 Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call the Order, the Design Review Board, and Cultural Heritage Board meeting this evening. And I would like to take an immediate 10-minute recess as we are waiting for Chair Edmondson. He's stuck in traffic, but on his way. So we'll take 10 minutes. Thank you. Thanks for your patience, everybody. We're working out some technical issues and waiting for me to get here. So I appreciate all of your time. I keep telling my boss to move our office to downtown Santa Rosa, and now I've got another reason to complain about that again. I'd like to ask for, well, call to order a joint meeting of the City of Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board and Design Review Board and ask for a roll call, please. Let the record reflect that all board members are present except for board members DeBacher and Fennell. Okay, and we are gonna be sharing iPads, so it might be a little bit delayed, but hopefully not too bad. Next, we're gonna move to approval of October 2nd, 2019 minutes. Board members, any corrections or comments to those minutes? It may have. Go ahead, please. Board member Groninger. It may have been corrected from early this morning, but the minutes did not reflect my attendance at the last meeting, so I believe I was here all that time. Does staff know if that correction has been made in the interim, or is that something that we should request to be corrected? Patty, do you have any information on that? It was a technical issue with Grinicus, and we've addressed it. It was something that I couldn't fix, but it's been fixed. Okay, great. So assuming that's been fixed, I'm seeing no other comments. Those minutes will stand as printed. And next, we're going to move on to board business and statements of purpose, and I will ask Mr. Kincaid to read the statement of purpose for the design review board. Sure, so the statement of purpose for the design review board talks about what our purview is versus other boards and commissions in the city. So project review, the review authority shall consider the location, design, site plan configuration, and the overall effect of the proposed project upon surrounding properties in the city in general. Review shall be conducted by comparing the proposed project to the general plan, any applicable specific plan, applicable zoning code standards and requirements, consistency of the project within the city's design guidelines, architectural criteria for special areas and other applicable city requirements, i.e. city policy statements and development plans. Thank you, and I'll read the statement of purpose for the cultural heritage board. Cultural heritage board shall consider the following matters, standards, guidelines, and criteria to the extent applicable in determining whether to grant or deny a permit, whether the proposed change is consistent or incompatible with the architectural period of the building, whether the proposed change is compatible with any adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures, whether the colors, textures, materials, fenestration, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with the period and or are compatible with adjacent structures, whether the proposed change destroys or adversely affects an important architectural feature or features, the secretary of the interiors, standards for rehabilitation and guidelines for rehabilitating historic buildings, and such other matters, criteria, and standards as may be adopted by resolution of the cultural heritage board. And before we move on to public comment, I have a number of cards here, all of whom are speakers who want to speak regarding the Caritas item number six, which is not a public hearing, but I think we would all invite public comment. So, does staff have any reason that we shouldn't just invite public comment perhaps after the staff and applicant, excuse me, staff and applicant presentations and during consideration of item 6.1? Yeah, I think that's fine, so we can conduct this meeting like a typical action item and just after the staff presentation, the applicant presentation, questions from the boards, and then that's the typical time when we would take public comment, okay? So, we'll invite speakers about item 6.1 when Mr. Rose said after the presentations, but now I'd like to move on to public comment for anybody who has anything else that they would like to speak of that is germane to designer view board or cultural heritage board. Invite you to approach one of the podiums, state your name for the record, and you would have three minutes to speak, and I'll open public comment, and I'm not seeing anybody approach, so I will close public comment and bring it back to the boards for statements of abstention, or there's only one item for consideration, so hopefully none, any statements of abstention tonight? I will have to abstain from this item this evening, thank you. Okay, okay, then with that, we are going to move to item 6.1 and allow just a minute, and we'll move to item 6.1, which is concept designer view for the Caritas Village, 437 and 465 A Street, 516, 52600, 608 and 612 Morgan Street, and staff presentation. Please, is it Ms. Murray or Ms. Tumyens? Ms. Tumyens, please. Thank you, Chair Edmondson and Chair Kincaid and members of both the Cultural Heritage Board and Design Review Board. I'm just hoping the PowerPoint could be projected on the main screen. I'm sending a message to IT, just give me a moment. All right, well, quite clearly we are working through some technical issues. Okay, and I'm going to have to ask everybody for more patience and we're gonna take a five minute break while we try to fix this and that way we won't have to sit here in awkward silence, we can have at least some conversations, so we'll resume in five minutes. Okay, looks like we have wizarded the problem out of existence and we're ready to start the presentation, let everybody just gather for a sec and then I'll ask Ms. Tumyens to begin the staff presentation, please. Okay, whenever you're ready. As I was saying, thank you, Chair Edmondson and Chair Kincaid and members of the Cultural Heritage Board and Design Review Board. I'm Christina Tumyens, senior planner of the Planning Division and this is the second joint concept review for Caritas Village. This item was heard at a joint concept design review meeting April 19th of 2018, the applicant has requested a optional second joint concept review to get additional thoughts and comments on their architectural design and overall design of their project. I wanna give a brief overview and give most of the floor to the applicants since they have a longer presentation prepared and it's in a lot more detail. So the Caritas Village is a project requesting redevelopment of a full city block that will include a comprehensive family and homeless support service facility known as Caritas Center. That will be operated by Catholic Charities and an affordable housing development housed in two different towers known as Caritas Homes and that would be operated by Burbank Housing. This is an aerial of the city block currently Catholic Charities operates a shelter at the northeast corner of the property as well as some buildings along Morgan Street. Caritas Center would consolidate the existing on-site family support center and navigation center into a single building that would provide an emergency shelter, a navigation center, transitional housing, coordinated entry wraparound services, health services and administrative offices. Caritas Homes would provide up to 126 permanent affordable housing units which plus two units for on-site managers. Other ancillary improvements with the project would include landscaping, roadway improvements, water line improvements and pedestrian walkways. They will need several entitlements to get this project to development. Those entitlements would include a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, parcel map to consolidate the lots, conditional use permit, housing allocation plan concession, density bonus, parking reduction and followed by a major landmark alteration, major designer view and tree removal permit. So here's a little bit clearer aerial of the project site. Here's the zoning and general plan designations. As you can see the block is sort of divided in half by two different general plan designations, two different zoning designations. And they're both in a historic district. So both halves are in a historic district. And this map shows the boundaries of that historic district. As you can see the project site is sort of the end cap, the outer edge of the historic district. And it's bounded on one side by Highway 101, two sides by the mall parking garage and single family residences to the north as well as the museum kitty corner to the north. With that I'd like to give the floor to the applicants since they have a more detailed presentation that shows architecture and design. But if you have any questions for staff I'm available to answer those. Board members, any questions for staff before we take the applicant presentation? No, go ahead, invite the applicant and we will hear that presentation. Not quite. Oh, there we go. Can I have working? Okay, I'm Len Marabella, I'm the CEO of Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa and I'm happy to be here today and to present to you the boards and get your comments and feedback. As we all know, we have a housing crisis and a homelessness crisis in Santa Rosa. We've been making progress in the past two years we've housed over 1300 individuals in Sonoma County. But much, much more is needed especially in the wake of the wildfires. We're excited and we're honored to offer Caritas Village for your consideration as a unique opportunity to address this emergency. Catholic Charities is a leading provider of homelessness, homeless services and housing services in this community. Our services have been recognized nationally. We follow proven best practices. For this project we're teamed with Burbank Housing and experienced developer and operator of affordable housing. We've been doing this work in this location since 1988. We've been struggling and fixing our facilities for 30 years. The buildings are worn out, the facilities are inadequate. We now have the opportunity to dedicate a full city block in downtown Santa Rosa to reduce homelessness through housing solutions. We propose building Caritas Village. By the way, Caritas means love for all. It comes from the Latin. It's a rich tradition in Catholic Charities. We propose, as you heard, the building Caritas Center for an emergency family shelter, medical facilities, Nightingale, which is recuperation beds, navigation center, children's program, wraparound services and so on. It's all focused on finding permanent housing solutions. And regarding the health services we're partnered with Santa Rosa Community Health in with the local hospitals. We're also building Caritas Homes. As you've heard, we are partnered with Burbank Housing and they are leading and managing the development of the homes. We plan to build up to 128 affordable units. 50% are set aside for formerly homeless or disabled individuals. The other 50% for families that are challenged financially and need the reduced market rate rents in order to sustain their housing. We're ready to make this happen. Catholic Charities owns the property. Catholic Charities and Burbank Housing have the operational experience. We have assembled a strong team to make this project successful, including Piotaka Associates as our architects. We're here to listen to your advice and to your feedback regarding our plans. And we ask that you please join us in creation of this incredibly important project for Santa Rosa. Caritas Village is a game changer. It is truly a community project. We ask your support. And now I'm gonna turn the microphone over to Mike Piotaka, who's our lead architect at the program. Good evening, members of the design review board and the cultural heritage board. With me tonight is a co-principal of my firm, Theresa Ballard. She's been working on this with me since we started about three and a half years ago. I prepared a presentation that would kind of take a high level view of what we're trying to do with each of the components of the village. And I expect then more detailed questions from you about the specifics of the design. And I will of course get into specifics and talk to you that high level. You're all familiar then with the location, we recognize the importance of being on the southern edge in that little peninsula of an important historic neighborhood. And some of the other buildings that were of significance to us were the two large-ish buildings in the neighborhood that would be sort of at the same scale that we were introducing. And that would be because the Sonoma County Museum and St. Rose Professional Office Building. So both of those were inspiration for what we were doing at the northern portion of the site that was facing onto the neighborhood. You'll see that as we get into further detail. And on the southern end, the building that you see at the southern end of the site is the Caritas Center itself, providing services to people who are presently homeless, both families and singles. You may recall way back about a year and a half ago when we first had that first conceptual review with you, we did this little analysis of the site. We have great solar exposure. And this does point, doesn't it? Yes, we have some noise issues. Fortunately, the freeway does have a fairly tall sound wall so we don't get much noise from the freeway. We do get noise from those who might be exiting the freeway and coming down more again at certain times of the day. So we do have a noise issue on that side. We wanted to preserve and enhance the whole central corridor that if you will, that's the former alley that aligns with the alley of the rest of the neighborhood. And we recognize we thought were too important from an urban design standpoint, two important corners, the one at A and sixth as an entryway into the downtown and on the exit out, as well as the one that's diagonally across from the museum. That's another point at which one would pass entering the downtown or leaving the downtown. So those are two critical edges that we wanted to address with whatever we were designing. So as you saw from that smaller map, there really two parts to the village. The northern portion is the permanent housing for those who have been formerly homeless or whose incomes are such that if not for this housing, they could potentially fall into homelessness. So it's a permanent affordable housing. And on the southern portion is the service center that Catholic Charities would be operating with parking for Catholic Charities between the two and garages within each of the phases of the housing. Some hours there help to point the way of entrances. Entries to the housing are coming in from seventh and with a lobby for each of the phases off that entry point. We've been calling this central zone a muse. It's no longer going to be an hour. It's going to be nicely landscaped and prepared for activities of the people who live there. And then each phase will also have a courtyard of its own one level up that sits on top of their parking garages. Catholic Charities, the Caritas Center, will have three courtyards. One for the family sector, which you'll see in a moment in the plans. One for the singles, homeless singles who would be arriving at this point, families arriving at this point. And then a central entrance for all who may be coming for the first time seeking services. There is a clinic in the facility as well. So each of these elements, each of these three ingredients has its own courtyard to the rear. And we've been using the word Oasis as a kind of inspirational analogy for everything that we've been trying to do with the facility that this is a place that people can come to and feel a sense of relief and a source of life and rejuvenation from the troubles that they are experiencing in their daily routines. We did some shadow studies for summer, spring, and fall, and winter. Throughout all the seasons, the shadows are always cast on streets. Even in the wintertime, you can see there at noon and in the afternoon, the shadows being cast fall onto 7th Street or onto A Street and barely touch the neighboring property to the north. In the morning, on the shortest day of the year, for sure, the shadows cast along. As you can see, even from the three-story garage that's existing now, it casts quite a bit into the neighborhood. In fact, the whole neighborhood is probably in the shadows of its own buildings. This is the nature of the sun at that time of day if there is sun. So to delve a little more deeply into the nature of the project and the program, this is the ground floor of Caritas Services. We're starting at the south end here. And you can see on the left-hand side all the facilities that are set aside for the singles, the right-hand side, all the facilities for the families. And then the central shared services are in the middle. The families have a childcare program, they have a dining hall, a kitchen, they have classrooms on the ground floor. And for the singles, there's a day center, places for toilets and showers, a number of offices for social workers to work directly hand-in-hand with the homeless who may be arriving. There's a large courtyard at the entrance, so when people arrived and not lingering on the street, they immediately enter the courtyard before entering the building. There's also a chapel in the program. At least in this version, we were exploring ways to which you could actually be externalized and be at the end of the axis of the muse that folks who live there can look south and see it there. So those are the three zones, the singles, the shared services in the middle, and the families on the right-hand side, the east side. Same goes true as you move on up to the second and third floor. Thank you very much. And my age, I get drive pretty quickly. To the right, we have the rooms for the families. There are somewhere between 40 and 50. It fluctuates as we refine it, depending upon the amount of services that they'd also like to include here. We have offices for the social workers on the floor. I think we have four such stations so that it really can be direct communication between those seeking the services and those who can provide the help. There's a living space, a dining kitchen area on each of the two levels where the rooms are. Central portion variety of services on the ground floor. There's a respite for people who maybe recently released them hospitals and they need maybe two to three weeks of TLC in a comfortable, warm, secure environment. On the second floor is a clinic that will be serving all the folks who are here using the facility and some from the outside. And then on the left-hand side, more services that are functioning in relationship to the singles. There's a dormitory on the second floor for about 20 people who were formerly in the program as homeless who are now at a point in their lives where they can hold the job as volunteers in the center below and they get their housing with a living space and a kitchen and dining area. And then on top of the second floor for all the families, same as the second floor and then various administrative offices. So that comprises the guts, the basic program ingredients for the center. It's a little hard to read with all the light on the screen. Hopefully you can see it better on your laptops in front of you. These are some of the views of the center as seen from the streets on the south side, which I'll start with that lower diagram here. This rendering shows the intersection of an important corner between A street on the right and six street on the left. On the ground floor, we have the classrooms. They go through into the evening, so they'll be lit at night, so the place will function like a lantern lighting up that corner. And then the corners on the second and third floors are offices for the social workers. And that will also bring some light, lantern-like effect in the evenings. And then the housing units are on each side of that. Some of them are projecting bays, recalling some of the bays of the tradition of the region. If we move upstairs here to this view, this is looking down, looking along sixth street, shows the main entrance into the central portion of the building. To the left are the various services on each floor. We have the respite or nightingale program on the ground floor, clinic on the second floor, and more offices on the third floor. We're using the stair towers, essential for fire escape, but we're using them as little symbols to define the major entrances into the building. The one next to this main entry, there's another one further down the street, which is adjacent to the day center. And that's what you see down here at the lower left, the corner of Morgan and sixth. The center of the various services in the middle, and then the day center of programs with its courtyard down here on the ground floor, the dormitory just above it, and some more services on the top floor. One of the things we're trying to do, when I use the term Oasis before, we're working closely, fortunately with a landscape architect from here in Santa Rosa, Quadriga. They're really terrific to work with. And we're doing everything we can with the landscape to present that kind of warm inviting environment. And we're designing the building in certain strategic locations to allow the landscape to grow up onto the building. Many of you are wonderful buildings in the downtown, have that everywhere in this climate. So we're trying to do it in a way that will not damage the building. So we have these green screens and other armatures floating in front of the building. For example, on the south side here, that will allow things, the vines to grow on it and actually provide shade for those windows. And the respite, the folks who are recovering from hospital care can look out the window at the vines. We're hoping to find as much landscape as we can. That has perennial flowers year round. These flowers are very important symbols in all cultures. They mean a lot to people. They send a message for those who deliver it of love, respect and hope. And we think this whole facility is conveying that message so the landscape and its planting and the flowers are gonna be playing a critical role in projecting that message. This is a scene in the back courtyard where at least at this point we were experimenting with keeping the chapel on the outside as a dominant force in that central courtyard. That would be at the time we were thinking of sheathing that in wood shingles. The rest of the building is a combination of stucco, cement board, some terracotta, more expensive materials around the main entrances. Soffits that are exposed that can be seen when you're walking along the street would be wood so it has a warm texture feel to it. Elevations are pretty bland when you look at them this way with these computer drawings. But the family center with its bay windows, classrooms below, stucco building with probably a cementaceous siding on the bay windows. A more expensive panel or terracotta on the zones around the entrance and above the entrance. This armature for the plants to grow on is the sun screening in front of all the main service functions here, the respite on the first floor, the clinic and more offices on the top floor. And then finally the center on the right. And in the north side that faces the homes you can see the kind of a sound wall that we have wrapping the courtyard for the singles. And then also a little more transparent fencing around the family courtyard. But I did a quick squiggle, scribble if you will over it to show you, these are all the reasons where we're planning to use the green screen and trellises, vine cupboard trellises all across the ground level. And then again on the street side, shading the classrooms, covering the mechanical rooms that are behind this more solid wall. And then again growing up the arbor that is in front of these rather large windows in front of the services. And again on the walls around the entry courtyard. So greening will be important. We're experimenting with ways of showing off the fact that the building and the facility wants to utilize the sun as much as possible to gain energy and operate the building. There were PV panels up there. We're still experimenting with the ways of displaying them. We may use them directly as sunshades over the windows and also as collectors of electricity. So I'll now shift up to the northern portion of the site and talk about the more permanent housing starting on the ground floor. As I said, this former alley will now become a landscape muse with various activities programmed into it for the residents on both sides. On the ground floor on both sides, there'll be various amenities, meeting rooms, bike storage, the lobby, social service offices will be down there as well. Wrapping this garage that you see in the center of both phases is some more housing to bring eyes on the street. We have three townhomes in each of the phases, two-story homes with their own patio and porch overlooking the street. And then on both Morgan and on A Street, there are some studio units with their own patios, covered patios, also with an opportunity to watch what's going on in the street. Each of those garages has about 26, 27 automobiles. And as you move up, the outdoor courts for the people who live there, they are connected by a stair down to the muse so these open spaces are all interconnected with each other. We think about making a shift and making some more community amenity spaces up here so that they can both take part in this space as well as overlook the muse. And you can begin to see as the building rises up, it's stepping back. We have only two-story portions of the building facing the neighborhood to the north with these little houses, two-bedroom houses. You're now looking at the tile roofs that were taking the idea from the Sonoma Museum. We're putting tile on all of our exposed roofs. As we go further up, you can see how these portions of the building drop away because they're only two-stories tall. Further up, again, these portions are only three-stories tall and finally in the last floor, you have the four-stories. All the buildings will be covered with as much PV as we can get. Also, solar hot water will be placed on the roof so we're doing everything we can to utilize this and to make these buildings as sustainable as they can be in the decades ahead. And with the housing, the look of the housing, it's, as I said, taking its cues from both St. Joseph's, St. Rose's professional building as well as the museum. It's a stucco building. It has some hints of history with the way the cornices are placed on the taller elements. Bay windows, tile roofs on the lower elements take away the trees so you can see a little bit more. This is on Morgan, that's the fencing that will be in front of Caritas' parking lot. And you see the bay windows that are above the porches that overlook Morgan. If we go over here to the corner of 7th Street and A Street, take away the existing trees that are there now just to be able to not take away but just fade them out for the moment. They will be preserved, of course. You could see how the two-story homes with their one-story porches are working to relate to the rest of the neighborhood. It gets up to three stories at this point because it's an important corner so we thought it could afford to get a little more height. These are the existing trees that are there now. We're hoping to be able to save them. We understand from the fire department they may have some concerns about that. They want to get ladder access to the roof from that side and they may ask us to take the trees down and replant trees that may not necessarily get in their way in the future, maybe not grow as tall. In this view, you're on Morgan, looking back at the development. This is the house that exists across the street. It's the corner of the house. And there you can see the one-story porches, the two-story houses, as it ascends then back to the four-story portions that are further back away from the street. In this view, we're looking from Morgan down the muse. It's fenced off and we've decided really put the lobby entrances on the street. That's why there's a grand trellis that will be planted with vines that will shape that entrance into the lobby. The feeling by Burbank is that the muse should probably remain private to the people who live there and not necessarily have public access. There will be service gates for the landscape company that will be maintaining the grounds. And then finally, this is a view in the muse itself between the two phases after both are built. And you can see that there'll be a number of spaces programmed for various kinds of outdoor use, probably barbecue as well, with lighting that will allow it to have a kind of domestic but festive quality for the long-term residents that are fortunate to be able to live there. So that's really the gist of it. All these kinds of cold, computer-drawn elevations kind of tell the story about the proportions, the placement of windows, the materials, the colors. They show when you're on Seventh Street, the one and two-story elements that face the neighborhood, the tile roofs, the stucco, and in the distance, the tall four-stories. On this side, this is facing the south. This is facing the Caritas Center. It's overlooking their parking lot. These are where some of the social spaces are for the residents. And this is just some wire mesh in front of the garage so they get ventilation and daylight coming in there. Facing Morgan, you've got the various bays and the porches below them, the low two-story homes on Seventh Street. And then along A Street, again, this kind of procession of three-story elements to help us scale down the building, treating the fourth floor more like a cornice floor with a three-story element at the corner here. As I said earlier, we're experimenting with ways of showing off the PVs. We're still experimenting with that at this point when we submitted it to the city back a year ago or so. We were experimenting with it as a cornice. We're still looking at other ways of perhaps using it directly to shade the windows on those critical south and west sides, not necessarily put it way up on the roof but actually put it to use at the levels where the shading is important to have. Views of the muse elevations. You can see how we come down to two stories along the muse. So it's a comfortable space, even though it's about, it varies between 30 and maybe close to 40 at the widest edge. There's a section through that muse and the courtyards that are on top of the garages. When they're seen together, facing Morgan Street, you've got the Caritas Center and it's day center here at the corner, the parking lot that separates the two. We will have a wood screen wall between them and then the homes. And then we're looking from A Street. The reverse, you get the southern end, the center with its bay windows and then the housing at the northern portion, again with a recall of bays and again trying to emphasize lower scale attachments to the larger building that's set back. You saw in your packet the pallet of materials, it's stucco in cement siding, cementation boards, and some more expensive ingredients, as I said earlier around the entrances, some terracotta, some glazed tile. As you saw before, the tile on the roofs, wood fencing wherever we can. A fairly muted color scheme. This is to keep in tune with the neighborhood. This is not a brightly painted neighborhood. They're kind of modest or earth tones and certainly in relating to both the Sonoma Museum and the St. Rose's building, we kind of took the colors from those buildings with a few little highlighted brighter colors but just in small doses. And finally, I'll end with this image again to stress the importance of the landscape. We have an available zone all around the building. We're actually forced to be set back a bit more than usual because PG&E wants to have that as an easement but he gave us an opportunity to introduce some swales and some more greenery and then in the courtyards for sure. For all, really six outdoor places in the rear, those are truly the OACs. And we'll do everything we can to get that green to come up onto the buildings, not just be on the ground plane but to really get some height so people can feel it as they walk around and approach the building. So that's the summary of my comments over to questions. Okay, thanks very much. All right, I think Mr. Kincaid, would you like to start with the design review board and ask if you have any questions for staff or the applicant before we ask the public to make their comments? Sure, thanks, Chair Edmondson. Drew, questions for the applicant or staff and if you can keep it to questions, that'd be good. I would be happy to keep it to questions, Scott. I've got actually a number of questions for staff, not the applicant. I've got a couple of questions for the applicant but most of my questions for staff are related to the process a little bit. I kind of want to understand, Chris and I want to understand kind of what the next steps are for this and kind of it looks to me like there's a zoning change, there's a number of different entitlements and so we're going to see this again, it seems like but it needs to go to planning commission and I just kind of want to understand that process. I think just for everybody so they can understand and we're going to see this again and what sort of input we have at this time in that regard. I think that'd be helpful for everybody just because this looks to me like a very complicated entitlement process just from looking at the package. So can you walk me through that a little bit? Sure, everything but the major design review and major landmark alteration will go before planning commission and city council. The project is currently, we're currently preparing a administrative draft EIR for the project. Once that's prepared, planning commission will make a recommendation to city council and city council will make a decision on whether to approve or deny the project and they would also certify the EIR at that point and if the project moves successfully past that point then it can go to design review board and cultural heritage board. And then so as part of that process, so planning commission's gonna, staff is gonna draft the administrative EIR. Planning commission's gonna make a recommendation. It's gonna go to council. Council's gonna approve that document which would include the zoning change which essentially makes this project possible from a zoning standpoint to the transit village mixed use, right? At that time, does the planning commission, are they also locking in the site plan in terms of the fire access, the locations of buildings, parking and all that or is that happening at a separate meeting of the planning commission that's not tied to kind of the zoning change components? So the planning commission would decide on the use permit. So it would be the use that's moving forward. So the shelter. Yeah, would that happen at the same time as the recommendation for the administrative EIR or would it happen at a separate meeting? Does that, you understand my question? Okay. It would be all together. Yes. All right, so it's important, I think for us right now to give you as much information as possible regarding site layout, those things because that's all information you're gonna package together with the applicant for that kind of all-inclusive meeting with the planning commission, is that correct? Yes, and it's also important to note that any increased height has to be approved by the cultural heritage board when it's in a historic district. So that's another key component. Right, okay, cool. And then one other thing that I was curious about maybe it's because I just didn't, because of our technical difficulty and I couldn't find it, on the properties to the west that are in the existing residentially zoned area, are any of those buildings listed as contributing buildings in the St. Rose Historic District currently? We can look that up and get back to you, yeah. Yeah, I'm just curious because they're gonna demolish all of them. It looks like, and so if there's not any contributing buildings, and that changes the game a little bit, I would think. Do you mean to the north? No, the west, the ones that are being demolished. Oh, on Morgan Street? I mean the west side of the site. West side of the site. The project site. The project site, yes, sorry. Yes, there are. I just couldn't find it. Yeah, there are several buildings that are listed as contributors, yes. Okay, cool, cool, all right. Board Member Weigel, if I may, just to add a little clarification to the entitlement path. So the ultimate decision maker will be the city council. The environmental review, in this case, an environmental impact report has to be done before anything else happens. So the idea is to take the land use entitlements forward with the environmental impact report, with the council being the final decision maker. And as the designer review board has experienced, I think the cultural heritage board as well, when a use permit is approved, and that's done by the land use authority, and it's the planning commission in this case, it'll be the city council, that does effectively lock in the site plan. Yeah, I think it's an important point. Very often we get stuck in between somewhere, and we're seeing something related to a design issue or something, and at that point, we can't change it. So now would be the time to make those comments. Exactly, and to that end, that's the importance of the concept review, because all of your comments will be folded into the staff comments, and everything spoken tonight will be presented forward to the city council, the planning commission and council. Perfect, so those are my questions for staff. And then I did have a couple of little questions on the, but I think they're better suited as part of a comment. So those are my questions for staff and the applicant at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Drew. Eric, questions for staff and the applicant? No questions at this time, I'll have comments later. Thank you, Henry. Questions? Yeah, one quick one for the applicant. Can you tell me the tower elements? I'm looking at sheet A3.4. Is that something you can access, or maybe you know it by heart, since you. Maybe I know it by heart. Does it list the name of the elevation? Is you're looking at an elevation or a perspective? I'm actually looking at a building cross section. Okay. And the tower elements have 11 foot tall walls. It appears from roof to top of tower pyramid. And I'm curious what the rationale. Yeah, there are, I think there are two, perhaps three places where we were thinking of doing that. And those are at important corners that we felt in the urban fabric, if you will. And the parapet walls on a wood building already have to be about five feet tall above the actual roof decking because of the insulation that has to be put in. And you get to a point where you're about three foot eight or three foot six, which is what you need as a height above the roof for safety. So to get to the three foot eight dimension to protect workmen up there who come to service whatever's on the roof, you need three, eight, three, six rather, and with all the insulation, it ends up being a five foot. So when it came to the corners, we felt the corners needed a little more emphasis than just maintaining that roof line all the way around. So we popped them up a little bit and we actually were suggesting in a couple of, at least two of those locations, introducing a cornice detail, a flourish of brackets and recalling some of the older cornices on older buildings, but a more contemporary interpretation of that. So that was the reason for towering up, if you will, at some of those critical corners, one being seventh and A Street, which you see as you're coming out of the downtown, heading out and then one that's on the corner that is also on A Street as you're entering the downtown. What was the thinking behind those? Okay, so strictly architectural elements are seen from the street view not for hiding mechanical equipment or? Really for the street view, they probably will be helping if we have any other, haven't gotten to that point of really detailing out the amount and size of the mechanical equipment up there. But the hope is that with the standard parapet, we could certainly screen it and then anything that might be a bit too big, we might stick it in those areas where the parapet will do get taller at the corners. Great, thank you. I'll have comments later. Chairman Conkata do have one question, sorry. Yeah, go ahead. Looking at the navigation center and especially the emergency shelter programs and Nav Center, is there any room there for storage, for personal property for, because that's extremely short term shelter for it? Right, I mean, since we submitted this, which was a while ago, we've been tweaking and refining things. That front courtyard, for example, the entry courtyard has actually gotten bigger than what you see in the documents in front of you. And we have a place in there where people can park their bicycles or shopping carts. The rear court, same thing, we have kennels in the rear courtyard, but adjacent to the kennels, there are places where people can park their shopping carts or bicycles or other things they may have carried in with them that are important possessions. So the storage of that, yes, we're taking that seriously. It's a real thing. Thank you. Yeah. Thanks, Eric, Adam. Sure. Thank you for the thorough presentation in your words, both of you. Question about the reasoning behind the, basically the outer envelope of the site, you talk about these critical corners in your presentation, you had stars on those and talk about sort of meshing into the neighborhood while also announcing the project in a way. It's a pretty inwardly focused plan. And just, you know, my question is, is the reasoning behind that like to hear your rationale a bit? Yeah. Well, the outdoor spaces that created, that are created for both the residents and the people who are utilizing the Caritas Center, they need to be secured for those folks themselves. And they can't be available to people that just roam in from the outside. Certainly for permanent affordable housing, we do that with all of our developments. Those outdoor spaces really belong to the residents. It's a kind of inner sanctum. It's part of their security. And the same was true for the center itself, for the singles, for the families and for the central service zone. They each have a courtyard of their own for them. So the surrounding periphery, though, that's all enhanced for the public as well. It certainly communicates a greeting to those who are arriving to use the place, but it's also a message to those who drive by it or walk by it, that this is a warm and friendly place. So we didn't have outdoor space really available for use by others in the community. There was talk about perhaps the city might be closing down that little piece of seventh between A and Morgan. We don't know if that's a wise thing to do, but certainly that would suddenly create a lot of pedestrian zone, but it's that much more space that then has to be properly supervised and maintained. But yes, this is not an opportunity to create lots of outdoor space for the rest of the neighborhood. There are other places in the neighborhood that those residents can use. Okay, thank you. I agree it's a really delicate bounce. I just wanted to hear your thoughts and I'm glad that you're thinking through that, so. I mean, on the edge of seventh and again, on the other two sides, Morgan and A Street, the fact that we lined them all with housing, with dwellings, with porches that can oversee the city, all of that was to help enrich the life of the street, not turn our back on it. So we. Yeah, you do mention in the presentation the eyes on the street and so I do think that's important, well also the security. So yeah, I know that you're thinking about that. I just wanted to articulate it a bit more. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Adam. Warren, questions? Thank you, yes, this is for the applicant. I appreciate the progress you made. I know it's been about a year and I was here previously. I was wondering, tying into Drew's question about the whole process, knowing that the critical shortage for particularly transitional housing and that transitional housing isn't really tethered to automobiles, the consideration of a fourth floor in the transitional center. Has there been any study or examination in you being able to add yet another floor? It's so close to the Macy's garage. There's a whole question about trips, study and the capacity for Catholic cherries. But since it's such an interesting site with all this work to date, is there any possibility of expanding that the transitional housing for more part, more souls there? I don't know if the architect can answer that one. I think that might be our client or, yep, genuine. I think right now, one of the things that we're coming up against, apologies, I'm genuine Holmes with Catholic Charities, the chief program officer there. I think one of the things that we're coming up with is making sure it's something that we can sustainably operate, something that we can make sure is also ability to fundraise and create the money for a lot of these things. So we've had to actually look at those realities and face the rising costs of construction and so on and so forth. So while we look at what we can do right now, we certainly could look at the possibility down the road, but I think right now we're restricted to the floors that we have at this point. Thank you, Warren. And I have no questions for staff or the applicant, so I'll turn it back over to you, Chair Edmondson. Thank you, Chair Kincaid. The staff report mentioned in the list of entitlements that major landmark alteration permit would be one of them, but it is ambiguous about the number of those permits. There's a plural that is used there and that gets a little bit to my question about, I just want a little bit of comment from staff about the scope of the CHB's review because we have demolition, certainly, that is part of this project and there's also the project in its entirety. Is, do the findings need to be made with regard to each active demolition or each historic structure that's demolished or do the findings need to be made with regard to the project or is the resolution or set of resolutions that would be presented going to tackle those things separately? I want to make sure that the findings that we can anticipate being asked to make, we have as good an understanding of what those are going to be as possible in case we see some additions or changes that need to be made to the materials here for us to be able to do that in a future meeting. So the major landmark alteration permit would include the demolition and replacement of the structures on that project block so to include the entirety of the project, so demolition and the new structures. Okay. This is I suppose either for staff or the applicant, but we have some public correspondence that shows the basically the northern half more or less are designated contributor properties. I think there are seven in the map that we were given by a member of the public that is the city's map. The southern half of the site not really considered a contributing properties although they are within the historic district. I understand there will be some mitigation measures taken with regard to the effects on historic structures, but I'd like to invite the applicant or staff to comment a little bit about exactly the condition of the structures on those properties and whether we're talking about outright demolition of all of them or the mitigation measures that might be part of the development of this project and it sounds like you might have an answer for me. Good evening, my name is Tina Wallace, lawyer representing Catholic Charities and Burbank Housing on this project. I think Ms. Tumians mentioned earlier in her presentation that NEIR is being prepared for this project. The city's consultant prepares the EIR for the city so the applicants are not privy to it and it has not been released as of tonight. So we don't know, all we know is that the EIR will undertake all of the studies required by law and will comment on the structures as is required by CEQA and presumably will include mitigation measures but we're not able to comment on the specifics of those tonight because the document has not been released yet. Okay, so the consideration of demolition of a historic structure and the determination of appropriate mitigation measures and that is going to be out of the hands more or less of the CHB, I'm just trying to figure whether once the EIR contains its mitigation measures, whether that's the end of the subject when it comes to the demolition aspect of it and the mitigation of the demolition component so to speak of this project. So as the applicants council indicated, the EIR is underway, the consultant is under contract with the city. We do not have a draft that's ready for public review yet so we won't be commenting on those mitigations or that evaluation at this point that public release is forthcoming. It will begin a public review comment period so we can take comments from any member of the public, other public agencies. Tonight is a concept review so if the board has any comments related to the demolition or the project itself, we would welcome those comments and we will pass that information along to the CEQA consultants. Okay. All right. Board Member McHugh, do you have any questions for staff or the applicant at this time? I do. I'm curious from the applicant's perspective, what your thought process was in looking at the design of the buildings, and when I talk about that, I'm talking about the outside structures, the materials, the look of the buildings. What kind of contributors did you look at in the district that might be compatible with this structure, and if you just kind of give me your thought process? Yeah. One of the first things we did actually was walk the whole neighborhood, photographed all the buildings, and we actually built a model, it's four feet by eight feet from the whole neighborhood, and built our proposal into that model. It's kind of a study model that we have at our office. And the two most important buildings that appeared to be important to what we were doing were at the scale of what we were doing, that it was buildings that were taller and bigger, had more mass. And as I said earlier, that would be the museum, the Sonoma County Museum, and St. Rose's professional building. Those two had the stature that was comparable to what we were proposing there with the permanent housing. And so those were the two we took cues from. Now we're in the 21st century, not in the early 20th century, so we were not gonna copy them, but we were going to at least try to be a cousin. And so the use of the stucco, the use of the proportions, the use of the tile roofs where it was appropriate, and some hints of historicity, if you will, in the way we treated some cornice elements. The scale of the building as it approached 7th Street and the neighborhood dropped from the four stories down to two. And even on the four story portions, we made sure that there were ingredients that were three stories and even two stories that were projecting forward that had legs. They weren't just bays, but they came down to the ground to define the patios that were under them so that that scale of four would be brought down to three. And again, with tile roofs, all of that was to begin to reflect the vertical proportions that you get in the St. Rose and the museum is, of course, a little bit more horizontal, but it has that wonderful five bay colonnade, exactly four columns where it creates five bays in that colonnade. And so we didn't have any functional purpose to introduce that kind of stature, but we tried with the stacking of the bays and the patios underneath them to create something of more significance than what you might typically find as a domestic bay window. We gave it a little more stature. Okay, thank you. Muser, any questions for staff of the applicant at this time? No questions at this time. And Board Member Gronica. Yes, and this may be kind of an expansion on your initial set of questions. And that first is for this particular project, I'm trying to get in my mind what the component parts are or will be of the major landmark alteration permits. And I asked this question so that I know what we're really supposed to be balancing out here, I guess it would be the term. One I am assuming is building heights, relationships with that also, it's been brought up a time or two. Are we to be looking at the new facility vis-a-vis a St. Rose professional building? As it pertains to St. Rose, this is a question more out of curiosity, but it has, at least in the past, in the purview of the Cultural Heritage Board, are we to be taking a look at the window systems at St. Rose and are the current window systems the same as the original structure question I have? And then the other question, and I assume this is to be, that my understanding is that this project would move to contributing structures. And so that, again, is part of the major landmark alteration permit, am I correct? If I may, Tina Wallace again, the project that is before you tonight and the project that the EIR is analyzing does not include relocating any structures, it instead assumes or requests permission to demolish all of the structures on the block. And as far as the purview of the Cultural Heritage Board, you would be reviewing the height because they are asking for three and four stories in historic district and that would require approval from the Cultural Heritage Board to exceed the height limit. So the zoning code does allow an increase in height as long as the CHP agrees to the increased height. And I can let the architect speak of the window systems. That would be fine. Could you give a citation to the zoning code section regarding height, if you don't mind? While she's looking that up, and before our architect gets to windows, also as part of our project application in chapter 21 of the city code, your housing allocation plan, you do have a mandatory concession for any residential developer who develops more than 70 units and builds their affordable housing on the site. And as part of our project, we have requested a concession for height under chapter 21 of the county code. We're also seeking a density bonus with other incentives related to specific plan requirements. So would staff say that it's possible but not certain that the height would be subject to CHP review or there may be a concession requested in connection with the height of the project? As the applicant's council indicated, there are provisions for concessions to zoning code development standards and that is done through a different process. I think that back to kind of the purpose of tonight's meeting, the comments are intended to be broad. So both boards can give their comments. I would go back to the opening statements by both boards in terms of what the purview of the actions are, that won't change because this will come back before the cultural heritage will for a landmark permit and for both boards for design review. So just I would encourage the comments, they can certainly go to windows, they can go to height, we can take that under advisement, but there is a land use aspect to this whereby the concessions could effectively override that. Okay. Ms. Damienzi have a comment. Chair Edmondson, I have the code section. It's 20-28-040 historic combining districts and it's subsection E3 height limits and it's E3C increased height and it states a structure may be approved with a height over 35 feet or two stories provided that the review authority finds that increased height does not detract from the character of the preservation district or any adjacent contributing properties and the review authority may require conditions of approval that pertain to the placement of screens, location and type of openings, the location of projections of sun-text porches, balconies, patios and similar architectural amenities to enhance or preserve the residential privacy of the proposed structures and of any adjacent existing or anticipated residential structures or uses. Okay. Thank you. I would like to ask for public comments and then I think we could take a short break and reconvene at that time. So I have four cards on this but you don't need to have filled out a card in order to speak and if you'll just begin your remarks by stating your name, I'm going to read these cards and Mr. Lillian Thall will be followed by Mr. Grable. Chair Edmundson, I noticed that Patty stepped out for a moment so we can monitor the time for three minutes per person. Yeah, that would be fine. Thank you. Hi, Joe Lillian Thall 317 10th Street. I was here for the first review and except for the footprint of the actual Cartos Center, not much has really changed. The basic premise of the project that is to demolish the entire block of the historic neighborhood and its contributor buildings. Santa Rosa Historic Districts were not set aside only to be torn down but to preserve them by adaptive reuse and complimentary infill. Examples do exist of adaptive reuse in our district instead of demolition. Most notable is the current renovation of the St. Rose Stone Church is getting a new foundation and steel beam reinforcing inside but it'll still look like it is an outside. Examples also exist of infill projects, residential and non-residential that unlike this one, they do conform to the historic guidelines. Board Member Wicks knows of one of these projects. His building 615 Healdsburg Avenue is an example. While most of that project is outside of the historic district, one part of the building is in the district. The design of that part facing B Street was redesigned from four stories straight up from the back of the sidewalk to a two-story section of the building with a design to blend in with the surrounding buildings. If other developers can complete projects and comply with historic guidelines then this one should too. If this project goes through as planned, the message from the city of Santa Rosa to the St. Rose District and the other seven historic districts is that the guidelines in place to protect them don't really mean anything. It will say to other developers and individuals who have or will go through the process to build a remodel, if you are a well-funded and politically connected developer, you can do anything you want. That's the wrong message to send. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Grable, followed by Mr. Perry. Good evening. I'm Chris Grable. I live about five blocks away and I just wanted to really express my gratitude and support for all the work that's gone into this project. As someone who lives every day with my young five-year-old daughter and my family and basically immersed in what is our housing and homelessness crisis, we used to use the Joe Radota in the Creek Trail every day. We don't as much anymore and I believe that permanent supportive housing is probably the only thing that's gonna change that anytime soon and it's just an imperative that we get things like this done. The homeless are already in my neighborhood so I have no problem housing them in my neighborhood and actually coming up with these permanent solutions that really do provide a healthy future for folks that are really struggling and either precariously housed or unhoused and in need of services as well. I would just say that I also encourage the city and our staff, our appointees, our boards, our council enlist every bit of authority, of discretion, everything you've got. It was the intent of bills like AB 2162 to actually give some more discretionary authority and ministerial review and stuff to our councils and our governing bodies and our staff. This one I think just escapes that but it's that intent to say this is a priority. Let's act like it and really get these people housed permanently. So again, super grateful to Burbank and Catholic Charities and the architects in the community, everyone involved because this is one of those projects that we've needed for decades and we finally have it in front of us and it's a really beautiful thing. So thank you. Thank you. Mr. Perry will be followed by Ms. Hill. I am Mark Perry, I live at 419 Benton. I'm a historic architect and architectural historian and I helped create two of the preservation districts in town. Gosh, Fitz and Scully of Yale defined the preservation movement as the 20th century's single most significant architectural movement, a populist reaction to governmental, political and economic forces destroying our communities. It was with 78% and up to 98% approval of all of the residents within these districts that they were created. They are the will of the people expressed to the development and political forces about them. The will of these people of Santa Rosa has been ignored so far entirely by this application. Now, it's a great idea, it's necessary, it's important, it's vital and the boards, the Cultural Heritage Board and the Design Review Board are gonna be facing many, many, many of these decisions and I would just say you have to look at the importance of the design of the hand. As you, the hand has like four digits, let's say there's social need, economic need, current design standards and project intents. Most people look at preservation as opposition to development. The hand only works with the opposing thumb. The opposing thumb is part of the brilliance of the design of this hand, it has been ignored. It should not be ignored and I'm concerned that the city staff is end running the preservation district guidelines and purposes with the AIR and I think it's a mistake. The primary purpose of designating landmarks and preservation districts is to preserve Santa Rosa's architectural, cultural history for generations to come. The proposed demolition of landmark structures located within preservation districts is inconsistent with this purpose and is therefore inappropriate. That's the mandate of the Cultural Heritage Board. The Design Review Board needs to support the processes in place to preserve the character, integrity and value of our architectural heritage. This project can be stellar, but not if it ignores all of the architecture around it and the will of the populace of Santa Rosa that has been working very hard to preserve our architectural heritage. Thank you. Thank you. It's Ms. Hill. Hi, Denise Hill 317 10th Street. This is so incredibly distressing. We have lived in this neighborhood for 30 years. We came in right after it became a historic district. We love the historic neighborhood and unfortunately, when Catholic Charities acquired these properties at many meetings that they had with the neighborhood, we mentioned to them, you're in a historic district, whatever you're gonna do with these properties, remember you're in a historic district and they would smile and nod and here we are with them proposing, we're gonna tear every single one of those contributing historic structures down on the block we own because we own it. Well, that's a precedent that would be incredibly scary for this city to ever have any historical districts that are safe. If indeed, if you have the wherewithal and the money, you can go in and just buy up some property and just start eating away at that district. Doesn't matter if it's on the edge of the district, doesn't matter if it's across from a parking garage, the reason we have the district is to protect exactly this from happening and to have someone get this far in the process and not acknowledge in any of their presentations that they are indeed destroying an entire block of our historic district is really disappointing, honestly. I mean, it's a slap in the face to the neighbors that moved there because this is what they expected. They would, this neighborhood would not be in massive transition if one of these 1960s episodes of Build came through again. We would be preserved. We were the first residential district that was a historic, designated historic district because we are the most precarious in our location and exactly for this reason that they anticipated developers would want to purchase land downtown and build downtown and our neighborhood is the downtown neighborhood, the most downtown neighborhood of any of the historic districts. So the historic district was put in place to protect this from happening and here we are having to come as residents of that district and plead with you not to let this happen. Santa Rosa covers 30 miles. This is the right project in absolutely the wrong place. They went into it with their eyes wide open. They've let the buildings that they've owned for I believe five or six years now start falling apart by demolition, by neglect. It's a historic preservation term that means that the owners don't want to preserve the building so they let them start to deteriorate and they don't maintain them. It's interesting that the two buildings they're calling out that they're modeling this development after or buildings that were saved through adaptive reuse on the St. Rose School and it's the same thing actually with the museum. It was the old post office. It almost got destroyed and it was moved over to our neighborhood and used as a different facility so that it could continue to exist for future generations. Thank you. That's all the cards I have on this item but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak. If anybody else would like to speak I'd ask you to approach one of the podiums and begin by stating your name please. There's a button here somewhere to lower these. There is, yeah, there you go. My name is Johanna James. I'm a long time resident of Santa Rosa about 40 years now. Formerly homeless person and now very blessed with a home. I certainly applaud the preservation of historic districts. I think it really needs to be recognized in this case though that we're looking at finding a balance between the highest and best use of a city block for the benefit of the larger community. It's almost an accidental extension of this particular district which is bounded on two sides by parking garages and on a third side by a freeway sound wall. And I certainly understand the desire not to encroach on the sanctity of historic districts but I think in this case it would be indeed the most appropriate and best thing to do. Thank you. Thank you. And ma'am. Hi, my name is Carol Vellutini. Can you hear me? I guess you can. Yes. I have an Italian heritage and I watched as a child my dad coming down on a buckboard and shopping at an Italian market that was destroyed by Highway 101. And then we have our beautiful historic Gray Road Square that people love to come to. And I'm worried that this huge prison looking building doesn't belong in a historic district. I can't see what the justification is for it. Also, I am aware that maintenance is a huge problem and so I'm hoping that if Burbank does build this it will be maintained and not just left in disrepair as other historic buildings have been. And I congratulate Burbank for trying to and Catholic Charities for trying to do housing for shelters, for people that need to come off the streets. But is this an answer to keep building these tall tall buildings with no, absolutely no respect for the neighbors nearby. Thank you. Thank you. And sir. Good evening everyone. My name is Steven Schaber and I'm an Episcopal priest and serve as rector of the Church of the Incarnation which is the 146 year old Redwood Church on the corner of Mendocino at 10th Street. We are a three block walk from the Catholic Charity site and we are a downtown church and people who experience homelessness are among our regular worshipers and they are our guests every Sunday morning at our open table breakfast program. Our church was also the birthplace and the long time home of the living room, the day center for homeless women and children. So we have a deep faith based value around supporting people who are homeless and helping them move into more stable housing situations and that's why I'm excited about Caritas Village. This is a project that directly addresses our city's critical need for housing and especially for affordable housing and it also better meets the needs of the staff at Catholic Charities to do the essential work that they provide. Now because we are a historic beautiful downtown church I also care a lot about the fabric of our downtown neighborhood and I believe this project will enhance it. It is in a historic district but if you walk the block you'll see that it takes a site that has grown tired and dilapidated and reworks it in a way that is sensitive and appropriate to its surroundings. This design is a clear improvement over the block as it is now in terms of both safety and attractiveness. I think enhancing Catholic Charity's ability to do their work, to serve those who need it and increasing the availability of housing in our community is the right thing to do and I hope you'll join me in supporting this project. Thank you. Good evening, my name is Benjamin Leroy and I'm the Special Population Programs Director at Santa Rosa Community Health. Santa Rosa Community Health is an organization that provides primary medical care and integrated behavioral health services to more than 40,000 low income residents each year, mostly people living right here in the city of Santa Rosa and certainly including people who are experiencing homelessness. We work very, very closely with Catholic Charities programs to best serve our mutual clients. This site here has a long, long history providing valuable community resources, first as a hospital and more recently with Catholic Charities providing shelter, drop-in services, navigation services and housing, rapid rehousing services. I've been a frequent visitor to that building for meetings and I can say from my own personal experience the building has definitely outlived its useful life. I want to applaud Catholic Charities. I think they have absolutely maximized all the services that they can functionally provide in the current setting but I completely also agree with them that it is now time to reimagine how this block can continue to contribute positively to people's lives, to the neighborhood and to the whole community. Within the field of homeless services, co-locating multidisciplinary services in one convenient location is a national best practice and to co-locate these homeless services with permanent supportive housing for the formerly homeless and affordable housing for those on the verge of becoming homeless is something that we're seeing in communities all across the country. And I'm very, very excited by this plan to potentially bring that national model here to Santa Rosa. The current facility right now does not, for example, meet the needs to have a recuperative care program such as Nightingale and I know that as part of the plan that is for the Caritas Center as well as bringing in medical services that Santa Rosa Community Health would like to be able to bring in to co-locate with this population. Thank you very much. Thank you. My name is Chuck Fernandez and I'm the Chief Executive Officer for COTS Committee on the Shelter List. 10 years ago I started my career in social services with Catholic Charities and actually as the shelter manager in the Family Support Center. It was my introduction to homelessness. I had the good fortune of seeing all the transformative work that Catholic Charities had done at the Family Support Center. How moms and dads were getting jobs, finding homes. How the kids were participating in a homework club and reading classes. And how parents were taking parenting classes and becoming role models for their children. We also did this in less than ideal conditions. A lot of cramped spaces, converted rooms. The heating system was broken. It was also always cold during the winter. And the bathrooms always seemed to be out of order. In that process I learned several things. That nothing is more disruptive to a child's life and more predictive of adult troubles than homelessness. In my role at COTS as Chief Executive Officer I've learned that few things are more damaging to the human spirit. More harmful to an entire community than for any person of any age experiencing homelessness. And so COTS is very supportive of the Kharitas Village and we're excited for this oasis to be a place of love and hope and dignity. When those experiencing homelessness thrives then the entire community thrives. So thank you. Thank you. Yes ma'am. My name is Cher NS. I live in the West End Historic District and I find myself in a very interesting position because I just recently deconstructed a historic building that had fallen into such disrepair before I purchased the property that it just simply could not be restored. But I did deconstruct it and I saved every single board and I'm reusing every single board. And it strikes me that this is probably inevitable that we're gonna have the Kharitas Village. But why is it that we're not going to require that those contributors at minimum be moved to other properties? I think at a minimum Catholic Charities should have the wherewithal if they're gonna put this sort of a project together to make sure that those historic structures do get salvaged, do get reused, and do continue to contribute to the historic nature of the Santa Rosa area. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not seeing anybody else approach the podium. And so I am going to close the public comment for this and let's take a five minute break and resume the meeting at the end of that five minutes. All right, let's generally gather back. No huge rush, but in maybe 60 seconds we'll get started again. Oh my God. Okay, thanks everybody. So Chair Kincaid, I think we should just go board by board and any lingering questions that arose based on public comments or anybody has could maybe take around giving everybody an opportunity to ask any of those last questions. And then once that is over with for the board to make concept comments on the project. So if you'd like to take it for the DRB, Chair Kincaid. Thank you, Chair Edmondson. So questions that arose after public comment and any other questions that may have come up, Drew. So I get the hot seat. Nice. So I have a couple of questions for the applicant. Do we wanna do quick, did I hear that right? We're gonna do questions then comments. Yeah, we're gonna do questions both boards and then we'll circle back and do comments there. Okay, so this is a question I had about the design and I just got my head scratching on it. And so if you look at the, it's about the homes portion of the project. Drew, I'm gonna pause you real quick because we lost the architect and he's making his way back down. So this is probably the question. He doesn't have to answer it. This is not important. No. So with regard to the, I'm wondering if there's a code prohibitive element, I guess. So what I was looking at in, it's with regards to the kind of the two staircases that come off the muse, right? So that you're coming up to the podium from the staircases. What got my head scratching is so I like the idea of the public LA or muse or whatever you wanna call it. But to me, it feels somewhat disconnected from the courtyards that are placed at a different level. So is there a code thing that's caught that is prohibitive to connecting the podium level of both buildings together? Or yeah, like could you put a whole podium of everything and put the muse at level two? Well, these two phases will be built at different times, obviously, and we're not sure when phase two will get built. Once the Carrotas Center is built, then the old hospital building that they've been trying to use for this many years will then get torn down and then that's when the second phase could be built. So it's really a logistical thing and the way that muse functions and the fact that each building is its own thing related to phasing. That's part of it. And then the other part is that, let's say it is five years down the road from now that the second phase gets built, it may be a somewhat different program, different demographic of folks who need the housing and it may not necessarily connect across, but certainly they could share the muse below. Yeah, so that's basically why this. We're also, the fire marshal will be using that muse to pull hose to fight the fire. Yeah, I saw that. You had a diagram for fire coverage. In addition to both, in addition to also the street, essentially, that you're creating between the center and the homes, it's all tied into the same fire protection strategy. Right, cool. And then I guess this is maybe a question to Catholic Charities or to Burbank. So it's kind of maybe a two-part question. So what's the running rate, the going rate to move a home right now, kind of part one, right? And if it's $50,000, $100,000, whatever, is the other wrinkle to moving a home also finding a suitable piece of land that doesn't exist part of that kind of equation, right? I mean, Tina, do you want to answer that or? I'll try, but I might need some help from our team. We did explore a number, you know, as is customary, every project goes through quite a bit of evolution and change, and we did explore those possibilities that you're correct, Board Member Weigel, we do need a place to move the structures too. We don't have enough of those. It is also very expensive and our structural engineer, MKM, will point to that some of the structures were not suitable candidates for relocation because of their particular architectural style or damage that has historically occurred. Okay, yeah, that pretty much answers my question, right? I mean, there's a cost to move the building, and then there's a land acquisition cost on the back end to put said building that you're moving to, and then in addition to that, you have a structural engineer that may or may not permit the building to be moved because it could essentially, once you start taking it apart or you pick it up or whatever the means may be, it could be structurally infeasible to do that, pretty much, and so I'm just trying to answer a question in my own head about the seven properties that are contributing. Actually, there's technically eight, including the hospital, but that's an standpoint. That's correct, and another issue is if you can find a parcel that's a potential relocation site, does the structure you want to move to the parcel fit with meaning all the setbacks and the like, and setbacks, easements, et cetera, et cetera. Right, Ms. Ballard, who worked with Mr. Payatak, actually had the pleasure of evaluating several of those situations, so it's a wonderful concept, but when you really drill down and start to apply it, it can become challenging, and you have to overcome all of the regulatory restrictions, you have to have a suitable structure, you have to overcome the regulatory restrictions, and you have to be able to afford it. Right, okay, thank you very much. Those are my questions. Eric, any further questions? Just one, so, and it came from your answer just before, so it sounds like this project is gonna go in phases, and obviously due to funding, so what's the estimated timeline for which phase for this entire project? Well, time-wise, as soon as all the approval process is completed, we go into construction documents, and then construction, 18 months. 18 months itself, but when it will actually start, it depends on when the full entitlements are completed. Did we have, Teresa, did we have a sense of one that construction could potentially start on the Caritas Center? Bird? Why am I? I guess more specifically, is it the Caritas Center, and then you had mentioned something about five years later for the homes? No, the homes, the first phase of the homes would come sooner as well, because once the entitlements are granted and the site can be cleared, it's just a matter of them, Burbank getting the financing for it. It's been our experience, projects like this could take anywhere from three to five years, depending on the speed at which funds can be cobbled together because they come from many different sources for affordable housing. It may go more expeditiously, I'm looking at Mark from Burbank. Yeah, actually, let me, yeah, okay. Rather than you guys try to struggle pretty much. All right, this is Larry Florin, the CEO and president of Burbank Housing. So we were very fortunate to be able to apply and receive funding under the states no place like home funding, which was a one-time funding specifically for this population. So that was a large chunk of the funding that we would need. We still have other funding that we need in order to supplement that. That's really what drives our business, is the ability to be able to secure public financing to be able to underwrite these projects. As of right now, we would look to start to construction in about 12 months if we were able to secure all the entitlements and all the funding to get into place. And that would be for the home section first? That would be for the first section of the first 64 homes that we're talking about in the phase one. And then the Caritas Center would be after that? No, the Caritas Center would likely be on the same timeframe and the financing streams are a little bit different, but potentially that could be late 2020 or early 2021. And so the two would be going in parallel. It's phase two of the housing, which is down the road. We have to finish Caritas Center to be able to have the access to that property. All right, thank you. That helps clarify. That was my other question. Thank you. Henry, any further questions? Yeah, it's probably for staff. I heard one of the public speakers mentioned landmark in context of these homes that are in question. Are any of them of landmark status or are they just contributing status, contributor status or are they non-contributor status? I think that's what the three categories looking through the historic district design review guidelines. The structures that are remaining on Morgan Street are listed as contributors in the St. Rose Historic District, not as landmarks. So the EIR really bears out whether and what the significance of those contributors are and what mitigations should or shouldn't be done with those homes. Yes, there'd be a cultural section that would go into great detail on each of the structures and how significant they are and would offer potential mitigation, if any, for those structures. Okay, so we're not taking any action tonight. We're just giving you advice or our opinions about the design being brought before us. You're gonna later on determine specific land use. And the EIR, if it comes back and says somebody significant lived in one of those homes or one of the contributors was of a status that they would recommend it not be torn down, that would bear out in the EIR process. Is that a fair assessment of that? What I'm worried about is if that bears out and comes back and we've giving you our thoughts on it and phase one can't happen because those buildings need to stay there. It just seems a little bit, maybe the cart before the horse in some ways. The only thing that I could speak to at this moment is that each of those dwellings would be, each of those structures would be evaluated as to their historic significance and recommendations would be made in the EIR and we don't know what those are right now. I think another way to look at this is you kind of have a two track process. We're taking comments from both boards tonight. We will pass those forward to the consultants. There is, as Ms. Tumien has mentioned, a complete section within the environmental impact report on cultural historical resources. These items will be evaluated. If mitigations are necessary, they will be identified. There's a public process to that planning commission ultimately City Council. So the City Council is the review authority on the EIR with the comments given by the boards taken into consideration. Thanks, Henry. Adam. No questions at this time. Or? No questions at this time. No questions at this time. And I have no questions at this time. So I'll turn it back over to you, Chair Edmondson. Thanks, Chair Fincaid. I just want to continue on just a little bit. I apologize, but the environmental document is a public discussion of the potential impacts that the legislature has set forth as the categories of impacts that it looks like, that it looks at in connection with projects. It evaluates those impacts and then what the City Council does is it certifies the thoroughness or the appropriate that the environmental document treats those, treats the evidence properly. And if there's a significant but unavoidable impact, it is required that the City makes finding that that's the case. And then if there are significant impacts that could be mitigated to a point of less than significance, then the EIR would describe what it considers the mitigation measures that would take it down below that level of significance for sequel purposes. But that determination is not the same thing as the landmark alteration permit, which is an affirmative action of the granting of an entitlement. So the environmental document would constitute a legal determination by the City that were a permit to be granted under certain conditions or circumstances or with certain features that it would be lawful under CEQA to do so. But the granting of the permit is a discretionary action that the City takes under the law as provided in the zoning code. If that made any sense, please let me know. It did make sense, but if I may, I'll just recite a section in the zoning code that might just further clarify that. So this is under the major landmark alteration permit section within the zoning code. The CHB shall schedule a hearing or on an application for a major landmark alteration permit after the completion of the environmental determination on the proposed project or the certification of an environmental impact report. So it's back to that two-step process that I mentioned. The EIR gets certified. The environmental clearance is granted. It can take a number of different forms in terms of how the mitigations are formulated. And then the Cultural Heritage Board will take action, review, take action on the landmark alteration permit. The Cultural Heritage Board can approve that under the Environmental Impact Report. The Cultural Heritage Board could deny that project. So you can have a certified EIR and you can deny an entitlement. And then that action can be appealed. And just the same, whether it's an approval or denial, that can be appealed. The appeal authority would be the city council. Right, that's exactly my understanding of it. And thanks for walking me through that discussion. I don't have any other questions for staff of the applicant at this time. Board Member McHugh, any additional questions? And we'll make a round of comments, of course, after we're done with questions. I have no additional questions. Board Member Muser. No additional questions. And Board Member Gronigas. Getting back to the EIR part of this process. Again, taking a look at the possibility of demolishing and or moving contributors. Through the EIR process, does the EIR, I'm trying to recall on this, take a look at the various options that are open to the developer in a project like this. And what I'm getting to is one option would be to demolish and do nothing. Second option may be to acquire and demolish. Move contributors. What I'm drifting towards to Catholic Charities in your previous comments, I guess, is do we need, in essence, what would be called a fatal flaw analysis on this portion in terms of what to do with contributors in this location? And would that be done through the EIR process? Are you referring to, does the Board need to identify that at this point, or is that something that comes about through the EIR process? Well, at the moment as I'm working myself through this, is that I could see that happening through the EIR process, through the questions that the developer, the city, so on, are asked through that process. And it would then give you an array of possibilities and what the obstacles may be to each option that may be discovered. That's what I'm looking at. So as staff mentioned earlier, we're in the environmental impact review analysis. It's being undertaken right now. Because we don't have a public draft, I want to refrain from getting to any specific analysis or conclusions that are being drawn about that. That draft will be released shortly, and everyone in the public can comment on that. But so I want to step back and just say in a general sense, the way the environmental impact report process works is that the analysis is done, and when you have a potentially significant impact to an environmental resource. And in this case, cultural resources, historic resources are considered environmental resources. So then you analyze for what you can do to lessen that impact to a degree of less than significant. And there can be any number of ways that that happens. And so, hopefully that answers your question. I think we'll get into the same point down the road. Okay, thank you. Chair Kimcaid, would you ask the designer of your board for its comments, concept of the project? I certainly will. All right, now we are on to comments. So Drew, take us away. Thank you, Chair Kimcaid. First and foremost, I want to thank the applicant team for putting together a really comprehensive package. I think we as a board, design review board, when we have packages like this that are chalk full of information, gives us a lot to react to and comment on. So I want to thank you for really putting together a top notch package for us to look at. Secondly, since I'm going first, I kind of want to mention this. And it's something that I've been thinking about and it's a combination of, I think, what we heard from the public and I think what I'm kind of feeling personally. We had a project two weeks ago, actually, at a joint meeting in a very similar location to this with similar constraints, with similar kind of overlays related to both the St. Rose Historic District, the Courthouse Square area that overlays on top of it. There are a lot of different considerations for this project. But I think basically, to me, the kind of meat and potatoes of this project from a discussion standpoint are kind of two sides to the same coin in many ways. One side being that we need to preserve our historic resources as required in the zoning code and kind of all of these elements. And the other side is that we have a mandate from City Council to provide housing. And that's a, we have an emergency crisis related to housing. And so how do we discuss this property in an intelligent way about how to kind of serve two masters in a way. And unfortunately, I don't think there's a way that you can serve both of those masters for this type of project. The Design Review Board really doesn't have purview over the demolition of historic resources. We can certainly comment on them. We can comment on the adjacency to other buildings, but that's not in our purview. I'm curious about it. That's why I've asked certain questions about relocating and things like that. What our purview is and hopefully what the Board will react to is the project placed before us and its design elements as it relates to the adjacent historic neighborhood. So that's what I'm going to try to address in my comments. So it's a precarious situation in many ways because of the, those kind of two sides to this project. One is, do we wanna save all the homes that are there? And the other one is we need to build lots of housing because we've got a shortage. So I just, so at first I thought I'd hopefully outline that. I hope I'm not the only one feeling that way about this particular project. So one other thing I think to kind of, to think about in terms of that also is it's, we're talking about seven residential properties which can house maybe 10 families. There's an apartment building, a couple of single family homes and a hospital or what used to be a hospital, right? That appears to be near its end of its life. We're talking about a project that's going to house how many hundreds of people and service thousands more. So that, I think that's just something for consideration. I don't have an opinion one way or the other at the moment, but I think that's just something for consideration for everybody to think about. Now onto the building as it stands. So in the historic guidelines, in the design review guidelines, there's a specific section on historic districts. And I wanna read this because it's something I mentioned two weeks ago. I think it's very important for those that both live in the historic district, those who don't and they don't, and of course it credit out on me. So let me give it a moment to load. Apologize. Where did it go? What the heck? Okay, sorry. So in our design guidelines, in 4.7 historic properties and districts, way down on page 4.7-6, section G states new construction, item number one, design new construction so that the architectural character of the neighborhood is maintained. However, underneath that it states, specific architectural styles are not mandated. Designs for new construction can also be contemporary. So then the second piece is design new construction to be compatible in height and proportion with adjacent structures. And the third item is use materials and designs similar to that found throughout the neighborhood. So through those three items, that's kind of how I look at this project through those lenses, because those are the guidelines given to us through the City of Santa Rosa's design guidelines. Then of course there are all our myriad of other design guidelines. But for me, I think you have two choices with a project like this. Choice one is to go big or go home and design it all to match together, or kind of do what you did and kind of blend it across the property. I'm not sure the second choice is as strong of a statement design-wise as the first one is. So that being said, the design of the Caritas Center, I think is very intriguing from an architectural standpoint. It's a modern design, it's unique, it's got lots of character variation in height, massing, shade. It's programmatically full of a lot of stuff. And so for me, I would prefer that the character of this building is carried through the entire project. And so, and the reason I say that is because specifically the two-story elements that are located on the north of the building, to me they feel imitation of the adjacent historic properties. And in the Department of, or the Secretary of the Interior's Historic Preservation Standards that very specifically says, do not imitate historic structures. And so that feels very, to me, to be a copycat in many ways. And so I'm less inclined to like that sort of transition. I think perhaps the height transition is a good choice there, but I don't know about the materiality and the architectural styling. So, and then finally on the Caritas Center, I'm a big proponent of, we have a design guideline for four-sided architecture. And to me, the southeast and west have a lot going on there. They're very well thought out. There's a lot happening in terms of window placement materials, solar shading, glazing, how you're addressing the transition from the ground floor to the upper floors. And then I move to the north elevation and it's not as architecturally rich as the other three elevations. So I would encourage the architect to explore how to bring elements from the other three elevations to the north elevation. With regard to the homes component, again, the architecture of the homes is not as interesting as that of the center. To me, it's very repetitive and it's very bland, particularly because it's almost all the same materials with regard to the south elevation, the north elevation being the north and east and west being the exception with the introduction of the two-story elements. So then the north, sorry, the north side, as I've stated, has zero context to how it relates to the other side of the property with the center. It seems very disparate to me and like they don't belong together, which I'm having trouble reading the property together in that regard. And finally, the homes component, the east and west elevations appear to me to be overly busy with architectural elements that are not present on the Caritas center building. So the brackets and the towers that Henry alluded to, I don't understand from an architectural standpoint why they're there other than as a kind of fluff piece, I think in many ways. I understand wanting to define corners and things like that, but to me, there's almost enough space there to add more units. And I don't know if it would be beneficial to add more units to this type of project. If the Cultural Heritage Board is willing to grant you additional height, why not take advantage of that and add more units and house more people? Okay, sorry. And then the project we saw two weeks ago, I think fundamentally different about this particular project in regards to that project is if you guys develop the entire block that this is located on, it almost disconnects itself from the historic district in a way because there are no longer things adjacent to it in many senses. You'll still have the items to the north, but you don't have historic district anymore east, west, or south. You're dealing with a large parking garage and you're dealing with the highway. So how do you tie that all together? And I think you maybe almost depart from it like you have in the Caritas Center, but you haven't done in the homes, if that makes sense at all. So those are my general comments about the overall building. I really like the site plan. My question about the Muse, I would have preferred it to be on the second level, but I totally understand the issues with the phasing. So I'm wondering if a bridge makes more sense maybe instead of the staircases? I don't know. So because you talked about security and safety for the residents, so does a bridge make more sense or do the stairs make more sense? I'm okay either way. I'm just curious how that would interrelate as folks interact with the building, entering that Muse and utilizing that space and then also moving up into the homes. I'm okay with the parking reduction. I think it's gonna be a challenge to the neighborhood for parking. I think we always hear that from a lot of folks when projects have parking reductions, but one thing I didn't see on here was a parking count and I'm assuming parking was a concession potentially for affordable housing as part of the project. Okay, so that's just, it is kinda is what it is. And then finally, there was one other thing I noted here, I apologize. To find where I put it. I think the only, my only final comment would be to echo Adam's comments as well about kind of the inward facing versus outward facing. I'm curious how both the homes and the center could be more interactive to the street from that standpoint because this is going to be a place where people come to. This is gonna be a place where families are gonna be and I understand the security aspects. I've seen many a supportive housing project and an affordable housing project in other big cities and they're very inward focused, but they also have components that are very outward focused. I went to a project in New York two years ago at a conference and the project had this beautiful kind of garden in the back that was very interrelated to how people interacted outside of the building but then also on the street sides, they were very kind of, hey, this is the street kind of bit. I'm curious how that all interplays here with kind of the uniqueness of A Street and Sixth Street. I guess that's how I would put that. So those are my comments. Thank you for again very much. Great project. I'm looking forward to seeing this move forward. It is certainly very unique in our city and I'm looking forward to seeing where this goes. Thank you. Thank you, Drew. Eric, comments. I want to thank you for working on the project for as many years as everybody's been working on both from the funding and the development side of it. I think we're all in agreement that there's a desperate need for a project like this. I want to compliment you on the thoughtfulness of all the different services that are there and to be provided all in one center. The homes, the navigation center, emergency shelter, affordable housing for longer term. So I do want to compliment you on that. There are some components that I think are essential and I would not have you deviate from that because it minimizes the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. That is the earlier question about personal storage for some of the clients, bike racks. And again, it prevents the impact on the neighborhood by people abandoning shopping carts and bicycles and trailers in the immediate neighborhood. So I appreciate the thoughtfulness into having that space set out for that. And I would recommend you don't deviate from minimizing that. I think parking is a concern. I've heard many times from homeless advocates that cars become the storage unit for those that don't have housing. And I think there will be an impact on the neighborhood in regards to having a lower parking count. But again, I think that's a work in progress. I think the design of the building and both the homes and the service center does not compliment or match the historic district that it's in, but at the same time, neither does the Santa Rosa Plaza or the parking garage. So it's difficult to kind of echo what Drew was saying. It would be tough to have that blend. And I think really the ultimate decision maker is gonna be Planning Commission City Council in regards to the impact. And whether or not we're gonna have a preservation of the historic district or progress to improve our community. I don't see how we can accomplish both here. I also agree with Drew, the house, the home section looks slightly institutional to me. There's not a lot of, it's bland, it's a little institutional, but it is certainly an improvement over the current condition of that project site. So I heard that earlier from the public comment that that resonated with me is that area needs improvement no matter what, whether we go towards a historical style or a new style. And the other thing that I think could use some improvement that would be easy to do would be the color palette. I'm not sure where the color purple came from or if that's a branding color with Catholic Charities. I just don't think it fits that neighborhood whether it's a new style or historic style. So I would encourage you to re-examine the color palette for the exterior of the buildings and maybe something. I like some of those earth tones, but maybe I'm not so sure purple is an earth throne and maybe changing, looking at changing that accent color. But again, I really appreciate the project, the scope, the size, the services. And I think ultimately it's gonna be up to city council and the planning commission regards to whether or not this is the appropriate location for this project and the loss of the historic, portion of the historic district in order for this project to move forward. So those are my comments. Thank you, Eric. Henry, comments? Very nicely done project. And I think that I'm gonna agree with some of my fellow board members that went before me. I particularly like the center's architectural style, its playfulness. I would support it moving to the housing element as well. I think it's, since you're doing a full block, there's some merit to integrating the entire block together. Kind of as you brought it before us, we're looking at two projects tonight. We're looking at the center and then we're looking at two housing elements. And I can really appreciate, I didn't get to see the first version of the concept as it came before the board in April, but I can imagine between then and now you have had other meetings with the neighborhoods. You've had other meetings with other groups and maybe the two-story elements that front along 7th Street were derived by some compromising bringing that elevation down to two stories and as it abuts the homes to the north, I can appreciate the different and the change in the style using the mission style of roofing as it relates to the St. Rose School and the museum. I can see that kind of translate, but I'm okay with letting those buildings stand by themselves as they are and moving forward with a new style of architecture. So I would encourage the playfulness, I'll just call it the playfulness of the center. I think the vertical elements that you use that you're growing vines on on the, I guess it would be the south elevation and the screening elements. And I hate to do foe for the sake of having it add an element. Those shading elements, when you put them on the north elevation, they don't make a whole lot of sense and they're not doing anything other than breaking up the visual architecture. But I think Drew's right. I think some of the interior elevations on both buildings are just kind of plain and fall flat a little bit. And I'm gonna couch that because this isn't high-end housing. This isn't something where budget should not be ignored. And I understand the challenges of developing affordable housing and transitional housing. And I'm 100% in support of this project in case I didn't say that earlier on. I hate it when you have to read a full contract and all you're really wanting to do is get to the end of the last page and see what the number is. But I'm gonna support this project. I hope you bring back some of the things that I'm talking about changing what my other fellow board members, I'm sure there's gonna be some more opinion coming before you. But I think if we blend all those comments together, I think this project will satisfy a huge need in downtown Santa Rosa. And I think it's in the perfect spot. I appreciate the four-sided architecture of it as a block but I'd like to see it have some of that character of the center's building. I'm okay with dropping those towers down. The secondary ones, I like the primary towers with some of the articulation at the top. But the towers that just have a transitional change in material, I don't think that's a very effective solution. And if you drop those it may help our other board members with the height restrictions. Bear with me, two seconds here. 40 pages in your project and the supplemental information. It's a big project to look at. And thank you very much for doing a key plan because I'd be lost in some of these elevations. And that's really it. Some of the interior elevations on the residential, the village portion, just make them stronger. Bring them back stronger. I'm okay with purple. I don't mean to. I think a strong color statement is fine. Maybe purple isn't the right color but I think strong statements in the contemporary form that the center has I think is appropriate. Generally I like the color palette of that building. I think you've made too big a gesture or maybe it's a nice gesture and I should back away from the housing being a little more bland in its color palette having the tile roof. I think it's a really nice gesture you've done whether I would not vote for it because it's too suggestive of being traditional. Couldn't say but I would encourage you heading down the directions as you're heading with the project. Site planning's perfect. It feels like the right appropriate amount of cars being parked on site. The heights, I think the center could be taller. I heard you speak to it's a matter of funding but if one of the buildings could go even taller than it is now it would be the center to go from three to four to five stories especially when it's a budding, not one of our stronger architectural elements in downtown Santa Rosa though. The two parking garages or the on ramp to the one-on-ones not exactly attractive either so I think those are my comments for now. Good luck with the project and I hope you bring it back soon and get through your IEIR issues. Thanks Henry. Adam. Great, thank you and yeah thanks very much for again for a lovely package that you brought us and it's very well thought out and very thorough and I agree with a lot of what my preceding members have talked about and especially with Drew talking referencing that you guys are serving multiple masters and we're also serving multiple masters too here especially with the purview of the specifically design review board but we have thoughts and opinions but we're mandated to really look at the design. I think it is a great location for the project and the great project you have here. I think it's an incredible need. I love that you have been addressing and you are addressing both critical immediate needs and then long-term housing needs as well. The populations that you're gonna be serving and that you are serving is there is need and you guys are doing a great job for it. I think it's also a really good location for it too. You're right in the spot where you need to be as it is now and continuing to be there in the future. It is tricky being in that the historic neighborhood and I think Drew was right on talking about you don't wanna be in the mindset to mimic what's there. You wanna reference that's one method and another method is that to make that bold gesture and I think that you're almost there with that and I think that some of the other members are talking about it there. What I see on the site is something that is lacking is the cohesive nature of it and it was my question before about the entrances and those critical corners that you talked about and you also really talk about OACs because you're providing safety and security while also providing services as well and I think that those ideas can be referenced more. And it creates this interesting philosophical dilemma for you because you're trying to be part of a neighborhood while you're also being separate from the neighborhood. You wanna be safe and secure while also be open to the community that you're in, both the community members that you're serving but then also your neighbors too. And I know that you're thinking about that but I think that there can be still just another iteration more thinking about that of how to actually to provide to be this island within this neighborhood. That it's a safe, secure island. And I think that with talking about those critical corners but I don't see the necessary reference on the site plan really thinking about how these threads can be drawn to the neighborhood, to the site itself. With this site plan, you've got the two project components and they're separated by the parking and sort of this moat that's there. You're referencing the Muse and the alleyway that was on the site but I don't see that connection being run all the way through the site. I'd really like to see the homes and the center being connected somehow. An expression of that is that you've got the, the three components that you talked about, the singles, the shared services and the family. So when you're on the center there really what you're focusing on with those three entrances that's there. I don't see that necessarily being connected to the Caritas homes. And so I'd wanna see a way to actually thinking about how you've got families in the homes and how you can actually draw say the children and the families to the family center on the other side of the parking that's there. To continue that Muse, to continue the connection. I know you wanna have services and then residents but I feel like there needs to be some cohesion in there as well that can be through. And I don't necessarily have an answer for you if this is where I think the iterations have to come from. But the connections that you've got, you're referencing here with the vine and the shade structures. You'd have something like that that's going across the parking area. It could be even be a paving treatment. It's something to actually connect the two. Because you are gonna, another criticism and it's a really tricky thing. You're maximizing the space on the site but the two couriers that you have are definitely adult focused of ways where you can, you're gonna have families that are there. You can have either some amenity for children in the northern part of the site or how you bring them over to that playground area. These are the kind of threads where I think that it would be worthwhile to sort of knit everything together. I think that can also go with the cohesion of the architectural elements, specifically the exterior architectural elements. You've got the Caritas Center, which is pretty built out and has a lot of the ornamentation on there. But on the homes, you have these larger swaths of the sort of beige paneling that's there. I'd like to have some of the liveliness that's on the center be expressed on the homes as well. I like the color palette. I think it's a nice touch. I think it's a way that you're kind of, that's a way that you're referencing the neighborhood, some of the colors in the neighborhood, while also bringing in some new elements as well. I especially like this screening thought that you're giving with trying to, I know that you're having this taller structure but you're also really trying to think about softening it with the exterior trellis elements and growing things up. I really like that you're referencing that to have as much vegetation as possible. I think it's a way to both, to knit into the neighborhood, but while also having your own identity within there too. As far as the muse and the courtyards for your next iteration and when it comes back, I'd like to see some more, and the architectural renderings and sections you've got, they're sort of blank at this point for the exterior of the buildings, the inner courtyard spaces. I'd like to see some more fleshed out sections or perspectives of what the muse is gonna look like, what the courtyards are gonna be there, what are some of the specific amenities that are gonna be in that spot. And continuing with what I mentioned before about having those threads, the knitting together of the site. So yeah, fleshing those out a bit more. Again, I think you're getting there and this will come with the next iteration. And with that, the plant pallets, and they do call it the candidate plant pallet, which the candidate, or planting candidate list, it's a pretty diverse, extensive list. And definitely could do with some trimming and some editing and some thinking of, again, that cohesion and so. And I know that that will come in the next iteration, but I definitely think that really trying to make what you're working on as this really distinct whole will be really interesting and I think will, is an opportunity to alleviate some of the concerns that the community members have and the neighbors have. And it's an interesting opportunity and is one that is, I'm kind of jealous of that you get to think about and work on that, but also it's a really daunting proposition as well. And so I know that you're on your way. And those are my comments for now. Thank you. Thank you, Adam. Warren, comments. Thank you. Firstly, I was previously participating with this project when it first came up and it's had a very strong origin. I know that there are issues with fire access, there's issues with openness. I actually find the homes building quite animated on the ground level with how it's facing east, south, north and west. If you look at it carefully, the entire ground floor because of wrapping the garage is animated. It's maximum with glass. It has gracious entries, stairs leading up to the courtyards. I have this comment in general that I personally, this is maybe an independent thought, like the difference of the actual transitional housing and the north building. I have comments about the north building, but for the transitional, I think the purpley gray color is fine with me. It's not that purple, but it's intended to be both lively and sparkly at the same time. I don't really feel it needs any change architecturally. I think its purpose is to provide transitional housing. It's very close to the rather sterile Macy's at the very tip of a historic district, but you've really taken a landscape leap, a huge one in this whole process. The building has become animated with landscaping since you had Quadriga in the picture. And it's a very telling thing that you're climbing, you're a boreal, as well as horizontal. There's a lot going on. So I really have no improvements. I think are necessary. A lot was put into that building. And I know that between night lighting and all that, that's a whole nother issue, but it needs to be illuminated. The comments about the home side, as far as turning into itself, if I lived here, the freeway is no friend. And I would not want to see openings or sonic slots through the freeway side of the building into that courtyard. I would think it'd be a mistake. To some degree, the same thing is true on A Street. I had a son that lived on A Street for a while. And it's a, I'll use the word at this point. It's a historic district. There's a lot of people transitionly going through there. When you're looking at permanent housing, the whole concept of the courtyard and people being able to relate and create memories as all phases are executed is intended in that. If it's a concrete deck, that's pretty expensive. You've got trees there. You may be able to do it wood frame or CLTs. But I very much like the idea that in an urban setting, you guys are pioneers in trying to get people to stay downtown in a courtyard. And I know that the housing is subsidized, but I feel that that in itself is an important experiment and one that has strong roots. So I don't personally see any need to modify. I know the muse, there's a fire issue. If you bridge across the muse, there's a potential fire truck issue. You have the two centers separating themselves to Adam's point, as far as some trellising, you can't trellis all the way across because that's a fire line. There's a consideration of trellising. I wanted to speak to the homes and between the hip roofs and the larger building. It's kind of a wrestling match between the two elements. But one of the things I want to talk about about craft and material is fired quarry is a beautiful thing. On MacDonald Avenue, there's a beautiful kind of a Art Deco house that has, it's an off-white, but it has a tile affinity between the windows. You guys probably know the one I'm talking about. But using the Italians in contemporary architecture use fired plank quarry on a vertical, on a horizontal, and that warmth juxtaposed to stucco is wonderful. I was thinking about all the framing costs of hip roofs and how I know that there's been some comment that the structures that are hip to kind of nudge in, bump into the larger structure. I'll never be on this board wanting to discourage density. That there's a mass to this building and is it softened successfully with hip roofs? Or my particular thought here, it's just an idea, is that there are huge arrays of plaster and perhaps more than color. I know it's kind of a strange comparative, but I'll go with me, don't throw anything at me when I say this, it's a completely different building and I don't mean to have this be anything other than a comment that happened on the board some years ago. We had a large retail building that came before us, circa 2013 maybe, and it was in Coddingtown. It was gonna be this giant stucco building and we were talking about various materials and what happened to it is it grew in its softness because it wasn't 100% stucco, it had a lot of fired brick. And so when you drive down the freeway, it's dicks pouring and again, it's not meant don't sour yourself by me comparing the two. But what happened to the eye was the whole building shifted. I could think of 40% of this entire home's building being some beautiful fired, it doesn't have to come from Italy, maybe it's local, but the tone of a material besides stucco that has warmth that could go in the building, maybe it's less costly than chasing all the hip roofs and framing and labor costs, going back to parapets, the thought is I am in some ways, I have I think some respect from fellow board members in that I'm sourcing a slightly more contemporary feeling to the north building. That tone's been voiced as an appetite. I'm here to say that I love what Q. Codding did in saving the building that was a lawsuit to slow down a competitor. There was Codding, everyone knows the big guerrilla war between Codding Town and we saved our library and that library is here and that's an important thing. So that red tone building is wonderful. Fellow board members have commented about color, we don't have to match anything in the area. I just think it would be enriching, it would be curious to not have the whole enchilada all be the same note, all a clarinet sonato. I'd like to see a different instrument played to the north just because it's too overwhelming for me to see an entire city block with the same song. I like to see a different song to the north in materiality, maybe it doesn't need the hips but something where I love what Mark was talking about his hand going up and the heart of hand. It's very compelling, Mark, to hear that and this materiality is a beautiful thing. So I'm saying this carefully because I know that there are budgets and there are costs and I'm saying it respectfully because if you look at budget and labor, it's just a thought. So I'm not saying I don't have an agenda to lower the building on there's some parapet heights, I have an agenda that the mass can stay but how you look at the materiality and execute those and what materials are brought there, can you take a journey and adventure, see where it takes you to look at that, preserving all your floor plans and just looking at that thought that maybe stucco is overwrought and something else besides stucco can carry the day maybe that the plank sighting you have there is taken out that's simulated and something is there that could be from the hand from a fired kiln or something. So again, I believe I'm consistent with the previous concept review, the whole party is wonderful. I think it has really well thought out social precepts and I stand by the architect in seeing what you've done to create the social goals. They're met on an excellent level of access, protection that's no small hat trick. How do we sleep at night feeling safe? How do we face our neighbors? Wonderfully done, those are my comments. Thank you Warren and I'll keep my comments brief because I could just reiterate quite a bit of what I just heard. I do agree that the residential portion of the project, the architecture, I wouldn't call it has fallen short. I think it's misplaced in this building. I think this building could stand alone at another location rather well and I think part of what I'd recommend when the applicant team comes back for preliminary and possibly final is that in your initial presentation, initial concept design, you brought examples of other projects that you've actually had completed. And I think that what we're kind of missing is part of, it's not coming through on paper is what you're trying to portray with this building, in my opinion. I think also doing away with whether it's the architecture and the hip roofs and that sort of thing, you're the architect, I'll let you decide if that's the direction you wanna take this building but I do think getting rid of the tile roofs would go a really long way if the architecture kinda held its day and maybe there's some materiality changes. I think that the tile roofs as a nod to what is existing in the neighborhood is fine but I just don't think it plays well enough. It almost detracts from the architecture. If you left the architecture 100% like it is, you can see standing seam, metal roof or even composite to be more like a neighborhood. The other piece that I kind of feel is missing from the home is, and I made this comment in the original concept design was that it doesn't really feel like home to me anyways. It feels very industrial, I think was one of the institutional, that was the word, institutional and hard. So, and again, realizing the constraints of construction costs is a big part of it. So again, comments, would I decline this project because it's not 100% right? Probably not. So take my comments as you will but I think you can enhance the architecture and the feel of the exterior of the residential building. You could come in here as a phased project and I probably would have said, let's give final design review for the center. The center is, I wouldn't touch a thing on the center. I think it's masterful, very well done. Those are my comments. Turn it back to you, Chair Edmondson. Okay, thank you very much. Board Member McHugh, would you like to share your comments? I'm very supportive of the project. I think it is. Chair Edmondson, if I may, for just a second, we have a microphone open over here. You got it, thank you. My turn now. I'm very supportive of the project. I think it's something that we definitely need and I am, as a member of the Cultural Heritage Board, I'm concerned about what the structure looks like from the street and how compatible it is with the district that it's in. I'm not sure that, when I look at the drawings and the pictures, I am struck by the fact that maybe there's just a little bit over-alliance on the museum and what its structure or what it looks like. I was trying to figure out a way to express that, but then Warren really did a great job of expressing it for me so I really don't have to go into that level of detail, but I think that we need to have some, the exterior of the building has to better fit into the, what the district looks like, what other contributors in the district might look like as opposed to just the museum and the St. Rose School. So I would encourage you to take another look at the design and how the building presents itself and how it sits in the district. Those are my comments. Muzer, many comments? I think the comment of two masters was appropriate and it's definitely what I'm feeling. It's a humanitarian cause. It's an admirable goal. I think it's a beautiful project. On the other side, I'm feeling my responsibility to historic neighborhoods and to the goals of preserving historic neighborhoods. Probably the comments I'd like to leave you with is, you know, this six, I think it's six or seven contributing structures that'll be demolished. If there was something you could do with that, if there was more work with the St. Rose neighbors, if there was a way to gain more support there, and you know, basically you're leveling a block and building something brand new and that's something brand new needs to fit in with the historic neighborhood. So yeah, so that's my struggle with it right now. I do think it is a beautiful project. I do think it's needed. I've lived downtown myself for over 30 years. I know what it's like living downtown, but as a board member, the Cultural Heritage Board and I think some of the comments that the neighbors made, neighbors have made investments in these neighborhoods based on it being a historic neighborhood, based on an expectation that things were going to be a certain way. And you know, we have to be respectful of those beliefs, so that's all I have. Board Member Gronigan. My comments pretty much reflect what I've asked and talked about before. Though I have to say that this project really merits further, further consideration because of its importance to the city, to that area, be it the St. Rose or just downtown, it addresses a need that need obviously as long overdue. I think the issues for, say myself as a member of the Cultural Heritage Board and probably for the Board at large, is how do you get us to yes? And that, I think we will obviously, but we're going to need as that this landmark alteration permit comes our way. At some point, we will need to address and I assume we will reflect upon the building heights as they compare to St. Rose old school portion professional office building, which is 47 feet. And then you've got a seventh street garage in the neighborhood, that's 44. I don't think at this point that it's a huge leap to go higher and yet we do need to bounce that off with the district, the historical district. Also, I think our work will be cut out for us when we do take a look at the EIR as it supports the landmark alteration permit going forward and to see if there's any options that are beneficial to at least a couple of the contributing buildings there. The questions about windows, when I keep taking a look at the St. Rose professional office building and if that is a major point for us to reflect upon as the cultural heritage board, I'd like to know more about whether those current window system in there is the original or reflects the original. I don't think they do, I could be wrong, but we need to take a look at that. This is gonna be, it is tough for probably all boards and commissions involved. It's a matter of balancing, perhaps conflicting codes, conflicting needs as well. But I would encourage you to keep pursuing and hopefully we'll see a good project here at some point. Thanks very much. Great comments from everybody. It's interesting when you have a project site that's in a historic district, but it's a peninsula and a city block unto itself where the contributor map is not evenly distributed either. It's southern part of the site that is at the far periphery of it that is not adjacent to any other historic districts and doesn't seem to, and we're gonna await the results of the city's historical survey or the look at it in the environmental documents, but a less historical part of the site and then as you progress further, you become, you transition into the single family homes and the neighborhood where you find more of the contributors and where this project has more considerations that need to be given to it for purposes of a landmark alteration permit. So it's curious that the part of the project that is more contemporary and then the comment was made quite rightly that contemporary architecture and for new construction is not prohibited in the city code in a historic preservation district, but it's a little bit less challenging to me than the northern part of it is and the institutional character, I think, is it comes across the buildings that the residential northern portion were patterned on are kind of landmark institutional buildings that have a lot of sort of community character and it's a set of contributors that are single family homes that exhibit a wide variety of architectural styles, so it's the replacement of a kind of fine grained, quirky, differentiated, clearly residential and character set of historic contributors and that's true of the block to the north as well with a new kind of institutional building but it is residential and character and therefore non-public. So it does feel like it's kind of betwixt in between and that I would prefer something along what board member Hedgepath discussed that kind of takes it from, I think, the imposing big sort of flatness and institutional character that it seems to have and toward more of the character that the southern, the center building has which is a little more decorated and playful and similar in that way to the architectural styles even though they're from different periods that you see in some of the craftsmen or the Queen Anne style single family homes. So the compatibility with the neighborhoods across 7th Street is really the issue that is of the most importance I don't have. I'm looking at the findings that I would have to make for the landmark alteration permit and I'm thinking about them in the context of the center building and I think that because it affects so little else that is within the purview of the Cultural Heritage Board because it's very isolated and on that peninsula that we have very few impacts on adjacent or neighboring structures to consider in the context of that building but when you get up to the north, I'd like to see just a more, Board Member Hedgepath made the comment about the ground floor and how well articulated it is with details and I agree with that and I don't see necessarily that approach spreading all the way up the building. It seems to become just a little bit blander in terms of the stucco and the ratio of the stucco to the overall fenestration window coverage and it attains more of an institutional non-residential character, I think, as you go up and it loses that level of interest that I think is spiritually a unifying element of the architectural styles that you see in the homes. So it could even be more contemporary. I do understand the drawing on the color scheme and the roof materials from the museum and from St. Rose but I think that if you're not going to have a building with that level of sort of sophisticated decoration and public character that it does drift a little bit toward imitation to go this far with the homage without finishing it with the kind of detail that those structures have. So I would support a bit of a move toward more contemporary design on that northern building and if it were to maintain basically this color scheme or this character then a little bit more detail work, especially as the heights increase. I like the muse aspect of it. I think that it's going to help return it to some of its historic character. I think the mix of a center with residential is in keeping with the historic character of the block and I can't really comment on the demolition or the mitigation measures because we don't have any descriptions given of the historical value of the contributors that are there and we're encouraged to follow a sliding scale where irreplaceable high quality structures may be untouchable and then ones that are dilapidated goes on and on. There's no way that I could predict how the findings for a permit could be made with regard to the demolition aspect of it and I expect the environmental document will help with that. I think that I could with some difficulty make the findings with the project as it is but I would just like to see a less institutional character and more of a residential quality greater level of visual interest and less similarity to the institutional buildings that are going to make this building look deficient in comparison not through any fault of this project but because of the quality of those and the details that that has that this one. We do have a couple of board members who aren't here and I know that there's been quite a bit of outreach and definitely would encourage continued outreach to any board members who weren't here and to get their opinion in light of this meeting. So any other comments or questions from the DRB? Scott or chair can get, no. I'm seeing heads shaking. Staff questions for the boards. Yes, staff has a question of the boards. The applicant did propose living vines and living screens and so do you support less detail, architectural detail when there are those elements to the building or do you treat them as separate? Elements. I've seen projects that use those in the past and I haven't really considered them to be very successful and they also seem like they're institutional in nature. So the refinements could be, I don't wanna be too prescriptive about them but when you look at the character of the single family homes and that's the historic nature that's being superimposed upon by this project, we obviously don't have single family homes, we have a multifamily project but it could be a multifamily project that has more of the sort of attention to a playfulness that the courtyard apartment might with just trim details or the texture being a little bit less flat. So I could make the findings I think as it is but I just, I can't get into many level of detail that's beyond that. I'm not terribly picky. I just think that my issue with it is that as you go higher and higher, the level of detail diminishes to a point where there's just a great deal of what appear to be flat surfaces and lack of articulation, lack of interest kind of looks unfinished or like, you know, it uses the color scheme of the buildings that are fully thought through that have historical value but it doesn't really offer any of that itself so it could either distinguish itself further or it could offer that level of detail to bring it a little bit closer to the quality that is offered by some of the structures that it's taken inspiration from. So does staff have any other questions at this time before we adjourn for the night? No chair, thank you. Okay. That concludes item 6.1 and we do actually have a couple of other items, believe it or not. Let's move to item seven, board member reports. Board members, anything to report? Members of the design review board, any board member reports? Department reports, any department reports? Okay, and with that we adjourn. Thank you.