01 - Laserfiche WebLink

target pathway. The CAP will require an update around 2030 to reassess emissions reductions, evaluate new legislation, and incorporate updated technologies that emerge so CAP 2.0 is focusing on reductions through 2030. The actions proposed would be phased and implemented over the next 10 years. A list of over 150 actions was prepared and were all suggestions on how to close the gap and achieve the 2030 target. The list was prepared by reviewing the City's existing CAP, reviewing best practices, and other recently adopted CAPS from cities such as Dublin, input from the public, City staff, the Committee on Energy and the Environment, and focus groups with stakeholders and implementation partners. She reported the initial list was qualitatively ranked across the action selection criteria and reviewed through several outreach meetings that included committees, commissions, the Chamber of Commerce, and the community through a survey and a workshop. She advised several of the actions were modified based on feedback. She explained Action 1164 which is about creating an existing building electrification plan represented the action with the most concern across the outreach and had the largest change due to the outreach. Associate Planner Campbell advised the City's professional services team, Cascadia, prepared a quantitative Cost Benefit Analysis for a shorter list of about 50 actions recommended by the Committee on Energy and the Environment. The Cost Benefit Analysis provides estimates of GHG reductions for new actions as well as costs to both the City and community for new actions and provides GHG impact estimates for some existing and ongoing City actions. There are several combinations of new actions that would meet the established target. She advised including all new actions in the Cost Benefit Analysis would cost the City $10.2 million through the 10- year implementation of the plan which is cost-prohibitive and infeasible in terms of staff requirements. She advised staff evaluated including the minimum number of actions needed to achieve the GHG targets which would cost the City $1.6 million through the 10-year implementation. Implementing as few as eight actions could result in meeting the 2030 target but results in a narrow scope of actions which allows for no margin of error and ignores cost-effectiveness, resilience, and adaptation. Associate Planner Campbell reported staff recommendation includes a set of primary actions and a set of secondary actions. She advised the set of primary actions is 15 actions and they are largely GHG mitigating. She noted there is a mix of large and small actions that might take several years and actions that could be relatively quick to implement. She reported the primary actions will cost the City about $1.1 million for the 10-year implementation of the plan and save the community $1.2 million. Staff also recommends a set of 10 secondary actions which are predominantly resilience and adaptation actions. She noted that while the resilience and adaptation actions may not directly impact GHGs as calculated in the inventory they often have other benefits such as reducing water consumption and may even have indirect GHG benefits such as reducing wildfires. Staff suggests the phasing and timing of those secondary actions be flexible and that these actions be implemented as resources and opportunities become available. She advised if resources and partnership opportunities do not become available then they should not get pursued. She noted that by including them on the list allows them to remain on the radar and as the City considers future work plans and staffing priority priorities it allows the City to implement them as opportunities arise. She reported the total GHG emissions reductions for implementing just the primary actions does exceed the City's 2030 target and allows a 1% buffer between the proposed 2030 emissions and the 2030 emissions target. She noted it is a small buffer but will increase as GHG mitigating secondary actions are implemented and also if actions are completed ahead of their scheduled phasing. She advised staff's recommendation strikes a balance between co-benefits, community cost, City cost. community input, and staffing assumptions and creates a realistic list that can be implemented. She noted it also considers resilience and adaptation actions without overburdening the City budget and resources which supports the CAP 2.0 vision. City Council Minutes Page 12 of 19 November 2, 2021