Monday, February 3, 2014
DRAFT Climate Action Plan—City Council Study Session—March 5, 2014 6:30PM
Hello All-
The City of Pacifica City Council has scheduled a Study Session to review and discuss the City's Draft Climate Action Plan (DCAP) on Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at 6:30PM. The DCAP was developed by the City Council appointed Climate Action Plan Task Force and KEMA Inc., and was previously reviewed at a Study Session in August 2012. Since then, the DCAP has been updated to reflect current conditions and comments from the last Study Session have been incorporated into the document.
Materials related to the upcoming meeting, including the official public notice and a copy of the DCAP, are available here: http://www.cityofpacifica.org/government/committees/climate_action_plan_task_force/default.asp
You can also obtain information by contacting the City of Pacifica Planning Department at:
Planning Department
1800 Francisco Blvd.
Pacifica, CA 94044
(650) 738-7341
horrisbergerc@ci.pacifica.ca.us
Please submit comments on the DCAP before 5:00PM on Wednesday, March 5, 2014. Comments may be submitted via email or U.S. Mail, using the above contact information.
Have a great day!
Sincerely,
Christina Horrisberger
Assistant Planner
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Uh oh, here we go again. I thought this committee had sunset like they were supposed to do. Did they go back on work on the citys dime without a budget or a charge from council? I thought they were dutifully thanked by the council in 2012. This is another grab at any chance to move Pacifica out of the dark ages. If I recall, the first draft had some pretty dire solutions to perceived problems.
Beware!
There was talk of "retreat" from some areas like Fairway if the sea encroaches. Obviosly none of them live there. Who remembers how the levee saved Sharp Park and Fairway from a major flood? It should be maintained at all costs. This group should be disbanded.
Sole agenda of this "managed retreat" committee, headquartered in Vallemar:
NO DEVELOPMENT.
Who's on this committee? Anyone know?
Same person, 101 and 106, from the article link above:
Task Force Members
Carlos Davidson, Chair
Celeste Langille, Vice Chair
David Rosenheim
Gil Anda
Joe Murphy
Michael Northrop
Ray Ramos
Remi Tan
101 Mission accomplished! There is no development. All you committees and commissions, so carefully chosen for your political value, you may stand down.
Celeste Langille, no growth, more taxes. God save us.
Yeah I thought this group was disbanded too. The whole managed retreat is not going to fly here. They should be planning how to save property, not let it be flooded. Besides what would happen to their beloved frogs if the levee failed?
It looks like they still want to mandate thousands of dollars worth of green renovations on a house before it's sold.
That idea went over like a lead balloon when the draft was first presented. I have a feeling council is just going through the motions with this committee, which is fine with me.
Anonymous at 7:27am:
"Uh oh, here we go again. I thought this committee had sunset like they were supposed to do. Did they go back on work on the citys dime without a budget or a charge from council? I thought they were dutifully thanked by the council in 2012. This is another grab at any chance to move Pacifica out of the dark ages. If I recall, the first draft had some pretty dire solutions to perceived problems.
Beware!"
Another grab at any chance to move Pacifica out of the dark ages? To take similar steps to what most other cities in San Mateo County have already done and other cities throughout California? Time for you to come out of the dark ages that still things that the issue of climate change is a "perceived problem".
Steve Sinai said...
"It looks like they still want to mandate thousands of dollars worth of green renovations on a house before it's sold.
That idea went over like a lead balloon when the draft was first presented. I have a feeling council is just going through the motions with this committee, which is fine with me."
Last night over 80 people attended a showing of the film "Shored up" on sea level rise and climate change at the Pacifica Sharp Park library. Pacificans are clearly interested and want to see positive movement forward in this area.
Green building improvements increase property values -- real estate statistics show this.
From a 2012 study: "Green home improvements can increase a property's real estate value by an average of 9 percent, finds a California-based study released recently.
Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley and the University of California, Los Angeles examined data on 1.6 million single-family homes sold between 2007 and 2012 in the California residential marketplace for an economic analysis of the value of green home labels.
Of the homes analyzed, 4,300 were certified with green home labels from Energy Star, GreenPoint Rated or LEED for Homes.
They found that, based on the average California home price of $400,000, homes with a green label sell for an average of $34,800 more than comparable homes without a green label."
Pesky climate action plan goals... reducing GHGs, saving money and reducing need for maintenance work.
From City report:
"On October 22, 2012, Council adopted certain findings and approved the Energy Services Design and Installation Contract with Aircon Energy, Incorporated. The purpose of the project is to reduce energy consumption, replace aging infrastructure and improve building comfort through energy related improvements. The work consisted of: replacing aging equipment HVAC systems, water heaters, air handler motors and furnaces with higher efficiency models; replacing the obsolete T-12 fluorescent interior lighting with the smaller, more efficient T-8s lamps; and replacing 1950 High Pressure Sodium Vapor (HPSV) street lights with Light Emitting Diode (LED) street lights. These improvements will result in reduction in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by 667 metric tons per year and help the CIty meet its stated target in its Climate Action Plan.
It is estimated that the new energy efficient improvements will result in cost savings of $128,411 during the first year or $781,307 over a 10 year period. It will also cut down on maintenance costs."
1038, the City report you have quoted from is, Item 6 of the City Council Agenda, 2/10/14. That Staff report and Resolution have now been linked to the Fixed Pacifica article.
We should all want improved energy efficiency, as well as cost savings. And since we're paying for it, what did the project itself cost? Was there grant monies? The notice of completion does not include such information, nor does it reference where to find that information. Perhaps you will follow-up and advise, with the proper source reference of course?
Kathy, it appears that the majority of funds (that came fron a capital fund) is offset by energy savings rebates.
From the meeting minutes of City Council on 10/22/2012:
PROPOSED ACTION: Adopt the attached resolution adopting certain findings and approving energy services contract for energy related improvements and adopt the attached resolution approving the forms of and authorizing the execution and delivery of a site lease, lease/purchase agreement and an escrow agreement and authorizing additional actions. Provide budget authority for the expenditure of $200,000 from the Capital Improvement Fund #22.
Mayor pro Tem Stone referred to the mention that the Capital Improvement Fund would be paid back over time with the savings, and asked if that was correct.
Mayor pro Tem Stone asked if it would be paid with the rebate.
City Manager Rhodes stated that it would be paid back right away. After they meet the criteria, they will get the rebate the next fiscal year and they will put that back into Fund 22.
Mayor DeJarnatt asked if that was $160,000.
City Manager Rhodes stated that it was $146,000, and it was after a net cost of $54,000.
Mayor pro Tem Stone stated that his concern was that they were not taking it out and then not replenishing it the whole way. He asked if he had another idea why it was necessary. He acknowledged that they would be saving about $50,000 over time. He assumed that the money would be spent out of the General Funds.
City Manager Rhodes stated that it would be from various funds.
Mayor pro Tem Stone concluded that they would be putting almost $50,000 into the General Fund and he was concerned about why the plan was not to replenish the Capital Improvement Fund until the $200,000 has been fully repaid or could it be.
Full text of the minutes:
http://pacificacityca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileView.aspx?Type=15&ID=1010
"Green building improvements increase property values -- real estate statistics show this."
If that's the case, people will do the renovations willingly. There's no need to force them to do it.
Steve, No different than ensuring earthquake safety measures are taken when selling a home. Having it be a requirement ensures the best for all.
Trust your local Realtors. Please keep in mind they always say prices always go up.
"Steve, No different than ensuring earthquake safety measures are taken when selling a home"
I am unaware of any earthquake safety requirements when selling a home, other than disclosing existing earthquake measures and deficiencies.
11:56
Sellers and Realtors have to disclose that Most of California and all of the Bay Area is in a special earthquake zone.
http://www.geoassurance.com/forms/R_SIGNATURE_Forms.pdf
Anonymous at 9:27am said:
"Trust your local Realtors. Please keep in mind they always say prices always go up."
The report referenced about green housing resale prices was conducted by researchers at UC Berkeley and UCLA, based on recorded sales. Not clear about your point on local realtors.
Water heaters are required to be strapped down prior to home sale.
A mandated no-cost disclosure of our local geology is hardly the same as mandating how home owners do their remodels and how they spend their own money. This nanny state crap is just another way to turn us all into eco-warriors using shill politicians who love green--the green from those hefty political donations and flashy endorsements. People should be allowed to choose what's best for them.
Anonymous at 5:05pm:
"This nanny state crap is just another way to turn us all into eco-warriors using shill politicians who love green--the green from those hefty political donations and flashy endorsements."
Can you provide details on what you are referring to? What local politicians are being given hefty political donations and flashy endorsements (to study and vote on the Pacifica Climate Action Plan)?
The greenies love to control what people can and can't do. No more plastic bags or incandescent lights.
This stems from their mostly socialistic views. Kind of like Castro when he promised his people a utopia. When it comes down to it they're really a bunch of tyrant autocrats that would say anything to get their way.
People on both the far right and far left want to control what people do.
The problem with the hippies in this particular case is they don't know when to stop.
Let's see if any politician, local or elsewhere in this nanny state, rejects a Sierra Club endorsement next election. How about labor support? POS mandated improvements create jobs for union trades. Every ideology has a "green" aspect.
So Celeste Langille, Vice Chair of this committee, is the same person that is one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Caltrans and the city over fixing the highway. I wonder what little poison pill she has inserted in this document that she intends to use in her lawsuit? And why is the city leaving her on this committee?
533 It's a good place to leave her.
Cities throughout the world have developed and are implementing climate action plans.
California State Law requires a plan to reduce green house gases. Each city in San Mateo County has had the opportunity to develop its own Climate Action Plan (CAP) using tools developed by C/CAG in conjunction with KEMA Inc. and Hara. This project was funded by grants from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Climate Action Plans developed from these tools will meet BAAQMD's California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines for a Qualified Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy. Pacifica is currently one of the last to move forward with final approval.
Since you put it that way, I guess we better have one, too.
Looking forward to the City of Pacifica doing its part to help stop the worst effects of global warming. We all must pull together to try to keep the water and atmosphere livable here on earth.
Post a Comment