 Testing, testing, testing. I'm clear, thank you. It was almost five o'clock and we are ready to go when you are. Do we have all board members present or at least our quorum? Yes, we do. Okay. Okay, good evening, everyone. Election second day after election night. We'll go ahead and get the meeting started due to COVID special considerations. I'd like to read a statement to the public due to provisions of the governor's executive order in 2520 and in 2920, which has been certain requirements of the Brown Act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma to shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19. The cultural heritage board will be participating via Zoom webinar. Members of the public can participate in the meeting virtually. I go into www.zoomus.com The meeting ID is 935-3125-1438 or by toll-free telephone calling in at 888-438. 475-4499 and enter the meeting ID 935-3125-1438. Public assessing the meeting through the Zoom link will be able to provide public comment on agenda items at the time an agenda item is discussed. Additional information related to meeting participation and submitting email correspondence is available at forward slash srcity.org cultural heritage board. The meeting will be live streamed at cityosanarosa.legistar.com forward slash calendar. Click on the in progress link to view. The meeting will also be viewed on Comcast channel 28 and at www.youtube.com forward slash city of Santa Rosa. Okay, so this is a special session tonight and I'd like to call the meeting to order and could we please have a roll call? Yes, let the record reflect that all commissions are present except commissioner Debaker as well as the vacancy. Okay, thank you very much. And moving on to item three approval of the minutes it doesn't look like we have any minutes to approve. Am I correct with that? That is correct. Okay, at this time I'd like to open the meeting up for public comments. Now these are for public comments that aren't related to the item that we'll be discussing tonight. There will be opportunity for the public to comment on the item we're discussing tonight, but there's other items related to the cultural heritage or the public would like to comment on. We'd like to give time for that now. I'm sure it means nobody is raising their hand at this time. Okay, saying no one, we'll go ahead and move on. Board business like to offer to any of our board members that are present tonight. If they have any board business they would like to offer. Okay, saying none. Moving on, department reports. Ms. Murray, do you have anything for us? Hi everybody, I do. First I want to say thank you, thank you, thank you. My board nagging paid off. I appreciate you all responding to emails very much. I also want to say to let y'all know that we have a change, a staffing change. Mike Maloney and Patty Pacheco-Gray have swapped some duties and Mike will now be your primary contact, our admin support for the Cultural Heritage Board. Doesn't mean Patty's disconnected all the way. She will always be assisting Mike in the chambers. She's there now and I want to take the opportunity to say thank you very much Patty for all of your help with this board and for your continued support behind the scenes. So, and welcome aboard Mike. That wasn't Patty behind Chair Board Member Garage. Carry on Brian. Okay, I also would like to thank Patty as being a new member and then also a new chair. I just can't tell you how helpful that she has been. And I'd also like to welcome Mike. Really look forward to working with him as well. Any other board members have comments? I'd like to thank Patty as well. Patty's been so helpful to me for a number of years. So thank you, Patty. We'll look forward to seeing you around the city. Okay. Okay, seeing no one else, we'll go ahead and move on. So at this time, I would like to open up for statements of abstention by board members for the items, any items that are on the agenda tonight. So we'll do that now. I need to abstain on item 2058. Okay. And I think they'd like us to give our reasons for abstentions to have just real brief, if you could. Because one of the changes, actually, I think I caused with one of my projects. I too think I need to abstain. Can you hear me? Okay. I think my residence is in close proximity to the projects. Thank you. Okay, thank you. And as the chair, I also need to abstain. I do have two properties that are within 500 feet of the downtown specific plan area as well. Yeah, and I also have two properties in a historic district. So at this time, I'm going to turn this as, since I have to abstain, I'm going to turn this over to Ms. Murray who will lead us through the process we need to go through at this time. Thank you. So because we can't get a quorum without some of you that need to abstain, we have to go through a process, a straw vote process. Mike and Patty are in council chambers together right now. And with masks on, they're going to get close enough that they can pull a name out of a cup. The cup has three pieces of paper in it. It has Vice Chair Fennell, Chair Muser and Board Member Garrett. It has all of your names in there and they'll be pulling one name out. The person that they're, the name that they pull out will be asked to sign off and the other two will be asked to remain through the item. I also want to say thank you very much for your willingness to do this and getting prepared for the meeting. So thank you very much. Patty, Mike. Hi Board Members, this is the host Patty. Thank you Board Members, Garrett and Chair Muser for your kind words. Thank you so much. Okay, we're going to do a, I'm going to turn on my camera and we're going to cooperate here on doing this straw vote. Such appropriate timing, I must say. I'm not sure how many names we're pulling. I'm going to just show it to the camera. I don't know who it is. Happy Garrett, you are free to go. Thank you very much for studying up for tonight. I appreciate the extra effort. Thank you and good luck all of you. Thank you very much. Chair Muser from this point forward we'll just continue as is. I'll let you take the agenda back over. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so with that we'll go on to item number nine, scheduled items 9.1, public caring for the downtown station area plan, ST 18-002. Our background is this project includes proposed zoning code and desired guideline amendments to implement the downtown station area plan. We have a presenter tonight, Amy Nicholson. And I think with that, we'll turn it over to Amy. You can turn. Presenting planner Nicholson, we are not having audio if you want to start your presentation over. Thank you, can you hear me okay now? Loud and clear, thank you. Perfect, sorry about that. Good evening, Chair Muser and members of the board. The item before you include zoning code and design guideline amendments to implement the downtown station area specific plan. An update to the plan commenced in fall of 2018 and the plan focused on removing barriers to housing, place making and also walkability. There were a number of guidelines and standards developed through continuous community outreach and the plan was adopted by the city council at its October 13th meeting. The plan consists of six chapters and the land use and urban design chapters are those that are implemented through the proposed zoning code text amendments and design guideline amendments. The text amendments before the board for comment are focused on design and development standards, process and also the historic combining district. The purpose of the zoning code is to implement the general plan and any specific plan. It regulates development by land use, process and design and development standards and any project under review with the city of Santa Rosa must meet all standards listed in the zoning code. This slide includes the zoning code amendments before the board for comment and they are primarily focused on design with some discussion regarding process as well. Floor area ratio is introduced through the downtown station area specific plan and it controls building mass and form but does not set specific height and residential density standards. The map on this slide shows the maximum floor area ratio for a segment of the downtown plan area and an area to focus on is within the St. Rose preservation district on B street between 7th and Lincoln and one of those is actually a property on 10th street. At the October 13 city council meeting the council amended the plan to remove floor area ratio from 12 of these historic contributor properties and as a result, the plan general plan and zoning code amendments must include specific height and density standards for these properties. Both the planning commission and planning and economic development staff are recommending no maximum residential density which is consistent with the previous zoning of these sites and a maximum height of 55 feet or five stories which is also consistent with the previous zoning because these properties are within the historic combining district. They are required to meet a 30 foot height requirement in less specific findings are made by either the cultural heritage board or the city council. So in this case for these properties, a range between 35 and 55 feet could be allowed but only if those findings are made. The zoning code text amendments also include a number of site design and building placement standards and these are implemented through the four new downtown zoning districts. The map on this slide shows the new downtown zoning districts and shades of brown and pink and red. The areas shown in yellow and orange are not proposed for any land use change and as a result, these site design standards would not apply. The standards included in the text amendments include building setbacks and tower separation requirements in addition to the location of on-site parking and shadow analysis for specific properties along first and third streets. Building design standards are also included in the text amendments and address dimensional relief. The extent of building design also referenced by planning staff as foresighted architecture in addition to transparency and ground level elements. The downtown station area combining district will also be created with the zoning code text amendments and this combining district would only apply to properties shown on this map that include either a triangle symbol or the orange area. These triangles denote transition areas and the orange denotes the active ground floor overlay. The downtown transition applies to segments along fourth and fifth streets and it requires that any building over five stories must step back six feet. The neighborhood transition was created to reduce the visual impact of any new development on many of the residential most of which are within preservation districts. These standards are street specific depending on where new development would be located relative to existing development but include standards like more restrictive front setbacks, front building stepbacks and in some cases rear rear stepbacks in addition to a daylight plane and all of these are shown on the image on the slide. In addition, surface parking would be prohibited between the sidewalk and building frontage for these properties. The creek activation transition was created to promote the use and visibility of creek areas. Many of these standards require that new buildings have creek orientation and also that they would include pedestrian pathways to connect new development to the existing creek. And then finally there is a requirement for one activating use or two activating design features for these project sites. The active ground floor overlay was created to optimize the pedestrian experience and is dispersed throughout the planning area. These standards in no way regulate ground floor use but rather the design of the ground floor and there are a number of design options for new development to incorporate including street furniture, public art and greener living walls. There are also requirements for glazing and access to any off street parking is discouraged from streets that fall within the overlay area. And again, we see the same standard from the neighborhood transition that prohibits any surface parking between a sidewalk and building facade. Wayfinding signs are also addressed in the zoning code text amendments and are added to the existing sign regulations. Wayfinding signs are not regulated but they are needed based on the plan which really encourages identification for people that are visiting the area. These signs can be located offsite and in the public right away. And the intent is to provide direction not any type of commercial identification or advertising. These signs would be approved along with any other discretionary approval required for a project. The historic combining district is applied to all preservation areas within the city and also to landmark sites. And the combining district language does not change except for the additions on the screen here. The added language includes character defining elements for the eight preservation districts and this language is consistent with a CHB resolution. It's actually number 209 and this was adopted in 2006. And the added language addresses architectural styles, types of buildings, building materials in addition to other neighborhood elements. The historic and cultural preservation chapter has been amended to reflect the 2017 revision to secretary of interior standards. There is also an addition of several minor exemptions from the landmark alteration process which include the installation of skylights not visible from public right away and also the modification to structures that are identified as non contributors if changes are not visible from public right away. The design review and landmark alteration process has been amended to reflect a mandatory joint design review board and cultural heritage board concept review. The zoning code currently requires a mandatory cultural heritage board concept review but in practice we have had joint meetings and this is a way to codify that practice. Additionally, the cultural heritage board quorum section has been modified to be consistent with the city's other review authorities. Any project must receive four. The zoning code says any project must receive four affirmative votes to pass. This amendment would require a majority of the quorum except for in cases of legislative action which would an example of that would be establishing a landmark in which case for both to be required. And then finally decision criteria for landmark alteration permits has been modified and this is to more accurately regulate new development. The added or amended decision criteria are shown on the slide here. Two additions are consistency with both the zoning code and then any specific plan and also the general plan. In addition, the compatibility criteria has been amended so that compatibility would only consider contributors to the district. And finally, the consistency with applicable secretary of interior standards is added and this again reflects the 2017 revision and also adds that language that states consistency with applicable which is really important depending on the development proposal. The design review process is proposed to be amended to eliminate any references to preliminary and final design review. So this would be a one-step process just as the cultural heritage board acts on a landmark alteration permit once the same would be done by the design review board. Concept design review would still be a separate process whether it be mandatory or optional. And then finally, design review in the historic combining district would now only require the design review board approval. Moving on to the design guideline amendments. The resolution before the board this evening is for a recommendation of approval to the city council. The design review board adopted a resolution recommending approval at its October 21st meeting and so both of these resolutions would go before the city council at its November 17th meeting. The design guidelines are the primary design criteria for the evaluation of new projects. They are intended to be a living document and so they are updated periodically to reflect new specific plans or other policy documents. And these design guidelines work in conjunction with the development standards which exist in the zoning code. This slide includes a summary of changes but to summarize much of the existing content of section two which addresses the downtown area has been preserved. The new guidelines from the specific plan have been incorporated and the organization has been updated to match other sections of the design guidelines. The introduction section has been modified to reflect the updated plan boundary area in addition to complimenting maps. It also includes updated language for the vision of the downtown plan. Guidelines related to various other elements have been moved to their appropriate section which I'll be discussing in a moment. The public streets section has been renamed to public realm and streetscapes and a street furnishing pallet has been integrated. I've shown on the slide. Some duplicative standards have been removed and additional guidelines have been added that address paving treatments and also underpasses. The building section has been renamed as site and building design and guidelines related to articulation, blank walls and setbacks have been removed as those have been moved into the zoning code as standards. The historic districts section remains unchanged. The parks and open space section has been renamed as parks and public spaces. The guidelines related to creeks are all maintained and a new section on public space has been added to reflect the vision of the plan which includes smaller public spaces including civic spaces and public plazas with a number of recommended elements for developers to include in their project design. A new section has been added on wayfinding and these address wayfinding for gateways and also smart station and transit. A parking section has been added to focus all of the parking guidelines in one place. And finally, a section has been added on environmental sustainability. This includes a number of guidelines from the former building section part of the guidelines and also includes added policies from the downtown plan related to building efficiency. And so with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Cultural Heritage Board recommend approval of the proposed design guideline amendments to the city council and the Planning and Economic Development Department further recommends that the Cultural Heritage Board provide comments on the specified zoning code text amendments. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. And we also have Amy Lyle, Supervising Planner and Suzie Murray who also helped with his work in addition to Andrew Hill, the plan consultant and also Bill Rose. Thank you. So I've got a question. It seems to me that these design changes, these are primarily designed for the downtown area. And what we're concerned about is the interface between the downtown and the protected areas that were responsible for cherry tree, St. Rose, those kinds of things. It seems to me that there's just going to be, there just has to be some kind of an impact. I mean, it just, I mean, seven stories, eight stories, 10 story buildings in the downtown will have an impact on cultural, St. Rose, for example, or Cherry Street. They just will. So how does that square up? Okay, let's go ahead and what I want to do is kind of stay within our process. If we can at this point, your comments are great and let's have them noted. But first I need to announce that this is a public hearing and Ms. Murray correct me if I'm wrong, but do we need to open this up first for public comment, at least allow time for public comment and then we'll go to, or should we just go ahead and go to the board members with questions to Ms. Nichols? Yes, go ahead and open up the public hearing for comment. And then we can move forward after that. Okay, board member McHugh, hang in there with me. We'll get to you shortly. I think your comments are good. At this time, I'd like to open this up to, this is a public hearing. And if we have any members of the public that are out there who would like to comment, this is on this item, this year, time to do so. Chair Muser, at this time, no one is raising their hands. We want to take a few moments. Let's give just about 15 seconds. We'll give them a little more time in case somebody comes in. No worries, we just got three hands raised. So I'll go ahead and call them, each person will have three minutes of time. And first we'll call Denise Hill. And once we give you permission to speak, all you have to do is unmute your microphone and once you start, your timer will start as well. Okay, thank you. Hi, I'm Denise Hill. I live in the St. Rose district and to a board member McHugh's point, there is and there was some height issues for our district and the 12 structures that were mentioned that had been reverted back to a CD5 and the FAR rating taken off was a direct result of the last, of the council meeting when the council heard this particular presentation. And the council, if you listened to that meeting, the intent was definitely to not allow a three or a four FAR rating on these 12 contributors to our historic district because it basically opened it up for developers to look at the potential for building a six-story to eight-story building where there actually was a property that had contributors on it. And so, the chance that they would purchase side by side or even one lot and then go ahead and request that they be able to build that high on that lot and take out the historic contributor was a real concern of ours. What wasn't brought up at that meeting at the time by the planning staff was that if the FAR was taken away, which is what the council vote was on the 12 structures, if the FAR was taken away, it would revert to CD5, which allows a five-story limit. That was not brought up until after that meeting. So what we've had some conversations with the planning staff, and we were told that we could suggest a height and our height suggestion is three stories or 35 feet because we feel that's in keeping with the height of the buildings, which go from a single-story family residential to a three-story apartment building that are these contributors. So we are strongly requesting that we get a 35-foot height limit on these so that they don't look appealing to anybody who would consider tearing them down. And we realized we have a historic district overlay, but we just went through this with the CARES project and lost an entire block of our historic contributors. So this is why we're trying as much as possible to protect these historic structures and would really appreciate if you guys could consider this before you wrote. Thanks so much. Okay, thank you very much, Ms. Hill. Do we have anyone? Yes. We have a couple. Next up is Roy Leusen. I hope you can hear me now. Yes, my name is Roy Leusen and I live in the St. Bro's Historic District. And Denise has expressed much of the background of what we are offering to the Cultural Heritage Board and to the city council. Part of our concern has been founded on the proposed new development on Lincoln Street, the 320 Avenue, the new structure, not the adaptive reuse structure, which is proposed to be a four-story building on a street that has maybe two-story home residences. And we can see what we can already see, visualize what could happen on B Street if I hide limit above 35 feet, which is already in the historic guidelines. And all of the contributing properties aren't in the historic guidelines for 35 feet with allowances for excess of that. By special findings, I believe that's the term. Anyway, our concern is that no matter how sensitive a new structure may be architecturally to the neighborhood, the height itself can defeat its ability to integrate into the neighborhood. That height does matter, that it can disrupt the visual coherence of a street and especially with my particular home looking out across the street, I really would prefer to have something more sensitive, benignly adjusted to the environment that has already been established in what is called a preservation district, that I'm not at all being flippant, but sometimes I felt I needed to question, what does preservation mean if it doesn't mean to preserve? And I say that with great respect to the planning commission and the people back on the staff that I've been working with on this issue. But I just feel that at a certain point, I have to decide what do I want to go with, the CD5 or a 35 foot maximum period. And in terms of the maximum preservation of the architectural quality of the neighborhood, I feel that logically, I need to go for the limitation of 35 feet. And I think that's really all I have to say. And I do appreciate your work. And anyway, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak to you and I'm finished. And thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone next? Yeah, next we have a Greg Parker. Good evening, Chairman Muser and the rest of the board, Greg Parker. I live in the St. Rose Historic District. I've been here for 27 years. And one of the reasons I purchased here was because it was a historic district, even though you have limitations on what you can do here, the advantages that you know the neighborhood or at least you presume the neighborhood was gonna remain much as you saw it when you bought the place. We understand there's gonna be changes made, but five stories, CD5 and five stories just seemed a little extreme to us. We, as the previous speakers mentioned, we've dealt with the planners, gone back and forth. And we came to a 35 foot limit with the variance to go over 35 feet because that makes it more difficult to break that. And the reasoning we went for the variance is there've been several projects brought forth since I've been here. The Moore Center came in with four stories right up to the street on B Street. Carrot House Village, pretty much ignored height limits. 320 College is gonna come in at four stories and Tom Karsten's building, I think it's 528 B Street is coming in at five stories. None of them paid any attention to the historic overlay that said it should be 35 feet unless you've got some kind of a variance or some kind of a, an agreement with planning. I don't know who you got the agreement with, they didn't get it with us. And so the result is that our neighborhood has to fight to keep things where we think they should be all the time. And 35 feet is reasonable to us. We've already got, we're talking about 12 parcels. Four of those parcels have structures that are less than 35 feet that could actually be raised. If it came to that, then there's non contributors in there. So actually nine of the parcels of what is it? I think 15 or 20, 15 or 16 parcels can actually be zoned. I mean, not zoned up, but they can be built higher than they are now. And what else we got here? So that's why we want the variance. We wanna make it difficult. Planning commission took exception to that. They didn't think it was reasonable. The city attorney said it's possible to do the down zoning on SB 330 because overall, the whole downtown area station specific plan is an up sizing. It's an up zoning and these 12 parcels are a minimal amount of that. I just made it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Good to hear from you. Do we have anyone else? I'm with that chair. I'm using no one else is raising their hand at this time. I'd like to thank everybody that has taken the time to call in or participate on the zoom and make comments. So with that, let's close the public input part of the meeting and let's go to our board members and board member McHugh, let's go ahead and get back to you with questions to either staff or the presenter. Well, we need your unmute. My questions are primarily back to staff. I mean, we have a responsibility to the St. Rose district, the Cherry street, Railroad Square, those kinds of things. There's no question in my mind that the development of the downtown is gonna create impacts on those historical districts. And so what I'm concerned about is some of the issues that have been expressed by members of the community in the sense that they are concerned about the shadow for lack of a better expression of what's gonna happen downtown. We're kind of in a transition between becoming a, where we are town and now we're becoming a city. When we're talking about buildings that are five, six, seven, eight, 10 stories higher, they're gonna create a shadow. And so what I'm kind of wanting to get clarity on is how do we manage that? I mean, if there's a project in the downtown that casts a shadow on the St. Rose district, what is our role in doing that? And what is our role in understanding that and working with the city and the neighbors to bring a resolution? Ms. Murray, I think that was heading your direction. Any comments back? Chair and user, this is Bill Rose. I think I'll start it off and then perhaps either Susie or Amy Nicholson or Amy Lyle can follow up with anything that they might want to add. So first off, thank you to all the board members for attending tonight. Thank you board member McHugh for your question. I'd like to put a little context to kind of what the role of the board is tonight and then a little bit of background. So what staff is asking for is some comment on the proposed changes to the design guidelines, the zoning code. Those will be forwarded to the city council. We just this week went to the planning commission, went through similar exercise and said we'll be carrying forward their comments as well. And you know, this is always where it's a little bit of an interesting kind of dynamic where you have a land use body. That's the planning commission. You have a more design related body with the cultural heritage board. And then the design review board also kind of more along the lines of the design aspects of projects. So your points are very well taken. It's within the purview of this board to provide comments and feedback. As I said, we'll forward to the city council. A little bit of background and context though, the driving force behind the downtown plan and updating it from the city council was to provide the mechanisms to catalyze and enhance development in the downtown. And so that's what you have before you. The plan looks at a number of factors and its goal is to do exactly that, bring housing into the downtown. How do you do that though? And how does it interface with the existing historic districts? It's a challenge for sure. The points that the neighbors brought up tonight, we've had conversations with them. Their points were accurate and we greatly appreciate their input. When this item went to the city council, the city council did direct staff to pull FAR out of the specific block in question on B street. And so that was the direction we were given and that's the direction that we followed staff. So our recommendation was to remove the FAR but we had to have development standards. The direction we did not get from the city council recently nor at the beginning of this process was to reduce the development standards and the development intensity. And so that's why we did not staff come back with a height limit that was lower than what was there before. So this same issue was presented to the planning commission just this week. The planning commission said, we concur with that approach. We wanna maintain at least the status quo for the five stories. Now, I mentioned this to the planning commission and I wanna mention it to you in terms of kind of the full extent of how this applies. The 35 foot standard is a historic district requirement. That's kind of the baseline. That's where you start with your height limit. The five stories that staff is recommending is a maximum. And to get there, a decision-making body has to make additional findings. That's the mechanism to go beyond 35 feet and to get up to a maximum of five stories or somewhere in between. What the neighbors have proposed is a little bit of a kind of a twist on that. You've heard them say they're looking for a way to, my words, I'm paraphrasing, to make the development above 35 feet, not by right necessarily. By doing that, by making it a specific standard, the mechanism to go beyond 35 feet is a variance. It's not the additional findings that this board has acted on before on projects. It's a variance and those are different findings and they're more rigorous. We don't issue variances very often. When we do, certain criteria need to be met and I would say they're few and far between. So I wanted to offer that to this board as kind of a full context of all of the pieces that are in play here. But to address board member McHugh's comments that's entirely within this board's purview, it's what we're asking is to give us, which will actually be the city council, you'll be given it to direction on what you think is the most appropriate way to interface the new development in the downtown that admittedly it's more intense than what it's been in the past with the existing historic neighborhoods. And I hope that just providing some of that background and context helps you in making that decision. But certainly happy to answer any more questions you have and as well as the other staff present tonight. Thank you, Mr. Rose, appreciate that very much. Going back to member McHugh, any follow up? Well, what I'm interested in understanding is I have no problem with dealing with height limits within a historical district. I don't have a problem with that at all. What I'm concerned about is the shadow that is created with downtown development. So we have something on the border of a historical district. Now, I understand some of the setbacks and all of the things that we've talked about, but if you're a street or two away from that, I can understand how some members of a historical district will get their nose out of, they'll be concerned about a 10-storey building that looks down on their community. And so that's kind of what I'm kind of, I want to kind of get squared up on is that, how do we deal with that? I mean, if it's outside of our preview, it's in a area that isn't really part of the city. What our charge is, but at the same time, we're getting pressure from people in the community who are concerned about a tall structure that looks down on them somewhere inside the downtown area. So I'm just trying to understand that. Yeah, those are really great questions, very important. And I would say they're addressed in two manners. I'm also going to ask our consultant here to chime in in just a moment, but I'll kind of set the stage for the discussion. Part of the downtown station area specific plan and its review and ultimate adoption is to do analysis for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act. So that's a component of the study that's done to ensure that what is being proposed doesn't have significant impacts to the environment. And so there's a number of components to that analysis that have to be considered, aesthetics, traffic. The list goes on and on. So that's one mechanism that has to be analyzed. The other thing is, is that on specific projects, contributing project sites that weren't given a project level of analysis, when they go forward, they will have to go back through this rigorous analysis, the secret analysis. And part of that will include some of the things that you just mentioned, Board Member McHugh. So I wanted to also, as I mentioned, let Andrew Hill, he's part of our consultant team from Diet and Baccia, also chime in and he is present. So Andrew, if you're here, I'd like to turn it over for a few words. Sure, thank you, Bill. Can you all hear me? Yeah, great. So I think I would say two things, maybe sort of big picture. Let me start by just framing this with the fact that the majority of development that would happen in the downtown specific plan area is envisioned in opportunity areas, which are specifically vacant and underutilized land, which is outside of the preservation districts. And that was done intentionally. The borders of those opportunity areas were drawn to avoid the preservation districts as much as possible. Now, there is some minimal overlap and then there's some adjacencies as well. And for that purpose, we included in the plan and as Amy Nicholson mentioned in her presentation, specific standards to manage the transition between those opportunity areas and the preservation districts have been added into the zoning code as well. And then over and above that in the design guidelines that are also before you tonight, there's a number of specific things with relation to building placement, a building architecture and of course historic districts that are meant to try and guide new development so that it's compatible with the existing character of the area where it is adjacent to the preservation districts. So that's just sort of one big picture comment that I wanted to make sure everyone's aware of to sort of frame all of this. And then secondly, more specifically to speak to board member McHugh's comment about shadow studies. We did a shadow study as part of developing the urban design chapter of the plan. It was focused primarily on courthouse square and the adjacent area where the tallest buildings are envisioned. But, and that is the results of that shadow study are included in the urban design chapter. What that shows is that shadows would be cast towards the north, so towards St. Rose only in the early morning, so around nine, 10 o'clock and less as you get to the middle of the day and then they're cast towards the east in the afternoon. And so that gives you, again, while we didn't do specific shadow studies for the St. Rose area, the tallest buildings are envisioned around courthouse square and the general trend is that the shadows would be cast to the north only in a few hours in the morning. So hopefully that's a little bit of helpful context for your questions and concern. And thank you, Mr. Hill, appreciate that. Back to you, Bill. Yeah, I just wanted to add on to what Andrew was saying. That was the context in the shadow study that I was probably not very clear about but it was done for that specific area that Mr. Hill was referencing. And then back to what I was saying with project-specific CEQA analysis. For those projects that come forward that require that, that's where we will look at more specific detail for that specific site and its specific impacts to its surroundings, components related to aesthetics, cultural resources and things like that. Things that this board is familiar with when you see projects come forward where you have project-specific analysis. So I wanted to make sure that the distinction was clear. The shadow analysis was done for the areas Mr. Hill mentioned, and then going forward, more specific project-related analysis could be required for projects that are the contributing structures and have value in the historic neighborhoods. Okay, thank you, Mr. Rose. Shall we move on to next board member? Board member Kronika, do you have any comments tonight or questions for the board or staff? Thanks, off-mood. You'd probably be better off not hearing me, but I do have a couple of comments, I guess, but first, a more generalized comment as to the totality of what we're about tonight and in going through the documents that have been presented to us and then listening to Amy's presentation too. It seems to me that the additions and the modifications and the finding elements contained within downtown area-specific plan and historical district portions of the zoning code amendments really reflect the necessary balance between more general plans and specific plans. In other words, I think we as part of the distributive planning process for the city, the Cultural Heritage Board in this case, interfacing at times, obviously, with the design review board and then in the end, a relationship with the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission I see as the more general planning that they get to specific downtown planning and this incident as well. But my point, my first point is, is that I really like what we're trying to accomplish, though it's difficult and it does provide angst, I think, for, say, members of each of three boards, the Design Review Board, the Cultural Heritage Board and then the Planning Commission and probably any other places too. So my first point is I'm glad we're working on this and I think what we have before us is a result of a lot of work that has covered a number of years and it's attempting to grapple with some real issues, I think, that have confronted not only the Cultural Heritage Board and most recently, I guess you'd say, the character's housing, is how do we balance the needs of the city in this instance, additional housing in the downtown housing elements which may or may not touch on a historical district. I think it's worthwhile to take a look at these things. In listening to both the community members and to Bill Rose, and I probably have additional questions or comments there, but taking a look at St. Rose itself, would there be times along B Street and I'm thinking more in the area abutting the parking structure, I think that's 7th Street, 6th Street parking structure and then looking at the Macy's, I'll call it the Macy's parking structure there, might there be times where we in essence might want to emit what I need clarity on Bill Rose's part, in essence, go above 35 feet. Those two areas, those two parking structures do not contribute a thing positive to the St. Rose district. And so I don't know the height of the brick parking structure, but it's I'm sure well above 35 feet. So if we wanted to, or say someone in St. Rose neighborhood wanted to build a building, it'd be a new building I'm assuming, of course, that in essence covered up that parking structure, might that be a positive thing? And if it were considered as such, would that require a lot of variance in terms of the... Yeah, Board Member McHugh, if you could mute please. Oh, I'm sorry. I was trying to develop the rhythm there. But I don't know if that's clear Bill or not, but I really certainly appreciate and understand the concerns of the historical district neighborhoods as it comes to height and other things. But there may be times where it's a positive even within the district. Yeah, no, I think the comments or appreciated the question was clear, Board Member Groniga, and we've seen it. We've seen projects that come forward and they wanna exceed the 35 feet and they have to go through this heightened review, if you will, it's the additional findings that are required. So the way I presented to the Planning Commission was the 35 feet in a historic district is a baseline height. That's what you get. To exceed that, you have to make these additional findings up to a maximum in the case of D Street and other zoning districts. In the past, it's been five stories. We now have gone to FAR, which is a different manner that you kind of regulate the bulk and mass and the height of a building. The council for those particular properties on B Street said no FAR. So what that did is it left us with having to come up with some development standard. And so in the absence of any other direction, we went back and defaulted on what was there previously. So 35 feet is still the height limit for the B Street properties. Five stories is the maximum, it's not a given. You have to make the findings and you go through a discretionary process. So I think the answer is yes, there can be instances where those heights are appropriate and that's why the code for years has given that pathway. But it hasn't given that pathway outright. It said there has to be a process, it has to be discretionary and there have to be additional findings made. The distinction and I'll just, I think it's worth repeating and we did talk about it at length with the planning commission. The difference with what the neighbors have proposed is a cap at 35 feet that is in the zoning standards. So it doesn't give that mechanism to go up to five stories unless a variance is given. And as I mentioned previously, that's a much higher threshold and standard. Very rarely do we grant those. Very rarely do we see requests because most people, what happens is they will come to us and say, I'd like to exceed the standard. We say, well, you need to do a variance. We walk them through what that means. And I think oftentimes by the end of that conversation, they understand it's a pretty difficult pathway. So hopefully that gives you some background on that and answers your question. It does, thank you. Beyond that or at least for the moment, that's what I have to offer. Okay, thank you, Board Member Groniga. Thank you, Mr. Rose. Vice Chair Finnell. I've got to say that I'm really happy to hear about a variance. I had such a hard time with the CREDIS project and what we had to do, it was a heartbreaking decision. And I'm glad to hear that taking a variance and my question would be, how is that? Would that come back to us? If somebody was seeking a variance for greater height in the historic districts, would that come back to us? Us having one look is a concerning part of these projects that it looks like we're gonna have a single look and not as much as we have had to say about it. So my question would be, in the case of variance and a higher height, would we have more a second look at it or greater ability to check it out? So Vice Chair Finnell, that's an outstanding question. I wish I had thought enough to mention and explain this in the first place. So I'm glad you brought it up. So the variance is not what's before the board tonight. The staff recommendation, it's to keep the five story height limit on the specific properties on B Street. And the mechanism that an applicant would have to go through is to go through findings that would likely be this board's purview to review. And they're distinct findings, they are not variance findings. So the variance findings are, as I mentioned, much more rigorous, much more difficult to satisfy. And those findings, if it's a major variance, go to the planning commission. So it's a land use variance that the planning commission would act on, not the cultural heritage board. So in that respect, one may argue and it's completely at the pleasure of this board based on the discussion tonight, how you wished to forward your comments to the city council, but one may argue that the findings for the height over 35 feet as they are now in the code as staff is recommending this, we go forward with, are more appropriate because it would be this board that would evaluate those versus a planning commission looking at a height variance. Now, just the same, someone may argue, no. If you're looking to restrict it more, it's more appropriate to have those heightened review findings of the variance and have the land use body look at it. But I'm really glad that you mentioned that because each of the pathways are different. They're different review bodies. Thank you so much. Thank you, Vice Chair Fennel, Mr. Rose. Any further questions from any of our board members to staff? Well, here I go again. I just want to understand. I mean, I get it within the historical district, but what I am still concerned about is the pressure that we will feel from property owners within the district who are like, for example, the 35 feet. Certainly a budding, a historical district that makes some sense. But what we're inside the downtown area and we're on Mendocino Avenue by the press Democrat and that somebody's proposing to build a 10-story structure, that shadow is there. I mean, somebody on the 10th story will be able to look into St. Rose, Cherry Street, all those places. And I'm a little bit, I'm not opposed to that kind of a structure, what I'm trying to do is trying to understand the pressure that we will feel relative to people who will object to that kind of a structure. I mean, that's kind of where I'm trying to look for some guidance in terms of, I know that we are responsible for what a building looks like outside on the exterior. We're not involved in terms of what's going on in the interior of the building. That's a design review board. But at the same time, we get that pressure. And so I'm just trying to figure out a way to square that up so that when I'm confronted with something like that, I can make a reasonable decision that benefits the city and benefits the constituents who are concerned. Those are all really good points. It's certainly something that we've thought about, we've considered, we've heard it in discussions with the neighbors, I think we've heard that tonight as well. A couple of things, I won't belabor the point anymore. I think I've talked about the height as a way to try to regulate some of these issues that you've described in the different ways that that can be done, what the staff recommendation is, what we're hearing from the neighbors. What I'd like to do though is offer a little bit, maybe some more discussion in background. I'm gonna ask one of my colleagues, maybe Amy Nicholson or Amy Lyle to assist here, is to talk about some of the other development standards that are in place to try to address that. So we do have things such as building step backs, we have the daylight plane, we have ways that they're not necessarily a height cap, but they are ways to try to address and have projects be a little bit more sensitive as you transition into more of the, kind of the single family neighborhoods really. So if Amy Lyle or Amy Nicholson wouldn't mind maybe talking about those development standards briefly, I would appreciate that. Thank you, Bill, and thank you for the question. I was looking to pull up the graphic that shows some of the development standards that Bill just mentioned that might be helpful to talk through this, so bear with me for just a moment. And I'm sure, are you seeing a PowerPoint presentation? The share screen? Yes. Okay, great, great. So this is the slide that shows the neighborhood transition which is applied outside. It's also inside the preservation districts, but it's also outside the neighborhood. Amy, I think your audio has done something strange. Amy, if you can turn your mic off and turn it back on, we're getting that same feedback we did the other day. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. No. I'm happy to walk through it, Amy, if you don't mind pulling the graphic up. I think she might try to get back on her phone too. Okay. So it's actually, it's fairly self-explanatory. You can, if you start at the ground level, you can see the first thing in this image here, and I'm talking about the graphic, the picture. You see the property line, and at the pedestrian level, you see a six to 10 foot setback. So that's the first effort to try to get a little bit of relief, a little bit of sensitivity at that scale. Then you see the next dimension there is shown 10 feet, and that's a step back, and you see that happens above the third floor. And then as you go up above that higher, you see the diagonal, the 45 degree diagonal, and that's the daylight plane, and that is a mechanism, a mechanism that cities use to try to provide relief in the building. So it's not only designed to try to aid in what could be privacy impacts, I guess you could say, but it also is to give some building relief as well. So it's another mechanism to make the building more visually appealing also. So that, in addition to height, in addition to when you have a project that requires a more project specific sequel review, where we look in more detail at the impacts to cultural resources, compatibility with the neighborhood, we feel that in totality, those mechanisms are sufficient to address some of the concerns that both we're hearing from the neighbors and the Board Member McHugh has clearly articulated tonight. Okay, Board Member McHugh, any further comments? No, I mean, I understand, you know, where you're going with this. I mean, but I guess, and you know, I'm not opposed to the downtown plan. I'm really not. And the idea of bringing people downtown and building structures for housing, I'm not opposed to that at all. What I'm just trying to understand is, we are responsible for that which we see in a structure. And is it compatible with our, whatever the historical district is that we're thinking about. And I guess, you know, I'm thinking about the five-story building on B Street that we a while back did a conceptual thing on with the design review board and how kind of contentious that was in terms of what its impact was on St. Rowe's and the district. And I'm just trying to figure out a way for us to understand how we can be supportive of developing more housing downtown and at the same time being sensitive to what our charge is to make sure that whatever is built near a, you know, historical district is compatible with the architectural contents of the district. And unfortunately, I'm not an architect. I wish, you know, member DeBarker was here, he could probably help us out with some of this stuff. But, you know, that's kind of where I'm kind of hung up. I don't know quite how to respond. And I'll just leave you with this. I think board member McHugh, you've landed squarely on a concern that we've had from the beginning. It's been a challenge, which is to do exactly as you've said, you're being the city. We're trying to implement a plan that is aggressive, that it is trying to catalyze development in the downtown. It's trying to bring housing units downtown to take advantage of the existing infrastructure to concentrate that density, to have an interface with other uses, commercial uses to make it vibrant. That's our charge, right? And then at the same time, we're trying to be sensitive and considerate to these existing historic districts. And how do you do that? We think what we present and tonight is consistent and satisfies both of those objectives. But it's certainly within this board's purview to provide comments that you see appropriate that may be different than what we've given you tonight. So with that, I think that we're in agreement that it's a challenge for sure. But I hope what we presented you is at least with a range of kind of context and information that can help you get there. And I think you have. And I mean, and I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but I mean, I just, these are just kind of the issues that I know that are going to come up that we're going to have to deal with and just some direction in terms of how we can more effectively deal with that and still be partners in terms of what the city and the city council wants to do with respect to the downtown. Okay, thank you, board member. McHugh, thank you, Mr. Rowe's and unless Ms. Murray directs me differently, I think it's probably a good time to see if we have someone who's willing to introduce the resolution. If we get the resolution introduced and a second, then we'll come back to board members for comments, unless any other board members have any questions for staff prior to doing that. Chair Muser, I want to say that there is no resolution. We're taking your comments tonight and providing them to the council, but there is no formal action being taken. Okay, I just saw on the agenda, there is a resolution on the agenda. So I was kind of surprised when I saw it as well. Hi, this is Amy. Can everyone hear me okay? Yes, yes we can. I'm connected by a different device. I apologize for the audio interference earlier. There is a resolution recommending approval of the design guidelines to the council. And then the zoning code text amendments are for comments. So there's no resolution associated with that. Okay, thank you, my bad. So I read it wrong. So I do have some comments, but I'll go back to board members. If any board member has any further comments that they want to make sure, get forwarded to the council, open that up for them at this time. Again, the only thing I have is that I really, really liked the idea of the variance and would really like to see that idea forwarded to the council. And just to be clear, Vice Chair Fennell, you're talking about the, not what the staff recommendation is to keep five stories with the 35 foot limit as it is now, the additional findings that would come before this board. What you're suggesting is a land use variance, 35 feet is a limit to exceed that, it would be a variance to the commission. That's what you're referencing. Correct, correct. Thank you. Okay, thank you Vice Chair Fennell. Thank you, Mr. Rose. I guess I'll bake my comments at this time. Some of the things that I liked in the changes were the separation of the design review board and the cultural heritage board with regards to landmark alteration decision with the cultural heritage board and design review decisions with the design review board, but yet still a mutual meeting for the presentation of the project. I think that will make things a lot easier and will allow a little more focus in each area. I know it's probably a little more convenient for the applicant, but the applicant won't have to deal with two boards at one time when it comes time for decision making. The decision making criteria, I think has been cleaned up and updated. I appreciate that. I like that the formalization of the character defining elements. And in some of the discussion that we've had tonight with regards to height limits and things, this gives us, it gives the cultural heritage neighborhoods just a little more strength in what defines and formalizes what defines their neighborhoods and gives us as a board more information to go on in making decisions. I do believe that the plan is going to result in battles around height issues in the St. Rose area and Vermont gardens along Santa Rosa Avenue. There's no doubt, but I also feel that as a board, I'm confident that we'll be able to just take these projects on a one by one basis and listen to the neighborhoods and as a board make good decisions, especially as it seems like heights as it tends to be the biggest issue in those areas. Finally, I think as a cultural heritage board, our commitment is to the historic neighborhoods. People have made an investment in these historic neighborhoods and I for one, recognize that and appreciate that. And, but we also have to realize that most of our, a lot of our historic neighborhoods are bordering the city of Santa Rosa downtown and city of Santa Rosa downtown is an area where you typically put height and you put things that are in conflict with historic neighborhoods. And we're just going to have to take each of those issues as they come to our borders to those historic neighborhoods as they come and deal with them at that time. I'm in support of these changes. And I think in the end, the changes in the zoning code with related to the cultural heritage board and historic neighborhoods are actually very positive towards the neighborhoods and towards the board. If it gives us greater formalization and greater opportunity to make appropriate decisions. So that's all I have. And I'll go back to any board members for any further comments. Board member, Chronica, you're muted. Just final overall thoughts, I really concur with the chair here and that there's a lot of clarification of roles involved in these documents and I think that's too good. I particularly like the strengthening and the definition of those elements, district by district too. I think those will help not only the neighbors within a district, but certainly help us when various elements may come up in terms of a proposed project or whatever. So I see a lot of good in this and I think it's over with that chat. Thank you very much, board member, Chronica. With that, if we don't have a resolution and we don't have any further comments from board members. I believe you do have a resolution. So it's two things. So I think what you just commented on and please, if I'm wrong, clarify where the zoning changes. So we were looking just for your general comments that we can put together and present to the city council. So I believe that's what you were commenting on. I don't want to put words in your mouth though, but I thought that was specified. The second issue is the resolution. I'm looking at it. It's for resolution of the cultural heritage board recommending the city council adopt amendments to the city of Santa Rosa design guidelines section too. So that's the section that is specific for the core area and that does have a resolution. So we would need a motion, a second discussion and then a vote on that. So design guidelines has a resolution, zoning code comments are just comments. Okay, thank you for the clarification, Mr. Rose. Okay, can I have someone make a motion for the resolution? Make a motion for the resolution. I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution of the cultural heritage board of the city of Santa Rosa recommending that the city council adopt amendments to the city of Santa Rosa design guidelines section two code area consistent with the downtown station area specific plan file number ST20-002 and wave further reading of the text. And can we have a second? I'll second. Okay, thank you board member, Veronica. And so discussion, open for discussion, board members, seeing no comments and I don't have any comments. Can we call for a vote? We could do a roll call vote, please. One second. All right, so we're going to go in alphabetical order followed by the vice chair and chair. So with that, with the backer being absent and vice chair Fennell, I mean, sorry, and have a guest standing and go with board member, Veronica. Aye. Board member, McHugh. Aye. Vice chair Fennell. Aye. And chair Musier. Aye. And that passes with four ayes. Thank you very much everybody for that. Well, I'm thinking that that probably concludes our meeting tonight. Am I correct? Mr. Rose. No, not really. Close, let me pull up the agenda real fast. After that, all we have is item number 10 which is the adjournment. We have to formalize it, but yes, that essentially concludes it. Any department reports? Those are up at the beginning of the agenda. And I think Ms. Murphy, her department report was when she described some of the changes with the roles for staff, but no other reports beyond that. Correct. For this special meeting, we did reorganize the agenda of it. So at this point, that is the last item on there. Chair Musier, if you can adjourn the meeting. Okay, so we're on item number 10 for adjournment. Thank you everyone. Thank you for your comments. Thank you, Mr. Rose. Thank you staff for a great presentation and look forward to the next one. Thank you everyone. Have a great night. Thank you, good night. Thank you. Thank you.