8. ACTION ITEMS

a. Management Services, re: Building Electrification Reach Code Replacement Options

1. Motion directing staff to prepare an alternative reach code to replace Section 4.1(b), subsection 4.106.5 and Section 5.106.13 of the local amendments to the California Energy Code

OUTCOME: ITEM PUSHED: Asatryan – wants more information on costs. Brotman supports staff’s recommendation to move forward with efficiency standard. Gharpetian and Najarian wanted very much to vote NO to replace the ordinance – and to begin allowing gas hookups in new construction once again. At present – vote to move the plan forward into the CEQA process was at an impasse and will have to be brought back to a meeting with all five council members present.

STAFF REPORT with Sustainability Commission & Staff Recommendations for replacement ordinance in light of the 9th Circuit Court’s decision in the CA Restaurant Association vs. City of Berkley litigation.
RINCON CONSULTANTS Report

b. Community Development, re: Project Update- Bicycle Transportation Plan

1. Motion providing direction on the update of the Bicycle Transportation Plan
OUTCOME: DEADLOCK – ITEM PUSHED until Councilmember Khassakhian (absent at this meeting) is in attendance as tie break vote. (NO: Najarian, Gharpetian, YES: Asatryan, Brotman). This item was brought forward for input and to get authorization to move the plan forward into the CEQA analysis. Listen to the end of the meeting for Councilmembers’ specific feedback on moving the plan forward into the CEQA process. In summary:  Najarian does not support moving forward with plan as presented. Amongst other issues he had with the plan, he asserted that the consultant had a conflict of interest as the same company did some consulting work on the Verdugo Wash project (they were not the lead, they were a contributor); Asatryan supports moving forward understanding that each particular project can be vetted individually as particular projects come up, but will not offer final approval unless outreach is improved; Gharpetian does not support as presented and stated that he will not support any plan that involves removing any traffic lanes and will not support having multiple bike lanes in close proximity with one another. He also supports the idea of people who want to bike needing to get a bike riding license so the City can track how many cyclists there are; Brotman supports moving the plan forward into the CEQA process so that all routes could be studied so all options are available.

STAFF REPORT
BIKE SUPPORTIVE POLICIES & RECOMMENDATIONS
BIKE LANE TYPES
BIKE PLAN MAP