 Good afternoon all, I'd like to call to order the meeting of the City of Santa Rosa Design Review Board for May 16th, welcome. Patty, may I have a roll call? Let the record reflect that all board members are present. Thank you. I think it might be a first in a while anyways. Okay, moving on to approval of the minutes. We have minutes from May 18th. Corrections or comments for Patty? Seeing no corrections or comments, the minutes are good. Board business, this is where we talk about the purview of this board versus any other board or commission in the City of Santa Rosa. I'll read the statement of purpose. Project review, the review authority shall consider the location, design, site plan configuration, and the overall effect of the proposed project to the general plan, any applicable specific plan, applicable zoning code standards and requirements, consistency of the project within the city's design guidelines, architectural criteria for special areas, and other applicable city requirements, i.e. city policy statements or development plans. So that's the purview of this board. Thank you. That's the purview of this board. At this time, I'd like to open for public comment on any items not on the agenda. We only have one item on the agenda, 6.1 today. So it would be anything that you want to speak on in the purview of this board. Seeing no one, I will close that public comment period and we will move on to statements of abstentions by board members. Do we have any abstentions? Seeing none, we will move right on to scheduled item. Item 6.1 is a preliminary design review for Guernville Road Homes, file number PRJ18-039 at 1665 Guernville Road Cessar Parcel Number 136-101-010 and I believe we have a staff report from Kristina. Kristina. Thank you, Chair Kinkate, Kristina Toomey and Senior Planner. This item is Guernville Road Homes. It's a preliminary design review for a 12-unit small lot subdivision on one acre and it's located at 1665 Guernville Road. The project also proposes three attached accessory dwelling units. It's a new private road for access that they propose to be named Elson Way. The required entitlements to build this type of project at this location is a re-zoning from RR20 which is a rural residential zoning district to R318 which allows for multi-family. It also requires a conditional use permit for the small lot subdivision, a tentative map and major design review. This is a project that's on May 9th and recommended approval of the re-zoning to City Council, approved the conditional use permit for the small lot subdivision and approved the tentative map pending design review here and a final approval of the re-zoning at City Council and that's tentatively scheduled for June 4th at this point and this project is also located outside of a priority development area and it's a general vicinity of the project location. Here's an aerial of the project site so you can see it's east of Marla Road north of Gernville Road and it's a one-acre parcel that's currently developed with a single-family residence. It's surrounded to the east with a religious organization or private meeting and to the west by a single-family home and to the north it's a single-family home in Old Orchard in the back. The general plan designation is medium-density residential and the proposed zoning at R318 is a compatible zoning district. The project will provide 12 single-family dwellings so the density would be 12 units per acre plus three attached accessory dwelling units which aren't factored into that density calculation. This is the project site plan. You can see Gernville Road on the right side of that slide. There are the two attached units on either corner have attached accessory dwelling units and you can see one middle lot at the top also has an attached accessory dwelling unit. You can see the two large garages and they're served by one common public street. Our engineering department anticipates the road being extended in the future to provide for additional access way through future developed lots to the east or to the west I'm sorry but as development occurs we expect the Elston way to be extended north. Here's the project landscaping plan. I will let the applicant describe a little bit more the plants and the plants that they've chosen in the specific locations. These are the floor plans for the units so the square footage for the units varies depending on what the potential home buyer is looking for as far as the ground floor whether they want a flex indoor outdoor space or not. The floor plan allows for that flexibility so that the patio on the ground floor could extend the living room at the entrance. Here's some project elevations you can see the front elevations for a lot 8 and 7 and the ADU is kind of bookended on the side and the front elevations for a lot 4 and 3. They all have inset garages and front porches. Here are the rear elevations for a lot 7 and 8 with that ADU and you can see it with the fence and without and you can see a side view as well. Here are project elevations for a lot 12 and 11 lots 6 and 5 and lots 2 and 1 and this item did come before you as a concept design item I believe in July. So July 19, 2018 the project was presented as a concept design review item before the DRB and I think the direction was to make the rendering of the project was to make the elevations a little punchier and to keep the narrow street down the center. The applicant has kept that narrow street so there would be no parking allowed on the street but there's the site itself is over parked with the two car garages and the driveway aprons and the applicant is here and we have any questions the planning and economic development department recommends that the design review board by resolution grant preliminary design review for the development of 12 single family attached units of which 3 will include accessory to all units and then final design review was pending city council approval and if it pleases the board that can be deferred to staff or staff or staff. Thank you. Thank you. Questions for staff? We'll start with Adam. Do you have any questions for staff? Thank you, chair. I would like to defer to one round. Thank you. Brett, questions for staff? Thank you. Does there have been any questions for staff or basically the adjacent properties to kind of better understand the potential of future circulation given this lot and I believe a lot that is a few lots to the west that seems to develop in a similar pattern. Yeah, so the R3 18 is produced with this project so just curious about the north plan north in this case in this instance. Sure. The city's engineering department anticipates Elsenway extending up and to the west along the northern border of those parcels that are currently zoned R20 and connecting to that center street where Revello the Revello subdivision uses that zone R3 18 so that is the ultimate goal would be to connect those streets together. Thanks Brett. Warren questions for staff. All right, going down to the other end Henry questions. Andrew Chris and I I'm wondering when you said tentative map that the planning commission approved that so it's tentative pending the rezoning action from city council correct and when city council makes the action then the tentative map becomes the permanent map. Is that correct? Did I get that in the right order? Yes, that also applies to the use permit as well. So I guess I guess I'm asking from a kind of like a procedural standpoint so typically when we see something that's already been approved from planning commission from a site plan standpoint we can't make any recommendations or changes. Is that the same here because it's tentative or can we tweak I'm just globally asking Yeah, so the tentative map is the subdivision map. It's been conditioned it's been reviewed the planning commission is the review authority for a tentative map so that site plan has been adopted by the planning commission. It's only tentative in as much as it's subject to the rezoning just like the small use permit just like this design review would be should the designer report approve it tonight. Okay, that's I just want to make sure that I was understanding the mechanism there. Thanks Bill. Questions for staff. I'm assuming because we're at the stage fire department signed off on it but my questions are did they what were their concerns specifically what I'm concerned about is you know there's no parking on the street 24 foot wide street and we're looking at parking for four in the driveways so where's where's an attack from the fire department in regards to if there's a fire getting a ladder truck with stabilizers in et cetera so so the road is meant to be free and clear of any on-street parking there's also a hammerhead turnaround if you look at the bottom left of the site plan that allows for a fire truck fire truck to turn around okay so specifically did fire one did fire have any concerns the other thing with the hammerhead turnaround one of the planning photos showed cars parked in that hammerhead turnaround area so I'm assuming it's supposed to be no street parking no parking in the hammerhead and again the attack from the fire department on a 33 foot building if there's two cars in the driveway two cars in the garage that's my concern I'm not a fire a fire expert by any means so I'm just curious to see what fire's input was on so it was reviewed by fire it was conditioned accordingly not only just fire but also the city's engineering department for the roadway width for that future circulation that is anticipated to go to the properties to the north ultimately to connect over to Marlowe road so all the city department's reviewed it I can't recall any specific concerns that they had but it was felt that the width was adequate provided there was no parking so the trucks could have access to the sites even in the event that there are cars parked in the driveways Thanks Eric Drew Thank you Chair Kinkate I actually have a kind of a follow on question and I was looking at the attached development advisory committee document and I think this is perhaps what Eric is referring to specifically number 19 under fire conditions it says where the vertical distance between grade plane and the highest roof surface exceeds 30 feet approved yada yada yada yada yada but then if you go down a little bit it says aerial fire apparatus access roads so have a minimum of unobstructed width of 26 feet exclusive vehicles so that's what I'm trying to look at my concern and again I'm not the expert is it creates a real public safety issue and problem my experience is truck fire truck goes in ambulance follows in then you got to get another fire truck police cars and my experience from other developments in this city is you can say there's no parking on that street but it's going to happen and with 33 foot tall buildings it's going to require at least one ladder truck which also has the stabilizers coming out so that's my concern with it but if the fire department signed off on it and that's what I'm double checking on yeah so that's exactly the case that is a condition came right from the fire department it was adequate for this project I'm also hearing the project engineer might have some comments on this and could maybe expand on it further okay and then I actually had a I had kind of a second question that I forgot about I wrote a note here and I forgot to ask you guys so this is these are all technically single family homes correct they're not it's not a multifamily development technically with the 12 lot subdivision and so my question that basically is tied to the you know typically when we develop multifamily you know the flats the ground floor need to be fully accessible so I guess that requirement is not part of this correct because they're single family homes and so but as such they're exempted from that requirement is that correct I'm getting nods from I think the architect behind you so I don't know the specific ADA requirements for this type of construction similar to the fire department review it was referred to the building department it was conditioned accordingly so again the project design team might be able to expand on that I answered my question with their nods behind Kristen they there thanks Adam you ready also just kind of wanted to get the lay the land first questions about the connection with two questions actually one first on the connections with Gernville Road I know the development just down to the west has a right turn only is it going to be the same prescription for turning on to Gernville getting nods over here I'm not sure I can look and see if there's a specific condition looks like Kristen may be able to do that yes it's condition number 16 under traffic did I miss that okay it's on page seven of the DAC report and it states else in ways shall be signed for right turn only to exit on to Gernville Road with one way sign installed in the median and I did forget to mention that Gernville Road will be developed to a Boulevard standard so it will have a median down the center and it will be able to move on to Gernville Road we do have a've got on page 10 of 13 just talking about it's going to be improved as a boulevard I just want to make sure of that so now and that's great about it goes to Brett's question about circulation and how it's going to be extended and how it fits in because I want to maintain that members of the community, and others from the neighborhood and neighbors, one of the friends meetinghouse and the neighbor to the west, we're wondering about the fence. I know that that was just on May 2nd. We've got the, it says in here you've got from the friends meetinghouse, the comment, how are the neighbors feeling about this now, their concerns have been but as far as the, sorry, the east side, the property boundary that borders the religious facility to the west, but as far as the east side, the single family homeowner and the developer seem to have come to an agreement that the new fence will be built entirely on the developer's property. He had concerns about the safety of his dog and the status of the existing fence on his property. The fence to the east, I'll let the developer talk about it a little bit more, but they felt bumping it up to eight feet would create a unpleasant rear yard experience for the new property owners. Oh, so putting up hire to create a noise buffer for the meeting house could be too high for the... Yeah, it would create a unpleasant experience in the rear yard. It's still an option if the applicant decides to agree. Okay. It's also important to note that the ambient noise level just created by Grunville Road is already in the 70 DB range. And so the fence is really designed to protect the inhabitants of this project in their rear yards. So that's the key function of that fence that they're proposing. Great. Yeah, the question is mainly just to see what the relations were like with the neighbors. I'm glad to hear that you're talking with them. Thanks. We'll open up for public comment after the applicant makes a presentation. Thank you. I'll set. Thank you. So I had one question as well and it's more along the lines of for all developments as opposed to just this one. So I apologize for taking the time for this development. But on the DAC item, it's all the stormwater items. So several of them talk about either reporting for a five year, the ownership report for a five year period or there's going to be a declaration of a maintenance agreement with the city for the Seussump BMPs. And so I'm just wondering how that works with the subdivision where the owner at development as the developer and hypothetically the owner sells off these units and then ongoing how the city tracks that. Yeah, we defer to the project engineer on that. Okay. Thanks, Dennis. Yeah, I'm just wondering from a city, right as a joint maintenance agreement between 12 parts, 12 parcels and then the next 12 we go on the next side and then 12 after that. And then all of a sudden the city's got their hands full is what I'm getting at. You can, when the applicant presentation happens that'd be fantastic for that. I'd appreciate the education. Okay, any other questions for staff? With that, I will invite the applicant team up to make a presentation. No, he's here now. Rainie Ferriero from Tierney Ferriero Architects. I have my clients are here as well as well as Dennis. And I'll let him do the very exciting drainage discussion after I'm done, so everyone's awake. So seems like most of the questions that came about through this kind of have to do with the site plan, the site planning, the street fire department. So when we looked at this project we were trying to balance a few different considerations. One of them was the general plan midpoint density which would have been, I believe 13 units on this site. And we met with Bill Rose, talked about the numbers. Bill made a very good suggestion and that ADUs would be a good way to have a mix of housing types, get more people on the site, kind of provide what the city was looking for. And then we dealt extensively with engineering in terms of the street. Because I think if I remember correctly when we went through concept design review this might have been potentially a private street, then the city got involved in the idea that this really should be the connector to the future development to the north whenever that would occur, even though it may be a very long term before it actually happened. So then we went to a public street, kind of went back and forth on sidewalk on one side, sidewalk on both sides, what were the dimensions. We wanted to do a double loaded street so we could keep the density up, make it fairly efficient. And then we met with fire department. Kind of the answer to the fire department question is, is the street will have red painted curb, the hammerhead will have a red painted curb so there's no parking. The way the fire code is written and it came in the one condition that was referenced is if the eve of the building at the building wall is higher than 30 feet, then the fire code requires that there be a certain street width for aerial apparatus. So what we're proposing is we're gonna keep that point of the wall below 30 feet. So we're underneath the height, that's where aerial apparatus in the street width is required by the fire code. And that's why the fire department approved the project, but had that condition that if we obviously changed the height in the construction documents, we wouldn't be meeting their requirements. So that's kind of how the fire played into this. We really liked having the double loaded street because it allowed us to do a wide shallow unit. Typically these projects, these sort of see around town, they've got a really narrow, long lot and attached home on them with either a single car garage or sometimes a tandem garage. Double loading the street and doing this wide shallow arrangement allowed us to do two car garage, two car driveway. So there's four parking spaces per home instead of the two and a half that's required for this type of development by the city. It also allowed us to have a lot of windows front and back, a lot of light, a lot of ventilation. If you look at the floor plans, it gives us really big, broad rooms where kind of kitchen, dining, living room, all flowing together and having lots of glass instead of that deep tunnel effect with windows front and back, you normally see. We're having a bonus room on the lower level so you sort of come in and entry level at the ground floor by the garage and go up into bonus rooms, got three or four variations that the homeowners can do with it that we showed as options, whether it's sliding barn doors to close the entry or keeping it all open or creating an actual separate room. My client really liked the idea of having some kind of a openable, kind of folding stacking wall in the back so you can sort of see the rendering down below in here when you open it up, you can actually have an open space so the rear yards, which aren't huge, can essentially kind of flow indoors and you can have that extra 10 feet of space kind of feed into the yard. That was one of the reasons in planning commission when the neighbors came asking about the sound and the fence, we'd really like to keep the fences at standard six foot fences in those rear yards just so they're not so high walled and short. And we already have in the lots up by Gernvill Road, we're already required to have eight foot fences on those from sound. I don't think our neighbors to the east are really gonna be impacted because there's a pretty good sized parking lot between us and their facility. And I think the neighbor on the west was mainly just concerned with construction and his dogs and I think once it's built and the fences are up, it's not gonna be an issue. The architectural design itself, again, we've got the two car garages, the entry porches, we're gonna have a mix of horizontal and some kind of siting with battens on it, composition roofs, standing seam metal, sunshades over some of the windows with some variations and then the ADUs are gonna bring a little variety of the project, especially up on the street because the ADUs will be facing onto Gernvill Road. We ended up with sidewalks on both sides of the street because that's a requirement. So it's pretty much gonna be a standard public street for the most part other than not having the parking on it. Ready, Dennis? I'll let Dennis talk a little bit about the engineering that went into it. First, let me say good evening. I'm Dennis Dalvie with Civil Design Consultants. I'm the civil engineer for the project. So I'll answer Scott's question about the sous-sum features and how they're maintained and how they operate and who takes care of them. Generally, most projects these days that I'm working on at the city of Santa Rosa, there is a maintenance agreement that is recorded at the time of the final map recording. So those maintenance agreements would all be signed by the owner before everything is sold but they will run with the title of the property. So that will be an item that needs to be disclosed to the property owners. They have to understand that they're signing them, taking over a maintenance agreement for those sous-sum features. And it'll be both any feature that's on the private property and in the public right away. So they'll be responsible for maintaining them. And as far as sous-sum goes, it's the regional board really that's writing the rules. The city is entering into agreements with the regional board to follow their rules. And it's an issue that things change over time. So the rules are always getting stricter, obviously. And at this point right now, I believe that there's reporting required as far as any maintenance that occurs, but not much more than that. Thank you. You're welcome. Honorable board members, a few points that I think may not have been well enough addressed, Brett's question is about the traffic circulation. And the city is planning to do something with Ridley Road. That's the road to the east that parallels Elson. They're planning that that would be extended at some point and that probably there'll be a connector that goes down through that parcel to the north. And that was what they foresee and that road would go all the way to Marlowe creating a circulation. And they all say that there's nothing, there's certainly no budget for this right now, but that's what they see as a development path, certainly is what I would do. It just makes all the sense in the world. I'm sorry, Ridley would go to West Steel? Would go north, not all the way to the steel, but not necessarily, they didn't say that. They just said north to at least the parcel behind us. Where it could then turn over and go all the way to Marlowe. Does that make sense to you folks? Up and over, so yes. My part. And that would create an alternate circulation plan. By paralleling. By paralleling Gernville Road and paralleling the new Elson Way. On the Google Maps, it's Larry Drive. Larry is one street past that. It's that very narrow parcel. The narrow long parcel. So between Larry and, yeah. Which, like I said, maybe we'll approach them about doing more of what we're doing here, because we like it. This, my team has been working on this for at least a year and a half now. We've spent a great deal of time honing in on what we could do with these parcels. There were things that I thought were really important. Two car garages side by side. And getting homes that are actually on their own lot, whether it's a duet style or not, people want to own their own piece of property. We did, there were a lot of fire department concerns into Eric's one, and we didn't actually address this, but there was an issue, if you folks recall, about parking on the street and being able to reach to the house so far, it was the ladder. And these were structured for that. So we did spend a lot of time addressing fire issues. And it did meet what the city fire department wanted. And that did change our design. Stormwater and procedures. And I think those are the only things that we didn't talk about before, unless there's something else that you would like from me. I think we'll get into questions and comments from the board and we'll see where that takes us. I look forward to it. Any other items from the applicant team? Okay, I would like to take the time to open up public comment on this item 6.1. And I know there's a gentleman here to speak. So if you want to make your way up to the top podium there and introduce yourself, and you'll have three minutes to address the audience. Thank you. My name's Keith Bridges. I'm representing the interests of the Redwood Forest Friends meeting. I'm a member there. I have been for 15 years. We're a congregation that's been active in the county since 1969. And we've been at that particular campus since 1994. And we're active in the neighborhood. We're active in maintaining alternative violence project in the county jail and in the business system throughout California. Some of our members have created the living room, which you're familiar with in the county, and others have co-created the Santa Rosa Creek Commons, which is one of the first co-housing communities in the United States in the early 1970s and continues to serve on Sonoma Avenue in Santa Rosa serve as consultant to other such communities throughout the United States. So we've already sent our concerns forward as an email. So I'm not gonna repeat that. I just have a couple of other concerns that I wanna mention. One is that we don't have any issue with the density of this project or the footprint of the project. As you've mentioned, there's another project quite similar, just about 300 feet to the west. I believe it's 12 or 13 homes on 1.3 acres. But they're two stories, they're not three stories. And that is our concern. This project being three stories right in the middle of a rural residential area or 40 on all sides, it's gonna stick out like a brick in the road. So its height is some concern to us would be much more comfortable with the project and thinks that it would fit in the aesthetics of the area much more if it were two stories. The other concern that I'll mention is that there's no provision for guest parking in this project. The driveways are quite short. They only accommodate two vehicles in each driveway. And if there anything like me, I stuff my garage with things and the cars go out in front. So if that's the way people are gonna park in this project, their guests will park in our church lot. And we really don't wanna have to be towing cars. Our lot is full three times a week. We built it small to encourage people to share rides to our facility. So we really don't wanna have a relationship with neighbors who were calling it a tow truck three or four times a week. So it really wish that the staff would work on developing some sort of guest parking or overflow parking for this. It's just so dense that it doesn't allow certainly any street parking on Ellison or Gunville Road. And we're worried that there's gonna be overflow parking in our lot that we'll have to tow. So those are our main concerns. This is a clever project. We have no problem with a footprint. We understand that the city needs more housing and I think it's nicely designed. We just have these concerns that we wanna put forward and I hope you take a look at the other email that we sent as well. Thank you. Thank you for your time and comments. Any other folks for public comment on this item? Seeing none, I will close public comment and bring it back to the board. As we operate in Rosenberg's rules, we could certainly entertain a motion on the project and then get into questions and discussions or we could take some questions first. What's everybody's thoughts? All right, we'll take some questions first. Adam, you ready? I'd like to defer again. I wanna chew on some things when I hear. Okay, thank you. Brett? Sure. No, I think the points are well taken by the, from the public comments and some things that I hadn't considered as part of this, but I also think it's very clever. But yeah, there is, I guess, for me as well. I'm curious, we talked about the height and being three stories and things like that. Is there, what type of height would you get if you had a typical two-story type of structure in this case? What type of, what height? I'm sorry, like, are we, you know? Well, you take a floor off, it's a T. Yeah, it'd be nine feet lower than, oh. Yeah. Be nine feet lower than this. The, you know, realistically looking at the project and looking at the general plan, like I mentioned before, I mean, if we went strictly by the midpoint of the general plan, we would have 13 units on the site. So already where essentially is at the bottom end of the density we could have and be in any kind of conformance with the general plan. So really there was no way to, you know, strip a story off and. If I can add a few more words to that. So the midpoint, what we're referring to is eight to 18 units is the density range for this site. And the general plan requires a midpoint of 13 units unless there are certain site specific constraints that really make it impossible to achieve that. And in this case, the project is at 12 units an acre. So it's one unit less than the midpoint. And the reasoning behind it and the planning commission as we've indicated approved this site plan. The reason for the 12 units being acceptable is the narrow configuration of a lot and the desire for the city to have that be a public street so it can have future connection, ultimately turning and going towards Marlowe behind this property. So a little background as to how the 12 units came to be. Yeah, thank you. Not necessarily concerned about the density, but just the concerns about trying to figure out where the, you know, if it's possible with the heights and things like that. That seems to be a concern that was expressed. One thing. That's one of the reasons, you know, we have the ADUs on the two Southern properties. So you've only got single story actually up in the street. Yeah. Which I thought was an interesting kind of approach from a massing perspective going with the, you know having basically a stepped kind of profile, if you will. You know, lower dense, lower density but lower height at Gernville and kind of coming higher in the, you know, out back which I think I can kind of understand and appreciate from, you know, how homes also stack in terms of their architecture as well. Another question I was kind of curious about was the private open space requirement. I thought I'd read in the DAC something about 400 square feet per lot. I noted that all of the lots have, you know the rear yard that exceeds that mark. However, there's some concerns with the narrowness of some of the areas. And I know there was a bit of, there was some conversation about kind of the flow indoor outdoor with that bonus room which kind of sounds, which is nice especially given the climate and how people generally use those bonus rooms. So I'm wondering if that, if the current plan as it was approved, if that adheres to that does that adhere to that requirement? The 400 square feet properly, I guess. Cause I thought there was also something about a 15 foot dimension as well. And this is a discussion we had early on with Bill and in his reading, he thought that these rear yards were acceptable and then we did have the bonus room with the opening wall to try to expand that space for the homeowners. Okay. It's two dimensions that are required. 15 foot setback essentially are width of the yard within a 400 square foot total area requirement. And it does meet that requirement, both of those requirements. Okay. Thanks for clarifying. I thought it was, you couldn't, yeah. Anyway, my interpretation of that language was not correct. So thank you. Some other, I guess, I realize this preliminary design review as well but some other concerns specifically related to the landscape plan and the buyer retention and how that's functioning. Kind of going back and forth between the tentative map and trying to kind of put together what that system was. It's not, it doesn't appear to be treated through plant material and soil. It's a permeable gutter pan. And then my assumption is that there's capacity below that and then that's all piped to our standard system. So if that's, can someone elaborate on that quickly? Sure, yes. So we are required to follow the city of Santa Rosa's LID manual. We've got two different types of buyer retention on this site. We've got some landscape based in the two backyards of the corner lots on Gernville Road. The remainder are basically it's a, like you said, a permeable gutter pan and the volume capture and treatment occurs underneath the ground through the, what is referred to as structural soil that is installed in that buyer retention bed. So you're getting your cleaning and your volume capture through that soil. Great, okay. Yeah, just trying to, I was wondering if it was, I don't know, some, it was a little bit just confusing. This has more to do with space constraints. Generally, on a subdivision like this, there is a planter strip in between the sidewalk and the curb and that's generally where the landscape based buyer retention occurs. But the width of this parcel is just too narrow to allow that to happen. Right, yeah, totally understand that. And I guess that kind of also brings me to another point about just the nature of the streetscape and I won't say anything. I know we're constrained and you'll have done, I think a good job in kind of trying to make this as humanized as possible. And so I do kind of appreciate that especially kind of the cross section through the street. It's fairly narrow and has a good, I think, a good proportion. So some other things on the landscape plan that I was kind of curious about as well. One thing I would like to, I guess, see going forward is I know this has to be, there has to be, there's certain water requirements with mawa and wuckles and just to make sure that the plan's moving forward meet those guidelines and meet the city ordinances and code for those types of things. And then it looks like in the, and then just for the vision triangle just kind of concerned in that in those two corners, there are some tree symbols shown. So just making sure that that plant material adheres to those high requirements and the views and the limping up of certain trees and specimens. And I think that's all for me. Thank you. Thanks, Brett. Warren, questions for the applicant? Yeah, thank you. We're gonna just a quick question here. One of the wonderful things about ADUs, banks have become very open now to having mortgages that own these, realize the benefits of having supplement and revenue. And I noticed the size of the front ADU, it's modest, it's a wonderful unit is designed. One of the considerations as a question, when you were looking at the overall buildings, they're massing issues obviously to contend with because you have a very narrow site. And it's really in many ways, one of the narrow sites I've known and getting all of the units on it. When the comment came about Gernbill Road and I guess it was the brick comment about the three stories, the capacity to have an ADU of 700, 750 square feet. I think Bill's nodding has said that's an okay size. The idea of actually having a second floor on that front ADU, increasing its rent and amenities and softening the idea of the third level of the main unit above. I can see there's a master bed there you have. It's a noisy road, you have higher line windows. In some ways they kind of emphasize the height that the question is in exploring the size of the ADU, was there ever a thought about the consideration the ADU might have a deeper amenity and what that might do in helping the homeowner better his day with even better rent and possibly softening the three-story armor. I mean, I think it was brought on early on, conceptually, and Barry can correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean, I think the preference was to have the smaller, more affordable unit there rather than trying to build 800 square feet and have stairs and have a second floor there. Okay, okay, there was a question. I understand about painting the curbs red and I understand that the 26 rule and we've got a, as I understand it, with public works this through road, perhaps is one of the key reasons why public works risk management has bought off on the depth. Just some fine-tuned things. I know that you have some stone in the front if you call it lead stone. The veneer real stone is about the same price as the cultured which can fade and you can't bring the culture all the way to the ground. That's a fine-tuned question about looking at durability and longevity or no stone at all is also perhaps something since you're looking at affordability. My understanding as you pursued the general 400-foot rule, it is my understanding as well that you can look at the side to side and back to front and create a general area that carves that out. And that's, in my understanding, the whole idea of this main floor entry, the main livable second floor and third floors is by honoring the private space downstairs, you have created a lemonade condition, literally, of having a less of a throwaway element there. And my understanding there is that was not an afterthought, that was a deliberate way to try to bring ground-level memories to the residents. Right, yeah, it is mainly to create options from the homeowners, letting them do what they want or whether I mean I suppose somebody could use it for storage if they wanted, but there's the opportunity there to create a really nice alternate living space in that lower level that's connected to the backyard. I don't think the board yet has seen this as maybe a planning combo question, but you have a private residence that will go a title company, they'll own the lot with the ADU. They need to steward their appetite of their renter. If they love cars too much, there will be an internal harmony or some lease agreement between them so that fire departments and the residents, both doorbells, somehow are simpatico. Okay, yeah, we'll definitely, I'm sure Barry will work that out. Yeah, he's actually, yeah. The couple of things, we've thought a long time about the parking and to Keith's concern, if he's still here, the driveways are adequate for parking for each, each driveway will hold two additional cars. There will be a deed restriction that says people have to park in the garage. It'll say the garage has to be left clear so that they can park their cars in the garage. My engineer and I sometimes disagree about things and that was actually one of them because his garage looks like mine. But the truth of it is, is that this has worked and does work in other places. We want them. It's a deed restriction, which means the neighbors have it and other people could do that too. But that is a requirement of the project. And I think that it never occurred to me before, Warren, but I think putting a restriction as to one car for the ADU would be simple and smart. And I just dawned on me that that's what we should be doing. So it's in the rent or they go on to a new rent? There, they will be, excuse me, they'll be for rent. The ADU will. Yeah, the ADU would be, it's not, what I can see in the tentative map is it's basically in the family of the main unit. It's, that's what ADUs are all about. It's not counting the density. So typically the owner has a rent agreement with the ADU. In that rent, the renter can be a long-term resident or perhaps short-term based on their behaviors. This is true. Always true. Oh, something else I maybe want to share with you. The inspiration for this indoor outdoor living space downstairs came from travels that I've had throughout the world, actually. And in other places like Italy, you go down the street and you can often see just a solid wall facade and then you open the door and you're into a courtyard. And I think people fall in love with their houses when they step inside that front door. And stepping inside a small chamber to look at a stairway going up the side of the house doesn't inspire me. Opening the door and going, gee, this is a man cave. This looks great. And then going up and seeing your living area is an extra reward. And I think that was a big part of the concept and also to grab more indoor outdoor space created completely different experience. And if staff could add the ADU does require a deed restriction that the main unit be owner occupied. So that would be a requirement for this project. Thank you, Warren. Henry, questions? Yeah, just a couple of minor ones. And thank you for clarifying the deed restriction because I did hear the neighbor's concern loud and clear about the parking being an issue. And is the deed restriction for one of the two car spaces to always be clear of both spaces? Both of those spaces. So in theory, if somebody truly follows that, then the two cars are inside and there would be two cars available for guest parking? Is that how it's been implemented? For guest parking, apron parking, or leaving open? Okay. This question is for Randy. The color boards I noticed have a continuous roof line. The drawings in our packet have shed dormers on the backside. Which ones are correct or do they differ per building block? Shed dormers here. Rolling backside. Backside. But I don't see them up on the color board. And you may have done the color elevations a while back and the ones in the packet are the latest. I just want clarity on which ones. No, the color ones are really new. So I think the little shed dormers have gone away. Okay. Leave they've gone away? Lose a little bit of window follow up question on that. I can't see. Yeah, we lose a little window. I think it depended on whether those are the master bedrooms, whether they had a higher ceiling plate or not. Yeah, it looks like it's maybe one and a half, two feet at the most of window loss maybe. Last question, being one of the freshmen on the board, I didn't get a chance to review this at concept level. So I went back to the videotape and watched the proceeding and I'll save some of it for my final comments, but in that meeting you talked about, or somebody on your team talked about the kerbs being rolled? Yeah, that was an early. That those gone away? Yeah. Yeah, that was an early version when I think it was still a private street and it was narrower. That's all the comments I had. Thanks, Henry. Drew? So I was looking at the fence piece. There's kind of a, I guess what looks like a really basic fence concept on the landscape drawing. I'm assuming that the fence as it moves down the property line, it starts at eight feet, then goes to six feet, and it's the same design the entire way. And with this fence because it's an eight foot sound fence, I believe we're the ones that have to permit you to allow the top two feet to be solid unless the planning commission already did that. I know it's a kind of a little tiny thing, but I'm curious. I just realized that. The top two feet of the sound fence will be solid. Yeah, but it's not allowed to be unless we say it can be. Oh, yeah. So unless it's been already conditioned by perhaps the planning commission. Yeah, the planning commission approved the fence design with the use permit. The reason why it would be solid is to meet a general plan requirement of lowering the decibel level in the rear yards of these units. So having it open would defeat that purpose. Right, yeah, no, I'm okay with it being solid. I just wanted to make sure we didn't need to make a condition or determination on that that it's already been done elsewhere, I guess. So that was kind of a hybrid question there. And then I guess my other question, where did I write it? I'm terribly sorry. Oh, exterior light fixtures? Just gonna have dark houses. No cut sheet, no. What does it look like? I'm curious. I would like to know. Well, we were gonna bring that in on the final design review. Okay, I think that's good. Or do you have like an idea of what it might look like? Or is it a sconce, is it a puck light? You know, what type of exterior lighting are you kind of thinking about? Well, it'll be a fairly contemporary shielded light. And again, we were hoping to bring a few of those details back into staff for final design review, but. No, no giant glowing, rotating, rawed iron. Sure, those are my questions. Scott. Thanks, Drew. Eric, questions? On the DAC report under the traffic improvements, who's financially responsible for those changes? Specifically under item number 16, page seven. So I'm not quite understanding. Question two. So the changes that would be made to the existing median nose, and say it says shall be removed, medium extended and median nose constructed and ending at the west curb return? Yes. Who's responsible for those? So those improvements being installed? Correct. The developer will be. Okay. Yeah, so my comments are, one, I truly shared the concern with the neighbor in regards to parking. While seems to be traffic is my issue here this evening, I agree with what the neighbor said in regards to having guests parking. I think that it's something that the developer and the neighbors to the east need to work out in regards to how we can prevent that overflow parking from guests, overnight guests, day guests being there. The other concern I have is a traffic safety issue and it's specifically under that traffic number 16, where it shows, where in there it says that the median nose shall be removed, median extended and median nose constructed ending at the west curb. So I'm assuming the west prolonged curb line of Elson Way. So when looking at that site map, what it mean, and even though there'll be a sign that says right turn only, what will end up probably happening is those, the vehicle traffic exiting Elson onto Gernville will turn slight right and then make a U-turn to head eastbound onto Gernville Road. And those vehicles that are approaching that development from the west, which are headed eastbound on Gernville, are not gonna go to Ridley, make the U-turn and then come back to the development. They're gonna make a more of a six-degree turn to get into the development from the two-way left turn lane. My recommendation on that would be to see if we can shorten that median nose not extending it. So that way it's even with the eastern prolonged curb line of Elson. So that way it allows for traffic, vehicle traffic going eastbound Gernville to make that 90-degree turn from the two-way left turn lane onto Elson. And vice versa, that vehicle traffic coming out can then making 90-degree turn across the two-way left turn lane onto eastbound Gernville Road. That is much safer than trying to get vehicles making U-turns at Ridley, where that traffic I think is at 45 miles an hour, if I'm correct, or 40 miles an hour on Gernville Road. And it may help alleviate some of that traffic headed to the neighbors, because then you have that solid median there. You have less people making the U-turn and they're gonna make that easy turn into the neighbor's property. That would be my concern with the way the approval is written in the DAC. On that, and I understand the deed restrictions, my experience is that they're very unenforceable. It's a civil action in order to enforce a deed restriction upon a neighbor, et cetera. And I don't think that's a fair burden to any of the neighbors that are there that reside there on the proposed development or the surrounding neighbor, or the neighbor to the east. And I'm looking for maybe some suggestions on how we can get around that issue. I mean, keeping the grant deed in place, but what would be some recommendations that you guys can make in regards to how do we become a good neighbor? How do we alleviate that parking concern? Well, most of the off-street parking lots that I've seen that have a control issue put a gate in. They put a gate in. I'm sorry, they put a gate in. They lock their parking lot with a gate and that keeps unwanted traffic out of their parking lot. I mean, besides that, I'm not sure anything else that can be done on this project to alleviate people. I mean, just it's the same as a deed restriction would be unenforceable, a restriction on telling people that they can't go park over there. How do you, I mean, how do you enforce that? Especially when these are for sale homes that the developer can only do what he can with say something like a deed restriction to try and encourage the people to park on their own lots, park on their own driveways. But short of that, I'm not sure that there is any enforcement mechanism that the developer has to assure that that doesn't happen besides securing the parking lot from unwanted traffic. Just a few thoughts on the layout which is really what's I think driving this. We had to strip the parking away to make the width work for the fire truck access and the turnaround. It was mentioned that this has been an ongoing discussion and I think that to say that it was an exhaustive process is probably an understatement. We've been in discussion and when I say we, it's planning the developer, his design team, fire department, engineering department and the challenge here really is trying to satisfy multiple goals. I mentioned the density issue. It's a real driver and everything we do as I know the board is well aware of as we try to achieve our housing densities. But we also have to be mindful of safety. We also have to be mindful of greater area circulation needs. Hence the public street, if it was a private street we could have had a different configuration probably. So I just wanna reiterate that context that this design did not come easily and it took a lot to get here. And obviously it's a problem that occurs on every project of any type of density. I mean the reality is that a lot of numbers on this project is that we have 18 more parking spaces than the city requires. And I can probably count the number of projects I've done in 30 years that have more parking spaces than the minimum required in one hand. So there's a lot of places for people to park. And the putting storage in the garage issue it kind of comes up on every project too whether it's a one car garage or a two car garage. But at least having the two car garages you've at least got the potential for having more space and more parking. Thank you. Eric, if I can go on about the right turn and right turn out. So we are right now we're kind of restricted to the conditions that were approved by the and the condition was written by traffic. It's what they wanted us to do. Wasn't our choice to do that. I'm sure Barry would just as soon have full in and out rights on his property. But it's come down from traffic and we're just meeting what the traffic is asking us to do. And just to follow up on that, if the board desires to change that condition because we don't have anybody from traffic engineering here tonight, staff would recommend that we don't make that change until we have the feedback from the traffic engineering department. Bill, where would that feedback come come back to you or would it come back to the board or in a written format? Well, it I think the board would have to continue the item. We'd have to get feedback from the traffic. We'd have to fully understand exactly what the board would like to see with a modified condition. We'd have to continue the item and get the feedback from the traffic engineer and bring this then back to the DRB. Okay, thank you. Just another way to put it, staff at this table really has no purview to modify that condition. No, and I understand that. I understand the concern of not extending the review process for the developer. And I'm appreciative of that. And I understand, you know, the neighbor's concern such as, you know, that it's three stories, but we have a similar project at Highway 12 and Streamline that stood out when it was first built and as landscaping grew in, it became, you know, a lot more attractive. But really, I'm trying to look at it from a practical standpoint and the safety standpoint in regards to the traffic engineering, because I think that was an oversight, okay? Adam? Great, thank you. I definitely appreciate it. There's been a lot of thought in this project and you guys have thought through a lot of the issues and I'm really glad you're talking to the neighbors and have ameliorated those concerns. And I like the point about, I mean, your travels, and I know sort of those Italian feeling of where you come into the home and it's opened up. I appreciate that you're thinking that way also because, yeah, providing more space and more openness is great, partially because this is a very small, narrow site. And so I know you're making a lot of, every choice you make is very, has a lot of ripple effects, and I can imagine. Including some of the concerns about the height of the project and I'm looking primarily at the planting, plan the landscape plan that, in terms of street trees, also in the ones that the species you've called out, choices could be made to thinking of having larger trees that would grow more upright to create more of a buffer from these very, really tall buildings. All of a sudden you go down that block and you have three storey buildings, having something that eventually will grow taller and buffer a little bit could actually, because I know that there are larger trees down there. And so just looking at where you've called out the largest streets, trees of the Crate Myrtle and the Laurel, thinking of other species, some of that would grow a little bit either faster or with a larger canopy, excuse me, a larger crown or taller, just something to provide more of a, thinking, almost like an LA, rather than these sort of individual trees, Crate Myrtle's and grow, they can grow big, but it takes a very long time to grow. The Laurels, they can be grown into specimen trees, but they also really like to be shrubs and grow very columnar. And so there would have to be specific choices to be made in terms of how they're actually pruned and choosing the specimen trees. You could choose larger trees to begin with too. So just wanting to maybe tweak those choices to specific tree species choices a little bit. Another thought and question for you is about the bioretention versus bioswales. I know you're dealing with the LID manual and you only have the, on the landscape plan, the two bio beds called out and the corner lots. And then you have a lot of the permeable gutter pans and the permeable gutters. Question about those sidewalks and the permeable gutters. So the sidewalks, I've been trying to, like that's a little bit busy here on the plans to figure it out. So the sidewalks are six foot six inches and they come directly up to the side of the street? Yes, contiguous. Okay, and there's no planting strip and you mentioned something like that. Correct. So in the deck that you guys have included as well, you do have the bioretention call out with, you know, and the pictures that you've got in there, which are from the manual are of bioswales with, you know, cuts with the retention ponds and, you know, plants and everything. But we've called out underneath the sidewalks are all that structural soil. And so it's not going to be bioswales. It's only going to be gutters going into underneath the sidewalk of just structural soil. Yes, filtering through the structural soil. Okay. I do wonder, you know, I want to see that called out in the landscape plan, it says it per the civil sheet. And I want to see that also just to see, you know, how deep that's going to be, how much, because I, you know, there's a lot of area and I wonder how much it's going to actually filter, how much water it's going to capture, how deep that's going to be. Because it's going to be capped over, you know, I want to see where those cuts are going to be in the, you know, what I want to see a little bit more detail of actually how it's going to be meeting those LID concerns. Okay, so we're required to prepare what's called a preliminary stonewater mitigation plan. Sure. And all those details are included in that plan. Okay. So I'm not sure does designer review not get that plan? So Bill, are we teetering in between the tentative map what it locks in with planning commission approval versus what we see here in design review? This is, these are the new folks that are on the board that haven't run into this quite yet. Yeah, you're getting into some pretty finer details, construction drawings, things that you would see at that stage for sure. So I don't know if that was submitted as part of this package, but it wouldn't surprise me if it comes at a later date. Okay. And it's, yeah, I definitely appreciate that and where things land in the process. I mainly just want to, I'm curious about the thought process behind it and that that is being taken into account, sounds like it is, which is great. Because it's a fair amount there. Also how the sidewalks being contiguous to the street, how going towards traffic and safety, these are family homes too, wondering about children playing on the sidewalks, going into the street. Again, it's all packed in very, very tight. I'm wondering if there can be more, if there can be some sort of buffer between sidewalk street. I know it's as of now to be a closed off road, but any through traffic. And again, we're working on the really narrow site. Setback requirements are going to preclude us from getting any kind of buffer between the curb and the sidewalk. Okay. We just don't have the room on that narrow, narrow piece of property. Okay. And I think that that covers my questions at the moment. Thank you. Thanks, Adam. Drew, you had another question. I actually had two additional questions for the applicant team, just because I wasn't finding the answer in the plans that I was trying to find it. And I couldn't, I tried to answer my own question, but I couldn't. So the rear yards, are they grass? Are they paving? Are they flagstone? What are they? Or is that dependent upon who owns the property? Yeah, typically that's dependent on the property owner. And so I guess I'm curious from a civil standpoint, what impacts do permeable versus non-permeable in that rear yard have on any of your retention or anything else happening on the front side of the property? Impacts. So the backyards drain from the back to the front, right? So, and we can only design to what we are designing to, which is pervious backyards. There may be a little section where the garage is butt up against the back fence. That might be concrete, but that'll only be behind the garage. The backyards as sold will be just, I'm not sure what Barry's planning on doing, if anything in the backyards besides leaving bare ground. So, and how does that impact my, I mean, it's all going to drain as long as the new homeowners don't block the drainage. I mean, we really don't have any control over that once the houses are sold. And so, everything is designed to meet the city's LID manual. Yeah, I'm just wondering if you get, like Mr. Crazy, I want a concrete backyard homeowner and he just pours it full of concrete. And then what does that do to the next home or the next home and how does that integrate? And again, unless he redirects the drainage or he or she redirects the drainage, it shouldn't have any impact. All the lots are going to be designed to drain independently. Okay, cool, that satisfies me. And then the other question I had is for Randy. On your conceptual section through the garage, that porch, it looks significantly lower than the adjacent finish floor. And then with the solid wall, you've kind of made a bathtub sort of. So I'm curious, do you have a plan for kind of like a sleeper system in there with like a roof deck with drainage or how does water get out from that, those back porches? You talking about the entry porch? No, the back porch over the garage when the rear of the property. Oh, yeah, no, I mean, it'll have a deck drain on it. Okay, yeah, so it'll be a roof deck with something on top, whether it's sleepers with wood decking or some type of rolled on material or built up or have you with a drain. Okay, cool, yeah, just my wheels got spinning on that. And I went, oh, there's no place for water to go. You've just made a bathtub. So anyway, okay, those are my two questions. I tried to avoid bathtubs on roofs. Yeah, those are my questions, Scott. Thanks, Drew. And most of the questions that I had had been asked. So I don't have any further questions for the applicant, Eric. Sorry, Scott, this is nice to hear. What's the developer's feelings in regards to paying for half the cost of an electronic gate for your neighbors to the east? Wouldn't be my first choice. What would be your first choice? To let the project go forward over parked as it is. And if it proves to be a problem, it really is something the neighbor has to deal with, whether it's people from my project or somebody else. I can't address that. Normally a person has to take care of their own property. Okay, thanks for all the questions and thank you for answering the questions as best as possible. And I'll bring it back to the board to see if we have a motion to be made. I have a motion, Scott. I move to approve preliminary design review only of Guernsville Road Homes, file number PRJ18-039, and that is all. I'll second. Okay, so we've got a motion for preliminary design review approval for the Guernsville Road Homes project located at 1665 Guernsville Road APN 136-101-010, file number PRJ18-089. Would you like to waive the reading of the text? I would like to waive the reading of the text, yes. Fantastic. And we've got a second of that motion from Adam. And I will open on meek amendment. Well, and we'll just open it up, bring it back to the board for discussion and then any friendly amendments to the motion. And then I, if I may, there's a very specific reason why I did not defer final design review staff, if you guys are curious. So three reasons, one, and this is my personal opinion, when I like to defer, I love deferring final design staff, if all of the documents required for final design review are present at preliminary design review. So I'm uncomfortable deferring the staff because there are large elements that are required for final design review that we haven't seen. So that's my opinion. The second reason is because we've had kind of a wide range of questions about various things. My feeling is that the board has some additional questions for you. And I think those additional documents would probably answer that. And then the third reason that I would like to see your project again is I want to see it very quickly the last time. Because I think if you provide all those documents, we'll get it answered and we'll get it done. I don't wanna hold up your project, but I think there are missing elements. But when you come back, I think you'll have the documentation and it'll be easy. So those are the reasons. Okay, and bringing it back to the board, since we've got a motioner in a second, we'll go with Brett for any thoughts, final comments, and any friendly amendments that you might have. The only thing I would, as I agree with Drew, I think on everything that he had mentioned. So I would support that. I guess, I don't. Warren? Yeah, I appreciate it. I appreciate the motion. I know in one sense the applicant would love to have a general direction of where to put energy. And the dilemma is some of the consistencies in the plans and elevations and other things are subject to being fully read, I'll say flushed out. I, just a quick overview on possible friendly amendments. I know that the columnar trees is a great idea. I think the fence consistencies with architecture is a great idea. The issue about the Susam and private concrete and concrete being limited to behind a garage, this is a little granular, but I do appreciate the comments regarding civil engineering and relying on the majority of the rear yards being permeable for science to work. And because the documents weren't as shall we say, resolved to understand that, I can really appreciate having levels or conditions in the title company about not bringing concrete trucks out. So those are some of the important highlights. I got a little granular on real stone instead of fading or water permeable stone. The commentary about carports, I've been operating in other jurisdictions as well as these and the discussion more than ganking garage doors all together off is this hunger for EV charging and saving our carbon footprint. That's some jurisdictions are certainly looking for rules and regulations. Those are typically rental projects. And I'm trying to understand the scope of our board and I'm looking at Bill here because when you have a rental project, you can easily create a whole framework, almost like a master lock on the entire project of where people park, whether you separate that parking, whether you have EV chargers and the dilemma of closed garage doors kind of goes away because those are frankly month to month rents and ownership is a different animal. I don't want to be an attorney and be in design review, but I know I can respect Eric's questions and questions of staff. It just seems like a bit of a gray area that I'm less comfortable making motions on or making decisions on the behavior of people beyond architecture. I'm looking at Randy here. So I know I mentioned their consistencies for the architecture and then there's a question about the three story and I'm certainly willing to not make granular discussions about the architecture, though I've said a couple things about the front street elevation and it's only one voice of many here. So those are my friendly amendments and discussion thoughts. Yeah, I think that we have to be very careful in terms of the nexus. So this is a design review application and when the applicant is indicating they're not interested in participating in the cost for a gate to a neighbor and we don't have specific data that proves that this project will in fact cause that impact and the fact that this has an approved use permit which was evaluated by the Planning Commission which is the land use entitlement. I would be uncomfortable without any further legal guidance in terms of applying a condition like that. Thank you, Bill. Henry. Thank you. Thank you staff for spending a year with the applicant and bringing forth a really good project. I'm generally supportive of it. I have some knits with the architecture but I'm an architect so I'm not gonna agree with everything that comes before me but do I think it is something that is grotesque or something that is truly offensive, it's not. It's good choice of materials. Like Drew said, I'd like you to come back with a consistent, fully consistent package. And I picked on the dormer part but I see a few other things. I'd also consider possibly the back balcony being open rather than closed. Although I could see the argument to leave it closed to create some additional privacy for the person on the deck. I just, the mass of it bothers me a little bit. It's on the property line so we physically can't open it. I mean, it's two feet away, the code won't allow it to be an open. Oh, yeah, sorry, I missed that. I thought I assumed it was five feet or more and yeah. All right. Pretty good. I love the Gurrenville elevation. I think it's really sweet. I wish I hadn't looked at the concept because I think during the concept elevations, one board member probably gave you the latitude to get rid of the orphaned area that was two-story and fill it in with a three-story. And you took that approach. I would have encouraged you to stay with having a little bit of two-story mixed in with three-story. But I like what it did to the floor plans. I think the floor plans work well. There's good use of space. And I wish the applicant good luck with it and hope we see it back at final design review soon. Thank you, Henry. Drew? So like Henry, I also am a little nitpicky because I'm an architect. I have a couple of, I think, massing. I actually have some massing problems. I think I missed the meeting when this was brought at concept. I think I was out of town or something. I don't remember, but I don't remember seeing this. I think I missed it. So I do have a one massing, kind of one big massing issue with the building and it has to relate to the ADU, not the kind of duet situation going on with the houses. Generally, I appreciate the kind of massing of the duet style. I think there's enough kind of variation between them. I think kind of on the right-hand side with the bump out being two-story versus bump out being one-story unless there's some kind of nice kind of breaking up the massing that way. But anyway, the issue I have with the, it's really the Gernville Road Elevation and also that front elevation. To me, that kind of shed roof feels like an afterthought on how that ADU is kind of smushed on. So as I was looking at this earlier today, I was wondering what if you just put a gable from the Gernville Road side back and got rid of that shed situation and then killed the gable into the end wall. That would also, because I think what's happening here a little bit too is that little notch that you have out on the one because of a meter doesn't exist on the other one. So I think that's where this roof geometry has occurred with that weird little notch. So I'm wondering if a gable could happen on the Gernville Road Elevation. Really kind of, it would actually create kind of almost a sense of entry to the building as opposed to the shorter gable that's clipped a little bit. And then you could potentially add a false gable on the entry side if you wanted to or you could just leave it alone. Or you could extend it with that little metal awning you have as well. So I feel like that would be a design change that would benefit the ADU and the overall massing with the building. I am appreciative of the material choice. I think it's really nice. You kind of have the, you know, kind of Sonoma Chic farmhouse thing happening. I agree with Warren on the usage of the stone. One big thing I think if you've ever been in front of me before is four-sided architecture. I get really, that is a design guideline. I get really worked up about it when four sides had not been addressed. And so to me with that stone in particular, it's not addressed on all four sides of all the buildings. So I think either get rid of the stone completely and abandon it because it's just kind of this added on piece or add it to the remainder of the buildings as a water table like you have it on the ADU. I think it'd be a really nice addition to the rest of the buildings. You know, they would all have that beautiful kind of rock, ledge stone, water table. You know, kids kick it, hit it with a ball, whatever. But I think that would be a nice addition to the rest of it. So I think it's an either or. It does kind of appear, you know, as the base to the columns on the front building but then it disappears. I agree with Henry on the balcony porch bit, but I'm completely sympathetic on a lot line. So it's kind of what do you do? I mean, that's the solution, right? You can't open it, but what might be interesting and you could explore this is maybe adding an awning on top of the rear porch there in the back much like you've done on the front with some of the awnings that might be a nice addition relatively low cost but could give some kind of extra protection and, you know, increase the amenity feel of that porch area. Something else, and I think this is just me being nitpicky, but the window sill and the apron doesn't align with kind of your belt that you've put on the third floor, right? Does that make sense? You call it a bellyboard. And bellyboard. Yeah, so I would love that bellyboard, particularly on the Gernville Road elevation to align with the window sill. Because it really doesn't have an impact on the other elevations, but on that Gernville Road side, either make the window like two inches shorter, whatever it is. So the sill and that bellyboard all line up or lower the bellyboard. I just, I think it's a funky detail from a waterproofing standpoint. I mean, you know, there's a whole, I could go into a whole architecture thing about it, but I think from a design standpoint, as the frontage of the building, it could make, it would make it stronger. On the Gernville Road elevation. The Gernville Road elevation, yeah. It's the, well, and the interior end elevation. It's those two. I think it's more critical on the Gernville Road elevation being the frontage of the property. I guess I'm missing on the Gernville Road. I mean, there's only no belly. Am I looking at, maybe it changed? Hi, I see it on the conceptual elevations. Gernville Road elevation. It's just the one window on the left of the pop out, soft by. Yeah, but it was, if it was lower to the window lines, that what you want? The bellyboard drops down so the window is not engaged to it. Things that lines up with it. Yeah. So you're getting applied with this 12 feet long or 16 feet long, we can get it. Not the way you don't need a Z bar. So scratch that, it's gone. So that was a good move on your part. Yeah, it was a good move, because now it's not a problem. Because I see what you did. You lowered it so it's even with the gable now. So you're killing it in a gable. That's fine. Excuse me. So the brackets that are on the pop outs on I guess the Gernville side, really? I guess it's the only one. Are they structurally required for that pop out? No. To me, that type of a detail has always felt a little, it's the word I'm looking for. I mean, sincere, I guess is the word I'm looking for. It just feels like an afterthought. Because I mean, your joists are coming out, they're catching it. There's not a structural reason for those brackets other than decorative. Whereas on your awnings and things like that, those are the structural elements and you're playing them up decoratively and also structurally. So I've just never been a fan of faux, yeah, faux elements. I think those are my, let me check my notes here. Yeah, and then the missing exterior lighting, I would love to see, actually the condition I would add, well, I don't have to add it because it's final design review, so never mind. But all the things required for final design review. What do you want to see specifically? I want to see the exterior lights and light fixtures and the lighting plan, but it's required, so those are all my comments. Thank you, Drew, Eric. Bill, quick process question under, again, under traffic for 16. If we just changed a few words in there in regards to median nose constructed ending at the prolonged Easterly curb line of Elson Way. So changing it from the Western curb to the Eastern curb. What's the process in regards to making that a changed condition? Yeah, we have to consult with the city traffic engineer to make sure that was an acceptable change. So this could be something that you could give direction to staff, we can consult with the city traffic engineer. It sounds like there's an interest for final design review to come back. I don't know, I'm thinking through kind of out loud as we're going through this. We really haven't had a condition like this. I mean, ultimately we need city traffic engineering to authorize that change. Well, and I guess so the follow up question is would you estimate their turn time would be because I do have an interest in not in minimizing the delay of this project. Sometimes something like this, the board could just include a condition that staff shall inquire, investigate the possibility of making this change if feasible and acceptable to the city traffic engineer. And that way, if it is, it can be made. If it isn't, it won't. And then we can report that back at final design review. Okay. Sounds like I might have an amendment coming. I guess I have a follow up question, Scott, on that. It's true. Bill, I think it's more for you guys. So the way that this was conditioned at the planning commission level is with the DAC report and the requirements that are in the DAC report are what's required to occur on the development of the property. Correct. He just made a very astute point. So it unwinds some of the entitlements. So I'm wondering, I'm kind of uncomfortable. I'm uncomfortable because I feel like that's not within our purview, really. This issue that Eric's talking about, I think it's a critical issue in many ways. So I'm wondering if the best way to do that is kind of what you're talking about. I think it's important to defer to staff say that it is important, but we're not really telling the applicant that they have to do anything in particular. Yeah, the thing is, is that condition is what was presented to the planning commission. So the planning commission, when they approved it, they approved that condition. So perhaps there could be a condition written that is written in general terms. The idea can be investigated if it's deemed acceptable and in general compliance with this condition so that this doesn't have to go back to the planning commission. Perhaps we can put something like that. I think the expectation is, if it can be done, if the city traffic engineer agrees to it, if the project doesn't have to go back to the planning commission, then you go for it. If that's what the board wants. If not, then it won't. If it can be done at staff level, simple as that. If it can be done at staff level, yeah. Yeah, because we're, all we're doing is shortening it by 24 feet. That's the, that's all we're, I mean, it's a simple change, but there may be beyond my scope or my knowledge in regards to engineering of how long that meeting has to be in regards to the left turn lane and the length of the left turn lane because of the speed limit has to be a certain just, you know, a certain length, et cetera. Yeah, I don't see it really any different than conditions that the board frequently puts in place which are shall consider. We can consider that if it's feasible, then we can implement it. Thank you. Any other comments? Okay, so my comments would be that, you know, I think what I hear the board struggling with is a couple of things. One is that it's a detached housing, is it attached, tentative map, four sale housing development, three stories. It feels like it's a multifamily development from, when you're looking at it from a design review perspective, I think is kind of what's juxtaposed here is what I hear from some of the questions of my colleagues. I think, you know, as you've heard, the architecture is, you know, you've done the best with what you have been given. You know, site constraints, you've done the best you can with what you've been given. There's not a whole lot of options here. So, appreciative that you spent a year or so kind of mulling different facets of private road, public road, this and that and the other that said, it seems like the answer was right there the whole time because, you know, you're getting the best of what could be accomplished with the site, I think with the layout and the unit densities. I think the ADUs bringing them in to get an extra three units to house people of varying financial stature is a great way to achieve the density without actually being counted as density. I think it kind of should count as density in this vein, in the vein of maximizing density and not counting it elsewhere. I think that's why it's not counted. So I'll kind of go through some things that I heard through the comments and we need to figure out if these are considered or shall and come up with a list to create a friendly amendment. So I'll just reiterate what I heard from Drew of why he chose just to motion preliminary is that, you know, we want to see more information, a complete final design review package. There were lots of differing thoughts on items that could be clarified probably with more information from a more thorough and refined package. And the goal would be to get you back here in and out quickly on a final design review. So I heard columnar trees in the front of the units so that we get more height to combat the three story elements. Not necessarily columnar, but just evaluating, re-evaluating the juice faster. Sure. I like columnar trees because it doesn't seem like the root system is going to uproot all those streets and everything. I watch all the trees in my neighborhood get taken down these days. Definitely, but even thinking of going up and over to creating more of a canopy to soften those tall buildings rather than just having more tall trees, creating something that goes up and out a little bit more. Fair enough. Fence designed consistency with architecture using real stone facade in the real stone facade vein consider either enhancing more stone throughout the project or deleting it in its entirety. I think that in my opinion, that's kind of where I hear multifamily versus single family, even though they're attached, they're all separate units and separate houses. So I think that either works in my opinion. Consider an awning at the porch elevations to provide more shade. And then consider removing the brackets under the bump outs on Gernville Road Elevation. And then Eric's traffic comment, I don't know, an eloquent way to encapsulate that yet. You can be the one to make the friendly amendment on that. Well, we can add more than one. So shall consider any strong feelings, all consider some shouts? I guess my question would be to the applicant. Do any of these in any form scare you or are there huge cost implications with any of them? I think that's something that's important, at least to me, because I know it's important to the clients we work with. I was just gonna make a joke, Barry doesn't scare easily, but it's... As I slipped between the crack and the floor. A couple of things do. We added that stonework to the ADUs on Gernville. And by the way, I think we've said it before, but the rendering covers up that ADU and that ADU is actually going to be on the street now, not covered by a fence. So we added that ADU to enhance the general look of the subdivision as people drive through, as opposed to an element that was supposed to enhance the whole thing. Nobody wants to hear that it's a price point, but it's always a price point. Putting stonework throughout the subdivision isn't a, that's a deal killer. I mean, that stuff is very expensive. Putting real stone in isn't, and it costs more, but it's worth it. I agree with Warren's comment. And in all fairness, the way that Scott worded it, particularly the blend between multifamily and actual, I think that cleared it up in my head. Frankly, I'm willing to actually let it go. I think Warren's comment's a little bit more important, but yeah, I think the way that Scott worded that was more cohesive to the independence of your units, if that makes sense. Okay. The columnar tree is not a problem whatsoever. At least I would say so, would you? Steve is my consultant for trees. Well, I believe that there are choices that are on the landscape plan right now that actually are tall. They may be. Can we have you speak in a microphone, sir? Sorry for the interruptions. No. I was working with Susie on the landscape plan and we went over the tree selections. I mean, there are tall trees that are fast growing, liquid amber certainly is one, redwood trees are another, and I would ensue that entirely. What we have facing a Gernville road was intended not to be tall, deliberately so, in order to highlight kind of more of the specificity of like redbud, which is noted on the plan as Circus. And also the CNOTE, we wanted to pull something in that was more native and that kind of spoke to the countryside and what we were doing there. And so rolling that into the project as a whole, I think you pointed out yourself that we can look at the pruning and the shaping of the tree and the skirting of the tree in order to get it to grow tall. So I think that's something that could be argued with some of the choices. The California Laurel, she calls it a Saratoga Laurel. They're all the same. I grew up in Inverness and in Tawales Bay and some of the largest Laurel forests in California exist there and they're very tall. As a child, I used to climb them. So I would say that you are actually addressing more of the issue of how quickly they can grow, whether or not they can grow tall. So I think we've addressed some of that, but we'll certainly go back and we'll come up with some other options as well. Sure, and part of that is the specific trees that were chosen. You talk about Laurels. I mean, you got the California Bay Laurel, but this is the Loris Nobili switches that European Laurel and it grows more shrubby form. So the different ones, the native Bay Laurel definitely can grow big and tall. And I mean, yeah, they're gorgeous, but they're different species. And so, and that's important when you are calling out species of the trees and that it's this, really the specific species of tree that you're trying to get towards. And I understand with the trying to get to the levels of seeing out this and then the trees and coming back. The part of my talking about the larger canopy trees was to reference some of the neighbor's concerns and talking about fitting into the neighborhood as well and to buffer the larger scale of the three-story buildings. So I appreciate you called that out, but I think that that is a recommendation to reevaluate and look at how you can buffer the larger scale of these buildings while moving forward. Yeah, so we would be glad to do that. Sir? I said we would be glad to do that. Great, yeah, thanks. Thank you. I had had an earlier thought in that because there's been discussion now about the three-story. This whole area is in transition. And from all of the looks that I see on most new projects and the whole world's going this direction. It isn't going to what I grew up in. It's not a ranch house anymore. It's a three-story property because we're maximizing the use of land close to our urban centers. It's the only thing we can do. And we did play with floor plans. We just couldn't get square footage and do a two-story unit. There just isn't any, there's just not enough footprint to make that happen. And so if we haven't seen that much of it in Santa Rosa yet, we'll see more. I mean, it's just what we're gonna live with. It's the world. So it might stick up a little bit when I first built it, but I bet it isn't sticking up for long. I mean, people are gonna capture this idea and use it more and more. It's already being used every place, many other places. So thank you. I actually, I don't, I may probably be the board member that I don't have a problem with your three stories, frankly. I'd have a problem with three stories if it was 45 feet tall, but I think you've made choices with your plate heights and everything to stay at a residential scale. And the fact that it's 33 feet, actually I have, I personally have no issue with. Once we kind of address the fire thing, then I reread it and Randy was exactly right in that calculation. So me personally, I have no problem with three stories. I think the massing for me on that front is the bigger issue, but that's just me. I agree also with the three stories. I don't have a problem with it. I think that is great. And I also wanted to, there's one last comment to commend you for thinking in that larger vision as well because there's neighborhood and looking at the context maps and looking at the larger neighborhood maps to, it seems like you're thinking about this project, not as in terms of this one parcel, but in terms of how it's going to eventually fit into the neighborhood that is there and will be there as well. I mean, you've got the community park that's so close, it's so far away. If you're having families here, how is it going, what's that circulation? So thinking ahead. And that's also something for staff too in terms of the planning is how this particular project can fit into that larger vision as well. And so I agree it's going to be dense. It's going to go up hopefully so. So I'm going to take a stab at the friendly amendment language and then someone would have to make that friendly amendment and I'm going to leave yours aside as a separate friendly amendment. So consider larger canopy trees. That grow faster. Consider fence consistency with architecture. Shall use real stone facade in areas where it's currently shown on the plans. Or none at all. It's fine. Consider a gable roof for the ADU at the Gernville Road Elevation. Consider an awning at the porch locations. Consider removing the brackets under the bump outs on Gernville Road Elevation. And that's all I really have. Any strong feelings for a shower on any of those? I guess I have a question for Randy, but if I may. You may. What's your feeling on my take on the gable on the ADU? I mean, I had some designs that had the gable that way. I personally didn't like it as much as the shed running back. I mean, I think it's kind of a personal design preference because I looked at it a couple of three different ways and what I have is personally what I like the most. But excuse me, I like that. That's personal preference of mine. I just didn't like having the gable facing the street and just having that flat e-line running along and then trying to put the little gable over the entry door didn't quite seem to work either because it was just so small. Yeah, I think, I mean, I can agree with you. I think the issue is it's on a frontage, right? So you want it to be grand on the frontage, but you don't enter it from the front. You enter it from the side. So that's a wrinkle. So I would like to change that. And I would like it to say shall, but not exactly the same thing. Or maybe Warren has an idea. I don't know. I just had a quick clarification because if you maybe to Randy's point, if you heightened the gable at the street and ran the gable all the way back, you'd have a continuous eave on the frontage. That's just a little sketch. I'm sorry, but to Randy's point, what you're trying to do is you don't want to run water back into the three-story element. If you had a gable that's forcing the idea, if it's a symmetrical gable, you're going to run a gable back into the wall of that three-story. And maybe I'm, okay, I mean, you can do a quick thing. Anyway, I don't want to get granular, but if the gable in the front was raised and you had a continuous eave, then you don't have any kind of flashing issues. I mean, the other thing that happened with the gable being in the front and running through that back wall, it just, the shed going up tends to cut off like a story and a half visually of that three-story height. And the gable tends to be lower unless we raise the plate heights and go up to a 12-foot plate. I mean, if you're following what I'm saying on that end, so I mean, I get, I mean, I drew it that way. I mean, I explored a couple of different versions of the roof and this is what I came back to after I looked at the other versions. Yeah, I think, excuse me, I understand you're saying, like if you keep it at four and 12, right? You keep it at four and 12 and you run it all the way back. Is it really any higher? No, and I should have been clearer. My little sketch on my iPad here has you raising the ridge to hit the end wall at the same height your shed roof does. So you would go to a steeper pitch. So steeper pitch on that front piece. It'd be the only pitch of that type on the project. Yeah. Or you could run the, if you raise the plate, you could at a four and 12 come up and swallow the bedroom bay above. Yeah, that was a bit of a sticking point. But I loved it. That gives Randy what he wants, which is the shed look. But by raising that front plate, keep the same footage in your ADU and your bracket problem. Yeah, I think the other thing that's got me is as an architect, we design some small spaces all the time and the thing that we've found that makes them feel less small is more height on the interior. And so I guess in my head, when I saw this, I went, ooh, how can we get a little bit more height inside there because it's only 380 square feet. And so that's what I think I started to think about, well, you do this and you do this and you explore that. And it also does a couple of other things. It breaks up the mass in the front. It makes it feel less three-story if people do have an issue with that because it is a little bit higher as opposed to that shed that kind of disappears a little bit. It's more gradual from a massing standpoint change. So anyway, so I think we just leave it the way it is. Consider. Consider adjusting gable slope or gable line slope. And it is what it is. Yeah. It's a consider. You get to consider it a little more. Get back to my Cal Poly days. So those are the conditions of a potential friendly amendment. Anybody want to make that friendly amendment? And then we'll handle Eric's. Can't make it. I can't make it. Adam can't make it. Friendly amendment. I'd like to make a friendly amendment adopting a waiving the discussion verbal and reading of the text for said comments stated by the chair. Does the motion accept? I accept the friendly amendment. And the second. OK, so that's that friendly amendments been adopted into the motion. And now let's turn to our traffic. So I would make a motion for an amendment that staff consider not signing a right turn only exit onto Gernvill Road and that the existing median row shall be removed in the median shortened. And median no is constructed ending at the prolonged east curb line of Elson Way on Gernvill Road or as directed by City Engineer. I had a hard time hearing everything that you said. Sorry. I'll try it again. That staff consider not signing a right turn only to exit onto Gernvill Road. That the existing median nose shall be removed. And the median were shortened. And the median nose constructed ending at the prolonged eastern curb return of Elson Way on Gernvill Road. In summary, it's not putting a right turn only sign and moving the median to the east curb line rather than the west. I think I've got about two thirds of that. One more time. Where do you want me to start? From the top. From the top. Staff shall consider not signing a right turn only exit onto Gernvill Road. Period. The existing median nose shall be removed. And the median shortened. And the median nose constructed ending at the prolonged eastern curb of Elson Way on Gernvill Road. So currently it's saying that the median's going to be extended to where the western curb is and what I'm making the amendment to make it shortened to where the eastern curb is. That way it allows for safe traffic in and out of Elson. And you can add that that came from a retired police officer who's seen all these traffic issues. Fatal U-turns, right? Can staff read that back to you, please? So the friendly amendment was to consider not signing a right turn only exit onto Gernvill Road. That the median nose shall be removed. That the median be shortened and constructed up to the eastern curb line of Elson Way. Is that correct? Yes, and the median shortened and the median nose constructed ending at the eastern eastern curb return of Elson Way. Excellent. So that was a friendly amendment. I need a second to that friendly amendment from someone other than the motion or the second. Just one quick clarification. Just to make sure your comments, Member Goldschlag, are referencing condition number 16 on page 7 of 13, correct? Got it, thanks. Yeah, and actually, so I'm like super uncomfortable with, I understand your point, Eric, but I'm super uncomfortable with this because I really feel like it's not, it is not our purview. However, public safety is our purview. And so I think that there's possibly a better way toward this that gives staff latitude to consult with a city engineer with really no firm direction from us, but does give you the latitude to explore this in a more cohesive and comprehensive way that does not give direction from us as to specifically what must happen at this intersection. Does that make sense? Well, that's the way I'm taking that direction, and that's why I made that case. I agree, I'm very uncomfortable with this too. I think this is a land use issue. I think this has been resolved at the Planning Commission because there was a, I think the way I'm taking it is that the question has come up. We're not able to answer this question right now. The Board is interested in allowing this project to move forward. I think it's a condition that says to consider. I think I'm expressing, and if I haven't been clear, I'll make it clear, I'm concerned. I don't think we can come back and change this condition, but perhaps we can explain it in more detail or we can evaluate it and more completely respond to what it would take to change this condition. Well, and to your point, Bill, I think it is, no disrespect to Eric. Eric's not a traffic engineer. I'm not a traffic engineer. So I'm uncomfortable even with stating that we need to remove a one-way sign or do this or do that. I think it should read very clearly this way, and if Eric agrees with me, maybe we can move forward, but staff shall investigate the traffic flow onto Elson from Gernville and onto Gernville from Elson to reduce the potential of traffic collisions, period. That's our concern. It's a public safety concern, which is part of our purview as the design review board. Leaving it at that allows you to go to the city engineer and say, hey, is the one-way sign the best solution? Is there's a suicide lane there now at Gernville? Do we add an additional curb? Do we put a left-hand turn on Gernville that's actually curbed out? That's, I think, that's the better way for us to condition this. I'm uncomfortable actually providing exact direction, even in a consider. So when you guys consider it, do you go loop back out to those subject matters experts to get more information for that? Yeah, exactly. So another suggestion would be because of the specific language that we have, I think we understand the concern. We've received that. It doesn't even have to be a condition of approval if the board pleases. I can take this back. This is coming back to the board for final design review and I can respond to this question or we can have the city traffic engineer here as well and resolve this issue in that manner. Is that acceptable, Eric? Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. We'll leave it out of the motion. Thank you for the dialogue, Drew. So motion second, friendly amendment accepted. Can I have a roll call, Patty? Gordon Brock. Into the microphone, either aye or nay. Aye. Weigl? Aye. Goldschlug? Aye. Wicks? Aye. Sharon? Aye. Hedgepeth? Aye. Kinkay? Aye. So we've moved through to preliminary approval. We'll see you at final. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you for all your efforts. Thank you. Okay, moving on to item number seven, board member reports. Do you have any board member reports? I just have one quick board member report. I sent out an email to all board members extending the invitation from Mayor Tom Schwendhelm for walking in the Rose Parade this weekend. Some people said that they might be able to do it. So in case anybody else is interested, I do have the information of where to meet the City Council and other boards and commissions. So if you want it, it's here. Thanks for those of you who can represent the Design Review Board. Department reports, no. Just one, this is actually a follow up to an email that I sent earlier today. We have some training opportunity and also some required training. So one has to do with the Board Commission Committee orientation for longstanding board members. Some of that will probably be redundant. It may still be useful or interesting. So feel free to attend for new board members. It's highly recommended. And then the other has to do with the newly mandated anti-harassment training that is mandatory. So if you don't know what I'm talking about, check your email, your city email address, it's in there. And then if you have any questions, you can get back to me. One question, there was a March 5th powwow at the Salad Tomatoes on harassment that some of us may have attended. Is that, is this, the legislation is four times a year now or how many, is this a new? I don't know what the actual requirement is for times of. I think that our requirement, I got an email from Dina saying that she had her certificate in hand and that admit the requirement, but. You and I attended that, I remember seeing you. In that met the requirement? Yes, I'll forward you to Dina. Okay, thank you. That would be my only question in general. Most of us have to take it in our workplace. And so it sounds like that satisfies. So what you can do is you can email either me or Dina in the city clerk's office to see if that's truly the case. It sounds like it is. Mm-hmm, okay. Yeah, I think we're all pretty much required to take it. Yep. Yeah. Maybe not Henry, he's a sole proprietor. Yeah, you make it out right now. All right, if there's no further department reports then we are on to item number nine, adjournment.