 If there's anyone from the applicant team here, please raise your hand. Project planner Maloney, can you please test your sound for me? Check one, two, check, check. You're good to go. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mike check. You're good to go Connor. Zoning administrator Chappelle, can you test your sound and sound for me please? Hey, good morning. This is Andrew triple. You're good to go. Thank you. Great. Thanks. If there's anyone on the applicant team who would like to test their sound, please raise your hand. If there's anyone from the applicant. Team, please raise your hand. If you want to test your sound. Applicant Harris, I'm sending you a prompt. You can go ahead and test your sound. Hi, testing Michelle Harris. You're good to go. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Let's go ahead and begin the January 6th meeting of the city of Santa Rosa zoning administrator. My name is Andrew triple and I am the city of Santa Rosa zoning administrator. I call this meeting to order and welcome you to our meeting today, which is scheduled to begin at or after a 1030 a.m. at or beyond January 5. Pursue into government code section 5 or 953 subsection e. And the recommendation of the health officer of the county of Sonoma, the zoning administrator will be participating in this meeting via zoom webinar members of the public can participate virtually at www.zoom.us forward slash join or toll free 777-853-5257. The meeting ID for today's meeting is 873-0491-5451. Additionally, today's meeting will be live streamed at youtube.com forward slash city of Santa Rosa. Our meeting today is a regular session meeting. The zoning administrator typically holds two meetings per month on the first and third Thursdays of the month. This is the first regular session zoning administrator meeting in January and our second regular session meeting will be held on January 20th, 2022. Members of the public accessing the meeting through Zoom can provide comments during the public comment periods. Additional information related to meeting participation is available at srcity.org forward slash zoning admin. Moving on to meeting item number two, I would like to open general public comment for today's meeting. General public comment is for those members of the public wishing to provide comment about an item not on today's agenda. If you would like to provide a general public comment, our staff will assist you in making that comment. If you have public comments about a specific meeting item, please withhold those comments until the comment period for that item. And staff, do we have any requests for public comments at this point in time? We do not have anybody raising their hand. Great, we'll give it just about another minute and then we'll go ahead and close general public comment. Zoning administrator, there's still nobody raising their hand. Great, thank you so much. I'm going to now go ahead and close general public comment, move on to item three on today's agenda, zoning administrator business. The zoning administrator is appointed by the planning and economic development director and has the responsibility and authority to conduct public hearings and to take action on applications for all administrative permits and approvals issued by the department. A determination or decision by the zoning administrator may be appealed to the design review board, cultural heritage board, planning commission or city council as applicable to the decision. All decisions of the zoning administrator may be appealed within 10 calendar days of the date of decision. Appeals are filed in city hall room three. Appeals of today's decisions must be made no later than the close of business on January 17, 2022. Regarding item 3.2, zoning administrator reports, the zoning administrator does not have any reports today. So we'll then move on to item number four, scheduled items. We have four meeting items today. For each item, I will ask the project planner for a staff presentation and an applicant presentation or comments. Following these presentations, I may ask clarifying questions of the project planner or applicant. Then I will open the meeting for public comment about the item under review. Members of the public are invited to provide comment about the project being reviewed. These comments should be limited to three minutes. After the public comment opportunity is completed, I may ask additional questions of staff or applicant as part of my review. I will then issue a decision to approve, deny or continue the project for further review. So with that in mind, we can now move on to meeting item 4.1. I'd like to open a public meeting for item 4.1, Paris pool hillside development permit. This is a request for minor hillside development permit to construct a swimming pool and a deck area or a deck area in an area with slope 10% or greater. The project is located at 1838 Happy Valley and a sequel exemption is recommended for this project. File number is HDP 21-008. And the project planner is Connor McKay. Connor, if you'd like to go ahead and lead with your staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Zoning administrator. I will now share my screen. Can everybody see my screen and hear me and see me? Confirm me, everybody can hear me and see me in three. Okay, cool. Thank you so much. All right, so yeah, so thank you. My name is Connor McKay city planner and I'm happy to be here this morning to present the Harris pool, minor hillside development permit located at 1838 Happy Valley Road. The project description on this is a minor hillside development permit request that would allow the construction of a swimming pool and deck area in areas of 10% slope or greater. So here we have a aerial of the project site and I thought I'd take this opportunity to discuss the public comments we received about this project. So we received one comment from the neighbor at 1834 Happy Valley Road. They expressed their support for the project provided that existing trees and other screening would maintain in place as a result of the proposed project. This is the case all existing trees and screening will be maintained as a result of the proposed project. So the neighbor upon receiving this confirmation reaffirmed their support of the proposed project. We received another public comment from the neighbor at 3510 Alta Vista which is this property right here to the south below the proposed project site. This neighbor expressed concerns about soil stability and drainage in addition to noise ordinance violations. And this comment just came in about 15 minutes before the meeting started. So I responded to their email but I will also read my response into the record here summarized. So the project has been conditioned to require a geotechnical report upon building permit application. This geotechnical investigation would demonstrate soil stability and it would determine grading, drainage, paving and foundation design as necessary. The building permit would be reviewed by the building department and engineering for compliance with the recommendations provided in the geotechnical report. And then finally for the noise, I have shared the maximum decibel levels that are permitted at the perceived, perceived at the property line in residential areas. And I can read those. I believe it's 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. is 45 decibels and 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. is 50 decibels and then 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. is 55 decibels. And I shared that any violation of these should be reported to the Code Enforcement Department but previous and future noise violation would not necessarily result in a recommendation for denial for the project but we would just assume that any future violations of the noise ordinance would be resolved via Code Enforcement Investigation and Resolution. And this slide shows the site plan, the proposed pool and deck area complies with all setbacks and other development standards. I also wanted to take the time here to note that the pool is about nine feet above grade and this space between grade and the pool would be screened with some type of wooden lattice to kind of shield that the understory of the pool area from view. But most of the views are substantially screened by existing trees and natural topography. So the project has also been deemed exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act from further review of the California Environmental Quality Act with the small structures exemption. And here we have a topo, the rear where the pool and deck area are proposed. That area is indeed greater than 10%. There are no areas greater than 25% proposed for development. And with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve this minor hillside development permit for a new swing pool and deck area in areas of 10% slope or greater located at 1838 Happy Valley Road, found number HDP 21008. And the applicant is available to respond to any questions should anybody have any, but they are not wishing to provide any further presentation or comments at this time. Okay, great. Thanks, Conrad. That was a great presentation and I appreciate you bringing us current on public comments that have been received in response to this public meeting notice. During review of the project, I noticed that there was no indication of any screening below deck, the space between ground level and the top of the deck surface itself. Is that still the case? So yeah, as I mentioned in the presentation, this area I reached out to the applicant for clarification about that. And while the plans don't necessarily show that they indicated via email that the screening area would be or the area below the pool would be screened. Great, great. Thank you so much. I don't have any further questions for staff or applicants. So at this time I'd like to open public comment for meeting item 4.1. Would any members of the public like to make a comment about this item? There are no members of the public raising their hand. Great, thank you. I'll go ahead and close public comment for meeting item 4.1. One of the reasons that we have a minor hillside development permit requirement is to ensure that slope stability is reviewed and preserved. And so I appreciate the adjacent neighbor's comment about slope stability because I think anyone who lives on slope or has experience in developing in areas of slope is likely very much aware of the need to ensure that you have stable slopes on your property. So again, I appreciate that comment and observation, but I do feel that one of the fundamental purposes of a review of this project is to ensure that both planning and building and engineering have reviewed and the project as proposed would ensure ongoing stability of the slope on this project site. Also a second reason for minor hillside development review is to ensure that we have a high quality of visual perspective on the project. This project given its location and surroundings is not readily visible from a public right of way and the project seeks to ensure that existing trees and foliage are preserved. So we do applaud that. That's certainly one of the goals of the general plan and the hillside development section. However, there are occasions where the trees and foliage may die and would then result in opening the pool and deck area for visibility off property. And so for that reason, I am pleased to learn that the applicant will be screening that area under deck to help with the visual quality of the project. So I have no further questions or comments. I think this is a good project and I enjoy the quality of the application as well as presentation. Yes, Connor. It looks like we have an attendee raised in their hand now I'm not sure if you would wanna acknowledge them or just keep the public comment closed but I just wanted to let you know we do have a hand raised now. I think that we can go ahead and take that public comment then. Can you hear me? Yes, good morning. Good morning. I'm a neighbor of the owners of the property. And I don't know if I have no in principle arguing with putting in the pool. I'll just say that when the house was built it took three years to build the house. They're just finishing it. And we've had to put up with a lot in the neighborhood. And I don't know if the zoning has anything to do with this but any assurance to the neighbors of an expeditious development of this project I think would make me feel a lot better. I don't know if they can be done. There's another issue too about the view and the trees. The initial permit when they developed the property was for like a high number in the approaching 40 trees of a little oak stand that was there. And they basically cleared the property except for a few they went beyond what the permit as I understand it was supposed to do and the city never did anything about that. So I have two concerns and really relate to sort of the way that the property is developed after the permits are given anything that the zoning or the city can do to help us feel better about the length of time this is gonna take and that they will in fact keep screening, et cetera in place. Great, Mr. Hall, thank you for your comment today. And I do see that the applicant has raised her hand. So if we could go ahead and allow Ms. Harris to respond to Mr. Hall's comments. Good morning, Michelle Harris, I am the applicant. Thank you, Jay, I appreciate your comments. I wanted to remind all of our neighbors and I'm sure the city of Santa Rosa knows this as well. The reason why it took three years to build this house was because of a different reasons. The biggest part was COVID that caused a huge delay and with that delay took people out of the industry, out of the construction industry and then when we were ready to start again those people were unfortunately taken out of work or went to a different job. So there was a huge delay in that portion and I believe I voiced this several times with several emails and messages that went out to the neighborhood because it was a concern of ours too, believe me. And I voiced this also, we lost our house in 2017. We were number seven in Santa Rosa city limits to rebuild our house in the Hidden Valley 2 area. So building fast, building safe, building sustainable is extremely important to us. And if we could have made this project end and finish sooner, we would have but there were things that were holding us back. So I appreciate your understanding in that matter. As far as the trees go, we removed everything that was allowed by permit. We are still adding trees to help offset that and then we'll be paying whatever fees we need to to equal out the trees that we took out but everything that was taken out was approved by permit. As far as the pool goes, the reason why we are choosing a modular container pool is because it will be less time, it's also more sustainable, there will be less dust, there will not be a need for these long drawn out construction. So we are taking into consideration the neighborhood, what our neighbors think. And so that's the reason why we are doing that. Thank you. Great, Ms. Harris, thank you so much for acknowledging these comments and offering assurances that you do plan to move expeditiously and comply with the ordinance. The minor hillside development permit would be valid for two years after which time it can be extended with an extension application. We don't require that the approved development take place within a certain amount of time, although they do have to have a valid permit in order to seek a building permit and commence construction. Additionally, the building permit does have an expiration date attached to it. That expiration date can be extended and then it is conditioned with regard to construction hours. So there are some safeguards within the process, although there is not the ability for us to require construction within a certain amount of time. Additionally, as Ms. Harris noted, we do approve tree removals. And then so a comment about a perception of removed trees without a permit, but then also about noise. Our city's code enforcement division does help ensure compliance with approved entitlements as well as with zoning code requirements, whether it's the city's noise ordinance or other requirements related to tree removal, for instance, or a compliance with the hillside development permit entitlement. So I do encourage members of the public who do have concerns to be aware of the role of code enforcement, the opportunity to submit a code enforcement violation. Should you feel that any city code or ordinance or the entitlement approved is not being complied with. So having said that, we thank you for your comments today and for Ms. Harris for your input on today's presentation and discussion. With that, I will be approving the minor hillside development permit for the Harris pool project and located at 1838 Happy Valley Road, file number HDP 21-008. And I do note for members of the public that this approval of today's approval is appealable within 10 days. I'll close the public hearing on meeting item 4.1 and then move on to meeting item 4.2. So I'll open a public meeting for meeting item 4.2, the Gooch shed design review. This is a request for minor design review to allow construction of a shed less than 12 feet in height, located at two feet from the side property line for a 10 foot side setback would otherwise be required. The project is located at 3754 Paxton Place. A CEQA exemption is recommended for this project and the file number is DR 21-046. The project planner is Connor McKay for this project as well. And Connor, if you'd like to give your staff presentation. Thank you, Mr. Zoning Administrator. Let me share my screen. Yeah, so my name is Connor McKay, a city planner and I'm happy to be here this morning to present the garden storage shed minor design review request located at 3754 Paxton Place, file number DR 21-046. So this is a minor design review request that would allow the construction of a shed less than 12 feet in height, 9.5 feet, located two feet from the side property line where a 10 foot side setback would otherwise be required. So here we have a project aerial. We did receive one public comment from the next door neighbor to the Southeast and they did express support for the project and that letter was included with the project application materials. The project site plan is on this slide as well. The elevations demonstrate that the maximum height is nine feet, six inches, measured from the finished slab to the top of the roof. The Fountain Grove HOA also provided their approval which is a standard outlined in the Fountain Grove plan development policy statement and that letter is also included with the project application materials. So here we have a front view of the proposed project site from the Paxton Place right of way and this is a view from the sidewalk kind of honing in on where the shed would be located behind this fence. So the neighbor's yard is actually significantly at a lower grade than the proposed site location of the shed and the shed would actually only exceed the fence shown here by a couple feet and accounting for the grade change and the distance of the structure from the property line, the neighbor's view would substantially be unaffected by the proposed shed. And the project does qualify for an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act for the construction of small structures. And with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends the zoning administrator by resolution approve this minor design review request for the construction of a shed located two feet from the side property line where a 10-foot side setback would otherwise be required, located at 3754 Paxton Place, found number DR 21046. And I'm not 100% sure if the, I think actually the applicant is available. I don't believe they wish to make any comments at this time but are available to answer any questions if necessary. There we go, how about that? Do you know the distance of the shed from the front fence that go back to slide? Yeah, there you go. That is a good question. It looks like the site plan doesn't identify that distance. I realized that that's not an issue from a setback perspective, but I was just thinking about if it would be visible at all from the sidewalk in front of the property given. And I think that depends on how far back it sits. Right. And there's also a considerable grade change from the sidewalk to that. So I think it would be similar to the view experienced from the side by the neighbor. It would be substantially similar. Great. Thank you. And then also does Fountain Grove, does this subdivision in Fountain Grove have an architectural review requirement? Yes, and they did receive approval by the HOA Architectural Review Committee. Excellent, thank you. All right, I'll go ahead and open a public comment for this item. If any members of the public wish to make a comment about the item that is currently under review, please raise your hand. And our administrative staff will open a mic for you. There are no hands raised zoning administrator. Great, thanks so much. I would like to at this time to then close public comment for meeting item 4.2. I appreciate that the property owner has taken the effort to ensure that design of the shed does reflect design of the primary structure, the residents on the property and also has had the forethought to ensure that they are seeking minor design review which is required by the zoning code. So I don't have any further comments about this. I think that the location of the shed does limit as well as the topography of the surrounding area does limit visibility of the shed within the setback. So with that, I will be approving minor design review for the Gooch shed located at 3754 Paxton Place and I'll close public meeting for item 4.2, thank you. So next we have item 4.3, the Francis Fence Permit. I'd like to open a public meeting for this item which is a request for a minor conditional use permit to legalize the existing six foot solid wood fence along the Northeast property line and permit a modification as proposed along the Southeast corner. The project is located at 1448 Glenbrook Drive and a CEQA exemption is proposed for this project. File number is CUP 21-012 and the project planner is Mike Maloney. Mr. Maloney, if you would like to go ahead and give your presentation. Yeah, thank you Mr. Zoning Administrator and good morning everybody. Turn my presentation on in a moment. And if you can please confirm that my presentation's on the screen. Yes, it is visible, thank you. Great, well with that my name is Mike Maloney and this application is for a minor conditional use permit at 1448 Glenbrook Drive. The proposal is to legalize an existing six foot solid wood fence within the 15 foot corner side setback along the Northeast property line on Heather Drive. The project also includes an angled recess modification to the Southeast corner of the existing fence to be in compliance with the rear vision triangle, all of which is at 1448 Glenbrook Drive, Santa Rosa Accessors parcel number 010304009. As stated, this is the project location that's in Northwest Santa Rosa at the intersection of Glenbrook Drive and Heather Drive. The subject site is owned R16, single family residential with the general plan lander's designation of low residential. So slide five and slide six show the existing fence which is designed with vertical boards and the site is physically suited for offensive this type. Note inside six that the existing 90 degree corner of the fence to the rear. This is the current design. Please note the same 90 degree corner in this plan right here as this is where we will be discussing the modification shortly. Site eight demonstrates how the rear driveway vision triangle affects the site. As you can see here, I'm gonna do a little clicking magic and you'll see this is where the vision triangle should be approximately. And though this is an aerial view which is older and doesn't include the fence, the fence currently goes all the way to the edge, which is the modification will be requested. Slide nine represents a public utility easement that was identified that the current fence abuts right in here as you can see from the final map. And on to slide 10. So this is the proposal. The site plan demonstrates the proposed design modification agreed upon by the applicant for a recessed rear fence modification where we eliminate the 90 degree angle to be in compliance with the driveway vision triangle and give the appropriate spacing for access to the utility easement. So you can see here, they go in. Slide 11 shows that there is currently no exterior landscaping that exists but the applicant has provided the photo to the left to demonstrate the drought tolerant succulents and rocks proposed to fill the vacant space between the fence and sidewalk. The applicant has a gray water system and during my site visit, it's very apparent that the applicant has an incredibly green thumb and will maintain the area very well. Slide 12. So these are photos of adjacent and neighboring properties all visible from the subject site to demonstrate neighborhood compatibility in regards to materials typical to residential fences in the area. As you can see, they are all primarily vertical wood boards. As shown on the draft resolution, here are the conditional use permit findings for a minor conditional use permit for a fence. I'd like to call special attention to number seven as the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and involves the construction of a fence which is considered a small structure that doesn't require further sequel review. Please note there are six additional fence findings included in the draft resolution that are not in my presentation which I'll summarize shortly which is the issuance of a permit is reasonably necessary by reason of unusual circumstance. It won't create a safety hazard. The appearance of the proposed fence is compatible with the design and appearance of neighboring structures. It avoids dominating the site. The orientation location is improper relation to the site and neighborhood it will be of sound construction. Additionally, I'd like to note that the project was properly noticed and I did not receive any public comment. With that, the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve the minor conditional use permit as proposed to legalize the existing six foot solid wood fence along the Northeast property line within the 15 foot corner side setback with allowing an angled recess modification to the Southeast corner of the fence for the single family dwelling at 1448 Glenbrook Drive. This concludes my presentation. My name is Mike Maloney. I'm the project planner on this and for anybody that is calling in you can reach me at M Maloney, M-A-L-O-N-E-Y at SRCity.org or call me at 543-3190 if you have any questions. Thank you, Mr. Tripple for your time and consideration and the applicant Francis Hamilton is available. They do not have a formal presentation but they are present and available for comment and questions. Great, thank you. Ms. Hamilton, I do just have one question. I'd like to understand the process for how you came to build the fence without benefit of the minor conditional use permit that's required. So perhaps if you could just share with us what your understanding was of what might be needed to construct the fence in the location where it's constructed. Am I? You're good. Yes, we can hear you. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you. Originally the fence was built. I hired a gentleman to build the fence and when checking with him he said he thought everything was properly accommodating for the setbacks. So I at that point took his word for it thinking he knows what he's doing. He's been building fences for a long, long time. So the front yard I knew had to be 30 feet. I think I believe it's 40 or 50 feet back but never mentioned anything about the neighbor's driveway. So I'm more than willing to accommodate the city's recommendations for the drive public utility easement, the 20 by 30 foot setback for inset and then the 10 by 10 inset to accommodate the neighbor's driveway. Yeah, I wish they had come to me sooner. I would have done it upon construction. So it was just an oversight. I didn't know. And I knew at that point I didn't need a permit for the fence. So maybe I would have learned more about that at that time. Great, thank you. Well, we appreciate your willingness to accommodate the redesign and what ultimately then results in the rebuilding of the fence at that southeast corner. That's all of the questions I have. Thank you both for your comments and presentation and materials that you provided as part of the application. At this time, I would like to open this meeting item for public comment. If any member of the public wishes to make a comment, please raise your hand and you will be unmuted. And it looks like we do have a member of the public, Scott, who has raised his hand. And if we could unmute Scott so that he can provide a public comment. Scott, can you answer your prompt, please? Yes, can you hear me now or Scott Spiker? Hi, Scott, yes, we can hear you. Oh, okay. Yeah, what I said is I live two houses down from Francis, 1456 Glenbrook Drive. And I didn't, I agree with the proposal, the correction to the fence. Great, thank you so much for your support. Sure, thank you, sir. Okay, seeing no other hands raised, I will close public comment for meeting item 4.3 and move on to discussion about this request for minor conditional use permit. The, I think one of the unanticipated consequences of corner lots in residential districts is that while you oftentimes end up with a larger lot as it relates to square footage of the lot, you also have less functional space in terms of a backyard for that private open space for enjoyment and recreating. So we do quite often see that residential development on corner lots seeks to make use of the corner side yard. And that includes the fencing of the corner side yard. And then oftentimes that fencing is installed without benefit of the required permit. So the zoning code does provide for minor conditional use permit to allow the fence height to exceed what would otherwise be a three-foot height in the required setback. So we do make a provision for that and we do review for that. The primary purpose of review is first of all to ensure the safety for adjacent property owners. And so in this case, we are requiring that the fence be rebuilt to allow for the vision triangle for the adjacent driveway. But then we also do need to check to ensure that the fence or any structure is not impeding access to public utility easements. So here we see a great example of why this review is so important. But then additionally, we want to think about what does the fence mean for neighborhood compatibility? And so well-designed fence, a fence that is landscaped that is visually appealing can continue to be an enhancement to the neighborhood and continue to integrate the existing development into the neighborhood in adjacent developments. And so for this reason, Ms. Hamilton, I encourage you to see the requirement that you either landscape or include some architectural details on that fence as an opportunity to ensure that your structure is compatible with the surrounding development. And then as Planner Maloney said to continue to demonstrate to the neighborhood, your skills at landscaping, which I do agree look like you have some great talents there. So with that, I am able to make the findings to approve a minor conditional use permit to legalize the existing six-foot solid wood fence along the Northeast property line and permit modification as proposed along the Southeast corner for the the fence at 1448 Glenbrook Drive. Making those findings does include the finding that this project is exempt from CEQA. And with that, this minor conditional use permit is approved subject to a 10-day appeal period that will end at the close of business on Monday, January 17, 2022. Public meeting for item 4.3 is closed. So we'll then move on to public or meeting item 4.4, Sammy's smoke shop. And I am opening a public meeting for item 4.4, which is a request for a minor conditional use permit for a retail tobacco store that sells tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, California lottery tickets, hats, t-shirts, soda, candy, and cigars. The project site is located at 2350 Santa Rosa Avenue, unit D. A CEQA exemption is recommended for this project and the file number is CUP 21-070. The project planner is Adam Ross and I see that Adam is on screen and prepared to offer his presentation. So Adam, the Zoom is yours. Thank you, Mr. Zending Administrator. I'm gonna go ahead and start my slideshow presentation. Okay, just confirm that you could see the screen or the presentation. Yes, it is visible, thank you. Thank you. Okay, this is a minor conditional use permit for Sammy's smoke shop. It's a tobacco retail store, file number CUP 21-070. It's located at 2350 Santa Rosa Avenue, sweet D. And again, my name is Adam Ross, project planner for this item. So as you stated, it is a retail tobacco store. So that includes tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia. There will also be California lottery tickets, hats, t-shirts, soda, and candy. Here's the project location and aerial image. It would be kind of in this area right here. And as you can see, all the public improvements are included in this, are already developed as part of this little commercial spot right here. So the general plan and zoning, it's Retail and Business Services General Plan. The zoning district is CG, which is general commercial. This use is allowed both within the zoning district with approval of a minor conditional use permit. And that zoning district implements the identified type of uses in the Retail and Business Services land use designation of the general plan. So this is looking at the site. It's kind of flipped. And the highlighted section is a little confusing. It shows F, but it's just this portion here. The almighty portion here, I think this labeling is incorrect of A, B, C, and D. So if you're looking at it, this where my mouse cursor is, this would be Santa Rosa Avenue and it would be facing Kiwana Springs Road this way. So, and then here's a aerial image. It would go where this vitamin shop location is and you can see the D location entrance on the site for sweet D. So here's a general floor, floor plan. So with displayers and showcases and restroom in the back for customers, entrance door, this would be facing Kiwana Springs Road. This area is for customers and the rest is for employee operations. So as part of this project, it was referred to the Sonoma County Environmental Health Department as pretty typical for this type of use, which is a retail that may or may not sell food items. So it would be routed whether it was tobacco retail or not, but it was and part of the response was just showing a general layout of tobacco retailers in the city of Santa Rosa and with a letter that is a part of the agenda items just explaining the kind of the amount of tobacco retailers in Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. And I'll kind of go over a little bit of that in a slide later on, but this is, you can see the arrow is the general location of the proposed Sammy Smoke Shop, this blue location here. And then these are all the ones spread throughout the city of Santa Rosa. So during referral, Lisa Steinman, Program Planning and Evaluation Analyst with Sonoma County Environmental Health provided a letter asking the city to deny the project. The letter and map showing tobacco retailers in Sonoma County were provided and included in the agenda packet. As part of their response from staff's perspective is the proposed use is allowed within the CG Zoning District and staff does understand that tobacco products are a health hazard, but the project does comply with all zoning code standards and tobacco products are explicitly prohibited from being sold to persons under the age of 21. And with that staff is still recommending approval for the project due to its compliance with the zoning code and applicable city code and general plan policies. The project does qualify for a Class 1 Categorical Exemption under SQL Guidelines Section 15301 in that the project does involve the use of an existing facility where no exterior modifications are proposed and the previous use was another retail use. This project was noticed with a notice of application. There were no public comments received during that time. Public comments received during that time. It was also noticed for this meeting here today under section 20-66 of the zoning code and no request for public hearing was provided for this project. And during that time from the notice for this public meeting no public comments were received then either. And with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor conditional use permit for an approximately 1760 square foot tobacco retail shop located at 2350 Santa Rosa Avenue, Suite D, file number CUP 21-070. And here's my contact information with any questions. The project applicant is in attendance, Ahmad Makid, and I apologize if I mispronounced that. But there is no presentation for that, but he is available to answer any questions. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Adam. Let's, if we could, can we go back to the, I believe it was the floor plan or maybe site plan? Sure. Thanks. It was the highlighted page. This one or? This one. That one. Yeah. So, okay. So now I see. So it's actually, it's not, it's Suite D, which is not highlighted. Is that correct? Yeah. To my knowledge, yes. Actually, you're correct. I think we can have the applicant. I kind of specify that. Yeah. Yeah. If we could, I'm fine because the resolution does indicate the square footage that's allowed for the use, which requires approval. But I want to be sure that when a building permit is submitted, that there's not a conflict between the square footage shown on the building permit and then what was approved. Because if there's a conflict there, then it would have to come back again for a modification. So if we can just be sure that the 1,760 square feet that is requested in this minor conditional use permit is sufficient for all of the floor area that would be submitted for a building permit. That would be great. Yeah. Good point. And also the difference, and I just want to point out what my understanding was, was what's shown here is 1,388 square feet of unit D as the internal space. And within the exterior walls and the 1,760 kind of captures the entire outside of the Suite D. Okay, great. Yeah, so let's get the applicant on just to make sure that a mod, yeah, 1,760 is going to be sufficient. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, good morning. Good morning. Yeah, so over here, this is a site plan that I got from the landlord and they, I don't know why they highlighted the entire area yellow, but it's just the space where it says D. So that's the space that I'm willing. Yes, that's the space, not the entire yellow one. Yeah, it looks like perhaps they gave you a site plan for another tenant and then customize it for your tenant. Yes, I asked them, but they unfortunately didn't have one for unit D. So that's why. Great. Well, just know that this, the proposed minor conditional use permit have approved to be for 1,760 square feet. So be sure that that's the square footage that you need and that you'll be submitting your building permit for. Okay. Okay, great. And then a second question, I'm referring to the discussion and the comments from Sonoma County Environmental Health. There was a comment that no tobacco products would be sold to people under 21 years of age, but the condition of approval is that no persons under the age of 18 would be allowed in the store. So is it a case where people 18 and older are allowed into the store and could purchase non-tobacco products, but then tobacco products would only be sold to people aged 21 and over. So I'd like to get some clarification on how that actually is operationalized. Yeah, so a mod can add to this, but that was the condition. So exactly how you said was that to buy lotto, candy, non-tobacco products was, you'd have to be, well, to buy lotto you'd have to be 18. So that condition was added, it might need to be amended should you see fit, but that was so that it recognizes that no one, it's inherent that no one under the age of 21 can buy the tobacco products. And then in order to kind of respond to the concerns of the Environmental Health Department was that minors who are under the age of 18 wouldn't be allowed inside the store operationally. I'd like a mod to add on to that or if those are in conflict with their proposed business plan. Right, yeah, so a mod, how would you operationalize that? Just to kind of describe that process for us. So based on California law, anyone under the age of 21 are not allowed to buy tobacco, tobacco products and California, and that also includes California lottery. So the way we operate is under, under 21 cannot buy tobacco, but over 18 can come inside the store. That's because the under 18 can buy other accessories and nothing related to tobacco, nothing that has tobacco or nicotine. So they cannot buy those, but other than that, they can buy in everything else. And I understand Lisa's concern about the tobacco stores in Sonoma County. And I think she's referring to like retail stores who sell tobacco, gas stations, 7-elevens, but they do not sell other products that could help customers quit tobacco. Fortunately, we have some programs and vaping programs like patches and nicotine gums that will help customers quit tobacco. Oh, great, thank you. And then the state, does the state require that you notice that you post noticing that tobacco will not be sold to people under 21 years of age? Yes, the state law requires signs on the end of the store stating that and also inside. And beside that, the health department normally sends underage people to tobacco stores to check if they're selling. And you might be aware that currently I own a smoke shop in Santa Rosa and I've been operating for over four years now. And for the four years, they sent like tons of people in the store to check if we do sell tobacco for minors, but luckily they never succeeded because that's our policy. We ID everyone and we do not sell tobacco products for under 21 of age. We have a policy and we have customers, I mean, employees who enforces that policy. Great, well, thank you for the additional information and then for the discussion and for your commitment to following the regulations under which you are required to operate. I don't have any additional questions for staff or for the applicants. So at this point in time, I would like to open this public meeting for public comment. If any member of the public wishes to make a comment, please raise your hand and we will open your mic for you. The zoning administrator, I see no hands raised. Great, thank you. So seeing no hands raised, we will go ahead and close public comment for item 4.4. I think that I greatly appreciate the referral to Sonoma County Environmental Health and the strong working relationship that we have with that agency. And I understand and respect Ms. Steinem's comments and concerns about the sale of tobacco products. She does note in that letter that other jurisdictions in Sonoma County and I believe including Sonoma County do establish or have policies on record regarding the over-concentration of locations that sell tobacco products and notes that Santa Rosa is not one of those jurisdictions. So I just want to point out that that comment and those facts that because we don't have a policy on record, we would not be enforcing or regulating based upon those comments. For those in the meeting today that, we oftentimes see differences between policy preferences or policy desires versus enforcement of regulations and compliance with regulations. Certainly the role of the zoning administrator is to review and consider applications for projects that comply with the regulations of Santa Rosa and ensure that they are compliant and within our requirements. So I just did want to notice the work that Ms. Steinem and others at Sonoma County Environmental Health do and encourage both her division and others to consider the pursuing policy changes should they like to see regulations otherwise for these sorts of land uses. However, having said that then when I turn to the land use that is proposed, I do see that the existing development does support retail uses such as the tobacco retail use that is described here and is proposed here. And so with that, I am able to make the findings to approve this minor conditional use permit. Planner Ross, I am concerned about the lack of addressing for sweet D when we look in our records, we don't see a sweet D. And so I think I would like to see the resolution amended to add a condition of approval that the address 2350 Santa Rosa Avenue sweet D or unit D be created and become part of our GIS data. That will also eliminate any confusion in the future. Should there be an instance where we're not able to identify that unit for future permitting. So that's not an issue. We can add that as condition of approval number eight, which would read the address 2350 Santa Rosa Avenue sweet D or unit D become a part of the city's GIS system. Should we say prior to certificate of occupancy? Yeah, that's fine. Actually, why don't we just say that it'd be established at the time of building permit applications submittal? At the time, so I'm writing this down so that I can amend the resolution. Just say that the address shall be established at the time of building permit applications submittal. And then that way, that wouldn't pull up a certificate of occupancy if it's underway and being processed. Okay, we'll add that to the resolution. All right, great. So with that amendment to the resolution, I am able to make all of the findings and we'll be approving the request for minor conditional use permit for a retail tobacco store, selling tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, California lottery tickets, hats, t-shirts, soda candy and cigars in an approximately 1,760 square foot retail space at 2350 Santa Rosa Avenue. This approval is effective today. It is subject to attend a appeal period that would end on the close of business on Monday, January 17, 2022. Ander, real quick. Yes. Just because you asked me to remind you of the appeal period. Great, thank you. For the adjournment. Great, thanks. I do appreciate that reminder. So I'll go ahead and close the public meeting for item 4.4, Sammy's smoke shop. Prior to adjournment, I do want to remind all applicants who received approvals at today's zoning administrator meeting that those approvals are subject to the 10 day appeal period, which will end at the close of business on January 17, 2022. Although having said that, I do believe that January 17 is a federal holiday and so that appeal period would actually end on January 18, 2022 because it does, Arizona Code does take into account those hours, does take into account holidays and such. So it would do be advised that that appeal period is ending on January 18th at the close of business. Okay. There are being no other items on the agenda. I'll go ahead and adjourn the January 6th zoning administrator meeting. Thanks everyone.