Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board Meeting - June 1, 2022
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board Meeting - June 1, 2022
The Cultural Heritage Board of Santa Rosa met virtually on June 1, 2022 at 4:30 PM. Chair Brian Meuser called the meeting to order at 4:32 PM. Five members were present (Meuser, Boren, Fennell, Huang, Praetzellis); Board Member Cappie Garrett was absent. The meeting included public comment, board member reports, department reports, and a study session on the Santa Rosa Forward General Plan 2050 Update.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Shelley Bean commented on the board's response to a concept item she and her husband presented on March 2, 2022. She argued that board members used words like "difficult," "awkward," "unfortunate," and "unusual" to describe the meeting, portraying the Beans as rebellious. She stated that they were told by the senior planner that brick steps and a skirt could be built as landscape features if not attached to the house or foundation, and they followed that guidance. She criticized Board Member Garrett for questioning the use of redwood siding while allegedly replacing her own garage door with aluminum without a landmark alteration permit. She called for board members to resign if they do not comply with the same standards they enforce.
Board Member Reports
- Board Member Laura Fennell raised concerns about numerous unpermitted alterations in historic districts (e.g., asbestos siding removal, window replacements, new siding, six-foot fences). She requested that this topic be added to a future agenda for discussion. Chair Meuser clarified that a motion and second were sufficient to place it on a future agenda. Fennell moved, and Board Member Boren seconded. The motion was approved without a full board vote.
Department Reports
- Staff Liaison Susie Murray reported on staffing. The department is onboarding three new city planners. Michelle Montoya, the meeting host, has been promoted to department admin secretary. Jessica Jones returned to the city as a supervising planner and has been promoted to deputy director. Murray noted the department has been short-staffed but is seeing positive changes.
Scheduled Item: Study Session – Santa Rosa Forward Land Use and Circulation Alternatives
- Amy Nicholson, Senior Planner, presented the draft alternatives for the General Plan 2050 Update. She explained that all three alternatives assume 36,000 new housing units by 2050. The alternatives are: (1) Central Corridors: growth focused downtown and along corridors connecting to SMART stations, with hub-and-spoke transit and bike improvements; (2) Neighborhood Main Streets: growth around neighborhood shopping centers, with improvements to sidewalk gaps and bikeways; (3) Distributed Housing: modest-intensity development (duplexes, triplexes) spread across the city, similar to current build-out.
- Nicholson highlighted community outreach: nine pop-up events, five in-person workshops (in English and Spanish), a virtual open house, and listening sessions with groups including individuals with disabilities and farm workers. Community feedback favored a mix of alternatives 1 and 2, with strong opposition to growth in wildland-urban interface areas and emphasis on equity and preserving natural resources. Survey respondents slightly preferred Alternative 2.
- Board members provided input. Chair Meuser expressed concern about potential conflicts between the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and historic neighborhood protections, citing past difficulties with projects that met specific plan findings but not historic district criteria. He suggested clarity is needed to avoid collisions. Vice Chair Maria Praetzellis favored Alternative 1, hoping for collaboration to preserve historic neighborhoods and adding green space and amenities for livability. Board Member Fennell preferred Alternative 2, noting the value of neighborhood retail and caution about building too densely before transit ridership is proven. Board Member Huang expressed support for Alternative 1, noting it aligns with the downtown station area plan and helps reduce car dependency, but suggested a hybrid with some elements of Alternative 2 (e.g., commercial support along South Santa Rosa Avenue). Board Member Boren liked the idea of neighborhood centers, drawing on her experience in New York and San Francisco.
- Nicholson confirmed the board will be consulted again on the historic preservation element during the preferred alternative phase and the draft general plan. She noted the plan will address all parcels, including the downtown station area site, but changes there are unlikely given the recent specific plan.
Key Outcomes
- Motion to place a future agenda item on unpermitted modifications in historic districts was made and seconded (Fennell, Boren) and approved without a vote.
- The board provided feedback on the three alternatives; no formal vote was taken. Staff will incorporate comments into the preferred alternative, which will be developed and presented to the board and community in the coming months.
- Meeting adjourned at 5:21 PM.
Meeting Transcript
Okay, thank you, Ms. Murray. Okay, welcome everyone. Um, all participating, all board members and city staff members to our June 1st City of Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board meeting. At this time, I'd like to uh call uh the meeting to order and um ask Ms. Montoya for a roll call. Hello, Chair Musseur. This is um recording secretary Eileen. I will be filling in for um your regular um recording secretary today. Um let the record reflect that all members are present with the exception of member Garrett. Okay, thank you. And um, if you would get give me your last name again so I can Cleary. So one more time. Cleary. Carrie? Uh Clearly, like the word clear, and you just add a Y at the end. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. My hearing on this Zoom stuff isn't always the best, but anyway, we'll get through it. Okay. Um moving on to item then number two, uh, approval of the minutes. That's like we have any movements, minutes to approve, so we'll move on to item three, public comments. This is the time when any person may address matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject matter of the jurisdiction. The public may comment on the agenda items when the item uh is called. Uh each speaker is allowed uh three minutes. So um uh Miss Clary, if do we have anyone who would like to comment uh to the board at this time? We do. Um, Mr. Jeff Bean. And Mr. Bean, you have been given permission to speak. If you would go ahead and introduce yourself prior to making your comment. Thank you. Okay, actually, it's uh Mrs. Bean Shelley Bean because my husband just had to leave to be with the patient. Okay, cool. So okay. So um we were before the Cultural Heritage Board for a concept review March 2nd and a landmark alteration permit. And on our last meeting after the final vote, some words were used by board members to describe the meeting, and the words used by the board members were difficult, awkward, unfortunate, unusual, portraying us as if we were rebelling and as if we went ahead and completed the work, when in fact we were told by the senior planner that we could build brick steps and a brick skirt as long as they were not attached to the house or the foundation. If we left a little space, which we did, then the step and skirt were considered a landmark, uh uh considered a landscape feature, and that it did not require a landmark alteration permit. The steps in the skirt do not touch the foundation or the house. Our Brick Mason confirmed that the brick skirt is not attached to the foundation, but is only attached to the concrete walkway at the bottom edge of the brick. No mortar touches the foundation at all. We were questioned by board member Garrett to be certain that if we replaced any siding that we would be using the same exact product that was on the house, and that we'd we would be using Clearheart Redwood. We find it very hypocritical that board member Garrett would be so concerned about our sighting being Redwood when she had her wood garage door replaced on her 1104 McDonald home with an aluminum garage door. In addition, we don't see any indication that she obtained a landmark alteration permit or went before the Cultural Heritage Board prior to changing her garage door. The integrity of this board is a compromise when board members can sit here and hold applicants to standards that they themselves don't follow. Board members should resign if they are not willing to comply with the same requirements that they are asking others to follow. Does serving on this board somehow excuse members from complying with the standards, essentially giving them a free pass, or should they go through the same process that they require everyone else to go through?
openpublica.com