 Good morning. Good morning. Thanks, you're good to go. Project Planner Shikali, can you check your audio and video for me please? Good morning Lonnie, can you hear me? Yes, you're good to go. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Zoning Administrator Triple, can you please test your audio and video for me? Good morning Lonnie, this is Andrew Triple. Can you hear me and see me? I can. Great, thank you. Good to see you. Just an FYI for all the attendees who are present at the moment. We are experiencing some technical difficulties. So please bear with us. We might not get started until a little after 10 30. Hey, good morning everybody. We are resolving our technical issues. So I think we've got just one more minor adjustment to make and we will be ready to begin. I anticipate that we'll be starting promptly at 10 35 a.m. Thank you. Just letting everyone know we are still here and we are almost ready to start. Thanks for your patience. Okay, good morning everyone and thanks again for your patience. Welcome to the March 17, 2022 City of Santa Rosa Zoning Administrator meeting, which is scheduled to begin at or after 10 30 a.m. So we took advantage of the after 10 30 a.m. clause. My name is Andrew Triple and I am your Zoning Administrator today. Pursuant to government code section 54953 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 zoom.us forward slash join or by calling toll free 877-853-5257. Today's meeting ID is 883-1633-9455. This meeting will also be live streamed at youtube.com forward slash City of Santa Rosa. Next slide please. Great, thank you. And I think I have one more. Perfect. Today's meeting 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 second regular session Zoning Administrator meeting of March. Our next regular session Zoning Administrator meeting will be held on April 7th, 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. And next slide please. So after having called the meeting to order, we now turn to meeting agenda item number two, general public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who is wishing to provide a comment about an item not related to an agendized item or a project for review today. I can do so at this time. Again, if these are general public comments unrelated to today's items. So administrators, if you would like to go ahead and prepare to open up for public comment and provide some instructions, that would be great. Thank you. If you would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand at this time. For those calling in, please press star nine and that will raise your hand. Okay, and zoning administrator triple, I'm not seeing any hands raised at this time. Great, thank you so much. Let's move on to agenda item number three, zoning administrator business please. 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 a higher review authority. There are no zoning administrator reports today and so we'll go on to agenda 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. I will then open the meeting for public comment about the item under review. Members of the public are invited to provide comment during this time about the project being reviewed. These comments should be limited to three minutes. After the public comment period 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. Today's decisions by the zoning administrator are appealable to the planning commission, design review board, or cultural heritage board as applicable pursuant to zoning code section 20-62.030. Appeals shall be submitted in writing and filed with the planning department on a city appeal application form within 10 calendar days after the date of the decision, which is the close of business on March 28th of this month. So with that in mind, we would like to move forward to a scheduled meeting item 4.1. This meeting item is a public meeting to consider a residential fence, minor conditional use permit for a backyard fence replacement project. The project is located at 5022 Boulder Lane and a CEQA exemption is recommended for this project. The file number is CUP 21-074 and our project planner today is Senior Planner Christiane Tumions. Ms. Tumions, if you would like to go ahead and provide your staff presentation, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Triple, I'd be happy to. So I'm filling in for Planner McKay, who is out of the office today. So this is the backyard fence, minor conditional use permit CUP 21-074 located at 5022 Boulder. And the minor use permit request includes the construction of a backyard fence of various heights located in the rear and side setbacks. The proposal includes a construction of a seven foot tall fence with a one foot lattice along the Western property line, a seven foot fence with a three foot lattice along the rear property line and a six foot fence with a one foot lattice on top of a two foot retaining wall. The proposed fence would provide privacy for the applicant and their neighbors accounting for the significant grade change that currently exists between each property. So here's an aerial view of the subject property. It's near the corner of Nwenga and Boulder. And here is a site plan showing the proposed fence heights on each side and the rear property line. So part of this request is to legalize some existing work that occurred with that benefit of permit. I believe the work stopped while the applicant pursued this use permit. So you can see the fence with what should be, what should eventually be lattice on top. And this shows the grade change between 5022 Boulder and 5099 Nwenga from the backyard of 5022 Boulder. So it's quite significant, the grade change. And I believe there is a natural slope going from a down slope going from the rear yard to the front. Here is a comparison between the existing rear yard fence at the 5026 Boulder lane. The peak of the proposed lattice is identified by ribbon. It's a little difficult to see, but I believe it's bright orange. It's an orange line that goes across the fence above the blue tarp. Here's a photo showing the grade change between 5022 Boulder and 5026 Boulder from the backyard of 5022 Boulder. This slide indicates that there were no public comments. However, we did receive a public comments after this presentation was published. There were objections from neighbors in North and South concerned with the total height of the fence, that the fence would create a fortress-like feel and would affect the use of existing tree canopies. And I think the major concern is just how tall the fence would be once it's completed. There was one letter in support and that was included in attachment. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA and satisfies the provisions of CEQA and that the construction of a fence qualifies for a class 32 exemption under section five. And that the fence is a residential accessory structure. The planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve the minor conditional use permit for the property located at 5022 Boulder Lane. The applicant is present. If you have any specific questions about the fence or the construction and I'm available for any questions you have. Also, thank you. Great. Thanks, Ms. I do have several questions. I think for you and then also for the applicant of the first question is, could you briefly describe the reason for a minor conditional use permit for the fence additional fence height? Yes. So a minor casual use permit is required for is required to exceed the eight feet available height for a residential fence and the required side and rear setbacks. You normally do not need a building permit for fences that don't exceed that height. This type of fence you would, because it's tall enough that the building department won't want to see the floodings for the fence. And it's generally unusual to have a fence at this height. Great. Thanks. So I think when we look at what's just referred to as fence A, we have a total fence height of eight feet, seven feet solid and one foot of lattice, but the zoning code would only allow six feet of solid and two feet of lattice without this minor use permit. Correct. And then we go to fence B, which is obviously seven feet solid with three feet of lattice, which exceeds eight feet. And then we go to fence C, which is located. It's a seven foot tall fence, six solid one foot of lattice, but on top of a two foot retaining wall for an effective total height of nine feet then. Correct. Yes. And I believe height is measured at natural grade. On the side of the, of the property owner installing the fence. Okay. Great. I just wanted to be sure that I had. Fully understood. And then second, I, you said that work was halted. But. Is there a code enforcement case on record? Is. I'm not sure of that. I know one of the complaints was. The neighboring. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm not sure. Don't know. I, I'm not sure. I'm not sure. The neighbor. The neighbor hasn't been able to let his dog out. While the fence is. You know, waiting for this. Right. This decision today. Right. And then. Oh, I think that then with regard to public comments, I did have access to the public comments or submitted. The email. But then it sounds like there were other comments. to be a voicemail, but have not been then made public in the form of names and addresses of people providing comments, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, and will then those names and addresses be provided or no? There was a request to not include the names. Okay, great, thank you so much. Now I would like to turn to the applicant. And my one question for the applicant, I would like to dive a bit deeper into that. The slide that showed the rear fence and where that maximum height would be located. So if we can go ahead and un-mike the applicant and then we can have a bit of discussion with the applicant specifically about that rear fence height. If the applicant could please raise their hand and I can give you speaking permission. The view of his name is Casey, there you go, perfect. Okay, Casey, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. Hey, good morning, Mr. Molinari. Is that your last name, Casey? Hi, Casey, it looks like we are showing that you are unmuted, but we're unable to hear you. You may need to check your microphone settings and make sure that it is... Okay, it looks like we have Patsy with the same last name. So Patsy, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And maybe Ms. Tumians, if we could pull up then that slide of the rear yard fence. Would you like the site plan or the photo? The image, the image, yeah. Patsy, it looks like you are also unmuted, but we're also... Hello? Oh, perfect, we can hear you. Good morning. Good morning. I just wanted to clarify that I am Patsy Molinari and I live behind Casey, Casey Meister. Oh, darn, oh, okay. Oh, Casey Meister is the owner of the property in question who filed the applicant. I just wanted to clarify the names. I see, okay, I see now. There we go. Thank you. Great. And so it looks like Casey is still muted. So which slide, when we showed the slide with the orange ribbon that appeared to be one foot above the solid portion, was that not the rear fence? Oh, yes. Right. Yes, there's two slides for friends to be. Yes. Okay, great. So then this comparison of existing rear yard fence at 5026 Boulder. So then if the fence that is the subject of this project is then presumably consists of the fence poles with the ribbon on them, I'm just trying to understand what that... So I think the posts are taller than what the fence will actually be. The ribbon is, I don't know, a couple of feet below the top of the posts it looks like. But this would be, that doesn't look like that's seven feet solid plus three feet of lattice if the ribbon is the top of the fence. Perhaps the ribbon is the top of the solid portion of the fence. I think we really need the applicant to better understand. Yes. It looks like we do have a caller now, Casey. If that's you calling in, if you could lower your hand and then raise your hand again. Okay, perfect. Let me give, okay. You should be able to unmute the call now using star six. Hello, can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? Can you hear me now? We can hear you. We can hear you. So Casey, we need to... Casey, we're getting feedback from your other connection. So do you mute us on your laptop connection? How's that? Are you still with us, Casey? Yes, I am. Yes, I am. I think if you turn your volume down from the meeting a little bit, it should help the feedback. So, well, based upon the information that's provided, I'm not sure that I fully understand what is being proposed. And it seems like it's very difficult to get any clarity through this meeting format. I do want to better understand this proposed seven foot solid with three feet of lattice for a total of 10 feet of fencing along the rear yard for two reasons. In these images, I don't see any significant change of grade that would necessitate such a change. And then the second reason is 10 feet in a residential zoning district is quite excessive. And so those neighbors who had commented about or expressed concerns about the fencing via email, I think were warranted. So if we're not able to resolve these audio issues then with Casey, and I'm willing to give it one more try, but for the sake of everybody's time, we would need to perhaps after three minutes, if we can't resolve it, then continue this item to a date certain of the next meeting. So, Michelle and Casey, if we want to give this a second chance, I'm willing to do that. But after three minutes, we will have to then consider a continuance. All right, so I do see that we have another caller with a different phone number. Casey, if that's you, that called in again if you could lower your hand and then raise your hand again so that I can know to give that phone number speaking permissions. So it doesn't look like that is Casey. Casey, if you wanna try unmuting your laptop one last time, I've sent another prompt to you allowing you to unmute. Okay, it looks like he's not receiving my prompt. Okay, it looks like I see him connecting to audio. Mr. Triple, would it be possible to revisit this item towards the end of the meeting, you think and just move on to the next item for now? Right, I would like to because I think if we can talk through this rear fence, we would be able to make a decision today, but we do need to have given the nature of the proposal, we do need to ensure that we're having a full public discussion about what's being proposed. So let's go ahead, we will hold meeting item 4.1 and revisit it after we do conduct public meetings for meeting items 4.2 through 4.4. So with that in mind then, I won't close the public meeting for 4.1, I'll simply place it on hold and then I will go on and open a public meeting for meeting item 4.2, which is a public meeting to consider a home occupation, minor conditional use permit for the house of color project. This project is located at 3,700 Crown Hill Drive. A SQL exemption is recommended for this project and the file number is CUP 22-002. And our presenting planner today is a senior planner, Kristen A. Tumions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Triple, as you stated, this is for the house of color, minor conditional use permit for a home occupation located at 3,700 Crown Hill Drive. And what it involves is a, this is the floor plan of the existing residents, but normally a home occupation, you are limited by not having customers come to the house and there are several restrictions normally for a by right home occupation. In this case, the applicant is requesting that a low volume of customers come to the house on a scheduled basis. And the type of service she would provide is sort of like color typing. So draping colors on customers to see which colors suit them best, suit their complexion or their coloring best. Here's an aerial showing the subject property. The applicant proposes she has an existing garage that would be used for residents of the property and customers would park in the driveway. The general plan designation is very low residential zoning is a PD. And a home occupation is generally allowed in residential zones. This particular type of home occupation requires a minor conditional use permit. There were no public comments but I did have a couple inquiries as to what kind of business this was. So I was able to answer those and I didn't receive any concerns or objections. The proposal from the neighbors. And this project was reviewed in compliance with CEQA and it satisfies the provision of CEQA and that the home occupation qualifies for a class one exemption under section 1531 in that a home business presents negligible or no change residential use or environmental consequences. The planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor use permit for the property located at 3,700 Crown Hill Drive and with the conditions included in the resolution planning and economic development department feels that the use would be compatible with surrounding residential uses. The applicant is available Ms. Morris. I saw her as a participant. You have questions from her. No questions from me, I'm here. Thank you. Great, thank you for that presentation Ms. Chumians. And I do see that the applicant has raised her hand. So I would love to have the applicant unmuted so that she could just briefly describe for us sort of the operational characteristics of her project and the level of activity that she anticipates. I am showing that the applicant is unmuted but I am not seeing that we can hear her. Yeah, I don't know. We can hear you now. Perfect. You can hear me now, great. You can hear me now, great, go ahead. Good, oh my goodness. So thank you for considering my application, zoning administrator triple and project planner Chumians. Ms. Chumians, you answered what my company does very well because it is, people sometimes they don't know what it is and it's kind of hard to explain but yes, it's seasonal color analysis. And as you said, it is a low volume proposition. It takes about two or three hours to do a full color analysis. So probably for me, two appointments a day, max three of like one person each, very low volume has to be done during daylight hours. So, a car, the driveway, maybe two cars in the driveway, not loud, just very much people come in, we're in my studio, we're doing our work and that's what we do. And they'll be during the week, maybe a Saturday morning appointment, that type of thing. So I don't know if that answers all the questions on kind of what the flow is but that's what it's gonna look like. That's great. And that's exactly what I was interested in learning more about was sort of the level of activity that could be expected as a result of your proposed home occupation. Thank you so much for those comments. I appreciate you're taking the time to provide them. So at this point in time, I don't have any additional questions for staff or for the applicants. So I would like to open this meeting for public comment. And I'll go ahead and just to begin it, if anyone wishes to make a comment, please raise your hand. If you're phoning in and would like to make a comment, please press star nine to raise your hand. And then Michelle will keep an eye out for any raised hands and then take it from there. I do wanna remind callers that if you would like to make a public comment, you can press star nine and that will raise your hand. Okay, it looks like we have no hands raised at this time. Okay, great. Thanks so much. So I will close public comment and bring it back for a bit of discussion and a decision. So certainly the zoning code does provide provisions for home occupations and recognizes that they do generate economic activity, not just for the homeowner, but also for the city, especially in providing services. So in that spirit, we do differentiate between home occupations that do not have visits to the residents versus those that do. So Ms. Morris, I just wanted to clarify that just to, and for you and for any members of the public to understand why in your particular case, we are bringing you forward with this minor conditional use permit review today. It is because you are proposing that your clients would visit your house. And so it was in that spirit then that I wanted to better understand what sort of level of activity that you might anticipate as a result of your successful business endeavor. I do note during my review of the project application that Crown Hill Drive is largely a residential drive and in particular, your residence is located in a residential, predominantly residential area, as well as the fact that it does appear that you do have a private drive that extends and provides access to some property owners who live off of Crown Hill Drive behind your residence. So I was very conscious and curious if we would have any public comments expressing concerns about levels of activity and we didn't receive any public comments. I think Ms. Tumian has indicated that she had responded to some inquiries but no formal comments were made. And so with that in mind, I do feel confident that the level of activity is going to be managed well by Ms. Morris that she is conscious about the importance of ensuring that the level of activity does not rise to a level that would be uncharacteristic for a residential neighborhood. And that there's no anticipated negative potential for negative impacts as a result of this home occupation. And so with regard to the findings contained in the resolution that being a resolution of the zoning administrator of the city of Santa Rosa approving a minor conditional use permit for a home occupation for house of color for the property located at 3,700 Crown Hill Drive in Santa Rosa, APN 173430448. File number CUP 22-002. I do find that I am able to make all of the findings to approve this project, including the finding that the project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a class one exemption under section 15301. Additionally, I do want to note for the applicant that this resolution does contain conditions of approval and that you must comply with all of the conditions of approval to remain in compliance with regulations for home occupation activities in the city of Santa Rosa. Therefore my review is complete and this minor use permit is hereby approved on March 17, 2022 for the duration of the home occupation use provided that the aforementioned conditions are complied with and that the use commences within two years from the date of approval. Ms. Morris also please be advised that this approval is subject to a 10-day appeal period and therefore you would not be able to commence implementation of the approved use until after that 10-day appeal period has expired. And with that I will close the public meeting for meeting item 4.2 for all members of the public and participation as well as for staff. Given some of the technical issues that we had it has been a trying warning for staff. And so we are going to take a brief break three to five minutes so that we can regroup and be prepared for our next two meeting items. So please plan to return in about three minutes and then we will get started with our remaining meeting items. Thank you. Okay everybody, thanks for your patience. That was a great opportunity to catch our breath and regroup a bit. If staff is ready, we will go ahead and begin with meeting item 4.3 and it does appear that staff is ready. So let's move ahead. A meeting item 4.3 is a public meeting to consider a minor conditional use permit for the Sonoma Federal Credit Union project. This project is located at 917 College Avenue. The CEQA exemption is recommended for this project and the file number is CUP 22-004. The project planner is Monet Shikali and Ms. Shikali, we are ready for your staff presentation when you are. Thank you. Okay, there you go. I'm sharing my screen. Thank you, Mr. Triple. I'm going to present the project. As you mentioned, this is a minor conditional use permit for the property at 917 College Avenue. So the permit is to occupy an approximately 4,000 square feet of an existing approximately 5,500 square feet commercial building for Sonoma Federal Credit Union. Here is the picture of the existing building. There were some office uses there that I believe currently is vacant and no one is operating in that building. So the general plan land use for this parcel is office and the zone is PD. This policy statement plan development is pretty old and silent on different uses and only says professional office and other uses. So it does not specifically mention whether the other uses. However, the general plan land use, which is office allows users like a bank and business services in this location. And in throughout our zoning code, banks or services similar to banks are allowed to minor use permit. So the applicant has submitted a minor use permit for the proposed bank. And here is an aerial view of the site. There are 19 parking spaces available for the site, which meets the demand or required parking spaces for the proposed use. This is the floor plan is an old floor plan, but it just shows a number of existing parkings. Also, there are some current parkings behind the building in this area. So it might not be shown on the aerial, but they are under the building. And these are the two floor plans for the first and second floor. The applicant is proposing some tenant improvements within the building. And the project has been reviewed by our traffic division and no additional traffic review was requested by the traffic division. I have not received any comments regarding the proposed project. And about SIKWA, the project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a class one exemption. Under section 15301, the project is within the existing structure involving a negligible expansion of the existing use that will not result in significant impacts. 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 917 College Avenue. The applicant is Julia or Julie Hunter. She's also available to answer if there are any questions and can give more detail of the proposed use and what a federal bank, so no federal bank does exactly. And that was my presentation. Thank you. Great, thank you, Mr. Kali. Before we turn to the applicant, I just wanted to ask, will any of the improvements be exterior and would a minor design review be required? Sure, no. At this time, the applicant is not proposing any exterior. They will be all inside of the building. And I told the applicant, any exterior changes will be subject to design review and we have to see what level of design review would be required. Okay, great, thank you. And the only question I have for the applicant is if there will be an ATM as part of this project? I can't answer that question also. I asked the applicant, they mentioned that at this time they are not proposing any ATM, but in the future they might propose that. But right now there's no ATM. Okay, and if they were to seek to install an ATM in the future, then would they need to come back for a minor design? I believe it's a minor design review also. Okay, great, great. So yes, if the applicant is available and you want to raise your hand, then our staff can, there we go. Michelle, if we can unmute, then I would just like to catch up with the applicant and learn a bit more about the project. Can you hear me? Yes, we can, thank you. Wonderful. Right. Good morning, zoning administrator triple and good morning, senior planner. Shikali, thank you for all of your efforts on our behalf. I am representing Sonoma Federal Credit Union, which was formed in 61 and it serves the employees of Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital when it was formed. But over the last two years it's made strategic changes to its business model and we now serve anyone who lives, works, or worships, or attends school in Sonoma County. It's a very small, very small credit union. There are only 1,709 members of it. Great, thank you. And would you, do you anticipate that, I guess with such a small credit union, you would not have a lot of walk-in activity. Is that correct? Very little activity. It's a very specialized interest that they provide affordable housing loans for seniors and young families. They also are specialized in manufacturing and mobile home loans, which is not done by any other credit union. All of these tasks take place at local title companies for signing. Everything is done online. They don't accept any in-person loan applications. So the activity level when we did this minor traffic count was very insignificant. Great, wonderful. Well, thank you so much for your comments. I don't have any other questions. Although I would like to point out just be advised that should you at some point in time seek to add an ATM or change your level of service that that may trigger then additional entitlement requirements, okay? Yes, sir. Great, thank you. So then moving forward, we'll go ahead and open a public comment for this meeting item. If anyone wishes to make a comment about this item before us, then please raise your hand. And if you are phoning in and would like to make a comment, please press star nine to raise your hand. Okay, it looks like we do have a public comment. Kerrigan, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. Thank you, can you hear me? We can hear you, go ahead. Thanks so much for the opportunity. First of all, my family owns the property at 929 College Avenue as well as the two other buildings on that parcel which is 601 and 603 King Street as well as 615 King Street around the corner. And I just wanted to ask if there is a sense for how many employees will be on site to occupy parking spaces and what the client flow looks like in terms of clients on site at any given time during the day. That's a great question. Thank you, Ms. Hunter. If you would like to respond to this question, we would appreciate it. Sorry, thank you. Can you hear me now? Yes, yes, we can, thanks. Okay, so let me just refer to my information here if you don't mind. The employees, the number of cars and visits that we'd anticipate are an average of 10 to 12 per day. That's how low the actual activity that occurs. They only open approximately 20 new accounts per month and fund only 20 new loans per month. But as I indicated, those are all done online and they're also signed to title companies rather than at the office. There are, let me just get the employees list for you. Very low employees. I believe it's nine, but let me just confirm. Eight total employees, one of which is actually less than three hours a week or only three hours a week. And I believe the other three are under 40 hours a week. And so you're talking about a total of eight with about four of them being full-time. That is extremely low impact. Right, thank you, Miss Hunter. And Mr. Kiergan, I do want to also note that the traffic division did require a trip generation study and that was submitted and was accepted by the city's traffic division. The employee count that Miss Hunter provided here a moment to go is consistent with what was analyzed as part of that trip generation study. Thank you, Mr. Triple. One more comment if I could. Sure. So we would be primarily concerned with just any parking generated onto the street. We have tenants that park on the street there on College Avenue and would want to just verify that there are provisions for employees to park within the parking area provided as opposed to pushing employee parking out onto the street. Is there any comment on that? Miss Sallie, can you remind us of the number of parking spaces available on site? Sure, 19 parking spaces are available on the site. And the proposed views would require for 4,000 square foot, 250 per space requirement parking, I believe 16. So 16 parking is required while 19 parking spaces are provided. So the proposed use meets the required parking spaces. And might I add zoning administrator triple that the actual current use before it was vacated in anticipation of the sale was actually more use, more employees, more traffic. We are actually reducing the overall impact of the building at this time. Great, thank you, Ms. Hunter. So, Mr. Kurgan, in response to your question, typically what we would look at is if the project can respond to the minimum parking requirement by providing on site parking as required by the zoning code. As Miss Chicago noted, this project does provide more than the minimum required parking for on site parking for the proposed land use. Additionally, we do not restrict on street parking that is public parking. And so it's publicly available to anyone who should choose to use it, whether it's your tenants or people working or visiting the proposed bank. So with that in mind, I do find that the parking is sufficient, is adequate. If you would like to approach Miss Hunter and suggest that the proposed bank does invite employees or ask employees to use parking on site, then that would be well within your right to do. So as you work to establish a relationship with Sonoma Federal Credit Union, does that help? Yes, thank you, Administrator Tripple. And one last comment that I'll drop off here. In regard to the occupation of the facility is Sonoma Credit Union going to occupy the entire building or is it likely that additional tenants will be moving in in the future? Right, so Miss Hunter, if you could respond to that please, I do believe that if you're proposing to occupy about 4,000 square feet of approximately 5,500 square foot building. Right, and it has been undetermined at this time, but we're of the understanding that should we decide to rent to any other party that that would also be subject to a use permit for those people, I don't know that it would be, I don't know what it's called, but Senior Planner Shaqali can help me with this, but it would be applied for for the use that they have intended for that remaining space. Great, thank you. And yes, I think it would be a two-step process. The first step would be, well, there would be two parts to rental the space. First, you would have to create that space. So right now, I believe that we've got just one unit in the building, if you wish, that's 917 College. So to rent out the remainder portion, you would have to create a separate suite. And then that separate suite would be subject to the allowable land use and those requirements in the zoning code, much as we've done here. So I wouldn't want to give the mistaken impression that a minor use permit would necessarily be required, but it would be subject to land use requirements, permit requirements, as well as the parking requirements of this zoning code. That is our understanding, so. Awesome, thank you. So Mr. Kirigan, does that help answer your last question? It does. Thank you, Administrator Schruppel for the opportunity to address this group and welcome to the neighborhood, Sonoma Credit. We look forward to being a good neighbor with you. Thank you, S.D. We appreciate it. All right. Okay, so seeing no other hands raised, we will go ahead and close a public comment for meeting item 4.3. So before the zoning administrator is a resolution of the city of Santa Rosa approving a minor conditional use permit for the operation of a bank financial services land use for Sonoma Federal Credit Union for the property located at 917 College Avenue in Santa Rosa, APN 180790500, file number CUP 22-004. After reviewing the resolution and today's presentations by both staff and the applicant and Mr. Kirigan, thank you for your questions and comments. I do find that I am able to make all of the findings including the finding that the project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and that it qualifies for a class one categorical exemption under SQL Guidelines section 15301. Ms. Hunter be advised that this resolution does contain conditions of approval and that you are required to comply with all of the conditions of approval. And so this minor conditional use permit for Sonoma Federal Credit Union is hereby approved on March 17, 2022 for the duration of the use provided that the conditions are complied with and the use has commenced within two years from the approval date. Please be advised that this approval is subject to appeal within 10 calendar days from the date of approval. So Ms. Hunter while you may be able to submit for a required building permit, you should limit actions with regard to commencing the use until after March 28, 2022. And so with that I'll close the public meeting for meeting item 4.3 on today's agenda and we'll move to meeting item 4.4. This meeting item is a public meeting to consider a minor conditional use permit for better flag supply incorporated cannabis facility project. The project is located at 950 Piner Road, Suite A. A SQL exemption is recommended for this project and the project's file number is CUP20-070. Today's project planner is Ms. Shikali. And so Ms. Shikali, when you are ready, we invite you to give us your staff presentation. Sure, there you go. Okay, again, thank you for the project introduction, Mr. Triple. I'm going to start from the next page. She already gave the address, location and the use permit number. So the applicant is proposing a commercial cannabis facility between an existing 20,000 square feet building. There are three kind of uses being proposed in this facility. One is going to be a Type 1A cultivation, which will occupy approximately 7,000 square feet of the building. And another uses Type 6, which is manufacturing non-waltile. It will occupy 27,000 square feet of this building. And there's Type 11, which is distribution and will occupy 1,300 square feet of the building. And the applicant also proposing an approximately 1,000 square feet of mezzanine in the existing suite that is going to be used. So here is a site plan. The building is here, as you can see, and half of it, the 20,000 square feet building, half of it is being proposed for these three uses. The property is zoned like industrial, consists of the jar plan land use, and which is like industrial so, and it is separated by the neighbors on the south side with the existing creek. I have to mention that the three parcels, 920, and the project site and 996 Pioneer, they are all owned by the same person, and they have parking reservation covenant between those three parcels. And the applicant is going to use the parking spaces located at 920 Pioneer Road. And here is an aerial view of the existing building. And again, here is the site plan. As you can see, the applicant will improve ADA access from the project site to the adjacent property for the parking access. And here is the floor plan. On the left side is an existing floor plan, and the floor plan on the right side is showing the proposed spaces. And here is a proposed floor plan that shows almost on the north part of the building in this area is going to be cultivation spaces, and distribution will have a roll-up door, and mezzanine and accessity structures are also going to be proposed. The applicant has provided a certified order mitigation plan that shows how order will be mitigated on the site. And staff has not received any comments at this time. For SICWA, the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a Class 1 exemption under Section 15303 in that the project is located within an existing structure involving a negligible expansion of an existing use that will not result in significant impacts. And the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor conditional use permit for the property located at 950 Pioneer Road, Suite A. The architect, Mike Schwartz, is available to answer if there are any questions. And that was staff presentation. Thank you. Great, thank you, Mr. Kali. In your review of the project, did you find that the parking analysis concludes that parking is sufficient for not just the proposed use, but all other existing improved uses on site? I believe we look at the two properties only, not the entire properties, the two adjacent properties on the right side. And the applicant provided how the covenant shows parking is sufficient for all the uses. I believe Mike Schwartz can go over that covenant that explains how many parkings are provided and they are sufficient for the proposed uses. Great, thank you. Those are the only questions I have. I see that we did have an odor mitigation plan that was submitted and that you have approved. And so that's great. All right, Mr. Schwartz, if you would like to provide any comments about your proposed project. And it does look like you're on mic, Mr. Schwartz. I am seeing that we're connected, but we are unable to hear you. Right, okay, there we go. Okay, so the parking analysis is on COP five. Say that again. The parking analysis is on COP five, which is actually page five as well. Of the plan set? Yes. Oh, okay, great. Thanks for that. I was looking forward in the project description. Right. Sure. And then I do note that a majority of the use of the 10,000 square feet is for distribution and for specialty cultivation, which are both of those have low parking demands associated with them. Right. And the other uses in those two parcels or in the adjacent parcels tend to be industrial warehouse. There's an existing retail and warehouse use in the western portion of 930 Piner, but that's going to be converting to cannabis as well. Okay, great. And to your knowledge, the property owner is aware that any future uses would be required to comply with minimum parking requirements. And that would be based upon the mix of uses that are approved for the site. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. And I don't foresee any problems there with the uses that have been talked about. Great. But I know that you're very familiar with the site. So, and the application is thorough. So I do appreciate that. Do you have any comments, any other aspects of the project that we should know about? I don't believe so. I believe it's all been pretty well presented. Great. Thank you. Okay, I don't have any more questions for staff or the applicant. I will now open meeting item 4.4 for public comment. So anyone wishing to make a comment, please raise your hand. If you are calling in by phone, press star nine to raise your hand. Okay, it looks like we do have a public comment. Carrie, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. You hear me? We can hear you. Go ahead. My only comment has to do with water. You know, we're in a drought and we keep authorizing all these cultivation sites and, you know, we are in a drought. So, I mean, when, at what point are we gonna stop, you know, doing this? There's a gazillion of them already in Sonoma County. And for me, it's just, if we authorize one more here, one more there and then the wine industry is taking our water as well. You know, what do we leave for the people? So that was my only question, you know, my concern being a neighbor. Great, Carrie. Thank you. Thank you so much for your comment. That's a meaningful comment and an important one. I can speak generally for cannabis cultivation uses. My experience in having reviewed a variety of cannabis cultivation uses is that they do recycle and reutilize to some degree 100% of water as part of the cultivation process. The reason for this is from the business model perspective is because of the cost of water. They do engage in some of the most efficient water usage of our industrial uses. So that is something to keep in mind that the cannabis cultivation industry is an efficient water user. But then also I do want to turn to Mr. Schwartz to comment, Mr. Schwartz, if you have knowledge of how this project would go about water usage and any efficiencies that might be built into the project. Yes, so I think that you're right. Basically it's almost a closed system for indoor cultivation and they do reclaim almost all their water and reuse it including condensation from HVAC systems. Okay, great, thank you. Does that help, Carrie? Yes, thank you. Okay, great. And I also know that the city's water division or water department rather has some quite useful resources online. So I do encourage you to check them out at srcity.org. They are required to analyze water usage and water supply on a regular basis. So that can be a very helpful resource. Okay, seeing no other hands raised, I will go ahead and close public comment for meeting item 4.4 and bring it back for consideration by the zoning administrator. I do appreciate the thoroughness of the application as well as the proposed land uses, which are consistent with the light industrial zoning district. And I appreciate staff's presentation, which was thorough in summarizing the proposed project as well as for Mr. Schwartz additional information provided. And so with that, I have a resolution before me, the resolution of the zoning administrator of the city of Santa Rosa, approving a minor conditional use permit to allow commercial cannabis cultivation up to 5,000 square feet, manufacturing level one non-volatile and distribution for the property located at 950 Piner Road, suite A in Santa Rosa, APN 015-680020, file number CUP20-070. And for the benefit of the public as well as the applicant, I will note that the resolution itself specifies that the cultivation would be limited to 6,927 square feet. Manufacturing would be limited to 2,764 square feet and distribution would be limited to 1,388 square feet as described in the project application. Should those square footages change, you would need to consult with planning to consider modifications or changes to an approved project as you move forward with your project. And so with that, I am able to make all of the required findings including that the project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a class one categorical exemption under CEQA guidelines section 15301. Therefore, this minor conditional use permit is hereby approved on March 17, 2022 for the duration of the use provided conditions are complied with and the use has commenced within two years from the date of approval. The applicant is advised that this approval is subject to appeal within 10 calendar days from the date of approval which would be the close of business March 28, 2022. And so with that, I conclude a review of meeting item 4.4. Mr. Schwartz, I also want to advise you that it is the city's experience that the state is now requiring filed notices of exemption for all cannabis projects. So my recommendation is that you work with planner Shikali to ensure that a notice of exemption is filed for this project because ultimately, I believe the state is going to be requesting that as part of your state cannabis licensing application. And so with that, I closed the meeting item for or the public meeting for meeting item 4.4. And then let's turn back now to meeting item 4.1. That public meeting was opened. We had some trouble connecting with the project applicant. And so let's check in now and see if the project applicant is available. Casey, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. Oh, actually, okay. I just gave your call in number permission to speak. You can press star six to unmute. Okay, how's that Casey? Hello, can you hear me? There we go. Very good. Thank you. So we left your, we left to review of your project. I had some questions for you. Planner Tumions had provided the staff presentation and during review of the staff presentation, I was trying to understand the condition in the rear of the yard where you're proposing a rear yard fence that would be seven feet solid with a three feet of lattice on top. There we go. Thank you. And so why don't you just talk us through what we're seeing here in these two images which are entitled fence B and described as a comparison between the existing rear yard fence at 2062 Boulder Lane and what you're proposing. Yes, sir. Thank you. So what you're seeing there is I've indicated the top of the fence type with the orange ribbon. And you can see that the fence posts, you know, due to the gray change started about three feet below Mr. and Mrs. Molinari's driveway which is in the, you know, obviously behind my property there. So, you know, due to that gray change and me having built, you know, ideally building the fence on our shared property line those fence posts actually are much lower than their grade which we were in agreement on ideally having a taller fence. Also, these pictures are taken this picture on the left is taken from my deck which is at the level of my bedroom. You can see that, you know, even with the, you know, the ribbons in place there indicating the top of the fence I would still, you know, have a view of, you know, some of the roof line and the fence would follow the grade and kind of step down and follow that grade as it goes down to the West. Okay, so if I understand then we start out with a fence that's seven foot solid with and then it starts, then the solid portion starts to become higher or taller as it follows the grade down. Is that correct? No, sir. It would actually, you know, it would step down. I know it's a little bit difficult to see but that first, those first two fence posts on the left show 10 foot and, you know, I've measured from each post up and as you can see it remains at a 10 foot height but it continues to step down as you move further to the right or to the West of the yard. So we've got a condition where you had, where your neighbor to the rear, which is at 5099, what would that be? New Anga, right? Because they come in off of New Anga and so they are sitting higher than you. Yes, sir. And so it's dropping down into your yard but then when you're on your deck on the rear of your house then you're kind of coming up above that where you're slightly on top of ultimately of their elevation then. Correct. And actually the kitchen is a little bit higher. I probably, I'm not sure if that was included but the view from the kitchen is actually, you know, almost at the level of if you were to draw a straight line from the kitchen to the neighbor's driveway it's pretty close to the same level due to the elevation. So yes, I, you know, I'm elevated from my perspective as well in addition to their driveway being elevated from the perspective of the backyard there. Okay, great. Ms. Turmiens, I see that you came into visual. Did you have some comments? Just thought the previous slide kind of shows the great change. Yeah. And that's a seven, sorry, that's a seven foot ladder just for reference. Right. That I have there, that yellow ladder. It's harder to see this from this image but the, Okay, now I see. I kind of see the rocks. So the, so the experience of 5099 Newanga is essentially is still a seven foot fence with three feet of lattice, seven feet solid with three feet of lattice. If we were in the neighbor's yard on the other side of fence, what are they experiencing? I would say that they would be experiencing. You can see there, there's two feet that would essentially be deducted based on where those fence posts are currently on our shared property line. So it would essentially from their perspective be an eight foot fence if you were standing on their driveway. So an eight foot fence but then how much of that? So eight foot fence with three feet of lattice and five feet of solid. I know it's a little confusing but the way I'm looking at it from my side is that there would be three foot of lattice on the top and seven foot of solid, six feet of that solid being fence picket and one foot being a pressure treated kick plate. Okay, all right. I think I'm understanding it now. Let's go on. Great, thank you. Thank you for that both Ms. Chimians and Casey. Let's go ahead then an open public comment for this meeting item. And if anyone wishes to make a comment please raise your hand. If you're phoning in and would like to make a comment please press star nine to raise your hand. Okay, and it looks like we have one hand, Erin. Erin, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. Can you hear me? We can go ahead. Wonderful, thanks for giving me the opportunity. Our objection to the 10 foot high fences, we will be, we feel it will give us a, like backing on a warehouse. It is a big towering fence above our traditional sized fence and it's gonna block, it's just gonna make us feel very closed in. And Erin, are you located at 5099 New Anka? I'm sorry, we are at 5026 Boulder, we're the North neighbor. Okay, so you have your, and 5026 was that fence that is on top of a retaining wall, correct? Yes. Okay. So from your experience then, while we count, while we measure the height from the property owner, the applicant side of the fence, from your experience you should be experiencing a seven foot solid fence with one foot of lattice if this application is approved. Is that your understanding? On our shared property line? Yes, from your perspective, from your perspective. Are we, I'm sorry, are we still talking about the 10 foot fence or the side fence between the two property, my property and cases? Well, I'm talking about, you said the fence on the North side so I assumed you were talking about the fence between, the property line fence between you and Casey, but you were talking about the other. We have no objections to that fence. Okay, great, good to know. Thanks for that clarification. And so then you're focused on the 10 foot fence at the rear of the property. Right. Okay, great, thanks. Okay, and then it looks like a Patsy Molinari. We should have a prompt allowing you to mute. Can you hear us now? Yes, we can. Okay. Yeah, this is Dave, Patsy's husband. I just wanted to explain from looking at it from our angle, where our driveway area and about 20, that would be the 20 eastern feet of the Casey's fence. We are about three or four feet above grade there compared to the grade down lower. So that a 10 foot fence would appear to be like a six or seven foot fence there from our driveway. It would appear to be a 10 foot fence if we go down to the lower area. Great, thank you for that. I appreciate that comment. Did you have any other comments about how you feel you might be impacted by the proposed fence? No, we're in favor of the proposed fence. Okay, great, thank you. You're welcome. Okay, do we have any other comments? That looks like all of our public comments. Okay, great. Then I'll close public comment for this meeting item, bring it back for a bit of discussion. I understand the condition and the goals that Casey asked property owner that you're trying to achieve. And I don't have, I find that fence A and fence C, which would be on the north and south sides of the property, are adequate and are reasonable would provide you with the privacy that you want as well as from a visual perspective from other residents in the neighborhood, property owners in the neighborhood would also find that that's kind of in the norm, if we will. That's what you would typically expect to see. I am concerned about fence B being seven feet tall with three feet of lattice on top of it. And so Casey, I do want to see how we might be able to reduce that three feet of lattice which you might be more comfortable with because we do need to work on the design of that rear yard fence. Okay. So you've got your one foot kick plate, you've got six feet of solid fence. And then if we were to do, what about if we did one and a half feet of lattice? Yes, if that would be acceptable, I'd be willing to compromise on that. Obviously, ideally I came here with the goal for three but if one and a half would be acceptable to you I think that would be fine. Great. And I think I do see that as being a, a fence is a bit different when we think about the material and such it's a very hard structure. And so I do think that you could also gain some benefit of privacy through some landscaping and such. But I do want to make sure that, that your goals are achieved but also that we're compatible with this around in property owners as well. So I appreciate your flexibility on that. And so with that then, I am ready to make a decision on this project. I'll go through the decision and then we can in as part of the process I will direct senior planner Tumions to add a condition of approval to the resolution regarding the fence height for what we will refer to as fence B. So the resolution before the zoning administrator of the city of Santa Rosa is to approve a residential fence minor conditional use permit to allow construction of backyard fencing of various heights located in the required rear and side yard setbacks located at 5022 Boulder Lane in Santa Rosa APN 013-292-005 file number CUP 21-00 or 074 rather. And so I have reviewed all of the findings and in addition to the finding requiring that the project has been reviewed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a class three exemption under section 15303 subsection E in that the fences construction of an accessory structure. I also find that I am with the modification to the proposed fence able to make the additional fence height findings for approval of a minor conditional use permit. And so we do have some conditions of approval that the applicant advice that he must comply with. In addition to that, there will be I'll ask Ms. Tumions to add a condition of approval that the maximum height of fence B would be 8.5 feet consisting of a seven foot solid fence and one and a half feet of lattice. And so that should be a modification to the resolution that would affect then the description of the project in the resolution. However, then I will be prepared to approve a resolution to allow construction of a seven foot fence with one feet of lattice along the Western property line, a seven foot fence with one and a half feet of lattice along the rear property line and a six foot fence with one foot of lattice on top of a two foot retaining wall. I believe that's running along the North property line. And that is hereby approved on March 17, 2022 for the duration of the use provided that the conditions are complied with and that this approval is implemented within two years from the date of approval. And the applicant is advised that this approval is subject to an appeal within 10 calendar days from today's date. The close of the appeal period is the close of business on March 28, 2022. And so with that, that does conclude meeting item 4.4. I will close public meetings then and we'll move on to agenda item five, which is adjournment. Seeing no other business before the zoning administrator, this meeting is adjourned. Applicants, I thank you for your patience today and staff, thank you so much for your support. It was a, in the end, a well run meeting because of the work that you did early on. Thank you everyone and enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you.