 Hello, Chris and Anne. Do we want to check your sound? Hey, Kimberly. Good evening. OK, we're going to go ahead with a couple of sound checks for our applicant team. We have one in the chat box, it looks like. So we'll go ahead and send a prompt for you. And when you respond to that prompt, you should be able to test your sound. So can you hear me, Kimberly? Yes, we can. Yeah, so if you can go ahead and control that meeting setting during the course of the meeting, keep yourself muted when it's appropriate, then we won't have to go through that prompt each and every time. There you go, that's the raised hand, yeah. And then we also have John Paulson with a raised hand. If this is for a sound check, you should be receiving the prompt. Can you hear me, Kimberly? As far as I can see, Rick, you are still unmuted. And we can still hear you. So you're going to want to find that little meeting setting in your Zoom settings. Looks like Mr. Paulson, are you unmuted? You want to test your sound? Can you hear me OK? We can. Great. And then we have also Devin Mary. Yes, we can. Thank you. All right, if the folks that have unmuted can go ahead and mute your microphone until the appropriate time, that would be great. OK. Can you hear me, Kimberly? Yes, we can. I can mute you, but that means you'll have to raise your hand every time it's appropriate for you to speak. So if you can find your own meeting settings, that might be easier for you. And we do have a couple of phone call-in listeners. So I want to advise those folks that in order to raise your hand so that I'll be able to see you in the Zoom meeting format, you press star 9 to raise your hand for that. Rick, it looks like you are still unmuted. So if you can find that microphone setting to mute yourself. Hello, Amy. Good afternoon. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Thank you. OK, so it is 5 o'clock, or it's past 5 o'clock, so thank you for the sound check. And we'll go ahead and get started. So I'm calling to order the June 1st special meeting of the Zoning Administrator. I will be acting as the Zoning Administrator today. My name is Amy Nicholson. I'm a senior planner with the City of Santa Rosa. And I will be conducting the meeting today and welcome your attendance. We are holding today's meeting remotely to comply with the governor's executive order to reduce the transmission of COVID-19. Today's meeting will be conducted by the agenda. Each item will be taken in turn. Each item will be presented by the project planner and the applicant will be given the opportunity to add to the presentation. Then any interested members of the public may provide comments. In each of these steps, I will acknowledge the appropriate individuals. And those on Zoom can use the raise hand feature and you'll be recognized by the recording secretary, Kimberly. If you're calling in by phone, you can press star 9 to raise your hand if you would like to provide any comments. Any of the actions taken today can be appealed. And the appeal period is 10 days following the date of action. If you do wish to appeal an approval or denial, you can do so by contacting the project planner who will assist you in providing and by providing an appeal form. So with that, we can move on to the second item on the agenda. This is an opportunity for public comment for items that are not on the agenda that are within the zoning administrator's purview. So at this time, if you wish to make a public comment for an item not on today's agenda, please raise your hand or press star 9 to be recognized. Kimberly, are you seeing any raised hands? I don't see any raised hands. OK, thank you. I don't either. So with that, we'll go ahead and move into the scheduled item. The first item is a public hearing. This is for minor design review for a site located at 665 Sebastopol Road. And Kristin A. Tumians will be presenting. Good afternoon, Ms. Nicholson. This is Kristin A. Tumians senior planner. And this evening, we're discussing Costa Roseland minor design review. And it is a slide moving. It is a project that's already been seen by both the Planning, Cabe Mission, and City Council for a tentative map and density bonus. City Council approved it on appeal for a tentative map that divided a 7.41 acre parcel into five parcels. And it was for a larger planned area called Roseland Village mixed use project. The approval also included a density bonus, of which one of the three concessions included a reduced parking allowance. The project is located in the southwest quadrant of the city in the area known as Roseland, off of Sebastopol Road. And these are the exhibits that both Planning, Commission, and City Council saw for the tentative map portion of this project that divided the larger Roseland Village area into smaller components. And the component that we're reviewing today is the three to four story apartment building. And here is a view of the tentative map that was approved and we're specifically talking about lot one, so that L-shaped parcel there. Here's a site plan of the proposed multi-family structure. You can see it has adjoining parking on the ground floor. And on December 21, 2017, the designer view board reviewed Roseland Village and they recommended that the applicant bring back a preliminary design, which provided more windows to engage with the Mercado. With the plaza, they requested a separate distinct architectural style for each building to create variety. And the board encouraged a pavilion field to open the buildings to the square and suggest a mural or possibly color tile facing the plaza. With the current zoning code that allows for reducer view authority in plant development areas such as Roseland, it allows for projects to be approved with a reduced review authority. So projects that would normally go to major design review can now be approved at the zoning administrator level. And that is the case here. But they are required to go through a concept design review, which this project has already done. These are some renderings of the proposed structure. This is a view from the future park across the street. There are some more renderings of a partial east elevation at the lobby entry and a partial south elevation. And there are two applicable CEQA exemptions for this project. One is that it's consistent with the specific plan for the Roseland's surpassable specific plan area. And it's a residential project pursuant to a specific plan. It's consistent with the land use for the project site and design. And there are no particular effects or site conditions and no unanalyzed impacts that were not already included in the Roseland EIR. And the applicant is here to, I believe they also have a presentation, or they have a few words they'd like to share. And staff is here if you have any questions or comments. But staff is recommending approval of the minor design review for Casa Roseland. Great. So this is Devin Neary with Mid-Pent Housing. And I believe, Kristen, do you all have our presentation? What? Yes. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, Kristen, for your presentation. Sorry, Ms. Nicholson. I thought I had the applicant's presentation geared up. But I have to go look for it really quickly. So I apologize for the. Not a problem. Hi, Devin. I'm unable to find your PowerPoint. I don't know if those ever sent to me. Or I can re-send it to you right now. Is that all right? Yeah, sure. Thank you. Devin, it might be faster if you share your screen, actually, because perhaps it's too large of a file. Oh, if that's possible. Yeah, I think we'll have our architect, Rick, if you want to share your screen. That's probably the easiest way. OK, so whoever's going to be sharing their screen, I need to make you a panelist and his informat. So I need to know who is going to be doing that. OK, Rick is responding in the chat that he's not prepared to share the PowerPoint. OK, Ms. Shepherd, I can see the chat here. Let me can you raise your hand so that I can find you in the list. OK, here we go. You should receive a prompt. And as soon as you respond to the prompt, you'll be able to reenter as a panelist. There you go. OK, excellent. So I can kick us off and then, I'll just let you know when to shuffle through the slides there. Thank you. OK, sorry about that delay, everybody. So good evening. Thank you for being here tonight. My name is Devin Neary. I'm from Midpen Housing, and I'm the project manager for the Casa Roseland project. So just a little bit of background on Midpen. Midpen Housing has 50 years of experience developing and managing affordable housing properties across 11 Northern California counties, spanning from Sonoma to Monterey. As property managers, Midpen strives to ensure that every community we manage benefits both our residents and the surrounding neighborhood. Midpen also provides on-site educational programming and other resident services tailored specifically to the residents living at each property. Next slide, please. Casa Roseland is one element of the Tierra de Rosas master of development and will provide 75 affordable apartments in the Roseland neighborhood of Santa Rosa. The development is comprised of 24-1 bedroom, 31-2 bedroom, and 23-bedroom units for individuals and families, but income levels no greater than 60% of the area of median income. We continue to progress towards our goal of beginning construction on Casa Roseland in 2022. I will now turn it over to our project architects to present the design in more detail. Thank you so much. So I know we had one person that was having some trouble with their sound. If you called in on a phone, press star 9 on that telephone connection, and I'll be able to unmute that phone connection so you'll be able to participate in the meeting. Otherwise, please raise your hand within the Zoom meeting. It's like we have Rick Williams here. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. OK, I'm sorry. I was having a little trouble with the sound. It doesn't seem to be coming forward. You can hear me now, though? Yes, we hear you. Just fine, thank you. Thank you. So my name's Rick Williams, and I'm with Van Meter Williams Pollock, the architects for mid-pen housing, and Lisa Shepard is with me as well. We're very excited to present Casa Roseland to the general administrator. Casa Roseland is part of a larger master plan, as you pointed out. It's the site, which is in the teal blue in the upper left-hand corner, is part of the larger master plan development. It's on 1.5 acres at the corner of West and A streets. The design is for 75 family apartments and includes the required 108 parking spaces. It also will have supportive services, management on site, and is it a key location as the first building moving forward as part of the overall master plan? Next. You can see from this image from the master plan that it plays an important prominent role with the corner of the building, looking out onto the plaza and park. It has a trellis arcade or arcade along the front bottom base of the building. It is four stories over the entire building in the master plan. It's allowed to be taller, and we have done some manipulations to the massing to refine that. And it has a recessed entry on West Street in the original master plan, which we retained. Next. So this image is from approximately the same view of the refined design for Casa Roseland. It has a prominent corner element and feature. It still has a recessed corner, and it has a trellis around the whole base of the building as it looks out on the plaza and the park. We have modified it, refined the design through a community process, refining the building massing, lowering it along A Street for a more residential character, and reducing the height there, and really emphasizing the corner with a major corner element, which we think is a little stronger than just having a small turret or tower at the corner in the original master plan illustrations. Next, please. Color is important, and I want to talk to you a little bit about color around the corner elements and the balconies and how we communicated that, a conversation with the community in a series of working sessions, community meetings, and as well as online surveys. Next, please. So we presented multiple color palettes to the community and had a conversation about the role of the color in the buildings, highlighting the corner elements, as well as having metalwork and railings to the balconies, which could be custom designed. And we wanted to give the community an opportunity to weigh in on these important features. And they did so in both community meetings where they voiced their opinion. They also had some on, they were at the library being able to provide their opinion in written form. And they also had an online survey that many people addressed as well. Next, please. This color palette was the overwhelming choice selected by the predominant number of people who weighed in on each of those variety of different methods. And we were excited for the strong, rich red color on the corner, and then some lighter palleted colors, which are going to be in each of the recesses of the balconies around the entire building in different patterns. And then we also, next, please, allowed them to select a more organic form to the railings. So a pattern in the railing cut metal, laser cut metal, which allows a more softness to the railings, which people said they liked the contrast between the building form and the railing design. Next, please. We also made other refinements to the building that started from the inside and reflected itself on the outside as well. But these are minor refinements to the overall master plan concept. Next, please. The corner, we will compare the two variations in a number of images that you see coming forth. But you can see how we consistently were comparing the master plan and going back to that to make sure that we were in the same spirit of the master plan overall. Next. A key aspect that we did was we had common space in the front of the building at the corner, and we retained that. But we moved some of the common space over to the back of the building by the play area so that the community room spaces and teeth center could open up to a more private play area so small kids could run in and out of the building in a secure way. While we expanded the A Street residential frontage so that it could become more of a residential street along that entire facade. And if you look at the next slide, you can see how we added the common space on the back, which really connected well to the rear entry to the building from the parking, the barbecue area, and the children's play area became opening from the common community spaces for the residents while we made the residential area along the front stronger. And then the bike area remained at the corner of the building, retaining a lot of activity on that corner. And the other common space and management offices look out to the corner park as well as the entry adding surveillance and security. You can see how the open space and the building relate to each other with the barbecue area, the play area. We have the children's center and the common rooms and other seating areas and activity opening up to the private space for the residents. There's a lot of public open space, but we wanted some private space for the residents as well. Next, please. The children's play area is going to be really fun. It's going to be a place for children to explore. It's not a typical jungle gym type of a play equipment. It's going to be an exploratory space for children to play and climb, have a little climbing wall for them on the building as well. Next, please. And we're excited to really make it into a landscape feature, which can be for children of young ages while some of the older kids will be in the adult area as well as take advantage of the plaza and park across the street. Next, please. We got some really nice elements and features that we're building into it and we're very excited about how the landscape treatment is really going to reinforce the active areas in the building so that there's a real inside outdoor relationship. Next, please. You can see from other examples of community rooms, some large and tall that look out into a courtyard, some a little lower but broader in nature that have kitchens, areas as well as children's activity areas that look out and spill out onto the open space. It was really what we were attempting for as well as having an active bicycle storage and maintenance area so that kids and adults can jump on their bikes, be right outside the building immediately and off to the park and onto the bike trail right behind the building. Next, please. Some of the building design characteristics, there was a conversation with the designer youth committee during the master plan process that really discussed having a more contemporary style around the character of the building so that it wasn't a traditional Spanish colonial style but was a more contemporary interpretation. And we believed we built on that idea in the overall design of the building from the massing, the roof forms as well as the window treatments shown such as the corner ribbon window to the left or the massing on the right, both of which maintained some of the traditional feel but in a contemporary manner. And I'll show you how we kind of translated that into a couple of the key elements of the building. Next. If you look at the entry to the building from the master plan, you can see that the corner element was a little taller turret. We have the balconies emphasized with some color behind it. We have the recessed entry and then we have the trellis in the base on the front and we've retained those key features while we've characterized them slightly differently. Next. So this is the image from approximately the same view. You can see we have a strong corner element. We have the trellis base and then we have the recessed entry that we've accented with additional color that mimics the corner, the red color on the corner but we've also added a little roof deck on the second level, which allows people to be active at additional activity and gathering over the top of the front entryway. And then in there, we also mimic the railings of the separate residential balconies with a form that is simple and similar to the corner element as well. And you can see the corner windows on the right-hand side of the entryway where you can see how we've wrapped it and picked up some of that character that we saw in the last photograph. Next, please. On the other side of that same corner where we previously in the master plan illustrated either trellis or an arcade, we have chosen to retain the trellis and wrap it around the corner rather than having two separate elements. Next, please. So you can see from this image, we still have the strong corner element, we have the trellis, that's emphasizing the entry to the bike area and access to the street from there. And then we have a series of residential steps and rather than having only one or two entries, we now have four apartment home entries along the street, making a street much more of a residential street and giving it a little bit clearer identity where before it was kind of half residential, half common space, we wanted to emphasize the corner is common and the rest of the street is residential. And we think we've carried that through. Next, please. So that when you look at the sidewalk and the street view, you see the entryway, you see the stoops and the porches covered and we've retained a little bit of that trellis accent as you proceed down the street, but it's different, but similar in vocabulary to what's at the corner elements as well. Well, we think having a little more residential activity along the street there will give it a little more of a residential character and identity to that streetscape. Next, please. The back of the building is similar, we keep the same consistent pattern of bays or decks and balconies with accent and color, the color element at the entry, the same kind of entry feature and parapet railing in that area. And then we have a strong base. In this instance, it's the garage area, but it keeps that same base, middle and top characteristic that is on the front of the building where here we have flat roofs, on the front to bring the roof elevation down on the front of the building. Next, please. So in total, we feel that this building plays an important role along with the future buildings that are illustrated here to provide its own individual character while still having the same conversation with the street, the plaza and the park and playing its role of having a strong corner element that helps to define the plaza and the overall wider architectural character of the community. Next, please. And we feel that it'll be a strong addition to the neighborhood. It will add a lot of vibrancy and visual interest and we feel that and hope that you feel the same that this will be a strong addition to the Roseland community and this master plan development as well. And with that, I'd just like to thank you for the opportunity to present this vision. It's been well received by the community and we're looking forward to any questions that you might have. Thank you, Mr. Williams for that presentation. I think before I move into questions, I'd like to give the public an opportunity to provide any comments and then I will move into questions. So with that, I will open the public hearing for this item. If you would like to make any comments, please use the raise hand feature in Zoom or press star nine on the phone. Thank you. Okay, let's go ahead and start with John Paulson for the first public comment, please. Unmute yourself. I did. Thank you very much. I am John Paulson, 555 Sebastopol Road. I'm the adjacent property owner east of this project. And I just want everybody to know, including Mr. Williams, mid-pan and CDC, they already know that when the Roseland Shopping Center was built, my father in Cotting, in order to protect each other's financial investment, wrote up, recorded a reciprocal parking circulation easement, which seems to be ignored throughout this whole planning project. The parking circulation easement was created during the construction of the Roseland Shopping Center in 1956 and is current even now. It's a prescriptive easement. The CDC and mid-pan, as I've said, know of the recorded easement, yet they continue to plan without addressing this easement. The Cotting CDC parcel, which this is part of currently and since 1956, 57 has 272 parking spaces, which is an ATLA survey that the CDC has in their possession. And all these parking spaces are shared by my parcel and the CDC parcel. This project by itself eliminates 108 of these 272 shared recorded and prescriptive parking easements. Therefore, sorry, I'm opposed to this project. Please don't approve this project and future CDC mid-pan projects until the recorded and prescriptive easements are resolved. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Paulson, for that comment. Next, Jesus Guzman. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, great. Well, good afternoon. My name is Jesus Guzman, and I'm the Policy and Advocacy Director for Generation Housing. We're excited to see Casa de Roseland come before you today and even more excited to extend our support for the project. First and foremost, I mean, we've been really impressed with mid-pan housing's commitment to seeking out and integrating the community input into the project's design at various stages of the process. As Mr. Williams pointed out, their efforts have ranged from reaching out to the community about the building color through surveys and meetings to choosing street names as part of the larger master development for Tierra de Rosas. And also, most recently, their movie night series that have brought residents together to learn, discuss and contribute to the project. Together, these efforts reflect, from our point of view, a really strong desire and commitment to including the community's voice in designing this important new project in Roseland. And as a result of mid-pan's frequent outreach and their team's expertise, Casa de Roseland's design and color palette have done a really nice job of acknowledging the vibrancy of the neighborhood while also offering a more contemporary interpretation of traditional design practices. So we're excited to offer support of the project and we encourage the zoning administrator this evening to approve, excuse me, to approve the project's minor design review. Thank you. Thank you. And the last hand I see is Erin Reinberg. Hi, good evening, everyone. I'm a Roseland resident off of Burbank Avenue and this is the type of project that I like to see as the development going into Roseland. It's centered in an industrial, more business-spaced. It's not taking away farmland. It's providing community space. It, in some ways, I wish it was actually a bigger project so that more affordable housing can go into these areas where there is a spot for community to access resources. So I just wanted to take this opportunity to share that these are the types of projects that should be going in and the spaces that they should be going into so that we can both preserve Roseland's rule characteristics while also recognizing these urban spaces moving to the future. So I hope the city will take that to heart as they look at putting in more affordable housing and make sure that they're strategically approving projects like this one in appropriate areas. I am in favor of this project. Thank you. Thank you. I am not seeing any additional hands raised. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item. And I'd like to move into questions. One would be to address Mr. Paulson's comment regarding the easement and how that has been reviewed or resolved. I'm not sure, Kristen, if you might be able to speak to that or if there's another staff member that can. Hi, Ms. Nicholson. I'm trying to contact the staff engineer that reviewed the project. One thing to keep in mind that this issue was also brought up during the tentative mat stage. And while I wasn't the planner, during that, my understanding was the issues were resolved enough to approve the tentative map. But let me see if I can contact Mr. Osborn in engineering. The applicant might also be able to shed some light on the easement issue as well. Great. Thank you. Sure, Ms. Nicholson. You can speak to it if you'd like us to. Sure. Great. So this is Devaniri again from MinPen. And regarding the easement, we did plan the master plan in response to the easement and to maintain access to the neighbor parcel. And we are in compliance with the access and parking as required by the easement. Ms. Nicholson, if I could direct your attention. There is a DA exhibit A attached to the project. And that was part of the tentative map approval. And condition number 85 speaks to requiring. It specifically states, a public access easement and cross parking lot easement shall be granted over all private driveways and parking stalls on the interior of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 for all parking to be shared and kept accessible to the public patrons and residents of lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. And the public at all times and emergency vehicular access easement, EVA easement shall be dedicated over the private driveways of lots 1 and 2 to the city of Santa Rosa. OK, great. Thank you for bringing my attention to that condition. And that was the DAC report that was adopted with the tentative map approval. That's correct. OK, great. Thank you. I just have a few questions for the applicant team, or really one question. I was interested when you spoke about the community process for the design of this portion of the project. I was just wondering what kind of sounded like you had some online and also perhaps in-person. I'm just wondering if you can tell me a little bit more about how or who you engaged and what time period and what forum that took place. This is Devin from Midpen. I'm going to defer this question to our director of housing who's calling in over the phone. And we'll just need to be un-muted. So I have a raised hand from a number ending in 7372. Is that the one we want to? Yes, I believe so. OK. Hi, this is Ali Gaylord from Midpen Housing. I just wanted to take a minute to respond to the community outreach and engagement that we most recently did regarding the building colors and the panels on the balconies. So we held meetings in October of last year. So we did some in-person. But because of COVID, we weren't able to hold the large meetings like we typically do. So we had a series of drive-in movie events at the site and provided folks with surveys where they could mark the choices of the color palettes that they liked. And then we also held two meetings over Zoom where people could provide their input. So we went through a similar presentation as to what Van Meter presented tonight, showing the different color palettes and the opportunities for the balcony railing design. And we also have a project website where people could put their input on and see the presentation on that site as well. So we got over 300 comments about what people wanted to see. And really the resounding preference was the color with the strong red corner element, which people really liked. And we're continuing to do community engagement. I think there was mention about the street naming that's available for public input right now, as well as some of the elements that will be in the plaza, in the master plan. Great, thank you so much. I see that Mr. Williams has his hand raised as well. I'm not sure if that's from before or in response to a question that I asked. It was from before. OK. Great, thank you. And Ms. Tumian, one process question for you. So it sounds like this master plan went to the design review board as a concept several years ago. And so the architecture has changed since the design review board provided comments. And that was well-aligned in the applicant's presentation. But the comments that the design review board made appear to be reflected in the plans that are before the zoning administrator today. Is that what you found in your analysis? Yes, and I included the minutes from the design review board concept design review so that you have that for your records. The original design did have a more Spanish style. And the main request for this component of the project was to not be tied to that style in particular. And I believe the applicant has addressed that in changes to the parapet, the color palette, and the railings. It is a much more modern take. And it departs from the original design that the design review board didn't think was necessarily appropriate for the Rosenvillage area. Great, thank you. So I do not have any further questions. I appreciate the presentation and also just seeing how the design has evolved. And also the community engagement piece is an extra step. And I appreciate that as well. As it relates to the easement, I feel based on the approvals that were already granted by the Planning Commission for the tentative map, that that was addressed, that the site plan was approved during that time, and there are conditions in the Adopted Development Advisory Committee report, which are attached to this agenda today. So with that, I will be approving this project. Thank you. OK, let's move on to our next item. It sounds like there has been a request to reorder the agenda. Mr. Roth, did you want to speak to that? Yes, thank you, Ms. Nicholson. The request is that we go over item 3 and re-organize the agenda just so that we go over item 3. Now, instead of item 2. Sorry, so 3.3 instead of item 3.2, so that the applicant has a little more time to review some of the conditions provided for item 3.2. That makes sense. OK, yes, that is fine. And just to clarify, 3.3 is also a public hearing. Yes, it's a public hearing. There was an on-site sign. It was noticed accordingly for public hearings. OK, great, that was my only concern was just making sure that the public hearing went first, but it looks like we have three public hearings. So that sounds great. So we'll move on to item 3.3, which is a public hearing for minor design review for 80 College Avenue, and Mr. Roth will be presenting. Thank you. Bear with me, I'll go ahead and set this up. Do you see that? Hold on one second. Looks good. OK, so this is the thank you, Ms. Zoning Administrator, Amy Nicholson, my name's Adam Ross, in terms, senior planner, project planner for this site. The item before you is actually it's a public hearing for changes to a previously approved housing project known as Sage Commons. So the site is 80 College. It's on College and Cleveland Avenue. I'll show a little bit more of that, but the item was approved in June of 2019. This is an affordable housing project as it relates to with sorry, at an affordability level equivalent to low income, which is because it is supportive housing. The project was approved by the zoning administrator under special ZA, which has undergone a couple changes that require a revisit to the project. So here you'll see images. So on the left is the originally approved project. You can see a bicycle shelter here. You can't see it so much here, but under the new proposed one, there's a masonry blast wall, which I'll go over a little bit. Again, there's some minor changes to window treatments, which are very minor. The extension of this portion of the building, 10 feet south, which also required this covered bicycle structure to be repositioned on the site, as shown here. And then also some internal courtyard changes just for very minor in detail. So here's another image of the previously approved project. Sorry, I think these are flipped. So these are flipped. So this one on the left is the proposed and the one on the right is the original. As you can see, it's better represented here. Originally, there was an open fencing location along the smart rail path, the multi-use path as it goes out along the project site. There is a property across the smart train track, the smart tracks that has propane tanks, which as part of the funding for this project under the state's housing and community development department, they're requiring a protection wall. It's a six-foot-high blast wall along the smart path. The applicant is proposing a one-foot landscape set back with landscaping and vines along the wall. As you can see here, this building moved 10 feet down. And so this bicycle structure was then repositioned to accommodate the same amount of bicycle parking, but just north and south rather than east and west facing. And minor trim details to the windows, those would normally be subject to director approval, but since these were mostly significant enough to come back to the ZA, we included all of those changes, which is included in the resolution. So again, here's a site plan of the existing, and I apologize for it not being completely clear, but the previously approved version, you have landscaping between the building and the smart multi-use path. It's part of this project. It improves the bicycle lane in front of Adie College and the transition from the multi-use path onto the street. That still remains, that part does not change. And then here's the proposed version. These reds kind of, the red highlights identify the changes. And I forgot to mention here, there is a emergency backup generator required as part of the state funding for the project, the repositioning of the bicycle structure, some additional plantings, those were the internal courtyard changes, just relocation of kind of where these internal plant, plantier strips are. And then this portion of the building is extended 10 feet south. There's no increase in density here. Most of the square footage has been incorporated into the walkway facility, getting to and from the buildings for this 10 foot extension. And again, these circular stuff, some of it isn't even really necessary because it involves some interior changes, but they are exterior wind of trim changes. So here's a 3D rendering of the change. Here's that six foot blast wall as required by HC housing and community development, HCD with the state. So this is, it's pretty much comes down to, they have to put it in. They are receiving funding because they are affordable development and staff is supporting the changes. Wind of trim wasn't a big deal to begin with. The bicycle relocation, rearrangement not doesn't bring up any issues or anything like that. And the blast wall being included as part of the public review process. So here are some elevations for reference. And so it's kind of hard to see, but there it's this little portion underneath the window where it's now incorporated into the actual window. So it's no longer required. There's a little vent under here now rather than the space it was before. That's the window fixture change. And then again, here's the blast wall and some of the extension of the walkway inside the house, inside the building. So with that, you'll find the, see the findings in the resolution under zoning code. Section, I'll get that for you shortly. That is zoning code section 20-54.060, which are for changes to an approved project. The previous entitlements I should have mentioned earlier were a minor conditional use permit for supplemental housing, which allowed an 80% supplemental density bonus. That file number is CUP 19-062. And then the minor design review under the modified review authority under the Resilient City Development Measures, that file number is DR 19-038. And that concludes my presentation. The applicant team has not provided a presentation, but they may be here to comment on the project. And I see Frank Visconti is here representing the project. And I can answer any questions you may have. And again, the applicant team is here too to provide any answers for questions you may have as well. Thank you, Mr. Roth. Does, is the applicant interested in providing any comments before we move on? If so, please raise your hand or press the star nine feature on your phone. Thank you. Hi, this is Frank Visconti from Roll Broke, all the architects. No, actually, I think he covered all the issues. It was mainly the blast wall. There are two 20,000 gallon propane tanks at the suburban propane. So it, so that sort of triggered the requirement to mitigate, you know, in case of a blast. So, but I think he covered everything well. And if there are any questions, I can certainly answer any more in more detail. Great. Thank you. I don't have any questions currently, but I'd like to go ahead and open up the public hearing for any member of the public to provide comments on this item. Please go ahead and use the raise hand feature or press star nine from your phone. Give it just another moment. I'm not seeing any raised hand. Okay. I do see a raised hand. Steppen Hunter or Stephen Hunter. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. All right, I wasn't going to say anything, but just since I happened to be riding by this site, you know, at least once a week on that bike path, I just wanted to mention that after having seen so many planting strips that have basically been neglected by the city, that one foot strip of ivy that is proposed to go against the wall, that you should have some sort of a condition in this improvement, that somebody's actually going to maintain it and not let it turn into what we've got all over Roseland, which is, you know, medians and landscaping strips that are just inundated with weeds and overgrowth and nobody seems to be taking any initiative to take care of it. That's all. Thank you so much. Okay, and seeing no other hands raised, we'll bring it back for questions. Mr. Ross, can you or the applicant respond to Mr. Hunter's comment regarding landscaping and if there is a condition or something in the city code that would address maintenance of that area? Yes. I believe, I'll let Frank also add in as he sees fit here, but there is a general condition of approval that's applied to almost every project that I know of in the city that requires the owner maintain the landscaping in good, maintain the landscaping to be in good condition as part of their approval of whatever project they have. I am going to look at the original approval, which was part of the agenda packet and look for the specific condition of approval. It's most likely in condition in the exhibit A. If you give me a minute, I can, I'll go ahead and look for that. Sure, that sounds good. Thank you. While Mr. Ross is looking into that, I would just provide some general comments. I think that the changes are pretty minor and understandable as it relates to the funding needs. I appreciate that there is landscaping proposed to buffer the blast wall from the riders and pedestrians on the Gerudo to trail. I do share a concern that landscaping may not receive a lot of attention just because it's based on the other side of the wall from the development. And so I'm hoping that if Mr. Ross is not able to find a condition in the previous approval, that perhaps we could add a condition just to this design review resolution, which requires regular maintenance of the landscaping on that side of the wall by the applicant team. And so Adam, I don't know if it works for you to perhaps either add some language into the resolution and then I can sign the updated resolution as it relates to the landscape maintenance and if the applicant team is okay with that condition being added. Go ahead, Mr. Visconti. Oh, I didn't realize I was unmuted. Yes, I think we will be receptive to that. The main reason why we wanted to do that was also or one of the primary reasons we wanted to do that was to inhibit graffiti on the wall. So we came up with the idea of a particular type of IV through Don McNair, our landscape architect with the irrigated strip or, well, I'm assuming it's irrigated, but that it will be maintained as well as all of the plantings that we've added all around the building. So that is part of the Danco's responsibility to maintain it. And we have a lot of nice plantings in the courtyard as well as along College Avenue. So this will be as important as the other ones. Great, thank you. Yeah, and I found looking at the, it's not in the exhibit A, but in the design review resolution, DR-19-0038, which is the original approval. We have two conditions that kind of addresses that and we can provide a more specific one if you would like. We have, sorry, so it was all that. So condition of approval number 10 on the design review resolution says, all landscaping shall be privately maintained and irrigated, property owners and our homeowners association shall be responsible for the irrigation and maintenance of the street trees and maintenance of the planter strips in front and alongside of their lots. And then there's one more that states, all vegetation planted on the west side of the property adjacent to the Rite of Way, the smarts Rite of Way must be maintained on the developer's property and vegetation overhang on the smart row and all be permissible. So that essentially means that they have to make sure it's not overgrown or out of alignment with their property line so they don't encroach onto the smart multi-use path. Okay, if you think that that second condition you read adequately addresses maintenance of that landscaping that I don't think we need to add an additional condition. So I'm comfortable approving it as is with the resolution that is before me now. So I appreciate you looking into that and thank you to the applicant team as well. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we will move on to the third and final item for this evening. This is item 3.2. This is a public hearing for the Stony Oaks Apartments. EIR addendum to a previously approved EIR by council and it includes minor design review and Mr. Roth will be presenting this item as well. Thank you. I'm gonna go ahead and open up the presentation and there is an applicant presentation to follow. So just give me a few minutes. Okay, and let me know if you could see the presentation properly. Yes, I can, thank you. Great, thank you. So thank you, Ms. Zoning Administrator for the opportunity to prevent the project before you, which is the Stony Oaks Apartments. It's a minor design review subject to the Resilience City Development Measures. The site is located at 2542 Old Stony Point Road and I am interim senior planner, Adam Ross for the Planning and Economic Development Department. The project, like I previously stated is a special ZA approval. That means a public hearing that starts at or after 5 p.m. for a modified review authority under the Resilience City Development Measures in zoning code section 20-16.070. So normally it'd be a major design review, in this case, it's a minor design review after there is a concept design review for which one was held with the project on February 18th of this year, 2021. What is a non-discretionary review? It's a minister review as a state density bonus, which was requested for this project. So under normal circumstances, you have 132 units allowed by the zoning and general plan density for this project when it's fully affordable. In this case, the applicant has requested its state density bonus to get 7.5% density bonus and one concession for height, that concession for height is to allow a 50 foot max height instead of a 45 foot, which is allowed under the zoning code. And just really quick, again, the project is 142 fully affordable units on site. So here's a location, it's in the Southwest quadrant of the city within the Rosalind area, Rosalind specific plan area. As you can see here, Stony Point Road, and then it's off Old Stony Point Road with a little bit of frontage off Herne Avenue. There is an existing Oak Grove in the front of the property. That is to be preserved and maintained as part of this project to the greatest extent feasible. And I'll show in the site plan a little bit more, you'll see what that would look like. So more about the project. It's one building, four stories high. It does have two and three story elements on each end of the building. So as it gets closer to the surrounding existing residences, it tapers down, it steps down to three and two story elements. It includes one, two, and three bedroom units. Again, a 7.5% state density bonus and one concession. That is not part of the review of this project. This is only the design review. It's within the Rosalind priority development area. And it is consistent with the Rosalind and the Subasible Roads specific plan development standards. And I will go over that a little bit more later. So again, there's the Oak Grove preservation at the entrance, some of the passive, which is some of the passive on-site amenities. Others include children's play area and some other outdoor seating areas for families and residents to enjoy. Total parking provided for this project is 185 spaces. That is, I believe roughly 1.5 spaces for every two and three bedroom units and one space for every one bedroom unit. That is a maximum that we can ask for as stated in California government code section 65915 subsection P1. So with that, it complies with parking standards for the project site. So here's the entrance. Here's the Oak Grove that's being preserved in the front. There's a little bit of passive amenities, just some park benches and there is a set and stuff. Here's a children's play area. Here's some other outdoor spaces. There's grills. Internally you'll find laundry rooms, office spaces, flex spaces to be used by the residents. The residents, I should say, future residents, there is landscaping around the entire perimeter of the site and street trees are also included. That would be part of the public improvements is updating the what's currently non-existing frontage for the site to have sidewalk that matches the northern portion and leads into the temporary path on the southern portion. Here's some 3D renderings. Some of the comments which are outlined in the recommendations and considerations provided by the designer view board on February 18th of this year are included in the resolution. And some of those include changing to this kind of a butterfly type roof. And some of the materials you see here, I'll let the applicant team kind of go over that a bit more into greater detail during their presentation. So here's some more 3D renderings. So this is, sorry, I should go back here. This is just looking into the site. This would be if I was coming in from the Oak Grove area. Here's another version of that on the, just the other side. So the first image was looking right here. Here's the east portion of the project site. Some more renderings for you. And again, I'll let the applicant team, the design professionals really go into those specific details of the design. And here's the colors and material board. Here's the landscape plans. It's the same image taken from the earlier site plan. Here's a close-up of that area that's part of the Oak Grove, that's between the old Sony Point Road and the proposed building on the project site. And down here, it kind of denotes where that, if you look at the bottom of the screen, it denotes where that is exactly as well. So here's some more. And then again, the child play area, it's just some more outdoor space. Here's some fencing to be proposed. Traffic for the site, it did include a traffic impact study. As part of VMT, this site is within a, within a major transit corridor due to the close proximity to some quality bus stops on Stony Point Road. And is also in the screening for VMT maps, which is provided on the city's website, which comes from the office of planning and research. I think I said that right, OPR. But overall, these are some of the highlights. Creates 51 AM and 62 PM peak hour trips. In that they found that the WTrans found that the intersections will continue to operate acceptably and the pedestrian bicycle facilities are adequate. The two recommendations here from that traffic impact study are, one is very common, which is that landscaping be low profile and that trees be set back outside of the vision triangle. You'll see those conditions on the exhibit A, which I will provide into the record shortly. And then also to pay for the proportional share of funds for the signalization of the intersection at Hearn Avenue and Burbank Avenue. It accounts to 9.3% of the total cost, which is you have this sum of money here, 29,760. So a bit about the CEQA is under CEQA guidelines section 15164. It provides that an addendum to an approved EIR is appropriate when only minor technical changes or additions are made, but none of the conditions described in section 15162 have occurred. 15162 essentially states that, that there's no new or significant information that would change the previous review of the EIR. In this case, an addendum was found to be appropriate and is included in this as resolution one of this packet to adopt the addendum to the specific plan EIR that the addendum was provided by a qualified CEQA consulting firm, WRA Consultants. And they found that no circumstances under CEQA guidelines section 15162 were triggered and therefore no additional analysis was required. The only reason why we didn't do 15182, which is compliance with, or which is consistent with the specific plan is because they have a density bonus of 7.5%. So it accounts for those additional 10 units that would normally have, where they wouldn't have had before under the specific plan EIR. And before I end this, I just wanna highlight a couple of things that are part of the exhibit A. So as you can see here, there's two project entrances and exits, egress and egress for the project. Old Stony Point Road is the main one. There is adequate walking path to an intersection with a crosswalk and then further on to Stony Point Road and as such, but on the Herron side, there's currently no pedestrian path of travel. And as part of the city's working with the city's traffic engineering division and the engineering and development services along with the project applicant, there is a condition of approval in the exhibit A that would require there be some further analysis to see if there can be a temporary path, a pedestrian path of travel to, that would go from the Herron exit to Arrowhead Drive and then provide a crosswalk there. That's put in place so that the applicant has to do their due diligence to try and obtain the rights from the property owners. They have to agree to it, of course, to get to there and then provide that and include on and connect that portion to the public, sorry, here, the pedestrian infrastructure on the southern side of Herron. Or, and there's two ways it could look like, I mean, there's two property owners, they have to consult with them and see what they can come up with. It's been an ongoing process and it may work out, it may not, otherwise there is an option to explore a midblock cross, which is here and then also pay future in lieu fees otherwise. If they cannot obtain the rights for a pedestrian path and then put in the crosswalk, whether it be here or along the, there's two properties here in between these two here, the project is conditioned so that it discourages all pedestrian exit onto here and it would be a vehicle access only in and out and no pedestrian access here. And that's so that the city can further implement safe routes to schools and just keep, do our best to keep, as this area develops, do our best to keep all pedestrians and future residents safe here. And so if there is a blockage or a no pedestrian path of travel here, all pedestrian path of travel would be redirected to Old Sony Point Road entrance and exit. And with that, there are, so then just to finish up here, there is an applicant presentation. There are a couple of clerical corrections to be provided to both resolutions. I can read those into the record when you've deemed it appropriate, the Ms. Stoning Administrator. And there was also an exhibit A produced and provided for the applicant team. And it's prior to this meeting and it's not part of the agenda. And I'm not sure how I need to just read a description to make sure that that's part of the public record or if it could just be noted and then be added to the project file after. And let's say that is a question for you, I think, and maybe some others in the city that we can try and work on right now. Are you able to share the exhibit A on your screen? Yes, I could do that. I think that that would be helpful to just quickly scrolling through so that everyone can see what's in there. And then do you see that exhibit A? Yes. Okay. Okay, so it's dated today. Yes. Okay, and then, so there's, okay, it's 14 pages. And the project engineer is on the Zoom call and maybe he could summarize a lot of what these are because my understanding is that they're, most of them, except for that portion that I explained regarding the if this, then that for the public, the pedestrian path of travel are very standard otherwise. For public improvements for projects like this. Okay. And you mentioned that Jesus want to characterize these, that I just been looking through it. I see that a lot of them are the city standards that are typically applied to new development projects. And I understand that the applicant team has received these, reviewed them and accepts them as well. They may, they are reviewing it and they will kind of go over it. I think during this, if they have any concerns, they could discuss it. And that's the project engineer is here to provide any responses to any of their concerns as well. Okay. Perhaps maybe we can, thank you for sharing that, move into the applicant presentation if there is one. There is, I'll open it up right now. Great, thank you. And so the applicant team just, I think you'll need some permission to speak and unmute yourself. And then as you go through each slide, just tell me to skip forward. I have two raised hands and I need to narrow it down to one. So whoever is going to be providing the presentation if you could leave your hand raised. And if the other party could go ahead and lower their hands or if we're going to go ahead and hear from both of you. It will be a couple of people from the applicant team. Okay. Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yes. Great. Good evening everyone. My name is Taylor Rasmussen. I'm a development director with meta housing, the developer of Stony Oaks. I just want to start off by thanking Adam for a very thorough presentation there. Appreciate all the hard work. We can jump down to that next slide. Yes. Just a brief background on meta. Our main focus is on roundup new construction of affordable housing all throughout the state of California. We've developed over 7,000 units to date take a lot of pride in the quality of design, construction quality and residence service offerings that are in place at our communities. Meta has secured all the financing needed to break ground on this 142 unit affordable deal later this year. We've been working hard to get through the pre-development period and carefully assembled our design team members that are well suited to deliver on our project vision here. So we're once again excited to be partnering with Dahlin Group, an architecture firm we've had success working with in the past. Before handing it off to the Dahlin team, as Adam noted, I think we do want to run through some of the clarifications on the resolutions on the back end of this, I guess presentation or discussion and hope that those are taken into consideration with the final decision. And then I think we might've just had some clarification questions on the way that section 18 is written within Exhibit A. But again, maybe we can do that at the end of the discussion. So for now I can hand it off to Lori Mufford-Fellberg with the Dahlin Group. Great. Thanks, Taylor. Can you guys hear me okay? Yep. Great, thank you. Let's go to the next slide. Thank you for having us this evening. We've worked very hard as the team working with staff bringing this project forward. We're very proud of the fact that we're able to bring 142 affordable housing units to the city of Santa Rosa. So this is the project site. Adam did an awesome job getting you oriented to the site but what we like about this location is the significant resources surrounding it. Parks, retail food, education. It's a wonderful site for affordable housing. Next slide. So here is the existing site and a few ground level photos. You can see Old Stony Point Road on the left-hand side of the screen and Herron Avenue below. It's basically a flat site. It just touches down at point D on Herron. And so the main access is along Old Stony Point Road that is a cul-de-sac to Denton Street through this existing Oak Grove. Next slide. So I'm not gonna go into too much detail on this because Adam already covered it but these are the general statistics on it. We're just under four and a half acres, 142 units. We're meeting the state parking requirements and using the density bonus lot to add those few extra units. Next slide. So we did go through a neighborhood meeting and the design review board. And I think we've worked closely with staff to meet the requested changes from the design review board. They very much supported the site plan and they appreciated the fact that we'd all worked very hard to preserve as much of that Oak Grove as we can. We do have our main entry that kind of winds through it but that was very well received by the board. They enjoyed the sheer variety of the landscape and outdoor amenities offered to the residents. They really wanted to see more contemporary architecture here. They asked for a more contemporary color palette, some of the roof forms, variety in the windows. And so Adam touched on those and I'll get into a little bit more detail as we go through it. Next slide. So also as he noted, we do meet the Rosalina area, surpassed to full road specific plan standards. And so again, providing this level of affordable housing and this location and meeting all those guidelines. Again, working very closely with staff to do so. Next slide. So here you can see the site plan on the left hand side is old Stony Point Road with the main vehicular and pedestrian access through that Oak Grove. The building is generally in the center of the site with parking around the outside, screened from the surrounding neighborhood through the landscaping along the perimeter. And then the amenity spaces are sprinkled along the length of the building and interior, they're really oriented towards those outdoor amenity spaces. We felt it was really important to highlight this left hand side, kind of the western side of the site because of that unique feature of the Oak Grove. And so really clustered both the passive space and the more active space in the community room looking out at it. It really provides a wonderful entry and first arrival point into the community and then broke up the building through various massing techniques and outdoor spaces along the length of it. Next slide. So this is what you would see as you come into the site. You pop out through those trees, there's some massive trees on the northern side and you see the outdoor space right in front of the main community room with all the different activities for families right there highlighted on the site. You've just passed through the Oak Grove with the passive amenities. You see these kind of butterfly form parapets that give a lot of shape to the top line of the building. And then you see the articulation of the massing all the way down the length of the building with the color blocking, the change in roof forms, the change in colors and materials that gives a lot of movement along the length of the building. Next slide. So this is really that same view but if you were looking from, well, if you were flying a little bit it's a little up in the air but from that passive open space under the trees. So this is seeing the other length of the building south side of the building. And as Adam noted, we do step down along the arms, if you will that meet the neighborhood down to three stories then finally down to two stories. But this is how you can really see the engagement of that outdoor space between the large windows of the community room that really opened that up to create this indoor outdoor lifestyle for the residents and take advantage of the California climate and the view into the Oak Grove from that community room. Next slide. So this is really the view from her because we only touched down at that one little spot on the site we brought the scale of the building down to two stories and created this really interesting in and out pattern with the massing going from two stories to three stories to four stories using the colors and material changes the change in the windows that were requested by design review to really highlight the fact that there is a lot of articulation and a lot of actually complexity to the visual form of the building even though the structural system is still very simple. Next slide. And this is from that same end of the building you can see the two story massing on the left-hand side and this is looking down the northern side of the building where you get that still in and out of the massing the color blocking the change of materials there is not a back to this building it's simply different sides. And so we've brought all the level of detailing and articulation to all four sides of the building. Next slide. So I'm gonna run through the palette of outdoor amenities because we think it's really important on this site to enhance the lifestyle of the residents and provide that quality of space. So this is really the passive area woven into the existing southern half of the Oak Grove. The trees that are kind of squiggly are the preserved trees and the ones that are colored include new street trees and the new sidewalk area along Old Stony Point Road. And then a variety of trees that will add a little bit of seasonal color and a little bit of change in texture and color against the existing trees. And you can see the surface areas that weaves through the Oak Grove to provide the pedestrian connection to Old Stony Point Road. Next slide. All of these have imagery down the left hand side showing you the personality and the character of the spaces and the fixtures and furnishings that will be provided. This is the outdoor space that connects directly to the indoor community room. So you really have this indoor outdoor flow. We do have a couple of trees that we are preserving and weaving some seating area underneath and then providing a large gathering space outside so that families can celebrate birthdays, they can barbecue together, they can have some space to expand and really enjoy the outdoors. Next slide. So this is the next two cloisters, I'll call them, of outdoor space that each take on their own personality. We've provided a variety of play areas that are suitable for different age groups and really enhance the experience for families of all sizes and ages rather than a one size fits all program. Each of these areas takes on its own design character and I think that each family will have a favorite because they're all a little different and it provides variety for everyone. Next slide. And these are the two at the Eastern end, a little bit more gathering and passive. You know, with the last year of COVID and working remotely and learning remotely, we wanted to make sure that maybe there was some outdoor space that provided that opportunity for folks as well that wasn't necessarily about play equipment but someplace where you could go read a book, you could work on a laptop, you could go do your homework and enjoy that outdoor space. Next slide. So Adam already covered the CEQA compliance and we really don't create any significant new impacts. And so he's covered these areas. I'm gonna go ahead and skip this because he's already covered this. And this is the, again, just the view from her. We wanted to end on this slide and just see if there's any questions or any other things we can go into a little bit more detail on. But I'll turn it back to Taylor and Adam. Thank you. Ms. Zoni Administrator, do you have any questions or anything? I don't have any questions right now. I'd like to open the public hearing for comments first and then we can move into discussing the exhibit A. So with that, I will go ahead and open up the public hearing. Please use the raise hand feature or press star nine if you're calling in. Okay, first we have Erin Rineberg. Hi, good evening again. There's lots of concerns with this project. Zoning issues, location, traffic, height, density. When I think of the first presentation tonight, that place was done in an appropriate area for a four-story building with direct access to public resources. Whereas this project's being shoved once again into a open space lot, jeopardizing trees, jeopardizing native species. It does not take into account the traffic that's already impacted on Old Sony Point Road from the current apartment townhouse complex to the north. There is constant overflow of traffic and parking in this area. And this is just going to exasperate that. I'm also very concerned hearing that the city would even consider forcing neighbors to give up their land for a public hearing. So I think that this project is going to be a great opportunity for the city to give up their land for a public road access, walk away. To think that you can just divide somebody's property in half and walk down it, whether it's along the front or down the middle like you showed, shows a complete lack of care for current residents and a desire just to build, build, build for the sake of destroying Roseland that it is. The height, there should not be a four story building in this rural residential area that needs to be centered along Sebastopol Road, along these areas that are more of a city center. Why is this one a four story when that first one was not? There's just a lot of issues with this project and to say that it won't have any environmental impact is a blatant lie. To skip over that slide so quickly is in poor taste by the developer here and to think that the neighborhood is on board with this project is a complete fallacy. I really hope the zoning administration thinks really hard about approving such a dense property in an area that is not suitable for this type of development. We need to preserve our rural and open spaces. We need to put in parks first before we keep inundating Roseland with all of this high density housing that does nothing for the local residents and the community. Thank you. Next we have Nick Reinberg. I just would like to remind our attendees that we've typically kept our zoning administrator format fairly casual. We want to try to make our public comment limited to three minutes. Thank you. Okay. So my name is Nick Reinberg. I'd like to put on record and make sure that this is reflected in the minutes that this is a there's two Brown Act violations here with the way this meeting is being held. First off, the meeting link that was in the agenda was not an accurate link for accessing it. Editing was required. And that's a violation of the Brown Act. Furthermore, a Brown Act violation is occurring with this exhibit A that was not attached to the agenda. And since there's going to be considerations made based on this exhibit A, it needs to be this, this decision needs to be postponed until the public has access to exhibit A and able to review it to be able to properly assess the impact and provide proper comment. Again, this is a Brown Act violation. I also agree that proper, this site is not proper for this location. It's not proper for this area. It's not proper for this area. The size and. The sheer size of it with the amount of population it's going to bring in is going to overflow the traffic on her causing potential fire danger because of the already large population that is in this area. As well as significant environmental impacts. And I agree with the previous speaker regarding the insensitivity of this site. I also want to put on record that Adam Ross is notorious for Brown Act violations and not providing documentation proper for hearings as this, such as his 1400 Burbank Avenue Blunder, which he then covered up and blatantly lied at appeal. And so I want to make sure that the record is proof is accurate in that he did not properly provide. I also want to make sure that the record is accurate. And I also want to make sure that the record is accurate in that way. That is going to be discussed after public comment. So that this way that record can be preserved accurately. If an appeal on this is to be taken up by the public. I'm finished. Thank you. Thank you. Next up. We have Larry McCauley. Please. Hello. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Thank you. Okay. Great. Thank you for hearing me. I just want to say that I'm going to, as a 40 year resident of her and Avenue, I'm going to be talking about the schedule. I'm going to be talking about the schedule. I'm going to be talking about the schedule. I'm going to be talking about the schedule. I'm going to be talking about the schedule. I haven't had an opportunity to look at the schedule. A as it was just provided today. However, I agree with the last two speakers. A four story. Construction project is not consistent with anything in the area. What's so ever. We have two story and single story. Within. Literally a half a mile in any direction. The. Additionally, having been a 40 year resident here, I can attest to the road conditions are extremely inadequate for any kind of flow of traffic. And it's obvious that all the traffic is going to come down old stony point or through the south. East. Corner onto her and Avenue before it can go anywhere since there's no option for them to go old stony point onto stony point. And I would say that. I would say that. Well, most cars that travel down her and Avenue are. At. Or above posted speed limit. And I believe that Adam brought up the. The condition of the. No sidewalk on the north side of her and Avenue. And I would have to say that his comments about that were completely inadequate. My experience is that people will. Walk across the street on the south side of her. And will actually walk in the street as I've seen. People all day long. Every day of the week, Monday through. Sunday. For the last. How many years since they did the revamp on her and Avenue. My recommendation there is if you're going to do a sidewalk, you need to go all the way from old stony point to Burbank, where you're playing. You need to go all the way from old stony point to Burbank, where you're planning to put the light in. Because people will not do a crossover. From there to the sidewalk. They will take the easiest path, which is going to be in the street. Especially kids. Now in Santa Rosa, we have a history of being lackadaisical about providing safe passage for kids going to school. And have had deaths that we should never ever. Forget that we've had to put pathways in. And we're not going to be late in the game. So we want to consider that too. Let's see. Right now, I suffer probably a one to two minute. Period of time, even trying to get in and out of my driveway during peak periods, and with a potential of 300 cars there in. In deference to the 185 spaces that are being provided, which will, you know, be a spillover on the old stony point that has no room on it, because there's a spillover from Panama's place right above it. So where are they going to park? Where are they going to go? This is just not a well planned project. A four story and modern, there's nothing modern in the area. I don't understand the city wanting modern architecture. I don't know. Let's see what else. Excuse me, Mr. McCauley, we want to try and keep public comments of three minutes. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much. I don't recommend it. Thank you for your comments. Staff has requested a recess. So they'd like to take a 15 minute recess and we will resume. Following that 15 minute period. Thank you. We just need a few more moments. Thank you. Thank you everyone for your patience. I appreciate the public comments that were raised this evening. And they will be taken into, or they are now part of the public record and those comments that were questions. Those will be considered by staff. Based on the Brown act. We will continue to review this item. We will continue to review this item. We will continue to review this. Violation assertion. We will be continuing this item. To. June 15th. That's a Tuesday at or after five PM. And this will allow ample time for the public to be able to review the exhibit a document. Provided by engineering. We will continue to review this item. We will continue to review this item. And this item will be continued to June 15th. It will be a special meeting of the zoning administrator at or after five PM. Thank you.