 Okay, I'd like to call to order a meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board of the City of Santa Rosa and ask for roll call, please Let the record reflect that all board members are present except board members to Shazzo and Murphy Thank you Item number two is the approval of the June 20 2019 minutes board member Debakker and I and I don't know if any other board members were having this problem only the seventh page of the seven pages showed up in the PDF. I think we were having that same problem trying to access it from the legistar page online as well so I'm not in a position to vote on approval or denial of those minutes if there is an imperative we could Take a recess at the we could reorder the agenda move that down take a recess and look at a hard copy or an electronic copy I'd be willing to do that if staff Wants that to be the way we do it, but For now, I suppose I'll reorder the agenda and move that To the final item to allow time to consider what we might do about that All right number three is board business. I'll read a statement About the business of the Cultural Heritage Board The Cultural Heritage Board shall consider the following matters standards guidelines and criteria to the extent applicable in determining whether to grant or deny a permit Whether the proposed change is consistent or incompatible with the architectural period of the building Whether the proposed change is compatible with any adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures Whether the colors textures materials fenestration decorative features and details proposed are consistent with the period and or are compatible with adjacent structures Whether the proposed change destroys or adversely affects an important architectural feature or features and The secretary of the interiors standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings And such other matters criteria and standards as may be adopted by resolution of the Cultural Heritage Board Before I move to public comment tonight staff has Let me know that there was a defect in the mailed version of the notice for agenda item 6.1, which is the landmark alteration permit for the carpenter urban cottages the understanding is that there are two addresses pertaining to the project one of which is Ray Street and one of which is on Tupper and that the Tupper address was not contained in the mailed notice and Staff I believe you have a recommendation of how the board should Go forward in light of that error in the notice Yes, thank you chair Edmondson in light of the defect in the noticing staff recommends continuing this item in which staff will prepare new note new notices to be mailed out and the tentative date At this moment is September 4th for the next available Cultural Heritage Board meeting that can meet all the noticing deadlines Okay, so when we get around to item 6.1 is it staff's recommendation to for the Board to consider a motion to continue it to a date certain or to a date uncertain at this point staff recommends Continuing the item to a date uncertain Because the notice we would have to send out new notices anyway, and the notice will contain the new hearing date Okay, and I have a number of cards for members of the public who are here to speak on Item 6.1. I've also have one card for general comments I would like to give anybody who's here the opportunity to talk to us on item 6.1 and also, you know The public will have any opportunity to comment the next time this item is considered as well as submit any written comments or Comment any other way? I Think the most sensible time to take those public comments on item 6.1 Would be as part of the public hearing Staff has no objection. That's when I'm going to ask for those. Okay All right, we'll move to item 4. It's public comment This is time for any member of the public who's here wishing to speak on a matter of relevance to the Cultural Heritage Board to please approach one of the lecturers and anyone who is here is welcome to speak I do have three cards Although I see that we have One member of the public is already at the lectern so I will for convenience sake Open the public hearing and ask you to state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes for your comments My name is Cher Ennis. I live in the West End and I'm following up on my little project that came before the board some months back and letting you know that My building permit is ready to be issued which is very exciting But what's even been more exciting to me is the research that I've been doing and what I've uncovered about the history of the property and I just want to talk about two things really briefly one is how history rhymes and One of the things that I found is that it was the John Staley cottage But Mary Staley lived there too and Mary Staley had a pretty dismal life from what I've been able to tell and What brought this up for me about the rhyming is that we've had all of these Trained as suicide Mechanism Coming up in the news Mary Staley one day while walking down the street with John threw herself down on the tracks and gripped the rails and it took three men to take her off the tracks so History is rhyming the other thing that I find really interesting is That one of the biggest most Important buildings in the West End which is the deterg winery building We wouldn't have that building if it hadn't been for John Staley John Staley was a notorious arsonist John Staley burnt down for huge buildings in the area because he worked at the brickyard and He was looking for job security if these big buildings were burnt down They would likely be rebuilt in brick and in this instance with the deterg winery. That's exactly what happened Mr. Staley spent a bunch of time in San Quentin and I've also found that the property was was connected to the Lee brothers Which were a big firm if you look at the Wilson the building at the corner of Wilson and forth the Lee brothers building is a beautiful building and Mr. Lee owned the building for owned my property for a brief period of time So I'm writing all of that up. It'll be turned into the history and genealogy Library and if any of you would like a copy of it electronically, I'd be glad to provide that to you Great. Thank you. Ms. Ennis. Wow. That is really fascinating. I think we're all fascinated by that I guess we think we live in interesting times now, but Maybe we're getting giving the past some short shrift okay other cards I have on Item 6.1, but we're moving moving up to item 4 public comment. I have one from I believe it's Catherine Storrell Followed by Ken Coonert Yeah, if you could approach the top of the room, please. Thanks Thank you. My name is Catherine Storrell. I live at 713 Tupper Street the parcel directly adjacent to the proposed project I'd like to speak to a few concerns that I have and I am pleased to hear that you have taken into account the Notification that was a concern that I had that only 25 ray was noticed in the mailing and it does include the parcel at 715 Tupper Street as well Another concern that I have with regard to notification is the project sign That was placed at 715 Tupper Street was put up Friday, August 2nd at or after about 740 Which is about five six days and I was under the impression that for a major landmark alteration We may need at least ten days of notice, but with a potential continuation that should be taken care of My primary concerns with the project are of course the height of the proposed structures The existing structure as we know it is a historical contributing Fabric of the neighborhood it is approximately 16 feet tall the proposed structures are 25 feet tall There will be four of them. It's my opinion that these will detract from that basic visual and historical characteristic of the neighborhood They will overwhelm and then to then diminish any essential characteristics of that existing structure My opinion new rear structures should be either equivalent in height to or Inferior in height to existing contributing structures in the neighborhood And I think that would be an appropriate protection from the cultural heritage board Another major concern that I have is parking and my parking concerns may be different than other neighbors My concern with the parking is the orientation of the spaces tenants will drive in and Turn in toward neighborhood fences in Walking the neighborhood endless times I can only find two other parcels where that type of parking exists and there are in-close structures that protect neighboring parcels from light infiltration and from potentially mistaking the gas for the break so tenants don't come through fences into neighborhood parcels Is that a timer That would be an interesting choice. Well, we'll think about it next time But it might not be the best message to send the public Although I love that song well, let me give you another 30 seconds to account for that Thank you 30 seconds after your allotted time. You're still well within it. Okay. Thank you Another concern are the number of parking spaces the neighborhood is already overwhelmed with cars. We park on one side of our street. I believe that as Designed there are about one and a half spaces per unit and that may be allowable by code Preferably there would be at least a minimum of two and that brings me back to the height of the structures So if we have a 546 square foot main floor, that's that 24 by 24 footprint that is proposed When we look at the height of those structures and we understand that there is in fact a second story Yes, it is being called an attic space that extra 500 square feet in my opinion will in fact draw tenants Which will in fact draw cars I'd like the board to consider that once those heights are in place Overwhelming the neighboring structures. We can never reduce the heights of those roof lines And so this is the moment that we have an opportunity to influence the heights of those structures Let's give that storage. Let's give that 546 square feet of living space But let's just reduce that visual impact in the neighborhood All right, that's my timer Thank you very much We have Ken Coonert Okay I think the does the lectern come down at all Claire. I think that's oh It lowers there we go. I can see over the ledge Thank you Thank You Claire many of the Concerns I have are similar to My neighbors concerns didn't know she was going to pick up the same topics When you consider that 715 is really part of this project the driveway Into this project is the parking for 715 if 715 isn't parking in that driveway That's another unit that doesn't have that parking doesn't show up on the drawings at all the 5176 square foot is a little Deceptive It also means because of the barrier between the four units More people would be parking on Tupper Tupper handles not only the residents But the many many people who visit Bethlehem Tower They don't have parking For the residential area, but they do park for their time limit So it's a very crowded parking area also the roof height although Characteristic within the neighborhood in some places doesn't really Relay the character the neighborhood the character the neighborhood is small craftsman style one level units throughout and that's what makes This historic different than other historic areas, but there's spatterings of two-storey units within those smaller units But it's those smaller units that really make Burbank Gardens a garden to live in so I Still am concerned about the traffic not only the parking on Tupper Street, but traffic Immediately adjacent to Ray Park where the children's playground is Right next to the 15-foot paved area that is in the proposal and I wonder what kind of additional protection Might be put there for little kids running and playing around what will now be a through street That's it. Thank you very much Thank you Next we have Judy Kennedy and I'm just going to mention because I see people may have come in Item 6.1, which is the Tupper Street Ray Street project We are not on that item. We are on item for public comment, but we are Hearing people who are here to comment on item 6.1. We're hearing them under the public comment In anticipation of a motion to continue item 6.1 till a later date because of issues with defects in the notice and the need to Continue it to give time for proper notice. So just a clarification for anybody who may not have heard Okay, Ms. Kennedy. Thank you. Thank you good afternoon chair and committee members I live at 620 Oak Street, which is in the Burbank Gardens neighborhood and I don't think I have to tell this board that Santa Rosa needs housing and what better place to put housing than Steps away from downtown Dave Carpenter has been trying for 15 years to put housing on that Lot and he has been rebuffed by this committee and other committees over and over again I think now is the time to build these units number one parking in general in the in the Station area plan and in these neighborhoods around downtown has now gone down to one per unit And if Dave is within those limits, then I don't think that that anybody can Quarrel with the number of parking spaces the idea of Living downtown and living close to downtown is to not use your car and I think that's why these car Limits were taken away so that people can live close to downtown and not use their car every minute of the day Also, I want to talk about the height I don't know what 25 feet is compared to My house. I'm one of these small low Standing bungalows, but on both sides of me are houses on Oak Street that are Tutor-style so they are in effect two-story houses on either side of me and I want to point out that this Auguste body Not very long ago approved a second story on a house on Tupper Street on the corner of Tupper and Brown and It was noted over and over again that in those historic documents that It was preferred to not have two-story buildings on corner houses yet this body Accepted a two-story house just 500 feet away from where Dave is going to be building these 25-foot tall I don't know what 25 or whatever they are So I don't think that you can really Get into a major height Quarrel here because it's already been Your position that two stories even on a corner is okay and So I just want to remind you again Santa Rosa needs this kind of housing it needs Dancer housing and it needs housing with with less car car Parking that takes up living space. Thank you Thank you Next we have Alima Silverman Hi, I'm Alima Silverman. I'm an architect and I do work With mr. Carpenter and have worked on this project, but I have no ownership whatsoever in the project So I don't feel that it's a conflict for me to comment Down below there. We brought some boards for today to show that we were responsive to the board's comments from our concept review back in 2017 and Many of you were on the board at that time So I just want to point out that in response to your comments. We did go to the Northwest Information Center in Rohnert Park and Did research on the property? They had absolutely nothing So that's why there was nothing really added to the report that had been been done previous to that The rhythm of the window placement was revised due to some of your suggestions The lower windows are more symmetrical to the upper windows double windows were added to the gable ends base and cap details were added to the entry porch columns At the request of the city The units have been attached and covered parking as carports was provided That was a requirement because of the zoning multi-family zoning there The upper roof eve on the north elevation is continuous and the dormers are wider again That was in response to a comment The door at the porch has been moved from the center to allow room for sitting on the porch There aren't also shingles above the porch entry reflecting the look of the upper gables when I first moved to Santa Rosa 15 years ago, I moved to the Luther Burbank neighborhood and lived on Brown Street for a period of time Until I purchased a home in a different neighborhood but I've spent a lot of time in the Burbank neighborhood working on the Maple Street mural and attending various meetings and events in the neighborhood Both mr. Carpenter and I are trying to be very respectful to the neighborhood But honestly in developing a project you have to in order for it to pencil out and Nobody's making tons of money on this. It has to be a certain size The 25-foot height of this unit is lower both than the house next door to the west and to the house directly across the street to the south So I don't think that height really I mean it can be an issue But I think that it's within what's allowed. I just want to add one thing which is an Alternative to this would be a use-by-write as a four-story apartment building Thank you Want to just ask a couple of questions to staff at this time. It looks like we may not have any other public comments So when this item comes back around assuming it to continue tonight The comments we've heard in the public hearing tonight Would those perhaps be referenced in the staff report in the same way that written comments would be referenced to make it known that That the public had Comments about this matter That came that we heard beforehand that are not necessarily going to be part of the consideration of the item that night although anybody is welcome to repeat whatever Comments they've made here. Yes staff Will update the public comment section of the staff report as well as the project history great in that way Anybody who reads the staff report can know to watch the video of this meeting and know what we've heard and and That'll be part of the record. Okay, great and Wanted to ask whether We could invite the applicant to give a three-minute comment or whether that would be Not appropriate Well, what I would do at this point is close the public comment section since that's what you were exercising there assuming It's not going to be heard tonight I think my advice is to move to that item and make a decision if it's going to be heard and if it's going to be heard We're prepared with a staff presentation the applicant has a Presentation and we can hear the item open up the public hearing and continue the hearing but staff's recommendation will be expressed at that item If you give us the opportunity, okay Okay If any other member of the public is here wishing to comment on any matter of interest to the board please Do so and I'm not seeing anybody so I'm going to close the public hearing Public comment, excuse me. We're going to move on to statements of abstention board members any abstentions No, and then we move on to Item six and then item 6.1 the public hearing for the landmark alteration permit for carpenter urban cottages As we've spoken about several times we have a staff recommendation to continue the item to a date uncertain Is any member of the board Wishing to have a discussion about that staff recommendation before I ask for a motion Mr. Chair if we may I don't think we had an opportunity to describe in detail the recommendation and the justification for it So, yeah, please deputy director Hartman Just one second if we're going to be doing this again in the future. Why are we talking about stuff? If there's going to be another Things sent out with with the correct address and the opportunity for more people to be able to attend this meeting Why are we listening to anything at this point and not just continuing it until the date? Uncertain I'll answer that I wanted to give the opportunity to the members of the public who took their the time to show up here I agree with that. I'm just saying I don't think I need to hear a staff a staff recommendation or any other thing like that so that the public that wants to be here it can be correctly Involved can hear that at the date uncertain if we move it Sure, the recommendation is to make a motion to continue is that correct? Yeah, yeah, I think you open the item because we haven't got there We open the item or you read the item we introduce it and then we go through the initial motions of where we're at with that item So instead of just proceeding with a presentation. We have a recommendation up front. We'd like to talk about Okay, we're on item 6.1 public hearing for the landmark alteration permit for the carpenter urban cottages project and staff presentation is Ms. Tumiant Thank You chair Edmondson and members of the cultural heritage board the item is carpenter urban cottages a landmark alteration permit and The project is located at 25 Ray and 17 Tupper streets At this point staff is recommending that we continue this item due to a defect in the public hearing notice and Also to the posted sign on the on the property the public hearing notice did not state both addresses And the posted sign was submitted five Within five days rather than ten so continuing the item would allow staff to resend notices and correct the defect and allow The sign to be amended and posted for a longer period of time which would allow the public more opportunity to participate in comment on this proposed project Great, thank you Is there any discussion or question? Okay, is anyone wanting to make a motion to continue item 6.1 to a date uncertain? I so move Do I have a second? I second Okay, can you please repeat the names for the record? I'm not as familiar with the board. Thank you. Sorry, so Margaret Percer moved Laura Fennel seconded Okay, the motion to continue was made by vice-chair Percer and seconded by board member Fennel and How are we voting today? I have to ask The reviews in the screens today so we're not using the screens what she meant was that the Typical way of the buttons on your right side. Yes. No, maybe Okay, and your votes please I have four of the five so far and that passes with four eyes and one nay board member debacle voting nay and Board member Murphy and board member Dishazo being absent Okay, that concludes item 6.1 and we'll move to item 7 board member reports Board members anything to report this afternoon board member debacle No reports from St. Rose this time around but I do wonder if the board members have seen the California State Historic Preservation Office letter that went to the National Park Service regarding proposed changes to Historic Preservation Review and section 106 Those changes would be germane to our upcoming decisions and It would be probably something we auto-enlighten ourselves about And see what the pending outcome of that decision is Thank you very much board members of Acker Okay, let's move to item 8 department reports Staff does not have department reports today Okay, and Back to the question about the minutes Wanted to know if staff has any thoughts about how they would like the board to consider handling that Staff recommends continuing Approving the minutes to the next scheduled meeting Okay, would that be by motion or can we do that informally? No just informally, okay All right, unless anyone objects will move consideration of the minutes to the next agenda and That concludes our business and the meeting is adjourned