 Hi Susie, do you want to do a quick video and audio check for me please? And thanks again you guys for helping me with running the slides tonight. Can you hear me? I can hear you and see you and you are welcome. Thank you. Michelle, it looks like we're still waiting for Board Member Sharon, correct? That is correct. Okay, so we gotta hang out until we get him online. Yes, please. No, totally, I'm just double checking, making sure he's not, you know, waiting in the queue of attendees or what have you. I actually just got a text message from him and he says that he's having an issue logging on. He'll be on it just one second. Okay, sounds good. We will wait, anxiously await his internet connectivity issues. All right, Board Member Sharon, would you like to do a quick video and audio check for me please? And hello. Great, we can hear Anne see you. Thank you so much. You're so great. All right, sure, Michael, we are good to go whenever you are. Yeah, I was actually gonna say with that, let's have all the Board Members turn their videos on and let's get rocking and rolling here if we can. It looks like everybody's ready to go. So with that, it is 431 and I'd like to call the May 5th regular meeting of the City of Santa Rosa Design Review Board to order. Happy Cinco de Mayo, everyone. And just a little reminder as to why we're here. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953E and the recommendation of the Health Officer of the County of Sonoma Design Review Board members will be participating in this meeting via Zoom webinar. Members of the public can participate virtually by navigating to www.zoom.us slash join or by calling in using the toll free phone number 877-853-5257. Using them and for both of those, you may use the meeting ID 816-1176-1047. Public access to the meeting is through Zoom and the public can provide comments during public comment periods. Additional information related to the meeting participation is available at the City's website at srcity.org slash design review board. The meeting will be live streamed on the City's website at santa-rosa.legistar.com slash calendar. Click on the in progress link to view. The meeting can also be viewed on Comcast Channel 28 and is also available on the City's YouTube channel located at youtube.com slash City of Santa Rosa. And with that, I will turn it over to the recording secretary for a roll call. Thank you so much. Let the record reflect that all board members are present with the exception of board member McHugh and board member Wolstein. Thank you. So let's go to item number two here, approval of minutes. And what I'd like to do here is the January 6th minutes, we cannot approve tonight as a board member staff was not a member of the board at that time. So we need to continue the January 6th meeting minutes to the next meeting. Is everybody okay with that? Okay. So then we're just going to go one by one here on the meeting minutes. And so January 22nd, any changes or adjustments to those meeting minutes? Okay. So we'll enter those into the record. February 3rd, any changes or adjustments to the February 3rd meeting minutes? Vice Chair Birch? Okay. I wasn't seeing a head shake. So just making sure. Let's enter February 3rd into the record. February 17th meeting minutes, any changes or adjustments to those? Not seeing any changes. Let's enter those into the record. And March 3rd meeting minutes, any changes or adjustments? All right. Let's enter those into the record. Excellent. Quick, quick, quick. All right. Now, right number three, which is public comment. This is a time when we allow members of the public to speak on items not on the agenda. And but are pertinent to the design review board purview. So each speaker will be allowed three minutes. And so with that, I will now open public comment to those attending. As a reminder, to make public comment, raise your hand in the Zoom meeting. And Michelle, how do you do that if you're on the phone? It's star or something? It is star nine to raise your hand and then star six to unmute. All right. So with that, so again, reminder, these are, this is public comment on items not on the agenda. So it looks like we have a hand raised there, Michelle. And I'm going to turn it over to you. Great. Thank you so much. Darcy, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Hey, how you doing? Actually, this is Darcy Fellows' husband. My name is Jason Lee and we own San Rose Gymnastics Center on Bluebell Drive. Can you guys hear me? We can hear you, but that is on our agenda. It's our first item on our agenda. So if you have public comment for that, we can take it during the actual item. Oh, my apologies then. Sorry about that. Then I will lower the old hand here. Sorry, my first Zoom meeting with you guys. So if I'm a little bit off and go in on the wrong time, just please let me know. So I'm not a problem at all. Thank you. So again, this is public comment on items not on the agenda. So for example, in the past, we've had public comment about trees. We've had public comment about public art. We've had public comment about all of the various different items that we may review as the design review board. So that being said, I'm not seeing any other hands. So I'm going to close public comment at this time for items not on the agenda. We'll have public comment for our scheduled items later. So with that, we're going to move on to item number four, which is board business. So this is the point where we read the statement of purpose. Oh, I'm sorry. We are seeing a hand raised caller 5933. Michelle, do we want to just, I know sometimes the system's a little slow. So we're going to be careful. Yeah, caller 5933 if you want to hit star six to unmute. Yeah, I did. Perfect. If you can begin by stating your name for the record please. Theresa Hughes. We can hear you. Please proceed with your public comment. Okay, you just brought up the subject of trees. I'm not sure if that is intact on the agenda. Is it or not? No, trees are not on the agenda. But if you'd like to speak about trees in our city, you're more than welcome to. I love to speak about trees. I actually brought it up at another public review meeting regarding the Kallilane. The new housing development and I had submitted a number of letters to both you and to public entities, city council. And so what if any developments have happened with the Kallilane apartment regarding the two heritage oaks that are on Kallilane. I had made numerous suggestions taking pictures and measurements regarding those trees to try to maybe work them into the new design. I'm just wondering if there's been any action on that. I never got even one single response, not even a no. I just never got any response, which doesn't make you feel awesome. So that's it. Thank you very much for your public comment. I'm sure city staff will figure out what project that is for. Perhaps we've seen it before or we're going to be seeing it soon. And if that's the case, we will welcome you back if we haven't seen it yet. Seeing another hand here, Michelle. Yes, Orlene, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. My name is Orlene Kerla, and I live actually in Rincon Valley in Santa Rosa. And I was wondering, is this the time to comment about the cell phone tower that they're trying to put up on Bluebell section of Santa Rosa? No, it's not. So we'll actually, that particular item is on our agenda this evening. And it is a public hearing item and we will open the public hearing and we will welcome your public comment during that public hearing portion for that project. Thank you. All right, I will wait until then. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So now we'll go back to item number four here, which is board business. And we're going to get my iPad to work. I apologize. And this is where we read our statement of purpose of the design review board. So zone and code chapter 20-52.030F project review. The review authority shall consider the location, design, site plan configuration, and the overall effect of the proposed project upon surrounding properties and the city in general. Review shall be conducted by comparing the proposed project to the general plan, any applicable specific plan, applicable zoning, code standards and requirements, consistency of the project within the city's design guidelines, architectural criteria for special areas, and other applicable city requirements, e.g. city policy statements and development plans. So that's our statement of purpose. Item 4.2 is board member reports. Does anyone have a board member report this evening? Seeing none. We will skip over item 4.3 as we do not have any other business this evening. We don't have any new members. We just did a vice chair election, and that is that. So now item five, department report. And I would, I guess, like to reintroduce our staff liaison, Jessica Jones. She's coming back to the city of Santa Rosa from a stint. I believe the city of Windsor, maybe? Am I right in that? That is correct. And so we're glad to have her back. And so she's now our new staff liaison. And I believe our old staff liaison. Amy, is she the zoning administrator now? Yes, that is correct. Yes, Amy is testing out her wings as zoning administrator at the moment. So yes, thank you, Chair Weigel, members of the board. I'm thrilled to be back both at the city of Santa Rosa and back with the designer view board. So thank you for that welcome. So yeah, so just happy to be here. I just have two quick items for you guys just to keep you aware of what's going on in our department. I am excited to announce that we did a promotional recruitment and have promoted Planner McKay, Connor McKay, to the senior planner position. So he was a city planner with us, and he has now joined the ranks of our senior planner. So we're super excited for him. And then we are also in the process. I believe that Amy Nicholson may have mentioned this in one of your last board meetings. We are in the process of a large recruitment for city planners. We've got several openings. And so we are moving through that process and are very excited about the new city planners that we're going to be bringing on board, which ultimately will be coming before the design review board at some point, but we hope to have them on. Hopefully by mid to late summer. So excited about that. So that is all that I have for you today. All right. Thank you for that. Staff Lee is on Jones. We appreciate that. So with that, we are going to go to item six, Statements of Abstention. And hopefully we don't have any tonight because we are at four, which is our bare bones for quorum. So does anybody have a statement of abstention this evening? Okay. Seeing none or seeing none, consent items. We do not have any consent items tonight. So with that, we will now go to our scheduled items. And so we'll go to item 8.1, which is a public hearing for the AT&T Telecommunications Facility Design Review located at 2400 Bluebell Drive, PRJ 21-029 and DR 21-064. And I will turn it over to the project planner for a staff report. And so, Kristen Natumians, you're up. Thank you, Chair Weigel and members of the Design Review Board. As you mentioned, this is a proposed telecommunication facility at 2400 Bluebell Drive. This type of brand new tower of this size requires a major design review and major conditional use permit. The project includes a 60-foot-tall wireless telecommunication facility and supporting equipment shelter. That also includes a backup generator located at 2400 Bluebell Drive. Project site is in the northwest quadrant of the city in a predominantly industrial area. The cell tower itself would be located to the rear of the property highlighted in the slide. As you can see, to the northeast and south area has an industrial landscape, industrial uses to the west. The project site is separated by a smart rail line in Pioneer Creek. And there are residential, there's a residential neighborhood to the west beyond the smart rail in Pioneer Creek. So just to go over the project history, on July 19th, 2021, we held a virtual neighborhood meeting. There was low attendance at that meeting, but there were concerns about how the tower could negatively affect neighboring residents' health. The applicants submitted a conditional use permit on September 10th, 2021. On September 17th, planning staff sent a notice of application to residents within 600 feet of the project. On December 16th, 2021, staff presented this project to the Waterways Advisory Committee due to the project site having the corner adjacent to Pioneer Creek. And staff asked for advice from the design review board as to whether the proposed AT&T facility is consistent with the Creek Master Plan. And on January 12th, 2022, the applicants submitted the design review application. And on January 26th, 2022, the project was deemed complete. More recently on March 24th, 2022, the Planning Commission approved a major use permit allowing the use of the tower at this location. So as I stated earlier, this is the general plan and zoning makeup of the surrounding area. All the gray that you see is industrial to the west. We see some low, the lighter yellows, low density residential, and the more orange is medium density. Major telecommunications facilities, which is what Apkin is proposing, are allowed in general industrial zoning districts. Proposal meets all development standards of the zoning code, including setbacks in height. And it complies with all apical provisions of the zoning code, including 20-44. This is the site plan. The site is developed with a single industrial building. The proposed tower would be towards the rear of the lot. Here's a close up view of the lease area, the site plan showing the fenced area around the tower, equipment shelter, and associated equipment needed to run the cell tower. Here are elevations of the proposed tower. As I mentioned earlier, the proposed height is 60 feet tall. And the applicant has provided some photo renderings of the antenna. The building you see with the yellow stripe is the building that exists on the project site. Here's a straight on view of that project site with a cell tower in the back. As you can see, it's an industrial landscape surrounding the project site. The applicant provided existing service coverage of the area, showing a hole basically in the center. The proposed tower would improve coverage, service coverage in the area. The cell tower, this project has been found in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, specifically section 15303. The project qualifies for a class III exemption, which exempts the construction of new small structures. And that telecommunication towers are considered small structures that are similar to this project. Planning staff received several public comments through the Planning Commission before the Prior to Planning Commission and prior to today's meeting. Late correspondence was emailed to you as recent as noon, I think, of today. And most of the concerns center around health effects of the potential waves that are emitted from the tower. The applicant as part of their application package submitted a electromagnetic energy exposure report prepared by OSC Engineering dated May 19, 2021, which concluded that the proposed placement of the tower at the subject site will not result in exposure of the public to excessive levels of radiofrequency energy as defined in the FCC rules and regulations. Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the designer view board approve my resolution, preliminary designer view for a telecommunications facility located at 2400 Bluebell Drive. The staff is available for questions and comments. Thank you. Thanks, Kristen. Do we have an applicant presentation or are they happy with what you've done? There is, they do not have a separate presentation. Okay, that's cool. I just thought I'd double check. So right now I'd like to do ex parte disclosure on this project since it is a public hearing. So we'll just go around the horn here. Board Member Sharon, do you have any ex parte disclosure for this project? No disclosures. Okay, cool. Board Member Sapp, do you have any ex parte disclosure on this item? No disclosures. Cool. And Vice Chair Birch, do you have any ex parte disclosures on this item? None. Cool. And then I have no ex parte disclosures either. So what I'd like to do is considering that we had a fair amount of public comment come to us as a board via email and also in the agenda packet this evening, I'd like to move to public comment first and then I'll bring it back to the board for questions of staff and the applicant. Does that sound good for everybody? Okay, so before we open the poll, go ahead, Vice Chair Birch. I have one question for staff that I think would really be appropriate at this point. Sure. And I may actually have the answer already queued up. Are you queuing it up? I just want to make sure that I understand the Design Review Board's purview tonight. It appears as though the major use permit was the primary step for Planning Commission, Consider the Location, etc., at Seque Exempt, is our responsibility to approve the appearance of the tower at this point? That's correct. Oh, sorry. I can answer that too, Kristen. And maybe Kristen may can just clarify for me a couple of things. So as I understand it, because Planning Commission has already executed the major use permit, the use of the parcel and this particular element is already approved and is approved through that process. What our purview is this evening is what that tower looks like, whether it's encased in something, whether it's public art, whether it looks like a tree, so on and so forth, right? That's as I understood it. And so I guess what might be helpful to what Michael's asking and I was going to queue this up is we do have a lot of public comment on this item. What are the next steps? Let's say, Design Review approves the project as is. What would be the process from there? What would be the process if Design Review says, you know what, we don't like the design, here's the proposed design, come back to us. And then what would be the process if like we said, hey, you know what, reject design. What are the steps moving forward? Does that make sense for us today? Yes, so your options tonight would be to either approve the design as is, add conditions to change the design. You could request a continuance. You could also deny the design. If it is approved, there is an appeal process also. There's a 10-day appeal period, but it would appeal the design and not the use because the appeal period for the use permit has already concluded. So I think that's important to understand, right? So we're kind of at an intersection of, and I think this is where Vice Chair Birch's question came from, where DRB does find ourselves in this place very often at the intersection of land use and at the intersection of the design of the item being located on land. So I think what's important to keep in mind is that the land use is already approved. The appeal process for that land use is done in past, correct? And so as of right now, the only thing that Design Review Board is reviewing is just the design of the tower itself and then also the fencing located around the base of the tower where the generator is and the switch gear and the controls and whatnot. Would that be correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, cool. And so I guess the other thing that I would maybe point out is Design Review Board does want to hear public comment about anything related to this project. That's not to say we don't want to hear your concerns, whatever they may be. Just keep in mind that our board has a specific role in this process. And so the role we play right now is just the design of the facility itself and what that facility looks like, not the actual usage of the facility. So I think keep that in mind. So with that, I would like to go to public comments on the project. And so go ahead and please raise your hands in the Zoom platform there. And I'll turn it over to the recording secretary here in a minute. Everybody will get three minutes to speak on this project should they choose. And we'll just go in order from that. And so then the other thing just to remind everybody, if you, for instance, are sitting next to your spouse, you have a friend over who's also concerned about the project and you're just on one Zoom account, just let us know and we'll grant three minutes for that other person in the room, if you will. We have found in the past that that does happen quite frequently that there are two people kind of watching on one Zoom account. And so we've tried to allow for everybody to get their three minutes of public comment. So just let us know if that's the case and we'll kind of reset the time for you and then let that second person go. So with that, I will turn it over to the recording secretary and we'll start with public comment. Great, thank you so much. Wait, sorry, I forgot to say I officially opened the public hearing. I have to say public hearing, not public comment. I'm sorry, public hearing. Okay, thank you so much. Ariel? Ariel, it looks like you have an older version of Zoom. So in order to do public comment, you'll need to leave the meeting, meeting, update your Zoom, and then hop back on until you do that. There's no way for us to give you permission to speak. Let me jump in here, too. Also, we found this in the past that there's an issue. You can also just call the 1-800 number. That sometimes is a quicker way than downloading new Zoom, letting it install. So it's at the bottom of the screen here, 877-853-5257, and enter in the meeting ID 816-1176-1047, actually Michelle. Perfect, thank you so much. Darcy? Darcy, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute, and if you could give us one second while we pull the timer back up. No worries. Just one moment. Okay, we are back in business. Thank you for your patience, and if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Hi there. My name is Jason Lee, actually. I'm Darcy Fellows' husband. We own Santa Rosa Gymnastics Center on Bluebell Drive. Planner Tamayas. Am I saying your name correctly, I hope? Planner Tamayas said that we're predominantly an industrial area numerous times, but actually we have five major kids facilities within sight of the proposed tower. We have a special needs school, SR Gymnastics, which is us, the epicenter, a karate school, and then a dance center as well. So although we are an industrial area, we do have those five major kid facilities. Also she had said that it would improve service, and I actually had a few more questions about that, because we do have a cell tower about a thousand feet away that you can see from our rooftop, so I was curious about that. And also that it's within the parameters, sorry about my phone, that it's within the parameters of the FCC regulations, but after doing just a bit of reading online, I saw that a lot of the regulations haven't changed since the 90s, and the equipment sure has, but I wrote up a brief statement just so that I could be real clear and not waste anybody's time. My wife and I own Santa Rosa Gymnastics Center. We've been in business since 1975 and in the same building on Bluebell since 1984. Our clientele is children and their parents, and most of them stay and do gymnastics here for years. 40% of girls average about six consecutive years in our program, about 55 at any one time come to the gym from age three to senior year of high school. Our staff, most of them grew up here in the gym, and some stay working at the gym for longer than 10 years. The owner's been here 23 years, my wife. The office manager, 22. Our developmental team coach, 19. Our toughts director, 18, and our optional assistant coach, 11. So a lot of folks here are really dedicated to all these kids. All of this is meaning if a cell intent is put two doors down from our gym, hundreds of girls and all of our staff would be exposed to this elevated level, whatever that elevated level is, for a very long period of time. I worked the front desk here at Santa Rosa Gymnastics in the evenings, and no parent bringing their child that I talked to was excited about the prospect of a 60 foot antenna where their daughters do gymnastics. When I told them there's already a cell antenna about a thousand feet away, most replied they thought another on Bluebell is ridiculous. I also asked everyone on our staff what they think about the cell tower on Bluebell, and no one on our staff wants the antenna either. I walked around my neighborhood and asked my neighbors how they felt about a proposed cell antenna, and nine of them were willing to sign my petition saying they don't want the antenna on Bluebell. So to summarize, our customer parents don't want this service, this antenna. Our staff doesn't want this antenna, and nine other businesses surrounding the proposed address signed a petition stating they don't want this antenna. So basically everybody in the neighborhood that I've spoken to is against it. Again, my name is Jason Lee. My wife Darcy and I own and operate Santa Rosa Gymnastics. We've been here since 75 and in this building since 84. Thank you for your time. Okay, thank you so much. Next up we have Jennifer Loporta. Jennifer, you should have a prompt allowing me to unmute, and if you could please start by stating your name to the record. Yes, I'm Jennifer Loporta. I have a degree in environmental health, and I'm a member of Safe Tech for Santa Rosa. I have also walked this entire business district and talked to about three dozen people. I would say I got a response rate of 90 percent who are vehemently against this tower, but I know that doesn't matter much to you. Now, as far as you talked about CEQA and how they're exempt from CEQA, well, that just isn't so. You have the wrong interpretation there about CEQA because, while most of CEQA's criteria are not applicable, some do apply. Even though radio frequency radiation has no smell and cannot be seen, many adverse biological effects have been studied and measured in peer-reviewed literature. 11,000 pages of adverse biological effects were submitted in the EH Trust court case against the FCC just last August 2021. Therefore, the following CEQA provisions apply. One, air quality. Would the project result in other emissions adversely affecting a substantial number of people? The answer is yes. Two, mandatory findings of significance. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Yes. Since RFR, radio frequency radiation, moves through the air, not as smoke as or particles, but as a wave, RFR is certainly a form of electromagnetic pollution that affects the environment. And I know you want to close your eyes to this, but those homes to the west of the tracks are quite close all the way on the other side. No, they're right on the other side of the tracks. And then we have the businesses where people work all day. I also want to talk about a gap in coverage because that's another false issue that you're raising. There is no gap in coverage in that area. And the AT&T coverage map proves good service coverage already exists without this tower. This has been submitted to you from a letter from Sidney Cox, who's on the Steery Committee of Safe Tech for Santa Rosa. And I will give you the reference, att.com, I'm sorry, backslash maps, backslash wireless, wireless rather, dash coverage dot html. There is no significant gap in coverage. The FCC coverage map for major cell networks, likewise, shows no gap in AT&T coverage for this area. So the coverage map provided for the commissions, the planning commissions determination does not coordinate with the ATA coverage map. Note that cell tower signals. Ms. LaPorte, sorry, I need to cut you off. Your three minutes are up. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you so much. Next, we have Sidney. Sidney, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. We can go ahead. Good. Thank you. My name is Sidney Cox. After listening to these last two comments by Jason and Jennifer, I just need to say that I understand the position you guys are in. But we do believe this project is important because your board reviews developmental, development proposals that have neighborhood compatibility issues and the overall effect that the proposed project will have around surrounding properties and the city in general. So yes, the effect. So you're saying that you just do things like trees and whatever, you know, how things look, I believe maybe that's what you've done in the past, but we're hoping that you will be our champions. We're hoping that someone will finally say no, help us. So I mean, I'm sorry. I just, I just feel really passionate about this. So, and I've earned, I know you've already received all the pages regarding the proposed macro tower information that we sent you. But also, people, a lot of people don't understand the mechanism by which they can submit comments or be part of a meeting, or they don't feel comfortable speaking out, making their voices heard. And it's awkward and uncomfortable for many. It takes practice, stepping out of the comfort zone. So that's probably why you haven't, don't have, you know, 50 calls, 100 calls. Many people are busy working. And you know, they just don't know what they're in for when this tower is going to come into their neighborhood. Miss Cox, can I just pause you for a minute? Yeah. I'm not, I'm not cutting you off and pausing you. It appears we have a technical difficulty on. Can you hear me? No, no, not on your side. Our timer is missing from the screen now. Oh, so I'm gonna. I have the, I have a timer going. Chair Weigel, she can keep going until we get it resolved. I have the timer. Yeah, I just wanted to check what's the, how much time does she have left? Oh, hey, there we go. Hey. Oh, okay. 114. All right. Cool. I, yeah, I just wanted to, I want to make, I want to make sure she got her three minutes and I didn't want to short change her at all. And I wasn't keeping track when it disappeared. So. All right. Well, thank you. Anyway, I just, I just finished here. I did time it, so I know that I'm with you. You've got, you've got about a minute. So anyway, that's why Safe Tech Santa Rosa wants to help. If we can stop this before the fact, we'll save everyone a lot of time, money and discomfort because once it's up, it will be next to impossible to do anything about it, no matter what sort of impact it has on property values, rental values, aesthetics, physically harm to people in the area. And you know, there's a viable alternative to cell towers that the Safe Tech movement is actively promoting. And AT&T can even play an important role. They're not here listening, but they can still expand their network and provide connectivity that they're famous for. They can truly be a driver for future vision with the best fiber optic network available. And why not? I hope they can see that it's just a matter of time before the radio frequency radiation harm to humans can't be ignored and litigation begins. AT&T will be ahead of the game if they concentrate their resources on fiber to the premises. It's good business and it makes sense. Anyway, I won't go on, but I really think a denial today would bring Santa Rosa one step closer to the future while protecting vulnerable populations. And we hope that you will do whatever is in your power to deny this application, at least put a big roadblock in the way till a lot more study is done. Thank you. Thank you so much. Call. I have someone by the name of call in user one. You should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. Give us one second. Will we get the timer back up? It's just one more second. Thank you for bearing with us. Our PowerPoint timer is not happy with us this evening. Okay, call in user one. It looks like you are a phone caller. So if you could please press star six to unmute and then please start by stating your full name for the record. Call in user if you could press star six to unmute, please. I can hear you now, I think. Go ahead. Oh, all right. Can you hear me? My name is Mary Doll. Yes, go ahead, Mary. My name is Mary Doll. And I'm calling. Oh, thank you. Hello. My name is Mary Doll. Calling in response to the Michael Tower plan for the 24th. Michelle, can we pause the timer real quick? Ms. Doll, we're getting a lot of feedback on your phone call. If you could mute the video that you're watching, I think that would help us immensely. I'm hearing you like three times echoing and I want to make sure that we hear your comment. Is this better? It's perfect. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay. I'm sorry. I'm so really outraged about this huge 60 foot tall wireless communication antenna proposed to be erected at said address. What are they thinking of? The money generated from it? Surely not the welfare, health and safety of all those living or working near it. The RFR emitted from said tower will be so high and poisonous to humans, animals, and plant life. Talk about pollution. I should know I'm living and trying to cope with a single cell tower a mere 42 feet from my home almost four years now and counting. I'm not able to use 90% of my home due to the horrendous RFR permeating through the walls and windows ranging from 4,000 to over 28,000 microwaves per square meter. It even goes higher during the day and night. I can only do a little bit of housework before I get too sick to continue. Several times I almost had to call 911. This is no way for anyone to live. Yard work is out of the question due to RFR levels of 30,000 microwaves per square meter to over 180,000 plus. Now I can't even travel to highway 12 without feeling sick due to the cell towers along the way. A group called Safe Tech with Santa Rosa have and is a great comfort to me. They are helping me to cope. Cerebral helps me to build a safe sleep unit so at least I'll be able to sleep with RFR about 125 to 225 microwatts per square meter. So I could try and face another day. The billing biologist says anything over 1,000 microwatts per square meter is considered extremely concerned. If you sign this permit and for any other cell towers, single or micro towers for ATT, wireless, Verizon, and Nexus, etc., people are going to get sick. Are you ready for it? I highly suggest you look into the whole situation. Telecom companies say it's safe. No known health issues, etc. Sure they are going to say that, but it's false. They hide the truth. So hopefully no one can find it. Well, big telecom companies, the truth is out. There is a wealth of information by well-known people on this subject. Anyone interested in finding information, there are websites to Google. Stand up people and say not in my home or yard, you have to fight for your rights. I'm still fighting and will not stop till justice is done for you and me. Thank you and good luck people. Fight, say no, Mary Doll. Okay, thank you so much. Next we have Sydney. Sydney, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your name for the record. I'm sorry, I've already spoken. I should have lowered my hand. I apologize. Thank you so much. Next we have caller Steve. It looks like we actually have two Steve's, one with a capital S. So Steve with a capital S, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your name. Can you hear me? This is Steve Curley. Yes, we can hear you. Okay, very good. Let me turn on my volume. Okay, just making sure you can hear me. I'll make it quick. Okay, so I am the martial arts academy and the contractor within a couple of hundred yards over this tower is going to be. I was mentioned by Mr. Jason Lee, who is the husband of Darcy Fellows. They own a gymnastic school with over 500 kids. I own a martial arts academy. I have 50 kids here. I do this as a service to the community. And so this is not how I make my living. I make my living as a contractor. So but the martial arts school is a part of this community. I've taught thousands of people in the center of the area over the last 30 years. I just want to give my concern about the radio waves, the radiation that's going to definitely affect us with or within a couple of hundred yards of where this tower is going to go. I don't care what this tower looks like in the least. I'm not worried about that. I'm worried about our health. And now I was worried. And now I'm hearing of all this documentation from the very intelligent people who are giving you guys information here. And I'm worried there has to be a place, a better place for them to put their tower. So I'm worried about our kids as a contractor. I know that a lot of my customers are wrapping their homes in tin foil in order to save themselves from these waves and the radiation is something that's a legitimate worry. And I just wanted to say that I am one more person in line with let's find another place for this tower, not next to several businesses with a combined thousands of kids who are going to be affected by this. We train outside in the parking lot. Sometimes we have a large roll of doors. So it's just going to come right in. We are not protected. The roof is plywood and a thin tarn gravel roof and the waves will go right through it. How can I in good conscience stay in business when I feel like having this many people in my protection is people that I cannot protect. So okay. So that's what I have to say and I hope that it's well taken. And maybe the last thing I should provide is in my contracting of over 40 years with the city of Santa Rosa, I do know that some businesses have a way to get by the rules. And I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I'm just saying that I'm extremely concerned that this is a known worry, a known hazard and I think that we should really consider this. Do not sign on this until you know. So is that okay? Yes, thank you so much. Next we have Orlene. Orlene, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. Yes, thank you. My name is Orlene Kerla and I live in Santa Rosa and Rankin Valley. I've actually written a book called Wo Nelly, 5G dangers and deception of powerful new wireless technology. And in my book I have a whole chapter on cancer clusters that have been happening wherever these big huge towers are usually on college campuses, on even elementary school campuses because they get a lot of money for these towers, $2,000 a month. And most of the schools and universities are clueless as to how much radiation is coming out from these towers. But for example, right in Sebastopol, very close to us, is a tower, a macro cell phone tower that was kind of built down in a valley. And so the top of it is right adjacent to where an apartment building is. And on the second and third floor, so many people have come down with cancer and they continue to come down with all sorts of ailments. Everything that people have been reporting about radiation, the radiation sickness that comes from these towers, that's what these people are experiencing. Even Sonoma State University has antennas on top of the science building that is adjacent to the administration building. That's where my husband worked for 35 years. His last five years at the campus, he came down with leukemia. And I truly believe it was because the antennas from that science building were aiming right for his office at the administration building. There is San Diego State University has a huge tower that had affected so many students in an adjacent building where they were working. And one of those died from a brain tumor just six months after he began to have such ailments. So these cancer clusters are happening everywhere. And I do not believe that that's what we want, especially as you hear from all of these people who own buildings and businesses right there that will be so close to the tower on Bluebell, where children will be training in gymnastics and martial arts. What a sad commentary for them to now come down with cancer because these cancer clusters are so prevalent. So I please, I ask you to think of another place where it would be far enough the way that would not harm people. And as others have mentioned, this is already well covered. You don't really need a new cell phone tower there. So please think of someplace else before you make your final decision. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much. If anybody else would like to make a public comment, please raise your hand for our call in participants. You can press star nine and that will raise your hand. Tom Jay, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your full name for the record. Hi, good evening. This is Tom Johnson. I'm the actual applicant on this project. I joined a few minutes late, so I didn't hear if I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of the project yet. So is this an appropriate time or do you want to defer? If you're the applicant, let's go ahead and defer a little bit. And let's let the public hearing finish up. And then we can, you know, the board will ask some questions of both you and staff. And then if you don't feel like maybe a question, your thoughts have been adequately addressed at that time, we can grant you a little bit more time to just to say your bit. Is that okay? Yeah, I understood. I would like to just before we defer, I just want to make sure. Do we have the city attorney on this DRB meeting as well? I'm going to defer that to our staff liaison, Jessica Jones. Jessica, do we have the city attorney present? We do not. If there are any questions that would need to be answered by the city attorney, I can do my best to help answer or we can take a pause and I can reach out to her. I just maybe we do that as a sidebar because I just want to state that, you know, the testimony of emissions and health effects cannot be taken into consideration on an application like this under federal law. Yeah, Chair Weigel, can I say a word? Okay, thank you. Yeah, I'll just, I will reiterate what Chair Weigel stated and Kristin Atumian, the project planner mentioned also at the beginning of the public hearing that the land use, the use of the in location of the tower was reviewed and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission already and the 10 day appeal period for that approval process has concluded without an appeal filed. So at this point in time, the purview of the design review board is the design of the tower, basically what it looks like and also the design of the fencing around the equipment. Okay, very good. I will wait for further questions. So, yeah, so no worries. And like I said, when the board to typically ask questions, we're usually asking questions of both the staff, of both staff and the applicant. So it's good that you're here. And Michelle, it looks like we have another hand raised, but I believe Jason Lee was on that account. But if it's his wife Darcy, we would welcome her to speak as her turn to speak for three minutes. Okay, Darcy, you should have a prompt or Jason, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. Hi, it's Jason again. It's not my wife Darcy. I was just wondering if I could speak or not because unfortunately, because this is a public hearing, everybody gets three minutes. Gotcha. That those are the rules, unfortunately. I think many times we'd like to hear from folks even more, but those are the rules. And they're in the zoning code and various other vocations for public meetings in the state of California. Okay. I'm not seeing anything further. All right. So with that, I will close the public hearing. We're going to bring it back to the board here. And before we go to questions of the board, I want to double check on one thing. Jessica has probably a question for you. So we've heard a lot of public comment this evening in opposition of this project. And we've talked about the purview of the board and what our purview is right now and what we're reviewing. And so I guess the question that I would have is let's just say the board decides that we don't like the design of this project and we don't have any proposed changes or amendments and we want to outright reject the design. What are the next steps of the process for this project if that were the outcome this evening? I think this may be important for the public to understand kind of. Yes. Thank you, Chair Weigel. In that particular instance, like if the project is denied from a design perspective? Sure. Yeah. If the project is denied from a design perspective, there are certain findings that the board will need to make in order to deny the design. And again, you know, we are just looking at the design at this point. The applicant does have a valid approval of a conditionally used permit. And so the next step for them is getting design review approval. So if the design review is denied, one, the applicant would have an opportunity to appeal that denial to the City Council and then the Council could take up the design consideration, you know, or they could resubmit a new application for a revised design. You know, typically, if there's concerns by the board about the design, you know, it would be more like a continuance to redesign. But yes, if the board felt such that the findings just absolutely could not be made and a continuance was not appropriate, then the applicant would have the opportunity to appeal to Council or come in with a new application. But again, they do have a valid conditionally used permit approval. Okay. And so let me just one more question here. Sorry, and I'll turn the board members loose in a second. So, you know, sometimes design review board is making a secret determination as part of our process for, you know, a myriad of different reasons. We are not making a secret determination tonight, correct, because that has already been made by the Planning Commission. Yes. So, Planner 2-Means may be able to confirm the decision that the Planning Commission made. But the, actually, I'm going to have Christiane speak on the findings that the Commission made and what the board will be making as far as CEQA is concerned. So, there is a CEQA finding in the resolution this evening. The Planning Commission also made the same finding when they voted unanimously to approve the use permit. So, it's the exact same CEQA finding. We'll see. I just learned something new today. So, there you go. You know, most of the times when we have a land use consideration, the CEQA finding has already been made and we're not making one. But interesting to know that there is one tonight as well. Yeah. So, any time a decision has to be made, a discretionary decision by a board, CEQA finding does have to be made, as Christiane mentioned. So, what I wanted clarification on was the finding that the Commission made, which was the exemption. So, with that, you know, if another CEQA document was brought before the Planning Commission, whichever board is taking action first would adopt that document. And then the next board taking action would need to make a finding that the previously adopted document was appropriate for, you know, in this case, the design. But because it was an exemption, it is the same finding that has to be made by both the Planning Commission and the design review board. If that makes sense. It does. Thank you very much. So, I'm going to cut it loose to the board here and we're going to start it off with board member Sharon with questions of staff and the applicant. Sure. Thank you. And thank you, Planner Joomians, for presentation. I just wanted to confirm the, you know, you got the photo simulations here. This is not visible from any kind of public location, but the smart tracks on the back there and then the photo simulation are from the road. Primarily, it's just what could be seen is the tower itself. Yeah, the tower itself would be, would be able to be seen the tracks and do the height from public right of way as well. Sure. Yeah. And then great. That's exactly what I was looking for. And then question about the fence as well. It's called out in the plans as just a chain link fence. And it says AT&T chain link fence is kind of standard steel fence is coated or anything. Or, you know, I'm just kind of curious about the actual specs of the fence. Did they come through? You should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. Good evening. Yes. So currently, yes, that is a standard chain link fence. If the board feels like an alternate design is more pleasing, we're fine with that. If we want to do a CMU wall, some sort of other block face, whatever screening component you might think is more palatable, we're open. Thank you for your answer, Tom. And thanks for your willingness to hear our feedback. I didn't necessarily, yeah, I wasn't looking to change the design. I just wanted a little clarification what exactly it was going to look like. So yeah, but yeah, thanks for your thanks for your response. And thank you, Chris. All set for me. Thanks, Adam. Board members that no questions for me. Okay, vice chair birch. No questions here. Okay. The only question I have, I guess is of the applicant. You know, when we've looked at these before, we typically see, you know, either a tree or this style tower was a tree considered at all given the adjacency to other foliage in this area. Can you still hear me? Yeah, we can. Okay, perfect. So yeah, we thought about a tree as well, but we looked at, you know, what the surrounding area is and not just a third of a mile away is another bare monopole site. So we were looking at it going, you know, maybe it makes sense to just follow what is already in existence. But if we need to convert it to a tree, we've got no problem with that. Cool. And actually, I, you just reminded me of my next question. So the, we received some public comment pictures or video of the tower you're talking about that's, I think it's, I can't remember exactly where it is, but it's not far away. Right. And maybe you can elucidate more on this. Just because a tower is over there, doesn't necessarily mean that that tower is operated by this service provider, right? That may be somebody else's tower with their antennas and whatnot. And so is that correct? Yeah, so that tower over there is a Verizon tower. And we looked at trying to co-locate on it as well. But structurally, it couldn't accommodate us. High restrictions of the city couldn't accommodate us. So we're, in essence, we're kind of forced to look at alternative means, plus the coverage objective that we're trying to fulfill is more closer towards this location where we're at right now. And then can you, can you just speak to what co-location is? Just for those of us who don't know, I know, but maybe members of the public may not know. Sure. Co-location is the ability to install on another existing facility. So, so basically, you know, if that existing tower over there that's a third of a mile was taller, stronger, what have you, you could have put another band of antennas on it, technically, and that would have potentially solved the coverage issue you're trying to solve, correct? That's correct. That's correct. But as you stated, it's not structurally adequate, so on and so forth. Correct. Correct. Okay. Yeah, because I know, I feel like we, I feel like we looked at a tower, I don't know, maybe a year ago, that was kind of a co-location tower. It was much taller. It had a larger generator, you know, kind of, there were many more concerns associated with it because it was a much bigger tower with more antennas. Yeah. That's my, you know, that's kind of where my question comes from. Got it. Cool. All right. So, co-location is not an option structurally. That's why it's located where it is, not that you didn't try, but this is kind of the only other potential option is what it sounds like. Correct. Okay. Cool. All right. So, with that, we'll bring it back to the board now for comments on the design of the facility. And so, I'm going to take notes and we'll see what happens. And I'm going to put board members step in the hot seat for comments. Well, I'm going to be pretty boring by saying that I don't have any comments on this one. I will defer. That's totally okay. And if something pops to mind, feel free to jump in at the end. Board member Sharon. Yes, I'm supportive of the design as it is presented to us and have no comments and concerns other than the questions I've brought up before. So, thanks very much. Thanks, Adam. And Vice Chair Birch. Yeah, no comments either. This board generally, it seems in the past couple of years, has been less interested in fake trees and more interested in just straightforward, you know, especially in these areas, more interested in just having the tower, the honest tower. So, would love to see and I do want to make the comment, especially with AT&T here, that it would be interesting if towers in certain areas started to become maybe opportunities for public art and that there was a push toward not a fake tree, but a real cultural asset for the community that could coexist with the cell towers. And I just like to throw that in every time because I think it's something that could be a great trend to improve the landscape of the views in some of these neighborhoods. So, just a thought. And other than that, no comments on the project. Thanks, Michael. And I would echo Vice Chair Birch's comments. I think he and I probably said that before about public art, either together or disparate. I don't know. I kind of wanted a tree at this location just given the adjacent stuff, but I could go kind of either way personally. And then the rest of the facility is located behind the building. So, you're really not going to see it. So, at this time, I'm going to be looking for a motion from the board. But before we do that, I do want to say one final thing to members of the public. We do appreciate your comment and we take it seriously. But I think it is really important to understand where our board fits in to discretionary entitlement approvals and what power we do have and what power we do not have. And that's, I think, very important to keep in mind that there are sometimes, there are times when we don't have an impact on the land use and there are times when we do, you know, very often with projects that we see at concept that haven't gone to Planning Commission, we can make a lot of commentary on location of buildings, location on facilities, location of fire access lanes, location of parking, things like that. And we can make a huge impact on that particular project, whatever it may be. But then there are times when that land use is complete and we only have the design component in front of us for review and approval. And unfortunately, this is one of those times and there are not many actions available to us other than potentially continuing the project, rejecting the project, which then, of course, triggers appeals and other things. So I did just want to let you guys know that we do take it seriously and public comment is one of the vital and most important pieces of what we do as a board and all of us really appreciate your comments. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to the, oh wait, I do have, oh never mind. So with that, I'm going to turn over the board and see if we can get a motion on the table. And we follow, oh my gosh, I'm just totally blanking on it now, not Robert's rules, the other one Rosenberg's rules. So it may look a little different to everybody. Well, I'll make a motion for the resolution of the design review board, the city of Santa Rosa granting design review approval for the construction of a new 60 foot tall telecommunications tower facility located at 2400 Bluebell Drive, APN 015-370-045, final number PRJ 21-029, parentheses DR 21-064, and parentheses. And I will wave the subsequent reading of the text. Thank you. Can I get a second? I'll second the motion. Thank you, Michael. So with that, any other comments or conditioning of the project? No. So I guess we'll go to a roll call vote. So I will turn it over to the recording secretary. Thank you so much. Board Member Sharon, Board Member Stapp. Hi. Vice Chair Birch. Hi. And Chair Weigel. I'm actually going to give it a no in solidarity with our public comment that we heard tonight just to help them out. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. And I might need staff liaison liaison Jones. I believe that would not pass the resolution. What can you remind? Was it a three one vote? Yes. Then it would pass. Okay. I apologize. Yes. I will reiterate that public hearing for the AT&T telecom facility design review PRJ 21-029, DR 21-064 passes with a vote of three to one. So with that, staff has asked that we take a five minute break. And so seeing that it is almost 545, let's just come back at 5.50. So we'll see everybody back at 5.50. Okay. It is 5.50. Let's everybody get our videos back on, please. And we will come back from our recess. All right. Seeing that we have all returned, we're back. And let's go to item 8.2. LMC emblem Santa Rosa concept design review 3575 Mendocino Avenue, DR 22-015. And with that, I would like to turn it over to Planner two-means. But I also would like to note to the board that I asked for the previous project to be included. And it's noted under late correspondence at the bottom of our agenda packet there. And it's just got some renderings on a site plan of the previous project that we reviewed as a concept item. I forget when and Chris and I will go over that. But I did want to point you guys to that while Chris and I is going over her presentation. So thanks. Thank you, Chair Weichel. This is the LMC emblem Santa Rosa concept design review at 3575 Mendocino Avenue. And it may look familiar because you have seen this before. But this is the former journey's end of a home park that was severely damaged from the Tubbs fire. It's located at crossroads of Mendocino, of Mountain Grove, Highway 101. There was a general plan amendment and rezoning fairly recently for the project site. It rezoned the property to TBR and Transit Village Medium. That little portion that's outlined in the dark blue is an affordable senior housing project that is approved, I believe, under construction at the moment. They have broken ground as far as I know. I believe it's in the paper today. So that part is not included in the concept design review tonight. It would be the balance of the property. And here is a brief overview of what the applicant is requesting. So it's a multifamily project of 260 units. It's within the Sebastal Road corridor, a priority development area. There was a neighborhood meeting conducted by Mr. Triple, I believe, before his departure. And then they would be required to go through this concept design review process and then minor design review approved by the zoning administrator. This is what the board saw previously that Mr. Triple presented, I believe, in 2020. And it was for a more dense project of 370 market rate rental units. And the buildings were three to four stories tall. And here were the renderings of that project. The applicant is proposing a different design and different project. But here are the renderings of what you saw previously. But I will let the applicant present their plans, their renderings, and they also have photographs. They so choose to present them today. Mr. Tyler Wood is the applicant. So if the applicant could raise their hand in the Zoom meeting, and then Planner 2-Means will put up the applicant presentation for us. And just say next slide. And Kristen Hay will go to the next slide. So with that, I will turn it over to the applicant. Great. Thank you, Chair Weigel. My name is Tyler Wood, and I'm representing the NAR multi-family communities tonight. First, I want to thank city staff for other work that helped advance the project this far. And also thank you all in advance for any thoughts and comments that you made tonight to help us improve the project. It may be a relief to some that we do not plan to have cell tower at the proposed project. But we are excited to become a part of the Santa Rosa community, a responsibility that we take with great care, especially as the city looks to add back more housing stock from the aforementioned Tubbs Fire. Just before we get started on the presentation, we do have one other participant here with me tonight. His name is Brennan Cox. He is the landscape architect project, and I will turn over part of the presentation and any related questions regarding the landscape architecture scope to him. Unfortunately, we were not able to have our project design architect join us tonight. He's actually based out of Chicago. I will take his stead tonight, and I will attempt to do a reasonable job as a dumb developer. Address any questions that you have. I think I'm reasonably well prepared, or at the very least take the feedback from the board tonight and study alternative design solutions with our team. So with that, I think we can get started here. So the first slide here is just an overview of the project team. Not too much to see here. Here's the second slide. As Planner Tumans pointed out, the project is at the former Journey's End trailer park site directly adjacent to Highway 101 in the northeastern quadrant of the city. Next slide, please. This is a map, basically the same as Planner Tumans had in her presentation, designating the transit village medium land use here. Next slide, please. And then the same. This is a zoning map designating the current use on the site, so I don't think we need to address that. Next slide. So this is the site plan. So I'll just give a brief overview of the project before we dive in to more of the specifics. LSE Santa Rosa is a three-story type 5 garden style community of 260 homes located on approximately 10 acres. LSE Santa Rosa utilizes a tuck under variant of the garden style apartment design, which means that 130 of the 390 parking spaces will be attached via garage, though the garages will be not directly accessible from individual units. The tuck under design features several key differences from a typical surface park garden style community. Obviously, the garages being the biggest one, which allows for more density per acre. The project will have one clubhouse of 500, excuse me, 5,000 square feet, which includes a leasing office, club for the residence, and fitness room that will have 390 parking spaces. 130 of those will be garage spaces. Another 130 will be covered parking spaces, which will also utilize solar PV panels as coverage for the cars, and then there will be another 130 surface parking spaces at the community. Additionally, there will be an outdoor pool and hot tub with a courtyard and seating, an outdoor fitness area, tot lot, and dog park. And then there is a part of the scope to this project, which my understanding is not under the purview of tonight's review, though it is a critical component of the project. It is the one acre public park space with the consent or blessing from Parks and Recs that we relocated from the center of the community to the northeastern edge along Mendocino Avenue to make it more inviting for public use. Next slide, please. The next few slides are actually a series of renderings. So this is standing at Mendocino Avenue looking across the new public park space at elevations of the building. It also gives you a little bit of a sneak peek of our concept design into this park space. Next slide, please. This is looking south into the community from the Mendocino Avenue Highway 101 over crossing. So this is one of the conditions where the community will be set closer to the public right of way. Next slide, please. This is a rendering of the clubhouse and mailbox kiosks located on the site. The kiosks will actually be a little bit more dressed up, as we'll see on subsequent slides, but this gives a good sense of the front door of the community. Next slide, please. Finally, this is an elevation of the rear of the tuck under building. So here you can see the attached garages to which there are 10 in each building, except buildings where there is an 88 garage required, in which case, there will be nine. Next slide, please. Okay, this is going to kind of flip through the architectural plan set. Probably I would pause it to the board. I'd prefer to just run through the deck and then turn it over to our landscape architect for that portion before we field any questions, if you don't mind. Okay, this again is a standard elevation of one of the buildings for LMC Santa Rosa. The building itself will house 20 homes and 10 parking spots. Next slide, please. Okay, this is our typical elevation. I'm just going to cover the exterior design components of the project at this point. So the exterior design of the three-story walk-up apartments would be best characterized as California modern. The residential buildings feature a flat roof accented by a parapet of varying heights. The elevation design features recessed balconies and other rectilineal shapes, orientations and movements in different planes to break up the massing. The exterior materials are long-lasting and durable, comprised of cement board, batten and stucco plaster with colors inspired by the various seasonal tones in Northern California. The design utilizes vertical stone columns and metal elements at key focal points, such as that building entry locations. The single-story clubhouse also incorporates these design elements. Next slide, please. This is a first floor ground floor plan, so you can see here we have the 10 parking spaces on one side, and then we also have a standard two-bedroom home and a standard one-bedroom home. Next slide, please. These are the second and third floor floor plans. There is no differentiation between the second and third floor, and here you see we have some additional one-bedroom home types that either sit above the garage or sit above the units that sit above the garage, and on the front side the same unit typologies stack all three floors. Next slide, please. These are our closer look at the floor plans. I should emphasize that this is an all-electric community. There will not be any natural gas utilized, but these are standard new vintage apartments, so stackable washer dryers, stainless steel appliances, quartz countertops, luxury vinyl plank flooring in the living rooms, carpets in the bedrooms with ceiling fans, split system, itch vac for heating and cooling. Next slide, please. Again, this is two orientations that we're studying for unit A4, which is a one-bedroom home. Next slide, please. And then this is our standard and only two-bedroom floor plan in the community that features two primary bedroom configurations. Next slide, please. Okay, this is an elevation of the clubhouse, which again, I want to emphasize, utilizing high-quality materials and trying to find a color palette that really matches the tones that you see in Northern California, particularly in Santa Rosa and the other beautiful parts of wine country. Next slide, please. This is a back-facing view of the clubhouse and you can see also how the pool and outdoor lounge will fit with the clubhouse. Next slide, please. Okay, this is an elevation of the clubhouse. I've stated the materials I can twice already, so I will not be redundant again, but just to say we are mimicking what is seen elsewhere on the community and bringing those to the clubhouse. Next slide, please. Again, more elevations of the clubhouse only because this really is the front door and maybe the most public-facing element of the community in terms of interfacing with clientele. Next slide, please. This is a layout of the clubhouse. So to the bottom right, we have our policing and management workroom and maintenance operations, and then on the middle and left, we have the indoor and outdoor social gathering. We believe that one of the great characteristics of California is the true indoor outdoor living experience, so we've designed the lounge and outdoor space to function in that way. We also have a fitness center, which has become almost a must-have these days at apartment communities, and then we actually have an oversized package facility. I'm not sure if it's something that often comes up on these presentations, but I think we can all agree we're going through the e-commerce revolution and that's something that has only been accelerated by the pandemic, and so package management is actually a paramount to efficient operations at communities of this nature. Next slide, please. Here is the enhanced male kiosk appearance, so again using the same stone veneer that you see elsewhere on the community for this kiosk. It will also have lighted elements as well. Next slide, please. This is a small trash enclosure, so again trying to use some of the same tones that you see elsewhere in the community. Next slide, please. And then this is another variant on the trash enclosure, so this is something we're still studying at the community, and we're going to work with the appropriate departments at city staff to make sure that we make the right selection here, and it's obviously compliant for tourist streams of waste management, along with any ADA considerations. Next slide, please. Here is our material board for the project, so you can see the stone is an El Dorado rough cut stucco using Sherman Williams paint, the hardy plank siding and lap siding, and then the fiber cement treatment as well. Next slide, please. I'm not sure how detailed you guys want to get into this, but this is our conceptual design plan for the civil design, so these are the landscaped errors against pervious and impervious surfaces, so you can see we're trying to maximize green space as much as we can. Next slide, please. This is a typical section of the property and technical elevations just to get a sense of gray to top of parapet. Next slide, please. Okay. Yep, this is just a, I think we can skip through this next one. These are just single line drawings for utility distributions. Okay, so we're jumping down to the landscape architect, so Brennan, if you're there, how would you turn it over to you? Yeah, great, thank you. Hi, everyone. My name is Brennan Cox. I am a partner at Ground Works Office for landscape architects in Berkeley. Just a forewarning, I'm on my cell phone and I'm running out of battery, so if I drop off there is a reason, but very excited to speak with you about this project. Obviously, one of the things that is very exciting is about the public park, and I know that's not necessarily part of the conversation for this hearing, but just in speaking with the landscape, I think that we're, the landscape will be kind of foregrounded with this project, the garden style home. We're going to embrace all of the wondrous beauty of California and that are, you know, the future that is a low water experience, so all of the plant material will be drought tolerant and climate resistive. Our irrigation system will also be, you know, a state of the art will probably use all drip irrigation for everything being as efficient as possible with delivering water to all of the landscape. And as well with the landscape, I think we're going to try to imbue a little interest with trying to give back to the flora and fauna, so supporting using as many of the plants that we can that can support pollinators and pollinator species will be a benefit, which I think will kind of give a real nice mixture of drought tolerance and plants that produce kind of that episodic color throughout the year that'll give this community a real nice feel. The last thing that I just want to speak about, it's hard to really tell from this slide, but where the units are back to back and there's kind of this pedestrian promenade is where we have kind of focused our stormwater treatment areas. And we've done that really because we feel like those can be quite a value and visually interesting, not necessarily something that needs to be pushed off to the site, but bringing that to the foreground as far as how stormwater can be integral in making a place and giving something that is visually interesting for the people that are living there. So there'll be a number of benches along there and they'll provide a really nice place to kind of sit and rest for those that just have a moment outside. I don't really think I have much more, Tyler, is there anything else that you want me to just kind of go over? I think that just about... Or was I way off? No, that was great. We can leave it to the board members to inquire about anything else that they are interested about. Okay, great. Kristen, do you mind hopping to the next slide? Yeah, these are just planting and irrigation. So I think we're just about done with the presentation here. Yeah, here is the plant palette. I don't know, Brian, if you want to make any remarks about this particular slide. Yeah, I just think this is along the same lines is right. We're trying to be very smart with the landscape that we do put in here, that it is as climate positive as we can be considering our water situation. And as well, we have just horrendous soils. So we're trying to balance that fine line of having a plant palette that is beautiful, but also is responsive and responsible. Great, thanks, Brennan. Kristen, I think we can try to hop over to the next slide. Yep, this is the irrigation plan. And these are just one slide that just shows the renderings reviewed earlier so you can kind of see them all as one picture here. And then this is just a proximity map. So that's the presentation. Thank you. Thank you, applicant, for your presentation. I would like to actually open it up to public comment before we go to questions from the board. So this is not a public hearing, but we still adhere to the same requirements and rules of a public hearing. So everybody gets three minutes to speak should they choose to. And so if you could at this time, we're going to take public comment on this project. So please raise your hand in the Zoom platform and we'll go from there. Just a quick reminder for our call in attendees, if you would like to raise your hand, you'll press star nine and then star six to any hand. Okay. And I'm not seeing any hands at this time. Okay, not seeing any public comment. We'll close public comment on this project and we'll bring it back to the board. And we'll do, is everybody want to do questions first or questions and comments together up to you guys? Questions first? Okay, let's do questions first. So we'll go to Adam for his questions of the project, either of staff or the applicant. I actually have no questions right now. Thank you. Okay, board members, staff, any questions? I think only, is there, how will the intersections work with Mendocino, that ingress and egress along that fairly busy stretch? By the communists, do you want to take that or do you want me to fill that question? Applicant response there. Yeah, it'd be nice if the civil engineer was able to answer, but yeah, if they're here, if they may not be. Yeah, so that's a great question. So believe it or not, the new right of way that extends into the project area and that intersection is actually not within the scope of this project. It's under the scope of the Burbank related project, which is building 162 senior affordable homes that will also be a part of this master plan. We did conduct traffic studies at the site, as I'm sure you guys are aware of the Park Sequa, and it was determined that no traffic signalization was required there, but I'm not overly familiar with any other traffic calming mechanisms that related has planned or was asked to design into that area. Can we get a comment from a staff as to what the Burbank project plan is? I'm not as familiar with that plan, but we are reviewing an addendum, the app that is bringing an addendum to the SEA that was adopted with the original project, and part of that would be examining the traffic study that was conducted, and that would happen at a later date when the minor design review application is submitted. I think if I'm going to tag on here, I think the question that Mark is asking, I think it's an important question, is it's maybe two fold, so we've got two ingress egress points, right, but really we actually only have, you know, like the north entrance, I don't even, you can't turn left from Mendocino at that point because I think there's a curb or a divider or something on Mendo before you turn on Bicentennial or whatever that is. Is that Bicentennial? I think so. Yeah, so you know that's obviously just a right turn only in and a right turn only out, I think, and then the main entrance that the applicant mentioned is the one obviously further to the south along Mendocino that is an access point for both projects, and then it has that turnaround at the end, and so I think the deeper question maybe is, does that intersection need to be signalized, and it sounds like maybe not because of the traffic study that was done, but I don't know, I'm kind of scratching my head on that one personally. We're looking at, we're looking at 500 units. Yeah, 500 total units. 500 parking spaces, and the design of the turnaround and such is really nice, but it's, yeah, we don't have any information about what's going on at that intersection, and it's off-putting to not understand it, and I understand the applicant's answer, but I really feel like we should see that. Right, and then I think introducing also a potential city of Santa Rosa Public Park, right, where you have people who don't live here coming in and utilizing the same ingress and egress points, it becomes a totally different situation, I think, at the end of the day. Right. Okay, cool. So maybe let's just pause on that question. I think it's a great question, Mark, obviously. I think that's why we're all kind of scratching our heads on that one. Do you have anything else? Oh, that was it. Okay, cool. So maybe Chris Neu and Jessica can maybe try to get an answer on that one here, and we'll just kind of keep rolling. So, Vice Chair Birch, any questions? For staff, staff and applicant? Right, yeah, questions, just no comments right now, just questions. Yeah, so what about, so I know we just covered the intersection, but what about the tie to the Affordable Project? It's a really nice entry sequence down to the turnaround. Is there a, I didn't see the Affordable Project, I'm not sure if it was here, I'm only back on about a year. So curious about your tie-in to the Affordable Project and what the coordination between the design of the two projects is? Yeah, that's a great question. So first we've been in constant communication with the related and Burbank team with the design of our proposed project here. And in fact, they've had made several rounds of comments on the design before we even came in front of city staff. We've tried to comply with the master plan documents, which specify that these projects should have a sense of place together, I think, to your point, Vice Chair. And the landscape plan, which again, which is a little bit outside of our scope of work here, because they are the one building the public right away and all that, does feature a number of trees that will line the corridor of this, or excuse me, the sidewalk of the street on the south side. It's my understanding. So if you're looking at the site plan that we provided, it was page four of the packet. There are trees lining our park space to the north side of the new right of way. And then there will be trees doing a similar thing on the south side. So that's kind of what the entry experience will be from a landscape perspective. And then, you know, we've attempted to have our design and then the signage package and everything else that's going to come in here. There's going to be a single monument signage at the front that we're both sharing in the cost of we're going to share in the cost of the branding for the property. So there's going to be a lot of cohesion on a little details like that to make it all seem like it really is one community place. Great. That's encouraging. I think those are my only questions at this point. And I was really, Board Member Staff's question was my primary, was the intersection. So I don't know if there's more that we can dig up this afternoon on that to look at or not, but it would be helpful. My other question to staff is where are we in the process with the overall project? We're doing a concept review tonight. Are we headed toward a final design review at a certain point? Are we outside of station areas and other plans? Is this the bite of the apple tonight for DRB? I can actually, I can kind of answer that. I talked to Jessica about this the other day. So this project I believe is exempt from major design review as it is a housing project. So this is our bite at the apple as it were. However, what we have done in a couple of instances, if we were uncomfortable with the design, wanted to see more information, whatever, we could continue the project and see it again as a concept item. If we wanted more information, that's pretty much I think the only option available to us in this instance. And Jessica, you can correct me if I've totally messed that up. I know that's correct. And I believe that it is subject to minor design review with the Zoning Administrator because it is in a plan development area or a PDA, and I'm seeing Chris Maynard. So yeah, so it's not in one of our specific plan areas, but it is in the priority development area and housing projects within that are subject to reduced review authority. So yeah, so it's important that we get good comments from the board tonight. There would be, if the board needs more information, we could have the applicant come back for a second concept review. But we want to make sure that that is what is necessary. It is a housing project that we do want to make sure it moves forward as expeditiously as we can, but we do want to make sure the board has good comments to provide to the Zoning Administrator so a thoughtful decision can be made at that level. Great, thank you. So that key up any other questions, Michael, are you good? Nope, good. Okay, I mean, I'm going to ask the burning question in my mind, why the reduction in units? The previous kind of concept we saw had a lot more density on a site that, you know, we always talk about needing more housing and we talk about needing more attainable and affordable housing. So why the reduction? Sure, that's a great question, and I'm happy to try to provide you with a satisfactory answer. I am somewhat unfamiliar with your professional lives, so I apologize if this comes off as something that's common knowledge or maybe you want more information on just directly as you see fit. We are in a situation in the pandemic where we've seen extreme hard cost escalation during this period of time and extremely long lead periods on certain specialty items. I think the most notable headline is that timbers, you know, in certain points during the pandemic has I think increased by multiple of six for, you know, a thousand needle feet of lumber, for example. And so what we found is that this was the lowest cost product type that actually meets the density requirements. And so believe me, I would much rather build a structured parking project. That's what I've done most of my career. That's what we like to do at LMC. And we'd love to get back to doing that, but we're finding that that product type is not viable, except in a select very few places in the Bay Area at this time due to those costs. And so when we initially met with the land seller and city staff, we said, look, we can meet the density. I'm certain that there's going to be a question about why not max density. And it really comes down to I think people would rather have housing today than waiting for a time when structured parking might be viable again. So that's kind of what led us to the design that we brought in front of you tonight. Okay. So then I guess my next question would be, you know, if budget is a concern, which we, I think we all know is a concern for any project period right now, did you potentially look at a phased approach, for instance? Some of, if memory serves the original project had some street parking, it had some kind of under parking, it had a combination of a lot of different things. And so did you look at maybe building what you're talking about, a product that has a more affordable component for the parking and saving the other piece for a later date to try to even see where I'm going with this? Like if you build three of the, let's say you're building five buildings, you build three out of five now and you build the other two later because you know that maybe the price is going to go down or with the success of the three buildings, you have more capital income to invest, et cetera, et cetera. Is that something that was considered at all? We did study that initially, but we found really any typology that relied on structured parking to be, it would have to depend on very high rents. Right. And so, you know, there's always the costs are offset by income and that, you know, gives you the yield on the project, right? I think you guys probably are familiar with how the algebra works. And so to do a project like that, we'd be asking for rents that, you know, would probably be egregious and maybe even unattainable in the marketplace. So we felt like this was more of a democratic approach to provide, you know, a lower cost housing option. And then the other thing that kind of tipped us off to this chair was that there are, I want to say something over 40 apartment communities in the city of Santa Rosa and virtually all of them are garden style of all of the projects that are on the development pipeline that haven't moved forward recently. It's all of the structured parking deals. And so I don't think we were the only ones struggling to figure out how to find some sort of hybrid solution. So we just felt like this was the best path forward. And hopefully people would be having an understanding of why we chose to go with this route. Sure. Okay. So I'm was so that the four units that are on the west side or the four building, I should say sorry, buildings that are on the west side of the parcel against 101. Did you guys look at any other options where those weren't kind of on the highway? If you're talking, you're muted. Just thinking about Okay, perfect. I apologize for that. I was muted. Yes. So we did look at a number of different site plants. And what we found was that this was really the only configuration where we could get this number of homes on site. And so maybe your follow up question is, have you done an environmental noise study for the project? And the answer to that is yes, we have. And there are some very upgraded assemblies in particular along that frontage. But essentially across the whole site, there are upgraded assemblies at all these various buildings, depending on the decibels that were determined during the EMS. Okay. And then I guess my last question is about park. So you know, the park was located interiorly previously, and you kind of touched on it a little bit. What drove the flipping of the park and kind of apartments that are buildings that fronted Mendocino Avenue? Yeah, that's a great question. And I think there's a few different philosophies out there to smart park design. I know with the previous iteration, it's the eyes on our concept where that creates a much more secure space when it's surrounded by housing units. But the thing that sort of resonated for us and the reason why we thought this might be a better configuration or, you know, at least as good has to do with the fact that this is a public park. And we've built parks at a lot of different communities where we've done development around the Bay Area. And one of the themes that always comes back to us is, hey, this is a public space, whether it's, you know, formerly dedicated to the city or access is granted to a public use easement. And people say it's a public park, but it doesn't feel public. The only people that go there are the residents. And so for us, we really felt like, hey, let's embrace this continued feedback that we've received. We went in front of Jen Santos with Parks and Racks. And he said, look, we can try to find a design where this is kept at the center of the community, or we can try to do something where we put it along Mendocino Avenue. Obviously, it's really important. And this goes back to Vice Chair, your question. One of the things that's really important is this park space speaks to not only our community, but also the senior affordable community, the people down the block at Kaiser, and then any other community stakeholders. So we've just felt like this orientation was more public facing. And so people even driving by was like, hey, there's a new park on Mendocino. Let's go check it out. I heard they have a cool new play gym for kids, or they have a dog park over there and part of it. And so we just wanted to have that visibility to make sure the park actually gets used in the way it's meant to be used. Okay, I think that's it for questions. Unless anybody has other ones that were sparked. So Adam? Yes, I had one on my list. I overlooked there. Question. Just, we all know the history of the site. And I didn't hear anything in the presentation really about addressing the fire history of the site and the hardening defensible space and any priority that is being paid to that. I wonder if you could speak to that, please. Yeah, that's a great question. So I believe our landscape architect briefly touched on that. So all of the plantings and way that we're orienting things around the buildings are in accordance with the guidelines that are that been found on the city website. You know, obviously we're using fire suppression systems that are in line with California Building Code. But those are, you know, two of the main things we've done, obviously one is code based. So, you know, I don't want to take pat myself on the back for that, right? You got to do it. But that, you know, those are the two main things that we've looked at. We've had a lot of conversations with fire just to make sure, excuse me, the fire department, let me just be more specific, kind of with the orientation of the site and trucks and those types of things, turning around and accessing buildings. So we feel like, you know, we've tried to think about it responsibly. But if you have anything else you'd like us to look into or like us to study, I'd be more than happy to guide our team to do that. Thank you for that. And yes, Brandon did mention that in the landscaping discussion. And I'm very much appreciate that. And I appreciate you that you with your code base mentioning there. But I do think that, yeah, from a public standpoint, that it's the knowing that this is, yeah, it's a place that burned and it was a place of trauma in the fires. And so, knowing that this is being prioritized and developed responsibly, I know that you are thinking about it, and that you have to. I think that's potentially part of the concern that was brought up about the circulation and ingress and egress in particular is very much a concern. Any development project, larger development housing project in Sonoma County and in Santa Rosa is how people are going to get out when they have to get out, especially here, because there's history. So yeah, thanks for answering the question. Okay, great. And I will be mindful about that as we move through the process. It's a great point and it's well taken. Okay, so I think we'll go to comments. Are we ready for that? Comments on the project? That sounds good, everybody. All the questions answered at this point. Okay, so let's go to comments on the project. And I need to- Chair Weigle, did you want a response about the traffic question? Oh, sure. Sorry. Yeah, I totally forgot about that. Thank you. Go ahead. If you're still interested. So the original, the previous project that was reviewed, there was a environmental document prepared that analyzed the 532 multifamily units and 162 that are senior housing, which as I mentioned are under construction. A signal warrant analysis was performed to determine potential need for a traffic signal at the center access points. And as a project would result in fewer than 100 outbound vehicles departing the site via the new public street intersection during either peak hour and 100 outbound vehicles represent represents the minimum threshold for warranting a signal via peak hour. They determined a signal would not be warranted at the proposed new intersection under any traffic scenario included in this analysis. That's that's the answer regarding the traffic signal. In addition, there was in the narrative, it did discuss how additional access points along Mendocino Avenue would be right in and right out to reduce potential, the potential traffic complex along Mendocino Avenue. So that's what we were able to find in the short amount of time that we were given it to review the previous project. Does that total number of units match up? I'm sorry. I just want to make sure. Yeah, that sounds right. Doesn't it? I think we're at I think we're at less than the total now because this is okay. The previous project had hang on. I think I've got it here from the other stuff. Okay. Well, okay. The the senior housing, I believe is 162 units. That helps. And then the previous iPad with load. I believe the previous concept design review element had 370 units for the market rate component and our one that we're reviewing currently has 200 and something. All right. Good. I'm not a traffic engineer. No, I'm not either. 260 current units. Okay. So they're 90 less than was originally proposed. So the entire impact of the exiting traffic is going to be down to the Kaiser intersection and coming into the site is going to be bicentennial with two right ends. Correct. Yeah. And there's no, it doesn't, there's nothing on by, there's just two, yeah, the two ingresses off of Mendocino traveling south. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Heaven help you if you missed that right turn in signage would be particularly important for the entrance. Okay. So are we ready to go to comments on the project then? Okay. So I, I'm going to do my best to take notes because I have to summarize them at the end. So bear with me. So we're going to go to Mr. Sharon to start us off. Very good. Thank you. And once again, thank you Christian for shepherding this through and for a great presentation. And thank you applicant team for a very thorough presentation. Appreciate this for the, our concept review. Thank you. And yeah, I, yeah, I generally supportive of the, of the project as proposed. The, I understand the constraints with the, the, the siting of the buildings that you have here today. Chair Weigel's question in their question period. It's, it is too bad that the, the unit count is down. I do understand there's many factors that go into that. You know, he potentially raised a couple of, you know, at least one solution with a phased approach, but I know that you're thinking about that. I know it's a, it's a difficult decision either way. But, you know, we are, I'm definitely supportive of as many housing units as possible. And I know city leadership as well. Leadership is as well, excuse me. As far as the, you know, the layout here, yeah, I think that I appreciate moving the parking park space towards the, the forward facing public facing side of the, of the project. I think that will be a really nice amenity, both, you know, you know, physically and activity wise for people to use both as the residents, future residents here and then for people in the community and knowing that it's there rather than tucked away makes it, you know, immediately more inviting. I think it will also be some visual relief coming down both down Mendocino coming south and off of the, you know, Bicentennial Off-Ramp. It's going to be really nice to have an open space there. And then coming from the, the south past the hospital, you know, rather than having just more buildings going there, it's, it's really nice to have, you know, some of that visual relief. So I think it's a very nice touch and I like that, that, that switch in the plans. I also like your sighting of the clubhouse and the pool. I think that, yeah, it's nice to have that as a focal point of your, your entry way. And by sighting it there, you're, you know, getting it close to, to your units, but then also to the affordable unit development as well. Certainly that Burbank pulled for that as much as they could. But I appreciate your, you know, it's, it's, it's apparently you're, you're trying to create community spaces and you're, you're trying to knit into an overall fabric rather than plopping down a bunch of housing as much as possible. So I do appreciate that. Let's see. As far as the buildings themselves, you know, right off the bat, it's, it, you know, I, I mentioned the history of the site, especially with the, you know, recent trauma that was here, that I, I'm pushing for, for something I'd like you to, to liven things up a bit. The colors you've chosen, some of the forms even very, very rectangular and, and almost, you know, flat aspect in a way. Some more lively articulation could be beneficial. And the, the overall appearance, you know, I looked up the, the color choices that you have and, you know, you know, the, the, the renderings as they, as they are, are kind of washed out. And, you know, the site is very exposed. So it does get a lot of sunlight. And I wondered if it was kind of a, you know, a remnant of the, of the rendering that it's, it's washed out. But the, the colors as chosen are very, you know, grays, the gray, the kind of, the canyon clay is, is, you know, very muted. You reference wanting to, to, to, to, to fit into the, the colors, the vibrancy of colors in the, in the, in the county and in, in Santa Rosa. And I think you can, you can dive into that even, even further. And I think the, the, you can choose, you know, explore some, some more vibrancy. And I'm not pushing for kind of the, the modern construction of having lime green, you know, and a splash of magenta, you know, anywhere. It's, I think that, that something can be done to make this, this a bit more joyful, a bit more playful. It's a, it's a, it's kind of a heavy site. It's, it's been, you know, sitting here undeveloped and charred, frankly, for a few, a few years from Since the Fires. And I think that, you know, you don't need to, to just make something fun just for fun's sake, but it's, it's, you know, the, the communities that are here, the people that, that live around here, live, will live here. And, and this is a big focal point. I think you could have, you know, a great symbol of, you know, rebirth, renaissance of, of there. And so I think, you know, pushing that as much as possible in, in any next design iterations could be great. Let's see, I brought up the fire hardening question. And let's see, as far as the, the landscape, that's, that is my background. And Brendan, I was glad to see ground works on the plans, glad to see you on the call. I good to see you have this project, because I know that your work is going to bring that, that sensitivity to place and innovation. And it's, it's reflected in your, your plant palette in, in your conceptual renderings here. It's, it's, I think the landscape is, is definitely your, your maximizing the garden style aspect. I do think with trees, however, you know, I did bring up the, the fire hardening and defensible space. I also want to bring up that this being an exposed, exposed parcel, having some relief from the, you know, pavement from the parking as much as possible, maximizing orchard parking, larger trees away from the buildings, but in near, near the parking areas to, to get some more, make this a bit more leafy, just something to explore as we're going. I did know that, you know, along the south side, Tyler, you mentioned about echoing what they're doing at the Burbank site. So that's, that's good. Also, I'm, yeah, I'm also really looking forward to seeing, you know, what the park space could become. And, oh, one, one, I think in terms of livening up the, the designs, kind of a, an indicator of that is your, your couple of renderings of the male kiosk and the trash enclosers. They're a little bleak. And I think that, I think that you can bring some, some, some joy and some liveliness into, into some of the, the design thinking into, and some of the design choices. That will do it for my comments. As I said, appreciative of the project and supportive of it. And look forward to seeing this moving through quickly. So thank you for bringing this. Thanks, Adam. I need just 30 seconds real quick here to write a couple of notes. And then I'll be right back. So if you guys could just bear with me 30 minutes to a minute here so I can write all this down. That'd be great. And I realized I turned off my camera by accident. So sorry about that. Okay. So we'll go to board member stat. This is going to be such a, it's going to be such a nice day for Santa Rosa when there's, when we have something back on that site. Thank you for a, a really thoughtful and, I think nice design for a fairly difficult and exposed site in which to build. I want to second Adam's comments regarding the, the park. That's going to be, it's going to soften that streetscape in such a nice way. I'm really, I'm really interested to see how it looks once it's there. And beyond that, just compliments on a, on a clean, a clean and thoughtful design for these units. No, no particular comments to make other than again, I'm looking forward to seeing it, to seeing it build. It's going to be a happy day when that's the case. Thanks, Mark. Vice Chair Birch. Yeah, a couple of quick comments. I am really interested in, and I appreciate what I've heard so far in the questions that I asked, interested in the connection from a landscape design, entry, procession, signage, branding between the market rate project and the senior project. So I love the idea of a nice single entry point, not a couple of monument signs, one stucco color this side, one stucco color that side. If that is the case that there is that combined branding in a single entry point, I think that's a really nice appearance for Mendocino. I like the relocation of the park out to Mendocino. I'm, I'm about a mile and a half south of here and I, you know, drive this often. I think that having that park on the street is going to be, it's going to be something that is sharing with the city of Santa Rosa with folks at this end. That is an, and I say this because of the traffic, the traffic count here, but that intersection is an oddly pedestrian heavy area, that stretch of Mendo between Kaiser, some of the office that's just west of there, and a lot of other reasons. It is really, and I think it will be used. I mean, I think this is a park in an oddly auto oriented location that is going to be a respite for folks, and I think it will be used. We've been parts of projects with lots of quasi, I call them quasi public parks, because that's essentially what they are. But honestly, they are always buried in the center of the project, and I've never seen activity in those projects, in those parks rather. So I do think that that is a good move. You know, Adam, I know you made a comment about the trash enclosure. I almost cried when I saw the drawings of trash enclosures that were thought through and designed, and you know, we often have to leave that off to the next step and are concerned about it. But no, you know, I know, I know who you guys are. I know what you do. It's very polished approach. I expect the project will be well done. I do not have extensive comments on the architecture. Like Drew, I tried to play with the site plan a little bit in a basic way to see if there was a more creative solution. Your explanation was good as to why you are where you are. So I'm very supportive of the project and would love to see you guys get through this stage, get on to the next stage, and as Board Member Stop said, you know, see a project three years down the road that sort of helps soften the memory of what happened, you know, in the past few years with the fires and such. So good luck, good work, and Godspeed, and let's see what you guys can do. Thanks, Michael. Being the architect and the chair, I have considerably more to say, unfortunately, or fortunately, on how you want to see that. So I'm excited for housing to come to Santa Rosa always. I actually live not far from Michael as well, and I travel on this road quite frequently. I actually have a different opinion on the park location than I think everybody else. I worry about kids playing in the park and being adjacent to the superhighway that is Mendocino Avenue at times. I worry about somebody throwing a ball over a fence, and a kid wanting to run out on to Mendocino Avenue. I think there's advantages to having the park on the artery, the vehicular artery, if you will, as we've all kind of talked about, but I think there are also disadvantages to that. So I seriously question the location. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't a design solution that can solve it. Maybe it's a creative and inventive berm, you know, some interesting fencing. I know in the project that had been previously proposed, the landscape architect had started to play with some geometric birming and things around the corner from Bicentennial to Mendocino, and then also in the interior. I mean, some of those things could be brought out to kind of help with, you know, that kind of traffic interaction between pedestrian and traffic and kids playing and wanting to run out into a busy street. I know my own children like to run out in streets chasing after balls. I'm not sure why kids think it's a great idea, but they do it. And so I am concerned about that. But I do think that there's an answer there within the confines of the design of the park. But I do think it needs to be addressed if the park stays where it is. Otherwise, you know, you may want to think about doing something else. I do agree with my other board members here about kind of it isn't, it's nice to have some relief on the street in a way from buildings, although at the same time, buildings are also nice for a pedestrian experience. So they can be if there are things that you're being engaged in. But as we now no longer have kind of multi-use or mixed use and we just have housing, it does make sense to peel the buildings back, if you will. I think from a palette standpoint, you know, the stone, the El Dorado stone to me feels a bit trite. And it's also being overwhelmed by Stucco and Hardy Plank. And I don't think it's going to have the same focal point as maybe you think it will. I mean, it's being used sparingly on the units in terms of kind of like the entry points to the staircases. And then it's also being used on the clubhouse. But I'm not sure it's the right product. I wonder if something that has a little bit less rock and more interest in the entry may make more sense. Maybe metal that is painted with a vibrant color like Adam spoke to may make sense there. I do like the kind of eyebrow entries that you do have. That is really nice to to those stair towers. So there, you know, you do know where to enter in. But again, I'm not sure the stone is going to do the trick in that regard. I think, again, we're a little too gray. The canyon, what was it, Adam? Canyon clay? Clay Canyon? Yeah, Clay Canyon? No, Canyon clay. Canyon clay. I'm wondering if a redder, a redder color makes more sense. Maybe a little bit more red, less brown, less play. And then, you know, I also worry about stucco being like white, white, white. That's shown. I mean, stucco that's white really gets dirty fast, unless it's kind of washed on a regular basis, or it's that old school kind of Santa Barbara stucco that you want to keep, you know, totally white. And so I wonder if maybe a different color, other than that white stucco makes sense. I mean, everything does feel very gray to me, color wise, across all the buildings. I do know the Burbank proposed project is very earth Tony, but there's not a gray component to it, if that makes sense. Um, from what I remember pulling up here, I mean, there's a green, there's kind of a beigey tan that I think they went with black vinyl windows, some dark copings. They also had a wood element, which, you know, you kind of, you went the stone, stone route, at least color wise, as opposed to like a wood. So I wonder, you know, maybe rethink that a little bit in terms of connecting those two projects to one another. And then also I think an earth tone palette, I think makes a lot of sense, as opposed to going gray. I feel like we're really, really super gray right now. And there's a, you know, funny enough, there's a project that just completed construction on Dutton that has a lot of gray. And it certainly feels very bleak and drab when it gets wet. A lot of the stucco is gray. And so it kind of gets, it's like, it gets darker and becomes kind of just dark gray. And it's not, not fun to, to kind of look at. So specifically about the clubhouse, you know, again, I think stone maybe isn't the right solution. I mean, it's kind of nice in one regard. It's an elevated material in many ways, but I wonder if there's another, another option. I just don't know what that is. I think it's contributing to the grayness, or at least in the renderings it feels like it is, even though it's not a gray material. And I'm very familiar with El Dorado stone. But maybe this blend is, is feeling really great to me. So maybe the, the, the stone in Sonoma County is generally called sire stone or serpentine, depending on, you know, like the stone you actually pull out of the ground. And that blend of stone typically tends to be a little bit more coppery. It's also sometimes blue. And then it also has some of the, of the clay colors in it. So I think something like that maybe makes more sense as opposed to the, this mid moonlight, which feels kind of beige and gray. And then I would encourage you to not do just plain old CMU on the trash enclosure and the, and the covered trash enclosure. You know, I think there's some really nice split face blocks available that have some texture elements. They don't really cost any more. You can also get some colors in that material, which are really nice. So I would encourage you to push that a little bit, as opposed to just doing standard gray. You know, the doors and stuff are, you know, our off the shelf kit of parts. So, you know, I would just pick a color that matches that, whether it's brown or gray or tote or tan or whatever. But, you know, gray door, or maybe a warm gray door, as opposed to a cool gray, we're seeing a cool gray here. If you're going to go the earth tone route, I would say go warmer. I really like all the covered parking or potential for covered parking. I think that's really nice. And the other thing that I would look at is where you don't have covered parking. Make sure that you're in compliance with the design guidelines about the number of stalls between orchard fingers, which I think is seven. Right, Adam? I think it's seven. I'm just seeing a couple spots where we have long stretches without a tree finger in that parking lot. But again, if there's carports, you wouldn't need to do that, right? You're getting your shade via the carport. You know, you know, I much prefer the previous version. But I think, you know, given what we know about economics right now in the building industry, in the construction industry, it's really hard to pencil certain things. You know, if you could eke out a couple, maybe four-story bits, that might be kind of fun. And it would certainly help with some of the differentiation in massing. Although, by and large, the massing is fairly good on these, as there's a lot of relief on elevations in terms of balconies versus entries versus pushing poles. So you guys haven't created just kind of boxes. Although, I would say on the parking garage side of most of the buildings, they do feel flat. And I don't know if that's a product of the rendering, of like the materials on the rendering, or if it's actually that way, it's hard to tell. It looks like there might be a bump out. And if there is, I would encourage you to accentuate it a little bit more if you can, because it's the only facade that doesn't succeed in that regard. If we look at like the concept elevation of one of these, you know, I forget what page this is, I don't know, 11. The front entry has a really nice push, pull, shadow line, all that good stuff. The east and west is pretty straightforward in terms of stucco with windows and a secondary kind of entrance, it looks like, or a storage unit or something. But then we go around to the garage on the back and the windows are great. The change of materiality is great. But then the change of materiality doesn't feel like it has a planar change, if that makes sense. It just feels like it's, and I'm not seeing where it changes in plan, if that makes sense. I'm not seeing where the plane might be changing the plan, whereas with the front facade, we are getting a lot of pushing and pulling with that. So I think that would summarize my comments. Does anybody have any other ones after they've heard my babbling? I'm supportive of your really detailed review of the architecture, Drew, and if I think based on your role here tonight as the architect on the board, it would be fantastic. I think if some of those comments were looked at, and as this got back to the zoning administrator for a final review, it would be great. So I'm supportive of your really deep dive into some of the small details that will not be more expensive, but also just probably tuning the applicant into some local knowledge. So. Cool. Anybody else? We're good? Okay. So I'm going to summarize Adam's comments here real quick. So he liked the park relocation. He had concerns about the unit production, and I think I reiterated that as well. Concerns with sound at the units on 101, which I think we can probably all agree with, but there's not a whole lot to do about it. And it sounds like the applicant has a mitigation plan, which is fantastic. Adam spoke a little bit about massing and articulation, which I think I then reiterated in a more detailed way, specifically about each elevation, specifically the garage elevation being the one that needs a little bit more, I think, attention in terms of the push and the pull. Yeah, that foresighted architecture. Yeah, that foresighted architecture requirement, exactly. More vibrant color choices. I think I went into that a little bit more kind of where I think it's coming from. And we talked a little bit about switching the stone, maybe the sire stone and serpentine, which you can do in a veneer. You just have to find the right manufacturer that does it. Typically, it's just, this is probably way too much information. Typically, it's done as a rubble stone. It's like five to seven inches thick, because that's the size of the rocks that come out of the ground. But anyway, you may be able to find one. Adam talked a little bit about, at least, from a color perspective, the history of the site. And so that tied into, I think, a discussion about kind of matching or at least acknowledging the presence of the Burbank Senior Housing Project. And so maybe going away from grays and that clay color and bringing in more earth tones and maybe a more red color instead of the clay. We talked about planting. We talked about garden style parking and just making sure that you have enough trees to meet the requirement of the fingers. I reiterated that. Adam also talked about some relief from the sun, more leafy trees. I think they're all kind of tied together, right? We can get enough trees in the orchard style parking. Yeah, the orchard style parking that starts to be all tied together. Adam talked about the mail and the trash area being bleak. I reiterated that from a color perspective when we talked about the rock and the colors. Michael talked about his concern from a connection standpoint as you enter the site, both landscape, signing, signage, and procession. I actually didn't say anything about that, because I think he said everything that needed to be said. So I think the applicant should pay particular attention to that, because that's how this parcel is going to be viewed and how it's going to be accessed and utilized. I talked about how I liked the entrances at the garden style apartments. They are obvious, which is good. With the eyebrow canopies at the staircases, we talked about how the front massing is good and the side massing is good on the apartments, and then reiterated the garage side needs a little bit of love, just a skosh. And I think that's a pretty good summary. I kind of yammered on a couple of other things. But anything else that I get at all? Okay. I would, and just to finish, I would say the massing on the clubhouse is very nice as well. And it's very clear what the usage points are in adjacency to the pool bathrooms, those sorts of things. So I wouldn't do a whole lot to change that other than just look at the materiality of it a little bit as we discussed, introducing a metal perhaps and thinking about the the stone as a more local stone. And then going away from gray, a lot of gray. So that's not about it guys. So Kristen, are you good? Do you need anything else from us? No, I'm good. Okay. And so typically what we also do is after we make a bunch of comments, we go back to the applicant and ask them if anything sounds completely outrageous or crazy to be done. And so we would like to do that now and ask the applicant if they have any issues with the comments we've made. Great. Thanks, Chair Waco and the rest of the board members. First of all, I just want to say actually I really love these comments. It's always really fortunate when you get to have a panel of experts with your project and make thoughtful recommendations. It's like, I don't even have to pay for it. So I'm really happy about that. I love the comment about the serpentine made of rock and maybe studying that as a potential veneer solution as opposed to the El Dorado stone until I hear you about, you know, the gray colors, especially during rain events and how that would feel even more heavy. Yeah, also hearing about the, you know, obviously the trash enclosures. Your concerns about the park actually, it's not within the purview of the meeting. I do have a park concept plan. It does have a burn along Mendocino Avenue. Board member Sharon, it sounds like you're familiar with Brian Cox. I've been really pleased with him so far. So this is our first project using groundworks. I met him through an RP process and I was just like, wow, this guy really knows his stuff. And I love to get the fact that I get to work with the principal of the firm, you know, to do the design. I feel like that's somewhat unique these days. So I'm glad he's on the project. Yeah, very, very sensitive designs. So yeah, you know, vice chair Burge, I hear you about the entry procession and just making sure that the signage, the landscape architecture design, everything, the lighting plan, everything that goes into that feels cohesive. We even have a name for the area picked out already. So both communities will be, you know, X at Almanera Point or Y at Almanera Point. So there's even sort of cohesion that way in terms of naming for the community. So I don't know if you have thoughts about that or if I'm supposed to spill the beans here at this meeting, but I hear where you're coming from on that and we'll do our best to continue to address those comments. Well, great. Sounds good. So with that, I think we are done with item 8.2, unless anybody has any final parting comments. No. Okay. So thank you very much, applicant. Thank you, Chris, today. Have a great night and we will move on to item 8.3 or our wait before we move on. Does anybody need to break? Bio break, water. I like that. Two minutes. Two minutes? Two minutes it is. So we will take a recess for two minutes and we will come back at 7.18. Okay, it's 7.18. So let's get the videos back on, please. I'm babysitting the very needy pit bull tonight, so I'm challenged here. No worries. You know, if I was at my house, I'd have small children running up behind me distracting all evening. So this is a rescue pit bull is about the same. So, yeah. Okay. So we will move on here to item 8.3, Giffin Building 1, concept design review at 2715 Giffin Avenue, DR 22-004. And I'll turn it over to planner Monet Shikali. In a second, I did just want to say before we start, just so everybody knows, we have seen this project fairly recently. And I just want to commend the applicant on putting together a really great package and bring it back to us and really listening to us. And I really want to tell you how amazing that makes me feel as the chair of this board because I think you guys have delivered something that's exceptional. So thank you. So Monet, staff presentation. Thank you, Chair Vidal. You basically mentioned what I was going to mention. So this project was brought to you on February 17th. This is the second time they are bringing it in front of you and they are addressing your comments and provided additional information. So I'm going to start sharing my screen and going over my presentation. Okay, next page. So the proposed concept design review is for a future development of a new two-story, which is going to be approximately 38,000 square foot industrial building. Below is a three-dimensional view of the future building that the applicant is proposing with an existing fence. So this is a neighborhood context map. This area has some large industrial buildings with surface parking spaces and some vacant lots. The closest residential uses are located on the northeast side of this parcel in this area. And here is an aerial view of the project side as it is today. The rectangular is where the proposed building is going to be placed. And this side is pretty flat and already developed with a number of industrial buildings. So this project side is owned by the industrial and the general plan land use designation is general industry. The project will require a major design review because it is more than 10,000 square feet in Florida. So this project will come back to you for the final design review after the application submits the formal major design review application. And here are some pictures from the site with the existing industrial buildings. And here is the overall side plan. The lot is pretty flat as I mentioned and almost has no trees. The proposed building would be an addition to existing campus that currently has total of six buildings as well as some small accessory structures. And here is a closer look at the site side plan with the proposed building and new stormwater biosweld. And here are the fourth elevation for the proposed building with the exterior lighting. The building would be concrete as a concrete tilt up and exterior color palette to match the new scheme and wave finding graphics proposed for the campus. The architect can go over the details further with you guys. And here is a closer look at the proposed elevation detail. Again, I would defer to the applicant for more information. And this is a concept design review and is exempt from the California environment review because no decision is going to be made today. And I have not received any comments or questions from the neighbor regarding this project. And with that the applicant and the planning and economic development department are requesting that the design review board provide comments and directions for the Keith and building one project. And that was my staff presentation. Thank you. Thanks, Monet. Do we have an applicant presentation at all or? No, no. They will use my PowerPoint. Yeah. Awesome. So I guess we'll go to public comment now. And we'll do three minutes for anybody that would like to make a public comment on this project. So please raise your hand in the Zoom platform and provide public comment if you would like to. Just a quick reminder to our call-in attendees. You can press star 9 and that will raise your hand. Okay. And I'm not seeing any either. So we'll just move it on to questions of the board here. So board, we're going to do questions of applicant and staff. So we're just going to go around the horn. So board members, staff, questions of the applicant and staff. No questions from me. Adam, questions. Um, my only question is, uh, how'd you turn this around so fast? Great. Thank you. No questions. All right. And, uh, Vice Chair Birch, any questions of the applicant and or staff? Yeah, no questions. Awesome. And I don't have any questions either. So we will go straight into comments. And again, this is a concept design review. So comments will just be recorded and then we'll wait to see you when you come back for your major design review. So I'm going to start, we're just going to go around the horn again. Mark is in my upper left hand corner. So we're going to go with him first. Comments. Um, I'll second the quick turnaround. Um, and, um, clearly you, you took some of our comments from the last session to heart. Um, a, a, a nice second draft. I don't have any, any comments, any comments beyond that. Thanks, Mark. Adam. Um, yeah, I had, I had, when I opened this plan, you know, early on the week and look at this, I had kind of a moment of rubbing my eyes. What? Is this all right? What? It's the same. Um, and, uh, yeah. So, um, yeah, definitely impressed with the turnaround and very impressed with them. You're, you're taking, um, our comments to heart. Um, and, uh, and, and that we were, you know, being constructive in our, in our, in our, think our comments in the previous iteration. Um, so thank you very much for that. And this is a, you know, this is the process is supposed to work. Um, we're not here to shut anything down. We're here to improve things and improve, um, to help, help you guys help the applicants to realize the best project possible. And yeah, you've, you've come with a really great design. Um, you've answered a lot of the questions, um, that we, we brought up that I brought up. Um, um, you know, um, yeah, definitely I didn't, you know, I, I wasn't, um, I, yeah, I believed you when you said this, that the site was contaminated and certainly, um, thank you for presenting that evidence. Um, and, uh, um, but I also, um, do appreciate that you're, you're providing, um, you know, it's information on the remediation. You've got the stormwater treatment soils. Um, also, um, very much appreciate that from the landscape perspective. Um, it's a, you know, as far as a, a tilt up industrial building, um, it's a very nice one. It's very beautiful. And I do appreciate that you, um, did call out the tentative break area for employees as one piece that we talked about of making this an amenity. And you really, um, yeah, you've added to, to making this a, um, it, it's a, it announces itself rather than just kind of this very utilitarian. It's both utilitarian and has some identity now, identity now. So, um, thanks very much. Uh, no real, um, constructive comments on this, um, iteration. And I look forward to seeing when it comes back around. Thank you. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Adam. Michael, comments. Yeah, similar reaction to Adam. I had to, I backed up and made sure I was on the right, in the right place and, uh, the response was, uh, really, uh, unparalleled in my experience and the, you know, difference between two, two applications or two, two versions. Um, I think this is great. I think that, uh, you know, just to touch on a couple of the thoughts that we had last time around, regardless of whether you're in a previously modestly blighted industrial area or you're in a very focal area of town, the idea of pride of place and adding to the, um, uh, overall, you know, um, meaning of, of, of what built, the built environment is in a community is, is really important. And I think that this, uh, raises the bar in terms of this area. It raises the bar in terms of other industrial areas of town that, that will convert and change whether they're going to residential or new types of industry. I think the idea of, uh, I think the design is really quite striking for a, for an industry that does not require windows. And, uh, I think the way that these buildings are designed in terms of their, um, material changes and the bold graphic statements. Um, I, I, I look at this as an opportunity for the cannabis industry in the county to sort of come out of the shadows, not just at the retail level, but at the manufacturing level that, uh, like a winery, uh, which often is treated with, you know, lots of different design gestures. This feels to me like something, someplace that you would tour, uh, clients or, or, um, distributors and it just, it's a, it's a, it's raising the bar. And I think that it's great. So appreciate the, the really incredible effort to get to this level, um, in a short time and look forward to seeing the final designer view package. So thanks, Michael. Um, I actually did have one question. I'm sorry. So on the ground floor on the West side, there's a restroom and I'm assuming that's a restroom for maybe the guardhouse, right? Yes. No. Applicant looks like they're raising their hand. Michelle. Troy is the architect. He can answer the question, I believe. Can you guys hear me? Yes. That's correct. So the, that restroom is for the guardhouse and also for come of the outdoor area that's right there for the employees. Perfect. Yeah. I, I, I was scratching my head on that one and I was like, wait a second, I bet you that's what it's for. Yeah. Awesome. But they're very excited about it. Yeah. Um, you know, I, I'm going to reiterate what everybody else said. I think I, I, I did the same thing. I did a little bit of a double take and I went, wow, they really amp this up big time. They took something that, you know, was just the tilt up structure before. And you guys have really just taken a really nice ownership of it. And it's, and it's what's great about it is it's really simple gestures that'll actually read over time and are fairly low maintenance too, which is super cool. So I really love the, the, the kind of the, the different angular kind of grooves in the main walls. And then I really like how you've bookended the corners with a different color. Um, and then actually, uh, I don't know if everybody else caught this, but on one of the renderings you guys have, you're actually, it looks like you're showing adjacent buildings being repainted. And if that's the case, I think that's super cool. Yeah. That's it. You're going to unify the campus, which is exactly to try to pull it all together. Yeah. It's super. I think that's really great. Um, it's, it's just, it's a simple gesture that brings everything together. Um, I, I, I, I love the striations, the different varied striations between kind of the, the bookends, like I said, and then the, kind of the main panels. And then just the introduction of a little bit of glazing where, where you can put it in, right? Given that, you know, you've got security concerns, you've got, uh, you know, light leak concerns. You don't want any of those things in a grow, grow house, grow, grow rooms. Um, so you're, you're, you're just being really tasteful with how you're using the glazing that you do have. Um, and, uh, I would say just my opinion, this to me looks 99% like a, a ready to go for, for major design review. I'm not seeing anything glaring that's missing. Um, my only criticism and maybe this is just a personal pet peeve is I'm not a huge fan of the wall packs, but because I don't feel like it really integrates with your new design. But that being said, if that's the kind of wall pack that's on every other building, then I wouldn't monkey with it too much because obviously that's, it's a, it's a maintenance thing, right? So like why buy one wall pack just for this one building and when, you know, there's 50 other wall packs on the rest of the buildings that are all the same. Yeah. And I believe the site was upgraded maybe a couple of years ago with all those new wall packs. So we were just kind of keeping consistent with that. Yeah. Yeah. And again, that's, I think that's just me being, me being an architect. I'm like, yeah, well, I don't know about that. I'd rather have something that's a little more, you know, angular or whatever to knit to kind of match what's going on. But that's, you know, that's just me being nitpicky, I think. So with that, I think we've done our comments. Do you, Troy, as the architect, or I guess maybe Katie, as the applicant, you guys have any other comments or thoughts from us? No. Just appreciate you guys' time. Thank you. Looks like Katie's raising her hand, Michelle. Katie, you should be able to unmute. You have speaking permissions. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Go ahead. I just want to thank you guys. We developed this out of abandoned buildings that had been abandoned for a lot of years. And we're pretty darn proud of where we've gotten with this site. This is the next real step for us. Obviously, monetarily, this is a big investment. But again, we're going back. We just repaved our private streets and things. We're going to go back and work at upgrading these additional buildings that have been just plain old gray, tilt up since they were built. So I appreciate this. Troy is a rock star. We really want to move this forward. So we'd like to get it built and the revenues started sooner rather than later. So we appreciate you. Well, thank you. And I think maybe when this comes for final design review, if it's all the same, we'll just vote on it, I think, is what I'm hearing. So thanks so much, guys, and we'll move on to item 8.4. So thank you very much. Have a good one. All right, you guys ready to move on? Need a break or anything? Keep it rolling? All right. So let's go to item 8.4, Aviara Apartments, Concept Design Review, 1385 West College Avenue, DR 22-019. And I will turn it over to the project planner, Susie Murray, for a staff presentation. Thank you very much. Good evening, Chair Weigel and members of the DRB. I've asked our host and yeah, our team, our admin team there to help me because I've only got one computer tonight. So the project before you is another concept review item. So I'd like to let members of the public know that there are no decisions being made tonight and I'd really like to open with that. You can go to the next slide. The Aviara Apartments is an approved project. The Zoning Administrator acted on it back last year, in December of last year, after it received comments from the Design Review Board in August. The project is made up of six residential structures. There's 136 units in all. 135 of them will be designated as affordable homes. For a period of 55 years, there will be a deed restriction. Those are made up of a mix of two and three bedroom apartments and it has associated amenities, some designated child play areas and teen play areas, which was really a nice feature. It's got a community garden and then of course the trash enclosures in the parking and whatnot. So next slide. I'm going to just give a refresher. The project site is located at 1385 West College. Here's an aerial view of the site and surrounding area and if you can just click one more time. We've got residential to the north, to the west, and to the south and then commercial just for context. That's where Safeway is. Used to be the G&G market to the east. Next slide, please. Oh, I'm sorry. I also wanted to say the park. There's a Lehman Elementary Park or elementary school is just to the north. Okay. Now next slide. The general plan land use designation is medium high density. This project did receive a density bonus as well. So they've got, gosh, I believe there are six, 18 density bonus units at 16%. And I may have those numbers flip-flopped. So, but they do have density bonus units. The project is consistent with the North Station priority development area. And that's a priority development area. That's why it was concept review with the design review board where I will say that you really praised the project and then it went forward to the zoning administrator. So next slide, please. Here's, it's not the proposed site plan. It's actually the approved site plan. And I think that the next slide, let's move to the next slide. The next slide really shows it a little bit better with the landscaping. So there's two buildings on the, it's actually the east and west, but at the top and the bottom here. And then to one building on the end caps. And those are the north and south sides of the parcel. And then if you can advance just one more, these two arrows show the two points of entry. So it'll take access off of West College Avenue as well as off Cal Lane. So next slide. Here's the difference in the elevations, which for me it's very difficult to understand really what the difference is here. So this shows the two and I'll give you kind of a summary of the changes. And I know that the design team or the applicant has a pretty comprehensive presentation that they'll be able to explain the changes a little bit better. So next slide. So to summarize, and I'm going to say the first two reasons here are the bullet points, removing the decks and storage areas from all elevations and using stucco as not the primary, but the only exterior siding and then ain't to break up the math thing. Those are the two reasons really that I am bringing this before you again as a concept item. Those are the two things that I wasn't comfortable making that call. And the zoning code does allow staff to approve this at the director level. So I'm relying on you, the professionals to help me with this. The landscaping changes, reducing the planter container sizes. I don't see a problem with that. They will remain in compliance with the city's tree ordinance, eliminating raised beds in the community garden area, removing the perimeter, the perimeter perimeter fences. Sorry, I missed a word there or added an extra. That's something else I would really like the board to weigh in on. Then changing the asphalt instead of concrete in the dry vials and then swapping out some of the landscaping furniture with more durable, less expensive fixtures. So next slide, please. Whoops. Back up one. There were some public comments received. Just to summarize them, a copy of those comments. It was kind of a group effort from the neighbors on Manhattan Way, which were very active in the first review. The view of the building will look like big stucco boxes. They were also expressed concern that the occupants who live in the boxes won't have any immediate access to the outdoors. I would like to point out that there are common outdoor areas, but their concern was no fresh air without going downstairs to get to it. The lack of storage for bicycles and outdoor toys will result in a cluttered site. And impacts from eliminating the fence and the impacts to the neighbors on Manhattan again is that they will have a view of the parking lot. And I will say the fence was something that came up in the original discussion at the zoning administrator. And so a view and also vehicle noise came up. I also had a caller that suggested not just noise, but vehicle fumes, exhaust fumes, without having that fence. Most, there is a, I think it's a 75 or 80 foot wide PG&E easement that runs almost the, well, like 75 percent of the property line, the western property line. So it does separate those backyards along Manhattan from the fumes, but, and from the noise. So, but yeah, there was concern about the fence. So next slide. So again, pursuant to zoning code section 2016, 080, these changes may be made at the director level. Given the extent of the changes being proposed, staff is seeking guidance from the design review board. And I'm going to leave it at that night. My applicant does have a presentation that they would like to share if you have any questions for me, otherwise we can just move right into theirs. I'm sorry, if I could just have the applicant's raise their hand for me really quick, so you can come up to the top. Perfect. Thank you, Chris and Jeff. You should both have permission to speak now. Okay, this is Chris McKellar. So as you may, next slide, you've already seen this, can you, yeah, you've already seen this slide to go to the next one, which, thank you. So the purpose of this is it stem from us, you know, getting this project approved, and then going out, then developing the plans to the point where we could bid them, and becoming shocked at what we found. By the rapid and recent rising construction costs, which include both labor and materials, everybody knows inflation is happening, but it's really happening in the construction trades. They've occurred largely in the last eight months and have added at least 10% to direct construction costs, and have created for us a budget shortfall in excess of $2 million. You know, the city may not know that this project is limited in rental revenue to a maximum of 60% AMI, which is the area of medium income, and has apartment rents that are further limited all the way down to 30% of AMI. And the project's also disadvantaged because affordable housing has not given any help from the city and agencies on impact fees, use fees, plan check, rent fees, school fees, or utility demand fees. These fees for Aviara are $3.48 million. We pay the same as everybody else, except for obviously the affordable fee. Aviara is also required, you know, so all the other things, the ADA, entitled 24, as well as, you know, the, you know, we also have to put in solar, which, you know, we don't object to, but it's expensive. The 511 solar panels in this case, which because there's so many required that we have to build car ports for some of them, because the total roof area is not sufficient to hold all of them. And we're also installing EV charging capability. Interesting there, you know, we're totally for that. I mean, we don't have any objection to any of this stuff, which we have to do, but it's expensive. But for instance, on EV charging, we believe it's a way of the future. And even though our requirement is only to put in 27 spaces, you know, for EV charging, we're actually putting in the capability of doing 98, because 98, because we know we believe that in the future there's going to be such demand from our tenants, because they'll have affordable EV cars, and we want to be able to service them. But huge amount of cost increase. And that's why we're here. You know, we also can't use natural gas. I'm sure you know that the ordinance, which isn't that old, that said you can't use natural gas in projects such as this. Electricity is a lot more expensive, and electrical appliances are much more expensive to buy and operate than natural gas appliances. So we're squeezed by all of this from the top to the bottom. And that's why we're making these requested changes. And if you have any questions about anything more about the requested changes, be happy to try to answer them. And so I could do that now, or I could respond to the I saw the letter of, you know, from the collective letter from the people on Manhattan. I'd be happy to respond to those if you'd like me to. So actually, I think what we'll do is, if that concludes your applicant presentation, we'll turn it over to our public comment period. And it looks like, so Chris, McKellar and Jeff Johnson, if you guys have done talking, if you could lower your hands, so that we can turn it over to public comment, and we'll see who in the virtual audience would like to comment on this project. And again, it's a concept item. So it's not a public hearing, but we do like to grant it three minutes, two members of the public, if they wish to comment on the project. So we'll, it looks like I'm seeing a couple, a couple of folks here on the call still, and I'm seeing hands go up. So I'm going to turn it over to Michelle to coordinate public comment. Hey, thank you so much, Linda. You should have a prompt allowing you to speak. And if you could please start by stating your full name for the record. Okay, can you hear me? We can go ahead. Okay, my name is Linda Freebarron, and I live on Manhattan. My first comment would be that if funds are not available, maybe postpone the project, I don't think anybody on our street would complain, but that aside is kind of a little sarcastic joke. Okay, so first of all, the fence removal. Yes, there is the PG&E easement. I think I'm on the west side of the street, but the people that are on the east side of the street, even though there is that PG&E easement, it will still be open to the parking area. One concern is that there have been off and on homeless people camping out on the easement, and they come and go, but they have had a problem there in the past, and I would think for protection's sake, if nothing else, they would want that fence. I feel bad for the families. We're talking about most of these are three bedroom units, and to have no balconies, it's not like it's Sage Commons, the new apartments that are over on college that are right on the sidewalk. Well, I would not want a balcony if I lived there, but there's going to be room for balconies, so I think it is just a cheapo change. There's room for it, and I think the families deserve that, a little bit of personal outdoor space. The comment about the EV cars and all that, that's curious, because in the first design, I mean in the first meeting that, or maybe it was the second meeting that we listened to, they're talking about the way that the future is not EV cars, the way that the future is no cars, and that is why they aren't providing enough parking spaces, but now we're saying it's EV cars, so where are they going to park, because there's not going to be enough parking for the cars. It's three bedroom units, there's going to be two cars per, and yet there's only like one point something, one point three or something parking spots per unit. So those are my concerns, I think that it's just a lot of cost-cutting measures that they should be able to figure out a way to make it work. I guess that's all, I'm ending 40 seconds early, so yay for me. Oh, and if the lady that didn't talk about the tree, I hope that that gets addressed to, she came on very, very beginning of the meeting, but had it was deferred to this meeting, but yeah saving those oak trees should be a priority, and that's it, thanks. Thank you so much, next we have caller 5933, if you could please press star six to unmute, and then please start by stating your full name for the record. Yes, we can, go ahead. My name's Theresa Hughes, and I rent a studio space on Calilane, I am the lady that called us beginning of the meeting, and it's a really long meeting, and kudos to all of you guys for doing this work, this is actually really fascinating. I'm just going to read a little statement so that I don't ramble on forever, um, my comments regarding the two large heritage oak trees on the eastern boundary of the site, and they're slated for removal, and I'm asking the design review board to withhold approval of the project and consider a landscape design that incorporates the trees. I think the city's doing a great job, they've created a lot of needed affordable housing, but I don't think we should overlook the importance of preserving environment. I created a petition around the Calilane neighborhood, and there were no residents that one of these trees removed. I sent it along with photos and measurements documenting other examples around Santa Rosa, where the existing oak trees had been incorporated into the neighborhood design, one being Franklin, which is right around the corner from my house. It's a beautiful old tree and they went right around it with the street and the sidewalk, and you know these are native oaks, their scale and heritage is not going to be replaced by offset landscaping, see examples of that everywhere, and they don't require any additional water and improve the air quality and provide shade and habitat, and they're beautiful, and you know they're the heritage of this area, and I think all that adds value to the project and probably saves money in landscaping, and you know the reality is it's a time when we're all becoming aware of the climate and the fragility, and I hope the city will take a long view and you know protect their beauty and the resources we have right here, and continue to grow this city, but keep these things in mind, and that's my comment. Great, thank you so much. Next up we have Don. Don, if you you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute, and if you could please start by stating your full name for the record. Hi, my name is Don King, and I own the property at 1380 West College Avenue. It's directly across the street from the middle of the project. The property's been in my family since 1977. It's always been a pleasure to see the wide open walnut orchard across the street, so it's going to be a major change for this property here and the neighbors and this neighborhood, and my main concern here is just the aesthetics of the building that everybody's going to see as they're passing by, and also my you know the property there that's right across the street. I'm very concerned that it's going to reduce any charm that you could have from balconies and the aesthetics of the property, and with the different types of materials that would have been used instead of just the big stucco box. That's really my main concern here, and I'm just hoping that you're going to help preserve this project as it was approved, and also I think that this neighborhood and the city of Santa Rosa deserves a nice looking project here. So that's all I really have to say. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Next we have Judy and Greg. You should have a prompt allowing you to unmute, and if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Hi, this is Judy Irvis, like service, only Irvis. I wanted to point out that the letter that Susie referred to was actually signed by about a dozen of us on Manhattan Way, and something that just came to my mind while the previous person was talking was about the balconies, and most people when they have balconies either hang some plants or put plants on the railing of the balcony, and that's something that would break up the large expanse of the building and look pretty, and without the balconies that won't be there. So most of us are very opposed to this change, and quite honestly we don't feel like we've been heard in previous meetings, so I'm not so sure we're going to be heard in this meeting, but there it is, and that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, I just want to remind our poll and attendees that if you would like to raise your hand, please press star nine. Okay, and I'm not seeing any other hands. And neither am I. So we'll bring it back, excuse me, we'll bring it back to the board, and I'm just going to go around the horn here again for questions of staff and the applicant, and we'll go with Mark, because he's still in the upper left-hand corner. All right, I'll kick it off. Well, I was really intrigued to hear about the scale of the solar and the EV capabilities in this building, and on the landscape plan, on the site plan, I can't see exactly where those solar panels are. Where are the 551 solar panels going? I'll defer to the applicant on that. Okay, so this is Chris McKellar again. They're going in the rooftops, and there's other equipment up there obviously for HVAC and whatnot, and as a result, there just isn't enough room for the 457 kilowatt powering panels that were required to do by the ordinances in the city. Okay, so some are also going in the driveway area, or in the parking area? Yes, we need to elevate them from the ground obviously, and that's one way that it can be done, but it may be the only other way that it can be done, other than rooftops, by putting carports and putting them on top of it. Interesting, and this is slightly tangential, but are you providing 96 actual charging stations? No, we're running conduit from the putting the sub-panels in, and running conduit to the areas where we will and where we will have charging stations, and probably put in the underground where it's all we have to do is connect to that and run the wires. And at the beginning, we're going to put in capacity for 48, and because we think that it's going to take off that quickly, we may be wrong, but it'll be there in the ground for whenever it does happen. So we just don't want to be turn up the streets at a later date and turn up the landscaping in order to extend the capacity. We want to do it right away. Well, as an EV fan, I applaud that. And my final question is, understanding the value engineering, what was the logic of keeping the painting scheme the same? I see the logic in the original presentation when you had balconies and you had other elements on the facade. But once those were removed, was there any thought given into putting a different scheme in place? Not really. We didn't really want to change the look of the building. We just, in the reduction of cost, we like those colors. We think that they will enliven the building and make it not look like a box, for instance. And so that's why we just said, let's just do this, reproduce the look from the street. And that's why we didn't want to redesign it. We just wanted to make modifications that were fairly easy to do. So we wouldn't have to start from square one. One of the problems is, we have a commitment now from the CHICAC, which is the state authority to distribute tax credits. And that ends on June 6th. And so we've been frantically trying to get these plans through the building department and engineering departments. And we're doing pretty well on that. We feel we're on schedule. So we didn't want to make any wholesale changes that require structural change or anything like that because we need to get going on. Otherwise, we lose those tax credits. And this project, the lady that talked about earlier being delayed, she would get her wish. And we don't want that to happen. Understood. I'll stop my questions there. Thank you. Thanks, Mark. And just if you may not know, a lot of the requirements that the applicant is talking about in terms of solar ready and or solar systems and or EV charging, those things are required by the California building code either in Cal Green or the California election. There's a lot of different places that it shows up, but they're all mandated by the state controlled information. And the thing that may you may not know, also he did mention as well is electrical appliances are there's an ordinance in the city of Santa Rosa for all for electric electrification of housing. So all housing is required to be electrified and not have natural gas. And that's part of a carbon reduction initiative that's kind of happening statewide and is also backed up by a couple of different codes that are coming into effect in the next couple of years. So it's a currently it's a reach code what's called a reach code. So it exceeds the base code by the state, but it will very soon be not a reach code in probably the next two years. So just some history there. Understood. What I do for a living, right? Well, I wasn't I wasn't meaning to criticize the city of Santa Rosa. But I understand and I and I'm for it. It's just it's just that it's a hardship on this particular project because of the rents, you know, the rents are so low. Yeah, I just, you know, I know you're not criticizing necessarily, but it's it's important. I think for our board, if they're, you know, Mark Mark is an architecture aficionado, but he is not a practicing architect like I am. So sometimes it's helpful for both our board and also members of the public to understand where some of the stuff comes from. Because sometimes it's hard to realize where like, you know, like, oh, I can't afford my project because gotta put solar on and it's like, well, guess what state of California requires it too bad. That makes sense. So anyway, Adam questions. Yeah, that explainer is helpful. I think so everyone knows that these kind of these are not necessarily nice amenities. They're actually required. So yeah, question for the applicant. You know, yeah, I mean, are you kind of at a go no go point with all these cuts? Yes, you don't. If you don't get them, it's just going to derail everything. Yes. Yeah, I imagine that you wouldn't have come back without that level of anxiety for it or stress. So yeah, I think questions that, you know, basically, I'm going to defer to Drew on this because he's, as he said, this is what he does for a living. And I think that, you know, some of this this value engineering in cost, you know, can have opinions on it, but it's very much, you know, I know from the I'll have I'll have thoughts on the landscape side of things. And but yeah, it's not necessarily opinion. It's more of like, okay, how do we how do we carve a way here? So I understand that. So Drew, I'll be very interested to hear what you have to say. Michael, any questions? No questions. Thanks. I have, I think two questions maybe. So I'm looking at the side by side elevation. And I understand that you guys are proposing, but I guess my question is, in the original package, you had like building a and building or a you had like a one, a two, b one, b two, right. And they were essentially the same building, but they had like flip flopped color schemes. And you've only shown kind of building ABC here with no flip flop color schemes. And so I'm just curious if you know, and is to have the flip flop color schemes, you're just only showing the three because it's easier kind of thing. Okay, you know, architectures on the phone, I, you know, if we can, we can certainly do that same color scheme. That doesn't make any difference at all to the costs, you know, what colors we use. And I think that's, I like that idea, actually. And I'm not sure why they didn't appear on this, but we can certainly do that. You just, you know, instruct Susie's to do so. Yeah, it's okay. I mean, it's just because you have in the approved plan set that Susie included as part of the package, there's a one, a two, a, a one, b, a two, b, a one, c, and a two, c, and that's in the approved package. So then, you know, work. Yeah. And then when you look at the side by side elevations that are being proposed, it only it just drops it down to one color scenario. And I don't think that was necessarily the intent. I think he was probably just like, Hey, this is kind of what it looks like I'm building a this is kind of what it looks like I'm building b and this is kind of looks like it's building c if we make this change. And I'm just trying to confirm that that if that's the way we kind of direct you guys to go or whatever, it'll be okay with the kind of the color inverse that is shown in the original you're absolutely correct. You are happy to do that. Okay, perfect. And then the other question I had was, let me get to a site plan real quick. That's not the one I want. I'm sorry. Okay, so this is maybe a cookie question. Did you guys look at like deleting a building to cut costs? Just out of like, so keep the buildings exactly as they are and then like, building a two is gone. And maybe you build it later after you rent this for a couple of years and then you build it. You see what I'm saying? Did you look at that as an option? You know, that unfortunately, it wouldn't work. I mean, the economics of your A wire, we have to build them all one time and fill them up. And if you come back on the site and start construction again, at a later date, it's just horribly more expensive. And so we, it really doesn't make any logistical or economic sense to do that. Okay. I mean, I would disagree with both, but I think there are ways around it. But but then again, you know, I don't necessarily know your funding mechanisms, right? I don't know if there's some specific you're still amortizing credit or what have you that you're trying to go after that requires that there's a unit count maybe tied to the funding and submit. The billions of I mean, it's the land is the site improvements. It's all the all the things you put into it that's in the architecture. All that stuff is is already sunk cost. And now you have fewer, fewer buildings to to pay for. And that's that's the difficulty. I'm not I'm sure you have some strategies and things. But I don't even know what the with the tax credit effect of that would be. And and by the way, Sherry Hoffman from who's the president of Chelsea Investments, who's who's the, you know, superstar when it comes to affordable housing, making the project work is here. And she can she can speak to that if you'd like her to. She's here to I mean, I'm okay. I just, you know, it was more my curiosity in terms of I think, you know, where from hearing what the public had to say, and my own knowledge of our design guidelines and where your project has been and where you are now, I just my wheels got to spinning about like, hey, what if you didn't sacrifice the design of your buildings and just didn't build one of them? You know, that's that's all I was kind of thinking about. I mean, you know, I don't necessarily think we need to get into the weeds of the various funding mechanisms of affordable housing instead of California, which is its own Ouija board of kind of complexity at times, unless anybody else thinks we need to. Otherwise, I think we can move on to comments. Is that is that cool? Everybody just give me a thumbs up. Okay, cool. So let's just move forward to comments here. And so again, this is concept, obviously. And then Susie, am I assuming just to clarify this would not come back to us? It would go to the ZA after we've made our comments, correct? Or coming back to us? No, neither. This is a decision. The design changes can be made at the director level. And I these are I want to hear from you guys on the design changes. Okay, you just wanted I take action before the direct, okay, before director level action. Okay, that's what I thought I heard. I just wanted to concern. Yeah, it's yeah, there's so many different ways to do things these days. You know, we've got reduced review authority got this we got that it's always going to be clear. So as Michael would ask, this is our bite at the apple, so to speak. So that being said, I will go to board member staff for his comments on the project. Yeah, as Adam mentioned, I might defer to others a bit more experience on this one with particular reference to the economies that are being made here. The facade is it's I'm not sure whether I'm not sure whether there are other there are other things that can be done within the within the budget for the project, because I'm very sensitive to the costs. And so I'd like to hear feedback from the rest of you on on the board. My only aesthetic judgment is that the painting scheme again, it did, I saw the logic with respect to the first, the first design and now it's just seen it seemed almost more like a sort of Trump Lloyd kind of approach to to building painting. But frankly, that's it's a that's a probably a minor aesthetic point. And I wouldn't want to I wouldn't want to lose housing units as a result of that of that, you know, that that relatively minor quibble. But I'm curious to hear what the rest of you have to say. So that being said, Adam, do you want to wait to that to hear Michael and myself? We can circle back to mark to you. Um, no, that's okay. I could go just to before. Yeah, because, um, yeah, I'm interested to hear about the comments on the architectural value engineering. And, yeah, in particular, it's the removal of the decks is is a difficult one to swallow. But I understand, I understand why. Um, so, uh, in the landscape architecture wing of the of the board, I can speak to your your site, site trimmings and, and unfortunately, you know, I get it. The landscape architects and landscape folks are used to to this part we usually are brought in at the end and first thing to get trimmed off, or at least shrunk down, which is kind of is what you're doing. Yeah, the, um, you know, the so Susie, for you, um, you know, the the reducing the size of the plants, definitely some easy cost savings there. It's always great to go bigger, um, to begin with. But, uh, you know, that's save some save some money there. There's also an argument you made that it's a you actually get healthier plants that way in the long term. So, um, from an ecological perspective, it's okay. Um, uh, the let's see here, understand the concrete pavement, get that. That's fine. The wood furniture, um, do material that will not weather and be more permanent. Also, um, understand that, you know, site furnishings very much the way you can get some savings. Um, the, uh, remove the plate raised planter beds. Um, sure, understand that as well. Um, I would recommend against not doing the victory garden and in ground planting, um, scheme. I would actually encourage you to look at having, um, if you're going to be taking out the community gardens, uh, go for go for try to look at it in a flexible space. Um, rethink it rather than trying to just continue it without the raised beds. Um, in ground plantings, um, are going to be, it will turn into a maintenance nightmare and, and will be, uh, uh, you know, upkeep. Um, I mean, the nice things about raised beds is it's away from the ground. You don't have to bend down to actually do it. It's from a user standpoint. It's, it, they're much easier. Um, in grounds, you're dealing with go furs and wildlife and everything. Um, I would say, uh, um, you know, the, the, the idea of the community garden is really great. Um, in ground is going to be, um, it'll be, um, really problematic. And so I'd say rethink your, your spots there. Um, we have that too in the one in the corner, in particular to, um, just think of it, think of it as a gathering space. Think of it as a, you know, um, you know, creating a palette where the, the, um, the people who live here, the residents can, can then activate it how they will. Don't necessarily prescribe, you don't have to prescribe everything. And so, um, so if you're creating something flexible, that's okay. Um, you can create something with, uh, with the DG. You can create something with, you know, articulate this space just a little bit to find the space, but leave it open. I would recommend against the in-ground, um, victory garden style thing. Um, uh, in the fencing, um, yeah, that's, uh, it's unfortunate to have that go, but I, I do understand that as well. Um, I'm glad that you're keeping the color palette. I'm glad you're keeping some of the articulation there. And, um, yeah, it's, it's unfortunate, um, that, uh, all of this, uh, the cost, cost management has to happen, but, um, we are in very unique times. And, um, you know, we, um, need to get projects like this done. And so we kind of figure out how we do that. And so, um, thank you for thinking creatively about how you could do that. And, um, yeah, it's unfortunate that, um, that we are where we are. And, uh, yeah, I'll be interested to hear, um, what the architect has to say about, um, these solutions. Okay. Hope that helps, Susie. Um, best of luck. Thanks, Adam. Uh, I'm going to jump in front of Michael here, not for comments, but I realized something. It's just a clarifying item. Remove concrete pavement in the dry vials and replace with asphalt paint. I'm assuming you mean the concrete, like, uh, ADA crosswalks in the dry vials, correct? Uh, is that a question for? Yeah, question of the applicant. Yeah, yeah. So just replacing the, uh, the granite creed in the, uh, in the, in the stamp concrete in the, in the, you see on the, on the, uh, on the site plan, the colored site plan, uh, that looks like yellow crossings. And instead of, obviously we have, we have sidewalks that are concrete, but when you then, when they cross the, the dry vials, they, they become, um, you know, stamp concrete, which is always a problem that, you know, cracks them. So we just, we'd like to just paint them with a really good, uh, paint the same color and they would actually be more permanent, uh, and more, um, and, um, a lot less maintenance. Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that one. So thank you. Sorry about that, Michael. I just, as, as Adam was going through the list, I was like, wait a second, let me clarify what this is because I looked at the plans. I went, wait, there is no concrete in the dry vials. I was thinking the dry vial was concrete in my head for some reason. Yeah. And just, just that, you know, it's nice to have the change of materials. Um, but it, uh, you know, that's, that's an easy, easy cost save right there. So yeah. Okay. And actually into that, um, Chris, uh, one thing I would recommend also is don't necessarily, you don't necessarily need to try and, uh, mimic what you, the original design was with the articulated, um, articulation and material. Maybe it's not going to be this swath of, of, of yellow paint. Um, think about how you can create those, uh, those crosswalks some other way too. Okay. You know, with less paint, but yeah, I did, I appreciate the effort and wanting to keep the, the, um, you know, the spirit of what your design was. And that's what I see what you've been doing with, with these is keeping the spirit of your design while, you know, saving some money. So I'd like to put a little art, art in there. It is thinking about maybe a combination of colors or something that would be cool. Not weird, but definitely. Yeah. All right. Uh, Vice Chair Birch comments. Yeah. A couple of thoughts. Um, I'm going to start with landscaping, which is kind of number three on my list in terms of the, uh, significance of the changes. Um, I really could follow Adam's recommendations across the board there in terms of the need to, to, um, and some of the advantages in a couple of cases and his, uh, you know, thoughts toward not trying to just put a garden in where a garden was and maybe make, if you're going to make the change, make a more realistic change that does allow for some, um, programming to, to be a bit more, you know, on the residents and that sort of thing. So really from a landscaping change standpoint, I'm good. I am going to say that Ms. Hughes comments regarding the heritage oaks. Um, I would strongly support keeping those in the project. I don't, I know we're trying to cut costs here, but I do know Cal Lane and I do know those trees and, um, I'm a, I've grown up amongst oaks here in Sonoma County. Uh, they are significant, they are important. And if there was a way to keep those in the plan, I would just really think you should take a, take a closer look. Uh, moving up to number two on my list of considerations here, um, as far as the materials change for Stucco, um, from a variety of materials, I'm not, uh, so I want, I want affordable housing to be built. I think this project met a dignified minimum standard for livability and appearance. And I think we think that was the, the nature of our discussion. Uh, when we did approve the project at the level that we saw before, um, I think that these changes to the finishes, it drops just below that threshold. Would that be enough for me to say I don't support the changes if it was just the appearance of the building? Uh, no, it would not be. I would say we need affordable housing built. But when I go to my number one concern about the removal of the decks in the storage areas, uh, I say, yes, it does actually move us beyond where I feel comfortable saying you have a livable project and that I really think that you need to consider, um, maintaining those elements. Would I go for the Stucco versus the materials that you had before if the decks and storage areas were still in? Yes, I would. Um, I think that the neighborhood concerns that we've heard about, um, not having adequate storage space or decks or recreational space and those sorts of things, I take those real serious. I think that the project like this has a much longer financial life and a much longer life as a part of the community than what we're dealing with right now with tax credits by June and material costs and all these other things. So I'm not supportive of the removing the decks and the storage and the changes in materials. I just, I'm not. We're going to be here in Santa Rosa with this project for 40, 50, 60 years, well beyond this short window of material costs, tax credits, and the need for affordable housing. The need for affordable housing is real. We need to get it done. Um, and I think you need to find other places to solve this problem. So that's my two cents and those are my comments. Thanks. Can I, can I say some, can I say something? Sure. Okay. So, so one thing about outdoor spaces, you know, we do have the community center and other places on site, but beyond that, Jenny's Park is 150 feet away and Vinley Community Park is 1100 feet away. It was so many recreational resources, as you know. So these people aren't going to be stifled. Um, I would like to, um, I would like to introduce, uh, as I was saying, Sherry Hoffman and Sherry, can you raise your hand and speak specifically about the decks and, uh, and, and how, what your experience has been with them throughout all the developments that you've been involved with as an advisor, uh, and as a, uh, participant in the, in the management, uh, through your career. So could you, could you raise your hand, please? And, uh, Oh, yes. Thank you. Yes. Um, this is Sherry Hoffman, um, affordable housing developer. Um, and we do develop many projects for families without the balconies, what we, uh, and, and more so in recent years. Um, what we do find is it does encourage people to utilize the, um, outdoor open spaces and, and really gather, uh, and kind of create a feeling of a community within a community, because there are a great amount of outdoor spaces and also the indoor community room, uh, as far as gathering goes. Um, but what we really find is how grateful the families are to move into affordable housing, quality, affordable housing located in nice communities, close to parks, schools, services, shopping. Um, and, and we see a real pride in, in the people living, um, in projects just like Aviera and who I believe will be proud to live at Aviera because the rents are 30, 40, 50% below market. So, you know, it gives people pride in where they live in a nice community. And we find that you really don't care about the balconies. Thanks for that, Sherry. Um, so, uh, uh, Michael, anything else from you? No, no, I've made my comment. I think Santa Rosa lives with this project for some time. And, um, we understand affordable housing up one side and down the other, and I'm incredibly supportive. But when a project slips below, um, what I consider to be a standard for a project that's going to be part of Santa Rosa for a long time, I'm going to comment. So. Okay. I appreciate you, Michael. Um, okay. So my comments, um, I'm just going to go down the list of the proposed changes here real quick. And then I've got some additional comments, kind of like Michael did. Um, landscaping, I agree with, uh, Adam, you're reducing the planter sizes, you know, the box size, whatever it is, um, you know, if you got to do it, you got to do it. We do it on so many projects, particularly school projects. We find that that happens kind of at the end of the project. They're like, wait, we've got to put plants in. And, uh, then you're like, wait, we got to buy the small ones because you don't have money left. So I totally agree with that. I would agree with Adam on the raised planters, to reinvent the area as opposed to just say, Hey, make a victory garden. Funny enough, I was on vacation over the Christmas holidays and we were driving around the neighborhood, not, not here on the east coast. And they had one of these, they had several victory gardens and they were just like, it was in a nice neighborhood, like nice, like, you know, cashy expensive homes. And it was like the most eyesore, blight thing you could have ever seen in your life, because it just wasn't taken care of, which is very different than I think raised planters. Raised planters seem to have much more of a lifespan in terms of, yeah, and they're smaller. And yeah, so I think victory gardens is not the answer. Removal of the fencing I think is problematic. And for a lot of different reasons, you know, safety of your property, safety of other property, you know, I think we heard from public last time about, they really wanted the fencing. And then I think we heard tonight again that the fencing needs to stay in. You know, I can't remember what fencing was proposed, but maybe find an affordable, well, you know, maybe a shorter fence instead of six feet, good nigger fence, make a three foot good nigger fence instead of a double sided redwood fence, you know, a single sided redwood fence, you know, I think there's a lot of solutions to peel a fence price down as, you know, as low as you can get it. But I wouldn't lose them all together. I think that's not the high dollar item. Concrete paving I'm cool with. And I think, you know, don't go haywire with the paint, be respectful with paint. And I mean, frankly, if you were to just do rectilinear striping across this is done in many, many, many crosswalks across the United States and California, that'd be perfectly sufficient. And then the wood furniture material chain is some more permanent. I don't have a problem with that either. So I'm going to go back up here to the pop outs. So I don't know if you guys remember Scott Kincaid, but he was a chair of our board before me. Scott would lose his marbles over this exterior pop outs in stucco foam. Stucco foam is not durable. The minute you hit it, it falls apart. It's not a great solution long term for these pop outs. They need to be framed and done that way. I think you're introducing a maintenance nightmare with foam pop outs. So I would not be supportive of that at all. And I think again, if Scott were here, he'd reiterate that and absolutely because I think he's conditioned projects to eliminate foam stucco bump outs and things and decor developments. Really the only place where foam stucco makes sense is like a cornice all the way at the top of a building where nobody's touching it, where they can't hit it with a ladder, where they can't hit it with a vehicle. So very much not supportive of this foam stucco idea. And I think it's small potatoes in the grand scheme of things. Let's see here. Remove siding. Completely disagree. Just the ability with a lot of siding. So I would encourage your architect to find alternate materials that are available instead of wholesale getting rid of the siding. Find something else that's a comparable price. We just did a bunch of Trespa on a project and it's a little pricier, but it's available. Hardy. Hardy is not the only player in the market. There's Nietzsche Ha, there's American fiber cement, there's at least six manufacturers of fiber cement siding in the United States. And if fiber cement siding doesn't work, buy cedar siding and paint it because that's just as good. And if it's installed properly, it'll last forever if you paint it and take care of it just like you would fiber cement. So I also don't buy into that. And I think it's a small potatoes piece as well. And I completely and 100% agree, 1000% agree with Vice Chair Birch over these balconies. And I'm going to read from our design guidelines. So design guideline 3.2, which is for multifamily housing, item G, semi private open space, provide each unit with a minimum of 40 square feet of semi private open space, directly adjacent to the unit. It is not intended for the space to have privacy wall. The intent is to provide a balcony on units above the ground level and a small patio area on the ground level. Item two, these small private spaces should feature an open rail, low wall or hedge and other element that defines the space but permits the residents to have a presence on the street or open space. These semi private spaces shall not require noise protection. And then there's figure 3.2.19 that has a lovely photo of some balconies. So I would completely disagree that you don't need the balconies and that residents wouldn't appreciate them. Pretty much everybody I know that's ever lived in an apartment loved their balcony, whether it was a little tiny balcony or a Juliet balcony. You know, Juliet balconies are kind of a budget way to include a balcony with a sliding door, but still that's a very, you know, that's a that's an economical solution potentially that opens out into open space and doesn't keep you inside all the time, particularly in our area that's very amenable to being outside. So again, I really agree with the way Michael worded dignified minimum standard of appearance. And I think to that end, I don't buy this idea that siding, you can't get it, find another material, because there is one. But would I take a siding change over the balconies? No, I would take the balconies over the siding change just like Michael said. That being said, I do have a thought on maybe how you could cut some costs. It's maybe, I don't know, if the gables went away, and you got rid of the asphalt shingles and just did a flat roof. I wonder if that might save you some money, because you're not doing another roofing type, you're not bringing a, you're not doing metal edging, you're not doing gutters, you're not doing downspouts, you're doing internally drained stuff on the roof, which might work because I think you've got some kind of mansard-esque type situations with kind of an interior flat roof. So I wonder if that maybe might be a way to save some money. And I know we kind of encouraged, I think memory serves, we encouraged the gable end condition because we thought it felt a little bit more akin to the surrounding neighborhood. But again, I think I would be willing to take a flat parapet cap over losing the balconies if it was a little bit more urban in its character. If you could save money that way, I think that might be an option. Another thought, I mean you've cut some of the metal railings off in the design here, unlike the staircases for instance. So again, I think if the metal railing goes, I think that's okay. Do a wall like you have it in the proposed design as stucco, but just take the metal out of the equation, but still keep the balconies, right? So you would have a stucco balcony potentially with maybe a metal coping cap or something like that or some other durable material that the resident wouldn't tear up. So that may be a way to save some cost as well. And then I'm trying to look here. I'm wondering if it makes sense to alter window typologies. And I mean that in the sense of, like I know you're required to have an operable window in your bedrooms, but you're not necessarily required to have an operable window elsewhere. And fixed windows tend to be a little less expensive than operable windows. I know that's probably not ideal. But again, if we have a balcony where you can go outside or you can open a screen door or something like that, and it's that's right adjacent to a fixed window, I would take the balcony over the operable window if that makes sense. I think those are maybe some ways to save some costs in different ways that maybe you haven't looked at. I'm trying to think what else. I'm not seeing much else. I mean, you know, staircase is probably going to save money there. I mean, maybe the tree mitigation plan, you know, maybe save one tree, get rid of the other. I know the way that the dry vials laid out. One of the heritage trees is right smack tab in the middle of it. And I think, you know, I think that's probably a foregone conclusion. But the one that's a little farther, I think it's south, maybe save that. Don't have to plant as many trees, save a little bit of money. I know you have to protect the tree during just construction. So maybe it's a balancing act between the two. And that's, I think that's all I can think about. Yeah, and I think, you know, there's been a lot of studies on electric appliances versus gas and electric appliances are a little more expensive to install up front, but then you save money on the back end. So I think, and you have less maintenance concerns as well. Induction, in fact, is even cheaper to operate than traditional kind of electric appliances. If that's something that you guys have looked into. Induction's really kind of taken off. I know induction is more expensive, but again, it has a better payback period. I think that's that's it for my comments. So Mark and Adam, do you guys have anything additional hearing now Michael and myself? Chair Weigel. Yes. And I just ask a clarifying question because I don't know, not familiar with it. It's the phone pop outs. Are you suggesting perhaps getting rid of that pop out altogether or is there another material or go with this? I want them to leave it the way they designed it originally. And the reason I say that is if you keep the balconies, you don't need to do a phone pop out because you're framing out for a balcony. If you get rid of the balcony, you need to do the phone pop out because they no longer have anything that they need to support structurally from balcony perspective. So that's why they're proposing a phone pop out because it's just creating the relief just kind of stuck on and adhered to the building facade. So it would be kind of stuck onto the plywood on the outside as opposed to a balcony that would be framed up and relieved and all that kind of good stuff. Thank you. So anyway, Mark, do you have any other comments? No? Adam, any other comments? No, I'll set. Thank you. Michael, any more? Cool. I think we're done. And I guess what we would typically do is we would turn it back over to the applicant and see if they have any questions, comments, concerns of what we've said as a group. And then Susie, if you have any other final parting comments or questions. So we'll do that. We'll turn it back over to the applicant. Well, I think, you know, our takeaway is that, you know, the biggest one is the one that's been attacked, the dex. That's a million bucks, probably more now. Deciding is not cheap. I don't know. You say there's six different manufacturers of, they would give that horizontal look to the, you know, embedded in the hardy board or the actual sear material. It is really expensive. It is. And I don't, Scott, are you on the, I think Scott or COO is on the call. If you want to chime in and maybe raise your hand and talk about citing, it isn't being, it's not being specified right now because it's so hard to get and it's really expensive. And, you know, as you can see on the elevations, it really doesn't show as, you know, really creating a difference between the, between what, you know, what was approved and what is, what's being proposed. I'm sure you love it and it's, and we love it too, you know. We would like to do these things. We do. We absolutely do not want to make any cuts whatsoever to what we believe is a beautiful design. We're not here because we don't like it. We're here for a completely different reason. We want this project to go forward. That's the reason why we're here. Susie, anything else? Do you have what you need from us? I have what I need from you and I'll, I'm sure I'll go back and re-listen to some of your comments. I want to thank you very much for, for providing some guidance. I know this is an unusual situation, but I do not have the expertise that you folks do. So thank you. No problem. All right. With that, we will end item 8.4. Everybody cool with that? Awesome. And we do have one more item of business. So let me get to that. Before we adjourn, I have to read something. So let me get to that. We've got a new script for DRB. So there's a couple of little extra pieces of the puzzle now. Okay. Okay. As a reminder, actions taken at this meeting are final unless an appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of today's action. So that would be in reference to item 8.1 and the vote we had today. The time limit will extend to the following business day if the last day falls on a day that the city is closed. So that's new for us to be reading. Just to remind applicants and members of the public about that. And if you need any information on how to submit an appeal form, please contact the project planner on the project. So with that said, the meeting of this meeting of DRB is adjourned. Everybody have a great weekend.