Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Um, I am calling to order the regular meeting of the city of Atascadero Planning Commission meeting and uh, Commissioner Schmidt is going to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Okay. Can we get a roll call, please? Commissioner Anderson.

Commissioner Pont here. Commissioner Heath here. Commissioner Schmidt here. Vice Chairperson Vandikoff here. Chairperson Keane here. For the record, Commissioner Hughes is an excused absence tonight. So, we have six present and one absent. Okay. Can I get an approval of the agenda, please? I'll make the motion, please. I'll second that. Commissioner Schmidt. Yes. Vice Chairperson Vandenikov. Yes, Commissioner Anderson. Yes, Commissioner Coransza. Yes, Commissioner Heath.

Yes, Chairperson Keane. Yes. Motion passes 6. Okay, I'm going to open public comment. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on this agenda and over which the commission has jurisdiction. Do we have anyone on Zoom? No public comment on Zoom. Okay. And there's no one here in the audience. So, I will close public comment and move on to the consent calendar.

I'll make the motion to approve the consent agenda. I'll second it. Commissioner Schmidt? Yes. Commissioner Anderson? Yes. Commissioner Coransza, yes. Commissioner Heath, yes. Vice Chairperson Vandikov, yes. Chairperson Keane, yes. Motion passes 6.

Okay, so we're going to move on to the public hearings. Tonight we have our objective design standard, which should be a rollicking good time. Um, first we're going to disclose any exparte communications. Commissioner E. I did meet with um Kelly and Phil just to kind of discuss some of the definitions. Commissioner Anderson, I do had a nice meeting with Phil and Kelly and we discussed

some uh different overviews of what what was intended. So that was clarifying. I also m Kelly and Phil. Okay, Commissioner Granza, I got to have a great talk with Kelly and Phil as well. Commissioner Schmidt, I too had a very informative meeting with staff on the objectives.

I did as well. Phil only popped into I know I got him for a second. Okay, so uh I believe this is your turn, staff, to wow us with your objective design standards. Thank you, chair, and members of the commission. Good evening. We're proud to bring this to you. It's a been quite a work effort for the past year. Uh we've got a consultant helping us out with MIG and she'll be on a bit tonight as well. Uh showing us kind of the basics of the objective design standards. If you wouldn't mind forwarding the slide, please, Kelly. So, basically, there's um two different components here. There's the objective design standards which cover multif family and mixed use development. And then there's a series of edits to title 9 which is our zoning regulations that pertain slightly to the objective design standards but they aren't the objective design standards or other components that have been impacted by this whole exercise that needed updating. And then we're going to of course give you recommendation. Ultimately, this project results in code amendments that will need to go to the city council um and then ultimately for a second reading and for adoption. So, we hope to do that in June, is it Kelly? Our date now at this point. So, in summary, what this will do is establish objective building and site design standards. We hope and I think it will streamline the process. Um, basically means that someone comes in, they comply with the ejected design standards, they proceed to go with a construction permit means no review, no use permit, no discretionary review. The idea is that we're actually being able to put in some local influence. Now, these aren't design architectural standards. So, we don't govern architecture with these

standards. we simply govern um I'll call it performance standards. So things that relatively impact the form of a building but not the design of a building if that makes any sense. Now lastly if there is a unique design that comes in they can still move forward that would just need to go through the the normal conditional use permit process that we currently have in place for multifamily projects that are over 12 units. So this program would bump that number up to 49 units. So anything 50 or more would still have to get a conditional use permit, but our threshold now is pretty high. And so any of those projects can go through these YS and go straight to construction permit. So, I would like to now introduce Genevieve with MIG and she's going to take you through some of the background and some of the great details and she knows this stuff really well because she's been helping out other local communities with it like pastor Robels um and all of the local communities are going through this exercise as a result of state law. So, this is all to comply with state law and to help us come along and streamline our process. So, let's move forward. Hi Genevie.

Hi there. Thank you Phil and good evening. I'm Genevie Sherro with MIG. Thank you planning commission um so much for having me here tonight to talk about objective design standards. Um I'll give a little bit of background um to expand on what Phil introduced there um and talk a little bit more just about the concept of objective design standards. So these objective design standards, we've been saying those words a lot over the last couple of years. Those are the standards. What we mean by that is those standards that can be quantified or measured. And as as Phil said, state law is really leading jurisdictions towards more and more of these types of standards to streamline approval of pro projects and and really remove subjectivity that back and forth between applicants and decision makers ultimately hopefully reducing discretion in the decision-making process and streamlining the process as a whole. So by adopting objective standard standards locally we can tailor the design to address those issues that are most critical to the local attader context. Um also just to note the city requested and received grant funding to um fund the development of amendments that you see tonight. So historically cities really have used both the subjective and objective criteria to evaluate projects. Subjective standards usually include the word should. um or you know talk about compatibility um and other kinds of generic kind of design ideas that are intended to kind of guide an applicant towards an outcome but are you know really a little bit hard to interpret um consistently. So historically a project would go through DRC or have a cup with conditions that would get the project to the design that was desired. But we have new changes to state law that are really trying to reduce that number of subjective kind of we know a good project when we see it processes. So

instead these objective design standards have to be relied upon. And so these are standards that you can read without having to result in two different interpretations by two different people. So we've got measurements, we've got performance standards um and really clear language to guide this. We've also included to make it just as unequivocally clear as possible, we've got some user friendly um checklists which Kelly will also discuss um which is really intended to make the process as clear for staff, the applicant and the public as possible. So where will these new standards apply? State law um states that objective standards should really apply to all new multifamily residential projects and any mixeduse projects. Um, and so these are going to apply to any duplexes, uh, triplexes all the way up to mid-rises or mixed use. Um, as well if they meet the objective standards that we've crafted, um, the objective design standards will apply in all of the city zones that allow allow those uses. So multif family or residential um, multif family residential and mixed use zones. So with these new standards in place in place um Phil touched on the the process moving forward development that's fully compliant with these objective design standards and all other requirements of the zoning and municipal code. Of course they can go through the streamlined review process that's limited to a construction permit review SQA exempt and if compliant could be approved ministerially. However the existing review process does remain in a variety of cases. It would remain if a project doesn't comply with the objective standards and for any projects that are large over 50 unit 50 or more units or any mixeduse projects that are outside of downtown. And those three categories would continue to go through that conditional use permit process including review and approval by

this planning commission. I wanted to pro provide a little bit of background on the process to date. Um we've been we've been talking about this for a while now. I know you've you've been hearing about it for a while. We began back in June 2022 actually with stakeholder interviews. We talked to city council and the fire chief, local architects and really tried to identify what are the key issues that need to be addressed in the update. Um and then through two working sessions with the city council during that summer, we further refined what the project should be and what the general design goals um should be that were really the priorities for the city of Atescadero. So in particular, we heard the desire to streamline development, but a real concern to really retain the city's existing tradition and eclectic nature. um and a special focus on on outdoor gathering spaces um pedestrian vitality and and careful transitions to single family neighborhoods. So then over the next uh year the staff and consultant team including a local architect um crafted and tested some draft development standards really with those um key design goals in mind. So, we tested these draft development standards against existing and proposed projects to really make sure that the design standards would work for local projects moving forward. Um, DRC and the planning commission met in fall of 2023 to discuss some of the prelim preliminary drafts for the project and provided feedback. And then in early 2024, uh, we continued to refine the standards further with new projects that were coming in, tested the standards against those, made some modifications and also discussed with local design professionals, developers, and property owners. Throughout the outreach discussions, we heard a common theme um which we infused into the draft standards. A balance

between ensuring design quality refle reflects the high quality architecture that a text scadero wants while providing the flexibility for architects and developers and property owners to complete the projects that they envision. So with that background, I'd like to dig in a little bit into the draft objective design standards. So as Phil said the objective standards design standards can really be broken up into these two main components. The first is uh the part that I'll focus on first and that is the building design standards. Um these are the traditional objective design standards that we think of and that's really the design of the building itself. Uh and the second component is basically everything else. the site planning, trash enclosures, parking, um all those other um amendments uh are scattered throughout Title 9 and we'll discuss those second. Um but we'll start here with the building design standards. So these building design standards were drafted to address that input and direct direction that we received um from the community input um for to have some some clear flexibility built into the process. So, um there are menus of options for various topic areas, um including how you can vary a wall plane or different materials and fenestration that you can use or different ways that you can vary a roof to provide interest. Um and then there's some standards that are going to be required for all new development to comply with um the objective standards. So each tier, so those categories that I just mentioned, um are also referred to as tiers in the draft standards. Each of these tiers contains several different ways to approach that particular um design type. So these different design elements that applicants can choose from to create their unique and highquality building designs while maintaining

flexibility in the design theme. So the standards are structured so that larger buildings are required to provide more articulation or features to add to that design. The tier one components um these are those that are required they're required for all new multif family and mixeduse development. This tier includes uh a minimum ground floor height in mixeduse buildings to maintain viable commercial spaces, minimum transparency requirements for both residential and non-residential spaces for buildings. So those are the windows and doors percentages and a limit on how long a blank wall could be. Tier 2 design strategies pertain to wall plane variation. So this tier is really important. Um it's critical to the creation of of depth perception in a building and the creation of what's really important uh shade and shadow within the building design. Um there's been studies in the past um that looked at what do does the average person when they say they like um a particular building, what is the common feature that exists throughout all of those buildings? And it was found that it is that that shade and shadow that really makes the difference in how appealing it is to to the human eye. Um so there's many ways in which a wall plane variation can occur and we didn't want to limit to a you know a particular design architecture that could you know not be conducive to to certain types of design elements. So we wanted to provide a lot of different design options in in this option. So for this tier in particular, longer and larger buildings are required to provide more forms of wall plane variation. And they can choose from a variety. They can choose

to include balconies or plazas, upper story stepbacks or any other kind of general massing break that breaks up the building. Small buildings and duplex duplex and cottage clusters would be exempt from this requirement. Tier three design strategies focus on um what's called fenestration and materials. Uh sometimes people refer to this as kind of the gingerbread on the building, but it's really a critical piece in creating interest in building design. Um pure components are required for duplexes and cottage clusters in this um tier. But projects can really choose from a wide variety of options to enhance the facades um in this tier, including um larger windows, including window trim or a window sill or a lintil on the on the windows. Um other types of design like a post and beam architecture can also comply or including a secondary cladding material. So lots of options in here um to provide for variation. And when we've tested this against projects, um it was it was very clear that there's there's many ways to meet the the intent and that projects can can get to to achieve this goal um through a variety of different ways while having um added intrigue. The final tier, tier four, focuses on roof design. Um, and this is really to encourage roof features that provide additional shade or shadow um, in in kind of the more traditional residential kind of having a larger eve um, and rakes and cornises. Um, and also having the option to provide more roof variation with different different types of roof styles or increasing gables. Um there's a variety of different options

of ways that um that this can be met and there's fewer requirements under the the projects in downtown recognizing the likelihood for more of a kind of flat roof style. A key consideration in the implementation of objective design standards is how does it work on the ground especially when that um new that multif family or mixeduse project is interfacing with an adjacent single family zone. So the standards were crafted to minimize uh visual impacts for that adjacent single family zone while really trying to think carefully about how to retain development viability for for the for the non-residential or or multif family property. So the standards are included to provide a couple of options for providing a setback between um the building and the single family district as indicated here. So a building could set back upper stories 16 feet or the full building 15t. And in addition um other considerations are required including not orienting balconies towards the adjacent single family property um including uh a a solid wall is required and a landscape buffer um which will reach mature maturity um with tall trees. A new cladage cluster section is also included with the abductive design standards. And the intent here is to provide some flexibility so that the existing setback requirements don't constrain a a cottage cluster type development. So these cottage clusters are really intended to foster a more affordable by design style. smaller houses and duplexes. Standards um that were crafted center on providing a common courtyard with outdoor open space, which was a key um

desired design goal um throughout the project. Private yards and private garages would be minimized. Um and then of note, this new section would facilitate future small lot subdivisions as well outside of the more cumbersome planned development process. Now, I'll turn it back to city staff to discuss those proposed amendments in the other section of the zoning code.

Here's the fun stuff. Title N. This is the other things that are outside of the objective design standards. So, this where we get into the interesting things like fractional density. Fractional density is one of my favorites actually because it's something I used to work with quite a bit. Um, in a previous city I worked with in St. Louis Bispo. They had this for many years. Worked quite effectively and it really incentivizes affordability by design. In other words, for a smaller unit, it's a smaller density count. So, you can do more smaller units or you can do fewer larger units. For example, in this proposal, a unit up to 600 square feet would only equal a half a density unit. Unit that would be over 600 foot might be 66 of a unit. and then units over a thousand square feet would finally get to that one density unit. So this program is something that's optional. Don't have to use it, but it's there should you want to fit some additional smaller units and still within that density boundary that you've got in that district. So I think it's a really good tool. Uh it's not something that's typically included in objective design standards, but something we wanted to include at the same time as a zoning text amendment. And then also going with maximum average unit size. Now pay close attention to the word average. I think uh 1,200 square foot is the proposal here. And we're not saying that the units have to all be less than 1,200 square feet. But in the downtown to encourage greater density uh and actually to encourage projects to meet their maximum density, we're talking about this average maximum unit size of,200 square foot. So it means you could have several units that are 2,000 square foot, several units that are 800 square foot, um several units that are 600 square foot, and you're still going

to meet that average when you average it all out. Uh this is something that's quite important because we see a lot of projects that have very large units and we don't maximize the actual number of units. We don't maximize the density on the property because it just can't fit within the form that we allow for. And so then we fall short, you know, commonly on our arena for that reason. And this is really only a predicament in a multif family zone or a downtown mixeduse zone where you want to fit in that large number of units. That's where we have that issue. So let's talk about some open space. Um again kind of going back to some tier one amenities and Kelly is going to give you some of these details and tell you about uh some of these features. couldn't remember when we were switching over. So,

thank you.

Um, so our next major section in Title 9 is our open space section. Um, our current code just has a flat square footage requirement per unit of open space and it doesn't really list any sort of amenity or design requirements for that open space. So, we tend to get a lot of detention basins that we count as open space and some non-usable areas that counts as open space. Um, and we find that open space is really key to sort of more of a community design amongst multifamily and can really add to the value of and sense of place. So, uh, the direction that council gave us at one of their previous hearings was to actually reduce the square footage per unit of open space, but then have a bunch of standards that would require greater quality and greater detail in terms of what amenities are provided. And we similarly invoked a menu style option like we did with objective design building standards so that people could have some variety and flexibility. Um if they had a larger site they could do some more native and um open space type um amenity and if they had a smaller more urban um environment they could do plazas or four courts things of that nature. So um our first tier within our um open space standards are kind of basic elements of open space. So you know how can you incorporate those site amenity areas and you can do that through courtyards um other types of open um landscaped amenity spaces. You might incorporate public art into an amenity space or you might have some mature tree preservation on the site. not necessarily native, but some really great shade trees that you want to preserve that provide a lot of amenity to the existing site. Our second tier focuses on sort of those amenity enhancements and things that people could fully utilize as part of their amenity spaces. So, this would include uh seating in those open space areas, potentially a dog run for certain

types of residential projects. Um, play areas for children, fire pits could also be incorporated. Things like an outdoor barbecue or kitchen area. Um, and a pool or a spa for usually for those larger projects. So, these are things that are going to bring people out and make a useful space. Our third tier focuses more on greenery and landscape material. So, we're looking to incorporate some vertical elements um whether that be through u landscaping that you choose that grows up taller um to help screen and provide that shade and shadow through landscaping as Genevieve mentioned previously. It might be a green wall. Um it could be a community garden with certain features such as a place for tool storage and and composting. Um you could incorporate edible plants or native plants into your design as well. And on larger projects, you might be able to incorporate a trail system around around the development and that would count as well. So, in general, when we looked at our landscape section, uh we have a lot of standards right now that incorporate a minimum percentage of landscape area, landscape fingers and parking lots a certain distance, um and general site coverage standards in terms of setback areas that need to be landscaped. When we looked at developing standards that focused a little bit more on amenity, these standards became less important to incorporate um so that we could allow some site flexibility in terms of design and usability and really hone in on the standards that we felt were most important for quality of life. So, we focused on amenity spaces, providing some street trees along our frontages, and then flexible parking lot planting to still provide shade for cars, but to not dictate landscape fingers and very specific planting standards for those kinds of trees. We also incorporated some garage standards um and I think Genevie mentioned these as part of the cottage

cluster standard. Um but we did want to bring some specific attention to it um throughout um previous development in Atascadero. Um the garage and the automobile has been a very big focus of our multifamily development. We find a lot of interest in our area in um slightly larger units that have private yards and private garages. And the new trend and people are asking more for more community-based design where they have some shared amenity spaces. They perhaps have private area in um a yard off to the side or a porch area or a deck. Um and and that really necessitates the car being pushed to the outside somewhat. So we do have some standards that limit garage size when they're private garages attached to units to try and make them disappear a little bit more and not be so autodominated. We also have some standards about how many garage how many units can have a private garage to try and accommodate those community spaces and not give all of that land over to a driveway to be able to get to the garage. So, we're hoping to encourage um those amenity spaces a little bit over vehicular spaces. Um and it's a way to also help applicants meet those amenity space requirements as well. Um, we also touched upon solid waste standards in our code. We have um not many solid waste standards currently and we have seen an issue with a lot of individual bins on multifamily projects that then get pushed out towards the street and it takes up on street parking. Um, they're usually placed in bike lanes on streets that we have bike lanes. They're sometimes placed in front of driveways. Um, because we now have three bins per unit. Um, and they all have to be placed three feet apart for a standard, uh, trash truck to come pick them up. So, um, we did look at consolidating that into shared trash facilities. Doesn't necessarily have to be a dumpster. Depending on the number of units, you could have, um, bins if the trash company says that that's

adequate. You could still roll them out to the street, but they would be a shared type situation to minimize the number of bins. Um, and then we have some standards for what those uh shared trash enclosures might look like in terms of covering, making sure the materials are consistent with the architecture of the buildings. Um, and making sure we have enough room for um, recycling trash and compostables. Um, we also have some allowances to place trash um, in a front setback if that makes the best sense for design and if it can be designed appropriately into buildings um, and that's the best place to be serviced for the trash company. We also looked at our storage standards. So, our current code requires 100 cubic feet of storage and doesn't mention much else beside that. Um, when we actually looked at storage standards, we looked at what do people in these more dense multif family developments need storage for. And a lot of that are uh bikes or um outdoor play equipment that they might take to a park if they have children. Um, their Christmas decor and things of that nature that don't always get stored in the house in a closet. And we found that a lot of applicants were meeting the storage requirement by providing a wall of bookshelves or something of that nature that didn't really give people usable storage that they needed. Um, so we actually have shifted to a slight increase in the size of storage that would be required per unit to accommodate something like a bike locker or storage under the stairs that could fit that type of um those type of items. Um, but we also have allowances for combined storage throughout the development. So, if you wanted to have um similar to our micro homes development, a shared storage facility where you could store bikes and lock them up and they were secure for all of the residents or if you wanted to have a couple um garages or sheds throughout um along the property line that residents could use that could be accommodated as well. Um so those

storage standards are a little bit more flexible and um a little bit larger to accommodate people's needs. We also looked at lighting standards. So, our current lighting standards do require full shielding of lighting and no glare visible offsite. Um, that can be a little bit open to interpretation on, you know, how tall a human is that can see the glare from the light and how tall the light poles can be. So, we added some additional standards to clarify that. And we used a lot of standards that we typically see in our conditions of approval for use permits about parking lot pole height. Um a specific shielding of lighting that has a certain dimension of of shield that the lens needs to be either recessed or shielded. And then dark sky compliance which is a major focus in the task as well and part of our current general plan. Um and then of course we have some exceptions written in there for decorative lighting which we didn't really have before. Um, I don't know that in the 80s when the lighting code was written, they had a lot of festune and decorative lighting, but we wanted to make sure that our multif family areas and amenity spaces and our mixeduse areas and commercial areas could utilize that decorative lighting. I'm going to turn it back over to Phil and staff. We're trying to mix it up a little bit so we give you different perspectives, different voices. This one's important. street trees. Now, our code right now requires that new development projects put in street trees generally every 30, 35 feet. In downtown, it's different because the street trees are generally in the public rideway. They're in the public sidewalk. That's where it makes sense in downtown. Downtown is much more intensive area. We have different standards for downtown. So, one of the things that we were trying to do through this process is amend the code so that projects outside

of the downtown could also incorporate these street trees, but not in the public right away, not in the sidewalk, instead on private property. And that's where they're more readily maintained by private property owners. That's where they don't interrupt the public rightway, damage the sidewalk, damage the infrastructure, and there's space for them. So, we initially um proposed 15 foot for a setback for buildings to fit these trees, which is consistent with what we have in our code today. Right now, our code actually calls out for a 15 foot setback for residential projects that are outside of the downtown, even those residential projects that are within a commercial zone, like a mixeduse project. So the proposed code doesn't really change that particular standard, but what we need to do is clarify, you know, what this setback standard is. There's also a notation of a corner setback issue there. We'll talk about that a little later. Now, what's been happening with these mixeduse projects outside of downtown, they're all discretionary and they'll continue to be. So with each one we look at them on a case by case basis um and we determine how street trees could fit in there, how we could meet the intent of the code. But as part of these standards, we want to make it a little more clear, a little more succinct. Um, as we get further and further away from the conditional use permit process and we see more and more byite projects, we want to also have standards that have, you know, that people can understand and read and and know what they're going to have to do when they develop a project. So, we're trying to figure out a way to fit in street trees in these projects without creating uh what a concern has been expressed, which is a taking of property. In other words, introducing a significant setback on a new commercial project on some of these narrower lots in El Camino and still fit in these street trees. But at the same time, we can't really fit them in the public right away. Is there another slide here?

Oh, yeah. So, let's keep going. I'm probably talking ahead before I before I should. So, I'm backing up a little bit. Outside of downtown, we typically see the street trees in the back of sidewalk. I think the image on the far right, is that a moral road picture on the far right there? I think that's actually Templeton.

Is that actually Templeton? Okay. Well, you might be familiar with some of the sites in town you see in these images. Anyway, on Mororrow Road, we've got a couple of sites that have street trees that are on private property in that little setback zone. And it's kind of deceiving. You think, "Oh my gosh, those trees look so close to the building." But some of these are actually, you know, 10, 12, 14 feet away from the building, which is still really, really close. So really what you need for a tree to be uh able to grow to to fruition is you need a distance of about at least 15 12 to 15 feet from a building from a structure. And at the same time that tree probably needs to be at least between three to six feet away from concrete paving etc. so that it has a root area to establish and it doesn't interrupt the sidewalk and other other features. So, what we're trying to figure out and what we'd like your feedback on is how to work this out. We've got several options and we have a list of options on the next slide. I'm not going to go there yet, though. Um, these are a couple more images. So, a a blaring one there is the new social services building on El Camino Rial just south of uh is it Monteito Road at El Camino Rial right across the street from the new Arco station. That's a situation where it had a street tree requirement. Um, but we weren't able to fit them in there. They weren't able to fit the building on this site and the code allows commercial buildings to actually be a zero foot setback. So, they're allowed to build right at the property line, which is what you want in a downtown commercial zone. So, it doesn't leave room for those street trees, but at the same time, you know, we we try to incorporate those. So the building on the right, Moresco Plaza, it actually had some larger trees in it. Ended up those began to interrupt the building, so they took them out and now it has these smaller trees in it. But there's actually um

is it a 12oot setback on that building? Doesn't look like it, but there's a 12oot setback on that building. So, um, and the one the what's called the brickyard on the top left there, uh, it's got a 10- foot setback on the building. Um, and the trees are actually planted instead of being right between the building and the street, they're they're planted at these breaks in the building where there's a division between a building or an entryway and they're kind of grouped together with a much wider spacing. So, that's one of the options. So, kind of think of those images. And so what we're wanting to bring to city council and what we'd like your feedback on is how do we how do we incorporate street trees outside of the downtown in a commercial district along the street without um taking property away from these property owners without having them in the public right away and still meeting the intent of all of our policies which is to have this urban greening and this urban tree streetscape. One of those options would be to play with the spacing, kind of like we saw in one of those images, pull the trees further apart and position them so that there's natural breaks in the building where the building can have a greater setback for a portion and we can still fit a cluster of trees in there. Um, or do we, you know, maintain that normal tree spacing of 30 foot but allow a little bit of the tree planter to encroach into the sidewalk. So being right that line between the private property and public right away or should we reduce the distance between trees and buildings and not allow any encroachment and allow that flexibility. But the problem we've seen when we do that with number three is eventually the property owners will have to either dramatically trim that tree or remove it as it begins to damage the building and it becomes that conflict. So that's a little bit problematic. or four.

Uh Nick Dvar, public works director, loves this one. I'm speaking sarcastically. Recommend all planting in the city right away and develop a plan and that is utilities, maybe avoiding utilities, avoiding sightelines, eliminating potentially a travel lane. And then of course we introduce, you know, concerns about sidewalk maintenance and then we're talking about staffing additional people to maintain those streets. So that's kind of a big ask. Not sure we love that one, but we have we have to put all options on the table. And then lastly, could we require bigger trees at a wider spacing with a distance appropriate distance to buildings and smaller trees in between them with lesser distance requirements? So, kind of playing with different ideas. Um, but one of the original ideas I'll go back to that we came with is just saying, "Okay, let's make sure all new commercial buildings are 15 foot back from the rideway. So, we've got space to put the tree. The tree could be planted within 3 to four feet of the public rideway. So, it still has room to grow adjacent to the sidewalk. But with that recommendation, we did get some push back already from the public. We got some push back from council that that blanket setback is too much of a taking from a property. So, can we play with that a little bit?" That's really the spirit of what we're we're asking for here. And I think that there's some happy medium in there that we could bring forward to council. Or is there other options and we can get creative?

Do you want to comment right now? No. Okay. What we're going to do is we're going to go back through all of your questions and comments and then we'll take this one apart a little bit. We'll kind of focus in on that one because that's one of the tougher ones here that we've heard some feedback on. Try not to forget. We won't forget. I know. that I'm going to try not to forget. Oh yeah, we won't forget either.

So anyway, so I'm going to conclude and say that um implementation of these standards are really intended to help streamline the review of multif family projects. We really want to make this, you know, a predetermined list that people can look to. In fact, we have some checklists, I think, that were sent to you with late attachment that if people comply with those that they get a free pass and they go straight to a construction permit for a 40 or 45 unit project, which is a substantial size project. It's pretty fantastic. Um, the idea is that these are flexible menu lists where they can choose different options to comply. They're not stuck with a one-sizefits-all. Um, they they have different features based on the size and scale of their project. And it allows for flexibility uh while having design standards that are scaled to that project. And again, these are not architectural standards that set architectural styles. Instead, they're objective standards about form, massing, setbacks, height, um even color, transparency, windows, etc. Last slide. Is there any big celebration at the end? It's been a long presentation. So the next steps um you can suggest changes. Uh we are going to move forward to introduce this to city council for adoption. We do hope to have this in effect this summer so that we can focus the rest of our time and attention and staff time on the general plan update. Thank you.

Thank you Phil and Kelly. It was a wonderful presentation. Um, so I'm gonna open it up to the commission for comment. And since I have the mic, I get to go first. Um, so my first question is, and we we kind of talked about this a little bit, but how does the density bonus affect these? I mean, like, do they get to throw out the design standards as well as like what do they get to throw out and what do they not get? My thought is, do they get to come in and build a square building with none of the design standards because they're like, "Oh, we have a density bonus and make a big ugly building." That could happen. It all depends on the level of concessions that they're eligible for based on the level of density bonus that they're doing. But in in yeah, if if they ask for relief, you know, from standards, they can. And so certainly there is a chance that a project that does have um some affordability and it complies with that basic what is it 10% affordability and then they get the density bonus. They don't have to use the density bonus but they get these concessions.

Would they then because they don't conform to the objective design standards would they then come before us so we would at least get to see the project before it gets

they they would not by state law. Um, I did want to point out that part of what we're trying to do with our um, adoption of our state density bonus code as part of this amendment is we're really trying to just um, refer to state law rather than repeat state law. Um, but what we have done is similar to what we did with SB9. Um so we have said that we um we wave other standards and development requirements uh prior to waving open space requirements or additional parking reductions because what we've heard from council and what we know from the design of successful multifamily is that those two things really need to be held most sacred. um and that we're willing to wave other standards before we wave those to ensure that we can hold on to those standards as much as possible.

Okay. Um that's that's good. And then my other thing was um talking about the street trees thing. Um, I was kind of sort of brainstorming in my head and thinking of something sort of like the fractional density kind of combined with the menu thing where so if they have 20 feet of frontage, then they have to have so many units of trees and then each different kinds of trees are worth different units. And then so if they just want two big street trees, then they would have to incorporate that into the design. Whereas if they'd rather have four or five smaller trees, then they could incorporate that into the design. But then they're sort of um feeling like it's kind of like they're making the choice as to what they what greenery they want to incorporate into their plan rather than us saying like you have to have this thing. So, you know, 20 square ft of frontage, you have to have two units of of street trees and you know, like I don't know what I don't know anything about trees, but a 30gallon bucket is one unit. So, that's the size and then um and then along with that say like so if it's a third if it's this certain kind of trees and it needs this set back. If it's this kind of tree, it needs this setback or whatever. I don't know if architects know about trees either. So, but that's just kind of what I was thinking is to sort of frame it in a way that gives them flexibility, but it's still within what we want.

Is that a question? No, that was my comment to you. You were asking for feedback and comments. Here's what we should do. Let's go let's start with I should have laid this out for you. Sorry. Let's start with questions you have on our presentation. Uh then let's go out to the public. see if there's anybody here from the public or online who've had any questions and then we'll come back and then you can do your discussion and comments and we'll go through all those discussion items. Okay, if that works. Anybody else's questions? Yes,

I have a quick question. Um, these standards uh obviously you you've done a lot of work. Thank you, Phil. Thank you, Kelly, for uh clarifying a bunch of stuff. I just don't want these standards to in any way discourage people from going through the the normal process. You know, it's like, oh, you know, it's going to be a pain to go through the regular process of getting the design that I want, so I'll just go with these these standards. Um, are are you guys going to have a a culture of, you know, working with designers or working with builders to say, "We're here so that you can have your project and if your project complies with these ODS is ODS, then uh, great. But if it doesn't, we're going to help you through the regular process." You guys pretty much already have that. But I just want to make sure that that's reiterated because I love cities when I go there and it's kind of a little eclectic and I just don't down south you go down there and they've got these standards that are just every single area is exactly the same.

Yeah. And I think that's that's why we developed them with a menu of options. Um we recognize that some buildings might have flat roofs. We recognize some some buildings might have gable roofs. recognized a lot of different architectural styles and materials. Um, and so we really want this to be flexible and eclectic because that's what Atascadero is. And we think that a lot of people can meet the standards. So we've tested um, La Plaza and the block. We've tested some very contemporary multifamily projects that have been submitted um and we've sent them to a local architect and he's reviewed them all for our objective design standards to make sure that all of those design themes and all of those um applications would meet our standards and we did make some tweaks after that happened. We reduced a couple of our standards. We moved some standards around to ensure that we could really get that design flexibility. they and if they didn't comply then it would be just a normal procedure to go through and get those

it would yeah it would be a use permit. Um it would come before you. Um I think it's a pretty simple process. Of course it's an additional application fee for them. Um but I think we're known as a city that doesn't you know nitpick over stuff and take 18 months. We can get that through pretty quickly. There you go. Thank you,

Commissioner Corza. Thank you, chair. All right. Well, I I'm just going to keep it to questions. I got lots of ideas about trees um later. So, um I was just curious, this might be a nitpicky thing that really is more handled by things that are already going to be required aside from the ODS, but regarding the roofs and the different kinds of, you know, they're all not the same size. calling out that specific detail of the presentation and in the the ODS material. So, I have um some examples. They're not actually in our city limits, but it was regarding a 55 and up community that um my mother's in actually, but this shared garages in between this duplex, it's a flat area and then the roofs go down and it's causing drainage issues. So, is that being addressed within the, you know, different roof styles and and pitches? It it really is. It It's I think it was meant to be well intended, but it's causing lots of issues with more than one house.

Um, no, that is not addressed and it's generally not something that we would dictate. So, people can design buildings and if they meet building code, they can do that. What is addressed in ODS is a variety of roof styles and that would probably meet that standard. Um, we don't see a lot of that because of the leak issues and generally builders are now more so than ever on the hook to uh remedy those and fix them. So, we just don't see a lot based on that process. Yeah, I guess my only concern with that is, you know, it comes back on then of course the the building owner and the the developer, they're going to be incentivized to not have those kind of repercussions and be preventative about it so that they don't have mold issues in the future or leaky roofs and upset tenants and maybe even vacancies. But, you know, then it comes back on then tenants who have deferred maintenance on their building. stuff that that was a huge concern that I was thinking about when I was reading those. Um, okay. And other than that, I mean, I was curious more than anything about the grant for funding the amendments. Like, great job whoever scored that. That is great to hear because I know that these are not a not a light thing that um requires a lot of attention and time and funding. So, I'm glad to hear it. Mr.

Is your is your microphone on? I just want to make sure it's getting recorded. Okay.

Yeah. No, I'm I forgot to push the button. I apologize. I'll start again. Small lot subdivisions. Um, if a surveyor or designer incorporates the design objectives, will the subdivision be treated like other projects and not be discretionary and be ministerial approval? it would still be discretionary per our code and portions of the subdivision map act if it's over a certain number of units. So it uh state law that goes into effect in July I believe allows for subdivisions in a multif family zone of 10 units or less.

So if it was less than 10 units by state law it would be a ministerial review process. If it's over 10 units, it would be a tenative track map. Um, but it would comply with all standards of our um objective standards in our municipal code. And so there there wouldn't it would be really hard to make findings to deny that project. Essentially, we'd be just reviewing the lots and lot pattern rather than the actual building design. I think in that scenario,

no, but if I if I incorporate in the design the the lot payout the the examples that were provided, I was wondering then would it be treated ministerally because I've incorporated all those things and be treated like an SB9 project say uh as ministerial approval and doesn't have to go to the city council or the planning commission. So anyway, uh I don't know. I uh I'll give an example of SP9 that I was talking about earlier. I have an SP9 project in River Beach. It's quarter mile from a major transit corridor. And so I uh the owner wanted to incorporate no parking. I called HCD to define what major transit corridor meant and it means having a bus go down the road every 15 minutes. So there's no place in Slow County that can incorporate that exception because no buses go down any corridor in our county every 15 minutes. So um when we have design standards are there conflicts? Do we know if there will be any conflicts with with state law? Have we looked at it that deep? Do you know that?

Um yeah, Genevie is actually um quite an expert at a lot of state laws as well and I don't believe we have any conflicts with what state law says, but I saw her turn her mic off so I'll let her speak. That we know of.

Sure. And it of course as you know it's it's always evolving but um we did take a look at all the current state laws including um SB 684 which is going into effect in July um and integrated that into the cottage cluster discussion for that reason um to to focus people to that state law as well as complying with the standards that exist in the code so everybody's aware of of the um you know the provisions that are provided by state law and also um what how that feeds into the code. Um, so the the intent was to to get us up to date with all the current state laws, but of course there's many that are on the docket for the next year.

So with respect to my example, uh I I wasn't I thought I was very versed in SB9, but I did not know until I called HCD that that was the state's definition of what a major transit corridor was. And actually the city didn't know that either. And so um yeah that's a tricky one because the public

do we know the definitions do we do knew know the definitions that deeply to understand and I guess we can obviously which was presented to us last to me last Friday by staff that this is kind of a starting spot. we've done a lot of work and when during as we go forward we might find some issues some conflicts that we will correct along the way. So, I did appreciate that very much hearing that

and I do think um we did make some of those um efforts early on because as like you I was also surprised by that definition and realized oh wow this uh this doesn't apply in a task at all and so we wanted to craft the standards to not say if you're you know to to imply that it would work when it when it actually doesn't.

Yeah. It only applies in San Francisco and Los Angeles. Right. Right. Um, in going through the outreach process that was discussed, uh, was there any discussion about, uh, how the design standards affect cost or, uh, whether construction costs or insurance costs or even something as simple as uh, recycling waste materials. it might create more more waste to have to be recycled. Was did anyone have that discussion uh during that process that outreach process?

We did have um I I'll answer that in a couple of ways. One on the construction waste. We did not touch on that piece in particular, but in other ways we talked with local developers and local architects specifically um looking at our our tiers and our our design options. And we wanted to to think about the cost of the different design options. So within the tier, we didn't want to have a couple of really kind of freebie cheapo ones and then a few expensive ones that no one would do. So we really tried to to place those so that there were comparable price points. We looked at particular design or construction um strategies with regard to window insets for instance and the depth of of buildings and we talked to um architects about that. We also talked um we are working in kind of tandem with Paso Rebels on this update so that North County has um very similar objective design standards so that um folks are familiar with you know both jurisdictions are are very similar so that it's easier for developers and the public to understand those. Um and there we also had uh a developer looking at at particular items and weighing in on on cost items there. I would just comment um worked with a lot of architects who really don't care about cost. They're more care concerned about design and how it looks and whether it gets built or not isn't an issue and it's the developer who makes the draws the bottom line based on cost. Um there's discussion on open space and greenery and this is an issue that I have even now is that if these objective standards are implemented uh what control I mean how do we ensure that

they're going to be m maintained and upkeep in perpetuity on the properties or anywhere Uh my uh I can go through many projects that we have approved here since I've been on the commission for lots of years. Um landscaping plans mean nothing. And trees are cut down. They're they die. They're not replaced. So, as we incorporate any of these objectives, design standards, not that we want it, but what policing power do we have to ensure that they're kept up?

So, we do have language in um our landscape section in our code that does require continued maintenance of landscaping per the um requirements of the Atastro Municipal Code. We also have some language in there about ensuring that trees and parking lot trees and street trees in particular um can be maintained in a way where they reach their full height and width um for maturity because we do have a lot of projects that use uh growth stunting um applications on trees to to to keep them from growing to their normal height. And obviously these trees are important for shade and um shading our uh pedestrian way and shading our cars and our parking lot and and all the asphalt that comes along with that. So we do have that as part of our municipal code. On the enforcement side, of course, it's up to um council will and staffing as to um whether or not we receive direction to proactively go um enforce uh landscaping upkeep on those projects. So, we need to lobby council if we we're interested because that has been pretty much the reason that I've been given when I've asked questions is that uh either we don't have the staffing to to to do that, right? Sometimes even individuals, I mean, the police department used to do code enforcement at one time. I believe that they retired of it at some point. Um, so are HOAs still going to be used as we incorporate uh the design standards as a way of pleasing a project? So, homeowners associations would only be required if there are a number of shared amenities um in a subdivision for sale type project where there are communal space that needs to be upgraded and maintained

and there those were discussed obviously in in the presentation about sharing of storage space, sharing of other things.

Yes. If it's if it's a subdivision that's designed with that space, they would need to have some sort of financing mechanism and somebody in charge of that. When it comes to shared um solid waste areas, um it seems to me it affects a design in certain way because if you don't drag it out to the street, then someone has to drive in and pull it out. Is there any in the standards we have with respect to solid waste, is there anything that addresses that?

So solid waste um again I think we discussed it doesn't necessitate a dumpster. So they can be bins that are more easily wheeled out if the bins are large enough to accommodate the number of units that are with on within the site. Um, we also have that allowance for the shared facility to be incorporated into the building design and located closer to the street so that that can be um an easier way for the trash company to access the dumpster. I guess in in certain areas uh parking becomes critical and so the a lot of people carry the stuff out but don't bring it back in and it stays there for a week and a half or so and I would say in multif family area that that would probably be less the issue because again people are going to want to park out there and you can't with those with the cans being in the way. on the street tree discussion and they I can I can hear you guys trying to think through this but uh I didn't hear anything about peees. I didn't hear anything about overhead easements. In fact, the photographs that she showed, there were two of them that had overhead wires on that. So if I have uh if I encourage trees not to be within the rightway and they're planted in the pee or they're planted with overhead easements in the way uh then as what happens now as we see along the road the the utility company comes through and carves out a hole in the top of the tree so the wires

could go through. So um I would I think you guys should consider you know easements and how especially with pees um that's anywhere between five and seven feet behind the property line in which there is a pee in which um you shouldn't be planting in. All those things need to be taken into consideration when doing a development plan. through the construction permit process, we would probably not allow for trees to be in a public utility easement where there's overhead lines. That would not be acceptable.

I agree. But in in your examples that you're you're you're talking about considering to present in some way, you talked about uh council's concern about taking a property and uh so putting the trees on private property. They want it closer to the sidewalk. you mentioned three feet. Um, but that would then be within the pee. And so that in a lot of those examples, um, I think that that just needs to be part of that thought process, uh, how how landscaping, not within the riderways. I and I think and it probably didn't come across on the slides because we we were brainstorming today on this issue, but um a lot of times we see our pee on our non- major arterial streets. So, El Camino tends to have the utilities in El Camino. We don't really have a pee there, and those are really the streets where there's more concern about a larger setback. In our residential zones that are just multifamily, we do generally see a setback. It used to be 25 ft and we reduced it to 15. So I think people are used to a larger setback in multifamily. I think the concern really comes down to uh the commercial zoning districts where we allow for mixed use. Um and so the recommendation could be to keep the the full 15t in our multif family zones 10 feet with a side setback on a corner. Um and then really honing in on those commercial zones and and really in those commercial zones for mixed use we're talking about El Camino and Mororrow Road where we generally don't have a pee beside be behind the back of sidewalk. I would I would agree with that.

We also have some adopted um tree planting and tree standards through our public works department that address appropriate trees for underpower lines and not appropriate trees for under power lines. So we do already have that standard established Okay. Um, thank you very much.

Go ahead. Dennis brought up something that just piqued my interest. So, how is um, you know, typically when we have a project that need that is conditioned um, and a lot of the agencies I work with, they would condition undergrounding of of utilities. Um if they go through these objective design standards does is it is undergrounding of utilities covered under some other it's already it's already in our community code under title 8 our building code requires for new for new development projects to be undergrounded. So it doesn't require that for an existing development but it requires it for new development. Okay that answers my question actually.

Any other questions for staff? Any thoughts on the street trees? I know Commissioner Crona has thoughts. Anybody else? Oh, yes. Let's open up for public comment. And we do have some people on Zoom, so I'm hoping that they can use the raised hand um function if they would like to speak. and we will give you um a couple minutes to get that sorted out if you'd like to speak.

Yeah, if you'd like to speak, raise your hand. Please state your name for the record when you are um on and please try to limit your comments to three minutes. I will give you a two minute 30 second warning. I did also want to point out that we did receive is it was it one public comment Annette? And so hopefully you guys all receive that as well. From Dennis Haggy. Oh, I'm sorry. Deon Hacking, I apologize. Um, I am not seeing anyone raise their hand. I think what we could do is bring it back.

Oh, I see one now. Hold on. And it's Devon. Oh, awesome. We'll give Devin the floor. Devon, you should be able to speak if you unmute. All right. You have me now? Yes, we can hear you. All right. Um, I didn't know if I'm allowed to still speak since I did a written public comment, but um, literally my kids are running in getting burritos right now as I'm uh, watching this meeting. Um, do I have permission to to speak here, Kelly, or the planning council or Yeah, go ahead.

Um, yeah. So, I just want to I've been kind of hearing while my kids have been busy doing other things. Um, sorry I couldn't make it in person tonight. I was hoping to be there, but that's just not going to happen. Uh, my my main thing is I want to first thank Kelly and the team. Uh I've been doing a development uh highdensity lot in the Tascadero and going through the municipal code and everything else. Uh it's been very extensive to figure out um all your requirements and make it make it work out and pencil out on this lot. Parking has been the the number one thing. Uh setbacks. Um I have a corner lot so the setbacks on both sides has definitely been a main concern of mine. Um I I like the overall concept of objective design standards. I think it looks um your product looks really good. Um I just want to make sure that my hands aren't tied too much when it comes time to the do a design or development because every time that we change a feature on a building, um I have an increased cost no matter what. Um, so, uh, trees are great, you know, but I still think the the, uh, flexibility of making each project work or pencil out, uh, should be critical to move forward with the the development standards. Um, I think that's all I can think of right now. Uh, kind of been put on the spot. So, I thank you very much and, uh, hopefully I can still listen in.

Thank you very much, Don. Is there anybody else that would like to speak?

Does not look like anybody else. So, I think we can continue.

I'm going to close public comment then. Um, and I'd actually, um, in Devon's letter, he does talk about parking, and I left all my notes at home, so I can't remember if parking is mentioned on the checklist. Is that one of the things on the checklist? And also, he mentions this the state density bonus law parking requirements. I I guess I kind of when I read that assumed that you guys have taken that into account, and that's just what we're going with. So when we originally came to council, we did a presentation about, you know, what are the gives give and takes when you do site development because we can say we want all the open space and we want the prettiest building and we want it low story to fit in with a tascadero and we want all the parking because we know that we don't have good transit and that just doesn't all fit on a site. So you have to give up some things in order to maintain other things. Um so they did talk about open space but again reducing the requirement and making it more quality. We did talk about increasing some height in some places and we'll look at that more with our general plan update. Um but parking was really uh held dear by the council. Um we know what our parking situation is in a lot of Atascadero. We know that we don't have a lot of on street parking and some of our street our right ofways aren't wide enough to accommodate it even if we wanted to build that out. Um we know that people have a decent amount of cars here because our transit we just don't have the population to have you know really welloiled transit. Um, so they did not uh choose to give us direction to reduce our parking requirements over what we have today. Of course, with the state density bonus, you can reduce parking to what the state says you can do that at. And I think the council's thought was um if you really want to reduce that parking, at least we get some affordable housing units out of it. And so there is some city benefit to um having some standards that don't necessarily align with the most minimum that the state has um because then we can extract that benefit from those

projects that are taking advantage of that. So specifically um we held parking at our current standards. Okay, cool. Um but also Devon could come to the general plan and we could talk about parking again then too. Yes.

Okay. Oh, I had a question and then I forgot it, but I just remembered it. Um, nope, it's gone. So, anybody on Are we ready for our street tree discussion? Any other comments or questions before we start the street tree discussion? Okay, Commissioner Kronza, do you want to go first? You can. All right. Thank you. Um can we first go back to the the options slide so that our minds are on that again? Okay. So staff was pointing to you know we have to have all options on the table including others and you know ones that they may not uh like as much and yet there's lots of different ways you can even slice it even though it's simply written there. There's so many different sub options of each option I feel like. So yeah, I mean I think that the uh the number four actually if that was going to be at all on the table, I think that a street tree management draft plan presentation or uh how that fits into the downtown infrastructure enhancement plan pertaining to you know enhancing appearance and walkability and safety and whatnot. I mean, I think these these uh documents we already have really address some some of the the tree it's more like a strategy I think our city's going with. And yet I see what you're doing here. It at least it seems like okay if we get the private owners these trees on private property then yeah there's more you know there's less less ability to have to fund the maintenance of them on a city level. But yet, as my colleague here to the left of

mentioned earlier, the accountability to upkeep them and landscaping in general. I and then the tree stunting stuff that Kelly was mentioning to make sure that they're not encroaching on the building and then if they do become outsized, then they just get ripped out and it's kind of a moot point then. So, we're kind of in a conundrum as far as like how to really get strong tree development and have it be appreciating value and not get ripped out later because it just doesn't look good or work and, you know, harming capital improvements that have already been, you know, invested in. So, I see the dilemma like on all sides. This isn't necessarily a question yet or a proposition, but an exploration of like what what are some of the big challenges with this? Um because it's easy for us to say oh yeah no si city could take this on in a bigger you know strategy and plan. I think they could but the finance mechanism is is the big piece and I was reading some of these like the uh the ODS some of the I wrote it down then um title n the common open space and some of the amenity options that you can choose. I mean, I don't know if this makes sense, but could ODS have a fund to support common area trees that would go to the city rather than putting it on the owner to try to fit it in somewhere that it might not make sense for a courtyard or a cottage having something, that's one thing. but to benefit a whole area that's on the frontage way side. Could it just go towards city taking care of something for the greater common good? Um, you know, that that goes for even public art, too. But that's that's kind of

another story there. I'm like, okay, a big glass base that they fund. Maybe someone doesn't care about that, but could it go into a more uh maintaining the the beautiful fountain we have at the gardens? You know, it's like kind kind of that same strategy like if the developer has to check a box anyway, could it go towards more city funded goods for the whole community? So that's kind of like where my mind's at with that art entry. I'm sneaking it in there. Guys,

let me just respond to that, which is a very interesting comment. So what you're really alluding to is what the city already does is is development impact fee collection with every project, every construction project. We have a set of development impact fees. Uh they pay towards police, fire, streets, infrastructure. Um so right now we don't have a street tree program or a public art program in our development impact fee structure. Some cities do. Um so that would be something that would be a significant change to our development impact fee structure would be a big effort to do that. Now we are going to be doing our whole development impact fee structure probably next year. We're waiting for the general plan to be done because once the general plan's done and we outline all of our infrastructure needs for our city, then we have a baseline to start with for redoing our development impact fee structure. But it would have to wait until that time. So that would be a significant effort. Can't be done as part of ODS, but it's a very interesting suggestion as part of the bigger picture for development impact fees and is, you know, seriously something that could ultimately become that if the city council chose to go that way. They can include things like public art, street trees. Right now we have a parks and open space component of our development impact fee structure for example and fees do go towards parks and developing new parkland and open space.

Yeah and thanks for giving me that terminology. It definitely is something that I'm aware of in a budget list. Development impact piece. Yes, exactly that. So, I I think that even though it's it's slightly off topic, I think it is part of that bigger picture of okay, I know if Nick, you're listening, I understand you've got some words with me. Uh, but yes, I think it can be done. And that's I think my my bigger point there. Um, looking to the future as we plan. Even the climate action plan, which we don't really have. Um, I've been waiting to look at when we're going to sink our teeth into that and I get that there was bigger pressing deadlines for us to meet on other ordinances and plans that are coming down from the state level too. But implementation strategies, you know, like these things that we could check off other lists and ecological services of trees in general, I think people maybe think they're I I've heard of, you know, the the gingerbread stuff. I think that there's more to be done to educate the public on why we need a bigger strategy on on how to how to fund this. So,

you're such a tree hugger. I love it. Um I actually really like that idea of just having an impact fee. Like everybody who builds something just adds a little bit to the pot. Um I will Um, I will say I wasn't necessarily saying that it's a blanket thing, but it could be a choice of which they choose.

Yeah. And I don't think Yeah. And I don't think it can be a choice. Um, it would have to be a blanket thing. And then development impact fees are a one-time charge. So, we would have to establish some sort of citywide tax district and have a vote of the public to do ongoing maintenance um financing. So, there's a couple layers um that would come into play there. and many of the um agencies that I work with, they've established landscape and lighting districts through the downtown areas that where the businesses fund the maintenance of the landscaping and lighting and uh it's on part of the property taxes.

It it might be a good thing to sort of pull the areas where this would be affected and say like Yeah. So, so because these are ministerial, so we do our community facilities districts um when we do uh new development projects that have a discretionary component and that um community facilities district you vote into um and of course we don't issue you permits unless you vote yes and because it's discretionary we've said that we can do that. So for ministerial projects we um don't have a mechanism that would allow us to do that. So, it would likely be um we could try and establish a district, but it would likely be a citywide uh tax that would have to be um voted on and approved by two twothirds twothirds of the population and then it would be a a tax on the annual tax role.

Well, that makes it more complicated. Did the city attorney reign on our par just then? Is that what happened? That's what happened, isn't it? I hope not. Oh, I hope not too much. But yeah, you're correct. If you use a tax structure, you would need to put that to a vote. um of the the general public. Okay. Um Commissioner Schmidt, did you have some thoughts?

Yeah, I wait. I've been waiting for the AD600 study for a long time. Um I think what would the fact that I would be someone who had a piece of property, I would want to put the trees on my property and there were going to people be people like us who would do that. And then there'll be other people who don't want to do that. So if there's a way of building some type of flexibility as we look into this potentially in the future is maybe we just need different more tiers and maybe that be more difficult to create but then have options built within the tiers that you pay this amount if you do this and you pay that amount if you do that. You have it set up already. Um I mean even right now we although I think ADUs have changed a little bit um for the longest time we've had the lowest impact fee for for a sec what was a second residence and uh we when it comes to costs for things I mean right now just for a water meter connection for a water connection which is what $20,600 $ and in the development impact fee that's somewhere between 16 17 and $18,000 that's $40,000 just starting off on a project and that becomes prohibitive. So, um, I like the the thought of what my esteemed colleague to my right has talked about, but I think we need to, um, really think it through and get it correct this first time we do it. Um, I I'm very skeptical about having trees on private property and them not being

maintained. And um I would recommend going with with number four still and and keeping what we have. Uh I would change the type of trees that we have in in that program. I think that so right now we don't do trees in the sidewalk outside of downtown. So number four would be no trees unless we developed a a taxation district. I just want to be clear that that's what that is so that everybody's on the same page

and not necessarily a taxation district but a financing mechanism. How could we finance the additional staff and the maintenance that we aren't able to for today? So I don't know and staff could I mean our council could reorganize our budget to get there. wouldn't have to be a tax mechanism but it is a big a big leap a big shift but these are the things we have to throw out there

we have yeah even but we even maintenance wise now we have sycamore trees that's a tree that's allowed and it makes a mess and I see city workers every winter time before rains cleaning out the storm drains so they don't flood um and or cause flooding. I'm sorry. I I I need to think about this a little bit more. So, thank you,

Commissioner Anderson. While we're on the subject of trees, um I'm personally for the idea that uh most trees should be privately maintained because anytime you put something into a tax base, um it it it can run away. And uh I I'm all for uh the tax base to for downtown and for like the parks and stuff like that. We we really those are really well-known community areas. we start getting residential, you start getting like multif family units and and that crossover, I think uh it would would just become more maintenance for the city to deal with. You know, most people like their neighborhood. They're going to plant a tree. They're going to take care of it, you know, especially if it's a a project. But I know that there are places that don't. They get run down, but then people tend to come back and revamp them. You know, there's a cycle to it. So, uh, keeping it out of the, uh, the city's perview of having to deal with that would be, I think, a lot better.

Which one? Yeah. Which one do you like? Um, let me think about it. Okay. Commissioner Heath, do you have an opinion down there? I was looking through the different numbers. And they've all got pluses and minuses and it just to me it kind of depends on the design of the project as far as how the trees would fit into it. Yeah.

Um so I'm just having some issues trying to wrap my head around blanket statement saying trees will be this. Well, that's kind of what I was what I said too early was having that menu where we can give them options um of size of trees and number of trees based on their square footage of frontage and give them that flexibility and we still get our trees you know that way because I find that if you can give people choices it sort of then it's like oh it's my idea to put that I don't know juniper tree there and so I want to take care of that juniper. I don't I don't know that was just the first one anyway. Um so I kind of like that idea but I think that it would take you know more someone who knows about trees more than I.

Yes. Welcome to the conundrum of objective standards. Yes. I mean is there a way to do that objectively? I think that there probably could be and maybe I'll let Genevieve um just weigh in on maybe not details because we're not there yet, but some overarching ideas about that. Genevieve, do you know trees? Are you going to educate us about trees now, too?

Nope. Nope. But I can about zoning codes. Um I think that I think that um what I'm hearing is that there is a desire for flexibility. And so I think because there are so many nuance situations um thinking through especially the the menu of options and perhaps there is um you know perhaps there's a way that we can list a variety of different options to meet the intended goal um that will provide enough flexibility um to kind of do maybe one and two and three a little bit. um in certain situations. Um it's a it's a complicated problem, but I I've seen um kind of what you're looking at uh the idea of kind of like putting a cost measure on it or just like an an amount of like units. I've seen that especially um in like the city of LA does that for for landscaping. So we kind of rank kind of the things that you do and if you reach a certain ranking threshold because you've done enough then you comply. So, I could see a way where that um that type of design could work.

Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Kronza.

Okay, thanks again. Um, can we also go back way earlier in the presentation to what the the piece where it says which zones are actually being talked about for the ODS? That's way up there. I know. I was going to say that's a lot of slides. Let's just take a little gander again. Let's go back to memory lane. Okay. So, if we look the multif family zones because I I think Commissioner Anderson over there, he made a good point. So, I just wanted to review that list here. Um because I I mean I'm really empathetic to okay, what do we not want or what do we want to avoid, right? But then there's the okay, well then what solutions are going to get us there? Because if we only look at what we don't want, I don't think that's a holistic management plan right there of how we're going to get to what we do want. So, um, if we're just trying to avoid something. So, all right, we got downtown office, downtown commercial, commercial service, retail, professional neighborhood. But then it sounds like where you draw the line. Um, not to, you know, put the hotlight over there, but I am interested in the discussion. uh the multif family, like not having them incur a fee or extra taxation for more common trees, but something like a citywide, but not a citywide, more of a downtown taxation district, like for some of those more common street trees and landscaping that we want more of and more attention to. I I I feel like that's where there's a blend between number four and then some of these other things where we want private property to cover like the multifamily we want to cover their own trees but then when we get closer towards the downtown elements then

maybe we can come over to my side on the on the city you know well I think it's also important to note that a lot proposing that there's that seemed important to me to make a distinction

a lot of this is already developed. Like we're not going to get like hundreds of plans, you know, it's not like we're going to be able to rest street tree all of El Camino. I mean, there's limited properties that this is going to apply to. And of course we want the open spaces to get developed, but um you know like redoing there are some buildings along El Camino that unless they're torn down and something completely new is built, we're not getting street trees there. So it's kind of like the limited number of spaces we have left, what do we want them to look like? And so trying to tax the whole like I don't know I don't know how you like they would have to what like drill out a circle in the middle of the sidewalk and then plant a tree in there.

Well look at the properties over by the cinema or the big old DG parking lots. You know there's there's pockets of open space and then there's not even the implementing new trees but just sustaining what we have. But like the property Yeah. I mean the cinema's right up against the sidewalk. Um, you know, so I if we had like a bunch of commercial, I think that trying to get the citizens of Atascadera to sign on to a new tax might be better, but I don't I feel like that's going to be a really hard sell. Um, we're talking citywide versus commercial building. Well, I mean,

for a certain district. Yeah. I mean, I So, I don't know. Kelly kind of said that it wouldn't be we wouldn't be able to do a district. It would it would have to be citywide. I don't know that we're big enough to like only tax three square blocks. I mean, is that just going to be a tier option, right? District could be an option. Can we make a tax district that's like that big on the map? Um, that's a great question. you know, I I didn't prepare um discussion about tax district today, so I don't think I can answer that with confidence. I don't think we're going to solve this today anyway. So, you're good. But I'm happy to look into that further and give you a more detailed response. I

I think you probably can. I think some cities do undergrounding districts. Um but then as a tax, you know, we don't get to decide. You know, you have to have twothirds of the vote of the property owners to say, "Yes, I'm willing to pay extra taxes to maintain the street trees a mile away." So um in theory it's a it's a great idea and would be lovely um but we have to think about you know how realistic and feasible that might be if if we are wanting truly wanting street trees. So I think if we are on the fence about street trees and we're you know fine with more pavement then I think you know that could be something to explore but I wouldn't talk about it as if it could be a guaranteed thing.

Yeah. I mean, I'm not crazy about more pavement, but I feel like we need to like frame it as an incentive to the property owners. Like, trees are great. You want trees because And here's what you're required to blame, by the way. Because they're social and economic benefit and Yeah, exactly. And they're beautiful and they provide shade and and they're, you know, the wind rustling through them, whatever. Yeah.

Yes. Mr. and Nikov it is possible to have a landscape and lighting district that just applies to certain properties. It certainly is. Of course, that would be a discussion for city council to take up and then it would have to go through the whole 218 process. So, um that's nothing that we can approach today. But um I'm dealing with a similar project or problem in the city of Guadalupe where CALR is coming through and they're going to want to do this complete streets project through downtown and there's competing um issues between uh the downtown owners wanting bigger street trees but they can't be accommodated with a 10-ft sidewalk and zero line zero lot line setbacks with the buildings. So Calrans is coming in saying, "Hey, we can add bulboutouts, but then they're worried about removing parking." So there's competing um there's competing things going on there. And I I don't it's it's a very complicated issue that we can't we certainly can't um we can't decide on tonight. But but I I do agree with like probably um a hybrid of number one, two, and three. I think those are probably our best options. Um and I I agree that if it's in the multif family areas that it should probably be on the property instead of in the street. But if it's in if it's in the downtown or the commercial zones, it should probably be a street train in the public right away. That's my my thought.

Did we help? Yeah. And and boil this down. I mean, this this question is really not about the downtown. Downtown's already done because we already allow trees right away. We have that requirement. We can fit them. We have big big sidewalks.

This is about outside of that. And I think really what we're looking for you is kind of more of a general direction anyway. Should we be pushing street trees for these areas where they can't fit today? And should they be on private land or in the public rideway? And the public rideway is problematic. We've kind of expressed that to you. Private land is easier except there's a concern about how it infringes upon the rights of the property. So I think what I've heard in general from the commission is have flexibility. Don't take away the property rights to develop. Um but we still want to see trees and can the building design accommodated? And I think it can. Um, and you know, one, two, and three has those options. So, I think we're feeling, you know, it's a tough topic. It's not, there's no easy oneizefits-all. Hey, this is it. This is your perfect answer. It's not. Each building is different. Each site is different. Sometimes you're going to get multiple buildings in one project and it's easy. You can put those trees in the divides of the buildings. You can have little inserts in the building where a tree fits. You don't have to have a blanket setback. I think what we first went through with was a blanket setback and I think our first vision that was perfect, but politically that may not fly. So I think we're going to probably go forward with here's here's a couple of different ways to do this. Let's have a menu of potential options for developers would probably be the best approach

and make city council decide. That's why they get paid the big bucks. Um, okay. So, I did remember my questions. Can we go back to questions for staff? Okay. Um, I was curious, what is the p the ratio of commercial versus residential in a mixed use? Do we have fixed percentages of that? No, not yet. We'd like to one day and we will when we create these mixed use districts, okay, a new general plan and we create a new zoning ordinance

and we'll talk about those ratios for certain areas, but we don't have that today. What we have is a requirement for the ground floor to be all commercial and then residential in the upper floors. We do allow some things like residential garages and your mail room on the ground floor, but in general it has to be all commercial on the ground floor. And then if we're doing a two or threetory building, are elevators required for ADA requirements? Generally, they are. We do have a couple exceptions for smaller projects.

Okay. And then u my other question was do we have like a review plan to make sure that these are still working? Are we just going to see how they kind of go with the projects coming through? And if we're suddenly running up against a lot of walls, maybe it's time to review it. Um yeah, I don't think we have a specific plan, but I can tell you that if these don't work, we're all going to be frustrated and we will come back and fix them. We throw them out the window and set them on fire. I think a lot of them will work. We spent a lot of time making sure they will work, but I'm sure there will be some nuances that we need to sort out,

right? It's just, you know, design types like what's in Vogue kind of changes and hopefully these will be able to be flexible with that that we don't have to like change them every, you know, 10 years or whatever. I was just kind of curious if you guys We're hoping with the menu approach that it can accommodate a lot of different design styles. Cool. Um, any other comments or questions for staff? Oh my lord. Yes, Commissioner Schmidt.

Yeah, and about the street tree thing, I think we have to kind of project that, you know, we're thinking immediate at this point, but we're projecting, you know, 60 70 years down the road too at the same time. And as the value of a tusk arrow increases, there will be projects that will be ripped out because it's going to be more affordable to do that and start a new and that's when things come into play at that point. So, uh there will be some construction that will be here for the next hundred years and uh but that's going to change. And then we also have right now, and I I don't know, we have a sales tax right now for road improvements. And that was purposely written the way it is so we wouldn't need the super majority vote and it passed with a simple majority. Um, I don't know if there's anything within that that discusses about aesthetic issues or something. But uh if I may maybe a similar tax issue that deals with street trees uh and see if someone would be the community would be interested in supporting yet this somewhat the same same way as what we did with the uh the sales tax. I mean there was a there wasn't a simple I mean a a super majority of the votes out there. We knew that and that's why it was worded the way it was at the time. And then we have our our oversight group and does their thing to to make it work and it's been pretty successful. Um, but I I think again we have to project our our

thoughts to the future and things might not happen within our lifetime, but we're talking about the next. So anyway, thank you

all right in detail thinking about how some of these get completed. So I check a box and I check another box and I meet my ODS requirements. So we do it. Then the conditions of approval piece, I mean I imagine it's the public works, but is there like arborists that review them? Are they doing any kind of check with how the trees are maturing and you know instead of applying things to them to stunt them and then having them become problematic and it not working because even you know miniature or dwarf are not dwarf a lot of the times. But I'm just curious about that piece of how we can maybe mitigate some of those issues to begin with if we're allowing like most of the trees to be privately picked and owned. Like how how are we ensuring that from the beginning we don't really set them up for failure? So I think part of that is trying to ensure that there's enough space for the tree to grow. Um and then part of that as we mentioned um as Dennis was asking earlier is about the enforcement piece. So we do have pieces in our code that allow us to enforce landscaping on commercial multifamily properties. Um and then so it's a matter of prioritizing enforcement if that's what the council so chooses to do.

And then as far as recommendations to council on that, it's like is it who who's endorsing? Is it a director of sorts that's over taxed with 20 different hats on or is it something that could be a assistant for that role that's already doing other things? So I'm just curious. Yeah, we all as staff generally are also in charge of code enforcement.

There is a police officer I know at least one that works part-time that does code enforcement. You call the police, the non-emergency line, and you say, "Hey, my neighbor or I saw this thing on El Camino, and I'm pretty sure this is against code. Can you go check it out?" And he will. Um, she she will. Oh, she Oh, the one I met was a gentleman. Maybe he's retired

some time ago. So, now we have Aya Tom. She's our code enforcement officer. That's what she does full-time. Uh, she does have a code enforcement vehicle. She works with community development extensively. We help her along with the planning and zoning and building codes and she is our key person for enforcement. But each of us in community development also have a role in enforcement where we you know assist and educate the public and we uh write that first letter of response on issues but work with AYA to carry enforcement out when um we don't get results we want. So it's a pretty good system and it's all working really well right now. Awesome. Anything else, gentlemen?

Oh, and I, by the way, I did want to thank you for that weed abatement notice that went out. The fire department says, "You're welcome." Yeah, the fire captain gives my husband a heart attack every year. I'm like, it's May. It's fine. We have an exemption. We have goats. They're eating the grass. We don't have to mow it. It's fine. June one is your deadline. This year it seems a lot moistister and greener than it has been in years past, but June 1st is still that deadline. Yeah. I will also just put out there that every almost everybody receives that notice. They don't go property by property. They blanket areas that are likely to have weeds. So, don't feel personally offended. We were blanketed, too. And but they have the wrong accessessor's parcels and addresses on it. And so,

I will tell my husband that cuz he feels like it is personally addressed to him. He takes it very personally. And now I'm on public record saying that. So, I'll probably get in trouble. I I think it's funny because my property has a very small lawn and there's like really no weeds to obey and my neighbor actually mows it for me because it's so small. So, it's done.

Uh, so we have to make a motion, right, to send this to city council. So, we have a slide, the recommendation I didn't read to you, which is asking you to adopt the draft resolution A recommending the council introduce an ordinance of first reading by title only to establish objective design standards for multif family and mixeduse developments and update existing development standards as needed for consistency. Quote unquote, that would be title N. And so, that's us saying yes, we like this city council. You should review it. But we took notes on some of the discussions and comments you've had and um unless you have other comments. Yes, you can move forward with this to move it to the city council.

Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? I move. So I'll second it. Wasn't working. Uh I make a motion to accept the uh the resolution as as written. Would you like to include anything about street tree options? Um, I would definitely like to uh strike any option to have uh street funded street trees funded by taxes. Maybe I can summarize what Phil said. Yeah. Could you and you could see if you would like to include that in your motion.

There we go. Yeah. Um, so I think we talked about developing a similar menu style option for street trees that would allow some flexibility and what people could do along their frontage. Some might might include more reduced setbacks and some might include greater with greater tree spacing, but a menu of options that would allow um somebody to choose what would work best for their property behind the sidewalk. Yes, that exactly. Yes. I I like flexibility. I think property owners like that as well. I would definitely second that.

Um, let's just pause before we take a vote real quick. So what we're looking for is we have to actually find the section that talks about street trees so we can reference that so we're very clear on the direction that we're giving in final action. Of

course this is just a recommendation to council, right? They're going to make the Yes. decisions. Genevieve, I don't know if you have it up digitally. If you could search and try and find We're looking at the paper version in the recommendation itself in the in the resolution. Yeah. What code section would those amendments be under?

I think it's 9-4.109. No, that's Oh, 9-4.125 is street trees. Uh, A3 or is it the 3.262C4? 3.262C4. or is that title n common open space or no? Yeah, that's open space, but we're talking specifically about street trees.

I think that we are at 9-4.125. Yes.

Um five se number five. So we're a A5 of that section um on page 79 of our packet. And so the motion would include amendments to that section to include a menu of flexible options for street tree plantings um for commercial and multifamily development. Um and I hopefully we can throw in something that says and update any other sections that would be inconsistent with that because I know there's a couple minor modifications and a few other sections that we'd need to make match. So Jason, if as the motion maker, if you would like to amend your motion to say that what we just said, 9-4.125 section A5 be amended with minor updates to other sections for consistency.

Yes. I I didn't want to I didn't want to assume that I had to restate all the options. So no. So you got it. Thank you. So, just FYI on the checklist menu on the mixeduse project checklist page one under landscaping street trees you have it listed as 9-4.125 A3 and it should be A5. That's just a typo. Perfect. Thank you. I guess we're voting now. Okay, I think we need a second. Is there

or at least clarify that the second agrees with the amended motion? Uh yes, I will still second and would like to add the amendment that that was discussed for street trees. Okay. Commissioner Anderson, yes. Commissioner Heath, yes. Commissioner Coransza, no. Commissioner Schmidt, no. Vice Chairperson Bandon Iikok. Yes. Chairperson Keane. Yes.

Motion passes. 42. Um, I guess it's time for director's report.

We can do that. Thank you, chair. Uh, just one moment. Let me pull out my schedule and tell you what's coming. Um, I think what we go to first of all, if there's any commissioner comments and reports, we can bypass that if there aren't any. Commissioner Schmidt has a report for us. All right.

I have a comment. Um I've been noticing, you know, the signs that we have for our election, little plastic signs with the metal stakes being put in. Um a number of commercial businesses are plopping those around town anywhere anyhow and they don't care because it's probably cheap advertisement. and wondering um is there anything that we can do from that kind of littering from happening? They're everywhere.

All signs require signed permit. So, if it's a sign that's put in without a permit, uh unless it's a temporary banner, which is allowed in some cases, then it's something we will need to enforce. So, we'll take a look. So, I'm saying that the ones that I see, if you have a permit, you have to put it on your property, correct? I would imagine. Yeah. You cannot do an offsite sign. You cannot do a sign in the public right away. Your sign has to be on private land.

Of the ones that I see, they're on uh on high viewshed corners and people just put them there. You know, it's uh two men in a truck type signs. You know, there's a lot of those and there's quite a few. So, so noted. Thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioner comments or reports? Okay, Phil, now it's all you.

All right. So, on the 21st, we're going to come back. Uh, and we have several items. It's going to be a long night. So, I'm hoping to get a good attendance from the public, good attendance from the commission. We've actually got four items are stacking up. Um, one of those is the long awaited commercial property at Dub Creek at the corner of El Camry Island and Santa Barbara. It's coming through with a mixeduse project. This one's a good one. We're hoping this is going to be the one. Uh, but that neighborhood is also very concerned about anything that develops there. So, we're bringing that forward on the 21st. It is an amendment to the to the PD. It's going to make its way to city council as well. Uh we also have a conditional use permit for a we'll call it a telecom site, but it's really just a you know a a cell tower thing, a small one. And that one's going to be um where is that location? Off of Traffic Way. And then somebody wants to put in a smoke shop. Um and that requires a CUP that falls under the land use of personal services restricted. And so they want to sell cigarettes, tobacco, glass bongs, whatever, all that stuff. So, um, that's a proposal. Um, and then right now we have a towing company on Traffic Way. They're called Barber Towing, a little towing company, kind of a startup. They are actually getting um, a new location and they want to apply for a conditional use permit for a nice little vacant building that's existing on St. Lois Avenue right next to the Blast and Brew. Perfect location for them because there's already a little yard there, a little building there, and they want to op operate an auto repair and towing service there, which is ideal against the freeway there. So, that's a CUP that's coming your way. So, lots to do on the 21st. Lots coming your way. Um, and multiple

staff will be here presenting those particular items. Um, and then I also wanted to mention to you that our long awaited downtown infrastructure enhancement plan will be starting this summer. The actual construction plans are out for bid. I think bids are due. I think it might be this Thursday. So hopefully we get a contractor on board for that and get the groundbreaking going for that this summer. That's really exciting. Um and then um our general plan update is continuing to move forward. Lots of good stuff happening there. Uh we did at the city council some time ago adopt kind of the what's the what was the name of the map? What do we call it? What's the special name for yeah preferred alternative or is there another name for it? Anyway, we've basically the council has ratified a a draft land use map and now we're going to start getting into policy work. We'll bring some stuff to you soon on that. So, that's that's a big project that's going to be taking us for quite some time. Um and then um otherwise I'm just I'm here to answer any questions you have on development projects or policy work that's happening around town if you have any questions for me. Thank you. The grocery store at Del Rio and El Camino is coming along nicely. I can give a report on that because I drive by it every day.

Marketplace, Valley Fresh. There's also going to be mixed use over there. There's going to be some work spaces over there. There's going to be some restaurants over there and a distillery. I'm so excited. I can walk there. So, I can just go down there and then have a beer and then walk home. It'll be awesome. Any other comments or questions for Phil? No. Commissioner Heath, you look like you just would like to go home. Any questions or comments? No. I think that's it. So, um, we done. Okay. I'm We're done when you say we're done.

That's right. I have all the power and the gavl. Okay. I'm going to adjourn this meeting for May 7th and we will have our next meeting on May 21st. Same place, same time.