Comp Plan Nightmares (2)

Part 2 of my partial review of the Comprehensive Pan Part 2.

Energy and Environment
Background

Mitigation focuses on reducing the amount of human‐caused greenhouse gases (GHGs) entering the atmosphere; while climate adaptation and resilience strategies address the impacts of climate change on communities and people’s abilities to adapt. 

I am stumped as to why our city government can or should help increase "people's abilities to adapt" to climate change.  Lake Oswego can and should be prepared to deliver critical services in an emergency, but it cannot substitute for an individuals' responsibility to "adapt" to whatever threats life throws at him or her.  The media is full of reports of the effects of climate change and the federal and state governments are constantly educating us about how to survive and thrive in any emergency. But a small city like Lake Oswego does not have the resources nor the responsibility to undertake such a task. Let's leave this one to the big boys and the public and concentrate on core services instead.  Resiliency on a city-wide scale should be split into what is appropriate for the city government and what is appropriate for the individual.  If help is needed, an appropriate agency probably exists to do that work.  Or caring people might start a foundation to fill in the gaps.   

In 2005, the City Council signed the U.S. Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement, which was reaffirmed by the City Council in 2009 (Resolution 09‐09). As of May 2012, 16 cities in Oregon and 34 cities in Washington State, have signed the Agreement.

The US Mayor's Clinate Protection Agreement is not binding and is only a demonstration of support for a policy agenda.  Very few cities in Oregon (16 of 242) and Washington (34 of about 493) signed on to this pledge.  It is irrelevant to current and future councils what was agreed to in the past and should not be in the background report, especially if this fact is not stated.   

The US Conference of Mayors is an offshoot of ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability USA), a United Nations global organization, and the GHG Emissions Inventory is one of the requirements of the organization's members.  (Note:  Lake Oswego is no longer a member of ICLEI.)  Even when LO was a member of ICLEI, there was no legal obligation to undertake this or any other of the organization's tasks.  

Based on the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy prepared as a requirement of the grant program (approved by City Council, Resolution 09‐65), in early 2010 final approval was granted to the City to use EECBG funds to implement the following projects:

--  Establish an Energy Efficiency and Emission Management System for City Facilities.

Policies spread throughout this section do not talk about cost or if any of the suggestions or requirements are cost effective.  This is a major flaw and extremely disrespectful of the source of city funding when staff is dealing with the public's money (even with money from other public sources).

--  Conduct a Community GHG Emissions Inventory; and 6 others.

The Community Green House Gas Emissions Inventory was completed in 2012.  The report assessed the carbon footprint of all of Lake Oswego - individuals, businesses and public activities.  The problem with the entire exercise was that the only real data they had to work with was that which was supplied by the city for energy consumed for city services.  As for the rest - the estimates were based on wild assumptions about lifestyles of the income level of the citizens.  In addition, the inventory included all (assumed) activities conducted outside the city limits, E.g.:  airplane travel, cost to move goods and materials from distant locations based on consumption predictions, etc.  The inventory was almost entirely built around assumptions based on the income level of the average Lake Oswegan:  People with high incomes consume more stuff, travel by airplane more, and live in bigger houses, etc.  By this measure, any reduction in actual GHG emissions would not be counted unless the city as a whole shed a significant portion of its wealth.  The survey was done for the UN organization, ICLEI. The report is not a baseline of anything scientific - just a lot of baseless assumptions.  

B‐3.  Adopt and maintain infrastructure design standards that support long‐term resilience* to climate change impacts. 

See above comments about Resiliancy.

C‐1.  Develop regulatory incentives that encourage new development and redevelopment projects to incorporate green building practices* while maintaining compatibility with adjacent land uses. 

One of those nice-sounding and innocuous ideas that are Trojan Horses for public subsidies to private developers.  Anytime the word "incentives" is used, it generally means one of two things - reduction in fees or a "bonus" on the development codes, either of which will be advantageous to the builder, but not necessarily good for the community.  

C‐5.  Promote energy‐efficient land use and circulation patterns by allowing mixed‐use development in Employment Centers, Town Centers and Neighborhood Business/Commercial districts. 
This policy supports the creation of a Transit Oriented Development in the Kruse Way Employment District.  See previous post (1) and see the portion on the implications of a TOD near I-5.  

E.  Encourage development to achieve energy efficiencies beyond state codes through a mix of incentives, technical assistance, and education. 

"Incentives" is code for OPM (subsidized development) or relaxation of city codes (what are codes for?).   Lake Oswego has no business promoting state building code upgrades - developers may seek incentives from the Energy Trust of Oregon - funds that we have already paid Into through our gas and electric bills.  Now we are being asked to double the take for the builder - at our expense?  This was obviously created by people who don't want to spend their own money for their their cause, but don't mind spending mine.  These little things add up, and principals DO mean something.   Another public boondoggle that should get a thumbs down.  

End of Part 2.