All right, good afternoon. This is the December 12, 2025 meeting of the Sustainability Framework
Advisory Committee in the City Council Work Chamber. Our first agenda item is considering
the approval of October 24, 2025 minutes. Is there any discussion about the minutes? Seeing none,
may I have a motion to accept? So moved. Thank you. Second? Seconded. All in favor of adopting?
All opposed? Minutes are adopted. Thank you. Our next item is to receive a report, hold a discussion,
and give staff direction on a recommendation to City Council for adoption of the final draft
of the Simply Sustainable Framework. And Julissa Amador will present. Happy Friday. So good
afternoon everyone. My name is Julissa Amador. I'm the Senior Program Coordinator over at Environmental
Services and Sustainability. Today we're going to be going over the Simply Sustainable Framework
final draft. We've run this two years before, so this just includes a little bit of the revision
that we've done. So our focus will be talking a little bit about the draft, receiving additional
feedback needed and then next steps. So background, you guys should now be a little bit more familiar
with how we adopted the Simply Sustainable Plan in 2012. So we look at revising the Simply
Sustainable Framework every four to five years to make sure that it's still in line with community
needs and city needs as well. So the most recent sustainability framework was adopted in 2020.
With that also came a lot of different plans that were adopted throughout the city. So you
guys are familiar with some of these plans, the River Forest Master Plan, the 2040 Mobility Plan,
person trails, etc. We also have the Climate Action Plan that was adopted in 2024. So that is just to
let you guys know that we're keeping these plans in mind that they have their own metrics as well,
so we're not wanting to repeat any metrics in our Simply Sustainable Framework or we want to make
sure that those are, that we're also taking those into account. So one of the big pieces of feedback
that we received from this group was the inclusion of a vision and guiding principles which was
included in the draft of the document. We also did receive comment based on, I believe it was Dr.
Meyer, on including information about green infrastructure. So we did reach out to Planning
and they did talk to us about how they're currently amending the Debt and Development Code
and so they're going to be looking at the opportunity to, in the future, once that's all brought to
everybody, they would look at how they can incentivize or encourage non-residential
multi-family development to be able to include green infrastructure.
So they'll be looking at doing that and they're currently working on that right now.
With that we wanted to touch base with y'all and see if you guys
wanted to request any additional changes to the document or if you'd like to give a recommendation
on moving forward with some council. I like the changes. I think it
that leads great, especially really like the careful wording of the goals.
It is precise and right on target. So from my point of view I recommend moving forward with this.
I have just one comment. On page 10 I'm not sure if I raised this issue before
under materials management where you say expand food waste and organic
collection programs to schools and universities. Can we add restaurants on town as well?
Yeah, currently the valet program that manages the downtown area, that was part of, that was the pilot
that I solidly started with NCT Cog, but we can look at including that as well. I think the thought
there was we were extending beyond the restaurants that we have now to reach out to the schools
because they have their cafeterias on campus and that hasn't been an area that we've been a part
of just yet. We are working with UNT and then in the future we'd like to work with you know
TWU, wherever there's an opportunity. And we have worked with some private schools
and we talked to Denton ISD about getting into work with some of their cafeterias. It's just a
bigger operation. I have a couple of things. The vision statement and the guiding principles
were taken right from the 2020 plan, correct? We did grab the ones from there. We were
able to advise them to be updated for this. Okay, good. I would also like to see the glossary
continue. The 2020 had a very informative glossary and I think when we have terms in this
like, as simple as it sounds, we can't assume that everybody knows what we're talking about.
A definition of fossil fuels, a definition of environmental footprint,
a definition of carbon footprint, a definition of net zero carbon, a definition of greenhouse gases,
a definition of resilient infrastructure, of green building, of what a power purchase agreement
is and what a sustainability, a sustainable community is. Those are all words that are used
in the new plan. So I think it would really be terrific if we could add a glossary like that
to help in terms of just so people know what we're talking about.
Let's see. I also thought in this new plan, your definition of sustainability is taken from
the lead folks. It's pretty cut and dry, I think you'll agree. I would like it if we went back to
the 2020 definition, which means "meeting today's needs without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet those same needs." I think that hits home a little better than the leads one does.
So I'd like you to consider that please.
Now, and there are two mentions of climate change in the 2020 plan and I couldn't find any references
at all to climate change in the in the revision. And I think that's something, that's why we're
doing the plan, right? And I think it would be great to, when there's a statement that says
from the, pardon me, the new draft, quote, "Texas ranks highest among states most impacted by
natural disasters." And why? That's the question. If I were reading this, I'd say why. And just a
mention of climate change, because that's what this is all about. There was another thing.
Yeah, here we go.
Yeah, this page here, chapter two of the 2020 plan, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Management.
We've got a little box right up here. It simply says, "Climate change is the rise in global
temperatures resulting in part from increased levels of greenhouse gases. Recognizing the
importance of this issue, Devin initially will leave that out because Devin is no longer in the
conference of mayors for climate protection." At least that's what they told me. They didn't
renew their membership. But if we could get a little box like this or anything, just a definition
so that people know, pardon me, what this is about. Does anybody have any discussion about that?
It seems like we asked that last time, so I don't know again.
We referenced the climate action plan, so that's the larger climate document. This is the
sustainability framework. The 2020 called for some type of climate planning document,
which is that. That's what we developed, and we have that as a standalone item now.
I think we reference back to that in the next framework.
You don't need to reiterate the climate action plan. We can reference the climate action plan,
much like the 2040 plan mobility plan in the sustainability framework. In the adapted version,
in this version? It's been referenced in this version. Yes, it's referenced in this one. What,
the climate action plan? Yes. But climate change has? The climate action plan references. But
you're assuming that people are going to connect that. I'm thinking about just the educational
aspect, so that. Well then, my question is. No, that's not my question. I just don't see why
climate change cannot be mentioned in this document, because you're assuming that people
have read the climate action plan. I don't assume anything, just because. And I feel that it's our
duty to be as transparent and as informative as possible with these documents. So that's all I
have to say. This is interesting. It gets to be kind of a philosophical discussion.
The reason I like it now is because it talks about all of the goals that we would like to accomplish,
and in a way, sort of unspoken, climate is a benefit on the side. So if you support
transportation strategies that reduce air pollution, that helps with climate change.
If you support green building, that helps with climate change. If you maintain a diversified
portfolio with energy efficiency and conservation, that helps with climate change.
All of that stuff people like, Texans like, they don't like climate change. So if you read
this as a political document, I think it's smart. These are the things we all care about as a
community, that we know are like common interest goods. Everybody wants to save money on energy.
Everybody would like to have more efficient buildings and cleaner air. So let's put that up.
I think you're making a wide assumption. People don't want clean air. Well,
they want it more than climate change action, if you just look at the politics.
I still don't see why that's no reason just for having a definition of climate change in this
document. Well, but like we said, there's a whole climate action plan. And you had put a list of all
the plans that are open. So should we go and talk about all of this? Well, I don't know.
I personally don't see any argument with it, especially since it's
already been mentioned in the previous 2020 plan. It is, I will say, I can see on page five
of the draft document, it talks about the draft document, the current one. It says the definition
is to ensure its infrastructure and operations are prepared for stress stressors of changing climate.
And then the next paragraph talks about resilience to stressors like climate change and population
growth. And that's part of the lead definition of cities and communities. If we're going to
add the glossary, I don't know, we can definitely add a definition of climate change in the glossary.
I think I'd be fine with that. I support that too. Climate change is real. It doesn't matter
if we think it's likely or not. No, I know. But I was reading it, I think, the same way that Adam
was. I mean, I like that the goals are very specific, and they're all, and they're measurable,
and they're all good things to do, regardless of why we do them.
I've written two books on climate change. I know it's real. I know. So no, well, I need to pay
attention to the rhetoric of our outward facing documents. These are common interest goals that
I think are not controversial, and I'll get the job done. And I think this is a good document,
but just a little bit of adding on the climate change definition would help.
Would everyone support that? That's fine. Any other discussion?
Are we cool with the glossary? Are we going to have it? Great. Fantastic.
So, do you need direction? Yes, sir. Any other comments?
So, I would say adopt it with the changes that we just talked about.
But nothing, so with the additional glossary and additional definition of climate change,
do we have a?
Is that your motion? That's my motion, yeah.
Thank you. All in favor? All opposed? Thank you.
Oh, yeah, that's right. Sorry. Next item, item C, is receive a report, hold a discussion,
and give staff direction on the Sustainability Framework Advisory Committee.
2016 meeting schedule.
All right. I'm going to jump on through this one. Catherine Barnett, Sustainability Manager.
Just want to have a little discussion about meeting schedule, talk a little bit about
our historical meetings over the last few years, frequency, talk about making some changes to the
day of the week for the meeting and times and locations. So, in 2023, we held eight meetings.
We did six in '24 and seven this year. Those meetings averaged less than an hour and a half.
We had some canceled for no forum, some scheduling changes,
scheduling conflicts that had come up along the way. Just looking at the number of meetings and
the duration of the meetings, we want to talk about moving to an every other month schedule.
Talk about moving up to an every other month schedule and try to have a little bit more of
a packed meeting every other month. Try to get in here and cover some solid items.
So, coming in for a 30-minute meeting. I don't know if everyone's aware the city
is going to be closed to the public on Friday after it ends moving forward.
Start that first January 2nd. So, we would need to change our meeting date and time with that new
scheduling change and looking at this room, which we have to hold our meetings since they're
televised. They need to be either in this room or at development services and this is the preferred
one for the way our meetings are produced. So, Wednesdays and Thursdays are actually better
for this room, but if we need to look at other days of the week, we can do that. I mean, just be
on time. So, I'd like to get some feedback about moving to every other month, days of the week,
meeting times, all of those things. I don't have a preference between Wednesday and Thursday,
but I would say my opinion is that it's probably better to keep it on a monthly schedule if you go
to every other month and you miss one due to lack of forum or whatever, then you're going to miss
a big block of time. I agree with that. I think monthly meetings are better. For me, Wednesday
morning is better. Monday, if you don't have a Wednesday. And then I think it's good to,
like you did before, you can ask us what meetings we can have. For example, I travel in summer,
so I may miss one or two meetings in summer. Maybe we plan a longer break in the summer
instead of just one meeting. Yes, that's advisable too. Anybody else? I'm flexible.
I'd like to continue the monthly meetings and I'm good most any day,
except, will the meetings be in the afternoon or do you know? I heard one preference for Wednesday
morning. Maybe Wednesday up to three o'clock. Usually we have faculty meetings at four on
Wednesday, not every Wednesday. The only morning I can't do is Thursday morning and Friday morning.
Were you able to capture all that in case my notes aren't right there? Okay. So what we'll do is
we'll reach out about travel and then we'll come back and we'll probably do like we did this year
and not do the one around Thanksgiving. So what's the difference? Do you want to disperse next year?
And then we'll look at a longer break during the summer maybe. I have one question for us.
So some of our meetings was cancelled because we could not have a quorum because of all those.
But I really think there are two vacancies in this committee.
Do you know that these vacancies will be filled soon or?
Okay. Does it just depend on someone being nominated? Someone applying, someone being
nominated. Yeah, so those are the councillors at large that need to nominate.
There are two people who have applied. Yeah, I know it. Yeah, but and they
jump through all the hoops and I don't know what the what the hang up is.
And I haven't received an update from the city secretary's office about any applications.
Okay. And we will come back with a draft schedule. Thank you.
I will say to you while we're on the meeting, meeting invites and notices are going to start
coming out again this month coming from that sustainability framework advisory committee email
into your city inboxes. So it may not show up as coming from America
anymore, but it's a new email channel that we're using to capture all the communication.
All right, thank you. Our next and last agenda item, staff reports.
And we have the follow-up memo for some of the matrix items, just some status updates on those and the matrix.
I this is really good. This explains a lot and my was on the long term items.
You said it's written here, for example, the DME updates that staff will update
us, this committee, when timelines are available. So I just want to reiterate that it'd be great if
we got once they are available progress reports, just to just to know that the wheels are turning.
Yeah, this was this is very, very helpful. Good, good. And I'm just trying to close out some of
the things on the matrix, but we'll make sure that we have something to know to just keep an eye on
things and keep you posted on it. We'll continue to do that through staff members. I have a few
questions regarding this report, which is indeed very good. I especially like the one from our
court. Lots of information. Yes. So on the green space enhancements,
so it is mentioned only the media. Is there any any future work to enhance other green spaces?
I think our parks department is always looking for opportunities
to do that. We agreed to partner on the medians with them this year with some funding to help.
I hope that that kind of launches into some some bigger projects, but we communicate with them
pretty well, work well together. So time and resources. So regarding the incentives in the
second paragraph, there is a statement saying that increasing energy efficiency of existing
residential structures by 25% will reduce 3.6 of the total emissions, but increasing solar
to 192 megawatts will reduce only 0.4% of total emissions. So I would like in the future
reports to know how the math was done. That's based on the modeling that
SSG did for the climate action plan. Well to me I understand that
you know increasing energy efficiency is very important, but at least to me it does not make
sense that if we turn more solar power on we do not increase, you know, I mean we do not
decrease the emissions more than 0.4%. So it's just me maybe. I just would like to see some
For the Denton Municipal Electric updates, I understand that the pollution cost of acquiring
dispatchable generation is unknown, but it depends on what facility
would be identified, but I would like also to know how this is calculated. Is it social cost of carbon
or other model?
So how it would be calculated? Yes,
in general that's calculated by social cost of carbon.
So I understand that the work of the Wildlife Corridor survey team, that work
is just a tool, it's not a regulatory tool, but just to make sure so only environmental
sensitive areas are included in the plans in any development review as regulatory. Is it true?
Bases are regulatory, isn't it? Okay. I couldn't speak to what else is in the code. All right,
I'll check. Thank you. Anyone else? Anybody else? It may go along a little bit with what Dr. Meyer
was talking about, but one of the methods of dispatchable generation that people have been
talking a lot about lately is small-scale nuclear. Has this committee ever been,
received a presentation on that? No. Might be something good to put on the radar. Okay.
I just, in researching the earlier plan that we discussed, I went to the Council's committee on
the environment to see what they said when this was presented to them in October, and unfortunately
that meeting is not videotaped. Okay. And the notes were, they didn't say really anything about
what happened when just that they discussed the plan and asked questions, but there was no details
at all. So perhaps in the future, just as a matter of communication between these two entities, that
the minutes can be a little more precise as to what actually was discussed. I appreciate that.
Anybody with anything else regarding the matrix? Okay. With that,
is there a motion to adjourn? Second? I second. So we are now adjourned. Thank you.