are present with the exception of Board Member Cook. Thank you. Item two, Approval of Minutes. 2.1 December 21st, 2023 draft minutes. Does anyone have any changes to the minutes? If there are no changes, the minutes for December 21st are approved as submitted. Recording Secretary, do we have any public comment on item two, Approval of Minutes? If you're in council chambers and wish to make a comment, please make your way to the podium. Chair Jones Carter, it looks like we have no comment on the Approval of Minutes. Great. Item three, Public Comment. We are now taking public comment on item three, non-agenda matters. This is the time where 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, I'm sorry, during public comment to show signs of support of a comment, waving of hands is acceptable. Please reframe from voicing your opinion unless you are at the podium. Recording Secretary, can you please provide instructions to the public? If you are in council chambers and wish to make a comment, please make your way to the podium. Chair Jones Carter, we have no public comment. Public comment is closed. Item four, State Board Business. 4.1 Statement of Purpose. Zoning Code chapter 20-52.030F 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 Board Member Reports? Thank you. Item 4.3, Other, We Have None. Item 5, Department Report. Monet will provide a report to the board. Thank you, Chair Jones Carter and good evening, Board Members. So I have two reports. As may you know, we have a special meeting coming Thursday. We have two items scheduled. One is a concept and one is a public hearing. And the second report I have is just for your information that we have a study session for the fees, planning department fees, including building, engineering and planning, scheduled for this coming Monday at 5.30 in this chamber. So you can watch it online on Zoom and it will be also recorded so you can watch it later.  Thank you. Recording Secretary, do we have any public comment on item 5, Department Reports? If you are on council chambers and wish to make a comment on the department reports, please make your way to the podium. Chair Jones Carter, we have no public comment. Item 6, Statements of Abstention. Are there any abstentions on item 8.1, 8.2 or 8.3? I do know that Commissioner Cook will recuse himself for item 8.1 and 8.3 when he arrives. Item 7, Consent Items, we have none. Item 8, Scheduled Items. We're moving on to the first scheduled item, Public Hearing, North Point Commerce Center, Major Design Review, 1408, 1416, 1420. Thunderbolt Way, Assessors Parcel, number 035-530-023, 035-530-024, 035-530-025, and 035-530-057, file number dr23-007. Good evening, thank you. Sorry. I'm Suzanne Hartman and I am the assigned planner for this project located at 1408, 1416, and 1420 Thunderbolt Way. So the applicant proposes to develop an approximately 114,884 square foot industrial building, also known as North Point Commerce Center, with approximately 9,268 square feet of storm retention zones. Just a little background here. The application had a neighborhood meeting in July and then presented as a concept item of the Design Review Board on February 3rd of 2022, and then the application was submitted in April of 2023. A notice of application was distributed in May of 2023. This application was then presented to the Waterways Advisory Committee on June 22nd of 2023. October 24th, planning staff deemed this application complete, and on December 8th of 2023, the notice of public hearing was distributed. And then on December 21st, 2023, planning staff requested that the project be continued to a date certain due to a defect in the notice procedure. The Design Review Board then granted the continuance to a date certain, and the project was re-noticed as a public hearing for the requirements of Chapter 20-66 of the city code. And then, or I should say the date certain was of today for January 18th, 2024. Or I'm sorry, I'm gonna correct myself again on that. It was continued to a date certain of January 4th, and then a quorum was not met, so then it was then postponed to today, January 18th. Apologies. So this is the aerial view of the project. It encompasses four parcels at the moment, and these are existing site photos. The project site contains some grass and shrub vegetation in the northern and southern portions, and a strip of impervious pavement toward the center of the site, which served as an airport runway for the no longer active Santa Rosa Air Center. The project site is also adjacent to the Rosalind Creek, which is part of the southern Santa Rosa Creek's watershed. And these are some other frontage images of the site as well. The project is within the General Industrial Zoning District and is consistent with the general plan, consistent with the general industry land use classification of the general plan. The General Industrial Zoning District is applied to areas appropriate for industrial and manufacturing activities, warehousing, wholesaling, and distribution uses. And the surrounding uses include some industrial zoned parcels to the west and north, as well as a business park to the east and some residential of medium density and low density residential to both the north and south of the parcel. This is the proposed site plan, and these are some elevations of the proposed warehouse. The architectural design of the industrial building would be of type VB construction, with concrete panels and a variety of enhancements. The typical wall panels would be enhanced with reveals and a textured, elastomeric multicolored coating system. The areas around the building entries would also be enhanced with tinted glazing and aluminum frames with overhead steel-framed painted canopies. The placement of these enhancements would be locations most visible from the public roadways. And the use would assist in maintaining the economic viability of the area while ensuring compatibility with the surrounding area. This is the creek section, and the proposed warehouse will be more than 30 feet, set back more than 30 feet from the creek, which is the minimum setback requirement. This is the proposed landscape plan, and this is an imagery of the proposed sound wall with some proposed vegetation that will be on the wall itself. And I'll have the applicant speak a little bit more in detail to what kind of vegetation there may be proposed there on the wall after my presentation. So some of the concept design review comments were some concerns over the location of the loading docks, adding more materials to the design of the proposed warehouse, as well as others listed here on the slide. And I also just wanted to go over some responses that the applicant provided to some of the comments that were made at the meeting. So, adjusting, maybe adding some more material, the response was the current design includes a six color paint palette with tinted glazing, in clear anodized aluminum frames, and architectural steel canopies that will cast shadows on the building. One of the questions that was presented at the meeting was can the building be split and rotated with central docks? And the response was this would negatively impact the project efficiency, such that the project would not be possible from an economic standpoint. Another comment was concerns over backup beats being heard by the residents. And the response was the proposed sound wall in conjunction with hours of operation restrictions should mitigate this concern. So this project also was presented to the Waterways Advisory Committee. Planning staff had asked for the advice for whether this project was consistent with the applicable Citywide Creek master plan and general plan goals and policies and desired guidelines for development near waterways. And some of the comments here were considering removing the sound wall in order to kind of bring a more, I guess like open concept between the property and between the creek and the trail. Also consider proposing a different orientation for the truck loading docks to mitigate noise. Consider proposing more landscaping along the South property line. And I believe that was some of the general comments there. And again, the applicant can elaborate a little bit more on their responses. At the December 21st, 2023 design review board meeting, planning staff requested that the planning, that the project be continued to a date certain due to a defect in the notice procedure. And the design review board granted the continuance to a date certain and the project was renoticed as a public hearing for the requirements of chapter 20 dash 66 of the city code. So some, I didn't receive too many public comments, but the main concerns were regarding any noise pollution that could be picked up from the loading docks and the applicant proposed to mitigate this issue by proposing a sound wall and some vegetation there on the South property line in order to kind of deplete any noise that could be heard from the trucks. So these are the findings that must be made before granting approval of a design review permit. The proposed building meets all required development standards of the general industrial zoning district pursuant to zoning code table two dash 11 and section 20 dash 24.040 including setbacks, building height, site circulation and emergency access. The proposed construction will be sensitive to the natural environment and will not disrupt or pollute the waterway. Additionally, the project would assist in maintaining the economic viability of the area while ensuring compatibility with the surrounding area. The North Point Commerce Center building and landscape enhance the streetscape along the North Point Parkway while maintaining more than 30 feet of setback from the adjacent Rosalind Creek. And the project provides appropriate setbacks, circulation and design features again that are compatible with the surrounding industrial properties. The project also enhances the campus with updated design themes which include landscaping that is compatible with the site, installation of several EV charging stations in the parking area and adhesives, coatings, floorings and wood materials of sustainable material for the warehouse, including the installation of solar panels. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants visiting public and its neighbors through the appropriate use of materials, texture and color and will remain aesthetically appealing and be appropriately maintained. The project includes a sound wall to reduce sound pollution and the proposed structures and onsite improvements are more than again, more than 30 feet from the creek setback. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and qualifies for a streamlining measure pursuant to CEQA section 15183. And it mandates that the projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which a final environmental impact report was certified shall not require additional environmental review except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. A general plan consistency analysis was prepared by First Carbon Solutions, FCS International Incorporated dated December 23rd, 2022 and concluded that the proposed project falls within the scope of the project evaluated and the general plan FEIR and therefore no further environmental review is required. So it is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the design review board by resolution approve the design review application for the North Point Commerce Center Project located at 1408, 1416 and 1420 Thunderbolt Way. And the applicant is present if you have any questions. Thank you. Is there an applicant presentation? No ma'am. I'm sorry, I have to interrupt you. We missed the part asking for the exporter disclosure. Kev was my next question. Oh, sorry. That's okay. Are there any ex parte disclosures? None? Okay, thank you. I would like to open public comment on this item. Recording secretary, do we have any public comment? If you're in council chambers and you wish to make a comment on the item, please make your way to the podium. Chair Jones-Carter, we have no public comment. I'd like to close public comment. Are there any questions of the board for staff or the applicant? We have them. I have a question. Regarding the sound wall, I just wanted to confirm that the only detail we have is on the materials page A01.1. Correct. The elevation that I have on the presentation was just received. Okay, yeah, because that was an interesting rendering. We didn't get to see that beforehand. Yeah, because there's basically the sound wall is just as we're reviewing it right now is a CMU wall, eight feet tall, just and there's no planting detail along the on the landscape plan. And so I don't know how densely it's going to be planted, but I just want to confirm that that is the the information we're dealing with. Yes. Thank you. And tied to that, for the life of me, I cannot find the location of said sound wall on the plans. Wait, wait. Oh, it's way south. Okay. And on the landscape plan is the easiest place to- Okay, it's because on the PDF I have, there's delightful little yellow things on top of the numbers, so I can't read the numbers. So now I know where it is. Thanks. Would you like to see the diagram with the sound wall again, Adam, or no? I'd love to. Oh, she's looking for that. Does anybody else have any questions? Yes. I have a couple of questions. They're mostly of, well, not just one question, sorry. Would you mind finding the conditions that we placed on the other project that's from the same applicant? I don't want to, I think it's for heritage and then this is North Point. Yeah, I'd like to just likely put the same exact conditions on this project, if we could, and then any additional ones that we make them up with. It just seems that it's the same project, basically, more or less, that same applicant, likely the same issues. So that's why I thought we'd at least maybe find those and make sure they're still applicable. Thanks. Adam, there's the slide. I see it. Thank you. Excuse me. Yes. I'm sorry, would you like me to read those conditions or like Suzanne to read the conditions from the other project right down the road from the meeting of December 7th? Or should we wait and talk about the wall and then look at those? Let's finish with the wall and then we'll go back to that. How's that? My question about the wall is, and what happens on the other side? And what does it look like? I believe that's where the loading docks. So no plantings on the side that is the property side, only on the side that's the creek side. I'll defer to the applicant. Yeah. Thank you, everybody. Couple mentions before I answer the question, which I'll get to. One, I want to thank the staff. This has been an amazing about month and a half with COVID and flu. Our civil engineers zooming in with COVID our architect has the flu, but he's zooming in as well. So it's been a crazy week and a half or so just trying to get everything in. And that's why some of the stuff got here just today.  The sound wall is not CMU. It's actually port and place concrete. So it'll be a smooth coat texture coated with paint and then the vines will be planted so they can populate that whole side of the wall facing the creek. I think that'll soften that whole thing up. On the other side, you're correct. There's not any planning there because it's the interior and the only people are gonna see it are the truck drivers. And hopefully they don't look at it as they're backing up. They're looking in their mirrors and backing up. So that's that. And then any other questions I'm here to answer and available. And like I said, I think the design team is on Zoom if there's other additional questions on that. And just to confirm on that wall, the detail does say it's eight feet tall with a cap. It's going to be eight feet port and place. Correct. Okay, thank you. Are we done with the sound wall? No, I just had a quick question. So, I mean, I think we can condition the sound wall because the number, it says eight foot tall CMU or concrete tilt up. So it could be port and place or concrete so we could say per design submitted concrete, blah, blah, blah. The question I would have is, so there's an inconsistency in identifying the location of the sound wall between the site plan and the landscape plan and the civil plan. So I guess the, and then there's also the detail which there's an inconsistent, so I guess a question for the applicant is, would you be okay if we boxed you in on that because it's kind of not lined up? What we tried to respond to is also the Waterways Advisory Committee, a couple other things. We put the sound wall up because of a neighbor who had brought that up and we said, okay, we'll do that. And my comment to the Waterways Advisory Board as to you, I think the first time we heard is, tell me what you want, I'll build it. Perfect, I just want to make sure that, because like I said, there's inconsistency, so I just wanted to make sure that as the applicant, you're okay with us taking what you said, writing a condition around it, and then that's what's gonna end up in your package. Yeah, perfect. Nothing, okay. Are there any final questions from the board members before we move on to a motion? Oh, sorry, yes. Yeah, let's read the previous condition. Sorry, I forgot about that. So we have reevaluate the location of the proposed bioretention area. If the bioretention area can be relocated, more layered and varied tree and shrub plantings, which reference the adjacent riparian corridor shall be utilized. That was the only condition. Sorry, it said at the south side of the property or something, didn't it say that originally? Or maybe not. It doesn't matter, it's fine, thanks. We conditioned all the bioretention areas just to reevaluate all the bioretention areas. All right, are there any final questions before we move to a motion? I'll make a motion, Chair. Sure. Okay, I move to approve North Pay, blah, blah, blah, excuse me. I move to approve resolution number DR23-007, resolution of the Design Review Board of the City of Santa Rosa, granting design review approval for the North Point Commerce Center located at 1408, 1416, and 1420 Thunderbolt Way. Assessors' parcel numbers 035-530-023, 035-530-024, 035-530-025, 035-530-057, file number DR077, waive the reading of the text. With the one condition that Planner Hartman already read. Zero second. I'll second that. This motion was, this resolution was motioned by Drew and seconded by Adam, a recording secretary. Can you please call for a vote? Okay, we're backing up to comments. Vic, do you have any? Adam. I don't have any comments at this time. Yeah, I just, I would like to condition the sound wall just so that staff knows what comes in when they go to building permit and that way there's not a discrepancy between the approved design review package and the building permit. That's okay with everybody. Is everybody in agreement with that? Yes? All right. Okay, so I would like it to say, if we could, sound wall shall be located on the south side of the property for the landscape plan, which is probably most accurate, which they are, and shall be tilt up concrete construction or poured in place concrete construction as identified in the 3D rendering provided by the applicant. With the landscaping on the creek side of the wall. Sorry, I went fast. I apologize.  So the sound wall shall be located on the south side of the property and shall be constructed of tilt up. Tilt up or poured in place concrete. That way that gives them the option, but if the applicant's telling us it's gonna be concrete, then it should be concrete. And you continued on after that, and that's what I... Oh, with plantings on the southern side as shown in the 3D rendering provided by the applicant. And rather than just plantings or say with specified vines and bioretention plantings. I'll let the landscape go handle the vine part, yeah. Specified vines and bioretention plantings. You said bioretention vines? Bioretention plantings. So vines on the wall and then bioretention. Just to make certain to call it out that we want both of those that cover the wall and to have the bioretention as well. Got it. I just didn't hear that last word. I'm happy to read that back. The sound wall shall be located on the south side of the property and constructed with tilt up construction or poured in place concrete with specified vines and bioretention plantings on the southern side as shown in the 3D renderings provided by applicant. And landscape plan. Add that out to the end there. And land. Just trying to make your lives easier on the back end. One would hope. And that is the only condition that we're adding. Yes. Thank you very much. Unless someone else has. Hey. Well, obviously the one that you already read that was part of the original motion. So there are two conditions. Yes. We are transferring over the other one with the bioretention. Yes, please. Okay. Yes, because that one calls for the re-envisioning of the diversity of species. Do you want that one re-read? No, I think we're good. I don't think so. Thanks. All right. Let's try this again. Recording secretary, would you like to take a vote, please? Thank you. Chair Jones-Carter. Board member Cook is absent. Board member Liptec. Aye. Board member Sharon. Aye. Board member Wolfridge. Aye. Vice chair Weigel. Aye. Chair Jones-Carter. Aye. Let the record reflect that we have five ayes and one absent. Please note this action is final unless an appeal is filed with the planning and economic development department within 10 calendar days of today's decision pursuant to zoning code section 20-62.030. We're moving on to the second scheduled item. 8.2 public hearing. New Verizon wireless telecommunication tower design review permit 244 Colgan Avenue. PRJ 23-009. Are there any ex-party disclosures on this item? This is going to be presented by Suzanne. Suzanne. Thank you. So this is a proposed telecommunications facility located at 244 Colgan Avenue. This project is required of major design review to provide a major conditional use permit to allow a new 69 foot tall monopine pole and supporting ground equipment, which is enclosed by a seven foot two inch tall chain link and barbed wire fence. This is the aerial view of the parcel. And this is a closer image of the proposed or the project site and kind of in this area is where the tower is proposed to be located. Sorry. So this application was submitted in July of 2023. And the applicants accepted a tolling agreement from city staff that will extend the reviewed timeframe and shot clock of this project to January 15th, 2024 on November 17th of 2023. The notice of application was distributed also on November 17th, 2023. And on December 1st, 2023, a notice of planning commission public hearing was distributed and on December 8th of 2023, a notice of design review board public hearing was distributed. On December 14th, 2023, in order to allow time to address concerns raised by the community, the applicant requested that the planning commission continue the public hearing to a date certain of January 11th, 2024. And because the item was continued to a date certain, no additional noticing was required for the January 11th, 2024 planning commission meeting. On December 14th, 2023, the applicant accepted a new tolling agreement from the city staff that would extend the review timeframe and shot clock of this project to February 2nd of 2024. And on December 21st, 2023, in order to allow time to address concerns raised by the community, the applicant requested that the design review board continue the public hearing to a date certain of January 18th. And on January 5th, the notice of design review board public hearing was distributed and on January 11th, the planning commission public hearing commenced and the conditional use permit was approved. And today we have our design review board meeting. So the general plan land use designation is light industry and the zoning district is light industrial. The surrounding properties consist of general commercial parcels as well as some medium density residential and low density residential to the north and some light industrial uses to the east of the project parcel. This is the site plan and the telecommunications tower is more than 200 feet away from a habitable structure which there is a motel that is adjacent to this parcel as well as the residential. In our, I just wanted to disclose that in our zoning code for the telecommunications section it does say that telecom towers need to be a minimum of 75 feet away from any habitable structure. So this does meet that requirement. And this is a little bit closer view of the tower from an aerial view which again it is going to be enclosed by a seven foot two inch tall chain link and barbed wire fence. These are the elevations and these are some photo simulations looking on from right on kind of the corner of there of Colgan Avenue and Santa Rosa Avenue. And as you can see the parcel or the motel that's right next to this project site has a kind of a row of trees there and so the applicant proposed it to be a monopying tree to kind of blend in with those surrounding trees. And this is the view coming from the other side of Colgan Avenue. This is the coverage map that was provided by the applicant and they can go into more detail of the coverage map if any questions arise. The federal government has preempted local government regulation for radio frequency emissions and the federal communications commission the federal agency responsible for setting nationwide guidelines for safe RF levels restricts local authority to regulate RF emissions and or to deny an application to install wireless service facilities based on concerns about RF emissions. There were various comments received most of them in regards to the font size of the notice as well as concerns over the noise of construction of the tower the location and risk of exposure to radiation and staff just wants to clarify on a couple of these comments a notice though it wasn't or the notice was sent out for again for this new meeting date and the I believe the noticing was a larger font size I think for the planning commission noticing hard. We sent out the noticing and in response to the the complaint about the font size we sent out an additional notice with larger font for the design review board meeting. And then with concerns over construction staff has recommended to reduce the hours of construction which are stated within the resolution as a condition. And for the exposure of radiation I'll also defer to the applicant I can explain further of how they are compliance with FCC regulations. So the design layout of the proposed development is of superior equality and is consistent with the general plan and that the project complies with application requirements and development standards as set forth and city code chapters 20-24 and 20-44 and installation of the proposed telecommunications facility implements a various of overarching general plan goals by creating a functional place for those who live and work within the city. The proposed height of the tower is necessary to maintain adequate height for function while allowing future relocation of the site and the existing site is both developed and surrounded by existing industrial development with adequate access to the proposed use and once in operation the telecommunications facility does not require frequent visits by employees and thus would not intensify the site. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and that the base of the cell tower and all related ground equipment will be screened and placed behind an existing commercial building to minimize visual impacts as much as possible. Additionally the tower is proposed to be designed as a monopine with thick foliage blending in with the surrounding trees. The base of the cell tower and all related ground equipment will be placed behind a 7 foot 2 inch tall chain link and barbed wire fence and surrounded by existing commercial buildings on all sides. The building is also located near a row of trees which partially screen it when viewed from the west. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or material materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity and that the project included an electromagnetic sorry electromagnetic energy report prepared by Waterford consultants dated received on July 19th 2023 which concluded that the proposed placement of the telecommunications tower at the subject site will not result in exposure of the public to excessive levels of radio frequency energy as defined in the FCC rules and regulations. The project was reviewed by city staff and has been found and has been conditioned to avoid any effects on the surrounding area. Pursuant to zoning pursuant to sequel guidelines section 15303 the project qualifies for class 3 which exempts the construction of new small structures and that telecommunication towers are considered small structures that are similar to this project and therefore the planning and economic development department recommends the design review board approved by resolution a design review permit for a telecommunications facility located at 244 Colgan Avenue and again the applicant is here if you have any questions thank you I would like to open public hearing on this item recording secretary do we have any public comment if you're in council chambers and wish to make a comment on item 8.2 please make your way to the podium Chair Jones Carter we have no comment and I would like to close public hearing are there any questions of the board for staff or the applicant or the applicant I'll start down here with Vic I was reviewing the concerns that came through from the community and more than one mentioned that they were not satisfied with the require with the required justification for the need for an additional facility in other words that coverage was actually subpar and I just I'd like to hear more about that I didn't see it in the report of course I'll defer to the applicant to go over the coverage map I would also like to interject to remind the design review board that the use is not what is before the design review board today it's the design of the of the tower so well we can certainly respond that's outside the purview of this meeting and Susie I just wanted to clarify also that we're not we can't talk about the radio frequency or anything that we're just to just design for federal just dealing with the design today it's not relevant just for us and for everyone who's listening we will not be discussing that's not our purview there you go yes sorry I should have stated that at the beginning but we're just here for the design review as Shakespeare might have said to tree or not to tree that is the question sorry really bad joke you can answer the question if you choose so but you're not required to my name is Timothy Adams I'm here on for centerline communications just quickly so this isn't like the old school telecommunication site where you get the map and you can see there's a hole in the coverage right this is a capacity infill and so what happens is the traffic on the surrounding cell sites becomes too much and it starts to exhaust the signal as it comes out of the cell site and so they're having to overlay the network to make sure that the cell sites are functioning properly so as more users load on to the cell site the actual effective signal shrinks and so that's kind of what we see here it's not as black and white right as hey there's no coverage over there let's throw a cell site there and then boom we've got four miles of coverage it's just totally different now because the proliferation of cell phones and the need for cell sites is so much different than it has been historically thank you thank you for feeling that absolutely anyone else have questions about design Michael I had a question for staff that there's no landscaping proposed or screening proposed other than the chain link fence is there a reason we didn't require that there's no requirement for it but the design review board can certainly condition the project to do that if the applicant accepts anyone else I had a question about the fence sounds terribly exciting right so I know this is kind of stuffed at the back corner of this property but a lot of the other cell sites that I've seen come through this board have slats on them or other screening into the yard I didn't see any indication of that in the plan set is that your plan to put some slats on that chain link fence so that you know people can't just look in there and maybe think oh hey we're gonna try to jump the fence and steal that piece of equipment it's not currently proposed but the applicant and I have discussed offline that they are able to make that if you want to condition that anyone else okay I'm sorry go ahead Vic just a minor thing and now I can't find where I just saw it but the concern about the plastic needles and it is true that plastic degrades I have degrading plastic in my own yard it's a pain in the neck and I and then I think it said there would be maintenance how is it determined when the is it a maintenance schedule is it somebody checks it once every six months I'm just wondering and it does say the industry's highest quality materials will be used which is great but just I'm wondering about that knowing that plastic degrades there is a condition in here that states that the telecommunication facility including the foliage the trunk and fence shall be maintained in good condition and also the applicant can probably clarify further on your question I'm happy to answer any questions about like the microplastics the branches are actually made out of PVC actually not the branches but the leaves themselves which is probably what everybody's concerned about the foliage that surrounds the branches so it's actually obviously heavier plastic it seems that the state has kind of preempted the microplastics discussions oh yeah of course so the states kind of preempted the microplastics discussion and kind of defined what that is and I believe it's a you know a piece of plastic that is about 5 I think it's 5 millimeters or less many of which can't you know only be seen with a microscope I'm sorry to interrupt you can you move closer to the microphone though because we can you're a whisper down here okay yeah so the plastic that's used for I wouldn't say plastic the PVC the material that's used for the branching and the foliage the cell tower isn't you know something that's contemplated by the state as far as what they would consider a microplastic at least that's my understanding and then yeah as far as the tree goes I mean we'll comply with staff in the condition and you know as the years go on I'm sure that as the cell sites are upgraded right staff has given the opportunity to revisit and review and so I believe at that point you know Verizon would comply with any recommendations or requirements that staff would put on them as far as the aesthetic of the tree goes right I hope I answered your question correctly yeah thank you you did does does staff go by every once in some number of years and see if good condition is maintained I'm not aware where this has been a problem with any of our monopines they've all been maintained whether it's long lasting materials or maintenance that achieve that I don't know but I think I think it's important to make sure that you know you know the needs that achieve that I don't know but thank you that's reassuring okay just a kind of different question out on the table is the monopine is a fake tree look is that required by municipal code or is that a city decision to require that or applicant decision to propose it it's not a requirement and it's usually the applicant's decision or it can be the board's decision as well looking at the simulations it's kind of like all by itself like it's not with any other trees when I drive down the highway I can point out every single cellular tower that's trying to be a tree and I just wonder is there even if we're concerned about the plastic needles or is there any reason to have the plastic needles on there or do we just leave it as an obvious cell tower as the board we can determine that Mike as I jokingly said earlier two tree or not to tree that's actually what we that's within our purview like chair jones said so we can say hey you know what we don't want it to be a tree we want to just be a stealth cell tower is there a substantial either procurement or funding differential between a monopine or a stealth cell tower or standard there is obviously it costs a lot to branch a tree right because you're talking about a lot more material than you would just a steel pole with the mounts for the antennas so we're good with whatever you guys want to do Vic just kind of following up on that do do we know how do people prefer a tree to a to a to a non tree cell tower has anybody like has any you know is there a survey you know do we know does anybody know anybody know staff is not aware of any statistics or anything like that for what's what's a preference chair jones carter would you mind if I make a motion I would not mind okay so I'd like to motion to accept resolution number PRJ wait no am I reading the right one wait are we PRJ okay that's what I thought okay I'm like normally they're DR resolution number PRJ23009 resolution of the design review board of the city of Santa Rosa granting design review approval for the construction of a 69 foot tall telecommunications tower and associated ground equipment located at 244 Colgan Avenue APN044011058 file number PRJ23009 and I would like to make the following changes to the text so where it says seven foot two inch tall chain link fence and barbed wire fence it should read seven foot two inch tall chain link fence with brown slats and barbed wire fence and then I would like it to say where it says 69 foot tall monopine I would like it to say 69 foot tall stealth cell tower or standard cell tower I did a google search on stealth or stealth towers and I've come up with three that do not look like just a cell tower there's a palm tree, a monopine then I didn't want to say stuff I want to say standard monopole absolutely that's the monopole so standard monopole 59 foot tall standard monopole tower is before I ask for a second does anybody have any objections to that you do well I can always save my comments for the vote but based upon the I am no fan of monopines and monopoles but based upon the neighborhood opposition I would prefer to have this camouflaged in some way camouflaged interesting well is there a second to Drew's motion second discussion yes I agree with Adam that the community had a very negative response so we don't expect them to have a lovely response in any event but it seems like they ought to have some input to the question of should it be look it's going to happen and should it be a monopine or a monopole would you like a palm no not a palm unfortunately that's our charge and we have seen oh I shouldn't do this but you can continue on sorry okay I was going to say that we have seen quite a bit of communication about the longevity of the plastic and concerns about it going into the creek we haven't heard anything about anybody saying anything about a piece of steel anything else I would agree chair I think most of the commentary from the public was not about the design of the facility it was specifically about the presence of the facility and the adjacency to the other uses in this area and as staff indicated this is located 200 feet from a residential or a housing or other areas and it's in an industrial area already so that was my thinking is that it's in an industrial area it's at the back of an industrial property as Mike said it's off by itself it actually would probably scream hey I'm a cell tower if it was a monopine even more if it was just a cell tower it would be a residential cost savings to the applicant which would be great for them as well and I think we should have a vote before we do I want to intercept both on the design of the fence and the design of the tree right now the conditions read one of the conditions reads the building materials, elevations and appearance of this project as presented the requirements of the building permit shall be the same as that approved by the planning by the design review ward any future additions expansions, remodeling, etc will be subject to review and approval of the planning division I think we need to eliminate that condition and replace it with something that gives very specific instructions on the standard design of the tree being proposed or I'm sorry the mono pole being proposed okay yeah I think Susie what I was thinking is because Susie had put this modified resolution here with the red text that actually had the description of all the elements I think we need to do what you're talking about and then we also probably need to write a condition for the end that would tighten everything up does that sound about right I think we can edit we can edit that finding number five is that what you're looking at finding number five finding number five which correct yeah that's and that's what I had meant by my by my motion so the motion really should be where it says seven foot tall chain link and bar bar fence should say seven foot tall chain link fence with brown slats and bar bar fence surrounded by blah blah blah the mono pole is also located and that should actually we should just strike where it starts the mono pine is located is that correct that's finding five and then the one that you're talking about would be finding two under planning division correct uh condition two but I yeah condition two and five I just want to make sure I got it right hold on let me read the mono pole and supporting right I'm just changing so seven seven foot two inch tall chain link with slats and barbed wire fence and surrounded by existing commercial buildings on all sides the mono pole is also a located near a row of redwood trees which will partially screen screen screen at one reviewed from the west and then we'll go down to the conditions of approval we can revise that finding based on you just take out that last sentence just take it out and we'll need to look at finding four above because the last sentence there just talks about the mono pine as well yeah that was kind of the intent of my motion was wherever mono pine appears delete it change it to mono pole wherever seven foot fall da da da da it should be seven foot tall brown slats da da da da da that was the intent I just did a word search and I think we caught the only mono pine so now moving on to the condition can I'm sorry Susie would you look at number what it would you mean in number four right above number five the last sentence it's my typing yeah I think the last sentence there is mono pine it says additionally the towers proposed to be designed as a mono pine with thick foliage the towers just proposed to be designed as a monopole period and then the rest it doesn't even have to say it does it need to say additionally probably not strike everything after additionally and after and finding four I would agree there sorry I just mistyped mono in my search yes thank you chair Jones Carter just quickly Jessica Jones deputy director of planning just for procedural purposes if we're going to be adding conditions of approval we need since it sounds like it primarily is coming from the person who made the motion we would need for the vice chair to amend your motion to include those conditions and then a second by the the person who seconded I think we can do that I would amend that we locate all mono pine references in the condition in the conditions of approval and change it to mono pole that's on good Jessica and then any reference to the fence seven foot tall chain link fence and barbed wire fence shall read seven foot tall chain link fence with brown slats and barbed wire fence so in all locations where those are that way we don't have to add like a special condition afterward or anything it's just all in the language cool so amend as such please I'll accept this so we are eliminating condition number two are you replacing condition number two with specific design language like 65 foot tall or only changing the design from to a mono pole so I'm reading the revised resolution that Suzanne had put in it's got red text in it so she added seven foot two blah blah blah right so at the very beginning it says 499th an application was submitted it says 69 foot tall mono pine so where it says mono pine there it should say mono pole and then it says the chain link fence afterwards where it says chain link after chain link it should say and brown slats so every place that that occurs whether mono pine or fence it should include brown slats the application was submitted as a mono pine so I don't think we can actually change that but there are other parts where we talk about the mono pine that also because the slats weren't initially proposed we may have to that is a condition that is that it will have brown slats I'll make it easy and I think I made it complicated so I would amend my original motion that for condition 1 cell tower shall be a mono pole and shall not include any foliage of any kind period done that's why we know it's a mono pole no foliage nothing removes everything condition 2 fence shall be seven foot two tall chain link with brown slats and barbed wire top fence period done condition 2 all except those all right I'm letting her catch up sorry for the confusion I was thinking I was making it easier but I guess not typing under pressure sorry the fence shall be seven foot two inches tall with brown slats and barbed wire and excuse me and chain link thank you and the plan submitted for building permit shall be a mono pole not mono pine and shall not have any foliage whatsoever sounds great love it can we do a vote here board member cook aye board member libtek Otaren no board member wolfrich aye vice chair weigel aye chair jones garter aye let the record reflect 5a and one no thank you Are you ready, Susie? Or no. Okay. I would also like to note that this action is final unless an appeal is filed with the Planning and Economic Development Department within 10 calendar days of today's discussion pursuant to zoning code section 20-62.030. And we are moving on to the final item, concept design review, 428 Mendocino Avenue Apartments, not a project, 428 Mendocino Avenue DR23-041. I'd just like to take a moment to introduce Mike Janisak, who it will be presenting remotely, and he should be visible up on your screen now. Thank you, Susie, and thank you, Chair. My name is Mike Janisak. I'll be presenting the concept design review item for 428 Avenue Apartments this evening. And Susie, if you can share my slides, and then I'll just say next slide as I go along. We're trying, hold on one second, Mike. Okay. Yeah, it means to be shared. So as I mentioned, this item is a concept design review. This is for 428 Mendocino Avenue Apartments. Next slide, please. The project is located downtown. It's in the downtown stationary prior development area. Next slide, please. Here's an aerial of the site. It's found roughly bound by 7th Street, 5th Street, and then there's a double frontage, Mendocino and Riley Street at the rear of the site. Next slide, please. Here's a little bit closer view. The site is currently developed and the proposal would include demolition of the existing two-story commercial building. Next slide, please. So the development proposal for consideration this evening and shown in the plans that the concept designs would include construction of an 88-unit, 10-story apartment building on a .31 acre parcel. Amenities would include a church on the ground floor, automated parking that would include 47 parking spaces and 35 bicycle spaces as well as ground floor retail and then a roof deck. One clarification provided the late correspondence this afternoon is that the project description has since been corrected to reflect the plans that were provided and there's a 400 seat church, so not a 500 seat church, but approximately 400 seats. Next slide, please. So procedurally this would be a reduced review authority design review and so the concept design review before you this evening is one step in that process and that's a required step for mixed use development that includes residential component for projects within the downtown priority development area. The review authority is delegated to zoning administrator and this is pursuant to zoning code section 2016, 070. And so tonight's meeting will be to solicit feedback for both the applicant and the zoning administrator and the ultimate authority lies with the zoning administrator. So this item will not return back to designer keyboard. Next slide, please. Oh, sorry, previous slide, please. I failed to mention, I want to summarize there were three public comments that were received on this item. Two were published in the packet and then ones received today and forwarded to the board. The topics included light and air impacts for the approved 168 unit project at 420 Mendocino Avenue, concerns about parking, traffic circulation and noise from the perspective of downtown residents and ground floor transparency and compatibility of the facades. Next slide. The general plan land use as nation is core mixed use and implementing zoning district is core mixed use downtown station area, combining district. And there's no decision, no public action being taken this evening and therefore this is not a project of Sequa. Next slide, please. Staff recommends the board review the plans that provide comments, feedback for the applicant and for designing administrator. Happy to answer questions and the applicant's design team is in attendance and has a presentation prepared as well. Thank you. Just one second to get their plans up. That's where they want to start. Hi, my name is Manasa. Wanganyi, thank you. I'm the first of. Come closer to the microphone so we can hear you. I'm the applicant. Manasa, Wanganyi Dengida, if you can pronounce that and I have my project team here with me and I would like to turn it over to my architect to start the presentation. It's almost evening, so I'll just jump to six o'clock. Good evening, Chair Jones Carter and board members. We're really excited to bring this project before you for comment. My name is David DeLos Santos. I'm a principal with TLCD architecture. We're located in downtown Santa Rosa right across from Courthouse Square. And I wanted to give you just a brief overview of the project. The intention for us tonight is to listen rather than speak, so I'm gonna make this brief. The project itself, as Mike noted, it's actually 70 units, not 88. And he got the 350 to 400 seat church count in the ballpark there. So I just wanna make that clarification. When Manasa first came to us, he was looking for an opportunity to expand his current church, which is located on the premises at the moment. And he was looking for ways to enhance and continue to serve his congregation and the local citizens as well. And so we got to talking about programmatic requirements first and foremost. And as you see by this exhibits that we've provided, the site itself is a long and narrow site. It's about 80 feet by 180 feet. So it's a long, skinny site. When we got time talking about the program, it became abundantly clear to us that we needed to go up with the project in order to contain all of the program that was requested. So with that in mind, the site actually lended itself very well to a vertical tall slender tower. We're aware of the city's desire to provide additional housing in the downtown core. And so that was one of our parameters. One of our goals was to try and meet that need. The building itself, the plans, I can just quickly go through the statistics. We have a ground floor sanctuary space that is facing Mendocino Avenue. The main entrance to the building is located on Riley Street. And that is what will give access to a lobby that will then lead to an elevator core which will take you up to the apartment units. These are market rate apartments. The approach that we took to arrive at the design that you're currently looking at began with a yield study, a massing diagram. And once we were able to actually confirm that we could in fact accommodate all of the programmatic requirements, then we got to the business of sculpting the building. And so you'll see that the elevations themselves, the massing of the building is comprised of a number of additive and subtractive moves on the facade itself. Now part of that was in an effort to address the requirements for light and air. I think that was mentioned as a concern by public comment. And also part of it was to provide the articulation on the building itself. We recognized that it is one of the largest and if not the largest building in the downtown core, so it's highly visible. And we were very sensitive to that. So we began with the macro and we kind of slowly worked our way to the micro in terms of the types of finishes that we selected, the color palette that we chose. We were looking at providing very durable materials because we know that this building is going to be here for a while. We also wanted to make sure that we had a way to accentuate the verticality of the project of the building itself. So what was initially conceived as a single tower was actually split into two separate towers. We made a bit of a slide move there so you can kind of see on the facade facing Mendocino and Riley Street. That was a little tip of the hat to what Santa Rosa is and what Santa Rosa is becoming. We regarded it as sort of a transition of downtown. And so on one side of the building, the darker side of the building, we chose materials that were, it was a metal panel cladding system. It's got a corrugated rib to it and it provides texture. It's evocative of some of the old barn buildings that we see out in the area, the board and baton designs, a little bit of texture on the north, on the south facing side, we chose to go with a more smooth panel. Again, a nod to the more modern side of things, the direction that we think the city is going. And so accented on either side is a form at the ground level that houses some of the administrative offices and then we utilized balconies to help accentuate and provide a little visual interest. On the Riley Street side, in fact, Suzy, if you wouldn't mind clicking, there we go, okay. So you can see just above the tree line on Mendocino Avenue there is that additive element and then the balconies that kind of accentuate the Mendocino elevation itself. Next slide please, here we go. So on Riley Street, oh, I'm sorry, that's a different view of Mendocino. Next slide, there we go. So on Riley Street here, it's a narrower right of way. It's a calmer, slower right of way and that's why we decided to put the main pedestrian entrance on that street to the apartments. It's also where the automobiles will pull in. There's two quick rising garage doors that lead to elevators that then drop down into a fully automated two-story basement parking structure. And essentially the person drives in, exits the car, hits the pad, the car goes down into the basement and parks. When it is time to be fetched, it comes out, the car spins around on the little cassette and you drive out face forward so you're not backing into the public right of way. You can see here also additional facade articulation on the Riley Street side in the form of a bay window. One of the challenges that we faced on this project was creating and maximizing the, not only the unit count, but the unit size. Our client has tasked us with providing larger, more family-friendly units and so that's what we attempted to do. And given the constraint of the site, we help to actually drive us or guide us to push some of the elements forward to the extent possible. And then of course, with our restrictions on property line separation, the windows are where they can be, the openings are where they can be. At the top of the building, we've got a photovoltaic array that is a sculptural element to provide some visual interest as well as some obvious use for electricity and also doubles as a sunscreen device for part of our roof deck. And that roof deck is facing southward towards downtown.  And actually with that, I would like to just give my landscape architect a few minutes to give us a quick overview of our landscape approach because I'm sure that that's gonna come up for discussion as well. Thank you, David. Hello everyone. I'm Breonna Morrison with Carl Al Macy. I'm the Project Landscape Architect. Susie, is there a slide with the landscape plan? There we go. So a very limited landscape area, but we're trying to do something really nice with it. On the Mendocino and Riley Street sides, there's not a whole lot of area between the back of sidewalk and the building, but where there is, we wanna add some grounding planting just to help tie the building to the site. We want to emphasize the entries into the building with decorative pavers, kind of like a welcome mat into this building, which is both a church space and a residential space. We also have to meet some LID requirements. So there are some spaces for stormwater treatment at the ground level. On the third floor, you'll see this very small balcony spaces for the lucky residents in those units. Next to those are very large raised planters, which are going to be the predominant stormwater treatment areas. So all the plantings there would be some sort of shade tolerant because these will be shaded plant on the LID approved list. Susie, if you could go to the next slide, please. And then I think the really, the jewel of the landscape design is on the roof where we're trying to create some variety of community spaces. The roof will have a beautiful view of the hills and of downtown and just really spectacular view. So we've tried to create small spaces on the roof for a variety of gathering, group gathering, solo gathering, family gathering. And it'll be pedestal pavers with built-in raised planters and some seating and then a glass guardrail that's part of the architecture. And then there's also a lot of mechanical, electrical equipment that has to be on the roof. So to help sort of screen the people using those spaces from all of the equipment, there will be green screens with fines growing on them to help provide that buffer and greenery. Thank you. Okay, and I'd just like to conclude our comments by going back a few slides to those ground floor renderings. There we go. So we know that the building is a large building. We're not trying to pretend that it isn't. We also are very sensitive to the ground floor plane and how it engages with the pedestrian scale and experience of the public realm. And so a number of those different rendering shots, maybe the next slide, please. There we go. That kind of gives you a sense of what the building will feel like at while on your way to Crooks Coffee to get a drink. It's going to be one of those buildings that is both inviting, I think, and also materially rich so that it does enhance the streetscape. I think with that, I'm going to conclude by saying thank you and I look forward to hearing your comments. Thank you for that presentation. I would like to open public hearing on this item, recording secretary. Do we have any public comment? If you're in council chambers and you wish to make a comment, please make your way to the podium. Chair Jones-Carter, we have no public comment. And I'd like to close this public hearing. Are there any questions in the board or staff for the applicant? I have one question. For the architect, the storefront glass, the storefront glass there, the backlit channel glass, I assume that's, it's not quite frosted, but it's not very transparent, somewhat transparent, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, so you can see in and see shapes behind it, but it's not a clear glass panel. That's correct, yes. Great, thank you. Alexia, I'll tie on to that. And I guess the reasoning behind that, David, would be obviously because the church worship space is immediately behind that. And so you wouldn't want glare necessarily, I guess, to come in during service or whatever. I mean, was that the reasoning behind that glass treatment? Does that make sense? Not exactly. Could you restate that question? So if I'm reading your first floor plan correctly, right, the sanctuary is on the ground floor, correct? Yes. And so that glass that we're talking about, it's on the west and south as you approach the sanctuary element, right? So it's effectively screening your ability to look into the sanctuary, right, directly. And so I guess maybe what, were you kind of maybe asking like, why isn't it a little bit more translucent, transparent? Was there a design decision as to why it's more opaque as opposed to transparent? Is that what you're trying to ask? I don't know, maybe. That's getting to it. But I had thoughts on that proposal. That's all. I guess I'll get to it in my comments. Yes, well, I think that the idea here was to provide glazing material down to the ground floor. We wanted to allow for natural light to find its way into the space at the same time. We recognize that there is some aspect during the services where there might want to be a little more private, a little more privacy. And so that's kind of what led us to select the channel glazing that we did. Vic, do you have a question? Yes, I do have a question. So the parking thing is kind of cool, just imagining it, right? But 47 spaces, it's now 70 units. What's the thinking there? Like does, yeah, what's the thinking? Well, the thinking is to, we knew that one of the programmatic priorities or requirements was to provide on-site parking for some of the residents. And I think that it became, to be quite honest, more of an economic decision than it was anything else. That being said, we are in the process of further developing the parking to increase the parking count. So at last count, we were somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 stalls, so we're getting closer. And I'm, you know, it's early, but obviously there'll be like EV charging everywhere, presumably, or not. I mean, if it's totally, how does that work? How would that work if it's totally automated? It's pretty slick. Each of the carriages has the capability of supporting EV charging. We're certainly going to provide what's necessary and required by code. I know that it's not a requirement, but I was just curious why was there any consideration for any affordable housing? Are you asking about on-site affordable housing? Yes, you said it's on market rate. Departments are on market rate. Yes, that's correct, yes. So what our client intends to do is provide the Luffy for affordable housing on an alternate site. I'm sorry, could you repeat that? Our client intends to pay the in-Luffy rather than provide on-site affordable housing. Our housing, this is terrible. I actually know the city coach on for 2102, the housing requirement. It says that they can opt to pay an in-Luffy or provide inclusionary housing on-site. And I think what he's saying is that his client is opting to, although it doesn't sound like the decision is final, but at this point it sounds like they will opt to do the in-Luffy instead. There's also, for the commercial component of the property, there's, or the project, there is also the commercial linkage fee, I believe, which will also go, bless you, and which will also go towards affordable housing. Thank you. Are there any more questions? Yeah, sorry, I have two. This looks like it's concrete, right? Just kind of standard concrete high-rise construction, yes? That's right. Okay, yeah, just as I was looking at the floor plans, to me it, the grid is very regimented, which makes sense, obviously, but it seems like there's a lot of conflict with some columns and some different areas. I was just curious if you'd explored other structural system options. I know Don wants to do a CLT building at some point, but I was just curious if you'd looked at that, or to try to get different spans or different kind of modules to help some of, I think some of the commercial-facing elements, I think, have columns in the middle of them, and so I put my architect hat on, wondering about that. Right. Yes, we did evaluate a number of structural systems, and this is the one we landed on. And then the other question I had was, you said something about retail, and I don't see it? Third floor, did I miss it? Oh, not on third floor. Oh, the little purple thing, just a little tiny retail, okay. I was looking the wrong spot. They've got the two floors of the podium, and then sort of the commercial and residential starts. Yeah, and it's on the third floor there. Okay, that's why I missed it, because I assumed it was tucked in the podium. There you go, thanks. Never mind. Are there any final questions of board members before we move to a motion? Comment before we move to comment. I keep saying that, I better change this. No? All right, we're gonna start with Chirru. I guess maybe that is smart, it's only only architects up and up here. So first off, great proposal overall, great renderings, great plans. So it makes it easy to make a bunch of comments. So we received some commentary from, I think the 420 Mendocino, which is the housing project directly adjacent. And I'm inclined to agree with some of the comments that they made about kind of adjacency relationships. It's challenging, I think, to put two very tall buildings next to one another and make them harmonious, but also provide the same kind of quality level of exterior experience, right? And I know, we're not New York, we're not Chicago here in Santa Rosa, so we don't have a large amount of verticality in our area. And so we don't have things that are right up against each other where you look into your neighbor's kitchen, as it were, or under your neighbor's balcony, like they do in those cities. So I am curious kind of about maybe reevaluating how that Southern side interfaces with 420. I certainly am sympathetic to the idea of providing larger family-friendly-styled units. I think that's great. More bedrooms the better, right, sometimes, with families and multi-generational living and kind of all those sorts of things that we have now. But yeah, I think we should really, you should take another look at that South side. I'm not quite sure what the answer is. I don't know if it's a rearrangement of some of the unit typologies on that side that provide some more relief to the adjacent property on the South, or if it's an adjustment of the massing where you kind of have a rhythmic element going along, west to east and breaking that up in a more asymmetrical way that provides more gaps and depth between the buildings. One thing that I think is somewhat lacking and could have a revisit, I guess, is in the design guidelines in 2.4, which is site and building design for the downtown station area plan. It talks about a base, a mid, and a top for a building. And I think what I'm losing a little bit at least on the north and south elevations is that definition of base, mid, top. There's no, on those elevations, they kind of blend together. Whereas on the west and east, we have a little bit more definition of base. There's a differentiation in materiality. There's a differentiation in an entry point. There's a differentiation in signage, foliage, glazing, et cetera. And so we don't, it's not really kind of happening on the other sides to me. I mean, we're transitioning to CMU. It looks like on the north elevation, but it kind of, it doesn't have that same tactile quality as the concrete, what looks like concrete, I think, on the north and the south. Board-formed concrete, I guess I would say, on the west. And then while I certainly really appreciate the huge photovoltaic array, which I think is awesome, it just, it feels like it kind of just stops, right? The building kind of goes up. And from an elevation perspective, it's hard to see that photovoltaic array. Obviously in three dimensions, when you turn it and you look at it, it's very readily apparent, but in a flat elevation, it totally disappears. So that is in the design guidelines. And the comments I was making earlier would be also in the design guidelines 2.4, item seven, which is surrounding context. And then I think the kind of the pointed question that Adam and I both asked with relation to the glass on the front is also in the design guidelines, 2.4, site and building design, there's a 27. It says no opaque windows or blinds. And the primary purpose for that in the downtown stationary plan is to create interface between what's going on inside of a building and what's going on on the sidewalk and to connect the pedestrian experience inside to out. And so while I appreciate, I think the front facing orientation of the location of the sanctuary and obviously the client is the church, right? The church is, it needs to be front and center. It's still kind of, it doesn't feel as connected as it could be in some way. And then tied to that, the fact that there lacks a clear and distinct residential entry on the Mendocino side, I think is a huge miss. The entry on Riley Street is nice and that it's got a lobby and those types of things, but I worked on Sound. My office is actually down the street from this on Mendocino and I walk by this site all the time. I very rarely walk on Riley Street even before the construction started. I walk on Mendocino, right? I walk on Mendocino because that's where the services are. That's where businesses are.  I'm going to go to El Coquille. I'm going to go to around the corner to Osiello's or whatever. I'm not going to go on Riley Street because Riley Street's kind of awkward, frankly. I mean, for lack of a better word. And so, yes, putting an entry on Riley Street could change that, but I don't see it fundamentally changing it. So I wonder about providing a lobby space from Mendocino that not only provides an entry component to the church itself, but then also to the residential elements. It feels like it makes sense to put a grand entry on that side of the building that serves both the church element and the residential element. And then that's a design guidelines in 2.4 site and building design item 21. No distinguishable entry to the residences. So that's missing. I would heavily encourage the City of Santa Rosa to require shadow studies for this building to see how it's going to impact the construction around it. The balconies, I like that there are balconies, but it feels like there's some missing, I guess. Because some units get them, some units don't. And so, you know, wouldn't it stink to be the person that lives in unit B2 on the north side who doesn't get a balcony, but yet the exact identical unit on the south side has a balcony. It's kind of, you know, that's never fun. And then I do appreciate the rooftop garden and kind of the bioswaled elevated landscape component. I think those are really nice. Wherever you, if they move around or they change a little bit, I think that's okay. I like the usage of the second floor with all of kind of like your kind of, you know, parish hall components kind of showing up on that second floor for the church. That's really nice. So it's kind of private for the church, but it, you know, it's a really nice space for them to have kind of all of, you know, those functions, the community room, bathrooms, kitchen and all that stuff. That's great. And the comment I made about the entry point, I think I was kind of alluding to it about the structural system. I think if the central entrance is kind of thought about, it may adjust how the axis of the sanctuary operates within the confines of the structural components so that they feel more in alignment with one another as opposed to kind of offset like they are right now. And then with regard to the materials, I think the materials are actually quite stunning and provocative and kind of love them. I think it's really special and unique to kind of go after something that you don't really see. I do think though, I don't know if this is the right answer or the wrong answer, because I kind of understand what you're doing. But so the idea of the kind of the two towers and the shift I think is interesting, but I think something that I'm questioning in my mind as I look through some of the renderings is on the south side where we have the gray tower and then we have the insets and we change it to the red material and we do the same thing on the north side. It almost feels like it actually should just all be the same material in a way to me. There's something about it that with kind of the one tower to the south being a little bit shorter east to west, it would be kind of interesting maybe if it was another color of metal as opposed to changing to the red. And then if the red just wrapped that whole north side, that might be really intriguing and powerful as opposed to the kind of the flip-flopping of materials, I guess. And then the only other thing is so we did receive public comment from a community member who's also a developer and I think he's kind of spot on on this on the north side of the building in the red, the red siding, the metal siding. There are no windows. There's no articulation. There's nothing just big flat vertical siding and while I think that's dramatic, it also, I feel like it needs windows maybe similar to what's going on on the other side of the building, the south side. So I think that's it for my comments. Alright, since there is no action on this item, this is just comments. Vic, do you have anything to add? Yeah, I agree with many of the things that Drew said and I probably would have said them myself. But I am particularly interested in the long sides as well. I think the facades on the elevations on Mendocino and on Riley are really carefully thought of and I expect that they will develop as the project develops. But the side, which is, of course, because of the way things are labeled, I'm guessing it is the, if that's north, it's the south side, the long south side that is next to 420. I don't know how tall 420 is going to be, but that concern about two buildings at some points are only six feet apart from each other. And I believe they are both residential. I think that's number one. Somehow the privacy has to happen without going opaque. And then the other thing is that there's the lower floors that are at the same height as 420 are going to have really very, very little in the way of light and they have no other windows. Most of those apartments along the long south side, which takes me to Drew's point that I think is really good. When you're looking at the plan, particularly the long view, I think introducing greater asymmetry could give you more interesting elevation but also more light for the people who have to live in the spaces that might be looking out at a building right next to them, which I think was the question raised by the comment from the developer who talked about what do you do with the building where you know something's going to go next to it? So you're going tall here. That's really exciting, right? And on the one side you've got something 420. I don't know, is it four? Is it going to be four stories? Do we know how tall 420 is going to be? It'll be eight stories. Eight stories. So they're going way up. So the lower floors on the south side of 428 are going to have very, very little light down there. And I don't know what happens between the buildings. What is that space there on the ground? In any event, on the other side we don't know what's going to go next to it. I imagine that we just don't know. And so then do you design for not knowing and for whatever it is, a two-story thing that's there right now? Or do you assume that no, there's going to be another eight-story thing next to it? And even if there is, as was mentioned by the developer, it's going to be years before that takes, you know, before that happens. So what do you do in the meantime? How do you address the buildings? You're going to be there first. And so in some ways, by not, by articulating it more, that would be, and now I believe I'm talking about the north side, the project that comes next will have to address the existing condition, which will be 428. And I appreciate it. Drew knows all of these, all the codes, and one day I'll learn them, but it's not today. But the base mid and the top idea, I think the base is actually taking care of really well, and I don't think the base on the long sides really are ever going to be visible. But, and it certainly takes the distinction between the base and the mid on the two main elevations, which Mendocino and Riley, I think that's beautiful. The top is a little, is under-defined. It's an opportunity, something to think about, I would say. What might we do about the top, whereas actually the top from the, on the south side where there's the roof garden and the panels are tilting up. And that could be beautiful. That could be the crown of that elevation. But I do think the street elevations great at the base and the mid and opportunity at the top. Those are my comments. Thanks. Does anyone have anything new to add? I was just going to say staff. You don't get to talk anymore. I'm sorry. I'm just going to say staff. Make sure you double check the FAR as well. Just when you get a chance. Because it is, I was rereading this and looking at it. And it looks like it might be incorrect. At this point staff hasn't conducted any analysis, but FAR will definitely be involved when we do. Adam, do you have any comments? Yes, thank you. I haven't already been. I first off just want to thank staff for bringing this to us, but then also the applicant team and the owner also for really bringing a just a wonderful example of an infill project that we're really trying to encourage in the city and just in general. So really great. A couple of things I really appreciate about is that we've been seeing larger towers going up, as you mentioned, in town here. And that is great. But one of the things that you're providing here is that real mixed use element, which I really, is wonderful. And you're also bringing families activity downtown, weekend activity, while also providing a bunch of residential as well. So this is a wonderful example of really the projects I would love to see coming through for these proposals. Kudos for that. And then for the design team for taking those programmatic elements and really coming up with a very nice design for this new kind of really dense destination neighborhood part of downtown. So it's a really great proposal. I am really, the church is existing on site now, but that's all that is there. So if and when this gets built, you're going to have families, you're going to have the church, and you're going to have potentially retail and everything. It's going to really be a benefit and additive to the neighborhood. So great idea. Just the concept is wonderful. That being said, I want to just emphasize the aspects that my colleagues have mentioned with knitting in this into the neighborhood and being part of it. I think for me with the articulation of the facades, particularly the north facade, with Drew, I agree. I think the materiality is great. I really appreciate what you've brought to us. Those tall facades, though, on the north and south side are these large swaths. And so thinking of having some kind of relief from that and both from streetscape, but then also from far away, thinking a quarter mile away, a half mile away, where you actually look downtown and you will see this building. Especially, I live on the other side of college from here pretty much. And so coming downtown, you see all of these new buildings, these new structures. And so thinking about how this is going to look like as a destination. I mean, this is going to be one of the taller buildings in town by far. And so thinking about how it's going to fit into the viewsheds from far away. And I don't see that as a constraint. I see that as a really great opportunity for you, both for the design of the building and for the church and for the program that you're having here. I think that you can knit all this together and really take what you've proposed and even knit it more into the neighborhood. I think some of the facade, both on Riley Street and in particular on Mendocino, I think that the streetscape facade does need to be rethought a bit. I think having the residential entrance on that side is going to be really great. My question about the opacity of the storefront glass, I think that I understand the desire for separation and privacy also there. But this isn't sort of a set of offices. This is an open community. I mean, basically with the church and with the streetscape, I would like to see that it be as permeable as possible. Basically, you're inviting people in. You're inviting new parishioners. You're inviting people to come. They want to live in this building. They're walking back and forth. Drew's going to get coffee leaving from his office. And you have a really great opportunity to talk to the buildings along this corridor and be part of that, but then also welcoming people in. And so the Mendocino frontage, really, I would emphasize making it as welcoming, as inviting as possible, well lit, open. You're wanting to encourage kids and families to interact with this. You want to have the separation there. But I think that also the addition of the programatically with having the two floors of the church and then the third floor of the community space, I think it's a really great, you've taken that almost a streetscape level and brought it up to a mezzanine, which is a really great amenity for the residents here, the future residents. So my main comment is to really to just push what you're doing about being part of the neighborhood, be part of the city, infill and be part of the community. I think you're well on your way. Thanks for bringing this to us. I look forward to seeing it. We have no further comment. So with that, thank you very much for your presentation. And I would like to adjourn the meeting of the Design Review Board.