06.07.23 EAB Minutes
1
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
MEETING SUMMARY
NAME OF BOARD/COMMISSION: Environmental Advisory Board
DATE OF MEETING: June 7, 2023
NAME/TELEPHONE OF PERSON PREPARING SUMMARY:
Heather Sandine, 303-441-4390
NAMES OF MEMBERS, STAFF AND INVITED GUESTS:
Environmental Advisory Board Members Present: Hernan Villanueva, Amanda
Groziak, Alex Bothwell, Brook Brockett
Environmental Advisory Board Members Absent: Mike SanClements
City Staff Members Present: Carolyn Elam, Josh Hanson, Edward Stafford, Rob Adriaens,
Heather Sandine
1. CALL TO ORDER
H. Villanueva declared a quorum and called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM.
H. Sandine reviewed the meeting protocols.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
On a motion by H. Villanueva, seconded by A. Groziak, the Environmental Advisory Board
(EAB) approved the May 3, 2023 meeting minutes as amended.
3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A. Lynn Segal spoke about the need for coordination between EAB, Housing Advisory
Board and Planning Board to create housing that accommodates more people naturally.
She recommends allocating 500 square feet per person with shared appliances.
B. Karen Hollweg asked to speak after the presentation about the Energy Code updates.
Noting the board’s bylaws, H. Villanueva recommended she email the board and return
for public comment when CoBECC is scheduled to return to EAB.
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Introduction to the 2024 City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code (CoBECC)
Development Project
i. Overview
J. Hanson introduced the team and provided information about the city’s
emissions reductions goals and the history of the energy codes, including one for
residential and one for commercial buildings. Multi-family homes are included
in commercial building energy codes.
Project timeline: The process of updating the code will be presented to Planning
Board (PB) and EAB for input. It will then be presented City Council at the June
22 Study Session. Stakeholder Engagement will occur at a time to be
determined. First public reading is intended to be in November.
2
There are five areas of focus being prioritized in the code update, each listed
below:
o Part 1 – Performance Target updates. There are six current categories of
building types that must meet targets. Staff recommends adding three
additional types: hospital, retail, and small hotel.
o Part 2 - DOE Zero Energy Ready Home Option. This program provides an
alternative for residential energy code compliance. Homes completing this
program will receive ENERGYSTAR® New Homes v 3.2 and EPA Indoor
airPLUS ® certification. Homes will be required to meet 2021 IECC
envelope requirements, have ENERGYSTAR ® windows installed, include
the HVAC system within the building’s thermal envelope, be solar, electric
vehicle and heat pump/water/space heating ready. Incentives are available.
o Part 3 – Electrification. New construction and level 4 alterations will require
all-electric space/water heating and be electric-ready for other appliances.
Electric vehicle (EV) charging requirements and electric bike charging for
multi-family housing will be considered.
o Part 4 - 100% Solar Offset of Natural Gas. The code currently requires 100%
offset for any fossil fuels used to heat things outside of the home. The
proposed code updates would provide more guidance for residential
buildings. Commercial buildings would be required to use solar to offset 5%
of their energy use. Mixed-fuel buildings would be required to offset 100%
of natural gas use.
o Part 5 Embodied Carbon Reduction – Recommended reduction related to
some construction materials.
Questions for the board:
1. Does the board agree on the proposed areas of focus for the 2024 CoBECC?
2. Does the board see any other areas of focus that should be included?
3. Does the board have any recommendations on community engagement
strategies for this project?
ii. Clarifying Questions and Discussion
A. Bothwell asked if transportation is within the scope of this code. She wanted
to know how many buildings were under 3,000 square feet and if accessory
dwelling units could use natural gas. She requested more information about the
exception for commercial kitchens.
J. Hanson responded the code is focused on buildings. The city does want to
address the other areas, but this is just one strategy towards the overall goals.
C. Elam added that buildings are still responsible for two-thirds of the
community’s emissions. Staff does consider the nexus between buildings and
transportation habits. For example, we don’t want people carrying bikes up three
flights of stairs and therefore less willing to ride bikes. Almost all new
construction is 3,000 sq feet or more and over half are more than 5,000 square
feet. If an accessory dwelling unit is detached it would have its own energy score
separate from the main building, but both buildings would share the same gas
meter.
J. Hanson said that commercial kitchens may not be prepared to convert to all
electric service and appliances.
3
C. Elam added that other buildings, such as hospitals and labs, may also not be
ready to transition to all electric.
B. Brockett asked why a 5% reduction requirement was chosen for commercial
buildings. She wondered how much of the cost of the EnergyStar program is the
homeowner’s burden and if households with lower incomes can afford the
program even with incentives. She asked if it was possible to increase the
number of EV charging spaces required for commercial buildings.
J. Hanson responded that staff chose the 5% number as a minimum requirement
and that it is common for the offset to be 20-30%. For the programs, EnergyStar
is $1,000 and Zero Energy Ready is $5,000. For multi-family properties the cost
per unit is $500 for EnergyStar and $1,000 for Zero Energy Ready. Consultants
will look deeper into the affordability for households with low income. Staff can
explore requiring more EV charging spaces.
C. Elam added that installing conduit for the EV would remove one of the key
barriers to more being installed and will advocate for this at a minimum.
H. Villanueva asked if the energy code requirements differ for houses of
varying sizes and why staff does not require everyone to meet the same
standards. He also wanted to know if exemptions would be extended to
residential buildings. He said that gas is more reliable than electricity and some
folks may want that option.
J. Hanson clarified that the Zero Energy Ready codes are different from the
city’s codes.
C. Elam added that our current code is outcome based. It leaves flexibility to the
designer on to achieve the requirements set forth in the code. The certification
programs outline a prescribed way to meet those outcomes. She said that
electricity in urban areas should be very reliable. Stakeholders should push for
high reliability.
A. Bothwell asked if the codes can address embodied carbon. She wanted to
know if there is a way to consider non-homeowners’ needs in the code update.
E. Stafford said that will be part of the program. We need to use caution so not
to indicate preference for a specific vendor. Construction requirements do not
consider whether a building is owner-occupied or rented. There are separate
requirements (SmartRegs) for rental units.
iii. Discussion
A. Bothwell asked what engagement is currently being done. She agreed with
the areas of focus and had no recommendations to add to the code or
engagement.
C. Elam responded there is not usually community engagement on this topic.
Staff does engage with stakeholders such as builders and affordable housing
communities. Staff hears about challenges from community members.
A. Groziak said she is excited about the proposed focus areas. She asked if
there’s anything in the building code about detecting and replacing lead pipes.
She also wanted to know about requiring hospitals to meet the code
requirements.
E. Stafford said lead pipes are a separate project. The city is replacing lead pipe
outside of buildings. Building code would allow existing homes with lead to not