Reso 2021-113 Adopt 2021 CAP and Addendum to 2035 General Plan

Home

What feedback do you have on the GHG inventory and forecast? • 1 like our goals for GHG reductions, but am concerned that not enough of the solutions to reach those goals are achievable because they lack the force of law to do so. • Excellent. • 1 like them. I kind of wonder why BART is its own category in them. Maybe a quick explanation of the reason would be worthwhile to add. (Has anyone proposed saving energy by eliminating BART?) • Clearly presented and looks very thorough. The graphics present the facts and stats in a powerful way. • 1 gather that details of the US Community Protocol and the Local Government Operations Protocol (LGOP) v. 1.1 used to derive GHG inventory values are complex and not easily explained, but I would have appreciated some explanation in order to better understand the changes behind the reductions seen since 2005. The use and calculation of of Service Population was intriguing to me. What feedback do you have on the climate vulnerability assessment and hazards? • 1 am wondering why potential responses to these vulnerabilities and hazards are also listed as potentially becoming vulnerabilities and hazards themselves? For instance, extreme heat may increase AC system installations and use. Extreme drought may lead to water rationing or higher costs that disproportionately impact lower -income and other marginalized communities. Risks posed by wildfires, particularly air pollution, could lead to other public health problems if some groups are unable to go outside for exercise and entertainment, especially in shared community spaces. • Excellent. • 1 am inclined to believe them. • This section builds a convincing case for the reality and severity of the real and present local dangers of climate change and the urgent need to address them. (Very scary stuff!) • 1 thought this section was excellent and very complete. Living in the FEMA flood area, sea level rise has been on my mind for years. I may disagree with the levee mitigation plan for flooding, but thought the section was extremely well written and well explained. o I was confused by both early century ('23 to'42) and late century ('51 to'70) droughts leading to the same reduction in surface water ["precipitation could also drop to an average of 16.7 inches per year"] and wonder if that could be clarified. o Typo in first sentence of last paragraph on page numbered 41 (pg 210 in pdf): "areas in the eastern portion of San Leandro along the bayshore" ; eastern should be western o I think that a street level evacuation assessment needs to be done. Many neighborhoods in San Leandro only have one way in and out. Single access roadways are mentioned in the section on landslides (pg 41) and evacuation routes in the section on wildfires (pg 43) but this also applies to flooding (and earthquakes) — anytime people need to get out safely. I have never seen this discussed in City risk assessments and it is just as significant as language barriers discussed on page 39.