 Good morning, Lonnie. Can you hear me? I can. Good morning. Well, I think it's 1030. Is it okay if we get started? Let's do it. Okay. So good morning everybody. My name is Susie Murray. I'm filling in as the zoning administrator this morning while my coworker and the regular zoning administrator is on a well-deserved vacation. So to kick off the meeting, I'm going to call it to order. The first item on our agenda, or item number two, is a time for public comment. During this period, it's a time for any member of the public to go ahead and comment on any item that's not on the agenda. There will be a time during each agenda item for members of the public to comment, but this again is a time for someone to make comments for something that is not on the agenda. So with that in mind, if you are calling in, if you hit star nine, that'll raise your hand. Otherwise, if you'd like to make a comment, go ahead and raise your hand and Lonnie will call on you. Zoning administrator Murray, there are no hands raised at this time. Oh, good. Okay, so we'll get down to my statement of purpose. The zoning administrator is appointed by the Planning and Economic Development Director and has the responsibility and authority to conduct public meetings and to take action on discretionary applications. A determination or decision by the zoning administrator may be appealed within a 10 day or 10 calendar day period and the appeal will go to the appropriate appeal body, the design review board, cultural heritage board, planning commission or city council. Again, those appeal applications need to be submitted within 10 days, except if the 10th day falls on a nonworking day. So in this case, the 10th day would fall on the 29th of May, which is a Sunday, and the following day, May 30th, is Memorial Day. So it looks like our 10th day would actually be Tuesday, the 31st. So any appeal application would need to be submitted by then. So we don't have any consent items. So I'm just going to move right on to our scheduled items and the first item on the agenda, 5.1, is a public meeting for the Ramirez fence. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, conditional use permit CUP 22-016 for the property at 2009 Stoney Oat Court. And I'm going to hand it over to Planner Tumions to give us the project presentation. Thank you, Ms. Murray. This is Christine Tumions, senior planner in the first project on today's agenda, the Ramirez Fence Minor Conditional Use Permit, located at 2009 Stoney Oat Court. It's a minor conditional use permit request that would allow the construction of a seven foot fence with one foot of lattice along the side and rear property lines. The proposed fence would provide privacy for the applicant and their neighbors, accounting for significant grade change between each property. Here's an aerial of the project site. The area was substantially affected by the Tubbs Fire, many of the homes or if not all the homes were destroyed. This is a site planned for the replacement dwelling on the property. The applicant is proposing a fence set back from the front and then going along the side and rear property lines. The schematic on the right shows kind of where the the lengths of the fence that the applicant is proposing. And here is a sort of schematic drawing showing the the gates on either side of the house and the fence going along the side and rear property lines. Here is a photo that the applicant submitted showing an existing neighbor's fence that has a similar height and design. There were no public comments. There was some there was I think one question and I provided the person that emailed me a copy of the plans and I didn't hear back after that. So there was maybe one person that was interested but they didn't voice a concern after the fact. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and satisfies the provision of the CEQA and that the construction of a fence qualifies for a Class 32 exemption under Section 15303 and the fence is a residential accessory structure. And the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approve minor conditional use permit for the property looking at 2009 Stony Oak Court file number CUP 22-016. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. So I have to say at first I looked at this and I thought I'm going to say it publicly. It drives me crazy that an eight foot fence around side and rear property lines has to go through this process when if they did two feet of lattice and six feet of solid board, it could be approved over the counter. I don't think that I mean it's a quirky thing in our zoning code and hopefully we get that fixed. So I appreciate the applicant's willingness to try to match what's close more closely what's already constructed in their neighborhood and also step outside the box and go through the fence permit process to get the design that they wanted. So that's there you have my opinion. I hope I don't get any backlash from that. But but then and I reviewed the resolution. I'm good with with everything. The only thing that I would ask is that in the title bar of the resolution if we can include eight feet because the overall height I think is eight feet with the big board, the fence boards and then the lattice on top and and does the applicant want to add anything? I guess and I need to open up public comment too here. So first the applicant if they're here and would like to comment they've got their day their minute. No. Zoning administrator I don't see any hands raised and I'm not sure the member of this applicant team is here. Okay then I'm going to open it up for public comment and I apologize to anybody that's listening. As I said I'm filling in today so that's trying to read the agenda in my script and and keep the meeting going. So anyways let's go ahead and open it up for public comment. Do we see any hands raised Blaney? I do not and just a reminder for anyone just joining. If you wish to make a public comment you can click the hand icon at the bottom of your screen and if you're calling in you can press star nine to raise your hands and it doesn't look like any hands are raised. Okay well I jumped ahead of the game and I already gave my comments so with that I think I'm going to go ahead and approve this fence. So thank you very much to the applicant and thank you planning to me. So let's move on to item two. This is another public meeting it's a fire rebuild and the project is also exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. It requires a hillside development permit number HDP 22-005 and the project address is 3873 Rocky Point Way. I believe we've got we've got two planners we've got a planner team here but I believe it's Planner Rago that will be doing the presentation on this one. Is that correct? Yes it is there she is. Okay take it away Planner Rago. Thank you zoning a minute Shana Murray. This is Anna Rago planning intern for item 5.2 the project applicant at 3873 Rocky Point Way is requesting a hillside development permit for the rebuild of their residence. The project applicant is requesting a hillside development permit for the rebuild of a two-story five-bedroom four-and-a-half bath dwelling with two attached two car garages that was affected by the 2017 Tubbs fire. Existing impervious surfaces currently on the site is 6,577 square feet. Pre-fire build-out of the site is 12,900 square feet and the new total livable area of the site will be 3,621 square feet. Site planning minimizes the visual prominence of the hillside development by taking advantage of the existing site features for screening including tree clusters, depressions and typography, setback hillside plateau areas and other natural features in that the project area was damaged in the 2017 Tubbs fire and the proposed development plans to incorporate native plantings with that the remaining existing site features. Project grading respects the natural features and visibly blends with the adjacent properties and that the home does not extend necessarily into the natural terrain which minimizes the construction footprint and retains existing surviving trees and shrubs outside the construction footprint. This aerial shows the project site highlighted off of Fountain Grove Way on Rocky Point Way. So here's the slope analysis. Site development minimizes alteration of typography, drainage patterns and vegetation on land with slopes of 10% or more and that the new development follows the hillside grade. Site development does not alter slopes of 25% or more except in compliance with code section 20-32.020B in that existing slopes do not surpass 25%. The building pad location design and construction avoids large areas of the flat pads and building forms will be steeped to conform to site topography and that the home design fits with the hillside slope and the location of the proposed home minimizes expansion of flat areas. The parcel is zoned very low residential and is a plan development PD0134. The proposed project complies with the zoning code section 20-32.060 the hillside development standards and all other applicable provisions of the zoning code and is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan that is in the single family residential development and is supported by the very low residential general plan land use. There were no public comments made for this project. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Equality Act and satisfies the provisions of CEQA in that a new or modified single family residence qualifies for a Class III exemption under section 15-303 in that the construction of one single family residence in a residential zone is applicable. The Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Zoning Administrator by resolution approve a hillside development permit for the property located at 3873 Rocky Point Way file number HDP 22-005 and that concludes my presentation. Is the applicant here and would like they like to add any comments? The applicant is here and would like to provide a comment. This is Jeff Farrell, Farrell-Faber. Just want to say thank you to Plano Rago and Kristin Nay for their efforts of putting this and we agree and support their presentation. Thank you. Thank you. So I have a couple comments but first I'm going to open it up for public comment. Is there anybody out there that would like to comment on this project other than the applicant team? I do see a hand raised. Stephanie Bloomfield, I'm going to give you a prompt to speak and can you please state that your name for the record. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes we can. My name is Stephanie Bloomfield and I'll be brief. I received a card because we have a residence over on Horizon View Way which looks directly across onto this hillside at 3873 Rocky Point Way. Before our neighborhood was raised in the Tubbs Fire the house at 3873 Rocky Point Way was a 2,500 square foot home built in 1986 nestled in trees. It couldn't be seen by the neighboring homes and was nestled into the slope below the ridge and constructed in a low profile manner that was not a disruption to the views. I recognize this is a hillside permit but the reason I believe you send these notices to neighbors is so we have the opportunity to weigh in appreciate the cooperation from the city staff who have provided plans and other information to me relative to this project. The current owners plan to increase the size of the home by over 250% including 3,600 square feet of interior two attached two car for a total of four car garages which were not previously presence 1500 square feet of outdoor decks on two levels. The house is well over 100 feet wide and its placement and plans involve pouring a second driveway which will create additional runoff in addition to the existing driveway that serviced the previous home. This is on a steeply slope plot I recognize it may pass all engineering standards but I wanted to weigh in with my concerns because I looked at slide three that Plano Rago put up showing the view of this home from our home and it's quite a large white structure completely out of character for what was there before. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak on this? Zoning Administrator Murray I don't see any more hands raised. Okay so first I'd like to thank you very much for your comments. It's real important to me to have public participation in the meetings and I understand your concerns and sadly sadly all the trees were destroyed as part in the fire so my guess is that the impacts of this home when and if constructed will be lessened once the landscaping around it grows up around it. The zoning doesn't doesn't say that it has to remain the same size and and in my review of the plans I was actually quite pleased to see that the house has been designed in a way that does step down very well with the slope and it's a it's a developable property. I know it's a much larger home than was there previously but it still has as they have still managed to again step it with the hillside to minimize encroachment into the steeper slopes and develop it with a home that is is really permitted on the property. They they aren't disrupt they may be disrupting a view and you'll see a new home that's that's the nature of residential development. I'm looking at a map of what what was there before and I can I can see where it was nestled nestled in but I can see several other homes that were not in the area so I think the project was designed well. I'm I'm very pleased with the compliance with the our hillside ordinance with stepping down. It is a large home and I but I'm going to approve the project because I think it's a well-designed large home home. So with that let's move to the next item and thank you planner Rago you did a fantastic job. So item 5.3 is another public meeting for the Bertolino barge board replacement siting replacement which is again exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. This is a landmark alteration number LMA 22-009 for the property located at 826 St. Helena Avenue and this again I believe oh I'm sorry this with this presentation will be by planner Thumians again. Thank you Ms. Mary. So yes this is a proposed minor landmark alteration permit or barge board replacement on the front facade of an existing residence within a historic district. This slide shows an aerial of where the property is located off of St. Helena Avenue in between Austin Way and Horse Street and oops here we go. This is what the applicant provided as far as a site plan showing where the house is located. I had to familiarize myself with what barge boards are. So barge board is that sort of decorative eave molding that you see around the peak of the front facade of the house and over time you know some may call it gingerbread. The little pieces chip off or deteriorate and are in need of renovation or replacement and so that is what Mr. Bertolino is requesting. Here's another drawing showing the barge board. The applicant is proposing to replace it exactly the way it was but the same material and our code requires a minor landmark alteration when there is a repair to an exterior material. Here's a photo showing the residence and the barge board. Here's a close-up photograph that the applicant provided so you can see some of the pieces are just worn and damaged and missing due to age and weather and time. Staff is recommending approval because the replacement is using the exact same materials and the exact same design so staff is recommending approval of the barge board replacement and the barge board replacement is exempt from CEQA because it's a repair or rehabilitation of the property and applicant Bertolino is available if we'd like to make any comments or if you have any questions and I'm also here if you have any questions. I don't have any questions about the project it seems pretty straightforward to me and I another this is another painful one that is required to go through the entitlement process to replace those elements and I just wanted clarification it's not any siding it's just the barge board at the trim the decorative room. Yes that's correct. Okay thank you I didn't know what barge board was too. Thank you for answering that early on in the presentation um and so I I'm not seeing a hand raised I'm not seeing anything my screen's not cooperating so I can't tell if anybody's raising their hand Lonnie so I'm gonna defer to you is does the applicant want to say anything? Yes the applicant is raising his hand. Okay great. Applicant Bertolino I sent you a prompt to give you permissions to speak if you want to accept that and then there's a place where you can unmute yourself at the bottom of your zoom screen. Okay there you go. So I'm looking forward to replacing the barge boards and thank you for the approval. You bet I I need to open it up still for public comment and are there any neighbors or anybody else that would like to comment on this project? Zoning Administrator Murray there are no hands raised at this time. Okay then I am I'm gonna look at it and tell you I approved the project. I wish we could have done it in a simpler manner. Congratulations go replace your barge board actually there isn't a 10 day appeal period so you may want to hold off on that just for a few days. So what's the process in getting a building permit? Do I come down to the planning department and apply for a building permit after the appeal period? You can apply for your building permit before the appeal period. You can they can issue the permit before the appeal period it's just if we do receive appeal you get a you get a basically a red tag to stop you and you can apply for your building permit in person or you can easier apply for it online. This is something my guests they can do over the counter so it actually may be easier to do it in person. Okay schedule an appointment with Q less and you can find those in directions on our website. Very good thank you. Okay so our last item is again a public meeting and this is for the Young Smith LLC home occupation. It is another project that is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. This is a conditional use permit number CUP 22-019 at 1414 Velma Avenue and I'm going to ask either Planner Tumions or Planner Rago to take to give a presentation. I know Planner Rago was having some issues with her computer so. Is it possible that we could take a five minute break? Absolutely I just saw I just saw your message so yeah let's go ahead and take a five minute break and see if we can't get her computer backed up and running. Nervous sweat. I'm starving right now. The zoning administrator Murray do you want to mute yourself? Oh you hear me say I'm starving right now. Sorry I'm going to grab a snack. So I think we can get started again. I just got a message that Planner Rago's computer is up and running woohoo. There she is ready for your presentation. Yes I'm ready. So thank you zoning administrator Murray. This is Anna Rago again planning intern for item 5.4 the project applicant at 1414 Velma Drive is requesting a minor conditional use permit for their home occupation Young Smith LLC. The project applicant is requesting a minor conditional use permit for the use of the applicant's home garages to be used for the home occupation of gunsmithing. This typical business activities that the applicant would be conducting as a gunsmith are cleaning maintenance modifications and repairs of firearms. The cleaning of firearms involves the disassembly of the firearm deep cleaning of the parts and then reassembly. The maintenance portion is closely related to the cleaning but includes safety inspections. The modification of firearms can involve anything from the installation of telescopic sights to making a firearm compliant with California law. The repairing of firearms usually involves the troubleshooting of the firearm then determining if a replacement part must be ordered or if the applicant can repair the part using hand tools. Much of the work is done by hand and does not require the use of machinery but if it does the equipment used does not cause any excess noise. Granting the permit would not constitute a nuance or detrimental to public interest health safety, convenience or welfare to persons property or improvements in the vicinity and the zoning district in which the property is located in that the proposed and conditions no nuance is anticipated. This aerial shows the project site highlighted off of Grenville Road and Belmont App. The parcel is zoned very low residential as R-1-6. The R-1 zoning district is applicable to the areas of the city intended to be maintained as residential neighborhoods comprised of detached and attached single family homes. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all other applications of the zoning code. There were no public comments made for this project. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and satisfies the provisions of CEQA and that a home occupation qualifies for a Class 1 exemption under Section 15301 and that home business prevents negligible or no change in residential use or environmental consequence. The Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the zoning administrative by resolution improve a minor use permit for the property located at 1414 Velma App, file number C-22-01. That concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. Do you know if the applicant is present would like to say anything about the project? The applicant is present and let's take a comment. Chris I just sent you a prompt to speak. Can you hear me? Yes we can. I just like to say thank you very much and sorry I'm a tidbit nervous. The process was done very well and I appreciate the help of all those who were involved. So thank you. You bet and stay close by because I'm going to have some questions for you. But I'd like to see first if there are any members of the public that would also like to speak. Zoning Administrator Murray I don't see any hands raised at this time. Okay so so Chris thank you very much for pointing out and saying and thanking staff and I totally get the nervous I was saying before this meeting that I was really nervous about it too so the whole meeting not your item. But some of the I reviewed the application and I reviewed the resolution and I have a couple of questions I see that you know the the noise ordinance and well noise odor and a whole bunch of other things that you need to comply with in in the conditions. One of the questions that I have is after you repair a gun do you fire it to test it and if so how do you how do you maintain the sound on that? Can we unmute him or Chris if you're trying to talk you're muted? There we go. So I would not be doing that at home obviously that would be done at a safe location of shooting range so and then I'd be transporting it back to my home and then delivering it to the client. Okay and then and what about ammunition? Ammunition is stored but it's in locked cabinets in my home. Are the guns also kept in locked cabinets? Yep and my personal are kept in my own safe and then I have a secondary safe that would be for clients. Okay so other than when you're working on them though all the guns would be kept in a locked. Okay good good and then I have in your application description it said that you may be modifying guns illegal guns to make them legal guns. I just need to ask this question for the record will you be modifying will or would you would there be a situation where you would modify a legal gun to an illegal gun? No then I place that in there because there are individuals who own something and may not know that uh compliances have changed and so might need something removed or attached in order to conform with California law but that's more or less most likely would not happen but I would not be like handling any like illegal firearms. Okay I just I'm I given the sensitivity of guns right now I would you be opposed to adding a condition that says that you would not be modifying a legal gun to make it an illegal gun? I wouldn't be opposed to that no I would never make anything illegal. Good good yeah I mean I know you can't control what people are doing with their guns or that they have you know that they're they they know how to use them but I would like to know and feel confident with a use permit for this that that nothing illegal was being created in your garage and then I think I'm just doing a quick review about storage I I think I'd also like to add a condition that says that ammunition and and guns will be stored separately and that guns at all times well both actually at all times will be except when you're working on them will be kept in a an appropriate safe if that's all right. Yes. Yay well with that I am go as or as modified with those additional conditions and uh Ms. Rago are you are you okay with those conditions? Yes I'm satisfied with those conditions. Great will you do me a favor and modify the the resolution before it comes over my way? Yes I'll go ahead and do that thank you. Much appreciated so with that I'm going to go ahead and approve the conditional use permit and good luck to you Chris I hope you have a successful business. Thank you so much. You bet you bet so I know I know and and nothing moves swiftly through our department right now we're working on that I can try I can I can assure you so before we adjourn the meeting I do want to say to everybody out there again that any decision made today um is is appealable within 10 calendar days the 10th calendar day lands on Sunday the 29th Monday the 30th the city is closed so that extends the appeal period to Tuesday May 20 or May 31st if if for some reason you do need to play or submit an appeal please do so by by quit and time that day um and to all of our applicants anybody who wants a building permit you can apply during the appeal period um so there you go and with that I'm going to adjourn the zoning administrator meeting of May 19th at 11 10 a.m