►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
A
C
G
G
A
A
B
A
F
F
The
whole
legislation
is
predicated
on
the
grid
being
green
and
getting
greener
and
unfortunately,
that's
not
true
the
nick,
provided
you
a
chart
in
your
handout.
I
think
it's
on
page
four,
but
that
is
for
energy
created
in
upstate
new
york.
It's
not
energy
which
is
consumed
here.
The
energy,
the
energy
that's
actually
consumed
is
far
dirtier.
It's
17
renewable,
it's
not
the
42
that
nick
said
and
our
air
emissions
are
are
a
little
worse
than
new
york
state
average.
This
information
is
on
nyseg's
website.
F
F
F
F
F
F
If
we
can't
meet
the
current
load,
we
won't
be
able
to
meet
any
additional
load,
and
so
yes,
the
grid's
getting
greener,
but
until
it's
100
green,
we
should
not
be
increasing
our
usage
of
it.
If
we
could
decrease
instead
of
increasing,
let's
decrease
usage
decrease
it
by
3.
We
could
eliminate
coal
now,
how
cool
would
that
be
so
until
the
grid
is
100
clean
and
will
soon
have
excess
capacity
to
absorb
additional
electrical
loads?
We
should
not
be
doing
this.
We
should
wait
until
then
in
the
meantime,
increase
the
supply
of
green
electricity
hydro.
B
H
Oh
boy,
oh
boy,
it's
me,
hey
everybody
happy
st
patrick's
day,
okay,
hi
doug,
britton.
Also
commenting
on
the
iecs,
I
think
bruce
has
done
a
pretty
good
job
of
mentioning
the
importance
of
not
adding
electrical
demand
until
we
have
the
green
power
to
meet
that
demand.
There's
one
exception
to
that
rule
and
that
would
be
heat
pumps.
They
are
so
amazingly
efficient
that
they
can
compensate
for
the
lousy,
36
percent
or
so
efficiency
at
the
power
generating
plant.
So
your
plan
encourages
heat
pumps.
That's
great!
Thank
you.
H
You
might
even
want
to
require
heat
pumps.
What's
not
so
great
is
you
still
allow
electric
resistance?
Heating
is
the
primary
heat
source,
and
that
is
the
most
polluting
heating
system
known
to
man,
and
it
will
continue
to
be
as
long
as
the
grid
is
not
100
green,
as
bruce
explained.
Also,
if
you
have
electric
baseboard
heat,
it's
very
hard
to
convert
to
something
better
later,
like
a
heat
pump.
H
So
you
know
I,
if
it
were
me
I'd,
say
no
new
buildings
with
electric
heat
best
heat
lowest
co2
is
a
heat
pump
with
a
gas
backup,
but
the
plan
doesn't
award
any
points.
For
that
I
mean
why
not
you
only
can
earn
points
if
you
have
the
electric
resistance
back
up,
which
creates
more
co2.
I
mean
that's
crazy.
What's
the
best
water
heater?
Well,
it's
probably
on
demand
gas,
water,
heater,
but
fossil
fuel
in
the
house.
No
point
I
mean
we
shouldn't
be
making
it
hard
to
be
green.
H
Yes,
I
know
we
can
go
to
the
whole
house
method,
but
no,
no
homeowner's
gonna!
Do
that.
That's
just
like
big
developers
like
corn.
Now
so
I
would
say,
please
drop
the
requirement
that
houses
be
fossil
fuel
free
until
the
power
plants
are
fossil
fuel
free
because
they're
much
worse,
so
2040
or
whenever
that
happens,
then
move
people
electrify.
H
Thank
you.
You
can
join
a
solar
farm,
for
instance,
but
when
the
sun
goes
down,
there's
no
solar
power.
Does
your
electricity
go
off?
No,
because
you're
using
dirty
power,
you
are
borrowing
dirty
power.
When
the
sun
comes
up
the
next
day,
you
are
paying
it
back,
but
you're
using
dirty
power
same
if
you
have
a
wind
farm
same.
If
you
are
one
of
these
green
ccas,
you
are
always
using
dirty
fossil
fuels
if
you
are
connected
to
the
grid.
So
just
don't
forget
that
don't
fool
yourself
so
bottom
line.
H
I
know
you
want
to
be
done
with
this,
but
I
would
suggest
two
quick
changes.
One
eliminate
the
ban
on
fossil
on
like
gas
and
fossil
fuels
in
the
house
and
number
two
don't
allow
electric
resistance
heat
and
that's
it.
I've
done.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
Good
luck!
If
you
have
any
questions,
of
course,
we'd
be
happy
to
answer
them.
Thank
you.
B
B
I
I
Several
important
changes
have
been
included
and
I'd
like
to
offer
just
some
additional
suggestions
that
I
think
will
enable
the
most
renewable
infrastructure
on
the
fastest
timeline
and
also
maintain
support
to
keep
existing
renewables
operating
and
because
the
development
and
regulatory
landscape
for
renewable
energy
is
really
complex
and
evolving
rapidly.
I'm
just
going
to
note
some
key
opportunities
and
why
they're
important
and
provide
supporting
details
and
written
comments,
so
first
I'm
glad
to
see
that
community
renewable
energy
is
still
included.
I
Next,
as
currently
written.
A
building
can
only
receive
the
renewable
energy
systems
points
if
it
is
associated
with
a
renewable
energy
project.
That
has
come
online
in
just
the
previous
five
years,
and
this
is
a
well-intentioned
provision,
but
would
have
the
unintended
effect
of
discouraging
owners
from
practically
developing
large-scale
renewable
energy
projects,
which
could
also
address
existing
buildings,
and
I
think
it
would
also
undermine
support
for
maintaining
existing
resources,
and
we
definitely
need
to
ensure
that
projects
are
operational
for
their
full
life
cycle.
I
I
think
this
should
be
reconsidered
as
a
limit
on
renewable
energy,
vintage
and,
of
course,
prohibit
any
double
counting.
I
know
that
I
personally
can
be
much
more
impactful
if
I
can
bundle
estimated
needs
of
our
future
building
projects
into
large
scale,
renewable
energy
projects
and
start
to
get
them
built
now.
So
this
doesn't
mean
that
we
wouldn't
prioritize
energy
efficiency
in
those
new
buildings,
but
I
can
get
a
lot
more
done
if
I'm
able
to
harness
economies
of
scale.
I
Thanks
so,
for
instance,
I
currently
help
lead
the
development
of
the
largest
purchasing
consortium
in
the
country.
We
think
with
20
new
york,
state
institutions
and,
if
we're
supported
in
this,
all
20
of
us
would
achieve
100
renewable
electricity
in
2024,
and
that
would
be
for
all
of
our
buildings,
not
just
the
new
ones.
I
A
C
J
J
J
The
existing
cell
towers
that
we
have
here
in
our
neighborhood
there's
about
30
of
them
and
they
came
in
sometime
around
2018
or
2017.,
and
it's
come
to
my
attention.
I
understand
that
they
renew
every
year
or
some
kind
of
agreement
news
every
year,
either
next
month
or
very
soon,
and
you
know
they're
once
right
on
their
block.
Maybe
10
15
feet
from
a
neighbor's
bedroom,
they're
very
close
by-
and
I
think
these
shouldn't
be
this
close
in
our
neighborhoods
right
around
us.
J
I
would
like
to
see,
since
the
council
is
already
going
through
the
design
guidelines
and
potentially
impacting
the
city
code,
that
any
changes
to
the
city
code
or
design
guidelines
also
apply
to
these
existing
cell
towers.
So
I
don't
know
if
some
kind
of
revocability
clause
or
something
to
be
added
to
the
agreement
that
the
city
has
with
the
existing
cell
towers
or
whoever
the
company
is,
who
has
them
so
that
they're
just
going
to
be
on
the
same
page
as
whatever
the
city
decides?
The
council
decides
to
do
with
the
rest
of
them.
J
So
that's
one
piece
and
then
I
really
applaud
the
work
that
has
been
done
so
far
on
the
the
green
energy
codes.
I
did
review
and
gave
feedback,
but
I
just
wanted-
I
guess,
put
my
emphasis
in
again.
I
didn't
give
my
latest
updates
to
it.
I
missed
that
chance,
but
just
to
put
my
comment
in
here
that
you
know
as
much
as
we
can
front
load
the
envelope
the
insulation
aspects
of
these
guidelines,
of
these,
this
new
construction
code
for
energy
code.
J
It's
going
to
pay
us
dividends
down
the
road,
especially
for
commercial
buildings,
it's
very,
very
difficult
to
improve
the
insulation
values
of
these
walls
and
the
roofs
and
ceilings
of
commercial
buildings
next
year,
10
20
years
from
now,
compared
to
just
swapping
out
equipment.
So
I
just
want
to
put
that
caveat
on
there.
I
know
ian
you've
done
a
lot
of
work
on
this
and
just
putting
that
in
there
again
just
saying
that
we
really
want
to
maximize
pushing
everyone
to
really
go
the
full
way
on
the
building
envelope,
because
you.
J
M
Great
thank
you
joanne
and
thanks
to
all
of
you
today,
so
I'm
sarah
brielinski,
I'm
the
sustainability
business
integration
manager
for
the
cornell
campus
sustainability
office
and
my
goal
today
is
to
provide
some
high
level
comments
on
the
proposed
energy
code.
That
will
supplement
what
my
colleague
sarah
zamanik
has
already
said
to
you.
One
thing
I
wanted
to
note
is
that
in
december
of
2020,
vice
president
of
cornell
facilities,
rick
burgess
and
a
team
of
our
colleagues
submitted
a
letter
to
pedc
outlining
some
specific
concerns.
M
M
M
I
thank
you
all
for
your
work
on
this
code.
This
is
a
really
exciting
opportunity
for
our
community
and
cornell
applause
and
supports
moving
forward
upwards
and
onwards.
Always
we
ask
the
council
to
continue
to
work
with
us
as
community
stakeholders
to
pass
a
code
that
gives
us
the
right
tools
to
maximize
those
efficiencies,
continue
to
add
renewable
energy
systems
to
our
community,
our
state
and
our
region,
and
to
prioritize
carbon
mitigation.
Alongside
of
our
traditional
considerations,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
sir.
N
Yep,
I'm
molly
cornblum,
I'm
a
long
time
resident
of
downtown
ithaca
and
I'm
calling
to
express
my
concerns
about
the
small
cell
towers
that
were
installed
in
my
neighborhood
and
all
through
fall.
Creek,
two
or
three
years
ago,
there's
a
cell
tower
on
my
block,
that
is
less
than
10
feet
from
someone's
upstairs
window
and
one
within
a
few
feet
of
the
fall
creek
elementary
school
among
many
others
and
expressed
this
before.
But
we
have
no
reason
to
believe
5g
is
safe.
N
Also,
I
never
heard
about
a
public
forum
to
discuss
the
installation
of
these
cell
towers.
One
just
appeared
a
few
houses
away
from
mine.
I
know
that
this
infrastructure
is
not
on
tonight's
agenda,
but
I'm
aware
that
the
agreement
for
these
cell
towers
renews
in
april
every
year,
which
is
next
month,
I'm
requesting
that
these
towers
be
held
to
the
same
design
guidelines
that
you
are
developing
to
direct
potential
installation
of
any
new
cell
towers
within
our
city.
Frankly,
I
don't
think
these
towers
should
be
in
our
neighborhoods
at
all.
N
I
think
they
should
be
a
minimum
of
a
thousand
feet
from
any
residence
or
school,
and
finally,
wired
technologies
such
as
fiber
are
far
superior
to
wireless,
as
they
are
faster,
more
reliable,
more
resilient,
more
energy,
efficient
and
more
easily
defended
from
cyber
attacks.
Above
all,
wired
connections
are
significantly
less
hazardous
to
our
health
and
to
the
other
life
forms
with
whom
we
share
the
planet.
Thank
you,
so,
very
much
for
your
time.
N
B
L
A
A
One
I
mean,
I
think,
there's
some
justification
for
it
coming
here.
Just
because
it's
design
guidelines
I
mean
either
way
again
happy.
I
think
we'd
be
happy
to
take
it.
But
you
know
if
the
ca
has
a
lighter
agenda,
we
thought,
maybe
if
you
go
there,
but
as
far
as
the
renewal,
I
don't
I
don't
know
if
joanne,
if
you
have
more
information
on
that
at
all.
B
I
I
know
that
we
have
heard
back
from
campanella
he's,
given
us
a
he
has
issued
his
opinion
and
advice.
I
think
it's
in
the
attorney's
office
right
now
and
as
soon
as
they
have
a
chance
to
review
it
we'll
release
it.
There
have
been
questions
about
how
we
merge
the
the
suggestions
from
campanelli
with
our
design
guidelines.
L
B
L
B
A
B
Yeah
we
could
go
to
the
action
items
I
did
want
to
just.
I
think
everyone's
heard
that
we
did
hire
our
director
sustainability,
yeah
and
I
think
that's
really
good
news
for
the
city
yeah,
and
so
we
will
probably
bring
him
in
to
meet
everyone.
Maybe
for
a
couple
minutes
at
your
committee,
the
whole
or
the
ca
meeting
next
week.
G
A
G
A
G
A
A
So
I
guess
we'll
start
there's.
We
have
two
resolutions
in
the
packet
one
for
the
g
allocation,
one
for
the
community
outreach
worker.
Let's
start
with
the
gc
resolution.
Maybe
we
can
move
it
and
then,
if
there
are
questions,
anisa
is
here
to
answer
them.
So
is
there
a
motion
on
the
jack
allocation
moved
by
donna
seconded
by
laura?
So
do
we
have
any
questions
about
this?
A
A
B
E
E
The
second
tranche
of
allocation
provided
an
additional
294
thousand
dollars
to
the
city.
So
what
is
being
proposed
is
that
up
an
allocation
of
up
to
175
000
from
the
cdbg
covid
funds
be
provided
to
gx
youth
programming,
youth
programming,
and
that
seems
like
a
very,
very
good
use
of
community
resource
funds.
Community
funds.
D
A
D
L
L
D
H
L
L
L
A
A
A
A
J
A
Also
nick
goldsmith,
I
believe,
is
in
attendance
and
ian
shapiro,
so
we
looked
at
this.
Last
month
we
had
a
pretty
thorough
discussion
of
it
felt
that
we
wanted
to
delay
a
month,
because
there
was
some
question
about
where
the
town
was
heading
in
what
direction
the
town
was
going
to
be
heading
in
and
nick
once
again
has
done
an
amazing
job.
I
assume
that
was
nick,
who
put
together
all
the
responses,
the
comments,
but.
J
A
Great
job
synthesizing
all
the
comments
that
have
come
in
and
responding
to
them
and-
and
I
and
also
made
a
few
changes
I
see
too
just
you
know,
based
on
the
com,
some
of
the
comments
that
we
received.
So
I
think
you
know
ultimately
I
think
ideally
tonight
we
would.
We
would
hopefully
take
a
vote
on
this
and
send
it
on
to
the
april
council
meeting,
but
I
guess
with
that
maybe
I'll
hand
it
over
to
nick
and
nick.
Do
you
want
to
maybe
describe
a
little
bit?
A
Q
Hi
everyone,
so
I
I
don't
have
a
update
prepared
really.
I
did
just
like
at
the
beginning
of
the
meeting
to
send
all
of
you.
Another
update
of
the
comments
in
case
in
case
comes
up
I'll
refer
to
that
document,
but
I
just
plowed
through
the
rest
of
the
comments.
Basically,
I
will
say
that
it
includes
it
does
not
include
the
cornell
comments,
responses
to
most
of
the
cornell
comments.
It's
got
a
couple
on
there.
Q
A
Q
Q
I've
spoken
to
sarah
on
the
phone.
Also,
recently,
we've
been
in
contact
over
the
last
several
days.
I
believe
that
we've
made
the
changes
requested
for
community
renewables,
except
for
so
one
of
two
changes.
She
said
the
language
needs
to
be
tweaked,
but
in
our
conversations
I
think
I
have
enough
guidance.
I
think
it'll
be
acceptable
to
us
to
change
that
language.
Q
So
the
same
amount
of
renewables
would
only
account
for
three
quarters
of
the
credit,
the
reason
for
the
devaluation,
I'll
try
and
do
a
quick
explanation
of
it.
There
are
several
criteria,
there's
several
areas
in
which
renewables
provide
benefit
from
sort
of
the
long-term
benefit
of
renewable
energy
to
how
it
gets
on
the
grid
and
how
sort
of
flexible
it
is
to
how
easy
it
is
to
allocate
to
buildings.
Q
Q
What
do
you
call
them?
Those
suggestions
at
face
value,
the
0.75
factor.
I
am
open
to
raising
it
up.
I
think
it
might
reflect
new
york
state
situation
better.
We
could
potentially
lift
that
and
devalue
off-site
solar,
less,
let's
say
0.9
instead
of
0.75,
I
think
would
require
a
little
bit
more
work
with
some
sort
of
focus
group,
just
sort
of
valuing
the
different
criteria,
I'm
doing
a
bad
job
of
doing
a
short
discussion
of
this,
but
in
any
case
I'm
open
to
that
idea.
Q
Sarah.
The
zemanic
second
point
was
about
five
years
only
allowing
projects
in
the
last
five
years.
I've
had
more
discussions
about
that
as
well
with
her
one
with
others,
and
I
am
totally
open
to
removing
that
sarah
had
suggested
aligning
with
new
york
state
requirements
of
any
system
developed
after
2015
would
be
eligible.
Q
So
you
build
a
solar
array
in
2016.
You
could
still
use
that
to
comply
with
the
ethical
energy
code
supplement
as
long
as
the
energy
and
the
renewable
energy
credits
are
allocated
to
the
building
for
the
year
in
question.
So
that's
I
I
think
cornell
will
be
totally
satisfied
with
with
that,
let's
see
sarah
balenski's.
Q
I
don't
really
agree
that
we're
heavily
disincentivizing
district
energy
with
energy
code
supplement
it's
certainly
not
the
intent.
There's
one
particular
detail
which
I
need
to
look
into
further,
which
is
sort
of
how
to
account
for
the
electricity
and
the
heat
coming
out
of
the
district
energy
plant.
Q
One
of
the
comments
claims
that
we
did
that
incorrectly,
and
that
may
be
so
so
I
need
to
look
into
that
further.
But,
aside
from
that,
I
don't
think
we
are
disincentivizing
district
energy.
I
know
cornell's
made
several
comments
about
district
energy
systems,
or
rather,
buildings
served
by
district
energy
systems
should
be
eligible
for
point.
A
i2,
so
affordability,
improvements.
Q
Q
Q
O
O
K
Q
Yeah,
I
think
it
is
things
like
that
they
can
have
its
off-site.
Solar
is
a
lot
more
likely
to
have
negative
land-use
impacts
than
on
your
roof
or
in
your
yard,
and
I
do
want
to
stress
that
these
criteria,
they
were
scored
on
a
national
basis.
So
this
is
a
national
code.
It
used
sort
of
national
level
data
and
that's
why
I'm
open
to
tweaking
the
number,
because
it
doesn't
reflect
new
york
state
regulations
as
they
are.
So
does
that
answer
your
question?
George.
O
On
that,
unless
yeah,
so
what
I'm?
What
disturbs
me
now
is
that
now
we
have
a
disagreement
about
facts
which
is
hard
for
lay
person,
so
we,
and
that
is
the
the
dirtiness
or
the
cleanness
of
our
current
electrical
grid,
our
nice
egg,
upstate
new
york
electrical
grid,
so
some
people
say
it's
getting
pretty
clean
and
some
people
say
it's
not
so
clean.
How
do
we?
O
Q
I
have
a
document
open,
I
don't
know
the
easiest
way
to
share.
I
could
share
it
in
the
chat
or
I
can
share
my
screen,
but
maybe
I
don't
need
to
share
it
at
all.
It
was
either
doug
or
bruce
britton
that
mentioned
that
nice
eggs
mix
of
fuels
for
generated
electricity
is
dirtier
than
the
new
york
upstate
data,
which
I
gave
to
you
in
that
graph.
That
is
true.
That's
not
disputed,
nice
eggs
mix
is
dirtier.
Q
Q
Q
Q
So
I,
the
goals
of
electrification
are
being
talked
about
without
exaggerating
worldwide
it's
a
well-known
strategy,
that's
absolutely
essential
and
sets
up
the
ability
to
be
run
on
100,
renewable
energy.
We
can't
do
that
if
we
don't
electrify
our
space,
heating
and
water
heating
ian.
Do
you
want
to
add
anything
to
this?
I
think
I'm
rambling.
A
You
know:
we've
had
a
lot
of
comments
of
people
saying
that
we
want
to
do
the
2025
standards
now
speed.
Everything
up,
so
I
don't
know
nick
is
like
do
you
have
any
any
kind
of
response
to
that?
I
mean
I've
heard
I
read
the
memo
and
I
think,
there's
concerns
about
affordability
and
concerns
just
about
the
overall
complexity
of
the
transition
is
that
are
those
the
two
main
main
ones.
P
P
Q
Yeah
I
was
just
going
to
thanks
again.
Yes,
the
town
discussed
it
at
its
codes
and
ordinances
committee
last
wednesday.
I
think
they're
in
about
the
same
place
as
as
the
feeling
I
got
last
time
I
was
at
pedc.
They
would
like
to
accelerate
the
timeline
they're,
not
sure,
by
how
much
they
are
going
to
discuss
again
at
their
april
meetings.
That'll
be
the
second
wednesday
of
april.
Q
If
I
had
to
guess
which
is
always
a
terrible
idea,
but
here
I
go.
If
I
had
to
guess,
I
would
say
that
it
sounded
like
they
wanted
to
accelerate
it
by
like
a
year
or
two
so
adopting
the
2025
requirements
in
23,
24
and
then
2023
or
2024,
and
then
doing
something
similar
with
the
2030
requirements.
They
talked
less
about
the
timeline
of
the
2031s
and
what
I
heard
from
this
group
last
time
I
think,
was
somewhere
in
like
the
2022
2023
seemed
like
there
was
appetites
at
least
discussed
that.
Q
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
Q
P
Q
B
Would
you
like
to
if
well
why
don't
you
go
ahead?
Nick
I
mean
I
have.
I
remember
the
conversation
we
had
and
what
I
believe
he
said
to
us
is
that
it's
basically
just
procedural.
You
file
it
with
new
york
state,
but
that
has
to
be
done
once
it's
been
adopted
and
I
think
once
that's
done,
then
it's
basically
a
done
deal.
Q
So
the
key-
the
key
item
here
is
that
you're
talking
about
the
plumbing
code
before
you
reference
the
building
code
and
we
purposely
stayed
away
from
those
and
we're
we're
just
making
the
energy
code
an
energy
code,
which
is
the
one
that
you
can
change
with
just
by
the
state
filing
it
and
not
a
full
approval
process.
Okay,
all
right,
another,
very
conscious
decision.
We
at
some
point
had
some
water
efficiency
requirements
in
there
and
they
weren't
super
impactful
and
they
did
require
a
lot
more
work.
Q
So
for
that
reason
we
stayed
away
because
I
would
have
touched
the
building
on
the
plumbing
code.
So
in
relation
to
your
other
comments,
cynthia
yeah,
the
the
nuclear
issue
is,
is
right
to
be
called
out.
That's
going
to
be
part
of
the
solution.
The
state's
goals
are
by
by
2030
70
renewable
energy,
but
by
2040
100,
carbon-free
electricity,
carbon-free.
That
means
electricity
can
be
used
for
that
sorry,
nuclear
can
be
used
for
that.
So
I
don't
have
much
more
to
add,
but
we
just
have
to
be.
Q
I
guess
vigilant
to
not
allow
nuclear
to
grow.
If
that
is
our
desire,
and
then
your
first
question,
let's
see,
oh,
I
want
to
make
the
point
you're
saying:
you're
reluctant
to
electrify
all
space
heating
with
the
concern
that
when
the
grid
goes
down,
you
can't
get
heat
well.
The
problem
is
even
if
you're,
on
a
gas
furnace,
even
if
you're
on
a
pellet
stove,
it's
likely
got
electrical
components
like
my
furnace
has
a
fan
to
blow
the
heater
on
my
house.
Q
H
M
A
E
A
A
Q
Hand,
it's
just
a
clarification.
Can
I
ask
then,
if
you're
proposing
a
2023
date,
what
would
happen
to
the
2030
requirements?
Would
those
get
moved
up
then
by
two
years
or
by
two
times
two
years,
which
I
guess
is
how
it
makes
sense
in
my
head,
in
other
words,
by
four
years
to
2026,
or
does
anyone
have
opinions
about
that.
A
B
Well
so
so
far
we've
you
know:
we've
been
bringing
the
the
inspectors
along
with
this.
Of
course,
they
don't.
You
know,
have
a
full
understanding
of
of
what
this
will
mean,
but
we
do
plan
to
have
training
sessions
and
amend
a
lot
of
their
documents.
So
it
would
include
this
information
so
so
far
we
don't
see
having
to
hire
additional
staff,
but
that
remains
to
be
seen.
B
A
K
Q
Q
Q
K
Q
So
if
we're
talking
about
2023
things
to
look
at
before
we
adopt
that
2023
version,
or
rather
before
it
goes
into
effect,
that
we
could
discuss
again,
and
so
I
think,
as
we
get
a
couple
years
into
this
and
as
if
we
get
to
close
to
the
point
in
2023,
let's
say
that
when
they
are
going
to
step
up,
I
think
with
the
better
idea,
for
how
it's
running
is.
Is
everything
happening
that
we
wanted
to
happen?
Are
we
not
seeing
unintended
side
effects?
Q
P
A
Yeah,
that's
that's
a
good
point.
I
was
going
to
say
something
similar
and
just
that
you
know
a
lot
of
people
who
have
been
pushing
us
to
do.
This
are
doing
it
because
they
recognize
they
recognize
just
how
fast
everything
has
changed,
and
I
think
you
know
we
as
nick
has
pointed
out
to
me
in
this
point
now.
This
is
a
big,
complex
change
and
I
do
think
it
makes
sense
to
kind
of
phase
it
in
and
have
an
orderly
transition,
but
I
think
especially
on
the
back
end.
A
E
Yeah,
I
do
have
another
question
to
circle
back
to
one
of
donna's
questions
about
staffing
and
hiring
more
staff
to
implement
this
and
joanne.
Maybe
I
can
turn
this
one
over
to
you.
I
think
I
recall
seeing
recently
there
are
there
were
positions
being
advertised
for
building
inspectors
code
inspectors,
and
so
we
will
have
new
staff
coming
into
the
building
department.
Do
I
recall
that
accurately.
E
The
other
question
I
have
has
to
do
with
the
newly
hired
director
of
sustainability
and
what
role
is
anticipated
for
that
individual
to
play
in
in
some
of
this
I
mean
nick
has
been
doing
a
phenomenal
job,
and
I
I
wanted
to
say
also
this
evening
before.
I
forget
that
I
particularly
appreciate
nick's,
very
thorough
response
to
all
of
the
comments.
That
has
been
extremely
extremely
helpful
to
me
in
just
understanding
listening
reading
about
the
concerns
and
to
read
nick's
comments.
A
Any
other
comments.
I
had
a
question
about
the
the
walkability
point.
I
know
that
there
was
a
lot
of
pushback
on
that,
but
I
also
thought
hector
chang
had
made
a
comment
at
our
last
meeting
that
I
thought
made
a
lot
of
sense
for
it.
He
said,
instead
of
getting
rid
of
the
walkability
requirement
that
it
makes
sense
to
put
in
you
know
some
other
further
requirements
to
encourage
people
to
use
alternative
modes
of
transportation,
but
it
looks
like
that
change
wasn't
made.
So
I
was
just.
Q
Q
B
Q
A
A
Q
At
this
point,
they're
virtually
the
same,
I
think
when
it
comes
down
to
the
enforcement,
we
may
differ
there
so,
for
instance,
that
the
town's
not
passing
an
ordinance
they're
doing
it
through
a
local
law
and
the
local
all
include
the
entire
document,
whereas
we
are
passing
the
ordinance
which
references
you
know.
Another
document
I
think
there'll
be
some
differences
in
sort
of
how
it's
implemented.
Q
You
know,
like
the
trigger
point
for
us
here
at
the
city,
is
time
of
building
permanent
application
at
the
town
it's
close
to,
but
not
exactly
that
all
right.
So
I
think
there'll
be
some
small
changes,
sort
of
procedurally
and
an
implementation,
but
so
far
all
the
standards
are
I'm
saying
almost
the
same,
identical
right
now,.
A
Not
see
a
discussion,
so
it's
been
moved
and
seconded,
so
this
would
go
to
the
april
council
meeting
all
in
favor
any
opposed
and
that
creates
unanimously.
So
thank
you
nick
for
all
of
your
work.
On
this
I
mean
this
has
been
an
unbelievable
amount
of
effort
over
the
years
and
I
think
especially
the
last
couple
meetings
just
seeing
all
the
work
that
you've
done
to
synthesize
those
comments
and
provide
answers.