August 6, 2025 — Environmental Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:00] Okay. Well, I'll I'll just do a really quick introduction. Uh for the record, Jonath Climate Initiatives. Good evening, board members. Um excited to be with you tonight. Uh this is an item that you've seen before the board previously and really excited to share an update on the healthy resilient buildings roadmap. Uh this is an item that's uh scheduled for the council later on this month. And so tonight we'll be asking the board from for some specific feedback uh that of course will be included in the packet when you convey to council so they understand any feedback, concerns, questions or excitement that the board has. U tonight is really walking through a good amount of the analysis that the staff team has been doing. Um, you've seen Caroline, Crystal, and Laurel here before. And I think they have a lot more to share since the last time uh the board heard anything on this item. So, I will just leave it at that and I think I'm going to turn it over to Carolyn to kick things off. >> Great. >> Yeah. Thanks everybody. And apologies, I'm getting over something, but the um

[1:02] the smoke has been aggravating so I may come off and apologies for that in advance, but um you've all met me. I'm Caroline. I'm a a senior manager in the climate initiatives department. I'm joined by um Crystal Laer and Laura Matri and when they get to their sections they'll talk about their role on the in leading the project. Um so we framed a few questions for you that we love your feedback on tonight. Um so broadly you know any questions or feedback on the analysis we did will present to you some of the results of our building stock analysis our scan of policy um the financial analysis of what it will take to hit our goals equity considerations and and how we we're thinking about approaching it and then the results from our engagement and then um specific to our policy recommendations. Do you have feedback on those specific actions um and whether we should carry them forward or restructure them? Um so tonight we're going to go through

[2:01] um this list. We're going to give you the background on the project again. Um talk about the road map and and why we're undertaking it. Give you an in um an overview of the policies and programs that we've had in place as of today. The technical analysis as it looks forward. Um again, we conducted quite a bit of engagement. That's what we spoke to you about the last time we were here was just before we launched our engagement. So now we can talk about the results of that. Um proposed regulations in particular as well as some of the supportive programs that would go with that and then our recommendations as staff as to how we've interpreted some of the recommendation. So the recommendations that um came forward on the regulation and supports are ones that were presented to us by our consultants and then we've applied a layer where we've added um the results of the engagement and some of our own knowledge what we think um makes the most sense to carry forward and then we'll have our discussion.

[3:00] Everybody's familiar with our goal, but this was very much the framing um of the road map and the analysis, which is how do we get to our 2035 goal, which is carbon neutrality. Um so you'll see a lot of that in this presentation. We've talked about this before. We can't get to the goal if we don't address the emissions associated with our buildings. They're more this is a declining number. Um but they are historically more than twothirds of our community's emissions. the numbers getting better because electricity is getting cleaner. Um the challenge before us is is addressing the natural gas use in those buildings. Historically, we've really been hyperfocused on the emissions component as we think about our buildings and and how we tackle them. I think what you're going to see with this road map and our work here is is really a reframing. Yes, we need to work on emissions, but our the challenge before us is far greater. We'll talk about that a in a

[4:00] little bit more detail, but really we're talking about the health and well-being of our community and our our resilience as we continue to move through climate change. And so, you know, we spend 90% maybe a little less in Boulder, a little bit more elsewhere um indoors. Um we have people who are very susceptible to poor air quality apparently like myself um right now with the with the smoke. Um we we're starting to see extreme weather. we have housing stock such as our manufactured homes that are susceptible to some of our um extreme weather events like high winds and and then as we continue to see extremes um energy efficiency can really help stabilize the cost and and provide economic benefit to the community. I don't know if you've seen this chart before. I took it out of our climate action plan presentation. um but I think it's really important context for us. This is um some of the results from the the modeling and

[5:01] analysis that we've been doing to look at, you know, different scenarios around our climate risk and climate vulnerabilities. But even um acknowledging that some of this is forward-looking, even as we look backwards, you know, if you look at the history, you know, we had five days per year over 95. I think we've had five days this week. Um you know, 10 days per year, that number is growing. Um, and as we progress, we're going to see that worsening. And I think this is kind of an illustrative one to show you as it as it pulls up. I offer this as some framing because as we talk to the community, we talk about our community engagement results. A lot of people come at this topic from their lived experience. And our lived experience is really centered in in the left. This is Boulder. Um, again that history of maybe five days over 95, you could open the windows at night, cool off, 50% of the buildings didn't have air conditioning

[6:00] installed, and that was fine. Today's reality is we're already more like PBLO was 10 years ago um, in terms of of climate and we're on a trajectory to be more like Albuquerque. And I point out these pictures because you're also going to notice a definite shift in how buildings are designed and constructed as you move farther south to more extreme climates. And our buildings are not constructed that way. Um so that is one of the challenges before us. So as we talk about how we want to improve our buildings and move forward, like I said, emissions reduction is only one part of the equation. what we're really doing with the reality is we have a lot of building stock that isn't really conducive to protecting us um in these temperature extremes or if it if they do it's going to come at a cost of energy and utility costs and escalating cost. So um that's that's a little bit of context that we need to keep in mind. So I'm going to talk about uh the road map itself and kind of the overall

[7:00] process that we went through. Um we like Caroline said we've kind of increased our scope to include um social resilience indoor air quality uh resilience uh also stabilizing energy costs very important um equity concerns and then emissions. So um these are kind of the main goals that uh guide the road map. Uh so what's in the road map? Well the road map has a 10-year timeline because we're um aligning it with our climate action plan. Um there's policy recommendations, there's program recommendations, and then there's a funding there'll be like a funding piece that'll kind of outline maybe some of the opportunities that are available for funding, although it's a shape. Um and then we'll out outline the engagement approach and then we'll talk about kind of goals um moving into the future and kind of what um implementation might look like. Um as far as the approach for the road map, you guys have seen this before, you people have seen this before. Um there's a technical analysis. We brought in a

[8:01] consultant AIP uh to do a building stock analysis um where they looked at kind of what's the current state of our building stock in Boulder uh commercial, residential, all forms of buildings. They looked at things like um you know what sort of heating and cooling do these buildings have? What sort of information do we have about it? They combined a lot of different data sets provide us just with an overview of like where are we at with our building stock um in regards to things like emissions and uh decarbonization as well because that's kind of like where where we're headed with that. Um they did a policy and program analysis across the country and you know looked at everything and anything that's out there that might be applicable to us given kind of where we've been and be going towards. And then they did a financial analysis where they looked at well what are the potential tax credits, rebates, incentives, finance options for folks getting from point A to point B. Um and you know in this analysis they did look at okay we know we want to get to zero

[9:00] emissions. We know we want to decarbonize. So they kind of put together an analysis that's based on that in terms of the financials. So how long is it going to take? what's it going to cost to get to certain points of both, you know, emission, zero emissions and um decarbonization of buildings. There was also a community engagement process that was part of the approach. Uh Crystal's going to talk more about that, but uh suffice to say, there was a lot of outreach that was done. Um we're coming back to you as a board to and then ultimately we'll go to city council for a study session and then once all of that is complete, we'll take all that information and synthesize it into the final road map. So, we're coming to you kind of like with our first presentation of our proposed uh strategies and um um policies and everything. So, happy to have your feedback. Uh so, here's just a whole list of all the different stakeholders that we engaged in uh the process from answering questionnaires to sitting in focus groups to kind of more like uh concentrated interviews. Uh just to give

[10:01] you a sense of kind of everybody who basically it's everybody who lives in a building, works in a building, maybe owns a building, manages a building, fixes a building, repairs a building, they're all here. Um and then we operate inside of some equity guard rails from the start and throughout the process. Um so you know really really buildings that serve equity priority community members. Um so looking at like what would be the specific impact to those kind of community members in those set of buildings. Um costs will be something we're considering with all the different recommendations that we have like how is that going to impact people who are working and living and renting buildings. Um and then workforce opportunities. So there's kind of an ongoing conversation about the availability of workforce uh in the whole region you know to do these kind of things. Um, and so it like the general consensus is we need more workforce. Um, next slide.

[11:00] So I'm going to talk a little bit. I did this before, so this is probably just a recap for you, but on our last meeting, I kind of went over where are we at today? What are we what are we doing? What have we done to get to today? Uh, we have a building performance ordinance which is for all commercial buildings over 20,000 square feet. Uh, they report their energy use to us. We had them go through audits and retro commissioning and a lighting upgrade um with a really decent amount of savings, but we need more to get to our goals 10 years from now. Um energy conservation code that's updated regularly um and that's for new construction, major renovations. Smart rags uh impacts rental licensing. Folks who basically are landlords have to perform uh or meet certain standards. It's a checklist they get to choose. Um, so that's something that we implemented and I think like kind of essentially covered everybody as of 2018 and now uh it's kind of come in they have to meet the requirements as well. Next slide.

[12:01] Uh we have a healthy resilient mobile homes program. We've had it for three years now approximately and um >> yeah two and a half. So, and that started out of the Marshall Fire High Winds um uh started a grant program to help people with the damage from those winds, but based the program on envelope repairs. So, like you know, anything on the exterior of the building. Um and we've continued that program. We partnered with uh state department of local affairs. They gave us $2 million to continue work county has given us money. So, the program has continued to serve uh older manufactured home owners and renters. We've impacted about 250 homes. Uh we partner with Energy Outreach Colorado to uh support the implementation of a program called CARE with which is no cost energy efficiency upgrades. Um and we fund it. Boulder County funds it and Excel Energy funds it. We also uh fund and partner with the county on uh what's called Energy Smart, which is a residential advising program.

[13:01] They are great. They help people walk through rebates and incentives as well as advising them on how to like from point A to point B to do an upgrade in your home or mobile home or condo. Next, um we partner with Boulder County um and fund what's called Partners for a Clean Environment. And that's a commercial uh that's a group of adviserss that work with our commercial building owners and property managers to um and renters to do energy upgrades to again utilize our incentives and rebates. Um and then there's an incomequalified multif family program. That's another partnership with Energy Outreach Colorado. Um Boulder and Excel Energy where we're impacting we're doing energy retrofits and multif family. And there's a nonprofits program as well. Same thing with Energy Outreach Colorado, older Excel Energy, um that serves nonprofits that serve vulnerable populations. And then just to kind of like narrow this even further in terms of our programs

[14:00] and supports, we have Energy Smart um and um our rebates and incentives, you know, that are um supported through that program will cover uh will provide enhanced rebates for up to 100% AMI. So, some really great support for people who are considered lowinccome in city Boulder from Energy Smart and Boulder County as well. Um, the PACE program, which is the commercial advisor program, also has a specific equity priority building program and those buildings receive enhanced incentives to do efficiency upgrades um and electrification upgrades. And then the program also serves low-inccome multif family housing, some partnerships with Boulder Housing. Um and then again, uh our healthy resilient mobile home program is for all for mobile homes and manufactured homes and no costs all grants. Um and you know made I think a significant impact in those communities and definitely developed a lot of trust in those communities of at least our program and kind of you know um the

[15:00] relationships we've built with them are great. So next slide. So um next I'm going to talk about the technical analysis and this was done by AIP. That's a consultant that we hired. Um, like I said before, we did a building stock analysis, we did a program, they did a program and policy analysis, they did a financial analysis, and then Carolyn's going to present their relations to >> next slide. It's okay. >> Pass. >> So, um, we did a building stock analysis just to give you a sense of some of the stuff that's in there. you know, we had them kind of look at GHG emissions by sector. Uh, and probably as we've emphasized several times now, uh, you already know that commercial is kind of the highest emitter of greenhouse gases in the city of Boulder. And this is pretty well, I think it's typical of cities. Um, although some might have higher residential rates. Um, and then in terms of square footage though, the numbers kind of equal out a little bit.

[16:01] Um, so you know, we're dealing with equal square footages across the different built sectors, but if we really want to target kind of the greenhouse gas emission reduction, we'd focus on Next slide. Um, another thing that we had our consultants look at was the whole like climate resilience issue and how does that impact our built sector. Um so what we know now in from the analysis is that um most of our commercial buildings are uh fossil fuel heated and cooled and only 15% are electric. So we have a little ways to go there if we're looking at decarbonization and kind of the commercial end of things. Um and then about 50% use electric water heaters. So 50% use gas heaters. Um a third of residential have electric. So 2/3 don't. Um so that's you know a gap to fill. And then half of Boulder's buildings lack central air conditioning. That doesn't mean they don't have air conditioning necessarily, but they don't have a central. They might have like a pool or a window unit, something, but not

[17:00] central. Um, and then mobile homes about 26% don't have any cooling. Um, so, and we've heard this and responded to this um as a department with some kind of emergency cooling response um when there's extreme need. Um and 25% of residential housing is at risk to extreme heat. And that's kind of like what we you know that's what that chart on the right is summarizing um days over 95. We talked about that earlier. So uh this is just to give you a sense of what the cost analysis looked like and what the consultants did. So the chart on the left has kind of a series of um upgrade recommendations on the uh on the first column. And what they did was they they kind of packaged these recommendations. Um so the first package, package one is literally just heating and cooling, heat pump, right? That's like the first package. Second package would be heat

[18:01] pump and um domestic hot water, right? Third package is heat pump, domestic hot water, uh induction cooking, some other like uh appliances in your homes like if you have or spa that might use gas. So they packaged these so that they could then cost them and look at you know if we were to implement these packages across our building stock, what might that cost and when would what would we need to do to get us to either zero emissions um or andor like no natural gas emissions. So this chart on the right uh the base kind of where we are now is that first line that's the kind of like almost half and half red and purple and red's electric and purple's natural gas. Uh and then if you implemented package one across our building stock it would look like that second line like significant increase in electric. So you know we'd have a huge impact if we just impacted heat pumps for heating and cooling HVAC heat pumps. Um and then

[19:00] and then package three that's kind of like that sweet spot for decarbonization, right? Is that uh if we were to replace heat pump hot water heaters, heat pump for HVAC and then some of those kind of like induction type stuff and pool stuff, we'd be at um all electric, right? Um and then the and then the amount the number of emission continues to go down as you get through the packages. So that's kind of what we're assessing is like what's the cost going to be? what's going to get us there? What what kind of equipment do we need to focus on across the sector? Um that was what this analysis looked at. There's just a number for you there. Uh we would achieve our goal in terms of um electrification with a capital cost without incentives of $4.5 billion. So that's, you know, significant. Um and that's where um our kind of uh vetting and analysis of recommendations as well as resources and programs and incentives comes in to kind of see

[20:00] what's the right mix to get us to where do we need to go to. Right? So this is the part where you have to um just like pause and like hold hold that that's out there and then there's recommendations that were actually part of what was brought out to the community along with you know that were informed by that technical analysis which is kind of putting that engagement in first. So um as these numbers are actually more accurate. I've got to go back and fix that 20 on those um focus groups. Um we had hoped to do 20. I was we had to work pretty hard to to actually achieve 16 focus groups. Um so what we did is we started out with um some what we could refer to as initial interviews and that was really like um specific people from different stakeholder groups to try to really understand um how to run those focus groups in a way that was meaningful and like kind of on target with what people's questions were. And then we had the um focus groups um in so

[21:02] that was back in late 2024 and then we had the focus groups um held them between February and April um of this year. Um and then the next piece that we had and this was like kind of a had a dual purpose um we both wanted to learn but we also wanted to educate. Um so we did a communitywide questionnaire and we had um 536 respondents um participated and a lot of it was like you know what's your area of in how interested in you how are you in you know this electrifying or um um and then also some some elements that were maybe walking people through a little bit of what the technology looked like. So it was a little bit of both and um and um then we finally what is this three? Oh yeah then then the last component was you know just going to a few groups like um the Boulder affordable um the Boulder

[22:01] area rental housing association was was one group. Um and then we also talked to our community connectors and residents into the cha chamber some presentations. >> So some of what we learned um about one in three people would um voluntarily electrify um according to that questionnaire if your if your income is um 100% AMI or over. So now we're starting to like break people out into income categories. um there's a willingness um the eight and 10 where have a willingness to pay a higher monthly cost to electrify um and then um if you're looking at that people that are under 100% AMI so under the you know median income um they would be willing to electrify if their utility bill went down um three and four are actually of our community members who participated in

[23:00] the survey um were supportive the idea of new regulations. Um, and one in two business owners um do not support new regulations. Or you could say one or two do, you know, you could look at that either way. Um, and then the concerns, myths, and misinformation. So, there's a little bit of a mixed bag, right? So, some of it maybe is just to like genuine like legitimate concerns versus maybe, you know, just areas where we need to kind of educate more. Um so some people are worried about um the grid being near capa u near capacity. Um pe people believe um some people were under the impression that electricity emits more greenhouse gases than than gas does like fossil fuels. Um some people believe many people actually from my experience um believe that gas appliances are safe and reliable when the power goes out. Um >> yeah you should be making that face.

[24:00] It's okay. >> Heat pump um do not work well in cold weather is a very is another very common one. The heat pump and I know that's not true. um new regulations will require me to replace my So some people this was like a worry that if we did create new regulations they would require um the replacement um of that whatever their current like furnace is um before um when it was still like you know had a lot of life left in it. So that's an area of concern. Next. Thank you. >> And so this was um I'm gonna there's two of these slides. I'll try to work at the right pace here because there's a lot of these but try to keep it interesting anyway. Um so the consultants recommendations at at a high level were um as much we can find opportunities to reduce complexity and I think you we all are you all are sitting here today on a board so you may have some familiar with a city complexity is a challenge with

[25:02] you know in this environment um support compliance with technical support. So this is when like how do we people like assuming that it is still complex right? Um you know you provide that technical support the navigation assistance and flexibility because this is actually a very complex activity to walk through the process of of upgrading technology moving off from a known to an unknown technology right and using rebates. Um and then they also pointed to things that we that either we or other other um programs are doing well like smart rags. Um they appreciated how that was a slow roll out. They appreciated this phase timing and and the flexible options within the program. Um there was a pro program called uh that I think Boulder County runs called subject smart. Um and it's um a time of sale um upgrade program. So like what when you're se when you sell your home

[26:01] you're supposed to upgrade your septic system. Um and apparently that is very successful. Um and something that we should be looking at. Um then they also appreciate how our energies our partners at Energy Smart which is in Boulder at Boulder County um group um operate in a really concierge style um when they work with homeowners. Um and then the technical assistance um supports that the PACE program that Laurel mentioned earlier like that's something that they that was really appreciated. um support and protect low-income community members and small businesses. Um is and then they the specifically interesting there is yeah bilingual outreach just you know making sure that because there are there's known um be like it was you know just even documented through the engagement process that that there was that that was a particular area where there could be more more work done um consider and manage for unintended consequences such

[27:01] as building owners avoiding upgrades. So this these are the things that are observed in other communities, right? Like and um I don't know to what degree here as well or versus people talking about you you just made a face a little bit or not. >> No. Okay. Um >> but um yeah, sometimes people will just like avoid um engaging, you know, they'll just lay it low essentially. All right, next slide. Um consultant recommendations. So these are more so those were the high level ones and these are just additional ones which are um you know in terms of messaging that we should really be thinking about messaging around affordability and comfort primarily and like maybe the health stuff is actually not as enticing to people um as as we might have thought. Um identify early wins um is one ideas. So are there ways that we as a program can um do implement

[28:00] certain things before the um like in the next two years before the um >> more stringent regulations. >> Yeah. The the other policy policies needed, right? Um employee behavior um employee behavioral change science. So um those the two big ones they pointed out were peer-to-peer learning. apparently that is um pretty successful, you know, when you're in these scenarios where people are learning like a new way of of operating. And then um and then there's also the factor of influence like just people simply knowing that something is happening can in the point to this yard sign example of I switch to electric ask me how you know um businesses and property owners or managers um also like their their pro you know the way they process the their um portfolio management they're like one years is the pay is a reasonable payback period for an investment like into their

[29:02] into their um HVAC systems or their you know hot water heaters. Um and then um the things that we've that were appreciated the most in our engagement were the rebates and the technical assistance. >> Okay. So here's the what we think part of the presentation. Um so this is structured with the recommendation um from our consultants uh in the the black text and then we've created a little bit of a code. So if you see a star next to it um these are ones that we think are worth continuing to explore do additional engagement around to to further refine and would make it into the road map. maybe explore ones where um we're a little bit more on the fence. And then if you see ones with the um the red circle slash um we've kind of depprioritized those as

[30:00] maybe not as relevant in our context, more concerning or something maybe doesn't make sense at this point time. So and then you'll also see like in this very first one um some thoughts we have on what implementation might look like to give it a little bit more color and context. So the first recommendation is to move from our current prescriptive requirements on commercial buildings. So we require um annual reporting. We require energy audits. We require require retrocommissioning studies and we require lighting upgrades to move towards this building performance standard model where you set a target based on the building type either for its energy use per square foot or its emissions per square foot. There's a state umwide building performance standard right now that governs our over 50,000 square foot buildings. Um the recommendation is we could adopt our own that's either the same or more aggressive than the state for the over 50,000 as well as develop standards for the under 50,000 that aren't currently regulated under the state.

[31:02] Um, from a staffing perspective, when we, you know, look at that square footage breakdown where the most emissions are. Um, also, um, some of the equity considerations, we certainly would prioritize the largest buildings. That's where the biggest impact is. They're already regulated, um, to a large degree. Um, and then consider how we phase in smaller ones, but think about maybe easier pathways for our smaller buildings. Um, we do see an opportunity to to just get the tune-ups right. So make buildings perform like they're designed to. Um that seems to be something that building owners are a little bit more willing to engage around. So starting to phase that in. Um we've heard some feedback from the community around uh you know more transparency into how buildings are performing in ways that would help. For example, tenants make choices as to where they they want to um

[32:01] take on a lease. So, understanding, you know, h how that building is performing as well as maybe where patrons um take their business, for example. And so, there is some interest um we heard this from council actually at a different discussion around maybe a disclosure and labeling um program. Um we brought this issue of um zero NOx or you know zero air pollutant appliance standards. A little of this stems from some of the legal challenges around electric only requirements and and whether we're federally preempted from um specifying that an appliance must be electric. uh in lie of that um there are air pollution standards that we can pursue and so we did look at um the NOx emission standards and I think there's there's um some opportunity there either you know to start to set performance

[33:00] requirements for places and buildings and or um start to address I I'm not sure point of sale um is something that we would really recommend because it's really hard to regulate that outside of our boundaries um but certainly we can do installation Um, from a building code perspective, you know, I think end of life, you know, we certainly are very, you know, very much heard from the community that replacing appliances before their useful life is done is not always um in line with our goals when we talk about things like embody carbon as well as the economics. But certainly when it comes time to replace, we want to get it right. Um, so I think that's that's certainly one we would look at. Um when we move to larger residential so these would be multif family properties um so condos and apartment buildings um there is a recommendation around um building performance standards currently we don't regulate our multif family buildings under our building performance standard they're exempt the rail

[34:01] properties are covered under smart rags um so we think about consolidating all of our multif family under a common program uh again I think the same thing is like ongoing um tuneups uh potentially labeling obviously informing tenants um around building performance creating more transparency into that is is an opportunity I I call this the the shaming methodology of you know when you start to distinguish between PE you know different buildings and performance that's a tool uh and then you'll see the same the same requirements as you saw for large commercial when we get into the smaller residential buildings So this is going to be our more single family duplex um town home style houses. Uh one of our reflections is our current smart rags approach actually incentivizes natural gas appliances. Um when we rolled out smart rugs, you got so many points for a more efficient appliance. We had a lot of furnaces replaced in that program. And

[35:01] so thinking about at least correcting our checklist so that new rentals that are coming into the market aren't incentivized in the same way. um considering whether we do deeper requirements on efficiency. Um you know I think there's some interest in that. We need to explore it more. Uh there was a we um currently exempt our manufactured homes um from smart rags. Our consultants suggested we might want to reconsider that. Um we put a no on that in part because um we have just a limited number of manufactured homes that are actually rentals and that number is declining. and the ones that are rentals are actually some of the newest ones and so the higher performance. So kind of diminishing returns when we talk about going into that space. Um and again you here you'll see the um knock standards in the end of life replacement as well. Um Crystal brought up the time of sale um

[36:02] in the in the safety program. Uh Berkeley has adopted a time of sale requirement. Um so there's some interest in thinking about that as a point where um you can you know at a minimum require audits or require certain improvements. So looking at how we might refine that a little bit better. Um that's something of interest. I think we would further explore. We don't have the design or solution yet. Um there was a recommendation around building the performance standards for residential housing. I think given the complexity of that versus the um outcomes we would get um it's one that we didn't really think we would necessarily recommend. It's it's a really tough to do benchmarking generally and then trying to do it on a bunch of single family homes. Um and of course our largest homes most of them have been built under our newer building codes are pretty efficient already too.

[37:00] And then the last recommendation, you know, looking at ADUs, there's some um recommendations around like pre-approved high performing ADU designs. Um we're not quite sure of the Boulder context on that one yet and so we aren't prioritizing it. I think it's something we could continue to talk about whether there's benefit in that given what we're actually seeing in terms of ADUs going in here. I mean, I think if you see a lot of opportunity for standardization, there's there's something, but for now, I think we're relying on our building codes, which are already um have a lot of good positive prescriptive requirements for ADUs. So, I think that's where we're leaning towards as staff. On the supports and guardrail side, um we currently offer rebates to anybody um who's a resident of the build of Boulder and any commercial business that that comes to us. there's recommendations to shift those dollars and really focus, you know, our finite dollars into the lower income categories.

[38:00] Um, strengthening tenant protections. So if we start to tackle, you know, building performance standards or more stringent smart rags, thinking about ways like we can't regulate rent control, you we're preempted from doing that, but we can offer incentives and carrots and in return for those incentives and carrots, you can agree to something like rent control. So really thinking about how we travel those carrots to get the best outcomes for tenants. Um there's I think there's strening strengthening tenant protections. Um you know I think there's there's other tools that they were talking about like navigational services and things that don't necessarily sit in our road map but I think are are well addressed elsewhere in the city. Um prioritizing community solar and solar for low-income households. Yeah, we certainly agree with that. It's something um we already do as a city and I think we would continue to do that. Workforce development um is a big topic.

[39:00] Um getting jobs right, getting workforce will help drive costs down. Right now we're workforce constrained. Um so there is an opportunity to expand Boulders's clean workforce. Um while we don't have a dedicated workforce component here in the city, we do partner with workforce Boulder County um as well as regional partners with Dr. COG who are standing up the new um efficiency program and really see a lot of opportunity to think about how we partner with them um to create opportunities here in the city. Um certainly we see a lot of opportunity um for job creation um and and um wraparound services um for underresourced workers and um so something we can look at as well. uh these weren't ones explicitly called out by our consultants but ones that we will bring into the road map. Um we see you know that upfront capital cost you know four and a half billion that you know it's a drop in a bucket not really. Um a lot of this is a challenge because

[40:00] people don't have good ways to finance it. Our commercial businesses don't really want to take on debt. Um most of us don't have enough money in our checking account to undertake efficiency upgrades. um how many people want to take on new debt um on top of student loans and other things. Um so we've been advocating for Arndale financing program where you could finance the upgrades to your utility bill. Um we we're right now at the utilities commission for a proposal from Excel. We sponsored a bill last year that um didn't make it through. We we died on the calendar and we're talking about bringing it back this year. um one-stop shops and and um single points of contact. You know, we certainly heard in our engagement like understanding where to start um and finish and how all the regulations work together is is challenging. So, thinking about how we can work with our planning and development services um partners to couple a better navigational support especially around specific regulations.

[41:00] We did that under smart regs. It was very successful. um we created, you know, dedicated staff, help desks, um things to really help people be successful. And then, um you know, the big one is is cooling access for all. Um we we talked about this a little bit, especially when we think about our rental properties, especially a lot of our apartment style buildings that don't have central cooling. You know, we can't just regulate emissions, I think, at this point in time. So, we need to think about how we start to address this cooling access needs. And so, um I don't think it's tomorrow, but I think we're we're thinking about we're going to have to phase in, um some requirements around, um summertime conditioning, um into our our anything we're doing, whether it's a building performance standard, building codes, or rental licensing. Um but starting to move in that direction. So, with that, we're at the discussion point.

[42:02] Thank you. Questions before turning to the questions, I just really want to acknowledge the amazing work of the team. >> Um, you can see that in the presentation and how much it's matured since the last time we were before you and and really starting to orient towards a different outcome. And I wanted to just bump back up a couple layers and just emphasize a couple of points that I think you might have heard at the beginning of the presentation certainly in previous presentations and that's you know we have a long history in Boulder of using our regulation for particular outcomes. Boulder has had some of the most aggressive codes in the country for decades. Um, Greenpoints was uh one of the kind of the standard when it launched in 2006 and 2007. And we learned a lot from that experience about

[43:00] um how do you package up a whole number of regulations? Um what what impact does that have in terms of achieving your outcomes? How easy is that for um our building community to follow and and meet some of those requirements? And the the point I wanted to make is that much of our previous regulation was really around driving towards efficiency. So we always talk about we were just cranking the dial on efficiency as much as we could. How do we squeeze as much productivity out of every kilowatt hour um or therm that we are consuming in our buildings? And I our approach now is has shifted orientation a little bit. I think you heard that at the beginning which is how do we really think about what's most important when it comes to cost accessibility when it comes to cooling emissions and do we have the right package of regulation and policy in place for those outcomes and that was really the genesis of this road map and the piece and and a lot has changed in

[44:01] the landscape um since a lot of those early regulations. We have a state that has stepped up and has a lot of regulation that covers some of the things that we were doing earlier. Um, we have a utility that's starting to step in and fill some of those those voids. And and we have a much more mature and literate community about what they can and should be doing on their own. Uh so I guess I would say one of the things that's really important is really around that idea of reorienting towards those outcomes. That's really critical and it may not always result in layering on new regulation. You heard some of the and saw some of that feedback up there and I think it's a very thoughtful approach in terms of the SNAP recommendation that is likely going to result in more consolidation of some of the policy, maybe some more streamlining clarity around what what the outcome truly is. And so I share

[45:02] that because I think when we get into these kind of conversations, our community hears one thing, which is more regulation. You're just going to layer on more and more and more regulation. And it really is a wholesale shift in terms of those outcomes and using the things that have been effective and perhaps even getting rid of some things that aren't effective. So that's the whole intention of this process and I'll just conclude my remarks by again acknowledging the amazing work of the team and how far they've brought this. So with that I think happy to turn to um questions for the board. Anything that you want to clarify um with regard to the presentation um I think all is fair game. Um, as I mentioned, we'll capture all of your feedback and try to package it up in a way that um that really carries the tone and the intent of any comments or feedback. I will say that we don't have an opportunity because we are going back on the 28th of this month uh to bring it back to you at your next meeting. The way we handle this

[46:00] typically is we can send out a summary of that feedback to you and that in get individual responses back. Did we capture it effectively? Um, is this what you meant to say and are you comfortable with us carrying that voice forward? >> A question just to the point you just made, is there ways that the consultants or anyone can like quantify unintended consequences of like, oh, this will increase new builds by this amount or this amount of new um mixeduse housing or new commercial space. That's one question. and similar like I think this I might not might not be true on but I I've heard maybe commercial buildings are already kind of hurting like empty office spaces downtowns things like that like >> is there a way to know like this will make people decide to put their office in a different town or >> I don't know how you would know these things I'm just curious I >> I'll take a quick swing and I'm sure you all have some anecdotal um responses to

[47:02] yeah I think the re the report that you're referring to is the vacancy report in the commercial space that just came out I think a week ago or maybe a little bit longer than that that I think signaled that there is a high a higher vacancy rate in the commercial sector than people might realize and that's driven by a whole number of factors. I I will say this, I there is always a tendency to say um the strict regulation that we have in Boulder has an impact on development here. That I would say that's probably true in some sense. Um the reality is that we don't have a lot of new construction either in residential or commercial and that is because we don't have a lot of space uh to build new. So we'll get into this when we talk a little bit later about some of the wildfire work etc. So I think you will hear that um from developers that yes this is just one more challenge that we have. Again the point I made earlier though that some of

[48:00] the regulation that we're talking about doesn't just reside in Boulder. So we have statewide bills. We have county that the county that's getting much more strict in terms of its requirements. So yes, I think that it's probably likely you will hear that. Do we have that quantified? um we've done that quantification in other regulation and policy but not this specifically I don't believe >> yeah I mean it's it's a really um tough one there's not a great deal of like data of you know Berkeley adopted this this requirement and saw this decline >> um because generally I don't think we'd actually see that and I think to Jonathan's point you know we saw some natural attrition in rental licensing as an example example like we had 23,000 rental licenses um when we started implementing smart rags in over eight years I think we you know lost maybe a thousand I don't think that was because of smart rags

[49:01] um you know and I think that was you know people transitioning out of owning the home um all sorts of things that went on they they came back like they've been running the home and they came back and we're occupying it like all those things you know so we have not seen a lot of actual attrition but it's a line we always walk when we start to get into the design um so the next phase and I didn't say this as much you know we'll name like here's the overarching strategy we want to implement there's a whole new phase of engagement that starts after that where we start to test out those conversations with the very people who we're going to impact and understand like what are the potential consequences? How far can we go before we really start to drive those outcomes? You know, we've always been very adverse to going so far as to just transition our problem to somebody else, >> right? >> Um that's been our philosophy in our

[50:01] building codes. It's >> Yeah. I am concerned. >> Um, so yeah, I mean I think there's not great data to really predict that just because there aren't really great resources for it. Um, uh, and I think to Jonathan's point, most of this is talking about existing buildings. We're very conscious of that 40% vacancy rate or whatever the number is right now. Um, I it's also important to note this is a 10ear time horizon. You know, I think we're all hopeful conditions change. I think whatever we design, we need to be responsive to the vacancy rates. So, you know, if it is a vacant building, when does it make sense um to impose something? Um it at the next tenant build out, it's, you know, just thinking about what the strategies are to achieve success, but without just displacing our problem somewhere else. Can I I think the one thing I'd want to add is that's a national um challenge

[51:02] the vacancy rates um because of that transition away from people working in offices, right? So that it's it's >> everywhere. >> Yeah. And also the migration away from retail, >> right? Mhm. Are the vacancy rates folded into the future energy consumption or emission in that I know this is unlikely, but say we filled, you know, half of the vacancies. I assume those vacancies aren't currently we don't have air conditioning running. I guess it depends on the building that they're in. But if we start to fill those vacancies, do our emissions inherently go up and how much of a problem would that be? >> Yeah, I'll use some co as a benchmark. Um, I think it's pretty representative. We certainly saw communitywide emissions drop. Most of that was in transportation and not necessarily in our buildings sector, right? So, there are some baseline operational considerations. And

[52:01] then there's also always some flux in vacancy. So, like we've never had 100% occupancy. you know, we can all point to the properties that are always fluctuating between 20 30%. Um, so I don't I mean, I think if we hit 100%, we'd see the numbers rise. Uh, the forecast though are based on our backward looking. So again, I think it's based on a 30ish% vacancy rate, which is kind of the steady state. I think 20 to 30%. H so thank you for the presentation and I clearly appreciate a lot of work that's made up of that which is which is excellent. Um I just wanted to uh make sure that I understood kind of what some of the priorities were uh of of this initiative. And so my understanding is that there's goals and to you know reduce overall emissions

[53:02] and that can be accomplished through energy efficiency measures also electrifying and then transitioning and then also procuring uh energy through clean energy you know sources. Um, regarding the the forecasted kind of like heat increases over time, my understanding is that there's going to be an increased need for air conditioning and so that also needs to be uh affordable I guess with increased energy usage and then the actual um uh air conditioning systems. I would think that most commercial places would have some type of uh air conditioning features and that customers or you know prospective tenants would kind of demand those and so that would be an incentive for them to offer that. Is that uh >> yeah you what you're saying sounds reasonable. Um what what practically happens is most of the tenants are responsible for maintaining the heating

[54:02] and cooling equipment. So the the landlords um push that responsibility down onto the tenant. So like when the equipment's not working or it fails, you as the leasey have to replace that equipment. >> And that's for residential and commercial. >> That's for commercial. >> Oh, that's for commercial. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There's quite a that was actually a topic that came up in the engagement, but you know, there are people that are working in say commercial kitchens that don't have cooling. Mhm. And you know in a similar example um there's a lot of buildings commercial buildings like in particular like schools who either don't have cooling or are relying on evac evaporative cooling >> and with rising humidity levels as well as the increase in temperature extremes it's becoming less effective >> and so the cooling they have is also diminishing in its efficacy right now more so I mean residential um bathroom

[55:00] coolers are a little less um in that bracket of starting to not be as effective. But when you're talking about a large commercial space, yeah, we're starting to see those issues creep in. And so I I saw within the u the presentation kind of programs or uh reimbursements or grants that are available to uh kind of drive energy efficiency and then I'm assume maybe you know transition from fossil fuel to electrification. I didn't see as prominently options to procure clean energy um either from like a community solar program or um putting solar panels on the location if that you know provides the demand that they have. >> Um is that something that's being considered uh or is that a space that you're looking to get into? is what is the source of the energy that they're electricity that they're current procuring and is that something that's

[56:00] more driven by Excel and what they offer in terms of its generation sources or is there something where they could kind of procure their own uh you know solar panels on site? >> Yeah. So for the purposes of our technical analysis we had our consultants work towards our community goal which is 100% um emissions free electricity. So in the analysis it assumes that electricity emissions go to zero. >> The the how we get to that um isn't quite as embedded in our road map beyond I think the recommendation of making sure we provide things like solar garden solutions or um solar particularly to lower electricity costs for um low income or income you know lower income households and and um more financially stressed businesses. So making sure we do that. In the road map itself, we don't go that deeply, but we do have different work that the city's working on that kind of spans the

[57:00] breadth of that. So Jonathan and and I and our department have a whole another kind of sub team effort around, you know, working with Excel to move the grid um you know towards our our 100% goal. Mhm. >> We've um you know worked at the at the policy level to increase um the amount of solar garden capacity that's going to be available for income qualified customers. So some of that's coming online. We partnered with um Pivot Energy on the solar garden that's going out that's out here just um out near the gun barrel area. We built a solar garden here at the city out by the reservoir. It serves the Ponderosa mobile home community. So those are all initiatives we have and certainly in our new construction codes we require solar on all of our new buildings. And so for the existing commercial you're assuming that other

[58:02] departments or other initiatives will be driving the the the the journey towards you know zero emissions clean energy by 2030 or 2035. So this program it doesn't have any type of kind of initiative to kind of you know promote or uh you know enhance or you know kind of drive the the installation of clean energy on site versus uh you know the the mix the change in the mix that Excel is providing. >> Yeah, I wouldn't say that they're they're not integrated. I would just say for the road map perspective, we focus more on um the efficiency and and shift off of natural gas. >> But we're not I wouldn't call it we're relying on other departments. I mean it's it's integrated with the work we do as a department. >> Okay. >> And maybe another little kernel here is

[59:00] that the road map is really oriented towards our our suite of policy. And so we already have pretty um pretty advanced policy as it relates to on-site generation. We have a target for installed capacity locally that we've already surpassed. As Caroline mentioned, we have requirements for any new construction. Um we we have very mature, it's been something that we've been focused on for so long um that it's already there and and churning along. This is to look at the existing um policy and regulation and where are we and how it needs to be evolved and so the solar piece of it is absolutely going to be connected to it. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So I totally appreciate what you're saying and and the answer is yes. It's it's it's in there but what you're seeing tonight is more prioritizing the policy recommendations. >> Yeah. an an additional clarification like in our smart rags if you have solar it's one of the points um you know as as I think we look at building performance

[60:01] onsite generation will be one of the pathways um to get there so like I don't think we're not purposely separating it out um we just haven't dove real deeply into that aspect specifically within the road map. >> Yeah. One other one other follow-up question for a lot of these um for this transit well for the energy efficiency uh solutions and the transition from from uh you know fossil fuel use to electricity um and that conversion have there been initial estimates of what that would cost in a savings so some type of like proforma or like forecasted you know financial savings benefits or or losses done that you know uh resident residents or uh commercial property owners would be facing if they you know if some requirement said okay you need now to transition or you need we know we've got

[61:01] these regulations we've got these standards you have to comply um what type of the like you know financial return on investment you know would they be looking at >> yeah so our our financial anal analysis kind of goes into that detail. We didn't share the details of the entire report with you. We just showed like one example of like the entire portfolio, but that's all built off of what it would take to retrofit each type of building stock and what would be expected in terms of annual operating costs and and all of that is is factored into the analysis. We actually have um like kind of like um samples of each type of like we have a single family residential home and if we were to electrify you know heating and cooling and there was an induction stove and there was you know you had to do hot water here's what the kind of average cost would be in savings. So, we have these kind of like we've picked out some like um what we think are representative

[62:00] uh buildings and that had the consultant put together kind of that exact analysis that you could as like an individual say well how does this what does this look like for my building? We have a you know particular sized commercial building and looking at kind of average cost for electrification for a heat pump for that. Um so we do we do have that level of analysis. Carolyn, you in the past you've talked about the um kind of some of the stranded gas assets and the implications of that and it's almost like the inverse of the question that you just asked is like what if you don't do nothing, >> you know? >> Yeah. I'm just curious like if is there like a a positive net present value for a lot of these solutions or is it something where you know we're going to be in the red for a while and even the cost savings are not going to offset the initial investments. I'm just trying to get a sense of is this something that you know you're going to have strong resistance against because they feel like this is not going to be financially advantageous to to >> Yeah. And I mean I think it's a graded right. If we talk about

[63:00] you let's just talk about a residential home. It's you know one of the easiest to transition. It's not always easy but it's one of the easiest to transition because you have you know basic standard appliances. We kind of understand how to do it. Um it's going to be more expensive than when you have to replace each of those appliances at end of life generally because you have to do some electrical work. Um, some of the appliances are a little bit more expensive, but the rebates will buy them down. So, maybe they cost about the same as what you would have had to pay. Um, you know, savings is the really tough one to define because we have to make about 10 assumptions about where electricity costs are going, where natural gas costs are going, and and what heating is. Um, I'd say, you know, it all depends on what you pick for those numbers. But my experience and what we started already seeing on the natural gas system is what we've enjoyed for decades in

[64:01] terms of very low cost. In fact, some of the lowest cost natural gas in the country. Um there's numbers creeping up in the base of that cost that are showing it's accelerating far past electricity and we and others are going to regulate and we're going to drive more people off of the gas system and that means there's fewer people that are going to pay um for that gas. Those gas prices are going to go up. Um so there will be savings realized. the exact point is really tough to predict. When you get to a commercial building, it's a lot more complicated um to to retrofit those. I don't know that they're going to save. Um like I don't know if it's a financial perform that's going to show them they're going to save. I think we're going to expect that they are going to have to make changes for the betterment of everybody and it's going to come at some cost um depending

[65:00] on the building what it is. But again, they also have to replace equipment at the end of life. It's just a little bit more complicated. Like we did this building, this is an all electric building. It was not all electric um when we acquired it. Um but it was also a terrible building that had to be gutted and and redone so it could be good for office space so it was easier to retrofit. I mean, it just is all at what point in time you make the transition as to how cost effective it's going to be. Great explanation. I'm not adding on because it wasn't. I want just want to add one other little piece which is to say excellent question. I also think it's too early to answer it. Um, reason being, I want to go back to what Carolyn said that this road map sits at a higher level and we're trying to get some um some sense from the board and the community and council about um philosophically is this the right direction to go in. And if yes, then

[66:00] each of those recommendations that you saw, we're going to have to do a much deeper dive into what that would actually look like. What are the implications of that that regulation? Um, and in some cases, back to your question about cooling, we have a heat strategy that we're designing right now, too. So, it's not just looking at how do we make sure that every building has air conditioning, but what are other opportunities to look at um connecting to our another work area in the department, which is our naturebased solutions to talk about natural cooling opportunities. Um, so the heat strategy will look at what are what are the suite of incentives, the programs, and the policies that we should be evaluating. And so it'll they'll they'll see a dotted line then to this roadmap. So to to your question, those kinds of proforma questions I think are going to shake out as we actually understand here's what we would change. Here's who's going to be implicated and here's how that's going to roll out. We'd have a much better sense of how to answer

[67:00] that. >> Okay. So you're going to kind of stress test and get feedback on these proposed policy approaches and then once that's kind of figured out, then you could dive deeper. Okay, we're going to regulate it. This is what the commercial property owners are going to face and this is the financial implications of that. But we're still just kind of like kicking the tires on correct on the >> and that code would have to come back and and we haven't even decided yet. Would it be a package of code changes? Would they come back individually? Maybe you've already thought about that and you have an answer to that. But in my mind, we're still thinking through that how that would actually come back and be enacted. >> Okay. Yeah. First of all, just want to say I really appreciate how thorough this is since I know you're taking this council. I think it's on a really good path forward to want to make sure that the support gets passed away. But I'm curious how you're engaging going back to some of those numbers. I mean, it seems like there's a fair amount of support, but there's also a fair amount of not support. I'm curious one if there's anything in here

[68:00] that you added based on the people who are unsupportive of the general policies just so we can kind of get an understanding. It's really easy to sit on this. We sit on this board in our own free time. I work in corporate sustainability for a manufacturing company here in Boulder. So, I think I have a really like acknowledging my own bias. So, I'm curious if there's anything you did to take into consideration like people who might not already be supportive and then also how you plan to engage those specific communities going forward. I mean, I know you you can keep it at a high level. that we'd go talk to facilities manager a but really just want to make sure that we're bringing not obviously going to bring everyone along but bringing a majority of the city along I know a lot of people it's just convenience which I can understand too so yeah I think I'll I'll start then yeah team definitely weigh in you know I think some of what we heard and and we had this on one of the slides a little bit which is there's a lot of misconceptions a not a

[69:01] myth. Um you know so certainly do we change a policy? No. But do we understand how much bigger lift we need to do to introduce it? Yes. Um you know so I think there's there's that that grading of approach right there's a lot of people out there that um inform their decision based on misunderstandings or fear. Um, so lots of work we can do there. >> Yeah. >> Then we're going to have our our subset of population that's just going to be resistant. And I think that's where we um, you know, need to understand how to at least make them successful. Um, but not necessarily going to put move them into the camp where they want it. Um, but find the ways to make them successful. I would add that I think we I mean first off like this is happening like we've said coming from other angles. So you know looking at the

[70:00] commercial sector which is the largest largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions they're >> already having to deal with the state >> and the kind of you know the level of support the states can provide for them to get from point A to point B is like not a lot. So I think we could come in and we have better support for our own buildings which we have relationships built with, you know, um they have respect for our programs. We, you know, we know where they're at. We have a history of information about them to better support them in moving towards the types of reductions that we also want is one thing. And then I think the other thing that we've heard and take into into account is um flexibility and approach. So with both the smart rags and the performance standards, you can provide a lot of different pathways and flexibility in how a building owner or a landlord gets from point A to point B. It's not just like this is it, this is the number and you got to get there and you know and this is the only way how. I mean it could be they're going to go a different emissions path or there might be that they go and they say well here's

[71:01] what I can do over this timeline. So like city of Denver and the city of Denver at least has provided flexibility in timeline kind of based on where commercial buildings owners or managers are at in terms of their finance timelines. So I think we build that kind of flexibility into you know how we would regulate our building owners. And I think what I I mean what I always think of um as I'm thinking about the space is um you know think about when the incandescent light bulb went away you know and it was like um I think we went from you know what we've been doing to this moment has been voluntary um adoption and so it's people seeking out the resource and some people don't even know it exists. So that's where a lot of this m misinformation comes from. Um, so we're really just on a like a transition path. And so I I really appreciated the recommendations from our

[72:01] engagement team around um, you know, those ideas of like peer-to-peer learning. And, you know, I just it is like fundamentally it's it's a process that's going to be happening. It's not just going to be a regulation. It's going to be a a a transformation of of um, you know, just what it's going to look like. it it's going to look different in 10 years, you know, and it's not just going to be here, it's going to be everywhere, you know. >> And I think also in answer to kind of your question about finance, that's like a huge part of kind of what what we're trying to figure out, what the city, the state is trying to figure out. when you you know attend conferences with people who are implementing performance standards across the country it's all about finance stack and like how do you talk to people about this or talk people through this who come from this place of like I don't know what you're asking me to do or how to do it you know it's like you do have to bring that knowledge of the finance information to those conversations we have funded some

[73:00] electrification analyses um with our partners at pace so we have some sense of what of how people are like wrangling with this and what it might look like and they're getting a sense, you know, so we have like case studies now that we can show people, oh, you know, this property manager did electrification analysis on four buildings and here's what that looked like and so people can kind of like compare and contrast their own. And I think the other piece the that legislation the on bill financing legislation um that so that is like kind of building off of what Laurel was pointing out like the the financial component is like a big source of resistance right naturally because it's like a like a people are it just you know is is taking away from you know what people have invested it's their value and they're building and whatever and so if that gets um can be financed over a time period period at a reasonable rate. Um, I think that then everything becomes much more possible and there still will be, you know,

[74:01] certain buildings that are going to be a lot gnarier to try to um transition, but you know, I mean, there's they're like some of the suggestions again and are really around, you know, how to maybe expedite the ones that you can transition easily. You know, I had two followup questions on what you were both just saying on the line item financing. It sounds like it's a possibility, not definite. What is the likelihood of that? What are this? This maybe is too nitty-gritty, but what would we what or what would we need to do as a city or as owners? What does that take to have that be successful? I I see how you're gonna answer. We both started squirming. >> I know. I was reflecting on my lovely chat with Commissioner. Um you know, I I believe we will have a um residential on

[75:03] financing program sometime next year, 2026. To get us started, we do have financing tools for commercial properties today. um that are property assess clean energy financing programs. We don't see a lot of uptake in that. So, I think we need to still have conversations with the commercial side to understand if this is a tool for them. It's certainly a tool on the residential side. Um it'll start small. I think we're really thinking about how we grow it and and truth be told, I've been working on this for a while to make sure that we have this in place before we start regulating. Um because I do think it's a foundational solution that's necessary and and so I'm going to make it happen one way or the other >> and it's and specifically like there there are tools like today for a home, you know, that's not the issue. The issue is more in multif family like rental space, you know, where there's split incentive. So this the only

[76:00] there's one person only one person >> directly to your question as the city. >> Yeah, if you I'm certain you picked up on the nuance. This is a legislation that is required to to get us there. This has been something that's been talked about for at least 20 years in Colorado. I would say we are as close as we have ever been um to getting this legislation passed. It came very very close last year and I feel like it's still got a lot of horsepower going into this next session. So what can we do as a city? I think there's a broader question. I mean the city is actively engaged in making sure that this legislation passes and so we're working with our delegation working with other entities and partners to make sure we're prepped um that this one can make it through this this year. um when you're ready to go testify uh in front of committee, um happy to uh reach out to the board and maybe have some representation from the board.

[77:00] >> And I'm serious about that. I think it takes a lot of voices um in in front of committee under the under the dome to get these things passed. Yeah, we we were um very enthusi I mean it was a council priority last year, last session and um and and not through a lack of support for the concept. Um it was more the complexity of the state funding we were bringing to the table. So it included uh 100 million out of the unclaimed property trust fund from the the state and that created some of the complexity. So that was actually was floated down and we're working to get out in front of that for this session. >> You said you had two. >> Oh yeah. My other was to follow up on I guess if you can specify what technical support you said that was very valued by customers.

[78:00] What is the technical support on like the residential versus commercial? I assume those are different. And then is it implementation? Is it this is what you need for permissions from the city? Is it this is the finance package? Is it all of the above? >> Yeah. I mean commercial is like how do you navigate the city's regulations, you know, the permitting process and all that. Like we heard that pretty resounding from the commercial businesses side. Not not to disparage anything, it's just complicated everywhere. Um, on the residential side, I think we've been really successful with just the navigational support generally, connecting residents with contractors, financing tools, um, those type of things. So, um, you know, I think streamlining the whole permitting review process, but certainly we heard something and we need to explore more just, yeah, it's a lot of different steps depending on what you're doing.

[79:02] H um so I assume that as you're evaluating different policy options you start with what is the provide the greatest impact with the minimal amount of cost and then you kind of move along that spectrum depending on you know your feedback. So my understanding is that that's why there's kind of the initial focus on like regulations and compliance and standards and um and then at some point maybe if you feel like okay there's strong push back saying we're looking at you know significant costs beyond the savings that were forecasted in you know considering the initial upfront you know investment. Then you would look at different, you know, funding sources or options for, you know, rebates or grants or other things like that. Is that kind of the approach that you're taking for these policy um solutions that you're

[80:01] evaluating? >> Um would that be correct? >> Generally, yes. You know, certainly we kind of showed the charts with, you know, if you if you're looking at the emissions as the cost or you know, the savings, right? The greatest bang for a buck is to make the what's the do you remember what the square footage is? I mean the number of buildings it's like if 400 buildings and like 50 make up the bulk of the emissions. So if you can get those 50 can make a significant dent in emissions. Now those 50 are going to be expensive because it's a lot of square footage. Yeah. >> Um, so that's certainly why we lead with like the building performance standards starting with the largest buildings because that's where we're going to have the greatest emissions reduction. >> Yeah. >> From a climate resilience perspective,

[81:01] we start at the other end. The buildings with the least emissions are the least ready to meet our climate future. So we have to tackle it both ends with but different solutions and for different reasons but yes I mean so if we start here like what are the tools we have to put in place to mitigate the financial impacts I think I mean I just want to be transparent and say there's going to be a premium to tackle like if we're just going for emissions reduction. >> Yeah, >> there's going to have to be investment in buildings. The envelopes need to be improved. The equipment needs to be more efficient. More efficient equipment is more expensive than just replacing with code minimum equipment. Those things are going to have to

[82:00] happen. You will realize some savings. Will it pay back? Probably. In some cases, yes. In some cases, no. from a societal perspective um is it worth that investment most of the analysis will say yes that to hit our goals this is cost effective far less than the you know societal impact of not doing it I think that's one of the measures >> it it's not unlike I mean this is a process I've seen repeated time and time again as we evaluate um ratcheting up um any of our regulation. And I think it goes back to the question about outreach and I'm thinking about it all the way back from every time we do a building code update, an energy code update, green points, smart rigs, BO um that was up there, we we follow this process. It's we we get the direction from council to say we need to really push the accelerator and

[83:00] make sure we're doing what we can do. And then we look at that analysis to say how do we balance all of these important priorities that community particularly layering layering in the cost. And then we have the conversation with the community about um here's what it's going to look like. Um and to your earlier point, can we bring everybody along in in this journey? No, we can't. We can't. Though interestingly every time we do that kind of outreach and and we will hear and it goes for our carbon tax and municipalization and there are those who will say change no we don't want any change and Boulder is is very accustomed to really turning that dial and really ratcheting up and using that tool of policy and regulation for the value based outcomes that we have. And so I I I like to think that our our community is prepared for those conversations.

[84:00] Doesn't make it any easier, particularly right now as we're starting to see the economic impact um at the state and at the city level. Those are very real concerns that we are trying to really highlight very acutely because the cost is a very very big issue that we have to be paying attention to. So the conversation that we're going to have with council is yes, we understand that this it's not it's not debatable that these are these are our values and this is what we want to do but we need to start understanding from a policy perspective how do we balance those things a little bit. >> Yeah, thanks for that Jonathan. I think I'd lay this one on. We generally are not going to design this to actually like exactly get the number. I mean you start and you design and and you start to try and get to the zero then you realize you have to give on some things like what's feasible and what's technically feasible. My experience is when you find that middle ground then you also start to create the market transformation forces that create

[85:01] momentum behind it and do the rest of the work for you. Um you know we've seen that on the electricity side for example you set audacious you know goals that Oh my god, you know, we're going to have to do, you know, 30% renewable energy on the grid. It's never going to work. Um that was the conversation just 20 years ago. >> Um you know, less than that, right? And we put in place legislation that, you know, every utility said was going to break the grid and now they're they've shot way past that. And you know, everything is telling us we're going to get really close statewide, you know, in the 2030 to 2040 time frame. So we, you know, we set the goal, we push levers as far as we can get them >> without breaking the system. We prove that that didn't break anything and then it starts to go further on its own. And that's really how we'll approach like designing standards and and process as

[86:01] well. We understand that. Yeah. trying to get the 100% in one bite is is not where you're going to be successful. >> And and the regulations or or standards that you're looking for these buildings to meet, is it more of like kind of a gradual thing over time or is it a big Okay, it's not a step-wise kind of gradual. I really appreciate all the consideration around equity and helping low income and renters, but I'm curious if you've done any analysis on like costs passed along to consume things. And I just couple that with like tariffs happening and we're seeing those cost people who already might be low income if that's been considered. if you make a company that manufactures here in Boulder or sells here in Boulder or a restaurant like they could raise prices. Um, obviously you can't do anything to stop that, but is there anything analysis

[87:00] done on that? And I mean obviously I think the green showing the green square the building might help, but then you could also on the flip side see that they're going to increase costs for the green premium. Mhm. This is um you know we we implemented smart rugs >> for example and you know the market changes yeah >> far outpaced any consequence of the investment that had to be made in any of those properties. Right. Um so it's a really tough tough one um to track. It's certainly something we're very conscious of though and I think that's where you know like on the building performance side the current regulation on the commercial side we require them to advertise the cost. So you know to try and and do we can we can do a little bit of rent control on the um commercial side. We can't do it

[88:01] on the residential. So thinking about that um but it's it's a very real conversation and I think that's one we have to have when we do some of the deeper engagement for sure. >> And the reason that um Carolyn isn't mentioning the residential side is because the state statute on rent control disallows um us to put any kind of regulation on rent to place. Um and and just kind of going back to our earlier slide, if it if we subsid if we help to subsidize some of that cost, we can then make that request that people don't that you know there's a stabilization spread. So it's not you know just one big say hit. But the other thing that I just know from I used to be a market analyst is it like rents are set based on what the market can bear. So, it's not like it's, you know, gonna suddenly shoot up. It's it's what's possible in a in a

[89:00] market. And actually, I've been surprised to learn that the I mean, this isn't necessarily going to hold for 10 years, but this is the first time since I've lived in Colorado, which I moved here in 2007, that we're actually in um a healthy building uh market where there's actually some vacancy, which is like really a different >> Yeah, maybe it's a good time. >> Different than anything I've ever seen. really interesting. And then what are those conversations like with Excel since they're our sole provider of energy and there's no competition with them? Is there any type of guarantee that they won't rely on these marketing hoaxes about the grid and try to increase costs or um anything? I have a really positive Excel. >> Well, to be clear, the cost will be increased. I Well, and then if you think about the recent federal building where all our electricity cost is going to go up anyways, I think it's just maybe just bad timing. Obviously, put that out of your control. >> Yeah. Um like I said, I both gas and

[90:00] electricity are going up, right? Um labor's gone up, supplies have gone up. Doesn't matter which side you're talking about. And yes, I mean it's I guess it I'll I'll offer this one not to defend Excel. >> Yeah. >> Um they're not exactly lying to you when they say that um you know they're they're not in the highest part of the country in terms of of billing, right? We we actually relative to other parts of the country actually have pretty affordable Yeah. >> um bills. Um it doesn't feel that way though when it goes up and it's going to go up a bit. Um you know I I think we we have regulate they're regulated at the state. Um one of the thing we do as as the city of Boulder is we will intervene at the public utilities commission so we can file comments and raise concerns. We've advocated for um you know enhanced support for

[91:02] customers who are struggling. Um, I think we'll we'll have more conversations about rate designs to to make sure they're affordable. Certainly, I listened to the commissioners talk for several hours this morning about um ways to mitigate some of the financial consequence of what we're facing in terms of the federal landscape, but unfortunately it is going to go up. It complicates our conversation. Yeah, >> it's unfortunate times in that regard. >> So, the comment that I wanted to make was that um you know, we have goals as a city to meet, right? Um, I kind of would prefer not to see more rules and rags added on top of layered on top of what we already have, but to use more of like, you know, those um, you know, peer-to-peer

[92:01] teaching or, you know, like point of sale, you know, a bit more of that than like having uh, commercial or even residential books put in large investments, right? Just to meet meet the rules and regs. It's just the word out there is like Boulder is not businessfriendly or you know don't go into Boulder or you know things like that. And I just feel like the more maybe the rules and regs can come later if necessary, but the state and the county is putting enough in place that I feel like if we can work with the state and counties and then provide more incentives and provide more of um nudge our population towards where we want to go. Just a thought. >> Yeah, I certainly appreciate that. But I I think and I'll just say I think it's a balance. One of one of the one of the challenges is

[93:02] you know voluntary and >> agreed >> um doesn't quite pick up the pace we need to hit but those have to absolutely be embedded to make any transition to regulation work. Um so so I certainly agree with that feedback as well. I would I was gonna just add on to say absolutely yes. Um there there's always that complimentary piece whenever we think about any kind of regulation. It always comes with um smart rigs is a great example. Um we talk about carrots and sticks all the time. Our our funny analogy is we are going to make people run through a huge long field of carrots before they get to one very big stick at the end. The idea there is that we threw incentives for eight years at property owners before they had to be compliant with smart rigs. We may take a similar

[94:00] approach. I don't know. But I want to acknowledge the fiscal reality that we have as well. So it's easy to say we should offer incentives. Those incentives mean money given out to homeowners and businesses. That money has to come from somewhere. So as you know and we've talked about um the great success that we've had with some of our federal grants. there is going to be a package of money that's going to really help drive both the market transformation and a huge incentive package. And so I would just say this is not just about layering on more regulation. It is about streamlining perhaps some of the regulation that we have may go away completely. And um which I know will be a crazy thought um and like that will never happen in Boulder regulation going away but it's possible. Um, but I just want to acknowledge that anything we do would look at connecting to whatever kind of incentive package we could do and it may be um, let's work on more incentives to get the behavior change that we want and

[95:02] set some kind of regul regulation to phase in over time. So, >> and I think like I mentioned before, you know, if we're talking about the largest emitters, right, which is those like large commercial, >> they're already they already have to follow the state's performance standard. And like I said before, there's not a lot of support for them to get from point A to point B. So if we can >> we can replace the states. >> We can replace that or be, you know, a more supportive end for them to get there. I think they'll be less frustrated and um heavier. >> Yeah. >> I'm curious. This is maybe a tip as someone who does it from the other side, but I'm curious. I think with my company, um it really helps when you engage the people who are already invested in this. like we have green teams. We have 90 plus locations across the world. Um, and so it really helps like it might not be the person you would see on the website to contact of like the facilities manager or the president for that location. I'm sure we're I do automation and manufacturing. Um,

[96:01] but we have the local green team and they actually get a lot of say and a lot of presentation. And so to like with that peer-to-peer finding your champions even within your those 50 is maybe a little maybe take 10. I know your staff is busy but to really engage fine people. >> No, I like that. So creating the change from within from some of the >> we have a really small sustainability team and then we have green teams which is volunteer things that people do within their job. And so for us we have solar panels on our roof and it was actually the green not the operations manager who the drive who led the champion and use like extra company dollars um to put the solar panels on our roof and that's how we're meeting our state requirement. Um, also I think like going back to the peertopeer even finding >> people and I I think if you do it would take a little research give it to a research assistant to really dive in but

[97:01] through LinkedIn her climate happy hours I think you could really start to build out >> a climate positive network and maybe people who can bring that conversation within and be like hey I know this let's see what we can do already within the company I'm a big supporter of it I contribute a lot >> sounds like an early wins opport opportunity. >> I really like it. I mean, they do cool work for our team and then they present at the company when we have fairs. I just positive. I really like that. Regarding u access to air conditioning for for for tenants and then homeowners, are you thinking more of a like a mandate to you know regulation regarding that or are you thinking of you know providing incentives where it's you know financially feasible for them to to have that access?

[98:01] I'm thinking of it in the context of a potential carrot in lie of something else. So thinking about like all the ways you make things like if we regulate but if this is how you like you get more points if you do this or um if you do this you don't have to do this. Um so trying to think about how to make it an incentive within a regulation is one strategy. Um I think we need to do more research around in in particular our older apartment buildings are the ones of particular concern. Um because I think those are the ones where a like the financial impacts of like those inefficient window units are are

[99:00] really weighing and some restrict how what you can use and like there's lots of complexity. So I think we need to understand that situation a little bit deeper. But yeah, I mean I think if you have to get a heat pump, you've actually created air conditioning also. So as as you know, if we think about like end of life replacement, if you have to put in a heat pump, you've created air conditioning. >> Just the awareness and education. M >> yeah I think that's why like it leads with the idea of monitoring and regulation as a secondary option like is it happening on its own are certain people being left behind you know one more question of overall bringing back to the early slides um your consultant showed if you tackle these three categories this will let us target the categories that you marked as we are

[100:00] likely to do. If you combine all of those, do you know where that puts us in that target profile? >> Yeah. I mean, what what's left out if we uh so end of life replacement would apply to all commercial buildings. And I think if you looked at our graph like as long as you replace um space conditioning equipment first and foremost you get a really long ways. So I mean that end of life replacement alone gets us pretty close and if it applies to everybody then then anybody who complies with requirements will contribute to hitting the goal. Now, we obviously have a problem in that we have a lot of residents and some businesses that don't pull permits and things like that. So, that's a different issue. The next step is water conditioning.

[101:00] Like that would be in that point to make sure the buildings are like well insulated, operating efficiently, so we're not straining our grid, so we're not driving up costs. you have to build in the envelope measures. So that's kind of going into like package four. So it's like how many values do you want to add in? And I think we need to be close closer to package four. Three got the emissions target. Package four sorts to get us into a little bit more resiliency. >> And I think also like the the regulations can be intertwined. So if you're if you meet end of life, most likely you're going to meet your performance standard target. You know, if you meet end of life, you're also going to meet your smart readings target, right? So they they can just kind of support one another. >> And what's in package for heat pumps? >> Yeah. So that's all the appliances >> are electric in the house. are electric

[102:01] and you do some basic envelope. So, insulation, air sealing, >> which is cheap compared to HVAC. >> No, unless you're not if you're commercial, right? >> Not too bad in residential usually. >> I'm just curious, why do you get pushed back on like end of life replacement? >> Because it's not it's not like a there's not like a drop in solution. So, you can't just pull your furnace out and slot the heat pump in. Um, there's, you know, you usually have to you have to put a different circuit in for your heat pump. Usually, if you don't have an air conditioner, it's easier if you have an air conditioner and you're just replacing the air conditioner with heat pump. When you get into a commercial building, you have a big rooftop unit and you have to change to to a different configuration, there's usually electrical upgrades. I think we've also found that contract there's contractors who will uh you know because they know

[103:00] natural gas furn you know that's what they're going to push someone towards also it's like typically an emergency situation for homeowners at least you're just going to go to the store and get the easiest thing so you have on the truck like this is what's easy >> yeah I mean one of the um interesting uh recommendations from our consultant our engagement consultant was maybe consider um putting more effort into building a new workforce instead like trying to teach an old dog a new trick, you know? >> Yeah. >> I think it's like just transition, you know, with our HVAC people. Like you kind of do have to bring them along. You can just be like, >> "Yeah, as an interesting job, you know, you know, we've been we've been having projects come under new new construction, come in under our current code, which we adopted last year, which is all electric requirements. The biggest push back the fireplace and the and then second is the pool heater. Um, ask me how much sympathy I have for the pool hater. >> How about the kitchen?

[104:01] >> No, surprisingly. Well, commercial kitchens are exempt under our our current code. Um, but we're seeing more go in all electric. Um, I think I think some of them are um are starting to realize that if you want to actually be able to staff your commercial kitchen, you need to make it a little bit more comfortable for the workforce. And the conventional kitchens aren't doing that. It's it's getting a lot harder to retain kitchen staff because of the conditions. And I mean, that's like the number one selling point for electric at this point in time. Um on but on the residential side surprisingly people are okay giving up their Viking. Everybody's been complaining about that. It's the fireplaces. So >> they don't want to give up their gas fireplace. >> Uhhuh. >> They've given up the fireplace. It's gas though. >> And they want their gas fireplace because they think it will work when the

[105:00] power's out. See, I wanted to see that face. I get asked a lot of these same questions at my job, too. Like by by my people I'm trying to convince it's the same thing over and over again. And public service announcement is don't use your gas appliances when the power is out. Even if you can light it, that doesn't mean you should. >> So maybe I'll just um wrap, but certainly if there are other questions, we can continue. Um just >> recommendations. >> Yes, feedback or recommendations. Yes, that's what I was saying. >> No, no, I'm asking I think we've got questions. >> Yeah. And so we'll need to do um a motion to extend the meeting. We're at about four minutes uh to 8. So certainly just want to um support any other questions, comments that you have and then get to um how to package that up and get it back to the board.

[106:02] >> Yeah. Okay. I'll put forward the motion now to extend our meeting. >> Say time constraint. >> Yeah. So I think we we did questions. We got some some recommendations. Just want to make sure we capture any additional recommendations >> or feedback on what on on what was recommended by us and the people. >> Okay. So that those slides where you had the stars and the red the circles, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Can we go back to them actually? >> Yes. >> So my personal favorite ones, the ones that are sort of like, you know, like the end of life replacement. I like that one. Um, and then the other ones were the point of sale sounded very interesting, but I'm just wondering how that will affect like um, uh, I don't know if the buyer or the seller pays for the upgrades of the

[107:01] house or the change >> seller. I mean, well, so far it's been the seller. This this is fairly new across the country, this whole point of sale idea. And so it's the seller >> does an audit, they put some money, at least in Berkeley, this how it works. they put some money into escrow, then the buyer can implement the actual changes with the money. So that doesn't implement like it doesn't affect the sale timeline. >> Yeah. Because the the amount is about a half. So like technically it's actually like >> both, right? Because half of it's getting put in by the seller >> and ostensibly the other half would come from the buyer. >> I like the idea, but my only concern about that is already polar is expensive, >> you know, could bring up prices. So um and then the other one I don't think of this from the recommendations you had the peer-to-peer supported you. It was more >> yeah it was um it's in the >> it's in the engagement feedback and recommendations. It's on the final slide. >> Yeah. No, like I like your idea of like

[108:00] more more focused especially if you think commercial is where we need to be, you know, and if it's just a handful of companies that are or commercial entities that hope to be touched. So maybe like approaching that case. So that that would be my take on the whole thing. >> Are you looking for recommendations on how these standards and regulations are presented? Alternative ones or other policy options? >> Yes. >> All okay. Um >> so like what's missing? Um >> which don't you like? Which do you like? >> Okay. Would it be possible to kind of think about it and kind of let the dust settle and then provide any recommendations? Because I I mean I think they're good and it sounds like you're going to kind of test these out a little bit with get some feedback. Um I would have to kind of let it distill a

[109:01] little bit and think it I don't know is it possible to get um a copy of this presentation or is this kind of proprietary for >> we can send that out to the right. Okay. And just to be I think you are the last group that we're going to be talking to before we get to council. So >> yeah. When does this go to council? >> End of the month. >> And the package I think has to be, you know, I think it's like the 21st. It goes it goes >> which doesn't mean you're done being able to give us recommendations just for clarity. Yeah. It just won't make it into the council packet. That's all. Would you like obviously the sooner the better, but is there kind of like a deadline just to have a sense of how much time? >> I think what I would propose is to let us work on an email out to the board. I want to make sure that we're not um getting sideways with board rules in terms of making recommendations that are coming from the board. Um because what we can't get into is if say you suggest

[110:02] a thing that Mahana doesn't agree with, that would never happen. But um I don't want to put the board in a position that something's going forward that hasn't been vetted or discussed. Um and so I just want to think a little bit through the best way to do that, accommodate your request, which we can do. So maybe what I'll do is try to get a message out to you all tomorrow um with a copy of these slides and then some some direction on how to uh provide that maybe a deadline that work. >> Sure. And would so are you saying that the recommendations are provided would need among the board members? Well, so if you're if you're seeing something here that you'd like to add, generally what we what we'd like is that the board discussed and so we're speaking with one voice that this was brought to the board. The board discussed and they generally agreed that they they the board agrees with the the staff recommended policies to advance to

[111:00] discussion with council. Um, one member believed or thought that maybe there was an additional item that could be included that relates to X, Y, and Z. So, just how we package that up. Um, I just want to make sure that we're not putting you off in an awkward position of not having some agreement or alignment about what goes forward with your voice. >> Okay. So, if we come up our own individual recommendations, then there might be some value in um socializing it among all of us and then kind of >> Yes. But you can't do that because that's board work outside of a board meeting. But what we can do is capture it this way. We'll say one board member suggested uh the addition of a thing and and we can do it that way. That does that doesn't suggest that you all agreed on that. U and that that's a little bit of a workaround. But this idea of you all socializing and talking about amongst yourselves is a bit of a no no because it's board work. And I think once there was one time I

[112:01] don't remember what the topic was you you summarized what we all said and then you emailed it to us and then we were like >> like we mostly agreed and made some >> I think there was some confusion. >> You think that one >> I think it was me maybe anyway >> I think that was a good what you proposed is a good way to do it. >> Yeah. So, we can do that. We'll get that out to you tomorrow. Great. >> I have I guess two thoughts. I just want to echo what Hannah and Annie also seconded is like I like the way you put it is find your internal champion. Um I think that's a really great recommendation especially on the commercial space since that has potential for high impact. Um it sounds like also like the technical support and all that that entails is super valuable to the general customer base. So, I think that's another point that I thought um held a lot of impact and

[113:02] not that this needs to be a recommendation for a presentation, but if there's some way that that can be disseminated to the customer base that we offer that technical support and what that entails uh would be super useful. I would just since we're trying to get like support as a for say that I support the the technical thing and like maybe even having like a questionnaire like choose your own adventure type thing because like we said multiple ways to meet these maybe puts a little less pressure on them to spend all this money or like there could be some kind of like Q&A survey that then says here are your three recommendations cost time like based on your situation how you could meet the regular population going forward. I think that'd be >> great. Yeah. >> When you did the I don't know if it was part of the survey interviews, whatever stage, and they said they like technical support, did they specify if they liked support in like an inerson phone call, filling out like just following some

[114:00] sort of flowchart? Did was that specified? >> What they what they experienced today is actually having almost like that more concierge style where it's actually somebody who works in the building. >> That's really hard. do this from the other side for EU law and it's really hard. >> Yeah. I mean, it's they're not this thoughtful. >> Yeah. I mean, I think it's the same person >> and I think one of the things we heard is like I want to be able to show up and somebody will be there to answer my questions when I have my questions. >> Yeah. >> I don't want to have to like schedule office hours two weeks from now because I may not have my question anymore. You know, those kind of things. True. others. >> Thank you.

[115:00] >> Just thank you for >> thanks for the excellent questions and feedback. It's it's super helpful. Um, and I I'll apologize if you didn't have some of this detail to maybe maul over in advance, but um, I think we have a workaround so we can give you the time you need. >> Sure. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I just need to adjust one thing on the slides. I'll I'll send it to Heather and I'll turn it PDF. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Yeah. feel free to hurry away. >> I think we're on item seven, the matters from the EAD, city manager, city attorney. So, I'll pass that on, Jonathan. >> Yeah, thanks. Um, so I I can do these relatively quickly. Um, this is the spot where we usually go through the council

[116:00] calendar and talk about some of the upcoming items. I'll I'll kind of do these in reverse if that's okay with all of you just quickly. Um you have some pretty packed agendas over the next couple of months with a lot of items coming your way and so I just want to flag one of those beside the study session that had last week around the um water supply plan. Uh felt like that was an important plan and update to bring to the board. It's an area that um we haven't done a very good job talking about with the board from our utilities department in terms of water planning, drought planning. And so we'll bring that supply plan uh to you. Um obviously there's a big push in the next um couple of months uh to accelerate on the comp plan discussion. So a big part of your next meeting is going to be talking about updates on the Boulder Valley comp plan. They'll get some very specific questions for the EAB, curated specifically for the EAB. Each board is

[117:00] getting a set of some questions that um really kind of draw out your expertise and so we'll be bringing those forward next month as well. Just wanted you to be prepared for that. >> Um >> on that note, are there things we can get ahead of time like so we can >> Yes. Yes. Yeah. In fact, we we're looking at some of the memo um outline for that already today. So yes, you'll you'll have a lot of those details in advance for sure. Um again, kind of working backwards, I did I do think it might be worthwhile just to provide a really high level overview of last week's study session with council. There were a couple of intersections that I thought would be useful to talk about and then to let you know that we're going to bring bringing back some of those pieces, not just the water supply plan. That was obviously one update of the study session. The second half was really around landscaping landscape code updates. You might remember we've had a number of conversations that really kicked off with the building code update, expanding the WOOI. We talked about this, I believe, at your June

[118:01] meeting. Um, looking forward to say what was being proposed in terms of the WOOI, how that would affect um I know uh and implicate buildings in particular. And if you remember, we talked a lot about the non-combustible zone and then what you could do in terms of landscaping and then I had signaled that that was going to go to council. It did last Thursday and it was the study session and so again it was an opportunity for them to weigh in on what was being proposed. Um the two pieces if you watched uh the session it may have seemed hard to track and that's because there were two pieces related to the landscape code. one about water and one about fire and every type of value in between got uh kind of tangled up in that conversation but council did a nice job of sorting through it. Um it was really talking about um the discussion was how do we think about um landscaping requirements

[119:00] for water use and then how do we think about landscoping requirements um for protecting and hardening against wildfire. It may seem like those are the same thing, but they're not. So, there are very different um and sometimes conflicting priorities when you think about the policy that you might want to enact and the requirements that you might want to have around landscaping. And I think some of that was exposed when we talked to council about this a couple of months ago. And then it was really present, I think, if you saw the Boulder Reporting Lab um article on this item. lot of discussion about um the fact that the code only pertains to new construction and so in the WOI that's about 200 on estimate uh per year and so the thought was that's great but that's not really addressing some of the critical need we have therefore how do we address all of the other structures that that we have council had talked about that um back in I mean I think it

[120:03] was in May and they debated whether or not they could make the this code retroactive. And at that time, council did not agree to move forward in in applying it retroactively. And so what you might have seen last Thursday is a little bit of a debate about what's retroactive, what's not retroactive, what can we actually do in the with the existing structures. Uh but ultimately they had a very good dialogue. Once again, there was a lot of discussion about uh food production. It's one of the things that we've been trying to sort through with council about that non-combustible zone. So the 5-ft buffer between a structure that there should be nothing growing there. And then the idea is well in smaller lots people would may like to use that space for growing food for example. So again a conflicting priority that council had to wrestle with a little bit and I thought they did a nice job. I don't think it's necessarily resolved yet. Um, but that's

[121:00] what a study session is for is to raise some of those concerns and then staff can take those back. >> Who raised that concern? >> I'm sorry. >> Who raised that concern? >> Well, it's been raised by a couple of council members. Um, council member Shuhard and council and Mayor Brockett both have raised that concern. Um, in terms of if you are growing food, which is usually high water content, is that truly a fire hazard? Is that an acceptable use? Um, and it's it's hard because staff who are in the field are always making judgment calls about what is allowable, what's not allowable. It's not always black and white. So, I I found that slightly bit ridiculous because I know a lot of people do grow food, but >> I don't think it's to the extent that putting this regulation in place would back that. putting which regulation >> the the Wii and the and having the five foot the the concern that having the

[122:00] five foot gap right is going to affect the people who raise who who have who grow food in that space I don't think that's a lot any sort of impactable amount of people who are growing food in that 5 foot space >> well I I don't know the answer to that uh the question is if we have a non-combustible zone. Can there be a variance for people that don't have large lots because you go 0 to five and then from five to the lot line? Um, in many places the lot line is within 5 or 10 ft. >> Yeah. >> So, in small areas like Holiday is a great example where lot lines are very very small and that's the only place they have really to to grow food. I'm not suggesting that there is a certain number out there. I think it was just a philosophical question that was raised. How do we deal with these kind of tradeoffs moving forward? So >> that that's my issue with that question was it's a philosophical question. I understand that you have a small lot and

[123:00] five foot takes away from it but don't use these cues of growing food in that space. It's just >> well to be clear I'm sorry. So I mean to cut you off that they they weren't suggesting to do away with the 5ft non-combustible zone. The question is um the other piece that we brought forward and in my my department um help facilitate a cross departmental team to bring forward um the approved plant list. So starting to look at what can uh those properties within the way what can you plan and this is a really really great tool that many cities have tried and never been successful at. So it looks at that um kind of the five to lot line or five to 30 foot zone. What are the right species to be planting that both connect the water piece and the fire piece? And a lot of what we're looking for is um high water content um low to the ground vegetation. And so the thought was well isn't food production

[124:01] isn't there isn't you can grow that stuff beyond 5T. So is there the possibility to allow that in that buffer zone? So that that was the conversation not to change >> that we should have that non-combustible zone. So just wanted to make that clear. >> Um so I I raised the the plant list because that's a document that we are going to be bringing back to the board to talk about a little bit more. It was a draft that went to council. Um, but it's really an extraordinary tool and the naturebased solutions team has been working hard on that and had the draft ready to go. Uh, but before we launch that, obviously we can't launch that into the community until council approves that ordinance and that'll likely go in October. So, want to circle back with the board um and give you a bit more of an update on that piece of it. So, that was the discussion. Um mostly it was a a lot about um fire risks, a lot about junipers, um what can we do,

[125:02] what can't we do, and there's a legal interpretation that's being um developed right now by the attorney's office whether or not we can go back and kind of relitigate this retroactive approach um uh to to what could or couldn't be in the code. So again, I just wanted to untangle that for you because I would imagine if you watch that I had a few people say I do what happened. I have no idea what just happened. >> They made it seem like a really big deal. And >> I know I appreciate you adding the holiday community because that was a good like reminder, but I was like how many people >> Yeah. Yeah. or or people quite frankly that if if taken literally if you have a deck and you have and this is where that it gets a little absurd when you start doing >> versus >> but if you have a plant >> Yeah. >> that and that deck overhangs your house technically you're in that non-combustible zone. So does that mean that you couldn't put a pot with a plant

[126:00] in it? >> That if you read it literally the answer would be no. But again, I think what wasn't able to be said is that staff always are making those discretionary decisions in the field. They do it with permits all the time. They do it with building all of the time. So I I think we will be fine in dealing with some of the nuances as we move forward. So that's that. Um, the other piece that we just wanted to flag for you, and I think Heather put it in an email, for those of you that have been um, here a little while, you might be familiar with this Front Range Sustainability Board group that's this ad hoc group. We hosted one. It was um, really designed by a a council member who was supporting environmental board in Westminster. I think there have been four meetings now. uh the group still gets together and I think they still believe there's value in talking about what are we doing at scale and that was

[127:00] really my hope is that there's an opportunity to share some best practices of what is going on in the front range with respect to how each of the boards is really providing policy guidance to elected officials what are some of those best practices and so the next meeting I think is scheduled I think it's on here uh September 10th from 12 to 1 uh typically they're done in the evenings. I think this is the first one that's going to be done during the day. I'm looking at you, but >> it's virtual. So, >> yeah. Yeah, it's going to be virtual. So, just wanted to make you aware. Um, if you're available for that, um, I think there is an RSVP in that email. Please do so. I'll I'll be on as well. So, and then also talking with funny thing, the person that started the program from Westminster now is working for the city of Boulder, which is great. So, we've been talking about how to evolve that program and how to maybe breathe some life into it to make it valuable and that's what I got

[128:05] to adjourn the meeting. >> Thanks for the extra time tonight. Thank you. Thank you.