Public access to the meeting is through the Zoom platform and members of the public can provide comments during the various comment periods. Additional information related to the meeting participation is available at the city's website at srcity.org slash design review board. The meeting will be live streamed at the city's website, sanna-roza.legistar.com slash calendar. Click on the in progress link to view. The meeting can also be viewed on Comcast channel 28 and is broadcast on the city's YouTube channel at youtube.com slash city of sanna-roza. And so with that, I would like to turn it over to the recording secretary for a roll call. Let the record reflect that all board members are present. All right, so approval of minutes, so the September 1st minutes are, I'm not sure how we can do this, because I wasn't there, but I, and we don't have quorum of the members who were there, that's kind of a sticky wicket. Amy, do you have a thought on that? Good afternoon. Thanks, Charwaggle. I don't, but I'll do a little research behind the scenes and perhaps we can come back to approval of minutes and after we get through the next few items, I'll pop back on. Yeah, and it looks like Vice Chair Birch, Board Member McHugh and Board Member Sharon were the three who were present at that meeting. Any should be Board Member Stapp. I think he was on the board at that time. Yes. Yes. So there's a, there's an error in the roll call. So then approval of minutes from December 1, I believe we can do this. I did notice one error for the recording secretary. It's on page three and it says I called the meeting to order at 7.03 p.m., but I adjourned the meeting at 7.03. It's a small change. Does anybody else have any adjustments to the minutes? All right, seeing none, we'll enter that into the record with the one change on page three, changing, calling the meeting to order to adjourn it. All right. And so we'll move on from item two. We may have to come back to that, those draft minutes from September 1. Obviously with Board Member Stapp no longer on the board, that may be, the three of you may just have to approve it. We'll see what happens. Item number three is public comment. This is the time when any person may address matters that are not listed on the agenda, which are within the subject matter and purview of the City of Santa Rosa Design Review Board. The public may comment on agenda items when the item is called later on the agenda, and each speaker will be allowed three minutes for public comment. So I will open up public comment at this time and turn it over to the recording secretary. If you wish to make a public comment, you can do so by selecting the raise your hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen. If you're calling in, please press star nine and that will enable the raised hand feature. Chair Weigel, I don't see any hands raised at this time. All right. So not seeing any raised hands. I would like to close public comment at this time, at which point we'll move on to item four, board business. And I would like to read the statement of purpose of the Design Review Board. Zone encoded chapter 20-52.030F project review. The review authority shall consider the location, design, site plan, configuration and the overall effect of the proposed project upon surrounding properties and the city in general. Review shall be conducted by comparing the proposed project to the general plan and the 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. policy statements and development plans. So with that, we'll move on to item 4.2, board member reports. Do we have any board member reports this evening? All right. Seeing none. We'll go to item 4.3, other, and we don't have any other business for the board. So we will move to item 5, which is department report, and I'll turn it over to board liaison Amy Nicholson. Thank you. I don't have any department reports today, and I'm still waiting to hear back about the minutes. So as soon as I do, I'll let you know. Thanks. No worries. I think what might be a good plan, if everybody agrees, is we'll just wait until after the scheduled item before adjournment, and we'll hopefully have an answer then, and we can maybe pick up that minute thing and just kind of handle it, and then adjourn for the night. So item number 6, statements of abstention. Does anybody need to abstain from item 8.1 this evening? All right. Not seeing any abstentions. We'll move on to item 7, consent items. We do not have any this evening. And so with that, we will move on to item 8, which is our scheduled items. Sequel, previously approved through the mitigated Neck Deck 5.6. Which point I would like to turn it over to the project planner, Susie Murray, for a staff presentation. Good afternoon, Chair Weigel and members of the Design Review Board. Please tell me you can see my screen. Yay. I can see your screen. Good. So whoopsie. Let me get back here. So the project before you this evening is the Arbor's, located at 31 Lake Park Drive. And this is a project that proposes some housing units that, when constructed, will represent 1.4% of our regional housing needs allocation requirements. These are for market rate houses. The project proposes to construct a multi-family housing complex with offering 37 homes. It'll be comprised of 14 duplex units and three triplex units and, of course, the common areas. Required entitlements include a mitigated negative declaration, hillside development permit, conditional use permit, tentative map and design review approved by the Planning Commission back in 2010. And we have this little straggling design review before your board this evening. This is an aerial view of the project site, existing conditions. It's pretty heavily wooded. And as you pull back, here's this kind of gives you the neighborhood context. There's quite a bit of residential development up in this area. And I've kind of gotten pasted the map there so you can see how it'll fit in. Again, the Planning Commission approved all other project entitlements back in 2010. The project expiration date has been extended through October of 2023 later this year through a series of state mandated and city approved time extension extensions. Back in December of 2019, applications for building permits were submitted and it was at that point that we confirmed that design review had not been rented yet. We hadn't gone through that process yet. And the following December, we received the design review application. Just a few weeks later, after receiving that application, the improvement plans for the project were signed by the city engineer. So this is kind of a, it's an odd duck here because we've really, it feels like the carts before the horse a little bit here, but the map is approved. So the site plan is locked in and the improvement plans are good to go. Here is a graphic that shows the general plan, land use designations for the site and the neighboring properties. And that the more yellow color that you see is the low density residential. That's where development for housing at densities of two to eight units per acre is permitted. And then that more sagey or greener color that you see to the south and west is very low density where the maximum allowable density is two units per acre. This graphic shows you the surrounding zoning and all the surrounding zoning districts. Well, they're close to consistent with the general plan. They are certainly consistent at this site. The project implement several goals and policies of the general plan. First and foremost, it helps meet the housing needs of Santa Rosa residents. It also protects natural features. The project focuses its development, which I'll show you in a graphic coming up in areas with the least amount of slope and minimizes the required grading. And the arbors has been reviewed and conditioned in compliance with city development standards, both contained in the zoning code and other city standards. Here's a copy of the site plan. And as you can see, I'm just throw a label on their Lake Park Drive for reference there. The project has a loop to drive off Lake Park Drive. And yeah, both entrances are off Lake Park. Here is a slope analysis where the white parts are areas with 10% or less slope. Also your flatter areas. And then the green where we have 10 to 25% slope. And then that kind of pinky color is areas with greater than 25% slope. Just as a refresher, here's the site plan again. And as you can see, it really focuses away from those areas with the pink and in the areas with the white and green. The project was also reviewed in compliance with the design guidelines. And specifically, we looked at sections 3.2 for multifamily development, 4.3 for infill development and 4.5 for hillside development. The project provides diversity and housing type by adding in attached housing in an area predominantly developed with single family homes. It's infill development. It's surrounded on several sides with other development. The plans have been reviewed by city staff, including the fire department, building division and engineering development services. And I want to throw in, even though I didn't add it there, our traffic engineers. And it's been conditioned and brought up to current standards with consideration to recent wildfire events and whatnot. Let's see. The building design and exterior materials are similar to materials found throughout this residential neighborhood and other residential neighborhoods. And you'll see several examples of that in the applicant's presentation. And then again, I think I showed it in the last slide. It really avoids areas with 25% slope or more. And in terms of the tree inventory, the project has been conditioned to comply with the city's tree ordinance, which I'll talk about a little bit in a slide coming up. Here are three front elevations for three of the units. Here I'm going to have the project architect, as I understand it, is available and they will discuss the architecture. So I think the biggest issue that staff ran into with this because of this kind of the rest of the project being approved back in 2010 was determining what the purview of the design review board was. There was some question whether or not the design review board could look, you know, was it just the building? Was it just the exterior materials? Did it include landscaping? What was it? Where were the limits? And based on conditions from the Planning Commission approval, which are shown here on the slide, and the fact that there are signed improvement plans that include a landscape plan that was found in compliance with the city's water efficient landscape ordinance. The conclusion that we drew is that the design reviews purview is limited to building to sign, which does include exterior materials and gnawing, and landscaping on the individual residential lots, but not in the common areas. So some of the things that will go into effect with building permits is that we've required that the applicant provide an updated arborist evaluation with a tree planting plan that's in compliance with the city's tree ordinance. There's not been a whole lot of change out there other than some trees have matured and others have died over the course of the last 13 years, 14 years since the arborist report was done, and so we need to update that and just make sure our planting plans are appropriate. Construction hours for the building construction have also been reduced. There's a more common practice now to reduce the construction hours when properties are surrounded by existing residential development, kind of starting a little bit later, 8 a.m. So that, you know, getting kids off to school and having breakfast can be done with a little bit of peace and quiet and again at the dinner hour. So we limit construction from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. And then, of course, we also required that in no situation will any of the structures exceed 35 feet in height above grade, which is required in the policy statement for this planned development. The project has been found in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was found in compliance back in 2010 and the project itself has not changed. As I mentioned, yes, the environment around has changed with, you know, some changes in the tree inventory. We'll find out what those are. It's a very common standard condition that projects be found in compliance with the city's tree ordinance. So we've received some public comments. There are, you know, telephones and e-mails, telephone calls and e-mails. Lots of open space in the neighborhood. I think it's always a challenge when you have a site, especially a heavily wooded site, where we're anticipating development, residential development, in this case, in the general plan land use diagram. And yet it's been vacant for so long that the neighbors really hate to lose that. But that is the case. And I took that call and the caller understood. There was some question as to why or how the project was kept alive for 13 years since its original approval. But back with the economic downturn, the State of California authorized, I believe, seven years' worth of time extensions. And then again, during COVID, they authorized another 18 months' worth of time extension. So those extensions, those state-mandated extensions coupled with the five-time extensions that you can get when the project involves a tentative map or five years' worth, the project's still alive. And as I said earlier, it's good until October of this year. And then has the project been reviewed in compliance with current development standards in terms of public safety? Again, all of the new plans for the, or not the new plans, but the plans were circulated again when the design review application was submitted. The project was reconditioned. There is a new engineering exhibit A attached to this, to the resolution. And it's with current conditions in terms of circulation and safety requirements. We also received some late correspondence, which I hope you all had a chance to read. And there was a question about the building permits, which were submitted back in 2019. And what building code that those building permits would be required to comply with? The, the, our policy is that they comply with the building code that was in effect leads on that. If you have any questions about that, Jesse Oswald, our building official is available to answer some questions. There were also some questions with regard to the way that's on the parcel adjacent to this and to the south. I don't know, I don't know what the, what the, that those repairs would be made so people could use the pathway. Although I will say I, I went out and did a site visit, I think it was last year, probably earlier last year and with the project engineer, and we were able to walk down that path. We didn't go down all the way, but we certainly made it down quite a ways on the path. So with that, it's recommended by the planning and economic development department that the design review board grant design review for the arbors, a 37 unit multifamily development proposed at 3500 Lake Park Drive. My contact information is shown here if anybody from outside has any questions about the project after the meeting, or if, if they don't ask questions during the meeting and my name for people that are calling in and can't see this is Susie Murray and my telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and my email address is SMURRAY at srcity.org. That concludes my presentation. If you, if you have any questions for me or or any other staff members, happy to answer them now and I do have a presentation that I know the applicant would like to present. Thanks Susie. Typically, what we've been doing just as a reminder is we, we do the back presentation, the applicant presentation and then I'll open the public hearing and then that way we can collect kind of all the questions and thoughts and then we'll ask like a big grouping of questions of staff applicant and also try to incorporate any public comment questions in there as well. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to the applicant. Sure. Sorry. Before we move on to the applicant presentation, we were having some tech issues and I forgot to ask for ex parte disclosures on Susie's public hearing. You just beat me to it. I was, I was just about to ask before we move to the applicant presentation. Thank you. So, yeah, so we'll just go around the room. Any ex parte disclosure on this item? Maybe and raise hands. None for me. Not seeing it. Yep. I'm not seeing any. So, awesome. So zero ex parte disclosure. So with that, I'd like to turn over to the applicant for their presentation. Can we elevate driver seat? Yeah. Can we elevate Jean Kapolchak? And if we see Mark Gross, those are the two people that I know need to be elevated. We've got them. Perfect. Here I go with the presentation, you guys. OK. Sorry about that. Go ahead and let me know as you want me to advance the slides, please. OK. I don't see the presentation. Good afternoon, members of the Board of Design Review Commission. I actually, staff has made a very comprehensive summary of the project and its history. So for all intents and purposes, the presentation could be advanced to on the elevations and the design materials for the architect to then address the board. But again, I don't see the presentation. Board Member Weigel, can you see the presentation? Whatever. There we go. Perfect. OK. That's great. And it's advanced to as requested. Let me simply say that staff's presentation was very comprehensive. The project, as you were told, consists of 37 lots, single family attached houses, 14 duets, three lots with three attached homes, so nine lots. There are five building types with a total of eight floor plans. Building sizes range from 2,546 square feet to 1,851 square feet. And all units are two stories with attached garages. The next series of slides shows you the neighborhood and the architecture of those surrounding homes. So if you could simply advance those, so that's essentially the neighborhood that this project will be settling into. And the next slide is the site plan. And if you can go to the following slide, this shows you the distribution of the various building types. And so again, there are eight different floor plans, five building types. Next slide, please. And at this point, I'd like to hand it off to the architect to describe the architectural design of the units and how it is consistent with the hillside development plan. Thank you. Hi, this is Mark Gross. Good evening. Can you all hear me? Hopefully you can. We can, thank you. OK, that's good. When we did this project, this is 12 years ago. We started this project. Our goal at that time still is that this was going to be a traditional architecture. And it was going to be a blend in contextually with the existing Nielsen Ranch community. We actually did most of that community, spanning probably 15 years before then. And the elements of the design included in this was the horizontal siding, the boredom bat, and the shake siding, all connected with that existing community. We added dormers, porches and decks, and the color palette also being soft, neutral tones that tied in with the existing community. That's pretty much it for the architecture elevations. You can scan through those elevations if you want. Also, I'll let you know that because when we do, when we pick colors for the homes, sometimes when they transfer to PDFs or presentations, the color can be off. We're not printing them in-house exactly. So that's a little bit more of a red vertical siding and not orange. You want me to close this presentation? Yeah. Susie, I want to make sure we're waiting for you to open something else up, correct? No, I think that that was the conclusion. Oh, that was it. OK, cool. Sorry, my bad. I was listening and I was multitasking over here, so I apologize for missing that. All righty. So with that, this is a public hearing. So we need to open a public hearing and take public comment. Conclusion of the applicant presentation and the staff presentation, I would like to open the public hearing. And so with that, I'll turn it over to the recording secretary. As a reminder, please make comments on this item only during this public comment period, and you'll be limited to three minutes. And just as another friendly reminder, the design review board's purview this evening is over the design of the buildings. Sure, I got this right. The design of the buildings, the individual lot layouts and landscaping, but does not include the common areas located throughout the project. And that's also the footprint. I should probably say the footprint, the building footprints are locked in. Yeah, and the right. Yeah, well, I think the four of us know that. But since there's a tentative map, obviously, we can't be moving buildings around. So the buildings are set. So really, all we're just talking about is extra elevations, fenestrations, openings, color, and as it relates to the design review guidelines. And then also, any land use issues appear to have been resolved with both the Planning Commission approving the project and also the CEQA filing. But if there is a land use issue, please bring it up. But again, still very interested in public comment. So we will open the public hearing and the recording section. I'm seeing some hands. Yes. And then just a reminder to anybody else in attendance, if you wish to make a public comment, you can do so by selecting the raise your hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen. And if you're calling in, please press star nine.  And can you please state your name for the record? Kathleen Campbell Wolford, may I begin? I've reviewed the information and the attachments about wildlife. There are many songbirds in the area, in addition to the birds of prey and the bats that were mentioned. We hope that this population will continue to be stable. And we're wondering what the city's requirements are for windows that reduce bird collisions. So this would be regarding building materials. The birds are going to continue to use this as a flyway through. So that is my question. Ready, Chair Weigel? I don't see any other hands raised at this time. And I'm not either. So with that, I guess we'll close the public hearing, seeing no more public comment. We'll bring it back to the board. And we'll go to questions of the board of staff and applicant both. I'm going to put a board member sharing in a hot seat. You're up, Adam. Hey. Great. Thank you very much, Chair Weigel. Thank you very much, Susie. Wonderful presentation, as always. And nice work on those mats and doing little icons and everything, too. We're going to make a designer out of you yet. But a great presentation. And thank you, applicant, for following up with your context as well. We'll see. I just had one question. And this is for Planet Murray. Susie, I understand all of our purview here today. But I was just curious with the common areas and not looking at the landscaping for the common areas. I think I didn't hear in your presentation the reasoning behind that necessarily. But then also just a little more context about that. I assume it's because it's the site plan. Yeah, actually, I should be a little bit more clear on that. The common areas, you can't do anything that's going to adjust the site plan, OK? So if there's a trash enclosure or a seating area, you can certainly weigh in on those. Those are not unless they're part of, let's see. I don't believe those are included on the improvement plans, but I know that the project engineer, Rick Carlisle, is also on the call. And certainly, the trash enclosure would require design review, some level. And I think that you guys could certainly. But if we have any questions about structures that were on the improvement plans, I'm sure that Rick can answer those. OK, so we're just to clarify for a look at the icing on the cake of the details, and including that. All right, great. That helps. And that's my one question. Thanks very much. Board Member McHugh, any questions of the applicant and staff? No, I'm having some difficulty with my iPad, so I really haven't had an opportunity to look at anything. So I'm just going to defer. I'm just I don't have any questions. That's OK. Vice Chair Birch, any questions of applicant or staff? No, no questions this time. I was a little curious about our purview. I understand it now, and good there. Thanks. Yeah, I have a number of questions. So Susie, during your presentation, I was kind of going over this timeline there. And I was looking at the Planning Commission's resolution. Was there an original DRB submission in 2008? Not that I'm aware of. I can't tell you that for sure. I can certainly look again. My guess is one of my co-workers is probably digging into that right now. But I can get back to you in a minute, if you like, to confirm it. But I don't believe that. No, that's OK. Yeah, I guess maybe the way the resolution was written, that there's a specific date in there. And it's more curiosity than anything else, I guess, because we have a new whatever in front of us now. So it's, I guess, irrelevant to some extent. But I was just curious if there was an original design review. Is it the long time frame delay? It may be beyond. So anyway, it's just, it was more curiosity than anything. To clarify on that, to clarify, any plans that would have been approved, they would have been date stamped, it may not have been the architecture, OK? Architecture back in those days would include, it would have been included in the plans. But then the Planning Commission deferred to the Design Review Board for design review. So there were a couple of conditions that were shown on my slides that did that. So if there was an application submitted back in 2010, it was never acted on. And so the application was resubmitted with the same plans in 2009 or 2020. Yes. No big deal at all. Like I said, I think it was more curiosity than anything else, just because we have this huge time gap. I have another question, I think, kind of timeline related. Generally speaking, when we see a project like this where it has a tentative map, it might have a sequel component. It might have a use permit, whatever. It's being acted on by the Planning Commission first. Typically, we see a concept item first, then it goes to Planning Commission, and then we have a design review package that comes back to us. And then and only then does the applicant go to do their building permits. But it seems like we may be a little out of order right now, like the building permits that's already been submitted, perhaps based on the voluminous nature of the documents included with the package tonight. Yeah. Yeah. So yes, this is unusual that you actually get construction plans. I know that. And it was, like I said, the cart kind of went before the horse here. And I don't think there was any ill intent here. I think it was just a matter of not realizing that the design review that we hadn't gotten. And to answer your question, yes, I knew that I'd have some support from behind the scenes here. Since my coworkers know I'm not very good at multitasking, there was an application submitted for design review for the project back in 2007, but it was never acted upon. It's in kind of an inactive status. It was a new application was submitted in 2020. Excellent. Thanks, Suzy. So I'm going to ask the question here from the public comment regarding the city's policy, if any, on windows for birds to reduce bird collisions. I'm not aware of one. But does the city have any sort of, typically wouldn't that be something that might be included in a mitigated neck deck as it's related to an environmental aspect or element? Well, yes, I would say if it were there, that's where we would find it. And I'm happy to go back and double check, but I have reviewed the mitigated negative declaration and didn't see anything of the sort in this one, nor have I ever seen that. I've done quite a few housing projects. I think I've brought several to you folks. And I've never seen that condition. It is food for thought, though. I will say that we have started adding some stronger language about bird and bat protection. But I guess there's room to strengthen it more. I'm sure that we can talk to some of our own biologists and see if that's something to consider. As far as this project is concerned, I will say not that I'm aware of. There are no, nothing in there that would condition windows for bats and birds. Okay, cool. Yeah, I think maybe if we could just do a little, little hunt in a little bit here, that might be nice, at least on that. And then the last question I have is, so I think Michael and Adam probably remember this, but we had a project that came before DRB. I think, I wanna say 2018, 2019, it was up in this similar area on the hillside in a wooly zone in an area that was hit by the Tubbsfire. This one I don't believe was part of the burn scar, but it is in that wooly zone. And so one thing that we as a board required, actually, as part of that particular project was an actual defensible space plan for the development. And I know there's some language within the engineering report. I think the original planning commission thing about meeting the city's, whatever it's got, if I can remember the name of it, Fire Bolton 52, I think, which is now an ordinance regarding defensible space. But I guess the absence of that concerns me given kind of the nature of this area and kind of the requirements of that wildland urban interface component. I don't know if my fellow board members share that concerns, but maybe the applicant can speak to that a little bit more or maybe Susan, you have some information on that beyond what I'm asking. I don't, I don't have, that's normally something that of course comes from, I don't know if, you know, Jesse Oswald may be able to help with that.  So you can hear me, you can't see me. Hello, Chair Wildland, board members. Thank you, Jesse Oswald, Chief Building Official. So even though the building permits were submitted when they were, they will still be reviewed to meet the, what we call, as you coined it, the wooey standards. So that is a benefit certainly that we do have here. And moving forward with this additional entitlement gives us the opportunity to see this again. And not being too intimate with the plans, the implementation of building permits moving forward in conjunction with our fire department, we do look at these with that defensible space in mind when it comes to finishing out the project. So even though it could have had all of these approvals way back when, we still do carry forward with the modern requirements. So we will be very cognizant moving forward on the turnover of this project in the end. Thanks, Jesse, I appreciate that. So I guess the question is, would you have an issue if we conditioned the project to include that requirement that that item be included to complete this entitlement? And then also it's saying, then you have it to review as part of your permit component. Correct, we do have it to review under that building permit application. And a lot of it comes from also, as we know the evolution that we're going to have to really turn our landscaping ordinances and our actual landscaping parts of the zoning code plus the water efficient landscape ordinances, those are going to evolve along with this project, which we've already done some evolution. So yes, we will be, this will be part of this project moving forward with new regulation being imposed. Thanks, Jesse. It looks like maybe the applicant, maybe it says owner Richard Howell. So they may have a comment on that question. So recording secretaries, you could grant them the speaker. Hello. Hello. My name is Richard Howell and I live over across the street from the project. What I'm concerned about is that the project is a very high density. Oh, hey, Richard, one sec. Let me stop you real quick there. So public hearing and then allow you to speak and we'll put the three minutes on the screen there. So let's go ahead and do that for Mr. Howell there. And so we'll reopen the public hearing in deference to technological zoomness, let's call it. So we'll go, go with there. So recording secretary over to you. Apologies, I'm waiting for my co-host to share her screen. So we got the time up and we'll turn it over to Mr. Howell there to speak for his three minutes. Richard Howell, can you please unmute yourself again and then state your name for the record now that the public hearing is open? Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Okay. I live across the street from the project on Lake Park. And what I'm concerned about Lake Park is a very steep and rather narrow access to these properties and the developments that have been put in place through the years. With this high density project going in, now is there going to be a two car garage for each unit? We can certainly review that. Do you have any other comments or questions about the traffic impact? Well, yeah, what I'm worried about is if there's not adequate parking in the project then it's going to spill out onto Lake Park which is going to be really, really dangerous. It's a very steep road and it's windy. It's curvy. And there's not enough width to have current parking. And so that is a great concern and... I've almost been T-Bow. My understanding is that the traffic study was done in 2019. And if you look back, the Tubbs Fire was 2017 and most of us did not rebuild our houses until 2019, 2020 or 2021. So I'm of the opinion that the traffic study is not valid. Comment? Okay. Any other comments? You guys have about a minute left. I think that pretty well it covers our major concern. Oh, I have one more. The project that's directly below us that's being constructed by Christopherson will have an entrance to that property too. So you're going to have two on your side of the road coming from your project and one coming from the Christopherson, all merging together. Has that been looked at? No, beyond the steepest part, the lake part. And as you come down the hill, that's a blind conjunction. Any comment? So I have to close the public hearing. Okay. And then the board or myself can ask those questions of staff or the applicant. Okay. I know some... Yeah. So if that's all your comments, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing again. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Oh, no, no problem at all. But with that, I did see another hand go up perhaps for public comment during that. So I'm just going to see if that hand goes back up just real quick here. And then we'll close the public hearing. So I'm just going to give it a minute. So reporting secretary, I keep seeing a hand go up and go down and go up and go down. CDM builders, Inc. at Gmail. And I'm wondering if they perhaps have a Zoom platform issue that might be causing that. Is there a way to check? Yeah. So CDM builders, Inc. If you wish to make a comment, you can select to the raise your hand icon at the bottom of your screen. And then I can give you permissions to speak. If you're calling in, you'll have to press star six. Hi there. Can you hear me? I can. Please state your name for the record. Terrific. My name is Chris means, and I'm a neighbor in the same some Lake Park, Nielsen Ranch subdivision.  In the neighborhood. So I have just a couple of quick questions. It's ironic. Richard Howe. I had not thought of the whole parking issue. I would, I would be interested to get here. of the new entrances including the synergy project. That would be one one concern to address. My other one relates more to sort of the ongoing situation and Susie and Paul Lowenthal have I think were fairly proactive in our concerns before and that had to do with the evacuation corridor concept of clearing the brush and making it a bit safer for those of us in the neighborhoods who lost homes or who did not to be able to get out. However we still have an enormous amount of what we'll call scotch broom eight to nine feet tall that does meander down into the open space parcel that the city controls and is also that and currently unfortunately we do have another illegal encampment. So our concerns certainly the elite however I'm guessing they'll just migrate down into the open space below the project and that's the space just to reiterate it one more time that I'm I'm a little confused on why the city has not maintained it. I know that's not specifically to this subdivision but if I was purchasing one of those new homes in the arbors I would be super concerned about the level of vegetation and the maintenance of that public thoroughfare which leads along Russell Creek from Nielsen Park down to Mycentennial Way. So that's that's basically what I have to say and thank you so much for Susie for your presentation and others. I think it's extremely thorough and I am not opposed to the project but I am concerned with the issues that I brought up. Thank you. Thank you Miss Reans. Another couple few seconds here it seems like we had a couple of folks maybe with some technical issues trying to raise hands and other things in Zoom platforms so I'm going to just give a couple more seconds here to keep the public hearing open and then we'll close the public hearing and then I'll bring it back to the board. As a reminder if you wish to make a public comment you can do so by selecting the raise your hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen. If you're calling in please press star nine. Chair Weigel I'm not seeing any hands raised. I'm not either so with that we will once again reclose the public hearing. Thank you to those members of the public that did comment again and I'm glad that you were able to get your comment. So with that I guess I have a couple of questions for likely staff. So there were a couple of questions about road improvements in the area with additional projects being built in the vicinity. We know but I do have a response. I do have a response but the traffic you know it's an old project this is a kind of a conundrum the project the traffic the circulation was approved as part of the original map. Okay this is the last entitlement of that map and if and again it was kind of reactivated when we got the design review application but the improvement plans which sets all the homes on the ground those traffic engineering by the fire department by planning by building everybody signed off on those and the city engineer approves and signs them last. So the circulation fire you know I I'm sure in terms of construction as as Jesse pointed out a little while ago you know we do have some new defensible space requirements but that doesn't that doesn't touch on the improvement plans and circulation that's already been improved which is why this is kind of this is it's it's an awkward situation because we've all most of the project is is already approved and it was approved a long time ago yes it was approved before the fires but it's been revisited since then as well the improvement plans were not signed until after the fires to the degree that we could we brought them current and I can guarantee you that in terms of safety and fire access and what have you when the fire department says widen the road we widen the road when the fire department says no parking there we don't put parking there so the parking they they do have the ability to make all of these older projects safe. Um anyway so I I want to point that out again the purview of what's in front of us tonight is really I think as board member Sharon put it icing the details the the what what the project is going to look like not so much as it's going to function that's all that we've already looked at that. I know that's difficult to hear but I also want to say I did go back while public comments were being made and I looked at the the mitigated negative declaration and there are no measures there are no measures that that really speak to the building design what types of windows are there I will say that I had a problem with birds with my windows and I put some very handy little stickers on there that are specific for birds and they work like a charm and no bird has ever come at my window since. I will also say that the newer conditions expand the you know protective time period for the nesting season and adds some additional measures for the bats so you know that we were able to add some because those are standard conditions now we were able to address that and it seems to me that there was something else that you wanted me to look at I don't know what it was if there's anything else you want from me you let me know. Thanks Susie yeah no I mean I think I think you know myself and the board members know that you know once a land use component has been acted on by the planning commission we we don't really have a whole bunch of say in that but I think it's really important various touch points occur and so thank you for answering that regarding both the road improvements and I was just now looking at the improvement plans it looks like David Gulen signed them in January of last year so they're approved and ready to go obviously. So regarding the traffic study then that's a different piece of the puzzle in many ways but would it have the same I guess would have the same implications since the improvement plans have already been approved that it doesn't make sense. No no again so so the buildings the buildings will be new but the improvement plans already anticipate 37 new residential structures we've looked at the traffic impacts we've looked at the emergency access we've looked at all after not one but I think three fires in the area in 2021 so you know we city staff and certainly fire department is on heightened alert on that and I think I think we see that time and time again unfortunately I didn't I didn't think to invite Paul Lowenthal and he could he could I'm sure put everybody's minds at ease but and nor did I invite traffic engineering because it's really not within the the scope of this review I did include Jesse Oswald because it's very much in the scope of the planning review so I'm Jesse if you have anything to add to what I'm saying feel free to chime in but I think that he has already addressed the defensible space question so and again I can put up my contact information and any of those other callers that would like to come in and have a discussion about those improvement plans I can make sure that all the necessary people are there in a smaller meeting and you get the answers and this as far as the traffic study goes I just wanted to chip in here and you can probably answer this and I'm sorry I don't think that you touched on this but anytime that we've had projects we've covered this a couple of times post fires traffic studies are generally future cited they're thinking about full build out they're thinking about full capacity my guess is this traffic study whether it was done prior to the fires or whether there was some supplement after they're not counting cars down at the intersection and then and then basing their traffic study on that they're they're looking at front doors residents etc so I just I thought that's probably helpful to the public to understand that the traffic studies are generally put together with the you know not just the traffic count but with the real build out total total build out in mind you are absolutely right and that was the thought that I couldn't I forgot I was and and we consider all of that so yes there may be a Kristofferson project you know if you look around San Francisco or San Francisco Santa Rosa right now there are projects going up everywhere we have considered the traffic impacts of that through development street improvements are done to accommodate those developments and so yes it may they may not have considered the city that that project had the potential to construct if they are sharing and impacting the same intersections and and evacuation routes and emergencies are part of that as well more so now more so now but we're looking at it for that you know in this in this scenario again all that was approved back in 2010 and that wasn't an issue back then yeah and and we've learned and and we are looking that and as I said if the fire department says this is what was approved but this is what we're going to do because it's safe that's not then we do what's safe they have the power for that so I've I've seen it happen on you know when we get to the improvement plan several times um and you know sometimes learning from our own mistakes when streets have been not wide enough um and those streets standards are no longer used they're powerful when they need to be all right and um okay I have one other question was about parking and I see Rick Carl I was on the line I think Rick was the engineer on this um I couldn't find the answer looking at the plans and maybe it's because my acrobat kept crashing um Ben Sue you may know the answer to this too but I saw two parking spots per unit in a garage um but I believe the requirement is four for a single family home I couldn't see the other two unless uh there's something I'm not thinking I'm going to defer I'm going to go ahead from a parking I'm going to go ahead and defer I'll uh hopefully Rick Carlisle can answer that question talk about the parking again that was a that was a portion that was improved as part of the original project though but he can certainly clear up how many are there hi uh can everybody hear me yeah okay um yeah I believe the parking is um yeah that that's all been settled with the the you know all the entitlements and uh improvement plans and there are some um parking spots um so I mean it it works out you know there there's garages there's you know um some other spots so that was all decided on and approved you know back then so um kind of outside the scuffle over decided on yeah totally I just you know I think you know when we hear public I'm glad you're here so thank you yeah and there's time to find the answer the question on um along the main drive um like park drive just for your information it's no parking along there so there was that issue of like yeah not the park along there so those are all no parking signs along that street perfect I think I think that answers that thanks Rick I appreciate you um so any other questions from the board based on kind of all the stuff we hear oh well I mean there's this homeless concern but I'm not sure how we could address that I think it's important here but I don't know what else we have to say I'm knowing I can chime in on that and just say as soon as develop as soon as ground breaks it doesn't resolve the homeless um situation but it does transfer it to a new location so my guess is yet the gentleman who spoke earlier is right they may go deeper into the canyon but my guess is they'll probably relocate because they won't want to be near the construction so hopefully into one of the facilities that can help them thanks easy and um actually uh I do have one more question for the architect and then we'll go to you Adam so if the architect could come back I was just looking at the the color um color boards if you will and you just have a paint color called out um but you have horizontal side important that I'm going to assume fiber cement fighting for those elements but I just like a little bit of confirmation on the material typology Mark you have permissions to speak you just need to unmute yourself here you go thank you hi um you were asking about the material of the wood right oh yeah that's hardy board it's um so it's uh fire resistant it's got a one hour reading board so you know we were doing these homes under the chapter 7a um urban inner well fire interface design you know construction excuse me and that's the yeah so yeah thank you for the branding we can party party for it yeah I yeah I mean I personally I don't care what brand you use whether it's you know party or whomever uh I just wanted to know what it was because it doesn't spelled out so thank you yeah of course all right any other questions uh Adam you had some questions probably somebody so um I did just have one question um I was related to to that uh the open space um down the hill and just wondering um who which agency from the city is uh is under speaking of purview of who's that managed by that's a darn good question um it was raised by uh uh a member of the public a couple of days ago and um I I am looking into it but I don't have an answer for you as far as weed abatement if it's a city property I'm going to make the assumption the city gets to take care of the weed abatement as far as the the question came up about clearing a pathway that goes through there um I again it's not part of this project I don't have the answers on that I'm will make my phone number my email public and I will if I can't answer people's questions I will certainly get them to somebody who can't sure and thank you for that Susie and yeah I definitely know these um kind of in between liminal spaces are there's always you know a bit of hot potato of who actually is managing it um uh relate to that I is there um I'm certain there isn't I was just looking it up but I I think I may have found it actually uh if someone from the public wanted to um uh to to give feedback to the city um or to report an area that needs vegetation management is there a line that um or someone that said the public members could contact to say hey this nine foot tall scotch broom needs to come out um higher department okay um so uh so for members of the public I I can't remember the name of the of the public member who mentioned that but um please if you do see um vegetation that does need to be managed close to structures close to anything infrastructure infrastructurally important please report it to the city and that's private or city on property oh and jesse might be correcting me not correcting you just taking the opportunity so yes there is there's specifically uh an email I believe it's weeds at srcity.org for readabatement that is specific to fire season when the readabatement readabatement is very active but then we also have code at srcity.org that's the code enforcement division we will find the proper pathways to make sure that the proper agencies are addressing it through at least those two agencies will find the right one to get it addressed great thank you jesse and when I saw that you were on this um I thought that you would have the answer for us so thank you very much okay so we'll bring it back to the board here uh any other questions before we move to comments all right so adam why don't you just stay in the hot seat there you have any comments on the project um yes thank you thank you drew and thanks again to staff and to the applicant um and uh yeah it was um definitely a long tail this this um this project has gone through a long saga and so it's um we're glad to see this uh you know coming for for resolution um and um yeah I this is um yeah you know another um uh project um um housing project much needed in the city um infill which is great um also really great to see um a project in this part of town um you know uh this is uh this is my district actually um where I'm appointed from and so it's great to see housing here um and to see it spread uh from you know some of the other parts of town where it's been pretty heavy for the past um number of years and so glad to see that um and thank you for bringing this forward and it's always great to see those percentages of where we are with those um those housing needs allocation goals um so thank you for pointing that out too Susie as far as the the the details of of the project and the the icing on the cake um I think that this uh the project will um will definitely fit into the neighborhood context I think it's um yeah it is uh pretty uh straightforward um design um I think it's very tasteful um and I think it's um you know you're you're dealing with an interesting site here with topography and with the layout um and so um kudos for maximizing your space here um and so yeah not too much um in terms of design feedback really um I feel like this is a solid proposal that you've you've got to us and so I'm looking forward to supporting it um there are a couple of things um uh I'll stick to the uh to the landscape um you know kind of as my specialty um and uh yeah I'm drew drew kind of zero right on on things um to be to begin with with uh with really looking at um defensible space with looking at fire protection um you know as a as a um as a designer landscape designer I you know I I love to see dense planting plans um that's really great uh it also needs to be um actually uh appropriate and this this hillside and um this neighborhood um it's really it's really densely planted for what you are proposing in terms of just spend some defensible space um there any really um and uh I appreciate the the effort and the enthusiasm for wanting to to plant something densely and make it beautiful um right off the bat um but they're they're you know we're planting pretty much right up against the buildings um you know both with with trees shrubs grasses orbs um and so yeah that it's going to be it's going to be an issue um but they'll be growing the the sort of next levels after Susie looking at things hey Adam Adam we cut you off you're you're cutting out see if I turn off my I think these are dying can you hear me now yep perfect yes thank you I think that they were starting to get a little tired um uh what did I did could you hear everything I said or was it becoming garbled uh I caught everything up to really dense planting no defensible space and then you were talking about something else I didn't catch all of that so sure okay yes the the those questions about defensible space being caught um with the you know more levels of discussion and review and fire um looking at this um but I think that now your landscape architect can get out ahead of things and really um look at that um you know there's the I would look at the cal fire um regulations or recommendations for defensible space and really try and revise the the planting plants that you have um with those in mind um because this is a yeah this this um this part of town um as we know is is we heard from the members of the public who have direct experience um this uh is is you know a a dangerous part of town for fire and um that danger with the planting needs to be um to be mitigated and it can be um and so uh some revisions to the planting plan um with less dense pulling back from the buildings somewhat of looking at the palette um it's a nice palette which you've got and what you have proposed um again some of the the the uh you know we have a double a sword in our Mediterranean climate because um a lot of the the plants are tolerant of of of a lack of water but that also makes them drier and prone to to um fire and so um uh really looking at the plant palette in terms of of fire protection um and uh and I think that that that really cutting down the the dense the density of what you are proposing and um and you'll be on your way there um the palette looks good um definitely go for the of the the lower water low water use plants go for the wetter of the water low water use plants as much as possible um and um uh looking at the trees where you have them planted really close to the house especially with these slopes um and then also looking at the you know any trees that could be overhanging or close um even on the neighboring parcels no you can't necessarily do anything about those um but overhanging branches um uh and so uh revisions there I think um will definitely be in order I think Drew mentioned of uh conditioning that as well um and I would support that um there's one species on the list um that I'd recommend uh taking out um they're all all look pretty good except for the tabushina the princess flower um that uh isn't going to tolerate our our freezes up here in Sonoma County um that's just one uh one plant out of um all that you proposed that should do it for my input on um the design and particularly the landscape but uh thank you for for bringing this forward and um I look forward to having this uh this housing in the district when you were able to get this done so thank you very much all right um let's go to uh vice chair birch now for his comments you bet I think uh this is a again interesting project given length of time um I think that um from an architectural standpoint uh the project does blend in contextually I mean essentially it was it comes from the original starter as they say in bread making I mean it's the design is I think for this neighborhood um the this this is the you know the the right appearance it's interesting for us to have such a take a look at the conformance between the the the the 15 page design review colored applications set and and got to some of the elevations and looked at materials um things we always ask for like sight lighting and landscape so obviously all here it's done and so uh this makes it a very complete application I would defer to um to to um board member Sharon regarding the landscape he's sort of our landscape expert here I do think that paying close attention to the wildlife urban interface and the updated code I'm glad to hear that that will be important part of the review with the city some things may move around I think we understand that but that would be critical I did hear the public comment I you know I'm looking at two car garages I'm looking at some parking on the loop there and I think that that's probably going to be adequate so I'm supportive of seeing the housing kind of looked at an empty lot or that's not so much an empty lot but a wooded lot um and and for a period of time but you know recognize that we do need to move forward and and and meet the housing goals um and and a parcel that's already been really determined to be an appropriate location for housing is um you know the right place to be building so supportive of the project look forward to voting for it and those are my comments thanks Michael um board member McHugh your color uh thank you I am supportive of the project I want to thank the staff for their staff presentation and the applicant for his presentation I am supportive of my colleagues comments with regarding to the architecture and the landscaping and those are my comments I look forward to supporting the project and voting for it okay uh I mean I agree with Michael I mean these are very much uh in context with the surrounding homes in this area um the one thing though that I'm I'm struggling with a little bit so we always talk about foresighted architecture it's one of the biggest things you do talk about in terms of uh building design I'm struggling a little bit with uh building type one and building type two um and and the reason for that is that uh that lower level there's no fenestrations or anything on under the left and right side and I think part of it is likely related to grade change and I'm trying to unpack the construction documents to see if there's a foundation or a retaining wall in there and it looks like there might be but um I was kind of struggling with that a little bit um so it's and it seems like there's like a kind of a funky double stud burrowed scenario uh that then ties into the retaining wall uh in some of these cases and uh I guess a good example would be on sheet I think the sheet a 1.12 and the construction documents set on the plan set east side or the right side of the sheet there's bedrooms three and there is substantial wall there but it's got this double stud scenario and I'm assuming that the double stud is obviously to provide additional width uh to flush out that elevation of the the house with the the retaining wall located behind but I think um that's a missed opportunity uh for fenestration or a punch out or something to give a little bit of character to that component because otherwise it's just a large swath of uh fighting um and Susie actually Susie could you do me a favor and bring up uh attachment number four uh while I'm babbling that would be helpful and it might help the other members of the board as well um I will it's going to take me just a minute here though okay so keep babbling and no no no no no worries at all yeah no worries at all um so yeah so I'm wondering I'm wondering how we can take advantage of kind of like those locations where there isn't a retaining wall but there is wall an opportunity for a window an opportunity for you know something in that location to to kind of change that and then it also it looks like that occurs on building type two I want to say um and it's on let's see if I can find it in this construction set it's quite large yeah building type two both the east and the west or the left and right of the lower level have bedrooms with no windows so I I wonder about that there's just the the double doors that go out to the decks but my oh my wouldn't it be nice if there were some uh some some windows so uh Susie if you could go to page that one yeah that one right there up too far page three there we go so what I'm talking about there is this left side 2446 and right side 2518 those the bottom yeah those areas they're kind of starved for something I I I noticed that in some of the plans there is retaining wall in those locations but I think in the locations where there isn't a retaining wall um we could introduce a window that has the same character and context of the windows above um and if you go to the next one page four so you'll see here obviously this left side elevation that whole big chunk of sploff of siding um and this is actually specifically related to a design guideline um so in design guidelines section 5.4 hillside consideration on the very very very very last page uh figure 4.5.14 it says this home in Nielsen Ranch is big boxing does not step down the hillside the result is a very tall downhill quote unquote pony walls below the lower floor the type of design is discouraged um now I don't think we have kind of the picture in the design guidelines is pretty extreme in that there's a two-story home with like two and a half stories of pony wall below it so we we don't have that situation here thankfully I am generally pretty appreciative of how you guys have put the houses on the slopes and whatnot for hillside development but I think we could just touch up these couple of spots with the window or to um to help complete all four sides of the building uh because the I think the reason for it obviously the architecture is pleasant it's nice it's you know that you know a kind of craftsman Sonoma County aesthetic that we see all over the place and uh so it's uh I think you know I think it's just we're we're rounded out um and then the other the other occasion this is happening it's the next page Susie right side elevation 2461 right there and then a little bit on the rear elevation in the middle but I'm not sure there's a full story there the middle and the right side of that rear elevation right above yeah exactly I think that's also having a it's struggling I think that's let me just double check here yep I think that's it I actually like building type 5 the best I think it has the most architectural scaling in it um and so when I see that big swath of siding right oh I mean we just something else there um okay so I think that's it for my comments um does anybody else have any additional comments based on that so I took some notes um and really the biggest thing I heard uh from Adam uh and I think we all concurred with is uh the site is too densely planted perhaps over planted it's a nice palette there needs to be a reduction in terms of with fire protection in mind and defensible space and then to remove the princess flower because it'll freeze to death so um do we think that should be a shell or should be a concern I'm inclined to think it's a shell I concurred give me thumbs up on that one for the defensible space the well no that's just the this is just your I'm trying to isolate this to planting specifically yeah the um the you know the the one species one plant species is we could take that out that's not necessarily a shell but the most important thing is the fire so okay yeah so I think perhaps I will probably where this is shall shall redo the landscape plans with a reduction in plantings with fire protection of defensible space in mind that sound good Adam yeah yeah please please revise sounds good shall revise Susie did you did you get all that Susie I'm still typing hold on one sec I'm going to read it right back to you shall redo or shall is it redo I would say revive revive revive I would say okay so shall revise planting our landscape plan with uh a reduction in planting with fire protection and defensible space in mind would that sound good Adam yeah and well there's a question for Susie and potentially even for for um Jesse there uh that should we should we reference anything in particular my the reason why I ask that is that um there are various codes and recommendations seems like every jurisdiction has one um and so uh just wondering if we need to keep it vague and just say please revise with this in mind or reference say you know with with Santa Rosa's blah blah blah or Cal fire's fire safe guidelines will we interface um you know I'd leave that up to you I guess if but we I would I think we'd need to decide whether or not to go specific or vague with this condition Jesse you're gonna you I'm happy to speak up yes uh thank you we do need to keep it vague at this time as our zoning code and waterfishing landscape ordinance are catching up to these requirements so we want to give us the opportunity to make these all mesh great yeah I I I also didn't want to hamstring anyone with uh with something so that sounds good definitely moving target yeah thanks okay um so then I I was very concerned about uh the underutilization of the ground floor the lower level um was everybody else uh after I kind of went through that did you feel the same way or is there any disagreement on that item I agree with you I mean no disagreement yeah I think it gets it gets to that um that idea of the design of dignity that we'd like to mention yeah exactly um yeah I just feel like there's a couple of spots where I would think I would I would say where where it does you know obviously there's issues of constructability but where it doesn't affect constructability and it's gonna it's gonna lend to um the livability it would be nice to see if there was an exploration and or not and and a couple of windows added in those locations that you recognize true so uh should that be a consider or should that be a shall I think we could write it as a shall that that gives some flexibility to the the design team but that's just my opinion okay so what I'm thinking then is uh Michael actually hit the nail on the head uh so we can say shall provide additional windows in lower level bedrooms uh where uh where constructability directability it does not present a problem something good is it and I think that's pretty clear it's pretty clear direction that we're asking for a window or different conditions for each building type no I think I think we would write one condition that's vague it gives the the architect um I don't know I'm just thinking about it as an architect like what would I want as a condition right so I think writing it in a in a vague way where you can and to not introduce one where there's a retaining wall or another complication for instance I think that's uh that would be my opinion looks like the applicant may have thoughts about that his hand came up right yeah they may have a comment you know I saw and go up there so actually just real quick typically what we do um is once we kind of round out our conditions um we then uh propose them to the applicant see if it makes sense uh something seems undoable for some reason we may have a conversation about just I think we're talking through these as a board to see what makes sense to us as a group and then we'll circle back with the applicant on those items that sounds good with everybody so um Susie can you reread what you have there on the window one yeah I'm I so I got the first part and I was just I didn't want to interrupt you I need the I won't interfere with construction is that yeah and won't interfere with construct I would call it constructability there may be a reason why yeah there may be a reason why they can't put a window there right structurally there's a column or retaining wall or you know there could be one of five thousand different things that would potentially cause an issue um and so we're just giving I think I think the key thing is we're giving direction put a window in if you can windows are fairly inexpensive than the grand scheme of things and it kind of we've talked about um uh design natural light and lower levels well I think I think in all the plans they'd be wrong I think they're all lower level bedrooms and was it for all for all floor plans share michael or was it just okay oh yeah I'm just I just call it I just I would call it again let's make it vague to give flexibility architect uh and the applicant and just say all lower levels I wouldn't even call it lower level bedrooms for levels because that covers all all types of the building it covers the three-story versions the two-story versions if they look at it and they're like oh well hey we get out of window there and we've given them the direction to do so or they can go ah you know there's a column in the way or there's a retaining wall or there's this or there's that we can't add a window because the building will fall over or whatever um I think that the it's clear we want the design to change but obviously not being intimately familiar with the structural design there may be a piece that we're missing so and that just gives them the flexibility okay fine yeah can you read it back to you uh shall the first one is shall revise landscape plans with a reduction in planting with fire protection and defensible space in mind defensible space in mind and the second condition is shall provide additional windows and lower levels of all buildings where windows can be added and won't interfere with constructability now I'm going to say I'm going to change that and do not interfere just so it's correct so was that okay okay that sounds good to me yeah no that sounds great thumbs up from everybody else I have one one uh um thought on the the landscape one uh I I would even say you could keep it keep it vague and take out the reduction in planting um and just say revise the planting plan with defensible space fire protection blah blah blah in mind because who knows maybe move the plants it'll probably be that way perfect I've just revised it made shall we shall revise landscape plan with fire protection and defensible space in mind perfect okay and then the last condition um and uh hopefully everybody agrees with me um shall provide a defensible space plan shall provide it you know and uh battle the the entitlement component that way it always travels with the entitlement and then it also can be submitted you know permit amendment or additional supporting documentation to the city center of the for building planche all right so with that in mind uh we'll turn it back over to the applicant um looks like we had a hand raised from both applicant Jim Clifford and applicant Mark Gross uh so if they could be granted speaking privileges I'll turn it over to the recording secretary to make that happen uh so you all have permissions to speak you just have to um unmute yourself and this is Mark Gross yeah I'm just looking at the preliminary drawings here but we'll look at the working drawings and the CDs and we'll we'll definitely study those windows and we'll add a window and I agree with you on understanding we'll have a lot we'll add a window in those side and the bed walls are those and bedrooms like on the side of that and kind of soften up those side elevations so I was just one yeah I would say it it doesn't even have to be a yeah and it doesn't even have to be a big window right it doesn't have to be right no rectilinear like you have it you could even do a claristory tech window if it's a bed wall or something like that it's just anything to introduce most of those are never not only to break up the yeah not not not not only to break up the elevational lift but just get some additional natural light in there that's all I'm saying and then cool thanks Mark and then Jim Clifford did you have any additional comments or questions I'm good with these uh these conditions one of the things I would request is this could be uh reviewed by staff and not have to come back to this uh uh designer review board so um yeah so I don't know if he's done an entitlement recently in the city of Santa Rosa but um with the resilient city measure ordinance from the board in 2017 uh 2016-27 somewhere in there um there was preliminary designer review and then final design review and very often uh we had the option to either defer final design review to staff or require to come back to the board um with the new requirements or the new rules um nothing comes back to the board once we've conditioned it unless a hiccup happens uh you know on on staff side of things they may have a question or there may be a problem or you know and then they can re-elevate it back to the board to be kind of reviewed again but that's a that's more the abnormality than the the process now so once we condition your project tonight it's going to have those three conditions and that'll be it and then uh staff will just check those three items when you resubmit and uh you can I believe you can a lot of applicants have run that in parallel with building plan check that's your question very good thank you very much problem all right so with that being said I'm going to bring it back to the board and I'm looking for a motion on this item I'll make a motion uh to uh for a resolution of the design review board of the city of Santa Rosa granting design review approval for the arbor's located at 3500 lake park drive file numbers mjp07-016 parentheses dr20-056 and parentheses and I'll waive the reading of the text Ben can I get a second should should the resolution adopt the two conditions we're a little out of order from our Rosenberg so we can adopt those now and not yeah sorry about the silly business thanks yeah I know sorry about that yeah just say you want to do the the three conditions as read by Susie yes uh to as an addendum uh to the resolution the three conditions as um read by staff okay thanks can I get a second yes I'm doing so many concept reviews lately that sometimes I forget about the Rosenberg's rules and I I should have asked for the I should have asked for the uh the motion uh up front there so sorry about that um it's on me I just we haven't done an approval in a while we just it seems like we've been seeing we were we were playing without a nap so we need a roll call vote so turn it over to the recording secretary board member mcqueen hi board member Sharon hi vice chair birch hi chair weigel so it sounds like motion passes we didn't hear you drew oh I just said the motion we missed your audio drew we didn't hear a yay or nay from you there you go so with that the motion passes with four eyes no nose and no abstention already uh so with that item 8.1 is closed thank you applicant team we look forward to seeing your project get built and so with that we will move on to we'll we'll go back to item two for approval of minutes and we'll check in with uh board liaison Amy Nicholson to see if we have a answer on that minute issue thanks chair um so we can the the minutes can be approved with a simple majority so since we only require three votes for them to be approved um that should work out and you could vote no I suppose since you weren't there um but those board members who were present at September the September 1st meeting any issues with the minutes the draft minute none for me all right seeing none we will enter that into the record with three yeses and all obscene since I wasn't there so we can put those minutes in the record excellent and with that we are at item nine which is adjournment so it is 622 uh and let's adjourn the uh design of the board meeting everybody have a great weekend and we'll see you in a couple of weeks all right thank you thanks all take care talk soon good night good night everyone good night