By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – The Davis City Council will be presented with the 29 currently prioritized CAAP (Climate Action and Adaptation Plan) draft actions and asked to identify concerns, and make recommendations for additions and/ or modifications to these actions.
The city has conducted an extensive public outreach process for the past year with a number of public workshops as well as a virtual feedback opportunity that is still active.
“There has been robust community and commission outreach as part of this project,” city staff wrote. “Providing this update to City Council allows another opportunity for the public to provide feedback on the draft prioritized actions, and also allows staff to receive feedback from the City Council.”
The staff as well as the city attorney’s office are reviewing these actions to address issues of legality, complexity among other issues.
The 2020-40 CAAP was adopted to “will identify a measurable, enforceable, equitable and implementable path to carbon neutrality” as well as “bring Davis into compliance with state legislation related to climate action and General Plan requirements.”
Staff explained, “The CAAP will identify maximum efforts to implement carbon reduction actions by 2030, in alignment with state goals and City Council 
direction.”
City Council has previously adopted the ‘Resolution Declaring a Climate Emergency and Proposing Mobilization Efforts to Restore a Safe Climate.
“The City of Davis commits to taking significant action to move toward net municipal and community carbon neutrality in the short term, with maximum efforts to implement carbon reduction actions by 2030; and accelerate the existing 2050 Davis carbon neutrality goal to a 2040 target,” the council said in its declaration of a Climate emergency that was passed in March 2019.
There will be no formal action taken on Tuesday night. After receiving council feedback, the final draft of the CAAP document will be prepared and brought to the Natural Resources Commission for their input and recommendations before being brought back to the council for adoption.
A primary focus of the Davis CAAP approach was “to prioritize community engagement in developing the CAAP actions.”
Staff notes that between April to November 2020, the CAAP team conducted seven workshops, two online surveys, pop-ups at community events and other outreach efforts.
“Over 1000 ideas and actions were identified during the community engagement process,” staff writes. These were refined down to 100 discrete actions and ultimately 29 recommendations.
These focused on carbon reduction, mitigation or the reduction of GHG. It also focused on addressing climate risk, adaptation through a 2021 Vulnerability Assessment which identified risks in the Davis context.
“. There is no guarantee that because an action is among those prioritized now, that it will be legally within the City’s power to adopt as part of the CAAP document,” staff wrote. The list in not in any order.
Just a pet peeve, but a well-reasoned one: Journalists should always spell out the full name of the thing they plan to shorten into an abbreviation the first time they refer to it. Are there exceptions to this? No, never. It’s not like spelling out the full name one time costs extra for more ink. You cannot assume every reader is familiar with every acronym you write about.
What is “CAPP” ? It isn’t defined. Something to do with climate change I assume, but feel free to sneer at my not knowing.
You don’t know? *sneer*
I don’t either, but I assume that it means you have to change your furnace, stove, water heater, gas dryer, etc. – the next time you “remodel” or sell your house. Basically, if you change a light fixture, you’ll have to do all of those things as part of a “remodel”. 🙂
Or, when they “wear out”.
And it means that the cost of housing goes up – significantly. At least for existing housing.
It also means that they’ll be burning more fossil fuel to create electricity.
If this ever gets enacted as written wait until the first wave of homeowners are confronted with the costs involved for simply changing out a broken down gas heating system or a gas water heater. I can hear the cries now.
It will be henceforth known as the “full employment act” for repairmen (rather than replacement).
Probably also lead to more non-permitted work.
And it will ensure that existing homes and commercial buildings are never sold. (Real estate agents will love that.)
Ultimately, however – if it’s successful – it will also lead to abandonment of existing gas lines for homes and businesses (including labs).
I wonder how it would impact UCD, itself (if they pursue something similar). And DJUSD, government buildings, etc.
It’ll be years before it is “enacted” and effective… it is a “goals”/’aspirational’ document… it will require ordinances that will need to be vetted by the public and City attorney… as to retrofit requirements, the effecting ordinance will have to pass constitutional muster… and be proportional as to “nexus”… as written, the provisions will fail the tests… I’d consider it a “taking”…
Too early to debate details… there’ll be plenty of time. The City would have to clearly define such terms as ‘substantial remodel’… and until there are laws/codes requiring it for all new construction, there is no defensible legal basis for requiring ‘retro-fits’… chill…
Yes Ron, I think you can count on that. I think you might also see homeowners taking on repairs they aren’t qualified for in order to skip the permit process while they’re trying to save themselves several thousand$ of dollars in extra electrician costs.
Seems like a viable plot for a new Chevy Chase (or other comedy) movie, which always have some basis in reality.
The difference being that he survives, like Wile E. Coyote, The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, etc.
That would be a double ‘whammy’… if discovered on resale, they may have to pay double on the permit fees, PLUS have to correct any incompetent repairs/changes… even if not discovered by the City, they would probably have tort liability to a buyer, if there was a problem… not good odds… probably a de minimus concern, and we’re not even near ‘there’ yet… your comment is weirdly speculative… some idiot might go there, that’s true…
I say this, knowing how the codes and law work, in this respect, and having done competent (but unlicensed, un-‘permitted’) repairs/modifications/additions to ‘utilities’, some of which might have required a permit… no problemo. And, statute of limitations has likely expired…
Why not use the process to formally express your hypothetical concerns as part of the process, instead of, or additional to, on the VG?
Context… meant as to someone who personally does incompetent work, and unpermitted/uninspected to avoid permit fees… I see where that portion could have been misinterpreted…