Transcript

0:00:26All right. Commissioners, are you ready? Yes, we are, Jerry, thank you. And we are recording. Good morning. Today is February 26, 2026. This is a meeting of the Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County. We have all three commissioners present in the hearing room this morning. And we have two items on our agenda. The first is a public hearing on a land use application. And we will start with that. And this is lu-25-0011-espr-25-0077-staff-recommendation.pdf - 25 - 0011 and ESPR - 25 - 0077. And this is for an agricultural worker ADU. We have Pete LaRange here this morning. Our planner, I'll just explain how we run our land use hearings. These are quasi - judicial hearings. So Pete will have up to 20 minutes to go through the application, the analysis of the relevant regulations. The commissioners will have some questions, maybe, or maybe not. For Pete. And then the applicant will have up to 20 minutes to tell us all about their project and anything else that you'd like to share with us. Commissioners, again, may or may not have questions. We'll then take testimony from members of the public on this case, starting with those in the hearing room, going to those who have joined us online. We allow three minutes per person for public testimony on our land use cases, and we do

0:02:05allow for pool testimony after all of that. And we've been fully informed by members of the public, then our planner will have an opportunity to address any thing that came up in that public comment or by the applicant, the applicant will have the last word before we deliberate and make a decision. And we always start with an opportunity for any disclosures from the commissioners on anything that they may know in particular about this case. I have no disclosures. Thank you. I have none either. So with that, Pete, we'll go ahead and get started. Thank you, Commissioners. Pete Larange Community Planning and Permitting. This is Doc - Git - L - U - 25 - 0011 - ESPR - 25 - 0077. The Cover Agricultural Worker ADU at 10, 929 Oxford Road. The applicants and owner's are Ben and Lisa Cover. Danielle Lynn with In Context Architecture. Is their architect on this? The parcel is zoned agricultural, and it's approximately five acres. It is a legal building lot. There is an existing 5, 925 square foot residence and 1, 106 square feet of agricultural floor area.

0:03:24This is a limited impact special review for an agricultural worker accessory dwelling unit. And expedited site plan review for an agricultural structure on the parcel. Here's the location map showing the parcel on the north side of Oxford Road. Little Waze east of US 287 with the luggage ditch running along the Western property line. Here's an aerial image. The comprehensive plan shows that the parcel is located in agricultural lands of national importance, as well as the East County Environmental Conservation Area. There's a small section of riparian area in the far northwest corner. And there's a few shed protection score of 1. 98 out of five along Oxford Road. Public Lance map, you can see that the parcel is encumbered by a County Conservation Eastment. There are a couple other conservation easements immediately adjacent. And then it is generally surrounded by County Open Space. There is a plaidded subdivision on the west side of 287 nearby. And finally, the zoning map, again, just indicating that this is owned agricultural. The applicant submitted their narrative. It's in the staff recommendation packet, so I'm not going to go through all of it, but just briefly, they are asking for the agricultural worker ADU in order to facilitate increased operations on their, uh, on their farm. Uh, including ramping up to 40 plus egg chickens, 100 plus meat chickens, 10

0:05:01plus, uh, pigs, uh, and orchard with 10 or more trees, additional beehives, and vegetable and berry gardens, uh, up to about a thousand square feet. So again, this is all in the staff recommendation packet and the application materials. I've left the slides in here, uh, in case we need to come back to them, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time. Here is the site plan as submitted by the applicants. The image on the left is the overall site plan showing the entire parcel. The image on the right is a zoomed in detail, uh, showing, uh, generally where the proposed activities are, the kind of purple box at the very top kind of right corner is the proposed location for the ADU. Uh, locations, uh, surrounding it. Here are the elevations. These are revised elevations. Uh, during the course of the review, staff had some comments. Uh, that necessitated changing the design. So these are the revised elevations based on those conversations, uh, and they are the ones under consideration, uh, again, they are also in the staff packet. So you have the North elevation on the left and the west elevation on the right. The West elevation is the one that would look towards 287. And then the south and east elevations.

0:06:24Uh, the applicants also submitted also submitted floor plans. So this is the upper level, uh, with the living area for the ag worker ADU and a covered porch area. And then these are the, uh, revised, uh, floor plans for the main level on the left, which is the barn area, the agricultural floor area. And then the lower level or basement on the right, which is included as part of the ag worker ADU floor area. Site photos. So this is looking generally Northwest at some of the existing structures, uh, that will be removed as part of this proposal. And then looking west, the proposed location of the ADU is more or less where that mound of dirt is. So that gives you a convenient landmark. Some images of the various, uh, equipment and materials that are proposed to be used in the barn portion. This is looking northwest towards the adjacent parcel. So that barn is on the neighboring parcel to the north. And you can see some of the ghosts running around on the parcel.

0:07:28Um, according to the applicant, they thought I was the vet. So they didn't come to say hello, which was a disappointment. But, um, this is looking west towards the front range. There's kind of a, if you can kind of see a white line in the middle, down here. That is 287. So that gives you an idea of the distance to that public road. This is looking, uh, from the property towards Oxford Road, the main house is kind of behind my right shoulder. And then this is looking from the driveway back up into the property. Uh, this is a, uh, screen grab of street view from 287. You can see the little red circle there. That's the approximate location of the proposed structure. Uh, and Steph did approximate mockup of what that would look like. Um, just to give you a context of again, what the visual impacts might be. Stefan, for this application out via the standard procedures, uh, we receive responses from the agency's listed there. And those are summarized in the staff recommendation packet. We also received responses of no concern from those agencies. Steph did not receive any responses from the agencies listed there. And then staff received one public comment in support. Uh, the applicants also submitted three letters of support from their various food bank partners. And again, all of

0:08:53that is in the staff packet. Looking at the lu-25-0011-espr-25-0077-staff-recommendation.pdf criteria. So this is specifically for the ag worker ADU use, uh, ag worker ADUs are allowed, uh, in the agricultural zoning district if approved through the limited impact special review process. Staff reviewed it and the proposed structure does meet all setbacks. Um, Steph notes that the existing shed and loafing sheds must be deconstructed prior to the, well, staff recommends prior to the, uh, certificate of occupancy. That's in order for the property to meet the square footage, uh, restrictions of the conservation easement. So those, those structures have to go way too state under the maximum floor area. That's allowed under that CE. In addition to the lu-25-0011-espr-25-0077-staff-recommendation.pdf criteria staff evaluated the ag worker ADU additional provisions under Article 4 - 516H6 of the land use code, uh, looking at A, the applicant shall adequately demonstrate that the property size and nature of agricultural work on the property requires a second household. Uh, in this case, it is a relatively small parcel at five acres. However, the applicants are proposing a significant amount of, uh, agricultural activities as listed there and as I discussed earlier. Um, so staff found that between that and the type of work that was being provided, including supply chain logistics, irrigation, rotating of crops. And my husbandry production care and management of

0:10:24animals and soil. Maintenance and repair of equipment, bookkeeping and future expansions that the adequate, that the applicants had adequately demonstrated a need for a second household. So staff found that this provision was met, jumping to H6D, the accessory dwelling may be detached from the principal dwelling provided it is either closely clustered or where appropriate for the ag operations. In this case, the, uh, unit is proposed to be about 100 feet from the existing residence. Um, and but it's, it is clustered with the rest of the development. It's in a previously disturbed area and is adjacent to the agricultural operations. So staff found that this provision was met. And going to E, the accessory dwelling unit is limited to 1800 square feet. However, the board may approve covered porches that exceed those limitations. In this case, the living unit portion of the ADU is 692 square feet with 378 square feet of covered area. And then 1050 square feet of basement, all of which, uh, is again, considered part of the ADU. That brings them to a total of 1, 742 square feet plus the covered porch area. Um, Steph does recommend that the unit be limited to the 1800 square feet as condition of approval just for the sake of clarity. Um, staff also did request those revised plans because the original application showed, uh,

0:11:56an elevator that was, that would access the ADU and the barn, which we would consider to be internal communication. And in order to keep those two uses separate, we wanted to make sure that the elevator wasn't opening into the barn area. So the applicants revised the plan to create a little, uh, open vestibule, uh, on the outside. That means the elevator. Accesses outside and the ADU, but does not go into the barn area. And staff found that with that, uh, the ADU could be limited to the 1800 square feet. So with all that staff found that lu-25-0011-espr-25-0077-staff-recommendation.pdf criterion won as conditioned was met. Going to lu-25-0011-espr-25-0077-staff-recommendation.pdf criteria number three. The use will be in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Steph did identify several, uh, elements of the conference plan that were relevant to this application, including guiding principle five of maintaining rural character, uh, in this case, staff found that the continued egg operations did support the rural character of the county and of this portion. Likewise, agricultural elements, uh, policy AG - 103 national lands of national significance. Um, this is, as noted, agricultural lands of national significance. However, the application is supporting agricultural activities. Uh, in a previously disturbed area unclustered with other buildings. So staff found that, uh, it did not conflict with that policy. And policy AG 1. 12 land unification,

0:13:23uh, this policy encourages preventing, uh, fragmentation of agricultural lands, which is why we generally like to see things clustered and again, the applicants are doing that. So Stefan, it was consistent with that. And finally environmental resources element policy ER 3. 03 development inside environmental conservation areas. As noted, this application, uh, or this parcel is within the East County ECA. However, again, they're proposing the development in a previously disturbed area on an agricultural property and staff found that did not conflict with the, um, policy related to environmental conservation areas. So Steph found that this criterion was met. Going to number seven, the useful support multimodal transportation systems and not result in significant negative impacts. Staff has no concerns about the ADU causing any negative impacts to the transportation system. However, as referenced in the referral response from the development review team access and engineering, there are some improvements that will need to be made to the culvert. The driveway where it comes in off of Oxford, uh, and the ditch along, uh, Oxford Road there, uh, in order to meet the multimodal transportation standards. So staff recommended those as conditions of approval. But with those conditions, Stefan, that this criterion could be met. Going to number nine, the use will be adequately buffered or screened to mitigate any undue visual impacts. Uh, the applicants are proposing

0:14:53to use earth tone wood cladding for the siding and charcoal standing seam metal roof. Staff finds that these colors and materials are generally acceptable. Uh, however, in specific, uh, samples were not provided staff recommends that those be included as conditions of approval at building permit. And as noted, Stefa found it would be, uh, staines that it would be minimally visible for Oxford Road, largely due to the fact that the other houses, the main house would be in front of it. Um, and that it will be visible from 287. However, since it is separated by approximately 1500 feet and they are using the proposing to use those neutral colors, staff found it would not have any undue visual impact, uh, looking east. Uh, the applicants not provide any specific lighting information. So staff recommended that, uh, that be included as part of the building permit and that all lighting meets, uh, article, uh, 7, 1600 of the code. So with all that, staff found that the ag worker ADU use could meet all of the limited impact, uh, special review criteria, uh, and recommends approval of the use. Specifically the site plan review standards. This is related to the barn section since that doesn't fall under the, uh, ADU. It was reviewed under the SPR standards.

0:16:10Uh, in this case, Steph found that all of the standards, uh, one through 12 were either already met or were met as conditions of approval through the limited impact special use review, uh, criteria. Uh, but then finally, SPR standard A13 proposal shall be consistent with comp plan. Any applicable intergovernment agreements affecting land user development and this code. In this case, the barn portion does comply with the conservation easement. And it is an appropriate amount of flour agricultural floor space given the level of ag activities on the parcel. So as condition staff found that the proposal meets the code and comprehensive plan and there are no IgAs involved in this parcel. As such, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners conditionally approved Docket lu-25-0011-espr-25-0077-staff-recommendation.pdf - 25 - 0011 slash ESPR - 25 - 0077. Cover Ag Worker ADU subject to the conditions in the staff recommendation. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Pete. Questions. I have no questions. Thank you. Thank you.

0:17:20Thanks for the information and the presentation. I do have a couple of questions that I was trying to find the right patreon in this packet. I think just for me, a little bit of clarification of the understanding that the land use code has certain. Options for accessory dwelling units. And this is one of them. What I was trying to understand was, and in the application, I was looking at the narrative from applicants around the barn. And you just talked about the SPR criteria for the barn specifically. I'm just trying to understand how in your analysis one building altogether is the barn and the housing. If you could just walk me through that from the Code standpoint, it's reminded me of it differently. And you dot - it that we had a couple of weeks ago.

0:18:15I was just trying to, when I heard you talk about entrance and the changes and the elevator, um, to make sure that the accessibility and then the description. So I just, I had some confusion. I'll ask you specific questions around them. But if you could just start with that piece of how the land use code allows one building for both the barn and a house. Sure. Um, the Land East Code does not prohibit having two uses within a structure. Um, within a single structure, however, we, depending on building code requirements, it is, uh, almost always required to have, um, fire separation between the two levels of use because, uh, a barn has a different type of occupancy than a residence. So both of those have to be addressed, but they can be addressed through the, uh, building permit process. Uh, while it is unusual to have an egg worker ADU incorporated as part of another structure, it is possible. Uh, and, uh, there have been other dockets that, uh, did that, uh, in this case, part of the reason that it is designed the way it is, is because the conservation easement places specific restrictions on the, essentially the footprint square footage of accessory structures.

0:19:33So to meet the requirements of the conservation easement, the applicants couldn't do, say, a horizontal development with the ADU and the barn next to it. It all had to be kind of rolled into one. And this was the way, uh, they chose to do that. Uh, and staff found it's a little unusual, but can meet the requirements of the code. Okay. And I wondered if you could bring up, I was hoping I wrote down the note, but I think it was the site plan that had just a diagram of the ADU. And it looked like they're in the, in the diagram. And I don't know if there's been revised on this document as well. I believe the title was site plans. Let's see. That's the elevations. This one. Thank you. Yeah. That's great. So on the one that's on the right that has the proposed location of new barn, the way I'm reading that is that there's, who I'm reading this picture plus the narrative in the barn on, it looks like it's exhibit page A12, 41 of 83 of the packet. So the barn will be used for agricultural purposes with a primary function to house farm animals, tractors. And you showed us some pictures of the chapters and the other current, um, outbuildings and storage of any related materials tools and our supplies

0:20:49related to their respective care and upkeep. And then somewhere else in the narrative, it read to me that the person that's living upstairs in the 692 square foot AD use section of the ADU was also going to be able to use the basement underneath of their storage. In this diagram, it looks like there's going to be animals living right next to as well. So I'm just trying to understand. And I think part of it's from other land juice stockets where we hear, excuse me, neighbors, concerns, um, other concerns around animals, not just noise, but also methane and other issues of air pollution and things like that. And it looks to me the way that this is set up is that the animals are planned to be living in the main area, people living above that or a person the way it's set up for one bedroom could be one or two or more. Um, and then under right next door in this diagram looks like the animal cross. I just was wondering, and I don't know if there was any referral partners that might have had some, um, questions or, you know, ideas around mitigation if that was even a concern. Right. Um, yeah, the, the site plan is originally submitted the layout was based on the original floor plans. It did shift a little

0:22:09bit with the new floor plans. The Corral's got, uh, moved around a little bit. Uh, you can see the, the floor plans here. Yes, there are corrals, uh, paddocks. My mouse went away. Outside, um, so over here and kind of wrapping around. So they did shift around a little bit, uh, and there is proposed stall areas inside. And yes, the farm worker ADU, the occupants of that would be living above, uh, that, um, kind of the way the floor plan works out, you know, part of that would be covered porch. The rest of it would be the bedroom and bathroom area. That's kind of how they stack. Um, but in general, um, none of the referral agencies had any major didn't have any concerns about the two uses occupying the same space. Okay. Thank you.

0:23:06And Steph did not receive any public comments with any concerns about it. Great. Thank you. Those are, I think, oh, the other question I had was just in the, um, on the criteria around clustering. It was just curious in the applicants might have comments about this too. Um, just in regards to some of the buildings that we're going to be removed based on the conservation easement, those restrictions. If there was any discussion about using either that space and I haven't seen the property, haven't been there. So I don't know. Um, versus starting over and or it might be an overlap. In this case, um, no, it's not exactly the same footprint, but they are very close. So again, this picture shows two of the structures, uh, there on the right. And then the mound of dirt is where the proposed, uh, new barn and ADU would go. Stefton did not have any real concerns about trying to reuse that space. It's in an area that has previously been disturbed. Um, so Steph did not have any concerns related to that. That's helpful. And now once you said that again, that reminded me of, and it helps to see this picture to get the location, um, and what you've talking about is that it's already a disturbed space. Understanding that the restrictions of conservation easement require

0:24:24the demolition and decommissioning of building. And it's also, you know, it's too bad that we can't just reuse in some way all of that material. Um, but that's just a separate aside of, of the impact in these land use hearings and restrictions that put on there. Thank you. I don't have additional questions at this time. Great. Thank you. Okay. I just had one question, Pete. Thank you so much for all your work on this application. Uh, the inclusion of the, um, basement, um, floor area in the ag worker ADU from the description in the applicant's narrative of what that space will be used for. That seemed to me like something that would just be done in an ag accessory structure, storing the root cellar, um, all that stuff. Yeah. So I just wondered about that.

0:25:17Um, the, the applicants did indicate that part of that basement would also be used for personal storage for the tenant of the ADU. Um, and as such, staff found that it was appropriate to include it as part of the 1800 square feet allowed by the ADU provisions. Uh, even if they are also going to be storing, you know, some, uh, some, uh, some, you know, fertilizer or root cellar stuff in there. In theory, the applicants could, uh, have designed it such to split it off. So there's just personal storage. That is again, separated, uh, from the ag floor area in the basement, uh, but in this case, since the, the total was still coming in under the 1800 staff found that was appropriate and acceptable to just count the whole basement as, as part of the, uh, ag worker ADU square footage, um, since it would be useful storage in addition to egg. It's like we often require, um. Structures that are used to store a personal vehicle, even though they are also storing, you know, some minor farm equipment. We do consider those residential floor area. This is a similar situation. Okay. I mean, it just, it just did seem like most of what would be occurring down there really was accessory ag activities.

0:26:48But I think from your discussion of the elevator and other things, it sounds like if they actually wanted to limit the floor area that was counting towards the ADU, they'd have to wall it off and not have any. No, no internal communication. Yeah. So yeah. All right. Well, if we, if the applicants are satisfied with the configuration that I'm certainly not going to upset that apple cart, uh, here. Okay. Any other questions for Pete before we turn it to the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Please start by introducing yourself each of you before you speak just so the recording is clear. And, uh, so state your name. And then you'll see the timer up on the screen. You'll have 20 minutes. We'd love to hear what you have to say. Thank you. Uh, good morning. My name is Ben Cover and I live at 10 929 Oxford Road. I'm joined by my wife Lisa Cover. She lives at the same address. And we own that property together. First one, uh, start with just a quick round of, um, appreciation. Um, it's taken a lot of, uh, energy and effort to get to being here in this room with all of you, uh, today. A lot of effort from a lot of people. And I just like to, um, say thank you to a handful

0:28:09of folks before we get into a couple of opening comments. And then we like to try and transition actually straight to the Q and my experience that rather than presenting sometimes what's most meaningful and effective as having a conversation. And I think getting to the conversation, uh, sooner rather than later, uh, will be really helpful in this regard. So in terms of thanks, um, we'd like to thank our food bank partners. Um, again, just, uh, a quick recap. Um, we, um, we collect undistributed bull food from several local food banks, uh, that we use, um, to help feed our animals and or use as inputs, uh, for compost when that compost then gets used to help improve, uh, the soils and the vegetable beds and so on and so forth on our property. Um, it's actually a really, it's been a great partnership and it's a really big deal. And we can talk a little bit more about just how big of a deal it actually is with regards to our, uh, interest in being able to pursue the construction of this building. Um, but our, our, our food bank partners, uh, include St. John the Baptist Parish Food Bank in Longmont. Mr. Michael Merrill is the outreach coordinator there. And he's been a tremendous supporter. Uh, the round pantry at Westview Presbyterian Church. Nancy,

0:29:33her an anic is the facilitator, uh, there. And she also has been fantastic to work with, um, and, uh, Joanna toy is the co - director, um, uh, at the Erie community, uh, food bank in Erie. And she and her co - director, Robin and others have been a tremendous individuals to work with. We're very appreciative of all of their support. We're especially appreciative of the fact that all of them took time out of their very busy schedules to author letters of support that are in the packet that Pete helped pull together. Um, I hope you've had an opportunity to look at them because I do believe we do believe that they speak volumes, uh, with what it is that we are trying to achieve for the, uh, for the community. Um, a couple of other thanks. Um, we did receive a letter of, um, of support, uh, from a missed Audrey Reddingger, who is a graduate student at CU Boulder. That's also part of the, uh, packet. And we've never met Audrey before, but we were thrilled that she again took time out of her schedule to support this project. Um, we'd like to thank Pete. Pete's been great to work with, um, it's very interesting, you know, this we've done. This will be the third permitted project that we have done in Boulder

0:30:57County. So not our first rodeo. But this is the first time that we've, um, embarked on a project, uh, that, that had some additional complexities, uh, bringing us here in front of all of you, uh, today and have someone like Pete to help shepherd us through the process with some guidance and some coaching has been absolutely tremendous. So I just want to take a minute and thank Pete for all of his hard work. And obviously staff, uh, put a lot of time and energy into the consideration and review of, of this project given. It's got a couple of unique little pieces to it. It has been touched on. And just want to thank them for their, their efforts as well. Um, lastly, um, I believe Mr. Tim Cardin is here in the room with us.

0:31:40We want to thank Tim. Tim is with Parks in OpenSpace. We actually started this conversation with Tim, I think almost over a year ago. Um, making sure that our designs would be compliant with the terms and conditions of our conservation easement. Uh, I'd like to think that we've been good conservation easement stewards on our property. Um, and we can get a little bit more into that in just a moment as well. Um, but, um, the guidance from Tim has been very positive and very helpful. And it did result in several rounds of tweaks and adjustments, uh, but I do think that, um, uh, we, we did ultimately end up with a design that checked all the boxes, uh, for everyone. So, uh, lease and I are very, uh, very happy that we were able to arrive, um, at that for sure. Um, lastly, one, before I get into a couple of other quick comments, I'm just one brief correction. Uh, Kelly Deitman with Halcyon design is actually our, our architect. I know on that first slide or so, um, there was a name of somebody else. I don't know who that somebody else is. Uh, but Kelly Deitman is our architect. And she's been tremendous as well. Um, like I said, we like to try and get into a conversation, but we did have a

0:32:54couple of asks. So we'll, um, we'll start with a couple of asks and then we can kind of jump into any questions. Um, that you may have and we're happy to provide, uh, the needed clarity. I typically don't like to read right off the paper, but, um, in this case, uh, these two asks, I think we did pretty good job of trying to write them all down. So I'm just going to read it right off the paper, um, and then, um, we can come back and revisit any comments that you might, uh, that you might have. Um, the first one has to do with building height restrictions, uh, for our proposed structure. Um, there's a table at the bottom of page 21 that reads height maximum 29 feet from existing grade. Additionally, on Section B on the next page on page 22, it says because the proposed height of the structure is within two feet of the maximum allowed 30 feet above existing grade, a licensed surveyor must complete a height survey verification form. Okay.

0:33:56All that makes all that makes sense. Uh, the drawings, uh, included in our submission indicate that the ridgeline of the roof, sorry, this is, we're going to throw out a couple numbers. So hopefully this isn't too confusing. But the ridgeline of the roof is one foot and one inch lower than the 30 foot maximum. So Kelly and Lisa and I, we did that on, on purpose. If you know that the high restriction is 30, let's not build it all the way to 30. Let's give ourselves a little bit of, of wiggle room. So we did. We gave ourselves about a foot, a foot and an inch of wiggle room is what we had put into the drawing. Um, and again, so this would put the ridgeline at 28 feet, 11 inches. However, if the requirement from the county is that we do not exceed a 29 foot elevation as is stated in the, in the packet, I know that the building heights requirement is 30, but in the packet, it says that we're going to build it to 29. That only gives us one inch of wiggle room. Um, and that was a bit, um, concerning for us. So, um, uh, impractical terms, our intention is still to build to the 28 feet 11 inch as the building is designed and drawn. But in the

0:35:08event that there's a bit of variance in the finished height for whatever reason. Um, and we exceed that 28 feet, 11 inches. We would ask, uh, that there'd be no penalty or requirement of lowering the height as long as the finished framed height does not exceed the established County maximum of, of 30 feet. This could be any number of things from a construction perspective. You know, when we go to build it off by an inch or two, hopefully not too big of a deal. If the surveyor comes out, and again, I tend to be a bit of a pessimist. So when I look at it as a worst case scenario, let's say the survey company that we hire brings out, you know, Bob on the first day and he establishes, you know, the, the, um, the base level. And then Bob is sick by the time we're finished our project, are he's moved on to someplace else. And Joe comes out to do the measurement.

0:36:02And Bob and Joe tend to measure things just a little bitly differently than one another that measurement methodology, if there was some variance in that, we would like to again, just seek your approval to have a little bit of flexibility that as long as we build the structure, um, uh, to be under the county maximum of, of 30 feet, um, that we wouldn't be, um, penalized if we ended up at, you know, 29 feet or 29 foot two inches or, you know, something along those lines. All right. That's our first task. Um, our second ask, um, is, uh, with regards to the precondition on the issuance of our certificate of occupancy on page seven of the packet, there is a discussion about, uh, Parks and Open Space being amenable to supporting the delayed deconstruction of our existing outbuildings, uh, up to six months, um, after the new building is complete. Um, but it also goes on to say that planning staff recommends that deconstruction be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy.

0:37:09Uh, we respectfully request staff reconsider this, uh, approach or perhaps you all, as the commissioners reconsidered this, this approach. Um, and not have the certificate of occupancy preconditioned on the deconstruction of the outbuildings for the following reason. Um, as our property is encumbered by a conservation easement, uh, Boulder County regulations subject our property to a conservation easement audit, um, every other year. Um, additionally, the ramifications of not remaining compliant with the terms and conditions of our conservation easement put us at risk of fines and other penalties. Uh, furthermore, we're hoping to have, excuse me, we're hoping to have the new building completed in the winter of, you know, this, this coming winner, this coming December. So assuming, assuming winter next season is actually winter and not this crazy 60 degree winter that we are all experiencing, uh, right now. It could be a bit challenging to try and fully deconstruct those outbuildings, um, uh, in, in the debt of winter. Now whether or not they provide a safety issue for deconstruction in the debt of winter is definitely debatable. But, um, it could potentially be a challenge. Um, so, um, because there's already this, this conservation easement noncompliance penalty mechanism, if you will, uh, in place to incentivize us to deconstruct the outbuildings within six months as suggested by Parks and OpenSpace. We feel like

0:38:47that mechanism is already, that, that, um, incentive to make sure that those buildings are fully deconstructed. Um, is already, it's already in place. Um, and we would just like to have that flexibility, if at all possible, uh, to adopt, um, the approach that the Parks and Open Space, uh, folks have proposed providing a six month window allowing us to either deconstruct them or finish deconstructing them in the spring depending on, on what the weather conditions, um, may be. So, uh, that's our, that's our second ask. Um, the, um, I got two other quick pieces that actually came up as part of the, um, presentation that Pete was, was providing in some of the questions that you all had. Um, the, um, we would like to, um, ask for your support, uh, to maintain that covered porch on that, uh, on that upper floor. Um, that porch will not be enclosed by any stretch of the imagination. And it does provide some, um, much needed, uh, shade for that residence up on the second floor. Um, of the building, um, it also acts as a mechanism for helping to keep moisture, um, off of the building, uh, below, the barn below. And, um, if there's any, um, happy to participate in any discussion about how that may or may not impact, um, uh, the residential floor

0:40:27area as it relates to the, um, uh, to the ADU and or discussion about, um, how it, we, we were seeking to strive a balance with the design and to pizza in the comments about the limitations that we have. So when we talk about the basement, uh, it's all, it's all ADU as opposed to accessory, uh, uh, ag dwelling space. Um, if they're needed to be again, another tweak or an adjustment, uh, where you all felt that support of the porch required us to maybe make a tweak in the basement, um, we are happy to, uh, explore what that tweak might be so that everyone, uh, felt like, um, everything is as it should be. But, um, we would very much like to retain that covered porch, if at all possible. Um, and the last piece, um, which is not necessarily an ask. And commissioner Luchaman just mentioned just a moment ago this notion of, uh, deconstructing the buildings and it's somewhat unfortunate that we can't reuse some of the materials, um, as, as part of that. We actually are hoping to, to use the materials there. So as you can see in, or as you saw in the pictures, um, those are 440 year old buildings with old weathered corrugated metal sides and roof.

0:41:53We actually kind of think that corrugated metal stuff is pretty cool. And we would very much, our intention is to actually use it, um, as the interior, um, wall material for the inside of, um, of the barn. Um, it's nice, it's durable. It's already a little banged up. And so if you've got, you know, animals knocking into it or what have you, uh, it's not a big deal. And it looks really nice. And it kind of gives the building character plus it allows us to reuse and recycle, which we're big fans of reuse and recycle. Uh, so, um, our intention is to, to use that. Obviously that's kind of in terms of the construction process that happens at the end of construction, you know, finishing off all the finishing touches on the inside. So we wouldn't start to peel that off of those buildings until we got closer to the end. But we do absolutely hope to be able to reuse those, um, materials as much as, uh, as much as possible. So I just wanted to, um, add that as well. Um, I think those are the, like I said, those had asks that we had those are the comments that we had based on what Pete had shared. And do you have anything, Lisa? Um, we are happy to yield the remainder of

0:43:04our time. So we could have more open conversation. So there we go. Jefferson, thank you all for your time and for listening to us and considering our project, we really do sincerely appreciate it. No, thank you so much for that. And before I, uh, turn it over to my fellow Kunstner's for questions. I just, I do want to just appreciate, um, your acknowledgement of the hard work of our staff. And they're very diligent. They, um, their experts on this, uh, and I know that they try to treat every applicant individually and look at their case very carefully in Pete's one of our rock stars on this. So thank you for acknowledging the work of all of our staff commissioners. Any questions? I have one question. Thank you. Um, so. We all probably know, um, the alpha B Adams tunnel is the tunnel that our water comes through from the Colorado River to Carter Lake where many, many people get their water from in the front range. And it was completed in the 40s and they actually started digging the tunnel from both sides, uh, the Western slope and the eastern slope. And, you know, it's like 13 or 14 miles long, something like that. And when they met in the middle, digging it from both sides, they were less than a quarters, um, diameter. Like

0:44:21if you turn a quarter onto its side off from center to center point when they met in the middle in the 40s. So with that in mind, I'm just wondering what https://boco.org/Weeds of things you're anticipating needing a foot and an inch on the height. Like that just sounds like a lot of like, I'm just trying to understand what are the https://boco.org/Weeds of things you're anticipating coming up that there would be that much variability when you're calculating the height of the structure. Yeah. For sure. So a couple of things. I appreciate the story there. Um, and, um, I wish you were with you that we are not necessarily expecting anything in particular. Um, as I mentioned earlier, I tend to be a fairly pessimistic kind of person and what will go wrong can go wrong and whatever you can do to help mitigate that is a good thing. Luck tends to favor the prepared is a thing. I feel very strongly about. And so as we're building the structure again, let me stop you for a minute. I think you need to move the microphone closer to your face when Jeremy merges from the back room.

0:45:22That's usually the issue. Thank you. Yeah. Just speak right into that. Of course. Yeah. Um, so not necessarily anticipating anything, uh, specific other than, as I said, you know, there could be scenarios where they measuring methodology differs potentially between different people measuring. And when you only have an inch to play with, that might be a bit of a, a bit of a challenge. Um, you know, we've, uh, we have a builder in mind that we'd like to use for the project, not necessarily a builder that we have, have used before and likely we'll have subcontractors and anyone who's ever built a project who's hired a builder knows that, you know, sometimes things are exactly as they should be. And sometimes things aren't quite exactly the way that they should be. So again, that pessimism drives us to, um, ask for the leniency. That because the, the County Heights require them is 30. And we very much intend to stay well below the 30. We just would prefer not to have the restriction placed on us that only yields an inch worth of, of, of, of variance, whether from a construction or from a measurement methodology perspective, um, it just gives us a little bit of, of breathing room while still being compliant, um, with, uh, with County regulations. But I'm also sure that that, that,

0:46:51that project that you referred to probably had a level of expertise, um, and a small army of people behind it, that we likely won't have. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Ochevin questions. Um, thank you. Thanks for your presentation. So we appreciate the kudos to staff because they are doing a lot of work. And so it's just, you mentioned it's been about a year. And that's the processes in local government as well. Um, as just government, but we appreciate the consideration. I think one of the, one of the, and I actually am really interested in staff's response to the different, the three different suggestions that you were asking for. It's had to like, just in regards to the conditions and maybe making some modifications. So I mean, we could either have that, have that happen or I can ask staff the same questions that I kind of heard. And one of them in regards to the second floor, what was the square feet that you're requesting to stay into the square footage of the second floor, the residence above is what 600 and 690 in change. It just under, just under 700. The 692 is the square feet of the resident. The Section of the residents for the entire 17 something right under the 1800 square foot. The question is a point of work. I'm

0:48:11just having Commissioner lu-25-0011-espr-25-0077-staff-recommendation.pdf I'm just having a hard time hearing when the two people talking. So I don't know if you can help me with that. Yeah. We are trying to make sure we have a clean record. So if we can just wait till Commissioner Ocean being finishes her question and vice versa. Thank you. Um, so on the condition, what I heard you asking was some modifications to potential conditions of the entire docket. And the third one was you were asking about leaving the covered porch. On the second floor residence, part of the whole ADU. What is the square footage that you were asking to be kept into this, um. So thank you for the question. Um, I don't, Ironically, I don't actually have the drawing in front of it, which is funny because I printed everything except for, for that one thing, um, but it is, it is in the, it is in the packet. Um, we are not necessarily asking for any modifications.

0:49:08It just, it occurred to me as, as Pete was speaking, or excuse me, as you were asking questions and Pete was responding, that there may be a question about the covered porch. And I had not necessarily right now because the way I read the staff packet, there is no question about it. So let's just get that clear, even though it were a little bit out of order in that regards. So we don't spend time on something that's not an issue. Pete Larange Community Planning and Permitting. Yes. The applicants proposed, um, 378 square feet of covered porch area. Staff found that that was appropriate and included that as part of the square footage that we were, uh, recommending approval as part of the elevations and plans proposed. So staff supports the covered porch as proposed. Okay.

0:49:58And that clarification is really important. The way I was hearing it was that there was part of what you were requesting that was missing. And so then it made me kind of wonder, was there something in those modifications and updates during the entire process? So that is the clarification I needed on that third one. Thank you. And then I just, well, and I'll wait. I may have another question, but go ahead. Go ahead. You had another question for the applicant? I may have another question for the applicant, but please go ahead. Oh, I don't, I did not. I will have another request for a clarification from Pete later on, but I didn't have any questions. So if you want to go ahead. Well, and I want mine might be more for staff is what I'm thinking. So that's why I was thinking about it and said, I may have a question. So if you want to go ahead, Pete, it sounds like we'll give you an opportunity to respond to what the applicant chart. We may have some additional questions. And of course, we'll come back to the applicant at the very end because you get the last word. Yeah. I mean, we usually do weight and have respond to anything that came up through public comment. So let's, let's go ahead and, uh, if

0:51:03that's acceptable, let's go ahead and open it up for public comment on, uh, this land use docket that we have in front of us today. Is there anyone here in the hearing room? What looks like we have four people signed up. I do want to make sure that, um, seeing the names that are on this list that you are wanting to speak to this agricultural worker ADU proposal and because we, well, that's what we're here for. And that's what we're here to have public comment on. So the first person on the list is Janice Hallowel. We're here for. The second item. On. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And we're not, this is a, the second item is a report to the commissioners and it's not a public hearing. Uh, so we won't be taking public testimony on that. But your comment on this case would be limited to the issue before us on approving the agricultural worker ADO. So do I understand that you don't want to testify on this. No. Okay. I see a head shaking. Torrey Peggler. In your. Email that. Well, if you're going to speak, I'm going to have to have you state your name for the record and come forward to the microphone. But I think you're telling me that you're not here for this case. Okay. Uh, how emfshavit, same

0:52:31situation. And Hunter Lovin's same. Okay. So is there anyone here with us in the hearing room who would like to speak to this land use docket that we're discussing right now. I see no one. So let's look at whether we have anyone signed up to speak. In virtually. Sorry. I should have finished that sentence. And that's there we go. Uh, so, okay. So we do not have anyone here on this. So we'll go ahead and close the public test 20 portion of the hearing. Pete. Uh, yeah, now, um, if you could enlighten us about some of the questions and concerns as the applicant raised and anything else that you heard. Sure. Pete Larange Community Planning and Permitting. Uh, first of all, staff apologizes for the typo and the presentation that Daniel Lynn worked on a previous docket. So that was our, our fault. As far as the applicants request on the height, uh, staff would have no objections to amending, um, I think it's conditions 13, which approved the elevation as proposed. Um, Steph would have no concerns amending that to be, you know, with an approved height of approximately 29 feet not to exceed 30 feet above existing grade. Steph would have no concerns about that. Um, so on that, um, as far as the timing on the certificate of occupancy, um, that is

0:54:10our standard procedure, uh, for cases where there is going to have to be deconstruction of other structures, uh, as part of a docket. We usually do certificate of occupancy just because, um, that is our standard timing. And in this case, Steph also felt that it wasn't entirely fair to try and, uh, require Parks and Open Space to enforce one of our conditions of approval. So that was our thought on that. Uh, and then the last thing was the covered porch, which I believe we've already discussed, but I'm happy to answer any other questions. Okay. Questions. From Commissioner? I do. I think this is the right time for my question. And I'm just going back on, similar to the previous question, but the applicants might have some, um, comments as well. And I'm looking at, um.

0:55:03Article four 601, the use of the property, the use will not otherwise be detrimental to the health, safe, dear wealth of the present or future inhabitants of Boulder County. And I think I'm just a little bit stuck on the way the land just code is set up, like the accessory dollar unit is an opportunity and an option on an ag where you've demonstrated the need to have, um, another full - time person, um, doing work with you. And there's also accessory, just accessory use where you could have similar to what you've got their storage buildings for and loafing sheds and others that are dictated in that document. I think what I'm trying to understand is, um. Putting somebody to live above animals. And I appreciate that reuse and recycle, um, of materials. But then I'm thinking if somebody's living above that animal shelf next to animal in the animal crowds are a little bit further away, it's just coming from the perspective of being in this land use dockets where we have, again, people coming in and saying, I don't want to have animals right next to my property land. I don't want to have, I don't want, and we've had other folks trying to move those spaces of animals away from, um, both at residents and also from the ADUs. And so it's just

0:56:21a curiosity. One on the analysis of how that particular land juice code wasn't, um, brought up. The other one is 601. 8. The use will not cause significant air ode or water or noise pollution, which I mentioned earlier. I just didn't have the criteria number in front of me. And so I won on the analysis. I just wondered if you could speak to that. I mean, you're the experts because you have a farm and you're living out there, but I just wanted to ask that question. Sure. Um, again, Pete Larange, CPMP staff. Yeah. In terms of article four 601 A10, the use will not be, uh, detrimental to, uh, health safety or welfare of present or future inhabitants of Boulder County. Uh, in this case again, staff found that, uh, the proximity to, uh, animals is not a particular, is not a health concern, uh, related to the location of the ADU and the arrangement of the structure. Um, it is something that we have reviewed and approved before. Um, I don't have to specific duck it in front of me, but there was one with alpacas not too long ago where it was the same sort of thing. Uh, last year we also had, and I do remember this one because it was my docket. The starling co - LLC, equestrian center where again,

0:57:45the ADU was attached to the barn. And livestock space. Uh, and staff had no concerns about that. So, um, in terms of. Air noise pollution, that sort of thing. This is an agricultural property. Um, you know, there are going to be smells associated with animals. Uh, but that's just, that is assumed to be part of any agricultural operation. Um, and Stefan that that did not rise to the level of an undue, uh, impact. Um. Yeah. So again, I'm happy to answer any other questions. Thank you. Thank you, Chair, if you don't mind, I'd love to have the applicants just respond if there want to speak to in regards to that particular question. I'd prefer that we just go ahead and maintain our usual order and they'll have the last word. And so after we hear from Pete, then you can have that dialogue with the applicants on that issue, if we could. Anything else from either of you for Pete at this time. No, thank you. Okay. I did want to just go back to that height issue and what you're proposing. So our, our maximum height allowed is 30 feet. And the elevations showed 29 and you're wanting them to build what they submitted.

0:59:10Because, you know, they say they're going to build a 29 foot barn. They ought to build a 29 foot barn. Would there would you have any concerns with, um, just allowing, I just touched my screen and now it thinks I want something with, with just allowing them to build up to the height limit of 30 feet. No. Steph did not identify any, uh, concerns with the, the overall height. It was proposed at 29. So that was what we recommended approving. But like I said earlier, staff has no concerns about amending that to be, you know, approved at 29 not to exceed 30 feet above existing grade. That is not an uncommon condition that we have, uh, insight plan review. Okay. So, I mean, that, that sounds like it provides the latitude for if the grading isn't exactly precise. I can see if it were a larger deviation between the maximum height and the proposed height, we would definitely want to stick to the proposed height that's been analyzed for visual impact and all those other things. Sounds like that language is fine. And that was very clearly stated on the record. And so that would be a revision of condition number 13. Yes. And. I don't have any other questions. So then this is your opportunity to, um, just say anything else. Also you'd like

1:00:38to say. It sounds like Commissioner Lojamin has some additional questions. Um, but please just tell us anything that has come up that you want to make sure we know. All right. Fantastic. Thank you again. Um, happy to respond to your, your earlier questions. Um, and we'll share with you that we've had the same conversation as well, not just between ourselves, but with our, our builder as well. Um, the couple of key elements I think that are important when we talk about, um, maybe just like the smell side of things is potentially maybe the, you know, the one that's, I think most people think of like really you live above a barn. That's got to be pretty stinky. Actually in our case, we don't believe it will be at all. And I'll explain why. Um, different animals, uh, produce different levels of methane. And they all, um, nature works with them. Uh, differently, I think is probably the most appropriate way to try and phrase that.

1:01:37Um, you know, our animals are very small and not large methane producers, um, at all. You know, little, we've got not just goats, but we've got the little teeny tiny little, little goats. Um, and so, um, they're not, um, they don't create much in the way of, of, of odor. The chickens will all live out side. They'll live in coupe. So while we are proposing a fairly significant increase in burns, the birds won't actually be inside the building. They won't even be adjacent to the, to the building. So the bird side of things I think is, is pretty safe. Um, with regards to, uh, the pigs, uh, the pigs will also live outside for the majority of, of, of the year. These are going to be what's referred to as pasture raised pigs. Um, and so, um, they will have portable shelters that are out, uh, in the pasture. And their presence in the pasture will actually help us with our, uh, soil restoration, uh, activities, um, so there won't be a, an odor related concern with them being inside the barn. Now we, we, we do plan to, um, uh, pursue a breeding program.

1:02:53And so we will have sales that will have piglets and we're going to stagger those so that we've got, we have, uh, and around the year supply of piglets, if you will, when the weather permits, they will all be outside. When the weather doesn't permit, then they will be inside, but they'll be inside on a, on a temporary or on a seasonal, uh, basis. Um, so we don't necessarily have any manure related concerns in that regard. Um, it is important though that, um, yeah, the animals will be in there. They'll be in there from time to time. Um, we are going to have epoxy covered floors, which makes cleanup very easy. Um, they clean up and the sanitation of those areas will be conducted throughout the week, not just once weekly, like throughout the week.

1:03:41There won't be any accumulation of any material inside, uh, the barn that would then adversely affect the resident above the barn. We'll also have, I believe we've talked with the builder about there being a membrane, um, in the ceiling of the barn, as well as it is our hope that we can go ahead and use a spray foam application as part of our insulation. Um, in the barn, both in the walls as well as in the, in the ceiling. And so that closed cell spray foam insulation combined with a membrane combined with routine sanitation practices combined with small animals, not a giant herd of, you know, cattle or a bunch of horses should make, uh, the barn, um, actually very, very pleasant, even just being in the barn, um, and so we don't have any, uh, concerns about even if we wouldn't have any concerns for anyone, uh, living in the residents above the barn, um, and those, uh, those odors being something that was off - putting, uh, uh, hopefully that provides some clarity there. Yeah. Thank you for that. I appreciate the commenter and just the explanation. And I'm looking at this is a land use code. And so when I look at the code, I hear what your practice is, your plans are how you're going to clean all those different pieces.

1:05:11And this is a land use code. So somebody else in a decade or 20 years or something may not care for that animal space the same way. And so it's just, it just was an important question to ask and I appreciate the response. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant before we... Okay. So then we will close the public hearing and the three of us will deliberate and, uh, make a decision on the stock kit. Who would like to start us off. I'm happy to start us out. Thanks, Pete. Thanks for the, again, for all of the information and for both of you applicants being here. It's really helpful to hear the background and what you're working on as well outside of just reading a packet. And Board, you heard some of my concerns. I'm a proponent of backyard cottage, accessory dwelling unit and finding different ways to meet needs of a housing.

1:06:07I think what got my eye initially was out of 1800 square foot, um, to be able to plan for, um, somebody to be able to stay there long term just based on being at the diocese and hearing other people say they really wanted to create units where people could be for a longer amount of time and kind of build a life in Boulder County and all those things. It might be hard to do that in 692 square feet. And I know people just from a real estate background, people get very excited about, um, modular units and mobile homes and what's called tiny homes. And then it tends to be short term and Boulder County, um, just because of the way that, um, folks function. And so that was kind of what caught my eye about how else would that space be used. And then the concerns of just what I've already shared about in regards to not with these applicants necessarily based on what they've put on the record and shared in their entire package, et cetera. But, um, what that could mean for somebody living above, um, space if it wasn't cared for as well. And I also, um, heard staff's response in regards to the different criteria that I had spoke to in regards to something that we've done previously in other packets

1:07:17and that it wasn't from the analysis that they felt that the need was, um, there shouldn't be a concern as much as they need was met in the, so I think I've been satisfied in that piece. It just, it did bring up some initial concerns for me, but certainly the analysis about, um, both land use and the SPR. I'm in agreement with. Okay, good. So well, I think what I heard you say is that you don't have concerns about putting the dwelling unit above the barn. I mean, you have concerns, but you're satisfied. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And Commissioner Stolzman, any concerns or anything that where you would want to deviate from the recommendation with the revised condition 13? No, I have, I wrote it down the first time. Peace at it. So I have that written down for us. Um, to include in our, in our motion, no problem. Um, I wondered if there would be a conversation about the deconstruction component of it.

1:08:14I do think it's problematic for ensuring compliance. Although I understand the intention and that I don't, I'm not anticipating any type of compliance problem. Um, what ends up happening when there are compliance problems is that the Code Enforcement Officers come yell at us and say, why did you do it this way? Like this is incredibly hard to enforce in this really nice way that you've put it. And so while I completely understand the intent, I probably would lean away from having the Parks and, um, open space folks do that because they're not compliance folks. But I'm open to the discussion. Yeah. Maybe I'll weigh in on that issue. Um, I, you know, that, that is pretty standard. Um, it's like, what is our hook to get this done? And it's not because we question your integrity or your commitment to following through on these conditions.

1:09:04There's just nothing about that at all, just to be clear. It's just we, you know, it's just sort of good practice to make sure we have something where we can say no CO until you get this done. Um, I have known of many, many cases over many, many years where there's, you know, things have come up. And we've been able to work them out. So I think for me, I would just prefer to go ahead and keep staff's recommendation and know that our staffe are reasonable. And can't anticipate what might happen, you know, we may unfortunately have another lovely winter like this one. Uh, let's hope we don't. But, uh, but that would be my preference is to leave it the way it is. And I didn't have, I had no other concerns. It's unfortunate that this floor area coverage limitation in the conservation easement is forcing this really awkward configuration. Um, but amending a conservation easement is a ridiculously complicated. It's not ridiculously. It's complicated for a reason. And so, um, yeah, so we, you know, you're working with an unfortunate restriction that was put on this property in 1996 and who could have foreseen where we are today. But we're kind of stuck with it. Um, Commissioner Lochiman, anything else that you wanted to add. Um, I, I didn't weigh in on the,

1:10:37the other conditions kind of modifications that were being asked for, um, from the applicants. And I really was aligned with our staff was, but I didn't specifically say that if that's helpful just to have that on the record, um, and I originally was thinking like, why don't have you really looked at the conservation easement? Is there any way to do that? And came to the same conclusion about just how complicated it is, um, for good reason. And when you get into this type of a situation where you're trying to do some amazing work in regards to agricultural production, meeting needs of community members. And this reciprocal piece that you talked about in your narrative, um, while if more people could, could look at those https://boco.org/Weeds of opportunities, we'd be potentially a better place here in Boulder County. So, but there is, I think it's important just to note back where you said about the conservation easement that makes it really, um, complicated and maybe a project for somebody, uh, somewhere else to really look at that and how we, um, address some of those issues and processes that we know exist. Okay. So I think we said what we need to say. And it's time to make a motion. It would make a motion to approve Docket. lu-25-0011-espr-25-0077-staff-recommendation.pdf 250011 - ESPR 25 - 0077 with

1:11:48one revised condition in 13 to read, approved at approximately 29 feet, not to exceed 30 feet above the existing grade. And otherwise, as conditioned by staff. Good. You've heard the motion. And when need a second. I just want to ask, it sounds to me that that language is fine. I just wanted to ask if staff felt like that that meant what they're okay. I hope it does. Cause I wrote down exactly what they said. So if it doesn't, we've got a different problem. Well, that's great. I didn't know how you wrote it down. So I just wanted to clarify with staff before I second emotion that might not be clear enough. So I heard that motion. Thank you for that. And a second. Okay. We have a motion and a second all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you. Um, thank you very much for the application. And I have a question for you that doesn't pertain to this. So I will ask it off the record. And so we do have another, um, another item on our agenda this morning, um, which is a public meeting on our Integrated Weed Management Plan annual report. Let's take about five minutes to switch planner switch staff and computers and all the other stuff.

1:12:59And we'll be back at, um, 10, 19. Yes, Jere, thank you. And we are recording. All right, we are back for item 2B on our agenda this morning. And this is a public meeting on the integrated weed management plan 2025 annual report, staff will make a presentation. We have Stephen Reinhold and Heidi Wagner with us. I know we had some time. Limits laid out, and I don't have that in a document in front of us on how long staff would take and then what time we have for Commissioner Questions on that. But this is scheduled for an hour. We are starting late at 1021. And I think we do want to take the full hour, so we may have to, you don't have nobody else has to worry about this. Natalie has to worry about rescheduling anything that may need to be moved around. So this for members of the public that are here, this is a public meeting in a presentation from staff on the annual report. And we will hear that report. We will have some questions. It does say in our agenda that is as information direction and or decision.

1:14:34So we'll see whether the way of direction and or decision that comes up this morning. So staff, Stefan, is that you that's going to lead the presentation, or Heidi? Yes, I'll take us off. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Heidi Wagner, and I'm the interim director for Parks and Open Space. And thank you for the opportunity. We are you fine. We just want to make sure the record is, yeah, pick up there. Thank you. So this annual report marks the first full year of implementation of the updated integrated weed management plan. And we appreciate the opportunity to report on our progress. Weed management is essential to public safety and the long - term health and biodiversity of Boulder County's natural landscapes. At the same time, we recognize that some members of our community fill deep concern about the use of herbicides, which are part of our integrated approach on public lands. And that this topic can generate strong feelings. We want to acknowledge that sincerely. Throughout this past year, staff have approached their work with scientific rigor, transparency, and a commitment to continuous learning. We remain attentive to community feedback and are committed to evaluating emerging tools and expanding alternatives were feasible. All of this work is carried out within the publicly developed and adopted framework that directs our weed management efforts. Gives

1:16:15transparency and structure for staff. And the community. Today's report reflects not only the progress on the ground, but also our ongoing commitment to responsible stewardship. Open communication, science - informed decisions, and managing these shared lands with care and integrity for the community and the health of our native ecosystem. So thank you, and I do want to note that we had planned for about 30 minutes. So we will rapidly move through our slides because we know you have some questions for us as well. And I'll turn it over to Stefan. Great. Good morning, Commissioners. Stephan Reynold, I am the deputy director of Land Stewardship for Parks and OpenSpace. And again, I'm going to jump right into the presentation as staff have completed a lot of good work in 2025. And I want you to be able to see a lot of that. So I'm going to start off with some of the high - level progress that we've completed. Um, we were able to expand our capacity and structure with a new full - time staff member. We have created some lead hourly employees that help divvy up the work. Um, and we are able to realize our work group based on the IWMP management objectives.

1:17:37And I'll have a slide on that in a minute. Um, then we have our, uh, pilot project implementation. And so we had five pilot projects, um, that were in the plan. Um, and, uh, give you kind of an update on those later in the presentation. Uh, as for that structure, um, so as we, when we wrote the 2014 IWMP, uh, we identified four main areas. We identified eradication, biodiversity preservation, suppression, and then vegetation infrastructure management. And because of the new position that was added in 2025, and thank you for that, we are actually able to break our, uh, weeeds group up into those categories. So we actually have leads that can, can focus on those four categories. So that's been, been really helpful for us. A couple other, um, high level progress, um, is data transparency enhancements. Uh, we have been using, um, open goves AMS, um, and it's been improving our data collection, our reporting accuracy and our tracking. Um, we also have a public facing dashboard that was actually just launched here in January where, um, the public can go on the site and see what we have planned, what's been completed and what's on paused and kind of track the treatments that we are completing. And that's focused on, um, on the herbicide side of things. We also have, uh, improved our

1:19:06email notification system to those that have requested it. Um, and then we've done a lot with our operational implementation. So, you know, obviously that's the heart of, of the integrated weed management plan is the work that we're trying to complete. Uh, we did 292 treatments over 12, 733 acres. And the breakdown of, uh, by the different types there. And again, we'll go into a little bit more depth as we go through the presentation. So the one thing that we wanted to start with is the progress on our goals. Um, and so the first goal, uh, was to reduce herbicide applications by 50 percent by 2030 Obviously, this is too early to determine because we're, we're not at 2030. And this year we did put a 800 acre project on hold. So the target was 560 acres of herbicide treatment. We did 495 this past year, but had that red hill project move forward that would have been an additional 800 acres approximately. Goal two was to eliminate, uh, about 3, 000 acres of cheat grass infestations. Um, in our high biodiversity areas, um, again, since that project's on hold, um, so, so is this trying to achieve this goal. Um, and again, that, that goal was focused on 3000 acres that we're going to be treated through drone, uh, usage. Uh, the other acres of

1:20:33biodiversity that we are able to treat with ground - based equipment, um, as well. And so then goal three is the implementation of our pilot projects. And, uh, we had five pilot projects. All of them are in motion. And our plan is to do yearly assessments. But we need kind of the three year timeframe to determine the effectiveness, um, and, and to also figure out what's the best way to ramp those up if they are successful. Um, and so I'm going to go into a little bit more depth on the next slide for next few slides for goal three. So one of our first projects here was the manual removal of Harry Willowerb at Pelopons. And, you know, this is one of our list A species that we are trying to focus on. And we wanted to see if we could put a little more pressure by doing some volunteer events and hand pulling in these areas. Um, and so we ended up having three volunteer events, one staff removal day, uh, total of 34 staff hours and eight and a half hours of volunteer help pulling 15, 900 plants. Um, and the strengths of that project, of course, is you're able to remove that biomass from the site. And we were able to engage the community in that project. Um, one thing that we

1:21:53were challenged by, and this is something that is going to challenge us in terms of, um, long - term effectiveness is, um, the number of labor hours to meet the objective. Um, how difficult that work is. And that we do need to continue to revisit these areas. Um, we're trying to look at all these pilot projects by looking at the initial effectiveness, short term effectiveness, long - term effectiveness. And we're collecting information such as hours, acres costs. Um, and so this was the second year of this, uh, this project. And when we went out to the site, we did notice, um, a couple small areas where the, the Harry Will herb did not come back. But for the majority of the site, um, we had significant return of Harry Willerb. So this is something that we're going to have to try to put a little bit more effort towards, um, and, and try to do more volunteer events with, uh, to improve. Now the next one is our, uh, steamed weeding pilot at, at rabbit mountain. Um, and this is, you know, part of that infrastructure concept trying to keep the weeds out of this location. Um, and, and how this works is it's superheated water that is sprayed down. Um, on the site to remove the, the, um, invasive weeds. Um, couple of good

1:23:16things. Um, it, it was fairly effective. Um, uh, we did have to do five treatments. We had to go through five, five times. Um, and we were able to utilize local contractors. Um, the cost was also a little bit less than we had predicted, which, which was a good thing. Um, challenge is they had a lot of equipment breakdowns, um, as this was moving forward. Um, and they had to frequently visit the site. We are looking at 2026 to expanding to three different trailheads. So expanding this project a little bit to see, um, how it works in different areas and different locations. But some of the things that we have to monitor over time is what is the overall cost we have, uh, I think we have 17 different parking lots that we have to treat and maintain. And so what does that cost going to be? And then also how much water is that going to utilize? Um, this project utilized over a thousand gallons of water, uh, for this one site. So just things that we have to pay attention to, uh, as we move forward. Uh, we also have a soil amendment pilot project, um, that is at rabbit mountain. And we did go ahead and collect, uh, baseline soil samples. And this is actually set up as a study. So we

1:24:32are going to have some control plots. We're going to have some plots that are using this soil amendment of neutrophix, which is designed to suppress the weeds in the area by improving the soil structure. Uh, but we are going to have comparison plots of no treatment. Um, treatment with the Nutrix treatment with neutrofix and end as a flam in treatments, uh, with a DASA flamma loan. So we have a bunch of plots so we can compare the data. Um, this, we had 220 hours of collection pretreatment assessment data and monitoring. Okay. So the next one is our goat browsing pilot. Um, so we did get, uh, goats to browse on over 100 acres of parks and open space LAN. And that was August through September. Um, we did actually get a good fair bid on this project. Um, the cost was 71, 000 dollars than some of the other, uh, agencies have seen. And the company that bid on this actually came from out of state to do the work. Um, the strengths of this, um, it is really good at removing vegetation. Um, and really difficult to access areas. And so, uh, that is really good, especially in some of our ditches that are hard to access. Um, to get equipment down in there mowing equipment, uh, not as safe to have people with

1:25:57weed whackers down in those locations. Um, but browsing does focus more on broadleaf species. And so it's, it's, we have to pay attention to that as, as we do these projects, if we have a broad leaf species that we don't want to affected, then that may not be the right location for goats. Um, challenges is making sure we get the timing down right. Um, the, the, there's certain times that certain species are up and it would be great to have the goats there at that specific time frame. Um, costs can be very expensive as we look to ramp this up. Just things we have to consider. We also, um, have grazing limitations west of highway 36. So again, something that we need to consider moving forward. And we have to remind ourselves that the goat work is suppression and it's not eradication. Um, and so that's something that has to be completed more often than not. And then we have our, um, we have a really great dedicated group of volunteers such as Amy Oata here. Um, that have completed many volunteer events over the years. Um, we have hosted many volunteer events over the years. Typically we've focused those on either large scale responses in certain areas. Um, but this is the second year of our Ouija warrior program. And the weed warriors program

1:27:21is really a more focused approach. So we're picking an area and we're trying to have, um, our volunteers kind of take ownership of that location and try to, uh, get the weeds under control. Um, we're also working with them closely to collect data. So we want to make sure that we're, we're collecting the data of if things are changing and how things are changing. And again, so all of these, um. Pilot projects, we want to make sure that we have a few years of data so we can see what's working, what's not, how can we improve it and how can we, um, take these pilot projects and, and, and do them in different locations. So, uh, we're pretty excited about some of the results. And we're just looking forward to the three years of timeframe.

1:28:08So as we move to, um, the next set of goals here, um, goes four is to conduct surface water impact study. And so this is in progress and we are trying to work with our, uh, some of our local partners. We're trying to work with a few individuals at CU. Um, and also the city alongmon who's also interested in trying to find out how can we set up water sampling protocols that are going to test for the things that we want it to test for, um, protocols aren't built for every single, uh, chemical that's out there. And so that's one of the things that we have to work on. Um, to make sure we have a solid, uh, protocol moving forward. Um, goal five is to continue supporting integrate read management research on BCPS natural lands. So we've done, um, I think we've done seven small grant funding agreements since 2016 that actually have looked at in Dazaflam prior to that we had done five to six studies looking at other, um, herbicide use and other treatment methods, um, on open space. Um, so that's one of the methods we have is our small grant research program. Um, from our data that we've just collected, we've had two studies published, uh, from our data. And then there are also a lot of researchers that are

1:29:26looking at doing research on our land, but are unfunded from us. Um, and so we do work closely with those individuals to do those projects. And then goal six is kind of the heart of what we do. And I'm going to go a little more depth on that one. I'm sorry. Goal six is the, the methods to increase the availability of our data and our reporting. I skipped one here. Um, so over the winter, our data solutions team helped migrate our workflows that were in the IWMP to our asset management system. This was huge and was a big lift from staff. Um, it's updated the way we collect our data. Um, and how we can track the progress of our work. Um, very time consuming, um, but now we can actually collect all the information we need such as labor hours, equipment use, material use.

1:30:18And all those things so that we can actually inform adaptive management as we move forward. Um, so this slide is just a representation of all of the different things that can be collected and displayed through our process. And so in the annual report, a lot of the data that's in there, uh, comes from this program. So, uh, we also are using AMS to update our herbicide notification process. And so we created a dashboard. First off in the upper left, you can see you can follow through just kind of the old list style that shows how we've done, uh, where we're doing the work, what's being utilized. And then the map on the other side, you can actually follow, uh, projects that are planned, uh, projects that are completed and projects that are maybe paused. Um, so it's a really neat tool from the asset management staff. I mean, data that we collected. Okay. So now, sorry, this is the big goal of what we do.

1:31:21Um, implementing the actual integrated weed management plan and the work that we've completed. And so we have, I want to take a step back here and remind that we had those four categories of the integrated weed management plan, the management objectives. And so we had eradicate. So we did 121 treatments across 4, 800 acres. We have six populations of, um, list a species that we put in elimination status. Um, and total of 10 acres of herbicide were used in this process. From our biodiversity, um, uh, viewpoint, we did ground - based treatments on 286 acres of cheek grass. We've monitored cheat grass areas that have been treated. We've done some work in active restoration, some projects where the habitat had lost, whether it was from degradation, from prairie dogs or, or other things that we've gone back in and done some active restoration. Um, we also monitor those areas to make sure that the restoration is working. If it needs to be, um, something needs to be done in terms of subsequent treatments or, or, um, more seating or something to that effect. Um, and then we have our infrastructure. And again, that's our roadside mowing, but it's also the parking lots, um, and we've rolled in some of our fire hazard treatments. So, um, in areas where, uh, our properties, a but, but, neighborhoods.

1:32:50And there's tall grasses. And it's the dry season. We will go in and mow those areas. We will also take phone calls for people that are requesting that type of work. Um, so that's the work we do there. Um, and this graph here, uh, really represents what an integrated approach truly means. We rely on all of the tools in the toolbox to meet our management objectives. Um, and so of the 34, 000 acres that the integrated weed management plan covers, um, this is, this is, uh, you know, a good layout of what we have accomplished. Um, in terms of another view of what that looks like, um, just another visual representation here. Okay. So one of the things that was asked was about what's our progress on our list day species. And so we've actually had really good progress on three of our list A species, not weeed orange hawkweed and purple loose strife. Um, they are all on track to reach sustained elimination status, which means no plants found across multiple years. On BCPOS lands. And that's one of the first steps in making sure a population is eradicated. Um, not weed. We found, uh, one historic population and no plants were found. There were one location where one plant was found and we, we got right on it and treated that. Um, our

1:34:16orange hawkweed has no plants found on two of our historic population sites. Purple loose drife. We had three sites had no plans found in 2025. We did find one new location and got right on top of that. And this is part of our, um, what is it called? It's a EDRR, our emergency detector, no, emergency detection, rapid response. And so the second we see something that has a list A, we get out there as soon as possible to make sure that that is treated and under control. Um, purple loose drive was one that is a really big success because there was, when it was first found in the county, there was a collaborative task force that got together and tried to address this both on public and private land. And at this point, um, it seems like where we've done a good job with that one. As we get into some of the ones that were a little bit more challenging for us, uh, we have Myrtle Spurge. And part of the problem with Myrtle Spurge, um, Harry Willower, which is also on here is they are present in large numbers on private property. Um, and this is really obviously a challenge for us to address. Um, we do have a yearly contract that we've done with wildland restoration volunteers where we are trying to

1:35:36coordinate with them and have them work on private lands because we all know that weeds don't stay on a fence line. And so, um, WRV has been doing a lot of work trying to manage, uh, the Myrtle spurge. Um, rush skeleton weed. The reason why, uh, this is on here. Um, we feel like we have it fairly contained, but the problem is, is the number of seeds that a seed head can produce, um, is really significant. And it's dispersed by wind. And so this is one that we're always going to be concerned with, um, where is it going to blow next and, uh, if a plant pops up. Sorry. Skip to slide there. Um, and terms of eradication species, uh, we assess 26, 000 acres. We did treatment, as I said before on 4, 800 acres and 10 acres where we applied herbicide. Um, just as a reminder, our eradication species aren't just list A.

1:36:32So, um, some of the list B species have management plans written for them by the state. And there's requirements to either do county wide eradication in some counties. Sometimes they define zones where we have to eradicate. Um, and there are a couple list species. List C species that also have plans and also, um, are considered eradication species. One thing I wanted to make sure that it is something that wasn't captured in all that data is our classical biological control. Um, over the past 10 years, we have average 18 releases of insects per year. Um, that, that focus on certain invasives. Um, this year we did 26 releases. We are working on trying to develop protocols that can help us determine what kind of acreage coverage these releases, um, have so that we can actually, uh, add that reporting in the different format. Um, but this is again, another suppression, um, process. These aren't designed to, to eliminate the invasives. And so, um, there were some community concern as it relates to the threatened prebel's meadow jumping mouse in our planned red hill drone spraying project.

1:37:47This slide outlines the different areas that, um, parks considered when planning this treatment, uh, we follow the herbicide label and ESA bulletins. We have an interdisciplinary team that reviews our drone applications, not just for aerial spraying, but all of our drone usage. Um, we were planning on, uh, doing our red hill project and we were going to do a pre - mapping flight. It says post on here. A pre - mapping flight that identified areas that we could that maybe didn't have cheat grass that we could pull from the project area, areas that had, um, were drainages that we could pull out that were ephemeral drainages, not ones that are captured on the piece. And so we were going to pull that information out. That was the point of the pre - mapping flight. Um, we've had small mammal studies done. Um, one specifically for the age and dazaflam, um, and the other studies outside of the department that, that also have looked at small mammal studies. And of course, one of the things they talk about is doing our treatments, um, during dormant season for sensitive floor and fauna. So that's the reason why we wanted to spray over the winter. Um, and a lot of the research shows that the work that we are doing is improving the habitat. And so these are

1:39:01things that we took into account, um, as we move through and thought about the endangered species act. And then we have our red hail treatment area. This is something that we already discussed that, um, we're going to maintain the 660 foot buffer from dwellings, uh, we are going to increase the buffer from the property lines to 100 feet. And then the buffer that we were going to do from the drainages was going to be the 100 foot buffer. And this map, um, we actually have our own data, um, for purple's metal jumping mouse in this area. But we did adapt this map so you can see the difference by putting the, um, CPW's prebels, jumping mouse, uh, boundaries, activity map on there. Uh, we are going to use our drift cards to demonstrate, uh, the, the drift that might occur from drone usage. Um, we are also going to use a organic drift retardant that reduces the drift potential. That's increases the weight of the droplet. So they fall straight down. Um, and we had planned for soil sampling in these different areas. But the map on the, on the left there, the lighter blue area is kind of that revised boundary. Uh, the underlying dark blue area was the original area that we, we had as a, as kind of our project area. Um,

1:40:19I'm going to pass the next couple of slides over to Heidi. Um, and we'll go from there. Okay. Great. We're almost done. Um, if I could add a little clarity back to the previous slide, I just wanted to be sure that, um, you were aware that this is our mapped data with CPW's map data. And we were going to refine it when we did the pre - flight. So that would have been that final guidance. So I just wanted to make sure it was clear that that would be the best information to proceed. We were also asked, if you want to move to the next slide. We were also asked about how we, um, partner with CPP on ensuring private property is also controlling their weeds. So we have a longstanding relationship and coordination with CPP to ensure that when our teams are working adjacent to private land that they make note of any species that they see that require treatment, we send, um, send them a spreadsheet of locations on a regular interval. And then they respond to that by sending notices according to the law. I will let CPP answer any additional, um, questions on how they do that work. But we do have, um, tight yearly coordination with them to ensure those areas are getting treated. And quickly, uh, Jesse rounds is

1:41:48here if there are any questions for CPMP. Next slide. You also asked us commissioners about some additional concepts to investigate, um, we heard more about nonchemical treatments methods, especially expansion of some of these pilots and their feasibility. Um, we heard curiosity around synthetic chemicals in the herbicides that we select, um, specifically PFOS and PFAB. And then again, the private property treatment question. So we wanted to bring forward some options for you today to consider. Um, the first two bulleted or bolded items there are requests for interest and requests for proposals. Um, based on our best available information to have businesses, um, come forward with ideas on scaling nonchemical treatments with the focus on list A. And anyone that would provide the service of testing synthetic chemicals for synthetic chemicals in our herbicides. Um, we could also issue an RFP for treatment on steep slopes and rocky terrain for IDIs that we have not previously considered.

1:43:03Also in conjunction with CPP, we could explore concepts to incentivize weed removal on private property. There's been some models in other places that we could potentially use to make it more attractive. Um, two private property owners to remove their weeds. And then lastly, um, prescribe burns. We were also asked about that. And we do work very closely with the share's office fire management program concerning the safety and feasibility of prescribe burns. Um, based on current forecasted conditions. And that includes burns, which might be for weed control. We do have the authority under the existing plan to continue, um, to research this method for feasibility. Um, but presently the state of our fuels coupled with our, unusually dry conditions this year. Um, have not afforded the opportunity for consideration of any prescribed burning and bolder county to address weed control. But when conditions approve, um, we will work together with the sheriff's office to discuss this option. So just some options for you to consider. And that concludes our presentation to you today. Thank you so much for your time and attention. There are additional staff here that can help answer any questions that you might have. Um, and we have a few questions up there for the start of the conversation. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much for the presentation and for sticking within

1:44:36the time frame. Uh, so we do have right around 30 minutes remaining for the commissioner's questions and comments. Um, who would like to kick us off. We may run out of time. So I think what I'm going to ask is, um, that we try to, each of us take no more than 10 minutes. I don't think I'll take 10 minutes, but, uh, that each of us take no more than 10 minutes. So all three of us have a chance to get our questions, uh, ask to commissioner. Let you may not look like you were moving towards your microphone there. Would you like to go ahead? Sure. Thanks. Yeah. And thank you to staff for the presentation information. What I think I just had a logistical, I see your hand going up. Did you logistical similar.

1:45:28Okay. Yeah. And you started going into my question was just, we could either do it. Each person has 10 minutes of time. Or I'm wondering if we may want to go through kind of section by section together. So that was really my question. Yeah. I think it's, um, I mean, they're both. Fine ways to go about it. I think it's going to just be harder to make sure we keep moving along if we go through section by section. So it may require some, uh, repetition. Uh, in order to do that. You know, I don't typically ask people to silence their cell phones because we've been living in a cell phone environment for a long time now. But it is disruptive. And I would ask if you do have your cell phone set to have, um, audible, um, tones that you please silence that so that we don't have to have an interruption. So commissioner louched.

1:46:21I mean, if you, I just also had a logistical question. Thank you for just making sure we just also had a logistical question. Um, so I see some questions on the slide. And I'm just trying to understand what we're planning to do today and then what we'll be planning to do at future meetings just so that I can stay on track in my 10 minutes. So what was noticed today as a public meeting on integrated weed management plan 2025 annual report. Okay. And so, um, I think there's some expectation that we were going to have a conversation about whether or not we would do drone application of herbicides. And I'm not sure that that's clear from what was agenda today. So I'm just trying to understand if we're addressing that today or not, or if we'll have a future public meeting with public comment on that topic. So that's just, I'm just not clear if that should be contained in my questions and comments. And if we're expected to deliver it on that today or if we would do that at a later date and just leave the pause in place until we did that.

1:47:19I think that is ambiguous because we are in this limbo. It looks like Liana James or Larimore wants to come forward here. But yeah, this, I mean, originally we were to simply have a presentation on the report. Now, now we've got this legal inbow where we have something that was going to go forward pursuant to the plan. And we need to make a decision. From my perspective, it may be moot because of the weather, but we probably ought to get clarity on that, Liana. Thank you. Yeah. This is Liana Layra. Mario, assistant county attorney and I could just provide some different options for what I think you have authority to do today. That would be helpful. Thank you. Um, so my understanding is that the commissioners never formally adopted a moratorium on the use of drones to control noxious weeds under the boulder county integrated weed management plan. unceded the commissioners provided direction to staff to temporarily pause during applications in order to obtain more information from staff. So if at today's meeting, there's interest in providing direction to staff to undertake actions that are allowable under the integrated weed management plan. That would be appropriate. Um, it would also be appropriate to extend a temporary pause on anedrone applications. If you feel like you still need additional information, um, and I didn't get the

1:48:40sense from this from just your recent comments, but if there's interest in enacting a formal moratorium on any drone applications, I would recommend that that decision be taken at a properly noticed meeting for that type of formal decision. You have any questions on that. I don't have questions. I appreciate that. Clarification and the options presented. My question is really for the board is, are we with each of our now nine minutes going to limit them to questions about the plan or are we going to debate with one another today, the merits of extending the pause in acting a permanent moratorium or lifting the pause. Leonie, you may need to stay at the microphone there. Um. Let me ask staff a question first here. And that, that is whether we are now outside the window during which we actually can treat cheat grass with, um, and dazzle flam. So the, the, from the aerial perspective and then the location that we're talking about, yes, um, that would be a project that we would have to do over next winter. So I asked that question because we just to know whether we really have to address that today because I think that that's quite a large topic that could, I mean, I have questions just about to plan and all the other. I do too. Yeah. All

1:50:11the other aspects of the plan. So it sounds like it's kind of oak for the year, not kind of. It is. And, uh, and so my preference, if this is okay with commissioner, let you mean commission stolen that we take that up at another meeting. I did have a little bit of a question. For you, Liana, about, you know, you're talking about a formal moratorium. Which I don't even know whether we need to do that. I think a formal moratoriums in the context of, um, of a land use kind of, um, action where we have statutory authority to have a more Victorian uncertain uses for finite period of time. I mean, this is a weed management plan that we deliberated that we adopted that we, I think have legal authority to alter at any time.

1:51:05So I'm kind of wondering what you're referring to in the way of formality that we'd have to undertake. Um, yeah, I agree with your assessment. I think that, um, the board has authority to amend the integrated weed management plan at any time. You also have the authority to provide direction to staff, um, engage in activities that are allowable under that, not just we'd management plan at any time. Um, during some of the previous hearings, I heard the term moratorium. And so I just wanted to say that something you could do, but I agree that it is not necessary in order to provide direction to staff to not engage in something that's allowable under the plan. Oh, I was just going to say, I'm perfectly comfortable moving forward as you've described with the questions today on the plan, as long as it's clear to staff that there won't be aerial application of herbicide until we take it up again. That's what I was going to suggest that we schedule some time. I want to make sure that we, uh, our expeditious and that we don't, you know, that we make a decision within the appropriate window of time so that we can lay this to rest one way or the other and that we now use the remaining 20 minutes, 22 minutes. For the plan. Is

1:52:24that acceptable? I might just weigh in on the conversation and thank you, Lana, for that information. For me, I do think it's important for us as the board to be able to address what we've given up until now, as far as a pause on the aerial spraying and the drone usage. I don't know when the 2026 annual report is going to, um, happen, but it's February 26 right now. And so just if it was going to be an anonor report based on the November 24 date or if it's an annual part based on today's date, then we may be in another situation based on land management where we haven't addressed the drone spring. So I just, I would prefer that we address the pause and that was my interpretation of the pause until we could get here to get an update and learn, you know, what you all have been sharing about in your presentations.

1:53:16So for me, that pause ends today unless there is some other conversation, but that's just my perspective because your correct, I did not understand as putting a form a more time. I heard some of that language as well. But that's not, that was not, um, I had stated. So I, I do think we need at least address it from a direction standpoint for staff. So the clarity as they go through 2026. What I was proposing is that we do address it, but that we not try to do that today, given that it may take some time in some discussion. So yes, we do need to address it. And we need to address it in a timely way so that staff has appropriate direction. But that's given how large a topic that is and how much else there is in the plan to go through. That's why I thought, um, with the clock ticking that we ought to defer that to another day. Okay. I hear what you're saying. I'm saying I think it needs to be part of this conversation just to provide direction around the entire integrated read management pen. But if Commissioner Solosman, you're in agreement with what Commissioner Levy's saying than, then there's two folks that are at least giving guidance for this meeting. And that's, I agree. We need to get

1:54:32into the meeting. Great. Okay. Okay. Uh, well, so thank you, Liana. All right. So then thank you for the plan. Thank you for the or for the report rather. The presentation. And I do think just for the sake of being able to make sure everybody has an opportunity to get some of their questions answered that we should just proceed here. And maybe we can take since we had some procedural questions. We'll just go ahead and try to wrap this up by 1130. And, um, so commissioners who would like to lead us off. I mean, I'm happy to, and maybe what I'll do is I'll ask a few of my questions and not ask all of my questions yet, just from a timey standpoint. So first off, thank you for the presentation and information. Um, what I was looking for in an annual report on this particular management plan, just like any other plan was really just to understand what you all were sharing today in regards to here's what the goals were and here's what we've done. And here's how we've been working with organizations or with other departments and those pieces. And I feel like you gave that information. I think what I'd be interested to know is like there were a few pieces that I had like that didn't feel like was totally

1:56:02apples to apples in the goals and some of the, just the way that the information was presented. So I had some curiosities around, um, some of the statements you made and findings about one, um, pilot project, for example, and not the other just to be able to really compare, but I'm not going to go into those detailed questions because of timing. Um, so just kind of sharing a reflection on it. Um, I think, but it was helpful for me to understand, um, you mentioned staff, an additional staff person and what that meant for your group. Um, I think what I'm looking for in an annual plan to understand how we get to that goal one of reducing herbicide use. What I will be looking for in the next annular report is out of everything you've learned and all of the work that's happening. What is the proposal to the board of county commissioners to allow us to get to that goal? And so when I heard some of the pilot projects that you were talking about, the curiosity was like, okay, so I heard you saying maybe that would need expanding. When will that come to us in what kind of format would that potentially come to say, okay, if we want to reduce in my mind, we want to reduce something over here. It

1:57:24means we've got to increase over here. And so I will be looking for, what does that proposal? Um, y'all have heard me talk about parks and open space voter approved funding that comes to Boulder County because voters are very generous and also very concerned about open space and a very appreciative of open space. And how is our funding set up between purchase and maintenance? So this presentation really helped me and confirmed the concern that I've had and shared over the last five years about our maintenance funding versus our purchase funding and what that might mean, um, in our inner departmental work of continuing to work on purchasing versus what I'm hearing in this presentation in the different examples. I heard we need more funding focused on these different areas so that we can do the work. But that was just my perception. And so I would be very interested in getting a proposal. I think there was one other questions was in regards to the very beginning you were talking about some of the things that you were trying to do in one of those was transparency. And so the question I had was you showed the dashboard, which is fantastic. And I heard it was a heavy lift and I can only imagine there was a lot of stuff that was working on that.

1:58:44So thank you. The question I had on the dashboard based on some of the emails that I've received over the last couple of months in regards to, um, the way that we're providing information to the community, the curiosity is really around, um, right now it seems as though the dashboard is focused on herbicide use. And yet. I am curious about how, what else might we add on that dashboard, i. e. Again, if we're trying to, we're trying to reduce over here. It means we've got to increase here. So how might we provide information to the public about the alternative projects that you're doing, the pilot projects? And then you've got an RFI and an RFP and some other things proposed that hopefully we'll have time to discuss. But couldn't we add, and this is not my area. So it's just a curiosity and maybe some discussion from the board around adding in there where the pilot project program. Like you showed us a graph to us. But how does that translate to the public as far as the transparency? I've got emails where people are saying, please, you must not spray on my farm. You must not spray on my land. You must not spray in the parks. You must not. And that is from my interpretation, not what is happening in regards to chemical

2:00:03use and eradicating the different species that state law mandates. And if people have that impression or that concern, what might we do to provide that information? So that was one of the questions I had in regards to the dashboard. There were a couple of different pieces. For example, in Gulf War, you were talking about the surface water and the impact study. And that was, um, additional information that I haven't heard in our administrative meetings. So that's helpful. And what was missing from you was the, um, when are we expected to have that? So if I think about this three year, um, plan, when are we? So even having some timelines in there, um, in all the goals and would just be helpful for us to be able to, for me to understand, um, where we are in the work, what's proposed, when you think you might have quote unquote completion, whatever that, um, however we could compare from one item to another. The other question I just want to acknowledge on the red hill specifically on, you had a slide on endangered species act in.

2:01:10Then after that, there was a treatment map with the two different blues. Um, so I appreciate that was my question as I was looking at it. What does that mean? Um, community members reached out to board members when that initial map went out. And I appreciate that like, what else can we do to let people know what's happening? And that was one of those pieces. But the difference between map to map, I think is another piece of just how do we inform people? So if there is, if I heard you correctly talking about the drone mapping happening and then the update, um, first of all, I don't believe we would have gotten to this, um, refined information and refined area and boundaries and the hundred feed and the 660 and all those things. If community members wouldn't have gotten to the board of county commissioners to try and get some answers. So I just want to acknowledge that. And it's, it's more of a piece of how might we do this work better just to be able to provide more information. Um, and be clear about how we're coming up to that information because I think community members really need to be acknowledged in what they've been bringing to try and help us understand the land management pieces as well as what staff has been

2:02:23doing to help us. Um. And then I think, I don't know if you want me to address one of the last slides was the concepts. Did I go over my time? I see. No, no, you haven't. I guess I just wondered whether you did want to pause and let staff address these questions or would you wanting to finish your questions. And then, and then get responses. Cause I think we're not going to be able to get through all of this with, with. Time for. Responses. Right. I agree. And that was one of my initial questions. And so my questions don't have to be answered right now. If you want to have the questions be respond to in a different way. And I can stop my questions at the time. Thank you. Well, I didn't want to cut you off, but, uh, and my questions are much shorter. They're not nearly as extensive as that. So, um, I see stuff and you've been taking notes. Why don't we, let's go ahead and get all our questions on the table, uh, maybe. And then we can circle back and let staff, uh, respond to the, up to all those questions. Um, were you finished? You had some.

2:03:40Yeah. Oh no. And as it said, I wouldn't ask all my questions just because of the time, but I was thinking we'd ask all our questions and then give stuff an opportunity. That's what I understood about the logistic question in the beginning. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Stolzman. Great. Thank you very much. Um, thank you for the report. I've been waiting eagerly for it. So it is appreciated that it's here now. Um, so I just on one, um, commissioner, Louched, and just on one point that I think we see things like maybe slightly differently is around, um, what's required by state law, um, treatment of various types of species. So one thing I've heard a lot from community members is that we're really heavily focused on these lists species, which don't require us to use herbicide or treat them under state law. So I'm focusing today on my comments around the list A species, mostly in a little bit around list B and how we can get a handle on those. But I think most of the comments I've heard from community members are concerned about what broadcast herbicide treatment on a species that we're not required to treat. Um, so just focusing back onto the list A from my perspective. Um, so I was hearing in the update, um, that no species found on BCPOS

2:04:51Boulder County Parks and open space land, um, is what the statute requires for eradication. And that's pretty different than my understanding. So when I look at it and what I'm hoping to see in the next annual report and how we can work together on this going forward is a more holistic look at, um, these list A species. And so our role is really to be able to remove those silos between landownership type. And the state statute even talks about federal land. So we've got state owned land. We have federal unland. We have private property and we have county on land. Probably other types as well. And we have different responsibilities and statutory requirements on those different land types. So what I think could be a really useful way to go through this in the future would be to go species by species on list A and show how we're doing. So we would see a map of the extent of the list A species in Boulder County. And, um, I'll just put a little asterisk in, not get too much into this today, but it even talks about our ability to cooperate with other local governments because within each municipality, they also have to have these plans. And the seeds like we heard about move about, um, from property type to property type. So if

2:05:58we want to get a hold on this, this collaborative piece needs to happen. And someone needs to be in the seat to be able to look at this, uh, irrespective of ownership of land because the weeds don't care. And so, um, seeing a map of the extent of the list A species by each species one by one. So like, I'll just use Harry Willow herb since you put that one up. I think the first thing we could do is show the Colorado Department of Agriculture fact sheet on that list A species. So I pulled it up on mine and I look and they go through and they show what the cultural treatment is with the biological treatment is what mechanical, what chemical is. And, um, so on that particular one, it has mechanical treatment like you were showing we did the hand pulling and that pilot program that you showed. It talks about how to do it. And the importance of, um, ensuring the timing.

2:06:46So I think getting in some more details about did we get it before it went to see did we have enough capacity? Did we need more volunteers? And then it talks about destroying that particular plant on site, um, as the best option, um, just because of how it spreads from the rhizomes and from the root bulbs and from the seats. So did we do some community bonfire on site to destroy it all? Like what was the way that we engaged with people to understand about that? And then how did we get enough community volunteerism to support continued retreatment if we're taking that approach in the pilot? So I heard, you know, it came back. So what did we do? Is it sprouting again? Did we miss some rhizomes? Do we need to pull again? How would we do it? And if we want to take these alternatives and pilots, I think it'll take that kind of focused effort. Um, between, I mean, on each species going through really methodically and understanding that, um, so once we understand that and how we're doing, we can then sit down as a group and look at cost effectiveness and say, all right, you know, this is what it's looking like. We either need this many more volunteers or this much more money for hiring people or this much

2:07:54more, um, intergovernmental agreement to go about it that way. But it's hard to evaluate the cost effectiveness as it was presented today. Because all we hear about is this is the cost of the goats. And it's like, all right. And like the lot to that. And then we can collectively decide if that cost is worth it if we want to pursue that. And that can then address what I heard, Commissioner Lutzchman asking about is like how much funding do we need to put toward land management? We can't, I mean, we can, we could just dump a placeholder in, you know, okay, you get this much money, but it would be better to understand what the cost would be to get the outcome that we want and then budget the appropriate amount of funding to achieve the outcome we want in the way that we want.

2:08:34So I think we're missing some information to be able to have that conversation about cost effectiveness and budget. And so, um, again, having the planning folks here is really great from CPMP community planning and permitting that do the enforcement on private property. But what's missing from my perspective is the coordination and understanding, you know, so we have some responsibilities and state law. I keep pointing down because I brought this particular book with me in case I got stuck. Um, which has this section of statute in it. But what are we doing to ensure that we're doing our role and responsibility as far as notification, education. And then of course like there is even a provision that the government has the responsibility to go in and provide the treatment if the landowner is not able to do that. So did we follow the steps and how did that coordinate with the timing of the weeds and when they have seeds and all of those things, like it's, it's just very complicated. So I think coordination could be bolstered. And really make this stronger going forward. Um.

2:09:36So, and I just used Harry Willower, but I think it would be fantastic to see each species going through A. Once we get that in control going through B and understanding what, what we're up against. Because each one's a little bit different when you look, um, Harry Willow herb on the state CDA sheet has biological X doubt saying that the approved biological option. So we could then talk about each one and what we might want to do and what the community would get behind and how we could bolster the effort. So that would be great to see in the next one. I just would say also, um, I think it is an opportunity for the governments to work together, um, because we know like if we have a ditch, for example, with yellow flag iris that starts in boulder and then it goes into unincorporated and then it goes into Lafayette, the coordination opportunity there, uh, that we could work on. And then moving on to the endangered species act, um, section. So, um, I appreciate the slide that was in there. It's not what I was talking about or looking for. So when I'm asking about and the question I have is about, um, a process that's called the endanger species act section 10 authorization, which Boulder County and other local governments have participated

2:10:51in the past, um, Boulder County participated, I think on Sigly Trail out in superior because that's an area where we have the prebels jumping mouse. And so what that does is really looks at an alternative analysis when you're going to potentially, um, I forget what the word is, but I'm commissioner Levy could save the day when you're going to encroach on their home, um, or like get into the space where the endangered species is the great word for it. And commissioner leaves. Maybe trespass. That could, that works. She has all the good words. Um, so what it does is really it's a very thorough analysis of alternatives that shows what has been considered and what options exist before you go in and, and go into that space and do something that might have consequences that are irreversible. And so I think that type of a deliberate process would really allow for the appropriate public comment and participation and also the appropriate expertise looking at the different options. Because in this space, it is quite complicated because doing nothing is doing something and has consequences and effects. But as does chemical treatment, as does mechanical treatment, as does, you know, biological treatment. And so these things are not without complicated interactions. So that type of a methodical approach would be appropriate in the spaces where we

2:12:12do have the endangered species, in my opinion. And then I also appreciate the slide on PFOS. I think I was looking at it a little bit differently as well and have some further questions. So I don't object to the RFA to have outside agency study these things. But I think we have an obligation to our staff, to the public, um, to the wildlife and species, um, we have, it has been alerted to our attention through two different studies. Two, at least two of the chemicals that we're using are known to contain PFAS. I think it was the milestone and the, uh, in DASA flamb both have tests showing that they have PFAS in them. Um, and likely because of droplet application. Like it's likely so that it can be a lubricant and droplet application. Um, but since we've been alerted to that, you know, it's just like when the fire district, um, learned about the uniforms that contain PFAS to help with the flammability. They know that that's bad for the firefighters. They know they have obligations to do testing and to mitigate against that and to understand the outcomes. So from my perspective, we have an obligation to understand the extent to which PFAS exists and all the chemicals that we're applying. And then what we can do to either eliminate that or understand

2:13:24where we would want to use that because that has pretty irreversible consequences. So I think we have some obligations to get some testing done, um, in short order. And then the last piece I'll comment on just given time is around prescribed burns. I think what we need to include in the report is, um, where we thought burns were appropriate. And I know, so the way it was presented is like we didn't do any burning this year, but I actually know that it was much more complicated than that because I was previously the agriculture team lead when we were working, um, with team leads. And there were a number of prescribed burns planned around the county. Some of them were canceled because the weather window didn't work. Um, so we have to have the right relative humidity, the right wind speed, the right vegetation mix. So everything has to be just right from a safety perspective for us to be able to proceed. And if not, they get pulled. So I think we need some more information showing like where we were attempting and then explaining the community that we did take that care to look and ensure that the staff were using all of the precautions and regulations to not light the prescribed burns when they're not appropriate and just understand where we are with

2:14:30that. Because as we continue to have more fire weather and unpredictable weather, I think we need to evaluate what we're going to accept from a risk standpoint with prescribed burns. Because again. There are consequences of not doing it. And you might get a bigger fire that wasn't prescribed after the fact. So I think that more data and information on that could have more wholesome conversation. So we could make better decisions as a board as how to move forward. So I'll just stop there for today. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Um. So just, um, just for, for everybody's benefit, we're not going to be able to get through the kind of response and dialogue and everything that would be ideal on this plan, uh, from, you know, my hearing of some of Kish Stolzman's questions. You know, it, um, it almost suggests restructuring the plan itself to take a different approach. Maybe not. Okay. I see. It was included that way. And if you look at previous plans, they used to do it the way I described.

2:15:34Yeah. So, um, yeah, so some of these are, very kind of far, we have a lot of implications for, um, how we structure the plan and how we structure the response. My questions are going to be quite limited and not really very interesting here, uh, in comparison. So I'm, I am wondering here when you, you know, your progress on strategic goals and the herbicide applications on 495 acres reflecting mean a false progress towards the long - term target. Are you tracking the question that raised for me throughout the plan. How many of these are one - time applications and how many of these acres are going to require multiple applications? So because I'm really, really focused on this goal of ours of reducing our use of herbicides, uh, by 2030. And just so, um, you know, we know they're not a hundred percent effective. We know that other things happen and more seeds blow in with the wind or animals track them in whatever. So I'm just wondering what kind of just as an additional data point. Are you expecting multiple applications. Um, on the return of the Harry Willow herb, um, after the hand pulling. I couldn't tell from your write - up is, is this the hand pulling was a pilot project because we don't want to put herbicides. It grows in the

2:17:18water. We don't want to put herbicides in the water. So we're kind of between a rock and a hard place. What are you proposing here. To continue with the hand pulling for the next couple of years and see if we can get a handle on it? So that is a question. And probably, you know, similar question on the other pilots, the ones that maybe were less, um, less effective than, than you expected them to be, you know, how, how do you propose. Modifying them in the future. The steamed weeding technique. Let me put you in touch with my carpet clean or his equipment never. It seems like that's what it is, right? It's a big carpet cleaner thing. Um, is that, are you thinking of that as something that, that ultimately eradicates or is this just an ongoing maintenance method for the parking lots? Okay.

2:18:21And the trailhead areas. Cause you know, I mean, I would not see that as being any sort of an effective thing. The kinds of weeds that are in the parking lots, the bindweed, um, you know, the, the spurge that different kind of spurge, not the, um, myrtle spurge, but different kind of spurge in the parking lots and stuff. So that's not, um, going to be effective over the long term. I'm very, very interested in the research how you've set up the research plots on the soil amendments and the, you know, the different combos on that. And I don't know that you said what the period of time is for that. And then as you're doing that, um, what comes to mind for me is, are these plots really similar enough to be able to actually draw valid conclusions? They may have different seed bank residue in them. They may have different moisture. They may be more, more or less susceptible to other seeds coming in.

2:19:31So I'm just going to want to know how rigorous that protocol is and the period of time over which you're expecting to, um, to study there. The weed warrior, when he wrote up about that, is that, um, that it was, it's, you know, that's a five year program. We're in. Year two, or maybe we completed year two. And your observation that it was effective on concentrated areas of, uh, of weeds, but not, uh, so much on the scattered plants and you're seeing the scattered plants spread. And pretty soon they'll be concentrated. I'm just wondering again, about modifying the work, modifying the protocol on that, um, it's, I think, you know, you're working with, um, volunteers. And I went through the training and I did a couple of, um, stints up there with my mild stretch.

2:20:36And, um, you know, some people are really good at identifying those scattered sites and some are not. I'm not going to claim that I, uh, was very good at it. But I just wondered, you know, how we modify these pilot programs as we, as we see their efficacy or not. Unprescribed burns. I think I'm just wondering. You know, given the climate and there are a lot of state limitations also on when you're allowed to burn, you know, whether that really is going to be an effective tool, I guess we don't want to take anything out of the toolbox, but I think we need to really acknowledge that the number of days that are going to be available to us, uh, are probably going to be limited for that. And I'm kind of curious about what weeds prescribe burn is good for, because it's not effective on all of them. On some of them, it just, um, you know, the seeds respond to burns and they like, you know, we all, we've all seen the beautiful fields of fireweed that come back. And so I just, you know, are we, are we inhibiting some weeds and then triggering some others that we might not have? The last thing I want to say, um. Is a whole bunch of comments in the margins on these. But, um, is the,

2:22:16I just found this section on kocha mowing, which was on page 25, the report. Just had made a note. That I just found it confusing. I couldn't tell, let me find the language. I couldn't tell what you were saying about mowing actually and whether that was effect over or not. And there may, maybe the typo in there. I would just look at the last paragraph on page 25. And, um, and see if, if you said what you meant to say. And that. I think is all that I noted as I was going through the report. That, you know, you. Ve got to have a lot of activity to track. Really glad that, um, we were able to provide the additional resources. Uh, I also have a question about, you know, on the resource side of things, um, you know, what would it take to really make the significant progress on the list day and list species that we need to make. And, um, and not just always be making engaging in ketchup. Uh, on that.

2:23:42I mean, we are making progress. And so it's great that we've eradicated those three. Some of them, um, you know, they're, they're going to take a lot of work and a lot of concentrated. Work. And, and I'd be in favor of really looking a whole lot more at how we can have a much more comprehensive approach that addresses the private property issues. I see Myrtle Spurge every day. I saw it this morning on my walk. And I think it's very pretty. I think even with all the attention on Myrtle Spurge, a lot of people see it in their yard. And I think it's very pretty. And so I just think we have to figure out how we really, um, expand this in a much more intensive way to private property owners. And it's not going to be popular. Um, as Commissioner Stozeman pointed out. The statute does give us the authority to, uh, interprivate property.

2:24:43And eradicate the wee. So those are my comments. Uh, it's 1132. Where we will get. Some additional. Time on our calendar. To have staff come back. And answer all these questions. And maybe have enough. Time for more. Of a dialogue. From us. But I think this was, this was great to let you know how this was received. What worked. What didn't. The different ways of organizing it. And then we'll also have some additional conversation, our deputy Natalie. Can give us some guidance on how we want to come back. And address the current pause that we have on the aeria. Applications. Thank you, commissioners. Good morning. Natalie Spring at Commissioners Deputy for the record. Um, I am looking at your calendars and staff's calendars at this time. Um, to schedule a future public meeting for you all to have that discussion regarding Ariel sprain, um, so that will come out on the commissioner's advanced agenda. Um, per standard process. Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, this is the last item we had on our agenda for the morning, uh, or for the day. So we will adjourn our meeting. Thank you. Thank you all for coming and listening.