 I'll take this one. Oh, okay. You're right kind of here. Yes. Okay. I'm going to call the design meeting back to order, and we are going to go very quickly through items 7, 8, 9, and then close the meeting, and then we're going to move to our joint meeting. So board member reports, hopefully no. For adjournment, so the regular meeting of the design review board meeting is adjourned. We'd like to call to order the joint design review CHP meeting, and I have a network error here all of a sudden. I left the building. Hang on. We'll share. So firstly, we'll need a real call for both boards. Okay. For DRB, let the record reflect that all board members are present except for chair Kincaid. And for cultural heritage board, all board members are present except for board member Dishazo, board member Murphy, and board member DeBacher. With that, then we'll have the approval of the minutes, and that is reverted back to Casey to your board. Board members, any corrections or comments about the minutes? Yes, vice chair. Thank you. Hi, folks. Excuse me for taking a second to get settled here. If I'm not mistaken, at the very end of the minutes I'm going to go through the questions. Here we go. In question number three, no, in question number two, there we go, will the historic resources, cities historic resources inventory be updated? What I actually asked was when would that happen? It was kind of like we've been talking about it. I wondered if we had movement on that. It's not that the inventory has not been done. It's not that the inventory hasn't been done, it's the update hasn't been done. We aren't working without an inventory. I don't want us looking that bad. If we could make those two corrections, I would appreciate it. Thanks. Board members, any further comments or corrections? Okay. Thank you. I'm going to move on to the review board and the design review board and cultural heritage board approve minutes as an administrative. So there's not a formal vote. The minutes will stand with those modifications. Otherwise, it's printed. Thank you, Casey. We'll move on to the statement of purpose. The review authority, collectively approved. The 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 with the city's design guidelines, cultural criteria for special areas and other applicable city requirements. And I'll blend the CHP with that. So at this time, if there are any other questions or comments, we'll move to the public hearing other than the agenda items. You may come forward and speak. Hearing no one, we'll close the public comment. And we'll look at statements of abstention. Are there any members of either board wishing to abstain tonight from any of the proceeding? This is Brett with that we can commence with scheduled items. Yes. I know Bill's not here, but one of the things staff has desired us to do and we're following that is we're going to have a slightly different sequence and it assists the city and it's as follows. We're going to have the order of business, the staff presentation, staff presentation. We're going to have a discussion in the process of processing codes. The applicant presentation. And the public comment. Then we're going to look for a motion. Robert's real motion. Then we're going to have comments, friendly amendments, discussion. So what we're doing here is we're focusing on questions about the project. We're going to have a discussion about the project presentation and we can combine any questions curiosity and they have about the project. We can find that after their presentation. That saves us some time. So with that, with item 6.1, we'd like to have staff share with us the latest. The project's a lot of work, so we're working on a small section of the secondary village. So 806 Donahue street and 8 West 9th street. The project includes the construction of 185 unit apartment complex. Which consists of a mix use development, actually. 15 of those units are designate as very low income The next item is the project site. This is a landmark alteration permit, which is before you today. Design review, which is preliminary before you today. The density bonus, which was already granted and signed by the zoning administrator, including both concessions and the vacation of public right-of-way, which was approved in 2017 under city law. The project site is located across the street from the Deturc round barn at the Deturc winery building and the U.S.-bonded warehouse building. The existing elevations of the site, two roll-up doors, which are mentioned in the staff report and in the cultural resource surveys, the windows and the existing street as well. In 2017, the city council adopted the vacation of right-of-way resolution, again, 2017-070. They also granted the density bonus, but in this case it was revisited, so a new one was applied for and issued for this project. On December 6, the Turk winery village project submitted an application for a new design review and landmark alteration permit. The concept design review meeting was held before the board's both DRB and CHB. On April 17, in response to issues, letters by staff, the applicant submitted revised set of plans. The general plan land use designation is transit village medium, which allows 25 to 40 units per acre. The project complies with the general plan in the following ways. It maintains a diversity of neighborhoods in various housing stocks, pursues Santa Rosa's housing needs through increased densities, expands the supply of housing and preserves Santa Rosa's historic structures and neighborhoods. It's also within the downtown area specific plan. The star denotes the development of housing in the city. It's also within the downtown area specific plan in the following ways as well. It utilizes city programs and policies to encourage and facilitate development of affordable housing in specific plan areas. It ensures parking requirements in the specific plan areas stimulate transit oriented development based on the project. It also includes the residential and residential residential within a historic combining districts and station area as well. It's within the west end preservation district where the both cultural resource surveys indicated that the projects are compliant with the existing site in the west end preservation district. It has a few different variations within its own zoning. In the historic districts it asks for a transition from four to three stories for properties that about residential historic uses which are also limited to 35 feet. Structures within the station combining districts say that the height must be 35 to 45 feet. And zoning code section 20-28 040 E3C says the review authority may approve an increase in height. The density bonus under section 2031. 080 allows a developer of this project which 15 units for the total site is 11% of the total site. This is incorrect in the planning commission as a review authority. It is a ministerial review at this point in time based on current density bonus laws. So I apologize for that typo. Approval is required before construction commences. So again under government code section 65915 1 is for height where the max height is 46 feet for the top of the roof on building B which is the building that has increased from three to four stories and one for dispersion which is previously the density bonus requires dispersion of the affordable units on sites of use throughout the project. So that is a concession that allows with evidence provided by the applicant that it can be in one building. And that is for financial reasons. So the parking for the site gives so we're required half a space per bedroom and there's a breakdown of the residential uses. So required spaces for the site and building D and building C and 42 on street. The existing gym has a parking reduction for 17 spaces. The project as proposed will provide an additional 10 spaces on the street. And creative measures include unbundled parking, shared vehicles and public restricted parking. So the parking layout of the site here will be a two hour maximum between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and then after that it is open to the public. It's anticipated that residents will use it but it's not restrictive to the residents of the site. So the parking layout so entrance and exit will be a two hour maximum between 8 a.m. within building C parking and out onto 9th Street as well. And Donahue. The vacation of Radaway allows for an increase in density by making that the right of way it gets more acreage which allows higher density. And the resolution is noted. So the entitlement review again for you is the DRB and CHB under a joint meeting so design guidelines are in the purview. We have a landscape alteration permit would be approved by the cultural heritage board. Here's an angled aerial of the proposed site. Back at the concept hearing this building was its own which was previously approved with the site and there was an additional building E back here which went over some parking that was approved. Since then for per fire code and made that not possible. So it was redesigned to incorporate building A into a larger structure. So we have a building C and all of the residential units are taken out of building C. So the elevations remain generally the same as what they were before. We have a brick for the original styles of the building with a separate industrial structure. So the building now would be demolished and rebuilt to that. Provide some brick to kind of match the previously existing but does not there's that difference between old and new. So it's meant to signify or highlight the historic nature of the site and the building. So the materials are hard to read on these slides I understand. It's noted in the staff report but I think I'll let the applicant explain a bit more of the materials on site or being used. Again some brick brick that is existing and the industrial look on top. That is not there now. So it's around the exteriors. Right here you have interior landscaping in the courtyards in the interior courtyards. So that would be building the north building and the southeast building and building A which is on the next slide has one thing staff had asked for in the review about the building. So I'm not concerned about the livability down here but so we asked the applicant to provide kind of more of a livable space with landscaping and these semi private open space areas for those units which the applicant provided. So the sidewalks, parking spaces, crosswalks and ADA and the sidewalks. So this is the project for public improvements. The 8th avenue in Donahue and 9th in Donahue will be improved. There's a raised medium along West 9th street to allow ride in and ride out only. Existing and existing contamination within Donahue Street will be remediated. There's a section 1-533-0 which is a minor cleanup to eliminate contamination and 1-533-1 involves restoration efforts. So staff received two inquiries on the project that doesn't reflect here on the PowerPoint because they were received a little bit later. So general inquiry in the project which was explained there's no opposition or necessarily support for the project in that conversation. Staff did receive a letter from a nearby neighbor which includes concerns for parking, the location of the low-end community, street parking, parking garages, and the public district itself. This is kind of a look at the parking slide. So by code, government resource code they're allotted section 20-31 of the density bonus ordinance that the city just passed recently. And then that would also include the 17 required for the gym so you have a total of 164 spaces on site. So overall there's an additional 12 spaces provided from what is required from code. So there's no unresolved issues with staff and the recommendation tonight is from the Planning and Economic Development Authority. So I'm currently working with the Heritage Board and Designer View Board, Grant preliminary design review, and landmark alteration permits. And I believe the applicant has a presentation for you, but I can answer any questions you may have and staff and more of their team is also here for questions you probably have. Thank you, Adam. from the DRB then we'll just move through to your August team Casey and questions there so Henry would you like to start with any questions no questions all right Adam I have no questions this time okay Brett no questions I'm good okay the same for me so Casey the floor is yours I have one question for staff for clarification just because I noticed something in the revision of the second historical resources report from Diana Painter that report reads in part contrary to the report dated September 2016 they are they being the buildings are listed on the California Register of Historic Resources if I remember correctly during the initial presentation in 2016 one of the two criteria for for making concessions difficult right under the statute that I believe we were then discussing which was a state statute where and this came from the state or sorry from the city's attorney's office so what I'm suggesting is we might want to check on this at the time of the original 2016 hearing we didn't know that the buildings we couldn't determine whether the buildings were on the cultural the California historic inventory and that's one of the two criteria the other one being a risk to public health and safety so we might want to revisit that with the attorney's office and make sure that those two concessions would still stand does that make sense because this is different from what was on the board on the table so to speak for everybody including city council at the time okay just a thought board member purser if you could just indicate the section in that report that you were referencing sorry yes this is and I apologize my pagination got all messed up with the printing I believe it would be something like page 12 yeah and it's the the section that she wrote called questions relating to the city of Santa Rosa's design guidelines historic properties and districts section 4.7 okay and do you have any further comments okay and I have no questions or comments at this point we've we will close questions to staff and though it may be brief or not we'll have an applicant presentation I think it would be great to share a little history and take take your time for whatever clarifications are needed information is great thanks chair head pethen edmondson thank you members of the board happy to be back here again hopefully for one of the last few times I'm just going to primarily highlight the changes since the last approval and and kind of give you some background of what necessitated the changes try to dis summarize here and I'll I'll go through them on the plan but primarily three changes oops is for the top and it's really three some of which you've already seen at a concept hearing the first one is the the corrections we made to the adjustments we made to the parapet on building c down near the south elevation and the west side there nothing new there that that's still here today and the other one that you've seen before I believe both boards here have seen was the addition of the fourth floor to building b which we were at concept back in january on we made some slight adjustments to some windows I think clarified the colors but sure to that's primarily what you've seen before and then the primary change was the expansion of building a at concept hearing we had a sort of a standalone building called building e that was attached to a and I'll show that on the site plan and we found out after that hearing that that caused some major issues with fire that we were not aware of so we had some meetings with fire kind of walked through those issues figured out what what they were after and came back then with this revision primarily here what what necessitated the changes was that after the approval we became aware that fire had concerns with potential toxicity inside the building even though the projects had a phase one and a phase two study with borings they were concerned and wanted to look at some exploratory removal of soil in most of building c since we were putting residential units in there it's different between residential and commercial that was going to add considerable cost to the project and we didn't have building c the historic one rebuilding entirely built out with residential units inside there was only a few or 20 some odd units I think so we we stepped back then because of that requirement and looked at moving all the residential units out of building c the historic one rebuilding that's what drove all these changes so we expanded well when we were here for concept for building e that's what was driving it was trying to get the units out of building c the historic winery we were adding the fourth floor to building b to do that and then adding that building e or e created problems with fire so then we changed it and now have an expansion in building a that's basically what's driven all this to be able to make it feasible to build this so I'll jump to the next slide this is just a quick review because I know we have a few new members here on on boards this is the original approved site plan so sort of to recap we have everything this this line right here is the north end of the historic winery building it goes from there down to here that's that's your historic winery building and with what we're in front of you today we're not making any changes to this whole north end of the site that remains as we had it designed previously we've added and reconfigured some parking each year in here which I'll show you on the on the next slide inside building c and then we had some exterior parking out here that we have removed and that's where we've taken building a and turned it and brought it back here and then we added the fourth floor to building b so primarily the changes that you see from the exterior of the project are really the south end of the site right in here this is just a slide of the existing condition or no sorry this is the proposed one I skipped by one okay so you can see some added parking towards the back and around the side of building c we had someone here initially on the first submittal or approval and now we've added some more on the back here we removed the parking that was out here we've reconfigured some of the commercial space so that we have some we're trying to keep the street activated with activity so we're the back of that building because of exiting issues of the historic winery is not as useful and as desirable as the front of the building on donahue so we've tried to keep the front of the building active with commercial space and put the parking in the less desirable part of the building and then we've extended now building a and turned it to the east here back towards the end of the site what became evident on the concept review is we had a building e sitting right in here attached to the historic winery well what what we found out after that when we made an application uh that fire had issues we didn't know about hadn't come up for because that wasn't proposed they wanted to maintain uh access along the south side of building c to the rear of the site basically this this whole back side of the building both buildings uh really doesn't comply with current code but so we couldn't make it any worse was the issue their fire is letting us rebuild a building and provide no access here they could have made us provide 20 foot driveway access all the way to the back of the site right here but they their feeling was since there's an existing building there and that's the existing condition you're not making it worse by proposing a new building we're fine with that north end of the site but because we were proposing something new on this south end they said you're making a condition worse for access and so that's why we pulled that addition out and wrapped building a back and maintained this access all the way to the east side of the site now that's that's really what drove these revisions from our concept hearing that allowed us enough space to add the units in to get them out of building c and also in combination with adding unit the fourth floor to to building b that's just our unit count this is kind of trying to give a global view here of the entire site so this just is kind of layering first floor this is second floor showing kind of the grayed out area in the middle is there is a small portion of the second floor in there but again gray area meaning that we're not making any changes inside that building again building d up here to the north is as originally designed and here's the changes to building a and building b third floor kind of the same thing and fourth floor similar it picks up some other little balconies on that step back the fourth floor steps back on building a on on the south frontage and now that north facade and does the same thing on the west facade and this east facade and that's just a roof plan okay there's kind of that 3d view that adam had already shown so here's on that little outline I had here was modification one this is just an image showing that added parapet basically rebuilding the parapet that used to be there on the top of building c at the south south facade along here and the there's just a portion of it here on the west facade that gets restored okay here's here's building here's our changes proposed for building b again this will look similar to what we were here for concept review we changed some of the window pattern here on the both sides the east side along the tracks and the west side have similar layout and slightly adjusted there was a awning here that was shown too high originally we lowered it I think we adjusted the building color that was a concern last time it was showing a little lighter than the material we actually picked so we made that adjustments and adjustment in here and then just for reference this was the project as approved that was the third floor as you can see it it steps back it gets 10 to 12 feet if I remember right it steps back from the existing building but that was that was the original approval and then these were just some different views of the building building b and then since most of the work again was on this side of the side I did a little bit of blow up of this portion of the side so we kind of look at some of the changes addressing one of the staff concerns about livability some of these downstairs units here we did have a trash bin area at the back of the building and we had a couple of entrances to parking back here in order to address those livability concerns we brought the trash forward since we already have trash space and building c so they're kind of opposite of each other and we close those entrances to the back for parking and move them up to the front we already had a single I think exit out of here so we made an entrance and exit that allowed us to baller this off and have this whole stretch here for emergency vehicle access only which means that we can allow these units to have you know better space out in front of their units more usable space that has no daily vehicle traffic we're working with changing the paving and trying to make it a more attractive space with some additional landscaping and different paving or colored concrete so that doesn't feel like a daily driveway and then we address some concerns on this side too is providing some semi-private space and reoriented the walkway across here which you'll see in a landscape plan those were a couple of the staff concerns and here's the landscape plan showing that change of texture here from the from the ballards right there back we pick up some landscaping and some separation here so that these units have some semi-private space at their entrances same on the south side of the building here there's no entrances across here on the north side of building b that building is internally loaded you enter the units off the west side here and come in so this the only people that really need to go back here enter these spaces are the ones whose units they are and then we did the same thing across these units on the ground floor created some semi-private space at the front of the units here's a again a blow up of that portion of the site showing the building the second floor building a and b and we did connect these buildings from the second floor above we created a little basically bridge that connects across here to buildings b and a this is a third floor looks pretty similar and then fourth floor both buildings and then here was just a little view between the two buildings i think we had a view it's very similar to this that concept that showed a building back here again that's gone now and we have a opening so that fire can have access to the back of the site you can kind of see the ballers here and where the where this would change and this could be usable more usable space here's a quick section cut through on your right here is building b so you can see the first second and second floor and how the third and fourth floor step back so we're pulling these building backs both on the street and between the two buildings these buildings are kind of a skew from each other so at their tightest point they're right around nine or sorry 10 feet apart and it gets wider as you go farther back so that gets almost to 20 feet about 19 and a half feet the backside and then from building to building on the north side we have I think it says 27 and a half feet from building face to building face and again here's the fourth floor that steps back on building a this was something we also showed at the last concept hearing we wanted to make some changes to the north and south facades of building a so we made this adjustment and I believe the comments at that time were that those adjustments were liked so we kept those on the south side and here's the north side now that we've added on to the building with similar adjustment on the north side here and this was just a same kind of three-dimensional view of the south this is eight street frontage here west eight this is donahue side this was the original approved project this was the changes that we made primarily really it's this south elevation this is sort of a strange view but hopefully tries to explain what's going on this is a view sort of a 3d view inside of building a is it wraps around building b would be in your foreground you wouldn't have a hard time seeing this unless you went inside the between the building and experience but we basically pulled building b out of here so that you could kind of get a sense of what the architecture of building a looked like again all the architecture similar to what we've done before and over right here is kind of that bridge connection that's from the second floor to the fourth floor it connects buildings a and b and I think oh here this was a slide we wanted to show so this this is what adam was indicating the materials for the buildings we have a a charcoal gray metal siding up here which I brought some samples of I can pass around it's a corrugated siding pre-finished not reflective material and then we have basically hardy panel two different colors of hardy panel it's a has reveals in it so this is just a sample showing you know the reveal lines at windows and between floors it's basically a rain screen system that we're using a pre-finished hardy panel system for and we have a darker color on the on the ground floor that's a night gray color and then the middle two floors are the pearl gray and then we have some places where that some volume is popped out and expressed in the different color and then we have some locations where we have some brick veneer which again is similar to the previous approval so there's this is the old view 3d view more photorealistic whoops the back one that's building a but the old facade on the side that we've changed but you can see from this side it's still speaking the same language and then here's again building d up at donahue and west night that we haven't made any changes to those are the same images so I think that kind of concludes the items I wanted to cover changes from either concept in january when we're here or changes from the approved project thank you I know you you have with you today um you've got imagine Sonoma landscape and a civil is there anything we this meeting was going to be a couple weeks ago we were going to have diana diana painter here but she couldn't make it so she is available and watching live so we can wave to her and say hi so if we've got any questions I think staff talked about um fielding those questions for diana maybe we take a recess and I can get her on the phone answer the questions and come back to you okay well with that what we're going to do next um sequentially is we're going to go uh ask any members of the public who would wish to speak on this matter to uh to do so now stating your name and address and is there anyone we don't have any cards in front of us so my assumption here is no members of the public wish to speak on this item so the next thing we're going to do is we're going to ask questions of the applicant and what we'll do is we'll start with the drb move down the line and then case you'll turn over to you for your august board and um after those questions are uh presented forward no taking uh with robert rules we're going to look at a motion the motion can be amended it can live it can possibly die but that motion is going to come forward um after that motion is brought forward we're going to have a discussion it's a given that it will be uh addressed so that is our procedure and with that questions will now come forward henry can we start with you oh for two or no questions all right thank you henry adam um i'd like to defer to the end actually of the drb here my colleagues have to say if i could okay he'd like to comment toward the anore i'll do that before we settle out then thank you eric i'm not going to help adam any i don't have any comments no questions thank you eric brek questions no questions right now for the applicant true um it's been a while since i've seen this i i missed the january meeting where you presented it concept so i think i probably would have asked this question then um and maybe the answer is hidden in the concession but i thought i'd ask so it looks to me like the distribution of bedrooms unit wise isn't uniform i guess is the best way to put that right so building a and b only have one bedrooms and then the new building to the d has the two bedroom units is that correct did i read that i have that breakdown in the staff board i'll look it up and i'll answer that for you so was there i know the i know the bit about the uh uh all the affordables being in building a kind of in that corner which i think where the concession makes sense but what was the thought process behind not distributing unit typologies uniformly throughout the buildings that does that question make sense kevin primarily size that we had available inside though each of those buildings we did we still have the ability to i think we might have one or two uh townhouses still left and i forget which building it is uh that we have the ability to add some two bedroom units i think to remember was b or a but primarily we kept all those two bedroom units up and building d where we had larger width basically to deal with on the units and that is my question one thank you i i did uh kevin i had a question if we could go to a one point one yes it's the uh it's the ground level site plan a one point one a excuse me it's not the three it's it's a one point one it's just straight up a one point one right yeah thank you for turning off the parking so kevin here's my question um i know that some of the other documents mentioned that there's quote no work in this building but unlike the other submittals the building has parking that is now part of it i i was in this building i uh early in the week i know it has a second floor level and the question about turning more than half of it into parking looking at the uh the the general columns the general level of studying that did you did you have some sessions with structural or anyone to to look at uh that there's a second floor in this building you know above the gym and there was storage over the ancient times back in there barley sacks or wiring things and so forth but so it's only one level of cars you're proposing are you going to try to use the existing slab are you are you taking that out how are you addressing the um the column placement in the historic building and the uh array of parking stalls in that building yeah good question we tried to clear it well yes like you said it's probably hidden in here but we've the really the only second floor is this little sliver right here between what was basically two different buildings that's the second floor up there okay yep and so uh the only building i believe that has interior columns is this this these are like multiple buildings put together basically so this width right here i'm drawing that building if i remember right has a row of columns uh down the middle of it and we've consulted with we're trying to leave as many as as much of that as we can we're not trying to revise roofs on these buildings these this building here is all clear span this uh volume through right here going to right there that's kind of the end of a building that's clear span with no columns this we're not touching for parking it's going to be commercial space and then basically this building out to the street here from there back and it takes a little jog is basically like another building and it does have a real columns that we've already been uh consulting with engineering on that's right through here it's about two or three columns in this building primarily it's column three we're working with existing walls that are structural and support the roof it's this building here that's got a few columns in it that most of them aren't an issue except i think we've got one up here this near a drive out that we're going to have to drop a new column on and this steel head are basically supporting trust trust two trusses that come together that that roof has double bow trust is one that goes from north side of the building to the middle and then from the middle to the south side so we have to be able to pick up those call those spans and support them you're trying to keep that the roof is going to stay intact uh above correct my next question with that i know we i think it's prop 62 is we're addressing carbon monoxide and where cars are and keeping people safe though the the question here is now that there's no residents there but the whole ability to work with codes on the existing gym and those structures keeping it separate the back if i was walking the tracks not getting run over doing it but looking back at the building i think you have some openings this is this is not a hundred percent enclosed garage so whether the definition is that you're you're looking at some security but the there are penetrations along the track side on the east side of that building at the ground floor yeah we're trying to utilize existing openings and because there's been a lot of openings that have been filled in over the years for rail access so we're going to use utilize existing openings to deal with basically we know we're going to have some exhaust system in here to get exhaust out or ventilation system but we're trying to re utilize existing openings and open a backup of provide security to help with that ventilation so you you think at this point this is a question between the the main openings to the garage to the south uh to the north and by carefully removing the uh the center block going back to brick you might have enough breath to breathe right now and we're going to have to do some more work with probably have to mechanically ventilate in there to keep air movement and air changes we figured that but we haven't dove into the issues yet with uh mechanical okay my my last question is going back to the south because i know you've added a story that i think it's building b to the far what we'll talk about the southwest there you you've added another floor on that since our last power and if you you know we could look at the sections on that but just just speaking openly it's i understand it now it's an internal courtyard that has exiting and you're you're now loading the the uh the outside walls of the existing structure you're you're going up another floor you've you've had discussions with your structural um oftentimes we have an in period motion of earthquakes we try to decouple like in townhouse you decouple the outside wall here in the section i can't quite tell how engaged that is but you've had further discussions about adding yet another floor and the earthquake loads having a different behavior uh we've been we've consulted with mkm kind of throughout this whole project basically the strategy in that building is we're building new walls inside of it and bracing the existing walls and dealing with that those gaps that we need but we're trying to leave the walls there take the roof off drop a new structure inside and we had mkm look at building c when we were proposing units in there with a podium not too worried about the north end because that's new construction and then the same thing on building b they've we've consulted with them so yeah so so in effect um kevin the um the exterior of building b will remain it's pretty much 1882 self i'm probably the year wrong i'm sorry but but there's no buttresses or bracing um needed it's gonna have an interior concrete core with a rebar curtain keeping it quiet in trouble times correct all right that was my question thank you go ahead board member mickey any questions for staff or for the applicant excuse me any questions for the applicant i have one question when we took a look at this the first time one of the things i think that the cultural heritage board wanted you to do was to unbrick some of the windows that were bricked up on on the facade are you going to do that sorry unbrick uh the on the new construction no it's on i think it was on the the i can't remember which building c where there were there were bricked up windows and i think we recommended that you unbrick them and open them up at correct now i remember yeah at this time we're not because we're not really proposing new work to that building other than i know there's ongoing work and still will be reporting the the brick that's on the building but we're not adding units and looking to add new openings or open up existing openings because a lot of those aren't in locations where i mean they're they're basically two-story windows uh or second floor windows that those are high bay buildings and so they don't they're not really gaining us anything at this time in the future we may look at that as a as a location to add residential units if and when the owner wants to deal with that on a supplemental density bonus or something and then we would look at opening those spaces back up but at this time now board member fennel any questions and vice chair purse or any questions so my my question is i got confused as i went back and forth between the drawings and some of the text in the in the reports um looking at the north wall of building c in some places the text says that that's going to be exposed and in the drawings it looks like is that building d is going to a but can you tell me which is which yeah so we have a portion of of the north wall of building c right here that right obviously is remaining and then wherever we need to there there is some existing that wall inside where this existing building of butts has a lot of openings and holes in it right and really building d here the existing building d is actually attached to building c there's not another separate wall in there so there's there's an opening back here which we're trying to utilize that for parking trying to utilize the wall existing walls where we can but there are locations here because we have a a a sterren elevator core that reads through up to the floors that we're going to have chunks of that wall that we have to take out um so as much of that wall as we can we're trying to keep is the short answer we're not trying to demolish demolish the whole wall i wasn't worried about demolition i was wondering about exposure in other words would it be open like the south wall is going to be and it seems like the answer is no which is fine i just needed to know which i was supposed to see you mean open visually as far as people to experience the ad largely no uh again yeah the the corner there where we have the cars kind of that entrance that was sort of a i mean going back away staff wanted access there they added that but that was sort of a deliver even before we did that was sort of a deliberate design attempt we wanted to pull units back from that this kind of northwest corner so that there was some visibility to the historic corner that structure okay great thank you yep and i don't have any questions i'll turn the floor back to chairman hedge path thank you kasey so with that we've uh we've concluded with questions to the applicant and at this point again with robert's rules we're going to allow discussions that we need a motion to proceed that that motion can include various items to it or it can be a singular motion without comment chair hedge path can i ask a question a procedural question since this is a joint meeting we have two resolutions listed yes right so how do we make a motion are we supposed to make a motion about both about one at a time what are we supposed to do procedurally in rozenberg's rules it'd be one at a time okay thank you and that that's separate from the landmark alteration element right well we have a big yeah so that's what i'm asking so yeah preliminary design is for the collective group of both of us correct and then landmark is for chp alone correct okay yes there is a third vacation which also needs a motion the vacation of property that you know that that was approved by city council that still holds thank you that's then custodial okay so it is two motions thank you for those clarifications so then with with that the the landmark motion will be in your hands and a motion collectively we will not be discussing the landmark motion the focus is a collective body one and all for the motion on design review which you are part of so the motion can come if it wishes to i'll wait patiently i'll make a motion thank you that the cultural heritage and design review boards of the city of san ariza grant preliminary preliminary design review approval for deterrent winery village located at 806 donahue street and eight west ninth street um file number prj 18087 and wave reading of the text okay thank you eric i'll need a second i'll second all right so now we'll move to a uh discussion and i'll just proceed from north to south with said discussion and we'll start with henry seems like this project the the um the history summary and your staff report was was abbreviated um i remember working on a project on wilson eighth street in our our office and this project was was being developed at the same time um in a much different form but i know i know this project has been before boards and many times over the last 10 years so um i'm glad to see it in its in its current state and i i'm hesitant to uh comment too hard on things that that i didn't get a chance to review i'm a new new member to the design review board so um but what i would like to comment on is the is the the building b which is fairly new to this board so i feel comfortable making a couple of comments about the upper level of the two-story pushback elevation which i appreciate it being uh recess from the brick facade um as it was in the prior one when it was three stories but now that it's four stories it to me it accentuates the the monoplane on all four sides of it there doesn't seem to be a lot of pushback or enough push pull in that um vertical element of the building um i i think that's that's all i really wanted to kind of stress with the with the building b and um again i just want to read it right i like i like how this project has progressed over the years and uh look forward to seeing you move it forward thank you henry adam thank you uh i'm also glad to have seen this progress from last time we saw it in january um in particular um glad to see the uh the landscape plan involved and detailed out too so thank you for that thank you um and uh also glad to see some of the streetscape being addressed as well um so i'm pretty much that will cover it um just thank you it's good to see this checked in um later on the process thanks thank you adam here again thank you for for bringing it back to us uh i know there was quite the lengthy discussion last time uh many recommendations it's changed quite you know a bit since the last time we saw it but i don't have any concerns questions i believe this project's been around for years so uh hopefully we can we can get through that threshold thank you thank you eric bret great thank you um i guess most of my comments stem from the um the landscape plans and kind of seeing those um for the first time for me at least there's some concerns i guess about again with the um the amount of parking and then where is bike parking being accommodated um i noticed that there are some inside of building d i believe um which pan a or b whatever drew saying um so there there are some interior to the to the structures which i think is it is smart um but also taking that same kind of um um approach and putting that outside as well um and providing some additional spaces in the in in the right of way or in the street you know some of those areas that you've got um you have some wider sidewalks and more generous planting areas there might be some accommodation with that um i didn't see exact counts but i could be just passing over it um there is a lot of care i think um for the existing building in terms of what you know what's what we're what's trying to be preserved etc and i wish the same amount of care was taken for the ground plane um mainly the courtyard um thinking back to just some amazing alleys and um amazing alleys i know but um courtyards and places for respite and kind of staying and relaxing or even just as procession into the buildings um is utilizing a a palette of of pavers bricks etc that complement that architecture the images that are shown for the entry pavers i think are personally a very modern take um on kind of a a historically significant building so i think just going back to taking that same kind of approach and care for your your thresholds um and that goes with the sidewalk as well that goes for the um i guess fire access um kind of plaza or alleyway uh if you will if that material will come you know come all the way out to the street and kind of not show it as a or b um what i think you know would would help make that connection and help make that feel like one space that otherwise you know it's you have some units that are kind of fronting out onto that or the ground floor you know units fronting out onto those little alleyways which can be kind of you know interesting and in very kind of um um just yeah very interesting kind of spaces if the material is right you know in here there's some um you know italian terracotta you know again i think some of those choices are are um kind of maybe out of the um out of the uh purview again or not purview but out of the style that we're trying to kind of get to with with both the additional the new buildings as well as the the retention of of the um building c same same kind of um comment on the uh detail for the for the walls and the courtyard you know it's it's um you know it's something that i feel like is a little bit is trying too much with this kind of wavy you know kind of a wavy pattern um in coloration of those of those kind of seating elements um i know in some of the renderings there's um you know there's brick with a cornice and topping and things like that however i think what you've arrived at is some kind of decomposed granite slightly raised plinth that people can kind of sit in and within um but i guess for me just you know take making that simple whatever those elements are simple and let that architecture kind of you know do what it's supposed to do especially for that um for building c um let's see um some of the um some questions i guess on some of the plant choices i know this is um you know you were trying to do um you know get some fall color and things like that in but again like on the courtyard you know when you're kind of looking at the environment around you're looking at some pioneer you know valley oaks and things like that i understand that's a very large you know there's your sizable trees and things but um kind of bringing that again back to where we are as you know uh kind of entering the redwood empire we're we're getting into northern we are in northern california um so some of those plant choices i think are are are interesting but i think maybe for me at least um they're kind of at least the plant lists are kind of looking at um something that is a bit more of a southern style um let's see it um yeah i would just also for some of the bioretention areas maybe changing that plant material up a little bit instead of the single kind of monoculture um within that i understand i understand um i think the approach um but i think there could be some variety added in that as well i know these are maybe nitpicky but um i think those are the and then i guess some other comments and again i don't know how you know coming to the board as a as a new member um fairly concerned with the north elevation of building d um having used ninth kind of get through and then in cleveland and uh what else davis i guess this is not a flattering view um at least if i understand the elevation so um a 1.1a we have the north exterior elevation um there's a lot of additional there's some you know access points there into your garage underneath there's also i believe uh trash as well but that that entire side um that north elevation needs some love i feel like um and i don't know if it's and i know there's no units necessarily kind of fronting or coming to that uh on that side uh because everything is on east and west i believe and centered on that courtyard um i think there's just there's just having those walls especially kind of the wall coming along the east elevation along the smart train line or smart rail line um and then basically that kind of brutal wall continues and turns along that north elevation um there's something it's just i feel like it's just a bit um a bit harsh in that in that condition especially um ninth being um a pretty major thoroughfare more so than more so than eighth i believe similarly i maybe in the past there's been a discussion around uses uh for the for the various corners and buildings but we talked about i think there was some uh you talked about activating that kind of core you know the retails out on on donahue similarly is there a possibility for that for that corner uh at ninth and donahue to be something a little bit more active um i understand the lobby on building b kind of functions as that retail space um but there might be a some um some thought at least about what that corner might you know corner might be as well and again i know you're we're probably trying not to take away from the existing retail and the existing uses but there could be some kind of function that could that could benefit um community users um etc and i think um for me some of the additional kind of questions come down to the or comments come down to some of the buildings and just the um the use of brick and the new builds um or newer buildings i feel like in some of them especially the longer elevations um these could be brick could be maybe incorporated a little bit more um i definitely understand we want to distinguish between building c and the rest and i guess building a as well um but that was just something especially when you look at building a and its elevations um because they're a little bit narrower you have more uh brick to kind of accentuate those elements in those pieces so that i liked and then when you got to kind of the longer elevations um of both a and d um it kind of started to fall apart um fall apart a little bit in my eyes i also have um i do agree with henry about kind of the seeing some of the before and after or at least like the initial proposal and then the current proposal for building uh b i believe um some of those views from the south southwest or southeast um really made the the additions made the building feel a bit squat and so having that additional floor i felt like kind of again elevated the the specialness of that um of that existing building yeah i think we talked about the west elevation along the smart line and i do appreciate again like the the step back having the the that second volume kind of stepping back on the architectural are on the on the buildings themselves just as i think on the so i guess for the second or third floor units that would function as kind of their patio um and that's i think kind of critical for eyes on the corridor eyes on the street um and kind of activating both sides of this sides of this project um i think in i guess in response to that north elevation on building d um maybe the same level of love can be kind of given to that side that side as well especially with ninth and i know that's your narrowest that's your pinch point in your site too so like in bit sorry i believe that's um and then same kind of for the courtyard same kind of question applies um on building d you've got kind of the gangways circulating on building d same kind of concerns over the plant choices and plant materials especially for something that's as heavily shaded as this area is going to be i think some of the selections are pretty nice and very kind of contemporary in terms of your hardwood decking and your board form and things like that i think those go a long way and especially softening um softening those areas that's that's all thank you thank you brad true so uh kevin thanks for all your hard work on this you guys have a lot of information in here that's a lot to process it's not a tiny project by any stretch of the imagination so i'm just gonna i'm gonna just kind of go through the buildings a b c d or whatever and just uh make it real quick as best as i can so um this is a comment on the interior layout of this this the the units i've got a real problem with you putting the bathrooms on the outside of building a because this is such a tight building that um i i lived in historical lofts i've lived in historical lofts before and so what's nice about the lofts that i've lived in is that center corridor uh is where all the utilities are and stuff and then you open everything out to the outside because you're limited on your openings so i think to make these a little bit more livable to take those bathrooms and find a way to put them on the interior corridors particularly building a just because of how it's necked in there and kind of just stuck so as as much as you can open up those sides and make them feel kind of lofty an area i think that'd be really nice and then uh the step back on a is it's it's more discernible and plan than it is an elevation i think um which is interesting because it's very clear on the plan but then when you look at it in elevation it's kind of hard you almost lose it and i'm wondering i can't quite figure out why but maybe it's because of what elevations you're showing and so it makes it feel a little bit more monolithic in that sense i do appreciate kind of the articulation of all the materials on a i would like i'm not like i'm not in love with all the gray but maybe just look at another color i don't know i like the materiality though of of how you're moving from a textural brick to a the fiber cement panel to to some it looks like concrete maybe uh so i do appreciate that but it maybe just another color i don't know take a look at it um and then building b a i get these all there's so many i'm gonna get them all mixed up okay so building b i would say for sure we need to i really like the light well you kind of have going on in the middle which i think addresses kind of the restrictions you have on the exterior with the fenestration there as well but again i'm seeing the bathrooms some of them are in windows and some of them are not so you know i would just find a way to keep those dark corners of bathrooms away from any place you would have a window i think there's a unit on maybe the second floor or something yeah yeah exactly so the pullback on this one is a little bit more present which i like and i do like how you've opened everything up on that third and fourth floor in terms of all the i mean you're really addressing the the kind of the tightness there by really opening up with lots of windows so that's i really like that a lot um i'm not sure how you would deal with a different material here i think i think you just let it be i mean it is it is kind of what it is because you've got this historic structure and then you've got kind of this element coming through it okay let me go i don't have anything to say on building c because it kind of is what it is right yeah building d sorry so i kind of knows the same thing with the bathrooms on d because these are even narrower but they're longer right so you're dealing with that same kind of situation and then i'm going to echo brett's comments on the north elevation of building d uh the more i've looked at that the more i've i just keep scratching my head uh because you've done such a really nice job of the other buildings so a b a and b are very you've addressed all four sides on those and you've really dealt with kind of the challenges of how they transition to one another and then you know the there's you really don't have a fourth side on building d because it's right up against building c so that's really just like a fire partition probably right firewall so you know there's no openings nothing it's just it is what it is but then and then the the elevations on kind of the east and west are very nice and then you get to that north elevation and it just kind of falls flat for me again i you know this there's some nice articulation here similar to building a with the brick and kind of the different materials and i think if you if you find another color another material or something i would introduce it here as well but it's it's not a big deal it's just i think it's my own personal that's a lot of gray but you know the big brick building that is building c d that's beautiful on its own right because it's just a big beautiful brick building i mean that's those are really all the comments that i have i you know some stuff that other folks have said i think i would agree with in general if we were putting together conditions for you i'd support some of those items but those are my comments thank you drew um after my comments i'm going to slip in there there was one public party that wanted to speak and before we start with you casey we're just going to slip this in as a as a placeholder that's um firstly kevin i'm uh one of the things i'm really thrilled with is in the plan the uh the building that at one time you'll probably know what i'm going to say here the building c had an attempt to slide a wall uh basically in the carcass of the brick form create the um effort of of housing and we can go to that uh just go to the main plan and i'll share with everyone what i'm saying um building up here be the site plan yeah yeah you can use you can use the the 3d image if you want back it up to the 3d that's what everyone understands so the um looking just across from the church um i think particularly the cultural heritage board knows that there's a kind of a funky cmu splash it's kind of like a a um a strange um a pleak to what is the 1880 brick that's going to be removed you've probably seen i've had photos of it but the happy news for me and hopefully uh is is that that building now is serving workout gym it's serving the frontal and serving parking in in some ways rather than trying too hard trying to slip in the actual living rooms of units that building now all functions and works um in a more passive way it parks cars and structural hopes at high here um it it can remedy itself by having some of the openings removed but the humanity is really bookending that and i think it's great with we've talked a lot about building b on the south corner in that it's now a courtyard building and it's it's cleverly done because the um you're trying to get a certain amount of units you're honoring the density bonus and those units are really facing in i guess my general comment is that since the first two floors of building b are bunkered in they're they're encased in egyptian concrete or whatever it's it's there the the bathrooms can can face to the back of that because your your heart and soul of the project moving up is is the courtyard on the conversation once you daylight above that then you're um you're free to to do things either way um i've i've probably been the longest standing party here it might be 2004 maybe it's 2000 it was 15 years running now and um i'm actually pleased i'm i'm a patient optimist and a lot of what's happened here is a huge relief to me uh with with people living with people in cars living with cars i know the podium building the north i i agree with fellow drb members that the the ninth street elevation there it's an opportunity kevin to be playful with that stair you you were playful in 2008 maybe i was my elephant memory but you were you were doing things to the far south um of the project with expressing stairwells remember those years years ago you were you were 31 years old then okay um so that that kind of vigor of looking at that stairway i know you have to look at enclosed stairways with certain assemblies and that has to be noted there's only a certain percentage opening so if if your area assembly allows that exit stair to not glisten with glass then the courtyard itself is something that you stroll by when you drive by so i i appreciate those comments i i like the comments um as compelling and and i'm you know complimenting the landscape architect as compelling as the uh the juxtaposition is of pavers long-stroke pavers this idea of um clinker brick or um the pavers that all went to san francisco 180 years ago coming back to us the uh but but anyway the the idea of that that brick weave is rather wonderful and all this black iron you know between benches and so forth it it appeared to me it seemed to me that people were not frightened by the palm trees they've been here for some time there was a little question about uh tree species that is worth perhaps examining but i know that what happened previously when the the interior building was full of people was there is this real rally of glass glazing pop circumstance and flash all that flash is gone now because it's it's cars back there it doesn't need and i'm i'm i'm happy to to see a few faces that the cultural heritage board that in when we purpose buildings and we create integrity don't falsify it's no vegas steel anymore it's a quiet building needing plants birds singing and places to eat for everyone maybe so i i like i resonate with the with the historic uh brick there it is a place gathering and as far as the landscaping i i don't i don't think it needs to be too modern but it needs to be full of life a lot of you know earthworms planners all that so i i like i like the comments in general there um you know it's it's very interesting that um um we have kind of a watershed of projects that are in the spectacular range in their they're so overwhelmingly noisy you can look through all the architecture magazines and there's 19 things going on and and if you if you tear out every third page and glue it all together it's tomorrow um a part of me likes the quietness of the colors i'm i'm even uh the the fund the the green doors and your 3d rendering maybe you're oh we're too froggy for me but but in some ways the understatement of the building it's it's softness that it's it's not a spector appeals to me it's we've we've had a lot of bite out of the apples with this and i'm just my 15-year summum bonum comment is black windows red building tones of gray if you want to make them slightly topy you know warm them up a little here and there rather than just battleship blue gray that's fine but i don't want to see a flash of of uh nike color going across or something electrifying i i think i think just the quietness the buildings doves flying around that that to me is is a happy thing um i've i've talked about all my my questions with with structure and you've you've really been able to have a lifetime of that um and and i appreciate the fact that the the buildings are responding to fire exiting um so the the question about buildings needing love or not i i think i'll say this carefully on honoring brett's comments i do think the nine street needs needs some work the internal um going to the back and forth of the garage with with b in the bottom there the it's kind of like a catcher's mitt and b baseball season here there you've done a kind of a wonderful job of articulating the l shape building has got a lot of vitality to it it crosstalks with the the building b and so i'm i'm happy architecturally with the conversations kevin you're making there it seems to me like a great place to live you you look at all those windows the whole thing about the the building proper um i don't know if if uh i know um we we have a historian listening live we've had susan clark now we have this miss painter and thank you hello um i'm not asking you to cover the buildings in ficus it's it's kind of fun to start thinking about climbing things but there's the maintenance of buildings you already have plants growing in pervets that are historic and maybe that's a seasoned uh sometimes that's a maintenance thing but i i believe my my comments in general um resonate with much of the boards um it's herculane kevin what you're doing and i i just couldn't be more thrilled that people won't be displeased um staring at walls from low vaults there's no mining helmets needed anymore that's that's my kudo to you kevin thank you so much we're going to do a quick little repose here and um thomas ellis has been a patient person thomas can you come and share before we turn it over to kacy and well it's interesting what you just said about the ficus because first of all i i do want to say that it's a very exciting plan i think certainly for us to see housing uh in that area and and to see those buildings be used in that area um it will enliven that that area greatly and and i look forward to that um and i know this has been this project has been chewed on many times so uh do please forgive me that i speak now uh i don't i don't think and i i would have to ask the cultural heritage board i don't think the trellises would uh with vegetation and vertical gardening would violate the cultural significance of the building uh itself um and i don't think it's it's stark just due to its color but i think it's it's it's a little bit stark due to its relief that the lack of relief um if you're close enough if you're really close you're going to see that relief in the brick but when you stand back and i think that's what you see in those in those elevations is that because they're set in front of you far enough to you to look at the whole building when you look at that that's where you see the the you could say gentle relief it's very gentle but it may be a little too gentle and and so i would and i don't think again that it violates cultural heritage to say that it might have some and sometimes there's maintenance yes um but you can you can use deciduous type planting that that then dies back and and so uh you can you can limit the amount of maintenance that you have to have it also benefits from the standpoint of of uh energy use because just because it's covering and but i think that if you if you did that with trellises in various areas selectively particularly on the north the north might be a little challenging but there's certain things that you can plant uh on the north side they benefit uh from the lack of of direct sun but the point is is that you would then have some relief there and and again forgive me because i know this has been spoken not this aspect but the whole project has been spoken about so many times and it's so hard to to have those kind of things happen and to rethink things but just on those areas where there's where you where we can all see that that there's a challenge on the relief part that maybe there could be some vertical gardening trellising thank you thank you too uh with that thomas will turn the matters over to kasey thank you uh vice chair perc would you like to start um so before that i just wanted to respond to the perc's question earlier about the uh the historical significance um so the report indicates that the the winery building itself is california registered it doesn't it does not say that the building that is to be demolished is a registered with the state of california and um so with that um i'm sorry i'm going to defer to bill for a second so you all receive some late correspondence um what those two documents are have to do with the affordable housing and the density bonus and the concessions one of the letters is the eligibility letter it essentially says the staff has done the analysis has done the density calculations has done the calculations for the level of affordability the number of units and has determined how many units density bonus units the project is eligible for the second letter is a zoning clearance and that is the granting of the density bonus and in that letter it includes the number of units that have been granted it also indicates the concessions and um what mr ross is talking about has to do with the the question that uh board member perser uh referenced the report is indicating the painter report is indicating that the winery is indeed a contributor that's information that you asked for previously it does not indicate that the building to be demolished is a contributor in addition to that uh it is true that one way that a city can deny a density bonus project and therefore the concessions is when it has an impact to a historic resource so on the zoning clearance which is the document that grants the density bonus you'll note item three c is where staff based on information provided by the applicant is indicating there's no evidence in the record and i'm quoting right now that the requested incentives and concessions will have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or any real property that is listed in the california register of historical resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low income and moderate income households so we just wanted to clarify that the analysis was done the evidence was submitted by the applicant the density bonus was granted with the concessions and it was based on that analysis and that information thank you for the quick homework on scratching this up i'm sure it took a little bit of scrabbling um i'd like to point out that actually in a rather interesting way when we originally raised this issue we were looking at the original plan which as chair hutch path has already pointed out would have had a rather radically significant impact to the building that is listed on the california register now that we have a new plan we're in a different place so it's kind of interesting how it all worked out but thank you for the information it's good to have the documents okay so so meanwhile back at the ranch these are my comments and if possible just to kind of head us towards closing off the discussion on on one resolution because we still have another one plus another agenda item right okay so i'd like to refer specifically to the text of the resolution and that means that i will be um couching my language in the in the language of a proposed amendment to the resolution i have two um if it's i'd like to beg the two boards indulgences that i get to discuss both of my proposed amendments really quickly so that we can think about them fairly um efficiently as we move forward okay so my first proposed uh amendment to the resolution is give me one second is resolute is uh under the last whereas clause i believe um item item c it says the proposed deterred winery village is compatible with adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures in the historic evaluations prepared by susan clark and diana painter the industrial design and materials for the proposed project are consistent with the historic winery this is the part that i would like to challenge the deterred park and the deterred round barn provide a transition between the small single family residential west end neighborhood and the deterred winery village the proposed project does not detract from the residential streetscapes and is compatible with the west end preservation district i would propose that we strike everything after the sentence that ends are consistent with the historic winery the reason for proposing that is that i did a little bit of additional research the lot where the round barn sits which is now a park was originally platted to be just as densely settled with small residential houses as every other parcel in the boys addition of 1882 the lots where the large buildings that we're thinking about that are the winery and the other historic buildings were always platted to be very large industrial blocks the confusion i think that we've stumbled into here is that once upon a time a long time ago as is well documented in miss painter's report there were two proposed districts here the north rail road square historic district and the west end historic district which would have separated the commercial and industrial sector from the residential sector that proposal failed but the reality is the round barn and the park may have been intended when built to create a buffer may be perceived as a buffer now but there's a bit of dispute about that i personally would have trouble voting for the resolution with that language still in there because i think it confuses the issue but i think that the statement made that refers to the way that both historic resource inventories or inventory resource reports stipulated that they there was no conflict is accurate and that would be appropriate so that's my proposal number one proposal number two is further on in the resolution and it's where the resolution discusses sequa okay so if you scroll down i believe it's on page three of four there's some interesting mixing here of of sequa reasons why this document is in compliance with sequa or is exempt from sequa some of the things you list here that the cultural heritage board actually has per view over some of them the cultural resource board is a cultural heritage board has no per view over so i would recommend pulling that language from this resolution perhaps it belongs in the one for the design review board but it doesn't i think it doesn't constitute things that the cultural heritage board has authority to make decisions about so if you look at the section you guys it's at the top of page three we have the part that and that begins with pursuant to section 15332 the project is exempt from sequa as an infill development see that it then talks about how it's consistent with the general plan that it's less than five acres that it has no value as habitat that it will not impact you know traffic noise air quality or water quality that may all be absolutely true but it's nothing that the cultural heritage board has any per view over so it's odd to me to have that language in our resolution i'm sure it goes somewhere but i'm not sure that i would be comfortable saying this couldn't possibly be habitat i don't have the expertise for that so can you help me understand why that language is in our resolution as a block so every discretionary action every discretionary action that the city does from a zoning administrator action to a cultural heritage board action to design review planning commission city council council it requires that the city review the project pursuant to sequa and so within sequa there are a number of different actions that a city can take everything from an exemption and there's any number of exemptions there's statutory there's categorical to mitigated negative declaration negative declaration eir and all of the boards and all of those entities that i mentioned have the purview the authority to take action they have the obligation to act pursuant to sequa so in this instance staff would assert that the chb does have the purview and the authority to take action what staff has done is analyze the project pursuant to a number of exemptions indicated why staff feels that there are no impacts that these qualify for this project qualifies for these exemptions and it is indeed the cultural heritage board in this case both boards obligation to take action so another way to put it would be if you have a specific concern based on what staff has proposed we would need that information because staff feels that that is an appropriate exemption to apply and we apply it on a number of projects and when i say we staff does it boards have done it planning commission city council etc thanks for the input you're welcome i'd like to make one comment real quickly um to kevin whatever the reason it's really wonderful that we now have one of the better examples of adaptive reuse i've seen in the city as opposed to what was there before i'd like to agree with chair hedge path that the trying to insert a whole new building inside of that building severely damaged the integrity of that building and now what we have is a really wonderful example of the way that a place that has been changing since these buildings were first built is continuing to evolve but you can still read the history in the landscape and that's the whole point of heritage and historic preservation you got to be able to read in the fabric of your city where you came from because it helps you figure out where you're going so thank you for that board member fennel i mere uh vice chair's pursers you know view on the building i'm so happy that building c is going to remain um in its original i do think that it is one of the best things that we've seen as far as reuse and um you know i know it's you're not going to be coming before us but it seems like every time you've come before us it gets better and better and so it's really heartening to see um to see that and i i am i am so pleased with building c that's all board member mickey oh no new comments or questions and i just want to echo the comment that it seems to have improved in its sort of consistency with character as it's gone along and compliment you on the resilience and the dedication of the effort i think it's a great attempt a successful attempt of blending the city's priorities and the other aspects of the zoning code that bear on the project with the zoning overlay and the findings that we need to make to grant a landmark alteration permit and i can make those findings based on the very detailed information and particularly the the updated study which uh was certainly warranted and which i consider to have been well done and like to thank staff also for uh uh shepherding this uh through and uh making sure the project is appropriate i'd like to uh just comment on the um requested amendments i think the first amendment i think the first amendment is appropriate and i would support it and uh i personally wouldn't be comfortable going against uh long-standing practice that staff uh who i've always found to be quite uh capable and well advised by legal counsel i wouldn't want to depart from that under the circumstances i wouldn't want the resolution to be uh weaker than it's uh than it's possible to be and i think that uh even though it's not a uh the the underlying material isn't related to the cultural heritage board specific expertise that the cultural heritage board is a body of the city that uh can make those findings based on its own independent evaluation and the materials that have been provided uh i think that there are some that uh are not necessarily within the purview of um the particular body that is approving it and that probably is commonplace i know that the planning commission doesn't necessarily uh understand what sort of soil is being removed for instance but it um i think that uh based on the staff analysis i can find that the project has been analyzed and that uh the exemptions and the uh compliance determinations are appropriate so i would um support not modifying the sequo section of the resolution but amending the amending item c to strike the words after winery and vice chair if you have any comments please chair chair admins and if i might just respond to that request so the resolution the draft resolution it has been vetted by city attorney staff that particular finding that's being referenced for an amendment first of all procedurally it would need to be a friendly amendment that would have to be accepted by the motion maker up for a vote of both boards um i would caution the boards on amending that condition as it's been referenced because the information in that finding is related to evidence that staff has available that staff has evaluated and that the public has had a chance to review i believe you uh board member percer had indicated that you had done some analysis and research and so i'm i'm cautioning the boards on taking action on information that the boards are presenting now that perhaps other board members did not have nor did the public nor did staff no absolutely i i am no one should act on stuff they haven't seen my point is i was curious i wanted to know having seen the language what the standing was of the round barn and the park around it and i satisfied my own curiosity and that made me remembering the differences of opinion around whether or not that body of property constituted a buffer or not i would suggest that it would be a stronger resolution if we omit that language just for clarification i believe it's finding c that we're referencing it that finding talks about compact compatibility with adjacent or nearby landmark structures and yeah and i believe the second statement that's being referenced as to be stricken directly addresses that point because it's talking about the surrounding structures i've got a quote these are items in the landmark alteration yes which is not the current resolution up for discussion or vote i agree i thought it was no we the motion was for the motion was for the preliminary design review so the item that you're talking about is present in the design review package on page two item number four so it's in both documents so that's a great reminder we are we can take action about the landmark alteration we can come back to this point but it's just for the cultural heritage board essentially quickly said the way staff has sequenced this it's actually the efforts of chp first with the landmark clearance you actually have the floor sequentially we are the cart where the we're the horse we're going to be talking about in resolution two collectively design review so this is your time as a board to as i understand it and it was that the motion was made for the designer view entitlement that requires a vote of all of both boards okay this finding that we're discussing finding sees in the landmark alteration permit which is just the purview of the okay cultural heritage board thank you for that clarification you can get complicated so so the my understanding then is that we are still on task with getting our friendly amendments square collectively as a board the items pertaining to chp the landmark clearance or a secondary action even though they're noted differently is that true yes so is there any procedural need to expand the scope of the motion or to put a duplicate motion on the floor having to do with the resolution the landmark alteration permit or can we proceed typically we do those in sequence so we'll do the the joint action first and then come back for the landmark alteration permit okay thanks thank you with with that i just wanted to go through what i understand we've had a motion in a second about preliminary design review approval for said detour project i'm going through my notes here of what i understand to be the highlights that could be a friendly amendment one is that the consideration of where appropriate bathrooms perhaps shifting that's a consideration the second is the consideration of the use of more historic brick or modules of brick in the in those colors that begin to reflect the building proper as it was built for for pavers plaza areas there was a comment in general about plants that i i think i'm understanding that there is tolerance for date palms did anyone choke on that no one so so there was it seemed a little faint to me about what what else to do other than the fact of northerly light and being consideration of being mindful of of where sun can hit and not hit so plants can survive is okay consideration of photosynthesis is for all plants so okay the next sorry sorry warn and in in addition to that just something that is more of a local native palette maybe not native plants specifically but something that is more in line with where we where we are okay i agree with that as well yes thank you i want to thank you i want to refresh those things that resonated so local palette considerations there's consideration of potentially different colors i voice i was i'm not a big friend of a friend of kermit the frog green i know with your brick there's comments in general about should we have more brick i don't think i heard a whole lot of resonating things the the arch lentils aren't necessary on the new that's a consideration is all um there was an amendment a friendly amendment uh potential here of revisiting the nine street elevation on building d that was fairly strong that's a that's a shall shall revisit shall go to all right um has there been any other amendments that seem to be out of the picture that are are not at least understood and resonating with the applicant and warn the the shall the last one there uh i think the wording needs to be uh shall shall redesign the north facade of building d per the design review standards of the steve sanarosa specifically regarding foresighted architecture so that's how i would write it in regards to that portion of the building that project hasn't changed that north side of the the building that proposal hasn't changed back in january correct i wasn't here in january i get that but here's the problem with the process with with us in the city of sanarosa is that you have a builder and a project developer that keeps coming time and time again to get these projects approved and every time they come back there's either a new person on the board or somebody that brings up a new issue that could have been brought up before and the problem with development here in the city of sanarosa right now is we can't get these projects forward for a variety of reasons but this is one of those reasons that we keep having them come back and make changes that we didn't ask them for before it's not it it's stem it stimmies the the the project's moving forward it's not fair to the developer it's not fair to the city and the staff and so while i think you have a very valid point in regards to the appearance i'm concerned about our process so with regard to that we the motion on the floor today is to grant preliminary design review to the applicant and their design team the preliminary design review is our entitlement action as a board so what we're saying to them is they're good to go if they do the only shall on the proposed amendment is that elevation everything else is a consider for kevin to go back and look at and if it works great if it doesn't work no big deal and then he brings the final design package to the joint board for final approval unless we decide to add a friendly amendment to this that would defer final to staff which could potentially accelerate the application process but i would say i'm uncomfortable not because kevin hasn't done amazing fantastic work but that there are elements that are missing in this package that would need to be present in final design review that we have not yet seen and that that's lighting plans and all sorts of other you know stuff that is required for final design review that is not in this package unless i missed it just to add to that typical practice has been to go through this discussion we're working our way down to any conditions of approval friendly amendments ultimately it's up for a vote so it needs to have a quorum a majority of the quorum to pass usually before that vote happens the board will query the applicant make sure there's a clear understanding of those and generally an acceptance of those and if there isn't work through those so i would expect that's going to happen tonight um before the actual vote takes place thank you so so eric to your point about biting the apple and looking at this i'm i'm trying to recall myself seeing the north elevation of that building and i had i had started the consideration was was a revisiting of this i know that kevin is going to have to move forward with the project and all the entitlement fronts with all consultants to move ahead um the motion that was placed before us was preliminary design no one no one did say singularly in that sense that reverting to staff after preliminary um i'm respectful of not wanting to trouble the applicant with changes that aren't justified the motion currently stands as preliminary design we have i've labeled six items they're all considers except the last one um chair hedge beth if i may just add one clarification miss jones just clarified for me reminded me that pursuant to resilient city zoning zoning that was put in place after the fires final design review is automatically delegated to staff unless the design review board in this case the cultural heritage board as well directs this project to come back for final review public design review so so having said that that's a given um i really think i'm just going to speak for myself here a minute i'm i'm looking at kevin and i know kevin has done a a fine job at sculpting shaping and you're mindful of the comments and i'm certainly willing as chair to have these considerations which has been the tone post 2017 stand do i hear an a to that okay so having having said that there's sorry so wouldn't we're not we're not stipulating that it would come back to us we're not okay it's it's um staff is reminding us just to clarify that this this package is complete enough for staff to move forward we do have a landscape we've had i mean i even went down the level of structural here so we've we've had an applicant who has worked with fire worked with life safety worked with colors this has been several several efforts and um again historically since the fire we have had considerations which are not they're tolerated is that a good word by staff the considerations are tolerated by staff in this resilient time that that if we did record if we passed tonight the motion seconded that motion can have considerations to it they're not binding but they are possibly intact for review is the question is staff able capable comfortable with uh considers versus shalls to review and work with the applicant at final design review that is a question staff is very much able to do that okay and in addition i think the project architect would like to comment on the items that are on the table right now thank you excellent so i've heard all the comments i would agree on the north elevation and i'm happy to work with staff we actually did that last time around uh we needed to have an appeal the project went to city council city council took action on final design review but we did make changes that were suggested we did look at the considerations and so we're more than happy to to do that and work with staff okay chair hedgefeth i would like to make a friendly amendment to the motion for the six items that have been read uh do you guys have a copy of kind of what we did can you read them back to us so i have six and they are a little paraphrase so please jump in and add more but it's considered bathroom relocation of the units consider more historic brick use of the overall design consideration of local native plant palette and plants that don't require as much sunlight in the areas in between the narrowest portions of the building there was the fifth one i i kind of missed that i don't know if i i have arch it was like a local palette i think the whole things together that you you could bind them together so four and five i had four as local palette and you can talk about photosynthesis as well i do i do remember that word you being used um and then the the last one that i have was um shall redesign the north elevation of building d and um that's where i stopped because i was yeah the only change i would make on the bathroom when i was just say reflect natural light so it's consider bathroom relocation to impact natural light into units as otherwise it's just like hey man move the bathrooms for me and we've we've already had kevin has already mentioned he's going back i don't know if we we're going to say consider north street exploring or whether it's no it's shall you're comfortable with shall okay just um we need a little bit more clarification on the shall redesign or the north elevation what what would you specifically be looking for i think the way that i said it earlier shall redesign the north elevation of building d pursuant to the city of santa rosa design review guidelines specifically foresighted architecture that's perfect and defer to staff for well we don't we don't need to do that because it's in the priority development so it's already part of the resolution yes so uh so moved to the six five items okay so we have five items enclosure sorry more quickly on the on the brick that was specifically i think those item two specifically like on the for the ground plane yeah so it's more the ground landscape treatment thanks so we have an original party that launched a motion if i may since this is the joint action yes you may wish to query the cultural heritage board to see if they have any additional amendments they'd like to thank you before board members any amendments to propose board member mckeal no no additional amendments board member fennel yes that's your person and none from me that is that is the proper legal and the applicant is one part the applicant is okay with the shall on the north side yes then i accept the friendly member okay who's who had the second i'll second all right with that excuse me i'm sorry i think i seconded so uh i concur thank you collectively so with that patty will will roll a roll call or is it buttons what do we do okay for design review board weigel hi gold schlag hi cordon cordon brock hi wicks hi Sharon hi and hedge bet hi we'll need a roll call on the cultural heritage board too we'll need to go down line yeah sorry about that cultural heritage board um perser mchoe i fennel i edmundson hi so that was a unanimous approval now we can move to the landmark alteration permit which is just the purview of the cultural heritage board board members would anybody like to make a motion uh approving the landmark alteration permit i'll make a motion resolution of the cultural heritage board of the city of san rosa approving a landmark alterate alteration permit for the deterc winery village located at 806 donahue street and eight west ninth street in the west end preservation district assessor assessor parcel numbers zero one zero zero nine one zero zero one and zero one zero zero nine one zero zero seven file number prj one eight dash zero eight seven and wait for the reading of the text do i have a second i'll second and could we uh have a roll call please okay perser if if there are any friendly amendments uh they should be made at this time i propose a friendly amendment to section c in the draft i would propose rewording the language after the word winery to read as follows the deterc park and deterc round barn provide a design transition element the reason for this different language is that it's closer to the intent of the larger resolution that we just pass and it removes the implication that that is a a matter of historical integrity it's just a sense that there's this thing in the middle that buffers the residential area it does not refer to the fact that the round barn or the park are themselves historical i think that's a cleaner way to refer to what we're using this the existence of the park to be okay i it doesn't hold up as a historical statement it holds up as a design statement or as a a landscape cultural landscape phenomenon that's my argument board members does anybody second okay since this language as drafted is a summary of the painter report if we have this painter still on the line if we could call and ask her for her feedback on that that would be the staff recommendation at this point okay we accept the recommendation i five minute recess five minute recess okay thank you so we were able to get a hold of miss painter she's been listening to the proceedings and she found that amendment to be acceptable so therefore that would be a friendly amendment back to the original motion maker who would need to accept and then the second and then you can have a vote then i will accept the amendment and as the person who seconded the emotion i will accept the amendment okay the motion was made by board member mickey would seconded by vice chair purser and could i have a roll call please okay purser mickey hi fennel edmondson hi and the motion passes with four eyes thank you everybody thank you thank you too thank you very much kevin for many years thank you you can you can always get a text back from hopefully this won't take too long but what we do is patty this job this guy's yourself she'll she'll text you when your piece is ready we'd like to commence now with item 6.2 which is the downtown station area specific plan update the phase one summary and alternative analysis background and uh jessica you can share with us this are you presenting or is it i'm sorry is it so yeah actually uh patrick streeter is our project manager so he will be giving them presentation thank you patrick sure all right thank you vice chair hedgecraft chair edmondson members of the boards the item before you is a study session on our downtown station area specific plan we've just wrapped up phase one of the specific plan update which was the outreach the issues and opportunities phase and the outreach associated with it so the purpose of this meeting is just to provide the boards with an update on where we are in this this plan update we're also entering phase two which is our alternatives analysis so i'll present some of the alternatives that we're looking at and we'll just get some preliminary feedback from the board from the boards this is not an action item and also this will be back in front of these boards again before there's actually a determination made a decision made in front of the council so if you don't get everything out tonight that's fine we'll have another another opportunity to take a take a look at this these items so just quickly some background on the specific plan update for those who are in the audience and and members of the board who have not seen this presentation before in 2007 our council adopted a specific plan for the downtown area in anticipation of the smart train arriving it was a 20-year plan um and part of it envisioned around half a million square feet of non-residential floor area to be developed as well as around 3400 new residential units in the downtown we're now more than halfway through only 100 of those 3400 units have actually been constructed we're about a little less than halfway there with the non-residential development but still we're falling short of those goals that were envisioned now that we actually do have the smart train present in february of 2018 the council adopted their goals and they made development of downtown and downtown housing their top tier priorities in response our department applied for and received a grant from the metropolitan transportation commission to update the specific plan that we have in place to try to realize that vision from the 2007 plan with this uh with this grant award we were able to get consultant help so we have consultants that are doing technical analyses but during this process it is a plan for santa rosa so outreach and engagement is key so throughout this process we are trying our best to just get as many voices to the table and that includes these two boards that are before us tonight the downtown plan area may be different from what's traditionally thought of as a downtown it includes our downtown core around courthouse square as well as railroad square but it also has six of our eight preservation districts within the downtown boundaries and the other two are just adjacent to it a little bit to the north and we do have an aggressive timeline for this plan uh we've as I mentioned we've just wrapped up our first phase which was looking at issues and opportunities um right now we're entering the alternatives exploration so we've we've done the background studies we've we've done the initial outreach we've done the scoping now we are looking at how this plan could look and making sure we didn't miss anything and then also getting feedback on on what elements that based on this initial phase we should be incorporating into what's called a preferred alternative that will be the draft plan that goes forward for consideration by the council it'll go through environmental review and ultimately if the council chooses to adopt it that will be our new updated stationary plan and I hopefully won't be here 10 years from now trying to go through this process again as I mentioned the the outreach is is a key component throughout this process there is a plan website it's planned downtown sr.com we've also established a community advisory committee that's made up of representatives of different demographics and neighborhoods that we'd like to get the word out to get to participate in this plan so it's a it's a committee that's that's meant to encourage others to participate we've also established the technical advisory committee which is made up of city staff members as well as outside agencies that can provide the the technical expertise the knowledge to make sure that the plan that we move forward is also something that's feasible that we can be that we can implement we've held our first two community workshops they were on May 1st and May 4th as I mentioned that that could that wrapped up our first phase so that was the opportunity to have everyone come down and physically work with maps and we also had a robust online component associated with that and we've held our first technical advisory committee that was on May 30th and they considered the same items that will be before you tonight so just to give a summary on our issues and opportunities phase there's about 5500 residents of Santa Rosa that live downtown that's about three percent of our total city the residents tend to be a younger demographic and they live alone or roommates so as opposed to to a nuclear family that you find more on the outside of the downtown area they're also less likely to own a car 78 percent of our downtown residents own a car while citywide it's closer to 94 percent we have around 8400 jobs in the downtown they're mostly in the retail hospitality and professional services sector only less than two percent of those people actually live in the downtown so the people that work downtown are primarily commuting from areas outside of the downtown and 63 percent of those people commute from outside the city so based on on the background studies that we've done it looks like we need to add around a thousand new housing units per year in the downtown to keep up with with the the demand that we have there are large vacant and underutilized sites areas where the value of the land is higher than the structures that are sitting on it also city owned buildings that are becoming more of a financial burden to maintain than could possibly yield results as they were to be redeveloped and right now we don't as I mentioned we've had 100 units built in the downtown since this plan was adopted so right now the multifamily development in Santa Rosa is unproven there's not there's nothing for a developer to compare it to to get comparables on what kind of return they're going to get for their investment so that's a challenge that we're trying to jump over with projects like the one that was just before you so we're also looking to make the path as easy as possible for the development community so that that involves looking at the costs and the processes how we can streamline projects again to get those comparables out there we also as I mentioned we have our primary job market is on the lower end of wage earnings in our downtown so looking at a way to to bring higher wages into the downtown that could support higher rents which would then also support the the more affordable rents in a single development and also just as you move more residents and more employees into the downtown that fosters development that that invigorates the area and so you you do start to see it as a self perpetuating form of development building heights in the downtown currently are primarily centered around courthouse square that's where we have our our tallest clusters of buildings though they're they're only in the six-story range we do allow up to 10 stories currently in in the densest parts of our downtown core the tallest buildings in the city are actually outside of the downtown there are the silvercrest towers which are at 10 stories over on Montgomery Drive and Bethlehem towers on Tupper which is 14 stories so in our outreach efforts we've we've had different opinions regarding regarding height and density in the downtown there was there was some feedback that we received that increasing the up zoning properties increasing the density would allow for properties to change hands and we start to see some development but it was also noticed that notice noted we were also informed you know that that currently there is a lot more allowance for increased event density and increased heights and we're still not we're not seeing those those types of development taking place so there may be other factors that need to be considered beyond just density and height um to our connectivity was a major conversation point in all of our outreach specifically the east west between courthouse square and railroad square there is a perception of safety and also connectivity between these two areas that they're considered two separate distinct portions of the city even though as the crow flies or even a savvy walker or biker can get between those two areas pretty quickly we also have heard feedback and our analysis supports road diets on some of our major corridors especially with the reunification of courthouse square a lot of traffic has been moved off of mendicino avenue and santa rosa avenue so there is the opportunity there to look to non-vehicular forms of using those corridors um a lot of feedback that we received was in relation to uh programming for downtown what people would like to do downtown um performance venues um food oriented retail such as grocery stores or specialty food shops as well as restaurants uh were were top picks from people that we've we've talked to um and the leisure and hospitality sector that would support those is projected to continue growing it's already been uh in our downtown so now i'll i'll go into some of these alternatives so an analogy i like to think of for alternatives is um i'm going to give you three alternatives that we're considering right now think of them as three shelves in a grocery store so there's products on each of these shelves you've got your shopping cart and you can pick from the shelves you don't have to pick everything from shelf one or everything from shelf two these are just organizational tools so we can present some different ideas also you can go on amazon and pick up something that you don't even see on these shelves so these are just we're throwing ideas out there we're trying to get some initial feedback but if you have other ideas on on how we can improve this plan please feel free to share them and um and again you don't need to say i really like alternative one let's go with that you can say i like this feature of alternative one i like this feature of alternative two and as i mentioned um we're looking for feedback from from the board as a as a body tonight but this will be back in in front of both of these boards before any decision is made and as individuals you are more than welcome to to contact staff and and give us your opinions in that sense as well so alternative one is the vibrant core alternative and the idea with this one is that the bulk of development that we see is concentrated around courthouse square so what our general plan currently defines as the the downtown core so in this area you would see minimum heights for buildings and you would not see a maximum so you can have unlimited height to buildings let the development dictate how tall they're going to be on the flip side the other areas that are not in this downtown core would have development density and heights capped so you you would not see much change to the outside areas specifically looking at maxwell court which is a primarily industrial area just in the northwest portion of our study area as well as the roberts avenue which is another industrial section just south of highway 12 those those two areas would remain as industrial and the current plan calls for them to be turned into high density residential so under this idea we we'd concentrate our focus on this courthouse square area and improving connectivity between the transit centers so being able to get from the smart station to that area as well as you utilizing the the bus depot that we have there so alternative two is our village centers idea and in this case our development is spread kind of evenly throughout the study area so in this case we don't have a central core where where all development takes place we have a maximum of six stories across the area so all of the opportunity spaces that we have kind of have equal equal footing for the amount of development that they can accommodate and in order to make these all reasonable areas to for people to live they would have the the services grocery stores or small shops daycare they'd all be developed in these kind of smaller neighborhoods and again we'd look to improve connectivity between them and connectivity from these neighborhoods to the existing transit that we have and the third alternative to look at would be this transit forward alternative this one has kind of evolved from our meeting with the technical advisory committee so they they looked at the first two and then provided additional input and that's where we've we've landed on this this third idea and this looks to focus development along our corridor so Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa Avenue uh west third street and sabastopol road and so whereas alternative one all the development was around courthouse square alternative two it's evenly spread in alternative three um we're really pushing development towards these these major corridors we're improving the the roadways to make them multimodal so um improve pedestrian and improve bicycle use along these corridors and also improve all the connections so so areas where we have the underpasses for highway 101 those would be improved with with lighting public art spaces that that activate those areas and so it's it's kind of a hybrid of the two but we're we're looking to to really leverage the existing road infrastructure but modify it so that it's accommodating to more than just just vehicle use so um after we get received this initial feedback tonight um we uh we have created that third alternative but we're going to refine all three alternatives um try to present them as something that we can then move forward with and do the public outreach um we are going to hold our second community advisory committee meeting next monday um and the purpose of that meeting will be to to talk to our cac and determine ways that we want to take on this next phase and and really get the message out and get as much participation as possible um that that alternatives exploration will be the purpose of phase two um we'll also have a technical advisory committee meeting that will wrap up that phase where we will then glean the glean from the feedback that we've received what the preferred alternative will be we'll make sure that the tac will help us determine whether or not that is a feasible alternative it will then go again in front of um these boards as well as our planning commission ultimately the city council will decide whether or not that's the preferred preferred alternative that we will then move forward with through environmental review and more public outreach before it's actually adopted as a plan um so that's very briefly what the purpose is for tonight um i do believe there are some members of the audience that are here for this item so i would recommend this is not a public hearing uh item but i would recommend that the the board's entertaining comments from the public possibly before questions and comments from the board but that is at the discretion of the chairs and um as i mentioned we have the the website all this material is available there and we are um always open to feedback so be it from individual members or members of the public uh we we want to hear your your thoughts and we also want to hear of opportunities for further engagement so that concludes the presentation thank you patry thank you excellent um taking taking your insights here we will go ahead and have the uh the public speak before we have questions collectively as a board and we already have a card here from thomas ellis it looks like christine is is next here so share thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to this issue here particularly both of you these boards here today um and and thank you patrick for sending the email which told me about these meetings um so i spoke before the city council the other night and and i think to some extent it wasn't very clear what i was saying uh because the time was short and and the time got cut off uh but what i was talking about was rooftop gardens and and so just to take us back there was a group that was interested in smart growth new urbanism and and the smart train and and developing that and then there was another group that came which uh was the rudat and i think you're probably familiar with those that that came in and tried to create and work to to create a here here uh during a consideration a part of that was the center of the symphony would be located right out here uh which would have been a here here uh and and it became the green music center and and so that was kind of disruptive a little bit in in the process of san rosa um because it is the san rosa symphony of all things and um that that would have helped to make a here here and and so through this process though what i've what i noticed was that there was a recent i'm not sure if it's a downtown station area specific plan or whether or not that was another ordinance that was that was um allowed within the area somewhat separately was to waive park fees and i started thinking about that we okay well i know you know park fees is kind of expensive but but um the reality is if the city and the county build a unified building on i think what's called the white house parking lot area what you look down on are rooftops and and asphalt and that's pretty bad i mean i used to go a long generations ago uh to the uh seventh street sixth street or seventh street uh city of losan excuse me county of los angeles uh engineering building and seven seventh street in los angeles it wouldn't be different here used to go you know go up to the up floors and you talk to county engineers and all that road and flood they were all there whatever anyway they moved out to alhambra because looking at that was really stark and what would be the difference if they were if you city and county staff worked right here and they would be looking at the point is rooftop gardens can become a here here and i'll point out one which is the library building spectacular design and and yet if we were to move up we would lose that we would probably lose that building but if you put a rooftop garden on it it becomes something else it gets modified in the vernacular of what's needed of this time and yet it maintains this architectural significance it doubles the size and i don't just mean the library i mean all of these spaces look and google and look down on what what you would see if if you had a six or eight or ten story building if you look over at silvercrest or if you look at at the building on tougher they had a lot of greenery around them they look down on and that is not the case here and so do forgive me for going just a little bit long i can send you the email that i sent out in which would which says rooftop gardens are the answer to the question of is there a here here is there there what is there there um santa rosa is here without a here like fresno ouch um rooftop gardens answer the question affirmatively the second question is how much would it cost we know 18 million dollars for a bit of park here of which you could instead of substitute you could have an incentive of rooftop gardens that that instead of paying a park fee and i know you guys can't do it but you can influence it well thank you thank you tom we we understand we understand that that's enlightening appreciated all right thanks thanks again and we have uh christin kiefer next good evening chair birch and the other members uh this evening uh i want to thank patrick for his presentation and for talking about the alternatives as a suite of options um sorry to back up i am a resident of west santa rosa and i work in the downtown i very much care about this downtown station area plan as i see myself as a future participant in this plan and being part of the downtown fabric um a couple of things that i found interesting in the staff report that i would like to point out are that less than 2 percent of people who work downtown actually live downtown um i work downtown and i would love the opportunity to potentially live downtown but i do not see that as a current option and i'm very interested in this plan as a solution i uh again like the idea of talking about the alternatives as a suite of options to pick from looking at the grocery store which items are you going to pick and put in your basket and what is going to make for those amenities in this downtown that like the staff report says businesses must offer amenities and experience that cannot be obtained online um thinking of those opportunities and experiences that cannot be obtained online i think of the opportunities to provide further connection between fourth street in courthouse square and railroad square the opportunity for there to be parklets in places where the street is not wide enough for there to be outdoor dining i think there are many creative solutions that can be part of this plan and um i think that the opportunity to think about building heights creates this conversation if we do not know the market if we do not know the feasibility of what can be done i'm not sure that there is a strong reason for limiting uh the building heights if we don't know the answer um looking forward i see many opportunities for food oriented retail and restaurants and cultural opportunities and i am very hopeful that we get a fruitful conversation and have a plan that is realized in a couple of years and we're not doing this conversation again in 10 years so thank you thank you christin appreciate it um those are the cards i have are there any other souls that wish to speak okay hearing none we'll um we'll go back and we'll look at questions of staff maybe we can turn it into remarks as well here because it's it's not a resolution it is a check-in so you can both flavor the conversation and question as well we'll start with you henry um i noticed in both alternative one and two and actually let me back up i remember when rudat came to town a few years back and connectivity was was a big uh topic of discussion and one of the solutions to help with our connectivity of our downtown from railroad square to um courthouse square was to underground 101 from basically from highway 12 to college but one one thing that always crept up with that connectivity was there's still a mall in the way and i noticed in both your alternative plan one and two they both show um four street being reconnected through that that mall can you can you tell us a little bit about how that would actually happen has the developer been approached is it reality reality potential reality so um simon is a is a national corporation they're the owners of and operators of the mall um and we have made um several efforts to have them involved in this process as we move move forward both their their local management we've also flown out to their headquarters to have them involved uh so a a reconnection of fourth street through the mall is actually in the existing 2007 plan the way that would be implemented would be if simon were to propose some sort of major redevelopment of the mall that would be a condition of approval on doing that so if they wanted to say build a new residential tower part of um of their requirement would be that they then reconnect fourth street uh so some of the alternatives that we're looking at are um keeping that that full scale vehicle connection going through the mall as part of the plan we've also looked at making it a um perhaps 24 hour pedestrian and and maybe bicycle pass through while you maintain the integrity of the mall structure and and working with simon to to allow something like that um or you know finding ways to make areas that that go around the mall more more approachable but yes ultimately it would be um it would be up to the owner and operator of the mall whether or not any of these changes actually are take place um so that's why we're trying to have them involved in the conversation as much as all the community feedback right so did they own sears as well or is that sears independently owned yep they're the owner of the entire mall but there are um several ground leases um for for different corporations so the the sears site um is partly in their hands but partly in the the sears parent company that still owns the the lease to that property great thank you thank you henry adam thanks great check-in um does uh does simon wanna are they in any conversation do they want to play ball we've had a very fruitful conversations with them especially especially looking at the the changing um dynamic of of retail what that what that looks like um as well as um especially looking at the sears site the potential for that site and um some of their other properties this this mall happens to be doing very well um some of their other properties they've already moved into into the development um scheme so so they're not just looking at um traditional retail-based malls it's something they've already done with some of their other properties so we've had good conversations with them that's encouraging thanks uh in terms of um uh maxwell court area um with the the recent news with the bodine asphalt plant how's that affecting things i mean i'm certain that it was on your radar before but how with it actually happening so um so an asphalt plant is uh particularly noxious industrial use um so some of the the um the alternatives that we've been looking at have been maintaining an industrial feel but having them be more maker spaces um kind of lower impact light industry which is what the majority of that area already is um so so moving in in that direction um i don't think there's there's been much consideration of of maintaining it as a heavy industry type of area um so so with um with bodine leaving that actually just moves us in the in the direction that we're currently going right now in the plan it is proposed to be a um a residential area right now there's an overlay zone that's set to expire in 2020 unless the council decides to continue it so we are moving in the direction that the plan currently proposes and likely with whatever alternative is settled on it would also it would also push that forward agenda okay do you know the park in seattle gasworks park any chance pardon do you know the park in seattle called gasworks park i'm not aware of it no oh i'll send you an email okay so variancing it's it's a talk about we're talking about adaptive reuse before um it's uh it's it's an adaptive reuse of what actually was uh you know a gas refinery and fuel facility right in almost downtown seattle and it's was preserved as um it they preserved a lot of the machinery and the flavor of the site and then created this beautiful actual experiential park in a residential neighborhood with it so you know sort of in a resident that could be looked at i'll send you an email um also i noticed uh with the tally of respondents one of the um that playgrounds and children activities um got a fair number of responses but i don't see it included in any of the alternatives unless i'm missing that um i think that would it'll be when we have the more fleshed out alternatives that will you know as something that that was popular will come up i think when we're looking at the these different alternative types um the the the children activities the the family-based activities went in alternative to where development has spread throughout the different areas we'd want to see them in each of those neighborhood centers whereas if we're concentrating the population around courthouse square that's probably where we'd also put those resources forward to okay great because i i know that that was one of the the options for courthouse square there was kind of value engineered out and you know um sort of bringing those because that's some of the feedback that i've heard of the access to downtown as families in particular so um great and then i love all the the road diets and the bike and pedestrian improvements i think that's going to be really important um as in in terms of the village center's alternative um i i do worry it's nice to have uh create neighborhood identities but um i would worry about um fragmenting you know sort of a smaller downtown in like as a whole so um i would um i would be interested to see in the if that becomes a more preferred alternative to see how those are going to be connected um and if you know how separate they're going to be now connected they are also um so the fragmentation is a worry um and uh yeah and i think um our community member that brought up um kind of the annexing more space from cars with parklets and outdoor dining and things like that is something that's really worthwhile bringing in that is also part of that road dieting as well um to make things more uh bike and pedestrian friendly and to really uh in some ways de car or de emphasize the car in downtown um as much as possible um i think that out of any alternative it seems like you guys are going with that but this really needs to be emphasized so look forward to the next one all right thank you Eric Patrick thanks for looping out to us i do have a few questions can you go to this first one's the process if you can go back to this santa rosa downtown station area plan community engagement process slide so the very first meeting on the bottom was the stakeholder interviews and that i'm assuming those were the interviews with developers project managers etc correct so what concerns me is i don't see us looping back out to them as we flush out different ideas unless i'm missing it in a different component i think that's a that's a valid observation uh i think it's key uh you know if we develop a plan whatever that may be i think there needs to be a few more loop outlets because they're a major stakeholder because they're the ones that you want developing those projects and if we develop this plan and we think it's great but we haven't looped out to the stakeholder as to whether or not they're going to that works for them or pencils out for them it's a lot of work to waste so i i i think you know i'm not sure how the contract reads with diet and but he but but i can't pronounce the name but i think you need to loop back out i know that my constituents and with the developers they're disappointed because many of them were not touched so we already had that in the beginning and now i don't see anything in that process for them to be provide input and i think they're an important stakeholder there's many important stakeholders but there's certainly one of them so i'd encourage us to do that um the there's some conflicting options in here you know one of them is reconnecting fourth street having that connect back and forth which may or may not work part of the problem is fourth street is already real narrow very slow to traverse via vehicles so you know if we want to take rid of get rid of cars make a more pedestrian friendly something like downtown austin i forget the name of the street has a whole basically our fourth street that's all closed so it's outdoor dining pedestrian area shops etc so maybe that's something something we should look at if we're looking at connecting it for vehicle traffic fourth street is really narrow it moves very slowly and i don't think we'd get the gain out of it i don't i saw in here an option was a skate park can you explain to me the the benefit to that i'm trying to understand that one we actually have had feedback from some of our youth engagement as well that they'd like to see a skate park in the downtown but the the thinking with that that option was um types of land uses that are going to activate the the underpass spaces so um escape park is is an example of a recreational area that would draw people to that area and also create more kind of eyes on the street while while serving that need for having more things to do especially youth oriented things to do in the downtown yeah and and i i my personal opinion experience is uh getting youth engaged in having areas for them i think is important i think escape park is a is a poor choice we have skate parks here in multiple cities in santa rosa or in santa rosa and multiple cities in the county uh they don't generate any income for surrounding businesses uh they there's a lot of graffiti that's associated with that that spreads to the surrounding areas and again may thwart some development downtown uh so while i think attracting and engaging youth activities i think is a great idea the skateboard park is probably not the best option um for that you know the the trolley is certainly an interesting concept uh windsor's having a tough time with their trolley uh and getting that off the ground and making that successful and trying to move people from one part of town to the next so you know before we head down that path maybe look at where um where where the trolley uh works and where it doesn't and why because that's certainly a very expensive venture for the city even if it's a private public partnership so and again i really encourage us to loop back out to those stakeholders those developers and rather than creating a plan and hoping they come let's create a plan with the developers to make it work thank you thanks and if i could just make a comment in response to that uh while we do have a set scope with our um with our our consultant group we as staff also are are free to to engage in in any kind of outreach and engagement that that we think would would benefit the plan as well so so these suggestions don't don't hold back if it's not something that's already in the scope so just like that we do want to hear those those other opportunities for for making the plan the highest quality can be thank you eric drew so uh i was looking at the three hundred and seventy page report that you put together patrick i guess uh with your team so kudos to you big document but i think what fascinates me about this during your presentation was the 63 percent of downtown workers commute from outside san aroza that blew my mind um like because i live in the jc and i work downtown so for me i'm like that's five minutes you know whatever if it's 20 minutes if i decide to walk or what have you but that piece i is is crazy to me and i i wonder i mean it's it's it strikes me as like a san francisco number right you know 75 percent of people who work in downtown san francisco commute from out you know that seems like a san francisco number it was really surprising that it was it's a san aroza number to me given our demographics and our size and kind of all those things um yeah um so i'm wondering how we tilt the scale right and so the the questions on the height for buildings i think what's interesting um in in our profession in the architecture profession what we've been hearing from developers for i don't know last couple years would you say is that um it doesn't pencil right we hear that a lot from them about you know this many units or this height or what have you um and it seems to me that the most the most uh common type of residential development that we've both seen here at design review board but also that developers have directed us to pursue is a two-story concrete podium with three or four stories above in wood construction because that's the economical way right to develop uh in their mind so i'm wondering you know that's not necessarily the most dense way to develop right because that limits you to three or four stories of housing and then potentially two stories of support services for the housing or potentially retail or something else so what is the breaking point from a city standpoint that would encourage different development in a different building typology that would that would actually quote unquote pencil right is it impact fees is it partnerships you know is it public private partnerships that have seen a lot of success in other parts of the country lately is it you know some kind of density swap or something i i don't know the answer i'm just i'm trying to ask you know what why is it that we have so many people who commute to downtown we have elements that are heavily impactful as part of our downtown right the markets seem to be pretty well attended right uh the planning release is ridiculous i remember you guys did a study in 2015 and 2016 and then i think there's another study that got done here for the economic impact of that particular event so it's it's it's not like we don't have things going for us in downtown Santa Rosa and different places that i've lived have seen ebbs and flows of their downtown as well related to business services and what's present and available and a lot of the resurgence that i'm familiar with in particularly the southeast where i've moved here from was the reintegration of a performing arts center into the downtown that completely blew up their downtown development in one instance it was coupled with also a university bringing housing downtown as well so obviously it would require you know like sonoma state or something to have a santa rosa campus which could be interesting right but there's a lot of opportunity there i think for both housing and services related to higher education that could be integrated um but i like i like the ideas of of kind of the buffet of options you have right now i really don't know the best answer but it seems like there are a lot of different options on the table to invigorate development and connectivity and opportunity seem to be the two largest recurring themes in the three options that you've presented right because who doesn't want to just park their car and walk around all day or who doesn't want to ride their bike i mean at least that's i maybe not everybody but um that's definitely beneficial for me uh i would walk my kids you know around hang out go to dinner whatever if it was all much more multimodal multimodal like you talked about so those are my comments thank you thank you drew um if you have very interesting there's so many dynamics to think about we have an aging population we have young people coming in there's probably been a lot of discussion around jobs and the caliber of jobs downtown that would attract people that would need a car it's a it's um um there is an architect by the name of Fahiko Maki and uh japanese he was harvard's dean he wrote a paper a white paper back in 1964 on patterns in collective um the uh the dissertation which is lifelong is that we have three options we can look at at grid systems and where there are nodes along grid systems where things function the other is a mega structure where all problems are solved you know put 2,500 people or 24,000 people in a mega structure and then there's this more loosely the third category is a collective and i think about being in santa rosa so long um i'm familiar with towns like vancouver bc which have 22-story buildings along corridors which house people that create vibrancy in the street um it seems to work at a scale it's not overwhelming in santa rosa we've been troubled for decades with capitalizing the downtown infrastructure and i'm going to speak a little bit like a developer now we have a lot of areas of town which have six inch pipes four inch pipes that that can't even begin to support a multi-story building so the the town of nappa with all their t o t dollars preceding santa rosa's 2007 downtown station area they did a full sequa blanket they had capital a lot of capital and they created a mega sequa document where there's no traffic studies no air quality studies you simply come in and it's all done for you in the downtown and one of the things that troubles developers as eric had mentioned the decoupling that the protraction of time time is a great enemy of developers uh the death nail is probably seven years two and a half years shallow breathing starts and how does how does all that work and for for many years that the idea of the the food desert the vitality of people really living there um do they have a job that makes them enough money that they stay there because i i think the the the problem is seniors living downtown oh maybe i'll speak for myself it's it's wonderful to be a senior and enjoy capital to be there but the problem with that model is that it has a timeline to it the candle burns shorter and it's a lot of capital to consider um and i'm i'm not saying we shouldn't have seniors it's just that this the thing that um i'll i'm let me qualify that having a preponderance of seniors downtown serves neither i have a mother-in-law who's 92s lived in oakmont she wants to move back to portland oregon and be in the seventh floor of a building she's tired of oakmont and she may live another 10 years so my my point about the seniors is they can be very um mobile and they can be contributors but i was i was intrigued with drew's comment about capital and youth if for some reason the state of california waves fees for education if that's on the ballot that's it's been talked about all of a sudden this money is there to pay rent and instead of these uh these tiny um these timid programs of paying you know a dollar fifty uh per thousand instead of three dollars per thousand maybe there's a change there i'd like to say that i stake as a happy senior but as i i stake my future on youth on younger people on an education the whole i noticed in your shopping cart people love music they want art galleries that's all great we've had many mayors that have wanted that and the vibrancy by which education putting santa rosa as an education first place that's very fascinating um bob blanchard wanted it to be the largest used bookstore in the world he wanted all the warehouses a deterrent never gets built he wanted 850 million books brought here and so it's a brit police believe it or not but but we have to have this this this vibrancy so i i think my comments are you've kind of got three options here alternatives one two and three and if you just think dollars about the capital of pipes think of a 20s 24 inch pipe in the ground is going to support a 24 story or 30 story building and is it okay to have pipe buildings because they become economic steel is the answer in concrete is the answer i've been visiting a lot of maraga and east bay where they've they've torn down a lot of lower safeways they're doing steel construction it's about 15 to 20 stories and they do bigger buildings it's just not economic to do little pikes so my my comment in general is we're going to need to embrace that and not be scared of it because that the the economy is going vertical i don't think there's a path forward with frittering 10 inch pipes all over town for five-story wood frame buildings at some point it's untenable we can't sustain the lands too precious you want the tax revenue you're smelling your 15 to 20 i know a lot of developers have talked about that i the at and t tower prohibits anything over 125 feet in a certain arrays that that's been marked but for the areas where there isn't micro wave or fcc arrays i think we're only talking about 20 plus stories for anything to be tenable you've got to get the pipes in the ground and capitalize that as a city i believe the city of santa rosa has a larger budget than the warriors um i think that was voiced at one point um which is pretty amazing but um i really like the comments that my board shared in general about about many things i want to go through it all but everything sounded promising and with that uh we'll turn it over to the chp for thoughts thank you uh board member mcquee would you like to make some comments as i look at the the the plan i'm i'm i guess right now i'm tending to favor alternative one with a lot of the development uh in the core downtown santa rosa as a member of the culture culture of harry's board i think you know alternative two or alternative three starts to leak into historical districts and i think when that happens it gets they start to get a little bit more complicated in a sense that we have to start to pay attention to what those historical districts are and and the construction issues around that and i think that's problematic in some in some respects therefore my preference would be to have whatever you know development we do uh be in the courthouse square area in downtown and uh i agree with others who have said you know that that the the challenge is to get that to get developers to be able to pencil that out and i'm worried about the fact that we really don't have any proof that we are the developer could get the rents for some high-rise building downtown but i very much believe that that for my perspective anyway would be the best alternative rather than trying to spread development out around and impact historical districts board member fennel so i you know i agree with john in that um having a lot of housing in the down you know the main section of the downtown is a is a great idea i also really like the idea of the road diet on santa rosa avenue i support santa rosa avenue being as the gateway as it was initially when we met what in 2007 to talk about all of this it was considered the gateway to santa rosa and that area i think is so important in that it is the first opportunity for people coming off of either highway 12 or highway 101 if you don't if you don't get off on um the third street exit to enter into the downtown area and i do think that it needs more shops and more things like that i don't i don't i don't really want to see high-rise apartment complexes on santa rosa avenue i would like to see that be a retail and pedestrian and make better use of juliaard park is a central part of um of the downtown and have it it's right now i think it doesn't it doesn't serve the purpose that the town or um surrounding neighborhoods and stuff would like to see um i do like the idea of increasing um on college avenue um increasing housing in college avenue and and taking even some of the um business buildings that have been built on college avenue that are suffering from lack of and and move you know moving some of that into housing and and re re doing it um that's all i have to say for now i'm excited to see where it it continues to go vice chair peruser yeah i i share the excitement um couple of things i'm sort of looking back and forth amongst the alternatives and i think i'm going to do the grocery shopping one where i jump around a little bit and i'm going to see if i can do it by um not so much talking about historical districts specifically but talking about the historic fabric of the city and sort of where there's some hidden opportunities in that um in part because there are things that this city once did that you are almost perfectly replicating with your transit pattern here you're you're off on your trolley lines by one block south on the one that used to be on fourth and you've now moved to third um the other thing that's missing from the 19th century pattern of trolley lines because 19th century 1880s 1890s santa rosa was booming and it was booming with real estate speculation and it was laying out all of those little neighborhoods that we now call historic districts and every single one of them was connected by a trolley line to the downtown core which had exactly the function in a 19th century version late 19th century early 20th century version that you're trying to replicate now which is kind of cool if you think about it welcome back to the future right um i would agree with uh laura's comment about santa rosa af i think there's some real lost opportunities there one of those trolley lines used to go down that road when it was called south main street it is a main street we changed the name and it lost its function but i think there's some opportunities there um that you might want to think about and then the other thing i i'd like to say about different plans i almost sort of want to blend one with three and your if could you put three back up patrick because it wasn't in the ones that got sent to us okay so there there are no maps that go with this so we're gonna have to envision you know men though and then santa rosa af and then west third and then sabastopol one of the things i like about that is that it stretches north south and it also includes as much of santa rosa west of the freeway as it does east and i noticed in the minutes from a couple of meetings ago i somehow missed it when we were approving the minutes but there's this line in the minutes that says someone that was me recommended that we spend as much time in east santa rosa as as in west and i actually said the reverse i said spend as much time in west santa rosa as east even in the definition of the downtown core because i think what you're going to do downtown is going to get replicated out up these north south corridors especially to the west which is where the population is going to be going you're not going to get all 180 thousand of us in downtown i don't care if you go 50 stories but we can really start beefing up what are going to be villages out from the downtown core the way we did it in the 19th century was running trolley lines you don't have to run real trolleys because you're right those are hideously expensive and every place that they've tried to get people back on them with the possible exception of san diego which seems to be doing pretty good with that um people won't ride them but whatever the modern equivalent is of really frequent really cheap public transportation that's what we need going out to those villages i live in one of those i live off west steel i can walk to cutting town and when i age in place as a senior that's exactly what i'm going to be doing i've been practicing i have my track shoes i can walk to my coffee shop but it's not going to be downtown but i will ride the smart train because i'm within spitton distance of the north station to come down to events in downtown so the patterns you set now are the patterns that are going to be replicated out from downtown unless we end up just saying you know we're going to cut the suburbs off all together and let them fend for themselves um which you know we're likely to go a little bit feral out there on west steel if you do that um but anyway i see an interesting combination between this this sort of core downtown idea and then these transit corridors that are going to inevitably create exactly those little villages you're talking about they're going to be possibly beyond what you've defined as the downtown core but i don't see the pattern that was established 150 years ago changing significantly we're just going to get more intensification in that downtown right um what we need to put back is the way that cheap non-automobile transportation public transportation connected the neighborhoods to the downtown core and we're going to have to decentralize enough services so that people can all over the city walk to their grocery store right or take the bus to the grocery store and not have to wait two and a half hours to go half a mile which is where we are at the moment in my neighborhood i can walk that far at least at the moment so there's some some historical fabric in this city that's valuable because not only it's pretty to look at or it's something that might attract people to to live in but because it teaches lessons about how the city worked and functioned fairly effectively in the past and i look at these maps and what i see is 1896 just with 2019 technology so let's leverage that but a city is a city is a city it's got a core it's got peripheries we can make those work and not violate the open space that we've got in place and not exile seniors or young people or families with kids you know which school districts are the people in the 10 story high rises who happen to have kids where are their kids going to go to school how are we thinking about funding any added right student enrollment in downtown school districts that lovely little you know luther burbank art deco primary school on a street is it really going to take all these kids in where are we putting the schools do we need more schools are we expecting families to live in the 10 story apartment complexes if so it's not just recreation things like that yeah i'll stop there thanks thanks these are encouraging plans it's true when you look at the old photos of the city it's it's laid out on a grid and everybody knows at least most people know i think that the the laying out of the highways which was a you know deliberate choice obviously is what has caused practically all the problems in the city that we have a complete disaster with total disregard for the city and total disregard for the people in it and the only way that seems realistic for us to fix that is to make just as deliberate a choice as the people did who ruined downtown to take it back and the connectivity is key uh i would make every choice in the two alternatives that would increase pedestrian connectivity and just uh generally to emulate a grid and to make as many underpasses under the highways possible if we lose the robert's underpass it's going to be a complete death knell for bringing in roseland to the downtown and for the rest of the city forcing people underdutton or forcing people through olive park is completely unrealistic it's not working and we can wish for all the housing we want down there which is you know less expensive land it's actually a realistic uh place even if land values stay disinflated for working people to afford to live it's going to be meaningless uh to the downtown we're not going to have people able to go carless we have to remember i think that every piece of land every parking space that we dedicate to a car is land that's basically privatized to people who drive for people who can afford cars i know that i can afford a car but it's a burden and it's much more of a burden for a lot of other people i would much prefer not to have that money go out of my pocket and the same for people who need private open space they don't live near a park they are surrounded by wide and high speed limit streets and where are they supposed to put their kids where are they supposed to put their dog making these roads pedestrian only like fourth street as a promenade at least for a lot of its stretch is a way to make it so we can have units that people can afford where people can live without having to go to the expense of a car and where people don't need private open space because all of those things contribute to the inequality that we have in the city which is a disaster so specific point i don't think that light industry is the highest and best use of the land south of highway 12 i think we need to concentrate as much housing there as possible let's see and to the road died specifically there's been a lot of support for that to the extent that we still have automotive you know travel and that we have to accept that it's going to be this way for a while we need to make it as safe as possible i think everybody has seen the inability to reconcile fast high speed river type arterial roads with pedestrian safety and bike safety loss of life and i don't i'm sure i'm not alone every time i go on a street that speed limit is 30 miles an hour above you see pedestrians step up their gate and practically run for their lives to cross the street even when everybody stops they have a the right of way we can't let these opportunities go by if we want people to walk they need to feel safe and if people you know feel unsafe because there are too few people in the area and they feel like they're vulnerable the best way to fix that problem is to have more people out there to have everybody in a neighborly way looking out for one another and a lot of these improvements you know to make them attractive they might be expensive but they can be done on the cheap and i don't think there's any excuse for it i know the plan area stops college but college is is a major danger zone and it's a terrible street for pedestrians and for bikes and it's terrible to cross it's very dangerous so anything that could be done to improve that would be better and you know when we're talking about the historic neighborhoods the neighborhood character uh it isn't just the architecture it isn't just uh keeping them looking like they might have used to look we have to think about what role they play in the city and most of these areas a couple notwithstanding where areas where working people lived and could go about their daily routines without having to commute you know once the car came around they still didn't have to commute in general now we have far-flung office parks it's not the same situation exactly but we have to be cognizant of the need to spread spread out and accept high density downtown there's no reason to do either instead of both uh it's going to make all of these amenities pan out financially and it's going to create a competition for developable land where we don't see these projects fail to pencil out because there's only one lot that's appropriate that's on the market we need as many options as possible to drive down the cost of land which we all know is the biggest contributor to the economic inequality and poverty that there is in california but uh not to uh be too negative about the situation i think this is a big step forward and i would encourage the plan to be as bold as the uh destructive decisions that have been made in the past it's going to take that level of boldness to undo uh some terrible mistakes well patrick you've you've heard many things it seems like a lot of us are resonating collectively the i didn't hear anything about being timid about the downtown core but the villages around the character and heart and history the vibrancy that we once knew is still within reach and thank you for reaching out to simon that's a that's a very courageous move um it looks like you've got them by the i'll say this carefully there's a discouragement about as codes drop in buildings people have to remodel they have to do things and you you have them in a place where the 2007 um policies um direct them to wake up to other opportunities so without going into further ado you you have your notes you're going to continue um you're on a timeframe it's a lot of money being spent my hope is that collectively you'll get to the point you want with the content you want um the uh the idea of being too fast on the draw and not having the content and substance in place i don't know ultimately how you're going to decide and if there's a hybrid or not but but just the whatever closure you have you've got some great options and we appreciate this work without it um without vision it's not a future so that being said i i think we can close and move to the the last item on the agenda is that procedurally thank you very much for your time tonight all right yes bread is on his way back okay so Brett thanks for your return your patience we're going to uh have our final item which is the sp35 uh state author design standards the zoning coded text amendment and we all will have our staff report on this giving us the origins and the hopeful efficacy of this this is uh something each each city each county needs to adopt in all 58 counties is that true mostly i'll go into the details on that in just a moment but all right most cities and counties yes the time issuers okay great uh thank you uh vice chair hedge path and members of the design review board chair edmondson and members of the cultural heritage board the item before you is a report on senate bill 35 and the proposed multifamily design standards pursuant to this legislation just like to go briefly into a little background california state senate bill 35 was adopted in 2017 and became law january first of 2018 it was part of a comprehensive package to address housing shortages and high costs within the state it requires a streamlined ministerial approval process for specific multifamily residential projects only in jurisdictions where there hasn't been sufficient progress made toward the regional housing needs and santa rosa is one of those jurisdictions so an eligible project must be streamlined under this bill which means it cannot be subject to any discretionary review that means no design review no use permit and as such it's not subject to the california environmental quality act these projects also must be reviewed and approved or denied within very strict timeframes projects do have to meet quite a few requirements to qualify for this streamlined processing first and foremost it must be a primarily residential project that includes at least two residential units with specified levels of affordability the project site must be an infill site as outlined in the senate bill and cannot have a whole host of environmental issues ranging from wetlands to flood plains it cannot be within a very high fire zone it cannot include the demolition of a historic structure which is listed on the national state or local historic register in addition the construction used for construction workers who would actually build the development must be paid prevailing wage which is not a standard that that many developers adopt and each project would need to be consistent with both the general plan and any zoning provisions in addition to other city objective standards so the purpose of coming before you and ultimately going to the planning commission and the city council is for the city to prepare and adopt clear and objective multifamily design standards that respond to senate bill 35 and these objective standards are primarily sourced from the city's existing design guidelines as you know these design guidelines are subjective in nature they're this way to allow for some discretion and flexibility for the review authority but because they are flexible they cannot be used to evaluate if a project is consistent and thus can be approved with SB 35 so the goal really is to ensure neighborhood compatibility and for future projects that are approved through SB 35 that those projects really are keep a high level of design and superior design as as we currently have so the proposed design standards are broken out into six categories they're listed on the screen here and I'll just very briefly highlight a few of them as you have the full text attached to your staff report so proposed design standards related to neighborhood compatibility relate to the height of new structures especially well particularly when in close proximity to preservation districts it also suggests that new multifamily development includes some design elements from single-family housing units in close proximity and would require that buildings are street oriented so that there wouldn't be any parking parking lot areas on major street frontages abutting single-family neighborhoods proposed design standards related to building design covers using a consistent quality of materials on all sides of the buildings requiring that affordable units appear the same as any marker rate units in the same development and list out specific requirements related to the length of blank walls and requiring a variety of materials on building frontages as proposed design standards related to massing and architecture relate to the number of architectural features incorporated into the project design it also addresses variation in oh sorry I just lost my turn to that um yes it is I hadn't flipped my notes here to the next page of that screen so it discusses having a vertically articulated roof line at least every 50 feet along street frontages and breaks in in walls which extend a certain length as well some proposed design standards related to common and open space relate to a minimum square footage of private or semi-private open space adjacent to each unit and also a requirement for common open space if a development includes 10 or more units there are proposed design standards related to site design which include not only the location of common facilities within the multifamily development but also safety features like including windows within kitchen living and dining room areas that can overlook these common open space areas and also for any parked areas to be screened by landscaping from any other public street frontage not just the primary street finally there are design standards related to accessory elements these relate to fencing materials especially perimeter fencing materials and accessory equipment being screened and also the location of dumpster enclosures for those to be located far away enough so that they aren't nuisance but also close enough so that the residents are able to use them easily as you know the city has a number of objective standards related to design in the zoning code currently the the main ones that we focus on are typically development standards these are included in each zoning district and these are setbacks maximum height for buildings and also lot coverage so these do dictate the design within each zoning district the zoning code also has landscaping standards related to the number of trees required per square footage and also related to parking space numbers and does require a certain number of shrubs and trees and ground coverage site-wide in addition to on the in the planter strip outdoor lighting is also briefly addressed in the zoning code there's discussion about down shielded lighting a height limit for free standing lighting and also the requirement that light cannot trespass onto a budding properties and finally the zoning code addresses both the design and dimensions of parking spaces the the or one important point is that the zoning code does require a specific number of parking spaces for each use this senate bill does not allow the city to enforce those existing standards so senate bill 35 says that each development may may require up to one parking space per unit that's it and in some cases if it's in close proximity to public transit zero spaces would be required so our hands are pretty tied with the parking the number the design and the dimension we can enforce by the zoning code or through any changes suggested tonight i'd like to talk just briefly about the public process so we did release an online survey on our website this was distributed on the city's social media accounts and also by way of email quite a few people took the survey as of Tuesday it was up to 89 which was surprising because there are there weren't too many questions but it was asking them to rank these different proposed standards and also to provide any sort of comments our goal with asking for comments was to ensure we weren't missing something and there were some some good points raised so briefly overall trends from the public included ample and well-maintained landscaping for these developments there were a lot of comments about color and how these buildings should should have compatible colors with the existing neighborhoods that the general architecture and height should be compatible with surrounding development that green and sustainable buildings and landscaping should be enforced as well the challenge with a lot of these comments is that it's difficult to form an objective standard for compatibility in many cases but these are comments we're still appreciated and and we're hoping that you might have some suggestions as to how we can incorporate those those standards into our proposal one comment that I I thought was interesting and I'd like to point out now which I didn't think about was there are open space requirements that I briefly went through depending on the number of units both private and then common and a participant mentioned that this could be a challenge in downtown development so I thought that was a really good point and maybe something we can work on crafting so noticing will be completed as required by the zoning code prior to the planning commission and city council public hearings for this item and this is just a report so there's no action tonight it's just comments and feedback from both boards and these proposed amendments are exempt from CEQA under the common sense exemption so with that I'll wrap up my presentation and would appreciate any feedback thank you Amy for the presentation I I wanted to mention regarding the public we we do have one party is there anything you'd wish to say as a public commentary okay we'll close the public hearing and we'll go back to questions comments through from north to south again starting with Henry willing to chp Henry you're on thanks for waking me up or in fact I would it be possible for me to just email you some comments when it's at a a different hour for me to perhaps write and think more coherent coherently sure all right thank you I'm in the same boat go ahead Adam thanks for just a question regarding landscaping standards so all projects reviewed are subject to currently adopted development standards in the zoning code just poking through on there just so you know it talks about some aspects of of landscape concerns there's nothing about water storm water diversion or storm water filtration or retention or anything like that I'm just wondering if there's and so and I didn't see anything in our standards also wondering if there's anything in this sp35 so we do have standards in place for storm water through those that's enforced through our building permit phase so typically when a project a discretionary review is happening engineering looks at a storm water plan and make sure that it's feasible and then when the development comes in as a building permit that plan is approved by the building department so they would still be able to they would still have to comply with that and that's required by the regional water quality board okay great thank you that's all for me thank you Adam Eric real quickly thanks for the time and staying so late for staff I know it's difficult my question is is how do we incorporate these changes along with looking at the the up the up town changes that we're looking at because even this evening in preparation for this meeting when we look at those design standards an example is multiple multifamily projects located across the street from single family neighbourhood shall orient the buildings to the street with individual entries patio areas and landscaping facing the single family homes parking lot areas and carports shall not be located along these street frontages and then there's a couple more items that they run counter and counterproductive to what we're trying to do so I just want to make sure that we're incorporating both of those into how we're developing our new you know downtown plan etc those are my concerns is is even looking at a couple projects today that we approve could run against some of these changes so that's that's the concern how do we incorporate that so is that concern pretty specific to to downtown you're saying or is that a concern citywide well I guess it would be a concerned citywide I'm using downtown because we're looking at multifamily structures you know take Luther Burbank Gardens area for an example where you have single family residences if we start putting multifamily structures right there they all have to be facing the homes the entrances have to be facing the homes where we put parking lots it gets very restrictive it looks like it's beyond our control with SB 35 but I want to make sure that you know as we develop plans on where we're going to do development and infrastructure infill that we can help accommodate what we're trying to accomplish and keeping that in mind yes I agree and that's a particular challenge because we have all these design guidelines but we're able to be flexible if it doesn't work in a particular circumstance and and here we're being encouraged to at least create some objective standards so it's it's definitely a challenge we don't want to create a situation where projects aren't aren't feasible and so it may be that a lot of these standards go away or maybe in particular areas like the downtown that might be appropriate thank you thank you Eric right thank you you to kind of help understand where this is coming from this is I think this was maybe what was alluded to earlier about who's who actually has to follow the senate bill right and that's basically because of the lack of housing that Santa Rosa has developed and so this is now being implemented to facilitate that that type of housing and that growth is that correct yes okay so and just to clarify it does only apply to projects that meet certain criteria which Amy outlined so to date we've had one is it one person who who has inquired about utilizing this Senate bill which has kind of spurred us to move quickly to get this in our ordinance so that we don't end up with a building or design that we're not happy with but it is something that I think would be relatively challenging I don't know that we will get a lot of these but so it is something we need to address but we just need to keep in mind that there are a lot of criteria that applicants have to meet in order to qualify for this gotcha so there's quite a yeah it's fairly rigorous in terms of how you know what can apply to this this program and that was kind of outlined I think one of the first slides I don't have anything specific at this point I'm assuming we can contact you with other questions or at a later date yes thanks Brett thank you true so nobody said this but I'm gonna say this this scares the ever-loving but Jesus out of me for a couple of reasons it encourages bad design because it doesn't have a discretionary element associated with it and so we can try to put essentially what is a form-based code kind of in an ordinance to try to control it but at the end of the day sp35 says well you can only do this this this this and this right so this scares me a lot but at the same time I'm also not scared because it's requiring prevailing wage which would probably discourage developers from actually doing it because they have to pay their workers you know an extra 25 bucks an hour whatever the heck it is between the differential between you know the going rate and prevailing wage so anyway I'm just gonna say it this scares me a lot but I don't I think if we can reign it in as best as we can we can try to meet our design guidelines I guess I do have one question within the proposed it's a little tiny thing but uh under building design number five you say window frames must be recessed a minimum of two inches from the surrounding wall plane that effectively eliminates uh flanged windows which are like your vinyl marvin windows and stuff which you would probably see on a lot of multifamily so I'm I'm questioning that one just because like if you did a multifamily building that was on that was siding you would do a flange window with trim and it would be kind of flush with everything so that's a one that I'm kind of scratching my head on it's a nitty gritty one I thought I think I wrote one other note here sorry I want to check nope that was it that was the only thing so scares me and the two inch window thing I don't think it's gonna fly okay we can we can strike that one yeah thanks thank you drew um you know my comments are specifically um I just want to go to page 10 your presentation proposed to design standards um the first bullet was common facilities located to the interior rear of the project site we have a lot of urban projects on small these are all infill sites and the idea of humanizing the street with a community center the outreach seniors library guitar lessons if you pull it inside the project it's kind of sad that was written um maybe the neighborhood knee jerk was that it troubles and makes noisy a neighborhood when it actually gives it life but um I think that's kind of a silly one um the other thing on existing objective standards development stands for zoning district setbacks minimum height lot coverage we have these affordable projects that here's another layer for you Amy we've got concessions when when we have density bonuses 35 percent or better um even even a 15 density bonus um that whole density bonus book was actually written to trigger and allow parking building height in at least three concessions so I don't know how the state is going to connoiter how they're going to negotiate um it's I can walk across j street to l street it's the same town but we have competing values here we have the state of california in one sense incentivizing um some design give and take for affordability that's one part of sacramento the other is this this bill which is really looking at let's take sequa out of the picture and roll and let's go it it is a little disconcerting that people talk about color and there's there's so many things at play here because it isn't a scalable document it's not talking about a downtown in some ways it's talking about maybe a quieter neighborhood and here um I know case used to be in the planning commission decade I think it was about 1992 jane bender and others led the way with the general plan to have overlays of attachment we we have very few 6000 foot lot subdivision is it one every four years now you have of a project that is a standard subdivision with a success they're they're almost extinct but here we have a general plan that is rallying forward with with density maybe it isn't a collision but I'm just I just want to be mindful that the state is aware that's it's it's operating on simultaneous levels and my hope in this is that there's some latitude for city um like like drew my final comment is actually having such a timeline such a rally the the intersection of public works of civil engineers doing all their work and having recordations and maps and when and signing along with the vertical with with architecture those tasks require um multiple levels of review cost review referral um you that's been your world for decades is is what in the wire basket circles back is it already complete can I give the release letter of full approval so that a title company can memorialize a project um I'm only saying this that life safety is important and that there's so much bandwidth people have and if there's a lot of these coming in they'll need to be um some outsourcing a public works probably I don't think they have the bandwidth to plan check all this and review it but it it could be great it's it's really trying to forego sequa and I know you're spending a lot of money as a city um I think it was a three quarter million or almost a million in the in the down the down uh up the downtown down the up the downtown I'm sorry that's pretty up in the downtown is super bucks and that whole rally is dollars that you're doing if it goes and it works isn't that kind of already taking sequa out of the picture you're gonna create a framework document that I can go to almost any site so I empathize with you that you have to do calculus on three levels and have fun and please get sleep thank you well I'm gonna just go ahead myself to keep the line going and I don't have any further comments I I did think a lot of those comments were good it's certainly more of a design oriented review here um so um with that I will ask Vice Chair Percer for any comments we'll have a couple of thoughts first of all good luck um because I think as as many of the comments here have indicated this is very daunting to think about operationalizing so thank you for coming to us um and and think of us as a resource we're happy to help um just a couple of quick thoughts because I noticed there are a couple of direct references to preservation districts or historic districts in here in terms of specific design elements and I think that's good um and again we are a resource so come and talk to us we can help with that I'm in particular there are a couple of um cultural heritage board members who are absent tonight who I think because of their particular areas of expertise could be really helpful in helping you navigate this um the one thing I'd like to say that's just my own personal perspective in in the city across the city we have some amazing examples of places where multifamily housing was inserted into single family dwelling neighborhoods in fact they're all over our historic districts and outside the historic districts there are four squares there are there are garden apartment complexes there are little tiny 1920s motor courts um we've got a lot of built examples of how to do this in a way that would fit into the fabric of this city as a whole in particular moving outside the downtown and looking at places where there's some pretty awesome infill opportunities out there if we can pry some of that county land out of the county's hands for example um and we've got a building inventory that would give us some really cool examples to at least be able to show um to people thinking about these kinds of projects that would fit in the city so just a thought board member final so one of the questions that I had is how specifically does I mean reading through all of this and my my brain's been gone for about half an hour now um how does how does this impact the cultural heritage board with having purview over some of the infill and in historic districts we've had things that have come before our board um that are still out you know outstanding and they would those would scare me to think about them being streamlined and there was also another question about parking where they talked about parking on there and said that parking what was it on number 11 go ahead and take the first one okay so again this would only apply to very specific projects that meet a pretty long list of requirements so prevailing wage is a big one they have to have a certain level of affordability and then that infill site that they choose can't have any sort of environmental issue that's listed in the bill and there's probably at least 30 to 40 I do think that and as Jessica mentioned that that is really going to limit the number of projects that really qualify for the streamlining the parking discussion there was there was on parking requirements automobile parking standards shall not be imposed on a development that meets any of the following criteria and the second one was the development is located within an architecturally and historically significant district it it's what does that mean is is that it sounds like it would be chaos in those districts but maybe it's just because my brain's gone I don't know I think it might be the former um that it's just that they see that as a way to create more compatibility so there wouldn't be a requirement for for that one spot per unit yeah that would be a that would be a really tough one because we're having most of our historic districts are so close to the downtown and the parking within those is is crazy and I could just it would be chaos and it's not that a project couldn't propose some parking it's just that they don't have to to meet or to get an approval if it falls into one of those categories so yeah I just I don't like the idea of of infill things on lots within historic districts you know just being able to go forward without um some sort of check in thank you I'm done thank you board member mcqueen I just want to understand if there is a lot in a historical district and a person wants to go through the process of qualifying for SB 35 does that mean then that we have as a member of the cultural heritage board you have no discretion over what kind of structure is is put on that lot assuming that there's two living I mean there's two housing units on it is that am I understanding that correctly if a project qualifies under SB 35 so it meets each one of those requirements then no discretionary reviews allowed per the senate bill so no chp approval no drb approval no planning commission approval no director approval from the planning department it's just we have to check boxes and say does it meet this standard doesn't meet this standard doesn't meet the standard if it meets each of those standards it's approved and so that's why these objective design standards are or the idea was to take the design guidelines and turn them into standards although it's very challenging is is that we really want to keep a lot of this valuable perspective and be able to enforce it in these new developments but it's yeah it's it's tricky and yes there's there's no discretion allowed again just for these few projects that that might qualify okay just to just a clarifying question on top of that these projects would still have to adhere to the current land use and zoning or yes so they're not looking like when you say planning commission it's they're still they're not looking for zoning change or land use change or anything like that so okay right i i said the planning commission example for like a if there was maybe a major use permit that might be required for the multi-family housing yes okay warren would you do the honors please so if i could just quickly um i know a few of you mentioned um uh the possibility of submitting comments later which is completely fine we we would welcome any comments that you have uh as Amy mentioned this is very challenging to try and put something like this together um so just to give you an idea of timeframe on when we might need that we are looking at trying to get to the planning commission so what what Amy has put together is ultimately going to go into the form of an ordinance that would go into our zoning code and so that requires review by the planning commission who would then make a recommendation to city council um so comments prior to heading to planning commission would be um uh the most used to us uh and we are tentatively looking at going to the planning commission on their august eighth date so august eight so uh if we could get any comments from you prior to that that would be very helpful yes thank you well with that we appreciate again such an august body being responsible and it's under good care so thank you for that with that um we have board member reports can i turn to the chp for any report you wish to share somehow i forgot about that item uh board members any reports nothing to report okay nothing to report thank you and for our board are there any members okay um hearing hearing no department reports um prior to german i know that uh because of july there's no july 4th meeting and patty's still awake there um so july 4th is off for the whole city on the 18th there has been a a i think it may involve the chp there's there's a couple there was a they pulled it they pulled it was in lieu of this okay that's right so there there may and patty's working on what may be a so thank you yeah we we sent out a an email thinking that this joint meeting may not happen um so we preemptively sent an email to asking everybody what their availability was for that date for a possible joint meeting um but we no longer need that but there may be some regulars uh design new board items so there's no interest on the board to doing this twice again all right hearing that we're going to adjourn the meeting thank you