 Good morning, Kimberly. This is Andy. Can you hear me? I can hear you very well. Thank you, Andy. Okay, thank you all. You can turn off my video. Okay, thanks. And if there's any anyone from our applicant team in this group, and you'd like to do a sound check, please raise your hand and we'll get your sound enabled. All right, looks like we have Adam Fisher. When I try your sound, you should receive a prompt. And once you answer it, go ahead and try your sound. Hi, this is Adam. Sounds great. Thanks. So if you want to go ahead and keep yourself muted, then we won't have to do prompts every time. Okay, I'll do that. Kimberly, can you hear me? I can. Thank you. It seems to be my headset has issues. I'm trying to work. Okay, glad to hear you can hear me. Thank you, Andy. Hi, good morning. This is Amy. Can you hear me, Andy or Kimberly? Yes, we can. Thank you, Amy. Great. And our planner, Adam Ross, if you need me to send a prompt again, please raise your hand. Up there you go. I can really just volume check, mic check. Sounds great. Thanks, Adam. Okay, it looks like we have maybe any more applicant, any more applicant team that want to do a sound check. We have about a minute or two more here. Go ahead and raise your hand if you're part of an applicant team. I have Michael Martinez. Looks like your hand is kind of going up and down. Then we have Tom Thomas. Let's try Tom. Good morning. Yes. This is Tom Thomas. Good morning. Sounds great. Thanks. You can go ahead and keep yourself muted. Yeah. And then we have Amanda Harpstead. Hi, this is Amanda. Good morning, Amanda. Thank you. Hi, I think everyone here is ready to go and I'd like to call to order the November 4th Zoning Administrator Meeting. Thank you all for attending. My name is Andy Gustafson. I am Zoning Administrator and I will be conducting all but one of the items today on today's agenda. Joining us today is also Amy Nicholson who will handle item number one. Today's meeting is a virtual meeting held via Zoom or for those of you participating by telephone. And this is to allow us to reduce the spread of COVID pursuant to government code section 54953E and the recommendation of the county's public health officer. This meeting will be run like any other public meeting or hearing. Items on the agenda will be heard in turn. In each of you who are here today will have opportunity to participate. The meeting will or is being live streamed and will be recorded or is being recorded and will be available for later viewing. The agenda has the URL or the internet link to do wish to do so. The first order of business is to allow for public comment if there's any matter not on the agenda but within the purview or jurisdiction of the zoning administrator. You are invited to comment. You can do so by raising your hand if you're participating by Zoom or pressing star 9 if you're on the telephone. I'll give a moment for those of you who might want to offer public comment at this point. I have a raised hand Cindy Toran. Cindy, let's first recognize you and make sure you have your audio turned on. Do you have a go ahead and comment if it's on a matter not part of the an issue that's not part of the agenda? I am here to speak about 914 Ripley Street when you get to that item. Okay, all right. Well, you'll have that opportunity. Thank you. All right. Well, let's start in on the regular schedule items on the agenda. Before we get into that, I just kind of want to review the process for how we move through the agenda. First, each item will be taken in turn and the project planner presenting the recommendation will speak first and then the applicant will be allowed or owner will be allowed opportunity to add additional information or comment and then the public will be allowed to comment and you'll be recognized in turn. At the end of these presentations, the zoning administrator can take action either to approve, deny or approve with modified conditions. The proposal before us, any action taken today is appealable and it's a 10 calendar day appeal period and of course the way we count those days is it's business days and the first available day. So for today's meeting on November 4th, the last day of appeal is November 15th and if you for some reason do want to appeal, please contact the project planner. Let's see. All right. So here I want to hand off to my colleague Amy Nicholson who will take the first item on the agenda and Amy, why don't you take over and all. Thank you, Andy and good morning. My name is Amy Nicholson and I'm a senior planner with the city. I will be taking action on the first item as I previously heard this item when it was continued to a date certain. So with that, we'll move on to the conditional use permit for 743 Lewis Road and Ms. Tumans is presenting. Thank you, Ms. Nicholson. Let me share my screen here. So you may recall this is a project at 743 Lewis Road located in the blue rectangle here. It's owned R16, low density residential and as you can see it's this block is bordered by a number of busy streets. The homeowner is requesting a six-foot tall fence in the front yard setback and it would look like this rendering here. And the front yard fence would be set originally it was proposed three feet from the sidewalk and now after consulting with you the last time the applicant proposes to move the fence back four feet. The fence does meet the driveway triangle requirement for visual safety of pedestrians for cars reversing out of the driveway and for context here is the street view of the property and as you can see it's directly next door to somewhat of a jungle and then as we look to the right there's a picket fence with an arbor and technically an arbor an arbor is technically not allowed without some sort of fence variance from the city. The reason the applicant is requesting the fence is she's experienced issues with vandalism and trespassing from unhoused people. The road is also quite busy and she has grandchildren that visit and so it's added protection in case children run out of the house. With that I'll stop sharing my screen and the property owner's designer Amanda Harpsteed is available for added comments and any specific questions you might have. Thank you for that presentation. Does the applicant wish to provide any additional information? Sure this is Amanda Harpsteed I'm the architect representing the owner on this project. I do want to just add that the owner has also agreed to in addition to a four foot setback instead of a three foot setback to include low drought tolerant landscaping in the front of that setback to help beautify the the front yard the front area that that setback and I do want to also mention that the just specifically the that road is is so busy that the applicant has had five different cars total parked right out in front of their their house and they've had their front window broken in by people just walking by and throwing rocks into it so it's really become a pretty dangerous road and this this is a way that they're just trying to protect their property and their and their family. Thank you for that. Are there any numbers of the public that would like to provide comments on this item? If so you can use the raise hand feature or press star nine from your phone. Seeing anyone with comments so I'll go ahead and close the public comment portion for this item. Thank you for for returning and considering some minor changes to this project. I appreciate the agreement to install some landscaping that I think will provide more of a buffer for pedestrians that would be walking by the fence. I'm I'm wondering and I appreciate the additional one but I'm wondering if it's possible to move it back one additional foot that would be five feet five feet from the back of the sidewalk. We did talk about that with the owner and it that's a pretty extensive area to landscape and they are really trying to be conscious of water their water use and the the drought issues in in California and I do want to just point out perhaps we can pull up the the street view one more time and if I could point out one item. Sure I've missed anything. Thanks I appreciate it. I do want to point out that even though there are there's an additional area for a second car to park in here the driveway is really on kind of the west side of the of the front yard so there really is only one way and it's very and it's on the other side of the fence where where the cars can exit the property. So it's not like they're using that whole area to back out of the of the driveway there they only have one drive island it's of one car width and that's the that's the the point that they're exiting the property and it's pretty far like I said it's pretty far away from the fence so we would we would prefer to keep it at four feet for those two reasons. Okay yeah I I think for for me the the reason I'd like to see an additional foot is not too much a concern of circulation or impact to to pedestrians or drivers for safety purposes but just because it's you know it's it's a solid wood fence that's six feet tall and I appreciate the the context that was provided as it relates to the the hedge on the abutting property in the arbor but I I would I I think even you know an additional even if it's an additional six inches I think that just any additional distance would just provide a little bit more visual relief for that that six foot fence and I appreciate the you know comment about less landscaping I think that there's an opportunity to I I don't think that more area would need to be landscaped if it were pushed back an additional half a foot or foot I think that you know a row of low water plants would still work okay whether it's four feet or four or five feet so I'm just that's what I would feel comfortable approving today is if it would were to be a minimum of four and a half feet from back a sidewalk with the the drought tolerant landscaping installed with one with one layer of of drought tolerant landscaping sure and it doesn't I I don't want to be prescriptive with the landscaping sure drought tolerant is is what we would prefer and that would be in compliance with our water efficient landscape ordinance as well but I I just think that any you know I understand that the safety the safety concerns and the issues with vandalism and and this being a a busy street and I understand wanting to retain as much space as possible but I think you know even an additional six inches would just help considering the the height of the fence and the fact that it it's primarily solid wood and I do think I appreciate the fence design I like the material and the horizontal flats but I would feel most comfortable approving it at at at least four and a half feet from the back of sidewalk with the planting okay I just want to make sure that you agree or can accept that I think we can accept four foot six okay so Chris and a or miss to me if we can add that in I think we might need to add in a condition of approval to memorialize the the four and a half foot setback and then also the low water or drought tolerant plants within the area between the back of sidewalk and the fence and then I can go ahead and approve that that resolution yeah I can do that okay thanks great so thank you and I will hand it back over to Mr. Gustafson thank you everybody thank you miss Nicholson okay let's go on to item number two on our agenda which I gotta get in front of me one moment okay it's a 3.2 design review and landmark alteration for 439 college avenue project planner adam ross adam are you ready for your presentation yes mr. zoning administrator i'm just going to pull up the presentation do you see that i'm sorry yes okay great okay this is the minor landmark alteration permit and minor design review file number prj 21-018 for the property located at 439 and 447 college avenue the project concludes a new wrought iron fence with gate at covered entryway to the existing building so there's a covered entryway that i'll show you in the next slide here's the site location off college avenue near mendicino avenue here's the site plan in this this dotted line identifies the area of work where this new fencing is proposed here's some existing photos so here's the open space and the the purpose of of the submittal is to is a deterrent for nuisance and crime taking place on the property during non-business hours so the connection would be to this existing um screening material up here to the floor this is a general identification of or reference of what the fence would look like here are them here are the fence new here's the new fencing placed on the site so it would go from the planner box on the um east side when looking at the property from the east side to that uh that fencing type material that screening material up top that's already existing and then from the floor to the screening material um where it would where there's no planner box and then on the west west side of the front elevation here it'd be from the flooring to the um that metal screen and then again on the bottom here's what is existing for the site um so with that the planning and economic development department recommends that by resolutions approve the minor landmark alteration permit and minor design review for a new uh this should say wrought iron fence with gate at the covered entryway for the building located at four three nine and four four seven college avenue file numbers prj 20-018 more specifically lma 21-014 and dr 21-047 the applicant does have a presentation and um i will open that up and i will see if they're here thank you adam i have a question um um does the there's no um i recall from the application of the packet that's online and the plan submitted that uh there's an entrance on the other side of the building is that entrance is also um receiving the same type of security fencing uh as far as i know now so okay what's there's proposed and this is a landmark alteration um permit which was earned um if i get the terminology uh incorrect forgive me but an archaeology not archaeology uh architectural assessment of the historic resource value on the building of so it could be called many things within that aspect but but yes i'm sorry but no there was no um this your compatibility report or architectural analysis or historic evaluation whatever that may have been there there was none there uh so i think the applicant i've the applicant can you raise your hand i'll i'll ask them about that but is this in the this is in the the rose historic district this building the uh this is within the um i think it's within the ridgeway historic ridgeway correct it rose us to the to the other side of the street yes okay all right um yeah so now if the applicant wishes to make their presentation please raise your hand and you'll be recognized i think that was mario lamelli sorry i lost my participant window for a moment there um i mario in the chat says he's in the meeting but he doesn't have a mic um yeah his sound is not enabled yet um mario i'm gonna send a prompt and if you go ahead and answer that prompt it'll enable your sound i think mario's gonna call in because he doesn't have a mic in his computer possibly or his laptop yeah i think that's what it is adam if you want to um take that screen down for just a moment i can get the um the login information be posted for mario okay mario i'm going to get you unmuted but i'm going to take just a moment to make sure your um phone number doesn't appear on screen and then um let's go ahead and try your sound there i think i well the only caller i see is one that ends in 1130 yeah it's your sound should be working go ahead and try it uh yes hello thank you for waiting this is mario all right let me take my screen down so um adam can get your presentation back up all right thank you so thank you guys for taking the time to review this presentation that we put together here um so the tenant at this location they would like to get the security phones installed and so we're going to go over a couple slides here about the reasons why and just just let me know when you need the slide change mario uh yeah yeah so if you uh would like to move on we can move on to the next one and so as we can see here this is uh one of the areas where we want to install the fence and so the tenant memorial hospice has some safety concerns uh regarding the reoccurring presence of homeless people occupying the property specifically the areas that can provide some during the rainy season and so this is the same location just for you um the tenant has requested that wrought iron security fence be installed to prevent trespassing and keep homeless people off the property to ensure the safety of employees and clients so the following slides that we're going to see are just some security guard reports where they've seen some trespassing and we can just take a look at them here so what we have here is an email from the tenant talking about a security guard who got assaulted overnight during the patrol and so we can see this was about a month ago a little bit over a month and in this one we have a photo of a homeless person wall also also recently happened here on this one just uh just a report here talking about some more activity overnight and same thing here as well just some more more reports about the homeless activity that happens overnight this is a rendering when we see the front of the building with the proposed fencing in this case we have it shown as black but we're open to have it somewhat of like a cream beige color so it kind of blends in a little better and we'll see that in the next upcoming slide and so this is the this is the slide that has the alternative color right other than black and so looks a little smoother blends in a little better and so and I think there may be one yep there's another one and this is with the black so we got to see a little bit of both both colors and so this is the main entrance that the tenant uses and so the you know all the previous slides that we were looking at like those were just the the street facing and so they're not really like the main entrance but um but yeah so that's that's what we wanted to show you guys so that's it um thank you for taking the time to review that and I assume we will just carry on and let you guys do your to your thing here thank you very much for your comments and the additional um graphics that are showing this side I appreciate that um and I'll have some questions at the end of the this item um let's first give opportunity for uh members of the public who might be in attendance who wish to comment on this project so please raise your hand or press star nine now and um Mario I would ask that you stay on the line if you would um following the public comment portion of this item and I'm not seeing any that wish to comment so I'll close this discussion in this meeting and at this point ask questions so first Adam again would would what what are the criteria here or we we don't have a um uh historic resource assessment for this building I mean this building is more than 50 years old correct correct um and then I'm going to verify its current status for you it should be listed the the Ridgway preservation uh it is it is within the Ridgway preservation district um I believe it is a contributor to the district and not historic uh and not a historic landmark in and of itself yeah if you could confirm that that'd be great um all right Mr um LaMellie um so is there any what was the reason that um for these security trespass issues that the rear area was not um also enclosed to provide security there was that not a problem at the back of the property and I think you'll have to raise your hand to respond um hey sorry about that I was uh okay so from what we've uh you know been in discussion with the with the tenant it seems like the rear street facing of the property is the main concern it looks like that's where it's like more accessible to these homeless trespassers and then it's also kind of like the area of transportation in between like the nearby bars and like the rest of the you know downtown area there so they weren't they weren't majorly concerned with the rear entrance it was mainly this uh street facing near the sidewalk entrance okay um and did you consider other materials for fencing than the rod iron tube square tube um that is presented here the panels uh not necessarily so we will be open to right if there was other there was other alternatives that you would propose instead uh but at this time we've uh we've just focused on the rod iron okay um um yeah I I think the um what we what we would need to be informed by is is a um sort of architectural historical review to establish the um the value of the resource and it's architectural style and then evaluate the fence design that you're proposing um how compatible it is uh to that style um and also to um you know the there may be other options to completely enclosing that front street facing um elevation in the manner that is illustrated uh should be considered I um I I I cannot take action on the evidence on this project with with the information before me I would need to be informed by an architectural review or or historic study and forgive me um Adam please give me some guidance on the terminology yeah yeah so so this the both buildings um based on city documents uh determined that the building uh at 447 and 439 um are ineligible for determine ineligible for local designation through local review uh however our GIS identifies both buildings as contributors to the district um typically we'd see a historic resource analysis it could be called that it could be a district compatibility report um there's the name isn't so much to focus that specifically except that it should include a historical analysis of the building and how the proposed project would then fit in with uh the historic resource uh and or uh if it is compatible with surrounding historic resources so even if you know being that it's within the historic the Ridgeway Historic Preservation District even if the building is not a contributor there typically there there would be a report that would identify said project as not being detrimental to surrounding properties and compatible so we're we have a gap in that information and we need to remedy that um and and that's to be able to act on the landmark alteration permit the other issue is design review and um I think I recognize that our public streets do have in certain locales in the city problems with vandalism or trespass but um this type of a solution sends a very chilling signal to the community this is this entry that would be enclosed it is is kind of in that in between place it's it's it's adjoining a public right away a public place and it transitions into a private place so in that way it's kind of a quasi public private uh domain and um to completely enclose and and literally bar off this area from the public not only visually but just in terms of the expression of it is really something that I cannot go forward with without full consideration of alternative ways to help to ensure that this quasi public space can be managed made safe uh and controlled so um on the design review part I think there's a another question that we need to answer and and that is what alternatives to completely walling off these two quasi public spaces from the public right away have been considered um before we before this matter should be acted on it is um I'm trying to think of anywhere else in the city where we've seen this type of enclosure uh before and I cannot think of any and I don't I think we we want to be very careful about closing these spaces off because they are vital to the streetscape community uh and part of urban design and to just lock it off is um I think drastic so for that reason I I want to um continue the matter um and I want to ask is the applicant here um wanting to continue it to a date certain uh to be able to come forward with the preparation of a architectural historic review and then secondly alternative designs for enclosure adam what what what does what does it typically take to get that review done in terms of time well it would depend on uh availability of the applicant's consultants um and then you know depending on staff workload uh you know if it came back to me I would need probably two weeks to to review it and update any sort of resolutions so my personal recommendation if accepted is to a date uncertain we would have to re-notice the project with the postcard mailers but it would it it would allow the the applicant to gather up that information submit it to staff and staff to be able to thoroughly review the the the uh updated design and any sort of uh historic analysis and I suggest we continue it to a date certain which will be um avoid having to do the noticing and give the applicant an opportunity to come forward with these and uh the report as well as alternative designs um and then if for some reason they aren't able to do so uh it can be it continue to be and that way we we avoid the noticing issue I would say it would it be appropriate to say December is it the 15th I got to get my calendar in front of me uh we are the first and third it would be December 16th would I I would I would suggest that we continue it to December 16th date certain that way the expense of re noticing uh wouldn't be incurred by the applicant and if we need to continue it further at that point we can do so uh yeah I mean I think that's uh you know that's that's definitely a good amount of weeks for us to come up with some alternatives right um maybe uh you know trying to use uh like a fence that kind of matches that existing screen material above or you know maybe considering uh putting like some storefront windows or adjusting the uh the landscape on a plane of boxes in the front somehow um so yeah that'll give us some fun to you know think through some some alternatives there yeah and thank you I but go ahead sorry yeah so my last comment was just going to be um and then also that historic would be would be able to get done during that time as well right that's that's like the main thing you guys are looking for yeah we need to understand from that report the historic the nature of that building in terms of a historic resource and that'll help to inform the design the materials of whatever enclosure if you should decide to go forward with that would be appropriate and fitting for that building and the district and just to be clear that report should identify the updated design not uh in as it fits with the with the building and district and with like the uh proposed uh rod iron fence or whatever alternative we're uh considering is that correct yes and I would I mean I my my direction is come back with some alternatives so we know we have the best and most fitting um solution for helping to avoid trespass and nuisance uh issues that you're experiencing okay um so please work with Adam on the report and uh alternatives and then I look forward to meeting again on December 15th um if anything should come up contact Adam and uh we'll coordinate it with you December 16th is it 16th you're right yes thank you okay thank you very much all right let's move on to item 3.3 landmark alteration at 9 10 spring street Adam you're the project planner again okay uh see this okay so this is the landmark minor landmark alteration permit for replacement stairs and deck file number lma 21-016 located at 9 10 spring street replace the the project is proposed to replace existing stairs to uh this says granny unit uh it should actually say uh studio above the garage then granny unit uh this this room doesn't have a kitchen so it's it's not considered a granny unit there's some the naming convention here I just want to clarify it should say studio um above the detached garage at the same time adding a new 47 square foot deck at the second story entrance and that deck is you see this little red portion here that that shows that the proposed deck but here's 9 10 spring street an aerial view there's a a back loading alley and then the front street is is spring street here's the site plan the proposed plans so you have so there's already stairs there they're adding this uh relatively small deck it does look inward towards the um towards the home it doesn't it's not off to the side over a neighbor's home it is made of wood here's a rendering of what that would look like at this location these stairs are the existing stairs the materials used are redwood to replace the stairs currently are of redwood material they're being replaced with redwood and the new deck is proposed to be of redwood as well this is within the uh the mcdonald preservation district I should mention that the site is a contributor to the district and this is on the accessory structure in the back which is the garage and studio above the garage and the project has been found to be in compliance with all uh findings of a minor landmark alteration permit and because of that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor landmark alteration permit for the replacement stairs a new 47 square foot deck at the second story entrance of the uh above garage studio located at 9 10 spring street file number lma 21-016 and that concludes stout speaking thank you adam can I can you show the plan view of that deck balcony again please yeah sure oh and I see that um shannon heart well it should make a correction the unit does have a kitchen however the plans provided to the city do not show a kitchen which is why there was some confusion there one second related to that the use has not changed right all we're looking at is the uh reconfiguration of the um a replacement of the staircase landing in the addition of this deck there's no change the interior okay correct and any sort of adu permitting would be non-discretionary right sorry let me go to that this page uh yeah i'm just trying to read it okay got it it's in the middle there uh so here's the existing how it looks now I see and then they would it would expand okay and the and I can see that the uh okay thank you um all right so now's the opportunity for the applicant or applicants agent to comment and I see a raised hand shannon heart well can you hear me yeah okay good um hi uh I don't know what you need me to tell you it's just a small deck to add to the the unit we have a we bought the house in March and we inherited the tenant who is lovely and um it's a very small space it's 294 square feet in the annex unit which is what we call it it does have a small kitchen um bathroom and you know sleeping area closets um but he was mentioning how nice it would be to have a private space outside and we thought oh that might be really nice to add a little deck there so we worked it into the garden the design so that it doesn't infringe on the path that exists and that's that's the whole idea is just to add a small space for him to have a private deck and it doesn't look into any yards or anything it's our trees shade the um the next door neighbor's yard so it doesn't look over the fence to her absolutely thank you for that um yeah though I was going to ask the question it appears from the site plan that the balcony is oriented in such a way that it would uh extend into the internal private view of your lot rather than place it in a place where it might intrude upon rear yard privacy of a neighboring lot so thank you for that clarification as well okay now's time for any member of the public who might be in attendance who wish to comment on this matter please raise your hand or press star nine and you'll be recognized seeing none I'll close the public input on this matter all right so Adam I think this is as presented in your staff report staff report your resolution and the findings you made for this landmark alteration permit are correct and support the approval of the proposed stair replacement and the new deck addition so I'll approve your resolution as proposed with conditions of approval thank you thank you very much miss Hartwell thank you all right so let's move on we are now um have a sign permit for a 3815 airway drive uh and this moment Shekali is the project planner your audio is very low oh okay there's something happening with audio today how about now I can hear you thank you so okay let me share my screen there you go so as you mentioned the project is a sign variance for Hampton Inn and Suites this is a brand new hotel is being built on the north in northwest side of a town so the applicant is proposing to install six signs including three wall signs one monument sign and two will come signs for a total of 419 and three square feet this is where the site is located as you can see the shape of the lot is a little bit different it's on the north side there is a medical office on the south side a new care facility is being constructed only a narrow side is facing a highway 101 so the reason they are asking is because how the site is located and is not easily visible from the public right of way so this is a side plan that shows the proposed hotel one monument sign number six will be along the street so it will help to find a direction from that street and three wall signs number five number two and number one will be on the on the building number three and four are two small welcome signs about the canopy where the cars will come in so they are not advertising the Hampton but they are just so welcome sign to help with the direction so this is the sign for facing north will be facing the medical office as you can see it's not taking whole space on that frontage it's it's like a design wise it meets with that area and it's compatible and this is the south side this side is the one that might be visible from the hopper avenue so when you drive on the hopper avenue this sign be helpful to find the direction to this hotel and this will be the one that will be visible from the highway as you can see a narrow part of the this hotel will be only visible from the highway we have coal store there that has a big sign facing the highway but this building is much smaller along the site and this is the other side that no sign is being proposed and here is a welcome sign on the canopy as you can see there are two let me go one more back here so I can show you the welcome sign so this is a welcome sign about the canopy and this is the second one and here is the monument sign the maximum height is seven feet it will be placed five feet from back of the sidewalk and the picture on the upper left shows the night view so it is not the cabinet sign type but it's proposed in a way that will meet with our sign ordinance the reason that they are asking for the sign variance is because our sign ordinances you are allowed to have only three signs and the total area of the signs cannot exceed 100 square feet the applicant is proposing four signs with two welcome signs that the total exceeds 100 square feet and that is the reason for the sign variance the notice was sent out to neighbors within 600 feet I did not receive any comments and questions about the sign variance and the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the california environmental quality act and qualifies for a class 11 exemption it is an accessory structure and with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve a sign variance for the property located at 3815 airway dry I know the applicant robin is available here also if you have any questions she'll be able to answer it and that was my presentation thank you thank you very much minute can you tell me what the sign area is for the wall signs there at the the one facing I guess north I guess it's that one this one is I don't know what happened at the center with the white one but this one is 144 square feet it's right down here and it faces the this one is facing the hospital yes the medical facility and this one is facing sub the new care facility that's being built there and this is also 144.38 okay okay thank you um all right if the applicant wishes to make a comment or statement regarding the proposal please raise your hand and you'll be recognized did you see my hand yeah okay great the reason that my customer feels that more signage would be necessary is because of the size of this particular building um 100 square feet across three signs on a four-story hotel uh would be very minimal especially given the location um and the way that this plot of land is in area the way that it's tucked back so being that it is four stories each the north and the south side the signage is on the very top so that way it can be seen over the other buildings that are around it so people can find it um and the front is the smallest elevation as monette said so in the front it is a smaller set it's stacked so people driving by on that main road would be able to locate it um the welcome signage that's on the port of cashier is non illuminated they're flat cut out letters they're they're just a basic you know hey hi you know here you're here thanks for coming kind of thing um and the monument sign was changed so that it could meet your code it also has the address to the location you know for safety purposes etc not just you know a pretty thing but that way if there's any kind of safety issues whatever emergency vehicles looking for locations it's right there thank you um I don't disagree uh regarding your assertion about visibility and the need for wall signs but we do have a very clear policy prohibitive freeway oriented um signage so I just wanted to explore with you a little bit more about the site and the vicinity and and um you mentioned the wall sign at the top of a four-story structure um and I don't know if I'm reading your you can see here um sign number one faces north towards the medical facility sign number two faces east and that will be the one that faces towards the freeway and sign number five that's their main street the main what so the site plan doesn't give me any context as to what street that is can you uh monette can you show either an aerial or airway right pardon that would be airway well can I can I there we go thank you and the hotel is in this call it yeah in that area where the driveway currently acts as the parking lot right so really I'm I'm I'm I'm uh just wanted oh and then are these internally illuminated signs at the top of the wall yes they are they are okay thank you um all right is and um let's see is there any member of the public uh in a tenant that wishes to comment on this matter um please raise your hand or press star nine and you'll be recognized seeing none a close public meeting um all right um well I'm you know it's it's always great to see this kind of investment in our community this project this hotel um I think it's a a creative use of a very irregular site it just calls into question how do that property boundary get drawn um but I'm great you found a solution for for the hotel um to be there the signage is all fine except for that sign number I'm looking at your sign diagram here it would be number seven no yeah number two actually sorry am I correct that's the one that's up on the top of the wall the one that is facing the street and highway yeah that's number two correct and that's the narrow elevation yeah I so monette did you in your findings I'll have to bring those up right now so can I say something oh yes and your audio is really low when I look at the aerial in along that street I'm actually from highway 101 I can see many of those uh commercials on that side they have signs that he's facing highway 101 like a habit burger holes so that's that is the way they are advertising their business is this this hotel is very further back from those other commercials that are closer to highway but they are still providing that sign that is facing highway yeah this is a really problematic development standard for signs and I'm going to take a look at the aerial for my benefit here to just to confirm what you're saying um bear with me one second uh okay so from the google yeah I'm looking at it so I can see airway extends north and then we have two sets of streets or roads one is the main access to the medical facility with the kind of a roundabout cul-de-sac configuration and then we have this other actually that which is the main access to the medical facility to the north there is the masking of the building and there are trees along 101 so I think this is an issue where we we can make the finding supporting um I'm talking about sign number two that it would be acceptable it's it's really it serves the function as as an identification sign and and it's not brazenly advertising um so I I think we can make now let's want to take a look at the resolution here one moment and navigate myself back to where I was sorry for your patience right I just want to take a look at the one finding okay so findings number three and four um or what I'm most concerned about here and when the first is regarding its position relative to other development of vicinity and um and the need for uh signage in order to um for identification and facility operation so that's good and then um and I do think the signage scaling and and um location on that east elevation that's in question is appropriate for the design so I'm comfortable with doing this um so I will um approve the requested sign variance for this project located at 3815 airway drive and um and thank you very much for and being patient uh as I review the findings so go forward thank you um all right so the last item on our agenda is and now I find my agenda and miss sick holly is this is not the last one there's one more after this it is I do my duty here and announce it uh or introduce it item 3.5 design review for 3242 airway drive it's not the last item um and uh miss and monette you're the project planner go ahead so a minor design review for a project named at i design review this is a minor design review so the applicant is proposing to increase portion of the roof high from 22 feet to 25 half feet and remove five windows and add a new like a loading door loading entrance here is a picture of existing building and the maximum height allowed for this zone which is industrial zone is 55 and the applicant is way below that is 25 and half for the roof that they are proposing and here is where the project is located the general plan land use is light industrial and the zone is also light industrial which are consistent and here is a side plan where the building is located and the parking lot here is the roof plan that shows the area where the roof high will be increased the centerpiece where it's dashed is where the roof will be increased and there are some part of the roof I will show that through my elevations that are already to that high like it's close to 25 and half and building is like going to be like a comply with that like it's going to steal the same height at some portions so here is the elevation the one on top is the existing one and this one shows the new addition and as you can see there are portion as the building where I mentioned is still high like at 25 feet and it's going to be look similar materials and look they are not changing it to different materials some of the windows will need to be removed as a result of this change and let me show you another elevation and here is the elevation which they are going to add a new door and let me see I think a window also will be removed here just to make sure existing elevation oh no here is the roll-up door where they are going to remove this door here and add a new roll-up door as I mentioned similar materials and same design to increase the height of the building and notice of this application this design review was sent out to neighbors I received two calls that they were not about the design but they were asking about the proposed use inside of that building and they had to explain that the use is ati restoration for some fire damage repair so the main questions I received two calls were about the proposed use not the design and for SIKWA the project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a class three exemption under section 15303 in that the project consists of construction of a small structure to an existing structure and with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve this minor design review for the property located at 3242 Airway Drive I know the applicant is also available and if there are any additional questions he can also answer them and that was my presentation thank you monette applicant do you wish to add to when it's a presentation or have additional comments go ahead hi this is uh michael martinez with ati restoration thank you as a presentation by monay I just want to add that we would love to add to the community of the city of santa rosa we're heavily involved with fire and water loss in the city of santa rosa and the surrounding counties that we would like to also just make the building nice in the front you know as far as homeless and put new shrubs new grass new plants and and just spruce up the building too in front so that's what I wanted to add to so we're just trying to add to the community so I appreciate you thank you for your comments appreciate that um is there anyone else uh do you have anybody else on your project team that wishes to raise your hand uh wish to comment if so raise your hand um I see none but I do have uh mr john erlert who are who um as his hand raised are you a member of the public that wishes to comment hi andy uh no I'm the project we prepared the plans and I think mr martinez pretty much covered what I was going to say so um no no further comment to add okay thank you all right um any member of the public wish to comment at this point if so please raise your hand or press star nine all right seeing none um I'll close a public meeting well I um I I am going to approve the project it's uh really encouraging to see commercial property owners uh investing in upgrading uh commercial properties here in the city so I applaud this project um and I I have read the resolution and and and do agree with its finding just notably that this increase in building height really does complement or does it dramatically change the um the building massing as it presently exists so um for that reason and the others that were given in minutes resolution I am pleased to approve this minor design review and um and uh go forward thank you um all right that concludes our discussion on that matter and now we can move on to the last item on our agenda today we have to find the agendas excuse me while I fumble around um it is item 3.6 a conditional use permit 914 Ripley street and Manette you're again the project planner you're busy please give your presentation thank you and this is the final permit for today so uh as you mentioned this is a minor conditional use permit for an integrated medical health center called Vessel located at 914 Ripley street so the applicant is proposing to operate an integrated medical health center within the grand floor of the existing building you see the building in the picture below the proposed hours of operation are from 9 a.m to 6 p.m monday through friday so as you can see in this picture this is a mixed use building the upper portion has been used as residential and the lower part on the grand floor has been used as a commercial long time ago but it has been vacant for some time and it seems there was some uh code or violation happening there prior to I'm not sure maybe the applicant can tell you what was happening there so the applicant wants to use the lower part for an integrated medical health center the upper building upper floor has a separate entrance so they don't share the same entrance to get to that building the corner here is the entrance to the second floor and the entrance the main grant is from street here and the general plan land use for this parcel is medium density residential and zone is R318 which stands for multi-family residential here is the site plan location of this parcel there are parking spaces in the back that maximum three cars might be able to park there and they are going to be used by the residents living on the second floor here and because the site is located within the downtown a specific area no parking on site is required for commercial uses so here is the example or a that example the conceptual floor plan for the site for this first floor there is a small waiting room at the front and there's a hallway which is this one I'm showing here that will access the three small rooms in the back that will be used for the health stuff and for by three different people and I want to just go over some confusion or misunderstanding that was resulted by the applicant project description the applicant in the project description mentioned that it dedicated ADA parking spot on the street for this use ADA stands for American Disability Act so we check with the traffic department no private parking is allowed on the street and even if it was going to be an ADA parking it would be used for public not private however because of the street dimensions no ADA parking is allowed on the street so there won't be any designated parking for this use on the street it's a public street and it's for everyone to use it nothing private and I okay and getting about the comments since a project was notified 10 days ago I have received emails from neighbors there were some in favor of it and some against it this morning I received like half an hour before this meeting I have received three emails from neighbors those three emails were in favor of that project and if you don't mind I want to go read that those three emails and give you their comments so the first yes okay thank you so the first email was from Matilda she wrote I am a tenant at 2410 Street Santa Rosa I am writing to pledge my support for the project of an integrated clinic at 914 Ripley Street it will it will be welcome addition to the neighborhood I strongly encourage the city to support this project and then at 1016 I received email from Joshua he also mentioned my name is Joshua and I am a tenant at 2410 Street I am writing to pledge my support for the project of an integrated clinic at 914 Ripley Street it will be a welcome addition to the neighborhood I strongly encourage the city to support this project and the third email was from Sarah I'm not sure if I pronounced her last name correctly Suguro and she says I am reaching out today in support of the project that is hoping to open at 914 Ripley Street my family owned 1510 Street my husband Tyler and both of our sons do not see any issues with having this project as a part of our neighborhood I feel that it is a perfect building to use the downstairs as a business actually it is something that I have dreamed of since we purchased our home back in 2004 we support this project please feel free to reach out to me to reach out should you have any additional questions so these are the three emails I have received this morning and about other emails I have received they were questions and concerns about parking which I try to explain no dedication no parking is going to be dedicated on the street and also as I mentioned this site is located with downtown specific plan area and no parking on site is required for commercial uses another comments or a few other comments I received above the proposed commercial use is not compatible with the residential use and our zoning code allows some certain commercial uses between residential uses which have less impact on those residential uses some of those are schools libraries museum medical health cares like this one and daycare facilities and our health health facilities those are the ones that have low impact and they can be placed between residential zones and I try to explain that one and those type of uses implement and meets the goals and policies of our general plan and that general plan and about SICWA the project has been reviewed in compliance with the SICWA and it qualifies for 15 182 there was any an EIR already prepared for the downtown station area specific plan and also person to SICWA guidelines section 15303 the project is involves conversion of an existing structure from one use to another use where only minor modifications to the structure are made also about public comments there is one more thing I remember to mention some neighbors were asking about this site will be good for a leave work or work leave use and unfortunately that use is not allowed in R3 18 so our code does not allow leave work or work leave use be placed in R3 18 also a leave work use has to have internal connection these two floors are separate they are not internally connected so it does not meet that requirement on top of that that use is not allowed in that zone 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 914 replaced street the applicant is Adam Fisher and he's available to answer if there are any questions from him and that was my presentation thank you thank you manette if you painted a very complete picture of the proposal appreciate that I have no questions of you if the applicant Adam wishes to comment please raise your hand Adam and and you have opportunity to do so you should be able to unmute because we did a sound check yeah hi hi this is Adam Fisher I'm one of the owners along with my wife Lorelle and our friend and I just want to say a few things about this and then I'll be available for any any questions um one is that uh we we live nearby we we uh Lorelle and I live about a mile away um we bought our house in 2008 and you know we're pretty excited to be investing in what is really our neighborhood um and both Ann and Lorelle intend to have the private practices at this location so we're not at all absent landlord we're really invested you know personally invested in the space that we hope to use for our our you know professional lives we feel pretty bad about the confusion about the parking spot in front it was always intended to be an ADA spot we never thought it was somewhere we could park ourselves we weren't trying to do that reservation it seemed to rile up a lot of people and and we're sorry that that was confusing and just a couple of comments about parking um I know that Zillow online says that we have eight garage spots at that property and that is not accurate there was a single garage spot that was accessed off the alley that is to the south of the property and that was closed off I don't really know when it was closed off because it was like that when we bought it but it's you know it's just a wall now um and in the back it is more limited than we had actually thought even when we purchased the property we really did try to figure out a way to fit more cars there and you can fit three cars there right now and where you can actually turn around exit when we've had additional vehicles there you know somebody has to back out the driveway which is pretty dangerous with this property as the building basically puts right to the sidewalk so we we you know just trying to clear up a few things about the parking and I also just want to point out that no matter how we develop the bottom floor whether it's residential or commercial we're going to impact the parking in the neighborhood no matter what we do there so I'll mute myself now and I'm available for any other questions or comments as needed thanks thank you thank you appreciate your clarification on those issues your use and parking all right now's opportunity for the public in attendance who wish to comment to do so Mr. Gustafson before we go to the next one I just noticed in my email I received another email right now in favor and supporting the project so at the end I can if you want I can go over that email also why don't you go ahead and ensure that to the record now okay sure so the email is from Stacey Morey this is what she said she said based on the let me bring it here she said based on the permit request to open a tree room medical therapy practice at 914 Ripley I see no concerns for a medical practical medical therapy practice to open I live on 10th street around the corner and would potentially be impacted by many businesses that could move in but not this type there are plenty of on-site and street parking spaces to support the need of seven parking spaces for a fully stacked staffed tree room medical practice the hours of operation are also within within a normal practice ending by 6 p.m I don't see noise or noxious smells be a problem we are okay with this project moving forward and that was her comments thank you thank you very much all right now any member of the public that wishes to comment please raise your hand and we have Cindy Toran um Cindy why don't you go ahead uh okay my name is Cindy Toran I live at 932 Ripley street which is two doors down from this property I walk by it every day just from a historical perspective I'm sure you're well aware that Ripley street was cut in two back when the highway went in it has historically been a residential neighborhood it is currently a residential neighborhood with a few minor exceptions and while the building has had some commercial use it has not had any commercial use since about 1985 which is 35 years ago I can honestly say I can think of worst commercial uses than this one but yeah most of the neighborhood that I have spoken to would like to retain its residential flavor on the the plan the general plan the DS I never can get the let's see it's the DSASP on map 3 it is zoned as medium residential and the description of that includes a range of housing types it does not include commercial I do understand that this you know is an application for a minor conditional use permit so it's basically to me kind of a variance um I think the focus uh in uh on this has uh taken some things out of context from that plan the plan uh is not a mixed use village center and it's not a affordable housing development that includes such things as on-site health and human services so I would see an affordable housing development as one of the types of property that is currently being constructed on the corner of college in Cleveland a mixed use village center to me anyway would be similar to the Pullman lofts which is down near ninth and Wilson I guess you would call it this is a residential neighborhood and personally I would like to keep it a residential neighborhood I think that there's plenty of commercial space available nearby for any type of commercial use including medical buildings I would prefer to see the bottom floor of this building turned we certainly have an affordable housing situation here in Santa Rosa the DSASP has been updated and recognizes that we need more housing in the area in Santa Rosa and this space could accommodate more housing and so that's what I would like to see happen and I am concerned about the parking uh there you know my home was built in 1906 that was before the days when everybody every person who lived there pretty much had a car so it's become very difficult to find parking on Ripley street I do understand that there's a little bit more parking around the corner on 10th street but that's a that's a little ways away from Ripley street is very much impacted and neighbors that I spoke to on 11th street basically said the same thing we are all concerned that it's going to even get worse with those two other projects that are in the works I do not see that there's a lot of parking spaces available in those developments and so we are expecting the area to be even more impacted that's I can tell you that at least in the evening I work during the day as do most people but in the evening there is very little space now I know they were only talking about nine to six perhaps if the hours were shortened to nine to four that might alleviate some of the parking issues so that's pretty much my pitch here I am a concerned homeowner thank you for listening thank you and I appreciate your coming participating today and offering your comments um is there any other member of the public in attendance that wishes to comment on this matter so please raise your hand all right seeing none I will close a public meeting well net a couple questions I have for you just to underscore the proposed use as being um consistent with the the downtown station area specific plan and also the implementing zoning can you uh just review briefly the allowed uses or the intent of the mid the medium density residential land use designation called for by the downtown station area specific plan and then how that is implemented by the appropriate zoning so let me find two goals or policies of a downtown station area that addresses this kind of uses just give me a second and I also share them with Cindy so she had Cindy she has seen them okay but I think it'd be good for us just to review this I have it handy to pull up if you guys want me to I can't share the screen I have them here okay so here are the two land use policies provide a downtown station area this is from downtown station area specific plan let me provide a downtown provide a downtown station area land use and development framework that establish a vibrant big city urban core centered around courthouse square and the network of mixed use village centers that offer an array of housing options for people at all income levels and stages of life mixed with retail and service caterings to residents daily basis and the other one is facilitates opportunities to incorporate innovative design and program features into affordable housing development such as on site health and human service community gardens car sharing and bike facilities supportive development of projects that serve homeless and special needs population so those two are the goals that are available like they are in our downtown station area specific plan and as I mentioned our zoning code allows some low impact uses to be placed between residential land users either single family or multifamily some of these users are like a schools schools can be be placed between residential zones because they provide like a that day today needs for people in that neighborhood areas also churches can be placed there or meeting facilities gathering facilities libraries can be there and they care facilities very can provide day to day needs of people maybe within the neighborhood there are some some kind of uses like that that are allowed to a minor use permit to be placed in a multifamily and some to between the low density residential single family land users and this use integrated health center is one of those uses does that answer your question yeah I just wanted to make that really clear and this this use permit has a number of findings associated with it which inform how in my case in this case how the zoning administrator can act and and the you clearly established the land use designation and the zoning there supports the proposed integrated medical service facility so so that question is settled then with a minor use permit the the main intention is as a tool to make sure it fits well or complements the other uses in the area which is primarily residential so there's where we get into parking hours of operation noise odor that kind of thing and here I would comment regarding parking and and and the application shows that the hours of operation are during normal business hours and any parking demand that's created would be during those times and not in the evening when residents come back and might need to avail themselves of on-street parking so in that regard the hours of operation of this facility and the parking demand is complementary with or compatible with the residential uses in the area so there's really no basis to demand with this use permit or condition this use permit with additional parking I would note however that the parking that the site does have parking and I imagine through use and convenience the property owner will probably utilize that and whether it's for the patrons or clients of the facility or not I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes available with regard to that use type and character it's not a a use with associated with the typical neighborhood nuisance noise and odor it is a medical facility it's fairly small it is small and there will be clients coming and going and and I doubt by the nature of the facility it would be a lot of stacked up clients or patients that probably would be appointment based and and won't see people waiting in line in the area so I think in terms of the volume of activity it's very minimal and then so the project was referred to traffic division to review and traffic didn't ask for any additional analysis and they indicated that this use will not have an impact of increasing traffic in this area so I just wanted to mention that traffic has reviewed thank you yeah and just to note that follow along with that the project is reviewed by the city's various departments including traffic and they do look at parking demand and also traffic operations safety that kind of thing um so they're they're they're making that finding or conclusion that this won't have an impact is it is another supporting fact that it is a compatible use um you know then we get to to the more qualitative aspect of the comment made regarding is this appropriate in a residential area um the um the use itself is is a kind of supportive use that will will really um be integrated in the community and it's a kind of use that uh people very much will be pleased to have available when they need it but otherwise I have a feeling it will really disappear will be pretty quiet um so this is exactly the kind of activities we want to encourage um to take place in residential areas and the downtown uh stationary specific plan calls for that sort of integration of supportive uses in residential areas and not just uh uh promoting uh uniform and and homogenous uh single family residential so this for a number of reasons is a very supportable use permit request based on its consistency with the general plan and specific plan and zoning based on its use the activity intensity of the use not constituting any public nuisance such as noise and odor and furthermore that um it will have it will not have a significant parking impact so based on the project description that has been prepared submitted by the applicant the findings made by the project planner this I will approve this project um subject to the conditions of approval um which also I want to point out to the applicant uh includes the project description and the hours of operation that have been put forward so thank you very much for for presenting this uh this matter is approved we've come to the end of our agenda for the November 4th zoning administrator meeting so it's my pleasure to adjourn the meeting and thank all of you