September 2, 2025 — Planning Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

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

[0:02] Okay. Great. Welcome all to the City of Boulder Planning Board meeting of September 2nd, 2025. We have, A nice agenda tonight, on our first agenda item, as usual, is, our public participation for items that are not public hearing items tonight. And before we begin public participation, We have, Vivian with us, who will walk us through the rules of public participation. For tonight. Thank you, Chair. And do we have members of the… of the community with us in person? no. Sorry. I don't… You… both staff, yeah. Okay, no, no members of the community in the room. Do we have any online?

[1:03] We do not, so I'll just read the first part, and then kind of monitor and see… Before you do, yeah, can we take roll call? Okay, alright. Really quick. Apologies to pause that, sorry. No, that's fine. Alright, I'll do a roll call, and we'll see if anyone. Else shows up in the. and the public participation. So… Actually, let's just go down the line, and you can say your name, and then I'll announce those that are not present. Go ahead. I'm Laura Kaplan. Mark McIntyre. Claudia Hansen theme. Curtin Hordbeck. And online… Nobeless. ML, and Board member, Roberts and Boone are absent this evening. Okay, so there we go. Now, Vivian, back to you. And, Do whatever you need to do, but not more, and then we'll, we'll carry on.

[2:02] Great, thanks. So, we don't have members of the public joining us, but, these rules for productive atmospheres that guide our meeting have some useful reminders. for all participants, so I'll go through those, and see if anyone's online, and I need to tell them how they can raise their virtual hand in those things. Great, so I'll just jump in. The city has engaged with community members to co-create a vision for productive, meaningful, and inclusive civic conversations, and this vision supports physical and emotional safety for community members, staff, and board members, as well as democracy for people of all ages, identities, lived experiences, and political perspectives. And we have more information about this on our website. And we… Next slide, please. And I'll just read some examples of rules of decorum that can be found in the Boulder Revised Code and other guidelines. First, all remarks and testimony shall be limited to matters related to city business.

[3:00] No participant shall make threats or use other forms of intimidation against any person. Obscenity, racial epithets, and other speech and behavior that disrupts or otherwise impedes the ability to conduct the meeting are prohibited. And we ask that all participants… all participants identify themselves by first and last name, both in person and online. Next slide. We did have somebody join us, and I'm not sure, if they're staff or not, so I'll just go through these. If you are, joining us from the community online, and you'd like to speak during this open comment section of the meeting, which will be right after I'm done speaking, or the public hearing later, if… I'm not sure if there's a public hearing, actually, but you can raise your hand by pressing on the virtual hand on the menu bar, and we'll know to call on you. Great! Great. So, now we can move to open comment, I believe? You might… okay, if, if anyone raises their hand online, we'll give them just a second. Otherwise, we'll move on to our next agenda item.

[4:09] Great. So if anyone is joining us from the community online, and you wish to speak, please, push on the virtual hand, and we'll call on you, and you would have 3 minutes to, to address the planning board. Okay, I don't see any hands being raised. So, we're going to close, item 2, public participation. We have no minutes to approve Item 3. We have no call-up items to discuss, that's item 4. But we do have two public hearing items. The first one, Agenda Item 5A, is… A public hearing and recommendation to City Council regarding a proposed ordinance amending Title IV, Licenses and Permits, BRC 1981, Title VI,

[5:02] Health, Safety, and Sanitation, BRC, 1981, Title VII, Parks, open spaces, streets, and Public Ways, BRC 1981, Title IX, Land Use Code, BRC 1981, Title 10. Structures, BRC 1981, and Title 11, Utilities and Airport, BRC 1981, on… Matters related to landscaping, water conservation, and wildfire resilience, and setting forth related details. So, for everyone's info. The way this will go is, staff has a, 15 to 20 minute presentation for us. We will, try to limit ourselves to clarifying questions from the board. We will then, go to a public hearing, excuse me, where, anyone from the public can comment, and then finally, to board deliberation.

[6:03] and comment. And I'll just… for the, all board members present. This is an example of two kind of major agenda items. We're hoping to get through both of them between an hour and a half and two hours each. Less is better. So, just, keep that in mind as we move through these two agenda items, and I'll turn it over to… Staff to Carl. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, board members. I'm Carl Geiler with Planning and Development Services. The topic before you tonight is the work program priority item from City Council, of wildfire hardening and water-wise landscaping. So as the board probably remembers in prior, presentations. There's one work program priority that has the combination of both wildfire hardening and water-wise landscaping. This was done when the Council created this priority item in the spring of 2024.

[7:02] because of the plant linkage, it linked these two projects together, and the board will recall that we brought an ordinance through this spring related to wildfire hardening. This presentation tonight will be a little bit of an update about that, but mostly focused on the water-wise landscaping piece of it. So I'm gonna start with the update, just to refresh. when we brought the ordinance forward to Planning Board and Council in the spring, it was a process that led to an expanded Wildland Urban Interface Map, as you're seeing up on the screen. The WUI, as we call it, was a narrow band. Of land, mostly along the western part of the city that interfaced with the mountains, where there were additional regulations meant to deter the spread of wildfire, and mostly related to building code. restrictions on structures. This has been expanded, quite significantly to over 16,000 parcels, and there's 3 different ignition zones with different requirements. We're not supposed to go to, and

[8:06] too much into the details tonight other than what is, before you tonight in the ordinance, which I'll talk more about. But the new code went into effect on August 1st. It relates to a number of different features on properties in this area, such as fences. There's a requirement to have non-combustible materials within 8 feet of any structure, if you're building a fence. There's the non-combustible zone, which is that area 1… 0 to 5 feet around any structure, any new structure that's built, that can't have combustible materials or vegetation in it. And this has been found to be one of the most effective ways of deterring wildfire spread. We also have low flammability landscaping requirements, or what the Wildland Code refers to as defensible space, so that area 5 feet to 30 feet, or on… or mostly on a property within that zone.

[9:03] If there's a permit, any new plantings have to be, low flammability. And there's some updates being made to that code tonight, which I'll talk more about. The regulations also related to decks, being attached to buildings, and that the surface of those decks have to be ignition-resistant, and they have to be enclosed, so you don't have the embers going underneath the decks and causing a fire that way. since the non-combustible zone has been a big topic that's been discussed by Planning Board and Council, I wanted to at least show an example that I saw. This is actually in some of the new buildings going up. in Superior, in downtown Superior, that have the non-combustible zone around them, so this gives you an idea of what that looks like. I think the rock, is kind of like squeegee kind of type rock that's around the buildings, which is permeable. I just wanted to show you some pictures, since there were a lot of discussion on this topic.

[10:02] The key elements to remind the board is that, you know, this is the regulatory portion. There's many different aspects to addressing wildfire mitigation. There's education incentive programs, there's plans and policies, there's a number of different programs being done. by fire rescue. It is an interdepartmental collaboration on these topics, so we have meetings with all the different departments to talk about the different aspects that we're working on on this particular issue. But again, tonight's focus is mostly regulatory. So I'm gonna jump into the water-wise landscaping piece. This is the project purpose that was set up when we started the project. It was to evaluate Boulder's existing landscaping regulations, policies, and programs, meeting the goal of enhanced. water conservation to support Boulder's long-term water supply strategy. It was also to explore updates that further support water conservation through landscape practices by adopting landscape regulations that promote climate-adapted

[11:07] And what are efficient landscapes. And by identifying educational programs and incentives for community members. So before we go too deep into the ordinance, we do need to point out the state bills that have passed recently, one in 2024 and one in 2025. Sb24005 passed last year. It really relates to the use of non-functional turf, so there's definitions that we have in the memo, also in the materials. Functional turf is area that can have high-water use grass that might be used for, like, recreational purposes, or maybe picnic areas. It's an actual used area. It's not, like, an area that you're just looking at. And I think in the United States, in particular, we've gotten in the habit of many years of building non-functional turf, which is just grass that needs a lot of water, that's really just landscaping that people look at. And I think the state bill is really trying to get at that, and really get at water conservation.

[12:10] So, the first bill that passed Restricted the future use of non-functional turf. Which is not those recreational areas, or picnic areas, or high-use areas in certain areas, like, land uses. So, street rights-of-way, parking lots, medians, corridors. commercial, industrial, and institutional sites, as well as common interest communities, like HOAs. So any future permits, if they trigger things, they're not allowed to use non-functional turf per the state law. The bill that passed through the House this year expanded that bill, to include residential. So what it did is it basically, expanded it to multi-unit residential if there were more than 12 units on a property. When we talked to City Council about this at our prior check-ins in December of last year and July, there was agreement that we should just apply that more broadly to more than just the 12 units, but more than 3 units in multi-unit projects, and that's what we're moving forward with.

[13:16] It also, if you're interested, I think there was a little bit of pushback on the use of artificial turf restrictions in the 2024 bill. It was, like, an outright ban on it. The 2025 bill actually allows some limited allowances for artificial turf. This is the schedule, we've been marching along. We're now in the adoption phase as we approach, quarter four. We've been helped by Martin and Wood. We talked to Planning Board about this in December of last year when we did an update. It's a consultant that has been recommending best practices. I believe they might be on the call tonight if there's any… questions. Their recommendations are in Attachment H, which have informed what we brought to Council to get insight on what we should really be focusing on.

[14:06] And when we talked to Council in December of last year, these are the things that we're… we were told to focus on. So, obviously, moving forward with meeting the state bill, you can see that that scope has increased with the adoption of the House bill this year, so with residential being included, that increases the scope. But, we would be touching on non-functional turf, trying to get more firewise standards and plantings. Soil amendment and mulch standards, looking at watering schedules. Those were all green-lighted. Temporary irrigation and water efficiency standards were something that Council was somewhat interested in, but it was more like a maybe. We have not moved forward on those two, just based on the scoping. issues that we've talked about. We need to have the staff to implement a lot of these things, so we've moved forward with the ones that are in green. So as far as the progress to date, we've been digging deeper into the best practices, like I said, soil and mulch standards.

[15:04] turf, plant and tree specifications, trying to get the word out and increase awareness and try to tie everything together with wild land code standards with landscaping. They're kind of living apart now, and we want to weave those together. Irrigation standards and maintenance and inspection standards. This has been a big interdepartmental and consultant effort. We've been meeting on a weekly basis, and some of our team members are here tonight to help, and some are on the call to help with some questions that are all from different departments, so fire, rescue, climate initiatives, Parks and Rec has urban forestry within it, utilities, OSMP, and then Planning and Development Services, of course. Consultants, we have Martin and Wood, we talked about, and then we've also been working with Amy Yarger, who's with the Butterfly Pavilion, who's helped us create the tree and plant list. So when we talked to Council this summer, so on July 31st, there was general support for the direction of both the wildfire and water-wise elements of this project, but there were some concerns expressed by Council that the changes aren't big enough to really make a difference, to try to deter

[16:16] wildfire, there were some comments made that there should be work… future work programs that should be considered to expand this. And maybe this is going to be an ongoing discussion as we move on, and that this is… this ordinance is not the end of this discussion, of course. There were further discussions on retroactivity, talking about, you know, whether we should legally or can, require the removal of junipers. This is something that came up at the first study session. Council had instructed us to not move forward with retroactive requirements, so that's what we've moved forward on, but there were some concerns from some members of Council. There were concerns expressed about the impact to urban agriculture, relative to multi-unit projects that might have small setbacks where we have a non-combustible zone, and we heard some of those, comments from Planning Board as well when we talked about it in December of last year.

[17:08] Council was generally supportive of the timeline of moving this forward, this fall with an ordinance, and that we come back with, requirements and processes that we think can be implemented with current staff resourcing, since we do have some Budget challenges that we've alluded to in the memo that, disallow us at this point to bring more people on board. If we were to come with all of the things that this is meant to do, we'd have to hire a lot more people, so that might be something that comes in the future. So the purpose of tonight for Planning Board is to make a recommendation to City Council on the ordinance. That's the primary purpose of tonight. Secondarily, we wanted to get input from Planning Board on the evolving landscape manual and tree and plant list. So the original intent of landscaping codes was to ensure quality aesthetics and development. When we originally adopted our landscaping code, it was meant to soften impact of development with greenery texture and color.

[18:11] In 2003, there were some updates related to Xeriscape and water conservation, but obviously time has moved on, and there's a lot of other things that we need to consider, you know, with climate change and things of that nature, urban heat island effect. Obviously, the prominent threat from wildfire that have to be considered. With these regulations, so it is time to update this code and make it more malleable, make it more responsive to changes that we need. So a lot of the guidance that we've gotten on this project are from the CERS framework, our citywide strategic plan, the Boulder Valley Commerceive Plan, of course, the Water Efficiency Plan, and the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. So the draft ordinance that we have before you tonight is attached. In attachment A, there's an annotated version in Attachment B.

[19:02] So this ordinance focuses mostly on process, application standards, and basic requirements. Much of the technical requirements are proposed to be removed and added into the landscape manual as well as the tree and plant list, which would be adopted by City Manager Rule, which I'll talk about a little bit more tonight. This is sort of similar to, like, the form-based code in a sense, that the process, application standards and basic requirements are in the Boulder Revised Code, in Section 9216, for instance, and then originally the standards were in the appendix. Still needed to be adopted by ordinance, and then that moved up to 915. In this case, these standards would be moved into a landscape manual, which has been considered a best practice in many communities to allow for those technical standards to be updated more often. There's a less rigorous process, but there is a public process that does get public comment and involvement to look at the changes, so that changes can be made on a more quick basis to respond to technical needs or resource needs, or if there's issues with plant availability, those standards can be updated more quickly.

[20:16] We've also updated the code to increase references throughout the BRC on landscaping, water use, and plant references to plants. We've also heard that there's concerns about, being prohibitive to projects that might have been approved through a plan unit development or site review, where they might have a lot of grass that takes a lot of water, and they want to elect To kind of do the right thing and take that grass out and put more… less intensive water usage plants in there, and to not penalize those projects with minor amendments or minor modifications or a site review. process, so we've added an exemption in the code to site review and form-based code to allow these turf conversions without amendments. As long as they're maintaining the level of quality, the amount, and that they're generally, you know, moving forward with meeting the standards that are in the manual.

[21:09] We're proposing that the ordinance go into effect on January 1st, 2026. That aligns with the state law requirement for when the turf restrictions should go into play. There also are some Wildland Code updates, that are in there. Obviously, when we… move forward with the ordinance in the spring. It refers to a state list for low flammability. Now that we have a local list prepared, it was always intended to update that and refer to the city-approved tree and plant list. So, we would make that update. But there was also some confusion about the, non-existing, non-compliant plants, what to do with those, and the non-combustible zone. So we've… Clarified the intent of what was passed in the spring by noting that existing noncompliant plants, ones that are not considered low flammability by the plant list, would require removal if there are permits for new buildings.

[22:06] or new structures. But that would not apply to additions of decks or, or just small additions to houses. The non-combustible zone is required around the perimeter of all new buildings and structures. This code changes makes it a little bit more clear of where that zone, should be. So, a non-combustible zone does apply to additions that are greater than 200 square feet, and only around the area of the addition. If there's, a deck being… a new delt deck being built, the non-combustible zone has to just be around that deck area. And that would also be a deck that has an ignition-resistant surface. Some key issue topics we wanted to raise for the board tonight, relative to the ordinance. We would be… we're proposing to remove the iterative landscaping requirements, like alley trees and parking and trash. screening requirements for smaller projects, and then tinkering with the thresholds for when a landscape plan is required, and when they have to show full compliance. So, the way it's written now is, like, for projects that are 3 or less dwelling units.

[23:13] if the valuation of the project exceeds 75% the value of the existing structures on the site, full compliance with the landscape regs is required. We're proposing to ratchet that down to 50%. This is, again, trying to get to that… balancing of… of what… how do we, like, actually make a difference with some of these code changes? If somebody's investing a lot in their property, and they're doing these types of changes, this is an opportunity to get more low-flammability plants, and get, less, you know, more water conservation, in our projects. Similarly, if it's an internal conversion, that threshold is being proposed to move from 100% down to 75%. We're raising this as a key issue, obviously, because that's going to pull in more landscape plans that could increase costs for folks, so we want to hear from Planning Board on that topic.

[24:06] There are some new thresholds that are proposed. This is sort of aligning with the state law that if there's a disturbance of more than 50% of the landscape area and a permit involved, that would require a landscape plan to be submitted and to be compliant. We currently don't have anything related to LAM disturbance in the code, no. We're also proposing that, you know, if we're trying to make a difference in the WUI, that… and because there are requirements for all WUI projects to… for landscaping, that it would be required for all WUI lots. But the thing we want to make clear is that there might be some small-scale additions that might require a landscape plan. We've written it in the code that you only need to meet the wildland requirements. With that landscape plan, unless you trigger one of the other triggers, like the 50% or the 75% or the land disturbance, to trigger the whole landscape code. So, we're just trying to strike that balance of making a difference, but also being mindful of what cost this could be for folks.

[25:07] A best practice is to require a licensed landscape architect to do plans. We currently don't require that. Other… some communities do it and are moving in that direction, but obviously, again, issue of cost. We're proposing that it be required just for properties that are 1 acre or larger, just because that's a larger land area that can have some more impact, and that that would be more appropriate with a licensed landscape architect. But again, we want to hear a Planning Board's opinion on that. So I'm gonna jump into the city manager rule documents now. Real quick, so… You've had the chance to look at the approved tree and plant list. This is a regulatory list that would apply citywide and would be used by all the city departments, as well as property owners. It's meant to balance conserving water and allowing only low-flammability plants. As I noted, it was developed by a consultant and reviewed by city departments.

[26:03] It also would implement the state law on permitting more native plants. As I know before, this is a city manager role that would be permitted by the ordinance to allow it to be adopted through a process that can be a lot more expedient, so that if somebody finds a plant that's not on the list that should be on the plant, we'd be able to make those updates quicker. There are some that don't have a low flammability rating, so we've… Already seen that, and this would give us the chance to, like, make those updates quicker and respond to it. The landscape manual is similar. It's in Attachment D, adopted by City Manager Rule. We've taken out some of our existing regulations and just shifted them into the manual and expanded them to meet the goals, based on the best practices. We've looked at other, landscape manuals from other communities, like Aspen, Bozeman, Colorado Springs. This is where we would implement the recent state bills relative to non-functional turf.

[27:02] It would add a watering restriction that no watering can occur between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. Daily, we try to address the urban agriculture concern and making it clear of where urban agriculture can work to try to balance that with mitigating spread of wildfire. And the current version that we're bringing before the board is a phased implementation, and the current version is just foundational. It's really meant to be implemented based on current staffing. So there's been some ongoing engagement on this. It's been done through consult and inform, based on the state laws. There's been some input that we've received from the Water Efficiency Plan input. We've seen a lot of support through that process for moving in the direction of Conserving more water, getting more, trees, more urban canopy coverage to try to get more shadow to mitigate the urban heat island effect. There's a lot of support for that. We've been doing updates through online, through the web, newsletter, email updates. We have a Be Heard Boulder comment page that's still active, where we can get some comments. We're trying to get the word out on that, so that people can enter their thoughts.

[28:15] We've been meeting with design professionals and plant specialists and property owners. Some people have given us specific feedback on the plant list, and we've made some updates accordingly. We've held office hours. We're also planning to do What's Up Boulder this coming weekend, to make people aware of this and get their input. We've summarized, feedback that we've received and a number of attachments within the memo. So as far as next steps, we have upcoming public hearings. Water Resources Advisory Board is set for September 15th. City Council public hearing is set for October 16th. Like I said before, like, there's a lot of complexity here, there's a lot of goals that we're trying to balance. This is not the end of the discussion, this is the beginning of the discussion. We realize that there's going to be future work that's probably going to relate to this. If the ordinance does pass.

[29:07] We will have a landscape manual that's more adaptable, and as staffing allows, we'll be able to make changes that move further into the world of water conservation and wildfire resilience. So staff is recommending to Planning Board that planning board recommend to Council to adopt the proposed ordinance, because it enables more nimble action in the refinement of the tree and plant list. in the landscape standards, and it furthers our goals on water conservation, wildfire resilience, and urban cooling consistent with the plans that I've talked about. And these are some of the relevant BVCP policies. Relevant to the project. Here's the motion language, should the planning board agree? These are the key issues we have for the board tonight, which we can come back to, and then I'll conclude with If you have any questions for us.

[30:02] Great, thank you, Carl. That was great. So, now's the time for clarifying questions from the board, to Carl or any other staff. Who's ready? Claudia? Claudia's got a smile on her face, okay, alright. I have a lot, so I'd be happy to break these into sections. I want to start with some questions about the basic approach here in the ordinance that you're proposing. The first is fairly specific about that tree and plant list, and I just want to get clarity on this. Is that… Intended to be a list of forbidden plants, Allowable plants, Or both. And what is the status of plants that are not on the list in any form? It is both. we… we recognize that it doesn't have everything on it at this point. That's why we want it to be malleable.

[31:00] that's why we want to be able to, like, make updates to it. We met with an expert, you know, a couple weeks ago, and, you know, she made some recommendations that we incorporated. But again, that's… we're going to probably see this come up. continually, that there's gonna need to be some added plants, or ones that should be prohibited, and then we can make those updates. Sure, but the intent with making that list is that you should only be using plants that are actually approved on that list, is that correct? And the list would be updated That's correct. Given new information, but you've got to go to that list. Yes. …if you are putting in new plants. Okay. Thanks. So, then a somewhat broader question, you know, the way that this project has been framed throughout its discussion, there's three primary goals for landscaping, right? There's low flammability. There's water-wise, and then there's this concept of, like, urban cooling, building the tree canopy, and mitigating heat island effects.

[32:00] Has staff, through all of your research, have you identified any model landscapes? landscapes in environments similar to Boulder. So I'm talking about, like, actual places, not just policies, that really meet all three of those goals. So something more holistic than just a plant list, like, are there examples that we can look at where all three of those goals are being met? I don't know if there are any particular communities. We've looked at Aspen, we've looked at Bozeman, which I think are really good communities that have those goals. And we… drew from those… their manuals. We just kind of pieced everything together. I don't know how well or how they're achieving those or not. But it just seemed to be, like, they found a good balance of getting more tree canopy, but also getting more low-flammability plants. Yeah, I mean, my concern here is that I think in a lot of ways, these goals can be contradictory, right? And you're trying to find a balance between them.

[33:01] And at least in the material that we've seen so far, it's very strong on wildfire mitigation, it's very strong on water-wise. I see a lot less concrete ideas, around cooling and actually building up that canopy. And so I was curious if you were to have to point to aspects of this code that are promoting that third value, the cooling and the canopy, like, where do we find those in this code? Yeah, I'll just say that, like, this is a lot of new, information to me since I've started working on this project, and I've had to go through that evolution of thinking, and I feel like in the beginning, I felt very much like these do seem contradictory. I feel like as I've worked with the experts on this, I'm starting to realize that there's a lot of intertwining Goals that actually, work together very well at trying to get more deciduous trees because, like, what I've learned is, you know, and we have our forestry folks here tonight that could speak to trees.

[34:01] But just that getting more deciduous trees gets more shade, which then in turn has more water conservation. So there is, like, at first you're like, oh, these kind of trees use a lot of water, but they're low flammability, and so there's a lot of things that actually work together more than I had thought. So I feel like I've gone through that evolution. to answer the second part of your question, it's really kind of more on the lines of staffing, that we had a big part of the manual that included tree protection, tree preservation, which ended up being a lot more, complicated. We would have to do a lot more outreach if we're gonna start putting additional requirements on protecting trees on private land beyond, like, site review. Like, we do it in site review, but if we're talking about, like, building permits, where there's, like, a protection on a tree, we… that's a big step. And we'd have to, like, do more community outreach for that, and we'd have to, like… we're looking at model codes that have tree protection in their manuals, and we have, like, drafts of that, but we just feel like it's not the time to bring that forward, because largely of the staffing issue, and also it's just… it's almost like a separate project. Like, we gotta go out and have

[35:12] a lot of, feedback from the community about what those requirements look like, so… we're not hitting as hard on maybe the urban cooling aspect because of the… like, we have a lot of preserving existing canopy, but expanding canopy is something we still have to kind of steer into. Okay, yeah, I appreciate that, Kandor. Since we have someone from forestry here, I do have a… just a question about city goals for tree canopy and shade. Do we have measurable goals or standards for, like, where we're trying to get to, with tree canopy? press the, button right, in the center of the console, just below… there you go. And there you go, you're good now. Yes, we do. In 2018, we… Could you tell us who you are? Oh, yes, sorry. Kathleen Alexander with, City of Boulder Forestry. Great, thank you, Kathleen.

[36:07] In 2018, we passed our Urban Forest Strategic Plan, which set an overarching goal to maintain, at that time, what we knew as 16% overall urban tree canopy. Since that time. Technology has come a long way, to put it simply, in measuring urban tree canopy, and we realized that we actually had closer to 22% urban tree canopy, so our goal has shifted slightly. it doesn't mean our canopy has actually increased, but it means that our goal is to still maintain, that baseline urban tree canopy that we had measured of 22%, so… Okay, thank you. I will let some other folks ask questions, the rest of mine are fairly specific about some triggers in the code. Okay, great, and maybe someone will… maybe someone else has the same… same thought.

[37:03] Sure. Laura's ready to go? Mine are kind of specific, but, but we'll… we'll start on this. Okay, so… I read with… so, first of all, I want to say thank you for bringing this forward. It's detailed, it's a lot of staff work, and I think it really is working towards the goals that we're trying to get to. So, thank you so much for bringing this forward, and great presentation. One question I had was around. in the use of the racial equity instrument, it didn't talk at all about the fact that a lot of our landscapers and folks may be Spanish-speaking. Is there anything that… I know this is an ordinance, but in terms of programs, policies, anything around having materials in Spanish, having outreach in Spanish, has that been considered? We… we don't have any materials in Spanish that I'm aware of, but we did specifically reach out to some of those contractors. Unfortunately, we… they didn't really respond and meet with us, but we've tried to, like, you know, send the materials to them and offer to meet.

[38:12] To get their feedback. Okay, thank you. My next question, has to do with the site review criteria, and this may relate to one of Claudia's questions here. So, in the packet on PDF page 64, this is in the site review criteria related to site design, landscaping, and screening. So it's… I'm not gonna get the whole code section here, but 9-2-14H… to see… Roman numeral 1. It talks about the project exceeding minimum landscaping requirements that are in the code by at least 15%. And it says, it used to say, and where practical, preserves healthy, long-lived trees, and includes new deciduous trees that can broaden the city's canopy, etc.

[39:04] the words and where practical have been struck. So, the site review criteria would read, That the project exceeds the minimum landscaping requirements by at least 15%, And preserves healthy, long-lived trees. is that going to be an issue when a proposed building footprint might take out a healthy, long-lived tree? Because we often see building footprints that That do, some of the healthy, long-lived trees are unfortunately removed. Would this prohibit that? I don't think it would prohibit it. I think we had intended to change that language to give a little bit more flexibility, but just recognizing, again, that The criteria are not… You know, it's an on-balance type thing, and the language above that we modified to talk about some of the

[40:03] Broader goals, like, resiliency, decreasing wildfire risk, and mitigating for urban heat island effect come into play, and then there's any number of ways that you can meet that. It doesn't have… you don't have to meet it 100%, so I think we were just trying to add a little bit of flexibility there, but there would still be the tool of making that decision about whether The site design criteria paragraph that sets up that whole section is met. Okay, I just want to clarify something that I think I heard you say, and Laurel, maybe you want to weigh in on this. My understanding is that the site review criteria are not an on-balance finding. They are a checklist, and the project must meet every one of those criteria. And so, I tend to be a literalist in reading these criteria, so… If it doesn't say, preserves some of the healthy long-lived trees, or where possible preserves the healthy long-lived trees. I would tend to read that as, you must preserve healthy, long-lived trees.

[41:04] Go ahead. I mean, if you look at, and I can pull it up on the screen, is the site design criteria has that broader, goal stated in it, and then the last sentence says, in determining whether this is met, the approving agency will consider the following factors. So again, it's like. There is some leverage on each of these about whether it meets at 100% or not. Okay, thank you, that's helpful. You were right about the on-balance, though, it doesn't say that. Okay, so site review criteria are not on balance, but Carl is right that this one is prefaced by, we'll consider the following factors, rather than must meet the following factors. Okay, thank you. Next question, 9-9-11 talks about outdoor gardens or landscaped courtyards designed to connect to the adjacent grade and streetscape.

[42:07] So, I do appreciate this addition, I think it's a great improvement. Sorry, that's commentary. But my question is, Did you consider having this language mirror what's in the site review criteria about The space is not being elevated above the first story. We did consider that. I think when I looked at the… site review criteria. There wasn't a comparable section. to update it with the same language. I'd have to look at it again. But I know what you're talking about. Okay, thanks. I'll keep it to a question. Oh, I was just on this, because your question was almost the same as mine, and I just, In that code section, it says, designed to connect the adjacent The adjacent grade and streetscape.

[43:01] So my question is, to connect. Can you connect it via stairs, via a ramp, via an elevator? how do you, or is it just, I mean, is it visually connected? I'm curious about that. Yeah, I think it's written to just allow discretion and that some flexibility. Can I also weigh in on that? This is a… this is a big topic, actually. It is a big topic. Given… given past… Yes. Given past meetings, yes. And my other question with regards to that is that there's also the statement that it should be designed for the use of the occupants of the building. So, if it's… designed… to connect to the adjacent streetscape that makes it feel more public, really. So those sort of seem like they're in contradiction.

[44:00] Do you have any thoughts on that? I mean, that particular section, when it was originally written, was modeled after the courtyard that's on… Pearl Street, where Spruce Confections is. It was like, how do we write this into words, and… it's a successful space. It may be for the users of the site or the occupants of the building, but it does connect to the streetscape, and it does have this inviting entry, so I think they were just trying to memorialize that design you know, feature. Thank you. Okay, back to you, Laura. Thank you. At 9-9-12B1A, talks about this applies to new development for any project that involves development on a vacant lot or parcel, a lot or parcel where a new principal structure is proposed, or the addition of a dwelling unit on a lot or parcel. And my question is.

[45:05] does that trigger mean that the whole lot or parcel must be in compliance? Like, if it's a rural estate parcel, and it is on, you know. 10 acres? Do the whole 10 acres then have to comply with the regulations. It would require a landscape plan, and it would require full compliance, yes. Okay. Can I… also chime in on that same one, because it… as I read it. It also means that if you're taking an existing structure, not changing the exterior at all, but demising it into multiple units, that then triggers all of this, which… doesn't seem right, because you're not doing any exterior changes. Is that the way you read it? So you're saying if there's, like, internal… yeah. Right. It's 100%… if it's, you know, 75% of the value. Yeah. Well, because you're adding a unit.

[46:02] say you're taking an existing single unit and turning it into two units, just by demising… Just by adding the unit, and that's the way it is in the code right now. I mean, if you add a unit. you have to meet the landscape code. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Continue? Okay. Sure, thank you. So, in the packet on page 72, this is 9-9-12, E1L, and this is struck out. It used to say the landscaping plan, or it still does, unless this passes in this form. The landscaping plan shall consider and attempt to avoid shading of new trees onto a solar zone required under the 2017 City of Boulder Energy Conservation Code. Can you discuss why that was struck out? We, looked at that, and obviously it jumped out at us because it's relating to a, you know, a…

[47:00] code from 2017, so I checked with the, person on our staff that does the energy code. That's been since superseded. I also worked with our zoning administrator, on this. They both felt that it was been… it's been superseded and really not There's not an equivalent now, so it's kind of… Null and void, so we just… Took it out. Okay, thank you. 9-9-15d5 references newly constructed fences and walls. What does newly constructed… mean. Does that include, like, if you replace an existing fence? Is that newly constructed, or is that just a fence that didn't exist before? No, if you're replacing, we would consider that new. So if you're, like, you know, in the Wildland Code, if you have an existing fence that touches your building and you're just replacing it, you're required to use non-combustible materials in that replacement.

[48:07] Okay, thank you. And… Shall I continue? I have just a couple more. Go ahead. Okay, and then we'll go to ML. You'll be next, ML. 11-1-21.5. D or E. This is, I think this is in… maybe this is in the manual, but it talks about using hoses that don't have shut-off valves, and it talks about certain things that you're prohibited from washing with water. And I noticed that artificial turf is not in either of those lists. Did you consider… People washing off artificial turf with hoses, and whether they should be required to have a shutoff on their hose, or whether they should not be allowed to do that. I might have to defer to our utility staff on that, that worked on that section. I don't know if, we have… Crystal on board. It looks like we do, so I'll defer to Crystal.

[49:01] Good evening, Crystal Morey, Senior Water Resources Engineer with our Utilities Department. We did not consider adding artificial turf into that section. These sections were largely based on best practices from other communities, and we didn't see artificial turf referenced there. Okay, thank you. I'll go ahead and stop there and pass off to somebody else. Okay, ML's ready? I am ready, and just to comment on artificial turf, you're… I'm increasingly seeing it added in, in projects, so it historically might not have been a concern, but I think it is starting to show up everywhere. So my… I have a number of questions as well, and I'm gonna go… I'm gonna go to water. Well, I just have a general question. When you were giving your, presentation, Carl. You mentioned non-combustible buildings need to be within 8 feet of a structure.

[50:02] Our current code requires a minimum of 6 feet between structures. So, is there a conflict? Between saying you can't have Say you've got a building next to a building, There are certainly… there are building code requirements the closer buildings get to each other of trying to get a firewall created, so you don't… but, what I was referring to is, like, for fencing in the wildland code, any fencing that's within 8 feet. of a structure has to be non-combustible material, so I wasn't talking about structures within 8 feet. Okay, cool. So, under the purpose, it talks about evaluate Boulder's existing landscape regulations, policies, and programs in meeting the goal of enhanced water conservation to support Boulder's long-term water supply strategy. So, my question is, Where is greywater in this plant?

[51:03] I'm gonna defer to utilities, for that one as well. There's actually a… Greywater ordinance coming forward soon, so… Good evening. Greywater was not considered within the landscape code itself. It is more closely tied to the plumbing portion of our code, and we will be sending a memo to Planning Board, the Water Resources Advisory Board, and Council later this year regarding Greywater. Will that… Ordinance or code change. Will that speak to greywater use in landscaping? The item coming before City Council later this year is tied to a Senate bill that was recently passed. That requires that cities either opt out of gray water, or that they develop a new local greywater control program.

[52:00] And given resource constraints at this time, we are recommending that the city opt out at this time. So, using gray water for landscape, I think that that is… correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that that does not require any special filtration process. It is… Just diverting the water from the… Sinks, and from the showers. through the purple pipe to go to the landscaping? Is that not correct? So, gray water within our community could save up to 1% of water demand within the community for laundry to landscape, which is the, aspect you were describing. A simple particle filter is involved, and plumbing to get the water into the right place and ensure that subsurface irrigation is the only thing happening on the property, and to prevent backflow into our water supply system.

[53:09] But that would still require staff to uphold those regulations and to ensure compliance. Got it. Okay, let me see, questioned… I think you answered my question about reducing the trigger to landscape, to require landscape plans, but I'll speak about the, requirement of a landscape Architect. So there's… there are many, and matter of fact, I think a lot of the, landscape Projects are done with a design-build. Model? Not necessarily registered landscape architects. Would these, are these in some way, can these in some way be,

[54:06] Qualified to do this work? I think we see most projects are design-build, as you say, so certainly, they have qualifications, but I think when we move in to the land of more standards, like on soil amendments and things like that. It might require increased, expertise. I don't know if anyone else wants to speak to that, but, I think our concern is that as the landscape manual, you know, grows with regulations, that there might be more of a need for landscape architects, and other communities have been requiring them. We're trying to strike that balance by saying that at least get it on larger-scale projects, so that's why that one acre Threshold is proposed. Okay, so… That question asked, let me see… Nick's question…

[55:07] On the plant list and the landscape manual, you talked about a consultant from the Butterfly Pavilion, and you talked about input from professionals, but have you… have… have landscape architects and design-build landscape providers Actually had meetings with you all to weigh in on the plant list and the manual? We did. We did meet with a number of landscape architects that… Had looked at it and provided feedback. Awesome. Thank you for that. Another question in the landscape, in the landscaping, process. where are grasses managed? I see the trees, I see the shrubs, I see, where are grasses managed? Are there… Those are covered in the landscape manual? Yeah. So there's a turf section of the landscape manual.

[56:06] Okay, I didn't… I didn't see that, but I'll have a closer look, because I understand That in the… Oh. we have someone coming up to the podium to maybe answer that for you, so… Thank you. Yeah, just state your state your name for us, please. Hi, I'm Lauren Friels. I'm with the Nature-Based Solutions Team of the Climate Initiatives Department, and I am a registered landscape architect. I have been working with Carl and Urban Forester and Amy on the plant and tree list, as well as the landscape manual. And grasses are covered in two sections. One is under turf. Where we specifically call out the differences between our Colorado native grasses, which are… going to be allowed within, non-functional turf areas, because if you're doing, like, a prairie restoration, just because it's a grass doesn't mean it's high water use. And also, on the tree and plant list, in the plant list category, there's a grasses section,

[57:04] I believe it's perennials, shrubs… Vines. And then… grasses. Oh, yeah. Between those two things, I think we've covered most of, kind of, the native grass species you would do restoration projects with, and I've checked with the ecologists in our water quality department who manage our stream are… Greenways, as well as at OSMP, and, both groups of plant ecologists and horticulturalists are on board, so… So the… so in… in a specific, instance, in that, 5-foot, Five-foot dead zone next to buildings. It says that you could have, I thought it said grasses and, sort of low-growing. Plants, are those identified somewhere? The things that would be… could be put in that… in that, 5-foot zone?

[58:06] To my knowledge, the 5-foot zone would not permit any vegetation. Okay, I thought I saw that in there. I don't have… I don't have the exact, but I will have a closer look. Last question. Under the organic mulch… under the mulches, mulching section, the aged, recycled arbor chip is the only organic mulch allowed in WUI. Why is there only one option? There's only one, organic mulch option, because that is the lowest com… the option with the lowest combustibility of the organic options, large format cedar chip, which is common in the industry, has a high combust… has high combustibility. High combustibility means,

[59:02] The flame lengths are high, and the heat produced by that fire is also high. So, large format cedar chip, gorilla hair, which is, kind of that treaded stuff. I did see all that, Yeah, because there's lots of oxygen available in those, they tend to be drier, and they tend to have more air space, and between those two things, they have much higher flame lengths and higher temperatures. the organic chipped mulch of the, like, 1.5 to 1 inch quality, which has, like, mixed things, it retains more water, and becomes kind of a… A water-retaining system, and therefore reacts more like wet firewood to flame, and the flames are much smaller, its suppression qualities are larger, and so that's why that's the option. That's the option, and is it readily available?

[60:00] Yeah, it's… you can get it for free, We have it at the Boulder Mulch pile. The… Most arborists around will deliver it to your property. They're trying to figure out what to do with it after they, you know, trim our trees, so… Oh, yeah, that's good, it's pretty interesting looking. Nobody wants it. Okay, those are my questions. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. I have just one quick follow-up on that. That is still not allowed within the WUI, that is still not allowed within the dead zone, though, right? Yep. Okay. Keep your mic on, Kurt. Keep my mic on. Okay. Why, you think I have questions? I think you do. Great, I have, yeah, a bunch of specific questions. The first one is a minor change in 862 obstructions, where you're proposing to remove bushes as obstructions.

[61:06] Can you explain why that is? Yeah, we… bushes is not defined, and it can be encompassed by the latter part that says plant material, so that's why we took it out. Okay. But trees cannot be considered plant materials? Because trees are left in there. Yeah, would be. So I just… Okay. You're suggesting maybe just, say, plant materials? I, I'm not suggesting anything, I'm asking a question. I might be suggesting later. Okay, well, we can, we can get to that. The… let's see. Oh, my colleagues have asked many of my questions. Good work, people.

[62:02] In, let's see, 992… You are requesting, it's item E1M. you are requesting, or I guess, requiring a summary of how… The… Landscape requirements are to be met with any application. Can you explain… Why? It just… isn't that just added… I think the logic there was just, like, with a site review application, we request a written statement that the applicant has to reply to all the criteria for us to consider. And I think because we're moving into a realm of having the Wildland Code, updated landscaping regulations, the tree and plant list in a manual. A summary, we felt the logic behind it was to just have an affirmation that these people that are submitting have looked at all those requirements and are writing down a summary of how they've

[63:09] Moved in the direction of… I mean, it's not looking up for, like, a… Requirement-by-requirement reply, just an overall, statement that the plant list has been considered, and just a place for us to start our reviews. Thank you. Let's see… In, again, in 992E9… As I understand it, well, it says, within the wildland-urban interface, a reduced plant density is permissible to deter wildfire spread. But there's no standard for what that means. is… how would that be interpreted or judged? I think that one is somewhat discretionary, and I don't know if our landscape architect online, Chris, wants to speak to that, but…

[64:06] there is a requirement in the code that we feel like in most situations throughout the city makes sense. You want to get a density and that, you know, of plantings for the color and contrast and greenery, but that same standard in the WUI didn't make as much sense, because it might, you know, could spread wildfire, so I think there's a little bit of discretion there as to how far apart they plant, you know, to deter a wildfire spread. I think that might be something that, you know, we have to, like, look at in the future, and maybe we do have a more specific metric, but we just wanted to have a starting point for that. And Chris, do you want to speak to that? Yes, Chris Ricardello, Principal Landscape Architect for Planning and Development Services. Good evening, board members. Would you mind just restating the question again? Yeah, the question refers to a section 992 of the Boulder Revised Code, 992E9.

[65:06] And it says, within the wildland-urban interface, a reduced plant density is permissible. to deter wildfire spread. Yes. But there's no associated standard as to. what that really means, what level of reduction in plant density would be appropriate or allowed, and so on. So, I was just wondering how it would be evaluated, how Anyone would determine whether that requirement was met or not. Well, it's a good question, and I know during the development of the standards, in the recommendations that there… There have been standards that have been reviewed. They may not be included at this point, so we may be looking at that a little bit further in terms of actually an application of the standards. So, it's something that I think is a good question. I think in passing, I know I have seen the spacing requirements, and it relates to the massing of shrubs to trees and that sort of thing.

[66:05] Relative to the dimensions between them. So, they do exist. I certainly would like to To nail those down before we actually get into the, the formal Application of those standards to the plans that will come in, so… If you're not, I think we'll… we'll have that down pretty well as we… we get rolling on the actual reviews. Okay, so there might be more specificity that goes along with that somehow, although it wouldn't change the… It wouldn't be a change in the code, presumably, because we're changing the code now. Yeah, I think it could be accomplished in the manual. We, we, we did look at, I think we talked about I think Aspen has something in their manual that talks about clusters. of plantings that are spaced apart, just like Chris said, based on the staffing levels now, and trying to keep this relatively simple, it is something that we've already started looking at, it's just we didn't bring forward some details yet, because we just don't have the capacity at this point. Yeah.

[67:08] Okay, great. And thank you, Chris, for that. You're welcome. This is something that is not actually a change, but in reading this, it came up, and it's relevant to my first question about the bush. Which is that in 9915, which I happen to look at because Mark was raising questions about fences and walls, it refers to hedges. But there's no definition of a hedge in… the… the definitions section. And I sure couldn't tell you what was like. Densely planted bushes versus a hedge. Do you have any thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean, thoughts. It's been in the code for as long as we've been working here. It's more just a…

[68:04] I think it was put in the code from the sense that people could create the same condition as a fence or a wall by building it, you know, a hedge, so when it's not defined in the code, we typically use, you know, a dictionary to see if something, you know, meets that definition. I don't know that it's something that comes up All that often, so we didn't feel like it was critical to define it here, but we certainly could. Thank you. Just a couple more. One is about this, the noxious weed list, and we asked you a couple of questions by email. about this, but when I go to the Colorado Noxious Weed List, and I may have asked this the last time it came Before us. But, I see A, B, C, and Watchlist, and so, does this apply to

[69:00] All of those? Is it just one of them? What… What… what actually… it's not clear to me. when we refer… when we say a noxious weed is whatever's on the Colorado noxious weed list, it's still not entirely clear to me what that really means. Do you have any clarification? I might have to defer to… to Lauren on this one. Hi, I'm Lauren Friels, with the Nature-Based Solutions of the Climate Initiatives Department. The Colorado… State of Colorado Noxious Weed List has categories of noxious weeds, but all of the plants on any of those lists can be considered a noxious weed. we don't want anyone planting any of those. If… And there are, like. good reason for removal of any of those on that… on the Colorado… State of Colorado noxious Wheat List.

[70:03] The reason why they have classifications is because there's a lot of those weeds that are just everywhere, and therefore, while we don't want to encourage their growth or plant new versions of it, our county is not, or our parks department is not required to eradicate it. So, bindweed is a noxious weed on the Colorado State Weed List. Nobody's going to require the Parks Department to ensure that there is no bindweed on any parks property, because… We won't manage that. So… Okay, but in terms of as it's used in the code and in the… the manual, it means everything on the… I think that would be the simplest way to interpret it, to say you can't plant new noxious weeds, and there's fair reason for your neighbors to complain if your property is overrun with noxious weeds, and you're not attempting to remove it.

[71:00] Yep. Thank you. And, I think the last one… is… on page 132, again, in the manual… sorry, this is page 132 of the… of our… Packet. It sounds like… well, so… to start off, my understanding is, at least in the code, landscaping can include lots of non-plant areas, right? Like walkways and gathering areas, basically anything that's not a building, or a parking lot, or a few other things. But then, it appears to me that in the… the draft landscape plan, that everything needs to be irritated, which would include Irrigating the sidewalks and stuff. So, it… Am I misinterpreting, or is there maybe a little bit of a… mismatch there.

[72:03] We do have a definition for landscaped area, which does include some hardscape. I think… when you're referring to page 132, which I think is the irrigation standards, is that right? Right. These are our current irrigation standards, so I don't know, I might have to defer to Chris on this, like… I don't think we would… require… I mean, it talks about overspray into non-landscaped areas, so I don't think that that's the intent, to require those to be irrigated, but… Yeah, Chris, do you have to… I do. Chris Ricardello, again, Landscape Architect for Planning and Development Services. Yes, there is absolutely no intent to… irrigate anything but plant material, whether in the various ranges of plant material, where it's lawn or ground covers or shrub trees, that sort of thing. So, certainly not, do not encourage Any, managers to irrigate. None. organic materials.

[73:02] Okay, yeah, and I assumed that that was the intent. Great. Okay, I think that that is all my questions. Thank you very much. Okay, I'm gonna call on myself, and then we'll, we'll have one last chance for… both of you are like, yeah, I've got more. Okay. Okay, On, I have a super easy one. When the plant list is… will it be published in a kind of user-friendly… format that… People can… because the tables right now are… Yeah. Yeah, I mean… from the onset of the project, it's obviously in a form that we could pull together in the time we have. I think the longer… time we have, the more it can be refined. So, we've already been looking at some, tree and plant lists in other communities. One example is Fort Collins that has a very user-friendly interface online. It's filterable. So I've already been in conversations with our internal staff.

[74:12] that know how to do that, so I think it would take us more time. It might start off just being, you know, a spreadsheet like Bozeman has, like, they just have a spreadsheet like what we have, but we're trying to move in the direction of Fort Collins, of having that filterable interface. We also have to follow our accessibility standards, so anything we put on the website still has to follow those standards, which shy away from PDFs and things. Yeah. So that's required. Okay, great. That's what I thought. My next question is a bit of a philosophical one, and we're talking about landscaping and stuff, but here it is. On page 36 of the PDF, or 15 of the… of 31 of the memo.

[75:01] You're… that puts you in the… purpose statement. Let me go back there now. And… We've, this is a… a big… 34. It's a big purpose statement with a lot of… Where did that go? No, maybe I got the wrong page. But anyway, under the entire draft ordinance, we have Pretty much a full page devoted to purpose, with a lot of words like minimize, maximize. etc. And recently, we had a… it was at a site review or whatever, and I referred to the purpose statement, and I was told. Legally. Well, that's not the code. The code is the code, and purpose and intent…

[76:00] can't really be used as criteria. My question is, Is that purpose statement Too big, too long, and actually, does it help, or does it create confusion. when we have a bunch of subjective terms, minimize, maximize, attempt, etc. So. Do you guys have any thoughts on that, and how the public sees things like, when someone says. I'm doing this for this purpose. So… I guess we find it helpful, we think it sets the policy direction for the code section. And obviously, what we put in the purpose section, we believe, is implemented in the requirements that are below it. And within the manual. So, you know, it's not something that we say, like, we don't deny a project because you don't meet Policy 3. It really has to be one of the standards within the section that's regulatory, but again, we're writing all these things in there

[77:09] knowing that it's addressed in a lot of the other materials that are implementing the code. Yeah, and while it doesn't… like, the criteria has to be met, if we were to ever be challenged on any sort of ordinance, it gives the courts abilities to see what the purpose and goals were behind it, kind of like a legislative intent. It kind of helps backfill, like, why we're trying to make these changes and the purposes. Behind them, which for this, like, public safety welfare, there are a lot of safety-related things, public welfare-related things, so… But does it also give an applicant an opportunity to say, hey, I, I don't meet 9-2-14-2I3… I meet the purpose. I'm doing these things. My landscape plan meets the purpose.

[78:02] As stated there. But I… So they still have to meet the criteria, right? That's required. They have to meet the criteria for it, so if they don't, even if they say the purpose, if they don't meet the criteria, then you guys can decide if they don't. Yeah, it's more for policy direction, I think. Alright. Okay, Again, these guys have been asking great questions, and many of mine, so let's go back around for who has more. Claudia. Thank you. I have a couple about triggers in the code, and then a few questions about the draft plant list, so if you want to get ready for those. I am looking at section… 9912, where it talks about triggers. for landscaping and screening standards. Laura asked about one of those triggers earlier. I have a few more questions there. In 9-9-12B1C, there's a trigger, that mentions 5,000 square feet of resurfacing, and I was wondering what resurfacing of a property is.

[79:15] Oh, we're just trying to define, like, what is land disturbance. Okay. So there's just… if you're changing… More than 50% of the site with landscaping, or pavement, or hardscape, or, you know, that would be considered as part of the land disturbance area. Okay, so when I… when I hear that term resurfacing, I was thinking, like, does resurfacing of a parking… of an existing parking area count under that, or is that… Exempt. I mean, I think if they're… if, let's say it is a site that has a parking lot, and they're grinding up the parking lot, the asphalt, and resurfacing that, we would count that in the disturbance. Okay, so that would trigger landscaping codes? It would be included in what is 50%. Okay.

[80:05] And then moving on slightly, 9-9-12B1. I seem to have the same code reference here, but it's going to be in the same area, talks about how DEX, the addition of DEX, would trigger both the non-combustible zone and defensible space requirements. Are there scenarios where that could push requirements onto adjacent properties. No. I mean, there's the defensible space, which is 5 to 30 feet, but that's only on the lot in question. Okay, so how does that apply in situations like condominium ownership or manufactured housing communities, where the actual property line Is more at the boundaries of an entire community, and there's not property lines between individual units. I mean, if it's on the same lot, so, like, a mobile home park, and it's owned by the same owner, or it's a, you know, a condo property with common ownership, that defensible space would apply. So there could be a…

[81:08] homeowner there that wants to put on an addition that gets approved by the HOA, but the HOA's gonna have to consider the fact that, you know, a certain type of change might trigger a non-combustible zone, or changes to the vegetation. Okay, let me make sure I hear that right, because we do have a number of condominium communities that are, like, townhome-style developments if a homeowner were to apply to build a deck, for example, in that kind of situation. approving that would require that entire common interest development to come into compliance with these defensible zones? Well, again, the clarifications we made in the Wildland Code is that if they're just doing a deck, it's just going to be the non-combustible zone around their individual deck. It's not going to require it around the whole building that has multiple towns. Okay, so just around whatever is… That's why we made those clarifications in there, you know.

[82:00] Because it raises those questions. Okay. Can I colloquy? Please. So that applies to the wildland code, but what about this landscaping code? Because if you make an addition that is more than, you know, 50% the value of your property. does that then require the whole property to come into compliance if it's a condo association or a mobile home park? Because that would pretty much nix any additions in those situations. Yeah, I mean, well, so the way we've written it is that if it's just a deck, and it's a smaller scale thing, and it's just to meet the Wildland Code, they have to meet those… the new language we put in for those smaller Scale projects, but if they're… If it's disturbing 50% of the common owner… ownership land. then that whole property, that whole lot, would have to be brought up to compliance with the landscape code. Well, most of the time, that would be more than the area that is right there. Yeah, if it's just an individual person doing a deck, that's not gonna trigger that 50% or 5,000.

[83:01] Okay, I might be looking at a different code section where it talks about Redevelopment for a project that involves floor air expansion of the total building floor area. the additions are valued at 25% or more of the value of the existing structure or structures on the lot or parcel. So that would be cumulative for all the structures on the lot or parcel, if it's a common ownership? It could be, and remember that that 25% is actually… that's already in the code. That… not for all residential, but for all the other land uses, that 25% is our standard trigger today. Thank you. Okay. The rest of my questions are about the draft plant list. There's a lot more trees on that list than in the earlier versions we saw, but I'm seeing at least so far that shrubs and ground cover plants have very few options. And also, there's a lot of plants that we've seen developed and promoted specifically for water-wise landscapes in this region over the last 20 years that are not on that approved list. Is there an explanation for that?

[84:12] I'm not gonna be able to answer that. Is anybody else able to… Or we could also pose these questions to the person who prepared the list, and we could follow up as well. Sure. Yeah, I'm Lauren Friels, the landscape architect with the Nature-Based Solutions team in the Climate Initiatives Department. I'm gonna talk about shrubs and smaller. If it's trees. It's gonna be Kathleen. So, Amy Yarger with the Butterfly Pavilion is a horticulturalist who specializes, in, horticulture for the promotion of biodiversity and, supporting our native ecologies and invertebrates. So… So, to answer your question, there's kind of…

[85:04] two categories of things going on here. The first one is that we were focusing this list on having an approved plant, a shrub and plant list that, moved us more towards using native plants. that were supportive of the ecologies existing in Colorado and our native flora and fauna. Amy Arger was a big part of that work. She's done that for other developments in this area, for Baseline, out in Broomfield, and other things like that. So she's done this in a development context before. We added to the landscape manual a process by which, if your plant that you wanted to use was not on the plant list, you could submit documentation of its water and wildfire characteristics, and include that in your plan in your plant list, as well as in your plans. So this is…

[86:03] an approved plant list that you're gonna get thumbs up no matter what, but if you want to include new plants that have been developed by Plant Select or things like that, there is a process by which you can do that. We felt like this struck the balance between really encouraging our community to use plant shrubs, trees, plants, ground covers, grasses, that really support the Biological diversity of our urban ecosystems, while allowing for the flexibility that we know you need during development. So that's… Okay, yeah, I was asking that question in part because I know this is a work in progress, and at least in earlier versions, you just hadn't gotten to review a lot of things yet, and we're having an intention of adding things. So I just wondered if this is close to what you see as being, like, the first iteration that we would actually use. Yes. Okay, because I did see some gaps in plant sizes, so just trying to figure that out. Yeah, implant, implant, oh, and which ones you had. Exactly, yeah, like, I saw a large number of tree species on the list, but a lot fewer shrubs and ground cover plants than I would have expected to.

[87:11] Okay. I mean, this is one where, we are definitely adapting as we go. We've contacted all of our departments, and each one has been able to add, kind of the ones that they were seeing used. As well as reaching out to the landscape architects. If you have any suggestions, we would love to take those into consideration as well. Yeah, but it is a kind of trying to guide us away from some of the very… Most routinely used. Plants that aren't, supporting our ecosystems, which, Yeah, which is… it's the list you see before you today. Okay, thank you. And then, last questions have to do with this, portion of the draft plant list, or maybe it was the landscaping manual, but called context zones. This is in our packet on page 88.

[88:08] And there were a few things there that caught my eye. So, one of them is something that says. Outside of the 0 foot to 5 foot non-combustible zone. Planting areas for urban agriculture and annual crops are allowed. If maintained to reduce dead material and not to exceed 3 feet in height. And I'm… Somewhat confused on where in the city this rule is intended to apply. I mean, it's… it's in the WUI, right? I mean, that's… that's… we're just trying to… Okay, so this is just in the WUI. Okay. And is this specifically referring to that 5 to 30 foot defensible zone in the WUI? Yes. Okay. So, there are a lot of annual and perennial food crops that regularly exceed 3 feet in height. Things like tomatoes, beans, cane fruits.

[89:02] etc, just some big classes of things. Is this rule intended to prohibit those larger food crop plants? I mean, it is regulatory, so, I mean, it says 3 feet, so someone could… You know, complain about it, and we… Okay. Or does it? Unintentionally. Yep, does it have that consequence? I'm just wondering where the 3 feet came from, and… What the discussion has been around that. I'm not sure if the dead material reference is to the 3 feet, or is it just to the… It just says remove the dead. material. Yeah, we were… we were trying to draft language, and this is the, like, let's get really specific. draft language that will allow you to have vegetable gardens which have annual plants that are high water content and therefore not a problem for wildland urban interface, but require you to remove your dead vegetables when they died in order to not have a bunch of

[90:10] dead vegetables. And now you're seeing us trying to negotiate that space of, like, how tall is a tomato, generally? Yeah, I may return to that in my comments, but I just want to flag that number, which is in the draft language that you have here. Yeah. And then one other aspect in there, there's also a note, same page, I think. That says that fruit trees for food production are prohibited on properties west of Broadway Avenue to protect wildlife. Is this a new policy proposal? And if so, why is it included in this update? Because to me, that's neither related to the WUI nor to water-wise landscaping. This is dealing with wildlife interface, and that's not, as I understand it, the point of this code. Yeah, Kathleen Alexander with City of Boulder Forestry. The… it is not new. It's related to bears.

[91:05] It's not regulatory, it's a recommendation. Okay. And it's… For example, in our forestry operations, we do not plant what we consider true fruit-bearing trees west of Broadway, because they can act as a bear attractant if the fruit is not cleaned up. Afterwards. Okay. Is this something that's a visible part of city guidance and outreach in those neighborhoods? I believe so. We would have to check with our wildlife coordinator. I'm not sure what that out… outreach… contains, but yes, I know it has been in place for a while. Okay. But again, it's not regulatory, so… Okay, thank you. Yes. Okay. Got a final one or two there, Laura? I do. I think just, just one. And Claudia, this relates to a comment that was in the public comment that I believe you made, so if you feel satisfied on this, let me know, but…

[92:06] You asked a good question about once the developer, you know, has gotten permission for a landscape plan, and then they sell their units, are the new homeowners locked into that landscape plan forever, or can they customize or change what's around their unit as long as they comply with the regulations? I mean, like any site review, they're locked in until they change it, so they certainly have the ability to change it. Just like a site review, you can come in with an amendment or a minor modification, and we evaluate it, for whether the changes can be supported, or meet the code. There's also a landscape modification process that we already have. So, they certainly could change it, but like with anything, a new owner buys a property, they are gonna be subject to any prior approvals. on that property. Okay, and does that apply for all developments, or just multi-unit developments? Forgive me, I've never built a single-family home, so I don't… I don't know, like, if somebody sells you a home that has a certain landscape plan that presumably was approved, you can't change it?

[93:15] I think, again, I might have to call on Chris on this one for detached dwelling units, but… You know, most development projects, there's any kind of development plan, they're held to that until they desire to change it, or they have a project that they want to do that triggers the landscape plan again, and we look at a new landscape plan. Okay, thank you, and thank you for the correction of my terminology, detached dwelling unit. We're still getting used to that. Thank you. Okay, unless… oh, ML, there you go, okay, she's got her hand up, one more. Thank you. Thank you for seeing my hand up. I… I have one question to clarify something you've already talked about, and then I have just another… another question. So, you talked about protecting healthy, mature

[94:13] Desirable trees on private land. For the… lack of protection for those. Can you remind me why? Well, I mean, we currently have… tree protection plans required with site review applications, so… because, like, we consider preservation of trees through the site review criteria. What I was talking about is that we were moving in the direction of creating New requirements for tree protection or preservation on private land. Because it's a best practice that's in a number of different landscape manuals. in other cities, but we realized that it's getting, you know, kind of complicated. It's a whole new kind of territory for the city to move in that direction. It would require a lot of outreach to get, you know.

[95:07] Property owners, opinions on changes of that nature, but also just that if we're adding those sections, it would also require a lot more staff resourcing. for enforcement or reviewing plans to administer these kind of requirements. So we didn't include them in this iteration, but it could be something that we do kind of as a separate or future project in the future. So, I was looking, 6-6-1… No, 6-6-6A, where it's just a little paragraph that says where, removal of trees need to have… you need to have first obtained written approval. Which doesn't sound like a big, onerous process. Could not protection of Trees on private property?

[96:05] Be a part of… 6-6-6A? I believe that Title VI is mostly relating to the city right-of-way. It… If there was a simple way to include it. As part of just a process where you just… obtain written approval for removal, just so that there is some eyes on the removal. There's a lot of trees being removed in the residential, I live in Newlands, in Newlands, right? This… this is a tree-heavy original, neighborhood. Again, we, we, we… I'm just curious. consider that. We did consider that very strongly in this process, and obviously for the… trying to move towards more urban canopy, in the city. But again, requiring… applying this process to private land would greatly

[97:08] add to the staff resourcing issue that we are dealing with. We would need a lot more staff to administer that, and we don't have that capability now. So it doesn't mean it can't happen in the future, just we don't feel like this is the right time right now to move forward with a requirement like that. More… a little bit more clarification, so we're asking people to have a 5-foot dead zone around their house. We're asking them to use particular plants, and So we've already… both of those, I'm guessing, require additional staff. This could not be segued into the a process that is helping us maintain cooler cities, all those goals. It can't fit into something that's already being added.

[98:02] In your thinking? I think our assessment is that, you know, the Wildland Code already existed, it's been expanded, it's kind of… you know. The new changes are gonna require more time for our landscape architect and our building code reviewers already, but we've determined that it can be done, with the current resourcing, because they're already coming in for a permit. You know, to show that. But, like, when it gets into tree protection, where you might have to, like, have a heritage tree ordinance, or some sort of special permitting process for removing mature trees on the property, that's a whole other layer in our assessment. Yeah, I was thinking about it just as part of the permit process as well, when people are doing something. not just taking care of a tree. But thank you for that. So, my, more direct question here is about, So, there are non-combustible… non-combustible materials, For the 5-foot zone.

[99:08] Are those defined? Is there a list? Because it seems like, and I think you showed some photos, it seems like what people will do is, you know, go to a 5-foot concrete Area around the house, which, of course, we know that concrete increases the heat island, and it's very carbon heavy. But it is cheap. So, do we have… do people have… will there be a list of options for what to do with that 5-foot space? I believe we do define noncombustible materials in the Wildman Code, but I might need to, defer to Chief Lowry on this one. I believe he's on the call. Well, I'm thinking about, do we… are we providing a list of options, kind of like we do for the trees? And now we've got Dave Lowery here, who might go ahead and answer that question. Yeah, as opposed to just defining what non-combustible is.

[100:01] Yeah, hi, good evening. So, Well, I mean, so, Carl's correct. The International Wildland Urban Interface Code does define noncombustible. What we… what we looked at it as, it's not concrete. Most of what we have seen, people that have made this change in their home is typically either a type of rock with, maybe pavers in the middle of it. Pea gravel has been used as kind of different than just normal river rock. People seem to have kind of liked the way that looks. I don't think we've seen much just plain concrete that have people have retrofitted. They've typically done some sort of landscape item with rock and pavers and boulders and… I don't know, maybe a concrete gnome or two floating around in there, but one way or the other, there are… I don't think we tended to make a list, because I think if we make a list, that kind of limits, the opportunity that people may come up with, and…

[101:09] And so we kind of leave it up to them to make sure they have that non-combustible area when it's required. Yeah, I'm curious about the, kind of overlapping we have not only, you know, fire concerns we're dealing with, but we're also dealing with heat island concerns, and I'm just, wondering how, you know, you do one, but then you cause the other type of thing. Is that in the thinking of process? It was 100% part of the conversation, and in the thinking, and in the consideration, that probably came up. first, when we started talking about this, but we didn't come up with this. Keep that in mind, that this, this is, science-based, research from these organizations and.

[102:04] NIST and IBHS and all these other organizations, and… and basically. Where we landed on this is, like, this is the number one most important item to… to do to your home. To make it resistant. To embers, and embers blowing in. I hear different numbers, 80 to 90%. I know it's in the 80%, of that, you know, that the homes that catch fire in… in a wildfire-type situation are from embers, right? And this is the number one… pretty much the number one item that we can do. So when we started looking at that balance, like you talked about. We think that's important, climate obviously thinks that's important, and we really work together to try to come up with this, but this being so critical to our community to kind of you know. Harden it, resist it, create that resiliency against wildfire, that we stuck with the non-combustible zone, that 0 to 5 foot, based on the research.

[103:09] Right, yeah. No, I'm just curious as to whether people know what their choices are, so that it's not always the same, you know, thing that might be causing other issues. But I appreciate… I appreciate the conversations out there. Thank you, David. Thank you. And that's my last question, thank you. Great, thanks, Emma. Okay, I'm going to, unless I hear an objection, we're going to close the question and answer, we're going to open the public hearing, and take it from there. So, do we have… Is anyone here in the room? Wishing to speak on this Agenda item 5A, okay? No one here in the room. And Thomas, do you see anyone online? If we have anybody online that would like to speak for the public hearing, please go ahead and raise your hand and we'll call on you.

[104:00] We have one raised hand so far, Lynn Siegel. You'll have 3 minutes, and you can go ahead and speak once you're unmuted. I'd approve all this stuff and all this work that staff has done, if… Under one condition, we manage population in this town, because the biggest buyer incinerator we have is the housing here. We put the Academy right on the WUI wildlife interface. They're putting a bunch of sprinklers out. That's gonna… as if that's gonna stop any big fire coming in here. The flammable stuff is the house. So, you can tell me to tear down everything, you know, you can agree, oh, I can have food, my tomato plant, but I can't have other things. You know, the same things All of these things are just as flammable, but the most flammable thing is the house itself. So get rid of people, that's what I say.

[105:01] Then, I'd agree to this stuff around the individual houses. So… That, and Free Palestine. Get out of Gaza! We're spending plenty of money On military, that we could be spending On clearing the wildlife interface around our houses. And instead, we're bleeding babies dead in Gaza. We're, you know, no water for them, no nothing. And here we are, in our elitist houses, Talking about wildfire? It's pretty pitiful. When that money that's being spent To kill those people is unconscionable. Stop. Now. Take that money and bring it here! We've got budget, you know, I read about Nuria's giant budget deficit, $380 million of unfunded liabilities, and we're killing people in Gaza? Shame on us! Shame on us! And you, as the planning board, should be talking to the city council about this.

[106:12] I shouldn't have to go down there and get suspended from being on the municipal grounds, because I'm speaking out. For this atrocity. Global atrocity. That's taking money, stealing money, from our urban wildlife interface and our ability to solve our own wildfire problems in our own space in the United States. It's shameful! You need to make your recommendations to the City Council to get out of Gaza and get out of Palestine! Leave that alone. Use that money for home, here in the United States, not Fighting these wars of desecration.

[107:00] in a misery! For people all over the world. Shame on you for not making such recommendations to City Council LONG ago! 2 years at least, and it's been going on 120 years. Thank you, Lynn, that concludes your time. If anybody else would like to speak for the public hearing, please go ahead and raise your hand. And I'm seeing none, Chair, so I believe we can proceed. Okay, thank you, Thomas. Okay, so, now we're into, board deliberation, comment, and… Motion making. I'm going to suggest the following for tonight. A, well, here we go. Here's the questions, So, we can, as we move along, answer all three, questions,

[108:10] each board member will answer all three at once when they're ready to go. And… but if you have, A comment or a suggestion that actually, you want to make as a motion then I would suggest that we deal with that mainly in the motion-making time. And when we get to motion-making, I'm going to suggest That, we… Again, this is my recommendation, but board members may do as they wish within our rules of procedure. That we, take up the main motion, adopt the main motion, or deny it, whatever. And then subsequently. any additional recommendations we want to make to Council on specifics, that we do so in a motion-by-motion, rather than amending the main motion. This is not a site review, it does not all have to be tied to

[109:15] the main motion, giving members the flexibility of supporting, or denying an auxiliary motion, while still supporting, if they wish, the main motion. So. That's my planned procedure for tonight. Can I make a quick comment on that, Mark? Yeah. Usually the way that we handle recommendations is The main motion, of course, and then everybody gives their feedback, and we take that back and provide it to Council. So I don't know if you want to do it that way, or do the motion on… on motions, but since this is an SI review, it can be a little bit more… Yeah. Yeah, so I… I agreed. Okay. But let's go… let's go through and… and try to be, relatively quick in answering these three questions. First…

[110:01] And then we'll get into the motion procedure. So, who's ready? with some pithy comments. Well, I just have a question, based on the conversation that you and Laurel just had. Do we… Do we want to try to put things into motions? Or can we largely just… Make recommendations, and maybe get… thumbs up from fellow board members, or that sort of thing? Because that's a lot more efficient. The latter is more efficient. Certainly. And what I would say to that is, it depends upon your how important you feel that your recommendation is on the record. So if it's like, yeah, I think we need to add that plant to the list, okay, great, make that suggestion, and staff will note it. If it's

[111:01] I think the 5-foot zone should be eliminated, and then that's… that's… that rises to something that we take a vote on and, you know, anyway, that would be my thinking on that. So, and again, we may not have any… if people want to, advise staff. And be done with… and then adopt the main motion unaltered. That's also fine. I hope I've made that really muddy, but, anyway, I think it does depend upon each board member's level of concern or feeling, or thought about, about what it is they're, They want to advise on. Okay, but I still think a first round of this And so, if nothing rises to a motion for you, great. Let's… we'll just do a round of,

[112:05] thoughts on this. And just to be clear, the one motion we do need to have is whether you recommend or don't recommend. Right. Yes. The main motion, yeah. Yes. Mark, can I ask a question? Yes, please. about what you just said. So, I'm hearing… I'm hearing that there is… a motion that… will get made at some point. I'm seeing that there are these three questions that you would like us to speak to, but I also thought I heard, that after the motion is made. That there is a time to say, and these… these recommendations should go along with our motion to City Council. So when does that… when does that place that what we're saying actually gets relayed to City Council, uniquely as part of our, motion?

[113:01] Not… not legally part of a motion, but… Soon thereafter. You… okay, let me answer that. So, I'm gonna… I'm gonna… try to be… again, I apologize if I've been unclear. I think… We answer these questions. If you have a concern. That rises to the level of something you want to make a motion on to advise Council very specifically, and take a vote of the board Then you would do that. after, I'm gonna suggest after. we adopt the main motion, and it would be a separate motion. We may not have any of those. Yeah, and I think that Laurel was just calling them recommendations and not motions. Right, this is a recommendation level, but there is a motion, like, a main motion that is to. Correct, correct. Aside from that, we can make a recommendation, that does… it doesn't go through a motion process.

[114:07] Right, yeah, and staff will document it. The first question, does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance? If you have recommendations. Got it. That you don't want to make a motion about. Just, just make your recommendations. And I think I heard staff say those will be conveyed to Council, whether they're in a motion format or not. As normal, they will summarize our recommendations. Okay. So, I just want to point out, there are times that our recommendations can be conflicting. And… and it is at those times, or on… Highly substantive, and maybe even controversial, Concerns. So… In those cases, sometimes I think a motion is an effective tool to structure the debate and to record

[115:02] The board's, vote. And, of course, even though there's only 5 of us here tonight, it takes 4 of us to approve. a motion, so keep that in mind as well. So, having… now that we've, burnt through a little bit of time here, is anyone ready to, go through those three questions and make their comments? Kurt. Sure, I'll start. I will start with item number 1, proposed modifications. My first one, I didn't ask a question about this, but 9911I recommends changing the minimum area… sorry, the minimum width of a landscaped area from 2 feet to 5 feet, with the explanation that less than… areas less than 5 feet are… tend not to be very successful. I think that may be true of planted areas, but again, a landscape area can be a walkway, for example, which

[116:04] on a private development, I think, can be fine if it's quite narrow. So, I don't support that change. I think that 2 feet is… is perfectly reasonable. The next one is about the… the thing that I asked the question about, about whether demising an existing building with no exterior changes would trigger this. I realize this is already… this is the existing code. But I still think that that should be changed. I think that it's not appropriate to penalize that kind of change that doesn't… affect… any… the exterior in any way. to penalize it by requiring it to have a landscape plan. You could… Chain… do all kinds of other interior changes that would be just as… substantive.

[117:04] But if you're not creating another unit, then it wouldn't trigger it. So, that one may rise to the level where I would like to actually make that as a motion. But we can come back to that if others agree. In… I asked the question about the required summary about the… how the landscape requirement is met. And I… I understand where staff is coming from on this, I think, but it also sounds like it could end up just kind of always being a boilerplate. Where people say. or they have ChatGPT say, I studied the landscape plans, and I met them. It's not clear to me that it…

[118:02] Adds any real benefit, and it's just another thing for people to have to do. So, so I am not in support of requiring that additional summary. then I think really the only other one is… This question of… just clarifying, and maybe it's obvious to everybody who's not a literalist like me and Laura, but, The, again, the draft landscape plan, or, manual, says that irrigation of all landscaped areas is required, even though that can include hardscaped areas, and so just refining the wording there.

[119:16] to make it clear that that is not actually what's intended, I think would be beneficial. And those are my only… Suggested changes, modifications to the draft ordinance. I… yeah. Can I ask you a question about one of your suggested changes? Yes. The first one that you mentioned about the changing from a 2-foot to a 5-foot landscape… wide landscaped area, would you support that change if it were limited to vegetated landscaped areas rather than hardscape? Well, so, what it says is that it doesn't… I think what it says is it won't count as open space if it's less than

[120:10] Currently, it says less than 2 feet. The proposal is to change it to less than 5 feet. So I'm not sure exactly what your… what you're suggesting, but I would want to preserve the opportunity for a narrow area, you know, between A building and a parking area or something to be used as a walkway. I'm not sure exactly what I'm suggesting, either. It's just trying to honor staff's intent that vegetated areas don't tend to thrive if they're less than 2 feet, and trying to encourage those to be 5 feet. Yeah, and maybe there's a way to… to negotiate that, that would still allow it to be counted as… yeah, I see where you're going… to be counted as open space if it's

[121:01] Hards… hardscape, some sort of usable hardscape, or something like that. If that made sense? Great, great suggestion. Going on to question number two… I do not support the requirement for a licensed landscape architect on lots over 1 acre. I… I think that that should be up to the prerogative of the of the person doing the project, I… respect the expertise of landscape architects, but I've also seen lots of great landscaping done by people who are not licensed landscape architects, plans, so I… I don't see… The need for that added requirement. And… Let's see, I made one change… suggestion about the landscape manual. I am not an expert, although I sort of know something about trees. The tree list looks great, and the plant list, I trust everyone on that.

[122:14] So, those are my comments. Great, thanks, Kurt. Who's else is ready? Laura. Thank you. Okay, so suggested modifications to the draft ordinance. So I would suggest that for 99-9-11, that you try to use the language that was adopted into the site review criteria that says, this space is visible from an adjoining public sidewalk, which I think you already have in there, and is not elevated above the building's first story. And that gets to the questions about what does it mean for a courtyard to be connected to the grade? And I think you… the language in the site review criteria is not perfect, but I think it strikes the right balance so that we don't get people arguing that, second…

[123:06] story roof or a third-story roof is connected to the grade through an elevator or something like that. Because it is the job of the builder to try to be creative and make it work. So I would make that recommendation. for 9-9-12, I am concerned about the idea that the whole lot or parcel must be in compliance if a new principal structure is proposed, or the addition of a dwelling unit, for example, an ADU on a lot or parcel, that could then trigger The whole lot or parcel, which could be very large, to have to come into compliance with the landscape manual. So, on that topic, we wouldn't consider an ADU a new dwelling unit, nor would we consider it a new principal building. I mean, it says, new development for any project that involves development on a vacant lot or parcel, a lot or parcel where a new principal structure is proposed, or the addition of a dwelling unit on a lot or parcel. So an ADU is not considered to be a new dwelling unit? No. Okay.

[124:13] Okay, but let's say that you're, adding a unit. adding a new unit than the whole lot or parcel. And I'm thinking about, for example, some of the projects that have come in that are annexations, where it is a very large property, you know, and they're adding Maybe just one unit, maybe they're adding more than that. I'm just concerned about disproportionality that could then mean that we don't get new units, because people don't want to trigger this requirement for 10 acres, say, to have to have a landscape plan. So I'm just wondering if there might… I'm recommending that you consider that there be some limit or proportionality between the new unit and the size of the parcel that you're looking at. You know, like, somebody wants to put a duplex on what is currently a single dwelling unit lot, and it has 10 acres. I don't know if that happens very often, but…

[125:05] I think that that could be prohibitive. So just something to… I'm not gonna make that conditional for my support. I support this ordinance, it's just something to think about. And Carl, could you put up that slide about the triggers, the 50% and the 75% of the assessed value of the home? Okay, so I do have some concern here about lowering those thresholds, and… you know, I'm all for water-wise landscaping and the, the… meeting the goals that are in the project here, but did you guys do math on the assessed value of structures and how many square feet of addition you get for that? Because… you know, for example, a home that I am familiar with is a very old home on, you know, 0.4 acres. It's assessed at $1.5 million for the lot.

[126:01] plus house, but the house itself is assessed at, like, $200,000 worth of value. So 50% of that is $100,000, and at $450 a square foot, hard building costs, that's, like, 220 square feet. So basically, any addition. would trigger… this… New floor area requirement. So I'm not sure that dropping it makes a lot of sense. Same thing with the valuation change. Some of these structures are assessed, these old structures are assessed with a very low value. And I did see in the code that they could come in with Not just a property assessment value, but I think having a… licensed architect assess the value of their structure, but for some of these old homes, it's not going to be much. And so what I'm worried about is, you know, the same thing that we're going to discuss later with regard to the inclusionary housing fee is that, you know. $30,000 or $40,000 worth of landscaping could be prohibitive for somebody who's trying to put on a small addition.

[127:01] So… So I would reconsider those triggers, even though I really relate to the reason why, I just think that would not allow very much leeway. Thank you for the clarification, it doesn't apply to ADUs. I was going to suggest exempting ADUs. 11-1-21.5. D, which talks about the shutoff valve for, like, you can't wash a car with a hose without a shutoff valve. I would suggest adding artificial turf to that list. My experience with artificial turf is, you know, it gets covered in pollen, it gets covered in pet urine, and people just hose it off. And so if you're worried about people hosing things off without a shutoff valve, you should add artificial turf to that list. And Kurt, I would support your idea for an exemption about demising units into more units with no exterior changes. I agree that we shouldn't be penalizing people for doing that, and again, a huge amount of investment in new landscaping could do that.

[128:01] And Clauda, you haven't spoken yet, but I really liked your idea about, talking about food crops that are over 3 feet high. I think that needs reconsideration as well. Some of my neighbors have, you know, raised planters that have tomatoes and corn and things that are over 3 feet high. Oh, so that's the first question, sorry, and then the other two questions, I'm pretty agnostic about the requirement for landscape architects. I agree with Kurt that it's not necessarily necessary, so maybe that's more of a recommendation of, if you want to be successful at getting your plan through on the first review, you probably want a landscaped architect, because this is pretty complicated stuff. And then the last question… I do not have any comments on that one. Thank you. Thanks, Laura. And Mel, are you ready? I'm just looking for my head. Okay. Thank you. sensed that, okay.

[129:00] Great. So, regards to question number one, I… I, will recommend that this ordinance encourage gray water use in landscaping. In many communities, this is low-hanging fruit, and I believe it should be encouraged here, and it's… It's just… it's just very curious that it's not on here in some capacity, so I would encourage That as… moving forward and to City Council's ears. My second recommendation on this same number one… is for protection of healthy, mature trees on private property through the permit process when proposing construction on that property. So this isn't about just, you know, protecting trees randomly throughout the city. It's about when somebody is coming already in a building process. And I think that the way the ordinance is written is… it's talking about, approval from the city manager.

[130:06] So, I don't think it has to be onerous, but I think we're losing a lot of tree canopy because it's inconvenient, to keep it. So… I would like eyes on that, and I think this is the right place to do that. Those are my recommendations for number one. Number two, I'm in agreement with Kurt that, It… The non-insignificant design-build landscape professionals who are not licensed landscape architects are completely left out, and I don't support a requirement for the landscape Architect to be a licensed person. I think that we have some remarkable design-build professionals working in this community that could manage, the process quite well, and I don't think we should lock them out. I think there's an equity issue there with this requirement.

[131:06] So that's my comment on… on number 2, and your specific question about, the licensed landscape architects. And, number 3, I think that, I don't have a… question about the draft tree and plant list, and I like the fact that it is adopted by city manager rule. I would recommend, wherever possible, to provide lists of the materials that you want to see being used, just like you did for the trees and plants in the built environment. And, This 5-foot, kind of area. That's pretty significant, and I don't think we have a clear understanding on the impact that is going to have to our neighborhoods.

[132:04] And I'd like to see that there is a range of options for people to consider when they go to, comply with that… that 5 foot. And… and truth be told, it's the buildings that need to be… need to be made, non-flammable, not the ground, and, you know, hopefully our… Building regs are addressing that piece, but… That is ultimately where the problem lies, right, is embers getting into buildings. So those are my, recommendations and comments, and, I, hope that they do make it to the, review that City Council gets from Planning Board. Thank you. Thank you, Amel. Okay, Claudia, I think you're by default next. Great, thank you. So, there's some good foundational things in the proposed code updates that I want to make sure I mention before I get to more critical comments. And those are, first of all, I really think it's a good idea to be moving a lot of these technical standards to

[133:08] manuals and the city manager rulemaking process. We've had that discussion in some other… with regard to some other issues recently. I think that's definitely the place for this kind of work. And I also really support the various exemptions that you've already started to work into the code, such as the one exempting site review projects from full review if they want to do turf replacement, things like that, and then limiting these requirements for licensed landscape architects to those larger sites, if even that. I listened just now to ML's comments with great interest about the valuable work that's done by unlicensed professionals, and I respect her perspective on that question. Thank you, ML. But most of what I have to say is… Dealing with some substantial changes that I'd like to see, as this goes forward. As discussed by both Kurt and Laura, I would recommend removing triggers that

[134:05] disincentivize demising structures into multiple units. It's a bit of a mouthful, but… The idea that we would penalize, converting existing single-unit dwellings into duplexes or some such, by making landscaping requirements for that seems a little silly and against our other housing goals. I would like to see some clarification and maybe deeper thinking about how landscaping triggers Would actually play out in townhouse, condominium, and manufactured housing communities. These are areas where property owners may expect To have opportunities to modify their homes and their landscaping, but they actually don't have any control over the landscaping, buffers that are referred to in the code. That's just the way property lines are drawn in those kinds of communities.

[135:00] I would like to see some specific goals and or standards in a water-wise landscaping code for shade and cooling. I think the version of the code that we're seeing here piles up a lot of reasons to remove or reduce vegetation. In areas of our city. And if that is not done with an eye towards improving the quality of what remains, we are going to find ourselves living in a much harsher environment going forward. Along those lines, I would recommend that we do not over-regulate food gardens and other forms of urban agriculture. Particularly at the scale of individual households, we're hearing a lot in other community processes, from members of the community how important Urban agriculture is for economic security and for quality of life. And it does seem to be quite low down the list of contributors to fire risk. And I also want to point out, that the way that urban agriculture shows up in these draft rules seems to be somewhat divorced from plant biology and gardening practices. That's my question about the 3-foot rule. Do we really need to be regulating a well-fed tomato vine?

[136:16] Backyard raspberry patches, or a bean trellis. So I know that language is in the draft rules, not the code, but I think it's worth commenting on in this process because it is a red flag for me that suggests we are losing a sense of balance and perspective in this process about what to regulate and what to preserve. And then my last comment is whether it's done in the landscaping manual, or the plant list, or outreach to the community. To somehow think about showing residents what is possible under these new codes. If we are going to have a more restrictive landscaping code going forward. I think it would also be very helpful for the community to see examples of how it can actually work, how we can reach all three of those goals around fire mitigation, water-wise landscaping, and the shading and cooling.

[137:13] And what we can expect in different neighborhoods, and what we can aspire to if we are applying that code with care and intention. And I don't think we get that from things like the landscaping manual and the plant list that we see right now, but I do hope it's possible. Well, I'm really glad I'm following that, so I can just say, yeah. I thought those were excellent comments, and I think all board members have made, excellent suggestions and comments, both in the positive and the negative. And in the negative, I simply mean to say, possible, improvements and changes. So, in regard to the first question,

[138:01] outside of… I don't… I don't have any suggested modifications outside of what's already been suggested, and I… I am, generally really supportive of this whole plan, as we… and I'm just gonna make a general comment. We are entering an era Where we are going to have to make more choices, and those choices are between, Non-functional turf grass, and and… a few additional people in our community using shared functional turf grass. And I think that… that the more that we as a community prepare to have more shared spaces that are really great, more open spaces. And it's something this board deals with all the time when we look at site reviews and concept reviews is functional shared spaces. These functional shared spaces, are becoming more and more important, and I think this plan generally helps us move towards those functional shared spaces. So I think that is,

[139:10] Really important, and, and… preserving turf grass at the expense of housing for people in our community that live and work and are committed to our community, there's just, there's just really no choice. on question number two, I, I also, Agree that There's a lot of good work done by Master Gardeners, by, friends that have been gardening and doing landscaping plans for years, and that, and not to… And I… obviously, when we have a big project and we look at a landscape plan, that has to be done by landscape architects, and it's not to denigrate them at all, it's just simply to say, it's, it's like, yeah, I want my barber to be, licensed, but if my wife wants to cut my hair, that's great. I think that's, that's fine. She gets out the clippers. So, it's, it's, it's a similar, thing to that. And, and then on the,

[140:18] I am in support of the draft tree and… plant list, especially being managed under city manager rulemaking, for greater adaptability, I would, again, concur with my board members, fellow board members, and what I asked about earlier is, is, okay, let's take that, impenetrable grid of small type and make it into something that is a functional tool for someone just wanting to, really improve their landscaping and, and And without the help of a landscape architect, can say, hey, here, Master Gardener friend, let's help me here with this, and come up with a really good plan.

[141:09] So, that's the end of, of my comments. Okay, now that we've all had, our share of comments, I would entertain if you could put up, the motion language. We'll see what happens here. Anybody feel like, saying 1981 a lot? Okay. Great. Laura? I'll make the motion. I recommend that Planning Board recommend to City Council to adopt proposed ordinance amending Title IV, Licenses and Permits, BRC 1981, Title VI, Health, Safety, and Sanitation, BRC 1981, Title 8, Parks, Open Spaces, Streets, and Public Ways, BRC 1981. Title IX, Land Use Code, BRC 1981. Title 10, Structures, BRC 1981.

[142:06] and Title XI, Utilities and Airport, BRC 1981, on matters related to landscaping, water conservation, and wildfire resilience, and setting forth related details. I'll second that. Okay, is there any, as motion maker, go… Laura, any, any additional comment? Okay, I don't have any a second. Any other comment or debate? Kurt? Well, I wanted to make a proposed amendment. Okay? So, I just… Okay, do you want to… I want to… I want to move… Amend. I want to… I'm going to move to amend, yes. Okay, okay, there you go, I just wanted to be clear. Sorry, thank you. Yes. And I sent my proposed language to Thomas.

[143:11] So, I would like to make the following amendment. Planning Board recommends to City Council that BRC 9912B1A be changed to read, quote, new development for any project that involves development on a vacant lot or parcel, or a lot or parcel where a new principal structure is proposed. End quote. That is not including the words or the addition of a dwelling unit on a lot or parcel. The intent of this motion is to avoid triggering expensive landscaping requirements when adding a unit via changes that are entirely or mostly interior.

[144:05] One… just one question, that we were talking about over here. We're not entirely sure what Entirely means… Or mostly. Entirely or mostly, since it's a little bit vague. That's the only thing that… Wanted to flag. Well, that's just trying to explain to Council why… Why you want to change it. …what this came from. It's not like the proposed language. Correct. Got it. I have a question here, and so… I understand the sentence. The intent of this motion is to avoid triggering expensive landscape requirements when adding a unit via changes that are entirely or mostly interior. Great. I would support that. I don't know that, for me. if… The change in the wording in quotes, somehow…

[145:00] says that? Or is it the fact that it doesn't say anything about interior require… I'm not sure how your goal is achieved by the actual motion wording. So the proposed… the staff proposed wording is… New development… so this is the thresholds for the trigger landscaping requirements, right? And it includes new development for any project that involves development on a vacant lot or parcel, a lot or parcel where a new principal structure is proposed, or the addition of a dwelling unit on a lot or parcel. So, my proposal is to strike that final clause from the proposed language. I probably could have framed it a little better if I had more time to think about it, but that was… that's the intent. Okay, would that be satisfied if you just had a motion that said, strike the words.

[146:02] or… an additional unit. Those four words, you move to strike. Right, but it was a little… I was thinking about that, but then I thought, oh, it's going to be confusing because I'm striking it from a proposed from proposed language, I believe, which, I don't know… I thought maybe this is clear. If it's… if it's not, absolutely, that would be totally fine by me. Whatever… the board thinks is useful, if there's support for this at all. And if I could just add a clarification, if it helps, the requirement for doing a landscape plan and meeting the landscape rules today already has the trigger about new dwelling units, so this would be a pretty big change from how we're doing it now. And also, the second part talks about mostly interior changes. We have a section in the code now that says 100% of the value of any interior triggers the landscape plan under today's requirements as well. So, just wanted to make that clear, that these aren't

[147:08] all proposed. Right. It's really just the interior is dropping from 100% down to 75% in the proposed language, but otherwise, the dwelling unit requirement is pretty much the same as it is today. Right. I realize that the basic… code language already exists. The problem is, the requirements are getting more in, it seems to me, more onerous. which, you know, I think is appropriate. We're achieving good things there, but it means that the… The challenge in meeting that is going to be increasing, and so it becomes more of a disincentive to the act of creating another unit by demising, for example? May I… Okay, go ahead, go ahead, and ML, we're gonna get to you, for sure. So…

[148:08] My concern, Kurt, is I think that by striking those words, you do more than what you have intended to do. That that would also exclude… so, for example, they build a duplex or a triplex on the property. They've added two units that are exterior, and now they don't have to meet the landscaping requirements. So, because… adding… a dwelling unit is different than a new principal structure. At least, I don't know the legal meaning of those words, and so my concern is that you're doing more than you're intending to do. But I think that that would almost certainly be covered by the value that value threshold. Potentially. I just… I'm worried about proposing new language that may have unintended consequences. I would be much more likely to support a recommendation Planning Board recommends to City Council that 9-9-12 be revised so that it does not include triggering the landscaping requirements if the only action is to

[149:13] create new units within an existing structure, or something like that, where you state your intention, but you don't try to write the code language, just to avoid writing code language that, oops, we screwed up the code language. Not… I mean, we're doing this on the fly, so… Yeah, and that would be fine. I was… I was… I was trying to have something that was more concrete, I guess, but, yeah, either way. Okay, and Mel, I'm gonna get to you in just one second. I see you there. I'm just gonna ask a question. Okay, I was gonna speak to that, to this little conversation, too, so… Okay, and again, I will get to you. The question I'm gonna ask is, Rather than debate this further. Even with modification.

[150:01] Is anyone planning on seconding this motion? Because if not, or something very similar to it, if not, then either a new motion needs to be in order, or we can debate something else, or make a different recommendation, not in the motion form. Any number of paths forward. But is… are people… is anyone here, psyched to second this, or something very similar to this? I… I'm considering it, and I think that the… to me, the clarification Is that this is saying that if you're adding a new building, then, you know, you move into the process. But if you're not adding a new, say, new principal structure, you can modify existing structures, you know, as much as you like without triggering, this landscape requirement. So, I don't think it's vague at all. I think that

[151:02] A new principal structure is… Really does talk about, you're gonna disturb the land. Right? You're going to create a reason to redo the landscape. And, that's exactly what I think, Kurt, I'm reading into your thinking here, Kurt, but it's like, if you're not disturbing the land, why are we triggering a landscape review or a landscape plan? So that's… I… I will… I don't think it's… vague, the way it's written. I don't think you need all of the explanation and whatnot there, but if that is fine, that is… I'd be happy to second it. on that basis, if that's what you're thinking, because I think that's what you're thinking. Is that correct, Kurt? That is correct, that is the intent. Okay, then I'll second it. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Kurt, as a motion maker, it's your term, your time to, speak to it, and,

[152:02] And then we'll… then we'll go to a vote. Yeah, again, just to clarify, the idea is to avoid overly penalizing the action of just taking an existing building and demising it to add an additional unit, or possibly very small exterior changes that would not otherwise trigger the landscaping requirements. So… Yeah, trying to allow for those things to happen without triggering the expensive landscaping requirements. ML, do you have anything to add as second that you haven't said already? Okay, I won't repeat myself. I'm gonna just say it again. Okay, good. No, we got it, got it the first time. Okay. Yep. Before we go to a vote, I would like to ask staff a question. If those words are stricken, or the addition of a dwelling unit on a lot or parcel, does it do more than what

[153:03] Kurt thinks it does here, or Kurt is intending to do here, or is the only effect of that language Creating a new dwelling unit within an existing structure. I mean, the other valuations would still be in the code, so even if they did the work and they triggered those other valuations, that would capture some other projects, but it would… it would step back from… the current trigger that does say addition of a dwelling unit. So, I think there's a policy argument here. You know, like, I understand it creates a disincentive, but also, arguably, if you're adding dwelling units, you're adding people into a place where maybe it makes sense to do fire hardening on the site. So I think it's up to you all, you know, about the policy perspective on voting on that. I guess I'm just still not clear, what is the difference between a new principal structure and an addition of a dwelling unit? what's the difference between those two terms? Because you have them in two separate clauses. Well, I mean, the new principal structure may not be a dwelling unit. I mean, this is applying to different land uses. It's residential.

[154:10] commercial. And in the reverse of that, a new dwelling unit may not be a new principal structure. It could just be an additional unit in the… Inside the building. Inside the space, right. Okay. Okay, but if this were applied to residential, a principal structure and a dwelling unit, a new dwelling unit. are the same thing, unless it's within a building. You know, just doing an internal conversion to a duplex or a triplex, that's not a new principal building. That would be a new dwelling unit. Okay, and so, for example, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to understand. the examples, we did an annexation where there was a principal structure on the property, and then they added a bunch of townhomes. Do those new townhomes count as new principal structures? If they're separate buildings from the other building, yes. Okay, alright, thank you.

[155:05] Okay, any other debate? Regarding… the amendment We have before us, amendment to the main motion. Okay, we're going to vote, and I'm gonna go left to right. Okay, alright. And Mel, I'm gonna start with you. Yes. Kurt. Yes? Claudia. Yes. I'm a no. And… I'll leave it at that. I'm gonna be a no, just because I'm worried about unintended impacts, but I hope that this is captured in the recommendations of City Council, and that they consider this seriously. So that's my question about this. So you've voted no on this, but multiple of you have said we want to not include interior changes.

[156:03] So I don't really know… how you want to… do you want us to just capture it as part of your recommendations, generally? Does that make sense? So, so… I'm a little bit confused about this. I think that's… okay. Actually, I think we were… While we were… clear about our intent. This is… so, we've dispensed with this motion, and we've, that's, that's done. If. if… If someone wants to make a revised motion. Now's the time to do it. If someone wants to make a revised motion after adopting the main motion, that's also a possibility. If someone wants to. after adopting the main motion, say, you know, I really hope staff captures this particular thought. That's also a possibility. So… There are a number of courses of action, depending upon what members put forth. I'm sorry, I just want to quickly clarify something for Thomas. I think we voted 3-2? Yes.

[157:07] Not two, three. Yeah, that's my same. 3 in favor, 2 opposed. Because it wasn't 4. Right, but… And, and… restate my opposition. is not to the concept of excluding interior modifications, it was that I can't understand it, and how its effects… so, anyway, I, Either we need to try again, or turn it into a recommendation, a verbal recommendation, and carry on. So, if someone wants to try again. I'll just state for Laurel that I'm agreeing with Mark, I didn't support this particular motion as an amendment to the main motion with this particular language, but I am supportive of the concept. I think this is why we recommend verbally giving all of these options, and then we can consolidate and summarize them, but I get that you guys want

[158:01] To have it as part of the motion. But we could… this could turn into a really long process if we go through every iteration. Understood, understood. So that's my concern. I don't want to cause confusion for Council on what you want. Yeah. Yeah. So, we've got this recorded, and now, we are… we still have a motion and a second, and… We have a main motion before us. Is there any additional… Is there any additional discussion on the main motion at this moment? Claudia. I would like to say something before we vote on the main motion. And that is that I continue to be concerned about disproportionate impacts on quality of life for people living in multi-unit housing and manufactured housing communities. Especially in what have recently been defined as WUI zones. I am concerned for impacts on residents' gardens, what you are calling urban agriculture.

[159:05] And I am concerned about regulations that incentivize Or have, as an unintended consequence. A broader de-vegetation or deforesting of our community. I am not convinced that these concerns are being heard and addressed in this code development process. And I am not convinced that the proposed ordinance has figured out an appropriate balance of fire mitigation, water savings, and cooling strategies. And so I will be voting against recommending the policy in this form. Great, thank you, Claudia. Okay, any other… Debate on the main motion. Okay, can I have the main motion? Back up, please.

[160:05] And believe it or not, we're supposed to read the motion before we vote, one more time. Do you want to pull that back up, or… There we go. Okay. Okay, it's gonna go quick. Planning Board recommends that City Council adopt a proposed ordinance amending Title IV, licenses and permits. BRC 1981, Title VI, Health, Safety, and Sanitation, BR6, 1981, Title VII, Parks, open spaces, streets, and Public Ways, BRC 1981, Title IX, Land Use Code, BRC 1981, Title 10, Structures, BRC 1981, and Title XI, Utilities and Airport, BRC, 1981, on matters relating to landscaping, water conservation, and wildfire… wildfire resilience, and setting forth related details. Okay. I'm going to go from left to right, Laura?

[161:02] Yes. Claudia. Nope. Kurt. Yes. ML. Nope. Okay, I'm a yes. So, on tonight, that motion fails. That recommendation fails. Is there… I'm not… I'm a little, I'm sorry, I'm bumbling around here, I'm a little lost at what this means, other than… other than we failed to adopt, this staff's recommendation. I don't… I, I would simply say that, that

[162:03] this does warrant The serious consideration of two board members that voted no, and I know they didn't do that with… lightly or with anything other than very serious concerns about the implementation of this proposed, changes to the ordinance. So, having done that, Do you need anything else from us? I don't think so. Okay, alright. And again, I think this is, I'm just gonna comment that, again, this is, a reflection of the serious consideration of board members, and, not a reflection on, a lot of the good… all the good work you guys have done, and I know this represents a lot of work. So, anyway, there you go. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We're gonna take a, break. Charles is leaving. Jay is gonna come up, and we're gonna take a 5-minute break. We're gonna return at…

[163:08] 8. 849.

[171:21] Okay, I'm gonna call the, Excuse me. Meeting back to order. And we will move on to… Item, 5… B. Which is… It's public hearing A public hearing and recommendation to City Council on Proposed Ordinance 8712, amending Chapter 4-20 Fees, and Chapter 8-9. Capital Facility Impact Fee, Adding a new affordable housing impact fee rate for certain.

[172:05] single-unit dwelling developments, and setting forth related details. So, like our last public hearing, we'll have a presentation from staff. Followed by… Clarifying questions, a public hearing, and then, deliberation and consultation with the planning board. So, tonight we have Jay Sugnett here, and glad you're with us, and we know you're filling in. For, someone? Okay, great. Okay. So, anyway, take it away, and we'll, we'll look forward to hearing from you. Thank you. So yeah, Jay Sugnet with Housing and Human Services. Pleasure to be here tonight with you. Yeah, Sloan Wahlbert came down with strep this morning, so, I get to fill in. So, sorry you got the B team. Sloan knows the inclusionary housing regulations backwards and forwards.

[173:02] As well as this proposal, but I will do my best to try to answer all your questions. Alright, so… I do see that Sloane's online, so maybe she can help us. Oh, okay. She's gonna text me if you ask me something that I can't answer. Okay, okay. Thank you for being here, Sloan, we hope you feel better. So, the purpose of tonight's item is to consider a draft ordinance to implement an affordable housing impact fee. On replacement homes and substantial additions to homes. As you recall, staff was here back in February with the consultant to present the findings from their study. And that study was done to help support, this potential impact fee. So staff is basically asking that Planning Board make a recommendation to City Council. On the proposed ordinance. So a little bit of the agenda for you, just to give you a sense of what I'll be talking about. The purpose statement. So, the need to examine demolitions and, and…

[174:03] Replacement of single-dwelling homes and or significant additions was identified as a priority When the city was updating the inclusionary housing regulations back in 2023. Hopefully, most of you remember that. So there was a recognition that IH did not apply to these types of development. And there was a desire to, have them pay some sort of affordable housing. Contribution. But it was clear that the inclusionary housing ordinance was not the path to do that. And I'm gonna talk about that distinction. So single… and the… really the, purpose is the single-dwelling redevelopment in the city often removes smaller, relatively affordable homes, and replaces them with, larger and relatively more expensive homes. Similarly. Substantial additions effectively replaced more affordable smaller homes with larger homes. With larger, more expensive homes reducing overall affordability.

[175:03] This type of development is not subject to the City's inclusionary housing regulations, and are not required to contribute towards affordable housing in the community. The impact fee could address gaps in the IH program, and would ensure equity in how residential development and additions contribute to affordable housing in the community. So, bottom line is. A housing impact fee on these types of developments would help mitigate impacts on the demand for affordable housing that is created by that development. So here's a great example. So, this is, shows the current inequities with our current regulations. So, this was, the parcels shown in blue and orange were previously one property with a single-family home. That was built in 1957. The house was demolished, and the property was split into two. And two fairly large, detached single-family homes were, created in the last few years. The orange lot received a waiver.

[176:06] Because it, to IH, because it was replacing an existing dwelling. So no new housing was created. So they got a waiver, so they didn't have to pay. The parcel in blue was required to pay, because it created a new, new, housing unit. So the orange lot, they demolished a roughly 2,500 square foot home. Constructed a 7,800 square foot home. And if they were to pay… The impact, the proposed impact fee would be around $80,000. In today's dollars, the cash in lieu for the other parcel paid is about $90,000, just for a little bit of context. So, a little bit, on impact fees and what they are. So, they are one-time charges imposed on property developers by local government to offset the costs of that new development.

[177:01] So, state law pretty much lays out all the requirements for, Imposing these fees, most notably, an impact fee must be based on a study, which we talked about. That establishes an essential nexus between the impacted development, the amount of the fee, and how the funds will be spent. The fee must have rough proportionality to the development's impact. And it's just important to point out that a recent Supreme Court ruling, has put impact fees under greater scrutiny, and, the increases the potential for future litigation. And that'll be more important later when I talk about it. So, a little bit of… a little bit of a refresher on the, the study itself. I'm not gonna go into a whole lot of detail. So Gruen and Gruen, performed this analysis in 2024. They provide research and analysis, to explore the extent to which these types of developments, contribute to the need for affordable housing.

[178:08] So I'd found that new or expanded single-family homes are valued at significantly higher prices. Than smaller or older existing homes, not only due to larger living spaces, but also due to the premium on new construction. So families and individuals purchasing newer or expanded homes represent households at a much higher income level than households that occupied the previous homes. Based on research done by the consultant, those higher incomes within a local economy tend to result in increased impersonal consumption and spending, which generates additional employment, therefore jobs. So think about a gardener or house cleaner. But also to, increase purchasing power, additional retail and service jobs in the community. So based on a pro forma analysis, the maximum supportable impact fee ranges from $15 to $23 per square foot.

[179:04] Depending on the development scenario. So, in alignment with the City's commitment to racial equity and good public process and engagement, staff prepared a racial equity assessment and a public engagement plan. That's in your memo. The engagement has focused on online tools, email outreach, existing boards, processes. Community meetings, outreach events, and information sharing. Most of those comments that we've received have been through the Be Here Boulder platform. project team has collected, I think it's 27 comments to date, through different engagement activities. It's pretty, split between those, support… or cited the need to preserve affordable, attainable housing stock, ensure equity and fairness between vacant lots and redevelopment, and the need for larger homes to contribute towards affordable housing.

[180:01] Quite a few people are opposed, saying that the impact fee would simply drive up the cost of already very expensive market rate housing. The fee would also unduly affect people trying to improve their homes, considering the aging housing stock in much of our city, and some of those opposed recommended the city make housing development easier and cheaper to encourage the development of more attainable housing. But in general, there was support for exemptions for small additions, modest-sized homes, ADUs. Accessory dwelling units, and, Yeah. So, the staff recommendation, there are really two types of development that we're talking about. It would apply to… Demolition of a detached home. Replacement with a larger detached home. And a substantial addition to a single, unit detached home. And when we talk about significant, we're talking about 500 square feet or more. In terms of the goals for establishing the fee, we wanted something that was simple to implement, so it didn't create a lot of…

[181:06] Friction, and additional staff time. And while… All policy change comes with some potential unintended consequences. We have made some considerations and exemptions in the ordinance for modesized homes and smaller home additions, so that we don't disproportionately impact people, community members with more modest means. Something we definitely heard from Housing Advisory Board, Planning Board, and City Council. So I'll talk about those. So, the first one, these demolitions and replacements, so… Posing a $15 per square foot. So this is only new, so renovations are not impacted, have to say that a few times. What happens with a demolition is, same as current impact fees, you get a credit for existing square footage that you demolish. We're proposing to carry that through.

[182:03] The current threshold is 200 square feet. And we're… Proposing. Or, I'm sorry, it's an entire credit for the entire amount demolished. But we're also proposing an exemption for homes under 2,000 square foot… square feet. So if you're… Home that you're expanding, doesn't exceed that 2,000 square foot threshold, you don't pay any sort of fee. You're still subject to the other impact fees for water and sewer, etc. But not… not this fee. All accessory dwelling units are exempted. So we… I recall the discussion at Planning Board last time about whether or not to exempt ADUs, and I think the… Where we came down is that if you are actually creating an ADU and renting it out. it's going to be difficult to argue that that is, creating a need for additional affordable housing, particularly if it's rented. Most ADUs are rented at a relatively affordable rent.

[183:03] Does that make sense? And then, again, renovations are not impacted. It's only new additional square feet. So, substantial home additions. All the same, but instead of getting a credit for the space that you demolish. We're proposing, a 500 square foot exemption, so one time. So if you wanted to add a bedroom or a bathroom, onto your home. the fee simply just would not apply. Or if you apply 1,000 square feet, the first 500 square feet, would not be assessed a fee. Same, same, things, ADUs, renovations, etc. So, what we did find… And I'm veering away from my notes, Sloan would not be very happy with me. So the recommended $15 rate was found by the consultant to support our policy goals without rendering single-family development, projects financially unfeasible.

[184:09] Developers would still be able to Earn a return on investment. And the chart just shows you, sort of, sample, project sizes, or sample impact fees by project size. So, for a 750 square foot addition to an existing home. Assuming a $700 per square foot cost, that prob… Talking about a half-million-dollar project, right? And the fee, because you would take $750, subtract 500, and you would get $3,750. And that represents .7% of, the overall project cost. And as you see, the, you know, it's per square foot, so it increases over time. Or the larger the project gets. And a percentage slowly goes up as well.

[185:04] The annual revenue? Expected to be resolved from this is about $1.2 million annually. That reflects, 30, teardowns and 20 significant additions every year. Those fees collected, would be earmarked for affordable housing. So restricted solely for the construction purchase and maintenance of affordable housing, similar to our current affordable housing fund. And then local fund, housing dollars, may not seem like 12, or 1. Sorry. The $1.2 million may not seem like a lot, but keep in mind, a lot of that can be leveraged 2, 3, and sometimes 4 times, with state and federal funds. Sue… Staff prepared a racial equity assessment and a public engagement plan, which is in your memo.

[186:00] Typical… typically, residents of Affordable Housing Boulder are more racially, ethnically, and economically diverse compared to the general population. Residents of affordable housing are also more diverse in their ability status. So, just research has shown that housing is key to reducing intergenerational poverty and increasing economic mobility. And a tool, like this is an important one in helping to address some of these inequalities and also meeting our affordable housing objectives. So I'll show you another goal, or example. So this is a before and after, and this was in northwest Boulder. Approximately, the home on the left is about 3,000 square feet. It was completely demolished. It was built in 1956. It was replaced with a 8,500 square foot home. It was on a vacant lot. Or if it was on a vacant lot, the cash-in-lieu contribution would have been $130,000.

[187:05] they paid nothing, because it was a demo and a replacement. With an impact fee, that additional $5,500 a square feet at $15 per square foot would be about $82,000. How big did you say being? 8,500. Yep. So, additional 500… 5,500. So that's a demo build example. It's a bit extreme. And here's another example of an addition. So they just added space to this one, it wasn't actually demolished. This was in northwest Boulder, approximately 3,000 square foot home. Built in 1956. That was the last one. This is a 30… was a 3,500 square foot home. They did an addition of 14… of almost 1,500 square feet.

[188:00] I got a credit for 500. So even with this pretty significant addition, The impact fee would, like, be close to, $15,000. So, with that, we… Key question for you is, do you have any recommended modifications to the ordinance? Here's some ordinance language for you. Hearing schedule, we are scheduled for City Council October 9th and October 23rd. January 31st would be the effective date. Allow staff some time to, figure out how to implement this, hopefully seamlessly. And also the development community. To become, familiar with it, and then… Have any questions? And if it makes your job any easier tonight. Planning Board isn't required to make a recommendation on this because it's not Title IX. What?

[189:01] knowing this planning board pretty well, I think we're gonna have some input. But first, before input, and I want to emphasize that, we have clarifying questions, and ML has… has leapt to the fore with the first person with their hand up. ML. Leaping here. Jake, can you, just remind real quickly, I know you said it, and it just doesn't ever stick. Why IH fees don't apply? Do they not apply to single-family residences, period? Inclusionary housing only applies to new units added. Got it. Okay, and for clarification, The Nexus study does not use actual Boulder data, is that correct? I'm sorry, say that again? The Nexus study, so the data that it collects It's not actually Boulder data, is that correct?

[190:01] No, it is Boulder data. Isn't there an analysis? Yep. from… For example, that example you gave about the, Costs? for X number of square feet. Was that based on actual additions and… scrapes and remodels that were done in the City of Boulder. You're talking about the chart of sample fees based on… Correct. Yeah, that was… are you asking about the 700 square feet, specifically? Yes. Yes. So we talked about that last week. That's sort of our best guess as to what… The cost per square foot. No, I'm asking about… on that chart, it came to the conclusion that there were so many units, or so much, conversion.

[191:01] Of… that were additions, so many conversions that were scrapes, and this… and thus the projection of how much money could be. And they… are those based on actual Factual data of… the scene in Boulder. Yes, so it's based on permit data over the last 5 years. Okay. I thought that there was something about the nexus that, was based on general Similar, but not local. Data. Not the case? It is local, but the methodology is broadly used across the country. Okay. Alright, those are my questions, thank you. Kurt? Thanks, Jay. Just a couple of questions. First of all, in the public comment, there was a fair bit of discussion about the inclusion of basement square footage, and my understanding is this is not including basements, is that correct?

[192:08] That is a great question. So we're working on clarification with the consultant right now. Whether or not the analysis actually does include the basement, or below grade, so… We expect to have clarification before it goes to City Council. But there are two possible outcomes. So either we, because currently the, the way we assess an impact fee for water, sewer, everything else, is Regardless of whether or not it's above grade or below grade. But the analysis does seem to indicate that it's focused on above grade. Which I'm not entirely clear because it's based on sales price, and sales prices of homes don't differentiate between above-grade and below grade. Anyway, there are two potential outcomes. We lower the fee to, basically, using the same math, to closer to $10 a square foot.

[193:04] And apply it to all square footage, or we keep the higher fee, or the proposed fee of $15, and only apply it to above grade. So those are the two options. Go ahead. We'd have to have the consultant on board and the study updated for us to legally rely on that to include below grade. Does that make sense? That's why we need to consult the consultant. Well, and… and I guess the… the report is not… Fully clear one way or the other. Is it? Okay. Yeah. Much to my regret. Yeah. Yeah. No problem. The other question is, this only, sort of following up a conversation from the past item, this really only applies if you are… in terms of a demolition and new construction, if you're going from a detached single unit to a detached single unit, right? If you're, say, demolishing a detached single unit and you're putting up multiple units, then that's already covered by the IH fee. Correct. Right?

[194:14] And what about if you took… This happened not too long ago in my neighborhood. Somebody took an existing duplex, demolished it, and created a very large Detached single-unit dwelling. Would that… would… would this… IHV apply in that case? It would, because it's a single family. So what matters is what it's going to. Okay. Gotcha. Great, thank you. Claudia? Nope. Two questions. If we currently exempt additions up to 200 square feet from existing impact fees.

[195:03] What is the rationale for increasing that exemption to 500 square feet for this particular fee? So, I would say it's twofold. So, the consultant is recommending 500 square feet. Because it's difficult to justify that anything less has an impact on the creation of demand for affordable housing. So if you're adding… You know, 100 or 200 square feet, to your home. It may not be a strong indicator that your income has risen dramatically. And then the other part of it is, a desire not to impact people of more modest means, so I think we heard that quite a bit. You know, sort of the middle-income households in Boulder. Who just want to do a simple addition to make their very small home that they paid a lot of money for, more livable. So… Okay, so a threshold thing, and then impacts on middle income. Okay.

[196:02] Other question is, I have in my notes that Somewhere in the memo, it mentioned that there was an inflation escalator in this proposal, but I didn't actually see that in the draft code language. So, is there an inflation escalator? Yeah, so all the impact fees, are increased every year based on a specific formula. That's in the code, and it looks like Laurel knows exactly where. It's like a… it's through the budget process. They update all of the fees across the city, including impact fees every year. Okay, so we would not expect to see it in the particular code revisions. They'll just update it every year for the budget process. Okay, great, thank you. That's it. Laura? I also have just two questions. And thank you, Jay. Thank you so much for stepping in tonight. You did a great job, and thank you, Sloan, for the work behind the scenes. Really appreciate you bringing this forward. First question. Is there any kind of maximum fee or a cap on how much square footage this would apply to? I didn't see it in the ordinance.

[197:06] No, so the… all the other impact fees have a maximum at 3,700 square feet. So, if you build something larger than that, you pay one flat fee. Because the thought was, with water and sewer, there's only so much impact. That it… The additional impact diminishes with the larger the size. Housing is very different. The larger the house has a direct correlation to additional, need for affordable housing. So… The consultant has basically said, you can charge the fee based on square foot with no cap. Good to know, thank you. And then, last question. In previous discussions, I think there was some talk about exempting rebuilds after disaster. And, that's not included in this, as far as I can tell. Do you want to talk about why it's not? Because I feel like that might come up.

[198:04] Yeah, so basically the… it's the credit you get for any sort of demolition. So it's the same if it's lost to a fire, or if you intentionally demolish it. So you get a credit for the… whatever the square footage of the home was before. So that… it's basically already addressed. Does that make sense? Okay, thank you. It's only if you take advantage of the rebuild to go bigger that you would have to pay the fee. Okay, thank you. But even then, you would get… 500 square feet. Where you… of additional space that you wouldn't be charged for. So there's some flexibility to allow you to do that without being penalized. Okay, so you get credit for… so if my 1500 square foot house was lost to fire, we'd get credit for that 1,500 square feet, and we could also do up to 500 feet more without paying the fee. Then it'd be considered an addition, yep. Okay, not that we would do that, but okay, thank you.

[199:03] You don't have any. Okay. Amazing. Okay. I do, Thank you for the presentation, Jay. In the table, Table 1, Sample Impact Fees, if And this may be where Sloan can… quickly calculate this and put it in the chat, or text it to you or something. If I was to build four 1,000 square foot, two-bedroom units. Single building. I'm gonna build a quad. Two flats. up and down, and I'm gonna build 4,000 square feet of new building. I've got a budget of $2.8 million. What would my, what would I pay Into the inclusionary housing fee. It's based on square footage. It's roughly $15 per square foot. It's 15, I think, $34. So you could do some quick math on your phone. So, but it's… and the calculation here in the table for the 4,000 square foot unit is based on 15 bucks, so you're saying it's…

[200:13] It's a little… it's marginally greater, but not significantly greater for the four… two-bedroom units versus one 4,000 square foot house. I'm sorry, wouldn't that fall under the existing inclusionary housing ordinance and not this one? Yeah, that's what I'm asking. Oh, okay. Yeah, no, I'm asking what the existing inclusionary housing ordinance Would require that, that developer, that person, To pay, and you're saying It's less than 16, it's more than 15. Correct. So, yeah, the inclusionary housing per square foot, is a little bit higher, the I… the impact fee would be 15… The inclusionary housing is 1534, I want to say.

[201:01] But also keep in mind that that table doesn't quite match up, because it's subtracting out 500 square feet for additions. Right. So you… so it is going to be a little bit less, but that's what the impact fee… the Nexus study supports. But keep in mind, so the… the big change that we made to the inclusionary housing regulations last time was that it used to be based on units. So if you… your same example, 4 1,000 square foot units would pay significantly more under the old system than they do now. So we designed it so that a single dwelling unit would pay, if it was 4,000 square feet, would pay the same fee as 4 units that are 1,000 square feet. Okay, great, thank you. Next question is, And again, I can't cite the page number, but somewhere in here, specifically, I believe it was in the consultant's report. They said that they wanted to stick with a $15, flat rate fee versus a progression.

[202:05] because it's simpler, and a progression would be too complex. So my question is, am I missing something, or is it just a formula and a spreadsheet that would be… and we already have an inclusionary… a pretty extensive inclusionary housing spreadsheet. Is there… is there some complexity that I'm missing in regard to not having a… A progression. Yeah, and you brought this up way back in February. We did explore it, and we talked with the consultant about it. Partially, complexity is it, but it has more to do with whether or not it would survive challenge. So the legality of charging, a progressive fee? Has… and maybe Laurel can help me a little bit here, but, essentially. charging people because they can afford it more is legally questionable. Maybe you can say that. Right, because impact fees, we have to do it based on what we are trying to mitigate, not necessarily, like, the cost of how much somebody makes, or trying to make up for inclusionary housing fees, or anything like that. It's all about…

[203:14] We are trying to mitigate affordable housing, and what that nexus study is for… for that. So it does become legally questionable. I think under the Sheetz decision, there's some language in there about… Being really careful to tie that nexus to your fee. Does that help? It, it does, and in fact, that's… those are my two questions. K. Okay, ML has her hand… has both hands up, her virtual… all three. Okay. You go, ML. Jay, I have one, kind of clarifying question. In the IH, regulations, and I think we look at this Now and again, as a board,

[204:01] There is currently an exemption for an existing house. And if that were to go away from the IH, regulations so that you don't get exempt if you're just a single house. Would this, impact fee go away? Since they would be, subject to the inclusionary housing? Well, they're, they're separate. regulations. So, either IH applies, or the impact fee would apply. Right, but right now, IH, exempts a single house, right? You have a project, like you showed in your slides. You have a project that has a single house on it. And if you rebuild a single house, you don't pay IH fees. Because that's exempt from IH. And so these would kick in. But if the IH program were amended so that there was no longer a waiver

[205:04] An exemption for, a single-family house, but you… if you… erase a building, and you've got just dirt, and then you're building back, you pay for all the buildings that you built. If that were to happen. Would this impact fee no longer be necessary? Because they would be subject to de-inclusionary housing. Are you… ML, are you asking… so if we get rid of the IH waiver, we couldn't have the IH waiver and the impact be at the same time? Well, I'm just wondering… Yeah, because… because… The impact fee is there to try and address affordable housing, and if the IH waiver is gone, and now we use that for getting funds for affordable housing, it seems like it would defeat the purpose of that impact fee. Okay, so… I don't know what you think, Jay, but… Yeah, and I would say the waiver isn't going anywhere, because it's one of the underpinnings of our IH program.

[206:00] So, you can't charge, a 25% IH requirement on less than 4 units, right? Because you can't require less than a hole. So that's why that exemption is in there, and allows for, those homes to be rebuilt. So it's not likely that we would change that without risking the inclusionary housing program. Okay, I know that the thinking comes up, and so I was curious, but thank you for answering that. That's my only question. Okay, Laura? I just wanted to comment, isn't the inclusionary housing fee, the impact study is based on the addition of new units of housing, and so you… you can't include a scrape and rebuild, because it's not a new unit? So it doesn't seem like it would be possible to change that about the IH program Because it conflicts with the whole Nexus study for that program. So, inclusionary housing isn't based on a nexus study. It's actually a police power. It's basically part of our zoning authority.

[207:07] So, that's the distinction. I did not know that. Thank you for that clarification. But, but why can't that apply in this case, then? Demolitions? And additions? Yeah, why… Yeah. Why can't we use police power, the same police powers, to impose… a fee. I believe… so correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the idea of the IH was, if you're going to add more housing to the city, more units to the city, than we want you to pay into affordable housing as well. It's kind of a similar idea, except when single family, if you're replacing single family with single family, you're not actually adding more units, so it doesn't really work with the way the IH program is just structured. And so an impact fee instead is saying, you're still impacting

[208:04] Affordable housing, because you're creating this bigger house. or bigger, location, so we're still trying to get a similar idea, but the way that I had just structured, I think it just doesn't work. Thank you. See what you learned? Isn't this fascinating? It is. Okay. There's probably some old memos we could dig up if you want to learn more. Oh, yeah. That's fine, thank you. Okay, last call for clarifying questions. Great. Thank you all. We are going to open our public hearing, and I believe we have one person in the room. And I don't know about anyone online, but we always take, in-person first. Come up and, we'll, state your name, and, And we'll start a timer for you. Oh, oh, I'm sorry, turn on your microphone, so on, on the little… yep, there you go.

[209:03] Hello? Yep. And lean in and… Alright. Okay. Say it. My name's Robert Ross. Good evening. I'm here tonight to urge you to reject the proposed impact fee on all home additions and demolitions because of the entire proposal rests on a single, deeply flawed document, the Nexus Study. The study is not just a minor part of the proposal, it is the sole justification for it, and it is analytically unsound and legally indefensible. First, the study's analytical foundation is built on a speculative theory that is flawed at every step. It makes three critical errors. It incorrectly treats wealth as income, it ignores the fact that spending by high-income households largely leaks out of our local economy. And it uses the RIMS2 economic model, which is known to produce inflated job numbers. A policy built on such a faulty economic model cannot be sound.

[210:00] Second, the Nexus study is completely disconnected from the reality of our city. It bases its entire fee structure on the assumption that new workers generated by home construction will need housing in Boulder, but we know the reality. More than half of Boulder's low-wage workforce already lives elsewhere and commutes in. This fee won't house a new workforce, it will simply raise housing costs for everyone by basing a tax on a reality that doesn't exist. Third, because the Nexus study is so speculative, the fee it proposes is legally indefensible. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed just last year that impact fees must be directly proportional to the specific impact of an individual project. A fee based on a flawed citywide theory about housing demand does not meet the strict constitutional test. Adopting it invites a costly and likely successful lawsuit against the city. Also, the city cannot claim to have a mandate for a fee based on such a questionable study. The staff memo notes that after months of outreach, the proposal has received formal comments from only 27 people. For a city of our size, this isn't consensus.

[211:05] It is a sign that the vast majority of residents have no idea a new fee is even being considered. Ultimately, you're asking about 50 to 80 homeowners a year to pay $1.2 million based on the flawed conclusions of this one study. It's a punitive tax on families who are investing in Boulder's aging housing stock. And I will add, you guys talk a lot about developers in this, not the homeowners who are doing these types of things. But because of the Nexus study. fails… oh, sorry. Because the Nexus study fails every test, analytical, factual, and legal, I urge you to reject the proposal and pursue solutions that truly address our shared goals. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see anyone else in the room, and Thomas, you're gonna check online for us. Yeah, we do have one raised hand online, and that's Lynn Siegel. Lynn, you can go ahead and speak.

[212:03] I'll start your timer. Absent a, graduated income tax? This… this is nothing. $15 for $700 a square foot? Hello? What's wrong with this picture? Should be at least 100 bucks a square foot. Probably a lot more. It's outrageous what is gonna happen with this Trump administration. We aren't gonna have an economy anymore pretty soon. The housing market's gonna drop out entirely. And the argument of the guy before me is just… Ludicrous. When stuff costs more for people, you know, another $100,000 for their job, They eat it. It's an illusion to say they're gonna pass it on, because they're not gonna pass it on, because we don't have a housing market anymore. Coming right around the corner, with this Trump economy, is gonna fall through the bottom. It's gonna be a meltdown, big time.

[213:17] You need to do a serious job on this, impact fee. And we need a graduated income tax. That's what we really need in this community. And the obscene starvation of a whole community of people, the Palestinians, they did nothing. to the Jews. This is just outrageous, that we have this fighting over money in Boulder. When we have babies starving, no water, Massive genocide.

[214:00] It's obscene. This impact fee should be much, much higher. Otherwise, I mean, I support having an impact fee. But not this measly $15 a square foot. It's outrageous that you'd even consider it. And this… I don't know the Nexus study, but the Nexus study needs to be a lot at scale, a lot larger than that… than this. It's not going to impact Boulder's housing market at all. And we've got, you know, I was just earlier tonight at the mental health issue, panel regarding the homeless… homeless community for youth that's closing in Boulder. We need impact fees big time from these developers that are causing this problem, because the housing is so unaffordable that people are removed from their housing, they're in despair, and then they have mental conditions that are impossible to take care of. We haven't got the money. Get out of Gaza.

[215:10] Free pellets. Thank you, Lynn. Okay, that closes the public hearing. And we'll move on to board deliberation, and I think, I'm looking at the packet, and unless you've prepared something different. The key question is, does the Planning Board recommend any modifications to the draft ordinance. There we go. Thank you. So, and then… So, we can have a first round of comment, and then… And then… If we want to make any motions, we can, and they may take any number of forms, as evidenced by the last… our last item. So… Who wants to go first with this planning board recommend any modification to the draft ordinance?

[216:06] Claudio? Okay. I'd be happy to speak first. First of all, thank you to staff for work on this ordinance. I just say off the top that I support moving this forward to close the loophole that we have created for single-unit homes in our inclusionary housing program. And if some market rate development is paying into this fund, then I think all market rate development should be doing so, and particularly the more expensive homes in our community. I think most of our discussion throughout this process has rightly been about how we do that. And… I think we have arrived at a good place there. I appreciate that the draft ordinance responds to a lot of concerns that we raised in earlier discussion, for example, around exemptions for ADUs and smaller homes, as well as for small additions that are more about adapting existing housing stock than fundamentally reconstructing it.

[217:04] What you've presented to us here tonight appears to be targeted at large homes and substantial expansions. These are projects that are not likely to be undertaken by middle- or low-income households, and so I think it passes an important equity test. I think it's also a simple policy, no sliding fees, no use of escrow accounts. And those things are positive in my mind. Very few people want to pay a fee, of course, but I think when we impose these fees, we should be looking for programs that are easy to understand and to administer, so I think it passes that test, too. I think there could be an argument for lowering the size of an edition that receives an exemption. 500 square feet is, after all, 2 bedrooms and a full bath. That is not a small project, but I will not withhold support based on the recommended threshold.

[218:00] Kurt? Well, that was extremely well said. I completely agree with that, so I won't repeat any of that. I will just say that I do feel that, although I'm certainly not an expert in these nexus studies, it seems like the GGA nexus study does show that development causes impacts on the affordable housing demand, and that this fee is their best estimate of the cost of mitigating the impacts. of that development, and so there's a rational nexus, there's rough proportionality, and it certainly would appear to me that it meets, the legal muster on that… on that basis, so I will be supporting this. Laura, go ahead, and then we'll, follow with ML. I will also try not to be repetitive. I agree 100% with both Claudia and Kurt's comments. I do support the ordinance as written. I think it has struck the right balance by exempting home types that we want to encourage, which are our ADUs and the small rebuilds and the small additions.

[219:15] And I appreciate that it will avoid disproportionately impacting community members with more limited incomes, but more importantly, it conforms to the logic of the NEXUS study, since these smaller homes and ADUs are not likely to be occupied by high-income families that create the demand for more affordable housing, as detailed in the Nexus study. So, nexus study and legal justification, apart, because I do agree with Kurt that it passes that test, I do want to take a moment and speak about some of the very sobering facts that have been reported with the Nexus study. It confirms that we are losing homes in the affordable range in Boulder through these scrapes and rebuilds faster than we are replacing them. It notes that the new and expanded homes typically increase in value by $875,000 to $3.5 million. This is at least double, or sometimes several times, what we estimate a middle-income family can afford in a mortgage.

[220:11] And similarly, it notes that the average annual income required to purchase these homes is $200,000 to $640,000 per year, higher than the income required to purchase the smaller homes that they replace. The average annual median income for a middle-class family of four in Boulder is about $100,000 per year. And so this, again, to me, is evidence that significant home rebuilds and additions will take a somewhat affordable home and price it out of the range of even Boulder's middle class. I say these things because it shows that this ordinance has benefits for our community. aside from the ability to pass that legal test. I also want to note that the fees that will result from this ordinance are in line with the fees already paid by new multifamily construction or a new unit on a vacant lot, and I agree with my colleagues that as a matter of equity, it is only fair that we look at, charging the same for single units that are rebuilt or significantly expanded.

[221:15] And also, just want to note that the fees typically amount to less than 1% or 2% of typical construction costs, which is unlikely to be prohibitive for anyone who is contemplating this kind of development. So I do think the ordinance is a small but helpful step towards equity and increasing Boulder's ability to provide homes that are affordable to low, moderate, and middle-income families that we desperately need. So, thank you very much to staff for bringing this forward and, and exploring all of the ways in which we contribute to our affordable housing stock in Boulder. Great, thank you, Laura. And Mel, are you… I'm… I'm… I'm here. Okay, great. Okay. Okay, so, So the premise of this impact fee, that, larger houses pay for their out-of-proportion impact, it does resonate with me. However, the impacts that I found most significant are to the environment, not to the economy.

[222:13] Impacts such as the increase of the heat island by the huge footprint and associated pavings, the loss of original trees because they were inconvenient, the significant amount of vehicle use, if you include all the deliveries, the coming and goings of window washer, house cleaners, landscapers, dog walkers, etc. And lastly, not to mention that many of these houses get new kitchens and bathrooms every 5 years. So, yes, there is an outsized impact of very large houses to the environment, the fabric of the neighborhood scale, and the economy. Is this impact fee going to capture this? Not really, but I think it's going to open the door to the real impacts, and that's the reason I'm going to support this. Let's get the subject of, the impacts of these,

[223:01] large houses on the table and into conversation. And perhaps we can find a way to truly manage the impact of these biggest houses. Yes, thank you for the work, but I think there's… this is the tip. Tip of the iceberg of the impact of these houses, so… Thank you, Jay, for the work of yourself and your department. Great, thanks, ML. Okay, I'm gonna make, I… concur. We have some unanimity here on this one, I believe, and the first thing I want to say is thank you for… it was not lost on me that when this came here last time. The 500 square foot was a threshold And if you exceeded it. you… you paid for the whole 500 square feet. It was not an exemption, and so you made that suggested change, and I think that's a… that's a really important change to have been made.

[224:02] you did not adopt my proposal for a progression, and as I looked at the table there. And again, I appreciate your answer that it is more… it's less about complexity, because it isn't… it's really not hard to have a progression that's, that's easily calculable. But I, I do appreciate, the question of risk, of whether or not it, it would create a, legal peril for the city. And I'll simply say this, if we have a nexus study, and the range is 15 to 23 that is justifiable, then 15 to 23 could be the range of progression. And I took that little table, and, and I took the 4,000 square foot, example. And so, if, if I was, if I, and, and it stepped.

[225:03] 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, just kind of like the right, number of teeth in a bicycle cog stepping up. At that 4,000 square foot, home, or addition. At 23, Would, rather than 15, Would pay an additional $39,500. So, I'm not going to make a motion and go through that tonight. I'll simply say that within the justifiable range of the Nexus study. We should have a progression. So, that's… I do want to clear some confusion over the range, though. I think that those ranges are for scenarios. Is that right? Oh, that's not a justifiable range. For, like… yeah, there's a reason for that. No, there are certain situations where 23 per square foot is justifiable. But, so the recommendation is for the lowest number, because then that fits all the different scenarios.

[226:05] So, it's legally defensible at 15. If it's anything above 15, It's not. And what do we mean by scenarios? It's like… So there… the report had 3 different scenarios, and I wish I could… I could pull it up. Do you want to read it, if you want me to. But basically, just… different redevelopment scenarios of different sizes, different sized lots, different sized homes. So, it was not that… impact fees for development in Boulder, according to… The study were justifiable in the range of 15 to 23, it was under very specific scenarios, you might have got it. Okay, thanks. Well, I'll just drop that topic, but, anyway, I support the work, and and I continue to wish there was some way to actually as people… go into…

[227:02] 4,000, 5,000 square foot additions, etc, that there was a way to step it up. But… Seeing that, there's not, That's the end of my comments, so thanks you for your good work. Any, any other final comments before we, okay. Looks like we have some motion language up on the screen. I move. Okay. That Planning Board recommend that City Council adopt Ordinance 8712, amending Chapter 4-20, Fees, and Chapter 8-9, Capital Facility Impact Fee. By the addition of a new affordable housing impact fee rate for certain single-unit dwelling developments and setting forth related details. I second. Okay. As motion maker, do you have any comments? Any… No additional comments. No additional comments. And Laura? I think it's all been said. Okay. Any other board member have any final comments before we vote?

[228:13] Okay. Left to right. Laura. Yes. Claudia? Yes. Kurt? Yes. ML? Yes. And I'm a yes. Okay. Congratulations! Okay, I'm going to close out item 5A. And, charles, when he, when… before the meeting began, informed me that he was leaving, Brad's not here, and so, Laurel, do you have anything from the city attorney's office? Nothing from the attorney's office. Okay. At this moment, though. And Charles didn't think there was anything from…

[229:01] Planning and Development Services staff, just regular staff? The only thing I can think of is their reminder about… oh, maybe there's somebody's hand up. The only thing I can think of is there's a reminder that November has some canceled meetings, so just to pay attention to the calendar because of the election, and there's a holiday in there, so just to pay attention to those meeting dates, yeah. Okay, and for… and so, we can all visit the calendar that you, Update on the website. And, so keep track of that, and you'll, Keep us informed about other meetings that might be, canceled. Yes, and we do have the tentative one still scheduled in November for the for Thanksgiving week, we haven't taken an action to cancel that yet, but… I… I believe they are wanting to leave that open in case it's absolutely necessary to schedule something on that, although we are going to… Yeah, maybe we could talk about it during the next planning board meeting when Brad's here. We're going to avoid putting anything on that meeting, and… if possible.

[230:05] So yeah, so we might take a survey on who's here. When Brad's here. Okay, so, We discussed our, our, debrief, our calendar check, And, unless I hear an objection, I'm going to adjourn. Our planning board meeting. Okay, thank you all. Hi. Good night. Good night, folks.