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: Climate

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

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (11)

Jamie Finch

Don McQuilliams

Nancy Davidson

Ashwin Manoharan

Rishi Hazra

Cameron Fisher

Lara Lebeiko (Remote)

Dan Hintz

Anne Newcomb (Remote)

Janet Wall

Tom Anderson

Staff (2)

Stacy Vynne McKinstry, Sustainability Manager

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator

Excused

Mathangi Ramanathan

Recommendations & actions (5)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

The minutes were approved as presented by unanimous consent.
DAVIDSON requested that staff look into bringing the public engagement toolkit to the Board.
Additionally, the existence of a dashboard to track progress and impacts of Title 18 every year afterwards was recommended as there would otherwise be no guarantees that environmental improvements are being made.
DAVIDSON moved to approve the edits to the memo.
HAZRA seconded the motion to approve the edits to the memo.