 Sorry everybody, some tech problems here. Test, test. Chair Muser, if you can test your video for us when you have a chance. Chair Muser, it's going to be a few months. We're still waiting for members to join. Hear me now? Yes, we can hear you. We do have a quorum, so we are ready to start when you are. Okay. I'm just going to get. Board members, if you can please turn your cameras on, and we'll start with chair Muser. I'm not sure why every time I do zoom, it just seems like a new experience. I guess I don't do it quite enough. So let me just give me two seconds here. Okay. I think I'm ready to go. We have a quorum, Mike? Yes, we do. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Well, we'll call the Wednesday, November 3rd, Cultural Heritage Board City, Santa Rosa meeting to order. We'll start out with our statement that the percent to the government section code, section 54953E and the recommendations of the health officer of the Sonoma County Planning Commission members will be participating in this meeting via Zoom webinar. Members of the public can participate in the meeting virtually by visiting www.zoom.us.join or phone, dialing 888-475-4499 with meeting ID 973-6028-6025. Additional information related to the meeting participation is available at citysantarosa.org, Heritage Board, or CHB. The meeting will also be live-streamed at sanarosalegistar.com, or slash calendar. Click on the in-progress link to view. The meeting can also be viewed on Comcast Channel 28 and at www.youtube.com, City of Santa Rosa. Our second item business will be approval of the June 16th. Chair Meazer, if I can hold you off, we got to do a roll call first. Oh, okay. Let's do a roll call. Thank you, Chair Meazer. Let the record reflect that all board members are present, except the Vice-Chair Fennell, and board member Wong. Okay. Thank you. I'm moving on to approval of minutes. We're going to have two draft minutes to approve the June 16th, 2021 draft minutes. Does anybody have any additions or changes to those minutes? Seeing no hands, I'll move on to the August 4th, 2021 draft minutes. Any additions or changes to those minutes? Okay. With that then, we'll move that the minutes are approved. At this time, we're going to move to item three, public comment. So I'm going to open for public comment for any item not included in this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes. The countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of the countdown. Do we have any members of public who would like to make a public comment? Thank you, Chairman Mizer. No one's raising their hand at this time. Okay. So at this time, I'd like to close then the public comment period. Okay. Moving on to board business, I'll read our statement of purpose. The Cultural Heritage Board shall consider the following matters, standards, and guidelines, and criteria to the extent applicable in determining whether to grant or deny and permit, whether the proposed change is consistent or incompatible with the architectural period of the building, whether the proposed change is compatible with any adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures, whether the textures, materials, illustrations, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and or are compatible with adjacent structures. Whether the proposed changes destroys or adversely affects an important architectural feature or features, the Secretary of the Interior standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings. Such other matters, criteria and standards as may be adopted by the resolution of the Cultural Heritage Board. I believe this is our time also to ask if any board members would like to report any activities or anything at this time. Okay. We're moving right along. I have 4.3 other items or other business. I don't believe that we have many. So does your mic speak up if we do? We do not. Okay. Then moving on to then department reports. So Ms. Murray. Hi. Good afternoon, Chair Muser and members of the board. I will be providing the department report today, which is basically that I will be stepping in as the CHB liaison just for today's meeting as Ms. Murray will be making a staff presentation. And my name is Amy Nicholson and I'm a senior planner with the city. So happy to be here. And there are no additional reports. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Nessun. Okay. So a statement of abstention by board members. So that this would relate to our item that we have on the agenda today. If anybody has any conflicts or needs to abstain from the item today. Let me take a left. Thanks for your hand. Oh, we're all good. Great. Okay. Moves us to item 7.1. And this is a public hearing for Avenue 320 Apartments, categorically exempt from CEQA design review major at 320 College Avenue DR-19-045. A little background. The Avenue 320 Apartments project proposes two multifamily structures with 37 residential units and 320 College Avenue, which spans College Avenue and Lincoln Street. The existing building fronting College Avenue would be converted from commercial uses to residential and a new residential structure would be built fronting Lincoln Street. The site plan includes parking, trash enclosures and landscaping. The application has been filed by Nick Abbott on behalf of Avenue 320 Apartments file number PRJ19-029. The project planner for the city of Santa Rosa is Susie Murray. And at this time, Susie would like to hand this over to you. Susie, prior to your start, can we do an expatriate disclosure? I'm sorry. We need to do expatriate disclosures prior to the presentation. Okay. Yeah, so we need each member to speak up and disclose any expatriate disclosures that they have. Okay. So we're just gonna go, we'll just go. Ms. Pratt-Sellas, do you have any expatriate disclosures? I have none. Okay. And Ms. Garrett. I visited the site and heard about the plans twice from, is it Mr. Adams? Nick Adams, I think is the most. I saw them quite a while ago and then they were changed to what they are being presented, what is being presented tonight. So I had a conversation with him. I also met with some of the neighbors and early on. Okay, thank you very much. And Ms. Bourne, Board Member Bourne. I also met, it seemed like a long time ago, but I did go to the site with Nick Abbott only for the last part, for the redesign. So I don't know the previous plan, but I did talk with him about his new proposal. And thank you. And then back to you, Board Member Pratt-Sellas. Hey, sorry about that. I didn't understand what you were, I thought it was something else. I did meet with Nick Abbott probably around the same time that Board Member Bourne did, but I wasn't a member of the CHB during the initial plans. So I didn't see anything prior to that. I think it was like in September or something. Yeah, it kind of threw me off too initially. I don't have any new disclosures. I have disclosed at past meetings and previous meetings that I've had regarding the site, but nothing since that time. Okay. Chair Meiser, before we start the item, I was just informed that Vice Chair Fennell has joined the meeting. Okay, great. We're gonna promote her now and do an audio video check and then we can move on. Check, check. Check, check. Loud and clear. Thank you for joining us, Vice Chair. Thank you. And if you can, we are doing expert day disclosures for item 7.1. If you can please let us know if you have any disclosures. I did meet and went over basic plans for the new plans. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Vice Chair Fennell. Okay, we're through that. We're ready for Ms. Murray. And good afternoon, Chair Meiser, Vice Chair Fennell and members of the board. The project before you, and just in the nick of time, Vice Chair Fennell, thank you for joining us. The project before you is Avenue 320 Apartments, which is located at 320 College Avenue. And as Chair Meiser pointed out, that site does span between Lincoln Street and College Avenue. So just a little tidbit for you. If when this project is constructed, it will provide 37 market rate rental units, which gets us 1.5% of the goal to our 5,000 units by 2022. We're well on our way, but we need everything we can get right now. So the multi-family housing project is also multi-structure, two structures. It involves a reuse of the existing commercial building at 320 College Avenue and the construction of a new building that will front Lincoln Street. The residential units are made up of studio, one and two bedroom apartments. And as you'll see further in this presentation, the project takes access from both College Avenue and Lincoln Street. The required entitlements include design review, the design review was approved by the design review board and the landmark alteration permit, which is before this board today. So here's an aerial view of the area. The site, the subject site is outlined in gold. And this is where you can clearly see that it has span between the College Avenue and Lincoln Street. To give you some idea of neighborhood context here, to the north, we have commercial uses and on the north side of the property to the east and west, we also have commercial uses along College Avenue. And then on the south side of the property that fronts Lincoln Street, it's surrounded by residential uses again to the east and west and to the south. So here's a closeup view of, or a zoomed in aerial view of what it looks like today. The project has been around for a while. The first time we saw it, March of 2019, it came before the Cultural Heritage Board as a concept item. Later that year, we had the neighborhood meeting prior to the applications being submitted in August. And in January of 2021, the project went before the design review board. At that time, the item was continued for redesign. Staff received new plans for review in April. And in September, a month and a half ago, the design review board granted design review. So just to give you a kind of a snapshot of the evolution of the structure, the new structure, Building B, as I'll refer to it throughout this presentation, the image on the top left-hand corner is what the Cultural Heritage Board saw during the concept meeting back in 2019. The image on the right-hand, upper right-hand corner is the building that the design review board saw in January of this year. After being sent away for redesign and addressing both comments from the Cultural Heritage Board and the design review board, which were very similar, the project on the bottom, or the image on the bottom, is what's before the board today. The property is located in an area that's designated as neighborhood mixed use on the general plan land use diagram. The zoning, NMU, also neighborhood mixed use, is consistent with the general plan land use. It's also within the downtown station area and historic combining districts, specifically the St. Rose Preservation District. The floor area ratio for the site is allowed at 4.0. It's encouraged by the general plan at 2.0, but it's allowed below that because it's within a preservation district. The project before you is proposed at 1.18, excuse me, a far of 1.18, far floor area ratio. The blue line shows the portion of the screen that is within the St. Rose Preservation District. Excuse me one sec, I'm back. Okay, it's very similar goals and policies in the downtown station area plan and the general plan for this area and just to give you a taste of some of them. And I'm gonna really point out the downtown station area, the fourth one down, that the downtown St. Rosa will be an energetic regional, commercial and cultural center with a range of housing, employment, retail, entertainment and restaurant options in a safe, vibrant and walkable environment. We need to get some housing right smack down in the downtown area. So there are some others here that I'll give you a second to look at. In terms of development standards in the general plan, which has been updated to reflect changes from the downtown station area plan, the lot is allowed to develop at 100% lot coverage. There are no required setbacks. However, through the redesign process, that building fronting Lincoln Street was moved back from 12 feet to almost 20 feet behind the sidewalk. There are no parking requirements in the downtown station area. However, this project does include 36 covered and uncovered surface parking spaces. Because there is one more unit than there are parking spaces, 37 units, 36 parking spaces, the project has been conditioned to unbundle the parking spaces. And what that means is, is that somebody that doesn't require or request an assigned parking space will also enjoy a lower rent. So there's also no maximum for building height. Although because the project is within a preservation district, does require that the review authority or authorities in this case make an additional finding. Because it's over two stories and it's over 35 feet. And that finding is that the additional height does not detract from the character of the preservation district or any adjacent contributing properties. The cultural resource report that was included addressed this, but the proposed new construction is 37, a little over 37 feet. And it steps down as it approaches Lincoln Street to 24 and a half feet, which is well below that 35 feet. The historic evaluation concluded that the impacts would not be significant. The existing building fronting College Street is 36 feet. Now the board may add additional conditions if the board chooses. Here's a copy of the site plan. And this is where the yellow arrows demonstrate there is one access point from Lincoln Street on the right side of your screen and two from College Avenue on the left. This also shows the parking. This is the ground floor of the existing building on the left side of that site plan. Parking there are 11 surface parking spaces, 25 covered parking spaces and 11 bicycle spaces. This image shows the existing elevation for 320 College Avenue. Again, it's called building A fronting College. The top image is the existing structure and then some proposed changes in the rendering below. And here's the proposed elevation for building B fronting Lincoln Street. Here's the landscape plan or the proposed landscape plan. And something I'd like to point out is that there are three nice sized large redwood trees that will be removed as part of this project. The project has been conditioned to require selection from the heritage tree list in the tree ordinance to replace those three redwood trees with trees that have the potential to grow into significant heritage trees themselves, although they have not been required to plant redwood trees. There's also a very significant oak tree which will be preserved through the construction process. Oh, I wanna point out too on the site plan, sorry about that, that there is a trash enclosure and if you can see my arrow here, it's located very centrally in the site and it is far enough away from Lincoln Street that it won't be readily visible and it'll be screened from street trees along the Lincoln Street frontage as well as some larger trees on the southern boundary. I'm sorry, that's the western boundary or the bottom of the screen in this case. So as far as design guidelines again, there were a very long list of design guidelines that were presented to the design review board. Here's a kind of a sampling of them and those that I think are more relevant to historic preservation. And of course it's to preserve Santa Rosa's historic heritage and to design new construction so that the architecture doesn't necessarily match but complement infill development, the downtown station area should incorporate and reflect character defining elements of the area and follow the design guidelines outlined in the city's processing review procedures for owners of historic properties. As I mentioned earlier, the project and the reason we're here today, the project site is located within the St. Rose Preservation District where the period of significance is 1872 through 1948. Some of, or this district is known for its architecture. It's also a district that has a mix of residential, commercial and industrial buildings. There's a wide range of architectural styles and the site exterior elements are predominantly wood and stucco siding. So with the exception of the north side of Lincoln Street, the lots are typically very long and narrow. And the one exception to that on the north side of Lincoln Street is the subject property, which is a very deep property. And then some other elements found throughout the neighborhoods of course are front yard fences, sidewalks with planter strips. And this project, by the way, will have a planter strip in the sidewalk. So processing review procedures for owners of historic properties is one of two tools that we look at. I mean, we look at of course the general plan and the zoning code and any applicable specific plan, design guidelines for all projects of this nature, but the two driving tools here are the processing review procedures for owners of historic properties and the secretary of the interior's applicable standards. So for building A, this is a non-contributor. And yeah, it's a non-contributor that it doesn't really, there's not a lot of direction for that, although there's not a lot of change proposed to the building either. Building B, the new construction, we get guidance from this document for height, proportion, rhythm of the building, setbacks, materials and texture, roof shape and architectural details and decorative features. Mr. Perry's evaluation talks about all of these. Secretary of the interior standards generally apply to changes being made to historic structures, which is not the case in this project. We're proposing changes to a non-contributor and which was constructed outside of the period of significance and a new construction and new construction. Mr. Perry's analysis did conclude and I'm gonna read this for the benefit of people who may not be able to see the screen, that the proposed project generally conforms to the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation and the city of Santa Rosa's guidelines for additions within historic districts. The use of traditional historic building composition informs and detailing lens of familiarity and sensitivity to the surrounding district buildings. The contemporary materials provide differentiation and avoid false historicisms. The existing College Avenue building, not a contributor or historical in nature, or historical in nature, is improved to support the new buildings to design features and character to provide integrated site and design aesthetic. This through the use of cementitious siding to replace the wood siding on the front elevation. The unification of the two buildings with consistent color and similar material treatment is effective. During the concept review meeting back in March of 2019 before the Cultural Heritage Board, the applicant team was sent away with instructions to consider adding rounded elements, revisit the polychrome material, the stucco, revisit the stucco in his horizontal siding elements, lowering the overall height and stepping, revising the design to reflect elements from the St. Rose Preservation District, revising the double height entry, redesigning the tower portion, revisiting the sun visors, and incorporating minimal elements into the design. Again, the image that was presented at that point is the image shown on the screen. So before acting on or approving a landmark alteration, the Cultural Heritage Board must make four required findings as shown here. The project should be consistent with the applicable zoning standards, the general plan and any applicable specific plan. It must be found in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Cultural Heritage Board must find that the increased height does not detract from the character of the St. Rose Preservation District or any adjacent contributing properties. Through staff's analysis, we did determine that these findings can be met as shown on the draft resolution. There are also five additional review criteria. All five of these have also been addressed on the draft resolution and its compatibility and consistency with architectural style, nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures, that the materials, textures, fenestration, decorative structures and details are consistent and compatible with those that are existing. Whether the proposed change will destroy or adversely affect important architectural features. I'm gonna say for nearby buildings there aren't any that it would affect because it's a new building. And then of course the consistency with the applicable secretary of the interior standards for the treatment of historic properties. So the project will be required to improve both the driveways on West College Avenue and the one from Lincoln Street. It will also be required to repair and bring to current standards the existing sidewalk curb and gutter. There are also some planters out on the college street frontage and I know from driving through there, yesterday that those can block your view so I'm not disappointed to see them go. I don't think that they're very safe. And then they'll also have to either provide or replace the street trees as needed. And the applicant and I had a discussion about hopefully preserving those very well-established street trees on Lincoln Street and they will do their best. I don't know what the likelihood of that of the survival of those trees is but we're keeping our fingers crossed. So the project has been found to comply for two exemptions for pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act because it has a floor area ratio or a far greater than 0.75. It's located within a transit priority area on a parcel less than five acres and is consistent with the downtown station area specific plan environmental impact report. The general plan and zoning. It's substantially surrounded by urban development and is within city limits. It does not provide habitat for listed species and will not result in significant impact for traffic noise, air or water quality. And lastly, the project can be served by all utilities and services. Prior to January, the January 21st Design Review Board meeting staff received a lot of comments. To summarize those comments, they related to traffic, parking, building height, density and impacts on the St. Rose Preservation District. Comments received, one comment was received prior to the September 16th Design Review Board meeting which was included in the packet in favor of the project. And then during the meeting and after the meeting received a comments and an email from Denise Hill, who's an active member in the neighborhood, expressing appreciation for engaging or the applicant engaging and listening to neighbors and implementing the changes. So when this presentation was created, this first statement, all noticing for public hearing was done in compliance with the zoning code. One of the pieces of late correspondence that was loaded this afternoon that I'd like to highlight is an affidavit from the sign installation company that signs were installed. However, yesterday, as I said, I went through that. I drove through the site and while I was there, I noticed that there were no on-site signs. These signs have been taken down, not sure by who and it's not the first time that's happened on this site. The project was also noticed in the press Democrat and mail notice went out to property owners and occupants within 600 feet of the site. The zoning code allows for the Design Review Board or the review authority to act even though there may be a defect in the noticing. In this case, we don't know how long those signs were not there, but I am quite confident that neighbors have received lots of notices about this project and are well aware of what's going on today. There are no pending issues. And with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Cultural Heritage Board by resolution approve a landmark alteration permit for the Avenue 320 Apartments, a 37-unit multi-family residential development proposed at 320 College Avenue. That concludes my presentation and for people who are maybe on the phone and can't see the screen, my name again is Suzy Murray, my telephone number is 707-543-4348 and my email address is SMURRAY at SRCity.org. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. And with that, I'm available to answer any board questions or yeah, any board questions. And I know that the applicant would also like to do a presentation. Thank you, Ms. Murray. I think if we could, I'd like to go ahead and let the applicant do their presentation and have myself and other board members kind of hold their questions until we've had an opportunity to see both presentations. So I don't know if you have a question. Bear with me while I try and find their presentation. I think what we'll do is we'll see both presentations then I'll open up for public comment and then we'll come back to the board for questions. Coach right next to me. Okay, I'm hoping that you, yep, you can see that up on the screen now and I'm gonna hand off. I think we're gonna start with Nick Abbott to go ahead and kick off the applicant presentation. Applicant team, if you can just let me know when you want me to flip the slides, I'll do it. Thanks, Suzy. This is Nick Abbott. I just wanted to speak real quick. I'll try to keep my comments brief. Chair Muser and board, thanks for your time and being available today. I just kind of wanted to share quickly kind of how we got here and I think I'll just start by saying when we went to that January DRB meeting, we had this Art Deco concept that we kind of took cues and styling from other buildings on the mostly Eastern part of the neighborhood. And I thought we honestly had a building that like respected the character of the neighborhood, was architecturally interesting and I thought it worked. And the feedback we got at that meeting was to the contrary, largely opposed by the neighborhood and it forced us to sort of really listen to their comments and reevaluate things. And so I think through the process, we've now ended up with a building that's just way better. I think it honors the historic uniqueness of the St. Rose District, specifically Lincoln Street. We took our styling cues from housing units on Lincoln itself that are heavily influenced by Spanish style. And as the project kind of took form, I think the styling is better suited for the neighborhood and the street. We listened to the height concern and we dropped it a story. And while we were in compliance with the zoning requirements for setbacks, we again listened to kind of community input and moved the building further back to better align with the setback standards that exist on that street. So I really feel like we've come before you with a really solid project. We're prepared to take it to the next level after this meeting and really wanna see it come to fruition. I think because of its redevelopment of the office building, we're in a unique spot where we have some cost savings that are available to us that ground up construction doesn't offer. So we'll be pretty strongly that this is a project that economically makes sense. And I know sometimes you see projects before your board that look great, but financially aren't feasible. So I just wanna give you a little background that's kind of where we're coming from. I'd like Randy to kind of step in and hand over our presentation. And we're here for any other questions that you might have. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kravitz. We can recognize, looks like Randy's got his hand up. Randy, I think you've been unmuted. So you should be able to unmute yourself. Yes, of all the applicants, if you're not the one speaking, if you can please mute yourself. If the host mutates you, it's hard for you to unmute yourself after. So please, if you're not the one presenting, please make sure to mute yourself. Thank you. And Randy, if you are speaking, we are not able to hear you at this time. You might have to adjust your microphone. Additionally, Randy, just to let you know that we still can't hear you. You may have to call into the meeting. You can call 888-475-4499. Again, that's 888-475-4499 and using meeting ID 973-6028-6025. Again, 888-475-4499 using meeting ID 973-6028-6025 because at this time you are unmuted. There's nothing we can do on our end and we are unable to hear you. And Randy, if you're unable to hear us, perhaps Mark or Nick, if you can relay that message to him that we are not able to hear. Randy, just send me a message that he's calling in. Let's go ahead and take a few minutes for Randy to get connected. Thanks. And Randy, that phone number and meeting ID is displayed on the screen right now. And once you get on, if you press star nine, that'll raise your hand. If the board's interested, we can have Mark Perry speak to the historic questions or historic nature of the project and the district if you guys want to start with that. It looks like Randy just joined or well, there's a phone number with the raised hand. We're going to go ahead and change the number so that it's not displayed. Give you one moment and we'll take the meeting out of recess in a moment. All right, Randy, we have given you permission. Can you confirm that it's you? Yeah, can you hear me now? Yes, loud and clear. Thank you. Time user, are you ready to reconvene the meeting? Yes, it's very convenient to me. Thanks, Randy. Yeah, my apologies. I've been on the phone the whole time listening into the meeting, so I'm not quite sure. This is the star six that always throws me off. Started on Randy, if you read on the architect on the project, I guess Susie's going to walk us through this as I lead us through. So, currently you're looking at the site plan of the current scheme with the existing building on the left on the north on College Avenue and the new building building B along Lincoln Street. And primarily the difference you're seeing from the previous version you saw and the version that went to design review board in January in terms of the site plan is the fact that now there's no parking underneath the building. We actually have apartment units on the ground floor of building B and the parking lot has been reduced in size because we no longer have to fully accommodate the fire department's aerial apparatus equipment, which is something I'll talk about briefly later. And you can see the trash enclosure against the westerly property line tucked up by the existing building. Go to the next slide. There's the neighborhood and the project site. You can see it's sort of an odd lot because it was consolidated from a bunch of previous small single family lots many years ago when the commercial building was built and commercial buildings on College Avenue and there's currently just a parking lot that sits on the Lincoln Street southerly portion of the site next. And there you're looking at the existing building that currently has a mansard roof on all four sides and then the parking lot to the south with the redwood trees next. There it is from the south from Lincoln Avenue perspective, the landscape plan kind of up at the elbow of the site up in that northerly portion. There's the existing oak tree that's going to become the focus of a small community courtyard between the buildings and then the landscape architect is planting some large trees along the westerly property line at the parking lot and then enhancing the frontage along Lincoln Avenue. The planters, as Susie mentioned on the Long College Avenue are going to be removed and replaced with ground level planting to improve the visibility. It was one of the recommendations coming out of our traffic study next. And that's a view looking west toward the existing concrete wall that separates the site from our residents immediately to the west of us. And that's the trash enclosure on the right side of the image there with a hip roof matching the new building B next. And there's images of what the landscape architect is proposing on the site for plant materials. Next. And this is the existing commercial building. So the ground floor is gonna remain parking as it is today. The second, third floors which currently house offices will maintain their central corridor and the elevator and stair locations but then for the most part the floors will be gutted and there'll be 10 apartment units on each floor. The roof plan on the right of this shows the mechanical screen that will be building to screen the new condensing units for the apartments and the northerly part of the roof plan which is off to the left we're gonna be reducing the height of that as part of some of our negotiations with the fire department. Next. And these are the floor plans to the new building B along Lincoln Avenue. So in the lower rights, the first floor that'll have five apartments facing Lincoln street they'll have a common entry into the building and two walled patios for the southerly two units and then the second floor and third floor will have apartment units. The third floor will also have a rooftop terrace on Lincoln Avenue side which will reduce the height of a good portion of the building to only two stories along Lincoln Avenue and then the roof plan again is showing the roof terrace, the trellis covering at the roof terrace and then the standing seam metal roof that's now a hip roof in that area. Next. This is the existing appearance of the building along College Avenue and you can see the mansion roof running around the edges next. And this is what we're proposing is redesigned of it to, we're not structurally doing a lot with the exterior we're just kind of modernizing it and the new kind of pop out elements that we're applying to the building will be in Stucco originally they were in a horizontal siding that was one of the comments when we went to design review in January one was to not use the horizontal siding and so we ended up going with the Stucco to reflect what we're doing in the new building on Lincoln Avenue frontage and we also ended up removing the mansard from the four sides around the perimeter of the roof and going with a more modern vertical parapet and we also you can sort of see on the north elevation to College Avenue frontage we removed a portion of the upper parapet to make it lower in that area that was to result in some negotiations to Santa Rosa fire department so we could provide access to the fire department next. And there's a color rendering what's proposed on the existing building next. And this is the new building that originally was a four story kind of art modern design when we went through design review board in January they had four primary comments. The first was that at four stories that the building was out of scale with the neighborhood and to look at reducing the size and so we ended up going down to a three story building that has a large two story portion that's on the Southern Lincoln Avenue side. This design kind of came out of a meeting that Nick had with the neighbors where he presented them some different architectural options for what the building and appearance and scale could be. Also coming out of the January design review meeting were some comments about perhaps looking at a different architectural style and Warren Hedgebeth brought up the idea of a Spanish colonial revival sort of in the vein of Irving Gill's work in Southern California and I immediately sort of agreed with that because I think that style's appropriate for the neighborhood and there are three small Spanish colonial revival homes directly across the street on Lincoln Avenue so we discussed this with the neighbors and they seem to really like this style so I reworked the building in this style. Now the building stucco as hip roof has colored accent tiles, low courtyard walls on the Lincoln Avenue frontage, a roof terrace, traditionally arched entry into that common lobby on the Lincoln Avenue frontage and trellis balconies along the Lincoln Avenue. Next. And that's the color renditions of what we're proposing for the new building very subtle in terms of colors. Obviously Spanish colonial revival, mix of angular elements and some traditional arches so it's kind of a modernized version of the Spanish colonial. Next. There's a rendering looking from Lincoln Street toward the west with the existing homes in front of the first scale. There's a two-story home just to the east of us. Next. And the view looking back sort of across the street looking to the northeast at the new building and the existing building in the background. Next. And these are the homes across the street to the south of the some Lincoln. Next. And some more neighborhood homes in kind of an eclectic mix of craftsmen and Spanish colonial. Next. And these are some of the larger scale more multi-family buildings in the general neighborhood. Next. Now I was gonna let Mark Perry who was our architectural historian speak to these two pages that were in his report. Oh, Mark Perry, can you hear me? Hello. Yes, we can hear you. Excellent. I was brought on. I'm a federally qualified architect, historic architect and architectural historian was brought on after the first revision was reviewed and started getting involved in the second Deco style building. My report explains that the dominant strategy for compliance with the local national historic standards bearing on it that the district itself is treated as a cultural resource when a project or property is not qualified as a cultural resource according to the secretary of the interior standards. That then implies that you need to take a good look at the neighborhood about it and be informed by that which these drawings in figure one show character defining elements that were represented in the final design that was presented our design reflects appropriate scale proportional and compositional ordering systems all of these within the period of significance of the district and the character defining elements utilized in the design are reflected as I said on this side directly if you could change the side please. You see where those elements actually are in how they've informed the design. This is a modern version of the Spanish colonial style. It certainly is also informed by the work of Irving Gill which was a fairly modern designer. It's my opinion that design is both commendable it's well done. It's also compatible and sensitive to the district and I think it would be really nice addition and I think we should get this same bill. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Mr. Abbott does that conclude your presentation? That's the last slide and I think that's done we're done on our side. Yes. Chair Muser take it away. Okay, thank you. At this time I'd like to this is a public hearing for this project. So I'd like to open our public hearing and so Mr. Maloney, I'll let you... Thank you Chair. I don't know if we have anybody and bring them on. Thank you Chair Muser. No one's raising their hand at this time. Just got a hand raised. Okay, there we go. One moment. So again, once we get permission to speak you'll have to unmute yourself and then please state your name for the record. You'll have three minutes from the time you start. Hi everybody, this is Denise. Can you hear me? Yes we can. Oh, great. We just want to say the neighborhood has obviously been involved with this project since the start and where we're at now is a really wonderful project for the neighborhood. We're really thrilled about it. Really glad that the Nick Abbott and his team worked with us on the redesign. It does mesh a lot more seamlessly with the residential buildings around this particular property. And I think it's just a great example and hopefully a template for how other developers can work with neighborhoods because it was a win-win at least in our mind all the way around. And I will echo what Mark Perry said. Let's get it built. I want to just thank everybody and really appreciate the effort on this one. It was nice to be involved and see that payoff. Thank you, Ms. Hill. Appreciate the comments and all your work that you do as well. Thank you. Next we have a Greg Parker. Do you hear me? Yes we can. Okay, this is Greg Parker. I'm on B Street at the St. Rose Historic District and I was at the meeting with Nick Abbott when he presented the latest plans. Obviously we didn't like the first two plans because of height and just not meshing with the neighborhood at all. And on that point I'd like to make a short comment I hope that I would hope the city would, I don't think it's fair to the applicant to come in and have to redesign two or three times when it's pretty obvious if you're in a historic district you're gonna have to comply with some of the major requirements of the design guidelines. And I wish that the city could find a way to avoid the first two projects that were shown to us and had come in with a third one it would met the neighborhood in the beginning. Anyway, my two cents worth. After we met Nick and saw the latest iterations it's the beautiful project and I just wish it were there sooner. They've listened to us, the design review board listened to us and brought the height down or recommended bringing the height down and then Nick listened to us and Randy listened to us and they made a project that we're real happy with. And that's about all I've got to say. We're very pleased. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Thank you. Next we have a Roy Lawson. Here I am. I'm muted myself. I hope you can hear me. Good. Yeah, I live in the St. Rhodes Historic District on B Street and I can't, I just will reiterate what Denise and Greg have said that I think that Mr. Abbott and his coworkers team have done a remarkable job of showing sensitivity to our neighborhood. And I'll just say I want to take a moment though to really offer to the Cultural Heritage Board the work that Denise Hill has done into fabricable work on the history of the St. Rose Historic District in very in-depth studies she has done of the district which also is the history of St. Rosa and her genius. I used to, there's a Latin expression, genius loci. It means the spirit of a place and I feel that Denise has worked so hard to maintain and pass on the spirit of downtown St. Rosa which is a very precious thing. I'm from San Francisco and I've seen the destruction that can happen when that's not respected. But in terms of this project, again, I'll repeat what I said before the design review board. I think that this project has shown great sensitivity to the neighborhood and I agree with Greg. I would hope that somehow some mechanism could be established where specifically historic districts, the neighborhood can be incorporated into the early stages to spare the expense and the time and the effort that goes into revising plans and designs and drawings. And I do know how that's expensive and kind consuming. And again, I appreciate the fact that Irving Gill was included in this California architect and that there are examples of this sort of Southern California spirit which is maybe not so much part of Northern California but is also much, very much appreciated because everyone in the neighborhood loves the Spanish style buildings. I know it's been a constant theme and to see another building that's inspired by that, I find very, what makes me very happy, very encouraging for the future of new development in the historic districts of downtown Santa Rosa. Thank you for listening. Okay, thank you Roy. Appreciate your comments. Mr. Filoni, do we have anywhere else? Thank you, Jim. No one else has raised in their hand at this time. Okay, I'm not sure. Oh, there we go. Our screen was a little interesting at the moment. So at this time, so we've had staff report, we've had public comments. So I'd like to go ahead and close, officially close the public comment period. And I'd like to come back then to the board and offer this year opportunity to then ask questions of staff members as well as the applicants. And we'll just kind of go by raising your hand if you have questions for either Ms. Murray or any of the applicants. Okay, not seeing any. Okay, with that then, I do want to just say that I wanted to address Mr. Parker's comment and just say that there have been some changes that have made that we're hoping that through the design review process, applicants might get a little more information that will help them to kind of forecast their project and if their project's going to need major changes to be done. So the design review happens fairly early in the process. I know that the applicant has really had to go through a lot of stages and a lot of time and I do commend the applicant for sticking with it and coming up with a project that seems to be very pleasing to the neighborhood. And so I appreciate that. Chair Muser, if I could also chime in on that. With the recent changes due to the downtown station area plan, we have addressed, we've included some new steps. And for a project of this size, I believe the trigger is 10,000 square feet for sites located within preservation districts and the downtown station area plan. They are required to go to a public concept design review meeting before both boards. The change that took place prior to that update, it used to require a public hearing at the end of the process before both boards. Now it's a public meeting before both boards so that the Cultural Heritage Board can kind of educate the staff, design review board and the applicant on what type of features would be required for the historic district and both boards are there to work together. So that is a requirement. So in terms of what we can do to avoid this happening in the future, and the other thing that is required for a project like this prior to accepting any applications in this project did go through this process is a neighborhood meeting where staff facilitates a meeting between the developer and the developer and the neighbors. And it's an open forum for neighbors to ask questions, voice concerns, et cetera. I was not present at that meeting but this project did go through that process as well. So, and those again, I'd just like to reiterate both of those meetings are required for projects like this. Thank you, Ms. Ferry. Okay, I think we're ready to see if a board member is willing to make a motion to approve the resolution for this project tonight. Board member Garrett, please unmute. Thank you. And let me get right on my hand too. I moved the resolution of the Cultural Heritage Board of the City of Santa Rosa, approving a landmark alteration permit for Avenue 320A. A is a 37-unit residential complex located at 320 College Avenue in the St. Rose Preservation District. Assessors parcel number 010-113-035, file number PRJ19-028. And I will waive the reading and the rest of the text. Thank you, Board Member Garrett. Do we have a second to the resolution? Board Member Bourne. I second that resolution. Okay, so we've had a motion and a second. I'd like to open up a discussion period regarding the resolution. Is there anyone like to make any comments? Discussion, friendly amendments? Board Member Presels. I just wanted to thank both sides for just really showing what can happen when people really listen and engage. It's just so nice to hear kind of a success story of this process. I realize that what must have been fun to go through and it was time consuming. But at the end of it, I think it's really nice to hear that the community and the neighbors are happy with the end result. So I just wanted to thank the applicants and I wanted to thank the neighbors for being engaged and really walking through that process. So thank you. I think Board Member Presels has her comments. Board Member Bourne. Yeah, I wanted to just say that even though one doesn't live in that neighborhood, seeing this project develop really, for people who just are driving through or moving around, it does add something to the whole city of Santa Rosa. So I commend everybody for their diligence. Thank you, Board Member Bourne. Vice Chair Fennell, I see you. Are you wanting to? Well, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the change from this proposal when it came before us. I was a super not a fan of what the proposal was in the height of it and the look. I think that what they're doing at 320 College Avenue in the front is an amazing reuse of a building. And I hope that it becomes something as people are working from home more that we think more in reusing these office spaces for residential. I didn't like the back building, but I really thought that what they were doing in the front building was an amazing. And again, to what Board Member Pretzela said is, everybody listening to one another and appreciating each other's opinions. And I really like that they went with the Spanish style. I think it's so prevalent along Lincoln Street. And I just, I think that it was super thoughtful. Justice, I'm done. Thanks. Thank you, Vice Chair, Fennel. Wait, thanks. I would also like to just really commend Mr. Abbott for hanging in there. And the many, the many meetings he had with board members, with members of the neighborhood and being willing to make those changes. And I am hoping that in the end, it was a win-win for him as well. And I know there were some fire department issues that I think you were able to alleviate like having room to park the ladder truck on the property or if I recall right. So hopefully things just worked out well for everyone. So unless anyone else has any of the comments, I think I'll ask Mr. Maloney to call for a vote. Thank you, Chair Muser. We'll start with Board Member Bourne. And Board Member Bourne, you are muted. I need to be able to hear you. I was in the wrong spot. I. No worries. Board Member Garrett. I. Board Member Pritzelis. I. Vice Chair Fennel. I. And Chair Muser. I. I thank you. And that passes with five eyes. Okay, very good. Well, congratulations to the applicant. Congratulations to the neighborhood. I do, I wanna thank, personally thank Denise Hill for all of her work she does on behalf of the city of Santa Rosa. And it's people who live here in the historic neighborhoods. And I wanna thank staff for all of their work and they've been working on this project for a long time. A lot of extensive work has gone into it. And Board Members, again, thank you for your time and contributing as well. So with that, unless Mr. Maloney, Mr. Maloney, I think we're ready to adjourn. Sounds good. Thank you, Chair Muser. Okay. And we're adjourning that tonight. Bye, everybody.