
San Rafael. Should a program related to this item require additional funding it will be brought to
the City Council for adoption and will include a more robust financial analysis. Similarly, should
we need a contract with a third-party consultant to assess the potential for local composting and
recycling mandates, staff would bring that forward in the form of a contract complete with financial
analysis.
However, many of the actions in the CCAP 2030 will be completed using existing funding sources,
grants, or other incentives and funding from utilities and community partners. Fortunately, the
State is continually coming out with new programs, mandates, and funding opportunities to assist
cities with climate action and adaptation planning and projects.
COMMUNITY OUTREACH:
San Rafael made the commitment to community engagement with our Climate Change Action
Plan 2020 when it was adopted in 2009. Since then, the City has hosted quarterly CCAP
implementation forums that regularly attract up to thirty community members from various
backgrounds. A 20-member Green Ribbon Working Group was assembled for the development
of CCAP 2030, which hosted nine meetings with subject matter experts from a variety of sectors
around the Bay Area. In addition, staff and the Working Group hosted 9 meetings and circulated
a survey that was filled out by over 350 community members, including members of the business
community and our typically underrepresented communities. The survey was also translated for
Spanish and Vietnamese speakers. Staff gave a presentation on the Draft Climate Change Action
Plan 2030 at the October 15, 2018 City Council meeting and has since circulated the Draft to
community members through City email lists, public presentations, and on the City’s website. A
presentation was given to the General Plan Steering Committee on November 14, 2018 and to
the San Rafael Planning Commission on February 26, 2019. The full list of comments and
suggestions can be found in Attachment E.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As referenced above, a CEQA analysis of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 has been
prepared as Addendum No. 4 to the General Plan 2020 EIR (Attachment B). The analysis found
only positive environmental impacts would result from implementation of the Climate Change
Action Plan 2030 and determined that the plan met both the statewide GHG reduction target of
40% below 1990 levels by 2030 as well as an emissions threshold recommended by the California
Air Resources Board 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, adjusted for San Rafael, of no more
than 2.97 MTCO2e per service population (residents plus employees) by 2030.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no direct budget implication of adopting the Climate Change Action Plan, but subsequent
implementation of the Plan programs may require that General Fund dollars and staffing be
redirected to these efforts, as well as the need to secure grants and other funding from available
sources. The City Council will review and approve such subsequent budget allocations as projects
get underway.
The majority of the activities included in the Two -Year Priorities (2019-2021) will be funded by
grants, etc. The priorities for the first year are included in the proposed fiscal year 2019-2020
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 10
budget and total $5,795. If the priorities in year 2 require funding, staff will bring those forward
with the next year’s fiscal budget proposal. Included in this report is a high-level costs and benefits
assessment for each of the Two-Year Priorities as Attachment G.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
1. Adopt a resolution adopting Addendum No. 4 to the General Plan 2020 Environmental Impact
Report. (Note: this must be done first prior to adoption of the new Climate Change Action Plan
2030)
2. Adopt a resolution adopting San Rafael’s new Climate Change Action Plan 2030.
3. Accept the Greenhouse Gas Inventory and Reduction Strategy Annual Report for 2016.
4. Accept the 2019-2020 Two-Year Priorities Report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution adopting Addendum No. 4 to General Plan 2020 EIR
Attachment B: Addendum No. 4 to General Plan 2020 EIR
Attachment C: Resolution Adopting Climate Change Action Plan 2030
Attachment D: Climate Change Action Plan 2030 with Appendices
Attachment E: Survey Results and Comments on Draft CCAP 2030
Attachment F: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Strategy 2016 Annual Report
Attachment G: 2019-2020 Two-Year Sustainability Priorities with Cost / Benefit Assessments
1
RESOLUTION NO. 14668
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING ADDENDUM
NO. 4 TO THE CERTIFIED SAN RAFAEL GENERAL PLAN 2020 FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (SCH# 2003052031), PREPARED FOR
THE SAN RAFAEL CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030 (CITY FILE #P19-003)
The City Council of the City of San Rafael finds and determines that:
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2004, the San Rafael City Council adopted
Resolution No. 11664, certifying the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Final Environmental
Impact Report (General Plan 2020 FEIR). The General Plan 2020 FEIR is comprised of
the following:
Draft EIR prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental Consultants, February
2004;
San Rafael General Plan 2020 Background Report prepared by the City of San
Rafael, April 2001 and updated August 2003;
Response to Comments to Draft EIR prepared by Nichols-Berman Environmental
Consultants, August 2004; and
WHEREAS, the FEIR assessed the physical environmental impacts caused by
implementation of the San Rafael General Plan 2020. The General Plan 2020 FEIR
concludes that many of the significant environmental effects can be substantially
lessened through adoption of feasible mitigation measures and that some of these
effects would remain significant and unavoidable despite the adoption of all feasible
mitigation measures. The certification of the General Plan 2020 FEIR was supported by
the following findings:
1. The FEIR for the General Plan 2020 has been completed in compliance with
CEQA;
2. The FEIR is legally sufficient, not only for approval of General Plan 2020, but for
all subsequent actions such as Rezonings, Pre-zonings, Annexations and
revisions to the San Rafael Municipal Code and regulations as necessary to
implement the provisions of the General Plan 2020;
3. The FEIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of San Rafael and the
City Council of the City of San Rafael; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to certifying the General Plan 2020 FEIR, on November
15, 2004, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution No. 11665 adopting the San
Rafael General Plan 2020. The adoption of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 was
supported by CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Consideration
(Appendix C to Resolution 11665) and approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP, Appendix B to Resolution 11665); and
WHEREAS, since 2004, the San Rafael General Plan 2020 has been amended
numerous times. In processing and adopting subsequent amendments, the City has
relied on use of the General Plan 2020 FEIR for environmental review and clearance
and has adopted three addenda to that FEIR. In 2009, the City prepared and adopted
an Addendum to the General Plan 2020 FEIR (Addendum No. 1), which assessed a
2
General Plan Amendment to change the Plan-adopted traffic level of service (LOS)
standard at the intersection of 3rd and Union Streets; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the City of San Rafael initiated a General Plan Amendment
(GPA11-001) which consisted of 1) amending the Housing Element for 2009-2014, 2)
incorporating a new Sustainability Element, 3) amending Conservation Element Policy
CON-3, and 4) eliminating the Project Selection Process (PSP). An Addendum to the
General Plan 2020 FEIR (Addendum No. 2) encompassed these policies and actions;
and
WHEREAS, in 2014, the City of San Rafael initiated a General Plan Amendment
(GPA14-001) to update the Housing Element for the 2015-2023 planning period,
requiring Addendum No. 3 to the General Plan 2020 FEIR; and
WHEREAS, in 2019, the City of San Rafael initiated an update of the San Rafael
Climate Change Action Plan, adopted in 2009, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Strategy, adopted in 2011; and
WHEREAS, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (CCAP 2030) is defined
as a ‘project’ and is therefore subject to environmental review. Given the components
and scope of this project, it was determined that “tiering” from the General Plan 2020
FEIR is appropriate and consistent with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 in that:
1. The project and its environmental topic areas are broadly covered and analyzed
in the General Plan 2020 FEIR.
2. The project proposes a Climate Change Action Plan update that is not site-
specific or project-specific; it addresses amendments to current policies that are
applicable to the entire San Rafael Planning Area. The level of detailed
contained in this tier need not be greater than the program, plan or policy being
analyzed.
WHEREAS, to further support “tiering” from the General Plan 2020 FEIR, the
Initial Study has been prepared utilizing the most current CEQA Guidelines
environmental checklist and considered the following factors that constitute the
“baseline” for review:
1. None of the components of the project result in any changes to land use
assumptions or projections currently presented in the San Rafael General Plan
2020 and analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
2. No changes are proposed to land use designations or their respective density
and intensity parameters, nor are any changes proposed to adopted land use
designations for individual sites/properties.
3. The project proposes no changes to circulation (transportation/traffic) projections,
policies or implementing programs that would result in changes to level of service
conditions at intersections or along arterials.
4. The Climate Change Action Plan 2030 is intended to address climate change
and presents policies and implementing measures to reduce, among others,
3
GHG emissions, reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels, vehicle miles traveled,
energy consumption, water use and solid waste generation and disposal. While
the ultimate, physical implementation of proposed policies, programs and
measures on a site-specific or project-specific basis may result in individual
impacts on the environment, the current project is at a policy level that is
applicable citywide.
WHEREAS, in preparing the Initial Study, the project was reviewed against
impacts identified and mitigation measures included in the certified General Plan 2020
FEIR (2004). The purpose of this review was to determine if the project would result in:
new significant impacts; an increase in the severity of impacts; or new or expanded
mitigation measures from those analyzed and determined in the General Plan EIR; and
WHEREAS, the project and the findings of the Initial Study were assessed to
determine whether an Addendum to the EIR, Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR
would be appropriate to address environmental review for adoption of the San Rafael
Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (City File #P19-003). Public Resources Code Section
21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 set forth limited situations in which a
Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR is required once an FEIR has been certified.
Further, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 provides for preparation of an Addendum EIR
if no Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR is required; and
WHEREAS, as demonstrated in the preparation of an Initial Study and
comparing the project activities and actions against the impacts identified and mitigation
measures included in the General Plan 2020 FEIR, none of the conditions analyzed
under the General Plan 2020 FEIR have changed, nor does the proposed project meet
the criteria for preparing a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. Further, the project
will not result in one or more significant effects not discussed in the General Plan EIR,
nor does the project create substantially more severe significant effects than previously
examined in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the Initial Study supports and
recommends an Addendum versus the preparation of a Subsequent EIR or
Supplemental EIR and
WHEREAS, on February 22, 2019, Addendum No. 4 to the San Rafael General
Plan 2020 FEIR was prepared for the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030
(City File #P19-003); and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2019, the City Council reviewed and considered the
Addendum No. 4 for the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (City File #P19-
003), along with the previously certified General Plan FEIR and all applicable mitigation
measures therein; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents, which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development
Department;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the
Addendum No. 4 to San Rafael General Plan 2020 FEIR, dated February 22, 2019, for
the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 (City File #P19-003) based on the
following findings, and hereby reaffirms the findings made by the City in adopting
Resolution No. 11664 (listed above) certifying the General Plan 2020 FEIR as follows:
4
1. CEQA Section 21166 and its corresponding CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162
and 15163, provide that once an EIR has been prepared, no subsequent or
supplemental EIR shall be required by the lead agency unless: (a) substantial
changes are proposed in the project, requiring major revisions in the EIR due to
the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (b) substantial changes
arise in the circumstances of the project's undertaking, requiring major revisions
in the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(c) new information, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the EIR was certified, shows any of the following:
The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the
previous EIR;
Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than
shown in the previous EIR;
Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant
effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the
mitigation measure or alternative; or
Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from
those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline the
mitigation measure or alternative.
2. CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a) provides that a lead agency shall prepare an
Addendum to a previously certified FEIR if some changes or additions to the
certified EIR are necessary but none of the conditions calling for the preparation
of a supplemental EIR have occurred. Based on the analysis and documentation
in Addendum No. 4 and the supportive Initial Study environmental checklist
prepared for the proposed project, none of the situations described in CEQA
Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163 apply here.
Based on the results of the supportive Initial Study environmental checklist, the
City has concluded that the proposed project would not result in new significant
adverse impacts nor an increase in the severity of impacts identified and studied
in the certified General Plan 2020 FEIR. None of the conditions requiring a
supplemental or subsequent EIR exists and the Addendum has been prepared in
compliance with CEQA.
3. The Addendum has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines, and the provisions of the City of San Rafael Environmental
Assessment Procedures Manual.
4. The Addendum has been presented to the City Council, who has reviewed and
considered the information in the Addendum and the certified General Plan 2020
FEIR prior to approving the project.
5. The Addendum No. 4 and the certified General Plan 2020 FEIR reflect the City's
independent judgment and analysis.
I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 6th day of May
2019.
5
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
ADDENDUM (No. 4)
T O SAN R AF AEL GENERAL PL AN 2020
ENVIRONM ENT AL IM PACT REPORT
(SCH # 203052031)
FOR ADOPTION OF:
San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030
Including updated
Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy
(City File #P19-003)
Lead Agency:
City of San Rafael
Community Development Department
1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560)
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Contact: Paul A. Jensen, Community Development Director
February 22, 2019
Table of Contents
A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1
B. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................. 1
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 2
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 6
E. DETERMINATION – SUPPORT FOR ADDENDUM TO EIR .............................................14
F. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST .............................................................................................17
I. AESTHETICS..............................................................................................................19
II. AGRICULT URE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ......................................................20
III. AIR QUALITY ..............................................................................................................21
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................24
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ..........................................................................................26
VI. ENERGY ....................................................................................................................27
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ..............................................................................................28
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .............................................................................30
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..............................................................33
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................................34
XI. LAND USE PLANNING ...............................................................................................36
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................37
XIII. NOISE ........................................................................................................................38
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING ...................................................................................39
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................39
XVI. RECREATION ............................................................................................................41
XVII. TRANSPORTATION ...................................................................................................41
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................43
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ........................................................................43
XX. WILDFIRE ..................................................................................................................46
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...........................................................47
G. SOURCE REFERENCES ..................................................................................................49
Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019 1 1
A. INTRODUCTION
The City of San Rafael is proposing to adopt the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030
(CCAP 2030), which is an update of the Climate Change Action Plan (adopted in 2009) and the
Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (adopted in 2011). As discussed below in Section
C (Project Description), the proposed CCAP 2030 supports and implements the Sustainability
Element of the San Rafael General Plan 2020.
The General Plan was adopted in 2004, which followed the certification of the San Rafael General
Plan 2020 Environmental Impact Report (General Plan EIR, SCH# 203052031). To address the
potential environmental impacts of the proposed adoption of CCAP 2030, an Addendum No. 4 to
the certified San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR (Addendum) has been prepared, which is
summarized in this document. The Addendum has been prepared in conformance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15164. As
addressed below, the Addendum concludes that the project (the updated CCAP 2030) would not
result in any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of
previously identified significant impacts from those previously identified in the certified General
Plan EIR. The components of the project have been reviewed against the impacts and mitigation
measures presented in the certified General Plan EIR finding that there would be no change to
the impact topic areas of, among others, housing, population and growth,
circulation/transportation, air quality, noise, or biological resources. In fact, the updated CCAP
2030 presents policies and implementing measures that would result in reduced if not beneficial
long-term and cumulative air quality and greenhouse gas impacts to the community.
B. BACKGROUND
On November 15, 2004, the City Council of the City of San Rafael adopted the San Rafael General
Plan 2020 (General Plan). The General Plan is comprised of numerous elements, sections and
supportive background data including, among others, the following mandatory elements:
Land Use Element
Housing Element
Circulation Element
Conservation Element
Safety Element
Noise Element
Open Space Element
The General Plan is available for review at the City’s Community Development Department. The
General Plan is also available on the City’s website, which can be accessed at:
https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/generalplan-2020/
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of San
Rafael prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assess the physical environmental
impacts of the General Plan, its policies and implementing programs (SCH #2003052031). Prior
Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019 2 2
to General Plan adoption, a Final EIR was certif ied (City Council Resolution No. 11664,
November 15, 2004). The certif ied EIR is comprised of the following volumes:
➢ San Rafael General Plan 2020 FEIR/Response to Comments to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, August 2004;
➢ San Rafael General Plan 2020 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), February
2004; and
➢ San Rafael General Plan 2020 Background Report, April 12, 2001/reprinted
December 19, 2003
The certified EIR assesses environmental impacts of the General Plan development projections
through 2020 (cumulative). These impacts include, among others, transportation, air quality and
noise. The certified EIR serves as a program-level environmental document for subsequent City
actions that are deemed consistent with the General Plan. Further, the certified EIR was prepared
and deemed legally sufficient to serve as a project-level environmental document for subsequent
actions such as rezonings, pre-zonings, annexations and revisions to the San Rafael Municipal
Code and regulations, as deemed necessary or recommended to implement the provisions of the
General Plan.
The certified EIR is on file and available for review at the City of San Rafael Community
Development Department, 1400 5th Avenue, 3rd floor, San Rafael, CA.
Since 2004, the San Rafael General Plan 2020 has been amended numerous times. In
processing and adopting many of these subsequent amendments, the City has relied on use of
the Plan’s certified EIR for environmental review and clearance. In 2009, the City prepared and
adopted an Addendum to the certified EIR (Addendum No. 1), which assessed a General Plan
amendment to change the Plan- adopted traffic level of service (LOS) standard at the intersection
of 3rd Street and Union Street. In 2011, the City prepared and adopted an Addendum to the
certified EIR (Addendum No. 2), which assessed a General Plan Amendment for the Housing
Element (2009-2014), a New Sustainability Element and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction
Strategy, an amendment to Conservation Element Policy CON-3, as well as the elimination of the
Project Selection Process (PSP). In 2014, the City prepared and adopted an Addendum to the
certified EIR (Addendum No. 3) which assessed a General Plan Amendment for the 2015-2023
Housing Element Update.
C. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of San Rafael is proposing to adopt the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030
(City File #P19-003). CCAP 2030 is an update of the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan
adopted in 2009 and the Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy adopted in 2011 as a
technical appendix (Appendix E) to the adopted CCAP.
In 2009, the City adopted the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2009 (CCAP). The CCAP
was prepared and adopted in response to AB32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act,
which established a state goal to reduce statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990
levels by 2020. In 2011, the City adopted a new Sustainability Element of the San Rafael General
Plan 2020 to memorialize adopted CCAP measures into the General Plan. The element was not
Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019 3 3
intended to replace the CCAP; rather, in many ways, the CCAP serves as a subset of the
Sustainability Element, as it used as a tool for monitoring GHG emissions and addressing
changes resulting from new laws and technologies. A GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy was
also prepared to provide technical support to the Sustainability Element and adopted CCAP. The
strategy was included as a technical appendix (Appendix E) to the adopted CCAP so as to meet
the BAAQMD requirements for a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy.
In 2016, the State adopted SB 32 which established a requirement to reduce statewide emissions
to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. As a result, the City has prepared an update of the CCAP to
meet the statewide emissions reduction target for 2030. The CCAP 2030 incorporates updated
forecasts, reduction targets, and measures that will reduce community-wide emissions to levels
that are consistent with statewide goals.
The CCAP 2030 has been prepared as a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15183.5 which says that such a plan should:
1. Quantify greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over as specified time
period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area;
2. Establish a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to
greenhouse gas emission from activities covered by the plan would not be cumulatively
considerable;
3. Identify and analyze the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from specific actions or
categories of actions anticipated within the geographic area;
4. Specify measures or a group of measures, including performance standards, that
substantial evidence demonstrates, if implemented on a project-by-project basis, would
collectively achieve the specified emissions level;
5. Be adopted in a public process following environmental review.
The CCAP 2030 meets the above requirements and updates the earlier CCAP as follows:
• GHG emissions inventory. The CCAP incorporates the findings from the City of San
Rafael Community and Government Operations Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2016,
which identifies the major sources and quantities of GHG emissions produced within San
Rafael. The inventory utilizes the protocols of the U.S. Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, version 1.1 (July 2013) to quantify and report community-wide emissions. The
CCAP reports that San Rafael community-wide GHG emissions were 473,438 metric tons
of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) in 2005 and 389,036 MTCO2e in 2016. Reduction targets
are based on the 2005 baseline, and future emissions are forecasted from 2016 levels.
• GHG emission projections through year 2050 (consistent with target dates set by
AB 32, SB 32 and Executive Order B-30-15). The forecasts rely on Association of Bay
Area (ABAG) projections of housing, population, and employment growth within the City
for 2020, 2030, and 2040, as well as Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC)
growth estimates of VMT for San Rafael for those same years. As BAG and MTC have
not produced housing, population and employment growth projections for 2050 at this
time, the CCAP assumes the same rate of growth for the 2040-2050 period as was
forecasted by the regional agencies for the 2030-2040 period. Based on projected growth,
annual emissions forecasts under “business as usual” conditions (no application of GHG
reduction measures) are estimated to be 404,800 MTCO2e by 2050 (4.1% increase from
2016 levels).
Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019 4 4
• GHG reduction targets (consistent with targets set by AB 32, SB 32 and Executive
Order B-30-15). The adopted CCAP targets a 25% reduction in 2005 baseline GHG
emissions by 2020, which results in an annual emission target of 355,080 MTCO2e for
2020. This local target is more aggressive that the state’s target, which would be
equivalent to a 15% reduction below 2005 baseline emissions. The updated CCAP 2030
sets additional GHG reduction targets commensurate with the State targets to reduce
emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 (per SB 32) and 80% below 1990 levels by
2050 (per Executive Order B-30-15). For San Rafael, annual emissions could be no
more than 241,455 MTCO2e in 2030 and 80,485 MTCO2e in 2050 to meet the state
targets.
• Climate Action Measures and Adaptation Measures. The CCAP 2030 ide ntif ies a set
of climate acti on measure s de si gned to achieve the GHG emissi ons re duction goal s f or
2020 and 2030 and to put the City on a trajectory to meet the 2050 goal. It also establishes
measures to help pre pare f or the anticipate d effects of climate change. Proposed climate
action me asures we re de veloped to meet the goals established by the City and to achieve
or exceed the state wide e mission re duction targe ts. These CAP me asures are organized
into the f ollowing f ocus areas: Low Carbon Transportation, Energy Efficiency, Renewable
Energy, Waste Re duction, Wate r Conse rvation , Sequestration and Adaptation, and
Community Engagement. The climate action me asure s were selected based on distribution
of e missions source s reve aled in the GHG e missions inventories, the emissions
reductions needed to achieve the goal s, the goals and policies identif ied in the General
Plan, e xi sting and ongoing ef forts and priorities, and the potential for new technologies
and behavioral change to succeed in San Rafael . The CCAP quantifies numerous
reduction measures such as: accelerating the adoption of electric vehicles; implementing
transit-oriented development policies; participating in MCE; increasing solar energy
system installation; increasing alternative transportation; implementing transportation
demand management; improving energy efficiency; reducing waste; and implementing
Green Building codes.
• Projected GHG Emission Reductions. Based on application of the reduction measures
and projected growth, estimated annual emissions would be reduced to 325,119 MTCO2e
by 2020 and 234,792 MTCO2e by 2030. These emission levels are below the targets for
2020 (355,080 MTCO2e) and 2030 (241,455 MTCO2e). While the CCAP does include a
GHG reducti on goal in support the State’s efforts under EO B-30-15 f or 2050, the CCAP
doe s not i ncl ude climate action me asures de signed to achieve the 2050 goal as presentl y
EO B-30-15 does not spe cif y any plan or implementation measure to achieve its goal .
A ddi tionall y, there is pre se ntl y no reli able means of f ore casting how f uture te chnological
de vel opments or state legislati ve actions to reduce GHG e missions may affect f uture
e mi ssions i n San Rafael .
• Implementation and Monitoring. Implementation and monitoring are essential
processes to ensure that San Rafael reduces its GHG emissions and meets its goals. To
facilitate this, each climate action measure is identified along with implementation actions,
the GHG re ducti on pote nti al (as applicable), pe rformance indicators to monitor progress,
and an implementation ti me f rame (se e Appendix B of the CCAP). Climate action me asure
implementation i s se parated into thre e phases: short-term (1-3 years), long-term (3-10
years), and ongoing . The Ci ty’s Community De velopment De partment will moni tor
implementation of the CCA P .
Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019 5 5
• Application to new development projects. In order to meet the reduction targets, new
construction projects must be determined to be consistent with the CCAP 2030. A
checklist has been developed to be used in reviewing new development applications,
to ensure that GHG reduction measures are incorporated into the project design and
operation. Project compliance with the measures in the checklist would exempt individual,
quantitative study of GHG emissions for a development project. Development projects that
are not able to meet the standards in the checklist, or projects that propose a Rezoning
and/or an amendment to the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (e.g., a change in land use
that results in changes to the projections used in the strategy) would require an individual,
quantitative GHG emissions assessment.
The draf t San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 and the GHG Reduction Checklist are
available at the Department of Community Development, Planning Division.
Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019 6 6
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Tiering from the San Rafael Gener al Plan 2020 EIR
The required environmental review for the proposed project commenced with a review of the certif ied San
Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR. As stated above, the General Plan EIR assesses the
environmental impacts of the General Plan, its policies and programs, and planned development
projected through 2020 (cumulative). The certif ied EIR serves as a program-level environmental document
f or subsequent City actions that are deemed consistent with the General Plan. Further, the certif ied EIR
was prepared and deemed legally suff icient to serve as a project-level environmental document for
subsequent actions such as re-zonings, pre-zonings, annexations and revisions to the San Rafael
Municipal Code and regulations, as deemed necessary or recommended to implement the provisions of the
General Plan.
Given the scope of the project, it has been determined that “tiering” from the General Plan EIR is appropriate
and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15152 in that:
1. The project is broadly covered and analyzed in the General Plan EIR. W hile study of GHG
emissions is a relatively new issue, it is related and responsive to air quality impacts, which are
analyzed in detail in the General Plan EIR.
2. The project proposes policies that are applicable to the entire San Rafael Planning Area. The
development of detailed, site-specific information is not feasible at this time. Therefore, the level of
detailed contained in this tier need not be greater than the plan and measures being analyzed.
3. An Initial Study has been prepared and concludes that the project will not cause signif icant effects
on the environment, nor would it result in the study of new topics that had not been previously and
adequately addressed in the General Plan EIR. See discussion below.
Preparation and Conclusions of an Initial Study Checklist
An Initial Study checklist has been prepared and is presented in Section F of this document. An Initial
Study checklist was prepared for two reasons: a) to support tiering from the certif ied General Plan EIR
(discussed above) to complete environmental review for this project; and b) to utilize the most current
CEQA Guidelines environmental checklist (updated in 2018), which incorporates the required
assessment of GHG emissions, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. The Initial Study has been prepared
considering the following factors that constitute the “baseline” f or review, which is discussed in Section C
(Project Description), above:
➢ None of the components of the project result in any changes to land use assumptions or
projections currently presented in the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 and analyzed in the General
Plan EIR. No changes are proposed to land use designations or their respective density and
intensity parameters, nor are any changes proposed to adopted land use designations for
individual sites/properties. Further, the project proposes no changes to circulation
(transportation/traffic) projections, policies or implementing programs that would result in changes
to level of service conditions at intersections or along arterials.
Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019 7 7
➢ The Climate Change Action Plan 2030 is intended to address climate change and present
implementing measures to reduce, among others, GHG emissions, reliance on non-renewable
fossil f uels, vehicle miles traveled, energy consumption, water use, and solid waste generation and
disposal. W hile the ultimate, physical implementation of proposed policies, programs and measures
on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis may result in individual impacts on the environment, the
current project is at a policy level that is applicable citywide.
In preparing the Initial Study, the project was reviewed against impacts identif ied and mitigation
measures included in the certif ied General Plan EIR (2004). The purpose of this review is to determine
if the project would result in: new signif icant impacts; an increase in the severity of impacts; or new or
expanded mitigation measures f rom those analyzed and determined in the General Plan EIR. The
following presents those General Plan EIR impacts and recommended mitigation measures that are
pertinent to the project and compares the proposed project activities to these impacts and measures. The
discussion is organized by the chronological order of topic areas presented in the Initial Study.
Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 8
February 22, 2019
General Plan EIR Imp act General Plan EIR
Adopted Mitigation
Measure
Relationship to Proposed Project
(Climate Change Action Plan 2030)
Air Quality
Impact IV.3-1. Consistency with Clean Air
Plan.
General Plan EIR determined that there
would be a less-than-signif icant to the Clean
Air Plan.
No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impacts.
The action to adopt an updated Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP)
is consistent with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The f ollowing is a list of
selected m easures in the CCAP 2030 im plem entation program that are
intended to reduce air pollutants and GHG em issions:
• Reduce vehicle miles traveled by supporting programs to increase
walking, biking, and transit use. • Accelerate the adoption of electric passenger and commercial vehicles
and buses.
• Reduce super-GHG pollutants such as methane by reducing organic
waste disposed in landfills and instead recycling and composting
organic waste, including paper, wood, and food waste.
• Decrease the demand for fossil fuels by increasing the efficiency of
residential and commercial buildings and facilities
• Pursue a carbon-free electricity supply by supporting MCE’s goal to
provide 100% GHG-free electricity by 2025 and purchasing 100%
renewable Deep Green electricity for City facilities.
• Promote electrification of building systems and appliances that use
natural gas.
Impact IV.3-2. Consistency with Clean Air
Plan transportation control m easures.
General Plan EIR determined that there
would be to be less-than-significant impacts to
Clean Air transportation control m easures.
No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impacts.
The action to adopt an updated Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP)
is consistent with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The f ollowing is a list of
selected m easures in the CCAP 2030 im plem entation program that are
intended to reduce air pollutants and GHG em issions:
• Reduce vehicle miles traveled by supporting programs to increase
walking, biking, and transit use. • Accelerate the adoption of electric passenger and commercial vehicles
and buses.
Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 9
February 22, 2019
Impact IV.3-3. Odor/Toxics Buff er Zones.
The General Plan EIR determined that
certain facilities or land uses recomm ended
in the General Plan m ay be ex posed to
m obile source toxic air contaminants f rom US
101 and I-580. This im pact was determ ined
to be significant
Mitigation Measure IV.3-3.
Adopted Program AW 2a
(Sensitive Receptors).
This mitigation m easure
requires that all projects
that are considered
“sensitive receptors” (e.g.,
housing, schools, child
care) proposed within 500
f eet of the closest lane of
US 101 or I-580 be subject
to review of health risks.
No change; beneficial impacts.
The action to adopt an updated Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP)
is consistent with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The f ollowing is a list of
selected m easures in the CCAP 2030 im plem entation program that are
intended to reduce air pollutants and GHG em issions:
• Reducing vehicle miles traveled by supporting programs to increase
walking, biking, and transit use. • Accelerating the adoption of electric passenger and commercial vehicles
and buses.
By reducing air pollutants and GHG emissions, exposure of sensitive
receptors to health risks would be reduced.
Biological Resources
Impact IV.8-1. Special-Status Plant and
Anim al Species.
General Plan EIR determined that there would
be less-than-significant im pacts to special-
status plant and anim al species, prov ided that
Conserv ation Elem ent policies and program s
were included in the adoption
of the Plan.
No mitigation required. No change.
The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact to biological resources.
Impact IV.8-2. Sensitiv e Natural
Comm unities.
General Plan EIR determined that there would
be significant im pacts to sensitive natural
communities, specifically to the oak sav anna
and oak woodland communities.
Mitigation m easure IV.8-2.
This m easure required the
adoption of Conserv ation
Policy CON-10a, which
requires the protection of
oak sav anna and oak
woodland habitat when
assessing dev elopm ent in
these areas.
No change.
The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact to biological resources.
Impact IV.8-3. Federally Protected
W etlands.
General Plan determined that there would be
less-than-significant im pacts to protected
wetlands, provided that Conserv ation Elem ent
policies and program s were
included in the adoption of the Plan.
No mitigation required. No change.
The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact to biological resources.
Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 10
February 22, 2019
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Not analyzed in the San Raf ael General Plan
2020 EIR.
NA Benef icial im pacts.
The proposed CCAP would reduce community-wide emissions to levels
that exceed the state reduction targets for statewide emissions for years
2020 and 2030 established by AB 32 and SB 32. The CCAP would reduce
communitywide emissions 19% below 1990 levels in 2020 and 42% below
1990 levels in 2030.Further, the CCAP would result in emissions of in 2.08
MTCO2e per service population (population + employees) in 2030 , which
is below the emissions threshold recommended for local governments by
the California Air Resources Board in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan, adjusted for local conditions.
Land Use & Planning; Population & Housing
Im pact IV.1-1. Conf lict with applicable land
use or other plans.
The General Plan EIR determined that there
would be less-than-significant im pacts.
No mitigation required. No change.
The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact on applicable
land use or other plans .
Im pact IV.1-2. Incom patible land uses and
changes to neighborhood character.
The General Plan EIR determined that there
would be less-than-significant im pacts.
No mitigation required. No change.
The proposed CCAP 2030 would have no im pact on incompatible
land uses and changes to neighborhood character.
Im pact IV.1-3. Growth and concentration to
population.
The General Plan EIR determined that there
would be less-than-significant im pacts.
No mitigation required. No change.
The CCAP would not result in increases in population nor accommodate
population growth beyond that anticipated in the San Rafael General Plan
2020.
Im pact IV.1-4. Em ploym ent growth rate.
The General Plan EIR determined that there
would be less-than-significant im pacts.
No mitigation required. No change.
The CCAP would not result in a substantial increase in the em ploym ent
projected under the San Raf ael General Plan 2020.
Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 11
February 22, 2019
Im pact IV.1-5. Jobs-to-housing ratio.
The General Plan EIR determined that there
would be less-than-significant im pacts.
No mitigation required. No change.
The CCAP would not result in a substantial change in the jobs-to-housing
ratio that is projected under the San Raf ael General Plan 2020.
Noise
IV.4-2. Increase Rail Noise. Mitigation Measure IV.4-2.
This m easure requires that
a detailed noise
assessm ent be conducted to
assess noise and v ibration
im pacts associated with the
SMART rail service.
No change.
The CCAP would not result in land use changes that would im pact growth
and concentration to population.
Public Services and Utilities
Im pact IV.5-10. W astewater Treatm ent
Capacity – North of Puerto Suello Hill. Im pact
IV.5-11. W astewater Treatm ent Capacity –
South of Puerto Suello Hill.
No mitigation required. No impact; beneficial impact.
The CCAP contains measures that would reduce water use and wastewater
disposal by: promoting water conservation programs and incentives;
educating residents and business about laws requiring retrofit of non -
compliant plumbing fixtures during remodeling and at resale; ensuring all
applicable projects project comply with State and Marin Mu nicipal Water
District regulations; encouraging the installation of greywater and
rainwater collection systems and the use of recycle water; and improving
water efficiency and conservation efforts in municipal facilities and
operations.
Theref ore, this action would have no im pact on wastewater treatm ent capacity.
Im pact IV.5-12. W ater Supply.
General Plan determined that there would be
less-than-significant im pacts to water
supplies and wastewater capacity.
No impact; beneficial impact.
The CCAP contains measures that would reduce water use by: promoting
water conservation programs and incentives; educating residents and
business about laws requiring retrofit of non -compliant plumbing fixtures
during remodeling and at resale; ensuring all applicable proje cts project
comply with State and Marin Municipal Water District regulations;
encouraging the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems
and the use of recycle water; and improving water efficiency and
conservation efforts in municipal faci lities and operations.
Theref ore, this action would have no im pact on water supplies and wastewater
treatm ent capacity.
Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 12
February 22, 2019
Im pact IV.5-13. Landfill Capacity.
General Plan determined that there would be
less-than-significant im pacts to landfill
capacity.
No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impact.
The CCAP includes the f ollowing m easures that would reduce dem ands on
landf ill disposal:
• Reducing commercial organic waste through encouraging and enforcing
compliance with AB 1826 and participation in food recovery programs
• Reducing residential organic waste through better utilization of curbside
collection services and home composting
• Adoption of an ordinance to require all loads of construction and
demolition debris to be processed for material recovery
• Investment in waste processing infrastructure to remove recoverable
materials from the waste stream.
Theref ore, this action would have no im pact on landf ill capacity.
Im pact IV.5-14. Electricity, Natural G as and
Gasoline Dem and.
General Plan determined that there would be
less-than-significant im pacts to electricity,
natural gas and gasoline dem and.
No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impact.
The CCAP includes m easures f or strategic reductions in utilit y service
dem ands to electricity, natural gas and gasoline over tim e. CCAP
measures:
• Reduce vehicle miles traveled and gasoline consumption by
supporting programs to increase walking, biking, and transit use.
• Decrease the demand for natural gas and electricity by increasing
the efficiency of residential and commercial buildings and facilities
and promoting conservation
Theref ore, this action would hav e no im pact on electricity, natural gas or
gasoline dem and.
Transportation/Traffic
Im pact IV.2-1. Lev el of Service at
intersections approv ed to acceptable lev els
of service with General Plan 2020.
General Plan determined that there would be
less-than-significant im pacts to intersections
adopted with specific, acceptable LOS
standards.
No mitigation required. No change; beneficial impact. The CCAP contains measures to reduce
vehicle miles traveled by supporting programs to increase walking and
biking. Therefore, this action would have no impact on acceptable LOS
standards.
Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 13
February 22, 2019
Im pacts IV.2-2, IV.2-3, IV.2-4, IV.2-5.
Im pacts to levels of serv ice at specific
intersections.
General Plan EIR determined that there
would be significant and unav oidable
im pacts at specific intersections.
No mitigation m easures
av ailable or adopted to
reduce im pacts to
acceptable lev el.
No change or increase in the sev erity of the significant and unav oidable
im pact. The CCAP would have no im pact on traffic or LOS at intersections
that projected to operate below the adopted LOS standards.
Im pact IV.2-6. Unacceptable Cit y roadway
segment lev el of serv ice resulting from San
Rafael General Plan 2020.
General Plan EIR determined that there
would be significant and unav oidable im pacts
along specif ic roadway segm ents.
Im pact determined to be
signif icant and unav oidable.
No mitigation m easures
av ailable or adopted to
reduce im pacts to
acceptable lev el.
No change or increase in the sev erity of the significant and unav oidable
im pact. The CCAP would hav e no im pact on traffic or LOS at intersections
that projected to operate below the adopted LOS standards.
Im pact IV.2-7. City roadway segm ent lev el of
service resulting from San Raf ael General
Plan 2020.
General Plan determined that there would be
less-than-significant im pacts to selectiv e City
roadway segm ents. .
No mitigation required, No change.
The CCAP would hav e no im pact on traffic or LOS at intersections that
projected to operate below the adopted LOS standards.
Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 14
February 22, 2019
E. DETERMINATION – SUPPORT FOR ADDENDUM TO EIR
W hen “tiering” f rom the certif ied General Plan EIR, the CEQA Guidelines provide options
for subsequent environmental documentation. The options include the preparation of a
Supplemental EIR, Subsequent EIR or an Addendum to the EIR. In determining whether an
Addendum to the certif ied General Plan 2020 EIR is the appropriate document to analyze
the project and its approval, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or
Negative Declaration) states:
(a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a
previously
certif ied EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR
have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor
technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described
in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative
declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or
attached to the f inal EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the f inal EIR or
adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Section
15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s required
f indings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be
supported by substantial evidence.
As the General Plan 2020 EIR has been certif ied, the environmental impacts of subsequent
activities proposed under the General Plan, which in this case, is the three components of the
General Plan Amendment and the GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy, must be examined in
light of the impact analysis in the certif ied EIR to determine if additional CEQA documentation
must be prepared. One of the standards that apply is whether, under Public Resources Code
Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, there are new
signif icant effects or other grounds that require preparation of a Subsequent EIR or
Supplemental EIR in support of further agency action on the project. Under these guidelines,
a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR shall be prepared if any of the following criteria are
met.
(a) W hen an EIR has been certified or Negative Declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared f or that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one
or more of the f ollowing:
Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 15
February 22, 2019
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of
new signif icant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identif ied signif icant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
negative declaration due to the involvement of new signif icant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identif ied signif icant
effects; or
(3) New inf ormation of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certif ied as complete or the negative declaration was
adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more signif icant effects not discussed in the
previous
EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Signif icant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe
than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously f ound not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
signif icant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
f rom those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or
more signif icant effects on the environment, but the project proponents
decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
In addition, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(a) includes a provision for addressing
greenhouse gases:
(a) Lead agencies may analyze and mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas
emissions at a programmatic level, such as in a general plan, a long-range
development plan, or a separate plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Later
project-specif ic environmental documents may tier from and/or incorporate by
reference that existing programmatic review. Project-specific environmental
documents may rely on an EIR containing a programmatic analysis of greenhouse
gas emissions as provided in Sections
15152 (tiering), 15167 (staged EIRs) 15168 (program EIRs), 15175–15179.5 (Master
EIRs),
15182 (EIRs Prepared for Specif ic Plans), and 15183 (EIRs Prepared for General
Plans, Community Plans, or Zoning).
Addendum (No.4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 16
February 22, 2019
As demonstrated in the environmental analysis provided in Section D (Environmental Analysis)
above, which is supported by the Initial Study presented in Section F, none of the conditions
analyzed under the certif ied San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR have changed, nor does
the proposed project, including the GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy serving as an
implementing tool of the CCAP and General Plan, meet the criteria for preparing a Subsequent
EIR or Supplemental EIR. The project will not result in one or more significant effects not
discussed in the General Plan EIR, nor does the project create substantially more severe
signif icant effects than previously examined in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the City of San
Rafael, as the lead agency, supports and recommends an Addendum versus the preparation
of a Subsequent EIR or Supplemental EIR. The project may theref ore be approved as an
activity covered within the scope of the General Plan EIR. Further, the Sustainability Element
component and supportive GHG Emissions Reduction Strategy have been analyzed consistent
with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5.
17 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
F. INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
1. Project Title Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan
2030
2. Lead Agency Name & Address City of San Raf ael
Community Development Department
Planning Division
1400 Fifth Avenue (P.O. Box 151560)
San Rafael, California 94915-1560
3.
Contact Person & Phone Number
Paul A. Jensen, Community Development Director
Phone number: # (415) 485-5064
Email: paul.jensen@cityof sanraf ael.org
4.
Project Location
The proposed project is not site-specific, but addresses
policies, programs and strategies that are applicable
citywide.
5.
Project Sponsor's Name &
Address
City of San Raf ael
1400 5th Avenue
P.O. Box 151560
San Rafael, CA 94915-1560
Other Public Agencies Whose Approval Is Required
None
18 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
ENVIRONMENTA L FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Signif icant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources
Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of
Significance
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I f ind that the proposed project COULD NOT have a signif icant effect on the environment
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I f ind that although the proposed project could have a signif icant effect on the
environment, there will not be a signif icant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I f ind that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I f ind that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially signif icant impact” or “potentially
signif icant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at lest one effect 1) has
been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
x I f ind that, in preparing the attached Initial Study, the proposed project would not result
in any new signif icant information, new significant impacts or new mitigation measures
that had not been previously considered, analyzed or disclosed in the San Rafael
General Plan 2020 certif ied EIR (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT). Consistent
with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an ADDENDUM to the certif ied
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared.
February 22, 2019
_
Signature Date
Paul A. Jensen, Community Development Director
19 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Please n ote: The r esponse to each question below is supported by a source of data or information, which is pr ovided
in Section g. (sour ce references) of this checklist.
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) that supports the
Sustainability element. The CCAP measures are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
Potential environmental impacts to scenic resources may be realized or determined when the policies or programs
are considered on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis, such as the site-specif ic installation of large-scale
renewable energy generation facilities. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the
time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1a, 1c, 1d, 1m, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed in I.a. above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specific. Potential
environmental impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highwa y may be realized or determined when the
policies or programs are considered on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these
types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1a, 1c, 1d, 1m, 1p, 2, 3a, 15)
Discussion:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less that
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
a) Have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
X
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public view of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zooning and other regulation governing scenic quality?
X
20 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
As discussed in I.a. above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The components contain policies and programs that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential
environmental impacts to the visual character or quality of a specif ic site and its surroundings may be realized or
determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The
individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed in I.a. above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential
environmental impacts associated with new sources of light or glare may be realized or determined when the policies
or programs are considered on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities
will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1a, 1c, 1d, 1m, 1p, 2, 3a, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The City of San Rafael planning area does not contain land designated as Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program (State of California 2016).
(Sources: 1a, 2, 12, 15)
Discussion:
d) Created a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X
II. AGRICULT URE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy assessment Project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted
by the California Air Resource Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non -agricultural
use?
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
X
21 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No impact. The City of San Rafael planning area does not contain any land that is zoned f or agricultural use
or is under a W illiamson Act contract.
(Sources: 1a, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The City of San Rafael Planning area does not contain any land that is zoned for f orest land or is
protected under the Timberland Production zone.
(Sources: 1a, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. W hile the City of San Rafael planning area contains many acres of public open space and private,
undeveloped land that is heavily vegetated, it does not contain an y forest land, as def ined by the CEQA Guidelines.
(Sources: 1a, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The City of San Rafael planning area does not contain any farmland.
(Sources: 1a, 2, 12, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the state agency that has oversight and
regulatory authority for air quality in the Ba y Area region. BAAQMD has adopted the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which
has modeled existing and projected air quality for the region. The air quality modeling relies on the growth, traff ic
and air quality projections developed by the individual General Plans adopted b y the local jurisdictions within the bay
region. Therefore, whenever there is a change or amendment to a locally-adopted General Plan, the amendment must
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section511104(g))?
X
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
X
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
X
III. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
X
22 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
be reviewed for consistency with the adopted Bay Area Clean Air Plan. A conf lict with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan
will result when a local General Plan Amendment results in a change in land use or a change in transportation policy
that that has the potential to increase the projected traff ic or air emissions for the local jurisdiction and the region.
The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures
that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential for conflict with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan
may be realized or determined when the proposed policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic
or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic
project review.
The proposed CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, as it proposes measures to
reduce, rather than increase air quality pollutants and GHG emissions. The implementation and monitoring of the
measures would, over time, reduce GHG emissions and air pollutants. The CCAP measures support the Clean Air
Plan’s key priorities as follows :
• Reduce emissions of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants form all key sources. CCAP measures LCT-C2
Bicycling, LCT-C3 Walking, LCT-C4 Safe Routes to School, LCT-C5 Public Transit, LCT-C6 Employee Trip
Reduction, LCT-C7 Parking Requirements, LCT-C9 Smart Growth Development, and LCT-M3 City Employee
Commute will reduce air pollutants and toxic air contaminants by encouraging alternative modes of transportation
and reducing vehicle miles traveled. LCT-C8 Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling and LCT-C10 Electric
Vehicle Landscape Equipment would reduce emission from the combustion of gasoline and diesel.
• Reduce emissions of super-GHG pollutants such as methane. CCAP measures WR-C1 Commercial Organic Waste,
WR-C2 Residential Organic Waste, WR-C3 Construction & Demolition Debris and Self-Haul Waste, WR-C4
Mandatory Waste Diversion, WR-C5 Waste Processing Infrastructure, WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility,
WR-M1 Waste from Public Facilities and WR-M2 Waste from City Operations would reduce methane emissions by
diverting organic waste from landfills. SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration encourages composting, rather than
disposal, of organic material.
• Decrease demand of fossil fuels by:
o Increasing efficiency of industrial processes, energy, buildings, and transportation sectors. CCAP measures
EE-C1 Energy Efficiency Programs, EE-C21 Energy Audits, EE-C3 Cool Pavement and Roofs, EE-C4
Green Building Reach Code, EE-M1 Streetlights, EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits, and EE-M3
Energy Conservation would decrease demand for electricity, natural gas, and other fossil fuels by improving
the energy efficiency of buildings and facilities.
o Reducing demand for vehicle travel, and high-carbon goods and services. CCAP measures LCT-C2
Bicycling, LCT-C3 Walking, LCT-C4 Safe Routes to School, LCT-C5 Public Transit, LCT-C6 Employee Trip
Reduction, LCT-C7 Parking Requirements, LCT-C9 Smart Growth Development, and LCT-M3 City
Employee Commute would decrease demand for fossil fuels by reducing vehicle miles traveled.
• Decarbonize our energy system
o Making the electricity supply carbon-free. CCAP measures RE-C1 Renewable Energy Generation, RE-C2
GHG-Free Electricity, RE-C4 Innovative Technologies, RE-M1 Solar Systems for Municipal Buildings, and
RE-M2 Municipal Deep Green electricity would accelerate the generation and use of renewable energy and
carbon-free electricity.
o Electrifying the transportation and building sectors. CCAP measures LCT-C1 Zero Emission Vehicles, LCT-
C5 Public Transit, LCT-M1 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles, and RE-C3 Building and Appliance
Electrification would accelerate electrification of passenger and commercial vehicles and buses and promote
electrification of building systems.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
23 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
(Sources: 1o, 1p, 2, 4, 13, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See the discussion in III.a. above, which summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed project. The
proposed CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan, as it proposes to reduce, rather than
increase, projected cumulative air quality pollutants and GHG emissions.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1o, 1p, 2, 4, 13, 14, 15)
Discussion:
Less-than-signif icant impact. As discussed in III.a above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports
the Sustainability element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
Measure LCT -C9 Smart Growth Development is proposed to promote transit -oriented development, which could
reinforce Housing element policies for housing within 1,000 f eet of US101, which is a pollutant generator. However,
the CCAP measure is broad and does not identif y the extent or amount of new housing that would be recommended
f or transit-oriented development. Potential environmental impacts to sensitive receptors near a specific site and its
surroundings may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-
specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of
specif ic project review.
The proposed CCAP 2030 is, in part, intended to address and mitigate rather than create new substantial pollutant
concentrations. The plan includes policies as well as mitigation and monitoring measures to reduce GHG emissions
caused by vehicle miles traveled.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1o, 1p, 2, 4, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed in III.a. above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The plan contains policies and programs that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The
creation of potential, objectionable odors may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered
and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be
assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1o, 1p, 2, 4, 15)
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
X
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
X
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
X
24 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
to special-status, sensitive or candidate species protected b y regional plans, policies or regulations of CDFG or
USFW S may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specific
or project-specif ic basis, such as the site-specif ic implementation of a GHG reduction measure. The individual impacts
of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specific project review.
The proposed CCAP includes measure SA-C1 Urban Forest to increase the tree cover and preserve and protect native
vegetation and riparian habitat. The measure would have benef icial impacts on habitat for candidate, sensitive and
special status species.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
to riparian habitats protected b y regional plans, policies or regulations of CDFG or USFW S may be realized or
determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis.
The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
The proposed CCAP includes measure SA-C1 Urban Forest to increase the tree cover and preserve and protect native
vegetation and riparian habitat. The measure requires new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects to
implement best management practices as feasible, including low-impact development techniques, the minimal use of
non-pervious surfaces in landscape design, and the integration of natural features into the project design, to naturally
filter and biodegrade contaminants and to minimize surface runoff into drainage systems and creeks. These actions
would have benef icial impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15)
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
X
25 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan
contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to
state or federal protected wetlands may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and
applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. CCAP measures SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration, SA-C4 Sea Level
Rise and SA-C5 Climate Change Adaptation could impact wetlands through construction of horizontal levees, flood
control projects to adapt to rising sea levels, and other defenses, such as seawalls, storm surge barriers, and pumping
stations. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental
impacts to movement of corridors for wildlife may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are
considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities
will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 15)
Discussion:
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan
contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
The City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 Conservation Element contains a number of goals and policies addressing
the protection of biological resources. In addition, the San Rafael Municipal Code includes ordinances and regulations
that address, among others: a) wetland protection (SRMC Chapter14.13 W etland Overlay District); and b) creek
protection (SRMC Section 14.16.080 [Creeks and other water courses). Potential conf licts with the Conservation
Element policies and the zoning ordinance provisions and regulations may be realized or determined when the policies
or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities
will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
The proposed CCAP includes measure SA-C1 Urban Forest that will increase the tree cover and preserve and protect
native vegetation and riparian habitat. The measure would have a beneficial impact on biological resources.
(Sources: 1n, 1p, 2, 3a, 4, 15)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
26 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
No impact. There are no adopted local, regional or state habitat protection plans that apply to the San Raf ael planning
area.
(Sources: 1n, 2, 3a, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts to historic
resources may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specific
or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specific
project review. In reviewing these impacts on site specif ic projects, the City will continue to rely on review of the City-
adopted Historical/Architectural Survey and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 to determine the presence of historic
resources.
(Sources: 1, 2, 5, 6, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
to archaeological resources may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied
on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed
at the time of specif ic project review. In reviewing these impacts on site specif ic projects, the City will continue to
rely on review and implement the City-adopted Archaeological Resource and Protection Procedures, which includes:
a) a review of the City’s Past Finder archaeological sensitivity maps and property priority ranking to determine proximity
to potential resources; b) consultation with the Northwest Inf ormation Center and local Native American tribe
representatives f or direction on needed study; c) the preparation of an archaeological resource assessment when
deemed necessary; and d) implementation of protective measures such as avoidance, capping or relocation of
resources.
(Sources: 1, 2, 5, 6, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
that disturb human remains may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
X
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
X
27 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the
time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1, 2, 5, 6, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts that result from
wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy may be realized or determined when the policies or
programs are considered and applied on a site-specific or project-specific basis. The individual impacts of these types
of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
The purpose and intended effect of the CCAP is to reduce GHG emissions, including those emissions generated by
energy demand and supply. CCAP measures EE-C1 Energy Efficiency Program and EE-C2 Energy Audits support energy
conservation by promoting and expanding facilitating energy efficiency upgrades in existing homes and businesses. EE-C3
Cool Pavement and Roofs and EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code support energy efficiency by encouraging the use of
passive design concepts and constructing buildings that exceed Title 24 energy and green building standards. EE-M1
Streetlights, EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits, and EE-M3 Energy Conservation would decrease demand for
electricity, natural gas, and other fossil fuels in City-owned buildings and facilities. These measures would have a beneficial
impact on the use of energy resources.
Furthermore, in order to promote energy conservation, San Rafael has adopted an amended California Green Building
Standards Code per San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 12.23. Therefore, any construction associated with projects
included in the CCAP would be required to be designed to comply with the performance levels of the California Green
Building Standard Code. Likewise, all projects would be required to comply with the energy standards in the California
Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24).
(Sources: 1, 2, 3d, 4, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
The CCAP contains measures that support the MCE 2019 Integrated Resource Plan. MCE is the local Community
Choice Aggregation (CCA) program that provides electricity to the San Rafael community. CCAP measures EE-C1
Energy Efficiency Programs, RE-C1 Renewable Energy Generation, RE-C2 GHG-Free Electricity, RE-C4 Innovative
Technologies, RE-M1 Solar Energy Systems for Municipal Buildings, and RE-M2 Municipal Deep Green electricity
support MCE’s objectives to achieve a 100% GHG-free supply portfolio by 2020, to encourage local renewable energy
projects, and to offset two percent of its annual energy and capacity requirements with energy efficiency and distributed
energy resource programs. These measures would have a beneficial impact on the development of renewable energy
resources and the deployment of energy efficiency programs. Furthermore, in order to promote energy conservation,
San Rafael has adopted an amended California Green Building Standards Code per San Rafael Municipal Code
VI. ENERGY
Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
X
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy
or energy efficiency?
X
28 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Chapter 12.23. Therefore, any construction associated with projects included in the CCAP would be required to be
designed to comply with the performance levels of the California Green Building Standard Code. Likewise, all projects
would be required to comply with the energy standards in the California Energy Code, Part 6 of the California Building
Standards Code (Title 24). Therefore, the CAP would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans or result
in the use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner and impacts would be less than significant.
(Sources: 1, 2, 3d, 4, 14, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The San Rafael planning area contains no earthquake faults delineated on the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts associated with
seismic ground shaking may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied to
a project or activity, on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will
be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to ground failure and liquefaction would be
assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to landsliding would be assessed as
individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42?
X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X
29 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to soil erosion would be assessed as
individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to unstable soils or geologic conditions
would be assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to ground failure and liquefaction
would be assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The San Raf ael planning area is served by the San Rafael Sanitation District and the Las Gallinas Valley
Sanitary District, which provide domestic wastewater/sewer service to all properties. Alternative waste water disposal
systems are not permitted within the urban service area.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See discussion under VII.a.ii. above. Potential impacts related to unique paleontological resources or
unique geologic features would be assessed as individual projects are proposed on a site-specif ic or project-specific
basis.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
X
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
X
30 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
No impact. In order to determine whether or not the proposed project would generate GHG emissions that may have
a significant impact on the environment, this EIR Addendum relies on the project’s consistency with the GHG reduction
strategies and recommended emissions thresholds established by the latest version of the California Air Resources
Board Scoping Plan and consistency with the following statewide GHG legislation: AB 32, SB 375, and SB 32, which
target the reduction of statewide emissions.
As summarized in the Project Description, the CCAP 2030 has been prepared as a plan for the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15183.5. The plan utilizes an updated emissions inventory, the City of San
Rafael Community and Government Operation Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2016, to identify community-wide
emissions from the residential energy, commercial energy, transportation, waste, off-road, water and wastewater
sectors. The 2016 Inventory uses methodologies from the U.S Community Protocol for Accounting and Reporting of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 1.1 (July 2013) for the quantification and report ing of community emissions. The
protocol-compliant 2016 Inventory includes a table illustrating included and excluded emissions sources and activities.
The Inventory includes all required activities for a protocol-compliant inventory, plus some optional activities: on-road
transit vehicles associated with community land uses, off-road surface vehicles and other mobile equipment operating
within the community boundary, and transmission and distribution losses from purchased electricity used by the
community. The inventory does not include emissions which are difficult to reliably quantify and track on an annual
basis using existing data sources and quantification methodologies. These activities include emissions from air travel
and upstream emissions from the production, transport and distribution of food and household goods. The CCAP
provides an illustration of the total carbon footprint of a n average San Rafael household which includes all of these
emission sources.
The CCAP forecasts emissions through 2050 utilizing housing population, and employment projections from ABAG
and VMT estimates from MTC. The proposed CCAP finds that emissions will rise 4.1% by 2050 without the
implementation of state and local actions to reduce emissions.
The proposed CCAP identifies GHG reduction targets that meet or exceed statewide targets, i.e.: to reduce emissions
to 1990 levels by 2020, as established by AB 32; to reduce emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, as established
by SB 32; and to reduce emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, as established by EO B-30-15. In order to
approximate 1990 levels for San Rafael, the CCAP estimates emissions were 15% below 2005 levels in 1990. This
methodology follows the guidance provided in the California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping
Plan. San Rafael’s emissions were 473,438 MTCO2e in 2005. Therefore, San Rafael’s emissions targets are 402,422
MTCO2e in 2020 (equivalent to 1990 levels) and 241,453 MTCO 2e in 2030 (40% below 1990 levels).
The CCAP identifies GHG reduction measures, that, in concert with state actions, would reduce emissions to 325,119
MTCO2e by 2020 and 234,792 MTCO2e by 2030. These projected emissions are 19% below 1990 levels in 2020 and
42% below 1990 levels in 2030 and would therefore comply with the targets established by AB 32 and SB 32.
While the proposed CCA P doe s i ncl ude a GHG re duction goal in support the State ’s efforts under EO B -30-15 for
2050, the plan doe s not i ncl ude climate action me asures designed to achieve the 2050 goal as pre se ntl y EO B-30-15
doe s not spe ci f y any plan or implementation me asure to achieve its goal. A dditionall y, the re is pre se ntl y no reli able
me ans of f ore casti ng how f uture te chnological de vel opments or state legislati ve acti ons to re duce GHG emissions may
affect f uture e mi ssions i n San Rafael .
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
b) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
X
31 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
The California Air Resources Board 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan recommends that local governments aim to
achieve a community-wide goal of no more than 6 MT of CO 2e per service population (population + employees) by
2030 and no more than 2 MT of CO2e per service population (SP) by 2050. However, because San Rafael’s GHG
inventory does not include agriculture or industrial emission sources, the 2017 Scoping Plan thresholds must be
adjusted in order to provide a local threshold consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan. To determine whether the CCAP
would impede substantial progress toward achieving the project emissions reduction targets established by AB 32, SB
32, and the 2017 Scoping Plan, this EIR Addendum establishes a 2030 emissions threshold based on a 2030 emiss ions
target consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan. The emissions threshold represents the rate of emissions reductions
necessary for the City of San Rafael to achieve a fair share of statewide GHG reductions necessary to meet the long -
term targets, excluding emissions from the agricultural and industrial sectors.
The following equation details how the emissions threshold was calculated:
𝐸𝑙𝑙�ℎ𝑟�ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝑇�𝑟𝑑𝑟�𝑙𝑙𝑑=2030 𝐸𝑙�ℎ𝑟𝑟�ℎ𝑙𝑙𝑟 𝐺𝑙𝑎𝑙
2030 𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑟𝑙𝑎𝑟�ℎ𝑙𝑙+2030 𝐸𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑦𝑙𝑑𝑙𝑟
Where:
Emissions Threshold =2.97 MTCO2e per service population per year
2030 Population = Statewide in 2030: 43,939,250 (DOF 2018)
2030 Employment = Statewide employment in 2030: 19,109,000 (California Department of Transportation 2018)
2030 Emissions Goal = Scoping Plan 2030 Emissions Goals for Residential/Commercial, Electric Power, High Global
Warming Potential (GWP), Recycling and Waste, and Transportation sectors: 187 MMTCO 2e per year (see Table 1).
Table1: Scoping Plan 2030 Emissions Goals by Sector
Sector Emissions (MMTCO2e)
Residential and Commercial 38
Electric Power 30
High GWP 8
Recycling and Waste 8
Transportation 103
Total 187
Source: “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan,” California Air Resources Board, Table 3, page 31.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf
The targets recommended by the 2017 Scoping Plan, adjusted to be specific for San Rafael, are appropriate for the
City of San Rafael (a local government) to use as the basis for determining an applicable significance threshold for the
CCAP. Based on the above, the CCAP must meet the target GHG emissions of approximately 2.97 MTCO2e per SP
per year in year 2030. Emissions greater than 2.97 MTCO2e per SP per year may conflict with substantial progress
toward the long-term reduction targets identified by SB 32 and the 2017 Scoping Plan, and the project’s cumulative
contribution of long-term emissions would be considered significant. CCAP 2030 is projected to result in 2.08 MTCO2e
per SP in 2030, which is below the 2.97 MTCO2e emissions threshold. The proposed plan would therefore not generate
GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the environment.
In order to meet the reduction targets, new construction projects must be determined to be consistent with the CCAP
2030. A checklist has been developed to be used in reviewing new development applications, to ensure that GHG
reduction measures are incorporated into the project design and operation. Project compliance with the measures in
the checklist would exempt individual, quantitative study of GHG emissions for a development project. Development
projects that are not able to meet the standards in the checklist, or projects that propose a Rezoning and/or an
32 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
amendment to the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (e.g., a change in land use that results in changes to the projections
used in the strategy) would require an individual, qua ntitative GHG emissions assessment.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analysis), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR
impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would
not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation
measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1o, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
Discussion:
No impact. See VII.a. above. The CCAP includes climate action measures to reduce the City’s GHG emissions by
approximately 19% below 1990 levels by 2020 in accordance with AB 32 and 42% below 1990 levels by 2030 in
accordance with SB 32. W hile the proposed CCA P doe s include a GHG re duction goal in support the State’s efforts to
reduce emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050 under EO B -30-15, the plan does not i ncl ude climate action measures
designed to achieve the 2050 goal as pre s e ntl y EO B-30-15 does not spe cif y any plan or implementation measure to
achieve i ts goal and is not legally binding on local government or private actions. The CCAP would not conflict with
any applicable GHG reduction plan, including the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan or Plan Bay 2040, which demonstrates
how the Bay Area region will reduce emissions from transportation sources to comply with SB 375.
CCAP measures support the 2017 Scoping Plan goals to reduce GHG emissions as follows:
• Doubling energy efficiency savings at existing buildings. CCAP measures EE-C1 Energy Efficiency Programs,
EE-C21 Energy Audits, EE-C3 Cool Pavement and Roofs, EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code, EE-M1 Streetlights,
EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits, and EE-M3 Energy Conservation would decrease demand for
electricity, natural gas, and other fossil fuels by improving the energy efficiency of buildings and facilities.
• 50% Renewable Power. CCAP measures RE-C1 Renewable Energy Generation, RE-C2 GHG-Free Electricity,
RE-C4 Innovative Technologies, RE-M1 Solar Systems for Municipal Buildings, and RE-M2 Municipal Deep Green
electricity would accelerate the generation and use of renewable energy and carbon-free electricity.
• 50% reduction in petroleum use in vehicles. CCAP measures LCT-C1 Zero Emission Vehicles, LCT-C5 Public
Transit, and LCT-M1 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles would accelerate electrification of passenger and
commercial vehicles and buses. CCAP measures LCT-C2 Bicycling, LCT-C3 Walking, LCT-C4 Safe Routes to
School, LCT-C5 Public Transit, LCT-C6 Employee Trip Reduction, LCT-C7 Parking Requirements, LCT-C9 Smart
Growth Development, and LCT-M3 City Employee Commute would reduce petroleum use by encouraging alternative
modes of transportation and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
• Carbon Sequestration in the Land Base. CCAP measure SA-C1 would increase carbon sequestration by
planting additional trees and measure SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration would encourage composing and support
the development of carbon-rich soils and wetlands.
• Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants. CCAP measures WR-C1 Commercial Organic Waste, WR-C2 Residential
Organic Waste, WR-C3 Construction & Demolition Debris and Self-Haul Waste, WR-C4 Mandatory Waste Diversion,
WR-C5 Waste Processing Infrastructure, WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility, WR-M1 Waste from Public
Facilities and WR-M2 Waste from City Operations will reduce methane emissions by diverting organic waste from
landfills.
Therefore, the proposed CCAP would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
(Sources: 1o, 2, 4, 12, 13, 15, 16)
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
33 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
No impact. T he project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts f rom the
transporting of hazardous materials may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and
applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed
at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
from activities or actions that could release hazardous materials may be realized or determined when the policies or
programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types
of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
f rom the emission or handling of hazardous materials within ¼ mile of an existing or proposed school site may be
realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specific
basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
from development and activities on a site that contains hazardous material may be realized or determined when the
policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of
these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
34 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. There are no public airports within the San Rafael planning area.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specific. Potential
environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that could impair implementation of or interfere with
the City-adopted emergency response plan may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and
applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed
at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1a, 1f, 1g, 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact, As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The components contain policies and programs that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
Potential environmental impacts f rom development and activities on a site that is in a wildland f ire hazard area
- wildland urban interface zone (W UI) may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied
on a site-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic
project review.
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The proposed plan would not change or revise
current water quality standards. Potential environmental impacts f rom development and activities on a site that
that could violate water quality standards or degrade surface or ground water quality may be realized or determined
when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual
impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 1o, 2, 15)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
X
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
X
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
X
35 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
No impact. The City of San Rafael does not rely on the use of groundwater for domestic or other water service
needs.
(Sources: 1k, 1o, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental
impacts from development and activities on a site that could alter drainage or the course of a stream or creek that
could cause erosion or siltation on - or off -site may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are
considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities
will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
CCAP measure SA-C1 Urban Forest would require new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects to
implement best management practices as feasible, including low-impact development techniques, the minimal use of
non-pervious surfaces in landscape design, and the integration of natural features into the project design, to naturally
filter and biodegrade contaminants and to minimize surface runoff into drainage systems and creeks. Therefore, the
CCAP would have a beneficial impact on streams and rivers.
(Sources: 1k, 1o, 2, 4, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See discussion in X.c. above.
(Sources: 1k, 1m, 1n, 2, 4, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
from development and activities on a site that could create additional storm water runoff or pollution may be realized
or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual
impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 15)
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
X
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
X
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
X
36 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
from development and activities on a site that impede or redirect flood flows may be realized or determined when the
measures are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types
of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
from the risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation of sites along the San Rafael bay f ront or within a
FEMA f lood hazard zone may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-
specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of
specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 7, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The City of San Rafael is not located within a high or medium priority groundwater basin and is not
required to develop and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan pursuant to the 2014 Sustainable
Groundwater Management Act.
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan
contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential conflicts with water quality
control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans may be realized or determined when the measures are
considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities
will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 7, 15, 20)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The plan does not
propose any changes to planned land uses that would result in a physical division of the community. The CCAP
contains measures (LCT-C2, LCT-C3, LCT-C4, and LCT-C5) that would support pedestrian and bicycle circulation and
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? X
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
X
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
X
XI. LAND USE PLANNING
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? X
37 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
improved transportation alternatives, as identified in the General Plan, which would improve connectivity throughout
the City.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1a, 1b, 1d, 2, 4, 14, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The plan does not
propose any changes to General Plan policies or programs that are intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental
effect. The proposed CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the Bay Area Clean Air Plan as it proposes to reduce,
rather than increase, air quality pollutants and GHG emissions. T he plan includes policies as well as mitigation and
monitoring measures to reduce GHG emissions caused by vehicle miles traveled. Further, the proposed monitoring
measures would provide a tracking for emission reductions to meet the mandated goals set by AB 32, SB 32 and SB
375. As described, a checklist has been developed for reviewing new development projects to ensure that GHG
reduction measures are incorporated into the project design and operation.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
Discussion:
No impact. The project proposes no changes to mineral resource designations, operations, or mineral resource goals
or policies for the San Rafael Planning area. The planning area contains one active quarry, the San Rafael Rock
Quarry (Dutra), which is located in an unincorporated area of East San Rafael (east of Peacock Gap).
(Sources: 1a, 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed in XII.a. above, the project proposes no changes to mineral resource designations,
operations or mineral resource goals or policies f or the San Rafael Planning area. The planning area contains one
active quarry, the San Raf ael Rock Quarry (Dutra), which is located in an unincorporated area of East San Rafael (east
of Peacock Gap).
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
X
38 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
(Sources: 1a, 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts
from development and activities on a site that could generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels (e.g., the installation of a wind turbine or generator) may be realized or determined when the
measures are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types
of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1a, 1k, 1l, 2, 3b, 4, 15)
Discussion:
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan
contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts from
development and activities on a site that could generate excessive ground borne vibration or noise may be realized
or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis.
The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1l, 2, 3b, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. There are no public airports in the City of San Rafael planning area. The San Rafael Planning Area contains
one private airport, the San Raf ael Airport, which is located in the Smith Ranch area. The project does not propose
any changes to the airport that would expose area residents to excessive noise levels.
XIII. NOISE
Would the project result in:
b) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
X
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
X
39 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan
contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. In reviewing potential development
activities at San Rafael Airport, the application of these policies and programs may f ind that such activities would result
in a signif icant environmental impact. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time
of review for an y specif ic project proposed at the San Rafael Airport.
(Sources: 1a, 1k, 1l, 2, 3b, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The CCAP contains measures
that are consistent with San Rafael’s General Plan and would not result in increases in population nor accommodate
population growth beyond that anticipated in the General Plan.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1a, 1b, 2, 4, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specific. Potential
environmental impacts from development and activities on a site that could result in the displacement of existing
people or housing or the necessitate the construction of replacement housing may be realized or determined when
the policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts
of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1a, 1b, 2, 15)
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
X
40 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 Safety Element that would impact f ire
protection or result in new Fire Department facilities.
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The
plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 Safety Element that would impact police
protection or result in new Police Department facilities.
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The
plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 that would impact schools or result in
new school facilities.
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The
plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
(Sources: 1a, 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 that would impact parks or result in new
park facilities.
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The
plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
(Sources: 1j, 2, 15)
Discussion:
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? X
41 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No impact. The CCAP contains measures that recommend improvements to public buildings, facilities and operations
that are intended to reduce GHG emissions and increase sustainability. The adoption of these policies and programs
would not have a direct impact on public facilities. However, implementing these recommended improvements to
specif ic public buildings or facilities may result in signif icant aesthetic or noise impacts. As no specif ic project or
improvement to a public building or facility is currently proposed, a site-specif ic impact cannot be analyzed. The
individual impacts will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The project would not increase the use of existing parks within the San Rafael Planning Area. As discussed
above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
(Sources: 1j, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. No changes are proposed to the San Raf ael General Plan 2020 that would impact recreational facilities
or result in new recreational facilities.
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The
components contain policies and programs that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
(Sources: 1j, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. No amendments are proposed to the San Rafael General Plan 2020 Circulation Element that would
result in changes to current circulation policies or standards. The proposed CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the
adopted Circulation Element, as it proposes measures to reduce, rather than increase, air quality pollutants and GHG
emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled. The implementation and monitoring of the measures would, over time,
reduce GHG emissions caused by vehicle miles traveled.
XVI. RECREATION
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
X
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
XVII. TRANSPORTATION
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of addressing the
circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
X
42 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
The proposed CCAP 2030 includes recommendations such as improving the pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure,
promoting transient-oriented development, supporting transit services, and encouraging Safe Routes to School
and employee trip reduction programs. These measures which would complement, rather than conflict, with the
transportation policies and programs of the San Rafael General Plan 2020.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analysis), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR
impacts and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would
not: a) result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation
measures f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1a, 1f, 1g, 2, 4, 8, 9, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See response to XVI.a. above. No amendments are proposed to the San Rafael General Plan 2020
Circulation Element that would result in changes to current circulation policies or standards. The proposed CCAP is
projected to decrease vehicle miles traveled as compared to existing conditions and therefore should be presumed to
have a less than significant transportation impact pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1a, 1f, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential f or an increase
in hazards related to a design feature may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered
and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be
assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential for an impact
resulting f rom inadequate emergency access may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are
considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities
will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1, 2, 15)
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X
43 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential f or an adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered
and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be
assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential f or an adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered
and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be
assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
Discussion:
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.
X
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, or wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
X
44 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The CCAP would
not accommodate growth beyond that anticipated by the General Plan . The CCAP does not propose any specific
development projects that would increase wastewater generation, water demand, stormwater runoff , or natural gas
demand. The CCAP contains measures intended to decrease water use (WC-C1 and WC-M1), decrease electricity
and natural gas use (EE-C1, EE-C2, EE-C3, EE-C4, EE-C5, EE-M1, EE-M2, and EE-M3), and reduce stormwater
runoff (SA-c1). Programs to increase adoption of electric vehicles and buses (LCT-C1 and LCT-C5) and to electrify
existing appliances and building heating/ventilation/c ooling systems (RE-C3) would increase electricity demand.
However, the CCAP estimates that the increase in electricity demand from these programs (29 ,061,726 kWh
annually by 2030) would be offset b y the reduction in electricity use from energy efficiency programs identified in
CCAP measure EE-C1 (41,677,625 kWh annually by 2030), thereby creating no additional net increase in electricity
demand.
The proposed CCAP contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential for a
significant effect from the construction of new utilities and service systems may be realized or determined when the
policies or programs are considered and applied on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis, such as the construction
of residential and commercial solar and other renewable energy systems. The individual impacts of these types of
activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1g, 2, 4, 10, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. No activities are proposed that would impact current water supplies or result in in sufficient water supplies .
In fact, the CCAP contains measure WC-C1 that is intended to decrease water use by: promoting water conservation
programs and incentives ; educating residents and business about laws requiring retrofit of non-compliant plumbing
fixtures during remodeling and at resale; ensuring all applicable projects project comply with State and Marin
Municipal Water District regulations; and en couraging the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems
and the use of recycle water. The CCAP also contains measure WC -M1, which would reduce indoor and outdoor
water use in municipal facilities and operations.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 4, 10, 15)
Discussion:
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry
and multiple dry years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
X
45 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No impact. No activities are proposed that would impact current wastewater capacity or result in the need to expand
existing wastewater f acilities. In f act, as described in XIX.b, the CCAP contains measures intended to decrease water
use.
(Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 4, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. No activities are proposed that would generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction .
In f act, the proposed CCAP would be consistent with the adopted Marin County Solid W aste Management Plan, as it
proposes measures to reduce, rather than increase, waste through support of zero waste and related recycling actions.
CCAP measures WR-C1 Commercial Organic Waste, WR-C2 Residential Organic Waste, WR-C3 Construction & Demolition
Debris and Self-Haul Waste, WR-C4 Mandatory Waste Diversion, WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility, WR-M1 Waste
from Public Facilities and WR-M2 Waste from City Operations would reduce the amount of solid waste and divert solid waste
from landfills.
The proposed CCAP contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential to
generate solid waste in excess of the capacity of the local infrastructure may be realized or determined when the
policies or programs are considered and applied on a site -specific or project-specif ic basis, such as the construction
of solid waste processing infrastructure to remove recoverable materials form the waste stream . The individual impacts
of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 4, 11, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. See response to XIX.d above. The CCAP waste reduction measures support State laws by conducting
outreach to businesses subject to AB 1826 (CCAP measure WR-C1) and adopting and ordinance requiring mandatory
subscription to and participation in waste diversion activities, including recycling and organics collection provided by
the City’s waste hauler, Marin Sanitary Service. The CCAP measures support waste reduction targets consistent with
mandates established by SB 1383, i.e., a 50% reduction in the disposal of organic waste by 2020 and a 75% diversion
reduction in the disposal of organic waste by 2030.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
The proposed CCAP 2030 includes recommendations to adopt a Zero W aste Plan, Construction & Demolition Debris
Ordinance, a Multiple Family Residential and Commercial Recycling Ordinance and a Residential Food W aste
Compost Program, which would reduce solid waste production and less reliance on landfill waste disposal.
(Sources: 1g, 1k, 2, 4, 11, 12, 12, 13, 15)
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
X
46 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts that may impair
an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan may be realized or determined when the policies
or programs are considered and applied to a site-specific project or activity. The individual impacts of these types of
activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts associated with
wildfire risks may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered and applied to a project or
activity, on a site-specif ic or project-specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed
at the time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts associated with
fire risks from the installation or maintenance of infrastructure may be realized or determined when the policies or programs
are considered and applied to a site-specific. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the
time of specif ic project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
XX. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would
the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
X
47 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No impact. The project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan contains
measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. Potential environmental impacts associated with
flooding and landslide risks from wildfire may be realized or determined when the policies or programs are considered
and applied to a site-specific. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specific
project review.
(Sources: 1k, 2, 15)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability
element. The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The potential f or an
impact that substantially degrades the quality of the environment or substantially reduces the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species may be realized or determined when the measures are considered and applied on a site-specific or project-
specif ic basis. The individual impacts of these types of activities will be assessed at the time of specif ic project review.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1-20)
Discussion:
No impact. As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element.
The plan contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic. The plan would not result in
impacts that would be cumulatively considerable. In fact, the measures presented i n the proposed CCAP 2030
would ultimately reduce cumulative GHG emissions and pollutants, as required by AB 32, SB 32 and SB 375.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1-20)
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the
range or a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
X
48 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for Adoption of the Climate Change Action Plan 2030
February 22, 2019
Potentially
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Discussion:
As discussed above, the project consists of an update of the CCAP that supports the Sustainability element. The plan
contains measures that are broadly applied citywide and are not site-specif ic.
See discussion in Section D (Environmental Analys is), which summarizes and compares the General Plan EIR impacts
and mitigation measures with this proposed project. This comparison f inds that the proposed project would not: a)
result in an y new impacts; b) increase the severity of impacts; or c) result in new or revised mitigation measures
f rom those presented in the General Plan EIR.
(Sources: 1-20)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
49 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for General Plan Amendment GPA11-001
February 22, 2019
G. SOURCE REFERENCES
The f ollowing is a list of ref erences used in the preparation of this document. Unless attached herein,
copies of all ref erence reports, memorandums and letters are on f ile with the City of San Rafael
Department of Community Development. References to Publications prepared by Federal or State
agencies may be found with the agency responsible f or providing such information.
1 San Rafael General Plan 2020, adopted November 15, 2004, includes following:
a. Land Use
b. Housing
c. Neighborhoods
d. Community Design
e. Economic Vitality
f. Circulation
g. Inf rastructure
h. Governance
i. Culture and Arts
j. Parks and Recreation
k. Safety
l. Noise
m. Open Space
n. Conservation
o. Air and W ater Quality
p. Sustainability
2 San Rafael General Plan 2020 (certif ied) Environmental Impact Report; Nichols-Berman,
Environmental Consultants; August 2004
3 San Rafael Municipal Code
a. Title 14, Zoning; May 1996
b. Title 8, Section 8.13, Noise
c. Title 15, Subdivisions
d. Title 12, Building Regulations
4 Draft San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030
5 San Rafael Historical/Architectural Survey, Charles Hall Page and Associates, Inc. and City of
San Rafael Cultural Affairs Department, updated September 1986.
6 City of San Raf ael Archaeology Sensitivity Map and PastFinder Sensitivity Map System,
adopted October 2001.
7 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), revised
January 3, 1997 and updated May 2009.
8 City of San Raf ael Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan, 2018 Update; adopted 2018
9 FHA’s Non-Motorized Transportation Pilot Program (NTPP); 2009
10 MMW D Ordinance 421 (W ater Conservation); 2010
11 Redwood Landf ill Solid W aste Facilities Permit
12 State of California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection,
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, “Marin County Important Farmland 2016” map
13 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, “Spare the Air Cool the Climate,” Final 2017 Clean Air
Plan, adopted April 19, 2017
14 MCE, 2019 Integrated Resource Plan, approved November 1, 2018
15 General knowledge and inf ormation regarding the San Rafael Planning Area
16 California Air Resources Board, “California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan” November
2017.
50 Addendum (No. 4) to San Rafael General Plan 2020 EIR for General Plan Amendment GPA11-001
February 22, 2019
17 California Department of Finance, “P-1: State Population Projections 2010-2060.”
18 California Department of Transportation, "California County-Level Economic Forecast 2018-
2050," September 2018.
19 Marin Climate and Energy Partnership, “San Rafael Community and Government Operation
Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2016”, December 2018.
20 California Department of Water Resources, SGMA Basin Prioritization Dashboard, Final 2018
(Unmodified Basins), accessed 2/11/19
1
RESOLUTION NO. 14669
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE
SAN RAFAEL CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030 (CITY FILE #P19-003)
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2009, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution
No. 12725 adopting the San Rafael Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP), which included
programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and
WHEREAS, on July 18, 2011, the San Rafael City Council adopted Resolution
No. 13213 adopting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy consistent with the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted Air Quality Guidelines for
administration of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which establish
criteria for analysis of greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with new
development projects; and
WHEREAS, California’s Executive Order S-3-05 established a progressive series
of statewide greenhouse gas reduction targets including a goal to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to reduce emissions to 80 percent below
1990 levels by 2050; and
WHEREAS, in 2006, California adopted the Global Warming Solutions Act
(Assembly Bill 32), which requires the State to reduce statewide greenhouse gas
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, California’s Executive Order B-30-15 set a greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 and reaffirmed the
2050 goal to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; and
WHEREAS, in 2016, California adopted Senate Bill 32, which requires the State
to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by
2030; and
WHEREAS, in November 2017, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
adopted California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, which lays out a strategy to
achieve California’s 2030 greenhouse gas target. In the Scoping Plan, CARB
recommends that local governments adopt greenhouse gas reduction goals that align
with statewide targets for 2030 and 2050 and develop plans to achieve the local goals;
and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows local
governments to use sufficiently detailed and adequately supported greenhouse gas
(GHG) reduction plans to streamline project-level environmental review. Under CEQA,
individual projects that comply with the strategies and actions within an adequate local
GHG reduction plan, including Climate Action Plans, can streamline the project-specific
GHG analysis; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael has prepared the San Rafael Climate Change
Action Plan 2030 (CCAP 2030) as an update of the 2009 Climate Change Action Plan
and the 2011 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy in order to incorporate new
2
information and develop a set of local climate action measures to address the statewide
reduction targets established by Senate Bill 32 and Executive Order B-30-15; and
WHEREAS, the draft CCAP 2030 has been distributed to the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) for review and comment. BAAQMD staff has
reviewed and commented on the strategy, and revisions have been made to address
these comments; and
WHEREAS, following the completion of the draft CCAP 2030, the City
commenced with environmental review of the project. Consistent with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of San Rafael Environmental
Assessment Procedures Manual, the appropriate steps were followed to complete
environmental review of the project. As the quantitative analysis contained in the CCAP
2030 relies on the development projections of the General Plan 2020, the General Plan
2020 certified Final Environmental Impact Report (General Plan 2020 FEIR) was used
as a base for environmental review. “Tiering” from the General Plan 2020 FEIR is
appropriate and consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15152. This review included:
a) review of the General Plan 2020 FEIR to determine if it adequately assesses the
environmental impacts of the project; and b) the preparation of an Initial Study to
determine if the project would result in new significant impacts, an increase in the
severity of the impacts, or new or expanded mitigation measures from those analyzed
and determined in the General Plan 2020 FEIR. As a result of this review, it was
determined that the CCAP 2030 would not result in new significant impacts, an increase
in the severity of impacts, or new or expanded mitigation measures from those analyzed
and determined in the General Plan 2020 FEIR. In fact, the CCAP 2030 would aid in
reducing air pollutants further than those projected in the General Plan 2020 FEIR.
Consequently, an Addendum to the General Plan 2020 FEIR (Addendum No. 4) was
prepared and has been adopted by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which this decision is based is the Community Development
Department;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council adopts the San
Rafael Climate Change Action Plan 2030 dated April 23, 2019 on file in the Community
Development Department. This adoption is based on and supported by the following
findings:
1. The public interest would be served by the adoption of the CCAP 2030 in that
it provides tangible and feasible measures for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in San Rafael. The implementation of the strategy would be in the
best interest of the public and community as it would effectively decrease
greenhouse gas emissions by: a) placing less reliance on the use and
consumption of fossil fuel and non-renewable resources; b) supporting
programs that provide sustainable alternatives to energy use and
consumption; c) reducing vehicle miles by promoting transit-oriented
development and the use of transit, biking, and walking; and d) promoting
support for local-based businesses and activities.
3
2. As drafted, the CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the General Plan 2020,
specifically the Sustainability Element, as it would provide an effective tool for
implementing and monitoring greenhouse gas emissions.
3. The CCAP 2030 has been prepared consistent with the standard elements
and requirements set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 which states
that a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions should: 1) quantify
greenhouse gas emissions, both existing and projected over a specified time
period, resulting from activities within a defined geographic area; 2) establish
a level, based on substantial evidence, below which the contribution to
greenhouse gas emission from activities covered by the plan would not be
cumulatively considerable; 3) identify and analyze the greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from specific actions or categories of actions anticipated
within the geographic area; and 4) specify measures or a group of measures,
including performance standards, that substantial evidence demonstrates if
implemented on a project-by-project basis would collectively achieve the
specified emissions level; and 5) be adopted in a public process following
environmental review.
4. As drafted, the CCAP 2030 would be consistent with the California Global
Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32), Senate Bill 32, and the California
Air Resources Board’s 2017 Scoping Plan as it provides tangible and feasible
measures for achieving the goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by
2020 and 2030 and puts the City on a trajectory to meet the 2050 goal.
I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 6th day of May
2019.
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Bushey, Colin, Gamblin, McCullough & Mayor Phillips
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN
2030
Final Draft
APRIL 23, 2019
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
What’s a Climate Action Plan? .................................................................................................................. 1
Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
What’s Been Done So Far: San Rafael Actions .......................................................................................... 2
Where We Are At: Emissions Trend and Status ........................................................................................ 3
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Targets ............................................................................................... 4
Our Carbon Footprint ................................................................................................................................ 5
State Pillars & Drawdown: Marin .............................................................................................................. 6
Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................... 8
Summary of State Actions ......................................................................................................................... 9
Summary of Local Strategies ................................................................................................................... 10
Section 2: Measures ................................................................................................................................... 11
Local Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 11
Economy and Social Equity ..................................................................................................................... 11
Low Carbon Transportation ........................................................................................................... 13
Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................................................ 18
Renewable Energy .......................................................................................................................... 21
Waste Reduction ............................................................................................................................ 24
Water Conservation ........................................................................................................................ 27
Sequestration and Adaptation ............................................................................................................ 29
Community Engagement ................................................................................................................ 33
Implementation and Monitoring .................................................................................................... 36
Acknowledgments ....................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendices
A: Program Calculations ........................................................................................................................ A-1
B: Implementation Matrix ....................................................................... ..............................................B-1
C: 2009 CCAP Program Status ...............................................................................................................C-1
1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
What’s a Climate Action Plan?
A Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a tool that any organization can use to develop the programs and actions
needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), which are the pollutants that cause climate change.
Generally, these CAPs are focused on this ‘mitigation’ aspect of climate change, but some also lay out a
strategy for ‘adaptation’, or how the organization will plan to deal with the effects of climate change
such as sea level rise, or increased flooding, heat waves, and wildfires. San Rafael’s CAP is called the
Climate Change Action Plan and mainly deals with mitigation.
Background
San Rafael has a rich history of climate action and environmental protection. Mayor Al Boro signed on to
the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement in 2006. The first Climate Change Action Plan was adopted in
2009. San Rafael received the first state-wide Beacon Award for Sustainability by the Institute for Local
Government in 2013. Several hundred citizens volunteer on behalf of the environment each year,
totaling thousands of hours of volunteer work worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in in-kind
contributions. San Rafael has thousands of acres of open space and parks and is a Tree City USA
community. These are just a few of the actions and programs San Rafael has undertaken over the years.
In 2017 the City Council identified updating the Climate Change Action Plan as a high priority in the
annual Sustainability Priorities. A 20-member Green Ribbon Working Group was identified by
Councilmember Kate Colin, the City Manager’s Office, and the President of Sustainable San Rafael. This
Working Group included people from various neighborhoods, businesses, high schools, and
organizations in order to get a diverse set of voices and perspectives. Throughout the year they
participated in a series of meetings with subject matter experts to develop measures for each section of
the Plan. Throughout the summer of 2018, the City solicited input from a variety of community
members through meetings, pop-up events at community gathering spots, online surveys, a business
mixer, and in-person surveys at organizations and activities. This has all been synthesized into the
following Plan.
There is broad scientific agreement that to stave off the worst effects of climate change, communities
will need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 80% below 1990 levels by the year 2050. But time
is of the essence. We are already seeing the effects of climate change locally and throughout the world
with hotter temperatures, more severe storms, and more volatile and unpredictable weather. San
Rafael has met the State GHG reduction target for 2020 and is on track to meet its more stringent local
target by 2020. These emissions come from residents, businesses, and visitors, with only less than 1%
coming from government operations and facilities. Recently, the State of California set interim reduction
2
targets of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 to stay on track. This updated Plan, coming from broad
community input, sets out a road map to do just that. We’re all in this together; we can do this.
San Rafael’s Beacon Award, the first-ever in the State, given by the Institute for Local Government in 2013. 2013
Councilmembers Damon Connolly & Barbara Heller, Mayor Gary Phillips, an d Councilmember Andrew McCullough.
What’s Been Done So Far: San Rafael Actions
San Rafael businesses, agencies, and residents have been at the forefront of mitigation efforts such as
renewable energy, low-carbon transportation, composting, and water conservation. In 2010 Marin Clean
Energy was adopted by the City of San Rafael and most electricity users went immediately to purchasing
50% carbon-free electricity for their homes and businesses. San Rafael was one of the first communities
to participate in curbside recycling thanks to Marin Sanitary Service’s (MSS) forward-thinking owners. In
2014 MSS and Central Marin Sanitation Agency began converting food scraps into energy through their
innovative Food to Energy project. By the end of the 2011-2017 drought, San Rafael water users reduced
their water consumption by an average of approximately 17%. And in 2017, Marin Municipal Water
District began purchasing 100% renewable Deep Green electricity from MCE Clean Energy, which
reduced San Rafael resident and businesses’ water-related greenhouse gas emissions dramatically.
The City of San Rafael has implemented 40 of the 48 measures in the original Climate Change Action
Plan, completing the majority of those that could be completed and moving most of the rest into an
ongoing implementation status. Most measures will need to be continued in order to continue to get
emissions reductions! (See Appendix C for the complete list.)
3
MARIN SANITARY SERVICE’S FOOD TO ENERGY PROGRAM IN CONJUNCTION WITH CENTRAL MARIN SANITATION AGENCY
TURNS FOOD SCRAPS INTO ENERGY AND FUELS 100% OF CMSA’S ELECTRICITY USE.
Where We Are At: Emissions Trend and Status
The City prepares an annual community-wide greenhouse gas inventory to track emissions in seven
sectors: residential energy, commercial energy, transportation, off-road vehicles and equipment, waste,
water and wastewater. As shown in Figure 1, the majority of emissions come from vehicle trips
generated by San Rafael residents and businesses. Community emissions totaled 473,440 metric tons of
carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e) in 2005. By 2016, emissions had dropped to 389,035 MTCO2e, an
18% reduction. This is well below the State target for San Rafael, which is 15% below baseline (2005)
emissions by 2020, and the trendline shows that emissions are on track to meet the City’s local
reduction target of 25% below 2005 levels by 2020. While emissions declined in almost all sectors, the
largest reductions were due to energy conservation and efficiency, a reduction in the carbon intensity of
electricity, and improvements to vehicle fuel efficiency. Emissions from City operations, which make up
less than 1% of community-wide emissions, fell 16% by 2016. For more details, see the City’s latest
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.
4
FIGURE1: COMMUNITY EMISSIONS BY SECTOR, 2016
Emissions Forecast and Reduction Targets
The Climate Change Action Plan includes a “business-as-usual” (BAU) forecast in which emissions are
projected in the absence of any policies or actions that would occur beyond the base year to reduce
emissions. The forecasts are derived by “growing” (increasing) 2016 emissions using forecasted changes
in population, number of households, and jobs according to projections developed by the Association of
Bay Area Governments. Transportation emissions are projected utilizing data provided by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which incorporate the vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
reductions expected from the implementation of Plan Bay Area 2020 and the Regional Transportation
Plan adopted in 2017. Emissions are expected to rise about 2.4% by 2030 and 3.3% by 2040. Although
the regional agencies have not made official projections for 2050, continuing the trendline suggests
emissions would reach approximately 405,530 MTCO2e by 2050 under the BAU forecast.
The Climate Change Action Plan establishes targets similar to the State’s goals to reduce emissions to
40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. In San Rafael, that means emissions
would need to drop to 241,455 MTCO2e by 2030 and 80,485 MTCO2e by 2050. The Plan lays out
measures that will exceed the 2030 target and put the City on a trajectory to meet the 2050 goal. The
community emissions trend, forecast and targets are shown in Figure 2 below.
Non-Residential
Energy
17%
Residential
Energy
17%
Waste
3%
Wastewater
1/2%Off-Road
1%
Water
1/4%
Transportation
62%
5
FIGURE 2: EMISSIONS TREND, FORECAST AND TARGETS
Our Carbon Footprint
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and U.C. Berkeley developed a Consumption-
Based Inventory to better understand how our purchasing habits contribute to global climate change. A
consumption-based inventory includes emission sources that don’t get counted in the typical “in-
boundary” GHG inventory, as well as other items that are difficult to quantify like airplane travel and
upstream emissions from the production, transport and distribution of food and household goods.
Figure 3 shows the results of the consumption-based inventory for San Rafael households. According to
this inventory, the average San Rafael household generates 44 MTCO2e per year. As a comparison, the
City’s community-wide emissions of 389,035 MTCO2e works out to about 17 MTCO2e per household. In
essence, our consumption drives climate change more than anything and although San Rafael is meeting
its state targets for strict “in-boundary” emissions reductions, we as a community have a long way to go.
For more information on this and to see carbon footprints by census tract, visit the SF Bay Area Carbon
Footprint Map. To learn how to measure and reduce your household carbon footprint, check out our
local Resilient Neighborhoods program.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)Year
2050 Target
80% below 1990 levels
2020 Target
25% below 2005 levels
2030 Target
40% below 1990 levels
BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO
ACTUAL EMISSIONS
6
FIGURE 3: AVERAGE SAN RAFAEL HOUSEHOLD CARBON FOOTPRINT
This graph shows the relative impact of all the sources of emissions that make up a
household carbon footprint. Source: CoolClimate Network
State Pillars & DRAWDOWN: Marin
San Rafael doesn’t exist in a vacuum. While we are leveraging or trying to combat regional, state-wide,
national and even international actions and trends, we also have the ability and responsibility to
collaborate with other efforts and campaigns. San Rafael is known for collaborating and it’s our
collective imagination and cooperative efforts that make San Rafael such a successful and wonderful
place to be. If you’ve ever been to a San Rafael City Council meeting or Climate Change Action Plan
quarterly forum you will know this first-hand.
The State of California established the Six Pillars framework in 2015 when Governor Jerry Brown was
inaugurated for his second term as governor. These include (1) reducing today’s petroleum use in cars
and trucks by up to 50%; (2) increasing from one-third to 50% our electricity derived from renewable
sources; (3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing buildings and making heating
fuels cleaner; (4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon, and other short-lived climate
pollutants; (5) managing farm and rangelands, forests and wetlands so they can store carbon; and (6)
periodically updating the state's climate adaptation strategy: Safeguarding California. The measures
contained in this Climate Change Action Plan are designed to support and implement the Six Pillars and
the goals of California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan on a local level.
7
IMAGE: CALIFORNIA’S 6 PILLARS CLIMATE STRATEGY
The County of Marin, noting the need for all residents and businesses to actively reduce emissions and
plan for climate adaptation has created an engagement framework based on the research and book by
local author, entrepreneur, and environmentalist Paul Hawken called DRAWDOWN: Marin.
DRAWDOWN: Marin is a comprehensive, science-based, community-wide campaign to do our part to
slow the impacts of climate change. It is an effort to recognize our need to reduce our "carbon
footprint" and to provide a road map to doing so. Like the State’s Six Pillars, there are six areas of focus:
(1) 100% Renewable Energy, (2) Low-Carbon Transportation, (3) Energy Efficiency in Buildings and
Infrastructure, (4) Local Food and Food Waste, (5) Carbon Sequestration, and (6) Climate Resilient
Communities.
8
IMAGE: DRAWDOWN: MARIN
Actions to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Climate Change Action Plan includes a variety of regulatory, incentive-based and voluntary
strategies that are expected to reduce emissions from both existing and new development in San Rafael.
Several of the strategies build on existing programs while others provide new opportunities to address
climate change. State actions will have a substantial impact on future emissions. Local strategies will
supplement these State actions and achieve additional GHG emissions reductions. Successful
implementation will rely on the combined participation of City staff along with San Rafael residents,
businesses and community leaders.
The following sections identify the State and local strategies included in the Climate Change Action Plan
to reduce emissions in community and government operations. Emissions reductions are estimated for
each strategy; combined, they show that the City could reduce emissions 19% below 1990 levels by
2020 (equivalent to 31% below 2005 levels), and 42% below 1990 levels by 2030, which is enough to
surpass the City and State goals for those years. Community emissions are projected to be 233,920
MTCO2e in 2030 with all State and local actions implemented, while the reduction target is 241,455
MTCO2e.1 As shown in Figure 4, State actions represent about 40% of the reduction expected through
implementation of the Climate Change Action Plan while local actions represent about 60%.
1 Some of the local measures included in the plan – specifically, LCT-C10, EE-C2, EE-C3, EE-C4 and WR-C5 – are
actions that may be taken after additional study and analysis is undertaken. Estimated GHG reductions from these
measures total 5,090 MTCO2e. Excluding these measures results in community emissions of 239,941 MTCO2e in
2030, which is still lower than the reduction target of 241,455 MTCO2e.
9
FIGURE 4: CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Summary of State Actions
The Climate Change Action Plan incorporates State reduction strategies that have been approved,
programmed and/or adopted and will reduce local community emissions from 2016 levels. These
programs require no local actions. As such, the State actions are first quantified and deducted from
projected community emissions in order to provide a better picture of what still needs to be reduced at
the local level to get to the overall reduction targets. State actions and emissions reductions are shown
in Table 1 and detailed in the appendix.
TABLE 1: EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM STATE ACTIONS
State Action Emissions Reductions by 2030
(MTO2e)
Light and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Regulations 56,880
Renewable Portfolio Standard 4,540
Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards 2,870
Lighting Efficiency 980
Residential Solar Water Heaters 30
Total 65,300
Note: Numbers may not total due to rounding.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2e)Year
19% BELOW
1990 LEVELS
42% BELOW
1990 LEVELS
PROJECTED EMISSIONS WITH
STATE ACTIONS
BUSINESS-AS-USUAL SCENARIO
PROJECTED EMISSIONS WITH
STATE AND LOCAL ACTIONS
10
Summary of Local Strategies
The local mitigation measures presented in the following sections, and as summarized in Table 2 below,
achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the community of approximately 37,800 MTCO2e in
2020 and 98,085 MTCO2e in 2030.
TABLE 2: LOCAL EMISSIONS REDUCTION STRATEGIES
Strategy
GHG Reductions by 2030
(MTCO2e) Percent of Reductions
Low Carbon Transportation 37,030 38%
Energy Efficiency 18,280 19%
Renewable Energy 31,925 33%
Waste Reduction 10,025 10%
Water Conservation 830 1%
Sequestration and Adaptation n/a n/a
Community Engagement n/a n/a
Implementation and Monitoring n/a n/a
Total 98,085 100%
Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.
These local strategies will be detailed in the following sections. Together, the projected reductions from
State and local actions total 163,385 MTCO2e by 2030. Community emissions are projected to be
234,850 MTCO2e in 2030 with the full implementation of the CCAP. This is 42% below 1990 levels and
exceeds the reduction target set by the State.
11
SECTION 2: MEASURES
Local Measures to Re duce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Each of the following sections provide a summary table of local measures and associated GHG
reductions, followed by a description of the specific actions the City will undertake to implement each
measure. The methodologies and implementation targets used to calculate emissions reductions are
described in the appendix. Sometimes, there is no direct or reliable way to estimate GHG savings for a
particular measure or the savings are embedded in another measure. In this case, the GHG reduction is
identified as “not applicable” or “n/a.” For example: Community Engagement is essential for success in
many of the measures set forth throughout the Plan but counting savings in this section would then be
double-counting savings from other measures such as those in Low Carbon Transportation or Energy.
People need to know about a program to take advantage of it, but the actual emissions reductions will
come from participating in the program itself. Therefore, the savings is counted for that program.
Economy and Social Equity
Cities deal with a wide array of issues and pressures and must take all these issues into account when
budgeting resources and balancing priorities. Housing, business retention, health and safety, and traffic
congestion are some examples. Climate action can address these problems or make them worse,
depending on how they are approached. A major theme in the Working Group deliberations and
community feedback was around unintended consequences and making sure that measures and
programs benefitted the most, not just a few. Sustainability has been described as a three-legged stool,
pointing to the need to address not just the environment, but the economy and social equity as well.
One definition of social equity is the “just and fair inclusion into a society in which all can participate,
prosper, and reach their full potential” (PolicyLink). Equity is the means to ensure equality for all. An
example of how that might work with climate action measures is with energy efficiency. Giving rebates
to homeowners to swap out inefficient appliances helps reduce energy consumption and therefore
greenhouse gas emissions. But if financial incentives are only available to those with means to purchase
new appliances it leaves out a section of the community without means. Programs such as the Green
and Healthy Homes Initiative acknowledges this and works with landlords to upgrade common areas of
apartment complexes with the commitment to provide free appliance and building envelope upgrades
to renters so that there is a double benefit. First, the property owner can see energy reductions, and
second the renter can not only see energy reductions but can also enjoy a healthier home environment,
often by increasing comfort, decreasing health hazards such as mold, and providing more reliable
appliances.
The economy is the driver of prosperity and equity in a city and provides the revenue necessary for local
government to enact programs that are beneficial to the whole community. Half of our community-
wide emissions come from the business and commercial sector. But increased regulation can have the
unintended consequence of driving up costs, deterring innovation and job growth, and stagnating
12
business development. However, many measures related to climate action can also have significant
return on investment and end up being great business prospects. There is a delicate balance between
mandating, incentivizing, and enabling businesses to reduce greenhouse emissions. On the flip side,
there is great potential to work together to ensure a robust low-carbon economy that creates good jobs
and benefits the whole community. California as a whole is a great example: State emissions have
declined 9% since 2006, while the economy has grown 16%.
Throughout the following measures, care was taken to avoid unintended consequences for our under-
represented and disadvantaged community members, as well as our business sector, and to enhance
the opportunity for equity and prosperity. It is important to consider and include our diverse community
members and business interests in the development and implementation of the measures in this plan.
13
LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION
38% of potential reductions
More than 60% of San Rafael’s community emissions comes from transportation, and up until the recent
commercial success of electric vehicles, it’s been hard to see how we were going to reduce
transportation emissions. Sure, improvements in fuel efficiency have driven emissions down – the
passenger vehicle fleet in Marin County is about 17% more fuel efficient than it was ten years ago – but
vehicle miles traveled by passenger vehicle trips starting and/or ending in San Rafael have actually gone
up about 2% over the same period. Surveys show that alternative transportation rates have hardly
budged over the years, despite improvements in the bicycle and pedestrian network and public
information campaigns to get people to carpool, bicycle, walk and take transit.
All of that is now changing with the viability of zero emission vehicles
(ZEVs), especially here in San Rafael where electricity is pretty clean and
expected to get cleaner. ZEVs include all-battery as well as plug-in
hybrid vehicles. Marin County is a leader in ZEV adoption rates – second
only to Santa Clara County – and ZEVs already comprise about 2% of all
registered passenger vehicles in Marin. Our plan is to increase that rate
to 25% by 2030 by building out the EV charging infrastructure and
encouraging ZEV ownership through incentives, public education, and
development requirements. This is an aggressive target, but one that
complements the State’s goal to put 5 million ZEVs on the road by 2030.
Improvements in battery and charging technology, expected cost
reductions, and automakers’ commitments to significantly expand ZEV
offerings point to an all-electric future. Of course, new cars are typically
out of the reach of low-income household budgets, but programs that
incentivize used EV car purchases and installation of EV chargers in
lower-income neighborhoods can help ensure the benefits of EV
ownership are shared by all. That said, we can’t rely on ZEV’s alone to
meet our transportation reductions; reducing congestion, enabling
better biking and walking opportunities, and incentivizing public transit
all carry co-benefits and can be enjoyed by all.
The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from transportation sources.
What You Can Do
#1 Drive an all-electric or
plug-in hybrid vehicle.
#2 Bike, walk or take
transit whenever possible.
#3 Shut your car off when
waiting in line at the ATM
or school pick up/drop off
lane.
#4 Better yet, have your
child walk or bike to
school.
#5 Use an electric leaf
blower and lawn mower.
14
TABLE 3: LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Reductions
LCT-C1 Zero Emission Vehicles 30,345 83%
LCT-C2 Bicycling 1,910 5%
LCT-C3 Walking 575 2%
LCT-C4 Safe Routes to School 320 1%
LCT-C5 Public Transit 1,035 3%
LCT-C6 Employee Trip Reduction 1,030 3%
LCT-C7 Parking Requirements 55 <1%
LCT-C8 Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling 1,075 3%
LCT-C9 Smart Growth Development n/a* n/a
LCT-C10 Electric Landscape Equipment 110 <1%
TOTAL 36,455 100%
*Emissions reductions due to smart growth development are embedded in vehicle miles traveled projections
utilized in the development of the emissions forecast. In order to avoid double -counting, they are not included here.
LCT-C1: Zero Emission Vehicles
Develop a Zero Emission Vehicle Plan that will result in 25% of passenger vehicles in San Rafael to be
zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), including plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric
vehicles, by 2030. Incorporate the following actions in the plan as feasible:
a. Provide free parking for ZEVs at City parking lots and metered parking spaces.
b. Provide wayfinding signage to public EV chargers.
c. Work with PG&E and other entities to identify multi-family and workplace charging sites
appropriate for available incentive programs, such as EV Charge Network.
d. Participate in a countywide effort by MCE, PG&E and others to provide rebates for new or
used electric vehicles and/or charging stations.
e. Pursue opportunities to expand the City’s EV charging network through innovative
programs, such as installing chargers at existing streetlight locations.
f. Require new and remodeled commercial and multi-family projects to install a minimum
number of electric vehicle chargers for use by employees, customers, and residents.
g. Require new and remodeled single-family and multi-family projects to install electrical
service and conduits for potential electric vehicle use.
h. Consider requiring new and remodeled gas stations to provide EV fast chargers and
hydrogen fueling stations.
i. Participate in regional efforts and grant programs to encourage widespread availability of EV
charging stations.
j. Target policies to support ZEV adoption, including used vehicles, in low income and
disadvantaged communities.
k. Participate in programs to promote EV adoption, including "Drive an EV" events and other
media and outreach campaigns.
15
l. Encourage or require, as practicable, ride hailing and delivery service companies to utilize zero
emission vehicles.
m. Promote adoption of electric bicycles, scooters and motorcycles.
LCT-C2: Bicycling
Encourage bicycling as an alternative to vehicular travel through outreach channels and partner
agencies. Establish and maintain a system of bicycle facilities that are consistent with the City’s Bicycle
and Master Pedestrian Plan and Complete Streets policies.
a. Provide bicycle racks and lockers for public use.
b. Participate in a bike share program.
LCT-C3: Walking
Encourage walking as an alternative to vehicular travel through outreach channels and partner agencies.
Establish and maintain a system of pedestrian facilities that are consistent with the City’s Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan and Complete Streets policies.
LCT-C4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to support the Safe Routes to School Program and strive to increase bicycling, walking,
carpooling, and taking public transit to school.
a. Promote school and student participation.
b. Identify issues associated with unsafe bicycle and pedestrian facilities between neighborhoods
and schools, apply for Safe Routes to School grants, and execute plans to improve pedestrian
and bicycle facilities.
LCT-C5: Public Transit
Support and promote public transit by taking the following actions:
a. Work with Marin Transit and Golden Gate Transit to maximize ridership through expansion
and/or improvement of transit routes and schedules.
b. Work with SMART, TAM, employers and others to provide first and last mile programs to
maximize utilization of the train, including shuttle buses.
c. Support the development of an attractive and efficient multi-modal transit center and provide
safe routes to the transit center that encourage bicycle and pedestrian connections.
d. Support a “Yellow School Bus” program and student use of regular transit to reduce school
traffic.
e. Encourage transit providers, including school buses, to use renewable diesel as a transition fuel
and to purchase electric buses whenever replacing existing buses.
LCT-C6: Employee Trip Reduction
Reduce vehicle miles traveled commuting to work through the following actions:
a. Work with the Transportation Authority of Marin, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission,
and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to promote transportation
demand programs to local employers, including rideshare matching programs, vanpool incentive
programs, emergency ride home programs, telecommuting, transit use discounts and subsidies,
16
showers and changing facilities, bicycle racks and lockers, and other incentives to use
transportation other than single occupant vehicles.
b. Update the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance to reflect the most recent BAAQMD regulations and
to increase the number of employers subject to the ordinance.
c. Embark on a behavior change and educational campaign to encourage employees to reduce
vehicle trips.
LCT-C7: Parking Requirements
Promote a walkable city by reducing parking requirements wherever feasible. Allow new development
in the Downtown area to reduce minimum parking requirements by 20 percent from current levels.
Elsewhere, reduce parking requirements based on robust transportation demand programs and
proximity and frequency of transit services. Encourage unbundling of parking costs.
LCT-C8: Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling
a. Implement signal synchronization to minimize wait times at traffic lights and to reduce congestion
through increased traffic flow.
b. Utilize intelligent traffic management systems to improve traffic flow and guide vehicles to
available parking.
c. Encourage drivers and autonomous vehicles to limit vehicle idling through implementing behavior
change and engagement campaigns.
d. Investigate adopting an ordinance to regulate idling beyond State requirements.
LCT-C9: Smart Growth Development
Prioritize infill, higher density, transit-oriented, and mixed-use development.
LCT-C10: Electric Landscape Equipment. Encourage the use of electric landscape equipment instead of
gasoline-powered equipment through engagement campaigns.
TABLE 4: LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Reductions
LCT-M1 Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles 275 48%
LCT-M2 Low Carbon Fuels 270 47%
LCT-M3 City Employee Commute 20 4%
LCT-M4 Municipal Electric Landscape Equipment 5 1%
TOTAL 570 100%
LCT-M1: Zero and Low Emission City Vehicles
Purchase or lease zero-emission vehicles for the City fleet whenever feasible, and when not, the most
fuel-efficient models available. Promote City adoption and procurement of zero-emission vehicles and
charging infrastructure to the public.
17
LCT-M2: Low Carbon Fuels
Use low-carbon fuel such as renewable diesel as a transition fuel in the City's fleet and encourage the
City's service providers to do the same, until vehicles are replaced with zero-emissions vehicles.
LCT-M3: City Employee Commute
Continue to provide City employees with incentives and/or reduce barriers to use alternatives to single
occupant auto commuting, such as transit use discounts and subsidies, bicycle facilities, showers and
changing facilities, ridesharing services, vanpools, emergency ride home service, flexible schedules, and
telecommuting when practicable.
LCT-M4: Municipal Electric Landscape Equipment
Replace gas-powered leaf blowers and other landscape equipment with electric models.
18
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
19% of potential reductions
Increasing the efficiency of buildings is often the most cost-effective approach for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency upgrades, such as adding insulation and sealing heating
ducts, have demonstr ated energy savings of up to 20 percent , while more aggressive “whole house”
retrofits can result in even grea ter energy savings. Many “low -hanging fruit” improvements can be
made inexpensively and without remodeling yet can be extremely
cost-efficient, such as swapping out incandescent bulbs to LED bulbs ,
sealing air leaks , and installing a programmable thermostat. Energy
Star-certified appliances and office equipment , high-efficiency
heating and air conditioning systems, and high-efficiency windows
not only save energy but reduce operating costs in the long run.
Nonetheless, some upgrades can be expensi ve, particularly for low -
income households, so the City participates in programs that provide
rebates, free energy audits, and financing options for residents and
businesses.
New construction techniques and building materials, known
collectively as “green building,” can significantly reduce the use of
resources and energy in homes and commercial buildings. Green
construction methods can be integrated into buildings at any stage,
from design and construction to renovation and deconstruction. The
State of California requires green building energy-efficiency through the
Title 24 Building codes. The State updates these codes approximately
every three years, with increasing energy efficiency requirements since
2001. The State’s energy efficiency goals are to have all new residential
construction to be zero net electricity by 2020 and all new residential
and commercial construction to be zero net energy by 2030. Local
governments can accelerate this target by adopting energy efficiency
standards for new construction and remodels that exceed existing State
mandates, or by providing incentives, technical assistance, and
streamlined permit processes to enable quicker adoption.
The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions in the built environment.
What You Can Do
#1 Replace indoor and
outdoor lights with LED
bulbs, and turn them off
when not in use.
#2 Have an energy
assessment done for your
home or business.
#3 Upgrade insulation,
seal leaks, and install a
programmable
thermostat.
#4 Purchase Energy Star
appliances and
equipment.
#5 Unplug electronic
appliances when not in
use and set the
thermostat to use less
heat and air conditioning.
19
TABLE 5: ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Reductions
EE-C1 Energy Efficiency Programs 17,335 96%
EE-C2 Energy Audits 260 1%
EE-C3 Cool Pavement and Roofs 275 2%
EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code 225 1%
EE-C5 Streamline Permit Process and Provide
Technical Assistance n/a n/a
TOTAL 18,095 100%
EE-C1: Energy Efficiency Programs
Promote and expand participation in residential and commercial energy efficiency programs.
a. Work with organizations and agencies such as the Marin Energy Watch Partnership, the Bay Area
Regional Network, Resilient Neighborhoods, and the Marin Climate & Energy Partnership to
promote and implement energy efficiency programs and actions.
b. Continue and expand participation in energy efficiency programs such as Energy Upgrade
California, California Energy Youth Services, and Smart Lights.
c. Promote utility, state, and federal rebate and incentive programs.
d. Participate and promote financing and loan programs for residential and non-residential projects
such as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs, PG&E on-bill repayment, and California
Hub for Energy Efficiency Financing (CHEEF) programs.
EE-C2: Energy Audits
Investigate requiring energy audits for residential and commercial buildings prior to completion of sale,
including identification of cost savings from energy efficiency measures and potential rebates and
financing options.
EE-C3: Cool Pavement and Roofs
Use high albedo material for roadways, parking lots, sidewalks and roofs to reduce the urban heat island
effect and save energy.
a. Evaluate the use of high albedo pavements when resurfacing City streets or re-roofing City
facilities.
b. Encourage new development to use high albedo material for driveways, parking lots, walkways,
patios, and roofing through engagement and behavior change campaigns.
EE-C4: Green Building Reach Code
Investigate adopting a green building ordinance for new and remodeled commercial and residential
projects that requires green building methods and energy efficiency savings above the State building
and energy codes. Consider utilizing the County's green building ordinance as a model and including the
use of photovoltaic systems and all-electric building systems as options to achieve compliance.
20
EE-C5: Streamline Permit Process and Provide Technical Assistance
Analyze current green building permit and inspection process to eliminate barriers and provide technical
assistance to ensure successful implementation of green building requirements. Work county-wide to
make it easier for contractors and building counter staff to simplify applications and identify incentives.
TABLE 6: ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Reductions
EE-M1 Streetlights 110 58%
EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits 45 23%
EE-M3 Energy Conservation 35 19%
TOTAL 185 100%
EE-M1: Streetlights
Complete replacement of inefficient street, parking lot and other outdoor lighting with LED fixtures.
EE-M2: Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits
Work with the Marin Energy Management Team to identify and implement energy efficiency projects in
municipal buildings and facilities and electrification of existing building systems and equipment that use
natural gas.
EE-M3: Energy Conservation
Reduce energy consumption through behavioral and operational changes.
a. Establish energy efficiency protocols for building custodial and cleaning services and other
employees, including efficient use of facilities, such as turning off lights and computers,
thermostat use, etc.
b. Incorporate energy management software, electricity monitors, or other methods to monitor
energy use in municipal buildings.
c. Investigate 9/80 work schedule for City facilities where feasible and where facilities can be shut
down entirely.
21
RENEWABLE ENERGY
33% of potential reductions
Energy that comes from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, and small hydroelectric,
are the cleanest and most-environmentally friendly energy sources. Here in San Rafael, where there is
an abundance of sunny days, solar energy is a particularly good energy
source. According to Project Sunroof, 94% of San Rafael buildings have
roofs that are solar-viable. These 14,700 roofs could generate over 470
million kWh per year, which is more than the total electricity usage in
San Rafael in 2016. Solar system costs keep falling, too, which make
them an attractive option for home and commercial building owners.
Our Climate Change Action Plan projects that we can get about 24% of
our electricity from locally produced solar energy systems by 2030, up
from about 4% currently, just by maintaining the current growth rate.
When solar is not an option, due perhaps to a shady roof or a reluctant
landlord, residents and business owners can purchase 100% renewable
electricity from MCE Clean Energy and PG&E. MCE and PG&E electricity
have a high percentage of renewable and GHG-free content, which
means it’s some of the cleanest electricity in the country. What’s more,
MCE’s goal is provide 100% renewable and GHG-free electricity to all its
customers by 2025. Considering that MCE currently carries about two-
thirds of the total electricity load in San Rafael, that action alone will
significantly reduce emissions.
Since our electricity is so clean, and getting cleaner, it’s a great idea to
swap out appliances and heating and cooling systems that use natural
gas for ones that use electricity. If you’re constructing a new home or building, consider going all-
electric. Battery prices are falling, and will soon be a cost-effective option, too. Eventually, we’ll need to
replace the majority of natural gas appliance and equipment if we’re going to hit our long-term goals.
Fortunately, ongoing research and development of energy storage systems are creating new business
opportunities and making an all-electric, 100% renewable future possible.
The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from energy use.
What You Can Do
#1 Switch to MCE Deep
Green or PG&E Solar
Choice 100% renewable
electricity option.
#2 Install a solar energy
system on your home or
business.
#3 Replace appliances that
use natural gas for ones
that use electricity.
#4 Investigate electric hot
water heaters and heat
pumps so you can swap
out heaters and furnaces
that use natural gas when
it’s time to replace them.
22
TABLE 7: RENEWABLE ENERGY MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Reductions
RE-C1 Renewable Energy Generation 10,940 35%
RE-C2 GHG-Free Electricity 19,560 62%
RE-C3 Building and Appliance Electrification 895 3%
RE-C4 Innovative Technologies n/a n/a
TOTAL 31,415 100%
RE-C1: Renewable Energy Generation
Accelerate installation of residential and commercial solar and other renewable energy systems.
a. Provide permit streamlining and reduce or eliminate fees, as feasible.
b. Amend building codes, development codes, design guidelines, and zoning ordinances, as necessary,
to facilitate small, medium, and large-scale installations.
c. Encourage installation of solar panels on carports and over parking areas on commercial projects
and large-scale residential developments through ordinance, engagement campaigns, or agency
incentives.
d. Participate and promote financing and loan programs for residential and non-residential projects such
as Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs and California Hub for Energy Efficiency Financing
(CHEEF) programs.
e. Encourage installation of battery storage in conjunction with renewable energy generation projects
through engagement campaigns and partner agency incentives.
RE-C2: GHG-Free Electricity
Encourage residents and businesses to switch to 100 percent renewable electricity (MCE Deep Green,
MCE Local Sol, and PG&E Solar Choice) through engagement campaigns and partner agency incentives
and work with MCE Clean Energy to assure that it reaches its goal to provide electricity that is 100
percent GHG-free by 2025.
RE-C3: Building and Appliance Electrification
Promote electrification of building systems and appliances that currently use natural gas, including
heating systems, hot water heaters, stoves, and clothes dryers.
RE-C4: Innovative Technologies
Investigate and pursue innovative technologies such as micro-grids, battery storage, and demand-
response programs that will improve the electric grid’s resiliency and help to balance demand and
renewable energy production.
23
TABLE 8: RENEWABLE ENERGY MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Reductions
RE-M1 Solar Energy Systems 140 28%
RE-M2 Deep Green Electricity 365 72%
TOTAL 505 100%
RE-M1: Solar Energy Systems for Municipal Buildings
Install solar energy systems at municipal buildings and facilities where feasible and investigate and
pursue innovative technologies such as battery storage and demand response programs.
RE-M2: Municipal Deep Green Electricity
Continue to purchase MCE Deep Green electricity for all City facilities.
24
WASTE REDUCTION
10% of potential reductions
The things we buy, consume, and throw away generate a lot of
greenhouse gas emissions during manufacturing, transport, distribution
and disposal. The best way to reduce emissions is to purchase and
consume less stuff in the first place, and then find someone who can
reuse whatever you no longer need before considering recycling or
disposal.
Due to the way we account for community emissions, our Climate
Change Action Plan does not take credit for reducing upstream
emissions. Instead, our GHG accounting is directly concerned with
emissions that are created from the anaerobic decomposition of
organic waste in the landfill. The decomposition process creates
methane, which is 28 time more potent as a greenhouse gas than
carbon dioxide. Although landfills capture most of the methane, and
some like Redwood Landfill use that methane to create biogas or
electricity, about one-quarter of it escapes into the atmosphere.
The good news is that it is relatively easy to divert organic material
from the landfill. Paper and cardboard can be recycled. Food scraps,
some paper (like napkins and paper towels), and yard waste can be
composted, either at home or at the landfill. Surplus food can be donated to non-profits that distribute
it to the needy. About half of the organic material that is put into the landfill is “recoverable.” The
measures below are geared to making that happen by 2030, starting with encouraging residents and
businesses to divert, recycle and compost organic waste. To meet our diversion target, the City will
consider adopting an ordinance that mandates recycling and, as a last resort, setting trash collection
fees that enable the waste hauler to invest in machinery that can sort trash and recover all compostable
and recyclable materials before they are sent to the landfill.
The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from waste.
What You Can Do
#1 Buy only as much as
you need.
#2 Buy locally grown food
and eat less meat.
#3 Put your food scraps in
the green can and/or
compost them at home.
#4 Donate extra food and
used clothing and
housewares to charities.
#5 Don’t be a “wishful”
recycler. Be scrupulous
about how you sort your
recyclables.
25
TABLE 9: WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Reductions
WR-C1 Commercial Organic Waste 1,505 16%
WR-C2 Residential Organic Waste 795 8%
WR-C3 C&D and Self-Haul Waste 170 2%
WR-C4 Mandatory Waste Diversion 2,990 31%
WR-C5 Waste Processing Infrastructure 4,220 44%
WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility n/a n/a
WR-C7 Inorganic Waste n/a n/a
TOTAL 9,680 100%
WR-C1: Commercial Organic Waste
Work with Zero Waste Marin, Marin Sanitary Service, and non-profits such as Extra Food to divert
commercial organic waste from the landfill through recycling, composting, and participation in waste-to-
energy and food recovery programs.
a. Conduct outreach and education to businesses subject to State organic waste recycling
mandates (AB 1826) and encourage or enforce compliance with the law.
b. Refer new and major remodel commercial and multi-family residential project proposals to the
City's waste hauler for review and comment and require projects to provide adequate waste
and recycling facilities and access as feasible.
c. Encourage and facilitate commercial and multi-family property owners to require responsible
use of on-site recycling facilities in lease and rental agreements and to train and regularly
evaluate janitorial, landscape, and other property management services.
WR-C2: Residential Organic Waste
Work with Zero Waste Marin, Marin Sanitary Service, and other organizations to educate and motivate
residents to utilize curbside collection services and home composting for food waste.
WR-C3: Construction & Demolition Debris and Self-Haul Waste
Require all loads of construction & demolition debris and self-haul waste to be processed for recovery of
materials as feasible. Investigate creation of an ordinance requiring deconstruction of buildings
proposed for demolition or remodeling when materials of significant historical, cultural, aesthetic,
functional or reuse value can be salvaged.
WR-C4: Mandatory Waste Diversion
Adopt an ordinance requiring mandatory subscription to and participation in waste diversion activities,
including recycling and organics collection provided by Marin Sanitary Service. Consider including
phased implementation of the ordinance, penalties, and practical enforcement mechanisms.
26
WR-C5: Waste Processing Infrastructure
Review and revise the City’s franchise agreement with Marin Sanitary Service to ensure waste reduction
and diversion targets are met. Conduct a feasibility study and consider investing in new solid waste
processing infrastructure to remove recoverable materials (recycling and organics) from the waste
stream and reduce contamination. Require regular residential and commercial waste audits and waste
characterization studies to identify opportunities for increased diversion and to track progress in
meeting targets.
WR-C6: Extended Producer Responsibility. Encourage the State to regulate the production and
packaging of consumer goods and take-back programs. Encourage on-demand delivery services like
Amazon and Blue Apron to reduce packaging waste and investigate requirements and incentives for
same through ordinance or engagement campaigns.
WR-C7: Inorganic Waste. Promote reuse, repair, and recycling of inorganic materials, and encourage
reduced use of packaging and single use items through engagement campaigns. Investigate supporting a
local building material reuse center.
TABLE 10: WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of Reductions
WR-M1 Waste from Public Facilities 260 76%
WR-M2 Waste from City Operations 85 24%
TOTAL 345 100%
WR-M1: Waste from Public Facilities
Increase opportunities for recycling, reuse, and composting at City facilities.
WR-M2: Waste from City Operations
Embark on an educational and social marketing-based campaign to increase recycling, composting,
reuse, and waste reduction within municipal operations. Conduct periodic waste audits of City facilities
to understand where opportunities for increased diversion lie and to track progress.
27
WATER CONSERVATION
1% of potential reductions
San Rafael is no stranger to periodic droughts and the need to conserve water, and the community has
responded by reducing per capita water use by about 25%, from 152 gallons per person per day (gpcd)
in 2005 to 114 gpcd in 2016. In addition to installing low-flow fixtures (showerheads, faucets and
toilets) and water-efficient appliances (clothes washers and dishwashers), residents and businesses are
planting native, drought-tolerant species and even replacing lawns with attractive, low-water use
gardens. Good thing, because as temperatures continue to rise, we will experience more droughts and
more intense heat waves than before.
Our Greenhouse Gas Inventory counts emissions that are generated
from the energy used to pump, treat and convey water from the water
source to San Rafael water users. Far more emissions are created from
the energy that is used to heat water, but those emissions are counted
in the residential and commercial sectors. Therefore, the water sector
comprises a much smaller share of community emissions than one
might expect.
The water agencies that supply San Rafael’s water are committed to
using 100% renewable energy in their operations. Marin Municipal
Water District (MMWD) began purchasing Deep Green electricity from
MCE in 2017, and Sonoma County Water Agency, which provides 20-
25% of MMWD’s water, started purchasing 100% renewable electricity
in 2015. As a result, emissions from the water sector will go down to
nearly zero, but the overall contribution to community emissions
reduction is small.
The City will take the following actions to reduce emissions from water use.
What You Can Do
#1 Replace your lawn with
a drought-tolerant garden.
#2 Install a drip irrigation
system and check it
regularly for leaks.
#3 Install low water flow
faucets, showerheads and
toilets.
#4 Buy water-efficient
dishwashers and clothes
washers when it’s time to
replace them.
28
TABLE 11: WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Reductions
WC-C1 Community Water Use 830 100%
WC-C1: Community Water Use
Reduce indoor and outdoor water use in residential and commercial buildings and landscaping.
a. Work with Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD) and other organizations to promote water
conservation programs and incentives.
b. Educate residents and businesses about local and State laws requiring retrofit of non-compliant
plumbing fixtures during remodeling and at resale.
c. Ensure all projects requiring building permits, plan check, or design review comply with State
and MMWD regulations.
d. Encourage the installation of greywater and rainwater collection systems and the use of
recycled water where available through ordinance or engagement campaigns.
TABLE 12: WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES TO REDUCE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS EMISSIONS
ID Measure GHG Reduction by 2030
(MTCO2e)
Share of
Reductions
WC-M1 Municipal Water Use <1 100%
WC-M1: Municipal Water Use
Reduce indoor and outdoor water use in municipal facilities and operations.
a. Replace high water use plants and inefficient irrigation systems with water-efficient landscaping.
b. Investigate synthetic turf that uses organic infill for ball fields and parks to reduce water, herbicide
use, and maintenance costs, while increasing field use throughout the year.
c. Replace inefficient plumbing fixtures with high-efficiency fixtures.
d. Use recycled water as available and practicable.
29
SEQUESTRATION AND ADAPTATION
California is already experiencing the effects of climate change. Every year, it seems like the news gets
grimmer: more wildfires, more heat waves, longer droughts, more intense storms, less snow pack, and
less fresh water. Annual average air temperatures have already increased by about 1.8 °F in California,
and that number will likely double even if the world can reduce emissions 80% by 2050. San Rafael
needs to be prepared for the likely impacts of climate change, including flooding from more intense
storms and sea level rise, health impacts from heat exposure and poor air quality, and safety risks from
the increased likelihood of wildfires and landslides.
Sea level rise is a particular concern to San Rafael, where many homes,
businesses, and industrial and recreational facilities are at risk for
flooding. Sea level has already risen 8” in San Francisco Bay and is
expected to rise another 10 inches by 2040. Within this short time
period, the Canal area, the Kerner Business District, and other shoreline
development will likely experience tidal flooding. The Canal
neighborhood residents, the majority of whom are lower-income and
Latino, will be some of the first people impacted by sea level rise at
their front doors.
Storm surges coupled with a 10” sea level rise could flood a greater
area – up to 10% of San Rafael’s land area – including Peacock Gap and
the industrial and commercial area of Anderson Drive. By the end of the
century, sea level is projected to rise 2.4 to 3.4 feet, and possibly as
much as 5 feet. At the higher end, nearly 2,500 buildings, or 13% of all
San Rafael buildings, could face some level of tidal flooding. A
comprehensive assessment of San Rafael’s vulnerable assets was
completed in 2017. For more information, see the Marin Shoreline Sea Level Rise Assessment. While
the Climate Change Action Plan contains some measures that address adaptation, a more complete set
of goals, policies and programs are contained in the San Rafael Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and will be
incorporated in the City’s updated General Plan.
In addition to adaptation strategies, this section contains measures to sequester carbon dioxide through
planting and preservation of trees and other vegetation and the development of carbon-rich soils.
Carbon offsets are often used to fund these types of carbon sequestration projects and can be
purchased to offset emissions that are difficult to otherwise mitigate, such as airplane flights. We
haven’t credited emission reductions for these actions because we don’t count sequestered carbon in
the community greenhouse gas inventory, but we recognize that sequestration is a critical component
to meeting our carbon reduction goals.
The City will take the following actions to sequester carbon dioxide and adapt to climate change.
What You Can Do
#1 Plant trees appropriate
to your situation.
#2 Add compost to your
soil.
#3 Purchase carbon
offsets for airplane flights
and other emissions that
are difficult to mitigate.
#4 Find out if your home
or business is vulnerable
to sea level rise at Our
Coast Our Future.
30
TABLE 13: SEQUESTRATION AND ADAPTATION MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
ID Measure
SA-C1 Urban Forest
SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration
SA-C3 Carbon Offsets
SA-C4 Sea Level Rise
SA-C5 Climate Change Adaptation
SA-C1: Urban Forest
Increase carbon sequestration and improve air quality and natural cooling through increasing tree cover
in San Rafael.
a. Plant additional trees on City-owned land, including public parks, open space, medians, and
rights of way, where feasible.
b. Review parking lot landscape standards to maximize tree cover, size, growth, and sequestration
potential.
c. Regulate and minimize removal of large trees and require planting of replacement trees.
d. Require that the site planning, construction and maintenance of new development preserve
existing healthy trees and native vegetation on site to the maximum extent feasible. Replace
trees and vegetation not able to be saved.
e. Encourage community members to plant trees on private land. Consider creating a tree
giveaway event or providing lower-cost trees to the public through a bulk purchasing program.
f. Encourage the creation of community gardens on public and private lands by community
groups.
g. Provide information to the public, including landscape companies, gardeners and nurseries, on
carbon sequestration rates, drought tolerance, and fire resistance of different tree species.
h. Manage trees and invasive species in the open space for forest health and reduction of fuel
load.
i. Require new development, redevelopment, and infrastructure projects to implement best
management practices as feasible, including low-impact development techniques, the minimal
use of non-pervious surfaces in landscape design, and the integration of natural features into
the project design, to naturally filter and biodegrade contaminants and to minimize surface
runoff into drainage systems and creeks.
SA-C2: Carbon Sequestration
Increase carbon sequestration in the built environment, developed landscapes, and natural areas.
a. Encourage use of building materials that store carbon, such as wood and carbon-intensive
concrete through agency partnerships and engagement campaigns.
b. Encourage and support composting to develop healthy, carbon-rich soils.
c. Manage parks and open spaces to steadily increase carbon in vegetation and soil.
d. Increase the extent and carbon sequestration potential of bay wetlands, through improvements
such as horizontal levees.
31
SA-C3: Carbon Offsets
Reduce the impact of greenhouse gas emissions through the purchase of carbon offsets.
a. Encourage community members to purchase carbon offsets to reduce their carbon footprint
through engagement campaigns.
b. Consider partnering with a local non-profit organization to promote a carbon offset program.
c. Focus on offsetting emissions that are difficult to mitigate otherwise, such as airplane travel.
SA-C4: Sea Level Rise
Prepare for and adapt to a rising sea level.
a. Consider the potential for sea level rise when processing development applications that might
be affected by such a rise. Use current Flood Insurance Rate Maps and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recommendations associated with base flood elevation
adjustments for sea level rise in the review of development proposals. Adopt requirements to
assess sea level rise risks on new development, infrastructure, and transit corridors.
b. Prepare a guidance document for incorporating sea level rise into the City’s capital planning
process.
c. Work with local, County, state, regional, and federal agencies with Bay and shoreline oversight
and with owners of critical infrastructure and facilities in the preparation of a plan for
responding to rising sea levels. Make sure all local stakeholders are kept informed of such
planning efforts.
d. Investigate developing flood control projects and modifying the City’s land use regulations for
areas subject to increased flooding from sea level rise.
e. Update GIS (Geographic Information System) maps to include new data as it becomes available;
utilize GIS as a tool for tracking sea level rise and flooding and make available to the public.
f. Study the creation of a Bayfront overlay zone or similar that would establish standards for
developing in areas subject to flooding from SLR.
SA-C5: Climate Change Adaptation
Prepare for and respond to the expected impacts of climate change.
a. Continue to incorporate the likelihood of sea level rise and increased risk of wildfire and
extreme heat and storm events in the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.
b. Incorporate the likelihood of climate change impacts into City emergency planning and training.
c. Coordinate with water districts, wildlife agencies, flood control and fire districts, Marin County,
and other relevant organizations to develop a comprehensive plan addressing climate change
impacts and adaptation strategies. Address human health and the health and adaptability of
natural systems, including the following:
• Water resources, including expanded rainwater harvesting, water storage and conservation
techniques, water reuse, water‐use and irrigation efficiency, and reduction of impervious
surfaces.
• Biological resources, including land acquisition, creation of marshlands/wetlands as a buffer
against sea level rise and flooding, and protection of existing natural barriers.
32
• Public health, including heat‐related health plans, vector control, air quality, safe water, and
improved sanitation.
• Environmental hazard defenses, including seawalls, storm surge barriers, pumping stations,
and fire prevention and suppression.
d. Ensure fair and robust inclusion of lower-income households and our diverse communities in the
planning and response to climate change impacts, including sea level rise, wildfire, public health,
and emergency preparedness.
33
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
The Climate Action Plan contains actions that the City can undertake to reduce its own emissions by
about 1,500 MTCO2e, bringing the emissions from municipal operations down to 56% below 2005 levels.
However, since emissions from governmental operations make up less than 1% of community-wide
emissions, that is just a drop in the bucket.
The fact is that our residents, businesses, workers, and visitors will have
to do their part to ensure we meet our reduction targets. The City can
compel some of these actions by adopting ordinances and building
regulations, but much of the success of our plan will depend on
informing our community members and encouraging them to take
action on their own. This section details the ways in which the City will
seek public engagement and work with local businesses and community
groups to achieve the emissions reductions identified for measures in
other sections of the Plan.
The City has been partnering with Resilient Neighborhoods since 2009
to educate San Rafael residents on ways they can reduce their carbon footprint. The program organizes
Climate Action Teams of up to 12 households that meet five times over two months to learn about
strategies and resources to improve home energy efficiency, shift to renewable energy, use low-carbon
transportation, conserve water, reduce waste, and adapt to a changing climate. To start, participants
calculate their household carbon footprint and then take actions to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions by at least 5,000 pounds or 25%. Over 350 San Rafael residents have participated in the
program.
The City will take the following actions to engage the community to reduce emissions.
TABLE 14: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
ID Measure
CE-C1 Community Education
CE-C2 Community Engagement
CE-C3 Advocacy
CE-C4 Innovation and Economic Development
CE-C5 Green Businesses
What You Can Do
#1 Sign up for Resilient
Neighborhoods and join a
Climate Action Team.
#2 Commit to reducing
your carbon footprint by
taking the actions
identified in this Plan.
34
CE-C1: Community Education
Work with community-based outreach organizations, such as Resilient Neighborhoods, to educate and
motivate community members on ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in their homes, businesses,
transportation modes, and other activities.
CE-C2: Community Engagement
Implement a communitywide public outreach and behavior change campaign to engage residents,
businesses, and consumers around the impacts of climate change and the ways individuals and
organizations can reduce their GHG emissions and create a more sustainable, resilient, and healthier
community. Create an overarching theme to articulate a long-term goal, motivate community members,
and brand a comprehensive suite of GHG-reduction programs. Prioritize promotion of programs that
have the greatest greenhouse gas reduction potential while utilizing the latest social science on behavior
change. Emphasize and encourage citizens' involvement in reaching the community's climate goals,
including innovative means of tracking milestones and comparing San Rafael's performance with other
communities and with state, national and global benchmarks.
a. Conduct outreach to a wide variety of neighborhood, business, educational, faith, service, and
social organizations.
b. Conduct outreach and education to the Latino community by using media, organizations, and
gathering places favored by Latinos and translating materials into Spanish.
c. Inform the public about the benefits of installing energy and water efficient appliances and
fixtures, electrifying homes and commercial buildings, installing solar energy systems, and
purchasing 100% renewable electricity.
d. Inform the public about the benefits of using carbon-free and low-carbon transportation modes,
such as driving electric vehicles, walking, bicycling, taking public transportation, and ridesharing.
e. Utilize and tailor existing marketing materials when available.
f. Inform the public about the environmental benefits of eating less meat and dairy products,
growing food at home, and purchasing locally-produced food.
g. Partner with MCE, PG&E, MMWD, Marin Sanitary Service, Transportation Authority of Marin,
Marin Transit, Golden Gate Transit, SMART, and other entities to promote available financing,
audits, rebates, incentives, and services to the San Rafael community.
h. Utilize the City's website, newsletters, social media, bill inserts, public service announcements
and advertisements, recognition programs, and other forms of public outreach.
i. Create stories and “shareable content” that can be used by bloggers, businesses, non-profits,
social media, and traditional media.
j. Use creative methods to engage the public, such as games, giveaways, prizes, contests, simple
surveys, digital tools, and “pop-up” events.
k. Develop pilot programs using community-based social marketing and other social science-based
techniques to effect behavior change.
l. Participate in countywide outreach and education efforts, such as Drawdown Marin.
35
CE-C3: Advocacy
Advocate at the state and federal levels for policies and actions that support the rapid transition to
GHG-free energy sources, electrification of buildings and the transportation fleet, and other impactful
measures to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
CE-C4: Innovation and Economic Development
Convene an economic development and innovation working group to explore public-private
partnerships and develop ways to decarbonize our local economy while spurring sustainable enterprise
and equitable employment.
CE-C5: Green Businesses
Encourage local businesses to participate in the Marin County Green Business Program through
partnerships with the County, Chamber, and other business groups.
36
IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
Plans are only effective if they’re implemented and results are carefully
evaluated. The City will prepare an annual assessment of the progress it is
making on implementing the measures contained in this Climate Change
Action Plan and continue to quantify community and greenhouse gas
emissions to determine if we are on track to meet our reduction targets.
The City will take the following actions to implement and monitor the
Climate Change Action Plan.
TABLE 15: IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING MEASURES TO REDUCE COMMUNITY EMISSIONS
ID Measure
IM-C1 Annual Monitoring
IM-C2 Update GHG Emissions Inventories
IM-C3 Funding Sources
IM-C4 Update the Climate Change Action Plan
IM-C5 Project Compliance Checklist
IM-C1: Annual Monitoring
Monitor and report on the City’s progress annually. Create an annual priorities list for implementation.
IM-C2: Update GHG Emissions Inventories
Update the greenhouse gas emissions inventory for community emissions annually and every five years
for government operations.
IM-C3: Funding Sources
Identify funding sources for recommended actions, and pursue local, regional, state and federal grants
as appropriate. Investigate creation of a local carbon fund or other permanent source of revenue to
implement the Climate Change Action Plan.
IM-C4: Update the Climate Change Action Plan
Update the Climate Change Action Plan regularly to incorporate new long-term reduction targets and
strategies to meet those targets.
IM-C5: Project Compliance Checklist
Develop a project compliance checklist to use when reviewing development proposals, use permit
applications, and building permit applications to ensure compliance with Climate Action Plan measures.
What You Can Do
#1 Get involved! Attend City
Council meetings, Climate
Action Plan implementation
forums, and other public
forums to voice your
support for actions
contained in this Plan.
37
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City Council
Gary Phillips, Mayor
Kate Colin, Sustainability Liaison
Maribeth Bushey
John Gamblin
Andrew McCullough
Green Ribbon Working Group
Ana Ostrovsky
Anahi Mendieta
Bill Carney
Bob Miller
Cameron Evans
Charlotte Kamman
Chris Yalonis
Eleanor Huang
Jan Goldberg
Jerry Belletto
Jesse Madsen
Jocelyn Tsai
Kay Karchevski
Kif Scheuer
Maite Duran
Pam Reaves
Sarah Loughran
Tim Gilbert
City Staff
Bill Guerin, Public Works Director
Cory Bytof, Sustainability & Volunteer Coordinator
Cristine Alilovich, Assistant City Manager
Danielle O’ Leary, Economic Development Director
David Catalinotto, Environmental Management
Coordinator
Jim Schutz, City Manager
Paul Jensen, Community Development Director
Rebecca Woodbury, Digital Services & Open
Government Director
Savannah Guinn, Planning Intern
Thomas Wong, Junior Engineer, Public Works
Subject Matter & Resource Advisors
Alice Zanmiller, County of Marin
Carleen Cullen, Drive Clean Marin
Carrie Pollard, Sonoma County Water Agency
Chelsea Carey, Point Blue Conservation Science
Dana Armanino, County of Marin
Dara Rossoff-Powell, Resilient Neighborhoods
Derek McGill, Transportation Authority of Marin
Douglas Mundo, Multicultural Center of Marin
Ellie Cohen, Point Blue Conservation Science
Garth Schultz, R3 Consulting Group
Greg Van Trump, Marin Municipal Water District
J.R. Killigrew, MCE Clean Energy
Joanne Webster, San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce
Kim Scheibly, Marin Sanitary Service
Kristen Dybala, Point Blue Conservation Science
Libby Porzig, Point Blue Conservation Science
Omar Carrera, Canal Alliance
Scott McDonald, Transportation Authority of Marin
Tamra Peters, Resilient Neighborhoods
Consultant
Christine O’Rourke Community Planning
Funded by the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership & the City of San Rafael.
Special thanks to participants of our quarterly community implementation forums and everyone who
participated in the CCAP community workshops and surveys.
APPENDICES
LEGEND
Action Require, Implement, Encourage, Develop or Support
Time Frame: Short= 1-3 years; Long= 3-10 years; Ongoing
Potential GHG Reduction: Total metric tons of estimated annual greenhouse gas reduction
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
% Overall GHG Reduction: Percentage of the overall (all sectors combined) 156,000 MTCO2 emissions reductions called for by 2030
Staffing Level: Low= Existing staff can implement without changing current priorities
Medium= Existing staff can implement, but will require some reprioritization of current tasks to accommodate new task(s)
High = Most likely will require new staff or contract position(s) to implement
Funding Source General Fund, agency partner funds, grants, etc.
City Control: Low= mostly City can only encourage or advocate
Medium= City can exert some influence through incentives, ordinance, or other strategic influence
High = City can create or mandate through process, procedure, or ordinance
Co-Benefits: Potential added benefits, specifically related to the Economy, Social Equity, or Health such as new job creation or business
opportunities, lower pollution levels, greater community connection and resiliency, etc.
Potential Unintended Potential harms in other areas, such as environmental impacts or pollution, economic hardships to residents or businesses,
Consequences: burdensome regulations/bureaucracy or high administrative costs, limiting to long-term adaptation strategies, etc.
How We Measure Progress: Metrics and outcomes that determine success
ACTION DEFINITIONS
REQUIRE -These are generally requirements, regulations, ordinances, or other types of mandates.
IMPLEMENT -These are generally things we have a lot of control over and could include programs, policies, community engagement, or collaborative activities.
ENCOURAGE -These are things where we have less direct control, and may include community engagement, partnerships with other agencies or groups, incentives, or
behavior change campaigns.
DEVELOP-These are things we may need more information about before implementing or requiring something. This might include general research or a formal
analysis.
SUPPORT -These are things where our role is limited, or other agencies or groups are responsible for action. Support could run the gamut from conducting outreach to
adopting ordinances that reinforce their activities, such as energy efficiency programs.
B-1
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION
CO-BENEFITS:
GHG FUNDING ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME REDUCTION STAFFING SOURCE CITY CONTROL CONSEQUENCES HOW WE WILL MEASURE PROGRESS EQUITY
HEALTH
Increased electrical demand Number of charging stations installed.
REQUIRE ECONOMY may require demand-side Code/ordinances passed. Number of SHORT General Fund management to encourage LCT-Cl Zero Emission Vehicles IMPLEMENT LONG 30,345 HIGH Grants MEDIUM EQUITY and/or require consumers to ZEVs registered in San Rafael. Target:
ENCOURAGE HEALTH modify their level and pattern 25% of registered automobiles in Marin
of electricity usage. County are ZEVs by 2030.
Completion of Bicycle Pedestrian Master
Bicycling IMPLEMENT SHORT ECONOMY Increased bicycle-vehicle Plan projects, including 21 miles of
LCT-CZ ENCOURAGE LONG 1,910 HIGH Gas Tax Grants LOW EQUITY collisions. additional Class 1 and 2 bike facilities,
HEALTH bike share (300 bikes) and bike
racks/lockers (12 each) goals.
ECONOMY Completion of Bicycle Pedestrian Master
IMPLEMENT Gas Tax Plan projects. Target: 2% reduction in LCT-C3 Walking ENCOURAGE LONG 575 HIGH Grants LOW EQUITY passenger trips that start and end in San HEALTH Rafael.
Cost to TAM to fund Safe Safe Routes to School projects SUPPORT SHORT Gas Tax EQUITY Routes to School program may LCT-C4 Safe Routes to School IMPLEMENT LONG 320 MEDIUM Grants LOW HEALTH crowd out funding for other completed. Decrease in students driving
programs. in a family vehicle from 47% to 29%.
Additional cost to Marin Transit Target: all of Marin Transit vehicles use Agency ECONOMY for renewable diesel and Public Transit SUPPORT SHORT renewable diesel by 2020 and 50% of LCT-C5 ENCOURAGE LONG 1,035 LOW Partners LOW EQUITY electric buses may crowd out Marin Transit's VMT is driven by electric General Fund HEALTH funding for to increase transit buses by 2030. frequency or coverage.
Agency ECONOMY Number of businesses offering a TDM
SUPPORT program. Target: all San Rafael LCT-C6 Employee Trip Reduction ENCOURAGE SHORT 1,030 LOW Partners LOW EQUITY businesses with 30 or more employees General Fund HEALTH offer a TDM program.
LCT-C7 Parking Requirements REQUIRE SHORT 55 LOW General Fund HIGH HEALTH Increased parking congestion Code/ordinance passed. Target: 100
and traffic impacts. parking spaces reduced.
LCT-CB Traffic Management System IMPLEMENT LONG 1,075 MEDIUM General Fund HIGH ECONOMY Number of projects completed. Target:
and Vehicle Idling ENCOURAGE Grants HEALTH 119,284 gallons of fuel saved.
B-2
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION
CO-BENEFITS:
GHG FUNDING ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME REDUCTION STAFFING SOURCE CITY CONTROL CONSEQUENCES HOW WE WILL MEASURE PROGRESS EQUITY
HEALTH
ENCOURAGE ECONOMY More traffic and parking LCT-C9 Smart Growth Development LONG n/a LOW General Fund LOW EQUITY Number of projects completed. REQUIRE HEALTH impacts
Decrease in fuel consumption for
LCT-C10 Electric Landscape Equipment ENCOURAGE LONG 110 LOW General Fund MEDIUM HEALTH More equipment turnover and landscape equipment as reported in
waste OFFROAD models. Target: all leaf
blowers are electric.
SHORT General Fund Unreliability and maintenance Number and type of vehicles replaced.
LCT-Ml Low Emission City Vehicles IMPLEMENT LONG 275 MEDIUM Grants HIGH HEALTH of new technologies Target: 50% reduction in vehicle fleet
Rebates gasoline consumption.
May create a market for
LCT-M2 Low Carbon Fuels IMPLEMENT SHORT 270 LOW General Fund HIGH HEALTH products that are virgin and not Percentage of fuel switched. Target: all
just discards. New market diesel consumption is renewable diesel.
stabilitv.
ECONOMY Number of new employees signed up to
LCT-M3 City Employee Commute IMPLEMENT SHORT 20 LOW General Fund MEDIUM EQUITY the programs and using incentives.
ENCOURAGE Target: employee commute VMT HEALTH reduced by 60,613 miles.
Municipal Electric Landscape More equipment turnover and Percentage of landscape equipment
LCT-M4 IMPLEMENT SHORT 5 LOW General Fund HIGH HEALTH replaced. Target: all leaf blowers are Equipment waste replaced with electric versions.
TOTALS 37,030
B-3
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
FUNDING CITY CO-BENEFITS: POTENTIAL UNINTENDED ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME GHG REDUCTION STAFFING SOURCE CONTROL ECONOMY EQUITY CONSEQUENCES HOW WE WILL MEASURE PROGRESS
HEALTH
SUPPORT General Fund ECONOMY Target: 1% annual reduction in electricity EE-Cl Energy Efficiency Programs ONGOING 17,335 MEDIUM Grants On-MEDIUM IMPLEMENT Bill Financing EQUITY and natural gas consumption.
An energy audit Target: 5% of audited housing units
EE-C2 Energy Audits DEVELOP LONG 260 LOW General Fund HIGH ECONOMY requirement could impact implement energy efficiency projects EQUITY the real estate sales resulting in 31% energy savings. process.
IMPLEMENT General Fund ECONOMY Difficulty seeing pavement Target: 10% of paved areas converted to EE-C3 Cool Pavement and Roofs DEVELOP LONG 275 LOW HIGH
ENCOURAGE Grants EQUITY HEALTH markings and wayfinding high albedo surfaces.
General Fund Additional time and cost to
EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code REQUIRE SHORT 225 LOW County HIGH HEALTH applicants, unreliability of Reach code ordinance adopted.
new technologies.
EE-CS Streamline Permit Process and Provide DEVELOP SHORT n/a HIGH General Fund MEDIUM ECONOMY Program implemented. Technical Assistance IMPLEMENT Grants EQUITY HEALTH
Capital ECONOMY Target: 4,400 light fixtures converted to ff-Ml Streetlights IMPLEMENT SHORT 110 LOW Improvement HIGH Light pollution.
Proe:ram EQUITY HEALTH LED.
Complete projects:
1) Interior and Exterior Lighting Upgrades at
Capital ECONOMY City Hall, Downtown Library, Parkside
EE-M2 Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofits IMPLEMENT SHORT 45 LOW Improvement HIGH HEALTH Childcare Center, Pickleweed Childcare
Program Center, and Fire Stations 54, 55, 56.
2) Programmable thermostat replacements
for City Hall.
ECONOMY Mismatch to existing Reduce energy use 5% through behavioral
EE-M3 Energy Conservation IMPLEMENT SHORT 35 LOW General Fund HIGH HEALTH infrastructure / systems. changes and upgrades to Energy Star
equipment.
TOTALS 18,280
8-4
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
RENEWABLE ENERGY
CO-BENEFITS:
ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME GHG STAFFING FUNDING CITY ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED HOW WE WILL MEASURE
REDUCTION SOURCE CONTROL EQUITY CONSEQUENCES PROGRESS
HEALTH
Target: 15% annual growth
ENCOURAGE Degradation to habitat and rate for residential and
RE-Cl Renewable Energy Generation SUPPORT ONGOING 10,940 LOW General Fund MEDIUM ECONOMY ecosystems for ground-commercial solar energy
IMPLEMENT mount solar. systems and 24% market
penetration by 2030.
SUPPORT Reduces perceived urgency Target: MCE electricity is 100% RE-CZ GHG-Free Electricity LONG 19,560 LOW General Fund MEDIUM ECONOMY HEALTH to complete energy ENCOURAGE efficiency projects. GHG-free by 2025.
Target: 23 appliances/ heating
SHORT General Fund, Additional cost to property systems electrified in first year
RE-C3 Building and Appliance Electrification SUPPORT LONG 895 LOW Grants MEDIUM ECONOMY HEALTH owner/ electrical panel and 25% growth in
upgrade installations in each year
thereafter.
Cost for design and
construction of projects
General Fund, ECONOMY EQUITY may be higher than for
RE-C4 Innovative Technologies DEVELOP LONG n/a MEDIUM Grants HIGH HEALTH proven technologies. May Projects implemented.
face a greater risk for
technical issues, obstacles,
and obsolescence.
Solar Energy Systems for Municipal Capital Maintenance issues for Complete 53.4 kW DC project at
Rf-Ml Buildings IMPLEMENT SHORT 140 MEDIUM Improvement HIGH ECONOMY panels, roof the Public Safety Building and
Program 273 kW DC project at City Hall.
Reduces perceived urgency Annual purchase of Deep Green RE-MZ Municipal Deep Green Electricity IMPLEMENT ONGOING 365 LOW General Fund HIGH ECONOMY to complete energy electricity. efficiency projects.
TOTALS 31,925
8-5
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
WASE REDUCTION
CO-BENEFITS:
ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME GHG FUNDING ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED HOW WE WILL MEASURE STAFFING SOURCE CITY CONTROL EQUITY CONSEQUENCES PROGRESS REDUCTION
HEALTH
Additional costs to MSS and rate Target: outreach to 400
ENCOURAGE SHORT Grants General businesses by 2020, another 600 WR-Cl Commercial Organic Waste SUPPORT LONG 1,505 LOW Fund LOW EQUITY payers. Increased smells and businesses after 2020. 30%of pests. businesses are compliant.
WR-Cl Residential Organic Waste ENCOURAGE SHORT 795 MEDIUM Grants, General LOW ECONOMY Increased smells and pests. Target: 5% diversion by 2020
SUPPORT Fund and 50% by 2030.
Burdensome for builders; may
WR-C3 Construction & Demolition ENCOURAGE SHORT 170 LOW Grants, General MEDIUM ECONOMY deter projects or reduce Target: 50% diversion by 2020
Debris and Self-Haul Waste SUPPORT Fund permits. Increased costs for and 75% by 2030.
renters.
Space and affordability issues. Target: increase commercial
General Fund Backlash to mandates. AB1826 compliance rate to
WR-C4 Mandatory Waste Diversion REQUIRE SHORT 2,990 MEDIUM Fees HIGH ECONOMY EQUITY Increased non-franchised 50% and divert 80% of
entities soliciting rate payers for residential organic waste by
business. 2030.
General Fund Unacceptably high costs to rate Target: increase diversion rate
WR-CS Waste Processing Infrastructure DEVELOP LONG 4,220 MEDIUM Rate Payers HIGH payers. Decreased diversion due of recoverable organic waste to to perception that sorting is no MSS longer necessary. 95%.
WR-C6 Extended Producer Responsibility ENCOURAGE LONG n/a LOW General Fund LOW ECONOMY Transportation impacts from Monitor State regulations. SUPPORT take-back programs.
ENCOURAGE Grants General Community education and
WR-C7 Inorganic Waste DEVELOP SHORT n/a MEDIUM Fund LOW ECONOMY engagement programs
implemented.
50% of recoverable organic waste
WR-Ml Waste from Public Facilities IMPLEMENT SHORT 260 LOW Grants General HIGH Increased smells and pests. currently landfilled is diverted by
Fund Increased contamination. 2020 and 75% is diverted by
2030.
50% of recoverable organic waste
WR-Ml Waste from City Operations ENCOURAGE SHORT 85 HIGH Grants General HIGH Increased smells and pests. currently landfilled is diverted by
IMPLEMENT LONG Fund Increased contamination. 2020 and 75% is diverted by
2030.
TOTALS 10,025
GOAL: Reduce organic and paper waste disposal by 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2030. SB 1383 established targets to achieve o 50% reduction in organic waste by 2020 ond o 75% reduction by 2025.
B-6
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
WATER CONSERVATION
CO-BENEFITS: POTENTIAL
ACTION GHG STAFFING FUNDING CITY CONTROL ECONOMY HOW WE Will MEASURE ID Measure TIME FRAME REDUCTION SOURCE EQUITY UNINTENDED PROGRESS
HEALTH CONSEQUENCES
ENCOURAGE Water restrictions may
WC-Cl Community Water Use SUPPORT ONGOING 830 LOW General Fund LOW ECONOMY reduce potential for Target: 1% annual water
EQUITY carbon sequestration in consumption reduction IMPLEMENT landscapes.
Target: 20% reduction in
WC-C2 Municipal Water Use IMPLEMENT SHORT <1 MEDIUM General Fund MEDIUM electricity used for
irrigation
TOTALS 830
B-7
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
SEQUESTRATION AND ADAPTATION
CO-BENEFITS:
ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME STAFFING FUNDING CITY CONTROL ECONOMY POTENTIAL UNINTENDED HOW WE Will MEASURE
SOURCE EQUITY CONSEQUENCES PROGRESS
HEALTH
Tree roots may degrade adjacent
pavement and sidewalks. Trees
ENCOURAGE and vegetation may increase fire
General Fund; ECONOMY EQUITY risk in developed areas. Irrigation SA-Cl Urban Forest IMPLEMENT LONG LOW MEDIUM
REQUIRE Grants HEALTH requirements may reduce ability
to meet water conservation
targets. Project costs and time
delays.
SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration ENCOURAGE LONG MEDIUM General Fund; MEDIUM Unknown effects of new
IMPLEMENT Grants technoloRies
Carbon offsets may reduce
Carbon Offsets ENCOURAGE General Fund perceived urgency for direct SA-C4 DEVELOP LONG LOW LOW action through efficiency,
conservation etc.
SA-CS Sea level Rise SUPPORT LONG HIGH General Fund, HIGH ECONOMY EQUITY Gentrification Projects implemented. IMPLEMENT Grants
SUPPORT
SA-C6 Climate Change Adaptation DEVELOP LONG MEDIUM General Fund HIGH ECONOMY EQUITY Projects implemented.
IMPLEMENT
B-8
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
ID Measure ACTION TIME FRAME STAFFING FUNDING
SOURCE
ENCOURAGE General Fund; CE-Cl Community Education ONGOING LOW SUPPORT Grants
SUPPORT
CE-C2 Community Engagement IMPLEMENT ONGOING HIGH General Fund
DEVELOP
CE-C3 Advocacy ENCOURAGE ONGOING LOW General Fund
Innovation and Economic ENCOURAGE SHORT General Fund, CE-C4 DEVELOP HIGH Development SUPPORT LONG Grants
CE-CS Green Businesses ENCOURAGE SHORT MEDIUM County Funding,
SUPPORT LONG General Fund
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
CITY CONTROL
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
CO-BENEFITS:
ECONOMY
EQUITY
HEALTH
ECONOMY EQUITY
HEALTH
ECONOMY EQUITY
HEALTH
ECONOMY EQUITY
HEALTH
ECONOMY
ECONOMY HEALTH
POTENTIAL UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES
Loss of local control
Risks of not having tangible
outcomes
HOW WE WILL MEASURE
PROGRESS
Number of people participating
in Resilient Neighborhoods and
amount of GHG reduced.
Results from implemented
programs.
State legislation enacted.
Working group created and
results achieved.
Number of businesses enrolled
in the program each year.
B-9
APPENDIX B -IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX
IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
ID Measure ACTION TIME STAFFING FUNDING CITY HOW WE WILL MEASURE
FRAME SOURCE CONTROL PROGRESS
IM-C1 Annual Monitoring IMPLEMENT SHORT LOW General HIGH Annual report and Fund priorities list.
Community Inventory
General updated annually and
IM-Cl Update GHG Emissions Inventories IMPLEMENT SHORT HIGH Fund; HIGH government operations LONG Grants inventory updated every 5
years.
IM-C3 Funding Sources IMPLEMENT SHORT MEDIUM General HIGH Amount of funding
Fund secured.
General Update CCAP to
IM-C4 Update the Climate Action Plan IMPLEMENT LONG HIGH Fund; HIGH incorporate new long-
Grants term reduction targets.
IM-CS Project Compliance Checklist IMPLEMENT SHORT LOW General HIGH Number of projects that
Fund comply with checkist.
B-10
APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS
CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT
LFl (LFl) Implement General Plan policies to City Council accepted the Downtown SMART
increase residential and commercial densities Station Area Plan and Civic Center SMRT Area Plan
within walking distance of high frequency transit in 2012/13. Both plans include TOD
centers and corridors. recommendations, land use changes and
X improved bike/ped access and connectivity. These CD
recommendations will be addressed in the
General Plan 2040 and Downtown Precise Plan,
which are underway and are expected to be
adopted in 2020.
LF2-a (LF2) Encourage the continued funding and Service to San Rafael started in 2017. Currently
development of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail working with SMART to complete the extension to
Transit, which will provide residents and X Larkspur. CM employees of San Rafael an additional
transportation alternative to single-occupant
vehicles.
LF2-b (LF2) Modify land uses and transportation Council accepted SMART Civic Center Station Area
systems surrounding the future Civic Center Plan in 2013, which includes specific land use
SMART Station to improve bicycle and recommendations. These recommendations will
pedestrian access to site. be addressed in the General Plan 2040 and Ill Downtown Precise Plan, which are underway and QJ > X are expected to be adopted in 2020. An updated +-' CD Ill Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan was adopted by QJ the City Council in 2018, which includes circulation
impacts. The Civic Center Station and Civic Center
Drive improvements have been completed, which
include complete pedestrian and bicycle
improvements.
LF3 (LF3) Determine areas in need of sidewalk Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan adopted in 2018.
improvements, land use changes, or modified X https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/bicycle-DPW transit stops to create walkable neighborhoods. pedestrian-master-plan/
LF4-a (LF4) Require new mixed-use and commercial To be included in CCAP 2030. These
developments to provide space for locating recommendations will be addressed in the
future bike sharing stations. X General Plan 2040 and Downtown Precise Plan, CD
which are underway and are expected to be
adopted in 2020.
LF4-b (LF4) Conduct a feasibility study to determine The Marin Countt Bictcle Sharing Feasibilitt Studt
the appropriate program scale, costs, and X was completed in 2013. CM
locations for bike-sharing stations.
LF4-c (LF4) Facilitate the creation of a bike share The Transportation Authority of Marin and
program, particularly in the Downtown area. Sonoma Transportation Authority were jointly
X awarded $824,000 in funding from MTC in 2017, CM/DPW
and are actively pursuing this project for 2019.
C-1
APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS
CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT
LFS (LFS) Support Marin Transit in the planning, Marin Transit continues to refine services and has
funding and implementation of additional implemented 15 minute intervals along major
transit services that are cost-effective and X transit routes. CM
responsive to existing and future transit
demand.
LF6 (LF6) Continue to implement sidewalk and Department of Public Works has completed
street improvements for the Safe Routes to several projects since 2008 and continues to work
School program. Encourage the school districts, with Safe Routes to Schools and other agencies to
Marin Transit and the Transportation Authority X identify and implement projects. DPW
of Marin to increase funding for school busing
programs, promote carpooling and limit vehicle
idling.
LF7-a (LF7) Continue to implement the adopted Department of Public Works continues to work
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. X with partners and funding agencies to identify and DPW
implement projects.
LF7-b (LF7) Provide alternate work schedules and This is done on a case-by-case basis depending on
telecommuting opportunities. X the need to cover public-facing service counters CM
and other on-site needs.
LF7-c (LF7) Provide transit and carpool incentives to X Implemented an employee commute alternatives CM City employees. program in 2013.
LF8-a (LF8) Promote the use of Alternative Fuel and City promotes programs to employees and
Ill Fuel Efficient Vehicles. X general public through a variety of channels, such CM Q) as co-hosting EV ride-and-drive events .
Ill LF8-b (LF8) Support regional efforts to encourage City participates in Transportation Authority of Q) widespread availability of charging stations. X Marin's Clean Technology Advisory Working CM :.:::i Group and assists with planning efforts.
LF8-c (LF8) Revise parking requirements for private X Adopted August 2014 CD parking facilities to provide charging stations.
(LF8) Revise parking requirements for public and Adopted in 2013 by City Council
new commercial developments to include
designated stalls for low-emitting, fuel-efficient
vehicles and carpool/vanpool vehicles for a X CD minimum of 8% of total parking capacity and to
pre-wire stalls for future electric vehicle
charging stations for 2% of total parking
capacity.
LF8-d (LF8) Install charging stations for plug-in electric Currently the City has charging infrastructure in
vehicles in City garages and parking lots. four City lots and garages with the intention of
X adding more as lots and garages are resurfaced. Parking Svcs
City Hall lot will receive chargers in 2019 along
with solar installation.
LF9 (LF9) Adopt a policy to limit City vehicle idling City has a vehicle idling policy. Fire department
where practical. Evaluate equipping trucks with X has solar-powered auxiliary electrical systems for DPW an auxiliary electrical system for illumination fire trucks vehicles.
and warning signs.
LFlO (LFlO) Educate and encourage businesses and X This will be included in new CCAP
residents to limit vehicle idling. CM
C-2
APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS
CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT
LF11 (LFll) Adopt a Zero Waste goal and implement Adopted in 2011 by Resolution. Ongoing efforts to
programs to achieve goal in San Rafael. X reduce waste through annual grant programs, CM internships, and work with waste hauler and
community.
LF12 (LF12) Encourage the Marin County Hazardous The JPA established a landfill and hauler fee to
and Solid Waste JPA to establish a landfill X fund waste reduction efforts in 2008. CM "tipping fee" to fund waste reduction efforts.
LF13 (LF13) Facilitate a composting program to assist Food to Energy program started by Marin Sanitary
and educate residents in home-composting and Service in 2013. Curbside composting for
create facilities to convert organic waste (e.g., X residents started in 2010. Curbside composting CM
vegetative or food waste) to energy. for commercial and multi-family customers
started in 2014.
LF14 (LF14) Work with the City's waste franchisee to Rate structure analysis completed in 2014. No
create additional incentives in the rate structure further financial incentives were identified.
for waste reduction and recycling and expand X However, further outreach and education was CM
Vl the range of recycled products if resale markets idenfied and is being implemented.
QJ exist. >LF15 (LF15) Adopt a construction debris recycling and Originally adopted in 2011. Revised for Vl reuse ordinance. X compliance with California Green Building Code in CD
2016.
LF16 (LF16) Assist in the development of additional Our extremely low vacancy rate in industrial
reuse facilities (resale shops, refilling stations, X makes this prohibitive in general. City will assist as CM repair shops, and resource recovery yards). needed and as opportunities arise.
LF17 (LF17) Investigate options for banning Bag ordinance adopted in 2014. EPS ordinance
nonrecyclable single use items, such as plastic X adopted in 2012. CM
bags and polystyrene takeout food containers.
LF18 (LF18) Modify the City's purchasing practices Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy
and policies to become a model for other X adopted in 2013. CM
businesses and organizations.
LF-GGRS (LF-GGRS) Continue to implement existing City 31 of the City's pool vehicles are hybrids, and 5 of
policy to purchase alternative fuel vehicles and the 6 parking vehicles are battery electric. A study
increase the efficiency of the vehicle fleet. X is underway to identify all opportunities for DPW
greening the fleet as vehicles are replaced every
several years.
BUl-a (BUl) Participate in the Marin Energy Authority All City (Municipal) accounts were switched to
Clean Energy (MCE) Program by switching all Light Green in 2010, and to Deep Green in 2017.
City accounts over to the Light Green Option in X CM
Vl 2010 and the Deep Green Option by 2020.
""C BUl-b (BUl) Support efforts of Marin Energy City supports their efforts and MEA (Now MCE ·-Authority to increase the proportion of Clean Energy) has been offering these programs.
renewable power offered to residents and In addition, the City works with PG&E, CESC and
businesses and to provide financial and X others to promote energy efficiency upgrades. CM
technical assistance for energy efficiency
upgrades.
C-3
APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS
CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT
BU2 (BU2) Create or participate in an assessment Five Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE)
district bond financing program to fund X programs authorized to operate in San Rafael in CM installation of renewable energy systems and 2012 and 2013.
energy efficiency measures.
BU3-a (BU3) Adopt zoning allowances for the location Zoning Ordinance Amendments 14.16.305, 307.
of solar collectors in residential zones. X Solar farms intended to generate energy for the CD grid are a conditionally permitted use (where
utility facilities lists it).
BU3-b (BU3) Adopt zoning allowances for solar farms Adopted zoning regulations for wind turbines on
and wind turbines in large commercial parking rooftops of buildings in 2014, but have not
lots and rooftops of large buildings. X adopted regulations for solar farms in large CD
commercial parking lots. To be included in CCAP
2030 implementation.
BU4 (BU4) Require new construction and remodel The City adopted first green building ordinance in
projects to comply with policies in the existing 2011 and has subsequently updated it and
green building ordinance. adopted California Green Building Code in 2016.
X The Building Division will revisit the green building CD
standards again in late 2019 when the 2020 State
building codes are reviewed and considered for
adoption.
BUS (BUS) Develop a program to achieve energy Many changes to existing buildings have taken
savings in existing buildings, with a goal of place as well as new construction and demolition
VI decreasing energy use by 20% as of the year of existing buildings makes it difficult to measure
2020. apples to apples. However, multiple projects have
"'C been completed from lighting upgrades to HVAC ·-X DPW ::, replacements, covering the majority of City cc facilities. City undertaking an effort to benchmark
all buildings once new Public Safety Center is
complete in 2020.
BUG (BUG) Continue to implement the City's Green All efforts being conducted. Community water use
Building Ordinance requiring water conservation had decreased 17% by 2016.
measures in new and remodeled buildings, to
coordinate with and support the Marin
Municipal Water District in implementation and
enforcement of the Water Efficient Landscape X CD Ordinance and to encourage water
conservation in existing homes and businesses
through the Resilient Neighborhoods and
Resilient Businesses programs, to reduce water
use by 30% by the year 2020.
BU7 (BU7) Facility Energy Audit -Complete an Some audits conducted by Marin Energy Watch
energy audit of major City facilities and Partnership. Efforts underway to audit all facilities
implement audit recommendations for energy X by 2020. DPW
efficiency and renewable energy potential.
C-4
APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS
CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT
BU-GGRS (BU-GGRS) Recycled Water -Support the City has purple pipe infrastructure in some areas
VI installation of purple pipe infrastructure & X of North San Rafael in conjunction with MMWD DPW expanded use of recycled water by the Marin and Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. C Municipal Water District. ""C ·-BU-GGRS (BU-GGRS) Reduce emissions from heavy-duty This will be included in new CCAP
construction equipment by limiting idling and cc X DPW /CD utilizing cleaner fuels, equipment, and vehicles.
EN1 (EN1) Increase Tree Plantings -Plant new and The City conducts ongoing tree plantings and
retain existing trees to maximize energy maintenance in accordance with its membership
conservation and carbon sequestration benefits X in the Tree City USA program, of which the City DPW
has been a member for many years.
EN2 (EN2) Adopt ordinances to regulate the removal X This measure will be included in the new CCAP. DPW and replacement of significant trees.
EN3 (EN3) Update zoning regulations for parking lot In 2011, the City Council adopted zoning
landscaping to increase shading and reduce X ordinance amendments to include improve CD thermal gain. regulations and standards for parking lot tree
cover.
EN4 (EN4) Establish a local carbon offset program to Analysis did not bear out the wisdom of a local
support tree planting and maintenance. X offset program due to high level of administration CM
and costs involved.
+-' ENS (ENS) Encourage the creation of home and The City helped establish two multi-family C
community gardens, including possible use of residential community gardens at private
C surplus City properties for community gardens. X properties in the Canal Neighborhood in 2010. In CM 0 addition, the City has two community gardens it ·s:manages on City property, one in Terra Linda and C one in the Canal Neighborhood. w ENG (ENG) Continue to promote local farmers The City hosts the Downtown Farmers' Market
markets. X Festival from April through September every year ED and promotes it and the Civic Center market,
which happens all year long.
EN7 (EN7) Develop a program of levee analysis, Done on a case by case basis, no active program
including inventorying heights, testing and X at this time. DPW
maintaining public and private levees.
ENS (ENS) Install a sea level rise monitoring gauge to X Consider as part of a future adaptation planning DPW track changes over time. and monitoring effort for sea level rise.
EN9 (EN9) Participate in Marin County's regional Community Development created a Sea Level Rise
vulnerability assessment, and prepare a local White Paper, describing the current situation and
vulnerability assessment for San Rafael. outlining next steps toward this goal. BCDC pilot
risk assessment completed in 2015 and available
X on BCDC website. County of Marin completed the CM
BayWAVE Vulnerability Assessment. The City
partnered in these efforts.
http://www. ma rincou nty .org/ma in/baywave/vu In
erability-assessment
C-5
APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS
CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT
EN10 (ENl0) Continue to provide emergency planning X The Fire Department conducts these and the City FD and community awareness. has an active CERT program.
EN-GGRS (EN-GGRS) Work with BCDC to monitor sea level Ongoing. The City works with BCDC and other
rise and plan for shoreline defense. agencies to monitor and plan for sea level rise.
+-' City to prepare a Sea Level Rise Adaptation Report
C: to incorporate into the General Plan 2040, which QJ X CD E may incorporate basis development regulations.
C: The General Plan 2040 is underway and expected 0 to be adopted in 2020. ·5C: w EN-GGRS (EN-GGRS) Replace Holiday Streetlights with LED Done in 2010
lighting. X DPW
EN-GGRS (EN-GGRS) Complete the retrofit of yellow bulb All traffic signal lights switched to LED's in 2015.
City traffic signals with LED lighting and retrofit X Streetlights have been replaced over time with DPW streetlights with LED fixtures. the final streetlights being replaced in 2018.
ECl (ECl) Continue to promote new green business City participates regularly in the Chamber's Green
opportunities. X Business Committee and promotes the County's CM Green Business Program, including having two
City facilities certified.
EC2 (EC2) Support and encourage green business See ECl
opportunities in conjunction with Marin County X CM
Green Business Program.
EC3 (EC3) Maintain San Rafael's jobs/ housing ratio The City of San Rafael has received approval from
and seek to achieve sufficient employment the State for the 2015-2023 Housing Element. The
opportunities in San Rafael. Housing Element ensures opportunities for the
development of market rate and affordable
housing which helps address the jobs/housing
ratio. Economic Development staff has been X working with Chamber of Commerce on employer CD
retention as well as business recruitment to
C: maintain and grow employment base in San 0 Rafael. BioMarin worked with city staff in 2014 to w obtain approvals for the corporate center
campus, which increased employment
EC4 (EC4) Support the creation of environmentally City staff provides funding and works with the
beneficial jobs, particularly for low-income Downtown Streets Team to provide jobs for
residents. homeless individuals to sweep the streets around
downtown San Rafael. This program reduces non-
point source runoff to creeks and streams and
X helps homeless residents transition to ED/CD employment. City staff support the Conservation
Corps North Bay which engages in projects related
to the environment -most Corps members are
from low-income backgrounds. Includes local
hiring projects such as composting at the Farmers'
Market Festival and recycling in the City.
C-G
APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS
CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT
COl (COl) Increase City employees awareness of Employee Green Team developed Environmental
climate protection issues, and develop internal Purchasing Policy, adopted in 2013. Employee
committees (such as a green purchasing Commute Committee started in 2012. Employee
initiative or energy efficiency) to implement Green Team working in all departments to
plans. X enhance recycling; City Hall is Green Business CM Certified. City Hall composting started with MSS
summer 2014 and is ongoing. City supports
Resilient Neighborhoods carbon reduction
program and has had three City staff Eco Teams go
through the program.
CO2 (CO2) Use the City's website and City City works with variety of organizations to
publications and work with community promote sustainability efforts such as MMWD,
organizations to promote sustainability efforts MCE, the County of Marin and Marin Climate
to both residents and businesses. X Energy Partnership, among others. City uses web CM
site, social media accounts, NextDoor.com, City
Manager's Snapshot and other news and
information bulletins to promote sustainability.
CO3 (CO3) Partner with other agencies and City has supported and helped sponsor all EcoFair
organizations to hold an annual "Green Festival" Marin events and Earth Day Marin events since
to promote sustainability efforts. X their inception. EcoFair Marin folded in 2013, but CM
City still supports these types of events when they ::::, occur. 0 > C04 (CO4) Advocate for state and federal legislation City continues to send letters supporting or � that advance GHG reductions and other X opposing state and federal legislation related to CM
sustainability efforts. sustainability efforts. ::::, E cos (COS) Continue to provide a leadership role with Have served on steering committee of MCEP, E other local governmental agencies to share best including two years as Chair. Worked with Marin
practices and successes. waste JPA to develop environmental review and
bag ordinances that could be used in all
jurisdictions. San Rafael was first city in California
to receive Beacon Award for Sustainability from
X Institute for Local Government. Developed a Sea CM
Level Rise White Paper that other jurisdictions
have borrowed from. Provided our GHG
Reduction Strategy inventory tool to all local
jurisdictions in Marin to do annual inventories.
Have been featured on panels and educational
events.
CO-GGRS (CO-GGRS) Resilient Neighborhoods and City has supported the Resilient Neighborhoods
Businesses -Implement the resilient program through funding and in-kind donations
neighborhoods and businesses program to and through providing staff and intern support,
encourage behavioral changes to reduce carbon X and office space. City implemented Resilient CM
emissions through effective education and peer Businesses program in 2011. City has also
group support. promoted other similar programs for businesses.
C-7
APPENDIX C-2009 C.C.A.P. PROGRAM STATUS
CATEGORY MEASURE DESCRIPTION COMPLETED IN PROGRESS ONGOING NOT STARTED NOTES DEPT
CO-GGRS (CO-GGRS) Energy Efficiency Outreach City participates in Chamber Green Business
Continue to inform businesses and residents of Committee. City developed extensive
programs and rebates to conserve energy. sustainability web pages devoted to business. City
works with MCE, Bay Area Regional Energy
..c: X Network, Marin Energy Watch Partnership, and CM u others to promote programs and rebates like "' a., Rising Sun Energy Center's Green House Call +-' program, Community Action Marin's energy ::::,
efficiency programs, and Resilient Neighborhoods.
C: (CO-GGRS) Sustainability circles will be created Resilient Neighborhoods is an ongoing program ::::, E to work through a structured curriculum and supported by the City. Greening for Profit was a
E offer households and small businesses one-year program that has been memorialized on
0 opportunities to improve energy and resource a City web site and case studies that the City u use, to reduce waste generation, and to make X makes available on line. City works with various CM
more informed purchasing decisions. agencies and the Chamber to help businesses and
residents reduce waste, water, energy, and make
improvements to various energy and purchasing
related activities.
IM1 (IM1) Evaluate future development applications City has a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction
and the City's Capital Improvement Program Strategy approved by BAAQMD, which carries
against compliance with the Climate Change X with it a checklist for compliance for development CD/ DPW
C: Action Plan. applications. Cl P currently does not have a formal
. Q evaluation tool. To be developed in 2019 .
+-' "' +-' IM2 (IM2) Prepare an annual report to the Planning As part of our Greenhouse Gas Reduction C: a., Commission and City Council assessing the X Strategy, a formal presentation is given to City CM E implementation of the Plan. Council annually. a., a.IM3 (IM3) Hire a Sustainability Coordinator to Hired in 2011. E advance efforts to implement the Climate X CM
Change Action Plan.
IM4 (IM4) Appoint a Sustainability Commission to This measure was replaced by Quarterly
advance efforts to implement the Climate X Community Implementation Forums, which are CM
Change Action Plan. ongoing.
14 14 31 9 68
NOTES
There were 48 regular measures in the original CCAP.
This grew to 68 total measures when it was developed into the GHG Reduction Strategy.
This was primarily due to breaking measures up into smaller items (a, b, c, etc.) and including some new measures as well (identified by the suffix "-GGRS").
C-B
CLIMATE CHANGE
ACTION PLAN 2030
COMMUNITY SURVEY RESPONSES AND DRAFT CLIMATE
CHANGE ACTION PLAN 2030 COMMENTS
SUMMER 2018 THROUGH FEBRUARY 2019
Table of Contents
Overview 1
Summary Responses 2
Waste 17
Water 31
Transport 35
Energy 49
Economy and Equity 66
General 75
NextDoor.com Poll Responses 101
October 15, 2018 Council Meeting 102
February 26, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting 102
BAAQMD Comments 103
1
OVERVIEW
The following are open-ended comments and responses to the “other” segments of questions
from the Climate Change Action Plan (“CCAP”) Survey. These responses were gathered through
an online survey as well as in-person engagements at various meetings and events held in the
community during the late spring and summer of 2018. These responses and engagement
discussions helped inform which measures were included as well as how they were written. They
will also help inform the implementation of the CCAP going forward.
The Spanish language survey opened June 8. The English language survey opened June 29. The
survey closed August 9. The online version of the survey was posted at:
https://www.opentownhall.com/portals/302/Issue_6438
There were a total of 8 engagements, meetings and/or community events:
• June 8, parent engagement at San Pedro Elementary School end of year Kermes (festival)
• July 6, Canal youth and parent engagement at Alcohol Justice meeting
• July 12, student solicitation survey via Marin School of Environmental Leadership
• July 19, CCAP quarterly implementation forum
• July 26, Chamber of Commerce business engagement mixer at VenturePad
• August 2, Canal Neighborhood pop-up event at Albert J Boro Community Center
• August 22, senior engagement, Goldenaires bingo luncheon, B Street Community Center
• September 5, Vietnamese resident survey conducted at senior lunch program, Albert J
Boro Community Center
In addition, there were two online polls through NextDoor.com, several emails sent out to
various City email lists including the City Manager’s Snapshot, and various presentations given at
community meetings and events to promote the survey. City employees and department
directors were solicited for input, and other jurisdictions and sustainability professionals were
consulted as well. A total of 324 survey responses were received, 262 of which were initially
submitted online. 98 respondents identified as a San Rafael business owner, manager or
employee. Approximately 45 respondents were primarily Spanish-speaking residents;
approximately 25 were primarily Vietnamese-speaking residents. All Spanish and Vietnamese
language responses were translated into English and included in the online survey and are in the
responses container herein.
Subsequently, an initial Draft CCAP was presented to the San Rafael City Council on October 15,
2018. 16 members of the public commented on the Draft. City Councilmembers also commented
on the Draft. Those comments were also incorporated into the Final Draft CCAP and can be
found at the following link:
https://cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=cityofsanrafael_b6429bc5-1c0e-
4202-b654-ea7436362710.pdf&view=1.
2
SUMMARY RESPONSES
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
WASTE COMMENTS
Q. Are there any other ideas you might have to ensure we meet our state goals for
composting and recycling more of our waste?
Cities should all have the same recycle the same categories of containers. Make all uniform!
As a renter I don't pay for this service
Ensure pictures on garbage cans are up to date of what is recyclable.
Enhanced education on what is or is not recyclable.
Stop coupons! Junk mail!
How about tapping into methane for energy?
Free mulch for residences. Teach kids so they can educate their parents.
Education and workshops to stimulate interest and knowledge of what is possible.
What is required in all of these is central county leadership. Stop fragmentation!
All plastic to recycle
Look at what other cities are doing to accomplish this. I think they are able to meet the goals
without having to do either of the above.
Change the mindset of our law enforcement to consider "littering" as a crime that should be
enforced and ticketed (trash from cars/trucks, cigarette butts, overflowing garbage, dumping
cans etc...)
People are lazy. The fasted way to get a change, and most impactful is if by issuing fines.
Increasing rates is punitive to everyone. Those who already do a great job recycling are being
punished.
Education
Was at Costco by food tables at which there were several place with three (red ,green, and blue)
trash cans. However, all I saw people doing was throwing all their trash into whichever one was
the closet or on the end. I tried to talk to some about it but found many did not understand what
the colors meant and many did not speak or read English. Very hard to figure out how to educate
the public. At our county Fair they had a person standing by each area with 3 colored cans to
show people what to do. Maybe business that create large amounts of food waste from public
use should be required to have an employee at the 3 trash can stations????
18
More clarification on which materials are recyclable and which are not. Some containers have
numbers on the back with triangles around them, but may not be made of the right materials. I
am not always sure what to do.
Start letting us recycle plastic bags like every other city....
Suggest that Council proposes an ordinance to limit single-use foodware items, taking plastics
out of the wastestream since there is no market for mixed plastics. All foodware should be
compostable, but most significantly, the ordinance should strongly support reusable foodware in
ANY establishment that has any seating in it. This would include "take-out" places that still offer
some seats to eat at, inside or out. The decision to ban any type of single-use foodware would
greatly reduce what is introduced into the wastestream. Also, any packets, utensils, lids, stirrers,
etc should be on request only, and adhere to a acceptable materials list issued by the City. These
are serious times (collapse of China recycling market opportunities) and serious measures should
be taken.
I think a lot of people are trying to recycle things that aren't recyclable. That probably make
recycling more expensive. A more clear explanation and some videos showing everyday things in
question might help.
Incentive to reduce single-use items, such as giving out re-usable water bottles.
Having more meetings and assemblies at schools starting with young kids to show them how to
dispose of items properly and showing them the effects of not recycling and what that means to
our ecosystem and our planet.
Also, there could be more informative gatherings maybe at parks and such with activities to
show people more about recycling. Make it fun and engaging.
The easier the process, the more likely the compliance. All packaging needs to be adequately
labeled so there is no mystery as to whether it can be recycled or composted.
Food waste recycling is a relatively new concept and can be 'messy'. I believe the key to success
is still a consistent education program. I also believe commercial food (restaurants, grocery
stores, etc.) create the bulk of the food waste that can easily be recycled. The common concerns
as a homeowner is that I do not want a smelly recycling container under my sink with
decomposing organic materials..
better education at the schools, educating the next generation..
I know that you expend time, money, and energy in public education, but it is still confusing to
the average member of the public. I've been a dedicated recycler all my life and I actually READ
the literature that comes out, but I'm still unsure about certain things. What about bottle caps?
What IS "coated paper"? I need more real-life examples. Clean little graphic depictions only get
19
us so far. In short -- though I hate to say this -- it has to be even easier than it is now for the
average (read: non-dedicated recycler) to be able to comply.
Manufacturer take back. Reduce packaging.
Grocery stores have stopped accepting plastic packaging, wrappers and bags for recycling
because of food contamination. This sppeare to be a significant part of my landfill trash. Since
the stores sell items in a plastic packaging they should be responsible for taking it back and
recycling it.
Peel & stick labeling on recycle cans that gives pic's of acceptable items & more importantly not
acceptable items. Mailers don't always get to all who contribute to disposing non acceptable
items.
Your programs are ineffective. Try taking out ads in the Sunday ij and doing more outreach to
older people.
Clearer directions and people at stations like at the Fair to guide us.
You need to have someone go around to people and tell them how to compost and recycle
properly. Charge more to people that don’t recycle. If they have the biggest garbage can charge
them a lot since that means they don’t recycle.
Consider positive incentives as well as negative. So, consider if it's viable to pay people even a
small amount for their food waste and other recyclable items so long as they are properly
organized and perform an analysis of how much that would cost versus the cost of the
specialized equipment and/or the cost of enforcement personnel for an ordinance.
Better availability of composting bags that don’t disintegrate in less than a day. I’ve found
composting in my green bin to be a bit too much work and messy
Educate and set up systems in Senior Housing sites and other group housing areas, to REDUCE
and RECYCLE food waste.
Smaller trash cans and bigger recycling and compost bins. Rate structure that makes more waste
more expensive.
Some kind of placard for house or permanent notice on recycle cans to state what no. Plastics
allowed,
What styrofoam is allowed, what kind of metal is allowed/disallowed (applied to tools, piping,
nails, metal
20
Waste of,all kinds if NOT allowed in recycle can). Also for disposal of various light bulbs--
incandescent,
Led, fluorescent as they do not all go,to,same can, right???"
Billboards/signs of encouragement. PSAs. I think a big barrier is that many people aren’t
motivated so build motivation. This is their children’s future wellbeing at stake.
I think more education is crucial. The general public is overwhelmed and underinformed. People
still just don't understand what can and cannot be composted or recycled. For example, Gotts
(in Greenbrae, not San Rafael, I know) offers only recycling and composting bins ; trash cans are
hard to find. But they use bioplastic cups and flatware, which as I understand it cannot actually
be composted and cannot be recycled. But it all goes in together.
We should ban plastic straws and plastic bags at the various farmers' markets.
require apartment buildings offer collection of compostibles
A campaign to persuade others to shut there car engines when stopped. What I see are people
pulling into parking spaces and using their cell phones while idling - 20 minutes or longer. I see
this when I am at the laundromat and at grocery stores' parking lots.
Encourag
Put "pollution tariffs" on plastics and non-compostable items sold in all stores. If you buy
something made of plastic (unless it has been made from recycled materials), you should have to
pay a fee to cover the costs of recycling it. These fees would go to a city/county/state fund that
subsidizes recycling places and promotes businesses that reuse plastics and other non-
compostible materials to manufacture products. This way, people might think twice about
buying unnecessary plastic "junk".
Readopt the every other week pickup since we can't generate enough trash to fill the mandated
container . Kitchen scraps are not an issue. We eat practically everything
I learned the most about what is recyclable, compostable, etc. from a presentation done at the
school I teach at. Know the impact I can make and also what is acceptable and not acceptable
helped a lot.
I think a greater effort to educate people would be better than more rules. Perhaps an increase
in fees to pay for better outreach and education
We don't have a green compost bin. We need to ask our landlord, but I think many people who
rent may not have them, especially if living in an apartment complex.
Concentrate on restaurants. Big producers of food waste.
21
Provide separate smaller recipients for food waste that can be used in kitchens to encourage
residents to segregate their food waste from landfill material. Acquire state of ten art recycling
tech.
What about recycling bins in the parks!! Hello, right outside your window is an opportunity to
walk your talk and see your plan in action. Literally, right outside!
Our household has gone through a few different solutions for composting until finding
something that worked. The City and/or Marin Sanitary Service could include some promotions
or recommendations for integrating composting and recycling into household habits. Though
some of these products are costly for the average consumer they allow for hygienic ways to
include green bins into trashcans. One solution is here: https://www.josephjoseph.com/en-
us/totem-60
Marin Sanitary Service/City of San Rafael could promote household solutions or offer
incentives/fee rebates for households who prove purchase of certain solutions.
Additionally, the current recycling facilities require separation of all recycling types, though some
other cities have consolidated recycling containers for both metal and cardboard. Though the
upgrade to the facilities might be prohibitively expensive, it would offer a solution to some
separation issues."
It might help if there were some sort of label on the recycle cans showing what is ok and/or what
is not ok.
It appears that restaurants/markets produce a lot of food waste. I would encourage requiring
those businesses to recycle first.
Make composting and recycling easier and clearer. Some people are probably uncomfortable
throwing their kitchen scraps in the green can, particularly during the summer when kitchen
scraps can become rather fragrant and the inside of the green can begins to look rather nasty.
Perhaps some kind of compostable container that people can put their scraps in that might make
it easier to compost.
People need to assume personal responsibility for their trash.
Additional education to the public on recycling properly and the duty to do so. I see many of my
neighbors who don’t seem to even try and it’s troubling.
Require landlords to provide compost! I want to compose but cannot so I end up having to throw
away dirty paper, etc. We try really hard to reduce waste but wish we could do even better.
22
Educational forums to inform folks about proper recycling and composting procedures.
Have garbage Co use there money to buy new machines
Fine manufacturers of plastic packaging for not producing recyclable plastic packaging.
recycle food scraps to be collected by garbage company so they can turn it into compost. Many
of us do not have the time or space to do it.
There are other areas in California that have a "one bin" system where there are paid staff at the
landfill doing a lot of sorting. Everything (on the residential side at least) goes into one bin - all
food, recycled, and actual trash items. The city I used to live/work in had this -
http://onebigbin.com/ - and this makes it easy for customers to not have to keep track of what is
compost-able, recyclable, etc.
One of the main reasons I feel that people don't recycle food waste is because of the smell and
one more garbage can around the kitchen/office space. Food waste, if it is not regularly
disposed of will smell. Are the existing cleaning crews on board with removing food waste into
green bins?
Reducing the size of the landfill cans you provide to businesses and residents. Maybe that would
force them to recycle more if they didn't have the space in their landfill can. More education as
well.
not currently composting because my apartment complex does not offer it. I also notice people
recycling wrong or not at all. Working with large units (like apartments, community living, age in
place, etc.) may provide more bang for the buck. Holding the landlords responsible and maybe
there own staff will take on educating their occupants and/or pre-sorting, correcting whats
wrong.
A fine seems like it won't really solve the problem- I know there are other cities that have the
option to fine residents if they find a banana peel in the trash. But the fine does not get the
banana peel out of the trash. The issue seems to be largely one of convenience. Many families
don't have a ready to use compost container in the kitchen- if they did, I'm sure they would be
more likely to throw food scraps in it. We should give out free ones to everyone. Apartment
living is tough because there may be roaches or other pests that get into these types of food
containers so families would rather throw the scraps in the garbage. I had no idea the food
scraps were such a big problem in reducing our carbon footprint! I don't compost regularly but I
will start now!
An ordinance that requires businesses to recycle and compost correctly, and allows the City to
issue fines to those that won’t comply
Community tours of recycling plant, community education through schools and other events.
More information about this problem widely circulated in an education campaign.
23
Have MRCC provide counter top composting containers - of course paid for by consumer
There could be guidelines and standards set up for waste that is recyclable and waste that is not
in order to help families correctly sort out compost and plastics.
Free classes/workshops and volunteer days where people from the community can visit the
recycling/compost plants and learn about what happens to recycled goods, where they go, and
how they impact the environment.
Ensure that all businesses have recycling containers and mandate that they are used properly.
For YEARSI have been trying to get McInnis golf course to recycle.
Provide containers that are odor-tight.
Public classes on composting and recycling that help people overcome the confusion and
barriers to composting and recycling. These classes should come to us where we are- like
libraries, HOA meeting, or other. There is lots of education for kids, but adults make the decision
whether to compost at home, and how contaminated the recycling is- and there are big
questions and misconceptions. It's confusing!
It is already too cumbersome to recycle ""correctly"" here. The split cans have narrow openings
that are awkward to fit larger items. The rules for what items go in which can are byzantine. I
don't want 4 different trash cans in my kitchen; it's getting ridiculous! Fines won't change this.
Fines will just anger residents and waste people's time.
Make it simpler to do the right things and people will change on their own. Sonoma County
residents get a single can for many of their recyclables, and it works much better. We want to be
good to the environment, but we're busy people!"
More green waste bins , I live in a apartment that doesn’t have food wastes bins I compost in the
bushes around the building
Pictures of what belongs in the bins on the actual bins. I have the hand out in a drawer where it
does no good
The garbage Co use our money from cans and bottles and cardboard to buy new equipment
Education might be expensive but it's the key. I know that I am often unsure about which plastics
are recyclable and which are not.
Kitchen food scraps - pretty clear. Paper recycling - pretty clear. Cans and bottles - pretty clear.
But so much stuff comes in plastic packaging! Triangle 1-5 yes, others no--but what if you can't
24
see a triangle? Also note that we have a fairly high turn-over of residents in apartments near us.
They don't know....
People should not count on plastic recycling actually being recycled and therefore, instead of
investing in better recycling, we should restrict plastics in stores and help consumers support
stores that carry bulk.
As you likely know, since China imposed it's National Sword policy in the fall, much of the
recycling along the Pacific Coast of the U.S. that formerly went to China has been sitting in
landfill. <https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Markets/NationalSword/> San Rafael needs to ban
single use plastic and frankly all plastic wrapped items. Our own family has ceased using our
landfill bin because we shop in bulk and use glass containers and beeswax wrap to store all food.
Grocery stores are the lowest hanging fruit, quite honestly.
Lots more publicity. Plenty of well-presented containers with simple instructions in schools (if
more kids do it, they will tell their parents to).
Fines for any apartment owners that do not put out bins. At my apartment complex they refuse
to put green bins out so I have to walk down the street to other apartment complexes that do.
Education about the importance to composting kitchen scraps in brochures delivered to door
steps.
Have friendly neighborhood competitions and the opportunity for those who comply to enter
raffles to win prizes. Put up signage with positive messaging that sounds as if we are already in
the process of achieving our green goals and that everyone is supportive, kind of like "San Rafael
Going Green".
I think punishing people who are trying to recycle or compost by fining them is counter-
productive. Our condo's containers, while off the street and not easy to access by passers-by, are
not under lock and key. Also, my building has many elderly residents that occasionally struggle
with understanding the difference between recyclable and non-recyclable items of the same
material, including residents with visual impairments. By punishing people by imposing fines, you
risk people throwing items away that could be recycled for fear of punishment, and you also end
up punishing people who recycled correctly, but have bins located on the street overnight for
early-morning pick up that can be used incorrectly, either in error or on purpose, by people that
are not vested in getting it right (homeless people who aren't aware of the rules, teen-agers or
passers-by that don't know or don't care what the repercussions are to the bin's owners, etc.). In
addition to the above, I compost and recycle but am sometimes still confused by what is and is
not acceptable. What is acceptable at my workplace (in San Rafael) does not appear to be the
same as what is acceptable at my condominium (also in San Rafael). Several of my coworkers
that also work and live in Marin county are also confused. This tells me that the educational
materials out there are not clear enough.
25
1. Rules on what is and isn't recyclable are way TOO complicated and they change, you need a
PhD in ""garbagology"" to comply. There is a need for a way to impart info in a way people can
understand and remember. I believe the will is there, especially in Marin, you just need to give
peeps the tools to comply.
2. Another issue is that rules vary between cities. For example, what can be recycled in SF can't
be recycled in Marin. This further confuses people. Would be handy to have a Statewide rule
book! "
It seems wishful recycling can be eliminated with clear instructions and perhaps an incentives'
program rather than the proposed fines.
compost all materials that will decompose, to make soil.
see ; mill valley refuse...
I think you still need to educate. In the long run that is less costly. A flyer sent to the homes. I
could use a health reminder as what can and cannot go in the bins. Please inform us. Knowledge
is power and less costly.
You need to make recycling easier. I used to live in Mill valley, and they had commingled
recycling with very few restrictions. I took the tour of Marin sanitary, and there are so many
restrictions it makes recycling confusing. Example only hard plastic, wash all bottles, etc.
Look into FastOx gasification project by Sierra Energy in Davis, CA. www.sierraenergycorp.com
More education on exactly what can and can't be recycled. The occasional chart is good, but
perhaps something more, with an emphasis on the problem of recycling things with
contaminates etc. All that is very confusing, and it makes even eager recyclers feel confused and
in the wrong.
it was my understanding that Marin exceeded other counties in meeting goals.
I think the biggest problem with recycling is education and labeling. Fining and punishing people
isn't going to change that. I would put available funds toward behavioral marketing and, above
all, labeling. Think what you could do to educate people if, say, you collaborated with grocery
stores to put a recognizable green label on the shelf sticker of every product that had recyclable
packaging? What if you enlisted the help of children to teach their families about recycling and
gave them incentives?
create a web page with good SEO so that people can type "San Rafael recycling" into
google/search engines and the list comes right up. Marin sanitary is great, but a lot of people
rent - so they might not have a direct relationship with Marin sanitary or know how to find
answers. This list could be on the Marin sanitary site + the city of san rafael site - make it look
the same so that it's recognizable. Thanks for this survey!
Need garbage cans on the street that have the option for recycling and compost as well as
garbage
26
All solids should be separated by the garbage collector. Compostable material should either be
separated by the garbage collector or filtered from waste water from sink disposals.
Continue to educate the public! I always learn something new with each Marin Sanitary recycling
mailer.
I think education is (overall) more effective than fines...often people don't know what goes
where...it takes time and repetition to create new habits and to learn the proper sorting system."
I would vote for the above ordinance for businesses. No way for single person households!
Educate and make challenges to encourage people to sort. Explain why and not make it
“mandatory” but more of an expectation by showing if a product can be recycled in stores on the
tags that tell you the price or in other quick and easy ways so that that extra 10 seconds to
choose where to grow each thing away less stressful or challenging
Having classes on recycling and home composting for the community.
Taxes on trash produced in households. And incentives/ tax deductions for those who
recycle/compost
Mandatory compost
Implement better school recycling and composting systems!
Have commercials that give helpful reminders on how to compost and which items go into each
recycling bin.
Educating the youth!
Recycling programs at all schools
Start fining people who don't compost,. Or invest in a massive education program to educate the
public on the benefits of composting. Require all milk and yoghurt and drinks be sold in reusable
glass bottles and susidize the reprocessing and reuse of said bottles
I think there is still a lot of confusion about plastic and metal recycling in terms of what can or
cannot be recycled. I tend to put anything that I think can be recycled in the brown bin, since I
know that the recycling center does go through it. Unfortunately, too many people are TOO
LAZY to do a decent job of recycling and trying to reduce waste. I highly recommend that people
attend the free waste recycling plant to see what can and should be done with our waste. It was
an eye opener to me. I was lucky enough to be in a group with 2 children who took the whole
27
process seriously. We need to get more schools involved, because it is the youth that will do a
better job of saving our planet.
I live in a complex where the nearest green bin is a block away. We need more bins.
Better education on what can be recycled or composted.
Compost paper towels used in public or private bathrooms.
Have compost bins around the city but this would attact unwanted pests.
Tax the rich! And tax the Chamber of Commerce members 25% a year! No, wait, 50%!
Marin Sanitary can do more to educate us. I ALWAYS try to recycle, but sometimes just don't
know if the product IS recyclable. While the flyers they produce are useful, we have so many
products that may or may not be recyclable, it would be useful to have a exhaustive list.
Have more recycling & composting containers distributed throughout the city, with usage
guidelines clearly posted. Big Belly makes great containers that have solar-powered compactors
built in.
I would also encourage public outreach/messaging around this. A lot of change can happen just
will people being aware.
We have people walking by our bins and throwing garbage in out compost. It is hard to stomach
getting fined for ofthers’ actions.
Make it easier for people to compost. You could even have public compost depots (how it is
done in other countries). Some of us do not have the space.
More customer education about what products cannot be recycled. Offer small composting
containers for residential kitchens.
Have the recycler use the money he gets for our glass and can money to buy the equipment
themselves
Composting!
tax one-way plastic items
give rebates for home composting
More implementation help for composting. The City of San Rafael sites can lead by example.
28
Terra Linda rec center has no composting, despite having multiple events a week at the location
with 10s of pizza boxes. City of San Rafael childcare centers do not match the recycling efforts of
the schools where they are housed.
Who are the offenders? Is it a smallish group that could be targeted with education and
outreach? Is it renters, who likely don't get the necessary information from their landlords? Can
you identify the group(s) that don't do it correctly so efforts can be focused in ways that reach
them?
Community comes to mind first, where each block that is able has at least one dedicated
composting system in someone's yard where neighbors can add to it. I think it is unlikely for
many to be successful, but maybe some.
1st Step
Specific information, including pleas, on the lids of each container.
2nd Step
Specific warning (beginning with the most egregious) of fines to violators.
3rd Step
Actual fines.
Have the garbage company develop a furnace that converts plastic into clean energy.
Increase awareness of savings Readily available if people recycle enough to switch to smaller
garbage bins.
Please consult the soil scientists at http://marincarbonproject.org for advice on methods for
creating organic compost, which is a vital component for the Carbon Project's very effective
carbon capture methodology. The Marin Carbon Project is cited in the County's Climate Action
Plan as one of the single most effective methods for reducing atmospheric carbon.
what costs are involved? Can we afford it?
I would suggest more educational efforts to help those of us who want to recycle correctly to do
so--more flyers with bills, articles in the IJ, etc.
There really hasn't been much outreach and education about recycling. And it needs to be
ongoing. Out of the 8 units where I live, I am the only one that recycles food, and everything
else.
A program for teaching worm composting with discounted kits to get started. I did this in
another county and it was a win-win. the additive castings for the garden were wonderful.
Supporting (financially) School programs that teach composting DAILY in the cafeteria and the
classrooms, so that kids get in the habit and they get taught to bring it home. Show the film
29
Wasteland to seniors so they can make a difference. Fine people at the dump who bring in
compostables mixed with noncompostables and let them know that compostables (should be)
free to bring in. Make sure all supermarkets are composting. Set up the program that turns food
waste into quality animal feed before composting.
Do programs in pre schools and elementary schools and middle schools that teach children what
kind of items are not recyclable and why so the children learn what is right, what is correct and
what is not. Have science fairs demonstrating recycling and what is OK and what is not. Get the
pre-schoolers ages 4 and up, elementary and middle school kids excited about sustainability
issues and concerns. Have them work on the world around them--where they live, their
neighborhoods, their schools, their after school programs, and make recycling a habit. Kids who
recycle will grow up to recycle.
A combination of the two seems reasonable. Significant offenders should pay a price and this will
further offset the cost of the machinery.
Allow for use of bio bags or an alternative for composting in green barrel. Marin Sanitary does
not allow bio bags and throwing food in barrels attracts rats and requires cleaning that uses
more water and energy than is saved
Education through forums like NextDoor and local schools can be helpful. You’d be surprised at
the pressure kids put on parents at home!
My new gardener says Novato accepts palm in green cans. If San Rafael can't accept palm,
maybe offer cash rebates for removal of invasive species like palm (which attracts rats) and
eucalyptus (which burns). Also palm can be made into paper, but it overheats if you try to make
2-sided copies. Some people burn palm because of San Rafael's policy. A lot of people throw
away batteries and light bulbs because nobody has time to go drop them off.
Also in San Rafael, you have to call Marin Sanitary for pricing on various things, and there should
be a list on their website for how to deal with specific things like large mattresses and what the
specific costs are.
Increased education on sorting
Compost the garbage that is compostable right here in San Rafael. MSS has plenty of land. They
can sell the results to gardeners.
Require re-cyclable containers and other things via state law. Milk should come in glass
containers, not non-recyclable cardboard. Too little is done to ""persuade"" corporate
interests to promote recyclables. But I guess that figures since corporate interests own the
politicians
30
Continue to strengthen education programs in public (and private) schools, so the next
generation is totally educated and trained to recycle and compost correctly.
31
WATER COMMENTS
Q. What might prevent you from doing any of the above? Other
Lack of ownership renter
I have already done all.
N/A
Already have drought tolerant plantings in front & back
already done the second and third
I am a renter and do not want to invest in the property.
The biggest area of water waste isn't lawns. Check the science -- it is actually eating animals.
Meatless Monday initiatives and reduction is needed. The rest is window dressing. Meat is the
elephant in room here -- pls be strategic.
We already recycle cans, bottles, food scraps, and other refuse weekly or daily.
Think replacement of front lawns (mostly unused by residents) should be required to be
replaced/removed.
We have alsready done most of the things on your list, so we would need to know what else we
should do.
I have already upgraded old irrigation systems with new, effective drip.
I like the look of lawns and plants and feel they add value to properties in the canals
Not my lawn
Aesthetics. I'm still 'old school' and believe grass turf looks pleasing. And it's relatively easy to
maintain as opposed, I presume, to drought-tolerant landscaping which still requires a couple of
hours per week to maintain so that it looks good.
Don't have a lawn, don't have an irrigation system.
Animal agriculture is a much larger impact on CA's ongoing drought. We need to focus on
changing consumer eating habits. Not landscaping.
32
We don't have a lawn
We’ve already done the checked items
It is done.
We just stop watering our “lawn” aka patch of weeds when the drought is worse
Please encourage waste water recycling to be used in landscape
Very small area that needs water.
HOA controls landscaping
alreadt done all of the above
Already done
With young kids I prefer to keep part of my lawn, but have reduced the size of my lawn.
I enjoy a lawn for my children to play on, have picnics and the beauty of a lawn.
Solutions and systems on how to capture more water should be a top priority.
No lawn at my house.
I would replace plants with more draught tolerant before adding an irrigation.
Already have drought resistant landscaping; and efficient watering system
Lawn, irrigation etc not applicable in my case.
I have done all the above
Our condominium assoc. has already replaced lawn, but hasn't had a water use assessment at
least lately.
Already planted drought-resistant plants and sod. Not sure how to answer questions if I have
already taken steps to address the issue (question above this one).
Nothing
Change whole garden
33
We have already done all of the above.
I'm a renter with low water use.
Container gardening, so there’s some emitters it mostly watered by hand
I just put a small lawn in with a new irrigation system.
We have already put in an efficient system.
Not necessary
others in 40-unit condo complex
I rent my house. I think landlord should pay. He thinks I should pay. I turned off his auto-
irrigation and bought my own plants. But the trees suffer.
already done them
we already do not have a lawn
Personal preference for aesthetic landscaping.
Have no lawn
husband thinks our irrigation system is fine
Mostly parents decision
I am attempting to do as much as I can, but notice that many people do NOT. SAD!
We rent from an asshole.
We have already done all three of the above items.
already have an efficient system with drought tolerant plants. As well, I use slow grey water to
care for my plants.
It's just a small patch of lawn and kids play on it.
We rent, so the investment is our landlord's decision - but we would support it, and have a
pretty good track record of convincing her to do the right thing.
Complacency
34
I have no lawn and use a drip system for my plants
Don't much water for plants
Lawn use minimal, other changes already done, but garden is extensive
I already have too many plants that require a lot of time to maintain and relatively not that much
lawn area. Lawns actually take less time to maintain.
n/a
Knowing what to plant and how to group and design it
We get usage assessments on City Water bill and stated recommended limits.
This question needs an answer: "I am already doing this"
Already have done much, don't want to harm the veg. garden.
Have already decrease lawn with mulched areas.
A green landscape helps prevent fires and is a valuable community asset for providing shade and
sinking carbon. Water needs for landscape need to be yard size based and consistent
w/preserving trees and happy green shrubs, hopefully natives.
Re replacing lawn, it depends on the options that an able me to use the space like a lawn does.
Fake grass can be just as bad for environment.
I feel uncomfortable having someone from MMWD come to my home. I don't trust them.
Lethargy - sorry to admit, because I believe in it, but haven't taken positive action except to
remove the lawn.
Renter
Landlords responsibility
35
TRANSPORTATION COMMENTS
What might stop you or get in the way of buying or leasing one? [electric vehicle] Other
Have a newer car
Getting a PHEV instead.
Need more information about specific issues.
Have a 2018 Prius 4
Need for a truck at times
just don't like them
They still use electricity, so it's not a perfect solution. I'd rather use public transportation and
bike more often as a means of reducing my emissions.
We have cars that we drive at a far below average rate. They regularly pass the emissions test
easily.
Size for transporting kids/family
I would consider it when our current cars need replacement, but not before.
don't like the use of batteries...
Damage to the environment from the used batteries
I already take the train to work.
Battery cost and life
Our present cars work well - Toyota hybrids
I already have a non plug in hybrid.
already driving a hybrid civic
Safety--most hybrid cars too small for collision defense.
they emit less when you count manufacture of battery.
Energy has to come from somewhere. Gasoline doesn't require enriched uranium.
36
We are planning to look at the Clarity as our next vehicle. My husband can set up the charging
station.
This is an interim technology first off. Secondly, more energy is used to manufacture electric
vehicles and battery waste is more toxic than the phony carbon dioxide argument.
too big of an investment at our age.
Not good for trips over about 200 miles
Have to order the one I want and be on a waiting list.
I have a relatively new car already
More information: is buying a brand new car just as polluting as driving a used gas-powered car
Over their lifecycles?
I don't like most styles
EVs don't have the same utility features yet.
My vehicles are paid off and I'm not in the market for a new car until 2022.
I travel across the country at least once a year and worry about the lack of charging stations
Just bought a new car.
I don't need a new car however when I do I will explore this option.
EVs in my price range are too small for me [long legs & a disability]
Would need another vehicle for trips to Phoenix. Batteries don't last that long and they have a
negative impact on the environment too - in manufacturing process and disposal.
Drive very little! Telecommute and use transit.
Poor driving expirience, lack of additional parking (want to keep my gas as well)
Cyrrently awaiting delivery of my EV
I already have one Why is that not an option above?
I run my car on bio-fuel so I don't feel too badly about my transport.
37
I live in a triplex that has 1 meter so we already are overcharged in our bill for electicity.
Life cycle cost We do not drive that much, my wife works from home and I am retired
Waiting for better battery life
I drive a non electric hybrid Prius and my partner drives an all electric plug-in Nissan Leaf. I don't
want a new car or car payments and we need one car that isn't limited by EV battery range.
I drive a lot for work and carry clients. Therefore I feel safer in a larger car.
concern of where energy is coming from
e cars don't pencil out financially until gas gets to ~ $5/gallon. Distance is still a major constraint,
I did an analysis on my trips and the majority exceed charge distance
Own an EV
Cost of replacing battery and maintaining the vehicle
I am 80 years old and fighting a battle with a chronic illness.
Nothing, we have a Nissan Leaf electric vehicle, and a Prius plug in for longer trips.
Using more electricity does not solve the problem and is an expensive choice
I don't drive enough.
The cars we have will go another 10 years and I don't see us replacing them until their time is
done
I only drive about 3000 miles a year. And walk whenever I can.
we have prius, (2011 ) in a few years would consider plug in Hybrid like volt
Tesla's problems with battery fires concerns me, since battery fires seem to happen on phones,
IPads, Vaping sticks, etc.
Benefits for installing solar to help offset cost for charging EV.
EV's and plug-in need a 5,000 mile range
I'm driving my old Civic into the ground. Building cars also costs CO2.
38
Our 11 and 13 year old Toyota hybrids still work great!
That vehicle doesn't exist; what about power, performance
Poor quality of these vehicles and the fact that the brands I Prefer don’t have tgem
Cost to replace/recycle battery
Long term ownership reliability and cost to maintain.
Lack of plug in pickup track
Don't want to buy into technology that will not endure
AGAIN ! WE NEED "ALREADY DO" as an offered answer !
I like my current vehicles
Need ev pickup truck options
Concern about Tesla safety and quality.
Vehicle size
Of the ones I checked, the main issue has been cost. We looked into a hybrid a few years ago and
it was impossible to cost justify.
I worry about batteries exploding. I have an older car, and I'm not looking forward to having
higher maintenance costs due to the amount of computer technology in newer cars.
We are buying one in the VERY near future
Q. Thinking about you and people you know, please check the top 3 items that you think
the City could do to help increase ownership of Electric Vehicles. Other
Make the SMART train available at night
Zip cars? For external use. What to do about getting students into buses and out of cars. 1/3 of
all Marin's traffic problems are based on student commute patterns.
keep EVs small
Sponsor drive sharing companies as is being developed in Sacramento.
39
none of the above
When EV's are at the same price point as IC's I'll be interested. Rebates are unfair to the lower
economic levels of society. That's if there are any low income people left in San Rafael.
Taxpayers or the City should not fund charging stations!
Tax and economic incentives already exist to promote hybrid and electric vehicles
If possible, require Uber, Lyft and local taxis working in San Rafael to be electric vehicles. Offer
incentives
Mind your own business.I can buy a van for two grand and run it into the ground. That is green in
my book.
Leave it alone. It's nothing but a UN "Safe Cities Initiative" boondoggle.
Let the market work, when they are effective they will be used more.
fund the ownership increase by VOLUNTEER donations. NO city money for any of the above.
Don’t spend city money on this.
Begin to transition all city vehicles to electric vehicles with the exception of Patrol Cars, Fire
Trucks and DPW trucks. Phase in EV charging stations at all empl. parking lots to encourage
employees buying EV. Buy EV, get a city charging station.
Not convinced that rebates are the most cost effective way to address this.
Raise costs for dirty vehicles... carbon tax, local toll.
more rapid charging stations are the key
none. Electricity is not free and its generation, vehicle/battery manufacture and disposal is
poluting. Its a false choice.
Ask the people who own EVs. They're the only ones who really know what's needed.
Free charging will go a long way but also have incentives to install solar to offset cost of charging
vehicle at home and elsewhere.
Fine everyone who does NOT have one a LOT of money. Especially city council members.
40
Need more info on EVs - People are skeptical. Stories about batteries exploding, lack of a long
track record for EVs, & concerns about electricity coming from coal-fired power plants all
contribute.
stop incentivizing rich people
Nothing is "free." San Rafael cannot afford the above rebates. Also how about just allowing
homeowners to install charging stations without having to pay city fees like permit fees.
Offer driving classes for adults in Spanish
Driving classes for adults
Offer classes for Latin Youth
Offer extensive classes about environmental problems
Lower fees for using busses and the train to incentivize increase use.
I would happily use public transportation instead of driving if it were more affordable and
frequent, i.e.: To take the bus home today, I must wait around for an hour after work.
Offer free parking for electric vehicles in any space!
Nothing. Existing vehicle doesn’t need replacing yet. Want a used one that is more current tech
so waiting a few years.
Q. If you don’t already get to school or work by taking the bus, walking, biking, carpooling,
and/or telecommuting, what stops you from doing one of these options more often?
Other
Lack of convenience, time, location and privacy
Limited ability to bicycle.
Like the flexibility and convenience.
Air quality and traffic safety
retired
Retired seniors doing little driving in our Prius
41
I carpool most days, otherwise convenience and cost prevent me from train/bus
Need to take my dog to and from daycare.
I sometimes need my car for work, but not always. More bike lanes would encourage me to bike
to work more often!
retired, not employed
on shift work. sometimes need my car to go between work stations
Both of us are retired. We drive to do errands and for entertainment. We do most of shopping
within 5 miles of our house.
N/A I am retired, only use car few days per week by combining trips.
lack of flexibility.
I regularly transport equipment and cannot take public transportation.
The timing is off slightly going from bus to smart train. Smart train to bus timing is ok, but
figuring out bus to smart train is difficult.
lack of good transit options to East Bay
Costs. It needs to be cheaper. Since the true costs of auto ownership and use is 'hidden', we
need to make all public transit essentially 'free' (You asked for 'big ' ideas!)
Unsafe broken sidewalks
I carpool as often as possible. My work often requires my car to purchase supplies for next day
projects.
Don't necessarily work hours that are convenient on public transport.
Errands with several stops
Inconvenient; it comes infrequently
I’m retired. I use my non plug in hybrid for errands
I work off hours or telecommute
42
Transit options in my area are limited and time consuming, a 10 minute trip by car can take 40
minutes by transit
already walk to work
My commute drive is the only time I have to myself.
Am retired now but took GGT bus into SF for 15 years.
I would rather drink paint than be a pedestrian.
Need to make stops to drop off kids at childcare before getting to work
I already ride my bike or bus a lot. Safer biking and walking conditions would be a plus.
Retired don’t work
This is an individual choice. Already ride a bike.
being retired, we don't have commuter needs. We do take the Smart train, bus or ferry from
time to time.
I bike or walk
do not work- retired
Retired
work at home.
I'm retired
not sure I could do work tasks at home
Doesn't work with dropping babies/children off on the way to work
having access to a vehichle to run errands during breaks is important, as well as appointments, if
a kid gets sick and needs to be picked up.
I live in San Rafael. PT would take way longer to get to work.
I have three kids going to separate places -- taking public transit seems an impossible option for
family.
43
I bike to work when i don't need my car
The weather is often cold in the mornings.
I am a single working mom and have a time sensitive schedule. Have to drive kids to school, then
work (skip lunch) so I can get off early to pick up kids from school
More people would take public transport if it ran more frequently and was closer to where
people need to go
how to get from destination station to actual destination?
I have to make too many stops, like drop child off at school and then get to work.
Besides not having a bike lane route to work, the street has gravel and broken glass along the
sides which makes it less enticing as an option. Plus my work doesn’t have a good spot for me to
lock my bike.
Do not commute
My husband rides his bicycle to work. I'm retired--walk to do errands when practical.
need to transport child to/from school en route
Difficulty walking
I bike my 4th grader to school on days when I don't work in SF. Let's please get BART in Marin so
I don't have to drive anymore. The ferry takes too long, is too expensive, doesn't go to my job
and I get sea sick.
I work at a dog-friendly workplace, can't take the dog on public transit.
i don't commute (have a home office)
Use my EV to commute
More flexibility with schedule having my own car
Retired
age, ease of mobility, and stamina
Can't get to transit, Its inefficient. Finiancial support of its infrastructure is excessive..
44
I work from home, and my husband works for Uber. It's hard enough to afford to live here
without taking away jobs from Uber drivers. Uber will go away soon with the advent of self
driving vehicles. What will you do to create more jobs for people over 60?
I work from home
i take the train to & from work 5 days would take sat & sun but know early train service need to
drive to work week end 2 days
Too infrequent and too high cost.
I carpool and telecommute
Retired
retired
retired
Too long of a walk / bike ride in the morning
I already carpool everyday!
Transit schedules and commuter car pools don't match my irregular work start/stop schedule
This is a disgustingly reprehensible question What about SR residents who work at home? Or
who are retired?
inadequate, infrequent and indirect public transportation
Transit runs too infrequently and not late enough at night.
I commute to the East Bay. Public transportation triples my commute. There should be direct
service that does not meander thru San Rafael. Don't forget that people have to deal with
destination transport too. Getting on should be the short leg.
I do multiple errands - shop, pick up kids, drive 1.5 miles to movie
public transit in Marin is a joke. I have employees who dont' have cars, & they have chronic
difficulty with public transit. We are in a major shopping center, yet they have to take 2 busses to
reach us. If 1st is late (happens often), they miss the 2nd.
Come on, I work at home, as do many of us.
45
No way. I’m driving. I pay my taxes and I pay for the cost of my car and insurance. I walk for
exercise.
No reasonable public transportation to work in San Ramon
SMART's schedule is too limited
work from home, so therefore no commute
Roads aren't safe enough for my kids to bike everywhere, so I have to drive to pick them up.
AGAIN ! WE NEED "ALREADY DO" as an offered answer !
Hard to bike in bad weather.
I'm a licensed contractor and require my truck for getting to and from job sites and material
suppliers.
Please remember the train generates more emissions than it abates
I want to drive my car.
lack of secure bike parking
Difficult to find carpool opportunities for school transport. Would LOVE to not have to drive my
kids to school. Would LOVE to get school traffic off the roads!!
I'm glad to see Marin transit is starting to offer individually-tailored rides. I have too much to
carry to be able to use public transportation to work.
Increase amount of bike parking and septate lanes.
Q. Thinking of your daily commute, what could the City or transit companies do to help you
get to work and school without driving alone, and to use options like taking the bus,
walking, biking, carpooling, and telecommuting? Other
Bike sharing program. Car share program in and around SR. Make riding bus more efficient, takes
too long. Richmond Bridge/East Bay commute.
Better promotion of transit options and benefits.
Encourage carpooling! Honestly I like my own car and space.
46
the only way you are going to get mainstream Marinites in transit is to make it easier and more
economical as long as it doesn't take more time
offer transportation to shopping, grocery, etc. that is more direct
I have tools. Need a vehicle
Don't support S-train boondoggle of $900,000 cost per passenger. Require school bus use.
Do survey on peoples driving patterns and find out why solo driving is necessary. Maybe from
that, solution will be more obvious.
We live on a steep hill. Driving car is best option.
Need better ways to get kids to school en mass. Electric bus service and dedicated bus routes
from key housing areas to the main high schools and middle schools.
For me to take the bus to the Presidio, it would need to be incredibly convenient;leaving every 5
minutes during commute times
Encourage carpooling
Make mass transit a much more pleasant experience than it is now.
Gass, grass or ass, no one rides for free
I live close to my work and almost always have to run errands after work.
Figure out how to make it as convinent as driving.
do not go to school or work
If there were a bike line down 101 from Novato, I would ride a bike.
Provide more motorcycle and moped friendly infrastructure.
Job requires a city vehicle which is also a take home car.
I work at a City facility that has limited bus service
As said, I can't imagine wrangling 3 kids through public transport, however, perhaps an electric
bike loaner program? I might be willing to explore commuting if I could use an electric bike and
there were safety lanes.
47
improve ease of commuting on multiple transit routes (train to ferry)
make transportation available at transit stations to get to final destinations
Learn from Lyft and Uber. Move to fleet of small busses that can be hailed online and linked to a
credit card. Routes and costs could be ride-share dynamic. I would feel safer riding that than
Uber. They would be electric, of course.
Bus system is good, could be made more reliable, frequent, faster, routes, etc.
Install bike share- GoBike.
Need more express buses direct to SF main work sites
Make school buses free; encourage schools to prohibit parents driving kids to school; install bike
lanes & create a transportation plan that prioritizes biking, walking & transit. Run more buses &
make them cheaper. Put in BART in Marin.
shuttles from train
peeps opt for uber/Lyft because it's convenient, public transit isn't convenient
Have better intermodal connections.
Gas tax for all bay area, to pay for transit, it worked in vancouver...
Retired
Education & incentives on existing options. Mobile app.
better week end scheduling for train & bus service more hours of to & from
I do carpool to some activities, do chores usually drive along nearby in prius
Making more routes that are enjoyable and safe off of main roads
Retired
Cost of trip is important as well as convenience and reliability of system for running errands after
work.
Take away private cars that use gas
48
Transit needs to be responsive to the needs of the public, easier to get from origin to destination
in a timely way. Bicycle infrastructure needs to be connected without gaps, safe and separated
from cars. Walking needs to be a comfortable, safe option.
No bridge tolls for carpools of 3 or more
Extend frequencies outside of traditional operating hours. GGT is useless (other than the ferry,
which I often take) after 6:00 p.m. Also of minimal use before 6:00 a.m.
Increase SMART service
Create entirely separate (not shared with autos) express bike paths
Improve coordination of traffic lights so cars don’t wait and pollute at every north or south
bound street.
More flexible small bus shuttles with side doors to improve access. Use cell phone data to
predict popular routes. Build more housing near services (grocery) not transit centers.
Allow retired, disabled, seniors to ride public transportation for free
Nothing
provide secure bike parking around the city
Provide school buses and make it painful for people to drive their kids to school
Provide an annual transit pass for all systems
Have more public service closer to work
Use a bike more frequently
The City should have a public transportation service like the Muni in San Francisco
It is necessary to have a car since the busses do not operate at all hours for us to arrive to work.
Launch awareness campaign aimed at kids to promote taking the bus. And make bus to school
cool! (and available)
Need to recognize the requirements of those in the gig economy
49
ENERGY COMMENTS
Q. Do you have any appliances that are more than 10 years old and may be inefficient? If
you answered yes, I have an old... Other
Lack of ownership, renter.
oven/range
old gas stove
trunk freezer
chest freezer
swimming pool filter and heater ; very old and very expensive to replace
Appliances are from 2005 and were efficient at the time: no AC, new heater and water
Stove
Oven
I'm uncertain of the age of each
I'm not sure. I bought my place in August '17. I'm slowly assesing appliances with a mind to
replacing them if necessary, and we just got solar panels installed & are awaiting PG&E approval
to run them.
oven/stove/microwave
stove
We bought new appliances and replaced water heater when we moved into our new home .12
years ago. They all work great, will replace with newer efficiency models when they die. Washer
and dryer less than 10 years old.
Stove
I have incandescent lights in some places because I like the quality of the light better.
50
Q. Do you have any interest in possibly upgrading or replacing current inefficient
appliances and systems in your home or business? What are the 1-2 most important
factors that might keep you from doing it? Other
current still work
current still work
Units aren't quite old enough yet to replace
All new 5 years
Renting an apartment who supplies all appliances
It does not need to be replaced yet.
Our house was new in 2015.
As a renter, I do not want to invest in the property
I will replace them when they break. Older appliances are generally more reliable than newer
ones AND, unlike newer solid-state appliances, older ones are relatively easy for DIY fixing.
renter
We will replace them when it is necessary. If it ain't broke....
A new refrigerator would need to fit in our current space. The house was built with a specific
alcove for the refrigerator.
Landlord decides
will be remodeling kitchen with new appliances
Not applicable
D/w swap out awaiting remodel of kitchen. Led bulb swap out is info shortage related. Also, apt
owners & business's should be required to get energy consumption audits. Rebates for business
that invest in all led lighting.
It's wasteful to throw out a good working appliance or anything
I rent and am not able to make upgrades
rented senior facility
51
Done!
Built in obsolescence ; it's terrible to think you should replace major appliances every ten years!
It is done.
Renting - my worry is if there is a requirement to replace these appliances, rental rates could
become even more unreasonable than they already are.
Not a fan of intrusive "smart" technology.
It would lead to a complete kitchen remodel ... which we are not ready to do.
I have relatively new appliances. Selected for high efficiency at time of purchase.
just replacing a perfectly working old appliance might create more waste and pollution. Need
real data to make a decision. Not just a wishful thinking.
Space - can't fit new efficient model washer and dryer in available space
In my previous home, when I bought new appliances, they were ALL lemons! New appliances
may be energy efficient, but are built to break and break sooner. If these appliances end up in
landfill, how energy efficient is that?
I am a renter
I am a renter
renting (don't own, only use)
I am a renter
My appliance are new.
they still work!!!
Space: our refrigerator is bulky
don't know how inefficient ones that now fit a difficult space are
Just did a major remodel 3 years ago. All new appliances. Would consider upgrading to the next,
new technology.
They still work- so hard to invest in new ones
Landlord
Might be much more than just replacing heater
52
I hate throwing out things that are working just fine.
I rent
I have asked the apartment complex owner and they do not want to. The same with solar panels
because they say building codes would require them to do so much more at the same time. I
think that was an excuse and it is pur business decision.
Landlord unlikely to replace
Waiting for teen to get older before remodeling
Planning a kitchen remodel for 2019
I have been upgrading as I can afford it. I hope to be able to afford new AC before next summer.
newer appliances are poorly made and the HE units don't get clothes clean. Technological
advancements need to be made before I will even consider purchasing
rental
I rent and do not take appliances with me
we have solar electric that powers the house.
My landlord is too cheap.
When I replace appliances I purchase energy efficient ones.
Heating unit will be a large project to tackle due to location
New equipment fitting in existing space.
Please see earlier note as to landlord
LED lights are not bright enough for me to see, and are PAINFULLY blue
all are fairly new
you should be asking if we rent. and also, light bulbs don't belong on the list.
All ate working fine and seem to be efficient. We are low use pge customers
I think we upgraded everything we could except a 20 year old AC system that works and we were
advised not to replace unless we had to
53
Life of newer appliances
Landlord owns these appliances.
We replaced half of our lights with LEDs and will likely replace the rest before fall
Waiting for the old one to die
all new
I believe my washer and dryer are energy and water efficient
I'm a renter. My refrigerator was switched out over 10 years ago by PG&E.
Renter, no control
Waiting until current units do not work or need repair.
I have a built-in fridge, so it may be hard to find a replacement that fits the space.
We have replaced all with energy efficient LEDs, appliances
Q. Why might you be likely to purchase the 100% clean electricity option? Other
We are 100% locals. oh baby!
We already have to contribute to clean energy
It might incentivize me to use less electricity at home, but feel better about the electricity I do
have to use.
I might from PG&E; if that is where the money went. But never from MCE: just another money
making middle man.
already done this
Reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases
Not likely. Electricity from alternatives such as solar, wind, etc. are extraordinarily inefficient and
not sustainable. Without subsidization, these alternatives would exist only as hobbies for those
who like to tinker.
54
If our house were oriented so that we receive at least 8 hours of solar we could probably install
solar.
Form/instruciton to fill out or sign up included in with every monthly PG&E bill so more might be
likely to do so
I have done it
I think it's the right thing to do and doesn't sound like it costs too much.
To help with climate change issues.
To walk the talk. Our organization is conservation oriented.
I already have MCE deep green since the beginning.
If it was the same cost.
It is more environmentally responsible and important to do what I can to maintain low emissions
concern for our environment
I'm an environmentalist who supports renewable energy solutions.
Cost. Slightly more is not true!
The utility company should provide clean electrity as the standard option.
Clean energy is important enough for that. However, I'd want a good explanation of how these
are truly "clean" options.
MCE is a fraud
For enviroment!!
If it does not cost more, and/or is more energy efficient
Right thing to do
If it's truly 100%; currently I'm on the partially-clean program with MCE.
It's right action.
55
If i believed it actually made a difference and wasn't just virtue signaling. So, some independent
demonstration that it isn't just a shell game that shifts the emissions elsewhere.
It’s the right thing to do
I have it. The extra cost is so small I’m willing to pay the extra amount
I did in the past
Clean air
Cleaner
aligns with my values
If it cost less
It's a no brainer for those that can afford it.
Hydro Electric is clean energy. So is solar. Wind energy is inefficient, unsightful and dangerous to
wildlife.
Reduce emissions
Because I care about the earth
When it is produced by MCE not by trading credits.
When it is really made from new sources not just repurposed from existing power companies
More information
It's the right thing, even if it costs more.
Never
I already do because it is worth it to pay extra!
To help our planet
If the cost is not significant and if there is no difference in service I see no reason NOT to go this
route & reduce emissions
Slow climate change
56
To feel like I am at least doing something about climate change
It's better for the environment
Cost is reasonable for the clean energy used.
A huge incentive -- it's just too expensive to install.
because it is cleaner
To help reduce greenhouse gas emissions little by little.
Because I want to help the state reach its climate goals.
If it didn't cost more
If the cost increase was truly only $2-$10 month.
political affiliation, principle
It's such an easy way to to cut my emissions.
If the "normal" energy option was significantly worse (like coal, which we do not use in this
region), I'd be more motivated to not use it
Because it’s better for the environment
Cheaper
Reduce my impacts on GCC and air/water pollution
Support efforts toward greater sustainability
It helps energy efficiency
Done it already!
I did a long time ago because I know it is ultimately much less expensive and practically, it is
currently cheaper than if I opt-out and went with PG&E
Already did because I had the opportunity and it was easy.
Guilt
57
I already do.
better for the earth
to help the environment
its not nuclear.
Already do.
Live in a condo. I feel like condos should be required to have solar. Our board is an older board
and they are reluctant when it comes to greener options. It’s always a fight. Can you do some
educational outreach to HOA boards.
we need to think of the future and the next generation
in consideration of future generations
I already have solar on my home
If my landlord covered the extra cost.
We did buy it and are very happy with our choice. It feels good to be doing less harm to the
environment and the community.
If the costs come down.
Better for the environment better for my children
Reduce pollution
We have solar panels and we are part of MCE's Deep Green program...we feel great about
spending a bit more to support sustainable energy!
we have solar and don't pay for electricity
Because it is cheaper and better for the env.
It is bettet for the environment
I care about my carbon footprint and given there is this opportunity, I will highly consider it.
Less money.
58
Benefits the environment
Lightbulbs
To save there environment
I am deep green, already have it
Want to be more efficient and save what we can of our environment
Equivalent costs.
My financial system recently improved and now I can absorb the extra cost.
I can finally afford teh higher cost option
Easy and financially insignificant.
It was the right thing to do!
It helps create demand for clean energy, & the cost difference is minimal
I care about our environment.
If it was the only option available--which would be fine. Anyway are you sure the grid works that
way? (it doesn't). Also no electricity is "100% clean."
It’s a small easy thing to do for maybe $10 more monthly.
We have it
If it truly was cleaner energy. It just shifts so called clean energy production
To help direct more finance towards a low carbon economy
Cannot install solar panels on the house that I rent.
To save our planet for future generations
Solar panels
I already purchase Deep Green.
59
protect the environment
done
I already have. Reducing my carbon footprint is critically important to me.
do my part to reduce greenhouse gases & encourage the industry
love our worlds' gifts
The goal is important.
Care about life on earth after me
It will help toward climate change by reducing carbon.
If I knew that PG&E was not giving the extra money to stockholders rather than actually investing
it in decentralized clean energy production and safety measures.
I’m not likely. Cost is a major consideration
Give the landlords monetary savings to invest in solar and wind and have them pass along the
savings what tenants pay for utilities on the bills which will be less.
Clean and green for a minimal cost
To help reduce my household emissions.
Easy way to help environment
Climate change
Easy and cheap way to do my part
It's a scam (MCE) If it were truly "clean," I'd go for it.
Q. Why might you NOT be likely to purchase the 100% clean electricity option? Other
Concerns about not consistent rates
How much more cost? What is the measurable difference in greener energy vs the cost?
Cost drives behavior
60
costs
Cost
Might be tough to convince my partner it's worth the cost.
No way to track the money.
We installed solar panels and have a PowerWall
expensive
These alternatives are considerably more expensive than "$2 to $10 more per month" when
subsidies, paid for by taxpayers, are taken into account.
Our roof has much less exposure than 8 hours.
Cost
Our electric bill is $400/month already
Monthly utility bill should show comparison of how much polution (footprint) your usage created
compaired to what it would have been if signed up for 100% and how little extra it would have
costs.
The cost.
Because we are an already-struggling non-profit organization.
I have one incoming wire, same electricity.
Cost
additional cost
Afraid that my responsible actions will not 'make a difference' to counter less-than-responsible
actions by others.
Same as above
Insufficient explanation of the service and why it's clean and costs more.
PGE does not offer it and it is not locally sourced
61
It is 'greenwashing'.
Not an option!
If it costs more
Cost is higher
Extra cost
Because it may not actually cause the outcome to be less emissions because it shifts the
emissions elsewhere.
N/A
Senior Residential facility
Cost is increased
NA
cost and/or hassle
not sure what my options are as a renter
It's complicated. A good system shouldn't depend on volunteering and revolutionary fervor.
Because MCE is a feel good pension scam.
Rent is already high.
Increased cost.
Cost
Cost
People don't want to give more money to PG&E if they don't have to.
It isn't real new clean energy it is just power that someone else would use.
I already generate my own electricity from solar.
62
I don’t believe it
No reason - I do it already
No transparency in the process. No education from MCE and PG&E to easily explain how "clean
energy" is transmitted to my home instead of "regular" electricity.
cost
Already have home solar
I have heard bad things about MCE from customers who have switched. I don't know if their
rates are actually lower than PG&E. I would like to have more transparency about MCE
operations.
It is PG&E that maintains all of the facilities and I would rather see my money going to them
Expensive to install.
Cost or lack of knowledge on exactly how 100% clean electricity works.
Costs
Because I am under 18
costs more
I do not trust MCE. Their billing methods concealed their true costs. I left them when I
discovered I was paying a 20-30% premium over PG&E. That's $50-100/month.
cost, political affiliation
Cost, and it's unclear how to switch. Make it cheaper, make it obvious how to switch, get the
word out, and I'll do it
I am installing solar
Not cheaper
Living in a duplex with one meter means we are charged for going over the one home limit which
makes our bill even higher
I'm not the decision maker in my household
63
Cost
Not sure if it really does any good. Does this just mean that other users have a bit less clean
energy in their mix?
It is SO EXPENSIVE. Way more than what I paid when I lived in SF. Transmission fees alone are
$40/month. My whole PG&E bill in SF was $20/month, except in winter when it was $80/month
costs more money
we are a co-op, we have been looking at options but I believe cost has been a barrier.
cost
the cost is more than a little
pge surchage
Have solar panels on property
I rent and will not be here for the 10 years it takes to qualify for no extra costs.
Already have solar electric. "clean energy" includes energy credits from poluting companies.
There is no evidence it reduces polution.
My costs keep rising and pay is stagnant. I'm earning less now than I did a few years ago because
of ageism. I don't know how much longer we're going to be able to stay here.
If you include nuclear, hydro and solar, PG&E is already green.
Cost
Cost
Because although it pays itself off over time it still is an exepebsive down payment
It might be morse expensive
The expenses/maybe not as reliable
Time.
Cost
64
Cost!!
Cost
cost and future costs due to policies of the current GOP administration.
Costs
See above.
Complacency
I use very little electricity compared to most efficient homes by old fashioned electricity savings
and using sun where possible.
Costs need to be full accounted for. Clean energy often gets subsidies so not on equal basis.
Cost.
If there is a large cost difference from the old utility.
I don’t support MCE because I view it as financially risky for the Cities and Counties involved.
Plus, I have solar.
N/A
Cost, but will still likely purchase 100% clean every now that I know about it
We already have solar and have ordered a home battery.
ambivalence or fear of changing the status quo
I know people who have decided not to due to cost.
if it cost a lot more
dna
They are not really using clean energy.
Cost
65
Both MCE and PG&E still rely on fossil fuel production for the majority of energy they supply. By
segregating a portion to 100% clean electricity they are engaging in a type of shell game. The
state has to make a major shift to clean energy, stop fracking in the state and resist all federal
attempts to drill for oil off the California coast.
No reason
Have to discuss with others in this home.
Doing a lot already. Fixed low income.
I’m not likely. Cost is a major consideration
Senior; retired on fixed income
I don't know much about it.
If it was too expensive, i.e. over $5/mo.
I don't pay the bills.
Lack of trust of utility company
If I thought it was green washing
My electricity bill is already so high.
Only if it were truly "clean"
66
ECONOMY and EQUITY COMMENTS
Q. Is there anything else to benefit our local residents and economy, and to make sure no
one in our community is left out or is impacted in a negative way?
Pest prevention IPM techniques.
With a local recycling facility...then recycling into social enterprise.
Minimize barriers (e.g.: setbacks) to roof top solar. Great jobs program
Does the initiative create jobs or remove jobs
Entrepreneur start up support for undeserved populations in San Rafael.
Embed sustainability education in all levels of education.
I do not believe that we as a City should be spending City resources to increase social equity
We should make walking around the city easier for residents. For example, Canal residents have
to walk/bike/drive/bus all the way around West Francisco to get to San Rafael High School when
a footbridge could cut down on their access and time to get to that part of town. I'm sure there
are other places where this is the case, too. Many low income residents walk, which is also
environmentally friendly, so we should be making that safer and easier! I am not low income, but
if it were safer and more enjoyable, I would walk more too.
A Local building materials reuse center for contractors and property owners to donate and
purchase things like used windows, appliances, plumbing equipment, bath tubs, etc.
All the above!
Reuse of materials and items is one way of helping the environment. Maybe an annual “flea
market” would help deter usable items from going into the dump.
Also a free semi annual curbside pick up of green yard cuttings etc would help/motivate
customers to do a big cleanup and/or maintenance of their property/yard. Many hire gardeners
or people to help take yard waste to the dump because it is more than their green can holds. So
this waste can be composted but isn’t because of this. This cleanup will also help motivate
residents to clear their properties for more defensible space for fires and will help beautify
properties and raise property values.
Yes -- programs to reduce meat eating are the largest way to build social equity and stop climate
change.
67
Hard to educate current adults one at a time. Let's have more education programs in our schools
from elementary all the way through high school not only teaching them but showing them how
to then teach their parents and others adults.
Tax credits for solar installation.
Require solar / wind generation on new / remodel construction.
Include more Spanish language education materials in the Canal district.
More sharing libraries - tool, etc. Car sharing would be great! More training programs.
A local green contractor training program
Decrease the population
I would be in favor of local reuse and recycling centers, but the City should not be the primary
party, they should be joint ventures with private companies and should only help facilitate the
centers by providing tax incentives, use of City owned property, etc. The City should limit its
resources and staff time.
Underground utilities on Freitas as promised. Restore two watersheds. Don't violate the
promises/commitments made by prior city councils. Plan for loss of Russian River water now
that they are over-building. Plan for drought. Protect the suburbs from high density
development. Resist residential development along freeways. Reform pension system. Build
Terra Linda library and teen center. Increase accountability and transparency in each
Department. Coordinate with CalTrans to resolve the freeway backups at Bellam. Include Santa
Venetia/Marinwood/Lucas Valley in area of influence/coordinate with County areas. Prepare for
disasters.
I do not think tying social justice programs to pollution is appropriate. If anything, find those
unregisterd vehicles that never get smogged whos owners steal registration tags from other
owners
I need more info on these options before I can comment.
I would participate in any and all energy saving programs or features you have outlined.
However, I am a single senior, trying to survive in one of the most expensive areas in the world. I
rent, and with no rent control in Marin, my rent keeps increasing. Whereas energy and the
environment are top concerns for me, until this area becomes less property owner top
heavy/wealthy, I may not be able to contribute where I would need to incur additional costs.
68
There are many renters and seniors in this county, I wish you could put your efforts into rent
control and affordable (and I mean really affordable) housing, so we can contribute to these
worthy causes !
More containers for recycling, more ashtrays, fewer plastic take-out including straws in public
places.
More help and housing for homeless people.
Moderate/low income community solar program
Allow private shuttles like tuk tuks to bridge between bus routes/SMART etc and local final
destinations. Will make it easier to take transit.
Adopt more stringent building codes to mandate more energy efficiency in new buildings and
remodels.
Encourage high schoolers to ride bikes or walk, bring back school buses for all kids!
Subsidizing certain groups encourages them to waste water and electricity. We see water
Runoff from yards all the time.
Marin Sanitary is a monopoly and costs more than any other trash haulers in California. If the
Garbarino's didn't have the council by the short hairs I wouldn't be paying for a service that is
mandated and enforced administratively that I don't want , use or need. I pay $146/ month.
Every other week pickup would do it. BTW has Marin Sanitary ever been denied a rate increase?
Train low income teens to educate people about wishful recycling, composting and other issues
you have mentioned in this survey
A local recycling facility that recycles metals, plastics, paper or other things on site so we don't
have to ship them overseas to be recycled. (since I could only choose 2 options above)
It's fantastic to manage resources well, save energy and be good stewards of our environment,
but the U.N. is throwing money and influence at many of our elected officials and bureaucracies
attempting to forward the U.N.'s agenda, and not the populations of the cities and townships --
or this nation, for that matter. The whole war against carbon is a red herring, based on junk
"science." In fact, the "man-made climate change" agenda is nothing but a global political
movement disguised as an ecological "crisis." Yes, plant more trees, by all means -- they thrive on
carbon and will help beautify our skyline, but the rest of this agenda is pure idiocy. If you want to
really make an impact, clean up San Rafael. I grew up in this city, and it's become more and more
dingy and decrepit each passing year. And yes, improving transit is another wonderful goal, but
don't do it because of this silly climate change ruse, do it for the betterment of San Rafael and
it's people.
69
Actively recruit developers who will build affordable multi-family housing in the downtown core.
I am not sure why it is the city's job to make it equitable. The market is far better at allocating
scarce resource than any government agency.
Not to spend public money for social engineering projects deemed to fail.
Allow city employees interested in social equity to donate to a fund dealing with these problems
or actively participate in the fund's work in their free time.
No desalination plant in San Rafael even if it bring federal funds.
Don’t spend money on this
Local renewable energy projects like wind, food scraps that turn into energy, and solar power
with battery storage.
More education.
even as bus ridership falls, a lot of people heavily rely on it- if services get cut, other options
needs to be created/made available to those groups. Maybe opening up Whistlestop routes that
have space on them to non traditional clients.
Community vegetable garden -- food and education (composting).
I love the idea of a building materials reuse center supported by the City -- it would be great to
combine this with an art element.
Maybe San Rafael could start a community garden with edible crops that could be shared
(maybe by all of the volunteers that help grow them) and purchased by anyone who wants to
buy. Food scraps donated by households and families could be used as compost and made into
fertile soil for the garden.
Can we subsidize MCE deep green, so that all residents can afford to choose it?
Employ people to clean up the city. Pay them money, from the money you save on resolving the
pension crisis. Then pay them to care for city parks and landscapes.
Low-income housing and/or communities that are energy efficient, build "green" and in a way
that encourages gathering and community, with solar. This could help equalize the community,
as right now it is hard to afford to live here. More of the workforce would live here, which would
reduce emissions, and strengthen the community as people might have more time to contribute
to their child's school, or volunteer if they are not commuting all the time.
70
Rent-free electric scooters and/or bikes. Possibly dedicated scooter lanes.
Bilingual programs and education
As long as you request and don't require...I'm in.
Why can't San Rafael implement it's own trial carbon fee and dividend tax, as CCL (Citizens'
Climate Lobby) is advocating for on a National Level, but with city taxes going going back into the
pockets of those who need them most? Also, helping people shop for non-plastic, local produce
(ideally grown at home or from farmer's market), and avoid meat and dairy. The insane amount
of greenhouse emissions from meat and cheese production would be such an easy target--even
if just through a public relations campaign. (See the documentary _Cowspiracy_ or at least
peruse the facts on their website).
A subsidized apprenticeship program for low-income residents for green jobs that leads to a
union job.
We need to improve transit and bike and pedestrian access into and out of the Canal district.
Give Canal residents their own supervisor so they can self-advocate. Invite Spanish-speaking and
low-income folks to participate in government and committees. Ask schools to take a lead in a)
prohibiting parents driving kids to school, b) promoting carpooling if a can't be achieved, and c)
advocate for free school buses (it would cost FIVE HUNDRED dollars for my son to ride the school
bus!). We need to encourage wealthier Marin residents to STOP driving their giant SUVs and
participate in bringing in BART, riding buses, and biking. We need safe, protected and connected
bike lanes that allow adults and children to get where they need to go; need transportation
policies that PRIORITIZE cyclists and pedestrians as well as buses (biking to Sun Valley Elementary
is dangerous because there is no bike lane, the lane is fairly narrow, and many parents drive
giant SUVs to take their one kid to school). We don't need to reinvent the wheel; lots of mid-size
cities have already made these changes. Let's research and copy what they have done.Let's try to
bring in more businesses to Marin so people don't have to commute to SF for work. Let's identify
unused lots or other low-hanging fruit that can be converted to higher density housing (without
building skyscrapers or destroying open space).
Sponsor annual event like a run or street fair to highlight sustainability and social equity for
people of all walks of life.
fire prevention.
control burn.
pge watch dog and safety so they do not burn us.
a toll on hwy 101 to pay for Hov lanes .
More Hov lanes around bus stations...
Hov lanes on the right lane of 101 for buses and emergency vehicles .. as done in Vancouver BC.
71
Put more efforts into cleaning the streets and picking up the trash on the roads. There is way too
much litter EVERYWHERE in San Rafael and Marin. And we should increase (or create)
regulations for pickup truck cargo areas to be covered - too much trash falls or flies out of them!
If I could choose more than two options, I'd include reusing building materials.
Use the money to mitigate impacts of climate change. Its reasonable clear that current actions
are not affecting change despite lots of money. The IPCC estimates if all green house gases were
stopped now, it would take two centuries for adverse change to stop. Given that, we should
invest in mitigation efforts such as sea walls, crop replacements, population control, water
storage, fire mitigation,
I read an article about a start-up in Mexico where homeless and poor people were given jobs
turning plastics into compressed walls that could be used to build homes or shelters. I've seen
online photos of walls or fences built from bottles and concrete. Imagine if the walls lining our
highways were constructed from our colorful waste products. Imagine if public stages and
platforms were constructed of such material. Expand the way you think about recycling to
eliminate the need for so much sorting.
One thing that is never considered are fire pits especially wood-burning ones I believe they truly
pollute the air and are a fire hazard and should be banned in San Rafael and not sold in our local
stores
Carbon capture farming, as is being done in West Marin.
I love the idea of creating more community gardens....particularly in areas where people have
less access to land. In addition, this could be expanded to include a training program (perhaps
connected to the Indian Valley Campus garden); helping students and adults learn to grow their
own food and/or turn organic farming into a career. Extra food can go to support local food
service agencies.
reduce pollution in low income areas
Encourageing renewable energy on every large company or facility by a certain year
Involve lower income communities and make things easily accessible.
Keep things local and make sure there is one of any of the facilities above ^ available in every
part of the city.
No
Loch Lomond does no have public transportation. The so called new bus is only for commuters,
it is useless for going shopping in montecito. We need dedicated bike Lanes on San Pedro road
separated physically from the agressive, impatient drivers who frequently go over 50 mph.
72
SLOW THE TRAFFIC DOWN AND MAKE BIKING AND WALKING SAFER
I think we need to get the schools to do more to teach children how to recycle rather than
waste. It is being done, but could be done better for all concerned.I
read Carl Anthony's book - The Earth, The City, and the Hidden Narrative of Race. Convene
dialogs / trainings about the intersectionality of social / environmental oppression- help to
educate folks to develop stronger cross-cultural connections. My consultancy, Applied
Mindfulness, does some of this kind of work. www.applied-mindfulness.org. -Gabriel Kram
Increase high density housing near transit hubs. Work with Golden Gate Transit to increase
commute connectors that go into suburban neighborhoods. Improve bike safety near the transit
center (ie connect Lincoln bike path to Anderson tunnel)
Please consider using a word other than the harsh and hard hitting ""impact"" when discussing
or describing issues. “Affect" may have a more gentle and lasting effect.
Automobile swap support for low emission vehicles as above.
Put San Rafael homeless to work cleaning streets (I realize this is happening & wish to express
support), planting trees, maintaining landscaping, etc.
Many of the questions above assume that renters don't exist, so this already comes off as a bit
insincere. That nobody is left out of what? People will always be negatively affected especially
those without money, and it's pretty clear that most of what San Rafael does is try to make more
money--e.g. San BioMarin, marsh squash, etc. I appreciate the sentiment here but there is too
much of a disconnect.
Yes. Marin is anti business. Cities and towns do not promote our economy. The government and
citizens don’t recognize business needs to have a model where they can make money. Your
question is the wrong approach.
Education about energy efficiency and recycling approaches. I do not support automobile swap.
That is just a ruse for income redistribution. Reduce many of the city vehicles. Let city workers
use the existing transport services.
The cost of housing and the lack of rent control dominates most people's lives. When you're
spending 50%,60% or more of your income on housing, everything else has take a back seat,
including environmental improvements. Right now housing costs and the homeless problem
should be taking center stage for everything that the city is planning!
Enact a
73
I would like to see solutions that are crafted so that homeowners do not have to saddle a
disproportionate share of the costs.
All of the ideas listed above are good ones
Improtraffic light coordination.
1. A good ad. program to get more people to turn off cars while parked (to save $$, CO2, air,
fuel, ...).
2. Find way to get Big users to turn off lights (and workers' computer stations, etc.) when spaces
not in use. There is SO much left on all night!
Reduce cost of recharge sites at public places (libraries, city hall, ...).
Consider purchasing land that would be suitable for a homeless village project, modeled on
https://dignityvillage.org/
Solar farms and solar schools
Stop the tearing down and excessive remodeling of small homes. Limit monster home building
which takes over precious land for few people and is mostly for show. Limit the amount of
impervious structures residents and businesses (parking lots) can have. Institute a
city/countywide exchange program for impervious structures (if you have to put some in, you
have to take some out elsewhere).
Investigate what innovations in other countries and other cities in other countries do to conserve
and utilize energy efficiently, which work to save them money and lower hot house gases, etc.
See what others have done that works well for them and their populations that can be
duplicated here.
Honesty I don’t know enough to answer above question. More information is needed about
actual benefits and outcomes. I don’t want feel good projects. I want what works.
Keep the focus on jobs and job training
Mandate solar on all new residential and commercial construction
School traffic is a huge issue throughout Marin. We should go back to the days of all kids riding
the bus to/from school. Require it. The buses don’t have to be massive - smaller shuttle-size
vehicles work, too. Can use central drop-off/pick-up spots close to where people live in cases
where kids come from all over. Talk to Marin Montessori and San Dominico about how they do
it.
Encourage employers to have staggered hours to reduce traffic, so people who must drive spend
less time idling on 101 and burning fuel while sitting. Get Bay Area employers to incentivize
carpooling and use of public transit.
74
Offer incentives for people to minimize miles - rewards for low mileage as measured on
odometer year to year.
Make bike lanes safe. In places like Copenhagen a curb separates the sidewalk from bike lane
from street (three levels). In others there is a barrier between street and bike lane. Lots of ways
to do it. Bike lane safety is why I don’t let my kids bike to school.
Homeless drug addicts pose a fire and chemical contamination risk in open space like parks and
wildland urban interface areas (WUI's). Support youth activities and the arts, provide support for
the youngest at-risk children so they feel included and learn how to function so they don't turn
to drugs. And try to change the culture of drug use that creates these large numbers of addicts.
Nobody was willing to do anything about the neighborhood meth house, or to protect the child
who was living there. So many people are buying weed from an obvious neighborhood pot club,
if you're going to allow that, maybe the neighborhood zoning should be changed to
industrial/business and open it up to other businesses like small grocery stores and maybe an
incinerator for medical waste.
Building materials re-use place in Fairfax recently shut down due to a lawsuit over a child injury.
Raise salaries for teachers
San Rafael can't handle the things on its plate now, so how in hell is it going to expand into the
s0-called "sustainability" sphere? It has no money to repair its sidewalks, so forget reversing
climate change - its too late anyway - it's all damage control at this point.
Improve public corridors (canals, East Francisco Blvd., 4th street so that they are delightful and
peaceful and accessible to use as bike, walking corridors....and also would be a HUGE asset to the
city making it attractive and thriving (like San Antonio River Walk, Chicago River Walk etc.and
many places in New York that reduced carbon footprint while improving the economy.
75
GENERAL COMMENTS
Q. What are some ideas the City should consider to reduce emissions?
Eliminate or streamline solar permits.
Bicycle roadways similar to cars ala Amsterdam.
Support regional Ag and local food production and composting.
"Car free zones with outside dining.
Solar on all new homes.
Improve public transit to Oakland. Lots of jobs there but connections make it impossible. "
Truly (industrialize) the economics of local solar development. Far better than MCE, where
onsite solar works. Better balance of advocacy.
Solar roofs on new buildings.
Increase traffic flow by increasing local downtown housing.
Business incentives for solar on the unused rooftops.
Environmental pest prevention, use less toxics in homes, etc.
E bikes
Walkablity
Density?
Roof gardens on buildings.
Bikes for residents to use
Bike Sharing
Carbon Tax
Fix dangerous sidewalks for safer walking.
Install more roundabouts.
76
How about grey water recycling sustems for watering/irrigation. Provide how-to guides, cost
estimate and benefits.
Less cars, more electric cars
Motorized Scooters and share bike systems
I'll let you know when I think of ideas!
Replace the city vehicle fleet, including police, with electric vehicles
General improvement of public sites can help keep all of us local. We in Terra Linda travel
elsewhere to shop for groceries, use parks, go to classes like to Marinwood to use the recreation
center, park and other facilities. That could mean transporting your child to a class 4 miles away
- no big deal but if you drop off your child, go home and pick up that 4 trips which would be 16
miles of driving for one class for one child for example.
Improve parks etc locally and people will walk to desirable meeting places etc.
Also develop safer and more pleasant walking routes and people will walk. Freitas parkway is the
MAIN road through TL. It looks atrocious. Many would walk there and to Northgate 1 and the
mall if it was more pleasant. Landscaping (keep the trees we need the shade!), wider walkways,
pleasant plantings even just putting some mulch over the weeds would help immensely!!!
Paradise drive by CHP through Nugget store area in Corte Madera is a great example!! Turning
the ditch back into a creek would be ideal (look at Denver).
There was a plan that many participated in - SR vision 2010 plan- and nothing substantial has
been done for Terra Linda from that plan. Please, please help beautify TL so that we all stay local
and help the environment.
Meatless Mondays in schools
No reimbursement or funding for tax funded meals with meat
Incentivizing business with meat free options
https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/13/technology/wework-meat-ban/index.html
Supplement paper towels in the new fire stations with air dryers. Fire stations use an exorbitant
amount of papertowels. Also provide food scrap disposal to every fire station. Require every
restaurant have a food scrap recycle bin.
Workforce housing. Only a pro-active city government can actually achieve the goals that are
required to reduce traffic from home to work farther than 20 minutes.
Traffic has become unbearable. The city continues to allow building hence more people, more
cars more energy use, and more food scraps. Instead of the city putting the onus on residents it
77
should take greater responsibility by going to the root of the problem. Limit the number of larger
remodels and new construction. Marin is a special place and San rafael should do its part.
More regulations and possible fines on large business, owners of apartment complexes, and
condo associations. Require better and larger making on plastic packaging and items to clearly
show if it can or can not be recycled. I'd love to see a label on the front (not the bottom) that
says "this plastic is recyclable" . Of course I would love to see reductions (different packaging
options) as well as banning certain uses of plastics.
Recycle our current U.S. President. He is against any ideas related to climate change and is
rolling back Obama-era regulations. Trump is an absolute disaster for our environment. All of
the small changes discussed in this survey are overwhelmed by the large problems Trump is
causing. Not sure what San Rafael can do about that, however.
Encourage more solar and wind power generation.
I’m waiting for Elon Musk to make me a commuter drone...if you know him, tell him I’m waiting.
Do not put fluoride in the tap water. About 99% goes into the Bay. It is not removed at the
treatment plant. It is a reactive form of fluoride (and very toxic). Also chlorine in the water.
Organic matter everywhere in nature, is carbon. What is this if combined? CFC - green gases.
Stop the expensive fluoridation.
Using grey water to water gardens and lawns
Making sure city vehicles are efficient.
Attend The Meeting of the Minds annual conference to learn/share with other cities.
All necessary City vehicles to be hybrid it all electric phased in as existing end service life.
Incentives for employees to ride bikes and take public transit such as leave work 1/2 hr earlier.
Encourage solar on all new construction. Provide incentives for businesses to reduce carbon
footprint.
Restaurants/cafeterias should be required to have composting for facility/customers. Also
redirect good/in-saleable food to shelters.
No smoking in public places--even sidewalks. Car checks for polluting.
More school busses, including private school students (for a fee)
Offer incentives for local residents to use electric vehicles to transport multiple kids to school
who would otherwise need to travel alone or with a parent in a gas powered vehicle. So, ride
sharing. Something like a casual carpool that exists in the east bay, but only for people with
78
electric vehicles. Pay those electric vehicle owners a small amount for each trip. Have some
designated pick up and drop off locations both in San Rafael and in neighboring cities, so that it
could cover SR residents going to school out of the City. Clearly, the most important thing we can
do is take cars off the road that are carrying children to and from school and after school
activities. That will reduce commute times to work which will reduce emissions. Then work on
reducing the costs of business trips within the city by increasing the use of electric vehicles for
commercial use.
For more people to use the Smart Train, it needs to be much more convenient;run very
frequently (every 5-15 minutes) during commute times and have more than 2 cars
More efficient building codes that mandate energy efficiency.
Maybe using cold weather heat exhaust to heat water via piping.
Cisterns wherever possible.
More grey water usage.
All those UPS, etc., delivery trucks smelling up our neighborhoods. Do they still use diesel fuel?
Stop paying for consultants, outreach and start pushing dirt. Hire someone from the Netherlands
and build dikes. Boycott China and India.
Safer bike lanes! 4-way stop sign at 5th and G. That intersection is so dangerous, and people fly
around the corner on to G street where families live, play, and commute on bikes.
Wind turbines
No need to reduce emissions. See comment above. Take care of the homeless problem and
clean up Forth Street.
Ban all wood burning fireplaces year round in homes with other heat. Smoke pollution is terrible
in the winter.
I would like to see all municipal buildings using green energy for 100% of their energy needs--
w/battery back-up for when needed. Would like all city lights, traffic lights, etc. to be solar
powered and they should all be LED's.
Enforcing occupancy rules in the Canal area.
When I lived in Japan, most people took public transit. When driving, tolls were high, gas was
costly, and traffic jams were numerous and time-consuming. To get people out of cars, it has to
be at the point where people REALLY need to use the car. And also, Japan has the most
79
awesome public transit system that is reliable with great, convenient routes. Taking public
transit is not the part-time job that it is around here.
Somehow work with/encorage businesses to allow more telecommuting when possible. Many
would do so if the businesses allowed it.
Support local businesses. Successful business will pay higher wages and those employees will be
able to spend money on electric cars if they want to.
I think we need better access for bicycles!
Encourage and approve projects to build workforce housing to minimize commute times for
people who work here. Encourage and approve projects to build low-income housing for people
who live/work/study here so that these people do not have to move away and commute, thus
minimizing commute times and GHG emissions.
Education is key. Have meetings/forums/lectures/classes with some kind of incentive to attend
(requirement to attend?). The flyers that Marin Sanitary mails about recycling are informative,
but who knows who reads them. Maybe movie theaters could be required to run short videos
with information about climate change and recycling good practices?
Prohibit front lawns (which are pretty much always decorative and not functional, as opposed to
back lawns which have some function), or limit square footage of allowable lawn space per
property
- Lights on timers/motion sensors or encouraging people with windows to use more natural light.
- Could more meetings be virtual? Improving education and access to virtual meeting tools c ould
reduce driving between city facilities.
- Maybe developing a
Encourage Marin Waste utility To do a better job at educating the community about what items
should go in recycling and food. And what should not.
Not sure.
Have a standard for how much energy each household can use depending on the number of
residents and be careful about using any unnecessary energy, or have a similar structure to the
one suggested earlier for recycling: Fine households that use too much energy and are not
careful about their greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the City could also add a public recycling
area designed to help families correctly recycle any waste they have so recyclable items will not
end up in the landfill.
Look at other cities that have 1) substantial pedestrian areas (many placers in England), 2)
dedicated bike paths--away from cars (everywhere in The Netherlands, and 3) municipal trams
80
(Basel, Switzerland, for example). Many US cities also have extended cross-town paths (Cape
Cod, Sonoma, Petaluma).
Invest in more city parks and other green spaces. Besides reducing emissions, these add greatly
to quality of life.
Move public transit to a fleet of small electric busses that can be hailed online like Uber and Lyft.
They will be subsidized, so will compete favorably over Uber and Lyft - especially for those willing
to ride-share. Dynamic routes, fares, and arrival times could be shown online before the
customer hails the bus. It would be a cheap experiment to beta-test an existing fleet of
Stagecoach or Whistle-stop busses.
Lower ceilings on garages to exclude SUVs.. make them pay extra to enter the city. Etc... If you
state that transportation is the main driver, it needs to be addressed by penalties as well as
benefits. Close the rock quarry and reduce the number of trucks in town.
A strong marketing campaign that excites people about what we can do to live more sustainably.
Maybe a Green, Waste-Free Mall or shopping district, so people can experience what it would be
like to be live without so many disposables. Help them to share a vision that will encourage more
sustainable behavior.
Clearly the placement of the new transit center is going to have a major impact on traffic in San
Rafael. Idling cars are a big source of pollution. The plan for the transit center that should be
followed should make good use of Whistlestop, keep all streets open, keep the bus services on
one side of the road so pedestrians do not have to cross major roads.... This is important.
Deforestation
I put a bunch above, but to recap:
1) Eliminate plastics from stores or minimally empowering consumers to SAY NO!
2) Massively reducing meat consumption and cheese too (milk and yogurt aren't as bad as
cheese).
3) Get people in Marin to fly WAY less.
4) Carbon sequestering in the hills of San Rafael. In Terra Linda over the past hundreds of years
many trees were cut down or new growth eliminated by grazing cattle. I am working on an effort
to replant native trees all over these hills.
That whole issue of affordable housing so those that work here do not have to travel from far
away, which was not talked about here as much as it could have been. There is a list of items
that cities all over the Bay Area have done that is kept by BAAQMD. Check with Abby Young
there for both that list and maybe ideas that match with their Spare the Air-Cool the Climate
plan.
81
Ask schools to take a lead in a) prohibiting parents driving kids to school, b) promoting
carpooling if A can't be achieved, and c) advocate for free school buses. Ask College of Marin to
provide a free shuttle that runs every hour to and from the Indian Valley Campus to and from
the Kentfield campus (yeah, they are not in SR, but people driving between both places clog up
our highways and create emissions). Put more funding into running buses throughout the city so
people don't have to drive.
1. I looked into getting rid of my car and going w/ the following game plan:
super short trips - Uber
Day trips - Zip Car
Long Trips - Hertz
I could do this if I lived in SF, but in San Rafael it's not a doable option yet. Need more / closer
short-term rental locations (e.g. Zip car)
2. I believe we're moving towards TaaS (Transportation as a Service) so in the long-term the
paradigm will shift (BTW, I think Volvo is offering something along these lines)
Limit fireplace and fire pit use.
see vancouver canada for transit funding by local gas tax , cheaper bus rides, less cars on
road.
Eg; all student ride transit free.
seniors ride free on off peak time.
free tolls for hov vehicles.
Traffic going through downtown San Rafael is heavy / gridlock at all times during the day - more
efforts need to be put into traffic control (traffic cops?) and possibly trying to reroute traffic
away from downtown to alleviate the heavy flow of traffic. It will only get worse when the
SMART train continues on through San Rafael to Larkspur.
we need better intermodal connections for the smart train and buses in order for people to use
them
Palo Alto
False goal. Won't make any difference.
It would depend on what would move the needle. Painting rooftops white. Rooftop gardens.
Free chipping to get rid of lawns. Artistic recycling can designs that do a better job of educating --
follow Germany's lead. A big part of the problem is agribusiness (not in Marin, but elsewhere)--
the need for packaging to ensure shelf life and protect products during shipping, as well as the
emissions from shipping. So, encouraging more access to local farmers. I wish there was a
farmers market downtown I could go to every day with prices that were lower than Whole
82
Foods to encourage use -- it would help local family farmers, reduce
containers/shipping/refrigeration, allow for picking when ripe, etc. (Again, not in Marin, but
elsewhere) Feed cows seaweed to reduce methane emissions.
I think wood burning fire pits should be banned in San Rafael And in Marin county they pollute
the air and are a fire hazard they are also dangerous for people who have asthma
Reducing population.
Continue to make education a primary focus--with a positive, fun and empowering message.
Have family events that are focused on the environment; with games and questions that are
linked to learning about reducing our emissions.
Have incentives and prizes for kids/families/seniors/residents who are actively reducing their
emissions. Continue to find ways to show that each individual action makes a difference. (Just as
the libraries stamp children's cards each time they read a book during the summer reading
program, perhaps something similar could be adopted when kids turn of lights; ride their bikes,
bus or carpool to school, etc.)
National Dark Sky night
The bicycle and walking plans are good.
Improving recycling of plastic bags--create market for reused plastic - get plastic out of
environment.
Try to reduce plastic in packaging - for food , and other items.
100% native parks being installed or revamped in communities to encourage being out side and
planting native plants also this is a great social area
Encourage public transportation or carbon free transportation
Fine people for idling and make traffic lights more effective so roads become less congested.
Promote the smart train and give discounts for those who ride it often. Also, agriculture
produces a bunch of methane which is a very potent greenhouse gas. I think the city should
promote discounts on fruits and vegetables and educate people about the negative things about
meat.
Better bike lanes (safer too).
I think we should continue educating people and introduce them to environment-friendly
options they may be unaware of.
Timing of lifts to stop idling. Better public transit
83
Slow the traffic down, make walking and biking safe by making dedicated, separate bike Lanes
from Peacock gap alltheway to San Anselmo and beyond
Reduction of dead trees and brush that could create an environment for wildfire, even in San
Rafael, is a concern. Money that could be spent on improving our environment and making it
safer by getting more participation from businesses and home owners is necessary. Continue to
push for solar and energy efficiency in City government operations.
I'd love to see more shared electric vehicles (small cars, golf-carts, scooters, bikes) with multiple
distributed docking stations, to be used for short trips around the city.
Loved the Away Station in Fairfax. Sad to see it go. A travesty, really. It was the system that
shut it down (insurance premiums). Municipalities should support such operations to prevent
that from happening, and to provide a means to divert building materials to landfill.
Incentives for people who generate less waste. Have an escalating rate scale - the more you use,
your rates go up. Marin Sanitary should have recycling & composting service for all businesses as
well as residences, & we should require that all commercial buildings (including shopping
centers) have collection vessels for all of them. The center in which my business is located has
collection points for trash & recycling, but (a) not enough containers & (b) none for composting.
Offering better incentives for switching from wood burning to gas fireplaces. (Costs can be quite
prohibitive. Maybe county tax rebate?)
More public spaces and events so there is some sense of a community. Yes better public
transportation (the "reality is that people won't use" passage introducing this survey shoots
serious consideration of transport changes...it's not easy but that is just defeatist and really
what can we do to keep making money and look like we're all doing something, yay electric
cars!.) The traffic is absurd and creates stress.
Gas (and even electric?) grass mowers and leaf blowers are not only noisy but also extremely
bad for environment and unhealthy, not to mention add significantly to emissions. There are
cities in Bay Area ( one of them is Lafayette) that made them illegal a long time ago. I think that it
is time to do that here, in San Rafael, as well.
Use More LEDs in lighting and highway signs, city buildings and traffic lights. Improve traffic flow
like one way streets to reduced waiting or idling time. Elevate the Smart train thru San Rafael (
parallel to Hgwy 101) to eliminate road crossings and traffic delays.
Mandate solar panels on new home construction projects.
Remove permitting costs for upgrading main electrical panels when installing EV chargers or
Solar in residential buildings.
84
Enact a plastic bag ban (and other plastic containers (ie take out food)
Clean government vehicles, white roofs on public buildings, solar panels on public buildings,
wind generators on hilltops.
Composting services everywhere. Invest some time and resources in addressing the rodent issue
for composting (metal cans like bear boxes)?
I never see anyone mention the timing of street lights and the endless idling of cars giving off
exhaust. Can this efficiency be improved? San Rafael has stop lights everywhere, made much
worse by the addition of new ones right by Heatherton for the train tracks. How many places
could people turn right on red safely that are currently marked otherwise?
Mandate new construction, residential and businesses, to use low emission products and solar, if
that doesn't already exist.
Add solar to all government buildings; offer share electric vehicles for government employees.
Have blacktops streets, driveways, and roof tops painted white.
More efficient one-way traffic light sequences.
Requiring re-models costing over 1/10th of appraised value of residences to install solar.
Wherever there are growing traffic jams (e.g. 4th Street in the vicinity of 101) correct/improve
flow of both vehicles and pedestrians.
Traffic light delays create polluting emissions. Reduce stopping at every light.
Fix residential sidewalks to improve pedestrian usage.
Bus expansion. Bring Bart to Marin
As above: “2. Find way to get Big users to turn off lights (and workers' computer stations, etc.)
when spaces not in use. There is SO much left on all night!”
Note that it would take little to put a small number of workers in charge of setting options for
automatic power-down of computers (and lights) for all in a department or floor.
Again, please consult with http://marincarbonproject.org The city has some influence over large
tracts of land - Silveira property, that could be encouraged to manage their ag land with MCP
caron soil capturing methods. This is preferable to building hundreds of market rate houses, with
scant affordable homes, that will add to the city's and county's GHG volume.
85
Adopt an ordinance requiring all new buildings to provide electric vehicle charging points. (San
Francisco adopted such an ordinance last year which went into effect January 1 of this year.)
Car free days
Clean fuel busses, cars. Break out creeks and restore areas so people are more inclined to walk
because it's beautiful, green and quiet. Increase safety and beauty of parks. We need more
small, flexible, inexpensive modes of transportation. Marin's aging population cannot always do
shopping, etc by bike. Bring back school busses.
The solar ITC, state incentives and Chinese subsidies to their manufacturers all enabled PV solar
to succeed and "get over the hump". Significant incentives for EVs and other energy efficiency
products used by consumers will go a long ways if implemented. I would rather pay an annual tax
that goes toward incentives than a higher price for a more efficient product. The result might ne
net-net but the consumer's perception is that they are saving.
Many Marin Adults work in the city so maybe work on getting more transportation to the ferry
building? And making it known how easy and accessible the buses are.
Better traffic control management and street design. Most recent attempt to coordinate and
time signals not effective.
Get old cars off the streets.
Make the city feel safer, so people are comfortable riding bikes, walking, taking transit and
sending their kids out on their own. Right now the drug addicted/intoxicated/mentally unstable
transients and petty criminals are too much of a presence. Our city is too tolerant, and residents
are fed up. I’m often uncomfortable walking to my car, much less being on a bike or bus, esp at
night. The San Rafael transit station is scary, too. The street-person problem has to get fixed.
The museum in SF golden gate park once had on display a corkscrew-shaped replacement for a
windmill on a wind farm. It was designed to prevent injury to birds and bats
Invest in solar power generation; narrow roads to discourage driving (from my 13 year old); offer
more buses
The City should stick to public safety and public works - that's about it. Fixing the effects of
decades of corporate greed is not something the City is equipped to handle.
We have to figure out how to reduce the traffic impacts of highway 101 and all of the
automobile corridors surrounding it. Dallas and Boston "undergrounded" their urban freeways
covered them with parks and cultural resources: reducing pollution, creating beautiful gathering
spaces, and improving livability and walkability in the heart of the city. Imagine it we did
something like that while responding to the threats of sea level rise, and reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions.
86
Sequestration: That every citizen is obligated to plant a tree each year.
Contract or find a people who that are responsible for and focus on caring for the cities trees.
Q. Do you have any concerns about any specific unintended consequences?
We will lose $100 millions in economic activity if solar assets are developed outside the county.
Economic impact to economically disadvantaged.
Increased recycling costs due to systems using exotic chemicals/materials.
Discourage business growth.
ROI an initiative relative to the measurable difference of desired outcome vs. cost.
Complicated, time consuming permit process
Extra costs for small business
Phase in changes to be sensitive to the cost for a small business.
not yet
I do not believe that mandating homeowners or business to require conformance or to spend
City resources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is wise.
There are plenty of other things the City and the Energy companies can do on their own to
accomplish this.
I'm not sure increasing use of electric vehicles is worth the investment--they still use electricity
and don't discourage people from driving in individual cars. Reducing transportation emissions,
energy-usage, etc. should be a top priority in our town.
No
Financial burden being put on the residents and not all areas of SR will benefit equally.
That assuming that more new housing close to public transportation will mean that those
residents will actually use the public transportation!
Yes. Social re-engineering always has unintended consequences and seldom corrects the
purported problem. And there is the predictable consequence of absurd inefficiency, usually
87
combined with massive corruption. But none of that will matter because our intentions, no
matter how misguided, were noble. Right?
I have concerns about wasting time with ineffective campaigns instead of strategizing on small
actions with big wins.
Our citizens involvement is absolutely necessary to reduce the hazards of unintended
consequences.
No because affecting/requiring change from the way we have been doing things even if it cost
more and takes more time is vital to the survival of live.
You may need to include a light bulb recycling problem, if you want people to switch to more-
efficient bulbs.
More regulations, increased cost of living.
Drought tolerant landscaping would save water but would not absorb CO2 as well. You need to
find a balance, or you’ll meet one goal at the expense of the other. Keeping our apartment
complexes, and the urban areas adjacent to commercial areas, greener has benefits. Mature
trees improve property values, quality of life and stewardship of the natural world.
Toxic emissions from recycling operations, run offs, and also air emissions.
Most often, people who are very low income do not have access to appliances or vehicles that
are energy efficient. Making these more equitably available would be important in the overall
plan.
Yes, the drain on the City's taxes on programs and solutions that may or may not stop climate
change. The City and also the County are only minor contributors to greenhouse gas, and
therefore should not make a reduction such a main focus of its policies. Taxes should be used for
roads, schools, libraries, public safety, cleaner streets, and to combat homelessness and drug
addiction.
Ethics. Economy. Environment. Study Wendell Berry's 17 attributes of sustainable community.
Educate councilmembers. Re-create The Planning Academy.
Too much financial burden for individual & businesses.
Please see my above response.
No
88
I don't like the idea of the waste disposal workers becoming spies of residential garbage and
levying fines for recycling mistakes. It's Orwellian. It would cause resentment and a reduction in
the support for local government. It would undoubtably be unequally employed and could be
used unfairly for personal grudges. Better to offer small financial incentives.
Housing costs are already through the roof... Worry about increased costs of housing and
construction.
Any more noise from neighbor's using cooling devices, leaf blowers, leaving cars idling w. A.c. On
in summer, Heater on in winter. Parents waiting to pick up kids from schools are hugely guilty of
this. Mall employees do this while eating lunch in their cars.
Yes. From my perspective the money necessary to fix the problem will be spent on surveys like
this one. Ooops, we urinated the money away.
I'd like to see electric bulldozer!
What happens to the batteries and equipment from EVs when they are done? Batteries only last
for so long...then what?
My concern is the possibility of increasing cost of living for those who rent. If there are legal
requirements for property owners to replace outdated appliances, irrigation systems, lawns, or
the like, that cost can easily be pushed on to tenants and low-income members of our
community.
Increased costs
No. It's just junk science.
No. But affected entities should be on lookout for such consequences, so they can address any
problems as they surface.
Central planning as not worked for long anywhere. It cannot foresee new technology, changing
relative costs, etc. Any city action should be limited and have short duration built in.
Due to lack of real knowledge and and despite a wishful thinking the measures can increase the
greenhouse gas emissions.
Only to the extent that they may excessively increase costs when more cost effective alternatives
are available.
As you know, there is great income disparity in Marin and San Rafael. 20% live at or near poverty
levels. I feel concern that people of limited means will have to shoulder a disproportionate share
of the cost of greenhouse gas emission reduction.
89
Businesses will leave San Rafael. Successful, prosperous people will leave SR and there will be no
one to pay for “ pie in the sky”dreams like electric cars for everyone.
Sure but it can’t be as bad as letting things continue the way they are
I am concerned that buying brand new EVs may be just as, if not more polluting than driving a
used gas-powered vehicle. New cars require precious metals and materials that must be mined,
refined, and manufactured--all of which are heavily polluting activities. We need to look at that
particular issue from a "whole life cycle" perspective
careful consideration of pro/con for nudges, punishments (taxes/fees/fines), or incentives.
Vulnerable communities will be more impacted by punishments and still probably not change.
Incentives and accessibility may work better with vulnerable populations.
Not sure.
Many people think the solution is to practically outlaw cars. That might work in an area where
the population is dense enough to support traditional mass transit (bus, train, Bart). Marin will
still need roads and cars for many more years. Neglecting existing infrastructure would increase
greenhouse gasses through increased gridlock.
No, most measures considered above are entirely toothless, meaningless, and will have no
effect- intended or otherwise.
I don’t want to see the renters pushed out and have even fewer affordable housing options for
our again community and service workers.
I am most worried about the people who live in the Canal neighborhood of San Rafael and the
impact that sea rise is going to have on them. Any actions taken should consider the
consequences it might have on that area.
Free parking incentivizes driving in cars. Even free for EV users seems a problem. Build and
incentivize car and bike sharing programs and paying for vans as public transportation between
well-traveled routes seems better.
Fines can certainly negatively impact low-income residents. Apartment complex managers
should be responsible for creating logistically-viable set ups for recycling and composting and for
training (and rewarding) residents for appropriately recycling and composting. Some efforts may
only be achievable by wealthier residents and that may further promote the incorrect idea that
lower income folks do more damage to the environment when in fact wealthier, high-
consuming, traveling residents drive up emissions much more.
90
job loss in gas/metal companies (hopefully these would be replaced by jobs more invested in the
health of our environment)
Any costs foisted on me as a citizen or landlord would be unwelcome. I believe the "carrot over
the stick" is a better approach. I think the will exists in Marin to achieve results w/o the stick.
Yes. I am concerned that fines to get people to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may impact
the poor adversely.
flooding on hwy 101 and 1
Still using electricity
Cost without benefit
Yes, I think it's easy to get hooked on technological solutions to problems that could be solved
differently. We need to kill the 40 hour work week, allow more people to work from home,
change work patterns so there are no rush hours and reduce traffic congestion. I work from
home with people on the East Coast and deal efficiently with different time zones, so I know it
can be done. Give people a chance to be with their children more. I'm concerned that renters
will be left out of the picture, in favor of home owners. We are less valued in every equation
about community. We're being priced out in every way.
Short term it will increase cost but long-term it’s better for the environment and better for the
future residents
Need to audit the process to be sure it really gets the intended reduction.
My only concern is increased costs for residents, particularly lower income residents.
Inequity is always a concern to me. It is important to include every socioeconomic group in
whatever plan is being adopted--making the changes accessible to all people and considering any
burden(s) that might be placed on underserved communities (and to find ways to balance any
burden).
Just people not understanding why this is good or being uneducated
Not at the moment but I will consider looking into that.
By focusing so much on the transportation sector you will forget about the most potent sector,
agriculture. And eventually we’ll fix the transportation problem and then wonder why we didn’t
start with the bigger problem: meat consumption.
No
91
I’m concerned about people who want to help, but don’t have the resources to do so (i.e cost).
No
No
No
Increase costs of implementation and upkeep.
Yes. Sometimes environmental efforts create excuses not to build housing.
Too many regulations on homeowners might squash participation.
The cost of living here is already nearing unbearable levels. Don't introduce mandates that add
to the problem.
The in-fill housing story is not helping local emissions or quality of life and it is superficial (yeah
we know all of the low-income etc. housing is for builders to make money and to advantage of
government).
Imposing stringent or expensive restrictions like point of sale or rental requirements to upgrade
systems, windows or appliances that otherwise have a useful life. That could be a hardship for
many.
Yes. They can drive out business
Climate change is not well founded and has not been proven as a real treat. Some of these
measures are essentially carbon taxes which costs businesses and consumers more, picks
winners and losers and is not competitive. It hits low income and folks in rural areas more.
It may take focus away from the homeless and housing costs and the lack of any rent control.
Increased cost of living in an overly expensive county.
No
Rich get richer (by installing solar), while poor get poorer by paying increasingly large electric
bills.
Avoid passing costs on to homeowners.
92
The sky may become more visible / beautiful if more lights are turned off (or swapped to aim
light to shine Downwards only), so more people might crane their necks enjoying the view of
stars, planets, ...
Wasting time with dubious environmental solutions is not helpful at all. This approach is favored
by those who believe that building high density housing near transportation hubs will reduce
GHG emissions. There is no credible science to support these beliefs.
Upsets climate change deniers but too bad for them
People switching to electric vehicles are still in cars and cars take up a tremendous amount of
space and don't solve the problem of switching people's thinking.
Yes. Very little will likely be accomplished but at significant cost. Cars are already becoming much
cleaner. Could we already be on track to meet goals given rapid adoption of hybrids and EVs?
Yes. We still don’t know enough.
Things that are not do green because they don't work as well and need replacing
Consider running some student competitions to generate ideas.
People do not like being fined. There's a high level of community annoyance and a feeling that
the city of San Rafael cites or fines people unjustly. For example Mill Valley firefighters will stop
by to offer advice, but the San Rafael flyer to the WUI states that homeowners will be fined if
there's not defensible space, and it feels uncomfortable to invite someone to come fine you.
I tried to get a legit licensed insured company to trim my tree away from power lines (instead of
just removing it), and the employees who arrived to work did not speak English and did their
best to keep the branches as close to the lines as possible so they could come back soon. So that
is a fire risk which creates gas emissions and makes me want to remove the tree entirely. Als o it's
near the sidewalk, so with SR's new sidewalk ordinance, some people are removing plants and
paving the area over because homeowners are afraid.
Like what ?
I fear that some efforts will increase costs for low income people leading to gentrification and
lack of affordable housing and resources for the diverse communities within SR
Q. Is there anything else you would like to see for our Climate Action Plan or related
efforts?
How initiatives impact residents in multi family homes vs. home owners.
93
Weave in the SD9s (U.N.) Cap 21
Apply a percentage of remodel costs (kitchen, bath, etc.)
For EE upgrades fast track permit process - Reduce costs
Start with schools: school boards and PTAs, but especially the kids who will put tremendous
energy into it and pull their parents in. Late-life hybrids can be expensive to own. Need a
refurbishment program to complement a swap. This small county is highly fragmented. All of
this - or most of it - needs to be coordinated county-wide effort.
do not yet have your plan
I think we need to look at home systems that recycle grey water for watering plants and yards.
Water conservation is going to be essential as we move into periods of greater drought.
The City has so many other more immediate and pressing issues to worry about that starting a
whole new initiative and expending taxpayers money, staff time, and resources on this issue is
problematic. Tackle homelessness, public access safety, and quality of life issues in the City first
and don't try to make such dramatic changes to accomplish this goal. A long term strategy is
best.
Protect more open space areas. Re-vegetate and restore existing open spaces
As stated above:
Reuse of materials and items is one way of helping the environment. Maybe an annual “flea
market” would help deter usable items from going into the dump.
Also a free semi annual curbside pick up of green yard cuttings etc would help/motivate
customers to do a big cleanup and/or maintenance of their property/yard. Many hire gardeners
or people to help take yard waste to the dump because it is more than their green can holds. So
this waste can be composted but isn’t. This cleanup will also help motivate residents to clear
their properties for more defensible space for fires and will help beautify properties and raise
property values as well.
Meat reduction task force.
Yes. A mayor and city council who are pro-active in making these changes.
Standardization of how all in Marin sort recycling. Why can some put all in one bin while in other
areas you must sort out paper? Is not all in one more efficient and less costly in the long run due
to now recycled items being put in bins by mistake or misunderstand by residents of what can
and cannot go into cans. I understand it take more employees to sort at dumping station but
they know what is and what isn't allowed and it saves contamination costs.
Do all you can to protect wetlands.
94
Remove the fluoride from tap water. If it's illegal to dump it into the Bay, yet most of it goes into
the Bay water.
Enforcement of recycling and compost sorting - which means more outreach and education.
Please see my above response.
Better cleaning of freeways and roads
Yes. Encourage more plant-based eating. Look at the figures. Animal agriculture is one of the
leading causes of greenhouse gasses.
Encourage a shift to electric vehicles for local commercial vehicles working within the city and
County. Plumbers, contractors, electricians, delivery vehicles. Perhaps provide some incentive
for replacing gasoline vehicles that are currently shown to be used for business because they
have the business name on the side of them and have been claimed on tax returns as a write off.
Environmental justice and environmental racism are serious and real issues - even here in Marin.
Would be nice to see an "equity" piece, that 3rd E that so many leave out of the equation...
Keep reaching out like this.
Accept that all real estate is not created equal. For example Bell Marin Keys. Unless all resources
are brought to bare and either a huge lock built at the GG Bridge or dikes built this survey BS is
just an excersise. Start pushing dirt. Dikes First!!
Encouragement to take public transit. SMART train was built to help with crowded roads, but it
doesn't get used often. We have to figure out ways to increase utilization of these wonderful
resources. It will help lower greenhouse gas emissions and decrease road congestion.
Grey water recycling.
Yes, make San Rafael Great Again!
Encourage use of Home grey water recycling so that grey water can be used for landscape.
This plan needs to be fully integrated into the city’s plan. Affordable housing is a huge
opportunity to incentivize builders to produce wonderfully green projects.
Traffic studies (traffic overcrowding) should be plugged into climate effects; think about
changing street directions to one-way so as to avoid huge back-ups coming off 101 in SR. Look
into coordinating traffic lights to respond to live traffic conditions. Look to shorten traffic light
signals to avoid lines of cars sitting and idling for 3/4 minutes at a time.
95
Enforcing occupancy rules in the Canal area.
More opportunities for community living, with vibrant opportunities for engagement. The high
commercial rents in San Rafael are a detriment to unique and visionary businesses and art
ventures. If the community is exciting enough, people won't be driving to all the "cool" places
(that are also being priced out of existence.)
Ensure clean air and water. Ban pesticide and herbicide use on residential properties, farms and
in public areas. Encourage natural solutions.
Fight to reduce fees for non-compliance.
emphasis on the connection between land use and climate. Detached single family housing
means more road, more piping, more materials, and more energy needed to service each
individual dwelling. Dense housing with shared walls is much more efficient for so many reasons.
get more press and visibility. Its important and the more we talk about it and people see it the
more likely they will change habits.
thank for for the opportunity to provide imput!
I would like to see the support of preserving the wetlands around the Bay Area, especially
because of rising sea level.
I would also like to see a lot of emphasis on recycling correctly because the plastic in the ocean is
harmful to many creatures, as well as potentially humans because of the plastic microbeads that
are floating in the oceans.
All public buildings should be required to have solar panels. All commercial buildings should have
solar panels unless too small to make practical
Increase traffic flow technology to reduce idling and gridlock. The SMART train may increase the
need for this. Use more street sensors and smarter traffic lights.
A carbon tax.
I'd like the City to prioritize moving the homeless services OUT OF DOWNTOWN and AWAY
FROM OTHER RESIDENTS before worrying about global issues. How we manage our streets and
services is a problem that directly affects residents NOW, and ONLY THE CITY CAN SOLVE.
We could get carbon negative tomorrow, and it won't stop the rest of the world from ruining the
environment, and it won't do anything about the vagrants that wander onto my property or the
would-be squatter who broke into my home shortly after I bought it. I feel less and less safe in
96
San Rafael each passing week. One of my co-oworkers already moved out of the city because he
and his wife got so sick of it.
Solve local problem locally FIRST.
Reduce flammable dead and dying plants that are just waiting to catch on fire.
Perhaps a bicycle ride thru the streets of the neighborhoods would open your eyes.
If we all die in a fire there is no point to any of this.
San Rafael is really dropped the ball on this BiG TIME!
I saw a presentation by Resilient Shore, and strongly support their proposal to increase the
wetlands of San Rafael. I have been involved with the restoration of Hamilton in Novato and
believe that this is seriously worth the time and money. Many people serve as volunteers for
that project.
Again, please see my answer right above. Plastics, meat, flying, work on carbon sequestering far
more than mere tree planting on sidewalks.
Building efficiency and green building ordinances. Help change building codes so that it is much
easier to encourage saving energy or greening buildings with used material or material that does
not need as much energy to create it (or putting solar panels on carports or roofs).
Encourage planting of locally native, drought-tolerant plants in suitable areas (i.e., not in
wetlands) and require this in all municipal landscaping, businesses, and new housing
developments. Work more closely with Safe Routes to School members to gather accurate
information regarding the unsafe and disjointed biking and pedestrian plans--and then take
action to fix these issues. (For example, stop saying that there can be no further renovations to
5th Ave leading up to Sun Valley Elementary. Restrict residents' parking to one side of the street,
put in protected bike lanes and watch how many people start biking their kids to school.
The city should consider banning plastic straws, takeout containers, and other single-use plastics.
It would cut down on waste, and cut down on the resources used to make unnecessary
disposable products. Other cities have been in the news recently for addressing the plastic
pollution problem, and I think the City of San Rafael should be setting an example too.
I really think more trees and live plants are important for our air and for climate change. Why not
plant trees along the freeway? Large trees should be encouraged and managed by the city.
thanks for taking the time to ask for feedback from the community.
It would be niece to have a section where a persons carbon footprint could be estimated to
compare with a goal so people could see where their personal gains could be made.
try a arial tram, ( like a ski lift gondola ) over bay , as done in portland. and other cities.
instead of expensive bridges.
97
get the darn tourists off the road rush hour traffic , see vancouver BC rental car surcharge $75
action plan that gets visitors / bad drivers off the road. and gets a special pass on transit, and
tours. eg. GG bridge, muir woods. mt tam. the beaches.
Much more effort needs to be put into cleaning up the trash on our streets and to decrease the
traffic on our roads!
The SMART train hopefully reduces the number of cars on the roads (and their emissions) but it
slows traffic down and increases gridlock when it goes through San Rafael. Maybe we need
police helping to direct traffic in the downtown area!
ban wood fire pits and ban the selling of them in San Rafael and hopefully Marin County. Wood
fire pits pollute the air and are a fire hazard
Find ways to tap into the community knowledge and willingness to volunteer
For me the environment has always been the number one issue of our times because if they
aren't solved, we won't have time to solve our other problems, and climate change will create
increasingly difficult challenges for us to deal with.
But I recognize that for many people the environment seems like a sideline issue, and they can't
be bothered when so many other seemingly more vital issues confront them. They may be afraid
to think about the consequences of non-action, and they don't like the idea of government
programs that require them to do more. So for me the real challenge is how to engage those
people. I think here in Marin and in other California communities, we have made amazing
progress in improving the habits of residents and businesses. People realize it is not difficult once
you establish a new habit. But it's still not enough, and people get tired of being asked to do
more.
For me, I need to be assured that my recycling is going someplace where proper things are
happening. I hear on the news about China refusing paper waste. Well, environmentally I'm not
thrilled at the idea of shipping our stuff off to a distant land in the first place, but what is
happening to it now? Efforts to find ways to reuse, repurpose, etc. on a more local basis seems
super important if we are to keep up the enthusiasm of those with good habits. I know there is
all kinds of amazing new technology to handle things, but can we afford it. These are all things I
think about all the time.
Please look at intermodal connections to try to get people out of their cars and eliminate wood
burning fire pits and fireplaces
The concern about rising sea levels in Marin (and particularly in San Rafael) is high. It would be
fantastic if we could create contracts with local businesses and/or create positions for people
who are looking for work to assist in some of the projects that are on the horizon in regards to
predicted sea level rise.
Everything sounds good to me
98
Not really, this form shows that you’re on the right path.
No, the progress that is being made and the effort is certainly enough for now!
I just want to make our city cleaner!
More change that young people can do, themselves
Open the old railroad tunnels to bike and walking traffic. The hills can be a real problem.
Continue to be proactive and not reactive.
Consider social justice as a foundational part of this. Consider an awareness-based approach of
helping people to become more aware of their own wellbeing, increase their social
connectedness and ability / interest in working across culture and class, in tandem with
environmental awareness.
Higher density, multi family housing and fewer stand-alone large homes. Impose a Climate Tax
on single family homes with large square footage (large yards, etc). Work with HOAs at
multifamily properties to reduce their waste disposal bills.
It's going to be fairly impossible to effect change if every city/municipality does their own thing.
Marin County doesn't have enough population density for that to work. The only way to have
any cost-effective solutions will be if there's a county- or region-wide district overseeing all of it
to create economies of scale.
Encourage more bike riding and walking by building more paths and connecting existing paths.
Add protected bike lines that are accessible to all. Prioritize this over or equal to cars and you will
see MUCH more ridership.
Green up downtown with more trees and planter boxes, having the added affect of beautifying
the downtown.
These are things I would put my tax money in for.
Community energy. Community recycling. Improving quality of life. Preserving nature. Derailing
the city's relentless "build/make money or it doesn't count" track.
Water conservation is not just in times of drought. People forget that.
Yes. Focus on the sea level issue. Focus on the canals. Focus on the shoreline and explore sea
walls. Dredge canals and clean them. Focus on the roads. Fix potholes. Deal with the homeless
pollution.
Please see above re: gas and electric grass mowers and leaf blowers.
Evaluate basis for climate change with true scientists not just activists.
99
More
Encourage PG&E to continue to provide financial rebates/incentives to install electric charging
stations in condo complexes and start a program to include single family homes
Subsidize installation of water catchment systems including gray water
Address waste and composting at ALL City owned and managed locations.
It is too late now, but if you had a box to check that said you already are MCE or have a electric
car, you'd have 2 more statistics to look at.
Benches at bus and train stops.
Take it seriously, and don't wait long.
Continue to be a city leader
see above. Need for integrated Water/Energy/Food systems wide thinking. Need to build natural
capital. Sustainability from the low bar where we are is not sufficient. Need to change our way of
thinking about Growth is Good. We need to recognize the limits of the natural world. Need for
population reduction OR huge standard of living reduction or a combination.
Focus almost exclusively on subsidizing residential solar. This is far more cost effective than
many intrusive options presented here. It is also a carrot and not a stick approach.
Canal dredging and flood control.
Earthquake planning.
Fire planning
Bravo for doing this survey - we’ll done!
Try to see residents as your friends and do reasonably supportive things, rather than fining and
penalizing them.
Ban single use plastic
People need to stop breeding
Mitigation item – City Plan for sea level rise
Protect the trees we have!!
100
Residential transport corridor
Encourage rooftop community gardens in new development
Can we sequester carbon in “urban soil’? e.g. MALT
I like “encourage” or “incentive” more than “require”
Encourage not require
Maintain all of our environments including our waterways
Encourage property owners to plant natives
Many of these ideas exist in town/city codes. Whats needed is a code review and more
appropriate …illegible
Urban farms and food gardens, gleaning maps; fruit trees/urban orchards
Root top gardens
Native plants in common spaces
Carbon through compost layers (see Marin Carbon Project)
Thank you for this survey. Very well done. I hope it yields some positive results.
101
NEXTDOOR.COM POLL RESPONSES
102
OCTOBER 15, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Presentation and Comments can be found here:
https://cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=38&clip_id=1450&meta_id=132143
Comments from: Councilmembers, Jeffrey Rhoads (Resilient Shore), Bill Carney (Sustainable San
Rafael), Roger Roberts, Marv Zauderer (ExtraFood.org), Judy Schriebman (Gallinas Watershed
Council), Sarah Loughran (Planning Commissioner), Bruce Lee Livingston (Alcohol Justice), Kiki La
Porta (Sustainable Marin), Tamra Peters (Resilient Neighborhoods), Chris Yalonis (VenturePad),
Dale Miller (Golden Gate Electric Vehicle Association), Belle Cole (350.org), Peter Posert, Jim
Bitter, Maika Llorens-Gulati (San Rafael City Schools Board Member).
FEBRUARY 26, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION PRESENTATION
Presentation and Comments can be found here:
http://cityofsanrafael.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=38&clip_id=1537
Subsequent edits to the CCAP 2030 since the October 15, 2018 Draft include:
LCT-C1 Changed to “Zero Emission Vehicles”. Added hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and
electric scooters and motorcycles to the subsections.
LCT-C4 Added “and student” to subsection a.
LCT-C5 Added subsection c: “Provide an attractive and efficient multi-modal transit
center and safe routes to the transit center that encourage bicycle and
pedestrian connections.”
LCT-C6 Added “showers, and changing facilities, bicycle racks and lockers” to subsection
a.
LCT-C7 Changed to “Parking Requirements”. Added “Promote a walkable city by
reducing parking requirements.” And “Encourage unbundling of parking costs.”
LCT-C8 Changed to “Traffic System Management and Vehicle Idling”. Added “to
minimize wait times at traffic lights” to subsection a. Added subsection b:
“Utilize intelligent traffic management systems to improve traffic flow and guide
vehicles to available parking.”
LCT-M4 Changed to “Electric Landscape Equipment” and added “and other landscape
equipment”.
RE-M1 Added “where feasible”
WR-C5 Added “Conduct a cost/benefit analysis and consider” to second sentence.
WC-C1 Added “for compliance with State and MMWD regulations” to subsection c.
SA-C5 Added “and increased risk of wildfire” to subsection a. Added “air quality” to
subsection c, third bullet. Replaced “protection” with “prevention and
suppression” in subsection c, fourth bullet. Added “wildfire” to subsection d.
CE-C2 Added subsection f: “Inform the public about the environmental benefits of
eating less meat and dairy products, growing food at home, and purchasing
locally-produced food.”
103
JANUARY 24, 2019 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT COMMENTS
Changes to CCAP from BAAQMD consultation include:
BAAQMD Comment Response/Edit
Describe how the CCAP supports the
State’s Climate Change Action Plan.
Sentence added on page 6:
“The measures contained in this Climate Change
Action Plan are designed to support and implement
the Six Pillars and the goals of California’s 2017
Climate Change Scoping Plan on a local level.”
The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission is the lead on the
Commuter Benefits Program.
Edited Measure LCT-C6a as follows:
a. Work with the Transportation Authority of
Marin, the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, and the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) to promote
transportation demand programs to local
employers, including rideshare matching
programs, vanpool incentive programs,
emergency ride home programs,
telecommuting, transit use discounts and
subsidies, showers and changing facilities,
bicycle racks and lockers, and other
incentives to use transportation other than
single occupant vehicles.
Calculate GHG reduction from Measure
EE-C4 Green Building Reach Code.
GHG reduction calculated and text and Appendix A
revised accordingly.
Add climate-friendly concrete. Measure SA-C2 Carbon Sequestration contains
subsection a, which says:
a. “Encourage use of building materials that
store carbon, such as wood and carbon-
intensive concrete, through agency
partnerships and engagement campaigns.”
No edit proposed.
Strengthen measures which say
“encourage” and “consider” taking an
action. Use more proactive language
such as “require,” “investigate” and
“accelerate” and/or be more specific
about the action that will be taken to
encourage an outcome.
Edits made to measures, LCT-C1, LCT-C2, LCT-C3,
LCT-C8, LCT-C10, EE-C3, EE-C4, RE-C1, RE-C2, WR-
C1, WR-C6, WR-C7, WC-C1, SA-C1, SA-C2, SA-C3, SA-
C4, and CE-C5.
Make it clear that the City is
committing to implementing the
measures.
At the beginning of each list of measures, a
sentence that says “The City will take the following
actions to…” was added.
In addition, all calculations and tables were updated to reflect these changes.
CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
COMMUNITY AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY FOR 2016
April 2019
Prepared by the
Marin Climate & Energy Partnership
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE S UMMARY 1
I NTRODUCTION 2
P URPOSE OF I NVENTORY 2
G ENERAL M ETHODOLOGY 2
C OMMUNITY I NVENTORY 4
C OMMUNITY I NVENTORY S UMMARY 4
P ER C APITA E MISSIONS 6
M AJOR S OURCES OF E MISSIONS 6
E LECTRIC ITY U SE 6
N ATURAL G AS U SE 7
T RANSPORTATION 8
W A STE D ISPOSAL 8
W A TER U SE 8
G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS I NVENTORY 1 0
GOVERNMENT P ROFILE 1 0
G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS I NVENTORY S UMMARY 1 0
S UMMARY BY S ECTOR 1 0
S UMMARY BY S OURCE 11
G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS I NVENTORY D ETAIL BY S ECTOR 12
B UILDINGS AND O THER F ACILITIES 1 2
P UBLIC L IGHTING 1 3
W ATER D ELIVERY 1 3
V EHICLE F LEET 14
W ASTE 1 4
E MPLOYEE C OMMUTE 1 5
A PPENDI CES
APPENDIX A: C OMMUNITY I NVENTORY A-1
A PPENDIX B: G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS I NVENTORY B -1
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
San Rafael publishes annual community greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions estimates through the Marin Climate & Energy Partnership
(MCEP). Annual inventories help the City to more closely monitor its
progress in meeting its local goal to reduce community emissions 25%
below baseline (2005) emissions by 2020 and to meet the statewide
goal to reduce emissions 40% below baseline emissions by 2030. In
addition to the community inventories, MCEP periodically prepares
inventories for government operations emissions.
This report reviews emissions generated from the community from 2005 through 2016, the most recent year data
is available. The inventory shows that the San Rafael community has reduced emissions 18% since 2005, meeting
the State target for 2020. Emissions dropped from abo ut 473,378 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e)
in 2005 to 388,950 MTCO2e in 2016. The community emissions trend and targets are shown below. San Rafael needs
to reduce emissions another 147,530 MTCO2e to meet the State target for 2030 and another 308,450 MTCO2e to
meet the State target for 2050, which is 80% below 1990 levels.
This report also reviews emissions from government operations, a subset of community emissions. Emissions from
government operations decreased 16% between 2005 and 2016, or about 700 metric tons CO2e. While government
emissions are less than 1% of overall community emissions, the local government plays a large role in setting an
example for the rest of the community. Emissions from government operations are detailed beginning on page 10.
Recognizing the need for a collaborative approach to greenhouse gas reductions, City and county leaders launched
the Marin Climate and Energy Partnership (MCEP) in 2007. The City of San Rafael is a member of MCEP and works
with representatives from the County of Marin and the other Marin cities and towns to address and streamline the
implementation of a variety of greenhouse gas reduction measures. Funding for this inventory was provided by the
Marin County Energy Watch Partnership, which administers public goods charges collected by PG&E. Community
inventories are available on the MCEP website at marinclimate.org and are used to update the Marin Sustainability
Tracker.
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016MTCO2eSan Rafael GHG Emissions and Targets
Baseline 2005
2020 State Goal
2020 Local Goal
2030 State Goal
2050 State Goal
T HE T AKEAWAY :
C OMMUNITY E MISSIONS D OWN 18%
AND G OVERNMENT O PERATIONS
E MISSION S D OWN 16% S INCE 2005
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 2
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF INVENTORY
The objective of this greenhouse gas emissions inventory is to identify the sources and quantify the amounts of
greenhouse gas emissions generated by the activities of the San Rafael community in 2016 and local government
operations in 2015. This inventory provides a comparison to baseline 2005 emissions and identifies the sectors
where significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions have occurred. In some instances, previous year emissions
were updated with new data and/or recalculated to ensure the same methodology was employed for all inventory
years.
GENERAL METHODOLOGY
This inventory uses national standards for the accounting and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. The Local
Government Operations Protocol, version 1.1 (May 2010) was used for the quantification and reporting of
greenhouse gas emissions from local government operations, and the U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and
Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, version 1.1 (July 2013) was used for the quantification and reporting of
community emissions. Quantification methodologies, emission factors, and activity and source data are detailed in
the appendices.
Local government operations emissions are categorized according to the following sectors:
▪ Buildings and Other Facilities
▪ Public Lighting
▪ Water Delivery Facilities
▪ Vehicle Fleet
▪ Solid Waste
▪ Employee Commute
Community emissions are categorized according to seven sectors:
▪ Residential Energy
▪ Non-Residential Energy
▪ Transportation
▪ Off-Road Vehicles and Equipment
▪ Waste
▪ Water
▪ Wastewater
C ALCULATING E MISSIONS
Emissions are quantified by multiplying the measurable activity data – e.g., kilowatt hours of electricity, therms of
natural gas, and gallons of diesel or gasoline – by emissions factors specific to the energy source. Most emission s
factors are the same from year to year. Emission factors for electricity, however, change from year to year due to
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 3
the specific sources that are used to produce electricity. For example, electricity that is produced from coal generates
more greenhouse gases than electricity that is generated from natural gas and therefore has a higher emissions
factor. Electricity that is produced solely from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind has an emissions
factor of zero.
This inventory calculates individual greenhouse gases – e.g., carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide – and
converts each greenhouse gas emission to a standard metric, known as “carbon dioxide equivalents” or CO 2e, to
provide an apple-to-apples comparison among the various emissions. Table 1 shows the greenhouse gases identified
in this inventory and their global warming potential (GWP), a measure of the amount of warming each gas causes
when compared to a similar amount of carbon dioxide. Methane, for example, is 28 times as potent as carbon
dioxide; therefore, one metric ton of methane is equivalent to 28 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Greenhouse gas
emissions are reported in this inventory as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents, or MTCO2e.
T ABLE 1 : GREENHOUSE GASES
Gas Chemical
Formula Emission Source Global Warming
Potential
Carbon Dioxide CO2
Combustion of natural gas, gasoline,
diesel, and other fuels 1
Methane CH4
Combustion, anaerobic decomposition
of organic waste in landfills and
wastewater
28
Nitrous Oxide N2O Combustion, wastewater treatment 265
Hydroflourocarbons Various Leaked refrigerants, fire suppressants 4 to 12,400
Source: IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014)
T YPES OF E MISSIONS
Emissions from each of the greenhouse gases can come in a number of forms:
▪ Stationary or mobile combustion resulting from the on-site combustion of fuels (natural gas, diesel,
gasoline, etc.) to generate heat or electricity, or to power vehicles and equipment.
▪ Purchased electricity resulting from the generation of power from utilities outside the jurisdictional
boundary.
▪ Fugitive emissions resulting from the unintentional release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, such
as leaked refrigerants and methane from waste decomposition.
▪ Process emissions from physical or chemical processing of a material, such as wastewater treatment.
U NDERSTANDING T OTALS
The totals listed in the tables and discussed in the report are a summation of emissions using available estimation
methods. Each inventoried sector may have additional emissions sources associated with them tha t were
unaccounted for due to a lack of data or robust quantification methods. For example, greenhouse gas emissions
associated with air travel and the production of goods outside the community’s boundary are not included in the
inventory. Additionally, the community inventory does not include refrigerants released into the atmosphere from
the use of air conditioning in cars and buildings.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 4
COMMUNITY INVENTORY
COMMUNITY INVENTORY SUMMARY
In 2005, the activities taking place by the San Rafael community resulted in approximately 473,378 metric tons of
CO2e. In 2016, those activities resulted in approximately 388,950 metric tons of CO2e, a reduction of 18% from 2005
levels. This means that the City has met the State goal to reduce emissions 15% below the 2005 baseline by 2020
and is on track to meet the local goal to reduce emissions 25% by that same year.
The community inventory tracks emissions in seven sectors:
• The Residential Energy sector represents emissions generated from the use of electricity, natural gas, and
propane in San Rafael homes.
• The Non-Residential Energy sector represents emissions generated from the use of electricity and natural
gas in commercial, industrial and governmental buildings and facilities.
• The Transportation sector includes tailpipe emissions from passenger vehicle trips originating and ending
in San Rafael, as well as a share of tailpipe emissions generated by medium and heavy-duty vehicles and
buses travelling on Marin County roads. Electricity used to power electric vehicles is embedded in electricity
consumption reported in the Residential Energy and Non-Residential Energy sectors.
• The Waste sector represents fugitive methane emissions that are generated over time as organic material
decomposes in the landfill. Although most methane is captured or flared off at the landfill, approximately
25% escapes into the atmosphere.
• The Off-Road sector represents emissions from the combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel from the
operation of off-road vehicles and equipment used for construction and landscape maintenance.
• The Water sector represents emissions from energy used to pump, treat and convey potable water from
the water source to the San Rafael water users.
• The Wastewater sector represents stationary, process and fugitive greenhouse gases that are created
during the treatment of wastewater generated by the community. Emissions created from energy used to
convey and treat wastewater are included in the Non-Residential Energy sector.
Figure 1 shows the relative contribution of emissions from these sectors in 2016. Table 2 shows how emissions in
each sector have changed since 2005. The greatest reductions have occurred in the Transportation sector (-30,220
MTCO2e), followed by the Residential Energy sector (-24,519 MTCO2e) and the Non-Residential Energy sector (-
24,270 MTCO2e). The likely reasons for the largest emissions decreases are described in the remainder of this report.
F IGURE 1: E MISSIONS BY S ECTOR , 2016
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 5
T ABLE 2 : E MISSIONS S UMMARY BY S ECTOR (MTCO 2 E ), 2005 THROUGH 2016
Year Residential Energy Non-Residential Energy Transportation Waste Off-Road Water Wastewater Total %
Change
from
2005
2005 91,303 87,336 269,163 17,827 4,710 2,181 856 473,378 0%
2006 92,563 84,676 271,915 17,848 4,560 1,946 858 474,367 0%
2007 100,441 99,888 269,712 16,348 4,410 2,386 866 494,051 4%
2008 100,443 100,513 270,622 14,011 4,259 2,271 872 492,991 4%
2009 97,995 90,724 264,703 12,022 4,109 2,144 877 472,574 0%
2010 89,364 79,733 253,328 11,868 3,959 1,258 888 440,397 -7%
2011 88,755 78,271 252,303 11,574 3,934 747 894 436,479 -8%
2012 85,060 78,264 252,731 12,037 3,894 980 909 433,875 -8%
2013 81,245 77,320 250,309 12,266 3,843 1,138 922 427,044 -10%
2014 68,173 69,921 247,955 12,375 3,792 1,039 944 404,198 -15%
2015 68,487 68,785 244,795 12,878 3,694 789 924 400,351 -15%
2016 66,784 63,067 238,943 14,933 3,613 633 978 388,950 -18%
Change
from 2005 -24,519 -24,270 -30,220 -2,894 -1,097 -1,548 121 -84,428
% Change
from 2005 -27% -28% -11% -16% -23% -71% 14% -18%
P ER C APITA E MISSIONS
Non-Residential
Energy
16%
Residential
Energy
17%
Waste
4%
Wastewater
<1%Off-Road
1%
Water
<1%
Transportation
62%
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 6
Per capita emissions can be a useful metric for measuring progress in reducing greenhouse gases and for comparing
one community’s emissions with neighboring cities and against regional and national averages. That said, due to
differences in emission inventory methods, it can be difficult to produce directly comparable per capita emissions
numbers. Per capita emission rates may be compared among Marin jurisdictions, although some jurisdictions may
have higher rates due to the presence of commercial and industrial uses.
Dividing the total community-wide GHG emissions by residents yields a result of 8.4 metric tons CO2e per capita in
2005. Per capita emissions decreased 24% between 2005 and 2016, falling to 6.4 metric tons per person. Figure 2
shows the trend in per capita emissions over time. It is important to understand that this number is not the same as
the carbon footprint of the average individual living in San Rafael, which would include lifecycle emissions, emissions
resulting from air travel, etc.
F IGURE 2 : E MISSIONS P ER C APITA
MAJOR S OURCES OF EMISSIONS
The following sections provide a year-by-year analysis of the changes in GHG emissions from the City’s largest
sources: electricity, natural gas, transportation, waste, and water use. Whenever possible, each section discusses
the change in emissions from previous years and the likely influence of state and local programs or policies and
external factors on reducing emissions.
E LECTRICITY U SE
Electricity use in homes and businesses in San Rafael decreased about 9% between 2005 and 2016. The Residential
Energy sector, which uses 35% of all electricity in San Rafael, reduced electricity use 11% since 2005. Electricity use
decreased 8% in the Non-Residential Energy sector over the same period. Electricity reductions have most likely
occurred due to improved energy efficiency, conservation, and solar installation. Distributed solar generation from
local roofs, carports and ground-mounted systems provided about 4% of the electricity used in Marin County in
2016.
8.4 8.4 8.7 8.7 8.3
7.6 7.5 7.4 7.2 6.7 6.6 6.4
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016MTCO2e Per Person
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 7
Electricity-related greenhouse gas emissions in the
Residential Energy and Non-Residential Energy sectors
decreased 45% since 2005, as shown in Figure 3. This is
primarily due to the lower carbon intensity of electricity.
PG&E has been steadily increasing the amount of
renewable energy in its electricity mix, which was 40%
less carbon intensive in 2016 than it was in 2005. MCE
Clean Energy (MCE), which began providing electricity to
San Rafael customers in 2010, has historically provided
electricity that is less carbon intensive than PG&E
electricity. In 2016, MCE Light Green electricity was 3%
less carbon intensive than PG&E. MCE carries about
69% of the electricity load in San Rafael. In 2016, about
1.6% of MCE electricity purchased by San Rafael
customers was 100% renewable Deep Green electricity.
N ATURAL G AS U SE
Natural gas is used in residential, commercial and industrial buildings to provide space and water heating and power
appliances. Use of natural gas is highly variable depending on the weather conditions in a given year. This variability
has led natural gas use consumption in San Rafael to fluctuate from year to year, from a high of 18.1 million therms
in 2011 to a low of 14.3 million therms in 2014. Emissions from natural gas consumption increased 4% between
2015 and 2016, most likely due to colder temperatures. The chart below compares natural gas usage in San Rafael
to regional heating degree days, a measure of how much energy is required to warm the interior of a building relative
to the outside temperature. Warmer days result in fewer heating degree days. As shown below, natural gas
consumption is highly correlated to heating degree days. Overall, natural gas use has declined 10% since 2005.
FIGURE 4: NATURAL GAS USE
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Heating Degree DaysNatural Gas (therms)Natural Gas Usage Heating Degree Days
Source (heating degree days): U.S. Department of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center
FIGURE 3: ELECTRICITY EMISSIONS
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016MTCO2e
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 8
Reduction in energy use may also be attributed to energy efficiency programs and rebates, local green building
ordinances, and State building codes. California’s goal is to require all new residential buildings to be net zero
electricity use by 2020 and all new residential and commercial buildings to be zero net energy by 2030.
T RANSPORTATION
Transportation activities accounted for approximately 62% of San Rafael’s emissions in 2016. Although vehicle miles
traveled have increased approximately 3% since 2005, transportation emissions have decreased 11% due to more
fuel-efficient and alternatively fueled cars. Marin County continues to be a leader in zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) –
second only to Santa Clara County – with an estimated 4,000 ZEVs in Marin in 2016, or about 2% of registered
vehicles. ZEVs include battery electric cars, plug-in hybrid electric cars, hydrogen fuel cell cars, and zero-emission
motorcycles.
While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly how each land use and transportation policy aff ects emissions, the City has
undertaken many efforts to reduce transportation emissions. The City encourages workforce housing and has made
improvements to the transportation network to make it easier for residents to bicycle, walk, and take public
transportation. The City has also promoted electric vehicle adoption by installing chargers and providing free
electricity at municipal EV charging stations.
W ASTE D ISPOSAL
Waste generated by the community hit a low in 2011 but has since increased as shown in the chart below (based on
countywide disposal data). Landfilled waste increased 15% between 2015 and 2016 but is still 13% below the 2005
baseline.
The decrease in emissions from waste disposal is most likely a result of community and County goals to move toward
Zero Waste. Ongoing waste diversion programs include a residential food waste composting program and
mandatory food waste recycling subscription for larger commercial producers. The more recent increases are most
likely due to the growth in the economy and increase in online sales and packaging.
FIGURE 5: DISPOSED WASTE
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Disposed Waste (tons)Source: CalRecycle
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 9
W A TER U SE
Per capita water use declined 25% since 2005. Emissions, which are based on an estimate of energy used to pump,
treat, and convey water from the water source to the City limits, dropped 74% between 2005 and 2016. The
additional reduction is due to the lower carbon intensity of electricity. The Sonoma County Water Agency, which
supplies approximately 25% of the Marin Municipal Water District’s (MMWD) water, uses renewable and carbon-
free sources for its electricity needs. MMWD began purchasing MCE Deep Green electricity in mid-2017, which will
result in additional reductions in the 2017 inventory year.
FIGURE 6: PER CAPITA WATER USE
MMWD provides rebates and programs to reduce water use. Rebates are available to replace fixtures with high -
efficiency toilets and clothes washers, and to purchase pool covers, hot water recirculating systems, organic mulch,
laundry-to-landscape system components, and rain barrels. MMWD provides free home and landscape water -use
evaluations. The California Department for Water Resources offers a turf replacement rebate of up to $2,000 for
single-family homes.
152 152 154 154
140
132 130 137 145
125
115 114
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Gallons Per Capita Per DaySource: Marin Municipal Water District
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 10
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY
GOVERNMENT PROFILE
The City of San Rafael is a general law city and operates under the council-city manager form of government. The
local government operates administrative, planning, building, public works, community services, fire and police
departments. In 2015, there were 413 total employees. General fund expenditures for fiscal year 2015-2016 were
approximately $68,655,000.
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY SUMMARY
In 2005, San Rafael’s government operations produced approximately 4,442 metric tons CO2e. In 2016, those
activities resulted in approximately 3,742 metric tons CO2e, a reduction of 701 metric tons, or 16%, and the local
government’s share of community emissions was just under 1.0%. The following summaries break down these totals
by sector and sources.
S UMMARY BY S ECTOR
As shown in Table 3, emissions from government operations were reduced in all sectors except the vehicle fleet and
waste sectors. The greatest reduction occurred in the employee commute sector, where emissions dropped 530
metric tons CO2e, or 40%. Other significant reductions occurred in the public lighting sector (258 metric tons). Figure
7 shows that the vehicle fleet sector was the largest emitter of gree nhouse gas emissions in 2016 (29% of total
emissions), followed by the employee commute sector (21%) and the buildings and facilities sector (19%).
T ABLE 3 : SUMMARY BY SECTOR , 2005 AND 2016
Sector 2005
Metric Tons CO2e
2016
Metric Tons CO2e
Change
Metric Tons CO2e % Change
Buildings & Facilities 799 725 -73 -9%
Vehicle Fleet 933 1,079 147 16%
Public Lighting 545 287 -258 -47%
Water Delivery 118 61 -57 -48%
Waste 711 781 70 10%
Employee Commute 1,337 807 -530 -40%
Total 4,442 3,742 -701 -16%
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 11
F IGURE 7 : E MISSIONS BY SECTOR , 201 6
S UMMARY BY S OURCE
Table 4 shows a summary of the City’s greenhouse gas emissions by source. The greatest decreases occurred in
emissions from gasoline (634 metric tons), which includes gasoline used in both the municipal fleet and City
employees’ commute, and electricity (475 metric tons). Emissions from the combustion of natural gas and diesel
increased 31% and 91%, respectively. Despite the decrease in gasoline emissions, gasoline was the largest source of
greenhouse gas emissions in San Rafael’s governmental operations in 2016 (see Figure 8), contributing more than
one-third of all emissions.
T ABLE 4 : SUMMARY BY SOURCE , 2005 AND 2016
Source 2005
Metric Tons CO2e
2016
Metric Tons CO2e
Change
Metric Tons CO2e % Change
Electricity 1,161 687 -475 -41%
Natural Gas 298 389 91 31%
Gasoline 1,986 1,352 -634 -32%
Diesel 271 518 247 91%
Solid Waste 711 781 70 10%
Refrigerants 16 16 0 0%
Total 4,442 3,742 -701 -16%
Buildings &
Facilities
19%
Vehicle Fleet
29%
Public Lighting
8%
Water Delivery
2%
Waste
21%
Employee
Commute
21%
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 12
F IGURE 8 : E MISSIONS BY SOURCE , 2016
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY DETAIL BY SECTOR
This section explores government operations and emissions by taking a detailed look at each primary sector.
B UILDINGS AND O THER F ACILITIES
Facilities operations contribute to greenhouse gas emissions in two major ways. First, facilities consume electricity
and fuels such as natural gas. This consumption is associated with the majority of greenhouse gas emissions from
facilities. In addition, air conditioning and refrigeration equipment in buildings can emit hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
and other greenhouse gases when these systems leak refrigerants. Refrigerants are very potent greenhouse gases
and have Global Warming Potential (GWP) of up to many thousand times that of CO2. For example, HFC-134a, a very
common refrigerant, has a GWP of 1300, or 1300 times that of CO2. Therefore, even small amounts of leaked
refrigerants can have a significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions.
In 2016, San Rafael operated several major facilities, including City Hall, the library and police station, fire stations,
public works buildings, childcare facilities, and community centers. As shown in Table 5, emissions from the buildings
sector decreased 9% between 2005 and 2016. Electricity consumption increased 15%, and natural gas consumption
increased 31%. Total emissions from buildings and facilities decreased, however, because the carbon intensity of
electricity was 42% lower in 2016.
T ABLE 5 : B UILDINGS AND O THER F ACILITIES E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016
Source
2005
Energy
Consumption
2005 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2016
Energy
Consumption
2015 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
% Change in
Energy
Consumption
% Change in
GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Electricity 2,231,608 kWh 498 2,564,438 kWh 334 15% -33%
Natural Gas 56,042 therms 298 73,188 therms 389 31% 31%
Refrigerants -- 2 -- 2 0% 0%
Total -- 799 -- 725 -- -9%
Electricity
18%
Natural Gas
10%
Gasoline
36%
Diesel
14%
Solid Waste
21%
Refrigerants
1%
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 13
Table 6 shows electricity and natural gas usage by facility.
T ABLE 6 : E NERGY U SAGE AT S AN R AFAEL B UILDINGS AND F ACILITIES , 2005 AND 2016
Building/ Facility Energy Source
2005
Energy
Consumption
2016
Energy
Consumption
% Change in
Energy
Consumption
City Hall Electricity 637,920 kWh 590,255 kWh -7%
Natural Gas 5,651 therms 16,908 therms 199%
Community Centers Electricity 329,020 kWh 476,126 kWh 42%
Natural Gas 27,758 therms 34,606 therms 25%
Childcare Facilities Electricity 111,985 kWh 210,681kWh 88%
Natural Gas 4,304 therms 3,335 therms -23%
Public Works Electricity 324,010 kWh 385,250 kWh 19%
Natural Gas 5,541 therms 6,158 therms 11%
Fire Department Electricity 248,214 kWh 255,165 kWh 3%
Natural Gas 9,431 therms 9,491 therms 1%
Library Electricity 117,350 kWh 172,871 kWh 47%
Parking Garages & Lots Electricity 211,118 kWh 350,004 kWh 66%
Other Facilities Electricity 251,991 kWh 133,086 kWh -47%
Natural Gas 3,357 therms 2,690 therms -20%
P UBLIC L IGHTING
San Rafael operates streetlights, traffic signals, and other outdoor lighting. Emissions associated with the operation
of this public lighting are from electricity consumption. Electricity consumption in the public lighting sector
decreased 10% between 2005 and 2016 due to conversion of inefficient lighting to LED fixtures and bulbs. Emissions
decreased 47%; the additional reduction is due to the lower carbon intensity of MCE electricity in 2016.
T ABLE 7 : P UBLIC L IGHTING E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016
Source
2005
Electricity
Consumption
2005 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2016
Electricity
Consumption
2016 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
% Change in
Electricity
Consumption
% Change
in GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Streetlights 2,066,450 kWh 461 1,901,838 kWh 248 -8% -46%
Traffic Signals 249,861 kWh 56 176,831 kWh 23 -29% -59%
Outdoor Lighting 126,245 kWh 28 128,751 kWh 17 4% -41%
Total 2,442,556 kWh 545 2,207,420 kWh 287 -10% -47%
W ATER D ELIVERY
This sector includes any facilities used for the management and distribution of water. Typical systems included in
this sector are potable water delivery pumps, sprinkler and irrigation controls, and stormwater management. The
systems identified for this report and used by the City were water delivery pumps and sprinkler and irrigation
systems. The source of San Rafael’s water delivery emissions is from electricity consumption. Overall, electricity
usage declined 11% and emissions dropped 48%.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 14
T ABLE 8 : W ATER D ELIVERY E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016
Source
2005
Electricity
Consumption
2005 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2016
Electricity
Consumption
2016 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
% Change in
Electricity
Consumption
% Change in
GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Irrigation 7,410 kWh 2 8,157 kWh 1 10% -36%
Water Pumps 520,185 kWh 116 462,193 kWh 60 -11% -48%
Total 527,595 kWh 118 470,350 kWh 61 -11% -48%
V EHICLE F LEET
The vehicles and mobile equipment used in San Rafael’s daily operations include public works trucks and equipment,
police cars and motorcycles, fire trucks, and vehicles for use by administration and other department staff. These
vehicles and equipment burn gasoline and diesel, which result in greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, vehicles
with air conditioning use refrigerants that leak from the vehicle.
Table 9 shows that gasoline consumption decreased 19% since 2005 while diesel consumption increased 35%. The
net effect was to decrease total fuel consumption 4% and emissions 3%.
T ABLE 9 : V EHICLE F LEET E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016
Source
2005
Fuel
Consumption
2005 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2016
Fuel
Consumption
2016 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
% Change in
Fuel
Consumption
% Change in
GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Gasoline 72,682 gallons 649 69,683 gallons 615 -4% -5%
Diesel 26,489 gallons 271 44,142 gallons 451 67% 67%
Refrigerants -- 13 -- 13 -- 0%
Total 99,171 gallons 933 113,825 gallons 903 15% 16%
W ASTE
Waste generated by government buildings and operations include organic material such as paper, food scraps, plant
debris, textiles, and construction waste. This organic material generates methane as it decays in the anaerobic
environment of a landfill. An estimated 75% of this methane is routinely captured via landfill gas collection systems;
however, a portion escapes into the atmosphere. Emissions from waste are an estimate of methane generation that
will result from the decomposition of organic waste sent to the landfill in the inventoried year, even though those
emissions will occur over the 100+ year timeframe that the waste will decompose.
Waste generated by governmental operations increased 8% between 2005 and 2016 and emissions increased 10%.
This was most likely due to an increase in dumping in the public right of way, including parks, streets and open space.
In addition, higher rates of contamination have resulted in the contents of some recycling bins to be landfilled.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory 15
T ABLE 10: W ASTE E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2016
Source
2005
Landfilled
Waste
2005 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
2016
Landfilled
Waste
2016 GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
% Change
in
Landfilled
Waste
% Change
in GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
Street Cans 1,438 tons 402 1,296 tons 368 -10% -8%
Parks 548 tons 153 520 tons 148 -5% -3%
Community Facilities 239 tons 67 281 tons 80 18% 20%
Other Facilities 135 tons 38 270 tons 77 99% 103%
Waste Hauled by the City 184 tons 51 378 tons 108 105% 109%
Total 2,544 tons 711 2,746 tons 781 8% 10%
E MPLOYEE C OMMUTE
Emissions in the employee commute sector are due to the combustion of fuels used by City employees commuting
to and from work in San Rafael. Emissions dropped 38%, primarily due to an improvement in the fuel-efficiency of
the vehicles San Rafael employees are driving to work. However, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from
the data, as emissions are determined from employee commute surveys. Twenty-six percent of City employees
responded to the survey in 2015. Estimates for total employee commutes were extrapolated from this data.
T ABLE 1 1 : E MPLOYEE C OMMUTE E MISSIONS , 2005 AND 2015
2005 2015 % Change
Number of Employees 425 413 -3%
Vehicle Miles Traveled 2,572,471 2,329,163 -9%
Emissions per Employee 3.1 2.0 -38%
GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) 1,337 807 -40%
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-1
APPENDIX A: COMMUNITY INVENTORY
Community GHG Emissions Summary Table
Jurisdiction: City of San Rafael Inventory Year: 2016
Population: 60,661 in 2016 (CA Department of Finance) Date Prepared: October 10, 2018
Number of Households: 23,051 (CA Department of Finance) Reporting Framework: Communitywide Activities
ID
Emissions Type
Source
or
Activity
Included,
Required
Activities
Included,
Optional
Activities
Excluded
(IE, NA,
NO or NE) Notes
Emissions
(MTCO2e)
1.0 Built Environment
1.1 Use of fuel in residential and commercial stationary
combustion equipment Both ● 81,067
1.2 Industrial stationary sources Source NE
1.3 Power generation in the community Source NO
1.4 Use of electricity in the community Activity ● Includes transmission and distribution
losses 48,784
1.5 District heating/cooling facilities in the community Source NE
1.6 Use of district heating/cooling facilities in the community Activity NE
1.7 Industrial process emissions in the community Source NO
1.8 Refrigerant leakage in the community Source NE
2.0 Transportation and Other Mobile Sources
2.1 On-road passenger vehicles operating within the community
boundary Source IE Obtained data for preferred activity-
based method instead
2.2 On-road passenger vehicles associated with community land
uses Activity ● 174,006
2.3 On-road freight and service vehicles operating within the
community boundary Source IE Obtained data for preferred activity-
based method instead
2.4 On-road freight and service vehicles associated with
community land uses Activity ●
55,442
2.5 On-road transit vehicles associated with community land uses Activity ●
Unable to obtain source data,
therefore obtained activity-based data
instead
9,495
2.6 Transit rail vehicles operating with the community boundary Source NO
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-2
2.7 Use of transit rail travel by the community Activity NE
2.8 Inter-city passenger rail vehicles operating within the
community boundary Source NO
2.9 Freight rail vehicles operating within the community
boundary Source NO
2.10 Marine vessels operating within the community boundary Source NE
2.11 Use of ferries by the community Activity NE
2.12 Off-road surface vehicles and other mobile equipment
operating within the community boundary Source ● 3,583
2.13 Use of air travel by the community Activity NE
3.0 Solid Waste
3.1 Operation of solid waste disposal facilities in the community Source NE
3.2 Generation and disposal of solid waste by the community Activity ● 14,933
4.0 Water and Wastewater
4.1 Operation of water delivery facilities in the community Source IE Energy use is included in 1.1 and 1.4.
4.2 Use of energy associated with use of potable water by the
community Activity ● 633
4.3 Use of energy associated with generation of wastewater by
the community Activity ● Energy use is included in 1.1 and 1.4.
4.4 Process emissions from operation of wastewater treatment
facilities located in the community Source NE
Wastewater treatment facilities are
located in the community but only
process emissions associated with
generation of wastewater by the
community are reported in 4.5.
4.5 Process emissions associated with generation of wastewater
by the community Activity ● 978
4.6 Use of septic systems in the community Source NE
5.0 Agriculture
5.1 Domesticated animal production Source NE
5.2 Manure decomposition and treatment Source NE
6.0 Upstream Impacts of Communitywide Activities
6.1 Upstream impacts of fuels used in stationary applications by
the community Activity NE
6.2 Upstream and transmission and distribution (T&D) impacts of
purchased electricity used by the community Activity IE Transmission and distribution losses
included in 1.4.
6.3
Upstream impacts of fuels used by water and wastewater
facilities for water used and wastewater generated within the
community boundary
Activity IE
Included in 4.2 and 4.3.
6.4 Upstream impacts of select materials (concrete, food, paper,
carpets, etc.) sued by the whole community. Activity NE
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-3
Legend
IE – Included Elsewhere: Emissions for this activity are estimated and presented in another category of the inventory. The category where these emissions are included should be
noted in the explanation.
NE – Not Estimated: Emissions occur but have not been estimate or reported (e.g., data unavailable, effort required not justifiable).
NA – Not Applicable: The activity occurs but does not cause emissions; explanation should be provided.
NO – Not Occurring: The source or activity does not occur or exist within the community.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-4
Community Emissions Data Sources and Calculation Methodologies
Sector/ID Emissions Source Source and/or Activity Data Emission Factor and Methodology
1.0 Built Environment
1.1
Stationary
Combustion
Stationary Combustion
(CO2, CH4 & N2O)
Known fuel use (meter readings by PG&E) and estimated fuel
use (American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, and U.S.
Energy Information Administration Household Site Fuel
Consumption data).
Default CO2, CH4 & N2O emission factors by fuel type (U.S.
Community Protocol v. 1.1 Tables B.1 and B.3). U.S. Community
Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Method BE.1.1 and BE.1.2.
1.4
Electricity Use
Electricity Use (CO2, CH4
& N2O)
Known electricity use (meter readings by PG&E and MCE) and
estimated direct access electricity consumption.
Verified utility-specific emission factors (PG&E and MCE) and
eGrid subregion default emission factors. U.S. Community
Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Method BE.2.1.
Electric Power
Transmission and
Distribution Losses
(CO2, CH4 & N2O)
Estimated electricity grid loss for Western region from eGrid. U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix C, Method BE.4.1.
2.0 Transportation and Other Mobile Sources
2.2
On-Road
Passenger
Vehicle
Operation
On-Road Mobile
Combustion (CO2)
Estimated passenger vehicle miles traveled associated with
origin and destination land uses (Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, http://capvmt.us-west-
2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data).
CO2 for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the EMFAC2017
model. Passenger vehicle emissions calculated according to U.S.
Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.1.A.
On-Road Mobile
Combustion
(CH4 & N2O)
Estimated vehicle miles traveled associated with origin and
destination land uses (Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, http://capvmt.us-west-
2.elasticbeanstalk.com/data).
CH4 and N2O for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the
EMFAC2017 model and adjusted for IPCC AR5 100-year values.
Passenger vehicle emissions calculated according to U.S.
Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.1.A.
2.4
On-Road
Freight and
Service Truck
Freight
Operation
On-Road Mobile
Combustion (CO2)
Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the
boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing
Plan Bay Area 2040 and the 2017 Regional Transportation
Plan).
CO2 for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the
EMFAC2017 model. Emissions allocated utilizing LEHD data
according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D,
Method TR.2.A.
On-Road Mobile
Combustion
(CH4 & N2O)
Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the
boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing
Plan Bay Area 2040 and the 2017 Regional Transportation
Plan).
CH4 and N2O for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the
EMFAC2017 model and adjusted for IPCC AR5 100-year values.
Emissions allocated utilizing LEHD data according to U.S.
Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.2.A.
2.5
On-Road
Transit
Operation
On-Road Mobile
Combustion (CO2)
Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the
boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing
Plan Bay Area 2040 and the 2017 Regional Transportation
Plan).
CO2 for on-road commercial vehicles quantified in the
EMFAC2017 model. Emissions allocated according to
jurisdiction’s share of countywide population. Recommended
U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.4.A
could not be used due to lack of data.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-5
On-Road Mobile
Combustion
(CH4 & N2O)
Estimated commercial vehicle miles traveled within the
boundary (Metropolitan Transportation Commission utilizing
the 2017 Regional Transportation Plan).
CH4 and N2O for on-road passenger vehicles quantified in the
EMFAC2017 model and adjusted for IPCC AR5 100-year values.
Emissions allocated according to jurisdiction’s share of
countywide population. Recommended U.S. Community Protocol
v. 1.1 Method TR.4.B, Appendix D, could not be used due to lack
of data.
2.12
Off-Road
Vehicles and
Equipment
Off-Road Mobile
Combustion (CO2)
Estimated fuel use from OFFROAD 2007 for Lawn and Garden
and from OFFROAD2017 for Construction equipment. All
categories are allocated by share of countywide households.
CO2 emissions calculated according U.S. Community Protocol v.
1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.8. Emission factors provided in Table
TR.1.6.
Off-Road Mobile
Combustion
(CH4 & N2O)
Estimated fuel use from OFFROAD 2007 for Lawn and Garden
and from OFFROAD2017 for Construction equipment. All
categories are allocated by share of countywide households.
CH4 and N2O emissions calculated according to U.S. Community
Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix D, Method TR.8. Emission factors
provided in the Local Government Operations Protocol Table
G.11 and G.14.
3.0 Solid Waste
3.2
Solid Waste
Generation
and Disposal
Fugitive Emissions from
Landfilled Waste (CH4)
Estimated landfilled tons based on reporting to CalRecycle by
Marin County Solid and Hazardous Waste JPA and allocated to
jurisdiction based on share of countywide population. Waste
characterization based on the Statewide Waste
Characterization Study (2008 and 2014) and Alternative Daily
Cover by Jurisdiction of Origin and Material Type as reported to
CalRecycle.
Emission factors calculated utilizing U.S. Community Protocol for
Accounting and Report of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Version
1.1, July 2013, Appendix E, Method SW.4.
4.0 Water and Wastewater
4.2
Water Supply
&
Conveyance,
Treatment
and
Distribution
Electricity Use (CO2) Water consumption data provided by Marin Municipal Water
District (MMWD). Assumed 75% of water from MMWD
resources and 25% from Sonoma County Water Agency
(SCWA). Electricity consumption data provided by MMWD.
Verified utility-specific emission factors (PG&E, MCE and SCWA).
Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1,
Appendix F, Method WW.14.
Electricity Use
(CH4 & N2O)
Water consumption data provided by Marin Municipal Water
District (MMWD). Assumed 75% of water from MMWD
resources and 25% from Sonoma County Water Agency
(SCWA). Electricity consumption data provided by MMWD.
eGrid subregion default emission factors. Emissions calculated
according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1, Appendix F, Method
WW.14.
4.5
Treatment of
Wastewater
Stationary Emissions
from Combustion of
Digester Gas
(CH4)
Known amount of digester gas produced per day and known
percent of methane in digester gas provided by Central Marin
Sanitation Agency. Known amount of digester gas produced
Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1,
Appendix F, Method WW.1.a.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix | A-6
per day (2016) and known percent of methane in digester gas
(2017) provided by Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District.
Stationary Emissions
from Combustion of
Digester Gas
(N2O)
Known amount of digester gas produced per day and known
percent of methane in digester gas provided by Central Marin
Sanitation Agency. Known amount of digester gas produced
per day (2016) and known percent of methane in digester gas
(2017) provided by Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District.
Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1,
Appendix F, Method WW.2.a.
Process Emissions from
Wastewater Treatment
Plant without
Nitrification or
Denitrification
Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant
provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency.
Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1,
Appendix F, Method WW.8.
Process Emissions from
Wastewater Treatment
Plant with Nitrification or
Denitrification
Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant
provided by Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District (2010 data).
Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1,
Appendix F, Method WW.7.
Fugitive Emissions from
Effluent Discharge
(N2O)
Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant
provided by Central Marin Sanitation Agency. Assumed
significant industrial or commercial input.
Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1,
Appendix F, Method WW.12(alt).
Fugitive Emissions from
Effluent Discharge
(N2O)
Estimated population served by wastewater treatment plant
provided by Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District. Assumed no
significant industrial or commercial input.
Emissions calculated according to U.S. Community Protocol v. 1.1,
Appendix F, Method WW.12.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-1
APPENDIX B: GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY
B UILDINGS AND OTHER FACILITIES SECTOR NOTES
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005
Scope Emission Type Energy
Consumption
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 1
Stationary Combustion 56,042 therms 297.13 0.00 0.03 0.00 298.07
Fugitive Emissions Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38
TOTAL 297.13 0.00 0.03 0.00 300.45
Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 2,231,608 kWh 495.15 0.01 0.03 0.00 498.23
TOTAL 495.15 0.01 0.03 0.00 498.23
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6
Scope Emission Type Energy
Consumption
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 1
Stationary Combustion 73,188 therms 388.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 389.26
Fugitive Emissions Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.38
TOTAL 388.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 389.26
Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 2,564,438 kWh 331.52 0.00 0.04 0.00 333.83
TOTAL 331.52 0.00 0.04 0.00 333.83
Energy usage was provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) based on PG&E service accounts. LGO
Protocol recommended methods were followed in collection and analysis of this activity data. For electricity,
verified utility-specific (PG&E and MCE) CO2 emissions factor and eGrid subregion default N2O and CH4 emission
factors for WECC California were used. For natural gas, default CO2, CH4 & N2O emission factors by fuel type were
used (U.S. Community Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010, Tables B.1 and B.3).
Refrigerant type and capacity for air conditioning units were provided by San Rafael public works staff. 2010
refrigerant data was used as a proxy for 2005 and 2016. LGO Protocol alternate methods were followed in
collection and analysis of refrigerant activity data.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-2
PUBLIC LIGHTING S ECTOR N OTES
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005
Scope Emission Type Energy
Consumption
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 2,442,556 kWh 541.95 0.01 0.04 0.00 545.33
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6
Scope Emission Type Energy
Consumption
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 2,207,420 kWh 285.36 0.00 0.03 0.00 287.35
Energy usage was provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) based on energy usage of PG&E service
accounts. LGO Protocol recommended methods were followed in collection and analysis of this activity data.
Verified utility-specific (PG&E and MCE) CO2 emissions factor and eGrid subregion default N2O and CH4 emission
factors for WECC California were used to calculate emissions.
WATER DELIVERY SECTOR N OTES
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005
Scope Emission Type Energy
Consumption
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 527,595 kWh 117.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 117.79
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6
Scope Emission Type Energy
Consumption
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 2 Purchased Electricity 470,350 kWh 60.80 0.00 0.01 0.00 61.23
Energy usage was provided by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) based on energy usage of PG&E service
accounts. LGO Protocol recommended methods were followed in collection and analysis of this activity data.
Verified utility-specific (PG&E and MCE) CO2 emissions factor and eGrid subregion default N2O and CH4 emission
factors for WECC California were used to calculate emissions.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-3
VEHICLE FLEET SECTOR N OTES
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005
Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 1
Mobile Combustion 72,682 gallons gasoline 638.15 0.04 0.03 0.00 648.84
Mobile Combustion 26,489 gallons diesel 270.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 270.68
Fugitive Emissions Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 13.15
TOTAL 908.60 0.04 0.03 0.01 932.67
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6
Scope Emission Type Energy Consumption
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 1
Mobile Combustion 69,683 gallons gasoline 611.82 0.01 0.02 0.00 615.26
Mobile Combustion 44,142 gallons diesel 450.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 450.87
Fugitive Emissions Refrigerants 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 13.15
TOTAL 1,062.51 0.01 0.02 0.01 1,079.28
On and off-road vehicle fleet and equipment fuel data were provided by City of San Rafael. VMT data for 2010 was
used as a proxy for 2016. LGO Protocol methods were followed in collection and analysis of vehicle fuel
consumption and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Default CO2 emission factors for transport fuel from the Local
Government Operations Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010, Table G.11 were used. Default N2O and CH4 emission factors
for highway vehicles by model year from the from the Local Government Operations Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010,
Table G.12. 2005 emissions were used and were adjusted to reflect IPCC AR5 values for N2O and CH4.
Refrigerant capacities for vehicles were estimated using sources provided by ICLEI. LGO Protocol alternate
methods were followed in collection and analysis of refrigerant activity data. 2010 activity data and emissions
were used as a proxy for 2005 and 2015 data.
WASTE S ECTOR N OTES
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005
Scope Emission Type Weight
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 3 Landfilled Waste 2,543.6 tons 0.00 0.00 25.38 0.00 710.68
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-4
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 201 6
Scope Emission Type Weight
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 3 Landfilled Waste 2,745.7 tons 0.00 0.00 27.90 0.00 781.06
Solid waste collection data for quantity of containers, container size, pick -ups per week was provided by Marin
Sanitary Service. Containers were assumed to be 100% filled at 250 lbs. per cubic yard. 2005 data was revised to
reflect a higher weight per cubic yard estimate as recommended by Marin Sanitary Service. All trash bins were
assumed to have a 0% diversion rate and all recycling bins were estimated to have an 85% diversion rate as some
of the waste erroneously included in recycling containers is not recyclable.
Waste characterization estimated based on the Statewide Waste Characterization Study (2008 and 2014 ). Emission
factors calculated utilizing U.S. Community Protocol for Accounting and Report of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Version 1.1, July 2013, Appendix E, Method SW.4. 2005 emissions were adjusted to reflect IPCC AR5 values for CH4.
EMPLOYEE COMMUTE SECTOR NOTES
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T YPE , 2005
Scope Emission Type Number of
Employees
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 3 Mobile Combustion 220 2,572,471 1,306.95 0.11 0.08 0.00 1,337.23
LGO P ROTOCOL – E MISSIONS BY S COPE AND E MISSION T Y PE, 201 6
Scope Emission Type Number of
Employees
Vehicle Miles
Traveled
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (metric tons)
CO2 N2O CH4 HFCs CO2e
Scope 3 Mobile Combustion 413 2,329,163 357.60 0.02 0.04 0.00 807.42
In 2015, the City distributed commute surveys to its employees regarding travel mode, vehicle type and model
year, fuel type, fuel efficiency, and miles traveled to work. Information provided by respondents was used to
estimate gallons of fuel consumed and, if necessary, to determine fuel efficiency at www.fueleconomy.gov.
Weekly data were converted into annual VMT data assuming 10% reduction for vacation days, sick days and
holidays for full-time and part-time employees. 106 employees responded to the survey, a response rate of 26%.
Estimates for total employee commutes were extrapolated from this data. Utilized default CO2 emission factors for
transport fuel from the Local Government Operations Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010, Table G.11. Utilized default N 2O
and CH4 emission factors for highway vehicles by model year from the from the Local Government Operations
Protocol, v. 1.1, May 2010, Table G.12. 2005 emissions were adjusted to reflect IPCC AR5 values for N2O and CH4.
San Rafael Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Appendix B-5
INFORMATION ITEMS
Information items are emissions sources that are not included in the inventory but are reported here to provide a
more complete picture of emissions from San Rafael’s government operations. Information items for this inventory
include one parks department vehicle, refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioning units using R-12 and R-22
refrigerants. These refrigerants are not included in the inventory because they are ozone -depleting substances and
are being phased out by 2020 under the terms of the Montreal Protocol. 2010 data was used as a proxy for
refrigerant data for years 2015.
I NFORMATION I TEMS
Source Refrigerant Metric Tons CO2e
Vehicle Fleet R-12 0.76
Refrigerators R-12, R-22 0.54
Air Conditioning R-22 13.86
Total 15.16
1
2019-2020 Two-Year Sustainability Program Priorities
CCAP 2030 Goal: 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG’s)
2018 Accomplishments
GENERAL
• Completed the Climate Change Action Plan 2030 update
• Participated in the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco
• Secured new Beacon Awards for Interim Accomplishments in community greenhouse gas reductions and
best practices from the Institute for Local Government
• Completed greenhouse gas inventory for 2016 and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy report
TRANSPORTATION
• Worked with TAM and other stakeholders to develop a county-wide electric vehicle readiness plan
• Secured funding for three electric vehicle chargers at City Hall
WASTE
• Completed a multi-jurisdictional review of our recycling revenue fund, and amendment to our rate-
setting methodology and Franchise Agreement with Marin Sanitary Service
• Continued to utilize Zero Waste Grant funds for a Climate Corps Fellow to assist with zero waste
outreach, including single-use take-out plastics reduction at restaurants, illegal dumping research and
outreach, waste reduction activities in City facilities and augmentation of other community outreach
activities
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
• Supported Chamber Green Business Committee and green business events, including Marin Sustainable
Enterprise Conference
• Supported Resilient Neighborhoods by hosting and promoting several more classes at our community
centers
• Continued active engagement with Marin Climate and Energy Partnership as well as community partners
and programs such as Bike to Work Day, MCE Clean Energy vehicle rebate programs
• Reinvigorated the Employee Green Team
ADAPTATION PLANNING
• Supported work with the Resilient by Design Challenge team, and assisted with community outreach and
education
• Established new working relationships with Marin Community Foundation and County of Marin for
adaptation planning and funding opportunities
• Joined the newly formed Bay Area Climate Adaptation Network and utilized regional professionals to
assist with General Plan activities
2
2019-2020 2-Year Sustainability Program Priorities
CCAP 2030 Goal: 40% reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG’s)
2019 & 2020 Priorities
GENERAL
Develop CCAP Engagement Platform Design and develop web platform, including carbon calculator
Develop engagement plan
TRANSPORTATION
Expand EV Charging Network Install more EV chargers at City facilities
Promote EV charger incentives & technical assistance to
community
Implement EV Policies and Programs Develop streamlined permitting procedures
Promote EV campaigns, programs & incentives
WASTE
Implement Mandatory Recycling Develop and implement procedures to enforce State laws
Conduct an analysis of a local mandate to supplement State
laws
If appropriate, develop and adopt local regulations and
implement
ADAPTATION
Plan for Climate Resilience Seek and secure funding for adaptation planning projects
Assist with the Adaptation Element of the General Plan
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Increase Building Energy Efficiency Support County appliance electrification programs
Develop a set of streamlining, technical assistance, and
incentive packages to support energy efficiency in the built
environment
RENEWABLE ENERGY
Promote Solar and Renewable Energy Seek out and support solar projects & pilots community-wide
Promote rooftop solar programs and financing
Promote Deep Green and Solar Choice to residents and
businesses
ECONOMY & EQUITY
Convene an economic working group Convene thought leaders, subject matter experts, and local
business leaders to explore opportunities to develop a low-
carbon economy
3
Early Action Item: Online Platform
Cost & Benefits Snapshot
Potential GHG Reduction
No direct GHG reduction. However, this is the bedrock platform for our Community Engagement
campaign and will underpin all our activities. 99% of our emissions come from the community.
Summary
CE-C2: Implement a communitywide public outreach and behavior change campaign to engage
residents, businesses, and consumers around the impacts of climate change and the ways individuals
and organizations can reduce their GHG emissions and create a more sustainable, resilient, and
healthier community. Create an overarching theme to articulate a long-term goal, motivate community
members, and brand a comprehensive suite of GHG-reduction programs. Prioritize promotion of
programs that have the greatest greenhouse gas reduction potential while utilizing the latest socia l
science on behavior change. Emphasize and encourage citizens' involvement in reaching the
community's climate goals, including innovative means of tracking milestones and comparing San
Rafael's performance with other communities and with state, national and global benchmarks. The first
step in completing this early priority item will be to develop a San Rafael Climate Action website, which
would incur minimal costs, and requires no additional staff resources than currently allocated.
Funding
Costs to implement the new web site include securing the domain name, paying for monthly hosting,
and occasional design costs should it require specialized design and formatting work. These hosting
costs are approximately $68 per year. Most, if not all, design seems to be able to be done in-house
currently so staff is hoping not to have to engage outside designers. However, funding for these
activities are included in the proposed 2019-2020 fiscal year budget. The remainder of the actions in
the Community Engagement section will focus on analysis and collaborations with community partners
for this fiscal year and will not incur additional expenses at this time.
Economy and Social Equity
There should be no additional impacts to the local economy from the new web site. Use of the site will
be free. The challenge for social equity is the replication of the site in other languages, which is yet to
be determined. An engagement with our local community members is in the works to determine the
best way forward. The site will be ADA compliant to ensure that visitors with disabilities can access the
full functions of the site. It will also be mobile-friendly for those without computer access.
4
Co-Benefits
The primary benefit for this activity is to make it easier for citizens to take action and to access our
Climate Change Action Plan in a user-friendly manner and experience. There are a variety of co-
benefits to all the actions that will be encouraged, but these will ultimately be determined by the
visitors and the choices they make.
5
Early Action Item: Zero Emission Vehicles
Cost & Benefits Snapshot
Potential GHG Reduction
30,345 MTCO2e, or about 31% of the City’s total 2030 reductions goal.
Summary
Measure LCT-C1: Develop a Zero Emission Vehicle Plan that will result in 25% of passenger vehicles in
San Rafael to be zero emission vehicles (ZEVs), including plug-in electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen
fuel cell electric vehicles, by 2030. This item includes 13 actions the City could do to decrease emissions
by helping to increase the number of ZEVs in use by residents and businesses in San Rafael. Some
actions will require additional analysis. The first step in completing this early priority item will be to
develop the ZEV Plan, which would incur no costs other than staff time, and requires no additional
staff resources than currently allocated.
Funding
Direct costs to the City will likely include installation of EV chargers and wayfinding and parking
signage. Potential costs include trenching, wiring, electrical upgrades, installation, and parking
infrastructure changes. Most, if not all, of these costs can be offset by grants and incentives from
PG&E, MCE Clean Energy, the Transportation Authority of Marin, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District, the State, and other agencies or programs. This is how the current charger
installations have all been funded. The majority of the ZEV Plan’s actions, such as the development of
policies and ordinances and participation in outreach and behavior change campaigns, will be carried
out by staff and community partners and will not incur additional costs to the City at this time.
Economy and Social Equity
Potential opportunities and impacts to the local economy include additional costs to builders, property
owners and developers for installing the wiring and infrastructure necessary to meet new mandates.
However, there are a variety of rebates and incentives available to help offset those costs in situations
where there is multi-family or workplace parking. In addition, the addition of EV chargers may increase
property values, especially as ZEVs gain in popularity and demand. Currently, a ZEV costs
approximately 30% more than a similar internal combustion engine model, but the annual cost of
ownership is lower because electricity is cheaper than gas, and ZEVs do not require oil changes and
other types of maintenance.1
1 Loren McDonald, “Analyzing US Sales Trends for 24 Shared ICE/EV Models: Yes, Price & Range Do Matter,” Clean Technica,
May 27, 2018, https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/27/analyzing-us-sales-trends-for-24-shared-ice-ev-models-yes-price-
range-matter/.
6
Currently there is very little opportunity for apartment dwellers to charge vehicles at home. Having
more EV charger availability in apartment complexes, public parking lots, and workplace settings will
enable renters to acquire EVs and plug-in hybrids. Local sales and tax revenue could go up or down
slightly depending on availability of ZEVs at local dealers and rate of adoption. There will also be
indirect market benefits to local contractors who will be providing services and supplies for these
efforts. Currently there are a number of State programs and incentives directed at lower-income
individuals and renters to purchase ZEVs.
Co-Benefits
The primary benefit for this activity is to make it easier for citizens to get charging for electric v ehicles
and to remove obstacles to citizens’ ability to acquire electric vehicles. Co-benefits include health
benefits from less particulate matter and airborne pollutants, including volatile organic compounds,
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide. In addition, there are opportunities to aid in
simplifying permitting and procedures for other construction permits, increased customer satisfaction
at the counter, and less time and expense for vehicle maintenance for consumers since EVs do not
require oil and filter changes.
7
Early Action Item: Mandatory Recycling
Cost & Benefits Snapshot
Potential GHG Reduction
9,680 MTCO2e, or about 10% of the City’s total 2030 reductions goal.
Summary
WR-C4: Adopt an ordinance requiring mandatory subscription to and participation in waste diversion
activities, including recycling and organics collection provided by Marin Sanitary Service. Consider
including phased implementation of the ordinance, penalties, and practical enforcement mechanisms.
It is anticipated that with the passage of SB 1383 last year the State will require local jurisdictions to
pass local recycling and organics diversion mandates. The regulations are still being drafted but
currently are calling for local mandates should cities not meet diversion goals by 2022. This item would
require an analysis of the challenges and opportunities here in San Rafael, including the potential of
partnering with the other agencies in our Marin Sanitary Service Franchisors’ Group.
Funding
Typically, funding for an analysis that would affect ratepayers is conducted through the rates and has
no direct cost to the City. An analysis such as this could cost between $50 -100,000. The potential rate
impact of an analysis could be in the .1 to .3% range for consumers. A staff analysis is another option,
which would cost nothing to the City other than staff time, which could take longer and would mainly
focus on identifying a model ordinance that exists someplace else that could be adapted for San
Rafael. Opportunities exist to collaborate with other local jurisdictions to reduce the cost to San Rafael,
such as the Marin Franchisors’ Group and other agencies with contracts with Marin Sanitary Service.
Economy and Social Equity
Potential opportunities and impacts to the local economy include increased costs of doing business for
commercial customers, the potential of increased or decreased rates for customers depending on how
much they can reduce their landfill garbage service, and the potential for new lines of business that
could serve businesses with large amounts of composting materials. Potentially, extra costs of doing
business could be passed along to customers or even to renters in apartment buildings.
Co-Benefits
There could be co-benefits from working together more closely on recycling and diversion activities
county-wide by making it easier for the public to understand and comply, and by providing more
opportunities for adequate recycling. Increased recycling and composting saves landfill space and
lengthens the amount of time we are able to use our local landfill.
8
Early Action Item: Adaptation Planning
Cost & Benefits Snapshot
Summary
SA-C4: Prepare for and adapt to a rising sea level. SA-C5: Prepare for and respond to the expected
impacts of climate change. These items and the ten activities included in them are San Rafael’s
commitment to prepare for the effects of climate change, some of which are already upon us: rising
seas and increased flooding, drought, health impacts from extreme heat and poor air quality, and
safety risks from the increased likelihood and prevalence of wildfires and landslides. Some are
currently being dealt with in the General Plan 2040 process as the Steering Committee weighs land use
policies that take into account rising seas and increased flood risk. Many projects and resources are
available to San Rafael including the County’s BayWAVE sea level rise vulnerability assessment, San
Rafael’s Sea Level Rise White Paper, and the Resilient by Design Challenge project focused on East San
Rafael among others. The first step for this early priority item is to identify funding to continue the
work that’s already been done toward developing a full-fledged adaptation plan.
Funding
Costs to develop an adaptation plan that prepares for multiple hazards could be in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars, which are currently not budgeted. However, there are a number of funding
sources available, mostly grants, that could be leveraged from State agencies such as the State Coastal
Conservancy, from private foundations such as the Marin Community Foundation, and from a variety
of other sources such as Prop 1 funds, Measure AA, and the Funders’ Network among others. For
example, last year the Town of Corte Madera2 received a $325,000 Caltrans Climate Adaptation
Planning Grant to conduct a comprehensive adaptation planning effort. Staff will work with our
community partners to identify funding to accomplish this measure.
Economy and Social Equity
The potential negative impacts to the local economy are significant and daunting. Studies show a
potential loss to property of $7 billion3 to San Rafael during a significant flood event with a three-foot
rise in sea levels. Those most vulnerable are often those with the least means to respond and recover:
those with limited income, resources and local support systems, including residents of the Canal
Neighborhood, older adults, and people with disabilities. Efforts to plan for adaptation and resilience
must engage those most likely to be affected. Fortunately, State guidance and funding mechanisms are
most often now placing priority on or mandating that funding recipients have robust social equity
components in their projects. San Rafael has already done a lot in this area and is building our capacity
to engage and include low income and communities of color in our planning efforts.
2 https://www.townofcortemadera.org/837/Climate-Adaptation-Plan
3 https://baykeeper.org/shoreview/economic-loss.html
9
Co-Benefits
Increasingly, insurers are looking at climate change in their policies and portfolios. Cities with adequate
climate action and adaptation strategies and implementation will be better able to continue to sell
bonds for projects and maintain good credit ratings. As planning and projects go forward there is
potential for people in hazard zones that are being addressed to escape higher premiums or
discontinuance of coverage. All planning efforts should look at co-benefits that also reduce
greenhouse gas emissions or provide other short-term needs while planning for long-term impacts. For
example, when looking at energy resilience, there are opportunities to not only provide for electricity
during a disaster, but also provide it at lower costs and through renewable means, providing benefit to
the community outside of a disaster scenario.
10
Early Action Item: Building Energy Efficiency
Cost & Benefits Snapshot
Potential GHG Reduction
18,280 MTCO2e, or about 19% of the City’s total 2030 reductions goal.
Summary
EE-C4: Green Building Reach Code Investigate adopting a green building ordinance for new and
remodeled commercial and residential projects that requires green building methods and energy
efficiency savings above the State building and energy codes. Consider utilizing the County's green
building ordinance as a model and including the use of photovoltaic systems and all-electric building
systems as options to achieve compliance. EE-C5: Streamline Permit Process and Provide Technical
Assistance Analyze current green building permit and inspection process to eliminate barriers and
provide technical assistance to ensure successful implementation of green building requirements. Work
county-wide to make it easier for contractors and building counter staff to simplify applications and
identify incentives.
Every three years the State of California updates the Green Building codes and local governments have
the opportunity to go beyond by adopting stronger reach codes. These two CCAP 2030 measures go
hand-in-hand in trying to build a customer experience that removes barriers to adoption of green
building practices while meeting or exceeding new State building code requirements. The County of
Marin is leading a county-wide effort to understand the new codes and opportunities so that we can
achieve our GHG reduction goals while ensuring a positive experience for builders and property
owners.
Funding
Currently there are no costs associated with this effort other than staff time commitment from the
Building Division and the Sustainability Program. Staff will leverage the work being done and
coordinated by the County and the Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN). Should there be
activities identified that would incur costs, funding would be identified from department budgets,
grant or other external sources, or would be brought to City Council for approval first.
11
Economy and Social Equity
There are some concerns that increased costs associated with green building codes could add to the
costs of an already expensive real estate market. As a percentage, Green Building reach codes are
estimated to add 1-2% to construction costs in California.4 However, net operating costs are lowered,
and when these costs are reduced, the value of a commercial project increases while occupancy costs
decrease.5 Therefore, reach codes should ideally seek to reduce ongoing costs of ownership to balance
out any increased cost in rents. When it comes to the built environment, programs like MCE Clean
Energy’s Low Income Families and Tenants program should be supported to assist with getting renters
healthier and more efficient homes while reducing energy bills.
Co-Benefits
There are many potential co-benefits to Green Building reach codes beyond the long-term occupancy
savings, including having healthier, more efficient homes, better heating, less indoor air pollution,
among others. In addition, there are other GHG reduction benefits outside of building energy due to
the codes, including less water use, less emissions from waste disposal, and reduction in
transportation related GHGs. Finally, many CalGreen mandates have co-benefits relating to other
environmental impacts studied in EIRs, such as reducing water demand, criteria air pollutants and
waste disposal.6 Work on this program in combination with the other permit and process streamlining
objectives in other measures and in-process at the City have the added potential of creating a better
public user experience and staff satisfaction as well.
4 Steve Pellegren, “Sustainability Is Vital, but Adds To the Cost of Building In California ”, National Real Estate
Investor, October 26, 2015 https://www.nreionline.com/multifamily/sustainability-vital-adds-cost-building-
california
5 Nora Knox, “Green Building Costs and Savings”, U.S. Green Building Council, March 25, 2015
https://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-costs-and-savings
6 Louise Mozingo & Ed Arens, “Quantifying the Comprehensive Greenhouse Gas Co-Benefits Of Green Buildings”, Center for
Environmental Design, UC Berkeley, October 24, 2014.
https://ced.berkeley.edu/research/faculty-projects/water-waste-transportation-benefits-green-buildings
12
Early Action Item: Renewable Energy
Cost & Benefits Snapshot
Potential GHG Reduction
31,925 MTCO2e, or about 32% of the City’s total 2030 reductions goal.
Summary
RE-C1: Renewable Energy Generation Accelerate installation of residential and commercial solar and
other renewable energy systems. RE-C2: GHG-Free Electricity: Encourage residents and businesses to
switch to 100 percent renewable electricity (MCE Deep Green, MCE Local Sol, and PG&E Solar Choice)
through engagement campaigns and partner agency incentives and work with MCE Clean Energy to
assure that it reaches its goal to provide electricity that is 100 percent GHG-free by 2025. These two
measures and the five activities associated with them aim to reduce the carbon intensity of electricity
being delivered to homes and businesses here in San Rafael. The initial work to be done is to assess
current barriers and benefits to the installation of solar energy systems and develop a roadmap for
making it easier and more beneficial, especially in light of rate changes that are making it less lucrative.
In addition, staff will need to partner with our utilities and agency partners such as the Marin Climate
and Energy Partnership (MCEP) to support their engagement platforms and efforts.
Funding
Currently there are no costs associated with this effort other than staff time commitment from the
Sustainability Program. Once a roadmap is developed, potential activities that could incur costs will be
identified as well as funding opportunities. Any costs to the City that cannot be covered by outside
funding or allocated resources in our fiscal year budget will be brought forward in future budget
deliberations.
Economy and Social Equity
Renewable energy generally is a net benefit financially to adopters. For example, most solar projects
include return on investment that amplifies over time reducing energy costs for the building owners.
There are a variety of funding mechanisms that can allow property owners to own, lease, or procure
solar through power purchase agreements with no money down. Solar energy systems on affordable
housing can be a great benefit to renters, especially if they participate in payment of electricity.
However, there is usually a “split incentive” in that property owners do not see the financial benefits of
the solar they install if renters are paying the bills. Thus the incentive is minimal and often requires
additional encouragement. Nonprofit housing collaboratives currently tend to have more interest and
13
incentive as exemplified in the Canal Alliance’s property that was a beneficiary of a Grid Alternatives
solar project last year.7
Purchasing 100% renewable electricity from the utilities does have a cost premium though, over and
above the normal electricity costs. Some, like MCE Clean Energy’s Deep Green product is 1c per
kilowatt hour more than their standard Light Green product but is still often lower or on par with
PG&E’s standard electricity product. Others, like PG&E’s Sol Shares is a little more expensive than their
standard product at approximately 2c more per kilowatt hour.
Co-Benefits
Solar rooftop systems and local solar have the potential to increase local energy resilience during a
disaster. They also provide a hedge against increases in electricity rates. Purchasing 100% renewable
electricity at a premium in some cases can allow utilities to purchase more renewables and could
accelerate the move to 100% renewables as the standard product for utilities. Less fossil-fuel based
electricity reduces overall pollution and their associated health impacts, which tends to benefit lower-
income communities that are often located closer to energy generation plants.8
7 News Release “Marin Residents and Local Nonprofits Join Together to Bring Solar Energy to Recent Immigrants”
https://gridalternatives.org/sites/default/files/Solar%20for%20Canal%20Alliance%20Press%20Release.pdf
8 PSE Healthy Energy “Natural Gas Powerplants in California’s Disadvantaged Communities”, April 2017
https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CA.EJ_.Gas_.Plants.pdf
14
Early Action Item: Low Carbon Economy
Cost & Benefits Snapshot
Summary
CE-C4: Innovation and Economic Development: Convene an economic development and innovation
working group to explore public-private partnerships and develop ways to decarbonize our local
economy while spurring sustainable enterprise and equitable employment. This measure will allow the
City to leverage the talents of local business owners and managers, thought leaders, and regional
subject matter experts to understand what the opportunities are for San Rafael to create a low-carbon
economy. This will involve convening a working group and engaging leaders from the Chambers for
Innovation and Clean Energy, the Business Council on Climate Change, and the Marin Economic Forum,
among others.
Funding
Costs associated with this effort include hiring a facilitator and providing adequate supplies and food
and beverage for gatherings and presentations, estimated at $3-5,000. This has been included in the
proposed Sustainability Program budget for fiscal year 2019-2020.
Economy and Social Equity
The marriage of economy and social equity is nowhere as evident and necessary as with this CCAP
2030 measure, and a successful low-carbon economy will most likely require good, green jobs and
training programs. Enhanced economic activity should benefit as many as possible. Marin is home to
many potential partners to assist, including the College of Marin, Dominican University, Marin
Economic Forum, Canal Alliance, MCE Clean Energy, Marin Community Foundation, the Workforce
Alliance of the North Bay, Multicultural Center of Marin, and others, including partners in Sonoma.
Co-Benefits
There are many potential co-benefits to strengthening and diversifying our local economy and
prioritizing innovation and emissions reductions. These include benefits to ecosystem resilience, trade,
employment, health, energy security, and business competitiveness. In addition, efforts to build
collaborations have other benefits to the City and community including new opportunities for public-
private partnerships, enhanced community engagement opportunities for other programs and
projects, and infusion of expertise and insights into City processes and services.