By Kyra Young
“Drill, Baby Drill!” The fossil fuel industry applauded President Trump’s barrage of climate and energy executive actions, which redirected funding away from former President Biden’s climate agenda.
From withdrawing from the Paris Agreement to halting any new wind energy projects, local entities are left to carry the weight of the world’s climate on their own.
Trustee Alan Wong proposed a new climate action plan, which, adopted in 2024, continues to guide the college’s steps toward a more sustainable future.
The policy sets up the goalposts for City College to address its current status on various sustainability and environmental measurements by 2026 while establishing incremental benchmarks for improvement over the next decade. The policy updates City College’s sustainability plan for the first time since 2009.
As outlined in the resolution, the college has committed itself to an ambitious path of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and landfill waste, increasing water conservation, acquiring green building certifications, decreasing overall energy usage, serving sustainable food on campus, and adopting a zero-emission vehicle fleet.
“It’s up to us to act locally, and City College is one of the largest property owners in San Francisco,” expressed Wong. “So we need to do our part with all our facilities to reduce our carbon footprints.”
Currently, the college already receives 100% greenhouse gas-free electricity from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission through the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water and Power System.
Commitment In Practice
In 2019, the California Community College Board of Governors adopted a Climate Change and Sustainability Policy, urging trustees across the state to adopt local climate action plans.
In January, the CCC’s Board of Governors released an updated 2025 Climate Action and Sustainability Goals. This builds on the Board’s 2021 framework, which set ambitious energy reduction goals for greenhouse gas emissions for the state’s 73 community college districts.
City College’s own policy touches on the same priorities as the CCC’s Climate Action goals.
“We spent over three calendar years just getting feedback from administration, talking to environmental groups, and a lot of extensive outreach and communication – especially for me as a layperson,” said Wong. “With such detailed policies, I had to do a lot of research and develop my own understanding.”
A year later, the college is still in the preliminary stages of implementing the policy, collecting and assembling data to develop baselines by 2026.
“We’re not gonna have a report for several months as we’re trying to get all the data together,” said Alberto Vasquez, associate vice chancellor for the Office of Facilities and Capital Planning.
The college has partnered with Cumming Group, a project management and consulting group, for the data analysis and reports. The resolution also called for the designation of a Sustainability Officer by June 2024. Vasquez nominated Kwok Hong “Tom” Lam as the District Sustainability Coordinator, who currently leads the data collection process.
“We’re looking at data that goes back to 2022 – one year is too short to give a good average, but two to three is a range that gives us enough of an idea,” said Lam. Working in conjunction with Vasquez, Cumming Group and the Buildings and Grounds team, data is being analyzed from 2022 to December of 2024.
The study spans all campus buildings across the city, with each center having its own meter — electrical, gas and water.
“One of the challenges with the analysis we have on Ocean campus is that all the utilities come from Science Hall. It’s not broken out per building,” explained Vasquez. “The newer buildings across the street on Frida Kahlo are easier to get the data as those are per building. So there’ll be a lot of extrapolating, confirming, and double-checking. It’s not gonna be an exact science, but we’ll be able to make it work and take the next steps.”
Lam said these early data collections have reflected the efficiency of the newer buildings versus their older counterparts on campus. “The data for the older buildings looks much different to me than what we were finding for the new buildings like STEAM, which were built with updated code requirements and technology.”
Certified Green
The resolution also calls for campus buildings to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, and WELL standards.
“I believe we’re on track for a LEED gold for the STEAM building and Student Success Building,” Interim Chancellor Mitch Bailey said during the Board of Trustees meeting in December. “The minimum target is LEED silver. But the analysis won’t happen until the building is closer to completion. Then they can do all the point scoring and confirm with the U.S. Green to get a complete score.”
The U.S. Green Building Council first introduced LEED certification in 1998. LEED is a green building rating system with four different ratings, from lowest to highest: certification, silver, gold and platinum.
A LEED certification provides a framework for “healthy, highly efficient and cost-saving green buildings that offer environmental, social and governance benefits.”
The WELL Building Standard, developed by the International WELL Building Institute, is a holistic, performance-based system that measures how different features of the built environment impact human health and well-being.
Currently, the Harry Britt Building, STEAM and Chinatown Center have each received LEED Gold Certifications. Vasquez explained that these newer buildings have met WELL criteria, and the college will understand the WELL assessment value for its existing buildings.
For now, the team of Lam, Vasquez and the environmental consultants will continue collecting data to establish baselines by 2026 for greenhouse gas emissions, Energy Use Intensity, water usage and transportation. From these baselines, the team will develop strategies for the college to reach new benchmarks by 2031 and eventually 2036.
“At an elementary level, it’s all feasible, it just comes down to the return on investment,” Vasquez said. “There are two extremes: one is making it happen and, in a sense, almost tearing down a building for a new one, or do you make do with adjusting the best you can within the building footprint you have? Until the data is out, it’s hard to say what we can and cannot achieve.”