9.1.b
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: B: CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, June 10, 2025 (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update) City of San Ramon
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
A-6
temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage.66,67 66 Parmesan, C. 2006. Ecological and Evolutionary Responses to Recent Climate Change. 67 California, State of. 2018. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019-11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: B: CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, June 10, 2025 (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update) Appendix B
GHG Threshold Calculations
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: B: CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, June 10, 2025 (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update)
1. BAU Forecast Summary
Forecast Scenario Sector Existing (2019) New (2019-2030) Total (2030) BAU On-road Motor Vehicles - Passenger and Bus 173,014 28,981 201,995 Residential/Nonresidential On-road Motor Vehicles - Commercial 53,471 8,957 62,428 Nonresidential Natural Gas - Residential 79,465 13,311 92,776 Residential Natural Gas - Nonresidential 37,895 6,421 44,316 Nonresidential Electricity- Residential 18,644 3,115 21,759 Residential Electricity- Nonresidential 23,323 3,921 27,244 Nonresidential Electricity- Water and Wastewater 64 11 75 Residential/Nonresidential Off-road Equipment 33,415 5,623 39,038 Residential/Nonresidential Waste 14,931 2,512 17,444 Residential/Nonresidential
Wastewater Treatment Processes 3,562 599 4,161 Residential/Nonresidential Consistency Check - -
2. Demographics Forecast Summary
Category Sector Existing (2019) New (2019-2030) Total (2030) Population 83,376 13,966 97,342
Jobs 53,807 9,118 62,925
Service Population 137,183 23,084 160,267
3. Emissions Reduction Summary - State Legislative Reductions + CAP Update Measure Reductions 2030 GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)
Category Measure Residential Nonresidential
Residential/
Nonresidential Consistency Check
Transportation Legislation 10,190 - 41,757
California Green Building Code (Title 24) - 2,586 -
California RPS (SB 100) 14,032 12,540 673 -
Measure E-1: Switch automatic enrollment to MCE Deep Green to provide 100% clean community power by 2030 and maintain an opt-out rate of less than 3% through 2045. 4,253 9,960 -
Measure E-2: Decarbonize 100% of new residential and commercial construction by 2026. 2,136 4,060 -
Measure E-3: Electrify 14% of existing residential buildings by 2030 and 57% by 2045. - 11,255 -
Measure E-4: Electrify 2% of existing commercial buildings by 2030 and 33% by 2045. - 853 -
Measure T-1: Implement and regularly update the Bicycle Master Plan and Walking - - 600 Measure T-3: Implement a new zero-emission local microtransit service to close the “last-mile” gap for public transit and target a public transit mode share of 14% by 2030 and 16% by 2045. - - 3,191
Measure T-6: Increase passenger zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 30% by 2030 and 100% by 2045. 33,038 -
Measure T-7: Increase commercial zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption to 25% by 2030 and 100% by 2045. 9,478 - -
Measure T-9: Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 12% of off-road equipment by 2030 and 100% by 2045. - - 4,840
Measure W-1: Reduce landfilled organic waste 75% by 2030 and 90% by 2045. - - 13,083 Measure W-3: Develop a communitywide composting program to achieve SB 1383 procurement requirements. - - 1,791 -
4. Allocate savings between existing/new and residential/nonresidential Allocation Dropdown * Savings are allocated to existing and new using the existing, new, and total demographics breakdown in Section 2 and based on the logic in the Allocation column below Both * Residential + Nonresidential savings are allocated to residential and nonresidential separately the population, job, and service population demographics breakdown in Section 2 Existing Only New Only
Residential Nonresidential Residential Nonresidential
BAU Forecast Consistency Check
BAU Forecast See F4:F13 202,935 234,849 39,251 34,200 - Legislative Reductions/Existing City Programs
Transportation Legislation Both 21,723 22,732 3,639 3,852 - California Green Building Code (Title 24) New Only - - 2,586 - - California RPS (SB 100) Both 11,091 12,225 1,858 2,072 - Measure GHG Reductions
Category Allocation between existing and new Existing New 2030 Emissions (MT CO2e)
Annual 2030 GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)
Annual 2030 Demographics
Demographics
State Legislation
CAP Update GHG Reduction Measures
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: B: CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, June 10, 2025 (2025-073 :
Measure E-1: Switch automatic enrollment to MCE Deep
Green to provide 100% clean community power by 2030
and maintain an opt-out rate of less than 3% through
2045. Both 8,531 3,637 1,429 616 -
Measure E-2: Decarbonize 100% of new residential and
commercial construction by 2026. New Only - - 4,060 2,136 - Measure E-3: Electrify 14% of existing residential buildings by 2030 and 57% by 2045. Existing Only 11,255 - - - -
Measure E-4: Electrify 2% of existing commercial buildings by 2030 and 33% by 2045. Existing Only 853 - - - -
Measure T-1: Implement and regularly update the Bicycle Master Plan and Walking District Master Plan as needed to reduce vehicle miles traveled and achieve an active
transportation mode share of 3% by 2030 and 8% by 2045. Measure T-3: Implement a new zero-emission local Both 312 201 52 34 - microtransit service to close the “last-mile” gap for public transit and target a public transit mode share of 14% by Both 1,660 1,071 278 182 - Measure T-6: Increase passenger zero-emission vehicle
(ZEV) adoption to 30% by 2030 and 100% by 2045. Both 17,187 11,092 2,879 1,880 - Measure T-7: Increase commercial zero-emission vehicle
(ZEV) adoption to 25% by 2030 and 100% by 2045. Both - 8,105 - 1,373 - Measure T-9: Electrify or otherwise decarbonize 12% of offroad equipment by 2030 and 100% by 2045. Both 2,518 1,625 422 275 - Measure W-1: Reduce landfilled organic waste 75% by
2030 and 90% by 2045. Both 6,806 4,392 1,140 744 -
Measure W-3: Develop a communitywide composting
program to achieve SB 1383 procurement requirements. Both 932 601 156 102 - GHG Emissions Remaining
GHG Emissions Remaining =BAU Forecast - Leg. Reductions - Measure Reductions 151,981 137,252 20,752 20,935 - 46% 36% 10% 7%
5. 2030 GHG Thresholds
Category 2030 New Growth GHG Threshold
"Existing GHG
Thresholds"
2030 Total Population -
Per Capita Threshold
New Residential
(per resident) 1.49 1.82 1.77
New Nonresidential
(per full-time equivalent employee) 2.30 2.55 2.51
New Mixed-Use
(per service person) 2.11 1.81 2.06
6. Summary Table
Existing New Residential New Nonresidential Total
BAU Forecast 437,784 39,251 34,200 511,235
Legislation Reductions 67,772 8,083 5,923 81,778
CAP Update Energy Measures 24,276 5,489 2,752 32,517
CAP Update Transportation Measures 43,771 3,631 3,744 51,146 CAP Update Solid Waste Measures 12,732 1,296 846 14,874 Emissions Reductions from BAU 148,551 18,499 13,265 180,315 Remaining Total GHG Emissions 289,233 20,752 20,935 330,920 - Percentage reductions in each category
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: B: CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, June 10, 2025 (2025-073 :
Appendix C
United States Green Building Council Building Area per Employee by Business Type Rates68 68 United States Green Building Council. 2008. “Building Area per Employee by Business Type.” May 13, 2008.
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: B: CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, June 10, 2025 (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update) United States Green Building Council Building Area per Employee by Business Type Rates Final Report C-1
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: B: CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, June 10, 2025 (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update) City of San Ramon
CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance
C-2
This page intentionally left blank.
9.1.b
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: B: CEQA GHG Emissions Thresholds and Guidance Report, June 10, 2025 (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update)
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 491
Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) From: Ryan Driscoll
To: Amy Sekhon
Cc: Lauren Barr
Subject: FW: Task Force has endorsed the Draft Climate Action Plan Date: Monday, May 5, 2025 11:11:33 AM
Amy,
Can you please include the following email from the CAPTF Chair, Alec Hurd, as Late Communication for tomorrow’s CAP Update item on the PC agenda. Also, please consider redacting personal information (i.e. addresses, emails, & phone numbers).
Thanks,
-Ryan
Ryan Driscoll | Associate Planner | City of San Ramon | Planning Services 7000 Bollinger Canyon Rd. | San Ramon, CA 94583 | www.sanramon.ca.gov T: 925-973-2568 direct | Dept. Line: 925-973-2560 | E: [email protected] From: Alec Hurd
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2025 9:20 PM
To: Mark Armstrong <[email protected]>; Sridhar Verose <[email protected]>; Robert Jweinat <[email protected]>; Marisol Rubio <[email protected]>; Richard Adler <[email protected]> Cc: Ryan Driscoll <[email protected]>; Lauren Barr <[email protected]>; Debbie Chamberlain <[email protected]>
Subject: Task Force has endorsed the Draft Climate Action Plan ***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
Greetings Mr. Mayor and Council Members,
Yesterday afternoon, at the end of the CAP Task Force Meeting, we (the Cititzen's Task Force) decided to endorse the Climate Action Draft with the minor and agreed to changes discussed with City Staff during the meeting.
I believe I speak for the Task Force when I say that we appreciate the hard work of City Staff and Rincon Consultants. We appreciate the voice you've entrusted us with and wish you all well as you discuss this further.
We remain at the service of the City of San Ramon,
Alec Hurd
Packet Pg. 339 Communication: Public Comment CAP 1 (NON-PUBLIC HEARING ACTION ITEMS)
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Packet Pg. 340 Communication: Public Comment CAP 1 (NON-PUBLIC HEARING ACTION ITEMS)
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) From: Kathryn Grace
To: planningcommission
Subject: Public Comment / City CAP
Date: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 4:05:05 PM
***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
Commissioners,
My name is Kathryn Grace and I am a resident of San Ramon. Please accept the following comments regarding Item #10: NON-PUBLIC HEARING ACTION ITEMS / 10.1 Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update.
First, thank you to the staff, the Task Force, and the consulting team for their thoroughness, thoughtfulness, and diligence in updating the Climate Action Plan (CAP). A special thanks to the administrative staff for creating the tables, charts, and graphs that made this document not only beautiful but also highly informative and easy to read.
I strongly urge this commission to recommend the adoption of the Climate Action Plan as it stands.
The CAP reflects extensive review, as well as planning for implementation. We can’t afford to wait. To meet our greenhouse gas emissions goals and prepare for the increasing risks posed by climate change to San Ramon residents and businesses, I ask this Commission to forward the CAP to the Council for approval, emphasizing the following recommendations:
1. Support the San Ramon climate action program by providing appropriate City staffing, including a full-time sustainability position. This role is essential for implementing, evaluating, and updating the CAP through regular monitoring and ongoing community feedback, as outlined in Measure IMP-2.
2. Ensure ongoing community engagement by making the CAP Task Force a permanent body, similar to Contra Costa County's Sustainability Commission and Lafayette's Environmental Task Force.
3. Start implementing Measure E-3 immediately. This includes launching Packet Pg. 341 Communication: Public Comment CAP 2 (NON-PUBLIC HEARING ACTION ITEMS)
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) educational campaigns to inform homeowners about the public health and environmental benefits of electrification, cost-effective strategies, available resources from the building electrification resource center, and the upcoming requirements of BAAQMD Rules 9-4 and 9-6 for furnaces and water heaters. The plan provides clear, actionable steps to engage the public and encourage participation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the city.
Thank you for considering these recommendations.
Kathryn Grace
Packet Pg. 342 Communication: Public Comment CAP 2 (NON-PUBLIC HEARING ACTION ITEMS)
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) 1 Ryan Driscoll
From: Robert Vanderlip
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 10:01 AM
To: Planning Services (public)
Subject: comments on the Public Review Draft of the updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) ***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
Here are some comments related to the Draft CAP.
Section 10 Nature-based Carbon Sequestration Strategy is based on a false premise that trees will live forever. All trees have a limited life spans and when they die or burn, they decompose and all the carbon in them is released in the atmosphere.
Also San Ramon, along with the rest of CA, is in a continuous drought cycle. Trees effectively dewater the ground and prevent ground water from seeping into the aquifer. The aquifer is an important source of water to the tri-valley area and will become even more important as the population and demand for water increases.
Thanks for considering by comments.
--
Robert Vanderlip
San Ramon resident
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) 1 Ryan Driscoll
From: Robert Vanderlip
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 11:14 AM
To: Planning Services (public)
Subject: comments on the Public Review Draft of the updated Climate Action Plan (CAP) ***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
Hi, Here are some additional comments related to the Draft CAP.
The plan seems to be missing the real opportunity to make a significant impact on the reduction in use of fossil fuels and thus carbon emissions. It seems to assume that electrifying everything is the solution. A more significant result would be found by reducing the overall demand for and consumption of energy.
This opportunity is achieved by changes in lifestyles and looking and modifying our current methods of operation that results in less overall energy being consumed. . This could include less heating and cooling of buildings, less lighting, fewer miles driven in cars, less pools and hot tubs being heated, less packages being delivered by delivery services everyday, less water used and thus less water being pumped, kids walking to school, ect.
Comments concerning Table 30, WW01 Actions
WW-1a Support efforts by DSRSD and EBMUD to prioritize investments in strategies and projects to expand recycled water supply and increase purple pipe infrastructure in the community and for Bishop Ranch.
Comment: The plan should be to reduce irrigated landscaping at Bishop Ranch, the DSRSD and EBMUD rate payers should not be the ones to subsidize the lush landscaping and fountains and Bishop Ranch. The wastewater should be used to recharge ground water.
Comments concerning Table 35
Action T-6a Adopt an electric vehicle reach code by 2026 requiring new multifamily construction to install the minimum number of EV chargers based on Tier 2 CalGreen requirements (20% of total parking spaces). Additionally, implement the Electric Vehicle Readiness Plan to install 700 additional public EV Comment: This will further increase the housing costs in San Ramon. At the city council meeting last night the city counsel expressed the importance of affordable housing in San Ramon.
Action E-3a Adopt a reach code in 2026 requiring all new residential central air conditioning unit installations and replacements be two-way, providing both heating and cooling with a single unit for residential buildings.
Comment: This will further increase to cost of housing in San Ramon. Also this assumes that using electricity for heat has lower carbon emissions than natural gas. This is very likely a false premise since much of the electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels and due to transmission losses it may very well may be more efficient to burn it where it is used.
Action E-4c Partner with MCE and PG&E to review incentives and rebates for procedural equity and develop a process so that existing and updated incentive programs continue to be equitably distributed
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2 to the community. Hurdles to equitable implementation could include credit checks, excessive procedural roadblocks, and lack of targeted outreach. Community Development Department Phase 1-2 and
Action E-4d Work with MCE, PG&E, and BayREN to incentivize all-electric retrofits by combining rebate programs and financing mechanisms to create cost-effective electrification packages and develop bulkpurchasing opportunities for multi-unit development owners. Prioritize small, and frontline communityowned businesses in distribution. Additionally, work with the organizations to publicize commercial tax breaks to highly efficient net-zero energy building owners.
Comments: Rebates and tax breaks while they sound nice, just shift the cost to the rate payers and tax payers. These projects need to be able to financially stand on their own.
Thanks.
Robert Vanderlip
San Ramon Resident
-
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) 1 Ryan Driscoll
From: Vince Golla
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 12:11 PM
To: Planning Services (public)
Subject: regarding the Climate Action Plan update
***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
I have reviewed the Climate Action Plan update, though I have to note that it is a remarkably dense document, and likely difficult for the average citizen to consume/digest/understand fully. I have a few thoughts that I'd like to share:
*Procedurally - would it not be useful for the city to summarize, in bullet points, the actions that the CAP update would request/require of citizens, businesses, and government agencies? Or is it the intent to *not* do that? An executive summary - actually more like a Citizen Summary - might get more residents to engage in the plan. If that indeed is our intent. I appreciate the bulleted content at the start of each section. A similar treatment in the first page or two of the full document might increase interest and engagement.
*RE the plan itself - given we know that a single, small ICE engine in a lawn mower or leaf blower creates more pollution than dozens of modern cars, why couldn't (or hasn't) the city fully decarbonized its parks maintenance function, including contractors? Would that not be a significantly positive result and also set an example for others to follow? I hear (and smell) the lack of progress every time I walk through our parks.
*RE EV charging - Bishop Ranch has a significant network of L2 chargers that charge less than PG&E household rates. PG&E itself has an extensive installation of ~100 ChargePoint L2 chargers at Bishop Ranch 1 that are 90% unused. It would/could be easy for the city to drive more resident use of those L2 chargers by slightly subsidizing those rates + asking PG&E to make a portion of its ChargePoint install available to the public. Dozens of these chargers are within walking distance of Central Park and/or City Center - one could drive business or use of Central Park *and* EV charging simultaneously, reduce PG&E's need to add residential infrastructure, and increase use of existing equipment rather than use city $$$ to build new charging infrastructures.
*I do not see (or missed) in the CAP update a discussion balancing the rise of e-bikes, the ability for ebikes to reduce auto traffic, but then also the rise of e-bike related accidents. Perhaps the Iron Horse Trail discussion is meant to say "create a dedicated e-bike corridor or lane through the city in order to separate those e-bikes from pedestrians on the trail but simultaneously enable commuters to quickly (faster than 15 mph) access job sites in a north-south axis in the city" - but that seems like a pretty smart idea/partnership to create with EBRPD.
Thank you for your consideration.
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) From: Kathryn Grace
To: Planning Services (public)
Subject: Public Review Draft of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 5:38:09 PM
***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
Mr. Ryan Driscoll, Associate Planner
7000 Bollinger Canyon Rd.
San Ramon, CA 94583
Email: [email protected]
Date: May 14, 2025
Dear Mr. Driscoll:
RE: Public Review Draft of the Climate Action Plan (CAP) 350 Contra Costa Action is an all-volunteer, grassroots non-profit organization focused on climate change and environmental justice. We have reviewed the Draft San Ramon Climate Action Plan and offer the following public comments.
Urgent Action Needed
With 2025 half over and 2030 just four and a half years away, immediate implementation of the Phase 1 objectives for 2025-2026 is crucial to meeting the 2030 GHG reduction goals.
1. Staffing: Immediately authorize the position of a full-time sustainability staff member, as outlined in Table 33. Measure IMP-2 Actions, IMP 2a, and fast-track the selection process. Allocate all necessary resources to this role and designate, as the plan specifies, sustainability liaisons in each department to collaborate closely with the staff member. Establish regular reporting on measurable goals on the dashboard and to the City Council and Planning Commission.
2. Community Engagement: Community engagement is a key focus of the draft plan's implementation strategy. Establish the CAP Task Force as a permanent body to ensure strong community engagement. Local examples include Contra Costa County's Sustainability Commission and Lafayette's Environmental Task Force.
3. Implementation of Measure E-3: Begin immediate implementation of Measure E-3, which includes educational campaigns to inform homeowners about:
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) a.
The benefits of electrification
b.
Cost-effective strategies
c.
Available resources and
d.
Upcoming requirements from BAAQMD Rules 9-4 and 9-6 for furnaces and water heaters Additional Recommendations
1. Transparency: We support the proposed climate dashboard to track progress on emission reduction actions (Table 33 Measure IMP-2 Actions, Imp2e). We recommend that the dashboard not only include GHG emissions but also quantitative metrics of implemented actions, such as the number of existing buildings converted to all-electric and the number of EVs per capita, alongside percentage increases over previous years.
2. Terminology Update: Phasing out not only CO2 but also methane and other warming gases is essential. Replace terms like "decarbonization" and "decarbonize" with "electrification," "phasing out GHG emissions," and "phasing out fossil fuels."
3. Plant fire-resistant trees when replenishing the urban forest. To further bolster the city's protection against the rising threat of climate-accelerated wildfires, we recommend adding "and fire-resistant trees" to the second paragraph of Action ID CS-1b in Table 34 Measure CS-1 Actions, as highlighted in the amended passage below.
"As part of the plan, establish a canopy coverage goal, a goal of having no significant difference in canopy coverage between census blocks in the community, and guidelines for drought tolerant and fire-resistant trees and water-efficient irrigation methods." Acknowledgments
We appreciate the thoroughness and diligence of the staff, CAP Task Force, and consulting team in updating the Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP). Special thanks to the administrative staff for creating highly readable, informative tables, charts, and graphs that enhance the document's clarity.
Sincerely,
Kathryn Grace
San Ramon Resident
on behalf of 350 Contra Costa Action
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Below are my personal contact details as requested. If possible, please exclude these from the public record.
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) From: Jean Watanabe
To: Planning Services (public)
Subject: Re: Comment on the San Ramon Climate Action Plan Date: Thursday, May 15, 2025 4:56:10 PM
***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
Sorry, I forgot to include my contact information:
Thanks again!
On Thu, May 15, 2025 at 4:45 PM Jean Watanabe wrote:
Dear Mr. Ryan Driscoll,
I am submitting a comment about the San Ramon Climate Action Plan that is to be approved by the City Council.
I moved to San Ramon a couple years ago and am slowly getting to know this beautiful area.
I appreciate the access to nature, my friendly neighbors, and high quality schools. Having just read through the Climate Action Plan, I am now even more excited about the direction that San Ramon is headed. I'm really impressed by the plan to reduce vehicle traffic, build more resilient energy systems, preserve green spaces, connect neighborhoods to be more bikable/walkable, and electrifying homes. Thank you for the foresight and long term vision that the city has to also decarbonize and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which hopefully will mitigate risk of wildfires and other extreme weather. I feel so proud of my (new) hometown for acting on this with such determination. I urge the city council to move the plan swiftly through the approval process and start implementation immediately.
Thank you for all that you do for our city!
Warmest regards,
Jean Watanabe
Resident of San Ramon
--
--
9.1.c
Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: C: Written Public Comment Received During 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) From: Brian Swanson
To: Planning Services (public)
Cc: City Clerk (Public); City Council; planningcommission; Subject: Public Comment: San Ramon Climate Action Plan (CAP) Public Review Draft - April 2025 Date: Monday, May 19, 2025 9:32:04 AM
Attachments: BSwanson_SanRamon_CAP_ExhibitA_Contradictions_05192025.pdf ***| EXTERNAL EMAIL: Think before you click and do not open attachments unless you know they are safe. |***
Dear Mr. Driscoll:
These comments are submitted not in a spirit of collaboration but as a direct and formal warning regarding the internal contradictions, systemic governance failures, and legal and fiscal vulnerabilities embedded in the City of San Ramon’s Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP).
While the CAP presents ambitious and public-facing commitments to climate-aligned infrastructure —multimodal mobility, active transportation, public transit, transit-oriented development (TOD), affordable housing, and regional integration—these commitments exist overwhelmingly in narrative form only. There is little to no functional delivery, implementation capability, budget alignment, or institutional will to carry them out.
This CAP, like the General Plan, the Walking District Master Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan, the 2040 General Plan EIR, the CityWalk Master Plan EIR, and the Orchards Design Guidelines, risks becoming yet another document that will sit on the shelf —a planning exercise for outside consultants, only to receive expensive payment to produce lofty language and theoretical frameworks, never implemented, never revisited, and never reconciled with on-the-ground conditions.
The City of San Ramon has long treated its planning process as a box-checking formality to satisfy state or regional mandates rather than as a strategic tool to shape the community's physical, social, and economic form. A few examples indicative of broader dysfunction:
·Based on Budget Workshops and presentations at several recent City Council Meetings, it appears that implementation of the CAP will be budgeted not as an integrated operating principle across departments but as discrete line items, essentially decoupled from actual City operations or decision-making frameworks. ·The City continues to seek grants, particularly in broadband, transportation, and equity initiatives, which have little to no contextual applicability in San Ramon and often contradict the infrastructure goals the grants are supposed to support. ·The City’s response to the unhoused population exemplifies its systemic governance breakdown. For months, an unhoused man camped openly on the front porch
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: D: Late Communication Received After 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) of City Hall—an obvious site that should have catalyzed a coordinated, compassionate interdepartmental response. Instead, the City chose to pass reactive, punitive policies to avoid legal liability while absolving the police of any meaningful outreach, accountability, or social service liaison work. The broader lesson is that social service gaps are not being addressed; they are only obscured.
·City Council behavior further degrades public accountability. On May 13, 2025, a sitting Councilmember openly used public meetings to lobby, cajole, and defend staff actions, not as an elected official charged with oversight and representation, but as a de facto extension of staff. The same Councilmember has abandoned prior public pledges to engage constituents in favor of strict proceduralism grounded only in the minimum legal requirements of the Brown Act.
The message to the public is clear: input is unwanted unless it aligns with staff recommendations or developer interests. Planning in San Ramon is not iterative or responsive—it is scripted, outsourced, and executed with the narrowest interpretation of legal obligation.
This CAP analysis is therefore constructed as a structured, evidence-backed indictment of the systemic contradictions and implementation failures that render the plan, like many before it, non-credible. It highlights misaligned priorities, absent policy infrastructure, performative compliance, and the erosion of legitimacy in City decision-making. It also directly anticipates and describes the federal oversight and funding risk exposure associated with this pattern of contradiction and institutional failure.
Systemic Failure to Deliver Multimodal and Active Transportation Infrastructure The City repeatedly asserts its commitment to “complete streets,” active transportation, and pedestrian-oriented infrastructure, yet nearly all relevant capital projects prioritize vehicular flow over walkability. The widening of Bollinger Canyon Road, despite its proximity to the Iron Horse Trail overcrossing and Central Park, contradicts the intent of the Walking District Master Plan. No investment has been made to provide safe, continuous pedestrian access to civic destinations, including City Hall and the Library. Instead of implementing shade, crosswalks, and connectivity, which were called for in adopted planning documents, San Ramon facilitates car traffic and suburban convenience.
The Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing, a regionally funded asset, stands isolated. It is symbolically celebrated but functionally disconnected from the walkable, safe access network required to serve as a meaningful climate mitigation project. San Ramon has failed to integrate this infrastructure into local circulation planning, undermining its GHG reduction potential.
Public Transit Service: The Persistent Mismatch Between Aspirations and Capacity
The CAP projects a 14% transit mode share by 2030. This is fundamentally implausible given the decades-long absence of consistent public transit service. County Connection operates only one viable route through the City, and neither BART station (Walnut Creek nor Dublin/Pleasanton) is well connected. No new intermodal services have been added, and no coordination has occurred with CityWalk’s five proposed hubs.
The City dissolved its TDM Advisory Committee and failed to fill key staff positions necessary for mobility planning and program oversight. These governance lapses further guarantee that CAP transportation goals will remain unachieved.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: D: Late Communication Received After 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Mobility Hubs and Micromobility Pilots: The Fantasy of Shared Urbanism Mobility hubs promoted in the CAP and CityWalk Master Plan remain speculative. None have been built. The Bird micromobility pilot failed catastrophically and prematurely exited the market. Bishop Ranch’s internal bikeshare is niche and insufficient to support mode shift for the general population.
Regional “hub” concepts are premised on high-frequency transit and dense land use patterns absent in San Ramon. Planning for these hubs continues despite demonstrated lack of feasibility.
Integrating convenience retail and programmatic activation (as MTC/CCTA has proposed) has no parallel in San Ramon’s built environment or transportation habits.
Micromobility has proven viable in dense, transit-rich, and walkable environments, not autodominated job centers lacking last-mile integration. Pursuing this model without a market study or land use reform is disingenuous.
The Collapse of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Governance The City and SWAT’s long-standing TDM framework has effectively collapsed. The dedicated TDM analyst retired and was never adequately replaced. The TDM Advisory Committee was dissolved. No successor structure exists to evaluate, track, or enforce trip reduction programs.
Meanwhile, the CAP relies heavily on commute reductions and TDM-based strategies.
Projects are routinely approved without meaningful review of transportation impacts, mitigation monitoring, or employer-level commute plans. San Ramon has no institutional means of delivering what the CAP promises.
TOD Undermined by Council Actions and Deference to Sunset Development San Ramon City Council undermined its TOD and housing goals by approving a Sunset Development-led reduction of the minimum FAR in the Downtown Mixed-Use North District.
Reducing this threshold from 1.25 to 0.5 eliminates the economic and density rationale necessary to support walkable infrastructure and public transit. TOD cannot occur in fragmented, low-density formats.
Sunset’s presentation during the FAR reduction hearing revealed no commitment to on-site affordable housing and raised the possibility of off-site locations that sever any potential transportation/housing linkage. Instead of using its land use authority to require co-located housing and transit infrastructure, the City enabled fragmentation.
Contradictory Use of Federal, State, and Regional Grant Funding San Ramon continues to aggressively pursue MTC, CCTA, and Caltrans grants, even as its implementation strategy contradicts the stated goals of these funding agencies. Recent awards supporting GHG reduction, connectivity, equity, and broadband expansion have resulted in disconnected, underused, or underperforming capital improvements.
There is no Transportation Master Plan or citywide implementation schedule for climate adaptation.
Each new grant opportunity is pursued in isolation, creating a patchwork of half-measures and inconsistent priorities. This model risks future audit and clawback, directly contradicts federal directives on coordinated investment and performance-based accountability.
Rebuilding Planning Integrity or Risking Fiscal and Legal Collapse San Ramon’s CAP presents itself as a credible strategy for climate mitigation. Yet it is built on unreliable transit assumptions, unenforced TDM structures, and fragmented capital priorities. It is not a plan, it is marketing.
The systemic failure to align budget, land use, transit planning, housing policy, and institutional
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: D: Late Communication Received After 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) accountability renders it legally questionable, fiscally vulnerable, and operationally hollow.
Until the City prepares and adopts a Transportation Master Plan, commits to implementing already adopted planning documents, and restores public-facing accountability structures, its CAP cannot be considered a serious policy instrument.
These comments, therefore, function not as feedback but as a formal warning and foundation for further legal and administrative scrutiny.
This submission is accompanied by Exhibit A – Detailed Itemized Commentary on Plan-by-Plan Contradictions, supporting and documenting every contradiction cited herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian Swanson, AICP
San Ramon, California
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: D: Late Communication Received After 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Exhibit A – Detailed Itemized Commentary on Plan-by-Plan Contradictions with San Ramon’s Draft Climate Action Plan
Brian Swanson, AICP
San Ramon, California
This document supplements the formal public comment submitted on the City of San Ramon’s Draft Climate Action Plan (April 10, 2025) by providing detailed, plan-by-plan analysis of contradictions, omissions, and failures to implement commitments stated in previous City planning documents. The intent is to show not just inconsistencies in strategy, but the complete lack of execution capacity that renders the CAP an aspirational, nonbinding marketing document—not a functional blueprint.
Each section below documents contradictions between the CAP and the following plans – Walking District Master Plan (WDMP)
San Ramon General Plan 2040 Final EIR
CityWalk Master Plan EIR
Orchards Design Guidelines
San Ramon Bicycle Master Plan
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) reductions approved by City Council San Ramon’s treatment of CEQA transportation and land use mitigation measures
The City’s Affordable Housing Goals and RHNA Commitments
1. Walking District Master Plan (WDMP) vs. CAP Implementation Claims The Walking District Master Plan (2022) was adopted with the stated goal of making San Ramon’s core “walkable, connected, safe, and comfortable.” It includes dozens of block-level pedestrian improvements, new crossings, shade amenities, and improved connectivity from the Iron Horse Trail to City Hall, the Library, Central Park, and Bishop Ranch. The CAP refers to the WDMP as a foundational document and claims progress on its implementation.
However, to date, there is little evidence the WDMP has been implemented beyond initial design mock-ups. No significant pedestrian corridor upgrades have been constructed. The City continues to approve projects and street configurations that fail to integrate key WDMP recommendations. For example:
Bollinger Canyon Road has been widened, not calmed or narrowed—despite being a core corridor flagged for walkability improvements.
The Iron Horse Trail Overcrossing is not connected to any of the WDMP's recommended local destinations.
Camino Ramon remains vehicle-oriented, with no continuous pedestrian amenities as envisioned in the WDMP.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: D: Late Communication Received After 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Exhibit A – Detailed Itemized Commentary on Plan-by-Plan Contradictions with San Ramon’s Draft Climate Action Plan
Brian Swanson, AICP
San Ramon, California
The CAP presents WDMP implementation as active and ongoing; this is not supported by any observable results. The plan sits effectively untouched while contradictory capital projects move forward.
2. San Ramon General Plan 2040 Final EIR vs. CAP Policy Commitments The General Plan 2040 Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) includes multiple mitigation measures related to transportation, GHG emissions, and air quality, which require integration of land use and mobility policies. The CAP fails to align with these mandatory mitigations in several ways:
Mitigation Measure TRANS-2c of the EIR mandates preparation of a Citywide Multimodal Transportation Plan. As of May 2025, no such plan has been prepared, even though the CAP refers to multimodal infrastructure as foundational. The EIR commits the City to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) through land use policy. The recent FAR reductions downtown and allowance of lower-density residential development near Bishop Ranch violate this obligation. The CAP identifies 14% transit mode share by 2030, but the General Plan EIR data and assumptions were based on significantly lower modal expectations. There is no indication these figures were reconciled or updated.
The CAP builds its emissions-reduction claims on transit, VMT, and density policies that directly conflict with adopted EIR mitigations or have been weakened through subsequent policy actions.
3. CityWalk Master Plan EIR vs. CAP Mode Shift and Transit Objectives The CityWalk Master Plan EIR envisions a transit-oriented district centered on five mobility hubs and anchored by the Iron Horse Trail and new civic uses. The CAP references these hubs as future assets to achieve mode shift.
However, no transit hubs have been built. The EIR's assumptions regarding trip reduction, mode shift, and VMT reduction rely on non-existent infrastructure and services. Worse:
The Go San Ramon microtransit service is not integrated into CityWalk planning. County Connection service remains minimal, with no new routes or service level increases despite population and employment growth assumptions. The City approved reductions in development intensity that contradict the EIR’s analyzed scenario.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: D: Late Communication Received After 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Exhibit A – Detailed Itemized Commentary on Plan-by-Plan Contradictions with San Ramon’s Draft Climate Action Plan
Brian Swanson, AICP
San Ramon, California
Thus, the CAP continues to market a vision based on the original EIR while implementing a version of CityWalk that undermines its foundational assumptions.
4. Orchards Design Guidelines vs. CAP Safety, Access, and TOD Principles The Orchards project is cited as a major mixed-use redevelopment that will bring housing, retail, and mobility to a central location. However, the site design and circulation plans— formalized in the Orchards Design Guidelines—fail to meet basic CAP-aligned principles:
It prioritizes frontage along Bollinger Canyon Road, a high-speed arterial with no demonstrated plans for pedestrian safety retrofits.
The design does not incorporate continuous walking or cycling access to Iron Horse Trail or Camino Ramon.
It emphasizes large-format retail parking lots rather than walkable blocks.
This contradicts the CAP's strategy of promoting safe, integrated, human-scale TOD. It instead shifts growth toward an unsafe traffic corridor that violates the plan’s safety and equity claims.
5. San Ramon Bicycle Master Plan vs. CAP Implementation Claims Adopted prior to the CAP, the Bicycle Master Plan identifies gaps in the bikeway network and recommends specific low-stress connections. The CAP cites it as an implementation source, but few of the priority projects have moved forward:
The proposed Class IV (protected) lanes along Executive Parkway, Alcosta Boulevard, and Camino Ramon remain incomplete.
Recent road repaving projects failed to integrate proposed bike improvements. No updated metrics are provided on bikeway mileage, connectivity, or access to schools and civic destinations.
The CAP relies on the Plan rhetorically while implementation remains stagnant or in conflict with capital priorities.
6. CEQA Transportation and Land Use Mitigation Measures Ignored Across multiple EIRs—including the General Plan and CityWalk—CEQA-mandated mitigation measures require the City to:
Monitor transportation impacts, VMT, and transit mode shares;
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: D: Late Communication Received After 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Exhibit A – Detailed Itemized Commentary on Plan-by-Plan Contradictions with San Ramon’s Draft Climate Action Plan
Brian Swanson, AICP
San Ramon, California
Require project-level TDM programs; and
Apply consistency checks against General Plan assumptions.
Since the City dissolved its TDM Advisory Committee and lost staff capacity, these mitigations are no longer being enforced. Projects are approved without consistency findings or active transportation monitoring. The CAP never acknowledges this breakdown, despite its reliance on the same mitigations to justify its emissions reduction strategy.
7. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Reductions vs. CAP Density, TOD, and GHG Goals On May 13, 2025, the City Council approved amendments to reduce the minimum FAR for Downtown Mixed-Use North (DMU-N) from 1.25 to 0.50. This directly contradicts the CAP’s stated reliance on increased development intensity to support walking, transit use, and GHG reduction. The consequences include:
Loss of capacity for new mixed-income housing near jobs; Increased likelihood of underutilized land requiring auto access; and Erosion of the City Center as a viable walkable core.
This is not a theoretical contradiction—it’s an enacted policy reversal that directly undermines the CAP’s modeling, goals, and claims.
8. Affordable Housing and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) vs. CAP Equity and VMT Strategies
The CAP claims to address climate equity through strategies that expand affordable housing near jobs and services to reduce VMT and allow low-income residents to live close to where they work. However, the City’s housing policies and Council actions tell a different story:
The City has repeatedly delayed or weakened implementation of its Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, allowing developers to sidestep on-site affordability requirements.
During hearings on Sunset Development’s projects, the Council entertained ideas for locating affordable units off-site, and not near employment centers, in violation of both equity principles and RHNA intent.
The CAP references Housing Element updates, but those updates are not integrated with transportation planning or TDM strategies in any measurable way.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: D: Late Communication Received After 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP) Exhibit A – Detailed Itemized Commentary on Plan-by-Plan Contradictions with San Ramon’s Draft Climate Action Plan
Brian Swanson, AICP
San Ramon, California
There is no monitoring or enforcement of whether new units actually serve “essential workers” (teachers, first responders, nurses, pharmacy technicians, etc.) as claimed.
The General Plan EIR, the CAP, and the City’s RHNA allocation all depend on infill development at sufficient density to meet VMT reduction and equity goals. But by approving FAR reductions and permitting sprawl-oriented retail anchors, the City has directly undermined the housing-transportation connection essential to climate action.
In short, the affordable housing strategy exists on paper but not in execution. The CAP treats housing as a supporting narrative, not a core delivery system for GHG and equity outcomes.
Conclusion: Exhibit A as Standing Record of Planning Contradiction This document provides a factual record of how San Ramon’s Climate Action Plan, though written to reflect visionary goals, is structurally and operationally contradicted by the City’s land use decisions, transportation project delivery, affordable housing policy, budget allocations, and governance framework. Without rectifying these contradictions, the CAP cannot be considered credible, and its projected emissions reductions must be dismissed as aspirational at best, misleading at worst.
This supplement is submitted alongside the formal public comment as supporting documentation.
9.1.d
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: D: Late Communication Received After 30-day CAP Update Public Review Draft Period (2025-073 : Climate Action Plan (CAP)