July 31, 2025 — City Council Study Session

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[4:58] Good evening everyone and welcome to

[5:00] tonight's study session of the Boulder City Council. I'm Mayor Prolam Fulkurtz and I want to thank you for joining us. On tonight's agenda I we have three items. First we will hear information on water supply background and considerations. The second item is the update to city council on the 2024 2025 council work plan priority project related to wildfire hardening and water-wise landscaping. And lastly, we will have a council discussion on the county mental health tax. Given that we have three items on tonight's agenda, we've asked for some questions ahead of time. Um, and I appreciate my colleagues consideration of our packed agenda. Before we get into our work items, I'd like to outline how the meeting will be conducted. We will review staff's presentation and then we will have time

[6:01] for additional questions. At the end of the presentation, we will conduct our discussion with staff. If you have questions, please wait for staff to complete their presentation. And I will now turn it over to our city manager, Nuria Rivera Vandermide, to introduce our first item. >> Thank you so much, Mayor Prom. And in the interest of time, I'm going to pass it over to our extraordinary director of utilities, who despite our councils trying to get in there quickly without him. I'm gonna give it straight to Joe. Joe, there you go. >> Thank you for that. And good evening, mayor, mayor prom, and city council members. I'm Joe Teduchi. I'm the director of the city's utilities department and we are here tonight to talk to you about our water supply planning and uh specifically we're here to talk about the water portfolio that's managed by utilities. Our open space and

[7:00] mountain parks department and parks and wreck departments also have water resources assets and we work in close partnership with them, but those are really a different subject than what we have for you here tonight. I'm really excited for you to meet our water resources team at the city of Boulder. We're very fortunate to have dedicated in-house expertise related to climate science and water planning. It's one of the really cool things that makes me proud to work for this organization and the values it represents. Uh, in fact, one of our new RAP members is also an expert in this field and had positive feedback for us on this topic when we presented to the board a couple of weeks ago. So, with me here tonight, we have Kim Hutton. She's a senior uh water resources manager in utilities. She oversees the water resources workg group. She's been through several iterations of supply planning and

[8:00] climate related work. I rely on her heavily for her technical depth and expertise in this area. And then we also have Crystal who's a senior engineer on our water resources team. Crystal came to us not too long ago from consulting where she helped multiple clients like the city of Boulder with water supply planning work. We're lucky to have her on our team and she'll be our lead presenter tonight and this will be her maiden voyage presenting to council. No pressure, Crystal. Um we also have uh staff from the planning and development services department, climate initiatives, open space and mountain parks, and the city attorney's office who are here to support with uh questions. Our goal for tonight is for council and the community to hopefully have an overall picture of our supply situation under a number of different scenarios. I think there's some really positive news in the in the work and the

[9:01] presentation we've done and that it demonstrates that we have a really good supply situation, but there's also some grounding needed with our supply and that it's not unlimited. And while we have an enviable supply situation for a Colorado city, it's still water in the western United States, it's a finite resource, and we're not immune to the stresses such as climate change, Colorado River, and other factors. With that, I'll turn it over to Crystal. >> Thanks, John. Let me get my screen up. Good evening, council. Again, my name is Crystal My, senior water resources engineer with our utilities department. And with the background Joe's provided, I'll dive right in. Tonight, we're going to walk through a lot of detailed information related to Colorado's water rights, Boulder's current water supplies, Boulder's

[10:01] projected water availability out into the future, and future development of an integrated water supply plan. Our current way of life in Colorado is dependent on extensive water projects. Around 80% of Colorado's water falls on the west side of the continental divide, while 90% of Colorado's population is on the east side. There are 27 different water diversions that include ditches, tunnels, and reservoirs that carry water over from the west slope to the east slope. Our Colorado Mountain snowpack flows down to provide water to other states. And the Colorado River Compact is just one of nine interstate compacts that dictates how water starting in Colorado's mountains is allocated among states. For water rights purposes, the state is

[11:01] parsed out into seven different basins. Boulder is located in the South Plat River Basin where demand for water exceeds available supply. And because of this, there's very little anyone can do in terms of developing new water supplies that doesn't impact someone or some use. Key impacted parties are typically neighboring communities, agricultural water users, and the environment. I don't have the opportunity tonight to go through the history of Colorado water law, but wanted to acknowledge that the most senior water rights in Colorado, including boulders, were established during the westward expansion of white settlers, which violated and excluded the voices, rights, and needs of indigenous peoples and other marginalized and vulnerable communities.

[12:01] Colorado has a water plan that evaluates a range of water futures by 2050. Because there's significant uncertainties tied to areas like climate change, growth, and social values, the Colorado water plan uses a scenario planning approach that focuses on a plausible range of futures. For the South Plat Basin, which is the basin Boulders located in, the Colorado Water Plan projected a gap of 500 to 800,000 acre feet per year by 2050 across different scenarios. That's around 30 to 50 times Boulder's current water demands or around 2 to three times Denver's water demands. Boulder has three sources of water for the city. Two of those are in Boulder Creek, the North Boulder Creek and Middle Boulder Creek wheds, which are shown in blue. Those water sheds provide

[13:01] around 2/3 of our water supply. We divert water from the river and store it in numerous reservoirs and carry that water down to the Batasso water treatment plant through a series of large pipelines which are shown as dark blue lines on the map. Water's treated at the Batasso water treatment plant and distributed throughout the community and our service area is outlined in red. We also receive about a third of our water from the headarters of the Colorado River through projects operated by Northern Water. And those areas are identified in yellow or tan. Water is diverted from rivers on the west slope and brought over to the east slope through a series of large pipelines and reservoirs and conveyed to many water users including Boulder. Boulder's primary use of its water supply is tied to providing a reliable

[14:01] treated municipal water supply and our current demands are around 17,000 acre feet per year. The most recent planning document governing the use of Boulders's water supply is the 2009 source water plan. When that plan was developed, it was well understood that because water availability can vary so dramatically from year to year, there's years that Boulder has surplus municipal water supplies that can be used for non-municipal purposes. For instream flow, Boulder donated water rights to protect instream flows in Boulder Creek. Typically in August and September and in the winter months, portions of Boulder Creek would be dry without the instream flow program. For agricultural leasing, when there's supplies that exceed municipal demand, Boulder leases that water in one-year increments to agricultural users to

[15:00] provide supplemental water supplies. It can vary dramatically, but on average, Boulder leases around 5,000 acre feet per year. Hydro power is generated from specific water rates only available for hydro power production which are shown in dark blue and from most water sent to our Batasso water treatment plant which is shown in light blue. The city generates enough hydro power to offset the typical energy needs of around 4600 households. Downstream water users also benefit from operational decisions that leave excess water in the creek throughout the year. Boulder's future water supply efforts have largely been governed by our 2009 source water plan. Given the plan's age, it's recommended any significant shift in the community vision outlined by the

[16:00] comprehensive plan be carefully studied through development of an integrated water supply plan. This is the new standard for a source water plan that more holistically considers supply and demand and the uncertainty tied to both and explores innovative strategies for increased resilience. and council will have the opportunity to weigh in on more detailed water policies in that plan. We don't have all the analysis and careful planning today to fully answer how changes in the comprehensive plan may trickle down into Boulder's water supply planning. That type of an effort would be part of an integrated water supply plan. But we've prepared some future water availability projections to help inform council on future risks to Boulder's municipal water supply and trade-offs to consider. Because there's so much uncertainty tied

[17:01] to future conditions, we use an approach called scenario planning. To avoid running every possible scenario and ending up with thousands of results, we've developed four scenarios that focus on plausible future conditions in 2050. This time frame is similar to the 20-year comprehensive plan time frame. Typically, long range water supply planning is done on a 50-year time horizon. All of these represent plausible ranges of futures. However, the optimistic and severe scenarios represent more extreme bookend scenarios. Whereas the continued trends and stress scenarios are more moderate projections. Our first future scenario is an optimistic one where warming is less severe and doesn't significantly impact our water supplies. Continued trends

[18:00] assumes climate change results in the Colorado front range as a whole, including Boulder, beginning to experience minor reductions in water supply. Stressed assumes the western United States experiences significant water stress and that stress sparks significant policy changes on the Colorado River. The last scenario is more pessimistic in nature and assumes intense warming that has a detrimental impact on regional water supplies. For these four scenarios, we've identified four primary drivers. Two of which represent supply focused drivers and two of which represent demand focused drivers. Climate driven stream flow changes ranges from around a 10% increase in an optimistic future all the way down to around a 30% decrease in a severe future. The first three scenarios encapsulate

[19:01] climate change risks identified in the Colorado water plan that I described earlier. And the fourth scenario exceeds the severity included in the Colorado water plan. For Colorado River impacts, there's significant unknowns related to major policy decisions that are outside of the city's control. With these extreme uncertainties in mind, under two out of the four scenarios, we're assuming stress under the Colorado River won't be significant enough to trickle down and directly impact Boulder's water supplies, or there'll be mitigation projects that Boulder could participate in. Under the other two scenarios, we do assume climate change will invoke enough water stress to result in moderate and major decreases to Boulder's Colorado River supplies. On the demand focus drivers, climate

[20:02] driven irrigation changes recognizes that our urban landscapes need more water to survive and thrive as the temperature increases. And finally, additional water conservation recognizes with increased scarcity, motivation and uptake of water conservation strategies would increase. Water conservation achievements to date are already considered across all future scenarios. Under optimistic and continued trend scenarios, we would anticipate increased efficiency in line with our current water efficiency plan. As water stress worsens, we assume water conservation efforts would ramp up to things that are achievable with major capital expenditures. For water conservation, we can only project what's feasible under existing technology. There's the potential for more advances in water efficient

[21:01] technologies and changes in customer behavior as water stress worsens throughout the region. and we'll continue to update our projections as major advancements occur. We took our four scenarios that I just described and ran those conditions through our water supply system model to identify where there was a surplus or gaps. Our overarching water supply policy is called our reliability criteria. It's essentially our level of service goals. They were established in 1988 and aimed to balance the costs and environmental impacts of increased reliability with the consequences of temporary shortages. Right now, they dictate around 95% of the time we'd want the system to be reliable enough to not require any sort of restrictions.

[22:00] Then in some years they allow for outdoor watering restrictions that range from lawns going dormant to landscapes dying. And in an extremely rare condition, we might consider indoor restrictions. For the four scenarios I described, even if that scenario experienced a modeled shortage in one or a few years, as long as the shortages were less severe than the reliability criteria, then that's considered a pass. So, here's an example of a passing model run. This is a reference scenario using historic data that's not adjusted for climate change. The gray bar here represents average water demands associated with today's population, so no growth. And the blue water supply droplet represents the sustainable water supply available. When the demand bar is well below the water supply droplet, that indicates a

[23:00] surplus like we have here. And when it rises above the sustainable supply droplet, that would indicate a potential gap. The demands represented in the gray bar under future scenarios include a 10% factor of safety. This 10% factor of safety is important to encapsulate risks that can't be effectively modeled like natural disasters and infrastructure outages. As I mentioned previously, these demands have also been adjusted up for climate change and down for water conservation. And that volume of anticipated water conservation savings has been outlined in light gray and is shown for reference. Here we have the four future scenarios along with the historical reference point. As you can see, in three out of the four scenarios, there's sufficient supply to meet demands associated with Boulder's

[24:00] current population, so no additional growth out to 2050. The severe scenario might look a bit intimidating, but those conditions would fundamentally alter the western United States relationship with water, and Boulder is in a far better position than many other communities. We also anticipate that the community will continue to grow and additional water demands out to 2050 based on current growth trajectories are shown in orange. We understand our current population water demands really well, but water demands tied to growth, particularly in Boulder, where infill and redevelopment is the primary mode of development occurring, can just be a lot more variable. For example, dense apartment complexes can use significantly less water per person than triplexes or single family

[25:00] homes. And for redevelopment, the net impact to the city's overall water demand is dependent on how much water was used on the site prior to redevelopment. Based on this data, Boulder has a robust water supply that can reliably meet near-term demands that include anticipated growth. But there's still risks that should be considered when planning for the future. We may need to consider additional water supplies to maintain or improve our current risk profile. Though the best path forward would be determined in a future integrated water supply plan. Under a couple of those future scenarios, there's still surplus water that we can grow into. When we talk about growing into our supply further, the primary non-municipal uses that would be reduced include agricultural

[26:00] leasing and water left in the stream for downstream users and to a much smaller extent water used for instream flow. And then there may be some situations where we have a water supply gap and under those situations we want to obtain new water supplies. Developing new water supplies in the dry region we live in involves a few trade-offs to consider. And I've laid out a few different levels. The stretch level encapsulates making our current supplies go further with water conservation, automation, changes to level of service, and retiming our existing supplies. Some of these changes can be quick to implement, but others may take around 20 years. These types of improvements can be expensive and impact the environment. I'll walk through a quick example of a current project that falls towards the edge of this stretch level to better root you in the data here.

[27:03] Panama Reservoir is an existing reservoir located northeast of Boulder that's owned by a ditch company. This project would expand Panama Reservoir to make further use of Boulder's existing water rates. The project's anticipated to cost around $90 million and has the potential to provide up to 2,000 acret of additional supply. And for reference, Boulder's current water demand is around 17,000 acret. Boulder's been working on this project since 2020, and we still have a long way to go. Again, Panama was an example of a stretch level action. Partner would be a step further, meaning working collaboratively with others to develop or acquire new water supplies. These types of projects take longer than just stretching the supplies we already have and can be expensive,

[28:00] impact the environment, and may impact neighbors who are also trying to develop water. Compete is a level some cities are already operating at, but Boulder is not. It's really racing and bidding against others to develop or acquire new water supplies. This would be a big shift from Boulder's current policies, and it can be expensive, impact the environment, reduce supplies available to neighbors, and impact local agriculture. New water supply isn't unlimited, and it'll be hard to come by. and take a long time to develop. But the smaller amount of new water we need, the better chance we can obtain it while limiting tradeoffs and staying closer to those stretch and partner levels. Ultimately, where we fall within these levels is what the integrated water supply plan will establish.

[29:00] I've presented a lot of information in one goound. To summarize some key points, first Boulder's in a good position with its water supply right now and even considering moderate climate change impacts and anticipated growth. But due to extreme uncertainty, there's still risks to its supplies that should be considered when planning for the future. Second, we're not alone. The whole region is dealing with the water supply uncertainty that comes with climate change and we're all trying to plan for unprecedented conditions. And finally, the information presented today hopefully provided a sense of risks that can impact our water supply and trade-offs to future policy decisions. But much more detailed planning and next steps to continue to reliably provide water to this community can come from an integrated water supply plan.

[30:00] Thank you for your time and I'll turn it back to Joe to further the discussion. Thank you for that Crystal. So these are the questions we have for council tonight. basically hoping that you have a broad at least a broad picture of our supply situation. But if you have any additional information that we that you would like, happy to answer that. And as you heard throughout Crystal's presentation, we're recommending looking into this further in our work plan um with the development of an integrated water supply plan. So would like to know if council is supportive of that as a work plan item. And that's what we have. Happy to answer questions. >> Thank you, Joe. And thank you, Crystal. Welcome to council. You did a fantastic job. Really appreciate that presentation. >> Thank you. >> Um, >> absolutely. Starting off with questions. I see three

[31:01] counselors already have their hands up. We'll start with Adams, then Marquis, then you hard. >> Awesome. Thank you so much. Thank you for the incredible presentation. Um I also wanted to let my colleagues and staff know uh that I had the opportunity of meeting with um Joe as a part of my um water fluency course with the water education Colorado and he was able to answer all of my questions and it was also wonderful to see those responses included in the um in the document. So, just wanted to thank you for that and just the exceptional work. Uh, as you know, um, we've been here I've been here for a year and a half and we haven't talked about the entire portfolio and to know that the integrated water plan is on its way. Um, just really got me even more excited. So, I actually don't have a ton of more questions. Um, I was at the water fluency in person in um, Steamboat. uh over the last two days. And so I have

[32:00] just a couple of questions that came up after um I completed uh those in-person sessions for that fivemonth course. Um and so one one area where I felt like I would love to get a little bit more information is around research and uh sorry um education and outreach. Um, one of the things that came up while we were at the water fluency course um with water managers and others was and hearing from uh other cities um was just how there it doesn't seem to be a um a framework around like water literacy or how do we support our community in better understanding water beyond don't you know water your lawns a lot or you know those kinds of things. And so I'm just kind of curious um to know um in in the work that you all do in the collaboration with the climate team um how you all address um the education component. So that is one question. Um the other is around ditches. So, uh, we had a great A, um, presentation and, um,

[33:02] they brought up, I know we've had a lot of conversations around the water infrastructure, but, I was just curious about some of the seepage challenges related to, um, the the ditches and our our irrigation systems. So, just would love to hear a little bit more um about that. And then lastly, um the um you know, AI and data centers continues to be um something that um you know, our new administration is very excited about and um there was even an RFI or request for propo for information for a possible mega data center at the ENL site. I don't believe that was actually moved beyond that in request for information. But again, just curious your you and your um especially Crystal, uh with the forecasting if that was a consideration in the forecasts that were completed. >> Thanks for that question, Council Member Adams. I'm going to quickly turn it over to Kim Hutton here. Um but I might

[34:02] mention on the water literacy, it's it's a great point. Um, there are a few ways we address that. Um, we have a new water conservation position. >> Oh, awesome. And >> oh my gosh, that's right. Heather was Heather's in our water fluency course. >> We didn't even know we were in the same course. Go ahead. >> There you go. And uh, so part of that role involves education and outreach and there are extensions of those programs that the um that others help us with. And then one of the things that we do each year that we're really proud of is the children's water festival. And uh it's a day event that we do have done in recent years at the university and partner with them. And we have all kinds of activities and school kids come on buses from around the area. But no doubt we can enhance what we're doing. And it's it's a great point. Water can be complicated. we really wrestled with how

[35:00] to present this information with to you tonight and how to how to try and make it understandable. So, great point. Um, I'll comment on the ditches then turn it over to Kim. We did an information packet memo I think in 2017 or 2018 that really illustrated in depth u some of the issues around irrigation ditches. our our department has a direct role with ditches and we also provide a liaison um component with the community when those issues come up. But Kim, I might uh turn it to you to expand on that on ditches and and u maybe cover the AI >> Sure. >> and data center topics. >> Okay. All right. Thanks. And good evening, council. Kim Hutton, water resources manager. Uh yeah, so talking about ditches. ditches. Uh, you know, we've got a network of ditches that wind their way through the city and I think they help they've created um some of the character of Boulder. Most many uh residents think they have a a creek that

[36:00] runs through their yard that's turned on and off, you know, every year. And so in terms of education, we also are trying to do a lot of education around irrigation ditches um and and what they mean to the community as well as kind of the what what they mean for the property owners um as well. So yeah, most of the ditches that run through well most of the ditches are earth and ditches, so they do seep and uh I think the ditch companies themselves have just built that into their their practice um and their allocation of water. Um if there's excessive seepage, they may try to do some um some work to to seal up those those spots that are um are high high seep rates. But overall it it's just kind of a condition of these ditches. I think that there's some um conflict I think with in the urban area than with uh you know properties, structures that might be kind of in that

[37:00] water zone. And so we do have a lot of conversations with property owners who are adjacent to dishes about uh what they can expect if if a ditch is seeping, you know, and in that case we just most of what they can do is just try to fortify their their property through um pumps or u French trains or something like that. >> Okay. So it's my takeaway is it is not the city's responsibility. We don't have to worry about the expenses. It's not going to create additional costs for the enduser. for the most part. Yeah, I think that the city is a shareholder in many of the ditches and so we through if the ditch companies are man the ditch companies are responsible for managing those and so if they have these additional expenses um they pass that on you know they to their shareholders and so the city may be paying um some of those expenses as a shareholder as a shareholder and then open space um sometimes open spa there are some ditches where open space owns 100% of the ditch and so they're solely

[38:00] responsible for for that maintenance and costs. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> You're welcome. And then uh data centers. So yeah, I mean we data centers have the potential to be large water users. Not all of them are um but they have that potential and we're starting to see more and more interest in in the effects of data center both on water consumption and energy consumption from a water consumption perspective. that that's done through um cooling mechanisms or and it's usually evaporative cooling that they're using right now um which then you know consumes the water that water is not then returned to the stream for other uses and so there could be large consumption associated with data centers uh how we have factored that into our modeling um so we have a Crystal mentioned we have a 10% factor of safety in our modeling to account for unknowns,

[39:00] uncertainties, and that is one of them. We haven't specifically tried to quantify what future uh water consumption in Boulder could be through data centers, but I think as we do future um analysis, that could be a consideration of ours. But I think the best way for us to factor that in uh without having any directive on you know specific policies that would uh help us understand you know what the future development in this reg in Boulder for Boulder's water supply could be would be um just to include that in the factors of safety. >> Awesome. Thank you very much. Thank you everybody. >> Thank you council member Adams. Uh, next we have council member Marquis, then Shuhard, then Wallik. >> Hey, thanks uh for the presentation. Um, I have just a couple of questions. The first is when we pass legislation and

[40:00] through a community desire and a community need, we want more housing throughout the state. And I'm curious whether the state is playing an active role in helping housing to be placed where there are water supplies and or discouraging housing where water is scarce and what kind of criteria developer needs to meet in terms of being able to have water at that site. So, I I that might be a follow-up item, a follow-up item for for us, Kim, unless you or someone else on the team has an answer to that one. I'm I'm not exactly sure about that. >> I I'm not aware of anything um that the state is doing, but I Yeah, I think that's something that we could look into. >> Okay. Thanks. Some of our neighboring states like Arizona are really strict about new development and being able to identify a sustainable water source before you can proceed. So I was just curious if we're looking at that at a

[41:00] state level. Um so that's great um as a followup. And then uh the other question I had is have we looked at what um community members could expect in terms of the cost of water um moving forward and what sort of increases might affect affordability in Boulder. >> Sure. Yeah, that that's a great question. I can take that one. Um, as you know, the city's doing a long-term financial strategy and our utilities department are working close with closely with our central finance staff. And we're thinking about that as well um for our situation across all three of our utilities, water, wastewater, and storm water and flood. And so definitely want to have a long-term picture of what our infrastructure needs are. And as some of the things that Crystal was talking about around supply planning become clearer, um that is a that is an

[42:03] immediate work plan item that we wanted to to share with council and the community of what the future needs are and what the costs are. >> Okay. Thanks so much. I'll look forward to that. >> And on the on the first question, there is the Colorado water plan as well. I think that's Colorado's version of what you uh related to what you were talking about in other states and there are some things in there tied to um eligibility for state funding around water conservation programs and cities and and things like that. So, Colorado has has come at the issue you raised in a few different ways like the one I just mentioned. >> Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member Marquis. Uh, next we have Shuhard, Wallak, and Spear. >> Uh, fantastic presentation, Crystal, and um, Crystal, Kim, Joe, and the team. Thanks for your uh, really major work on this and also for answering my own

[43:02] hotline and taking the time to go over it with me. Um, and I also want to thank Council Member Adams for recommending this study session and taking this closer look at water that we absolutely should be doing. Um, so I had a question about data centers, too. Uh maybe just I could like to probe it a little more. Um I understand that you more or less there's a byite ability to put data centers anywhere where we can put offices. Um might be a little rough way to put it. Um but I guess I'm well I'll put it this way. My original question was what um what future scenarios for potential increased water demand uh from data centers are we seeing? And then what should we do be doing to uh plan or explore water stewardship with that in mind? I think what I heard um what was that Kim that um that's to come like that would be prospectively to come in

[44:00] an integrated plan if given that direction. So maybe I'll I'll ask you that like is there any more to say on that and do I have it right that you would be looking for direction in the water supply plan for that kind of thing? um direction would be good and we're we're always kind of trying to create some um some boundaries around what we're planning for and so uh if there is any direction on that that would help us. Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And is there anything else to say on like the substance of it that we know now or have you pretty much covered it as far as known or expected scenarios for future demand and practices for stewardship with data center water supply we should be or water demand we should be thinking about now. >> I yeah I mean that's the extent of sort of what we know currently about the demands. There's uh there was a paper that was published recently by Western Resource Advocates that looks at potential increase in water demand and you know the impacts to both water and

[45:00] energy in the southwest United States. Um I haven't seen anything, you know, specific to Colorado or or different regions within Colorado. Um but that that that paper kind of identifies maybe potential impacts um over the next 5 to 10 years. And as far as stu, you know, stewardship, I think that's I think we maybe kind of gets to what we're what Crystal was uh talking about in terms of trade-offs of water supply. I think we just have to determine where are what are our values for use of water and where do we want to put that towards. >> Got it. Okay. Thanks. And then just one more question kind of on like the more of a procedural question. So um as I as I said I think I understand we we don't really do much to um manage uh data center like design um through site review concept review that

[46:01] sort of thing assuming I have that right I guess somebody could correct me if I don't have that right but um if I do I suppose I'm wondering are there is there any other place beyond this integrated it's water supply planning process. Is there any other place that we might expect um to be banking policy around around that aspect of data center with respect to water use? I'm thinking like work that's in flight or um that could be made to be in flight that would be aligned with just you know like more direct policy making with data centers that would that would have a consideration of water like any policy reform maybe through BVCP we're working on coming up Kim I might jump in on this one I think the comp plan would be a place that you could do that we also have uh with Carl Castillo recently retiring here we have our uh policy statement that there's water related information in there that

[47:00] we could update. And then as a staff team, we participate in legislation in various ways, sometimes directly for water issues. Were part of the Colorado Water Congress. And so we monitor for things like this and are paying close attention to it that way as well. >> Good. Okay. Thanks. That's it. >> Thank you, Council Member Shards. Next we have Wallik Spear and Winer. >> Thank you. That was a uh really a terrific presentation. First rate and and for a first time uh presenter um that was that was really wonderful. This is obviously a very very important subject for us to be looking at and I'm very glad that we are. I only have a couple of questions. Um, I was actually surprised to see some of the numbers that staff provided in um, uh, I think it was in response to my hotline, but it may have been to uh, council member Shashard's hotline. Um, but in that

[48:02] response um, you said that um, uh, 80% of the water in the South Plat Basin is used for agriculture and on a statewide basis it appears to be 90%. Um that looks to me to be the lowhanging fruit. Um if we can save 10% of agricultural water, we um we save 9% of total water use. Um if 7% of the water, as the uh response indicates, is being used by municipalities and you save 10% of that, you've saved 7%. So my question is is some kind of um uh agricultural reform is that more of a challenge or or or an opportunity because it seems to me that's where um you can make the largest immediate gains in um in water conservation. Yeah, I think a lot of the um

[49:02] a lot of legislation or discussions in the water field in terms of, you know, how how are we going to get the water that we need to to fill these gaps, projected gaps, is recognizing that we don't want to negatively impact the agricultural communities and that economy. And so there's a lot of work being done on looking for ways that we can sh municipalities and agricultural communities can work together. And an example of that is um there water water has to be decreed for a certain use um irrigation use or municipal use and you have to go through a water court process if you want to change it. And so there's some streamlined processes that you can do where municipalities then can get access to this irrigation water. And you've you're starting to see some partnerships where municipalities are paying some agricultural users to um to improve some

[50:00] efficiencies on their land and any of the savings that are happening the municipalities get to take advantage of. Um so so there's certainly I I think there's water in a uh for sure and it's just finding a way to optimize um the use for for all water users in the state. >> Okayqua on that topic >> please. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Um so I just got back as I said from that meeting where this question was asked and it was and we were reminded that um 80% of that comes back in inflow. We also were reminded that that water not only is beneficial to the crops but they are also beneficial to wildlife and the habitat. So when it says 80% it mean in my opinion um 80% of the water rights have been allocated to a producers but the actual benefit is not only to the crops they provide. I still agree though Mark

[51:01] that there is a need for reform because I'm concerned about what is being grown and if that is something most of that is exported outside of Colorado. So I'm a big proponent for um for revisiting a and and making it stronger. But I just want to lift up that um one return flows and the other is wildlife the benefit uh to wildlife and habitat with large. Thank you. >> Thank you. That's very helpful information. Um and one other question um are we permitted to build storage facilities and if so why do we not? >> Uh we so storage facilities I think there's two aspects. One is the facility itself which has to go through some uh a permitting process with the state um and the feds environmental permitting. Um and and then there is the water rights component of it. If you you can build a

[52:00] reservoir but you you need then uh water rights that have the storage rights for that location to be able to store water in there. So that's another process. >> All right. Thank you. I I I I do not think I will ever fully grasp the complexities of uh water rights and water law. Um you you could probably make a real good living uh being in that field alone. Um so thank you. That's all I got right now. >> Thank you, Council Member Wallock. Um I just want to point out that we're a little over halfway through the time we had just scheduled for this item. So, we have I see a number of remaining questions and then we still have to go through to answer staff's questions. Just letting you all know. So, we up next we have Council Member Spear, Ben Winer, and then Brockett. Thank you. >> Thanks. Thanks so much for uh the presentation, Crystal. It's really helpful. Um, I just had a few questions

[53:01] that u may it may be that you won't have answers until we get to two if that's what um council wants to do, but um I'm going to try them anyway. So, what what are some of the guiding principles that we might be um thinking about if we were going to move into um a plan to to figure out which of the future scenarios is the most appropriate? So, for uh for planning purposes. So, for example, you know, are we going to be looking for some for whatever gives us the least regret, the most resilience, the most co cost effectiveness? How how might we think about these these four future supply scenarios and how we would tailor which one we would be targeting >> in terms of t targeting for what are we taking action on or >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. just for thinking about for our planning purposes. Um what what are the kinds of principles that are going to be guiding whether we're going with an optimistic versus a severe scenario or somewhere in between?

[54:02] >> Um I think that the easy one for me to respond to is I think the most severe most extreme scenario is one that we wouldn't advise um planning for. It's good to understand sort of what the what the extremes could be. Um but it it is quite expensive and it's kind of representing a different reality um that we're that and it's probably not um best to start planning for based on those. However, what we would want to do is implement uh actions that maybe would be good across all scenarios. Um you know sometimes you hear them referred to as no regrets or low regret scenarios. scenario um actions that are good. Um we're probably looking at more moderate scenarios uh that that we would be planning for. But I also would say that we want to

[55:01] um continue to check in on where we're at in some of these um you know maybe they call them like goalposts or metrics and are we headed in a certain direction um for climate change. That's the biggest uncertainty for us. Um, and so I think it's it's important just to keep checking in. Um, I I don't know, Joe, or if you've got anything else to add to that in terms of the planning. No, I agree with what you said, Kim, and I think scoping a major plan like that I establishing those uh guiding principles upfront as part of the plan with some engagement with council and the community would probably be step number one. >> Thank you. Um and then my other question is just u as we're thinking about planning, does it does it incorporate um sort of multiple uh bad scenarios happening? So for example, what would

[56:01] happen if we had a drought year and then there was a fire and then some of the upstream um supply were diminished. I mean are we doing that that kind of modeling or is it um is it not doing that that sort of like multiple scenarios stacked together kind of planning? >> Uh yeah from a couple yes from a couple different perspectives. one is um predominantly with like the stream flow we try to capture um a series of bad events in in stream flow so that we've got I I think what would be hardest for Boulder to absorb would be uh multi-year droughts um and so we try to capture that in the planning but then the way we've structured the scenarios as well um they do they do capture various degrees of stressors um for the water supply and that most severe one has the most extensive um stressors but the others as well are capturing some

[57:01] various stressors um in them. >> Thank you. Um and then I assume the plan too would have some information about um how to prioritize different types of usage in shortage scenarios as well and would that sort of be community formed and engaged too. So, for example, um say um outdoor residential use versus agriculture. Um yeah, is that is that the kind of thing that would come into play through engagement? >> So, we we've got a drought plan that um we can implement when there's a drought or any any reason we have some water shortage. And so in that plan, we actually did a community engagement process where we um developed some guiding principles basically to help us determine when we had to start making um implementing water use restrictions, how do we prioritize those uses? So that's outlined in the drought plan. >> Okay, cool. And then how how would that interface with the integrative water

[58:00] integrated water supply plan with those? Yeah, I think the the drought plan is where we would kind of identify community values for um for the municipal use and and it's more so indooroutdoor water watering. So if we're talking about as we progress um and we start to use more and more of our municipal supply on a regular basis and we have smaller surplus, we mentioned there may be less water for agriculture. I mean I I think that is something those broader scale concepts um are those values ones that we want to preserve. I think those are are to be addressed. Um the comp plan would be appropriate to address those those big bigger ones. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Spear. Next up we have Council Member Winer, Mayor Brockett, and Council Member Benjamin. Hello everybody. First of all, I just want to say for Ryan's sake that he

[59:02] pronounces his last name Shu Hard. Everybody. Okay. He's reprimanded me in a his very nice way that he always does. So, I'm just helping you along. All right. Moving on. Ryan, was that okay? When I say reprimanded, Ryan does not reprimand. I mean, he kindly asked me to pronounce his name correctly. Anything else you want me to say, Ryan? No, he's quiet. Okay. Um, I only have one thing to say, one question because everybody else asked the questions that needed to be asked. And, um, that is I'm not sure if people read the Elizabeth Black email uh that I thought was excellent, but I also not sure that it is the subject of tonight. And I'm also very interested in water and egg and making sure we have enough uh water for egg. And I think my favorite uh thing that Elizabeth wrote

[60:01] was they want to make every drop of water count. And so I'm wondering if this is not the place. First of all, I'm asking this, did the staff see that? And if so, is this not the place to talk about her letter? Is it under OSMP? Um, I'm just interested because I'm actually very interested in agg at this point and water. I just don't want to ask a question that has nothing to do with tonight. >> I I can take that one. And uh we appreciate Elizabeth and and uh she's such a solid person in the water community. I actually replied to that email um this morning here and it is a separate subject um because a lot of a lot of uh a lot of it has to do with the open space department's uh portfolio and how they use their land which we're struggling for time here already to broaden the discussion to include that too would

[61:00] probably be out of reach. So we can for sure talk about that in the future, but it is I would say supporting the egg community, working with them on efficiency and keeping those leasing programs and the farms going is something that I know our staff who work in this area feel really good about and we want to see continue. >> Good for you, Tara. Great. Thank you, Council Member Winer. Next, we have Mayor Brackett and then Council Member Benjamin. >> Thanks. Uh, thanks, Lauren, and thanks, uh, staff for all the excellent info. Really appreciate this update on our water supply. Um, I also want to ask a question about agriculture. So, um, it's good. Thanks, Tara, for clarifying that a lot of the we've gotten a few emails about um, OSMP related um, irrigation. So, that's not what we're talking about tonight, but you did mention that we do lease in good years municipal water for

[62:01] agricultural uses. And I was curious uh in that program like what percentage of that water goes to people in the immediate vicinity like in Boulder County or very close to Boulder County versus further downstream agricultural users? >> Yeah, we we prioritize um first to water users within the Boulder Creek Basin. And once we've um met those needs, if we have any additional water, we will go outside the basin and most of that water goes to sort of like the St. Bin um the St. Bin area. So I uh I can't say, you know, I'd say mo most of the water is is uh being used in Boulder Creek. >> Okay. So most but not 90% but maybe most. >> Um let's see here. It varies from year to year. I I would say some some years like this year it's 100%. We don't have um and then it say 50 to 100% depending on

[63:01] the year. >> Great. Well, I do appreciate how we prioritize the support of our local a community and council member Adams highlighted some of the importance of that. So, appreciate that focus there. Um that's my only question and for item two, I'll just say yes while I have the floor. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor Brockett, for keeping it efficient. Uh, next we have Council Member Benjamin, and then I'll ask a question as well. >> Oh, yeah. A lot of great questions asked and really good presentation. Um, I'm I'm going to keep it brief since so many good questions were asked. I I'm going to keep piling on on the A thing. I know that that is not necessarily utilities. Um, but I do think that they're given they're low they end up being a little lower in the priority level. I think it's important for us to think about things. So questions, basic questions I have is what are the allowable uses around green houses and pivots and other sorts of more efficient ways to deliver water which then keeps more water in the system. I know I think Taiisha mentioned ditches and that sort of thing and I had

[64:01] some internet so I don't know if she mentioned these other pieces as well. So I apologize if that was redundant. Um but anyway that that that may be for OSMP but all related to the water stuff. The other question I have and and because I was having a little sound issues um here and there is how how closely are we I assume we are but to what extent are we going to have to come back to this conversation in some way because of the negotiations for the western or the Colorado Western water compact that is going on and its current draft and their sort of deadlines that that the feds are holding. So I don't there may have been said in the presentation I missed it but I didn't know if we may have to come back to that since that's a that if that gets renegotiated uh that may have some heavy impacts on us uh without Boulder having much say in terms of the states carrying heavy weight. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I we we're keeping close tabs on it. If there is any significant um effects on on Boulder of course we'd have to do some reevaluations. And so, um, we're we're just, you know, waiting and watching.

[65:00] >> Yeah. Just in terms of timing, I mean, we're going to be doing the comp plan and it seems like it seems likely that the final draft may come sadly right at the end of our comp plan process. And so, I'm just sort of thinking like how do we build in that flexibility um, if that does end up changing it so that that that that's not baked, we're not baking in some obsolescence more or less into our comp plan. So, I'm sure we can do that, but just sort of keeping that top of mind. But I appreciate that. >> Uh, was that it, Council Member Benjamin? Okay, thank you. Um, could we get the questions up in the chat just to make sure everyone has access to them? And then the question I had was as I heard the presentation um there we were talking about uh kind of this question about the integrated water supply and if that's something council's supportive of but what I heard

[66:02] was um wanting a question about what are we planning for with that and maybe trying to get some clarification around the bounds and I Just wanted to ask staff if that's something they would like us to weigh in on a little bit at that point at this point. Um it felt a little bit like a can of worms, but just thought I'd check in. >> Yeah. No, I you know I think really what the integrated water supply plan will be based on are decisions that are made through the comp plan process um and and the policies that that come out of that the land use maps. And so I don't know that we need to define those right now. Um we we there's still more conversations to have through the comp plan process. >> I appreciate that. Thank you for that. Um so I will just give my answer to that which is yes. Um I'm

[67:02] supportive of us moving forward with that and I think for me just one of my priorities that I would like us to look at through that is how we maintain future flexibility. Um [Music] next I will turn it over to Council Member Adams and then Council Member Shuhard. >> Awesome. Thank you so much. Um thank you colleagues for so many great questions. Um I uh absolutely agree that uh for this to be a fa focus um in in in the near future. Um as far as uh am very supportive of the current evaluation um and water policy. Um although I am interested in um our relation our city's relationships with the South Plat uh round table. um which is a is a key um you know every basin has a round table that was established after the 2003

[68:00] drought or 2002 2003 drought. So, um, again, just wanting to get more clarification on how we are collaborating, how is our voice at that table, uh, pun intended. And then, um, the last is, and thank you, um, Matt for bringing up the Colorado River Compact and and the work that's being done there, um, 2026, they're going to be updating the current interim guidance. Um, I want us to remember that, um, our friends Utah is a part of our our team. So, um, and and unfortunately they have not always been the best players. Um, and I also just have a little bit of concern around us not have us as a council and a community not having a real conversation around that Colorado River compact. Again, I know that that is not the design or process, but one of the things that I've learned in the three of the five months that I've been in this program is that um our current um decision-making process for water um is not the most inclusive, shall we say, or representative of all the communities

[69:01] that are being served. And so, um I it is my understanding that Northern Water really takes the lead on that negotiation. But I'm hopeful that there is an opportunity and mechanism for the council and the community to be involved in that conversation. Uh given that the 30 tribes that had treaty rights uh to the Colorado River were not at that 1922 negotiation um and are still waiting for rights, senior rights that they're owed. Um, and then lastly, I was curious if there are already conversations about water embedded in the um, BBCP process or if that's something that is going to be coming. I've been I've gone to several sessions and I don't recall anything specific to water. Thank you. I I think there will be uh an identification of policy topics from our planning staff that will be coming to council and I think some aspects of water are embedded in that if I'm not

[70:01] mistaken. Um I I was not taking good notes of of the rest of those questions. Some of them might be followup items, but >> yeah, they're not I don't need I was just giving my response. I don't need a response at this moment. I know we are time sensitive and I see lots of hands. Thank you, Joe. >> Thank you, Council Member Adams. Next, we have Council Member Shuhard, Marquis, and Wallik. >> Okay, no more no more questions about the supply uh system. So, just wanted to say yes, I support development of a integrated water supply plan that will give us more tools. Uh I think this is one of the most basic and important inputs for life and there are questions about its future. So we should definitely um invest in it. And if I could offer just I've got like four themes that I I'd like to just put out that I think are going to be especially important. One is is looking at data centers. This is a huge area of possible new demand and we don't evidently have

[71:02] guard rails for that. Um so that's one. Another one is this um you know there was a a principle I think uh that I heard earlier about that you know we expect probabilistically for more efficient compact land use and housing to lend to water efficiency but it seems like we don't really have good downscale like ability to do downscale analysis and see that in detail. So I think that would be something we'd hopefully develop more of. Um the third one is some kind of ability to toggle between looking at Boulder in terms of our you know like our our legal allocation but then also the wider the wider system. I really appreciate reading and learning about how we have a a collaborative approach to to advancing waters and maintaining and supporting water stewardship across the whole watershed and the region as a whole. Um and I'm really interested in a in a an analytical approach that supports in

[72:01] continued and greater collaboration um and you know that could lead to like policy policy type um dialogue and also I'm thinking about the Dr. COG housing um assessment and that whole area of work. Ideally that would be there would be some alignment with that. Um and then the fourth and final thing is um to ideally have a have a tool or an assessment that would consider how we will in the future stay best surprised of our emerging scientific understanding of what is going on in our water cycle. um lot obviously is is changing and it's evident that we we're going to perhaps seem to be more self-sufficient relative to federal science than we have been in the past. Um and ideally something like that would help to provide recommendations for when and how to prompt future councils or future executive um parts of of the organization when when things come up. Um that's it. Thank you.

[73:00] >> Thank you, Council Member Shuhard. Next we have council member Marquis Wallik and Spear. >> Yeah, thanks. I'm uh supportive of developing uh this integrated plan. And some of the things that I'd be interested in in learning about as this progresses are really just the trade-offs with each step of the way and understanding um you know how to express that to the community in a way that's quantitative as well as qualitative um so that we can kind of size those impacts and say well this would be a really big tradeoff because I think your water bill is going to go up by this amount or we're going to have to limit housing to support agg and it will it will look like whatever amount Um, and the other thing with the data centers, I just um hope that we're tracking some legislation, a couple pieces of legislation were uh looked at somewhere, tax incentives to in um to bring data to centers to Colorado and just seeing how we can get alignment with um wherever it is we land and especially once we've sized the data

[74:00] data center utilization compared to other uses in the city. Um there are lots of different uses for water and whether that is in fact um a key uh driver which is is great and obviously we're joining we want to be a chips uh eligible and and that might um have some data center impacts as well. So um but I'm really looking forward to it and um echo uh council member Fert's um need for flexibility so that we can continue to look at a range of options. Thanks. Thank you, Council Member Marquis. Next, we have Council Member Wallik, Spear, and Benjamin. >> Um, I'm going to do this very briefly. Two questions were asked in the chat. My answer to both is yes. Um, with the caveat that I I'm very interested in the analytical process that uh, Council Member Shuhart is is recommending with respect to data centers. I think that's an important thing for us to look at. Um

[75:00] but otherwise um my answer is yes absolutely. Thank you. >> Thank you Council Member Wallik. Thanks for keeping it short and we also have Council Member Spear and Ben >> and can also be short. Um yes to uh the second question. Um and I just want to echo what I've been hearing about um flexibility. I think uh uh making things as adaptive as possible, especially if the scenarios start heading um in different ways than than we might expect uh in the coming decades. Um having adaptability is going to be great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Spear. Council member Benjamin. Um I'll keep it simple. Yes. And yes. Um it's pretty straightforward. Um everyone gave great reasons uh ahead of it. So that's the advantage of putting your hand up uh towards the end. >> Thank you, Council Member Benjamin. Council member Winer

[76:00] and yes and yes. >> Perfect. Thank you. All right, just running a little bit behind. 10 minutes or so. Um, next up on our discussion, we have the update to council on the 2024 2025 council work pant land priority project related to wildfire hardening and water wise landscaping. Nuria, I'll let you um take it from here. >> Thanks so much. Uh, and again, I will keep it brief and I'm going to send it to our director of planning and development services, Brad Mueller, to kick us off. Thanks, >> Brad. >> Yes, thank you, Nuria. And good evening, council members. Uh, appreciate the chance to speak with you about this. We are super excited to continue to move forward with the water wise and wildfire hardening priority project following the discussions that that you as you know started last December. Uh one thing to

[77:01] remind all of us is that landscaping wildfire mitigation are particularly challenging topics because they represent competing values and priorities that really all of us can relate to. for example, providing energy saving tree shade, but also the desire to limit water consumption and limit wildfire fuel. So, the difficulty of balancing competing values uh somewhat explains the reason that we've not seen a landscaping code uh update in over 20 years. So the work that we're going to present this evening really represents a number of things including a strengthened cross-dep departmental coordination and even as this project is completed this fall we know that the city will want to iterate and build on all of this work regularly in the years to come and we will monitor and adjust what works and what can be done better. So uh continuing a legacy but also recognizing we're just getting started in some respects too. So, with all that, I'm

[78:00] going to turn it over to Lisa Hood, the principal planner and uh lead on this project. So, take it away, Lisa. >> Thank you, Brad. Good evening, council members. Like Brad said, my name is Lisa Hood. I'm a principal planner with Planning and Development Services. I'm joined tonight by Carl Ger. The way we are going to do this presentation is I'll provide an update on the wild wildfire hardening part um or wildfire hardening topic and then Carl will go into more detail on the water wise landscaping. As you know the work program priority project was really two different topics. So we're going to split the presentation into those two different topics starting with wildfire hardening. And I'm really just going to provide an update on what happened recently, which was that council adopted the 2024 International Wildland Urban Interface or WOOI code with local amendments. You might remember just a few months ago. Um we had discussions about that. Council

[79:00] passed the new code and then also um updated the map of the WOOI. The new code actually goes into effect on August 1st. So that's tomorrow. Uh you'll remember that the WOOI map was a significant point of discussion and increased from about 4,000 parcels to 16,000 parcels um in designated as WOI in our city. Some of the highlights you'll remember discussing um that are in those local amendments and the the international WOI code are um regulations related to fences, the non-combustible zone which is the the area between zero and five feet from a structure. We talked about low flammability landscaping and also decks. Really the um focus was on the site specific changes and a lot of updates related to ember cast and ember modeling knowledge that um we had gained in the last few years. Um, as far as implementation, since

[80:00] council adopted the code, um, the code will apply to building permits for new construction and exterior modifications. Um, in order to implement the code that goes into tomorrow, we've developed a new web page on the city's website that links to the code language. We have a searchable map that folks can put in their address and see it whether or not they're in the WOOI. Um we have a number of frequently asked questions that are answered there as well as links to the many other great city resources we have related to wildfire hardening. We've also updated our customer self-service pro portal which is our application software um and with that integrated with the mapping in order to alert applicants that they are in the WOI and we'll have those additional regulations apply. We did not actually have that before. Um, and then as far as implementation, we'll be implementing the new code with our existing staff members, our building permit reviewers. We'll be reviewing all of these building permits for compliance with the new, excuse me, regulations,

[81:01] and our planning case managers will be alerting and informing all of our applicants if they are in the WOOI. And then an update. Um when we talked with you all for the public hearing and meetings related to the code and the map, we talked about a number of topics and promised to come back to you at this study session with more research done. Um so the first is related to vegetation in the non-combustible zone. You might remember that we had a conversation about whether there could be some exceptions to um the the plants that could be planted in the non-combustible zone. Again, the zero to five feet from a structure. We talked with the Insurance Institute for Building and Housing Safety um about this requirement and a number of other experts um who did continue to recommend no no exceptions, no vegetation in that non-combustible zone in order to really strengthen the wildfire hardening of that structure. And so staff is continuing to recommend um the code as it was adopted just in

[82:02] the last few months with no exceptions in the non-combustible zone. Secondly, there was a question about or we talked a lot about the state wildfire resiliency code. You might remember that the state was also finalizing their wildfire resiliency code at the same time that we were adopting ours. That has now been finalized. The code and the rules have been posted um officially. And one of the big changes to be aware of is that the original bill um would have required communities to come into compliance with the state code within 3 months, which would be I think by September or October of this year. But the updated rules give an an entire year for cities to um ensure compliance. And so actually next year we'll have to submit to the wildfire resiliency code board our code to ensure that it's in compliance with the state. So we have a bit more time to just make sure that we've ironed out all the details and if there are any tweaks that need to be made in order to comply with the state code, we'll be able to make those.

[83:00] Thirdly, Carl will talk quite a bit more about this, but um the you'll remember that the code that was adopted referenced a forest service plant list, which is pretty limited. There's been a lot of work done on a Boulder specific plant list. And so one of the changes that we'd be looking at making, which Carl will explain, um is to update that reference to note the Boulders plant list is what applies rather than the states. And then the final update um is really just the land use code. Um there was both a building code aspect and a land use code aspect to the wildfire hardening project. And so in the the water wise landscaping update, you'll also see some alignment in the land use code where the the land use code requirements would align with the building code requirements that you've already adopted. Um, in addition to that, there have been some, as we've had conversations, previous study sessions about this topic. Um, council has directed staff to

[84:01] do some additional research on future efforts as part of future projects. In December, there was a study session, our initial study session to scope the project had some straw polls where council expressed a desire for staff to research the potential applicability of the WOOI code regulations. um not just at the time when a building permit is pulled, but also at the time when a property is either sold or a rental license is pulled. Um that straw poll passed and so we have done that research and we're and I'll explain that um just in a few few seconds. Um the straw poll related to just applying retroactive requirements failed at that time. So we haven't put as much um time into research into that although it is a topic that has come up several times. So, we've you'll remember that we've talked about it many times as well for related to the property sale and rental license question. We researched other communities that do it. Um, our city attorney's office researched the legal implications and then our we've also

[85:00] estimated the resourcing requirements that would be um that would come in with those type of changes as well as how many properties we've estimate could come into compliance if we made those changes. again future project. Um but the related to rental licenses, if we were to apply um or require um applicants for rental licenses to come into compliance with the WOOI code regulations, we think that based on the number of properties in the WOOI um approximately 700 or between 700 and 800 properties um would be reviewed each year for compliance with the WOOI code. We think because we have an existing rental license program that would t but it would still take about three and a half full-time employees in order to implement that program. Um on the other side with property sales um we would estimate based on obviously this is variable each year but based on an average of the last 5 years of how many property sales there have been

[86:00] there'd be about 500 properties a year that we'd be able to review um for compliance um uh with that Louisie code. However, property sales is not something we have an existing program for. It's not something the city's actually involved in when the property is sold. And so, it's a lot more complex to kind of build a city's role into that. Um, so we have and it's a number of different departments that would need to be involved. So, we have estimated about six and a half full-time employees to be able to implement that program plus just allocating existing staff's time temporarily to develop those new processes and operations. So, that's kind of the summary of those questions that you asked back in December um related to rental licenses and property sales. We've also over um over the many meetings. Um we've had a lot of other great potential future projects have been raised by council. I think this has really the focus has been on regulations, but it's spurred a greater conversation of additional projects that could be done. Um, so some of the things

[87:01] just to highlight that have been brought up throughout this spring are expanding the city's curbside assessment programs, perhaps requiring detailed home assessments for those that are identified as high risk, which could then push into requiring mitigation and also enforcement. as well as on the flip side focusing more on the incentive programs and funding mechanisms and um really other ways to tackle the properties that might not be seeking a rental license, might not be getting might not be sold or um might not be getting a building permit at any time. How do we voluntar get people to voluntarily update their properties um to uh be more wildfire hardened? So looking into more incentive programs and funding mechanisms. We do have the detailed home assessment program and our wildfire resilience assistance program grants which are great so far, but how could we further that work? So that's really the update. Um we Oh, just one final slide just to remind you. You've

[88:01] seen this slide every time I've talked about wildfire, but just all of the key elements of wildfire mitigation and all of the work that's being done throughout the city departments every single day. This project, the priority project, was really focused on the regulatory side. So, we've adopted the international violent urban interface code. We have an updated building code that will go into effect tomorrow. Carl will explain how the land use code will align with the building code. But there is so much other great work that's being done with the education and incentives. I mentioned our grant program, the detailed home assessments, and just the day-to-day programs and operations and the plans and policies that guide all of this wildfire resilience work. Um it truly is amazing the amount of work that is being done at the city to try to mitigate the um the real risk of of wildfire to our community. So with that, that's the update on wildfire hardening and I'll pass it to Carl to talk through water wise landscaping. >> Thank you, Lisa. Lisa, good evening council. My name is Carl Ger. I'm with planning and development services. I'm

[89:00] just going to give an update on the water wise landscaping project since it's going handinand with wildfire hardening. Uh, I'll start off with the project purpose, which we've shown you before, but as as Brad had noted, we haven't updated our our landscaping code in over 20 years. Um, there's a lot of new things that are, you know, coming to the forefront that we should recognize related to water and wildfire that we should take into consideration with our regulations. So, that's why we're working on uh this particular project. One thing we have to take into account are the the Senate and House bills that have passed in the last uh year or so um related to landscaping. Uh last time we talked to council um Senate Bill 24005 uh had passed which prohibits certain landscaping practices in support of water conservation goals basically prohibiting nonfunctional turf which is your traditional Kentucky blue grass that's just getting irrigated and mowed. it doesn't have much use other than you know maybe aesthetics and greenery. Um

[90:01] and it would basically the way the state bills uh notes is that it wouldn't be allowed in new development uh in street rights of way, parking lots, medians, corridors, commercial properties, industrial properties, institutional properties including uh government entities. Uh also includes common interest communities like uh HOA common space. Um so again this relates to to non-functional turf uh artificial turf and in invasive plant species. There's a Senate bill that actually I'm sorry, a House bill that was passed uh just recently, I think it was in May, that in that expanded the scope of of last year's bill to include multi-unit development. So, it basically says that in any projects that's new development in the future, if it's greater than 12 dwelling units, uh non-functional turf would be uh not permitted in those developments uh in the future. Um, one thing I I'd like to to clarify since there were some hotline questions about the artificial turf is that the latest

[91:01] House bill has uh made it clear that there isn't an outright prohibition on artificial turf. It does permit uh functional artificial turf if it's used for sports fields that are regularly used uh for sports. So, I just wanted to make that clear. So, as far as the schedule, we're we're approaching quarter three and that we're getting near the point where we want to, you know, start finalizing some of the documentation, get uh council uh check uh some opinions on the options uh before we refine those documents and bring those through the adoption process uh in the fall. So, we're we're approaching that um coming up in the in the next month or so. just a snapshot that we talked about last time. Uh as far as landscaping is concerned, uh we have one landscape architect who's um tasked with a number of uh things related to landscaping, reviewing building permits, any kind of land use review applications. Um you can see that there's a high

[92:00] quantity of permits and planning permits that uh this individual has to look at. There's tons of inspections that happen um o during the the the growing season. Um, so we this is already a position that has a lot on their plate. So we have to take that into into account as we move forward with this project. When we talked to council in December, you'll recall that we had hired uh Martin and Wood as a consultant uh that has provided some best practices uh for us to consider as we update our code. Um so that those recommendations are found in attachment D. We're not going to go into all the details of that document since we talked about it last time, but we'll touch on those as as we've done some work uh in the last few months uh in that direction. Council might recall that we brought up a number of different best practice uh considerations when we uh talked in December of last year. Um, basically council was supportive of staff's um, moving forward with a number of things

[93:00] related to updating our code related to non-functional turf, the the prohibition that's in the state laws. Uh, trying to have more fire-wise standards like working on a tree and plant list uh, that would have more low flammability plants. Uh, looking into soil amendment and mulch standards uh, which we have small standards in our code now, but this would, you know, greatly expand that. also looking at watering schedules and restrictions. Um those were the ones that council were the most uh supportive of moving forward. Uh we got uh basically a maybe on temporary irrigation and landscaping water efficiency standards. That's what's shown uh in orange. And then uh we were not directed to move forward with any kind of professional training or certification. This other um table here just shows that um you can see the scope of the the Senate bill. Uh previously in blue uh related uh to commercial and industrial institutional properties has greatly expanded with the passage of the of the

[94:01] house bill that passed this year since it relates to multif family uh residential. Now, what we when we talked to council about this at the study session, council was had directed staff to move forward with just um prohibiting turf in our land use code on multi-unit developments anyway. So, we were already ahead of that. So, as far as our approach, I'm just going to dive into like what we've been working on and we wanted to get feedback from uh council tonight on this approach. So firstly um the original intent of landscaping codes uh has largely been to ensure quality aesthetics in development to soften the impact of development with greenery texture and color. Uh but there are some contemporary considerations that aren't really recognized in our landscaping code. So there's a greater emphasis on water supply and efficiency obviously with with climate change. Um there's a lot more attention of the urban heat island effect. uh council may be familiar with cool boulder goals which talk about, you know, having

[95:01] connected systems uh of of plant life and and expanding tree canopy to lower temperatures and mitigate that urban heat island effect. But also, you know, forefront on our minds is the wildfire threat. So, that's another thing that we have to take uh into consideration. And so, as we noted in the memo, um we have a lot of policy guidance on this through the SERS framework, the citywide strategic plan, um the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan as it's adopted today, um and the water efficiency plan and the community wildfire protection plan. So, as far as best practices, uh, what the Martin and Wood document talked about and where we're headed, um, is looking at soil and mulch specifications, new turf plant and tree specifications, standards related to wildfire resistance, more water conservation and efficiency standards, more irrigation standards, uh, and more emphasis on inspection and storm water detention. Uh so this has involved a lot

[96:00] of coordination between departments in the city. Um fire and rescue, climate initiatives, urban forestry, utilities, uh OSMP, parks and wreck and PNDS have been working together over the last few months on this uh with with weekly meetings uh to to to have alignment. Uh we've also been working with Martin and Wood as well as a consultant uh named Amy Jarger who works with the um butterfly pavilion who's been helping us with the development of the tree and plant list which I'll talk about. So starting with that list, uh this would be a city-wide list that would be used by the city and property owners. Its intent is to balance those um big goals of conserving water as well as encouraging more lowflammability plants. Um this would be a list that would be used by everyone. It would uh move in the direction of getting rid of all these independent lists that are competing. Um and it would be adopted by city manager rule rather than ordinance. Uh we would put something in our

[97:01] ordinance that we bring back to council that would uh specify this. So basically that allows this list to be more adaptable rather than it being you know like an ordinance where we might not update it for 5 10 15 years or more. Um this could be you know adopted more on an annual basis or bianual basis. Um it would allow more adaptability with changing needs, methods and technologies. Uh so we've we've included that tree and plant list for city council to review uh in attachment A. Uh many communities have been using landscaping manuals rather than putting all their technical details in their land use codes. Uh so we've been looking at some other manuals like Aspens, Boseman, Colorado Springs, uh Martin and Wood has been giving us some suggestions. We've been drawing from those and developing our own landscape manual. Um so this is something again that would be adopted by city manager rule similar as the tree and plan. So it would be more adaptable and putting those technical standards outside of our

[98:00] code into a manual that is regulatory. Uh so the draft is like you know obviously very much in draft form at this point. we've included that in attachment B for the council to review. So obviously to move forward with these changes, we'd have to bring forward a draft ordinance. Um we have to, you know, we haven't made any updates since 2003. Um at the guidance of of council, we would be complying with the state bills that I spoke of. Uh it would focus more on process application standards, basic requirements, and it would also shift a lot of the technical requirements to the the manual. Um, we have been looking at an overlay district, um, which is something similar to like flood zones. Uh, we've been kind of moving away from that. We'd like to get some input from council, but we've been moving away from it in the sense that it it'd be better to have it all in the manual as a one-stop shop rather than having multiple places referring to the regulations. So, we're thinking that that manual would serve as that one-stop

[99:00] shop. Uh, so we've included uh our current draft in attachment C for council review. So, some of the topics of interest that we brought up that we'd like to hear back from council tonight are obviously with us moving forward with much more stringent standards, more expansive, more complex requirements. Um, and we have to look at a number of things like what are the thresholds and triggers for compliance. Are we going to require this of every detached dwelling unit property? Is it going to be required more wholesale? Um, and if if it it is um we have to look at, you know, do we require licensed landscape architects to prepare the plans. Um, some communities do this, not all. Um, but obviously with more stringent standards, there may be a need for more professional assistance. Uh, if we're doing soil amendment standards, things of that nature, it does raise some some cost and equity concerns that that we've been looking at and what that means for residents. You know, is that going to increase financial burden on residents? So that's something we want to hear back from

[100:00] council on. Uh we also have some implementation challenges with this project. Um with these u many new requirements that would be in the manual. Um we we've talked about the the struggles of having enough staff to do more complex reviews to do more enforcement and to have more administration of of maybe new processes. So this is a key issue that we've raised for council to for uh to hear back from tonight. We've included some analysis in attachment E that talks about the additional staffing that uh we we anticipate would be needed to to implement this project in full. Um so some options might be phased implementation. Um if we're adopting, you know, the the manual by city manager rule. Maybe it's a more condensed, simpler version of the manual that gets expanded commensurate with uh our ability to hire more staff. Uh maybe it's pausing the project. Maybe it's just doing code changes to just, you know, implement the state bills. These are things we want to hear back from,

[101:01] uh, city council on tonight. So, um, we have gotten some input on on this broadly through the water efficiency plan. Uh, we have been sending out updates, um, on the web and in in the newsletter. We do have these documents posted online now, so we do want to make the community aware that, uh, they should be going to be heardboulder.org or um and and just looking at those documents and providing feedback on those. It's it's open now, so we we do want to hear from folks on these these particular considerations. We've set up some meetings with design professionals and plant specialists, landscape contractors, and we want to get the word out to to property owners to look at these public um documents and and get some comments back. Uh ultimately we'd be bringing these documents back like a a final draft of the ordinance uh with to planning board and water resources uh advisory board uh in the fall and have some office hours to discuss those. So once we hear back

[102:00] from council, we'll refine those draft documents. Uh we'll continue with the community engagement. Our tenative schedule is planning board on September 2nd, water resources advisory board on September 15th. Uh and city council is tenatively scheduled for October 16th. Um obviously a big part of this project is is is education. You know, it can all be regulatory. So we are in the process of developing a guide that will go out to the public eventually um for them to know what how to plant, how to deal with um wildfire on their properties. And education is going to be an ongoing consideration as we move forward with this project. So these are the questions that we've posed for council this evening. Um, I can pull up this slide or we can drop these questions in the chat. Uh, whatever works best. But that, uh, concludes the presentation. Happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you, Lisa, and thank you, Carl, for those fantastic presentations.

[103:01] Um, thanks for posting those questions in the chat. Does Let's start off with council questions. I see council member Winer. >> So aside from yes, I support that overlay, etc. I just have one question. I just we had this one letter that we got into our council email that was very impactful to me. And um the guy the person said that their next door neighbor even though he said to them, you know, you keep planting um what are those? I just had a name. Black Lauren >> juniper. >> Junipers. He knows me so well. You keep planting junipers and he said they're dangerous. They're bad. And the guy and the neighbor said I don't care. So I guess the question that I have is it to me in some ways even though not it's similar to telling people to stop speeding.

[104:01] Once we got those cameras up I can tell you how slow I drive right now. So unless there is you a for there there hope you know educating isn't always sometimes interesting to people they either don't feel like it they don't want to they don't believe you whatever the case is is I I'm hoping that we could think outside of the box and I we all think you know three FTEEs is too much etc etc but I I still think this just doesn't answer my question about what are we going to do even though we'll have a list with the outliers who don't care when embers just fly so far. That might this might have nothing to do with the presentation at all, but it's been weighing on me since I read that letter. >> Well, you you bring up a key consideration that's obviously forefront in our minds that, you know, this is an important uh project that relates to, you know, property and life safety. So

[105:01] um we have to look at it through a variety of lenses and I think in prior presentations we've showed that graphic that shows how many angles we have to be looking at this particular issue and and it through part of it is regulatory uh part of it is enforcement part of it is education and I think we just we're we're still trying to figure out you know how to best move forward in balancing those items >> because we do get a person can get a few thousand dollars in Am I correct? If they cut down some of the trees, >> yeah, we have our wildfire resilience assistance program grant that can fund some of those property improvements to garden homes. >> Is that it, Council Member Winer? Thank you for those questions. Next, we have Council Member Wallik, Council Member Mark, and Council Member Shuhard. Uh, Carl, my my first question I I think

[106:02] I may have missed something. Um, are you proposing a uh a system whereby we designate defective properties as read and compel them to remediate? Did I have that right or or did I miss it? >> Uh, we are not proposing that to my knowledge. I don't know if there's others that might be aware of that, but >> I wouldn't mind it, but I I I just wasn't sure. Um uh I am very much in favor of doing whatever it is we can do um to address these these conditions um particularly with respect to plantings and and junipers um and anything that can be done. Um would we have the authority with respect to junipers uh to pass an ordinance that says um you must create um x feet of defensible space around

[107:00] each of your junipers? And would we have the authority to say as of June 1 um uh 2026, you can no longer have wood mulch around your junipers? Um and would we have the authority to say as of June 2026, you may not permit your junipers to touch the structure of your house? Are those within our um police powers? I think I might defer to the city attorney on that on that question. >> City attorney, >> council member Wallik, those are good questions and questions I haven't yet researched, but I'm happy to look into it and get back to you. >> Okay, good. >> Can I just call on that real quick? >> Thanks. I think well just one of the things um because I think we did talk about retroactive measures at a previous council meeting and I just want to make

[108:01] sure that we're not um relitigating something without uh sufficient council um approval of that. >> No, I'm I'm actually asking whether this is something we can do on a prospective basis. We're not asking anybody to rip out their their junipers. Uh we're simply saying as a matter of our authority, do we have the authority to say um you can have your junipers if you want, but you cannot surround it with wood mulch and you cannot let your building. I don't think that's retroactive. I will I will await the city attorney's definitive statement on that, but you know, as I thought about it, I did not see it being retroactive. >> Can I call aqu on the retroactive aspect? No, of course. >> Well, just just I think for recollection, part of why the retroactive was why a majority council didn't support that was because of the amount of work we already had in front of us with wildfire protection plan, the

[109:01] WOOI code update and this stuff. And so it was more of it we we didn't have the space to add that on to staff capacity if I recall. Um and so we've now accomplished almost all of those things or in the midst of finishing them off. And so one could consider that now that those are off our plate, one could could then consider that. So it's not less relitigating of new evidence other than the reason why was because we had so much on our plate which now we have accomplished most or all of those pieces with the exception of a little bit of this wildfire hardening that's left. >> I see our city attorney Teresa Tate's hand up. >> Yeah. So respectfully um I I disagree. there was a straw poll in which um you all were asked whether you would want retroactivity included in this. You said no. Um and so I think to revisit is to relitigate at this point. >> Okay. You are the city attorney, but I would I would disagree. This is to me

[110:00] not this is prospective, not retroactive. Uh we're not asking people to get rid of their plantings. I mean, you know, if you're suggesting we have no authority to address the problem of junipers in any way other than to say please, um, I guess my attitude is that's that that's not a position I would want us to take. I'd like to step in and just make a suggestion that we do have a method in our um handbook for how we deal with whether or not this is something that we want to step back and you could always um make a request to CAC and we could schedule that under matters to um determine if that is something we want to re um look at in more detail. >> I did a hotline. Sorry for that. But I did put something out similar in hotline. So if there's a different protocol to address that, I'm happy to happy to figure out what that is. um whether it's here or at a official meeting next week, but I think there's space. We got to figure out how to address that. So, appreciate you bringing that up.

[111:01] >> All right, that those are my questions. >> Thank you, Council Member Wallik. Next, we have Council Member Marquis and then Council Member Shuhard. >> Yeah. So, my first question, which I apologize for, um, is the the five- foot barrier of no planting, is that for the whole city? >> No, that's just for the properties that are within the WOOI, >> right? So, it's in the red and the yellow. >> Um, all all three classes within the WOOI would have the non-combustible zone. >> Okay. And then, but the landscaping, we're thinking the whole city. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. And is that was that a council decision or is that a staff recommendation? >> Um well, this is how the the two projects get kind of confused because they're put together. So, the water wise landscaping is a city-wide update to the land use code related to landscaping trying to improve water conservation.

[112:01] Wildfire um the wildfire hardening project is specific to the WOOI area. The overlap or the tie between them is that plants are involved as a topic in both of them. Um, but they are two separate topics. So there's WOI area and then citywide water wise landscaping. >> Okay. I I I mean I guess this is a comment, but I would I think for the community it might be difficult to differentiate flammable plants from flammable protection. And so consistency on the overlay might be helpful. So I have some concern around that. Um, but that's a comment so I apologize. Um, the other piece is have you all talked about, so for instance, if there are weeds growing in the five- foot perimeter of a house, can a neighbor call the city and and say there's vegetation? And I know that's under the enforcement, but you know what? What we have a enforcement is difficult. We've

[113:01] seen that with our ordinances on the hill, the noise ordinances. what are we sort of anticipating um in terms of calls about vegetation within five feet? >> Yeah, that's a great question. So, um yeah, it would be an enforcement issue. Um and the international WOI code that you all adopted a couple months ago does have some general like property maintenance requirements that can be enforced that we haven't had before. And so, we don't have a perfect expectation of exactly how that is going to go. Um and so but folks would be able to um enforce conditions that like property maintenance conditions that are not compliant with the WOI code and presumably that would only be for properties that are subject to the changes. So if you hadn't the the neighbor may not know that that house can have vegetation within five feet because it didn't have a development or a remodel within since the adoption.

[114:00] Correct. >> Yeah. I I might point to the fire department to um uh if I'm saying anything incorrectly, but I think part of the international woo code, there is some nuance in existing conditions or existing properties outside of a building permit process would still have to comply with some level of site maintenance um requirements. There's one part of the code that talks about that. For the most part, the code is related only to building permits. And I see Dave Lowry turned his camera on, so I think he's going to correct me. Oh, no, I'm not going to correct you. Um, uh, no, you're absolutely right. I think it's just a a good time to remember that, you know, the woo code does only apply to new construction. So, the five foot non-combustible zone would only be on new houses being built. Any existing house wouldn't have to comply with that 5- foot non-combustible zone. Um, so they already are going to have plants and trees and shrubs and stuff already in there that is is not a retroactive

[115:00] requirement under the the adopted WOOI code. >> Okay. Um, thank you. And and then another question is we we do talk a lot about juniper trees, but we've also heard a lot about really dry fencing or um well roofing is not as big of a deal, but other conveyors of fire. Is is is there a portion of this ordinance that kind of elevates the top um the top fire risks and considers uh stronger enforcement through stronger incentives just in the red zone of the the higher highest hazard? Is there any benefit to something like that? Well, the WOOI code is is the WOOI code has more stringent requirements in quote the red zone, right? Under building hardening, it does. Then the orange is next and then the yellow is the least, but we have the landscaping within what

[116:00] we adopted in the WOOI applies to all three ignition resistant zones. Um, so it's the same across, right? It's the vegetation that if it starts burning um the the home hardening, we we want to eliminate the vegetation from starting burning. Um because if there's all the vegetation is burning, the house is going to burn. Harden it all you want, but it's going to happen. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm all set. >> Thank you, Council Member Marquis. Next, we have Council Member Wallock. Council member Shuard and Mayor Brockett. >> No, we don't have me. I've already spoken. Thank you. >> Sorry, just saw your hand up. Okay. Council member Shuhard, Mayor Brockett, Council Member Benjamin. >> I just have a few questions about the 0 to 5 foot uh defensible zone. And thank you, Tina, for um covering some of this ground for me. Um so this only applies to new to new buildings. Can um Lisa,

[117:03] can you talk about um the balcony? Like what can go on a balcony or a porch? Can you have potted plants or Yeah. potted vegetation in with like within a balcony or none at all or how to think about that? >> The I'll see if Dave Lowry has anything to add also. But um my understanding is it's it's pretty strict that no combustible within the um five zero to five feet of any part of the structure. I think Dave, are there specific exemptions for like decks and appendages? I don't think so. Or projections. >> There's not a specific exemption for like a deck or a balcony to have a potted plant, but it but again think we're getting into that area where that's not technically addressed as landscaping, right? that's more a decorative bo a decorative pot, a decorative flower, uh items like that.

[118:01] Um, so it, you know, the wooi code wasn't intended to kind of address what what uh a potted plant on a balcony, right? It's it's intended to address the uh landscaping around the home. Um, so it's, you know, I mean, we we've been asked this before. We don't we didn't have a great answer before. or I don't think we have a great answer now because it's just not really the intent of the WOOI to regulate a potted plant on a balcony. If I can add to Hi, uh this is Brad Miller, director of planning and development services. This gets down a little bit into some of the nuance that we've tried to to share and represent and and which gets difficult though to summarize. as a practical matter. For example, we generally have no legal ability to look in somebody's backyard, let's say, where there's a deck. Um, and so then you get into the questions of, well, what if

[119:00] somebody reports it? Well, that gets into the whole question of, well, when was it there and why was it part of new construction or not? So, you know, we we understand and appreciate the the the nuance of the questions and and we we want to be as uh transparent in providing answers as we can. But this does enter into a different level of enforcement that uh goes beyond uh what traditionally has has been done either related to new permits or to common nuisances that um that are visible from the street and things like that. So not to introduce a whole different line of discussion, but just to maybe frame um Dave's comments a little bit as well. Thanks. >> Okay. Thank you. So maybe just to play back what I'm hearing is if you you have a porch and it's with with a a roof over it or whatever, you there's there's not meant to be a restriction for having potted vegetation. I heard flowers, but like you could have peppers, you could

[120:01] have spinach, I guess. Um and I don't mean to be um I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think this is actually like a pretty big question for people who are living in more space efficient homes. Um if the answer is you can't then I guess the second question would be well what if you like put a screen over it then could you um I mean so perhaps it needs more analysis or not but um I I do think um providing some providing regulatory clarity over whether I can grow spinach in a potted plant in a my porch we will need that. Um, so sorry I'm getting into comments, but I was just trying to clarify the sort of what's behind the question. I can move on unless Brad or anybody wanted to say anything else about that. >> No, I I I don't think you're being difficult. I think it is a question. We've obviously gotten it before. Um, I wish I had a better answer for you. Um, if I were to be very frank about this, I

[121:02] mean, um, we have a lot bigger issues than spinach growing on a balcony to be quite frank with you and upfront about it, right? I mean, what we were talking about earlier with junipers and mulch around the junipers or taking out a juniper, I mean, I'm not worried. I'm not overly concerned about um potted plants regardless of what's growing in them um and and the risk they pose compared to wood fences and the landscaping and items like that that we need to kind of look at >> um before we we try to tell someone they can't have a potted plant on their porch. >> Okay, that makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you. And um yeah, I'm also not worried about it. What I would worry about though is is the potential risk of subjective enforcement, right, of like

[122:00] can I do this, can I not? Who am I? Is that okay? So um okay, so sorry, I'll just go on to the the question, my next question. It's sort of related. Do we so th this uh will apply to new buildings and I'm I'm trying to remember or know if if we have an example of current policym where there's um we're regulating landscaping in which the it it differs based on whether there's new buildings or not. Like do we have this a way to do this now where you could look at the built like we have a rule that applies only to some buildings but not the others for landscaping and then we have a way to kind of like quickly look at that. In our landscaping code we do have a scope section that talks about when requirements apply. Um there's a lot of references in our land use code to new development. So new development might mean a new building uh but it also means an addition. So making it clear that if somebody puts an addition on their house

[123:00] in the WOOI, that addition would have to meet the new requirements related to the the non-combustible zone. Um in our landscaping code now, generally the full requirements of the landscaping code kick in if the valuation of the project is over 25% of the existing structure. Uh but there are some more I would say more loose requirements related to detached dwelling units about how many how much of the requirements actually apply. So that's something that we're we're looking at as part of this project like do we need to change those triggers? Um is it something we want to do in order to implement >> uh the goals of this project? >> It's a it's a key issue that we're we're thinking about. >> Okay. So to reset, I think what I'm hearing is we do have a case now where there are there are landscape there are differing landscape vegetation requirements that apply to different vintages of buildings basically like and

[124:01] we have a way to manage that from like an enforcement standpoint. It's not it's not a mystery like oh is that built you know is that building >> yeah it's clearly outlined in the code >> but is it but my question is is it do we have instances in which different vintages of buildings have different landscaping requirements and then an an enforcement apparatus that allows us to make sense of that in in the in the enforcement. >> I don't think it's actually based on the vintage vintages of buildings. It's based on development work that's occurring on the property. So it's the scale of how much they're building that determines how much they have to comply. Does that help? >> Yeah. But I'm thinking like this is a case where we are now we are we are contemplating a rule that will apply different vegetation standards to build to buildings that are new. So my question is is more have we done this in the past that would suggest that we would have different landscaping requirements based on whether buildings

[125:00] were before or after a past passage of such a regulation. >> Can I make it just since this is something that I've dealt with a little bit before but um you know typically our enforcement right now is at um is through our certificate of occupancy. So making sure that the landscaping conforms with our regulations when the building becomes occupied. We don't do in my to my knowledge a lot of retroactive sort sort of making sure that the landscaping is maintained to to the standard that it was permitted under. And so I think maybe this is more speaking to if we increase that how do we know what standard we are enforcing to? Does that sound right to you, Council Member Shuhard, in terms of kind of >> Take that question. I'll adopt that question. >> That makes sense to me. And I we certainly don't want to move in a

[126:00] direction where we we're applying a lot of confusing different standards, you know, that makes it difficult for our enforcement staff. >> Okay. >> And Mayor Pro Tim, if I can just add to your point, uh, which was very helpful. Thanks. Um when you're citing the example of uh doing that enforcement on landscaping with uh the planning process or with a building permit, that really speaks to uh everything but single family detached where yes, they're building plans, but we don't currently require the submitt of a landscape plan or a detailed landscape plan. So that that gets into that nuance of complexity of implementation and burden that um Carl spoke to of cost and and new regulation. >> Okay. Thanks. I um I think I I'll move on but and be done. But um Lauren, if I had two quick comments, you want those now or later? Um, I think it would be better to have

[127:01] the comments that speak to staff's questions al together at the end. So, later I think >> later. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Shuhard. Next, we have Mayor Brockett, Council Member Benjamin, Council Member Adams. >> Thanks. Appreciate all the work and uh the memo and the presentation were very illuminating. Um, couple quick questions. Um, one was, "So, I appreciated getting the plant list, um, and went through the whole thing and was uh, glad to see that basically all deciduous trees were allowed in that um, 5 to 30 foot zone so that we're not in conflict with our tree canopy goals with this project." That was great to see. My question was, I remained a little bit concerned about if people have to do like a or interested in doing a small addition that would then require them to um, remove or cut down a lot of landscaping. So, have we thought about like a a dimminimous kind of standard like, hey, if you only want to add eight

[128:00] square feet onto your deck, you know, we wouldn't trigger this requirement, you know, going out 30 feet from from the location of the deck. Is that something that we've considered as some kind of threshold like that? >> It's certainly something that we're looking at. uh whether there's a a less stringent requirement for like a smaller project. Maybe it's a a shorter distance. Uh it's something that we're still working out uh in the code change. >> Okay. Well, glad to hear that that's um that's on your mind. And I just want to uh plus one one of Lauren's comments or questions from uh her hotline, which was about uh not seeing any uh food items in the allowed plant list. Um, is is I wonder if you might surface that tonight. Like could could you grow some low flammability uh food items in that 5 to 30 foot area? Is that being considered? >> I might need to defer to some of our um experts who've been reviewing the tree and plant list, but to my knowledge, you know, any kind of ve vegetables that are grown in that zone are typically pretty

[129:01] small and would be allowable u according to to my knowledge, but I don't know if there's anyone else that might want to speak to that. I I can chime in. Um I'm with CL the naturebased solutions team for climate initiatives. I'm Lauren Fel. Um I've been assisting with the plant list and landscape manual. Um to my knowledge and I would need to look through it. Most commonly grown vegetables are high water content plants. Um, we like to eat things that are nice and juicy. Uh, so, uh, I would have to look into it more and get more information on specifics to see if there's any, uh, vegetables that would cause issues, but as far as the low flammability plants go, um, I'd say we're probably pretty safe on in that level on that level. And so, um, I think

[130:02] we've been kind of tossing a little bit back and forth on how we address urban agriculture, both from like raised beds to, you know, your greenhouse, your backyard greenhouse in the landscape code. Um, it's not something we've ironed out yet, but we're we're definitely thinking about it. And thanks for the questions. >> Great. I appreciate that, Lauren. Um, okay. Well, I'll just have a couple quick comments when we get to comments. That's all the questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Brock. Next, we have Council Member Benjamin and Council Member Adams, and then I'll ask a couple questions as well. >> So, I I I appreciate the presentation and progress we've made here. Um, I think I I I I'm kind of with Mark a bit here and and I'll just say in general my my question is a general concern about the the sort of the big blind spot that still persists with these uh existing

[131:01] homes that either aren't triggered by WOOI code um uh updates and maintain a critical life safety hazard and and how we bring them to a place where they're not just protected, but the homes and neighborhoods downwind of them are. I it it strikes me as I don't know. I so I it's it's really concerning that I don't know how we look the community in the face and say we aren't doing that part. Um if there's some procedures that limit us from discussing the things that our community is demanding us we take care of. So anyway, I'm I'm still trying to sort through how we do that. Um but but nonetheless, I I appreciate the great work and how we've gotten this far. Um but but I think there's hopefully as Brad mentioned early on I I hope I mean my question is what are those next steps and I think the only thing is resources if we don't have these other tools at our disposal and so I think so I I don't know I'm kind of stuck with where to take this next um in my question but I think there's there's some great work so

[132:00] I'm I'm kind of stuck with that unfortunately. We certainly acknowledge that concern and I think it does again highlight the the constraints relative to enforcement and you know how to best um write up regulations to that effect of how we would address uh existing problem properties. So that uh as we've been noting in in the presentation, you know, we're this is an iterative process and I think we're going to go into the future and have more phases of landscaping and wildfire mitigation and I think that's something that uh we have to continue to look into. >> I appreciate the call. I mean, you know, you got cities like Berkeley and and and many others who are who are who are just taking those steps. They're just saying, "Hey, we're going to do this and you got a certain amount of time to get it done." uh because the the life safety issue matters more um than than than anything else. So hopefully we can see them as a guiding light to sort of point us in the direction to say, "Hey, here's what they've done and we can model that and make it right for us. We don't have to copy it exactly, but I I there other

[133:02] communities are are facing the same struggle." And I think hopefully hopefully we can see those as opportunities for ourselves. >> No, we appreciate that. >> Thank you, Council Member Benjamin. Next, we have Council Member Adams. Awesome. Thank you. I will say having alth though I understand there was an intersection here. Um I would have appreciated having questions in between because I'm having a hard time just toggling between as people are asking questions. So just for future reference um my questions are more so around the water wise and I was curious how um the water wise program um aligns with the ecosystem work um and the biodiversity work in particular. there was a component that talks about um that includes ecosystem ecosystem um and um having natural habitat um and so it got me thinking about it actually reminded me of Los Angeles's biodiversity index so although I

[134:01] appreciated the list of plants that we can do I also was just curious about what we currently have um and where they are located not just along the WOOI but um throughout our our whole city and particularly on the east side where we know that there's less biodiversity. So again, how do we also recognize and particularly compensate uh potentially those that um are in a location that needs more uh tree canopy, etc., but um they may not have the funds to be able to do that. So I wanted to just u lift that up if there had been any considerations around a biodiversity index that would allow us to uh I could imagine playing multiple roles but certainly in this one I think I'm walking away with a great understanding and excitement around the manual but I have a less of an idea of the um the quality of the habitat in our city and where are the areas that actually are going to need more water um to get more coverage and more biodiversity etc. So,

[135:01] so that's one. Um, two is around lawns versus gardens. And so, um, I appreciated staff's comments around Lauren's comments around people wanting juicy juicy, um, juicy veggies and things, um, and fruits. But I'm also just, you know, really thinking about, you know, water using water for a lawn is not the same and doesn't have the same benefits to our entire community as using water for natural plants. and um and gardens and those kinds of things. And so just curious if there had been any considerations or conversations around just the quality. I know that there's been a lot of conversations around plants and trees and native grasses. Um but I wanted to just lift up the lawn conversation again. Uh and then lastly, um soil testing. There was a conversation in the read or there was a section in the reading about soil testing and I just wanted to hear just a little bit more um about um yeah that that process. Thank you.

[136:01] >> Thank you for the questions. Maybe I'll I'll take a stab at it and then then pass it over maybe to Lauren um to help out. But uh we you know with this project what we've been trying to operate within the scope that you know we've talked about um in December um there's a lot of this you know the biodiversity goals and in like cool boulder goals things climate action type things are are very broad and aren't going to be something that we're going to be able to implement in one ordinance that comes through in the fall of this year. So, I think it's going to be an ongoing discussion about how to do that, but it's not like we've been operating in a way where we're ignoring those things. I I've been coordinating obviously with climate initiatives. Um, and that's something that we've been talking about in our meetings. Um, we're as we work on the manual, that's something that's top of mind, but I think there's going to be future iterations that that address those. Um, I think Lauren might be able to to fill in the blanks on that a little bit more, but I'll just talk about the the turf

[137:01] part uh with your question. The the land use code already limits turf grass at 25% on detached dwelling units. Um, and we're going to probably continue that with with the code changes moving forward, but obviously we're, you know, moving forward with the tree and plant list. that's going to get more, you know, lower water use plants that people would use on their properties and move in that direction. Um, I don't know, maybe this is like I can pass it over to Lauren to expand on that as well. >> Yeah. Um, so Colorado native plants and I the the ones that best support our bio I the biodiversity that we're trying to like achieve the biodiversity goals we're trying to achieve in Colorado to our benefit are some of our lowest water using plants. um which is one of these places where I'm like we talk a lot about like needing to balance goals but in this

[138:02] space if you go with more low water wise plants you're often choosing more native ones um and especially with our biodiversity in mind both plant and fauna in supporting our like non-human neighbors um Amy Jarger's done an amazing job along with Kathleen Alexander and our urban forestry department of keeping an eye on that and making sure plants that encourage and provide habitat for our non-human neighbors are on that list. Um, and are kind of ready and waiting for people to use. Um, Kathleen is also working on making sure our tree canopy, our urban forestries tree canopy, our urban forest is diverse as well. And um in our office um this should be coming up in front of you guys shortly where there's a lot of like uh biodiversity like uh I think the Berlin pact is something

[139:00] that's going to come up in the next couple months of like how are we where we we as a city are joining in with uh the world as a whole um to kind of track and and add to these biodiverse environments. Um yeah, lots of exciting things in this space. Um I do think yeah just to to encourage you to pay attention and be watching. Um I think I got some of them. I think the soil testing is something I missed so far. Um okay. So in the landscape manual we have proposed guidelines for doing soil testing. Um that is so that depending on the soil in your yard um the measures you need to take to uh achieve low water irrigation and choose the right plants that will you will be happy and thrive and therefore not create a lot of dead material that's a fire risk um is dependent on knowing what your soil is like. Um, that's why the soil testing

[140:01] recommendations are in there. Um, so that you have the knowledge you need to make the right choices. Um, so that you can achieve a low water healthy landscape. Um, and a healthy, happy landscape that doesn't have a lot of dry material in it is a firewise one. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Adams. Um, and I have a couple of questions. I wanted to start with one shows slightly different um levels of intensity in different parts of town than we show in our um adopted WOOI map. And I was wondering particularly where it relates to um the state map I believe shows more moderate and high intensity zones along the eastern edge of the city then and our

[141:03] map shows none or low in some of those zones. So how are we coming into a comp what is the plan? Are we going to come into compliance with the state map? How does that work? Yeah, I can start and then it looks like Dave Lowry can supplement. Um, but for the WOI map and the state WOOI map, uh, the state used a different kind of or a different process for mapping because they were looking at a statewide level. Um, and so the rules that they just recently finalized and came out with do talk about how local jurisdictions can do their own mapping and as long as you're following these, you know, um, criteria like how we've used our local conditions to inform our map, we can get that approved through the state. So, it's not necessarily that the map has to align exactly with how the state mapped it, but like I said, they changed the rules um, to allow up to a year for the city to work it out. So, we'll work out

[142:01] um any changes that we might need to make to the map, if any. Um for the most part, it looks like um because we used our own criteria and our own fire rescue knowledge um to develop that map that um ideally we'd be able to just keep the WOOI map that we've already adopted. >> Dave, did I miss anything? >> No, I mean uh we are in compliance. We we we actually exceed what the state map has. If you look at the state map closely, they omit our entire west side. So like Shiakwa is not considered wooi if you look at the state map and we obviously know better than that, right? So the state used like geospatial data uh to do theirs, right? in geospace. You know, some of you guys can probably explain it better, but that's, you know, a really good way to identify features of earth basically, right? Uh, you know, transportation ways, rivers, lakes, mountains, items like that. And it can

[143:01] be used to identify like uh vegetation and thicker vegetation in this area and that area. And that's what the state has used to try to identify a wooi. Um, and that's just not a good way to to do that to be quite honest with you for a community. And so I did ask this question specifically to the uh uh the state uh resiliency board um about how they developed it. And they did say they specifically stopped most of their data of what they could at um like municipal city limits, right? And they want us to develop our own WOOI. Uh which we have obviously you guys are, you know, painfully familiar with what we have done. Um and so if you look at our WOOI map, we have a lot more even on the east side than what the

[144:00] state map has. Uh but if you look at the state map, you're looking at a lot of county property and we don't have the county property shown on our map because it's not our jurisdictional boundary uh in that. So it is does look a little uh deceiving on the east side, but we do have pretty much everything that we think we know needs covering on that. Um uh the state map is not perfect. They do come in. So like if you look like Dakota Ridge is in on the state map, but uh but the rest of the west side typically isn't on the state map. Um, so yeah, we've we're sitting really uh good with our WOOI map compared to the state. Um, it's great in the county. You know, if you're looking at the county, they the spatial data does a great job. >> Thank you. Um my next question is

[145:00] let's see under timeline for approvals. Um would we be requiring landscape plans and sort of soil testing and all of that at the same time that someone submits for a building permit? Um or could we potentially stagger those? I I have concerns. You know, one of the things you discussed was um time, but also, you know, time is money, right? So, like, or sorry, you discussed the cost of doing some of these things, but also I think that the timing of them um can have really, you know, has a significant impact on um applicants as well. I think the way we're developing the the landscape manual, um the soil testing piece would be requirements that a landscape architect or professional would have to or or a property owner would have to figure out before they actually submit their permit. So, if

[146:00] it's a permit that actually does trigger a landscape plan, they it would come in with all the the information um about the soil testing that they've done and demonstrating to the the city that they've they've met those requirements in the manual. So, I think that's something that they they would have to do before they actually submit to the city >> and just because you know this is going to apply to single family homes and you you know or Yeah. and that they tend to have, you know, the the upfront cost is a bigger burden for each new sort of consultant that people are bringing on. Is it possible that we could consider a different way of doing that? because it seems like um you know there's often a year or more delay between when you know a year to 18 months between when people are applying for a building permit and when they are getting to the point of construction where they would be installing the landscape. >> I mean we can certainly consider that

[147:01] and and whether we can create a new process in the short timeline that we have um before the fall. I I mean the the point of the project is to ultimately adopt a manual that's more adaptable. So I think we we would probably need to develop things after you know an ordinance gets adopted and start figuring out the best way and whether there's a new permitting process or a new stage but it's something we'd have to we probably couldn't pull together in in our current timeline. >> Thank you for that. Um, and then I apologize for jumping back into fire, but there was a I appreciate the team looking into the requirements at potentially time of sale or lease. Um, can you remind me for the having those requirements come into

[148:00] effect at time of sale, was that for properties in class one, two, and three WOOI zones or was that just properties in class one and two? >> That was for the entire WOOI. So, all three classes, >> would it have an impact on the number of FTE required or kind of how big a lift it was if that was reduced to just um class one and two properties? Certainly the class 3 takes up a vast majority of the WOOI area. So if we were not to implement that in class three then um yeah that would limit the number of reviews per year and then that would limit the resource needs to accommodate that. >> I appreciate that. Thank you. Um that's it for my questions and with that I think it would be great to move into our comments. So, I see that staff's questions are in the chat. Um, given we have if we could complete this in the next

[149:01] six minutes, we'd be on time with our schedule. Um, just letting you know that I saw Council Member Shuhard's hand flash up for a second, but then come back down. Okay, up again. Ry Ryan, would you like to start us off? >> Sure, I'll go. Um, I just have two two comments. Um, on the um, sorry, hold on. Lost lost my note here. Um, on the Okay, sorry. On the pots on porches matter. Um, so my I I guess a couple a couple of things. Um, I I do think we should specify a rule on this so it's clear. Whatever that rule is, I think we should make that not ambiguous. Um, and I suppose based on what I've heard, the the the um sensible rule would be to say that it's fine to have pots on porches. Maybe that needs to be

[150:00] qualified somehow. But um, you know, I heard um, David Lowry say that potted plants on porches aren't are really not like a major priority of this effort. And as Brad talked about at the beginning and very eloquently, this is just this is an exercise in making a lot of trade-offs between different aspects of quality of life and resilience. And so it seems to me like this is accommodation that we ought to consider making. Um it is assuming there's not a really good scientific or technical reason not to do so. Um so that's my that's my first comment. My second comment is um my head is spinning a little bit from the the the discussion that Mark Wallik kicked off about junipers um and the question of whether it would be considered um doing a retrofit if if the if we had a rule which prohibited the future development of junipers on an existing property. seem to me that in general we do pass ordinances that are

[151:03] for future development on properties which have already been developed and that's not considered retroactive. Maybe landscaping is different or I'm not thinking about it right. But I just I I felt like that conversation, excuse me, that conversation went to um it sounds like you're relitigating, you should submit a future CAC request or something like that. But it just struck me that that actually seemed in the scope of our conversation for today. Um, I could be off, but I just wanted to voice my um what I what I experienced with that. Thanks. >> And I see our city attorney um Teresa Taylor Tate with her hand up. Would >> Yeah, I just want to clarify. So, what Mark asked um is something that I agreed to look into. And I think the first question that I'll be looking into about that is would that constitute a retroactive application or not? Right? that would be sort of the first line of inquiry there. Um and then

[152:01] and then would inform the rest of it. Um to to to the extent that it would constitute a retroactive application, you all have already voted on whether retroactive application was going to apply or not. But I don't I don't I don't know yet. It's something I need to look into. >> Thank you. then I would just offer I don't know how this would work procedurally but it would seem that if it is not retroactive then it would be in scope for tonight's discussion and I don't know if you can come back to it later but I just thought it was an interesting interesting idea and in scope of today and if we don't do it through this proceeding I don't know what when we would so I'd love to get us looking at that um when when and however we can that's all I have thank you >> thank you council member Shuhard next we have council member Marquis Mayor Brockett, Council Member Winer. >> Yeah. Um, thanks for doing all this work and it, um, it's really helpful to understand the direction we're headed. Um, so just to repeat the comment I had

[153:01] from before, I'm a little concerned about having the um, some of the wildfire hardening in the WOOI area, but having some of the wildfire resilient plants in the whole city. So I feel like it might be confusing to the community and I would just want to understand sort of the reason why it would make sense if we're not doing the five feet in the rest of the city which I actually don't support uh because of the conversation we had last time about the ambercast modeling etc. Um the other piece is it I feel like enforcement is going to be really difficult. that's going to be confusing um because people will have to understand that it only applies to homes that have just gone through a remodel or newly built. Um, and ideally I would, and then this is such an optimistic um, ask or comment, but to make it a source of pride that your house and that

[154:01] it's an an elevated kind of state that your dwelling unit or home um, is complies with these regulations. And and I think of the bee gardens that we have and the signs that you get when you put them out front that you've sort of done this thing to help pollinators be welcomed to your community. It's the same source of pride that your house is you've modified your house and made those investments to to help your community better endure a wildfire. So, you know, anything like that. Um, I was inspired by events in um parts of Northern California where they have community gatherings um that talk about wildfire and the neighbors could help each other meet some of those goals and maybe a CU students could um because I'm just so aware of our budget right now. So, you know, thinking about a way that this can also, you know, promote neighbors helping neighbors to reach these goals, especially when it comes to

[155:01] things like dry leaves. And then finally, we do a really good job with some of the co, you know, the composting during cleanups, but every opportunity we have to help people move dry things out of their property without having to do a special trip to the dump would also be incredible. So, um I know it's a little bit idealistic, but I feel like this is a a shared value that um it is a neighbors helping neighbors kind of thing, and I'd love to see something like that, but also realize that's not really a regulatory ask. Thanks. >> Thank you, Council Member Marquis. And now we have Mayor Brackett and then Council Member Winer. Well, just to follow up on my questions, uh, just glad to hear that you're thinking about the, u dimminimus kind of a thought of a a small addition that wouldn't prompt some of these requirements. So, it would encourage you to take that up. Um, so that a tiny change wouldn't require

[156:00] people to remove a lot of their landscaping. Um, recognizing that substantial additions, you know, it's important to make us more um, firewise. And then the other one on the um, urban agriculture, I loved your answer there. about that and so it's great to hear that you're thinking about that. So if we can uh so Warren if we and others if we can think about writing that in you know I think because if if you couldn't have um any plants that you could eat in the 5 to 30 foot range that means that essentially multif family denser housing couldn't have urban urban agriculture whereas like in my neighborhood people do a lot of raised beds that don't seem like a fire danger and provide actual you know veggies for people to eat. So hopefully we can um allow that and think about that as we move to the next phases. And that's all I got. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mayor Brackett. Uh Council Member Winer. >> So I was going over in my head about this whole retroactive thing because I think in our first session we were told and I could be totally wrong. So everybody's allowed to say you were

[157:01] totally wrong. Give you permission that um we weren't to talk about landscaping until today. So in my mind we were going to talk about landscaping junipers in this session and the last one was fire hardening but um and less almost fire harding on buildings. So I guess my question is is a few of us are saying well what about junipers and being told that it's retroactive which I don't remember but I'm not saying you're wrong Teresa. I guess my question is is if that's the case, when can we quote quote relitigate, which I also don't think we did, but can we now decide in our next uh city council uh after the election when we bring up um when we have our new 10 or however many um most important things you want to talk about, are we then allowed to say yes, we want to talk about junipers and

[158:01] um landscape fireart landscape? escaping because to I know we keep bringing this up but to me the person who uh email disturbed me let's say that person had five junipers well if he now adds and this is what Ryan said I think which I really appreciate if he adds another five junipers is that retroactive because he's doing it after this so I know I guess I'm frustrated and it's no one's fault but my own that maybe I wasn't listening carefully last time but I hope if you would tell us what is the next thing that we can do to undo whatever it is that we did last time so that we can talk about junipers and litigate. >> Sure. Happy to address that. So there are there are two ways that that that you could approach this. The first is um under your CAC rules um or your rather excuse me your council procedure rules

[159:00] and those state that if council wishes to reconsider a prior decision, the council member shall request that the CAC schedule a discussion and it shall be considered only after a material change in law or fact. A material change in law or fact means a change that if it had occurred before the prior council decision would have made it unlikely that a majority of council would have supported the prior decision. Here I'm not hearing a material change of law or fact. >> And so instead the next time to take this up would be with a um when the council is setting new council priorities. >> That's it. That's the word I kept forgetting. Council priorities. Great. >> Yes. Okay. So in in particular, so this this council has um has considered this matter. When there's a composition of council that is a new council, you can revisit things that you um maybe have that the prior

[160:02] council has decided already. >> Perfect. >> Can I call on that real quick? Um, you know, there there are there is a potential that it could be the entirely same council. Would we still be able to revisit that? >> You would. You absolutely could because it would still be a new council. Um, you know, the the way I've described it to other colleagues is to think of it as sessions of Congress. And so once an election occurs um it is it is a new council even if it happens to be the same composition. >> Thank you for that clarification. >> Can I add just one point of clarification related to junipers also um I just want to I should have highlighted this in my presentation but in the WOOI code that you adopted just last month um there is a prohibition on new planting of junipers in the WOOI

[161:00] area. So, it's not that we didn't make changes related to junipers. It's that based on the the study session straw poll, we didn't explore the retroactive like requiring people to rip out existing junipers. However, no new junipers can be planted in that defensible space area in the WOOI area based on the code that you already adopted. But no one should be planting more junipers. >> But it's forget it. >> So sorry, just just to be clear, that means for all um properties or or just for new developments >> in the WOOI when there are new developments because the building permits are the trigger. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for those questions. Um,

[162:00] Council Member Winer, Council Member Benjamin, and then Council Member Wallick. >> Appreciate it. Uh, just to quickly stay on that line of inquiry, B junipers are prohibited upon triggering in the new WOOI code on a remodel, pulling a permit for remodel or a scrape and a rebuild. So, I just want to clarify as Ryan said, that's the case with junipers. There is no proactive banning of is is there is there then in what we're proposing here a proactive banning of planting new junipers embedded in this hardening discussion that we've had? >> No, but the Carl can explain that the plant list will say that the junipers junipers would be prohibited in the WOOI area. So that so so yes it would be a proactive ban on planting of junipers. So if this if we when we get to an ordinance we will have two mechanisms that prohibit the planting of new junipers upon the live date of when this

[163:01] ordinance when it happens 30 days after goes into effect the wooi code as we passed it and whatever this new form is under the prohibited plants list will effectively result in by law no new junipers being planted. Is that correct? >> That's correct. where we stand today or actually tomorrow is that it would be linked to a permit that you can't plant a juniper. But then once we come back with an ordinance, you know, in October that would have the tree and plant list that says you can't plant uh junipers in that area, then that would become regulatory. >> Okay. >> All right. Just just wanted to clarify that because I know that's a thing that a lot of people want to be clear on in our community and want to hear. So, we just want to spell that out crystal clear. And it may have been done so by staff and maybe I'm dense and just needed to say it out loud myself. Um well so so I I can sort of answer these uh pretty quick. Um you know generally I don't like overlay districts. I think we've had that conversation in regards to other applications. Um but if that's the mechanism that's best here I I I kind of trust staff to find the best way forward um in order to create this. I

[164:01] love the consistency of what we do going forward to be consistent with our WOOI maps. So whatever we do be class one class one and two or class one two or three or some combination. But I don't want stuff to somehow create new maps that then aren't contiguous or consistent with our WOOI code map. So I just think anything we do in the space of wildfire needs to be within that geographic space. I I just think that that's for maximum consistency. So hopefully uh uh we can make that happen. Um regarding uh water wise, yeah, I mean I I I think we're heading in the right direction there. Um, and I don't really I I I'm not a fan of moratoriums. Um, I think that is usually a moratorium is a reflection of us having bad policy to begin with. Um, so it's a bailout. So I would avoid that uh if we could um in many ways. So otherwise I think we're we're heading in good shape and uh I just want to give credit to Lauren um for doing well on this one, but also

[165:00] because as Nuria points out, we got a two for one here. So, uh, virtual high five to Lauren, uh, for the two for one that we pulled off. >> I didn't even point that out this time. >> I know. But hey, we're here and we're about to be done. So, we get to say hooray. So, appreciate it. >> Thank you, Council Member Benjamin. And I give you a high five back. Um, all right, Council Member Wallik. >> Yeah, I'll be very brief. Um, well, sort of brief. um when we decided uh not to um enact any retroactive uh legislation, at least I took that to be that we were not going to compel property owners to rip out their junipers uh because of the there are legal and constitutional issues that go along with that. I did not and and that may be only my impression. Um I did not uh agree that we were now incapable of

[166:02] passing any kind of ordinance that would promote life, health, and safety with respect to the existing junipers. And whether that's something as simple as saying you can't have your your juniper leaning up against your house, you have to trim it. Um or you need to have nonwood mulch around it. I didn't think that was outside of our scope of authority. We're not tearing out the junipers. There's nothing retroactive about any of this. It's prospective. This is how we're going to monitor going forward. So, you know, my my brethren may disagree with me, but I did not think that that we were uh basically surrendering all authority to regulate um life, health, and safety matters that are the particular province of this body. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Wallak. Um, in terms of

[167:01] the staff's questions, I feel like I don't know that I really had enough information about kind of the trade-offs that I'm making in terms of an overlay or no overlay or a phased approach. Um so in general I'll just say that I think um we're looking at a lot of different pieces and components and getting it right is really important to so I think doing outreach and um engagement making sure that we're getting you know the landscape installers and um landscape architects involved in these conversations I think is really important particularly with the water wise landscaping um And I hear um I forget whose comment it was, but that having these two tied together made it a little confusing. I would support, you know, if it makes sense. That was Ta. That was Council Member Adams. Thank you. Um potentially they

[168:00] could be brought forward even in different meetings, the portions of it, if that makes sense timing wise. Um, I don't think we already had a portion of the wildfire hardening come through separately. And I think that going what bringing them forward at the rate that makes sense for staff is something I would fully support. Um, and breaking it into smaller sections might make it easier for us to dive in and fully comprehend. Um, the details of what it is we're looking at. I also wanted to say that I appreciated Council Member Maris's comments um and um Mayor Brockett, I strongly agree that it's important that we will be able to have um the maintain an urban agriculture component. Um, and that also, I think, ties into Council Member Shuhard's comments about um, planters and maybe defining specifically what

[169:02] we're not regulating in terms of planter size or if there if there's a size at which we might be over that and would be something that would be regulated by the planning and building department. Thank you guys so much for this great presentation and for letting us bring these two things together um forward together. I appreciate it. Does anyone else have any comments? Does staff have anything they would like clarity on before we move on to our next topic? Seeing no takers. Uh with that, um I think we can move on to our behavioral health section. Um I know that this was an item brought up um by a request from council member Marquets. Mark, it is

[170:00] getting late and my ability to pronounce things is just like going downhill so fast. And it didn't start off good either. Um, who's introducing this item for us? Nuria, would you like to share a couple words to kick us off? >> Sure. I'm I'm happy to, and I appreciate um the request from uh Council Member Marquis. Uh I know that um the county has put forward uh uh ballot language. I know that they have um shared some thoughts on the topic and we asked um you all to share via hotline um some thoughts uh uh about um the topic and really mostly wanting to know uh whether or not after your conversation you would like us to um forward uh any um comments, suggestions or recommendations around the behavior

[171:01] behavioral health tax on to the county as they are um considering the potential uses of that tax in the future. Um so are open to hearing your thoughts on it. Um, I'll note that we also have some statch um some staff from HHS uh available um on the call, but uh mostly wondering um if you had anything to convey to the county as they consider um what the potential uses of uh that potential tax would be. >> Thank you for that summary and for kicking us off. Um, I see Mayor Brockett, then Council Member Benjamin, then Council Member Wallik. >> Yeah, if you don't mind if I get us started here. So, I know um Commissioner Levy has uh sent us uh I think at least one email of uh we got an email from her recently uh laying out some of the

[172:01] potential uses uh for the tax and um I appreciated her sending us that information. Um, and uh, I think it had changed a little bit from the first iteration um, in terms of potentially allowing some forms of residential treatment with the money, which I appreciated. Um, but I'll I'll just throw out a few thoughts of mine. I I'm not a professional in this field, so um, I'm not going to try to say this program versus that program is the the one to fund. Um but a couple of thoughts just thinking about um the needs of us as a city is that um if this tax were um to be implemented that um I would hope that it would be implemented in ways that were transformative um that met some of the most acute needs in our community that are not currently being met. Um I think about how Lamar County did tax like this and was able to create a brand new facility um with a number of different beds that met uh needs that simply were not being met pre previously to that. So that is an as an example of something transformative potentially

[173:00] combined with the opioid settlement money. And then along with that um to make sure that the benefits of the tax uh go roughly fairly to the different communities in Boulder County um so that to make sure that the residents of Boulder got a roughly proportional benefit um from the proceeds the tax um because I I'm not sure that that did happen with the affordable housing tax. Um so it would be critically important for this but but I'll say just taking a step back um this is a a tax of a significant size. It's in an area that I think we have very very deep needs. Um but I'm a little bit um actually more than a little bit worried about the time frame. Um this proposal just started to come out a few weeks ago. Um and I think the final public hearing on it is is in just a couple of weeks. So I'm concerned that for attacks of this magnitude that there's a you know there's a great need to get it right. I'm not sure if there's enough time to get it right on the time frame that it's being asked to be implemented in. So, um I think one thing I would like the commissioners to consider is uh potentially this is

[174:01] something where we take a step back and put together a very fully fleshed proposal with all stakeholders and bring something in 2026 um instead of this year. The needs are deep, but um we get one crack at this. So, um if we don't do it the right way, I don't think we're going to have another shot at it. So, those are my thoughts. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor Brockett. Next, we have Council Member Benjamin and Council Member Wallik. >> Well, Erin, thanks for leading that off. I think you summarized a a lot of what were my concerns and I'll sort of just maybe tack on so it's sort of clear for all and those maybe listening. Um, the behavioral health roadmap that the county put together was a massive list of needs. Uh, I mean, some estimates are that it's hund00 million of need. uh that that those programs are are are meant to sort of uh require. Um and and I'm I'm just concerned that $15 million as proposed doesn't really get us to the

[175:00] need of transformative change. It's it seems right now to kind of just lift up more of the same. Not that what people are doing isn't good work, but when we're looking for something of this scale, um I think people are going to want more than just more of the same and something transformative. and $15 million and the way it's certainly proposed doesn't get us there. And so I think, you know, to Erin's point, I think we need to step back and think about one, what can we do with the momentum that's been gathered already? Um there's been immense conversations. I know Commissioner Levy has been doing a ton of outreach to folks in the last few weeks. This is the time to then carry that forward for the next nine months and really sink in with our community partners, other communities, and get something awesome. when you ask for this amount of money, you don't get to come back and say, "Oh, you know what? That wasn't quite enough. We need another 20 million more." So, it's got to be the right amount for the right work the first time we we ask for it. Um, and and I think there's some trust issues certainly how the 1B

[176:00] funding was created and disseminated. I know there's some trust issues in our community. So, I think we'll have to hear and gain confidence that it'll be different this time with this money. Um, and so those are those are some key things I would look for us to do, but it needs to be transformative and and I think we would uh just pose pause for a minute and think imagine if we put a tax of $15 million and we just thought about it and put it to community about 3 weeks ago. That would be unheard of in our city. We would get rad over the coals for not putting enough long-term thought and outreach into it. So, I think this needs more time in the hopper and I think we can be great community partners to to really make this great if if Commissioner Levy wants to sort of really take this to the next level and work with us over the next 9 to 10 months into uh 2026. So, I think there's opportunity if we if we push this forward and work well together. >> Thank you, Council Member Benjamin. Uh Council Member Wallock, Ben Marquis, Ben Winer. First, first I support the

[177:01] comments of of both the mayor uh and u my my colleague Matt Benjamin. Um I I agree with almost everything they said. Uh my first problem with with this is that we don't have any polling data. There was a previous poll on increasing the mill levy to fund the tax and that was unfavorable. And and so I I have to ask, what makes us think that funding the tax through an increase of sales tax will suddenly generate a vastly more favorable response? The only data we have suggests that the tax will not succeed. And I do not want to put a tax on the ballot without substantial evidence that it's going to be supported by the community. The only evidence to that effect is the proposition that while the community would resist an increase in their mill levy, they will be wildly in favor of an increase in their sales tax. I'm not sure that's supportable. Uh second, there have been a number of comments from my colleagues on the programs to be

[178:01] provided by this tax. So that tells me it's clearly not in final form and is being rushed. Um, I like like Matt Benjamin, I would be very happy to support a well-considered tax in 2026, but this one is simply not ready to go to the voters. And lastly, while I I I do not wish to be impolite, but I think I'm going to be impolite. Um, in the past year, the county has made substantial and surprising cuts in social services funding, I believe to the tune of about $4 million. They then decided to allocate a very large portion of the affordable housing tax to itself contrary to our reasonable expectations as to the manner in which those funds would be distributed. You know there's a song by the very old rock group the who entitled won't get fooled again. And for me that expresses it precisely. Um, for me to be supportive of this initiative,

[179:00] I want a very clear and ironclad understanding of what it will be used for, how the funds will be allocated, and the governance of those tax dollars. For me, nothing less will suffice. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Wallik. Council member Marquis. >> Um, yeah, that was uh closer. Council member Folkitz. Marquis, it rhymes with Swiss. >> I'm just like struggling with your name so hard tonight for no particular reason. >> You're >> because I have to say it a lot. So, I just can't say it anymore for some reason. >> Um, so I agree with a lot of these comments. Um, I also want to um I do want us to get to a good relationship with our commissioners and and definitely believe that Commissioner Levas Levy is is working hard and being

[180:02] responsive with us to give us more clarity about the tax, but also recognize it's on a short timeline and I have some concerns about that timeline. um in part because uh we're mental health is behavioral health is is so important to our community and I want to personally be able to describe the value of this tax to our community and ensure that it um also benefits the city of Boulder. Uh at the at the same time and I'm also very concerned about the fact that it's a sales tax. So sales taxes affect everybody including our most vulnerable in the community. uh you know that we tax groceries and it's going to be very difficult for us to move away from taxing groceries. So, we're increasing cost of goods for everyone in our community. I personally would have preferred a property tax, but know that that's not pulling very well. Um so, I have some concerns about that. But the last part I will say is that we're heading into this really difficult time

[181:00] where we're going to see funding cuts from the state and the federal government and we're expecting our first round in October when we see SNAP benefits being um reduced significantly. And there's some thought about trying to put some more money into our system that's going to be into the human and you know services realm. I'm hoping that if we do decide to if if this is just not baked enough, which I I don't think it is, but I know that we're going to have to start working and talking to partners about how we're going to fill these gaps to help people who are suffering from some of the cuts that are going to be happening. So, um again, these are from similar buckets in the health and human services, housing and human services categories. My apologies for that. Um, so that's about all I have to say, but I All these comments are terrific and um I kind of agree with everything. >> Thank you for those comments. Next, we have Council Member Winer, Council Member Spear, and Council Member Adams.

[182:02] >> Can I change my name to Council Member Winner from Wider? I like that better. Less of a Wer, more a winner. Okay. Um, thanks for laughing, Laura. I made it in a joke. I'll just start mispronouncing it that way every time. How about that? >> That's right. >> Okay. Um I my hotline was pretty much how do we know? First of all, I want to thank Commissioner Levy because I know she cares and she's pushing this because she sees a need. Um so that's first of all, but my hotline was basically how do we know we can believe you? And I said it in a few different ways. How do we know Boulder's going to get what we need? to me and I'm gonna agree with pretty much everything my other colleagues said is, you know, I've personally devoted a lot and time time and energy to the subject in the almost four years I've been on council, although not as much as a lot of other people. So, I mean, I I

[183:01] know we all care a lot about this. I want every dollar of a new tax to go to where people need it the most and the least amount to go to government waste and the least amount to go to redundancy and I don't want us to fritter this money away. So I'm not saying that the county will do that but it it's too not it's not baked enough as others have said for me to be confident that these things that I want and don't want will happen or not happen. So, I would rather wait until 2026. We work on this hard. And I also I don't know, Lauren, are you still on that subcommittee? Um, do you still have a seat at that table? Does Senator Amavi have a seat at that table? Because I believe that she should as well. This is her life's work. And the other thing, the last thing I want to bring up is the clutch report because what I read in what uh Commissioner Levy sent us seems to be a little bit

[184:00] different than what from what we're reading in this clutch report, particularly about whether or not we need long-term mental health beds and assisted living facilities. Um I'm just reading right off of this um current conditions email that was sent to us. I'm hoping it wasn't um confidential. Was it Nuria? >> It's not confidential, but you're just seeing an excerpt of a draft. >> You'll get the full report soon. >> And assisted living facilities with capacity to care for people with chronic behavioral health issues. I need to have confidence that this is going to be part of this uh how we spend this tax money. And I don't see any prom although I like the flexible tax. I would like more promises like you know promise me that you're going to do the things that we need the most because we Boulder and Longmont I think are the ones that carry the carry this the most that have the most uh so many people have needs in

[185:01] this community that are truly hurting and I just I need to make sure that they're going to be taken care of. That's what I got. Thank you, Council Member Wy. Next, we have Council Member Spear and Council Member Adams. >> Thank you. Um, I put out my hotline. Um, you know, hopefully that kind of gave some feedback and I don't need to say restate all that, right? That was the point of sending it out early that I don't need to. You have the feedback, you'll take it forward. Um, so I just wanted to respond to uh just a couple of things that I'm hearing. Um I I really wish we were living in more certain times um and had time to wait to kind of address all these really emerging issues that are coming out. Um I I don't really feel like we do. I think what what I like about what the current proposal is is that it is very um adaptive. It is something that can be revisited as we see what the need is and how things

[186:00] evolve in the coming years. um especially with the federal cuts coming um as Tina noted, especially with another billion dollars in state funding being cut and um everything that at least I'm hearing from human services groups that provide any kind of um mental health or behavioral health related service is uh we have a growing weight list and we have a shrinking pool of funds. um and that is not a good thing for our community. And so for me with this comes some urgency and and I think that there's a concern about um waiting on sort of perfection or getting exactly you know exactly what we're looking for here recognizing that we are part of a broader county. Um some some cities of which have larger growing populations than ours. Um I think that there are emerging needs here that if we can get some funding to take care of

[187:00] them now um that is going to pay off in 5 10 20 years uh in a in a pretty big way. Um so I really do appreciate the flexibility in what I'm hearing at least in in terms of what's being talked about and the focus on supporting existing organizations that don't need things to be rebuilt. It's really just supplementing and enabling groups to expand what they're already doing, including places like Bluebird that we've been talking about how we really need um need need more support for the um supportive services that go along with some of our permanent supportive housing. And I think this is something that could um could reach to into into that need. Um, and then the other thing that I'm thinking about, you know, we don't have polling on this particular attacks, but for the first time in in the years that I've seen us do polling, behavioral health emerged as a top three issue in our community. And I expect you all are hearing it just like I am. This is this is a huge need across the board.

[188:02] It's not just the most most severe people. It's the um the folks who are struggling with depression, with anxiety. I think it's something like one in four people in Boulder County um are struggling with depression. These are large needs too and there is a transformative doesn't just mean building something new. Um it could also be expanding what we have and really um really getting transformative in that way. Um and and I you know I I just want to push back a little bit on this idea that we can't do more than one tax that we would only have one bite at the behavioral health tax um example. I think Boulder County is a great um it is a great example of how we are perfectly happy to tax ourselves over and over and over again for things that are really important to us like open space. Um we have open we have multiple open space taxes. So does the county. Um I I don't I don't see that as being a problem here for things that people are really looking for and seeing a need for and

[189:00] behavioral health is just emerging as one of those um really big needs. And um yeah, that's I think those are th those are all of my comments, additional comments. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Spear. Next, we have Council Member Adams and then Council Member Shuhard. >> Thank you so much. And um I also want to thank um Commissioner Levy for um you know, her focus on behavioral health and how critical that is. Um I also want to uh acknowledge and agree with many of the comments of my colleagues particularly around um first of all the effectiveness of the current portfolio of um behavioral health options. I know we're waiting and and I would love to get a little bit more data um around what is effective, but um the biggest thing for me is we know that according to Maslaw's hierarchy of needs or the

[190:01] black feet or Sikka um that food and water and is is is at the very base and when you don't have those things, it actually exacerbates behavioral health. And so, um, I think one of the areas I'm struggling with is knowing that our costs are going to continue to go up on food, food access. We already have one in 10 families that are struggling with food. Uh, we know that water c costs are going to go up, energy costs are going to go up, and we know that those are going to exacerbate u mental health concerns. And so, um, I'm a little I I I agree with uh Nicole on I do think we can take more one more than one bite of the apple. I believe that, you know, Commissioner Levy is trying to frontload and signal that they don't have as much as they need and are are needing to supplement pretty quickly after after January 6. Uh J, sorry, move uh January 2026 rather. Uh we certainly don't want

[191:00] to repeat of that of the former. Um but I do want to just say um we know that the deepest cuts come in 2026 at the very beginning. And so, you know, to me, this is one of the mechanisms that can help offset that. And if anything, I I would have liked to seen something around food, food access. Um, and so, um, yeah, I'm I'm a maybe. I I look forward to more, I guess, is where I'm saying. I'm not a hard no. Uh, but I'm not a hard yes either. Thank you. >> Thank you, Council Member Adams. uh, Council Member Shuhard and then I'll um, make comments as well. >> Okay. I also want to thank uh, Commissioner Levy for all the work on this. Um, and so I think um, okay, so I think on the one hand Nicole is right. I think um, this topic and the funding need is a is a priority for this community. That's clear. and losing a

[192:02] year uh to funding is uh not it's really not a good idea in this current climate. Um I also agree with Matt, Mark, Tara, Tina, and Aaron that um we would ideally have a chance to improve the rigor and the protection of you know our thinking and our um interests as a as a city. So, I'm I'm kind of torn between two different change models that both uh could be compelling. And so, um then I look at it with my my hat on of long-term financial strategy and I think about the sequencing of what we're trying to do this year and next year. And I recall that we've um we've deferred one of our two main uh funding concepts until next year. And so now I'm just thinking about traffic management uh next year and I'm a little bit

[193:00] concerned about um pushing this to next year and then us also potentially having a conversation about fundraising for our own city's interest directly next year. So I I suppose I land in the camp of I'd rather get this done now and think about just literally traffic management of um you know the sequencing of to create as much resource as we can. Thank you, Council Member Shuard. Um, I appreciate all of the comments and concerns everyone has brought forward and I really hope that the commissioners can um address some of them. I think that, you know, it's incredibly unlikely they'll be able to address them all either for just how it gets implemented and how difficult some of our requests might be to actually um take fruition in the next couple of weeks. But, uh I appreciate

[194:00] the effort to try and address this area where we see a huge gap. Um, and we know that we talk so much about our efficiencies and trying to make everything a little bit better, but I think the reality of a lot of um, sort of this area of social services is that without more funding, there's really not more we can do. So often we're um, playing this game of efficiencies, but really we just need more money to to make these services more available to people. Um, and so I appreciate the commissioners bringing hopefully bringing this forward. Um, and I think that especially given the state of federal funding that this need is urgent. Um like council member Marcus Marquis I um hope that

[195:00] you know I would have ideally liked to see this as a property tax but I um understand that that wasn't really viable in this um climate right now. So I yeah again I hope that they will address our concerns but I also am likely to um want to support this because the because of the urgent need. Thank you. Um any other comments, things that need to be said before we wrap up? I'm not seeing anything. So um at 911 I would like to um close this meeting. Thank you all so much for the presentations um and support and everything. Thank you.