 John, do you want to try a sound check? And if there's anyone from an applicant team that would like a sound check, please raise your hand. So I have, it's like, gee baddie, you should receive a prompt and give that a try. It looks like you're still muted. And I'm not sure if you're trying that sound, but I'm not able to hear anything. John, if you can hear me, let's go ahead and give your sound a try. Hello. Hey, good morning, John. Good morning, how are you? I'm fine, thanks. All right, so we, we're trying the sound check for one of our attendees here. It looks like a screen name is G-V-A-T-T-I. And I want to just let you know that if you're having trouble with the sound on your computer, you can use the call in number that you see on the screen here. And when it prompts you, you can put in the meeting ID and that way you will be able to use the sound from any telephone and you'll still be able to participate in the meeting. Kristen A, you should have that prompt and when you get all set, let's check your sound. Morning, Kimberly. Good morning, Kristen A. All right, let's try our attendee one more time, G-V-A-T-T-I. And I want to let you know if you do have trouble with your computer sound, you can stay logged on on your computer to the meeting and you can use that call in number from any telephone and that will connect you to the sound in a different way but let's try it. So you should have a prompt and as soon as you answer that prompt, your sound should be working as long as your settings on your computer are set or your device, but you can also leave this device logged onto the meeting and you can grab any telephone and use that call in number for soon. Okay, so our attendee, Gina, I believe was the name you typed into the chat. If your phone call in number is the one ending 2665, please raise your hand in the Zoom meeting. Okay, perfect. Okay, I'll change your screen name on the telephone number and then we'll know who you are. Thank you. And I go ahead and lower your hand now. If there's anyone else of our attendees who is part of an applicant team and you'd like to do a sound check, please raise your hand. All right, we've got Andy and Manette. As soon as you get those prompts, we can try your sound checks. Morning, Kimberly. Can you hear me? I can hear you fine. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so it looks like we have a caller with a phone number ending 9612. If you're logged in on a computer with a device, please raise your hand and I'll rename that phone number for you. Good morning, Kimberly. Can you hear me? Good morning, Andy. You're fine. Thank you. Okay, I will turn off my screen for... I'm just gonna leave it on. We have three minutes. Yeah, if there's any member of an applicant team in our attendees and you'd like to do a sound check here, please raise your hand. I have Peter Stanley. I'm here. Sounds good, thank you. If you wanna keep yourself muted when that's appropriate, then we won't have to go through that each time. Thank you. And it looks like we have one more. Look, the hand went down. And there it is again. We have Malcolm Whitley. You'd like a sound check? I guess, I was trying to find where to mute. Typically it comes up at the bottom of the screen, but it wasn't there. So I see it now when you unmute me, but I wanted to be sure that we had the option to stay muted. Yeah, appreciate that. This is the webinar version of Zoom. So the host has a little more control than the meeting version of Zoom. So everybody arrives at the meeting already muted. At this point, you can control your own meeting and we won't have to prompt every time. Okay, I'll mute out. And it doesn't have a participation as though it's going to see who is here for mounting to make sure that everyone was here. Yeah, only the hosts and panelists can see all the participants in webinar. That's fine. That's absolutely fine. I'll mute now then. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you. You're muted, Andy. Thank you, and I'll start over. My name is Andy Gustafson. I am zoning administrator and I am calling to order our regular meeting of August 5th, 2021. And welcome. Thank you for attending. So this is a virtual meeting and it's due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders to suspend certain requirements of the Brown Act so that we can have these Zoom meetings or virtual meetings in an attempt to reduce or minimize the spread of COVID. Those of you in attendance obviously were able to either join us via Zoom and or call in with our phone number. You just want to, before we get into the meeting, review some mechanical or practical matters concerning the participation. We will at various stages of the meeting call upon members, either staff or people in attendance, applicants in the public to participate. If you are participating by Zoom, you do that by selecting the handsome on the screen and you'll be recognized. When you are recognized, you will have to unmute yourself to speak. Those of you on the telephone, when I open the item for public discussion or comment, you will press star nine and the hearing recorder or secretary will recognize you and you'll be able to comment. So this meeting will be run like any in-person meeting. We have an agenda and we will first start with a opportunity for public comment on matters that are subject to the zoning administrator jurisdiction, but which are not on this agenda. So if any member of the public or participant here wishes to make a comment, please raise your hand and you'll be recognized and you'll have three minutes. I'm going to look at our screen. Don't know that I have a view of the participants. Here we go, attendees. I see none that are requesting to make a public comment. So let's move on to our regular agenda. I do want to make a change in the order of items on our agenda. We have the Courtney estate subdivision, which is, I don't know if you continue to scroll down. I'd like to allow that matter to be heard at the end of our meeting. Let me, which item on the agenda is that I can't see that. It looks like it's already the last item. Is it? Yes, it is. Excellent. Okay, thank you. So we leave the agenda as it is. Perfect, item 3.9. Right. Also, I do want to announce at the onset here that we have one matter that has been continued. That's item 3.2. It's for a minor hillside development permit at 3957 Rankin Ridge. For those of you who might be attending meeting for that item, know that this will be continued to a date certain. It'll be heard on August 19th. So there will be no additional noticing. Just please mark your calendar if you wish to participate in this item, that you're to return to the, this site to the zoning administrator on the 19th and we'll take that up and act on that, on that minor hillside development permit. Okay, so with that, let's start with our first item on the agenda, which if you could scroll down the screen, so I can see item 3.1. I'll introduce this. It's a sign variants for 1165 Montgomery at Drive and the project planner is John Jay. Mr. Jay, are you ready to give your presentation? Yes, thank you, Mr. Arizona Administrator. Thank you. I'll go ahead and share my screen. Can you see that? Okay. Can I, I'm sorry, John, can I just interrupt you one moment? Because I was just double checking and Andy's correct. A lot of times if we continue an item, we are not going to re-notice it. In this case, we did re-notice that. There will be a new Zoom meeting ID for that meeting on the 19th for that hearing item because we also have noticing going out to the press Democrat as well as the onsite sign. So, and all that information will also be posted on the zoning administrator website page. So that's where you can stay current with all of our meeting information also. Sorry for the interruption. No problem. Thank you. Alrighty, can you guys see the screen there? Yes. Okay. So this is a sign variance for the Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital located at 1165 Montgomery Drive. The proposal is to install 122 total square feet of signage at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital, which includes one wall sign, one window sign and one double faced freestanding sign where 100 square feet is allowable per zoning code chapter 20-38. Here's a location map of the site. Here is a site plan with the proposed signage locations. If you'll notice sign number new zero, that new dash zero two is at the corner of Sonoma Avenue in Sodiomi. Here's the first wall sign. I'll just kind of go through these quickly as they're just picture representations. This is where the new freestanding sign will be at the corner of Sodiomi and Sonoma Avenue. There's a new window sign that will be onsite. As you can see, there's a total of three signs that are not nine, one being the wall, a freestanding and a window sign with a total of 122 total square feet where 100 square feet would be the allowable signage for the zoning code. Since this is a hospital with multiple entrances, strict compliance with the sign ordinance would cause confusion in finding the correct building for patients and oncoming staff that need to get to the correct building. And with that, staff is recommending approval that the zoning administrator by resolution approve the sign variance for the Center of the Memorial Hospital located at 1165 Montgomery Drive. My name is John Jay. My contact information is here. Should you have any additional questions? And I believe we do have a couple members of the application team here that can answer any additional questions. I did receive one public inquiry about the project and it was only to see the project plan set as he was noticed within the neighborhood. And I will turn it over to the project team. Thank you, John. Before we do, I just wanted to say your presentation, your slide and such, for me, was very clear about the proposal. Does the project team wish to add comments or additional information at this time? If so, please raise your hand. Seeing no member of the applicant team wanting to comment, I will move forward to public comments. If any member of the public wishes to, okay, we have one. I may have been too quick on my moving to the public comment. Sharon Fiori, if you wish to comment, please be recognized. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. I'm Sharon Fiori, the applicant from Jones Sign for the hospital. And I just wanted to let you know I'm here if you have questions. Again, this is a new setup of Providence is now with Santa Rosa. And because the complexity of the size of the campus, this is the reason why we've asked for the additional signage of the wall sign so that the community knows this is Providence. I know for years you've known it is Santa Rosa, but that they're now part of the Providence family. And as well as the directional sign on the one corner of that, the one building there, just to help direct the traffic. In a case of emergencies, the doctor's appointments, we all know how that can be when we're just trying to get where we need to get as quick as we can. And then the other sign is in among the campus, just to help the staff identify where the different departments are. We've all been that where we're walking down the halls trying to follow the red-yellow lines. And you're still just not sure where you're at. We're hoping these additional signs will help take care of those situations. Thank you very much for that comment. I appreciate that. Right. Now, if there's any member of the public present who wishes to comment on this matter, please raise your hand. I'll pause for a moment longer to allow people to find the icon or press star nine. All right. We'll see none. I will close the public meeting portion. So I think the need and purpose of the additional signage is very clear and compelling. I think the staff's resolution made the appropriate findings for allowing this exception to the sign area requirement. Clearly a complex medical facility is a type of place where signage and clarity and direction are not just desired, but sometimes critically necessary. So I am pleased to approve this requested sign permit and wish the applicant all the best of luck. I do want to say at the onset here that I should have said at the onset that any matter that's decided at this hearing is subject to appeal and anybody who wishes to appeal has 10 business days to do so. And when you add in all the weekends and such the available appeal date for this project, and I'm looking at my calendar, excuse me, the end date is the end of the day, Monday, August 16th. Okay. So with that, let's move on to the next item, which is my agenda in front of me, excuse me. 3.2 minor hillside development. No, that's not matter that's been continued. So we will move past the minor hillside development permit for the 3957 Rick and bitch drive. And we'll take out now item 3.3 minor hillside development permit at 3941 Sky Farm. And when it's Chicago is the project planner. Thank you. Thank you. And good morning, Mr. Gustafson. I am going to share my screen so I can give you my project presentation. Okay. So as you mentioned, this is a minor hillside development permit for a property located at 3941 Sky Farm Drive. So the proposed project is a minor hillside development permit for a swimming pool with a spa in the backyard on an area with more than 10% slope. Also, this permit is to legalize the reconstruction of the site retaining walls that were demolished and constructed without proper permit. Here is the site location. It is between RC Rebuild Center and the general plan land use is very low density residential. The house is going through a rebuild already and I believe at some part, but most of it is being built. But the pool and the spa and retaining walls require a hillside permit and due to construction of those illegal retaining walls, they had to hold on the building permit for the house. So here is the site plan on the right side. You can see the site plan location of the house. And I'm going to show you the area for the work that is going to be done. So two squares here on the left side is where the pool and the spa will be located with additional retaining walls. And on the left side is where the retaining walls are being proposed. And one of them is already constructed. I will go into detail and showing them to you. So here on the left side is where the previous house, pre-firehouse was located. And the right side plan shows the existing, the new proposed house with the addition of pool retaining walls in the back. As you can see, most of that work is going to be in the back of the house. We'll not be visible from the street. And it mostly will be located in an area that was already disturbed by the previous house. And the pool location will be mostly an area with the slopes less than 10%. However, the retaining walls will be placed on areas with slopes more than 25%. So let me show here. Okay, so here is the slope analysis map. So those are the area of the work. The pool is going to be, as I mentioned, the pool is mostly on the flat area that is less than 10%. But those retaining walls to help with this development will be on areas that will be slope more than 25%. It will be pretty steep slope in that area. So I want to show you here the old house. And here is the location of the existing retaining walls that they were supposed to be kept maintained at the same location. The green lines over those retaining walls were located. So here is, I'm trying to show you in 2019 and 2020, those are the retaining walls that have been remote demoed with no proper permit and they have been constructed with Neo1. I just want to show you based on the information and detail the applicant team has sent me. There is like a huge erosion happened behind those retaining walls. As a result of that erosion, they had to remove them and the applicant team had to propose or place a new retaining wall to go behind that area that is eroded already. So this is the one already proposed constructed that the applicant team did not obtain a building permit for that. And you can see that the eroded area is already in the back. So this one is the first retaining wall being constructed. There is a second one that is going to be constructed behind the existing one. I had received a call from an actually email from a neighbor having concern about the amount of earths being removed from this property and concerned about if this work will be like I have any issues or be the terminal to the house above on the hill. As you can see, it's in this area. I requested the applicant to explain or show if the second retaining wall is needed to be constructed behind the retaining walls already been proposed there. And the applicant sent me a letter prepared by an engineer mentioning that the second retaining wall is needed to make the lower retaining wall more stable. I believe the applicant team can go more into detail and explain the requirement for the second retaining wall. So another page here. Again, I'm trying to show here what is happening. That retaining wall is already constructed. And the second one is going to be instructed 10 feet behind the existing one. Those retaining walls will be up to 10 feet also. So those retaining wall is needed to help with the development on the site. Here are the elevations from the site. It shows location of the proposed pool. It's almost on the second story, as you can see, because it's going to be 10 feet high. And this is from the east elevation, the access to the pool on the backside of the house. And here is the house, two-story house proposed facing Sky Drive, Sky Fund Drive. And that red line shows the retaining wall has been already constructed, where it's going to be placed behind the existing proposed house. So as I mentioned, I only have received one email from a concerned neighbor across the street. Her concern was about the amount of earth being removed from that lot. And also there are two trailers parked on that site. And she had questions about if there was any permit obtained for those trailers. And I had to go explain what is required. Because I can check with code enforcement about those trailers being parked there. So above CQA, this project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. And it qualifies for class 3 exemption under section 15303 in that the project consists of construction of accessory structure, pools and retaining walls are accessory structures. And with that, the plan economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor hillside development permit for the property located at 3941 Sky Farm Drive. And below is my email and my phone address. If anyone has any questions, they can contact me. And that was my presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much. Now is opportunity for the applicant or the applicant's team to comment information. So please raise your hand and you'll be recognized. I see Alan Montes. Hi, I would just like to introduce myself. My name is Alan Montes with the land services. I'd like to say thank you to many for the excellent report and clarification on the history and the project proposal. I just like to touch on a little bit about the geotechnical report. I didn't see the specifics in the uploaded contents. I just want to touch on that a little bit. So the upper retaining wall. I'm sorry. If the upper retaining wall is not constructed, but essentially the inclination of the backfill on the lower existing retaining wall, essentially have too much lateral earth pressure under the size of the conditions. And essentially the lower wall can't be designed to accommodate the amount of load and pressure being put on it. That's why the upper retaining wall is required. So that just kind of concludes my end of it. I'll just keep my moments short. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for me? I'm happy to answer them as best that I can. Thank you, Mr. Montes. I do have a question. Would the upper retaining walls. Be placed outside the extent of the current erosion. You can see, I think on the plan. Where the erosion. Top part is intercepting the existing natural slope. Great. Would it be within that area? Sorry, let me pull the plans real quick on my end. I don't know. I don't know. Had them and they just. Did it out somehow. And maybe I'm on it. If you could. Put the site plan on there with the. Showing the new proposed. Retaining wall. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. So it is, it will be outside of the current erosion area. Essentially we're chasing the group. We're looking for a way to try to catch it at a point where we can. Build the retained water point where it will be safe and kind of meet all the requirements. So that's why it's outside of it. And the part of the issues. Why it's outside of it is once again, the back filling of the area between the retaining walls. That's the area where if there wasn't one, that's when the slope in the back though, there would be too great of a pressure on to the existing one. So I think what we're saying and relating it to this exhibit, we're looking at now. Those contour lines are the final grade. That will be established after the. Excuse me. Those. Added any walls are put into place. I believe that is it. Or I believe it's actually going to be a flattened, mostly a flattened area behind the two. So I think what we're currently looking at now is the slope, the existing slope. And what's going to happen is it's going to be essentially flattened out and leveled behind it. I see. Okay. So the, if you leave that photograph, I'm trying to establish here is the area of work to accommodate the new retaining walls with the new retaining walls extend beyond the steep, a sharp break between the erosion phase and the natural hillside grade that we see in the lower picture. So we'll go a little bit beyond that. Just essentially, once again, it's just essentially catching that. Catching the grade. So we're trying to get up back to that average slope area and then kind of recreating it from there. We'll necessitate the removal of trees, existing trees. So it's my understanding that our intention is to not remove any trees and to preserve them. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Assuming now that there's no other member of the applicants team that wishes to comment. Now's opportunity for any member of the public who wishes to comment to do so, please raise your hand. Seeing none. I'll close the. Public meeting. And so I think. This, this requested hillside development permit is. Not necessarily necessary. I know with the. Reconstruction of. Sites that have been destroyed by the fire. And I believe this was the 2017 fire. A lot of the landscape changed as these sites were open for erosion and. And I think in this instance. The cleanup work that was done and the erosion that occurred. And so I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And so I think we altered the geotechnical issues on the site and the retaining walls. Are needed to have. Establish a stable. Building site and help to avoid the potential for. Landslides in the future. The question is asked of the applicants engineer. About. The extent of. Work necessary to establish. And I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And so I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Clarified for me, that the. Disturbance that'll be created on the site will not. Extend substantially beyond. Existing erosion area and that there will be no. Additional tree removal. So based on. The presentation made by staff showing that. The work. Being done to accommodate these walls will be largely screened from view. And that there will be no. Any other questions. I think the findings that are presented. And staff report regarding. The impact of the existing landscape setting. Particularly as it's visible from public views. Show that this project. Is supportable can be approved as recommended. So it's my pleasure to do so. And again, note that the, any member of the public. Which is to appeal this determination. I'm sorry. August 16th. Correct. I'm doubting my date. Sorry. Yes. August 16th. All right. So let's move on to the next item. And I need to get the agenda in front of me. Unfortunately, I did not print it. Sorry. Thank you. And that is item three point. And that is the project planner. Can you give me your presentation? Thank you again. So again, I'm going to share my screen. There we go. Okay. And my condition on use permit as you mentioned, and this is for a fence. For the property at 3557. Southridge dry. And the applicant. Has already constructed the fence. Within the required 15 feet setback. There is no code enforcement issue for this fence. However, the applicant wants to legalize. The construction of the fence within the. 15 feet setback. And. Which is going to be nine feet. Back from the. Sidewalk. For the corner lot. So again, this parcel is located in the rebel center. Our city. The city. The city. So again, this parcel is located in the rebel center. RC. It's owned. PD. And it is. The general plan land uses low density residential. Here is a site plan. And the location of the house, the house is already constructed. And the red line shows the location of the fence. So. For the corner. Lots. The required setback is 15 feet. And no structure is allowed to be placed within the 50 feet. And if there is a fence, it cannot be more than three feet. The applicant has constructed a fence. That is. Nine feet from back of the sidewalk. And it's up to eight feet. Here is the location. It's the look of the fence. It's a very nice wall design fence. As you can see. The house. And the side is. Lower than the street. When I was taking the pic picture, I could see that house is like a place on a lower than the street. So you could see. Through the house. Adding the fence has created more privacy for the house. And it is placed nine feet from back of the sidewalk. There are some landscaping entries planted. So in future, they can screen the. The fence. Notices were sent out to neighbors between 600 feet. I did not receive any call or emails from public regarding the proposed fence. And. This project has been also reviewed in compliance with the California environmental quality act. And it qualifies for a class three exemption. Again, the construction of a fence is an accessory structure. And with that. The planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. Pro. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution. By resolution, By resolution. By resolution. At 3557 south dish dry. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you, Mennett. Can you put the site plan on the screen. Share. And then I invite the applicant or the applicant's team to comment at this point. Sure. And here is the sideline. Thank you. I see Mr. Cook. Please recognize Mr. Cook. Cook. Hi, Mr. Gustafson. I don't have anything to add, but I just want to let you know that I was here. If there's any questions from the public, I'm happy to answer. Thank you. Now, is there any member of the public in attendance that wishes to comment on this matter, please? If so, raise your hand. Seeing none, I'll close the public meeting. All right. I read the resolution reviewed the packet prepared by Ms. Chicago and I think all the findings necessary to. Allow for a. I'm sorry. Fence in a side yard fronting a street. Are fulfilled here. And I do want to note if you go back to that site plan. That. This is this fence is. On a property where ordinarily. I should say this property. I would say that. Given its lot area and shape. That deprived the property owner of the usual. Benefits of a side. Of a rear yard. That might otherwise be expected. For. The same district. So. I think again, this, this. I would say that the permit request. Is very supportable. And I'm pleased to approve the permit. So. Thank you very much. Now let's move on to item. 3.5. So minor conditional use permit for 3709. Oregon street. And. This is the project planner on this matter. Thank you, Mr. Zoning administrator. I will. Share my PowerPoint. So this is a conditional use permit 21 dash 037. For a proposed fence variance at 3709. Oregon drive. It's a corner lot. Oops. It's a corner lot with an unusual. It would be a six foot tall fence with two feet of lattice. That is. That's what the applicant is requesting. That it be placed seven feet from back of sidewalk. And. We advanced the slide here. This is the project site. It's at the corner of Wyoming and Oregon. As you can see, it has an unusual curvature at the corner. It's not a standard. Curved corner launch has kind of a. A wide. Wide curvature. This is the existing fence on the corner side. Please notice the. Cypress bushes. The applicant is proposing to. Push the fence. Out. Against those bushes there. And it would be seven feet from the sidewalk. Here is. The applicants drawing showing the existing fence. And the proposed fence. And. You can see he's indicated the. Cypress bushes along the sidewalk along Oregon drive. Here's another drawing. One of the concerns. With a corner lot. And putting a. A fence taller than three feet. In a setback is. Issues with safety. And the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed fence is outside of the clear vision triangle. It isn't. As I said, it's an unusually shaped a lot. The curving. Is not. What we know would normally see you for a corner lot. But the proposed fence would be outside of that. Clear vision triangle. And should not pose a visual hazard. Or pedestrians or bicyclists. Here's another diagram showing where the proposed fence would go. This proposed. Fence is exempt under sequel. Under section two. Under section three. And that the fence is considered an accessory structure. Staff would also like to mention that. We received late correspondence at eight 17 this morning. From a neighbor concerned about. A potential visual hazard for. Bicyclists. She's. Concerned about the height proposed height. And. If that proposed height would create any visual hazard for bicyclists going to. Middle school or. High school. And she's witnessed. I guess. Car is not not paying attention to the stop sign and. And rolling through and. She's witnessed a. An accident between a vehicle and a. Bicyclist before in the past. But given that the fence. Sorry, go ahead. But. Given that the proposed fence is outside of the clear vision. Triangle stuff. Still still feels that it wouldn't pose a. A visual hazard. And with that. Planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve. A minor conditional use permit for the property. Located at three seven zero nine Oregon drive. The applicant is present. And can also answer any. Any questions. For your presentation. Can you put the site plan. On the screen that we can. Refer to. Sure. Would you like this. Diagram or. I think one where we can see the street context. We don't have anything that. Does a broader street go back to that aerial photo. I think it's probably the best. Okay. Sorry, there's a delay when I. Thank you. Perfect. All right. Any member. Does the applicant or any member of the applicant's team wish to comment at this point. Let's recognize. Melinda. You should have a prompt and the sound will work as soon as you answer the prompt. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Yeah. My name is Craig. I'm the applicant's father. I'm the individual that drew that. Okay. Thank you for your questions. Sorry. Thank you. Yeah, so. I think you've established the footprint or the location of that fence outside. That rather broad. Vision triangle. Which exists due to the very shallow or. I'll call it open curve. I'll call it open curve. I'll call it open curve. I'll call it open curve. I'll call it open curve. I'll call it open curve for that exhibit. All right. Otherwise, now I think I have no other questions. Now is there any member of the public wishing to comment at this point? Please raise your hand. The none. I will close the public meeting on this matter. So again, I think this particular property exhibits the same type The property constraint that often occurs where. Because of the double frontage requirement and the location of the house. Many of the properties are deprived of the same type of area, rear yard area that other properties in the. In this setting. Benefit from, and this. Side yard fence would allow this property owner. The benefit of more privacy, which is, which is typically the case allowed in this type of residential area. The location of the fence behind the sidewalk is. Significant or sufficient enough that. It doesn't encourage upon the sidewalk and create. Sort of a looming presence. It's not. But it steps back and. Maintains sort of open streetscape along that section of the roadway. Furthermore, the exhibit shows that the. Vision triangle here, which is intended to. The, and I apologize for that phone ringing. Which is intended to help ensure that. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We're navigating that intersection. Have adequate sight lines to see that it's safe to cross. Or proceed. So. I think all the appropriate findings were made in the. Resolution prepared by staff. To support the approval of. Minor use permit for a reduced side yard. Fence. At this location. So. Thank you very much. So let's move on to item. 3.6. And Chris is a project planner again. And it's a landmark alteration permit for 748. Thank you, Mr. Gustafson. This is a proposed. Detached garage with an ADU above. And it's not readily visible from the public right of way. The proposed garage meets the setback requirements. And then the. The garage has sufficient backup. Distance. For cars to. Exit. Exit. Exit. And enter. The garage. The ADU is allowed by right. And is not. Subject to. Any. A discretionary view. And that would have the ADU above it. The applicant is present. Also to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. I, I, I invite the applicant to. Add to or comment on the, on the project. We can recognize G. So based on what happened when Gina was logging in, I did unmute the phone. So. Gina, if you can try that sound on the phone, or do you want to try the sound on your. Device or computer that you're logged in on. On the phone, you want to press star nine. To raise your hand. To raise your hand. So based on what happened when Gina was logging in, I did unmute the phone. So. Gina, if you can try that sound on the phone, you want to press star nine. To raise your hand, although I did already unmute that phone. So I already, I already directed that phone contact. Unmute if you want to go ahead and. See if it's muted on your end. We have another member of the public. Or member of participant attendee raising their hand. Is that. Is that L. A member of the project team. If so, we will recognize you. Yeah, I am one of the residents here. If we can't get Gina on the phone, then I can answer any questions about the project. Okay. Well, let's let give Gina a moment more. And if not. We're not successful. I. I do have a question and maybe it's for the project planner. I'll clear it out right now. And if. And that is. I'm just concerned about how that garage will actually function. Given such an offset of the, of the garage door entrance. From the driveway. I don't understand or see how a vehicle will actually be able to enter the garage. And was there any consideration for that. Building to be located so that it lines up with the existing drop. The garage door. And it will. Drive away. And thus make it a functional access to parking. So the way the accessory dwelling unit is. It's required to meet at eight foot setback when it's a new. ADU second story ADU. And as you can see. Um, it's right at eight feet. On the. Top there. It would violate a setback requirement for the accessory dwelling unit. The parking section of the code does recommend certain backup distances depending on the angle of parking. And I believe it's table 3-6 minimum parking space and aisle dimensions. And if a car is parked at 90 degrees, then there is a backup distance requirement of 25 feet. And does this backup area, and that's to permit a car to turn around or and head out. That's a perpendicular parking space. It would be, yeah. And so would there actually be the possibility that a car can turn around on this site? Because that would mean almost like a hammerhead turn around if you can visualize that, right? Is that feasible here? And I believe that's why they proposed the pavers in that configuration to allow for the car to maneuver in and out. Well, so this matter. Mr. Stanley has his hand raised. Recognize Mr. Stanley, are you the applicant's architect on this project? We're working with the applicant. Yes, we are. So what I will tell you is that there's a 24 foot backup out of that garage. That the pavers that are shown there is just a hard surface. But there's a 24 foot backup in that sort of let's call it the backyard at this point. But that's not how the applicant is proposing to leave this area is that there is enough turnaround to essentially chicane a backup and then backup out of the driveway, which is virtually how most people back up out of it through a driveway as there are very little opportunities, especially in smaller lots, to have an ability to actually turn around. But in this one, you would have the ability to come out and then chicane over to the existing driveway and come out. And Kristin is right that we would have lined this up more with the driveway if the setback requirements had not been part of the development standards that we had to follow. So we're confident that you can get in and out of this garage effectively. And thank you for that explanation. I can see that now that the backup movements would be directly out of the straightback from the garage, driving forward in the chicane, as you say, to that side yard and then resuming the backup down the length of the driveway to get out. Getting in is not an issue. Getting out is a little more work. Yeah, it'll be a little more of a maneuver, but I think fully exit, easily enough to execute, slowly. Nobody's going to be coming out of here quick. Right. OK, well, that clarifies a main question. Backup cameras help down to you. Yes, thank you, sir. As long as it's not recording how it happens, that would be good. Thank you so much. I think that clarifies to me how this will actually function. I appreciate that. Is there any member of the public that wishes to comment at this point? Seeing none, I'll close the public meeting. So thank you, Kristen. I think the report presented in the resolution you prepared was provides the findings that are necessary to approve the project. I do want to note that this project does include an accessory dwelling unit, which is a permitted use and not subject to the matter of this permit, but it is the entirety of the building and its design and location does show that it would not adversely impact the historic resource or the value of the property. So the appropriate findings are made here conditions. So I'm happy to approve this project. And we can move on to your next item, which is item number 3.7 to rebuild the detached garage. And it is a landmark alteration permit also. Yes, and the same historic neighborhood of Burbank Gardens. This is a proposed garage rebuild at 644 Pine Street. Sorry, there's a delay with advancing the slides. This is the subject parcel. It's an interior lot on Pine Street near the intersection of Pine and Brown. Here's a close-up aerial. And the detached garage is proposed at the rear or behind the primary structure. This is the site plan. So the original garage was damaged and is supposed to be replaced. The new garage will meet current setback requirements to avoid any building permit or building code issues or expensive requirements when a building is too close to the property line. The garage is large enough to accommodate two covered spaces. These are some drawings. Unfortunately, a tree damaged the original garage. And these are images showing the existing site conditions. This is the proposed garage. It has similar materials to the primary residence. It won't be readily visible from the public right of way. And the applicant is proposing to paint it the same colors as the main residence. Also, the ribbon drive or Hollywood drive will be maintained as well and will maintain compatibility with other properties in the historic neighborhood. There is also a gate for privacy and security proposed as well and included in the request. Here are some color renderings or elevations and the proposed vertical siding that the applicant proposes on the building. And it's not dissimilar to what accessory structures would have been clad with for historic buildings. That's bullshit. Dad, could you please mute yourself? Thank you. The proposed replacement of the garage and the gate are exempt from CEQA. As this is a replacement structure and construction of a small structure, no public comments were received as of this morning. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the proposed detached garage and gate. Thank you so much. Is the applicant and the applicant's team present to and wish to make comments? And so please raise your hand. I see Krista. Are you the applicant or the applicant's team? I'm the applicant. I just want to let you know I'm here. If there's any questions, can you hear me? I can. And thank you. Appreciate that. Krista, can you put up the site plan? I think there was one that showed also the detail and site plan. I might toggle between them. Yes, just a moment. Is this what you're looking for? Yes, thank you. All right, so now's the opportunity for the public and attendance who wish to comment on this matter to please raise your hand to be recognized. And you will be allowed a comment. Thank you. And Krista, if you can mute yourself, please. Yes, sorry about that. I'm not sure how to do that. You will. I think that hearing secretary can do that. And I see Thad has his hand raised. Yeah, I just want to apologize. I didn't know I was muted and I was responding to something else. My comment is completely unrelated to the discussion I am. I thought I was automatically muted. So I apologize about my outburst. Thank you, Thad. If you don't have any additional comment or we will give opportunity for anybody else who wishes to comment at this point from the public, please raise your hand. I see Krista still has her hand up, seeing that there's no other member of the public wishing comment. I will close this item. And move forward in agreement the staff's recommendation to approve this reconstructed garage in its new location. I will note that with the fence and essentially this structure will, or I should say gate, the structure will not be visible from the road and thus will not have an impact on the public's view of the historic resources of the character of the neighborhood. So thank you for your resolution and findings. This landmark permit is approved. Apologies you're muted, Mr. Gustafson. Thank you. We have item 3.8, which is a landmark alteration permit to replace another garage, 712 Wheeler Street. That's correct. So this is garage and fence replacement. This is the subject parcel. It's on Wheeler Street. It's an interior lot. There's a close-up aerial of the subject property. This is the proposed garage that we look at at the rear of the property, three feet from the side step back. Here's some existing site photos. The original garage is in poor shape and the applicant is proposing to replace not only the garage, but the fence on the same side as the garage. And the fence would be similar to that gate that you see. It would have six feet of solid wood board and two feet of lattice. The garage would not be readily visible from the public right of way since it's an interior lot. Here is the proposed elevations for the garage. It carries a lot of architectural details from the primary residence. And the applicant also proposes to salvage as many materials as possible from the original garage structure. Here's the proposed new gate and privacy fence. They're very similar to other gates in the neighborhood. And with that, it's back to recommending approval of the detached garage and fence and gate. Thank you. Can you clarify, is the fence being completely replaced or is it the addition of a lattice on the top of the existing fence? My understanding is the fence will be replaced. OK. All right. Does the applicant or applicant's team wish to comment at this point? Seeing none, we have one member attendees raising their hand. James, you'd be recognized. Unmute yourself, please. You should be ready. Can you hear me? Yes. You need to turn off your other device. There you go. Thank you. My apologies. James, if you unmute your currently active device, you should be able to speak without echo. You are currently muted. You're currently muted, James. There you go. I'm going to guess your beaker works, but your microphone is turned off on this current device. Are you able to acknowledge in the chat portion of this Zoom meeting? James, I suggest you close your currently active device and call back when the other one appears. Your microphone was working on it. Call back or we enter the Zoom meeting. All right. To move the meeting forward, James, we will continue trying to connect with audio. I will allow you opportunity to comment later. I do want to give opportunity for any member of the public that might be attending to comment on this matter to do so. Please raise your hand. Seeing none, I'll go back to James. Are you able to type in the chat acknowledging that you're hearing us but are not able to speak? We see that you've. I have returned. So I assume you're the owner or an agent for the owner. I am the owner. OK. Do you have any? Wonderful working with Chris today. And my draftsman made the whole application process very smooth. Just if you guys had any further questions, I've been anticipating getting this old 1923 garage rebuilt since the crash of 08. So I've been bandating and bubble gumming this garage together since then. We welcome the opportunity and the effort by property owners to maintain and improve their properties. I appreciate that and particularly in our historic districts to keep them current and vital and active with investment and effort. Thank you. I have no questions for you. I thought the presentation by staff was clear. So having heard from the property owner and also from there's no comments from the public. I close this public portion of the meeting. So review the staff report and or resolution. And the presentation clearly establishes the proposed replacement of the garage would not harm the historic resource and this can then be approved. I appreciate your efforts coming forward, James, and your presentation, Chris May. So this landmark alteration permit is approved. Before we move on to the next item, I want to take a five-minute comfort break. We've been at it for a little bit more than an hour right now. So let's return at 11.45. Thank you. OK, I want to resume the zoning administrator meeting. Give a moment for everybody in the room to be ready. So this is the last item. I have 3.9, minor conditional use permit and minor design review for 2558 Dakota Avenue involving the Courtney Estates plan development. Project planner is Kristin A. Kristin A, if you can give your presentation, please. Thanks, Andy. This is a revision request for lots 21 and 22 for Courtney Estates located at 2558 Dakota Avenue. This is an approved plan development called Courtney Estates. It's composed of predominantly single-family detached residences. It was approved with eight affordable units that were to be developed as duplexes on four different lots. The applicant, this is the original plan and where those units would be located. And what the applicant is proposing is to consolidate those units onto two lots. This would allow for a landlord to be able to maintain and look after these units more efficiently. The affordable housing agreement requires them to be for rent units. And the rest of the single-family detached units are for sale. So they're a bit of an odd duck, as you well, with the Courtney Estates subdivision being that they're required to be for rent. This is the diagram from the original PD. So subarea A was proposed to be predominantly open space, and subarea B is the residential subdivision. What the applicant is proposing. So with those units congregating onto two lots, those affordable housing units, we are now left with two vacant lots, which would now be able to construct two additional single-family units. And the proposal is to move the units that were originally allowed on subarea A to be allowed on subarea B. And staff believes that's a workable solution as it would preserve more open space on subarea A. And here is the policy statement for the plan development, describing the allowable units in subarea A versus subarea B. So the total unit count for Courtney Estates is not increasing. The units are being reallocated from subarea A to subarea B. Here are the two lots where the affordable housing units would be constructed. Here are the proposed floor plans. Here are the proposed elevations. And if you look at a street view of the neighborhood, there is a predominantly second story, but there are some single-story residences in that neighborhood. Staff is recommending approval to modify the Courtney Estates project to allow for the reallocated units and to migrate the affordable housing units onto two lots, making those affordable housing units easier to manage. The city housing department reviewed this request and had no concerns on moving those units over. Their main concern was maintaining those units to be for rent, as required by the HAP agreement that's in place. The applicant is present and would like to make a statement regarding the project. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. So this project, when it was approved, 2006, I believe it was 2007. It was subject to the inclusionary ordinance requirements at that time, particularly it's called a housing allocation plan at that time. That's correct. And at that point, when it was approved, did it require these lots, these affordable units to be dispersed in the manner that the map, the original map, approved map shows today? So the policy statement doesn't mention anything about dispersion of units. It just has the required number of units and that they be for rent. It's very black and white, but the units have to be for rent units. I don't believe dispersion was really discussed during the original approval of the project. The policy statement is a document that memorializes the specific development requirements of the particular subdivision, in this case. But it wouldn't necessarily have reflected on all the requirements of the inclusionary ordinance at that time. So my question is, did the inclusionary ordinance at that time require dispersion? And so we can leave that open for now. The second is, this is a design review. Also, did this go to design review board for preliminary review? Or is that a requirement in this case? Design review board or concept review, I should say? It wasn't. I don't believe it went to concept review. And I don't believe that was a requirement for this project. OK. Do we have any exhibits or anything to show that the proposed duplex designs are similar to the other units within the subdivision? And I should ask, has this subdivision commenced? Has there been construction have the improvements for the subdivision put into place? Is it under construction at this point? But let me defer to the applicant while I. OK, that's fine. What I want to be able to establish is that these duplexes that have been placed on two lots, the total of eight units, are similar to the design of the other buildings and dwelling units in the area and in terms of bedroom configuration. And because there's no increase in the total number of units that you explained, we're just simply shifting some of the two units out of the open space area across the street into the subdivision area. There's really no density issue with regard to overall development within the subdivision. So it's not increasing, nor does it require a density bonus. All right. So I'll probably have more questions that I now invite the applicant or the applicant's team the opportunity to comment. Hi, can everyone hear me? Yes. OK, thank you very much. So my name is Samantha Hauser. I'm with City Ventures. And we also have Telker from City Ventures here as well as our architects and our land use team. So we're here to answer any and all of your questions. We shared with Kristin A. some images that would go to answer the question that you had asked about the similarity of the duplexes to the single family homes. And I don't know if now would be an appropriate time to share those. But yes, it's a very important part of this project to us as well that the quality finishes and style in which the duplexes are being constructed is exactly identical to the rest of the homes. So Kristin A, is it possible to put on the elevations? So I should I should say so we are also the developer of the project that's next door that's 100% constructed called Fox Hollow. And this project is in a lot of ways an extension of that project. The streets connect, the architectural styles are the same, the housing styles are the same. So the images that you just saw on the screen were photographs of what the final product looks like. The elevations that are here, you can see what single family homes and the duplexes look like next to each other. And then on the second page as well, you can see, I don't know, Kristin A, if you could go to the next page. But we have a mix of materials, of shingles, of boredom batten. We have a lot of different breaks in the facade to create articulation and interest. And then high quality finishes and materials. So the goal is to make sure that all of this coalesces really nicely, but also to make sure that we can get our management company, Vintage Group, who's a really high quality management company, to be able to tenant these so that we always have a qualified family living in these homes. I also wanted to mention that the locations where these are proposed are among the nicest in the project. They're across from where our model home is. And they're right across the street from open space that's open in perpetuity. With this change, the green space that's across the street will be perpetually green. Thank you. The new configuration of the affordable rental units will be duplex structures. But it looks like two sets would share a single lot. And they would have joining garages for one. And the other one has a little bit of a different configuration because of a lot of shape. Can you go back to that elevation to show how the two duplexes on one lot appear? I just want to take a look at that again. You can share your screen. And, Chris, today, there's a second page, or I'm sorry, a third page, even, that yes, there we go. I think this is the one that you were looking for. Yeah, so lot 21. And that is OK. And could we see a lot of lot 22, I believe? Correct. I think there have been a couple of naming changes as we've gone through the process. So there's lot 21 and lot 22. And can you show the lot 22? And that's the front one. I think it used to be called lot 20, correct? That's the old naming. So we were trying to be trying to be clear. There are a couple of different processes going on at the same time. Right. So this lot has a living area joining just by virtue of how it's lot, shape, compels this arrangement to provide parking and access. OK, right, that's helpful. And I just I wanted to answer one other question that I had been working on with staff, which was the housing allocation plan that was referenced in our old 2007 Affordable Agreement. The city staff doesn't have access to that one, but they did have access to a subsequent one from 2012. And senior staff reviewed it and have confirmed to me that that version, the later version, did not require dispersion of the unit. So it's everyone's understanding that dispersion is a new development standard and part of the current municipal code, but not the 2012 or earlier ordinances. Right. OK, and then the question I didn't ask of staff, but I'll ask you, there is a concession of a development standard being sought here. We haven't really talked about that. Can you explain it and show it where it is? Sure. So there is a pre-approved concession of 25% reduction of the setbacks. In the PD, we are able to kind of meet the setbacks as they were written, but there's an asterisk note that says that that setback is from the property line, rather than from the back of curb. And so on this on this project, there's a little bit of difference into where that is. And if we interpret it in that way, we're unable to meet the 19 foot requirement. So it's really kind of a semantical issue. But we just want to make sure that we're able to meet it and we don't have to come back before you. But we don't think we're going to need adjustments in a lot of places, just kind of on the on some of the lots that are on corners where the shape is a little bit unique. OK. And does this exhibit explain that proposed site plan here? You know, I can send. I can either share my screen or I can send Chris Tanae an exhibit that shows that right now. But it's a it's an interpretation that will allow on a case by case throughout the project. And this is this is a front yard setback, I assume. Correct. It's it's the front yard setback. And in some cases on corner lots, the side setback as well. It's it's most it's most effect affecting the corner lots, especially where we have the curvature of of like Clariton Street going to by Courtney Estates, Courtney Avenue. It's it's hard to maintain the setback with the radius. Got it. Exactly. All right. So let's return to the inclusionary component and dispersion, the application of that requirement in the current code. It's it's my opinion that you are seeking to modify the agreement and so in doing so, you're subject to current agreement requirements. We we do recognize that the developer has an option for modifications for, I'll say, for concentration in this point, which is a current requirement or dispersion is a current requirement. And we can we can modify it where the proponent is able to demonstrate that the project would otherwise be financially unfeasible. What I don't have, what I'm not comfortable with is the current information about why it's in would be infeasible financially. I understand the the management complexity is not desirable to have several dispersed properties with that are maintained as rental units and needing management that much easier and efficient for the if they were clustered together. Can you provide me more evidence upon which I can, you know, stand to say that this project subject to current inclusionary requirements, maybe modified consistent with those requirements? Sure, I think that a part of this a part of what's being kind of moved around on the project is has not yet been discussed. And so one of the things that we are required to do now is stormwater treatment, hydro modification. It wasn't something that was required back in 2006 and seven, but it's a requirement of the city of the county and the state at this time. So what wasn't really discussed is on the southwest portion of the property and, Christina, I don't know if you put the site the site plan up, but two of our two of our locks in that area have gone from single family homes under the approved plan to stormwater treatment areas to be able to meet the requirement. So what's happened throughout the site is all of the the lot lines have shifted. So if you if you look at lot 15, which is on the bottom left and then across Country Manor, there's a small space that's not indicated. So that area exactly. So that area has become stormwater treatment area. So in as we've done this, we've had to adjust all of the the lot. So lot 38, where you see one of the original locations of the duplexes, that lot size has had to shrink a little bit. All of the lots have become slightly smaller, still within all of the development standards that are required. But what we've done is we've tried to make room for the current standards and still allow us to have the amount of homes that we're that we're talking about here to make this work economically. So clustering that the the eight BMR units was not really a part of that calculus. We're doing that really for the efficiency and rentability. And if we are going to go to the current standard, I'd like to understand if that means that those eight homes would also be allowed to be for sale, because that may that may change our calculus as well. But I think what we're what we haven't talked about here is current requirements applied to a 15 year old plan have made these shifts necessary, not just for the affordable units, but throughout the site. And so, you know, that lot 38 as well as lot 28, which had the the affordable homes on them are just too small for duplexes now. So that's I think that's part of it's a kind of major underlying issue here. I can appreciate that. That your net buildable area has diminished as a result of new requirements. And it's kind of somewhat the same issue here with the affordable units on the property and this this dispersion requirement. And we have a safety valve for that that allows projects to cluster in this case or not be strictly subject to the dispersion requirement with evidence that is. Accepted as justifying the need for the for the clustering. So I what I want to do here is. Focus in on and get that evidence before us that we can review and make part of the project and base our action on on that. So at this point, all I have is kind of this generalized description that it's more efficient to manage to manage the rental units on two contiguous properties. But I need more than that in order to establish that there is a cost savings to do so over separate dispersed units. So I will require that before moving forward. And I would like to continue this matter. I just would like to set it the most convenient date to do so to come back like to do so at a date certain. And I also want to say that the the design that you presented and and the elevations that we reviewed here demonstrated that the proposed cluster duplex buildings will be similar to and compatible with the other development in the subdivision. So that matter, I think is is settled. But now we just need the financial evidence. The evidence that is a financial benefit to the project to make it feasible to have those units clustered. Is September 2nd the date that you can come back with that information for for action? So, yes, we're I mean, we would even be ready on August 19th. It's really up to you as to when you want to move the project to. We can be ready as soon as you are. Well, I think we need time for us to review it and it be available to the public to review. Staff would be more stuff would also be comfortable with August 19th, if that works for you, Andy. So would be that would in reality mean look at my calendar again. So that's two weeks from today. We should we should have that information as soon as possible. And no less than 72 hours prior to the review. 72 hours prior to the meeting so that the public can look at it. With that, would you and then we need internal time to review it. I would argue more time is better. Would you be able to have this information by the end of the day? August 10th or absolutely Tuesday. OK, I really appreciate that. I appreciate you're accommodating that. Let's do that. So this matter will be continued to August 19th. Thank you. And Andy, yes, if I if I can comment unlike the hearing item that we discussed earlier where we sent a new notice, usually in cases like this where it's not necessarily changing to a hearing, it's just continuing the item, we would not necessarily re-notice that. So there will be a new Zoom meeting ID for the meeting on the 19th. Anyone who is interested in hearing this discussed on the 19th is going to need to monitor our website for that updated Zoom information because there will be no additional postcard noticing. Kimberly, do we have we posted the agenda for the 19th meeting yet? No, preliminary information for the other items on that meeting will go out this weekend. A final agenda would be published. Calendar on the 13th. I was just curious if you should take public comment. Yeah, thank you so much. I was thinking I got ahead of myself here. Yeah, so let's let's just answer this one question about actually, Kimberly, we can talk about the publishing dates and all that kind of stuff separately. But you're right, Kristen, we need to afford opportunity for members of the public who wish to comment on this matter. Please raise your hand now and you'll be recognized. Thank you. And I apologize for jumping ahead here. We have a number of attendees. I see two hands raised, Nathan and Alec. Why don't we start with Nathan first? Hi, can you hear me? Yes. OK, thanks. I appreciate the meeting. I just wanted to comment on this notice, primarily as a resident of Fox Hollow and one that that relocated to this this development last fall. I had no indication or information provided by City Ventures regarding the lot next door to my newly purchased home, other than the potential for it to be developed, obviously, which is totally fine. My questions are really in relation to the locations that are being proposed for the affordable housing units. And it's not that I have anything against affordable housing. I'm a huge fan of it. I've lived right next door many times in the past. My question is primarily around its location and why was that selected? Due to its potential impact to the property values of homes purchased on the lot next door. As a new as a young family and someone who plans to live for a long time, just curious about the financial locations that might have on the community. And if there was any, you know, reason for for that. And then also, what's the plan for? I believe it was a lot 28 where the the original proposed affordable housing units are going to shift away from does that lot or the other lot, does it get changed into two new properties rather than the one? So any further indication about those items would be be welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Nathan. And we'll respond to your question after we take all of the comments at this point. Alex. Hi there. I'm also a resident in Fox Hollow and kind of I'll tag on to what Nathan was saying there. Like us, we're not opposed to the low income housing coming into the neighborhood as well. And like he said, we weren't aware of it when we purchased our home. We live off Red Willow and a similar to what you guys proposing for these lots in a duet. But we are a homeowner, not a renter, but it just seems like these homes for the placement of them kind of don't fit with what country manner is already existing and then it'll be an extension on the country manner that they don't fit what those homes already are at all. It seems like it's a poor placement for these units to be put in. My suggestion, I think, would be better off suited, you know, onto Allegra and lots one through four of what they have closer to Fulton Road. It seemed they kind of be on their own, easier to manage if you guys are trying to condense them into two into smaller lots. But and also if vintage group was going to be the ones that are going to be taking care of these for rentals, I kind of have a big issue with that because we already have a major issue with vintage group in Fox Hollow, maintaining RHOA. So if they're going to be the ones that will be maintaining these rental units, I have major concerns of how well they'll be kept up. So if they are going to stay on country manner, that could create a very much an eyesore for the neighborhoods. Thank you, Alec. Are there any other members of the public that wish to comment? If so, please raise your hand or press star nine. All right, seeing none. I will ask the applicant to respond to the question regarding why was this why were these two lots selected and can you explain what will happen with lot 28 now that that lot will be adjusted? And then finally, respond to the question regarding vintage management services. Sure. So the the Fox Hollow development is to the north of this project and north is up on the screen. That's that everyone can see. And so the original current plan is for that lot 28 to be two affordable units. And then the two lots below, which are 21 and 22, would also be affordable units. And, you know, as are additional ones on Courtney Drive, but I don't think those are pertinent to the the member of the public's questions under the new proposal, lot 28, which is adjacent to Fox Hollow, becomes a market rate single family home. And the affordable stays where it is on lots 21 and 22. So this is not a new location for affordable housing. It's the location that was approved in 2007. But, you know, consistent with what we've been talking about, we have designed these in a way where we want these, you know, the intention is that everything looks the same, like it's all part of one community. There should be no perceptible differences between the affordable housing and the market rate housing. And I just want to remind everybody that the types of people that are living in these homes are teachers and firefighters and members of, you know, the public that serve us. So this is not, you know, a different type of housing or a different standard of housing. It's just housing that has a deed restriction on it. Can you comment regarding the management? Question raised by the applicant? Sure. So Vintage Group is is a management company that we have used on a lot of our projects successfully. This is the first time I'm hearing of of an issue. And, you know, Fox Hollow is still actively being finished up. So I'm happy to circle back with those two property owners and work to resolve whatever questions they have or issues that they may have. And I can I'll provide Kristen with my my cell phone number and email address. And I'm happy to share that with any of the residents of Fox Hollow who need a little bit of assistance. All right, thank you. OK, any other member of the public who has not had opportunity to comment? Is there any other member of the public that wish to do so now? So please raise your hand. All right, seeing none. And again, my apology for jumping ahead on the discussion on continuance. Let's continue this matter to a date certain. On on the 19th, I will direct the applicant to have materials to staff by the end of the day of August 10th to allow us time in order to review those documents and also make them available to the public for review. Also, I want to note that the Zoom meeting invitation for those of you who will participate via Zoom or by telephone, for that matter, please go back to the website for the new login or meeting invitation code or instructions. So with this, I will keep the public hearing. Meeting open and we'll resume discussion on the 19th. I hope to see you then. And that is the last item on our agenda today. Thank you all for joining us. And I adjourn at 1224. Thank you.