Good morning, everybody. I'm only going to take about 10 minutes to describe this project of STSN USA, which involves zooming through more than 10 slides and don't read through them. I think it's just the subtitles that are interesting for you to get a feel. And then at the end, I think the idea is to have a little bit of a discussion or at least an opportunity for questions. So this is a project by the STSN network in the USA. It was launched in November 24th. And to give you a background, there is an analog to the Fable project that's existed since 2015. As you all know, that's called DDPP, the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project that focuses on decarbonizing the energy in the transport sectors, the building sector. But same idea, pathways to mid-century for deep decarbonization and largely technical modeling base exercises. And what was felt was that we needed an analog to that project that was taking for granted a given pathway that's sustainable and getting us to zero. But laying out with a lot of specificity what the specific policies would be needed to get the country onto that technical trajectory. So that's how the Zero Carbon Action Plan was born. It brings together all policy folks. So these are not modeling folks. These are folks who take the modeling and they're people who are experts in policy, who are lawyers and experts in legislation, no inside and out, the laws and the policy environment of the United States around this. And at the same time it's unique because unlike many, many other policy exercises, this one's going to be very, very specific because it's based on this time bound specific pathway that the modeling work has done. And so that's what makes it unique. It's a policy exercise with a very firm and rigorous technical backbone, which most policy exercises do not have because the policy folks don't have that modeling and that technical expertise. The work covers six major sectors, power, transportation, buildings, industry, land use and materials. And I'm just going to zoom through this and then spend a little bit more time on the land use since that's, that's the touch point with the fable trajectory. So the key components basically for deep decarbonization is we need to electrify everything and but then really start going into very specific legislative proposals for and this is a focus on the federal government of the US to move towards that complete decarbonization and again don't worry about reading everything I'm happy to share this PowerPoint with the group but but the details are not the point here I think the idea here is to get a feel for what a policy exercise that goes with fable might look like and this are conversations that I've already started having with Cecil and with others. And so this might offer one potential model for that. So, as the, I think that thing to underline here which in fable of course is obvious is that this is a policy exercise that's built on a very specific trajectory and so it's sitting down the lawyers and sitting down the policy experts on these different buildings on transport on the power system, and then trying to get to produce legislative proposals that adhere to a very specific trajectory of infrastructure investments and admissions trajectory identified by the systems engineers and so that's, that's what makes this a unique and one of the things that they did which is something we might want to think about in the fable context is that once you have very specific pathways they've been sure to cost all of this so that they can speak to the question of how expensive a given trajectory would look like in a given set of investments look like that this is something we have not done in the fable context in terms of thinking about the the cost of different kinds of interventions that would put us on these on the sustainable pathways that we've that we've discussed. In addition to giving a policy pathway to 2050 a lot of activity. I think at the global scale and this is starting to percolate down to the countries is to say, as part of laying out your commitments to mid century you also have to articulate what you're going to do in the next 10 years for too long we've been having lofty goals for decades away with very little action in in the current time with people just kicking that can down the road. And so one of the things that that this project did the Z cap project is in addition to laying out policy pathways to mid century. It also articulates exactly what needs to happen in the next 10 years in order to put the country on something that's compatible to that medium term or longer term pathway and so you see some of those recommendations for where the country should be in 2030. And it has a chance at being at where at at zero carbon by 2050. And just to emphasize the kind of people who who would be leading this work in the case of Z cap. You know these don turn John Dernbach and Michael Gerard are lawyers they're environmental lawyers with deep expertise on policy and on legislation. They laid out the backbone of what what the what the legislative project and framework would look like in the US context to achieve deep dark deep deep carbonization. And so very specific policy proposals for Congress, things on commitments but also on exactly what the administration could be doing the creation of a White House Office on climate change. The creation of enforceable national plans, a timetable for the White House to produce those things updates that the administration should be reporting to Congress every two years. So you see a level of specificity on policy frameworks and on mechanics of legislation that that that try to move this forward recommendations for research and development funding recommendations on carbon pricing and the social cost of carbon and the role of that inside inside this policy framework issues on regulation subsidies social justice and environmental justice concern to to to deal with the just transition considerations of all of this. And so those are cross cutting ideas that they give to the government and then very specific pillars for decarbonization and again just focus on the subtitles here. So a pillar for decarbonizing electricity and then a set of recommendations to Congress on that energy efficiency and conservation and speaking to very specific existing policies of different departments of government in this case you see something on the energy and its authority, electrification of transportation and buildings very specific policy proposals to do that. And then something on carbon capture as as broad pillars so that's kind of the big picture legislation that the lawyers put together, of course I'm skimming over all of the details but to give you the idea. And then there were separate chapters on all of these things led by policy experts of those sectors so there was a chapter on the power sector, a chapter on buildings, a chapter on transportation a chapter on materials, a chapter on, on what states and local jurisdictions should be doing, and then a chapter on land use since, of course in the US land use is about 8% of emissions and, and that was an important part of the puzzle. And these are the major sections of the land use chapter, and I put the names of the of the of my colleagues they're the only name that's missing is Grace Woo because she wasn't in this presentation because she was on maternity leave but grace and I served as the bridge to the, to the fable So we brought the US country team, the fable US country teams trajectory as as the touch point and the guide for these land use recommendations. So a big thing is of course citing renewable energy infrastructure in the United States well, and I should say that of course this is this is all based on the fable trajectory but interestingly, it also brings from the, from the energy to how much wind and solar energy you're going to need for full decarbonization and what the land use implications of that something we haven't explicitly incorporated into fable in the United States, for example, by mid century, on the, what's called the central pathway for the systems engineers on deep decarbonization. The US will need the equivalent of the land of the size of New Mexico in terms of wind installation, and the equivalent of the size of New Hampshire and Vermont, in terms of solar power installation so we're talking about a land use footprint for renewable energy infrastructure that's massive and thinking about the land use implications of this is is an important piece of the puzzle that so far in fable we haven't, we haven't deeply considered. And so the first part of the chapter goes through the legal and policy challenges around citing renewable infrastructure and how to do this with the focus on designing policies that are integrative and very transparent for the citing process as you may know in the United States most land is privately owned. And so citing large scale new infrastructure is a very challenging set of policy policy hurdles that need to be jumped. So issues here for citing on the need for integration for for an integrated framework to do that for transparent citing processes for financing and and working with host communities that will be impacted by all of this new rollout of infrastructure policies to promote reforestation, a big part of fables sustainable pathway for the United States. So what the idea of we need spatially explicit mapping to show where are the these proposed reforested areas going to be in the US, based on the good science to show where that's most feasible and most consequential, and then funding sources based on federal cashier programs tax programs state and local programs forest carbon programs, all with a lot of specificity on what the federal government could do to actually promote reforestation instead of just saying that we're going to reforest X amount of land or X amount of trees by 2050. Work on soil carbon again financial programs and other programs hiring much more extension staff to work with farmers on low till agriculture and other techniques to reduce the carbon footprint of agriculture and maintain more more soil and carbon. Same thing with advanced biofuels and research and development for for next generation biofuels. Again, this is this part touches with the energy modeling because the energy modelers have an amount of liquid fuels that will be required for sectors like aviation. The zero carbon economy will still require some biofuels even with complete electrification of large parts of the economy will need some liquid fuels for things like aviation and perhaps shipping. And that needs to come from next generation biofuels and of course that that will have land use consequences. A transition to low carbon diets, also an important part of the US pathway for fable towards sustainable pathway. And so working with the updated federal guidelines on how on diets, the idea of climate friendly certification like we have organic certification allows a price wedge to be driven a price premium for agricultural production that's climate friendly or low carbon. And then taking advantage of the procurement of the federal government a large buyer of food for the prison system for all federal property and making sure that the procurement is going towards bringing in low carbon sources of food for that. And finally, working with our welfare programs like like the women and children and children program wick or snap which is our food snaps program in the US all can be can be guided towards encouraging people to buy more fruits and vegetables less unhealthy foods which are which are more carbon intense so again very very specific policy recommendations in the US context that would put us on to the fable the fable pathway. The direction of food and waste building on existing programs by the Environmental Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture which both have a target of reducing food food waste by 50% in 2030, but then going through very specific ideas and guidelines and funding strategies that actually move society in that in that direction. And finally a set of overarching policy recommendations for the land use sector for decarbonization, the idea of a federal laboratory on land we have our energy and other Arpas which are cutting financial mechanisms for innovation in the US having one dedicated to land that specifically is trying to work on the complex technical challenges of decarbonizing the land sector. An interagency task force of land that coordinates multiple agencies that have some sort of incidents on had land is used in the United States we've talked about this in other countries as well so you've got an environment ministry and agriculture ministry a climate ministry and and these all need to come together and technical cross cutting task forces to think about the complexity of land use and and and the renewable infrastructure citing which will increasingly become become a challenge. And then finally underneath all this the recommendation to the government that they take all these decisions and think about these problems on top of a backbone of integrated spatial planning of the style that fable does. So just in general that that these decisions made across all of these sectors need to happen on top of a geospatially explicit integrated spatial planning framework that that the government should have. So that's the idea let me let me stop there that was just a little bit more of a deep dive into the chapter on land use but but what I the flavor I wanted to impart is that this is something that we could be thinking about as fable and in the context of the other countries of an extension to the work of the modeling work that we've done over the last few years and really moving into the policy sphere, bringing aboard people who are really deeply policy experts and lawyers and legislative experts for all of our respective countries and pushing out products like this that speak to the legal frameworks and the existing laws and institutions in our different countries. Let me stop there. And that was fast I know and I'll share all of these details, I'll share the PowerPoint for those of you who are interested but the details I think were less important than the overall idea.


In 1926, engineers and construction workers congratulated themselves on the completion of the St Francis Dam. Little did they know, but two years later the fruit of their labour would be rubble and over 400 people would lose their lives. Dam disasters are intriguing as the vast structures seem indestructible, as they hold back mind-blowing quantities of water. However, as we have seen many times before on this channel, engineers can and have got it wrong and the results can be catastrophic. Today we're looking at the St Francis Dam and I'm going to rate it here 8 on the Painted Plainly Difficult Disaster Scale. St Francis Dam was located in LA County, California, USA, which is around here on a map. Our story starts with eventual superstar engineer William Moll Holland. Starting off from more humble routes, in 1878 he was hired by the Los Angeles City Water Company as a ditch tender. Proving to be a good employee, Moll Holland raised through the ranks eventually reaching superintendent. During his rise to power, Moll Holland had become a self-taught engineer studying in his free time. Being a bit of a future thinker, Moll Holland envisioned an aqueduct to supply Los Angeles with water from 233 miles away in the Owens Valley. Plenty to allow the city to grow. Taking on as chief engineer, he oversaw the project during his construction between 1908 and 1913. The successful completion of the project, which at the time was the largest of its type, brought fame to Moll Holland's door. Although clearly brilliant, Moll Holland had the ability to improvise on the spot, which is why the aqueduct was built in a relatively short period of time, but sometimes this would come at the cost of shortcuts. He also had an eye for saving money, which is good for budgets, but not good for redundancy and design. To save money, his own staff performed all their own engineering calculations, without any external review. Although frugal and ultimately okay on the aqueduct, when it comes to dam design and construction, cut corners can cause, well, we'll find out later. By the 1920s, the demand for water in Los Angeles had outstripped Moll Holland's aqueduct, reaching a population close to a million. Unfortunately, the rising population ran in parallel with a drought in the region. You see, the area was subject to below-normal rainfall, two out of every three years, as quoted by Moll Holland himself, and as such, rainfall was very boom or bust, leading to the idea of creating a large reservoir to store up rain from the good years to help the city through the bad. Moll Holland proposed an ambitious plan to increase the reservoir capacity around the city, near his aqueduct's terminus. The project would involve modifying existing waterworks and constructing seven entirely new dams, the largest of which would be the Saint Francis. The new dam would store 30,000 acre feet of water, roughly the amount consumed by city residents in 1922. Surveys for the location for the new dam began in 1922, eventually the site was settled upon and initial clearing works began. Strangely but understandably, the initial building works went on with little fanfare, but this was because Moll Holland had been burnt before. During the aqueduct construction, sabotage cost the project money as disgruntled locals and landowners sought to cause trouble. By July 1st, 1924, preliminary clearing works had been completed and main construction works would begin around six weeks later. But first we need to look at the design of this shiny new to be built dam. The basic design was actually copied from the Moll Holland dam built a year before, by, you guessed it, Moll Holland, designed by Edgar A. Bailey. This would be the second dam constructed of concrete by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Chief Engineer, W. W. Holbert, supervised the transfer of the design from the Moll Holland location to the St. Francis location. The main changes were adjustments to fit the new setting of the St. Francis area. As such, Bill Moll Holland didn't manage the project on the micro level like he had on other designs before. This was exasperated by him being distracted by the concept of a Colorado River aqueduct. Before the designs of both dams, the engineering team studied a number of recent concrete dams such as the Arrow Rock Dam in Idaho and the Elephant Butte Dam in New Mexico. A storage capacity of 32,000 acre feet and an elevation of 1825 feet above sea level was envisioned in 1924 after initial survey work. The height of the dam was increased by 10 feet to allow a water capacity of 38,000 acre feet in 1925. The increased size necessitated the construction of a 588 foot long dike along the top of the ridge next to the western abutment. This was not in the original design. As such, the foundations were not widened for the extra height. The design incorporated a curved plan laid out on a radius of 500 feet with a distinctive series of 5 foot high vertical steps on a downstream face of the main dam. Each step was unique in its width and was a simple solution to building a complex curve. The dam didn't have a provision for groutable contraction joints however. A concrete batch plant was built in the canyon of the dam and local aggregate was incorporated with around one barrel of Portland cement per cubic yard of concrete. When the concrete was poured, little thought was given to contractions due to heat given off whilst curing. This combined with the oversight for contraction joints left the dam inflexible and potentially unstable. The reservoir that the dam would hold back began being filled in March 1926. With water diverted from the Owens River Aqueduct and the completed dam was opened in May 1926. During reservoir filling, a number of small cracks and leaks were detected but thought to be within expected tolerances. Between March and June, the reservoir filled at a rate of about 1.8 feet per day and on May 10th 1927, the reservoir pool reached an elevation of 1832 just 3 feet below the spillway crest. Summer demand kept the water level at the elevation. During the winter months between 1927 and 1928, the reservoir was allowed to fill up to just three inches below the spillway. By around February, all of LA's reservoirs were beginning to fill up and on the 7th of March, Aqueduct water was no longer diverted to the reservoir. Damkeeper Tony Harnish-Vega alerted the company on the morning of the 12th to dirty water cascading down the slope below the dam's right abutment. The presence of dirty water can give an indication of foundation erosion. Because the reservoir was at maximum fill and new cracks in the concrete were discovered over the previous week, Mulholland and Harvey Van Norman arrived to investigate the dirty water and the dam as a whole. Arriving at 11am, the two men began to investigate the instability of the structure. Because the dirty water was seen to be clear water mixing with loose dirt from a newly constructed road, although alarming, it was seen as a problem that could be rectified later on. The rest of the structure was inspected and given the seal of approval, well how wrong they would be just 12 hours later. Around 8pm, employees from one of the nearby powerhouses witnessed a 12 inch wide crack on a nearby road upstream from the dam, hinting towards the land around the dam beginning to shift. Ace Hopewell, powerhouse number one's carpenter, was riding his motorcycle along the road nearby, passing the crest of the dam around 11.50pm. He pulled up his bike and sidecar around a mile up from the dam to have a cigarette and to investigate a loud crashing sound. The Southern California Edison company experienced a loss of power at 11.57pm on their 70 kilovolt borough power line that ran near the dam's left abutment, extending eastwards to Palmdale. The shorting out the power line hints at large-scale landslide that enveloped the dam's entire left abutment, starting off the disaster. In the closing minutes of the 12th and the opening of the 13th of March 1928, the dam experienced a catastrophic failure. Within minutes, the majority of the dam had disappeared, leaving only a central section standing like an island. The flow of water was monumentous, forming a 140ft high flood wave, washing away large chunks of the wreck dam, as 12.4 billion gallons of water surged down. The wave, traveling at around 18mph, destroyed powerhouse number two, drowning nearly all the workers and their families who lived nearby. The flood water overflowed the Santa Clarita River's banks, flooding present-day Valencia and Newhall. By 1am, the entire Santa Clarita Valley was plunged into darkness. A temporary construction camp set up by Edison Company was washed away, killing at least 84. The flood damaged the towns of Fillmore, Bardstale and Santa Paula, eventually emptying bodies and debris into the Pacific Ocean, 54 miles downstream. The flood water was thought to have killed at least 431 people. Although this number doesn't count migrant workers, casual labourers and illegal immigrants, all of whom would have had no record of being in the region. Many dead were never found or identified, including dam keeper Tony Harnishfeger. Although his wife's body was found near the dam, suggesting that a late night inspection was being undertaken, potentially due to the landslide sounds heard by Ace Hopewell. So how did such an impressive structure fail so catastrophically? There was, and there still is, differing theories on the failure. It is thought that the failure started with the left east abutment suffering a landslide. The left fellside was then swept in front of the dam, leaving debris as evidence of the likely side of first failure. A committee appointed by the Los Angeles City Council set about working on an official report into the failure. The key failure was placed at defective foundations, and the report essentially said the dam was well designed but poorly executed. With an error in judgement about the suitability of the area's geology as a stable foundation for the dam, the investigation, though, claimed it was the right western abutment that had failed first, owing to cracks discovered leading up to disaster. But more modern analyses have speculated differently. Two alternate reports by Bailey Willis and Carl E Grunsky support the left eastern side failure theory. They also focused into a phenomenon called hydrostatic uplift. This is where water seeps under a dam and causes an upward force on the dam, reducing its effective weight. Although known at the time, the phenomenon was not properly understood and a St Francis dam didn't take this into account. Meaning that hydrostatic uplift mixed with an unstable land from historic landslips caused the failure at St Francis. The dam was not rebuilt and for a short while became a morbid attraction for locals to come and collect souvenirs, as the single standing part remaining known as the tombstone. The site would be cleared and the tombstone demolished in mid-1929 to detract a strange tourism to the area. Because the Mulholland Dam was essentially identical, 330,000 cubic yards was used to reinforce it from the risk of hydrostatic uplift. The Hollywood reservoir that Mulholland holds up was not allowed to exceed 4,000 acre feet of water. Mulholland's career also ended on the night of the 12th and the 13th of March 1928. During the inquest, he claimed full responsibility and retired in November the same year. No criminal charges were brought against the designers, with the inquest finding no evidence of criminal act or intent. Mulholland would die in 1935 at the age of 79. And odds and sods. As well as hints on future videos. I've got a Patreon and YouTube memberships as well so if you fancy check them out and all that's left to say is thank you for watching.


We define four critical capabilities for future ready leaders, leading through influence, driving execution, creating new thinking, and having an ownership mindset. These four, we believe, rank the highest. From your perspective, do you think CEOs can develop these skills? So in leadership, for us to expect that everyone is going to be highly intrinsically motivated to have full ownership, I think that's a utopian dream. In leadership, it's about creating a drumbeat where we can get the strengths of each other, and all of us have different strengths. If we can allow this openness to say, I know, and more importantly to say, I don't know, I think that opens up conversations which are beautiful, because then we are on a journey to constantly learn more and unlearn more. And even if the external world says you're far better to have the humility and determination to reinvent oneself. So in here, in leadership, would be very important on the matter that you talked about ownership, not ownership at the leadership, ownership down the line. And how do you create ownership? You create ownership through openness, of encouraging open data, of encouraging where we are, of praising those who are bringing problems, and not allowing a culture to hide, because in India, one of the biggest challenges is the fear of fear. Because we are not trained from a young age to fly with freedom. The second point that you talked about indirectly was curiosity. And as we grow older, our curiosity dies. And it's very important to rekindle the curiosity. And that's where I talk with all the colleagues about what is our relevance? And do we measure individual and collective relevance? Because if we are not relevant in today's world, we will not be able to perform both as an organization, also as an individual. That's what happens to dinosaurs. And very quickly, big companies can become.


The annual Pink Friday event will be happening in downtown Pipeville this weekend as small business owners in the area encourage residents to get out and shop local and support local business. We caught up with a couple of these shop owners to ask them what this shopping day means to them and what they hope it will bring for their customers this holiday season. So Pink Friday is an initiative started a few years ago and it really strives to encourage people to come out and shop local first. So it is the Friday before Black Friday. So it's Friday the 19th and it's really this big initiative to just get out there and shop local and shop local first. So this is going to be something that I mean I hope all goes well. We're going to be doing every single year and that's really the first big kickoff of the Christmas shopping season. Hall says that she feels that the event is just as important for the owners of small businesses in the area as it is for those businesses customers. In these boutiques when we all participate in Pink Friday and really band together and support each other when you cross market and you support all other local businesses it just does nothing but help everybody else. A rising tide lifts all ships and we're here to really encourage people to shop local shop Pipeville and really just support your eastern Kentucky business owners. Be sure to check out all of these local businesses in Pipeville in our downtown Main Street district. Be sure to check out their social media pages for all of their information, their hours for that Friday, their specials. I know all of these businesses have a lot of good stuff going on. Here at Pipeville Medical Center's Heart and Vascular Institute we have assembled a comprehensive team of cardiac specialists bringing expertise from all regions of the nation and the world. We have coupled that with cutting edge technology providing them the best equipment and operating rooms available. The result is comprehensive cardiac care for the people of our region that is second to none. The Heart and Vascular Institute at Pipeville Medical Center. Also looking forward to Friday is Jasmine Mead owner of App Cycled in Pipeville who like Hall serves on the board of the Pipeville Main Street program. There's a lot of us downtown that are going to be having some special deals. There might be some discounts or door busters and things like that. So the best way to follow along is to definitely follow Pipeville Tourism on Facebook. There's a Facebook group, Pink Friday Pipeville. And so you'll see that circulating along with some graphics and stuff. And we just hope everyone comes downtown to shop and hang out. For Mountain Top News, I'm Joshua Slum.


The time now is 4.31 and I am calling this meeting of the design review board to order Recording secretary, please have a roll call Board member birch is absent board member cook Yeah Board member lip-tack Here board member Sharon here board member with rich here Vice chair Weigel is absent and chair Jones Carter is absent let the record reflect That all board members are present with the exception of board member birch vice chair Weigel and chair Jones Carter Thank you item 2 Approval of minutes and there are no minutes to approve at this point, so we'll move on to item 3 And that is public comment We are now taking public comments on item 3 which are non agenda matters This is the time for any or when any person may address the board on matters not listed on the agenda But which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee? We don't have any members of the public attending in person We do have a couple attending via zoom if you'd like to make a comment Please raise your hand select by selecting the zoom icon at the bottom of your zoom screen If you're calling in please press star 9 Board member Sharon No one has their hands raised Thanks very much. We will move on to item for board business 4.1 statement of purpose Zoning code chapter 2052 point zero three zero f project review the review authority Shall consider the location design site plan configuration and the overall effect of the proposed project Upon the surrounding properties and of the city in general Review shall be conducted by comparing the proposed project to the general plan any applicable specific plan applicable zoning code Standards and requirements consistency of the project within the city's design guidelines architectural criteria for special areas and other applicable city requirements For example, the city policy statements and development plans Item 4.2 we have board member reports. Do we have any board room member reports, please? Thanks very much. I will close item 4.2 4.3 we have no other Board business, so we're closing item 4 We'll move on to item 5 department reports Supervising planner Hami Nicholson Sorry, give my titles mixed up. All right. It all works Thank you board member Sharon and members the board. I have no report for you today. Thanks Thanks very much Item 6 Statements of abstention. Do we have any? Additional statements of abstention on this for my fellow board members. Thanks very much Item 7 consent items. We have no consent items today We'll move on to scheduled items our scheduled item for the day for the day is Item 8.1 a public hearing for West Coast self-storage number two It is a sequel exempt project designer view and it is located at 2875 Sebastopol Road file number dr 22-025 And We'll move on to presentation Just really quickly too if we can do that exporter disclosures. Yes. Thank you Are there any exporter disclosures from my fellow board members? Wonderful there are no disclosures So moving on to the presentation by our contract planner Michael Janisick Are we live on zoom? I see him Thank you, Mike. Hi board member Sharon. Thank you for the introduction and I'll go ahead and share my screen Can you hear me? Okay is my audio. All right, you are all set. Thank you, Mike. Okay. Okay, so you should be seeing my Title slide at the moment We do yes, so great. Thanks for confirming So I will be presenting the staff report for West Coast self-storage Dot designer view number 22-025 Again, my name is Mike Janisick. I'm a contract planner with M group And this site is located at 2875 Sebastopol Road The project description it's a 62,000 square foot personal storage facility three stories There are a number of associated on-site and off-site improvements The reason for the review this afternoon is any Proposed development greater than 10,000 square feet requires Design review with the public hearing and the authority lies with DRP Here's the site It's approximately one acre Almost exactly one acre It's okay at the corner of Sebastopol Road and Retaint Lane You'll see it's To the north and west our residential neighborhoods and then to the east You'll see if you can see my cursor is light industrial Uses and then the south is a business park and office uses Here's the existing unimproved street frontage Here's the the vacant site. There's Remaining parking areas from previous development brutal vegetation and You can see some of the existing residential uses beyond the fence Here's the the zoning and the general plan. It's light industrial for both I L is the implementing zoning district. They're sort of a strange anomaly to the north where there's a residential use within as depicted by the L shading within a light industrial Within the I L zone so it's zone light industrial, but it is There's a single family home located on the parcel to the north Here's the project history. Oh, and let me go back there for a second and so the reason I bring that up is that That situation of budding a residential Use required a minor use permit With approval from the zoning administrator to allow the personal storage facility on this site and that Meeting and approval occurred earlier today with the zoning administrator and Also wrapped into that request was a parking reduction and it was more of a memorial a formalization or memorialization whatever you want to call it to Document that the applicant is using loading bays to meet required customer parking stalls and then so the project history a Pre-app meeting was held with staff on February 2nd The immigrant meeting was held on February 7th This project came before DRB for concept review on February 17th the final application was submitted on June 8th of last year last summer and then There were some review cycles The latest Concluded with an issues letter being sent the applicant on February 13th and On March 13th revised plans That you'll see before you in your packet this afternoon were submitted to address that issues letter And on April 12th the application was deemed complete and scheduled for this afternoon Here's the site plan It shows the siting of the 62,000 square foot self-storage facility Primary access is off of Sebastopol Road. There's a two-way 20 foot wide driveway and then there's You can't see it on This civil sheet, but there is a dead-end 150 foot long Emergency fire access and then there's an egress Out to retain that wrapped around the building That is 16 feet wide The setbacks comply with applicable base zone and specific personal storage facility standards and of note the There's a 10 foot required setback adjacent to residential areas and the applicant is exceeding that by providing a 20 foot setback at the rear And then they're also providing to meet a special personal storage facility setback. They're providing a 20 20 foot landscape yard in the front and then I also do to some legibility issues You'll see there's some vertical lines that appear like parking stalls They're not so I'll get into the parking when the landscape plan is shown and that's a little bit more readable and then staff received a big board member question prior to the meeting and There's also on the civil sheets in the packet. You'll see there's there's proposed Landscaping shown shown on the site plan That that doesn't align with the proposed landscaping shown on the actual landscape plan And so just to clarify it for the board this afternoon For the purposes of planning or view the the landscape sheet L1 was used to review proposed planting The proposed project includes the following frontage improvements. So I mentioned there's off-site improvements. There's there's kind of a suite of of Right-of-way improvements on each frontage on retain Well, I'll start with Sebastopol. There's a 43 foot half-street right-of-way dedication that includes a 7-foot median two lanes of travel 5 foot bike lane Turbine gutter 8 foot planning strip with my retention facility. That's in the public right-of-way and the reason being is And this is according to engineering Staff the LED manual requires all proposed impervious areas on-site and off-site are treated by Landscaped bus management practices. So therefore the retention facility the bioretention facilities actually sighted in the public right-of-way Behind the the curving gutter And right there There's six foot sidewalk and then then the property line picks up and you get the the landscape front yard on Uppertain, there's a travel lane 12 and a half feet about there's an 8-foot PUE and a A 4-foot sidewalk Before the property line and then there's the within on the the yard. There's a on the private yard There's a 10-foot planting area Here are the front and east elevations the front includes a storefront with generous glazing and The color scheme consists of grazing blues there is durable materials that are proposed including CMU metal siding and a standing a standing seam metal roof As well as glass The maximum proposed height is 40 feet Where 55 is allowed in the district Here are the west and north elevations these elevations face residential areas and staff worked with the applicant team to Provide some additional architectural features and interests at these locations That Including Additional Ribbed metal siding pattern panels That provide a change of color and a change material Here's the proposed landscape plan first. I'll cover the parking. So you've got three skulls here outside of the gate that would allow Access to the office and then you have three loading bays inside of the access gate that provide Drop-off and pick up from the storage units. There's also a parallel stall here for that's a set install that's not shown on this plan and They meet the minimum required parking With the formalized reduction requests so they could use The loading bays for a dual purpose to allow for customer serving Stalls the minimum required it is five Landscaping is clustered at the front the corners. There's a combination the variety of shrubs trees and ground covers there's also there's 44 trees proposed total on site and The landscape plan also shows street trees, there's three street trees on so basketball. They're not located Within the retention facility. They're in between Blocks of the retention facility Bear with me. This is going to be kind of a dense slide and I also want to address a couple of things In regards to landscaping that the board Had asked about prior to the meeting So one of those was that an irrigation plan was not provided And nor calculations of the of willow of water efficiency calculations There are notes included on the plan set before you this afternoon and that's typical of what's required by During the planning phase as a similar requirement. So Staff is comfortable bringing the application forward with those notes on Willow compliance during the building permit phase where there'll be more detailed review and calculations provided as well as There's a note that states the method of irrigation There's also tree removal that's detailed on the landscape plan all five premier trees shown that are existing will be removed and There's a note that mitigation Compliance will will occur and staff is also conditioned that replacement Is met in compliance with zoning code section 17 24 0 50 Staff has also subsequent to the zoning administrator hearing staff also would like to provide a a minor edit to condition of approval number 10 in your resolution related to tree protection And that would be to add language to extend tree protection as to any neighboring properties any offsite trees on neighboring properties that may be impacted by grading and construction activities So that is is something that would be included in an updated draft resolution Here's a 3d perspective that shows the relationship of the single family house to the north to the rear of the facility You can see the enhanced screening That's provided that is a evergreen site obscuring Tree that would reach a mature height of approximately 12 feet. They're spaced 10 feet 10 feet intervals And It's an italian buckthorn species. The apple can't confirm that that species could do well in a narrow swale planting strip kind of environment And I'd also like to There's also a seven foot fence. It's wood It's not clear from the detail whether it's it's a Good neighbor fence with boards on both sides. So the applicants available This afternoon and and that's something that Both board and staff would would appreciate a bit of clarification on on the intent of the the fence detail A photometric plan was also submitted as part of the dr package Um And it it demonstrates that no spill over to adjacent properties would occur No public comments were received during the noticing period And staff is able to make all the applicable findings I I tried to highlight as best I could the During the the project description and the analysis Uh To incorporate my findings Into that presentation. So I won't recite them to you, but in in summary The the project is proposed Sorry, the proposed project is consistent with applicable general plan policies particularly by providing enhanced landscape screening adjacent to residential areas The proposed project is consistent With the design guidelines specifically by providing a new sidewalk and landscape planner in the public frontage To enhance the pedestrian environment The project meets all specific use standards for personal storage facilities pursuant pursuant to section 20 42 180 including setbacks and landscaping and Lastly staff can make all the the design the required design refindings That you'll see before you in the draft resolution Environmental review The project would qual does qualify For a an infill exemption Which is a class 32 It's it's only an acre lot The use is allowed with a minor use permit, which was approved earlier today. There's no habitat of value In regards to to endangered rare threatened species and that's documented in the biological assessment included At um attachment five There is also a traffic study that shows there'd be no significant impact in terms of traffic In terms of noise The facility would only be accessible between the hours Of seven and seven And then it's also it can be served By it's not I'd like contiguous urban urbanized area and utilities are readily available And that uh the planning and economic development department recommends that designer view board by resolution approved design the designer view For the construction of a three-story 62 000 square foot self-storage building on 28 75 so basketball road And that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer questions and the Development team is also attending virtually And they would be available To answer questions and I believe they also have A presentation without slides. Thank you Thank you planner jenisek and thank you for the heads up about the presentation. That was my next question We'll move on to an applicant presentation All right, this is steve tangney. Can you hear me? Thank you steve. Yes, we can Hi, i'm the applicant, uh west coast self-storage is the developer. I'm one of the owners of west coast self-storage um I think mike covered the project fairly well. We don't have a separate slide presentation. It would be probably duplicative Uh, I keep my architect is also with us today robin murphy. He was also present during the conceptual design review uh a few I don't know how many members are still on the board from Roughly a year ago when we went through conceptual design review uh, but The project then was fairly well received and only And was complemented and only had a few minor comments and I believe we have addressed those comments There was one specific to a parapet one specific to the design of the rear of the building where those Multicolored panels had now been incorporated to respond to that and um I think one regarding the fence and screening of the neighbor Um behind us, uh, which we've responded to And uh, we did provide a detail of the fence and that separates us from the residential use It is a uh fairly stout fence. It's um It's in the plans. It's a six by six posts. It is symmetrical good neighbor uh design One by four slats vertical slats as the boards, but uh, it's a fairly heavy sort of uh, You know, that'll be a 30 year fence um The way it's designed. I actually looked at that today and was I'd like to have that fence at my house If you have specific questions related more to architecture, I'll turn this over to robin murphy the principal with jackson main architects Um, otherwise happy to proceed. Yeah, and this is robin. Uh, can you can y'all hear me? We can hear your robin. Oh, excellent. Yeah, steve said if you have any specific questions, um, we have worked Uh diligently on this project to get to this point. And I think that uh worked with uh, michael jant genusic extensively in the last few months Had several phone call message conversations with them and uh, what you see in front of you is what we uh, agreed Would would best address the concerns that the city had at the time Um, and I'm happy to talk about details, but uh, I'll leave that to your questions Thank you, steven robin and yes, you have been working diligently and I know because I'm the only one On the board today who was here last year. Um, we've got a bunch of new members And a couple who are absent today, but uh, so we got some fresh eyes and some veteran eyes for you At this point, um I would like to ask for I would like to open up for public comment on this item We do not have anyone in the chambers But recording secretary, um, I'd like to open this for public comment. Take it away Uh, if you wish to make a public comment, please select the raise your hand icon at the bottom of your zoom screen If you're calling in, please press start nine Board member sharon. There are no hands raised Excellent. Thank you very much. I will now close the public comment We will now move on to board member questions, please. Um, do we have any questions for Either um, a planner genisek or for the applicant team. I'm gonna start down at the end here. Mike, please take it away Okay, um, so I do have some questions Most of them I sent to the planner already, but um in your presentation, michael you said that The applicant will take care of the mitigation For the trees that are to be removed And on the plan the landscape plan that I have in front of me, it's over 80 It's like 84 85 inches of native oaks that are being removed and the um Landscape plan that we have the preliminary landscape plan Doesn't show any native trees, so I'm just interested in how they will take care of the mitigation during building process sure, yeah the the Proposed mitigation the replacement trees would would come from the landscape the proposed landscape planting, so I don't I don't know what the ratio if any native plantings native trees are proposed But the landscape architect might be able to speak a little bit better to that I know the italian buckthorn is the screening tree Selected and then the cate myrtle is the street tree ounce festival selected But perhaps It looks like there's some other ornamentals and then Yeah, so I'm not I'm not sure that any native trees are are proposed, but if that were a Required mitigation then then they would have to at that point When it's reviewed for the replacement Against their replacement requirements, then at that point it would have to change over to natives I can just Thanks, mike. Just add a bit more here. So Mike is referencing the city's tree ordinance. So this is a section of the city code That's outside of the zoning code that has some pretty specific requirements for when Certain trees are removed And under certain circumstances. So here there are trees proposed for removal for the purposes of development So that's a different Category and requires a different Very clear replacement ratio depending on the diameter of the trees being removed The ordinance does give the director of the department. So planners typically act on behalf of the director to um Select a different Species for replacement, but it does first say that The tree shall be replaced Let's see what the same genius and species is the removed tree But then it says or another species if approved by the director. So we do have some discretion But you know, that's certainly within the purview of the board to add that as a condition um As it relates to the the genius and species of replacement trees And then that um as I think mike alluded to is something that we're verifying As a part of the building permit Plan check. So planners are looking to see um, do they meet? uh, the requirements Of replacement trees under the ordinance Okay, thank you. Um, so I mean, I would like to add that as a can I guess we don't need to add as a condition because it's a requirement Correct Well compliance with the The tree ordinance is a requirement So like the the number of trees and the size of those those trees is going to be required whether or not It's a condition of approval, but if there's an interest in having certain um types of trees Then I would add that as a condition Because the way this ordinance is written it gives the director discretion to choose whichever replacement tree um, and then Did I hear in the presentation michael that the the fence on the screening fence on the back? That is a double-sided good neighbor fence The apple can't clarify that it is it does have boards on on both sides of the fence. Um I It was unclear to me looking at the detail as there is it seems to be a cross-beam That i'm not sure if that's exposed or not from the information that's provided. So It you know, I think the board may want to just conservatively also we could you know add a condition to to ensure it truly is symmetrical and clean Finish on both both sides about exposed cross-beam. Um, but that was sort of the only discrepancy I saw between the detail and the The clarification from the design Okay, and then to confirm also on the fence the fence goes along the north and the East property line That's correct. Yeah, that would be the proposed seven foot wood fence would would go along those property lines And then my only other question has to do with Irrigation and there is not an irrigation plan In our packet and there's no Wellow calculations or anything along those lines I Generally understand that it is requirement for final design review board approval to have Wellow calculations and irrigation plans If I'm mistaken, I I stand I can stand corrected, but It is you know a requirement to meet Wellow and There are moderate plants on the plant palette I wouldn't be so concerned if It was all low water use, but there are moderate plants in the plant palette So I just you know, I don't know if that's a requirement or a condition, but that's a question, I guess Sure, I would let staff liaison Nicholson Have the kind of the final say on that my understanding is the the note for Wellow calculations and then the verification and the review during building permit It is sufficient at this phase the planning phase and then also a statement Which is noted on the landscape plan of the method, but not necessarily the actual plan and installation of the The drip lines and mechanical Equipment for irrigation Isn't necessary at this time But please on Nicholson, I I would defer to your experience on this Thanks, Mike And thank you for the question We I was just pulling up our Planning application Guidance documents, so I think over time the requirements probably have changed Right now we do require what's called a A landscape plan sheet as a part of our design review submittal and There's a number of different requirements But none of them are the full Wellow calculations, so it does say Um an irrigation concept and statement of compliance with the city's water efficient landscape ordinance um, it talks about Showing the water usage of various trees and other plants Um, and then just the location, but it doesn't That that kind of full calculation is something that we do require During our our building permit plan check And I'm not sure if that fully answers your question No, that that answer my question. I think it's the same concern that I have On the irrigation and then also on the tree mitigation is that This the the tree mitigation requirement and also the irrigation requirement if They can't meet Wellow or they need to change the trees for Or the plants For the mitigation then that's a different landscape plan than what we're seeing here And so I personally think this is a pretty nicely done landscape plan But if you know trees are required to be switched out and then It changes the tree species Because the mitigation requirements need to be met then I think it changes the whole project So that would be my only concern, but I you know, I I think overall the architecture is a nice product and the building's a nice product and I I think the you know, I would support it I appreciate that comment and Take it back to the the group and talk about that because I I certainly understand that concern Excellent. Thank you and we'll move down the line Ernest any comments or excuse me questions were questions, please. Yeah, thank you very much And thanks for the presentation So I'm just looking at General questions The big one for me was about the color swatches that was already addressed I was on the back of the building and sounds like already hashed over a couple times The the only question I kind of have is regarding Some of the site design layout up in the front The primary entrance of the building where we are looking at the accessible parking The accessible entrance in the office And I know that it looks like the site's going to get pretty squeezed in there. There's going to be a fire lane that is We need to keep clear The the walkway that goes in front of between the accessible parking in the primary entrance is that intended to be Like a zero curb flush walkway Or is that going to be a raised circulation path with the curb ramp? That I know it gets a little bit into the weeds, but I think it does impact The site layout Depending on what the answer is I would have to defer to the design team for that level detail Yeah, yeah, sorry Michael. This is robin. Um, if the civil engineer is here, she's Probably better able to answer that but I'm looking at the civil drawings on my computer right now And it appears that it is zero curb, but I'm not 100 positive on that that the details aren't aren't there yet Uh, but oh, I'm sorry. You're you're there. Okay. You can there you go. Sorry. Yeah, I know. Sorry I didn't mean to interrupt you but this is monica sharp engineer Um, they the the the conceptual plans don't show that that Detail but it I it it will be Um, it'll have a curb so it'll be The parking will be depressed Perfect. That that helps uh what I'm looking for. Thank you very much. That's all I got Thank you. Thank you Ernest And we'll move on to Vic. Please any questions for Planner or applicant team, please I've got a just a couple of quick questions. I believe Some as I was reading through the package Um, I believe I saw a request for The calculated sun angle From the proposed building onto the residential Property to the north Um, what was that provided was was was was it calculated and you know the question was Is this proposed building going to cast a You know significant shadow on the residents and Yeah And and just so I understand the question You were saying that was requested at the time of concept design review. I I'm I'm not sure I it was specific enough that it said winter Which of course, you know is the the time that the sun is lowest in the sky And so the shadow would be the longest presumably noon on December 21st ish But it it was specific and I and I realized looking at the plan and where the residence is and thinking about And I did not calculate that sun angle although I could have pulled out my sun angle calculator But I probably would have taken me a long time to find it. I think so I'm just wondering if that happened if somebody calculated and just just to clarify not the timing of the Sun event but the When that doc you when that study might have been requested and you had where you had seen that comment I will have to go back and look But it was it was in the packet It was in the packet that we received. Yeah Okay, so it may have been in the material Was it late correspondence attachment eight that provides? That's a great question Okay, so I'll I'll add what I can I I think it My recollection is it may have been a comment and potentially in comment in a concept design review but there was not consensus among the board members at that time to require it and because the from staff's perspective because the Facility exceeds the required 10-foot rear setback and meets the height standard it wasn't It wasn't required during planning review, but I'll let the The designers speak to if they're more familiar with where that Comment was because I've I only have so much knowledge of the project history individually So this is Robin again I think you're correct Michael that that that was a Comment that came up at conceptual design review. We don't have it listed in our deliverables As far as I know we we did not produce that documentation. It's not hard for us to do that by the way It's very easy and and at that particular, you know at the winter solstice Midday Almost any building will cast a shadow Obviously, they'll cast shadows but cast a shadow off the property line I want to point out that at the conceptual design review level We actually had a single story building along the east property line Which is the area of concern here and it was much I think very close to that property line We've pulled we've eliminated that building And consolidated that into the into the three-story building And we're we have some distance away from the the east property line as well We did but to be clear it wasn't Formally requested For us to provide If it had been we could have very easily provided and we can still provide it I'm not trying to get around the issue here. It's kind of something that a little surprising to me that's that That we didn't Provide if we were asked to and I don't think we were formally asked to Well, thank you. I I do know that it would be a simple thing to do it might Then you'd be able to answer the question. Yeah, somebody else asked you So If yeah, I'm I'm Thank you. Thank you for thoroughly responding. I I just know that from our own Studies in this in this world where we do Three or four times a year the shadows that are Asked by Even three-story buildings and two-story buildings at that time of year are very extensive And and I so we always present it at four times of the year And that's what we would probably do here too to show the contrast Throughout the day, you know four times a day and four times a year If the expectation was that to see whether this building casts the shadow off the property line At the winter solstice at noon. I I'm quite confident that it would I know I I do I I studied this so I do know how The least cash shadows And it clearly whoever asked the question in the first place was concerned They just want whoever it was wanted to know that the occupants of the house behind the proposed building Wouldn't be wouldn't have all of their son taken away for a significant portion of the year That's that's clearly the what the intent of the question was that it was so specific kind of surprised me But um anyhow, thank you for thank you for responding my I have one other question which is The I understand the The building hours are 7 a.m. To 7 p.m. And that there's a manager's office not a manager's So this means that the building will be empty from 7 p.m. To 7 a.m There will be no one there Um Steve would you like to respond to that in general? No, there's absolutely nobody living in this building It doesn't have a a residential unit, but Steve go ahead please Yeah, it's um kind of standard in the industry Years ago, uh, there was uh more Hairtaker units as we called them But now there isn't um what there is instead is uh lots and lots of security system Far improved from years ago Uh, we'll have 32 to 40 cameras on this property such that all the outside and all the inside is Continually monitored and recorded We can see those uh camera activities on our phones as Our our property management team can can see that if they get alerts after hours And it works quite well The security is actually better than relying on a caretaker And so you're correct, uh after the office closes at 5 30 until the gate turns off at 7 Is uh tenant hours Where an existing tenant that already has a unit can still operate the gate access their unit up until 7 and then uh after 7 There they already are informed that that's closing time and they need to get out Thank you. Thank you, Steve. You have completely answered my question and allayed my concerns and I and I agree that a security system Um is is better than a single pair of eyes Probably, I mean obviously depending on the system and the eyes, but um, I'm going with the security system. Thank you Great. Thank you, Vic. And thank you applicant team for your answers and um You know for the storage facilities that we do see coming through the board We we love as a board to see caretaker units and we have seen some also in the past few years So for future reference, we love to see and the city also loves to see caretaker units because that counts as a unit of housing So thanks very much, but um, I think 42 cameras should probably Probably some good eyes on the street Uh, uh, I do not have any questions at this time At this point I would like to move on to Um, a resolution, please. I would like to ask for a resolution from the board anyone Would like to propose an action You're looking for a motion to approve or deny Um, yes, thank you. I said resolution, but motion is the correct way to put it. Thank you I would make a motion to approve resolution Uh, number dr 22025 Uh Read the like the title block on the resolution on the agenda It should be on there or their resolution is part of the um It's a bit on the materials earnest you had it right there if you pull the resolution if you like And just reading the first paragraph and you can say wave the reading of the text right here So I moved to approve the resolution designer view board of the city of santa rosa granting design review approval for a Three-story approximately 62,000 square foot self storage building located at 2875 spasible road apn number 035 dash 251 dash 037 file number dr 22 dash 025 and wave further reading of the text Thank you board member cook and do I have a second please I second the motion I'm sorry. Can I just jump in so um, can we add in I know that um, Mike mentioned this during his presentation just the the additions to condition number 10 related to um tree preservation on the neighboring property Um, can we add that into the the original motion and can I read those back into the record just so it's clear Yes, please. Um, so this is I'm sorry, Amy. Um, I'd also like to add an additional condition I thought we usually would move a second and then do you like friendly amendments is that? Yeah, so if the board wants to add anything those can be friendly amendments But I think just because this is coming from staff. I was going to add that into the original motion Or we can just read it into the record now and add it in later But so this is um condition 10 a so the second sentence It currently reads the drip the tree drip lines Shall be shown on each drawing with the um Sorry Just lost my spot with the attendant protection instructions So we'd like to add the language that reads or the the second sentence now will read the tree drip lines Including any trees on neighboring properties that may be impacted Shall also be shown on each drawing with the attendant protection instructions And then 10 b would read I would have that same language added to the end of the first sentence So after the word preserved it says including any trees on neighboring properties that may be impacted Thank you Do the motioners have to accept that Yes, okay. I have the motioners, uh, please Rule on that Okay, the motioner accepts The second I thought I thought ernes did the second. Did he not? Oh, excuse me I second Thanks very much And now we will uh move on to board member comments, please And let's go in the same order Board member cook take it away, please So yeah, so I would just like to add on the tree preservation and or uh mitigation that um the trees That are being proposed to accomplish the mitigation are uh like species native oaks Is this the the friendly amendment? that you're proposing or Is this your comment your comment? Yeah, I would like to see a condition of Oh, okay, we're writing to right now comments if we could and then we'll do the specific language of the uh condition But I have no additional comments. All right Thank you Ernest um No, again, thank you very much for the presentation. Um, and getting to see this pursue. I was actually not familiar with the brand Previously so I kind of looked it up online and To see what you guys do out there and it actually is a good-looking building and what you guys are doing With uh storage facilities Uh, the the only question I had that was answered was the color swatches on the back. I didn't quite get it. Um, but Um, I understand I actually looking at some of the other facilities that the that is one of the unique things for for each building It seems like there's some kind of unique um Color palette that's added on the back and it sounds like that was worked out the previous board and also with planning so It's great. Um, the the reason I I was asking the question about the blended transition or Whether it's going to be a curb ramp Um, what one thing that we've seen in developments where we're on very tight spaces Um is things that have been coming up in accessibility for building code and that that's kind of my niche. So When we see folks, um Designed with zero curves that's prohibited in in california now since july 2021 Um, we see it come back as an afterthought When things are already designed and it ends up just costing people time and money to kind of fix So, uh, just want to make sure that everyone was able to get ahead of that before You guys get the wheels going it sounds like your symbols on on the ball with it um I would just um, you know, maybe make some recommendation to Maybe double checks on the accessibility requirements. It looks like there's some stuff in here that's incorporated from Not california specific type um sizes and um Layout stuff towards the entrance. I'm not gonna Do a technical plan check on it or anything like that, but um Maybe just take a look at some of the scoping requirements for the trash enclosure accessible routes through that area Um, and just making sure you have enough room in case you do need to maybe widen your walkway out front That it does not impact your fire line. So Outside of that. It's a good looking project. Thank you Thank you Ernest and thank you for that extra context too Uh, please any comments? I Very much appreciate the 20 feet of landscaping at the front of the project Particularly on sabastopol road. I think it will improve sabastopol road So thank you. Thank you for doing that Thanks very much And as far as my comments, um Once again, thanks for bringing this back to us. Um, thank you planner jan sec for your presentation and for all of your work and um applicant team, thank you for addressing the concerns or feedback we had last year um, do you feel that our our thoughts were heard and You have continued to do good. Um good work. And uh, thanks very much for bringing this uh forward to us Um, that'll do for my comments um at this point, uh Do we vote first and then do friendly amendments or friendly amendments and then vote friendly amendments and then vote? Yeah Um, so we will move on to our friendly amendments. Do we have any friendly amendments to add? I'd like to add a condition to the resolution that The the trees that are removed are mitigated with the same species tree, um And I don't know. I mean that's city ordinance, but I'd like to make it specific that we have to do that Um, is that enough information? I yeah, I think it is. I mean there is that wiggle room in the ordinance So I think that it's important that we we say no the director can't land on an alternative. It's it's the same um, so I think that works any trees um To be removed for development shall be replaced with the same tree species something like that Okay. Yeah, that that works for me. I don't think I have anything else Okay, anyone else All right, um, are we good on the language there, uh, Amy and Mike for the friendly amendment? Mike's still here Yes, I'm uh, I'm okay with that Add a condition in the language And let's check with the applicant as well applicant team Hi everybody, it's bill right right here landscape architect. Hi bill. Um, I can you hear me? Okay. We got you. Yes Great. Great. Um, I'm perfectly happy with the condition. I I have a question though. Um First of all, most of the trees that are being proposed upon the two frontages are Prescribed by the center of the street tree ordinance So the purple leaf plums and the um, I think they're pristach trees Those are prescribed by the tree ordinance And we'd be happy I think to swap those out for live oaks, which are Most of the trees that are being removed As long as, you know, that's acceptable on both conditions It's a replace it serves as the required street tree And um, and it's a mitigation tree in kind Um, if that meets your purposes, I think we'd be fine with that The other question I have though is one of the big trees that's being removed is a california black walnut and um You know, it's a native tree, but we aren't really using those in the landscape anymore You know, certainly have in the past But if you would like us to replant black walnuts, we can I just want clarification and you know confirmation that that's the intent Thank you Thank you bill and uh, Mike you want to Respond, do you have any thoughts about that? Yeah, I um, oh go ahead Mike. Sorry Which uh Board member Sharon which might read sorry as we have two mics Sorry, sorry planner mike and board member mike. Yes, mike jen second mike cook. We'll go with a Board, uh, I guess uh planner jen sec if you had thoughts also let's hear yours first and then we'll go to board member cook I think the landscape architect raises a valid point. Uh, we wouldn't want a root system. That's i'm kind to the um the sidewalk Um, and something that would thrive as a street tree. So, um, I want to either as staff Uh, I'm not as well versus as uh, staff liaison Nicholson might be with whose Per view whether it's engineering or planning to reference the the street tree manual or if there'd be a kind of a subsequent um Review at the building permit phase to verify that it would be an appropriate street tree species. Um, I think that would probably be the best That would be in order just to confirm that they wouldn't damp They would thrive and would damage the sidewalk with the shallow root system Thank you planner jen sec. Uh, word member cook Uh, so I yeah, I don't have a problem With not replacing the black oak. I think that's uh, I'm not I thought I didn't think that was required to be mitigated In our tree ordinance. Um, I was more talking about the native oaks And I would be absolutely fine if uh, we used The oaks it's a purple leaf plum Yes planner Nicholson. I was just going to add in I'm Planning it's not the expert when it comes to street trees. That's um, our our parks staff actually look at those and they These are located within the the planner strips But we do have like a a list of what's allowed So depending upon the width of the planner that dictates the the types of trees that are permitted within them So, um, there are a number of oak trees that are allowed depending on the size of the planner I don't recall the size of this one on sabastopol But it looks like coast live oak valley oak Can be planted in planner strips that are Eight feet wide or greater Um And then I also think there might be some bioretention areas. So I don't know if that could cause another Issue But maybe we can build in like a little bit of flexibility even if it's Maybe it's not in the same location, but Like as something like as feasible or as many trees that are Planted on site Something like let's basically add some more trees back in that are native oak trees. It doesn't matter Maybe exactly where they're located because there's going to be limitations with bioretention and potentially the planner strip But there's that whole 20-foot area in the front, right? So is there An ability to just have those oak trees perhaps planted there So, yeah, I I mean I for me Uh, I'm not flexible on the species Of tree that's being used to mitigate. I think it has to be the oak trees Um But as far as where I don't have a problem, you know, if it's a 20-foot section, you know the front edge along spasible road, that's fine Um, but you know that this is exactly kind of what I was saying is, you know Now we got to figure out where to put these trees Because you know the the city's Street tree list requires a certain type of tree along spasible road and along britain lane So now there's there's really only that strip in front of the in front of the building. And so is that You know, they have kink kinko You know, there's there are trees located in that 20-foot strip, but um You know, that's kind of what I I mean by You know having the irrigation figured out having the mitigation figured out before it comes to designer view because it's It could change a whole Feeling or style the project so But yeah, I don't have a problem if they're planted in the in the strip in the 25th strip So for a condition, how does um It sound uh native native trees species native trees to be removed to be Replaced on site like for like something like that is it I would Would you like to say native oaks native oaks to be removed to be replaced on site with same species? Yes, okay Simple and clear Uh planner gen sec and applicant team. How does that condition language sound to you? If I may I think we would add a clause that would add a bit more flexibility to say Native oaks to be removed shall be replaced in kind to the extent practicable within appropriate Planting areas on site something to that effect May I ask a question again? This is landscape architect bill Reinhardt Yes, bill go ahead Great. I'd just like to make a proposal. I think this would work out very well But it doesn't exactly meet commissioners cooks intent But I think if we replace the purple leaf plums on britain with valley oaks They would be perfectly suitable next to the bio retention swale And um, they're not there aren't a lot actually there are valley oaks nearby, but I don't believe on site And then the the three street trees along sabastable road. That's an eight foot wide planter We could place live oaks in place of The medium water use trees that are on the street tree list And and then I think we would be completely meeting the intent and I think it would You know be very compatible and appropriate natives to use in those instances If that's acceptable to you So I I think the city santa rosa has a street tree list for a reason so that we're not alternating You know trees from property to property. So sabastable road Is it supposed to be the acer or is it Recommended or do we know that because I would have a problem with it going acered to Quirk is to something else along sabastable road Frontage, um I don't Have a problem with the valley oak along britain lane. It's just you know There's not a lot of space there and I just worry about the tree canopy on the on the building um so These are the things for the in my opinion, these are the things for the the team to figure out and and You know submit to the city. I don't Want to say as feasible. I do feel strongly that we mitigate the number of trees That are being removed on site I could be flexible with You know a mitigation You know offsite mitigation or fee or Whatever, but I would I would I would like to see these trees mitigate I can say that our original intent was You know meeting all the requirements by following the city's prescribed list for the frontages And I can say that I worked on that list like 20 years ago And I I would say it's it's outdated now. They're it's mostly medium water use trees But it's still it's in place And so we did intend to meet that and our thought at the time was well We've got 84 inches of native oak to mitigate for we're going to need to pay fees So we were you know the intent of the applicant I think was originally to pay the mitigation fees where we couldn't meet the numbers So I think that would still be our strategy again perfectly happy to swap out the plums for values You know, I think that's a great solution. Um, but again, it's not the prescribed tree for that that street. So You know your pleasure, I I think live oaks wouldn't be best there Um, but values would be good. I agree with them. Um And I think if we can mitigate as many trees on site as possible and then A fees after that So, um planners then, uh We hash out the specific text Where are we on this text of that amendment? Yeah, I think we need to craft craft the condition because it's changed slightly so Board member cook do you want to Start what the last one I have down is native oaks to be removed on site or to be replaced with the same species So now we're And I think that's still what we want. We still want the same species to be replaced So if they can't do it on site then they can do it through the fees I guess is where I'm coming from okay They can pay the in-loop fee, but we really want to encourage the onsite replacement. Okay, so I guess we could probably keep the Language we had before and then add the addendum if if not possible or if not feasible mitigate through Mitigation fees. Yeah Okay, if not feasible to replace All trees on site on site. Yeah In-loop fees shall be Paid in accordance with the history or it's very Okay, versus planting a non-native or different. Okay. Yes. I think that works as long as the board is okay with that Okay. Um, could you read that back for us? Yes, I didn't finish typing the sense here. Okay, so Native oaks to be removed onsite are to be replaced with the same species If not if it's not if not feasible to replace all trees onsite in lieu fee payment In accordance with the city's tree Ordinance Shall be made I may not have captured Something so chime in if I missed a word. Okay. That is it sound good and Vick. I think you had a thought I have a question. I have a question which is Should the owner and developer choose to Mitigate by paying a fee And not planting native oaks But because they paid the fee they also are not going to be planting some of the other trees So we may end up with a with a landscape that is Has fewer trees And is that okay right that's As a as a potential consequence Of what we have just said So I I feel like we're Approving the landscape plan the way it is I don't think we're saying you can plant less trees If you can't switch out the native trees or switch out the ornamental trees that are proposed with native trees then You stay with the current planting plan And you pay the fee So it's in addition So maybe another addendum to the to that we could say While preserving the number of trees As proposed on sheet l.1 1 In this plan set however, it's dated That's um about right mic and I think that we capture we keep all the trees that are proposed but we have we're Having feedback on the native species And this and this is where like, you know, we have open to can of worms because if for example the native trees actually It are able to be incorporated on site But because of their specific canopies it reduces the number of the other tree You know, are we are we are we tying too many knots Well, we're saying that we have to keep the tree they have to keep the trees as proposed here the number of trees But but but I'm saying suppose that the number suppose the number is 10 We know it's not 10. Let's say it's 10 and three of those um Are now going to be native oaks instead of Crate myrtle or instead of the ginkgo or whatever instead of something but the the three The three native oaks actually their their canopy and their root system require more space and and to We instead of having 10 trees. We might have to only have nine so that they'll be the survivors You're saying in 10 years time. Yeah. Yeah, I'm I'm as I know like and it's it's a can of worms I don't know. No, that's that's that's fine. It's a good good conversation to have um From my understanding um a planet because you can correct me um There is a requirement that um dead and dying um planted landscapes has to be replaced Is that in our code? Yes, uh, well, I'm not sure if it's in the city code, but it is a standard condition that makes its way into our design review resolutions Dead and dying plant material shall be replaced with healthy specimens as necessary Yeah, so as part of condition compliance, they have to maintain their tree species so if Um in 10 years time everything is, you know, most of the landscape has died Um code enforcement could go back and and mandate that things have to be replaced. So there won't be a reduction I I was suggesting that there might be a really good reason to have a reduction if the If the trees so so we we are in we're we're stepping into A landscape plan that's that's a full plan that has a full set of trees and and actually not just a set but a number For each kind and we're saying we we do want to keep and I Mike I just want you to know I I think the native trees are important But I I'm not sure that we've actually I think we may have introduced as many problems as we might have solved in the way that we have it In the way we're trying to tie things Sure In terms of a of a actual survivorship um and being you know subject matter Expert on this I would I would argue that the the the tree species that that Mike has proposed will be compatible with the rest of the landscape I can't see these being as as bullies and Mike if you want to Provide feedback on that as well Yeah, so I think what Tori's trying to say is that if we you know like there's a say the ginkgo is an upright tree. It's only a five eight foot Canopy A valley oak has a 60 foot canopy Sure, so you wouldn't plant to 60 foot Oak valley oaks right next to each other like you would a ginkgo upright Species right so when we and I we're getting definitely getting to the weed spot Yeah, no, I completely agree with you and I Um, I do think though that you know, there's other places that we could plant The trees if we can fit in the the valley oaks. I think keeping the number of trees is important so belief we have um a We have language on the condition And it is well within your Purview to not agree and not not vote for these conditions. I believe that's Where we are if I'm correct on this uh planer Nicholson um We put it for a vote Yes well, I I'm sort of thinking through If we would vote just independently on the condition or it would just be I think we would need to have someone accept The original motioner and the seconder accept the friendly amendment then that gets added to the resolution and then The entire resolution is considered by each of the board members With the condition added or not depending on if it's accepted by the board. Does that make sense? So first let's vote on the friendly amendment Okay Okay Um, I guess we will hold a vote on that friendly amendment. Oh first does the friendly amendment have to be accepted by the Well, yeah, I'm sorry. I should have rephrased it. It's not really a vote. So, um The friendly amendment is on the table And board member cook shared that I don't recall who made the original I do. Oh, you made the original motion So we might need I'm not sure what to do in this scenario Um, I I would think that we would probably want two other board members to accept That the changed condition and then if it's accepted then you would vote on the resolution including the new condition Okay Um, so, uh, can we read the text of the friendly amendment before we vote on it, please Yes, this is what I have. It's gotten longer and longer Native oaks to be removed on site are to be replaced with the same species If not feasible to replace all trees on site an in lieu payment shall be made in accordance with the city's tree ordinance Oh, that doesn't I think we should do period there and then The number of trees shown on landscape plan sheet. I think it was l1 one Just l1 Shall be preserved all right Would it be best to put this before the motioners first or the Two board members who were not the motioners I would go with the somebody Like maybe board member libtak and then I'm board member Wuthrich to do the Since the board member cook introduced it and you're chairing the meeting and then And Ernest was the seconder even right. Well, so normally the person who's making I I think it's unique because the person who's making the friendly amendment is the person who brought the motion I mean I can take a few minute recess and figure out procedurally But I haven't been in the situation before so my thought is it would be Two other members of the board that aren't the ones that are making the friendly amendment would accept Or not accept The friendly amendment So great. Um, I will put this to um board Uh member so Ernest, um, we have your Uh, yeah, I accept the amendment as proposed. Thank you Vic I I accept the friendly amendment Okay, the friendly amendment is accepted. Um I guess you don't have to accept your own amendment or do you does he have to accept his own amendment? I don't believe so. I will not I accept it. All right Um, great We're accepted. Okay. Now we can move on to a vote. Correct. Okay Uh, recording secretary, please Uh, just to clarify so The mover is now, um Board member with rich and the second is board member libtak Does the friendly amendment process change the motioning? I'm not sure about this I I think that we would keep it well, I I I'm not sure Because I still I mean originally it was moved by board member cook and so I Just in terms of having additional board members except the friendly amendment and not the same person who made it That's why we switched it. So I would I would keep it as it was Okay, we'll do. Thank you. Thank you. Lonnie Okay, so the vote Board member cook I Board member libtak I Board member Sharon. Hi And board member with rich. I So this passes with four eyes and three absences with Board member birch vice chair weigel and chair jones carter being absent Thanks very much. Uh, thank you very much applicant team. Um, congratulations when we have an approved project And with that, um, we'll move to Item nine, which is adjournment. Uh, the this meeting of the designer view board is now adjourned. Thanks very much everyone