All right, commissioners, if you can start turning your cameras on, we'll be starting shortly. Mr. Maloney, are we ready to go? Yes, we are ready whenever you are, Chair Weeks. Okay. Okay. So, I would like to call to order the April 8th, 2021 meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission, and I'd like to read the following statements, due to the provision of the governor's executive orders N-25-20 and N-29-20, which suspend certain requirements of the Brown Act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma to shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19. The planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Members and staff are participating from remote locations and or practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak during item four, public comment, or during our public hearing item today, will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. Thank you. Mr. Maloney, would you like to do roll call? Yes. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present. Thank you. Item three is approval of the minutes. Do we have any corrections? Commissioner Beggin. Hi. Yeah, I have a correction on page 405. At the top of the page, my disclosure indicates that I disclosed an acquaintance associated with the project that was applicable to the prior item and not this item. So that should be removed. I'm sorry, can you repeat that? Yeah, item 9.2 on the meeting minutes of the 25th, I believe, indicate that I had disclosed an acquaintance associated with the project and that acquaintance was associated with item 9.1 and not 9.2. So that has been correct. Thank you. Do you have that, Mr. Maloney? I do. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to approve as amended. I'll make that fixed. Okay. Any other changes? Okay. So the minutes will stand approved as amended. Item four, public comments. And we now open the public comment for any item not included on this meeting's agenda. 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 9 to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes and a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speakers and viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of the countdown. Do we have any? Thank you, Chair Weeks. No one is raising their hand at this time. I'm going to pass my Zoom screen for a minute so hopefully you all can still hear me. You can still see and hear you and no one is raising their hand. Okay. Then I will go ahead and close the public comment period. Sorry. I'm having a Zoom issue right here. Okay. I'm back. So the next item is planning commissioners report. Before we start that, I'd like to read the following, which is the purpose of the planning commission. The planning commission is charged with carrying out the California planning and implementing of plans, ordinances and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking special planning studies as needed. And do any of the commissioners have any comments that they'd like or any reports they'd like to make? I have one, and that is that the City of Santa Rosa, the Merit Award nominations are now open. I was hoping to be able to forward via Mr. Maloney the PDF of the application form, but it's not quite available yet. But if you go on the City website under Merit Awards, the information will be there. You have a few months until nominations are due, and I hope that when I do forward that information to you, if you could also pass it on to other people, excuse me, who you think might want to nominate somebody. And I hope that you all attend the event, which is going to be in September. And hopefully, I was going to say, hopefully in person, but I don't know. We're doing Zoom plans anyway, so I will pass that on to you via Mr. Maloney when I get it. So item six is department reports, and Amy Lyle, supervising planner, will be our liaison for this evening's meeting. Yes, good evening. Thank you so much, Chair Weeks. I get the pleasure of serving as your liaison tonight, since Mr. Triple is our project planner. And if it's okay, Chair Weeks, I thought as a department report tonight, I would take the opportunity to update you on what's happening in the long-range planning side of the house, probably five minutes or so, and of course, if there's any questions as well. So I supervise our long-range planning team, the advanced planning team. And we've been working on some really interesting things, and I just wanted to provide you a brief update. So first, I did want to note that we were able to hire a new planner on our team. So you may remember last year, we did receive a grant from Kaiser Permanente to hire a planner, and so we've hired Beatrice Guerra-Ona, and she started with us in January. And she is our equity and public health planner that will be assisting us on the general plan update. So I'll talk a little bit more about her role with the general plan in a minute here. But to talk about some other things that we're doing, we recently kicked off two new projects. One is a missing middle housing ordinance. So that is grant funded, but it will be an effort to revise our zoning code to encourage and facilitate more housing within that missing middle framework. And so we have gone through a request for proposal process and the contract to award to a consultant is actually on next week's City Council's meeting. And so that process will be roughly about two years, and it will include a pretty extensive update to our zoning code, and it will enter into kind of a form-based code model for those that are familiar. So we look forward to talking more about that with you as it unveils and as we get into the public outreach component of that. So we are just starting our historic resources survey for the downtown station area. And that was also grant funded and is an historic survey for properties not within historic preservation districts. And the role of that effort is to facilitate increased housing and streamline the process for housing. So, and so that's really focused in the downtown core. There will be no formal action as a result, but instead it will produce individual parcel level surveys to assist with the development review process and for housing developers in general. So we may do a report out at the end of that process, but there is no policy related to that grant and that project. We are also engaged in an effort with the County of Sonoma and some other Sonoma County jurisdictions on a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. And through that process, we will be adopting our own City of Santa Rosa Hazard Mitigation Plan, which we are required to update ever so often, and we are required to update this plan by January of next year. So we will update you as that comes forward. And then also within the next few months, we will be issuing a RFP for a Mendocino specific plan. So that will be building on our Mendocino Avenue priority development area for the corridor plan that exists now. We'll be doing a full specific plan with environmental impact report to really get a full evaluation of that area, potential growth, and other community issues there. And that will be about a three-year process, kicking off probably late this fall or winter. So then also wanted to talk about a general plan update, which is probably the heftiest thing that we are working on at the moment. So we did kick off our general plan last year. And the schedule has us moving to adoption in late 2022, early 2023. So it's a long-term project to update the general plan comprehensively. It includes an update to our climate action plan. It includes new work on environmental justice. It will include health policy and also a new housing element. And the housing element will be based on our new regional housing needs assessment or housing numbers that are provided to us through the Association of Bay Area Governments. They've been in a methodology process for about the last year. So right now we have draft numbers associated with what that allocation is, which will be final later this year and will allow us to embark on that housing element process. So I did want to elaborate on Beatrice and some of her work. So her role and augmented with the Kaiser grant is to work on health policy and metrics associated with a lot of the health outcomes related to our community and the general plan. But also she is doing outreach to our most vulnerable communities. So one of our primary goals with the general plan update is to reach out to those that don't normally participate and to really have that neighborhood engagement across the whole city. So she is our expert in that field and we're extremely happy to have her on board for that. So right now we are in the visioning phase of the general plan and there is a survey out on our website. We have a brand new website for the general plan that's about three months old. So I invite you guys to take a look. Please spread the word and invite people to take the survey that we have out right now. And so the next touch point for your commission will actually be in June. So we will be having a joint city council planning commission meeting to report back on what we heard from the community as far as visioning and next steps for the general plan. And then we also will be coming forward with a housing zoning related package to you in probably June and that will be related to some state law changes to our density bonus ordinance that we will need to bring forward as well as taking a review of our growth management ordinance. So those are the next touch points that we'll see you for. But I'm happy to answer any questions if you have any. Ms. Lyle, what do you do in your spare time? I do have a question regarding the general plan. I have watched bits of pieces of the two community advisory committee meetings. And they talked at one of them about future community meetings. And I wondered if you had any of those plans yet? No. So we will be releasing that full schedule in the next week or two. Okay. Thank you for attending those CAC meetings as well. It's easy in Zoom. Do any of the other commissioners have any questions of Ms. Lyle? No. Okay. Seeing no other questions, then thank you very much for that update. And I wondered if you could come back every few months maybe and give us another little update or not a little update on because you have so much going on in so many parts of the city. It would be great for us to keep abreast of what you're doing. Sounds great. We'll do. Thank you so much. Okay. We don't have a study session today. Item eight is consent items and we have no consent items. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry to meet back up. I went right over statement of abstentions. Are there any abstentions by the commissioners on the item today? Okay. So then we have no study session. Item eight is consent items. We have no consent item. Item nine is public hearing 9.1. This is an ex or first of all, let me introduce the item. And it is a public hearing. Santa Rosa farm group cannabis cultivation facility mitigated negative declaration and conditional use permit 800 Yolanda Avenue, PRJ 17-068 CUP 17-123. And this is an ex parte item. So if we could have any disclosures that you may have, we'll start with Vice Chair Peterson. So I visited the site and I also had a telephone conversation with the applicants representative Aaron Carlstrom today where we discussed some of the background of the project and otherwise no new or non-public information was disclosed. Thank you. Mr. Collier. I visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Carter. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Holton. I also visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan. I also visited the site and I had a brief phone call with council member Eddie Alvarez about the project and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Krepke. I visited the site and have nothing else to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So Mr. Tripple, if you will lead us off. Great. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Good afternoon, Plain and Commissioners. It's a pleasure to be here with you this afternoon. And I'll go ahead and share my screen and start the presentation. And so if you would, if somebody could please let me know if the screen is sharing, you should be able to see the introduction slide. Great. Thank you. Please. Okay. So today's meeting item before you is the Santa Rosa Farm Group Cannabis Cultivation Facility at 800 Yolanda Avenue. I would like to note that the staff report and resolutions were edited and reposted to refer to the project as the Santa Rosa Farm Group LLC Cannabis Facility. The reason that we made this very simple name change is so that in the future when state licenses would be sought, the project name would be consistent with the applicant for those state licenses. And so today's request entitlement is for major conditional use permit for development of 116,700 square foot industrial building. That is three stories or 55 feet tall to house proposed cannabis land uses, including cannabis cultivation, approximately 86,000 square feet. Manufacturing non-volatile and volatile in approximately 21,000 square feet, distribution in 8,000 or so square feet. And finally, a testing laboratory in approximately 1,000 square feet. I do want to know that the items regarding development standards that are before the commission today would be for locked coverage and for a parking reduction. And then for the cannabis land use as the items of the major conditional use permit for cultivation, minor conditional use permits for manufacturing and distribution, and then testing laboratory as a permitted use in the light industrial zoning district. So the project is located at 800 Yolanda Avenue at the southwest corner of the intersection of Yolanda Avenue and Petaluma Hill Road. It's surrounded to the west and to the north by light industrial development to the east is agricultural farmlands, but also the evolving development at Kiwanis Springs and Petaluma Hill Road is predominantly multifamily residential. Then to the south we have again some low density residential agricultural land uses, which are zoned low density residential. And then to the south and southwest is residential development. So the light industrial district is located along the Yolanda Avenue corridor. All of the proposed cannabis land uses are allowed in the light industrial district subject to minor or major conditional use permit approval. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all the other applicable provisions of this zoning code and the city code. In enacting its commercial cannabis land use regulations, the city specifically identified the light industrial and general industrial zoning districts where proposed uses would be appropriate. The proposed uses will provide viable commercial services to the community, create permanent full-time and part-time jobs, help in maintaining the economic vitality of this area, while being conducted with odor control and noise reduction measures, as well as a security plan consistent with the applicable underlying general plan goals and policies and the associated general plan, general light industry general plan land use designation. So as we zoom in a bit closer to the project site and we look at the general plan and zoning for the project site, we can see that the light industrial zoning district, which the project is part of, would establish the development standards for heightened setbacks, but it would also require CUP approval for lot coverage. The residential development does about the light industrial district in certain areas. When abutting residential, the light industrial zoning district elevates the land use entitlements required for certain uses, in this case, the non-volatile manufacturing and distribution land uses to minor conditional use permit. It also increases the setback requirements. The proposed project complies with these regulations by submitting the required conditional use permits and by exceeding minimum required setbacks for the light industrial zoning district. So the project pre-application neighborhood meeting and concept design review were held in May of 2017 and then the project entitlement applications were submitted in November of 2017. Since then, planning review has been conducted as well as environmental review and on June 29th of 2020, the notice of public review and attempt to adopt an NMND was circulated. The NMND was made available to the public via the city's website as well as we did have a print copy of the NMND available at the room three front desk and on March 28th of this year, then the planning commission public hearing notice was distributed for today's public hearing. So here we have an image of the proposed site plan. This image was submitted or the site plan was revised a bit and I'll go into that a bit later and resubmitted on March 27th of this year. In the site plan, we can see how the site's proximity or development's proximity to Yolanda Avenue, it does take its primary entrances and only entrance and exits from Yolanda Avenue. We can see that the three-story cannabis facility is located in the southwest corner of the site with parking and circulation surrounding and then we have these designated undeveloped areas which are part of the 5.5 acre site. For the site plan approval, a proposed lot coverage is required. Proposed development is approximately 3.3 acres or about 53% of the entire project site. The setbacks from adjacent development are approximately 30 feet on the west side and at least 70 feet on the south side. Fire regulations required two additional project modifications from what was originally proposed. The first was to move the building resulted in moving the building further away from west and south property lines to provide a 26-foot clear aisle for fire trips in the event that they should have to provide services and the second was to move the westernmost driveway a bit further to the west to create more separation between the two points of entry. Planning Commission approval today would include approval of the proposed site plan. An approval of a 40% parking reduction would also be required. Four parking 159 spaces are required based upon the proposed land uses and 85 spaces are proposed on the current site plan. Planning Commission is required to make findings related to special circumstances associated with operation at this location and to determine that proposed parking is sufficient. The required parking ratios for these land uses, well for industrial land uses, I should say, typically are for land uses that are not open to the public and are based on anticipated employee staffing patterns and include deliveries and other operations related to parking needs. As is reflected in attachment 8, the parking analysis that was provided, employee staffing of cannabis cultivation facilities typically falls well below industry standards for other light industrial land uses. And also as discussed in the parking analysis, the project site is located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods which reduces demand for commuting by a single occupancy vehicle. The project site is serviced by city and county public transit services and bicycle transportation is supported by on-street bicycle facilities as well as the project does include short-term and long-term bicycle parking as well as changing facilities for bicycle commuters. The planning staff analysis concludes that these special circumstances associated with the operation of the use at this location are expected to generate a parking demand different from the parking ratio requirements. And the proposed 85 parking spaces would be sufficient for the safe, convenient, and efficient operation of the proposed use. And here in the image we can see how the proposed development is limited to previously developed areas of the site. Then we have those undeveloped previously undeveloped areas labeled so on the site plan. The MND document and analysis are consistent with the site plan and its designations. So the proposed uses would be located within the newly constructed light industrial campus that would be specifically designed for the uses on the site that is surrounded on two sides by light industrial's own properties that currently include a mix of light manufacturing, warehousing distribution, and office-related uses. As such, the area is well suited for the proposed operation. There is a single family residential neighborhood located at the southwest corner of the project site. However, the proposed facility is separated from the residences by at least a 70-foot setback with an 8-foot tall security wall, landscaping, and parking areas between the parcel boundary and the building. In addition, the subject site does not share an access road with the residential neighborhoods. And this would further minimize potential impacts to the residences. And here we have some perspectives of the proposed building design. Building design features include foresighted development or foresighted design, rather, and improvements to the perimeter wall design, the details of which are illustrated in Attachment 7, the project plan set. The building continues to incorporate aluminum materials and it incorporates the 85 aforementioned parking spaces and also the short-term and long-term and long-term bicycle parking spaces and changing facilities. The proposed cannabis facility accessory structures and parking and circulation would cover approximately 50% of the site, which is appropriate for residential development. The proposed uses would be located entirely within the industrial building, which is required by our cannabis ordinance, and would include all the growing harvesting, manufacturing, testing, packaging, and shipping functions. The building would be fully accessible, pursuant to Americans with Disabilities Act standards, and no public access would be permitted due to the nature of the proposed use and for security purposes. All necessary utilities are available at the project site, including water, wastewater, storm drainage, and PG&E services. This is a view from the looking from the Northwest. The applicant has chosen not to incorporate windows in order to avoid light pollution due to overnight cultivation activities, visual exposure to neighbors and surrounding businesses, as well as to support security protocols and improve security outcomes. The project will continue to incorporate articulation and materials to reduce massing. And I should point out that the renderings provided on the previous slides, as well as this slide, have been developed in response to concept design review comments provided by the Design Review Board in May of 2017. And the applicant's response to those DRB comments is provided as Attachment 13 in the meeting item, and also is summarized in the staff report. So here we see the ground floor plan, which begins to lay out the use of the space on the interior. Again, as a reminder, we have approximately 86,000 square feet of cultivation space, which would actually be located on the second and third floors. And then we have the manufacturing non-bulletile and volatile uses of approximately 21,000 square feet distribution at about 8,000, and the testing laboratory at about 1,000 square feet located on the ground floor. A certified odor mitigation plan was submitted and asserts that odor will be mitigated to a level undetectable outside the building as required by the cannabis ordinance. This was provided to you as Attachment 11 in the meeting item. And here we can see the floors two and three are primarily comprised of the cultivation spaces, which represent the bulk of the square footage. So the proposed uses will be located within the newly constructed campus designed for these uses. The project conditions of approval would further regulate the use to ensure it will not result in a public nuisance or health and safety hazard. This includes implementation of a detailed project security plan addressing use of a security service, use of surveillance cameras, secure entry gates to the project site, and similar measures. Additionally, the project is required to comply with current city-wise noise and outdoor lighting ordinances. The proposed landscape plan would be reviewed and improved during design review. However, a planning commission today would be asked to approve a condition of approval regarding tree mitigation. A tree preservation and mitigation report has been submitted and is provided to you as an attachment. The tree mitigation is included as a condition of approval. Removal of the trees is required to be mitigated with the planting of at least 225 15 gallon trees, of which at least 138 must be coast redwood species. The applicant is required to submit a tree mitigation plan to planning or review an approval. In that plan, the applicant may request to substitute planting mitigations by making a $100 per tree payment to the city's tree replacement fund. Environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act was conducted for this project. Initial study and mitigated negative declaration was prepared. It was published for 30-day public review beginning on June 30th of 2020, and public comments received were provided to you as attachment to this meeting item. Mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program include mitigations for air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geologic resources, hazards, and hydrology. The comments are provided, public comments are provided as attachment five, and the Erata sheet, which is included with the initial study M&D document, identifies changes to the document and required mitigations in response to comments received. There is one specific issue that's been identified for planning commission consideration. The applicant has requested a 48-month entitlement term limit, which would allow four years of approval validity prior to expiration. This is described fully in the staff report, and the applicant's request is included as an attachment. A standard term which planning commissioners are used to is 24 months, and up to four 12-month extensions can be requested. These extensions I do have to be submitted in writing and are subject to director review and approval. The condition of approval, the applicable zoning code section, does allow for a condition of approval to extend term limits, and so as I believe you saw in the resolutions for consideration, there is a condition of approval for a 24-month entitlement term limit, and then the request before planning commission is for a 48-month entitlement term limit. With regard to the site plan entitlement, I did want to point out that the proposed site plan identifies certain areas as undeveloped areas. Public comments were received about these areas, and we do want to note that the project does not propose any future development. Should development be proposed at any time in the future on these undeveloped areas, it would require a discretionary entitlement and would be subject to environmental review under CEQA. The conditional approvals before you today are for the proposed land uses, the lock coverage, the parking reduction to 85 spaces, and then the applicant's request for a 48-month term limit on the expiration. So concerns were expressed at the neighborhood meeting, and additionally, we received public comments as part of the CEQA document review, and then late correspondence was received from three residents or property owners of the adjacent residential development. These public comments are addressed in the staff report as well. Concerns about loss of neighborhood tranquility, the increased risk of crime, aesthetics concerns, concerns about odor, groundwater contamination, increased fire risk, potential decrease in property values, and a preference for less height in the development. Additionally, reflecting upon the late correspondence that was received and was distributed to Planning Commission and made publicly available, we do want to note that the project information as a meeting item has been available since April 1, 2021, which is seven days prior to the scheduled meeting. This does exceed local and state posting requirements for public hearing meeting items. Additionally, the project will receive design review by the Design Review Board after land use approval. This is standard procedure. Planning Commission could condition the project to require design changes if the Commission chooses to do so. An engagement of an outside environmental consultant to prepare the environmental document is an established practice at the city. We note that the city and other responsible agencies have reviewed the document and provided comment. Those comments are either incorporated into the document before you today through the draft, the administrative draft process prior to publication or as part of the erratis sheet that is included with the document. We do also want to note a resolution edits that will be before you today. With regard to the M&D resolution, the whereas statement provided five written comments on the initial study draft mitigated negative declaration were received. We would like to strike the latter half of that whereas statement so that we would remove and responses to these comments were prepared and are included in the initial study draft mitigated negative declaration. Then with regard to the CUP resolution before you today, the whereas statement referring to the mitigated negative declaration, we would strike the text approved from that whereas statement and so it is recommended by planning an economic development department that the planning commission approve a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for this project construction of a new three-story approximately 116,700 square foot industrial building and approve commercial cannabis cultivation manufacturing both non-volatile and volatile and distribution land uses with testing laboratory at the site. Again, my name is Andrew Triple and I'm available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Okay, sorry I had an internet issue. No, that's fine. I was trying to stop my share one moment please. Oh, there we go. Okay, sorry about that. Got the internet is unstable message. Oh no. Thank you Mr. Dugan. Do any commissioners have any questions of staff before we hear the applicant? Commissioner Dugan. Yeah, quick clarification about the end developed areas that are noted on the site plan. The environmental document notes that the project is going to need a cooling tower but that has not been sized because the mechanical work hasn't been done yet but it will be located on the site somewhere. So if it can't fit within the boundary of the existing site plan and it has to go in the end developed area would that require a whole new review or what would happen with that and also kind of related if the building is retentative in the future and the new user needs more parking spots they would also perhaps be able to build in the end developed areas but they need to have a whole review about that issue. Sure, that's a great question. So we would have to look at the proposal before us to determine if it would be an addendum to an adopted CEQA document, BMND, or if it would require new entirely new project analysis. So it would really be based upon the scope of the proposed changes. With regard to the cooling tower, the cooling tower could be located on the portion of the site plan for development as proposed and again we would look at the scope of that proposal to determine what level or what degree of the environmental analysis would be needed. Okay, thank you. Sure. Any other questions of staff before we proceed with the applicant? Okay, so I know the applicant does have a presentation. So Mr. Maloney, I see you've already promoted the applicant so I'm not sure who's going to be speaking on behalf of the applicant today. Good afternoon, Chair Weeks. This is Erin Carlstrom or rather Erin Carlstrom's disembodied voice. I see some chuckles so that tells me that you can hear me. Yes. I don't see our presentation up yet though so with your indulgence I'll wait for that. Ms. Carlstrom we'll have that up in a moment if you would want to go ahead and introduce your applicant team. I'm very happy to thank you, Andrew.  Again, not visible to you but very much present are Danny Abdelmalak, the owner of the property as well as the applicant, as well as his land use attorney Jim Pugh from Shepherd Mullen. I'm here mostly to facilitate the introduction to the project and our conversation. Thank you to those of you who responded to our invitation to tour the facility or to answer questions in advance of the project. I am prepared at this point to turn it over to Jim who will lead you through the bulk of the presentation. I am supposed to go through these, there we go we're up. All right so I've done this and I don't believe that I have screen control so whoever beyond or behind the magic screen could click to the next slide for me. That would be appreciated. And Erin just so you're aware this is the host, Andrew Tripple will be presenting your presentation. Thanks Mike. Okay Andrew, thank you for clicking to the next slide. Ladies and gentlemen of the commission, you have all probably driven by this facility dozens if not hundreds of time. I know at least one of you joined me on site so we wanted to offer you the opportunity for an aerial view of this property. We found that this was an important orienting slide to address the overall character of the neighborhood in which we are located. As you can see surrounding the facility are very heavy industrial uses along Yolanda. Heavy residential development planned across Petaluma Hill Road to the east. And just from a again from an aerial and 30,000 foot view important to recall that this project is consistent with the city's general plan designation as well as our zoning code. And just as well to bear in mind as Jim moves us through the presentation to recall that though the parcel is under common ownership it's one parcel owned by Danny and his company. It is important to think about it as though it is in two chunks and the disturbances any of the construction the project itself is designed exclusively to occur on areas of the facility or excuse me areas of the property that are already hard pack and not the project does not intend to disturb any of the eastern most portions of the property. So with that I will turn it over to Jim who hopefully has also been elevated to host status or moderator or panelist. I think so if the honorable commissioners can hear me and we can move to the next slide I'll start there. Great so that means at least Andrew can hear me so good afternoon honorable commissioners and staff. First off thank you very much for your time tonight and also to the staff for being tireless in their preparation of the last couple years to bring this matter before you tonight. As Aaron said I'm Jim to you from Shepherd Mullen and I'm a land use attorney representing the project so I will be brief some of this you've seen from the staff and I will concentrate on the applicant request but just quickly the reason I wanted to show this slide was because I wanted to let the commission know that the M&D was very comprehensive and it covered not only the permits that the staff reviewed initially also all of the items on this screen and any other permits or approvals that would be required to both construct and operate the facility so a very comprehensive environmental document. Next slide please these are some of the operational characteristics of the project and benefits it's a modern cannabis facility as you know there's been a trend of that along Yolanda this will probably be one of the best if not the best facility it will bring new jobs to the city on the tune of 105 or so and per cannabis laws that apply there are labor force requirements that the applicant will be happy to oblige of course it increases tax revenues substantially to the city and I wanted to highlight also this next bullet which is about the site and its infrastructure so the applicant took great pains to avoid the grassland areas and any of the impacts that could come from developing on anything but hardscape so we think this is a win-win whereby the project sits on the hardscape avoids grasslands and overall improves the city's infrastructure including sidewalks and frontages along Yolanda only. It minimizes reliance on the power grid with the recent disasters you saw in Texas right this type of facility would have the option to be self-reliant so that's a good thing and of course it maintains consistency with all the applicable rules and regulations of the city. Next slide. I won't talk about all of these other than to say it's been a long couple years but we are here now. There was some outreach originally which generated some comments from the public by the time that the M&D was prepared a couple years later only three individuals commented on the M&D on the record and those have been responded to and then the staff has brought us to this day for your hopeful approval of what's before you. Next slide. These are the applicant requests you see them in front of you and then I'll hit one more slide that is the justification but as everyone can imagine COVID changed the world it's created delay it will create more delay and it will take a while for things to come back. That's why we believe a 48 month extension or excuse me a 48 month entitlement is warranted and justified for this project. Your code allows it. We also wanted to clarify that through working with the staff the staff report identifies the improvements, dedications, easements, et cetera on Yolanda Avenue. We just want to make clear for the record that those same dedications are not over on Petaluma or improvements that was on purpose right because of avoiding grasslands and other things so that's for your consideration as well to clarify that Yolanda is the area for the improvements and dedications and not Petaluma. We're also asking you of course to adopt the mitigated negative declarations tonight and approve the project and entitlements. One more slide I believe. There we go. So the justification for the request on the 48 month term all of this being in your staff report we really do believe that pandemic induced delays warrants more time to exercise the permit. You can imagine after spending four years trying to get here and then getting entitled during a pandemic it's difficult to then get into the ground and build a project within 24 months. While you still have things like design review board pending you got to let the financial markets open up a bit and get interest of people that are willing to partner and move into the construction phase of the project. So that alone we think justifies and a longer term and wouldn't necessarily set precedents going forward because you are in unprecedented circumstances. I covered the other bullet points here regarding markets needing to recover and the code need and the code expressly allowing the city to do this that's why it's written in to give you the flexibility and then lastly I think this is an important point we fully recognize that there are extension rights in the code but those extension rights are not the same as having a bird in the hand if you will with a 48 month term that provides certainty and certainty is critical in these type of volatile times post pandemic. So we're hoping that the commission will be able to grant a 48 month term and we would have to then avoid the speculative and discretionary future acts for extensions. Lastly on Petaluma I don't think I need to reiterate it the staff the staff report and the documents all show that the frontage improvements dedications and easements are on Yolanda and we want to make sure that's clear and I believe that is the last slide Andrew. One more this is our project team a great team a lot of effort top tier traffic sequel legal local and shepherd mullin we hired the best biologists to look at the site the best air quality and the best engineering and architecture we could find so it's been a team effort and with that I'll close with asking for your respectful approval as the staff has presented it to you with our one request on the 48 month term thank you and we are available for questions if you have them thank you are there any questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing no okay um so I would like to go ahead and open the public hearing on this item and if you wish to make a comment via zoom please select the raise hand button if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand and each speaker has three minutes a countdown timer will appear to the convenience of the speaker and viewers please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown and uh mr. Maloney do we have yes first we'll be jen basketballs maybe the permission to speak and if you can unmute my chair week said once you start speaking the time will start thank you thank you the hearing process here is discombobulated the design review was not noticed and it cannot be discussed you're asked to approve a mitigated neck deck for a 55 foot tall building which is visually equivalent to five stories that's unlike anything else in the immediate area you're asked to approve a use permit reducing the amount of parking which now I understand tonight is down to 85 parking spaces if you approve these you're going to be locking yourself into um an awkward position where you're unable to take public testimony on the design review or it also muddies the water in terms of directing changes to the pro project so I'm urging you to continue this hearing until a date when the design review application can be included the mitigated neck deck cannot be adopted because the project description is incomplete and there is no analysis of the full development of the lot approximately two fifths of the property is labeled not a part of the project um this is segmenting which is explicitly forbidden under siqua because dividing a project into a number of pieces would minimize the apparent environmental impacts of each piece but together could result in a significant impact the exception to the rule allowing segmentation is in case law del marteris conservancy versus city council in that case the court ruled that individual segments of a lineal project like a highway could be evaluated separately but that doesn't apply here siqua requires project analysis of reasonably foreseeable development now the city in preparation for their general plan did make projections about what the full development of this property would be in order to create the circulation element and that approach could be used here however the applicant does seem to have more specific plans than that the visual simulation that you've seen shows a blank portion of land on yolanda street frontage it's labeled as undevelopable on the site plan that you've seen tonight uh now why would a you position a vacant plot of land at the sidewalk in front of a brand new building and design the parking in the landscaping to avoid it i think there are plans if you're not sure about this critical important issue i suggest that you seek the city attorney's opinion it's extremely important the thank you your time is up so see the next speaker thank you chair weeks next we have risha rule first i'd like to acknowledge the effects of the um the person has complimented that you appreciate those i would like the council to really take into consideration the proximity to homes and the 55 foot um height of the building i think the bill is inappropriate for this particular location if you look in the area we don't have any other buildings that height near us near homes it just seems highly inappropriate um allowing for a this is an opportunity for a collection of just uh no appropriate interest to the responsible and taking into consideration um existing concerns here in this neighborhood um we have we have this primary cluster that's coming from out of town doesn't live here it has so much of the noise it's not going to be impacting him i'd like you guys to figure yourselves in this position of would you want your two-story well drawn to map it out to a site story building and with few flowers of production the other piece that i had asked to be addressed today was the fact of um the the saturation on mule lawn af um from if you if you do allow this project to move forward you will have an entire canvas row on mule lawn af from head of mule road all the way up to sarah's af um one that i was speaking to mr triple he he agreed that he doesn't believe that you guys have the awareness of how many sites are already either approved or pending on that particular location um it feels that we are disproportionately bearing the seas desire to bring in cannabis into this into our state and not taking into consideration the amount that's already here and potentially pending um in comparison to any other neighborhood where the zoning would be appropriate because my room really appreciated you guys would take that into consideration um i think you guys need to really look at some foresight for what does this look like in the future what does it look like from the market saturated and you know these businesses are potentially unsuccessful but we have an entire block of businesses for the same industry i could potentially go under um and it's a really appreciate the consideration thank you thank you thank you next we have Megan Sweeney i would like i am one of the neighbors um i would like to discuss the fact that i believe this project in totality is much too large to be abutted to our residential neighborhood we are the only light industrial zone on yolanda that has residential abutting it as my uh neighbor just spoke to there's a grave saturation of cannabis businesses going along yolanda corridor this business where you say it's 55 feet tall that equates to five stories next to a residential district that our kids are outside i just it's not appropriate the way it is designed even with the setbacks that you're discussing and the fences that you're discussing a 24-hour facility is not conducive next to a residential neighborhood mr uh uh i can't remember the attorney's name is a los angeles attorney land use attorney the applicant is from los angeles neither of them seem to care that we put our blood sweat and tears into buying these homes we can't sell them and go anyplace else in sonoma county we pay our property taxes and the sales taxes we too are tax paying members we would ask that this project be downsized so it's more conducive to being next to a residential neighborhood there's also a lot of development going across the street that will be residential on petaluma hill road the mere saturation of the five to six volatile extraction labs that they want to put behind our homes is ridiculous this is a policy change that needs to be made for the yolanda corridor this needs to happen this cannot keep our homes are at risk this is ridiculous it's a whole business corridor of nothing but cannabis and again this project is too large to be next to a residential neighborhood i also would like to speak to the fact that we have several neighbors who are homeowners who are hispanic speaking my husband is hispanic none of them were able to understand the noticing requirements they don't know how to speak to you because there's no translators available this they were not given the proper and evident time and notice we spoke to mr alvarez about this he's aware of this i know he's not allowed to vote on cannabis matters what's that goes to the council but again our hispanic neighbors who are homeowners not tenants need to also be included in this thank you very much thank you thank you with that we do not have anyone else raising their hands that's it oh never mind we just go on linda you have the ability to unmute yourself and once you do the timer we'll start hi i would just also like to echo my neighbor's comments i'm kitty corner to the folks so my property is one i guess that would be blessed by the 70 foot setback however i also think that a 55 foot tall building is just inappropriate for this area i'm a little disappointed that when all seven of you went out and looked at it that didn't come up as a red flag in your brain the other concern i have and it was brought up way back in 2017 is the bright and shiny snazzy old finish on that building we still have a lot of open space we butt up to taylor mountain on the other side of petal looming hill road i don't necessarily want to see in a nice full moon a 55 foot glowing piece of aluminum out my backyard window so i think we have some issues with the design again we brought it up way in 2014 i'm not quite sure why it can't be even a lower profile even if it had to go a little bit wider the other concern i have and it sounds like it's only a thoroughfare for an emergency vehicle but that 20 to 26 foot um driveway that butts up against my neighbors is a little bit concerning to me if it's only for an emergency vehicle and hopefully would never be used that would be one thing but i could see going down the future perhaps that's where a truck would alternately come through so i have some concerns with that also i agree with my neighbors i think this should be walked back a little bit erin is very aware that there are additional sources going into yolanda avenue i'm also concerned with the fact that we've got over 500 new or to be newly put in apartments and condos i know that danie and his group are going to be responsible for part of the yolanda widening but where do all those people go so that's the concerns i have i'd like to just offer those up to you thank you thank you and with that chair weeks no one else is raising their hand at this time okay so with that i will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission so um who would like to start with uh we could maybe start with questions um of the applicant first and then staffer so any questions i have some questions from the public comments um that i'd like to get addressed but if the commissioners would like to go ahead first you know feel free to just let me know i'd say let's just start with a public comment questions okay thank you so um and if i've missed uh questions please um commissioners help me out and jump in there um so uh the miss vaskas talked about uh design review board and that uh public comments and design review board and about the mnb was incomplete and then there was also a question about saturation on yolanda a couple of the actually i think to leave off or the public speakers talked about that uh and then uh lastly the issue of the noticing and translation so mr triple if you wanted to talk about design review board i can actually address that for you oh thank you yeah so our process includes a conceptual design review process that occurs um prior to the final design and so that did occur in this case in 2017 and then the applicant team um responded to the design review board's comments and then altered the project itself um so then the project will come to you for the land use considerations and then it actually does go back to the design review board for um the final design review approval your commission of course can still make uh recommendations to the design review board or condition the project as you feel appropriate um within your purview today but there is a final design review process that is um will happen later and that is strictly related to the design in the landscaping thank you and the issue uh regarding uh the mnd and that it was in it's incomplete because of the segmenting i i can address that if you'd like and andrew can weigh in but um this particular project is not phased um so the the mitigated negative declaration review the whole of the project that's before us right now um and uh segmentation comes into play when you are looking at a series of different projects or even potentially there is um a cumulative impact potential so if there are other projects nearby potentially by the same owner um that kind of thing but in this case this is one property one project um which is all proposed to occur at one time um so that is uh we fill the mitigated negative declaration fully consider all of those impacts and are um recommending that you adopt that uh mnd tonight and and i would add to that nespasca as i commented on the undeveloped portion on yolanda avenue that's between the two driveways and uh the project has consistently constrained development to previously developed areas so the the undeveloped area between the two driveways on yolanda avenue is reflective of existing development of the site okay and then the saturation on yolanda avenue of cannabis sure so um the you know the yolanda avenue corridor is zoned light industrial and um all of our cannabis uses are allowed in our light industrial zoning districts uh since the cannabis policy was established um or was adopted that the retail or adult use and medicinal policies were adopted in 2018 um the only cannabis land use that does happen over concentration policy is the retail dispensary land use and so uh there is no um policy in place that that would reduce or would address over concentration along yolanda avenue at this point in time unless there was a retail dispensary land use um so in order for the the saturation of the yolanda avenue light industrial district to be addressed it would require a policy change um of the cannabis policy thank you um and then uh the question regarding uh then noticing in spanish that miss swede talked about yes so as you as you may know the city council adopted an open government ordinance recently and that does include a phased approach into additional translations so the city council is um now translating their um their agenda information and notices and so that is really the first phase of that process um so we are anticipating in the future that our noticing will be translated but at this time we do don't have any a requirement to do that um however if we have people who um need translation they can request that and we of course would provide that and um translate whatever is necessary so that everyone is able to engage in the process so if uh one of the uh people um that miss really was talking about uh called in or contacted you you would help facilitate that yes thank you and then um they all talked about the height of the building sure so the maximum building height allowed in the light industrial zoning district is 55 feet uh the proposed project does comply with that maximum height requirement um as a development standard this particular development standard is not subject to conditional use review and approval unlike the lot coverage uh development standard that is before you today for review and approval so an applicant could propose uh building height up to 55 feet as the applicant has done thank you and those were the I believe those are the questions from the public um unless I miss something and uh commission do you have questions of either staff or the applicant at this time uh vice chair Peterson uh sure I I wanted to follow up on a couple just kind of clarifying questions uh from the public comment portion miss Vasquez specifically raised an issue that the MND uh treated the 55 foot height as three stories and it's you know it should it should have been treated as five stories so I was wondering if if staff could give me some some thoughts on that when it comes to you know obviously the visual aspect of it is is analyzed in the MND but I don't know if is that a procedural issue is that an issue that needs to be addressed so I I actually just read that section of the mitigated negative declaration and what was analyzed is actually um the full height limit under the what's allowed under the zoning code um so although it's three stories the actual height was actually spelled out within that section of the mitigated negative declaration so um that that was analyzed um appropriately under staff's consideration and and to add to that we do um you know the zoning code in some areas will will refer to stories and in other areas will refer to height as measured in feet um we do apply the building code story definition which is the distance from floor to ceiling uh and so in this case it's a three story building but 50 but proposed at 55 feet in height okay so stories for the purposes of the code is is not a fixed number correct yeah okay I would I would say that it's not based upon a specific measurement in feet okay under understood thank you um and and just to put a finer point on another question that came up in public comments um the design review portion so we're we're dealing with this planning commission this is land use you know does this project meet the code and things like that um it will go in front of design review and the public will have a chance to comment at that point about the design of the building is that correct yes sorry took me a minute to unmute there it will go to final design review hearing and that will also be noticed um in the same way that this hearing was noticed okay a small correction on that um the the planning commission would approve uh the land uses and the site plan today or that's what's before you today and as you well know the approval of the site plan does then lock the site plan in for um design review board review when it goes to a design review additionally then it would go to design review for preliminary design review by the design review board the design review board could make um requirements to to modify design elements uh it could also make recommendations for modifications of design elements for the resilient city measures then final design review which is the second component of major design review is delegated to planning staff so that major design review two-part process of preliminary and final design review preliminary by the design review board but then final design review by planning staff um to to analyze and to ensure that any design review board conditions of approval are applied to the project okay and i i've got um sort of another one building off public comments so as you discussed the the over concentration issue as said forth in the cannabis ordinance relates solely to retail over concentration so not um cultivation in this case um if it's possible there's a lot of debate in in crafting that ordinance is there a rationale why the the council and and the final adopters decided to draw that distinction between over concentration it applies to retail it doesn't apply to things like cultivation well i'll i'll start and then i think um amy can can provide comments as well uh one of the reasons is because it was it has been a consistent goal of city council to treat uh cannabis as um an economic sub sector in the way that we treat many other sub sectors of the local economy and so in that in that um from that perspective then they went over concentration was analyzed part of the reason for not applying an over concentration policy to all of the cannabis land uses was because we don't have over concentration policies for a majority of our our land uses and so to be consistent with how we treat other land uses uh in the city the goal was to specifically align as much as possible with over concentration policies for other land uses so we do have over concentration policy for alcohol sales um and we do have for community care facilities as well so um it does align with those other land uses so amy if you want to add on to that yeah i would also just note that the neighborhood compatibility issues are very different um with different cannabis uses and with the dispensaries because customers are coming to that location you have an increased number of members of the public present um which changes the security methods and tools that that operator has um it also has an impact to um potential impact to youth and the normalizing of cannabis in the community um whereas the industrial or cultivation uses that are indoor um there there is no um nothing from the outside that would note that that is a cannabis manufacturer or cultivator of some kind and they are able to create a stricter security method and odor control more so than a dispensary could but i will say if there are other neighborhood compatibility issues or um areas that you would like to explore um of course that's within your discretion tonight um if i can keep going i've got uh so so looking at the zoning code in the light industrial zoning district um this is this is a correct me if i'm wrong question so it it looks like from my read of the the code that things like um a brewery production facility is permitted just with zoning clearance as is a winery production facility just with zoning clearance as in doesn't even need a conditional use permit is that right oh correct yes yes and i i think what you're seeing is a reflection of where we were when the cannabis ordinance was originally adopted because it was such a new use and there um it needed a an additional layer of regulatory care so we are seeing a lot of other jurisdictions reducing those review authorities um as people have become more cognizant of these uses and and everything around that but it is captured differently and treated differently in our code than other types of uses as you mentioned and and i would add i would add as well that the light industrial districts while they would permit um distribution and non-volatile manufacturing and testing um for sites that are not adjacent to residential uses a site that's adjacent to any residential use any of those cannabis land uses then except for testing would be elevated to uh some level of conditional use permit requirement great thank you i'll i'll turn it over to the the rest of the commission uh any other commissioners have questions of staff or the applicant at this time uh oh commissioner parter yeah just to um turn the what we're approving question around a little bit um if our if approval of this use permit fixes the site plan does it also fix the massing of the building does the will design review board have any discretion and in building height assuming it could be changed within the existing footprint if that's even possible site plan so um and andrew feel free to correct me but i believe your your um your recommendations and approval tonight will create the upper level of what the design review board could undergo or consider um so they could approve something less but not more than what your considerations are but i think it'd be important to make sure your recommendations to them are very clear um if there is a a massing um comment that you want them to consider directly um that we really make sure to provide really clear direction on on what it is that the commission wants uh thank you i think that's a great response and great guidance to the commission okay any other questions before i ask somebody to introduce the ordinance vice chair peterson i think these are more for the applicant team um just a a couple sort of clarifying questions um the 24-hour operation it looks like from the the plan set we got that sort of the the noisy stuff you know trucks coming up things like that that bay is set away from the residential side of things it's it's on the sort of eastern side of the building is is that correct yes this is jim q if you can hear me vice chair peterson yes great um yes that's exactly right the the setbacks per the zoning code um would actually allow the building to be closer to the property line than it is so the the setbacks you see on that site plan were designed to pull the building away from residential property lines and kind of center it in the site so that um the activity related issues for the building itself are centralized uh on the site plan that you see and the one other comment i would make along with what andrew and amy mentioned was the height and the massing the height in particular just so everyone's very clear this building is 100 consistent with the code allowance on the site great um noted and also it looks like the hours of operation 24 hours but again certain things the noisier things are only occurring sort of during the daytime you're not you're not having delivery trucks you know backing up with the beeping noise at two in the morning is that correct mission or peterson this is erin carlstrom the 24 hours of operation is consistent with city code for light industrial uses but you are correct that the noise associated with the production is covered in the mnd and deliveries will be limited to normal business hours and uh just uh i guess since it's it's been brought up quite a bit by the public i so i understand the height is within the zoning code um did the you know applicant team consider different massing different height you know different anything around that i can answer that and then if erin wants to add she's welcome to as well so yeah the answer is yes um and the the primary driver really is you need to have an efficient facility to do the cultivation manufacturing etc inside of the facility so this goes back to stories versus height right so in a normal story you would think of a house but a cannabis manufacturing facility and cultivation does not operate at that level it has lights that need to hang down for a certain height right so when you look at the site plan you see that there's not actually five stories but it needs higher floor to ceiling height to accommodate the infrastructure meaning the lights and other things that are hanging down if you will inside of the building and that's why the height limit that is set now is so important because if you even move the height down a few feet it essentially wipes out the utility of one of the entire stories because it cannot longer accommodate the infrastructure right so it throws off not only the site planning and the building metrics but even you know how you construct the building finance the building etc it's all built into what was analyzed in the m&d thank you any other questions um before uh one of the commissioners introduced the ordinance would one of the commissioners like to introduce the ordinance uh share weeks what can you uh refresh my memory which one is being amended yes if i can uh oops i just got a resolution and it's andrew can you help us out sure vice chair peterson yes there are minor amendments to both the m&d resolution and the c up resolution uh so if you would like to uh introduce the m&d resolution so that it's before you then we could read those minor edits into the record at that point in time uh all right let me pull this up i would like to move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa adopting a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the santa rosa farm group cannabis cultivation facility located at 800 yolanda avenue assessors parcel numbers 044-091-063 file number prj17-068 and uh wave for the reading there's a second second thank you so that was moved by vice chair peterson seconded by commissioner calia um so we can bring it back to the uh commission for discussion so let's start with uh commissioner carter uh chair weeks if i'm sorry sure so uh planning staff would like to edit the resolution before you um so that the sixth whereas statement of the resolution would read whereas five written comments on the initial study draft mitigated negative declaration were received and strike the remainder of that uh statement uh we would be striking and responses to these comments were prepared and are included in the initial study draft mitigated negative declaration okay vice chair peterson uh you're okay with that yes i i think i can do this via friendly amendments yeah i believe so but uh if not uh miss crocker you can weigh in and tell us how we should proceed yes and i'll just note that for this resolution it's really just discussing the the environmental review so this would be for the mitigated negative declaration right right that's correct although you can also discuss the project that um at your discretion sometimes you guys discuss everything at once that's up to the the chair but yes you can go ahead and do that by friendly amendment just the resolution as amended with the recommendations of staff to strike that one portion of the sentence so um let me interrupt for just a sec let me channel my inner pati cisco and talk about that we are going to um but i'd like if we could discuss the whole project even though we've moved this first resolution and then after discussing the whole project then we can move the second resolution um miss crocker is that okay yes that's fine and i hear you channeling miss cisco now um thank you yes it's at it's at your discretion and that usually has worked out well to let everyone voice their opinions on the project etc but recognizing that the first resolution does deal strictly with the mnd and the second one with the conditional use permit and parking reduction thank you so uh vice chair peterson do you want to do a friendly amendment to yes i'd like to offer a friendly amendment to the mnd resolution incorporating the recommendations from staff on the deletions and additions to the specified whereas paragraph thank you commissioner calia are you okay with this friendly amendment yes i suppose i'm okay with this friendly thank you very much okay so now uh back to the commission uh commissioner carter like to make any comments on the on the whole project i'm yes thank you and uh thanks to staff and the applicants for being so patient with us and answering our questions um yeah i do uh generally find the project to be consistent with the findings that we have to make uh in order to approve the conditional use permit and i recognize that um there are there would be uh light industrial uses permitted by right that could build here without our discretion um assuming they met the the zoning requirements of the light industrial district as this project appears to i also believe the mnd was properly prepared and analyzed the potential uh impacts of the project properly uh but i also recognize that this building is going to represent a change to the visual character of that particular intersection and and all of yolanda um and it's a it's a it's an important city entry um i would generally have to trust the city process that our design review process will address the issues that might be associated with the the visual quality of a structure of this type at a city entry and because of that would generally support what are um what is being asked of the planning commission today thank you uh commissioner dug in um well i couldn't have stated it more clearly than mr carter just did i understand you know that i used to go in here by right that wouldn't have um this kind of level of review and could build to 55 feet because that's a specified height limit in this district um but i i'm not crazy about the look of this building but i think design review can certainly make the recommendations and um the applicant will be making some changes to kind of soften the look of the um sort of gray brown cube um and i'm in support of the um 48 month extension or the well the 24 month extension to the entitlement that the applicant has requested and i can find it it's consistent with all the requirements for our zoning code and general plan so i am generally in support of the project as well thank you commissioner holton uh i'll echo the sentiments of the uh prior to commissioners i also believe that a lot of work was obviously put into the the m&d was incredibly incredibly comprehensive so i found that to be exceptional um i also do understand a lot of the concerns from some of the neighbors um but it also does meet all of the zoning requirements for for the light industrial zone so with that being said i will also piggyback on to commissioner dugins statement that i will also be in favor of the 48 month entitlement um and i'm also really uh really empathetic with how some of the neighbors might feel but i also know too that a lot of the sound mitigation or visual effect mitigation can be accomplished with the proper landscaping and the proper building and again i think that the planner that the the i think that the the project was planned really well and i think that they were very considerate to the environment and i appreciate them for that so i'll be giving my support to this project as well thank you commissioner crepeki uh yeah i'll just echo the sentiments of my fellow commissioners so far i don't really have much more to add um the 48 month extension makes sense to me given everything that's been going on during this planning phase for them um not only just them but the city and the nation in general um i also thought the mnd was properly prepared and um yeah as fits to planning zoning um and so forth i i believe the it's consistent with the findings that we have to make and will be um in support of the project thank you commissioner callia thank you um i you know concur with my fellow commissioners uh thank you commissioner carter for putting it so eloquently right on the get go um i do you know a lot of what the public was saying i resonate with a lot of their concerns unfortunately with our you know we have a very limited purview for um how we improve and look at projects and you know as the current iteration of our cannabis policy this project meets those um those requirements and obviously along with the zoning and that those are really the things that are in our purview as commissioner carter was sitting like designer view board they are going to do their thing and that's another opportunity for the public to you know make to voice their opinion on on the the project itself as for the mnd i can make the required findings and find that it is uh properly prepared um one thing i might would ask staff for some clarification is for the 48 month extension of entitlement is that in addition to the the two other times that the director can make an extension of another 12 months or is that just is it 48 month total um entitlement extension sure so i can answer that question for you commissioner callia the the uh the code provides for a 24 month time limit initially however that time limit can be changed through a condition of approval so before you today which would require an amendment of the c up resolution would be to amend the c up resolution our condition of approval number five to allow for a 48 month time limit on the initial approval then the project would still be eligible for the additional for 12 month time extensions that could be requested and could be reviewed and approved by the director okay so there are first initial entitlement extension is for that 48 months and then theoretically could come back to the director for four additional 12 month extensions based on merit right so so i think if you look at the initial time limit of 24 months you wouldn't think about it as an extension of the 24 month time limit you would think about it as changing that 24 month time limit 48 months right correct okay there you go correct um okay and around that side of it i can i would support a 48 month um entitlement extension or entitlement period okay thank you uh vice chair peterson uh sure so um it's specifically on the mitigated negative declaration um i it i can make all the findings and they're in the resolution i think it's it's very extensive i think it addresses all the concerns um i think we've had good answers also from staff on the segmenting issue that was that was raised so this does not appear to be an issue for this this project and i find that persuasive um as well as the the height and the stories analysis in the MND i think again was it raised by the public and was addressed by staff to to my satisfaction so on the MND i think it's uh very extensive and i can make all the findings um on this sort of more the conditional use permit the project itself i think this project has kind of identified two weaknesses in the existing ordinance into the the cannabis ordinance that is which is uh over concentration for non-retail uses and also the interface when you've got light industrial abutting residential as it stands um i i think that you know the the residential portion of this is the neighbors have have raised completely valid concerns about the height about the number of businesses on yolanda but you know the planning commission is is tasked with reviewing these projects for compliance with the uh the zoning code and that includes the cannabis ordinance and you know as it stands the the information in front of us i think um meets that the standards you know whether or not um 55 feet is a good idea or not that's what the zoning code says and and my question earlier about you know brewery production facility or a winery production facility uh went to that which is that those can go in without a conditional use permit you know they they they could build the 55 feet you could have a brewery right there um and so it's hard for me you know if if we're dealing with the zoning code that is debated and and uh you know discussed by you know elected representatives it's hard to sort of second guess that you know for one-off projects you know there's kind of an equity and fairness portion of it for me where you know i think it it is a little unfair to developers to business owners to people to say you know well here's the code but you know we we may arbitrarily kind of um you know reduce the height or change you know the conditions and i i just don't see the you know i don't see the the basis for doing that in in this project again i'm not saying it's it's good i think this is a weakness in the cannabis ordinance a weakness and maybe that you know the way we've thought about zoning but um i think it's the kind of thing that is inherent to those industrial residential interfaces um on the extension i think it you know on the information in front of us increasing it to 48 months makes sense i i you know this project has been in the works for quite a while it is an unsettled time and you know it's it's an additional two years i don't find that particularly troubling and so i would support the extension um and i think the you know the frontage improvements are fine uh the parking reduction you know based on the information in front of us uh makes sense it you know the cannabis production facility is is going to use you're going to have uh less of a need for um parking for employees so i i would also though um hope that we can address the translation issue as sort of a city-wide you know i understand it's not a requirement but we've got a huge proportion of santa rosen's who do not speak english as a first language and i would hope that it does get integrated into just regular uh business the same way we have access for people who are deaf or hard of hearing and so um that's a little outside the land use context though so all that being said um i think it's a it's been a very comprehensive package and i i can make all the required findings thank you um so i also can make the required findings um and i'm not going to reiterate what my fellow commissioner said um i i can uh go along with the 48 months um and i also agree about the spanish translation as someone who was part of the original open government task force six years ago seven years ago um one of our big push was putting things in spanish and i'm glad that the city is starting to phase that in um and so hopefully we won't have that issue in the future so um so this first uh resolution was uh moved by vice chair peterson and seconded by commissioner calia uh mr maloney would you like to take roll oh and with with the friendly amendments that they made yes thank you chair weeks one moment all right commissioner carter hi commissioner dug in hi commissioner holden hi commissioner calia hi commissioner crookie hi hi chair weeks hi so that uh was approved or passed with seven eyes and the second resolution has a couple of amendments to it um if i'm so if somebody would like to start off by reading it um mr triple can help us with the amendments sir weeks if i may if i read them in read them now then you would be able to uh incorporate them into the motion okay thank you let's have us a step but we would also like to advise commissioners that um when well you don't need to discuss the c up resolution because you discussed uh both resolutions together prior to voting on the m and d resolution uh we do encourage you to state prior to your vote if you would be able to make all of the findings to vote uh for that resolution so uh having said that then um planning staff recommends that for the c up resolution under consideration uh whereas statement number six that we would strike the text approved and so that the whereas statement would read the planning commission has considered the adopted mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for this use and project then also um with regard to condition number five if planning commissioners choose to support the applicant's request for a 48 month time limit on the initial approval then condition number five would need to be amended to read this conditional use permit shall be valid for a four year period thank you uh with and i'm sorry i'd like to add and then i believe that that condition would need to follow if the permit has not been exercised within 48 months following the date the second sentence also needs to be revised correct okay and i think that the i may have misheard but i think that the first whereas is whereas number seven where we're striking the words the approved which was just a typo right that is correct i'm sorry for that so um would somebody like to uh make a motion regarding this resolution vice chair peterson i'd like to move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa making findings and determinations and approving a major conditional use permit and parking reduction for the santa rosa farm group llc cannabis facility consisting of new construction of a 116,700 square foot industrial building and commercial cannabis cultivation 86,050 square feet manufacturing level one non-volatile and level two volatile 21,505 square feet distribution type 11 8,070 square feet with testing laboratory 1,085 land uses located at 800 yulanda avenue apn number 044-091-063 file number prj17-068 c up17-123 as amended and waive further reading thank you is there a second second thank you so that was moved by commissioner or vice chair peterson seconded by commission calia um commission of carter any comments i don't have any additional comments at this time are you sorry thank you chair you're on it thank you thank you uh yes i can make all the findings uh required for the uh approving the resolution of the conditional use permit thank you commissioner holton i can also make all the required findings for the c up thank you commissioner duggin i can also make all the required findings uh to support the c up thank you commissioner crepti i can make all the required findings to support the c up thank you commissioner calia i can also make all the required findings uh to support the c up as amended thank you vice chair peterson i can also make all the required findings of the c up as amended um and while i would not add this as a condition of approval i would strongly encourage the applicant to utilize landscaping and and things on the the frontage with the residential area to kind of minimize the visual disruption to to the neighbors thank you and i also can make all the findings so um this so this resolution was moved by vice chair peterson seconded by commissioner calia mr maloney uh would you like to call role yes thank you one moment and before i do just want to let you know we have a member of the public raising their hand just as a point of order the public hearing portion of item nine point one has already concluded so we cannot take additional public comments at this time thank you commissioner carter hi commissioner duggin hi commissioner holton hi commissioner calia hi commissioner crepti hi vice chair peterson hi chair weeks hi so that concludes this item of the commission and uh we will not be meeting on the 22nd as the city council needs the chamber so they're trumping us so anyway they're uh they take precedence over us um so we will be together again in may and um i adjourn the meeting so have a good evening everybody see you next month good evening commissioners thank you so much this is danny thank you guys thank you


Welcome to the Student Research Journal of San Jose State University School of Library and Science. SRJ, pronounced SIRGE, is an open-access, peer-reviewed, and student-governed publication. SIRGE publishes two issues a year, one in the fall and again in the spring. The next issue will be published in December of 2013. Topics in all fields of information science theory, application, or practice are covered. SIRGE provides an opportunity for graduate students from all around the world to gain exposure of their work through publication. SIRGE accepts submissions on a rolling basis from current graduate students. SIRGE's editorial team has six content editors, two copy editors, a managing editor, and an editor-in-chief, all of whom are library and information science graduate students at San Jose State University. All editorial board members are affiliated with the SLIS program as well. Join the team at SIRGE in promoting graduate scholarship and intellectual inquiry in the fields of library and information science, archives and records management, and museum studies. At SIRGE, we create new ideas, convey innovation, and make new strides as we SIRGE forward. Visit our website for more information.