Back to Homepage

Learn about the City's plan to construct and move the water treatment plant - Clean drinking water is an essential right

Agendas and Minutes

Climate Policy Committee (View All)

Climate Policy Commission Meeting

Agenda
Thursday, January 14, 2021

Meeting Video

MINUTES FOR THE CLIMATE POLICY COMMISSION

Thursday, January 14, 2021; Held Electronically

1. Call to Order (meeting starts at approximately 00:03 on the video)

The meeting was called to order at 4 p.m. by Chair Rick Barth. Commissioners Chris Brown, Bob Kaplan, Ray Mallette, Gary Shaff, Jeff Wyatt, Council liaison Tonya Graham and staff members Stu Green and Bridgette Bottinelli were present. Commissioner Julian Bell arrived shortly after the meeting started.

2. Consent Agenda

2.1. December 10, 2020 Minutes (00:13)

Shaff stated that under the Other Annoucements from Commissioners section "equitable communications rule" needed to be changed to "equitable communities rule". Shaff/Mallette moved/seconded to approve the minutes as amended. Further discussion: none. Ayes: Barth, Brown, Graham, Kaplan, Mallette, Shaff, Wyatt. Nays: none; motion passed unanimously.

3. Announcements

3.1. Next Meeting: February 11, 2021

3.2. Staff Update (1:46)

Julian Bell arrived at 4:03 p.m.

Green and Bottinelli gave an update on the following items:

The new Climate and Energy Action Plan (CEAP) website;
The Adopt Your Home Campaign focusing on renewable energy, responsible consumption, switching from fossil fuels, and preparedness;
Zero emission vehicle incentives and outreach;
Progress indicators and CEAP update planning; and
Reach building code.

3.3. Other Announcements from Commissioners (6:19)

Barth stated that after the last meeting he met with one of the members of the Conservation and Climate Outreach Commission (CCOC). Four suggestions for interaction between the Commissioners are: Chairs and Vice Chairs meet regularly to discuss project overlaps, appointing one member to reach out to the other Commission on specific projects, utilize the Reports from Representatives of Other Commissions agenda item to give updates, and participate as citizens on other Commissions projects. Mallette asked about having another joint meeting with CCOC and Barth stated that he would like the Chairs to meet first. Kaplan asked if the Chairs were able to meet regularly and Barth said that there have been other pressing issues that have prevented this.

3.4. Reports from Representatives of Other Commissions (9:03)

Mark Brouillard from the Transportation Commission spoke on behalf of Chair Linda Peterson- Adams who wanted to encourage the Climate Policy Commission (CPC) to support the work group's recommendations to reduce maximum speeds. Having three of the cities Commissions, Transportation, Climate, and Conservation, united in their support to clearly demonstrate to the Council the importance of quickly moving forward and thus achieving in the short term the many benefits of reduced maximum speeds. This will be discussed later on agenda item 5.4.

4. Public Forum (10:04)

Two items were submitted as written testimony from Lorrie Kaplan with Southern Oregon Climate Action Now (SOCAN) Ashland Climate Action Project and Harlan Bittner the president of Siskiyou Velo Bicycle Club (see attached). In addition, Barth acknowledged the Commission previously received an email sent in December from Sue Lundquist to Mayor Stromberg and an email from Taffy Clarke Pelton regarding leaf blowers.

Wyatt asked if he should reach out to SOCAN directly regarding the development of a new community survey. Lorrie Kaplan stated that SOCAN plans on the survey to be a community effort and welcomes volunteers for their expert panel. Mallette asked if the Commission and City should take a formal position on safe cities and reducing fossil fuels. Barth said if there is interest to add these items to a future agenda let him know.

5. Old Business

5.1. Action Items Volunteer (13:54)

Kaplan volunteered to take the action items for this month and Wyatt volunteered for next month.

5.2. Commissioner Recruitment (14:50)

One voting position is open. Graham mentioned that there might be an applicant from December and she will follow up on the status.

5.3. Comprehensive, Master, Capital Planning (16:00)

Mallette announced the plans close to Council adoption: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) scheduled from March 2, Talent Ashland Phoenix (TAP) Intertie Master Plan scheduled for March 16, Stormwater Master Plan scheduled for April 6. The Electric Master Plan is still in progress. Mallette is waiting to hear from Michael Black, Ashland Parks and Recreation (APRC) Director on a date to discuss the Daniel Meyer Pool. Mallette also asked if he should add the Economic Development Strategy to the tracking list and Barth agreed.

5.4. Light Weight Vehicles - Reducing Maximum Speed (20:48)

The 20's Plenty group members Gary Shaff, Mark Brouillard, and Bryan Sohl gave a presentation on the benefits of lower maximum speeds report (see attached).

Discussion included:

If fuel saving from five percent reduction in vehicles per mile travel was a result of people switching from automobiles to walking or biking. Also if the five percent is from implementing more than just new speed limit signs. Shaff stated that enforcement, education, and lowering of the speed will need to be enacted in order to see results.
The need for education and increased enforcement so that people will follow the new speed limit.
How the new speed limit would be rolled out, starting with residential and then petition to have arterial streets (that are not state highways) changed later. Some streets can already be turned into bike lanes like "B" street which would reduce the speed limit to 20 mph.
Whether there is data on how reducing speed limits affects those who ride electric bikes and other small motorized vehicles.
If speed bumps and other traffic calming measures would be used to help implement the new speed limit. Brouillard stated that speed bumps have been studied and they do not help reduce CO2 emissions or noise pollution; therefore will not be recommended in this proposal.
If more initiatives like painted crosswalks at more intersections, additional bike lanes, and roundabouts could be implemented. Shaff stated that those items could be a part of the upcoming Transportation System Plan.
What the timeline for implementing new signs, enforcement, and education would be? Shaff stated the timeframe would depend on the Transportation Commission working with the Public Works Department once endorsed by City Council.
What experiences other communities who implemented the reduced speed were? Shaff stated that in Portland the increase in bicycle use happened within the same year the reduction in speed occurred.
If discussions with the Police and Fire Departments have been made regarding the proposal. Brouillard stated that Transportation has been speaking with the Police Department. The main speed enforcement officer stated that there would not be a problem implementing a lower speed in residential areas, but issues with traffic could occur on main streets like Siskiyou Boulevard and County roads.

Bell/Kaplan moved/seconded to direct the Public Works Department to pursue reducing maximum speeds within the City to the maximum extent allowed by Oregon Revised Statute 810.180 with the idea that we will be aiming for 20 mph throughout the city. Further discussion: Mallette amended the motion to be the same as the first recommendation to Council bullet listed on the agenda: motion to recommend to the Council to direct the Public Works Department to pursue reducing maximum speeds within the City to the maximum extent allowed by Oregon Revised Statute 810.180. The amendment was considered and a vote was taken with all in favor; amendment to original motion passed unanimously. With no further discussion, a vote was taken on the newly amended motion. Ayes: Bell, Brown, Graham, Kaplan, Mallette, Shaff, and Wyatt. Nays: Barth. Motion passed.

The second half of this item to "Request that the Southern Oregon legislative delegation ensure that Ashland is included among the jurisdictions which would be empowered, as Portland currently is, to set speed limits on roadways under the City’s jurisdiction pursuant to a reintroduced HB 4103 (2020 legislative number)" will be discussed at the February meeting.

5.5. Carbon Note (1:06:45)

Shaff would like to work with staff on implementing the carbon note rather than making a request to Council. He initially asked if Adam Hanks, City Manager Pro Tem, could give a progress report to the Commission every three months. Green suggested that Graham could give a report instead and Graham agreed due to the lack of staff time. Shaff volunteered to track this item and check in with Hanks and Green as needed. Barth mentioned that this was also to be in the memo to Council along with budget recommendations. Green stated that he has been working with Hanks on budget recommendations, but that they do not need to go to Council before the budget process.

6. New Business

6.1. CEAP Update (1:13:27)

Barth explained the three possible approaches for the update: 1) have a climate plan technical document as part of the Comprehensive Plan Element 11 Energy/Air/Water, 2) modify the original CEAP document 3) rewrite and replace CEAP.

Discussion included:

Leaving CEAP as is and focusing on incorporating the document or a CEAP implementation document into the Comprehensive Plan starting with Element 11 Energy/Air/Water

Graham stated that the Community Development Department did not have a schedule to update the Comprehensive Plan. Barth clarified that Bill Molnar, Community Development Director, committed Planning staff to help facilitate an update to Element 11 once the Electric Utility Master Plan was created. Shaff wanted to ensure that both would be integrated into Element 11 instead of being attached as reference documents. Green reminded the group that the Planning Division would help facilitate the Element 11 update, but most of the content would need to be provided by himself and the Commission.

Having the CEAP update and the integration into the Comprehensive Plan be separate projects.

Graham wanted to have the implementation plan update to CEAP different from including CEAP into the Comprehensive Plan. Shaff agreed with Graham that the two items should be separate projects while also making CEAP more action oriented with an update.

Mallette expressed interest in adjusting some goals in CEAP especially ones that pertained to carbon. Green stated that the existing CEAP would not need to have long term goals modified. Instead creating a short term implementation technical document could be beneficial and included in the Comprehensive Plan as an addendum. Shaff also wanted to see more measurable and explicit items in CEAP as the current document is focused on aspirational and broad goals.

Creating community engagement plans for the update.

Graham asked what the plans for community engagement would be and if feedback from the public was considered. Barth stated that the work plan has a communication section that will need to be addressed later on. Bell mentioned that he had content for the natural gas measurement section. Barth asked Bell to review the content and resend to him.

With general agreement that the CEAP update outline worked, Barth asked if the authors he assigned on the outline were correct. Barth also asked that a one page paper be written up on each section to be included in the next meeting's packet. Kaplan asked for clarification on what should be included in the one page. Barth wanted each authors interpretation of what their section meant. Green added the one page should also identify near term actions. Mallette asked for clarification on the timeline in the outline. Barth said that at each of the four dates listed there should be a description of progress made or should be made. The Commissioners agreed to their portions of the outline and Barth was open to serving as the editor.

Shaff asked if there was a template for the one page. Barth stated that he would make the template to send to everyone. Shaff and Mallette wanted to be involved in the goals section of the outline. Barth agreed to have them join him and Green on the goals section. Shaff asked if there was an updated inventory for CEAP. Green stated not right away as there has not been much change year after year. Barth expressed interest in measuring items locally for the inventory. Shaff wanted to make sure the work done in the watershed was included in the new inventory.

6.2. Energy Retrofit Loan Program (1:51:45)

Kaplan explained that he, Graham, Green, and Bottinelli have been working on possible loan options for the program. The options include:

Focusing more on electrification while continuing to support building envelope improvements;
Increasing the current loan amount to $15,000 over ten years with a five percent interest and allowing for the current loan amount of $7,500 over five years to have a three percent interest amount (currently the loans have zero interest);
Allowing low income households to take advantage of both the low interest loans and the cash rebates;
Doubling the loan amount for the next biennium to $320,000 and adding $100,000 from the clean fuel credits totaling $420,000 for the next biennium or $210,000 for each year; and
Allowing for the City to offer loan participations to investors so that the City can reloan the money in a shorter period of time while still providing on bill financing to those who originally took out the loan.

Discussion and suggestions included:

Defaults on the current loan program – there had been two defaults in the past that occurred during the housing crisis; one has been resolved and one was partially forgiven. The City would be able to put a note on the house deed and can pursue repayment if the homeowner cannot pay the loan back.
Source of increased funding – the funding would come from the Electric Fund. As the Electric Fund is separate from the General Fund (where budget issues mainly occur) there is a potential for the increase to be granted. The proposed programs will focus more on electrification efforts which will increase the revenue of the Electric Utility in the long run overall helping the fund.
The program being only used for electrification efforts – Both programs will need to be reviewed and will probably have more focus on electrification. If the programs were exclusively for electrification that would eliminate weatherization and other energy efficiency programs.
Return on investment calculations – Some have been done, but not all electrification efforts have a high return. For example, switching to an electric automobile or electric water heater has a simple payback of three to five years. However, there are equity concerns with only focusing on projects with a quick payback.
Rental properties – Currently, owners of rental properties are not allowed to take advantage of either program. As Commissioners expressed interest in allowing rental properties to be eligible, the group will discuss this with staff.

The group will take into consideration the suggestions from the Commission, continue to work with staff, and bring back another proposal in February.

7. Wrap Up

7.1. Topic Tracking and Potential Meeting Schedule (2:21:34)

The following items will be added to the next meeting.