 Chair Jones-Carter. We're ready whenever you are It is 431 p.m. And I'm calling this meeting of the design review board to order My favorite part Recording secretary, can you please call roll? Board member birch is absence Board member cook your board member lip-tack Board member Sharon here board member with rich here vice-chair Weigel here Chair Jones-Carter here let the record reflect that Board member birch and And board member a lip-tack are absent all others are present Item two approval of minutes Does anyone have any changes to the minutes for June 1st and June 15th? Let the record reflect the minutes of June 1st and 15th are approved as submitted Item 3 public comment We are now taking public comment on item 3 non-agenda matters This is the time when any person may address the board on matters not listed on this agenda But which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee Recording secretary, can you please provide instructions to the public if you're attending in person and wish to make a comment? Please make your way to the podium We do have 11 participants via zoom If you're attending via zoom and wish to make a comment You can do so by selecting the raise your hand icon at the bottom of your zoom screen if you're calling in Please press star 9 Chair Jones-Carter we have nobody making their way to the podium and we have nobody raising their hand on zoom Public comment is closed item 4 statement of purpose zoning code chapter 20 dash 5 2 point 0 30 f Project review the review authority shall consider the location design site plan Configuration and the overall effect of the proposed project upon surrounding properties and the city in general Review shall be conducted by comparing the proposed project to the general plan any applicable specific plan applicable zoning code standards and requirements Consistency of the project within the city's design guidelines architectural criteria for special areas and other applicable city requirements Item 4.2 board member reports Are there any reports? All right, we do not have any public we do not have to have public comment. Thank you Item 4.3 other there is none Item 5 department report Thank you chair Jones-Carter. I have no department report today. Thank you Item 6 statement of abstention are there any abstentions on item 8.1 and 8.2 I'll need to abstain from item 8.1, but we'll be back for 8.2. Okay. Thank you Item 7 consent items. There are none Item 8 scheduled items. We are moving on to the first scheduled item public hearing design review modifications for Kwanum Med Med Medos Lots 4a and 70 presented by Mike Wixen Thank you chair Jones-Carter. My name is Mike Wixen and I am a contract planner with the city of Santa Rosa So I'll do the presentation for this project And we could put the slideshow on up and I'll go through walk through the project Okay, the project itself is the Kwanum Medos modifications and its portions of the Kwanum Medos unit 1 subdivision lots 4a and 70 and This is a minor design review project Now if you could go to the next slide please The project itself Actually adds one new building type to the mix of units previously approved and this is a six-unit three-story structure and Then it modifies the exterior of the buildings that were previously approved And those are the elevations provided in the attachments and the primary driver of this is basically the Isle width to drive isle width for lots 70 Based upon the height of the buildings was required to be I believe it was 26 feet wide In order to meet the fire code requirements and that just completely changed the design They couldn't make that fit So in order to make this work they redesigned the exterior of the buildings To be under 30 feet changing the roof line and then they also introduced new floor plans and exterior Look to the building trying to model it after the approved project The other changes that kind of occurred through this process That there is a few minor grading changes the pads are a little bit lower on both lots And then there's a reduction in the number of units on lots 70 and that went from 43 units to 41 units and Then there are also a series of minor additional changes that occurred as a result of the overall change That had occurred here So if you can go to the next slide please This gives you an idea of what's out there right now The project is has been graded project site It's a rough grade and it'll be final graded later on The project is next to an existing project or that is under construction right now To the south where you can see kind of off on that right side. You see the You see the oak tree That is actually the urban growth boundary for the city right along that property line And then that is south of the site and you see directly ahead of you Taylor mountain in the viewpoint so this site or this picture is taken from pedal in the hill road And if you can go to the next slide, please These are some public aerial photos that just kind of give you an idea of both lots for ants for a and 70 Kind of put it in perspective as to what's around the site. What's on the site you look in the upper right hand corner You can see that the tree that it would be Just off the site, but the site design has taken into account the preservation of that tree It also has been previously graded, but it will be final graded following outcome of this hearing tonight So if we can go to the next slide, please This is lot for a and what I was just pointing out is that slide in the upper right corner is now we're at street level now and this is Franz Kafka Road and Off to your left is that tree and so this is lot for a from the street frontage and Goya Street is right there on your left. You go to the next slide, please So this puts it into perspective of the existing conditions lot for a It's right there among Franz Kafka and also boarded by Goya and farmers Lane and then lot 70 is bordered by peddling the hill road and farmers Lane And if you can go to the next slide, please this gives it a context of the larger area and then also the previously approved Kiwana meadows unit one so the lots laid out in the black Basically are the the entirety of Kiwana unit of quantum meadows unit one And you can see that in its context here And then you can see the approved project kind of to the north and west effect in that corner there right to the Northwest corner of the star and That is under construction as well as a number of Apartments are under construction a little bit further north of that And if you can go to the next slide, please Again, here's a Kiwana meadows in its full context Shown and you can get an idea of what it was previously and then where lots for a and where lots 70 are in context of the larger project the hash mark area at the I guess it would be the left side to be the west side of this map So that hash mark area is actually the previous of previously approved Taylor Residences at Taylor mountain So this these two lots that we're looking at today Are part of a larger project that included all of those lots in the hash mark area to the left there And that was for I believe it was for 93 units the project we're looking at today is These two lots were previously approved for a total of 43 units and the applicant has reduced that to a request for a Total of 41 units and I'll go through that a little bit more So if we can go to the next slide, please So I'm going through the project history the Kiwana meadows unit one subdivision map was recorded in September 2005 quite a while ago and In this history, there's a lot that hadn't occurred between 2005 2017 but I thought I would just jump right to the relevant part of the approval of the residences at Taylor mountain And so in September 2017 the planning commission had approved the mitigated negative declaration hillside development project and a density bonus for the residences at Taylor mountain and that's again, that's this is part of the project that That is the residences at Taylor mountain So then on October 2017 just a month later the design review board approved the preliminary and the final design for the residences at Taylor mountain and Then in September 2021 the applications for design review and hillside development Project were submitted to modify these the residences and those approved designs. That's what we're considering here tonight So if we go to the next slide, please The land use designation for the site is medium low residential and medium residential Lows up to 18 units per acre the higher end of the project both previously and currently meet the density requirements for the general plan designation and Given that this was a density bonus project the density the additional density provided also Is consistent with the general plan and then the zoning district is a PD 96 001 F and That had established some of the setbacks and design criteria that had been reviewed and approved with the previous project Again, the project was determined to be consistent with the general plan and the zoning district previously There are no serious changes to the general plan or zoning Setbacks or I shouldn't even say serious there there are no changes to the setbacks or other potential pitfalls of The zoning standards or general plan policies So from staff's perspective the project continues to be consistent with the general plan and the zoning designation If you can go to the next slide, please This is just a site plan overall kind of how it sits one site next to the other and you can see lot 4a Was approved with four units or four buildings photo of 12 units And it will make maintain the four buildings and 12 units and all of those buildings on lot 4a are three unit apartment building style design and So you can see that in the elevations each of the four buildings on lot 4a will be that style the the driveways on lot 4a off to or onto Franz Kafka road are a little bit wider because they are like a three. It's basically a three car design Driveway, so they're a little bit wider than was previously approved But they fit on the site. There's also some minor changes to the length of the retaining wall Down at the southern end it extends just a little bit further To the south and that's not an issue for staff that that the taming wall Towards the back of the site, so there'll be plenty of landscaping in buildings Probably won't even notice that from the street frontage On lot 70 There were a total of 43 units previously approved and that was with 13 buildings on site The applicant has maintained is proposing a total of 11 units at this point with the revisions And this is the site where the new six unit buildings will be located So the applicant is proposing two of the six unit buildings two of the four unit buildings And then seven of the three unit buildings and you can see if you were to compare this to the previous approval The main layout of the project site is the same So you have the the backbone of the drive while going through the project site The driveway entry is is the same location And then at the left side or the west side is the access where you basically turn around park And or turn around and come back out and then a little bit to the right side you had the trash enclosure And again area to turn around and come back out to farmers Lane So if we can go to the next slide, please This is the landscape plan for lot 4a is showing. There's plenty of density of plantings in this is a good selection of water efficient type plants both shrubs and trees This is the planting plants that doesn't show the trees But there are trees to be planted in this project site as well. They're included in the attachments I just wanted to draw attention kind of to that lower right corner. It's kind of a barren area That's the preservation area for the oak tree that we had seen previously in the slide So that that maintains a protected area or that oak tree by keeping the plants outside of the dirt zone Now if you can go to the next slide, please And then this is the landscape tree planting plan for lot 70 It's just much easier to see the site layout of the tree planting plan And again the tree planting plan is very consistent with what was there before they also have a planting plan that Also complements the project has plenty of density of shrubs and ground cover So that's part of the project that is very consistent with what was previously approved You can go to the next slide, please So just an quick review of the project was going to reduce the total number of units between watts 4a and 70 from 55 to 53 units and those changes occur on lot 70 the approved development standards were actually reduced as part of a concession for the affordable housing of The project that was the density bonus Component so there's there are reduced setbacks on the front of Franz Kafka and I believe it's also on the front of Farmers Lane, but there are no changes to those setbacks. So those setbacks are maintained Projects consistent with that The other development standards are maintained a lot coverage Parking is maintained although parking has reduced a little bit. It's still consistent overall with the zoning requirements And the main change is the building height. So the building height has reduced from 38 feet to 30 feet Also consistent with the zoning and the general plan and There are no changes proposed to the affordable housing agreement all of the affordable housing units will be provided on lot 70 Per the agreement and there are no changes to that The buildings also maintain a good mix of units with the one two and three bedroom Units provided in each of those building types So the building with the three unit the building with the four unit and the building with the six unit all contain one two and three bedroom units So if we can go to the next slide, please this is where Staff have a little bit of concern But just to know overall the project is consistent in design with both the general plan and the zoning code But we wanted to bring these to the design review board because there were just a number a series of small changes occurring We felt it be appropriate for the design review board to consider those changes and In the end weigh it out So if you can look at the top You see the approved Elevations those again is 38 feet in height. There are some changes to the exterior elevations and just pretty much How it appears and presents however The materials the windows so the colors it all of those features will match What was previously approved? but There are changes that then features like the roof the roof slope the roof design The roof layout you'll see changes to that. It's an entirely new building So it's an entire entirely new floor plan So the building itself has changed overall. However, there's a lot of consistency kept with the previous design Those red notes highlight some of the features that were kept in the project or that have changed The exterior siding does match exactly what was previously approved So the lap siding and the board and batten siding Matches exactly with what was in tip what was approved previously as well as the color selection So if we can go to the next slide, please And these are the other elevations. So basically you're looking at the rear and then both sides of the building three Design again approved is on top and proposed is on the bottom and you can compare those up if you go down to the next slide, please and basically here here's a color photo Showing the comparisons to the left is what was approved in the gray and white and then what is proposed is in the blue and gray and you can compare the front and the rear in these color images and drawings renderings Next slide, please This is the four-unit building again much of the same You'll see that the previous building was up to 38 feet You see some features on the exterior of the building Many of them are carried over in the new design. The new design is 30 feet Color selection is similar The siding is all match with materials all match what was previously approved You can go to the next slide, please and then here is the backside and both sides of building four and I Primarily threw a lot of these elevations in in case you wanted to come back and talk to them later on But you can compare up the differences here and if you go to the next slide, please and Then here are the color renderings comparing on the left what was approved with the front and rear views of what is proposed and If you go to the next slide, please And then this is the six-unit building. So this has no comparison It's a brand new building as I mentioned earlier. Here is the front elevation Again the style of this building is very similar to what they've proposed with the changes for The three-unit and four-unit building so very very similar to that and back Yeah, it's very similar The color selection also is matching colors that had previously been approved. So if you go to the next slide, please and Then here are the renderings or both the rear of the front elevations of the six-unit building and how it presents and Then the next slide, please and then this is a visual analysis of the project the top View is with the project so you can see get an idea of how the project will look once completed and then as it compares with what is already there a little bit to the north and in this view that would be to the left side of the aerial or the street view image and Then you can compare that also with what's existing down below You can see how that matches up doesn't block the view of Taylor Mountain or Much at all into the back of the Taylor Mountain Hills And if we can go to the next slide, please So September 28th, 2017 the planning commission adopted the mitigated negative Declaration and those mitigation measures were incorporated into the project approval And what we're looking at now is if there was any needed or necessary additional environmental reviews since 2017 and staff's determination as the project doesn't meet any threshold that would necessitate Further environmental review, so there's no evidence that the project would have potential new significant impacts There's no evidence the project would change severity of previously identified significant impacts And there's no evidence to indicate there are new circumstances of new information That would create potentially significant impacts or require a more robust analysis of any of those So we've made a recommendation no further Sequa analysis is necessary and mitigated negative declaration is adequate If we can go to the next slide, please So the issues So again, I mentioned that the staff can make the findings that the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning as well as design review guidelines, but there are a few features that are changing that We felt it'd be appropriate to bring it in front of the design review board and have them weigh it out So if you look carefully at it, there's features like Craftman style lines above the doors and windows use of double-hung windows finished details on roof and e-lines and and trim around the doors and windows and You know basically if The the design review board felt like there might be more there to look at and Discuss and felt similarly that there might be There might be something that they may want to change or recommend as changes with this public hearing So that pretty much concludes my presentation if you can go to the next slide, please There's oh When I did present this put this together No public comments had been received. I did receive a comment today from Mr. Ed Rogers who lives directly south of Lot 70 and he had indicated in an email Three concerns we didn't unfortunately we didn't have time to get this up So the three concerns he mentioned were concerns about traffic congestion And this would be about particularly would be getting in and out of his driveway along Petaluma Hill Road And then he was concerned about the buffer area in between the units and fence Along the southern property line of lot 70 And that is described in our my discussion with him that essentially is the 15 foot building setback area And then also he asked if the fence could be replaced on the plans Basically the plans currently show the fence is to remain so no changes are proposed with the fence And that is the extent of public comments that I've received And with that if we can go to the next slide, please So our recommendation is that the design review board by resolution grant design review for the modifications Proposed to lots 4a and 70 of the residences at Taylor mountain Which is also known as the guano meadows lots 4a and 70 If there were any questions from anybody in the audience that like to discuss us further after the hearing You can reach me at the email there or by phone And that is that concludes my presentation Before we move on I'd like to ask if there are any expert a disclosures on this item Thank you I would like to open the public hearing on this item recording secretary. Do we have any public comment? If you're oh does the applicant have a presentation I didn't think they did the applicant does not have a Slide deck, but my understanding was that they were going to walk through some of the architectural changes And Mike are you able to weigh in on that? Yeah, um There are going to be members. Let's see. So carlson chan is there to speak to I believe Leilani Who is the prop? now is The project architect in I'm not sure I think she's there in person It might be able to speak a little bit to the architecture And as well there might be another architect Um We've Other architects name, but they're both with the uh the dolling group. So there might be another architect coming in on it Or it might be there in person With the dolling group. I believe we're all on zoom. This is Leilani from dolling group And my principal John that should I believe is listening as well? John thatcher if you're um on zoom, can you please raise your hand? I see an ed nessinger But I'm not sure if he's a member of the public Ed nessinger. I just gave you permissions to speak um, is this john thatch with um item 8.1 No, it's not Then I don't see john thatch on zoom All right, my apologies um, I am Leilani can all with Dolling group and I am an architectural project manager on this project and if you have any Uh direct questions for me, I'd be happy to happy to address them um, we did try and maintain the same Architectural forms that were on the original approval just tried to keep the lines clean Um provided better living areas more furnishable areas lots of light into the buildings So we'll hope you'll appreciate that and approve it as is Okay I think we're gonna See if there's any public comment. How's that? Will the applicant team please keep your mics muted during the public comment period? Thank you If you're a member of the public wishing to make a comment and you're attending in person, please make your way to the podium Okay, I don't see anybody making their way to the podium if you're attending via zoom and wish to make a comment. Please raise your hand We do have one member of the public Ed messenger Can you please state your name for the record? Ed messenger You can continue with your comment I was wondering if you could bring up on the screen the off-site improvements if any So we could see any potential upgrades to the intersection of farmers lane and yolanda And petaluma hill road If you have any more comments, um, you can make it during this time and then we can um respond to your questions and And then is there been any uh anybody addressing the commute traffic am and pm backup from Yolanda back into Petaluma hill road towards koana springs And that's the extent of my questions Thank you. Was it There was a traffic study done I'm trying to pull up that report right now. I don't know if you have that mic Let's we'll have to keep going with public comment Um, and then once public comment is closed then we can address the questions and comments Apologies. Thank you Ed messenger does that conclude your comment? Yes, it does. Okay. Thank you If anyone else would like to make a comment you can do so by raising your hand if you're calling in please press star nine Chair Jones Carter. We don't have any more hands raised at this time Thank you. Um, I'd like to close public comment And I believe we have, uh, maybe a response to The question Yeah, I was I was thinking in, um, Amy. I wonder if, uh The I'm blank out on his name Mike might know in the, uh Original resolution if there was a language about The uh offside improvements that were required I'm I was having trouble pulling up the civil plan. So I can't remember exactly But I remember we did have There were some offside improve. There were some road improvements, weren't there Adam? Did you remember that? Yeah, I don't remember the details either. So I was wondering if it was in either the staff report or The original resolution and hopefully we get that question answered for that member the public Um, so I don't know offhand if that is uh listed in the resolution or covered I I do know that the mitigated negative declaration did address traffic. There also was an eir Uh done for the farmers lane extension So that also I'm sure had addressed traffic flows and uh volumes and ampm turn lanes Venture to guess Um So that also had been done that's mentioned in the staff report, but it's not listed in the presentation Uh, what I can say after talking, uh, Jesus mckay is the project engineer with the city staffer this one Farmer's lane. I've spoken with him about farmers lane and the ultimate build out of farmers lane Which is ultimately to be a four-lane road to Two lanes in both directions as well as petaluma hill road two lanes in both directions The timing of those improvements is determined Uh, basically it's triggered by uh factors that I'm not completely aware of but there are triggers for those Um, and I I couldn't say when those are to be Completed However, the right of way for those improvements is being dedicated Uh and has been dedicated with the project and will be dedicated with this project as well I'll just add that we do have an engineering development services exhibit a Which is an attachment to the staff report So it's way down under the resolution here The resolution listed on the agenda And so this exhibit a is is nine pages long There is a section on public street improvements and It appears to me that these are a lot of the conditions that were carried over from the original Coana meadow subdivision map. So there are references to the public improvement plans that were approved And it discusses improvements to Petaluma hill road Fronting the project site in addition to the farmers lane extension so those Those begin on page three of the exhibit a I can see if there's an engineer from city staff that's available to speak to these I don't want to try and do that as a planner But I do see that There are a number of conditions addressing public streets here Yeah, and I found it now too. I was having trouble opening it in uh, Granicus there, but um, it looks like Uh exhibit a has a whole section public street improvements and it's item five six seven Eight and nine And there are like you said Amy, there's a lot of information specifically about lot 70 is what it looks like Which is the one that's Directly adjacent to petalum hill road, which I think is what the member of the holocaust was asking about um, so it talks about a multi-use path Class one multi-use path Widening Etc etc etc etc. So it looks like this was all addressed in the original mitigated neck deck and then also as part of the engineering exhibit so Yes, that's what it looks like to me at least and I would just add that As as Mike Wicks and explain that this is you know, this was all analyzed The development this multifamily development was analyzed back in 2017. So the number of units That traffic analysis the environmental And so what we're really the board is really focused on right now That doesn't mean that this isn't a good question And so we're providing the information but just the purview of the board this evening is to look at the changes in architecture Site planning and landscape Thank you, Amy Are there any questions of the board for staff or the applicant? I'm going to start with earnest Yeah, I do have a question. Um, I just need a little assistance getting oriented in terms of I think my biggest concern is um, the those buildings on lot 70 that are going to be facing petaluma hill road and what those revisions look like which which elevation should I be looking at For those are those the six one of them's a the six unit elevation. Is that correct? Yeah Six and four Six and four Yeah, I believe so It's the rear for both of those. Okay All right, those are the ones I just want to take a closer look at. Thank you Adam do you have any questions? I have no questions. Thank you big No questions True Yes, I have a couple. Let me find it here. I had it up and then I of course lost it because I was digging for something else now um, okay in the original approved Resolution DRB had it looks like eight conditions It appears to me that uh, several of them were addressed Uh, that the ones that were applicable, I guess to this specific site So one of them is consider moving fencing at south of lot 70 back to south property line It appears that that was addressed and it was a consider. So it was a suggestion Um 25 and the resolution is shall add site furnishings for lot 4a open space to match those included in lot 70 That appears to have also been completed um The one covered parking space tandem. I think that's all done And then the only one that so I guess I'd asked ask the architect if they think that they've addressed those And then the one that I don't think's been addressed because I can't seem to find a drawing about it Is shall provide stucco or board form or come face cmu concrete trash enclosure? And that would be the trash enclosure located on lot 70 And that was a shall so that's a condition of the original approval So It should have been included in the package, but I don't see it. I believe that previous. This is leilani ganal again from dawling group Uh, the architect. I believe the previous project that was approved. Um showed Uh siding on their trash enclosure. And so we've provided the same to be consistent with both the um buildings that were That we have on our site as well as um, what was previously approved Thank you Yeah, I'm just gonna sorry. So siding is not Stucco board form concrete or comb face cmu Right Yeah, so um, it is siding over cmu Sorry, so the interior the the structure of it is still cmu if the concern was um the durability And then the exterior is cladded with siding so that um, it Matches with the rest of the vernacular of the community And this is carcin chan I would like to chime in on this if this condition is concerning the board We're definitely willing to convert that into a stucco exterior for the trash enclosure. That's not a problem for us Yeah, I mean, it's I mean, I hate to be harping on something so minor, but um, obviously there was a reason DRB in 2017 gave three options And I guess the reason why I'm stick kind of being a stickler is it it sounds like the Current design of the trash enclosure does not conform to this We will convert to the stucco exterior and we'll put that on the condition All right, cool. Thanks. Sounds like yeah, sorry. I don't mean to be draconian. It's okay. I think it's uh, You know longevity concern and we definitely uh adhere to it Any other questions or concern? Would someone like to make a motion for the resolution? I'll I'll make a motion For a resolution of the design review board the city of san aroza granting design review approval for the design modifications proposed for kawana meadows lots 4a and 70 parentheses a.k. The residences at taylor mountain and parentheses Located at 2880 fronds kafka kafka avenue apn 0444 60 0004 005 and 070 file number prj 21 dash 020 parentheses dr21 dash 050 close parentheses and I will wave the reading of the rest of the text Would someone like to second the motion I will second that thank you The resolution for this motion by board member adam Was made and second by vick recording secretary. Can you know? Can you please call for a vote? Oh never mind. We're going to do conditions. Sorry discussion All right, I'll start with vick I I have nothing nothing to add. Thank you adam Thank you in terms of comments Uh, I was on the the board back in 2017 when this came through and Thank you for the updates. Um, I do think it's consistent with The drb discussed and approved last go around. Um, and I think, uh, yeah, it fits in With the spirit of what we approved before and I have no comments other than that. Thank you Ernest No, I appreciate what was presented and I have nothing to add again the main thing I was looking at was those rear elevations facing pellet mail road and Think it looks fine. So I got nothing. Thank you true uh, I'm yeah, I want to thank the applicant for Coming back to us and I think actually interestingly the previous Version was oriented the way it was because it was modular construction And I think by what appears to be flip-flopping it back to stickbill It's actually improved the layouts of most of the The units, um, I think originally we kind of thought the The third floor modular kind of was a little awkward And so now there's a little bit more livability between some of the The units that have two story that are two story, which is kind of nice My only caution would be And I think I said this about another project in this area So there's a number of multifamily units that are very near this And they have similar blue and similar red On them and it they're not that old And they're fading pretty badly At this point in time So if if if uh, the applicant team wants to consider some alternate Color schemes that look at different colors. I'd be okay with that Just to allow some flexibility for them to to kind of pursue colors that That may not have the same UV fade And I'm I think the gray building The gray layout Not a huge huge fan of that Just because it feels pretty stark compared to the rest of them but I'd be open to Allowing the applicant to pursue some additional color schemes should they choose As an option But in the same kind of vein that they have it With kind of the farm kind of the modern farmhouse play or modern craftsman farmhouse play So that would be it. Thanks for a great presentation and Good luck getting your project built I have nothing else to add. So can we do a vote? Board member libtak A proof Yes I'll take that back. Sorry. I wanted to add one condition. I'll hold Sure Yeah, I just like I think if if the the applicant has this color scheme in here They're kind of going to be beholden to it, right As they move to staff and they move towards their building permits and all that stuff And so I wanted to give the applicant flexibility to change their color scheme if they looked at it In the future. So i'm actually trying to help the applicant out a little bit So I would I was just thinking consider or you know consider alternate color schemes That fit within the architectural character Of the project so that gives them some flexibility. They don't have to stick with their color scheme Should they not choose to So that would be a friendly amendment That you're proposing please. Okay So I propose that friendly amendment, please. Okay Then we're looking for a second and then we can do a vote I think earnest. You're the only one that can do a second on that if you agree Uh, I will second the amendment the friendly amendment as proposed And we can have a vote Oh, sorry, you have to accept it too I accept as the motioner. I accept the friendly amendment And as the seconder I do too And without delay we can have a vote Board member libtak. I am in favor Board member sharon Hi Board member with rich Hi Vice chair weigel Hi Chair jones carter Hi So this passes with five ayes and two absences Please note this action is final unless an appeal is filed with the planning and economic development department within 10 days of today's decision Pursuant zoning code section 20 dash 62 point zero three zero Sorry to interrupt Just a quick question Recording secretary, did you say with two? Absent I just want to make sure for the minute. So I think we have one one abstention and then Yes, apologies. Um, so that that motion passes with five ayes one abstention and one absence. Perfect. Thank you Sorry for the interruption Chair jones carter If I could just mention also to mr. Messenger that I'm available if you'd like to discuss and go over the plans for the improvements at that intersection If you wanted to contact me tomorrow, I'm around and or next week Um, so just just so he knows Thank you So we're gonna call mike back in or Oh, actually we're gonna move on to um, we're gonna back up Since vick is here and I believe you have a report from waterways water commission No, I think I gave you a report last time. Okay. It's great. Yes. I did All right, should we take a short recess? Yes, let's take a short recess I did let um board member cook know that that was wrapping up But I it might take him a few minutes to get back in the chamber. So all right, let's take a five minute recess. Thank you chair Okay Like to resume our meeting All right We are now on item 8.2 Public hearing mosaic apartments EIR previously certified by cc design review major dash one six eight three Petaluma Hill road dash dr 20 dash zero five one Presented by Nora Good afternoon. Oh, sorry one other thing. Are there any expert aid disclosures on this item? All right. Thank you. Nora Good afternoon chair Jones Carter and members of the design review board The project before you is a major design review request for mosaic apartments The project will be a multifamily apartment complex consisting of 147 apartments With one and two bedroom units and eight three story residential buildings and it will also include a recreational facility These are the existing conditions at the five parcel site It currently consists of mostly under undeveloped land and a handful of residential structures Here is the surrounding area To the north there is mostly residential both single family and multifamily To the west there is residential and warehouse uses to the south it is residential oslo multifamily It's directly abutting multifamily and then there's more single family below that and to the east there are both commercial and residential uses as well Some brief project history In march of 2020 staff met with the applicant team for a pre application meeting in july of 2020 The project came before the design review board for conceptual review in august of 2020 There was the neighborhood meeting held and november 2 November 2nd 2020 the application was officially submitted The general plan land use designation for this site is medium high density residential And it is zoned r330, which is also medium high density The project implements several goals of the general plan such as meeting the housing needs of zanderosa residents and maintaining a diversity of housing stock The project has been reviewed and conditioned in compliance with city development standards Staff is able to make all the required findings for design review The project has been conditioned to include public improvements and therefore it will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring developments And the community oriented recreation center will provide a pleasant sense of place and a desirable environment for future occupants Along with this proposed project There is also a request for a parking reduction and staff is able to make all the required findings for a minor parking reduction The parking reduction will be just under 15 They will have 232 spots which comes out to about one spot per bedroom plus an additional 33 spots And also pedaluma hill road provides direct access to services such as a supermarket directly across the street and there are zanderosa city bus stops The project also implements several goals of the design guidelines It helps provide diversity and housing type and it provides multifamily housing that encourages residents to take pride in sense of ownership in their neighborhood Here's the site plan Right on the corner of colgan avenue and pedaluma hill road And here we can see the front elevation and a architectural rendering An addendum was prepared for the previously certified general plan final environmental impact report And it concluded that the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts and therefore no additional analysis is required upon Putting together this presentation. We did have one piece of written correspondence from a neighbor and now we have a second as well Both of the comments expressed conditions Or sorry express concerns regarding traffic and road infrastructure and one of the comments also Sorry one also commented that surrounding schools and the water supply may not be enough to support such projects And if members of the board have any further questions regarding these concerns staff is happy to respond to them The project came before the board on july 16 2020 for conceptual review And these are some of the highlights of the comments that were made by the board that the applicant team has made effort to address such as considering More play space for children permeable paving instead of asphalt And adding material contrast in the parking area Therefore it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the design review board grant design review and Adopt the addendum to the general plan final environmental impact report for mosaic apartments a multifamily development at 1683 pedaluma hill road For any questions or comments? This is my contact information And I believe we have a presentation from the applicant team as well mckeller and the ceo of mckeller mcgowan and i'm pleased to be here With me are scott mires our chief operating officer kirk mckinley project architect Is right there And christine talbott who's sitting next to me And uh, dave brown our civil engineer from adobe associates Those three will be presenting On call are lucid mcmillan who's our environmentalist scientist jack matley Who is the traffic engineer on this project with w trans and uh, and jonathan tilo Who is with esa who who uh, produced the eir? Uh, jeff johnson is uh on zoom and uh, if you if if i might want to call on him depending on what your questions Are and uh, I will uh, he'll he'll be available to speak There's a third time we've been before the design review board on on mosaic the first time was in july 2020 as you heard And that was a concept design review You reviewed the project submittal and encouraged us to proceed unfortunately It was then that the covet epidemic began really kicking in and our financial partner decided not to proceed So, um, in fact all investors you probably know went to the sideline And so we just put the project on hold although 18 months later we came back with a new idea switch gears and we were thinking about doing a an affordable project Like what we're doing in uh, in west college right now. It's under construction So, um, but unfortunately, uh, we actually we were Instead of 147 units we were proposing 160 and you may recall I think most of you were here then uh in In january of 2022 That you suggested that maybe we built 200 units instead of 160 which we thought was interesting and provocative however We were not able to uh get tax credit financing because the property Was not and still is not in a high resource zone for for tkak And so there was no way we can get financing For an affordable project But we're here now again before you Back to our original plan having spent the interim period for the full submittal include EIR addendums and uh and uh and uh It concluded that the project is consistent with anticipated development under the san diego General plan is santa rosa general plan of 2035 and found no no evidence as you heard that the project will result in environmental impacts Um, so I don't I try not to be repetitive, but uh mosaic is a hundred and forty seven hundred and forty seven unit three-story walk-up apartment project on on four point nine two acres Uh, petal in the road and uh and culligan avenue zone r3 30, which is 20 our density is 29.9 units per acre So we're just on that on the cusp The uh, it's an eight apartment structure The 35 feet high each one will have a 30 foot It's going to be a three foot architectural element So the total height will be 38 feet from their highest points at their highest points the recreation building is one story The uh, there are 81 83 one bedroom one bath units 12 one bedroom One and a half bath units and 52 two bedroom two bath units There are 84 attached single garages, which are actually part of the structures. There's uh with Some with direct access into their apartments 148 surface parking spaces for a total of 232 spaces zoning calls for 271. So consequently we're asking for a minor adjustment decrease of 14.4 percent As newer I've already told you Try not to be so repetitive Anyway, uh, so the slide you see there is the rendering of the project Uh, we have made some changes to it. Um, which if you're if you want any detail about that architects was here Kirk McKinley So the next slide you want to Go to that Shows the proximity is a little different from what you saw before mosaic is shown with the yellow star There's two very close, uh bus stops schools or you know, there's koana elementary santa rosa middle school shepherd elementary also Santa rosa high school santa rosa junior college Bayer park and uh, martin luther king memorial park or nearby Uh, and uh, as is providence memorial hospital And the uh, and the santa rosa market marketplace power center Next slide please So this is a Honing in a little bit on the project you can see it's in the upper upper right hand side outlined in yellow Uh, and then next to the power center and the intersection of colgan and Petaluma hill are Just to the upper right side of uh, of the project next Again zooming in further. You see the apartment complex on the right hand side in the upper right hand and then the uh Existing single family homes that are there Any industrial project? auto Repair and that kind of thing just to the south On the west side of property next Now this is a view from the the next three are at a grade level. This is a view looking south from colgan Of existing structures obviously next And then this is on petaluma hill road Uh traveling north the power pole you see on the left hand side is the actual area corner of the property the uh In the southeast corner and sort of traveling north And those are the those houses that you see on the left are the existing structures next And this is the the last slide here is the uh Going up the road a little further this is on google earth obviously street you and and so That's where that's where i'm going to uh end and then introduce to you christine Talbot who you've probably already seen she's a principal at quadriga architecture and planning And she's going to make a presentation about the Landscape plan Good evening. Um next slide please So i know that we've been here before i'm not sure if i need to go through the whole plan I know the last time we were here it was concept review But just generally i'll talk about the extents of the open space and the landscape concept Um currently we have At the at the edges of the properties. We're proposing a wall at the south West connection in Kind of coordination with that neighbor requested more of a cmu wall as opposed to fencing The rest of the site will have fencing at its edges except for at the frontage to the road We've looked at ways to incorporate lots of shade trees as feasible with fire access And also providing the pedestrian Circulation through the parking lots with a varied material color to highlight the pedestrian space Some of the amenities that are included are the recreation center and the pool So that's a high a high value amenity That's for all the residents The pool itself will have a solid Screen at the street and at the parking edge to provide privacy to the users And then it will have an open fencing on the interior so that residents can Have eyes on the pool There's a number of Other open space we As part of our conversation at the last time we were at design review Was requested that we expand the play area and create a safer space for the children as it was adjacent to the parking lot so what we did was actually remove some parking spaces and increase the play zone And move it to the south of the site where it has more opportunity for screening and shade and vegetation and then we created a A seating area and a dog kind of relief space At the former play space on the north side of building one So that space is really more conducive to just popping out and having a little seat Taking your dog out maybe having conversation on a bench Whereas the play area is more of a destination space There's a number of other small breakout spaces on the site For dog relief and seating Was shade and then we have a teen Space that's designated in the pool rec area just outside Where there can be some permanent games and things like that for the the older kids Let's see what else has changed. I think that there was some conversation about the trees that were to be removed We are mitigating the trees to be removed on site. There were a number of redwoods Um Really inconveniently placed Right in the middle of the site And you know, we did work pretty diligently to save a number of the trees and it just wasn't feasible with the To get the density that we needed and to get the fire access that we needed. So Unfortunately, we will be mitigating those trees And I think the other component was really about the pedestrian circulation and designating That pedestrian space, especially within the parking area. So we've worked pretty hard to create A very connected Space between the buildings and between the use areas and in the parking area Our overall planting palette we do have we treat Stormwater with bioretention, which is on the west side of the project So we have limited trees that we can place in that area But we have worked very hard with the civil engineer to create pop-out planting areas so that we could put some shade trees in that bioretention area and then Organizing the parking so that we do have more of that orchard shade canopy The remainder of the plantings would be low water Adapted native and that kind of thing and we're looking at Creating a lot of visual interest with the areas of planting that we have I think this plan actually shows trees. Yes, it does on colgan avenue. I know that there's some conversation with the city and Stormwater and back and forth. So we're we're looking to kind of maintain those trees to provide that Buffer at the street, especially at colgan avenue. It's a pretty rough transition down that road and trees will be very important at that That edge, but I'm not sure how that's going to play out with with the various agencies And that's the extent of my Presentation, I think kirk mckinley is going to come down and go through the architecture Thank you Evening everybody. My name is kirk mckinley with mckinley associates my Concerned the green line on Kirk mckinley with the mckinley associates I'm just going to bring up a couple items Relative to the architecture that was addressed initially back in 2020 that was Some questions of concern by the the board at that time This building Is was masked as something similar to what we're doing over on west college And what has occurred over on west college is the project changed to an all affordable project So it's distinctly different now from the architectural standpoint Actually, this building is more Urban in the sense that it's got a modern more modern flair to it And it's meant to be very elegant understated elegance With some of the materials being the the brick base on the building We've also listened to some of the neighbors who brought up Concerns about the building looking too commercial And I think that the remove we've removed the black frame windows and going to a white frame window, which is a little bit more Excuse me residential in character And we've also taken some of the fencing on the patio areas down on the base of the building And done more of a wood treatment on it just to warm up the building a little bit more from the standpoint of their concerns I think that's We still have some of the the where we've been interjected color in it We still have that color element in some of the shadow boxes where we've done an insert edge Whether where the color is very subtle again, we're trying to create a timeless look in the architecture And not something that is Fully dependent on color blocking the whole building. It's more The forms of the building standing out. Um, for instance At the corners of the building all these decks are cantilevered. They don't have posts in the corner It gives a nice floating character of the building in just an overall sense of timeless architecture Other than that The only thing that is missing on this rendering which We just received is that the stone goes around the side of the building Underneath the pop out on the side elevation. So we do can wrap the the brick edge of the building around the building For continuity of overall architecture I showed it Do you want to flip it? Do we have do we have the rendering for the backside of the building? On the backside of the building we have tuck under garages. Um, we're going to do the same kind of uh Color blocking on the backside to break up the forms of the building And we on the stairwell areas where you have the entrances. We're going to do a color insert in there Similar to the color insert around the shadow boxes to get the character of the building on the outside So we've got four four sided architecture on the building And it maintains the elegance of the front elevation In the treatments that we provided We go to the wreck building This is the um The wreck building is kind of an interesting building the adjacent building On the site The entire ground floor with the except of one of the units has additional wreck space in it So the wreck building in itself one of the fronts on the pool is more of a community area Work study gathering space that orients to the pool It's also got the leasing offices in it And if you go out to the adjacent building, which is just beyond the fence in this rendering It interfaces with uh the ground floor of the adjacent building which has a gym A bicycle fixing station in it a dog wash station in it conference room seating works areas And it's all so the combination of the building The single story building thing fronting on the pool and the Adjacent building is much larger than we accustomed We do on a apartment project In terms of overall common space So I think it's going to be Unusual to see this kind of feature On a project of this kind of small scale work accustomed to doing 300 units with the amount of amenity space that we normally put Um on our projects And so this wreck building is accommodating a much larger Area with with much fewer units And uh if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them. You're not well. We have more slides These are the just these are the floor plans. I think we've all seen them before it's a three-story building with tuck under parking on the backside of the building Residential on the ground floor and then two resident two floors original residential stacking on top of it Um go to the next slide Give them next slide These are just Line drawings of the elevations. I think the colored rendering does service to the building much more We have all of we have about five different building types on the building Just to configure with to make the site Density to be able to be achieved And uh, I think the elevations are Consistent between the architecture from building to building and the rendering is represented of that style So we I mean we could go through all the different building types, but they're all very consistent with the rendering that you saw So if we go back to the rendering To include Do we have the floor plan of that building yeah Yeah, this is it This is the wreck building that's the adjacent building to the wreck area As you can see it and see it's got a large gymnasium You can see the on the left hand side of the building. It's got a the bicycle fixing area the dog wash area two conference rooms and the kind of a work study area And then the manager's unit is actually down on the end of that Building so he has a supervision of the common space and all the goings-ons That concludes my question in my presentation. If you have any questions Be happy to answer them okay, so Next is our engineer our civil engineer Dave brown and he'll be here to talk about what we're doing on the site and and uh Happily answer any of your questions Good evening. I'm david brown with adobe associates civil engineers for this project um so The as you may have noticed in some of those photographs the existing frontage to peddling hill road Is a broadside ditch and an asphalt path That's going to be replaced with new curb gutter and sidewalk Uh, a slight widening to allow for a new bike lane Long peddling hill road and some re-striping to provide To a left turn lane and a dedicated left turn onto colgan Also, there's currently a bus stop North of colgan coming southbound on peddling hill road. That's going to be relocated To the frontage of this project just south of the intersection of colgan and peddling hill road Colgan also Is an undeveloped frontage which will Be widened and a new curb gutter sidewalk placed in there the concern that The city had in regards to the street trees along colgan is there's a large conduit drainage Structure that runs in colgan close to where the new curb and gutter are going to be and they were Fearful that the tree roots were going to impact that that storm drain so we've had conversations that hasn't been decided yet on swapping the trees from the planter strip to behind the sidewalk and putting the pue under the sidewalk Don't know if that'll be accepted yet, but that's what we're proposing Because that that frontage really does need some some trees As Christine mentioned we have some bioretention along the west side Fortunately everything this whole site drains to that colgan avenue conduit We also have some smaller bioretention In the middle south of the site along the property line Um, and then everything drains as I said into that colgan avenue conduit Um utilities are readily available in peddling hill and colgan, so We have a loop water system to provide fire protection and domestic service for all of these buildings And I think that concludes what I have If you have any questions i'm available for any questions you might have I think that concludes our uh our presentation, so Or can continue I would like to open the public hearing on this item recording secretary. Do we have any comment? If you're attending in person and wish to make a comment, please don't make your way to the podium So the the podium is up the stairs there Perfect Can you hear me? All right. Hey, my name is dug bowman and um I have a property adjacent to this project probably its southwest corner 1825 furden and court Ferdinand court is the court that's immediately West of the project most parcel half of them are adjacent to it And i'm here sort of representing five of the commercial property owners on that court and You'll probably hear from ed nessinger a little later. He's got one of those antiproperty On colgan avenue also anyway What I want to do is just quickly paint a picture here Of colgan avenue I know that you guys are all probably familiar with it. It's the main It's the baker avenue exit Dumps right onto colgan and takes you Straight over to uh pedal and hill road. So it's it's a heavily traveled road as is Because of the freeway access it's a direct freeway access right there and um You know even the the projects that you guys are discussing before this one as you long to get full There's colgan is starting to become more of an alternate for some of those projects too But uh anyway I want to comment on a couple of the Things that I read in the traffic study that that was done for this Let's see i'm going to start um on page 27 in the parking section And it was mentioned earlier too that the project, um, I'm going to read the finding The proposed parking supply falls 16.5 short of the requirements Specified the city zoning code Given this however given the site's proximity to local and regional transit service would be reasonable for the city to approve A parking reduction allowed by code Okay A little closer, okay That's fine. All right It goes let's see another section says the city can discretionary apply a reduction in parking And given as the project's proximity to transit including bus route three which links the site to downtown transit mall My knowledge in fact on page eight it says that these the stop that they quote Our site is At the corner of santa rosa avenue and colgan Now dave, uh, you may have just mentioned moving a bus stop I didn't quite catch out if if you're moving that Bus route three site to the other end of colgan avenue that would that would be great Let's see what else Pedestrian well, let me start with the bicycle facilities um That's page 24 of the traffic study Uh, the finding bicycle facilities serving the project are adequate Well, it says i'll read the rest of it Existing bike lanes on petaluma hill road Along with planned future bicycle facilities in the vicinity Which i'm not aware of would provide adequate access for bicyclists Residents of the proposed development would be able to use bike lanes on petaluma hill road to connect to many of the primary Bicycle facilities in the city as well as the recreational uses and commercial uses along petaluma hill road No mention of colgan It was completely left out and and that baffles me. I'm not sure why Um, excuse me, sir. Yes, there's a three minute time limit on each speaker. Okay, so I'll give you another minute. Okay. I think I can wrap it up in a minute. Okay. Thanks Pedestrian facilities They talk about that expect me generally adequate Uh, it says proposed project would include a sidewalk along its entire frontage of colgan avenue Which would effectively connect the site to the surrounding pedestrian network and neighboring uses Now this picture that I have here is colgan avenue as it sits We're about halfway down between petaluma hill road and san rosa avenue looking east This is not a pedestrian or bicycle friendly street and unless the city I hope has some my Thoughts of making it so I'm afraid that this last big developed parcel on here. We're going to lose an opportunity to to address those issues and Ferdinand court itself which i'm going to run out of time to talk about ed probably can pick that up But those pedestrian facilities A major destination for those people is going to be that Costco marketplace area with all of its restaurants and shopping and etc And right now i'm telling you they Pedestrian traffic does not go down colgan avenue to take the turn to go into that shopping They come right down ferdinand court Right through my property cut holes in my fence and go into the back way It's been that way for years. I fought it And i'm afraid that i'm going to have two three times as many people making that shortcut Especially given this traffic report which says that they're expecting a lot of pedestrian traffic And I know that's where they're going to go. Thank you very much for your comment Do we have any more in-person public comments? Hey, we do have a couple hands raised in zoom as a reminder If you wish to make a public comment you can do so by raising the hand icon at the bottom of your zoom screen If you're calling in, please press star nine Ed messenger i'm going to give you A prompt to unmute yourself. Please state your name for the record Ed messenger You can go ahead and continue your comment i'm going to go ahead and just give you a Uh a series of bullet points and then you get confused and respond Is the tuck under parking in included in the parking Calculation Is there street parking available on pelham hill road? That's two Is there an opportunity to widen colgan avenue? From pelham hill road at least down to ferdnag court to tie in The pedestrian and bike accommodation That's three Is it possible to move the shadow lane or the shadow striping? From the west side of the property all the way down To steno rosa avenue That's four Five is it possible to add a turn lane? between Pelham hill road and ferdnag court That's five Six we'd like the city of san rosa to accept ferdnag court as a city-owned street and or cul-de-sac That would be six And seven we would like to restrict parking in the cul-de-sac from a 6 8 6 30 a.m. To a 6 30 p.m restricted parking time so that the residents don't consume all the parking in the in the ferdnag court Parking region I have two properties that are affected by this project again. I am not against this project I still think this is america and you should be able to build what you want But I do believe the city has an opportunity to improve Colvin avenue so that it's acceptable to the residents there and the commercial building owners as well as the general public for traffic issues Thank you, okay Mary i'm going to send you a prompt to unmute yourself and can you please state your name for the record across the way This complex that you're proposing And one of my main concerns is the easements we have several easements for cross the street at the supermarket What are we going to how is that? Which is with this apartment complex is going to create so much traffic and congestion It is bad as it is now with people Going in and out of the supermarket from the various easements So i'm really kind of totally against this Also, I feel like our schools both Bellevue and roseland district Are not going to be able to accommodate our students because both Bellevue and roseland are small schools districts and I know for sure Bellevue is not going to be able to accommodate more students unless somehow they get Start making their schools bigger, but they're not going to be able to accommodate it And I don't think that junior highs or even the high schools are going to in the area are going to be able to Again, I think the traffic alone Is to pick up my biggest concern is the traffic There is no on any given day. There is no way you can make a left-hand turn in Santa Anna Drive onto pedal of hill road. It is virtually impossible. You have to look out for the cars Coming Both ways plus you have to look out for vehicles coming in and out of Lotus market because they have like police one two Three there's four driveways right there first To a comet I am dead and against it. Anyway, I spoke my word. Thank you chair Jones car I'm not seeing any other hands raised on zoom Thank you. I'd like to quote close public comment Are there any questions of the board for the staff for staff or applicant? I'll start down here with mike Staff I was wondering can you clarify the parking reduction and and you know percentage and I guess how does that compare to some other products have recently been built if you have that info Yes, so the city code would require. I believe 272 spots for this project given the number of units And the proposal includes 232 spots, so it would be a reduction of I believe 14.4 percent And this was brought up during the conceptual review as well and the design review board Stated that You could go off of one spot per bedroom So this is one spot per bedroom plus 33 additional spots But I am not sure about other projects that Just think about the other projects in the area and you know, there's quite a lot of building happening down there I can understand the concern about parking And I'm favorable of the parking reduction But at the same time if every single one of those projects in that area has parking reduction Then the residents are going to go find other places from the cars It's a great question. I and there are a number of projects under construction Or that have been recently completed in the area and I know of a few of them that have had a parking reduction But I don't know the exact numbers Um, and so I don't want to say anything that's incorrect I think I mean, I don't know that we'd be able to get all that information for you this evening. Um, we can certainly Relate to the board after the meeting. I would say that a 14 percent parking reduction Um is sort of on the lower side of what a lot of applicants will ask for a lot of times It's more like 25 or a little bit above but just I couldn't really quantify what's been approved in this area right now Can I ask a follow-up on that so that um, there was a comment about whether the parking numbers include the the garages and Can we give an answer for that? Yes, it does include the garages Um, I actually have a follow-up to mic. So if I remember correctly, so this is We're not doing a parking reduction That's a concession to an affordable project because the project's market rate And the parking reduction is part of the Conditions of approval in the resolution that drb does have purview over correct So like we effectively we could say now we don't want to do the parking reduction, right? Not to say that we will I just want to clarify the the process A little bit because I always get them mixed up in my head So the zoning code does allow for projects that are um undergoing design review to Have additional findings which allow for a parking reduction So in this case because it's under 25 percent the director of the planning and economic development department can Actually make those findings, but in this case because we're before the design review board It makes sense to make this part of the public process So it is there are two additional findings the board would need needs to make to approve this um, and then Does that answer your question board member? vice chair, excuse me I think it does because I was looking at the revised resolution and it looked like Item seven and eight were those additional findings as part of the resolution So they're they're obviously part of the purview of the board currently Correct. All right. Cool. That's what I was double checking on. Thanks Yes, a couple more questions on the parking numbers as well as that includes the street parking that I think I saw on the plans I believe it does not only on on the property. Yes Then can we get a clarification on the bus route? And what you know is that the Route three or or what you know from san rosa avenue? Yeah, it's route five the one that's on petaluma hill road And I'm I believe it's 30 minutes every 30 minutes that it goes there two more One is on the trash enclosure that's on the landscape plans It says that it would be CMU block walls to match the balcony The balcony railings around the lower level balconies, but I thought I heard the architects say the the railings were wood I just want can we get clarification on that? I'm I'm going to defer to that What are the what are the railings on the buildings? Are they what material are they are they wood or There are steel railings at the second and third floor and their Wood patio surrounds at the first floor And the trash enclosures are masonry block with stucco finish on the outside Yes So I actually had a question about that mic too. So that appears to be a conflict to the landscape plans landscape plans show Split face CMU wall to Match patio walls color match. I think that's what you keyed off on So I guess we have a conflict in the documents a little bit. So which is which so I went the wrong way The materials change. So we will be stucco on the trash enclosure So CMU backup wall stucco finish. Yes Yeah, one more. Um No, that's okay. Uh, so on the on the landscape plan, you know, overall, I think the the tree coverage and the Amount of trees on site, uh, is appropriate Uh, but looking at the landscape plans and then kind of comparing them to the civil plans, um There's quite a bit of storm drain pipe Going throughout the site because you know the art civil engineers said everything kind of goes to the the west and so Just a concern on my part that for final designer view Um that we're approving, you know a landscape plan with The quantity of trees that we have which I think is appropriate um, and then if You know utilities storm drain Etc. I preclude the trees from being planted in the planters and we're at a lesser number of trees than We've approved and I just I want to make sure that you know, like I said, I think the number of trees are appropriate I think the landscape art tech's done a nice job with the trees, but um, don't want to see You know less trees because there's utility conflicts and actually I think the applicant team presented that there's already potential conflict with the the, um stormwater along colgan, so If we you know take out that entire row of trees along colgan, I think that changes the whole whole proposal Is I don't know that's a question or was going to say he's had a question Um, I would the question of staff. I guess is how how do we Ensure that what's presented here before drb actually is what gets implemented As far as a landscape and treat can't treat canopy um, the project is conditioned to include The entire tree preservation and landscaping plans again and at building permits in middle um and I believe that if that were the case We would enter mitigation Would treat Hey mike while they deliberate real quick. Are you specifically referring to The options that dave was talking about on the colgan avenue That's kind of in flux Or were you just more or were you just asking about the the site in general in terms of planting? Well before I came to me had a question about just The tree numbers in general and then it was mentioned about the the The stormwater facilities being kind of Maybe needed to be along colgan avenue And so if they are then the trees are going to have to move and then or not be planted and So it's kind of it's together like how do you how do we as a drb if if we approve the landscape plan the way it is And then utility conflicts are found And trees can't be planted you know what What repercussions or for yeah, I I had a I have a thought we can do that I guess and deliberations or whatever I have an idea on how we can condition it to give maximum flexibility to Not only the applicant but city staff because we had so we actually had a similar Thing A couple months ago where we had something was pending a city decision right And we conditioned it so that it It gave you guys some flexibility city staff wise, but it gave Direction in terms of the desires of the board. I think so i've got an idea about that. I'll write it down I'm going to take us back to questions. How's that? And I think in the same vein actually is just A lot of the trees proposed are moderate water use And so I know the way that was calculated now it will meet well, but you know It's only I think like six three thousand square feet of moderate water use and they're pretty close to their wello or their Mawa And just again, you know if they have to change the trees to a low water use tree to meet wello Are they is the applicant stuck to that? So maybe drew you can help me later Anything else figuring out how to do that? I don't think I have anything else at the moment Ernest Yeah, I just have one quick question. So um, was it mentioned that they're going to be um That tkak was involved in tax credits related to that or was there not I thought I heard that mentioned at one point You're talking about our our attempt at getting affordable project on this. Yeah, Celio is uh Basically frustrated by the fact that it's not high resource area designation by tkak in Sacramento and Because it isn't there's no conceivable way That we could have gotten tax credit financing. Okay, so it's not applicable here. Yeah got it Uh, I think that was uh The one question that I had that would have led to other questions, but we're good. Thank you big I I had questions about the trees, but they've they've been asked Thank you Adam Okay, thank you. Thank you planner basal for your presentation and um everything and applicant team as well. Thanks very much Good to see you all again Just one question for you. Um, it's a little bit of a layout question in terms of the Oh, and I also kudos on on reorganizing and adding amenities. Um, nice nicely done there. This is a tricky site The the rec building and the pool I was just curious about the um design rationale for the placement the orientation of those where they are and but Specifically, I'm wondering about uh flip-flopping them if that was explored about the Placement of the of the pool and the rec building for for sun Not necessarily for sun. Um, but uh more uh, it's it's petaluma hill road Right on the pool's right on on the main drag bit pretty much. We have a solid fence there. Christine don't we I think there was some um discussion about adjusting the building to the frontage, but really wanting to create that welcoming Corner for the rec building and the adjacent room and creating that Just kind of synergy between the two so it made more sense to have the building pulled in We do have a solid wall on the petaluma hill road and we'll have landscaping there to soften it So we thought it'd be a nice green amenity and it would likely get more use on the interior of the site The the actual rec building itself so The rec building not the pool. Yeah. Well having the rec building pulled into the site more. Yeah So so prioritizing the the welcoming nature for the interior of the site rather than the exterior of the site Is the design rationale That was a choice. Yeah, sure. Yeah, that's fine. I just yeah, I wonder. Okay. Thank you. Thanks That's all Thank you and true So I have a couple of questions Uh, I should ask this one. We're talking about parking. Sorry, uh, Dave On pelham hill road the new parking like about how many parking spaces can be done on pelham hill Okay Just and that's like beyond the bus stop and all the bus stop stuff and then Kind of just the rest of the frontage. It's about eight spaces. Okay, cool. Thanks So this is a question for the applicant the developer Um, so I think there's been a couple of comments about parking and parking reduction So do you do you have a plan to include parking in a lease? Right, like if you rent unit 101 you get parking space 101 Is that your plan or is it going to be a free for all parking scenario free for all? We found that if you if you assign parking places You end up with a lot of a lot of empty spaces Uh, it's better just to let them all you know compete for it You know they um So I that answers your question that I think it's a much more efficient way to to to use the parking places Yeah, I just I think we've uh on some of these projects where we have reduced parking we've have Either unbundled parking where the applicant is in an agreement to use a parking structure somewhere else or they're Including a parking space is you know like a $50 charge or $100 charge on your your lease or whatever for the unit So that you're guaranteed a parking space, right? Or they have different types of it's it's it's fine. I'm just curious Okay Christine on your l 1.1. It looks like there's a Conflict you've got a note here that says glass fence and gate at pool area but then it says Transparent decorative fence and then on your detail page. It looks like you've got like Cast iron metal fence, which is fine. I'm fine. I just want to make sure we like choices I think the original idea was the glass but somewhere along line changed to the ornamental metal for cost So we'll assume it's going to be Uh permeable Right. Yeah, I would say the picture that's on l 1.2 is indicative I think of what you intended. It's just there's a Some text. Yeah, there's some text conflict. Okay, so Typically for a project of the size A light analysis is required in terms of how much light is being broadcast on the site and the design of all the various building mounted light fixtures and also Site fixtures, I'm seeing the site fixtures in the landscape package But there's really nothing on the building fixtures other than a call out on some of the elevations Um, have you guys looked at light pollution? I know it's required as part of the building permit process But have you looked at all that to date? We're gonna have to do a photometric study On site, but normally what happens is we'll have a over each one of the garage doors. There'll be a light And over each one of the patios there will be a light On the front door and those are controlled by the homers association. So they provide Enough site lighting and then landscaping comes in and fills in the darker spots So you have the right lumens over the ground space Okay, cool. Thanks, and then uh while you're sitting there. Okay The orange that you're showing on the rear that you changed to stuck in the rendering It's unclear what exactly that color is other than rendered orange. Do you have a particular color picked out? actually It's more the color of the orange on the front of the building It's it's the same color. It's on the inside of the shadow boxes on the front elevation We're putting it on the back elevation And I think that we're gonna probably want to cut some of the color off that centerpiece It's the color that is at the ends of the building. So I think it's proportionally a better mix of Orange to to the wide area of the building and so we're going to take a couple little studies and see if we can Get a little bit more of that same field that's at the end of the buildings in the middle of the building Right, okay, and then uh the roof change on the amenity building you originally had uh I was reading your one of the documents you had a standing seam roof and you've changed it to Asphalt shingle I'm assuming probably cost-related. Yes, it is it's cost-related and then everything else is single-ply membrane tpo EPDM most of the all the the all the flatwares are all the flatwares. Yeah, all the tpo All right, I think Just going through my list. I have tons of notes. Sorry. It's okay. That's fine Okay, I'm good. Thank you. Those are all the questions and just to answer mr Sharon's question about the wreck building or an enhancement of it frequently we end up Plotting buildings where all the buildings are up on the street and so he gets a street line of buildings And so actually the orientation of pool. It's better for the sun On the pool and it gives you that breathing room when you enter Or just driving down pedal even so I think it's a nice feature to have that Open feeling rather than a wall of buildings Great. Thank you for that. Okay And chair I think we're done with questions All good just Yeah, I was curious about permanent bike parking, but I think I got it I didn't really have anything else to add Um We do seem to have quite a few questions or concerns about this is not really a question but About traffic and So I think that is something that we will talk more about In congestion If I may chair we do have the city's traffic engineer. He was able to join us by zoom If there are any questions that we want to direct to him and also the applicants traffic consultant Who prepared the traffic impact study is available as well? I think that would be good. I think there are some questions um Perhaps mike's question about uh colgan road. Is that the name that pronouncing it? Correctly Yeah storm water treatment stuff on the on colgan And trees or Marching traffic coming into colgan road. I think that was a question from one of our Calls Is there a response to that or how it will be addressed? Increase traffic there uh Yeah, our our traffic engineer is On the zoom if you have a question for him specifically Can you tell me his name? That's mike. I'm sorry. Zach Matley do you see him under? Yes Zach you're unmuted if you want to answer that question Excellent. Good afternoon board members. Zach Matley with w trans in san aroza So with respect to colgan avenue, obviously you look at it out there right now and it's it's not Up to up to the city's standards. So This project will be completing frontage improvements to improve the section along that stretch of colgan which will allow Both the intersection at petaloma hill and colgan to work better in the future As well as tie in to future improvements that will occur to the west as other other projects come online Or as the city has resources to to make improvements down that direction. So the um, ultimately there will be a lengthened turn lanes and and more space again to improve operations on the frontage there also Sidewalk improvements along the frontage as well. So While this project wouldn't be taking it all the way down to san aroza avenue and cleaning up the whole thing It is, you know, improving its frontage and and making it so future improvements will dovetail into it and make that That stretch function better Thank you. Anyone else have a question? Just had a question again about the Parking reduction and going down 14.4 percent And then also to cut I think drew asked it about uh signed parking um, and so The the garages are assigned To the tenants or are they free for all as well the question for the applicant team? Uh Well number one the garages don't have doors into adjacent No, that's not true. Some of them do have doors adjacent to the adjacent units, but not all of them do So I would imagine the door the units that have a door entry from the garage into the unit Will go with that unit and the other Garages will be available for people around Yeah, I was going to say that one of the comments last time Was the placement. I think christine alluded to it of the uh of the player the todd lot and That it was in the wrong place your opinion as a board and We agreed and uh, and so we moved it, you know to where it is right now made it bigger made it more Attractive and more of an amenity uh for uh for parents and their kids But in the process we we took to an area where we had some Some extra parking and so we lost seven parking places there by doing that We think it's an improvement to the project and uh And uh that that seven was you know Was a I don't know what that would have taken it down to but it would have you know taken down to 12 and a half or something like that Percentages and as opposed to 14.4 we felt pretty comfortable with that because we were Uh pretty far underneath the 25 percent that's allowed Typically for a minor minor variation I guess I'm trying to understand on the And they are garages Said some of them don't have doors, but they actually they do have the garage door that comes down. Yes, correct Yeah, they just don't have doors direct into the units So you'd have to walk back out the main the auto garage Door to get to your unit, right? So how does the garage some some direct access? But there's more there are more that don't have direct access To their unit, but every single one that's tucked under has The actual garage door that it would come in. Yes, right Okay, so those would most likely be assigned Right because you can't have free for all Garage parking That's right. So What I was saying earlier it that doesn't apply to the the ones that are because of those will be leased To the to the people in the building have to be within that very building But the ones that aren't don't have direct access could be anywhere The the tenants could be anywhere in the building And have and have that so that's true that that could be a bacon a bacon parking place Yeah, yeah, so there's one covered stall per unit though Is that correct? No, there's 147 units and 80 84 are Our garages I guess right Yeah, Mike. I was kind of looking this while you were talking. I mean there's four instance on a1 a point one There's 12 parking spaces in the 20 unit building Right, so there'd be eight units that wouldn't have a covered parking space, right? So they'd have to figure that component out. I think that's that's an internal mechanism that they need to figure out Is a requirement by the city to have a covered parking space for every single unit No, I can pull up the zoning code section to read it exactly but it's It's not It may not be that simple Let me look it up just to make sure I read it correctly That's one of the traffic engineers On a apartment complex like this where you have the multiple, you know configurations a one bedroom two bedroom three bedroom What is the average car? You know do they have 1.5 cars or is there a is there a standard number? Uh, this is this is Zach Matley with w trans again. So what we did What we typically do You know every jurisdiction has what their zoning code calls for in terms of of parking Requirements those don't always translate to actual parking demand though So we look at the institute transportation engineers publishes Rates where they've surveyed actual, you know similar types of facilities in this case You know multi-story apartment buildings that are not near rail transit And survey and say okay. Here's the number of bedrooms. Here's the number of units And then here's the actual demand that we're seeing generated in those uses so The number of spaces that are proposed at this project meet the average Demand that it would say would exist But then we kind of take it a step further and say what's the 85th percentile demand that you might find in an apartment complex in terms of demand And this project also just barely but it meets that 85th percentile Highest observed demand from ITE rates. So we we tend to Use those rather than zoning code in terms of getting a sense of do we really think that there's enough parking? For this project and that what is the likelihood that it will spill over And in this case, we think that that would be rather Low a very low likelihood that it would spill over Thank you. That's exactly what I was looking for and so I can deduce from what you said that most likely this will have this project Will have no spill over That is correct. And we we did not count the additional spaces on pedal on hill road either Which also provides a little bit more breathing room on that regard Thank you And mike i'm going to jump back. I did find the zoning code requirement and uh, amy Can tell me if i'm right, but table three four automobile and bicycle parking requirements by land use type Residential uses studio and one-bedroom units do require one coverage space plus half a visitor space And two or more bedroom units require one covered space Plus 1.5 visitor spaces per unit. So I think I guess my inference on the report is that The visitor space component is really kind of what we're talking about Being reduced based on usage, but it still sounds like we still need 147 covered spaces on the project At least that would be my interpretation If there's 147 units 147 one cover spaces Uh, yes, nor and I were just conferring about the section. So that's the way that we understand it as well Is one regardless of unit size um Each unit needs its own covered parking space Um, and then it looks like visitor spaces There's there's more flexibility including that they can be located on street abouting the site And it sounds like the applicants traffic engineer just mentioned that no on-street parking spaces were actually counted as a part of This analysis which is allowed in certain circumstances under the zoning code So I think we've identified that we need some additional covered parking spaces Nor I think can talk about the number that they is at 80 How many spaces they currently have in the garages? Yes, so they currently have 84 um covered parking spaces with the garages and They would need 147 to meet one per unit That'd be 63 cup carports Yes, so 63 carports Normally we would do carports to satisfy this and you're going to end up with solar collectors on those carports and meet the zoning or the solar requirements so it's a catch-all for both those And we normally use cantilevered ones. So it doesn't take up a post May I ask a follow-up question about that? How would that affect the uh, the tree and the orchard tree parking? We space we space them Between the trees the carports even the ones that are So looking say along the west side of the site That are parked outside or excuse me planted outside of the parking area would the cantilever Extend over into into the bioswell Yeah, they'd extend over to the parking space, but they wouldn't go over the where the tree well is I think that we're generally we have I think seven parking spaces And then a tree well and seven parking spaces something in that nature So so trees would be able to be planted in that Yes, with you'd have covered parking stalls and trees would still be able to Yeah, we don't really do that. Yeah, we do that in a lot of jurisdictions. Okay Great. Thank you. I've lost track of where we are. Okay Um Would someone like to make a motion for resolution? I'll take a stab at it because i'm gonna actually just straight up add some conditions right away So I'd like to make a motion to approve mosaic apartments EI are previously certified by city council designer view major 1683 pedal and hill road dr 20-051 wave the reading of the text with the following conditions Shall include 147 covered parking spaces 84 are currently included in the in the proposed plans in garages An additional 63 carport styled covered spaces shall be provided with the potential to include solar collectors The trash enclosure design shall be cmu backup wall with stucco finish to reflect building finishes Fencing at pool shall be ornamental metal per details shown on l1.2 And here's the one I tried for you mike Street trees at colgan avenue shall be installed pending final review By the city of santa rosa deletion of street trees is not a desire of this board So just one one question, uh, we don't know that The project we're doing right now in west college all the solar panels sit on the flat roofs And actually more than are required by uh by state law and as far as the uh the covered parking is concerned the uh the non garages Are you is it is are you sure? I mean is it certain that the way I read it required by yeah The way I wrote it is the potential to include solar collectors It gives you the flexibility to put it on the carports I'm just i'm just saying that we don't we don't need the carports To fit all the solar effect will weaken what we're doing right now on the flat roofs Exceeds the the amount that we have to put on But I what I'm saying I guess the question might as far as the covered parking is concerned that the cantilever um Are you certain that that is a part of the zoning code? We have to comply with it anyway, right? Yeah, so the way I so the way I read this is shall include So you're required to have 147 covered parking spaces period. That's what the zoning code says You have 147 units you need 147 covered parking spaces you have 84 So you need an additional 60 no, I I understand so the 63 can be done with carport style covered spaces However, you'd like to do it cantilever With or without four columns with or without solar and all we're saying is with the potential to include solar collectors So that gives you the option as the developer and the architect to say what works within your budget Your design all that stuff. So if the solar collectors work on the roofs, then you can just use regular old Metal carports to do your covered spaces. It's totally up to you. And that's why it says the potential to include okay Just a procedural Item I I believe we want to move you can move both resolutions at once But I think because there's two so there's the one for the addendum that we would want to move that resolution And then move the design review resolution and add those conditions to the design review resolution And then discussion can happen on both of those resolutions and then we do two separate votes And so Vice chair, maybe we can read back through those conditions As well so we can read them down. Do you want to do should we do the the resolution? For the addendum to the certified EIR first and just kind of clear that and be done with it And then do the design review one. I mean, I don't know. What do you think chair? That seems cleanest to me. It's fine. I mean, I think you can have if there's discussion on the addendum resolution That's fine. We just want to that needs to be Introduced first and then that would be voted on first because we need to make the sequel determination I will respectfully request to withdraw My motion and I will then instead Make a motion to approve The resolution of the design review board of the city of santa rosa adopting an addendum to the certified general plan environmental impact report State clearinghouse number two zero zero eight zero nine two one one four for the mosaic apartments project Located at 1683 pelham hill road santa rosa apn zero four four zero two one zero one nine And zero two two and zero three five and zero seven one and zero seven two file number dr 20-0 51 Wave the reading of the remainder of the text In second Does anyone have any discussion? If they'd like to make No Okay And I believe we need to vote Board member cook Hi Board member libtak I Board member sharon I Board member with rich I Vice chair weigel I Chair jones carter I So this passes with six eyes and one absence with birch being absent Okay, we'll keep it rolling for you chair I move to approve the resolution of the design review board of the city of santa rosa granting design review approval for mosaic apartments Located at 1683 pelham hill road apn zero four four zero two one zero one nine And dash zero two two zero three five zero seven one and zero seven two file number dr 20 dash zero five one Wave the remainder of the reading of the text And adding the following conditions And so you're ready for me to read them again. Okay. I'll go slow Project shall include 147 covered parking spaces per table three dash four of the city zoning code 84 spaces are currently Shown on the plans located in garages So 63 additional covered spaces Need to be included in carport style covered spaces And then we could say the carport style covered spaces Can include The potential for solar collectors that gives so Gives you flexibility to do it one way or the other Because I think if we don't give you The ability to put solar collectors there staff may not be able to do it, right? Because it's a design thing here. I'm trying to help you out You ready for the next one Amy? Okay trash enclosure design shall be CMU backup wall with stucco finish to reflect building finishes Because we have we don't have the right design of that in the plans currently And then fencing at pool shall be ornamental metal per details On the landscape sheet l 1.2 You ready for the last one Street trees at colgan avenue Shall be installed pending final review Of the city of santa rosa Regarding their placement in the easement That sound good Yeah, try all right. Let's just say pending final review of the city of santa rosa. I think that makes it easy And then uh, we could say deletion of the street trees is not desired by the design review board That's pretty clear, right? I think so And those would be the four conditions. I would think unless anybody has out there any other ones I thought it'd be easier to just put it in the motion else have any conditions They want to move forward. We need a second first. We need a second on this big old motion second Does anyone else have any conditions they'd like to add Any discussion? yeah, um And I'd like to add something in here about the just the number of trees shade trees and Make sure that our parking lots are shaded and it it will turn out like what is being presented to us And the other thing I was thinking about was like one of the conditions about the covered spacing You know There's usually about five feet between when the parking out, you know, the little fingers come out There's about five feet. That's not really enough room for a tree to grow And if they're solar on the roof then They're really not going to want trees on the trees in there so I was just wondering this is a question Could we give them a variance on the number of covered parking spaces? Spaces like we're get y'all like we're giving them a variance on the The number of parkings the number total number of parking spaces Yes, I'm we I mean that is something that the city can do but we would need to I need to look at the zoning code to see that I mean a variance is technically it's a different type of planning application And so I don't think that a parking reduction Would would include the number of covered parking spaces, but I I need to think on it for a second. So I would agree with you. I think I have to agree with Drew too that you know The one parking stall per unit covered is required and they were plet your word giving you a reduction of the gas spaces so great, okay Then I guess the only other thing I'd like to consider with the board is just the the num, you know The tree canopy Percentage on the site is there a way for us to incorporate, you know Including what is presented in front of us or you know Are you saying you want to make sure that the landscape plan that is presented? Is the final package when the project is built? Is that what you're saying? Yeah, I'd like to see the number of trees that are being proposed In the landscape plans be the final number of trees that's actually Planted when the project's done. Okay, regardless of what happens on colgan road You want a hundred trees if the plan says a hundred trees? That would be ideal. Okay I've got an idea Christine how many trees you got? I know Yeah, I mean that gets of it my concern also with the um With the with the potential for the carports And and that if there's a way to condition is saying that the the number of trees Is is what we'd like, but the placement could move rather than be locked into the placement is that So I guess maybe a condition could be uh Pending the resol resolution of of covered parking question um The uh, I guess regardless of of the resolution the number of street number of trees should remain the same Number of trees on the site I guess I had to say that I think isn't that what you said previously though that the number of trees shall remain the same No, I think the the the item that I wrote earlier is specific to this colgan avenue issue that It sounds like christine and dave are working with the city on and that there's five street trees involved in that Little kerfuffle if we will if we'll call it And so obviously I think we heard from the public that You know colgan needs some improvement Obviously, you know the frontage of this project is going to improve colgan And it it should include street trees if possible, but there there seems to be this Where is the the underground storm drain Structure and if the trees will impact that, you know, obviously, I don't think you as you know Civil engineering would want to put trees over something that could damage infrastructure, right? So I think it's I think the team wants to include the trees We just need to give them the flexibility to include it and also state, but it's two separate things, right? I guess Total number of trees on the entire project is kind of one item The five street trees on colgan avenue is another specific item and and both are are valid to call out I'm going to suggest because it sounds like we're having some tech issues that we take a brief recess and we can think Independently maybe about how this might work. We can't have conversations while we're not On the microphone, but just a few minutes first and tech issues. Thanks Need a five minute recess or longer Recording secretaries five minutes reasonable to start. Okay. Thanks. Yes, that's fine I'd like to resume our meeting chair the applicant team has just a suggestion related to the condition For trees if they might just Speak into the microphone. Thank you. Sure Thank you. Yes. So right now we show 119 Trees for mitigation is what we're showing on the mitigation. That's a combination of large and small trees Total on the site just from my count. We have 162 So we're already exceeding the mitigation, but some of them are small and some of them are shade trees So I would think that we would want to commit to the number of larger trees And then move the smaller trees around as needed So if we commit to the 119 as a mitigation number Then we can make all the rest work If that makes sense of shade trees Thinking that that's the significant number of trees For shading and then the rest are You know still provide value visual value and we're not interested in reducing the number, but I think to to come to a number that's Large enough to provide some, you know Guarantee that you're going to see in the final product what we're showing you today I think that's representative of the larger trees that we're showing on the site, which would be the 119 I'm gonna ask Mike Do you This was your inshore you agreeable um So Christina you counted up the 119. It was the kind of oak looking symbol with the darker green brand and then the dark black branches and then the pink uh Trees that you know you have that labeled in your legend That's 119. It's the the street tree and the shade and mitigation tree and the legend the small and accent trees are um Are not part of that number you By a city ordinance you require to plant those 119 trees, right? Because you're removing trees from the site So they're already required to do that So what if we do what you're saying? What additional I mean, we don't need to say anything additional And what I am saying in my You know in my previous comments is that I like how you've placed the trees here. I like the larger trees I like the pavement coverage shade coverage I think you know the way you have it here will be a really nice project Really nice landscape You're already you're already required to do those 119 trees So I guess and the 119 trees that you counted up were The the two symbols that are on the in the legend as large shade canopy trees right I guess, you know we are I mean we're bound by this plan right as we move forward through the permitting process They're going to be reviewing back through this plan. So there will be Additional recourse if we're not meeting the intent of the plan, correct? I'm not yeah, I have a thought I have kind of a thought though. I think there's there's I think there's a couple of things so one You're going to lose some finger parking, right when we do covered parking potentially potentially Two Some of the finger parking actually doesn't meet the design guidelines, right? Because it's actually one every five spaces so That can probably be solved by placing the covered parking in the places where the finger parking doesn't comply and so then I think I think what mic is maybe trying to get is So you have 119 Required trees that you have to do And then the difference between 119 would you say 162? 162 so 40 40 43 it's 43 like bonus trees. I guess is what we'll call I guess That speak to the design of the project So I I'm wondering if there's a condition that covers That What I just got those three things kind of all together The revisions of the cover parking. I mean we've already said they need to do cover parking They're going to have to do 119 big shade trees, right? They're not little wussy trees. They're big shade trees And then there's 43 bonus trees of decorative Nature likely because they're not why spend money on the big shade trees when you don't have to So is it Sound about better mic to you to try to get what you're getting at Maybe adam can help too. I don't know just my thought What I didn't quite follow what you I guess So So we have non-compliant finger parking Uh on building d and Against the tot lot. I guess the west side finger parking is pretty good And there's some finger parking at building h that's close But I think that I think the major deficiencies are along building d and at the tot lot and that may be a great spot for covered parking Instead of having to reinvent the wheel, right? Just putting some covered parking in there I kind of feel like we're going off into the weeds here and we might be yeah And so how about if we just say We need to have 119 large trees to provide her plan That's actually a really good idea chair Um, because there isn't uh, there isn't resolution language about this, but that's a really good idea shall provide trees per L1.0 And that's done. It's not negotiable provide the trees Is that what you want mic? Okay Do you have a question? Yes. Are you are you saying number, but we can move them around to adjust for yes, okay I think the way you could write this amy is shall provide Trees as indicated on sheet l1.0 Landscape architect has flexibility to Relocate trees as needed to meet other design requirements But make sure you put the number in please See if I have anything else I'm just wondering is this this is an additional So this has to be moved and seconded. Is that correct? Yes, so I might have to friendly amendment it Okay, so I'd like to make a friendly amendment to the motion and had a condition that Says the Apprentia Uh install The quantity of trees shown on she l1.0 With flexibility to move trees Based on design Uh criteria You need a second I will second that And I will accept the friendly amendment Me too Recording secretary can we have a bloke vote, please? Board member cook I Board member libtak I Board member Sharon I Board member with rich I Vice chair weigel No Uh chair jones carter I So this motion passes with six eyes and board member birch absent Thank you very much and good luck with your project and This meeting of the design review board. Oh, sorry Please note this action is final unless an appeal is filed with the planning and economic development department within 10 days of today's decision Pursuant to zoning code section 20 dash 62 point zero three zero This meeting of the design review board is now adjourned