June 6, 2023 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

[MM:SS] timestamps correspond to the YouTube recording.

[0:00] To order the calling to order the planning board meeting for June sixth, 2,023 The first thing that we need to do is to ask Vivian. Hope I'm doing this. I've sort of forgotten what my, what I need to do. The first thing we need to do is meeting management rules. And Vivian can walk us through that. So, Vivian, take it away. Okay, thank you. And do have some members from the public here, so I'll just go through it. And, Devin, I'll show the slides. so thank you. Everybody from the public who's with us here tonight. we do appreciate you taking your time to join us. and I will share some rules which are in place to help us achieve a balance between transparency with community members and security also that minimizes disruptions. and thanks for your patience for those of you that have heard this over and over. So we want everybody to know that the city is really striving into a vision co-created by city staffing community for productive, meaningful, inclusive conversations. And we've worked with community to develop these expectations for meetings.

[1:06] and the vision is really designed to promote free conversation and dialogue, while also recognizing that we want to make sure everybody feels safe here, and we want to make sure that we make space for different viewpoints next slide. so we have a lot of information on our website about what we call our productive atmospheres vision. If you're interested. and there's a number of rules of decorum that are found in the Boulder revised Code, and we have general guidelines that are advisory in nature. We ask that all remarks and testimony raised might be related to city business. We will not allow any participant to make threats, or use any other forms of intimidation against any person in this session. Obscenities, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts the meeting or otherwise makes it impossible for us to continue in the moment is prohibited. We do also ask that everybody who wishes to speak from the public. And and everybody actually here displays their first and last name so that we can call you. And we know who's providing input.

[2:08] So we're in the Zoom Webinar format, and it allows participants from the public to speak at the designated times. But we will not be turning on video for community members because of security concerns no pre-existing list for signing up to participate today. So at the right time during the public comment, our public hearing later tonight, which is for the building energy. code update. You need to raise your virtual hand, and you can do this by the very bottom of your screen, clicking on the virtual hand icon from the horizontal menu that has 3 clickable items. So if you click on that, we'll know that you would like to speak if you have an expand, and then you can also get to the raise hand icon by clicking on reactions. And if you're joining us by phone you can Dial Star 9, and we will get that virtual hand next your name and know that you would like to speak.

[3:06] So again, we're recording this and next step is the public comment section which is for you to share any comments. which are outside of the agenda with the planning board. That's it from me back to you, Sarah. Thanks, Vivian. I see that Ml is needs to be let let in, and if you wouldn't mind doing that. Yup, alright. So we have, no, no minutes to approve or not approve. so we'll go directly to public participation. This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak for up to 3 min on any issue that they would like to accept the the public hearing matter. and the public hearing matter is the energy code update. I'm sorry the 2,024 city of Boulder Energy Conservation Code Development Project so a little bit different.

[4:04] So if you have, if you want to make a comment on any topic other than the agenda. Item. please raise your hand, and Vivian will call on you and and and give you a 3 min clock. Okay, so we just have one hand if anybody else wishes to speak. Now, please raise your hand. I know Lin likes to go last. All right, Lynn. You're the only hand up. Please go ahead. You have 3 min. I couldn't, and unmute until just then, so can I get my 10 s back? Thanks, Vivian. You know me, and I admire you for getting those kids to go on the 3 60 in the rain. You are a woman of deep power. mysterious powers.

[5:01] So. what do I want to discuss today? I guess what's on everyone's mind is our deadline for property tax refutation on Thursday, and I've been just swamped with catalytic converter, stolen $3,700. This is what people are experiencing this community. This is why it's so imperative that you do something about real, affordable housing. real, affordable housing, and that means cutting down the subsidies to these developers because the higher price jobs. Yet, you know, higher, higher level jobs. The more service people for each of those jobs and the more service people for each of those high level jobs. No, it's not just jobs housing balance. It's what kind of jobs to the housing.

[6:00] so these tech jobs that you know see, you is pretty soon see you South. It's this is just a disaster for this community, and I can speak to you going on 50 degrees all winter long. My productivity as a 70 year old is very limited. I get 8 months that I am under 2 down comfters. I you know I have to have my hat and my gloves on to brush my teeth all winter long. So then, when I get the summer, then what happens? Well, it's tax year, so I have to fight the appeal. Then I have to when I in August, then I'll be starting again with the Board of Equalization, and then, after I get that dispensation, I'll go after the Board of assessment appeals and my catalytic converter stolen $3,700, and it'll probably be stolen again, even though it has a cage on it.

[7:07] There's a pile of them at boulder muffler. You know this, you know, city of Boulder takes in tons of sales tags. But all these things are the planning boards per view. Because you have to deal with these financial issues. South Boulder Rec Center. You know the rec centers needing infrastructure. Let the developer pay. Why should we, as a taxpayer, be asked to cover these things when we've got. you know, out of control. Theft. catalytic converter costs $3,700. I got 1,500 back, but it was a lot of work from the State Patrol, because they have some funds for these things. Lynn. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your time and and your the issues you brought up. Does any? Are there any other hands up? None. Okay.

[8:03] So we can move to dispositions and call up, there are 2 call ups The first is L. You are 202 to 200 two-eight. Use review for a 7,000 square foot expansion of exterior restaurant use. does anyone have? I? I think I actually read this expansion of the exterior restaurant use at Avery brewing for 901 nautilus Does anyone have a desire to call it up for questions about this project? Now. thank you, Sarah. I just have a question. so it was unclear in reading. The information, if parking is being added. is parking being, and no, no parking is being added. The original approval, for the rebuilding facility included. a 20,000 square foot expansion that never happened. So they were granted. a 33% parking reduction, and then a deferral of 52 spaces.

[9:15] So when you, when you do all the math and Sarah actually asked a question about this prior to the meeting. When you do all the math, this actually comes to a reduction in the overall parking requirement from what was originally approved. so they're still basically saying that they fall within the previously approved 33% parking reduction and parking deferral which they do. That being said, a parking deferral gives the city the ability to require them to build the deferred parking at any time. So if if we determine that there is that the parking demand is not being met after this expansion. we basically have the ability just to write a letter and say you have to provide the 52 deferred spaces.

[10:00] and that's base is already set aside. so we know that they can provide it, if need be. But as part of this. technically, they're still falling within what was previously approved for parking and Chandler. Do we know if the current parking area is that capacity? I haven't seen any complaints. about parking. it it according to the to Avery, it seems to be working fine the way it is now. So yeah, okay, I just was wondering if that was going to put a burden or not on the existing parking. But I hear that there is a a pathway to increasing that parking that sounds like me, pretty easy to accomplish. So that was my only question. I have no need to call this up, thank you. Does anyone else have a question or comment? Alright, then. I do. So I'm I'm concerned about that. And I've I've raised this with a chandler in the

[11:04] agenda meeting. So he he knows this is coming. I'm kind of concerned about the right now. The patio is to the west of the building, and the building itself blocks the light and no, and some noise, I guess, from the Twin Lakes area where there's wildlife when they create this other patio. It's going to be in front of the building, and we'll be literally across the road from the Twin Lakes area. So I'm a little concerned about the impact of lights and noise and greater outdoor use. That's so so close to this wildlife area. And I I guess what I'm wondering is Chandler, if there's anything under 9 to 2, 3, or 4 that would give us any

[12:04] opening for a discussion of lighting controls or sound barrier sound a muffling that could be a discussion point. If we did call it up. you know, I would probably have to defer to Hella in terms of the legal question. There. you know, I think. like I said before, I think the at least the way we were reviewing it in terms of impacts to the use of neighboring properties. I was considering that in terms of impacts to use the neighboring properties by community members. so I think. yeah, hell, if you have anything to say about impacts the wildlife in terms of user view. Criteria. Yeah, the under 9 to 15 e. 3 that you mentioned Sarah. compatibility is analysis and analyzed, including

[13:04] Whether the operating characteristics of the proposed development or changes to an existing development are such that they use would be reasonably compatible with and have minimum negative impact on the use of nearby properties. So here one of the nearby properties is an open space use? that I think has some environmental purposes and preserves space for wildlife. So I think there is an argument that you can consider those impacts under the use of criteria. Okay? Then I think I would like to call it up. I I'm sorry to do that to an applicant, but I I think it's worth at least exploring those issues. and it, maybe nothing will come of it. But I do think it's worth exploring those issues. So I'd like to call it up Laura. just to comment that since we are going to call this up. It seems like it would be useful to get the property manager. I don't know if that's an open space property, or if that city parks. But whoever manages that property to talk about potential impacts and what concerns they might have.

[14:13] So would it be a to invite those folks to attend when we have this on the agenda. Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Now we'll go to the second call-up. consideration for L, you are 2 0 2, 3, 0 0 one for use. Review for a restaurant at 9 1 9 Pearl Street. this is essentially a So mama, moving from Tenth Street on to Pearl Street. does anyone have questions or comments? Okay, I think we are not going to call this up. and Alex can go home as Ken Chandler. So thank you. Thank you, Alex, for being here.

[15:01] Yeah, thank you. Okay. So now we're going to come to our public hearing item which is a production to the 2,024 city of Boulder Energy Conservation Code Development Project. And the way we're going to do this is staff is going first. Charles is going to introduce the staff to us because there's some new faces Then Staff is going to give it the 15 or 20 min presentation. Then we'll ask questions of Staff. Then we'll have the public participation. If there's anyone who wants to speak and then we will, since we're just being asked to give some feedback. Then we'll utilize the 3 staff related questions and provide some feedback that way. So, Charles, take it away. Great thanks so much, Sarah. I'm really pleased to introduce this evening. A few new staffers filling some really critical roles here at the city. Josh Hansen is our newish energy co-compliance principal and examiner. He'll be making the presentation this evening, and then

[16:12] Also pleased to introduce Rob Adrienne. our new chief building official. So he's about 3 weeks on the job and of course Edward Stafford are recovering interim chief building official who helped start this work. So he's on the call this evening to to help answer any questions. So What that said. I'm happy to turn it over to the team. Take it away, Josh. That's just one other introduction. Carolyn Elam, with our climate initiative, senior manager and climate initiative is also with the supporting the side of Carolyn. I'm so sorry I missed you. I didn't know you were on the call, but I'm so happy you're here. I apologize. It's all fine, Charles. I just want to make sure she doesn't get off easy, so we'll make sure she's part of it. With that we will turn it over to Josh for the presentation.

[17:06] All right. Can you guys see my screen? Yes, very good. Yeah, good deal. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure. So well, good evening. Planning board members, names Josh Hansen, As mentioned, I come from the Planning and Development Services Department here at the city. And I'll be putting on the presentation today for our energy code update project that's going to be going on this year. as mentioned earlier. the the agenda title, release more of an introduction to our Development project. we recently have, engaged our third party consultant. That's gonna be helping us with this. One of the interesting things to note is that the consultant that we're going to be working with actually helped us develop the 2,017 version of our energy code. so they were really excited. And we're really looking forward to working with them to carry this forward. as some of you are aware. the city of Boulder has a carbon reduction emission or carbon emissions, reduction of 70. We're targeting by 2,030, as well as a net 0 carbon production or net 0 carbon city by 2,035, and looking to be carbon positive by 2,040. And so a way to look at something that's carbon positive is, we have buildings and structures that actually remove more carbon dioxide than they produce.

[18:18] And so before we really get into this, I wanted to take a look back at kind of where and how we got here, and so wanted to really start by looking at our residential energy code program. And so, first of all, I I know there's been some questions in the past. As to really, you know what consists of a residential building, and so a residential building for our as our energy code is a one and 2 family dwelling town homes, and also R. 3 or R. 4 occupancies, and our 3 occupancies. You can see those as dormitories, sororities, boarding houses, things of that nature. And then R. 4. Typically going to be like an R. 3, but with an additional requirement like assisted living or an alcohol awareness facility. So the 2,017 Kobe really took a took a big bite out of energy. I want to say and we focused on, as you can see from the chart to the right.

[19:06] looking at really homes that were greater than 5,000 square feet and helping get those down to that 0. When we looked at the 2020 energy code we really took a a step down. and look at actually requiring any homes that are greater than 3,000 square feet to be net 0 energy. The one thing here to note is that the majority of the homes that we do see come through the city of Boulder. that our new construction are already our net 0 due to this requirement. some other things to really mention about the 2,020 energy code that we we introduced for these performance backstop, which require certain items that can't be traded off when they're doing the energy modeling. primarily, we're looking at the envelope items. So your wall insulation attic insulation window values, making sure that we have firm numbers in place for those. to make sure that those can't be traded off. And you can look at other areas like lighting and equipment, mechanical things of that nature. another thing this program, introduced as well is, we also got our solar ready requirements as well as we looked at offsetting natural gas and fossil fuels for heating that's outside of the home or the dwelling unit. so primarily we think of that as like heating for pools. If there's any fossil fuel we require renewable offsets for that, and it's a hundred percent renewable offsets. And then the last thing that we really introduced here was ev ready requirements for our single family homes.

[20:23] and so if you're looking for a little bit more information on this this can be found in the the packet that was provided on page 48 of the packet for the residential energy roadmap. So for the Commercial Energy roadmap, similarly to residential, I wanted to really define. Commercial is they take really kind of a an ironic definition for it. And so they consider commercial buildings to be anything that's not residential. And so I kind of laugh about this, because, you know, it's clear as mud, as we usually say. But the one thing to really remember and focus on here is that this also includes multi family. So multi family is viewed as a resident as a commercial building, and the reason for that. The international building code governs commercial construction.

[21:06] The multi-family R. 2. Occupancy is included under that umbrella under the Ibc. Therefore it follows commercial energy code. And so the first iteration of our energy code here in Boulder the 2,017 version was really based more back on an earlier version of an ashtray standard. And so Ashra is an alternative compliance path for the international energy code. And so this version we really looked at was the the 2,010 version of Ashtray, which is actually the 2,012 international energy code. But instead of just taking it at face value and requiring a baseline that is determined by the code. We wanted to really push the envelope and required additional 30% savings. This code was also one of the first codes to really look at incorporating solar ready requirements which are currently remain in our code, as as I'll mention here in a second. but what what those look at is requiring at least 40% of the roof of the building to be available for solar in future uses. So the 22 Quebec look to really build upon that with Ashra, and we actually up the

[22:09] the design metric from ashore 2,010 to 2,016, but we were also one of the first municipalities in the country to move to an Eui target for our our commercial buildings. And so an Eui target is very similar. If you've heard of an E Ri for residential, where it's an energy rating index. It's a energy use in index for commercial buildings. And so it's similar to like miles per gallon. I mean, it's really like energy use per square foot per year is really how we look at that. And that's how it's defined. And so for the 22 Quebec. what we did is we required an additional 2520% savings for electric buildings and 25% savings for a natural gas or mixed fuel buildings. this also incorporated the performance backstop similar to its residential counterpart. one thing that's a little bit different, too, that we required. And we we we're going to be looking at carrying forward is we require a 5% solar offset of the energy use in commercial buildings, and this is a mandatory requirement and not trading

[23:09] and then the last thing the 2020 K back really did was we built on additional ev capable requirements, ready requirements, and then evsc full requirements, and so more information on this can be found in the packet as well on page 49. So to give kind of a quick snapshot of of the direction that we're going with this project. I wanted to lay out just a quick, rough kind of timeline for this, as we're really early on in the project, as I mentioned. But so tonight we're having our meeting with the Environmental Advisory Board, and then later this month with the City Council on a study session. after that we're going to be looking at engaging stakeholders in the community to get their feedback. because at the end of the day. Really, this code is gonna be our code in their code. and then also, we're gonna look at drafting the code and then representing it back to the planning board as well as the other boards. once it's available and then by November we're really shooting to have our initial public reading with the updated energy code.

[24:13] And so to really get into kind of why, we're all here is, you know, what are the areas of focus that we're really looking at on this project. And so the first 3 areas I wanted to touch on really deal with our performance targets is the city of boulders, you know. increasingly looking to improve our efficiency requirements and our our energy savings. And so these first 2 areas look at kind of continuing that pathway as we look to kind of reduce our energy usage and down to net 0. But the second part of this, really the the last 3 sections are are kind of going a little bit further than just looking at energy usage and really looking at electrification and and natural gas which at the end of the day looks at carbon reduction. and we'll we'll discuss more about the embodied piece as well. So the first piece you really to dive into is our performance target updates? and so this is really looking at kind of what we're going to be going into with our with this project and what we're looking to achieve at least

[25:08] with our proposed updates, and so on the residential front. we currently, as mentioned. We require 3,000 square foot and larger to be net 0. And so we're looking to keep that there. You know, we're we're in consideration of moving it if it deems necessary, or if well, through the research that's done, if it if it makes sense to move it. But, as mentioned earlier. The majority of the homes that are new builds in in Denver have to meet this requirement due to the size. Another thing we're really looking at doing is revamping the the targets and the values for homes that are less than 3,000 square feet. we're really going to be looking at, you know, we, we, we have access to the racial equity tool and some of the other equity tools to to tie in and really look at this and kind of analyze this to make sure that everyone has access to energy efficiency and not the folks that you can just afford. on the commercial front. We have 3 pathways through energy code. on on the performance side, we do have prescriptive requirements, same with residential that's based off of. If if the building is so, or the on commercial. If the valuation is less than $500,000, you're able to go perform or prescriptive and follow the recipe in the book, and then residential is that it's 500 square feet or less. So in commercial, our primary focus on most of our projects is really the performance path.

[26:21] And there are 3 pathways through performance. And so this model baseline path is usually what we think of it. What we talk about when we talk about the 25 or excuse me, 20 to 25% energy reduction And so what we're really looking at here is you you model the building. You know what your target is. We have to show an additional savings above that, because boulder requires 20 to 25% savings. And so that's really where you you get that target. And so what we're gonna be doing there is analyzing it and seeing, does it, you know, do we need to update this target. Of course, we need to update this target. We're looking to to increase our energy efficiency as the city of boulder but also look at changing possibly the baseline that it's measured, against which it's currently the ash rate. 2,016 baseline

[27:02] another path which you can kind of see to the left. Here in the boxes is our fixed baseline path. So there's this is really more of a static target. And so you have the the buildings on the left that are in blue are the the current buildings that we have in our energy code, and, as you can see under the 22 Covid column. Those are the targets that they have to be under when they model these buildings. So they're really not having to model, you know. a separate building, and then look at the performance and and it against that. Here you just go in. You find a static number, and you know, you have to be below that number. The downside to this path currently is that we have limitations on the the building, that types that are in our code currently. So there's only 6 building types. And so we're looking at adjusting that to allow for more buildings, I threw in some additional ideas below that are that are available in the market through like Nbi, which is the new Buildings Institute and some of those other programs that actually do. some of the research on this. So there are additional Eui targets that can be used. we just we have a question, oh.

[28:04] yeah. Oh, what are you talking about me? Are you talking about somebody else? Oh, no, go ahead, Mark. Okay, I I I I'm confused. The numbers. The Eui performance targets between 2,017 and 20200, the 2020 numbers are smaller, they represent less consumption. still less energy use. Yeah, so less energy. Use. Yep over the square of the building. Yeah. So if you see that, not not not measuring reduction from the 2,000, but baseline. but measuring less consumption, less energy consumption. So yes. So what we're looking at. So if you so don't look at the 2,017 column. So basically, a medium office building would be required to have to have an Ei of 23 which would basically look at It's your energy usage across the square footage of the building. And so that would be, you know. It'd be

[29:06] I was looking at one the other day, and I'm trying to think of the top, the the the values on it. but what we're really. It's a measurement kind of over that square footage during that year. And so that's why that you know, it's 23. And so we're going to get smaller because the energy use index. We want it to get smaller. So you're using less energy across the square footage of the building. Josh, correct me. If I'm wrong, it's measured in Kil. Kbt, you you first work for it per year. Yeah, okay, there we go. That. Yeah. Sorry about that. I I don't know what we were measuring, but not you. It was getting smaller, but wasn't sure how that was done. So no, thank you, Carolyn, yeah. So kbt you, which you know it's counterpart is kw, H. Which is the kilowatt hours. Yeah, so thank you for that great question, too. so so we've got those 2. And it looks like Kurt has a question, Caroline, why don't you let me manage the meeting, please.

[30:01] Kurt, go ahead, please. Sorry. Just a quick follow up on that. So this is measuring K 1,000, bt, you? Oh, so that's just heating and cooling. So no, what they do is they incorporate lighting. And basically, there's other. So the actually standard as certain processes that are regulated through that program like H back lighting service water, heating things of that nature. And so all of that ends up getting factored into the Eui targets. It's just kind of like I was mentioning earlier to markets that you have kb, to use a target. You could also use kilowatt hours a target. And so what you could do is you can convert those back and forth between those energy, use types to get them the same energy, to be able to add them together to get the usage. But it's predictive, right? It's not measuring all the Tvs you plug in. There's there's an unregulated load that's that's factored into that as well. that that is, when they do the calculation. They have the calculation for the regulated loads, which is basically what ash rate lays out for you to model and how to model. But there's unregulated loads like you mentioned some plug loads. Appliances are not appliances, but like computers, things of that nature that may be additional plugs in. And so they it it factors that into the calculation

[31:17] but that is something else that actually, I didn't touch on earlier. But that's another study that we're looking at is some unregulated plug loads, and how to address those really as we look at getting to net 0. So. okay, no, not a problem. Are there any other questions at this time? Alright, Josh, go ahead. Not a problem anytime. Thank you very much. So we mentioned the first 2 paths for the commercial energy code and the last path which I I'd love to joke that it's our most popular path. But unfortunately, we haven't had anyone go through yet, but it's our measured performance outcome path. And so this is, I think, similar to what Kirk was mentioning earlier to where this is actually based off, of how the building performed. So the building gets built within a year of construction, you would re record all your energy usage, and then you would model the building to see how it actually would should perform.

[32:08] and then where those 2 would bury into it would be actually your your performance outcome on this. And so, since we haven't really seen any buildings go through this path currently in the city, we're looking at actually requiring this for you know, for depending on the building type to really start getting more more data and more of an analysis on on this path and kind of buildings. the Commercial buildings, at least. let's see. So the second part I wanted to to dive into a little bit. Here is something that we're looking at as a consideration is an alternative path on the energy on the residential front. And so it's the the We 0 energy ready home option. And so this program has been around for I want to say what? 23 now. So for the past 10 years. There's about 30,000 homes that have been certified to it across the country. this program has, like a lot of really good benefits. So not only are you getting a home, that's basically 0 energy ready. It takes you to the point of of solar installation without doing the solar installation. Hence the the ready aspect of it. But some key things to really note about this program is it's grounded in energy star, new home certification. And so the real, the real benefit to this new 3.2 version of the program.

[33:21] it has backstops that are in the 2,021 I. It also requires energy. Star windows as well as energy star clients to help with the energy. Re, energies reduction It also requires an EPA's and or plus certification. So not only are you getting an efficient home, but also a a healthy home, really for for your family. this. This program has some some different caveats than other programs do. And so like this one here, you have to have the H track system entirely inside the thermal envelope. So typically, if you see some air handlers, maybe in an add it or a crawl space that has to be taken into consideration. If you're if you're doing this program, you just have to make sure that it remains in the thermal envelope of the building.

[34:03] this is one of the first programs that actually introduced the Pv ready checklist. and that is a requirement for this certification. And then the last pieces they really also introduced AV ready, and then heat, pump and water space heating ready requirements that are built into this, this basically an elective option through energy code. The real reason I wanted to also bring this to everyone's attention is there are some good incentives that are available through this program to help really incentivize home owners to consider looking at this, and not just, you know, getting an energy, efficient home, but a healthy home as well. the inflation reduction act that was released last year. Put out a couple of a couple of incentives that were available. One of them that comes to top of my mind is the 45 L tax credit, and it's actually going to be available through the next 10 years. and for a single family home. I believe it's this program yields with the certification about $5,000 per single family home. The key thing to to think about, too, on this is that can also be reflected into multi family as well. Now the payouts not as high, but you get paid per unit. for that. for this certification on multi family projects as well. So

[35:11] so we just touched on the first 2 areas of of of interest. Really, with our our update to energy coverage really focused on kind of our performance targets and tightening those down for our energy savings for our goal with the city. the next 3 areas are really going to pull everything I'd say full circle, as we look at electrification, which is really the hot button topic that's that's being talked about all over the country, as well as looking 100% offset for our natural gas usage. as well as kind of building everything into the final piece of of carbon reduction. And so really, with electrification, what we are considering is for new construction and level for alterations. to look at all electric space and water heating as the requirement. and then also look at having electric ready for other appliances like stoves. for anyone that's wondering. A level for alteration is going to be. Think of it as an alteration. That's the last step before you hit new construction. So that's why it's included up there with construction. So it's it's a really heavy major alteration. the next item I wanted to mention is our level 3 alterations. And so with this level, it's not as

[36:14] intensive is a level for alteration. But what we're looking to do here really is is to really encourage electric, ready, and to help incentivize folks to to consider moving this way, and so through that. What we would do is similarly to the way we have it currently written for our all our alterations. We provide some allowances above the target to to understand that you know, with alterations. this is the hand that you're dealt. This is what you have to deal with with this. what we're trying to do is give you a more lenient target that way. It helps kind of offset any additional cost that might be incurred through going electric wedding, which should be really very minimal. some other areas that I wanted to mention to that we're looking at is ev charging requirements. Last Thursday the State released its model electric ready and solar ready codes, and the city of Boulder is about 95% in alignment with it already. the real area that it's gonna provide a minimal impact. I would say, is our multi family area. And so basically, what it's doing there is.

[37:13] it's gonna up the Anni from our current requirement of 10 for Ev ready to 15 for you to be ready. That's the real, the real difference. it introduces another ev capable light section as well. But with us we're really gonna be kind of looking at that and using that as a springboard to to enhance those requirements. And and you know and move the needle forward with our ev requirements in the city. Another aspect to that I wanted to mention is becoming more and more prevalent across the city is electric by charging. And so the real focus here was to look at multi-family and looking kind of in work, bring some requirements there to help encourage electric bike charging. And so one a couple of things I wanted to to mention before we switch off this slide is, you know, as we consider and think about this electric ready space and water heating crested. But here, in the city or in the State of Colorado, is actually the first city to require all electric new construction for projects, and as someone, you might be aware, Denver is going to be following close behind as starting. January first, 2,024,

[38:15] new commercial and multi-family construction. So no longer going to allow natural gas furnaces or water heating? so just some things to think about as we kind of start moving through this and really talking about carbon reductions. for anyone that's more interested in in more information on this. The packet that was provided you can check out page 51, under the title for Natural gas to get a little bit more information on this background. so part 4 here really deals with our our natural gas offset. And so with the starting and residential, we currently require this. So anything that's heating outside of the dwelling unit or the the home is, we're going to require a hundred offset. If it's a fossil fuel or natural gas. if you use a heat pump heat pump style equipment. What's gonna be required is to show compliance that yes, the heat pump can handle the load of this that's gonna be required by the city. And so with this update, what we really want to do is kind of provide more guidance.

[39:08] I can say in the past months with. I've been with the city. We've seen more and more things that come in that are going to be heating out outdoors, and just kind of more questions on how to handle this, how to address like electric resistance, heating in certain areas, or fire pits or saunas of things of that nature and just help provide more guidance on on that aspect. And how to do those calculations to ensure they're in compliance on the commercial front. We really didn't have anything built in for any any offsets other than our normal 5% energy offset that we require just for the energy usage of the building. something that we've really considered and and are looking at requiring is for mixed field buildings having a hundred percent of the natural gas use if it's going to be used to be offset so to help to help push the envelope. As we look at this carbon reduction and really, you know, push the needle. No pun intended. so

[40:03] The last piece here that I wanted to to really touch on that really brings everything. Full circle is just this idea of carbon reduction. And what we're really looking at and leapfrogging the idea of this this net 0 energy to really focusing on the the the elephant in the room, which is, which is carbon. And so for anyone that's not familiar. When we refer to the term carbon. We're not referring to the periodic table version of it. We're really referring to carbon dioxide. And so some interesting things to note here, buildings actually account for about 39 of greenhouse gases that basically are are emitted from a a carbon dioxide. And so a quarter of that actually comes from embodyed carbon that we're going to be discussing here in a second. but quick to to give you guys a quick understanding of it. There's 2 types of carbon. We have operational carbon as well as in body carbon. The easiest way to to think about this is operational carbon is really going to be admitted.

[41:01] Once the building is built. you turn it over. It goes into operation management processes your day to day work. That's the operational carbon and the carbon dioxide that's emitted just from your normal day to day operations on the embodied carbon front. It's really from manufacture extraction through the construction process up to think of it as the final turnover to the the building owner. So it's all of the embodied carbon throughout that process. through recent studies. there are some categories that tend to yield more bang for your buck when you're really looking at a bot embody carbon reduction, and I've really kind of. Look at those first kind of 4 categories that are listed up here. primarily, the main one that everyone really thinks about is optimizing our concrete mix to help, really reduce and help in train some carbon dioxide and to help to help kind of. We'll get where we are before our car or our body carbon reduction targets. And so the other 2 pieces is really you know, looking at Rebar as well as installation. And so I think, you know, as we move forward with this, these could be areas that would be up for consideration. Possibly, as we look at moving the needle on this embodied carbon reduction is maybe requiring you know, a a set. Some, you know, items from certain categories to meet this reduction. there are tools in the market that can help

[42:16] guide folks on the carbon-carbon, you know, amount of carbon and things. And so the 2 tools I think of is, there's a carbon rating tool that's very similar to what we require for our energy, a rating index on our our single family homes. and then also in the multi family realm is a life cycle assessment that can be performed. And so the life cycle assessment for anyone that's familiar is basically an analysis of the environmental impact of that building. It's processes, the materials that are being that are in it. over the useful life of the building. And so it really gives you a a better understanding of how these buildings are performing and impacting the environment. Excuse me. So if you're looking for any additional information on this, you can check out page 54 of the packet, and it should be under the title For and bottom carbon.

[43:04] So next steps really for us. Here is to really look at the feedback and and recommendations that we can get from the board and and the boards that we're going to be discussing, just putting this presentation to, as well as city Council engaging stakeholders in the community to get their their feelings on everything and their feedback as at the end of the day. As I mentioned, this really is going to be their code. incorporate all of that feedback and recommendations as we look at drafting the kovac, and so I believe the the rough draft for residential is going to be around. September is, and then October is going to be closer to where we have the rough draft. I want to say for commercial once we have that we want to get back with the Planning Board Environmental Advisory Board as well as City Council and get their review and buy and and blessing on the items that we've chosen to help update. And then, ideally, we're looking for the public reading to be in November of of this year. And so.

[44:01] as I wrap this up. I just wanted to ask a couple of questions, really for consideration. And so The first question is, you know, with what you've seen on this presentation. Do you agree with these areas that we're proposing to update in the 2,024 go by? And then also. is there anything that we're leaving out that you feel real strongly that we should include, or at least consider, including in this. And then, lastly. with me, being a little bit newer to the city. I'd really love some feedback on what your recommendations would be with your community engagement strategies and what's worked in the past on a project like this. and that is all I have. So I yield the floor and thank you everyone for this opportunity to speak. Thanks, Josh, that was very interesting. and I know that we have All the board members who are here today are very interested in this topic. So I know people will have questions. so if you don't mind raising your hands, and then we will go to. These are information only questions. We'll provide feedback and comments. after a public.

[45:06] So this is for question questions we have for Josh or Carolyn. Really? No question. Oh, yeah, there we go Laura, Laura. Then Kurt. I. I figured that Ml. And curtain. Mark would have questions. So I was hanging back. But I I'll go first. Okay, my first question. This comes from the memo. and I just don't understand it. It's my ignorance. So I'm hoping that someone can help me understand this. It says Staff proposes to transition from a net 0 energy focus to a net 0 greenhouse gas focus that considers grid emissions, reductions when imposing requirements on projects. Could you please explain what that means. And what is significant about changing from a net 0 energy focus to a net 0 greenhouse gas focus. Why is that preferred?

[46:00] So basically what it. So the way to really look at it. I want to try and think about how to to explain it without getting to mentioned the grass for you, so net 0, we're looking really at the focus is energy. And so when we look at net net car or net 0 carbon, what we're doing is you're basically leapfrogging just energy. And you're looking at carbon as a whole, which factors in like I mentioned that the embodied carbon aspect which is basically innate carbon dioxide that's in materials. And so energy reduction factors into carbon reduction. And so it's kind of a part to a whole type of thing is a way to kind of look at it in in a in a, in a nutshell. And I'm trying to think of an easy way to kind of explain it if that makes sense to where like energy reduction. If you did a a 30% savings on a building you may not. you, you you're you're delivering on part of the Re. You know you're you're meeting the requirement for the operational carbon piece, and so that 30% reduction is great. But there's still carbon that's out there. And so that's why we're we're kind of leapfrogging energy reduction to also focus on this focus on this carbon reduction.

[47:08] So in Josh, maybe if I can be in just a little bit on this one as well, I think Laura, as you know, with our roadmap. We were really on a trajectory where you produce as much energy as you use on site at the building, and that was really motivated a lot by where our grid emissions were. when we first laid out that roadmap. We're now on a trajectory to be somewhere over 80% renewables on the grade by our 2030 timeframe. And we want to kind of credit the fact that we're going to have a little mission grid, and not necessarily drive as much investment into renewable generation to offset energy use within the the buildings. we're running into constraints as we move to higher density

[48:00] structures, smaller homes with different lot orientations. So as we think about our net 0 code where we were crying as much solar on site as the building used. we're driving people to have to purchase offsite options, which is not necessarily what we're we're trying to accomplish over just thinking about it a little bit different in terms of like, what are we already getting? through clean electricity? And what's the balance that we need to offset. Did that answer your question a little bit? Is it still clear as my. I think so? It sounds like there's 2 things that this accomplishes. And when you say net 0 greenhouse gas, you're talking about carbon. And you're talking about not only operational carbon, but you're talking about embodied carbon. And so this focus allows you to look at that embodied carbon piece and it also you know, it makes intuitive sense that if our grid is generating cleaner energy, you know, through renewables. There's the less need to get renewable generation on site through solar panels and things like that.

[49:02] Okay, I think I understand that. Thank you. That was my first question. second question. you talked about electric bike charging a and I'm curious. Just again. I'm ignorant here my personal experience with electric bikes is that the batteries come off and you can charge it in any outlet in your house. Is there? Are there a lot of models of electric bikes. Do we expect a lot of the electric bikes of the future to be integrated batteries that you cannot take off the bike? Why do we need to focus on electric bike charging? So this was something that, was brought to my attention. At least coming to the city was, you know, there was more of a focus on multimodal transportation. So you know, we we saw the scooters, and we saw kind of the problems and the the learning curve of the scooters. And so, we're seeing more and more of these bike chargers that are throughout the city. And so I honestly as of this moment. We haven't done enough research to really be able to provide a good answer, but I can get back to you on it.

[50:05] it just with some more data and some more information behind the different options for the bike chargers and things of that nature. And and if we do look at putting that into code, you know. Why, you know, what's our approach behind it and how we're gonna yeah, and what what's really the intent behind it, and make sure that it's you know it meets the requirements of what we're after, because at the end of the day we may look into it and decide that you know what this really isn't going to be the best thing for our buck, and we might move a different direction. But it doesn't keep up with the changes in technology on electric bikes. similarly, with the natural gas uses, personal experience of living in a large multi family complex, where the gas usage was not individually metered, and so individuals had no incentive to conserve because it was just paid. in a lump through the Hoa. You didn't see your gas bill, so people would buy like the gas heaters for their patio like you would see in a restaurant. People would leave their gas fireplace on for atmosphere like there was just huge amounts of waste of gas. Because you didn't see your bill.

[51:12] Is that still possible in the city that that new multi-fuel buildings are not individually metered, because I think that might be something to change if that is still possible. So so I can say that the buildings all do require to be metered, or the dwelling units are required to be made or individually metered. And so that's actually written into the energy code under the commercial code. Okay, great. Let's go good to know that that's a thing of the past. I don't know if it's possible to retrofit for that. But that's, I think, a huge source of of gas waste. I did want to ask a question around the social equity, social and equity impacts. and I think this is a hard question. I I appreciate that you're looking at it from the lens of. We want to make sure that everybody in the city, regardless of income, has access to energy efficiency.

[52:00] But of course, we all know that requiring energy efficiency makes new construction more expensive. And so, for example, with our affordable housing funds. more expensive construction means, we can construct less of it, and I know that well. on page 47, there's a statement that says, rather than setting less stringent requirements for smaller homes or commercial projects. there is opportunity to leverage federal, state and local investment to advance equity priorities without sacrificing building performance. So that says to me that one you don't want to. for example, give a break to affordable housing or multi family housing, and say you have less stringent requirements, so that it's less expensive, but that there's some other opportunity that you're seeing to advance equity priorities without giving a break on the energy efficiency requirements. Can you say more about that? So no, definitely. And so that was that was one of the the main parts of the the part, 2 really with the the deal with 0 energy ready home. And so there are incentives that are available out there to help offset the cost of that when we're looking at Multi family. If I remember correctly,

[53:08] it sets the target at. I want to say it was either 500 or a thousand dollars a unit. for multi family that pursues, do we? 0 energy ready? And it doesn't cap the the number of units on site but to your point, I think with regards to affordable housing and multi family, I think that's something that we could look at and definitely, we'll dig into and see if it, you know, like you said to help promote affordable housing. I think that it would be a very valuable for us to look at that and see if there's any trade offs that might make sense to help really, really push that that in the city here. So okay, I I have a comment about that. But I'll save that for the comments. With that that was my question. I think that's all for my questions. Okay, great. I'm just so we can get do all around. And then all right, Kurt. Then mark, then, ml. okay, thank you. Laura. Yeah, a couple of those questions that I had

[54:03] one. I I have some questions about this distinction between the residential and commercial. So first of all, everything is classified as either residential or commercial. Is that correct? Okay? And so a a duplex, for example, would be residential. But it's be commercial. Is that right? I'm trying to think of the definition because it depends on the the common wall. Typically, but no so down harm or a or if it was a apartment type. But if it was a typical triplet for the Townh that it would be residential. Yeah, exactly. That's yeah. wait. So a triplex would be residential. Yes, if it's a town harm, if it's got a firewall that goes from the foundation all the way to the ceiling that that's re governed by the residential code.

[55:02] not by the commercial code. Okay? But what if it's not a town now? It's in town home? It's just a it's a triplex, you know, apartment building, for example. It's an apartment building. It would be regulated by the commercial code. If it's if it's like a triplex that are 3 units attached to each other. We would look at that. A single family. Okay. what if it's a a stack duplex, for example. So there's no firewall, but it's 2 units, one of the other. Would that be residential, or I mean, in that scenario? and there they don't have a any common area, it would just have 2 entrances to the front of it. I would look at that almost as residential, because it's 2 units. I mean. we have the flexibility to to, for to we've I've actually had folks ask if we can model multi family projects using the er I path, and so they can do it. but with the way that the commercial program is built, it's it's you're able to model the building as a whole versus individual units unitarily. And so it just becomes burdened, some for multi-family to really do the the hers index path.

[56:14] and so I've I've actually, I've worked outside of Colorado, where we do see our 2 occupancies 3 stories, and down that are residential. And so the issue that we run into typically that we've seen is when you get into those scenarios. And you have these 3 story buildings that are residential. You've got 4 story buildings that are commercial, it gets really muddy and really messy. And so we've seen a lot more municipalities moving to require or moving just the needle to where our 2 occupancies are no longer even if it's 3 stories down or no longer included in a residential, they're included under commercial. So okay, well, that was sort of where I was going, because I'm just trying to compare, if you have, say the same size building, and it's divided up into 2 units, and therefore it's residential. So it's divided up into 3 units, and therefore it's commercial. If that

[57:05] is the the way it would be classified, which one would have higher. How, how would the energy requirements compare between those 2? Because it's we have these 2 very different metric systems right for residential and commercial. And I'm just trying to see like is one way more than the other. So so I would say, currently, one thing I would say is that I would. Our residential is going to be more stringent because we already require net 0 on it. And so by that piece, let alone it. It's more stringent, especially for new construction, since that's what we see. The majority of that comes in. That is, new construction is going to be over 3,000 square feet, and we required at 0. And so with the commercial code. it's it's getting more and more stringent, as you saw on the the slide previously, a lot of those values are in the third, like lower thirties, and you know, mid to lower twenties. And so we're moving the needle down further and further to that 0. but the other piece, too, is that we've moved to this Ei target that we have now. And so it's very similar to what we do in residential. But it's hard to really quantify the 2, because with with commercial, you have different systems that can be used versus residential. And so

[58:12] it's really not apples to apples to say that you know one's meeting the requirement and the other one's not, but I can say that if we were to put them next to each other right now, our residential program is going to be a little more stringent just because it does require net 0. So I think, Josh, from a performance standpoint. We could take a a note to to analyze that, though to just look on a square footage basis. Because I I think it's a a good question about how comp comparable they are. I agree with Josh. I think they're they're very close, if not so, I technical in terms of envelope and lighting power, density and other requirements that we can definitely do that analysis. Yeah. okay, thank you. one other sort of detail question on page 49 of the memo.

[59:00] You talk about the thresholds where you you have to meet these this er I pathway for new homes, larger than 500 square feet for additions greater than a thousand square feet. and that seemed odd to me, because it seemed just intuitively it seemed like you would want to be more stringent on editions, because presumably you're ending up with a larger house in the long, you know, after the addition is done, then a 500 square foot 8, you, for example. So I'm I'm if you can. You just understand the thinking behind 500 square feet being the threshold for a just an individual house and a thousand square feet being the threshold for an addition. So, Carolyn, do you know a little bit of that backstory because I wasn't around that far back. Sorry. And if you, if correctly, if I run Josh, I think we're, we're adding, in addition, we're we're looking at the entirety of the the structure. and so it's acknowledging that you're starting with a a poor performing structure to begin with an adding addition and having to bring it all together in an integrated way. And so that's where the 1,000 came in versus a free standing, 500 square foot

[60:21] structure. I see. So if you had. If you've got a 4,000 square foot house, and you add, and a thousand a thousand square foot addition. The the entire house then, has to meet this requirement? Okay? Yeah, or or at 30, it is a 30. I have to look at or 30 overall improvement. Yeah, that's correct. Yeah, there's there's a couple of different paths on it. But yeah, that's basically, if it's a level 3 alteration, we're 50. Well, if it's sorry, this is audition. So yes, so like to to what Carolyn said you would be required to have a hers of 50 or less. or to show 30% savings from the the initial building before the addition was added. And so you still have to show the addition with, with that building shows a reduction in the energy use. So

[61:10] okay, yeah. okay? And then one last question, which you, you may not have numbers for this. But I was just thinking about. So we're very focused on new buildings right? And we don't we? None of this deals with existing buildings, with smart regs that deals with existing rental buildings. But that's really all. So I'm wondering if you have. we have data on the basically the building turnover rate. So like. if if this went into effect today. what fraction of the buildings that existed in Boulder in, say, 2035 would be new buildings that that this would do apply to, and what fraction would be existing buildings. And I I realized you know it. We would only have estimates. But I'm just trying to get a feel for

[62:06] like, how much of the building stock are we actually affecting in any near term timeframe with this. So so I I we did talk a lot about new construction in that in the presentation. But the intent there is to to really focus on new construction as well as alterations and additions. And look at updating those and addressing those those sections. At least, we're not going to leave those out at all by any means. Because to your point, really this, that's really what we see, the majority of what we see come in is a lot of tended infills. You know. It's a lot of existing buildings that are getting repurposed and reuse versus new construction. and so I at this moment I can't really speak to that point. but I can definitely do some research and get back to you on it. I feel like it's a 1% per year on residential. Hmm. okay, okay, of of of of new homes versus existing.

[63:05] Okay, thank you. Thanks, Kurt, all right, Mark. And then ml. thank you. so I'm struggling a little bit because of this is such a broad effort and based on the interrelated nature of things. I'm having a hard time separating questions from commentary, but I'm going to do my best. The first one is the probably the broadest. And maybe I'm just not understanding. But how will this, once it's adopted. the integrated into our building code. our site review process, our Tpm plans. Is this another layer of code, a a a separate section of code? Or does it dissolve and get melded into

[64:05] building and planning code? So I know that recently, I actually looked at the Site Review criteria that was updated. And I know that we've addressed the items, at least with the Site Review criteria as to the actual process on how it would overlay with the other departments, and with zoning and planning, with everything kind of how it would really incorporate to that Carolyn or Edward, do you think you might be able to speak a little bit more to that? I can certainly speak to that. And then, Caroline, you can follow mark the way this currently is actually is a component of the building code its own piece. So the building code is actually made up of a variety of different pieces. You've got the the residential code, the international building code. You get the plumbing code, the mechanical code. Actually there, the books will fill a whole bookshel from all the pieces. This is one of those books for energy conservation. it is then intended to apply.

[65:04] It's any in all construction depending on the triggers that are play at present across the city, independent of whether a project was in site review was a by right project any of those items that's an in it. It does not differentiate. So it will apply again, using the triggers, regardless of the land use entitlement process that a project through intent being to be as broad as we can with this, and recognizing we don't really want to incentivize not going or going through a certain land use process over meeting some of these goals. It relates to our energy consumption, energy conservation, and of course, ultimately greenhouse gas. Does that help answer your question? As if if I put myself in the designers shoes. An architect, a designer planner that

[66:02] it. It begs the question, why, look at parking requirements, that your your suggested parking requirements and electrification requirements, and so forth, and how that relates to how we go about approving projects under our current side review process or modified side review process, etc. And I think about the department of community vitality dealing with parking, I think, about transportation dealing with parking, planning. And anyway, it it's it's it's it's it's surprising to me that we continue to add separate components and books on the shelf rather than a broader integrated view. I I'm not saying this is a fantastic work, and the goals aren't admirable. But I think it's a a as a challenge for people to

[67:00] to make sure they've they've looked at all the books so How did you come up with the for Commercial Building. 5% on page 49, 5 of the buildings. I. I don't know if that's greenhouse gas or energy consumption coming from solar. So why? Why? 5%. So I want to say this. So this actually came from the the earlier 2,020 code that we were currently in as a mandatory requirement. And so like you, it's, it's a 5% of the energy use of the building needs to be offset with solar is the what the requirement is and and I think Carolyn might have been around at the time when they did the update with the code, and might be able to speak a little bit more to why it was set at 5%. My my guess is, some research was probably done behind the scenes with regards to those commercial buildings.

[68:00] And this was something that really gets our foot in the door with requiring solar on projects. And 5% was probably a minimal asked to really get people's feet wet on just the solar aspect of these buildings. Is that about run lines, Carolyn. you. As you mentioned Josh, we had solar ready requirements that we wanted to make sure that we were actually getting solar actually installed on these buildings, and 5% with really, I'll call it cost based number. It's not any meaningful thing in terms of greenhouse gas emissions like there wasn't a calculation to say, we need 5 to offset, but rather it was the incremental cost of construction that helped inform the 5% with the idea that most projects are actually installing more to meet the other requirements to meet the performance requirements. Anyway, we're trying to get them over that kernel of at least installing some that that was the rationale behind it.

[69:00] all right, I'll I'll I'll come back to that with a with a comment by so another question related, so the way. as a commercial building owner with a solar system on there excel under the Puc says I can't sell electricity to my tenants. I have to give it away. I have to include it in their. I have to jump through these funny hoops, and you know, and so I do that because I'm not violating so much. You know that so Has there been a move on the part of the city, or a coalition of cities, so that a as a commercial building owner makes an attempt to reduce their ongoing building. They are ongoing missions that they can actually monetize and and benefit their tenant and benefit themselves versus right now. It's very hard if you, if you adhere to the letter of the P. You see in excel.

[70:14] I I have to give it away any any thoughts on that. yes, so I'm going to get. I don't have the bill number on top of my head, and in 2,021 Senator Fender put through a successful bill. That change some of the the requirements around solar net meter, and that included a provision for a master meter, multi-tenant, multi-unit consideration. That rule making has been going on at the Commission. and I think should be close to being finalized. The city was party to that, and provided feedback, I think. where it was standing is

[71:03] There's a limit, I think on how much you can monetize, but no longer restrict your ability to monetize some of that benefit, and allows you to credit the net metering to the individual tenants and the property. So there has been progress in that regard. It's it's implemented. We won't know if it's really addressing all of the issues. But certainly there's been progress. Great, that's good to know. Thank you. Okay, last one, on on page 52. you focus on on site production. And My question is, my understanding is onsite production might make us feel good about our building or our community, but it from the efficiency standpoint. My understanding is many times centralized off-site production can be far more efficient and more cost-effective.

[72:02] Why have we focused on on-site production? And in and, in fact, how is that defined. you know, I look at Ibm the Ibm plant is that onsite is that, you know? So help me understand what the focus is. Why the focus on onsite production. So there's a couple of things that I can comment on there. So if again, with the origin of the the roadmap and and our strategies. We we wanted to minimize how much of dirty sources of energy were used by the building. so the idea of not using the grid mix, but rather producing as much as you could on site. There's also resilience benefits, job benefits and other other values that are supported by that. this doesn't preclude large offsite systems. But one of the things we find is, I'm sick, residential. As an example, we're requiring, you know 3,000 square foot building that might be oriented

[73:09] and shaded, based on on on the lot location and they can maybe put enough solar on there to do 50 of their energy need, and they have to get another 50 off site. There are. There are options for them out there. They can't go to Solar Gardens that there there are any that are taking subscribers. it is becoming more challenging. And so there's all these administrative things. And so that's why you're seeing that shift away from trying to get to 100% on site But still allowing all of those considerations to come into play. And yes, the Ibm system is technically a net metered system. Okay, thank you. Alright, thanks. Mark. Ml, your turn.

[74:01] wow, thank you. This is an incredibly critical piece of work. so my thinking goes to how how to raise the bar. to, in fact, move the needle. So my questions. our 3 is a kind of broad. I'll start with the solar. So already. so the point of that 5% onsite solar off offset was to be able to engage an onsite solar capacity and a building. How do you track that? If our people actually installing their solar and getting that 5. Is that trackable? Is that being tracked? Is everybody doing it? What are the statistics on that? Yeah. I mean, for commercial buildings? Any project coming through is going to be reviewed against that

[75:07] requirement. and then, and they'd have to have the system installed to get their completion and certificate of occupancy. So for the other solar ready requirements. how many of those quote solar ready projects actually activate their solar. install their solar? Is it? Is it causing any change, or is it just okay? We've got our panel big enough to do this uptake. And in solar on on the commercial side, we we didn't track the residential, because the Celebrity has been around for quite a while on that, so I can't comment particularly. But most of the new construction is going in with some solar

[76:14] so under. So I guess this is the a a question. And on the solar ready language and directive is there consideration for something like install by solar ready to be installed by. so that we know that they're actually going to take action on it. And we're not just having that be a path. Check the box and not think about it again. I think, Josh, this gets to your new homes when you want it. Comment on that a little bit. So yeah. So the the alternative that we had really proposed would would help kind of

[77:03] push the envelope to where they would want to be able to be possibly able to consider the the solar aspect with those incentives to help. And so and I think back to your point, too. You know, we could really it. I think it's something to to kind of look at and consider because to your point we, we currently have this we. We want to encourage solar and help push the envelope. But I think we could. You know, we possibly could look at it from the city level and look at. You know of the homes that have come through that were less than a certain, you know square footage that would require solar ready were any of those that came back through have an additional permit now for for solar. And so the other thing I wanted to mention also is, you know. you, you try to set a requirement by a certain date. The problem that we run into is that there's a ton of material delays currently. And things are taking a lot longer times to to get. And so it's very hard. I mean, we've seen projects that have been wrapped up for construction. They pull the permit for solar, say, a month later, and within the next 5 months, when the solar gets consoled, so the the timeframe is really drawn out on those projects.

[78:12] so it's very hard to say. You know, they need to install this by a certain timeframe, if that's what you're referring to. But My intent, really, with the the option for the do we? Energy ready was to help to help encourage these folks to to really look at this, and and and by putting money back in their pocket from the the little bit that goes into it, because there are studies out there for that DOE energy with 0 energy ready home that show compared to like a 0 energy home. it's about, I want to say a fifth of the cost, really. And so there's a there's that savings that you're gonna see there, as well as the additional savings from. And I just mentioned one incentive, which was the 45 l. we actually talked to excel, probably a couple of weeks back, and they mentioned looking at doing a program that would allow for $10,000 in rebates for electric ready and so or not what? You're ready. But the 0 energy ready home. And so

[79:03] so there's there's additional incentives that are available. It's just I wanted to try and make that available to to anyone. And it's not just for the homes that are less than 3,000 square feet, the homes that are greater than can also do it and get the incentives as well, they just have to do the solar to meet the requirement from the city as well. So. and on the commercial side. so on the Is there anything in the process? I I understand what you're talking about with the current situation with, the you know. getting materials and that kind of thing but it it doesn't change anything if it's ready and doesn't activate. How do we? How do we jump over that? Yeah, I don't think we're planning to backtrack on the commercial side. Right, Josh, so all commercial projects would still be required. Not just so. Already they would have to install at least 5% and still have the space for the 40%

[80:07] group space. So I think in those cases, you're you're going to see a lot of those barriers. You're already gonna see the solar on, and they'll be going to be using the roof space and and maximizing it to meet the other code requirements. So it's more of a residential consideration. It seems that the well, I'll ask a simple question for that simple question first, the vast majority residential is existing. and so does it make sense to establish an electrification pathway for existing buildings. Because I think it was Mark that was talking about vast majority of that of the existing housing stock. Is it gonna need to be complying with any of these regulations? So does it make sense to try to

[81:06] push. push incentivize people. We need their houses off of gas. which is a big can have a big impact. Yes. yes, there, there is consideration to. Yeah. So that that's kind of part of the the A couple of slides we go. We talked about encouraging electrification and like level 4 level 5, and really looking to to help incentivize them to look at. Considering this, as you know, the writings really on the wall, as we're starting to really encourage this, get it into code. The next step. Really, you know, once we get it codified for electric ready is is to look at, you know, electric all electric requirements. And so that's really the hurdle I think that we're really looking at is to getting it codified to do electric ready. And then you really, once it's in there. The next step is to really enforce it as a mandatory requirement which could be in coming years. So something to look at

[82:10] A and this may not be in the energy code. It might just be in it for people who aren't going to do a level 2 or 3 or 4. You're not going to really change anything but to be incentivized, to go electric. Just do that piece that that this you don't have to remodel your kitchen. You don't have to. you know, change a whole lot of stuff to electrify your house, to get off of gas. and I'm wondering if that pathway to electrification. And this is for existing buildings that aren't going to be coming through due to a remodel that are just out there, and that are the best majority of residents. So I I is that thinking on the table at all? Or

[83:00] yeah, and I, I would just point to Denver in this case. and I think what you're talking about. Analysts. within code. There is a upon replacement or end of life requirements around electric or prohibition. that's certainly something that can be considered. It is something that Denver has adopted in their commercial building. Codes I don't know that they they are looking at it for residential as well, but haven't gotten as far. So that's certainly on the table. Right? I would also, just to give some additional clarification. Ml, you know, in terms of a larger incentive program beyond construction, or people doing something on their house would be outside of the scope of this particular project. The likely part of the scope of some of the larger work on the the road roadmap and some of the work that Caroline's department is leading. So we'll wanna make sure that we keep up. you know, constraints in terms of the work on developing this particular code, and where it's applicable to ensure that we can achieve that. So just wanted to point that out.

[84:03] Oh, thank you for that. I I was recognizing that it was a little bit broader. But again I'm I'm trying to point out brought things that might actually move the needle. my last question. So a lot of the updates that you're talking about doing are to mitigate greenhouse gases and and carbon to more stringent requirements. So my question. is to get back to the source right? So can are you looking at? Is the best. highest efficiency standard already on the table is the do we the one that you're looking at? Are you looking at things that might be more stringent than that. And I'm thinking about the standard like, Perceive House. And has that conversation come up rather than trying to fix it after. Okay, we're as efficient as we can get. Given the standard we're putting out there now. We got all of this.

[85:10] So you know, excess carbon. greenhouse gases, etc., to have to deal with, and how we're going to deal with that just start at the beginning may okay the highest standard that is out there that is currently being used in perceived House. I mean, that's the only way you get to know when, if you're building in Germany. you know these standards are out there. They're embedded, they work in commercial, they work in residential. and they have. They result in a much. much more efficient building. Then the standard that you're that you're talking about? a has has that? Where? Where is? Where are you guys regards to? Okay, that so so I can. I can mention this. And so actually built into the admin portion of the energy code, it gives us the ability to accept any above code programs that we deem to be fit. And so the reason I really looked at the deal is 0 energy ready home is. There were a ton of incentives that are out there available to help people go that route. And the reason I looked at this was, it's similar to what we're currently requiring versus

[86:22] our our requirements for those homes that are less than 3,000 square feet right now, or you know, it requires the or I target some other things. But this program. Now, the other thing I wanted to mention is, it's an elective program. And so it's not. It's not a code requirement. It's that you can do. You could do this, or the alternative would be to do this above code program. And so the reason I say all that is like, if if someone came to us and said they wanted to do passive house in the city. I don't foresee that would be a problem. So I I'm I'm not thinking that any any, you would say, No, you can't do better, I'm just saying, can we make better the standard? And it is a commercial. It is a commercial standard as well as a residential standard, and as we solve the large fire excel is offering a double way above

[87:13] any of the other standards a much higher incentive for achieving that, knowing that you're gonna get a superiorly efficient. totally out of it. I I'm just wondering if you're thinking about any other any, any higher standard, because that changes a lot of stuff. Yeah. And I, I think that's a great suggestion. Josh, we can. have our consultants. Look at what that incremental difference would be. in terms of efficiency versus cost. And so we can. We can take that, and and bring that back when we are bringing forward the, the residential draft and the commercial. Thank you so much. Those are my 3 questions.

[88:01] So. I really appreciate my colleagues questions. I have a couple of additional ones that weren't touched on in the matrix that you showed of the Eui performance targets. The buildings that were noted only went up to 50,000 square feet. But we definitely have buildings proposed a pending before us now that are far greater than that. Are there performance targets for buildings larger than 50,000 square feet. So yes, and that's something we're also looking at. as we update the code to to look at kind of encompassing those as well. it's really, I think, where where we got with the 2020 code was to kind of dip our toe in the water, of giving so many buildings the opportunity for this path, and so now that this this path and this option has been out there for a while. There's a lot more data for these buildings. And so we really have, I think, more power to to be able to look at targets and and be thoughtful about our selections versus just trying to hit the most efficient target that may not be really cost to cost effective. So

[89:07] alright, that's great, because a lot of the projects that we've seen more than a handful of projects that have come to us that are manufacturing and production facilities. And they're very large. and I have a feeling we're going to see more of those so incorporating larger buildings into your, into your work. I think it'd be great. So that's in in some aspects. That's why we have the model baseline path as well as they can actually model the building to see how it should perform. there's just some limitations on the other Eui targets, and it could be You know, we we have a ton of building stock. That's that way. And so that may be why it limits that to the 50,000, because at that point. They really didn't have a ton of of building stock out there that they were able to to record that usage on yet, or that that wasn't already out there. That's kind of tainting that that pool. But but no, to your point. We will definitely be discussing that with our our consultant to look at that and see if it if there are some targets we can give for those larger buildings to make sure that

[90:13] you know, to to provide that flexibility on the choice for the performance path. So so a second question the in the document on page 50 you have what I if I read it correctly, was the ev ready ev capable requirements right now? and I think that's what I was looking at, and I was, I have to say, I wrote down, wow! These numbers are really uninspiring, but the ev ready and AV capable requirements are pretty darn low, and for the high density, what I call high density buildings, but are either the three-story residential or the top the higher residential which falls under commercial

[91:00] And I can you just tell me, tell us what you are proposing, or how you're thinking about, because I think you don't have a proposal. Yet how you're thinking about increasing those percentages, and whether we could require up to 50 or even more percent charge ready parking spots for those types of buildings. So the recent code that came out actually last week, with the State. we are currently in align with with the values that you see on the the table on that page the only thing that really changes is multi-family. And so multi-family they really increase the requirement from our 10 up to 15. But I think to your note, this is really a starting point for us. So the values that they're going to require us to be at from the the State code. really is just a leaping off point for for us here at the city, I believe, and you know, with with our, with our past and kind of our, our our vision moving forward. I I don't. I wouldn't be surprised if we do up those totals from what that is required.

[92:07] now, I can't really speak to the amount of saying 50% needs to be this way. you know, with that aspect. I you know we want to do a little bit of research and see, you know, where. Where is that kind of break, even point? Where does it make the most sense to really do it. And then, you know, And and one thing to say about the ev ready and ev charging is, it's very interchangeable. So your Ev, if you have additional items there, it covers the other 2 areas. And so and then there's other definitions. Now for ev capable that ev capable white. And yeah, so But but I think to answer your question and bring it back is, yes, we're looking at using the state code as our baseline and really increasing the metric and the requirements on those you know where it makes sense and and kind of where's that that happy balance with really that? You know the best thing for the buck on the projects. And what we're really our goal is as a city. So

[93:00] okay, when we get to recommendations, I'm going to bring that back up before I forget. just a reminder that we give a lot of parking reductions to large scale developers, and I think that they already benefit from that. And when you're calculating when you're doing your econometric studies of what constitutes breaking even benefit bottom line, etc. We try to take into account the parking reductions and the savings that developers get from those. That's a great point. Thank you. Yeah. Make sure they're more stringent, maybe on those requirements, because you're already getting a break. You might as well have to up the Annie. And what you're needing to do on an efficiency standpoint. So thank you for that feedback. Yeah. okay. Page 52. You talked about the challenges requiring all electric construction requirements. And you mentioned the Berkeley case? I think I'm understanding those 2 being connected. is there a tipping point in terms of

[94:04] the percentage requirements for electric construction above which developers would just go ahead and go all electric. I mean, I'm just trying to think about ways around the Berkeley challenge. And it just I just wonder if there's like some percentage of that would not be a hundred. So you would get around Berkeley, but would be big enough that the developer would just go fine. I'm just going to go all electric. So, Carolyn, I I why, you speak to it. But I think that's really one of the avenues we're looking at is is setting a metric for that and go ahead your own. Sorry. Yeah, it's one of the motivations behind the 100 offset of any natural gas use. that that definitely has a cost premium that that goes with that as one of the the potential strategies, and then and the other one is we. I think we just have 5 electric preferred right now as a margin.

[95:01] that's basically kind of an on car kind of requirement we definitely are thinking about. You know whether that's a 20 or a you know more of a premium on a mixed fuel building? and I don't know what the number is, but that's definitely one of the things we want to look at is is where where that would become the more cost preferred as long as the technology is available. So definitely on our radar. Okay, great. okay, solar access. I have a particular bugaboo about the way large scale solar farms beat up land that is not currently developed. The Ibm which Mark Rick M mentioned. is one of those. It's just an example of land that was not developed and is now developed. I mean, it's for a solar firm, so no complaints. But I I mean there are complaints but to me figuring out how to utilize already built environment for onsite solar, I think, is really valuable. However, it does

[96:04] bump up at least here in boulder with what we're seeing, with a lot of our multi-family developments. Which is the use of the rooftop to meet outdoor space requirements? and I would just like to ask the question of how can we? How can we use this code that you're developing to incentivize the use of roost space for solar and encourage the continued provision of private outdoor space for apartments, which is something that we see. some developers that trying to back away from with that public space on top of the building. So I don't know how to exactly ask that as a question. But maybe I'll just say, is that something that planning? And and you guys are discussing. What's the right balance of to meet the opens, the personal private open space requirements and the utilization of

[97:02] the roof for solar. You can just say yes or no, I will think about it or something, but I'll go. It is now. Thank you. That's a really good point. Okay, alright. Well, thanks. Alright. Then one last question which has to do with? And this may be an Edward question. the urban Heat Island effect has a huge impact on electricity or energy use. Because if you if you don't have shade, you have high usage for air conditioning for those people who do have air conditioning. So I'm where? Where is landscaping? Slash shade, 3 flash shade as a part of building construction connected to to the, to this code. How? How? How did those? How do those pieces connect? Certainly. And right now? not a strong connection necessarily would be part of an additional effort. I would say, to look at. I do see it's coming with some of the roadmap work and some of the cool boulder work and those items. It's not necessarily part of

[98:11] the scope of what we see in energy conservation, likely would go more in the title line, land use and landscape requirements. But it's certainly something that is coming up more and more as we do planning efforts. As we look at land uses, we look our area plans even. I would expect that we'll see something. it's not on the work plan this year to develop code for that, but would suspect some part in the future. Okay. all right. Thank you very much. it. We does. Anyone else on planning board have additional questions that have come up as a result of anything your colleagues have asked. okay? If not, then let's go to public. let's go to public comments on this issue. If anyone has questions, please raise your hand and then Viv, and we'll call on you, and then after that we'll take a quick 5 or 10 min break, and then come back for recommendations to to staff.

[99:10] if that's all right with everybody. So, Vivian, do we have any hands up? I don't see hands, and I would ask There's a couple of people. If you plan to speak, please change your name to your full name as well. People. A few more seconds. Okay, Lynn, please go ahead. You have 3 min, Lynn. and you should be able to see the timer. I can't see a timer apologies for that. I'll just have to keep. keep an eye on that, you'll hear it. Yeah, it should be in one of the windows generally. Can you get off of the

[100:00] presentation screen? Maybe that will open it up could be same. Your view? Great. Yeah, thanks, Mark. Thank you. That was there, and the screen just distracted me. But that thanks. Yeah. one thing that that I was thinking about that this doesn't really address any of this stuff is how how per capita. how much each person is using of space and having a an and embodied energy. whole life, cycle, analysis. benefit range, or people per space. because

[101:00] I think that if I look ahead in the future 100 years, I think we're gonna have houses that are different that are designed differently designed to and and not as compartments and not not as smaller units, you know, 300 foot or efficiencies, but communal, multi-family multi-generational homes with, you know, 2 refrigerators, minimum for you know, say, 2 families or 2 kind of units of people within a house. that entirely redesigns the architecture. but it saves so much in, for example, parking. because. as you've discussed and some of these 300 foot units oh, we're going to give a parking reduction a high limit because they aren't using cars, but they are using cars because there's no storage. And these new houses of the 100 year future have to have storage for multiple.

[102:14] You know, people living in the space, because otherwise what you get is just a big house with nobody living there. And the other part of the situation is finding a way to reuse existing properties and the value of the full life cycle analysis, and embodied energy of keeping pre existing housing, such as Alpine balsam and taking all the trade offs of just you know the electrical has to be redone there like there's so many complexities, but just plastering it up. So you have less physical space inside. But you do have a more

[103:00] What a a long term! Full lifecycle analysis of more more energy carbon reduction. And I didn't see that particularly addressed in this kind of a plan. I think it's really good plan, though, basically. But I'd like to see the more social aspects of it. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thanks so much. Okay, so why don't we take a a minute break, which means, at least on my clock. We'll be back here at 7 55 And then we'll give our comments using the 3 key questions that staff after that already.

[114:03] Carolyn and Josh and Mark, are you guys there. Mark? By any chance? Are you back? let's go ahead, and I know him. He'll be coming back to his desk in a minute. Let's go ahead and come back to our comments to Staff, using the 3 key questions. My guess is that question number one and question number 2. People probably answered at the same time. so The first question is, hey? I'm Kurt, will you tech? There is. Okay. Thanks, Mark. Sorry. I want to make sure. Okay, The first question is, does the planning board agree with the proposed area of focus for the 2,024 Co. Back. Is that the right way to pronounce it? K back? And the second question is, are there other areas of focus that should be included? The third question is, does planning board have any recommendations on the community engagement strategies?

[115:10] Why don't we take questions, one and 2 together. And so each planning board member can. if they, if they agree with the proposed areas to say yes, if they don't explain why, and then talk about what other areas of focus you would like to see included. Because my guess is those it's sort of this other side of the same question. Who would like to go first? ml. why don't you go ahead? Sure. Thanks. So the proposed areas of focus. The I'll be ones that are listed on page 45 the one that I would add a piece to other requirements to analyze and reduce embodied carbon for new commercial construction.

[116:07] I think, materials with carbon our equal opportunity. Right? It's just equally carbon centric, whether it's residential or commercial. So I'm I I would encourage a residential component to the embodied carbon. I guess you' to create metrics. I'm not sure. but that would be my comment on question number one, German answer number 2 as well. Sarah or she? I think so. I think they're sort of part of the same discussion. So the focus. And I've already talked about that a little that, I think should be included is. can we raise the bar to perceive how standard is there? Is that the high? Can we get to the highest standard we possibly can as our as our base standard? I think that will then trickle down to having an impact on all of the other things we're we're looking to measure. So

[117:15] those would be my team and I guess, for Number 2 of the focus. And I don't. I just is not an additional thing. But I would push electric as far as we can. I I know that we're a little treading lightly because of the lawsuits and that sort of thing, but I I think we should take it as far as we feel we legally can. because I do think, weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, as we know. is the ultimate and game for reducing carbon in the atmosphere. That's one of the one of the biggest. So

[118:01] yeah, those are my comments. Thank you so much. Thanks. thanks. Ml, mark, you're next. Thank you, Sarah. So when a a project like this that touches everything and it's just transportation, this land uses building codes it. It can get the rail or signed by the fact that it does touch everything but it to me. for an area of emphasis is somehow it seems as I read through this. And I think about our building code and our planning code and all our other other planning documents. I I it makes me wish for greater integration and cross collaboration, so that we don't have like, the Sarah pointed out the the.

[119:02] the parking reduction that the planning department staff and applicants apply for, and we're trying to encourage them to have more like aification. Anyway, it is so better related that it it again. It just feels to me like this is here. And then we have a planning code here. And so I I I somehow wish that this was more integrated. So on 2 areas of emphasis. one of the things that struck me was, I, I appreciate you, and your team commenting on trying to bring equity into this. And one of the things that I've witnessed in in carbon and energy reduction policies is the benefit accrues to the wealthy

[120:01] and and it's really difficult to do otherwise. But we say, Oh, we're going to give tax credits on new Evs. Well, that's great. But so the wealthy end up because they can take the tax credit. They can afford a new Ev and and a way we go, and so, and and we don't view it as spending money because we gave the tax credit. So one of the thoughts I had was we don't discourage really large residential properties and not. and I know we had the large lot and large building project a while ago. But when I looked at this plan I thought, you know what we need to have is rather than make a house. This over 5,000 square feet. the net 0 energy we need to. We make it being had 0 energy plus supporting a fund very similar to our inclusionary Housing fund that would support the addition of rip top solar or e, a community garden, solar or other other lower income residents, and whether that's directly on there, or whether it's a garden or whatever, and I don't say. But anyway, but it seems to me a weak point in our whole system that we

[121:26] we really don't discourage and not we don't provide enough sticks on the large house side of things, and and those people who can afford to to build a 5,000 square, but house and folder can afford a little more to support the energy conservation and and financial savings that solar can bring, or other energy conservation measures can bring to our lower income residents. and I I wanna completely agree with Sarah that

[122:03] that the Ev numbers are completely uninspiring. They are. They are shy of where that I I perceive they ought to be, and and in fact, the the other thing that seems to be missing is is the an emphasis on shared that as we go forward. the the requirement for me to own an Ev is going to be continue to be diminished. And so I think the code, whether it's here or somewhere else, needs to emphasize shared vehicle spaces and shared vehicle requirements because we need fewer vehicles. not only just internal combustion engine vehicles. We just need fewer vehicles, and a car spends almost all this time unused. finally.

[123:00] you know, I, we always talk about Tdm. and and parking. And so this seems to me that you you're touching on parking, and you're touching on electrification. And it doesn't seem so. I I'm confused because it's not so much a building code we have, you know, but it's not just a Tdm. Or or planning code. And so if if this is going to be part of or integrated or inform a developer's Tdm plans. it. It needs to. It needs to be more thoroughly addressed, and more creatively address in terms of how you deal with Both parking electrification the desk room and cycling facilities. That kind of stuff, because all of those things can contribute to a buildings overall that 0 capacity. So those are. Those are my comments.

[124:11] Thanks, Mark. Laura. Thank you. So the first question is, do we agree with the proposed areas of focus? And I will say, this is not my area of expertise. So I don't have a lot of comments about that. I think that what you propose sounds good. The one thing that I think would be very helpful is when you give a presentation like this, whether it's to another board or city council, or doing community outreach it is to give just a brief context of the whole roadmap. And what is this piece that you're talking about today? Because through the discussion I picked up on this is just about buildings. And, moreover, it's just about new buildings or renovated buildings or additions to buildings. And it's not about energy code for for homeowners. They're not changing anything. It's not about traffic and minimizing greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. It's not about how changing land use would change greenhouse gas emissions. It's just about regulating buildings and so

[125:07] giving people kind of that context, I think, would be help them to understand more going in what to expect and how to receive your areas of focus, and whether they would like to expand them or not. So that's my answer to that one and I do want to weigh in on again on this the equity piece, because I think this is really something that you have already given a lot of thought to, and I would like to encourage even more thought on this, because I know the city. Something I learned in my year as liaison to the Landmarks board is that the city gives breaks in the energy code for certain purposes that the city wants to encourage, one of which is historic preservation, and that is one of the incentives that the landmarks board can grant is that a building that is landmarks does not have to meet the energy code when it is renovated and restored. I don't know exactly what that looks like, but I know that that is possible, and I think that you know, at least for us on planning board for me, and I think my colleagues as well. One of our priorities is affordable. Housing is trying to make keep boulder affordable

[126:09] so that we don't hollow out our middle class. We do have income diversity which leads to other kind of diversity. And so if we want that, we have to be really clear eyed and honest with ourselves about the impact of these changes, which is going to be to raise the price of construction, at least the initial construction. And so, thinking about, how do we marry this priority to to reach, you know, net 0 energy, or reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. and also not discourage or make it less. you know, lower the volume of affordable housing that we can afford to provide with the same money. Right? And so, what are the things that we can do for affordable housing providers, whether that is giving them a break like we do for historic preservation properties, or if it is increasing, thinking really seriously about? What are the subsidies that are available? And do we need to increase the kinds of subsidies or types of subsidies that we offer so that we are not negatively impacting our affordable housing provision.

[127:06] So I just want to really emphasize that and say, I know everybody has. Our hearts are all in the same place. And I look forward to even more creative thinking about this challenge. Thanks, Laura Kurt. Well, first of all, thank you to especially to Mark and to Laura for bringing up this equity issue, which definitely is something that I really want to focus on to. I won't repeat all their comments, but to me clearly, equity, part of equity, is demanding more from those who have more resources. And so you know, really, really making sure that these. The giant houses that we get all too many of in this city are doing everything possible to be as efficient as as possible, including.

[128:02] perhaps, Ml's suggestion of positive house standards. and potentially also, I love Mark's suggestion of an analog to the affordable Housing fund that would the they would help to fund, you know, the the energy efficiency for people who don't have as many resources. I think there are a bunch of things there that we need to to think about. We also need to think about how we don't, how we avoid disincentivizing. missing new housing which we desperately need in this town. so I I think I yeah, I think that there's more to do. I I I appreciate your emphasis on equity. But I think there's more to be done there. I think we could also do more in terms of the embodied energy. in that regards.

[129:04] If I were on the circus, I would say. if you're building house or building a a building and a a dwell, a residential building. then you would have a particular per unit and body and energy budget. It's fixed, and it maybe it is enough to build a standard, you know, 2,000 square foot house, and if you want to build more than that, it with a bigger foundation and a lot more steel and stuff like that. Well, you need to figure out how to do that right? so so somehow incorporating embodied energy of these very large houses. And and that that we're currently getting and reducing that to make it fair is where I'm trying to go. With that we talked about the Onsite solar. I was a little unclear where we were going. It does seem like as the grid becomes more and more renewable. Heavy onsite solar becomes

[130:09] less important, and it it has various inefficiencies, right? Because it requires per. So what our generated it requires more infrastructure it requires. The inverters are less efficient. there's more structure, there's more wiring, and so on, that, compared to utility scale, or or even solar garden scale. and so I think it seems like we should be deemphasizing that And maybe, instead emphasizing this efficiency. there was discussion earlier on about outdoor heating like heated pools and grills and stuff like that. And, boy. I would love to. We impose really stringent

[131:08] requirements on those like. If you want to have a heated pool in this day and age. then then you should really be so. You should be making up for that energy cost in a big way or if you want to have, you know, private out, more heaters. the patio heaters, or something that it seems like something that we should definitely be discouraged The last thing I want to talk about is cool roofs, and I don't know if this really falls under this under the provisions of this, but we recently replaced our roof, and we were able to get a cool rated single

[132:01] for 0 additional cost. And and you know they they help to cool. Keep the house cooler, and they also help to reduce the heat on the effect, because they don't heat up the surrounding area as much, either. and I think it would be great to just say, if you're replacing the roof in boulder, you need to have it. you know. Be cool as I said, for at least in our experience it was no additional cost seems very simple. and I think that the benefits are pretty significant. That's it for me. Thank you. Thanks, Kurt. okay, so I think I'm the last one. I'm going to repeat some of what has been said. I I I appreciate Edward saying that the landscaping, shading, etc., fits into a different component of

[133:05] the the broad integrated work. But I do think it would be useful. because of that integration or overlap to think about as you go through this, maybe establishing some design and landscape requirements through title I for new buildings that could add to the it to reduce reduced energy needs and an example that's in my head that I'm not suggesting you do this, but the buildings that have built out shade. I don't know what they call, but they go above windows, and they provide some some immediate shade, and they're permanent. They're not They're not internal to the building. They're external to the building, you know. Does that with that prove to be something like that proved to be cost effective additional design requirements. for new buildings that would

[134:01] offset Some of the energy needs of that building. So that's one one thought. definitely increase ev ready ev capable, especially in a commercial and multi-family r 2 buildings. and marry that, or consider how that you might marry that to the parking reductions that are given in terms of the housing affordability issue. I think we absolutely have to do an analysis of the impact of all these proposals, all housing costs. not because we shouldn't make these changes, but we have to be cognizant of what is gonna what is it? We already are in a very expensive place to live, even if you can afford a big fancy Shmancy house. I I have a couple of friends who have big fancy houses, and they pay a lot of money to the city for that. and but the cost of

[135:02] that all housing will go up. And I think we really need to do an analysis, so that we know what it is we're we're doing to our housing. stock. add buildings above 50,000 square feet to the EU. I. That's item number 4, item number 5. so we have a really old housing stock. and a lot of those old houses are rental units that have landlords who have no incentive to renovate or upgrade and those those houses just deteriorate under heavy usage. So I wonder if we might want to explore where we, it might make sense for the city to explore some combination of incentives and penalties, to encourage landlords to renovate rental units that are older than some X number of years, and I don't know what that X is but so that we

[136:00] we don't end up with this sort of weird brand new houses and brand new apartment buildings, and then the crumbling old houses and and I'm thinking, especially up on the hill. So I think that's something that we might want to see if that can fit into the scope, and maybe it's just into. Maybe it's in Caroline Caroline's work scope. But I think it's an important issue. So in the fixed item is in the material that you shared with us, we talk about how I can't remember what page there's there'll be lower utility bills and lower maintenance due to transition to electric No utility bills frankly are determined by how much profit excel is allowed to make and and they make a lot of profit. And I think I realized that this is not specifically about construction standards. But

[137:03] we really care about the people who will be living in these buildings or working in these buildings and paying the utility bills. We. the cities the city has to figure out has to. We have to figure out how to continue to push the state. to make sure Excel's rates actually do go down as we move to alternative energy sources. Not just that we continue to pay them the same amount when they're using solar versus when they're using coal. because then the prices, it will change nothing. And The goal here is not just to not be using fossil fuels. It's also to ultimately reduce costs for residents, and we have to make sure that that's part of our work. And then my last at least here I so there's one type of building. It's more of a that you didn't really talk about, which is hos

[138:00] and So I live in an hoa, and what we had a conversation many years ago about putting solar on our roots, and we can't because of our hoa regulations. so I don't know exactly if that's specific to our hoa or to all, Hos, but I think it'd be helpful just to understand. what limitations there might be for buildings like for that little developments like ours that might want to renovates and make ourselves a solar building or buildings. but I again, that might not be in the scope of this work. But I there are a lot of hos around, and it might be worth just sort of exploring that and figuring out how that intersects with the work you all are doing okay? before we move on to the last question, any other comments that people want to make any comments that Staff wants to make back to us other than we're making your lives very difficult.

[139:02] No, I think that those are great points. So okay. all right. And then the last question you asked was this planning board? Have any recommendations on the on community engagement strategies? I have one which I'll just get out of the way, which is, I really feel like, or to actually please engage with, empower our future. those are folks who know a lot about excel and a lot about energy usage. And then also can I make a recommendation that you push back your plan first reading Intel. Maybe early in 2,024 there will be a new combination of city Council members in November of 2,023, and whatever that combination is, some subset of them will be deer and headlights being handed a first reading of a complex ordinance like this. So I would just recommend maybe taking that into account in your scheduling.

[140:03] Does anyone have comments about a quick question. Number 3 Laura. I would just recommend really focusing on the stakeholder groups that are already knowledgeable and know that they're impacted like builders, developers, individual homeowners who have recently tried to pull a permit for a renovation or a rebuild I think if you try to do like a general public open house. It's gonna be just impossible to explain this to. But people who don't have a really good reason to want to understand it. I don't know how you would engage with the community connectors. I would look to them for advice on. If there's a way to share some of this and get some input from the disadvantaged communities. it, you know, especially on any equity impacts. but I think that you will get some of that from talking with the developers of affordable housing, which I'm sure you will be talking to like the sole and habitat and

[141:01] bolder housing partners. Thank you so much for the work that you're doing. Alright. Thanks, Laura. Ml. yes, thank you. so I have 2 suggestion to 2. Yeah. 2 thoughts. this is a complex subject. but it's one that impacts everybody. So my suggestion is that include in your presentation of efficiency standards, illustrate them such that you anchor. You relate the standard that changes the current, the potential, the future

[142:04] to buildings and building sizes. I think one of my colleagues talked a couple of. I talked about the impact of Big House. I mean. it's a it's a. I think, undocumented. We all see it. but it would be nice to see the data it would be nice to see. Oh, hey! This 1,500 square foot house. you know. Given these standards would have this amount of impact to Xyz. A 5,000 square foot house would have this, I think, to begin to illustrate with data the that there isn't disproportionate impact of big houses onto the community. And I think if we could illustrate that

[143:00] through the efficiency standards, I think that would be an important thing to be able to get across as well as with the embodied energy. And that's gonna be the big one, right? Because 5,000 square feet of materials versus 1,500 square feet of materials. It's going to be very, very visual to see that impacts. And I think that that's an important component, not only to start looking at the equity issue. But to start having the community begin to bring to the table. and maybe this is where the land you starts getting pushed, which is not clearly not part of this project. but it it will. It will cause people to think about the interconnectedness of okay. How are we using our land? And is this really the best use of our land? I think it will

[144:01] give us the opportunity to put the question that is circling the globe. How do we reduce our our carbon emissions? And how do we, as a community. one of the things that we do when we see on a daily basis. And I think if you, if you could take the presentation and put it into that into that context, so people can find themselves. Oh, I'm this person. This is my size house. This is my size Houser. you know. I mean, I think we do that with cars, with transportation, because that's kind of simple to do. But it doesn't really happen with with houses, with buildings, and maybe even with commercial buildings. I I would suggest that to to bring it home would be a really good way to get

[145:02] people to recognize me. Importance. Oh, this The role that our that the energy code plays in creating the city we want. and you know, I think Excel did a really good thing when they present it. Their incentives and all the different impacts for the Marshall bill. That was one way where you know people like, why does the get double and triple? What is that they became very intrigued with with that kind of thing. So I think that there, that might be a model. I don't know if you bring excel to the table. But that idea of giving people a way to actually personalize it. I think, would really help

[146:00] in presenting this complex set of codes to the, to the public, and even to the stakeholders. Thanks, Amel. all right. Last call for comments before we close the public hearing. All right. Josh Carolyn. Rob Edward, thank you very, very much for this presentation, and we know you'll be back in front of us sometime in the next year. So thank you very much, and thanks for all the work you're doing. Thank you. We appreciate your time tonight. Alright. okay, thank you so much. And Rob, welcome to. And Josh, both of you. Welcome to Bowler, to boulder. okay. Finally, we're getting to matters, and Hello is going to give us an insight into ordinance. 8,579. Yeah. A good evening planning board. I actually didn't have not been planning to give a presentation on this item, it was included in the packet just for informational purposes.

[147:09] it's a sensitive item, because it relates to a potential settlement of the of a legal dispute. So any negotiations that occur is part of a mediation that this lawsuit cannot be discussed. and of course it's a sensitive item, because the city is, it currently is still being sued so With that in mind, I am still available to answer more questions. But I do realize that it's it's difficult to discuss. So maybe what makes sense is, if anyone on staff that I'm sorry anyone on the board has questions that they just reach out to you directly off off out of the meeting. Does that make sense? That would work right? Yes, okay. So let's plan for that. I know they're up there already. Been some communication. But if there are additional questions. you know how to reach Hella.

[148:00] okay, Hela, thank you. Thank you for sticking with us all this evening? we need. Where is who we missing? We need to talk about it. Does anyone have matters? Mark has a matter, Mark, what is your matter? And then Kurt has a matter. Wait! You're you're muted, Mark. Thank you. I was prepared to make a motion. I I I think we can't move on from this particular agenda item without making a motion and adopting that motion. Is that correct. mark? I think that suggested motion language that's in the memo is for City council, not for us. I I I don't need to make that much. was that okay? Kurt. you're also muted.

[149:00] Yeah, I have 2 things. First of all, just a very quick update on the roller junction phase 2 multi board working group which I attended. there will be a City Council study session on Thursday. Regarding both the junction phase 2. There are sort of 3 basic options of land use which some of you may have seen at the open house, and there are 3 different place, type, or character options. So I won't go through all the details. But this is moving. Oh, there is some transportation, a few transportation connections being close to be at. So, anyhow, I just wanted to give super quick update on that some videos questions that will take them. But I have one other thing. Does anyone have questions for Kurt on hold a junction.

[150:00] Okay, go on to your next item, please. Kurt. Okay, well, I did. I did my duty of reporting back to my board. There you go. Congratulations. Thank you. The other question is very important because it relates to donuts. So people keep asking me about the food who donut building getting repainted. and the claim is that that was in service of a city requirement. But I am aware of nothing outside of the the historic preservation code. The restricts pink color. Can anybody enlighten me? Was that a city requirement at all? And if so, what was it? Hello or Edward? How you go first? And Edward. I believe what you refer to as a requirement that comes out of the sign code. So the color of a building, if it's specific to a particular product or business and identifies it, then that can count towards the signed area under the sign code. And I think.

[151:08] I don't know exactly the analysis that occurred, but it was like a sign code determination. Edward, Us. Have something you want to add. No, that's a hello. Hit it just right there. So if there's other questions, we can try to answer them. And so was it, because then the building is very large, and it was too large for assign is that sort of the way it did that worked generally turns the entire building into the sign. If it's a call that it's associated with that particular business and the seen as part of how they would advertise themselves. So then it would well exceed the the maximum. All of that for signage. Okay, thank you for clarifying the good news is it will change the taste of voodoo donuts. They'll still be delicious and nutritious. Okay, Mark. And then Laura.

[152:05] yeah. So actually, per reporting on is participation in the team. That process made reminded me that while we did successfully a line get everyone appointed to a a board or a job. I I am uncertain as to who is my alternate on landmarks board, and if I'm an alternate for someone else on some other item, did we a, as a result of that meeting. ever come up with A. A, a. A published list of who was assigned to what and who the alternative? Devin, I think you would be the person who would have taken those notes. Do you have a material you can send out.

[153:16] All right, Mark. Thanks, Laura. Thank you. A quick, follow-up question on voodoo donuts. Do we have any sense of when it's opening? I think a lot of people are eager about that. I do not have a good sense. I did see just the other day. They were doing some construction inside so hopefully, sooner rather than later. But I would encourage people to talk with the proprietor in terms of what their plans are. Thank you. quick update on the airport as your liaison. We do have Our third airport community working group meeting will happen tomorrow, and at that meeting the working group will get the first peak at the. I believe it will be 4 scenarios that have been developed.

[154:00] draft scenarios, and we'll get to comment on them at that stage. And then after that there will be, I believe, another round of open house and survey for community input on the refined draft scenarios. The next step after that is to narrow down to a preferred scenario. So that's the pathway moving forward. And I think it's going to happen relatively quickly. So I think, look for community engagement next month. So that's airport up to any questions on that. I would. I actually do have a question. They're just gonna send you guys are just gonna send one one scenario to council. I think that is Staff's intention. and and it's to be clear it's not the community working group decision. The community working group will be one source of input along with the open house and the survey and the disadvantaged community outreach and other sources of input to staff. It will be staff and the consultant to try to narrow down to one preferred scenario.

[155:00] I have been pushing hard for City council needs to understand all of the scenarios and how they were evaluated. And what was the input that was received on them? Because I don't know how we narrow down to one preferred scenario. Given the very, very diverse opinions in this community, and the very disproportionate engagement of one stakeholder group? so can I ask a question when and maybe this is, maybe you know the answer, and maybe Hello will know the answer. So what what will actually come to planning board? in terms of of the working group. And what will we see and be asked to comment on before it goes to council. I am not sure that there is any intention to ask us to comment before it goes to council. How are you? Is that accurate. Do you know anything different, or I'm not involved in that work of the city, so I can't tell you one way or another. I can ask that question as your liaison, but my understanding so far is that they do not plan to make the rounds of the boards before they go to council with a preferred scenario.

[156:09] So I'll ask. okay? Cause it seems like I think you're right, that we'd want council to know what all for and why they came up. Why, they chose X, A, B, C, or D, so that they can actually have a conversation about all 4. But we have to figure out. If we have a role in in encouraging that. I I think it's always going to be our prerogative to send a letter to request a presentation. I just don't know if Staff proactively plans to ask for anything of us, not as far as I'm aware, but I could have misunderstood something. so maybe it. At the next meeting you can report. You can let us know if there, if they are planning to bring to us something, and if not, we can then discuss how we'd like to. If we'd like to do something about that. If we can do something about that.

[157:00] I will definitely ask the question and report back. great? Yeah. okay, any any other questions on that one? I I do have 2 more just real quick matters. Items. so the the 2 things I want. I just wanted to remind that there are a couple of things that we've brought up, or I've brought up in the past that I think that we're waiting on One is to understand whether our meeting notes as a planning board will only focus on our answers to the key questions that are asked by staff, or if the notes will also include general comments, and I I know Devin was working on that and consulting with other colleagues. I don't know if there's an update on that or an estimated like when we will get an update on that. Yeah, absolutely. I can touch on that a little bit. So I did go ahead, and I did go ahead and have the meeting with Brad and a couple of other folks about the meeting minutes. There. And it's it's it's a little bit difficult, because planning board does kind of operate outside of the norm when it comes to that boards and commissions. so we're kind of working on actually developing a standard operating procedure when it comes to the many minutes. But we will be in theory going ahead and the taking on when it comes to more complex issues and a little bit more detailed. items will, we will be going ahead and taking a general kind of comments as they go. but our main focus going forward will continue to be the just the key issues on that part.

[158:21] Okay, thank you. That's helpful to know, because it helps us structure how we put our comments together. And I think it also, it also does put a lot more pressure on staff, and how they construct those questions so that we can answer them and get the things that that planning board wants to advise on into the record. So thank you for that. And then the other thing is, I had asked at a previous meeting. If there's any information that Staff can provide around the height limitation. That was approved by voters and kind of what was the conversation at that time. And what was the exact ballot language that voters approved? just so that I better understand what was the intention at that time around the height limit.

[159:10] and Brad had said he would look into that, and he wasn't sure if that would come back to us as a presentation, or maybe a memo, or how that would look. But I just wanted to make note of. I'm still very eager to to get that information. If staff are able to offer it. I can touch on that really quick. I did go ahead and collaborate with Brad and Charles on this a little bit and we're hoping to get you a a memo of like the history of the height regulations by on for the twentieth The meeting on the twentieth fingers crossed. But It should. If not, it'll be just be the meeting after that. So should be coming shortly. That was it. Thank you, sir, that was it. Okay? last call for matters. Nothing. All right. This may be the earliest we have ever ever wrapped up a planning board meeting congratulations to us.

[160:06] 841, and I am officially adjourning this meeting alright. Thank you. Bye, bye, good night.