 Good evening. Can you hear me okay? Try your sound, please. Did you need me to do something, Kimberly? No, I just wanted to make sure. The only way I have of checking my sound is if I have at least one other person log in and tell me they can hear me. I can hear you. Can you hear me okay? You sound great. Great. Thank you. Thanks. I have a few more logging on, and I want to invite anyone who is from an applicant team to also check sound. So if you'd like to raise your hand, we can go ahead and do a sound check for you. So it looks like just want to also mention this is for our applicant team. So we have Deline Whitlock. Want to go ahead and try that? Yes, I'm here. Thank you. Thank you. That sounds good. And also just to let everybody know, we use the webinar version of Zoom. And so for our staff, cameras are optional. And for our applicants and the rest of our attendees, we enable sound only. So if you feel like your camera is not working, that's okay. That's the way it's supposed to be. And then we also have Jacqueline Smith. Are you part of an applicant team? No. No, there it goes again. Okay, Jacqueline, let's go ahead and check your sound there. Hi, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Great. I'm with the found group team. Okay. That sounds great. Thank you so much, Jacqueline. Thank you. I want to welcome our attendees this evening and give our applicant team a chance to do some sound checks. If you are part of an applicant team and you'd like to do a sound check, please raise your hand. And I also want to just clarify for everyone that we are using the webinar version of Zoom. And so for our applicants and our attendees, we enable sound only. So if you feel like your camera is not working, that's okay. That's the way it's supposed to be. Again, if you're part of an applicant team and you'd like to do a sound check, please raise your hand within the zoom meeting. And when you answer that prompt, you should be able to be heard. Hi there. This is Olivia. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. I'm not part of an applicant team. I'm here tonight with the city helping as a SQL consultant. So I just wanted to make sure that I was accessible and you guys could hear me have questions come up. I'm available to help answer any questions related to the environmental on both items on the agenda this evening. Okay. Thank you so much. Lauren. I'm going to go ahead and send a prompt for you. This is Lauren Bergman. Phoenix Development Company. I'm here and will be one of the presenters for this evening. Okay. Thanks, Lauren. Your sound is sounds just fine. Thank you. Your sounds great too. I hope so. Thanks. Thank you. We're going to be doing sound checks. Just a quick reminder too. Because you, you will be able to control your own sound. Please keep yourself muted during the course of the meeting unless it is time for you to speak. That would be helpful. Appreciate it. And if Michael who is listed here on the attendees list is vice chair, Bert from our design review board, if you could please raise your hand and we'll promote you to panelists. And I think we'll get started in just a moment. I want to make sure that everyone that needs to test their audio is able to do so before we get started. Vice chair, Bert, are you able to test your audio? Yes, that was a, that was a struggle, but yes, I can. I am. I'm here. Great. Thank you. Okay. So it's one minute after five. We'll go ahead and get started. I'm going to call to order this special meeting of the zoning administrator on June 13. And pursuant to the California government code and also the recommendation of the health officer of the county of Sonoma. We are conducting this meeting by way of zoom webinar members of the public can participate virtually by using the zoom URL, which is www.zoom.us slash join. And by calling toll free telephone number 877-853-5257. And the meeting ID for today's meeting is 893-9167-6996. Public members of the public accessing today's meeting can provide comments during specified public comment periods by way of zoom by using either the raise hand feature or pressing star nine on your telephone. We are also live streaming this meeting on the city's YouTube channel. So let's go ahead and move on to item number two. This is just public comment. So this is a time when any member attending may address matters not listed on today's agenda, but are within the subject matter of the jurisdiction. And each speaker is allowed up to three minutes. So I will go ahead and open public comment on non agenda items now. If you'd like to make a comment, please press the raise hand button. I'm not seeing any hands raised so I will go ahead and close general public comment and move on to item number three, which is zoning administrator business. The purpose of the zoning administrator is to take action on various planning applications. Typically their minor applications or administrative permits. The zoning administrator is appointed by the director of the planning and economic development department. And any decision made by the zoning administrator is appealable to the design review board, cultural heritage board planning commission or city council as applicable to the decision. Item 3.2 is zoning administrator reports, and I have no reports for today. So we'll move on to item number four, which is consent items. There are no consent items on today's agenda. So with that, we can move into our scheduled items. Item 5.1. This is a public hearing for 3586 Mendocino Avenue. And this includes a minor hillside development permit and minor design review. And the presentation will be given by senior planner Shekali. Thank you, Miss Nicholson. So I'm going to share my PowerPoint and go over my presentation. It might be a little bit long presentation because this is a big project. So just be patient with me. Okay, let me see. I'm going to turn off my video. Share my screen here. You can see my screen, right? Good to go. Great. Okay. Thank you, Miss Nicholson. This project is for the name is Bantengro in multi-family rental housing project located at 3586 Mendocino Avenue. This proposal is for two planning entitlements. One is for a minor design review and one is for minor hillside development permit. So brief project description. The minor hillside development permit and minor design review are for a proposed 239 unit multi-family apartment project on an approximately 9.6 acre site. The units will be spread among six different buildings ranging from three to five stories. Here is an aerial perspective of the site as we can see. And it's showing the aerial view from the Mendocino Avenue. And about the unit, so 19 studios out of this 239, 19 of those will be studios. 125 units would be one bedrooms and 95 of them would be two bedrooms unit. The building will be three to five stories and the maximum height is 55 and they are being proposed to this height, the maximum of 55 feet height. The applicant is providing 59 bicycle parking spaces and the project would require 454 parking spaces and the site is providing 414 parking spaces. 238 of those spaces would be covered and the remaining 127 surface parking will be uncovered. The applicant has provided a parking study prepared by WTrans that has evaluated the proposed parking spaces for this project and concluded that this proposed 414 parking spaces are sufficient for the proposed project. Also, the applicant has provided a parking management plan that which describes how the parking would be managed on site for the guests and future residents. And here is the project site, which used to be the former location of the, for the Fenton Grove Inn and a restaurant. In 2005, there was an approved project for expansion of the hotel, which was going to add 22 units, and also rehabilitation of the historic grand bond. However, the site was destroyed in 2007 by the pubs fire. And here is the aerial view from the prefire for the same site. You can see here the two buildings, the two hotels building and the historical grand barn on the right side about this zone and general plan. So this property, the general plan land designation is retail and business services and the zone, the parcels have two zones. One zone is PD, PD 0296 and another one is also PD. Both of these PDs are for commercial and our general plan goal policy LUL E6 encourages residential developments in the retail and business service designations. Also, the project site is located within the Mendocino Avenue corridor priority development area and applications for design review for multifamily residential projects within this corridor area prior to development. Are delegated to the zoning administrator through the minor design review process, but they are subject to a conceptual design review by the design review board and a pre application neighborhood meeting. Additionally, the site has the resilient city combining the streak, which was adopted to address housing needs and economic development within the city of Santa Rosa following the tops and non-spire in 2017. Also per the zoning code, multifamily residential projects are allowed within the commercial plan development district without requirement of the use permit. And here is an overall site plan for the project site. This project site would include six patch residential structures ranging from three to five stories in high all buildings would include residential areas, private open space, circulation parking and utility areas. Building A B and C are located on the obstacle portion of the lot. Along of they are here. I hope you can see my arrow here along Randman Boulevard and would only have access from Randman Boulevard. Building D, which is the largest of six building is located at the corner of Mendocino Avenue and Phantom Gove Parkway and includes five floors. Building E also is along Mendocino Avenue and contains four floor and last is building F that is located along the western property line and includes three floors. So here are two street views that shows the project site as it today. And the lower picture is from 2016 that shows the previously existed structures on the site. The Randman historic bond is at the corner here and the other part of the hotel structures. And here is the slope analysis map. As you can see here, the largest of the two buildings that are D and E building, both of them would be placed on the location of the previous buildings with the areas that were most mostly flat. And only some areas behind the building E would be placed on slopes more than 25%. And building A, B and C are cluster of smaller buildings located on the up slope portion of the lot along Randman Boulevard. These buildings will step in the hillside and include lower floors built into the hillside, which would minimize the visual prominence of the buildings. The majority of the sites for building F would be on a slope less than 10% that is going to be located on the northwest corner of the project site. Building F would be placed behind building E and would be screened by existing trees on that site. And also it would provide access by improving the existing emergency driveway that access would be also widened. Next slide. And here are the sections of the building B and F. And as you can see, majority of these two buildings would be placed on flat areas, except some corners that are behind building E and B. And here are the sections for building A and B and C. And I'm just going to go through almost each building separately and explain what's going on. So here is the cluster of building A, B and C. Building A would have 15 residential units. Building B would contain 10 units and building C would have 17 residential units. All the grand floor for these three buildings would include a private parking garages with tandem parking for two vehicles. Also at the corner of this area, which is at the corner of Randman and Fantingro Boulevard. A space is preserved for an art feature, remembering the historic Rand Barn, which was destroyed in 2017 top spire. The pictures or images on the right side shows the proposed Rand Barn monumental structure, which is a semi-circular and approximately 16 foot tall structure that would be presenting the former Rand Barn structure. Here is where those three buildings would be placed as it stands and the access would be provided only for those three buildings through Rand Barn Boulevard. And here is, I'm just using building A as an example because rest of the building has similar design and elevations. The proposed architecture features for this site is for all the buildings is a center Barbara Mediterranean Spanish revival style. The main architectural features in the building designs include light color stock wall, red tile roof, exposed beams, rounded arches and courtyards and the use of Juliet and full balconies. Proposed materials would include iron railing, decorative accents, tile accents, concrete tile roofs, and light color stucco and dark colored wall and trim accents. Buildings have been designed to set with the natural grade of the site, ranging in high from approximately 40 feet to 55 feet. And here are the elevations for building A with the covered parking garages on the first floor. And here is perspective view for these three buildings from Rand Barn where the entrance will be placed. And here is another perspective from Antengro Parkway and another perspective that is going to be from the Mendocino Avenue. And building B, which I mentioned, this is the largest building on the site. This building would include a total of 114 residential units within a proposed five-story structure. The grand floor would include a parking garage with 119 parking spaces. The also the grand floor garage also would include 29 bicycle parking spaces, 24 private storage spaces, leasing room, lobby, mail office and electrical and pool equipment areas. The second floor would include an additional 64 parking spaces and would also include private storage spaces. And also the third, second floor. Sorry, there are too many floors here. I'm trying to keep track of them. The second floor includes a spinning pool, barbecue area, a community room and exercise rooms. So as we can see, this is the largest room and it provides lots of outdoor, common and private spaces for the future tenants. The applicant and the architects are available today and they can go into more detail if there are any questions. And here is a picture from the existing site where the proposed building B will be placed. Here is another view from the site. And these are the elevations for building B. The lower elevation is from Mendocino Avenue. As you can see, our spaces are provided on the lower level and the maximum height is for five-story building. And here are the elevations from the site and the rear side of the building. And here is a perspective for building B at the almost at the corner of Mendocino Avenue and Fanting Grove. And here is building E. This building would include a total of 66 residential units within the proposed four-story structure. Also, the grand floor includes a parking garage with 59 parking spaces, a bicycle parking room with 24 spaces and 12 private storage spaces will also be included on the first floor and a lobby, mail and electrical equipment rooms. The second floor would also include another lobby area. And this building also provides a private outdoor space. As you can see here is on the left side between two structures. And here is the picture of the site where this building would be placed. And here are the elevations for the proposed building E. Again, the applicant can go over the detail if there are any questions. And lastly, here is the building F that will include 17 residential units within a three-story structure. There are no covered vehicle parking proposed for this building. A bicycle room that will provide six bicycle parking spaces also will be located on the grand floor for this building. To access this building there is, so just let me say this one that the site already has an emergency vehicle access that was from Hilton hotel coming to Fountain Grove Hotel. And here is the road, as you can see. This project is proposing to widen and improve this emergency access road that will also provide access to building F. And here are the elevations for the three-story building F. And here is a perspective for this building F from the site. And above the landscape plans, so here is the proposed landscape palette that includes trees, shrubs, grand cover and grasses with very low to moderate water usage. In addition to the existing oaks on site, three different species of oak trees are proposed to be added to the landscape as a part of this project. And there are total of 38 oak trees proposed. Common spaces are situated near exosinatic oak trees which will be preserved also as a part of this project. Just to mention that this building is within the high fire area, this project. So each building has a 30-foot defensible space set back and all planting with this area account for canopy spacing to ensure fire safety. So the applicant will maintain that fire distance because the project site is within the fire area. And above the project history, so a neighborhood meeting was held on March 2020. And then there was a concept design review that was presented with the design review board on June 4, 2020. In general, the design review board highly appreciated the project and they overall liked it. They had good comments about it. Some of the comments were like at a restaurant or like a commercial spaces, but the applicant response was like, it's not visible to provide restaurants on site. There were other comments that they would suggest the applicant to go over those comments and explain how they were answered. But again, I just want to say that the design review board highly appreciated the proposed project. And about SIKWA, so this project has been also reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Implementation of the project is within the scope of the general plan and associated environmental impacts were previously reviewed in the general plan EIR. The environmental checklist for streamlined review prepared for the project demonstrate that construction and operation of the project is within the scope of the center of the general plan EIR certified by the city of Santa Rosa in 2009. And it concludes that the project will not result in new or more severe significant impacts that were not previously identified and mitigated in the general plan EIR and no substantive new mitigation measures would be required for implementation of the project. And the project is required to implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in the EIR as well as applicable policies and implementation measures contained in the cities. Adopted general plan intended to reduce environmental impacts which have been imposed as the environmental condition of approval and they are attached with the resolution. And about public comments, so I will try to give a summary of the comments we have received from the time this project was notified from the beginning neighborhood meeting. So one of the main comments were about that future housing in this area would increase the traffic. So the applicant has provided a focus traffic study that is prepared by WTrans and WTrans is also available tonight if there are any questions they can address it. The report concludes that the proposed project would generate 78 additional trips daily, 27 more trips during the morning peak hour and only 11 more trips during the evening peak hours. And the project would not result in unsafe traffic conditions. Additionally, the proposed project would dedicate right of way along along Fentanyl Parkway Frontage for the future construction by the city for an additional best handling. There was a question about whether this project is providing affordable housing on the site and the applicant has not proposed any affordable housing on site. It's a market rate project. And there was a question about if the applicant is providing any evacuation plan and permanent generators on the site for emergency situation. The applicant has provided an evacuation plan which has been reviewed by our fire department and also generators are provided in building B for emergency, like an emergency fire emergency situation. The applicant can explain it for if there are any more questions. There was one comment about accessing building A, B and C is unacceptable and not safe. So fire department has reviewed the project and they didn't add second access for those building and no additional comments or conditions were added. Also, there was comment received about Santa Barbara design style is not appropriate for Santa Rosa Sonoma Canyon. So as I mentioned in the previous one of the previous slides, the project was reviewed by the design review board as a concept item and it was appreciated. And it was welcome by the design review board, some additional comments were provided. I just want to mention that on Friday I have received another email about this project. I will give you a brief summary of the comments. The project also had concern about the traffic, which I mentioned that the traffic study has prepared for this project. Also, it was a question about that the overpass on highway 101 is not sufficient and I have received comment from our traffic division Nancy, she can go over those comments. It's in the city's planning future to work on the overpass on highway 101. And what okay, and then a question was about what is going like what happens with the impact is and where where is their use audited. I told this person to review chapter 202 inclusionary housing. In that chapter it explains where does impact the go and how it's being used. And then another question was that people would be living and decide would be impacted by noise, by no noise air and carbon pollution from the freeway, as well as Fountain Grove Parkway Mendocino Avenue. And how do we plan to mitigate the medical and everyday effects that's situated, not mentioned in journeys and apartment traffic. So the staff responses that the impacts of the environmental on the project are not considered environmental impacts on their sequel. In one however environmental contingent approval are included for this project for the air quality and noise. And they are requesting that the applicant incorporate a higher filtration for building the and if and reduce interior noise by requiring the installation of forced air mechanical ventilation and installation of the sand rated windows for building a B and E and require review and confirmation of interior noise levels by a qualified acoustical special during the final design phase of the project. And with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approved the Fountain Grove in multiple family rental housing project for a proposed 239 unit developments located at 3586 Mendocino Avenue. Our number PRG 20 dash 021, which they have two planning entitlements minor design review and for me. And that was my presentation I'm available to answer questions. I know the applicant team and the architects are also available to answer questions if there are any. Thank you. Thank you. Michelle colleague for a very thorough presentation. That was helpful. Just to clarify the applicant doesn't have a presentation or any comments just available for questions. applicant doesn't have any presentation but if they want to provide any comments. If the applicant for this project and please use the raise hand feature and just confirm if you'd like to make any comments. Otherwise I can move into questions that may be appropriate for you or Michelle colleague. So it looks like we have Justin Heyman Justin I'm going to send a prompt and you'll, if you answer the prompt should enable your sound. Yes, thank you this is Justin Heyman we don't have any comment at this time. Okay, thank you so much. I do have a few questions but before I get into those. We do have Vice Chair birch he's vice chair of the design review board and he is available to make some comments regarding the board's concept review of this item. So, it looks like he's ready to go here I'll let him speak thanks. This is Michael birch I am the Vice Chair of the design of you board. I did not see this project originally, but I have watched the tapes and read the minutes and just was going to give a quick briefing as to the design of you comments. For me, it feels like most of those comments have been considered or thought about a couple of comments that were a little bit. And I think this is already addressed a bit in Planner Chicago's discussion, a couple of comments that were a little bit off of the design review topic for the consideration of retail, I throw it out there I understand that it may or may not be workable, and also paying homage to the round barn and burn structures or the fire and certainly appears as though there's some, there's some thought around that so that's great. A couple of comments, maybe one from the board one from the public about the architectural style. Being appropriate or not, I throw that in there I think, I think the project is quite attractive and I think it was a really limited comment from design review. I do know that there were a few comments from design review about kind of owning the fact that hillside is a unique setting and working with that from a landscape design standpoint. In the course of that perhaps adding more walking areas and maybe some some pockets for residents to hang out or do things using vines and landscaping that the ground plan to break up massing I know that's a fine balance between how much landscaping you want to plant and how much defensible area there is. One comment from an architectural standpoint that probably resonated the most was making sure that the buildings were foresighted it's part of our design guidelines. I recognize that due to grades and some other things that elevations can be a bit tricky, but between architecture and landscape we want to make sure that we don't have elevations of the building or views to the site that present less than you have to fully developed architectural design, we don't want flat surfaces or blanks or backs or that sort of thing. Those those were a handful of the comments that came from design review and I would be happy to answer any questions if Amy has some or if the applicant does as well regarding the current design which I've reviewed as well so. Vice Chair Birch. I don't have any questions for you at this time but I'm going to ask a few questions of staff and also the applicant. And so I may might come back to you but really appreciate that summary. One of my questions relates to the parking and the site plan so I understand that there's a request for a, I believe it's a 9% parking reduction. I reviewed the parking analysis that was prepared by WTrans. I don't have any questions about the parking reduction my question is related to the number of spaces that are adjacent to the various buildings. Ms. Shea Colley it might be helpful if you can screen share the site plan and perhaps if the applicant can talk through a little bit about just related to the number of parking spaces provided and sort of which, which buildings those parking spaces would be allocated for. I saw that there was a kind of parking management blurb attached to a public comment. So like one of my questions is the parking lot that's just north of building D but it's not, it's just surrounded by trees. If those are kind of envisioned to provide parking for tenants of a particular building and just sort of how, how you thought about where the parking would be provided relative to the units. I would refer that question referred to the applicant team so they can answer how many parkings are dedicated outside around the buildings. Maybe Justin they can answer it. And you can I, Mr. Heyman I think you should have speaking permissions if you just press the unmute button. I sent a prompt as well but once we do the sound check it should be pretty smooth. Are you able to send another prompt. Oh, it looks to be okay now. Yeah, perfect. Thank you. Yes, hi this is Justin I believe our architect Lori Felbert wanted to take this one. Thank you. I don't. Let's see. Oh, there it is. Okay. I'm sending a prompt. For you. Did that work okay. Yeah, we can hear you. Thank you. Thank you. First off, thank you money. Very thorough presentation in terms of the parking as a as a hillside development. The vision that we developed in conjunction. What we're working with staff was that this was a holistic community and the the great analysis that was presented illustrates what we're working with on the site so we really tried to get as much parking adjacent to the buildings as we could that small area of parking. And that you noted is just surrounded by trees is probably going to function as overflow, particularly given the parking analysis provided by W trans. And so we're not necessarily saying that's exactly for one building or the other, usually on projects of the scale particularly with the numbers that they were giving us for what they thought the parking demand would be is significantly lower than what we're providing for only a 9% reduction. There was quite a bit of room for reduction in there that they noted. So that parking will get used as as the as the tenants move in as the community really starts to get its legs under it and develops who's going to live here and what their lifestyle is so we don't necessarily have that particular lot as well it's only going to be for this. It's really part of the evolution but it all adds to the the totals for the community. Yes, that's, it's helpful to know that that there isn't an assignment of spaces, you know, in lots to different buildings. The reason that I asked about it was just thinking about pedestrian circulation and safety on the site. So if somebody parks in that, that lot north of building D, but they're trying to get to building F. I noted that there aren't any sidewalks and I realized that it's a steep slope there and we're up against a property line as well on the kind of on that northern section I'm just wondering if there's an opportunity or if you've thought about how pedestrians move from that parking lot to other buildings for example if they weren't just going to building D or E. Yeah, and you know, between that that parking area and building F to your to your point I mean that's really a continuation of the parking lot. As a, we've reviewed this with fire and with with building and as a an emergency vehicle access it doesn't go anywhere except to your own homes. And so there's no through traffic on that it's really kind of like walking through the parking lot so you're exactly correct we are very limited by the hillside. We did investigate looking at putting in some more connectivity across the site unfortunately to get it to meet ADA standards it would look like a bomb went off on the site by the time we were done. And so we aren't really able to do as much connection as we'd like, just because of the nature of the landform, and we didn't want to just grade the entire hillside to where it looked like such an industrialized setting for people to live in. Sure, I can understand that thank you for those comments and I thought maybe I read something about a golf cart. Maybe being stationed in in that parking lot or, and maybe building D to help with circulation. Yeah, I think you're, that was an operational element that ownership is is providing it's, I'm not answering that part because it's not an architectural component, but yes. Okay. Thank you for your response. And go ahead Mr. Heyman. Can you hear me now. Yes. Okay. Thank you yeah so we are planning to have two four seat golf carts, and we are going to station one near building F, and then one down in the building the garage which is the hub so residents that need to get between the two areas will have a safe path to travel that way. Okay, great thank you. I did note, I believe Vice Chair birch mentioned this and I, I also saw it in a public comment and noticed it myself and I think that mission colleague, probably presented a good explanation as it relates to defensible space but there are a few elevations where there are some blank walls. Because someone, and perhaps the architect is the best to address this, maybe describe in those particular areas that you've explored different options and none of those would, none of those landscape options would work because of just defensible space requirements. And also, is there any, are there any cases where there's some existing. Oak trees that are on site because I do see some of those as kind of shadows. Yeah, on these renderings. Can you still hear me or am I muted again. I can hear you. Oh, perfect. Yeah, we, we actually did work with the designer view board and talk through which of the areas and so the, the trees are shadowed so you can actually see the architecture but there are trees in front of all of those areas. To the left of this there is a grove of mature oaks that it's kind of the left of this bottom building here. And you look into them between the two buildings in the back but yeah so even though they're defensible space the landscape plans actually updated and showed trees in those areas so I think we've addressed all of those locations. Okay. Great. Thank you. I think that concludes my one final question mission colleague I noted that you described one piece of late correspondence that wasn't summarizing your presentation. So it was just limited to that one and that was what was, I believe I saw that included as late correspondence on the agenda. Correct, there was one received on Friday from let me give the name from this person named Pat, Pat is declare. She provided comments, and some of the questions were answered by the applicant above affordability. She sent two emails and the second one came in on Friday. So I believe it was not included in your late correspondence. So I just tried to give a brief summary of what the comments were. Okay, thank you. Okay, so with that I will go ahead and open the public hearing for this item. If you wish to make a comment please use the raise hand feature on zoom or press star nine on your phone. Okay, I'm not seeing any hands being raised. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item. So I have reviewed the resolution so that the actions before the zoning administrator today for this project are design review a health side development permit. And then the design review also includes some findings for the parking reduction of 9%. I appreciate all the findings I think that they're, they're well supported and I also want to mention that I reviewed the the secret document and comparison with the city's current general plan EIR and I appreciate that level of analysis for this project. I did want to ask if miss Adams our transportation transportation planner has any, any comments that she'd like to provide as it relates to traffic and circulation just because I know that that was mentioned by a few members of the public. So, so thank you Amy I, I think. Mr colleague did a great overview of the project including the, the traffic and I will. And by the way I'm Nancy Adams with the transportation and public works department and the traffic engineering team. And so just, you know, I think the main thing operationally that we wanted to make sure that we secured from this applicant was the right away so that we could eventually at some time have enough room to add an additional westbound left turn laying there at that intersection of found grove and Mendocino and which, which the applicant will be providing as part of their, you know, working with the city. So, I think that's, you know, that that was a pretty significant help for us operationally at that that intersection so I don't really have anything else to add I thought when they did a great job. Thanks. Great, thank you. I do have one additional question it actually relates to the round barn. Feature. Mr shake all if you wouldn't mind, can you screen share that section. I just want to get a little bit of clarity on that design and ask a process related question to. And I would also suggest the architect, go into more detail if there are any. Let me see where is. Okay. Here, this one on the left side. The location is at this corner, and this would be the design structure. Okay, and what is, what's the height I'm sorry I've seen the max proposed 16. Okay, and it's, it's fully outside of any vision triangle, correct. Okay. And then, just so I'm more fully understand the design so it's not a full circle it's, it's half circle correct here and then what is, what is the other side look like that the side that just shows as open as is it going to actually be closed or is it going to be open and what does the material look like on the other side and the architect can answer to. Sure, I've unmuted can you hear me again. Yes. Great, thank you. Yeah, so basically what it is is it allows you to see the structure on the inside as well. So it's not trying to be a complete building and we're not walling off that side, but it allows you to see the components of how the roof is held up the trust work all of that element that that created the original round barn it obviously everything is scaled down. But we felt like it gave a really nice view to it and then there's going to be a plaque outside more towards the public sidewalk that it gives a little bit of the history the round barn. Great. Thank you. Okay, so that should conclude my questions on this item. Oh, I see the vice chairs hand being raised. I just I had I'm fascinated by the round barn. Recognition, I wonder if you thought about turning this the other direction so that all of the 10s and hundreds of thousands of car trips actually saw the interior and saw that support system and that sort of thing just just interesting thoughts so you know the public visibility was always to the outside. And so we wanted to continue with the visual that was more to the public because it was private property before people couldn't just go in it. And so we felt like that was, it might be interesting for for those of us who are architects or construction folks but I think from a general public standpoint and a memorable the outside form is more pleasing probably to most of the most of the public. Yeah, excellent. Bear with me I'm just pulling up the draft resolution of approval here. So as I mentioned earlier I think the findings. I agree with each of the findings for design review I feel like the applicants have done a good job of addressing comments from the design review board so that's certainly appreciated that's why we want, or actually we require that these projects go to concept review so thank you for taking those comments seriously. I don't have any concerns about granting the parking reduction given the site's location within one of our priority development areas. We want to encourage this type of land use in these areas that have more access to transit and also there are more services available nearby. As it relates to the hillside development permit I agree I think there were some comments made about the project design being sensitive to the the topography and and I agree I think just the the breaking up of the massing and how the buildings are placed, like the heights are related to the natural grade I think really does help to minimize the visual impact. And appreciate the largest buildings being on the the flattest part of the site that was previously developed. And also that a lot of the trees will be preserved as well and provide some some screening and just make it appear more, more natural so just quickly looking at the conditions of approval thank you for adding in the requirement to comply with the environmental requirements that were cited in the secret document. And also for including the engineering development services conditions. So, with that, I will approve this project so the design review and the hillside development permit. And just a note to those listening this action is appealable 10 days following today's decision so that would be June 23, which is a Thursday. So if you would like to file an appeal please contact contact Michelle Kali and she can help you out with that effort. And thank you to everyone who attended to support this item. Appreciate your time. So, we're ready to move on to item 5.2. This is a public hearing for 701 Wilson Street and this is also minor design review and the presentation today will be given by deputy director Jones. Okay, great. Thank you and give me one moment while I get my PowerPoint pulled up here. All right, good afternoon zoning administrator Nicholson. I am Jessica Jones the deputy director for our planning division. Connor McKay is a project planner for this project but he is out of town so I will be presenting it for him today. The project is the Pullman locks face to project, which is proposing to construct 40 residential units on a five story in a five story multifamily development. This includes a floor a ratio of 2.19. The project also includes 5% of the units or two of those units designated for affordable households. The project features four units and five tuck under parking spaces on the ground floor, and then on floors two through five there would be nine units each on each of the floors. And those units would range in size from about 414 feet square feet to 625 square feet so pretty small units. These for building C will be provided and shared by the Pullman phase one portion of this project which is on the north end of the site. I'll show you in just a moment. And that project is currently under construction. Those amenities include a dog run a car wash or excuse me not a car wash a dog wash a pool area gym, bike storage office, a conference room and a community lounge. The project site that is located at 701 Wilson Street so it's a long skinny site that's located on the east side of the rail line. The existing phase one project that is currently under construction is on the northern end of this site so this this area obviously was taken prior to the construction of the of the new portion. So that's happening, like I said on the northern end, and the proposed project will be down here on the southern end. So the project is designated by our general plan in the neighborhood mixed use designation. The maximum floor area ratio which is how we look at density in this in the downtown area. The maximum for this parcel is for this is established by the downtown stationary specific plan which was recently adopted by Council, given the size of this lot, and the overall square footage for both phases. The total floor area ratio for the project as a whole is 1.34 so well below the maximum of four. The project is within the downtown stationary specific plan, which is also one of our priority development areas or PDA for short, and the site is zoned neighborhood commercial mixed use which is consistent with the general plan land use designation. In accordance with the zoning code similar to the last project that the that we heard because this project is within the PDA. The design code allows for a reduced review authority so rather than going through the designer view board for action. The project can come before the zoning administrator. However, concept design review by the designer view board is required, as with the previous project. So the designer view board reviewed this particular project in January of 2022. And similar to the last project, we've got Vice Chair birch here from the designer view board, who will go over the comments that were provided by the board at that time, and I'll go into them and a little bit myself. The project is on the east side of the west end preservation district, which is one of the city's preservation districts. And on the far side of the smart train railway as I mentioned already. However, the project is not located within the preservation district. And as a result of that that just the review by the cultural heritage board was not required. I just want to note that there is no parking requirement for this site as established by the downtown stationary specific plan. However, however, the project does propose to provide five parking spaces, including one electric vehicle charging station. And then additional parking will be shared with phase one for this project, which includes new parking along Wilson street. So these next two slides are showing the elevations of the proposed building. This is looking northeast from 8th street. And then this is looking west from Wilson street. And then this is the floor plan for ground floor as I mentioned that there are parking spaces on the ground floor, along with four units. And then this is a sample of the upper floors, which have lines. So a little bit of project history so the project was reviewed through a neighborhood meeting on January 12 of this year. There were a number of comments received during that meeting. Overall, there was support for multifamily residential at this location. And then there were several questions that were received that staff has provided responses to go through those quickly. First question was regarding the density of the project and whether there could be additional density added. And staff's response was that the project could be more dense, but that this was the most cost effective solution for the site and the project. And then there was a significant height that is appropriate for this location. Next question was why there was no retail proposed as part of this project. Staff's response was that the applicant is a primarily a residential developer and intends to maximize the residential units at this site to attract and support future retail uses in the general area around this site. They were also located in neighborhood mixed use land use area, which will allow for other retail land uses by rights in the immediate area. And then as far as concerns that were heard at the meeting they mostly were revolving around traffic and parking. Staff's response to those concerns that were raised is that the applicants presentation at that time described how the project's location transit oriented development and target residential market are anticipated to result in reduced reliance on cars, which will result in a reduced traffic and parking demand. And also the pollen phase one project, which is currently under construction includes 17 about 17 new parking spaces on Wilson street. And then as mentioned, the project was reviewed in concept by the design review board and that happened in January of this year. The board provided numerous comments which are listed here. Just in general, there was support by the board for the project in response to the comments that are listed here on the slide. The applicant did make some revisions to the project. And those included the electric vehicle charging station was relocated to a more central location. The applicant has replaced the previously proposed lap siding at the corner of Wilson and eight street with gray stucco to provide greater continuity on the eastern facade. The applicant has added additional stucco color to the body of the of each building to provide more color vibrancy and achieve greater color consistency with Coleman lots phase one. They have provided the window design and introduce new color to the window treatment and provided more continuous vertical articulation to break up the flatter southern building facade. They've also relocated the rooftop equipment to minimize visibility from the public right of way. And then additional vertical landscape trellises have been added on the eastern building facade and a decorative pot has been proposed at the building entrance located outside of the public right of way. There was a request for modification of one of the design standards which was submitted to the city and considered by the director, which is the option that is provided by our municipal code specifically for projects that are complying with the city's inclusionary housing ordinance by providing onsite affordability. So as I mentioned, the beginning of the presentation the applicant is providing 5% of the units or two units as affordable to low income households, which is 80% of the area medium income. Those are going to be onsite units. But the applicant is entitled to concessions within our inclusionary housing ordinance. So their request was to modify the front setback on the street frontage from the required five to 12 feet setback to zero. And this was reviewed by the director of the planning and economic development department and approved pursuant to our son. The project was reviewed in compliance with the California environmental quality act or sequel, and was found to qualify for a statutory exemption under secret guidelines section 15182 in that the project is consistent, or excuse me, consists of residential and is consistent with the adopted downtown stationary specific plan for which a final subsequent EIR was prepared and certified by the city council in October of 2020. And the consistency analysis which was prepared by M group, dated June of 2022 supported this finding. So we have received numerous letters for this project. We've gotten three letters of support are listed here we actually received an additional fourth letter support today. That additional letter of support was just talking about general support for multifamily housing and particularly these smaller type units in this location. We also received a couple letters of concern. The, the first letter of concern was regarding the fact that they felt that the units. There's insufficient units that are designed for affordable households. So the reason that housing does not work to alleviate the region's housing crisis. As mentioned one, this project is providing much smaller units than we typically see for, for bigger projects so I'm pretty small, about between four and 500 square feet. And then also the on site inclusionary housing will provide on site units for affordability. And the other letter of concern that was received was expression concern again regarding the parking. And as mentioned, this site is not required to provide parking, but they are on this particular in this particular phase and then also there's additional on being provided in the first phase of the project. And then also would also note the projects, nearness to various public transit including the downtown smart station which which is a walking distance of the site. So with that, the planning and economic development department recommends that the zoning administrator by resolution approved the pulmon loss phase two project, allowing the construction of a new five story structure to accommodate 40 multifamily units located at 701 Wilson street. So I am available for questions we also have the applicant here and I believe that they have a presentation, which I'm happy to share when they are ready. Thank you so much Deputy Director Jones does the applicant. Okay, I see a hand raised so Miss Jones if you're ready. I would like to see the applicant presentation next thank you. Okay, I will get this going here. Okay, so I think that when the applicants ready. Good evening, zoning administrator Nicholson, I appreciate the opportunity here. My name is Lauren Brigham and I'm president and co owner of Phoenix development company. I'm going to make this really quickly because I think Ms Jones did a very good job of walking through the project. And I think that it would probably be more conducive for me to just be available to answer questions. I do have also available I believe online. Marvin Moss our architect. Justin Heath, our landscape architect and I believe Ron Sansos our civil engineer is available. This is an aerial view you can see off to the right there. What we call buildings A and B that are currently under construction ready to occupy this August. And basically what this we call building C which is actually could be some people call phase to some call building C what it is actually the book and and and the completion of this side of the Wilson Street redevelopment. The character that has been employed through this whole project is probably trying to emulate some of the industrial look in the area, and to simplify and and create some vibrancy along Wilson Street then and basically recover for the neighborhood property that was an eyesore in its previous condition. One one quick point about Mr Jones comments on the unit sizes. You know we're also at Phoenix we we have our feet in both sides of the market and affordable market. We recently completed button flats over on third and in Dutton, and that project is a light tech project designated for families at 60% or less of a MI. There was over 1600 people on the interest list. Many were turned away because they made too much money and over qualified. And that's kind of been a target market that my partner Michelle Olson and I have been looking at for a couple of years now is how to make something affordable for what is getting to be known as a missing middle. And so that this project is designed to fit that marketplace and it's basically that's why we downsize units, the cost of constructions is extremely high. And it's probably the highest it's been in years, and to get the correct amount of investment and return and to pencil out for our lenders. We're able to, but still charge rents that are are attainable for those people in this missing middle market. What are the next slide please. Team. That's us next. And there's our design group next. We can go next. You see the site you did all that fine next. There are changes that basically we've incorporated based on our both our community meeting and our design concept review with the design review board. We took into account as many of the suggestions and you can see it in the final result. Next. Next. I think you've seen all of this, you know, honestly, I think Ms. Nicholson I think maybe the best thing to do would be to open it up and to first get the chairman on here and let him make his comments and then get some community feedback and then let myself and my team respond to questions. I think everything else we're going to see here is fairly redundant of what Miss Jones very elegantly a display previous to this. So at that I'll unmute and I'll let you do what you want to do. Thank you so much. I appreciate the suggestion and, and so I'll ask the vice chair if he's able to make some some comments at this time. Yeah, this is Michael birch vice chair of design and view board. Like, as Lauren said, Jessica wrapped up the comments from the designer view board very clearly had pretty much the same bullet points. And then there were some items that she listed, including some, some, you know, articulation color facade questions, the EV charging, working on the base of the building a little bit screening the mechanical equipment. Those were all of the comments that we had as well. And then I think it's really, really hats off to you Lauren to the development team to design team. I just shared at the end and what I've seen in looking at the updated package. You guys, you know, basically hit every one of those points responded and the design has improved as a result so from my perspective and the designer view board I think this was an excellent response to the comments that we made and we appreciate the collaboration and your ongoing work in Santa Rosa. Thank you so much vice chair birch really appreciate those comments. And so, I don't think I have any, any questions right now but what I'd like to do is open the public hearing portion so if you wish to make a comment on this item please use the raise hand feature on zoom. Give it a few seconds here. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing portion of this item. And I guess I do have, I appreciate, I'll just say I appreciate the presentation how you talked about how the comments from the board were addressed and how the vice chair reiterated that that's that's really helpful, especially reviewing this project after the board has seen it so I can cross that question off. I saw that there's two, two units that are to be made available for a low income households. So are these deed restricted units. Yes, so as required by our code. In order to be considered compliant with our inclusion housing ordinance they will be required to be deed restricted at that low income rate. Great thank you. And then lastly, I did say I had a note because there was some late correspondence that came in this afternoon and you were able to describe that in your presentation, there's nothing additional. Any additional comments that came in today. Okay. Thank you. Just taking a final look at the draft resolution of approval so this is for minor design review. And I did review the consistency checklist that was prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. I appreciate how concise it was just in showing that this project is consistent with the downtown station area specific plan. I also noted because I was present at the design review board meeting back in January, how the project had changed just really quickly seeing the new plans and appreciate the incorporation of some of the colors that I think related. Well to the existing or under construction pulmon loss. And I agree with each of the findings that are included in this draft resolution. So, with that, I'll go ahead and approve this resolution for minor design review. And please note that that action is appealable so Thursday June 23 would be the appeal deadline for today's action. So that concludes item 5.2. And we can move on to our last item which is item number six. Thank you all for attending and please note the appeal period. If you have any questions, please contact the project planner. Thanks all for your time. Thank you.