 one that this meeting is not physically open to the public commissioners and staff are meeting via zoom and there are several ways for the public to watch and participate information on how to join the meeting using zoom on a landline or mobile phone along with how to submit public comment during the meeting tonight is available on the website if we could put that up on the screen please so how people can participate there we go so you can dial in by phone the numbers are there and once you're an attendee if you raise your hand as a participant just wait to be unmuted and you can make your comments at that time hey with that maybe with the roll call please Edna here here here and now we will have the pledge of allegiance a pledge allegiance to the flag of the united united states of america and to the republic for which the nation under god under god the justice for all that's one of the reasons we need to be live okay so do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda katie this evening we do have additions to the agenda for item 4b the appeal there was an email that came in yesterday from a neighbor as well as additional photographs there was a letter that was attached to the original staff report the photographs were not put into the packet by accident so those have been sent out in or in orata to the planning commission planner sysanto will have those available that he can pull up when the neighbor speaks but two items came in for item 4b thank you thank you katie and i failed to mention our technician tonight is noel copy again and thank you noel for broadcasting us to the members of the public now's the time for public comments for any items that aren't on tonight's agenda so if there's anyone out there who wants to bring something before the planning commission tonight that's not on the agenda will give you a few seconds to respond chair ruth i am not seeing any public comment on our email this evening and i'm looking at the zoom participants and there are no hands up currently okay thank you katie so that brings us to item c commission comments are there any commissioners that have any comments tonight i i do have one commissioner newman i yes i wanted to just briefly bring up the issue of the takaria that's located on the esplanade uh they came in uh sometime earlier in the year for a sign permit after being busted um and we granted them a sign permit on the condition that they kept the walkway that's required by the coastal commission open and they're having a lot of difficulty doing that so i'm wondering if there has been any any interaction between them and the staff in that regard or what the plan is at this point we can send them a courtesy warning letter and then if they don't comply we can bring the conditional use permit back to the planning commission yeah i mean i i know it's been difficult for restaurants but um i mean that that's been the rule from the beginning there it's been a condition imposed for many years by the coastal commission what they do is they put three or four tables out there and then the people as soon as they sit down they kind of just spread out into the walkway and it's essentially closed off to the public so they know it but they um it's just difficult i guess for them to comply with just like the sign ordinance was difficult they do know the rules i have had a conversation with them once in the past so i think it's time for we can send out a courtesy letter something more formal okay any other commission comments okay hearing none we'll move on any staff comments no comments this evening um i'll have a director's update at the end of the meeting okay thank you katie okay that brings us to the approval of minutes these are the minutes from the meeting of april first 2021 are there any additions or corrections to those minutes is there a motion to approve i move to approve this is commissioner will okay is there a second i'll second approval okay commissioner christensen seconds may have the roll call please edna yes uh commissioner christensen hi commissioner newman hi commissioner westman i'll abstain because i was not at the meeting so the minutes are approved as submitted that brings us to item four on the agenda tonight which are public hearings our first public hearing is 21 10 41st avenue this is for a monument signed design permit and a conditional use permit for the master car wash which uh hopefully will soon be in operation again so may the staff report please thank you chair ruth as you mentioned the applicant tonight is requesting design permit conditional use permit amendments for uh master car wash for most of you this is going to sound very familiar because it was here back in december and was approved but for the benefit of public and our new planning commission member i'm going to go through the presentation again related to what's there now was approved in december and the changes that they're requesting now i did want to add that building official robin woodman is going to be joining us but she's teaching a class tonight so she will be on around 720 so when she joins we'll go ahead and get her um in as a participant and she'll be able to answer questions and then the applicants and owner are both going to be on the call and they have brought their civil engineer todd creamer and their landscape architect megan bishop as well so we have a uh the plethora of people who can answer questions tonight at the end if you have questions about this project hey thank you you're welcome next class please the 21 10 41st avenue is located on the east side of 41st avenue between mattress firm and kentucky fried chicken the 25 000 square foot lot is in capital of main commercial corridor along 41st avenue the current site designs approved under 2006 050 includes a one-story main building attached to a car wash tunnel and a large trellis with vacuum drops as shown here it was just uh badly damaged in a fire last year which is the reason why this has been closed for most of the pandemic next slide please this is the existing site plan so under the current business model the business offers both exterior only and full service vehicle cleaning services uh the trellis with vacuum drops is shown here in red the uh vacuum equipment shed is in green the detail rooms in yellow and the car wash tunnels in blue and the recycling tanks are in orange at the top of the screen next slide please as i mentioned before this came previously to the planning commission in december the site plan approved under permit 2004 60 included a reduction in the size of the main building the addition of two new freestanding canopy used with solar panels and 12 vacuum drops two new self-service kiosks as shown here in yellow and a new drive through lane that circled the southeast and north perimeter of the lot and led to the car wash tunnel i have also added the uh the 10 foot um rear landscape buffer line in red here so that you can see this is going to come into play on the next slide but so you can see where the original drive lane located and how it got it went within that 10 foot landscape area next slide please so this is a proposed site plan tonight the changes to the site plan are shown here in red and those include the removal of five feet four inches from the rear of the car wash tunnel the relocation of one employee parking space from the parking area on the south side of the building to the area adjacent to the self-service kiosk that's the little red star the removal of the freestanding canopy used with solar panels i followed up with them i some of you may remember in the last approval they were given the option to either do the freestanding canopies of solar panels or just freestanding vacuum stations with no canopies and just due to the delays in the project they're opting to just drop the canopies from this from this application so that's why you're not seeing those on the plan tonight and then the major thing here was the relocation of the drive lane 10 feet from the rear property line so that's the the five red arrows that show how it was moved from within the tender landscape strip to the 10 foot mark and i'll go into later why why that was done next slide please the zoning code does not have a specific parking requirement for car wash use but the original conditional use permit required eight onsite parking spaces for employees currently the parking is to have compliance with only three onsite parking spaces however the current proposal includes the eight onsite employee parking spaces that were required under the last conditional use permit and under conditional use permit 204060 shown here in blue since the management new management plan requires less employees additional parking is not required as far as the last permit over this permit next slide please the new zoning code contains uh residential transition standards protect residential parcels that are adjacent to commercial parcels from potential negative impacts of the commercial land uses in the previous approval uh the applicant provided a 10 foot left 10 foot strip of landscape planting area with a tree screen along the rear lot line that is adjacent to the residential properties except in the area where the existing car wash line is located now that the driveline is being relocated the entire 10 foot strip along the rear property line will be landscaped and include a tree screen the design for you tonight complies with the residential transition standard next slide please initial use permit is required for land uses that are generally appropriate within the zoning district but potentially undesirable on a particular parcel uh conditional use permit is a discretionary action that enables the city to ensure that a proposed use is consistent with the general plan that will not create negative impacts to adjacent properties or the general public the planning commission may attach conditions of approval to a conditional use permit to use consistency with the general plan local coastal program and our zoning code in addition when evaluating conditional use permit planning commission must consider several characteristics of proposed use including those listed here those considerations are all analyzed in the staff report but tonight i'm going to focus on d which involves the physical suitability of this subject site for the proposed use next slide please so currently there's an 11 foot 4 inch high retaining wall that long runs along the rear property line because the adjacent residential properties on derby avenue are at a much lower grade than the subject parcel the last conditional use permit includes conditional approval number 21 which requires the owner to provide an engineering analysis for the retaining wall along the rear property line to ensure that the wall can continue to support the surcharge of vehicles adjacent to the rear lot line in response to this condition the applicant submitted a letter explaining their efforts to satisfy this condition of approval including the engineering analysis and modifications to the previously approved project firstly to reduce the live load and ensure that the existing retaining wall can continue to support the surcharge of vehicles in the car wash lane the amendment includes the relocation of the car wash driveling 10 feet away from the rear property line to reduce the hydrostatic load on the existing retaining wall the proposed project includes the removal of the existing sump pump for stormwater and installation of a new inlet that drains directly to an existing 54 inch stormwater culvert also the existing shed at the rear of the property was removed under the previous permit and that is still removed in this permit which will reduce the dead load on the existing retaining wall as well Todd creamer the principal engineer for c2g civil consultants group who's on the call tonight provided a retaining wall analysis stating that these improvements will improve the life span of the existing wall and no additional analysis needed since the project is improving the conditions through project design building visual robin woodman reviewed the modifications the site plan and analysis provided by c2g engineering this would have been accepted the report and it opposed modifications however the modifications to the previously approved project also required planning commission approval which is why we're here tonight next slide please the applicant is also proposing a new monument sign along 41st avenue the proposed monument sign is 76 inches tall with a sign area of 33 square feet and a two foot tall ledge stone veneer base the proposed sign complies with all design standards next slide please so that staff recommends the planning commission review and approve project application 210149 based on the conditions and findings for approval yeah thank you matt are there any questions for staff not at this time okay hearing none then we'll open it up to the public uh i'm not sure if the applicant's present or if there's anyone wishing to speak but now is the time if you have any questions concerns comments regarding the car wash on 41st avenue we have the applicant tonight is bill kempf and the owner is david car son so i believe bill is going to be the main point of contact here so if you'd like to ask the applicant questions that's who should be an unmuted at this point i've just let bill kempf into the meeting and he can speak now okay are there any questions for mr kathlin hi guys this is bill kempf can you can hear me yes yes okay um so so i'm the architect for the project and deja vu we're we're back here again um so thanks for for getting us in here quickly matt you were really helpful in making this happen quickly as you know david is very interested in getting his business back up and running again um the project is going forward basically as originally um originally approved with the exception of making adjustments to the back of the project that was just explained um this was uh in response to that one uh one comment regarding the retaining wall and we spent a lot of time trying to track down the original designers we were unsuccessful in that um we talked to a lot of engineers and and um in the end we came up with this uh this approach of moving the dry vial away from the wall to uh it's generally understood the instructional engineering that um a one-to-one slope is a um is an area of influence for for forces and so that's with roughly a 10 foot haul retaining wall we moved the dry vial 10 feet away from the from the retaining wall and we also discovered um through some videos of the of the property that um we uh we found that the um the existing drainage uh did not uh it seemed like it wasn't originally um constructed as it was designed and so very early on when this wall was built there was some hydrostatic pressure on it that uh caused some some issues and there was some analysis done within a year or two of its construction um it's it's been in place for for almost 30 years now and um we're we're going by the approach that by moving moving the loading away from it that that it will it will be a much better condition than what was there previously if you have any questions we have plenty of people here to answer them uh get technical if you want sure what i've got okay thank you mr kev are there any questions from the commission i have a question this is commissioner wilk um i was having trouble understanding that the drainage issue as i reviewed this package um you've removed a sump pump and diverted drainage away from the wall is that correct that's part of the plan i i think it would be helpful if we could let todd uh creamer the engineer on the project into into the discussion todd if you unmute yourself there you go so a small correction so it's not a sump pump what really it the inlet was considered what we call a sump but it it has an open bottom so when water goes into it and the storm water is collected into the inlet its first intention is to infiltrate the water into the ground and if that if the storm events so large that the ground cannot keep up with the storm the water entering by infiltrating it builds up within the sump and it over tops into a pipe that then connects to the 54 inch culvert at the rear of the property we're going to eliminate the infiltration aspect of this inlet so it will have a concrete bottom that does not allow water to infiltrate into the ground which happened to happen within four feet of the retaining wall okay so the the seepage at the retaining wall that which i believe the neighbors complained about that it would it would there'd be seepage through the retainers so this would tend to alleviate that because now you wouldn't have a lot of hydrostatic pressure a lot of water settling in that area uh but it would would be quickly drained away is that an idea correct yeah there's a direct connection to the 54 inch culvert from the car wash property it's now that when it rains that storm water goes through that pipe to the culvert and doesn't infiltrate anymore behind the wall okay thank you yeah so at the time that catch basin was constructed was that designed to capture all the runoff or just a portion of it looking at the grading plan i would say two thirds of the property was to be directed to that inlet and the other third was to be directed towards 41st avenue okay all right so that's sufficient for the site is it runoff of a lot then yes it is okay any other questions for the applicants i had just a quick comment and i think there's nobody westman did also we this hand system isn't working so well but so not to give away my uh leanings on this but i just like to say that i think that the applicant and his team took a good project and made it even better that's it i also want to announce that we do have robin woodman on the line if the planning commission has any questions for robin the building official okay thank you katie any other comments uh i had a comment i was not here in december but looking at the design now i really appreciate the fact that they've added that 10-foot landscape buffer at the rear because this project does back up to those single-family residential homes the one concern i have is that in their landscaping plan the trees that they're proposing to use to provide a screen or palm trees and we all know if palm trees grow up you sort of end up with a you know 12 to 18 inch stick going up in the ground so i wanted to ask the applicant if it would be possible to replace um perhaps four of the trees that are in the back landscaping with some other um tree doesn't have to be a huge tree but something that would have a canopy to it so we actually would be providing a screen to the residential neighborhood that's behind so the um the owner of the property he is he is changing it from master carwash to splash carwash as maybe saw on the uh the sign and he's going with more of a tropical field so that's that's why the palm trees were were proposed i do have um i do have the landscape architect here and she has said that these aren't your standard palm trees these are these are more of a a shorter palm tree that fans out i'd prefer to have her answer those questions i know nothing about trees thank you well i will tell you i did look up the palm trees because um we have the landscape plan with the scientific names of the trees and um there are still palm trees and uh over the years they are going to grow and it would seem to me that there are a number of other kinds of trees that have some sort of canopy that over the years will provide a visual screen i mean the whole reason for having this ten foot strip is to provide that screen for the residential neighborhood okay well one one thing we are concerned about is putting a lot of landscaping back there that's going to create more of a life load i'm not asking for any more landscaping i'm just asking that um you know the four palm trees be replaced with some other um and i think there are a lot of other tropical trees besides palm trees be replaced with a different kind of tree or we're happy to make make changes Susan i have uh two dwarf queen palms in my front yard and they max out at about 12 feet right they they have some of those in the plan but they also have a palm tree that does get taller four of them which is what are the trees that they're referring to and i actually have to get a magnifying glass to read it off the sheet about what it what that tree is called but i did look them up and and they do grow to be a taller palm tree so it's those four trees i'm interested in the other small palms can absolutely stay okay we'll bring that up under the planning commission discussion portion when we get to that uh i just like to add that uh i've probably had more interest in the opening of this car wash and when it's going to happen than i've heard recently about the mall expansion i can tell you this there's a lot of community interest about getting this car wash open again so any other comments questions for uh staff or the applicant is someone clicking a pen we do have uh another we've got public comment waiting as well okay so any other questions we have robin woodman on the line who's going to have to go back to teaching the class so any questions for our building official no okay would you like to open the public comment yeah let's hear the from the public at this time so we have susan on the line and i have it once susan once you unmute yourself you are you can talk hello hello yes we can hear you there's a big echo okay uh my name is susan walton sorry it's echoing in the phone and we live directly behind the car wash we are all so very interested when it was it will open but mostly because we want to be done right and not fast um we have a number of questions number one the fence that's being put up we would just want some more specific um specifications how thick it's going to be right now the fence that's there we can see lots of people through it and they're looking right back at us which is really unpleasant can you hear me yes we can hear you we're waiting for the rest of your questions okay um the next thing we on page 66 of the report it said there was a soils report required and i wanted to know if that was done um i also wanted to know the height of the trees which i didn't find in the report because that blocks our sunlight um i wanted to know lights at night during the winter what time the lights can be on till because security lights have also been an issue at the car wash in the past not necessarily since the new owners but it has been an issue um we also wanted to know about the trash so sorry you broke up are you still there are you still there it appears we've lost her on the public comment so 10 cars waiting back there and when we counted today you could have up to 10 cars waiting susan we so susan if you could stop for one second we lost about a minute and a half of your last comment uh the last part we heard was your question about the trash and then you broke up and disappeared okay so can you hear me now yes okay so my question was i think the trash was the last one before i mentioned the um the amount of cars that will be waiting to go through the tunnel which in the previous design before the fire there were there were not many cars that just sat at the back waiting to go into the tunnel i think there were about three and then the new design it looks like there could be up to about 10 cars just sitting there waiting at any one time which is obviously a ton of weight and i'm wondering if that number of cars in that space i know it's 10 feet away from the wall has been accounted for in the engineer's assessment oh and then the final thing is that what do we do if this is all approved and then they're out of compliance because and there shouldn't have been the shed built at the back that was out of compliance but the previous owner not the current owner the previous owner was incredibly volatile when we would talk to him about anything but that was out of compliance and a number of other issues they would run it later at night when they weren't supposed to and so on so our concerns are our quality of life once it's up and running and what do we do if it's not if there's they're out of compliance okay let's see if we can get those answered for you susan uh thank you whoever would like to take the first one wall configuration and dimension so the the previous uh conditional use for man this conditional use for both that's just a condition that a six foot uh would fence is built uh without details on that fence so i think the um applicant was probably the best person suited to answer what they're thinking in terms of the uh the design of that wood fence okay here's the applicant still present i am so so this is bill uh okay i'm correct um we we would be happy to to build a a solid wood fence with no gaps in it of six feet um there had been a discussion before of a a concrete further concrete wall on up there but we we prefer not to do that uh because of the weight on the existing retaining wall so we we can definitely have a provision in there even a condition that said that the wall would be a six foot wood fence that is solid in nature okay next question was the soils report so the soils report wasn't required the soils report was a condition of the engineers report and um we we felt it wasn't necessary after doing our analysis okay so there hasn't been a soils report done okay the third question she had was about the tree height and probably some of the issue susan has raised we're happy to make any changes that people see said okay well okay we can discuss that when it comes time i believe that was actually in nice sorry i i think the three things actually the inverse of susan's because they are concerned about the loss of sunlight susan was was actually actually asking for more canopy to do more so that that's kind of at odds there so yeah okay uh the lights at night i'm not i'm not sure if there's been a operating um time proposed um but i i know that david originally had prepared a uh business plan uh i i don't know if you have any i i don't want to speak for him as far as setting setting a time for for when they would close um but i would i would assume that that would be something that could be conditioned okay uh there was a question about trash pickup so the the trash enclosure is at the rear of the property um it will have rolling dumpsters which i i doubt the the trash would actually be able to get a trash um a garbage truck would be able to get back there to pick them up so they would probably have to be wheeled to kind of the center of the property so that'll be something will be done by the employees okay and that time would be similar to what it has been in the past i presume okay number of cars waiting uh and what that effect might have on the wall again the idea is to be ten feet away from the wall so the zone of influence of the cars is at a one-to-one slope and and going to the bottom of the wall and not not pressing on the top and how many cars will be waiting maximum right against the wall i hard hard to say um but they once they come through the uh through the pay machines they will be probably in a what in a singular file line so across what yeah the capacity looks like it might be what six or seven cars from that pay station yeah i would i would assume that okay all right and then her last question was compliance issues and that's if they are out of compliance susan uh that would certainly be an issue the city would look at and we can look at their conditional use permit and lean on them and you know worst comes to worst the use permit could be revoked so there's there's lots of avenues that uh that the city can use to make sure they are in compliance okay do we have another public comment and i just add something commissioner ruth that i just want to point out that uh condition 18 and the proposed conditions requires a six foot tall solid wood fence no more participants with their hand up and no public comment in our email okay with that then we'll i did just see an email come in for oh i can go ahead and read it if you'd like yeah would you show on please yeah from yeah walton and they stated that my concern of tree height is to maintain a screen and not get too high as to block sunlight and on the landscape plan those are shown as uh 10 feet for the pygmy date palm and 12 feet for the uh jelly palm so this we're talking 10 to 12 because that's that that maturity so okay thank you matt okay with that then we will yes correct no more there's no hands up and no more emails okay then we'll close the public portion of this uh item and bring it back to the commission for discussion uh who would like to lead off here well i think i could lead off and i could sort of clear up the tree issue um as far as i'm concerned if the applicant meets with the neighbors behind them and you know they agree on the trees um that will work for me because they're the ones who are really going to be impacted by what's going to be planted there so um perhaps if they could just check in and work with the neighbors and come up with a solution that that would be fine okay and as far as your concern i agree with chairman ruth and i think people in town really want the car wash to be open and i think they've done a nice job on their design and i look forward to seeing it operating hopefully soon any other comments questions from the commission i have a comment mr chitzen yep this is commissioner christensen um i i just remember when we approved this and we were making comments about the landscape the the rear 10 foot um landscape barrier was to shelter the neighbors from sound visibility all that you know that that was their safe you know kind of their privacy buffer and um i i to kind of spin off of students um commissioner westman comments i don't have a problem with the palms necessarily i just think that the intention of having that 10 foot buffer was to provide sound barrier and palms don't provide sound barrier like they don't provide sound delineation so i mean like a spruce or some type of cypress would be appropriate there they have flowering um i think it's a maple um a flowering bush and i just i feel like i do appreciate the 10 foot buffer and it's a very nicely done landscape plan i just would really love to see if they could really and you know put some intention in those plants so that's all i want to just say thank you corny um any other comments yes this is commissioner wilk i'm trying to use the hand uh saying um but i but i that doesn't always work so anyway i just really had a question of the the neighbor had a concern about the hours of operation and we must have something in the code already that limits the hours of operation i guess that's a question of staff they're not allowed to operate this 24 hours a day or are they i don't believe the code has any hours restrictions i know with with certain other conditional use permits the planning mission is shied away from getting into dictating hours so i believe the commission could add a condition if they would like but so you're saying that they could be open 24 hours if uh and and that we have no restriction on that currently i believe the only noise restrictions have to do with things like leaf blowers i don't recall seeing anything specific to a car wash use yeah we haven't found yeah construction hours and leaf blower ordinance but um the the planning commission could add a an amount of time after closing for the lights to be turned off you know you'll want them on for a certain amount of time for cleanup did i ask the applicant what's their planned hours of operation on um i believe they had that in their previous one in december but this they did not submit a resubmit a business plan with this because it was not changing so i could get that for you but i do not have it right well give me a minute i'll i'll look it up okay well he's looking it up any other questions or comments i think past practice there i think it used to be closing at six o'clock so i'm i'm never serves me correct but i'm not 100 certain i wouldn't support that kind of a condition that seems too restrictive to me i'm not proposing that that restriction either at this point but perhaps uh two a.m closure might be a little bit too late well there is a general um provision in our ordinance there's some noise uh a noise uh provision that could be uh implemented if they were open at two a.m and causing uh disturbance but that's that's kind of was my my concern did we have an avenue if if neighbors complained and they were open all night do we have an avenue to um to for to pursue the complaints same provision as uh for barking dogs i believe it's a nuisance provision uh and i did look back by the way there were not any hours proposed in the previous management plan so um so we're not sure on the hours i believe the afghan may be able to answer what they were prior to prior to the fire the applicant still present the architect is um david i i believe is on the road and listening in i don't know that he has the capability of speaking but it is it is going to require a couple people to be on site to run the operation and uh i would be surprised if it if it ran past eight o'clock at night but i that's just me i i hasn't said anything i would be in favor of having some hours in there that they couldn't operate beyond you know perhaps maybe nine o'clock at night and the lights go out at 10 you know something that i would feel would be reasonable for a car wash operation and then it would be up to them to you know operate within those hours and perhaps have something saying that you know they can't start operating till like eight o'clock in the morning so then you're including what are considered sort of normal business hours uh commissioners this is planar susanto i do have an email from the business owner stating that the hours of operation will be eight a.m to six p.m that's what it's been in the past okay any other questions or comments someone like to attempt a motion i will uh attempt a motion i will move approval of with the conditions imposed uh in the staff report with the addition that the applicant is directed to work with the neighbors in selection of trees in the rear so that they can satisfy their various concerns of protecting sunlight and also protecting uh their privacy and my motion does not include any limitation on hours of operation because i don't think it's a problem and i don't think we should impose a condition where it's not broken question uh well yes the the uh the notion of adding the condition of working with the neighbors do we do that before because it seems so vague i can't imagine how you'd enforce that we have done this before uh there was a mixed use building recently built on bromer by the close to the corner of 41st and um we worked with the neighbor and the property owner to identify a tree you might you may want to in your condition to say have staff working with the the property owner and the neighbor to find a mutual resolution um so therefore staff could make the ultimate decision if if they came to an impasse i'll accept that uh amendment to my motion okay there's second to the motion i'll second it okay any any questions yes i'd like to discuss it further um so my my concern i guess would be would be staff judgment in this being the arbiter of the of the discussion i was uh i noticed the applicant was very interested in having palm trees back there because that was part of their design and they wanted the tropical field and i think that that desire should be um catered to um so i would hate to have a um a discussion going where that where they have to compromise the design and feel of their business um in that particular regard i'd i'd like to respond to um to mr wilk i i don't feel that they should have to to replace the palm trees i feel that they should accentuate that planting plan with a substrate against the fence of some type of cypress or something specifically designed for sound barrier it's just they could accentuate their existing planting plan which is very nice with with you know the date palm and the jelly palm along with you know a holly or something more substantial than the flowering maple bush because those things don't i mean they just they're not they're just not curated usually for sound buffer okay thank you kourtney okay i think we have a direction for staff on this is there a second or we've had a second to the motion may we have the roll call please edna sure commissioner christensen i support the motion i hi commissioner westman hi commissioner wilk all right the motion carries unanimously and hopefully the carwash will be cleaning cars soon okay that brings us to the second public hearing tonight this is a public hearing regarding a tree removal at 527 capitol avenue we have a staff report please thank you chair ruth and good evening the item before you is an appeal of an administrative approval of a tree removal permit to remove one pine tree on a residential property located at 527 capitol avenue there have been a number of of tree removal applications and appeals in the recent past but i'm still going to go ahead and walk through the process here i'll start with what general findings need to be made by staff followed by the general process and as well as the basis of the appeal itself next the appellant will be given the opportunity to speak and answer any planning commission questions and after that the chair will open up the public portion of the hearing and that will be followed by the planning commission discussion and decision so most tree removal permits are reviewed and approved at the staff level as indicated on this flow chart on the left hand side they begin with a preliminary review by public work staff who can tentatively approve that that application of a non heritage tree only if those findings for removal are contained within the code section 12 12 180 for non-hersher trees and if those findings to be made if the findings cannot be made the application is transferred to planning staff or for the review the city may in that process require the applicant to pay for an arborist under the contract of the city to provide an armors report for the tree the community development director will then make a determination based on the findings following in this situation following the site inspection public work staff was able to make the required findings for removal and therefore an arborist report was not required allowing a posting and notice to the public that there was a pending tree removal application on the site the city received an appeal on march 24th 2021 the tree proposed for removal as as did Ford is a pine tree located in the front yard of 527 capital avenue approximately five feet from the public right of way the tree is two and a half feet in diameter and estimated to be over 60 feet tall with a significant canopy spread over the subject property as well as the adjacent property at 525 capital avenue the tree is not a heritage tree and is not located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area for either the community development director or planning commission to approve the removal of a non heritage tree the removal must comply with findings within the aforementioned code section and the subsections c1 through 4 within c1 as shown on this slide at least one criteria for removal must be made which include the health or condition of the tree safety considerations and property damage when public works perform the site visit they found evidence supporting all three criteria for the removal because the health condition safety and property damage were visible staff did not require an arbor support in this case each of the criteria for removal will be addressed individually in these following slides the first criterion considers the health or condition of the tree with respect to disease infestation or dangerous falling in these images there is evidence of that the tree is in poor health where sap is visible on the bark this is typical of insect infestate infestation or fungal disease next slide the tree also has a codominant has codominant leaders three of them where the main trunk splits into these codominant leads the this results in competing limbs and often weakens the overall structure of the tree as codominant stems grow they continue to grow against themselves and grow weaker over time increasing the risk of branch failure or leader failure the next consideration is safety as i explained there are safety concerns with respect to the failure of one or more codominant leaders there's a risk that the tree will fail due to poor structure which could result in injury to those in the vicinity or those within the structures themselves third consideration is for for removal is for situations where a tree has caused or has the potential to cause unreasonable property damage and or interference with existing utility services in this slide it looks at 527 capital avenue the roots are causing damage to the existing driveway as evidence with or by uplift and the cracking in the middle of the driveway in this slide we're looking uh from 525 capital avenue as you can see the roots are causing damage to the walkway on the neighboring property on this slide that damage extends through the staircase walkway and into the structure as the stucco on the wall has begun to crack in respect to interference with existing utility services there is potential for issues should more one or more codominant leader fail the some of the lines uh though we did not identify if they were the power lines themselves go through the tree uh in between the leaders finding number two is that all possible and feasible alternatives to tree removal have been evaluated including but not limited to underground and utilities selective root cutting trimming and relocation due to the extensive ongoing damage caused by the roots there are no feasible mitigation measures that can be implemented to address all considerations here staff does not believe that root cutting could be implemented to the extensive root surface growth growth pattern without causing serious harm or death to the tree and without any kind of root mitigation the the damage that has been occurring to the adjacent structures and and flatwork would continue so those are the the basic findings for removal that staff would have to make or the planning mission have to make in the following slides will summarize the submitted basis of the appeal one states that the tree is in good health and does not have a history of causing safety issues these are some of the an excerpt from the submitted appeal letter g affluent uh talent suggests that risks posed by the codominant leaders could be further mitigated i give the example of strapping the talent further states that there are several benefits to the subject tree and trees in general um and what they provide to the community as summarized above finally they we've summarized a list of recommendations made in regards to the municipal code and city policies regarding the processing of tree applications staff recommends that the planning commission review and uphold the original administrative approval of the application based on the conditions and findings for approval yeah thank you shon are there any questions for shon before we open the public hearing and hear from the appellate so quick stupid questions mission do me one um i think on page one it says uh applicants but it should say appellate at the top or are you referring to the staff report or staff report page one of the staff report where it says applicant shouldn't say a talent do you think you could go ahead and read me that line i i don't actually okay well we can take a look at that later my other question is do we know what kind of tree this is it's it's clearly a variety of pine are the staff uh estimation is that it's a monterey pine that's what i was thinking it's a monterey pine okay that's all okay any other i had a question my unmute no we're here okay uh commissioner christianson i'm so the appellate is robert ed grin and the applicant to have it removed just to clarify is the property owner is that correct that is correct um is there as far as safety i i've been your presentation has there been i mean safety is is you're saying that the the three leads that are coming off their potential for breakage is that the safety concern that's the primary safety consideration in this case is their attachment to the to the base right begin to split has there been any and what what is the property owner's primary complaint is it his the breakage of his you know his personal property of like the sidewalk or is it falling leaves or falling branches or is there is that has he identified a primary complaint about the tree i i think i would rather let the the owner and their neighbor go into depth about their their concerns but i would generally it is in regards to the potential for leader failure okay any other questions for staff before we uh hear from the appellate seeing none then we will open the public portion and we'll hear from mr edwin first mr edwin are you present mr edwin once you turn off your mute you are allowed to talk i believe the the phone caller is also mr edwin we may want to unmute him as well if mr edwin are you there you may have to press star nine on your phone to talk mr edwin katie is he attempting to get through you know i i can see that he's there and his hand is up he's muted so he needs to um if he's dialed in he needs to press star nine on his phone to unmute do you hear that mr edwin you need to press star nine on your phone or if he's participating via the live zoom he needs to press unmute on his screen oh here we go looks like he unmuted looks like you're unmuted mr edwin looks like his computer is unmuted but his phone is still muted so if you compress star nine on your phone oh there we go mr edwin oh now he's disappeared he's the video is still working but that's why we need to start meeting in present in person i mean if we can start with the owner of the property because they're also no we do have the owner and they're the neighbor present okay we have miss lauri are you there i'm allowing miss lauri to speak she's muted and needs to unmute herself miss lauri go ahead miss lauri you're muted and you need to unmute yourself miss uh bush binder is available if you'd like to take her comment first who is that katie emily bush binder is available okay okay emily are you there yes i'm here can you hear me yes go ahead okay great um so i'm the property owner next door and um this tree is causing damage to the property so first of all the parking for my businesses in the back of my building and there's a walkway that where clients come from the parking lot to the front of my building and it's between 525 and 527 so the um the pine tree has basically buckled the um the walkway and so not only does water pool there in a rainy season which i wish we had had this year but we did not but it also creates a fall risk for my clients i'm an estate planning attorney most of my clients are elderly and that creates a real risk even in good weather in bad weather the pine cones are falling the the needles are falling the branches threaten to fall the tree branches ranch reach out over my building and they have actually prevented my placing anybody in one of my offices so that front office i can no longer use actually move myself into that office because i need all of the offices in my building right now and i can't put an employee in that office so it's creating substantial danger to me my clients my staff and my property we had an arborist come out to evaluate the tree you know i'm a very proud tree hugger i love trees i don't want to cut them down and the opinion of the arborist that we brought out said there's no way to do anything but take this tree down and why is it you can't fill the front office because the branches and the debris coming down make me concerned that a branch is going to come down break through the roof and and injure an employee or myself because now i'm sitting in that front office and you know it's obviously on a good weather day it doesn't seem like such a danger but this this winter we've had tremendous wind and i had to take the employee that was in that office and say you need to come out of that office you can't occupy that office anymore so i can't use part of my okay anything else you'd like to add no just that uh i i really appreciate your your work and and your time okay thank you for your input and by the way if you like me to transplant that tree to splash car wash i'm sure the owner would be happy to do that but i don't okay so that that brings us back is mr edgren available yet his hand is up um and it looks like he's unmuted mr egrin can you oops it looks like there we go mr egrin can you speak oh my gosh can you hear me yes yes yeah oh great great boy this is this is one of the most confusing things that are the walks of things don't work that are you know the uh descriptions of how to access it they're either not functioning or something's going on but anyway okay back to the tree uh yeah excuse me yes mr edgren turn up his volume turn off turn up turn up your volume a bit so we can all hear you can you hear me now yes okay um and i'm talking through my phone so anyway in regards to the tree um i've been here since what 1975 okay i always walked by that tree i always kind of noticed it because i thought the little little little uh bungalow there was kind of cute and i had all these like kind of river rocks around it kind of a funky little place but the tree has been there a long long time it's been there longer than any of us my assessment and i had a tree uh a tree service look at it uh they said it's a healthy tree there's nothing wrong with it you look up at the top of it there's no rusty uh pine needles that's the first sign of a bed of a sick tree um you know the neighbor next door moved it purchased a little building next door and she made a fuss about i guess we had a big wind i kind of remember that i think nearly blew off my roof um probably happens every 50 years but uh i guess some acorns hit her uh top and everything anyway to make a long story short you know that was the tree has been there a long time the thing with the three branches that shoot up there i talked to another arborist and they said oh you just cable those together or strap them together and it actually is stronger than a single branch going up so you know i i read over at morrison's i believe uh report and uh i wanted to make a bet with him saying that you know in 30 years let's meet at this tree and if this still standing you pay me 100 i'll pay you 100 whatever um bottom line is the tree's fine there's nothing wrong with it it provides a tremendous amount of cooling in that area and i don't know if if you all read my reports about i did a lot of research on the value of a tree and um but this is you know this is just not the tree itself this also has to do with the the three um professional buildings there uh i don't know the exact addresses but they're all in a row and in the back and i remember those lots little houses over there there was trees on them okay anyway i think it was 1977 they built the those three clinics or whatever you want to call them uh but they didn't know landscaping very little landscaping the you talked about the situation the parking lot this parking lot which stands three lots that's 120 feet wide goes all the way to the back fence all the way to the back fence with no trees okay and that area gets very hot very hot during the summer so hot you can't walk on with bare feet um not a good idea not a good idea so i know you know that's not the subject of this meeting but i think it should be i think it should be taken into consideration that whatever was approved back in 1976 or 77 shouldn't have been and uh you know you've got different owners now where is it one we could stick to the topic we're not we're not discussing the clinic property right now we're discussing the tree okay the heat that comes off the asphalt parking lot is cooled to a certain degree by this tree you take that tree away you're gonna have another right around that whole area circumference of that whole area and you've got a little break with this tree cooling part of it um and there's nothing wrong with the tree you know i would suggest tabling this get a arborist out there independent arborist because i believe they had an arborist that's connected with louis tree service well you know okay let's go you know it's just kind of a conflict of interest i think and uh my guy said there's nothing wrong with it so and i was reading the uh emily's uh report and she said uh well we had pine cone hand grenades coming down during that big storm you know you live with nature you know this is not like uh not like uh living up in bowler creek where you're going to have fires every every so often um what's a few pine cones is that really going to hurt people but i guess she's afraid that assume the whole collapse on her um her officer but she's only owned a few months i haven't talked to the former owner what i would like to uh the other thing is i wrote in my report i said you know according to morrison's report on that tree uh i went driving around depot hill heck i would say half the trees up on depot hill fall within his description of the sick trees or bad trees or whatever you want to call them and it's like caramel but the city even gets a whip of you cutting down a tree you're in big trouble um you know i think this needs more study and at the end of my report i think the city needs to look at a whole different um assessment of trees treating them something more than just trees um these are assets to a community to a neighborhood to a block you drive down a capital avenue now and i can't even imagine what it would be like without that tree there we already chopped one down on capital avenue there was a beautiful tree even the tree cutters didn't want to cut it mr edgerton mr edgerton you're kind of rambling i'm just wondering if we can kind of wrap this up okay sure well save the tree and i think uh if you don't want to vote on it tonight cable it until we get more information let's hire an independent arborist um there are those out there that like to save trees um let's uh get more information on it which hopefully will lead to a whole new process for trees in capitol uh that's where i'm coming from that's it okay thank you mr edgerton appreciate your your concern and your appeal thank you thank you tatie do we have anyone else wishing to speak thank you mr edgerton yes we have uh there was a hand up yes lily anna molda and it looks like the previous speaker has their hand up again and so just a reminder that we typically don't go back and forth with after public speaking but lily anna yeah we're not going to we're not going to entertain a an online dispute between commenters here so who's who's the newest person that would like to speak can we have her on now yes hello this is shelly larry on lily and molda's computer right now so we have a technical difficulty as well so i'm shelly larry i'm the owner of the property and i respect what mr edgerton has to say i respect what emily bookbinder has to say uh we all appreciate the benefit of trees however there are times when there are trees that happen to be in the wrong location be the wrong type of tree and pose a problem or a hazard or a danger to the health and safety of people this is right at the sidewalk it is causing property damage to the adjoining neighbor the adjoining neighbor bookbinder and i have discussed the removal of the tree and working together as good neighbors i can appreciate again that people like trees this is a pine tree which has three trunks coming off of it it has had multiple people look at it i have created i had contacted louis tree service mr bookbinder contacted another i think it was community tree community tree is who she was referring referring to as far as it being a disease tree in a problem also louis tree said it was a problem also the city of capitol says it has problems so it it's a tree that um has reached its economic i mean reached its lifespan under the opinions of these experts i as a property owner don't want damaged sidewalks i don't want people falling on pine cones i don't want people being injured and and i don't want limbs falling knocking out power lines possibly causing personal damage to people walking down the sidewalk or cars that may be parked on the street and as mr bookbinder mentioned she is an attorney she deals with senior citizens that come to her office it's irrelevant how long she has owned the property and we collectively have just have communicated and agree as neighbors that this is the best for each of us to do we have we have as a condition a replacement tree we've and so on the property there will be a tree replaced i listened to mr edgren and i appreciate that he wants to preserve the tree however he also in my communication with him is that he wants to address the city of capitol as tree policy and this is the tree that he wants to preserve as an example for what the city should be doing i don't think that should be the basis for whether or not a tree is removed so if there are any questions you have for me i would appreciate the and it will address these questions but this is my position thank you miss molder for your input do we have anyone this is shelly larry i'm actually on lillian molder's computer oh okay yeah okay thank you thank you okay is there anyone else out there that would wish to speak to this item i just maybe are we seeing anyone that hasn't spoken before no i'm not any question it's larry i i'm not seeing anyone on zoom at this point and also not no emails regarding this okay mr numo is that you or mr wilk that wants a question i have a quick question for the last speaker what do you plan to replace the tree with do you know um i'm considering a crepe myrtle because i love the colors and the vibrancy they have a beautiful bark and i think that would be an enhancement to the property thank you okay thank you miss larry can i have a question to staff i'm sorry go ahead go ahead mr wilk um it's a question of staff i guess uh if this appeal was denied could it be then appealed further to the city council if this appeal was denied i i believe it ends at that point um no i actually i'm sorry if this is a it was appealed to the planning commission i i believe i believe it can get still be appealed to the city council i can look that up quickly but i i believe they have the the ability to appeal it further that might influence my vote so i'd appreciate that information thank you mr wilk okay anyone else in the public wishing to comment on this item three removal appeal of 527 capitol avenue see not we will close the public portion and bring it back to the commission for discussion who wants to lead off i'll start um let's take my turn christianson do you want to start oh uh i just i just had a quick comment honestly um i just i i honestly feel that if the property owner and the tenants of the property feel that they're i mean they've they've gone to the trouble to bring it to the city to find you know these findings but to to remove this tree the city has gone to the trouble of of you know making these determinations um it's it's i think i mean i've i've observed this tree personally it's a it's very giant and and if they're willing to replace it with something more appropriate i i i find no valid reason i mean i don't want to lead into you know my determination i'm just saying that like it's just i keep hearing these tree arguments and it's the property owners are anyway i just i feel that i appreciate the property owners and the tenants of the property coming to plead their case okay thank you commissioner christianson commissioner newman so um yeah i was interested in the type of tree because uh i thought it was a monorail pine and i've observed numerous monorail pine trees reached the end of their life and they don't they're not like redwood lived it to be a thousand years old they lived lived to be 60 or 70 years old and i think that's important to me because taking the long view here 30 years from now if we don't allow this tree to be removed it's probably not going to be there anyway if they plant the new tree now in 30 years we'll have a great canopy so i don't see the long-term benefit of maintaining a tree that is pretty much at the end of its life and postponing the replacement so that there we can all enjoy a tree that is more suitable right now from this park and i i i found the um cities and the staff report to be very compelling thank you mr newman anyone else i'll i'll go um you know i i think an urban forest in a town is an important thing to have but um people always bring up carmel and how well they do and the reality is in carmel they do remove a number of trees annually and they have a very aggressive program of replanting trees and as commissioner newman mentioned this is a monorail pine tree and if you look it up um they say that the longest they will live is somewhere between 70 to 80 years so it is an old tree that was planted in the wrong place and uh i agree that the tree should be removed and come out i do think that the city has allowed a number of trees to be removed and when we ask for a replacement tree we often don't get anything that is equivalent to the tree that has left you know the owner has talked about that they would be willing to plant a crepe myrtle and if you read the um list of trees that was done by john allen which i think was done in about 2013 he talks about a crepe myrtle tree as being one that gets 15 to 30 feet tall and is suitable for you know parkway or median type use so i do think if we're going to allow someone to take out um what is a major tree they should it should be replaced um with a tree that's actually going to grow up to be a real tree not a large bush so i i would ask my fellow commissioners to consider um requiring the applicant to plant a tree that's ultimately going to get to the 30 or 40 foot range doesn't have to be you know 100 foot tall redwood tree but um something that will contribute to the urban forest of this particular neighborhood because as mr edgren mentioned there aren't too many trees in the area i also read through um his comments about you know some of the things that needed to be changed as far as the city's tree ordinance is concerned and i agree sometime in the future because i think the staff's pretty overwhelmed right now that we should look at our tree ordinance and perhaps consider rewriting it but the one thing i would like to see us do right now is change the fee that we charge for somebody to appeal um a tree being removed it costs $136 for your application fee to take out a tree and then we say for the public to appeal that or participate in that process they have to pay a fee of $536 and that's because in the city's fee schedule we have one fee for appealing any administrative decision and i would like to see the planning commission recommend to the council that perhaps that appeal of administrative decisions have more than one fee number in there because i don't think it's appropriate to have to pay the $536 to to appeal a tree i also would support his request that the signs on that go up on the trees right now we do an eight and a half by 11 sign the city easily has the capability of doing an 11 by 14 sign its printers and everything easily print that that size appeal letter and it would be a lot easier for the public to see so in summary i'm in favor of taking the tree out i would like to see something other than a crepe myrtle tree planted i would like to see us consider making a recommendation to the council regarding the appeal to a tree removal appeal fee thank you thank you susan any other comments in this commissioner wilk i'll go so first of all i'd like to thank mr edgren for his hard work and and appreciate appreciation the trees um i'm sympathetic but not not to the extent that uh that that i would approve his appeal then the reason is because we really need this heritage tree list uh the city isn't that big we should be able to go around and and be able to list which trees need saving and we have no heritage tree list and and there's reasons for that but that that would that would go a long way towards providing not only guidance for us in making decisions as to whether or not a tree could be saved but it would be guidance for real estate agents and home buyers and business buyers that said hey you know be careful you know you've got the foundation of this building close to a tree and it's the heritage tree and so take that into account because it might damage your foundation and they could buy the property being aware that the tree is special and needs to have consideration and finally there might be an opportunity if it was a heritage tree list or a you know some sort of list that mr edgren proposed we could actually provide funding for the maintenance of such trees but we have none of those things so it's very difficult for me to tell a property owner that this tree that they had no idea was very special the city council or the city or community at large suddenly has to remain a safety slash property hazard so hence we do have the criteria um the three different criteria for allowing the removal i'm not sure i buy the safety issue that's why i'd be curious to see this go to the city council because the last two issues that we had on trees the city council the first time they overturned our ruling and then the second time we just we we just allowed the tree to be removed for the same reason because of branches were actually falling and damage was done and there was pictured evidence of uh of damage being done here we don't have that we have different inputs we don't have a uh a barbers report in the package just conflicting statements some say it's uh it's it's towards the end of this life and it's it's damaged others say it's healthy but ultimately what what i'm impressed with is the uh danger to the the the property um not so much the driveways or the walkways but the actual foundation of the building as evidenced by the crack stucco so i don't see how we can we can burden a property owner with trying to save a tree when it's destroying his property or his or her property um with regards to the crate myrtle i think that's covered in uh that issue is covered with canopy coverage um which is the one good thing i think we can let hang our hat on in the in the tree ordinances which is um you know you want the 15 to 30 canopy coverage and this property meets that so with the crate myrtle it meets the canopy coverage i'd be i'd be happy with the crate myrtle even though it wouldn't be uh necessarily a big tree um beyond that let's see yeah i uh i guess that's it um so i uh i'm ready to make well those are my comments okay thank you mr wilk i i just have a comment i'm concerned how easy it is in this city now to get trees removed it never used to be like this it was always a lot more difficult to do and in the past several months mr wilk she alluded to this we've lost the largest tree up in the jewel box neighborhood on the entire hill the cedar on capital avenue and we've lost that redwood tree on on uh what was it lincoln prospect 49 49 uh you know the trees weren't diseased there was nothing wrong with them proper maintenance could have saved those trees but the city allows them because the property owner says it's a danger and in this case you know we've got a similar thing we do have some property damage but i i just think we need to look at our what how we're allowing trees to be removed so easily in this city uh my other thing is mr edwin spent five hundred dollars to appeal this i think we owe it to him to have an independent arborist look at this tree that would be my my recommendation i i really feel he deserves that having gone to the trouble to appeal this so with that i'll end my comments entertain any motions that anyone would care to make do we have uh do we have an answer about the appeal to the city council yes katey did we have to look that up we did and the the applicant could appeal this to the city council okay can i ask the chair mr ruth yes um so what you're suggesting is that we continue this while we have an arborist look at the tree correct i think we owe that to the person who's made the appeal i'm prepared to try a motion that's okay go go for it i don't think uh when we're hearing an appeal that we have the ability to put conditions on it so i think it's an up or down uh vote so i'm going to move that we deny the appeal i'll second this is motion in a second to deny the appeal and allow the tree to be removed any discussion on the motion any comments hearing none edna could we have the roll call please hi mr westman no commissioner wilk the chair votes no okay the motion carries uh the permission has been granted to remove the tree and that completes our agenda tonight except for a few couple of items do we have a director's report katey we do um okay good evening planning commission um i i've got a few updates for you so on april twelfth the the california coastal commission reviewed our zoning code update for certification uh as you know this effort has been going forth for about two and a half years working with coastal commission staff um when we went to coastal commission they had basically four their staff had four items that they wanted changed within our code um two of them being the in at depot hill and the marnard cove in they wanted to um take away the underlying the base zoning we had had a base zoning of r1 for both of those properties and the coastal commission staff was asking that the in at depot hill be visitor serving base zone with also visitor serving overlays so basically just only only allowed to do with some of the visitor serving zone and for um the monarch cove in similar request and then they also were removing our um kind of negotiations of allowing residential at the monarch cove in in exchange for a public pathway or visitor serving accommodation nightly use on that site so their recommendations included both of those items they also had a recommendation to fix the uh to edit the descriptions of the green bluff above the future uh above the old theater site for a future hotel and the fourth item was to take away the allowance to build residential a mixed use pure residential above commercial on the old theater site so when this went on april 12th the coastal commission accepted all of the staff changes except for the monarch cove insight they um the owners the bludgets came out and spoke as well as uh i think there were over a dozen public comments submitted to the coastal commission from the depot hill residents and i think four depot hill residents actually spoke at the hearing as well as the bludgets and the coastal commission were great listeners and they said this needs more time we'd like this the monarch cove in to be submitted separately so that the coastal commission can work with the owners and the residents they understand both sides of the issue of that of the location being uh i've tucked away at the end of a residential neighborhood and the bludgets not being able to further invest into the property because of um issues with you know not wanting to disturb the neighbors so we've taken that their recommendation was to take that out and in its entirety all the changes to revert back to how it's been and we'll work on a modification and bring it forth to coastal commission so next week at city council they'll be asked i've recommended that they accept the changes uh requested from the coastal commission and i think it is a great outcome to the extent that uh we can continue to work with the bludgets on that one on their one property and the depot hill residents without it holding up the whole code um so that was the first update so hopefully next weekend the next week the city council is going to review that the second update is our sp2 grant recently we gave you an update on the new standards that we'll be looking at for multifamily the objective design standards in the second portion of the sp2 grant is ad use um so we're going to be creating ad you guidance documents as well as prototype ad use and matt orbok has been working uh has been managing this project next week the city council is going to be considering entering into a contract with a local architect named workbench and so that will be considered and then we'll be moving forward with that project and we're um we're planning on utilizing the planning commission as the design review board for the prototype ad use so you'll be seeing that project coming to you regularly with updates and uh helping us with the decision making on designs as we move forward um and lastly um the iho our our inclusionary housing ordinance you'll recall last year we were working on our inclusionary housing ordinance trying to um update it and then we had a lot of other things that stepped in the way and this is city council review of the inclusionary housing ordinance uh at our not next week's meeting but the um the meeting at the end of may i'll be giving an overview of the iho and i plan to bring that also to planning commission at our next meeting to give you an update on the changes to the inclusionary housing ordinance and we also do have a third party working on that uh for the nexus study so re-evaluating the fees that we charge for our in-laws so i'm kind of i'm calling 2021 our year of focusing on affordable housing with between the sp2 grant um this we've got a leap grant that's active working on this iho update and a couple great projects towards affordable housing so um and hoping to get to the tree ordinance by 2022 but let us know where you're going to where you're going to build this affordable housing where would you find that land we're looking we're looking so um so you know exciting projects that i think will have a great great outcome i'm really excited about the adu prototypes and matt's work on that so that's my update for this evening great thank you katie any uh commissioners reports i don't have a report i just have one comment i would like to say in my particular neighborhood we've had several people recently put in generator systems that come on automatically when the power goes out and since we all live so close together it's become a bit of a noise issue so i was wondering if at some point katie or the building official could come back and tell us you know what's sort of required to put in these generators and if there's any way we can at least have some minimum noise standard for them or have them do some noise insulation i can do that so that's my comment yeah i think you have to don't you have to run them once a month for maintenance i believe you too yeah and i understand you know why people want them and need them it just seems like we could perhaps do a little better job so they don't become a neighborhood problem okay thank you susan anyone else do they require a planning permit but i don't think so i think they only require a building permit that's correct and i don't think we have any jurisdiction over that yet we just look at them to see if they're in the setbacks and that's about it but we can take a look and see if we could have some oversight i think other cities do have some noise limits and insulation noise installation requirements but that's a city council matter not a planning commission item but we can recommend to them yeah okay thank you susan anything else from anyone last chance very nothing we'll adjourn the meeting to our next meeting in june thank you katie thank you everyone thank you goodbye