Boulder City Council · Document
ATTACHMENT F_Summary of Community Comments
Regular Meeting, October 16, 2025 · item 5A: Second reading and consideration of a motion to adopt Ordinance 8721 amending Section 4-20-43, “Development Application Fees,” Title 6, “Hea… · 3 pages
This is the text extracted from the file, without its layout, tables, or images. Use the original for anything that matters.
Attachment F - Summary of Community Feedback
SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON WATERWISE LANDSCAPING The following comments were made in the community meetings: •
• • •
•
•
• • • • •
• •
Concern about layering on yet another round of regulations on Boulder in an increasing regulatory environment that feels more like “checking the boxes” rather than allowing innovation and doing what’s best for the project. Preference for the city to provide best practices over new regulations. Too many regulations may create the opposite effect where people circumvent the rules. It’s already very expensive to build in Boulder. Flexibility is needed since certain plant selections aren’t always available. Even native plants may not always be available at nurseries. There should be an increase in the use of rainwater gardens. Support for more deciduous trees as they are low flammability and shading adds to urban cooling and thus, conservation of water. More mature trees should be saved. Many low flammability deciduous trees did not burn in the recent LA fires. Concerns about smaller properties having to meet the 5-foot non-combustible zone (i.e., already adopted wildland code provision that prohibits new plants and combustible materials within five feet of new buildings and structures). Wildfire mitigation is expensive for property owners and common interest communities. One example: a large amount of juniper removals resulted in little money for maintenance for a local HOA. Inquiry on the larger goal of the project and advice to focus on the five biggest actions that can move the needle on water conservation and wildfire resilience. The information in the manual should be simple, visual, clear, and digestible. Barriers to turf conversion/removal should be removed to encourage replanting in line with city goals. Soil health is an issue for long-term success of plants. Maintenance is important and oftentimes, not well done. Weed invasion is a problem if plants aren’t installed close enough (consider target percentages) and many plants die after installation due to neglect. Biodiversity is important and should be encouraged.
Topics raised in community meetings: Regulations vs. Guidelines •
Mixed feelings about making landscape requirements regulatory.
•
Support for flexibility and best-practice guidance rather than rigid rules, especially due to plant availability, evolving fire/flood resilience knowledge, and high costs in Boulder.
Attachment F - Summary of Community Feedback
•
Concern that too many regulations create barriers, add costs, and shift focus from quality design to code compliance. May encourage people to find ways around rules.
•
Support for clear goals and regulations only when tied to meaningful outcomes (e.g., water conservation).
2. Plant Selection & Availability •
Need for a simple, accessible list of recommended plants/trees (e.g., “Top 10” list).
•
Native plant availability is a challenge—suggest engaging local nurseries to improve supply.
•
Interest in species that balance fire resistance, flood resilience, and water conservation (deep-root prairie grasses, deciduous trees, etc.).
•
Requests to preserve mature trees in new development.
3. Conflicting Resilience Goals •
Tension between flood resilience and fire resistance—need to address tradeoffs in standards.
•
Requests for more options to infiltrate water on-site (e.g., rain gardens).
4. HOA and Equity Considerations •
Questions about whether standards would override HOA rules.
•
Equity concerns—small-lot homeowners may have limited flexibility under rules like the 5-foot setback.
•
HOAs face financial and logistical barriers to maintenance (e.g., mowing after juniper removal).
•
Suggest incentives and support for HOAs to remove turf and adopt sustainable landscaping.
5. Implementation & Communication
Attachment F - Summary of Community Feedback
•
Desire for a separate, user-friendly landscape manual—visual, clear, adaptable, and easy to navigate.
•
Need for efficient, simple compliance review templates.
•
Flexibility for variances when industry or site constraints make full compliance difficult.
•
Value in city staff being approachable for project-specific solutions.
6. Public Leadership & Demonstration •
City should model best practices in public spaces (e.g., Violet Park, Civic Area Park) to inspire and educate.
•
Opportunities to use city projects as living demonstrations of resilient and beautiful landscaping.
7. Creative & Practical Ideas •
Use goats for meadow maintenance.
•
Encourage turf and juniper removal with minimal red tape.
•
Explore ways to address water billing transparency in HOAs to incentivize reduced irrigation.