 Chair Jones-Carter, it's 430 and we are ready to get started whenever you are It is 4 30 p.m. And I'm calling this meeting of the design review board to order Recording secretary, can you please call roll? board member cook here board member lip-tack board member Sharon here board member with rich is absent vice chair Weigel here Chair Jones-Carter present let the record reflect that all board members are present with the exception of board member with rich item 2 approval of minutes October 19th 23 draft minutes does anyone have any changes to the minutes if No changes the minutes for October 19th are approved as submitted Recording secretary. Do we have any public comment? If you're attending in person and wish to make a comment, please make your way to the podium Chair Jones-Carter. I'm seeing nobody make their way to the podium. So we have no public comment. Thank you I'd like to Before we start talk about a little process clarification that I'd like to make So I want to clarify our discussion after a motion has been made I Would like the process to be more democratic So each of us will have an opportunity to suggest conditions or State our concerns But as a board we will need to support each condition condition So no single person can oppose a condition as stated Are you all in agreement with that? Do we need some discussion? I Need a little discussion If you don't mind I just I don't think I Can can you give a scenario? If you I'm sorry like how so the process that's going to come forward today as We after the motion has been made and approved when we do our discussion and We think that conditions should be made you would state your condition We as a board Either support that condition or deny it for it to move forward and it has to be a majority of us So there's discussion on that Which I think some people would welcome Thank you. I guess I I'm curious about also a bit more context about why this is necessary to change just because I miss the previous Meeting so I'm not sure if that's part of that, but in just wondering how Different it is from our current it feels like a more democratic process than you stating one thing and everybody else saying okay, that's fine But we're a board so it should be a decision that the board is making so not an individual So so we'll we will vote on each condition correct Okay, or we'll discuss each condition to see if we if the if it has support Okay Yeah, I I'm I'm I'm certainly fine with the discussing all conditions, but um, I I'm just curious how much time that will add to our our discussions and our meetings and if it is a It shouldn't be any more than we previously had because I mean the discussions have been pretty robust around conditions, so As of late so we're formalizing we're gonna Vote and approve or deny every condition correct Okay, all right moving on Item three public comment. We are now taking public comment on item three non-agenda matters This is the time when any person may address the board on matters not listed on this agenda But which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee Recording secretary. Can you please provide instructions to the public? If you're attending in person and wish to make a comment, please make your way to the podium Chair Jones Carter, I'm not saying anyone making their way to the podium. Thank you public comment is closed item 4.1 statement of purpose zoning code chapter 20 dash 5 2 point 030 f project review the review authority shall consider the location design site plan configuration and the overall effect of the proposed project Upon surrounding properties in the city in general Review shall be conducted by comparing the proposed project to the general plan any applicable specific plan applicable zoning code standards and requirements Consistency of the project within the city's design guidelines architectural criteria for special areas and other applicable city requirements Item 4.2 board member reports. Are there any board member reports? No, thank you Item 4.3 there is none item 5 department reports Amy and Monet Thank You chair Jones Carter and good evening members of the board just a few Kind of quick logistical items one. I wanted to welcome crystal Camp she is newer to our department and she will be acting as the recording secretary for this board So, thank you crystal I Think all of you know this but I'm going out on leave. So this will be my last meeting Intel June And so in that period of time Monet she callie. She's a senior planner sitting there She'll be serving a staff liaison. So you'll be in in great hands with Monet and crystal We do have a meeting planned for December 21st. I believe there are two items confirmed for that meeting and so just I know it is close to The holidays if you know, you won't be able to attend Especially because we have a vacant seat if you can please let crystal know as soon as possible That would be very helpful And that concludes my report. Thank you have any public comment on item 5 Chair Jones Carter. I'm not saying anyone make their way to the podium Thank you Item 6 statements of extension. Are there any abstentions on item 8.1? I will abstain from item 8.1 Thank you Item 7 consent items we have none Item 8 scheduled items. We're moving on to the first scheduled item Item 8.1 public hearing heritage commerce center major design review zero north point Parkway dr 23-008 Presented by Suzanne Hartman Thanks again, and I neglected to introduce Suzanne Hartman She's been a city planner with us for about a year and a half and this is her first presentation to this board So welcome to Suzanne to before we start. Are there any ex parteed disclosures on this item? Okay, Suzanne Hello, good evening And yes, it's nice to officially meet you all in person here I am presenting the heritage commerce center also known as the designer of the application 23-008 The applicant proposes to develop an approximately 74,949 square foot industrial building also known as heritage commerce center with approximately 9268 square feet of stormwater retention zones and the landscaping including the stormwater retention areas Are supposed to be completed with low to moderate water use plants that are appropriate to the site We have a little bit of a project history here. There was a neighborhood meeting conducted As well as a concept design review Which I will kind of I have a slide separate from this that kind of goes over the comments that were set at that meeting We also took this application to the waterways advisory committee On May 25th, and I also have a slide with some comments for that as well This is the aerial view of the project site as you can see here. It is two parcels and Then I'll zoom in here and these are existing site photos and here's kind of a another view without the star there the project site contains some grass and shrub vegetation in the northern and southern portions and a strip of impervious pavement towards the center of The site which was served as an airport runway for the no longer active Santa Rosa Air Center And to the north North point north point Parkway contains no pedestrian walkways But provides to vehicle lanes and a bicycle lane in each direction With a separator in between the travel directions This is the site from Street View one is the top portions off of north point Parkway and then the bottom photo is from the Mariner Mariner way, I was about to say Parkway my apologies All right, the general plan land use designation is general industry and the zoning district is IG also known as general industrial the the IG zoning district is consistent with the general industry land use classification of the general plan and The zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for industrial and manufacturing activities warehousing wholesaling and distributionary uses The surrounding parcels we have a general industry to the north as well as to the east and then business park to the west and then to the south we have some residential and open space use the Sorry the open space zoning district is consistent with and implements the parks and recreation land use classification of the general plan and the PD to plan development residential district is intended to recognize the advantage that Integrated community offers over conventional zoning techniques And it helps implement General plan goals through specific site developments. This is the proposed site plan And as you can kind of see here, I know it's a little blurry, but the loading docks are facing to the west Which is a little bit further away from the southern residential neighborhood. These are the proposed elevations The architectural design for the industrial building would be a type of VB construction Sitecast tilted concrete panels with a variety of enhancements The typical wall panels would be enhanced with reveals and a textured Elastomeric multicolored coating system the areas around the building and trees would also be enhanced with tinted glazing and aluminum frames With overhead steel framed painted canopies Zoning code section to zero dash three zero dot zero four zero also known as creekside development Zoning code section requires minimum setbacks from waterways for new structures to provide reasonable protection to owners of riparian property and the public from the hazards of stream bank failures and flooding while allowing owners of the property near waterways reasonable use of land or reasonable use and Opportunity to improve their properties consistent with general safety Due to this property being surrounded by existing structures that were developed in compliance with applicable setback Requirements that were in effect prior to September 3rd 2004 the creek setback is 30 feet and This proposal is in compliance with that 30 foot setback. This is the proposed landscape plan There's a variety of trees and plants listed here, and I'll just name off a few They're proposing strawberry trees coast live oaks Chinese pistach California lilacs and purple sage to name a few So these were the comments that were provided during the concept of a concept design review meeting There was much appreciation for the proposed color and look of the warehouse design and Overall it seemed that the proposed the proposed design of the warehouse was consistent with the surrounding industrial area on May 25th 2023 the planning and economic development department requested that the waterways advisory committee Advise the design review board as to whether the project is consistent with the applicable citywide Creek master plan journal plan goals and policies and desired guidelines for development near waterways their Comment was more about considering about Transparency between the property as well as the neighboring Creek To encourage kind of them I guess more like open design there are no unresolved issues remaining with the project and staff had received only one comment a Phone call and it was generally a concern about the development not fitting in with the area Currently there is no proposed use for this warehouse But as the design stands Staff made the findings that the design was consistent with the surrounding area as there are warehouses adjacent to this property So pursuant to zoning code section to zero dash five two dot zero three zero The design review board must make the following findings before granting approval of a design review permit And these are the required findings continued the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California environmental Authority acts and the and qualifies for a streamlining measure pursuant to sequence section one five one eight three Section one five one eight three of the sequel guidelines mandates That projects which are consistent with the development density Established by existing zoning community plan or general plan policies for which a final environmental impact report was certified Shall not require additional environmental review Except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project specific Significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site So it is therefore recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the design review board by resolution Approve the design review application for the heritage comms Commerce Center project located at zero north point Parkway thank you and the Applicant is also in the room if you have any further questions for them as well. Is there an applicant? presentation as well There is no presentation. Okay Thank you I Would like to open public hearing on this item. Do we have any public comment? Chair Jones Carter. I'm not seeing anyone make their way to the podium Thank you, I'd like to close public comment public hearing. Sorry Are there any questions of the board or staff or applicant? I had a question I Had been looking for it and was looking again today, but A fence detail. Do we have a fence detail in the plan set? I miss that we do not have a Detail of the sound wall or I'm sorry of the fence. Okay. Thank you Vic, do you have any questions? Well, I was I was going to ask about What is what exactly is happening at the? South border You know the fence what does it look like the adjacent properties have a line of trees if there don't appear to be any trees along the Oh Thank you, yeah up in the grill So should I repeat that okay So I also was wondering what happens at the southern boundary of the property What does what does the fence look like the adjacent properties that are developed have trees along the the creek side? And that does not seem to there don't seem to be any tree plantings on the south side So that is a big question. What what is it and I? I'm on the waterways advisory committee So I was there for the discussion about the about the site. It was actually s I g h t lines like what you can see and I'm wondering What what one what it one is looking through? Also, I am wondering about a couple of things Additional EV parking the plan appears to say there are four spaces and You know, I mean we're look around and count the EVs that you pass That might might please consider that's a something that could be considered additional EV parking It wasn't clear the landscape Plan said 81 parking spaces, but I counted 75 and there were places in the proposal that said 75 So I don't really know how many parking spaces there are and I'm just the I Don't know I in the sequel report and in not the sequel report But the person who was writing about why there doesn't need to be a sequel report Um spoke of using plants that are indigenous to the city and I and then Of course, they they aren't natives meant many of them are not native. So I'm Just a little clarity on that would be good And then finally last thing in the the plans in the call out It says that for five six seven and nine Somewhere it says that the doors match the adjacent wall color And in the elevations they are shown in a slightly different color. So I wonder Whether they actually match the adage adjacent wall or they're different. That's all thank you. Yeah, it was a lot. I know Do you want to respond to any of those I was going to have the applicant respond If that's all right Greetings can It's on. Okay. No green light. So So a couple things we are using native trees And we also there's always a little conflict with in landscape with willow And native Plants so we have to marry the two So we're we're going to do our effective best to do that and also that does have to go back through Building approval as well. So we'll get matched up again there on the colors. I don't know if we can call up the Elevation for the doors so we can kind of see what what that looks like. I Should probably introduce myself. I'm Jose McNeil and the developer Yes, and I don't know if we can get the the elevation up Sorry in one moment. Yeah, no problem And I think on the fencing issue as we're going through that I think there we have two projects the 21st will be the next project Which was the one when we went through the waterways advisory commission We talked about a sound wall versus the other wall and I said, whichever you want just tell me We'll build it But on this one, there's a there's a smaller portion and it's the side of the building so it's it's It'll be an open type of fencing. It won't be a sound sound wall Against that and then I think on the on the south side of the property that is our Water waste not wastewater storm water gathering systems, so I don't know if it would be able to allow for Substantial tree trees there. So that's probably why that is To the effect that we can we will because again, it's just to enhance that corridor. It's It's uh, it's what what should happen there and I think uh, yeah on the elevation on the door coloring I'm trying to think what the comment what the Whether it was for the man doors or the grade level dock doors that would be matching I actually have I circled Six seven and nine six seven and nine the call outs Okay, and so I think you get I think I know you get the man doors right and what My colleague is so fast at this He's gonna pull it up. I also for the staff. I don't know if uh, jeff lenhardt is on he's our architect and he could chime in From you know afar if if that's of help So I think to help thick out here Um So keynote Six is referencing the window system Which is the thermally broken anodized aluminum system? And I think that's just it's it's aluminum everywhere the next one Is 12 by 14 Oh wait, that's five my bad six six is a 12 by 14 grade level roll-up door paint to match adjacent wall color But I think what vik is referencing is that if you look at the the render the rendered elevations There's a slightly different color. Yeah Um, and I think so the question probably is it is it in fact just going to match it and then the note Seven is nine by 10 dock level roll-up door So that's the the smaller ones that are on the loading dock on the back And then nine is the three by seven steel man doors with emergency light fixture Paint door to match adjacent wall color. So I guess the question is is where those are located They match the adjacent wall color, right? Correct. Okay, and that's the intent. That's the intent. Yes. Absolutely. Is that what you're asking? I guess I'm wondering why they're shown as Being slight a slightly different color which adds to the I mean it changes the elevation obviously Any any thought on that? I like we have we have to see we you know, we're looking at what's presented to us And then we're reading what's presented to us and they if you look at I think the second Drawing there, but from the top The proposed elevation that's the backside and you can see that band of color Where the dock doors are and where the grade doors are You can see that the attempt is to match that the first elevation is the glass line This is jeff leonhardt with rmw. Can you guys hear me? Yes Yeah, and also the the Dock doors and the grade door on the on that second second elevation down Those are inset. So you're going to see some shadow effect there So the colors are the same, but it's it's it because of the wonders of technology now We can actually show some shadowing and some setback to So that everyone can see where the dock doors and the grade level doors are So I think it matches up I'm sure it matches up with the color. It's just I think it's a reflection of The shadow effect Sure, jose if I could chime in here for a second. I appreciate the comments we're hearing that uh To the extent that we've been able to show the rendered elevations accurately it is one of the limitations we have that Some of the materials we show have a texture to them that tries to mimic the sort of Uneven texture of the final concrete and then we try to match that with paint colors that would be You know painted doors and other elements that are Trying to match that color and it doesn't always show up In a perfect way on these uh graphic representations Our keynotes were intended to indicate that in spite of the limitations of the Graphic nature of what we're showing here that the intent is indeed to have The the doors and other elements to match the adjacent color that that they should they should match Sorry, that's not more clear If there's any other questions, I'd be happy to chime in Vic, did you get all of your questions answered? I I did get them answered. Okay. Thank you Except for the fence. I I mean we we don't we don't know what the fence looks like at the back um, but But we know that we don't know what it looks like at the back. So I guess we did get the question answered Let me chime in on that as well. Is that if I may um, And I'm sorry it's not more clear in the documents we submitted the Other project which is farther to the east. Uh, I can't understand why this comes up That project there was a lot of a discussion about uh putting in a sound wall and whether a sound wall is required and And a lot of back and forth on that in the case of this project My understanding is there no there is no sound wall required and there is no fence and we're We're not proposing a fence along the southern property line Because it's not required as we understand it Right that was that's the idea the south side of this one is much different from the south side of the other one And so this is about as open as you can get because there won't be a fence Hence no detail on the fence. So yeah, that's the the update on the fence detail is there Is no fencing. Correct. Correct. Okay, but there is a Certainly answer is that there's a thank you. Is there a wall a three foot tall wall? No I thought it said there was a three foot tall wall a three foot concrete retaining wall. Yeah. Oh, okay. Okay. It's a retaining wall Not not above. Got it. Got it. And then also if if we can along the south side the landscape architect Chimed in and said we could probably do some redwoods On that side because those would would kind of flourish in that Environment and we will we will do that as needed and there are three of the trees That are native and two that are not so just an update on the landscape plan. So Thank you very much for addressing all of those. They're very small, but thank you. I'll add up True Yeah, I have a couple of questions So i'm gonna tack on to vix comment about the bioretention at the south There's there's a design guideline 4.4 point 2.3 which talks about Avoiding back on treatments against a creek corridor and it's specifically More about like if you have residential development and you put people's backyards towards the creek Right as opposed to like flipping it around and having like a road And then their front yards and then their backyards the other way But I think in this instance You have a back on treatment because it's the back of the The building effectively and so as a result you're kind of going against that design guideline Um So I so then that ties to my next question, which is immediately above that um There's a requirement to restore Uh riparian habitat adjacent to a creek Um and by effectively putting a bioretention facility adjacent to that you're being detrimental To the riparian habitat because you could potentially introduce um You know stream side breakdown and things like that with that bioretention facility adjacent to The top bank of the creek so So I guess i'm curious as to The the design reasoning behind placing the bioretention in that location As those two design guidelines go against that Yeah, I'll I'll have marcel from Our civil engineering team address that Hi there, uh marsala lagnes with bc engineering group One of the One of the issues with the stormwater lid designs is that any stormwater that hits on site has to be treated and captured And as you can see on this south side that Driveway needs to slope away from the building And essentially that is the only area That can treat that portion of heartscape And to touch on the creek top of bank. We are outside of the 30 foot Creek setback and I believe we have an additional 20 feet As well So that that's the reason for the location of that bioretention area Okay, and then um So then where is that is that bioretention facility? Is everything going out to the street? In terms of its eventual treatment and discharge So within that bioretention area there will be drop-in lets that Take the overflow and it pipes up to Mariner to the existing storm drain network there Correct, right. Yeah, there's an additional requirement for drainage to go to the street 4.4 dot 2 dot b dot 3 That was my question If I could interject to city staff have reviewed the plans in compliance with all the low impact development requirements And stormwater containment And the project has been conditioned so Thanks, suzie. Um, and then uh Was there an intention to Disconnect the project from the creek trail or just not connected at all The creek trail is actually on the other side of the creek. Oh, it is. Okay. Well, there you go We discovered that to the waterways advisory committee, so So never forget us anything Um, okay, and then I guess my last question would be so on kind of the southeast corner um, you've got residential parcels kind of opposite the creek and so um, I guess my my question would be is i'm not really seeing anything in terms of Proposing any sort of mitigation between the industrial use and the residential use Well, the only the only thing in between the residential use and the building is the creek and the And the parkway on the south is that the south side of the creek south side of the creek and then the Effectively fire road on the north side of the creek So we are separated as far as we can with 30 feet away from the top of the bank and then the building is another 20 feet in back of that So we are about as far away as we can get Okay, those are my questions Would someone like to make a motion? I guess I'm making a motion. I I am very bad at this and so I didn't really want to do it Um, but okay, here we go um Resolution of the design review. I'm just reading this I presume I would like to make a motion Do I want to approve it? Oh, yes to approve it Okay, gotcha. This is why I'm bad at this and I really didn't want to embarrass myself, but it's practice too late now. Okay I would like to make a motion to approve resolution number d r b dash 2023 dash 014 And now I read it The first paragraph All right, you include even oh, okay. Yeah, that's that's not that's all that's that's title case That's not even title case. It's all caps resolution of the design review board Of the city of santa rosa granting design review approval for the heritage commerce center Located at zero north point parkway assessor's parcel numbers Zero three five dash five three zero dash zero one six and zero three five dash five three zero dash zero five five File number d r 23 dash zero zero eight and I would like to wave the rest of the reading We have a second I'll second that Thank you Sorry, I didn't mean to mangle it So, um, I'd like to get comments from the board And uh We'll start with vick You know, I'm not uh, okay. I don't have Truly substantial comments, but I really think that the the kind of the overview images Of the project location and what is around it? um Demonstrate that It's general industrial and that's what we've got a general industrial project Um at the design review guidelines have been met um I do think there was there's an opportunity to Because i'm on waterways advisory To hide to see the creek as an asset um And maybe maybe over time uh That that south side um Isn't just a kind of a thing that's there, but you know really becomes a way of Celebrating that the creek runs by it. Um But uh, that that's it. I I'm I mean it it's complete. Thank you Adam Excellent. Thank you, uh chair Thank you, uh planner heartbreak for the Wonderful presentation and thank you application applicants for coming back to us and for a solid uh plan set and proposal um Yeah, it's a it's a uh Yeah, thank you for this iteration of of the design um, I I have no uh Equibles with um the The structure um and the the site design layout Um, I think you've done a good sensitive job with incorporating it into um the overall vision of the area and uh with the surrounding context um I do have one uh one thing I would like to have your landscape architect Re-evaluate and this goes off of what uh, some of what vic was talking about and my question um or actually drew's question before um in regarding the uh south side in the um the By retention and the trees um and just the treatment of that back side um Definitely you're you're fitting into the the industrial context. Um, that's great. Um But uh, so you do have the creekway on your your your backside there And you have the open space on the western portion and then on the south eastern side you've got the the uh The residential area and looking at the the street view I didn't actually go out to to that neighborhood been looking at the street view You can actually see through the the riparian corridor and into this site And so um, you will see the the building and you will see that that sort of bare um southern wall of of your structure um So I I think um, which is is okay. I mean it is the it's part of that that context Um, uh, I think one thing that you can do and have your landscape architect do is is reevaluate that back Section there um and see if there are other locations for by retention If they if things can be split or moved or can be reimagined a certain way because I'd like to see um some more layered and varied plantings along that back area one which uh It references that riparian corridor. Um, but it also provides um That layered uh buffering of the of the views from across the the creek side both from the creek side trail And from the residences and the open space who knows what that's going to be developed? as in the future And so um, I think you can continue with you with your native inspired palette and just look at it at Some way to To incorporate more trees and more shrubs actually to i'm not asking for a line of trees along that back area What would be ideal is to especially because there's no fence or to wall or anything Is just kind of going to be open and this will actually help to secure your site too a bit Is to have you know lower medium and then higher plantings and it is a very narrow site and so i'm going to leave that up narrow You know Band of plantings there, but i'll leave it up to your landscape architect to um To look at that more but figuring out ways to still have the bioretention still have Treatment of the water um had knowing that that the water is going to be moved towards mariner It's not actually even going towards the the creek that if you're you're piping the water into the bioretention and piping it up And around over to mariner There's there are other treatments you can do you can do curbs and things like that to direct water in different ways So I don't think that you're necessarily tied As much As is on here to just having this You know Because you you just have this as specced out as uh the karex divulsa and Chondropetalum which are very you know small. It's a small caper rush too So the the plantings that you do have um proposed they're only going to be about a foot high Um, and so if you can go from a foot high three feet high Six feet high and then a tree, you know spread that around then you're going to provide both habitat value Um parent system and then the visual Buffer too so something to think about and I would like to condition it for some re-evaluation of that landscape area Yeah other than that um great project and thanks for bringing it to us Sure, um Yeah, everything adam said ditto Thanks for the package. I agree with adam on the the bioretention component in the back Um, I had a couple of questions. Um, I thought I should have asked earlier and I apologize The planter strip between the sidewalk and the street. I can't seem to find it to mention I'm assuming it's eight feet. Is that correct? Okay, because that's a requirement Yeah Yeah, I just I can't seem to find it and maybe it's because I've got all these like little Yellow things hovering on my plans that are on top of it Okay, cool. So I just wanted to confirm that and then um The light pole heights that you're proposing or excuse me the light poles you're proposing I I can't seem to find a height on the light poles and uh, there's a requirement that they're 16 feet or less I'm assuming that's that's all okay cool. I just couldn't like I said, I couldn't find it So I can't find it better to ask the question then uh Because I I think you you have a nice varied palette of light fixtures Which is nice for all the exterior Kind of parking and and street lighting and whatnot. So it's It's a nice palette of fixtures. I just was like, man, how tall is it? Um, oh, there it is. It's hiding down in the bottom pole lights mounting height is 16 feet. Look at that And then building lights 27 6 building lights 21 or dock lights 27 6 building lights 21 Okay, perfect. All right. It was just hiding in a note um, okay Um I mean, I I I hate to say this but I am I'm like just a little bit disappointed that this is the exact same design We saw like a year and a half ago and there were some comments about changing materials and things like that and I know you don't have to do it. Um, and I think the buildings find the way it is but I just Just a little disappointed that a little a little bit of thought wasn't kind of considered To to some of those thoughts that were given by the board previously But beyond that, uh, I think it'll be a nice addition to this area It's certainly a more articulated building than some of the adjacent buildings And so with that, uh chair Okay, so, um, we do have one condition That we need to discuss Seems like it might be a unanimous discussion Because I also agree And if Vic agrees we can make it a condition without discussion See wasn't that easy? Well, I didn't really have any I the only thing I thought was that You know, I wasn't here for the first, um review of this project, but Um adam and true were and It seemed like the items that they Requested to be changed or considered were not and um, I think it's very important to Take their comments, uh under consideration, especially when you come back to us Um Those are my thoughts We would hope that in the future if the design review board suggest Changes that they be implemented when your project comes back to us So would you like to state your condition true? Sure Can take a stab at it. Um How about Uh reevaluate Proposed landscape for southern portion Uh of site including um Revaluation of of bioretention area um and incorporating More layered and varied tree and shrub plantings to reference the riparian quarter also talking about the the little Landscape area that's immediately adjacent to the building between between the The driveway or were you really only talking about the bioretention? um Oh, do you well the It's if it were me. I I thought adam was talking about that 15 foot Bioretention area I think I think there'd be really hard press to get anything in seven foot eight aside from like some shrubs or flowers or something I mean, it's really tight. Yes to do anything there. Yeah, and then and then of course it's gonna get cooked by the sun because it's on the south side Yeah, so just plant some native grass, right? Or something. Yeah, I don't think we're talking about that area and and and along the building there It's it's spec'd as the shrubs and they've got yeah 10 10 varied species So they've addressed that but then it's just on the other side between the driveway and the riparian quarter I guess is that Sorry, is that enough for you to Move forward the need is to restate it If you could restate it I I missed a few words at the end So what I have is reevaluate proposed landscape for southern portion of site Including reevaluating The bioretention area and incorporating more layered and varied Something plantings a tree tree and shrub plantings. Okay tree and called open to in particular and then to Reference the riparian quarter to reference the riparian quarter the adjacent riparian quarter got it Yeah, and Amy I think at the very very very beginning for clarity What you could say is bmp4 has shown on c 1.1 because that's actually That that's that's clarity that it's the entire bioretention area from East to west on the southern side that way there's no confusion that it's planting adjacent to the building The road etc Yeah, that's perfect Um, just to clarify. Okay bmp4 as shown on which sheet see what c 1.1 See 1.1 and that goes in the beginning reevaluate bmp4 or it goes I think you can put that in as a parenthetical to southern landscape Got it. Yeah southern proposed southern landscape parentheses Bm bmp4 got it on c1 Thank you And we can maybe think of a different word than reevaluate twice. Sorry, that was my fault I'm going to read it one more time to make sure that it's clear. Okay reevaluate proposed landscape for the southern portion Of the site parentheses bmp4 as shown on c 1.1 Including reevaluation of bioretention area and incorporating more layered and buried tree and shrub plantings to reference the adjacent riparian corridor Okay, I think you just you could strike the second reevaluation It's just including and then the list. I think everything else is fine. We could say including the bioretention area Yeah, that's what I yeah, I think it reads better when you do that. It does. Thank you I I want to point out that when when that comes back when uh, the plans are submitted for for building permit and We have it and if something isn't changed. There's not real clear Direction for staff there There there's a lot of wiggle room for the applicant. So if you want to see the change It might be something stronger than reevaluate and at the same time maybe as as the As allowed by you know changing the bioretention or something but really be more specific About so it's so it's more like a shall So yeah, it was almost like even trying to avoid seeing a shall in there because I didn't want to say redesign the that whole landscape It was giving you some wiggle room if that's what you want. That's fine But I'm just saying you know then if there's no change It's it's because there's the wiggle room and that's fine It's just that that's what staff has to work with when the plans come in definitely and and we we can all Chime in on that too vick and drew and I was just gonna ask the chair here So the applicant or the civil engineer had mentioned something about redwoods During the initial kind of questions of that and I guess I just like a little bit of clarity on kind of what the The applicant team was mentioning regarding those redwoods If you could and and I guess I'm asking because I think that may provide the clarity That we may be looking for for staff As a general contractor and part-time landscape architect Well, can you get closer to the mic? I'm sorry working with jose mcneal the applicant His general contractor and part-time landscape architect. So we have some choices we can use for a screen down there A native that would work and might solve Thank you I feel so tall. Thank you um There's a So we put um A screen that would fit within that area, which is the redwoods We're limited by the depth in what will grow and not disturb and in Reduce the function of the bioswell Another option is a lara seratoga, which is also a native. It's approved for bioswell use They grow 20 to 30 feet. They can be staggered and can give some of what you're looking for and they would Provide a screen they grow 20 feet to 30 feet tall So, um, I think that checks a lot of the boxes, but there's there's some options there that we've definitely I mean we could have this redesigned in a couple of days. We won't come back with something that Is the same I'd like to include something in in uh the condition to uh condition it for not redwoods Um, actually Yeah, that's fine Just uh, you know, I mean we're gonna we would of course a discussion of we can get deep into the tree discussion too But uh specifically for their um one they're gonna be too big. Um, eventually in a hundred years, of course Go to something that's more of a shrub And I and I and so I included the referencing the riparian corridor. Um specifically To reference the trees along there because one you got riparian trees that you can pull apart pull from as well You're also, uh, you know well within valley oak Habitat and you know coast live oak as well so There yeah, there are options that fit into the surrounding context So but uh, if it is redwoods, I if that's one of the possibilities, I'll I will condition to say no redwoods Okay, I love redwoods Not here. So thank you. I do have a clarifying question for myself So you're okay if the bio retention stays exactly where it is Well, that's that's the the question is uh, is is how important is it? Um, well Because we're also gonna run up against the requirements for lid. Um, so if if it There's why I wanted to give the wiggle room because if it is if the only place that they can actually fit the bio retention is there That's the that's what we're dealing with so I don't Susie, I don't know how that could be That that can be reevaluate the location of the bio retention area if it can be moved then The project shall That's a good clarification. Yeah, because I'm not interested in hamstringing you guys to to you know Get something in there, but you know, yeah Don't want to create the complex and I would agree at them. I mean the only real option I saw After I got clarity about how the drainage system was working on that back road is You flip the road the bio retention I mean like that's the only other potential option because you just all that paving has got to go somewhere And and so where do you take it right and it's a huge area of square footage to to put somewhere so Yeah, I mean that that was that was good for me at least knowing Oh, that's the only spot because they can't it's not like they can move it up front And have the same square footage because there's still the the road still has to drain somewhere and be treated before it goes somewhere So, yeah okay Does um, does it sound like the condition as as stated gives um Enough wiggle room, but also not too much wiggle room Yeah, Amy did did you get the changes? I'm working on the changes right now. Give me just another second So I think We won't maybe want to make this into two sentences. So re-evaluate the location of the proposed bio retention area That's bmp4 as shown on c 1.1 um, and then we can say if bio retention area can be Relocated incorporate a more layered and varied tree and da da da da Does that work? Okay, that works for me Everyone else I think I think that the the second sentence will will capture it Um, because if if we can't if they can't put trees there then we can't Yeah, I'm not I'm not going to mandate that they that I have to plant the trees there because if they can't then they can't I'd like to read it just one more time Okay, so that It goes reevaluate the location of the proposed bio retention area Bmp4 as shown on c 1.1 If the bio retention area can be relocated a more layered and varied tree and shrub plantings Wait, that doesn't make sense. Which reference the adjacent riparian corridor shall be incorporated Shall be utilized That works Thank you anyone else I will Make a friendly amendment to accept the condition as read by the illustrious Amy Nicholson I guess I'm second in that motion I certainly I certainly accept that amendment. Yep Vic, are you okay with that? I am okay with that. Thank you Adam yes as the motioner. I do accept that ah We'd like to call a vote Board member leptak I approve Board member Sharon I Vice chair Weigel I Chair Jones Carter I That passes with four eyes one abstention in one absence Please note the action is final unless an appeal is filed with a planning and economic development department within 10 calendar days of today's decision pursuant to zoning code section 20 dash 62 0.030 And with that the meeting meeting of the design review board is now adjourned Thank you very much