My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Reso 2021-113 Adopt 2021 CAP and Addendum to 2035 General Plan
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Resolutions
>
2021
>
Reso 2021-113 Adopt 2021 CAP and Addendum to 2035 General Plan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/21/2023 1:35:21 PM
Creation date
7/26/2021 12:56:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Resolution
Document Date (6)
7/19/2021
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
5A Public Hearings 2021 0719
(Approved)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2021\Packet 2021 0719
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
304
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
they are far fewer and more poorly distributed in San Leandro than in Oakland or <br />Hayward. <br />• There are many strategies and they cover myriad sectors. This is good! However, many of the <br />actions appear to be voluntary or with caveats that render them non -committal. I'd recommend <br />including stronger language that makes the measures mandatory or non -voluntary. For <br />example, for BE-2, the two actions include language of "investigate the potential for..." and <br />"explore the feasibility of incentivizing all -electric buildings...", both of which don't ensure that <br />BE-2 will actually be achieved. <br />What feedback do you have for the strategies and actions to address climate adaptation? <br />• New businesses that open the permit in San Leandro should sponsor 2 trees for every linear foot <br />their business has (or some formula) and for in home businesses, <br />• Similarly, as above, how will the city ensure these outcomes? Nearly everything is optional <br />rather than mandatory. I am concerned that this will lead to a continued deprioritization of <br />climate change issues when expedient. <br />• Forgive me if I overlooked this in the plan, but building environmental stewardship and <br />resilience skills in our youth (i.e. a youth climate corps) could also be a way to address climate <br />adaptation. A formal link between schools and local universities/colleges and the work of the <br />Climate Plan could help train future citizens and ensure community buy -in. <br />• Same response as # 4. <br />• Some of this stuff is quite creative! I find myself questioning how City personnel are going to <br />accomplish even half of it. <br />• All great! p. 88 Adaptation Strategy 2 - Was hoping to see a strong tree -planting program, given <br />trees' power to sequester atmospheric carbon. <br />• Exellent work)!! As a renter I am so grateful that RF-4 is included. We need solar on the roofs of <br />City Hall and Police Depts, the libraries, Senior Center, Marina Community Center and schools <br />AND storage capacity. Hooray for ME-3! <br />What feedback do you have for the implementation plan? <br />• Again, I don't see any mechanisms to require the implementation of this plan's proposed <br />solutions. They seem like glorified guidelines - unless I am grossly misreading something? <br />• Same response as #s 4 & 5. To avoid greater costs later when we're in an emergency (around <br />fire, around health of the community because of pollution, around rising sea levels), wouldn't it <br />make sense to spend money now, e.g., on more personnel to work with Hoi Fei? <br />• 1 liked "Identify key staff from each department responsible for supporting the Sustainability <br />Manager with information and updates for annual reporting and monitoring." I liked all of it! <br />The Work Plan is a great way to prioritize by GHG reduction potential. <br />• Appreciate the focus on addressing real problems that many community members are likely to <br />face. <br />• 1 have noted how the CEQA review done for the EIR on the Shoreline project (and others) in San <br />Leandro merely rubberstamp ones done previously. I know that these reviews are outsourced <br />and paid for, and the people hired to do them make money on projects going forward —they are <br />paid by the developers — so the analyses they produce are frequently biased in favor of the <br />project and whitewash impacts. This is NOT in the best interest of the environment or the future <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.