Loading...
Agenda Packet - 2023-12-18AGENDA Sustainability Advisory Board 18 December 2023 6:30 – 8:30 pm Zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_TnXnUiIwSJeNhKhkTc5Ptg Staff Contact: Amanda Watson, awatson@lakeoswego.city 503-635-0291 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY ADA Accommodation Requests lakeoswego.city/accommodation 503-635-0282; Relay 711 Please allow four business days to process your request. Translation Services Traducción o interpretación 翻译或传译 통역혹은번역 503-534-5738 Buzz Chandler, Co-Chair ∙ Jay Hamachek, Co-Chair ∙ Matt Schaeffer ∙ Kara Orvieto Ashley ∙ Robin Palao Bastardes ∙ Mark Puhlman ∙ Whitney Street ∙ Nathan Chen ∙ Margaux McCloskey 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 13, 2023 Minutes 4. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE (15 mins) Mayor Buck 5. PUBLIC COMMENT The purpose of Public Comment is to allow community members to present information or raise an issue regarding items not on the agenda or regarding agenda items that do not include a public hearing. A time limit of three minutes per individual shall apply. Public Comment will not exceed thirty minutes in total. If you are unable to attend the meeting and prefer to provide public comment in writing, please email the comment to the staff contact listed above at least 24 hours before the meeting. 6. Emergency Management Program (30 min) Presentation from Assistant City Manager Megan Phelan and Police Chief George Burke. (Information, Discussion) 7. 2024 City Council Goals Input (30 min) Discussion on top 3 Board accomplishments in 2023 and top 3 themes for 2024 goals. (Discussion, Decision) Page 2 503-635-0291 380 A AVENUE PO BOX 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY 8. EV Charging and GHG Emissions Inventory (15 min) Continuing the discussion from November’s meeting. (Discussion) 9. Updates from Board & Staff (10 min) Details on January meetings and any updates from Board members. (Information) 10. ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: January 17, 2023 - Joint Meeting with Parks, Recreation and Natural Resources Advisory Board ATTACHMENTS • November 13 Draft Meeting Minutes City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes November 13, 2023 Page 1 of 5 CITY OF LAKE OSWEGO Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes November 13, 2023 DRAFT Call to Order / Roll Call Jay Hamachek called the November 2023 meeting of the Sustainability Advisory Board to order at 6:32 pm. Members Present: Buzz Chandler, Jay Hamachek, Matt Schaeffer, Kara Orvieto, Mark Puhlman, Whitney Street, Nathan Chen, Margaux McCloskey, Jeanne Enders (Alternate) Members Excused/Absent: Robin Palao, Matthew Coleman (Alternate) Staff: Mayor Joe Buck, Amanda Watson Public: Duke Castle (Lake Oswego Sustainability Network, LOSN) Approval of Minutes Buzz made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 18 meeting as written, Kara seconded and the minutes were approved unanimously. Public Comment None. Duke Castle provided some comments during the EV Charging Survey discussion. Regular Business A. City Council Update Mayor Buck shared updates relating to: • Library Strategic Plan – Public feedback during the Library Visioning Process centered on concerns about the location and the need for dedicated for youth/teen space. City Council decided to wait for a facilities study, which is part of the Strategic Plan, to decide on a new library location. • Housing Production Strategy – The strategy will outline how to meet the community’s housing needs over the next 20 years. Predominantly what Lake Oswego needs is market rate single family homes, which are already being built without incentives. However, a wider range of unit types and units that are affordable to multiple income levels are also needed and the City is looking into strategies to ensure this housing is built. • North Anchor Project – It is challenging to finance multifamily housing at this time, and this has impacted this downtown hotel and mixed-use multifamily residential project. The City has provided some incentives, done some redesigning, and is providing additional time for the project to go through the development process. The current plan is to get the multifamily project construction started in the spring. • Lakeview Boulevard – City Council finalized the design for this improvement project, which will address drainage problems in the section between South Shore to the Iron Mountain roundabout through street redesign and installation of stormwater infrastructure. Unfortunately it will not be City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes November 13, 2023 Page 2 of 5 possible to install pedestrian infrastructure all the way to the roundabout due to cost and lack of space, but the project will be installing traffic calming measures in that area. • Solid Waste collection rates – City Council approved an increase to solid waste collection rates of approximately 6%, due to increased disposal and labor costs. Mayor Buck reminded members that rates are based on garbage container size. Single family residential customers can put food waste in their yard debris bin, which can help cut down on the amount of material going in the trash bin. • Multiple opportunities for community members to provide input – An open house for Parks Plan 2040 project at the ACC tomorrow (11/14); the annual Community Survey is also underway; the Mayor is holding a Roundtable on the Housing Production Strategy on Thursday (11/16) at City Hall. SAB members asked for updates on the Hacienda affordable housing project, which has received County approval and is now at Metro; EV school buses for the Lake Oswego School District, whose bus barn project was unsuccessfully appealed to LUBA and can move forward if there is not another appeal by the end of the month; and I-205 tolling. Mayor Buck explained the Governor put a moratorium on tolling until 2025, but it continues to be a regional discussion because the Metro region has to update the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) by December, and ODOT’s Regional Mobility Pricing Plan is a big component of this. Mayor Buck is on JPAC and is trying to separate the RTP from the Pricing Plan so that it doesn’t preclude the wider statewide transportation project funding discussion. Mark asked about the process for SAB to provide input to the City Council’s 2024 goal setting process. Amanda explained that this year the City is realigning Boards and Commissions goal setting. Boards and Commissions will set their goals after City Council sets theirs, so that advisory groups can frame their work to support Council’s adopted goals. They can still have other goals such as to explore topics that may not be among Council’s adopted goals, and will still have opportunity to provide input for Council’s goal setting process. The Board will discuss this input during the December meeting. Amanda said she expected the Council’s goals on sustainability and climate to be similar to this year’s, focused on implementing the SCAP. B. EV Charging Survey Results Amanda presented the results of the EV Charging Survey that the City conducted in September to help inform development of a citywide EV Charging Strategy. She thanked SAB and the Lake Oswego Sustainability Network for providing input on the survey and helping disseminate it, and summarized survey results. Findings included: • The majority of EV owners surveyed charge at home, and the majority of non-EV owners said they would be most likely to charge at home. • Most EV owners use public charging stations a few times a month for a quick charge (10 min – 1 hour). More EV owners were dissatisfied than satisfied with current availability of public charging stations. On the slide, 1 = satisfied and 5 = dissatisfied. • Both EV owners and non-EV owners identified charging speed and availability as the most important factors in determining where to charge their vehicle. Price of charging was relatively more important to non-EV owners than EV owners. • Common themes in additional comments were asks for more or different charging options (41% of responses) including charging stations at shopping areas and more L3 fast chargers, and concerns about chargers being often out of service. 18% of responses expressed opposition to public investment in charging infrastructure. A number of comments expressed concerns about City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes November 13, 2023 Page 3 of 5 environmental impacts of EVs, and some respondents felt that EVs should not be given preference to ICE vehicles. The Board discussed the survey results. Board members would like to see answers to questions broken out by housing type (single- or multifamily) and EV and non-EV owners. Noting the responses asking for more L3 fast chargers, Kara pointed out that fast chargers would be best for shopping centers, where people will be stopping for an hour or less. Matt noted that fast charging doesn’t make sense for charging at multifamily residences; people would have to move their car after being home for just 45 min. With slower charging, it is possible to charge multiple vehicles off of one circuit. Buzz noted that fast chargers take a lot more electrical infrastructure. He also pointed out a lot of manufacturers are now coalescing around the Tesla system, which should be considered in the City’s strategy. Amanda asked the Board what the City’s role should be in providing EV charging. Jeanne noted roughly half of survey respondents were not interested in EVs, and SAB should be sensitive to the fact that not everyone is in a position to purchase a new vehicle right now, and consider how to make change over time; it could build resentment to EVs if those people feel the City is investing in a lot of infrastructure that is not accessible to them. Matt noted how building the infrastructure now supports more EV adoption to meet climate goals and can take advantage of financial incentives available now; maybe some more public education is needed to bring people along. Mark recommended looking at charging infrastructure from a safety point of view, like with streetlights on city streets—failing to electrify transportation will result in unsafe climate conditions, and city infrastructure should address this safety issue. Buzz recommended the City consider what levers it has to influence, like regulation that could make it easy to install charging infrastructure in multifamily construction. Retail businesses near multifamily buildings could also be good options to locate charging for residents. Kara suggested that the City could look for opportunities to run conduit to make a property EV-ready when other public works projects are happening (“dig once” strategy). The Board looked at the map of existing public chargers from Plugshare, noting areas of the city where charging is lacking. Members discussed methods to incentivize private industry, landlords to put charging in where it is needed, such as using data on projected EV sales to demonstrate the economic opportunity for property owners, or spotlighting properties in the City that have installed charging already, like Mary’s Woods. Duke (LOSN) provided public comments on how the City of Palo Alto hired a firm to facilitate installation of chargers through free assessments of multifamily buildings across the city. Amanda had suggested to Duke that LOSN facilitate a volunteer effort to do something similar in Lake Oswego, providing information to multifamily properties about EV charging and what their options might be to get it at their property. Duke also brought up light pole charging. Seattle’s public utility has a program that allows residents to request pole chargers in their neighborhood; he would like to see LO participate in PGE’s pole-mounted charging pilot program. Amanda said the City is still discussing this with PGE. Board members asked about plans to install charging stations at schools, and off of I-5. Amanda will check in with her sustainability contact at the school district; she explained that the State has federal funding to install fast chargers every 50 miles along highways, including I-5. Matt said that multifamily residences is where the City can have the biggest impact and should invest time and energy. This should be based on where people want to charge, which the survey provides some information on. There will be multiple charging answers / solutions, not just one size fits all. City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes November 13, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Jay recommended continuing the conversation at December’s meeting: where should the city focus our efforts/influence? C. GHG Emissions Inventory Update Amanda gave a presentation on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Inventories. She reviewed the City’s first community-wide emissions inventory from 2012 and asked for the Board’s input on updating the inventory, which was a recommendation from the 2023 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan progress report. Scope and design considerations for a GHG emissions inventory include the inventory boundary, methodology (e.g. sector- or consumption-based) and comparability with previous inventories. Jay noted how the goals for an inventory related to the scope: if the Board was interested in the carbon impact of highway tolling, a community-scale inventory could provide some insight, while an inventory focusing on emissions from city operations could support actions like adding more electric vehicles to the City’s fleet. Kara pointed out how buildings across the city have changed since 2006: there is now a new City Hall and new Lakeridge Middle School building; we’d likely see a chance in building energy use. Mark said the goal of an inventory update would be to compare with the 2012 inventory to see if any of our interventions have made a difference, so we’d need to use the same methodology; there are also aspects of community-wide emissions that the City has influence over that would not be captured in an inventory that only looks at City operational emissions. Jay said that it’s easier to use an emissions inventory to set goals and measure progress at the scale of city operations; the 2012 community-wide inventory was not conducive to that. Amanda explained the community-wide emissions inventory shows the relative magnitude of emissions from each source, and can tells us which categories we should focus most on, but those priority categories (materials, transportation, buildings) are unlikely to change and are spelled out in the climate action plan. Emissions inventories can signal that we are using an evidence-based approach, and can be used as a communications tool, but we do already have the 2012 inventory to serve for those purposes. She is skeptical whether a new inventory would point the City to new actions beyond what is already in the SCAP. Jay asked if the community-wide emissions inventory could be done in a way that would give City planners and City Council the tools to model what would happen if the City adopted different climate policies. Amanda explained that an inventory would not but another type of analysis could show that. City of Portland conducted this kind of decarbonization pathways analysis a couple years ago. Board members thought this kind of a tool could be useful to provide data to support climate-friendly policies and practices. Matt asked about the cost of an inventory and how long it would take; it varies, but Amanda estimated around $15,000 and at least a few months. Kara said that the city inventory could be useful by providing benchmarks that can be used as the city costs out infrastructure projects, for example. It might be useful to wait until after City Council sets their 2024 goals before deciding on a community-wide inventory, to see what value it might provide. Buzz noted that DEQ is still in the process of implementing the state’s new extended producer responsibility rules that could have a major bearing on solid waste emissions. Nathan asked if the inventory could be compared with other cities’ emissions inventories who may have implemented policies differently, to better understand the impacts. Amanda will look at inventories done by other cities; some cities do quantify emissions for projects, for example Eugene that has climate criteria for capital improvement planning. City of Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board Minutes November 13, 2023 Page 5 of 5 Matt noted the biggest question to consider is whether the City will use an emissions inventory; will City Council take it into account? Mayor Buck noted that metrics are great to have, but the cost has been a barrier in the past; are the funds better used implementing projects? Discussion to be continued at a future meeting: Are there questions that we want answered that an emissions inventory will answer for us? D. Staff & Board Updates • Next meeting is December 18. Meeting adjourned at 8:37 pm. Respectfully submitted, Amanda Watson Sustainability Program Manager EV Charging Survey Results Presentation to Lake Oswego Sustainability Advisory Board 11/13/2023 Who did we hear from? •490 respondents in total, covering all LO Neighborhood Associations •61% were electric vehicle owners •80% owned a battery electric vehicle •20% owned a hybrid electric vehicle •87% lived in a single-family home, 13% in a multi-unit dwelling •91% of respondents owned their home, 8% were renters Photo by JUICE on Unsplash Charging Habits & Preferences Where do EV owners charge? Do you have access to EV charging at your place of residence? Where do you most often charge your vehicle? 1% 43% 37% 14% 5% Less than 10 min 10 - 29 min 30 - 59 min 1 - 2 hours 2 hours or longer Public Charging Station Use When using a public charger, how long do you typically charge? How often do you use public charging stations? Public Charging Satisfaction EV owners •Charging speed (58%) •Availability (52%) •Location convenient to destination (45%) •Reliability (40.7%) •Location convenient to residence (40.4%) •Price (33%) •Safety (9%) Non-EV owners •Charging speed (61%) •Availability (54%) •Price (49%) •Location convenient to residence (42%) •Reliability (38%) •Location convenient to destination (33%) •Safety (2%) Factors that Influence Charging Choices •At home (88%) •At a business (32%) •On the street (28%) •Where I work (17%) •At a City facility (15%) •At a park (14%) •At a restaurant (13%) •Other (9%) Where are non-EV owners likely to charge? •“I’d like to see more ubiquitous charging around shopping areas.” •“There are several level 2 charging stations in the area, but VERY FEW level 3 charging stations. For EVs to be most useful, the number of level 3 charging stations needs to increase dramatically.” •“Chargers are very often out of service.” •“I think we should not spend municipal resources to build out a charging infrastructure that will be used by only certain private citizens. Private businesses can provide charging stations to accommodate and incentivize people to visit their businesses. I don’t think that we should use our tax money to build out charging infrastructure. We don’t do this with gas stations.” Other Charging Comments Attitudes Towards Electric Vehicles EV Owner Motivations 65% 23% 7%4% 1% Environmental concerns Lower operating costs Performance and driving experience Government incentives Other What was the main factor that influenced your decision to purchase an EV? Among respondents who do not currently own an EV, in the next 5 years: •35% are likely to purchase or lease an EV •18% are considering purchasing or leasing an EV but are undecided •29% don’t plan to purchase or lease an EV •16% never want an EV Plans for EV Ownership Factors preventing respondents from purchasing or leasing an EV: •Price of electric vehicles (41%) •Range anxiety (40%) •Not interested in replacing current vehicle (40%) •Length of time it takes to charge vehicle (31%) •Lack of public charging infrastructure (30%) •Lack of charging at home (24%) •Not interested in electric vehicles (19%) •Other (15%) •I don’t know enough about EVs yet (6%) •Not interested or able to afford a vehicle of any kind (5%) Barriers to EV Ownership Charging and EV Ownership Would you be more likely to consider purchasing an EV if there were more charging stations available throughout the city? What types of incentives or benefits would encourage you to consider purchasing or leasing an EV? 28% 24%21% 10% 8% 6%3%Lower purchase price Government subsidies or tax credits Free or discounted charging Lower operating cost Other or None Preferred parking for Evs Access to carpool/HOV lanes Incentives for EV Ownership •Where is more charging infrastructure needed to support EV adoption in Lake Oswego? •What should be the role of the City, the State/other levels of government, and the private sector in providing charging infrastructure? Discussion & Next Steps GHG Emissions Inventories Sustainability Advisory Board Meeting November 13, 2023 About Emissions Inventories Account for GHG emissions over a specific period of time from activities within a specific boundary Cover primary GHGs (CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, SF6, NF3), expressed in CO2 equivalent Can include Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 emissions Different methods: sector based, consumption-based Involve estimations Scope Scope 1 emissions: direct emissions from sources within the inventory boundary Scope 2 emissions: indirect emissions that occur from the use of grid-supplied energy Scope 3 emissions: indirect emissions that occur outside the inventory boundary as a result of activities within the boundary Lake Oswego Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2006) 1 .27 Million Metr Tons Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (Millions of MT CO_e) 29.9 Metric Tons CO2e per Lake Oswego Resident Emissions related to the production, Energy-related emissions manufacture and disposal of (Estimated 0.27 million MT CO;e) materials. goods and food Natural gas consumption by (Estimated 0 59 million MT CO2e) • residents and businesses • Manufacture of products and Fossil fuel consumption from food (from inside and outside Materialsutilities' imported electncity the region) consumed by Lake ' • ' Mir Oswego residents and businesses. • Freight movement of materials. goods and food 6 • Waste management and recycling system (collection Lkk landfills) 7 kkk Transportation emissions (Estimated 0.39 million MT CO2e) J/i Local Government (operations) Local Vehicle miles traveled by passenger vehicles (Estimated 0 02 million MT CO2e) Govemme and light trucks 5% Operation of public transportation system • Public infrastructure protects (TnMet) • Owned fleet and employee commute transportation Freight traffic inside Lake Oswego • Consumption of electricity and natural gas Long-distance travel by Lake Oswego citizens Lake Oswego Cmmunity Greenhouse Gas Lake Oswego Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions with Materials Split Emissions with Energy Split Lake Oswego Community Greenhouse Gas Long-Distance Solid Waste Emissions with Transportation Split B Freight 0 6% Building HVAC 6% and Lighting 16% Food Use of Appliances and Devices 6% S Local Passenger Transport 15% Goods . Trans 29% <0.01% Lora Local Government Orm Local Paswngw Government 15X Low Root Transport1 5% 1.596 14% Emissions Inventory Update Considerations Scope and design considerations: Inventory boundary Methodology Comparability Discussion questions: What do we want to achieve with the update? What would we like to know? How would we use the inventory?