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 />