Laserfiche WebLink
City Planner Anderson stated that the Planning Commission requested to hold a joint meeting <br /> with the Board in April and believed that would occur on the regular Board meeting date for <br /> April. <br /> Chairperson Stodola stated that perhaps Subcommittees would be a good method of discussing <br /> this item further. <br /> Board Member Lewis stated that he believed that the next agenda should include time to discuss <br /> the topic which the Board should focus on for the next year and then a Subcommittee could be <br /> formed to further research that aspect. <br /> Board Member Bentz stated that this item should be a homework aspect that the Board Members <br /> research on their own so that when the item is discussed during the meeting it does not <br /> encompass a lot of time. <br /> Chairperson Stodola stated that because the joint meeting will occur in April, the Board should <br /> come prepared to the May meeting with their ideas. <br /> Board Member Bentz suggested that the Board Members email their ideas to City Planner <br /> Anderson. <br /> City Planner Anderson suggested that the Board Members email him their topics of preference, <br /> which he can then draft into a case to provide a more streamlined discussion. <br /> City Council Liaison LeTourneau suggested holding the joint meeting in May and letting the <br /> Board move forward on this topic in April. <br /> City Planner Anderson stated that he would look into that option but noted that he was not in <br /> attendance at the Planning Commission when the idea was brought forward. He advised that he <br /> will follow up to determine if that would be possible and will email the Board to advise them if <br /> the joint meeting would occur in April or May. <br /> 5.04: Discuss Water Conservation Alternatives <br /> City Planner Anderson presented the staff report. <br /> Board Member Lewis stated that in his opinion, the top soil requirement should remain intact and <br /> any additional measures would be a bonus and could be incentivized. <br /> City Planner Anderson stated that his interpretation from the discussion one year ago was that <br /> the focus became strictly top soil and nothing else and the City should allow the ability for <br /> builders to select from a menu of options that could be implemented, one of which could include <br /> top soil, in order to achieve the same goal. He stated that based upon what they have seen in the <br /> field and the cost of top soil (which could range from $3,000 to $5,000 for a single home) he <br /> would question if that top soil requirement should remain or whether there are other <br /> opportunities that still achieve the same water conservation goal. <br /> Environmental Policy Board / March 2, 2015 <br /> Page 5 of 7 <br />