 Planning commission meeting and with that we'll do a roll call. Commissioner Roode. Commissioner Newman. Commissioner Christensen. Commissioner Wilk. And Chair Welch. We'll do the Pledge of Allegiance now. Okay thank you. This meeting is cable cast live on charter communications cable TV channel eight and 18 to you verse channel 99 is also being recorded to be replayed the following Monday and Friday at 1pm on charter channel 71 and Comcast channel 25 meetings can also be viewed from the city's website at www city of capitol.org. Our technician tonight is I'm not sure Kingston. I'm sorry. Who was it? It's Kingston. Oh Kingston. Okay. So King's was back there taking care of us tonight. And as a reminder if you have your cell phones would you mind just put them on silence and if you come in to speak there's a little sign in sheet so we can have your name for our minutes. So with that we're going to go to oral communications any additions or deletions to the agenda. Yes this evening we'll be deleting item 5B from the agenda. This is 41 99 Clairs Street. And I just want to give you a little background on this within a condominium when you have four or less units it actually has to be reviewed as a minor land division. So there was an error in our noticing and we'll be re noticing it and that will be re noticing it for the sorry October 17th special hearing. So that's two weeks away and we've let the applicant know today. This all came to light today. So I apologize for the late lateness of this and so it's not a continuation. We're just asking it to be deleted so that we can re notice it correctly and under the technical terms that it needs to be noticed under. Very good. Always learn something. Is that all you have? What's that all you have for additions and deletions? That's it for the agenda. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody here that came for that item tonight? Oh, I guess we won't have to worry about that. Well, this is public comment time and the public comment period here is for items that are not on tonight's agenda and we'll give you a few minutes to speak if there's anyone that would like to speak on any item, not on our agenda. Okay, not seeing me. I'll bring it back and we'll any commissioner comments. Staff comments. I would like to mention that we've added two special meetings to the agenda for the information of anyone listening at home. The first will be on October 17th in two weeks. The next will be on November 21st and we're doing this because the Capitol Amal redevelopment plan has come in and that will be heard on the as a conceptual review item on November 7th. So the extra meetings are to take care of our regular applications and keep them moving through the process. So October 17th is a special meeting with regular agenda items. November 7th will be the conceptual review for the mall and November 21st will be a special meeting for regular items. Thank you. Okay, very good. So now that I was under the impression we're going to do the mall on the 17th. So that would be regular agenda items, including the Claire street. And then on the 7th we'll do the mall conceptual and over November 21st would be another special meeting for catch up items. Things on our agenda. Okay. Exactly. Yeah. And the city council here, the conceptual review for the mall on November 14th. Very good. Okay. With that, we'll move to approval of minutes from September 5th. I have a couple of directions or proposed changes. Of course. These have to do with the hot elevation. I don't have it in front of me, but I think I remember the hot elevation studios. The first was on my comments, it says I was confused by the Kimberly Horne report. That may have been me. I'm all of them. Yeah. Now that's right. The chairman was confused. I was quite clear and quite skeptical and I was trying to be polite. I think the report, I mean, just to be clear, I think the report was complete gibberish and should not be relied on by anyone. And I hope if they do further reports that they have better assumptions and better logic. So if you could just change the confused to skeptical, that would be great. Of course. And secondly, the condition that I requested was that the applicant used reasonable efforts to assure that the patrons did not park in the neighboring property. And what the condition now reads is that the applicant will use reasonable efforts to see that the patrons park in the parking lot. Now that's not, I mean, they don't have to park in the parking lot. They can park at home or they could park in Turlock. But the point is that they don't park in the neighbors. Robert, you got it. OK, those changes are acceptable then. Oh, yeah, I'm playing. I mean, so with those changes, we have a motion and I'll move approval with those changes in a second. Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. And that passes. Okay, so that moves us to our consent calendar. And tonight we have two items on the consent calendar. 523 Riverview and 4025 Brommer Street assigned to be approved. So consent calendar items are a motion that carries for all items under the consent calendar. So and that's for someone that would like to discuss an item or pull it off. Do we have any? This seems to be my night for issues. Okay. I do have, I would like to discuss Brommer Street. Okay. So we'll go ahead and do a staff review. I think it'll be helpful for what happens. Okay. Good evening, Planning Commission and Chair Welch. The application is a proposal for a new projecting sign, window sign and directional sign at the timberworks building located at 4025 Brommer Street in the community commercial zoning district. New projecting signs require Planning Commission approval inside the coastal zone. The applicant, sorry, the relative locations of the proposed signs can be seen here. The window sign is on the doorway. The applicant is proposing a projecting sign suspended over the front entryway. The sign faces Brommer Street in the community commercial zoning district. A projecting sign may not exceed 16 square feet an area. The proposed sign is approximately one square foot. The sign includes the timberworks logo and is made of wood with raised lettering and a thin metal border. In addition to them, to the projecting sign, the applicant is also proposing a window sign and a directional sign, which do not require Planning Commission approval. Capital municipal code requires an administrative window sign have an area less than 25% of the total window area. The total area of the window is 12 and a half square feet. The sign area is approximately two and a half square feet. The sign has a white decal with the company logo and business information. The applicant is also proposing a directional sign over the driveway. The sign has two sections. The top shows the company logo and name and the lower section states parking in rear. The design and materials of the upper section are identical to the front projecting sign. Capital and municipal code states that on site directional signs are permit exempt as long as they guide traffic and parking on private property and bear no advertising matter and have a display area of less than six square feet. The total sign area for both sections is less than one and a half square feet. Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and approve the sign application based on the conditions and findings. Thanks, Sean. Okay, then I'll need questions for staff. No. And the applicant is not here. So anybody from the public like to ask questions, then I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission. You're all wondering what my issue is. Okay. So first let me say it. I mean, I voted in favor of this project. I think it's a great project. I actually like the signs a lot. The concern I have and I thought I would be interested in discussion from the commission is the directional sign because I think it's a real stretch. It's basically the same as their front sign and you don't really need to have the, I think the reason for it was that they wanted to know that this was where people who were going to timberworks could park. I mean, I think that's a real stretch and I think I'm only concerned about, I think it's a great sign looking, but I'm concerned about the precedent that directional signs become additional business signs, which is what this really is. So put it up there and take a look and see what I mean. Yeah, I'm kind of familiar with this. I've had some discussion about it. There are, and I guess the question comes back. Is it, and I had this discussion with Katie about this. Is it, is it an advertisement or is it the business? It's, and what is advertisement? So if you look at the Depot Inn, Depot Inn, Parking, Gales Bakery, Gales Bakery Parking, Nob Hill Parking, all these malls use the same, their name and not, now Depot Inn is very much through the way they do their logo. So it's like, it's a border. I guess for me, when I was looking at it, it's not like, I mean, that's a very small sign. It's not like an advertisement on a wall that you're going to drive by and really see it. So, yeah, I understand what you're saying. I didn't really see the issue. I saw it as being a, just recognizing that it's for timber works. And I know one of the concerns I talked to the applicant about it was they have the O'Neill sales there and they have to hire people to keep people out of their parking lots, just to make sure that it was recognized for timber works. But the applicant signed it, I guess, to share his view. So you're saying it's really not a precedent that there are plenty of other examples throughout the community where? All over the place, yeah, that has the name of the business, even like Depot Hill Inn is a logo of their own logo that says Parking Area. You still think that's a precedent? Because the parking in rear is such small letters or? Yeah, I think it's a stretch. I think it's a, I mean, if we want to allow everyone to do that, everyone can have another sign because there's always going to be some where that they can direct people at the little bottom of their sign. Well, but I thought TJ just said this is not setting precedent at all, and that there are plenty of other businesses that do exactly that. So, yeah, I mean, I don't know if that's the case or not. I haven't really looked at the other ones. Well, I think they're even over the trestle. It says the same thing, parking for trestle businesses. I know I drove around and I looked around and and and actually it was a city stance of this when we were looking at it. So I don't know, I just, I just think there's a lot of businesses who have the same type of signs out there that and for one square foot sign, it's not like truly to me, advertising, you have to really be looking to know if it's, but it's a nice sign. That's just a perspective I have. The next one might not be. And how do we tell the next person who comes in with not such a nice sign that has a big logo in turn at the bottom says some directional thing, right? Bathroom this way. Maybe we need staff to develop some guidelines. Would you like it refined to be text only? So no, no logo, but just all on one sign to say Timberworks in the same font that it says parking in rear. Would that satisfy? I think that would be less of a stretch. Yeah, I mean the intent here is it seems to be pretty obvious. And so if it were less obvious, if it were more like a genuine directional sign, I would be happier with it. But I say, it happens to be one of the nicest signs around. That's the problem I have. Aren't they allowed one directional, I mean, marquee with they have a wall sign and marquee sign as well? I would have a projecting sign, which is the other one's considered projecting. So this one couldn't be a second projecting. Yeah, so in that the projecting sign is another one that this is a troubling thing. So even like on your building, you have the same sign hanging over. And those is the things from the the being above. Yeah, so it's not attached to the wall. So because of that, it's called a projecting sign. Is it as if it was attached to the wall, then the front sign that hangs over the porch is not considered a projecting sign. So it's a quandary of how picky do we get over two feet of signs? You know, it's not it's not like it's a big deal. So if there was a brace instead of that hanging, it was mounted on a brace across the awning, that would not be a projecting sign. Correct. Yeah, there's a lot of time we spend talking about signs in our new zoning code. And there is a difference with our new code, right? Because this one happens to be inside the coastal area. That's mistaken. That's correct. This one's inside the coastal area. So the new code does not apply. It's the old code. Yeah. So I don't want to be too dead to our sense. Yeah, I'm sympathetic in the sense that if it truly is a precedent, then yeah, we don't want to, you know, I understand the issue of the next guy coming in. But I guess I haven't, I kind of just really didn't study this issue. And so, you know, I guess I'd want to see the examples that were you saying it is a precedent, in which case, okay, we're just doing another one, as opposed to, no, this is setting a real precedent. I mean, is it just a question of, like Matt was saying, font or the small size of the right, no part of the parking? Is it, you know, where, where exactly is the precedent being set? So in the examples that were given, I know, I think Gales probably has a sign, a master sign program for that. And we can look this up. So I hate to just pull up the Gales example, because we need to know what the permit says behind that. You thought you could pull up the depot we'll heal in from the street view? Yeah. And that's. Because they don't have a master sign program, but it's really hard to just look at something and say whether or not it's actually has a valid permit behind it to say that we're setting precedence. So I would want to do the research and because they may have put up an illegal sign, that's the other thing. I know, like, within the mall, there's wayfinding signs that definitely have, like, the target logo, but that it's been approved through a master sign application. So if they were to submit a master sign application to get this approved, that would be another way around it. You know, if I think another way to go about it was Matt's suggestion of if you didn't, if you didn't want the logo there and it's just directing Timberworks parking in rear, then I could see that that's no longer, it couldn't be thought of as advertising. It's just plain font. But if you'd rather it be the dressed up sign that says Timberworks parking in rear, then that's what you have here. So. Well, what's the flavor of the group? Do we just want to take a vote and see if we have a consensus or? I think in the absence of any specific guidelines, I can support it. I think it's an aesthetically pleasing sign. It adds to the building rather than detracts from it. Okay, then I guess I'll just call for a motion then and see where it goes. I move approval. I second. We have a motion, second. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? No. I'll show you some support. Okay, so let's do a roll call. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Newman. No. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Wilk. No. Chair Welch. Aye. Thank you. It's a good discussion though. Okay, thank you. That was a good discussion. So now we'll move to, I guess on the consent calendar, we sell one item. That's for the continuation of Riverview, item eight. So do I have a motion to continue that item? Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, you got something? Was that a vote on both items for the consent calendar? Oh, I think that was just to say that I'm sorry. Yeah, just for B. Yeah. Thank you. So do I move continuation of A? Yes. So moved. Second? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay, those opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Now it's a difficult consent calendar. For someone that's supposed to be so easy. Okay, so we'll move to public hearings. This is item A, 1850, 41st Avenue. So we'll ask for a staff report. All right, thank you, Chair Welch, commissioners. Tonight before you, we have the first retail cannabis license coming through for its conditional use permit. So it's 1850, 41st Avenue. Afghan is proposing to convert 3,945 square feet of professional office space into a retail cannabis establishment within the regional commercial zoning district. Project includes, as I mentioned, a conditional use permit for the change of use to a retail cannabis business, a design permit for exterior modifications to the structure and a sign permit. The existing structure at this address is one story along 41st Avenue, which is previously the H&R Block building, as you can see here, and two stories at the rear of the building. There are two suites upstairs with separate businesses that will not be affected by this project. The lot is surrounded by one and two-story commercial structures and an electric substation, which is on the right of this photo here, and is across the street from the main entrance to the Capitola Mall. This is the proposed site plan with the building outline in blue and the lot line in red. Should probably point out that the entire parking lot behind them is not theirs. The only parking that is for the site is what's outlined in red here. So I believe the parking in back is for the sports bar, dollar tree, the other buildings to the left. With the addition of the retail cannabis business, the uses occupying the 5,398 square foot structure are required to have 16 on-site parking spaces and there are 20 parking spaces provided on the site, shown here in green. So for a little background on the retail cannabis license, on May 28th, 2019, the proposed retail cannabis business, the Apothecarium, was one of the two businesses selected as potential retail cannabis license holders. Potential retail cannabis license holders have six months to obtain a conditional use permit from the planning mission for a specific location and appropriate state licenses. Once the business has an approved CUP and appropriate state licenses, the retail cannabis license will be issued. However, if potential retail cannabis license holders are unable to obtain either of those requirements, the selection will expire immediately and the retail cannabis license will be made available and publicly noticed. Under the Capitol Municipal Code, retail cannabis businesses in this district have to be in this district and require a conditional use permit. In order for the planning commission to approve a CUP for a retail cannabis establishment, the project must meet certain standards related to the distance from schools and churches, distance between cannabis establishments, not really an issue here because it's the first one, independent access and signs, which will be covered on another slide. The proposed project complies with all of those standards. In terms of the design permit, the applicant is proposing to remodel the front portion of the building, removing the existing first-story roof and covered walkway around the west and south elevations and adding a parapet wall and covered entryway. The parapet wall extends to a height of 16 feet two inches from existing grade. Proposed remodel will include new horizontal siding on the one-story front section of the building with awnings above the windows. The shingles on the roof and paint on the stucco siding of the two-story rear portion of the building will be upgraded to complement the color and style of the remodeled front portion of the building. So here's the existing and proposed front elevation, the existing and proposed south elevation, east elevation, which stays pretty much the same, that's the rear, and then the north elevation. So this is, you really can't see the side much from any angle unless you're standing back there. We don't usually go over the floor plans too much, but because this is the first retail cannabis business and we did have some questions about the interior layout, I figured I would do a little call out here and just show you, I pulled out the front, front of house section here on the right, outlined in blue, just to show the counter areas, the seating areas, the check-in counter right up front where you have to check into the business. If you have any questions related to that, you can revisit that later. And then for those of you who may not have ever been in a retail cannabis establishment, I pulled some examples of other apothecary locations. I believe this is San Francisco and Castro, just to show you an example of what the interior might look like, very open, clean. They do have seating areas. In general, cannabis establishments don't have any smoking or anything inside. They're very clean, professional, well-lit places. In addition, I mentioned they have a sign permit. They are proposing one 14-square-foot wall sign with the words the apothecarium on the building frontage facing 41st Avenue. The sign is eight feet wide by one foot nine inches high, made of powder-coated metal lettering and linework pin-mounted on the wall and it's illuminated by a down-directed light above it. The sign complies with all the standards for retail cannabis establishments. I wanted to add one additional condition just because there's an existing monument sign out front for H in our block that would not be allowed with the other signs, in particular with the cannabis sign because they can only have one. So if you're to approve this project, I would recommend adding a condition just to make sure that the monument sign is in fact removed before the business opens. So with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission review and approve application 19-0408, subject to the conditions of approval and based on the findings. All right, thank you, man. Any questions of staff? I have a vague recollection that when the ordinance went through, there was something about the green cross. There is, do you have this? It's the one logo you're allowed to have. It's allowed, but you don't have to have it. They're not proposing it. The one logo related to cannabis that you're allowed to have. Are there any extra security measures required for the building itself? So within the license itself, which will be issued by the police department, there'll definitely be a security plan that's required and reviewed by our chief of police. And that's not part of the purview of the conditional use permit. We've kept that separate so that the police chief. Yeah, I talked to a chief and manist about the project and he's visited the other, or some of the staff have. And so he's totally on board with the business. He's got a good reputation and he's okay with the process. We do have representatives here tonight that you'd like to ask them any questions as well. Yes, well, any more questions for staff? Okay, so we have the applicant here. Would you like to speak or? Since it's a short agenda, I'll keep my remarks brief. My name's Scott Hawkins. I work with the Apothecarium. I live in the Bay Area though, was a two decade long resident of Santa Cruz County. So I'm quite familiar with the Capitola and the need to maintain the city's brand. And we've tried to, in the course of creating our, both application and our marking plan to abide by and conform to the city's expectations and work closely with all the stakeholders, especially Chief McManus and his staff. We've been in contact with them. They visited actually Captain Daly and Detective Sargent. Slomo visited our Castro district, our Market Street site last week and they were well-received and they were quite impressed. And one condition of receiving the final license is final approval by either Captain Daly or Chief McManus of our security plan, which they reviewed as part of the application process. But we've tweaked it to reflect a few concerns that actually Detective Sargent, Slomo had and around lighting in the back, he wanted the angle to be directed towards the rear receiving door in a different fashion. And we expect to receive that in the next few weeks. That is the final license. Very good. Any questions for Mr. Hawkins? Yes, just quickly, do you have a problem with the added condition of removing the monument sign? Not at all. We think it does not belong there. And plus it's not allowed by the statue. Great. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak on this topic? Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the planning commission for discussion. This ownership, this company seems very, like a really good choice for our community and going into this new field. Ownerships can change and sometimes you have one company and suddenly there's another company there that can be more of a problem. So I just wanna make sure that we have strong conditions as far as revocation or if there's a problem with a different ownership down the road. Is the permit by the specific owner? So within our licensing criteria of chapter 5.23, I think it is, it specifies like what the requirements are for them to change ownership and what the review process is through the police department. Any other? I just like to thank the applicant for investing in our community. I was gonna say the same. I like what you've done with the building, taking the hat off the perimeter of the face of the building. I agree, I did a little research on your company and it has a great name behind it. Matt posted some pictures. It was really, I was actually shocked to see that it looked that nice inside of a, not never having been inside of a cannabis store before, but it looks very nice. So it looks like a very well-run company. I was a little bit involved watching the selection process which was quite of a lengthy process you went through just to be selected. We have like 13, 16 applicants, I think? 13, yeah. So congratulations. Okay, but there's no questions. I guess we'll entertain a motion. Move approval. Got approval. Is that with the condition? With the added condition that the monument sign will be removed. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Okay, congratulations. Welcome to Capitola. Good luck. So item B has been deleted and we can move to item C on 1649th Avenue. This is about appeal of a denial of the tree removal. So last for staff, staff report. Thank you. I think I am recused due to a proximity conflict. It's now called. I wasn't aware of that one. Is there anything coming up at the end of the agenda that I need to be back for? If you'd like, I could do a quick director's. Yeah, we could do that. If you don't mind, we're gonna, are you here for the 49th Avenue? We'll do a quick director's report because Commissioner Newman has to recuse himself. So I did most of them during staff communications about the changes and dates. I also circulated the 2020 calendar for next year. One change we would like to make is having the meeting in August occur on the third Thursday of the month because we typically take the second, we take the city council meeting, we remove it from the front end of the month and it would be really nice for vacation purposes to be consistent with city council and have both meetings at the end of the month. So we've got a, we have always had a late July meeting due to July 4th and we'd like to stay consistent in August as well. So this calendar will go to city council in November, I believe. So just wanted to check in and make sure everyone was okay with that prior to moving forward with that. Shane. Excuse me, any issues? Thank you. Do you have any comments before you leave? Nope. Very good. Dominated milk, not you're ready today. That's okay. I expect the same with the Clare's Avenue, so. Okay, that will do us staff report. Thank you, Chair Welch. The application in front of you is for a appeal to remove a coastal redwood tree near an existing single family residence in the R1 single family residential zoning district. This evening, staff will describe the tree removal application process, present the appeal, and then can answer any planning commission questions. Next, the applicant will be given the opportunity to speak and answer any planning commission questions. The chair will then open the public portion of the hearing followed by planning commission discussion and then decision. So the tree scene here in between the two properties is it's in between 1600 49th Avenue and 4910 Capitola Road. It is on the property of 1600 49th Avenue though, excuse me. Most tree removal permits are reviewed and approved at the staff level. They begin with a preliminary review from public work staff who can approve the removal of a non-heritage tree only if the findings for removal contained within section 1212 180 can be made. If findings cannot be made, the application is transferred to planning staff for further review. The city may require the applicant to pay for an harvest under contract to the city to provide an arborist report for the tree. The community development director will then make a determination based on the findings. As noted in the staff report, the current appeal before you went to the required steps, the city received an appeal on May 28th, 2019. The tree proposed for removal is a coastal redwood located in the front yard of 1600 49th Avenue approximately five feet from the side property line. The tree is several feet in diameter at breast height with a large canopy. The lower canopy extends over the northwest corner of the Appalachian residents at 1600 49th Avenue. The canopy extends into the adjacent property at 4910 Capitol Road but is not over the residence. The tree is not a heritage tree and is not located in an environmentally sensitive habitat area. Seeing here are diagonal views of the properties that show the canopy extent in relation to the homes at 1600 49th Avenue and 4910 Capitol Road. You can see that they don't, on the left there does extend somewhat over the residence but on the right, or on the, yeah on the right it does not. In January 2019, the tree experienced a branch failure as shown above. The neighbor's home is seen on the left image and the Appalachian's residence is seen on the right. These are images provided by the applicant. Also in 2019 in March, the tree experienced a second branch failure as shown above. In order for either the community development director or the planning commission to approve the removal of a non-heritage tree, the same review process applies. At least one finding for removal must be made and there must be no feasible alternatives. These findings shown and staff responses will be addressed individually in the following slides. The first criterion considers the health or condition of the tree with respect to disease, infestation or danger of falling. Public work staff, the consulting arborist and the forester all considered the tree to be in good health. Although the branch tip damage from marine air was addressed by the forester and arborist, neither indicated that the damage was a concern to the overall tree health. Based on the assessment staff could not make a finding of removal from the tree health or condition of the tree. The second consideration is for safety. The arborist stated that the tree did not appear to have been pruned or managed in a manner that would decrease branch failure potential. He added that the maintenance pruning would address present safety considerations. Based on the ability to mitigate future risk of branch failure, staff could not make a finding of removal for the safety considerations. The third consideration for removal is for situations where a tree has caused or has the potential to cause unreasonable property damage and or interference with utility services. According to the arborist, the tree is not at risk for total failure or falling over. Concerns for potential property damage pertain to the loss of branches. As with the considerations for safety, these concerns can be addressed through the maintenance of pruning of branches. Based on the ability to mitigate future risk of branch failure, staff could not make a finding of removal for the tree that for a tree that has caused or has the potential to cause unreasonable property damage. The fourth consideration is that all possible and feasible alternatives to tree removal have been evaluated, including but not limited to undergrounding of utilities, selective root cutting, trimming, and relocation. The finding must be made in conjunction with one of the previous findings for removal based on the alternative described, sorry, for findings for removal. Based on the alternative described in the arborist report, staff could not make findings that no feasible alternatives exist and therefore denied their permit. Okay, any questions for staff, I think? So I guess we'll have the app. I've got a question on the staff, I'm sorry. So if this was a heritage tree, would that enable us to tap into tree fund, tree funds in order to help either maintain or mitigate the cost somehow of a heavy prune? I just, I don't know to what extent we have access, we as a planning commission can tap into the tree fund. You know, so we have the ability to utilize that fund to educate and to utilize to plant trees in other areas. I don't feel, I would need to research that more to see if we could actually use that fund to do the maintenance work on this. Because we use it for, I'm very park, Soquel Creek maintenance. So there, at least the city council has stretched the definition of what that could be used for in the past. And that is a public park in which we've used the funds to do cleanup and to maintain those trees and protect their health due to IV. This is different in that, you know, we typically don't utilize that fund towards individual property owners trees. It's something that could be considered, but I don't think we have that codified at this point that that fund can be utilized for this. Yeah, commissioner will bring up a good point I haven't thought about that, but the heritage tree program really is a voluntary program that the applicant would apply for. And I know I have one on my street and they've done some cabling to help hold it together, but I don't know who paid for the cabling. That would be an interesting now. Yeah, it seems to me that if, you know, we were to designate this heritage tree, then we could take some responsibility for it and hence, you know, help them out. Yeah, and again, I don't, we don't make a heritage tree, the owners do. So the applicant would apply and then we would do it and they would apply in order to get perhaps some funding and we would approve it and then we could go down that path, but it sounds like we haven't done that and we're blazing trails here trying to do something like that. Yeah, the ordinance is very clear that the funding can be utilized to create a brochure to educate people about to, about planting pruning and maintenance brochure and may provide technical assistance as fund becomes available in the community tree and forest management account. So it's talking about utilizing as a brochure, but not like providing the services of actually trimming trees. It is something we could look at to what extent we want to utilize that funding. Is that something the city council should weigh in on? If we were gonna make a decision on changing how funds are used, we would have to have the city council weigh in on that and have a policy behind it. Thank you. Okay, would the applicant like to come up and present your information? Thank you for letting us take the time this evening to discuss the coastal redwood that's in our front yard. We moved into the neighborhood in 2012. Sorry, this is Vicki Oliver. We live at 1649 in Capitola and I'm Michael Oliver. We weren't there very long when the neighbor and his wife came over and said, you gotta do something about this tree. These branches have been falling over long periods of time. You gotta do something, we don't feel safe. As you saw, no, it was not over their home, but it goes over their driveway. They pull into their yard, their trash cans are under the tree, any kind of wind, things are coming down. So we contacted the city in 2012. So you should have record. A city employee came out, said, well, it's a healthy tree. There's no reason for you to, for us to give you a permit to do anything to this tree. No. We said, fine. We contacted Lewis Tree Service. They came out with their arborist, Mike Hernandez, trying to minimize future branches coming down. The city's arborist who came out said, there was no record of any maintenance that had been done to the street. We were quite surprised at his findings. He never contacted us to see what have we done to the tree since being resident since 2012. He just assumed nothing had been done. Well, in fact, the tree was tipped. They did some thinning, but as you know, 25% on a tree that's 80 feet tall plus isn't a lot. But we felt like we had taken branches that were leaning on our roof lines and stuff. We took those up to minimize future damage. The tree was fine. We had many years of drought after that. Three years ago, we landscaped our whole front yard. We took up the lawn. We decided that the trees, a focal part on the one side of the house, everything's great. 2019 rolled around. We had storms. Winter came back to an area where we've had massive droughts. It was windy. The neighbors happened to go outside. Just to see they were standing and I think you have letters that they wrote to the city. We're within 10 feet of the branches starting to falling down. They texted me, I didn't get the text, but they're like, don't go outside. Don't let your dog outside. The tree is shedding huge limbs. You saw pictures of the limbs, but they're like 30 feet long and the diameter is seven to nine inches. These are bigger than trees that you would allow us to cut down without a permit. And they're falling out of the middle of the tree. They came out, not the lower branches. They were coming 40, 50 feet up, coming down. What happens is one branch comes down, it then hits another branch on its way down and it just keeps on going through the canopy of the tree. Several came down. Robert was kind enough to go ahead and clean it up. Looking up in the canopy, we could see that there were still branches hanging down over the sidewalk and such. I contacted the city department and saying, there's, it's shedding, it's shedding trees. There are branches that are now just hanging, waiting to come down over the sidewalk. They said, well, we'll send somebody out or you need to come in and do an application. I said, fine, we let some time go. My husband came back, he was out of town, came back into town, was doing some work and he hears this noise through the tree. Well, it sheds another five or six branches. It wasn't windy. It was a nice sunny day. Again, we called the city, they sent out, what is this, I am, Matt. Cotila, Cotila came out. He said, well, yeah, no, you gotta get an arborist out here. You gotta have somebody assess this tree. He wasn't gonna make a recommendation one way or another. We said, fine, we contacted people at Lewis Tree Service, they're like, no, we can't do that. It's a conflict of interest for us. We've worked on your tree. So by chance, we were at a friend's home and a gentleman, Mike. Janai. Janai. He said, well, I'm a registered forester. I live here in Live Oak. I've been doing this for 45 years for the Santa Cruz County. I'll come and take a look at your tree. He did, he came over, he looked at it, we weren't aware of it, he came back another time and my husband was home, Mike was home and he said, well, what do you, what is it you want from me? So we wanted this assessment of this tree. What's happening? Why are these huge branches falling down? And he said, well, I observed several things. Probably all the things that have been done to this tree has hindered it and made it less safe. The tree had been topped. I don't know who topped the tree. We never topped the tree. It's been fanned. He said, this tree has lived a really, really good life. It's a standalone redwood. I didn't have to compete with any other redwoods in a forest to grow them. It was on a front yard that had a lovely lawn. So all year long it got water and it just kept growing. I think Mr. Allen, the city's harvest and Mike both conferred that these branches are long and large and Mike feels that that's probably because it's been on the front yard and it got more water than it should have. If the tree had been left to just grow naturally, it would have had a lot of branches within it. By thinning out the branches in this tree, it has no support on some of these. So what happened on that night was one came down and as I've already told you, one came down and another one came down because there was nothing supporting these 30 feet long branches that are weighing 200, 250 pounds. It's huge. The tree is massive. In the three incidents of this year we probably lost 18 to 20 branches. We have huge openings in the canopy of the tree now. There's no tipping a branch. There's no way that we're going to lighten, even that the winds come back again offshore like they did this last year that these branches are gonna be able to support themselves. Basically Mike's assessment is that it is no longer a neighborhood tree. When a tree shards to shed branches, the size of trees over neighbor's yards, over sidewalks, it's just a matter of time that somebody gets hurt or injured because of this tree. Mr. Allen was kind enough to come out. He looked at the tree. I don't know what tree he looked at because as he said he couldn't see any signs of any maintenance that had been done to the tree to eliminate the branches falling, which I've already indicated. Well, we've done lots to the tree. We did something to the tree in 2012 and others before us have done maintenance to the tree. In his packet he said, well here are three trees in the area that we feel that if you do the same thing that has been done to these trees, this tree could be safe. These were all located in Santa Cruz, the city of Santa Cruz. I took the time on a Saturday morning to go find these trees. Took me a little while, but I found them. They're all located very close to highway one at the far end of downtown and a couple of the neighborhoods. The trees he suggested that had been tipped and he felt like they would live for generations, were considerably smaller than the tree that's in our front yard. They are four to five times further away from the ocean than our tree. They've got buildings that are blocking the wind. And his recommendation that just by tipping at our tree is be gonna become safe. And our neighbors are gonna be able to go outside if it's windy and be able to walk around. He talks about risk. Every tree has a level of risk. That's probably true. I agree with that. But I think you have to look at the individual tree as it stands. If the branches are 30 to 40 feet long and they're no longer supported, what's a tolerable risk? We tipped it in 2012. It was great, it was fine, there was no problems. I read in my yard, I said, no, it's gonna be the focal point of the side yard. And we finally get some storms come through in 2019. And it's back to shatty large branches again. Is that tolerable risk? Is that okay? I don't know. Although it would take as somebody, as I said, several branches came down in the middle of the day. People could have been walking on the sidewalk and one could have hit somewhere and it would have killed them. We have in the size of these branches coming from the canopy being 40 to 80 feet tall. It's a beautiful tree. I wish it could live for generations. But it's not up in the mountains. It's not in a forest. It was allowed to, it's questionable. The arborist feels that it was, it's native there. Well, all the research that we did that said, no, redwoods don't wanna be by the ocean. They're not gonna be on the coastal bluffs with the winds. Well, that's where this tree is. And Mr. Allen says, the only way that you can totally eliminate the risk is to remove the tree. And that's what we're asking to have it done. Because I don't think that tipping the branches on things that are 30, 40 feet long are going to lighten the branches enough that we can safely say to our neighbors, well, you don't have to worry about the tree anymore. Yeah, I think that what you should get from my wife's very eloquent talk about what our tree is to us is that we're not doing this because we wanna take the tree down. We're doing it out of a moral responsibility we feel to the community, to our neighbors who we enjoy and like. Yeah, we do wish the tree was in a place where we could keep it. But you really do have to understand, Robert and I were talking today, our neighbor, probably the median diameter of these branches is 10 inches. 10 inches, median. There are 14 inch branches out there. There's, the median is 10 inches and they do extend a long way. Sure, you can tip them. Maybe they're fine, maybe they're not. But I personally believe that probably global change is occurring. I think that the storm that came this last year, these storms and one of them wasn't even significant. I mean, it was in the middle of the day with a little wind, took down branches. They're gonna get stronger. They're not getting weaker. All the scientific data indicates these storms are getting stronger, not weaker. So you're saying, okay, we can tip it and then with stronger winds, it's gonna do what? They'll do the same thing. It's gonna break these branches. It is, it's just true. And lastly, I wanna talk about Mike Jenai. We did not know Mike. He was a completely neutral party. He has no interest in it. Yes, he's a forester. Happens to be a chief forester of 440,000 acres of redwood trees in California out of the 800,000 acres here. Over half he controls. He forests, he manages. He's not, he's on the state board of forestry appointed by Brown and this guy is not some guy that is our friend that said, do this. We said, he said, what do you want? We want an honest evaluation of our tree with your experience. Well, he has a lot of redwood tree experiences, turns out. We didn't know it initially. No idea. He said he was a registered professional forester. Well, I personally, after reading the evaluation from the city arborist and, and Mike's, I believe Mike more than his. I believe Mr. Jenai's more than Mr. Allen's. I think Mr. Allen has a very strongly held belief about preservation. It's on his letterhead. I don't disagree with it generally. We've managed, our families managed forests, thousands of acres of forest for over 80 years. I understand it completely. But I think that his bias is just, it's come through and he did a very shoddy job, honestly. Didn't do a lot of work on this tree. Didn't come see us for history. That's probably a process issue. Yeah, so I think they're under 12, 12, 1, 8, whatever it is in the community forestry thing. I think that they're findings for, for it being unsafe. And it has caused property damage, so. Okay. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Oliver. Any questions for them? I just have one. If you were confident that a maintenance plan could remedy the problems of the tree, would you want to keep it? I don't know what maintenance, they're saying tipping. So a 30, 35, 40 foot branch. How much are you going to take? Half of it? We debated about bringing a tree limb in here. And it would be across here. No, seriously, we did. And then have someone tell us how much you're gonna take from this tree limb. Because you know, redwoods are pretty big and they need the photosynthetic capability of those needles that they have, right? That's their energy. I've seen that tree grow. I've walked past it a thousand times because I just live for a corner of the street. So I think to answer your question, Mick, I mean, I would say that if, and I think there should be a process in the city where if it's a community asset, it's a private property, but everyone says it's a community asset. I believe if there was a policy that where someone came to you about a safety of a tree and the city wanted to keep it, that you have an insurance policy and we could sell it to you for a dollar. And then you guys could take the liability. I mean, I could probably be financially ruined by this tree. I mean, literally. I mean, I can think of a scenario, not too hard of one. Someone's walking by, limb comes down. These are, my wife said two to 250 pounds. I think that's probably the first eight feet of them. Yeah, so if you're asking me, asking us, I think if there was some guarantee, but there's no guarantee. That's the problem. And I will tell you, whatever has been done to this tree has hurt it. And I don't believe taking 40% of the photosynthetic material off this tree is gonna make it stronger. I just don't. And no one can explain why those trees dropped, why those limbs dropped on a pretty light day of wind in a sunny, sunny afternoon. So, yeah. And we're here for, you know, we're really not in that kind of danger. Our house isn't in danger. He's in danger. The destines are in danger. And we feel a moral obligation to do this. Yeah. Any other questions for Mr. Mussolver? I just have one quick. So you said you had this tipped once before in 2012. How did you, how did they actually do that? And did they have a boom that could get around? Or they climbed and they went out. They climbed, roped out, tipped it all. Yeah, that's pretty, pretty crazy, okay. It was only like $2,000. And we're not even worried about the cost. So like, I'm sorry, Mr. Wolfe, you've brought up the notion of as a heritage tree. I looked in the budget today to see if there's actually an account or a fund that's supposed to be funded by the community forestry thing. I couldn't see one in the budget. I read 141 pages. I did not see that line. So I don't know if it exists or not. So, but to answer your question, I don't know if I'd go into the heritage route unless the city accepted the liability for it. And we gave it to you. I mean, I'd give it to you for a dollar. If you want to take liability, there should be an insurance policy probably, and a process in place where someone could deed you a tree. Sell it to you for a dollar and then you take liability. I think it's awfully hard to ask an individual to take on this liability, especially when the liability really is friends and people walking by. I just, I couldn't live with myself. Very good. Okay, so I think if there's no more questions, we'll bring it back to the commission and have a discussion. I have a question. I don't. Okay. Of the Oliver's? Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry, Steph. Okay, you're. Thanks. We have others that may want to talk out when they come up. Would you like to speak before we bring it back? I'm sorry. If you do come up to the, so you're on live TV and we can record everything. My name is Robert Briganti. I'm their neighbor. I live at 4910, Capsula Road. I've lived there since 2009. And we've, before Mike and Vicki bought the house, we had problems with trees falling, or not trees, but branches falling out of the redwood. And it's only gotten worse with the storms. And it seems like the more branches that fall, it creates more room in the tree for more branches to fall out of it. And like they said, these branches are quite significant. They're coming out. It's not like, you know, your lemon tree where you lose a branch, right? Yesterday I went to take out the garbage and a branch that was about two inch diameter and about eight feet long dropped right in front of me. So it's, yeah, it's not very, when the wind's blowing, you don't want to be walking around in the yard. Great. Like they said, they do fall onto the sidewalk into their backyard, into my front yard. That's, yeah. If there was a way, it is a nice tree, I wouldn't, if it wasn't shedding branches like this, I would like to see it stay. But like they said, there's no real way to know, because they have done the true work and had it tipped and the skirt lifted that should have fixed the problem. And it didn't. So if they do follow the recommendations and more branches come down, I don't know what to think about that. Very good. Any questions? Okay, thanks, sir. Okay. So I'll bring him, who wants to start off? I'll start. I think you make a very compelling argument on, that's on one hand, I'm torn on this one. On the other hand, we have the staff report to deny, and I know there's just going to be a huge outcry from the Jewelbrock's neighborhood if this tree goes down because it's such a landmark tree. And I've lived up there for 50 years and I'm pretty familiar with the wind patterns on 49th Avenue faces due south. When we have a good storm, the wind blows out of the south and it comes and funnels its way up right up 49th Avenue. So that tree is subjected to a lot of storm impact. So I'm just sitting on the fence on this one. I don't know what I'm going to do. I just want to hear from everybody else. I've got an opinion. So my wife actually works for an arborist so I get some free advice sometimes. And although nothing official, you mentioned that this tree was not properly maintained. The crown was topped, which is not the proper way of maintaining a tree. And I also know that there are good pruners and bad pruners within the arborist community. And it seems like this tree hasn't had the benefit of a good pruner. In terms of cost, it's going to be cheaper to heavily prune a tree rather than remove it. Go ahead. Okay, I'll accept that. But the notion of a heavy prune would seem to be not only recommended by staff, but seemed to be confirmed by my informal second reference. So I'm leaning towards just treating this tree properly, give it a very heavy prune and agree with staff recommendations. Okay, Courtney. I'm wondering how did staff determine that the, I mean, considering the pictures of the limbs coming down, how that wasn't a safety consideration? So, Sean, could you bring up the slide with all the considerations that are required? So when you're reviewing a permit, you have to make one of the findings within the top three. And you always have to make the second finding that all possible and feasible alternatives to tree removal have been evaluated. So that's where, after reading the report, I think it was stated that there is a risk with property damage. However, we couldn't make finding two of all possible and feasible alternatives to tree removal have been evaluated or could be taken. So that's where the decision came was under that second criteria. There's no denying that there's not a risk right now, but that it could be mitigated through proper maintenance. And their previous attempts haven't been considered. Is that haven't been included in the report with the Lewis Tree Service coming out prior in 2000? So the previous work that was done on the tree, we didn't have that the previous analysis. And I can lean on Sean Moore to respond to that. All I can say there is that the arborist agreed with Mr. Johnny's findings that there had been pruning in the past and that it had increased the risk of branch failure. So he did seem to indicate that he saw that there had been work being done. And he did also recognize that topping seemed to have occurred as well. I guess in my opinion, it seems to me that the mitigation that they've performed on the tree has not remedied the safety concerns. And I mean, it seems that the community involved around the tree wants a solution. I just, I see it as a safety concern. I see it as something, there's obvious large concern. So isn't there a safety concern with any large ridwood tree? I mean, maybe this is specific because the wind pattern, that's an interesting angle. If this tree is uniquely dangerous because it's exposed to severe winds as opposed to the other redwood trees in the neighborhoods, the Sequoia, Bondipo Hill. There's always a risk of those branches falling. But what I was guessing, and I'm not an arborist, but it was admitted that this tree was poorly maintained, that the pruning was not done properly. And my assumption was that if you got someone who really knew what they were doing and you allowed a very heavy prune, that that would be just as effective as getting it back to a standard risk of any tree. Along those same line of thought, I think Lewis Tree and most of these tree services, they just come out and they send some guys up in the trees and they hack out branches without really a plan for continued longevity and maintenance. They're just to knock out branches. I think if it were tackled under the direction of an arborist on site as they did that, then it could be done properly and that might eliminate the problem. So I'll jump in here now. I am also torn like Mick. I mean, it's a beautiful tree, it's a gorgeous tree. And I am empathetic, well, one, because I have a similar tree. It happens to be a fir tree in my backyard that's trunk. It's three different trunks have come out of the main trunk and it will come down at some point. They want $5,500 to remove it. The city person originally initially comes out, denied to have it removed. I sought an arborist to take a look at it. The arborist made a finding for it. But then I went and got a cost estimate and right now the limbs that are falling down, which aren't quite as big as your redwood falling on my roof, which by the way, one fell yesterday and it gets your attention every time it hits a roof. I just haven't made the determination to do it. So I'm very empathetic to the process. The city has this lengthy forest management thing due to some other issues that happen within the city. So we have a pretty healthy robust tree thing, but it doesn't really address all these issues. Now I'll tell you what has made me give it careful consideration and that's that you have, Mr. Jenai. I worked for a number of years with the Forest Service on wildland fires and I worked at length during wildland fires with individuals like Mr. Jenai. These are people who do this for a living. They're not arborist community, nothing against Mr. Allen, but it's a different perspective that you don't see. And contrary to what Mr. Wolk's talking about, the poor maintenance, he does say that this is gonna be a problem because of the prior process, regardless of who initially done whatever tree work was done that has caused this problem. But for me, I take Mr. Jenai at his word, not that I don't take Mr. Allen, but for every arborist you find that says you could take it out, you can find one, says leave it in. It's just one of those, you can get findings for either way. Mr. Jenai is not in any way, and I'm not saying that Mr. Allen has got a bias towards it, other than tree conservation is very strong for people and it's very strong in the city to the point that I think we even have a criminal portion of our policy that if you do that, my question is, when we approve to take out most trees that are not this large, you replace it with two trees, but what would be the finding for replacing a tree of this size? So the replacement is when you take out a tree, it's typically that you have to replant two trees. Correct. And for residential, it's a 15 gallon tree. For a commercial, it would be a 24 inch box tree. So, and we do have a list of recommended trees that do well in Capitola. So within this application, if you were to allow removal, you could condition it that it be replanted with one of the recommended trees for Capitola. And we have another issue on Depot Hill, some trees were planted, some sequoias that have outgrown the small lot that are on that we've recommended removal because of their size and damage. And although this isn't doing damage to your building, honestly, I wouldn't want to take the liability. I have those limbs shed out of my tree all the time and I accept that responsibility because it's going to go through my roof, which my interests will have to deal with. But on yours where it's over a sidewalk or over your neighbor's property, I personally wouldn't want to do that. So I'm leaning more towards allowing the removal, even though I'd hate to see such a beautiful tree cut down. And normally we don't do back and forth, but my question would be why would, do you have a plan for replacing the trees? And I'm sorry, if you come up. I'm doing this off the cuff, so my wife may not agree and she disagrees that. Well, I don't even know if you're allowed to talk, to be honest. No, no, I'm allowed to talk, she has the right to negate anything I say. Okay. I think we would do replacement of canopy. So if it takes three or four trees, we would probably put, I mean, it's a huge area there. And then our policy goes by, you know, the amount of canopy coverage, but I didn't know if you planned on just putting a large similar tree that would be. No, I don't think we would want to get in the same situation, but like we would hope that our kids have this house at some point maybe. So I wouldn't want them dealing with it, but I think we could definitely put coverage on it. It's probably be lower coverage, but definitely cover what's there now, in terms of canopy. Okay, thanks, sir. And can I, can I, okay. Yeah, we typically don't go back. I think we have good information. I think, any more discussion or thought? Anybody would like attempt at a motion? I'll move staff recommendation. Second. Do I have, who might as well go ahead and- Oh, do we want to discuss it a little bit more? We can, yeah. So I understand where you're coming from in terms of the liability, and yeah, who wants to have branches falling on there. I mean, I was, we were driving down the neighborhood street in the Bay Area, and there was this giant limb was all across the roof of this tree, again, a windy day. That's what happens with trees. So we could just say, you know, those 14 pages of ordinances that we have in our municipal code, we're just gonna throw that out and say, and we really don't care about trees here because, you know, they're too risky. But I see your point, this is a huge tree, and it may be, you know, what was planted, and people didn't think 30 years down the road of what the danger was gonna be. And yet we do have a lot of large trees. They do seem to be very valued by the community. So I just think that this tree can be saved with a very heavy prune, and you get a good arborist out there, and they can save it and greatly reduce the risk. Now, do I know that for a fact? No, I don't, I'm not an arborist. But that's what our arborist said could be done. So I'm gonna take him in his word, and I have that independent kind of reference that seems to back that up. So that's where I stand. Yeah, I guess where I'm really having trouble is if this was an arborist and an arborist, yes. But this Mr. Jenae, to me, is more than just a typical arborist. This is a guy who manages redwoods, and he identifies very specifically. I'm sure you read his letter, the issue. And his findings, I find not out of a bias towards the family or knowing anybody, but out of many years of experience from this specific type of tree. And if I, honestly, I think that then, and it sounds like you've paid to have that done before, I look at my own and I don't know how those guys would get out to thin the end of my, that are tipped into my tree, because it's just the branches aren't quite as thick. I'm leaning really heavily, I'll be honest on Mr. Jenae, and I, having worked with these individuals, these are gentlemen that who, these arborists are very experienced in this very specific thing. And again, not to take away from Mr. Allen, but it's just a different perspective. And even if Mr. Allen agreed, they're all in agreement here that there's a problem. He just thinks there's a mitigation that could be done. And looking back at the basis for removal, obviously it's a safety consideration. So for me, that's a win there. This number two part is all possible and feasible alternatives to tree removal have been evaluated. So we've had this evaluated. You have one arborist who says, tip it and it's gonna be fine. They've already done tipping in 2012, but yet the limbs keep coming out. In fact, the other arborists who has a specialty in this area is saying that may not that the tipping, but some of the other pruning may be the very reason this is a problem and he doesn't recommend that thinning is gonna be a solution. So to me, it's like a 50-50, it could go either way. And I felt this way from the beginning. I'm just putting more weight on the gentleman with more experience and with this type of tree. So that's kind of where I stand. So when I read this letter, and I'm reading it again now, is maybe I misinterpreted it. The impression I got was Mr. Jani indicated that this would, this was gonna continue to be a problem because it was topped and it was pruned properly. So yes, with the existing winds and winter storms, this will continue to be a problem and perhaps even accelerate it. But I didn't read in here anywhere that said, this tree can't be salvaged with a proper pruning activity. Well, I think by him stating that it, he recommended that it should be, it could be cut, is him stating that he doesn't see a way around stopping that process. That's the way I interpret it. But, so I guess we're at a point where, did you have something to say, Courtney? I feel that if they're the removal of the tree and in the interest of putting replacement trees in, it doesn't seem unreasonable to remedy the situation for the future. I mean, they're vested community members. It seems that, you know, solving their problem would be in the interest of... I hear Commissioner Ruse, he's gonna hear from his community, I guarantee it, we had to cut a large tree up in my neighborhood in the last few years and on Central and I mean, the whole neighborhood came out and that one was clear, it was so wrought by the time they got halfway cut through it had just broken too. But again, the community loves our trees and there's, so you would have to do a lot of... I'm just beginning to think if it's a toss up, which it sounds like it is for a lot of us, let's say we're on the side of preserving the tree and make every attempt to give it one winner and see what happens. And I'm sorry, we don't go back, I know you got something to say, but it's not the, it's... It's just the comments... I totally understand, we're empathetic, we understand the plight you have. And that's just, and maybe staff just for, you could tell what happens if we deny the, or we do staff recommendations to deny the appeal, what is the next, they can go to city council? They could appeal it to city council. Right, so... Right now there's a motion and a second. Yes. And then if there were a tie, the motion would die and then you'd do a new motion. That's the other, but yes, if it were... Because it's... If you were to uphold the recommendation and the current motion, then, and if that held, then there would be... And there, is there an appeal fee to go to the city council as well? There is. So, one of the things perhaps that if we could... So the question seems to be, can the tree be saved with a pruning or not? And you indicate that Mr. Janney says, no, I didn't read that in his letter, so I'm wondering if there's a way we could actually get a third opinion and see, hey, given this tree, we wanna save it. You may have to trim the heck out of it. Can you save it with a heavy, heavy prune and get an expert arborist out there to do that? And maybe that would tell the answer. It's like, okay, no, this tree, this is gonna be because of the prevailing winds and because it's been too healthy for too long, it can't be salvaged. I didn't get that from these letters, so if I had that information, then I would vote to take it down, but I don't get a sense that this tree can't be saved. Okay, so I guess we can just do a roll call vote and see what happens. Commissioner Ruth. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. No. Commissioner Wilk. Aye. Chair Welch. No. Okay, so it's a tie. So I don't think there's gonna be any, we could try another attempt at this, but I don't think there's gonna be much movement, so. Well, that's what I was thinking in terms of maybe there could be a motion to request another evaluation. Third opinion? Third opinion, I don't know if that's something we could require or ask staff to do or just send it on to the city council and since there'll be five of them. Yeah, this is a problem with only four of us here because Commissioner Newman had to recuse himself. We can, anybody want to take a stab at us? Another motion? Whitley to consider another arborist opinion. Okay. Can I ask staff some recommendations on maybe how to state a motion? So if we wanted to request another opinion, would we specify the arborist? Would we, who would pay for it? How would we, what's a good way of asking for that? So you could continue the appeal to a future date and you could request that staff hire a third party arborist to come in and review the two reports, review the tree and give a recommendation based on our criteria. We'd want to make sure it's an arborist that really hasn't worked within the city of Capitola. I think it'd be really fair to find someone who's outside of the city that we haven't worked with before, that the owner hasn't worked with before and in hiring them make sure that they realize that this is just the planning commission wants a third opinion on this and we'd make sure to not, neither party should have any influence on the arborist, which is what we do regardless when we have a third opinion, but I think in this case where it is, but in typically the funds do come from the applicant from the owner. We don't utilize the city funds to, for private property. So rather than burning the city council with this, I'm going to move that we continue this item and ask staff to get a third opinion on an independent arborist specifically to determine whether or not this tree can be salvaged to the point where limb shedding is reasonable. So, did you mention the cost had to be borne by the applicant? It does. Is the applicant agreeable to that? So $1,000 or $700 for Mr. Allen's report. All right, so you had to pay for Mr. Allen and Mr. Jenai already. So I guess if we come to a point where it's two to two and we can't agree, then the appeal could just go straight to the city council. Right, if you were to uphold the staff decision, then the appeal would go to the city council. What if? But currently the application is denied and they're just reapplying, right? And so if it's, if there's a no decision, doesn't the previous ruling stand? I believe so. I, sorry, I was just, so if there's no decision, I believe the previous ruling would stand. But I'm going to look up the rules on this to make sure I have this correct. Appreciate the thoughtfulness of what you guys were doing this and I meant to say that earlier. So I really do appreciate it. It's a difficult decision. I'm sure you guys know this. I understand. But I want you to know, since I, and I'm sorry for interrupting this, but I really do appreciate the thoughtfulness. Thanks. Is there a fee for an appeal? There is. Can we waive that? The planning, the city council has the ability to waive fees. We can't waive the fee. I don't think we can here. Yeah. So Mr. Janai states in here that he sees this as a safety issue. Right. And does it form? Well, because of the issue, but no, it's a tough one. I think the answer to the question is since there's no action taken on the item. Right. Rewards to what it was prior to the application being filed. Okay. That's my guess. Which means. We can move that it be passed right on to the city council. The city council consider waiving the appeal fees. Yeah. Yeah. I'm looking it up right now. I really, I want to make sure that we, if you want, you could take a five minute recess or I'm reading away right now. We don't want to put the pressure on you, Katie, but we're all just sitting here. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if there's another way if we, I'm not sure there's another way. I just feel that this is happening in my yard with my neighbors. It would pose a huge concern for myself and my neighbors and my family. I don't think anybody's arguing that nothing should be done. No, of course. Yeah. Right. But I mean, it's on the man's property. So he just says from the safety and liability standpoint, Lord, I would strongly recommend the removal of the tree. So he doesn't see Mr. Jani a way of making it safe based on it being topped and some of the other pruning that's been done. Yeah, the way I read that was, was, yeah, this has been such so poorly maintained that it is now a dangerous tree. Well, then how do you think you're gonna make it safe? Cause he doesn't say there's a way to make it safe. And leave that. That's why I was hoping that we get another arborist opinion, but certainly, I mean, it just stands to reason that if you've had a heavy enough trim, basically, you know, get it down to a bunch of stumps like whatever, whatever would still maintain the vibrancy of the tree, but seriously, at some point, he would mitigate the problem. And then you'd have to get an arborist to go in there and say, well, that's ridiculous. We can't doubt that. Well, that's what Jani was saying. And I mean, I have worked with these guys long enough these guys are like the gurus of the world when it comes to trees. And they're just like the other gentlemen where they like to conserve their trees, but they also have a lot of experience. Well, but then James Allen have a rebuttal to that, saying that he's not an official arborist. And so he looks at things differently. And so- Who, that this guy's not an arborist? Yeah, yeah, yeah. This guy is a lot more than an arborist. He's got a, this guy's got, well, I don't know. I don't want to argue experience and who they are. And I've worked with- I can't weigh in on that either. I'm just saying that there seems to be some debate. A lot of experience working with foresters and that's their livelihood. That's what they do for living is work. And especially when the redwood world, I just would have to put more weight towards his. But we're just at it. Okay. With a two to two, it's out of, we're at odds here. I've found the correct rules for this. So just a couple, give me two more minutes. Okay. Okay. Sorry for the duration here. Sorry. I was looking at this earlier before the hearing, just contemplating what we do. And then I got distracted and I had to stop working on. So let me see here. Well, while we're waiting for anybody out in TV land, not that you guys are interested, and I don't know there's anybody even watching, but we'll just go back over. So I won't have to stay at the end it. Our next meeting is going to be a special meetings, October 17th, and that's going to be for the one we had to delete, which is Clare Street, Item 4B and some other new items. And then on November 7th, we'll be doing the conception review of the mall. And then November 21st, we'll have another special meeting to catch up on all the building that's going on in Capitola. So anybody else talk about commissioner comments while we're waiting? One or one second here. Okay. I'm just looking at something too. Yeah, I just wanted to apologize to Courtney, any feelings that my attempts to get a residency policy created and I didn't handle it in the best way. So I hope you'll accept my apology. Accept your apology, Mick. And that's big of a thanks, Mick, for doing that. So you'll have to make a decision or else the motion will die. So, or... Or else there's nothing to appeal. Well, I think that's what Mick was saying because I don't know that the motion's going to die. We can, I guess we should, we just did a roll call and we did two to two. We don't have a new motion on the floor. So the motion's going to die, which means they're back to square one. And because we don't have five members, I don't know that it's going to change at our next meeting. So... What we're looking up is in order to get it to council, like if you're trying to pass it to council, either your commissioner or Richardson would switch your vote to uphold staff and that would give them a decision to appeal to council. Without that, they have nothing to appeal to the council. I see what you're saying, yeah. So I guess we could probably do that vote. Does that make sense to you on the process? Or vice versa. They could go the other way and get in here, yeah. Yeah, I mean, you... Well, what died was, well, you're right, the motion was to uphold the staff, we didn't deny the appeal, so that got denied. But at the same time, your appeal wasn't approved. So it's all, it's like a, which came first, the chicken or the egg, so. We'd like to save you as much money as we could and just get you to the city council. That's what we'd like to do. I'd like to ask that maybe we take a five minute recess so I can try to resolve this. Or the other option would be to make a second motion and see if that dies as well if anyone wants to make a second motion, but otherwise we should take a five minute recess and... Can we move that it just be sent to the council for a decision? You know, I'd like to take five minutes to check in with... See if there are any, yeah. See procedurally what our next step is, so. Okay. We're gonna take a short intermission. Okay, we're back from our little intermission and we'll see what our findings are. Okay, so I've checked in and when there's a two-two tie, the staff decision would stand and that would be, so our recommendation would stand that the tree is not allowed to be taken to be removed and that proper pruning would be required. Okay, and then the option for the applicant is to appeal to the city council? That's correct. Appeal to our original determination? Yes. That's correct. Yeah. So they appeal to staff recommendation. But the code reads. It can be a staff decision that appealed to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission to make a decision to the city council. Correct. It doesn't say staff to the city council. So that is the typical process is that if a decision were made by the Planning Commission, it would then move on to the city council. Under this scenario, we wouldn't want to exhaust the applicant of their ability to go to city council if the planning commission is unable to come to a decision, so they could then take our decision which would stand, they could then take that decision and appeal it to the city council. So Matt is correct that the typical avenue would be appealing the Planning Commission decision. But in essence where it's a two to vote in our decision stands, they could appeal our decision to the city council. Okay. So there you go. That's where we're at. Thank you for your time. And good luck with your endeavor. Okay, so with that, that's the end of our meeting. We have a director's report. No report this evening. Okay. And we've done our commissioner communications while we're in intermission. And that will be adjourned to our October 17th special meeting date. And is that at seven or six?