Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Climate Adaptation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cambria board directs staff to refine climate action/adaptation approach and get cost estimates
Summary
Directors asked staff and the climate ad hoc to refine a short climate action plan, clarify adaptation versus mitigation, and return with cost estimates and a possible RFP for consultant work to identify infrastructure vulnerabilities and grant‑ready adaptation measures.
The Cambria Community Services District board on Jan. 8 discussed a staff draft climate action outline and asked staff, in coordination with the Climate Plan ad hoc (Directors Thomas and Farmer), to return with estimates and, if needed, an RFP scope for a consultant to craft a formal adaptation plan.
Staff framed the draft as a compact, actionable plan the district could implement (LED conversions, EV fleet transitions, procurement changes) while noting that an outside consultant would be needed to produce a comprehensive climate adaptation plan that examines infrastructure vulnerabilities (sea‑level rise, impacts to well fields, lift stations and wastewater assets). “Development of a climate action plan is the next step and will include measurable goals,” Director Thomas said, urging the board to prioritize measurable actions and a public dashboard for monitoring progress.
Why it matters: Several directors emphasized the difference between mitigation (reducing the district’s emissions) and adaptation (identifying and protecting critical infrastructure against mid‑ and long‑term climate impacts). Director Gray recommended obtaining outside expertise to identify vulnerabilities—especially for coastal and low‑lying assets such as the San Simeon wellfield and some wastewater facilities—because adaptation findings strengthen grant applications for infrastructure funding.
Board direction: Staff said it would work with the ad hoc committee to (1) refine the draft plan to include measurable goals and a reporting dashboard; (2) request cost estimates for engaging a consultant to prepare a focused adaptation plan if the board wants a formal document to support grant applications; and (3) return to the board with an updated plan and cost estimates. Director Gray opposed adopting the draft as a final policy, saying adaptation work required additional study; Director Thomas and others supported a focused, actionable plan and monitoring commitments.
Next steps: Staff will finalize edits with the ad hoc, gather budgetary estimates, and present an RFP scope or estimated consultant costs to the board for consideration at a future meeting. The board indicated staff should pursue estimates before issuing a formal RFP.
