https://otter.ai/s/Uwdx-JMHTw2oREcQfNaiHA
0:00
To the July 15 2020, planning and zoning commission meeting, first item on our agenda is called to order or sorry, roll call. Thank you. Commissioner height. Present.
0:13
Commissioner Koehler? Yeah. Commissioner polen. Here. Chairman chernykh. Here.
0:20
Commissioner couch here. Commissioner honor on
0:24
Yeah.
0:26
Okay. Um, next is communications from planning manager Don Berkshire.
0:38
Don you need to on mute.
0:42
There we go.
0:43
Hopefully you can hear me now. I do have one thing for the for the commission. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard items number four and seven or during any public hearing. Specifically agenda item six will need to Watch the live stream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen when it is time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. And each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak.
1:31
That’s all that I have. Chairman. Thank you very much. Next on our agenda is public invited to be heard this is for items that are not on tonight’s agenda. So anything that is not on the agenda, if you want to speak to to the commission about that, just as Don Bridgette said, they’ll get five minutes. So you would call phone number 16699006 833 and then enter the meeting id 83087295123. So 669-900-6833 enter the meeting ID 83087295123 This takes a while for us technologically to receive the calls and get the callers entered into the meeting. So we will take a five minute break again this is public invited to be heard about something that’s not on tonight’s agenda.
6:40
All right share I’m going to come back in and stop the sharing so that
6:46
it will eventually disappear from the live stream as well. So if you could rejoin with your video
6:58
ready
6:59
I do not think Anyone I’m going to ask Jane, if she sees anyone she’s telling me, there is no one in person at this time. Okay.
7:09
All right. So we have nobody for the public invited to be heard. I’ll close that on. Next on our agenda is approval of our June 24 2020. regular meeting minutes. Is there any discussion amongst the commission? about those minutes?
7:26
Are there any motions to approve the minutes?
7:32
I can. Let’s see. I need to get into Oh, Commissioner Paul. Sorry. I was in I wasn’t in gallery view. I couldn’t see you.
7:39
I moved that. we approve the June 24 2020. regular meeting minutes. Do we have a second on that motion?
7:46
Commissioner height. I will second that motion. Okay. We have a second of motion to approve our minutes. Those in favor say aye. Raise your hand Aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. Any abstentions for anybody who was not present. Okay. So January have for approval on zero now and two abstentions to the absence already. So the minutes are approved. The following is a public hearing item and it’s item number six on our agenda. Left hand Brewing Company beer garden expansion PCR 2024, with principal planner Brian Schumacher. Brian, the floor is yours.
8:35
Thank you, Chairman chernykh. And commissioners, Brian Schumacher with planning development services. We’re here this evening to present and discuss the left hand Brewing Company regarding expansion. Can you hear me and see me Okay, just wanted to check in. All right. Thank you. So, Susan, if you have the slide deck available, could you start that please? All right, thank you. And I’ll let you know when to switch to the next slide. So in the interest of time this evening, since are likely a number of questions from the commission and participation from the public, my presentation will be relatively brief. I know that for the commission to flip through the pack of materials, obviously, there’s a lot of detailed information that are included in the communication and all the attachments that are posted on the city web page for the plan zoning commission. So if any members of the public are interested in seeing additional information regarding the proposal, they can look at the information posted on the web page. In addition to my presentation, the applicant also present more details regarding the proposal after my remarks. And so with that, let’s go ahead and get started. Next slide please, Susan. So first of all, I want to introduce Staff at the meeting this evening in addition to myself, so we have several staff members from public works engineering, transportation engineering natural resources and fire. So Cameron and Chris can help to address questions related to utilities, streets and streets. Josh has been working on the resilience st brain project. So if you have questions regarding the flood mitigation work the resilient st brain project, Josh can help respond to questions regarding that. Caroline is available to respond to any questions you might have regarding
10:34
traffic.
10:36
Dan Wolford is here to respond to questions you may have regarding while potential wildlife impacts associated with this project. And then Michelle and Amy are here from fire if you have any questions about emergency response or hazardous materials.
10:55
Next slide please.
10:58
So this slide provides A brief description of the property location. So we’ve got two properties here 1245 and toll 65 Boston Avenue. Tel 65 Boston Avenue is the existing brewery facility. 1245 is the proposed beer garden expansion location, both the properties and the surrounding area, except to the south of St. Brant creek or zone mixed use employment. This property is adjacent to St. vrain Creek and the Greenway. And as I mentioned before in our plan, plan flood mitigation work with the resign st drain project. And also noted there is the residential area south of st brain or some other residential neighborhoods that are approximately a quarter mile to the north. Next slide, please. So this is just a high level overview of the proposal. So the applicant, Mary Taylor will provide a much more detailed description of the proposal regarding as part of their presentation So as included in the packet, this is kind of an overall illustrative plan of what’s being proposed with the spirit garden expansion. This is a conditional use site plan for the proposed beer garden expansion of the existing left hand brewery. So this includes lawn area with enhanced landscaping, there’s not a lower bar structure and seating areas, also in additional indoor bathroom facilities, and then at events venue with temporary stage. Next slide, please. So the neighborhood meeting for this project was held in the spring of 2019. And it was fairly well attended. I believe that there was over 30 members of the public that attended the meeting. And as noted on this slide, there are a number of issues that were raised at the meeting. And included in the packet there was a summary by the applicant of the meeting.
12:52
So next slide, please.
12:57
And then following the neighborhood, meeting, you In April, their application was formally submitted last summer. And when the applications were submitted, notices were sent out to surrounding property owners and other interested parties who had expressed interest in reviewing this project. property is also posted the applicant and as noted on here, we’ve received some correspondence, both in terms of concerns regarding the project and on the next slide. There’s a list of individuals who provided some comments in regard of support for the project as well. And then also included in the packet was the response that was provided by the applicant to some of the issues raised by the correspondence that was provided in the public.
13:50
Next slide, please.
13:53
This slide just details some of the comments are provided in support from the public. For this proposal, and this information and in addition to the specific emails, all the correspondence was included in the packet as well.
14:12
Next slide, please.
14:16
So notices for the public hearing originally were sent in June and that was in anticipation of the original planned public hearing on June 24. Since that meeting was postponed to a date certain there was not a requirement to send out additional notices. And so, we did receive those some correspondence prior to the June 24 meeting and that information was included in the packet. And this slide lists some of the reasons and concerns that were expressed by members of the public and other interested parties regarding the proposal. And then we today, we did receive A couple of items of correspondence, one with expressing concerns, and one in support the proposal, and I’m assuming that the Commission received those this afternoon. If not, I can, I can describe those in more detail.
15:17
Next slide please.
15:20
So this slide just notes a few procedural items. So the plan is zoning Commission is the decision making body for conditional use site plan. The Commission’s decision is subject to appeal to city council. And the applicant is responsible for demonstrating that the application meets the applicable review criteria and municipal code standards.
15:42
Next slide, please.
15:45
So this is a list of substantive topics that were discussed during the DRC review. So there’s a lot of detail included in the communication so I’m not planning to address each of these. I know that the applicant as part of their presence is planning to address these items in more detail. So we didn’t want to duplicate information presented to the commission this evening. After the applicants presentation staff is available to respond to questions.
16:15
Next slide please.
16:17
As noted in your communication staff is recommending conditional approval subject to the conditions listed in the communication and PC resolution 2024 B. So the conditions listed here and then they continue on to the next slide as well are intended to address code requirements and review criteria compliance primarily related to compatibility and environmental protection. The intent is for left hand to demonstrate that will be a good neighbor and environmental stewards by monitoring mitigating potential impacts.
16:48
Next slide please.
16:51
So this just continues the conditions of approval that are included in the packet as well as the planning zoning commission resolution for B And staff was happy to discuss those conditions with the commission if you have questions regarding them. So in addition to the conditions listed in the PCR for B, there are a couple other items for the Commission’s consideration this evening. One is whether the commission wants to consider adding additional or adding a condition that would limit the number or frequency of events. The other is whether the commission wants to consider granting an extension request if the commission approves the application. That was part of the materials that was submitted, as part of the packet lefthand had requested that if the condition is to grant approval that they consider granting an additional year extension for this project. Normally, once a site plan is approved, there is a year timeframe by which the applicant needs to get a building permit and start construction. This request would extend that to two years instead of the normal one year period. And obviously the reason for the request is related to the covid pandemic and dependent upon social distancing and gathering restrictions. Left hand made, you may need to defer construction. So next slide, please. So again, that concludes my brief remarks. The applicant will present next Mary Taylor with Russell Mills studio start the presentation. And I think Eric Wallace is also planned to make some remarks. Also in attendance this evening, I believe our representatives from in addition to left hand Brewing Company, there’s pinioned, environmental and wave engineering, perhaps, I believe, and then after that the Commission can ask questions of the applicant and staff, or if they decided they prefer to open the public hearing that can do that. And then ask questions for the applicant and staff. So thank you.
18:53
Thank you, Brian. Miss Taylor, would you like to do your presentation on please?
18:58
Yeah, sure. Do. You want me to share my screen or are you? I can
19:03
get your presentation up when you’re ready.
19:05
Okay, great. whenever you’ve got that I’m ready
19:14
to hear me okay.
19:18
Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks to the planning and zoning commission and everyone that’s logged on this evening. We just wanted to kind of run through, you know, the project as a whole, but also just talk about the changes and the mitigation measures that we’ve really taken seriously throughout this process.
19:38
And how we how we anticipate this project moving forward. Next slide, please.
19:53
All right. Well, good evening, everybody. I’m
19:56
here just to introduce what we’ve been working on America. Awesome. The President found co founder of left hand Brewing Company we’ve been, we’ve been here on Boston avenue for 27 years now. Trying to build build community and bring good beer to the world. It seems like that one’s been solved. And now we’re continuing our focus on improving investing in our local community. The this beer garden is it isn’t an idea that’s kind of been gestating for for over a decade, through a number of different variations that we have shared and socialized with a bunch of people. The plan that we’re presenting now has been informed by meetings that predate the 2019 April 2019 meeting. We had meetings in April of 2018 as well. We have taken a lot of input we have significantly modified our plans. Create a space where we can host people host events, host fundraisers, perhaps take some of the load off of Roosevelt where some of our larger projects and fundraisers take place. probably recall we took over from the online Symphony guild Oktoberfest many years ago once that fest started to really struggle and, and have revived that. And we’re running a number of other larger events in the part of Spence that we can fit down here at the brewery we’d really prefer to be at the brewery. The getting getting to this point so far has been, like I said, just dating for a decade and we’ve been working on it a little more seriously for a couple of years. We spent $300,000 so far to get through the design and the planning and all of that and then undertaking the demolition of all the buildings and doing all the environmental mitigation that was required. as well, so we’ve taken a lot of time and an awful lot of our money to to get to this point. And so we’re really hoping that you will recognize the contributions we’ve made to the community so far, you know, between our fundraising events, our foundation and and the contribution that we make to the community, bringing in a lot of a lot of dollars from the outside from all the beer that we ship out of Longmont and a lot of the money that’s coming into Longmont as one of the primary tourist attractions here in the city itself. And I’ll be here able to able to answer questions. We’re really intending to turn this into more of a park like space in the in the middle of our industrial park that that we live in, work in and make it a really pleasant place to host folks. We I would love that we if we had it now. It’d be really Great, given the the need for social distancing, you’ll probably have noticed if you’ve driven past the brewery, we’ve expanded and put some shade sails and tables and seating out in the parking lot in order to host overflow crowds and keep people straight. We continually repeat to our crew in the brewery that we intend to be part of the solution both economically by operating safely and keeping our people healthy, and continuing to make and sell beer and also kind of give some people some relief safely in in our tasting room. So I’m sure that several of you on the call probably enjoyed visiting us and having a beer with your friends. So that’s that’s all I’ve really got to say. To start off, I’m gonna hand it over to Mary who’s way smarter than me.
23:54
Thanks, Eric. Thanks for touching on some some points from the left hand person perspective. So I’ll start jumping into some of the design topics. So we just wanted to touch on some of the goals and objectives kind of like what Eric talked about creating a community space with high quality landscape and just creating kind of this really great visitor experience. That right now, you know, isn’t able to serve a large number of people. So we really just want to create some ample seating some great, great places for people to socialize, as well as creating a safe and comfortable open space for all. Next slide please. Like Brian touched on our site is located in the mixed use employment zoning. We are surrounded by mostly industrial in this area off Boston Avenue. The property or project location doesn’t cover the entire property, but we’ll see in a couple of minutes. Text maps here shortly exactly where that lays within our property. But the that’s the project location off Boston Avenue and Bowen circle.
25:11
Next slide please.
25:16
So here we are the project. Like I said, the project location is right off Boston Avenue, just to the east of the left hand production and taproom and just across the street is some other left hand property as well. And then just to the east of us is also owned by left hand. So we just wanted to kind of highlight that most of the property surrounding our project location is in fact owned by left hand. And lastly, just south of our project location is not included in this project. We don’t intend on developing that as part of this project at this time.
25:56
Next slide, please.
26:01
Current existing site conditions actually have changed a little bit since we started this process. The there were some existing buildings on site that have been through a special sampling and abatement already. So that’s great. We were able to clean up the site and create a kind of an open gravel lot that doesn’t really have anything going on. There’s no vegetation or habitat on site. And, again, we have cleaned this up and demoed it per all city and state regulations.
26:37
So before, before the
26:42
before the abatement happened, we did have a couple buildings on site in the habitat study. those buildings are shown so we really just wanted to make it clear that all of those have been been demoed. Like Eric mentioned, we have spent quite a bit of money on cleaning up the site and really trying to figure out what’s there and the soil conditions. So everything is looking good so far.
27:07
Next slide, please.
27:13
We’ve had two neighborhood meetings for this particular property. One was on April 8 2018. And I know some of the community members are familiar with that. We had an overall master plan that showed quite a larger extent of the project, not what we’re proposing here. But we what we heard from that is that really, there was a lot of concern on what’s happening with the st. Frame Creek, you know, are we able to build where we’re proposing? How do we make this work? So we really thought about that critically and decided to move forward. What we presented on April 30 2018, was a completely different concept. That was getting out of the right parents setback, scaling back the project limits and focusing on an open space. Developing the lot that right now is just kind of an eyesore, as we saw in the photos before, off Boston Avenue. So we really, really tried to make a point of let’s minimize any impact in any sort of way that we can. So what we heard from that April 30, meeting, the big takeaways were events, noise on like, how do people access this space? is it available for rental? You know, what are the environmental impacts on the st. Bryan Creek and lastly, how is parking to be handled. So those were the main things that we’ve heard and have addressed throughout the this process and we’ll kind of touch on those points here moving forward.
28:54
Next slide, please.
29:00
What we wanted to talk about here was that we did in fact get out of that right, right parents setback like I mentioned, when we first started the project. This plan is is pretty different. So we have no structures being proposed and the right parents setback and no infrastructure in the San Fran corridor. Right now our project and limits are pretty much just in that gravel lot along with some Ada parking and proposed proposed crosswalk, things like that, but we have all major infrastructure is completely out of the right paren setback and we are not doing any sort of development in that kind of southern portion below that existing service drive.
29:51
Next slide, please.
29:55
So to expand on kind of what we’re looking at for the context is actually the resilience, same frame for the city of Longmont is going to be using that southern portion of our property, which is you can see in that kind of maroon color is going to be using that area. Thank you for staging for the resilient st brain and for anyone that isn’t familiar with that project. Essentially, that whole area and light blue approximately is going to be renovated to accommodate the st brain corridor and the bikeway. So we don’t have any plans shown here. But essentially, that whole area is going to be dropped about eight or nine feet and going to accommodate any sort of like additional water, water infrastructure, things like that. That’s not our project that’s through the resilient st frame through the city of Long month where we run wanted to show that Maroon area is going to be used as a staging area for that project. So we’re working with the city on making sure that they have the land that they need to complete that project and to enhance the st green corridor. So that whole habitat there is going to actually be ripped up and renovated and improved just along the perimeter of our property. And lastly, with that project with a resilient st frame, a berm of earthwork berm is going to kind of align the southern part of our property along the perimeter. So that kind of helps create a separation between anything that might be happening on our property with the same frame bikeway in the same frame corridor.
31:54
Next slide please.
31:59
So here is The same plan that Brian had brought up earlier, I apologize if the font is a little small for anybody, feel free to ask questions after, but we’ll just kind of run through some of the design features that we’re showing. The biggest thing is that we’re showing an artificial lawn open space there in the middle that a big green area. Thank you for pointing that out. You know, that’s, that’s really kind of the that’s the heart of this project. And we really want to create this space that can be used by the community, whether it be a farmer’s market or a musical act or just relaxing, you know, and having a beer in the sun and we really want that space to be open and flexible for whatever might come in the future. around the perimeter of that lawn, we’ve got some we’ve got extensive landscape to just create a really nice welcoming garden feel. You know, that long along the entire perimeter of the project extends so got quite a few trees proposed. And overall, we have 30% 37% of the entire proposed design is enhanced landscape. So trees, shrubs, grasses, so it’s a pretty large number over the entire square footage. And with the artificial lawn included, that’s almost 70% of the entire site is open space and, and landscape. So we’re pretty proud of that. Just so this out that out lawn is kind of a shipping container renovated into an outdoor bar, and we’ll see a picture of that next. But that’s kind of a seasonal serving station, pretty simple, but just kind of plays on that industrial feel of the area. And we’ll have kind of a concrete band around that so people can comfortably access, getting getting a beer or whatever. And then we have tables and chairs, beer garden tables, and umbrella tables, lining that whole area, give some people some shade, but also kind of this communal communal seating area. Opportunity is for a couple food trucks along what we’re calling our prominent which is kind of running north, the south and that tan and color up to Boston Avenue. So that’s how people will be circulating mostly throughout the site. Next we have some additional restrooms, which is kind of in the south east corner of the site. That property just to the east is owned by left hand brain as we saw the context plan, but we’ll be adding 1010s 10 fixtures men and women restrooms to accommodate any sort of event that may be happening here but also, you know, as we know it breweries, the restrooms are used quite a bit. So we just wanted to make sure that we were covering all of our bases there. We are adding eight additional Add a parking stalls including van accessible in that that’s a an existing parking lot owned by left hand that’s used by left Left hand operations now. So we’ll restrike that. We’ve got that graded. So we have all of the elevations there. They made sure that that’s ADA accessible. We’ve got that taken care of. And then lastly, along Boston Avenue, we have an enhanced right of way. Right now the sidewalk isn’t in the greatest condition. So we plan on reconstructing that right away the sidewalk at a ramp, and kind of creating this entry feature with the left hand symbol on the concrete and 10 bike racks to accommodate 20 bikes there. There’s no bike parking on site, so we wanted to accommodate some additional cyclists, maybe coming off the Greenway or so forth. And we can talk about parking if anyone has any questions about that later. Bye. There is a parking lot across the street, where it’s a it’s an open lot that is used for parking. So that will accommodate visitors and patrons coming to the space or to the top room next
36:11
door.
36:14
And lastly, our water quality will be taken care of from this site. Right now there’s an existing detention pond on the southwest corner of the site. Yeah, there thank you. We’re going to make sure that that’s brought up to code and is treating all of our water on site so that we’re not we’re not overwhelming the storm sewer system.
36:37
Thanks a lot, slide please.
36:40
So here’s some photo or perspective renderings of what that outdoor bar might look like. So pretty simple, but really interesting. Kind of using that industrial feel, renovating a shipping container and this creating something really unique for this space.
36:58
Next slide, please.
37:02
So now we’re going to kind of kind of get into some of the sound considerations on this project, which has been something that we’ve really taken, taken seriously since since the beginning and how we’re going to just make this, you know, the best place that we can be for the community. So this this study that we did initially in July 2019, by wave engineering, our sound acoustic consultant was our initial thoughts. I know that’s not great quality, so I apologize. But as you can kind of see, we had a temporary stage location to the north almost along Boston Avenue. And we just found that that wasn’t really working. And, you know, we weren’t able to achieve the sound levels that we really wanted. And along with some feedback from the public and from city staff is that this might not have been the right approach. So we started to come Have a look at some other options after this, we wanted to address here was that we looked at some common sound levels in DBA. You know what that mean? So, for example 50 DBA is just common office noise or small town residents outdoor noise 70 DBA is, you know, a large transformer at 50 feet, a dog barking at 50 feet, things like that for people to kind of understand what what those numbers might mean.
38:32
Next slide, please.
38:36
So here’s where we are in our proposed condition. As you can see in the slide before we had that temporary stage up along Boston Avenue, we’ve created a larger buffer and that North and moved our stage actually to the southeast corner. The other two kind of diagrams are not really meant to be read, but we just wanted to show that we did look at some other scenarios and did some data calculations for Those on what we think those sound levels might be. So what we landed on as our proposed condition is what is shown here, we have about 80 DBA at the north west corner of the site. And then kind of getting into the st frame, the area in question is 58 DBA. On our side of our fence, we do have a fence and berm proposed along that edge. So 58, just as a reference is somewhere between kind of normal office noise and a conversation with another person at three feet as we get closer to the river, so at the walking path, that st rain Greenway, that’s 40 DBA, which could be you know, compared to soft stereo music or like library noise so, so pretty, pretty soft. And then as we get down actually into the river, right 34 and 40 DBA You know, that’s somewhere between rustling leaves, or like somebody whispering to that kind of soft stereo music. And that’s, that’s down near the river. And then lastly, we’re at about 50 DBA, at the development across the street, so kind of where that area starts. And these numbers are calculated at five feet above ground, so about an average, human, your level. And we we have calculated some numbers that other heights and we’ll we’ll address that shortly. But that’s what these numbers are. So some things that we were what were suggested by our noise specialists, and as well as the land use code for our operational logistics, based on these numbers would be, you know, all shows the end by 10pm or, which is set forth in land use code. So that’s our plan is that no shows past 10pm so we’re we’re meeting those requirements, Nexus to monitor the sound at the perimeter of the property during those events, which is what lefthand does already during their events at Roosevelt Park. So that’s already something that they’re familiar with. So that’s great. They work with ARCA thought which is local on Longmont and they’ll be able to help with
41:26
with that monitoring. And then
41:31
lastly, we’re we’re really doing everything that we can to abide by that land use code section about maximum permissible sound pressure level. So that’s all in all, that’s what we’re trying to achieve throughout these studies as well as on site monitoring.
41:51
Next slide please.
41:56
So the next study that we have done is habitat considerations. And that can be found in our habitat conservation study and our submittal. But we just want to kind of highlight the main points here. First, that study was done by pinyon environmental or biologist, environmental engineers. And basically what the conclusions were is that there is no evidence of sensitive or rare plants on the site. And of all possible species within the vicinity or the area, none are likely to occur within the project area due to the lack of habitat. So when we looked at those existing site photos, as you could see, you know, there was really not much going on. Our project is out of the same, the same green corridor and the right period setback so you know, we’re good to go there. We don’t have any structures in those areas and The impact of risk resilient st brain that’s that city of Longmont project that will be happening in that light blue area, the approximate renovation extends there as you can kind of see it’s going to be affecting that habitat along the same frame. And lastly, according to the habitat study, certain measures could be taken into consideration. That includes limiting construction to daylight hours, which is best management practices. We already plan on doing that post construction site restoration, including native plantings. You know, like I said, we’re improving the site by 69% with open space and 37% with improved landscaping, fencing to limit traffic in and out of the st. Brian Creek area, we do plan on having fencing along the entire project. So along the entire perimeter structures or small trees from our bird nesting sites, we do have a quite a bit of canopy proposed we have that along the entire South edge of the property or excuse me along the project limits as well as throughout the site. And lastly drainage and debris mitigated on site, we are enhancing that detention pod into a water quality structure.
44:27
Next slide please.
44:33
So, kind of the last study that we did with our latest submittal in December or and has been updated since then, per the last planning and zoning meeting last month, is you know, what, what are we looking at in terms of habitat sound assessment. So combining all of that information that we have from the noise study and the habitat conservation plan you Can we identify any sort of substantial long term effects and, and the conclusion is that there are no substantial long term impacts to wildlife. And that overall, there really is only a 1.8, DBA and dBc increase, which has no really not considered to have any sort of potential on species disturbance. Lastly, these locations identified in the noi study as well as the habitat sound assessment, you know, these are the maximums but other areas are likely to have lower noise levels. So, you know, these are these are the maximum shown the graph that we’re seeing here, the difference between what we looked at before and on this one is that we have DBA and dBc levels for both five feet and 13 feet above ground and the reason for that Being, it’s more likely for save birds migrating to be higher up than a human. So we wanted to look out that 13 feet above ground is more applicable. So as you can see, the numbers are a little bit different. And in our table in the right hand, right, upper right hand corner. That’s where our existing sound levels are. So we took some sound measurements on site. And so for example, at the nearest edge of the river, we’re at 57.3 DBA. Right now, as it stands, and then we’re increasing it to 59 db. So and that’s at five feet. or, excuse me, 13 feet. So that changes only 1.8. And that’s using an algorithm that that calculates that average. So that’s just one example. As you can see those numbers on the chart The change and that delta is only 1.84 Db and dBc. So the bottom line of this slide is that we just want to show that there is no anticipated disturbance, based on that all of the data that we have gathered.
47:21
Next slide, please.
47:26
So, based on all of this information, I know that’s kind of a lot, but based on all of the noise and all of the light studies that we’ve done, which we haven’t really covered, but we’ve done studies on all of that information, what have we done in this plan to make changes to accommodate any impact that we see possible? So I’m just going to run through this list. increase the amount of vegetated area with plantings by 37%. increase the overall landscape including that artificial On by 69% currently there’s zero percent landscape on the site, keeping construction activities normal daylight hours, a six foot high cedar privacy fencing along the entire perimeter of the site. You can see it’s in that kind of yellow dotted line. We’ve coordinated with the resilient st brain project team and we we plan on continuing those conversations and making sure that that we have what we need from them but also that they have all the information from us as well in regards to water quality, drainage, things like that. A berm along the entire southern edge of the property that will be actually incorporated into the resilient st frame project provide a significant tree canopy for enhanced habitat. renovate the existing detention pond into a water quality structure so no water or debris is leaving the site. Proper erosion control during construction activities fotomat tracks, which is something that we did study for daily use, but also for a potential event use to ensure that the land use code is met at all times of the day. Sound assessment by qualified scientists to understand the potential for wildlife impact, look at both DBA and dBc levels, which is something that, you know, the public had brought up to, for us to really look at those dBc levels. So we did do that. And then lastly, understand the existing sound levels and compared to the proposed sound level. So what does that overall change and we just talked about that.
49:38
Next slide, please.
49:42
So last week, lastly, we kind of want to just talk a little bit about some of the management strategies that we will be doing on this site. And I know that left hand they’ve been doing events in Roosevelt Park and so having these events here on site on their property will help Limit the impact on that public park, which is great. So, the additional restroom which has 20 fixtures 10 women 10 men, like we talked about in the building that existing we’ll be renovating that all recyclable and compostable products as much as we can during events as well as daily use an additional at a parking lot. Those eight spaces including van accessible cedar, six foot high cedar privacy fence on the perimeter for access, and safety and we’ve already worked with the fire department on where their access points, Knox boxes, things like that we’ll be providing many seating types for all types of patrons. enhance the rightaway condition along Boston Avenue just try and make that as safe as we can. And we’ve actually added an additional pathway made of crushed limestone for visitor queuing and case that might come about An additional crosswalk at Boston Avenue and active sound monitoring during events. So, in the in the letter that we wrote to the planning and zoning commission, we had some information about anticipated events. So that’s what’s shown here. We anticipate those being Friday and Friday through Sunday. So pretty much just on the weekends, during months that daylight and weather allows. So that’s approximately May, October, could be musical acts, rentals and community events such as farmers markets, or, you know, whatever yoga in the park. It’s flexible. And then lastly, the amount of events per year that’s anticipated in 2022. A total calendar year about 31 and then in 23 2023, approximately 48 over the course of that year.
52:01
Next slide, please.
52:04
So just to kind of summarize, we wanted to show, you know, that not only have we considered the land use code, but just really some of those important points that, you know, have come up quite a bit through public process and, and through the DRC process. First one being the maximum permissible sound pressure levels. Based on all of the studies that we’ve done and the changes that we’ve made to the design. We’re meeting that that code for DBA levels, protection of rivers, streams, wetlands and riparian areas. We’re actually not within the riparian setback, so it’s not applicable to our project, habitat and species protection standards. We haven’t done the habitat conservation study by a qualified scientist, and as well as some additional studies that noise Impact Assessment and those recommendations have been muted. cemented into the plan, habitat and species protection standards. Again, qualified scientist has prepared all of those plans, outdoor lighting, we’ve done a photometric plan for just daily use as well as for events, which was by the request of planning staff. So we have done that. And then lastly, the landscape standard. So we’re exceeding all of the requirements for for the landscape plan.
53:29
Next slide, please.
53:34
So that kind of sums it up. And thank you so much for your time. I hope that addressed all of your main points and questions.
53:43
Thank you, Mr. Taylor on in the interest of because we have these five minute delays to get people in and out of the public hearings. I’d like to hold questions from the commission and and just go straight to the public hearing. So that public members are not waiting excessively long. So we will go to the public hearing part of of this item. For any public wishing to speak on this public hearing item, please call in now, information about your read is also being displayed on your screen as you can see, please dial 1-669-900-6833 and When prompted, enter the meeting ID of 83087295123 phone numbers 1-669-900-6833 enter the meeting id 83087295123. We’ll take a five minute break but when we get back if we have public who wants to speak about this, you’ll get five minutes apiece and, and we’ll go from there. So we’ll take a five minute break.
58:41
Chair I’m gonna take this slide down shortly if you guys want to come back in and show your video
59:01
And looks like we’ve got two guests that have called in.
59:20
And let me know when you’re ready. I’ll let them in.
59:22
Okay, so Susan, I’m ready. Is everybody else all the other commissioners here?
59:33
Yes. 1235 as my as my sixth one.
59:48
If Commissioner height is here, turn on your video.
59:55
I’m gonna go ahead and let our guests in. Okay, and then we’re going to lock the meeting.
1:00:00
Okay.
1:00:06
Hello, we’ve let two people in through our call in the first guest, I’m going to unmute your caller 452. Your phone number ends in the three digits. 452. I’ve just unmuted you. Go ahead, please state your name and address for the record. All in
1:00:23
the first guest. I’m going to unmute your caller for five to your phone number.
1:00:35
Hi, my name is Jerry the one
1:00:37
can you hear me? Yes, we can go ahead.
1:00:40
Okay, thanks. Sherry Malloy, 2113 rangeview Lane here in Longmont resident of 35 years. The proposal for left hand brewing development will have a huge impact on the same frame Creek habitat in the wildlife that support. People will also be impacted including Greenway users and residents living right next to the developments site, neighborhoods to the North will also be adversely affected. The main issue is noise pollution. Lefthand music events have historically been rock and roll, which almost by definition is very loud. According to the planning departments review of this application, this proposal would not meet current city regulations regarding amplified sound for private property. This is especially concerning for the residence of the same frame mobile home community directly across a brain Creek from left hand brewery. The stage location is at the south end of the property, suggesting the sound will be protected nor comments common sense dictates that loud sounds will be heard in all directions, especially overwater in open areas. mobile homes are not usually well equipped to mitigate sound. This is a social justice issue. of the 174 names on the city’s notification list. 124 addresses were in the same frame mobile home community 93 had Latino surnames. I doubt you’ve heard from many of the hundred and 36 households in this community. Hopefully it’s all our hearts have been pierced with beginning awareness concerning disadvantaged and Marvin, marginalized members of our country, and our own long my community. This consciousness might factor into your thinking as you consider this proposal. All Greenway users will be negatively impacted by the noise as they pass through this section of our Greenway during events. People frequent this peaceful natural Greenway on bikes rollerblades and running or walking to get quiet exercise. Listen to and observe birds and other wildlife and enjoy the natural music of the creek. Quiet conversations and contemplation will be interrupted by blaring music. As you are aware the same brain Creek is a wildlife movement corridor. Wildlife moves at night and especially adversely affected by lights and noise while the events are set to be finished at 10pm This will still negatively impact wildlife in this whole area. The impacts to the riparian habitat and Creek health is unknown at this time. It doesn’t stop at the hundred and 50 foot setback. In your planning communication Longmont Natural Resources Department suggested quote, further monitoring and mitigation may be necessary over time and should be required and implemented over the life of this project. And quote, should you consider approving this application, annual reviews need to be required to assess impacts and possible mitigation to habitat and wildlife. Finally, the applicant is requesting an extension for up to two years for this site plan proposal. They intend to delay construction until the coronavirus crisis has been resolved. As you are well aware development and construction projects have proceeded right through COVID-19 restrictions. It is inappropriate for the intend to be submitting this proposal now if they are not planning on proceeding for up to two years. As a body you should either deny this proposal at this time allowing the applicant to resubmit when ready to proceed Of course, or not grant anytime extensions. Thank you for your time and service.
1:04:19
Thank you Miss Milloy.
1:04:22
Although this time around.
1:04:26
All right, Susan, we have another caller.
1:04:29
Yes, we do color your phone number ends in 323. I’m going to unmute. Can you hear us?
1:04:37
Yes, I can.
1:04:38
Great. Timo 520 Yes, Jamie CML 525 East 16th Avenue. I’m pleased the left hand Brewing Company has listened to concerns and scaled back its proposed amphitheatre change the facing of their temporary stage so that faces North rather than toward the same brain, and it’s not seeking a variance to the 150 foot riparian setback. However, I still have a few concerns. recommendations. I am pleased left hand has worked to mitigate noise concerns by moving at stage etc. However, I echo city staff recommendations the left hand to chair to city noise ordinances, as well as monitor and mitigate any noise impacts associated with the present venue, particularly low frequency sound which has been linked to negative health impacts to both people and animals. In addition, I am confused as to why left hand is asking for a potential approval extension for starting construction of its proposed beer garden until 2022. If left hand is concerned that the pandemic will extend for another year, why doesn’t it table its development application until such time as the pandemic is largely abated? This would also allow further progress on the resilient St. vrain flood mitigation project and removal of the parcel from the 100 year floodplain. What benefit does lefthand see from putting its development proposal in now if they then may pause construction for up to two years. Finally, I am concerned regarding the process by which pinyons habitat noise impact assessment was revised and resubmitted in the initial document, which came before pain Prior to a student meeting the numbers for predicted high frequency noise levels DBA and low frequency noise levels dBc were incorrect rather than this being brought up during the public hearing so that members of the public to provide input and identify Commissioner alerted city staff who then got in touch with the applicant contacts Mary Taylor and the item was pulled from the pNz agenda so that the document could be revised while the revision to the noise Impact Assessment did not change the conclusion of the report. I believe that all discussion of applications should have been conducted in public including in these discussion of deficiencies. Thank you very much.
1:06:32
Thank you Miss Sima. Susan, is there anybody else?
1:06:37
No, not at this time. Okay.
1:06:41
Um, we will close the public hearing on this and we will go to discussion and questions by the Commission. Let me get back to gallery view so I can see you all Okay. Um, once again suggestion that I have is we have a lot of moving parts to this This is for the commissioners, perhaps we could keep it sort of organized by topic. Maybe we could start with traffic move into environmental, cause that kind of bleeds in with wildlife touches on noise. But um, let’s try not to bounce around from one topic to another, if at all possible. So anybody want to kick it off? Also, there’s, you probably have some clarifying questions for Brian Schumacher or Miss Taylor on Brian, I actually do have a couple of those on in Miss Taylor’s cover letter in our packet, she mentioned that they would be asking for a variance for some trees which were under a utility line along the property line on but that is not under consideration. Correct.
1:08:00
That’s correct. commissioners, we determined that that variance was it was not applicable to this application. Okay.
1:08:08
on just a another sort of procedural thing on if you look at the public emails and communication which we got in our packet, that would be attachment five, go to page 70. There is an email from a property owner nearby named Mary Lacey, who says that, it looks like the border of this project extends into a building that she owns. I just want to clarify if there is any issue with her property.
1:08:51
Commissioner schoeneck and the rest of the commissioners I did receive that email from Miss Lacey. She was was looking at I believe at the time she was looking at some of the aerial imagery on Boulder County assessor’s website, which tends to skew a little bit with aerial imagery of the parcel lines. Her parcel and ownership is on the south side of Bowens circle and to the east, so it isn’t immediately adjacent to the proposed beer garden expansion. And so I sent her a copy of the overall plan that was proposed with this project. And I told her I gave her a link to the plan zoning commission packet for this meeting if she had an aunt asked her to contact me if she had any additional concerns. And she hasn’t she expressed her thanks for reaching out to her providing the information that I did, and I haven’t heard back from Miss Lacey.
1:09:56
Okay, thank you, Brian.
1:10:00
commission high.
1:10:05
As an initial matter, my zoom
1:10:09
capabilities seem to be lacking. I don’t I can’t figure out how to electronically raise my hand. If anyone has a quick primer and wants to send that to me. As a side note, I’d appreciate it. But I want to kick off the discussions talking about sound. And possibly the first question is for staff, which is, as I understand, I think it’s 10 dot 20 dot 110 or 100. The standard is that for amplified sound, it can’t, it shall not be audible 25 feet from its source, which seems odd to me, are you measuring from the source being the amplifier from which the source originates? Or is it the source being the edge of the property line being the source and if the ladder with this particular application? Are we looking at the parcel or are we looking at all of I think it’s a good piece, but let’s just call it left hand brewery’s property.
1:11:13
So when I look at that ordinates the way that it reads, it’s from the source itself that 25 feet, which again, is is would be very challenging to to meet that standard. I know that enforcement of the, that particular section is has typically been done on a complaint basis, as opposed to staff walking around with sound meters and and measuring sound at the source of the Amplified sound.
1:11:50
You know, I know we’ve had
1:11:53
examples of other projects, special events where
1:12:02
They’ve been held on private property. And
1:12:07
we’ve told people that if there are potential if there are complaints regarding amplified sound, that, you know, they’ll have to address that and mitigate that as best as they can
1:12:28
to continue on, so
1:12:34
is it that the city well,
1:12:38
so the source of the sound, literally would be the amplifier. Um, but it sounds like the city sometimes takes a view that it’s
1:12:50
more of the complaint based nature that if 25 feet from the source of the sound would be, you know, the inside of your living room
1:13:03
which seems almost impossible to me.
1:13:07
In other, let me ask you this. Are there other examples of places in the community where we have outdoor amplified music
1:13:20
regularly?
1:13:22
on a regular basis, it’s typically then for people that want to have a say, for example, special events on their, on their private property, you know, we’ve issued special events for would be brewing. And I know lefthand has also had an event on the north side occasionally on the north side of Boston Avenue in their space. And so, those have been issued based on a condition that those are in compliance with noise standards and if there are complaints and they have To address and mitigate those complaints.
1:14:10
Commissioner Hi, do you have more?
1:14:12
No, sorry, I yield.
1:14:15
Okay. Commissioner
1:14:18
O’Brien in the parks, especially the reusable Park, there are some events and concerts. This summer is not happening much but and there has been some festivals closing the mainstream and concerts.
1:14:33
What are the noise levels on those?
1:14:37
So commissioners there as included in the in the staff communication and as well as the attachment in terms of city noise standards. There is a exception for special events on public property sources example, the downtown concerts or concerts occur at Roosevelt Park, or any other place in the community where there might be concerts held. And so there is a there is a exception that allows the decibel level to go up to 80
1:15:17
DBA
1:15:19
at the perimeter of the area where the permit is issued for
1:15:27
but as noted in the communication that exception does not apply to private property.
1:15:40
I’m Brian I have some questions about this on
1:15:47
this ordinance on so in as we see on table 1020 Oh, oh
1:15:59
hello. Did somebody know to chime in there
1:16:03
okay. So table 1020 dot 110 b daytime noise standards. So, we have residential, commercial and industrial levels 5565 and 75 DBA respectively then on the next page or no it was the page above that table a was the nighttime noise standards residential 50 commercial 55 Industrial 75 um, during this Taylor’s presentation, she showed us a diagram that wave acoustics did that showed that they would meet 55 DBA at the residence but this table indicates that it would need to be 50 DBA at the at the nearest residence during the nighttime when most of their events seem to be planned. If they are concerts, um so, um Again, you’re just relying on on complaints coming from neighbors, is that correct?
1:17:07
I typically that’s how that’s been enforced. It’s generally any complaints regarding noise. Regarding events, large events, typically are handled by police. And so if please visit the site and if they are is a potential violation based on a complaint, then they will contact the proprietor of the event and ask them to address the complaint.
1:17:36
So when you say the police visit the site, do you mean they visit the site of the of the person complaining to to measure what the noise level is at the receivers end of things?
1:17:47
That’s my understanding. Yes. Okay.
1:17:49
All right. Um, and this might be a question for our city attorney, Theresa Tate. On paragraph II further down on its on third page on when the noise source can be measured from more than one zone. The permissible sound level of the more restricted zone applies.
1:18:12
I am wondering
1:18:15
how that is interpreted. I’m reading that to mean that because we have a residential zone near this proposed site and we have other zones near it as well, that the most restrictive DBA level, which at nighttime would be 50 DBA. would apply also to the noise levels that would be received in the other zones. Is that correct? and Teresa chime in if you’re the better on to do this
1:18:50
for cash or not commissioners? That is my reading of Section 10.2 0.110. He says that more people restrictive controls for the whole.
1:19:02
Okay, so, Brian or Miss Taylor, could you pull up on wave acoustics analysis on? I believe it’s attachment.
1:19:20
There are some drawings that they have in this.
1:19:27
And if we could maybe see that as a screenshot, that’d be great. I can I can share it. Susan, should I share it?
1:19:37
Yes, you can. Okay. Oh, sure. And to answer Commissioner height on the raise hand, since you’re a co host, you don’t have that option. I believe it’s only for calling users and non co hosts
1:20:02
I not finding i’m not i’m getting a bunch of,
1:20:08
Oh, I need to getting a bunch of warnings. So I’m zoom is trying to record my computer screen, I need to open system preferences and allow it. So
1:20:23
if somebody else could share the screen, that’d be great.
1:20:27
Brian, could you do it?
1:20:31
So, Susan, I was wondering if you could bring back up. So what I’m sorry, Commissioner schoeneck.
1:20:37
you’re requesting which it’s attachment 10 of our packet.
1:20:45
And it’s wave engineering report. Okay, let me give that a shot. Okay.
1:20:53
It should be out on the internet. Right. I can pull it up.
1:20:57
Yeah, it would be there too. Yeah, I’m sorry. My My Apple is hitting me with all sorts of security requests.
1:21:04
It’s no worries.
1:21:06
It’s the great benefit of Apple, right?
1:21:12
Looks like Brian’s got it
1:21:13
that come up.
1:21:14
So if you could scroll down to page three is that we have a dialog that there it is. Okay. Um, so in this first diagram of theirs, they show their their DBA level at the back of the audience to be 80 decibels. And according to paragraph II, in our city ordinance, as you see on the right hand side, we have 62 decibels hitting the building over there. If you scroll down a little further, you’ll see that 54 decibels is hitting the point just off of their property. 55 decibels hitting the nearest residents. So, Teresa, you’re saying that all of those locations are there’s another 57 decibel location. If the show were at nighttime, all of those locations would need to be at 50 decibels not at 55
1:22:19
cache schoeneck. commissioners, that’s my understanding of the code.
1:22:24
Okay. So
1:22:28
if I could just interject, so the nighttime standards start after 10pm
1:22:33
Oh, they start after 10pm. Okay, all right. But even so, so, so Okay, so we’re looking for 55 decibels. But some of these exceed 55 decibels as we see. Now, if we scroll further down, they have some other versions of this in their appendix, depending on where they placed the stage. And you can see that those numbers Get even larger such such as 64. Right up at the bottom of Bowen circle. If we go to the very last image, we can see that some of those numbers are still exceeding 55. on. So, to me, this poses a problem in the fact that everything that that their engineer is saying is that they’re shooting for 80 decibels at the back of the audience.
1:23:31
And,
1:23:33
and clearly, they’re not going to be able to meet the city ordinance at that level. So let me ask their
1:23:44
their engineer, their sound engineer.
1:23:49
I believe that’s been seap Mr. seap. On what needs to be the sound pressure level at the back of the audience for somebody To feel that they are getting what might be considered an adequate concert experience.
1:24:09
And this has been Can you all hear me? Yes. Great. So the level for, you know, an adequate rock concert would probably be around the 80 decibel level that we used for our report is what would be considered satisfactory to have a concert experience when you get below 80. It’s not really loud enough that you know, people would be satisfied probably, especially if it was a ticketed event. You know, if you’re paying money to go see a show and it’s not loud enough, then people aren’t happy and feel like they didn’t get their money’s worth. So that’s based on similar venues and people’s responses. Some research we did for some other venues where they added noise limits and they were restrictive enough that the concert goers were unhappy with the levels that they had to maintain in order to make the neighbors happy.
1:25:05
Okay, thank you, Mr. seap. On another follow on question for you with this on. From your expertise, would it be easier to control to attain the necessary 80 decibels for the concert going experience and to control all of the sound that’s occurring outside if this were a physical structure instead of an open air situation like is presented in front of us.
1:25:41
So yeah, if it was an enclosed building, that would certainly give you more control over the sound levels.
1:25:47
Okay. And, I mean, would that building need to be masonry or does it matter what its construction is?
1:25:57
Yes, a masonry would be better for controlling low frequency sound in particular more mass blocks more of the low frequency sound. Okay.
1:26:06
Um, while I have you here, this gets partly to Commissioner owner ons question about community events such as things like concerts downtown or or rhythm on the river. There’s usually concerts at the Boulder County Fairgrounds. Why is it? Let’s assume that they’re that they’re hitting the standards are according to their special event permit that they’re not exceeding those standards. Why is it that that sometimes we can hear that music sometimes we can hear the lyrics, you know, I’m very far away, say like a mile away.
1:26:58
Sure. So there’s a few things going On at night, the sound sometimes can travel further depending on weather conditions. And sometimes you get a unique events called a temperature inversion, where the temperature layers in the atmosphere flip and that can actually cause the sound and where it starts propagating up, and then will turn and bend back towards the ground. And so can even kind of skip over an area and then land farther away from the venue. That sort of thing can happen the train in between affects the propagation. So if you have a lot of pavement, in this industrial area, there’s a lot of hard surfaces, the sound can travel further than if it was a forested and open area, though, attenuate more of the noise between the locations. And the wind direction can affect the sound propagation. So all those things can kind of create unique conditions in addition to just different concerts might have different sound spectris depending on the types of music if you have a blues band that’s going to sound different from a EDM band that has a lot of bass, for hip hop for Dance music. So all those things can affect the sound levels as well.
1:28:05
Okay, thank you for that explanation. Um, Brian, back to you. Um, so given our city attorney’s interpretation of paragraph E of our ordinance and given what Mr. seap said that 80 decibels at the back of the audience is what would be needed for left hands customers to be satisfied with their experience at a concert, and yet, they would therefore be exceeding 55 decibels in these other locations. How can they ever meet the city code? And why isn’t this in and of itself a reason for to not?
1:28:51
Well, if they obviously if they can meet the standard, that was one of the conditions of approval that they need to beat the standard and if they can’t be The standard they need to read my opinion is that they need to reduce the volume to meet the standard. Obviously, there are controls associated with the concert that they can reduce volume rose.
1:29:15
So I’m
1:29:18
okay.
1:29:20
So basically it puts lefthand in a bind on that for them to please their customers for an event out an open air concert, they would risk breaking the city code. But to always meet the city code as they seem to desire to do
1:29:43
in good faith,
1:29:45
they would have to upset their customers.
1:29:49
Okay, I’m going to leave that where it is so that we as the commission can discuss that a little more, there’s more to discuss. I’m Brian D. Mind I’m sharing your screen so I can go back to
1:30:04
you better. Okay, Commissioner color. So,
1:30:12
thanks, Chairman Sharon, I have a question, I guess related to the topic that you’re on the way I was reading this, if they end all their events by 10, they’re really required to be at the daytime
1:30:27
level, which is 55.
1:30:29
Is that correct?
1:30:32
Brian, Brian confirmed that a little earlier. So I stand corrected. Yes. 55.
1:30:39
So to me, it doesn’t seem like they’re
1:30:41
the application as it is in violation as long as they’re agreeing to initials by 10.
1:30:47
And they’re meeting the 55
1:30:50
threshold, but it is in violation because they’re not meeting 55 at other locations because the most restrictive zone applies. They’re meeting 55 at the residence, but in these other areas on their diagram, such as on the right hand side of the image, they have decibel levels of 6256 57. So they’re exceeding it. And in the text of the report, it said that at the intersection of Bowen and grand Street, they would hit a decibel level of 75 db.
1:31:26
Okay, so then my next question might be for Ben, I think in that figure, one of the noise study
1:31:34
the nearest residents, I think it’s that mobile home park to the south that said that the DBA is 55. And I believe that was described as a maximum. To the words exactly we’re across the river at the nearest residents, the highest predicted level is 55 DBA. However, in the text above that figure, they describe those more as averages. So my question is, are these numbers that we look at Looking at and these figures are they maximums are they averages.
1:32:04
So the numbers there are all average levels. So given that music goes up and down and level, that would be an average over time. And my intent in that comment was just that of the area, the residential area to the south. That location that’s shown at 55 is the the loudest or maximum level within that property. But it’s not actually a maximum level. It’s the the average level for that property.
1:32:37
If that makes sense,
1:32:39
not really sorry, can you Are you sure
1:32:43
it’s the maximum for the property
1:32:46
for the property. We looked at different locations throughout that property and found that that particular spot on the property would be the loudest of all the locations of all throughout the mobile home park based on its orientation to the stage In the distance, but the level itself is not a peak level or a maximum level, it’s an average level as the music’s playing,
1:33:10
do you know how much fluctuation there is? And these numbers, are we talking
1:33:14
10, DBA 15 to
1:33:18
certainly be less than 10. It depends on how its measured it you can get into a lot of details of what sort of time weighting you apply to the measurements. And if you’re using slow or fast weighting, those peak numbers are going to be different. But it’s usually on the order of something like plus or minus five decibels.
1:33:42
Okay, and then I guess while we’re on the topic of the noise, I, the study seemed to assume that the berm would we would be built actually it was the four foot berm and a six foot fence. Can you speak to the timing of that went good It was my understanding that’s actually being built as part of the same brain the resilient St. Brain project, will that be built before this project would come in? Or during or after? Will there be a time I guess when that’s not there, and the
1:34:13
project would be emitting sound?
1:34:17
might be a better question for Mary, but it’s my understanding that the events will not happen until the Birman events are in place.
1:34:31
Anything further commission calling?
1:34:33
Oh, no, no,
1:34:34
not on this topic for now.
1:34:36
Okay, Commissioner. Hi.
1:34:41
Thank you, Mr. C. Are there other mitigating
1:34:47
structures or construction means that left hand could implement to try to keep their open Park feeling space but mitigate these The sound waves off site, could you put more burdens in? Could you put concrete fencing up along one wall? Or would that just deflect sound in a different direction?
1:35:12
That’s something that we spent a lot of time studying, looking at different heights and placement of barrier walls and things like that. So in order to block the sound from getting from the stage to say the residences to the south, you have to block that line of sight. And the challenge is that the sound isn’t coming from head height or five feet above the ground, you have these speakers that are flown above the stage, usually 15 to 20 feet in the air might vary. Since it’s not a permanent, fixed age, it’s going to be depending on what equipment they rent and how they hang it, but I think we used a height of somewhere around 18 feet is an estimate. And so we have to block a line of sight from that height across the river. So the height in between in order to block that line of sight. It has to also be very tall, really two walls going up to 20 feet or more in order to even start to block that line of sight. So it becomes a really large imposing structure if especially if it’s at the property line along the bike path there. You’re walking along and you have a 20 foot wall next to you it’s not the most comfortable inviting environment either. So some of the things that we considered but then ultimately ruled out and ended up using the stage orientation to try to correct more of the sound to the north and away from those properties rather than building a massive structure their
1:36:35
mission right
1:36:37
here done.
1:36:40
Fairy that was a wave to say thank you and I shouldn’t avoid.
1:36:45
Got my commission Alucard.
1:36:49
Just I need a clarification with the predicted numbers. Are they considering the oldest six foot fence that is going to be built and all the trees And the shrubbery around it or,
1:37:03
or is that not possible to predict yet?
1:37:08
The predicted numbers do include the effect of the berm in that six foot fence on top.
1:37:19
I have a question and it might be both for Mr. seed and the consultant from Kenya and Brian, would you mind pulling up on Kenyans noise assessment? attachment? It’s attachment number 13. In our packet, yeah, I’m getting there. Okay. I’m sure you’re very familiar with all the attachments, Brian.
1:37:53
Alright, bear with me for a second.
1:38:01
Okay, if you could scroll down to page two that’s that’s where we have started table. Table. Yep.
1:38:11
Oh, sorry. That’s the habitat guns. Yep.
1:38:13
Sorry. stop sharing that.
1:38:22
There we go.
1:38:33
You can see that now. Yes, that looks like the right one.
1:38:39
Okay, so we’ve got this table and Miss Taylor pointed this out. But I have some questions about this on Brian if you could just scroll up just a tad up so we can see the text above on Arrow. So the text in the middle of the paragraph says the predict Did noise levels so that’s the second number in the in the column was logarithmically added to the existing noise levels. So the very first number in order to evaluate total cumulative noise levels and to develop a total predicted increase in noise levels. So, either Mr. seap or our representative from Kenyan Can you explain to me and demonstrate how, say like on the first line of this table 53.7 decibels added to 59 decibels equals 55.5 decibels. Um, because, frankly, I went and found some decibel calculators online. And that’s not what comes out when you just do a simple addition of 53.7 59 you Got an actual higher number. So I would like to know exactly how you arrived at those numbers, or if those total predicted numbers are incorrect.
1:40:13
Is This is Jake from pinion environmental.
1:40:17
So what we did to calculate these values was did a field measurement. And we got the, let’s say 53.7 for the first value there. And we added the 59 of the predicted value to it. So to add it, it’s not just a simple 53.7 plus 59. You add it logarithmically. So the log of 59 is 1.8. So that’s the change that you’re seeing there. So, if we take the existing plus the predicted value, we get 55.5 not first case.
1:40:59
Okay. So,
1:41:03
but you’re adding 53.7 decibels to 59 decibels to reach the sum of those and I understand that they’re added logarithmically. But every online logarithmic calculator that I’ve used says that the sum of 53.7 decibels with 59 decibels is 60.1 decibels, not 55.5 decibels. So your difference is far greater than 1.8. So we could we could pull up an online calculator or you could show me how you’re actually doing the math. But I need to see how you actually reached 55.5. If you like we could use one of these online calculators that I found.
1:41:56
I can, I could show you the equation in Excel that we used, but what we did, just to describe it again, is took the existing as a set value. So it’s not an emission source on whereas the predicted would be the emission that we’re getting from the actual venue. So that actually comes to an increase of flog a 59, which is 1.8. So,
1:42:26
so you’re you’re saying that your text is wrong, that you’re not adding 53.7 to 59? That that you’re actually saving. See, You’re confusing me because your text says you added the predicted to the existing
1:42:46
3.7 to 59. I don’t understand why.
1:42:52
What what why are you taking the log of 59
1:42:58
because that’s the The sound pressure level in decibels that we’re adding to the existing environment.
1:43:08
Right? So the existing is 53, you’re adding in 59 decibels and so you need to add 53.7 to 59 not take the log of just 59.
1:43:21
So, we’re adding an additional noise source is how we consider this. And that’s why we need to add it logarithmically okay to the to the set value of 53.7.
1:43:36
So, um, let’s pull up your your formula and show me how you actually did the math because I’m still still not not able to get in agreement with you here.
1:43:50
Okay, see?
1:43:55
I share my screen with you.
1:43:58
Um, Give me just a minute.
1:44:01
Yes, Susan will help you with that.
1:44:10
Jake, you should see the ability to share your screen now at the bottom of the window.
1:44:21
Okay, do you see it? Yes, we do. Yes.
1:44:24
Okay. So this is the table that we’re looking at. We have the existing noise plus the predicted value. And to get the total return the existing plus the log of the predicted value.
1:44:44
Why did you get the log of the predicted value instead of just the actual value and add, add decimal to decimal.
1:44:54
Because this is a set value, it’s not an additional emission. This is just what background noises so at the farthest edge of the river, it’s already 55.4 DBA and this is going to add when you have when you add it, you add it logarithmically. So it would add actually another 1.8 to the existing value of 55.4. So, at the furthest edge, we get 57.2
1:45:35
So, you’re not
1:45:55
okay um
1:46:00
Why does your text say that you added the decibels together rather than explain why, in the simplest terms, you can, what it means to add the log of column C to.
1:46:19
So it’s
1:46:22
basically
1:46:24
breaking it down into
1:46:28
so that it’s adding
1:46:32
it logarithmically. So it’s not just an additional 59. The sound pressure level is actually only an additional 1.8 to the existing noise level.
1:46:45
But you have to prove that your your additional level is 1.8. you’re you’re you’re basically saying Oh, but my additional sound level is 1.8. But that’s that, that’s your conclusion. Your your Using your conclusion to prove your point, which is a logical fallacy. So, the predicted decibel level coming from this concert is 59 decibels, there’s already 53.7 decibels existing. Why not just simply add decimal to decimal? And if you do that you get a much higher number. So your delta is actually much larger.
1:47:34
This is Ellie with pinyon. Can I jump in with another question that might clarify and this is directed at? I guess Ben the so the predicted decibels at the edge of the
1:47:48
story. Sorry,
1:47:51
Sarah, that the the predicted decibels are at the edge of the river being 59 was that is done only the sound Coming from the speakers or was that because what we’re trying to do is show that you know, the existing sound is 53. And it goes, does the 59 take into account the current noise environment? Or is that just starting from zero decibels? decibels? like totally quiet.
1:48:19
The 59 numbers solely from the music venue doesn’t include any adjustments for the background noise level. We haven’t done any measurements on sight of the existing levels for comparison.
1:48:31
Yeah, and the whole LOD thing, I think what Jake is trying to say that one point, if you have a biologist, I’m not a math person, but if you take the log of 59, that’s 1.8. By standard, you’re saying that your question is, how is that the chain? Yeah. How is that the change in that might be mixing up the conclusion with the with what the question is, so then I just want to mention that the person that originally wrote this report has moved on from pinion. I can try to contact them to see if we can get some more information. This is the information that we had, you know, in the project file but I can attempt to contact her and see if she can give some more clarification. I’m wondering if maybe the confusion with the language is just the way she phrased it was maybe not as elegant as it could have been phrased so I can contact her and try to get you some more information.
1:49:26
Well, I appreciate that. But we are in a public hearing and we do usually make a decision by the end of the hearing. Okay, I see. Mr. seap. Let me ask you, um, even though this was not your report, but you are an acoustic engineer,
1:49:43
um,
1:49:45
am I misunderstanding something here? Or, or does it make sense to to take the 53.7 add 59 decibels to find out what the total decibel level is and then Figure out the difference between that total and the original existing.
1:50:04
I think the combined level from this equation is unfortunately incorrect. Because that’s not the proper formula for PV addition, the number that you’re stating from the online calculator sense much closer to what should be correct, because when the two DB levels are added together, the sum can’t be lower than the loudest level. It can only be that level or more if the two end in contribute to each other. So yeah, I think the you said it was 61 point something which sounds correct. Based on the relationship of those two numbers. They’re just off the top my head. Okay. And could you
1:50:47
clarify again, what you told Miss Miller on. So the predicted DB a level is what would be in it. addition to what’s already existing. It’s it’s getting added on top of what’s already in the background, because it’s coming from the concert venue, correct?
1:51:12
Correct. So they’re taking the correct approach that you would measure the existing level. And then we would take the predicted level and put those two together. As part of our report, we didn’t go out and measure any existing levels. I don’t know if that 53.7 number is accurate. But assuming that that’s the actual level, this would be the correct approach would be to add the two together, some noise codes will take the background noise level into account, say, for instance, a typical nighttime level as you have there’s 50 DBA. And maybe you’re near a busy street. And the average level even at night is 54. So the existing macro level exceeds the code so they’ll say, Okay, we have an exception. Instead of 50 being the limit, it’s going to be whatever the existing background as you can’t exceed that, so then you’d have to try to do some measurements with whatever the sound sources. If you have a nightclub or a music venue or something, you would have to try and measure with them without that source on and see what the difference are the increases when you create that sound relative to the existing background. Okay,
1:52:20
so, part of our goal tonight is to make a determination on what the effect of this concert venue would be on the wildlife. Unfortunately, it appears that the change in decibel level numbers here are incorrect. Um, what I would like to do is Brian, could you bring up a website I think you can share the screen
1:52:52
for
1:52:54
the internet.
1:53:01
And it’s a website called noise tools dotnet in Oh, I SETOLS dotnet
1:53:14
Alright, bear with me for a second. Are you catch it? No, I appreciate you doing the screen sharing because I’ll try to get my computer to work better next time.
1:53:23
Well, chair, can you repeat that address noise?
1:53:26
Yeah, noise tools dotnet.
1:53:31
I’ve got it for you.
1:53:32
Oh, thank you, Susan.
1:53:35
We can’t do these meetings without Susan and Jane and Heather. Okay, could you click on the decimal calculator? And that’ll take us to that. The nice thing that I found on this site is that it shows us the formula and we can ask Mr. seap if things are looking correct, given his engineering background, So, Susan, could you do the first calculation, which is 53.7
1:54:07
plus 59.
1:54:12
equals, down at the bottom, you can see the formula that they use, which is 10 times log 10 of 10 to the 57.3 divided by 10 plus 10 to the 59 divided by 10. Mr. seap. Does that look like the correct formula for adding decimals?
1:54:32
Yes, that’s correct.
1:54:34
Okay, so the result is actually 60.1.
1:54:40
So, if we do the next, which is 55.4. Yeah, I’m Susan. Don’t, don’t hit clear. It’ll actually show us all of them once we get them all down. 55.4 plus 57.
1:54:59
Sorry. 50 Let’s start over. Yeah. So that first one was 55.44
1:55:09
plus 5757.
1:55:15
And that’s 59.3. Okay, let’s do another one, which is part of their table two which is 61.9 plus the predicted of 68 which is 69 decibels. And then the last one is 61.8 plus 66.
1:55:44
Yeah, which is 67.4.
1:55:48
So, from those results, you then subtract the existing DBA to find what the changes so on the first one Just simple math 16.1 minus 53.7 is 6.4. It’s a difference of 6.4 decibels. The second one I want, I’ll spare you, you know, spelling it all out that I I looked at this earlier, is 3.9. The second one, the third one is a difference of 7.1 decibels. The fourth one is a difference of 5.6 decibels.
1:56:28
This then,
1:56:32
if we look at the pinion report, it says perspective an increase of three decibels is barely perceptible to the human ear. In general wildlife are more sensitive to noise increases than humans as they have a greater ocular dependency for survival and mating purposes. I won’t get into the fact that ocular refers division instead of hearing. However, an increase of 1.8 DBA and one point PVC is not considered to have a high potential to disturb wildlife. But we can see that the difference is actually 6.4 3.9 7.1 and 5.6. So, let me turn to our wildlife experts from the city.
1:57:19
Mr. Woolford I believe that’s you.
1:57:25
I’m with decimal differences that are this large because is six decibel difference from my understanding is a four times increase in sound pressure levels. Mr. Seif, am I correct about that? Six decibels is four times the amount of sound.
1:57:50
It depends on if you’re measuring power or pressure, but yeah, I think that is correct.
1:57:55
Okay, so, Mr Wolford, would you Change your analysis of this proposal based on what we now know are the correct differences and decibels.
1:58:13
Have you put me on a hot box? Hmm, sorry, I’m certainly not an acoustic engineer or
1:58:20
familiar with the decibel levels, but based on the written text here, I it certainly would.
1:58:27
Okay. So would you need more time to evaluate the effect of these decibel levels are on on wildlife? I mean, part of another issue with this report is that there is no proof to their final assessment that the deltas of 1.8 which we now know are actually greater, but there’s no proof that they are They, they show how badly wildlife are affected by decibel level changes. Um, so they’ve not proven their case on but um, I would assume that that we would either a as a commission we would possibly deny this tonight because it fails to meet review criteria of proving that it doesn’t affect wildlife or we perhaps give the applicant an opportunity to postpone to a date certain.
1:59:46
So
1:59:49
to the Commission
1:59:51
on there’s more we can look at such as traffic.
1:59:58
Are there more questions about noise levels.
2:00:02
measurable
2:00:08
Okay, there I go off mute. Brian. Um, I just do have a question because under 10 2100 section A, it repeated first amplified sound as defined in Section 1330 7020, which we don’t have access to. And I agree with I think it was Commissioner height that section A really doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense because all the any amplified sound to 25 feet, that’s any kind of amplified sound. And that’s for a public so really, you’re saying no public event can really be amplified, which doesn’t make sense, but can you dig up what that definition of amplified sound is in 1330 7020
2:01:00
I’m checking on it right now.
2:01:13
What was the what was the code citation? There, Teresa,
2:01:16
go ahead.
2:01:17
I’m sorry to interrupt but I have that available if that would be helpful.
2:01:20
Sure.
2:01:23
So it’s section 13 point 37.0 to zero which defines amplified sound to mean sound that is broadcast with the utilization of an amplification device to increase the volume.
2:01:40
Okay.
2:01:43
And to me I mean even without getting into the decibel levels, reading that one that section A the way I read it, it kind of just it this this you cannot meet that with With any kind of amplification so I’m kind of even just stuck with just that one section, let alone all the the discussion regarding decibel levels. So that’s that’s kind of where I’m at right now, unfortunately.
2:02:21
I’m just a just a point of order, Susan. I don’t see Commissioner on Iran. I’m here. Oh, you’re there. Okay. All right. You just you just hadn’t caught.
2:02:32
Yeah, I was locked out for a moment and I’ll be back. I don’t know.
2:02:38
All right. Just wanted to make sure if you had your hand up, I wasn’t missing you on.
2:02:45
Okay. Let’s
2:02:50
there’s something else I’d like to look at. Oh, Commissioner. Hi, go ahead. I’ve used enough air so far.
2:02:57
Oh, yeah. I
2:02:59
think
2:03:01
Go ahead.
2:03:02
Commercial right. Let’s defer to city attorney tape. I think she might have something to commercial on.
2:03:16
Can you hear me? Yes. Great. So I’m sure you’re not commissioners. Part of what you’re charged with is evaluating the evidence before you. So any independent evidence that is presented here today that is not contained in the packet, for example, calculations that are done by the commission would would not be evidence that that is necessarily the sound but certainly could go to the accuracy of the information, or supports or reports provided
2:03:55
and can speak to the validity of those
2:04:01
Okay, thank you, Commissioner. Hi.
2:04:07
Okay. I mean, yeah, there was observation I was going to share today you shared your neck your, your analysis is is informative, but it Messer sure was necessarily in front of us and I’m so sure it’s necessarily appropriate that we consider it even though
2:04:26
pretty darn compelling.
2:04:29
Be that as it may I think we heard from Mr.
2:04:35
I’m sorry, Don Wolford.
2:04:39
Fit, he might change his opinion based upon some of the of this information. I also like Commissioner Cohen, though, have a problem with the sound issues and the fact that this this proposal as presented With the evidence that has been presented can’t meet the appropriate standards. And so I think I might make a motion in thinking about making this motion and and which is to offer the and even know that they could meet the standards for variance but they might the applicant with this set of circumstances needs to get around the sound standards that it that it can’t meet. And maybe Mr. Wilde said I’ll want to think about either redesigning their project or seeking a variance from these noise standards, because I don’t know if it’s necessary for us to go further and look at the other issues which there are quite a few more to talk about. Rather than have us denied this thing and require him to come back a year later. I throw
2:05:59
that out. discussion.
2:06:04
Commissioner I’m
2:06:07
kind of torn apart on this issue. I really like the idea of having these kind of events and centers to take place on December in corridor because San Fran corridor is not just a recreational or wildlife corridor, it is the backbone of the town. And there has been so much so many investments done and as such, in terms of the land use, the more diverse we can make that corridor, the more it’s going to be open to everybody in the city. Not just for Bob I feel so to me as a man your strategy it’s important to accommodate as much as possible.
2:06:59
Possible Like events.
2:07:02
In this particular case, it’s a private
2:07:06
land. However, noise is an issue. I mean, I’m kind of going back and forth. You know, I live two blocks away from the railroads and I hear a lot and railroad on the train goes through the corridor. And that’s kind of the highest noise level you can get in the city. And with that, you know, and I also understand, you know, some when there is an event, I happen to be close to Main Street and Rosa Park, we get that noise as well. But at the end of the day, you know, I kind of understand the way the city operates. If there’s no complain, you communicate and take a control. So I feel kind of, you know, here As a business has been in the city for so long and contributed the community life so many ways, denying an application like this doesn’t feel right to me. And especially because we’re struggling with some, I don’t know how realistic of the regulations, but, you know, in terms of the surrounding. If there’s going to be any concept or so that’s the place to have it. I mean, just looking at all around, I mean, if you’re having in the middle of Main Street where, you know, blocks away, always natural, or we’re having these events in the parks, in the middle of residential neighborhoods. I kind of scratched my head, why not in that particular location?
2:08:49
That’s,
2:08:51
I mean, I’m asking this question to Brian. And you know, maybe Attorney tait as well that is there any way we can have a condition
2:09:07
of
2:09:09
No, at least up to 10pm in the evening, that the concerts need to either follow 55 or in any complaint that they need to be canceled or something like that. That is a language that is a condition and we approve this with that particular condition. And, you know, I’m sure the owners are very aware of the fact that you know, this is going to be a contentious issues, but I really don’t see that as grounds for denying this.
2:09:45
That’s my personal opinion.
2:09:50
I’ll just chime in to point Commissioner on around about, are there locations that are appropriate for concerts, I would argue that Those are mapped out on our, on our land use map as civic zones. So like the museum and that area around there. That’s why everything else is a special, special use permit for Roosevelt Park and you know, downtown etc. But we already know we’ve already decided where the appropriate zones are and are on our mouth.
2:10:36
So there, let me bring up one other topic because I think it It applies also to someone’s Commissioner on arounds points about the compatibility of of these sorts of events happening at this location, this particular location along the way. River. I’m Brian. Again. Little little screen sharing for me.
2:11:08
Let’s see. It would be
2:11:18
it’s in the project narrative attachment to
2:11:24
this Taylor’s report to us page five.
2:11:35
All right, I’m getting there. Sure.
2:11:38
Brian, if you prefer I have it up.
2:11:40
Oh, that’s fine. I’ve got it right now.
2:11:46
page five to seven.
2:11:48
Yeah, page five, where she lists the project number of or the projected number of events per year. Right. I’m so in Miss Taylor’s presentation, she made it clear that these events would happen May through October on. So in the last bullet point for each one of these numbers, she indicates what the percentages of the entire year. In her presentation, she made it clear that it’s it’s not the entire year it’s made October, it’s the warm months. And that’s actually been stated elsewhere as well. In fact, even the traffic study, the traffic engineer, said that he was basing his traffic study on two to three events per month. So if we look at their numbers for 2022 just the number for concerts is 17. But you divide that across six months and you’re looking at about three events per month. Um, and look at their total number of events. 31 Well, if you divide that Up by six months, that’s five events per month or per divide by six, yes, five, five per per month. So what I’m getting at is that if we look at these numbers here that Miss Taylor’s provided us
2:13:17
it’s the intensity of the use.
2:13:21
Is the intensity of that many shows appropriate for the site? Should the neighborhood should the residence of the mobile home park to the south and possibly the residents to to the north and bongs farm and to the north northwest. Should they be subject approximately once every weekend to potentially noise that they have to call the police to complain about
2:13:55
So Brian, thanks for sharing that. Well.
2:13:59
I’m looking To see if any commissioners held their hands up
2:14:08
for discussion, thoughts.
2:14:17
Personally, I think the and I take our attorney, Tate’s point to heart that, even though we did some calculations with the decibels decibel levels. That was those are not necessarily numbers that we can consider at this at this time because they’re not in in the packet of they were done ad hoc during this meeting. But the point is that what is presented in front of us does not prove that they meet the review criteria, not at this time. So, I will make a motion to approve PCR to 2022 22 or PCR number to approve PCR 2024 C, which is the PCR that would deny this proposal it does not meet the review criteria given the facts that are in front of us with what they presented to us.
2:15:32
Sorry, cheering This is that the applicant, do we have a chance to respond to the discussion?
2:15:40
Um, if I if one of us calls on you,
2:15:44
okay.
2:15:46
Or do we will we have a chance to respond before the motion?
2:15:50
Not necessarily only if somebody calls on you.
2:15:55
Okay, Krishna, hi
2:16:01
I’d like to ask attorney Tate
2:16:06
is it appropriate to ask the suppose premier to move to do so. But is it appropriate to inquire of the advocate whether or not possibly seen writing on the wall that it might want to withdraw its application? Or is this a yes, no, or yes with conditions? circumstance?
2:16:32
Cash, right Commissioner height, there is a motion on the table. And so given that there’s a motion on the table, I believe you would need to act on that first. As far as whether it would be appropriate to give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw their application. I’m afraid I haven’t looked at that specifically. I do believe that the matter is before the commission for a decision this evening. It certainly you can only do matters that are before you. And so, if there is more discussion to be had, I will, I will see what I can find in the land development code about withdrawing an application.
2:17:12
Fair enough. I appreciate that. I also appreciate
2:17:17
this concept, the applications or the applicants
2:17:23
depth and breadth of its attempts to make this thing happen, I believe it otherwise would be appropriate where it’s located. Unfortunately, it doesn’t meet the town’s code with respect to the sound requirements, which you might argue need to be looked at somewhat seriously, but 15.0 2.0551 which requires that you know, any of these the general view conditions that The application is consistent with the comp plan, etc. and complies with all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances and regulations. This proposal doesn’t meet the town’s sound code. And I don’t see how we can vote for
2:18:17
measure hold.
2:18:22
I guess I would actually like to hear from the applicant, maybe as well, from from Brian Schumacher, the town to see, was it their interpretation or their impression that this application wouldn’t be able to meet the sound code? And if so, I guess how did it get so far to this point, you know, through all those meanings with the DRC
2:18:44
was
2:18:44
it Are we interpreting the code differently?
2:18:49
You know, what, what happened to get it this far?
2:18:52
To come to this point and not you know, without any
2:18:56
you know, it doesn’t look like we’re even close to meeting that fit. Everywhere.
2:19:04
Yeah, thank you, Commissioner.
2:19:07
So this is Mary the applicant team. The way that the code was interpreted by us as well as the discussions that we had with the city of Longmont staff was that the the, the DBA levels were based on the zoning. So for example, we would meet 55 DBA at any sir any residence, but also 75 DBA at any industrial so we’re in the industrial area, the surrounding properties is an industrial area. So that’s why we we have moved forward with saying that we are meeting the land use code because that’s the way that we interpreted it. And then also that we were not planning on having any any events after 10pm So we would be within that daylight hours.
2:20:06
Does that make sense?
2:20:10
So I guess it really just comes down to the
2:20:13
the issue of
2:20:15
what zone you’re in and what sound levels apply, you interpreted that whatever zone you’re in. That’s the level that applies. It seems like at this hearing, we’ve come to the conclusion that the lowest threshold applies, regardless of the zone that you’re in.
2:20:35
And that’s, that’s not the way that we had interpreted and discussed it with planning staff. So we, you know, we’re under the impression that we were meeting those numbers were applicable based on based on those zones. And then also, I mean, if we’re, even if they’re, if we were, say we were needed, needing to meet 55 DBA you You know, at Bowen circle, we’re at 57. Or and then down the street, we’re at 56. At the property just to the east, which left hand, left hand owns were at 62. So we’re not really not far off from where we need to be. And maybe that can be achieved in the type of speakers that we use. Maybe we explore using more directional speakers. In this model, we’re using kind of the standard stack speakers that you would see on a temporary stage, but we have discussed with the ownership group, you know, we would maybe want to use directional a type of directional speaker which would help those numbers even more so. And then 58 on the left hand side, on our property on the river, so we’re really close in on those spots, even if we were having to meet that 55 dva. And then, with regard to chair Sure, next question on the number of events, what you presented. Here, do you see that as a minimum to make this this business model Mark work? Um, is there flexibility in reducing the the amount of events that you have? So, um, you know, we we didn’t really see there is nothing in the land use code visible to us that states there is a restriction on those amounts. So what we’ve what we’ve predicted and discussed with the management group seems appropriate to make this space feasible from a financial standpoint, as well as, you know, an operational standpoint. So, yeah, we were using those numbers based on on the business model. And we don’t see anything in the lanius code stating that there’s that restriction
2:22:58
not to speak
2:23:00
Sorry, Mr. Walz.
2:23:02
Yeah, it seems that
2:23:06
we’ve been working on this for a couple of years and talking with everyone from the city manager on down through staff. And we’ve changed the interpretation of the, of the sound code. Here during the meeting from what we’ve, the guidance that we’ve received. We have, we have changed our plans so many times, we have modeled it so many times to comply with what we were told. And now, you’re considering denying an application for a piece of our proposal that is a small minority of what we’re actually planning to do, which is a beer garden and rented out rented out for some private parties, and perhaps for chili cook off or yoga, or a movie, or whatever. And I really think that doing That in not allowing us to even address these cross interpretations by two different pieces of the city is really not a fair way to do this. We’ve been trying to get this in front of pNz. for quite a long time. We’ve been delayed by the review process itself, we’ve been delayed by COVID. And if you’re going to deny this, you really, I think, should consider at least allowing us to do some additional research. We’ve been here for two and a half hours, thank you for your time.
2:24:35
And
2:24:37
rather than kill it and have a start the whole thing over we’re 300 K and we’re private business. We part of many of those events that you’re you’re questioning whether they comply or not, are fundraisers for local nonprofits. So you all know who we are. You all know what we do. There’s nothing nefarious going on. Hear. And if we’re hung up over an interpretation of a technical requirement, then give us the chance to get some clarity on this and table it until we can come back and actually, you know, re consult and get one part of the city agreeing with the other part of the city rather than catching us in
2:25:19
the middle. That’s what I would ask.
2:25:24
Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Commissioner Koehler
2:25:27
I guess can Brian Can you speak a little more to the the city’s interpretation of the of the sound code? Um, and then I’d also my follow up question would be
2:25:39
really to anyone who can answer it.
2:25:42
What’s,
2:25:43
what would be the precise process if we wanted to approve their application, but require that they get a separate permit, and I’m not sure what permit that would be for each music venue, or music event.
2:26:00
So to respond to your your first question, as we kind of talked towards the beginning of the deliberation by the Commission and Commissioner heights question about this particular standard about amplified noise, typically that’s been interpreted or been enforced based on a complaint basis, as opposed to, you know, staff going around and measuring events, if that we get an event, if we get a complaint based on amplified sound, then we approach the, the venue that’s having that event and ask them to address the complaints associated with that. You know, I I know that there’s some questions of whether or not that’s an appropriate standard and that’s obviously that’s something we’d have to have a discussion with, with City Council. In terms of the the question about your question, conditionally approving it. And that was with the condition that lefthand would get a basically a special event permit for each event. I mean, I think that’s potentially an option that commission could consider as a condition of approval, and it may be kind of related to the, the one of the questions that was posed with respect to whether or not the commission also wanted to consider limiting the number of events as well.
2:27:38
So I guess maybe a follow up to the applicant,
2:27:41
is that
2:27:44
something you guys would be able to deal with was having to get a special event permit
2:27:49
for any type of music
2:27:51
event that would, you know, possibly put you over the noise threshold?
2:27:56
Yeah, we’ve we’ve talked to Johnny Marr And, and Harold Domingo is about this specific topic, we’re limited to 15 event permits per year on a on a property is my understanding with the state. We’ve used them for other events. We’re very familiar with that process. But the reason we spent so much time modeling this to comply with the code was because that’s an expense. You have to you have to apply it to turn turn the thing on every time. So there’s administrative work, there’s costs to that. And it completely would limit you to the number of those kind of insights that you could have. I mean, the whole approach that we’ve taken is, tell us what the requirement is and will comply with it. We’ve spent over a year figuring out how to comply with the code that I just witnessed being reinterpreted during this meeting. So That That to me is is problematic for us. And there’s a fairness issue, I think that play that you got to give us a chance, if you’re going to change standard give us the chance to come back and work against whatever the standard is, but your standard is different than other parts of the city’s standard. I’d like to go back to mission Nicola and answer your other question about the business model itself. The primary business model here is renting it out to private groups, but the prime the primary driver is the beer garden itself. You know, if we we can host soccer practice or whatever, and parents can sit there and have a beer while they watch their kids practice soccer. It’s it’s the beer garden itself into able to host more people who are coming to our town to visit our brewery. So that’s the primary function. We we’ve gotten sideways with an element of the community who keeps calling this thing a concert venue, which is absolutely we have change dramatically, to take it away from that and make it something that’s far, you know, a softer use. It’s a green space in an industrial park, and trying to turn it into something nice. If any of you were here 27 years ago, and saw what our properties collectively looked like, you will see that we have invested millions of dollars in improving them. And that was our intention here to create yet another amenity within our community. So I would encourage you if city council needs to take up the sound ordinance, which I agree, as we’ve studied this thing, does not explicitly allow something like this, then why don’t you direct council or staff to bring a proposal to council to allow these kinds of things to happen in industrial parks like where we are and will comply with the residential limitations, but we’re in an industrial park and 75 Db is that was the limits we’re using in contiguous properties. Most of them which we already own. So I, you, I really would ask that you consider,
2:31:07
give, if you’re gonna,
2:31:09
if you’re gonna reject it, at least give us a chance to take it back, do some additional study, consult with city get different elements of the city in agreement before you do. Let us walk down the path and get shot.
2:31:28
So, I mean, I guess I agree with that. And now, it doesn’t feel right to me to just reject this
2:31:35
on
2:31:37
a misinterpretation or just a different, different interpretation that they’ve been proceeding down for a number of months with the city.
2:31:48
You know, to just be,
2:31:49
you know, kind of blindsided
2:31:50
by this that that doesn’t feel right. I don’t know what the remedy is to that. If it’s to continue this till another time. Or if that is too approve it with the condition that they can’t do music venues until this gets worked out. But I don’t feel good about just wholeheartedly denying it when we’re not when no one seems to be completely clear about what that
2:32:11
noise interpretation is.
2:32:15
I’m city attorney Tate had her hand up looks good to her.
2:32:21
So we’re not gonna want to go back and address Commissioner heights question about a withdrawal of an application. I’m referencing section 15.0 2.040
2:32:35
e,
2:32:36
withdrawal of an application or withdrawal needs to be in writing. Once a request for withdrawal of an application is from a noticed agenda, which this would be then that is subject to the discretion of the decision making decision making body.
2:32:56
Additionally,
2:32:59
if an application is withdrawn, it would appear under the code that it would result in an application being treated as a new application for purposes of review,
2:33:11
scheduling and payment.
2:33:17
So another, we have a motion on the floor. It’s not been seconded. We’re still in discussion about this motion on. But, um, one possible procedure would be to, you know, the commission could consider deciding to postpone the rest of this hearing. To date certain we could adjourn and postponed to a date certain but true city attorney tape, would we if we did that, with the applicant be able to provide different or more additions to The material to the packet that’s in front of us.
2:34:07
Cheers her neck. I want to make sure that I understand your question. And I understand the question to be could they supplement the the record the materials that you have before you and supplement their record at hearing?
2:34:20
Great.
2:34:22
Yes, I believe so.
2:34:25
That would not
2:34:28
supersede the information that’s before you now it would be additional information in the hearing. That that, that then the commission could take under consideration.
2:34:38
Okay. Commissioner, hi.
2:34:48
I’m muting is difficult.
2:34:52
So I was gonna ask the question that attorney Tate answered, which was, would it be permissible To follow up on Mr. Wallace’s suggestion that possibly it would be more fair to allow him to, to pull back his application to get this issue squared away. Because I really do see 10 point 20 point 100 point E. When sound can be measured in more than one zone, the most restrictive standard applies and, and it appears that the applicant was not working under that protocol at all.
2:35:32
And it is unfortunate that it
2:35:36
comes up in this public hearing that this commission comes to a different standard than what the applicant was, was pursuing. And in that light, I find it likely, somewhat manifestly unfair for us to deny
2:35:57
this application at this time
2:36:00
I like the concept of postponing and possibly getting additional information, as opposed to the standard I originally inquired of as to whether or not the application could be pulled from consideration at this time, which appears from attorney Kate’s review to require a whole new application process to be initiated, which I also don’t think is fair under these circumstances. So I guess my suggestion is whether Cheshire neck, you might want to withdraw your application and we think about continuing this hearing to another time.
2:36:44
Right. I’m having heard all of this discussion. I do agree with Commissioner heightened Commissioner color, and also hearing from Miss Taylor and Mr. Wallace that they were Working with different interpretations of the code and this might actually fall back to something that needs to be worked out by city staff. You know, for some consistency to Mr. Wallace’s point. So I’m going to withdraw my motion to approve PCR 2020 dash four seed, which was the PCR that would deny this.
2:37:32
If we were to make a motion to
2:37:37
to postpone this to a date certain
2:37:42
how far in the future should we go? The applicant was was asking for a two year extension to the to the entitlement anyway. So perhaps we can be generous with the postponement Done.
2:38:04
I don Berkshire.
2:38:07
Chairman fernack. You know, there is two ways that you could continue this, you could continue with the date certain, as you just mentioned, or we could just continue. The difference for us is that if we just continue it with no, with not a date certain, we would just have to re notice which in this case will allow us to work with the applicant and determine the next available time that they’re ready to come back to the commission. And we would just need to have the two weeks of notice to be able to re post the property and send out the written notices to everybody. Since we’re not certain how long it could take to get the answers that the Commission needs right now. I would probably make a recommendation that the Commission if you’re going to continue it, just continue it but without a date, certain We would just redo our notices at the time when we know that we are ready to come back that way. We don’t have to keep continuing it. And coming back to the commission if the project’s not ready.
2:39:12
You’re done.
2:39:21
Let me ask Mr. Wallace and or Miss Taylor on. Would you be okay if if we continue this, as Don suggested with no date specified, even though knowing full well that it would require re noticing?
2:39:41
Are you okay with that?
2:39:44
I think that that’s a reasonable approach. Noticing is far less onerous than starting over an entire new application. We’ve been noticing people for tears. As I said, we’ve been engaging neighborhoods and in different groups, and modifying Are our plan. So I guess it feels kind of normal for us to take a step back and modify our plans again. But I really would like to encourage you all to think about these conflicts in the code. And if city council has to get involved to modify the code to address some of these conflicts that that somehow that happened as well. Because you’re never gonna you’re never going to compete with other municipalities that have solved these kind of issues. And it definitely is a hindrance both our ability to attract more people to our town to visit and to to generate funds for for nonprofits, which we really do believe in and we’re actually pretty good at but I’d be happy to go continued and then re notice once we’ve got all these different bugs worked out, with the with the pandemic on having a having a place where you’ve got a couple hundred people all jammed together, as Really not in the cards right now. Anyway, so delaying it a few months is not going to change anything massive on our end, and I really appreciate.
2:41:10
Thank you, Mr. Wallace on this. Commissioner Koehler
2:41:15
I guess I’d like
2:41:16
to hear from some of the commissioners that we haven’t heard from, are we do we feel like we have this nailed down to that it’s primarily a noise issue. Are there other? And, you know, while the applicant is going back and working on this noise interpretation, are there other issues that we might identify that they could deal with at the time or, or maybe help resolve for the next time I there? Are there other big topics that people have concerns with?
2:41:44
That’s an excellent question. Thank you for putting that out there because I think it’s fair to the applicant to hear from us what, what some of our analysis has been up to this point. So Commissioner Woodcock,
2:41:59
yes. Thank you. Commissioner Sharon like I think in the beginning of the presentation, we were also tasked with deciding on the limit of number of events. So I think this will be a good opportunity. If we decide now this will help the applicant in the future not have to go back to the drawing board if need be. So maybe we should discuss that as well tonight.
2:42:25
I think procedurally we can discuss it, but we cannot decide it until we are at the eventual if we agree to the continuation once we’re down to that point. But, yes, it was in Brian’s report to us that, that we could put constraints in about the frequency of events and that to be quite transparent about it. That’s one of my bigger concerns, especially events with fire. Hundred attendees or more or amplified events. If we had been discussing a conditioned PCR, I would have been suggesting that there would be no in the first year that there’d be no more than one amplified event or event with 500 or more per month in the first year of operation that would give the city and the community around the location time to respond and to work out the kinks. Similarly, thinking along those lines
2:43:41
I was also thinking that
2:43:46
the
2:43:48
the city’s process right now relying on complaints online on is perhaps not as strong as it could be. So one condition I was thinking about was possibly that before any amplified event occurred, that left hand would notice. Residents, not the property owners, but the actual residents in say, like a one mile radius, you know, we’d have to work out the details of that on. But that would at least give notice to people that hey, something is happening, and it’s actually because of this location over here. And then the city could actually collect metrics and you know, based on the feedback that that that did or didn’t come in, on, so that was one thing I was thinking about. Another thing I was thinking of was about the parking I am concerned about whether there’s enough parking the city seems to think There, there’s an adequate parking. Um, but, and lefthand seems very willing and forward thinking about running shuttles and you know, from outside blocks, etc. I would want to see those shuttles in that parking to remain free. Because if it’s not free, then it’s an added expense to attend the event. And that may just push parking further out into the neighborhoods that surround lefthand in an unplanned way. So it’s thinking along those lines as well. And one little details that I would like to see that crosswalk upgraded. Because I was in the traffic study. And I think the traffic engineer suggestions on that were were reasonable and would really help pedestrians and I know that’s one of your concerns, conditional or any other ideas as to what was out there and on commissioners minds about this proposal,
2:46:06
Commissioner Koehler
2:46:08
and I was kind of thinking along the same lines as you I thought, at least for the first year, we should limit the number of large events just to try to get an idea for what the community feels like after those, those big events with amplified sound. And just coincidentally, I had kind of the same number in mind, maybe once one event, one large event a month for the first year until the applicant can meet with us and we can review how things went on. And then I also had an issue with the crosswalk. I sort of envision that street being kind of dark and maybe that’s not accurate, but that’s just sort of how I envision it. And you know, after the concert at 10 o’clock, you get some people that’s few drinks. Crossing Boston without some sort of lit crosswalk seems a little dangerous, maybe even one of those flashing signs that you know, whenever someone’s in the crosswalk, it’s it’s blinking or something to that effect I thought would be beneficial.
2:47:00
Commissioner Woodcock?
2:47:04
Yes, thank you. I agree with a crosswalk, it could be updated with some beacons, especially at night at 10pm. When people are leaving, it will be hard, you know, they will not have reflective gear when you go to a concert. Right. So it is expected for the traffic for the cars to pay attention to so maybe we can help with some beacons. I don’t know on the on that road, if there is street lighting, and maybe that could be improved as well. And also related to traffic. I didn’t see if there was any any pull off for or pull in for drop offs, you know, where’s the shuttle going to drop off? People isn’t going to stop the traffic when it stops in front of the venue. And we also have rideshare all over, you know, Lyft Uber, where are they going to pool to pick up or where are people going to wait for that. So There was something on my mind. And generally I don’t like the approach of you know, cities of tattletale will will let people complain about it, I think we should have a more proactive approach. And if we know that something could happen, like, go over the limits that maybe we should put a plan in place. Maybe for the first year after every or every event or every other event, there will be some measurement done by either the city or a third party.
2:48:42
So having a plan for making sure they comply with with a sound
2:48:50
Commissioner.
2:48:57
I had not thought about the number of vents The number of events being an issue. I’m interested to hear, cherish your neck and Commissioner combers ideas about testing it out and see how it works in the neighborhood. The problem I have with that, though, is, you know, how does, how do we take that back and control it in future events, which means you’d have to build into that remedy and ability to tailor up or tailor down somehow, and that seems complicated. My other observations that I would share, possibly staff could address this now but I don’t know how much staff we have left. The water treatment detention pond appears to me to be built in the riparian zone or to be an improvement in the riparian zone. I don’t know how we treat wastewater detention ponds in those situations is that really a construction in the riparian zone and And how do we address that? Secondly, additional environmental concerns there was a 2013 sampling done of the groundwater in the area, I guess it’s kind of close to this southwest corner of the property that found try and tetra ethylene to try and tetra core ethylene into groundwater, indicating that possibly some additional sampling should be done. Was there anything you ever found out with that? Was there any remediation done was any additional sampling done? As a question I have, then possibly the city did some sampling along this area where they’re reserving st drains, storage, or staging areas gonna take place, which found out the levels of mercury. I was wondering how that was going to be addressed if at all. And then finally, the request for extension to possibly two year time period on this on this permit, if it’s granted, I think is premature. I believe that there are processes in our code that allow for an extension to be applied for and considered and granted if necessary at the time that issue arises. So those are my other observations on the overall application. Thanks.
2:51:31
Um, I’ll just chime in a few more thoughts as well. Frankly, as you might have been able to tell, I was disappointed with the environmental report with a noisy assessment on and I was hoping that our city staff would have really checked through the logic that The consultant are actually the illogic that the consultant pad in their report saying that that the sound levels did not affect wildlife. When we’re this close to the river, we do need to pay attention to what the effect is on migrating wildlife. The folks at left hand, understand that unfortunately, they got a flawed report from their consultant. City didn’t catch this.
2:52:29
That’s why we have
2:52:32
community boards like planning and zoning, where we’re kind of the last line of defense for some things. But I, as things move forward with this, if we go with a continuation, I would like to see a higher level of analysis come from city staff, we’re only going to see more and more applications coming in to us along the same brain. We’re purposely trying to to redevelop this area, Mr. Wallace is leading the charge in this, um, you know, we need to step up and and really look carefully at what is coming in the packet to us on staff does a great job or not, you know, complaining about the city staff, but we do need to catch details, especially like math. Um
2:53:30
another thing too is
2:53:35
to some of the points Mr. Wallace made, um,
2:53:40
I don’t think I’ll speak for myself, but
2:53:45
lefthand is a fabulous company. They do great things, but those aren’t our criteria upon which we make decisions. The criteria are explained in Article code and our packet, what comes in front of us what is presented to us by the consultants that that the applicant hires needs to prove to us that the criteria has been met. So, putting forward a motion to deny this is in no way any reflection on the quality of left hand brewing as a company. It’s it is a reflection on the quality of what was in front of us, proving that the criteria were met. So
2:54:38
motion for a continuance of some type Commissioner Paul,
2:54:46
I move that we move this to a date uncertain, we continue this to date them certain.
2:54:54
Okay, so we have a motion to continue with no certain day Commissioner. Hi.
2:55:06
We’ll second that motion.
2:55:07
Okay. Seconded by Commissioner height. Those in favor? Raise your hand and say aye.
2:55:13
Aye. Aye. Any opposed?
2:55:17
I don’t see any chain that passes unanimously to continue this item with no date certain. That’s a six zero unanimous vote to everybody who attended on behalf of the applicant and to Mr. Wallace and Miss Taylor. Thank you very much for being here and helping us through this on. Thank you, Brian, for your presentation and also helping us through this. And we have a little bit more of our agenda to get through. So
2:55:53
okay,
2:55:54
oh, I have a
2:55:56
Oh, we don’t have an appeal notice because we continued it. Nevermind. Um, okay, next item on our agenda is our final call for the public invited to be heard on. So, Susan. Yes, thank you for putting that on the screen. If somebody in the public would like to speak about something at this time,
2:56:21
please call 186699006833.
2:56:23
When prompted, enter the meeting id 83087295123.
2:56:36
So it’s 1-669-900-6833 enter the id 83087295123. We need five minutes to do this process. So we’ll take a five minute break.
3:00:38
Sharon I’m about ready to stop sharing my screen if everyone would like to get back on camera.
3:00:55
Okay, thank you Susan.
3:00:56
At the moment I see no one and Jane is telling me There is no one at the Civic Center.
3:01:03
Okay, all right.
3:01:04
Um, so we have nobody who wanted to speak at the final public invited to be heard. So we’ll close that. Um, items from the commission. Anything from any commissioners?
3:01:18
Commissioner got
3:01:21
Thank you, Commissioner. Sure. Nick. I have a question. And maybe it’s for the planning manager, Don bershad. Or maybe for the commission. What, what are we expecting to see considering COVID? Like we had now we were considering that an extension, are we going to see more extensions bring brought to us or is there some state mandate that will, you know, override something for a certain period of time like we’re Where are we? How does the future look like which I know it’s not Certain, but do we have a plan if that comes to us?
3:02:06
So commissioners, I think that what we saw tonight with the request for the pension is really related more to the type of venue that that is, then something related to construction or any other restriction. So are other development applications that are going through right now have not expressed any of the concerns with timing of expanding a lot of money to start their construction because they’re they’re not foreseen that the restrictions are going to prevent them from operating their business or or starting their, their projects, whether that be residential development, or commercial or any kind of other industrial or light industrial development. So I don’t really expect to see many of those requests coming through with our current development applications in We’ve had a few that have slowed down with the COVID situation right now, but most of the people that are in our system are really in a hurry to try to get out of our system and get under construction as soon as possible. Just because I think they want to try to, you know, use that investment that they’ve made already, in some cases for you know, a year or more in our process and start getting the construction under construction so that they can actually see some return on the investment that they’ve made. So, you know, we are we are constantly being asked if we can speed things up and get things through quicker. But as the mission may not know, we’re we’re down currently three planners, on our staff right now. So we only have two and a half people that are able to do development review with 40 plus projects going through our system, so we’re we’re kind of feeling that a little bit too.
3:04:02
Thank you, Don. I just like to mention that it was in the news last week that Allen Ginsburg, who was the developer who redeveloped the the Twin Peaks mall here in Longmont, he passed away. And some of us have been with planning and zoning and of course the city staff had some numerous interactions with him as that project was going on. So I just wanted to extend my deepest condolences to his family. He was instrumental in redeveloping our mall here in Longmont.
3:04:40
Anything else from the commission?
3:04:46
Do we have our council representative here? I don’t believe we do. So any items from Tom burchett are planning manager?
3:04:57
A chairman? Yes. Just hope Update. So in August right now, we are going to have a meeting in August. But that meeting is going to be held on the second meeting date, which is August 26. And the August 19 meeting will not happen. So we are we are looking at August 26, though, for your scheduling and letting Jay know your availability, that is what we are currently working on is preparing those applications for the 26th meeting. And that’s all that I had today. Great.
3:05:38
Thank you, Don. Thank you, everybody, for all your work tonight. And if I don’t see any objections, we can adjourn.
3:05:49
Okay, bye.
3:05:52
Bye. Thanks. Thanks.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai