Board Member Birch, I can see you. Can you do an audio check for me please? You bet. Sir, I'm late. No, you're good. Thank you so much. It looks like we have everybody, but Board Member Wicks, and I did remind him, so we'll give him a minute or two here before we get rolling. Amy, if you would like to do a video and a sound check for me please. Thanks, Michelle. Great. Thank you. I hear and see you. Great. If everybody could turn on their videos, Board Members, please, and we'll get started here in a second. Once everybody gets on the screen. Hey, Warren, can you turn your video on? Well, we have a forum. Warren, we can start without you, and you can just come late before you want to get your video going. Okay. The problem is I can't start my video. It just did. You're good to go. Oh, there we go. Great. We see your smiling face. All right. Thank you. All right, excellent. Perfect. Now that everybody's smiling faces are here, I would like to call the September 2nd regular meeting of the City of Santa Rosa Design and Review Board to order, and have a brief little description of why we're here in the virtual setting. Due to the provisions of the Governor's Executive Orders N2520 and N2920, which to spend certain requirements of the Brown Act, the Design Review Board will be participating through Zoom webinar. Members of the public can participate in this meeting virtually by going to www.zoom.us slash join and entering the meeting ID<PHONE_NUMBER>7 or by calling toll-free 1-877-8353-5257 and enter the meeting ID that I just read. Public access in the meeting through the Zoom link also is available on the agenda, which can be found on the City of Santa Rosa's website, srcity.org slash design review board. The meeting is also live streamed on the city's website, can be viewed on Comcast channel 29 and is also available on the City of Santa Rosa's YouTube channel. So without further ado, recording secretary, may I please have a roll call? I think you guys didn't hear me. Let the record reflect that all board members are present with the exception of board member Wicks. Excellent, thanks so much. So obviously item two, we don't have a study session tonight. So item three, it doesn't, I didn't see any minutes as part of the package. Are we still in process on those from the last meeting, Michelle? That is correct. We don't have any minutes this evening. That's cool. So we'll move past that. So now we'll go to item four, which is public comment. And at this time, we would invite members of the public that wish to comment on things that are germane to our board's purview, but are not listed on the agenda for tonight, that they can raise their hand via Zoom. And they'll be permitted to have three minutes to speak on any topic in our purview. So is anybody raising their hand, Michelle? I am not seeing any hands raised at this time. Neither am I. So I'll close public comment. And then item five is board business. Any board member reports or other? Oh, sorry, I skipped the statement first. My apologies. So this is where we read the state and the purpose of the board from zoning code chapter 2052.030F. 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, e.g. city policy statements and development plans. So then 5.2, any board member reports tonight from anyone? Seeing none, we don't have any other board business today. Senior planner, Amy Nicholson, do we have a department report today? I do not, thank you. Thanks, Amy. And then a statement of abstentions. I believe we have one on one item. So Vice Chair Hetchbeth, you have an abstention tonight, correct? Yes, I'd like to abstain from item 9.2. I have worked with the client in the past and that is why. Excellent. And then we don't have any consent items tonight. So moving forward to our scheduled items. Item 9.1, concept design review for Ridley Avenue Family Apartments. 1801 Ridley Avenue, DR 21-044. And we'll turn it over to project planner, Susie Merck. Good afternoon, Chair Weigel and members of the design review board. As usual, hold on just one second while I get my screen share all straightened up. Are you seeing it? Yes. We are, thanks. Are you seeing it in presentation view? We are now, yes. Good, thanks. Okay, so the project before you this afternoon, or it's actually not a project, the item before you is a concept design review for the Ridley Family Apartments, located on 1801 Ridley Avenue. Again, this is a concept design review item. Proposing the development of a 50-unit apartment complex comprised of two and three story structures, offering one, two and three bedroom units. The project is 100% affordable. The required entitlements when they submit their applications will be a minor conditional use permit, design review coming back to you and a density bonus. Here's an aerial view of the site as it stands in the relatively recent future.  The general plan and zoning, I wanted to show this before I showed you the site plan so you understand what's surrounding it. It's kind of a mishmash of all different kinds of uses. It's surrounded to the west and to the north by some of those rural residential zoning districts. That's a little county pocket right there in the northwest corner. And then I'll show you an aerial so you can see how some of these are developed. So the general plan land use for this site is medium low residential. What that allows is eight to 13 units per acre. And the zoning of R16 is consistent because at its maximum build out, it can meet that density range. Again, to off to, I mean, up to the north, there's the northwest community park. And yeah, most of this is important when we start listening to the neighborhood comments. Here where the star is, this is the site and you can see there's some vacant property to the west, but there's that county pocket right up there on Larry Drive is all single family residential. And then the lower off to the west on the lower side of the property, there's kind of the last large lot standing. Here's a site plan. And this site plan I'm gonna point out is outdated, the applicant updated it and that was in the plans, the plan set that you reviewed and they've got it on their presentation. So I'm just gonna flip right on past it. And then they've also updated elevations, but this is what was prepared for you during our last trip and our last visit, which was continued. So, and the applicant will give you a lot more information than I have. We had a neighborhood meeting. It was pretty well attended. There were public comments received and the surrounding land uses. Again, people felt pretty strongly that the three stories wasn't really consistent with anything else in the neighborhood. There was a lot of concern about parking and circulation. There was also a large concern about safety, specifically fireworks were brought up. I will say that I did reach out to the fire department and like everybody else, we're doing the best we can at controlling this, but 4th of July was a challenge this year. People are concerned about views with those taller structures. And then I think I may have said circulation, all right, parking and circulation were a much wider spread concern. So here we go, this is not a project in the eyes of the sequa because there is no action being taken tonight. The request is for the design review board just to provide comments and direction. And with that, the applicant and the Planning and Economic Development Department are requesting that the design review board provide comments and direction for the Ridley Avenue Family Apartment Project. And I'm putting my information up on the screen. And for those of you that are calling in, my telephone number, direct line, and I do answer it, is<PHONE_NUMBER>. In my email, you may wait a little bit longer for a response there, is SMURRAY at srcity.org. And that concludes my presentation. I know the applicant has a presentation that they're anxious to show you if you have any questions for me, ask away. Yeah, Susie, I think what we're gonna do is we're just gonna roll right into the applicant presentation, and then we'll do questions and comments kind of at the end of that. Perfect. Yeah, and then we'll do public comment as well, obviously. So we'll probably do public comment, well, maybe we'll do questions to staff, public comment and then comments from the board. I think that'll be the way we'll do this. But so the applicant should get rolling. So let's get them unmuted, please. Okay, I'm, yeah, get them unmuted. Well, I'm sure in my screen. So again, can y'all see the screen? And Susie, thanks. And if the applicant could raise their hand in Zoom for the recording secretary, so they could unmute. You guys, yeah, perfect, thanks so much. I'm seeing that happen now. And if the applicant couldn't let me know when to advance the slides, that would be great too. Thanks much. Awesome, and then it looks like Michelle has given you guys the option to mute and unmute yourselves. So if you could please try to mute yourself when you're not talking, but please go ahead and introduce yourself to the board and the public and your relationship to the project. Thanks. Great, I'll start things off. This is Marcus Griffin of Milestone Housing Group. Thanks a lot for having us today. We're excited to share with you what we've developed thus far on the site. We've been working closely with Susie in the planning department and trying to fit what we want to fit in here the best we can to meet all the different requirements. This site is owned by the neighboring church. We're under contract and we're looking to build a family affordable housing project. This portion of Santa Rosa hasn't had many new projects in a long time, the Northwest Quadrant. So we're excited to bring a property to this area. This is early in the process. We haven't secured our financing yet. We need to get through the conditional use permit or I guess minor use permit to be eligible for various sources. So we're kind of working our way through that. Our team is very familiar with the city of Santa Rosa and Sonoma County. We have two projects going on right now, one in Santa Rosa, the Acme family apartments that we already went through this process with. And then we have another site near Sonoma that's a senior project. KTGY is the architect on both of those. And you guys are certainly familiar with them. So we try, as I said, we try to fit everything in. I'm going to leave it to our architect to really walk you through the plans. But the site is able to be built quite a bit more dense if we worked out some fire issues, but we decided to go with the more simplified plan at the 50 units, both to be kind of sensitive to the neighbors and also just to expedite things, keep them simpler. And so we think it fits in really nicely. Our architects did a pretty thorough presentation here. I'm excited to have them share. And I looked forward to hearing your feedback and comments. Okay, Susie. I'll mute. I'll keep in mind advancing to the, maybe to the site plan, the third slide late. There you go. Okay, so as Susie mentioned, the proposed project is 50 units. And what you see here is three buildings. The yellow buildings represent three story apartment buildings, 24 units each. The building in red on the bottom right is the Leasing Intermentity Building. It has two residential units on the second floor. We've located all the buildings in the middle of the site. So you see Ridley Avenue on the right, which will be widened. And then on the southern end, we've added what will eventually, potentially be a future Wingate Drive that will continue on to the west. We've located these buildings like this so that we could use the resident parking, which you see on the west side and the north side to create a buffer between the neighbors to the north and west. And also because we're trying to maximize sun exposure into the courtyard in the middle of the property there. So essentially you have was a public street in Ridley, a quasi public street, which will allow for future an easement, public easement through to the west and then the resident parking on the west and north. Next slide, please. So we put together, here's the typical elevations. I guess the best way to describe the character potentially is sort of a modern farmhouse. And I'm sure you all know as we've explained on previous projects, at this three story height, some of the architecture in Massive is driven by fire access. As Marcus said, we did cut down the density on the site, kept it at 50 units because of some fire access issues and instead of trying to push it and force it, we left it at the 50 units. So really it's a combination here of Stucco, we've got this blue accent board of bat and siding and it's a combination of pitched roofs and flat roofs. And the side use of the elevation to the top left is the elevation that you would see from the west and north of the apartment buildings facing the neighbors a little more traditional of the roof forms. And then you see the two ends of the right in the bottom left, that's the side that faces into the courtyard and we'll, you know, some more contemporary with that flat roofed element in the middle which we're utilizing to maximize exposure for solar panels and near here in the roof and mechanical equipment. So that area faces inward towards the courtyard and won't be seen by the neighbors to the north and south or I'm sorry to the north and west which are the lower density neighbors. Next slide, please. I apologize for these that I didn't realize these were printed in color. They're just for the typical building plans. And I guess one thing to point out here is on the top left corner of each plan, you'll see how the building kind of steps back. That's the tapered end of the building which is located at the northwest corner of the site and that allows these buildings to fit in there and create a connection through to a proposed community garden which we'll discuss in a second as well as the parking area exterior and also starts to help eliminate impact on the neighbors back in that corner as well. On the bottom right, you might notice that the, I'll say the top right, bottom right and bottom left of the level three plan, you can see that the building footprint smaller that's because we stepped down the three bedroom to a two bedroom at those corners of the third floor to create the softness and the massing which you feel fits better into the context here. Next slide, please. And then plans of the clubhouse on the left, that's the first floor. This is the same orientation as the site plan. So that's the lobby at the bottom right corner. And then you can see how the two units, both three bedrooms sit at the second floor above that. Next slide, please. And unit plans, again, I apologize for the big in color. If you have any questions about these, be happy to answer that, but I won't go into detail on these now. Next slide, please. So here you start to see what the building looks like. This is a view from the south. So you can see the smaller scale leasing building with two units on top on the bottom right there which is what you'll drive into as you enter off of Midley and the, excuse me, the more semi-public street which is extension in the east-west direction on the south. We have this small parking lot entry with perpendicular parking in the middle of the site here which is really to add accessible and male parking and get it close to the clubhouse since there's only parallel parking located on that easement located on the south side. And then as you go up around the left side you can see the parking that wraps around the back and in the middle of the site you can see the large courtyard, open lawn area, play structure and how they all relate to the proposed three-story buildings. Next slide, please. Here's that low-scale entry with the focus on the corner lobby as you come up Ridley. You can see the one-story element in the front, the kind of raised one-story lobby and then the two-story element with the units in the back. That sign is to placeholders, so please don't comment on that. It may not match your sign program but we just wanted to put something into the show that would be assigned there. And then you can see the three-story buildings in the background. And the next slide, please. Here's a view from the south-west corner and this is the first view you get to the side that would be facing the neighbors to the west. So you can see the step down corner that I talked about a few minutes ago. And it's a little dark on this side but this would be the darker side of the building here. You can see the pitch roofs there up on the upper level, the step-downs and the stone accent on your accent on those pantry points going into the building, which is where you access the stairs to go up to the three-story levels. Next slide, please. And here's an aerial view from the northwest corner which shows you that area I just talked about where the buildings taper back and then we create that community garden which Rick from Tegra will describe a little bit in a few slides here. But this shows you how we went even further besides the parking to pull back the buildings away from the corner here to respect the adjacent neighbors as well as create more open spaces for the sites. Next slide, please. And here's a view from that back corner at ground level. This is taken within the parking lot so you can see just how far the buildings are pushed back from the adjacent neighbors. If you were viewing our project, say over their wall or from their property, the buildings would feel a little further back even. Next slide, please. And here's a proposed materials board. So you can see it's a combination of a base light-colored stucco with a stone veneer at the entry points and then this blue accent material as a hardy siding with a vertical baton which gives it that kind of modern farmhouse feel. And again, the roof, the combination of flat and the pitch roofs, which is really driven by fire access. If we haven't to keep the access to the roof down at 30 feet or less, which is difficult to achieve with a completely flat roof. And that's otherwise, we'd have to have a second access point for fire which isn't possible on this site. And then a kind of asphalt shingle proposed on the roof. Next slide, please. And here's the start of the landscape drawings. We'll hand this off to Rick with Intagra right here. Great, thanks, Keith. Can everybody hear me? Hello? Yes. Yeah, Rick, we can hear you, thanks. Okay, fantastic. Yeah, Rick Hendricks with Intagra Planning Landscape Architecture to carry on with Keith for the landscape items. Some of the stuff too that we propose is buffer landscaping around the edges. Again, trying to keep that a little bit of distance and screening from the adjacent neighbors. For the more interior landscape part of it, as Keith had mentioned, we have a community garden in the upper northwest corner area. It's got some benches for seating area as well on the access path that runs from the northeast corner to the southeast corner to the central courtyard area. A couple tea arbors, again for just kind of entrance. Iconic features. And then as you get into the courtyard area, we have a large patio area with a shade structure for seating area. We're proposing casual seating area, maybe a fire pit, some gaming tables for the older generation and again, more benches within just to the north of that. We have a tot lot area, two to 12 area. Right now it's conceptual with play equipment, maybe a swing in there possible with bringing in maybe something for more of the 13 and up age exercise equipment or something to that effect. And then we have a multi-use turf area right next to that. Again, trying to provide something for maybe toddlers or even older to be able to play maybe cornhole or something in that area. Little hard to see on here, but we do have bike racks scattered throughout the site and just to cover the amount required for the 50 units. With that, I'll give it back to Keith unless there's other questions. I think all your sheets are in here, Rick, so if you want to go to the next sheet. Sorry about that, yes, next sheet. Again, this is just the site plan without the color on it and with the legend on the right showing the different elements within the site on there.  Again, these are conceptual in nature. Again, just trying to tie in the site furnishings and amenities with the architecture theme a little bit more of that, I guess a little bit contemporary looking more, especially with the shade structure, try to tie that in with some of the overhangs with the architectural structure as well. And then the play equipment. Again, we'll probably tie that in with the color palette with the architecture. What's shown there is just an example of a two to 12 play area. Next slide. I think that'd be back to Keith. Oh, planting plan, excuse me. Planting palette. Again, drought tolerant. M will be M will compliant. And then the other thing is we are saving an existing oak tree on the Southern property line. Okay. Next slide. I think that might be it. Yeah. Next slide. Is that it? I think that's the last one. Cool. Do you guys have any other final comments about the project before we move to questions? Of both staff and the applicant from the board? Yeah, there's one. Yeah, one thing, Keith, can you mention how we left the bottom portion of the site and have available to extend that road to the West? Oh, yeah. There you go. If you want to go back. That's fine there. So yeah, we did leave that. That's certainly section open. And turn that. Again, what is a semi public road of an easement over that for development to the West in the future. It would be built out as part of this project. And then an extension at some future time. If that does happen. We've added the parallel spaces in there. And then one of the things I would like to add is that we did. We did study it. You can get put an exhibit in here. I think there were some, I don't know, maybe the neighborhood meeting regarding. The three store buildings casting shadows in the proper next story. We did study it. And, you know, we looked at like a winter, a winter solstice at eight or nine in the morning. And there was no issue with shadow. So just wanted to put that out there. That's something we can bring forward in the future. A shadow study. It's desired. Cool. Thank you. Thanks so much for the applicant team and for their presentation and also Susie for her presentation. So this time I'd like to bring it back to the board. And we'll just go through the board and they'll. Questions only of both staff and the applicant on this project. And then we'll go to public comment. And then we'll circle back around and do our. Comments from the board. So without further ado, let's go to. Board member Birch. Gonna hot seat you today. For questions of staff and applicants. That's great. First question of staff. Susie ran through it. But I just, I always like to get my head around. Where the project will. Go. I know we're. We're not a project right now. I don't think we'll have an action on this project. You did. Did I hear you say this project would come back to the design review board? Yes, you did. And it's good. It's going to call our require a minor conditional use permit for the use. And then a major design review board. Or a major design review, which will come before the board again. It is not within. One of the areas. In fact, it's unfortunately is directly adjacent to a priority development area. Got it. So it will be back to you. Understood. Understood. That's. That's great. Not, not good for the applicant. But anyway, it's that's. Perfect. So tonight is mostly input. I, I don't have a lot of questions about. About the project. I think it's, um, I'm not going to give comments. So I'm going to reserve questions and, and pass for now until, um, it says something strikes me from another board member. So. Okay. Any questions that. Michael. Uh, no, I'm, I'm really, uh, I'm interested to hear if there were some other comments, but I'm, but I don't have questions of the applicant right now. Thanks. Uh, board member. McHugh. You're muted. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yeah, we're good to go. Thanks, John. All right. I don't have any questions of staff or the applicant as of now. Perfect. Thanks, John. Um, Board member Sharon. I have no questions. Thank you. And board member Wolskie. None from the presentation, but I had a few and reviewing the plans and I'll just kind of blast through those. Uh, this is probably. I'm curious about what the frontage improvements are for, and I, it looks like the new road. I'm guessing they probably be responsible for this. Portion of wind gate drive, which would be new. And then I'm. Imagining the frontage improvements would go from. The project start to the project terminus. On, on Ridley and then only on their side, but I would like confirmation on that. And then, um, I'm looking at the elevation, particularly the rear elevation. I'm seeing some shading and it looks like. Board and batting fighting goes out a bit. And I'm. From what I'm seeing it's, it's due to the balcony. So there's a piece that comes out. I would like to know what the depth of the balconies is planned to be. And I know this is conceptual, but just curious. Um, on the materials board, it was difficult for me to see where the artichoke and fiery brown colors would be applied to the fighting. So I'd like a little more information on that. And then. I don't know if we could get information on this, maybe from, um, Santa Rosa city schools at the end of Ridley. Um, There is a pastor. It's kind of a trail with a ballard in it. Um, which I'm thinking people could probably, I don't know if it's sanctioned or not, but passed through and go to Northwest community park, Comstock middle school. And for Pete's sake, playing field. So I would like to know what the, I would like to know what the school district plans to keep that available for these residents or other people to. To continue to use as I assume they're using. I think for me, thanks. Thanks Sheila. So, um, A couple of the, I would, I would say, uh, Susie, if you could hold the, the planning questions. I think the question about the, uh, The finish board, let's kick that back to the applicant. Cause I think that's fairly quick and the balcony. And then, uh, we'll circle back on the, the planning, The department questions. So applicant probably Keith. The architect. So the balconies are in the five and a half to six foot deep range. If that answers that question. And then what was the other, I didn't catch the second question about the, So I think what Sheila's referring to is there's two versions of a sheet, a 7.1 in the, the, the drawing package. One has your charcoal blue and ivory lace color palette. Another one has, uh, Intellectual gray, fiery brown and artichoke. I'm, I'm ha, I have a feeling that the second one is perhaps a previous color scheme that you guys are moving away from. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I think we didn't have, we pulled it out of the presentation, but didn't take it out of the set. So apologize. But yeah. The blue color for the sighting is the correct board. Perfect. Yeah. So we'll just disregard that secondary a 7.1. Sounds like. Okay. And then a kick it back to Susie. It sounded like there was a question on. Frontage improvement. And then the. The walkway to the. From school kind of thing. Right. Sheila. Okay. Yeah. And unfortunately, I don't have clear answers for you. I know that they will have some frontage improvements and I suspect that we'll be able to use that. That pathway, but the baller just keeps vehicles off it. But I didn't staff has done no analysis on this. And without hearing from public works and. And engineering development services. I don't know the answer. But I will. I think that's good. I mean, you know, I think it's, it's good that she'll ask those and that, you know, maybe as the applicant moves forward with the city, you know, when we see this again, maybe those questions will be answered and we'll know exactly what the frontage improvements are. And if there's a connectivity component available as well. So, cool. Warren, do you have any questions? Of applicant or staff at this time? I do not. It's time. Perfect. All right. Cool. So then I think what I'd like to do now is I'd like to go to public comment. And so this isn't a hearing, a public hearing. So we just, we, as a courtesy, we like to open up. Public comment to members of the public wishing to speak on this project specifically.  So if you would have a desire to speak about this project, you'll have three minutes to speak. And the recording secretary will bring up the, the timer for us here in a minute. And then you'll get some instructions on getting unmuted and all that good stuff.  So it looks like we have one hand up right now. And so I'm going to turn it over to Michelle to coordinate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So 1715 Ridley app. You should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Yes, can you hear me? We can go ahead. Thanks. Okay. Tom Keegan. I own the property to the south. 1715 Ridley Avenue. So my. I'll start with my comment on the three story apartment building. I don't know where I'm locating this development on a residential cul-de-sac. Doesn't seem very appropriate. Even the recent developments that have been approved on Orangeville road. Where single family homes, residential units. I don't even know where is the. Nearest three story apartment building. design a three-story apartment building in a one- to two-story single-family cul-de-sac. It just seems like this type of development, like I said, would be more suited for Grimville Road or even the higher land use area surrounding the new smart station. Other comment would include the common kitchen. I think it would encourage events and parking not seeming to be adequate, so that would be another comment as the parking is not adequate. The white stucco appears to be too bright and intrusive. While it looks like they do have a sidewalk around the buildings on Ridley Avenue, the corner on the far north and far south, those corners are not showing sidewalks on their property, just like a little sliver. Should be sidewalks not only on those corners at Ridley, but frontage improvement including sidewalks all the way down Ridley to Grimville Road. That's the extent of my comments. Thank you. Thanks so much for your comments. We appreciate it. If anybody else wishes to speak, please raise your hand and we'll give you your three minutes. I'm not seeing any other hands at this time. Neither am I. That being said, do we have any voicemails on this project today? We did not receive any voicemails. Cool. Then we obviously the public correspondence that had been previously received is already part of the agenda packet and is part of public record. No additional late correspondence beyond that. That is correct. Awesome. Seeing no other raised hands and no additional public comment, we'll close public comment and we'll bring it back to the board for comments on the project. We'll start with Board Member Wolski for her comments on the project. Okay. I like it. I think the design is good. I like how the two-story elements with the board and batten, and then you have that step back to the third story that really breaks up the massing for me. Visually, I think it's a nice looking project. Within information about the balconies, I'm encouraged by that. That actually is a usable balcony where you can put a table out there and have some private outdoor space. That would be really important to me. I would like that the applicant has sprinkled the bicycle racks throughout the project site. I think that's important to have them in different locations because there are different buildings and different needs. One suggestion would be to put these in areas of high visibility. I know personally when I'm out on a bike, I want to be able to see my bike if I can from inside or know that other people have eyes on a bike. I don't know that they'd stop anyone from taking it, but it adds a layer of comfort. Regarding the applicant's presentation, I really appreciate that you're thinking about the tween, teen, younger adult range for the outdoor recreation slash gathering space. Unfortunately, I think that age range is kind of forgotten with these spaces and they do need something to do. I would encourage you for the shade structures that you're providing to make sure they actually provide shade and are not merely decorative because we know how hot it's been getting lately. So I think it provides something that provides useful shade. I think, yep, that's up for my comments. Thank you. Thanks, Sheila. So we'll go to board member Sharon now for his comments on the project. Thank you very much. Thanks for the presentations, Suzy and applicant. Thanks for bringing a pretty well thought out and extensive conceptual package for us to look at in this first go round. Appreciate that. Appreciate all the renderings. Appreciate the fleshed out plans also. Appreciate the fleshed out landscape plan in particular. And yes, just before I forget, I think that shade study is always a good thing to have. Glad that it was kind of brought up and also that you're going to be bringing that back this next go around, especially when we're getting into multi-story projects. To that end, I think this is a good project for the site and for the area. Do you like the density? Do you like the aspect of the housing that you're bringing in? And I do think that kind of nestled in the back here off of good road, it will be, I think that with the site that you have and how you're laying it out and how you're nestling it in amongst all the trees and trying to put it towards the center of the parcel, I think will, the three stores will not be oppressive for the area, I think it's going to work. And the density is definitely going to be an asset. I also like its context being so close to the school. This is really great. And as Sheila mentioned, it's great that you're thinking about those older kids and older students. I mean, we're right next to some great parks and some great schools and great amenities. Churches are right here. And so, yeah, I think that it's great that you're thinking about the families in particular and also all ages of the families. Thanks for bringing out older generations to your thinking of very young kids, older generations and the middle kids too. I guess kind of standard middle-aged adults and 20 and 30-year-olds were left out of the picture. So, oh well, we get everything else. But to get to the buildings themselves, I think Sheila did a great analysis and I agree with her comments and have nothing really to add there. As far as the layout of the site, I think one thing is kind of telling with your renderings, which I do appreciate, but you have them all kind of framed where almost half of the rendering is more than half and some of them is all asphalt.  But I think just in terms of communication in your project, maybe emphasize the building and the layout and the amenities a bit more and less of the roadways. And it'll communicate your purpose a little bit more succinctly, I think. I do, I really appreciate how the diagonal coming in from the northwest corner and coming into the site, in the middle of the site, and I appreciate how open the center of the site is. As I mentioned with emphasizing all of the age groups, it's really nice that you're making this, both some dense housing, but also really trying to get people out of their houses, out of their apartments and into the common spaces. You're going to creating a community here and creating a small neighborhood on site. And I think that your emphasis of kind of extra living rooms are really assets for your project. The courtyard, I agree with Sheila about adding shade partially because it's kind of a big swath of pavers and concrete. Potentially think about some ways to break that up and to provide some relief in that central courtyard area. One comment also is that you've got the central courtyard area towards the south of the site and open to the south and a lot of the exposure and then the community garden, which is where a lot of the vegetables and plants will be growing is up in the northern corner, kind of tucked away behind building A to the north side of that. So talking about shadows, shadows on vegetable plots is not great for vegetable plots. I do think you're going to get plenty of light from the west, but just kind of thinking about that aspect a little bit. I really do like the strong diagonal gesture. I think that you're opening up your site very well. So the massing is nice. You've got the two strong arms with the central heart of your project there, where you're emphasizing multi-generational play and gathering. So really great there. Some relief though in that central courtyard area would be nice, maybe planters, maybe cutouts, maybe some more trees, something like that. I do think that the public comment about that tiny little sliver of sidewalk to the north denture was just kind of overlooked up there. I'm thinking it would be good to add something there. I could see that northern access to the pathway, which hopefully will stay open and accessible. I could see that being pretty well used, access to fields, access to parks. So I think that emphasizing that and having that gesture of to the neighbors and to that northern access will be really great. So adding that little piece of sidewalk, continue as much there. One of these things with these somewhat patchwork developments is that in city versus county land, is that you have sidewalks to nowhere. And so as much as we can avoid that as possible is great. And is definitely being a good neighbor. So yeah, I will be curious to see how this evolves. Through your process, I think this is a great start. And thank you for bringing this and thank you for doing this in this area. So thanks so much. That's my comments. Thanks, Adam. And I'd like to welcome Board Member Wicks for joining us. It sounds like he had some technical issues that were causing him a problem. So we're circling back right now. We're looking to see if you can comment on this project you may not be able to since you weren't available. This concept, but we'll see, we'll wait and see at the end here. So we'll just keep rolling through, but I did wanna welcome him. So now we have a full board, which is great. And so we'll go to Board Member McHugh now for his comments. Thank you very much, Drew. I appreciate that. I like the project. I like the design. I like the palette. I thus far endorse the comments of my fellow Board members. I think that they're reasonable and appropriate. And I don't really have any questions beyond or comments beyond that thus far. Maybe something will come up that will pique my interest, but thus far, I'm fine. Cool. Thanks, John. So we'll go to Vice Chair Hedgefeth.  Thank you. Chairman Weigel? Yes, I'm looking at this project. I thought for many decades, this 8 to 18 density has been a rally the city put together way back in 1996 between greenhouse gases and making land efficient. And as delicate as it is with neighborhoods, the desire to have this 8 to 18 acre fulfill the measure of land efficiency. I've always been a supporter of that. What's wonderful between landscaping and building here, I think it fits well. I really appreciate the deep overhangs. I know that with the fire department, it's a bit formulaic, but I understand the parapet heights. And I think it's a handsome way to create heart despite code. I wanna use again the word belonging. We've been talking about this. All Board members have been commenting that the developers mindful of different age groups and longevity, I like that a lot. Maybe the light is a little stark. It could be toned down a bit. I'm not so much a big fan of the red or the avocado, but it's a project in my book that is benign. I wanted to source Adam's comment, that I look at the hardscape here and it does seem kind of harsh in the aerial photo that a lot of you have the A6.0. I think that it could be kind of warm around the kids playground. Maybe some trees, those who wanna see that A6.0 kind of shares with us. The landscaping is robust. It's wonderful. But right in the center courtyard, a few trees that maybe are wistful and wonderful that could give shade would be kind of fun. I'm also an advocate. As we look at these projects, we look at parking and where trees are. I appreciate the hand that we're not really looking at every six cars finger orchard parking. What's done is that there's an array of landscaping around the perimeter. And there are some trees, but it's a huge deluge of plants, otherwise. So I'm okay with some of these stretches of parking not necessarily having a tree at a specific point. Touching this whole subject as these projects get dense in Sousa, I know we don't have a sillier, there's a threshold point where underground storage tanks become a trigger. As you, as the scapes go harder and harder and harder, you just gotta under tank it. It's not wickedly more expensive, but carefully said to Adam's comment, if you kind of percolate the hardscape around that shade structure, instead of I'm still troubled with Courtauld Square. It's very maintenance-free, but it's hungry. So I'm open to percolating that here and there. I think really other than that, they even mentioned signage, it's thorough. I don't mind the sign as it is. I know, Michael, this is your lane, not mine, but the idea of the sign, how that comes in, and it's monument-based, it seems like something firefighters and distant family could alike find familiarity with. That's it. I feel like I skipped Michael. Did I skip Michael? You may have. We'll go to Michael Burch now for his comments. Great, yeah, my comments really reflect board members across the way here. Compliments on the presentation. When we are given this much detail and great renderings as well, and a good presentation that outlines the concept and thoughts behind the design, it's really helpful. I love the, I do really like the simple suburban roofline like three stories. I think that's gonna really soften views from a bit of a distance. I love the way that then there's some contemporary forms that break down what could otherwise be stretches of, and I know these contemporary forms are part of modern farmhouse, but I feel like these might even be just a little bit exaggerated, and they really lend to what I think the project is gonna look like as you circulate around it, and it's a really nice example of having a couple of different forms that don't bump into each other. They really complement one another. I would agree, and I had the same comment as Warren. It was kind of a courthouse square comment about the interior. I think we're all responding a little bit, and the rendering is probably geared towards showing the architecture as much as anything, but I do think looking at the landscape plan, we could just, I would say cool that down a little bit, right, eventually with some shade on sidewalks and that sort of thing. Other than that, be sure to bring a design for trash enclosure next time. Drew, I probably stole your thunder there. Just make sure you hit the checklist. But other than that, I think this is a really good project. We do need the housing, the affordable housing in this area. This is an area that's a bit underserved. The more we can move east with affordable housing and the more that we can really find these areas that are not getting this level of interest in terms of having these projects built, it's really important. I've said several times every neighborhood in Santa Rosa needs to have this element of housing, affordable, or an opportunity for families who are not owning homes to live, and that should be across the board in every neighborhood. And I think this is a nice addition to this neighborhood. So that's my planner's hat to some degree, but no, very supportive. Looking forward to seeing this as a public hearing and we'll see what you got when you come back. Thanks, Michael. So yeah, my comments would mirror pretty much everybody else. I would further reinforce the, there's a lot of concrete in between the North edge of those couple of little spots and the Tot lot and some variation in the materiality of the hardscape, I think would go a long way. I think it also might help you define the activity zones in that area. As you've defined it with furniture and other pieces, like you'd certainly define the activity areas by a change in hardscape, whatever that may be, maybe it's some poured rubber or something in some of the areas or some color, that could be fun. I should have asked this question earlier and I apologize. The Northwest corner feels a little forgotten to me in terms of just cause it's a funky, it's a funky little at the Northwest corner there, which, you know, you don't have parking going into it, you just kind of added some planting there. And I wonder if that might be an opportunity to do something else, whatever that may be. Seems like it might be big enough for like maybe a half basketball court or something. I don't know. So I would encourage you guys to look at that and see what that might become. So that's my only comment beyond what we've heard. I do wanna circle back on something we heard from the public, and I think this is kind of important from an educational standpoint. So when we talk about density and the way that projects are zoned from a land use perspective, unfortunately that is not our purview, right? So if there's a density for a particular site that's governed by the zoning code, and so Warren alluded to this, that 813, it's actually 813 I think for this parcel, which is medium density residential, which means you could build eight to 13 units per acre. And so, you know, it's up to the design team that gets one of these projects from a developer or whomever to determine how best to utilize the site, utilizing the density contained within the zoning code. And so that I think is, you know, obviously that's where the three stories is coming from in terms of how that's been translated from the zoning code into actuality. And I think the struggle with land use is figuring out how to meet the density that's defined with the zoning code with without potentially like applying for a zoning variance or a zoning change. And then also providing all the amenities and things required for that level of zoning like parking and exterior space and kind of all those elements. So I think, so to bring this full circle, you know, the applicant could have done lower buildings, spaced more evenly on the site, but then they would have perhaps created a parking issue. They could have done less density, but then there's not as much housing to house people, right? So they're not fully building out property as best they could. I think that's just something that is important to mention. I know sometimes it's stark to look at a three-story building and say, well, that's not what's next to me. You know, that's not what's here. There's only one story development around here. So stories I think are sometimes hard to talk about, but it's really nice when you have a project that addresses the massing and the form and so you don't feel necessarily as large as it could be. You know, they could have done, you know, just square boxes that felt very institutional, three stories that would feel very monolithic that I think would not have fit within the context, but there's a lot of vernacular happening here that would match what's in the neighborhood adjacent. So that would be my comments on that. So Henry, I'm told by staff that if you would like to comment on the project, you are more than welcome to. If you have been following along since the initial presentations, if you are uncomfortable commenting, you may recuse yourself due to technical issues. So it's up to you. I thank you very much. And I apologize about technical difficulties on my end. And after we're done with this meeting, I'll be trying to put a laptop back together that got tossed across the room. But before it got tossed, I got to hear pretty much everybody's comments. I got to hear Susie's presentation. So I feel comfortable. And actually, before I give my comment, I just sitting on the other side of the fence for a second and being in the audience, I thought, man, this designer view board's pretty good. This guy's got a lot of good comments going on. So that segues into saying that I would support all of my board members' comments that came before me. And I looked at the project a few days ago and that court-centered portion of it with that much paving was gonna be my only little nit on it and try to soften that with either some sort of permeable solution or just echo Warren's comments and where he was going with that. I like the stark white color, but it could be softened a little bit too. It could be a creamier white. I mean, we get hung up on whites then we can talk about them until sunset. But I think it's a nice, very handsome project. I look forward to it coming back to us as Mr. Birch, or board member Birch said, make sure all the boxes are checked so we can push it along fairly quickly and fairly smoothly and good luck. Good luck bringing it back to us and we'll look forward to seeing it in the future. Cool. Thanks for your comments, Henry. Did anybody have any final thoughts before we kind of move on? I know sometimes when the comments are happening you get a little light bulb in the head, Warren? Yeah, real quickly. I think it's informative since Henry picked up on it. Well, as a board, we're certainly disposed to look at land use. Yes, it's architecture, it's site planning and one of the fascinating things in history about density and about our city, we're constantly talking about traffic and neighbors and the concern for cars. In 1979, Governor Brown, this is Jerry Brown's pop, his father signed a bill for transportation. It was a sweeping statewide bill post-OPEC to look and study transportation along with density. That seems like yesterday. That's a long time ago. But the presence of mind here is that as we build these projects more and more dense, I see the day when we can have alternatives to cars getting people about, we have bus stops, maybe the day will come, we're gonna get enough critical mass, we're gonna hear perhaps a softening of car complaints over the years and the city will progress and blossom into livability, place making that isn't so car-centric. And that's the whole reason that Edmund Brown in 1979 on your next quiz came up with all this. If further, the one quick thought, we could put on the pavement, if it's not a fire EVA, the actual cute little entry court that's asphalt, if that isn't fire needed and fires can circulate the building, that could be perhaps a turf block world, or a further greening of that area. Thanks, Warren. Anybody else? Cool, so not seeing any other comments. We'll close this item. I wanna thank the applicant for coming before us. We look forward to seeing you again. And so we'll move on to item 9.2, but before we do so, I have been asked that we have a five minute recess by staff so they can get reset and stuff. And then Warren is gonna not come back after the recess. So have a great weekend, Warren. And so that being said, let's try to get back at 546 right now. So five minute recess. Thanks. Okay, it's about that time. I think we need to start coming back and turn in our things on. And then either Michelle or host, it looks like Warren didn't effectively leave the meeting. Is there a way for him to be kicked out or? Yes, I can remove him. Perfect, thanks so much. Yeah, I noticed that he was still kind of like in the meeting. Okay, so I'd like to reconvene the meeting and we'll move on to item 9.2. And I believe there's a small error because there's a secret determination and a resolution, we do have to disclose ex parte communication. Is that correct, Amy? I know it doesn't have the little asterisk next to it on the agenda, but I wanted to confirm that. Yeah, you're correct. Okay, cool, perfect. All right, so that being said, we're gonna move forward with item 9.2, Stony Point Flats Apartments, addendum to EIR Designer Review Minor 2268, Stony Point Road DR 21-023. And so since I just brought up ex parte communication, has any member of the board had any ex parte communication about this project? Okay, well, there you go. Nobody had any ex parte communication, so that's easy. So I did wanna mention something before we go to the staff presentation. I did mention it just now. So we have two resolutions on this project tonight. The first resolution is we have to make a secret determination, which is an addendum to an existing EIR, which was conducted in, I believe, 2016. So that is item number one, so we'll do that first before we kinda do the questions and comments on the project component. And then resolution number two is going to be, obviously our regular designer view process for this, which would be, and I think that's correct. Amy, do you wanna correct me if I got something wrong? Sure, I think what might work well is for staff to give the presentation and then the applicant to do so. And then questions and then public comments. And then I think comments can be provided by board members after you move the resolution for minor design review, but you will move the resolution for the EIR addendum first. And then after that is moved, you can go into the comments on the actual design and entertain the motion for approval. And I'm not sure if this is previously mentioned, but this is a public hearing for minor design review. Correct, yeah, that's why I brought up the X-part, I think, because that public hearings require a little bit different elements. Perfect, thanks, Amy. So yeah, I just, I wanted to preface this because there were a couple of moving parts and pieces for the board tonight. We haven't done a secret determination in a while. I can't remember the last time I did one, probably three, four years ago. So anyway, so we'll turn it over to I think Project Planner McKay, Connor McKay, to give the staff presentation. Hey, thank you, Chair Weigel and members of the design review board. Thank you for your patience. Let me get my slides up here. One moment, I apologize. All right, can you hear me and see my slides? Yes, we can. So we've got slides and we can hear you. Perfect, thank you so much. All right, yeah. Thank you, Chair Weigel, members of the board. My name is Connor McKay City Planner and I'm happy to be here this evening to present the Stony Point Flats Project for Minor Design Review to the Design Review Board. The project is located at 2268 Stony Point Road. So the project proposes to construct a new 50 unit affordable multifamily development on a 2.9 acre parcel with existing residential and agriculture development. The project includes the construction of bike storage, laundry facilities, tech center, fitness facilities and playground facilities. Solar panels will be installed on top of the two residential, of the main residential structures which will allow the project to operate at net zero energy in accordance with Title 24. So a bit of project history and what's something that is not mentioned on this slide is actually the project was first introduced to staff in September of 2020 at a pre-application development review meeting and the applicant team has been in consultation with the city about this project since that date. I believe the date was September 8th, 2020. And as you can see, there have been a few different public meetings about this project and the project has received various comments from the Design Review Board and Waterways Advisory Committee who provided advisory comments at each of their respective public meetings. I will defer to the applicant to describe how the project has changed over the course of these meetings and how they incorporated the feedback received at these meetings into the final project design. The proposed project is, sorry, we did receive a public comment regarding the processing, the overall processing of this project that it was kind of rushed through and I wanted to reiterate that the proposed project is a 100% affordable and is therefore receiving a priority review status in line with city council goals. This, the overall timeframe of this project is consistent with a prioritized review status. So as we are familiar, the project is located in the southwest quadrant of the city of Santa Rosa, along Stony Point Road and adjacent to Roseland Creek. So for zoning context, the subject property is located in the R318 zoning district. In this district, multifamily housing is allowed by right. The subject property has a split general plan land use designation of medium density residential and low density residential. Based on density calculation, the general plan allows for 49.76 units, which is required to be rounded down to 49 by our zoning code. However, the project is eligible for a density bonus as described in attachment nine of your meeting packet. The general plan also includes figure 7.2, which identifies the project area as an area where sensitive species might be present. As part of the project's environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA, a site specific biological resources assessment was prepared that analyzes impacts to the habitat of species identified in a Santa Rosa Plain conservation strategy. The analysis concludes that California Tiger Salamander, Western Pond Tunnel and Western Bumble Bee would be potentially impacted. The analysis concludes that the Western Bumble Bee would not experience loss of habitat. The Western Pond Tunnel would be protected by required construction site protections and that CTS is not present and there's no potential of loss of CTS habitat. Consistent with the Roseland area, Sebastopol Road specific plan environmental impact report or EIR and the project proposal, any required mitigation would be completed prior to issuance of building permit for ground disturbing activity or construction. The project is also required to consult with California Department of Fish and Wildlife prior to issuance of such building permits. So here we have some aerial renderings of the proposed development and I will defer discussion of the architectural details and things of that nature to the applicant team. Just for clarification sake, the above elevation shown on this slide is in fact the rear elevation, but it is not labeled. Here we have the proposed site plan. We did receive a public comment regarding site access and a concern about inadequate emergency access. So the project has been reviewed and provided with conditions of approval by the Santa Rosa Fire Department. We also received a question or a comment about the amount of hardscape that was proposed with the project and this site plan is actually a redesign of the original site plan and it actually reduces the hardscape by a considerable amount. I will defer the exact reduction to the applicant team in their presentation to follow mine. Here we have the conceptual landscape plan. I will also defer to the applicant team to talk about this in more detail. However, I will note that the, there is an existing eucalyptus tree on site that the community has expressed is very valuable for the local ecology and just overall aesthetic of the site. And in response to this concern, the applicant team has elected to maintain that in place. Additionally, there is hedging, hedge landscaping proposed along the northern boundary of the parking lot to reduce the potential light impacts from headlights in the parking lot area. So like I mentioned earlier, the project is located adjacent to Rosalind Creek. The citywide Creek master plan identifies this portion of Rosalind Creek as reach number three. And it also identifies reach number three as a modified natural creek or a channelized waterway. So according to zoning code section 203040, Creek site development adjacent to channelized waterways, structures can encroach on a required creek site setback where the parcel is owned or operated by the Sonoma County Water Agency. And the project would not obstruct or impair the channel's hydraulic functions, impede water agency access or maintenance or impair the stability of the slope bank or maintenance of the channel or impair the stability of the slope bank or creek bed fountain, all as determined and approved by the Planning and Economic Development Department and the Sonoma County Water Agency and the Santa Rosa Department of Public Works. We have received, we have received determinations from Planning and Economic Development and Public Works and we have received comments from the Sonoma County Water Agency that would not preclude the project's development. This slide shows the existing FEMA floodplain and delineated wetlands that were identified during the project's environmental review. So the current proposal is actually to bring the site out of the floodplain by introducing fill to the project site. I will, I know the applicant is gonna discuss this more because another part of this is that the applicant is currently in consultation with FEMA to adjust the FEMA floodplain. And if this, if this adjustment is approved then no fill would be needed, would need to be introduced to the project site to raise it out of the floodplain. It would just be out of the floodplain without the fill. And then here are some slides of several sections along Rosalind Creek providing us the cross section showing the centerline, the creek path, top of bank, proposed retaining walls, the property line and location of buildings. I'll just flip through these slides. So we also received a public comment requesting continuance of this item tonight. So after a project, I just wanted to respond. So after project is agendized, the planning division can only request or recommend continuance of a scheduled meeting item to the review authority. Is the purview of that review authority to decide to review as scheduled or continue an agendized meeting item? When making such a request, planning considers if new information has been presented for review. In this case, no new information has been provided that planning feels warrants a request or recommendation for continuance at this time. Planning is proceeding with the following recommendation with modifications to the projects exhibit A. So with that, the planning and economic development department recommends by two resolutions, approving the minor design review and approving the addendum to the Rosalind area's Sebastopol Road specific plan EIR. And I will now present the modifications of the exhibit A. I'm gonna do a quick stop share to make it hopefully as clean as possible. Cool. All right. So this is the modified exhibit A. The first thing that we change is the date because we wanted to update that. And then the fourth condition as listed in the packet that the exhibit A that was included in the packet you received is being striked. The project is not subject to approval by the Waterways Advisory Committee. Condition two, the project under public easement dedication. The project shall dedicate on-site public right of way and easements necessary to complete the Rosalind area's Sebastopol Road specific plan mandated extension of North Point Parkway to the satisfaction of the city engineer prior to approval of the encroachment permit. The future North Point right of way and easement dedication shall include a public utility easement for PUE to the satisfaction of the city engineer in consultation with the city traffic engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for any structure to be built on the project site or as otherwise determined by the city engineer. A new condition has been added under the section, the public easement dedication section. The applicant shall dedicate land to the Sonoma County Water Agency near the Southeast corner of the project site as indicated on the site plan and in compliance with the citywide Creek master plan Rosalind Creek reach three Rosalind Creek from Stony Point Road to Ludwig Avenue and to the satisfaction of the city engineer in consultation with the Sonoma County Water Agency prior to occupancy of any structure to be built on the project site or as otherwise determined by the city engineer. So we have struck this section B from this condition under fire. So this 80 under the fire section, 83B has been struck from this exhibit A and the addition is any proposed buildings that exceed 30 feet as measured to the highest point of the eve of a pitched roof, the intersection of the roof to the exterior wall or the top of parapet wall shall provide aerial access as approved by the fire code official in accordance with CFC section D105. Current planning documents for the proposed building show that the highest point is at 29.6 feet and I believe that is all of the modifications to the exhibit A that was submitted in your packet. Cool, so Connor slash Amy. So what we'll need to do is when we vote on the resolution we'll have to reference the changes as presented by Planner McKay, is that correct? Instead of trying to read them out, do that whole business, yeah, okay. Yeah, that's correct. Perfect, all right. So I think the other just quick question before we go to kind of public, I think we should go to public comment first. Well, the applicant actually has a presentation. Sorry, applicant president, sorry, you're right. Yeah, it's been a long day for me already. Oh no, no worries. So, but I think the other question I have is of staff real quick to just briefly tell everybody that the existence of the current EIR and then the addendum component, just real brief and how that all kind of ties together with the CEQA process just quickly. Yeah, so yeah, so the Roseland areas, basketball road specific plan EIR was adopted alongside the specific plan itself and it contains mitigation measures and such and the addendum was prepared to account for the environmental impact of that one additional unit that was not planned for by the general plan. So the addendum was prepared to analyze that impact and if Amy you wanna fill in anything that I missed that would be great. Sure, thanks Connor. I think I would just add that because there is a certified environmental impact report for this project site and area, we are in compliance with the CEQA guidelines by having prepared an addendum, which like Connor mentioned is really just looking at the change from what was analyzed in that EIR. So that's one unit. So you'll notice in the addendum, it includes the conclusions of the specific plan EIR and then it also has a section which is specific to the project itself and talks about that change or that increase of one unit. And then the addendum also includes a number of technical studies which are specific to this project site and also the mitigation measures which are applicable from the certified EIR that we have. Cool, thanks Amy. So I wanna make one other thing kind of I think a parent for the board. So the certified EIR, that was approved certified in 2016, 2017, right? Contained 49 units to be placed on this site. Is that correct? Like within that EIR? So that's what was contained within the area. So it went through the full process at that time for 49 units to be constructed specifically on this site. And then the applicant is proposing one more unit to get to 50. And that's what created the addendum to the EIR to analyze if that one unit would make a significant impact on the site requiring additional mitigation measures beyond what was contained within the certified EIR. Is that correct? In a nutshell? Yes, and so addendums can only be prepared in specific circumstances. So if the change is minor and like you mentioned, it doesn't increase any of the impact or it doesn't result in a more significant impact that was previously analyzed in the EIR. Cool, yeah, I think that's important for the board to keep in mind, right? Cause we haven't done a sequel determination in a while and the fact that there's an existing EIR and then this is an addendum. So it's a little bit of a different spin, I think, on EIRs that at least I've done as a member of the board. I just wanna make sure everybody understands that there's an existing document in place. There's this addendum, which is really just to evaluate the one additional unit. And then obviously provide guidance and technical studies about how to mitigate the entire project as part of that addendum and also contained in the original certified EIR. Cause I think when we had this concept, the city was still in the process of reviewing all the documentation. And I know that members of the public had a lot of comments and questions about at what point is the project in the sequel process, all those types of things. So I just wanted to make sure that both the board and the public understand that this is where we are in the process now, right? There's an item up for a vote for a CEQA determination and which is the addendum to a certified EIR, an already in existence certified EIR for the project site. So just wanna make sure that, cause it is new information for a lot of folks and I know it's new information for the board, just to make sure that we're fully understanding the scope of what's required of us for the determination. So. Thank you for that, Chair. Appreciate it. Thanks. CEQA stuff is always complicated and in my line of work too, I know we've done a number of entitlements with CEQA processes and it can get very complex. So that being said, I think we should turn it over to the applicant for their applicant presentation and we'll go from there. So an applicant team, if you could raise your hands so the recording secretary can identify you and give you permissions to speak. That would be great. And then please also introduce yourself when you begin speaking. So we know who you are. Thank you, Chair and thank you to the members of the board. My name is Phil Wood. I'm the president of integrity housing, co-developer of this project. Connor, if you could go to the next slide, joined tonight by my co-developers, Phoenix Development, and also joined by project design team members, KTGY Keith Labus, who is our project architect, Dennis Dalby of civil design consultants, who is the project civil engineer, Justin Heacock with JJH Landscape Architects, the project's landscape architect, and Laurie Minaris and Christine Fukusawa from DUDEC who have done all of the environmental review and analysis on the project. Next slide, please. I'll try to keep this brief out of respect for everybody's time and not rehash too much of Connor's presentation. From a high level, Stony Point Flats at 2268 Stony Point Road will provide 50 new homes for households earning between 30 and 60% of the area median income. The project would contain 12 one bedroom units, 24 two bedroom units, 14 to three bedroom units. The zoning code standard for affordable multifamily residential would require this project to have 88 parking spaces. We have felt that parking is both an amenity to the project as well as an amenity to the neighborhood and felt we needed to make the effort to maximize the amount of onsite parking that we could so the project will contain 97 parking spaces. Next slide, please. We've seen the site plan here, 2.9 acre parcel. I did want to point out the revised project here, and we'll go further later in the presentation into the revisions. The revised project has moved the two larger residential buildings further towards Stony Point Road. And so of the 2.9 acre parcel, the project will now be developed on two acres, leaving 0.9 acres undisturbed as undisturbed area and also for the future North Point Parkway extension. Next slide, please. As Connor did point out as well, and I know I promised not to rehash too much, so I will jump through this. The project has filed a density bonus application since our last time before the board. We talked about the maximum density allowable in place of 49.74 units and that the zoning code requires this to be rounded down. The density bonus ordinance then requires the density to be rounded up. So that gets us to our proposed 50 units. We have not asked for any additional density units or any variance requests to the building standard code in connection with our density bonus application. Next slide, please. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to Keith Labus from KTGY, talk about some of the changes to the site plan and the elevations and also on the design intent. Thanks, Phil. So the slide you see here has the prior site plan that you reviewed the last time before the board and then the site below is the new site plan. As Phil mentioned, previously we had the two large three-story residential buildings. They were both building C and D. Building B was a two-story building which had laundry, bike storage, restrooms, pool equipment and some maintenance underneath two residential units on the second floor and then a one-story building A at the front. After listening to comments and about the amount of heartscape on the site as well as concerns over having a pool when we are in a tough time as far as water is concerned, we made some revisions to the site. We eliminated the pool which allowed us to eliminate some of the uses on the ground floor of Building B. So then we took the units that were on top of Building B, moved them on top of Building A which is now a two-story building and shifted all of the two large buildings towards the street. We also eliminated the vehicular gate which allowed, freed up a lot of space to take all the parking and bring it down with it closer to Stony Point which basically allowed us to create the same density with less development on the site. Again, the narrowness of the site really kind of drove the design and the layout of the site. We've got fire approval on this which is essentially this straight dry vial in the east and west direction with a hammerhead in the middle of the site between the two-three-story buildings and that's the most efficient way to lay this out. We've got the buildings B and C are narrower in order to fit and respect the setbacks to the creek and then we still have the, we maintain the playground and the sport court between Building B and Building A. Next slide, please. And then here's a before and after. The top right was the project you saw before. Bottom is the, as proposed, I think a lot of the comments revolved around color and so we, and the brown, our brown color was on the before so we lightened up and had grayed out the main body colors there with the pitched roof elements, maintained the color punch on the ends in the middle, but we did switch it to a harder panel instead of a vertical siding. And right now the gray panels are still hardy horizontal, hardy siding. The areas above the entries, which are indicated the lighter color, which have the shed roof underneath them, a hardy panel and then hardy panel in the accent color green on the side. Much like the project we discussed before this, a lot of the in the massing was driven by fire access and what we could and couldn't do on the site, but in the similar fashion we see, it's a mixture of flat and pitched roof and what we've kind of looked at is sort of a kind of a modern agrarian look. It doesn't show complete in this view, but we've got those angled brackets at the shed roofs that lead up to the entries and stairs to these buildings and those are also carried through to the wreck building at the front of the site. Next slide, please. Then Phil, if you wanna go through with these. Yeah, thank you, Keith. You know, in addition, some of the project revisions, hardscape was absolutely a concern that was heard. The revised site plan now leaves 1.56 acres, which is nearly 60% of the project site as pervious surface. So that will allow for the absorption of stormwater into the ground aquifers. Additionally, perimeter fencing was, we heard a lot on both sides of it. We had requests for more fencing, requests for walls. We had requests to remove the fencing. In the end, we decided that it was best for the project to remove the fencing. The site entrance itself does not have a vehicle gate. And so really any security fence, any fencing around the perimeter at that point is not adding any security to the site. We felt that the aesthetic was better, both for the surrounding areas, but also on the creek edge of the property to remove the fencing itself, create a landscape barrier on the southern property, you know, full of the native plant pallets, and then add the hedge buffer to the northern property line. Next slide, that hedge on the northern property line, I would point out, we will plant it with mature hedge from day one. And the purpose of that really is to screen any light emissions from the headlights of cars parked and pointed to the north. From a sound standpoint, we had conducted a sound analysis and any noise associated with activity in the parking lot was found to be at the same levels of the ambient noise of the neighborhood. Next slide, please. At this point, I'm going to turn it over to Justin Heacock to talk about the landscape design. Thank you. Okay, Justin Heacock. And just in general, this has been reviewed before, but the landscape design and plant palette for Stoney Point was prepared in close consideration with the adjacent Roseland Creek Trail, the prepared biological resource assessment reports, community outreach, green building and the Santa Rosa Landscape Design Standards. We mentioned the amenity area at the east of the community building is designed to be a hub for the residents of varying ages with the Todd Law, half basketball court and patio with barbecues. The design intent is to embrace the context of the site, namely the Roseland Creek by introducing mostly native, California native and native compatible plant material that are both attractive and have low water use designations to satisfy the landscape ordinance that the state has enacted. Specific plants were selected to promote habitat generation for Western Bumblebee and various indigenous fowl. The proposed bioretention phases of the North and South perimeters of the site will be planted to look natural and blend in with the surroundings. Proposed interpretive garden, which is to the east of the terminus of the walkways that go past building B is designed with seating and will showcase many of the native plants utilized throughout the site to promote education and understanding of the site context for residents and guests. Some sort of informative play card system identifying genius and species of each showcase plant may be implemented to help educate the residents of their surroundings. Large portion of the site, as you can see has been left unimproved which will also maintain existing wildlife moving corridors that have been outlined in the resource reports. Evergreen Hedge that was mentioned is intended to be an instant screen for the headlights and lights that would shine out to the north of the property and closing implementation of these elements are intended to create an attractive and sustainable landscape design that complements the project architecture and the community at large. That is all. Next slide please. Thank you, Justin. One final update on the project. As Connor mentioned, the project currently sits below the FEMA 100 year floodplain elevation. The site has been designed in its current state to bring the finished floor of the buildings up above that floodplain. In our work with our hydrologist, it was discovered that during the Stony Point Road improvements, an additional culvert was actually added to the point where the creek flows under Stony Point Road. And so this will allow additional capacity for water to flow under the road. It's believed at this point after researching the calculations and the map data that was used in the engineering for the Stony Point Road project that the 100 year flood event would now likely be completely contained within the creek itself. Really important to note that should that finding be realized, the project team will be filing a letter of map revision on the city's behalf with FEMA. Nothing to the project changes with the exception of the elevation of the site will come down because it will no longer, it will no longer need to be as high as it is in the current gradient plan. The site plan itself does not change, no aspects of the residential or the amenity building itself changes at all. Simply the vertical elevation of the project. Next slide, easy one. Thank you very much. Our development team is here to answer any questions that might be helpful. Thanks so much for that presentation. So I think, oh my, if memory serves, when we saw this for concept back in June, I think, there were a number of members of the public that had lots of comments. So I think based on that, I'd like to go to public, I'd like to open the public hearing first before we ask any questions of staff. That way, if questions come up from the public that pique our interests in terms of question of staff or applicant, we can incorporate that in our questions and hopefully get some answers back to the public through that process. So if everybody's okay with that, if everybody's okay with that, thumbs up. Okay, so saying that, I'd like to open the public hearing now. And so obviously this is similar to when we would do concept review, however, it's a public hearing. So you have three minutes and three minutes only, no additional extensions or otherwise. If there are two people, kind of like on one Zoom account, that's okay as long as they're two independent folks speaking and stating their names independently. So please, if there's an additional person watching it together and you're on one computer, please let us know ahead of time before you start speaking, because then that way we'll grant the three minutes to that same account as it's showing up within the participant list. And so that all being said, we do have hands raised. And so I'm gonna turn it over to the recording secretary to manage that in the order with which they hands were raised and she'll give you instructions on how to speak and all that good stuff. And so we await your comments. So thanks. Steven, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute yourself. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. My name is Steven Hunter. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, thank you everybody. Just to let you know some people had a parent teacher back to school night conflict tonight. So not everybody was able to make it that wanted to be here. But I just wanted to say that I've been trying to reach out to the city councilman, Eddie for, I don't know, a couple of months now. And I think his schedule just opened up. I literally just got an email from him today saying that he has some time on his schedule. So I would like to discuss some of my concerns with this project directly with him and then maybe have him be a mediator between me and the rest of the city of Santa Rosa. Again, as I said on the last meeting, this project has a petition that's been going around the neighborhood with over 150 signatures. There's a lot of public concern, but the public hasn't had the opportunity to talk to their city councilman yet just because I think his schedule was so busy. Now I'm just gonna hit a couple of my concerns. These aren't necessarily all of my concerns, but this is just looking at a Google Earth map and drawing a radius within a quarter mile. This is the fifth one of these type of affordable housing projects. So within a quarter mile, this is the fifth one. And I think that the density of these subsidized housing within this tight area is extreme. I think you're surpassing a limit here. But I'd like to speak about that with Eddie. And just, I couldn't say it last time, but I wanted to mention about the drainage. The proposed drainage, as far as I could tell, was all to be routed to an existing 24-inch culvert. I do not believe that's adequate. The culvert is existing. It's already in use for other things. And like I said at last meeting, the ladies property just north of this proposed project is already tied into that culvert and her property has been flooding. I also wanted to say that if the plan is going to be for the North Point Parkway extension is going to be as shown on these maps, the eucalyptus tree that was discussed as being preserved will not be preserved because the North Point Parkway, as shown on these drawings in the revised one, it conflicts with that and it looks like I'm out of time. But thank you, everybody. Thanks, Stephen, we appreciate your comments. So, Michelle, who's up next? Next, we have Ryan. Ryan, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute yourself now. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Yeah, hello, can everybody hear me? Yes, we can. My name is Ryan Schwab. First off, I'll say I had the job of digging through public record requests related to this project. Many of them delivered several months after the request, a notable Brown Act violation. I was, however, amazed at what internal correspondence I did uncover. There's mounds of evidence that this project is truly flawed, the proverbial square peg in a round hole. There are numerous flaws, but I will focus on the traffic and safety design flaws. It is imperative for the city to hold developers accountable despite the costs that are required to keep residents surrounding the property and future residents safe. The solid median running through Stony Point only allows right turns in and right turns out of the property, unsafe for this dense project. And Assistant Fire Marshal previously advised that there should be a break in the median to allow for increased access to the property. This fire marshal unfortunately left their job and instead of abiding by his valuable advice, this signaled the city and the developers to no longer require this break in the median. In other words, they saw it as a way of getting off easy despite future lives being at stake. The Band-Aid backup plan was to install a turn pocket south of the property at Pear Blossom to allow residents and emergency personnel traveling from the north to access the property via a U-turn. Without a median break or a turn pocket at Pear Blossom, there is no possible way to access the property from the north. Future residents would either weave through narrow side streets of Burbank Avenue to eventually access the property from the south or have to make illegal U-turns at Herne Avenue. Everybody knows that if a break in the median is not going to be installed, that this turn pocket allowing U-turns is absolutely necessary, even though still just a Band-Aid fix. Instead of making a median break or a turn pocket a condition for approval of the project, the traffic memorandum advised if a turn pocket is constructed, the positive effects it will have, but the turn pocket is still not a condition of the project. It appears the firm conducting the traffic studies essentially inserts what they were advised of in order to get this project through with as little drag and as little cost as possible. With the developers hoping the median break or turn pocket never comes to fruition. The shortcuts allowed for this project are ludicrous, putting developer profit over resident safety. I implore the DRB to carefully review this project further for shortcuts that put us all in jeopardy and not to make a decision today with the hazards presented. Thank you, Mr. Schwab for your comments. We'll move on to the next raised hand which it looks like is Aaron Reinberg maybe. So I'll turn it over to Michelle to handle the logistics. Yes, Aaron, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute. And if you could please start by stating your name for the record. Hi, this is Aaron Reinberg. I am against this project for several reasons. I agree with Ryan Schwab who just spoke about the traffic. That's a major concern for both current residents and the future residents of this property. We don't wanna see any accidents or emergencies that would jeopardize their lives. I also am strongly against not having any perimeter fencing for no other reason than to protect the future residents of this property. The city is refusing to address the housing, the homeless encampment that has sprawling across the creek right now that presents a direct threat to people living in this community and would allow them direct access into this community without sufficient fencing and barriers. The city really needs to address this issue to provide safety for everybody. And as a design point of this project, barriers should be in place even if they're small walls or fencing just to keep people safe. Additionally, not having fencing going into the creek I think of children possibly living in this property and heaven forbid that they run into the creek or anything else to get injured. It seems like a faulty liability on the part of the developer to not secure this area both from people coming in and for potential children getting injured if they wander out. I understand preserving open space and scenery and a scenic view but it needs to be done safely and that can be accomplished with fences and shrubbery and plantings. I would also like to see additional trees planted along the north and south ends of this property. The shrubbery is great, but more trees in there again to provide that good neighbor barrier and good neighbor fencing. I do appreciate the considerations that have been made and the revisions that have been made. I would not like to see any design changes per se if this project does move forward even though I'm against it. So I do ask that if it is approved, it's approved as is and no revisions to the design are made other than the fencing. We wanna keep it in line with that farm agricultural aesthetic for sure. I also worry about the flooding that Stephen mentioned and the still impact to wildlife in the area and any detriment from removed trees or infill to raise this property up. Thank you. I yield my time to Nicholas Reinberg. Thanks, Anne Reinberg, we appreciate that. We'll just, since Nick Reinberg appears to have his own time, he gets three minutes. So we'll let Michelle get him set up. Nick, you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please state your name for the record. Yeah, my name is Nick Reinberg. I live at 2225 Burbank Avenue and there's a couple of things that I'd like to say I'm against like my wife and the other members of the public have commented so far. I am also against this proposed construction and site. Couple of things here is there is a public records request violation, California Public Records Act violation in the amount of time that it took for records to be sent to Ryan Schwab. Additionally, a Brown Act violation for the EIR, for the addendum to the EIR not being posted to the agenda for today's hearing. And as such, this should be postponed to the next hearing date for the DBR. Furthermore, the CEQA addendum that it was proposed, it is the least robust, it takes the least amount of time and requires absolutely no notice or public outreach than any other type of EIR. So I would ask and respectfully request that a more robust and an actual EIR that is subject to public scrutiny is actually proposed such as a focused EIR for this specific plan. And I would also like to add on that in those public record requests, emails that Mr. Schwab pointed to it was even cities own staff also mentioned that regarding traffic that they were uncomfortable and would not submit that Burbank Avenue is a proper route in order to allow access into this because people coming from the north would essentially go down Burbank which is a designated scenic road and that's not meant for high volumes of traffic in order for them for people to access this property via Herne Avenue. Trying to think if there's anything else I wanna say. Like my wife, I agree that the overall building design is good and we do appreciate the efforts that the developers have made but not withstanding that there's still significant issues with this Rust project that need to be resolved prior to the DBR approving this project. That's pretty much all I have at the moment. Thank you so much, Mr. Reinberg. We appreciate that. So I'm not seeing any additional hands being raised at this time. So I just wanna, I do know, I noticed we do have a number of attendees, 27 it looks like. So I did wanna just ask one more time that there was any other member of the public that did wanna speak on this. If they could please raise their hand in the Zoom and that we could get their comments for the record. We'll let that go for a second here. I am seeing one other hand. It is Nick Reinberg. He is who just had three minutes. Yeah, that's correct. So unfortunately, Mr. Reinberg, we can't grant you additional time. I apologize. So seeing no other hands, I will ask, did we receive any voicemail that hasn't been either read into the record or agendized on this item? No, we have not. And then we received no further late correspondence or emails that haven't been shared or agendized at this time, correct? That is correct. Okay, so hearing no more public comment and no voicemails and no email, I'm gonna close the public hearing at this time. So before we go to comments, questions of the board, I heard a couple of things that I guess just concerned me from public comment. And I'd like maybe Amy, if I don't know if we have the city attorney available or perhaps the director of planning available to potentially address those, that being the public's record request violation and also the Brown Act violation component. Also, if those aren't appropriate to discuss tonight and that's a separate issue, that would also be good to know. Is that okay with everybody? Members of the board to get those addressed, I think either from the city attorney's office or the director of the department. So I'm gonna defer to Amy Nicholson, our board liaison on this one to see what the path forward is. We don't currently have anyone from the city attorney's office available on this call, but I can suggest that as it relates to the PRA comment that if that can be emailed to just perhaps more specifics about what the concern was, and you can go ahead and send that email to me. My email address is a Nicholson, A-N-I-C-H-O-L-S-O-N at srcity.org and we can review that and provide a response with the staff that are involved in our PRAs and also with our city attorney's office. With the Brown Act violation, what I wrote down was that it related to the availability of the agenda to the EIR, is that what you heard? Yeah, that's what it sounded like to me. It was noticing and also public outreach is what was brought up. I wanted to see where that stood. Again, I think this is the first addendum to an EIR. I've ever either been involved with professionally or as part of a city board because I've never done an addendum before. I've done the big kahuna EIR as an architect, right? We've approved them, I said that the addendum was new to me. So yeah, if you could address that. Sure, so the process for addendums is outlined in the CEQA guidelines because addendums are only allowed in very specific circumstances in cases where an EIR has been certified, those documents are not required to be circulated in the same manner as an environmental impact report or a negative declaration. So the addendum was processed in accordance with California law for CEQA and it was also published as a part of the agenda, which was six days prior to this meeting. And so it was made available to the public and this board within the required timeframe outlined in the Brown Act, which is 72 hours prior to the meeting. Cool, thanks. So I guess the question, I guess tied to that and you don't have to answer this, but I wonder if the rest of the board is maybe their wheels are spinning about this. So there was a comment about someone of the public requested an additional EIR, I guess, for this particular project. Focus EIR, as I guess what he called it. Can you speak to why either that would comply or wouldn't comply with CEQA? Is everybody kind of seeing where I'm asking the question here, does that make sense? Why you would do that or wouldn't do that, right? Because we kind of brought this up earlier, like there is a current certified EIR for the project, for this parcel for 49 units. So that would lead me to believe that that process is complete for 49 units essentially. And then the addendum would allow the one additional unit. So I guess, could you clarify that a little bit if that makes sense, my rambling, can I apologize? Sure, I hope that I can provide some more clarity here. So the CEQA guidelines provide information as to when specific types of environmental documents might be required. And that depends on if there was previously an environmental document prepared for the area or the project site and what the specific characteristics of a project might be. So in this case, because the site falls within the Roseland area, Sabas Plurid specific plan area for which an EIR was previously certified, the project, if it did meet the density that was analyzed in that environmental impact report, it would have qualified for a statutory exemption from CEQA and we wouldn't see an addendum because that EIR anticipated development of the various land uses. And so it looked at things like impacts to traffic and biological resources, air quality, et cetera. In this case, because the project includes that one additional unit, staff thought that it would be important to determine if there were any changes to the impacts that were determined as a part of that EIR. And so the CEQA guidelines set forward specific regulations that dictate when an addendum to an EIR is appropriate and staff reviewed that information and found that for this particular project that it would qualify for an addendum to the EIR from 2017. And so that was the appropriate CEQA path that we followed for this project. So essentially if in order for the board to take action on this project, if the board were to want to grant approval, it would have to find that the project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. And so that process would include adopting the addendum that is before you this evening. City staff have found that that is the proper environmental analysis required for this project, but the board ultimately would make that determination. And I hope that helps. I'm happy to clarify anything additional. I think it clarifies it for me. I know this may be a slight tangent, but I think it's an important tangent. So a lot of cities, ours included, prepare these kind of like master EIRs for areas of their city, right? And I'm kind of oversimplifying this a little bit, but so for example, an EIR I know about because I have some colleagues down in the Long Beach area, the city of Long Beach prepared this like downtown master EIR which accounted for 500, 600 units or whatever. And so what happened over the process of since the EIR was prepared, as different projects were presented within that the scope of that EIR, they picked off 100 units here, 50 units here, 100 units here until they finally hit the threshold as defined within the EIR. And so I imagine that what we're talking about here with the Sebastopol Road Roseland specific plan and the associated EIR is that there was a certain number of units defined for the land uses and the zoning within the scope of what the EIR covered. And so then that gives a basically, that gives an incentive in a way for developer to grab a parcel that's already got that documentation completed. And so they don't have to go through that process and then they can just prepare a project to come forward. I mean, does that kind of make sense a little bit in a more broad sense about how these kind of can work, at least if you kind of some context from Southern California and specifically about the EIR we're talking about. Did I say anything incorrect or does that sound about right? Yes, I think that's, I mean, I think you emphasize an important point in that EIRs can, they can cover one project or they can cover a larger area. And in the case of a specific plan, there were land uses established through that specific plan. And our land use, our land uses for at least our residential land uses have densities associated with them. So there is the calculation of looking at the size of the sites and what the maximum density allowed would be. And then the traffic and the air quality and all these technical reports that come out of it are using that information to determine what the kind of the maximum impact might be should all these sites develop with the approved land uses. Perfect, yeah. So I'm just gonna kick it back to the board here a little bit. Does this, does this make sense to you guys in terms of what we're talking about general plan and how it's associated with the EIR and how the addendum was prepared to essentially add one more unit to the already approved EIR. Does that make sense to everybody? Any questions, Henry? So the original CEQA was, and the studies were done on it having 49 units. And that was based on density of the land and we've changed our density requirements for this land. So one more unit's allowed? No, I think it's a, because it's an affordable project they are getting the density bonus which allows the increase of one additional unit. Yeah. So the addendum we're... Amy, that's right. Yeah, yeah. So the addendum we're going to vote on tonight is somebody did a study to show what that one additional unit, how that impacts. So can Amy, can you summarize for me in simple terms? I know I've got verbiage in front of me, but it might also help the public. Can you summarize what the impact of that one additional unit is on the site? What I can summarize is that in each of the topical areas required by CEQA that none of the determinations changed based on that one additional unit. And to add to that, the environmental impact report includes a number of mitigation measures. So those are put in place to reduce the impact to a specific area. So it might be to obtain a certain permit from Fish and Wildlife or it might be to... Well, that's the first one that comes to mind. But those mitigation measures contained within the certified EIR are also going to be applied to this project. So the addendum also served that purpose of allowing staff to go through all of the mitigation measures in that EIR to determine which ones are applicable to this project. And this project will have to comply with each of those mitigation measures to reduce any of those impacts to a less than significant level, which is the key term in CEQA. If an impact is found to be less than significant, then an environmental impact report would not be required. And so the environmental impact report that was prepared for this greater area, there was a reason that that was prepared. And so that's the environmental impact report is really the highest level of environmental review that a project can receive. That was done for this area. And this site was part of that consideration. Yeah, I think Amy makes a really good comment. And so just to remind everybody if you don't remember about CEQA, so there's basically three levels of CEQA determinations, a negative declaration, which is basically saying, like these things will have a negative impact and we're just gonna kind of let it happen. I think I'm pretty fairly certain how that works. The second one up is called a mitigated negative declaration saying that these are the negative impacts of development and we are going to mitigate their impact in some fashion, whether that's stormwater retention, keeping an animal habitat in place or whatever, right? And then the top one is the environmental impact report or the EIR, which includes everything under the sun, typically as part of CEQA and that can include archeological reports about previous sites found, it could find wildlife, integrating waterways, et cetera. So I think that's important to remember. So the documentation already prepared for this area is that top tier level CEQA documentation, right? So and then as Amy was speaking, I went in and looked at the addendum real quick on page nine and it looks like there's Clean Water Act section 404, nationwide permit, Clean Water Action section 401, Water Quality Certification section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement, minor design review, density bonus, grading permit and building permit. So those are the things listed under required permits and approvals in the addendum, already as part of this specific project, right? So all of those things would need to happen for the project to move forward, is that correct? Before they, you know, in kind of in that order, more or less. Does that help, Henry? Or Amy, go ahead. Sure, and the project does require permits from other agencies and those are outlined in the addendum and we also just, for your information, we do have the environmental consultants available if there are any specific questions in, you know, related to the addendum that I might not be able to answer if they're also available as a resource. Cool, thanks, Amy. So, Henry, any other questions? Are you good? Does anybody else have a question on this? Me too. Comment. Michael, are you? You're noticing an issue and, you know, I suspect that the public records access issue is something that's well outside of our scope to worry about tonight. I think we need to, we need to be voting on this or taking action on this one way or the other. And if there are issues with that violation, they would need to be addressed separately. I just was wrapping my head around that, so. Yeah, me too. And that's why I kind of was, that's why I asked if we had a member, this, you know, someone from the city's attorney's office tonight and it's okay that we don't, but you're exactly right. You know, we have an item before us so we can do one of a couple of things, right? So before we go to questions and comments and stuff, I'm just going to remind everybody what we can do so we can continue the project to a date certain, I think, right? We can vote on the items and either vote them yes or no. And I'm pretty sure that's, those are our options, right? So it's, we bring up a motion to continue the item, we bring a motion to approve the item or we bring up a motion to reject the item, essentially. Those are our options. So I just, anybody questions on that before we go to questions and comments of applicant and staff or let's actually just do questions of applicants and staff right now. So any questions on that process for anyone? Okay. Well, that, okay, good. So let's go ahead and we'll do questions of both staff and applicant, taking into mind some of the, if you guys want to ask some of the questions that the public brought up, feel free to do that. And if you don't grab them, I wrote a list here to make sure that we catch all of them. So let's start with the illustrious Sheila Wolski with questions of staff. You know, I, and again, this isn't our purview but if someone wants to look into this, I was just really looking into the, the traffic analysis. And I guess what I'm seeing are a lot of view terms to navigate around this site. And I think one of the ones they mentioned was Giffin and I'm pretty sure that one currently doesn't allow for U-turns. And in fact, the due deck report mentioned that a lot of, a lot of these connector streets, if any point, don't allow for U-turns, but that would be just a living there concern of mine or living there around there. The number of U-turns that it's going to require to navigate this site and ingress and egress. And that's, that's it for my questions. Thanks Sheila. So we'll go to Henry now. Questions of staff and applicants? Question of the applicant. We, we had fencing before we were looking, and I think we gave you, maybe given a little bit of direction on what we were looking for, for fencing to come back. And am I to understand we don't have fencing in the project now? That's correct. That's correct. Oh, we just both said it. Yes, that is correct. We got it back and forth both ways on, on fence it or don't fence it. You know, the, the real decision at the end of the day was made based upon the aesthetic and in a combination with the, the purpose that the fencing is serving. There is no, we are not able to, to include a vehicular gate at the front of the site. So you're not truly keeping anybody out of the property. There is open access to the front of the site. We don't want to put a vehicle gate in that could potentially back traffic up onto Stony Point Road. We want everyone in clean. And so we made the, the determination that, after all of the feedback that we got from an aesthetic appeal to the property, there was no, there is no cut through path. If you're coming, you know, a lot of times we will include fencing in a property. If, if outside community might use your property to cut through from point A to point B, there really isn't a point A and a point B. And so we've determined the aesthetic, especially along the creek side was more pleasant to include more of a natural landscape buffer and using landscaping to deter foot traffic than to actually put a hard fence in. Okay. And it seems, it seems like a good solution in a way. And I thought that the public actually was objecting to the fence. So I think it seems like you addressed a public concern yet I heard an earlier public comment that it wasn't, wasn't providing privacy and potential impact from people that are in the creek going to the apartments. That's it. That's it. I just, just to follow up on the fencing issue. So the city doesn't have any policy that would require fencing, but it is within the board's purview to include that as a condition of approval. And that fence design would be subject to approval by staff. Well, thanks Connor. I think the other thing to remember about the fence is or just if memory serves, we kind of heard both ways at the last meeting for concept. And I know I made a comment about not doing a fence just because I didn't think it met aesthetically. I think like the design team found, but specifically I think the items that were of concern regarding that were headlights I think and whatnot on the north side of the parcel shining into the houses to the north, which maybe the applicant could address that and more specifics to help out with the comment. I know we got an email about fencing as well from the public. So could you guys speak on that? Absolutely on that Northern property line, the plan is to use vegetation landscaping and really we're looking at planting a mature hedge from day one. So we're not putting small pots in and hoping in the years to come that they will grow enough. We're looking at putting in four foot high hedges from the start. Justin, I don't know if you have speaking privileges still if you would want to address anything with that. But last just when I talked on it, we're looking at four feet high five gallon pots. Correct. So we would plant them tight. They'd be states. So when they go in, you know, headlight heights or what 30 inches, we're gonna have that completely screened at the time of installation. So that is solved. Cool, thank you so much. And then I think maybe Henry tied to this too. Do you guys remember that I guess it was a fence quote, unquote on a forget it was either a wetland or a CTS habitat. And it was like a little redwood post with a rope between the two. Do you guys remember that from a couple of months ago? Those are fairly typical in a lot of parks areas where you're trying to create a boundary, but you're not creating a barrier for animals. And it's a natural look. And it does define a boundary a little bit. Yeah, I'm wondering if that maybe might be the, just as we're asking questions about the fences, if that might make sense, maybe for the creek side, just putting it in our minds a little bit. I know there may be a comment on it. Okay, cool. So Henry, any more questions? Okay, let's go to Adam. Great, yeah. I was just gonna follow up on that fencing too. This is kind of the fencing like the bringing up of the redwood and the rope as a comparison to the concept we received for the former water agency site along the creek up there, Stony Point there. They were proposing doing the, basically iron fencing the entire way and we were pushing for trying to break through that to not fence the whole thing, to have access. Kind of going on to the eyes on the creek having a permeable barrier. I think the landscaping can achieve that. I was able to, as part of the Waterways Advisory Committee, I was able to see this last week. And so I asked a bunch of questions in and so no questions now. Thank you. Cool, thanks Adam. Ward member McHugh, any questions of staff? Thumbs up, thumbs down.  I'm curious about the sequence of what we're doing here tonight. I mean, is the addendum to the EIR, the first thing that we will deal with and then any design changes we might wanna make will be on the second one. Is that? That's correct, yeah. So we would vote on the EIR first because we can't do any design review action until the EIR addendum is completed. And I guess the question becomes, Amy, if we were to vote on the EIR and it gets rejected, let's just say, could we move on to the design review or would that pause the whole bit? If you were to want to approve the design review you would need to find that the project was reviewed in compliance with CEQA. So that would be adopting that addendum first. Okay, cool, that's what I thought. Yeah, so if so, for whatever reason, we were to vote no on the CEQA determination then we couldn't move forward with the design review component. So in order to move forward with the design review component, we would need to affirmatively vote for the EIR addendum. Does that help, John? Well, I mean, is it your purpose then to, in terms of questions, advance to the staff is to cover the gamut, both in terms of the addendum to the EIR, but also in terms of any design changes that we think that we ought to have? It would, am I understanding that correctly? Yeah, you know, yes. But I didn't want to do comments for the design review component. I at least wanted to get all the questions out of the way. Okay, okay, I'm sorry. For both pieces and then not do any comments for the design component until we got to that point. Does that help? Okay, okay, just so that I understand. Okay, that's what I need to answer. Thank you. So that being said, do you have any questions about either the EIR or design? No, not at this time. Thank you. Okay, cool, thanks, John. Board Member Birch, do you have any questions? I think that you've covered all the questions that I had around the EIR. I read the EIR through both the 2016 and the addendum and the traffic report. It took some time to wrap my head around the process. I think I got there and any questions I had, you have been cleared up by staff and questions from yourself and Board Member Wicks. So I have a full grasp of what we're doing on the EIR side now. I always struggle with these. It's always interesting that they land here. So we'll do it, we'll figure it out. I would ask the applicant if there is consideration, if it's something that is not off the table or not doable to make the improvements and there may be some engineering around this to make the improvements for the turn pocket or the left turn lane. I'm interested to understand that. I do see that as a flaw in the project and I would like to understand why that's not being proposed or maybe it is going to be proposed. So that would be my primary question to the applicant at this point. In regards to a left turn lane, you're referencing from coming off of Stony Point Road to make a left turn into the property. Yeah, and I'm sure that that's a bit of a unicorn but the potential for the turn pocket further up to facilitate the U-turn closer. I mean, the traffic report praised that approach as well as acceptable and I'm just curious if that's in consideration. Sure, absolutely. I wanted to make sure that I addressed each of them if they were both a question. As far as the U-turn at Pear Blossom, we're certainly open to continuing the conversation with traffic and with engineering as we move through our process here. It's not a roadblock for us. Great, I would encourage that and I'm not even sure sometimes our lines get really blurred here at DRB but I would encourage it. And I think that in support of public comment and certainly at least a couple of board members here who see that as an issue, it would be nice to know that that was in consideration. So other than that, I don't have any questions. We will certainly keep it in consideration. Thanks, Michael. I appreciate that. I guess the only additional question I had was on this culvert thing but I guess I'm confused a little bit because you guys talked about a culvert that was improved which may alter the floodplain. Is that a different culvert slash intake from I guess the storm line that is potentially taking the drainage from the project which also services the site to the north? Are they two independent things? Is it the same thing? I had a question about that. Dennis Dalby, do you have speaking permission to address that? Yes, I do. Hello, this is Dennis Dalby, civil design consultants. Chair Weigel, yeah, I can kind of try to explain that. There are two independent items. So when the city of Santa Rosa Public Works improved Stony Point Road and widened it, part of that work was increasing the capacity of the box culvert underneath Stony Point Road. The outfall, the existing outfall that this project is tying into currently drains justice project site. It's very clear from our field surveys and topo mapping where the drainage goes. And in fact, the city's own improvement plans for Stony Point Road show it very clearly that it's draining basically the north side manmade ditches on the north property line and a little swell between the sidewalk at Stony Point and the existing homes that is out there. So there are two different things. The additional box culvert obviously provides more capacity to get under the bridge. It was from looking at the FEMA maps, it was very clear that the existing box culvert was the pinch point and that's what was backing up the flow. So the addition of that extra box culvert has improved the flow in the channel and from what we can tell from our hydrologist, it is going to bring the flood area back into the channel. Okay, cool. And then it looks like I'm seeing, you've got it kind of on the southwest corner, you've got the DI located there and then you have your drain outfall to the creek, but then you're also treating items in kind of some bioretention beds along that south edge of the property. And then there's a lot of items obviously being drained off the north side of the property of parking that then goes into some sort of treatment facility before it then goes down into the creek. Is that correct? That's correct, that is correct. We are meeting the city of Santa Rosa's SWLID guidelines. We have landscape based bioretention. All project drainage is directed to bioretention beds for stormwater cleaning and stormwater capture and they all tie together in that southwest corner and tie into the existing creek outfall. Cool, and then I guess just let's take it one more step further. I imagine the hydrologist and you would analyze this so the amount of drainage that would occur on site and then go into that box culvert wouldn't exceed the capacity there in a flood event or those types of things, right? It would, everything was still outflow. That's correct, that's correct. Yes, so the flood study that was done for the box culvert included these properties surrounding it and it should be noted that they are required to look at the general plan and provide the calculations based on the density of the general plan. Cool, thanks, I appreciate that. That cleared it up for me in terms of how those drainage components are working. I think there was a public comment question about that and I think that really does answer a big question for me. Okay, does anybody have any final questions? Did I forget anybody? I just want to verify it. Board Member Wolskie, do you feel your question was answered? You're muted. Sure. Yes, I do, thanks. It's still up for consideration for the pocket, thank you. Perfect, so any other questions, Henry? You've got one, sounds like. Yeah, refresh my memory and I don't want to belabor it but when North Point, the parkways extended that that will have no access to the site because of that radius. Just, and maybe it's the unicorn that that'll ever get extended through but I'm just curious if that would mitigate some of these U-turns and the accessibility of the site which could be accessed and that East and Dead End could be extended to North Point. Hey, Rob, would you be able to answer that one? Sure, this is Rob Strinkle, City Center as a traffic engineer. Those details haven't been determined yet. We would have to look at that alignment you're on the inside of a curve where the access would be looking around the corner so site distance might not be the best at that location and we also have to consider going up and over the creek and how the bridge structure would be designed at that location. So there, I can't say for certain that we couldn't but I can't say for certain that we could either. That'd have to be looked at in a little bit more detail. And then I guess tied to that since we have you, Rob. So North Point Parkway, obviously it's north of this project and it extends to the west of Stony Point Road. As it comes across, it's going to come across and then it's going to turn south. Does it go down and connect back into Herne or Silver Spur or something like that down there? Like where's it's terminus? I'm just kind of curious. Yeah, it connects back into basically the intersection at Burbank and Herne. So it does meander to the south and then back in alignment more with Herne where Burbank is basically east west street. It's literally east west there. Okay, perfect, thanks. So, okay, any other last questions? Okay, so like we talked about, the first action is we need to make a sequel finding. And so that would be, if everybody could reference resolution one as contained within our packet. This is the draft resolution presented by staff. So if we choose to move it forward, I would entertain a motion to approve the whatever is listed here or whatever the board pleases to deny it to continue it. I'm going to leave that up to you guys with what you want to do. So let me make a motion to approve the addendum to the EIR for item 9.2 Stony Flats appointments at 2268 Stony Point Road, DR 21-023. Is that an adequate motion? I will second that. Okay, seeing that we have a motion and a second to approve the EIR, Stony Point Flats EIR addendum will now go to board competence or friendly amendments if they want to see the resolution changed at all. So we'll go backwards alphabetical. So that way I get Michael at the end because he made the motion. So Sheila, you're first. Any comments or changes? I sure I'll make some comments. This was my first time seeing the project. It came to the DRB before I was on, but I did go back and check out the minutes in the previous set of plans. And it just made me think how difficult a project site this is, when it's long and narrow, kind of reminds me of one of those shotgun style houses where everything's all on one side. And usually I like to see a little more movement around a project site, but I understand the constraints of this site. I'm glad the applicant is planning on keeping the eucalyptus tree. I was checking out several of the previous meetings comments and several people were concerned about that tree being removed. I'm really sad that the pool is not included anymore. I understand drought conditions and honestly, I don't have a pool, but Santa Rosa only has two public pools for something like 177,000 people. And pools are a great amenity. We were just talking with the previous project about getting all age groups. I don't know that you would necessarily get your seniors in there, but the tween teen and young adult group is really hard to capture. And I think it made me sad to see that go. It looked like what was expanded though was this non-native grass area in the back and while I like open area, I'm just not sure what's going on with that area, if anything. And I'm talking about the far eastern edge, is that plan to be maintained? Can there amenities be put there?  I don't know. It just seems kind of blank, I guess to me. The fencing question, let me stop you. So comments right now should be specific to just the EIR. So I think what you just asked, I think we should turn that back to the applicant because I think there may be something there for the environmental impact and why moving the buildings is important versus not important and leaving a grass area. So I'm gonna interrupt you if that's okay. So I'm gonna turn it back to the applicant team and maybe pose that as a question. With moving the buildings, what does that do environmentally? Sure, so from an environmental standpoint, it leaves more of the area undisturbed and there was one of the wetland areas that was identified that would have then, it would have had the furthest east residential building sitting on top of it, will now continue to remain undisturbed. And I'm assuming that when you, yeah, so I'm just gonna follow up. So I'm assuming that when you have undisturbed property that changes what mitigation measures would be required of a project in broad terms, right? That is correct. Okay, so any other comments specifically on the EIR? Okay, cool. Henry, any comments on the EIR specifically? Cool, Adam, any comments on the EIR? After our two Waterways Advisory Committee meetings and our previous design meeting, one of the things I wanted, I was really curious to see what is this EIR and the addendum to the EIR. And I was glad to see in the past week that this was included. And it all seems thorough and answers questions for me and alleviates concerns. So I