dea. So a little bit more background on why we landed on 600 feet to a school and why only retail and in short after two years of discussion it was decided by the city that retail needed a setback so that the public to make sure that no one that's not working there is entering that site. Cannabis retail obviously is a public retail oriented type of facility and so it's treated differently in the code as such and one restriction was to schools the setbacks related to federal standards actually I'll let Ashley explain most of the research related to the federal standards. The federal drug free school zone act is not a land use restriction if you will but rather it relates to criminal penalties so cannabis is a schedule one illegal drug frankly whether it's next door to a school or six miles from a school it's just an illegal drug so what the drug free school zone does is it's dealing with the penalties so if you are found to be manufacturing, distributing, possessing cannabis it's illegal you'll be subject to fines if you are found to be doing those same activities within a thousand feet of a school your penalties will be enhanced for those crimes double, triple I forget what it is to try to up the criminal penalties for those kind of federally illegal behaviors within a thousand feet of schools so it's not a land use issue it doesn't preclude the city from citing schools within a thousand feet it's completely a separate and distinct issue as relates to criminal law and penalties okay and I remember my last question I forgot it there for a moment but your question about relationship to residential properties and the use permit process itself so if a manual if you can go to the findings the slides on findings so the conclusion of having the standard setback that's a minimum requirement 600 feet to a school but the reliance on these six these are the same use permit findings as for any conditional use as was stated earlier and there is a finding here that it's the next one I think finding D which talks about the site being physically suitable for the type density and intensity of the use and I think it might have been the previous one C for the design location and the size and operating characteristics so it was felt through the process and ultimately by the council who adopted the ordinance that these are the findings that you can rely on through site by site review through the use permit process through the public process to make ultimately a decision on each of these use permits so we do set minimum standards and 600 feet to a school is one of those minimum standards that you have to apply for and that's the first one that's going to a seven member acting authority and not just acted on by a single staff member . Thank you commissioners on the subjects of setbacks and policy development any other questions at this time for staff Mr. Weeks can you tell me what type of signage will be the regulations prohibit any advertisement of marijuana cannabis products so I'd imagine it will just have the be kind name on the front of the building but we have not seen that application yet. Thank you and I'm assuming that this was referred on to the police department as part of the process and did they have any questions no comment from the police department thank you Mr. Veronica Claire or Emmanuel should this this proposal be approved tonight and at at the distance of 675 feet included in that if the city were to change its setback requirements to a thousand feet this proposal would still be covered under grandfathering because this proposal was approved prior to any subsequent changes is that correct yes so if the use permit is acted on it's well the use permit it's good for two years and then it can be extended but yes the the use permit would have bested right to be honored okay maybe ask a couple questions about safety start with a specific one public comment Mr. Jackson was discussing the parking lot among other things and the fact that citizens tend to play there that perhaps there's some difficulties navigating the parking lot for some motorists then also just a comment perhaps about ingress and egress from Sonoma Avenue and the idea that there's not two different ways of access and it's more of a limited access point than certain other adjacent sites like the shopping center would be in theory so to the extent we have information besides that that's in the public record already we could get some comments responsive to those concerns yes so in terms of the parking situation there is adequate background space as you can see in this photograph to enter and exit the parking stalls on the project site we did speak with the engineering staff asked them specifically whether there's been any history of traffic accidents at the intersection of the of this roadway and Sonoma Avenue and there's been no record of any accidents in the last five years he did qualify that by stating that if there's not all accidents are reported however if there are any injuries involved then they would be required to be reported and when there's damage over a certain amount it needs to be reported as well in terms of children playing on this property I think that's a private property matter where I don't know that the city necessarily needs to get involved in that matter and then what was the other issue based on your comments I think that covered as far as I'm concerned actually I suppose the fact that there would only be kind of a limited access in terms of travel and directions from the arterial Sonoma Avenue so this building is right on Sonoma Avenue and yes there's one point of access to it there are only a handful of properties to the south of this project site but I think just routine use of the property for the purposes for widget zone and the intended purpose the proposed purpose doesn't seem to me would create an excess amount of traffic to the south of this project site but I think it's undue traffic congestion in there and hamper the ability for other property owners further south on that driveway to exit the property or exit the area and then we've had a number of comments broader safety concerns regarding the idea of dispensary as an attractive target for crime and the presence of cash the presence of valuable product and some comments about perhaps profiling the people who would be patronizing a location like this without weighing in on that yet that is what we've heard from the public and I'm not actually going to ask you to comment on that last point but if we could hear maybe what the police department has weighed in on with regard to public safety the security plans and the standards that we expect in a plan like that and maybe statistics and to the extent that we can see that there are a lot of incidents in the city permitted facilities if you could just expand on that please. The cannabis ordinance specifies lays out detailed security provisions that are required for every cannabis business and then specific requirements and then staff report and then they're in detail in the narrative that the applicant has submitted some of the security provisions include video surveillance cameras 24-hour surveillance recordings will be retained for 90 days there would be controlled access into the building anyone under 21 years old would not be allowed unless they had a medical card, cannabis card the they would have commercial-grade security doors on all the exterior doors to the facility personnel would security personnel would patrol the site and including as the applicant said the parking lot and the surroundings of the property we're not requiring the patrol offsite the applicant said they would do anyway we typically on the applications I'm processing I have not heard from the comments I get from the police department they have no comments my understanding is that these facilities are not the facilities that are have been a problem it's some of the facilities not operating with the permit is where the problems are but I would turn to my colleagues to elaborate on that and any statistics that may be available I do not have statistics on that as well but just a supplement so police have been evolved through the process of developing the ordinance and they spent their time with that element and so they had a direct hand in the design and content of the security requirements that all cannabis businesses frankly not just retail have to have and then in specifics to retail they were also a big part of our interdepartmental effort to draft the specific requirements for retail such as location and entrance and hours of operations and activities coming and going so they were a big part for the design of the ordinance the follow through the implementation manual is correct they aren't having any specific comments they are looking at these they have an opportunity to review and refer every one of these applications including this one and we do have three existing dispensaries that have been operating in Santa Rosa and I believe there has been an incident at each one of them but nothing unusual or nothing that shows that they are any less safe in fact there's also comments that they can make a site and area safer because of all the surveillance that they either do voluntarily or through our own programming but we do not have statistics on to address your question specifically okay great thanks excuse me there was one public comment about the methodology for traffic studies and how that would apply later on I think maybe that would be better handled in an email to the planning department because it's fairly specific commissioners any questions for staff Mr. Weeks one of the speakers talked about the 600 foot radius with the playground adjacent to the school can you so we relied on the applicant doing their due diligence after hearing the comments this evening I did get on the city's JIS system and looked at the properties I guess that's the west side of that Doyle there's a the two properties closest to the corner just south of the Sonoma Avenue on Doyle are I don't know if I can so it's kind of small on here but the two properties in the corner here this property is a parking lot it appears and the property in the corner just north of that they're under the same ownership it seems to be an individual not the school district or a school that owns that property and then the properties south of that they are under separate individual ownership according to the city's JIS I don't know if the school leases that property for parking it appears from an aerial photograph to be used as a parking lot I don't know if the school is leasing that for parking or not but it is not a property that's owned by the school and it doesn't appear from the aerial photograph to be a playground on the property thank you welcome commissioners any other questions okay would anybody like to move a resolution I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa approving a conditional use permit for be kind to operate a cannabis retail dispensary and delivery business within an existing building located at 1128 Sonoma Avenue assessor's parcel number 014-121-002 file number CUP 18-079 and wave for the reading second okay the resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Cisco Commissioner Cisco would you like to start sure again I think the applicant has met all of our requirements they're making again a significant investment in Santa Rosa council made cannabis businesses and I think we're seeing them come in I think the quality of this particular business is being accolated by the owners of the property they chose carefully and have confidence in this particular operator as far as the findings that we have to make I think that I can make all of the findings in terms of that it's an appropriate use of the land it's consistent with the neighborhood I really like the applicant's indication of our economic vitality general plan policies that we are going to get businesses that work together so you're cultivating manufacturing and then having again the vertical integration of these type of businesses I really like that I really love the building and I liked finding I don't really realize there was a sweet little neighborhood behind that building and actually behind a number of the commercial uses so I think it's a very pleasant space I would certainly like to live there and again I really appreciate the fact that some of the safety concerns and issues have already been dealt with on behalf of the neighborhood I think having a regular security patrol would only benefit everyone there so I'm totally in favor of this project Commissioner Duggan I too can make all the required findings I think it meets the intent and what is in our code as far as separation from the school and whether that changes in the future that's to be seen I think our requirements can't advertise they'll have a discrete sign they're going to have security at the door nobody under 21 will be allowed in unless they're an 18-year-old with a medical card I think the security plan is good so I'm in favor of the project Commissioner Collier I can also make all the required findings for this project and I appreciate the amount of people coming out tonight to voice their concerns both for and against this kind of project and I think that's what the policy is all about I think this is really it's put together very well and I appreciate the property owners coming out as well and I am for this project Commissioner Weekes I'm also going to support the project I think it's a good location with the other medical uses along the street and in the neighborhood we'll support the project Commissioner Veronica yes first of all I appreciate the the work that Mr. Caston and me kind has done one thing I've learned through this process and I mean it sincerely that the folks who are in the cannabis business are quite professional and terminally nice and I say that in due sincerity however and I find the proposal itself to be well done and well written I don't have a question with that at all but I do go back and I realize that I would probably be the sole dissenting boat here as I have been in the past on one or two other cannabis projects located from my perspective at least too close to schools, public and private I also do this because I recall that at the Planning Commission level about a year ago I believe when we were asked to make recommendations as we're moving from medical cannabis operations including commercial that we I made the motion and I believe it was approved too that we would establish a thousand feet as the distance from schools to businesses when it I'm not certain how that process worked other than I assumed our recommendations went to the ad hoc committee, the council when it went to the council it was approved at 600 feet and the city does have the ability to move that from 600 to a thousand I would suggest that this issue be discussed probably with the ad hoc committee and invite the district representatives of school districts and ask them where they are on this and how they process these information items for public hearings and other words when they receive them if they do and where they locate it because I have some knowledge with schools in particular and there is no set way that K-12 districts really handle matters of this import and it's a communication problem inside the districts I believe in order to respond to to these sorts of requests and I think they need to be brought in and I believe each school and the district needs to be notified of the proposal and that would include the parent organization parent teachers I'm old school PTA whatever I would suggest that going back however this is a good project in the wrong location therefore I'm voting against it commissioner Peterson before I give my remarks I just want to clarify that the resolution that was moved does include those more restrictive operating hours and the fence with that in mind I echo the comments of most of my fellow commissioners and then I think that this will put together a project I have no problem making the necessary findings for it in particular I think the security plan and the outreach they've done with regard to transient issues already speaks to their desire both for the security part of it and the good neighbor portion of it frankly I like that it's close to the police department I think it's a good opportunity for these types of establishments and I think from some of the public comments we received both here and in written form this type of businesses may be a good integration into the existing medical community in the area the final thought I have is that being a good neighbor is an ongoing process and I think it's important to take the long view of this type of thing it's tough to be some of the first people through the door but I think as this industry matures these types of things especially when there's good outreach good conversation will be relatively easy cells in the future and I'm in support of the project and it's a good thing for a lot of the reasons that my fellow commissioners have said I completely agree with the importance of having these retail cannabis facilities the city has developed a policy where we not only permit these facilities if they are appropriately designed and appropriately planned out but encourages these and it's not products that's widely used and that to locate it only in very few places in the city is going to create the kind of bad decisions that put so many cars on the road and stick us in traffic and make it impossible to walk anywhere in the city. The more walkable destinations people can go to get the daily monthly things that they need the better we're going to design a city for living and we made a choice when we were talking about where in the city it would be appropriate to put cannabis uses and retail dispensaries that this office commercial zone was located in kind of broader areas than some of our other commercial districts or industrial districts and it's a very good point that there need to be you know places on the east side where thousands of people are cannabis users to conveniently go instead of driving seven miles across town and going on Steel Lane and going on Todd Road it's just not a sensible way to provide a really popular product when you can buy alcohol every other block and it is an unambiguously more harmful product to society the the safety of children is perhaps the most important thing that any government is responsible for along with all of us as private people and I appreciate the concern for it and it's totally appropriate to have skepticism about any kind of any kind of thing that'll impact children or be around children I have we've grappled with the issue of cannabis uses before and safety of cannabis uses and I'm very persuaded that if anything project like this is going to make the neighborhood safer for kids the surveillance issue is very very significant the idea that having people around makes a place safer is generally true and these vacuums are where misbehavior tends to happen not to mention that a legal permitted facility like this you know there won't be necessarily I'm not saying that this is a white prevalent thing in the city but you know drug deals and cars in private homes we need to make that a thing of the past it doesn't make sense to restrict these to only industrial areas for instance so I am in support of the project if there aren't any additional comments commissioners your votes please and that passes with six eyes commissioner granted good voting no and the commission is going to recess not for a set amount of time but we are going to get a bite to eat because it's three and a half hours in and we still have a handful of items after the break so with that we are adjourning to about 45 minutes from now okay I think we're gonna get started here in a minute there everybody gets gathered thank you chair Edmondson and members of the commission my name is Adam Ross I'm a city planner here and planning and economic development department let me go ahead and introduce the item sorry if you would yeah no problem okay we are no longer in recess we're gonna move to item 10.5 public hearing on snow the patient group conditional use permit at 2265 Cleveland Avenue this is an ex parte disclosure commissioner Peterson anything to disclose I visited the site and have no new information to disclose commissioner Veronica I visited the site to have nothing further to disclose my share weeks I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose Commissioner Cisco I visited the site and have nothing new to disclose Commissioner I visited the site and have nothing for which it is close Commissioner Collier I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose and I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose and the staff presentation will be given by Adam Ross thank you chair Edmondson and members of the commission today before you have CUP number 18-046 which is to allow a Sonoma patient group these is to allow Sonoma patient group to operate a medical and adult use cannabis retail dispensary with delivery and on-site consumption to operate at 2265 Cleveland Avenue as required by as approved in City Council ordinance 2017-025 the proposed hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week a little bit about the project is it is a it is a dispensary for medical and adult use retail with delivery this one includes on-site consumption cannabis retail is approximately 1414 square feet storage and office space is approximately 2048 square feet and the secured unenclosed patio for on-site consumption is approximately 660 square feet this project also I just want to mention this project also includes a minor design review approved by the zoning and administrator following this tonight's hearing so the projects look at 2265 Cleveland Avenue the the area is surrounded by mostly commercial you have the McBride Lane apartments to the west of the site there's about a 10-foot wall here separating the site and the existing building this distance from habitable space to the dispensary is proposed dispensary is 140 feet I believe as the crow flies to the west I'm sorry to the east you have a big box retail commercial center there is to the north his office their existing location as approved now is two commercial spaces up in this area here and so they're there the applicant is in operation and what they're proposing is to move to this new location where they don't share any common walls it's their own facility and can accommodate their business more they are within three-quarters of a mile to the smart rail station and that is why and this is the area that is an overlay district for this station area which I will discuss in a bit the project history includes the application for the CUP on April 17th 2018 the neighborhood meeting was held on April 25th notice of incomplete application was sent to the applicant on May 31st on June 14th a complete completeness review time extension was received by city staff and on June 20th the response to incomplete letter was received by city staff from the applicant on June 27th a notice of the complete application was sent to the applicant on July 23rd referrals were sent out to applicable city departments and tribal referrals on July 24th a notice of application was sent out to surrounding property owners within the four hundred foot radius on September 20th a notification of staff issues was sent to the applicant and on October 3rd updated plans and project description were received by staff the project is in the retail and business service general plan land use designation which is intended to accommodate retail and service enterprises offices and restaurants and the zoning for commercial is commercial neighborhood station area and I wanted to know while although the general plan does not specify dispensaries as a as an anticipated use the commercial zone the commercial neighborhood commercial zoning district is intended for many uses similar to medical and adult use cannabis dispensaries such as a bar or tavern here's the site plan for your reference which includes the parking lot this is a private road here's Cleveland Avenue here's the unenclosed the unenclosed secured patio area for on-site consumption the exist and the existing building footprint part of these cannabis ordinance requires secured access areas and the and I'm sorry so requires secured access areas and this one includes a secured access entrance which is used by distributors and staff for the location anyone allowed in this shaded area is accompanied by staff over here here is the customer entrance where they would enter into a lobby after show and show their ID get checked in and verified for age and and or medical recommendation card and then escorted into the retail area in order to get to the on-site consumption area they have to enter the building be vetted for their age and authorization and then escorted to the on-site consumption area this is the second story it's of the existing building and it's intended for employee only use here's an existing elevation of our image of the site as as it exists now it was formerly a restaurant Chinese restaurant and here's what they're proposing for your reference and and this area right here is the on-site consumption area here so it looks like this is the entrance here and then they'd come out a door here and then walk their way around to the unenclosed patio and here's some 3d renderings of what they intended to look like this is the on-site consumption area where they're standing here here's Cleveland Avenue if you're looking southwest towards the towards the building so some of the issues raised with this application the original application included smoking and vaping for on-site consumption however zoning code section 20-46 point 050 H of the cannabis ordinance requires odor control measures such that the odors of cannabis can't be detected from outside the building which makes it difficult to include engineering controls to also mitigate that for the on-site consumption area if there were to allow smoking and vaping on site in addition to the zoning ordinance the cannabis ordinance it states that you need to also adhere to the smoking regular city smoking regulations which excludes on-site consumption or I'm sorry smoking which includes marijuana or cannabis and vaping of tobacco products cannabis products and burning of flower to outside of 25 feet and in an unenclosed area 25 feet from an entrance to a building which if you go back here they have these 25 foot setback as required by the smoking ordinance and they do supply a an unenclosed but secured patio area but then the issue came up was how do you mitigate that cannabis odor from leaving the site in which they could not figure that out an engineer yeah their odor made their mechanical engineer couldn't provide the engineering controls to do that for them so in response to that the project has been conditioned to allow on-site consumption but only for edibles and topicals tinctures nothing of smoking nature some public comments received for this project were during the neighborhood meeting and the comments included trespassers leaving paraphernalia particularly used needles around the site I believe there's a methadone clinic nearby that supplies clean needles to those who use it and sometimes they go on to the neighboring properties and leave it behind the applicant responded with with every couple weeks they do cleanups and they organize it with SRPD so that the needles are properly disposed of and the and coming into this area I think it's been highlighted in in previous applications is that security on site will increase a deterrent for the trespassing to happen and this applicant also has contracted with their security their third-party security company to provide periodic patrols after hours to just surveil the site and they also adhere to all of the city on-site security requirements which includes camera monitor monitoring so the project qualifies as a class 1 categorical exemption under seco guidelines 15 301 and then in that the project is the use of an existing private structure involving negligible expansion of use and there are no interior alterations there are minor exterior alterations and the project also qualifies for a class 3 categorical losing exemption in that the project involves a change of use which will require minor exterior modifications to the structure the project also qualifies for a class 32 categorical exemption as infill development they focus traffic study was provided and indicates that there's not in and there are no significant impacts to city streets and it was vetted by city staff project site is on a developed lot surrounded by similar uses the project is hooked up to city services and an odor mitigation plan was prepared and signed by a licensed engineer part of the findings for a conditional use permit which apply to a cannabis dispensary requires that it complies with all the applicable applicable provisions of the zoning code in which it does it's an allowed use via conditional use permit they propose use is consistent with the general plan as it is understood that the retail and business service is appropriate for this type of land use and the design location size and operating characteristics are compatible with the existing and future land uses and then it doesn't it it's similar to the existing land uses around they already exist in a location nearby that they would be closing down before they can operate at this new location and it's physically suitable again back by a traffic study it's in a heavy commercial area it's outside of a thousand foot school setback the 600 sorry the 600 but the thousand foot for for signs on the site is what I meant to clarify and it would not constitute a nuisance and it has been reviewed and is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act the planning and economic development department recommends that the planning Commission approve resolution CUP 18-046 to allow the medical and adult use cannabis retail dispensary with delivery services in on-site consumption located at 2265 Cleveland Avenue in Santa Rosa and I'm ready to answer any questions the applicant also has prepared a small presentation as well for you okay great thanks commissioners any questions for staff before we invite the applicant to speak okay if the applicant is here wishing to speak please approach the podium state your name for the record hi my name is Ronit Taggart I'm the legal and compliance specialist let me know if you need me to spell that for you I'm just going to grab a clickers that I can good evening chair and commissioners first off I'd like to thank the commissioners for hearing our application to relocate our dispensary operations I would also like to take this moment to thank Claire Hartman Andrew Triple and Adam Ross we greatly appreciate the efforts of these three individuals along with the rest of the planning department and helping us get to this point I'm in front of you today to discuss Sonoma patient groups conditional use permit application 18-046 first I'd like to start by telling you about the owners of Sonoma patient group John Sugg is the founding member and president of Sonoma patient group he's bachelor's degrees in both political economics and electrical engineering he's been a cannabis advocate since 1995 beginning with Washington State hemp initiative projects to legalize marijuana in that state he first began working in the cannabis industry in 2001 initiating the practice of patients helping patients as a guiding principle for a Sonoma patient group and since 2003 John has been a permit holder for the dispensary located in Santa Rosa next we have Jewel Matheson she is a founding member and director of education and advocacy she has degrees in psychology and education from Sonoma State University and Jewel's introduction to the cannabis industry came when she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2005 she met John Sugg in 2008 and has been at the core of Sonoma patient group ever since and Jewel began at the front desk she moved to budtending and then lead manager for six years and has since become the director of education and advocacy Fred Ginn is another founding member he's a fourth generation native of Santa Rosa and has grown cannabis since his youth he operates four paint stores in Santa Rosa and Sonoma and his family vineyard produces grapes using the dry farming method for over 30 years Nicole Williams she's the director of dispensary operations she's a second-generation Sonoma County cannabis grower she has experience and cultivation as well as extensive concentrate and edible knowledge she first joined Sonoma patient group in 2008 as a budtender and medical records specialist since 2015 Nicole has been the purchasing manager for Sonoma patient group and in 2018 became the director of dispensary operations Leanne Nakashima is the director of marketing she's educated at Sonoma State University and in 2004 began her career in the cannabis industry as a grower and caregiver she joined Sonoma patient group in 2008 and has extensive experience in creating concentrate and edible preparations since 2016 Leanne has been the social media manager for Sonoma patient group and in 2018 she became the director of marketing now I'd like to tell you a little about our relocation efforts as this has been quite the adventure in 2007 or since 2007 Sonoma patient group has operated at 24 25 Cleveland Avenue suite 175 in November of 2016 Sonoma patient group signed the lease at a location at farmers in highway 12 in an effort to serve more patients Sonoma patient group contacted representatives with the city of Santa Rosa to quest request a conditional use permit application to relocate to a new facility unfortunately we were informed that no permits would be issued until the city passed their cannabis ordinance soon after a grade school was granted an application for a building next to the farmers location causing Sonoma patient group to cancel the lease at a cost due to the proximity to a school in December 2016 we signed the lease for the property that we're here today for 22 65 Cleveland Avenue it was formerly the new China restaurant we initially anticipated the Santa Rosa cannabis ordinance would be issued in the summer of 2017 based on feedback from the city but ultimately that was passed in December of 2017 Sonoma patient group was initially informed we would not be able to submit for a conditional use permit application due to the fact that the proposed new location was within 600 feet of our own current operation some of you may recall Sonoma patient group bringing over 20 supporters to a hearing earlier this year along with a plethora of calls to city officials regarding our relocation efforts after numerous meetings with city representatives it was determined that an existing permitted cannabis operator would be allowed to submit for a conditional use permit application if the building was located within 600 feet of their own operation which now brings us to the timeline for Sonoma patient group to get to today April 17th we submitted our application on April 19th we hosted our own outreach meetup where we invited residents and businesses within 300 feet of our new location to learn about a dispensary provide an open dialogue we hand delivered flyers to residents within that radius and then on April 25th we held our pre application neighborhood meeting with no opposition to our project in attendance in fact we received signed petitions from over 50 individuals who were in support of our relocation efforts and then June through September we supplied supplemental information to the city planner based on feedback from various departments would included updated site plans and updated on site consumption operating procedures November 7th we submitted our design review application and that brings us to today's public hearing Sonoma patient group anticipates the remodeling phase to take six to nine months December of this year through February we will submit construction documents and building permit applications February through August we would begin the remodeling efforts and then hopefully on September 1st we would have our anticipated grand opening upon approval of the new location at 22 65 Cleveland Avenue Sonoma patient group will be prepared to close operations simultaneous with opening at the new location now throughout the conditional use permit process we came into an issue regarding the onsite consumption of cannabis in the city of Santa Rosa Sonoma patient groups initial design allowed for an unenclosed space that could be used for an onsite consumption lounge as it currently stands on site consumption of cannabis would be allowed if an engineer signed off on an odor mitigation plan stating the smell of cannabis would be mitigated to the best of their ability unfortunately no engineer will create an odor mitigation plan due to the current ordinance requiring the consumption area be in an unenclosed space consequently some patient group is withdrawing their request for onsite consumption of flowers and vaping and is instead requesting allowance for consumption of edibles topicals and tinctures only we agree the smell of cannabis needs to be mitigated however the unenclosed requirement is a detriment to this industry we highly urge the city of Santa Rosa to stay competitive with surrounding counties by amending the smoking ordinance nine dash twenty by either expanding on nine dash twenty dot zero nine zero places where smoking is permitted to specifically allow for consumption of cannabis in an enclosed space with an odor mitigation plan or change the definition of designated smoking area to include a fifth option for cannabis consumption in an enclosed area or remove the word marijuana from the definition of smoking and create a cannabis specific smoking ordinance at this time some patient group is requesting a condition of approval to allow for an administrative facilitation of any request to expand the smoking allowances pending potential changes to the smoking ordinance without the need for another public hearing we've provided draft language to potentially incorporate into the conditional use permit to mr. Ross and then now if here is a vicinity map you'll see the current location of Sonoma patient group is in red and the proposed new location is in white we also have I believe if it might play yes we have a video showing the exterior of the location at twenty two sixty five Cleveland Avenue that's on the right and then on the left side behind of those trees you'll see is our current location this is the interior layout of the twenty two sixty five Cleveland Avenue location and lastly we have 3d renderings as to the potential remodeling of the exterior as well as our proposed on-site consumption lounge I believe everyone here today is in support of us and I would like to thank you for your consideration for our conditional use permit and we welcome any questions that the commissioners or staff may have at this time thank you very much commissioners any questions right now for the applicant okay thank you very much we're gonna move to the public hearing this is a public hearing I have one card on this item but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak anybody here wishing to speak on this matter please approach one of the podiums at the top of the room and state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes to make your comments with that I'm gonna open the public hearing and my card is from mark Perry and perhaps he left I do have to make a terrible joke right now I think that everybody out there has been a patient group if anybody is wishing to make comments please stay here for the record thank you my name is Craig Litwin I'm with four to one group I did put a card just in the box down there but I think I can keep this at less than a minute I want to thank you for your time just as a city for moving this forward for working with Sonoma patient group to mitigate the seeming conundrum in the law that they couldn't move 600 feet from themselves it was a great remedy and I appreciate all the patience by the city I've worked on cannabis issues since I was 18 I collected signatures for prop 215 got arrested for saying the word marijuana and you know it's I've been around a long time doing this I served on the sabastical council for eight years co-authored our dispensary ordinance when I got off the council in 2008 I started working full-time in the cannabis industry as an advocate and lobbyist and at that time in 2010 I started working in Santa Rosa to change the then 500 patient cap limit on dispensaries that's when I met the folks at Sonoma patient group and they're your oldest Santa Rosa dispensary you know these guys have been doing it right from the very beginning they have had compassion programs they care about their neighborhood they reach out to the community these are the types of people that we want you know we know what we're getting with these folks and so I just want to really you know urge you of course to support their application and I'm here tonight as a citizen just as a you know Sonoma County native who was born in Santa Rosa I really appreciate these guys and what they stand for and I also think that they're fix of having a condition of approval that would allow for them to work with staff should you amend the ordinance in the future to allow for smoking in a different way would be very nice for everybody you know to not have another public hearing to let it be worked out in a legal manner with an administrative proceeding thank you for your time thank you bear with me please thank you is anybody else wishing to speak so please go to one of the podiums and I'm not seeing anybody else rise so I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission and we had interests expressed in a condition of approval that would make it less burdensome if there were changes in the future to on-site consumption and or smoking ordinances that they wouldn't have to go before the Commission again and it's my understanding that that possibility has been considered and that there's some analysis that staff could share with us about whether that is legal or possible I will jump in the rules aren't proposed to be amended that would take initiation by our City Council to amend the rules or by a applicant who wants to apply for code amendment to to change the rules either zoning code rules that require the mitigation the way it's spelled out or to amend the smoking ordinance there's a lot of different ways that these amendments could occur and may or may not occur occur so my recommendation if the premise is to foreshadow an amendment and then subsequently impacts to this project or future projects I think is is premature I think that these kind of considerations the impact of new ordinances should the city move forward with an amendment of either of these or process an application for such we would consider how an existing operation would go about amending their use so I think it'd be premature to add a condition on amendment that's not even in process or scoped or anything is any anything else to add from any staff okay commissioners any questions for staff for the applicant I've got a few questions for the applicant and I think it's only because I believe this is our first proposal where somebody happens to have an on-site consumption area and so and I understand it's just going to be limited to edibles and topicals and tinctures and I believe in the project narrative there was there was language about there would be staff person in the enclosed space and they would be monitoring people and not allowing them to stay you know overly long or something but will be patrons be allowed to buy additional products or you know consume as much as they want when they're on site and also you know are they going to be monitored for how stone they get like how effective they are and will they be allowed to drive off site I mean I'm just wondering about like how how bars over the years that they've been so been held liable if somebody drives away and they're too drunk and something happens afterwards we actually have reached out to some of the local bars to kind of figure out what are their processes in regards to this because this is a new area for Santa Rosa they if anybody presents as overly intoxicated whether it's slurred speech body movement we would not allow them to even enter the facility to make a purchase let alone stay in the consumption area our staff will be trained on how to they are already trained on how to monitor people's potential levels of intoxication but for in regards to the cannabis and edibles there are a hundred milligram limits on what somebody can consume at a given time we will have the ability to limit the amount that somebody is able to consume in regards to they're not going to be able to buy five different things that are each at a hundred milligrams and sit there for an hour and consume five hundred milligrams that's not what the intent is it's more for somebody to have the ability to try a product get the knowledge of our cannabis consultant while they are there being able to potentially put the topical on their skin try a sublingual things like that thank you commissioners any other questions commissioner Peterson I guess sort of along those same lines this isn't a particularly walkable neighborhood what do you anticipate sort of the the overarching risk of people driving while being stoned well as similar to bars we are anticipating that people who are entering our facility are going to be our educated or are going to be educated on the type of product that they are consuming we are not going to be if anybody presents as highly as intoxicated in any way we would not allow them to leave the facilities without some form of transportation calling an uber taxi in some way for them to be able to safely leave we do not in regards to the pedestrian traffic this it is a walkable area there is a smart train so we are hoping that people will utilize the public transportation that is available to them it's less than a mile I believe that Adam said from the smart train so there is options for people to come and consume in a way that would not leave them open to drive I'm not sure if I fully answered your question you didn't thank you just to follow up on that and this is more curiosity than anything but and you alluded to the visiting of bars and see how they they work the Sonoma patient group assume liability and risk if someone takes a product on site and then perhaps they haven't told you how much they may have consumed before or whatever I guess the question is and it may be one more for the attorneys but do you end up accepting your level of risk and liability for those who in intake edibles on site and then my extension in approving this with the city except they or is the city vulnerable in essence for liability claims well it's actually interesting in my research of this the business professions code 25602 in regards to alcohol prohibits this serving of somebody who is obviously an intoxicated person that is a misdemeanor but the seller is not civilly liable for injuries that are inflicted by an intoxicated person so it's a very interesting subject in regards to liability again as I would assume a bar you walk at you a thing that the customer that is coming in has a certain level of not impairedness of paredness so that they are not going to be presenting with intoxication of somebody as I previously had said if somebody comes in showing any kind of signs that they might be impaired we would not allow them to to consume anything on site and the same goes to if we notice somebody becoming more intoxicated while they were there we would not allow them we would not let them leave in a way that would put them at risk of injuring somebody else whether that be behind the wheel or so forth thank you commissioners any other questions at this time okay would anybody like to move a resolution we have one resolution on this item I'll move resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa approving a conditional use permit for Sonoma patient group incorporated medical and adult use retail cannabis dispensary with delivery in an existing 3,557 square foot building with addition of a 660 square foot screened in porch for onsite consumption on a 16,552 square foot parcel located at 2265 Cleveland Avenue APN number 015-481-030 file number CUP 18-046 and wave for the reading second the resolution was moved by commissioner Duggan seconded by commissioner Cisco mr. Weeks would you like to start well I'm gonna be supporting the project I do appreciate your outreach efforts to the neighborhood I think that should be a model for other dispensaries so that's all commissioner run again yes I found the proposal really solid and I'm supportive of it and I think you've raised some interesting points that we need to perhaps take a look at as we go along but I'm in support of the project commissioner Peterson so I echo some of the comments of my fellow commissioners I think in general I support this project I think it's you know it's a long-time Santa Rosa business it's it's a well done project narrative the only issue I have is with the onsite consumption I think this is a very bad fit for this area I think there's real questions about driving under the influence I'm not sure that there are adequate tests the way there are for alcohol for people consuming cannabis on site and then driving away I have a I'd have a really hard time supporting this project with onsite consumption everything else I think I would be able to make the necessary findings but I think onsite consumption in this location on Cleveland Avenue in Gernville where you almost necessarily have to come and go by car is going to be tough for me I'm willing to hear my fellow commissioners comments I don't know if there's a solution to this that we can reach I'll reserve my vote at this time commissioner call you agree with my fellow commissioners I think this this proposal has been put together really well I do agree with Commissioner Peterson I don't know exactly how you feel about the onsite consumption specifically around the driving well-impaired situation so I'm interested in it discussing it more before making my decision Commissioner Duggan I think it's a solid proposal and I can make all the requisite findings I do have some concerns about onsite consumption but I think you know that cat is kind of out of the bag because with having cannabis legalized there's nothing to stop anybody from going to a dispensary getting in their car and eating what they've just bought you know I mean I think we've already are dealing with it even if we don't you know really think we are and I think you know if a topical product is not going to impair your driving there there are plenty of things that they sell especially medicinal products they're not going to impair your behavior behind the wheel so I can support the project Commissioner Cisco yeah well I think we really thoroughly vetted this business you know a month or so ago on the prior site and you know I think it's obviously a well-run business and I hear the concerns about the onsite consumption and I sort of share them but I kind of agree with Commissioner Duggan it's sort of like we're not going to be able to prevent that from coming from anywhere anytime and to have it you know on-site regulated begin at least to start to pay attention to those kinds of impacts and maybe work our ways with laws down the line you know I think that's what we're gonna have to do but it's new we're gonna find out but I'm in support of this project I'm in support of this project as well I think it's a very good application established operators it very slick the people in the 3d rendering looked very happy to be there so to quickly touch on the the smoking ordinance and the onsite consumption even though that's not before us tonight it is a bit of a complicated issue I'm not sure that we got into the weeds of it no pun intended when we were doing the ordinance in the first place because there are potential considerations about dosing and the idea of an area that might not be ventilated I mean I'm not an engineer I'm sure there's a way to figure it out but anyway that's not before us tonight I my first reaction to seeing the onsite consumption and the location was exactly the reaction that Commissioner Peterson had which is that the smart station you know not withstanding there's a grocery store nearby yes but it's absolutely not a pedestrian friendly neighborhood I don't think you're gonna get very much traffic and I understand the comment from Commissioner Duggan that the cats out of the bag and to a certain extent but what we would be doing is establishing an onsite consumption permit and by definition the people wouldn't be at home they would have to be leaving so it is a little bit distinct as I see it and Commissioner Peterson is correct that there just isn't sufficient testing to determine intoxication people are maybe less adept at determining it themselves which means that the law against driving impaired is not going to be a deterrent the same way it might be for people who drink that said cannabis doesn't impair judgment to the same extent alcohol does and what my concern is is I don't think that the consideration of walkability is really unfair notice for an applicant and I also don't know that it wouldn't be a double standard when it comes to alcohol that it cuts both ways and I would want to take another attempt at narrowing the onsite consumption a little bit as a matter of legislation but I I don't think that I need to make any kind of modifications to the resolution is drafted and I can support it and make all the findings without any modifications I'll open it up to any commissioner who wants to make any comment I mean just to follow up on my comment sort of vis-a-vis alcohol I would feel the same way a bar that you must drive to or almost must drive to is an equally bad idea in my mind I think that onsite consumption including smoking and vaping would be completely appropriate pending any ordinance changes in the right context in a downtown walkable area that's a little bit better integrated and isn't so reliant on on an automobile I think that until then however it's not going to to get my support I'll just make a comment as well I've said in the past gratuitously that we have parking minimums for bars literally a place where there's no consumption permitted except for you know soft drinks and water and alcohol and yet the city code mandates a certain number of parking spaces for a place like that and it makes you question the wisdom of that kind of thing and yet again we have a facility here with a parking requirement that is code required that does happen to be located in what I believe is not a walkable neighborhood but nevertheless I think we need a bright line rule from from my perspective about what parts of the city we consider walkable and which ones we don't or what percentage of foot traffic we expect versus automobile traffic and I think I'm not going to speculate and I think I can make all the findings I don't think that from my perspective there's any kind of nuisance or risk to public safety that I think goes beyond numerous other projects that have come before us that I've supported is any commissioner wishing to speak okay the resolution was moved by commissioner Duggan and seconded by commissioner Cisco commissioners your votes please and then passes with six eyes commissioner Peterson voting no and that concludes item 10.5 and we'll move to item 10.6 I'll give just a few seconds for people to reset like us to get started in earnest 10.6 public hearing for radiant farms conditional use permit at 1821 Empire Industrial Court this is an ex parte disclosure commissioner Peterson anything to disclose I visited the site I have no new information to disclose commissioner Veronica I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose vice chair weeks I also visited the site and have nothing to disclose commissioner Cisco I have no disclosures I visited the site and have nothing new to disclose commissioner Collin I also visit the site and have nothing further to disclose and I visited the site and exchanged very very cursory text messages with the attorney for the applicant about scheduling but not about any aspects of the project scheduling of the hearing near mere moments ago but no new information to disclose with that the staff presentation will be by Susie Murray and good evening chair Edmondson and planning commissioners the project radiant farm is a proposal for cannabis manufacturing located at 1821 Empire Industrial Drive excuse me it involves a conditional use permit and really it's it's both volatile and non-volatile manufacturing if it were strictly non-volatile the use permit would not be before you so for purposes of the discussion there's the volatile manufacturing located at this facility and that's why this is here the floor plan that you'll see in a few minutes over just around 1400 square feet is broken down as shown on the screen now with volatile manufacturing occupying about a hundred square and 60 square feet of the area non-volatile 375 square feet of the area storage 455 and other and silvery areas if you will machine room walk-in freezer etc for the balance of that area so here's an aerial of the the neighborhood and the site is again located in 1821 Empire Industrial Court it also is one suite within an eight suite building that is the subject of this this review here's a better picture of the of the suite and the building or a close-up and you can also see here the parking and I'm gonna say that while we're looking at this slide I visited this area for several projects and on several occasions and this is almost always what the parking looks like out there just to keep in in mind as we go forward the project history is short they the application was submitted on June 6th of this year we had a neighborhood meeting it was determined that that was necessary before advancing the project so that took place on August 20th notice of application was mailed to customers and all the our customers I'm sorry okay the neighborhood it's late and then they were originally scheduled on the November 8th meeting which was continued the general plan land use designation for that entire street actually is is light industry it's surrounded to the north by low density residential uses to the west by mobile home to the south by more industrial uses as well to the east of light industrial the zoning is plan development this is a light industrial plan development the policy statement actually refers us to light and light industrial uses in the zoning code for allowable uses the surrounding zoning is in alignment with the general plan land use designation again with residential to the north the mobile home to the west and industrial uses to both the south and the east some of the operational standards outlined in the zoning code which the applicant or the resolution conditions the project to comply with include employment which they will do background checks odor which must be contained within within the building lighting which is kind of a funny balancing act because they need to have enough lighting to ensure site security and not enough to spill on to neighboring properties so it needs to be directed downward and that's something that will be reviewed during the the building permit review process noise they must comply with the city's noise ordinance security they've they've there was some detail included in your staff report that shows all the different elements of their site security plan and they will they there's certain measures that they have to comply with again in compliance with chapter 2046 parking they're required to have four parking spaces and they they have plenty out there so you saw that aerial view proximity to other cannabis uses this is something that I included into the staff report and it's something that comes up on a regular basis so I think that this is more for for public consumption rather than necessarily those of us who have heard this several times and they are we don't regulate concentration of cannabis uses as a whole we do regulate dispensaries which are not allowed to be within 600 feet of each other this is not a dispensary use it is located next door to a dispensary use which was approved on October 25th by the Planning Commission and there that project is under building permit review right now the hours of operation the applicant is proposing 24-7 there was a question that was presented to staff by a commissioner the asked if other other cannabis manufacturing uses had been approved 24-7 and the answer is yes in 24-7 in an industrial neighborhood for industrial uses is really not uncommon we've been doing it with even one adjacent to residential uses and I think a real good example of that is over on North Point Parkway Amy's kitchen who's been doing it for years and it's food it's just a matter of making it designing it and conditioning it so that it works well when it's next to that residential use so their hours of operation they they've kind of self-limited themselves to not the operation but the delivery pickup and delivery services will only occur in their project description it stated Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. so all other activities will occur within the building there was another inquiry that came from a commissioner about parking along or the restriction of parking along the North Property Line during the evening hours nighttime hours and that's a relatively common condition found on manufacturing not cannabis manufacturing specifically but all manufacturing uses when adjacent to residential to protect them from noise impacts of shift changes slamming doors music conversation in the parking lot etc in addition lights you know the glare of headlights going through fences into residential uses and you've seen this slide already tonight a couple of times I think and it's a good reminder it's a good reminder for staff as well there are six require required findings for the cannabis uses and for any other use permit the proposed project is allowed within the applicable zoning district and does comply with all other provisions of the zoning code and city code as conditioned the proposed project is also consistent with the general plan as we touched on a minute ago the design location and operating characteristics of the proposed activity are also compatible with the exist existing and future land uses in the vicinity the site is physically suitable for the type density intensity of the use granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be interest or detrimental to the public health interest safety convenience or welfare or material or materially injurious interest to the person's property or improvements in the vicinity and the project has been found in compliance with CEQA the California Environmental Quality Act which I'll touch on a little bit more in a couple of minutes here in terms of proximity to schools again it does it it's it's kind of extraneous information but for public awareness they are there is no restriction they are over a thousand feet well over a thousand feet away from either of the two schools Schaefer Charter School or North Valley School in the general vicinity the site plan here is just the really the footprint of the building as you can see there are eight nine suites I'm sorry thinking it was eight suites it's nine suites and the or 10 suites the entire building is occupied with the exception of these two suites as my understanding or as it was during the the application review process suite G here bordered in blue that's the suite that's the subject of this review the business operator will also offer our conduct business out of suite F he has already received a zoning clearance for the distribution portion of this business this overall business which is permitted by right and it's in a different suite so he received that during during the review process the applicant has submitted another request for zoning clearance for minor manufacturer non-volatile manufacturing also in suite F and that is currently under review so I have a floor plan coming up here that I'll be able to show you how that will look which is a little bit different than what was in your packet there was also another question brought up by a commissioner about the I what does that say it's flammable liquid storage new flammable liquid storage on the rear side of the building that area is about or approximately 50 feet away from the property line to the property the residential properties to the north it's something that it it's it'll look a lot like what you see in at Home Depot or you know some place where the hardware store where you rent out the propane tanks the container here or the image shown in the on the left hand of the screen that shows you the kind of storage area that it will be for these these cylinders the gases I'm going to let the applicant team talk a little bit more about that but the fire department has reviewed this this project and will review the building permit plans and has not raised any issue with this I also want to point out another reason for the location of this is that it's not a particularly attractive unit and this is a very attractive industrial neighborhood so the build front of the building is landscaped and what have you and it's not really an appropriate place in the front of the building in terms of superior design review for an enclosure like this here's the floor plan again shown in blue I just kind of a reminder of the site plan or the building footprint on the upper left but the floor plan of the unit in question is the entirety surrounded in blue and it's I think a 1,300 square feet or thereabouts and then the area that's highlighted in or boarded in the golden rod is the area for the volatile manufacturing which is about 160 square feet and I'm going to go back to this again I'm going to let I'm going to defer to the applicant to explain the loop system I know that y'all have heard about it and I understand it I'm going to ask them to it just because they're they're more technical on that than I am here are some site photographs looking towards at the west elevation you can see that there is a roll-up door for the the use that is not before you but related to this and vehicles will pull into the building for the distribution related to this manufacturing and the door will be closed in the same protocols that have a that apply you know the loading and unloading of vehicles will be done with roll-up doors closed and then the the bottom photograph is is from this from the street it's you know both sides of the building and many of them are similar out there and on that court nor the suites go down either side you can see the landscaping here so as I mentioned earlier there was a neighborhood meeting in august the points that came up during the the meeting were the hours for deliveries and pickups which as I said have been self-restricted to Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. hiring practice which pursuant to our zoning code they'll be doing background checks and state state law the use of flammable and explosive materials very similar to many manufacturing uses in the city they they have protocols that they have to follow and they have to report in with the fire department annually and the fire department is is not here tonight but has not expressed any concern with this project odor control is again a requirement of the conditional use permit that they need to comply and contain all odors within the building subsequent correspondence included over concentration which I've also discussed already so in terms of the california environmental quality act there were several categorical exemptions that this project complies with the with sequa under these categorical exemptions well the first one is not categorical it's a streamlining measure this is consistent with the general plan and zoning and then of course we have an infill categorical exemption minor modifications to an existing facility and involves a change of use so that said it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission approve a conditional use permit allowing radiant farm a cannabis manufacturing facility to operate at 1825 industrial court suite g and i am available for questions i know that the applicant would like to do a presentation as well and all great thanks very much commissioners any questions for staff commissioner dug in just a clarifying question you you mentioned that the applicant has offered to limit deliveries and pickups to nine to seven Monday through Friday and is that in the resolution or could that could they change it at any time if they wanted to unless we put it in the resolution it's in their their conditions or it's not in the it's in their description i don't recall putting it in the conditions of approval because it's in the description but i can add it in if you would like that to be added in okay well let's see if i want to but yeah that just i'm just wondering if we needed to do anything about the commission yeah okay thanks any other questions before we hear from the applicant okay um if you would state your name for the record and uh make your presentation are we on it seems like we are good evening members of the planning commission and staff my name is Erin Carlstrom i'm senior counsel with dickinson peatman at bogarty we have the pleasure of being the attorneys for the applicants this evening we are cognizant of the lateness of the hour so we will attempt to be brief um for the reasons very articulately stated by your learned staff uh this project uh does meet your general plan and zoning considerations and will not pose any level of nuisance to its surrounding neighbors and we thus ask you to please uh support the recommendation of your staff and grant a conditional youth permit for this evening for the remainder of the presentation i'll turn it over to the applicants themselves radiant farms good evening thank you so much for the opportunity to be here i'll keep my remarks as brief as possible because i'm sure you're all ready to move on and go home tonight um i'm the ceo and co-founder of radiant farm and we have some other members of my team here tonight as well if you don't mind i'm just going to ask you to state your name for the record erin silverson right thank you thank you our mission simply put is to craft the finest cannabis extracts in california oh and i'm i'll do i need to say next slide when we're ready to go to the next one okay next slide or any slide any slide or if you have these printed out you could follow along as well um okay okay so next slide primary objectives are to be fully compliant with all state and local regulations uh to become an industry leader in sourcing sustainable organic raw materials from local growers to adhere to robust security and safety protocols with a goal of zero incidence year to year to hire locally and to be good neighbors and support local terrible organizations both through donations and volunteer work next next slide i think you at this point have probably come to learn a great deal about um type seven manufacturing volatile based manufacturing um and so i'm going to kind of quickly touch on this i know of course happy to answer any more detailed questions later uh so quickly just a couple visuals this is a representative image of a c1d1 it's a class one division one type of lab um and that is the lab that we will have our volatile based extraction system in um next slide next slide please to quickly touch on what a volatile based extraction system is um i'd like to introduce devin mckay who is on our leadership team um to to address that thanks so yeah once again for the record my name is devin mckay um and to touch on what a closed loop extraction system is it it is a completely self-contained system where volatile gases such as butane and propane will pass through the material into a collection vessel where it is then immediately sucked back through and put right back into the same gas tank that it came from as quickly as safely as possible so that there is no there's no leaks there's no odor and most importantly there is zero risk for fire um and i'm i'm happy to answer any more questions that you may have but uh i think you guys have already learned a great great deal about this so i'm here if you need me thank you um it's also worth noting that we're we're using best in class technology that is already in use uh and quite prevalent throughout the state of california and numerous jurisdictions um and uh and all of the equipment has to be either UL listed or peer reviewed in order for us to to receive our state license next slide next to our type 7 lab is a type 6 lab or a non-volatile based lab so it's just kind of a sample of what the interior might look like next next slide and in that room we will be doing ethanol based extraction and distillation again the extraction system that we use in that lab is also closed loop extremely safe um UL listed and actually manufactured locally by arguably the best company in the world making this equipment delta separations if you don't know who they are um anyone in the cannabis extraction world knows that name and they happen to be right here next slide so these are the four of us co-founders um uh freddy and uh couldn't be here tonight he has the flu Tyler is here um and together we actually have over 45 years of experience in the cannabis industry uh previous senator prop 215 medical marijuana next slide um and we also have a very experienced and talented team supporting us including brian elliot he may have seen here earlier tonight uh he was hoping to be able to offer some remarks on fire and safety uh and but unfortunately he had to get home to his grandson um whose special needs and uh so he had a hard stop um next slide so briefly we are extremely committed to being good neighbors uh to put it frankly um I live in santa rosa um and my team is moving here um in fact both devin and Tyler are actively looking for uh homes in coffee park um so we might very well have half of our leadership team living in the neighborhood that we're operating in um we've also really made an effort to make inroads with um the local community organizations specifically coffee strong um jeff acrepti was here earlier I think he may have spoken to a few of you um and we had a chance to meet and um he uh he mentioned to me that he brought this project to the coffee strong board asked if there was any opposition uh and did not uh receive any and did not nobody was opposed um and he would have uh said that if if he was still here but he also had to get home to his five-month-old and three-year-old I also met with the board president uh Pamela Halsameth she invited me to present the coffee strong board uh and I've accepted that invitation and I look forward to uh to doing so and getting to know them um and and addressing any concerns that they might have um we really appreciate the opportunity to be the best neighbors that we can however however we can um next slide the security measures were touched on in the staff report so I'm not going to spend too much time on this but the the key points for that we we've retained bay alarm to design and install and monitor an extremely robust security system including 24 7 closed caption tv um sensor monitoring uh rapid response there we're not going to have any exterior signage on the building so for all intents and purposes nobody will know we're there unless they know we're there we also have numerous physical barriers that have been designed into the improvements that are currently underway in suite f next door and will be built into a suite g this suite once we receive our building permit and finally none of the no no vehicle containing product will ever be allowed uh to park outside of the building um and we will only be scheduling delivery vehicles to arrive one at a time when they arrive they will pass into a secure uh loading area roll a roll of door will drop down behind it and only once that door closes can the driver then enter into the interior of the facility next slide um our team has a perfect safety record over 10 years of doing this work um we are implementing extremely rigid so ps that brian elli and his team are advising on although we've already got strong so ps from our from the from the previous business um and all of our facilities are being designed to professional laboratory standards and that's why we're pursuing a c1 d1 uh classification for our volatile extraction room next slide um odor mitigation was touched on we've got a very robust odor mitigation design and equipment that will ensure that no odors are detected from outside next slide that's it um so yeah thank you again really appreciate the opportunity to be here and happy to answer any other questions that you might have thank you thanks very much commissioners any questions for staff for the applicant before we open the public hearing okay this is a public hearing um i do have one card on this item but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak uh if you would uh approach one of the podiums and uh state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes to make your comments with that i will open the public hearing and first card and only card daniel garcia hi good evening thanks for having me my name is daniel garcia with ventrio insurance brokerage i uh head up the division of ventrio that is committed to the cannabis industry by the name of van can insurance so we work with companies like these all the time i have to say erin and his team are certainly best of class with their intent to provide a secure and safe business as they operate it um we are excited to go out to market with this account because there's going to be plenty of carriers that are excited to put coverage in place given all the i just want to echo all of his safety mitigation um uh statements that he made about what he's gotten placed and what he intends to put in place we work closely with ryan elliott and his firm and the best of class in terms of implementing that kind of stuff so um as the insurance and loss mitigation guy i thought i step up here and just echo their statements and my support for their project thank you anybody else wishing to speak if you'll state your name please hi my name is brian keegan i'm a senior agent at keegan and cope in commercial real estate um i uh i worked with radiant farm to help them secure the space that they're in um in commercial real estate i get i've vetted literally hundreds of cannabis leasing tenants um people call all the time and um and i've only i've only really qualified and worked with a handful a select handful um because you know it i think it were results driven right so our industry you know we have to see a group that's going across the finish line and and when i met with erin and his team that's exactly what i saw um they came in i met with erin um he was really prepared he was very professional he seemed really kind of excited for um you know going into like a full compliance setup and it really made an impression on me and so i took him on as a client and um he answered all my questions he had a solid team a really detailed business plan and um after after talking with them and working with them i think that they stand out as a model for the type of businesses and operations that the city of santa rosa needs for the cannabis industry and and really any industry and moving forward um i think that uh there would be a great group um to approve here thank you thank you is anybody else wishing to speak does not look like it so i will close the public hearing bring it back to the commission um any final questions before we discuss okay we have one resolution would anybody like to move the resolution i'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa approving a conditional use permit for radiant farm a cannabis manufacturing facility involving both non-volatile manufacturing level one and volatile manufacturing level two for the property located at 1821 empire industrial court suite g assessors parcel number 015-731-051 file number c up 18-095 and wave for the reading second if that was moved by commissioner dug in and seconded by commissioner droninga commissioner peterson would you like to start well i think this is a very well uh put together presentation um i think it's a very appropriate project for this area i think this as far as these things go is a is relatively easy for me to make the findings um in support of this project commissioner droninga yes i um i also find that this is a very well done proposal i'm also particularly pleased that uh the radiant farms folks have engaged in a conversation with folks at coffee park strong i think that's important one question that i do have a concern um and i do believe it is subject to fire department approval is the location of the hazardous materials storage shed because it is not very far from the landscape the fence and the trees a budding coffee park strong that's the reason for my question um but given that the insurance folks seem to be behind this project i have no further questions and i plan to support it nice chair weeks um i'm also going to be supporting the project and i'm going to echo what uh commissioner droninga said about engaging coffee strong i think that's really a good model uh for other folks to follow commissioner cisco i'm also in support of this project and another well put together application and good teamwork so good job i'm in support of the project and i have nothing else to add except i'm just wondering if any other fellow commissioners want to put the language of the delivery and pick up hours a Monday through Friday 9 to 7 as shown in the project narrative email that the applicant offered i think maybe the best way to do it would be to um just ask that question one by one after commissioner calia and i make general comments and gauge the level of interest for everybody thank you uh commissioner calio i also can make all the necessary findings and uh do support this project is really well put together and i appreciate you guys bringing in the community benefit side of things because that's what makes businesses sustainable in the long run and uh i i agree with all those comments it's pretty much as close to straightforward as you can get nothing to criticize about the project at all i think it is exciting to see places like the empire industrial court as a you know very very swiftly turning into a kind of hub for uh cannabis the cannabis industry in santa rosa and when they talk about cities and and the greatness of cities part of it is getting like-minded people together to share knowledge and develop that kind of value-added knowledge economy where you know we can progress with our industry so that's that's exciting um i suppose i'll speak first on the um delivery can i interrupt for just a minute i might suggest that somebody make a friendly amendment if someone were friendly amendment to the resolution to add the condition to conform the delivery hours to the project description i believe so yes so that we have a motion on the floor to approve the conditional use permit with an additional condition and then we can discuss that motion so the would be a friendly amendment to add a condition to um state clearly the hours of operation for the delivery between help me out suzi pick up in delivery and i conveniently drafted some language as well if you're interested in it that sounds great yeah if you don't mind looking the language that'd be great pick up and delivery shall be limited to monday through friday nine a.m to seven p.m so do you need a friendly amendment if we could do a friendly amendment in a second if any commissioners wanting to make a friendly amendment please feel free i will make that friendly amendment and do i have a second uh so the resolution before us is as amended it has to be the the maker of the original motion right who was that i was just looking commissioner dug in and then commissioner brawler goes a second on the resolution and then commissioner weeks made the friendly amendment you have to accept commissioner grannica seconded that right but if you're the oh do you want me to oh yeah the maker of the motion can make well i will accept the make the friendly amendment and grannica seconds the friendly amendment i do all right and now for discussion okay the resolution as amended words to say sometimes um what i suppose i like to ask the applicant um any um reaction to the idea of this being a condition of approval thank you for the opportunity chair edmondson it's my understanding that the applicant will happily accept this modification okay thanks very much um best year weeks um any feelings on the uh condition uh any objection to including it in the resolution no objections does any commissioner object to leaving it in the resolution okay all right uh the resolution was moved let's see if i can remember by commissioner dug in and seconded by commissioner grannica and your votes please that passes with seven eyes that concludes item 10.6 and we do have another one we are leaving the cannabis forest and returning to the world of housing we're going from one to the other and never the twain shall meet so just a moment to resettle these chairs are not the most comfortable thank you uh good evening uh mr chair planning commissioners oh sorry let's go ahead and formally introduce it all good things must come to an end this is the last item on the agenda it's 10.7 in public hearing on the monosito town homes tentative map and conditional use permit uh two resolutions uh commissioners this is an exparte disclosure commissioner excuse me vice chair weeks anything to disclose i visited the site and nothing to disclose commissioner grannica i visited the site and have nothing to disclose commissioner peterson i also visited the site and have no new information to disclose commissioner sysco i visited the site and have no new information to disclose commissioner dug in i visited the site and have no new information to disclose commissioner collin i also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose and i visited the site and i have nothing further to disclose and with that the project is a residential project proposing conditional use permit and attendant map. To start in analyzing the project under the housing action plan this would represent 0.3% of the goal of 2550 units by the year 2022 with eight units proposed in the project. The project itself is a project that The project itself proposes eight attached residential units, town homes, and these would be each location eight fee simple residential lots associated infrastructure would also be installed on the half acre site. The conditional use permit is required to create the eight fee simple lots that are less than 6,000 square feet each. Projects look in the Rincown Valley neighborhood of northeast east of the site is at the northwest corner of middle Rincown road in Montecito Boulevard and right now it's currently a vacant site with some trees and overgrown grass. The area surrounding the site there's some multifamily residential to the west about two stories as well as to the northeast of the site. Directly to the north of the site is single family residential that's detached directly south of the site. In the east of the site is Montecito Center shopping area which also includes a grocery store and directly to the east is a commercial retail. Brief project history started in March 2015 with the neighborhood meeting, some neighbors attended the meeting with primary concerns regarding shadow when drainage impacts existing trees and privacy. In August 2017 the tentative project was completed. The project was completed in September 2017 followed by the conditional use application for the small lot subdivision in December 2017. From December 2017 to September 2018 the project applicant was working on satisfying city review with the application coming complete in September and we are now here tonight considering the item. This is the general plan that is proposed. It is proposed at 8 to 18 units per acre. Also I note that the project as staff has analyzed it was found consistent with the general plan and that is proposing a density greater than the midpoint that's allowed by the general plan which is generally encouraged and is proposing infill housing in an area that has a density maximum and this zoning district allows for attached single family small lot subdivision detached I should note is not allowed. Moving on to the project site map what you are seeing in front of you is the layout for the project. The project buildings will be somewhat of an L shape and the parking space will be located in the vehicular parking area which is in the gray shaded area as well as the project storm water treatment area as well as the waste area as well. Each unit would have a covered parking space so there would be a total of eight parking spaces and a total of 20 total parking spaces and the project complies with the zoning requirements with 20 total parking spaces. Useable open space would be on each property both as a rear yard area as well as porches and balconies. One area I wanted to touch on quickly is the layout of the project. The project is designed to approve different setbacks that are allowed by the zoning with a small subdivision if the planning commission determines that the alternative approach is more appropriate to the characteristics of the site and the surroundings. As proposed all eight lots would have a front setback of two feet. The first one is the residential area that is in the area related to the lots one through six that I'm pointing out right now. This would pull the massing back away from the single family that is located to the rear leaving 20 feet of open space at the rear and pulling forward the building massing with the lots of the eastern portion and this would actually be pulling away from a commercial use which would be providing more privacy for these units from the commercial. We found that this is a more desirable situation. Also on the southern side on the side yard area right here this is a two story portion and typically that would require an eight foot setback as it's proposed it's a five foot setback again staff found this to be more desirable as it would allow the architecture of the building to remain constant the architecture features clean lines in regular shapes it also would allow this unit to maximize the interior area to create family size units. The area that's set back five feet is actually a corridor area it's not a corridor but it's not a corridor but it's a corridor that's sort of a bedroom or any similar feature so we wouldn't be creating privacy issues and the property directly to the south is commercial so we wouldn't be having privacy issues with second story bedrooms there as well. The applicant is going to have some color as well as differing materials on the front of the buildings such as horizontal wood siding, stucco, and this would help meet the findings for the small lots of the vision. And that'd be our adding interest at the front portion of the buildings. I would note on the rear elevation as well, the back portion has been sloped in recognition of the single family to the north also further help reduce building massing at the rear. These are the side elevations of the project. The project, it's the units in the project that range from a little over 1,400 square feet to about a little over 1,700 square feet to be three bedroom, two and a half bath. This is the ground floor and this is the second floor in the applicant going into the programming a little bit further. The tentative map itself, there would be a common parcel A which would contain all common portions of the project such as the outdoor parking, waste area, stormwater. Each lot would be one through six, would be approximately 1,500 square feet, excuse me, one through five, and then the larger lots are located on the eastern corner of the project site. One thing I should note, there's not a minimum parcel size for the subdivision because they're attached small lot units. We have taken a look at the project and determined that it's eligible for class 32 categorical exemptions and infill development project. I should also note that staff has imposed a condition of approval regarding construction hours of the project, realizing that it's surrounded by residential on multiple sides. The construction hours will be limited from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and there'll be no construction allowed on weekends or holidays. With that, I'm gonna wrap up my presentation and recommend first that the commission approve the conditional use permit to allow for the lots less than 6,000 square feet in the small lot subdivision and then subsequently approve the tentative map to create the eight new fee lots. Staff has found, outlined in the staff report that all findings can be made for each respective entitlement and I'll conclude my presentation with that. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I've got just a couple of hopefully easy ones. Is the back fence between the parcel and the neighboring lot gonna be replaced? It's not proposed for replacement, it's proposed to remain in place. Okay, and also it looks like, especially on slide 13, it looks like units six and seven, the ones on the corner on the right hand side, like they might share an open rooftop area. How does that go with the property line and the tentative map? Like, is that gonna be partitioned off? Let's see, I'm trying to find a good overlay. So this is the floor plan, upper floor plan and then moving on. So you'd, the lot lines exacts between the two buildings and then it would go up and split the deck area that you're referring to. So the deck area is actually gonna be physically separated? Yes, that's correct. All right, it's just not shown on the second floor plan, is that correct? That's correct. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for staff? A quick one about the construction elders condition. I remember this came up, certainly it comes up frequently, but it came up during the Sonoma Academy item a while back, but what is construction for purposes of enforcement of this condition because we had some neighbors in that instance speculating probably with good reason that people are gonna be arriving before eight o'clock and then is it the swinging of hammers? Is it the revving of engines? When does construction start? When does it begin? How does staff interpret the word construction? Yeah, I think it's the way we understand the, it would be actually hammers swinging work being done. It would not be workers reporting to site. Okay, I understand the applicant is here. If you wish to make a presentation, please do and begin by stating your name for the record. Good evening, Chair Edmondson, Vice Chair Weeks and commissioners, I appreciate your time. My name is Chris Shaughnessy. I'm the owner and developer of Montecito Town Homes Project. Architect on the project is David Colombo with Integrated Designs, civil engineers Matt Mackey with Atterbury and Associates and landscape architect is Phil Mnookin. And when the great detail, thanks Aaron. There's a couple of things I would like to add. Firstly is the location. The screen I'm bringing up here, I think, is gonna show briefly the location and the many conveniences. For example, the schools you see here, we have Reakin Valley Christian School, Douglas Whited Elementary School, Binkley Elementary School, Reakin Valley Middle School and Maria Creole High School, all within walking distances. We have shopping directly across the street, Montecito Shopping Center, as grocery store, restaurants, fitness gym, ace hardware and much more. Another major convenience we do have is the public bus transit stop directly in front of the homes. Essentially, the homeowners here really don't need a vehicle. They can get around town if they need to get out of town, they can use the bus stop. So we were able to take these, this lot here, which is vacant and arranged to make eight single family homes fit, good size private backyards and more than enough parking. This is what we came up with. A little bit of color on the landscape plan there for you. From here, we're gonna go into side elevations or front side elevations, excuse me. And this is a little bit of color here that we put on them. All earth friendly products we're gonna be using. On the exterior finishes, the combinations of engineer woods and stuccoes. All exterior windows and doors are gonna be California wildfire exposure tempered glass windows. Moving on to the interiors. Here's a side elevation on the east side, very briefly, going on to the interiors of these homes. He was able to discuss briefly that there were three bedrooms. We also have two of these four plans, which are gonna be four bedroom units. And that's what you see here. So we're gonna be able to accommodate to the elderly crowd, the aging community, and obviously the handicapped community as well. And we have two units with these downstairs masters in place. Same upstairs floor plans on those units. Moving along here, we worked with neighbors in granting easements on the property. So the city required a backflow device easement, which you see there in yellow, is on my front neighbor's property, which is the dental's office. They were more than willing and happy to grant us this easement for these backflow devices that we needed desperately to get the backflow devices then water lines over into our current 25 foot wide easement to get into the property. That star you see there is a fire hydrant that we're gonna be stalling as well at the entrance of the sidewalk next to the public transit bus stop. That's gonna benefit residential, commercial properties and emergency situation. All issues in regarding lot drainage and offsite drainage have been majorly important issues for the neighbors and me as well. We're gonna be doing proper grading and catch basins along the property lines and on all parcels at the corner of the parcels to collect and direct any on and off site stormwater. We're gonna be taking all utilities, they're gonna be coming from Montecito Boulevard. And lastly, we created a homeowners association and CCNRs and those are currently being reviewed by BRE for approval. Thanks for your time. I'm opening it up for any questions. I have my architect, David Colombo and Mackie, my civil engineer here as well. Thanks for your time. Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions for the applicant this time? Just a quick one. Any tentative expectation on how long the course of construction is gonna be? You know, with the fire that happened, we're under construction on a lot of different projects right now. And as we all know, labor's tough to find. We're hoping 2019, mid 2019, depending on how fast we can get through the process. And we're anticipating probably 18 months from start to finish on construction. Okay. All right. Would anybody, we have two resolutions, the CUP and the tentative map. Did you do the public hearing? We also are holding a public hearing. Thank you. I'm sure everybody here has heard the drill before, but this is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to make comments is free to do so. Please approach this one of the podiums at the top of the room, state your name and you'll have three minutes to make your comments. And I'm opening the public hearing and I'm not seeing anybody approach. And I'm going to close the public hearing. And we have two resolutions. The first is the conditional use permit. Would anybody move the resolution for the conditional use permit? Move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a residential small lot subdivision conditional use permit from Montecito Town Homes located at Zero Montecito Boulevard Assessor parcel number 182-120-052 file numbers PRJ17-077 CUP17-136 and wave further reading. Resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Siscoe. I think that it makes sense to combine all comments right now instead of split them up between the two resolutions. Let's see, Commissioner, would you like to start? Well, I like the project and that it is an opportunity, I think, I'm very familiar with this area. And my only disappointment is you didn't list the yogurt time as one of the better, more convenient places to be. But having said that, the only questions I have and not questions, but I hope that you will, take a look at this as really kind of a special enclave. It's a, even though it'll be a compact site, it's an opportunity to do some nice stuff in there and your designs look fine and so on, but I would hope that you just keep that in mind as you proceed on this. And then the only other point that I have is that in reading the letter from Mr. Salgado, they do ask for consideration in terms of including a tall fence and trees. I think they're looking not only for sound reduction, but probably privacy too. And if you take a look at their property, front and back, you can understand why they make this statement about that whole country, how they put it, the country feel to it as well. And so I would just suggest to continue to be considerate of that. With that, I fully support the project. Commissioner Peterson. I'm also in support of the project. I think it is well-designed and it's the type that has the kind of thought that's gone into it that we need to see. And what I like to see, I like to see the density. I like to see the focus on close walkable services, schools, shopping, and that sort of thing. And while I'm taking into account the public comment about the intersection at Highway 12, and I assume farmers, it's gonna be a long shift away from such a car-centric society, but it's these types of developments that will make that easier. So with that, I would make all necessary findings. Vice Chair Weeks. I also am supportive of the project. I think it's a great location with a lot of amenities. My one question would be, would we need to add in one of the resolutions about the construction hours? We have that as a condition of approval in the conditional use, I believe it's condition number four. No, that's all right. Thank you. Commissioner Siscoe. Yeah, it's exciting to see this infill project. To see the density, the closeness to all the services, the use of the existing infrastructure. So I mean, these are the kind of projects we really wanna be seeing coming into our downtown. And so I really appreciate utilizing this very small space in such an effective way. So I'm for the project. Commissioner Duggan. I'm also in favor of the project. I think it's attractive and it's a nice use of the space. And it's compatible with the neighbors to the Northeast. And I think it's gonna be a good fit for the community. Commissioner Collier. I also agree with all my fellow commissioners. I love a good infill development project. And I can see the value that you're adding to this area. And I'm excited for it to be done. All right, thank you. I couldn't agree more. Really, really good work, really creative. Not the easiest project. Wasn't just lying there waiting to be built. So I really appreciate the obvious effort that went into it and taking a bit of a risk on the setback stuff. But the standard in the code is it couldn't be more on point for a project like this. The site has its realities. And from my perspective, it's a totally appropriate project in every way. It would be nice to, in a long-term capital improvement sense, make that stretch of Montecito Boulevard a little bit more pedestrian friendly for all the people who would be going to Oliver's. There's not a ton of crosswalks there. It's a little bit of in bad sight lines as well. But it is located close to shopping and close to the bus stop and schools completely persuasive and I wish you the best of luck. Thank you for the project. With that, I'll ask for your votes. The conditional use permit resolution was moved by commissioner Duggan and seconded by commissioner Cisco. And your votes placed. That passes with seven ayes. And let's move to the tentative map resolution. Is any commissioner wanting to move the resolution? I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, approving the Montecito Town Homes tentative map located at zero Montecito Boulevard. Assessors parcel number 182-120-052, file numbers PRJ17-077, MAJ17-004, and wait for the reading. Second. Okay, the resolution was moved by commissioner Duggan and seconded by commissioner Cisco. Commissioners, your votes please. That passes with seven ayes and believe it or not, I leave my microphone on. I can tell everybody that that is it for tonight. And instead of watching Godfather one and two, you sat through this meeting. So congratulations. And we will see you next time. You're not upset about my color, are you?