Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board Approves Smart Village Development on November 17, 2021
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board Regular Meeting – November 17, 2021
The Cultural Heritage Board held a virtual public hearing and unanimously approved a major landmark alteration permit for the Smart Village residential development, a six-story, 114-unit project at 34 W 6th Street and 2 4th Street within the Railroad Square Preservation District. The meeting included a noticing correction, applicant presentations, public comments, and board deliberation.
Consent Calendar
- No items were presented for approval.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Greenbelt Alliance (Karen Rosenberg) – Expressed full support for the project as a climate-smart, transit-oriented development to address housing needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- Santa Rosa Metro Chamber of Commerce (Peter Rumble) – Strongly supported the project, citing its role in attracting workforce and supporting economic growth.
- Generation Housing (Kaelin Weeks) – Endorsed the project as a proof-of-concept for modern downtown housing, emphasizing its alignment with local planning and transit access.
- North Bay Leadership Council (Katie Murray) – Urged approval, stating the project is a catalyst for vibrant downtown and needed housing.
- Neighbor (Leilani Clark) – Expressed excitement about new neighbors, complimented the design, and requested community pool access at a discounted rate.
- Sixth Street Playhouse Board Chair (Dorothy Beatty) – Voiced 100% support, noting the project would enhance the entertainment district and create a lively neighborhood.
- Sonoma County Transportation and Land Use Coalition (Willard Richards) – Supported the project but urged design improvements to provide “eyes on the” Prince Memorial Greenway path for safety. Personally opposed adding brick veneer.
- Neighbor (Paul Pullman) – Expressed enthusiasm but raised concerns about parking adequacy (114 units, 75 spaces) and urged a future connection from the bike trail to the Prince Memorial Greenway.
- Neighbor (Noelle Johnson) – Supported the project but echoed parking concerns, noting insufficient parking does not automatically make a city bikeable.
Discussion Items
- Staff Report (Adam Ross) – Presented the project details, including 114 units (12 affordable, 10.5%), amenities (pool, fitness, play area), 75 parking spaces (0.7 spaces/unit), and compliance with the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan. Staff noted a minor noticing defect on mailed postcards (missing meeting time) but recommended proceeding under Zoning Code Section 20-66.02083. Board agreed to continue without continuance.
- Applicant Presentation (Peter Stanley, Ben Wrigley, Brett Cordenbrock, Kara Brunzel) – Designed focused on compatibility with adjacent historic districts (Railroad Square, West End) and the historic cannery site. Key design changes included replacing glass balcony rails with metal work and upgrading ground-floor materials to a masonry product. The pool would be available to the public via membership. The applicant team addressed questions about the 4th Street connection (pending state approval), ground-floor activation (future phases planned), and archaeological mitigation (standard measures, no prior survey required as site not pre-identified).
- Board Comments – Members praised the contemporary design’s compatibility, appreciated community support, and noted the project’s potential to set a precedent. Board Member Garrett requested that the developer remain open to adding parking if neighborhood issues arise. No amendments were made to the resolution.
Key Outcomes
- Motion & Vote – Board Member Garrett moved to approve the major landmark alteration permit (File No. LMA21-008) for the Smart Village development. The motion was seconded by Board Member Borin and passed unanimously (6-0).
- Conditions – No additional conditions were added beyond staff’s standard language. The board acknowledged the noticing defect and invoked the relevant code section to proceed.
- Next Steps – The project will proceed to the Design Review Board for further review. The applicant will continue work on the 4th Street crossing and future phases.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 7:25 PM. No future meetings scheduled for December 15; next meeting may be December 1st if scheduled.
Meeting Transcript
Thank you, Chairman Sir. If the board members can please turn their cameras on. I'm sorry, Mr. Maloney. Say that again. I was just asking you all to turn on your cameras. Looks like everyone's going to be here, so we will uh go ahead and start when you're ready. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Okay, I'd like to welcome uh members of the public and our board members, city staff, and our applicants uh to the November 17th Cultural Heritage Board Meeting. Persona Government Code Section 54953 and the recommendation of the health officer of the county of Sonoma. Cultural Heritage Board members will be participating in this meeting via Zoom webinar. Members of the public can participate in the meeting virtually by visiting WW.zoom dot us forward slash join or phone dialing 888 475499 with meeting ID 973 6028 6025. Additional information related to the meeting participation is available on uh SRCity.org forward slash CHB. The meeting will also be live streamed at Santa Rosa.com forward slash calendar. Click on the in progress link to view. The meeting can also be viewed on Comcast Channel 28 and at YouTube.com forward slash city of Santa Rosa. This time I like to call the uh 4 30 p.m. regular session zoom virtual meeting to order. Uh Ms. Maloney, can we have a roll call? Yes, one moment. Let the record reflect that all commission all board members are present with one vacancy. Very good. Moving on to item two, approval of the minutes. Um we have no minutes to approve at this time tonight. Uh on to uh item three, public uh comments. So I'm gonna go ahead and open um the board for public comment for any item not included in this meeting's agenda. So if the item is uh going to be discussed later, the public will have an opportunity to comment. So this opportunity for the public to comment on non-agendized uh items. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. So Ms. Maloney, do we have anybody wishing to make a public comment? Thank you, Chairman user. No one's raising their hand at this time. Okay, which is good. Okay, then not seeing anybody. I will close the public comment period. Moving on to item four, uh board business. Um, I'll start out by reading our statement of purpose. The cultural heritage board shall consider the following matters, standards, guidelines, and criteria to the extent applicable in determining whether to grant or deny a permit. Whether proposed change is consistent or incompatible with the architectural period of the building, whether proposed change is compatible with any adjacent or nearby landmark structures or preservation district structures, where the textures, materials, penetrations, decorative features, and details proposed are consistent with uh the period and or are compatible with adjacent structures. Whether proposed changes destroys or adversely affects an important architectural feature or features. Such other matters, criteria, and standards as may be adopted by resolution of the Cultural Heritage Board.
openpublica.com