Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Canon Beach TV is up live now. I always like to start the meetings by um talking about Canon Beach Bulletin because if you can't get enough Canon Beach TV, you can get more than enough online to read the Canon Beach Bulletin. Uh Russ, would you pull it up online just to show everyone here tonight watching on Canon Beach TV how easy it is to see this this great place to keep up on what's going on in the city. Um, city hall ground to me. We used to have a formal community in place. It's gone now. I think reconstructed. Not that the groundbreaking. You can't get enough of Canon Beach Planning Commission TV. We've got more than enough with the city council work session community budget committee design review board. That and more for your evening entertainment more seriously. and our city manager, I guess, is here tonight for this special group of uh planning commissioners to talk about the um here. Thank you. I don't even know what to call it. I'm so afraid to code fun stuff in the bulletin among other things. It's a great way to keep up on what's going on in the city so you don't end up what the heck happened. How do we Let's talk about where we are tonight. Um we have an agenda in front of us. It's going to be slightly amended. uh our I won't say former yet because it's just so hard to say goodbye Bill, but our almost former uh council is here tonight to say goodbye to us and to give us an update on some events uh some items that were in front of us and are now moving through the court system. So, uh we'll move that if everybody's okay to the top of the meeting so Bill doesn't have to stay through the whole thing, although I know he's just dying to do that. Um, yeah. You know how much I I miss being able to come down there and join you guys. Um, so if that's okay with everybody and the agenda,

let's do that. We'll put you even ahead of the the minutes. That's how important you are, though. Thank you. I I do appreciate it. Um, I guess I'll start out with the business and and get to the other part at the end. And what uh I'd been asked to do is provide an update about the the Roberts uh appeal of their house uh application and Missy Ryan who who has uh taken over for me was on the Langes Board of Appeals that decided that decision. So that's on appeal. So she can't really participate and is really going to have to recuse from doing those things. Our colleague uh Terry Richtor will be handling the the appeal as it goes forward. you you know her from previous times down here and and so she is it's in her capable hands. But just to give you an update, um it has been something that's been hanging around, but it's been a long time since it's been at at the planning commission because if you remember what happened was staff made a decision back in 2022 that was appealed to Luba and Luba remanded it back to the city in uh I believe it was March of 2023. And at that point, the city council said it's it's going to get appealed to us anyway. we're just going to go ahead and make the decision on it. And so in August of 2023, they denied the application for a number of different reasons. And uh both parties appealed it to Luba and Luba made its decision in uh April of 2024. And they remanded the decision. they they uh generally upheld um some things but uh ultimately remanded for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, what they said is we didn't really deal with the city did not appropriately deal with a requirement to deal with uh trees um you know that the

removal of trees and how that would affect things. And so that may be coming back. Uh but otherwise that's that's what Luba did and that was in April of 2024. Again both sides appealed to the court of appeals making a variety of different arguments and at the court of appeals they issued their decision in September of 2024 and the court of appeals said you know when it was before the city the city did not apply its geologic overlay uh zone requirements because they weren't clear and objective. Um, and you know, it's pretty I don't think anybody's can say they're clear and objective, but what the neighbors said was, well, yes, you can apply them against the house, but you can apply them on development of the roadway. And the court of appeals agreed with that and sent it back to Luba saying, you know, Luba, what does this mean? essentially. And at that point, the Roberts appealed it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court accepted review in March of this year. So just uh you know, about two months ago, they said, "We're going to take it up." And you know, it's somewhat unusual. The Supreme Court basically only takes about one in every 10 cases get appealed to it and probably not even that many when it comes to land use. But what it does do is slow things down and adds another layer. The parties are now in the briefing process. So filing briefs uh their position. Oral argument is set for some time in September. The exact date hasn't been set, but the they'll be argued in September of 2025. And I would not expect a decision any earlier than mid 2026 and more likely towards the end of 2026, early 2027. Um so that's the timing and where we are on that. if um you know hopefully that wasn't too confusing. Happy to

answer any questions or clarify things if I I made a hash of of what I was explaining. Any questions? Well, that that's a a great update. Um obviously it was a long time ago we looked at that. Um we're always looking to um see, you know, where we can improve our process. So having an idea of you know how far these can go and this is the first one I seen go to the Supreme Court um makes sense given the complexity of that case most of the cases I deal with will go to Luba and that's it occasionally get to the court of appeals supreme court I think I've been there three or four times in third almost 30 years and so it it is really unusual but it just the timeline just gets really really extenduated it just gets really lengthy. Well, thank you for that update. Of course, along that line, certainly what you just outlined for us, but many many other um decisions in front of us were complicated um in in a lot of different ways. that I really appreciate over the years all the help you gave this body and certainly the city uh navigating through some of those uh some of those decisions that went well into the I don't think we ever made it to the next day but we were really close a couple times trying to navigate through that stuff and and it was really nice to have you there when we got stuck or we just didn't know the answers. So really appreciate all you've done in helping us and and the city in general. Of course. And and you know I I just want to give props to you because you're the people who actually have to deal with these complex weighty things where you're really weighing things against other people and you know the pay isn't that so good for spending all the time reading this stuff and sitting in in that room having people upset with you and telling you you can't do anything.

And you're the backbone of how the system worked. And so I I just really want to express my my admiration and gratitude for you guys stepping up and um you know that that it's been an honor and privilege to to work with Canon Beach. I I went back as I was looking through retirement and actually the very first court of appeals case I had involved David Holland's attempt to do a subdivision in Canon Beach back in 2001. And the very last court of appeals decision I have is the Roberts one. So, you know, Canon Beach has sort of bookended my career and so it you guys have been important to me and and I I look forward to being able to go down to Canon Beach and enjoy it and not go, "Oh, geez, that guy." Yeah, we got to deal with that. So, joining you on that beach. Well, thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate it. I wouldn't feel comfortable retiring unless I knew you're in good hands with both Missy and Carrie here to to help you out as you wrestle your way through other ones. Now we can say you're retired from us that we've had this meeting. Thank you for your last time on Zoom with us. Missy, we'll be leaning on you tonight later, I'm sure. Thanks so much, Bill. Thank you again. So, with that in mind, um some of these cases can get pretty complicated. We act as a quasi judicial body in a lot of a lot of these decisions. We are appointed. We're not elected by uh the city council. Um we act as this body for for you the people citizens of Canada or the people who own property here trying to navigate through this complicated code we have and it's not just can be it's complicated and the world we're in frankly it's just you know a lot of opinions and things are changing so we do our best you may not always agree with us and that's why we have a process for appeals and that sort of thing we'll talk a little bit more about that as we navigate into into the specific items we're talking about here tonight we'll

probably take a break at about an hour and a Um, there's a restroom right here to down this very short hallway to the left. There's water. I know there's water or cups. I don't want people drinking. There is. Well, um, we can if someone really gets thirsty, we'll figure something out. Um, I told, Mr. Chair, I wanted seven people. We have equal voting rights. We will, um, discuss your items as we come along. I'll be navigating the meeting. If you have something to say, you'll you'll I guess it's right there. Voting. This is a new space for us as city hall. So I'm still getting used to the record time. Um uh if you're coming up just um I'll recognize you then you can come up give me your name your mailing address and then at one point we'll close the meeting. Uh then we can take one more testimony the way the law is written and we will discuss among ourselves what we heard we've read and make decision. Um, I'm just looking at what we have in front of you tonight. Um, if you are if you don't agree with the decision, you have a right field, you have 20 days to go to make an appeal to city council after our decision. Okay. Um, go through a couple little pieces of this we have to get through and then we'll jump right in. Uh, consideration with the minutes for the April 24th meeting. Um, you know what? Actually, I I kind of ran through that agenda a little too quickly. I didn't really formally other up here a little bit. Uh, may I have a motion for approve the agenda for this? Can I have a second? All right. Any discussion? Will you call the Commissioner Sinclair? Yes. Commissioner Bates, yes. Commissioner Olaw, yes. Commissioner Morris, yes. Commissioner Matusk. Yes.

Commissioner White. Yes. Chair Newton. Yes. Agenda is approved. Couple of our um at different points in uh Okay. Minutes. Are there any amendments for the minutes from our April 24th, 2025? Okay. There are no amendments. May I have a motion to approve those minutes? I move to approve the minutes. Second. I'll second. Any further discussion? That's what we call. Commissioner Matus. Yes. Commissioner Wade. Yes. Commissioner B. Yes. Commissioner Sinclair. Yes. Commissioner Mor. Yes. Commissioner Orloff. Yes. Chair. Yes. For approved. We now have our city manager is here to speak to the code of conduct. I'm all down. Thank manager. Um you folks had the information regarding the code of conduct for a while and generally you're well behaved. So u I know you got a busy schedule so why don't just go to questions if we have any. Unless you want me to read very funny. There was a lively discussion around free speech versus um hindering uh city city employees ability to get their job done. We have had those discussions in this body as well. I would be curious your take on where that discussion ended with the people who ultimately are giving us the direction on how we're having. Kind of a tough question to throw out now, but it's definitely um in

the room on that. Are you talking about from the council? From the council. I would prefer that. Let me give me some time to bring back an answer on that because rather work through the attorney than give you an interpretation. Okay. So um send you an email or something. Sounds good. Yeah, there was there was back and forth in particular just so that that the who's ever addressing it can't I don't think it was being show around um language around elasticity if I remember elasticity versus um what was those words? I'm thinking uncertainty, but that wasn't basically it wasn't clear what it meant to hamper a city employees ability to get their job done. And so the language we were a little broad was what I took away from the meeting conversation around and um I think it'd be helpful for us to have some kind of understanding of where they ended up on that just so we don't end up on that. Okay. That be helpful. Yeah. Anything else? No. Anybody online? All right. Thank you. Okay. Bill, I get I went out of order already. So, we'll move to public comment at this time. If somebody or anybody has any sort of comment that they believe is within the perview of the planning commission is not related to an item you're here tonight to speak it will give you the opportunity to speak that but just something you think that the planning commission might consider part of the city operation through planning and zoning we'd love to hear it three minutes um anybody here tonight like to speak for that anybody online

Okay, we'll move on. First is this judicial um concept I'm talking about with acting as I say judge and jury. Um we're going to do our best to look at the facts in front of us as you present them as we interpret them through the code. Um and we'll we'll render a decision after the after we've um considered everything in front of us. This is a continuation of our ADA 251 Doug Superell for administrative appeal received denial of the tree removal permit Doug superell for an administrative appeal of city denial removal permit at 379 held pursuant to the can municipal code protection 170 review for review does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the planning commission to hear this matter does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest or a personal bias. I had recusal last time, so I would pull myself off at this time. Great. Has any commission member made any context? Uh, do you guys want to revisit the staff report or if anyone has any specific questions? I think um and anyone can correct me if I'm wrong on this, but um I believe where we left it last time was the Fredell's has some questions. Uh there was some discussion in terms of uh having the ability for uh the city Jeff Ghart will be here this evening which he's attended. So thank you. Um and Mr. for now and providing some questions which you have seen and so at this point in time um that was my understanding was we wanted those questions and we wanted to have some

discussions prior to uh making a formal decision. Okay. Um any additional correspondence that has come in since noon? No. Oh no. Good evening. Um, unfortunately I can't be there tonight. I've got a mobility restriction keeping me at home, but no new correspondences come in. Great. Thank you. All right, we'll move to public testimony. The permanent criteria to be considered are the city staff reports on the criteria sheet on the meeting page of the city's website. Testimony, arguments, and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria in the comprehensive plan code which the person testifying to apply for the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the party an opportunity to respond to an issue concludes appeal based on that issue. Persons who testify shall first receive recognition from the chair to state their full name and mailing address and the preparing in a representative capacity identified is presentation by the quick roll. Cornell 168 court district Washington. Uh so there's no presentation at the last meeting. There was interest in asking the questions of the arborist that we had hired to do the report that the city have required. And so Joe Burch, our arborist, is here if you'd like to ask him questions. Okay. We have our normal process that we run

through. It seems that we might want to amend that just a little bit to allow a wider discussion. We've had some questions around for our or the city with that might lead to questions for the applicants library who may generate some questions. Start with city. I'm thinking maybe we maybe we amend the process a little bit and we could start with some questions that we have um because it seems like we're just pick right where we left and I don't want to get locked up that will hamper a little bit. Does that make sense to everybody on the line? Sound good guys? Yeah. All right. So why don't we start with our city's progress and we can ask questions there and then maybe direct questions to the applicant and Mr. Do you want to come? Thank you. Thank you for being here tonight. [Music] Yeah, that's I am Jack Ghart 10570 metal plane city and let's see in regard to 379 Elf Run and a Sitka spruce two Sika spruce removals one that's 30 in in diameter and a smaller one that's more like 20 in a day in there. What kind of questions do you have? You want me to give just kind of an overview of my assessment? It'd be super start. Okay. So, the most recent request to remove these trees, uh, this is the second request. It was

requested they be removed when there was going to be an addition um in close proximity to these trees. And that was back in 2000, 5 years ago. And I requested that instead of removing the trees, the trees be retained and the uh foundation addition be amended to keep these trees. And the whole reason I've kind of had this emphasis to preserve these trees is the grove that they are a part of. It's a heavily forest neighborhood mature spruce trees that have grown up in a grove. So they share a canopy and they share a root system. So I find it very important that we maintain a safe healthy canopy. And my concern with removing the larger of these two trees is that its removal will weaken the structure of adjacent trees in this grove. Kind of a domino effect. I kind of think of the bigger tree as what I would call like a keystone tree that by it being there, it supports other trees neighboring. And if it were to be removed, um, which Joe Burch alluded to in his report, there's a smaller spruce tree that's not as close to this residence that was also included in the removal. So, kind of a domino. We're going to take this big one near the house. We better take this smaller one next to it. Um, and then on my site visit for this more recent removal request, I noticed that there's probably going to be a third tree that would also be weepened by the removal of this tree. And that

tree, it's not a great photograph because it's kind of a monotone guy, but this is kind of an overview of the grove. We have a central kind of keystone tree I alluding to this larger citus fruits. There is a u and also a large hemlock nearby that if this tree is removed this tree is going to be more susceptible to falling over. Um so out of you know wanting to protect thug and his own governor. Yeah, if you could direct your comments to us, that would be really certainly. So, we may open it up to a different sort of format, but generally it's just thanking. So, in order to protect Doug's residence and other homes in the neighborhood, I wanted to see this kind of keystone tree remain as it, you know, supports all the trees in unison. That was that was kind of my bias in preserving that tree, retaining that tree was to keep a safe grow in the community in the neighborhood. Mhm. Okay. So, you want me to keep going? I I got Doug's um questions and I answered them. I could go through them and give my answers to the questions. I think that might be help. Go ahead. Ask him a question. So that was your assessment at time before construction back then. Keeping the trees was important. Yeah. And it continues to be your assessment. Yeah. Five years later. Yeah. Right. Okay. Did you find anything wrong with those strips? I mean not structurally not not in terms of I didn't see any signs of decay or um there is some insect presence. There's a lot of spruce safety in the neighborhood. So, there's

some thinner canopies, but nothing structurally that made me think this tree almost I didn't see any signs of rock or soil evening. As those trees are oriented, there was an A and B and I just prefer to call them a larger tree and a smaller tree. Which one was closer to the house, the larger or the small? Do you recall? The larger tree is closer. So um the health came in u removed because they felt like it was a safety pattern which put you in a position to value it she found healthy. Um you also had a look at whether there's any for reasonably foreseeable [Music] chance and you did that. I guess your intention your your um decision would have been made upon blow over and stuff like that or and you just felt like it was probably not a significant impress given the location of the trees at this time. Correct. There definitely of note is the fact that since my original inspection Yeah. There has been an addition and now the tree is in very close proximity to the addition. Right. I would say I went up and measured it actually. Right now the tree is 8 in from the root. Right. And at some point the tree is going to make contact with the root. I took an increment bore. I took I made a small incision you know drilled into the tree

and I established that the tree is growing at about a rate of 38 of an inch a year. So in 15 years that tree roughly will come and touch the house. In high winds, there will be leveraging forces on the canopy. So that'll that distance. So maybe there's only more like 10 or 12 years. If the top of the tree is really flexing in the wind, this lower this lower stem is not going to be moving near as much. Um, but I would say within 10 to 12 years, the tree will contact the side of the house. Um, so right there there is I'm trying to think of the right wording, you know, foreseeable danger. So, that was one of the questions, the first question. The city post allows property owners to remove trees that are foreseeable danger. Does the city arborist believe that these trees qualify as foreseeable danger? So, at some point, yes. So it's foreseeable, but I felt if the tree were to be removed, it's going to present an immediate danger in in other than another tree specifically based on that boring or maybe based on your observation. I don't know if you came out after the structure where you only made initial recommendations before it was built. In either way, either case, do you have an estimate of how far the tree was away from that facial at the time of construction or thereabouts? Are you going to make an estimate as to roughly what it would have been? Yeah. So, if it was 5 years ago and it's roughly been growing 38 inch a year, so it's probably closed that gap. It was probably, let's say it was 10 in 5 years

ago. Now it's at eight, you know, just as that's why I get confused and I'm not I just want to get clarity on it. I I thought you went out in 2020. Um you inspected, you know, at the time there was going to be construction on it. Have no idea what it was, but is that is that correct? That's correct. So they were just saying there's going to be construction, you know, we need to take this tree out and save it. What was the response to that? Well, I had no idea the house was going to be built so close to the tree. Mhm. So, you know, to have returned now, now five years later, there's the house 8 in from the tree. That's a little shocking that been built so close. You weren't given any plans that showed the location of the the addition. I think I Yeah, I reviewed the site when there was some tree protection fencing up which I have a photo of. This was before you'd like to see. Yeah. So, this was before the addition was created. So, there we're And what are the buffers on that tree protection? How how far around? What the circumference around each tree? Well, ideally would be for the drip line. Um, but then it's you can kind of, you know, squish it depending on how you need it. So what made this addition successful when I signed off on it was that um they were going to use post and pure foundation. So not just a traditional stem wall with an excavation because if

there would have been an excavation that would have taken too many roots. So, at some point you you were able to look sign off on plants. Um, but that didn't have to do with the the distance from the tree. It had more to do with the foundation that was on the ground. Mhm. Uh do the roots grow faster than the uh base of the tree itself? The roots are bigffecting the foundation right now as I understand it. Are the roots going to grow faster than the the trunk? That's a good question. Um I did not do any examining on the roots or any you know I didn't I didn't do any increment boring on roots but as a rule of thumb I would think the fastest growing portion of the tree is going to be the main stem. Not that the roots are far behind but the roots individual roots are kind of more like limbs but maybe not putting on as much dirt on a yearly basis. Um, I would think roots would grow slower and understand I know one of the questions that's on your list was about high wind shear, whether being next to a structure makes it more dangerous than high winds that there's going to be some kind of snapping effect. Can you talk a little bit about what happens during a storm if a tree is near a structure and whether that actually makes it more likely the tree will snap or not? If Yeah. So you have the tree canopy, you have leveraging forces. The canopy is going to work like a sail. So as the force is put on that leveraging arm, you're creating a strain and a force. Um

you do have something that the tree has been in contact with that can create um you know a place for the tree to fail at this stage and there's no contact with the house. So it's freestanding. So even in a high high wind situation I'm wondering how much play there is at that point right you know is it 2 in I don't know what you know in wind how much is that part of the trunk likely to shift at this stage the uh the roof line is about 15 ft we've got a 100 foot tall tree in the highest of winds if that canopy is swaying 20 feet out of plum it's really only going to be moving maybe an inch at, you know, or or none at that, you know, very minimal. So far down. Yeah. The tree is going to be absorbing that that flex higher in the canopy. Um, but what I would propose is a thinning of the canopy to offset some of that leveraging force. That's called a windail reduction. not a popping but to thin the crown to let more wind blow through the tree. So then you concluded as I understand it at some point may tell but it's it's well into the future in your opinion and it will have to be taken down then you aren't some trees to be planted now and in between it sounds like the suspen did I read that correctly you did I didn't mention that on my report I mean that would be ideal bill. Um based on what it's escalated into now though, you know, I'm not so concerned anymore about replanting, but more ensuring that if that train does get removed that other

trees are going to be inspected and compensated. I don't want it to turn into a domino tree removals, right? Then now we remove this tree. So the there's only one tree that's closed. when it comes down, another tree has to come down. And I'm thinking that a third tree is going to become, you know, hazardous. So, this keystone tree is really doing a good job to support the growth. So, I kind of want there to be a bigger plan of, okay, how if we do need to remove this tree in 10 years or now, whatever, that we have a plan on how to safely retain the rest of these these trees in this corros. Yeah, that's Oh, yeah. What is a mitigating option? So, a thinning a pruning. Okay. Uh canopy reduction. So, you say either way there should be canopy protection. Yeah. And that that's specifically to this third kind of hemlock. Not the best picture, but if if this is a tree that's coming out very picture and there's another secondary tree that has to be removed, there's a third law. It's just going to be kind of out here getting separated from the grove um that that needs some sort of confrontation pruning if not removal. But I feel like that's kind of an assessment to be made. Maybe not by the city arburous it, you know, maybe a the property owner. So So pruning and I don't imagine planning where you where you thought those signage would be a bad thing in Oh yeah. I mean always a proponent of replanting.

How old do you would you say the tree is? There's a ballpark. I'd say it's around 80 years old. And has it been pruned crown? Has the crown been pruned in the past? Could you tell? It looks like it's had some pruning in the past. Yeah. Are there any other sections in in the answers that you Yeah, let me make sure because there's a lot of questions in here. Okay, there was a question um if I had a discrepancy with the tree hazard rating that the fridel's arbur gave it. So when a tree is an assessed there's a generic form that we use through the ISA and you can kind of create a rating of how hazardous a tree is. So it's based on all these factors and the rating was given a nine and I would agree with that rating and that rating is based on basically three items. You have the size of the tree, the the target rating of what could that tree potentially hit and the likelihood of failure. So if every rating gets a one to four and you add those up, you get a a scale of of 12 being most hazardous, you know, zero being no hazard. So if you have the likelihood of failure is a four, the size of the park the largest it could be four and then you know a target high four. So you get you know that how you attain a scale of 12. So this tree was given a nine and I

would agree with that. But basically given that model, every tree in that neighborhood of 30 in and bigger would obtain that same scale. So pretty much all trees are inherently dangerous. You know, you can't really give anything in here if it has the chance to fall. So just based on you know the size of the tree and where they're located they're going to garner some sort of a hazard rating. I tried to read that and it said to me you put responsibers gave the risk a two and another that he gave it for a three and then the last four but it work it's interesting one um but but how much did that risk fail your plan was it's a big factor in it or do you just play strictly by the name? Uh no, I think it's totally organic thing to Ben situation. Yeah, I think I'll leave it at that question. Um number eight question. So all the trees have internal voids at the base of the the tree. Are those uh a result of just the way the tree grew or is that a result of uh analysis from Moore? Uh those boys are just uh common root players for that species. There's no sign of decay or you know perhaps it grew up on a nurse stump and so the way the the butressing roots form but there's no there's no cavity there sign of weakness. Are those trees inherently more risky? They call them close pin trees, right? Are they inherent to more risk than

those that have a single root? I don't I haven't really seen it firsthand. Yeah. I think trees kind of, you know, when they grow in that nursery, they kind of compensate, create stronger roots. So, and this is very low down to the grade. It's not elevated at all. Ref, I had a quick question for you. When you went out and looked at inspected the tree, was there any evidence that the tree trunk had in fact collided with the structure of the house? Did you tell at all? None whatsoever. Thank you. Any other questions? really really appreciate you asking questions and um are you okay? Yeah. Okay. Thanks everyone. Thank you. So how do we want to move ahead? Do we want to have the other hand come back? It might Yeah. Maybe ask questions in real time. Yeah, I agree. Um, okay. So, we'll come back to the applicant. Um and many of your representatives are your artist as well and presenting those. Thanks. And I want to thank the city artist for coming in and talking. It's very helpful. So um I'd like to have our take with me and then I'd like to come back when he's done. Okay. Feel free to ask questions. Sure. I'm Bill Gur 35 been

piling for 27 years. Can you get them started questions from me or do you want me to play? Do you disagree? Um, not well mainly the removal of the one tree going affect that whole road. Um, I took 10 trees out of there for the city about 10 years ago that were all hazardous trees. Rest in the grove still fine and intact. Um, if it was more on the windward side of the grove, I would lean more to agree with that. But being inside the grove, you know, where it's not going to allow when trees that haven't been exposed to wind before to all of a sudden get new winds to them, don't my feelings are that if this tree is left alone, it's going to contact the house. The roots right now might be damaged. Some of the peer pillars underneath are starting to lift to the side. I didn't excavate down there to see if causing that or what. Um, but that tree is going to contact that house. So, I don't understand why we don't get rid of it now instead of wait for it to contact the house to do damage. How many years do you think we have before it actually contacts the house? And what about the thinning would that uh how many years would that give us or would that be effective in your opinion? The thinning would help reduce the sway of the trunk. Um, I would agree with Jeff that, you know, 10 10 to 15 years you're going to see some contact down there. Um, but I wonder does the city have the ability or have the authority to tell people to prune entries? I mean, that's is that in code? I don't know if you have the authority to deny the appeal. So,

effectively option So, um, you know, if this were something would go for an outstanding code, I think there would be conditions put on on that. So, I'm just saying, you know, yeah, we can that's [Music] my other question. Were you involved in the permitting process for this? Were you involved in the permitting process for the addition? No, sir. And this is just to the council. I'm just having a hard time well understanding how the the addition was approved or the arch, you know, the architect drew the plans to place the addition where they did. I mean, it it seems counterintuitive for me to reward, and I'm not saying that the homeowners want the tree gone just to want the tree gone, but the tree the tree has to go, which means another tree has to go, another tree has to go because they chose to place the addition in this direction. Uh they they seem it seems like some more creative design could have avoided this alto together. So, and maybe that was the city planning department approving this when they shouldn't have. I I I guess I don't know what happened there, but it it it it's tough for me to say let's take the tree down today because in 10 years there will probably be contact with the tree. I mean, let's wait eight years before we take the tree

down. Lot lot could happen in eight years. I I'm I'm just having that that's my biggest struggle here. We we'll look at that as a uh rather than have a discussion about that at this point. What what how we'll frame that is that is a concern of one of our members. It will be voiced between us when we discuss this when we close the record and it will not be the opportunity for you to respond. So that's on this commissioner's mind. Commissioner Mus, if you have thoughts on on that concern, now is the your opportunity to address any of the couple of points you brought up there to make clear for us your understanding or or experience through the process and address this concern. I mean, I have had issues in the past where things have been approved, you know, and then I've gone on site to do the work and then after doing the work, I'm like, this isn't safe. we can't leave this here. And then we go back to, you know, jumps through all the hoops again. We come back and then take the tree down later. So, I don't it seems like maybe there's not the best communication between the city with the planning department and the tree, you know, it seems like when I get on site like that just the communication wasn't there because this should have been avoided. The instance I'm talking about with like a 52in tree that had a 10ft tree protection building found it. I mean that's ludicrous for a 52 inch tree took almost the whole tree protection donor or the root protection donor but there was no that was wasn't going to work anywhere else and again my comment to you on that point is um because of the process we're in you won't have a chance to respond to this had I not brought it up to you so I want to make sure we're being fair and you as the chair to ask this question but the arbit said he didn't want the tree there He said the tree should remain and the the structure was put in place anyway. So there was there was that concern could have been addressed before the structure was built

and we had the city library saying we need to save the tree for this canopy or for this for this grove. So there is a set of logic that goes you knew the risk and you did anything and then there's another set and I'm not saying this is the case. There's another set that says you did it anyway and you possibly thought, well, we'll just come back and get it down and we'll consider the rest of the property. Can you can you talk to that at all? Cus was broken down. I understand what you're saying. I can't really speak too much to that because that was before I was called. I was called and the building was there and there's a tree there. So, that's that's what I'm speaking to. Um, so the other comment by one of the commissioners was why not wait eight years and then take it down. Does that seem reasonable to you? It seems risky because nobody nobody's the portion. The tree could fall over tomorrow could fall over. I mean a tree last winter two houses down ripped off the side of the house in there. And I don't understand why roll the dice. Why risk it? Why wait when you know it's going to come down in 10 years? Why even wait? Why risk it? You know, you are rolling the dice whether you know it or not. Each time the wind blows, it could blow over. So, isn't that true? Isn't Isn't that true of every tree in I mean on the planet? It could blow down at any time. Absolutely. But we have this we're saying we have a timeline. We have a 10ear time frame where we know we're going to have to take it down in 10 years. It could still blow down within that 10 years. So, I don't understand the logic of why to leave it when it could still Well, and maybe the house burns down in 10 years. Maybe they decide they don't like the addition and they knock it down and they start. I mean, a lot can happen from the homeowner side in 10 years, too. True. I mean, the tree's been there 80 years. It hasn't it hasn't blown down yet. I mean, you know, do you agree that it's probably 80 years more or less around?

Probably older than that. to 80 100 years for sure. I mean, it's just again, they they they understood the risk. They built the addition right next to the tree and now they're coming a couple years later to take it down. It just it it the the process and I think you're right. I mean, obviously there was some miscommunication if that's what we want to call it, but that's where I'm stuck. Steve um if taking down this larger tree poses a risk to any other trees. I mean there's a potential for that. Uh in your opinion it might not be as as much of a potential as the city arborist believes but uh it would increase the potential for other trees to have hazardous more hazardous rating if this tree was taken down. What's your assessment on that? Um, like I said, it' be you might get a little bit more movement in the upper canopy of some of those trees, the remaining trees. There's going to be a void there, you know, so they will be able to move more. Um, but I think leaving the tree there, you know, because it's going to impact the building, if we get that tree out, the sooner you get that tree out of the trees adapt to the conditions that are around them. So, the sooner you get that tree out of the sooner those trees can start adapting to the new conditions that they're not going to be exposed to. Do you think that we need to move remove that smaller tree next to it? But next to it, I would also I would just because that tree has no limbs on it. So the live ground ratio on that tree, I don't really recall very small. So once that tree is gone when they're really close together, then it's going to be exposed to the wind that tree was helping block it from and it's just going to whip around like crazy up there. Okay. Thank you. Other questions, Mr. B? real quick. Um, just to confirm what I think you told us a little while ago, you really haven't looked at the

root structure underneath the addition. Was is that correct? No, I say roots. I think go through heading that way, but I haven't actually to see where they go. Okay. I think we were presented with several photographs of of what look like damage to walls and parts of the structure. And if the stem of the tree didn't hit the structure, then at least it seemed to me like the roots were a likely cause. I mean, I'm kind of struggling. I wish I wish we had some some more detail on whether the roots actually were causing problems or not. And I and I realize you didn't look at it, so I'm not asking you for for that. I'm It seems highly likely. I mean, it's very close. the roots the I mean they're feet from each other so it's highly likely that the roots are causing it but I can't say for for sure thank you would you have made that same statement five years ago which one the statement about causing damage to the structure would it in the future cause damage if would it would it in general cause damage would a structural system like that be impacted by the winding absolely Absolutely. Anything on the ground will be because the roots are going to they're going to go every which way and eventually you need they're going to start expanding. if they're displacing whatever there at the peer rock and you know in this case in working with the city of Cam Beach looking at it one of the questions that I think we have is is there a gap in in the system that the city has so that a a structure could be put in place like this has when you have a good system that is going to do what it does what's your experience working with this

city other jurisdions relative to the process between the arborists and well specifically between the arborist and the people that you've been doing that again it just can't say exactly what but it seems like there's no communication you know because if if an arborist says you know if you need this amount of root structure for a tree to survive and then yet they don't have that on the lot to make you physically fit the city still says to save this tree. So then they come up with these crazy small tree protection dome that aren't going to work in any world. So I mean I'm not behind the scenes cuz I'm on the outside. So it just seems like maybe listening to artist a little more before you try to fit the house. You know that's not a city issue that's an owner issue right because it's the owner I don't again I don't know how it works for Yeah. I mean because that is what we get is a set of plans from the applicant that sets what they suggest based on their personal argus as a protection zone. So we're kind of stuck. So can you just deny it? I should maybe that's ouration. Maybe we need to know that say that's not acceptable. I'm trying to answer. Is this a discussion or question? I was actually just asking his point of view because I we could get deep into I wasn't asking but I was going to get into that question but I was asking a question for the general right now other question. Thank you for sharing that. Are there other presentations by the

So if I make a couple comments if I can. Sure. So some things that came up was the discussion about what had happened on the site previously and uh and so in the package you'll find this. We've had three trees hit our house so far and all three of them were city trees. And as a result of that, nine other trees had to be removed. So there's been significant removal. The city removed all these trees. And Joe Burch was on the team removed. And so he's very familiar with the sun. I'd say you should really listen to his thoughts because he knows that side better than we do. And so there's a couple things other things that were talked about is the direction like somehow we chose to go in the wrong direction. And you have to understand our property. Our property we built as close to the street as we can to preserve that set of trees and we're only utilizing about 25% of our which code says I believe 50%. But what is happening is you've heard the city arborist talk about these three trees that can't come down because the whole neighborhood would be in trouble. Well, those three trees are what is hemming us from being able to use the rest of our time. We put that addition in that space because that's the only place where we could put it without taking down existing structure or asking the city if we can build a minimal one of their streets. It's just that's the only direction. So for you and city arborists to say gosh you guys have to keep those three trees. You're limiting us to 25% of our property which isn't what the code says and it isn't what the city should be doing. the you we do have the right to use that

property and we have a modest house on it is nothing like the houses that are around us. We're right around 1,000 square ft on two levels and our footprint is extremely small and uh so the the restrictions it's not as if we intentionally caused this problem. It's not it's not something that we we did exactly what the city told us to did everywhere. Got the arborist in, did all the separation, let the trees stay there, tried to live with them, and then now they're just too scared. They keep us away at night. And I know there's members that think we should build a basement, which is going to even cause more trouble, the trees, or more move because we're afraid to live in the forest, which is not the case. We have done everything we could to respect the forest and the trees here with us. The um the uh we have been thinning canopy. So that's why there was evidence said that well yeah it looks like the canopy has been thin. So we do that on all of our curves to keep the neighborhood safe. So it's not as if we are have disregard for trying to preserve our troops. It's just we are in there and we want to be able to use the property and we want to be able to use it without being afraid. And so based on that, we appreciate you listening to the our arborist. Thank you for asking the city arborist questions. And we think when you look at all the information, it's clear that these trees meet the city standard of a foreseeable hazardous tree that can cause harm, property damage, and injury and should be removed. So, please comply with code and let us take these trees down. Thank you.

I'll show you u last uh month at the meeting I think you mentioned that there was a an error in the design of some sort or in the building. Yes. We got a call when the when the um the house was the room was being built. We got a call from the uh the builder and said we can't put the 12in eaves on there because they run right into this tree. And so that was a surprise to us. It wasn't as if we went ahead and tried to create a problem. We thought that the house was going to be able to complete it and there would be a safe amount of distance between that wall and the trees because we had the city arborist. We had everybody the city approved it, the designs were approved and uh so the answer is yes. there was some sort of problem with the ease and our solution to that was to go ahead and and complete the project without the ease. I I saw that on the graph. Um a follow-up question to that was so um when the footprint was marked out engineering diagram was done then the addition came closer to the trees than you expected. Is that correct? Otherwise, you would have been able to add the eaves on. So, was it built to to the engineering specs or was there some kind of alteration in the building process that moved that building that um addition closer to those trees? the the building didn't the plans that I saw initially didn't have those trees there because the original plan was to remove the trees and my understanding it was the city arborist had wanted to try to save the trees and so we went ahead with the different footing to prevent that from happening. I think it was pretty much a surprise to everybody when the builder got up there and tried to put

the rope on because it's not obvious, you know, when you're looking at a tree trunk at the base and then you pop 15 ft trying to put on roof trusses that something wasn't right. And that's this that's the city arborist's fault, not your architect. I'm not I don't know whose fault it is and I don't think the code really suggests that it's important to decide who is at fault when determining whether a hazardous tree needs to come down. when you design into the hazardous tree. I didn't do any designing into a hazardous tree. And as far as I know, the city didn't approve any design that had the structure going into a hazardous tree. And whether it's important to figure out who made the mistake or why it turned out that way, I don't see that in the tree code. So, you mentioned that three trees uh fell during a storm. Three different trees have hit our time. We've lived there for 30 years. And so over the time we've had three different events where three trees have hit our and as a result of having to move those remove those three trees, nine others hadn't come out. Is that correct? So the three trees that fell on our house over time were all from the city. So we asked the city if they would come look at their other trees and they did. And so they had their arborist, the city arborist at that time was a a different gentleman. His name is in the article I believe and he came out and did the assessment and said nine of these trees are not safe. And so the city removed nine additional trees and that's what's there for the was was that a result then of losing those three trees that made the others unstable in your opinion? know the the but so I'm I'd be talking about things that I don't know specifically. The city

has reports on what they did and why. But my understanding is that the trees that are on our lot have been damaged because when they put the road in and when the neighbors put the house in, they pushed all the dirt onto our property and it has affected the way those trees have. That's my understanding, but I don't have a report that says that. Okay. Oh, disagree. Because there has been some other comments here that removing two of them might put some of the others danger. So I was wondering if removing three but nine at danger and growing these two might also put some others of the canopy at danger of having to get removed as as well. The domino effect that was mentioned I'm not an expert on that. I just know I want to be able to stick with it. In the file in the city report, it says the additional was constructed in 2022. Well, is that correct? Or was it constructed in 2020? So I believe 2020 to 2022 is the time frame that all of this happened because I remember there's there's some bit of co part that's into it and so I believe the original um so the the first uh hazard report that was done by arbor care that said trees should come down I believe does say 2022 and I or speaking 2020 and I believe the project was complete completed in sometime in 2022. So I think that 2year it can take a long time to get stuff built here at the just confusing. Thank you. But I believe that's the correct time frame from the beginning of it to when we moved in and saw what had happened and that was a surprise to us when we came here up until we saw the house framed in there. It was like wow

that's that's not what we expected. Everybody said we would have a good safe space and it doesn't look safe to me. Yeah. You know the thing is it's not your job that city arburous job and that's why people are struggling there. It's your contractors and let's Yeah. Well, there's a point there. You know, we're probably going to have to find a solution for you. You want to blame somebody. No, no. It's just that you have been blaming people and I am and I would just like to stay away from blaming people at all if you're open to that. I'm not trying to blame any unsafe phrase. Okay. Some of the language on blaming as I'm blaming let's just we appreciate the conversation back and forth. I appreciate it too. Yes, we really are trying to dig into other questions for Mr. Pama. Thanks. Appreciate your time. Um, any other presentations by anyone on your team or else? Okay. Are there any presentations by staff responsible? Okay. Um, we always offer you the final opportunity to say anything before we close the record. After we close the record, there's no further opportunity to discuss anything that you give us. We're good. Thank you. You're good. All right. Then we will close the record and move to our deliberate. Is everybody okay with closing the record at this time and move to deliberation? Okay. Then we'll close the recordation. I try to answer that question because it might give us some guidance going forward. Okay. What you say that question? So the question was you know what happened and I don't know

but you were attempting to make me about what was it about process that broke down the reality is there's a lot about the process that broke down it didn't have to involve any one's fault it's just the way our codes are written so we have learned in the first times is that we learned that we need to get the the arborist the severist and the applicants ar the contractors up front that's in the new code that we read. How does that apply to I I want to get that because I think what would happen is we don't we would have a solution for what we are and I think the importance I think what you're talking about is something I know you spent a lot of time on but it does not why the question the question came up here so I'm trying to answer the question everything that we have put into that code would have ended in a diff and none of us would be caught red but we are looking Mr. Chair excuse me Mr. Sher, could I just interject here and say I think it'd be most helpful for the planning commission deliberations to focus on the criteria for tree removal first and in you know in your deliberations just to kind of bring it back to what what is what this appeal is really about which is does the application satisfy the criteria. Thanks for letting me I understand what Mr. forget what we're doing. It is a difficult problem and I don't want to minimize in any way. I would like to to reinforce some of the concerns we have when they come to us this way and that you know there could have been a solution earlier could have been is worth not worth a lot of money but there could have been could have been but we need to do it and I am the number one among all of us. I guess we're all very much preoriented in the city. But when I look at that house, I'm going, "Holy cow, I don't care how it

got there. Something needs to be done, right? So leaving him without a solution here is not right." That's true. Okay. So that I would say thinking about foreseeable danger, it seems like everyone agrees there are 10 to 15 years before there's an actual contact and danger. We had testimony today that the trunk itself is moving by maybe an inch and high winds. So to me, foreseeable danger in the code should not be interpreted to main 10 years from now. We would be talking in the next year or two. We're not there yet as far as I'm concerned. We just we aren't by the code. I said that I think there are things I'm sure if if Mr. Fidel would consider them and that would get him ready to be able to cut that tree with minimum of damage to the rest of them and and that may be something he should consider. I I don't know what the right answer is, but when I see I don't know if it's 10 years. I don't know if it's um this winter's the worst storm. I don't know what what it's going to be, but they have identified a risk. We're aware of it now. If it happens in 10 years, great. If it happens in one, we look pretty stupid. No, I do not buy that at all to say that that's on us. Any tree in the city could happen to fall down tomorrow or the next day in a big storm. So for us to say it's our responsibility to therefore be liable because we made a determination. I absolutely disagree. We can listen to the experts. We have two experts agree today that the contact and therefore the danger point is probably 10 to 15 meters away. So I don't I do not want us to put out there any statement that we somehow are responsible for something that happens. If we have experts who say this is the general timeline, we can never

know for certain. You heard them say any injury is basically a tree. It is. Yeah. This is a unique situation with a tree that's 8 in from a house. 8 in and it's not touching. It doesn't need a high wind. But 8 in my house and a tree that's that's 100 ft tall that's 20. I think that becomes a question. So we could make we could make a danger argument. You could take the danger argument to the other trees that remain that we have the city driver saying we're compromised. Yeah. I I don't disagree that you call every tree in this city a foreseeable. But forget about the city. We still talk about the law. We have the city driver saying you're compromising the rest of the trees. We now say we took them off. And I mean with that's the sort of logic you begin to walk down if you say with a 100 foot tree. Yeah. If this is a danger to the house a danger to the house the danger to the a danger to the house before the house built but the danger of the addition before the addition were built to the entire structure just by the nature of yeah so I'm not saying I disagree with your logic. It's a it's a tricky spot, but I there's certain pieces of I can't sign up on based on just the process that makes you feel feel uneasy about this. Yeah, I think it creates a precedent that every person will come in here and say, well, in 10 to 15 years, this tree is going to be a problem for me, so I want it down now. So, in terms of how we interpret the code, we need to be consistent. And in the past, or 20 or 30 or 40 years, this tree is going to grow enough to contact my house somehow and someday it's going to fall down. So therefore, I need to cut it today. I mean, I I I

just I don't see it as being foreseeable 10 to 15 years. I mean, I agree with Mickey that, you know, closer to one or two years, three years. I I mean, I don't know. Is there Melissa? Is there some case law or some standard that you know what constitutes a foreseeable risk here that you know of? This is the city's Thank you for asking uh commissioner. This is the city's code and so really it's uh up to the city to uh interpret those terms. Typically uh the city looks to the dictionary definition of foreseeable and the dictionary definition of danger which are used together here. So I think uh something could be for example foreseeable but it might not pose a danger because it's foreseeable in too long of a time or it could pose a danger if it's you know reasonably foreseeable in a very short time. So, I I wish there was some guidance for you, but I think you're you're kind of talking about what do these what do these words really mean, you know, in the dictionary. I just wasn't sure if you know of some some Oregon case that, you know, has gone on through appeal and has set some precedent. Maybe maybe this will be it. We'll see. the fall and wrap trees in Oregon. So, so can I suggest a different question? So, there there we were presented some evidence that there is actually physical damage occurring to the addition now. And we we we supposed that it was due to the

trees, but we really didn't know. Uh, if I remember right, that was one of our conversations last time we got together about, you know, is there a way to assess was it the roots causing damage to the peers? You know, why are there cracks in the walls? All those kind of questions. And and we don't have that data tonight, but but that's actual damage. That's not the likelihood of falling. That's that's actually damaging the structure. And and at what point do we have to take that into account? Less to me, I would want to know very clearly that it was definitely a tree because I can tell you from looking at my own house, there are cracks in the walls, there's cracks in the foundation, and it's not due to trees. It's settling in the ground, etc. So, I would really, really be wary about assuming that it was the tree without some very, very clear evidence myself. if you knew the trait about the discussion. I probably would if it was 100% root right there in contact, you know, okay, we have damage. But I think my next question would be, is that damage going to change with time? So in other words, is the root growing that much? What we heard from the experts is that it's not likely the roots are growing much right now. that they probably put out their major root structure and that their earth is not changing that quickly at this time. So then I would say the damage is done and in fact you may in removing the tree and degrading the root system eventually cost more. Well, I can't argue that. I, you know, and I don't have that answer, you know, why why the damage occurred, but it seems to me like if I knew that, it would help me understand what the right thing to decide

was. Well, we don't know that and it's not our job to tee it up for them 15 times and come back and bring us more evidence. I mean, they they we did talk about it less. You're right. And I didn't see any new evidence tonight. No, it wasn't it wasn't presented. I I kind of expected it, but when I went back and read the note, the minutes, I realized that we at the right at the end of discussion, we decided to just bring in the arborist and and ask questions. Um anyway, yeah, I think it's something the applicants could come back with. you know, we could if we did end up denying, for instance, they can always rely if obtained new evidence. Well, I think I think really, Mickey, what I was mulling over was not not even so much that. It's like if we did have evidence that it was the the roots of one of of those trees that was doing it, we make a decision. I mean, there's nothing in our code that specifically says damage to a structure is qualifies as imminent danger. That's true. I mean, how would we rationalize that? And I guess like the question would be is is it causing a foreseeable danger in terms of continued damage or not? If it's not changing, maybe it's still not foreseeable. I don't know. I mean, this is what right now. Why don't we um Well, I think

that as Mickey said, we can't really predict any force measure or anything for any of those trees around there. My concern is that if you take these two when it infect then all of a sudden it created another issue that may result in other trees coming down and they're close enough to the structure that it sounds like that they would be a hazard also. So you know where do we kind of end on this thing? What I would like to see is uh you know some some canopy reduction in the interim and some planting so that these trees when they do apparently inevitably come down that there's still some structure for that that canopy and the other trees in the grove. uh so that the other ones don't have to come down and they wouldn't be as big of a potential risk uh as they would if these these two foundational trees uh come down. I think that that would be proof method. Okay. Well, I think that um we've had spirit conversation here like motion sentiment was very clear. So I will I know that we is there a second then is there any further discussion that's called a little bit uh excuse me can I before before you do the role can I just suggest that um the planning comming commission to have the motion set forth the basis for denial uh even if it's simply to refer to the criteria because this is an appeal of an

administrative decision that that denied the application on a specific basis. So if the planning commission agrees with that administrative decision, it would be helpful to know that. Yeah. We say the last part one more time, just the last two sentences to each other. Yes. So, so this is an appeal of the administrative decision uh that was issued by the planning department and it would be very helpful for the for the decision going forward to know if the planning commission if the motion to deny the appeal is for the same basis that the application was denied administratively or if you're going to adopt new findings or additional findings. There's been a lot of evidence that the came before the planning commission in two public hearings that wasn't before the planning department when it made the administrative decision. Is that making sense? I'm not a fan of the Zoom appearances. I just have to say I don't like this. So, and Robert and Steve, feel free to jump in here if I've if I've inaccurately characterize something. No, I think that's uh just add some additional uh evidence uh or or support justification for the dinner. Robert, you've heard the discussion. We've had many different points that we've considered um as a part of getting

to um this point in the conversation. Will you read the most pertinent part of the findings that you have in in your staff report, please? And we can discuss them with ourselves if we want to how we want to incorporate them. if we want to incorporate that. What was that? I'm having trouble hearing. Can you Can you hear me now? Sort of. You may have to rather. So the the question is, can you please read what you believe to be the most pertinent sections of your findings in the staff report for us to consider what pieces all pieces if any pieces we want to incorporate into any motion that we are going to look at? Well, let me see if I can find that. Sure. Be patient. Um, I think I was looking at this earlier. I think in the April 22nd packet, I think around PDF pages starting at 85 uh on the April 22nd packet that of PDF 85 that contains the planning administrative decision and then that relies on the city arborist decision uh recommendation I should say which is at page 87. that that that's effectively how the review took place is it was implementing the recommendation of the city arborist. Well, do you have that in front of you, Robert? I I have it in front of me. That's right. Can you read it, please? Uh,

well, it's kind of long. Um, so the basis for the the city arborists, uh, conclusion, city arbor's conclusion is that uh kind of exactly what he said tonight. Um this is this is okay. So I'm going to look at 85. Uh this is PDF page 85 and it says after reviewing the this is uh the planning department decision. After reviewing this application based on the recommendation of the city arborist, this application is denied. Uh the application materials indicate that the purpose is to prevent future structural damage resulting from trunk and root growth. During the application review, the city arborist did not find that current conditions are posing a hazard to the resident. Additionally, the arborist found that the removal of the two trees may adversely affect other trees in the immediate vicinity. Based on this assessment, the city finds that the application does not meet the criteria of CBMC 17140. That that is the entire pretty much the entirety of the decision. Okay. So I think our conversation is largely affirmed that but also went a little bit further into the criteria of foreseeable danger and also considered that. So it wasn't just current. We also talk about foreseeable danger tonight which may or may not have been fully annunciated in the earlier but decision

So, one one thing somebody could do is uh make either make a new motion or amend the current motion to articulate that the planning commission upholds the administrative decision because the planning commission finds that there is no foreseeable danger. uh to public safety or property damage to an existing structure. Um and and this is or that the the hazard or danger could be reasonably alleviated by pruning is is a potential other basis. And I'm not telling you what to decide, but this is just I think we talked at the last hearing. is a unique situation because you're acting as an appallet body. Well, you know, the other thing I heard in there was the the the piece of the removal of the tree would affect the other trees and that's pretty significant to me. It is. Um, okay. You made motion. Are you willing to withdraw? Let me let me let me explore the first stability. How do you propose we address that? So we would affirm on the same basis as the administrative decision was made which was that their current conditions were not posing a hazard and that removal of those trees could pose hazards in the road. And then in addition, they found that the there is no foreseeable danger to keeping the tree in place. Do do we want to do we even need to go with foreseeable if if we're if it current is

the the standard? I mean, why not just affirm that? I think that the standard is foreseeable in a code. Real quick here want to see it or should I read it? Yeah. So this is formation criteria. Okay. So we're at 17114.040 and it's a it says removal of tree which goes to a safety uh hazard. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents either a foreseeable danger to the public safety or a foreseeable danger of property damage to an existing structure. And secondly, it says such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by pruning or treatment of the tree. So you're taking a look at section 17.114 040 which is permit issuance criteria and it's a one and two that talks about foreseeable danger. So I think I think um Aaron was right at some point on based on an assessment of the city versus city funds or we find the application or not criteria was [Music] 7.144 I think said that we should actually incorporate some of the words of the criteria rather than just citing Okay. exist now and an agreement between the two arguments that we've got 10 years affected by way

u I um you try to proceed with this I'll try so I know that we have been I um for the reason set for it then the cities um administrative denial. Um during the applications review, during the committee's review, the commission's review of the city uh we did not find the current conditions posing a hazard to the residents. Additionally, we agreed we arbur finding that removal of the two trees may adversely affect other trees in the immediate vicinity. Based on this, the commission finds that application does not meet the requirement of Can Beach Municipal Code 17144.040 040 and specifically sub paragraph A which reads removal of a tree which poses a safety hazard. The applicant must demonstrate that the condition or location of the tree presents either perceivable danger to public safety or facility danger to property damage to an existing structure and such hazard or danger cannot reasonably be alleviated by proning or treatment of the tree. Furthermore, the planning commission finds that there are um the hazard can be addressed through pruning and other treatments. There any further discussion? Do we want to go to that attended or test? Commissioner, yes. Commissioner, yes. Commissioner Mat,

yes. Commissioner B. Yes. Commissioner W. Yes. Yes. The administrative field is denied. Could I ask a question? And this is a question for Steve and Robert. Um, will the planning commission adopt the final the findings in support of their decision that they just made at the next meeting? The idea is to create the bindings and provide them back to the chairman for his signature. Okay, great. But those those findings are not being by the body. I'm just saying what we just did. Okay, we're moving on B2502 and C2504. Scott Robertson general contract. Yes. Scott Robertson for additional use of various perbert. General contact on behalf of the construction of new property [Music]

Thank you. Does anyone object to get exp? Does any commission member believe he or she has a conflict of interest for a personal bias? I'm going to air on better side of judgment read a statement and allow the city attorney to make any comments she would like. Go ahead. Uh to not only protect myself but all commission members and protect the impartiality of planning commission as a whole. I make the statement as my possible concept of interest in regard to CU25-4 and B25-2. I cannot identify a specific reason other than the nature of my personal business as a designer has and will require me to do similar projects to this one in wetland area. However, I do not feel that this creates or implies in any way. My understanding can be beach code especially section 1712 only making a more valuable resource for the making this statement of possible conflict of interest. I feel that there is no reason for me not to be part of any discussion or the need to repeat myself from regard to C2. Did you hear all of that? We didn't have personal I have no person in the game with this application anyway. Thank you. Thank you chair. I did get most of it. Uh I actually just um appreciate Commissioner Orloff's you know candandor in this and I I think I will just ask the question uh whether

you you feel like that you can consider this application uh impartially and make a decision uh based on the facts and the evidence without any question and doubt that I will base my decision on the basis of our code and what is written therefore Any questions on the part of fellow commission? Okay. Does any commission member had any expart? Robert, do you want to do that or would you like me? Um, how well am I coming through on the audio? I can hear you fine. Okay, I'll give it a shot. So, this application is for the construction of a new single family dwelling on a partially developed property that is within local wetland inventory site number 19. Existing development consists of an elevated steel frame and subterranean utility connections. The existing development was authorized by Oregon Department of State Lands removal fill permit 41880-RF that was issued in June 2009. This application seeks to complete development of the property through the utilization of these existing on-site resources in order to minimize ground disturbing activities. Wetland delineation 2024-0284 shows two distinct wetland areas totaling approximately 840 square ft. The remainder of the site falls

within the 50ft buffer area for these wetlands. No tree removals will take place as there are no trees present on the property. Moving into the applicable criteria uh for the wetland overlay zone requirements. Just scrolling down here. The first staff comment is that due to the site's configuration, there are no opportunities for development outside of the delineated wetlands or their buffer area. However, through adaptive use of the existing 2,470q ft piled driven structural framework and utility connections, the applicant will be able to minimize the amount of ground disturbing activity required to complete development of the property. The majority of the homes site falls within the buffer area with small portions of the wraparound elevated deck being within the delineated wetlands themselves. The proposed dwelling will have a footprint of 1,220 square ft, which exceeds the 1,000 ft maximum allowed. Um, additionally, the wraparound deck will measure 1,340 square ft, which exceeds the 400 square ft maximum for nonstructural hardscape. Additionally, an off- streetet parking area is proposed on the southwestern corner of the property. As the proposed footprint and other hardscaped areas exceed the limitations imposed by 17102 07B1, the applicant is requesting a variance to these standards. uh continuing onward into the development standards. Uh the primary mitigation measure taken by this proposal is avoidance of ground disturbing

activities um by utilizing an existing piled driven frame uh to serve as a foundation for the dwelling and deck. Um, mitigation measures specified by the application include the placement of heavy duty landscaping fabric along the western and southern portions of the existing frame. Uh, that will be covered by four to six inches of bark chips to prevent ground disturbance to the wetlands from construction equipment access. Silk fencing will be placed along the remaining wetland boundaries to prevent inadvertent equipment access. Uh, a parking and staging area will be designated in the southwestern corner of the tax lot and will be topped with 3/4 minus gravel. If additional parking and staging is needed, it will be located on existing gravel areas on Hemlock uh to the west. A bark chip path will be created between Hemlock Street uh staging area and the staging area off of Sixth Street. Bark chips silk fencing will be removed following construction. Soil will be tilled to loosen any compaction followed by seeding and with native coastal grass uh seed mix prior to construction. Notweed and blackberries will be removed by hand andor herbicide. And the list continues on. Um, in exhibit A5, the best management practices and restoration plan also includes a monitoring plan which identifies performance standards including that seated areas will have at least 80% cover after one year. Um, native trees will native trees and

shrubs will achieve 100% survival after one year. Occurrences of Japanese notweave notweed and invasive species will be removed from the property for the duration of the monitoring period. Uh the installation of permanent demarcation wetland bees boundaries will prevent inadvertent access in perpetuity and monitoring letters will be sent to the city of Canon Beach by December 31st for a 5-year period following submitt of the asbuilt letter. Moving into storm water standards and storm water design. Uh the application narrative indicates that storm water will be conveyed into the wetland buffer area. However, no methodology was provided. The site plan included in exhibit A4 shows a storm drain connecting to a municipal catch basin on the southwestern southwest of the property. Uh this basin is then connected to the city's larger storm water uh management system. Moving into conditional uses, the staff comment is that the subject property is zoned residential medium density R2 and a single family dwelling is a permitted use in that zone. The surrounding neighborhood is residential in nature and the property was originally intended to be developed as a single family dwelling. The proposed development is small in scale and will not generate a significant amount of traffic or demand on public infrastructure. Uh moving on into variances. The first staff comment is the municipal code 1710270B restricts maximum density coverage or MA maximum building coverage

on a wetland lot of record to 1,000 square ft with an additional 400 square ft allowance for nonstructural improvements such as off- streetet parking areas, walkways, patios, etc. This application proposes to make use of an existing 2,470 square foot elevated piled driven steel framework that will be used to support a dwelling with a a footprint of 1,220 ft and a wraparound deck of approximately 1,350 square ft. An additional grass and gravel off street parking area will be provided on the southwestern corner of the property. The presence of the framework provides a limited opportunity to develop the site without further ground disturbance. Not being able to make use of the framework may result in its continued presence as an incomplete structure or an eventual need for its removal in order to accommodate a development that complies with the limitations of 17107B. prior uh the prior construction of the pileup supported foundation is not considered to be a violation of the municipal code or any type of self-induced hardship which could qualify this from being considered as part of a variance request. And moving into the off- streetet parking and loading variance request, the applicant requests that the two required off- streetet parking spaces be located partially outside of the property's boundaries near the intersection of Sixth and Hemlock. At present, this is an undeveloped portion of the public rideway that is covered in lowlying vegetation. It is also an area of wetland buffer between the two delineated wetland areas on the subject property. No structural improvements are

proposed as part of this variance request and the off streetet parking area will consist of gravel as per the site plan. And that concludes the staff report. Okay. Thank you, Robert. Is there any additional correspondents that came in um that say two? I think we had sent everyone letters this afternoon that did come in. I think there was uh some photos from neighbors um to the north that were part of your package. So that was the only correspondence and we provided that photo. Yeah. was the same. Can I ask a question of our staff? If um just for clarification, we have additional use and then we have our barriers and the variance is for specifically the additional area and the off street park varian. Correct. Correct. Okay. Now, are they to be considered together or separate? This is all one application. So, you could take actions on that mission use permitted and um the variances separately if you chose to do so. uh and some public testimony program criteria to be considered are noted in the staff report listed on the criteria sheets ought to be paid to the city website. Testimonic arguments and other recorded towards proposed criteria or other criteria in

comprehension. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements are evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal based on our mission prior to the conclusion of the initial evidentary hearing. Any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments or evidence in the application. The planning shall grant such by contin shall first receive recognition from the chair. State their full name and mailing address and with appearing their representative will be identified for their presentation by the Good evening. Thank you for hearing myself and my team tonight. I am Scott Robertson. My address is 672 North Post Street and I'm a general contractor representing my clients Eric and Joan Witcher who uh purchased this property that we're talking about here at 116 East 6th Street March of 23. Uh December of 23 they hired me to uh begin working on this project. And this was this is something that had been there for over 15 years now. Many of you probably have seen the steel structure there at that lot and um it just sort of has been languishing until they they purchased that with the original plans, a set of Jay Raskin plans. I believe he was at one time mayor of Canon Beach and um a well-renowned architect. And so client's idea was that they were going to purchase the property with the existing pilings and foundation and those plans that we would just they'd be able to move forward with that. But since things have changed quite a bit in 15 years since that was put together, we have um realized that we weren't going to be able to realize that initial vision that house way too big for what is going on here in Beach now. So what we've done is I've been over the last over the course of this last year put together a team of

experts. We have a new architect, new set of plans, um a land use specialist and uh we have a wetlands expert here with us tonight. So, um, uh, we have a bunch of great ideas that we'd like to share with you and then if you have a question, we will take those as well. So, now I'd like to introduce the land use specialist, Joseph Schaer. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Joseph Schaer and I'm the parallegal at Jordan Ramis. My address is 1211 Southwest 5th Avenue, 27th floor in Portland. Um, I just want to give a little context for what we're dealing with here tonight. And I'm going to turn this so I can see uh a little better myself while I speak to you. Uh, but essentially we have two issues that we're trying to address application. The first issue is the weather and the second issue is our concerns from neighboring property to the north about solar exposure. Um, with us tonight we have Gabby, our Mr. Sher, forgive me for interrupting. I want to make sure the commissioners on the line. Can Can you guys see what I don't know how these cameras work, honestly. Can you guys see what's um being presented to us here, but Mr. Schaefer just moved? That's what you guys keep moving around. Okay. So, I think Mr. Schaer, when you're when you're referencing a particular Well, he's speaking. So, when he's speaking, does the does the image show focus and or do you have the sheets handy? So, if we read off the sheet number, do you have something you can look at to see what we're talking about? I have the packet open. Okay. Why don't something use the sheet

number so just make sure I'm speaking about the planting plan right now uh which is um item seven drawing seven just to speak in general terms because that planning plan is a a site plan not only of our site but of our surrounding right of way. Um uh you'll see on that plan especially the wetland uh in the northwest corner of our property continues offsite. So the it's it's the site plan has expanded beyond the four corners of our property. Um we think that's necessary to you know sort of illustrate the context of what's going on and of course mother nature does the property. Um uh and then yes, sheet nine is also similar plan. Same plan. Okay. Just different labels. Okay. Um I'm going to talk about two things in the staff report. First, I'm going to reread a sentence that Robert read a minute ago because it's a beautiful sentence and it's very accurate. I wish I had it myself. Um the presence of the framework, the steel framework provides a limited opportunity to develop a site without further ground observing activity. Um that that is the whole crux of the wetland variance. U the structures there, the underground utilities are there and we would like to utilize them without further ground disturbance. Now, uh, as Scott mentioned, uh, the code has changed. We're proposing a much smaller house. Um, and Jacob can explain the design of of how the shape of the house and the

location of the house were derived. Uh, but the gist of it is we start from the proposition that the code allows 100,000 square foot footprint. Oh, excuse me, 1,000 square foot and twotory height. So, the sort of the basis of the architect's program, if you will, was a 2,000t house. So, uh yes, we could have a 2,000 foot, you know, box. Um Jacob had what we think is a better idea, uh both aesthetically and then also to minimize the shading for the property to the north. Which is the Which way is north? I am now. North is straight up. So, what we're talking about is this is the neighbor's house. You can see it's skewed to the property line. It's closest at this point, which is about seven or eight feet from the property line. And I'll I'll let Jacob describe that in more detail for you. Um the second piece of the staff report and Robert's comment that I would like to address is the storm water. So we approached this as wetland. Okay, the house is essentially in the wet above her. We thought the city would like to have the water stay in the wetland and we would find a way to distribute a roof drain essentially right on site on the surface. Um, in speaking with Trevor in public works, his preference was to connect to the existing storm brick. So the application narrative which I wrote said we'll just put it on the ground. Later on I learned that public works says put it in the city and the applicant team is fairly agnostic. Whenever the city prefers on that, we'd be happy to do it.

So that's all I have unless there's any particular questions. Question it's all native vegetation you might you reference this. Yeah. I'll let Gabby give you the details on the landscaping. I will say that we have a lot of non native vegetation there now. And when Gabby and Jacob are done, Scott is going to talk for a minute about the construction management plan. And so we have two kind of hazards. One is getting rid of the non-native vegetation skill and then Gabby will tell you about. Okay. Thank you. Hi. Um, thank you for being here tonight. Um, my name is Daddy Vent and I'm a wetland biologist with ecological land services. We're located at 1157 Third Avenue, Sweet 28 in Long View, Washington. And um, similar to how the arborist the last case, I wanted to start by asking our council members and the commissioner here tonight if you'd like me to start with the phone or if there's any particular questions you'd like to start off. Perfect. Uh my colleague Stephanie Simpson who could not be here tonight led the red delineation of the wetland for DFL review which approved our boundaries of wetland A that you see here. Sorry height challenge and wetland B which you see extending into the six street rightway. The remainder of the property is confirmed by the staff report is consistent of the 50 foot and buffer areas. And the reason for our

variance requested because of the confined space and the inability to go deconstruct in openings that's not did not outside of areas that were previously approved for build when the pilings were installed. Um so for that reason we wanted to recognize enhancement and restoration of these existing wetlands to the greatest extent possible through the habitat fun the water quality functions of the unit. Um outside of construction management that Scott will talk about um just in a little bit here. Um once the site is ready to be restored and have mitigation components installed, the first step will be tilling soils to remove any compacto areas and installing this coastal grassland seed mixture which consists of native seeds typical to Washington or Oregon coast that various different grass and for species which will grows mountains and spreading foundations which are applicable to a variety of local habitat. and fauna that would utilize the area particularly deer which mean browns on the grasses um birds smaller animals chip those types of things that you may commonly see in more residential irrigation the seeds undocumented to improve bofiltration functions and storm water that might not make it into the city storm system as per the city's request which is common for roof or decking that will be adjacent to the wetlands in the other areas. And then I guess let's move on to the shrubs that were selected. Shrubs that were selected for planting on the site, the way they're shown on this figure, it should be noted, is not the exact placement. The well that the sorry

words, it's not the exact placement that they'll be installed. The biologist or contractor on site will determine their best available location based on the on-site conditions at the time of the installation. Those will be documented as built award monitor for that 5-year period of time. And the two trucks in particular are being proposed here. One is Stanberry and the other is Rose. Both are very well known for their ability to create native volunteers to spread over time to create a dense thicket which will improve both water quality functions and habitat functions as well as provide a food source to the to the wetlands and buffer areas. Three different trees were specked for the restoration plan and enhancement as well. Uh the first being a logical pine which is one of the most common tree species we see at the Washington and Oregon coast. It was specifically selected in this case because it is a fairly short train of stature. So it will help prevent any light issues going on neighboring property to the north. You see the lodge pole pines are proposed here right right outside of wetland A and here right to the west of wetland B. So given their proximity to the home itself and where it may have proximity to the existing homes in the north, that species will ensure we're not overly shading the northern property. Organ crab apple which was selected is also a shorter growing tree in stature. It creates native volunteers similar to the shrubs that were selected largely due to the seeds that are spread from the group. creates and of course it's I think very obvious in the nature of the tree that it contributes food that would benefit local habitat in Sikka spruce we have three trees that are proposed in the right way just to the south of wetland A and the

reason these trees are being proposed is because the wetland A contains a forested canopy which predominantly consists of western red cedar and sikas roots cedars were not selected for this particular case. Not only because some recently planted in the wetland a area by the contractor. We got the glass here, but sikas spruce are less susceptible to disease than cedar. They have a faster growth rate and will contribute to a more complete growth formation. outside of the species that were selected. Um the general cons not my strong suit. The general idea behind the shrub and tree planting plan is to create a dense woody stemmed environment which slows and filters hydraology given the shallow groundwater table as almost everywhere in a coastal region that will help promote infiltration and will promote less standing stagnant water in winter seasons. Um given that um I do want to point out that there is no enhancement and restoration proposed on the northern side of the decking and the very far eastern side of the decking here. Um, one reason is for accessibility. And this area right here does contain some small concentrations of Japanese notweed. And we're Scott will talk about his methods that he's been using on site for controlling the Japanese and notweed. But we're outweighing the control of notweed versus planting over dudes and notweed's nature. And it's more important that we shade out the plant without using pesticides or herbicides and cover the plastic to break up the ryomes and roos to prevent the species from continuing to grow. The applicant may choose to enhance these areas after the note has

been eradicated, but that places a higher ecological function. Um, that being said, any questions about how that plan was developed or why certain species were selected, I think I'm going to have some questions about restoration versus mitigation, but could you tell me I don't know if you're the right person to answer that, maybe get someone else on the team. And when I look at this, the disturbed area is at least 247 square feet, but I'm not seeing mitigation in same areas. what's disturbed. So, so how is that being balanced out? His code says one. So, this area where the home is being proposed, the mitigation was covered in the previous DSL approval with the board permit through the purchase of inmouth feed credits. These small areas where you see encroachment into the wetlands. Uh we're not considering those in particular to be direct wetland impacts or buffer impacts because the home itself will be raised on the existing steeling pile. The area will allow hydraological connectivity from wetland A to wetland B, but will also continue to provide functions for habitat coverage and general I was thinking of, but locations for wildlife to rest and to read as well as to kind of store their their Thank you guys. I apologize making this wrong. I know we're saying I think we understand what you're saying. Yes. But the the niche within the baceous layer will be located below the home allow various layering opportunities with small wildlife to hunt for food resources as well as maintain the high resources. When we when we pass this part of the conversation was the disturbed area would be the

coverage any impervious coverage and that includes both porch and home. Mhm. So I think the way that we've interpreted this code is a little differently than you're trying to characterize it. Um which one of the team would we discuss previous mitigation versus current mitigation with? Uh yeah, Gabby's most familiar with the priority. So under our code, it states that um mitigation is required and it says that although there may be ratios that would apply for federal or state mitigation so long as that mitigation is equal to or greater than the city minimum requirement. So they paid $4,818 in mitigation where this frame was put in. That certainly didn't equate to the same mitigation that our code requires. So my interpretation of the code is that in fact you still need to do the city level mitigation here. You can't rely on that previous offsite payment you paid into a fund or the previous owners did. So could you explain to me how you would address my concern that this still requires city mitigation through this code? Yes. Um so my professional interpretation is that mitigating for this area that will be developed a second time would constitute double mitigation. The reason for that being that the JPA process that allowed that core of NDSO approval required in Canon Beach should be approval. Uh which means that Canon Beach when they originally approved the prior home design from 2009 decided that that purchase of 0.06 6 acres of move fee credits, which equates to that $4,000 some dollars you mentioned would be adequate to mitigate for the direct wetland impacts as well as the indirect shading impacts that would occur. At the time, the buffer was

5T. The buffer is not 50 ft. So, actually what was considered mitigation necessary under the previous and that's a little bit of a sticky situation. And I have identified a section of code that I wanted to to bring up in the case that question was asked. It is [Music] 17.102.020E which states that portions of protected weathering that are legally filled in this chapter shall change to web buffered. And in my professional opinion, of course, I agree with your interpretation of the code that's written very clearly, filling a wetland and then constituting it with butter creates a process where you would have to come back and then propose mitigation after you propose wetland mitigation, which would in a sense be a double dipping or a mitigation. I don't think that's what's happening here. So, we're we are saying that the buffer is now 50 ft. So whatever was filled in the wetland is still in that wetland area close to but then the new buffer would require larger mitigation than was required previously whether or not there was still involved. We certainly understand that interpretation. Um ELS's professional interpretation is that filled areas constitute wetlands regardless of the way the code is written. So we can certainly come back propose additional mitigation if that's what council wants to see to get full approval. But again the professional opinion of ecological land services that is not the most appropriate interpretation of bills. Other questions? Yeah, the original ESL approval uh for 44 I believe it was

43 feet that was for the frame itself and installation correct at 43.22 two two cubic yards of fill in the red that was frame. Now that was done under ESL. Is there any court engineer involved? Yes, nationwide permit 2009-53. It was authorized to under nationwide permit type number 29. Now, what about current standards for DEQ? You do anything with 401? Uh to my knowledge, there are no current standards with DEEQ. I'm here today on behalf of my colleague Stephanie Simpson who has more experience working in organ projects. My simple base of knowledge from DEEQ is their best bet on the science where the 50 comes from but other than that I need to follow up unfortunately. What about additional fill that you're proposing now? Based on our interpretation, because of the way the home is being proposed, there would be no additional film. We can let Jacob speak the materials of the decade. It's certainly something you can be assessed based on the state. Any other questions? Evening. My name is Jake Shaveet and my address is 7873 Southeast Select Avenue, Portland, Oregon. And I am the uh the designer for this home. Um my thought is that u begin by explain to you kind of the overall approach for designers home and and I'll also how that relates to the u variances that we're that we're asking

for. Um does that seem like appropriate way to start? Yeah, sure. Um okay. So because of this lot is is oriented you know east east west here you know 50 by 100 wide um oriented east west it's kind of a wide lot um as you see there on the kind of lower left hand side of the site plan there there's a lower entry step stair platform which is approximately 21 in above grade um that in itself has one single piling right in the center of it. Um so because it is steel frames that 42 in above grade um you have that means to get up there and so that was designed originally to be kind of at that midpoint. Um so so the initial intent of u of this design was to utilize as much of that existing frame as we could and that included um that entry. So the the design um began with aligning the the the front door, the main entry with with that um that stair platform. Um and what this led led to is um was it a design design that was kind of uh wider I would say and and more um uh kind of you know elongated um which um felt more appropriate for this slot. Um so so in addition the the home in order to kind of keep the mass of the home down because we're already at a disadvantage um because the the home is up on this 42 inch high platform you know essentially for the roof height we're not asking for kind of variance but um was um you know we essentially lost that 42 in height.

So, uh, the goal there was to kind of work with that, you know, overall, um, elongated or the wide nature of the lot and to, um, take some of that square footage from that would otherwise be a second story of a of a twotory th00and square foot, um, on each level home. Um so so the intent here was to reduce the mass essentially um by taking 200 twins per square feet down to the main level. Um and and so essentially resulted on in this this uh plan which you see with the the heavy red lines and over it. Um a little difficult to read there but the intent there by showing those red lines was that was the the previously approved design. um a beautiful home design, but it's no longer um allowed in the current the current code. Um and so as you can see, you know, the the the new home um massive is is reduced. If I can maybe find the front elevation where we can also be found on Yeah, there can also be [Music] found on page 11 of the submitted um packet there. was the front elevation which you know had reduced mass um and kind of a lower

structure which I believe more in line appropriate with the character and That's about all I really have. Anybody? Yeah. How How do you Do you say that's 28 ft from the ground up to the highest point? That's correct. Yeah. To the ridge. Yes. Which is roof height for for What is the problem with the neighbor through the north? You keep bringing that up. Yeah. You know, the neighbor to the north, he's he's concerned about um solar access. He's concerned about losing losing some light. Um, you know, and so that was that was part of our response here was was to design this in a way that was, you know, sensitive to to that concern, you know, um, without, you know, over the comp what the what the owner is trying to achieve with design. So, I'm confused. Maybe um, speaking. Don't they need a setback for No, they don't. they're meeting all the setbacks. So, this loan is meeting all the required setbacks. And in fact, I think the home itself is 8 map on the property line and five. So, so there is some space there. I think when you take a look at the site plans, you can see the front of the diagonal house and you can see how that reflects to the proposed porch of the new home. You can

see that there's space uh that's there and based on that elevation and how the road runs uh I believe this was around east west they've looked at certain things I believe to try to attempt to alleviate any type of concerns with solar access to the property to the north. So that you rear yard over here. We have two uh front yards and then and Robert, you correct me if I'm wrong. Two fronts and two sides. Correct. This is a corner lot. So these street facing yards are 15 feet and the other yards would be five. And this proposed four floor plan does comply with those setbacks. All right. And if I could say um we actually have uh increased the the setback um by an additional 5T in fact. Um so you can see on the site plan that I just put up there that the setback to that line at the middle of the house is actually 10 ft. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I I have quite a few questions. I know. I've got a brief one. Um, you address dark sky lighting. It looks like in the elevations they there wasn't any dark skylighting. The lights that were there were open, right? Are you referring to the rendering the sheet? Yeah. So, um, the rendering is is is just a conceptual AI rendering. Um the actual uh lighting location and selections um are on the landscape plan and

um we have also you know those exterior lights they would all be so shielded. Yeah. Okay. It looks like number sheet number six, right? You don't you don't have any cut sheets on the light. I'm sorry. You don't have any cut sheets on the lighting. Uh no, not this at this time, you know. Um but uh it would all be, you know, similar to the this style of the book on page seven there showing you pure mounted lanterns um stairing lighting uh that face down you know these type of lives. Um we anticipated that that you know you know this move forward at the point that we would move the next whatever one of the next steps would be to sleep and get those approved. I have I do have a couple questions. Um let's start on setbacks. um you are corner lot 15 15 five and five except on your south elevation you project your deck into that 15t setback which is over 30 in which is a nonline right that's the first one the the arch there yes right your second one is on the south property line for the entry uh where our code clear 176 0D that Um, adding index in more than 30 in are allowed to project into required yards, but may not be closer than 2 ft to a property line.

The Are you referring to the the landing? Yes. Yeah. The front. Yeah. Your steps are non compant. No. Well, the steps themselves, I think you're referring the the landing itself can't be within two feet, correct? Your visitor frame is 2 foot2 away, right? But you also have are your main front. Those are those are 30 in the steps. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But the bow in the front definitely not right. Yeah, the bow um that is is something that uh you have requested but I understand you know that's something that would require additional variance and um that we don't that very setback reaction. Um I like three pounds very um in regards to structural frame I need to work with dense resistant could that have been modified you know we look at that and you know the thing is is that the the pilings there are three rows of pilings um and they're 15 ft apart um so so the problem is we looked at the possibility of removing between say a row of those platin well the trouble is that that only leaves us with 15 ft. So in order to which is basically the width of like a skinny house right so um the only thing that could be done with working with those you know two rows of

existing pilings would be would be a skinn you know it would be 15 foot wide um was like 60 ft long. Oh, it doesn't mean that you couldn't replace. Exactly. Yes. Correct. Because this is this is true. But yeah, the intent here was to to minimize the impact on the web. Sure. The reason why I'm asking is that you're asking for footprint of 4,000 ft roughly 300, 1300 is your footprint of the structure. 1,200, 1200. Yeah. You're asking 200. Right. And I understand like 1,000 square ft is very restrictive. Um but you're also asking for three times the amount of non structure 400 almost 1300 square ft. Where I'm going with this is have the have this frame you're you know tying yourself to the frame of size. So, but because you're not looking modified, you're now asking for um asking for a change in the variance in size, but also a variance in parking. I can see in the front that your frame is restricting your parking as stage, we're required to two sites on the property. So, had the frame been modified, your parking would have been within your property line. the house could have been smaller. We would have reduced the amount of deck which would have reduced the impact on over 400. So were there any had you explored any designs that would have modified that? Yes. You know um so I I'll address both those um separately. Um and so so the first one you know working with the the remainder of the existing frame and

making that all deck um you know I I think that the the idea there the intent was that the um again we're minimizing the impact on web. minimizing the amount of, you know, demo and work that we that we're doing there be sensitive to that. And so, um, by working with that existing frame, then, you know, naturally the rest of it would would need to change it in some way. And so, you know, this the most obvious thing would come to bank and walkway around. Um, you know, and then regarding regarding parking, um, that portion of the site is kind of the only, you know, uplands in of the the whole site. And so, um, in order to, um, to to make that parking on site, we actually have to bring in some fill and, you know, cut the pilings down, but then also bring some fill, compact it, you know, and and make that parking. Um, so again, you know, um, to be, you know, low impact on our wetlands and sensitive to that. Um, you know, that's that's essentially how we arrived at this design. Um, uh, Joseph Schaer speaking, I would add that, um, we rarely try to avoid dealing with filings. Okay. um and to air on the side and not disturb the wetland. If the commission would rather see uh less debt and do what you need to do to take some pilings out and add some new ones in, you know, we're listening for sure, but we just decided to air on the side of not messing with the structure it was already in.

Can you talk to the conflicting ideas of protecting the weapon from what has been done to what will be done or the impact to the weapon from what has already been done by the impact of the weapon by the addition that you proposed. Yeah. Well, Jacob was talking Gabby and I did some math and she can explain sort of the square footage of the mitigation that we're doing now that Gabby's proposal. Yes. Um so with what we're currently promoting uh we have 1380 square ft of seating area as well as 705 square ft of planting based on a on center calculation which gives us a total of 285 square ft of mitigation over would you be able to confirm the total amount of square footage of the formula the law this style of housing and that that footprint our steel structure at the same right under 2500. So that leaves us with a deficit of just over 400 square feet of mitigation that would be required the way the code is written. Yeah. And some of that could be made up. You know, earlier Gabby was saying how she doesn't show a planting along the north and east boundary because it's going to take a while for Scott to make the notweed go away because we're not using chemicals. Uh so there's additional area that we haven't tried to calculate. Correct. But there's a significant extra area up there on those two sides. and we can calculate how that area would add into to mitigation is to meet that one to one ratio that's required by code.

Um I guess the point is we're awfully close to having 2400 ft to work with. In addition, I think we're uh showing some plantings that are happy to plant outside the four corners of the lot. the rights of way on on both sides are um I wouldn't say undeveloped, but they're certainly on the you know low impact skating street uh variety boarding and I'm sorry. Was that a question? No, sorry about that. Oh, one additional thing. Clay, will you uh I I'm being kicked out of my office and I just logged in from my phone. Will you promote me from my phone? So, I'm gonna hang up for one additional measure I would ask that we could utilize for mitigation is there are some existing mature plants underneath these pilings that can be relocated in the north proximity or the west or I'm sorry the east proximity of the property mainly consisting of cabbage and rush. Uh they're fairly mature, fairly large, could be easily dug up and would survive even with some minor damage to their root structure. And those would contribute to needed volunteers in the bottom areas as well. Resources are available in despite being less than one to one figures. Question I have a question or maybe it's two if I may. Well, it seems like that the the plan from the beginning was to preserve the steel structure uh for the you know for for the purpose of reducing impact to the soil. But how

much effort was really put into what it what would it really take to remove that structure and how much impact would we really see? Because without that in there, then obviously you could bring in a house plan that met all of the requirements of a of a wetland buffer lot. I I intuitively understand we're not going to disturb as much dirt, but do you re did you really look into what it would take just to get rid of it? Well, [Music] um Chaper here, I'll speak to the microphone instead of looking at you on the screen. Um yes, we do look at that because then you're looking at two impacts. Okay. So, in terms of actually getting the steel that's there out, okay. Um, you're talking about getting a crew in there with uh torches presumably uh and having cranes to uh lift it out uh for the islands themselves. Um you know, we won't try and dig them out, so to speak, but you might pull a fence post. Um we would excavate around each violin and then a person could reach into the excavation with a torch. I'm not sure how big the excavations would need to be, but room enough for, you know, a worker's arms and the torch to get in there and cut them. And then uh then we're in a situation where the steel structure is drawn. Okay. Then we have sort of a new impact of a compliant house, whether it was an adrain house, which we think would have a larger wetland impact and Gabby can articulate that. Um or we could uh you know propose a another house on island different arrangement.

Well, go ahead. Oh, well that's kind of the question just to me is uh I feel like we're being asked for quite a bit in terms of variances. um that all hinges on saving a a 15-year-old structure that really wasn't ideal. Um and I just like to have some assurance that we're really getting the benefit that that's being offered by not disturbing the soil or, you know, any more than we have to. I I just really can't quite get there. Uh I I mean, I have a cutting torch. I can cut off steel beams. It doesn't seem like it's that hard to me, but maybe I'm mistaken. Go ahead. I'm Scott Roberts. I can speak to that. Um I at the beginning of this project, I actually had a structural engineer there, the steel expert, and those people will be brought back in at appropriate times. I mean, should we move forward with this? But so the post pilings are massive and there's some 50 ft down each of those. And so I'm not certain if we're somebody would want to leave the the most of that underground to leave that in place. We're going to cut it off. We're going to preserve that whole area. Um and then I have just turn to Gabby and ask what do you think we would be left with at that point? How are we going to fix that and bring I don't know. Um, are we going to try to pull those out? Another thing I'd like to mention with regard to those 50 foot pilings, we've been determined that that is where the solid ground is is at that depth. So, if we were to say pull back the north side of that, we have these now our town lever out with no support, we'd have to sink new pilings in there. So these are things that we considered

but we really we ultimately just came back to and after dealing with steel expert and the threatful engineer you examining this thing that's been sitting out exposure for the last 15 years we determined that it is retained its integrity and with a little bit of reconditioning is it be suitable to build on. So are you adding to the steel structure in any way that are you adding to the steel structure in any way? No sir. We have there might be some modification of the steel structure to reinforce certain parts of it. Uh maybe cutting through the webbing to allow for mechanical uh venting and deck work and things like that. What about wall lines that don't align with the steel structure? The which wall lines that don't align with steel structure? Are you okay? We'll let J speak to that. Um so it's correct. Yeah. the the house footprint um does not um align with with structural members um below. So there would definitely have to be some structure added underneath those um those wall lines. Um whether that needs to be steel or or wood at this point, we don't we don't know. Um you are adding to this to the structure. We would have to absolutely the way I would say is not extern right correct. So we may throw some essentially more joist in under where wall loans will be but we're not adding in the sense of expanding it to make a larger porch or something. To be clear, the idea going forward with the bill would be to add all that steel and wood to turn this into a traditional stick build house immediately. It was going to have a wooden floor deck and it's going to be wooden house building that. So when you think about modifying the structure in the

orient apart like this drawing that sure this is really best drawing to to see um that this this drawing over here which is the site plan um and actually it is in in packet I think there is an existing conditions site plan that that shows a drawing of the yeah it's called site analysis diagram site analysis diagram and beat number two. Essentially, they're evenly spaced. You know, one 5 ft from the north property line, one at the center, and then another um line of of pilings at the front. So is there a reason why you couldn't say take off the west side which currently is one of the areas for encroachment in one of the delineated wetland and is mostly porch you'd still maintain plenty of square area for your home because the home is actually nearly lined well what you'll see what you'll see actually is that the next um row of pilings is right along the center of this landing right here. Um, so you know, removing these three pilings out here, yeah, you have this whole section of the deck right here which is unsupported. So the answer to your question though is yes, you could remove those pilings to the west, but then we have those canaver beams that are just kind of floating there. You have to add those. Yes, but that could be done with here. It's a small small. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. I'm just going to read again the comment from the staff report. The presence of the framework provides a limited opportunity to develop the site without ground disturbing activity. Um we thought that's the direction the city would like to see. If the city would like to say no, we can put up with some temporary disturbance. We'd rather have a smaller deck, you know, etc., etc. Um we'd be happy to come back with some revised

design. I think part of our concern is that the long-term impact of having impervious structure over the top really does change the dynamics here. So right now, yes, I understand there's been ground disturbance for those peers, but in the long term, covering all that over creates quite a different dynamic for that whole area. So I think that our thought is we're trying to understand I think this is what Jay's getting at to how much ground disturbance is it really to modify not remove the current structure so that what is left will be smaller in terms of imperous area and gain more for yes yeah the way I would answer that is you know I'm not a weapon scientist I can't measure the cost of taking buying or adding a new one. Um, but I will say if if the obviously we were focused on short-term concerns, you know, what's it going to take to get in there and get old ones out and new ones in, etc. Um, hearing the commission tonight, you're clearly more concerned about long-term impacts as opposed to temporary construction impacts and we're happy to, you know, adjust the plans accordingly. Steve, would you Yeah, I just wanted to uh voice from the standpoint. We've been talking to the applicants for quite some time and these are all questions that we posed to them during our discussion. So, you just need to be aware that we pointed many of these issues out and told the applicants it would be their responsibility to justify and come in these positions. But just wanted the plan commission to be aware that the applicants were aware of these concerns months.

And the other point I'd like to make and it can be during the staff uh response should you choose. I have lots of comments with regards to use of the right way. Are there any other questions? Is there anything further you'd want to add further? Well, I'd like to add something about the eradication of invasive species. I had an interesting meeting with Alvin Butler at the site about a year ago and I wanted to have him examine the piling, examine the foundation and let me know how he felt about us being able to obtain building permits. And immediately Alton said to me, "You're not going to do anything until you get rid of these weeds." And I had no idea at the time what it was. this huge patch of Japanese knotweed at the time. It was about 10 feet tall. I had never seen this stuff. I didn't know what it was. And so I talked to experts. I talked to the person that handled it from the city of Canon Beach. But with the clients and had several different people, including everybody I just mentioned in um indicate to me that the best approach would be to use toxic chemicals. Uh and so I made an important decision at that time not to do that. um is a personal decision that I made and I was really torn up about this because I thought gosh the whole project or me is hinging on this wild little deal, you know, the patch of weeds. But then I did some research and figured out that if I uh just cut that down and then apply vinegar and salt and then cover the whole area, the rising has like a ryome type root ball kind of like bamboo. Uh I cover that with six mil 6 millm visine. So, it's a pretty big area that I covered and then I weighed them down with boards, kind of st those in so that they would that plastic wouldn't blow around and be a problem with the neighbors. So, I did that. It's been about a year now. And what I do is I go back every several months and pull that back and then I pick at those rhythm balls with like a pickaxe. You have to just do it have to be elbow grease. It's

pretty serious deal. And then more salt and vinegar and then you blade that plastic back over it and it is really effective. I'm getting a really great result with that. So, I'm proud of that. and show that that's one way that I'm trying to preserve that sensitive wetland. Then on top of that, we also have quite a bit of the blackberry difficult to get rid of. But so I've been working on that for proud similar fights. I would like say I would like to hear uh Steve's comments about the right of way issues so we can sort of respond to that presented set up that way. We didn't talk about that before. My hunch is we probably won't have that sort of discussion. Anything further you'd like to add what we haven't covered so far? We'll come back to you by the way. We will close before we close the record. We will come back to you uh for the final opportunity. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Um but there's no more time by there. Other people in favor of this. Okay. Yes, sir. Good evening to 620 to so I I I actually submitted um some comments. Oh yeah. And after hearing everything else, my my questions

about solar access seemed kind of small, but I I was wondering if I could ask the design team um just in terms of the design of the building, how do they evaluate, assess the impacts of solar on my lot, which is directly north. The way this process is set up, you can ask us. Okay. Know that we will consider that and we will give them the opportunity to respond in their time of confinement between parties. Okay. Okay. Feel free to ask it. And everyone gets to hear your question. Well, actually, I did ask that in in my u my email. Yeah, I did ask those question. And may I ask you a question? Sure. Um and again, this is just so we kind of have some context. I'm not a solar access specialist, but I did visit the site and I considered your concern and I thought about, you know, if I live in the house, what am I worried about? What where is this going to impact me? Try there. I'm not sitting in your backyard. But I did take a good look. Sure. You have those trees back there. Yes. It seems like if this house is going to impact you, it's really going to be in that sitting area that that backyard area where you might spend time probably spend time out wondering the weather when it's not. Is that your concern about the solar access primarily? It is in that area. Yes, it is. And and um yeah, it seems to me and yes, I agree with your comment that the house will be taller than trees, but as I think about the path of the sun in relation to the height of those trees, this the majority, you know, especially the majority of the solar impact is already in place in those trees. There will be maybe a little bit more but as I and again know the angle of the sun can change. Sure does

change but I I sat there and I really thought about it like I think that is really going to impact maybe just that skylight and I don't know that the angle would hit it in the backyard. The trees are actually about um 12 15 ft something like that. So the feet the house is going to be 28 feet. So it's quite a bit higher. It had more to do with the proximity and again the proximity of the trees to where you're sitting. You know there's that distance there and I don't know how much for the fish 15 20 ft. It's a it's a small tight area. Yeah. For sure. And there's a there's a time of day and that's on the southwest corner of your it um Yes. So um so it's there the design that's proposed sits further more from your house. The um the center of the house the height which is the highest part is um kind of half a halfway down. Yeah, sure. So, um, yeah, the trees. So, this is the patio. So, the trees end about end about here or something. Yeah. All right. I understand. Yeah. So, anyway, I Yeah, I submitted that. I I would haven't been in one of these before, so I don't all the procedures. Well, appreciate you coming tonight and know that we are thinking about that public testimony and means a lot to us about

that. Are there any other presentations at this time? Okay. Is there a staff response? Yeah, only a couple comments with regards to rightway and variances and parking and some of the mitigation efforts. Um, with regards to rightway, the plan commission really only has perview over private property. Um, it's the city council who is the one who takes a look at allowing uh projects or things like that to utilize city brightly. So when you're thinking about that, the if you're considering parking variance, the options are that you consider no parking on the site or you consider uh a variance in that spot provided that the applicant gets the required encroachment to utilize the right away from council. Um, with regards to the mitigation, I would say that falls into similar situations in terms of what we're talking about from a zoning ordinance perspective, meaning the mitigation supposed to be taking place on the private property because we don't know whether it's engineering or whomever what concerns they have with survey. So we never as a plant commission are granting applicants variances or authority to use the rightway with that that's just not in the plan commission's fur. So, it's really important to understand that when we're looking at this that we either commission if we were to approve this and we're talking about variances that it's either no parking or it's the parking has proposed provided they obtain the

necessary encroachment and the same with mitigation. If they're going to propose mitigation in the right way, there should be conditions that require that and approach them because plantation cannot break those barriers. That makes sense. Question. Okay. Was that good? Yeah. All right. We'll come back to the applicant. Respond if you can be heard. Yeah. Thank you again, Joseph Schaefer. I'm going to step over uh in front of a couple of these boards. Uh number 521 and six. Um and I wanted to discuss the concern about solar access and the solar questions. We don't have a solar study per se. We'd be happy to provide one if you'd like. But what we did uh is a couple things that are illustrated here. Again, the red outlines are former house. Okay. So, the first thing we did was we moved the house 5 ft um with a couple small bumpouts where the setback is 7 ft but most of the house is 10 ft and five is the middle. Uh so that's the first thing we did. Second, we did you see more on this north elevation outline. We obviously shrunk the volume of the house. Um the third thing is we don't have any fall projections, no chimneys as the front of the house does. Um this comes at a cost of the front yard. as Commissioner Olaf pointed out, hey, we've got this Burberry projection on the front that is now in the front impact. Um, so

u you know that that's the cost to the applicant as giving up you know more of his front cover. Um, so I just wanted to point those two things out. The third the next thing I remember is that we did is we tapered the house. As I mentioned earlier, we're generally allowed thousand footprint, two stories, 2,000 foot house. Right now we're I think 1950 and it's tapered. So we have a larger ground floor of about 1250 upstairs a little over 700 that gets us to just under 2,000. So we think by having a larger first floor and a smaller second floor that not only gives the appearance to people on the street of a a smaller house but it also reduces the solar impacts to the north. And the last thing I'll mention as you can see here on the roof plan we have ridges oriented east and west with a 1012 pitch. So on both the east side and the west side of the house what you see here on elevation five that is sloping down toward the north boundary which obviously reduces solar impacts as compared to a different type of ro shape or roof plane. Um uh in terms of Steve's comment a minute ago about the rideway I agree completely very accurate. Um again uh mother nature doesn't respect property lines and so um we understand that engineers see right away and have sort of specific ideas sometimes in mind for what they want to do in writing way. Um Scott have been in touch with the public works people uh frequently as we developed this design. Um haven't heard

any objections so far. Um and you know perhaps the way Steve explained it is you know write a condition uh that you know mitigation or harsh parking in the rightway needs to be approved separately. Can I ask a question? designer. Considering the solar issues, is there anything further that could be done with the roof line to further make better solar access for the property? Um, we did look at that and, um, it seems like the, you know, sort of the biggest impact there elevation is is that that that large cable. Um the the one thing that that could potentially be done is um is to make that a hip roof. Um it's satable there. Um you know um it wouldn't be you know in um uh keeping with the the gables the rest of the gables around the house. So um so I think that was the other reason why we headed toward a um but other than that you know to meet the program that the plant had and um you know we went to great extents actually really to keep the roofs low. [Music] I I have one more. Sure. Um the prior DSL approval was from 2010, right? Yeah. June 19th, 2010. I have to assume that was based on J. Rasin's plans of

2009. Correct. Y has the DSL review has have you submitted to DSL permanently? My last bit of no my last bit of interaction with DSL had to do with the new uh wetlandation report. Correct. So they've approved your wetland mitigation. Correct. They have not approved the structure. They haven't seen that the new I have not seen. Yeah. That's I think that might be a little bit of grub there. Okay. because they're they have no they that prior DSL approval was based on a frame based on a structure exist of the 2009 plan but not your current plans in 200. So if they're fully aware of the structure then um but yeah they haven't seen the new footprint the shrunken footprint but they do know about the island structure that's about 2500 square ft. Oh yeah, I had some correspondence back and forth with them about that. But they have not seen No, no, that we actually didn't even have them at that point in time. I got right into that wetlandation report that it was a part of the process I've been doing if you were broader than uh Steven. So, and I haven't had nobody suggested that bill right now. Is that something you feel like they are going to want to see that? They didn't indicate to me that they haven't seen. I would probably correct. Okay, I'll open that. because this is a completely different plan, completely different structural systems. We may be covering the same area but you have different condition. Okay. Thank you. Um I have a couple questions I think one uh you said you talked about tie into the storm grant system versus leaving the uh wetlands or or the water on the wetlands and the buffers. Right. Um they give you a reason for that. Is there been flooding on Six Street or

um no um we spoke with Trevor about Trevor Works and just asked him very plain basic question you know what are we going to do with the with the roof water and and he said put it in the storm rig. So we um we hope that there's that, you know, existing extension from the catch basin. And he said, you know, um you know, that's that's that's the typical thing that they would do. Dig that up, locate it, and um you know, runs. Would it trenches or would you suspend that from another structure? Um I mean I think typically it would be in trenches you know because if it were suspended then it could freeze and that's going to add so that will add yeah so we do have indicate you know approximately two yards you know purpose I mean there there may be you know certainly some options of suspending that catch basin uh site plan to give it a glue up there is is right here. So, this is an interesting sort of grain line approximately. I don't know exactly where it is, but you know, Ter said that they would we would they would dig this up and then connect out of that. Um but yeah, I mean you know alternative options of possibly spending with the lines to avoid excavation and with some frost protection, tree protection stuff like that you know this definite option. I I want to ask Steve, would Trevor really be that difficult on this issue or just express that it's typical for anyone to connect into the store? But I

mean that's you know so we could have conversations you know with them to see other options but construction that's one right I'm just saying that's um one more question here so that's got a double gable on the front that looks like that second gable Yeah, the upper one there. Could that be eliminated? But a straight line to the bottom gable would give few less feet and height to that center would still maintain the appearance of the the gable matching the other gables on the property. Um well, how much would that give us there, I guess, is what I'm saying. Well, a couple things. One one is that's an attic up there. Um, and that's where the the mechanicals um are designed to be located. You know, in a house like this there can be a lot of mechanicals. So, you're looking for places for that stuff and storage. But, um, but the other thing is is, you know, reduce that that gable. I think that it's important to to provide um kind of scale to to this house. I think that you know that what the lower gable what you're seeing there is actually that's a canal lever and so a little bit of a bump out there and so to give this this elevation some some depth you know this here is is a can lever with a lower gable and so you have see it's got row of beams right here so that's additionally can levered out past this portion of the of the of the dining room so you have some relief here and some additional relief here and then this is kind of the main body of the house. You can see this is one plane that continues and blends into the

reformers. It's also the front of the house facing the Well, there's a similar Oh, the back elevation. It's on Yeah, it's on this one here. Yeah. So, it's this one. This is the, you know, kind of continuation of that dormer. Oh, but it doesn't happen. It doesn't have Correct. Right. Correct. Doesn't happen. Right. Yeah. That's just more, you know, pragmatic and um simple. And and you can also see the difference here on this elevation. This is where the lower gables bumped out on the south side in the front and then on the back it just isn't there. Yeah. So, thank you. You have some really nice 3Ds and things like that that we can show you. Um I guess the rendering kind of show anyone else you'd like to have. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. Close the record deliberation. term. Well, I would say starting from mitigation, it was helpful to hear the sounds like they can kind of with some extra area, but I would want to see a more specific plan for where exactly is going to occur to make sure they offset that to run the entire structure, stair area, etc. the it sounds like a a qualified positive qualify positive. I mean you know with the right mitigation and I am still really

worried about the variance for this big a change from code a months thousand square feet that's th00and square foot coverage any buildings we're being asked to go up to 2470. Yeah. I don't like the president that said I really appreciate the fact that you're trying to deal with the existing structure. So I'm I'm a little bit torn. Um but I'm very very worried that we go that direction. What happens next time when someone comes in and says, "Well, now I want to build something that's 2470." Um that's why I was curious about this idea of whether this the underlying structure could be cut down enough so that when we grant the variance it's not double yeah three times nearly three times as much as what's allowed and I would say the way the code is written it's for thousand square feet coverage that doesn't mean you should be allowed 2,000 foot total if you made a box obviously it would but the code is is about the for the footprint building footprints. Um, so that's where I'm stuck. I I you know I understand that we have authority to make some or have some other um but I'm you know that I can't yeah that's a lot of hardcape and large footprint on that even some you know letting water run through this three times as much as I I don't disagree but let me run something by I mean this particular house has this

particular valuation has a [Music] benefit exception you don't have to tear up anything. So, you know, the president is, you know, there's really a a clear policy that kind of supports us here and uh you know, we get this ice off the map, we build a nice house. It actually is better than I think than going and taking all that out, putting your piles and just building from scratch. I'm not suggesting that. What my question would be is is there a way to take off just one end of the structure and then as you mentioned maybe some less invasive peers or something but to to reduce this incursion into the wetland I think that's a serious benefit and it does mean that then what we're granting for is much smaller but I wouldn't be expecting to remove the 50 ft underground ground, but there was a way to cut off. Yeah, real is never coming out. But it does mean it can't be cut below surface saw cut and and cut off and then cover still overall. To Mike's point, you know, the planting that they're going to be doing uh would I think enhance that area more so than what it looks like right now. and and eradicating the weeds and moving the invasive species might actually uh benefit the wetland areas more so than what what's going on there right now. And I don't know that for a fact. I'm looking at the plantings and I'm looking

at or hearing uh about the weed removal and um you know if we could find a way to maintain the water on there in those two wetland areas rather than just put it down into the storm drain. Uh we could have something that looks uh well that could benefit the two wetland uh areas on that property. But we get everything to benefit them having less impervious spaces actually for our group. But I I think it's a beautiful sign. Hope it happens. I just want to want us to think about whether that could be um reduced in size. So the porch basically is removed. I'm still concerned about the not knowing what our section 712 address 70 or two I'm sorry three a placement of Phil they're going to be and you know and they don't have they could they can get another permit required that are from the I just think the should be informed of the current plan rather than a 15year-old Other comments concerns. What about the variance piece? that falls into my same question of reducing reduction of the of the I do understand that there's some slope in there will require some bill be put in there but again they have a broad

allowance in and get that parking on site I am it's not a self-imposed hardship but I I like that they're using the existing frame I think is a great idea. um but modifications to it I don't think are outside of the outside of the side and they would eliminate that also secondary or additional space like I say I have no problem saying yeah maybe we should you know move well but this for me. Don't expect any anybody around for I'm not saying that he doesn't I don't think he does. I'm not I'm not saying that. Um, you know, I'm okay with that. Um, I still come back to we have a compelling argument that this is very exceptional and that all of the damage is done and then we say, "Yeah, that's true, but Let's do just a little bit of damage to make it work a little bit better. It's not just look, think about how much impervious area there would be. I mean, if you look at this site, you have lost an incredible amount of area. So, if we could gain back that much area for litigation, that is a serious benefit. I I don't agree that this is for looks. It's not at all about the looks. Yeah. Is there a way to change with the structure of the facility is not as as emerges. So, no, because once you've shaded all of that with porch or house, you've completely changed the dynamics of that area. No question you've changed the

dynamics. I'm looking to see if there's middle ground on the idea that it is now purpose. So spacing on boards uh facia uh on the front side other ideas for maybe a middle ground on the idea that that's an appropriate surgery. And again I'm I'm not the only thing that has me much more con much more along the lines of that shouldn't be there is the idea of variance. But if I put that aside and I just look at this from an impervious surface, I think there's a way that we consider it less and less uh damaged. But when we when we look at the code, the code doesn't say slightly pvious. The code says no coverage. The challenge the challenge for me is this is a system that is a very unique position in the city in as much as it was started it was developed under one set of codes city moved the the code and now it doesn't perform and so just philosophically I struggle with that and so I'm going to try to reach to find a way to at least make sure I consider ways to to make things that don't work on strict interpretation positive. they might not have the varian that's compensation because yes without I think my concern with that thought process is that it's not the same owners it's been 15 years you know it's this is not like wow six months ago a year ago someone started a process and suddenly the code changed on them this is so long in the past that if we start doing this

kind of reach back like, "Oh, there should be a right because somebody did something here 15 years ago." I think I've heard of the whole get stuck saying, "Oh, wait. Somebody did something." March of 23 is when we said that. Yeah. When it started asking us to consider Yeah. changes. I I would like us to con consider a continuation and and our cluster goes out through armed motion that they bring in information like what would it take to bring that deck in a little bit? Um you know how how can you improve the impervious of the deck? Can you do something there? Um where is your other medic and you know let's let's really develop as opposed to say we're close and things like that. and um see what they come back with. I think we can I think we can I think the best way to do that is have a discussion. We can't make a continuation. Um but ask about that, but we Can I jump in here? Excuse me, chair. Um, so this is in the deliberations phase of the process and you're deliberating towards a decision and and the record is now closed and no no participant asked for the record to remain open to submit additional evidence. Thank you. But we can be very clear about our concerns and I wrote down a whole list and we touched on a lot of them. Um kind of messaging where we're at if there's disagreement on something like for example my concern on the definition of let's have that discussion and go

okay I agree just so we're voicing kind of where we're at. um and then move to some sort of a decision after we've had those discussions. I think we've done a pretty good job. The variance uh I think we Jay you you voice that pretty well for me. It's a self-imposed it's a self-imposed need by the fact that there that you need parking that you need that parking [Music] lot. The impervious again I don't and frankly I might be tr I think I probably am by the back of the put that in place storm drainage that's not a big deal I don't think although it seems to me we have um I come away with every chance we're not we need to put that water in the water and I don't know why we continue to have this conversation back and forth um as to anyway it seems like a larger conversation the city has to have but I want that that's why to remain on the other side um the idea on the modification that it seemed like they were saying they were open to that and kind of hearing us say yeah we're open to it too is there anybody that's not open to that modification that just wants the whole thing started over modification meaning reuse on the structure reusing what's there and you know Mickey you had said you know maybe pulled a couple out the end. Yeah. No, we're not saying it should all be taken out. Yeah, that's what I that's what I took away from all the questions is we're all receptive. How about solar access? So we don't Yeah. See solar access confused me because it's kind of dealt with setback. These guys are compliant. There's nothing really unique about this house.

It's the senpai that's got a bigger set of items required you know and I think it's they weren't coming again if they weren't coming for a cop it wouldn't be 20 20 foot 20 foot house where if it was not that tunnel in front of us Jay you mentioned a concern about the curve in the front pushing into the front step back the explanation your back I heard in response to that was that was needed to offset that solar to partially address that solar access. Are you satisfied that her could be inside or can't approach in the way it does in exchange for the opposite in the background solar or would you be if we actually do need to have that be another variance that actually I didn't know if it was the offset no I don't see that behaving this way if it moves 5t forward because it's only the pop off the base makes the curve Right. So, it it didn't change the back at all to do them. But the whole structure would require people. Yeah, that was my understanding, too. I thought they're using existing frame anyway. Well, yeah, if you have a subframe, then that's you move the frame. I see I see the curve as only being aesthetic. I see the curve as being only anesthetic. I don't see other reasons and forth. All right. say based on what you heard you need to there's no reason why I say what are you talking about there's a bow in the there's a bow in the front deck that's being added to the frame okay and we know they haven't given any information how that's going to be supported um I don't see any reason why I can't go straight across other than fact they have more room on the deck on the

was that bump approaches into the equipment additional. Yeah, you know, I can I can I can buy into the two steps on and see the way within two foot allows for from property line. Um, you know, a lot of what we're dealing with here, as you said at the start, is a long house and they've made some some I think meaningful architectural say modifications, but I think that they're doing a good job of breaking it up. And one way of doing that in my mind is that that bump I like, but it's it's just a porch. This not the house, it's the railing porch. I I'm looking at the lines. I'm rather than thinking about the lines. I might not be thinking about them how I would be sitting walking by the house or driving by the house unless I had a big pull back, but I like the idea of breaking that long run. I'm just going to grow up. I hate to leave it great, which it is. It could be a big deal if they felt strong about the design. Um, how do other people feel about that? I think the team that wasn't a um Oh, lighting came up. That was another that's a big one and that needs to be addressed much more specifically than we have here in my opinion. Anyone else? Yeah, we never see very shielded dark sky like the conversation around the rideway city. Um, you mentioned they had been in a lot of conversations with you guys on this. Yeah, I would say in terms of a little bit with the property, but a lot of this is kind of a little bit new and

modified. I was talking about some of the the size of the house and some of the issues that way. We had some issues obviously talking about the parking and that it might be better to ask for nothing than asking for um you know that parking the way it was. Um but as far as like the mitigation and some of the landscaping I've seen some of that facial and I just would not encourage use of it. Um, but if if that's something the applicant wants to choose to do and if the plan commission would consider it, it absolutely has to be conditioned and the council can deny it. Then you're not moving forward at all and all that we're responsible are for two spots. What happens outside right away is not our private. So our only concern is everybody has been on with know that is a contentious so you know in regards to we we overlook and say okay you don't have that any parking on the property oration I would encourage some input on that while they're here so that if they don't if they come back with zero well uh you know I I don't really want to but I will voice again parking is I will voice parking is probably one of the most pretentious issues that we have in the city for us to be you don't need it as long as the applicant is here but that's all I want okay they can justify it from there okay so that could be are there other concerns that people have tonight if they feel not for the applicant to consider when they come should they need to come

Okay, I think we talked about this. I have a motion on these two items. I see a couple options, right? There's there's n or I don't think that he is saying subject. So is that what people are? Is that where we are? Why don't you make a motion and let's find out? I move that we deny this motion. Uh we have a we have two in front of us here. One variance and the conditional the variance and Okay. Missy, do you feel like we need any more detail than that for us to move ahead? Um, would you like additional detail or do you have enough to go for a second? You know, because you're the initial decision maker on this one, I'm le I'm less concerned. You're not sitting as an appellet body. So, I think you could uh deny it because it fails to satisfy the criteria. It might be helpful. I know it's a burden, but it might be helpful to articulate in the motion which criteria are not satisfied and it will give the applicant guidance if they choose to come back, but I know the the wetland overlay zone has a lot of criteria. Yeah. And I know it's late, too. So I don't want to deal with that, but would you mind consider opening the record again and allowing for them to press record to request? That is not that is very not ideal to do that.

I mean I can't stop you. I can't stop you but I'm just saying it's very not ideal. So I mean some of the things we're asking for here are not they're not just do it's going to take a while. So any kind of continuous we open it is going to take time. We are voicing that we're open to something here. I think we've done a good job of voicing where our concerns are. I think we leave it at that. Okay. Did I make real quick one option you have available is deny it based on the fact they're not meeting part of the park requirements. that touches on in one of the two. Um and so I mean if you don't meet that then you don't care. Okay. So what that that touches on the variance. What about the conditional use? What can we say to that? Well to comply with the requirements of the wetland overlay code for law coverage. Do you want to [Music] move with my dear movement that we denied? Oh, this the number on this. Okay. B2502 and CU2504 um on the basis that the CU2504 is not complying with the wetland zone requirements regarding building coverage and for B2502 on the basis that the parking is not within the property. Did we did another time? Did you say the first one you said 254 second? Okay, I'm good. Do I have a second? Second. Any further discussion? That's what we call the ro.

Mer. Yes. Commissioner Sinclair. Yes. Commissioner Matus. Yes, Commissioner Or. Yes, Commissioner B. Yeah. Yes, Commissioner Wade. Yes, Charity. Yes. B2502 and CU2504 are not. Uh we have one more item here tonight. I remember last time. Oh. It's still light in here. I can't read. I'll wait on that. Okay. E20 forward two J of Miller properties LLC for an extent varian extension report actually Steve I'm serious or anybody listening um fix that I I do have a hard time read the right oh actually now that I put it up Uh 24 of the design LLC on behalf of Dor Properties LLC requesting a time extension to obtain a building permit for the previously approved various setback requirements at 15 North W Street 4605 MAC

[Music] 5109D and a residential high density R3. The request will be reviewed against the criteria of the municipal code chapter 17.64 64 setting agreements can time limit for approval setback section 7641. Does anyone object to the jurisdiction of the planning commission behavior this matter at this time? Does any commission member believe he or she is under conflict of interest or personal violence? You're supposed to wait. I'm sorry. I want to really Has any commission member had any exper if you'd like. There's uh a little bit in terms of their time and what the project is, but they're asking for an uh extension in time. status not objective. Okay. Uh any additional correspondence? No. Okay. The public the public uh the permanent criteria to be considered are noted in the staff reports and listed on the criteria sheets on the meeting page of our city's website. Testimony arguments and evidence must be directed toward those criteria or other criteria comprehensive north municipal court testifying will apply to the decision. Failure to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision maker and the parties an opportunity to respond for the issue precludes appealment issue. Prior to the conclusion of the initial hearing, any participant may request an opportunity to present additional testimony, arguments, or evidence regarding the application. The planning commissioner shall grant such requests by continuing the public hearing or leaving the record open for additional written testimony, arguments, or evidence. Person

testifying shall first receive recognition from chair full name and mailing address and if appearing in a representative capacity identifying is there by yes Joff representing Dr. property uh B24-02 expires on the 29th of this month. We are ready to submit. Plans will be going in next two weeks. Uh we only requested on a time, you know, reasonable for an extension. I understand that typically it'll be another year, but we do not need that. So, we are we're ready to go. We just have run out of clock on our previous request. Are there any questions for anything like that? No one else. Okay. Are there any proponents who are online? Are there any opponents? Final n Okay. Uh staff, we don't object to the request. Um then with no further statements from the applicant, we'll close the record and move to our deliberation. Anyone have an objection to this request? No. May I have a motion? [Music] Second. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Sinclair. Yes. Commissioner White, yes. Commissioner Bates, yes. Sharing, yes. Uh, request for extension time. Thank you.

Let's move to information items. Uh, starting retrieve report. You want to take this one over? What's that? Go ahead. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah. I I got this one. Unfortunat I can't stream it over. I'm kind of working off two computers here, but during the month of April, a total of seven trees were removed. All seven trees were hazard. There was a required replanting of three. The reason why the other lot did not have a required replanting is due to its size. It was a very large uh parcel just kind of norththeast of the RV park. So due to the size and density, there was no requirement to replant trees. All right, move the good of the Anyone have anything for the good of the um update on um my words being a little jumbled here. It's not working for me. Um, we talked a little bit about uh process for our recording. Um, and you guys coming back to us at some point, not know you guys have a lot going on right now. any update in terms of where you guys are in terms of coming back to us coming up? uh not been to report at this point in time. We'll have to bring back what again I don't know if there's something you want to share as far as specific. I think what what I recall what we've talked about is us understandings of um how information is cataloged when it comes to you and um maybe that's unifying in terms of

just understanding this about this body in particular uh unifying or having a collective understanding how that information is um cataloged um in particular and get ramping a little here. Um, in particular, when we get these big packages, what what we're trying to like make sure that we're not having to go through that whole thing again and just get new information. So that two months before we had a whole set of similar information and we know how the exhibits read and we know how you guys put them in there and what the process is for for the win and time stamp or what have you, then we don't have to go back through that. But there's been a few instances where we said, "Oh gosh, did we miss out? Did someone slip it in?" The one I'm thinking of where someone slipped it in or that they were accused of that was years ago before anybody here was on staff or planning, but it has happened. So with an understanding of how that works, um, communicating to us, we'll all be able to move more efficiently through those packages and feel more confident about our reviews of those. Think about Do you have any comments on that? because I know a lot of times there's there is a significant amount of information that comes in and it's you know it's almost I get I I understand completely what you're saying because we get it and and it's like what do we do what we don't and at the same time I'm always worried about the record and someone saying that something isn't in it. I I I don't I don't have a great answer. stuff comes in, we put it in the record because they want it in there and we keep doing it kind of meeting to meeting and um I I mean I guess like I said you and I can talk about that but I I I don't have I don't know I guess my answer I think well the question is to follow

it's this question to me well I think you can follow it but Yeah, you got the mic. Uh, if you're ready for it, go ahead. I I'm I'm just having trouble hearing is all. I'm not at all not at all wanting to jump in. I think I think this question is process. I think this is a process driven conversation. Um, in terms of there's just been a massive amount of information put on city staff and the city staff then responsible for getting to us and we're responsible for saying we've read and we're trying to we're trying to figure out how to manage this process which in the world we live in is just is really hard. There's there's a ton of information being put forward by really savvy uh applicants and their and their um adviserss. So, you know, maybe there's maybe there's some bad practices in some some group in terms of what they do to manage it or maybe it's just doing exactly what we've been doing. But I think for me where the conversation starts, let's just calibrate and make sure we're all on the same page relative to how we understand what we're doing. So, while it might be imperfect, at least we all understand the imperfect we're working. You know, there's a few things that I can suggest. Well, one is um if there's any way um when doing this the uh packet if they it could hyperlink to right down to the page, you know, take the agenda and hyperlink to the to where in the packet that part of the hearing starts. I think that would make the packets not feel so big and overwhelming. And that and that's one I say this as a non- tech person but I think it might be fairly easy to to put hyperlinks in the agenda so that you can jump right to the part of the packet that is part of the hearing that it doesn't seem like you just read the same 500 pages. And then the the second thing is I for these the

serial hearings and the applications that are very complicated. Um it it could be I don't know if it would be simple for um staff to you know put something at the top that says something like you know previously presented at the April 22nd planning commission meeting so that you it kind of flags for you all that you've you've already read this and you don't have to go back and reread it. So there's a few ways to maybe you know uh tweak it so that it it flows a little bit better. Those are my two off the top of my head. Well, I think for me as I think about just the way I I go through these packages, I think that that that light suggestion would be a good one. You know, often it's just PDF, PDF, PDF. They're really big and you know, my my assumption and again I don't know correctly is one was the earliest and three is the latest later. But again, I've always assumed that and I haven't done that. But two things, one it might be change and two if I'm right, let's let's verify that's how we do it. I think that's the the theme of it. You know, couple ideas we shared here tonight um would help me move more efficient with those packages. You know one thing I don't know we can consider this or not but even the highest court land limits the amount of data that they receive from any applicants or I mean you know I'm not saying that we leave out any pertinent information but I am saying that we need some concise uh things to be more concise sometimes maybe uh you know Supreme Court only allowed a certain number of pages but you know there difference. It is different here. I understand that. But I also think that sometimes it's there's a lot. It's almost like an avalanche and because it really I don't know. I can't point to anything that has been burnt in in some

of the documents or documents really. But u you know it would be nice to have nice plants made. And what I've heard on that in the past is the second you say you can't s you can't submit something that's the one thing they grab. they will, you know, they limited us. Yeah. Uh and the other is because there's this potential they're going to go to another bottom. They want to throw everything in there because they want to be able to come back in records on even in some cases on the off chance they forgot. They're going to errorside of let's just throw everything in and that we're safe. If we end up in larger bodies because we are record that we don't include someone's stuff. Yeah. Anyway, I just think it's it's the kind of thing worth coming back to because we these in in my tenure, whatever that is now, seven years, I have progressively seem to be bigger and bigger and bigger and that's not going to change. But we can do more efficient on our own so we don't get overwhelmed by that process. So, we'll just keep coming back to it not tomorrow or even next month. But there's something I think we do need to correct. All right. next. Um so once in a while um we all individually have uh private conversations and um the public will come to us and once in a while I have um I'm um it's brought to my attention things that are on the mind of people um both here in the body and on video. Um, and so our our meetings are in perpetuity. Wow, I got that off. I'm talking about that. I was gone. So, this is Monday 2 in the morning. Um,

Jay, you are a valuable asset on this team and I am better for you with it. But that said, when you were appointed, there was a lot of conversation about the potential conflict of interest. So, what it has been um what I'm uh being faced with more are concerns about that potential conflict of interest or brought to my friend. Well, I think in order to continue to allow us to have such a valuable number, we have to have the conversation um about how we act uh to continue to be as good a body as we so I'm going to be specific. last week when you made the presentation that you did on last week last meeting last month when you made the presentation that you did. Great job. I said it at the time. I should not have said that. It voices the I because I don't typically say it to I don't typically say, "Hey, great job. You really set the ball." That's a mistake on my part. That's on the record. And now people can come in and go, "Well, you guys are on the ticket there. We're not, you know, in the department and stuff, but it's real tough to argue with what's sitting there where I say, "Great job." I don't I don't how in depth I got on that conversations, side conversations. Um, with an applicant, um, I just think the optics have to be, especially when we're in the room together, they have to be so tight, tighter than normal, or it's going to put us into an awkward conversation. one that I frankly just don't want to have to have any more than the risk um because you are such an important part of the team and just add such um such depth to a conversation but it is going to require standard that's higher than the rest of us are out there time we had conversations involved

around your incari to impact involvement and that is always going to catch the attention of people who are already uh wound tight on a number of other issues in the city, in the country, in the world, you name it. We don't need to get on their radar. And my I'm only going to find my comment to you that you did a good job. Great way to get on people's radar. I understand. And that's why I'm taking as many steps as possible. Try to not put us in that crosshair. U you know, the the tree for example, uh for that one, I totally stepped away from that. I didn't have to, but I did because I felt it would be in the best interest of this community to do so. Um, I do understand that I will have to step on the other side of the to do what I need to do. Um, but you know, looking at things like before I even got here had no control of that. Um, the one that we just for the extension was also before I came to the committee. I am wary of that and I'm wary of that I'm joking I'm getting burned to try to limit that necessity for me to step away from my position here there I think most of the formal conversations that maybe are more the issue because you have done such a good job of formal conversation but what's the optics of commenting on how you did in your background right on his side. You shouldn't be having that conversation as a as a commission. I think that's where we have to be part of you're doing your job. And I and I I don't expect that from you in any way, right? You know, I'm I'm on this side, I'm this person, on that side, I'm that person. Um and I try to keep myself separate in those ways, but understanding that I do have

the crossover that I need to be aware of. and it does affect my my professional relationships and I keep that in my mind all the time because there's no other than I like being well um you said you don't expect it of it we will expect it of ourselves we have to so it is by having on this commission by me saying how much I appreciate being on the commission I have to hold myself and ultimately all of us to a higher standard for that or if it doesn't work I If anyone else has anything to add to that, I think we said enough about it. I think he does a fantastic job and I think what you're doing in terms of putting stuff out there and getting them meetings is exactly what we should be doing. Anyone else want to add to this or are we done talking about good? Anything else to better the