Environmental Board · Wednesday, February 1, 2023 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of January 11, 2023

packet pp.3–4

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 01-11-23 Environmental Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Environmental Board 6:30 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. January 11, 2023 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

5. REPORTS

Energy Smart Eastside Program Update

packet pp.17–18

Topics: ClimateArts & Culture

Open packet at p.17 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Clean Buildings Incentive Program Update

packet pp.19–20

Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

6. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Updated Board Schedule

packet pp.21–24

▶ Watch from 3:39:12 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

additional offerings under the Community Energy Efficient Program grant;

4851 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ thank you

0:07 ↗ all right welcome to the February 1st

0:11 ↗ special meeting of the Issaquah

0:13 ↗ environmental board I'm Jamie Finch and

0:14 ↗ I'll be your chair tonight

0:16 ↗ do the hybrid nature of this meeting we

0:18 ↗ will have some members attending in

0:20 ↗ person and other others by computer or

0:22 ↗ phone for meeting attendees attending

0:24 ↗ remotely please state your name each

0:27 ↗ time time before speaking meet your

0:30 ↗ microphone when not speaking and then

0:32 ↗ anyone that is in person as we usually

0:33 ↗ do please do flip your name tag if you

0:36 ↗ have

0:39 ↗ um on key topics we'll be summarizing uh

0:41 ↗ agreement around and recommendations

0:45 ↗ um at the end of each topic and then if

0:46 ↗ there's any comments uh for my summary

0:49 ↗ please do pop in

0:51 ↗ um I think from there we can probably go

0:54 ↗ into attendance of the board so

0:57 ↗ Stacy you can take us through that okay

0:58 ↗ great great uh Tommy Anderson here

1:02 ↗ has an excuse absence

1:05 ↗ uh Nancy Davidson here

1:08 ↗ Jimmy bench here

1:10 ↗ Cameron Fisher yeah Rishi hasra

1:13 ↗ Dan Hintz here

1:16 ↗ Laura lafako

1:19 ↗ was planning to join a remote guy out

1:22 ↗ for her uh Ashwin manoharan here John

1:25 ↗ McWilliams here and Newcomb

1:29 ↗ yeah

1:30 ↗ and Janet well yeah

1:34 ↗ right

1:36 ↗ thank you very much and then I think

1:37 ↗ next we have up the approval of the

1:39 ↗ minutes do I have any comments on the

1:41 ↗ minutes from January 11th

1:46 ↗ bringing on their approved as presented

1:49 ↗ next we'll move into public comment

1:52 ↗ before we do just provide some

1:54 ↗ guidelines for public comments

1:56 ↗ um

1:57 ↗ if someone is providing comment remotely

2:01 ↗ um please press star 3 or look for the

2:04 ↗ hand icon

2:06 ↗ um

2:07 ↗ obviously we think public comments are

2:09 ↗ an important part of the public process

2:11 ↗ we take them seriously back to them into

2:13 ↗ the decisions we make

2:15 ↗ please do limit any comments to five

2:17 ↗ minutes and if you're joining remotely

2:20 ↗ mute when you are done I think with that

2:24 ↗ Stacy you want to take us through

2:27 ↗ thought comments and then we have client

2:28 ↗ anyone educated desire to speak no we

2:32 ↗ don't have any members of the public on

2:33 ↗ I'll just know um Steve Herrera did send

2:36 ↗ several written comments to PPC and CC

2:39 ↗ the environmental board January 12 1926

2:44 ↗ um had a number of feedback items goals

2:46 ↗ policy changes desired outcomes

2:49 ↗ definitions and some specific

2:51 ↗ recommendations around certain chapters

2:53 ↗ such as forested Hillside

2:56 ↗ um so you should have those in your

2:57 ↗ email those are the only written

3:00 ↗ comments we've received

3:04 ↗ Connie

3:08 ↗ [Music]

3:09 ↗ would like to her initial comment

3:14 ↗ you can come to the front sorry okay the

3:17 ↗ podium there is no space anymore

3:21 ↗ uh this is

3:25 ↗ my name is Connie Marsh I live on

3:28 ↗ squawk and you've heard me a lot lately

3:30 ↗ so I oddly just came from the equity

3:33 ↗ board which I don't usually do

3:37 ↗ um and they were reviewing something

3:38 ↗ called the public engagement tool kit

3:42 ↗ which is

3:44 ↗ what a series of

3:48 ↗ question and answers that they go

3:51 ↗ through as public projects are put

3:54 ↗ through the community

3:56 ↗ and it is going out for review but the

3:59 ↗ only place it's going is the equity

4:02 ↗ board and so I've spent the last 10

4:05 ↗ years trying to figure out how they use

4:07 ↗ this public toolkit and I really think

4:11 ↗ it needs a major review because as we go

4:14 ↗ through all of these projects and we try

4:16 ↗ to figure out uh where and when the

4:19 ↗ critical areas are going to be addressed

4:21 ↗ especially road projects Parks projects

4:25 ↗ that is the precursor information that

4:29 ↗ you get to when those projects come into

4:33 ↗ the code

4:34 ↗ and so by the time they get to the code

4:37 ↗ they're pretty gel and so I just wanted

4:41 ↗ to bring up the that process is being

4:46 ↗ examined at this point in time and oddly

4:49 ↗ is disconnected with the code process

4:52 ↗ for Capital Improvements that we are

4:55 ↗ having our draft code that requires them

4:58 ↗ to like keep all the names of the people

5:02 ↗ who have been to the meetings that's

5:03 ↗ nowhere in the toolkit

5:06 ↗ um so I I just

5:09 ↗ the environmental board has touch points

5:12 ↗ on many road projects but only in theory

5:16 ↗ and many parks projects but only in

5:18 ↗ policy because you weren't project

5:20 ↗ people but I think you can review

5:23 ↗ processes if you decide to ask to review

5:26 ↗ processes and I think this is one to ask

5:30 ↗ for

5:31 ↗ thank you

5:35 ↗ think about

5:38 ↗ wraps up public comment

5:40 ↗ um so that will take us into our agenda

5:43 ↗ items the first one being the

5:46 ↗ environmental board recommendation memo

5:48 ↗ on Title 18 complete draft

5:50 ↗ um should I read through the comments

5:53 ↗ that we've worked that we received from

5:55 ↗ Tisha first or do you want to go through

5:57 ↗ the document do that and then before we

5:59 ↗ start the review

6:02 ↗ um

6:03 ↗ I well let's see I can share the

6:06 ↗ proposed document we're planning to go

6:08 ↗ through and process and then maybe

6:09 ↗ reading the okay because I think it

6:11 ↗ would probably believe right after the

6:14 ↗ review we give is that when we find a

6:17 ↗ new Connie's comments no probably yeah

6:19 ↗ because then maybe I'll do the the the

6:22 ↗ additional context on just how we're

6:24 ↗ going to work through the process not

6:25 ↗ pretty good okay um so I think and Stacy

6:28 ↗ could not take it okay

6:31 ↗ let's see this is being very slow

6:33 ↗ probably it will

6:37 ↗ um so our plan tonight I think the

6:40 ↗ overall goal um was to try and reach

6:42 ↗ consensus on a memo to city council with

6:46 ↗ recommendations on Title 18 or complete

6:48 ↗ draft

6:49 ↗ um goal is to reach consensus

6:52 ↗ um we can talk about when there aren't

6:54 ↗ uh recommendations in here that we have

6:56 ↗ consensus or are there any mixed views

6:58 ↗ of the environmentally how we want to

7:00 ↗ so we were thinking tonight we would

7:02 ↗ just walk through Section by section

7:04 ↗ make sure folks understand the

7:06 ↗ recommendation and then just today uh

7:10 ↗ CPD I went through and provided some

7:13 ↗ responses clarification so that is the

7:16 ↗ version that I have that I was going to

7:18 ↗ walk through

7:20 ↗ um and I'm hoping that with cbd's input

7:23 ↗ it'll help us either decide to keep the

7:26 ↗ recommendation to revise it or maybe

7:28 ↗ it's not necessary because they're

7:30 ↗ planning to address it

7:32 ↗ um or we decide that the recommendation

7:34 ↗ isn't needed anymore because we received

7:36 ↗ the clarification we needed

7:39 ↗ um so I can take live edits I have a

7:42 ↗ keyboard we can pass around and folks

7:45 ↗ wanna if it's easier for you all to type

7:48 ↗ um if you're on the WebEx you can send

7:50 ↗ revisions via the chat so whatever is

7:53 ↗ the easiest way for any revisions to be

7:56 ↗ made

7:57 ↗ open to that process and so do you

8:00 ↗ envision us going through this right now

8:02 ↗ and going section by section making

8:04 ↗ comments and addressing them all at once

8:07 ↗ um yes that I may read through what

8:11 ↗ Tisha has helped us and just around

8:13 ↗ process so that we're

8:15 ↗ all clear on like as opposed to in the

8:18 ↗ past when we've done kind of

8:19 ↗ parliamentary process where we have

8:21 ↗ amendments and that formal motion

8:23 ↗ process throughout the updates here

8:26 ↗ um we thought it might help to smooth

8:28 ↗ the discussion out a bit that we save

8:31 ↗ that for the end of the process so I'm

8:33 ↗ just going to read through the language

8:35 ↗ that was prepared by tissue around that

8:37 ↗ um

8:38 ↗ tonight we will be making a

8:39 ↗ recommendation on the title 18 complete

8:41 ↗ draft we will be doing this by approving

8:43 ↗ a recommendation memo with our comments

8:45 ↗ and suggestions as a board a draft was

8:47 ↗ included in the agenda packet there will

8:49 ↗ be a motion and vote on the recommended

8:51 ↗ recommendation letter at the end of this

8:53 ↗ item

8:54 ↗ board members should wait to make

8:56 ↗ comments in the overall recommendation

8:58 ↗ and until the motion is made to approve

9:00 ↗ the letter

9:01 ↗ first before that point we will be

9:02 ↗ making any edits to the letter to help

9:05 ↗ streamline this process we will be not

9:07 ↗ we will not be making formal motions on

9:09 ↗ edits if you have a post edit please

9:12 ↗ indicate you'd like to speak and then

9:13 ↗ offer your proposed change

9:15 ↗ staff will work to show the suggested

9:18 ↗ warning on this on the screen

9:20 ↗ I will then ask if there are any

9:22 ↗ suggested changes on the proposed

9:24 ↗ wording if so we will talk through the

9:26 ↗ proposed edits one by one

9:28 ↗ if you'd like to propose a change to the

9:30 ↗ wording someone else recommends please

9:32 ↗ seek recognition

9:34 ↗ to the proposed wordings firmed up I

9:37 ↗ will ask if there are any objections to

9:38 ↗ incorporating a final wording into the

9:40 ↗ letter there aren't any objections then

9:43 ↗ I will assume there is consensus and the

9:44 ↗ recording will be included if there are

9:46 ↗ objections we will take a vote on

9:48 ↗ whether to include the proposed boarding

9:50 ↗ the changes supported by a majority of

9:52 ↗ the board members that wording will be

9:54 ↗ included in the letter

9:56 ↗ once all the proposed changes have been

9:58 ↗ discussed I will be looking for board

10:00 ↗ members to offer a motion to approve the

10:02 ↗ EB recommendation letter overall

10:05 ↗ maybe if there's any questions

10:07 ↗ so what if you don't

10:12 ↗ so similar to if we were running a

10:14 ↗ standard parliamentary process we would

10:16 ↗ take it to a boat at the end of the day

10:18 ↗ and that's basically what this is doing

10:20 ↗ so do we discuss it initially as we're

10:24 ↗ going item by item or do we do it when

10:26 ↗ emotion is made to approve the letter

10:28 ↗ and then we start making amendments to

10:30 ↗ eliminate certain new comments so the

10:33 ↗ idea was to make those as we go through

10:35 ↗ so any edits that we would like to make

10:37 ↗ to the letter we're going through

10:39 ↗ through this initial process of

10:41 ↗ line-by-line edits before we get to the

10:43 ↗ actual motion process

10:48 ↗ just to share I discussed with Tisha

10:51 ↗ because in the past our letters have

10:54 ↗ been

10:55 ↗ um the representation of individual

10:57 ↗ board member comments because we did not

10:59 ↗ have time to come together and come to

11:02 ↗ consensus

11:03 ↗ her opinion was that the letter would be

11:05 ↗ much stronger if it is by consensus or

11:08 ↗ reflects the majority of the board we

11:10 ↗ did talk about we could mention that

11:13 ↗ some Ward members make this

11:14 ↗ recommendation but she thought it'd be

11:16 ↗ much stronger if it's the full consensus

11:18 ↗ of the board we can determine otherwise

11:21 ↗ if needed if there's disagreement on

11:23 ↗ sections

11:24 ↗ any other questions on process

11:29 ↗ doesn't look like large by the way

11:33 ↗ everyone Rochester audio

11:35 ↗ [Music]

11:40 ↗ can you say hello Laura just to check

11:42 ↗ your audio oh yeah sorry did that not

11:45 ↗ come through yes

11:50 ↗ all right and then I think now we'll

11:52 ↗ start going down assuming there's no

11:54 ↗ other questions on process we'll just

11:55 ↗ start going down through this document

11:57 ↗ and then

11:59 ↗ um if you have comments on any of these

12:02 ↗ sections as we go please you would

12:04 ↗ normally indicate your desire to be

12:09 ↗ and then will you

12:11 ↗ Stacy just be like paragraph by

12:13 ↗ paragraph is that how you're thinking

12:15 ↗ about this

12:16 ↗ okay so open to suggestions

12:21 ↗ um

12:24 ↗ and then I'm having to work off one

12:26 ↗ screen

12:27 ↗ um so feel free to unmute yourselves and

12:29 ↗ just just jump in

12:32 ↗ um first item actually just had a

12:34 ↗ question uh We've included line numbers

12:37 ↗ just to make it easier

12:40 ↗ um for folks that want to make revisions

12:42 ↗ a formatting question of the letter do

12:45 ↗ we want to number our recommendations or

12:47 ↗ just keep the structure of the letter as

12:50 ↗ it was presented

12:56 ↗ I like it with line numbers I think it

12:58 ↗ helps people all be on the same page of

13:01 ↗ what we're talking about it's really

13:03 ↗ challenging with the 20 Page Letter to

13:06 ↗ keep up with stuff for submission to

13:08 ↗ council as well so you're talking about

13:10 ↗ the line numbers on the left hand side

13:12 ↗ that are just like one two three four

13:14 ↗ are you talking about the references to

13:15 ↗ code these line numbers if we were to

13:18 ↗ keep that in for or sorry I wasn't

13:20 ↗ expecting we should keep it in so people

13:22 ↗ can all be

13:23 ↗ let's talk about the comments on line

13:24 ↗ 33. makes it easy

13:29 ↗ all right

13:36 ↗ thank you but Stacy yes can I offer a

13:39 ↗ suggestion that goes yes perhaps some

13:41 ↗ intro to it you might want to explain

13:43 ↗ the council that the line numbers are

13:45 ↗ there really

13:48 ↗ to help us stay for discussion purposes

13:51 ↗ or whatever does that make sense so that

13:55 ↗ people understand there's no real reason

13:57 ↗ for it yes

14:05 ↗ [Music]

14:07 ↗ um I'll do it up here

14:09 ↗ yeah

14:13 ↗ and then make a note for that

14:29 ↗ okay great

14:32 ↗ um any comments uh feedback on besides

14:37 ↗ adding an explanation of the line

14:38 ↗ numbers I'm on the introductory

14:41 ↗ paragraphs

14:51 ↗ um

14:57 ↗ yes it's reaching on me here hold on

15:01 ↗ all right

15:08 ↗ we may want to just

15:12 ↗ to get in the Rhythm

15:14 ↗ just make sure that there's no

15:15 ↗ objections to Nancy's proposed Edition

15:18 ↗ thank you

15:22 ↗ um are there any objections to the

15:23 ↗ addition of um

15:25 ↗ of reference to clarify the the uh

15:29 ↗ reasonably by numbers

15:34 ↗ foreign

15:53 ↗ any revisions to the background it's

15:57 ↗ just

15:58 ↗ um describes

16:01 ↗ uh the overview of the title 18 is

16:03 ↗ pulled from some other memos that came

16:06 ↗ before the board and then describes a

16:07 ↗ bit of the

16:10 ↗ um the board's review of Title 18 over

16:13 ↗ the last 18 months

16:20 ↗ right moving into uh what I find just

16:24 ↗ kind of General overall comments that is

16:26 ↗ how they were trained by the board

16:28 ↗ members that submitted them

16:32 ↗ go one by one

16:35 ↗ how do you want to handle the another

16:37 ↗ like this from CBD comments

16:40 ↗ were you going to read those like I know

16:42 ↗ Minnie is here how do we want to work

16:45 ↗ through those and many of you have any

16:47 ↗ thoughts on the best way

16:49 ↗ I open the suggestions on if we should

16:51 ↗ just read through those and make sure

16:53 ↗ everyone haven't had a chance to to read

16:55 ↗ those those updated comments that are

16:58 ↗ sent today

16:59 ↗ um I'm not sure others are in the same

17:01 ↗ boat but try and summarize the

17:03 ↗ recommendation and then the CPD response

17:06 ↗ yeah that would be great okay

17:09 ↗ um

17:11 ↗ so the second one here there was concern

17:15 ↗ about organization lack of clarity in

17:17 ↗ the critical critical areas

17:20 ↗ section and potential for loopholes in

17:23 ↗ particular some of the areas were called

17:26 ↗ out just the have to leave hcas creeks

17:29 ↗ and those subject to SMP

17:32 ↗ the response from CPD was that SMP

17:36 ↗ adopts the updated critical area code as

17:38 ↗ an appendix the law is very clear on

17:41 ↗ which which projects require Shoreline

17:44 ↗ permits and that critical areas code has

17:46 ↗ separate sections for those different

17:49 ↗ areas of concern

17:52 ↗ was that mostly a clarification yeah

17:55 ↗ it's just kind of you know the overlap

17:58 ↗ doesn't I mean if a Project's subject to

18:01 ↗ a shoreline the state law would say me

18:03 ↗ its own children potential development

18:05 ↗ permit here's what what's exempt from

18:07 ↗ the shorelines of potential development

18:09 ↗ permit and here's what's allowed so

18:11 ↗ there's no ambiguity in terms of the

18:13 ↗ exemption the city just adopts those

18:15 ↗ exceptions

18:16 ↗ um

18:17 ↗ the uh where there is uh s p as well as

18:22 ↗ uh Wetland the shoreline program says

18:25 ↗ the s p extends to any Associated

18:27 ↗ Wetlands or with that Stream So I think

18:31 ↗ so they just wanted to make sure that

18:33 ↗ everyone understood where there where

18:36 ↗ the boundaries are between the

18:38 ↗ regulations so

18:39 ↗ um

18:41 ↗ there's no loophole if that's the

18:43 ↗ concern that there will not be any

18:45 ↗ loophole but yes those those do overlay

18:48 ↗ and what doesn't it's unlisted in this

18:51 ↗ list is also floodplain regulations and

18:53 ↗ you know the streams that's also another

18:55 ↗ layer of Regulation that requires

18:57 ↗ students

18:59 ↗ bodies of water

19:02 ↗ So based on that input from CPD is there

19:06 ↗ interest in retaining revising or

19:10 ↗ removing this recommendation and I guess

19:12 ↗ that would be just in general to the

19:15 ↗ board hasn't discussed each of these

19:16 ↗ recommendations

19:19 ↗ I'd like to see the comic remain in mind

19:23 ↗ I think the potential is still there

19:32 ↗ any concerns with leaving that comment

19:34 ↗ in no actually I don't see any harm in

19:37 ↗ there

19:40 ↗ can we do a thumbs up once in a while

19:42 ↗ yeah

19:43 ↗ on the same page yes

19:46 ↗ it's nice a night where you need to

19:48 ↗ speak out loudly

19:52 ↗ um okay General nods around the table

19:54 ↗ for leaving that one in all right

19:57 ↗ um Anna sorry I just skipped right over

19:58 ↗ that first one uh it was a note about

20:01 ↗ just making great

20:03 ↗ um progress uh with Title 18 to improve

20:05 ↗ protection

20:07 ↗ um but uh needing to ensure that we also

20:10 ↗ have the ability to enforce code and

20:12 ↗ monitor impacts of mitigation work so

20:15 ↗ we'll have to be other concerns

20:17 ↗ okay

20:18 ↗ sure I did for just speaking for City

20:21 ↗ councils uh you know with the second

20:23 ↗ bullet point what would you like count

20:25 ↗ you know

20:27 ↗ chemical to do with that comment I mean

20:29 ↗ do you want

20:31 ↗ that may come up but I mean I think it's

20:34 ↗ just

20:35 ↗ um that's your recommendation asking

20:37 ↗ Council to do something about it or just

20:39 ↗ expressing your concern that they may be

20:43 ↗ yeah I know one of the comments that

20:45 ↗ actually I think Connie brought up last

20:46 ↗ time was

20:47 ↗ was the potential of the technical

20:50 ↗ review just to ensure that there weren't

20:51 ↗ any loopholes so that

20:55 ↗ we wanted to that might make it to your

20:57 ↗ point getting more actionable

20:58 ↗ um because right now it is doesn't

21:00 ↗ propose a specific action

21:03 ↗ uh

21:05 ↗ so that's one idea I don't know what

21:06 ↗ yeah I mean it doesn't matter to me you

21:08 ↗ can leave it in that just it what does

21:10 ↗ it mean

21:11 ↗ um it's still that the question Still

21:13 ↗ Remains but

21:15 ↗ um is there a recommendation to fix it

21:17 ↗ or do something about it that would be

21:19 ↗ good

21:20 ↗ a useful way to think about these things

21:23 ↗ as you go through the list yeah it's a

21:26 ↗ technical review feasible yeah that's it

21:29 ↗ seems to me that you're asking people

21:31 ↗ that don't sorry do I know

21:35 ↗ anyway I mean we don't have those

21:38 ↗ details we're looking at it from a

21:40 ↗ policy standpoint this is a very

21:41 ↗ complicated environmental section and it

21:45 ↗ refers to the s p it refers to other

21:48 ↗ documents we don't have the wherewithal

21:51 ↗ to compare these to make sure we're not

21:53 ↗ creating a loophole all we're saying is

21:56 ↗ that someone needs to do

21:58 ↗ the assessment to make sure they're not

22:00 ↗ there and we're not the right body to do

22:03 ↗ that

22:04 ↗ from the technical side are telling you

22:07 ↗ that these are things that this applies

22:10 ↗ the supplies they all kind of work with

22:12 ↗ each other so but I think the concern

22:15 ↗ Still Remains for you all that there's

22:16 ↗ potential which is fine I mean you can

22:19 ↗ leave that comment in it just

22:21 ↗ it won't result in any changes per se

22:24 ↗ right well perhaps if you would like us

22:27 ↗ to make a recommendation we could

22:28 ↗ recommend the council that they hire

22:30 ↗ someone independently to review this to

22:33 ↗ make sure there are no loopholes in the

22:34 ↗ code in the critical areas I mean if you

22:37 ↗ if you recommend I think that we need to

22:39 ↗ make a stronger recommendation perhaps

22:42 ↗ that's what we should be recommending to

22:43 ↗ council

22:44 ↗ I mean that's your call whatever you

22:46 ↗ this is your recommendation right

22:47 ↗ canceled so I don't want to speak for

22:49 ↗ what you want to recommend I think our

22:51 ↗ job is to give you the technical

22:52 ↗ information so you have the information

22:54 ↗ to make an informed recommendation and

22:57 ↗ so we're just sharing with you what SMP

22:59 ↗ does what critical area does how do they

23:01 ↗ overlap if you have further questions on

23:03 ↗ the technical piece we're happy to

23:05 ↗ answer

23:06 ↗ so

23:07 ↗ I

23:09 ↗ outside technical review this is

23:11 ↗ incredibly expensive with all these

23:13 ↗ documents my recommendation is that we

23:16 ↗ have trust in the staff that they do

23:18 ↗ their due diligence and just put a

23:19 ↗ comment in there to the effect of Staff

23:22 ↗ should review various other documents

23:26 ↗ where crosswalks occur

23:29 ↗ potentiary consistency

23:34 ↗ I want a subject the city to a 200 000

23:37 ↗ yeah I agree I agree with you on that

23:39 ↗ one it's just

23:40 ↗ we can't do it no it's too much

23:43 ↗ protection Don can you help the board

23:46 ↗ recommends the Stafford view of other

23:47 ↗ various documents

23:49 ↗ to ensure

23:55 ↗ 156.

23:57 ↗ I'm on an iPad

23:59 ↗ [Laughter]

24:03 ↗ um

24:04 ↗ word recommend the staff review of other

24:08 ↗ codes and documents I.E the shoreline

24:11 ↗ master plan and

24:13 ↗ playing before playing what is it

24:15 ↗ analysis whatever you can help me out

24:17 ↗ with the language here yeah I mean you

24:19 ↗ guys have this

24:22 ↗ list of areas in the shoreline master

24:24 ↗ program and and you know potentially

24:26 ↗ stormwater manual and floodplain and

24:31 ↗ regulations which the city just did and

24:34 ↗ then they went through that whole and

24:35 ↗ but we've coordinated all that but I

24:37 ↗ think what what you want to say is that

24:39 ↗ the interplay of different rules and

24:41 ↗ regulations is taken into account as the

24:44 ↗ document lives over time so as these

24:46 ↗ salesman permits come in just keeping in

24:49 ↗ mind the whole Spectrum documents exist

24:51 ↗ yeah

25:01 ↗ do we want to have to say like because

25:03 ↗ one of the things if we remove the first

25:04 ↗ part and we don't say due to the

25:06 ↗ complexity and overlapping

25:09 ↗ um kind of jurisdictions of overlapping

25:12 ↗ critical areas that could impact a

25:14 ↗ single site we what's the context that

25:16 ↗ we want to provide there that order we

25:19 ↗ want to just keep it as

25:20 ↗ that we recommend the staff review is

25:22 ↗ there any kind of the reasoning behind

25:24 ↗ it that you think would

25:26 ↗ right outside

25:28 ↗ makes it difficult to comply okay I

25:31 ↗ think that first sentence spells it out

25:33 ↗ I think you can get ready oh so you're

25:34 ↗ thinking we keep the whole first part

25:35 ↗ and then

25:38 ↗ okay you could lose the second sentence

25:41 ↗ if you wanted to cut some more

25:48 ↗ because

25:50 ↗ that additional recommendations staff

25:52 ↗ review other codes and documents to

25:54 ↗ ensure interplay of various codes

25:56 ↗ and documents are considered over time

25:59 ↗ or various codes aligned

26:02 ↗ towards the city's goals and yeah

26:04 ↗ policies

26:16 ↗ goals

26:17 ↗ [Music]

26:19 ↗ I hate to jump in as a naysayer but um I

26:23 ↗ I'm

26:25 ↗ just not sure that this is still

26:27 ↗ specific enough to be a helpful

26:28 ↗ recommendation like I know we're saying

26:30 ↗ we're not the experts but

26:32 ↗ um

26:32 ↗ obviously the board like the staff has

26:36 ↗ considered all of these things and

26:38 ↗ they're long stretched towards updating

26:40 ↗ all this work so

26:41 ↗ I don't know if maybe our other comments

26:43 ↗ where we're saying you know that there

26:44 ↗ needs to be more opportunity for

26:45 ↗ feedback to adjust to alignments which

26:48 ↗ is saying to like review things feels a

26:50 ↗ little

26:52 ↗ I'm fine with leaving it in but I'm not

26:53 ↗ sure that that's really much direction

26:55 ↗ to provide for them

27:09 ↗ do we have any other comments on this

27:12 ↗ section

27:13 ↗ proposed additions or changes

27:17 ↗ I think maybe this was mentioned but

27:19 ↗ like the line 55 to 56 maybe we could

27:24 ↗ cut that and put that in um into the

27:26 ↗ third sentence

27:28 ↗ um just so it's a little shorter

27:30 ↗ since that's kind of I guess aligning

27:32 ↗ with the review of other codes and

27:34 ↗ documents I think that falls under that

27:38 ↗ um

27:41 ↗ so like so the board recommends a stop

27:43 ↗ review of other codes and documents

27:46 ↗ um

27:48 ↗ and then yeah such as those covered

27:51 ↗ under actual acas creeks and those

27:53 ↗ Cedric SMP

27:58 ↗ we may want to add because I think

27:59 ↗ there's what

28:03 ↗ regulations

28:13 ↗ yeah

28:14 ↗ okay one thing

28:17 ↗ we could do

28:19 ↗ is ADD because some of these other

28:22 ↗ documents will get updated over time so

28:25 ↗ one thing we haven't specifically called

28:26 ↗ out is as there's updates to other

28:30 ↗ other pieces of code that it gets

28:32 ↗ reviewed against all everything that's

28:34 ↗ included in already in this Title 18

28:37 ↗ update

28:40 ↗ that might make it a little more

28:41 ↗ actionable as well

28:55 ↗ foreign

29:05 ↗ it sounded like you were maybe looking

29:07 ↗ for more of that professional technical

29:09 ↗ reviewer are you okay with this as is or

29:12 ↗ we could also say something to the

29:14 ↗ effect of outside technical review if

29:18 ↗ not cost prohibitive to

29:20 ↗ tell us tonight

29:22 ↗ uh no I think this edit is is closer to

29:24 ↗ being you know

29:26 ↗ productive

29:30 ↗ any objections to this section as it's

29:33 ↗ currently written

29:38 ↗ okay

29:40 ↗ thumbs up okay

29:42 ↗ I think these these General comments are

29:44 ↗ probably the most challenging one and

29:46 ↗ I'll just know I I'll move pretty

29:48 ↗ quickly through the

29:51 ↗ um board submitted recommendations that

29:53 ↗ don't have a CPD response since we all

29:55 ↗ have had a few days to to look at those

29:58 ↗ and review so definitely stop me if I'm

30:00 ↗ moving too fast

30:03 ↗ um so next comment was uh from the board

30:06 ↗ just saying the the lack of addressing

30:10 ↗ density middle housing

30:12 ↗ um and that those gaps should be

30:14 ↗ considered cpd's response was sharing

30:16 ↗ some of the city's efforts that are

30:18 ↗ underway

30:19 ↗ um around housing

30:24 ↗ give folks a minute to review that

30:26 ↗ comment and see if any revisions or

30:29 ↗ concerns about the recommendation as

30:31 ↗ submitted by a board member

30:35 ↗ foreign

30:51 ↗ that folks want to make to the I

30:54 ↗ board recommendation here with given the

30:57 ↗ additional information from CPD or based

31:00 ↗ on your review

31:01 ↗ I have a quick question about this okay

31:03 ↗ so the other near-term foot updates is

31:05 ↗ that referring just to Title 18

31:07 ↗ [Music]

31:09 ↗ be back on the left right here

31:13 ↗ um I would defer to the individual that

31:16 ↗ submitted this comment that was me

31:18 ↗ um

31:18 ↗ I think the primary focus was to

31:21 ↗ highlight Keen I don't know if there's

31:22 ↗ other

31:23 ↗ I don't know our code well enough to

31:25 ↗ know if there's other things that could

31:26 ↗ come into play I guess there might be so

31:28 ↗ that was kind of a catch-all yeah in

31:29 ↗ that case I was I think maybe it was

31:32 ↗ there a particular restaurant for like

31:34 ↗ giving that or option or because I feel

31:36 ↗ like throwing commission to be for like

31:37 ↗ as soon as possible but yeah I mean I

31:39 ↗ one thing just reading what I wrote I

31:42 ↗ didn't consider is a pretty weak word I

31:45 ↗ would look at and it sounds like there's

31:48 ↗ already work in progress so maybe we

31:50 ↗ could say something along continue to

31:52 ↗ prioritize filling these gaps in a code

31:56 ↗ update or other your term yeah I think

31:59 ↗ and that would be good maybe

32:01 ↗ yeah

32:04 ↗ filling these gaps

32:11 ↗ okay good nods any other revisions and

32:15 ↗ concerns about keeping this

32:16 ↗ recommendation in

32:18 ↗ good thumbs up thumbs up

32:24 ↗ okay then we had um two other comments

32:27 ↗ here about uh Staffing in place uh

32:30 ↗ particularly around the tree

32:31 ↗ preservation code enforcement

32:35 ↗ um and then having a system in place for

32:37 ↗ reporting violations

32:39 ↗ of the code any revisions or concerns

32:44 ↗ about leaving in those recommendations

32:47 ↗ great

32:51 ↗ foreign

32:56 ↗ next item here

32:59 ↗ getting into definitions uh there was a

33:02 ↗ comment around clarification of Base

33:04 ↗ flood and how that's determined

33:07 ↗ um CPD had a response around the flood

33:12 ↗ Hazard code that discusses how

33:14 ↗ applications are reviewed

33:16 ↗ um

33:18 ↗ and essentially we would want to refer

33:20 ↗ to that code

33:23 ↗ and not necessary to repeat that

33:27 ↗ definition here is that correct and

33:29 ↗ paraphrasing

33:32 ↗ Emily Appleton our engineering manager

33:34 ↗ is also online if there's more

33:37 ↗ discussion on this topic

33:43 ↗ so any so the comment from the board

33:46 ↗ member was to clarify how the base flood

33:48 ↗ is determined CPD has said that is done

33:51 ↗ in other codes

33:53 ↗ um so looking to the board to see if you

33:56 ↗ all want to keep in that recommendation

33:57 ↗ that we also include that determination

34:01 ↗ here or if it is okay to refer to where

34:04 ↗ it exists in other code

34:07 ↗ I don't think the code I think this is

34:09 ↗ my comment

34:10 ↗ and I don't think the code tells you

34:12 ↗ where that other code is where we would

34:14 ↗ find that and so there's a reference to

34:17 ↗ where that is located it might be clear

34:20 ↗ but right now it stands alone as

34:23 ↗ you know how do you figure out a base

34:25 ↗ flood if you don't have those maps and

34:27 ↗ so there's a location in the code that

34:30 ↗ can be referenced I think it will make

34:32 ↗ it a stronger definition

34:36 ↗ and I wasn't going looking for yeah

34:40 ↗ so if I add something

34:42 ↗ um please include you know we recommend

34:47 ↗ um including the reference

34:49 ↗ or how that face

34:52 ↗ flood is determined elsewhere in the

34:55 ↗ code

35:03 ↗ yeah I think you could just eliminate

35:05 ↗ from uh Administration

35:08 ↗ should clarify we'll move that and just

35:11 ↗ go to today's point of view yeah I'm

35:13 ↗ good with that I just

35:15 ↗ identify Americans right

35:19 ↗ so remove all those highlighted section

35:21 ↗ for baseball the administration

35:23 ↗ reference it should be should reference

35:27 ↗ that's how Facebook is determined in

35:29 ↗ areas that do not have the female blood

35:33 ↗ um

35:34 ↗ flood insurance rate Maps

35:38 ↗ the code XYZ

35:44 ↗ e

35:45 ↗ whatever the code number is yeah so if

35:48 ↗ someone doesn't have to hunt for this

35:49 ↗ specific yeah it is

35:52 ↗ foreign

36:03 ↗ should include reference for how base

36:05 ↗ flood is determined in areas that do not

36:07 ↗ have Tina flood insurance rate Mass

36:11 ↗ the code references should be the code

36:13 ↗ reference

36:14 ↗ it's probably encode someone

36:17 ↗ is include reference to the code

36:22 ↗ reference to title 16 definition or

36:25 ↗ something yeah

36:27 ↗ flooding is basically what I think

36:30 ↗ um

36:34 ↗ I don't know why we're repeating

36:37 ↗ uh flood stuff in Title 18 it should all

36:40 ↗ be in total 16. so one option maybe to

36:42 ↗ just take it out if it's not needed here

36:45 ↗ and the other one would be to add a

36:47 ↗ reference to title 16 yeah right I just

36:49 ↗ was reading the definitions and found

36:50 ↗ places where I'm like I don't know how

36:52 ↗ to do this so okay

36:56 ↗ chicks and balances you know you've got

36:58 ↗ one here

37:02 ↗ okay I'll say reference to relevant code

37:05 ↗ does that work for folks yep okay

37:08 ↗ thumbs up any other revisions good okay

37:13 ↗ um let's see more the next one there was

37:16 ↗ a recommendation

37:18 ↗ um

37:18 ↗ to the definition of development

37:22 ↗ um

37:25 ↗ to clarify that utilities and roadways

37:28 ↗ are part of the chapter

37:31 ↗ and let's see

37:34 ↗ this is here essentially it was the

37:37 ↗ addition of this blue text I believe

37:39 ↗ Nancy this was here she did some great

37:42 ↗ specific edits with added text so

37:45 ↗ um recommendation was to include this

37:47 ↗ blue text in the definition of

37:49 ↗ development

37:59 ↗ uh cpg said staff can review I think

38:04 ↗ this we did look at it

38:06 ↗ um so it doesn't hurt to add that in but

38:08 ↗ but it's the definition of structure

38:11 ↗ includes utilities and this is talking

38:13 ↗ about construction expansion of a

38:15 ↗ building or structure so it it does

38:17 ↗ include but it you know it doesn't hurt

38:19 ↗ if there's not a conflict we cannot make

38:21 ↗ that

38:24 ↗ any concerns from the board about this

38:27 ↗ recommendation for this addition to the

38:30 ↗ definition of development as seen in the

38:33 ↗ blue

38:35 ↗ do you know concerns

38:41 ↗ all right section 18 202

38:44 ↗ um first one is around free application

38:45 ↗ Community meetings

38:48 ↗ board recommending identification of

38:51 ↗ type and scale projects that need to

38:54 ↗ conduct the pre-application meeting a

38:56 ↗ few examples given here CPU responded to

39:00 ↗ those specific examples of sharing that

39:03 ↗ their type 1 permits and do not require

39:05 ↗ reapplication meetings and clarified

39:08 ↗ which projects do

39:11 ↗ um including level four and that level

39:14 ↗ two and three require if there are

39:17 ↗ critical errors on the property they

39:19 ↗ provided us this table as reference

39:24 ↗ um

39:34 ↗ okay

39:38 ↗ so I wanted to see

39:40 ↗ um

39:41 ↗ uh language here in black is the

39:43 ↗ recommendation if we want to make any

39:45 ↗ Eurovision based on cpd's

39:48 ↗ um response here

39:50 ↗ do we want them to add examples if we

39:54 ↗ don't feel like those were sufficient

39:55 ↗ enough to understand when review is

39:57 ↗ needed or any other kind of

39:59 ↗ clarification

40:03 ↗ I mean here minus where like the levels

40:05 ↗ get defined

40:08 ↗ um yeah so you know it's the process who

40:11 ↗ the decision there's another table that

40:13 ↗ talks about who's the decision maker

40:14 ↗ which one to require notice which ones

40:17 ↗ require public hearing before a decision

40:19 ↗ is made so there's a similar table that

40:21 ↗ defines what the process for level one

40:23 ↗ two and three but the basic difference

40:25 ↗ is level one is you're building permits

40:27 ↗ and things like that but they don't send

40:29 ↗ a public notice out them you know

40:31 ↗ usually the most straightforward

40:32 ↗ administrative decisions level two

40:35 ↗ requires a public notice it's an

40:37 ↗ administrative right to make the

40:38 ↗ decision

40:39 ↗ number three level three is uh hearing

40:42 ↗ examiner which notice is required as a

40:45 ↗ public hearing staff makes a

40:46 ↗ recommendation during the examiner

40:48 ↗ rights to findings and conclusion and

40:50 ↗ then makes a decision and then level

40:52 ↗ four is the development commission they

40:54 ↗ participate in some of the title 18

40:56 ↗ updates but they are members of the

40:57 ↗ community appointed to the board and and

41:00 ↗ um so that's but it's a public hearing

41:03 ↗ process and notice and then the last one

41:06 ↗ is level five which is city council

41:09 ↗ that we don't Define it in the process

41:12 ↗ who's appeal to when the public knows

41:14 ↗ there's separate table in the code

41:16 ↗ and all that's in titling

41:20 ↗ [Music]

41:21 ↗ who made this comment I'm not

41:23 ↗ understanding where you're coming from

41:24 ↗ here

41:26 ↗ okay

41:27 ↗ I read this from top to bottom

41:31 ↗ and I didn't go to that reference that's

41:33 ↗ in the code that tells you who needs it

41:35 ↗ and where so I was reading along and

41:37 ↗ going

41:38 ↗ who's going to need to have these

41:39 ↗ meetings and didn't realize it was

41:41 ↗ defined later on in the

41:43 ↗ documents and so there's only 800 pages

41:53 ↗ was not cleared and we read this from

41:56 ↗ top to bottom which I did

41:58 ↗ the sections I read

42:00 ↗ um where this was and how you'd know if

42:02 ↗ you needed to have one or not okay so

42:05 ↗ based on that I would suggest

42:07 ↗ uh

42:08 ↗ starting in the second sentence you read

42:10 ↗ some along the lines with however the

42:11 ↗ board recommends the administration

42:13 ↗ identify reference to what types of

42:16 ↗ scale projects are expected

42:19 ↗ you don't need to however just the board

42:21 ↗ of recommended exactly that's fine

42:25 ↗ I mean a lot of this stuff will be

42:27 ↗ handled during the implementation phase

42:28 ↗ but we'll have Hangouts and things like

42:31 ↗ that for people to build

42:32 ↗ it goes back to its Nancy's original

42:34 ↗ comment it's a 800 page document and

42:37 ↗ there's

42:39 ↗ Our Lives

42:41 ↗ I mean it's all in there but it's hard

42:43 ↗ to chase it around sure especially as a

42:46 ↗ light as a citizen trying to read it you

42:48 ↗ know it was very challenging to follow

42:51 ↗ all the start of many no no you should

42:53 ↗ try reading an existing code

42:58 ↗ yeah no no it seemed like this was more

43:00 ↗ of a question so we just wanted you to

43:02 ↗ have a response to it so

43:07 ↗ right good with adding recommendation

43:09 ↗ that we have the reference in so folks

43:11 ↗ can cross-reference so the other thing

43:13 ↗ that we the other way you could approach

43:15 ↗ this is

43:16 ↗ saying something along the lines of

43:19 ↗ the city

43:20 ↗ we suggested the city

43:23 ↗ provide like whether it's in the code or

43:25 ↗ also probably in additional resources

43:28 ↗ for the public to ensure that they're

43:29 ↗ able to easily understand

43:32 ↗ applicability of these different reviews

43:34 ↗ for different types of projects

43:36 ↗ I don't know Nancy for the as is or but

43:42 ↗ okay okay

43:46 ↗ [Music]

43:48 ↗ so I was a test case uh let's let's

43:52 ↗ suppose a particular development of

43:55 ↗ converting a carport to a garage and

43:57 ↗ let's work through uh that process using

44:00 ↗ the new code see how that works now

44:02 ↗ there was a companion document and the

44:05 ↗ Connie can maybe speak to this too but

44:08 ↗ there was a companion document a

44:09 ↗ questionnaire that the homeowner was

44:12 ↗ expected to fill out that that would

44:14 ↗ then guide you through things and it

44:17 ↗ could have been helpful but it was even

44:19 ↗ more confusing and that I use a lot of

44:21 ↗ terms that weren't defined there that

44:23 ↗ didn't copy where they were defined and

44:24 ↗ it became a real Quagmire to actually uh

44:27 ↗ get the answers that I needed there but

44:29 ↗ I think the idea of having a document

44:32 ↗ like that that guides an applicant

44:34 ↗ through uh through the maze is a good

44:38 ↗ one and uh effort should be put in that

44:40 ↗ and I don't know I mean that's I that's

44:43 ↗ a different document than this so I

44:45 ↗ don't know whether that's open for our

44:47 ↗ review here or whatever but anyway I I

44:50 ↗ do recommend that those kinds of

44:52 ↗ guidance documents be part of the

44:54 ↗ process overall and they can help

44:58 ↗ um these these issues that we've just

45:00 ↗ been talking about oh well that thing is

45:01 ↗ defined on paid 797 and we haven't got

45:04 ↗ there yet well that's where a guiding

45:06 ↗ document that that leaves an applicant

45:09 ↗ into it uh how can help

45:12 ↗ so um I don't I don't know that that

45:16 ↗ it's within the scope of our review here

45:18 ↗ to make suggestions about things like

45:20 ↗ that but it would be a good thing to

45:23 ↗ have

45:25 ↗ um

45:26 ↗ uh sister documents that guide

45:29 ↗ applicants through the process for their

45:31 ↗ particular flavor of uh project

45:40 ↗ do you ever recommended changes that

45:42 ↗ changes that could help I don't even

45:44 ↗ know if that if that comment is in scope

45:46 ↗ of what we're reviewing here because I'm

45:49 ↗ not I'm not saying that this the

45:51 ↗ document we're doing should change but

45:53 ↗ there should be another document or set

45:56 ↗ of documents that help applicants is

45:58 ↗ that within the scope of what we're

46:00 ↗ reviewing I don't know many is there

46:03 ↗ going to be any Outreach side of this to

46:06 ↗ produce anything like that yeah I mean

46:08 ↗ that's the whole implementation side of

46:10 ↗ it so we we will have to update all our

46:13 ↗ handouts and applications and types like

46:15 ↗ that but we'll go through that exercise

46:17 ↗ once this thing is adopted but to

46:19 ↗ capture your your comments on that under

46:22 ↗ the general overall comments you can add

46:24 ↗ a line that you recommend that you know

46:28 ↗ Administration

46:30 ↗ works on producing handouts and

46:32 ↗ applications to help

46:34 ↗ people navigate the permitting

46:37 ↗ easily

46:39 ↗ you can also call a common

46:42 ↗ projects completed by homeowners or

46:45 ↗ something that's the target if that I

46:48 ↗ don't know if that is your focused but

46:49 ↗ that might be a way to well okay

46:52 ↗ that was my particular case but the

46:54 ↗ staff would know uh you know what ears

46:58 ↗ of common categories of applications and

47:01 ↗ and you you can't cover all of the

47:03 ↗ possibilities but you could cover you

47:05 ↗ know the 80 80 20 rule well all right

47:08 ↗ these three uh guidance documents will

47:11 ↗ will cover 80 of our applications or

47:13 ↗ something you know what well in

47:14 ↗ targeting single family residences

47:17 ↗ um and another for commercial projects

47:20 ↗ of a certain scope or whatever something

47:23 ↗ like that I think the one that means

47:25 ↗ Stacy that I might suggest is common

47:27 ↗ versus a set of various

47:31 ↗ and Tom that sounds like something that

47:33 ↗ would be a general comment which is that

47:35 ↗ you know the board recommends the staff

47:37 ↗ prepare

47:39 ↗ documents to Aid and I know you're

47:41 ↗ planning on doing this to Aid in the

47:43 ↗ implementation of projects utilizing the

47:45 ↗ new code when it is a doctor or

47:47 ↗ something like that just so that

47:51 ↗ to address your concerns which is how do

47:53 ↗ you use this code

47:54 ↗ yeah it's it's not reasonable to expect

47:58 ↗ the applicant to be able to have to read

48:00 ↗ this whole thing to make a simple

48:02 ↗ application so the guidance is needed

48:05 ↗ and

48:06 ↗ we should provide some

48:09 ↗ people will save save cities that time

48:12 ↗ and everyone

48:15 ↗ provide some guidance

48:17 ↗ can we add that as a general comment yep

48:19 ↗ so we've got a draft up here board

48:22 ↗ recommend staff develop guiding

48:23 ↗ documents to support applicants through

48:25 ↗ the process for common project types to

48:27 ↗ Aid in the implementation

48:29 ↗ of data code good I'm good okay well

48:32 ↗ said

48:33 ↗ thank you what you all said

48:36 ↗ combined okay great

48:40 ↗ um another quick question

48:43 ↗ um I just seem to have a bit of a theme

48:45 ↗ of the loophole conversation going on

48:47 ↗ when you finalize total 18 and you're

48:51 ↗ obviously publishing it online so you

48:53 ↗ can access it we've had hyperlinks

48:55 ↗ embedded you know we're kind of thinking

48:57 ↗ of the code to go over there so if Tom's

49:00 ↗ reviewing something for his death or

49:03 ↗ somewhere like you know whatever mate do

49:05 ↗ you embed hyperlinks on that or is it

49:07 ↗ how does that sound the way the code

49:09 ↗ will look isn't just going to be this

49:11 ↗ flat document

49:13 ↗ um there is a company called code

49:14 ↗ publishing most of the Cities use them

49:16 ↗ or you know they check the cross

49:18 ↗ reference so that there aren't any

49:20 ↗ unintended you know missing point one

49:23 ↗ two which should be point one so they do

49:25 ↗ all that kind of check

49:27 ↗ um and then they publish it and if

49:28 ↗ there's a definition it'll underline it

49:30 ↗ so you know you can click on it and

49:32 ↗ it'll take you the definition so but it

49:35 ↗ needs to be at a point where all the

49:36 ↗ edits are complete to turn it over to

49:38 ↗ them so uh after planning the policy

49:41 ↗ commission's recommendation we will

49:43 ↗ start that process thank you

49:47 ↗ all right

49:49 ↗ um moving into deviations from standards

49:53 ↗ um uh comment that there was concern

49:57 ↗ that it provides the code is written

49:59 ↗ provides applicants with opportunities

50:01 ↗ to change their work with no public

50:03 ↗ input uh community meeting should occur

50:06 ↗ prior to changes

50:09 ↗ um with outside professionals to

50:11 ↗ evaluate make recommendations on

50:13 ↗ deviations

50:15 ↗ so requests that the administration

50:17 ↗ reconsider or provide clarifications

50:20 ↗ CBD provided a bit of clarification on

50:23 ↗ deviations

50:25 ↗ and that these are a level two process

50:27 ↗ that require public notice

50:29 ↗ um

50:32 ↗ the section has been added to provide

50:34 ↗ Clarity compared to the existing code

50:38 ↗ so just some clarification I think not

50:41 ↗ that's needed yes this was my comment

50:44 ↗ and I would request that it the in the

50:47 ↗ second sentence I can't see that there

50:49 ↗ which is for the second line on 112

50:52 ↗ instead of provided I would make that

50:54 ↗ required and the land use coat and I

50:58 ↗ think it should be for any time we are

51:01 ↗ deviating from the code there should be

51:03 ↗ a public needs

51:05 ↗ and I think we if we adopt the code we

51:08 ↗ should stand by the code and anytime we

51:11 ↗ make the decision that we want to do a

51:13 ↗ deviation we should be putting it up to

51:15 ↗ the public

51:16 ↗ the right thing to do

51:21 ↗ for any scale of deviation or any

51:24 ↗ deviation but what if it's like a time

51:27 ↗ sensitive

51:28 ↗ and like what if there's like an

51:30 ↗ emergency like a utility emergency

51:34 ↗ yeah that's

51:37 ↗ it's allowed

51:38 ↗ per se it's in there with

51:41 ↗ some under the exception provision of

51:44 ↗ the code how common is this

51:47 ↗ so a little background and there's the

51:49 ↗ current code their existing code had the

51:51 ↗ administrative adjustment of standards

51:53 ↗ and it says anyone can request those

51:55 ↗ with very broad criteria but you can't

51:59 ↗ ask for an AAS or a building height

52:01 ↗ increase or lower area you know there's

52:04 ↗ like four things you can ask for but

52:06 ↗ anything else can be deviated based on

52:09 ↗ this very broad criteria there's a net

52:11 ↗ benefit you know you can make that

52:13 ↗ decision either way based on that

52:15 ↗ criteria so we've eliminated that

52:18 ↗ vagueness and the current process and

52:20 ↗ instituted a very these are the 10

52:23 ↗ things that you can get deviation from

52:25 ↗ and that is an attiliation because

52:28 ↗ anyone can ask for it and leave the code

52:31 ↗ doesn't mean it is tied to a specific

52:34 ↗ criteria so if there's a strand of trees

52:37 ↗ that you want to protect but it happens

52:39 ↗ to be where you're at the driving you

52:41 ↗ know that we can make some of those

52:42 ↗ adjustments

52:44 ↗ um to for for something that is again so

52:49 ↗ it's an incentive-based kind of

52:51 ↗ administration it provides some

52:52 ↗ flexibility but it's predictable so you

52:55 ↗ we don't make people go through a

52:56 ↗ process and then say well now we're

52:58 ↗ gonna not approve your deviation that

53:00 ↗ people can look at the criteria for

53:02 ↗ deviation and say yes I qualify and I

53:04 ↗ will go through this process it doesn't

53:06 ↗ all of these are level two so we do

53:08 ↗ provide a notice but there isn't a

53:10 ↗ public meeting I mean we would that

53:12 ↗ would be a lot of public meetings for a

53:15 ↗ lot you know things and at the end of

53:17 ↗ the day it's whether you meet the

53:18 ↗ criteria or not so the the public

53:20 ↗ process is now to say is this criteria

53:24 ↗ what the policy you know do you guys

53:26 ↗ agree with the criteria for the

53:28 ↗ deviations so I think there are 10 of

53:30 ↗ them uh and then one of the policy

53:32 ↗ questions we're talking to PPC and

53:34 ↗ others we've laid that out here are the

53:37 ↗ 10 things that anyone can ask for a

53:38 ↗ deviation and here's the criteria to all

53:42 ↗ agree or not agree

53:43 ↗ um and do we need to tighten it or so

53:46 ↗ there is discussions

53:47 ↗ are happening with planning policy

53:49 ↗ Commission on the process part of it was

53:51 ↗ a public notice look like does that just

53:53 ↗ mean that you're changing the

53:54 ↗ development sign out in front of the

53:56 ↗ what's it may have noticed I mean that's

53:59 ↗ a lot of resources to go and notifying

54:02 ↗ people and all that so yeah that's

54:04 ↗ happening yeah

54:06 ↗ here's my concern

54:09 ↗ you know one of the criteria I'm within

54:11 ↗ the code right now is you can get in a

54:13 ↗ greater retaining wall height

54:16 ↗ and let's pretend the retainable behind

54:18 ↗ Fred Meyer isn't there earned at Home

54:21 ↗ Depot

54:23 ↗ which I think is a crazy thing for the

54:25 ↗ city to own personally I just think and

54:28 ↗ you only get before that area all

54:30 ↗ developed I'm just pretending all that

54:32 ↗ is still

54:34 ↗ um there was no public meeting because

54:35 ↗ nobody lived within 500 feet there

54:38 ↗ needed to be a process and so I'm

54:41 ↗ thinking of that in terms of trees

54:44 ↗ retaining wall things that end up we own

54:48 ↗ as

54:49 ↗ the city and so what I'm trying to do is

54:53 ↗ say we need to get the Public's input on

54:56 ↗ some of this or it needs to get in front

54:58 ↗ of council or it needs a broader

55:00 ↗ Community input if you're taking down

55:03 ↗ a Grove of trees because you need to put

55:05 ↗ a driveway in or you're taking down

55:07 ↗ something else that's my concern is that

55:10 ↗ 500 feet for most of these will not get

55:12 ↗ us

55:15 ↗ um the input we really need

55:17 ↗ and the community to know what's going

55:19 ↗ on

55:20 ↗ yeah I'll see if I can quickly find the

55:23 ↗ section and so the intent you know this

55:25 ↗ won't be handed out without reading the

55:28 ↗ criteria and one sometimes in you can

55:31 ↗ have a 10 foot taller retaining wall and

55:33 ↗ then you can have a step back and you

55:34 ↗ can have another one and you can have

55:36 ↗ another one you may end up chasing the

55:38 ↗ Hillside and cutting a lot of trees do

55:40 ↗ we really want to which one is the

55:42 ↗ better and so you want to have some

55:44 ↗ flexibility in your regulations to do

55:46 ↗ the right thing and that's sort of the

55:48 ↗ intent of all of these not to

55:50 ↗ willy-nilly Grant

55:52 ↗ deviations for

55:55 ↗ you know projects that don't make meet

55:57 ↗ the criteria

55:59 ↗ um so I found the section here that I

56:01 ↗ think you may be referring to

56:04 ↗ um

56:07 ↗ uh retaining world must be no taller

56:09 ↗ than 10 feet uh with trees 30 to 35 feet

56:13 ↗ on Center placed in front of the wall if

56:16 ↗ deviation is allowed uh walls must be

56:19 ↗ terraced with enough space between the

56:20 ↗ walls to comfortably accommodate shrubs

56:23 ↗ wines and blah blah

56:25 ↗ um

56:26 ↗ and and just

56:29 ↗ let me go

56:31 ↗ um

56:37 ↗ I guess my confidence sorry it's just we

56:40 ↗ need more public inputs if we're

56:42 ↗ deviating what we what we have

56:45 ↗ here I just don't think notifying people

56:48 ↗ within 500 feet of a place where

56:50 ↗ deviation is request is sufficient

56:52 ↗ that's my point sure

56:55 ↗ um but I think the the intent is not

56:57 ↗ that every project becomes uh a thing

57:01 ↗ right it's at a policy level you guys

57:03 ↗ decide this is what we can we want to

57:05 ↗ provide flexibility or not and this is

57:08 ↗ this criteria is sufficient that's

57:09 ↗ what's in front of you I mean you want

57:12 ↗ to be involved in every project that

57:14 ↗ will become unreal before everyone

57:16 ↗ involved right so so staying at a level

57:19 ↗ where do you agree with the criteria

57:21 ↗ perhaps is a conversation to be had and

57:26 ↗ um and the criteria starts about

57:30 ↗ um cotton fill

57:34 ↗ distance

57:35 ↗ um so the only thing you can kind of do

57:37 ↗ this is the distance between the

57:39 ↗ retaining wall may be reduced if the

57:41 ↗ applicant can demonstrate that the

57:43 ↗ change would increase tree protection

57:45 ↗ and preservation that would be the only

57:47 ↗ reason why they would be able to do

57:49 ↗ something different with the distance

57:51 ↗ between the retaining walls so do you

57:55 ↗ guys agree that that's a reasonable

57:57 ↗ you know

57:59 ↗ um

58:00 ↗ reason to give them a deviation or even

58:04 ↗ for something like that we want people

58:06 ↗ to go to a public meeting

58:08 ↗ because their end of ending up doing

58:11 ↗ this because they're trying to save the

58:13 ↗ trees

58:14 ↗ yes is there any scale or way that you

58:17 ↗ can think of that you could

58:19 ↗ because like there's going to be

58:20 ↗ deviations there's some deviations that

58:22 ↗ matter some that don't is there any way

58:25 ↗ to and this probably gets to your

58:26 ↗ criteria I don't have no idea what that

58:29 ↗ might be is there any way to look at the

58:31 ↗ criteria to identify

58:33 ↗ deviations that would be a public

58:35 ↗ concern and that I don't think we're

58:37 ↗ going to figure that out here but that

58:39 ↗ might be a way to phrase this to

58:43 ↗ that we recommended

58:45 ↗ there be a separate class of deviations

58:48 ↗ that might get a low maybe move to a

58:51 ↗ level three or whatever it might be

58:52 ↗ which is so as a due process this is

58:55 ↗ just the very specific

58:57 ↗ specific criteria this isn't anyone can

59:00 ↗ ask for anything kind of a deviation

59:02 ↗ beyond that if it is a hardship that you

59:05 ↗ can't do anything with your property

59:06 ↗ kind of a situation unless you apply for

59:09 ↗ a variance that is a public process and

59:12 ↗ that is the due process we have to give

59:13 ↗ to Property Owners to go through a

59:15 ↗ process and make the case to the hearing

59:17 ↗ examiner it is a public meeting

59:20 ↗ um but these are very small things and

59:23 ↗ very specific things for criteria but

59:27 ↗ you know it's your call I mean you can

59:30 ↗ leave it in there but I just wanted to

59:32 ↗ make sure everyone had the context of

59:33 ↗ what has changed from the existing code

59:37 ↗ what is in this proposed draft

59:41 ↗ um as far as deviations go I have some

59:44 ↗ suggestions

59:45 ↗ yeah so where it says

59:48 ↗ find your line here

59:52 ↗ line 112 at the end there where it

59:55 ↗ starts with a community community

59:56 ↗ meeting should occur prior to any

59:58 ↗ changes I would suggest to read

1:00:00 ↗ something along the lines of public

1:00:02 ↗ notification and comment period should

1:00:05 ↗ occur so

1:00:07 ↗ it gives a short time frame for the

1:00:09 ↗ public to comment back to the reviewers

1:00:11 ↗ to say we oppose this

1:00:16 ↗ so my take on it is my suggestion to you

1:00:20 ↗ would be it would be great if there was

1:00:24 ↗ some place on the city's website that we

1:00:26 ↗ not only did you do your 500 feet but a

1:00:29 ↗ deviation has been requested for this

1:00:31 ↗ parcel

1:00:32 ↗ according to this please provide us

1:00:34 ↗ input by such and such state

1:00:37 ↗ um

1:00:38 ↗ and then the decisions made I mean it's

1:00:40 ↗ just trying to get it so that the

1:00:42 ↗ Public's becomes a more transparent

1:00:45 ↗ process

1:00:47 ↗ um I'm looking for more transparency and

1:00:49 ↗ an opportunity so we're not surprised

1:00:51 ↗ when we see trees coming down that we

1:00:54 ↗ didn't think were coming down or

1:00:55 ↗ something like that

1:00:56 ↗ so this

1:00:59 ↗ is what it's called

1:01:02 ↗ it's given to the code says decision

1:01:04 ↗ maker and so what I'm trying to do is at

1:01:07 ↗ least they can provide input or perhaps

1:01:10 ↗ talk to someone and get more input into

1:01:13 ↗ that you just get the 500 you're going

1:01:16 ↗ to miss a lot of people that care about

1:01:17 ↗ things in this community

1:01:19 ↗ that I don't know how to write that but

1:01:22 ↗ it's supposed to get more transparency I

1:01:24 ↗ think one of the the things is that I'd

1:01:26 ↗ be fully gets posted on the website so

1:01:28 ↗ the public note whenever a public notice

1:01:30 ↗ is triggered the procedures do require

1:01:33 ↗ to be posted on the website

1:01:35 ↗ um mailed no posted site and all that so

1:01:39 ↗ yeah

1:01:44 ↗ um as level two deviations from

1:01:46 ↗ standards happen

1:01:50 ↗ um so this is new in the code if you

1:01:51 ↗ have to be administrative adjustment of

1:01:53 ↗ standards and you know those were um I I

1:01:57 ↗ couldn't give you a number but anyone

1:01:59 ↗ could ask for those but it's a different

1:02:01 ↗ thing now because it's very specific

1:02:03 ↗ things you can ask for that was more

1:02:06 ↗ broad I want to put up a sign here you

1:02:09 ↗ know that we've probably had a handful

1:02:10 ↗ of uh signed aes's or

1:02:15 ↗ um you know there wasn't a limit on what

1:02:17 ↗ all anyone could ask for if they could

1:02:19 ↗ ask for anything and there was

1:02:21 ↗ that's very important today

1:02:23 ↗ now I hear you I mean it's a trust and

1:02:26 ↗ transparency issue you know what is

1:02:28 ↗ being deviated we put the code we go

1:02:30 ↗ through this effort and now we then

1:02:32 ↗ gonna turn around and and just hand out

1:02:35 ↗ deviations like candy but they they will

1:02:39 ↗ not I mean there's only for those nine

1:02:41 ↗ or ten things and they're only if there

1:02:43 ↗ is they meet the criteria in the case of

1:02:46 ↗ retaining laws are they protecting trees

1:02:48 ↗ yes or no and you get it

1:02:50 ↗ so it sounds like Nancy

1:02:54 ↗ the public notification becomes

1:02:57 ↗ something like posting on the website

1:03:00 ↗ yeah it may not have to be a meeting but

1:03:03 ↗ I just think it needs enough

1:03:04 ↗ transparency because you know I look at

1:03:06 ↗ the criteria you even put in there it's

1:03:08 ↗ not it's it's fairly loops the criteria

1:03:11 ↗ for getting the thresholds you have to

1:03:14 ↗ jump through to get that

1:03:17 ↗ the request to deviation is consistent

1:03:19 ↗ with the relevant purpose statement and

1:03:21 ↗ criteria from which the deviation is set

1:03:26 ↗ there's a general criteria that you have

1:03:29 ↗ to meet then for each type of those

1:03:31 ↗ deviations there's a specific criteria

1:03:33 ↗ in that chapter that you have to need so

1:03:36 ↗ it's two two parts two pieces yeah

1:03:39 ↗ Lauren do you have a comment

1:03:42 ↗ yeah

1:03:43 ↗ um something that stuck out to me is

1:03:44 ↗ I've been looking at all of the

1:03:46 ↗ different things and I think it applies

1:03:47 ↗ here is that we have you know we spent

1:03:50 ↗ so much time on the climate action plan

1:03:52 ↗ and part of that was that dashboard

1:03:55 ↗ um and I think that that brings

1:03:57 ↗ transparency to the impact of things so

1:03:59 ↗ if we could I think if we could find a

1:04:01 ↗ way to show the climate impact of

1:04:04 ↗ developments and any especially when

1:04:06 ↗ there are deviations you know showing

1:04:08 ↗ how that directly impacts our goals is a

1:04:11 ↗ nice simple visual you can put on a

1:04:13 ↗ public notice it's something you can um

1:04:15 ↗ we can measure ourselves back too so I

1:04:17 ↗ think we should see the code as an

1:04:20 ↗ opportunity to match those two because

1:04:22 ↗ that's where we're making decisions you

1:04:24 ↗ know so that and is it measuring back to

1:04:27 ↗ the map that we set out for ourselves

1:04:28 ↗ with the climate

1:04:32 ↗ foreign

1:04:37 ↗ something that could be added to the

1:04:39 ↗ climate dashboard

1:04:43 ↗ um

1:04:46 ↗ I mean I'm looking at it right now you

1:04:48 ↗ can you can talk about what is the

1:04:50 ↗ building and energy use just to create

1:04:54 ↗ the effort and that would it reduce or

1:04:56 ↗ increase energy use overall

1:04:59 ↗ Transportation use

1:05:01 ↗ um you know just look at those

1:05:01 ↗ categories and say like what's the

1:05:03 ↗ general impact

1:05:05 ↗ um

1:05:06 ↗ simply put

1:05:07 ↗ yeah I'm also thinking of the natural

1:05:09 ↗ environment the checklist that we have

1:05:11 ↗ that's more on that project by project

1:05:13 ↗ level that we can include better

1:05:15 ↗ relation to the icap I mean I yeah that

1:05:18 ↗ was very much along the lines of what I

1:05:20 ↗ was thinking about is that

1:05:21 ↗ I think it would be helpful for the

1:05:23 ↗ board at the end like thinking about the

1:05:24 ↗ end of your summary through receiving is

1:05:26 ↗ the deviations from those 10 categories

1:05:28 ↗ like account and how but I think

1:05:32 ↗ I do want to make sure we

1:05:34 ↗ we have a lot to get through so I don't

1:05:35 ↗ want to make sure we don't get too

1:05:37 ↗ sidetracked on this one um I mean I

1:05:39 ↗ heard from Nancy that a place that this

1:05:42 ↗ is posted on the website and I'm just

1:05:44 ↗ curious if that we could figure out

1:05:46 ↗ exactly how that looks and and this that

1:05:48 ↗ might

1:05:50 ↗ um tie in what what Laura's saying well

1:05:51 ↗ if that satisfies because it if so I I

1:05:55 ↗ would hope well obviously get everyone's

1:05:58 ↗ feedback but I think we might need to do

1:06:03 ↗ oh sorry

1:06:04 ↗ satisfied that we want to make some

1:06:06 ↗ recommendation here at Council so we did

1:06:08 ↗ make a few edits

1:06:10 ↗ um with Don's recommendations to change

1:06:12 ↗ it to public notification and comment

1:06:14 ↗ period I added a note about transparency

1:06:16 ↗ and then what that looks like the

1:06:19 ↗ specific recommendation of this board

1:06:20 ↗ could talk about as we've moved through

1:06:23 ↗ the other tools that we have later this

1:06:25 ↗ year

1:06:27 ↗ okay put those

1:06:29 ↗ revisions work

1:06:31 ↗ to make sure your concerns still address

1:06:33 ↗ Nancy yes okay other board members

1:06:36 ↗ comfortable with this one

1:06:39 ↗ great

1:06:42 ↗ okay moving into section 18 204 review

1:06:46 ↗ process and there was a recommendation

1:06:49 ↗ for some inter introductory language

1:06:53 ↗ um CPD notice that they will add that

1:06:56 ↗ and I Believe Christian let me know on

1:06:59 ↗ some of these where they said they can

1:07:01 ↗ add it they were already working today

1:07:03 ↗ to add them into the draft

1:07:06 ↗ so I wanted to see if we should just

1:07:11 ↗ remove this recommendation or if we want

1:07:14 ↗ to retain it since we don't have

1:07:16 ↗ documentation that it's been made except

1:07:19 ↗ through staff saying that they're having

1:07:20 ↗ it

1:07:25 ↗ I think we should just keep the comments

1:07:27 ↗ okay

1:07:30 ↗ let me just double check here

1:07:33 ↗ so yeah that was my question you may

1:07:35 ↗ want to think about

1:07:37 ↗ do we want to

1:07:39 ↗ um so that's no longer relevant and this

1:07:41 ↗ is going to people that don't know that

1:07:43 ↗ it's no longer relevant does it this is

1:07:46 ↗ going to count

1:07:47 ↗ yeah so the change in what council's

1:07:49 ↗ saying no and this has already been

1:07:50 ↗ addressed and what council is saying so

1:07:52 ↗ are you gonna are you gonna change it

1:07:54 ↗ before it goes to council so if you've

1:07:56 ↗ changed this one section when it goes to

1:07:58 ↗ council will they learn to be efficient

1:08:02 ↗ yeah we don't want to like take this

1:08:03 ↗ then go back and then go back and change

1:08:05 ↗ so if you can fix it we'll include it in

1:08:08 ↗ the recommendation it hasn't gone to

1:08:09 ↗ council yet so it will go so changes

1:08:12 ↗ made by PPC and ourselves will be made

1:08:14 ↗ before it gets presented to council if

1:08:16 ↗ you've noted here we can make this

1:08:18 ↗ change we will hold it into the draft

1:08:19 ↗ that they will look at okay yeah

1:08:24 ↗ we're gonna make it right

1:08:27 ↗ okay so I will remove this application

1:08:30 ↗ review section I believe that was the

1:08:32 ↗ only comment there

1:08:37 ↗ okay next is building design

1:08:40 ↗ um comments around Sustainable Building

1:08:42 ↗ requirements uh recommendation that we

1:08:45 ↗ apply those requirements to all

1:08:48 ↗ development not just buildings over 10

1:08:50 ↗ 000 square feet that's referring to lead

1:08:54 ↗ Platinum that we're requiring as a

1:08:56 ↗ placeholder for buildings over ten

1:08:58 ↗ thousand square feet also CPD today was

1:09:03 ↗ working on language for residential

1:09:05 ↗ projects that are more than 10 units

1:09:07 ↗ would be subject to Bill Green four star

1:09:09 ↗ that's being folded into the drop plan

1:09:13 ↗ um I think the the recommendation still

1:09:15 ↗ is going a step further to recommend the

1:09:18 ↗ Green Building requirement for all

1:09:20 ↗ development

1:09:22 ↗ and to provide the other context on what

1:09:24 ↗ is being added

1:09:27 ↗ say leave it in for now because the

1:09:29 ↗ other

1:09:31 ↗ what you refer to many as future updates

1:09:34 ↗ and are the future updates going to be

1:09:36 ↗ completed by the time

1:09:38 ↗ so I would just leave it in well but I

1:09:40 ↗ think this is going beyond what the

1:09:42 ↗ future updates would say like this is

1:09:43 ↗ saying literally anything that you build

1:09:45 ↗ will need to be to not just because

1:09:47 ↗ they're talking about updates to the

1:09:49 ↗ it's a 10 units or more but this would

1:09:52 ↗ be one unit and your subject to

1:09:55 ↗ the Sustainable Building requirements

1:09:57 ↗ and I don't know enough about those to

1:09:58 ↗ know

1:09:59 ↗ I'm a little bit worried that this might

1:10:02 ↗ be going a little too far

1:10:04 ↗ um I don't know the specifics to know

1:10:05 ↗ that but that

1:10:07 ↗ um because I would want to understand

1:10:09 ↗ what the potential cost increases like

1:10:12 ↗ that would

1:10:14 ↗ result in for an average home because

1:10:16 ↗ that that would that is a requirement of

1:10:18 ↗ the same the same comment for the next

1:10:19 ↗ one where

1:10:21 ↗ if we're talking about something that's

1:10:23 ↗ going to add two hundred thousand

1:10:24 ↗ dollars to the cost of building every

1:10:25 ↗ home that's probably not a feasible

1:10:27 ↗ outcome

1:10:28 ↗ so that's my concern but this as it's

1:10:31 ↗ written I'm glad to see that we're the

1:10:34 ↗ staff's already going and finding other

1:10:36 ↗ places that it could be implemented but

1:10:38 ↗ I'm just concerned with that it might be

1:10:40 ↗ kind of

1:10:41 ↗ too much the

1:10:44 ↗ um

1:10:45 ↗ the language in there as of now is a

1:10:48 ↗ placeholder and then intent is to bring

1:10:50 ↗ to the board other commissions and

1:10:53 ↗ Boards a more robust discussion on great

1:10:55 ↗ building requirements is my

1:10:57 ↗ understanding I is that correct in the

1:11:00 ↗ future so yeah this is the building code

1:11:02 ↗ energy code updates that are going to

1:11:04 ↗ happen in 2023 which we'll get to some

1:11:07 ↗ of this you know Energy Efficiency uh

1:11:10 ↗ goal so

1:11:11 ↗ um I wanted to wait until those were in

1:11:14 ↗ place this was supposed to be for if

1:11:17 ↗ anything large gets built more than 10

1:11:19 ↗ units or more than ten thousand we could

1:11:21 ↗ require the third party certification

1:11:23 ↗ however not for every

1:11:25 ↗ one single-family home on things of that

1:11:28 ↗ nature but my recommendation is going to

1:11:31 ↗ be maybe instead of a specific

1:11:33 ↗ recommendation here we just

1:11:35 ↗ um recommend that these policies come

1:11:39 ↗ back to the board for more thorough

1:11:41 ↗ discussion and

1:11:43 ↗ decision in the future recognizing this

1:11:45 ↗ was intended as a Believer didn't go

1:11:48 ↗ through it didn't go through a

1:11:50 ↗ discussion here or any kind of robust

1:11:52 ↗ Community conversation

1:11:54 ↗ I'm good with that

1:11:56 ↗ I'm good with it too

1:11:58 ↗ okay great

1:12:06 ↗ we've seen that for the first two bullet

1:12:07 ↗ points in the section or I think let's

1:12:10 ↗ move

1:12:11 ↗ um it sounds like she's just doing it

1:12:12 ↗ for this one yeah

1:12:14 ↗ [Music]

1:12:19 ↗ yeah and um I made the second comment as

1:12:22 ↗ well and um I do think that the city is

1:12:26 ↗ very forward thinking with

1:12:28 ↗ um allowing solar panels and encouraging

1:12:31 ↗ solar panels

1:12:32 ↗ um

1:12:33 ↗ I think unincorporated King County I

1:12:35 ↗ don't know if it passed but they were

1:12:37 ↗ working towards requiring requiring the

1:12:40 ↗ solar panels

1:12:42 ↗ um on Films

1:12:45 ↗ where they could um where it makes sense

1:12:51 ↗ but I'm also very happy with the city

1:12:54 ↗ supporting

1:12:55 ↗ and making making it so it's easy to

1:12:58 ↗ have solar panels

1:13:04 ↗ discussion I was worried that the carbon

1:13:07 ↗ that they like mining the footprint for

1:13:10 ↗ solar panels is not proven enough and

1:13:13 ↗ that there's going to be other paneling

1:13:15 ↗ and energy that's going to be you know

1:13:18 ↗ less destructive so I um paid to require

1:13:21 ↗ it because the technology is going to

1:13:23 ↗ change

1:13:26 ↗ and you know so much of our emissions is

1:13:28 ↗ just is also just from from insulation

1:13:31 ↗ and stuff so um I've just seen it where

1:13:33 ↗ you commit to one specific type

1:13:35 ↗ um kind of like what Jamie's saying like

1:13:36 ↗ I don't know what the impacts are enough

1:13:38 ↗ to mandate it and then we have to go

1:13:40 ↗ back and revise the code to remove it

1:13:43 ↗ so I I get to read the board recommends

1:13:48 ↗ um

1:13:52 ↗ evaluating alternate energy

1:13:55 ↗ to all the construction

1:13:58 ↗ rather than just solar panels and

1:14:00 ↗ there's so there's different

1:14:02 ↗ Technologies another thing we could do

1:14:04 ↗ is just add this as an and after

1:14:06 ↗ Sustainable Building requirements

1:14:08 ↗ because I think we're basically saying

1:14:10 ↗ the same thing so we can just say

1:14:12 ↗ Alternative Energy like adding it up

1:14:14 ↗ there and then it's just a combined

1:14:15 ↗ comment that's right that works yeah

1:14:17 ↗ absolutely

1:14:19 ↗ okay

1:14:21 ↗ so suggestion is to cut this point and

1:14:25 ↗ instead develop we have Sustainable

1:14:27 ↗ Building requirements and alternative

1:14:28 ↗ energy requirements should come to the

1:14:30 ↗ board for further review and

1:14:31 ↗ recommendation

1:14:33 ↗ remember that

1:14:36 ↗ that sounds good

1:14:40 ↗ um and then we had two comments around

1:14:42 ↗ specific

1:14:44 ↗ um rooftops uh suggestion to remove wood

1:14:47 ↗ shingles

1:14:49 ↗ um and then additional

1:14:52 ↗ consideration for recycled rubber for

1:14:55 ↗ the roof shingles CPD noted State

1:14:58 ↗ legislation and horses new construction

1:15:01 ↗ to reduce Wildland fire at risks in

1:15:03 ↗ certain areas and on the other one was

1:15:06 ↗ noting

1:15:07 ↗ um as we were just talking about that we

1:15:09 ↗ want to consider technology changes in

1:15:12 ↗ the future

1:15:13 ↗ also some potential concerns around

1:15:15 ↗ toxic runoff and limitations that have

1:15:18 ↗ been made in the code to address that

1:15:21 ↗ yeah so I made both of those comments as

1:15:24 ↗ well and totally agree

1:15:27 ↗ um with the Recycled rubber I should

1:15:29 ↗ have thought about the the runoff

1:15:31 ↗ and we want to make sure that the runoff

1:15:34 ↗ from our roofs if we're going to be

1:15:35 ↗ capturing water especially

1:15:37 ↗ so in any case that it doesn't pollute

1:15:40 ↗ so

1:15:41 ↗ um that's good the city's government is

1:15:43 ↗ really good and

1:15:46 ↗ um the one before that with the wood so

1:15:48 ↗ the city is

1:15:50 ↗ um

1:15:51 ↗ they're saying that we can have green

1:15:53 ↗ it's very forward thinking saying that

1:15:55 ↗ we can have green living roofs and white

1:15:57 ↗ roof materials to reflect heat natural

1:16:01 ↗ recycled or reclaimed roofing materials

1:16:03 ↗ including but not to limit wood recycled

1:16:05 ↗ Metals slight clay materials 100

1:16:08 ↗ recycled Roofing

1:16:11 ↗ um so and it goes on and so it's it's

1:16:13 ↗ really Forward Thinking

1:16:15 ↗ um when I saw the wood the only thing

1:16:17 ↗ that I thought of was

1:16:19 ↗ um

1:16:20 ↗ a friend of mine who's um

1:16:23 ↗ on a Fourth of July their their

1:16:25 ↗ neighbor's house burned down because in

1:16:27 ↗ that neighborhood

1:16:28 ↗ cedar shingles were required and kids

1:16:32 ↗ were going around shooting off bottle

1:16:35 ↗ rockets and One landed on a roof and

1:16:38 ↗ burned the house down so that's the only

1:16:41 ↗ problem that is a big problem with wood

1:16:45 ↗ foreign

1:16:46 ↗ I know Cedar we've had Cedar roofs here

1:16:50 ↗ for years but

1:16:52 ↗ um

1:16:52 ↗ the more fires we're having it is an

1:16:54 ↗ issue

1:16:59 ↗ I think just development

1:17:02 ↗ is going to weed this one out and Cedar

1:17:06 ↗ Roofing is a thing of the past you're

1:17:08 ↗ crazy to install it these days it

1:17:10 ↗ doesn't last very long

1:17:11 ↗ it can catch on fire it degrades quickly

1:17:14 ↗ uh

1:17:16 ↗ you're just not seeing it Go in anymore

1:17:18 ↗ there's better technology out there but

1:17:20 ↗ I mean how to capture that I'm not sure

1:17:23 ↗ that's great yeah when they say wood I

1:17:26 ↗ don't know what other wood they would be

1:17:28 ↗ talking about with shingles

1:17:30 ↗ there's engineered Hardwoods that you

1:17:33 ↗ can use similar to the flooring you get

1:17:35 ↗ okay

1:17:37 ↗ cool so maybe that's what they mean

1:17:39 ↗ awesome

1:17:44 ↗ uh we can remove it if you'd like

1:17:47 ↗ both of those comments

1:17:51 ↗ about Roofing

1:17:54 ↗ is that okay with folks

1:17:58 ↗ great thanks Anne for talking through

1:18:00 ↗ those yeah you bet

1:18:04 ↗ all right

1:18:05 ↗ um moving into section 18.800 Vermont

1:18:09 ↗ policy

1:18:10 ↗ um this is a request for clarification

1:18:12 ↗ on uh residential development of fewer

1:18:15 ↗ than 10 units being exempt from sifa

1:18:19 ↗ um I'm concerned about kind of the mega

1:18:21 ↗ mansion scenario

1:18:24 ↗ um CPD responses single family dwelling

1:18:27 ↗ is exempt from zika

1:18:30 ↗ perform an intensity chapter would

1:18:31 ↗ regulate height in previous service and

1:18:33 ↗ setbacks

1:18:35 ↗ this was my comment and I think

1:18:38 ↗ cbd's adequately answered in like a

1:18:42 ↗ happy remember okay any other board

1:18:45 ↗ members that want to keep in this

1:18:47 ↗ comment or have would like revisions or

1:18:49 ↗ clarification

1:18:51 ↗ go to remote

1:18:54 ↗ okay same nods

1:19:00 ↗ okay critical areas

1:19:06 ↗ first is a recommendation to add a

1:19:10 ↗ bullet point around shorelines as

1:19:12 ↗ identified in the city's children master

1:19:14 ↗ program ensuring Lake Savannah store

1:19:17 ↗ that are included

1:19:19 ↗ there was a note that the this is an

1:19:23 ↗ applicability section of critical areas

1:19:25 ↗ SMP is a separate document policies and

1:19:28 ↗ regulations apply to the Waters of Lake

1:19:30 ↗ Sammamish Issaquah Creek East Fork

1:19:32 ↗ Issaquah Creek and their adjacent

1:19:35 ↗ shorelands

1:19:38 ↗ that was one comment

1:19:40 ↗ so I don't understand your response

1:19:43 ↗ so so this subsection e is talking about

1:19:47 ↗ this Title 18 critical areas applies to

1:19:51 ↗ right and all of these things I think

1:19:54 ↗ you were saying that we should add

1:19:55 ↗ number seven that says it applies to the

1:19:58 ↗ Shoreline it's identified in the cities

1:20:00 ↗ including Lake Sammamish so

1:20:03 ↗ which is the s p document the

1:20:06 ↗ applicability of the s p has its own

1:20:08 ↗ appendix what happens with the shoreline

1:20:10 ↗ Mass program updates is it's not the

1:20:13 ↗ city council makes a recommendation and

1:20:15 ↗ adopts it but it's Department of ecology

1:20:17 ↗ that finally approves the s p so there's

1:20:19 ↗ an added layer of that so what what

1:20:22 ↗ department of ecology doesn't want is to

1:20:25 ↗ have

1:20:26 ↗ SMP language embedded in the in the code

1:20:30 ↗ because then we would need to get

1:20:31 ↗ approval of this section from ecology if

1:20:34 ↗ we ever needed to change it so that's

1:20:36 ↗ why it's kept as a separate document and

1:20:39 ↗ this is only applying to

1:20:41 ↗ critical area which uh and the s p

1:20:45 ↗ applies to the short-term the

1:20:48 ↗ so I think you think there's some

1:20:49 ↗ confusion in terms of applicability with

1:20:51 ↗ where is the supply

1:20:54 ↗ um so let me kind of follow up on you

1:20:56 ↗ just

1:20:57 ↗ so what you're saying to me I'm just

1:20:59 ↗ trying to repeat what I think you just

1:21:00 ↗ said to me if you want to develop on the

1:21:03 ↗ shoreline

1:21:04 ↗ and that's covered on the S P you follow

1:21:07 ↗ those critical array rules or those

1:21:09 ↗ rules that are in the SMP

1:21:11 ↗ if you're doing it along Issaquah create

1:21:13 ↗ which is not in the shoreline

1:21:15 ↗ then these rules apply right

1:21:17 ↗ that correct and they don't really cross

1:21:20 ↗ each other is what you're saying

1:21:22 ↗ they do I mean the

1:21:25 ↗ the critical areas code is attached as

1:21:28 ↗ an appendix to the Shoreline so it's

1:21:30 ↗ repeated in both places but there are

1:21:33 ↗ certain pieces that ecology will not

1:21:35 ↗ approve in the in like the exemptions

1:21:37 ↗ and other things so those are taken out

1:21:39 ↗ of the attachment in the s p

1:21:42 ↗ okay so let me ask you a follow-on

1:21:44 ↗ question

1:21:46 ↗ um so the requirements for like

1:21:48 ↗ Community meetings if you're doing

1:21:50 ↗ something relatively big you know

1:21:54 ↗ are those in the SMP or would those be

1:21:57 ↗ included as the appendix so that if

1:21:59 ↗ you're on the shorelines

1:22:01 ↗ those are the procedure part is entitled

1:22:04 ↗ in that table level one two three right

1:22:06 ↗ that references the shoreline for making

1:22:08 ↗ and the variants of this and that so I

1:22:10 ↗ think the procedural part is there but

1:22:12 ↗ the substantive standards are in the s p

1:22:15 ↗ document

1:22:17 ↗ you've answered my question I'm okay

1:22:19 ↗ with taking it out okay

1:22:21 ↗ any other questions clarification needed

1:22:24 ↗ on that one

1:22:28 ↗ okay

1:22:30 ↗ um there's a recommendation for adding

1:22:32 ↗ city of the supply line Hazard area map

1:22:36 ↗ um ensuring that's included in the list

1:22:37 ↗ under subsection h

1:22:41 ↗ um cpg noted that there are maps

1:22:43 ↗ included online

1:22:52 ↗ can you make reference to

1:22:54 ↗ the location of these okay

1:22:58 ↗ yeah that's what I was going to say too

1:23:00 ↗ Don thank you

1:23:12 ↗ and given the fact that that chapter has

1:23:15 ↗ specific outline of maps

1:23:18 ↗ this is a specific one that's and it's a

1:23:20 ↗ hazard that or a sensitive area that

1:23:23 ↗ we've identified or critically

1:23:24 ↗ identified in here it would be nice to

1:23:27 ↗ know that there are mats somewhere

1:23:28 ↗ [Music]

1:23:29 ↗ but it doesn't you know we don't know

1:23:31 ↗ every mind has it this is only what the

1:23:34 ↗ places that add evaluation we've updated

1:23:37 ↗ so it's by no means a complete list of

1:23:40 ↗ all the properties that's the best

1:23:42 ↗ available information yeah yeah and so

1:23:44 ↗ yeah so too and the same thing with

1:23:47 ↗ Rutland inventory and other things you

1:23:49 ↗ know um so but the other references are

1:23:52 ↗ to non-city-owned data information that

1:23:55 ↗ we have you know the Department of

1:23:57 ↗ Natural Resources other other agencies

1:23:59 ↗ that publish those labs okay

1:24:04 ↗ so just noted

1:24:06 ↗ um either including that map or

1:24:08 ↗ reference where to find it especially if

1:24:10 ↗ it's one that needs to be updated

1:24:11 ↗ regularly if new information is included

1:24:13 ↗ maybe online

1:24:16 ↗ okay subsection I for

1:24:20 ↗ um regarding s p the board would like to

1:24:23 ↗ ensure There are rules to cover other

1:24:25 ↗ streams including intermittent streams I

1:24:28 ↗ recommend removing that comment okay

1:24:30 ↗ since I wrote it I found it later as I

1:24:33 ↗ read along

1:24:35 ↗ foreign

1:24:38 ↗ all right

1:24:40 ↗ um

1:24:41 ↗ moving into exempt activities

1:24:45 ↗ I'm gonna have you help me with the

1:24:47 ↗ comments here um there's a general

1:24:49 ↗ comment board concern the section

1:24:50 ↗ provided a broad exemption for utilities

1:24:52 ↗ and Parks

1:24:54 ↗ with limited permitting and oversight

1:24:56 ↗ recommended more thoughtful limitation

1:24:58 ↗ on the use of the exemption particularly

1:25:01 ↗ around trees

1:25:04 ↗ is there

1:25:08 ↗ [Music]

1:25:12 ↗ yes sorry Dan um I think I summarized

1:25:16 ↗ comment quite a bit so I want to make

1:25:18 ↗ sure I included what you've sent me just

1:25:19 ↗ to make sure I captured it correctly I

1:25:22 ↗ think was part of that

1:25:24 ↗ excuse me yeah I think there's other

1:25:25 ↗ folks that concerns with utilities too

1:25:27 ↗ right yeah that's correct merge the

1:25:29 ↗ other yes

1:25:33 ↗ yeah this is one of the few areas where

1:25:35 ↗ I had multiple people submit a similar

1:25:38 ↗ comment for most cases it was very

1:25:39 ↗ individual so any proposed revisions to

1:25:44 ↗ uh line 182 on the general comment

1:25:47 ↗ around the exemption for utilities and

1:25:49 ↗ Parks

1:25:53 ↗ does that get it what you want it then

1:26:00 ↗ I I think so I I guess maybe I don't

1:26:02 ↗ know if there's more specific

1:26:03 ↗ definitions around maintenance

1:26:05 ↗ um that I just didn't get into but yeah

1:26:07 ↗ some of the tree maintenance you know

1:26:10 ↗ obviously if there's any soil

1:26:11 ↗ disturbance going on and some of the

1:26:12 ↗ stuff is more defined kind of makes

1:26:14 ↗ sense Trails

1:26:15 ↗ um improved right-of-ways but you know

1:26:17 ↗ Parks private public parks is pretty

1:26:20 ↗ broad

1:26:21 ↗ um I'm sure you comment on the utilities

1:26:23 ↗ part but

1:26:25 ↗ they're kind of fit there too okay I

1:26:28 ↗ noticed in the utilities

1:26:30 ↗ um that there was an exemption for

1:26:32 ↗ um if they were in the if the branches

1:26:35 ↗ were in the way of wires overhead wires

1:26:37 ↗ and that seemed pretty sort of

1:26:40 ↗ subjective I mean any tree that grows

1:26:42 ↗ near Branch so it's like talking

1:26:43 ↗ specifically about I don't remember Dan

1:26:46 ↗ maybe you could know but like the

1:26:47 ↗ specific term for like crowning versus

1:26:49 ↗ uh diverting branches elsewhere but some

1:26:52 ↗ kind of approval process versus just

1:26:55 ↗ handing over the keys that somebody can

1:26:56 ↗ just say we want to you know the tree is

1:26:58 ↗ in the way

1:26:59 ↗ um scene so I don't know how to word it

1:27:01 ↗ but um I kind of agree that we could use

1:27:03 ↗ a little more

1:27:06 ↗ is subject to state law there's nothing

1:27:09 ↗ Issaquah can do about it

1:27:12 ↗ it's regulated by the power uh

1:27:15 ↗ commission by the state to keep the

1:27:17 ↗ wires safe and there's certain distances

1:27:19 ↗ based on the voltages

1:27:25 ↗ we did talk at the last meeting

1:27:28 ↗ having a conversation with PSE

1:27:31 ↗ um and having better understand that

1:27:33 ↗ process to

1:27:36 ↗ I know that because I was a foreign

1:27:39 ↗ [Laughter]

1:27:49 ↗ with Don share any revisions you'd want

1:27:52 ↗ to propose here or suggestion from the

1:27:55 ↗ rest of the board

1:28:02 ↗ um maybe just uh I like the word

1:28:04 ↗ oversight I guess

1:28:06 ↗ um

1:28:07 ↗ so it's better than nothing I have no

1:28:11 ↗ addition that I could make

1:28:15 ↗ I have a similar issue

1:28:19 ↗ a huge and sound energy and I have a

1:28:22 ↗ creek that runs through my property

1:28:24 ↗ and then it comes out to an area of its

1:28:27 ↗ own by the overdale

1:28:29 ↗ um

1:28:30 ↗ parks there

1:28:33 ↗ um and this I haven't managed to get the

1:28:37 ↗ city to recognize that this is a creek

1:28:39 ↗ and I think they

1:28:41 ↗ Puget Sound Energy seven

1:28:44 ↗ that they had them come out and look at

1:28:46 ↗ the water and

1:28:48 ↗ they allowed them to take out a tree

1:28:52 ↗ and uh

1:28:55 ↗ they didn't they didn't recognize that

1:28:57 ↗ this was a creek

1:29:00 ↗ now

1:29:01 ↗ uh so I'm trying to I'd like to be able

1:29:05 ↗ to have the city put this Creek on their

1:29:08 ↗ map

1:29:09 ↗ because this has caused other problems

1:29:11 ↗ which they

1:29:13 ↗ come down with their mowers along the

1:29:16 ↗ side of the

1:29:17 ↗ Road and if they don't recognize that

1:29:20 ↗ the creek is there all those

1:29:23 ↗ blackberries Vines end up in the creek

1:29:28 ↗ and I've had to remove that

1:29:31 ↗ and uh so Future Sound Energy and all

1:29:35 ↗ this but yeah I mean that's not the city

1:29:39 ↗ so it sounds like the way is to get that

1:29:44 ↗ you know it's it's an intermittent Creek

1:29:48 ↗ but um and I think what they looked at

1:29:50 ↗ it was that there's an outflow

1:29:53 ↗ of

1:29:55 ↗ um

1:29:57 ↗ water from the Sammamish Plateau water

1:30:01 ↗ they have a um

1:30:03 ↗ water tower up on the top of the hill

1:30:05 ↗ they have an ounce flowers that comes

1:30:07 ↗ out there and I think they thought oh

1:30:08 ↗ well this is just all

1:30:10 ↗ not natural

1:30:12 ↗ Janet do you think it sounds like the

1:30:15 ↗ but for a comment with limited land use

1:30:18 ↗ permitting and oversight that basically

1:30:19 ↗ increasing the oversight might help in

1:30:23 ↗ that situation

1:30:26 ↗ so you kind of agree with the with the

1:30:30 ↗ comment then or with the current

1:30:32 ↗ language

1:30:33 ↗ yeah okay

1:30:36 ↗ okay

1:30:37 ↗ I'd like to have the city maps of the

1:30:41 ↗ creek and I know that it's recognized

1:30:43 ↗ that it's there

1:30:46 ↗ any other comments or any proposed

1:30:48 ↗ editions on this one

1:30:51 ↗ Sergeant yeah um I guess I don't even

1:30:54 ↗ know what the private parts are

1:30:56 ↗ necessarily or how those are defined so

1:30:58 ↗ maybe just including that you have parks

1:31:00 ↗ department which I think covers you know

1:31:01 ↗ the public parks but

1:31:03 ↗ um that would be something we could

1:31:04 ↗ still

1:31:05 ↗ utilities private parts private parts

1:31:08 ↗ like a HOA Park yeah okay yeah

1:31:17 ↗ I have a feeling we're probably going to

1:31:19 ↗ leave this evening

1:31:21 ↗ um

1:31:23 ↗ uh do you want to take a quick break or

1:31:25 ↗ just

1:31:26 ↗ whether it's eight o'clock

1:31:28 ↗ enough folks need a two-minute break

1:31:31 ↗ because anyone okay

1:31:35 ↗ okay

1:31:37 ↗ we're probably about halfway through

1:31:40 ↗ because we have some very long

1:31:41 ↗ explanations um

1:31:48 ↗ this is around deep slope exemption for

1:31:52 ↗ water conveyance

1:31:54 ↗ um concern that it's too broad may

1:31:56 ↗ result in an erosion uh recommendation

1:31:58 ↗ to modify the language to say steep

1:32:01 ↗ slope shall not be used for surface

1:32:02 ↗ water conveyance

1:32:05 ↗ um we have a detailed explanation here

1:32:08 ↗ from CPD with the language from the code

1:32:12 ↗ reference to the adopted surface water

1:32:15 ↗ regulation

1:32:16 ↗ that requires the Geotech analysis and

1:32:19 ↗ report if water conveyances within 200

1:32:22 ↗ feet of a steep slope

1:32:25 ↗ um I can give folks a moment to read

1:32:27 ↗ through that

1:32:30 ↗ I think we have Emily on the line too

1:32:33 ↗ yeah

1:32:41 ↗ did we get comments after you send them

1:32:43 ↗ out to us

1:32:46 ↗ Emily did some more work at about 1 30

1:32:49 ↗ today I think so that's why I'm taking

1:32:52 ↗ the time no this is not all I sent you a

1:32:55 ↗ version of

1:32:57 ↗ um maybe I sent a version about 1 30 and

1:32:59 ↗ then another they would staff or

1:33:01 ↗ continue to add comments so that's why

1:33:02 ↗ we're going through this line that line

1:33:04 ↗ and she's here online yeah I'm gonna

1:33:06 ↗ explain

1:33:09 ↗ the rolling process

1:33:16 ↗ yeah what what this basically says again

1:33:18 ↗ Emily Appleton I manage the engineering

1:33:21 ↗ group and I had

1:33:22 ↗ um a long discussion with our stormwater

1:33:24 ↗ expert that's on my team and uh she did

1:33:28 ↗ kind of a comparison in the past as we

1:33:30 ↗ were going through this Title 18 update

1:33:32 ↗ a comparison between what what is

1:33:35 ↗ required in the geohazard code of the

1:33:38 ↗ proposed Title 18 update and what are

1:33:40 ↗ the requirements in the surface water

1:33:43 ↗ adopted standards and so when we were

1:33:46 ↗ talking about

1:33:48 ↗ um you know this conveyance what what

1:33:50 ↗ what the concern was

1:33:53 ↗ um what is she the section if anyone's

1:33:56 ↗ interested in the section of the

1:33:58 ↗ stormwater manual

1:34:00 ↗ um but it basically does require that a

1:34:03 ↗ geotechnical analysis comes with that

1:34:05 ↗ stormwater conveyance design if it's

1:34:07 ↗ within 200 feet of a steep slope or a

1:34:10 ↗ landslide Hazard area so there's

1:34:13 ↗ um analysis and Engineering

1:34:15 ↗ recommendations related to that

1:34:16 ↗ conveyanced design that get folded into

1:34:19 ↗ you know what ends up

1:34:21 ↗ and being allowed within 200 feet of a

1:34:25 ↗ of a steep slope and so the sense is

1:34:28 ↗ that there's additional Protections in

1:34:30 ↗ the surface water manual and so um

1:34:33 ↗ you know we were comfortable with the uh

1:34:36 ↗ language as it stands because it does

1:34:38 ↗ reference the surface water regulations

1:34:40 ↗ and allowing for some of the flexibility

1:34:43 ↗ so the

1:34:45 ↗ Advanced designs you know can be

1:34:47 ↗ site-specific and make sense while still

1:34:51 ↗ allowing protection of the critical

1:34:53 ↗ areas

1:34:55 ↗ um so we think it's unlikely that

1:34:58 ↗ significant erosion or unintended

1:35:00 ↗ consequences would occur because of this

1:35:02 ↗ additional protection in the surface

1:35:04 ↗ water manual

1:35:05 ↗ um but I just wanted to kind of describe

1:35:07 ↗ that for you so you could

1:35:09 ↗ um you know understand that this isn't

1:35:12 ↗ the only protection that we have as far

1:35:15 ↗ as conveyanced designs are concerned

1:35:20 ↗ thank you for that

1:35:23 ↗ I'm changed the recommendation yeah it

1:35:25 ↗ wasn't my comment but yeah

1:35:27 ↗ [Music]

1:35:29 ↗ the homework that was done

1:35:37 ↗ any objections with removing it

1:35:42 ↗ Nancy concerns or need to think about it

1:35:45 ↗ some more

1:35:46 ↗ well one I can't read that

1:35:50 ↗ to

1:35:52 ↗ I don't know what's in the surface water

1:35:54 ↗ regulations so it's really hard to

1:35:57 ↗ I mean there's concerns but I'm okay

1:36:00 ↗ with it we could leave in the concern

1:36:03 ↗ for the exemption

1:36:05 ↗ um too just to note that her Council I

1:36:08 ↗ think just leaving the concern and um

1:36:10 ↗ I'm not just to raise the red flag since

1:36:14 ↗ we haven't reviewed the storm water

1:36:15 ↗ regulations so leave-in the board is

1:36:18 ↗ going to start an exemption

1:36:20 ↗ um for seed salt use for our fruit water

1:36:21 ↗ commands it's too broad and may result

1:36:23 ↗ in significant erosion another

1:36:24 ↗ unintended consequences

1:36:29 ↗ yes and I think some of these comments I

1:36:32 ↗ was still incorporating at about 4 30

1:36:34 ↗ this afternoon so that's where we're

1:36:36 ↗ trying to take our time

1:36:39 ↗ yes

1:36:40 ↗ sorry did you learn that language

1:36:47 ↗ yeah

1:36:49 ↗ we can see it I will send the track

1:36:51 ↗ changes version plus the clean version

1:36:54 ↗ absolutely

1:36:55 ↗ on reply is not a good thing

1:36:58 ↗ we have short turnaround hour trying to

1:37:02 ↗ do this in time for that position was

1:37:05 ↗ going to be discussed today so the

1:37:06 ↗ purpose was so that we can you know give

1:37:09 ↗ you some background information and

1:37:11 ↗ that's we're discussing with an open

1:37:12 ↗ meeting yes absolutely yeah we can

1:37:15 ↗ ignore the CPD comments they are just to

1:37:18 ↗ help give us some more information and

1:37:20 ↗ decide if we want to keep our

1:37:21 ↗ recommendations or revise them

1:37:24 ↗ so you're just eliminating over

1:37:28 ↗ um I will send it to you all this is

1:37:29 ↗ just in this is

1:37:31 ↗ um

1:37:32 ↗ this was information from CBD to inform

1:37:36 ↗ our recommendation so that will not be

1:37:39 ↗ going to cancel

1:37:41 ↗ um just the board's recommendation which

1:37:43 ↗ is here in the block text but I will

1:37:45 ↗ provide you all this version so you can

1:37:47 ↗ see the comments from CPD okay I'm still

1:37:52 ↗ keeping the concern we're keeping this

1:37:54 ↗ concerned

1:37:55 ↗ removing shall not be used you've saved

1:37:58 ↗ lately yes

1:38:06 ↗ there goes two hours yes

1:38:10 ↗ okay

1:38:12 ↗ um

1:38:13 ↗ all right next one is original language

1:38:17 ↗ to be revised to clarify the exemption

1:38:20 ↗ this is in B8 and we do have what that

1:38:24 ↗ code language was for reference and

1:38:26 ↗ folks need that that was around

1:38:28 ↗ alterations to erosion landslave

1:38:30 ↗ Landslide Steve's little critical areas

1:38:35 ↗ um CPD provided a comment that it was a

1:38:38 ↗ carry forward from the existing code and

1:38:40 ↗ only applied to Mineral resource and

1:38:41 ↗ extraction activities in existence prior

1:38:44 ↗ to 1999

1:38:47 ↗ it's a specific to

1:38:50 ↗ like that

1:38:55 ↗ so it's a specific

1:38:57 ↗ exemption release

1:39:04 ↗ and this is our legislative history of

1:39:06 ↗ what was in the code so there's no

1:39:08 ↗ changes proposed as

1:39:12 ↗ an initial background information I

1:39:14 ↗ guess my communism I'm the one that made

1:39:16 ↗ the comment I didn't understand the

1:39:18 ↗ language in the code how's that for a

1:39:20 ↗ comment I knew it was for Lakeside I

1:39:23 ↗ figured that one out but I don't think

1:39:25 ↗ the language is clearly written so that

1:39:27 ↗ you can figure out what you're trying to

1:39:29 ↗ do with it that's my comment to it

1:39:31 ↗ that's why I said can you clarify it

1:39:33 ↗ just a little bit because it's not very

1:39:35 ↗ clear

1:39:37 ↗ and I don't know how to rewrite it I

1:39:39 ↗ looked at it and I said I don't know how

1:39:41 ↗ that yeah I'm going to change it it's

1:39:43 ↗ just um is that how it is in the current

1:39:45 ↗ code it's written the same way

1:39:48 ↗ okay

1:39:49 ↗ it stood all this time I'm good with it

1:39:51 ↗ it's just yeah or we can leave the

1:39:53 ↗ comment in for clarification or request

1:39:55 ↗ for clarification

1:39:57 ↗ just to request

1:39:59 ↗ clarification that would be great

1:40:01 ↗ does that work for her yeah

1:40:10 ↗ all right

1:40:13 ↗ um there was also a request for

1:40:14 ↗ clarification about what is meant by

1:40:16 ↗ significant amounts of excavation to not

1:40:19 ↗ allow interpretation CPD noted the

1:40:22 ↗ exemption is for site investigation and

1:40:26 ↗ not development

1:40:28 ↗ um they actually provided a recommended

1:40:31 ↗ change to save minimum amount of

1:40:33 ↗ expiration needed for site investigation

1:40:35 ↗ purposes

1:40:37 ↗ I like it much better statement okay

1:40:39 ↗ yeah that looks great

1:40:41 ↗ um

1:40:42 ↗ unless you're going to make the change

1:40:44 ↗ we'll never make a change you're going

1:40:47 ↗ to make the change I mean there's too

1:40:48 ↗ many things to track if you no longer

1:40:50 ↗ make the change we're making change yeah

1:40:54 ↗ um so I can leave in board recommends

1:40:57 ↗ using that language minimum amount of

1:40:59 ↗ excavation needed for site investigation

1:41:01 ↗ purposes

1:41:08 ↗ [Music]

1:41:15 ↗ great uh moving into public agency

1:41:19 ↗ utility exemption

1:41:22 ↗ board recommends public review level two

1:41:25 ↗ of critical area studies at a meeting in

1:41:27 ↗ advance of a complete application for

1:41:29 ↗ these exemptions CPD stated this item

1:41:32 ↗ was discussed with PPC and their

1:41:33 ↗ recommendation is also to change it to

1:41:35 ↗ level two so we could leave in that

1:41:39 ↗ recommendation

1:41:40 ↗ problems

1:41:42 ↗ absolutely

1:41:48 ↗ okay

1:41:50 ↗ any other revisions there

1:41:53 ↗ being none

1:41:56 ↗ um recommendation for stronger language

1:41:58 ↗ determining applicable situations for

1:42:00 ↗ the section that allows for averaging

1:42:02 ↗ when the director feels it will benefit

1:42:04 ↗ or results in benefits for resource

1:42:07 ↗ protection

1:42:09 ↗ um CPD noted some approval criteria that

1:42:15 ↗ states the proposal attempts to protect

1:42:17 ↗ and mitigate impacts to the critical

1:42:18 ↗ area functions and values consistent

1:42:21 ↗ with the best available science

1:42:25 ↗ foreign

1:42:48 ↗ criteria for covers for broadly than

1:42:50 ↗ just the buffer averaging piece

1:42:55 ↗ attempts seems kind of a weak word

1:42:58 ↗ and yeah

1:43:00 ↗ falls through that a bit maximize

1:43:02 ↗ efforts or

1:43:06 ↗ um

1:43:07 ↗ maybe that was the comment that was

1:43:10 ↗ requesting stronger language

1:43:15 ↗ we want to retain the board

1:43:17 ↗ recommendation here

1:43:20 ↗ request for stronger language

1:43:22 ↗ or do we have any specific language that

1:43:25 ↗ we want to propose

1:43:26 ↗ that quote below is the language I would

1:43:29 ↗ get rid of of TAPS okay

1:43:32 ↗ okay something a little stronger though

1:43:34 ↗ okay

1:43:41 ↗ he's maximizes efforts to protect and

1:43:43 ↗ mitigate

1:43:45 ↗ I'll let

1:43:46 ↗ any Scripture to figure it out to

1:43:48 ↗ exactly

1:43:52 ↗ any other revisions there politicians

1:43:58 ↗ okay and then a request for evaluating

1:44:01 ↗ options to limit activity of utilities

1:44:03 ↗ and critical areas in their buffers to

1:44:06 ↗ situations where there's a demonstrated

1:44:07 ↗ need and no viable option that would

1:44:10 ↗ avoid impact CPD stated the exemption

1:44:12 ↗ would only be allowed if there is no

1:44:14 ↗ viable option to avoid impact

1:44:21 ↗ uh

1:44:24 ↗ seeing at the board felt that was clear

1:44:27 ↗ in the code or if we want to retain I

1:44:29 ↗ think that was my comment and I didn't

1:44:32 ↗ from reading it I didn't get that the

1:44:34 ↗ exception would only be allowed if there

1:44:37 ↗ was no other Bible option

1:44:39 ↗ um if that's the case then I would

1:44:41 ↗ probably recommend withdrawing that

1:44:42 ↗ comment

1:44:48 ↗ any input from other board members if

1:44:51 ↗ they want to leave in this

1:44:52 ↗ recommendation if that wasn't clear to

1:44:53 ↗ them

1:45:00 ↗ you okay to remove it Jamie okay

1:45:09 ↗ mitigation sequencing we have specific

1:45:13 ↗ uh recommendation here for some new

1:45:15 ↗ language

1:45:16 ↗ that would request under requesting

1:45:19 ↗ Clarity and exemptions for a critical

1:45:22 ↗ area

1:45:26 ↗ yep can I hit this because this was me

1:45:29 ↗ I found this language under I think it

1:45:32 ↗ was the fwhca and I thought it was great

1:45:36 ↗ language and I think it should apply for

1:45:38 ↗ all of these it's not just under Cara's

1:45:40 ↗ I think the two my comments got confused

1:45:42 ↗ when I sent them to you Stacy and my

1:45:45 ↗ recommendation is that up front we add a

1:45:48 ↗ new section that if you have multiple

1:45:49 ↗ critical areas that you're impacting

1:45:51 ↗ with the project that the higher

1:45:53 ↗ standard apply for all of whatever

1:45:56 ↗ you're impacting just to request that a

1:45:59 ↗ new section be added to the code and I

1:46:01 ↗ wrote The Language out I just copied it

1:46:03 ↗ and pasted it from somewhere else

1:46:05 ↗ but it doesn't tie to the Keras it ties

1:46:08 ↗ it's just a recommendation for a new

1:46:10 ↗ section in the chat room

1:46:12 ↗ so those are different comments got it

1:46:14 ↗ okay thank you and that would be an

1:46:16 ↗ overall comment for this section yeah

1:46:18 ↗ it's from a real comment for that

1:46:20 ↗ section that it would be nice to have

1:46:22 ↗ this because I thought it was well

1:46:23 ↗ written okay

1:46:25 ↗ yeah I think our recommendation would be

1:46:27 ↗ we leave it in the

1:46:28 ↗ um fish wildlife habitat conservation

1:46:30 ↗ areas we can add it in addition because

1:46:32 ↗ I think people are we in the united

1:46:34 ↗ region we've heard confusion from people

1:46:37 ↗ what if there's a stream in a wetland

1:46:39 ↗ and you know so yeah so I think that

1:46:40 ↗ language was put in to address that

1:46:42 ↗ comment so we should leave that in there

1:46:43 ↗ but we can add more at the beginning

1:46:46 ↗ right we have to language at the

1:46:48 ↗ beginning talked about

1:46:50 ↗ what there's a conflict between critical

1:46:52 ↗ areas code and some other rules you know

1:46:55 ↗ strong water or whatever the more

1:46:56 ↗ stringent for the buy is but within that

1:46:59 ↗ we can add you know in that same

1:47:00 ↗ location you can take it yeah that's

1:47:01 ↗ better that's a great comment you know

1:47:03 ↗ the more what we're saying is the more

1:47:05 ↗ stringent rule always applies you don't

1:47:07 ↗ get to take the lesser of the two rules

1:47:09 ↗ and that's kind of what I was trying to

1:47:10 ↗ get is I thought that was a great

1:47:12 ↗ comment

1:47:14 ↗ and was hoping that we could apply that

1:47:16 ↗ to all of the section

1:47:20 ↗ so I can move that's a circle yep let's

1:47:24 ↗ address this one first move it up to the

1:47:26 ↗ general recommendations for that section

1:47:28 ↗ then we'll come back

1:47:31 ↗ what it's here

1:47:38 ↗ 11. okay

1:47:42 ↗ um any

1:47:44 ↗ questions about this recommended

1:47:47 ↗ language

1:47:48 ↗ being added as a general comment

1:47:56 ↗ okay

1:47:57 ↗ all right and then let's go back

1:48:01 ↗ under

1:48:04 ↗ 802.050 mitigation sequencing is this is

1:48:07 ↗ in the correct spot in Cincinnati right

1:48:09 ↗ okay order request Clarity on exemptions

1:48:11 ↗ for critical area aquifer areas and the

1:48:14 ↗ expectation for mitigation in cars

1:48:20 ↗ and so that was also my comment

1:48:24 ↗ what I was trying to understand is under

1:48:26 ↗ that section why is there an exception

1:48:29 ↗ for the critical area aquifer recharges

1:48:32 ↗ that's I don't you understand we didn't

1:48:34 ↗ have it in the first draft so the common

1:48:36 ↗ from Department of Health was the

1:48:39 ↗ mitigation sequencing is you know you've

1:48:41 ↗ got to avoid then you got to minimize

1:48:43 ↗ your impact and then if you absolutely

1:48:44 ↗ cannot minimize and you have to mitigate

1:48:46 ↗ the effect so in that sequence you're

1:48:48 ↗ going to go through and but for Cara uh

1:48:51 ↗ Department of Health said well that's

1:48:53 ↗ fine for these other critical areas but

1:48:55 ↗ Kara doesn't it's not that you can uh

1:48:59 ↗ you know mitigate the impact you have to

1:49:01 ↗ avoid the impact you cannot you know

1:49:04 ↗ pollution drinking water supply and such

1:49:06 ↗ so that's why that's taken out of that

1:49:09 ↗ sequencing piece at Department of

1:49:12 ↗ Health's recommendation so

1:49:14 ↗ if you add a another sentence to that

1:49:18 ↗ I'm just throwing this out for car just

1:49:20 ↗ saying for cars

1:49:22 ↗ you know this is what we expect if it's

1:49:24 ↗ no impact should occur or just what you

1:49:28 ↗ just said does that make sense because

1:49:30 ↗ it just kind of feels like it's pretty

1:49:32 ↗ open to do what you want in the cars

1:49:34 ↗ because you don't at that same

1:49:36 ↗ yeah then you go to the corner section

1:49:38 ↗ right that that particular section is

1:49:41 ↗ not applicable to Cara is basically I

1:49:44 ↗ think that was the points or Department

1:49:47 ↗ of language proposed so could we say for

1:49:52 ↗ Kara's please refer to section just what

1:49:55 ↗ I'm saying so then that's clear so it

1:49:58 ↗ doesn't look like there's a broad

1:49:59 ↗ exemption for cars

1:50:02 ↗ the reference to the car section right

1:50:05 ↗ does that help that helps me at least

1:50:08 ↗ look

1:50:09 ↗ okay sure so that's why it was taken out

1:50:11 ↗ it was released

1:50:14 ↗ if I just not a reference to the car

1:50:15 ↗ section should be added is that

1:50:17 ↗ sufficient

1:50:19 ↗ for

1:50:20 ↗ yeah okay

1:50:22 ↗ we know what let's do

1:50:25 ↗ okay

1:50:29 ↗ okay

1:50:30 ↗ um moving into

1:50:33 ↗ uh geological Hazard areas required

1:50:37 ↗ buffers and setbacks recommendation to

1:50:40 ↗ replace some of the language of should

1:50:42 ↗ was Xiao

1:50:44 ↗ um

1:50:44 ↗ where we have the current code language

1:50:46 ↗ you have to even can read that off if

1:50:48 ↗ needed CPD already noted that they could

1:50:51 ↗ make that change they shall make the

1:50:53 ↗ change

1:50:56 ↗ [Laughter]

1:51:04 ↗ I will leave these comments in since we

1:51:07 ↗ haven't seen that change made

1:51:10 ↗ everyone

1:51:12 ↗ I thought they said take him out

1:51:15 ↗ there oh yeah

1:51:21 ↗ um good to remove this one then yeah

1:51:23 ↗ okay

1:51:24 ↗ thank you

1:51:28 ↗ okay

1:51:29 ↗ um recommending Administration should

1:51:31 ↗ add language to the section

1:51:33 ↗ um about

1:51:35 ↗ transferable Future Property Owners to

1:51:37 ↗ protect the city yes you can leave this

1:51:40 ↗ in them okay for the City attorney

1:51:42 ↗ um I think we understand what your

1:51:44 ↗ concern is that I think it does carry

1:51:47 ↗ forward but I mean if you need to

1:51:49 ↗ comment below

1:51:52 ↗ okay any revisions to that comment any

1:51:55 ↗ concerns from other board members that

1:51:57 ↗ are not one in

1:51:59 ↗ okay

1:52:15 ↗ next one is recommending adding some

1:52:19 ↗ language to specify who gets to make the

1:52:22 ↗ approval

1:52:24 ↗ under erosion Hazard area CPD is that

1:52:27 ↗ they will make that change are we okay

1:52:30 ↗ to remove it okay

1:52:35 ↗ seismic hazards uh just noted that some

1:52:39 ↗ language was missing from the section I

1:52:42 ↗ don't know we can

1:52:44 ↗ hold that up if there's questions about

1:52:45 ↗ it uh and Minnie's team didn't know that

1:52:49 ↗ it has now been completed and they

1:52:51 ↗ provided that language here we can give

1:52:52 ↗ folks a couple minutes to look at that

1:52:54 ↗ see if they have any questions or want

1:52:56 ↗ any clarification

1:53:01 ↗ looks good

1:53:04 ↗ okay

1:53:06 ↗ is any concerns if we remove this

1:53:09 ↗ recommendation since the section has

1:53:11 ↗ been completed

1:53:13 ↗ amen

1:53:14 ↗ okay

1:53:16 ↗ and Laura do just jump in if you have

1:53:19 ↗ any questions we're moving pretty quick

1:53:20 ↗ here if you're having trouble following

1:53:23 ↗ doing a great job I think it's easier

1:53:25 ↗ for us to see it than for you guys

1:53:28 ↗ Chinese

1:53:30 ↗ okay

1:53:31 ↗ um Steve slope Hazard there was a

1:53:33 ↗ recommendation on a revision Nancy you

1:53:36 ↗ provided some specific

1:53:37 ↗ language to remove from this section CPD

1:53:41 ↗ is noted that they'll make that change

1:53:43 ↗ any concerns about removing this

1:53:45 ↗ recommendation

1:53:48 ↗ or the revision that Nancy proposed I

1:53:51 ↗ believe as you can see

1:53:55 ↗ any concerns removing this one no no

1:54:03 ↗ okay

1:54:08 ↗ view quarters

1:54:10 ↗ um there was a concern that the

1:54:13 ↗ statement was too broad and could result

1:54:15 ↗ in significant trimming of vegetation on

1:54:17 ↗ sleep steep slopes a recommendation of

1:54:20 ↗ strengthening the sexual section and

1:54:23 ↗ some more details on when and how the

1:54:25 ↗ trimming should take place

1:54:29 ↗ um

1:54:30 ↗ CPD noted the section does not allow

1:54:33 ↗ removal of trees just limited trimming

1:54:35 ↗ they can add language to make it clear

1:54:38 ↗ that topping up trees is not allowed

1:54:40 ↗ and some better

1:54:42 ↗ um definitions for scope and scale of

1:54:44 ↗ trimming

1:54:46 ↗ like keeping that or adding sorry

1:54:50 ↗ keeping the comment and adding that

1:54:51 ↗ recommendation around topping and just

1:54:53 ↗ making it real clear on okay

1:54:57 ↗ not just topping but windowing I'm sure

1:55:00 ↗ you're using to go down and look at the

1:55:01 ↗ lake I mean there's a branch at the

1:55:03 ↗ bottom and a branch yeah

1:55:07 ↗ [Laughter]

1:55:10 ↗ I've got a tree in which

1:55:13 ↗ there's a lot of dead dead branches

1:55:16 ↗ they said and the arborist said that it

1:55:20 ↗ would really help to remove those dead

1:55:23 ↗ branches

1:55:24 ↗ because that was strength

1:55:32 ↗ I mean I think our tree chapter must

1:55:35 ↗ have some reference that we can just add

1:55:37 ↗ here in terms of to the proper ways of

1:55:56 ↗ approaches to this uh the more strict

1:55:59 ↗ cities on their tree regulations will

1:56:00 ↗ require an arborist report before this

1:56:03 ↗ kind of trending is allowed I don't know

1:56:04 ↗ if you want to go that far or not

1:56:07 ↗ Kirkland is requires harvest report for

1:56:11 ↗ just about any tree could touch

1:56:14 ↗ I think we're wrong with this if not

1:56:16 ↗ there yeah

1:56:19 ↗ do we want to expand on the

1:56:21 ↗ recommendation or anything

1:56:24 ↗ Donovan

1:56:27 ↗ or is it fine just I what I did was

1:56:29 ↗ probably okay with it okay I pulled a

1:56:32 ↗ little language from CPD into kind of

1:56:35 ↗ more details of what we would want to

1:56:36 ↗ see around specification specifications

1:56:39 ↗ for scope and scale for me

1:56:42 ↗ um what happens with the vegetation and

1:56:44 ↗ that tree topping is not allowed up here

1:56:51 ↗ any further revisions to this one

1:57:03 ↗ um and then we have a few under peat

1:57:06 ↗ settlement so

1:57:08 ↗ um maybe I'll just summarize these and

1:57:11 ↗ then we have some

1:57:13 ↗ um background and comments from CPD

1:57:18 ↗ um the recommendation is strengthening

1:57:20 ↗ this section

1:57:21 ↗ to limit development as well as mapping

1:57:24 ↗ out areas with Pete or Peak from areas

1:57:26 ↗ I'm just noting that these areas do

1:57:29 ↗ sequester a large amount of carbon

1:57:31 ↗ dioxide and are important to protect

1:57:34 ↗ um

1:57:36 ↗ that we should avoid development in

1:57:40 ↗ areas with peat

1:57:44 ↗ unless the following criteria are met

1:57:46 ↗ and demonstrated in the critical area of

1:57:48 ↗ study and there's some specific

1:57:51 ↗ criteria here around avoid temporary

1:57:54 ↗ construction activities

1:57:57 ↗ avoid the temporary permanent ground

1:57:59 ↗ water dewatering

1:58:02 ↗ and CPD did provide a quite a bit

1:58:07 ↗ background on peat deposits from look

1:58:10 ↗ like the city consultant looked into

1:58:11 ↗ that quite a bit

1:58:15 ↗ that we can walk through or I don't know

1:58:18 ↗ Emily could who the if it's really yeah

1:58:21 ↗ if she's still on could just talk

1:58:23 ↗ through kind of a quick summary of those

1:58:25 ↗ findings

1:58:27 ↗ um and if there are any concerns that

1:58:29 ↗ you have with environmental forward

1:58:31 ↗ comments or if they were just supporting

1:58:34 ↗ or providing more background information

1:58:38 ↗ yeah we had our um Geotech consultant

1:58:41 ↗ look into you know Peak deposits in the

1:58:43 ↗ city and they provided some background

1:58:45 ↗ information

1:58:47 ↗ um the

1:58:49 ↗ what what they you know discovered is

1:58:52 ↗ that the vast majority of the peat

1:58:54 ↗ deposits are protected under the

1:58:56 ↗ wetlands critical area there are some

1:58:59 ↗ areas that you know used to

1:59:01 ↗ used to be

1:59:03 ↗ um in the valley bottom that you know

1:59:06 ↗ are still potentially unprotected and so

1:59:10 ↗ we added uh the I forget what it's

1:59:13 ↗ called um peat settlement prone areas

1:59:16 ↗ into the the draft

1:59:19 ↗ so we could

1:59:21 ↗ start looking at them and the the focus

1:59:25 ↗ of the regulations for the ones outside

1:59:27 ↗ of the wetlands Stream area is to First

1:59:30 ↗ avoid the impact you know minimize the

1:59:33 ↗ foreign

1:59:34 ↗ impact when avoidance isn't possible

1:59:37 ↗ and any removal of 100 cubic yards or

1:59:40 ↗ more requires an evaluation of the

1:59:42 ↗ geotechnical groundwater and

1:59:45 ↗ environmental impacts and some proposed

1:59:47 ↗ mitigation to minimize the impacts and

1:59:50 ↗ so that's how we set it up in this

1:59:53 ↗ current draft and it

1:59:56 ↗ because it includes some of some of the

1:59:59 ↗ suggested

2:00:01 ↗ criteria but maybe not quite as specific

2:00:07 ↗ from my perspective

2:00:09 ↗ so are you saying that you can remove a

2:00:13 ↗ hundred yards

2:00:15 ↗ that would be if you go through the

2:00:17 ↗ sequence and you

2:00:18 ↗ avoid minimize and then that would be

2:00:23 ↗ your last resort and it would only be

2:00:25 ↗ permitted when a geotechnical critical

2:00:28 ↗ areas report has demonstrated that other

2:00:31 ↗ options are not technically feasible and

2:00:34 ↗ the impact the environment is not

2:00:36 ↗ significant that's how it's currently

2:00:38 ↗ written

2:00:44 ↗ um

2:00:45 ↗ seems to me like it should be stronger

2:00:47 ↗ so you're saying that somebody can build

2:00:49 ↗ remove the peat to build a road or a

2:00:53 ↗ dwelling or something up to 100 yards

2:00:57 ↗ would be the the outside limit after

2:00:59 ↗ going through the sequence and and doing

2:01:01 ↗ the the studies

2:01:03 ↗ um you know to demonstrate that no other

2:01:05 ↗ option is technically feasible and

2:01:07 ↗ there's an insignificant impact to the

2:01:10 ↗ environment

2:01:12 ↗ so it would most likely if no other

2:01:14 ↗ option is that like oh we need to put

2:01:17 ↗ this road here because it seems like

2:01:19 ↗ there's always the option of not putting

2:01:21 ↗ a structure

2:01:23 ↗ right

2:01:24 ↗ yeah you know that that's currently how

2:01:27 ↗ it's written and um you know you're

2:01:30 ↗ asking really good questions and haven't

2:01:32 ↗ tested the code on any real life um

2:01:35 ↗ development at this point in time uh for

2:01:38 ↗ this particular section so you know I

2:01:41 ↗ think these are

2:01:43 ↗ well thought through comments and you

2:01:46 ↗ know I'm not trying to dissuade you from

2:01:47 ↗ saying them I'm just trying to explain

2:01:49 ↗ to you what's currently in there as as I

2:01:51 ↗ understand it

2:01:52 ↗ oh yeah I totally get it and I really

2:01:54 ↗ appreciate you looking into it and um

2:01:57 ↗ that it's becoming a priority

2:02:01 ↗ uh

2:02:03 ↗ so what are we saying then so I made

2:02:07 ↗ this comment or part of it at least so

2:02:12 ↗ it seems like it should stay in there

2:02:18 ↗ my concern with the second bullet

2:02:22 ↗ um is that it

2:02:23 ↗ in my mind when it lays out or not

2:02:26 ↗ criteria it seems like a Prohibition on

2:02:29 ↗ any

2:02:31 ↗ because like I would expect that there's

2:02:32 ↗ like a criteria that would need to be

2:02:34 ↗ met for the area but it basically says

2:02:36 ↗ no construction activity of any kind

2:02:39 ↗ so

2:02:41 ↗ those don't seem like criteria to me one

2:02:43 ↗ and two there those seem like just

2:02:45 ↗ prohibiting doing that

2:02:48 ↗ I don't know if anyone reads that

2:02:50 ↗ differently which I think we had

2:02:52 ↗ criteria that we felt we should be

2:02:55 ↗ bullying people too but right now it

2:02:57 ↗ reads you can if there's any Pete you

2:02:59 ↗ cannot build based on that criteria or

2:03:02 ↗ do anything

2:03:06 ↗ yeah I mean that's that's happened I was

2:03:09 ↗ confused about the one in two

2:03:11 ↗ um as well so I'm not sure if ever it's

2:03:14 ↗ talking about temporary construction

2:03:15 ↗ activities and temporary and permanent

2:03:17 ↗ groundwater dewatering I mean are we

2:03:20 ↗ concerned about the carbon issues with

2:03:23 ↗ the feed or are we you know

2:03:26 ↗ just saying if you and and then I think

2:03:28 ↗ putting that 100 cubic

2:03:30 ↗ um

2:03:31 ↗ yards or whatever we say is to establish

2:03:34 ↗ some you know I mean this is just

2:03:36 ↗ organic material you just find some

2:03:38 ↗ leaves and you say this is feet and

2:03:41 ↗ therefore it's protected I mean you

2:03:42 ↗ can't do that right so so establishing

2:03:45 ↗ some regulations and and from our

2:03:47 ↗ research from the Consultants research

2:03:50 ↗ Nobody Does this and so we're an

2:03:53 ↗ Uncharted Territory here

2:03:55 ↗ um and and we feel good about where

2:03:57 ↗ we've landed

2:03:59 ↗ um but I I would not advise stretching

2:04:01 ↗ this to be on what we have

2:04:03 ↗ I think the first bullet speaks to it

2:04:07 ↗ I'm hearing this board is trying to

2:04:09 ↗ project her to strengthen and recognize

2:04:11 ↗ them the value

2:04:16 ↗ so from what I know about peat Boggs is

2:04:18 ↗ their

2:04:20 ↗ they're a little bit rare

2:04:23 ↗ so

2:04:25 ↗ I don't think we're going to be running

2:04:26 ↗ into them a lot

2:04:30 ↗ so the more we can protect them the

2:04:32 ↗ better because they do have a life soil

2:04:34 ↗ a lot of carbon and they've got a lot of

2:04:36 ↗ they've got their own little ecosystem

2:04:39 ↗ my guest Manny is the majority of them

2:04:42 ↗ eat in issaques within Samantha State

2:04:45 ↗ Park

2:04:45 ↗ oh yeah more closer to those normal

2:04:48 ↗ areas yeah I mean it it developed

2:04:51 ↗ because it was a wetland at one time the

2:04:53 ↗ water levels changed and now it's beat

2:04:55 ↗ this sort of how the geology played out

2:04:58 ↗ it wasn't the Anthology that big feel

2:05:01 ↗ over by the

2:05:03 ↗ Club there it wasn't that my goal thing

2:05:06 ↗ was a PTO and they hauled away and

2:05:09 ↗ so I mean that's an example of the kind

2:05:11 ↗ of thing that would be disallowed

2:05:15 ↗ yeah and the proposed draft you would

2:05:18 ↗ get a geotechnical report if you have an

2:05:20 ↗ assessment then you have to do this can

2:05:22 ↗ you minimize can you avoid the impact

2:05:24 ↗ and if it's more than what can you do to

2:05:26 ↗ mitigate it so that's that would be the

2:05:29 ↗ process

2:05:31 ↗ it's not a Prohibition

2:05:33 ↗ it's a word minimize and then

2:05:36 ↗ um addressing that but there would be an

2:05:39 ↗ attempt made to

2:05:42 ↗ um to address the impacts for that

2:05:44 ↗ during review not during construction or

2:05:47 ↗ whatever you know right so I think the

2:05:50 ↗ examples that you all are talking about

2:05:51 ↗ land I wasn't here at the time but my

2:05:53 ↗ understanding is something for

2:05:54 ↗ discovered during construction

2:05:59 ↗ some parents still interested in having

2:06:01 ↗ possibly considering some strengthening

2:06:03 ↗ or recommendation to strengthen the

2:06:05 ↗ section also recognition of the valuable

2:06:08 ↗ asset

2:06:10 ↗ um and then removing the second point

2:06:12 ↗ and the specific recommended criteria

2:06:15 ↗ I guess I'm concerned about removing

2:06:17 ↗ totally the certain point and my concern

2:06:21 ↗ lies with the fact that this section is

2:06:24 ↗ compared to all the other critical areas

2:06:26 ↗ in there is the weakest in my opinion

2:06:29 ↗ it gives you it doesn't really

2:06:32 ↗ specifically say what you can or can't

2:06:34 ↗ do I'm not sure we've got it right here

2:06:36 ↗ in these two bullets to be honest

2:06:39 ↗ and

2:06:41 ↗ um I would recommend instead that

2:06:44 ↗ there'd be a critical area that

2:06:46 ↗ something be done in a critical area

2:06:48 ↗ study so that someone can evaluate

2:06:50 ↗ people protecting that Peak area so

2:06:52 ↗ perhaps

2:06:54 ↗ you know you could say an Administration

2:06:56 ↗ should include language that states

2:06:58 ↗ development activities in areas

2:07:00 ↗ underlying by Page should be avoided

2:07:01 ↗ unless

2:07:02 ↗ um

2:07:03 ↗ you know some criteria is met unless the

2:07:07 ↗ impacts can be minimized as demonstrated

2:07:09 ↗ in a critical area of study just period

2:07:11 ↗ there so what you're doing is then

2:07:13 ↗ making them actually evaluate the

2:07:16 ↗ effects of dewatering the effects of you

2:07:19 ↗ know what they're doing instead of

2:07:20 ↗ saying avoid you know

2:07:22 ↗ limiting them and saying no totally it

2:07:25 ↗ gives you an opportunity to actually

2:07:27 ↗ evaluate if they're doing enough for you

2:07:30 ↗ um by doing that I don't know if that

2:07:32 ↗ helps you at all

2:07:34 ↗ in administering this

2:07:36 ↗ I mean this is your recommendation to

2:07:38 ↗ council we don't know what you know make

2:07:41 ↗ a final decision

2:07:43 ↗ yeah I mean I think today we're just

2:07:45 ↗ designing leave it or take it out so

2:07:49 ↗ I think I agree with the

2:07:52 ↗ um taking out the two bullets that kind

2:07:53 ↗ of give you the criteria but actually

2:07:55 ↗ making someone do a study to actually

2:07:58 ↗ determine the impacts on that beat area

2:08:00 ↗ makes more sense

2:08:02 ↗ and then someone can make a decision if

2:08:05 ↗ that's the right thing to do okay great

2:08:07 ↗ so I'm getting rid of one and two yep

2:08:10 ↗ yep revise that language and students

2:08:12 ↗ avoid it and less impacts can be

2:08:15 ↗ minimized as demonstrated in a critical

2:08:16 ↗ area study

2:08:18 ↗ yes right

2:08:27 ↗ Mitigation Of geologic hazards

2:08:31 ↗ um I believe this is Nancy had some

2:08:33 ↗ specific uh suggestions or revisions to

2:08:36 ↗ this text

2:08:43 ↗ um

2:08:44 ↗ they are shown in blue

2:08:47 ↗ uh

2:08:49 ↗ I'm requesting for a period of three

2:08:51 ↗ years after completing impacts to in

2:08:53 ↗ mitigation and geologic hazards that

2:08:56 ↗ there would be a monitoring period

2:09:02 ↗ and then

2:09:04 ↗ [Music]

2:09:04 ↗ um

2:09:06 ↗ additional recommendation for some

2:09:08 ↗ language around three after three years

2:09:10 ↗ of completion

2:09:12 ↗ annual evaluation for effectiveness of

2:09:15 ↗ mitigation

2:09:16 ↗ and I can I'll put this language back up

2:09:18 ↗ for folks to review

2:09:20 ↗ cpg just noted they'd want to check what

2:09:22 ↗ their consultant three-year monitoring

2:09:24 ↗ is necessary for Mitigation Of

2:09:26 ↗ geo-hazard areas

2:09:27 ↗ [Music]

2:09:28 ↗ um

2:09:29 ↗ but

2:09:30 ↗ yeah and then I'm concerned with just

2:09:31 ↗ one size is different at all so if it's

2:09:34 ↗ a major medication on a landslide maybe

2:09:36 ↗ two-year monitoring make sense but if it

2:09:39 ↗ is just a medication of some coal mine

2:09:41 ↗ has it and they did all you know the

2:09:43 ↗ right things and it's as far away from

2:09:46 ↗ that and it's you know one year is

2:09:48 ↗ sufficient and so

2:09:50 ↗ having a

2:09:52 ↗ baked in requirement for two years

2:09:55 ↗ could be a necessary burden

2:10:02 ↗ I'm good with that so it gives you a

2:10:04 ↗ little flexibility up two or three years

2:10:08 ↗ three years

2:10:11 ↗ shouldn't have evil isn't the current

2:10:13 ↗ minimum one

2:10:15 ↗ is that correct you know I think we

2:10:17 ↗ would

2:10:18 ↗ evaluate it for as long as it's

2:10:23 ↗ generally one year it could be zero

2:10:26 ↗ years right now that's what I'm saying

2:10:28 ↗ we shouldn't because up to could be zero

2:10:31 ↗ so is the current requirement there it

2:10:34 ↗ could be zero and it's up to your

2:10:36 ↗ description if it's zero then it doesn't

2:10:38 ↗ need to be wanted to think because it's

2:10:39 ↗ not a mission yeah you know

2:10:42 ↗ but she loves it geologic hazards can be

2:10:46 ↗ pretty significant in terms of costs so

2:10:48 ↗ three years with the number I picked

2:10:50 ↗ just out of the thinking but I didn't

2:10:53 ↗ know how to put do you put XX years you

2:10:55 ↗ put

2:10:57 ↗ as determined by you know the subject

2:11:00 ↗ yeah and the subject matter experts that

2:11:02 ↗ would probably would be better for a

2:11:04 ↗ period determined by the subject matter

2:11:06 ↗ experts at the completion of the project

2:11:09 ↗ you know because maybe those instances

2:11:11 ↗ is longer right sometimes it's longer

2:11:13 ↗ sometimes it's shorter I'm

2:11:15 ↗ right is it the city subject to

2:11:18 ↗ equipment um yeah

2:11:29 ↗ okay so changing three years to

2:11:32 ↗ determines

2:11:33 ↗ by the subject matter experts right the

2:11:36 ↗ cities

2:11:47 ↗ all right any other

2:11:49 ↗ um comments or revisions to the proposed

2:11:53 ↗ suggestions

2:11:55 ↗ for this section

2:11:57 ↗ look I think the words are flipped

2:11:59 ↗ cities in the uh thank you

2:12:05 ↗ I will for free

2:12:09 ↗ okay

2:12:13 ↗ great

2:12:19 ↗ okay Wetlands

2:12:21 ↗ um there was a recommendation to strike

2:12:24 ↗ some language under the description

2:12:26 ↗ category category for Wetlands I think I

2:12:30 ↗ remember right it was making it sound

2:12:32 ↗ like they were a bit less in value

2:12:35 ↗ um cpts that they can make that change

2:12:37 ↗ versus removing that language

2:12:40 ↗ are we okay to remove this comment

2:12:46 ↗ discussion

2:12:55 ↗ required buffers and setbacks

2:12:58 ↗ recommendation to strike some language

2:13:01 ↗ that said forestry such as cutting of

2:13:03 ↗ trees only

2:13:05 ↗ um just noting that that practice is not

2:13:08 ↗ low impact and should require medication

2:13:13 ↗ um board recommends removing

2:13:15 ↗ that

2:13:16 ↗ action from low impact for vision and

2:13:19 ↗ moving into a high impact provision CPD

2:13:21 ↗ noted the table and intimacy abuses is

2:13:24 ↗ from Department of ecology

2:13:26 ↗ so so a little bit on the way this

2:13:28 ↗ particular table works is you determine

2:13:32 ↗ how much buffer do you have and if you

2:13:34 ↗ have high intensity if you have

2:13:35 ↗ commercial development which is majority

2:13:38 ↗ or residential development of which is

2:13:40 ↗ the majority of what happened in

2:13:41 ↗ Issaquah you get the highest buffer so

2:13:44 ↗ if it's just forestry type of uses

2:13:48 ↗ um you get a smaller buffer but I don't

2:13:50 ↗ know why it says removal of trees it is

2:13:52 ↗ bizarre that it's actually an ecology

2:13:54 ↗ thing forestry I could see that but such

2:13:57 ↗ as cutting of trees only

2:13:59 ↗ seems odd but we got it directly from

2:14:03 ↗ their guidance document and um

2:14:06 ↗ you know we could just

2:14:09 ↗ strike out such as cutting of trees and

2:14:11 ↗ just leave it as forestry Mike I'm

2:14:14 ↗ looking at the dog now my guess is the

2:14:16 ↗ ecology wrote this to be applied

2:14:18 ↗ Statewide including up in the gaskets

2:14:21 ↗ where they do active logging yeah that's

2:14:23 ↗ why yeah so to make it more urban yeah I

2:14:27 ↗ would get rid of the cutting of trees

2:14:29 ↗ records

2:14:31 ↗ do we want to retain the recommendation

2:14:33 ↗ as is or

2:14:36 ↗ um

2:14:38 ↗ I think we can delete such as cutting of

2:14:40 ↗ the trees only or committing the

2:14:42 ↗ forestry there and we'll make that

2:14:44 ↗ change

2:14:45 ↗ it's up to you all whether you want to

2:14:47 ↗ leave it in the letter or not

2:14:50 ↗ even forestry or I think

2:14:54 ↗ I agree with just keeping the forestry

2:14:56 ↗ statement in there and getting rid of

2:14:58 ↗ such as cutting the trees on it

2:15:00 ↗ I think it really fits in the title 18

2:15:04 ↗ the way it's written for this aesthetic

2:15:07 ↗ so recommend striking

2:15:09 ↗ such as the cutting of trees and we'll

2:15:13 ↗ make that change so the question is if

2:15:15 ↗ we make the change do you want it in the

2:15:17 ↗ letter or not

2:15:20 ↗ if you're gonna make a change then I

2:15:22 ↗ don't let's see because by the time

2:15:23 ↗ letter gets to council to change the

2:15:25 ↗ event so I don't see it necessarily okay

2:15:29 ↗ okay

2:15:31 ↗ yeah go ahead

2:15:35 ↗ um so Pete sequesters more carbon than

2:15:40 ↗ trees I just want to point that out and

2:15:43 ↗ we're putting a lot of effort into

2:15:44 ↗ saving trees so we should think about

2:15:46 ↗ that with peat bogs

2:15:49 ↗ as well

2:16:00 ↗ concerns for moving this recommendation

2:16:02 ↗ if CPD will address it okay

2:16:12 ↗ okay

2:16:13 ↗ um

2:16:14 ↗ next two comments are consider expanding

2:16:18 ↗ requirements to maintain habitat

2:16:19 ↗ connections for Wetlands with a score of

2:16:22 ↗ seven to nine currently only Wetlands

2:16:25 ↗ with a score of eight to nine

2:16:27 ↗ are included in the next comment was

2:16:30 ↗ related

2:16:32 ↗ to that

2:16:34 ↗ thanks for my comments thank you

2:16:36 ↗ um

2:16:38 ↗ psychology guidance or where do you what

2:16:41 ↗ are some of the

2:16:42 ↗ I guess my point on the first comment is

2:16:45 ↗ you know we talk a lot about

2:16:45 ↗ prioritizing corridors

2:16:49 ↗ how it seems to really just be taking

2:16:50 ↗ the

2:16:51 ↗ upper two scoring limits you know on the

2:16:53 ↗ 1-9 scale for Habitat seems a little

2:16:56 ↗ maybe short-sighted

2:16:58 ↗ um I mean I would yeah argue to bring it

2:17:01 ↗ even down lower than seven but so that

2:17:03 ↗ was kind of my first point and then the

2:17:04 ↗ second one was I guess I'm just a little

2:17:06 ↗ unclear on it's it's E4 in this section

2:17:10 ↗ Wetlands of the water quality score of

2:17:12 ↗ eight or nine and a habitat score of

2:17:14 ↗ less than six uh no additional surface

2:17:17 ↗ discharges or untreated runoff so I'm

2:17:19 ↗ kind of unclear where habitat scores of

2:17:22 ↗ seven eight or nine for that

2:17:24 ↗ um

2:17:25 ↗ productive measure exists or if it

2:17:28 ↗ exists somewhere it's like why would you

2:17:30 ↗ allow additional service to charge to

2:17:32 ↗ run off in better habitat areas with

2:17:34 ↗ also high water quantity disorders

2:17:37 ↗ foreign

2:17:40 ↗ that's a good catch

2:17:51 ↗ so I do think they're kind of two

2:17:53 ↗ different

2:17:54 ↗ comments

2:18:04 ↗ review it

2:18:07 ↗ um

2:18:08 ↗ um any comments or visions from other

2:18:11 ↗ board members or concerns about having

2:18:13 ↗ these in no so are you staying okay

2:18:18 ↗ looks good

2:18:20 ↗ comments

2:18:24 ↗ um standards for wetland buffers

2:18:27 ↗ um there was a comment around uh clerk

2:18:30 ↗ needy clarification on whether private

2:18:31 ↗ sewer utilities exist in the city and if

2:18:35 ↗ Allowed by the state

2:18:36 ↗ new sewer line should really be allowed

2:18:39 ↗ in Wetland buffers

2:18:40 ↗ recommend modifications of the language

2:18:42 ↗ to make installation of sewers and

2:18:44 ↗ Wetland buffers more difficult

2:18:46 ↗ to be denoted facilities are subject to

2:18:49 ↗ mitigation and sequencing of avoidance

2:18:51 ↗ minimizing and medication

2:18:54 ↗ and share it with the language in the

2:18:56 ↗ section states that if the applicant

2:18:59 ↗ demonstrates sewer lines are necessary

2:19:01 ↗ for Gravity flow and no other

2:19:03 ↗ technologically practical alternative

2:19:06 ↗ exists

2:19:08 ↗ this was my comment as a former sewer

2:19:11 ↗ person can you imagine that and

2:19:15 ↗ um I would like to change this comment

2:19:17 ↗ okay and what I'd like to do is say use

2:19:21 ↗ their language which in state

2:19:24 ↗ okay let me tell you what I'm going to

2:19:26 ↗ try and say before you start

2:19:28 ↗ you know the quoted section

2:19:36 ↗ Ally if the applicant demonstrates that

2:19:38 ↗ you sewer utilities

2:19:41 ↗ um

2:19:43 ↗ sewer lines are necessary and no other

2:19:46 ↗ technologically practical alternative

2:19:49 ↗ exists it's they can get away with this

2:19:52 ↗ without gravity flow okay they can put

2:19:55 ↗ in pumped systems and private utilities

2:19:57 ↗ the state allows it

2:20:00 ↗ um I worked for a utility that we had to

2:20:02 ↗ do this so I don't know if the city

2:20:03 ↗ doesn't I haven't read the sewer code

2:20:05 ↗ the sewer regulations

2:20:07 ↗ but

2:20:09 ↗ um it's pretty easy to put in a system

2:20:11 ↗ that allows this to happen and still

2:20:13 ↗ have it private so my suggestion is to

2:20:16 ↗ get rid of the gravity flow because that

2:20:18 ↗ will work

2:20:19 ↗ that provision allows them to put it in

2:20:22 ↗ the buffers if you take out the gravity

2:20:25 ↗ flow it makes them they have to

2:20:28 ↗ demonstrate that there's no alternative

2:20:29 ↗ technology so that the gravity flow

2:20:33 ↗ gives them the option to put it in the

2:20:34 ↗ buffer they still may have to do that so

2:20:37 ↗ by making them demonstrate that there's

2:20:39 ↗ no practical alternatives to makes them

2:20:42 ↗ come to you and really show you that

2:20:44 ↗ they can't do it with these other

2:20:46 ↗ systems that's my suggestion yeah that's

2:20:50 ↗ good

2:20:51 ↗ is there a private seers and

2:20:53 ↗ Issaquah Beyond you know

2:20:56 ↗ on-site the sewer systems is there puds

2:20:59 ↗ out here anyway

2:21:01 ↗ um I mean said that man I mean we have

2:21:03 ↗ our own

2:21:06 ↗ there may be private sewer lines going

2:21:09 ↗ through uh some so we don't know I mean

2:21:11 ↗ I don't know the answer to how many of

2:21:12 ↗ them it actually exist I mean it's not a

2:21:14 ↗ great idea to have these you know

2:21:16 ↗ there's a failure or something but we

2:21:19 ↗ had a shoreline crossing a bridge

2:21:23 ↗ they could kind of put that in there so

2:21:25 ↗ but but to serve the area some there's a

2:21:28 ↗ lot of critical area and it's of course

2:21:30 ↗ sometimes there's no way to turn it

2:21:33 ↗ so did you understand what I said yes so

2:21:36 ↗ recommending

2:21:38 ↗ um just removing or gravity flow from

2:21:41 ↗ the existing language so Australians are

2:21:43 ↗ necessary and no other technologically

2:21:46 ↗ practical

2:22:00 ↗ you're good with it okay

2:22:04 ↗ because you may need to do it at some

2:22:06 ↗ point

2:22:07 ↗ I get it

2:22:11 ↗ okay

2:22:12 ↗ um

2:22:14 ↗ so do we want to leave CPD World make

2:22:16 ↗ that change do we want to leave in the

2:22:18 ↗ recommendation

2:22:19 ↗ she said she's magic

2:22:22 ↗ okay so remove this recommendation

2:22:33 ↗ okay

2:22:34 ↗ regular activities and wetlands and

2:22:36 ↗ wetlands buffers

2:22:37 ↗ um

2:22:40 ↗ stormwater facilities such as

2:22:41 ↗ underground bolts are no longer allowed

2:22:43 ↗ in Wetland buffer area to protect the

2:22:45 ↗ buffer to the maximum extent

2:22:47 ↗ recommendation to modify the language to

2:22:50 ↗ be more specific about what a storm

2:22:53 ↗ water facility

2:22:55 ↗ um I just wanted to better understand

2:22:57 ↗ here the intent and Ensure

2:23:01 ↗ it was not misinterpreted

2:23:04 ↗ and then CPD

2:23:07 ↗ um

2:23:08 ↗ provided some comments about additional

2:23:11 ↗ information that is available in that

2:23:13 ↗ section

2:23:16 ↗ this is a common mistake made in the

2:23:19 ↗ stormwater world is lumping together

2:23:22 ↗ hard infrastructure like vaults tanks

2:23:25 ↗ ponds diffusers with Libs GSI the bile

2:23:30 ↗ retention systems the Biore retention

2:23:32 ↗ systems have an advantage to be on the

2:23:35 ↗ edge of the Wetland you're treating the

2:23:37 ↗ glutes before they

2:23:38 ↗ get to the Waters of the Wetland I see

2:23:41 ↗ what you guys are doing with putting you

2:23:43 ↗ know like a level spreader located on

2:23:45 ↗ the outer 25 but level spreader still

2:23:47 ↗ has highly contaminated pollutants in it

2:23:50 ↗ it hasn't been treated yet

2:23:52 ↗ so

2:23:53 ↗ opening the idea of allowing them to use

2:23:57 ↗ the edge of the Wetland to put in some

2:23:59 ↗ sort of Biore retention system to do

2:24:00 ↗ treatment before it actually makes it to

2:24:03 ↗ the water

2:24:06 ↗ you would have to put put these

2:24:08 ↗ facilities outside of the buffer so

2:24:10 ↗ there'll be added protection because

2:24:12 ↗ you've got the the you know this but but

2:24:15 ↗ I mean you can make a recommendation to

2:24:17 ↗ allow these other things within the

2:24:18 ↗ buffer I think if you should sometimes

2:24:21 ↗ it becomes as one of these design data

2:24:23 ↗ sometimes they're well-plane buyers

2:24:25 ↗ Wills to to them okay to put them in the

2:24:28 ↗ in the buffer and when people stretch it

2:24:29 ↗ to to meet there so I think that this

2:24:32 ↗ has been a point of where people have

2:24:35 ↗ argued that if it's an underground world

2:24:37 ↗ that that can be in the buffer because

2:24:40 ↗ it's not you know you can play it over

2:24:42 ↗ but you really can't plant trees over it

2:24:44 ↗ so we've had those debates before and so

2:24:46 ↗ this was our attempt at fixing it and

2:24:49 ↗ making it clear what can cannot do so if

2:24:51 ↗ you want to add

2:24:53 ↗ bios worlds and other things are allowed

2:24:55 ↗ uh in the buffer

2:24:58 ↗ it was just a question for you guys to

2:25:01 ↗ consider I don't I'm not I don't know

2:25:03 ↗ what this language needs to stay in

2:25:05 ↗ there it's something that I just want to

2:25:06 ↗ say to you to consider but there is

2:25:08 ↗ advantages to using that kind of

2:25:10 ↗ Technology yeah

2:25:13 ↗ sorry I'm happy removing it I think it's

2:25:18 ↗ um it's up to you guys I'm okay removing

2:25:20 ↗ it I think it's because

2:25:23 ↗ the explanation below talks to it

2:25:26 ↗ I'm good good I'm good okay

2:25:35 ↗ okay uh minimizing impacts to Wetlands

2:25:38 ↗ uh recommendations I want to buy the

2:25:41 ↗ title of the section to include

2:25:43 ↗ minimizing impacts of wetlands and their

2:25:45 ↗ properties and to make this sections

2:25:46 ↗ stronger and better to protect Wetland

2:25:49 ↗ buffers

2:25:51 ↗ um CPD noted section is really intended

2:25:53 ↗ to minimize impacts of the Wetland

2:25:55 ↗ itself and you enter the outside the

2:25:56 ↗ wetlands

2:25:58 ↗ it's a small thing I mean whatever we

2:26:00 ↗ can add in and stuff we're just going to

2:26:02 ↗ change

2:26:03 ↗ so we'll make this change you guys can

2:26:05 ↗ decide to leave it in your comments or

2:26:07 ↗ okay

2:26:08 ↗ it's just making a change

2:26:11 ↗ right

2:26:19 ↗ next one is around

2:26:21 ↗ um eliminating a section

2:26:25 ↗ to ensure it is consistent with

2:26:28 ↗ definitions for stream I think there was

2:26:30 ↗ some redundancy yeah duplication and not

2:26:34 ↗ wanting some mistakes we made so CBD

2:26:36 ↗ noted that they will make that change so

2:26:38 ↗ I will remove the recommendation

2:26:45 ↗ okay

2:26:49 ↗ um development standards for

2:26:51 ↗ um fish wildlife habitat areas some

2:26:55 ↗ recommendations for clarifying

2:26:57 ↗ qualifications for regional habitat

2:26:58 ↗ biologists CPD noted that they'll make

2:27:01 ↗ the change that that was intended to be

2:27:03 ↗ wdfw

2:27:09 ↗ that might have been yeah

2:27:13 ↗ um okay to remove that one they're

2:27:15 ↗ making that change

2:27:18 ↗ um also a correction uh updating the

2:27:21 ↗ reference to article three I think it

2:27:23 ↗ was article four

2:27:25 ↗ um that change has been made

2:27:27 ↗ um so I will

2:27:29 ↗ remove that recommendation

2:27:33 ↗ our recommendation to add provision to

2:27:36 ↗ the introduction to the critical area

2:27:37 ↗ section of the code and remove from the

2:27:40 ↗ particular location 8.8

2:27:45 ↗ um CBD said so just keep you in the

2:27:48 ↗ section

2:27:49 ↗ because of the overlap between Wetlands

2:27:51 ↗ streams and other areas will occur

2:27:54 ↗ section at the beginning of the chapter

2:27:56 ↗ States the most stringent provision

2:27:59 ↗ applies

2:28:00 ↗ and this is this got moved into the

2:28:02 ↗ general section where we were talking

2:28:04 ↗ earlier yeah so we will make that change

2:28:09 ↗ this is already covered in the general

2:28:11 ↗ section now I think based on the edits

2:28:13 ↗ you all need today okay

2:28:15 ↗ our books comfortable in removing this

2:28:17 ↗ recommendation

2:28:22 ↗ and the last one here is recommending a

2:28:25 ↗ modification to the language to avoid

2:28:27 ↗ redundancy and CBD is noted that they

2:28:30 ↗ will make a change okay okay

2:28:34 ↗ great

2:28:38 ↗ okay required buffers and setbacks there

2:28:42 ↗ was recommendation to change language to

2:28:44 ↗ Shell section I

2:28:47 ↗ three CBD noted that they will make that

2:28:50 ↗ change this

2:28:57 ↗ I'm going back so definitely holler if

2:28:59 ↗ anyone wants to slow down

2:29:02 ↗ um

2:29:03 ↗ regulated activities uh recommendation

2:29:07 ↗ to enhance requirements

2:29:09 ↗ um

2:29:10 ↗ string Crossing will accommodate 100

2:29:12 ↗ Year blood flows no the city's currently

2:29:16 ↗ updating the flood map where is the car

2:29:17 ↗ Creek

2:29:20 ↗ and are considering current 500 year

2:29:22 ↗ flows as a proxy for a future 100 Year

2:29:24 ↗ flows I wanted to make the requirement

2:29:27 ↗ more astringent to allow for future flow

2:29:30 ↗ models

2:29:35 ↗ and then under this section also

2:29:37 ↗ recommended clarifying what is mitigated

2:29:40 ↗ is being aware mitigation plan is

2:29:43 ↗ required for removal of exotic or

2:29:45 ↗ invasive species days

2:29:48 ↗ I mean both of these ideas

2:29:54 ↗ first one yeah I was kind of going back

2:29:57 ↗ to the the definitions of 100 Year flow

2:30:00 ↗ but I think there's minis or something

2:30:01 ↗ in here that essentially says you know

2:30:03 ↗ if there's any change to the

2:30:06 ↗ um

2:30:06 ↗ those kind of definitions that that

2:30:08 ↗ would be reflected I kind of want to get

2:30:10 ↗ my first comment on D1 is maybe

2:30:13 ↗ unnecessary

2:30:16 ↗ yes we're probably thinking was that

2:30:20 ↗ yes it'll be updated when it changes but

2:30:23 ↗ if you're planning ahead for those flows

2:30:25 ↗ then you would need to go to the 500

2:30:27 ↗ years not

2:30:28 ↗ that seems to be what you're yeah

2:30:32 ↗ you're suggesting is that you're

2:30:33 ↗ thinking that we should be thinking

2:30:35 ↗ ahead to what we believe the flow will

2:30:38 ↗ be as opposed to just using the current

2:30:39 ↗ 100 Year flow

2:30:41 ↗ right and I think I was specifically

2:30:43 ↗ calling outstream Crossings to

2:30:45 ↗ um that's kind of an area of concern

2:30:59 ↗ um and yeah the next one uh was

2:31:02 ↗ it was K3

2:31:08 ↗ and

2:31:09 ↗ [Music]

2:31:11 ↗ um yeah removal of exotic or invasive

2:31:14 ↗ plants between strings and stream

2:31:15 ↗ buffers was allowed a city approved

2:31:17 ↗ mitigation plan is required for removal

2:31:19 ↗ of meditation commences

2:31:21 ↗ um I mean I'm just taking a word for you

2:31:22 ↗ with the greenway that would be like I

2:31:24 ↗ think violating that uh deviating from

2:31:26 ↗ that I mean can it pulls pansy and

2:31:29 ↗ stream buffer is pretty consistently and

2:31:30 ↗ isn't mitigating for it so I just it

2:31:32 ↗ just seems odd to me

2:31:35 ↗ so medication yeah or the Exotic and it

2:31:38 ↗ makes such plants just clarification

2:31:40 ↗ if there's any rationale for that I

2:31:42 ↗ think it should be removed but

2:31:44 ↗ um

2:31:46 ↗ yeah

2:31:49 ↗ another uh questions or feedback from

2:31:52 ↗ the rest of the four members on these

2:31:54 ↗ two recommendations

2:31:57 ↗ are we okay to leave them in

2:32:01 ↗ okay great we're good we're getting

2:32:04 ↗ close yeah

2:32:08 ↗ um

2:32:09 ↗ okay critical area attracts

2:32:13 ↗ um board recommends including who can

2:32:15 ↗ approve the easement

2:32:17 ↗ um CPD noted they'll add approved by the

2:32:20 ↗ City attorney

2:32:22 ↗ satisfactory okay I'll remove the

2:32:24 ↗ recommendation

2:32:27 ↗ uh recommendation for clarifying whether

2:32:29 ↗ sidewalks driveways

2:32:32 ↗ Etc are allowed in clarifying the

2:32:34 ↗ definition for a minor structural

2:32:36 ↗ intrusion

2:32:38 ↗ um cpg noted they will add clarifying

2:32:40 ↗ language but removing that will they

2:32:43 ↗ remember to make the change

2:32:55 ↗ yeah everywhere they've noted we'll make

2:32:57 ↗ the change they'll have this document so

2:32:59 ↗ they know

2:33:00 ↗ so how what kind of clarifying language

2:33:02 ↗ are you adding to that F3 I'm just

2:33:05 ↗ curious what your

2:33:07 ↗ I think we have a picture of the exact

2:33:09 ↗ language but you you all were asking

2:33:12 ↗ whether what's a minor structural

2:33:14 ↗ intrusion and what about sidewalks and

2:33:17 ↗ driveways and so I think we'll just

2:33:19 ↗ have to

2:33:20 ↗ picture

2:33:21 ↗ my it doesn't get into the sheds it's

2:33:25 ↗ more about you know if you have a little

2:33:27 ↗ bit of a bay window or something like

2:33:29 ↗ that that's what it's getting at that

2:33:31 ↗ particular exemption not towards other

2:33:33 ↗ things I think why Reddit is you're

2:33:36 ↗ concerned about are these all these

2:33:38 ↗ things now in exemption so we said no I

2:33:42 ↗ was like well how far are we gonna let

2:33:43 ↗ this one go

2:33:45 ↗ because when it says minor our

2:33:47 ↗ definitions may not agree correct and

2:33:49 ↗ then I think we would go back to the

2:33:50 ↗ intent of that buffer you know you you

2:33:52 ↗ already have a buffer but then the

2:33:53 ↗ setback of 10 feet isn't that you just

2:33:56 ↗ got a larger buffer it's if you need to

2:33:58 ↗ maintain the wall of the building and

2:34:00 ↗ paint it you have some room if you're

2:34:02 ↗ building a building I'm not sure if we

2:34:04 ↗ can you know if there's a sidewalk or

2:34:06 ↗ something like that that doesn't it's

2:34:08 ↗ not a setback it would probably be okay

2:34:10 ↗ too

2:34:12 ↗ um so good otherwise you're just

2:34:14 ↗ extending your bumpers so the buffer

2:34:16 ↗ stops but you have a building setback

2:34:18 ↗ so any any structure would have to be

2:34:20 ↗ the setback so I think all of those

2:34:23 ↗ things probably are okay but for you but

2:34:25 ↗ then it said minor structural intrusion

2:34:28 ↗ that meant if you have a building you

2:34:31 ↗ can go over the fireplace or a roof

2:34:33 ↗ overhang or an eave into that setback

2:34:35 ↗ but if you have a driveway or a

2:34:37 ↗ landscaping or sidewalk you know those

2:34:40 ↗ would are not structures per se because

2:34:43 ↗ they're not

2:34:44 ↗ buildings

2:34:46 ↗ well if you want a covered deck or

2:34:48 ↗ something like that I mean I just I

2:34:50 ↗ think I just might it was a comment for

2:34:52 ↗ me and I'm just trying to make sure that

2:34:54 ↗ we understand what a minor structural

2:34:56 ↗ intrusion is and what that and that's

2:34:58 ↗ why I put in the questions and is it a

2:35:00 ↗ gazebo is it yeah we can all have fun

2:35:04 ↗ with that one yeah

2:35:07 ↗ I mean the idea is we don't we keep the

2:35:10 ↗ hook in so please

2:35:12 ↗ yeah we haven't figured out what the

2:35:14 ↗ exact language is going to be but we can

2:35:16 ↗ you know you can leave the comment in

2:35:18 ↗ that reason I should leave it in and let

2:35:21 ↗ them they'll figure out what okay I

2:35:23 ↗ didn't know if we wanted to have any

2:35:25 ↗ boundaries on what my hair structural

2:35:26 ↗ intrusion is or just need that

2:35:28 ↗ clarification okay

2:35:32 ↗ okay we'll leave that comment in

2:35:37 ↗ um we had a comment on clarifying

2:35:40 ↗ monitoring requirements for political

2:35:41 ↗ areas associated with mitigation

2:35:44 ↗ what is Monitor who reviews monitoring

2:35:47 ↗ reports any revisions needed for that

2:35:51 ↗ recommendation

2:35:53 ↗ okay

2:35:56 ↗ reasonable use exceptions

2:35:59 ↗ um

2:36:00 ↗ wanting a definition of reasonable use

2:36:02 ↗ exception economic use unreasonable

2:36:05 ↗ threat

2:36:08 ↗ clarification what happens when an

2:36:10 ↗ existing house in a critical area is

2:36:11 ↗ removed or the owner wants to replace it

2:36:13 ↗ with the new bigger house CPD noted

2:36:16 ↗ non-conforming chapter will regulate

2:36:18 ↗ complete rebuild

2:36:22 ↗ um if it was in a critical area or

2:36:24 ↗ buffer reasonable use exception is a

2:36:27 ↗ measure of Last Resort we use only in

2:36:29 ↗ those situations where all economic use

2:36:31 ↗ of the property would be denied by the

2:36:33 ↗ critical areas regulations

2:36:39 ↗ any

2:36:44 ↗ revision that we want to make to the

2:36:46 ↗ recommendation based on the response

2:36:49 ↗ from CPD

2:36:51 ↗ well this was my comment and I still

2:36:54 ↗ um believe that we should ask them to

2:36:57 ↗ provide a definition of those three

2:36:59 ↗ items I think the example many and I

2:37:03 ↗ talked after I submitted these I'm

2:37:05 ↗ comfortable with her explanation about

2:37:07 ↗ this would work I didn't read that

2:37:09 ↗ section of the code so I have a better

2:37:11 ↗ understanding of that but I still think

2:37:14 ↗ that um

2:37:16 ↗ I still recommend them trying to provide

2:37:19 ↗ some limits of what those

2:37:22 ↗ um exceptions are okay

2:37:25 ↗ that's my recommendation would that be

2:37:27 ↗ then removing the other components of

2:37:29 ↗ the recommendation just leaving that

2:37:30 ↗ first sentence just the first sentence

2:37:32 ↗ okay

2:37:33 ↗ the rest of the board comfortable with

2:37:35 ↗ that any questions around

2:37:38 ↗ okay

2:37:42 ↗ sorry Manny I had to get it in before we

2:37:44 ↗ talked

2:37:47 ↗ all right uh tree preservation

2:37:51 ↗ yeah Dan is here on the line okay

2:37:55 ↗ [Laughter]

2:37:58 ↗ um some general comments before getting

2:38:01 ↗ into the specific ones uh coming around

2:38:04 ↗ avoiding our lending removal of specific

2:38:07 ↗ types of trees

2:38:10 ↗ um CPD noted the code limits removal of

2:38:12 ↗ these trees except where they are deemed

2:38:14 ↗ hazardous by a qualified professional

2:38:16 ↗ arborist

2:38:18 ↗ um or meet the definition of nuisance

2:38:21 ↗ tree

2:38:23 ↗ you know before we get into I think

2:38:25 ↗ we've finished up Emily app within's

2:38:28 ↗ section

2:38:31 ↗ thank you Emily thanks good night

2:38:34 ↗ everybody

2:38:36 ↗ again for sticking around

2:38:41 ↗ so um I imagine nuisance I think

2:38:45 ↗ nuisance is probably defined someplace

2:38:49 ↗ could we have a link to it here or

2:38:51 ↗ should people just go back and look at

2:38:53 ↗ the definitions and find the definition

2:38:55 ↗ of nuisance

2:39:00 ↗ [Music]

2:39:01 ↗ the definition is included under the

2:39:04 ↗ definition section but it's

2:39:07 ↗ um

2:39:08 ↗ all of the tree definitions are grouped

2:39:10 ↗ under t

2:39:12 ↗ so if you looked under an end then

2:39:14 ↗ that's probably why you didn't find it

2:39:17 ↗ okay

2:39:20 ↗ thank you

2:39:25 ↗ okay

2:39:27 ↗ any

2:39:28 ↗ um

2:39:29 ↗ any revisions we want to make to this

2:39:31 ↗ one around avoiding Revenue removal of

2:39:34 ↗ certain types of trees

2:39:36 ↗ Dan did note that the code is intended

2:39:40 ↗ to limit that removal and less deemed

2:39:42 ↗ hazardous

2:39:43 ↗ or in the case of a nuisance tree

2:39:46 ↗ is it so doesn't the code already do

2:39:48 ↗ what's the recommendation I think that's

2:39:50 ↗ yeah

2:39:51 ↗ [Music]

2:39:53 ↗ your books comfortable I don't remember

2:39:55 ↗ who made that one or felt comfortable

2:39:57 ↗ removing that this recommendation since

2:39:59 ↗ it sounds like that is the intent

2:40:04 ↗ right

2:40:06 ↗ uh recommendation for Ariel's survey of

2:40:08 ↗ tree cover

2:40:09 ↗ um

2:40:11 ↗ it's determined not feasible to generate

2:40:13 ↗ an accurate accurate figure from option

2:40:16 ↗ one which I don't we can look that up

2:40:19 ↗ for you CBD noted stuff in Athens would

2:40:22 ↗ use the most currently available aerial

2:40:24 ↗ images

2:40:26 ↗ requiring an aerial survey is unlikely

2:40:28 ↗ to be proportional to the benefit

2:40:30 ↗ received we can pull up the code

2:40:33 ↗ language if there's questions on this

2:40:37 ↗ option one was the I forget the term for

2:40:40 ↗ it but it's the

2:40:41 ↗ canopy radius I think

2:40:44 ↗ it's the calculated from each individual

2:40:47 ↗ tree yeah

2:40:49 ↗ well they're both measures that can't be

2:40:52 ↗ covered I think it was there's two

2:40:54 ↗ different this is my comment there's two

2:40:56 ↗ different ways that it could be measured

2:40:58 ↗ one individual tree measurement the

2:41:01 ↗ other was from an aerial survey so that

2:41:03 ↗ was what was I think Daniel would

2:41:05 ↗ requests

2:41:09 ↗ yeah the so there's two as you mentioned

2:41:12 ↗ there's two ways of doing it

2:41:17 ↗ um one option two already requires

2:41:19 ↗ aerial

2:41:21 ↗ estimation

2:41:24 ↗ um

2:41:25 ↗ and

2:41:27 ↗ with the way that we would do option one

2:41:31 ↗ um we don't think that requiring

2:41:36 ↗ um some sort of

2:41:39 ↗ new aerial image to be taking taken

2:41:43 ↗ um would

2:41:44 ↗ [Music]

2:41:48 ↗ it would probably not be something that

2:41:51 ↗ um it might be too expensive is the

2:41:53 ↗ bottom line for applicants so

2:41:59 ↗ yeah I'm an opener

2:42:01 ↗ [Music]

2:42:03 ↗ a lot of the

2:42:05 ↗ um work from option two requires on the

2:42:09 ↗ ground

2:42:11 ↗ um

2:42:12 ↗ assessment

2:42:14 ↗ so I'm not sure that an aerial image

2:42:16 ↗ would be helpful in that case

2:42:22 ↗ the question that we can pull up the the

2:42:26 ↗ table of the measuring tree canopy

2:42:28 ↗ options too if that's helpful

2:42:32 ↗ little drones

2:42:34 ↗ yeah yeah sounds like one's measuring a

2:42:37 ↗ canopy from the ground level and the

2:42:39 ↗ other is using aerial yeah are we okay

2:42:42 ↗ to remove it am I here

2:42:49 ↗ accurately measure from option one

2:42:52 ↗ but you can't see the top play I just

2:42:54 ↗ don't understand how you would do it but

2:42:55 ↗ I trust that the city knows what they're

2:42:57 ↗ talking about so if you measure the

2:42:59 ↗ triplet

2:43:01 ↗ yeah yeah

2:43:03 ↗ that's where the brain

2:43:07 ↗ up to the tree guy yeah

2:43:14 ↗ uh recommendation for more specific

2:43:16 ↗ limitations on trees that can be removed

2:43:18 ↗ for solar storage systems and what this

2:43:21 ↗ means for the rest of the requirements

2:43:22 ↗ within the tree canopy preservation

2:43:24 ↗ section

2:43:25 ↗ um CPD notes only significant trees

2:43:27 ↗ could be removed in conjunction with

2:43:30 ↗ solar

2:43:32 ↗ um removal of landmark and Heritage

2:43:33 ↗ trees is limited to hazardous or

2:43:35 ↗ nuisance trees

2:43:37 ↗ this is so my recollection of the this

2:43:39 ↗ is my comment my recollection was that

2:43:41 ↗ it was this part of the code was saying

2:43:44 ↗ that

2:43:45 ↗ in in essence that you can some level of

2:43:48 ↗ tree removal would is possible when

2:43:50 ↗ you're installing solar but it didn't

2:43:52 ↗ set a specific

2:43:54 ↗ way to measure that is that

2:43:56 ↗ it presumably there's some way to

2:43:59 ↗ validate

2:44:00 ↗ like what that would be but it was just

2:44:02 ↗ not specifics of how much like removal

2:44:06 ↗ there could be in that case and if that

2:44:09 ↗ if what they're saying is the case that

2:44:10 ↗ only significant trees

2:44:12 ↗ well I don't even understand how that

2:44:14 ↗ relates so it would be helpful to

2:44:16 ↗ understand yeah I I tried to get

2:44:20 ↗ uh see about have somebody come out and

2:44:23 ↗ just look and see whether my carport

2:44:26 ↗ roof would be suitable for solar

2:44:29 ↗ and I have some big trees along the

2:44:32 ↗ opposite side of the house

2:44:35 ↗ but anyway

2:44:37 ↗ um

2:44:38 ↗ they said that no if if I had to uh if I

2:44:42 ↗ wanted to have solar panels

2:44:45 ↗ it would only make sense if those big

2:44:48 ↗ trees were removed and I said forget it

2:44:51 ↗ okay

2:44:55 ↗ it sounds like we might have so I can

2:44:58 ↗ share

2:45:00 ↗ um I've only had one experience uh with

2:45:04 ↗ somebody who wanted to install solar and

2:45:08 ↗ needed to remove trees because

2:45:11 ↗ and

2:45:12 ↗ um

2:45:13 ↗ what we did in that case was that

2:45:16 ↗ there's a tool online that

2:45:19 ↗ um and I had their solar folks submit a

2:45:23 ↗ report that shows

2:45:26 ↗ um where you know based on the location

2:45:29 ↗ of the Sun and where it would be most

2:45:32 ↗ efficient and in that case there were

2:45:35 ↗ two trees that would have been blocking

2:45:39 ↗ the efficiency of the solar panels so in

2:45:44 ↗ that case they were allowed to be

2:45:46 ↗ removed

2:45:48 ↗ okay and then it says so it says there's

2:45:50 ↗ only significant trees can be removed

2:45:52 ↗ they have to mitigate that can be lost

2:45:55 ↗ somewhere else

2:46:03 ↗ yes they do yeah

2:46:05 ↗ [Music]

2:46:07 ↗ and where is that on their property or

2:46:09 ↗ is that in a mitigation bank or they

2:46:11 ↗ have options

2:46:12 ↗ they have options so uh the first option

2:46:15 ↗ is on-site is always preferable the

2:46:19 ↗ second option is off-site

2:46:22 ↗ um and then the third option is into a

2:46:25 ↗ tree account

2:46:26 ↗ okay

2:46:30 ↗ yeah I think the case that I was mostly

2:46:33 ↗ thinking of is like with the new

2:46:35 ↗ neighborhood-based

2:46:38 ↗ Street brother uh canopy percentages how

2:46:41 ↗ will those interplay so how will

2:46:44 ↗ if there's it does this impact the

2:46:48 ↗ percentage that someone has to hit say

2:46:50 ↗ new construction on a like on a on a

2:46:53 ↗ site does the solar

2:46:56 ↗ storage or whatever does that impact

2:46:58 ↗ that requirement or does it just move

2:47:00 ↗ around where they can put them like they

2:47:01 ↗ just have to think about that it just

2:47:04 ↗ doesn't change the actual requirement or

2:47:06 ↗ is it just this is a consideration

2:47:08 ↗ that

2:47:10 ↗ doesn't change your requirement but it

2:47:12 ↗ potentially means you can move trees

2:47:13 ↗ around or remove a tree and add it

2:47:15 ↗ somewhere else

2:47:17 ↗ yeah I think it's that I don't I don't

2:47:19 ↗ think the the code isn't intended to

2:47:21 ↗ change the canopy percentage on the lot

2:47:26 ↗ uh so if you remove a tree to increase

2:47:31 ↗ the efficiency of your solar

2:47:33 ↗ then you would plant somewhere else on

2:47:36 ↗ on the site and if that's not feasible

2:47:38 ↗ then you would plant off-site or pay

2:47:40 ↗ into the tree account

2:47:41 ↗ [Music]

2:47:43 ↗ okay so I think I'm fine removing this

2:47:50 ↗ given that clarification

2:47:54 ↗ concerns with removing this one

2:47:59 ↗ there was a request for clarification on

2:48:02 ↗ emergency tree removal whether that

2:48:05 ↗ results in the need to provide

2:48:06 ↗ mitigation

2:48:07 ↗ um

2:48:08 ↗ it's kind of one-to-one ratio CBD noted

2:48:10 ↗ it's included in the section cited here

2:48:15 ↗ uh Dan just to clarify that that's

2:48:18 ↗ um means that there is a one-to-one is

2:48:21 ↗ there a one-to-one ratio required in

2:48:23 ↗ that section or just uh reference that

2:48:26 ↗ emergency trees are addressed in that

2:48:28 ↗ section

2:48:30 ↗ uh correct they are required okay so

2:48:35 ↗ um number four there

2:48:37 ↗ hey what d one through five lists

2:48:42 ↗ um requirements and number four is uh

2:48:47 ↗ replacement of trees

2:48:49 ↗ so can we add to that section the

2:48:51 ↗ one-to-one requirement I mean what is

2:48:53 ↗ the requirement for the replacement

2:48:54 ↗ trees because it doesn't say that in the

2:48:57 ↗ section probably based on the size of

2:48:59 ↗ the tree is it based on the size

2:49:07 ↗ not less than one canopy coverage equals

2:49:11 ↗ two or greater than the trees being

2:49:12 ↗ removed

2:49:16 ↗ let's go to the replace

2:49:23 ↗ foreign

2:49:25 ↗ you're right that it doesn't say one to

2:49:27 ↗ wit one to one

2:49:29 ↗ um it leaves it open to it says

2:49:32 ↗ replacement trees plural must be

2:49:34 ↗ provided

2:49:36 ↗ um

2:49:37 ↗ let me

2:49:44 ↗ so if I remove four trees I can replace

2:49:47 ↗ it with one

2:49:53 ↗ no so the way that we would apply it

2:49:56 ↗ would be that you'd be

2:49:58 ↗ replacing at a want at a minimum of

2:50:02 ↗ one-to-one ratio

2:50:06 ↗ and this only applies to emergency tree

2:50:08 ↗ removal correct correct

2:50:12 ↗ replacement is required all throughout

2:50:16 ↗ the pre-preservation code

2:50:19 ↗ um but the ratio might change depending

2:50:24 ↗ on the circumstance

2:50:26 ↗ yeah my comment was if you have an

2:50:29 ↗ emergency tree removal that means your

2:50:30 ↗ tree's dead or dangerous at some point

2:50:32 ↗ and replacing it on one-to-one with a

2:50:35 ↗ smaller tree is flying because the tree

2:50:36 ↗ has to come down

2:50:37 ↗ but if you're just removing a tree to

2:50:40 ↗ build you should replace the canopy

2:50:43 ↗ in a significant ratio okay so here's

2:50:47 ↗ what

2:50:48 ↗ um the replacement tree provision says

2:50:50 ↗ that

2:50:51 ↗ um in all cases you would replace a

2:50:55 ↗ minimum of one to one ratio

2:50:58 ↗ um unless

2:51:01 ↗ your site Falls below the tree canopy

2:51:04 ↗ coverage requirements and in that case

2:51:06 ↗ you would provide as many trees as

2:51:09 ↗ needed to to meet that canopy coverage

2:51:12 ↗ requirement

2:51:19 ↗ and that's the 20 year right

2:51:22 ↗ Daniel is that one on the one to one it

2:51:25 ↗ would be

2:51:26 ↗ I think that's what we talked about last

2:51:28 ↗ time

2:51:29 ↗ yeah so you we would calculate the

2:51:34 ↗ um projection at 20 years the canopy at

2:51:37 ↗ 20 years out

2:51:39 ↗ and if that one-to-one ratio

2:51:43 ↗ um

2:51:43 ↗ 20 years out still results in a canopy

2:51:46 ↗ coverage on your lot that is less than

2:51:48 ↗ what's required then you're going to be

2:51:49 ↗ planning more than than that one-to-one

2:51:52 ↗ replacement

2:51:53 ↗ so just to be clear that would be

2:51:56 ↗ someone has a dangerous tree on their

2:51:58 ↗ property they're not actually rebuilding

2:52:00 ↗ their home but they take down the

2:52:02 ↗ dangerous tree and then they potentially

2:52:04 ↗ to take down that tree would have to go

2:52:06 ↗ and do a whole

2:52:08 ↗ planting around their property

2:52:12 ↗ um in that case which seems really

2:52:15 ↗ significant of a effort but that's what

2:52:18 ↗ that seems to imply

2:52:20 ↗ um yeah that's exactly what it says

2:52:24 ↗ yeah but maybe the the request is that

2:52:27 ↗ for emergency

2:52:29 ↗ relationship

2:52:32 ↗ you should not have

2:52:33 ↗ you know it's a dead dying or dangerous

2:52:36 ↗ dream you you're taking that out or you

2:52:38 ↗ took it I'm sorry about this unintended

2:52:40 ↗ consequence of the white people leaving

2:52:41 ↗ trees up because they don't want to

2:52:42 ↗ trigger this

2:52:44 ↗ the situation where they're having to

2:52:46 ↗ plant 10 trees their whole property just

2:52:48 ↗ because they have one tree they're

2:52:50 ↗ moving and that seems like a case that

2:52:52 ↗ we might think about

2:52:54 ↗ emergency tree removals are usually a

2:52:56 ↗ hardship to somebody yeah they're

2:52:58 ↗ usually expensive

2:53:00 ↗ thousands of dollars those are usually

2:53:02 ↗ big and hanging over your house

2:53:05 ↗ yeah I just wonder if that's a case

2:53:07 ↗ where you exclude them from the need to

2:53:09 ↗ get up to the minimum canopy

2:53:11 ↗ because I could just be problematic

2:53:17 ↗ I think that that's reasonable

2:53:26 ↗ basis we wanted a one-to-one or a no on

2:53:30 ↗ that potential hardship or

2:53:33 ↗ or yeah I think we can

2:53:35 ↗ yeah

2:53:36 ↗ the requirement to get up so the minimum

2:53:40 ↗ coverage set by the okay the other parts

2:53:44 ↗ of this code it should be clarified a

2:53:46 ↗ council's going to read this so yeah

2:53:47 ↗ come online for the Emergency

2:53:49 ↗ Administration should clarify the

2:53:51 ↗ emergency treatment of results and the

2:53:53 ↗ need to provide mitigation removed at a

2:53:56 ↗ one-to-one ratio to eliminate hardship

2:53:59 ↗ coverage

2:54:09 ↗ well is that

2:54:11 ↗ okay so is that what we're calling the

2:54:13 ↗ like 20 that's the 20 year 20th no like

2:54:16 ↗ this 28 of the 30 is that the canopy

2:54:20 ↗ coverage replacement

2:54:23 ↗ how do we call that uh then in the code

2:54:27 ↗ the rest of the replacement based on

2:54:29 ↗ canopy coverage or minimum density

2:54:33 ↗ no we don't do minimum density anymore

2:54:35 ↗ we're just doing canopy cover

2:54:39 ↗ um

2:54:40 ↗ if you're proposing this for emergency

2:54:44 ↗ tree removal

2:54:46 ↗ um it

2:54:48 ↗ I'm just throwing this out there it

2:54:51 ↗ seems uh that it would be consistent to

2:54:55 ↗ do the same thing for hazardous trees

2:54:58 ↗ are they not the same

2:55:01 ↗ no

2:55:03 ↗ um emergency removal you can proceed

2:55:06 ↗ with removing the tree if you or your

2:55:09 ↗ professional arborist determine that the

2:55:13 ↗ tree needs to come down immediately and

2:55:15 ↗ that you don't have time to submit a

2:55:17 ↗ permit request

2:55:19 ↗ in the case of hazardous trees

2:55:21 ↗ you might have a report that's saying

2:55:24 ↗ um this tree is at risk of failing

2:55:30 ↗ um but you still go through the permit

2:55:31 ↗ process

2:55:33 ↗ okay yeah

2:55:40 ↗ I struggle with that one so the

2:55:43 ↗ Hazardous tree replacement ratio then is

2:55:46 ↗ can whatever that can be can can be is

2:55:50 ↗ you have to maintain that or do you have

2:55:52 ↗ to meet the Siberia canopy if you're

2:55:54 ↗ taking out a hazard history

2:56:00 ↗ uh tree replacement at a ratio of not

2:56:03 ↗ less than one true place for every tree

2:56:05 ↗ removed that provides canopy coverage

2:56:08 ↗ equal to or greater than the trees being

2:56:10 ↗ removed oh

2:56:13 ↗ okay so you'll get a smaller tree but

2:56:15 ↗ it'll grow into a larger tree I think

2:56:18 ↗ what I'm hearing you all say is that

2:56:20 ↗ emergency in hazardous trees are a

2:56:22 ↗ different category than someone just

2:56:24 ↗ cutting down trees to add toilet or

2:56:26 ↗ whatever you know just out of the meat

2:56:28 ↗ and we should treat

2:56:30 ↗ I think Daniel's Point makes sense to me

2:56:32 ↗ and then those seem like a similar

2:56:33 ↗ category one's an emergency but they're

2:56:36 ↗ both cases where the tree needs to be

2:56:37 ↗ removed for safety so those should seem

2:56:40 ↗ like that's

2:56:42 ↗ a situation where the sub-area canopy

2:56:44 ↗ coverage shouldn't buy and it should

2:56:46 ↗ just be a one-to-one replacement yeah

2:56:49 ↗ [Music]

2:56:50 ↗ the baby tree is going to go up to that

2:56:53 ↗ eventually but yeah I agree but there's

2:56:56 ↗ a loophole in this with Shady arborists

2:56:59 ↗ will find this law we'll find this world

2:57:01 ↗ eat the people and say well you just

2:57:03 ↗ write it up as hazardous

2:57:06 ↗ I don't it won't happen very often it'll

2:57:09 ↗ be very rare but everywhere

2:57:12 ↗ so emergency sorry I don't know why it's

2:57:15 ↗ just not to share it's tired um

2:57:17 ↗ emergency and Hazard history is one to

2:57:21 ↗ one the other ones are

2:57:23 ↗ treated different he's a replacement for

2:57:25 ↗ anyone cutting down a healthy tea is

2:57:27 ↗ different than

2:57:29 ↗ something that has to come out because

2:57:30 ↗ it's in hazardous

2:57:33 ↗ yeah I think you can make the case that

2:57:35 ↗ they're they're both hardships

2:57:38 ↗ yeah yeah

2:57:41 ↗ um give us one minute and see if we can

2:57:43 ↗ bring the back door back up I know we're

2:57:47 ↗ at the second to last year

2:57:57 ↗ technology works like you when you need

2:57:59 ↗ it I know

2:58:00 ↗ it just stops

2:58:07 ↗ dad can you see the screen

2:58:10 ↗ yes okay so everyone can see that that's

2:58:13 ↗ just something yeah yeah

2:58:38 ↗ oh

2:58:41 ↗ yeah

2:58:49 ↗ [Music]

2:58:51 ↗ and uh

2:58:54 ↗ um

2:59:07 ↗ [Music]

2:59:17 ↗ okay it shouldn't close the web

2:59:19 ↗ activities

2:59:23 ↗ do we have a meeting next week as well

2:59:26 ↗ or just this week yeah no

2:59:30 ↗ no meeting good

2:59:33 ↗ I'm gonna be in Schweitzer so

2:59:35 ↗ I wouldn't be able to make it anyway

2:59:39 ↗ I'm gonna have closed Tippets down you

2:59:40 ↗ won't be able to hear us for a minute so

2:59:42 ↗ just bear with us okay

2:59:53 ↗ thanks for all your hard work on this

2:59:55 ↗ you guys gals

3:00:03 ↗ I can't hear you I can't hear you

3:00:06 ↗ sorry I had to mute myself I said we're

3:00:09 ↗ getting close

3:00:10 ↗ yeah how's that feel

3:00:14 ↗ um it feels good

3:00:15 ↗ it's you know it

3:00:19 ↗ I think it just leads into to other

3:00:21 ↗ efforts right because we're gonna have

3:00:25 ↗ to

3:00:26 ↗ start implementing and

3:00:30 ↗ I I think that there's going to be a lot

3:00:32 ↗ that goes with that

3:00:34 ↗ turn my audio on so you guys can hear me

3:00:37 ↗ I'm just on my computer

3:00:39 ↗ now the room doesn't want to go in

3:00:40 ↗ because we've gone fast meeting time

3:00:43 ↗ Okay so

3:00:44 ↗ no worries

3:00:46 ↗ uh let's see one option would be

3:00:53 ↗ how many people have computers in front

3:00:55 ↗ of them that can see

3:00:58 ↗ the documents

3:01:00 ↗ oh I can look at the documents um

3:01:04 ↗ well I could bring it up here

3:01:07 ↗ yeah oh I see yeah yeah

3:01:14 ↗ it wasn't showing up here

3:01:17 ↗ one thing we could do is if you just

3:01:19 ↗ share your

3:01:20 ↗ it's not

3:01:24 ↗ I was trying to see if there's a

3:01:25 ↗ difference

3:01:31 ↗ external monitor

3:01:35 ↗ they'll continue to see they should be

3:01:38 ↗ able to

3:01:43 ↗ continue yes

3:01:45 ↗ can you you're seeing my screen now on

3:01:48 ↗ here okay

3:01:49 ↗ um

3:02:01 ↗ yes okay sorry about this folks

3:02:09 ↗ and we did

3:02:20 ↗ something to see if I had a Bluetooth

3:02:44 ↗ well

3:02:46 ↗ thank you

3:02:48 ↗ the recording's still going so it'll

3:02:50 ↗ pick up our conversation and it should

3:02:52 ↗ pick up the screen also

3:02:56 ↗ um

3:02:57 ↗ yeah who so Cameron doesn't have a

3:03:00 ↗ computer Janet are you

3:03:06 ↗ okay I think

3:03:08 ↗ I think I think everyone has it except

3:03:10 ↗ Janet is that correct

3:03:16 ↗ okay sorry this is great

3:03:21 ↗ correct

3:03:31 ↗ yeah

3:03:32 ↗ if you're talking to me

3:03:45 ↗ oh let's see and can you give me the

3:03:48 ↗ thumbs up if you can hear me

3:03:50 ↗ okay

3:03:54 ↗ you want to can you try speaking

3:03:58 ↗ sure yep here I am speaking

3:04:02 ↗ can you hear me yeah we're not able to

3:04:04 ↗ hear you no maybe

3:04:08 ↗ it's okay

3:04:10 ↗ yeah they're able to hear us okay

3:04:22 ↗ can you guys say something and see if it

3:04:24 ↗ comes to my computer speakers

3:04:27 ↗ hello hello hello hello

3:04:30 ↗ we can hear you

3:04:32 ↗ okay great

3:04:35 ↗ a meeting then couldn't get the lyrics

3:04:37 ↗ it was is it I can't even find the link

3:04:40 ↗ it told me it's been reported okay

3:04:46 ↗ um I think

3:04:48 ↗ you'll need to mute them

3:04:51 ↗ so we're gonna get feedback

3:04:55 ↗ okay I

3:04:59 ↗ foreign

3:05:04 ↗ all right sorry folks I don't this is

3:05:07 ↗ the challenge with some of the

3:05:09 ↗ technology here we are moving through it

3:05:11 ↗ we think we're

3:05:13 ↗ still being recorded

3:05:15 ↗ um

3:05:16 ↗ we only have a few left

3:05:18 ↗ um so we'll move through here to

3:05:22 ↗ we are still under tree preservation

3:05:25 ↗ um considering whether there'll be

3:05:26 ↗ properties with issues complying with

3:05:28 ↗ tree coverage percentages due to

3:05:29 ↗ adjacent sweet trees or trees on other

3:05:31 ↗ properties that overhang the property

3:05:34 ↗ um to consider what should be done in

3:05:36 ↗ this scenario CPD noted that the code

3:05:41 ↗ the code specifies that off site trees

3:05:44 ↗ may not count towards a site canopy

3:05:46 ↗ coverage on-site assessments may be

3:05:49 ↗ necessary when evaluating this scenario

3:05:56 ↗ sorry for line 470 is where we are at

3:06:15 ↗ essentially saying there's room for kind

3:06:17 ↗ of outside assessments for 10 unique

3:06:20 ↗ situations

3:06:27 ↗ and if you're able to come I think the

3:06:30 ↗ question is we believe that the CPD

3:06:32 ↗ response is clarifying and that possibly

3:06:35 ↗ the recommendation is no longer needed

3:06:37 ↗ if you can speak to that

3:06:41 ↗ he is

3:06:44 ↗ oh Dan did you were you talking to Dan

3:06:46 ↗ sometimes I think you say Anne when you

3:06:48 ↗ say Dan

3:06:52 ↗ yeah

3:06:54 ↗ um

3:06:55 ↗ in those situations when we can't

3:06:58 ↗ evaluate based on

3:07:01 ↗ um injury we would do uh

3:07:05 ↗ site assessment one

3:07:12 ↗ thing courts good

3:07:16 ↗ with the recommendation

3:07:24 ↗ uh requests to provide a definition of

3:07:26 ↗ canopy radius uh make it clear it's the

3:07:29 ↗ only area covered if you were to observe

3:07:31 ↗ the tree from above not total width

3:07:34 ↗ um if you noted that there is a

3:07:35 ↗ definition of tree canopy and free

3:07:37 ↗ canopy coverage common different radius

3:07:40 ↗ would be used

3:07:45 ↗ um does that mean the common definition

3:07:46 ↗ for radius will be included or

3:07:50 ↗ um should we retain this recommendation

3:07:53 ↗ for further clarification of definition

3:07:56 ↗ of canopy radius

3:07:59 ↗ the definition of radius would not be

3:08:03 ↗ included

3:08:05 ↗ I think there's we we avoid

3:08:09 ↗ um

3:08:10 ↗ common use definitions uh and I would

3:08:15 ↗ consider radius to be pretty Universal

3:08:18 ↗ so

3:08:20 ↗ um

3:08:20 ↗ we haven't included it

3:08:25 ↗ I agree we can just look look that up

3:08:29 ↗ someone doesn't know the definition it

3:08:31 ↗ we can just Google it

3:08:40 ↗ is that defining what

3:08:43 ↗ what does it mean to be true

3:08:46 ↗ is it the total width of like you could

3:08:48 ↗ take the radius from the berry outer

3:08:50 ↗ edge of that tree or is it like these

3:08:53 ↗ like the vertical coverage for like if

3:08:56 ↗ you're looking at an area that have

3:08:57 ↗ trees that are overlapping how do you

3:08:58 ↗ calculate

3:09:00 ↗ that was this comment as well as the

3:09:03 ↗ other one is if you have a dense stand

3:09:05 ↗ trees how are you calculating from

3:09:07 ↗ ground level not the actual it's like a

3:09:10 ↗ crazy math problem trying to figure out

3:09:12 ↗ what each one each tree is actually

3:09:15 ↗ showing vertically so that was my point

3:09:18 ↗ on the option one versus option two and

3:09:21 ↗ here is not the radius definition I

3:09:23 ↗ think I agree that everyone understands

3:09:24 ↗ radius it's the calculation and what

3:09:27 ↗ actually constitutes tree canopy cover

3:09:30 ↗ that I think is never clearly defined

3:09:34 ↗ um there's some ways to calculate it but

3:09:36 ↗ you're still not defining the measure

3:09:39 ↗ that you're looking for at the end of

3:09:40 ↗ the day

3:09:43 ↗ foreign

3:09:45 ↗ yeah if I don't know if you have

3:09:48 ↗ um

3:09:51 ↗ access to the chat but

3:09:55 ↗ let's see

3:09:58 ↗ if I

3:10:14 ↗ if I share the

3:10:17 ↗ um definitions of tree canopy

3:10:21 ↗ and

3:10:27 ↗ I would I wonder if it would put you at

3:10:31 ↗ ease but yeah

3:10:36 ↗ I think they don't have we don't have

3:10:38 ↗ access to the screen so this

3:10:41 ↗ so I think my suggestion given our

3:10:46 ↗ I can I can just read them to you

3:10:49 ↗ um tree canopy means the layer of tree

3:10:52 ↗ leaves branches and Stems that cover the

3:10:56 ↗ ground when viewed from above

3:10:59 ↗ tree canopy coverage means the area

3:11:02 ↗ covered by the canopy of trees on a lot

3:11:04 ↗ tract or parcel when a tree trunk

3:11:08 ↗ straddles a property line

3:11:11 ↗ fifty percent of the canopy must be

3:11:13 ↗ counted each properties canopy coverage

3:11:33 ↗ board is concerned that the crafter

3:11:36 ↗ speaks only to tree preservation on

3:11:38 ↗ private properties with like additional

3:11:39 ↗ information added on how the sea plants

3:11:42 ↗ are regulated preserve treat trees

3:11:45 ↗ um

3:11:46 ↗ did you really noted this was discussed

3:11:49 ↗ as part of the public process uh

3:11:51 ↗ correction received was the carryover

3:11:52 ↗ existing exemption allowing for removal

3:11:55 ↗ of trees in association with utility and

3:11:57 ↗ right-of-way improvements understand

3:11:59 ↗ that this is some balancing

3:12:03 ↗ um in terms of canopy goals and other

3:12:05 ↗ necessary improvements

3:12:08 ↗ tree removal associated with utility and

3:12:10 ↗ right away improvements will require

3:12:11 ↗ replacement which is not a requirement

3:12:13 ↗ in the existing code

3:12:19 ↗ correction we receive prevention

3:12:21 ↗ receipts

3:12:24 ↗ through the boards and the planning and

3:12:27 ↗ policy commissions on

3:12:32 ↗ um but I think what we added were the

3:12:33 ↗ replacement I mean so current code does

3:12:36 ↗ not have a replacement requirement for

3:12:38 ↗ those situations which will require

3:12:42 ↗ an existing code

3:13:00 ↗ my amazing language that says something

3:13:02 ↗ I understand a lot of them have to

3:13:04 ↗ protected

3:13:05 ↗ but maybe somebody lives that says you

3:13:07 ↗ know preservables decrease to the

3:13:09 ↗ maximum extent practicing whether that

3:13:11 ↗ be working or designing around them or

3:13:34 ↗ somebody putting in some suggested

3:13:36 ↗ language around preserving to the extent

3:13:38 ↗ practical

3:13:40 ↗ the maximum

3:13:42 ↗ the maximum extent practical

3:13:47 ↗ so folks can see that on the screen I

3:13:50 ↗ added some languages in the darker red

3:13:53 ↗ board request preservation entries to

3:13:56 ↗ the maximum extent practical

3:13:58 ↗ um we could retain

3:14:01 ↗ that the language above it

3:14:04 ↗ um or if there's any of that we want to

3:14:05 ↗ remove

3:14:16 ↗ but I mean

3:14:24 ↗ transplanting a tree I mean especially a

3:14:27 ↗ large tree when it's too expensive to

3:14:29 ↗ the chances

3:14:31 ↗ [Music]

3:14:34 ↗ 350 foot tall trees

3:14:38 ↗ [Music]

3:14:39 ↗ um

3:14:55 ↗ [Music]

3:14:57 ↗ everyone comfortable uh retaining that

3:15:00 ↗ plus adding preservative entries to the

3:15:02 ↗ maximum extent practical

3:15:04 ↗ okay thumbs up

3:15:07 ↗ okay uh we are very close

3:15:11 ↗ um consider whether any funds directly

3:15:12 ↗ associated with removal crease going

3:15:15 ↗ into the city tree account needs to go

3:15:17 ↗ into replanting efforts it seems like

3:15:19 ↗ Administration and other things should

3:15:20 ↗ be coming from other funding sources

3:15:24 ↗ or else paying into the account could

3:15:26 ↗ result in a net loss of trees

3:15:31 ↗ my concern was if

3:15:35 ↗ the tree account my understanding when

3:15:37 ↗ there's that's kind of the last resort

3:15:39 ↗ that they're paying into a tree count

3:15:42 ↗ when they're removing a tree is kind of

3:15:43 ↗ vacation basically and if that's not

3:15:46 ↗ going in directly into replanting that's

3:15:48 ↗ going to administrative costs and other

3:15:50 ↗ things it could end up being resulting

3:15:53 ↗ in a net loss of trees and I understand

3:15:54 ↗ there's other potential uses for that

3:15:56 ↗ fund but I just supported it

3:15:59 ↗ that that money is being set aside to

3:16:01 ↗ replant trees not to do other stuff

3:16:04 ↗ so there may be some other cases like a

3:16:07 ↗ farming land that yeah maybe we decide

3:16:09 ↗ but well I hope it doesn't do is like

3:16:11 ↗ administrating the programs like this

3:16:13 ↗ should not be administrating the program

3:16:15 ↗ that should be actively

3:16:21 ↗ I think that's a great problem okay

3:16:26 ↗ where they go

3:16:31 ↗ okay

3:16:33 ↗ okay

3:16:35 ↗ um there was a request for definition of

3:16:36 ↗ nuisance tree and significantly no

3:16:40 ↗ problem great

3:16:44 ↗ um a note that include carbon

3:16:46 ↗ sequestration as a benefit of trees and

3:16:48 ↗ canopy

3:16:50 ↗ um

3:16:53 ↗ [Music]

3:16:57 ↗ nothing around Urban stores anything

3:17:00 ↗ like that I think it can be easy to

3:17:02 ↗ addition there

3:17:04 ↗ exist in the purpose section thank you

3:17:08 ↗ so we're deleting this because you're

3:17:10 ↗ going to make that change

3:17:12 ↗ okay

3:17:15 ↗ might leave it I think Dan's comments

3:17:17 ↗ came in you all looked at it earlier

3:17:19 ↗ dropped a comments so

3:17:23 ↗ um

3:17:24 ↗ under replacement trees

3:17:27 ↗ um I think 10 these were also possibly

3:17:30 ↗ from you uh comment about possibly being

3:17:32 ↗ redundant

3:17:36 ↗ [Music]

3:17:41 ↗ conference replacement of deciduous

3:17:43 ↗ community and maybe up to 50 native this

3:17:46 ↗ Industries

3:17:47 ↗ trees it just it just

3:17:51 ↗ but

3:18:03 ↗ yeah leave these in for now okay

3:18:09 ↗ the last one

3:18:14 ↗ the interest of anyone has any thoughts

3:18:16 ↗ on

3:18:17 ↗ um

3:18:18 ↗ requirement of replacement trees

3:18:23 ↗ um

3:18:24 ↗ I just think there's certain areas and

3:18:26 ↗ cities that that doesn't necessarily

3:18:28 ↗ make sense and kind of when it's what

3:18:30 ↗ you can do I think there could be

3:18:31 ↗ language really encouraging them in

3:18:32 ↗ critical areas in Open Spaces Parks

3:18:36 ↗ but a lot of Highways especially with

3:18:38 ↗ climate change heat Island University

3:18:49 ↗ the only thing I would

3:18:51 ↗ potentially would bring up is are there

3:18:55 ↗ instances like

3:18:57 ↗ if you were trading a conifer for a

3:18:59 ↗ deciduous tree that you're going to

3:19:00 ↗ encourage

3:19:01 ↗ like black like blackberries and other

3:19:04 ↗ things that if you don't have a client

3:19:05 ↗ whether it's a native conference

3:19:08 ↗ so it's changing

3:19:11 ↗ the nature of the cover and when those

3:19:12 ↗ coverage over the undergrowth

3:19:14 ↗ meaningfully change the

3:19:17 ↗ uh I think that's actually the previous

3:19:19 ↗ bullet that you're you know depending on

3:19:21 ↗ what type of tree you're removing you're

3:19:22 ↗ required from the place up to a certain

3:19:24 ↗ percentage of offer but I mean Jamie I

3:19:27 ↗ guess it's interesting thinking of I

3:19:28 ↗ think it's going to be foreign

3:19:50 ↗ [Music]

3:19:57 ↗ okay

3:19:59 ↗ I can only drink vaguely here and then

3:20:02 ↗ part of the car can you hear me go ahead

3:20:04 ↗ yeah sorry we've been in yeah

3:20:07 ↗ can you guys hear us

3:20:11 ↗ can you hear us

3:20:17 ↗ yeah we can hear you now oh okay great I

3:20:20 ↗ just I just want to point out

3:20:22 ↗ um I think this is a good comment but

3:20:26 ↗ um this

3:20:28 ↗ these replacement

3:20:31 ↗ um Provisions came out

3:20:34 ↗ uh previous public meeting discussions

3:20:43 ↗ and in other words I I've I'm receiving

3:20:46 ↗ different direction

3:20:49 ↗ than what I received well I think if

3:20:51 ↗ public comments came in where the board

3:20:52 ↗ has the the ability to say this is their

3:20:55 ↗ recommendation so I think we'll take

3:20:58 ↗ forward the board's recommendation to to

3:21:01 ↗ city council

3:21:08 ↗ those are the comments um

3:21:11 ↗ I'll see

3:21:13 ↗ we asked the council to consider the

3:21:15 ↗ accounts and the deliberation

3:21:17 ↗ um included uh links to attendance

3:21:22 ↗ minute videos were available and then

3:21:24 ↗ what I was going to include was the

3:21:26 ↗ previous memos that

3:21:29 ↗ um the board has submitted to council

3:21:30 ↗ those will go in his appendix

3:21:33 ↗ that's it

3:21:36 ↗ um

3:21:39 ↗ so yes I think we need to determine if

3:21:42 ↗ um

3:21:56 ↗ either way it doesn't yeah

3:22:01 ↗ I'd rather talk before you actually come

3:22:03 ↗ to yeah

3:22:16 ↗ can get me so uh Tony Marsh you guys did

3:22:21 ↗ an awesome job look at that all those

3:22:23 ↗ details I'm just so impressed very

3:22:25 ↗ exciting

3:22:26 ↗ um

3:22:28 ↗ I'm on board with

3:22:31 ↗ tracking

3:22:32 ↗ the issues that I'm not willing to wait

3:22:36 ↗ a year before staff comes back and says

3:22:41 ↗ these are the problems that we're seeing

3:22:43 ↗ happen or these are the unintended

3:22:45 ↗ consequences so I think six months is

3:22:48 ↗ about enough time for to understand

3:22:52 ↗ where the loopholes are and to see what

3:22:56 ↗ one should do about them and so I would

3:22:57 ↗ ask for a staff to come back after six

3:23:00 ↗ months and give a report on how it's

3:23:02 ↗ going

3:23:04 ↗ um and then probably have a dashboard

3:23:07 ↗ every year after that which would

3:23:10 ↗ include interpretations and it would

3:23:14 ↗ include deviations and it would also

3:23:16 ↗ include my least favorite term where

3:23:20 ↗ not feasible because a lot of this code

3:23:24 ↗ basically says where where you can't

3:23:26 ↗ it's not feasible to do it any other way

3:23:29 ↗ and you can build a lot of places with a

3:23:32 ↗ bunch of people with initials behind

3:23:33 ↗ their names saying oh we can't do that

3:23:35 ↗ and then that economic feasibility

3:23:38 ↗ situation you know we have to have those

3:23:40 ↗ three extra units therefore we must

3:23:43 ↗ intrude upon a thing right it happens

3:23:47 ↗ all the time that those are the things

3:23:49 ↗ that we're trying to get rid of with the

3:23:51 ↗ old code and one of the ways to

3:23:53 ↗ understand if you're gaining It Is by

3:23:54 ↗ tracking it and I don't really see much

3:23:56 ↗ tracking

3:23:58 ↗ outlined anywhere does it need to be in

3:24:01 ↗ the code I'm not sure but I think there

3:24:03 ↗ has to be a commitment for that and then

3:24:06 ↗ we currently have the active project map

3:24:09 ↗ and list which is where

3:24:11 ↗ a log into the new projects going

3:24:14 ↗ through show up but there's no

3:24:17 ↗ commitment in this code on when and

3:24:22 ↗ how updates will be put on whatever this

3:24:26 ↗ website thing is and that makes me

3:24:29 ↗ really uneasy because I probably took

3:24:31 ↗ two years out of my life to get that

3:24:34 ↗ darn active projects let's go into the

3:24:36 ↗ public to see anything and without any

3:24:39 ↗ commitment even saying that you're going

3:24:41 ↗ to continue that active projects list it

3:24:44 ↗ just says it'll be on the website and

3:24:46 ↗ and uh

3:24:48 ↗ it has to actually be functioning and

3:24:52 ↗ usable by the public on the website to

3:24:54 ↗ provide the transparency that everyone

3:24:57 ↗ expects so that makes me sort of anxious

3:25:00 ↗ because it's not great how it is but we

3:25:02 ↗ can at least see something and in the

3:25:05 ↗ past Street projects just never raised

3:25:08 ↗ up and got on any website they said we

3:25:10 ↗ don't have to yet some of our street and

3:25:13 ↗ quarter projects are our most

3:25:15 ↗ environmentally impactful projects so I

3:25:18 ↗ want to understand how we are going to

3:25:20 ↗ get a holistic picture of how we are

3:25:24 ↗ doing with the environment if we do not

3:25:26 ↗ include Street projects I think we just

3:25:28 ↗ uh

3:25:30 ↗ have to I'm going fast but really

3:25:34 ↗ and

3:25:35 ↗ um to the comment where all utilities

3:25:39 ↗ state that there's no other viable

3:25:41 ↗ option if to before you impact a

3:25:43 ↗ critical area actually

3:25:45 ↗ that is not consistent throughout the

3:25:47 ↗ code some don't state that so if you the

3:25:50 ↗ intent is to say there's you have to

3:25:52 ↗ there can be no other viable option

3:25:55 ↗ before you can use a critical area to

3:25:57 ↗ buffer Or the critical area itself you

3:25:59 ↗ need to say that everywhere and that's

3:26:01 ↗ not consistent

3:26:03 ↗ um I don't understand the consequences

3:26:06 ↗ of steep slope tree trimming for views

3:26:09 ↗ we have our midnight Warriors who go

3:26:12 ↗ that out there and take down the entire

3:26:14 ↗ sets of trees in order to preserve their

3:26:17 ↗ views especially in the islands

3:26:20 ↗ um I don't see why you would open it up

3:26:22 ↗ to the opportunity of trimming trees

3:26:26 ↗ unless you're trying to do something

3:26:28 ↗ like uh Vista from the top of a hiking

3:26:31 ↗ trail to make a destination so I don't

3:26:34 ↗ even know why that's there I've never

3:26:36 ↗ seen that in our normal code before

3:26:39 ↗ maybe it comes from the palace

3:26:41 ↗ development agreement

3:26:43 ↗ thirty thousand square feet of peak came

3:26:45 ↗ out for Gateway

3:26:47 ↗ thirty thousand with no we had to go to

3:26:51 ↗ an environmental supplemental so that

3:26:54 ↗ this code's statement of a hundred

3:26:57 ↗ is so small compared to that incredible

3:27:00 ↗ impact of peak that came out today

3:27:02 ↗ Gateway there is no

3:27:04 ↗ anyway I'm not going to go further it's

3:27:06 ↗ better no mapping still uh I'm afraid

3:27:10 ↗ what can happen but Pete is a sponge is

3:27:13 ↗ a huge thing the carbon sequestration

3:27:15 ↗ from Pete so I can see some language in

3:27:18 ↗ there where you could try to quantify

3:27:20 ↗ the impacts that will happen when you're

3:27:23 ↗ removing your impact or dealing with

3:27:26 ↗ Pete that you could get better

3:27:28 ↗ mitigations for if you have to mitigate

3:27:30 ↗ and all of that in space being missing

3:27:31 ↗ at this point in time we still have

3:27:34 ↗ stormwater facilities and stream buffers

3:27:37 ↗ that I think are inappropriate they may

3:27:39 ↗ be appropriate in

3:27:41 ↗ in Wetlands but wetlands are very

3:27:44 ↗ different creatures than streams so I

3:27:46 ↗ don't know if that's been changed or not

3:27:49 ↗ um and

3:27:51 ↗ uh oh yes last thing we are actually

3:27:54 ↗ getting an Urban Tree manager within

3:27:58 ↗ who's going to create an Urban Tree

3:28:00 ↗ Management plan that should help address

3:28:02 ↗ some of the concerns of Street trees and

3:28:06 ↗ park trees and city-owned trees to try

3:28:08 ↗ to maintain uh be a good canopy that is

3:28:13 ↗ healthy and serves a variety of

3:28:16 ↗ functions and this code is just sort of

3:28:18 ↗ skimming on the edges of that so I'm

3:28:20 ↗ holding the hope that with this Urban

3:28:22 ↗ Forest management plan that will

3:28:24 ↗ actually come up to the level of some of

3:28:27 ↗ the other cities around us and we're

3:28:28 ↗ going to a better

3:28:31 ↗ City owned tree coverage

3:28:35 ↗ that's it

3:28:37 ↗ thank you

3:28:42 ↗ have any other comments or changes that

3:28:46 ↗ anyone would like to make to the

3:28:48 ↗ document we've been discussing

3:28:51 ↗ I think she made some good points and I

3:28:54 ↗ would like us to have a conclusion

3:28:56 ↗ statement added to the memo that goes to

3:28:59 ↗ them and I made some notes to myself as

3:29:03 ↗ she was talking and I made the point

3:29:05 ↗ about tracking and Reporting on

3:29:07 ↗ implementation and title AC including

3:29:09 ↗ potentials

3:29:11 ↗ I think she referred to

3:29:13 ↗ um exemptions and what was happening

3:29:16 ↗ just very very you know something along

3:29:19 ↗ that lines that we were concerned about

3:29:22 ↗ um to PPC or the other appropriate

3:29:24 ↗ bodies but you know should occur on a

3:29:28 ↗ six-month or annual basis

3:29:30 ↗ and the other one would be to pull them

3:29:32 ↗ along the lines

3:29:34 ↗ at least on the city website and keep

3:29:36 ↗ the current local public projects

3:29:39 ↗ what's

3:29:45 ↗ foreign

3:30:00 ↗ once a conclusion section or should it

3:30:03 ↗ go in the general comments up above

3:30:08 ↗ these two comments are not part of the

3:30:12 ↗ numbers

3:30:16 ↗ something

3:30:17 ↗ that more like implementation yeah

3:30:24 ↗ okay

3:30:27 ↗ so I had a six-month report out on

3:30:30 ↗ implementation

3:30:40 ↗ to PPC

3:30:42 ↗ [Music]

3:30:43 ↗ thereafter

3:30:51 ↗ so

3:30:52 ↗ because you're going to be very busy

3:30:54 ↗ with a complimental plan

3:31:02 ↗ [Music]

3:31:06 ↗ development of a dashboard

3:31:11 ↗ to report

3:31:14 ↗ on feasibility

3:31:18 ↗ and there are a few other things

3:31:22 ↗ foreign

3:31:23 ↗ okay the dashboard is just a report on

3:31:26 ↗ feasibility were there other items we

3:31:28 ↗ wanted to include there

3:31:32 ↗ oh sorry okay I thought that was a

3:31:35 ↗ separate one

3:31:45 ↗ should just declare so the dashboard

3:31:48 ↗ that was on

3:31:49 ↗ um the implementation of

3:31:52 ↗ Title 18 is that right that was nice

3:31:54 ↗ then the active project for us and

3:31:57 ↗ continue to maintain so the active

3:31:59 ↗ budget was with

3:32:01 ↗ um

3:32:23 ↗ but uh

3:32:24 ↗ all right

3:32:28 ↗ now

3:32:30 ↗ these abilities

3:32:55 ↗ okay

3:33:00 ↗ thank you

3:33:06 ↗ okay

3:33:07 ↗ so six month report with a dashboard

3:33:09 ↗ that reports on deviation interpretation

3:33:11 ↗ variances

3:33:14 ↗ um

3:33:18 ↗ density uh and then a second point is

3:33:21 ↗ the board recommends the city continue

3:33:22 ↗ to maintain the actual project list on

3:33:24 ↗ the city's website

3:33:27 ↗ and keep it current with public and

3:33:29 ↗ private projects anything that's there

3:33:31 ↗ okay

3:33:36 ↗ there was comments around us

3:33:47 ↗ on how apply exemptions specifically or

3:33:52 ↗ all

3:33:53 ↗ right exemptions

3:34:13 ↗ the heck of areas of the buffers

3:34:16 ↗ critical areas

3:34:19 ↗ thank you

3:34:24 ↗ okay

3:34:25 ↗ all right

3:34:26 ↗ okay so those are some other overarching

3:34:28 ↗ comments we added

3:34:31 ↗ um

3:34:32 ↗ in addition to earlier today the report

3:34:35 ↗ dashboard sorry

3:34:46 ↗ sure that's great okay

3:34:52 ↗ yeah we care about the bumper but you

3:34:55 ↗ know

3:34:58 ↗ okay

3:35:06 ↗ um all right any other comments

3:35:11 ↗ yeah any other comments Provisions

3:35:14 ↗ additions to the letter

3:35:24 ↗ I have to say great job everybody all

3:35:26 ↗ right I think Ann is speaking sorry Ann

3:35:29 ↗ you need to wave us down oh I just was

3:35:33 ↗ saying great job everybody

3:35:37 ↗ thank you that's it

3:35:40 ↗ must be hard to hear huh

3:35:51 ↗ I'm just gonna repeat that for the

3:35:54 ↗ recording in case it can't pick up Nancy

3:35:56 ↗ moved and Rishi seconded to

3:35:59 ↗ um approve the edits to the memo

3:36:04 ↗ okay

3:36:08 ↗ sure

3:36:10 ↗ all right all those in favor of um

3:36:15 ↗ approving the letter

3:36:18 ↗ um with the revisions made tonight uh to

3:36:21 ↗ send on to council say I will go through

3:36:25 ↗ um Tom

3:36:27 ↗ if we have a core of regular members I

3:36:31 ↗ think

3:36:32 ↗ oh thank you that's correct yes uh Nancy

3:36:36 ↗ on Jamie um Cameron

3:36:40 ↗ uh Rishi

3:36:42 ↗ Dan

3:36:44 ↗ uh Ashwin

3:36:46 ↗ Don

3:36:48 ↗ we had a guy from Ian

3:36:51 ↗ and that is it Janice here is an

3:36:53 ↗ alternate alternate as well so we have

3:36:56 ↗ approval of the letter

3:36:58 ↗ I will accept the changes

3:37:02 ↗ um I will send that I need to talk to

3:37:04 ↗ Tisha but I'd like to send out the track

3:37:07 ↗ changes that has all the CBD comments

3:37:10 ↗ um as well as the final letter in our

3:37:12 ↗ next meeting package just so folks have

3:37:14 ↗ that on record but I'll talk to Tisha

3:37:16 ↗ about appropriate

3:37:17 ↗ process with that

3:37:20 ↗ um but I will plan to accept these

3:37:22 ↗ changes uh clean it up and then we will

3:37:25 ↗ get this on to counseling and PPC

3:37:27 ↗ tomorrow morning

3:37:32 ↗ thank you

3:37:33 ↗ thank you to many years yeah

3:37:44 ↗ this is you you're busy people and so I

3:37:47 ↗ appreciate all

3:37:48 ↗ um

3:37:54 ↗ thank you for coming tonight yeah thank

3:37:58 ↗ you

3:38:02 ↗ items and then

3:38:04 ↗ reports 20 seconds

3:38:07 ↗ um uh just reflection on that David had

3:38:10 ↗ a great idea maybe at our next meeting

3:38:12 ↗ we won't make you do this tonight just

3:38:13 ↗ feedback on this process I think we may

3:38:16 ↗ end up doing more of these kind of

3:38:17 ↗ letters going forward especially with

3:38:19 ↗ Comprehensive plan and other big

3:38:21 ↗ planning processes

3:38:23 ↗ anyway we could have improved this

3:38:24 ↗ process uh let's talk about that a

3:38:27 ↗ future meeting in your packet there are

3:38:29 ↗ a couple program updates

3:38:31 ↗ review those as you have time but we'll

3:38:33 ↗ talk with you more about those in the

3:38:35 ↗ spring a few additions to the board

3:38:38 ↗ schedule

3:38:40 ↗ um we are still planning on that

3:38:41 ↗ February 16th CIP Summit I'll send out

3:38:44 ↗ more information once I have it I don't

3:38:46 ↗ have a final confirmation but we'll send

3:38:48 ↗ that out

3:38:50 ↗ um once I hear back from Andrea and then

3:38:52 ↗ we are potentially looking at a special

3:38:55 ↗ meeting in March and a special meeting

3:38:56 ↗ in April that would be very topic

3:38:58 ↗ specific I forgot to include the updated

3:39:01 ↗ schedule in the meeting packet I just

3:39:03 ↗ added it to the packet this morning so

3:39:06 ↗ it's on the website now but I'll make

3:39:07 ↗ sure everyone has that soon

3:39:10 ↗ with that

3:39:12 ↗ is there any other business

3:39:15 ↗ Nancy I'd like to request and putting a

3:39:18 ↗ public engagement tool s

3:39:22 ↗ he's still born at some point in the

3:39:23 ↗ future meeting okay

3:39:32 ↗ I think with that Laura adjourned thanks

3:39:35 ↗ everybody

3:39:36 ↗ thank you everyone thanks Dan

3:39:40 ↗ bye-bye

3:39:45 ↗ thank you

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF