Por Jeff Clemetson | Editor<\/p>\n
On Nov. 13, city staff presented the latest revision to La Mesa\u2019s climate action plan (CAP) to a joint meeting of the Environmental Sustainability Commission and the Climate Action Plan Council Subcommittee. The CAP presentation outlined how to reach the city\u2019s targets to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions required by state law.<\/p>\n
The La Mesa CAP sets the following goals:<\/p>\n
The CAP mostly achieves the long-term goals by factoring in a future community choice energy plan that runs on 100 percent clean energy and with a minimum of 80 percent of residents and businesses participating.<\/p>\n
Other strategies in the CAP include promoting public transportation by amending the general plan to promote density housing near trolley and bus lines; building more bike and pedestrian infrastructure; providing electric vehicle charging stations; enacting building codes that promote energy efficiency; reducing solid waste; and increasing the city\u2019s urban forest canopy coverage from 18 percent to 33 percent by 2035.<\/p>\n
The La Mesa CAP can be read online at bit.ly\/2hQiA0H.<\/p>\n
Reactions to the plan from environmental groups and the commission were mixed \u2014 from suggesting just a few improvements to highly critical.<\/p>\n
Jean Costa from the group SD350 criticized weak wording in the CAP that cites International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports as having a \u201cposition\u201d on climate change\u2019s negative effects on the environment instead of saying IPCC \u201cresearch has shown\u201d the effects.<\/p>\n
\u201cYour wording of this, to me, caters to the climate deniers and that should not be a part of any climate action plan,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Costa also took issue with the inclusion of fossil and bio-fuels in the CAP.<\/p>\n
\u201cAlternative fuels such as [compressed natural gas], [liquefied petroleum gas] and ethanol should not be encouraged,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe first two are fossil fuels and the third has caused hunger in many countries as corn is grown to feed cars instead of people.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jack Shu, the most vocal critic of the CAP, pointed to the plan\u2019s lack of a mode-share component in the transportation section.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is an issue that was brought up at several other meetings. I\u2019m a little disappointed that the city continues to have to go back to staff to figure this out,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is the third draft. You failed two other drafts and you may fail again if it can\u2019t meet the legal requirement.\u201d<\/p>\n
SD350 cofounder Masada Disenhouse encouraged the city to begin collaborating with neighboring cities in the region to fund necessary studies for implementing the community choice energy plan in the CAP.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s the first step to determine the necessary start-up costs and feasibility and it would make sense for the city to get a jump-start on the path to community choice energy in early 2018 and not wait longer,\u201d she said, adding that La Mesa\u2019s CAP only has a \u201cshort, superficial analysis\u201d of community choice that lacks information on sourcing, cost competitiveness, feasibility and start-up costs of such a program.<\/p>\n
Climate Action Campaign policy advocate Sophie Wolfram brought up the most troubling issue with the CAP \u2014 a discrepancy in how the emissions were measured to set the goals.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe 2020 target is set using mass-to-overall emissions but the 2035 target is still set using per capita or per person emissions and for CEQA-qualified plans, which this climate plan will be, mass emissions must be used,\u201d she said, referring to the California Environmental Quality Act.<\/p>\n
Mass emissions take into account the overall amount of GHGs at a given time, whereas a per capita calculation would be influenced by population growth.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe widely accepted threshold of significance for greenhouse gas emissions in CEQA-qualified plans is set by state legislation and is 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050,\u201d she added. \u201cSo those are the targets that La Mesa\u2019s 2035 target must be tethered to. The per capita targets won\u2019t work.\u201d<\/p>\n
Other suggestions for the CAP brought up in public comments included raising the target number for bike use; doing more to promote mass transit; adding an economic justice element to the plan; and doing more public outreach about the CAP so the public can offer more input.<\/p>\n
After public comments, the commissioners weighed in.<\/p>\n
Cameron Durckel, who represents SDG&E on the commission, praised the plan but encouraged city staff to add in \u201csome flexibility given the changing regulatory and legal requirements.\u201d<\/p>\n
Stephan Guiland said he is optimistic the plan is moving in the right direction, but added that the transportation section of the document lacks \u201cmeat.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t know how we can enforce city actions in the transportation section,\u201d he said. \u201cThat\u2019s not clear. The number that we\u2019re seeing related to reductions is huge so I am nervous about how we can accomplish that without more details in this plan.\u201d<\/p>\n
He suggested working with the San Diego Association of Governments and other regional agencies to finalize the details.<\/p>\n
Robin Rivel, an arborist on the commission, said the CAP should use a biology standard rather than a design standard in setting goals for the city\u2019s urban forest canopy.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe amount of trees doesn\u2019t address the scale or size of trees,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
She also suggested requiring larger setbacks in new building designs to accommodate larger trees.<\/p>\n
Jim Stone offered several critiques of the CAP. He is skeptical about the rates used to calculate GHG savings on building retrofits and of the 90 percent GHG reduction calculated for Sharp Grossmont Hospital\u2019s power generation plant, which uses natural gas.<\/p>\n
He said the plan needs a goal for solar installations in the city, more incentives for landlords to adopt reductions, and suggested that the bike plan include protected lanes because people won\u2019t use bikes unless they feel safe.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe plan, as it\u2019s laid out right now, won\u2019t move the needle on bike use,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Stephen Grooms suggested that the CAP should include monetary sticks and carrots to change behaviors, such as surtaxes on things like drive-thrus or other business or residential practices that add to GHGs.<\/p>\n
City Councilmember Bill Baber, who sits on the Climate Action Plan Council Subcommittee, recommended that the CAP proceed to the next level in the process of adopting it<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the grand scheme of things, I\u2019m thinking about making the trains run on time. We probably should have had this meeting much earlier. We\u2019ve idled on this plan for too long,\u201d he said, adding that the deadline for the CAP to reach the City Council for a vote had already been pushed from this December to February 2018.<\/p>\n
\u201cDon\u2019t make perfect the enemy of good,\u201d he said. \u201cOnce we pass it, it\u2019s not a fixed document; it\u2019s a living document and we can update it yearly.\u201d<\/p>\n
Stone agreed.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t want to delay it on the account of this commission,\u201d he said. \u201cI think the next major hurdle would be the Planning Commission and it ought to go to them, whether or not these changes can be incorporated.\u201d<\/p>\n
However, Stone strongly urged that the 2035 emissions calculations in the CAP be changed from per capita to mass emissions numbers before going to the Planning Commission.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you don\u2019t, I think you\u2019re looking at a lawsuit,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
Once those changes are put in the plan, the final draft will be sent, along with a supplemental environmental impact report, to the Planning Commission for review, during which there will be a 45-day public comment period before the Planning Commission hearing on the CAP. If the Planning Commission votes to approve the plan, the City Council will schedule a hearing for a vote on the plan, probably in February.<\/p>\n