 Good morning Kimberly. Can you hear me? I can hear you. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning Andy. How's my audio? Can I be heard? So it looks like we have some attendees starting to show up. If you are an attendee and you are part of an applicant team and you would like to do a sound check please raise your hand. So if we have anyone in attendance who's part of an applicant team and you'd like to test your sound please raise your hand. Good morning everyone. This is Andy Gustafson. I am zoning administrator and I want to call to order the April 15, 2021 zoning administrator meeting. This is a virtual meeting that we're holding in recognition of the COVID pandemic and it provides us a way for us to continue these hearings and meetings at a time when we can't gather together in person. This meeting will be conducted as a normal public meeting. We will have presentations of each of the items on the agenda by the project planner. Additionally an opportunity for the applicant team to comment and then the public will also be able to comment. Each time we will recognize members in the audience to speak. If you raise your hand and or if you're calling in if you press star nine on the telephone the hearing secretary will acknowledge you and you'll have to unmute yourself and you'll be given opportunity to speak. This meeting also actions taken today at this meeting may be appealed. The appeal period for this meeting is April 26 at the end of the business day and if you wish to feel the determination I advise you to contact the project planner on the item in question. Before we go into our regular agenda we always give opportunity for the public to comment on a matter that's not on the agenda and if you wish to do so please raise your hand and you'll be acknowledged. Looking at the list of attendees that we have today and I see none so I will move on to our regular scheduled agenda items. Before we go to the first item I do want to announce that item 3.2 which concerns a minor design review and landmark alteration permit for 608 and 600 Morgan Street has been continued to a date uncertain. If you're attending this meeting to observe or comment please know there will be no discussion or action taken on this matter and you will receive a notice of a future meeting date when that gets scheduled. So with that preliminary bit of business taken care of I would like to go to the first item on our agenda item 3.1 minor design review involving a project at 282 Coddingtown and the project planner is Kristen A. Tumans. Kristen A. can you get your presentation? Thank you Mr. Zoning Administrator. This is Kristen A. Tumans senior planner and this is a very straightforward project. It's a a reconnecting of a commercial space within the Coddingtown Mall and with that a refacing of the facade and this aerial shows approximately where that tenant space is located at the mall. Again the shows approximately at the tenant space is has a fairly prominent facade. This is the proposed changes. It was the former Baskin Robbins and now it will be Nick the Greek. There's a combination of stucco and siding and here's a colored rendering showing the proposed changes. You can see on the left the former Baskin Robbins and on the right the proposed elevation with the wood siding and stucco stucco veneer and that concludes the staff presentation. We staff recommend approval of the design review to reface that tenant space. Thank you Kristen. As a member of the project team or applicant present, do you wish to comment on this matter? If so please raise your hand and you'll be recognized or press star nine. I see we have one caller. Seeing none, I will now give any member of the public in attendance who wish to comment on this matter opportunity to do so. Please raise your hand or press star nine. I will close the public meeting portion of this item and take action on this. This is a very straightforward project. Thank you Kristen for presenting it. It is clear the resolution you prepared for this minor design review provides the findings necessary to support your recommended approval and I do so. Thank you and again this matter if should someone wish to appeal it can do so until the end of business day on April 26th. Thank you very much. Let's move on to item 3.3. The project planner is Monet C. Collie and this is for a conditional use permit for 3019 Santa Rosa Avenue. Ms. C. Collie, are you ready to give your presentation? Sure. Good morning Mr. Gustavsson. I'm going to share my screen just second. So here is the screen my presentation. So good morning. The project before you is a minor CUP for a property located at 3019 Santa Rosa Avenue. The money conditional use permit is for a mobile home, RV, boat, auto and vehicle, sales and rentals with an existing garage on the site which will be used as a storage. Here is the location for the property. The property is Zone CG which stands for general commercial and the general plan land use, retail and businesses. The property is along Highway 101 and the entrance which is the narrow road is from Santa Rosa Avenue. Here is a closer look to this parcel as you can see. The properties around the existing parcel are mostly developed with commercial or industrial uses. The only residential use is on the north side of the property which is a mobile home land use. Currently the parcel is almost vacant and not being used. In the past it was used for some both storages and the new use is going to be similar with more like different type of equipment like mobile homes or cars and RV rentals. Here is a site plan. The project last year came in for a minor design review for adding an office in this area. At that time it was an office with parking and they added they are on the plan they are showing that they are adding trees along the highway to screen it from the highway and the project has been conditioned that said any overflow of the parkings on the property will need to comply with the design standards for parking lot. The project has been reviewed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act and it complies meets with the Section 15-3032 which is an infill development projects. It noticed or sent to neighbors within 600 feet and I did not receive any comments or calls from neighbors regarding the proposed project. With that the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor conditional use permit for the property located at 1319 Santa Rosa Avenue and that was staff presentation. I know the applicant and the engineer for this project are also at the Zoom and if someone has questions they are available to answer questions. Thank you. Thank you Monay. Can you clarify again what's the change from the previously approved project in this project? So the previous approval was a minor design review to add an office on the south side here. It was just a minor design review. They were adding office on the slot and the condition that they need to provide trees along the side. Got it. Okay. Thank you. And how it'll only be for parking of of both of well it'll be the sales of mobile homes, RVs and boats. Yes, sales and rentals. That's what the applicant is requesting for the use permit. I see. Okay. Thank you. All right. Member of the applicant team if you wish to comment please raise your hand. You'll be recognized or press star nine if you're on the telephone. See none. I'll wait one more minute. Okay. So I'll close the public meeting. Excuse me. I'll offer opportunity for the public in attendance to comment on this item. If you so wish please raise your hand or press star nine. All right. Seeing none I'll close the public meeting portion of this item and take action. I based on the clarification and then of the use and there's there's no new structure being presented on this site. Monet can you confirm that the tree condition continues to be applicable in this instance? The trees were on the design review application. One of the conditions that they have to provide it and there are no new proposed buildings on the site. The existing storage will be stay at the same location and the new office trailer will be also placed there which got that through to the minor design review. Well does not the design standards for the 101 for properties adjoining 101 require vegetation screening and would that not be applicable here as well? The vegetation was part of a design review. This is a use permit but we can add the content. Oh I can tell that there's a condition that says if they are expanding the parking they shall comply with the design review requirements for the parking design standards. Well I think that is an appropriate condition here. I know from the previous application trees along that on the one corridor on the boundary adjoining the freeway had been removed and the previous approval sought to bring those trees that vegetation screening back into place and that would I think continue to be appropriate here. And Mr. Zilling administrator when the applicant submitted the building permit for that design review they indicated that trees are going to be provided. They are showing those trees on their design review building permit application. For the for the new garage or for the what so there is a there is a a building permit required in addition to this use permit that will allow us to confirm the replanting of vegetation screening along the 101 property furniture. Correct when they submit the building permit they have to also show those trees are going to be planted. Very good that that's what I may concern here that the use is completely appropriate. The use permit as presented is you have the findings there to support the recommended approval and you told me that the vegetation screening will be applied. So with that I'll approve the the use permit as proposed and this matter should it there be it may be appealed if any part agreed party wishes to do so by April 26th. So thank you for that. Now let's move on to item 3.4 and it's another conditional use permit this time for 3 6 3 7 air and drive for a fence in the side yard front in the street and again this is a project platter. I'm going to again share my screen so here is my PowerPoint. The project is a minor c up for a fence the applicant is proposing an eight foot fence which will be five feet and four inches from back of the sidewalk for a corner lot. This is the fence type that the applicant has provided and they want to propose on the site. Here is the location of the project it's on R17.5 NRC it's a rebuild of the fire it's a rebuild in the top spire area and the general planned land use is low density residential. As you can see the project the site is located at a corner and the applicant is adding a fence along Liti Avenue here. So the red line here shows where the location of the new fence is going to be. It will be placed outside of the vision triangle and it will be more than five feet from back of the sidewalk. Here is a picture of the backyard fences are not yet built between two properties so if they build a fence basically the backyards will be a little bit further from where the stairs are and the applicant fence will be set back five feet from back of the existing sidewalk because there is an public easement or a public right of the way that no fence can be placed on that five feet from back of the sidewalk. The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Qualifiers for Class 3 exemption in that the fence is considered a construction of an accessory structure and notices were sent out and I did not receive any comments from neighbors or public regarding the proposed project and with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor conditional use permit for the property located at 36-37 current right and that was staff presentation. Thank you Monay is a is a member of the applicants team or the applicant present and if so do you wish to comment please raise your hand and or press star nine if you are calling in today. Well it was going twice no comments are requested so I opened it up to the public is there any member of the public who wishes to comment on this matter again please raise your hand or press star nine. All right seeing none I'll close the public meeting portion of this item and take action so Monay can you provide that aerial showing the site and the neighboring properties? This one? Okay if you have an aerial um yes perfect okay so I think the the resolution provides the proper findings to to support the approval of a side yard fence reduced setback for side yard fence printing a side street. Key here is that the configuration of the lot being a corner lot would otherwise not have as much private rear yard areas that other property owners in the area benefit from which are in you know which are configured as standard interior lots so this accommodation in our zoning code to allow for reduced side yard fence locations where 15 feet is otherwise required can't be supported because it would allow that property owner in this instance to have kind of rear yard private privacy that's expected and has a benefit in that same zoning district so the height and design is completely consistent with our fence requirements in this instance in terms of height so the it will appear to be compatible with and consistent with similar fences that are being constructed in this area which is undergoing reconstruction after the fire. So I'm pleased to approve this project as proposed by the project planner thank you and now we get to move on to item 3.5 the minor design review for 2323 Montgomery Drive and again Ms. C. Collie is the project planner okay let me share my screen again okay this is a minor design review for T-Mobile wireless telecommunication facility at 2323 Montgomery Drive the minor design review is to remove the existing roof mounted cross that contains three antennas and replace it with the new roof mounted screen with nine new antennas and six new remote radio units and an addition for two new support cabinets which will be placed behind the existing building so here is the project site which is zone r16 and the general plan land use is public institutional the star is where the building is for the new project and where the roof mounted structure is placed here is the proposed roof mounted structure which will be a triangle shape here is the existing cross which will be removed and replaced with the new screening the height will almost stay the same there will be a few inches or fees change but will not be more than four or five feet these are at different elevations and here you can see the locations of the new cabinets there are existing cabinets on the upper side you will see existing north elevation and the lower elevation shows the location of the proposed new two cabinets which will be in the same area so here are some pictures of the existing cross with two different locations one shows the existing cross from the parking area and second number two shows the view from the street not the Montgomery under up you will see two pictures of the existing cross and the lower shows a proposed screening the proposed screening will be matched with the existing building similar columns but almost the same color with similar materials and will be screened and the proposed cabinets are going to be behind the building and they will not be visible from the street the project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a class one exemption under section 15301 in that the proposed project consists of minor alteration to an existing structure a notice was sent out to neighbors within 600 feet and I did not receive any email or calls or concerns regarding the proposed project with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the Sony Administrator by resolution approve a minor design review I wrote in minor condition for the property located at 2323 Montgomery Drive and that is the staff presentation the applicant is also available to answer questions if you have any thank you thank you I think your presentation was very clear and the supporting exhibits provided answers I have no questions does the applicant or the team wish to comment at this point if so please raise your hand or press star nine and we do have one raised hand can Troy E be recognized is my audio working I guess is the first question yeah right thank you my name is Troy goes to them representing T-Mobile in this application I don't have any additional comments to add I thought they described it as proposal perfectly but if there are any questions I want to make sure that I'm available already follow-up to address anything about this scope of work I have none so let's see if there are any comments that come from any public interest interested party here any other member of your team who wishes to comment at this point seeing none let's open it up to the public if there are any who wish to comment at this point if so please raise your hand or press star nine all right I see none so I'll close a public meeting portion of this item so again when a your your presentation was was clear and the resolution that you provided for the recommended approval of this project is affordable I mean I agree with the findings you make and the conditions I'll just comment here I think this I'll say intensified cell site makes total sense and the approach that was taken to design it and shield it really works well I think once the work is done no one will ever realize the change that has occurred here so I commend the project team for accomplishing that so with that I will approve this conditional use but minor design review for the modified wireless telecommunication facility at 2323 Montgomery Drive thank you so that sorry to interrupt but um we had a caller join the meeting pretty recently and I'm not sure if perhaps somebody had trouble with their sound and they had to call in I do see the caller and I would say we would the caller is calling about in to on a matter on on this matter item 3.5 of concerning a telecommunications facility retrofit I should say at 2323 Montgomery Drive please raise your hand or press star nine if you wish to comment at this point I have two callers that wish to comment now um hearing secretary could you recognize the one number ending in 0304 now please hello um this is Stephen with Santa Rosa Plaza Mall um it's not actually regarding this I was just wondering have you guys reached the Caritas Homes worth renovation 600 600 Morgan Street uh yeah that matter has been continued to a date uncertain and if you receive to notice for this meeting you will receive another when that matter gets rescheduled okay thank you so much thank you we have another hand raised uh telephone number ending 6987 so this is Eileen at St Eugene's Cathedral the work is happening at our property so I just called in to see what was going on and unfortunately I didn't get to call until the very end but I don't have any comments I just wanted to listen oh great well um it was the last item and I was in the midst of saying um the item is approved as proposed and that it's a excellent example how a existing telecommunication facility can be modified and yet not create a visual impact or to the surrounding area so with that I'll conclude uh item 3.5 and I'll adjourn the zoning administrator meeting of April 15th 2021 at 10 59 a.m. thank you all for attending I appreciate