18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Cascadia modeled the GHG-reduction associated with various actions based on available information and case studies, including data on historic and projected energy usage, population and development trends, and technology and policy impact. Cascadia drew from literature and expert opinion (e.g., studies done by the U.S. Department of Energy and California Air Resources Board) as well as from available City data and staff input. The actions are assigned timeframes for implementation (i.e., near-term, mid- term, or long-term) and this phasing affects the GHG impacts (e.g., if an action is implemented in year 1, it will have more time to accumulate reductions than if it were implemented in year 8). Costs for implementation of various actions are estimated for both the City and for the community, as detailed in Attachment 4. Staff time in the form of full-time equivalencies (FTE) is also estimated. Cost and staffing estimates are based on consultant experience, available literature, consultation with peer cities, and City staff input. Costs include initial start-up/one-time costs and ongoing costs and/or savings. Cost effectiveness, in terms of cost per MTCO2e is provided for each action where GHG mitigation is estimated, to provide a side-by-side comparison where possible. The Cost -Benefit Analysis highlights the crucial actions necessary to meet the CAP 2.0 target pathway and identifies the top 10 GHG mitigating actions. It also highlights which actions may be costly to the City or the community and conversely, which actions may provide a cost savings. Several actions incur costs to the City but generate cost savings to the community. Staff has identified some of the actions analyzed in the Cost -Benefit Analysis as "existing ongoing" actions which means their GHG reductions should be counted, but the costs are already considered in other City policies and plans — such actions will not be considered "new actions" (or new costs) in the Climate Action Plan 2.0. As an example, action 1082 references the bicycle, pedestrian, and trails network expansion. This action is estimated to cost the City approximately $13 million, based on percentages of total cost estimates provided in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and Trails Master Plan. Irrespective of the adoption of the CAP, the City will move forward with implementation of various projects identified in these plans as part of its annual Capital Improvement Program; and as outlined in both plans, many projects would be supported by existing or anticipated funding sources including Measure BB, the City's Traffic Impact Fee program, expansion of networks through development projects, grant applications, and Park Impact Fees, among other sources. GHG Emissions As previously reviewed by the City Council, in Pleasanton's 2017 GHG emissions inventory GHG emissions were forecasted out for future years (accounting for projected growth). This is called the business -as -usual (BAU) forecast. The BAU forecast is then adjusted to consider the effect of state and federal regulations (e.g., building codes and car efficiency standards) that will impact future emissions in Pleasanton. This is called the adjusted business -as -usual forecast (ABAU). Page 4 of 11