watching the controls is, watching the controls is fine. I know, I'm sorry. There we go. Thank you. Does that actually know what he does? There we go. All right, we are on. Are we going? Mm-hmm. Good morning everybody and sorry for the delay in the meeting, technical issues. That's probably just because I'm in the room, because that's what happens. Welcome to the zoning administrator meeting of May 18th. I wanna introduce myself. My name is Susie Murray for those online who don't know me because I think everybody in the room does. I'm a senior planner here at the city of Santa Rosa. I am also the zoning administrator. So with that, I am going to call the meeting to order. There, how's that? The first order of business is a public comment period. Public comment period is intended for items that are not listed on our agenda. Technically, they should be within the purview of the zoning administrator, but I'm willing to listen if you have something to say. Mark, is there anybody raising their hand? If you're attending in person and wish to make a public comment, please raise your hand. Thank you. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. You may find the raise hand button at the bottom of the screen. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand and star six once unmuted to be called upon. Do we see any hands raised? Zoning administrator Murray, I do not see any hands raised at this time. Great. So the zoning administrator business, item 3.1 is the statement of purpose. The zoning administrator is appointed by the director of planning and economic development and has the responsibility and authority to conduct public meetings and hearings and to act on applications for minor or reduced review authority projects or entitlements, which are land use permits. A determination or decision by the zoning administrator may be appealed to the appropriate appeal body. It could be the design review board, cultural heritage board, planning commission or city council. Any action taken today will be, the appeal period will expire actually on Tuesday, May 30th, because we have a holiday weekend coming up. So, woohoo. Anyways, I'll try and remind you as we take action today on each item. But yeah, if you can make note now that the final date to submit an appeal is May 30th. And with that, I'm gonna say item 4.0 is consent items. We have none and we have scheduled items. Oops. You know, I wanna back up to item 3.2 and get to zoning administrator reports. I would like to announce to the public a couple of things. We are currently in the process of updating our general plan. I take every opportunity I can to give a plug for that event. This is the time when you can affect land changes. So please, if you have concerns or ideas, this is the time to talk to us. So keep your eyes on outreach events. You can contact the planning email, planning at srcity.org and ask for updates. We will forward it to the appropriate staff. So now I'm gonna move on to jump ahead to item 5.0, which is our scheduled items. And the first item is a public meeting. It's a parking lot expansion and it is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. It's minor design review for a proposal at 1405 Thunderbolt Way, city file number DR19-061. And the project planner is Suzanne Harman. Thank you, zoning administrator Murray. Just be one moment for me to share my screen, which I need permission for. I did raise my hand though. I'm presenting the proposed parking lot expansion at 1405 Thunderbolt Way, application number DR19-061. The applicant proposes a parking lot expansion with 29 proposed parking lot stalls for a project area of a little over 12,500 square feet to serve the existing VI, a VI solutions to the west of the site located at 1405 Thunderbolt Way. Sorry, I have issues pronouncing it. This is the parcel location. The general plan land use designation is general industry and the zoning district is general industrial with other parcels, surrounding parcels I should say that also have a general industrial zoning designation as well as business park. And to the south of the site, you also notice some plan development zoned residential. These are the supporting plans. We have the landscape plans shown at the top of the slide and at the bottom is a more geographic view of the proposed parking lot expansion. These are the required design review findings for approval of the application. And these are the continued required findings and staff were able to make the findings for all. And I did want to make a point for staff and to the zoning administrator that there was an additional conditional approval proposed for this resolution which is incorporating the program EIR mitigation measures that are stated within the memorandum dated April 12th, 2023. This project has been found categorically exempt in that the environmental resource memorandum dated April 12th, 2023 states that the proposed project would be within the scope of the previously certified Santa Rosa General Plan 2035. And environmental impact reports, general plan EIR and is consistent with the criteria listed in sequence section 15183. I passed that, sorry. There were no, there are no unresolved issues as a result of staff review. There was one resident that reached out to me regarding just general comments, one thing that they did bring up was whether the applicant considered proposing landscaping or trees, I should say on the south side of the parking lot. And it was determined that due to a storm drain that is on that side, it would be difficult to plant bigger trees, we should say for that site. So that was kind of the reasoning behind that. It is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the zoning administrator approve a minor design review permit to allow a parking lot expansion located at 1405 Thunderbolt Way and above is my contact information if any questions arise. And we also have the applicant architect present in the room as well as a few members of the team via Zoom, if you have any questions. Thank you. And does the applicant team wanna make a presentation? There was no presentation provided. Right, any comments? No, okay. Okay, before you let go of that, can you back up to the landscape plans? So is this, so north, south, which is the south side? That's the south side, okay. So the south side is on the left side of the screen. Got it, okay. So I actually, I also had some questions about the landscaping, I had a similar. So did we talk to our stormwater and creeks people about putting trees on that southern elevation? That's the creek side, right? That's correct. Yeah. How did we come to the determinant? Because it's not just, there's a lot of room over there. Yes, yes, there's approximately 15 to 20 feet between the fence and the top of bank. And I had a similar question. So about the landscaping, about putting trees. Let me respond to the question. Do you know what kind of fencing was proposed there or is it just a water agency fence? I was thinking maybe that could be a buffer. I have no idea what kind of fencing is proposed there. If it's a chain link fence, I would never approve it. I wouldn't approve it. So if it's chain link fence and the prop that, yeah, that would be something that if it's not already there, that one's going to need to come back through the fence process in less week. Yeah, there is a fence already there, the water agency installed. Yeah, they don't have the same design standard design. Perhaps an IV on the fence can be requested. Well, who determined that the trees can't go there? I wasn't. This was under staff assumption that because there was a drain there, this was staff assumption that maybe that's why there were not trees proposed there. Okay, so I'd like to explore because I think we may be able, there may be certain types of trees that can go over there. And I think it makes sense to put that kind of a buffer. Just because from across the way, I look at a parking lot from my house and it just is not ideal. So I would like to explore that, but I have another request on the trees too. And that is, you've done crape myrtle, proposed crape myrtle and Chinese pistachio, but where are those Chinese, the crape myrtle's are wonderful where they are, by the way, I will say that.  So they should be beautiful, but I'm wondering if we could get something more like a valley oak. The intent of the parking standard, the one tree for every five spaces, is really to provide shade. It's shade and cooling and what have you. And I think that putting a native tree on the valley floor makes a whole lot of sense. Is there any? I don't see what architect would have an issue with that, the landscape architect. Got it. They don't need to go into the planting fingers. They're too big for those planting fingers, but as proposed, I think we could probably squeeze them in on the side and they would probably thrive. So if we can just add a condition that this speaks to that, or just adding trees, let's see, change or consider, change the Chinese pistachio to valley oak trees. Okay. And explore the possibility of adding trees on the southern property line adjacent to the creek. Can we say trees or a screening in case some of the trees don't work? Yeah, I think so, but I want it to be, I would prefer trees. I don't think growing ivy on the fence provides an adequate screen. I think we need something taller, which is, you can do both. I'd love to see it. Ivy is very invasive too. So that's, I have a concern about that. There may be a much more appropriate plant there. So, but I want to look at trees. There's room and it may be that it goes onto the other side of the fence. That could be a possibility as well. We'll have to get property owner authorization, but just to look at screening options on the south side. So yeah, we do need to allow some flexibility because we don't know exactly what's going on, but that should be provide screening on the south side of the parking lot. The planting plan should be approved by the planner. And that will give you that. There were some other things that I noticed when I was doing my review that I would like to also add in, actually do a little bit of a modification that I've got it draft. So you don't have to take a lot of notes, but I want to talk about it here in the meeting. One of the conditions was that no permanent or no signs are approved as part of this project. That's a standard, that's a standard condition, but I'm going to say no permanent signs are approved as part of this project because I'm going to add in a requirement for that a sign shall be erected during periods of construction that provides the onsite general contractors or designated representatives name, phone number and email address. And then to tag on to that response to all complaints shall occur within 24 hours regardless of weekends and holidays. The reason for those two conditions is that people can resolve their issues with the contractor, with the developer and not involve the city. That's our hope. We are very crunched for time right now. So, and then there were also another batch of conditions that were referenced in the environmental analysis that weren't referenced here. So I wanted to add them in as well as conditions of approval, compliance with all conditions of approval provided in the environmental analysis memorandum prepared by Mary Bean, First Carbon Solutions, FCS International Inc. dated April 12th, 2023, including but not limited to those under the headings of construction, Bay Area Quality Management District, Best Management Practices, Biological Resources Best Management Practices, Nesting Birds and California Tiger Salamander. And as, oh, and then one more. Gosh, where is the resolution? We have our art, and public places requirement. So, the project shall comply with city code section 2108, development requirements relating to public art. So if it's a warehouse, I don't know that it'll be required if it's commercial building, it will. So there's, it's, you may or may not have the public art requirement. So do all of those, those conditions, extra conditions, are those okay? Perfectly. Love that. Okay, then, as condition, I, yeah. I'm not allowed to online. Public. Zoom attendance. Thank you. The ability to do public comment. I missed it. So I'm gonna open this up for public comment. Is there anyone in the room that would like to comment? No. No. Anybody online? Any hands raised? If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. If you, you may find the raise hand button at the bottom of the screen. If you were dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Zoning administrator Maria, I do not see any hands raised. A few. Okay, then let me go back as commissioned. I'm gonna go ahead and approve the project again. The appeal period ends on Tuesday, May 30th.  And that includes that item. Okay, item 5.2 is another public meeting for another parking lot exemption. Again, it is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. It requires minor design review and the property is located at 14.02 Mariner Way here in San Rosa. And the file number is DR19-060. And again, the project planner is Suzanne Hartman. Thank you. Again, zoning administrator Maria. This is a parking lot expansion located at 14.02 Mariner Way application number DR19-060. The applicant proposes a parking lot expansion with 27 proposed parking lot stalls for a project area of 11,724 square feet to serve the existing via the solutions. I don't know why I can get that one to the east side of the site located at again, 14.02 Mariner Way. This is an aerial view of the project site. As you can see, there is an existing warehouse and parking lots on the site. The general plan land use destination is general industry and the current zoning district is general industrial. Again, the surrounding uses include general industrial, business park, residential and open space. This is the proposed parking lot expansion site plan and landscape plan. These are the list of required findings made for determination to approve the application. And these are the required findings continued. Again, staff is going to be revising the resolution to include an additional condition of approval incorporating the program EIR mitigation measures. The environmental resource memorandum dated April 12th, 2023 states the proposed project would be within the scope of the previously certified Santa Rosa general plan 2035 and environmental impact report general plan EIR and is consistent with the criteria listed in CEQA section 15183. Perfect. There are no unresolved issues as a result of staff review, no comments were received for the site. So it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the zoning administrator approve a minor design review permit to allow a parking lot expansion located at 1402 Mariner Way. And my contact information is listed here. We also again have the same applicant team in the room as well as on Zoom with any questions raised. Thank you. And I'm going to ask again, any comments from the applicant team? Up to date. I have a question on that one. I didn't look as closely as I left at landscape plan. Is it the same trees on that one? I believe so. Yeah, okay. Yeah. And then I'm going to open the public comment period. There's anybody in the room? Nope. No comments from in the room. Are there any hands raised, Mark? If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. You may find the raise hand button at the bottom of the screen. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Administrator, there are no public comments at this time. Thank you very much. So, I think I've got to memorialize it for the record, but we're going to go and add the same conditions if that's all right. So the first one will be to the project. The project shall comply with city code section 2108, development requirements relating to public art. I am going to change the, what did I do with my notes? Oh, I was finished with them. The signage, no signs are approved. It should be no permanent signs are approved as part of the project. Signs will require separate planning and building permits. And then adding the following conditions. A sign shall be erected during periods of construction that provides on-site general contractors or designated representatives, name, phone number and email address. And another condition, a response to all complaints shall occur within 24 hours regardless of weekends and holidays. And then that long condition, compliance with all conditions of approval provided in the environmental analysis memorandum prepared by Mary Bean, first carbon solutions, FCS international incorporated dated April 12th, 2023, including but not limited to those listed under the headings of construction, Bay Area, Air Quality Management District, Best Management Practices, Biological Resources, Best Management Practices, Nesting Birds in California, Tiger Salamander. And does the applicant agree to those additional conditions? Thank you very much. With that, I'm also approving that project. So thank you. Alrighty. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Have a nice day. Thank you. Oh, and again, the appeal period for that expires on Tuesday, May 30th. Next, we have a public meeting. This is for West Coast Self Storage, number two, this again is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. It's a minor conditional use permit for a project proposed at 2875, Sebastopol Road, city file number CUP23-008. The project planner is Mike Genousik. I hope I got that right, Mike. And has Mike been elevated? He has, he is able to cast his screen to share his screen. Great. Are you there, Mike? Oh, there you are, Mike. I'm here. Thank you, zoning administrator Murray. So I'm just going to head and share my screen and let me just dive into the presentation. Can you hear me okay? I can hear you great. Thanks. Excellent. So as referenced in the agenda title, I'll be presenting the minor conditional use permit for West Coast Self Storage. Apologies, there is a typo on my title slide. It says designer view, which is a subsequent entitlement for the same project, but the permit file number is correct. It's CUP23-003. It's at 2875 Sebastopol Road and I'm Mike Genousik, contract planner with Ungroup Project Description. So the request before you, this morning is for a minor conditional use permit to allow a personal storage facility that abuts a residential use for the property. The trigger is a footnote and zoning code table 2-10 and it's worded such that where a personal storage facility abuts a parcel with a residential use. And we'll get into why that's important in the next slide or two, but it's not zoning district, it is residential use. There's also a bundled request for a parking reduction pursuant to zoning code section 20-36050 C1B. And this is more of a, to formalize the dual use of loading base to serve as required customer parking stalls. And then as I mentioned, there will be a subsequent design review to be heard by the design review board and that will entail review of the architectural and landscape plans. Here's the site. It's a vacant lot at the corner of Sebastopol Road and Pertain Lane. It's approximately one acre, and it's surrounded by residential uses to the North and West and light industrial uses to the East, business park uses to the South. Here's an image of the site. You can see it's vacant. There's some previous pavement areas from past development and uses of the property and ruderal vegetation currently exists there. You can kind of see over the fence line there's portions of residential areas beyond the fence. And here's what I was alluding to earlier. It's sort of an anomaly because the abutting parcel to the North is within the IL zone. However, you can see by the yellow shading that it is a low density residential use and there is a single family home on that property. So the site plan, this shows the siting of the 62,000 square foot self-storage facility. Primary access to the site will be obtained by a two way, 20 foot wide driveway off of Sebastopol Road. And then there's an egress only that wraps around the building and exits on Burtain Lane. That's 16 foot wide. The setbacks, there's a 20 foot front landscaped yard for the front setback. The east is 28 feet for the side. And then there's a 10 foot west side setback. The rear setback is 20 feet. In addition to the 16 foot access road, there's a five, there's a four foot planter strip. And it's of note that exceeds the required 10 foot rear yard setback that's required in the IL base zone where the light industrial use abuts residential. And then also of note, there's a required part of the specific use standards for personal storage facilities is that there's a required 20 foot landscape front yard. So that's been met. And I'll jump into the parking in the landscape side because there's some legibility issues. I think there's some extra line work that's sort of confusing the parking plan on this. I'll clarify that in a moment. Here are the architectural elevations. This is the south, the front and the east side. These will be subject to review by DRB. Here's the west side and the north side of note, the north side abuts the residential use to the rear. And staff has worked with the applicant to provide some additional architectural interest in the form of additional siding panels that add color and change material to enhance the aesthetics that facing the residents. Here's the landscape plan. The parking is shown when you take away all the civil line work, the parking is more clear and that seven spaces will be provided. There are three that are not gated and will serve the office use, the ancillary office. And then there are three loading bays that are sort of oversized parking stalls that will be customer serving for folks with vans and small trucks to access the storage units. And that's behind a rolling gate. So it's gated access. And then there's also, it's not shown here, but there's an additional seventh parallel space here as the one way wraps around the rear of the building. And so they have seven, but the three loading bays, we've formalized that into a parking reduction request, which I'll get to more in the findings. Also noted on the landscape plan, there's a row of evergreen trees that are spaced at 10 foot intervals that'll provide a site obscuring screen for the residents to the north. Here's a 3D perspective of that of the screening and sort of that buffer and that area, you can see it well in the oblique image. So there would be a wood fence, site obscuring fence, seven feet tall with the evergreen hedge of Italian buckthorn is selected, which is fast growing, will fill in quickly and will reach a mature height of approximately 10 to 12 feet. And then you can see there's the access drive there. A photometric plan was also submitted for staff review as part of the design review and staff has confirmed that no spillover would occur into adjacent properties. No public comments were received as part of the noticing period. And staff is able to make all the required findings. I won't go into great depth because I try to integrate it into the presentation, but in summary, the project meets all the specific use standard for personal storage facilities pursuant to section 2042-180, including setbacks and landscape buffers. In addition, the project complies with lighting standards of section 2030-080 and all other applicable zoning regulations. The scale of the self-storey facility is compatible with that of existing structures by exceeding the required rear yard setback and providing enhanced screening and additional architectural details on the rear facade. Hours will be limited to 9 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. for the office and 7 to 7 for the storage units. And lastly, granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health safety convenience, welfare or materially injurious to person's property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in that the area is designated for light industrial and commercial uses and is surrounded to the east itself by similar commercial and industrial uses. And then I also want to add to that and I've noted this will be added to the draft resolution that was in the packet, but there will be two additional findings pursuant to section 2036050C1B that'll formalize the parking reduction request. And that's because there are special circumstances associated with the operations such as short drop off times, a widely distributed parking demand, established parking demand at other locations for the business and separate parking areas for office visitors and gated access for the storage units. That the use of these small loading bays for customer service for customer parking stalls that are required will sufficiently meet the zoning code minimum parking requirement in table 34, which is five are required for customers and there's seven provided, including the three loading stalls. And so therefore the number of spaces are sufficient for the safe, convenient and efficient operation of these. SEQA and infill exemption, the project is eligible for an infill exemption. Self storage use isn't allowed use within the zoning district with the minor conditional use permit on this particular parcel. Project is only one acre and there's no habitat value for endangered rare or threatened species as documented in a bio assessment prepared for the project. There will not be a significant impact in terms of traffic noise, air quality or water quality. There's also a traffic study prepared for the project with the DR application. And the site can be served by all utilities and services. So with that planning and economic development department recommends the zoning administrator by resolution approve a minor conditional use permit to allow a personal storage facility abutting a residential use for the property at 2875 Sevastopol Road. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant has representatives available as well. Thank you. With the applicant like to make a presentation, do you know Mike? I don't think they have slides prepared but I think they might wanna follow up on my presentation or certainly would be available to answer any questions. Perfect, are there any, if the applicant team is joining via Zoom, if you wanna make any comment now, go ahead and raise your hand. We have Steve Tangi available to speak. Yes, good morning. This is Steve, I'm the applicant and developer for a representative of West Coast Self Storage. I don't have any significant information to add to Mike's presentation. I thought it was thorough and complete. We manage about 113 self-storage facilities from Canada to Mexico on the West Coast and I'm fairly experienced at this at this point and this is a good project for us as designed and we're happy to move forward with it. Great, thank you. I'd like to open up the public comment period too if there's anybody in the room, nobody in the room that wants to comment are there any members of the public that are remote? If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please raise your hand. You may find the raise hand button at the bottom of the screen. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine and raise your hand. Seeing no hands raised, zoning administrator Murray, there are no comments. Okay, and I actually have some. I wanna say first, thank you for clarifying Mike, the parking, the extra lines on the civil plan. I couldn't figure out why they needed a parking reduction because it looked like they hadn't abundance of it. Anyways, and I wanna thank you too for adding in the, or memorializing a parking reduction although I think that they are over-parked with their, even though they have trailer parking, but I appreciate the conservative approach to be really for sure on that. I have a comment or a question on the egress on to Britane Lane. Is that for anybody delivering or accessing their units or is that an emergency only? Looks like Steve is available. My understanding from what's called out on the plan set is that it's for anyone to exit. And there's actually, the fire emergency lane is actually not intended to wrap around. It's been reviewed by fire and they would pull in and also pull out of the driveway off of Sevastopol. Okay, yeah, I mean, I can't say I'm concerned. I know that these types of uses don't generate very much traffic, just when at the time when they start occupying the building, I think it would make sense to notify neighbors that there's gonna be additional traffic on Britane because that's just the nature of the beast. I'm not sure how many units are involved in here, but my guess is they'll fill up quickly and it'll be relatively painless afterwards. But maybe if we can add a condition that just says to notice the neighbors on Britain Lane when the business is opening so they can be alerted that there may be some more traffic congestion on Britane during a short period of time while the units are becoming occupied. I also have an additional question about trees offsite. There is that residential property to the north. It looked like there was a tree, right in the southwest, I'm sorry, southeast corner of their property. I can't tell from the aerial what it was. I have done site visits, but I didn't notice what, I didn't look at the trees when I was there. So I don't know what kind of tree that is, but regardless, whether it's whatever a tree, if it's on a neighboring property, I want to apply some protective measures to that. So when grading begins, that tree doesn't get harmed, especially if it belongs to somebody else. So if we can go ahead and add kind of the standard tree protective measures and we can list them, they're on most of our resolutions, our design review resolutions. So you may be able to capture that then, Mike, but I want to make sure that that tree gets protected. Yeah, that's a good comment. We do have draft conditions of approval related to tree, both tree protection slash preservation and also true replacement. For the offsite tree, I just want to make sure I'm understanding precisely which tree you're talking about. Do you mind if I share a plan and sort of point it out? It might show better on an aerial view if you can bring up the aerial view. Okay, let me try. And I, Steve, oh, okay. And Steve, I know you've got your hand raised. You can go ahead and give him permission to speak. Yeah, Steve, you may unmute yourself, apparently. Go ahead. Am I unmuted? Yes, you are. Go ahead. Okay. While Mike's bringing up that screen, both those conditions are fine. All of the trees that are on the property are slated to be removed, but we would protect, and that's a reasonable comment to protect any that are near the property line but offsite, and we would engage an arborist for that to advise us. Perfect, you just wrote the condition. And we'll just go ahead after Mike. Okay, I'm worried. Can you see the aerial now? I can. I can. So can you just, so Bretaine Lane, if you move up to the north, yeah, the southeast corner of the project or the residential use to the north. Yeah, right in that area, there is that big tree, and I just want to make sure that any, I was looking at that tree, but in this aerial view, I see other trees as well. If they're offsite, I fully aware that anything on site will be demolished and replaced, but anything offsite should be protected and not harmed.  If there is digging, then it should be done under an arborist supervision and protective measures, you know, using a sharp knife to cut inches or cut roots that are more than an inch in diameter, you know, using fungicide. There's a pretty standard set. So consult an arborist for those protective measures and we'll be good. Mike, I'll leave it in your very capable hands to go ahead and draft a condition. I would get to elaborate, just basically deferred to an arborist. Okay, excellent. Yeah, and I probably will extend that to all offsite trees that could potentially be impacted based on the size of the canopy and restructure and whatnot, but I believe you're referencing this tree, this tree is actually on site and proposed for removal. Even though it's kind of unclear, some of the canopy goes across the property line. So I think we would be targeting this one specifically. Yes, that was the one that I was referring to. And as far as tree replacement, landscape plan and building materials, I will absolutely defer to the design review board. I'm thrilled that this project is going to them. But I will say, being a planner and having processed several self-storage facility design review and use permits projects, I will say that it's not uncommon that we have people come back and kind of value engineer, change their switch up their plans because it becomes very expensive to build these very attractive facilities. I appreciate it's very nice looking. I appreciate that very much. And it sounds like you have plenty experience, Steve, so that's a real, you can do that, but I encourage you to look and make sure you're not gonna wanna come back in and change materials out because it's not feasible to build it as designed. So before the design review board weighs in on it. And that's not a condition of approval, that's just a comment. So the other thing that I would like to do, I do have a couple of conditions that I would like to add in. And Mike, I've drafted these conditions so I can give you a hard copy of it after the meeting so you don't have to take dictation. But there's one edit to an existing condition that Mike has and that is no exterior signs are approved with this permit. I wanna say no permanent exterior signs are approved with this permit. And I know I sound like a broken record player, I apologize for that, but I'm gonna request that two conditions be added and that is during periods of construction, a sign shall be posted along Sebastopol Road Frontage that provides contact information for on-site general contractor or designated representative, including name, phone number and email address. And another condition that says that all complaints shall be responded to within 24 hours, regardless of weekends or holidays. And the reason I am adding that is because I wanna try to keep the city out of complaints and if by posting this information, people can contact you and they get a quick response. It'll save us all a lot of grief. And then that's it on my conditions of approval. Steve, are those okay with you? Yeah, they're fine. That's pretty typical anyway. We would post the contact information for the general contractor and ourselves on the site. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Not everybody does, I wish they did. And then I need a refresher. Mark, did I open the public comment period? You did, there were no comments except Steve, who, my understanding is the applicant, so. Got it. And I don't know that I ever closed the public comment period. So I am going to close that now. I'll get this down one of these days. So with that as conditioned, I am going to approve this project and thank you, Mike, again for clarifying the parking issue. I did have a question. And congratulations on one step closer to building your storage unit, Steve. Thank you for coming to the meeting. Thank you. Okay, and moving on to our last item. Two, three, four. Item 5.4 is a public meeting for the Boys and Girls Club parking lot improvements and modifications. And this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. It requires minor design review. The project site is located at 1011 Hammond Drive and the city file number is DR22-014. The project planner is Jandyn Briscoe. Jandyn? Good morning, everyone. And thank you, Madam Zoning Administrator Murray. It's great to meet you. Today I'm bringing forward to you the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Santa Rosa. It's a remodel located at 1011 Hammond Drive. The applicant is proposing an interior and exterior remodeling of an existing one-story building. The modifications include alteration of the parking lot to enhance vehicular circulation, installing accessible parking stalls and accessible path to building entries. Also want to note that they would be adding bicycle parking as well. The exterior modifications also include new windows on the east front elevation, the east, north, south and west elevation and modifying the roof to add a 680 square feet vaulted ceiling, clever story lighting at the building entry. Here is the project location. You can see it's at the corner of patio court in Hammond Drive. And this is the neighborhood context map in which you can see that it's surrounded by residential uses to the east and to the west. And you can also see that Montgomery villages directly to the north of it. And here's the general planning zoning in which the general plan is retail and business services. And zoning is general commercial. And I also want to note that meeting facilities are permitted use within a general commercial zoning designation. And staff was required to find these six findings and we were able to find all of these findings. And I just want to note that the design is appropriate for the use and location and that the proposed modifications and siding were harmonized with the residential uses and church to the east of the property. And the design and layout of the proposed development were not interfered with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments. And that the new parking lot is designed to mitigate traffic on Hammond Drive. And the new design has a trash enclosure helping with the cleanliness of the overall area. And these are the findings continue. And as the zoning administrator stated previously, this project has been found in compliance with the California Environment Equality Act and that it is categorically exempt for sequel because it involves minor modifications to an existing facility. And there has been no comments from the public received so far. And this is the site plan in which you can see that the vaulted sailing is can be seen from the east, the west and the north elevations. And to the right, you can see the new redesigned parking lot with ADA, ADA accessibility, ADA parking stalls and the compact cars parking. And they also have some nice landscaping on the outside of it as well. It is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the zoning administrator approve a minor design review permit to allow the proposed exterior and interior modification located at 1011 Hammond Drive. And this is my contact information if you have any questions. And the applicant is here if anyone has questions for her. This is Anderson. Finally, I know why you're here. Would you like to add anything to the presentation? I know there was a transition and Jandon took over from Sheila Wolski. And there's a transition also from the original designer Warren Hedgepath. And so I think there's a little bit of miscommunication. The board of the Boys and Girls Club informed me last year that there were no funds allocated to change the parking. The parking lot was repaved the year before last and that was supposed to be a long-term fix. And I think what I've seen having been there prior to that improvement that they made two years ago is that they have better parking facilities for their buses that bring in the kids and drop off as a little safer. But they do not have the funds right now to do the site plan that when I took over from Warren and I put in place just charging it, I think I needed to provide that. But I want to just, I think I clarified that to Sheila and I think in the transition, it just didn't get over to you Jen that I had submitted a new site plan and said no improvements to the outside. That was generated really because engineering's comments to our minor design review application were created, you know, with engineering's review, it created, it opened up kind of a hornet's nest of very costly improvements that would be required to the sidewalks and the whole parking area. And it's just not feasible. We want the kids to be comfortable this summer. It was terrible last summer when we had that heat wave and it had no air conditioning. And so right now I'm just trying to help them out. I have a full set of construction documents ready to put into the building department. If we could iron out some of these miscommunications, maybe concurrent with my submitting the plans to the building department, that would be really helpful. So can I ask if the proposal that you've made for the building that we looked at, is that still the same? Yes. Okay, so the design review doesn't, it wouldn't be the first time that we've seen part of the improvements happen, the changes happen, and not all of them. I understand that that hornet's nest, we've seen it a lot of times. So construction is expensive, it's getting more expensive and then we have stormwater issues right now. So we've got competing goals. So I think by approving the whole project doesn't mean you have to construct the whole project, but the option will be there within a given period of time. But technically I think it's my understanding and you would wanna verify this, but if you construct the building improvements and in four years all of a sudden there's money for those parking lot improvements and they decide you've got a vested design review because you've done half of it. So I think you'd probably be safe to go, although you would be required to comply with current standards and my guess is they'll just continue to get more restrictive, hopefully less expensive, but. Gabe Osborn and Jesus did make an agreement and BKF engineers really helped us with this to allow the Boys and Girls Club to, for the exterior improvements to not touch the parking lot, but the Boys and Girls Club will greatly mitigate pedestrian traffic hazard by replacing the patches on the sidewalk that they've done with new paved pieces of sidewalk that smooth that all out. Is that in the conditions of approval, do we know? I saw it when we had, when we worked with Sheila, she's sent out the plans to the departments and I saw a letter to that effect come in from engineering. I can't recall where that is in the record right now. I know I saw something. Okay. Good question. I'm gonna ask that we take about a five minute break and it's a bio break and a research break, but I'd like to take five and just get, find that memo if we can. So, Mark, I'm testing your, excuse me. Sorry. I did resubmit the cover sheet and the site plan and somehow that has just not made it to this hearing but I did resubmit the site plan where the parking lot was not changed. Jesus also at that time asked me to clarify some of the area of calculations I did. So, some of those numbers were changed from the original submittal. I suspect that these would be older ones. We submitted last year and all of these documents and all just discussion happened probably this year between January and March, let's say. When you would like to officially recess, I can do that now. Okay. Let's go ahead and officially recess for five minutes. Thank you. Okay. That's a no-show point. I would, so we're back. Thank you everyone. We've endured a couple of transitions, pretty big transitions since this project began. So I think at this point it would make sense to go ahead and continue closing the comment. Oh, I need to close the public comment period. Thank you. I'll get this down but I'm gonna go ahead and continue the item so there will actually be another option for another, yeah, another date that you can comment on it if you're listening and we're gonna continue it to a date certain which is June 1st, 2023. And it will not require additional noticing. So if you're here today, come on back and join us on June 1st. If you need the contact information it'll be or the access information will be posted on the agenda or you can contact the project planner, Janden Briscoe. And thank you for attending the Zoning Administrator meeting of May 18th and I'm going to adjourn it at 1149 on May 18th. Gavill down. Thank you.


Item No. SCP-5140 Level 4 Secret Containment Class Keter Disruption Class Ecchi Risk Class Critical Special Containment Procedures Due to the exorbitant cost and difficulty in safely extracting SCP-5140 instances from Mount Everest, MTF Delta-14, Winter Wonderland, will periodically ascend Everest to bury any SCP-5140 instances in the snow. Campaigns are underway to tighten restrictions for climbing permits from Mount Everest on both the Nepalese and Tibetan sides. Description SCP-5140 refers to a number of frozen corpses scattered across Mount Everest, located in the Himalayas of Tibet. The number of SCP-5140 instances is unclear, but accepted to be over 100 and below 200 at the time of writing. SCP-5140 instances are ecto-entropic, when physically exposed to heat of any form, including body heat, they will absorb it without raising their temperature, which rests at approximately 10°C or 50°F. This process usually renders physical contact with SCP-5140 instances fatal. If an individual dies as a result of contact with SCP-5140 instances, their corpse will become another SCP-5140 instance. Addendum 5140.1 Mission Record 12-12-2015 Status Update Approaching Summit Encounter 34 bodies across Chinese route Buried all Provision study Likely to reach summit tomorrow Acknowledged Continue Encountering minor anomaly in instances Exceptionally low temperatures result in muscle contraction post-mortem. Bodies curled up and frozen. Hard to pry open before burial. Might have to bury it like that. Acknowledged Permission granted Buried as convenient Approaching Summit Abnormally high numbers of instances Encounter 19 since yesterday Old instances getting unburied? Likely. Strong winds blowing off snow. Very deeper if possible. Approached Hillary's step this morning. Will ascend the summit an hour or two. Four team or body since last contact. Team unnerved. Understandable. Almost there now. Discovered lone body on summit. Attempted to bury. Shovel hit something. It's stuck. Can't pull it out. Turned around. Body was gone. Fell out the summit? Don't know. Team has rattled. Advised. Acknowledged. Sending out survey teams. Attempted to see if something was seen falling from summit. Used spare shovel if more bodies encountered. Orders are to descend from Chinese route using already cleared path. Godspeed. Descended step. Patrick touched one. He and Arnold buried him. Acknowledged. Emergency. Attempted to descend Chinese route. God can't remains toward a part. Three instances curled up in tent. Instances moving? Hurry to scent. Acknowledged. Get down safely. Will move forward from there. Personnel ready to receive you at Camp V. Stay safe. Massive them blocking the path. One reached out from ground. Grabbed Arnold. He's one of them. I ran back up. Can't go down.  Arnold was carrying provisions. We have one can of oxygen left. Help. Attempt to use flare gun to clear path. Stay at safe distance. Team is already en route to extract you. Stay calm. Minimize breathing. They're moving. Don't come to the summit. It's not safe. The ground isn't safe. Don't let climbers on Everest. The mountain is danger. Team is arriving in less than two hours. Hold steady. A rescue detachment of MTF Delta-14 arrived at Charlie Smith's GPS tracker an hour and thirty-six minutes later. They sighted no unburied SCP-5140 instances on their approach. Smith's body was discovered, lacking the science typical of an SCP-5140 instance. Autopsy indicates he died from exposure and suffocation due to inadequate oxygen intake. Further investigation indicates oxygen intake valve was damaged during the ascent to the summit. Bodies of Arnold Hillary and Patrick Edmond were discovered higher up Everest. Hillary died from exposure, while Edmond was found to be an SCP-5140 instance. It is currently believed that Smith's inadequate oxygen led to him hallucinating SCP-5140 instances blocking their path and destroying their campsite. Hillary's foot was found wedged into a rock ball, likely the source of his immobility. This incident has been taken into account in supply manifests for future expeditions adjusting accordingly. Addendum 5140.2 File Update April 25, 2024 Event Report Location Mount Everest, Nepal Status Concluded Time 1.49pm Local Time April 25, 2024 Disruption Class Connect Increased global temperatures have resulted in significant thawing of ice sheets and snow drifts on Everest. Such thawing caused a large avalanche at 1149 local time, which moved a large amount of snow off the summit. Lower depth of snow allowed scanning planes to identify a significant amount of SCP-5140 instances below the snow. Further excavation revealed SCP-5140 instances form a significant portion of Everest itself. Currently, it is estimated 45% of Mount Everest's mass is formed by corpses.


The 2009-2010 Bemidji Girls basketball season was a magical one. The Lumberjacks went 25-2 with a state tournament appearance, but since they've been in a bit of turmoil, the Jax haven't had a winning season since then and have only had double digit wins once in that span. But now they have a brand new attitude to go along with a brand new coach determined on turning them around. Steve Schreiber knows the situation he's walking into as he begins his first season as head coach of the Lumberjacks. I'm not expecting to step in here and all of a sudden turn us from an 8 and 18 team into a state champion in a year.  But he isn't shy when he talks about where he thinks this program can go in the future. I really think that we can be a contender next year and for sure the year after and that starts with putting the building blocks down and then kind of building on top of that. Schreiber says they're not focusing on the number in the win column just yet. We might get 6, we might get 8, we might get 12, we might get 16. But he and the team believe the rebuild of the program has already begun. There's no negativity, it's all, let's get the job done, what job do you want us to get done and we're going to work to get it done. He's just really helped us out and we've really systematically gone through getting into that new system and being positive with each other and everybody's just been really great. Only three weeks into the season, the Jax are 2-1. All three games have been decided by 9 points or less. The team knows they have all the physical tools to compete with anyone. But if they want to continue to succeed, it's going to come down to their mental toughness. They're not used to defensive rotations where we're really rotating girls around to get them into help side and to help the helper and then having to think through the offensive system that we're running. So it's going to come down to some physical conditioning but I really think it's going to come down to mental conditioning as well. So close on so many things and just that extra step to be able to get in the right place at the right time and as soon as we figure out that time and we're going to be set. And if they can continue to mature and grow as a team, they believe they're going to be a fun group to watch. They know how to win basketball. We just need to come together as a group and put it together and we're going to win basketball. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Hello, and welcome to Revisiting the Library Impact Map. I'm Holt Zog, the Assessment Librarian at Brigham Young University. The Library Impact Map was created by Megan Oakleaf in 2012 as a way for libraries to collect data, use it, and disseminate it to show how library services aligned to university areas of focus and contributed to fulfilling university aims and goals. It promotes the use of data to also improve library services and resources. Our re-administration helps libraries identify a move towards a culture of assessment where assessment is used to help in the library and improve its service delivery and show its value. For those of you who have previous experience or knowledge of library impact maps, this is a brief review. For those who have not heard of them before, this is a brief introduction. The Library Impact Map uses a grid system where library services are the headers for columns and university areas of focus are the headers for rows. The intersection between each library service and university area of focus is populated with one of the five codes showing on this slide that indicates whether data is collected and the degree to which it is collected, used, and shared with stakeholders. This is an example of part of a library impact map as described. As you can see, the university areas of focus are the headers for rows and library services are the headers for columns. The intersection between the two is where the codes replace indicating the degree of data collection, use, and sharing. In 2013, as part of our first library impact map assessment, we modified the original library impact map such that we connected library goals to each university area of focus and designated departments, subject librarians, and divisions for each library service to allow further disaggregation. Now I'd like to discuss some of the changes we made from the library impact map between 2013 and 2019. We examined the university areas of focus and eliminated one because it was no longer relevant. Library services were also examined and they were increased from 46 to 58. In some instances, previous library services that were designated as a single service such as library IT services were subdivided into different services so that in 2019 what was one library service was now four for library IT. This resulted in an increase from 1,334 points of intersection to 1,624 points of intersection. We also introduced another code for 2019 that could be and the individual wanted to start collecting data. Finally, in 2013, we had 15 employees populate the LIM. In 2019, we asked 34 employees who had direct responsibility over or experience with each library service to populate the library impact map. In some instances, there was more than one raider for one library service. We began our methods by, as previously stated, examining the university areas of focus and library services and updating them to what was current practice in 2019. We approached employees with responsibilities over services and asked them to rate each service according to each university area of focus and they were only sent the service for which they had responsibility over. We did not set a deadline but sent reminders encouraging them to complete them and all were completed within a month. As an analysis, we examined patterns of change so that negative shifts were considered to be instances where the intersection of a library service and university area of focus decreased in the amount of data collected, used, or shared. A positive shift was just the opposite where the intersection indicated an increase in data collection, sharing, and use. No shift is where the same rating was given in 2019 as was given in 2013. We did this for all points of intersection for each code, each library service, and each university area of focus. I will now start to review the results with the all points of intersection. As you can see from the table, the change between 2013 and 2019 indicates that the CB, Y, and N codes had respective decreases of 8%, 1%, and 1%, whereas the Y+, and Y++ codes had respective increases of 4% and 1%. These changes indicate a slight shift towards collecting, using, and sharing data. In this instance, we also see that the could be and I want to start collecting data represented 2% of all codings or 25 instances where librarians wanted to start collecting data. Hereafter, I mention that the CBW and CB codes are combined for analysis and comparison because there were no CBW codes in 2013. Next, the changes and ratings were examined. To illustrate the changes, if you look in the left-hand column at the very bottom, you can see that there were three instances which were rated as no data being collected in 2013 that are now rated as Y++ in 2019. Thus, all green squares indicate shifts that are positive where more data is collected, analyzed, and shared. The blue squares represent negative instances where less data was collected, used, and shared. The white squares indicate where there was no change. And as you can see, this represents 51% of all possible data points. I need to point out at this time that for this analysis, any library services that were split in 2019 were rejoined together so that they could be compared to the 2013 results. We also see that there were simultaneous increases and decreases as previously designated in the previous analysis. There was 23% overall of intersections that decreased, the most coming with the Y code. There was also 27% that showed positive increase changes, most occurring with the N code. It is important to note that the could-be code had the second highest decrease in increase for them so that it was constantly moving up and down. The next analysis examined each library service and the changes in each code for each service. The change in code was determined by calculating what percent of university area of focus for each library service belonged in each code. Once we had those totals calculated for both 2019 and 2013, we subtracted the 2019% totals from the 2013% totals to determine the percent rate of change. In the table, this is illustrated where an equal sign means that there was no change in the percent between 2019 and 2013. A single plus sign indicates a positive change of 0 to 10% and a double plus sign indicates a positive change of over 10%. A negative sign indicates a decrease of between 0 and 10% and a double negative sign indicates a decrease of greater than 10%. The changes depended on the library service. For example, in the first row, acquisitions had three ratings that remained the same from 2013 to 2019, one that decreased by more than 10% and one that increased by more than 10%. Conversely, if you go to the fourth row for circulation, you will see that only one code remained the same from 2013 to 2019, whereas three codes decreased by either 0 to 10% or greater than 10% and one code increased by more than 10%. Taking a look at all increases and decreases, there was a moderate increase for most services, but there were, as I pointed out, circulation some exceptions. We did the same thing for the university areas of focus, so for each university area of focus, we examined the rate of change in each code across all library services, and we found a similar increase, simultaneous increase and decreases, and it was dependent on the university area of focus as to where these were occurring and where they weren't occurring. So as a bit of a summary, the purpose of the library impact map that was highlighted in 2013 remained the same and are still useful. It is a tool that lets you look at the big broad picture of all library services and how they relate to the university areas of focus, but it also lets you zoom down in to a specific division, department, or single service to see how they're collecting, using, and sharing data. The addition of the could be and want to start collecting data code helped facilitate new data collection because we were able to work with those people to start collecting data. This process of developing a culture of assessment is an ebb and flow of data collection use and dissemination as we saw here, and the shifts are slow, but if you're able to start collecting, using, and sharing data and maintain those, it will increase the rate of shift towards a culture of assessment. As a final point, we'd like to note also that the end code so the data is not collected, it will always be present. And the reason for this is that no one university area of focus needs all library services and no one library service provides information for all university areas of focus, that there will always be some where there isn't a need or purpose for collecting, sharing, or using any data. Some limitations to our assessment. Because we use the larger radar group of raiders, which is more than double the initial one, there was a greater possibility for variance among the raiders that they could be quite different in their ratings. But it was also each raider had a stronger connection to each library service. The second part was that there was a poor understanding for some of what the university areas of focus were. We need to have these defined better and a clarity of which areas of focus we should use. The next thing we should look at is that there was 15 services that had two or more raiders. In most cases, the ratings were consistent among the raiders, but where they differed, we use the higher rating. And all raiders were first time. So this being the first time through, it isn't always easy to be able to define and understand how to go about this process. In future administrations of library impact maps, the readministration should occur more frequently than six years. This will allow the use of the same raiders in many instances. There also needs to be better identification and definition of university areas of focus. For services that had multiple raiders, we need to show both the high and low ratings to create a range instead of just using the high. It is also recommended that the library impact map be combined with other assessments, as it is only one indicator of a culture of assessment. Thank you for your time and listening. I believe now we'll open that up for any questions that you might have.