 Okay, I'm going to call to order a meeting of the City of Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board and ask for a roll call, please. Let the record reflect that all board members are present. Okay, we have no minutes. So we're going to move right on to item 3.1, which is the appointment of a vice chair. We have a vacancy and the vice chair role on the CHB. Vice chair's primary responsibility is to obviously chair the public hearings and represent the board in the absence of the chair. And I will open it up for any board member to nominate him or herself or any other board member for appointment of the vice chair. But before I do that, I want to ask a point of clarification on the number of votes that are required to carry this. Under any circumstances, tonight we have six board members present. So I think the answer would be four tonight. But I think it would be four under all circumstances. Is that correct? And that might be correct of all CHB actions. I believe that is correct. Okay, thank you. Okay, with that, does any board member want the floor to make a nomination? Board member Groninger. Yes, I would nominate board member Mark DeBacher as vice chair. Do I have any other nominations or board members wishing to have the floor? Board member DeBacher. Thank you. I'd like to nominate member Brian Moyser. And do I have any other motions or board members wishing to make a nomination? So I think that we have multiple nominations. It would be appropriate to have a discussion or comments. So if anybody would like the floor, share your thoughts and lobby for or against any person, please feel free. Board member DeBacher. Well, thank you. I do appreciate the nomination. I would like to say that I don't know whether it's officially part of its duties or not. But often the vice chair is viewed as the likely successor to take the chair. And I would have to decline that as my responsibilities on board members of at least three other nonprofits would not allow me to have the time to do that. So I would like to decline the vice chair. I accept your declination, I guess. And I would then wholeheartedly ratify Brian. As this is, I think my second meeting with the Cultural Heritage Board, I'm really feeling that I would like to have a little more experience, a little more time with the board to take on such an important role. To move things forward, I would accept the role if that's what we need to do tonight. But we had another nominee that's been here a little longer and a little more experience. I would probably be more comfortable with that. Do you mind just turning your mic on? Would be possible to nominate then Laura Finnell? Would be open to that if the board is in support. I've been on for a couple years now and I'm getting the hang of it. So okay are there any further comments before I ask for a motion? So with that, if I could then decline the nomination with all appreciation of receiving it, I'd like to decline the nomination. Okay so we have one nomination from the floor and do we need a motion to appoint board member Finnell as vice chair or is the nomination from the floor enough for me to ask for votes? All right yes. It's not official voting machine type of motion but we can take a roll call vote so that's clear that everybody is participated in voting and supporting the vice chair nomination. Okay great thank you. Okay the nomination is for board member Finnell to be vice chair of the cultural heritage board. It was a nomination from the floor and board member McHugh. Your vote please. I vote aye. Board member Finnell your vote please. Board member DeBocker your vote please. Aye. Board member Muser your vote please. Aye. And board member Veronica your vote please. Aye. And I also vote aye and board member Finnell vice chair Finnell congratulations. Okay next we will read our statement of purpose. 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 interior's standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings as well as such other matters criteria and standards as may be adopted by resolution of the cultural heritage board and we're going to move on to public comment this is a time for any member of the public who is here and wishing to speak on a matter of interest to the board that is not on the on the agenda elsewhere to approach the podiums and have three minutes to speak and I am going to open the public hearing and public comment excuse me and I'm not seeing anybody approach so I will close public comment and we're going to move to statements of abstention I can't imagine anybody has one but uh does any board member need to abstain from any of the items tonight yes I need to abstain from item 6.1 any other abstentions no okay so we will give board member musertime to exit the chamber chair would you like uh notification who's visited the site at this time or once we actually get into the once I open the item please thank you okay and with that we're going to move from item five statements of abstention to item 6.1 to public hearing on a landmark alteration permit for the muser remodel at 403 brown street this is an ex parte disclosure board member debaker anything to disclose uh yes chair I did visit the site and I also did meet privately with the applicant board member granica I visited the site and we'll have no further questions vice chair fennel I have visited the site um on numerous occasions it's in my neighborhood but not within distance and board member mcqueen I have not visited the site and I have visited the site and I have no further non-public information to disclose and with that we would love the staff presentation please and Ms Murray good afternoon chair edmondson and members of the board the project before you is a proposed remodel at 403 brown street a restoration project okay the the project the overall project includes the removal of the second story addition and add on to the primary dwelling unit construction of a new garage and studio structure it's one combined structure fence replacement and they're also extending the the fence line and a removal of a holly tree the site is located on the corner of wheeler street and brown street it's within a plan development community it's within the berbank gardens preservation district and the the zoning is consistent with the general plan land use designation of low density residential here's an an aerial view of the site and this is I think it's changed a little bit because there's been some demolition work done which the applicant did receive a demolition permit for here's a a site plan and when we get into the design of this project I'm going to defer to the applicant because we we have a lot of redundant comments so you only have to hear it once so here's a site plan and it shows where the replacement garage will be on the on the right hand side of that that graphic again it's removing the the proposed removal is the second story the gosh I'm trying to orient myself I don't have a north the corner the back corner of the house in the middle of the yard is where the addition is being added the fence line will continue around the house and it is set back 14 feet on the the wheeler street facing elevation which is consistent with the regulations here's an old photo date unknown but it shows the home before the second story was constructed and then in the lower left hand corner there that's what the the house looks like well when the both the current photos on the left hand side are current and they show the second story so this is a proposed elevation from the brown street and there you can see the fence on the left hand um uh on the left side of the house and that's where um new fencing is proposed and then on the wheeler side there's the the new garage slash studio structure and the fence will be aligned between the two structures uh the following documents these documents were um reviewed during um staff's analysis of the project it's important to note you know the um there was a cultural heritage board resolution adopted number 209 that provides a lot of the design criteria and i think probably that's that it's it's a significant tool in the review process so the observations that the proposed remodel will restore the appearance of the dwelling units to its original appearance or the street facing elevations the area where the addition to the dwelling unit is proposed is not readily visible from the street so it won't change that the the proposed garage studio structure is generally the same location as the previous structures were there was not just a garage there was also a detached studio that was taken off the property previously um and then the location of the fence will not obscure any of the uh street facing elevations project has been found in compliance with CEQA under several different um categorical exemptions um and the it's it's infill development and it adds minor structure structures and does minor alterations to existing structures i this uh this preservation or this presentation was created before i did receive several comments i think three um it's all in favor of the project um i believe that those were forwarded to you in the um PG&E PSPS event it kind of got blurred so so with that it is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Cultural Heritage Board approve a landmark alteration for the restoration of the property located at 403 Brown Street and i know the applicant has a presentation i seem to be crossing those words up today um and um i'm available for questions thank you Ms. Murray board members any questions for staff before we hear the applicant presentation okay uh great we would love to invite the applicant to give her presentation it's always good to see a familiar face good afternoon Mr. Chairman members of the Cultural Heritage Board Lisa Cran the applicant at 403 Brown Street as Susie indicated we do have some repetitive notes i'll try to gloss over those things and give you the detail where it may be more appropriate but this slide indicates the main components of the proposal as indicated removal of that second story addition construction of a new garage and studio the addition of about 180 square feet of living space on the southwest side of the house repair and renovation of the exterior of the house along with the roof the addition of fencing on uh both street sides brown and wheeler and removal of that holly tree and the house at 403 Brown Street is a California bungalow the most prominent features as you can see in this photograph are the prominent front porch with rock piers as well as the fireplace and the house is clad with wooden shingles a couple of additional early photographs of the house oops getting ahead of there a little bit that show the home as the other photograph did prior to that second story addition with a little more detail on that the second story is shown in this photograph here we believe it was built sometime in the late 1940s early 1950s and you can see from the photograph the the exterior siding and the windows did not match the original house the addition was also built without sufficient bearing walls for support of the structure we've experiencing some sagging on the first floor and also the interior access is very awkward to that second story second main component is the construction of a new garage and studio to replace the former garage and utility building which are pictured here and as indicated the city of Santa Rosa issued a permit for demolition of those structures this past summer since the structures don't contribute to the historic character of the site as documented in our historic report another component of the proposal is general repairs to the house that would include replacing roofing materials repairing the foundation and structure as needed replacing the wooden shingles with like where they are necessary where it is necessary to restore the original windows and doors and do other repairs as needed and the proposed site plan indicates the location generally guess i can't get my cursor on there but at the southwest corner of the house you can see the expansion area about 180 square feet of living space the replacement garage and studio now set back five feet from the rear property line where it's the prior buildings encroached a bit on that set back and then the holly tree is kind of at the the top left of the site plan and faces brown streets right in the front yard so the proposed renovations this would be the brown street side that would include restoration of original light fixtures that are on either side of the door and as Ms. Murray indicated the addition of relocated fencing on the on the front and the south elevation this is in the interior of the lot but it would remove a circa 1970s addition to the southwest part of the house replace that with about 180 square feet extend the south gable to create a new porch and add some french doors there again not visible from the street uh-oh this is the wheel of street oh no it's not what is that it's very odd well i don't know why that's not showing but on wheeler street the street elevation uh we would also be restoring original light fixtures adding new relocated fencing and evaluate and restore the fireplace as well so apologies for that slide so the new garage and studio this slide illustrates the east and west elevations those are also interior to the lot but the plan is to build a new porch that would complement the other porches in the on the structure and to reuse the original windows that have been removed from the house and also from the second story in this building in terms of architectural material the general approach would be to match the existing architectural style of the building as indicated restore and reuse existing windows and other building materials as we can and this is just a detail of the proposed fencing on both facades it would be a six foot fence made of premium grade redwood and lastly the holly as indicated this is on the brown street side and is indicated there on the plan and lastly i just want to leave you with examples of two prior innovations that my husband and i have completed in the cherry street preservation district as an indication of our work and and hopefully uh indication of good faith in the future work that we plan to do at 403 brown street so with that that completes my presentation i also would like to acknowledge that uh lili bianco who prepared our historic report is in the audience this afternoon as well as john stong our project architect so if you have any particular questions for them they are also available thank you thank you miss crance board members any questions for the applicant or staff no questions okay uh all right well let's find my agenda here i usually have a little bit of a break there as somebody asks a question i suppose i'll just ask if any member of the board wants to move resolution for the purposes of discussion not board member or board member wow miss hartman thanks for the elevation to board member no i'm just uh public hearing we'd like to open oh my goodness okay this is why i need the agenda in front of me even though i've been on this day us a while this is a public hearing i don't have any cards on this item but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak if you wish to make comments on this project please approach the podiums at the top of the room and state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes to speak and i'm going to open the public hearing and i'm not seeing anyone approach so i will close the public hearing with thanks to miss hartman and bring it back for discussion would any board member like to move a resolution on the make a motion on the resolution for purposes of discussion i'll move the resolution resolution of the cultural heritage board of the city of santa rosa approving landmark alteration permit to remodel restore and replace structures for the property located at 403 brown street in the burbank gardens preservation district assessors parcel number 0092624 present zero i think 001 file number lma19-007 and way for the reading of the text does anyone second i second okay the motion was made by board member mcqueen seconded by vice chair fennel and board member debaker would you like to make any comments start us off thank you chair um well first of all we're delighted to see this project this is uh one of the best most refreshing projects i've seen in a while uh it's also nice to see a project that's a restoration uh it's been quite a while since we've had a straight restoration project come before the board there is an addition on this one of course uh and new construction as well but it's um it's very heartening uh it's also very heartening to see the previous work by the applicant on restoring historic properties in the area so it gives a high level of confidence moving forward um there were there were a few things i would have liked to have seen beyond what we received on this project as it's coming for the actual landmark alteration permit specifically a roof plan particularly since they're removing the second floor and need to put the roof plan back um i would have liked to see some of that also though they're planning on restoring the windows which i highly highly command anyways if there was any thought of putting new replacement windows and we'd like to have seen that um though those were really the only things that i had that i thought would have liked to have seen uh in addition to the presentation um if there um so with that in place i think that the architecture of the additions is properly scaled proper roof slopes proper massing uh on it uh i do have a slight concern that the new construction will match in every way the existing construction and i think following our guidelines we would like some modest element to differentiate new from existing work um the existing building is so unique and so powerful in its statement that's that's a very difficult thing to do on this one uh any deviation from the existing master is um will will be perhaps overly obvious uh and that's one of the things i'd like the board to kind of have some discussion on our standards are that it should be differentiated some way and i'm having a difficulty in calling for that on this project um other comments about it i appreciate the fact that this was hand drawn rather than CAD it takes a hand drawn set of drawings to convey the stonework and other aspects of this project that would be very very difficult to convey in CAD and the artistry of the drawings uh is very helpful in this case so commend the the architect and put behind it the designer one of the things i wanted to make the board aware of is that it's not easily seen but on the porch columns on the top of the base is an original lit address sign that fits into the trim that goes around the top of the stone that was a unique and character defining feature of the houses of this type and um i would very much like to see if it's not in the budget to get that working again to at least ensure that it is kept in place for a potential future restoration it would be on the extreme northeast column corner and you'll see a recess in the thing where a lit address sign would have been at one time and uh i think that that is very consistent with that period of architecture and uh i would like to ensure that that doesn't go away another thing i would just like to add would be that um should the applicant undertake the the the difficult and expensive work of restoring the windows which i again i highly command and find that they're not able to reuse the existing windows on uh the new work which is what i understand it's what they're planning to do they're planning to take some of the windows off of the second story edition and reuse those on the garage and residential units that's being added um or if they find difficulties in the restoring the main windows that that would constitute an item that would need to come back to the board for replacement windows as it would if this was an independent project so in other words i don't want to give carte blanche to a replacement window should they get into the project and find the need to to do a replacement i think that that wraps up my comments okay thank you uh board member groeninga any comments just a few uh i concur that this is from my perspective and going back a number of years is probably the most comprehensive and uh thorough proposals on a remodel to a contributing home also i have to say my expectations because of the uh a background of the applicant were probably exceptionally high and those expectations were met in every way um i'm also very confident that the applicant uh has and will uh pay attention to detail certainly were appropriate as well and so i think it's an excellent proposal project and that um one just additional factor it probably pertains to nothing but then it may pertain to a whole lot too is that the applicant not only with the background she had with the city and in city planning but has a deep interest in santa rosa history as she's a member of the santa rosa historical society or whatever and i think that plays in this sort of proposal and so no further comments but i think you know where i'm going to go uh vice chair final any comments my comments mere my colleagues um it isn't often that we get a project where they're returning the house back to its original state and this was always an awkward um the the addition was awkward and i was uh knew the previous owners and it leaked and was not it was just not built you know the way that it would want to be and i just applaud them for taking away square footage from something that was awkward and and adding it to someplace else that will be fit the neighborhood um we're a single family neighborhood single single level homes and um and i don't know that i've seen a better project this has my time on the board so i'm all in favor board member mcqueo i echo the comments of my fellow board members and i also want to add that i really appreciate the historical resource evaluation consistency analysis that you provided that was very informative to me and helpful in terms of understanding the project and what you want to do and so i thank you for that and i'm very supportive of the project and i am you know excited about the the work you're going to do and the restoration plans that you have and so thank you very much and uh yeah what what is there to say it's a gorgeous project a beautiful house to to begin with a great canvas to work on and um it was a real pleasure to look at the materials for this i loved the the report it was a fun read and i loved the uh thoroughness of the analysis and uh sort of the step-by-step way that it really considered everything that we uh need to be asking ourselves as we act on a permit like this and the analytical way that everything was dealt with and all of the historic resources were drawn upon uh and considered um really um impressive and yes unsurprising but um shows a lot of respect for the history of the city which um you know is also not a surprise but um it's the purpose of uh asking all the questions and uh those examples of prior work are gorgeous and i have every confidence that this one is going to be uh just as uh successful and obviously in support board member debaucher are there any comments that you would wish to make uh maybe requests of the applicant or the applicants uh professionals here before i uh ask for uh further action thank you chair i don't really have any questions i would uh had one more comment i was going to run past the board and then perhaps a couple of friendly amendments please um oh i mean i did not mention before uh but i'm just going to bring up and i it's not a deal breaker by any stretch but if you look at the west side yard elevation if we can get that up on the screen it's it's the long side uh of the there it is right there on the west uh the solar panels are arrayed pretty much all along the new additions uh western facing roof including fairly close to the street and i would just put in a potential friendly amendment to consider relocating some of those panels to the south facing area um can we get the south elevation up any chance that i think is the south um perhaps moving a couple of the panels over to the south uh that's not as visible from the street and might offer them higher performance on their solar that's just an item to consider not a condition um i would like to put a friendly amendment in for one condition and that is to retain that uh address sign in the porch column base for potential future restoration can i uh does the applicant have any reaction or um uh feedback on that potential friendly amendment i would say we are amenable to that um we don't i guess i wouldn't say that we can do it with certainty but to allow the option for us to do it i think would be fine if member debaker is okay with that yes absolutely just to keep the potential open and we'll see what we can do right out of the the standards uh required to leave things in place uh when possible and just uh if you have to seal it up for now but leave the workings in place um let's see i would also consider um had two other considers for the friendly amendment consider differentiating this uh siding on the new construction that's not a condition that's a consider uh and another one would be again not a condition but a consider uh relocating the solar panel some of the solar that closest to the street to the south side south elevation go ahead please i would just say that as long as that's not a requirement it's a consideration we'd be amenable to that as well we we will talk to our solar provider to um help us determine the appropriate location for what we need and i i have some concern that the south side may also be visible from brown street so we'd want to take a look at that too but we are certainly um aware of the visibility of solar panels and would want to try to shield those as much as possible from the street views both sides okay thank you i was going to ask that uh any changes in windows come to the board but i decided we not to proceed with that request so that's it so um just want to get some clarification again on the um the uh address sign and the manner in which you were interested in in having that dealt with in terms of the resolution um are we chained as there been a friendly amendment to the resolution i'm not sure how yes that would send it as a friendly amendment in and could i have the amendment maybe just described back to me to make sure that i'm on the same page excuse me uh unless i missed it i don't think there isn't a resolution on the table and if there is there needs to be a second and then that needs to go back and be accepted the friendly amendments need to be accepted by both the person who motioned and seconded i'm not sure what the um actual substance of the friendly amendment how we would restate that in kind of a narrow way the the person who would is proposing that friendly amendment makes that statement okay great and then you go back if it happened to be somebody who didn't make the first motion that's you go back to that who made the motion and that who made the second is that clear sure sorry my apologies commission did the board member debakker make the motion for the resolution are you the initiator no it's board member mcqueen made the resolution it was seconded and i was offering a friendly amendment to include one condition and two considerations right so you made the amendments clear and then now back to board member mcque to accept and then the seconded to accept to also accept and then that motion carries for discussion and i i suppose my question is exactly the the manner in which the the condition would be written or stated is that's what i'm unclear about so maybe just if you could restate that or elaborate for my edification would you like me to restate that would be great okay please all right the condition is to retain the existing column mounted address sign for future restoration great thank you can can i ask a clarifying question was that and if possible no i'm not asking we're not asking them to restore it today to make up new lights and everything like that we're asking to leave the workings that are inside the column in plates for potential future restoration maybe i could restate that i guess that was unclear in the original i think the way you just said it is is very clear so can i ask you to do it one more time with that so that i understand what it is that i've got to be looking for when i see the plans come in okay to retain the column base mounted light fixture address sign for future restoration and then there were two considers the first being differentiating new construction with a different siding or features is that on all on the addition as well as the accessory structure or just on the accessory structure thank you for clarifying our documents would indicate any new construction but i was really intending just the new garage and presidential unit and the other one was to considerably locating some of the solar away from which street wheeler to the back of the building on a south elevation okay board member debaker suggested a friendly amendment the motion was made by board member mcqueen seconded by vice chair fennel board member mcqueen any reaction or discussion or thoughts i would accept the friendly amendment and vice chair okay i'm fine with that okay so the friendly amendment has been made and board members and staff any further discussion before i ask for your votes on the motion on the resolution as amended okay staff would you like the chair to repeat the amendments or i think we've gone over it pretty freshly so that's probably okay it's okay that's great all right okay i'm going to take a roll call vote on the motion to approve the resolution vice chair fennel your vote please i board member mcqueen your vote please i board member debaker your vote please heartfelt i board member grannica your vote please i and i also vote i and that passes five i's with board member muser being abstaining from that item for very obvious reasons and with that we conclude item 6.1 thank you very much and wonderful to have you back helping us and from another vantage point in the process sure can we take a brief versus yeah that's a good idea let's take five and everybody everybody reset after i actually say it into a microphone all right let us resume and move to item 6.2 the study session for the downtown station area specific plan update uh staff presentation uh mr streeter please thank you chair edmondson members of the culture heritage board uh we are here today for a study session regarding the downtown station area specific plan uh the purpose is to discuss the draft preferred alternative for the plan many of the board members are aware that we do have an existing specific plan for our downtown many board members have seen this slide many times before it was adopted in 2007 anticipating the opening of the downtown smart station it was a 20-year planning period and part of the vision was around 3400 new residential units and about half a million square feet of non-residential floor area being developed in response to this new transit center we are now more than halfway through the plan period the on these two graphs the bar on the left is what was anticipated the bar on the right is what was actually constructed and so you can see especially for housing development we've had about 100 units actually built of those 3400 that were envisioned so we've fallen short of the goals from this plan in 2018 the city council set a series of priorities and one of those was to to incentivize downtown development and to prioritize downtown housing in response one of the ways that the planning and economic development department responded was by reaching out to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission the MTC to acquire a planning grant to update our downtown plan with the intent of realizing that vision and also determining whether the vision in 2007 is still the vision that the city has today for its downtown the downtown as we define it is different than some people may have in their minds it includes the downtown core around courthouse square as well as railroad square but it also includes several of our our lower intensity residential districts including six of the the preservation districts in the city roughly the downtown area encompasses college having to the north down to highway 12 on the south and brookwood on the east and done on the west so where are we in this update the first phase was the deep dive that was determining what the issues and opportunities were there's a lot of background research but also outreach getting the word out that we were we're taking on this initiative trying to get as much participation as possible we are now in the alternatives exploration phase so based on that background research and and the outreach that we've done the project team developed three alternatives for how this plan could look those those went out in front of several different groups community members stakeholder groups boards and commissions including this board and we heard feedback on on what concepts and each of those are three three each of those three alternatives would would lead to a successful plan and that that feedback was taken in front of our technical advisory committee which is made up of city staff members as well as representatives outside agencies to then determine which of those concepts that were preferred are also feasible which can be implemented into a plan so based on that on that feedback and then our our technical advisory committee response this the the project team has put together what's being called the preferred alternative or the preferred plan concept that is what is before this board today and the idea is to to again get feedback on this on this concept make sure that we got the message correctly again make sure that it's feasible make sure we didn't miss anything ultimately to go in front of a joint study session of the city council and planning commission on December 3rd at which time we would we would take direction from the council if this preferred plan concept is the way that they'd like to move forward we will then begin the process of of implementing that plan so doing the environmental review determining the changes that are necessary to our general plan and our zoning code and then in the new year adopting this this update to the plan and having it be the the law of the land for our downtown area so the the purpose behind the preferred plan concept is kind of as I said it's to summarize the consensus that we've heard to lay out a vision and strategies that we need to implement that vision and also to to lay out the the policies and implementing actions that we'll need to take in order to make this plan go from concept to the actual plan that's adopted by the council so during phase one we we did receive feedback and context on on the existing plan and and what's worked and what hasn't one thing that we we did determine through studies of economic feasibility also the workforce demand housing demand and our our regional housing needs there's actually capacity for more than 10 000 new units just in our downtown taking advantage of the vacant and underutilized sites that we have also a recent development is our downtown core and the roseland area which is directly adjacent to the downtown plan area are both what are considered federal opportunity zones so there's a new financing strategy for having development occur in these areas some of the the barriers that we've identified from the previous plan included a perception that that it's a lengthy review process within the city that permitting is is not always there's there's not as much confidence in moving forward with permitting and so develop the development community may not even consider center is when they can go other places where they don't have to deal with those barriers in response the city has streamlined the design review process reducing the timeline also expedited the permitting process by using opportunities of concurrent review and then setting deadlines to drop back the the actual processing time it takes to get a project from concept to building permit economic barriers to development obviously the plan was adopted in 2007 so the the great recession had a had an impact on that plan but now we're we're past that and we see development occurring with much more fervor throughout the bay area not necessarily reflected in the north bay one of the reasons for that is that the multifamily housing market in a downtown area like Santa Rosa is unproven we don't have many examples of a successful project in our downtown also the the development cost versus the return for investment the construction costs are roughly the same anywhere in the bay area but your price per square foot for either rent or sale is much higher in other parts as well as infrastructure costs there's the utilities as well as the overhead power lines throughout the city those are just added costs that that all work into a pro forma for a project that have been making it more difficult to have the development up here that we envisioned in our plan some of the strategies include as I mentioned before the response of reducing those those costs and timelines the department has also lifted our fees and reduced given methods of reducing the fees that a project would take on also trying to make it a more attractive downtown and that's part of the vision for this downtown plan update also looking at the the job sector where we have jobs that that can support housing and also taking advantage of that and letting the the industry leaders know that we we want to work with them and providing the housing for for their their job sources and then also just expanding the the downtown having more rooftops having proven projects that can that can set an example and and act as a catalyst for for future development regulatory barriers also exist as I mentioned before there were considerations of strict development requirements also in addition to being restrictive they've been considered complicated there were seven different sub areas in the previous plan as well as seven different street types so any project moving forward would have to identify which sub area they were which street type they were under as well as their zoning district their general plan designation and it just created confusion and made it difficult for a for a developer to even know what they could do with their with their parcel so in response to these barriers part of the plan for this update is obviously the the objective is to facilitate housing production we want to simplify the development standards we want to provide flexibility one one thing that that came up is that we don't know what technology is going to look like what market demand is going to look like several years from now so we'd like to build in that flexibility so that we're able to even even development types that we can anticipate now will be able to have a place for them should they should they arise and then also creating a sense of place giving an identity to our downtown which brings us to the preferred plan concept just to give a couple comments on the outreach that was performed we've had over 800 different points of contact as far as developing this this draft plan concept our most recent workshop where we looked at the the three alternatives had 120 plus participants show up at the central library branch we've had a wide response to our online surveys and and as I mentioned we've we've gotten a lot of very very good feedback on what concepts people preferred from our different plans which we were able to take in front of our technical advisory committee to determine feasibility so some of the points of consensus um there was a lot of support for a dense urban core around courthouse square as well as the concept of village centers so as I mentioned on the earlier slide the downtown area is actually a very wide expansive area and so the feedback we got was that intensity should be concentrated in our downtown core but we should create a sense of place through all these different neighborhoods both existing and potentially future neighborhoods that develop there was also a lot of support for connectivity through the Santa Rosa Plaza mall right now the existing plan has calls for a road of an automobile road plus sidewalks to be punched through at fourth street the feasibility of that is its private property so if the owners of the mall were to have a major redevelopment that would be a requirement however there's been a lot of support and and comfort with the idea of just having bike and or pedestrian connection through which would maybe mean a more minor retrofit of the mall property and perhaps extended hours something like that rather than a wholesale demolition of a portion of the mall to to construct a street center as a creek has been identified as a key asset in our downtown so orienting development towards the creek and improving wayfinding and the actual creek facilities to encourage use some sort of connectivity as far as a trolley or utilizing the existing city bus facilities to create connectivity between the different parts of our downtown and then also just the catalyst sites that were mentioned previously so um Maxwell court which is in the northeast portion or northwest portion of the downtown area has been home to Baudin the asphalt plant for a long time Baudin has expressed interest in leaving that location which creates a catalyst site also there's in our downtown core there are several city-owned facilities some of them in stages of needing substantial maintenance to them so those are properties that could be leveraged towards a public-private partnership that could then give us some of those those catalytic projects that prove the market for future projects so as I mentioned it was the the idea was a big city urban core these neighborhood centers and improving the connectivity between the mall enhancing our streetscape so the existing plan calls for ground floor uses the going strategy for mixed use has always been retail on the ground floor residential above we know that in the changing retail dynamic now that's not always going to be successful so so while an active use like a retail or a service industry location on the ground floor is acceptable we're also opening the idea to design changes that could activate the streetscape for development improving our streetscapes and connectivity so not just through restriping or building new streets but improving wayfinding incorporating art and lighting to to make the pedestrian bicycle and automobile experience more pleasant through our different connections and then also identifying areas where where new development or redevelopment could occur and so in in coming up with this this plan concept we did isolate certain areas of the city that that have the most potential for development so the slide that's up right now shows vacant land underutilized land and city property the under underutilized land is where the the value of the of the ground is higher than the value of the building that's sitting on it so these are all areas where we have clusters of these different types of opportunities that we've identified for areas where potential change could happen and you'll see in the in the plan where we we talk about new land uses and and new design or new new regulatory framework we try we tend to concentrate in these areas where we see the most potential for development you'll probably notice that most of the preservation districts are outside of these areas or if they they do encroach into these change areas it's usually along a major corridor or an area where there there is potential for for substantial development or redevelopment but one thing that we do want to be very sensitive to is that these are transition areas moving from the high intensity downtown core or these these new development areas into these established preservation districts so that's that's a portion where this board will be very useful as a resource as we try to develop how those transitions occur so as I mentioned the the plan concept before you envisions the the majority of our of our development and intensity in this downtown core around courthouse square this is where we'd see the tallest buildings also the the highest number of residential units in addition to other types of of land uses so the workforce centers and and the cultural institutions but we also want to elevate these village centers so different neighborhoods would have high connectivity between them and also some sort of focal point like a park or a plaza or a civic space that gives them identity and helps everyone kind of focus around around a certain part of the of these different neighborhoods so we did simplify the land uses that we're looking at for the downtown area the the 2007 downtown plan had 13 different land use designations we've narrowed it down to six and they they each there's there's four main new land uses that will be incorporating into this plan they are core mixed use station mixed used maker mixed use and neighborhood mixed use you may see a running theme between those different land uses the idea is providing flexibility we want them to be permissive we want them to to allow a neighborhood to develop organically as as different types of uses come in we don't want to be saying no we want to be working towards yes and so the what differentiates them is is pretty much the target audience or target users of them so core mixed use that that is our our big city downtown core it's the most permissive it's the highest intensity and it also it's where our workforce is primarily going it's where the most most of our dense dwelling units will be our station mixed use land use is meant to cater primarily to visitors so railroad square is the is the main focal point of that and that's that's what's bringing people into the city that's where where people that are in the city are going to go out or to have a cultural experience but it also does support residential so the smart site is a great example of a site where we'd have those visitor serving uses as well as people that are living there taking advantage of transit maker mixed use is it's meant to take advantage of in a lot of cases existing development so Maxwell court in the the northwest is is a kind of a good example of that right now it's it's developed with some pretty successful and established industrial uses we don't want to drive those uses away we don't want to tell them that they're they're not an allowed use there but we do want to allow the potential for if a property owner wants to redevelop if they want to add residential that would accompany their industrial use that that's where maker mixed use comes in there are examples of it throughout the Bay Area but we just took a field trip earlier today to the warehouse district in Petaluma that's that's kind of the the vision that we're looking looking at where you have distilleries you have some auto-oriented uses you also have medium to high density housing and they're they all exist next to each other and it's very walkable and you just as as properties that developed they have consideration of the existing uses around them and and plan accordingly and lastly our neighborhood mixed use that is where the other ones I mentioned were job centric industrial centric visitor centric that is our resident centric mixed use district so that's the one that's supposed to primarily be residential with neighborhood serving uses allowed in that that type of area as this map also includes urban park and civic spaces so in our existing general plan we have a little tree icon that you'll you'll see in different places indicating that a park is necessary what we've observed in the past is that each parcel in that area will develop until one person is left being the one that has to build that park so we're trying to be a little more permissive here and and saying that these are the types of uses we want to see and it doesn't have to be a city park that's built there it could be private space that's that's activated and enabled so that it's private space but it's publicly accessible and publicly usable so we're still kind of developing what that definition looks like but that's the idea behind the urban park civic space designation and as I mentioned before there are opportunities for catalyst sites to really prove the market and start having the development that we'd like to see another big change with this preferred plan concept is moving away from the traditional units per acre and and development standards so you can have eight units per acre and your building height maximum is 35 feet instead we we're we're moving towards the concept of floor area ratio to put it very simply whatever this ratio is is the amount of building that you can you can construct so if you have a 1000 square foot parcel and your floor area ratio is one you can do a one-story 1000 square foot building that would take up the entire parcel or you can do a two-story 500 square foot per floor building that would then take up half the parcel so it regulates by form and mass as opposed to by by straight units per acre and rigid development standards so it allows for more flexibility in how how concepts move forward this would be coupled with requirements such as step backs transition requirements open space requirements that prevent us from having overwhelming monolithic development but it does create that flexibility that as a project can be designed and molded to actually fit the site so you'll see that the areas where we're proposing to implement this FAR system roughly overlaps with the the new land use areas which overlaps with those those development potential areas again the the highest intensity highest FAR would be located in our core and then it would feather down as we approach the preservation districts and as we approach the the boundaries of the of the downtime plan area as I mentioned there there would be design considerations also taken into account so this map that's on the screen right now those arrows along the bottom portion of the of the plan area that's indicating that development would be required to front the creek or at least acknowledge the creek to activate the existing trail that we have there we'd also we'd have these transition edges so most applicable to this board would be our neighborhood transition edge where we have higher intensity development that is transitioning into our lower intensity preservation districts and so we'd like to develop zoning standards around how that actually takes place and as I mentioned before we we are no longer requiring active ground floor uses it's active ground floor active ground floor requirements so that could be accomplished through design through land use or through other creative means and connectivity is a key component of this plan as I mentioned connection through the mall area we'd like to see that that connectivity and improvement travel all the way from fourth street in courthouse square to fourth street in rare red square across the tracks down to center as a creek there are other areas where there's opportunities for streetscape enhancement that would again improve the experience for users of the street road diets is another concept that came out of our outreach the idea for road diet is you take away a vehicle travel lane and you give that real estate to other types of improvements which could include parklets bicycle lanes or bikeways or sidewalk improvements and so the the key takeaways from this this plan that's before you it's uh it's bold and there are some some substantial changes from the existing 2007 plan one of them is is implementing this this use of far another that that we'd like to implement is to waive the parking requirements for development within a quarter mile of high frequency transit so much of the downtown does have access to high frequency transit so this would be a major change as well that that active ground floor requirement that I mentioned trying to to leverage opportunities that we have for for catalyst sites to develop enabling public spaces be it private or public and improving the way finding and street experience and so with that I'd like to we'd love to hear feedback from this board and I'm happy to answer any questions thank you thanks very much mr. Streeter I do have a card on this it's not a formal public hearing but I think we'd be happy to hear comments from any members of the public who are here and then we'll jump in as a board and ask questions so I do have one card on the item from Michelle Gervais and hi thank you so much I'm sorry I missed the beginning but I had the benefit of getting to meet with Patrick earlier today and I'm here on behalf of the Santa Rosa canners I'm not sure if you're familiar all familiar with them John Stewart is the lead partner of a few he bought the property along the creek in railroad square you you know the walls that remain along the smart site those are the cannery properties that were purchased 20 years ago actually it's quite a saga for another time but I wanted as it's relevant for today I just wanted to speak on behalf and say that we have been retooling the project which had originally been entitled in 2008 for 93 condos it is now intended to be 114 affordable housing units mixed income mixed age between 30 and 80 percent affordability maintaining the historic that the arrangement that was made with your predecessors was that the historic walls that contribute to the historic district be maintained and they have been there's a laser sight from Carlisle Macy that's been monitoring that now for almost 20 years very little movement at all which is great also that the water tower be eventually restored and replaced you may or may not know that the buildings had been connected and there had been a fruit and packing distribution line that rang between the two buildings part of these earlier plans back in the 08 entitlement was that that four-street corridor be opened up so that the passageway through to the creek could could be recreated from ages ago and and so there is a dedicated public right of way that will be negotiated as part of the project and there's actually a storm drain that was replaced there after one New Year's Eve drenching of railroad square it's another story but there was a skew sewer line that was crushed with the moving of the water tower by such a heavy crane truck and nobody knew until New Year's Eve when there was a big storm and it backed up in the restaurants that was something in any case that four-street corridor is another element that is part of this proposed project and suffice it to say that after looking at the previous plan or the current plan and this preferred plan concept we find that this is a terrific terrific plan it allows the flexibility for other sites it enables this catalytic project and the floor air ratio is a really exciting way to have some versatility and height or scale as is appropriate for a site of neighbors in this instance there are two parcels and the northern of the two which is the blue banded plant five we don't propose much development right now be a community space and that is because we wouldn't have the west street along the smart site to provide access to that building for housing our floor area numbers are a bit of skew but they do have we think the um recognizably special condition that would make that far not quite fit for the entirety of the site with the acknowledgement that when west street is in place that northern building could be developed with more housing and so the bottom line is we look forward to submitting for entitlements very soon it's a financing issue for affordable housing that's tricky but this all does fit and we applaud the great effort thank you thank you very much that's always been one of my favorite sites in the city it's always been fascinated fascinating to me and it's at the confluence of so many other things and uh highly visible and it's exciting to hear about all the plans so thanks for coming and telling us about that i think that's the only uh it's the only card i have and so i'm just going to bring it back to the board and ask for any comments or excuse me questions first for staff and uh board member gronega if you would like to start or if you have any questions for staff i have no questions for staff at this point so you want me to weigh on comments later then certainly of course um i'll just open it up then any questions for staff before we just go to uh comments on the preferred alternative board member mickey question for staff no no questions okay uh board member debaker thank you chair um just looking at some of the floor area ratios in their relationship to the numerous historic districts that are forming adjacencies here and uh there does seem to be some substantial increase in floor area ratios on some of our our most precious uh portions of our downtown and other areas um uh for example the railroad square well let's go four street downtown going with an 8.0 floor area ratio for uh some of those wonderful buildings that are already a long fourth um is is it really expectation that um we would be tearing out that uh section of town and and going bigger let's start with that question first yeah so it's the expectation is not that established historic buildings would be torn down to allow monstrosities to take their place um but we we do want to allow the the possibility that for instance along fourth there are several parking lots on the the fifth street side of those buildings so we'd like to allow the possibility that buildings could take place that would be high intensity um but they would still be subject to if there is a historic building on the site all of the secretary of interior standards potentially going in front of this board for for comment on on what's being proposed um and yes preservation of our existing streetscapes is a is a key component of this plan so the historic character of of fourth street in many of our areas downtown uh preserving that or making sure that that's acknowledged would be a key component of any new development i would also add um the exhibit that talks about design considerations you'll see these little red triangles called downtown transition edge and that's exactly to capture that sensitivity point that fourth street has character special special characteristics that we'd want to make sure that we don't lose um by increasing as uh mr streeter said the opportunity to build behind them or with them could you put that slide up funny chance i'm not seeing it in the little triangles that you're referring to on so you can see here um the sort of black hatches the street active active ground floor but you see on the left here we have different transition edges um depending on what we're really sensitive to so we've identified ones where it has that downtown classic santa rosa main street characteristic we want to preserve um also areas around the smart station itself and then the neighborhood transition is is that which is speaking to a preservation district frankly okay that that clarifies some things a bit because although those streetscapes are something that i was had a bit of a problem in sacrificing for the floor area designations that were being um done with those and it may be useful to clarify that the floor area ratio is applied to open sites um i'd also want to make sure that it's understood something that this board has been saying for a while is our last survey was 1988 and so there are um 50 years more buildings that haven't been evaluated yet and with the loss of certain other buildings due to fires and other things some of which we had a few of before we're down to one now uh and i would uh i think a new survey needs to go hand in hand with establishing what's important uh we're a little bit long of tooth on that um there's also some encroachment going on on the cherry street uh area in the orchard um that i know i'm going to probably hearing from some more constituents about um i think you've addressed one of the other ones that was my concern about the station area itself with the wonderful uh bluestone buildings uh being in the designated density increase area i don't think anybody's looking forward to losing the depot or hotel or rose or the flying goat uh for this so if there's a way to show that being excluded as we move forward in some way i think would be prudent um i don't think i'll just leave it at that i think that we we need to support the plan with them at least plans for an updated survey uh and that if there are certain portions like the depot area itself and some of our urban street fronts that already are functioning that we don't want to lose leave it at that and uh chair admins and i may just respond to uh to board member debaker's comments about the survey of course uh so we do have as part of the scope of this project um to engage it's not going to be a wholesale historic inventory survey of of the properties in the downtown but we are looking to expand the scope slightly to include surveys of of certain priority development sites to identify where we do have historic resources that may have become age eligible in the the 30 plus years since the last survey took place as a department we are also looking for other funding sources to expand that survey out to cover more of our um downtown area wherever we are not able to accomplish that as part of our proactive planning it would be uh on a future developer to actually do that that research and identify whether there is a historic resource on site and to uh take the the necessary steps that that would involve and just another follow-up to that so we uh we have uh organized around uh some sp2 funds with the state and we're we have multiple initiatives we'd like to to move forward but a primary one is to do historic survey work in the downtown area um focus on these these developable so outside the preservation districts with these sort of catalytic areas and do that survey work up front um so we are hoping to submit that grant later this month and we hope to get that those funds to move forward with that chair chair if I get one more thing of course um another reason for encouraging the survey is that just in the last week or so the governor signed the renewal of historic uh tax credits for historic properties the more properties we can get surveyed and on our local listings the more of our community can benefit from that 15 percent tax credit as we help move forward with this so it it it's extra money to leverage the improvement of our downtown if we act in a way that allows our historic buildings to participate. Remember me sir any questions for staff? So if if I heard correctly and I've I've read correctly it doesn't sound like I guess it's just yes or no it doesn't sound like there's going to be land use changes in the historic districts. It is not simple yes or no um okay for the most part the majority of the of the preservation districts there are no changes proposed but there are certain areas um particularly along major arterials or other areas that fall within those places that I had identified earlier as opportunity areas some of those do have the historic designation overlay so there is encroachment into some of these areas where there would be changes to land use and to development standards. Okay thank you. I'm gonna look at some of these exhibits as we're trying to highlight where the area of change is so that's where you see the sort of that bold coloring coming up through these exhibits where you don't see any bold change there's no proposed change so we're not proposing to change land use or the the zoning for those and so if that helps navigate through these exhibits where you don't see any bold color there's no proposed change. It sounds like it might be useful for this board if we were to develop an exhibit that showed the boundaries of our preservation districts and where the change would occur so that's something that we can do. It doesn't sound as though there was a mistake I mean that it seems like it was obvious then that cherry was left off of the um neighborhood transition edge was that as one of these affected areas backing to college avenue is that purposely left off as mark had mentioned is it I never seen projects come before us that are proposed for that area. Yeah so the the the core of cherry street is not the area that surrounds it it does not have any change proposed but that is a good point that there are there are areas on the edge of the of the preservation district that would also be fronting with these higher intensity FAR districts so that's a good point that we can we can look further into. I have a couple of questions please. Were you gonna say something more member McHugh? Please go ahead. Yeah I'm I'm a little bit concerned about getting caught in a in a bit of a vice in terms of of what our responsibilities are vis-a-vis the the desire of the city to build more housing and to and to you know increase increase densities. We've had we had a project here a couple months ago that was on College Avenue and although that technically wasn't in I think the St. Rose historical district it did have it it shadowed it in some fashion and so I'd like you know I hope that that there is some flexibility in terms of it's I mean an education program or something that will will advise developers on what the implications are of their designs and their structures relative to you know historical districts even though they may technically not be in one but be very close to one that's a concern I have. Is that a more of a comment or a question I just don't want to interrupt? Well it's it's a comment. As a comment so that's why I did not respond but we are we are noting that comment thank you. Okay. Member DeBocker. Just one more along the lines of John's comment the earlier stages when I was here 11 years ago one of our mandates was when we were looking at the effects and section 106 as well when we do that when you're looking at the effect on a historic property our language at that time that we were working under was projects in and adjacent to historic districts so all the properties that were immediately adjacent to the outline to a historic district boundary also required review though it was mostly in view sheds and height I don't know whether that language still exists in the documents of in or adjacent to in our documentation but it's something we ought to make sure we take another look at whether that's a conflict or a potential conflict with where we're going here. I have a couple of questions if I can jump in. So the switch to the FAR expression of you know the density concept I'm looking back at the you know the three alternatives the last time and I don't know was FAR discussed much in those alternatives it's I'm sort of just seeing how it's become an overlay and a pretty powerful tool here and I'm just wondering when that started to pick up steam and become a way that people thought it would express the wishes of you know that surrounded three clients that didn't may not have discussed it. Included as a concept in those three alternatives that went out we were talking about the comfort with building height and mass and shadows and things like that the FAR concept actually came as feedback from members of the development community as well as our consultants on how to address the concerns about flexibility and about regulating a building based on form rather than rigid design standards so it was the outreach that took place after we released those alternatives that the FAR concept came into this project. Okay I'm FAR you know it's been I guess growing in prominence and in the Bay Area and elsewhere and it's just a little bit surprising to me to see it come in at this stage of the process and not have been in the first stage of it and when I suppose you know because it's a well-known planning tool even though it's a seat change I think it might be surprising to some people to see it as part of a preferred alternative when it wasn't in any of the other alternatives especially since it's kind of I think a new concept for the city and I think a lot of people are probably going to be doing a lot of learning about the pros and cons of what the built environment looks like and how it performs when we have an FAR type system and I am not sure that it's going to be understood or people are going to be very comfortable with having to learn that in connection with this process but let's see if I have any other questions before we turn it to comments. I remember somewhat from from this board but certainly from I think the city council and the planning commission there was quite a bit of weight thrown behind the Roberts Avenue underpass and that was part of two of the three alternatives I think that were around before and it was part of the circulation plan and you know in the second alternative and it looks like the circulation plan for the second alternative was almost adopted wholesale for this preferred alternative with minor differences here and there. I am just wondering why something that seemed like it had quite a bit of support just as much support as some of the ones that were described in the you know the slide that you had about what people were interested in and what feedback you got from the stakeholders and the government why that wasn't part of the preferred alternative. So the message that we heard that we've heard feedback from the planning commission and the other boards and committees and council did support that underpass but we really heard was that it was supporting the connection of the Roberts Avenue area to the rest of the plan area and that was also the feedback that we got from the public was that some connection has to take place. Also it has to be a feasible alternative and the existing space that's in the right of way that in the existing plan is proposed for it's not feasible to actually construct that vehicular road. There is the option of constructing a new tunnel underneath Highway 12 and connecting Roberts Avenue but that also includes working with Caltrans, getting the funding to do that connection and also on the other side of the street or on the other side of the freeway on the north end of Highway 12 would be acquisition of private property to build that road. So based on the feedback that we heard it was less so about the vehicular connection that it was through establishing a connection. So in the preferred plan concept that's before you it there's a lot of offsite that would be associated with any kind of development that took place in the Roberts Ave area to create that clear connection between this area Roseland and the the station area. So we're responding to that both through land use. So you'll find that the station mixed use land use has been applied to the Roberts Avenue area but also this roadway enhancement for Sebastopol Road as well as Olive Street and Railroad Street and the pedestrian bicycle connection clearly connecting the station to this area. So that was the response based both on the comfort level and the the desire that we heard from our various forms of outreach as well as the feasibility when we went in front of our technical boards. So the connections from the Roseland area or excuse me the Roberts area to the station area would be in terms of how they might be different from what they are now it would be an enhancement of to the the bike path there the smart path it would be it looks like an enhancement to the bus service that would go over to Dutton and up to the third street and it would be this Olive Street enhancement of some sort and that Olive Street and Dutton would would remain the vehicular easiest and those would be the two vehicular connections yes and and you're probably familiar with the the underpass right now at Olive where it meets Sebastopol Road or guys at Sebastopol Avenue at that point is not very pedestrian friendly so it would be include the pedestrian improvements just the the streetscape improvements that would make that a desirable place and the wayfinding to make to make it clear that there is a connection there for vehicles as well as these these other pedestrian and bicycle facilities so it would be fair to say maybe that the Olive Street area would be more with a through fare were this to be the plan going forward because we would be increasing the density quite a bit in Roberts and we would be seeking to tie it to the rest of the plan area and the shortest vehicular path of travel and the most sort of normal connection would be Olive Street and would bisect that district that's a fair assumption okay a couple other questions like I said a minute ago the looks like the circulation plan was mostly based on alternative to there were a couple of things that were a little different and I was just curious about why the road diets Mendocino Avenue the road diet had been I think all the way up to the north all the way either to Lincoln or college or you know basically to the the edge of the plan area and you know we've been talking about that neighborhood a couple of times so far here and now the road diet appears to end at 10th leaving that north end of Mendocino Avenue the way that it is currently so I was wondering why that was not adopted and I have the same question with regard to the stretch of Santa Rosa Avenue between Sonoma and First Street which was to be part of the road diet but now is no longer described as being part of it yeah those changes came from again our technical advisory committee meeting so these road diets are actually in our bike and pedestrian master plan as well as our CIP so this reflects the actual road diets that will be taking place per our transportation public works department the further portions of it were deemed not feasible and that's why that's why the the segments that you see reflected here are what would actually be implemented in the CIP okay and and somewhere there's um is there a publicly available resource that describes why those wouldn't have been feasible would it be part of the bike and pedestrian master plan or some technical document um because I'm just curious personally why it's not feasible between 10th and college yeah we can we can follow up on that and and determine if there is if it is memorialized somewhere okay thanks uh board members any other questions for staff and then we'll um just make a round and make comments vice chair fellow will this be affecting um the cultural heritage boards um um ability to have input on like say Santa Rosa avenue and some of these areas that are in the high ratio uh areas will we have we still have the same say so that we have now or will we be losing part of our it's the former uh so we are we are changing the land uses and development standards but the um the oversight and the purview of this board does not change so the we're not changing anywhere any locations with the um the dash h historic overlay and um the additional findings for say one of the one of the items that goes before this board is increased building height um anything in a preservation district over um 35 feet or two stories uh this board needs to make findings that it's um consistent with the surrounding neighborhood those remain in full force in effect with this plan okay um let us wrap up uh board member debaucher would you like to kick it off and make any final comments that you have I apologize I've made most of my comments already during the question phase no you do apologize I'll add one more though and I'm not saying that this is this is just something to bear in mind in the background Paris is considered to be among the most livable and functioning urban places uh in the world uh Paris operates because it has a five foot five story height limit Paris couldn't exist if it used floor area ratio it would be a very different very very different place with gaps between the buildings and inconsistent storefronts it's the five story height limit that does make certain or height limits in general that makes certain urban spaces work uh I'm not saying that floor area ratio can't but I will say that it will take an extra effort to make uh the street sense of an area ruled by floor area ratio be a very successful urban space board member debaucher any comments excuse me board member debaucher board member user any comments the um the land use designations even even today um um in certain areas in that historic uh districts have put us in positions where the applicant based on the land use is applying to do something but based on fitting in with the historic neighborhood doesn't fit so it causes kind of a conflict um so any land use changes and in I say this in two ways because in on one side there's some real opportunity um in some of the historic neighborhoods uh such as west end and railroad square um but it it will be with with land use changes in the historic neighborhoods it will also potentially cause us conflict as uh at least I see my role as um um um supporting those people who have invested in the historic neighborhoods and are counting on the city to preserve those historic neighborhoods and keep them as as they were uh designated initially so anyway just my thoughts um board member chronica I was going to say board member muser just to keep it going but board member chronica um just a few comments uh and the first one there's some terms I guess jump out at me on this uh and they kind of relate also to past and current roles I find myself in as soon as I assume uh chairman edmondson would point himself into one is vibrancy I really like where the direction of where you're trying to go and uh in terms of uh the downtown area the specific plans and so on it's much needed and it also then relates to transition that we are in need I suppose uh of transition to again ensure that vibrancy and increased housing to meet those demands um switching to my um cultural heritage board hat that also calls out for a delicate balance that we're as a board will be faced with and I think that's why we probably are getting and some of the questions in my own mind is you know what is our role going to be inadvertently or uh as stated by say current regulations and policy it's going to be potential conflict for us I guess uh which I think we probably all are aware of yet at the same time I don't think as a cultural heritage board member that we can in essence shy away from that and that uh we may need some assistance or guidance as to what the city may want to clarify for us on policy or have engage us in whether we think we need some changes and certainly as you've already indicated I'm thinking about the land use changes on the edges of those uh some of those districts will be important having said that I really think we do need to keep moving forward on this and that I would assume unless policy or regulations change that whether we form a cultural heritage board approves or disapproves a project the next step to for the uh proposal the developer proposing a project whatever it is is that they'll appeal us potentially people could appeal us to what the next level the planning commission and then it gets appealed to perhaps and approved by the city council is that what we're going to be seeing in the future an appeal of a chp action would go directly to council to council okay okay thank you but I think we need to be aware of that is what I'm saying so with that I'll shut up and keep moving forward and board member McHugh any comments it seems to me that we're going to have a some issues around height even in the core downtown a a 10-story building or a 12-story building will have an impact on on the surrounding cultural districts in a sense that that they will create a shadow or they'll do something that so I think that there has to be some kind of of understanding or some education that allows us to to be able to to deal with that because I think you know the city is is really on the cusp of transitioning from a town to a city and all of the implications that go with that and so I'm concerned that we do or you do an education program that kind of gets people to start to understand what that transition is what it's going to look like I know this plan is part of that but the vast majority of the citizens in the city probably don't really understand it or know very little about it so your education program I think is critical to start to get people out beyond the stakeholders usually show up at these kinds of events so that would be my suggestion Mr. Fennel any comments well for our purview being historic districts historically far has been a great thing and has worked well for historic districts that are very well established high-end but has had a bad impact on lesser established districts where parking concerns can be a problem with the huge you know with huge buildings that don't have the parking needs and we can look to the future and hope that we're going to have everybody riding a smart train and riding their bicycle or an electric scooter or the transit but we're not there yet and we need to be thoughtful with the way that we move forward with the close proximity of these historic districts because if we move too fast and we build too tall and there's not enough parking because we are hoping and planning that people are going to move around the way that we're hoping that they're going to move around we're going to destroy resources and we're going to have people losing home values and I just think we need to be careful with these districts that would be impacted by parking and you know it's a great idea to say we're not we're going to take away the parking restrictions in these areas because we really want to see organically what's going to happen in this district but organically you know is a good theory but it doesn't always it doesn't always pencil out and so along with my colleagues I just think we need to be careful we need to be thoughtful in our processes along Santa Rosa Avenue along Cherry and and Mendocino and and actually all of our districts that are going to be impacted by this they just it needs to be done very thoughtfully and with and with a lot of thoughtful input from the neighborhoods and see what they want to do because I agree with John we've talked to people and we've had meetings and you know some stuff but there have been neighborhoods that haven't been as involved with their community liaisons as other neighborhoods have and but moving forward I do think that in these you know let's talk to our neighbors in these historic districts as a as a committee and as a as a group we need to represent them and know what plans they have so that's all I have. Chair Edmondson if I may just make a clarifying comment earlier when I mentioned one of the key moves is to eliminate the parking requirements it is eliminating the city's parking requirement on a project most developments have some sort of parking that they are they in order to get finance they have to provide parking it is the real world it's not we're not everybody's bicycling and riding riding transit so most projects will include parking we just don't want to be the ones to tell them how much parking to to include we'd like to let the market decide that and then also even in anticipation of of this this type of development moving forward the council recently approved some on-site parking or street parking restrictions for the neighborhoods surrounding the downtown where residents are exempted from the two-hour time limits for example so those are those are ways to respond to to the overflow parking potential but it is something that's on our radar we're aware of that thank you all right I like this preferred alternative in a lot of ways I really like most of the circulation decisions that were that were made I think that I'm glad to see the north south connections being made on the west side of highway 101 the Donahue extension the one in the catalyst site I think those are great I like that all the road diets are you know pretty much going forward the downtown loop is a cool idea and I think that if Vice Chair Perser former Vice Chair Perser were here she would be pretty happy about that because when the planning department presented the last time around I think that she made a point of talking about the historic you know mass transit when the city was at a smaller scale and bringing back that kind of mode of transportation and it's a really neat part of the plan and important I think to actually making the area function because it's still going to be a kind of a semi walkable scale if you think about the two sides of the freeway there so that's a great idea I think the FAR concept I it's gonna be an interesting one politically I like that the levels have been set nice and high and I think that makes me kind of comfortable with the effect this is going to have on the built environment and how things look and then I think the transition idea the transition zone is a good way to keep that from impinging too much on the historic districts but I think there probably is a perception that FAR is a development community preference and that there might be some pushback on that and it'll be interesting to see how it's understood and I think people will have quite quite a few questions my biggest concern about this is the roberts neighborhood and the roberts avenue connection not being part of this plan and I know that it was you know maybe determined that a of vehicular connection wasn't necessary but the fact of the matter is that you know I can if if what this represents is this is the best we can do with connecting that to the rest of the plan area it's just not going to work this is an improvement it would be nice to see the all-street improvements and the Dutton bus frequency and what have you but especially if you know the opportunity zone federal incentives work which from what I hear all the signs are that it's a quite powerful force right now in commercial real estate coupled with the relatively high densities in the roberts area in the plan and the lack of connection to the rest of the plan area you know I think that we're gonna probably have quicker development and it's going to be not oriented toward the downtown it's I think going to be an island unto itself and maybe you know what this reflects is that it was an overreach to include it in the plan area and that's not for us to talk about it was a decision that the council made earlier in the scoping but it's not going to work and if it does work that people actually do travel in significant numbers between that and the smart station you know if anybody who lives in that roberts area is going to be a car owner in all likelihood and because it really is isolated and then they're going to be traveling on olive street through the olive street neighborhood and I'm not sure that it's the most suitable through fare for what we're envisioning as a you know a regional transportation hub to high density new development so if it does function it's got problems and if it doesn't function then it represents I think something that doesn't really represent a downtown that's cohesive and then I think I'm not sure whether all these visual depictions are meant to contain every park that you know we've heard that public open space or the flexible park requirement could talk about maybe the political motives behind that and I'm not saying anybody has them in the city but I can see why those might be an easier sell to the public than parks for a few reasons but if that roberts neighborhood doesn't have one of those then it seems like a pretty bleak sort of new neighborhood that we have in mind um so I would just want it to be that if we are creating new neighborhoods you know future historic neighborhoods that they have the the potential character to actually be historic neighborhoods 50 years from now the creek oriented development is really nice I like that center's avenue is being activated and and going to be turned into the the visual depictions of that were really a breath of fresh air and if if we could make that happen it would be terrific and it would be a good way to integrate the historic neighborhoods that we have down there and and bring them into the more active downtown so overall I do really appreciate the the plan and the pace of the work and I do think it's bold I just wish I didn't have such a misgiving about what's happened with roberts um I think even if the underpass were only for non-vehicular traffic that it would uh be an important sign that the neighborhood is part of the rest of the plan area and you know Roseland uh its isolation is a is a you know a defining problem of uh the city's urban planning and I don't think without that connection we're going to make much of a dent in it okay that is all I have to say any comments from staff or maybe just the next milestones it's going to plan and commission and council is that correct we'll we'll be doing a study session tomorrow with the design review board and then the month of November is really meant to to have this outreach get the feedback um and you know tweak and modify the plan and try to respond and anticipate as many comments as we can before going before that planning commission city council um meeting on December 3rd so uh we as staff really appreciate uh the board taking the time to to really piece through this um it's an open dialogue so if if something comes to mind if you'd like to put it in writing feel free to send an email or give me a call or give anyone else at planning to get our development a call um we'd like to keep this conversation going especially uh during this month of November which is a a key dynamic time for the development of this plan so again thank you very much it's much appreciated thank you very much patrick uh amazing to have all these details at the uh forefront of your mind at all times and it's always impressive thank you very much uh that we've been keeping up so the website is uh planned downtown sr.com so planned downtown sr.com and anybody can follow the project along its way um which and there's a way to fill out surveys submit comments so it's sort of a one-stop to to keep going um we'll keep feeding that website to in response to um themes of questions that we get so we've heard a lot tonight and we'll we'll make use of that website to answer some of them great thank you very much we will move on now to item seven board member reports board members anything to report board member muser do you have happiness to report about the outcome of your project no all right uh seeing none uh any department reports besides the one you just gave us sorry the one department report that i was going to report patrick touched on earlier and that is that we had a nice department tour of downtown petaluma today and they're transit oriented or working on transit oriented development and um and it was refreshing um other than that i think that's about it thank you i just wanted to i forgot to mention in uh item 6.1 i thought the staff report was really excellent and uh it was great um uh level of detail and precision and always a huge help so thank you very much and with that we are adjourned until our next meeting thank you