revious member of the planning commission and as well versed in city requirements. He previously indicated he represented eight different cannabis businesses and that was a filing in 2020, but he has failed to provide any registration in 2021. I double checked this morning. His letter of May 14th, which is before was included in the agenda would suggest that his engagement occurred at least as of then. So he is now beyond the deadline for disclosure and it is my read of the city code that he would certainly qualify and be defined as a lobbyist that he would be required to register and that one of the remedies is abatement for failing to register. Now as to a penalty for the applicant for his failure to register, it seems ironic. The applicant herself is an attorney. Mr. Kaston is very well versed in what goes on here in the city government. He's been an active participant. He's also well versed in the requirements for registering as a lobbyist. So it would be my view that it's not, as the appellant, it's not my job to discover these things. It's their job to know what they're doing and they knew it. And I would also submit that it was sort of coincidental that I even looked into this. So we will give him an opportunity to respond though now that we better understand what the concern is. And then once we hear from him, we can have a discussion about what the potential for moving forward is or what the possible remedy would be. If I might just add one thing to me, abatement is one of the remedies and abatement would be removal of the letter. But also if he's permitted to speak, the horse, the proverbial horses out of the barn, the lobbying has occurred. And so I would take exception to the idea that this should be continued so that he can perfect his lobbying registration. All right, thank you. We're gonna allow him to respond now. Mr. Kaston. Hello, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just to clarify, and I have registered as a lobbyist in the past when lobbying on municipal questions of discretionary nature. The reason specifically for not registering on this matter has to do with page four of seven of the ordinance 3954 Sunshine Ordinance under H which defines municipal question and specifically excludes day-to-day application administration, et cetera, et cetera, such as policies, such as permitting, zoning, and planning matters. And so my understanding is that that exemption on a conditional use permit applies as this is a planning matter. And thank you, Mr. Kaston. You are correct. The definition of lobbying includes oral or written communications to city official, to favor or oppose, recommend or not recommend, vote for, against, or take or refrain from taking action on any municipal question. So Mr. Kaston is very familiar with this ordinance. And the municipal question is defined in subsection H as he pointed out. Municipal question does not include the day-to-day application, administration, or execution of city programs and policies, such as permitting, zoning, and planning matters, but does include the amendment modification or revision to the city's general plan or zoning ordinance. So I apologize for not having been familiar with that particular section, but obviously Mr. Kaston is well familiar with it. And I do think that that answers the question that he is not acting within the scope of our lobbying ordinance in speaking or writing on this planning application today. Okay, thank you, Madam City Attorney. We will go ahead and proceed then. And then if folks would like to pursue this further, feel free to contact the city attorney's office tomorrow to get further clarification or to open an investigation. But as of now, we'll continue with this item. So we'll go back to Mr. Ross. Thank you for your presentation. Council members, I apologize for the divergence. Are there any questions from Mr. Ross before we go on to Ms. Weeks, the Chair of the Planning Commission? Seeing none, we'll go on to Ms. Weeks. Thank you, Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Rogers, and members of the council. It's me again. You know my name, it's Karen Weeks and I'm Chair of the Planning Commission. And I wanna give you a brief overview of the commission's actions as it relates to this item that we heard on March 25th. As I previously stated, the Planning Commission is charged with carrying out California Planning and Zoning Laws in the City of Santa Rosa which includes implementation of ordinances and policies relating to land use matters. We've been reviewing cannabis conditional use permits for a few years now. As we always do in these items, we reviewed the conditional use permit application in accordance with the applicable zoning code and city policies. Our role as commissioners is to follow those applicable codes and policies laid out by the council as well as state regulations. As you're well aware, it's been council's direction to treat the now legal cannabis business as any other legal business. The application that was before us was consistent with all the policies laid out for cannabis businesses in Santa Rosa. As mentioned by Mr. Ross, we did receive the petition from the neighborhood after the meeting. It contained no new information related to the conditional use permit. During the public hearing, we heard from 17 members of the public, seven opposed and 10 supporting. Commissioners asked questions regarding enforcement of things such as odor mitigation and if odor mitigation was not adhered to what would happen. There were also questions relating to traffic and the layout of the interior and the commissioners approved the CUP with a six to zero vote when member being absent. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Are there any questions? I'm seeing a bunch of nodding heads, so we'll keep moving and we'll go on to the applicant presentation. Mr. Casten, you'll have 10 minutes to make your presentation followed by Q and A from council members. Thank you, Mayor Rogers, Vice Mayor Rogers and council. I wanna start by specifically thanking staff and the planning commission for a thorough review and recommendation to the council on this matter. We have no additional information to add as the staff report and commission report were professional and complete in this matter. Myself and Mr. Cameron and I from WTrans are available to answer any specific questions. Now or if you should they come up after the presentation from the appellant and public comments. Otherwise, we wanna respect your time and just address the issues that you are concerned about. Okay, thank you so much, Mr. Casten. Are there any questions from council members to start? I'm seeing none on Zoom, none at the dais. So we'll come back for questions when we're done with our presentations. We'll go on to Ms. Hutton. You'll have 10 minutes to make your presentation as the appellant as well. There might be a bit of a silly way because of the PowerPoint coordination, but I will confine my time to 10 minutes. Yeah, I won't be rigid. I just asked that you try to stay with, stay around that 10 minute mark. I will be very respectful of that, thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. My name is Libby Hutton. I'm here on behalf of an association of concerned Bennett Valley neighbors. I'd like to start with a quick perspective as to why I chose to be the point person for this appeal. As a 30-year resident of Santa Rosa, I have an abiding interest and commitment to this community. I work many years in the Sonoma County Council's office, have served as a president of Schools Plus and currently represent abused children in the CPS system. I believe in government that genuinely listens to its citizens. I respect the process and public service. Against that backdrop, I was distressed to hear from people familiar with Santa Rosa government that the city quote, never close quote, overturns the decisions of the planning commission and specifically anything relating to cannabis. I reject that skepticism and believe our city government works. I maintain my trust and believe that in the righteous case like this one, this city council will objectively review and acknowledge the deficiencies of the application and respect the neighborhood's overwhelming objection to the proposal by overturning the planning commission's decision. Next slide please. The traffic issues in this case involve multiple layers of concern. Limited time precludes a line by line response to W. Tran's latest version of their opinion. The key points are in its resolution, the PC relied on a report dated 1, 2021, a report not even in the file in which W. Tran's now states was a draft. The W. Tran's report of 2,1621 stated the proposed use would generate 546 new trips per day. When I and others reacted to that eye-popping number, Ms. Kistler called the engineer and magically the number plummeted to 120 per day and then 297 per day, all within a period of three weeks. W. Tran's now suggests the 546 number should have been divided in half to count only round trips. The defect in that argument is that the city's guidance for preparation of traffic operational analysis just says trips. The triggering number for a traffic operational analysis is 250 or more trips per day. So either number requires the operational analysis. That would explain W. Tran's further reductions. Clearly Ms. Kistler's and W. Tran's objective was not to ascertain truth, but to avoid any chance Sequa might be invoked. W. Tran's abrupt reductions resulted from Ms. Kistler's insistence, not independent expert analysis. After all, she was paying the bill. The latest May 12th letter is simply a continuum of that pattern of obfuscation. When the same expert gives more than one answer to the same question, none are credible. Independent of the varying W. Tran's numbers, the traffic data did not comply with the VMT Sequa requirements the city required as of 7120. Those requirements explicitly applied to cannabis projects and to this case. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the scope of the traffic analysis was grossly inadequate. Next slide, please. As the map dramatically demonstrates, 2,300 Bethards is at the hub of transportation corridors to Rohnert Park, Sonoma State and Petaluma via Bennett Valley Road, to Marin via Bethards and Bennett Valley, to Oakmont, Kenwood and Napa via Bethards and Summerfield and to downtown Santa Rosa on Yulupa. There are school bus stops on both streets directly across from the property. While Ms. Kistler denies any plan to use 2,300 Bethards as a hub, she advertises delivery to all of these areas. Notably, dispensaries are not legal in most of these areas. These routes all take traffic through dense residential areas as well as the notoriously dangerous South Bend, Bennett Valley Road, that takes people to Sonoma State and Rohnert Park, as well as Petaluma. I think if you look at the map, you will see the residential areas outlined very clearly and the hub in the center of that axis of all of those routes. The planners' ready acceptance of Ms. Kistler's denial of plans to use this as a hub defies logic. Why would the city rely on her veracity? She has been described by a sitting judge as not being credible, an opinion affirmed in a published Court of Appeals case. If this CUP is approved, there is no limit to the range or number of vehicles and traffic. It de facto will become her hub whether she applies for it as a hub or not. The same rationale also calls into question the parking assessment made by the planner. Therefore, any valid traffic study must include the impact of the travel and use of these major corridors by unlimited numbers of delivery vehicles and customers. The analysis cannot be limited to the intersection of Bethards and Yulupa. Next slide, please. Other CEQA issues, without a legitimate traffic assessment, the application is not exempt from CEQA section 15322. The traffic assessments, as provided, are not valid or reliable. The project requires an EIR. The planner also argues the project is categorically exempt from CEQA section 15303 as involving conversion of an existing structure with minor modifications. That conclusion is incorrect. The exemption does not apply when the new use involves, quote, hazardous materials, close quote. And Santa Rosa's own city code, section 20-46.050, defines cannabis as a hazardous material. The distinction the planner attempted to make is not contained in that definition. CEQA clearly applies for multiple reasons. A fair argument exists based upon the foregoing CEQA sections and the observations of area residents that the project would have a deleterious impact on the area. Fair argument, I use that term in quotes, is a low threshold test for requiring an EIR. As stated in the case of no oil, one major purpose of an EIR is to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. A simple or negative declaration, as in this case, stating that the project will have no significant environmental effect cannot serve this function. An EIR is required here. There is no legitimate basis to support the planner's conclusion to the contrary. On the issue of public comment, the resolution, oh, next slide please, I'm sorry. The resolution recited the Planning Commission had considered all written comments and material presented at the public hearing. That was patently incorrect. 222 Bennett Valley citizens filed a petition with the city on October 21, 2020, objecting to the application. But for the pandemic, there would have been more. The petition identifies concerns about crime, traffic, safety and health, and includes the addresses of the Bennett Valley signatories. In spite of its filing long before the original February 25th hearing, it was omitted from the record. The planner was reminded of these omissions, and yet at the continued hearing on March 25th, the petition, again, was missing. During the hearing, the Planning Commission became aware of that omission, but nevertheless made its finding of having considered all written comments. Now, the very planner who failed to properly include that petition has submitted a report dismissively describing the petition as not quote, including additional information that was not already presented to the Planning Commission. This description and attitude by a staff member is truly alarming. He has taken it upon himself to minimize and dismiss the voices of 222 neighbors and citizens and their strenuous and well-reasoned objections to the proposal. If public comment is invited, it should be heard. He has treated the input of the actual neighbors impacted as nothing more than a mere indulgence. This arrogance is breathtaking. Next slide, please. Public comment is the vote of the neighborhood impacted by the proposal. As shown by the slide, the March hearing revealed Ms. Kistler offered her customers from her current dispensary on the west side, a free joint if they emailed support of the proposal or spoke at the Planning Commission hearing. Presumably the same payment was made for her form questionnaires from customers, none which had any addresses. This manipulation tainted every comment or submission in support of the application. If Ms. Kistler's actions are condoned, our local democracy is in peril. Those comments are not the comments of neighbors. Nevertheless, the planner simply says, quote, there has been a lot of correspondence received from neighbors, both opposed to and in favor of the project. Close quote. That statement misrepresents the whole point. I'll give you about one more minute. I'll hurry. Objection by the actual neighbors to the project. The proposed use is inconsistent and incompatible with the neighborhood and the previous use of the property. In the county context, recently supervisors acknowledged they owed the community an apology and in future environmental assessments needed to consider neighborhood compatibility of cannabis. The same holds true here. In 2018, the city committed to locating cannabis businesses away from residential land. Next slide, please. In contradiction to that commitment, the map demonstrates this location sits squarely in the middle of densely populated residential areas. Finally, next slide. On the issue of public interest, 2,300 Bethards is a quiet office building open nine to five weekdays with minimal traffic. This contrasts sharply with a retail business open seven days a week, nine to nine, more than twice as many hours as the current use and with accompanying detrimental traffic and safety impacts. These additional 44 hours per week are hours when families are home with the rightful expectation of peace and quiet. On the issue. Thank you, ma'am. That's the remainder of your time. May I just conclude? All right, 10 more seconds. On behalf of protect our neighborhoods, I respectfully submit the approval of the CUP must be reversed and the application denied. If alternatively, this application is given any further consideration, a comprehensive EIR must be undertaken addressing all CEQA issues with peer review to ensure its validity. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you so much. Councilor, do we have any questions for the appellant? Okay. Back after the next presentation. We'll move on to a rebuttal by the applicant. You have five minutes, Mr. Casten. Thank you, Mayor Rogers. So I'm gonna save most of our time for your questions. As I said at the beginning, I do wanna just hit on a couple of the items that were mentioned. First, it is correct that there is dense residential around the site. It's actually one of the reasons that this is such an appealing commercial area for this dispenser to be located. Currently, the nearest place that someone would have to drive in order to access cannabis retail is to Montgomery Drive, which is reasonably far distance. This project will actually help reduce vehicle miles traveled by putting a dispensary in an area of the city that does not currently have this type of retail. And in the staff report, the staff did a very good job of noting the several general plan policies that support the diversification of our retail areas with this type of use. Additionally, well, it was stated that if public comments are provided, they should be heard. I would like to point out that the applicant did very much hear the public comments prior to coming forward. That is a part of why they made the very significant concession prior to going into the planning commission of eliminating the onsite consumption part of the project. That was in direct response to the comments that were made by the community and in working with staff. So, I do believe that the public comment not only was heard, but was also acted on in good faith by the applicant. And then lastly, just to briefly touch on CEQA, and I would ask staff to jump in on the CEQA question as well. There are several categorical exemptions under CEQA. Fundamentally, this project is re-tenanting an existing building. We very much want to see vacant spaces reoccupied. It eliminates blight. It helps provide economic activity. And CEQA has seen fit to exempt this type of a minor alteration to a building, as well as the fact that this has been analyzed under CEQA. The general plan went under a CEQA review in an environmental impact report as of the zoning code and the various interpretations that created the cannabis ordinance relied on those environmental impact reports which were done completely and have teared off them as this project does. Again, Cameron Nye from WTRANS is available to answer any specific questions, though we believe that their memo was quite thorough in going over the timeline and pointing out the traffic very issues that were brought up by the appellant. So we're available for any questions that you may have. Okay, thank you, Mr. Caston. Are there any questions? Council members? Okay, we will go ahead and go to our public hearing then. I'll open the public hearing and I'll start with folks at the chamber. I've got two names to start. I have Anne followed by Bob. Good evening. It is getting very late in the evening. So I hope you give this appeal the close and judicious attention it deserves. First, in response to Karen Week's statement this evening on the petition, when they reviewed the petition after the planning hearing, she stated no new information was received, but they made a decision to grant the permit without the input of 200 plus Bennett Valley residents. This is not open government, neighborhood incompatibility. The proposed cannabis outlet location was chosen by the applicant purposefully. The applicant proposes a delivery service which will function as nothing less than a centralized hub for cannabis deliveries out Bennett Valley Road to Sonoma State University, Katati and Runert Park, Easton to Glen Allen, Oakmont and Kenwood and out to all points of Santa Rosa. Bethards Avenue, Yallupa Avenue and Summerfield Avenue, my neighborhood cannot support this increased traffic load with seven day a week, 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. business hours. The location of a retail cannabis business in a quiet professional building of architects, lawyers and such is one issue, but far more critical is the location of this cannabis outlet in a heavily residential area. This is a family neighborhood, not a commercial or industrial area. Yes, there are other businesses across the street, Safeway, CVS, medical offices, a dollar store, Starbucks and more, but all these businesses are contained in a defined area grouped together with adequate parking and adequate driveways. The Anadale Shopping Center was designed to offer safe and convenient shopping for its residents. I believe that WTrans studies do not reflect the true amount of cannabis dispensary traffic that will occur. In addition, WTrans nor anyone else for that matter does not really know, really know how many delivery trips are going to occur if this permit is approved. Lastly, I do not believe that having a business in my neighborhood that requires arm security personnel is a plus. The community incompatibility issue alone should disqualify this permit application. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much, Ann. We'll go to Bob. And then if there's anybody else who'd like to speak after Bob, feel free to queue up near the microphone. You don't have to put in a speaker card to speak, but we will come to you next. Hi, I guess you can hear me. My name is Bob. I am a local resident in the area of 2,300 Bethards. My greatest concern is regarding the proposed cannabis dispensary at 2,300 Bethards is traffic and safety. Regarding traffic concerns, 2,300 Bethards is located at the intersection of two already busy streets, Bethards Drive and Yolupa Avenue, and is a hub for traffic from multiple directions. South on Yolupa leads to Bennett Valley Road, Sonoma State University, Roanard Park and Petaluma. North on Yolupa leads to downtown Santa Rosa and US 101, and east on Bethards leads to Highway 12, Oakmont, Kenwood and Sonoma. Besides the increase in customer traffic and delivery traffic to these areas, 2,300 Bethards could well serve as a hub for the wholesale distribution to these areas, further increasing traffic. Regarding safety, Bethards and Yolupa and their intersection are already high pedestrian traffic areas in a residential area and include school bus and city bus stops. I live locally and frequently walk to Safeway and my local hardware store. On those walks, I observe young people as well as mothers with children walking these streets and negotiating the intersection. Increased local traffic due to cannabis, customer traffic on streets, and in and out traffic from the parking lot and delivery traffic would produce increased safety hazards for these pedestrians. Further, the increased traffic would likely increase traffic accidents, reducing safety for drivers. Thank you for the opportunity for me to express myself. Thank you so much, Bob. Is there anybody else in the chambers who would like to give comment on this item? Okay, saying nobody get up, we will go to our Zoom public comment. We'll start with MM followed by Allen. Oh, hello. My name is Maura Jacobs and I'm a resident of Bennett Valley. I'm very concerned about this proposed project at 2,300 Bethards, especially for the traffic and traffic safety issues. And it's really simply not compatible with this quiet residential neighborhood. As others have described it, what's really different about this building is you're allowing for the change of use to a very busy commercial use in this particular building. So it's just not appropriate and there's family residences right next door to it all around it. So you are changing really fundamentally the use of this building and obviously the traffic studies have serious defects and need to be addressed. There's a lot of conflict of interest involved in this whole process and how the planning commission has totally disregarded the neighborhood input is just atrocious and terrible policy approaches. As to the crime risk, I even have a quote I can read from one of the leaders in Sonoma County law enforcement. I'm not going to give you the name because I just don't wanna cause any trouble for them, but police chiefs and this is the quote from this law enforcement leader. Police chiefs and sheriffs were very concerned when mayor Waddle Laws changed and pointed to the challenge in determining intoxication levels in the field as a major obstacle that had not been addressed. We still do not have a good scientific field test today. Finally, the important thing to keep in mind is that criminals do not differentiate between legal and illegal marijuana when committing crime. We have had violent robberies, homicides related to marijuana and cashier buffs. The people who commit these crimes do not care if the location is licensed or unlicensed. All they want is the marijuana and cash. And there are many studies we have provided that in fact, attached to the community petition links to studies that demonstrate how crime increases in neighborhoods where these are placed. You really are making a huge mistake if you allow this placement in this quiet residential community and you'll make the life less safe for the children that walked that sidewalk across the very entrance to these harmful drugs that our THC is now listed as a hazardous material. Thank you. All right, thank you. We'll go to Allen followed by John. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Vice Mayor Rogers and members of the council. My name is Allen Hardcastle. I've lived in Bennett Valley about a mile from this proposed dispensary for since 1985. And you've heard excellent reasons as to why this conditional use permit should not be approved. And I'm just going to add one that you've heard but I think needs emphasis. The sign in front of this building says Valley Professional Center. And that's what the building has always been. It's been the offices. The proposed space for the dispensary was a former attorney's office. There are financial planners, insurance agents, things of that nature. These are nine to five office uses. There is retail nearby. There is retail space available within a quarter mile of this site. So it's not that my objection is to cannabis. Cannabis is legal. The dispensaries are legal but they need to be in an appropriate spot. And an appropriate spot is a retail location. Not an office building that is nine to five. The rest of that space will all be closed down. We'll have this one dispensary operating 12 hours a day, seven days a week. That's not good for the community. It's not good for the tenants in the building. It's not good for anyone. It's simply a bad decision. And I would urge you to grant the appeal. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. And I know it's been a very long day. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, Allen. We'll go to John, followed by Kelly. John, are you able to unmute? Sorry about that. Thank you for giving us this opportunity to talk. My name is John Pearson and I live within a city block of proposed project. I ask you to deny the conditional use permit as this project will have a negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. The proposed project is for a retail shop for the sale of controlled intoxicants. In essence, the proposal is to open a cannabis equivalent of a liquor store in a highly visible location on public right of way. This will be a negative change to the character of the neighborhood. For all licensed intoxicant stores, including a liquor store in the neighborhood, are well off the public road in shopping centers. The proposal is to open the equivalent of a liquor store in a highly visible location within yards of residential housing and school bus stops. A liquor store on this corner would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. The proposed cannabis store will also have a negative impact for similar reasons. The role of the city council is to protect neighborhoods and their home values, not to degrade them. Please approve the appeal and deny the special use permit. Thank you. Thank you, John. We'll go to Kelly, followed by Elle. Hello. Go ahead. Hi, my name is Kelly and I'm a medical cannabis patient and live in Bennett Valley. The city has already approved cannabis clubs and all neighborhoods at Santa Rosa to bring safe and reliable medicine and revenue to the city. I frequented alternative in Roseland for over 11 years and I found their dispensary extremely professionally run and their staff always knowledgeable. Emotions aside, this proposed dispensary complies in every way with the zoning code and local ordinances. At this point, dispensaries are proven contributors to our neighborhoods, both aesthetically and financially. I don't think it's fair for cannabis to be discriminated against and it should be looked at just as any other retail store. Alternatives is the well-known and trusted. I know I go there for my medicine. I feel comfortable with the staff. I know that it's discreet. They don't share my private information and I get the medicine that I need to help me in my day-to-day life. Alternatives is active as a pillar in the cannabis community for over 11 years and is set the bar high for other businesses. And Bennett Valley should be lucky to have such a well maintenance in the street dispensary in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. We'll go on to Elle followed by Tamara. Yes, hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Hi, I just wanted to say that I'm a customer of alternatives and I've been listening to what's been said and I consider myself to be very open to hearing others' opinions. But I feel that those who have spoken in opposition before me, excluding the last person, sound discriminatory against the business of cannabis. I do not buy their arguments of traffic concerns. I think that people need their medicine and all of those opposed, I just hear them yelling, not in my backyard. We are not here to re-legislate the zoning code which has passed overwhelmingly in Santa Rosa after months of public debate. When a project entirely conforms with the local and state ordinances, diverging from the codes would be selective and unlawful. This project received staff support and unanimously passed the planning commission hearing because the commission agreed it conformed. Also, I believe the dispensary will contribute to the neighborhood and to our city financially. Thank you so much, Elle, Tamara, followed by Amy. Tamara, are you able to unmute? There we go. Sorry, I'm so sorry. Excuse me, thank you, Council. My name is Tamara Blass. Given the late hour, I would just like to quickly express my point of view, not as an alobbyist, but just as an ordinary citizen and also as an advocate for an often overlooked and underrepresented demographic of respectable older citizens who deserve to have access to medication that as the name implies, as is an alternative to prescription medication that often has more serious and potentially more addictive side effects. All of this in a convenient and safe location. The alarmists want to convince you that the presence of this legal and legitimate business with a proven track record will mean the decline of their neighborhoods, but the applicant has just as much, if not more of an interest in maintaining a clean, safe and well-run business since she has to ensure that the other businesses within the complex have confidence in the complex and location. The applicant has done everything possible to comply with all mandatory regulations. And the concern that allowing a medical dispensary would result in an increase in crime has just not been worn out statistically. In fact, I believe that providing a safe and legal outlet where people can purchase their medication has actually reduced crime due to an increase in regulation and oversight. I genuinely feel that the objections voice do not warrant denying a responsible legitimate business owner a permit that would serve the community and provide additional desperately needed revenue for the city of Santa Rosa. I would encourage council members to approve this permit. Thank you. Thank you, Tamara. Amy, followed by Brianna. Amy, are you able to unmute? There you go. Thank you. My name is Amy. I live in the neighborhood here in Bennett Valley and have for many, many years. I'm not representing any particular constituency and no one's past prepared talking points. So I'm not arguing on technicality. This is really just about common sense. This dispensary is smack dab in the middle of a densely populated residential neighborhood. It makes no sense honestly to have this here. It is just totally full of families and children walking kids all the time. It's just, I can't even imagine a worse location. Every other dispensary in the city I'm aware of is in a commercial or industrial area which is much more appropriate. I don't understand why the city would approve this super close to hundreds of homes. Thanks. Thank you, Amy. Brianna, followed by Maine. Hello, council members and mayor. I live right next door to the proposed project. My front door actually faces the street and I can see the building from the sidewalk outside of my house.  While I'm concerned about the traffic that this will cause I'm actually more concerned about the people who will be driving these cars. I've been in dispensaries as I'm a cannabis user myself and I know what kind of people they can attract. I'm wary of the impact that building a dispensary here is going to have on the safety of my family and my neighbors. We already have a problem with people driving too fast and doing burnouts in front of the park and with people drinking and smoking in public. And I'm not interested in inviting more people like this into my neighborhood. I'm not against cannabis, but I am against putting in a dispensary. If I want to partake, I will drive to Santa Rosa Avenue where the dispensaries belong. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Brianna. Maine, followed by Gail. Well, my name's Eric. Ashley, can you hear me? Yep, we can hear you. Thank you. I think if we were talking about having an apparel store, it would be a different ball game altogether when we talk about traffic. I also think it's very important to look at that in the city of Santa Rosa, many locations are not exactly the high traffic industrial areas. In fact, many, I can quote, such a spark, have communities where there are people living in a residential area just adjacent to it. And to say that their community is any less special than Yulupa area that we're talking about here and the Thars is really quite ridiculous. The number of trips that would actually be done for delivery would actually be insane to say they would cause a difference because there would be very little traffic except for routes that would probably be pre-planned. We're not looking at anything that's really high impact, just prejudice in the community against having a dispensary that would be so low key. And I must remind people in our community that we've had a loss of business, the additional business from having more people eating lunch, more people shopping, would help the local shopping centers as well. And if there were a clothing center that were going to be in this location, I doubt this debate would be even occurring in the first place. Thank you very much. Thank you, Eric. Gail, followed by Christina. Gail, are you able to unmute? Hear me? Can you hear me? Yep. I am Pester Gail Cafferata, an Episcopal priest and a PhD sociologist. My family has lived within a half mile of 3,600 Bethards for 21 years. Most every day I walk to Safeway and CVS along Bethards, crossing the driveway to the proposed premise and two intersections, Summerfield and Wailupa. My daughter and grandson, who live nearby, cross Wailupa at Takava on their bikes to teach and attend Wailupa school. This retail business is unreliably an underestimated 12-hour heavy traffic will make sidewalks and roads treacherous for Bennett Valley's school children, families, people with disabilities who might walk slowly, cyclists and others. The Bennett Valley is built on bonds of trust centered in the moral precept of do no harm. The proposed use endangers not only traffic safety but also imports criminal risks to a residential neighborhood noted for safety. Published scientific studies in Denver and Los Angeles prove that medical marijuana facilities raise crime risks because of large cash stores on site, the cost of stored products and the fact that medical marijuana can be resold lucratively in states that do not permit its legal sale. Vehicle break-ins do increase up to a mile away and property crime may increase as offenders increase their familiarity with new neighborhoods. This familiarity provides information on when guardians are around and what homes might have valuables worth stealing. Alternative East Other Location was robbed at gunpoint. Strangers to our city have already committed violent crimes in our shopping center. I need everyone on city council to do no harm. Do no harm to my family, the over 220 Bennett Valley neighbors who signed our petition and others and reject this permit. David Rabbit recently said to those who grow and sell marijuana, quote, there are places in this county where you can go and not bother a soul, unquote. City council needs to find that place for this attractive criminal nuisance. Thank you. Thank you, Christina followed by Spencer. Hello. Yep, yep. Hi, my name is Christina Aten. My husband's, our kids and I live on Tuxedo Place, which is a small cul-de-sac just across Bethards from the proposed site. I literally walk past there, drive past there, probably a dozen times a day. I know my time's really short, so I'll try to talk fast and share just a couple of my larger concerns. The first concern that I thought was very specific to me, but I'm learning tonight it's not, is the plan to run deliveries over Bennett Valley Road into Sonoma to Glen Allen down to Rohnert Park. Anyone who regularly drives Bennett Valley Road, as I do on my commute to Napa each day, knows that this is a very treacherous road. Roads are narrow, they're windy, they're full of students, commuters, and commercial vehicles who drive way too fast for conditions and they're overly aggressive as they take turns too sharp by driving up the middle of the road. Over my few years of making this drive, I've seen many accidents.  I'm seriously concerned that the main purpose of this new dispensary location is as a hub for deliveries over to Sonoma, where there are no dispensaries, putting even more cars on an already very dangerous road. And that leads me, speaking of Sonoma, to my other concern, which is the degradation of our town amid the over-proliferation of cannabis stores. Bennett Valley is a quiet corner of Santa Rosa, bordered by rolling hills, farms, vineyards, and populated with retirees and families. Yes, the building in question is zoned for commercial use and surrounded by other commercial buildings, but I hardly think that the Planning Commission who approved a professional center intended for it to be occupied by a drug store, a retail drug store, and a delivery hub, more than it was meant to be a liquor store, a Costco, or a burger joint. Moreover, it's upsetting that Santa Rosa is opening one new dispensary after another. We already have dozens, 38 by my last count, while our surrounding cities have fewer than five. Listen, I have nothing against cannabis, CBD, or even recreational weed. I'm glad that cannabis is now legal for those who need or enjoy it, and I'm glad Sonoma County residents have easy access to it. That doesn't mean that we need a dispensary in every neighborhood or that every neighborhood is the right place for a pot store any more than every site is right for a Costco. I respectfully ask that the commission take the concerns and desires of the residents of Bennett Valley seriously and reject this customer's proposal. Thank you for your time. Thank you so much. We'll go to Spencer. Thank you for your time tonight, guys. My name is Spencer. I'm actually the general manager over at Alternatives. I've been there for over four years now, and a lot of the allegations made clearly are discriminatory. We see so many different types of people. We are convenient to elderly and disabled people because we deliver and don't offer a charge. We just deliver because we know not everyone can come in.  They're all still gonna be driving. They're all trying to do something. We're gonna limit reckless drivers by delivering. Safety concerns are also ridiculous. Lou Lemon has gotten robbed like three or four times. Walgreens, CVSs in San Francisco and everywhere get robbed. That's what people do desperate things. So to assume that just because it's cannabis, it's gonna bring in crime is pretty ridiculous. If anything, it's gonna decrease because people know that there's a dispenser there. There's gonna be more of a presence, if anything. We're gonna be very active in the community just like we are now. I've been at the Roseland location for like I said, over four years. I see the people and I see the quote unquote incidents that may or may not be happening and they do not exist. We have people walking by, there's bus stops by where we are. I would know if there was issues, there aren't. I'm very involved in the community as well. I used to coach Jiu-Jitsu in wrestling and self-defense very close to that location. And I know that's not a concern. There's not people gonna be driving and running people over because they bought some weed. That's not what's gonna be happening. There's over six million accidents a year in the US and that's not because people are buying stuff. That's not from that. Cannabis users like Amy said earlier, she's seen them and she knows what they look like. That's pretty ridiculous to say out loud and I hope she's kind of embarrassed about saying that because I see them as well and there are many different types of people. It's ridiculous to assume that just because they're buying cannabis that they're a criminal, I'm assuming she probably thinks anyone wearing a hooded sweatshirt is a bad person. But anyways, there's no evidence of crime increase. Like I mentioned, there's gonna be a huge economic impact positively because people are gonna be coming to that area and that's a good thing. We need more and more business right now with COVID, all the effects that it has had on all small businesses. I know if I'm gonna go be going somewhere to buy something I'm more likely to stop at a bordering store or to stop at a restaurant nearby or to do my shopping at a CVS over there which is gonna positively increase the economy over in that area. I know that Alternatives also has a lot of local companies that are sold there. So a lot of Santa Rosa companies are in the store. Sonoma, just all Sonoma County products, honestly like about 75% of those and that's all jobs that we're helping provide. So in short, I really disagree with a lot of the statements previously made but I do appreciate all the support sticking us in. Thank you, Spencer. That's the last hand that I see on our live Zoom. Madam City Clerk, do we have any voicemail public comments? We've received no voice message, public comments. Okay, then I will close the public hearing. I'll bring it back to council. We'll start and see if anybody has any additional questions and then I'll ask council member Sawyer to put a motion on the table for discussion. Any questions council? Okay, Mr. Ross, I did have a couple of questions if you have a moment. Yes, of course. This is fundamentally a land use conversation. It's not about legalization or not legalization. There were concerns that were raised about the traffic study that was done and I was hoping you could address that. Yeah, of course. So in response to some of the comments that I heard about the traffic study, especially in particular to the appeal statement, there was attachment 15 as part of the agenda packet addresses that concern about the difference between going from 900 or 546 trips to now down to 97 trips that would be on the second page of the third bullet that specifically addresses how that changed over time. At the same time, each iteration of traffic, trip generation analysis for this project would be received by me, the project planner and that would be shared with the city's traffic engineering division who's the expert on the subject. Each time they had accepted that analysis, each of the analyses and in that it also, there was discussion from the consultant with traffic engineering. So it wasn't just looking at it and saying, yeah, that's okay. There's a thorough understanding of the process. So there were questions about the legitimacy of the traffic report from the consultant, from WTrans, are they considered by the city to be a reputable company? And then the follow-up is, and when they submit information, do staff that have no skin in the game evaluate that and make determinations based on their observations as well as the traffic study? First part of the question, yes, they are a legitimate traffic engineering firm, a licensed traffic engineering firm. And they're the only company to planning knowledge that is collecting cannabis related traffic data at the same time. And so, sorry to that answer the question. And then as a follow-up, as they submit their information, it's not just being rubber stamped by city staff. City staff is also evaluating the findings as well, correct? Absolutely. Councilor, are there any other questions? Okay, Council Member Sawyer, this is your item. So I'm gonna have you put a motion on the table for discussion. Thank you, Mayor. Well, for all the reasons articulated by Planning Commission Chair Weeks, I introduce a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa denying an appeal and approving a conditional use permit and site plan dated March 25th, 2021 for alternatives East to operate a cannabis retail facility with delivery service within a 2,449 square foot tenant space located at 2,300 Bethard's Drive, suite A, assessor's parcel number 147-061-015, file number of PRJ19-047 and wait for the reading. Second. Okay, motion by Council Member Sawyer, second by Council Member Fleming. Council Member Sawyer, would you like to start with comments? Well, I think I made it clear with my introduction. I believe that the Planning Commission gave this applicant a thorough hearing and we have made it our policy to treat cannabis businesses like we do any other retail business with the appropriate restrictions applied to it. That has been our policy for quite some time after a very thorough analysis and in creating the ordinance in the first place very, very large amount, hours and hours and hours of input from the community, both those that approved and those that did not. And I trust our ordinance and I trust the decision by the Planning Commission based on there on our policies as a council and our ordinance and state law. Okay, thank you, Council Member. Are there any other comments from Council? Council Member Fleming. Yeah, I just wanna reiterate that the city of Santa Rosa went through a long and deliberative process in which it was determined that cannabis ought to be treated like every other legal business. It is a legal substance in the state of California and I don't personally believe that it leads to the degradation of communities in any particular way. And when we talk about those people we're talking about my mom who uses it for PTSD, my dad who uses it for recreation. I use it for sleep. I don't really can't name too many people who haven't tried it or used it. And if there's a gateway to bigger battered drugs I haven't found it. Not saying it doesn't exist or that there aren't real ramifications but I think that at the end of the day this pearl clutching is a little bit much for my taste. And I look forward to this business succeeding and I hope that the community's concerns are assuaged over the course of time. Okay, any other comments? Council Member Svettel. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanna add my comments and I'll be supporting this motion because as I was hearing and reading all the documents specifically the petition and what some of the challenges were there and some of the comments. And I live in Northwest Santa Rosa in the proliferation of dispensaries in my neck of the woods is much greater than here and we have not experienced any of the comments that I've heard people say the fear of what will occur if this goes in here. Close to home residential area. They're all well managed because again I think Mr. Soria made that comment. The work that the city of Santa Rosa put in to establish an ordinance that works, I think it is working. So I am trusting the process and I'm appreciative of the Planning Commission and city staff for moving this project forward. Okay, thank you, Council Member. I too will be supportive. Like Council Member Svettel, my district I think has the most approved cannabis dispensaries in it. One of the interesting unintended consequences of the ordinance that we crafted is that it has clustered it largely into the west side of Santa Rosa and into the Southwest. And that just happens to be where most of the usable land that meets the designations are. We've actually had this conversation at Council before about dispensaries that have come forward, particularly on the east side and whether there are appropriate locations that give equitable access for folks who need the medicine as well as equitable distribution throughout our community. And it's one that we have consistently found to be a challenge. This is a suitable site. As I mentioned, it is a land use designation question. Staff has appropriately alleviated my concerns about traffic, about compatibility. And so we, I'll be supporting the motion as well. I don't see any other hands for comments. So Madam City Clerk, if you could please call the vote. Thank you. Council Member Tibbets. A point of order. No, denies the appeal. Correct. The motion is to deny the appeal. Right. Okay, then I vote aye. Thank you. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Council Member Alvarez abstaining. Okay, thank you so much. So Council, it is almost 11 o'clock. So without objection, I'm going to hold over item 3.2. That's the study session on the harassment prevention policy for the next appropriate council meeting. We will also hold unless there's something urgent, Mr. City Manager, the staff briefings. And perhaps staff can submit those via email for council members to view. Do you have any city manager or city attorney reports that are relevant for tonight? No, Mr. Mayor. I will note that as our report we have submitted our now monthly litigation report, but unless you have questions given the late hour, I won't review it. We'll simply move forward, but it is in there and I'm happy to answer any questions. Do we have any questions for the city attorney? Seeing none, Mr. City Manager. No report this evening, Mayor. No report, great. We'll go on to Council Member Reports. Does anybody have a report they'd like to deliver tonight? Council Member Schwethelm taking a risk here. Reluctantly raising my hand, just a brief announcement. I wanted to announce Steve Rom as my appointee as the North Community Advisor Board Representative. I really want to thank Cecile Quarman who'd been in that role for several years as my representative on CAB. Great, thank you so much. And I do believe we do have two additional vacancies on the Community Advisory Board and they have had quorum issues. So if Council Members could make sure that you are appointing folks, if you have vacancies, that would be appreciated. Are there any other reports? Okay, we will go on to item 10.2.1. Through the Mayor, we skipped item nine, statements of abstention. I apologize. Is there an additional statement of abstention you'd like to add? I do believe that myself and Mr. Tibbet will all lead that up to him, but I'll need to abstain from items 12.3, 12.4, and 12.5. And I'll need to abstain from 11, 2, 11, 4, 12.4, 12.5. Sorry, can you repeat those, Council Member? Yes, 11.2, 11.4, 12.4, and 12.5. And may I get Council Member Fleming's abstentions again, please? And if you, I forgot, we also have to have you state on the record why you were abstaining from those items. Yeah, I am abstaining from items 12.3, 12.4, and 12.5 because I was not present for the original adoption, the first reading of those texts. Okay. I have the same reasons. Okay, is that clear, Madam Clerk? Yes, thank you. Great. So we'll go to item 10.2.1. Earlier today, Council met to do interviews. Sorry, Madam City Attorney, were you gonna say something? I was simply gonna remind the mayor that we need to hold the public comment on that item that we failed to provide an opportunity for a public comment after the interviews. So this would be our opportunity now. Great, thank you so much for the reminder. So we did meet to hear from applicants for the Board of Building Regulation Appeals. There's three appointments that we need, or excuse me, three applicants for four positions. We have the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Senior Community Representative. That's one individual for that slot. And then we have the Personnel Board, which has two at-large positions. And I believe there were four applicants, if I remember correctly. And then there is also a Labor Representative applicant. And there were, excuse me, position and there were four applicants as well. So I'll go ahead and open up a public comment on these appointments. If anybody is interested in speaking on item 10.2.1, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your Zoom. Seeing nobody rise in the chamber. Seeing none on Zoom. We'll go ahead and close public comment and bring it back for a motion. Let's start with the Board of Building Regulation Appeals. Is there a motion? Council Member Sweathelm. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd be one happy to make a motion that David Cooper, Ken Coker and Richard Yon be appointed to the Board of Building Regulations. Second. Okay, motion from Council Member Sweathelm. Second from Council Member Sawyer. Is there any additional discussion? All right, Madam Clerk, can you call the vote please? Council Member Tibbets. Council Member Sweathelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Yes. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Council Member Tibbets absent. Okay, I will now entertain a motion for the senior position on the pedestrian advisory, bicycle and pedestrian advisory board. Mayor, I move Paul Schwartz for the bike and ped senior representative. Second. Okay, motion from Council Member Sawyer and a second from the Vice Mayor. Is there any additional discussion? And it does look like Council Member Tibbets recused himself from this item. I know he was not able to sit in on the interviews. So with that, let's call the vote. Council Member Schweathelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Council Member Tibbets recusing. Great. We'll go to the personnel board. We have two appointments for the at-large positions. Is there a motion? Council Member Schweathelm. I would move we appoint Frank Panza and David Parks to the two position on the personnel board. Second. Is there any discussion? Okay, seeing none, let's call the vote. Council Member Schweathelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with five ayes with Council Member Alvarez voting no and Council Member Tibbets abstaining. Okay, in our final position is the Labor Representative for that same board. I'd like to make a motion to appoint Lisa Maldonado. I'll second. Okay, motion from the Vice Mayor, second by Council Member Alvarez. Is there any other discussion? All right, let's call the vote. Council Member Schweathelm. No. Council Member Sawyer. No. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with four ayes with Council Member Sawyer and Schweathelm voting no and Council Member Tibbets abstaining. All right, huge thank you and just expressing the gratitude from the Council and for the city to those folks who have applied and just in particular, thank you to the folks who are stepping up and will be serving on these three important boards moving forward. Mayor Rogers, can I get clarification on the personnel board appointments? There are two different term ends for those appointments, one term ending 2024 and the other to fill the remaining term of a vacancy ending December 2022. And these are for the at-large positions? Correct. Okay. Council Member Schweathelm, would you, since you made the original motion, would you like to make a motion on which one fills the vacancy and which one fills the full term? Yes, I would. I'd like Frank Ponzi to fill a full term and David Parks to fill the remainder of the existing term. And I continue to second. Didn't I second that one? I continue to second. Okay. So Council Member Schweathelm with that motion and the Vice Mayor with the second. Let's call the vote. Can I get a point of order? Can I get a clarification on that one time, please? Yes. I appreciate it. So the motion and the second is that of the two that we have voted to appoint to the personnel board, which is David Parks and Frank Ponzi. Oh, yes, sir. That we are now saying Frank Ponzi will have the full term and David Parks will fill the vacancy. Yes, sir. The remainder of the vacant term. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Okay. Council Member Schweathelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Yep. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes with Council Member Tibbets abstaining. Great. Thank you, Council. We'll move on to approval of the minutes with the exception of the noted, sorry, go ahead. No, we can go forward with the minutes, but I was going to note, I do need to report out on closed session at some point. Okay. Would you like to do that right now? Sure. Easy enough. Councilman and closed session on items 2.1 and 2.2. Both items are conferences with real property negotiator, the first one concerning property on Third Street and Fourth Street. Council discussed the matter and gave direction to the real property negotiator. Second one, 2.2, has to do with property located at 976, 980 and 1004 Hearn Avenue. Again, discussed the matter and gave direction to the real property negotiator. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Madam City Attorney. So for item 11, approval of the minutes, we had various recusals that were mentioned. Madam Clerk, did you take those notes down? I have recusals on, I believe it was the 12 of the consent, not on the minutes. Council Member Tibbets, I believe you were abstaining from two of the sets of minutes. Can you remind us which two? I believe it was 11.2 and 11.4. Great. Let's go ahead and open it up for public comment first to see if there are any amendments to the minutes. I do have a question. Sorry. I'll come back in a second. I'm seeing no hands pop up. Did we have any voicemail public comments? No. Okay, Vice Mayor? Myself and, sorry, it's like Councilman Alvarez. We're, that's our first meeting and we weren't brought on until the end. So should we also recuse ourselves from December 8th? I believe you have the option to, if you would like to. I know that you both also sat waiting, watching the movie, watching the meeting. So you two are well aware of whether or not the minutes reflect what happened during the meeting. Perfect. So it's up to your discretion. Just checking. Okay. Any additional amendments from Council Members? All right, then without objection, we'll show those five minutes as adopted and Mr. City Manager, mercifully to the Consent Calendar, please. Mayor and Members of the Council, we have five items on the Consent Calendar this evening, starting with item 12.1, a motion to award a contract for pavement, preventative maintenance in the year 2021. Item 12.2, a resolution approving the Microsoft Enterprise Agreement. Item 12.3, an ordinance adoption an ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa amending sections 15-16.030 and 15-16.050 of title 15 of the Santa Rosa City Code adopting sewer demand fees. Item 12.4, an ordinance adoption an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Rosa adding chapter 13-06 to title 13 streets sidewalks and public places of the Santa Rosa City Code pertaining to wireless facilities in the public rights of way. And finally, item 12.5, also an ordinance adoption an ordinance of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa amending section 1-10.030 of the Santa Rosa City Code and postponing the effective date of chapter 1-10 open government of the Santa Rosa City Code to January 1st, 2022. Councilor, are there any questions on the consent calendar for staff? Not seeing any. Madam City Clerk, do we have pre-recorded voicemail public comments? Yes, we do, coming up. Hello, my name is Kevin Conway and I'm calling about agenda item 12.4. First of all, thank you for preparing the ordinance. I'd like to see the Council quickly draft the ordinance for the Marco Towers. Marco Towers ordinance should include emissions testing. And I urge the Council to become active participants in broadband planning using a municipal fiber network. Thank you very much. Hi, this is Caroline Scott. I live in Santa Rosa, California. And this is in regards to agenda item 12.4. Please thank you to the Council and staff for working on this ordinance. And please ask the Council to direct staff to quickly draft the ordinance for Marco Towers before the new state bills take effect and the city is overburdened with permit applications. And ask that the Marco Tower ordinance include emissions testing since multiple antennas will be emitting simultaneously. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Hello, my name is Roya Lynn Wooten and I'm commenting on agenda item number 12.4. I would first like to thank the Council and staff for their diligence in preparing this ordinance. I would also like to direct the Council staff to quickly draft the ordinance for Marco Towers before the new state bills are in effect. Marco Tower ordinance include emissions testing since multiple antennas will be emitting simultaneously. I would strongly urge the Council to become active participants in the Sonoma County broadband planning. The Council members will pursue a municipal fiber network as a safer and faster alternative to the small cell build out. Wireless telecom companies are trying to build out their infrastructure so local municipalities will be convinced they don't need this fiber network. Of course, this is not eliminated. This will not eliminate the digital divide. During last summer's study session, many people have declined urging the Council to start planning for wired broadband as a municipal community service to ensure rates are regulated and the digital divide will end. Thank you very much. Jennifer Laporta of Santa Rosa, item 12.4. While I'm thankful that the city has prepared an ordinance on small cells, I am also outraged and horrified of the impending 5G rollout because I know for a fact that many, many people will be harmed, some severely disabled like Mary Dahl in Rincon Valley who has testified here many times. We are all bound and gagged by the FCC into accepting 5G under the guise of quote, not prohibiting personal wireless service unquote. Nowhere is this service defined? Is it talking text or streaming? The answer is streaming, which is not needed in emergencies or for basic communication. Where is our freedom to live without wireless service? This is being shoved down our throats and please understand I'm not blaming the city. No offense, but you are simply pawns to telecom. The rest of us are simply collateral damage on the altar of telecom profits. Still, we can do better with this ordinance. We can require proof of gap in coverage. We can change from 10 year to two year permits. We can define what's technically infeasible for section eight limited exceptions to design and location standards. Right now, telecom can just say it was technically infeasible to keep their antennae out of residential zones and instead in industrial zones and the city has no way to prevent them from in front of homes. So what's the point of even having location preferences in section four location standards, location preferences? You might as well delete the section on limited exceptions. For whom was this ordinance written? This ordinance actually prohibits any signage on the facility C design and development standards section three G city staff has emailed to me that they cannot post pre-construction signage due to the short shop clocks. Even if the shop clock is only 30 days, there's still time to post legible signage. It should go up within three business days of receiving an application. You could even require telecom to post signs. Is the real reason for lack of signage to keep the public in the dark? To avoid public outcry? How can a resident appeal the signing of antennae if they don't know about it?  The ordinance must define the timeline involved. Notices should be sent within three business days of receiving a permit. Look, my experience knocking on 200 doors in this city to alert residents of impending antennae revealed that 90% were not notified and that's when they should have been. This is why signage is so important. Please include easily visible pre-con... My name is Tom LaPorta. This is for item number 12.4. Thank you for your time working on this ordinance. But please direct your staff to quickly draft this ordinance for Macro Towers before the new state bills take effect. The Macro Tower ordinance must include emissions testing since multiple antennas will be emitting simultaneously. That's important. I urge the council to become active participants in the Sonoma County broadband planning. I urge the council members to pursue a municipal fiber network as a safer and faster alternative to the small cell build out. More profitable for the city too. Wireless telecom companies are trying to build out their infrastructure so local municipalities will be convinced that they don't need this fiber network. But this is not going to eliminate the digital divide. During last summer study sessions, many people testified urging the council to start planning for wired broadband as a municipal community service to ensure rates are regulated and the digital divide will end. Health wise, Mary Dahl is the canary in the coal mine. She's a Santa Rosa resident who's been harmed by the high radio frequency radiation from the antenna in front of her home in Rincon Valley. And she's the only one person that she know of possibly as she's been to many city council meetings and spoken. But there's a lot of other people being harmed and it's creeping up on everyone. And many don't even know what is causing their symptoms of electrohypersensitivity. It's just a matter of time before this thing becomes big when we're just bathed in radio frequency radiation and we find ourselves with a huge problem. So again, thank you for drafting the ordinance and I hope you pass this quickly. Thank you. Hello, this is Richard Boyd. I'm a retired physics professor and I'm calling to comment on agenda item 12.4, the small cell ordinance adoption to express my concerns about it. This gives the telecom driver not far too much power to do as they please in inflicting dangerous radio frequency radiation on the citizens of Santa Rosa. And despite the ruins of the FCC that were not allowed to oppose telecom on the basis of health effects, you, the Santa Rosa council need to face the fact that which we're considering, that is the ability of telecom to place small cells as close as 50 feet from homes will cause huge medical problems for people who are electrosensitive.  It is possible to shield one's home from this radiation at least on the inside that having a small cell 50 feet from your home basically makes the outside of the home useless. If you have kids, they must stay inside or be subject to the electromagnetic whims of telecom and medical research are showing unequivocally that radio frequency radiation is much more harmful to developing brains than it is to those of adults. Indeed, several European countries have limited or banned wireless emission in schools. Is there any way to produce the connectivity that telecom trumpets without inflicting the populace to the ubiquitous radio frequency radiation they're pushing? Actually, yes. Fiber to the premises is the way to go. And I encourage you to push telecom to that as hard as you can. The ordinance you're considering won't push them in that direction at all. So it is up to you to stay the course and make it much more attractive for telecom to go that direction. They've been charging their customers for decades to pay for fiber to the premises. Let them finally use some of that money to make that happen. Ambassador reduced the threat to human health from the radio frequency fog they were planning. Thank you. Hello, my name is Mary Dahl calling in regards to agenda 12.4. The ordinance. I keep hearing about the ordinance and how hard people have worked on it. I wonder how many citizens really know about it. I sure don't. I thought we had a right to know. Guess we really don't count. I understand that you are going to formalize the ordinance by signing it tonight. I hope and pray you have listened and taken it to heart. All the citizens comments concerns fears. Yes, fears of damaging RFR upon themselves and their loved ones, let alone the continued harm it is doing to our environment. When you took the oath of office, you promised to protect all citizens from harm. Well, that's not really happening. Since June, 2017, when permits for cell towers were being permitted, one was for my corner, Cowstoga Road in Monteverdi Drive. I haven't continued to suffer greatly with no end in sight. I will not give up the fight to save myself and all the dear citizens of Santa Rosa. Many are suffering with the effects of RFR and don't realize it's coming from the cell towers near their homes. Any remedies? Yes, do not put cell towers in any residential areas. Remove all those in residential areas now and put cell towers on the hillside's mountain tops away from homes, schools, et cetera. I just pray you and your loved ones will never have to suffer the effects of RFR like I am 24, 7, 3 years and counting with no lead up in sight. So when you do sign this ordinance, be aware of what it means and what's going to happen to the people of Santa Rosa. Blessings. My name is Catherine. I'm calling to comment on item 12.4 and I'm representing the Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments. Good evening, Mayor Rogers and members of the City Council. I'd like to make three brief comments. First, kudos to Gabe Osborne who shepherded this ordinance through drafting, study sessions and COVID. I hope you'll pass the ordinance today so Gabe can get started on the Macro Tower ordinance before Senator Dodd and other state legislators who are heavily lobbied by the wireless industry preempt for a little control you have lost over safety and aesthetics for the city. I'm agreeing to not let perfect be the enemy of the good and urging you to pass it. Second, I hope that you'll consider instructing staff to add to the applications a request for a copy of signage on the stealth antennas. The public has a right to know where these antennas are and while they may be visually stealth and pleasing to some an antenna hidden inside a pole of a light post or camouflaged as a fake tree is not physically pleasing to those exposed. Parents have a right to protect their children and themselves. Lastly, today, the governor and the state legislature put the meat on the bones of the Governor Newsom's broadband bill. It includes $2 billion for last mile infrastructure lines to connect consumers, homes and businesses with local networks, a billion for urban and a billion for rural. I sincerely hope you'll become actively involved in our county's plans for broadband to ensure that Santa Rosa can consider creating its own publicly regulated affordable fiber optic wired municipally run or public private partnership run broadband system. It's the only way to close the digital divide. Unregulated high priced wireless carriers will not be able to accomplish this. Wired broadband is a thousand times faster, safer, cyber secure and reliable in weather and uses five times less energy than wireless. It's been called future proof because it's simple to upgrade. Again, unlike wireless, corporate unregulated wireless carriers will continue to push and rush to add antennas in a race to beat local governments. Their goal is only to make money and they won't close the digital divide. Our government's goals should be safety, equity and energy efficiency. The money's there, please take advantage of it. This is an incredible opportunity. Again, thank you for your work and stay safe as we open up. Hello, my name is Sydney Cox and I'm calling for agenda 12.4, the small cell ordinance adoption. First of all, it's great that there will be a wireless small cell policy that will give the city some measure of control over the placement of these things. I know you're greatly restrained by the FCC rulings and state mandates with more possibly coming. And I know you've had expert legal advice in creating this set of documents that comprises the ordinance. However, once again, looking at the bigger picture, I must add my voice to the others who are advocating for a municipal fiber network for Santa Rosa. A fiber network will give the connectivity we are looking for to bridge the digital divide without the need for small cells all over the city. Please do everything you can to make this a reality. Another thing we're looking for is the macro tower ordinance. So now I have to say what I'm deeply concerned about and what's actually on most people's minds. It's the elephant in the room that we're not supposed to talk about, but I have to talk about it. It's the fact that small cells and wireless facilities have been proven to cause health problems for many people. I know telecom won't let you deny the placement of small cells on the basis of health, but people are getting sick. Aren't you worried about this too? I'm so sorry that you as the governing body of Santa Rosa are stuck between a rock and a hard place with this and I'm not blaming you or staff, but I have to wonder something. Why do the small metal signs on the polls only warn workers of exposure with no mention of the levels of RF, radio frequency radiation? They are so unobvious that you really have to look for them. Here's what they say. Notice FCC regulated antennas affixed to this pole. RF exposure near antennas may exceed the FCC general population maximum exposure limit. Workers should maintain a minimum approach distance of 20 feet. Contact revising if the minimum approach distance cannot be maintained. First of all, does the general population know what those exposure limits are? Do people realize that the FCC exposure limits are two million to 10 million microwatts per meter squared and for only short term, such as 30 to 60 minutes? And how many people understand what RF emissions from these small cells radiate out that they radiate a lot more than 50 feet? When I took RF readings at five different small cell locations in Santa Rosa at varying distances, I found some of the highest readings at 100 feet or more. I sent the council a copy of my findings. So I'm RF sensitive. It was not easy for me to take those RF readings as I had to be near the small cells. When I'm exposed to RF for more than an hour, my head feels really tight. My eyes burn, it's behind my eyes.  And what's that expression, like fight or flight? That's what I feel. Here in our house, we have no wifi, no smart meter, everything hardwired and my phone is turned off most of the time. I check messages once per day, no Bluetooth in my car. We've got a long haul here, my friends. I know if a small cell was 50 feet from my house, I'd have to move. I no longer be able to adjourn. My name is Sandra Guerra and this is for item 12.4. Thank you for your time working on this ordinance. Please direct your staff to quickly draft the ordinance for macro towers before the new state bills take effect at which time the city will be overburdened with permit applications. The macro tower ordinance must include emissions testing since multiple antennas will be emitting simultaneously. I urge the council to become active participants in the Sonoma County broadband planning. I urge the council members to pursue a municipal fiber network as a safer and faster alternative to the small cell build out. Wireless telecom companies are trying to build out their infrastructure so local municipalities will be convinced they don't need this fiber network. Of course, this will not eliminate the digital divide. During last summer study sessions, many people testified urging the council to start planning for wired broadband as a municipal slash community service to ensure rates are regulated and the digital divide will end. I must ask you, why is it that today's version of the ordinance added a sentence for telecom in number four, commencement of operations under conditions of approval. The operation of the approved facility shall commence no later than one month after the completion of the installation or the wireless encroachment permit will expire without further action by the city. And the new sentence reads, this period may be extended by the director of transportation for good cause shown. The revision occurred since the ordinance was introduced to council on June 29th, 2021. Where are any of the suggestions by Safe Tech for Santa Rosa? Why was corporate big telecom favored over your residents? FCC exposure guidelines are 10 million units, only for short-term 30-minute thermal effects, no long-term or biological effects, which is why the FCC guidelines are currently facing lawsuits. To compare, the council of Europe recommends 0.1 of those same units for sleeping areas and 1,000 for long-term exposure. The FCC is a captured agency, so please don't be fooled into thinking their exposure guidelines are safe. These 4G, 5G antennas are going to harm many people. It's just a matter of time for people to understand what is causing their health problems. Thank you. That concludes pre-recorded voice messages for consent. Thank you so much. I do see one additional hand has popped up via the Zoom for our consent calendar. Hannah? Hannah, are you able to unmute? Good evening, Mayor. Can you hear me? Yep, there you are. My apologies. Good evening, Mayor Rogers and council members. My name is Hannah Boris, speaking on behalf of Verizon Wireless. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on item 12.4, the proposed ordinance regulating wireless facilities in the right-of-way. We would like to thank council and staff for its efforts on this important topic and appreciate the friendly amendment made by council to the ordinance of the first reading regarding the commencement of operations requirement. Verizon supports the adoption of the ordinance subject to a key change regarding appeals. Section B2 under appeals on page 6 of the ordinance provides a process for automatic appeals to the city manager for applications that are approved based upon a finding that denial would result in effective prohibition under federal law. It's unclear what the criteria for this type of appeal would be, how the city could complete these automatic appeals within the federal shop clocks. Additionally, it's also unclear who the appellate would be in such a scenario, and typically a city manager would not have the appropriate training and expertise in federal law to adjudicate such matters. Verizon therefore respectfully requests that this requirement be removed. Additionally, Verizon requests that the council direct staff to make the necessary changes to the design standards outlined in Verizon's submitted redline comments in order to ensure that the design standards are feasible and consistent with FCC requirements. As outlined in the redline comments submitted to the city prior to the first hearing, many of the design standards are infeasible and conflict with PG&E requirements and will have the immediate effect of inhibiting Verizon's ability to deploy its network in Santa Rosa. It's our goal to work collaboratively with city staff to arrive at a code and standards that preserve the look and feel of your community while providing an efficient, workable and federally compliant process to deliver the services your residents, visitors, and businesses have come to expect. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment on the proposed ordinance. Thank you, Hannah. That's the last hand that I see. So, Madam Vice Mayor, would you like to make a motion? I believe I want to make five motions. All right. Let's start with the first one. Okay. But I'm saying I'm making five due to the abstentions. I have to do each one. Okay, I move item 12.1 and wait for the reading of the text. Second. Motion by the Vice Mayor, second by Council Member Sweatham. Any discussion? Let's call the vote. Council Member Tibbets. Council Member Sweatham. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Vice Mayor Rogers. Aye. Mayor Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with six ayes Second. Vice Mayor moves. Second by Sweatham. Let's call the vote. Council Member Tibbets. Aye. Council Member Sweatham. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Fleming. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. That motion passes with seven ayes. This is the one that Jack wanted to use himself of. That's why we took it separate. Council Member Tibbets, were you abstaining from that item? No, I was abstaining from 12.4 and 12.5. Okay. Sorry Natalie for any confusion. I do believe we can take 12.3, 12.4 and 12.5 altogether since both Council Member Fleming and Tibbets were absent on it. So Council Member Tibbets will be abstaining from 12.3. Let's do the motion for these next items and I believe he's abstaining. I move items 12.3 through 12.5 and wait for the reading of the text. Second. Alright, let's call the vote. Can I clarify who's second? That's Council Member Schwedhelm. Thank you. Council Member Schwedhelm. Aye. Council Member Sawyer. Aye. Council Member Alvarez. Aye. Council Member Rogers. Aye. That motion passes with five ayes with Council Members Fleming and Tibbets abstaining. Thank you. We do have two written communications for Council to look at. There's the notice of final map for Carrier Ranch 1 and notice of final map for Grove Village. Yes. And we'll also need to take public comment on non-agenda items. I was going to do that at item 17. Great. Thank you. Do we need to take public comment on the written communications? Yes. We'll take public comment. If you're interested in speaking, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on Zoom, seeing none. We'll go ahead and close that. And we'll move on to item 17, which is our public comments for non-agenda items. If you are interested in speaking on non-agenda items, items that have not been discussed at today's Council meeting, go ahead and hit the raise hand feature on your Zoom. City Clerk, I don't see any hands. Do we have any pre-recorded voicemail public comments? Just one coming up. My name is Art Bach. I'm in the community now for over 40 years. Lately, I've noticed that there's been an increase in fireworks in our neighborhood. This is Corby Avenue in Baker. It doesn't seem like police can take care of all of it. There are not enough police. There's so many pockets of this going on that it's out of control. I would hope there would be an outreach or some kind of law that would make it stricter than no fireworks shot off illegally. It doesn't seem to matter to these people. This is disrupting our community. The elders are not doing well with their sleep. Our animals are going crazy and it's just really unfair. For the last several days before fireworks and even last night that was July 5th, fireworks were still being shot. I don't know what else I can say about this, but it's not fair. Fireworks are not only disrupted, but they're also bad for the environment. There's all kinds of toxics in those things. Dies and so forth. So that's my main thing for right now. Please consider doing something about this because it's out of hand. This community has grown by leaps and bounds and the police force has not. So thank you for listening and I hope something can be done. Thank you. Excellent. That's the end of our agenda for tonight. I do want to thank folks who stuck with us all the way through and of course to our incredible staff for sticking with us. With that we are adjourned.


Good afternoon. Happy Easter my peeps from the tiffinos. Hello spring Welcome, come on in. We have more ticker. Okay, come on in. Welcome. Welcome to the land of bunnies, honey Okay, we start in the hallway. Why not? By the way, I got this from Shop Right. This is a little purchase from Shop Right. Isn't she adorable? It's kind of frightening though. It's a scarecrow bunny And here we have one of my favorite popcorn bunny. I Put a little embellishment here. Why not? I want a tulips to represent spring new life and renewal my peeps and here We have more bunnies. Why not? Welcome into the world of bunnies. Okay, and we have more here this This I made in ceramics in 1992 When I was trying to have triplets to my husband Used to sing a song but no longer. These are the best bunnies in the world as you know And then we can't continue on here.  Here we go, but there's more. Don't be distant. Oh, yeah. Oh, this is the bunny center We have the ballet squad here They just I can't resist the more I get the more I want. Oh, here we go. This is something new see little egg lights So I'm Ridiculous but fun and we have just a little more. I didn't really overdo it Bye-bye And then we have my peep here Doesn't she look happy in her environment? And Then we have more bunnies. What else would we have?  Okay, and then we have another ballerina Oh, there's another I got into Christmas. She's up another prima ballerina Lavender Easter all the Easter colors.  It's I know it's obscure, but it is this my daughter Gina made for me 10 years ago when I had my stroke in the hospital and Still going like me, okay, and then you can't forget the carrots, okay What is Easter without a carrot, right? And then We have more lambs more bunnies and The most important thing The cross why we're here today What the duck, okay? This duck was created by moi in 1992. Isn't she adorable with her little? ducklings which I have okay, and then believe it or not. I found these little ornaments in Christmas tree shop. Oh And you can't forget the chick And of course another bunny, honey So spring has sprung in the Tafano household I wish you many happy Easter blessings to you and your family. We don't have much in the kitchen Downstairs. Yeah, we have a little Easter tree here. Hi. We're back to Easter adornment here. So by the way, these are Gina's pictures that she paints Oh, but she's she's in ready in pearls Yes Are they gorgeous We have more peeps my peeps Okay, you never have enough peeps in your life, right everybody And baskets, what is Easter without a basket and here is a little more and that's it folks So Happy Easter Many blessings be stowed upon you today the Lord has risen. Bye y'all


DJ, why do you think you see the ball so well off of Corbin and have in your career? I don't know. I've faced them ever really all the way from double A in 2010 or 11. So I've just faced them. I've faced them so many times. I think that's probably the hitter's advantage. How much better do you feel, obviously? You saw results tonight, but overall at the plate right now? Yeah, I'm feeling better. Feeling better. Just trying to get on base and contribute to this team. I've been helping out a little bit more lately. Tom Merriam, you have the next question. Go ahead. DJ, do you feel you have your stroke back, particularly your home run stroke back after tonight? I don't know. I don't know. I felt a good swing in the bat tonight. But I don't think it's a matter of, you know, it's either there or it's not. It's just over having consistent at bats over a long period of time is usually my strength. Going next to Brian Hoke. Hey, DJ, this team's been playing pretty well defensively over the last couple of weeks. What was that eighth inning like just to be a part of that and to have to watch six runs come in? Yeah, it was, you know, not a good timing for those, you know, errors to happen. Like you said, I think we've been playing pretty good defense lately. You know, just one of those innings is bad timing to have all those happen. And, you know, we didn't help our pitchers out at all. Your plan in particular, what would you like to have done differently there? Probably just take my time a little bit more. I mean, I know that guy's fast, but I probably had an extra step to make it better.