01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Associate Planner Campbell relayed the Committee's desire for the Council to approve its recommendations of a GHG emission reduction pathway, its overall vision, guiding principles, co - benefits, and action selection criteria. She stated once Council has provided direction, the Committee will proceed to enact CAP 2.0 through action development using the City Council's established framework. Associate Planner Campbell ensured the Committee will hold community workshops, partner meetings, vet the stages through other committees and commissions and provide City Council regular updates with the anticipated goal for CAP 2.0 adoption in fall 2021. In response to Mayor Thorne's inquiry, Associate Planner Campbell confirmed cost is included in the guiding principles. Consultant Andrea Martin elaborated on how a multi -criteria qualitative analysis of potential actions will include costs and cost to benefit ratios. In response to Mayor Thorne's inquiry, Associate Planner Campbell explained joining the Alameda County electrical production could benefit CAP 2.0 depending on the mix of energy. She added the basic option will hurt emissions goals but if Pleasanton opts up into a higher level, it will help and potentially have a bigger impact if it is carbon -free. In response to Mayor Thorne's inquiry, City Manager Fialho reported the decision on the energy mix has not yet been made and will be considered in an upcoming meeting because there is a cost difference between the potential energy mix options. D78 In response to Councilmember Testa's inquiry, Consultant Ryan Gardener described Livermore's potential carbon capture and storage methods. He said Carbon Sequestration Technology is interesting and a proven concept but not ready to be implemented at a low cost. In response to Councilmember Brown's inquiry, Associate Planner Campbell detailed if CAP 2.0 is not being used for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining then it is not mandatory at this time, but she believes it needs to be in existence through 2025 according to the settlement agreement which led to CAP 1.0. In response to Councilmember Brown's inquiry, Community Development Director Ellen Clark explained projects undergo CEQA reviews, and having a CAP allows for analysis of GHG emissions to be completed more efficiently. In response to Councilmember Brown's inquiry, Associate Planner Campbell explained highway cut - through traffic is not counted against Pleasanton. Mr. Gardener elaborated the emissions include a bucket for people driving within the City and half of the emissions for people driving to or from Pleasanton but driving through does not count. He clarified if someone, for example, drives from Tracy to San Jose on 1-580, Tracy and San Jose would split the emissions for accounting purposes but there is no official impact on Pleasanton. In response to Councilmember Brown's inquiry, Ms. Martin explained the Climate Vulnerability Assessment accounts for risks inclusive of wildfires adding that CAP 2.0 will include options for minimizing exposure and risk of wildfires. In response to Councilmember Brown's inquiry, Ms. Martin explained carbon sequestration is mostly stored in vegetation and soils. She advised CAP 2.0 would look at ways carbon can be stored through natural systems such as tree canopies and carbon sequestration and not necessarily a big underground vault. Ms. Martin added the Committee would assess new technologies as they become available. Mr. Gardener added carbon sequestration can be achieved through either a natural process like planting trees or storage. He stated the storage option requires very specific soils so it likely would City Council Minutes Page 6 of 13 November 17, 2020