11.02.16 EAB MinutesCITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING SWN, ;
.54
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Environmental Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: November 2, 2016
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY: Sandy Briggs,
303-441-1931.
NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS PRESENT:
Environmental Advisory Board Members Present: Tim Hillman, Brad Queen, Karen Crofton
and Christina Gosnell.
Environmental Advisory Board Member Absent: Morgan Lommele.
Staff Members Present: Brett KenCairn and Sandy Briggs
MEETING SUMMARY:
Climate Commitment Targets
➢ The board agrees using total number of solar installations may be a misleading metric
and suggested counting the number of homes using clean energy, instead.
➢ C. Gosnell questioned how the 15 -minute neighborhood would be called out and
suggested measuring walkability scores.
➢ K. Crofton cautions keeping the description and metrics relating to co -benefits
explicit to avoid confusion about semantics.
➢ Some board members suggested changing verbiage to be more broadly relatable, such
as "islanding", but others feel it's important to use accurate terms to explain the
concepts and they could be further explained with footnotes.
➢ Incomes and economic impacts were discussed.
The board agrees equity ownership in solar is important, as is access to it for those
not in positions to install their own systems. Renters and solar gardens were discussed
in this vein.
A The board asked for clarification about how much the projected emissions reduction
numbers and timeline depend on the predictability of Xcel's path.
➢ The board identified clarifications that would be helpful with the tables and charts but
disagreed about which bar graph reductions pieces need to be specifically labeled or
what types of diagrams they should be.
➢ Adding a graph depicting cumulative emissions was suggested.
➢ The board agrees that evoking the most possible relevance to the community is
paramount and each section should explain why certain targets and metrics were
chosen in relation to this priority.
A It was asked why there is no direct reference to municipalization, and if this is
intentional. This is partially true, but it was mostly to keep the concept broad and
inclusive of any potential path the city may take.
➢ The board discussed inserting accountability measures to manage unmet goals and the
importance of fostering community ownership in the process of achieving the goals.
They will not be achieved simply by virtue of being passed by City Council.
➢ It was posited that since achieving these goals is an "all hands on deck" proposition,
including dedication and action from not only the city but the community too,
building in personal accountability could be a more encouraging means of
engagement.
➢ The need to build a reservoir of political capital and will from the community at large
was called out.
➢ The board discussed how to portray this in their letter of support for the Climate
Commitment Document and/or annual letter to council including mechanisms for
tracking accountability and offering corrective measures.
Annual Letter to City Council
➢ Place -based engagement via platforms like Nextdoor was discussed.
➢ It was stated that the community needs to agree on what the problems or goals are
before discussing solutions and tactics.
➢ Some board members think the spaces the city creates for listening and feedback
sessions become too contentious. People need to be able to disagree and the city
remain a calm arbiter.
➢ Surveys were suggested as a less contentious option.
➢ The pros, cons and challenges of reaching consensus were discussed.
➢ The general feeling is that nothing will ever get done if the city tries to make
everyone happy all the time.
➢ The idea of a public engagement "mission statement" outlining a coherent strategy
and definition developed.
➢ The board agreed the top three priorities to include in the letter are:
1. Climate Commitment
2. Municipalization
3. Sustainable land use
The challenges include:
• Building political capital to support the programs
• Increasing community engagement
• Defining terminology with differing connotations
• Remaining accountable and transparent and making up for underperforming
goals
• Developing alternative and adaptive tactics
• Resistance to change
Lack of self-motivation
• Lack of government influence on individual values
➢ It was agreed to make the letter as succinct, yet actionable, as possible.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Environmental Advisory Board Chair T. Hillman declared a quorum called the meeting to order
at 6:01 pm.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by B. Queen, seconded by K. Crofton, the Environmental Advisory Board voted 4-
0 (M. Lommele absent) to approve the October 5, 2016 meeting minutes.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
None.
4. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
A. Climate Commitment Targets (KenCairn/Board)
EAB Staff Liaison and Senior Environmental Planner, B. KenCairn, enlisted the board's
assistance with finalizing the Climate Commitment Document Targets in preparation for
presentation to, and hopeful approval by, City Council on December 6, 2016.
The document will remain in memo form to save the time and expense of formatting and
graphically enhancing a booklet -style document.
It will focus on two main topics:
1. Revised targets and metrics; and
2. A summary of the extensive community engagement and outreach completed over
the past year and a half.
He reviewed the nearly finalized targets and metrics, and introduced a preview of the new
and improved model. He requested B. Queen review the model once it's available next
week.
In the final document, the targets will show in one place at the front. Valuable and
impactful feedback was obtained from EAB and TAB, primarily, that was useful in
paring down and condensing the section.
He informed the board that TAB wants a land use related metric included, which
introduced the "15 -Minute" or "Complete Neighborhood" concept into the targets.
He reiterated that the EAB had significant influence on the revisions and distillation of
the metrics and targets.
When the community outreach was completed and that section written, a new subsection
emerged around efforts to integrate the equity issue. It is called Just Transition.
As part of this, solar gardens will also be more integral to the strategy.
He continued to explain where Boulder stands in the emissions picture.
The document will show an approximate 8% reduction from 2005-2015, 5% of which has
been since 2012, even as energy use has increased due to lower gas prices and reduced
coal usage.
With aggressive action, Boulder is on track for an 18% emissions reduction by 2020, and
41% by 2022 if munipalization happens in 2018. This would lead to an over 50%
reduction by 2030.
The changes are calculated using Xcel's worst case scenario factors as a baseline. But
this can create measuring problems as the grid gets cleaner.
He reviewed and clarified the tables, charts and graphs depicting the various scenarios.
He informed the board that Xcel scenarios arrive at an overall 65/66% reduction due to
their easing out of their coal plants. The muni scenario provides a 77% reduction.
He also requested feedback regarding how to most clearly present the information in the
memo and the use of wedge diagrams. He explained why certain objectives and targets
were chosen and how the overall document is designed to point council towards the
source of the analyses. And he asked if the original 80% goal needs to be changed to 77%
to reflect the new modeling.
It was acknowledged that most of the progress made so far has been grid emissions factor
driven, and that this has been recognized from the beginning of the municipalization
work.
He invited the board to verbally agree on a resolution in support of the Climate
Commitment Document and goals. The resolution was written to include the board's
request for accountability measures and offering EAB's support to council. On a motion
by K. Crofton, seconded by B. Queen, the board voted 4-0 (M. Lommele absent) in
favor the resolution as written:
In recognition that Climate Change is one of the most pressing issues of this and
future generations, the Environmental Advisory Board strongly supports the
adoption of the Climate Commitment goal of reducing the community's emissions
by 80% or more. by 2050 or sooner.
While we wholeheartedly support this goal, we recognize the challenge in
achieving it. Therefore, to fulfill its role in supporting the Council and the larger
community, EAB proposes the convening of a biannual joint Study Session with
Council coincident to the publishing of the community greenhouse gas
inventory. At that time, if the community is not on track to achieving its interim
targets, EAB would like to work with Council and staff to identify options to work
with the community to achieve future targets.
The board's comments are captured in the Meeting Summary.
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
None.
6. OLD BUSINESS/UPDATES
A. BVCP Discussion (Board)
Tabled until the December meeting.
7. MATTERS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD,
CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY
A. Annual Letter to City Council (Board)
a. Select key topics
b. Potentially include BVCP and Planning Board Collaboration points
c. Assign sections to individual board members
The board discussed the questions City Council presented as a guideline for drafting the
annual letter and assigned sections to individual board members for completion as
follows:
• K. Crofton — introduction and question I
• C. Gosnell — question 2
• B. Queen & T. Hillman — question 3 and conclusion
• M. Lommele — combine and edit to create final version
The extent to which engagement is a market driven process and whether government has
leverage to identify and shape common values was debated. These concepts will be
incorporated into the letter.
The board's comments are captured in the Meeting Summary.
8. DEBRIEF MEETING{CALENDAR CHECK
9. ADJOURNMENT
The Environmental Advisory Board adjourned at 8:09 pm.
Approved:
D
Chair V to