Laserfiche WebLink
Summary of City Council and Planning Commission Comments, with Responses <br />Comments were received from City Council and Planning Commission, during the work <br />sessions on November g and November 19, Zoog, respectively. Responses are provided by <br />City staff, in conjunction with KEMA, the energy consultant for the Climate Action Plan <br />(CAP) <br />Residential or Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinances (RECO/CECO) financial and <br />political feasibility <br />Comment: Questions and concerns were raised about the low feasibility scores and the <br />potential economic burden of measures such as the Residential Energy Conservation <br />Ordinance (RECD) or Commercial Energy Conservation Ordinance (CECO.) <br />Response: The measures that mandate energy efficiency at time of sale or remodel <br />(RECO/CECO) as well as mandatory green building policies) may be politically and financially <br />difficult at this time, thus the low feasibility score for near-term implementation. These <br />measures are considered some of the more effective policies for reducing GHGs, however, due <br />to the preponderance of existing homes and commercial/industrial buildings that were built <br />prior to the implementation of energy codes in California. Energy efficiency upgrades, while a <br />cost layout, tend to have great returns on investment, especially on older buildings. <br />While the feasibility scores are low at this time, it is recommended to maintain these policies in <br />the Climate Action Plan (CAP) and to consider amid-term or longer-term implementation <br />strategy. In general, the CAP's feasibility scores may improve in the future given either a change <br />in the financial climate or technological progress. Staff will provide an annual update on <br />feasibility during its report on implementation of the CAP policies and actions. <br />A RECD/CECO ordinance or a mandatorygreen building ordinance, as well as many other <br />policies would come before City Council for formal adoption separately, and at that time the <br />feasibility issues will be further examined. <br />AC Transit BRT /Transit issues <br />Comments: Both City Council and Planning Commission commented that the project was <br />still not defined for San Leandro. In general, the east-west connections fortransit need to <br />be strengthened and more alternative means of accessing transit (bike lanes, shuttle <br />services, etc.) provided. Will Links be expanded? What are car share programs? <br />Response: Staff will be working with AC Transit on a locally preferred alternative that will be <br />presented to both Planning Commission and City Council in upcoming meetings. The update to <br />the City Bike Plan is currently underway. Expansion of the Links program is currently not <br />contemplated, but major projects such as the Kaiser hospital will provide shuttle service and <br />City staff is working with large employers in the City to encourage use of transit passes or other <br />