 So, if everybody could turn on their cameras, try to get started right at 4.30. That's cool. Waiting for the clock to change. Twenty seconds. No, fifteen. Sorry about that. Okay, it is now 4.30. I'd like to call the regular meeting of the designer view board to order and also joint meeting with the cultural heritage board. And I'd like to remind everybody why we're in a virtual setting. Pursuant to government code section 45953E and the recommendation of the health officer of the County of Sonoma, designer view board members and cultural heritage board members. Shall we participate in this meeting via Zoom webinar? Members of the public can participate virtually at www.zoom.us.join or by calling in toll free at 1-877-853-5257. And both of those methods, you use the meeting ID 816-1176-1047. Public access to the meeting can provide comments. During the public comment period, additional information related to the meeting participation is available at the city's website, srcity.org slash designer view board or srcity.org slash cultural heritage board. The meeting is also live streamed on the city's website at santa-rosa.legistar.com slash calendar. You can click on the in progress link to view. The meeting is also viewed on Comcast channel 28 and is also available on the city's YouTube channel at youtube.com slash city of santa-rosa. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to the recording secretary for a roll call. Let the record reflect that all members of the design review board are present and all members of the cultural heritage board are also present with the exception of member Wong. All right, thank you. So it's that time where I'd like to open public comment. This is time when anybody can address either board for subjects germane to their purview, but not on items that are on the agenda for the night. So we'll now be taking public comment for items not on the agenda. So please raise your hand in the Zoom platform and the recording secretary will recognize you. Chair Weigel, we see no raised hands at this time. All right, so seeing no raised hands, I will now close item two public comment and we'll move on to statements of purpose. So design review board zoning code chapter 20 dash 52 dot 303 030 F project review review authority shall consider the location design site plan configuration and the overall effect of the proposed projects on surrounding properties and the city in general. Review should 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 design guidelines, architectural criteria for special areas. And other applicable. Oh, I think I jumped ahead. 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 EGC policy statements and development plans. So at this time, I'd like to ask Chair Muser to read aloud the Cultural Heritage Board statement of purpose. Thank you, Chair Weigel. Cultural Heritage Board principle duties of the Board include undertaking and updating historic inventories or surveys, recommending destination of landmarks and preservation districts, reviewing proposed alterations to historic buildings and promoting public awareness of preservation issues. If you are in a historic district or would like more information regarding historic districts, please see the processing review procedures for owners of historic properties that's available through the City of Santa Rosa. Thank you, Chair Weigel. Thanks, Chair Muser. So with our statements of purpose read, I'd like to move to item number four, statements of abstention. So does anybody have to abstain from item 5.1, which is our joint item? All right, seeing nobody having to abstain, we'll move on to item five, which is our scheduled items. And item 5.1 is a joint item. So I'd like to open item 5.1, Clark's Corner Joint Concepts, design review between Design Review Board and Cultural Heritage Board, projects located at 125th Street, file numbers PRJ 22-016, and LMA 22-013, and VR 22-032. And so with that, I'd like to turn it over to the project planner, Susie Murray, for her staff report. And I am just getting that screen up for you now. Can you all see it? Okay, good afternoon, Chairs Weigel and Muser, the project before you this afternoon, as was just announced, is Clark's Corner. This is a joint concept, Design Review, concept being the emphasis there. The project is located at 125th Street, which is down, right down in Railroad Square. The proposal or the conceptual design is to construct four stories of housing above the existing Tochini building. I hope there'll be 35 residential units and they'll be comprised of studio one and two bedroom apartments. It will require two entitlements, a landmark alteration and a design review when the project comes in. And I don't think that that meeting, those will be held at separate meetings, just so you all know some of you people who have been on the board for a while. There was a change and now, yeah, when those two entitlements come in, that project comes in, you will review these separately. So here's an aerial view of the area. The project here is outlined in yellow. And as you can see, it's a block away from Highway 101 and a block away from the square. The applicant had a pre-application meeting with staff back in June. We held a neighborhood meeting a week ago. And I'm sorry, two weeks ago, September 7th was supposed to be the design review. We moved it here. Again, thank you to all for your flexibility on that. And the project applications again have not been submitted yet. These are required meetings prior to the application submittal. The general plan, specific plan and zoning. Let's see, general plan land use designation is station mixed use. The zoning is also a station mixed use. They're consistent. And this land use designation was created as part of the specific plan update a year ago. There's the site note shown by the star. So you have a real good feel for what you're looking at there. This project, this is not a project. It's in terms of or as it relates to the California Environmental Quality Act. This is, there will be no decisions made tonight. We are looking for input. So the purpose really for this meeting is for the cultural heritage board to identify character defining elements of the historic district and surrounding neighborhood that they would like preserved, incorporated. Cultural Heritage Board are the experts on this one. The design review board will provide direction for design elements that are consistent with the design guidelines and with consideration for those elements that the cultural heritage board discusses. Feedback from the, oh, I'm not quite sure what my note there. Feedback from the DRB will be provided to the zoning administrator. Please disregard that because I think that was residual from a copying and pasting here. I want to point out too, as far as both boards, if there's something that you need to see, and I'm going to call out an example, a more in a deeper dive into the historic analysis for California Environmental Quality Act compliance. This is the time to give us some direction so that both staff and the applicant understand what you need. With that, the applicant and the planning and economic development department are requesting that the cultural heritage board and design review board provide comments and direction for the Clarks Corner project. And I'm not sure if we have any phone callers listening tonight, but for those of you who may be listening and can't see the screen, my name is Susie Murray. I'm a senior planner with the City of Santa Rosa. My contact information is, I'm going to give it to you here. And if you have any questions, you go ahead and give me a call or send me an email. My phone number is 707-543-4348. And my email address is Esmeri, S-M-U-R-R-A-Y at SRCity.org. That concludes my presentation. I know that the applicant has one, but if you have any questions for me, you have my attention. Thanks, Susie. So I think at this time I'd like to just go to the applicant presentation and then we'll do this. I do this a little reminder to cultural heritage board. We do this a little bit differently maybe than you guys. We tend to like to hear both the BAP report and then also the applicant presentation. And then we typically go to public comment and then at that point we ask questions of the staff and the applicant because usually once we hear all that information, it stirs our design juices and helps us formulate some questions. And then that in turn goes into the comments that we're going to make. So if everybody's cool with that, we'll just move straight into the applicant presentation. So with that, if the applicants could raise their hands in the Zoom platform, and it looks like they're all identified, but then that way the recording sector will know to grant you permission to speak. And then Susie, can you bring up their presentation, please? I'm working on it. Yeah. Michael, when you're ready, go ahead and start and just let me know when you want me to advance your slides. Of course, can you hear me okay? We sure can. Great, all right. So as Susie mentioned our project, it's in that railroad square historic district 125th street within the downtown station. Oh, could you introduce yourself as well? Oh, yeah, absolutely. I can't remember who you are in your relationship to the project. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, so my name is Michael Clark. I am the developer for the project. A little bit about me. I'm a civil engineer as well as real estate agents working with my family who owns the building and working with a couple consultants locally on the project. Today, I think you'll only be hearing from me, but this is again, it's a concept, design review, so we're looking for a lot of feedback at this point. So that speaks a little bit about me and then we'll keep going on the project. All right, next slide then Susie, please. Great. So we'll run through these five sections. First, we'll talk about the context, some of the findings from the start report and then we'll go on to the design considerations, how it fits into this railroad square historic district. From there, we'll talk about the sustainable and active design that we're planning to look at the project, look at the plans quickly and then as well as some of the details we've identified so far. Before I move forward, I just wanna say thank you to the Cultural Heritage Board for taking this new meeting with the week's notice and as well as Susie, because I know this is her last day before a long vacation. So thank you for being here and listening to this. Move on to the context. Next slide, please. So as Susie already mentioned and I have the projects 125th Street, these are all photos on the right. I'll show you views of the project. So the top right is looking at it from northeast so you can see on the left, there's the recently built AC Hotel, the intersection of the Davis and then the building in the center of that photo. And then looking at it from the southeast, you have an AC Hotel, the building and then that fourth street frontage opposite our project. So you move on to the next slide. All right, and then this is from the city's website, the historic intruding status of the building scheme in the neighborhood. So that area that we're going to point at our project, the project building, so it is now it's not a contributor to the historic district, but it's obviously in a historic district, Jason too, a few contributors. Yeah, next slide, please. Okay, so as I mentioned before, a lot of the historic context is taken from the historical report generated by Mark Perry. So this is one of the statements, this is just setting a stage for the historic district. It's a 11 and a half block district that was designated in 1978. And it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It was created by the 1870 Clarks edition and the voice edition just west of the town boundary. It was laid out in 177, 40 foot by 100 foot lots. Several much larger parcels to the north and larger lots were obviously subsequently divided into smaller areas. So that's split about the district. The period of significance, you can go to the next slide, ends in 1923. That's when this building was built. So this building was built right at the end of the period of significance. Again, it's not a contributor. It's as it's shown in the previous slide, it's not a contributor to the district, but it does fall within the last year of that period of significance. So a little bit more about the history of the building. The building was built by the Toshine family. It's had many uses over its 99 year life. Most recently, it's a bar and nightclub, but it started out as a movie theater. It's been a grocery store a long time ago. Some of you might remember the Daily Planet, the Poptos are actually still there under the dance floor. So it's had many uses and it's almost out here to your life. You can see these images are from that historic report. Some of those emblems and the lettering, obviously the name today, identifying the Toshine building. Now we go to the next slide. So this is just an excerpt from the city of Santa Rosa and understanding how to view owners of historic properties. And this is very for the Cultural Heritage Board. This is kind of my guidance in what we're seeking from the Cultural Heritage Board in part. And again, it's, they can provide valuable expertise and advice to owners and designers who wish to upgrade non-contributing buildings. So again, that's what we're here today to try and do, is to upgrade a non-contributing building and we're seeking advice on how to best do that to preserve the context of the district. So next slide, please. Okay. With that, as you were probably all familiar with the secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. These are standards that should be applied to projects within the historic districts. This is a subset of the guidelines and ensuring you're familiar with them. So I won't read through all of them in detail. But again, what we're trying to accomplish for this meeting is to see as I already mentioned is, get your feedback on what's been proposed, understand what you think historically makes sense. Obviously, with the design review board, you want that input as well, but really from the Cultural Heritage Board, you can get the standards of how their best applies to the project. And one other point I have at the bottom, again, taking into consideration the economic and technical feasibility of the project, that is another portion of the secretary of the Interior's Standards. So next slide, please. Okay. And then we want to look at related projects. So I'll go in future slides. We have the previous proposal for 120th District, which is in 2017. And at that time, obviously the building next door has a parking lot, the AC hotel currently stands. So we're bringing this project back, that's a new AC hotel having been built, and it changes the context of the neighborhood as well. So that's why we're bringing this project back and just seeking some new input based on the difference in context that the AC hotel has provided to the neighborhood. So next slide, please. Okay. That concludes kind of that historic summary of the project. And I wanted to actually pause here. I don't know if I can do this, but just pause and see if there are any immediate questions or concerns from that and culture on your board. Okay, I guess I'll continue then. So three major... Well, actually it looked like we had a question maybe from Culture Heritage Board member Garrett there. Oh, perfect. That may be Board member Lauren. I have a question about the architect on this project. Are you the... Did you draw up the plans or did you have an architect? So we are working with an architect. They're not presenting because I drew up these plans and I don't want me to have the impression that that is their best before it. So I'm a civil engineer. So I'm qualified to draw building plans, but I'm obviously not an architect especially in an historic district. Down the road, you engage somebody who has that capability, but yet that's a very valid question. So you don't have a name for the architect? You said you had someone consulting with you? Yeah, so we're presently working with Tenover Studio based in San Luis Obispo. Thank you. They're providing you with projects. Thank you. Okay. Looks like we also had a question from Board member Boer in there as well. I'll wait until we go forward a little more. I had just a question on or a concern from what I had seen of the drawings. Should I wait for that or should I talk about it now? Let's wait for that. Okay. Let's let them finish their presentation and then I think Board member Garrett's question is pertinent right now and then let's hold the rest until the end here and after public comment. So thanks. So Michael, back to you. Great. Yeah, thanks for letting me address that. All right. So the three major considerations, obviously there are more, but these are the three major considerations that have come up that are worth addressing as head on. The first is obviously pertinent, second being again in the context of the district and then third being consideration of neighborhood properties. So next slide please. All right. So this is actually an excerpt from the 2017 review of the Simphotel. Definitely neighbors at that time voiced their concern of parking availability in the neighborhood at that time and if you're not familiar with the Simphotel project, the majority of the parking is provided off site with the valet service. There were concerns over that. So that's what this information is provided for and again, it's just highlighting one of the sources of concern in parking. Next slide please. This is also from the review of the 2017 in the Simphotel project. But again, this is summarizing our interest in the road for business property owners is to preserve limited street and freeway parking for the existing square business employees and customers. So that's another quote, I can go to the next slide please. Okay. And so those are concerns obviously raised in 2017. Since then, a few things have changed and Susie can answer more questions on this. She's more qualified to answer those questions in the planner, but this is a short bit of research that we've done into this. So first of all, in our research recently we found, just to talk to the city, that there are many permits available in nearby lots. So there's over 400 available on the seventh street garage which is opposite the freeway, as well as the space under the freeway. Actually has about 40 spaces available. We checked in August. So that's the current parking surplus that exists today. And with that, the general plan from 20, this image below shows some of the changes to parking requirements. Where projects with this station next to designation have no minimum vehicle parking requirements. So that's showing a pretty significant change of opinion from 2017 to today. We're not necessarily opinion, but just treat that right. Where the project in 2017 is proposed, the project 125th street is proposed with on-site parking. Whereas today that's not a requirement. So I just wanted to show people's attention to that. Obviously it's a little bit of a further discussion, but we can move on to the next slide, please. Awesome, okay. And so now this is the 2017 proposal. This is a rendering, ITLCD, and I think the major difference between the two projects, the one we're presenting today versus this project is there's a sub-but reduction in building height. Part of achieving that is the different bits of articulation in the new design, which we'll talk about later. But I present this here again to provide the board's context for just what was proposed and proposed for this project producing. Okay, next slide, please. Okay, so looking at the design considerations, again, for what is currently proposed, we completed this scan of the site to understand more detail about neighboring buildings, trees, as much as we can. So that's what you see going on here. This is the actual context of that neighborhood, trees, buildings captured and presented here. The major differences, again, which you see pretty evidently are changes in the articulation of the Syrup facade. We're instead of being one linear front on each elevation. There's this articulation back and forth, as well as a reduction in the overall height. Again, I'll explain the reasoning behind that articulation later on, which I just wanted to draw your attention to that now. Okay, we can move on to the next slide. Chair Weigel? Chair Weigel? Yes. Sorry, thank you. Just a great, just one comment, actually, or question. Just for the applicant team, just so everyone knows what you're talking about, when you say scan and point cloud, just describe your process, please. So we know what we're looking at with kind of the funky renderings you got there. Absolutely, I don't know. Yeah, Ian said Adam to me, I'm like, I know exactly what that is. And I'm like, just tell ya, you know, no, it's not a big deal. Yeah, it's kind of, it's an esoteric kind of thing. It looks all weird. And I think that everyone, you know, the public and other board members could deal with getting some explanation. Absolutely. Can we skip ahead three slides? So better, this next one. Perfect, all right, that's a great question. And this will be a little bit out of order, but I'll present it here. So in this image, there's spheres on the ground, it's like a yellow box beneath those spheres. This spheres represent different locations that a survey has performed. The survey piece of equipment, it sends out light arches. So it's literally seeing what's around it, but it does that about a million times a second. And then it's capturing what it sees around it. And then, you know, we did that 32 times in different locations on our roof, on the street. Can I just say, is there one more comment? I say, my recommendation would be to really break it down. So when you say LiDAR, explain what LiDAR means and just so people know exactly what you're talking about. Oh, of course. It's cool stuff and it's really complicated though, so. Yeah. Real basic. Yeah, absolutely. So LiDAR is laser distance measuring. So it's actually on newer iPhones as well. And what it does is exactly what your eye does to an extent. So light reflects off of something and it's captured by a sensor. And that sensor measures the distance to whatever that light source was. So that's just the basic of LiDAR. And then what we do with that data, again, we perform the scan, which is standing still, rotating 360 degrees, measuring everything, and then registering those together. Also, if you did one scan, you'd have one perspective. Or by performing 32, you get shadows and things that were concealed from one scan to another. So that's a little bit more background on this process. Is there any other details that could address that? I was just going to say, so really what you're doing is capturing basically a 3D picture with lasers of what is actually in the world at the moment you were taking the scans. Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah, and if we... As basic as that. Yeah. So if we go back, maybe we're a little bit out of order, go back one slide. Go, just go forward on here, two slides. Forward one more. Perfect, all right. So why this should be important to the cultural heritage board especially? Again, we're capturing a picture of what's there. So what we've done with that is modeled and detail the elements of the existing building so that we can plan for their preservation. So again, trying to make that as straightforward as possible. All that science turns into a very accurate model of what is currently there that way in iterations of this project that people design project and design around what's there in order to preserve it. I hope you are seeing this in other projects and if not, I encourage people to do this in the future because it's great for preserving historic resources. Yeah. So I think we can get back on to the presentation and go ahead, probably another slide as we talk about this, great. All right. So again, these are on the bottoms, there's some photos from that historical report again prepared by a picture historian that those are some of the existing trim details that he thought were part of the context of this structure. So again, with that scan data, we planned the new facade around preserving those trim details. So this is just another example of how that plays in where we have those trim details represented in the model with the intent of preserving them. So we go on to the next slide. Okay. So building mass, this is certainly an important topic. And what you've seen so far with the scan data, it provides you a little bit more context. So first intent with articulating the facade is to try and reduce some impression of the mass of the structure. Again, if you look at it from the north, we're preserving the two trees that are currently there and when those trees have leaves on them, they shield a decent amount of the masses with that second image in the top ray showing. And then the large light fixtures that are again trying to adjust the perception of mass. That's obviously not to put a little marry team or other feedback on. Then this is where things get tricky. And there's this second four is at 15 feet. So you should be looking at this building. You see three floors, wondering where is the fourth floor. If we go to the next slide, we can talk more about that. So to try and reduce the overall height, and this is again, why we have this articulation on the bottom right corner, you see the corner unit on the second floor. It's actually recessed within the existing facade. So that articulation is there to provide light to the second floor units. So they're laid out in a way that each unit has a window facing that open light well there on the second floor. But when you look there from the street level, you see three floors instead of four. And one reason that we did that is to keep the height as low as possible. So again, we showed earlier that 2017, 125th street proposal that building that was 62 feet. Looking at something that could be 55 feet based on that adjustment. So that's another reason for the articulation and it's very built into the design of the project. So we go to the next slide. So again, using that reality capture data, we can show the perspectives from the neighboring properties. So this would be on the corner of fourth and Davis street. You can see on the right, AC hotel. And you can see the edge of our building rise up there in the middle of this image. And then we can see just on the left of that, the scan of that property on fourth street. So when you're standing on the north side of fourth street, the properties there will shield the majority of the structure on the next slide. That's what that is demonstrating. When you're standing on the south side of fourth street, this is the impression that you'll get. Again, you have that AC hotel, right? You have the neighboring four street properties there and then you have the fifth street building behind it. There you see two and a half stories rising up behind this neighboring building. So we're on fourth street. So next slide, please. And again, this is actually looking at it from further down the fourth street side. We anticipate that by the time you're this far down fourth street and you're looking at two-story buildings on fourth street, those two-story buildings are shielding the remainder of the structure. You see that in San Juan with AC hotel. Now on the right, the majority of that is shielded as well. Let's see what the next slide is. And so this is explained earlier. It's just a larger view on the fifth street side. We anticipate that trees will shield and design out and ask for the fifth street side. Okay, next slide. So this is in consideration of the neighbors in the condominium development to the west on the fifth street side. So I think if you click once more that animation should feel through. So the current openings, both like the patio area and that top right just opening to the two-bedroom unit there, they're designed around the openings that exist in that condominium development. West side of the street. So again, that's another way we're trying to not block any windows or any open space that's currently there, or at least minimize our impact on that adjacent neighbor. Okay, next slide, please. Okay, so that ends the, I guess some of the design thinking that went into it at this point in terms of mass and layout. Next, we're gonna look at the active design, sustainable design practices that are in the project. So one of the first ones is replacing the stairs before the elevator to try and encourage the use of stairs. We're also on the north elevation proposing like an open facade, windows to again, encourage people to be able to view the countryside while I take the stairs instead of the elevator. Here we're proposing like an open courtyard space, again, to try and encourage people to take the stairs and that promotes active design, providing like parking beyond is required, pretty much one for a unit. So that again, it's encouraging people to be able to turn their force of transportation. And then just the site for the project being plus proximity to the sunlight station is again, to encourage an active lifestyle. Okay, next slide, please. Okay, in terms of sustainable design, we're intending to preserve the facade that'll reduce over 2,000 square feet of concrete waste and as well as historic aspect preserve that context of neighborhood. We're proposing on site recycling compost, rooftop, we think we can get close to 40 kilowatts of solar on rooftop. And this is newer at the all electric residential units. So we're proposing residential units without natural gas to again, to be managed with that rooftop solar and not do a lot of natural gas. Next slide, please. Okay, so that's the active and sustainable design considerations. And now we're looking at the building plans quickly breeze through these after we get through the ground floor. The ground floor is where we presently have consideration open. So this is the first alternative that's been presented where there's 4,000 square feet of parking and 2,000 square foot commercial space. The parking driveway beyond Fifth Street, that's one alternative. And then the second alternative is, if you go to the next slide, please, the full ground floor commercial space. So in that parking alternative, that creates 10 parking spaces for the development. And then this alternative again, just creates a larger commercial space. A lot of neighbors of the neighborhood meeting and Susie as well as, you know, families you've been looked at like a grocery store in this place, current downtown area is missing that kind of resource. So that's something that neighbors have been asking for. We're trying to figure out how it makes sense to fit it in. But you know, typically a grocery store has a decent sized onsite parking because a lot of people don't grocery shop without a car since you're carrying it in its home view. But that's something that we're trying to figure out how invested in this project that makes sense in this project. So that's another area we could it's not really a design consideration, but it's something we're definitely open to. It's not an architectural design consideration, but it's something we're going to be feedback on. And then we'll go through the rest of the building plans and this is a second floor. Again, you see the unit layout here. This is an entry by Susie. We're proposing a studio one and two bedroom units. And I think again, what's most important to note here is those dark blue areas, those patios. Those are also light wells for the second floor units because they're recessed below the existing facade. So we have the third floor. Again, mix of units on the third floor, so we can go to the fourth floor. That's the same story. And then we go to the roof. So again, we're proposing rooftop solar here as well as a rooftop kind of deck patio area to ensure barbecue or other community amenities and try to provide a space for people to live on site. So that's that. And I believe the next slide, we'll look at the elevations. So this is our north building elevation. So again, that shows some of the different scam views with the context of our building head in. Obviously the actual design elevation as well as some use from the rooftop deck and from that scale up. So we can breeze through these next elevations. That's the south building elevation, just to gain different perspectives on the south side. East building elevation, the same thing you were showing that we modeled in the details of the existing facade we preserved. Again, showing that you have three stories above existing four stories total added. Next slide. And then here we have the west building elevations that scan data also led to us showing that neighboring property, showing where the light would make it through these two developments to the existing courier that's there. Okay, move on. So these are some of the details. We're not by any means married to these. These are things that we thought made sense for property. But again, we're presenting these, obviously for feedback, but these are the prefabricated balconies that we need to put on the exterior as well as the light fixtures. The first one on the left being the exterior in the residential area. The second one being on the ground floor. The exterior of the leg. So we go to the next slide. I think, oh yeah. So this is on the north elevation, the large barren wall that we will be adding a roll-up door or finding to add a roll-up door into that parking area or floor back in this crisis to help commercial spaces there. But something we're considering around that is a more fully-sized mural to kind of, again, attract people to the neighborhood and have some context about the real West Square Historic District. So that's artwork that we're considering. And then you can go to the next slide. Again, this is mentioned in a store report. It's an edition from the 1870 Clarks edition. So that's on the corner. It's like a Clarks corner. And that's, again, a little bit of the historic context. So we can go to the next slide and I believe that is presentation. So I'm going to back over to Susie. Thank you. Okay, thank you, applicant. So at this point, I'd like to, excuse me, open our public comment period for the project and typically, so this is a concept item, so it's not a public hearing. So we just thought we'd still follow the same rules as a public hearing. So you get three minutes to speak on the item. And so if you would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand in the Zoom platform. And the recording secretary will recognize you to speak on this project. Thank you, Chair Rybal. We have one hand raised at this time. Mark, Mark, you've been given permission to speak if you would confirm your ability to see the timer and introduce yourself for the record, please. Sure, thank you. Can you hear me? Can you hear me? Okay, you can because I see the timer going. My name is Mark Franczak and I'm very much in favor of this project. What I like about is that it preserves the decorative architectural elements on the existing building that really give it all the charm, while at the same time, adding some desperately needed housing stock to downtown Santa Rosa. I mean, we really currently only have like two apartment buildings that are currently operating. As far as I know, I think it's just the Rosenberg and Seventh Street and that's it for a major downtown and you really can't have a thriving downtown without having a built-in customer base that comes with having people live there. The other thing I want to mention is that this is a development where you really would not be required to own a car in order to function. It's by two very good transit options, the smart train and the transit mall. And this is again, supposed to be the decade that we're, by the end of this decade, we're supposed to cut our greenhouse emissions by 40% by 2050, we have to be what do you call it? You know, emission neutral, basically no emission, no net emissions. And now is the time to start building housing that doesn't require car ownership to function. So that's all I have to say. Again, I think it's, I like what I see and it's a perfect fit for the downtown. That's the end of my comment. Cool, thanks for your comments. I'm not seeing any other raised hands at this point. So I would like to close public comment on this item. So that being said, I'd like to bring it back to the board for comments. I'm sorry, no, not comments, questions of the applicant and or staff. And Chair Muser, I'm gonna turn it over to you and let you go through cultural heritage board first and then the DRB will go second. Does that sound good? Thank you, Chair Wachow. Okay, so members of the cultural heritage board, I think what we'll do Chair Wycle, were we just gonna do clarifying questions first or did you want after that our board members to actually give their recommendations and comments? Let's just do clarifying questions right now. Typically, we've found that it's better to just get like all other questions addressed like, hey, on this drawing, I noticed XYZ, can you please clarify what that is? Or hey, the zoning about this, blah, blah, blah, right, once we get that all answered, it tends to go quicker in terms of our comments on the project because then we've answered all of us on a court to questions or zoning questions or things like that. So if we could just do questions first, that'd be great. Okay, sounds good. So cultural heritage board members, I'll just kind of do a roll call and we'll, if you have any questions or clarifying to help you better understand the project, both either staff or the applicant can go for it. So we'll start with board member Fennel. I have nothing, no clarifying questions at this time. Okay, thank you board member Fennel, board member Boren. No clarifying questions. And board member Garrett. I have a question about the setback of the new structure from the front facade. Is it only where those articulations are or does that setback all the way around the building? Can we go to like a second floor, I'll answer that question today. Or if there's a way to give me an ability to share screen, I can share the model as well. You might have to help me navigate here. Ah, what happened? There we go. So if you go to the plus four, five, three, two, one more, there we go, perfect. Okay, so board member Garrett to answer your question. The blue areas, there's a setback so about five to seven feet from the existing facade. The red area that's open second floors, there would be a structure there. And then obviously the units, they're intended to be up against that existing facade. And so again, I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I can't quite hear you. Okay. It's three feet from the facade? No, the units that are up against the facade are adjacent to the facade. So from a construction standpoint, you would have the new facade kind of rising up over the existing facade and some kind of flashing at that intersection of the new and existing. So it would be like an L flashing where the new facade is at the rear face of the existing. And then there's some kind of L that flashes over the existing facade. Thank you. Yeah. Okay, so there is no setback. Correct. Okay, thank you. Okay, Vice Chair Pratt-Sellas. Thanks. So I guess this is more of a question for Suzy and she probably knows what my question is gonna be because I emailed about it. And so I'm wondering, in the materials about this, it was presented that this was exempt from CEQA. And I think you meant like this meeting and this step in the process and not the actual project. So I'm wondering, are you projecting that the project will also be exempt or are you just saying that this step we're at is exempt? This step we're at is definitely exempt because there's only direction being given and no decisions are being made. And staff hasn't done an analysis at all. We're waiting, waiting for the project applications to come in, which I suspect based on comments tonight and the introduction of a new architect will probably be significantly different. At that point, we will review for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. And I don't think it, I don't think there's much of a chance of it qualifying for a categorical exemption, but I think it may fit nicely into a statutory exemption with the right supporting documents. But that we will look at that much more closely when the applications are submitted. Cool, thanks Suzy. And actually got to the tack on to that. Who do you think will likely be making the, if there is a secret determination, who has to make that? Cause I know Ultra-Herders Board just has the landmark alteration permit component, but we have the design component of the full building. So I'm just curious, or is it a joint finding or? It's not, both boards will be required to make that finding. And both boards will most likely get exactly the same information. I can't think of a situation when it didn't happen, but every action, when it's taken by different boards in the city of Santa Rosa, with the exception of mitigated negative declarations and environmental impact reports, both boards make the finding. Actually, that's not true. They all make the finding whenever there's an action being taken, but if there's an environmental document that's acted on the first review authority, acted on by the first review authority. Cool. Thanks, Duzzi. You bet. Chair Muser, back to you. Question. And back to the vice chair, press Alice to ask other questions. Comments, but no questions all week. Okay. And I just have one question then. And I, it's kind of some confusion. I'll probably talk about it a little bit more later, but I'm just wondering if the applicant would know, I believe this building was actually listed as one of the buildings and the application for the National Historic Designation in 1979, but yet now it's identified as a non-contributor. So I'm just wondering if the applicant or staff might know, and this building has some tremendous history with actually people and events. Why is this building considered a non-contributor? It should be a contributor. We'll start with the applicant. They've got an answer to that. Actually just for that to suit me first. I'm going to jump in on that one. So first of all, the non-contributing status, that's something that's local, my understanding. That's a local thing. And we just, I know that Railroad Square is on the National Registry and I've just received some information. I see board member Garrett shaking her head. I saw an application. I don't know that it's on the registry. So that's what I've seen as an application. We haven't had any opportunity to verify what's on there and we will certainly hand a copy of that over to the applicant and let their consultant review that and figure out what's going on in terms of, but in terms of that building, the other thing that as Michael pointed out in his presentation is the period of significance. And if it's outside the period of significance, that may be a reason why it's not recognized as a contributor to that district. But that said, it seems to me that the intent of the applicant is to preserve that building and build on top of it. So I don't know what's going on on the roof, but yeah, that's what I'm seeing. That's all I know. I don't, this question has come up, I think every time this building goes in for consideration for any changes. And I've never heard a reason why it's identified as a non-contributor. And I think collectively people agree that it has a significant history. So I do see board member Garrett raising her hand. I'm sure that Chair Musor will get to you. Board member Garrett. Actually, the Railroad Square Historic District, which is designated by the city of Santa Rosa, is quite large. It is bordered by Davis along the freeway. It goes to 7th Street to the creek and then down to include the Canary and 6th Street Playhouse to Western Farm. The National Register of Historic Places includes the west side of Davis. So that would include this building and the 5th Street over to 4th Street. It's only the south side of 5th Street, not the north side. And it goes to the railroad tracks. So it includes the Canary and the Playhouse and Western Farm, I believe. So hopefully that helps answer that question. And this building is on the historic, the National Register of Historic Places. It's part of that. Thank you, Board Member Garrett. Yeah, the city records show the house being built after like, or the building being built like after 1945, possibly 19, just recalling my memory, 1957, when in actuality, the building was built and what, 26, 27. So I'll get into that more later when we talk about, did the applicant want to make any comment on that before we move on? I'll just say that while we were talking, I found that section in the historic report, you reviewed it again, you're right on with the dates with what you just quoted, Sherry, Sir. The piers post 1945 and the construction date of 1957 when in fact, you know, it was built in 1923. And like Susie mentioned, the period of significance ends in 1923. So that's, it is consistent with, again, the historic report. Okay, thank you very much. I think that concludes our culture for the question period. So back to you, Sir Michael. Thanks. And I'd like to take a short break because I found out that one of our board members, Adam Sharon had a small technical issue and he forgot to plug his laptop in, of course. So if everybody could just maybe take a five minute break maybe and let Adam get reconnected. I'd love to hear his question. So is everybody okay with that? Quick five minute break and we'll let Adam get back. So five minutes, everybody back at 535. I'm back, Chair Weigel, if you're waiting for me. Adam, we were waiting for you, but I called a five minute recess. So we got a couple of minutes left. All right, it's 535. So if everybody could turn their videos back on, we'll get rolling again. And we do have a board member Sharon back, which is great. Sorry, everyone. Hold everybody, you have forgot to plug your laptop in. Oh, it was actually plugged in and it fell out, but one day we'll be back in person and that doesn't happen in person. My power cord doesn't fall out, but I guess if I fell asleep true, you could just kick me under the dice. Sorry about that, everyone. Exactly, no worries. I think it happens. Okay, cool. I think we're all back. All right, so DRB questions of staff and applicants, and I'll go with Board Member Sharon actually to kick it off. Questions. No questions at this time. Thank you. Thanks, Adam. Board Member Stepp. No questions. Well, Board Member McHugh. No questions. Cool, and Vice Chair Burke. Just clarify for me, this is coming back for major design review. Yes, it will be back for major design review. There was some confusion about that. I'm probably the source of that confusion, and I apologize for anybody that may have gotten that message from me, but because it's in an historic district, it does not qualify for the Reduced Review Authority, so. Thank you. No other questions. Thanks, Michael. And then I have a couple of questions of the applicant, just as I was looking through the plan set, just some clarity, I guess, on the existing elevation sheet, it looks, you're showing that you wanna cut new openings and preserve the existing trim, but when I was looking at the elevation of the building, like on Google Earth or even driving by, there are openings in that location, but there isn't a door. I mean, I understand why you would wanna cut a door, but I'm a little confused by that. Absolutely. It looks like there's penetration there currently, and anyway, if you could clarify. Yeah, absolutely. Susie, I think you're able to share your screen, at least, and show that elevation, probably the east elevation, please. Not this yet. Bear with me. I have something else on my screen, and I've just got to get organized while I show you everything that's going on in my computer. There you go. And maybe slide 37, go forward if you slides, and stop out too far, sorry. We go back to the east elevation. Here we go. Yep, this one. All right, so I, Chair Weigel, what you're mentioning is those left three sets of four panels on the Davis Street frontage on the ground floor. Yes, okay. So those are, all right. They have the, yeah. Yeah, yeah, we're talking about that next. Exactly, Susie, could you put your cursor over it? Here? Yeah, exactly, exactly. So that's one of the three sets of four. So the leftmost one currently has a door opening all the way through it. The next two on the right, two sets of four, those have the trim details, but there's no opening and it's actually about six inch thick piece of concrete behind there. So they're set back like the columns to the left and the right are thicker, but the concrete is still behind that and it's just trim up against concrete. So when we say we're going to cut openings, we're going to be cutting openings for the windows that are shown there in that concrete since they're presently are openings behind there, even though there's the impression that they're once were openings and it was plywood over it. Is that what you're getting at? Yeah, that clarifies it for me. I had a sneaking suspicion that perhaps there was a structural element or a false wall or something like that happening behind the existing exterior windows. And so I just wanted to clarification on that. So thank you. Okay, and then I'll answer that question in mind. Okay, and then for the corner, so the corner of Beth and Davis, the current layout has the corner cut out, right? It's got a column and then it's got the corner cut out so you can actually walk through it, but your intent is to close that up, correct? Correct, exactly. And so there are two considerations there. One is the vision triangle. We talked to the city of the pre-application union because it's a one-way street. They're not concerned with the vision triangle to the right because there shouldn't be traffic thriving from the right to the left on Davis Street when you make a right turn since it's one-way. So that's one of the considerations why you made that decision. And the second one is, it tends to be a crevice where people congregate at night and that's not necessarily desirable for the neighborhood. So by removing that space, we're just eliminating that possibility. And that was actually echoed by comments from the neighbors as well. Okay, and my third question is I was, I don't think there are windows in the building adjacent to the west on their east elevation. I looked at Google maps and I didn't go out there and poke around, although I did have lunch in Railroad Square today, I should have walked over there. But I don't believe there are windows in the east facade of the building to the west. And can you either confirm that or tell me I'm wrong? There are two windows, can't see them in the graph or you have to be on the roof. Yes, we go to- Are they tucked back in the, they're tucked back in the recess? Yeah, they're recessed about five feet. Okay, and could that building does, it does kind of a thought-to scenario. And so they're tucked back in the thought-to, the recesses. Exactly. Okay, cool. That answers my three questions that I had just to clarify a couple of things. Chair Weigel, I had one additional question. Sure, go ahead, Mike. Curious, I don't want to get deep into weeds on the construction of the project, but it does relate to a comment that I'm going to make later. And I realized probably need to frame it as a question now. I'm looking at the ground floor layout just as a starting point. And I'm not seeing a column grid reflected and I'm not understanding how, if the building is constructed down to grade and into the ground, which I expect it will be, how that impacts the layout of the, especially the ground floor with the viability of commercial spaces or the integration of the column grid system to be the column grid to be somehow hidden behind the existing verticals of the historic facades. I just, I'm curious what your thoughts are around construction and how a column grid at grade is going to end up impacting the amount of parking available if the parking options taken or how it may affect the appearance from the outside based on there being columns for the new building that will be in the windows and or behind the columns of the existing facade. Absolutely. So try to answer your questions quickly as possible. So there is a column grid, it's not shown on those plans, but in the commercial space to the east, the columns are immediately behind the existing columns, if you will, and the existing facade. So they're spaced about 20 feet. And then in the parking area, they're spaced similarly. And then just in terms of building up projects, we're intending to kind of dowel a mat slab into the existing foundations for the existing walls. So the column system, the new structure to be built right up against that existing facade and some dowels or other attachment to it. But yeah, we, again, I can send another image to see if that shows that column layout. And a concrete podium then at the ground floor of the new residential, 15 feet up. Correct, yeah, concrete podium at 15 feet. Okay, great, thank you. Thanks, Michael. So any other additional questions spurred by what we asked before we move to comments? Okay, I'm not seeing any. So at this point, I'd like to do comments from everybody. And so we'll do the cultural heritage board first. If that works for you, Chair Muser, or would you like us to go first? We're happy to go either way. Oh, we can go ahead and go first. That way you can, you can get more information. Okay, yeah, sounds great. All right, so I'll turn it over to you. You guys will, let's do some comments. Okay, we're gonna kind of do the same routine. So we'll start with the board member Fennel. Okay, right now I think that the plans make it look like there's a stage, like the initial building is a stage with a very modern building sitting on top of it. And it doesn't feel cohesive. I don't see the transition right now. It reads as two different buildings sitting, you know, on top of one another and it doesn't read as one cohesive building. It feels kind of like maybe it's been rushed a little bit. The projects kind of rushed through from a June start to, you know, a September first meeting. We usually get plans that are a little bit more, you know, initial plans that are a little bit more drawn up. I would encourage the applicants to work with an architect further to have the cohesiveness of the two buildings, of what looks like two buildings now. I don't like the balconies that are jutting over above the sidewalk. And I just don't see I think we're losing board member fennels a little bit here. Are from this aspect that are brought into that. Did everybody else have that problem? Yeah, board member fennel is kind of cutting in and out. Okay, I've been having that problem with everybody today. And you, I'm gonna, the last thing I heard because I was taking notes is you were saying you didn't like the balconies that were jutting out and that was the last thing I heard. Can you make a start from there? Okay, go ahead. I just would like to see more historic elements from that district brought into this project. And I think that you guys have a harder time with this than we had when we listened to the AC Marriott project because that was a ground up build and you weren't having to deal with a new trying to bring this on to another building. And I respect the difficulties that are going to come with that. I, the drawings definitely show different kinds of setbacks from drawing to drawing. And I would like to see some more cohesiveness with that in the next set of plans. And I wish you nothing but luck. Thank you. Thank you board member Fennel, board member Born. I also have a concern about balconies in general. If you drive around town, people tend to use them as storage units and considering this is railroad square and we have visitors, I don't think we can assume that people will keep these balconies beautiful and, you know, not, they can be eyesores. And I think considering the location, maybe there's another architectural element that could be used instead of a balcony so that people don't just throw stuff out there. Okay, thank you board member Warren, board member Garrett. Thank you. I actually have a lot of comments. First, I misspoke about the National Register District, you know, it does not incorporate the cannery and the buildings beyond the tracks. It goes down Fifth Street to the tracks and down off the south side of Fourth Street to the tracks. So I just wanted to clarify that. The Tochini building is in that area that it is on the National Register and it does actually as I think the applicant, it says in the applicant's review that, you know, it has the location and the integrity of design and association with the Tochini name and it is certainly compatible with and enhances the district. The proposed addition of a total of 68 feet would tower over the district that has predominantly one in two stories, in other words, 22 feet to about 35 feet. Hotel Rose, which is the jewel of the district is individually listed along with a depot on the National Register and it should not be any new building should not dominate in height over that landmark building. That is something that is also written in the railroad square guidelines and they ask that the historic skyline be maintained with the Hotel Rose remaining the most visible building in the district. The building, the Marriott Hotel is not in the National Register District. It's in the greater historic, the Santa Rosa City's Historic Railroad Square district and in fact that whole east side of Davis is not in any part of the National Historic Record but it is in the larger railroad square historic district. And it was actually, I think, I remember reviewing that and the feeling was it helped block the freeway from the area and it was an exception to the rule. I would be opposed to a building at this height. I think it should stay at 45 feet be no taller than the building that is right next door to it. The other thing I have an issue with is the setback of the new a structure which both the railroad square guidelines in and the Secretary of Interior's guidelines require is some kind of setback. The Secretary of Interior requires 10 feet setback I don't think it needs to be that far back but there definitely needs to be a setback from the original facade. The proposed upper facade with its articulation and its balconies are non-harmonious with the district and I think it would, be better to have a very simple front to that building with regularly placed windows. So it blends in with a district architecture. It doesn't have to mimic it, but it should blend in with it. And I couldn't tell if the new front entry is recessed but most of the entries in railroad square are recessed. So that's something to at least think about. And that the trees that you're hoping will provide some kind of camouflage, they don't live forever. And it would, if we allowed a building of this height it would set a precedent for properties within that National Historic Register area. So I'm opposed to that. I do really appreciate the day lighting of the windows on the east facade and the maintenance of the original trim. I think you're on the right idea there but I think the height needs to come down on the new building. So that's my input. Thank you very much. Thank you board member Garrett. Vice chair Pratsalis. Thank you. I also have many comments, don't bear with me. So first of all, going back to my original question about CEQA, I think it's really important to note and many of us have mentioned this already is that this building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributor to the road square National Register District. I looked it up and found that original form and I emailed it to Susie and Chair Moeser. And according to public resources code 5024.1, properties that are on the National Register constitute historical resources for purposes of CEQA. So under law the Chiricini building is a historical resource and so that's something that really needs to be kind of front and center as we consider these things. Looking at the materials that were shared with us, none of them addressed how any of the changes that were proposed would affect the legal significance of this historic resource. Obviously going up many floors would alter, in my opinion, the buildings such that it would no longer be a historical resource and this could constitute a substantial adverse change which is part of those legal framework. So I kind of came up with three main ideas for what we would need staff to do to move this forward. First, I think the building needs to be formally evaluated to determine if it's eligible to be on the California Register of Historical Resources to find out why it's not on our local inventory and make it an assessment of the potential effect of the project on the building's continued eligibility for the register. And finally, the study should also assess how the project may affect the integrity of the setting of the larger historic district and the feeling of the River and Square National Register District. So hopefully those could be gathered and then presented to the Cultural Heritage Board as we continue to consider this. Those are my comments. Thank you, Vice Chair Praselus. Can I ask for one clarification before we go forward? Sure. Vice Chair Praselus, can you give me that code section again? Right at beginning five, something? Five, zero, two, four, point one. Five, zero, two, four, point one. Everman code section, right? Yes, public resources code. Public, yeah. Thank you. Sure, thanks. And while we're doing that, hey, Susie, would you mind bringing up just when you get a chance after I think maybe Jeremy's comments, can you bring up the historic preservation district map on the city of Santa Rosa's website when you get a chance? So sorry, while we were collecting stuff, I figured I'd just ask. Go ahead, Jeremy. Okay, thank you. I too am probably gonna be a little bit long-winded but I'll try to be brief. I was curious, going through the historical report provided by the applicant, there was an approved landmark alteration 14-003. I think it was done like maybe a 19 or 2013 or something like that. Is that currently dead now? Is that dead and defunct? The report basically says it's approved design but has not yet been executed. I believe that's expired, Chair Muser. It was for a restaurant, I think one soon restaurant. And I believe that that entitlement has expired at this point. Okay, thank you. Okay, talking about standards for rehabilitation. You know, this project should follow the city of Santa Rosa's standards for rehabilitation of historic properties which include historic character should be retained and preserved. Significant changes over time should also be preserved. The sync of features should be preserved. Deteriorated historic features should be repaired rather than replaced whenever possible. Treatments that can cause damage to historic features should be avoided. New work should be compatible but differentiated from the old. And then under contributor status and I'm just gonna go ahead and read this because I think it's important it goes along with what Vice-Chair Patelus was saying. The reporter basically said, although the 1923 structure has been remodeled and repurposed many times, it retains its integrity of location, design, setting and materials and association with the Tochini family. The Tochini building is depicted as a non-contributor to the Railroad Square Historic District on the city of Santa Rosa's map historic preservation district properties for reasons that are unclear. Dan Peterson included the Tochini building in his list of buildings and sites of major focal point in this national register nomination and stipulated that the period of significance for the district was 1888 to 1923, which period encompasses the build date of this structure. The property is listed on the city of Santa Rosa's historical properties inventory erroneously as having been built appears post 1945 with a construction date of 1957. The inventory also erroneously attributes the listing to Bloomfield's 1989 historic resource survey but sites in our 31 Peterson's 1979 designation for the Tochini building on the national register nomination form of Railroad Square Historic District. And then he finally says this conflict should be resolved prior to new construction. Okay, under again, under standards of rehabilitation he cites that uses of the property should result in minimal changes to the defining characteristics of the building kind of speed up there a little bit. Okay, so when I look at and actually getting a better understanding of this building tonight, what I basically see is a new building with the existing building exterior dowed to it. So the interior of the existing building, the roof structure of the existing building, all the interior walls of the existing building, probably the floor structure of the existing building. It sounds like all of that will go away and the exterior walls will then be just, it will be dowed to give the appearance of the Tochini building. My notes here. It seems like a lot of the character defining features of the building in this plan will be altered or destroyed. It seems like the size and the scale of the structure in relationship to the adjacent structures as well as in relationship to the existing structure is out of proportion. I also have concerns that there isn't appropriate setback. The secretary of the interiors purposefully does the 10 foot setback to give a visual so that the new building doesn't overwhelmingly contrast to the existing structure. There's an example of that on 4th Street. I believe it was a new futile project. If you look on 4th Street, you can see that he setback the second story and then I think it even tailors up so that it isn't dominating the buildings on the historic buildings on 4th Street. The selection of building materials. And of course, I cherry picked also the secretary of the interiors comments. And I know the applicant cherry picked things that went along with the project. But one thing the secretary, the interior says yes, you should use differentiating materials but they shouldn't be highly contrasting to the original. It shouldn't stand out glaring to be different than the original structure or the structure surrounding. And with the material set up and chosen with the height of the building, it's really going to stand out. It's going to change the fabric. And again, I also, one of the board members mentioned precedence and it does. Next thing we know, then we got whistle stop wants to go five, six stories. So that fabric of that block needs to be maintained in your project. Again, need to conform with the character defining elements of railroad square. I'm also concerned about the loss of the storefront on Fifth Street. That does directly affect if you've had an opening for parking garage underneath that does affect the actual historic building itself on that side. Okay, I'll close there. Chair Weichle, do you want me to summarize our board's comments at this time? And then we can move on to your assistant. I mean, I wrote most of them down and typically what we do is we wait till the end and make sure that BAF caught it all. And if Susie needs us to reread anything, we'll typically do that. But whatever works for you guys, I mean, you can summarize what you wrote down there if you'd like and then we can move to DRB. That seems to me like it'll probably work better unless Susie thinks otherwise. I was just going to say, I think it would be very helpful if both boards summarize the comments from their respective boards. I too was taking notes, but got pulled away just for a couple of seconds there and missed some of the last, I think three items that Chair Muser spoke about. So a summary would be great just to make sure that we're all on the same page. Okay, so yeah, go ahead and summarize the CHB comments. That'd be great. Okay, and the CHB board members, if I didn't catch something, please raise your hand and let me know we can jump in. But from board member Fennel, and we had a little bit of an audio issue, but what I heard was that you really felt like this was a modern building sitting on top of a historic structure that you recommended that the applicant work with another architect to create a more cohesive design. You did not like the projections that came out over the sidewalk. You felt that you needed to bring more of the historic elements of the neighborhood into the project. And you also felt that there should be greater setbacks of the project. Did we get everything? Okay, and board member Warren, you also had balcony concerns, just concern about with the balconies and with the balconies might lead to the collection of life tools like barbecues and bicycles and stuff. So, and board member Garrett, 68 feet makes the building too dominant for its location. You felt that it should stay at 45 feet. You feel that it's important to maintain the historic skyline and the skyline in relationship to Hotel La Rose. The lack of setbacks were also a concern. Felt the upper facade was not harmonious with the neighborhood or with the historic building. You reminded us that trees are not appropriate camouflage that they come and go. And that building as it is, if approved could set precedents for other buildings within that area. Anything else? I also commented on the balconies which are not appropriate or harmonious with the district. And I just wanna make one other point. Railroad Square is one of the most successful commercial districts in the city of Santa Rosa. And it has a tax base higher than that of the downtown. And that what makes it special is its historic charm, its human scale and its walkability. And I think we really need to be vigilant that that doesn't change. Thank you. Thank you, Board Member Garrett. The Board Member or Vice Chair Pratt sell us. So we're hoping that that staff and the applicant will give us more information on the sequel requirement and regulation around the sequel. We had concerns with regards to materials and especially if the materials change or the change in materials affect the historical resource that this building is part of in the neighborhood. You feel that should be formally evaluated as a historic resource. Being that it's currently listed as a non-contributor and how the projects may affect the rest of the district. Anything else Vice Chair would sell us? No, I think you got it was really three things. Just one, is it eligible for the California register of historical resources? Second, looking at the effect of the project on the building's eligibility for the register. So how that's gonna change things. And then also a study on how the project might affect the setting and feeling of the national registered districts. Okay, thank you so much. Okay, and I kind of rambled on of course I didn't take notes with my rambling, but basically I think the applicant related looks needs to look at character defining features of the neighborhood and of the existing building. Need to look at the size and scale of the addition. And is it appropriate for the original structure of the original site as well as the adjacent structure? Setbacks, I'm also concerned that the building just looms basically over you and over the street with even projections over the sidewalk, compatible building materials. And so that's about it for me. Okay, back to you, Chair White. Thanks. Thanks Vice Chair, Mr. Susie, do you have that map, reservation map that you can bring up? Well, I was typing away somebody. Oh, there she is. I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. So this is- As long as Amy has it. This is from the city's GIS system and it shows the different historic districts. Is that in line with what you were thinking? Chair, okay. Yeah, either the PDF that's on the website or the GIS either or. I just, I think it's gonna be helpful for everybody to understand like where the district, the boundaries of the district exists and specifically the railroad square district, which is, everybody can see this. It's the green district shown here and Amy's kind enough to get us, there's a circle on the project location. So thank you for that, Amy. The thing that I wanted to point out to everybody and this I think is important, I was remembering some projects that we've recently reviewed that were not subject to CHP or might have been, but might have been reviewed separately. And just to remind everybody about them, this is in no way support or not support for the project. But we recently saw a project called Pullman Loss, which is located at the corner of sixth and Wilson, I believe, which is, I think it's one over. It's that square, the square, maybe down. I think it's that one. I think it's that parcel, think. And that project is 52 feet tall. I dug it out. And then we also saw a project downtown station Cornerstone, which is a large development project in between the Sixth Street Playhouse and the railroad track. It's in that area. And the most recent project is against West Sixth Street. And that project is 70 feet tall, just to put this into perspective. So not to say that I don't disagree with what the CHP has to say, but I want to put it in context that there are other projects in this area that are either proposed or approved that are over 50 feet. And actually, and then I think the Pullman Loss project, which is further up on Wilson, I think it's that one or maybe the one north of that. I don't know, I can't remember which. It's like, well, you know what, that's at Wilson. The Pullman phase two is at Wilson in eighth. I mixed that up, my bad. But the Pullman Loss is that parcel. And it's like 45 or 55 feet or something. I can't remember. I didn't pull it up because it's a couple of years old. I couldn't remember which date it was. But anyway, just wanted to put that in the perspective for everybody. So I thought it might be helpful. Yeah. Chair Weichle, I might add that of the projects that you mentioned, none of them are in the railroad square except for the one between the playhouse and the railroad tracks and the Cultural Heritage Board actually saw that project and approved it as well. But it was on blank ground. There were no structures, no buildings to be changed or modified and it had pretty much full neighborhood support. Yeah, I just thought it'd be helpful to kind of give context to what we're talking about even though there's like the Pullman Loss projects. Yeah, they're a couple of blocks away but they, you know, it's in the same neighborhood in a very broad sense. So I just thought it'd be helpful. So with that, we do have somebody, a member of the public who's had their hand up for quite some time. And because we don't have like an official public hearing, we'd like to give them their three minutes. So I'd like to turn it over to the recording secretary for Adrienne to speak when you get that. Thank you. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you, Adrienne. Okay, great. Thanks, hi everybody. Thanks for the opportunity to comment. My name's Adrienne Covers. I live on Davis Street, just two blocks from this project. And I just want to make a few comments on it. First, I hope that you take into account, you know, what the neighbors actually feel like what we really need in the neighborhood and what we really need in downtown in Railroad Square are more people. We need more pedestrians. We need more people shopping. We need more people working. And with the city on task for building about 5,000 new homes over this next seven years, we need more people who can access downtown without having to drive to downtown. And so I'm actually really, really excited about this project's ability to do that and help bring people to Railroad Square who don't need to drive and who can make trips to get their groceries and to get their fundamental needs and go to restaurants without getting in their cars. It's really going to help VMTs. So a couple of things about this project that stood out. One, I think it's too short. We should really maximize the hike here. These buildings last 100 years and it's a block away from Smart Train. We really need to maximize the number of people that we can put at this site. There are other buildings that are taller. The gentleman who just spoke mentioned the Pullman lofts and some others, the Marriott right next door. We can do better on height and that'll help us do better on units. Another thing, as far as the design goes, I think the design right now relies too heavily on unnecessary articulation. And like some members of the board mentioned, it kind of is out of sync with the current design. All the best buildings in that area from the Hotel La Rosa, the Rosenberg Building, the Santa Rosa Smart Train Station, et cetera, they all embrace mass with ornamentation. So I would recommend embracing mass with ornamentation because that's actually what the historical buildings in that area actually embrace. It would probably also make building costs and maintenance costs cheaper. Maybe even be able to put a few more units in it. So I think embracing building mass would be good. Someone mentioned balconies not fitting. There are buildings in the area like the Pullman lofts that have balconies. I don't see what the issue is there. Setbacks, I don't think that makes any sense. This is a downtown building. It should be right up against the sidewalk. Zero setbacks. If anything, though, the sidewalk on Davis Street between fifth and fourth is absurdly narrow. You can only fit two abreast. Another couple comes walking at you. You gotta go in the street. We can make this an opportunity to extend that sidewalk rate. Lastly, the parking report came out last week. We've got way too much parking downtown. Totally recommend the ground floor being full grocery store if we can. Preferred grocery store tenant. We've got a food desert here and railroad square in the West End. That'd be really needed. Thanks for taking my comments. Again, really excited about the potential to improve this site. Thanks, Adrian. We appreciate you. And thanks for being patient. They're raising your hand. It's kind of the, you know, if we had a public hearing, I'd have to sit here and go, hey, we already had the public hearing. Sorry, we can't take your comments. But because we're at concept, we have that flexibility. Looks like we also have the... Thank you. They can't raise their hand, so I'm gonna... Ain't no problem. I'm gonna turn it over to the applicant now. They're raising their hand, and then we'll bring it back to the board. Sorry, thanks. I wanted to... Yeah, go ahead. You're good, thank you. I want to address a core concern of why we're here. Again, one of the cultural heritage board members felt that this was rushed, and I agree with you. We're here to get your comments and your feedback. Like board member Garrett mentioned, 45 feet is a hard limit. Yeah, that's something we can consider into our design very early. And it really alters, you know, the performer and if the project didn't make sense. So I really appreciate that kind of feedback. Something I want to draw on the cultural heritage board of attention to is one of the areas of your purview is determining the significance of resources. And that's something that we're also looking for your input and really clarity on. Because again, the city's website states that this property is not a contributor. I looked at the actual nomination form through 1979 and the property is listed. It's listed as being built in 1910. So that's an additional source of confusion. So again, we're looking for clarity on figuring that out so that we know, right? Because it eliminates our uncertainty of what process we need to go through. And one more thing, Susie had pointed this out to me. The certificate of occupancy for the building was granted in January of 1924. So it's actually not built in the period of significance. Although it was an instruction that actually found the greatest certificate of occupancy was granted in January of 1924. And then going back to that nomination form for the National Register, I noticed other properties on there are built in 1925 and 1927. So again, all of these comments are associated to like the core concern that we have as developers, we don't know which standards you want to apply to this project. I love the comments about the AC Hotel that it's in the district, but it's not in a national nomination that help you understand what differences might arise. So that's, and took notes on everything and would love to address it all, but I don't want to waste everyone's evening. So I'll just leave it at that and really ask that there's more clarity provided on which specific treatments are going to be applied to this project. And like Chairman Yousar mentioned, in our historic report, it mentions that is determination or should be made before you proceed. So thanks for pointing out Chairman Yousar. That's all I wanted to say. Thanks for being that. Thanks, applicant Clark. All right, so we're going to bring it back to the design review board now and we'll go with our comments and I'm going to go put Board Member Staff in the hot seat right now. So Board Member Staff comments on the project. Well, I'll start by thanking you, Chair Weigel and also our call in Adrian who called in for the comments regarding the height. I would second both of your implications there. The height of this project doesn't bother me but I defer to the Cultural Heritage Board in terms of what's actually required on that site. In terms of the balconies, I do share the concern there with balconies overhanging the street but nevertheless don't share the concern with the balconies themselves. I like Adrian's positioning of the articulation of the facade. I can see this facade being simpler but having said that, I'm going to go in a limb here and say that I can see some of the logic and some of the thinking of the existing renderings that were given. I kind of liked out elements from the windows below some of the boxes and some of the pillars were repeated at the top. It was a little bit busy but I can kind of see the design thinking there and I didn't find it unattractive. I don't mind just pushing this building in a more modern direction either. I'm just checking my notes here. I think I'll leave it there actually. I've enjoyed the robust debate. This is an interesting, yeah, there's some interesting philosophical issues at play here. I'm enjoying the back and forth but that's it for me. Thanks, board member Sherry. Thank you, Chair Weigel. And thank you, Planner Murray for very informative presentation and thank you, applicant, also for a thorough and informative presentation as well. This is a real tricky one to pull apart and I'm definitely glad that both our boards are here discussing it today. And I think one thing that is born out through the proposal you've brought us today and in the discussion that we're having and some of the concerns that have been brought up is I think that you can, this is really the applicant, really kind of reframe how you're thinking about this project. It seems to me that you're thinking in terms of the new building and getting really excited about that, which is great. I mean, this is what you're here for, is to develop something new to provide housing to provide amenities. But I think that one thing that you can do is flip that on its head a little bit and see the building that you're building around as the focal point. That this historic character, both of the neighborhood of the district of the building itself has very beautiful details, really elegant understated details. And I think that you can, instead of just trying to kind of impose a modern structure on a historical building, just keeping the facade is definitely one strategy and then you build just behind it and then you build up and it works out, you get your new building. But I think that it would really serve you well as you're thinking through this project and evaluating all of our comments, really start with that ground floor, start with the building, start with the ground escape and use that, use those pointers as a way to build then up. I also think that the height, I think that is a good thing. I think that having the height and the mass that you're proposing will eventually be a real positive aspect of this project. The member of the public who spoke mentioned mass with ornamentation. And that was actually one of my main comments is to, you've mentioned looking at AC Hotel and some of the other new structures in the neighborhood as your precedents and I think they could really do you well to look at the really rich, hefty, really solid massing that is in this neighborhood and use that as your base of reference. I think that having more of a blocky structure could really help in this instance. Usually I'm a fan of having rhythm in articulations but I agree that some of the articulations are making the new building, the new portion of your building to be too busy and confusing and it doesn't really talk to the ground floor. It doesn't talk to Hotel La Rose just down the way. It doesn't talk to the other brick building that's just across the street from whistle stop or to whistle stop itself. All those buildings on the side have those kind of very Western style flat fronts. I think you could continue that language in the Tokini building and move up with that. I think that could solve some of the awkwardness that I find in your layouts and your design as well. I agree that I like balconies and I think balconies are a great amenity to have. The materials and the jut outs I think are what's making some of the critical observations here so that could be rethought. Maybe it's not just full balconies but maybe they're Juliet balconies kind of reign in the protrusion a little bit. I really like the breezeway concept. That's really I think a very nice touch and one that you don't see very often where you have the open hallway there. That's something I do like. I'm not a huge fan of the cutouts that you have on the corner right above the Clarks corner signage that you have there or the articulations as you're moving down the building. I think that like one they create kind of awkward sight lines with windows right next to each other and there are very acute angles there so windows are gonna be looking into each other. With the cutout on the corner itself it creates this is weird well now with the second floor. I think just building out to the full width of the building one's gonna increase your floor space so that makes the apartments more desirable to live in and then it's gonna solve some of that massing concern as well. So I would say simplify a bit decrease some of the business I think your materiality also is a little bit busy too. You've got the lap side and you've got the stucco hardy panel, the brick veneer, and choose one, choose two, there isn't brick on this building there's brick in the neighborhood but there's not brick on this building. So look at again start from the building that you're working with and then use that as your design inspiration. Don't see it as just something a site to work with and then you kind of impose something on the site. Work with what you got and really you know compliment it, emphasize it, glorify it. You're creating something, as we've talked about that buildings last 100 years like this is you're creating something of this is going to hopefully bridge 100 years ago to 100 years from now. That's what new development should do is it doesn't freeze things in Amber. It doesn't, we're not supposed you know I believe we're not supposed to just freeze a city in the middle of the building freeze a city in you know, 58 to 100 years ago but we're providing overlapping stepping stones for the development of cities that cities always change. This neighborhood is changing as well as we talked about with those new buildings. And so I think that you can start from your the place of the neighborhood and where you are and really use that as your inspiration rather than bringing in just modernity from the start and then simplify and look at the strong massing that's in this neighborhood. I think you have a good start. I think that you could definitely deal with talking to the architects a bit more. You know, one thing you know, these renderings don't necessarily do any favors in terms of communicating your ideas. So I know that, you know, of course this is conceptual but when you come back, you know we really want to see things really well thought out really clean, strong design intent. So really come strong. Start with it with it with you know it's just like with the building start with a strong base and then build from there get your design intent and then work with it. I think that may do it. I'm gonna look at my notes here a little bit. Yep, that will do it for me. Great, thanks very much. Thanks for listening. Gave Drew a lot to write down. Yeah, he did. Feel scribble in there. Okay, let's go to Vice Chair Birch. Great, thank you Drew. Yeah, these meetings are always interesting that are joint meetings with Cultural Heritage Board and Design Review. They have interesting, I think that I get a little frustrated sitting through discussion of boundaries and borders of historic districts. I'm always too free in saying that but the bottom line is that we need housing downtown. We should be bold and adventurous in how we find those locations for housing. We should be bold and adventurous with things like building height. We could remain a nice valley town forever. We've tried really hard to. But we can also move forward and try to become a very, very livable city. We can also strive to integrate our historic resources with that moving forward. I think there's a great opportunity here for the Tokini building to be a fantastic ground level, maintain your historical character, tell a story, be able to tell an honest story about the history of Railroad Square, about the history of Santa Rosa and create a striking and interesting new future with the housing project with a residential project. Tell a story about how you're moving forward into the future and not building this project over in Roseland or on an empty lot outside of a developed area or building single family homes. So discussions about the year the building was built et cetera, et cetera. I know it's all gonna come. The developer will obviously spend time and effort and money getting to an understanding there and seeing how the Cultural Heritage Board can see to move forward with this. But the bottom line is I'm always sort of challenged because my mindset is so different than maybe how do we stay the same? I wanna look forward and move forward into the future. So that said, as far as the current building design for the project, it's very underwhelming. It ignores historical building all together is the best way that I can say it. I believe that the materials and the design can be, in my opinion, I'm not speaking to the standards can be contrasting, they can be different. But there are some things that need to stay in tune. The first thing that I noticed when I look at the elevations is that the verticals of the upper floors have no relationship to the vertical elements of the historic building. It's a great simple place to start to create a rhythm that matches that starts from the historic building in respects that I think as Adam said, start with what's beautiful and meaningful about the building of RAID and then decide how you're gonna use that as you build that. So I think that there would certainly need to be more awareness of that. Now the materials and the gestures, the facade could come out looking like a Mondrian painting, but the bottom line is you have to be able to find the character or you have to be able to find the roadmap of how you got to the basics of that in the ground floor in historic building. The balconies that overhang are just, they were sort of the first clear indicator to me that there was not a lot of thought given to respect the boundaries of the first floor. I'm not a huge fan of the second floor apartments that are in light wells. I would rather see the building taller with all of the living spaces having natural light that came in through windows rather than downlight wells and through windows. As far as materials go, I'm not just sure what the overall intent was, but the little panels of brick that show up maybe as a nod to Railroad Square are sort of odd. I'm still disappointed to this day that the AC hotel ended up, what I think compromising the opportunity to design a more contemporary building, that this nod to brick on the facade came out very pastiche and I think it confuses the, I think it confuses people on Davis Street. I can't tell if that building is supposed to be historic or not. Anyway, I would discourage the use of brick. If the basement or if the first floor is going to have those 10 spaces, I would encourage those being car share spaces, some sort of a car share program rather than 10 extremely expensive spaces for people who wanna rent them. That's just a thought around, I think that would be a great resource for residents of the building to not have to own a car, but to have car shares right there. Car share also lends itself to being used by the entire neighborhood because that's something that you fob in to grab a car from those 10 spaces and take it out and I think that's a really excellent way. I think we just saw a project on 4th Street that's gonna have a publicly accessible car share as well as a community resource, not just a resource for the building. Interestingly, the 2000, I guess the proposal for a building that was shown from back in 2007 or 17, I think maybe it goes back to 2007. Not a great design of a building either, but it did address the first floor or the historic structure better. I was even sort of fond of the way that that cut away the corner and kept that traditional railroad square commercial entry. In fact, it increased the scale of that traditional railroad square corner entry. I know that probably gets further in to the destruction of the historic facade, but the bottom line was I thought that that actually highlighted the historic features to the south even more. So I'm not saying that the design from the old design that you showed in your presentation and the applicant's presentation was great, but it does really treat the historic facade differently. And I believe, I can't really tell from this elevation, but I believe the vertical notions in that facade, especially on Davis Street, we're very much geared to the vertical expression at the street. So I just, in general, those are my comments. The building can look, to me, the new building can have materials that are contemporary, they could be wow materials, they can be all sorts of things, but there has to be a respect and some sort of rhythm and overall connection to the historic facade. And I think those are all my comments. Thanks, Michael. Board Member McHugh. My gosh, is there anything left? What I guess what I can say is that as I look at the design and look at the historical building in it, and I sense that you have this building and you pop this residential building on top of this historical building, and there was no consistency in terms of design. And I'm concerned about that. As you look around the neighborhood, I would encourage you to start to look at what Fourth Street looks like, what the historical district looks like, and come up with a design that is compatible with the historical nature of the building that you plan to put this apartment complex on top. I'm very supportive of the concept of the idea of the project. I absolutely believe that we need housing downtown and we need this particular project, but I am concerned about the design and how it looks. I mean, it just doesn't seem to me to be compatible with the neighborhood. And so what I would encourage you to do is to take the comments of my colleagues and incorporate them into the design and make this a project that is attractive to the neighborhood around it. And those are my comments, essentially. I mean, so thank you. Thanks, John. So I'm lost. So I agree with everything that's been said, but I think maybe I can illuminate a couple of things that may help the applicant. So in our design guidelines, we have a section two. It's downtown station area. It's specific to this area. Ish, downtown station area is kind of, it includes railroad square and the other side of 101. But within that, it talks about the building architecture. And so it talks about surrounding buildings establish the context for the design of new buildings, whether new buildings are detailed and historical to the temporary eclectic manner, incorporating similar rhythm and proportions found in adjacent buildings in terms of the compatibility between new and old. I think everybody said that. So I would encourage the applicant to pull out our design guidelines and really comb through them because I think what everybody said can be actually directly connected back to pretty much all of the things that are in the design guideline for the station area plan. But a couple of things that I want to point out in more depth are, I think the problem I'm having with the building is similar in a way to maybe what Board Member Fennell was talking about is that the building feels disconnected. It feels like two different buildings. And so in the design guidelines, it says all buildings should contain the three traditional parts, a base, a midsection and a top. So this project in particular has the benefit of already having a base established, right? You have a historical structure that's going to establish the base of your project. You then need to establish the middle and the top. And so there's a disconnect between the bottom and the middle and the top. And I think Michael hit on it really well. It's about connecting the rhythm and the context of that base with what then goes up. And so if you guys could, if the applicant could look at that more depth and figure out how you can connect the pieces a little bit better, I also am fairly indifferent materiality-wise with the new building. It could be glam, it could be flashy as long as it is respectful of what's happening down below. Something else that I think really needs to be addressed is the corner. The corner should have distinct architectural features. And actually if we're going to talk about Railroad Square, we're going to talk about other buildings in Railroad Square, guess what? The hotel LaRose has a big giant corner feature. And it is a distinguishing element of that building. And so you should not eliminate the corner on this building in any way, shape or form. Now, the reason that people collect in it probably is because the building is not active, right? So the building's not active, so people are congregating in that corner. Well, you activate the corner as the main entrance of the building, whether it's a store, a grocery store, a bodega, whatever, something that's seen constant foot traffic that will eliminate that security concern and issue. But you should not eliminate the corner element of the Tochini building at all end of discussion. And if the project comes back and that corner's not there, I'm going to vote no on the whole thing, because you shouldn't absolutely get rid of that corner defining historical element, period. The balconies are not integrated into the upper design. The design guidelines talk about recessed and projected balconies should be introduced as part of the composition that contributes to the scale and proportion of the residential building facades. Right now, it's lipstick on a pig. So it needs to be well thought out with how the balconies are integrated with any pushing and pulling that happens with the entire upper structure. So to continue on that, I don't necessarily have the same issue that Michael has with the light well. What I will say is the way it's designed right now lacks dignity completely, meaning that you live on the second floor of a building, but you feel like you're living in the basement of a building. So you need to address how to set back from the existing facade, pull back to create a sense of courtyard, place, semblance, whatever, that's not like a dark hole, right? It's kind of a dark hole right now. And so there's no dignity in living in that space. And if we're talking about housing, one of the primary features and focuses of adequate housing is dignity within that housing. So you either find a way to pull the building back, create dignity in the outdoor space for that second floor, or find a different use for the second floor, whether that's storage, commercial activity, whatever. If you wanna build it, build it fine, but it shouldn't be housing unless you can address the dignity element of that. And to that end, I think you could build it taller, add a story on top, figure out a way to make the second floor something else that serves the community, that serves the area. Maybe it's offices, maybe it's an extension of something else. I don't know. And that's something that you're gonna have to look at in your pro forma to see if it works out. I think you shouldn't do the parking at all. But I don't disagree with Vice Chair Birch. But the code is changing in 2020, January 21, 2023. And EV charging is a huge component of any new parking that's part of a building. So there's huge infrastructure costs associated with that. And so if you're only gonna build 10 spaces, one of those spaces is accessible. One of those spaces is an accessible EV charging space. And then one is another EV charging space. So now you only have three EV charging spaces and then like seven other spaces. So to me, parking underneath doesn't really make a whole heap of sense and utilizing that side of the building to activate the street to the north makes more sense to me. And again, with relation to the corner, potentially two tenants, one large tenant, for the entire ground floor, whatever, I think is a way to address that. I think I'm the only architect here. I don't think the way that your building is organized from an ingress and egress perspective is the smartest, particularly the way that you're addressing staircases and elevators and things like that. I mean, I don't disagree that people need to walk upstairs. But at the same time, when you locate a elevator back of house, you're also disconnecting accessibility and equity in terms of access to a building. And so that's somewhat problematic. And also tied to that, I think you really need to look at how the staircases work in terms of accessing both Davis Street and Fifth Street and how they're either, because right now, the stair tower that you've rendered in green on your floor plans is actually occupying prime real estate at the corner of the building, where really that staircase maybe should be towards the west of the building, towards the condo, the other building to the west. And you should really take advantage of the full volume of the corner, whatever you decide to do. There are some bedrooms in here that are way too small, like six foot nine by eight feet. That's unacceptable to me as an architect. That's a hidey hole. I would never design a bedroom that small. So you really need to re-look at your unit layouts and how you're utilizing space and whether or not you're gonna integrate community features on each floor, or if you're going to relegate someone to a hidey hole. I would really encourage you to take a hard look at the most efficient use of space. And if a two bedroom unit doesn't work out, don't do a two bedroom unit, do a one bedroom unit, or do a studio, or do two studios, right? The more you can increase the density in the project, while not reducing dignity and accessibility, that's a win. And I think there's a possibility for that here, but creating tiny little bedrooms that are closets is not the way to do that. I don't dislike the roof community space. I think that's a great idea. I think it's a great conceptual idea. It gets eyes on the street. It could be a rooftop bar. It could be just a community space with bocce balls and grills. It could be a myriad of different things. I was actually just in DC and I was at a hotel that had a beautiful rooftop bar that was integrated into it. And it was a bump and joint, let me tell ya. So I think anything like that can really activate a neighborhood, whether it's just a community space or even a nightlife element. So I do like that component. I would encourage you to carry it through. I do like the concept of the large patio on the west side. I don't know if the west side's the best spot for it. I feel like it's probably gonna be pretty dark in there, the way it's currently laid out. So, but I would encourage you to look at that that ways to create exterior space in vertical. As you go vertical is a really interesting conceptual idea because people will be hungry for places to go to grab a little bit of sun, whether that's a terrace or a deck or what have you. And then I would also agree, don't do brick. It's really out of place. And I agree with Michael. We were both on DRB at that time and I think we both were kind of like really brick and it still got through. So we don't always have control of that but I would encourage you to not use brick. But also look at the context around you. There's a lot of not brick in Railroad Square. There's stone. There's concrete. There's plaster. There's actually some cool iron work on a couple of buildings. So a lot of interesting and unique things going on down in Railroad Square. And I think that's why the Culver Harris Board is so I think so protective of that area in many ways because it is unique and eclectic. And that's what's cool about it. So with that, I'm done with my comments. Do you need me to round up anything or? If you've got it in you to do a quick summary you don't need to do it by board member if you could do it for the entire board. If not, Chair Weigel, I can go back and re-listen to things that I missed. I got those. I think I've got it. Okay. I think I've got it. Yeah. So we all said the height was okay and we were okay as they go on taller. None of us like the balconies overhanging the street. I think pretty much everybody mentioned to look at the existing surrounding building context as a focal point. And Adam actually really pointed out really make the understated details sing and shine. Bridge to gap. The city's always changed. So look forward. Essentially simplify the massing. We all talked about a better design direction with the communication of the intent. Bolding ventures, density and height. Current design is underwhelming. Ignore six or cues. Upper building, new building can contrast to the lower building. The verticality of the upper floors have no relation to the ground floor. And so we're looking for a relationship to the historic building within with rhythm and rhythm and massing. The light wells are odd at the second floor and lack of dignity for the inhabitants. Material choices are odd. Don't do brick. Essentially do car share spaces if a garage is included. And then I made some comments about the requirements of the new EV requirements that may blow their parking totally out of the water. Address the corner entry and do not remove the corner entry and keep it. There's no consistency within the design. We generally supported the concept of the project but not the current design of the project and then all my battling that I did about unit design and whatnot. So I think that about does it. I only took a few extra notes while you were talking. Drew, there was one that I wanted to make certain was heard and to re-emphasize, but good. Talking about, you discussed eloquently about activating that ground floor space and potentially doing away with the parking. Michael talked about that as well. And I think that goes to one thing that the applicant can look at and just really emphasize that the historic building and to activate that, to use that, to illuminate it and to look at activating the entire bottom floor there. That's the focal point. That's what activates that ground floor. So I just wanted to make certain that I was heard so that was mentioned a few times. Yeah, and I mean, I think tied to that. I mean, as Adam and as I was about that corner element, I don't necessarily have a, I actually appreciate them wanting to open walls up and create windows and access points into the building and be respectful of the rhythm and the context of the historical building. I think that's really nice. And I think you could probably turn the corner and keep going with it, if that makes sense. Because the Davis elevation is actually quite beautiful in many ways. And so it's funny because the Fifth Street elevation just kind of like stops and then it's a blank wall. It's really, yeah. Yeah, a blank wall with a garage door and that kind of kills that whole wall. So get rid of the garage, make it all glass and another shopper, a big, a big grocery store. Yeah, I think they could totally turn the corner. And I mean, if they wanted to leave a blank piece and do a mural or something, I think that'd be really respectful as well. But obviously, you know, an overhead garage door, a slatted overhead garage door is just not great. So, cool, I think that's it Susie. Does anybody have any additional comments now that they've heard everybody? Typically, we like to round that up. If anybody's got any additional thoughts that they have based on something somebody else said. So I'm looking for a raised hand to think there's got any additional thoughts. Okay, seeing none, typically the DRB then turns it back over the applicant and asks them if anything seems far-fetched, crazy, out of whack or undoable, or if they have any additional comments or thoughts. So we'll do that now with the applicant. Sorry, I had to be asked to speak again. I'll do this very quick because everyone, I'm sure wants to do the day. They'll just say, thank you so much for all of your comments. Definitely noted all of them. And just looking at the project and where this takes us. Again, I want to emphasize that today, the drawings that you saw were, again, by me an engineer and I took the interior guidelines far too literally and made something different from the existing structure. So I'll make sure you understand, this is by no means RFS before it. And it's really a litmus test to elicit these comments. Really thank you for providing all of these comments. I want to leave you actually with a question and feel free to, you know, Susie or if anyone's really drawn to it immediately, comment on it. But looking at the structure and the comments that people have provided, if we were to step the building 10 feet back on the east and north elevation and add an additional floor to keep that unit count, if something like that would fit in this neighborhood and obviously the design improved to match with the existing structure. But based on the comments that I've heard, you don't want to have balconies but you want to provide out for space, you don't want to have a building that just consumes the existing structure. So that's kind of one way to take this based on the feedback we provided today. But again, I just want to say thank you for that and really appreciate your time here today. That's all. Well, yeah, I mean, I think what we can do then, I mean, you had a question there about step backs or setbacks from the building facade to anything you build. So typically what we would do as a designer review board is we just take a little quick straw poll, little hand raise rate. Like if the board would be amenable to a change like that, you know, we'd say, yeah, you know, raise your hands to yes. And if we don't, we obviously wouldn't raise our hands. So if that's okay with the cultural heritage board, we'll just kind of do that and see what everybody thinks is just a general concept like, hey, if you set back the add on building some unknown dimension, whatever it may be, five to 10 feet, if you guys would be favorable to that. So just a quick straw poll. So raise your hand if you're favorable to a setback. Okay. Well, there you go. So maybe not. Looks like maybe the majority of DRB would be, but I'm not seeing anybody on cultural heritage board that was amenable to that. And Chair Weigel, just to confirm it was setback in exchange for an additional floor. Correct. That's what we were raising our hand on. Did the applicant say, did the applicant say if we set it back and add an additional floor? In concept. I was asking, yeah, I was actually just asking about a setback, not necessarily an additional floor. I was just asking about a setback in general. Like, regardless about adding a floor, like let's forget about the floor for a minute. Like from a massing standpoint, what I heard, I think from everybody was that they didn't like this kind of smushed upness that's happening right now. So in the absence of a floor, would everybody be okay with a setback? Just like as the only element and I'm thinking, yes. Right. Now it sounds like if you were going to trade a setback for a floor, Culture Heritage Board, not so much, you guys would think pretty much, yeah, pretty much adamant about the height, which is fine, I get that. Yeah, I didn't vote for it because I thought we were exchanging setback for an additional floor. If we're just talking about doing a setback on the two streets, then I would vote for that. Right, and I think that's what I heard from you guys is a setback, yes, great. Lower the height, but not in exchange for more height. I think you guys are pretty much in agreement, no more height. DRB is like, hey, go higher, which is fine. It's that we disagree. I think it's okay. Board member Fennel, you had something? I think just from a cultural heritage board standpoint and having gone through different programs like this from the beginning, we are at such an infancy stage with this project that I'm not willing to give anything until we see better plans, it's too early to raise my hand for anything until I see more from the applicant. Well, thank you for that. Can everybody hear me fine? My headphones died. I just wanna make sure everybody can still hear me. All right, perfect. So with that, I believe we can close item 5.1 unless nobody has anything else, correct? So with closing item 5.1, hang on, I gotta read something here. So this concludes the joint session of the design review board and cultural heritage board. The cultural heritage board may now leave the meeting and design review board will continue with our normal meeting agenda, which is item 5.2, but we will take a 10 minute break. So thanks again, cultural heritage board. Thank you, Chair Wachow and all members of both courts. Good to see you all. You're all. Good to see everybody. And then we'll take a 10 minute break and we'll be back, I'm gonna call it a 12 minute break. Seven, 720. Okay, it's 720, so we should bring it back. Did we lose Adam again? No, he's not back. There he is, okay. There he is. There he is. All right, okay, thanks again, guys, for going through that. I appreciate it. I know that extends our evening. So thank you. And just make sure everybody can hear me. I had to switch microphones and stuff again. So, follow me. Oh, you're good. All right, awesome. Okay, so with that, it is 720 and we'll move on to item 5.2, which is public hearing. And so it is public hearing for Avenue 3111, storage and apartments exempt from CEQA design review major, 3111 and 3119, Santa Rosa Avenue, PJ, sorry, PRJ 21-013 and DR 21-016. And with that, I will turn it over to the illustrious Susie Murray, first staff report. Finally getting better about getting my presentations up for you. So hello again, Chair Weigel and members of the board. The project before you this evening, the second project before you this evening is the Avenue 3111, storage and housing. And it's located at 3111 and 3119, Santa Rosa Avenue. If constructed, I think it's always helpful for people to understand that there will be 48 new housing units provided, which hits about 1.8% of our arena requirements, our housing requirements from the regional housing needs allocation. It proposes to construct a three-story, I'm sorry, three-structure and three-story apartment complex, offering one and two bedroom units. It also includes a self-storage facility that is comprised of six structures. All the perimeter structures are single story and then this one in the center is a two-story structure. And I think it's important to note at this time that when the project came to the board for concept review, it had RV storage in the center of the site surrounded by those single-story storage units. And they have, they've switched that out and they put a two-story structure in the center, which comes close to doubling their capacity, I think, in terms of their storage units. The required entitlements are a major design review, which is before the board this evening, which will be followed by a minor conditional use permit scheduled at the zoning administrator on October 6th. I'd like to point out that we typically, we tried to do the conditional use permit afterwards because the conditional use permit will lock in the site plan. So here's an aerial view of the site. It has been used for years as storage. This is a photograph that I took a few weeks ago and traffic was kind enough to stop for me that day and let me snap a few shots. So the property is outlined here in blue and you can kind of get the neighborhood context. We've got commercial to the north, residential and commercial on the west side of highway 101, residential and commercial to the south and predominantly residential to the west. There is a little bit of commercial use directly across San Rosa Avenue. The project has a long history. They had their first development review meeting with the city back in 2017. The project required rezoning or pre-zoning for annexation. So it went through actually two neighborhood meetings. The first neighborhood meeting was for the pre-zoning portion. And the second neighborhood meeting was for the development project. The board, your board, the time review board saw it as a concept item on November 19th in 2020. And then in May of 2000, kind of backing up a little bit, the planning commission made the recommendation for the pre-zoning and the city council approved that the following September and the property in the interim was annexed. We received the project applications in March of 2021. And we are finally before you this evening. The general plan land use designation for this area is retail and business services. And the zoning is general commercial, which is consistent with that land use. Some of the general plan goals that this project will implement always first on my list. It meets the housing needs of Santa Rosa residents. It also promotes mixed use sites and it will certainly enhance and strengthen the visual quality of the corridor coming into the city. Project was reviewed in compliance with the zoning code in terms of allowable uses. It does require a conditional use permit, but block coverage, building height, it's everything's in compliance, including parking. So in the design guidelines, there are several that it implements, just a few highlighted here. It promotes neighborhoods that feature a variety of housing types. We don't want everything to be single family detached. It will also help connect or complete our bicycle and pedestrian circulation system in that project is going to be installing a whole new frontage and it will also be adding a bus turnout. So really, really bolstering our circulation there or alternative means of circulation. And then of course it's the infill development. It'll integrate new development carefully into an existing neighborhood. And it is respectful of height and other materials. It's got a single story surrounding it. So yeah, it integrates well. In terms of multi-family guidelines, sorry, I'm losing my voice tonight. The project breaks up the mass of the larger structure with the use of color and materials. It avoids a massive appearance by dividing the building into segments and it provides a logical layout. It's very easy to navigate taking access off Santa Rosa Avenue for both uses. So here's kind of a, you saw this in your plans as two different landscape plans. And I kind of pasted them together so you could see how the whole site would work here. And it shows the circulation. Of course you've got this entry point, these parking spaces designated for all of the sale storage use. You've also got this access point for the residential use and then of course the circulation plan that goes, I believe that there's, you know what, I'm gonna let the applicant talk about this corner. Anyways, the parking requirements have been met on site for the housing and on site for the storage space. The project does require a lot line adjustment because right now this parcel looks like it's about this big over here. It does have a lot line adjustment associated and will expand the size of the residential parcel. We encountered one hurdle, which is a hurdle that we've been encountering quite a bit these days due to some changes in stormwater, I'm gonna say best management practices with treating stormwater. We've had several projects that have run into some, some redesign issues. And this was one of them, but we've gotten over that hurdle and there are no unresolved issues. I'm very happy to report. Public comments. So it has, we've had several meetings, concept meetings and neighborhood meetings. The one comment that we received from a member of the public that wasn't favorable about the project had to do with contamination of the project. The applicant, this was outlined in the report and I'll just summarize it here. They did a phase one environmental review because they learned that there was a previous use of a fueling station and some tanks that had been removed. They were encouraged to do the phase two environmental report and they've gotten a clean bill of health from the water board, which is very good news. The other, at the first neighborhood meeting, neighbors came and were interested in participating in the prezoning for annexation. They did get prezoned. They opted not to annex until they get some other issues straightened out at the county in terms of their current land uses. Up here I have a lot of writing. These are the required findings for the design review board. Excuse me, for the design review board and steps through staff's analysis and as indicated on the draft resolution, we find that all findings can be met. The final finding, California Environmental Quality Act, we found that the project qualifies for categorical exemption pursuant to Sequa section 15332, it qualifies in infill exemption. They've provided all the necessary technical studies and it's a pretty clean exemption. So with that, it is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Design Review Board grant design review for the Avenue 3111 Storage and Housing Project located at 3111 and 3119 Santa Rosa Avenue. And before I announce and give my contact information to people who cannot see the screen, I'd like to say that I defer to the applicant's plans. I'm gonna let them explain all of their elevations. For those of you that may have called in and cannot see the screen, my name is Susie Murray. If you have questions about the project, you can call me at 707-543-4348. I can also be reached by email at S Murray, that's SMURRAY at srcity.org. That concludes my presentation and I think the Board likes to see both presentations backed back. We do because this is a public hearing, we have to do one thing before we see the applicant's presentation. Do we have any ex parte disclosure from members of the Board on this project? I'm seeing a bunch of shaking heads. John, no, okay, and none from me. So with that, we will turn it over to the applicant. Okay, I think, I think you can all see that still, right? Yeah. Okay, I think our applicant will mark I think he was gonna kick off the presentation, but it might be Randy Bigarito. Hello, Tess, can you hear me? Yes, we can. All right, thank you, Susie. Appreciate the introduction. My name is Will Marks and also on the call is Evan Lillivan. We're the developers and our partners on the project. And we do have a history of ownership of other Santa Rosa properties. We know the area. Our architects are gonna do a brief presentation, but Evan and I are certainly available to answer any questions. So with that, I'll defer, introduce Randy Bigarito. Okay, Marks, our, I'm sorry, applicant, Bigarino. You have been given permission to speak. Randy, I think you've already been given permission to speak there. Your little microphone is present. Okay, it looks like we cannot hear him. So, Randy, if you could please give us a call in so that we can give you speaking permission that way. I'll read the phone number to you slowly and the meeting ID. Yeah, before we do that, the other option, just I don't know, Randy, I don't know if you're on Zoom, on like your computer, on an iPad, but down in the bottom left hand corner where the little microphone is, there's a little arrow. You can press it and you can say switch to phone audio and it'll actually give you a phone number to call and then you enter in the meeting ID and then your participant ID and it usually like connects the dots, if that's an option for you, or you can do what the amazing city staff is gonna tell you to do. I just thought I'd throw that one out there. I have to do that myself sometimes when I call on the Zoom. So anyway, I'll turn it back over to city staff. So Randy, the telephone call in number is 877-853-5257 and the meeting ID is 816-1176-1047. Do we wanna take a five minute break while Randy gets his sound worked out? I think obviously him being able to present is fairly critical. So, Suley, I would just like to quickly verify we do have a phone number ending in 1557, Randy, if that's you, if you could please press star six, we'll be able to hear you. I apologize, star nine is to raise your hand and then we'll give you the prompt. That is him, I recognize the phone number. Yeah, do it. That did it, thanks. That did it, okay, sorry about that. It always seems difficult on the phone. So, I'm Randy Figuarito, I'm the project architect with Tierney Figuarito Architects and I believe we also have the rest of the design team available if they've hung on this long, which would be a representative from BKF, Civil Engineers, Ken Carroll, the self-storage architect and Don McNair who's the landscape architect on the project. The image on your screen is probably a good start is the current design for the Eastern Nershanna Rose Avenue elevation. And if we can move on to the next slide, which is the site plan and is Susie's sorry giving you the highlights of the project already as she usually does very well. The southeastern corner of the project is the multi-family project which was the portion that I designed which consists of 48 apartment units and then wrapping it to the north and the west is the self-storage project which is about 85,000 square feet, all single-story except for the one large building that's sort of on that central west portion which is a two-story building which is that's pretty much the only difference in the project since the last time you saw the concept design review is that there's now that two-story building there instead of RV parking. There are two driveways that come in off of Santa Rose Avenue and the office for the self-storage is in that far northeast corner of the project so the one driveway serves the self-storage project, the other driveway to the south serves the apartment project and the northerly driveway is also used for the apartment project and then the fire department has an emergency vehicle access out of the southeast corner of the self-storage project that then connects to our parking drive and out the southerly driveway so that's the vehicular circulation for this project. As Susie mentioned, there's also a bus turnout proposed in the northeast corner of the project. This area of Santa Rose Avenue is kind of a mix of residential and commercial. There's a fair amount of multi-family and some single family that's being built to the east of this project. Slightly out of the apartment project itself is based around three U-shaped buildings that you see in those clusters of footprints there on the site plan. Easterly and westerly U-shapes face inward and the central U-shaped building faces to the south where it encircles a single story community building. Each of the three U's creates a courtyard for the tenants and so we're using the courtyards to kind of create a community aspect to the design and shield the project and the buildings from Santa Rose Avenue and from the highway even though the self-storage obviously provides a very good barrier to both the west and the north. North of the project there's a potential on the books for an extension of Bellevue Avenue that would then turn into a highway over crossing so the self-storage provides a buffer between the residential portion and that future extension also. Let's see if we wanna just go to the next slide and there's the site Susie had shown next please. And there's the surrounding area to the south of us. There's some automotive uses and an older motel to the north of us again is that potential highway over crossing on Bellevue extension next please. Next and the landscape plan that Susie had shown if you have questions I believe Dawn is available to answer those. Next, next, next and there's the planting on the site plan on the apartment project, screening on all sides, trees in two layers along Santa Rose Avenue. We worked with the fire department in developing the plan and the building locations to meet their requirements and the tree spacing and heights that they required for their ladder access. Next, next, actually let's go back one Susie please. So then you see the screening that's also occurring along the highway for the self-storage buildings which step up from single story to the larger two-story structure and then along the future Bellevue extension up the kind of the northeast early portion of the site then there's also a row of screening trees that are working their way along the single story self-storage facility. Next, and there's Dawn's proposed tree planting at the bottom is some of the amenities that be provided in the community courtyard north of the community building. Next, this is our layout based on the fire department requirements next. So in general, this is the easterly and westerly portion of the apartment project, three stories. Again, kind of a U shaped plan that is creating those courtyards. We've got 48 units, 10 two-story and 38, I mean two bedroom and 38 one bedroom. I'm sort of the focus on these plans that we were trying to attain was to always have at least two sides of every unit having access to windows to provide a lot of light and a lot of them on the ends in the two-story or two bedroom units actually are able to have fairly large windows on three sides. So we were trying to get away from kind of the single loaded corridor windows on one wall design that you see in a lot of hired in-city projects now. Next, and this is the central kind of inverted U building in the project with the, if you look on the right side of this image, you can see the single-story community building kind of enveloped by the three-story apartment buildings in the southerly ends of the inverted U are actually just two stories. We're trying to get a little more light, a little southerly light to come in at the community building in the courtyard that's north of the community building, which is where the patio area is with the barbecues and some shading elements. Next, and this is the building that gets up on Santa Rosa Avenue on the east end of the project. It's just a mirror image of the one on the west end. Next, and this is the westerly elevation in that upper right-hand corner of this image. The project in general, the concept designer view was very well received by the board. Probably the bulk of the architectural comments had to do with trying to kind of enliven the easterly facade of the project to say Santa Rosa Avenue in the public sidewalk because previously the easterly elevation was very similar to the west elevation that you're seeing here in the upper right-hand corner of the sheet. Next, and this is the north elevation of the project looking at that central building. The materials on the project are a stucco and a horizontal ribbed metal siding together with steel railings and steel vertical columns that are supporting the partially candlestick decks and overhanging facial elements on the parapets. Most of the openings, we've tried to make it as a relatively solid mass with openings kind of scooped out to create void areas that then contain some color where the entries are and the decks trying to make the windows as large as possible so we can get lots of light in these units so that they are definitely more comfortable to live in and you typically find a lot of times. Next, and this is, now we're looking at the building up on Santa Rosa Avenue. You can sort of see from the middle right image is the east elevation on Santa Rosa Avenue. This is where we've taken the board's comments and transformed the design a little bit on the east elevation. It's still similar to the west elevation because it has the same apartment floor plans within it but we've kind of raised and lowered the parapet height and done a little more recessing and modified the materials in the metal sided elements are a little more distinctive and has a little more character along that Santa Rosa Avenue frontage. Next, and again, that's the same facade we were looking at previously just to give you an idea how the colors and the materials sort of marry with the forms and the interplay of the voids and the solids. Next, and there's the materials and colors that are being proposed for the project. Next, and this is the self storage portion of the project that Ken can answer questions about. Again, the larger building is the two story self storage structure. The remainder is single story. Next, and here's the self storage. The split face block, metal siding. Ken has incorporated some of the comments that the board had at the concept design review meeting to tone down the color on the green roof and lower the slope on those metal sloping shed metal roof elements. So they weren't quite as jarring as original. You can see on the south elevation the dashed lines are showing the outlines of the scale of the multifamily project in relationship to the self storage on the lower image at the far right. That's the self storage office that's at the northeast corner of the site. Next, and the west elevation is what would be up against Highway 101. Again, it's got the single story split face block, the corner elements of the shade roofs and the metal siding. And beyond that, you now see in the background the two story building. It's the self storage. Next. I think that's it. Okay, well, that's the last image. It's almost eight o'clock, so it's probably a good time to wrap up on my presentation. Chair Weigel, would you like me to stop sharing on my screen or keep it up for a little bit? We're gonna, we gotta open the public hearing here so you can stop sharing, thanks. So with that, so we've got the staff presentation and the African presentation. So I would like to open the public hearing for this project. And so we will turn it over to the recording secretary. If you'd like to make a comment during the public hearing on this project, please raise your hand in the Zoom platform and the recording secretary will recognize you and then you will have three minutes to speak. Thank you, Chair Weigel. And for those dialing in, please press star nine to raise your hand. At this time, I see no hands raised. All right, and with that, since there's no public comment, we will close the public hearing. That was easy. So with that, we will bring back the board and then we'll, do you guys want to do questions and comments or do you want to go through questions first? One way or the other? I don't know what you want. It's getting late, so I want to be. Both signed by me. Let's just do questions. I think that'll go quick. Yeah, let's do questions. So Adam, you start questions, applicant and staff. No questions at this time. Cool, board member staff. Questions. Board member McHugh, questions. No questions. Board member Birch, questions. No questions. Sorry, Vice Chair Birch. No questions. No questions. And I didn't have any questions either. I actually was absent at the, when we saw this concept, so I haven't seen this before. So that's kind of fun. So with that, let's go to comments and we'll go with board member Sharon again in the hot seat. Okay. Great. Great, thank you, Chair Weigel. Thank you, Planner Murray, for bringing another project to us and really getting all the projects in before you head out of town. Sounds like so. Earning your night. We're going to keep you late on your last night. And thank you, Randy and applicant team for bringing this back to us. I think I'm the only one who saw this before a couple of years ago. And thank you for, it was a good proposal back then and thanks for bringing another, you know, great proposal and fleshed out. Good iteration. Not too many compliments. Nothing really critical. You took into account our comments from 2020. And I think that, one of the things that I appreciated Randy talking about in his description was the light and the windows. If you were here for the previous item, Drew talked about the dignity of housing and I appreciated that you were emphasizing that and really wanting to provide quality housing and dignified housing as well. It's, yeah, it's a warm and inviting use. I appreciate the mixed use aspect of it. And it'll be an asset to this part of town and to the Santa Rosa Ave corridor be a nice leafy relief along the row there. So thank you for incorporating our comments and I look forward to voting yes on this. Thanks. Board members that comments. It's an echo board member Sharon. I like the plantings of one Santa Rosa Ave like the scale. I find that it's going to be interesting. I find a connection between the apartment building and the storage to be interesting. There's certainly been points in my life when I would like my storage unit to be closer to my apartment. I wasn't here for the first iteration but reading through how the comments from the initial discussion were addressed, I found that interesting as well. Again, I applaud the project and look forward to voting for it. Board member McHugh comments. Well, I appreciate the fact that the applicant took to consideration the comments that we made and incorporated those to the extent that they could. And I am supportive of the project. It's housing that we need. It's a great design. And so I'm very supportive of the project and looking forward to voting for it. Vice Chair Birch. Yeah, I was not on the board at the time that the concept review was seen. But again, I really relied on the extensive response to the comments and thoughtful response to the comments that was put forward by the applicant team. I think it's interesting how, and I'm sure this was covered in the concept review at a site that has, on Centros Avenue, you've got a lot going on, you've got the freeway. I love the idea that a well-landscape storage facility creates kind of a bed and a nice context and location for 48 residential units. So I think it's a really interesting form of a mixed-use project. And yeah, nothing but good things to say about the design and the thoughtfulness and the livability of the project. And I plan to vote yes and look forward to seeing this start construction. And that just leaves me. So I'll start with the fussy, I have two fussy comments that I want changed. So I'm building one, the front porch, I guess we'll call it, that faces both east and west. I don't like that it's an arc. It should be orthogonal, like everything else in the entire project. And that holds true for the balconies in building too. They should just be orthogonal and not swoopy. And those would be the only things that I would want to condition the project on, just cause it's an architectural element that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. There's so much orthogonalness and rectulinearness. It's so well thought out in terms of how like the building massing is happening and the layout of the different units and stuff. And so I'm just going to be picky on these two little fussy things and make you change them. Cause I think the project will look better without it, without the swoops, I guess if that makes sense. But yeah, I mean, a great project. I mean, and the only other negative comment is is, I wish you wouldn't build a storage unit. You would just fill the whole site with housing, but we know there's, I think we had an applicant maybe a year ago, a year and a half ago, and they were telling us that self storage is one of the largest growing industries in the United States right now or something like that, which is why we've seen so many of them. So apparently self storage is now supplanting Duncan Donuts as the thing that gets cut everywhere, I guess. So, but yeah, it's a great use of the site. I mean, you're shielding the residential component from 101, which can be very active and busy in this area, particularly with all the car dealerships across the way. There, lots of people getting on and off kind of at the Corby exit and whatnot. So yeah, I think got a great layout. The only thing that I was questioning, and I think it shows up when I zoom in, on the green building, the siding is yellow or orange or something, is that right, Randy? On the green building. You talking about the self storage? No, you have a green building in your plan set here, building two, the stucco is green and then the metal is shown as like yellow. It's on building the elevation. Right, right. It's got the stucco and it's got the sage, the sage green. Yeah. And is the horizontal siding like an orange or something? Right. Yeah, I think the color board shows it better. Yeah, it looks like you've got a little bit of, you've got orange, orange ribs and then you have yellow ribs, which I think is fine. I just want to clarify it kind of disappears when you zoom out and then when you zoom in real good, it shows back up again. So I just want to make sure color-wise, this is what you intended, right? Yeah, no, I think the colors just aren't showing up correctly on the image. Okay, cool. All right. Yeah, I mean, I think the colors are kind of fun. There's a nice pop to a couple of them and there's some nice, kind of nice, earthy colors. So with that, I think we're done. If everybody agrees with my two shallows, then we can do a, we can maybe look for a motion with those incorporated or if you don't, just looking for a motion on the project. I'll make a motion. Okay, so what are we doing? Okay, resolution of design review board for the city of Santa Rosa, granting design review approval for Avenue 311 storage and housing location at 311 and 319 Santa Rosa Avenue, Assessor parcel number 043-143-018 and 043-143-002 file number dr21-016, parentheses, PRJ21-013, parentheses, and waved further reading of the text. Thanks, John. Can I get a second? I'll second that. I just wanted to note also so that unfortunately, John missed a one in both of those addresses. It's 3111 and 3119. I turned to be nitpicky. Do you guys agree with those two conditions I wanted to add about the balconies? Just make a friend. Okay, Michael, friendly amendment. I'll make a friendly amendment to add the condition that the balcony, the balconies are, the balcony pop outs are orthogonal rather than curved. Cool. I'll ride and die with Drew on that one. Cool. So, Motioner, do you accept the friendly amendment? I do. And a seconder, do you accept it? I do. Okay, so with that, we got to go back to Randy. Randy, are you okay with that? I am okay with that. All right, you got it. Okay, so with that, I think we're done and we're ready for a roll call vote. Member McHugh. Hi. Member Sharon. Member Stop. Hi. Vice chair Birch. Hi. Chair Weigel. Hi. The motion passes unanimously. Fantastic. So with that, Randy and team, good luck getting your building permits together at the city and we can't wait to see this thing being built. Great. Well, thank you very much. Drew, I've got one comment before we adjourn. Sure. I mean, we still have some stuff to go through. We have board business approval. We got because it's reorganized. Oh, got it. I'll share this before we, before we leave this item entirely. I always invoke. Our. Steamed. Colleague, Warren Hedgepeth, when I say that even old couches. Deserve dignified housing. So self storage. Yes. Yes, Warren, Warren Hedgepeth, when I say that, I'm going to say that. Yeah. Yes. Warren, Warren would say something like that. It's totally true. Yeah. He would. All right. Well, thank you applicants and we'll close item 5.2. And we're going to move on here. We got a couple of things to go through before we adjourn. Just because of the rearrangement of our agenda. So item six, approved. Minutes. I don't believe we have any minutes to approve. So that's good. Item seven board business. Okay. We are down to board members just FYI. So if you know anybody who's interested, please encourage them to apply on the city's website. I think Amy, Amy has the link. So it'd be nice to have a seven person board again. And then item 7.2 other. I don't think we have any other business. So with that, we're at item eight department reports and I'll turn it over to Amy. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And our board liaison. Thanks, chair waggle. And thank you all for your participation tonight. I know it's a later meeting than we've had for some time. So yes, we are working on getting those two vacant board seats filled. And so I would certainly appreciate it. If you could help spread the word so I can send an email to you all with the link for the application. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I don't have any additional information to share. So thank you. Thanks, Amy. We appreciate you. So with that, we go to item nine consent items. There are none. And so with that item 10. 10. Adjournment. Great seeing everybody virtually. And we'll see at the next one, which is I guess the first Thursday of October, probably, right? I was just looking at that and I actually didn't see any items in the folder. So. We're just slightly past the staff due date. So I anticipate that we probably will have a canceled meeting on October 6, but I don't know that for certain, but that's the information I have right now. Well, thank you. All right. And so with that, item number 10, we stand adjourned everybody have a nice night. It is eight oh eight. Have a good one. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Bye bye.