Council meets on Monday and the proposed Policy Agenda for 2023 continues to bury climate action.
 |
| "Support briefings" - passivity on Climate |
It hides climate as a minor subpoint rather than elevating it as a governing high-level value with specific, actionable goals nested under that. One of the six high-level strategies is "Responding to our Sheltering Crisis," and surely "Responding to our Climate Crisis" is at least as important, even if a much longer-range goal.
The TSP and "lower traffic speeds" are nice to see, though.
Still, conceptually, the plan may need revision.
 |
| Sheltering Crisis and Our Future |
Under "Responding to our Sheltering Crisis," the Policy Agenda really focuses on the management and herding of disorderly people. The underlying problem, however, is lack of housing. Mental illness or addiction, or other problems, may exacerbate the crisis, but the fundamental problem is not enough housing and too costly housing. We don't just need more "supportive housing." We need housing of all kinds.
By keeping "Housing Production Strategy" outside of a "Sheltering Problem," and instead under "Planning for Our Future," there is a politics encoded here, shifting focus from structural problems to behavioral problems. |
| Look at City Charter, Boards, Commissions |
There are also some meta-tasks and house-keeping about governance itself. Maybe with a new City Manager these are to be expected. But there's also a note about outsourcing and privatizing that deserves particular attention.
 |
| To hollow out City capacity? |
Other Items
A minor item is of interest here. Council looks to amend rules on the Minto Island Conservation Area.
In the Staff Report is what might be the first time walking and biking counts there have been publicly discussed by the City:
[P]edestrian counters have shown that as many as 2,000 pedestrians and cyclists utilize the bridge and trail on weekdays through the summer [winter?] months. The daily average count increases to closer to 3,000 pedestrians and cyclists on weekend days during the summer, with peak days having higher numbers.
As we've pointed out here before, this makes the Minto Bridge and path system equivalent to a collector street as far as traffic volumes go. Peak volumes head into minor arterial counts. That's a real street, not some fringey amenity!
 |
| Minto Bridge and Path = Collector Salem TSP, January 2020 |
The Legislative Priorities contain support for bills to allow Salem to employ photo radar speed enforcement, but also support for the Son of SRC. Hopefully that latter is all for show, and it will go nowhere in light of other, far more pressing transportation needs, climate, and increasing debt at ODOT.
Two items on short-term housing rentals are of some interest. There is the approvals for using the house on the northwest corner of Church and Mission as a short-term rental, and in response to the criticism from neighbors, Councilor Nishioka proposes a city ban or other limits on them. Maybe the City should consider a deal with the Historic District, since one of their criticisms is that short-term rentals subtract from the housing supply: Ban short-term rentals in the District if they allow zoning for more apartments in and near the District.
- See previously on the house, "Everson House actually the Small House: A Gap in the Historic District and a Hearing on Short-Term Rental Proposal."
Bullets for the rest:
- The annual report from the Planning Commission, but I didn't see anything new in it.
- There is an approval for a pair of duplexes on the river on land zoned Industrial Commercial. This housing is a "special use" on IC zoned land. It includes a condition for a future path systems: "Dedicate a public access easement for recreational use along the western property line, in an alignment approved by the Public Works Director."
- And after the Historic Landmarks Commission advanced it with a recommendation, a future item for designating the Civic Center as a local historic resource. See previously, "Designating the Civic Center as Local Historic Resource: At the HLC."
Addendum, February 12th
Councilor Nishioka's proposal to regulate short-term rentals has an additional subtext, and may be more complicated than protest over the short-term rentals near Mission Street at the base of Gaiety Hill.
 |
| Today's front page |
The house and site of a big, recent drug bust was a kind of short-term rental, the paper says today. The piece is a little ambiguous. The house was rented out month-to-month, not daily or weekly, and so it does not seem to meet the usual definition of short-term, vacation rental. But its marketing did not seem to be targeted at medium-term residents, but was targeted to short-term visitors.
There may be a niche here that needs more attention and possibly some policy remedies. Directing City Staff to analyze and understand this niche better seems reasonable.
14 comments:
Added a clip on short-term rentals from today's paper.
There are several substantive letters to Council added to the agenda.
On short-term rentals, landlords talk about serving Willamette University visitors, Legislators and staff, and short term contract workers like nurses or construction workers. They also highlighted disaster relief, like those affected wildfires or just plain old housefires. And they talked about investing in and rehabbing "fixer-uppers" and blighted properties. So they highlighted some of the legit ways short-term rentals serve the community.
On Our Salem, ELNA points to an easement that didn't travel with the rezoning, and suggested there might be some unintended collateral damage in the project. So that might very well be worth more attention.
Regardless of how climate action is framed in the policy agenda document, it is clearly driving a fair amount of city action. This is in part due to the initiative of salem residents, our City Council, and City staff but also in large part new state requirements. If we look at the 56 climate strategies the Council adopted as a priority and the much larger list of 169 community-generated strategies, we find more progressive than we might have thought. The City hired a climate action coordinator, funded a goal 5 riparian inventory, adopted increased protections of mature trees across public and private property, continues to fund an expanded tree planting program, is exploring changes to on-street parking fees in the downtown, is beginning to update the Transportation Master Plan (which will likely set new goals on vehicle miles traveled, walking, and biking), and will likely soon eliminate off street parking minimums. This is in addition to previous work that rezoned thousands of acres to mix used areas and required multifamily dwelling to be EV ready. We need change fast to meet the challenge but I am confident in saying the City is not ignoring the problem. The bigger obstacle to change is our limited staff capacity to plan and manage the changes and the huge financial cost required to retrofit our built environment from what was desired in the 1970s and we need today.
You are too optimistic! You say, "If we look at the 56 climate strategies the Council adopted as a priority and the much larger list of 169 community-generated strategies, we find more [progress] than we might have thought."
I have a different reading of that list. From "Looking at the First Half-Year of the Climate Action Plan Committee":
"By my count and including the October items, the committee has now looked at 52 separate policy strategy concepts. Of those six only were rated with "high potential" for reducing greenhouse pollution. And the subset of those with the City as lead agency was one only, and that has been punted a little."
You are right that the "city is not ignoring the problem," but we disagree on the significance and effectiveness of the City's response.
I see focus on items with "low" potential for reduction, and therefore a lot of symbolic rather than substantive progress, and also a City that is following other agencies, very reactive, rather than leading/initiating.
Here's why I have a different take. There are 9 strategies ranked as high potential. They are:
1. Increase Bus Service (Cherriots)
2. Implement a trip reduction ordinance for Salem employees (Salem)
3. Charge for City-controlled parking (Salem)
4. Coordinate with long range transit plan to require majority of new housing and employment to be built in walkable, mixed used zones. (Salem-Cherriots)
5. Partner with PGE on Energy Trust of Oregon, and Earthwise for energy benchmarking (PGE, ETO, Earthwise)
6.Partner with PGE on weatherization (PGE)
7. Amend City code to require all electric for new homes (Salem)
8. Add hydrogen to natural gas system (NW Natural)
9. Implement incentive program for residents to upgrade old heating/cooling system ((NW Natural)
Only three of them fall entirely within the City's ability to act on their own. They are: Implement a trip reduction ordinance for Salem employees, Charge for City-controlled parking (Salem), Amend City code to require all electric for new homes (Salem). I don't now the status on the first one, they are working on the second one, and the votes on the Council are not there for the third. The City has largely completed its portion of a fourth through the comp plan update: Coordinate with long range transit plan to require majority of new housing and employment to be built in walkable, mixed used zones.
We see a large number of lower impact issues (e.g. natural resources) in the mix because they City has more control to enact those changes. (As a natural resources advocate, I am happy to see them get done!)
I do agree that there are lots of strategies that are 'fillers" and/or should be done anyway. I think those items are representative of the very human behavior of putting something on a list so you can cross it off.
Two things I would like to see expedited is transitioning the city's vehicle fleet to electric (TL30) and retrofit existing City buildings (EN 12).
I'm going to stay optimistic and will reassess at the end of Mayor Hoy's first term.
Last year at the start of the Climate Action Plan subcommittee, the "Early Implementation Strategies," 55 in number, were identified as having "high potential for reducing emissions" AND "City is lead agency." (More discussion here in , "Climate Action Plan Committee does not seem Positioned for Success.")
Here you mention 9 and say only 3 have the City as lead.
The City has never discussed why the list morphed from 55 with "high" potential to 50-some with mostly "low" and some "medium" potential and only a fifth of them now with "high" potential.
There is a vast retreat, and it's never been addressed, instead insisting we are on track to meet 50% decline in emissions by 2035.
Good question. I will look into that.
Meanwhile, I contacted the City's climate action manager about the status of the of the high priority items. She responded with:
(TL 24) Charge for City-controlled parking (Salem)? This strategy is on the 2023 CAP Work Plan (attached) that was provided to the CAP Committee January 23. This is not yet underway – I am hoping soon.
(EN 02) Partner with PGE on Energy Trust of Oregon, and Earthwise for energy benchmarking? Not yet underway.
(TL 30) Implement a city policy that transitions all city-owned fleet vehicles to EV…? Efforts are underway to purchase and install dedicated charging infrastructure. Four EV charging stations will be installed at the new Public Works Building and a grant application has been submitted to PGE’s “Make Ready Infrastructure” program to hopefully support the installation of additional infrastructure at the PW Shops Complex and at the Library. The City’s 1st light-duty electric pickup truck is expected to arrive any time. The City’s Fleet Manual has been revised to include a new Zero Emission Vehicle First policy that prioritizes the purchase of EV’s.
(EN 12) Develop a comprehensive approach to increasing energy efficiency in municipal buildings...? This strategy is also on the 2023 Work Plan. I’m looking at options for grant funds through the Dept. of Energy that will help support this work. Staff have also been in communication with Energy Trust to learn about a Strategic Energy Management training cohort that is anticipated to begin this fall.
I can't find a City document that contains 50 highly-scored strategies. Can you point me to it?
Nope. It seemed like a kind of bait and switch! They've also pulled slide decks from the City site. It was the May 5th, 2022 packet. The City site now shows only the agenda for May 5th.
I have the material for the May 5th meeting. How can I get them to you?
OK. I talked with Heather Dimke, who is the climate action manager and prepared the material for the May 5th meeting. She wrote me the following: "My intent with the slide was to demonstrate that the list includes High Reduction strategies as well as strategies that were selected for the City being lead, potential low cost to initiate, they were recommended (in the Plan) to start soon (within 1-2 years) and they include multiple co-benefits. Again, I’m sorry to see that this caused confusion. We focused on this list in 2022, and provided summary sheets for each of the 55 (plus a few) between the June and November 2022 meetings."
The original of the slide is included in "Climate Action Plan Committee does not seem Positioned for Success." The one on the 55 clearly says "and," not "and/or" (as your deleted comment suggested). It may not be possible now to resolve this in any definitive way, but this sure looks like retconning, with the City walking back an instance of inflated talk and settling for deflated walk.
A different topic! On the short-term rental items:
- The study on short-term rentals passed 7-2, Gonzalez and Gwyn opposed
- A motion to call up the approvals on 795 Church failed, 8-1, Nordyke opposed
Post a Comment