Agendas and Minutes

Climate Policy Committee (View All)

Climate Policy Commission Meeting

Agenda
Thursday, February 13, 2020


Meeting Audio
 
MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE POLICY COMMISSION
Thursday, February 13, 2020
Siskiyou Room, 51 Winburn Way
 
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Chair Tonya Graham. Commissioners Rick Barth, Chris Brown, Zander Huston, Ray Mallette, Gary Shaff, and Les Stone were present. Staff liaisons Stu Green and Adam Hanks were also present. Commissioner Talia Shea was absent and Julian Bell arrived shortly after the meeting started.
 
2. Consent Agenda
2.1. January 9, 2020 Minutes
Barth/Shaff moved/seconded to approve the minutes as written. Further discussion: none. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously.
 
3. Announcements
3.1. Next Meeting: March 12, 2020
3.2. Other Announcements from Commissioners
Mallette announced that the Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) Master Climate Protector ten-week class started at Rogue Community College (RCC). Stone announced that she traveled to Salem to join over 1,000 people rallying for action on climate change.
3.3. Reports from Representatives of Other Commissions
 
4. Public Forum
Jeff Sharpe – quoted item F under the Commission’s powers and duties. He wanted the Commission to press the City Council to take immediate action on climate change. This would include finding an alternative for City Hall and putting more City money into renewable energy projects.
 
Huelz Gutcheon – emphasized that there are other ways to finance solar. He is also concerned there is a lack of discussion about the Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP) at the Planning Commission and in the Community Development Department. 
 
Ken Devine – praised the Conservation and Climate Outreach Commission’s (CCOC) climate action card and corresponding article in the Sneak Preview. He also brought the Earth Smart Money Wise guide created by the Chamber of Commerce from 2000 and referenced a recent opinion editorial from the New York Times describing that individuals can cut three to four percent of their emissions while corporations will need to reduce more to help mitigate climate change.
 
Larry Cooper – wanted clarification on the reports from representatives of other commissions section. Graham stated that it is for other Commissioners to present items from the whole Commission. He also spoke about the Water Master Plan comments from the Climate Policy Commission (CPC) and the need for a system and staff support to analyze the water conservation program. Cooper also explained that the design and construction of the Water Treatment Plant needs to incorporate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and have community discussion about the size of the plant, which does not take conservation efforts into account.
 
5. Decisions
5.1. Water Master Plan Comments
5.1.1. Does the Commission approve the Comments as presented? 
Huston stated that the line “some of these actions may already be mentioned in the WMP draft in a different format” makes the recommendation unclear and specifics would be more helpful. Mallette said the line was included to acknowledged that some of the actions may be mentioned in the Water Master Plan (WMP) in a different format, but it does not currently cite specific CEAP actions. Huston suggested adding explicitly to the sentence and Hanks suggested this line could go in the cover memo. Some discussions surrounded about when this would need to be approved to go to Council. Barth recommended that the Commission should make a decision at this meeting since the Public Works Department is working on an update to bring back to Council at an undetermined time.
 
Julian Bell arrived at 4:17 p.m. 
 
Shaff reiterated that more specific comments with page numbers referencing WMP would be helpful to present to Council. Barth stated that staff will have to review the comments and incorporate them in the plan. More specific requests could be more difficult as staff will have a better idea of where all of the items fit in the WMP. Hanks further stated that this will be a staff decision on what to incorporate and there may be items that staff can apply the comments where the Commission has not indicated. Graham stated item NS3-2 in CEAP has not been completed and asked if it should be still included. Hanks stated that it is worth keeping in because it can be used later on once complete. Brown/Stone moved/seconded to approve the Water Master Plan comments. Further discussion: none. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously. Mallette stated that this is the first master plan document amended with CEAP and the Utilities Subcommittee will be able to develop a process from this. 
 
5.1.2. Should the Commission request that staff develop a cover memo to the Public Works Director requesting that these recommendations be incorporated in the final draft document and also be included as an attachment to the Council Communication when the item comes back before Council for final approval of the WMP?
Hanks stated the letter could be about the recommendation and the request for Public Works staff to include the comments in the Water Master Plan. Shaff asked how will the Commission know what has been accepted. Hanks stated that typically the final version will not come back to the Commission, but he can look into the process of having more feedback. This could be incorporated in memo sent to Public Works staff. The general consensus was to move forward with this.
 
5.2. Downtown All Ages and Abilities (AAA) Bicycle Facilities Plan
Shaff presented the Downtown All Ages and Abilities (AAA) Bicycle Facilities Plan (see attached). Discussion included: 
Only four types of bikeways are proposed for Ashland in this plan: Woonerf (low-speed shared streets) for Pioneer Street, bicycle boulevards for Central Avenue, Granite Street, Winburn Way, and Third Street, buffered and conventional bicycle lanes for portions of B and Oak Streets, and protected bicycle lanes for Main Street and Lithia Way. 
The impact on current parking downtown including removing parking in high traffic and loading zone areas and replacing those on streets with less traffic congestion.
 
Shaff also reminded the Commission of the letter forwarded last month about the importance of a bicycle all ages and abilities network. Shaff wanted to see the presentation be forwarded to the Citizens’ Advisory Committee Revitalize Downtown Ashland (CAC), the Transportation System Plan Ad hoc Committee (to be formed), the Transportation Commission, and eventually the Planning Commission and City Council as they will adopt the plan. Mallette asked if the recommendation presented in the plan will be adopted or if the overall goals of increasing safety for riders and reducing GHGs would be focused on. Shaff said no control will be made by the recommendation and that this was a follow up to Graham’s request for more specific details for the letter. 
 
Hanks asked if the Commission wanted to deliver this to the Council and Planning Commission only when it is on their agenda. Shaff stated providing them earlier on will be fundamental to helping the adoption of the plan. Barth requested that the letter when sent also gets sent to the Commission as a final draft. 
 
Bell/Mallette moved/seconded to propose to confirm these plans be sent to the CAC, proposed Transportation System Plan Ad hoc Committee, the Transportation Commission, Planning Commission, and the City Council. Further discussion: Graham agreed with Hanks since the Council receives so much information on items it would be better to wait until this issue is scheduled for a City Council meeting. Bell stated that the plan could be given to Council through the other Committee’s recommendations. Shaff stated his preference for sending the presentation now with background information to Council, but it is especially important for the CAC, the proposed Transportation System Plan Ad hoc Committee, and the Transportation Commission to have it now to help with a different approach especially to the Revitalize Downtown project. Bell revised his motion to confirm the presentation as discussed by the CPC be sent to the CAC, proposed Transportation Systems Plan Ad hoc Committee, the Transportation Commission and the Planning Commission. Mallette kept his second of the motion. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously
 
Hanks clarified that Council will still get the presentation and it can even be updated by the CPC as needed before then. 
 
5.3. Transportation System Plan Appointment
An Ad hoc Committee will be formed for the Transportation System Plan and it has been requested to have a member of CPC on the Committee. Shaff volunteered to join this committee on behalf of the Commission. Brown/Stone moved/seconded to appoint Shaff to the Transportation System Plan Ad hoc Committee. Further discussion: none. All ayes. Motion passed unanimously.
 
5.4. Next steps for Climate Emergency Declaration/List of Asks to Council
5.4.1. Will the CPC move forward with a climate emergency declaration or just a list of initial asks to Council? 
Graham informed the Commission about the Council wanting more information about specific asks including cost and impacts on staff work. The Administrative/Planning Subcommittee will prepare the feedback from Council with staff’s input and bring it back to CPC in March. Huston prepared a document showing the asks and where they overlap with CEAP which will be included in the Administrative/Planning Subcommittee notes. Hanks emphasized that all items needs to include information on time, cost, and capacity for Council to make a decision. 
 
5.4.2.How to address remaining feedback regarding any asks that Council members have concerns about so that we can finalize the request?
 
5.5. Potential change of meeting start time
Graham stated the time conflicts with some members and asked the Commissioners if they wanted to start later to avoid having a lack of quorum. Brown stated he does occasionally have a conflict, but would still rather be done by 6 p.m. As the vacant position will be filled soon which will help with lack of quorum issues, the Commission decided to not change the time of the meetings. 
 
5.6. Built Environment representative on Administrative Sub-Committee
​5.6.1. Request to appoint Julian Bell to the Administrative Sub-Committee
Graham stated that it would be helpful to have a member of the Built Environment Subcommittee on the Administrative/Planning Subcommittee as the Utilities Subcommittee is represented by Barth. Bell volunteered and the Commission agreed to him joining the Subcommittee. The members of the Administrative/Planning Subcommittee are now Bell, Barth, Graham, and Huston.
 
6. Subcommittee Updates/Questions
Graham announced that typically this section will be a short update on high level current or future items. Further details of projects will be outlined in the notes of each Subcommittee.
 
6.1. Utilities
Barth stated that the Subcommittee has been mainly working on the Water Master Plan comments, but will continue with the other items on their work plan. 
 
6.2. Built Environment
Bell asked about the flexibility of the Oregon Building Codes in regards to phasing out gas water heaters. Green stated that since Oregon has a uniform building code there is no flexibility and the legality of the City phasing out of gas water heaters is undetermined. Barth wondered about lobbying through Council to the state level for dual building codes that would give flexibility. Graham stated that the opportunity might come as the building codes did just get more progressive with the most recent adoption. Green stated that there are groups that are lobbying for dual building codes at the state level and he could loop the Commission in if they have the time and are interested. Graham also stated that she is on the Energy and Policy committee for the League of Oregon Cities and they are also discussing this.
 
6.3. Administrative/Planning
6.3.1. Council Study Session Debrief/Outreach Process
This item was discussed after Communication Expectations. Graham and Barth met with Mayor Stromberg and Kelly Madding, City Administrator, about the Commission. The process for the Commission presenting items to Council and receiving Council approval was the main topic. Mallette asked if there would be another Study Session and Graham stated there will be one on the process. 
 
6.3.2. Coordination with Conservation and Climate Outreach Commission
Graham talked about the agenda item “Reports from Representatives of Other Commissions” as a place for other Commissions to address the CPC. Mallette asked if these announcements need to be approved by the Commission. Graham said yes, but there might be an opportunity for informal announcements in the future. Graham also emphasized signing up for email updates via the website on the other Commissions which includes agendas, minutes, and their calendar. 
 
A joint meeting with Conservation and Climate Outreach Commission (CCOC) will be held in April where both can discuss each Commission’s role in the CEAP update. The Administrative/Planning Subcommittee will prepare CPC’s role in the update in March for approval by CPC. Hanks also stated that the staff for CCOC and CPC are the same and they can relay information as needed. Green reminded the Commission of the contact forms on the website that lets you contact each Commission via email. 
 
6.3.3. Communication Expectations
Graham directed the Commissioners to the Mayor’s expectations page included in the memo. Mallette asked for clarification on the conflict of interest stating prejudice and biased. Green stated that it refers to if you gain financially from a topic. Graham also stated that Commissioners would need to set any bias aside to make decisions. Shaff asked about speaking at other Commission meetings. Graham explained that individual needs to make it clear that they are representing their personal views not the views of the Commission. 
 
6.3.4. CPC Draft Look Ahead
Barth stated that this was a rough draft, but the intent is to keep the Commission on track for future meetings and long term planning. Graham would like to see the Subcommittee’s work added to keep track of items that need to go back and forth. Barth stated that since the Administrative/Planning Subcommittee has many items for their next meeting another draft might not be ready for the March meeting.  
 
7. Unfinished Business
7.1. Gas Blower Ordinance
Shaff presented the effects on health, environment, and noise as reasons for the proposed draft ordinance and explained that it was expanded to equipment beyond two-cycle engines. The only exception is chainsaws since their electric counterparts are not as powerful. The ordinance proposes initial phase out for commercial users and public agencies and a secondary phase out for households, which could also include an incentive program. Barth asked about reaching out to stakeholders and how Council requested that outreach goes through staff first. Bell stated Ashland Parks and Recreation Commission’s (APRC) view is that more staff and leaf blowers will be needed to do the same work. Graham asked what the phase out would include and the Subcommittee needs to talk with staff about engagement. Hanks stated that the phase out for City operations could be similar to what the City of Portland is doing, CCOC could work on a best practices guide for outreach, and a legal review will be needed to see what authority the City has on regulating these items. Brown suggested starting a pilot program and getting feedback from the community. 
 
7.2. Natural Gas Phase-out Ordinance
Shaff clarified that the ordinance is specific to natural gas water heaters. This narrowed scope will help with an advanced phase out next. Hanks stated that the Commission should also look at incentive programs, who is financially impacted, and receive comments from staff about the language and practical legality all of which will help Council make a decision. Brown stated that water heater replacements are typically done off the record and an incentive program versus regulation would work better especially for social equity. Shaff suggested coordination with CCOC to help spread the word about the phase out and explaining any incentives provided. Hanks stated that many take advantage of incentive programs when an item breaks instead of trading out a working one. Barth asked about incentives to HVAC or plumbing contractors. Hanks stated that staff meets with contractors for feedback on programs directly at customers, but directly to contractors will cause more oversight as pricing could be different per contractor based on the incentive. 
 
Shaff asked about member’s terms expiring soon even though the Commission has been formed. Hanks stated that as this is a new Commission the terms were tiered, but the reappointment process is simple and done through the City Recorder. 
 
8. Wrap Up
8.1. Items to be added to next agenda
8.1.1. Progress on CEAP Update 
Graham stated that the Administrative/Planning Subcommittee will develop next month’s agenda. If any members wish to add items to the agenda, they need to email her and Barth. The meeting was adjourned by Chair Graham at 6:00 p.m.
 
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Taylor, Executive Assistant

Online City Services

UTILITIES-Connect/Disconnect,
Pay your bill & more 
Connect to
Ashland Fiber Network
Request Conservation
Evaluation
Proposals, Bids
& Notifications
Request Building
Inspection
Building Permit
Applications
Apply for Other
Permits & Licenses
Register for
Recreation Programs

©2024 City of Ashland, OR | Site Handcrafted in Ashland, Oregon by Project A

Quicklinks

Connect

Share

twitter facebook Email Share
back to top