 Secretary Montoya, do we have a quorum? Hi, Chair Musor, yes, we do have a quorum. I do believe that Staff Liaison Murray is reaching out to Board Member Garrett to see if she'll be joining us. OK, and do we want to go ahead and start? Yes, we can start whenever you're ready. OK, just go ahead and begin. Hey, if all Board Members can turn their cameras on. My apologies, Board Member Garrett and did let us know that she would not be attending this meeting. And so this is it. We're good to go. OK, thank you, Ms. Murray. OK, welcome, everyone, all participating, all Board Members and City Staff Members to our June 1st City of Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board meeting. At this time, I'd like to call the meeting to order and ask Ms. Montoya for a roll call. Hello, Chair Musor. This is Recording Secretary Eileen. I'll be filling in for your regular recording secretary today. Let the record reflect that all Members are present with the exception of Member Garrett. OK, thank you. And if you would, give me your last name again so I can. Cleary. One more time. Cleary. Cary. Cleary, like the word clear and you just add a Y at the end. OK, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Am I hearing on this Zoom stuff? That's an always the best. Anyway, we'll get through it. OK, and moving on to item number two, approval of the minutes. That's like we have any movements, minutes to approve. So we'll move on to item three, public comments. This is the time when any person may address matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter of the jurisdiction. The public may comment on the agenda items when the item is called. Each speaker is allowed three minutes. So Ms. Clary, if do we have anyone who would like to comment to the board at this time? We do. Mr. Jeff Bean. And Mr. Bean, you have been given permission to speak. If you would go ahead and introduce yourself prior to making your comment. Thank you. OK, actually it's Mrs. Bean, Shelly Bean, because my husband just had to leave to be with a patient. OK, go ahead. OK. So we were before the Cultural Heritage Board for a concept review March 2 and a landmark alteration permit. And on our last meeting after the final vote, some words were used by board members to describe the meeting. And the words used by the board members were difficult, awkward, unfortunate, unusual, portraying us as if we were rebelling and as if we went ahead and completed the work. When in fact, we were told by the senior planner that we could build brick steps and a brick skirt as long as they were not attached to the house or the foundation. If we left a little space, which we did, then the step and skirt were considered a landscape feature and that it did not require a landmark alteration permit. The steps in the skirt do not touch the foundation or the house. Our brick mason confirmed that the brick skirt is not attached to the foundation but is only attached to the concrete walkway at the bottom edge of the brick. No mortar touches the foundation at all. We were questioned by board member Garrett to be certain that if we replaced any sighting that we would be using the same exact product that was on the house and that we would be using clear heart redwood. We find it very hypocritical that board member Garrett would be so concerned about our sighting being redwood when she had her wood garage door replaced on her 1104 McDonald home with an aluminum garage door. In addition, we don't see any indication that she obtained a landmark alteration permit or went before the cultural heritage board prior to changing her garage door. The integrity of this board is compromised when board members can sit here and fold applicants to standards that they themselves don't follow. Board members should resign if they are not willing to comply with the same requirements that they are asking others to follow. Just serving on this board somehow excused members from complying with the standards, essentially giving them a free pass or should they go through the same process that they require everyone else to go through? Thank you. Thank you. Hey, thank you, Ms. Stain. Thank you. We have no additional hands raised at this time. Okay, seeing no additional, I will close the public comment period. We move on to item number four, board business. I'd like to read our, the cultural heritage board statement of purpose. Principal duties of the board include undertaking and updating historic inventories or surveys recommending designation of landmarks and preservation districts. Revealing proposed alterations to historic buildings and promoting public awareness of preservation issues. If you are in a historic district or would like more information regarding historic districts, please see the processing review procedures for owners of historic properties. With that, moving on to board member reports. Do any of our board members like to make a report at this time? And board member Fennell. Okay, I don't know if this is the right time. I brought this up a year ago, maybe longer. I think that we are not, I'm seeing so much happening in our historic district where we have people doing things to their homes that should require visitation to this board. There's a house in the neighborhood that literally they stripped all of the asbestos siding off of the house, put in new windows, put in new board and baton siding on the house. It's a completely different looking house and it never came before us. We have never seen anything about it. There's been other homes. I think that we as the city maybe on a future agenda item needs to put something together where the ignorance is not gonna be something that we can have going on that we didn't know any better. We didn't know that we put new tarps all over the outside of our house and then removed the asbestos siding and put up new, but it's happening a lot. There's so many things, windows being replaced, siding being replaced and it just depends on walking the dogs in the neighborhood. You see all kinds of new stuff that's being done without benefit of permit or without benefit of oversight from this committee. And I don't, I think that the city needs, we need to do a better job of letting people know what those expectations for living in historic district are because it's really, it's getting bad. You know, there's probably five or six houses in the neighborhood, new fences, new, lots of different things that are happening that shouldn't be happening without coming before us. Six foot fences on front-facing streets that aren't on a corner lot or anything. So there's some stuff that really needs to have some attention. And I don't know what our responsibility as a board member is to, you know, with regard to finding, you know, more information on these houses that have incorrect or work done on them. It hasn't come before us. Board member Fennel, I think what we could do and we'll double check with liaison Murray. But I think if you, this is probably a good discussion topic, we can't really discuss it at this meeting. Yeah, no, I was bringing it up as a future. But I think you could probably make a motion to have this topic put on a future agenda as a board discussion item, because I think it is a good thing to have a discussion on. Okay. I would make a motion that we add an agenda item to an agenda. What is the term going forward as we have this come up? Future agenda. As a future agenda item that we bring this up and have a discussion. And to clarify the process last time, we did a motion, a second and a vote. We only need a motion and a second to get to accomplish this. It's not something the entire board needs to vote on. Okay. So I make that motion. And do we have a second, a board member borne? I second that motion. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And Ms. Murray, just to clarify, I think the item would be to discuss or maybe let me go back to board member Fennell, if you could give kind of just a brief definition of what the discussion would be. The discussion would be with regards to homes that have been modified without benefit of permit by this board. They're in historic homes. Okay. That sounds good. Step one, and just to reiterate the process, we're going to get good at this. The next meeting, we'll go ahead and the board will have to vote as a whole and kind of identify, well, next board meeting is to vote as a whole to get it on to get a third agenda, at which point you'll identify the scope of the discussion. So it's a time to think about it. You can talk, speak amongst yourselves. You just can't do it in groups. So remember you're, you can't have a quorum discussion. You can't, one person can't email everybody. So just limit your discussions to maybe one or two board members, if you choose to do so. Okay, thank you very much. Any other board member reports? Seeing none. Item 4.3, we don't have anything in the other. So we'll be on to item five. Ms. Murray, do you have a department report for us? Well, I'll tell you, my department reports are all about staffing, staffing, staffing. And we've been so short-staffed, I'm so happy to tell you. We have three new city planners coming onboarding this month. Yay! We also have some shifts in the department. Michelle, our, I'm, our host, our meeting host, Michelle Montoya has transferred. She was the planning admin secretary. She is now the department admin secretary and she's really spearheading, kind of overseeing all of the meetings right now, all of the boards. She's taken on a huge chunk of work. Hopefully that's temporary until we can get some additional staffing there. So I wanna make a shout out to her. And for those of you that are familiar with Jessica Jones, who was a supervising planner for the city up until a couple of years ago when she left the city and went to the city of Windsor or the town of Windsor, she came back to the city a few months ago as a supervising planner now in current planning. She was an advanced planning prior to that. And she has just been promoted to deputy director. So that's another thing that we're very, very happy about. I am. So anyways, I wanted to report on that. So the good news, we're getting some really good shifts that are good for the department. And I'm looking forward to coming back and talking about homes that may not have gotten landmark alteration permits. Hey, thank you very much. And congratulations to the promotees and all the movement. And do you think we will be seeing Ms. Clary on a regular basis? I am just filling in for today. But thank you. All right. Okay. Moving forward. Statement of abstentions by board members because we really don't have any landmark items or anything. I don't think there would be any, but I'll just throw it out anyway for anything on the agenda today. Any abstentions? Okay, see none. And then there's no consent items. So that moves us to item eight, our scheduled item 8.1, which is a study session this evening, the Santa Rosa Forward land use circulation alternatives. And we have Amy Nicholson is our presenting planner. So at this point, we're gonna turn it over to Amy. Thank you, Chair Muser and members of the board. Let me go ahead and share my screen. Okay, can you see the presentation? All right, so we'll go ahead and get started here as the board knows, because I believe you've had several other presentations. The city is currently updating its general plan. And this process is known as Santa Rosa Forward. This is really an important opportunity for the community and also decision makers to revisit and rethink community planning policies and also programs. As we know, Santa Rosa has undergone some significant transformation in recent years and conditions are continuing to change pretty quickly, along with the needs of the community. So we really see this as a vital time to make this important update to a very important policy document for the city. Throughout this process, we have been directly engaging the community to identify opportunities and also solutions, whether those be in their neighborhood or elsewhere in the city. We're currently in the alternatives phase or process, we're concluding this. And what this phase looks like is it proposes three different land use and circulation scenarios that the community can respond to. And these were developed based on feedback received from the community during the visioning session that occurred just about a year ago. So as this little pop out shows, we produced an alternatives workbook. So this workbook describes the three different alternatives and also includes some background information. And then throughout the months of February and March, we went out to the community for a number of different discussions. And we're also able to present to the Planning Commission, City Council and Design Review Board in the last few weeks. And thank you for having me this evening to receive your feedback. Just a little bit of background on the general plan update process. We do have a technical advisory committee. So this is a committee of about 75 different individuals, many of whom are city staff, but the committee also includes some of our partner agencies including smart and regional governments. And the role of the TAC is to provide technical support really to ensure that the information going out is accurate and as we move further into the process that what is being proposed is also feasible. The general plan update process also has what's called a community advisory committee. And so the role of this committee is to act as liaisons between city staff and the community to help promote the project and to get others in the community to participate. This slide here shows some of the milestone reports from our general plan update to date. So this started with the community involvement strategy back in August of 2020. And then what's called an existing conditions report which was produced late in 2020. And this is an important foundational document for the general plan update because it provides a lot of background information, demographics related to housing needs, resilience, economic development, which helped to sort of set the scene as we move into the alternatives phase. The briefing book is just sort of an executive summary of that existing conditions report. And I certainly encourage anyone to visit the project website which is sanarosaforward.com to review any of these documents. Then there's the vision statement which was produced last summer. And so this is a statement which was created by the community which describes how they wanna see the city of Santa Rosa in the year 2050. And so really the existing conditions report and the vision statement together help to inform the alternatives workbook. So the alternatives workbook also available on the project webpage and attached as a link to the staff report includes a detailed analysis of the demographic projections, the city's current capacity for housing and anticipated future housing allocations from the state. So each of these three land use and circulation alternatives that I will be presenting assumes 36,000 new housing units by the year 2050. So jumping into the first alternative, this is alternative one called central corridors. This alternative focuses future commercial and residential growth near the city's downtown. And then also the central corridors which feed into the downtown and are connected by way of transit hubs or either the smart stations. In this scenario, we see kind of the yellow shaded areas. So these are the areas where much of the growth is anticipated, the residential and the non-residential growth. And then the transportation improvements are still pretty high level at this time but it's envisioned that under this alternative or scenario that those improvements would really be focused on connecting people to the downtown in a hub and spoke pattern and really investing and improving access to the central part of the city by transit and bike. So again, in this alternative, we're really looking at much of the community's needs being met in the downtown and these areas shaded in yellow. Alternative two also called neighborhood main streets is focusing both residential and non-residential growth around specific neighborhood centers along key corridors. And so here we see a number of kind of red and maroon dots and so those indicate existing or proposed shopping centers and neighborhood commercial centers which oftentimes are a little bit smaller in scale. And then it shows that additional residential growth and non-residential growth would be focused in these yellow bubbles around these shopping centers. Under this alternative, most residents would have convenient access to meet their daily needs from their homes and the transportation improvements would be focused on eliminating sidewalk gaps and expanding a bikeway connections to connect housing to the nearest key corridor or shopping center. Alternative three is distributed housing and this alternative is most similar to what we currently have. So if you think about how the city's currently built out, it would sort of grow in proportion to that. So instead of really high density development in some areas, this alternative envisions more modest intensity development like duplexes, triplexes and courtyard type housing which would be spread throughout the city on parcels that are large enough to accommodate those types of developments. And under this scenario, people would likely have to travel a bit further to meet their daily needs since the new housing growth would be distributed more proportionately across the city. The transportation improvements for this scenario would be focused on the bike network and crosstown connection. Okay, so this slide here just shows the three alternatives side by side and I realize the maps are kind of small but you can just see them all next to each other and look at where a lot of the activity is and see how it's kind of focused in different areas of the city. As I mentioned earlier, we did do quite a bit of community outreach for this particular phase and one of those activities included pop-up events. So we did participate in nine pop-up events going to various community events and other places where people are gathered just to promote the project and ask people to visit the website or take the survey just to get that input. We also hosted five in-person workshops so it was great to have the opportunity to connect with people again in person and we were able to present in both English and Spanish for each of these workshops. We've also had a youth voice contest so we really wanna focus on engaging those in the community that don't typically participate in these long-range planning efforts and so one of the contests for this event set was to ask people to submit photographs about what makes the city a special place and then we also leveraged our relationship with the community advisory committee members to coordinate a variety of meetings and presentations with different organizations throughout the city. We've also had the opportunity to have some listening sessions and focus groups with some of Santa Rosa's equity priority populations. So you'll see those are listed on the right side of the slide. We were able to have two of those conversations, one with individuals with disabilities and another with farm workers and we will continue to have listening sessions with various groups in the community to ensure that we're really hearing from everyone as a part of this process. So at the time that we were doing the pop-ups and the community workshops, we also had a virtual open house available on the website. This was essentially the community workshop in a virtual forum and it allowed people to participate, read about the alternatives and then respond to a number of questions. We also had an online survey which was sort of a different format but again, another way to get residents to participate. I'm gonna just provide a quick summary of what we heard. We do have a full report which is included as an attachment to your staff report if you want to dive in and read up a bit more. But on the theme of economic and housing development, we heard very strongly that residents were interested in new housing and job growth being focused downtown and along the major corridors and also in our neighborhood retail centers. So almost like a mix between the alternative one and alternative two proposals. There were a lot of comments received about keeping new housing growth out of our wildland urban interface areas. We also heard that there was a preference to focus housing downtown but that it needed to be a mix of affordability. So not just affordable units in the downtown and not just above moderate income units. We heard strongly from the community that there was an interest in repurposing our major streets to be multimodal. So that pedestrians and bicyclists could also feel safe and also the importance of preserving our natural ecosystems and resources within the city. There was general disagreement with expanding our street network, building new streets, adding new lanes to add additional vehicle capacities. We really did hear an interest in encouraging and investing in alternative modes of transportation as a part of this update. Not surprisingly, we did hear quite a few comments about the concern of wildfires and just general disaster preparedness. An important point that was brought up is just considering the needs of various individuals including those with disabilities in the event of a natural disaster and the need for evacuation and to really consider what the evacuation opportunities or issues may be with any of the three alternatives. We heard that many people felt that the issues with air quality in Santa Rosa were from either vehicle emissions or wildfire smoke. And just to note here, the second bullet point talks about people who responded to the survey in many cases felt that being able to be involved in community decision making or having access to healthy food wasn't an issue to them. But just an important point to note about who might be participating in some of these surveys. And then in questions related to equity, participants really felt that it was important to have a system to prioritize investments or improvements for each of the neighborhoods within the city and to ensure that every neighborhood has access to parks and community spaces. And then finally, just when asked the question about which alternative was preferred, most respondents appreciated alternative one and two. Alternative two was slightly more favored, but in many cases we heard some comments about taking some components from each of those two alternatives. There were some sort of common themes that we heard from participants about how these alternatives might be refined as we move into the preferred alternative and I'll talk in a moment about what that means. So one of the comments we heard was to focus new housing growth near transit. So either existing transit hubs and malls or planned transit areas and also near the downtown. We did receive many comments about limiting that new growth in the wild and urban interface area, which I previously mentioned, alternative two does show some areas of growth that are in the wooey. And so that was heard pretty strongly throughout our process. So how are these community comments being used? We did receive a wealth of comments through this process. Some of them were in direct response to the three alternatives. Others were a lot more specific and policy related. So there are specific times throughout this process where feedback kind of has its best fit. So we look forward to considering and continuing to use these comments even if they're maybe not used as a part of the preferred alternative phase. So next steps I've been alluding to this preferred alternative, which is the next step in the process which really is a refinement of the alternative. So in many cases a preferred alternative is kind of a blend of two of the proposed alternatives and maybe there's some totally new ideas added in. The preferred alternative is more detailed. So it includes a land use map which will show the allowed land uses on basically a parcel specific basis, how dense the housing development would be on various parcels. And it gets into more detail regarding circulation improvements. Once we create this preferred alternative we'll go back out to the community. So that's at this point targeted for this summer. So in the next few months we'll be going out to the community to learn if we got it right, if we incorporated their comments well and we'll come back also to the various city review authorities to hear from them as well. So with that I'll just conclude and say that we hope that the Cultural Heritage Board can provide some input on the draft alternatives which we can incorporate into the preferred alternative or elsewhere in the process. So I'd be happy to answer any questions and hear from each of you. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Nixon. I think what we'll do just, we'll go ahead and open it up for public comment first just if we have anybody out there, Ms. Clary. And if not, then we'll close public comment bring it back to the board. I apologize, I was on mute. We have no raised hands at this time. Okay, thank you. Okay, I'll close public comment and bring it back to the board. So I know at this point we're real big picture and I know Ms. Nixon is looking at kind of big picture ideas. We've got three kind of growth alternatives in front of us. So I know she would love to hear comments from us on those alternatives. I have some for her, but I will let the other board members speak first. Thoughts or comments for her, raise your hand. Well, maybe I can get the discussion started. So Ms. Nixon, one of the, I've got just a couple of things for you to keep in mind. And it's based on some history. The downtown station area specific plan seems to align itself best with alternative one if I'm kind of correct with that. And we have had some hard meetings making choices when an applicant comes in and the project doesn't meet the findings of the historic neighborhood, but it meets the findings of the downtown station area specific plan. So it's kind of sets itself up for a collision. And of course the planner presenting it presents it basically with a recommendation for approval. And it's made it really kind of hard on us. And in some cases the projects have had to even go on to for city council approval. We have some hot point areas such as Santa Rosa Avenue, borders, historic neighborhood, B Street, of course with St. Rose. Cherry Street's got a couple, 7th Street as well as college. And the West End and Railroad neighborhoods are gonna face a lot of issues that are gonna come out of transit and housing. So just kind of a thought to keep in mind that the more we can have clarity between the historic neighborhoods and the growth element of like the downtown station area specific plan or whichever alternative so that we don't end up on a collision course of a developer or somebody wanted to do something in a historic neighborhood that meets the downtown areas specific plan but doesn't meet the criteria of the historic neighborhood. And an example that would be a five story building next to a one story building. And to say that the one story building isn't going to be impacted by the five story building. You just can't say that. But with a specific plan, it's okay to say that anyway. So I guess that's, I'll kind of just leave it at that with that comment. Just we can avoid those collisions. Yeah, the thoughts. Vice chair, Chris Ellis. So thanks for the presentation. It's really interesting to see these presented as three alternates. I think personally, the one I was drawn to the most was alternative one, so that the central corridors, I definitely agree with chair Muser that, obviously that's gonna have impact on the historic neighborhoods in that area. So I think I hope that if that was the scenario that we move forward with, there would be some time and attention paid to like the parameters of that so that we understand what we're working with and that we can collaborate on that because I think it will take a lot of collaboration and partnership between development and the cultural heritage board to really make sure that we're preserving the historic nature and quality of these neighborhoods that's so important to all of us. And moving our city forward at the same time, obviously important to all of us too. So some things that, sorry, I think my internet connection might be a little flaky, but some things that jumped out at me with alternate one beyond the historic components was, I think it was mentioned somewhere that alternate two incorporated denser tree canopy and more green spaces. And I think in order to make a livable central corridor, a lot of green space and additional trees and making sure that even if it's densely populated, we still have a lot of greenery because as the climate heats up, pushing everyone together could be pretty miserable in many years. So I think that's an important thing to plan for. Obviously also including additional neighborhood amenities, grocery stores and such is fundamental to making that successful. And again, that would be something that would probably require collaboration and partnership with the Cultural Heritage Board. So we make sure that this development is done sensitively to preserving the historic nature of those groups. So yeah, those are my thoughts. Okay, thank you very much. Other comments? Board Member Finnell. I personally liked the plan too. Better, I liked the use of adding a little bit more retail space rather than just being in the central downtown. There was retail space that was allocated along Santa Rosa Avenue area. And I also really would like to see this plan go forward with thoughtfulness towards, I mean, I think it's great that we want to have transit-oriented planning in the hopes that people will take the train and ride the bus and ride their bike. But until we know that that's actually happening, that we take it at a pace that would show that we're doing the right thing with people are riding the bus and we're building all of our places around the bus, and we're just going to have people that are parking issues all over the place. So I'd like to see if we're ramping up our bus ridership and we're seeing that people are taking the train and let's build in the downtown area. But until we start seeing that happening, I would hate to see us build prematurely, massively without the use of the parking that would be necessary to take care of that. I think that's about all I have right now. Thanks. Thank you, Court Member Fennell. Court Member Warren. Yeah. I love the idea that, I mean, barring anything else. Yeah, the downtown could use a lift and some improvement. But the idea of neighborhoods, not just being sprawling homes or living, but having, so that a neighborhood has some kind of center in terms of retail and that people don't always have to go out of their neighborhood to get what they need. So I think it's something I'm more used to having lived both in New York and San Francisco, that your neighborhood, everything around it becomes vital to your needs. Thank you, Court Member Horne. Member Wang. Thank you, Planner Nicholson. I am also in support of alternative number one because I think it's important to have housing located near the jobs and also take cars off the street. Alternative one seems very similar to what we already have in place in the downtown station area plan. Is that correct? That's just a question. Yes, yeah. It expands slightly north, south, east and west just with the corridors, but it's, yeah, really it is definitely consistent with the downtown plan. So why are we even talking about an alternative to that? Because we already have the station area plan in place. So shouldn't we only be focusing on one? Well, so under these different scenarios, there's still gonna be other parts of the city that will take in, will grow and will change. So we're gonna focus more residential, non-residential growth in the downtown, in alternative one than we might in alternative two or three, but it's not gonna be 100% or even 70% of the growth that we need to accommodate in the next several decades. If there are inconsistencies with the downtown plan and the general plan or really any specific plan, the new general plan, we will have to make amendments and make them consistent, but we can do both things. We can still encourage more density in the downtown while adding density to various neighborhoods outside of the downtown too. I'm not sure if that helps, but. Yes, thank you, thank you. Thank you, any other comments? And I also did wanna say that I do like probably lean heavily towards alternative one, but with a little bit of hybrid of two, there's a lot of growth, housing growth, tremendous housing growth going on South Santa Rosa Avenue. And so there's some opportunity there for probably some commercial development to support some of that housing, like maybe a grocery store or something. So that would be more in the line of alternative two. But anyway, so other comments. Oh, one other thing I wanted to mention. I know in the general plan, there is a historic resource element, correct? And so at some point, Ms. Nixon, will you be, when we get down to the fine details of the plan and everything, we'd be coming back to the board for a review, a draft review of the historic elements of the general plan as well. Yes, thank you for bringing that up because I was going to mention that. So we do have a historic preservation element. And so there are a number of goals and policies related to our preservation districts. And so that we'll be looking at each of those or the entire element to see, do we need to add in new goals and policies or modify some? And so we will be coming back to this board as a part of the preferred alternative. So in another few months, and then when we have the draft general plan, which is really the bulk of the work. So that's where we're gonna have the policies and the goals where it would be wonderful to hear the board's comments on those. And then the way that those are implemented later for projects is when we adopt the zoning code, text amendments. And so we take general plan goals and policies as appropriate and turn them into requirements or standards in our code. So that can be related to process or any other development standard. And then they're applied to projects moving forward. So we certainly look forward to continuing this conversation with the board. Okay, thank you very much. One last question. Do you guys have you thought of doing any public-private partnerships in terms of maybe preserving some historical buildings or maybe help fund some projects with through public-private partnerships? We haven't as a part of this general plan update process, but we're almost getting to the point where we will start having those conversations. We want to make some big moves and to explore things we haven't explored before. So I will take that down as just a question. And I think that we'll be able to have some good conversation about ideas like that in the next few months. Great. I have one more question. Oh, I can't remember when we had a presentation. So is this the downtown station cornerstone? Is this part of all of this planning? That is where the area around Sixth Street on the other side of downtown, the railroad square. Is that the site near the smart station? Right, but it's, I'm trying to, I have this whole thing that I was given when I went over and met with, I can't remember who, but it's that open space. I'm sorry I'm being so flaky. I'm not knowing exactly what I'm talking about, but it's hard to read these things because of a small print. You're referring to the open area on the other side of the railroad tracks? Yeah, I am. Okay, yeah, and we've actually have approved a project for- Right, so just when, I mean, so that's a whole different downtown area. I mean, that doesn't conflict with anything that is planned for the actual downtown. Well, so this general plan update, regardless of what the preferred alternative looks like, is going to cover every parcel in the city. So it will look at that site and all the preservation districts as well. It is probably doubtful though, any zoning at that site would be changed. I would think, you know, but- Right, I mean, and that site is within the downtown station area specific plan boundary as well. So, you know, we did develop new land uses as a part of that specific plan. And then there were specific design standards as well. So I'm not sure, I mean, because this we're still pretty high level if something would change, but because that's such a fresh plan and we really did hear from the community and the development of that, it might not be, you know, something that changes much at all. Thank you, Ms. Nicholson. Thoughts or questions? Okay, well, I think we're about ready to wrap it up. I hope we were able to give you some feedback and how many presentations have you made so far? I think this is the fourth one to city review body. So, and then we, yeah, we had quite a few community ones, but this is I think our last presentation. So thank you for having me and we look forward to seeing you again in a few months and we'll talk more policy, which I know will be a very exciting and interesting time. I appreciate it. I know this kind of high level discussion. Sometimes it's hard to know where to focus, but I think it'll more fun to come. So thanks for listening and I appreciate your time. Well, thank you very much. And it was a great presentation. We appreciate you taking the time to come talk to us as well. Okay, well, with that, I think we do not have any other scheduled items for the board members. So I will call for the German and wish you all a good goodbye. See you next time. Thank you.