[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: Input for study session tonight

[cmosupport at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Weaver, Sam

Folks,

Since I was called away suddenly on business, I would like to take this chance to weigh in on the zero waste and parking topics of tonight's study session.  Apologies for the late input, but I had planned to attend the meeting until yesterday.

On the subject of the Zero Waste Strategic Plan, I generally support staff's proposed direction and recommendations.  I do not believe that we are moving aggressively enough on this subject, and comparisons with our peer cities support this position.  Boulder has dropped from a leadership position on waste reduction, and the main laggard sectors are clearly multi-family dwellings and commercial enterprises.  The time for solely education and voluntary compliance with small incentives has now passed, and regulatory action seems to be required to continue making significant progress.

The vision plan is an exception to the good work done in most of the report - I do not support its current formulation.  A good vision statement describes the future that the organization is working towards.  'Facilitating a vision and building awareness...' could be part of a mission statement (not a vision statement) but even that seems too nebulous and non-specific.  This plan needs to be (and is in the draft) very action-oriented, and the vision statement fails badly to capture the Boulder vision of the future regarding recycling.

On specific recommendations:

1) It seems fine to track attainment in the six sub areas, but diversion rate and volume seem to be the most important to me.  I would suggest that the plan formulate the goals with that emphasis.

2) The trade offs surrounding composting seem complex to me.  Are there enough off-takers for the product if everyone and all businesses compost?  What are the methane emissions from composting and mulching?  The EPA says zero, but the Europeans attribute methane emissions to these processes.  Generally, construction and demolition (C&D) waste that is not reused has a tough time not being land filled.  All of these complexities could lead to a portion of the organics in the waste stream being best used for fuels or energy production if they do not have an active alternative beneficial use.  Traditionally, recycling has been in tension with waste-to-energy, but that is not the case in Europe, and does not need to be in Boulder.  US incineration operations typically want the plastics in the waste stream, which is clearly in opposition to recycling, and not a good practice.  However emerging technologies (some just down the road at NREL and in the private sector in Denver) are more focused on non-recycleable organics as their input.  I would like to make sure that good studies and tracking are in place for what happens to the organics and C&D, and if some or all of them are being land filled that alternatives be considered.  I would like to have a better sense of methane emissions from the handling of organics as well.

3) I support all of the proposed new facilities, with priority given to composting and C&D facilities accessible to all haulers.

4) I support multi-family composting requirements and additional multi-family unit enforcement.

5) I support every other week single family residential trash collection and required trash hauling subscription.

6) I STRONGLY support required business recycling and composting (1-2 year phase-in) as well as required compostable or re-cycleable carry out containers with a longer (3-4 year) phase-in period.

7) I STRONGLY support requiring the City to purchase local compost products for all relevant uses, and a closer look at City hosted events, a couple of which I have been to recently that did not have sufficient recycling or composting bins or signage.

8) Finally, I support the ongoing education efforts which will need to accompany all of the strategies to continue to change the habits within our community.

Regarding AAMPS:

1) Monitored TDM plans should come into place over time for all major buildings, especially in conjunction with a potential community-wide Ecopass.  The current system, which is not specific to particular employers or buildings after 3 years post-construction, does not represent a concerted effort to reduce VMT in the face of our increasing population of residents and jobs.

2) Since direct monitoring and charging for VMT is quite difficult, and is the most appropriate source of revenue for improvements to public transit, bikeways, and pedestrian amenities (tax what you want less of in order to fund what you want more of), proxies will probably have to be used.  The closest good proxy is parking, and the city should work to extend the range of parking fees (on both public and appropriate private property) to mitigate the traffic impacts from growing VMT.  This could be the funding stream for a community wide Ecopass and other alt mode infrastructure.

Thanks for reading this, and apologies again for missing tonight's meeting.

All the best,

Sam Weaver
Mobile: 303-588-5148