y. And I'm recalling back to when I was 18 and I was a welder in an industrial zone part of town. We didn't, we had oxygen acetylene, acetone, all kinds of stuff just in an open container, but locked. I mean, there was no closed HVAC system that I'm aware of. So is cannabis, is the ordinance holding cannabis businesses to a higher standard? I would say yes, it is. Ms. Gomes. Thank you, and I appreciate your forebearance. I have quite a few questions. And I wanna appreciate the well-organized neighborhood that has come out to speak to us. Actually enjoy your dog park and have had people sort of check me out there because they didn't know who I was. And I just want you to know I do appreciate it. And I clean up after my dog. I would like to sort of side comment to staff. We have a general plan update coming up. And I think one of the lessons here is to make sure that we involve neighbors well in advance in a way that folks can understand as we are moving general plan materials forward. Because I think it's really hard if you get a notice that there's a general plan going on. And another, if you get a notice that there's going to be something in your backyard. Those feel really different notices. So forgive me for that diversion, but I think we need to be really clear as we move that forward. I heard, and I'm asking staff, I heard two different sets of statements that I wanna clarify. I heard there isn't anything similar or volatile on Yolanda. And I heard that there is similar volatiles on Yolanda. Do we have any information about what else is a similar product or existing volatiles that are on Yolanda? Hazardous materials along Yolanda? Do we know yes or no if there are any? And I'm happy to have it from any staff who wants to speak to it. I'm not aware of any specific locations. I know that the site, the general Yolanda district is industrial zone. So we know that those uses are allowed. Harkening back to high school days as Mr. Tempest did, I worked in a body shop on Yolanda Avenue. So they have historically existed. We know they're allowed by the zoning, by the general plan. The specifics I don't have off the top of my head. We could get those. Okay. Getting them in the future doesn't help on this particular decision tonight. I had the impression that we inspected not just at the initial time of building, but throughout time for industrial sites. Does our fire department inspect industrial sites over time? And how frequently and are we inspecting along Yolanda? We do a number of different inspections with businesses within our community.  If you recall, we came to council for the last code adoption. And during that code adoption, we had incorporated four permits specific to the cannabis industry. And those permits we felt would be important for us to have involvement with these instances, being new to our community and not really having a good solid foundation within our area of how this business operates. So we have incorporated those operational permits for annual inspection. We also have specific hazardous materials, regulatory authority as the coupa for the city. So businesses that store, use, dispense, or generate waste specific to certain threshold amounts. We do regulate those businesses within our community. They are inspected on a three year or triennial basis. And we would also be looking at all aspects of this type of industry during those inspections. Thank you. I had the impression that the applicant was stating that they were going to exceed some of the requirements that would normally be in place for the use of the butane. Is the applicant planning to, or proposing that they will exceed any of the requirements with regard to the C1, C2, whatever stuff? Is that in excess of what we would normally require? I have not seen plans or specifications related to their operation at this point. Is it appropriate, and perhaps this is to the city attorney, is it appropriate at this time that we ask that any excess of what our regulations would be that are being presented to us tonight be a part of the conditions of the permitting? Yes, to the extent that the applicant identifies any additional precautions or safety measures as part of their application or as part of their presentation tonight, yes, you may include those as conditions of the permit. And I would, yes, I need to ask the planning department, has the applicant provided enough information so we understand whether or not they are offering any conditions for their permit application that would be in excess of the safety regulations that we would normally provide, request. And I'm talking specifically about hazardous materials. I had the impression, I heard that they were exceeding, and so I wanna make sure that if they are exceeding that that is a part of our conditional. We're not aware of any provisions that exceed our requirements, but perhaps that's something the applicants can specify. May I ask the applicants, is that allowed? If I may, is there anything to your knowledge that is in excess of what we would normally require for safety handling of hazardous materials? That's our knowledge. Oh, I see what you're saying. I thought I heard you say otherwise. I understand the question better yet. No, we're actually, the build out of the C1D1 contaminating it is an excess of what the city requires. Yes. Okay, so the build out of the C1D1 containment is in excess. Correct. I would expect to see that as a condition of the permit is if it goes forward tonight. If I may ask you, Mr. Moon, have we had in the last two years in a manufacturing setting any explosions, releases, incidents with regard to a similar level of hazardous material in manufacturing? Not necessarily cannabis, but any manufacturing in our city, roughly. I appreciate that I did not ask you this in advance. We have had a couple of incidents related to non permitted or approved cannabis extraction. I'm talking about, and not specific to cannabis in any manufacturing in our city that is permitted and regulated and inspected. Have we had any incidents? Yes, we have. And what was the outcome of those incidents, roughly? With respect to damage or injury? Yeah. We had a significant- With respect to damage and injury and adjacent properties. We had a significant incident at Keysight back in, I believe it was 2011. And that resulted as part of them not following their procedures at the time related to their semiconductor manufacturing process on site that resulted in significant damage to the structure as well as injury to one of their employees. Okay. And how big was that? I mean, what kind of area are we talking about? It was within a portion of a two-story structure that damaged probably guesstimate 1,000 square feet. Okay. Thank you. I had asked staff in advance if they would provide me the setback information, both the setback distance to the building itself and the setback distances to the room where the volatile area will be. And I would hope that you can help me with that. Yes, thank you. The building itself is set back 30 feet from the property line. And the area where the manufacturing will occur is set back 60 feet from the property line. Okay. How long has this area been zoned light industrial? I don't mean when the building was built, but about how long was it, is this area been zoned light industrial? We don't have that information. Okay, was it built? I thought I heard the building was built around 09. Is that correct? Yes, the three buildings on the site were constructed in 2009. Okay. Roughly when was the Summer Creek develop, the drive development constructed roughly? Is it before or after? I'll get the PD. Thank you. I'll let staff to tell me. 2000. I didn't, it was before the building was built, but was it before it was zoned in light industrial? So we may have that information in the staff report if you'd indulge us a moment. Please. Thank you. I appreciate your forbearance. The PD was the PD. The PD has been from 2000. PD says to go. Yeah. Why don't you continue with your questions and we'll see if we can get. While they're looking it up. I can respond to that actually. So the zoning is plan development, our plan developments as they are numbered, that indicates the year. So PD 00 indicates roughly 2000. So in about 2000. Okay. And what was the date for Summer Creek? That's 2000. That's the date for, I'm sorry. I was misunderstanding whether you are telling me about the light industrial zoning level or not. I missed looking at the check. I apologize to anyone whose private information was made public on behalf, I appreciate that accidents happen. Roughly, what does it cost to do an appeal like this for homeowner? $9. Thank you. Can you clarify the security systems that have been agreed upon? Are these part of the conditional use permit? And I'm talking about security like a guard or alarm systems, windows, et cetera. Staff reviewed a security plan, but we would defer to the applicant to answer site specific questions. I just would like a rundown of the security onsite that's planned. And I would like clarification as to whether that's part of this permitting process. Is it a condition of the permitting? Council Member Combs, a security plan was submitted with the initial conditional use permit application. Typically your staff does not disclose those to the public because you can imagine the positioning and locations of security cameras, security doors, biometric entrance access codes. Our items we'd like the public not to be aware of. We have some additional responses to your question with respect to the areas by which we have exceeded state and local safety and security protocols. Brian Elliott and Todd Christian have quick responses with respect to the use of the C1D1 CFM and Chapter 38 of Santa Rosa Fire Code. Before you go there, let me follow this thought, which is I just want to make sure that whatever is submitted with regard to security, how does the public know that that's adequate or not if they can't see it? How do we make a judgment as to the adequacy of security if we can't see it? So at the building permit stage, that's typically when we receive all of our detailed construction drawings, structural drawings, and any other data that would go along with the systems involved, those will be reviewed by all of the city departments, including planning staff, building staff, engineering and fire department staff. At the use permit stage or design review at the planning entitlement stage, we typically don't see those detailed plan sets. And as was indicated in this instance, the security plans, we do have some separation from public review for the reasons indicated. So that separation is lost when we get to the building department stage? Again, at what point does the public get to review the safety systems? At least in general, what is a sufficient safety system and how do we make that decision if we can't see the plans? The specifics of the safety plan for any facility is not made public because it would give people too much information in terms of if they wanted to go at the facility. We certainly don't wanna know exactly where everything is, but I would wonder how I can know that there is an alarm at the windows or most of the windows or all of the windows. Those specifics would be obviously revealed in the safety plan that is reviewed by staff. Again, planning staff, building staff, engineering. Okay, so, but those fire and aren't conditioned upon this decision, can we make those plans conditional upon this permit? What is required under our code is that I don't recall the exact language in terms of the adequacy of the safety plan, but that is built into the code that will not move forward without an adequate safety plan that has been reviewed by the various departments. And perhaps I see. Safety seems to be a major concern of the neighborhood, so I'm just trying to get a sense of how do we judge as a council member. Right, and it is difficult. The professionals do review it and review it for adequacy, but again, due to safety concerns, we don't want to release the plan itself to the public, but I don't know if... If I may, before we speak with our police representative, just in terms of the compliance with what's proposed as part of this project and also consistency or compliance of our standard conditions. So we have minimum standard conditions, which are only for cannabis businesses. They're not for their sister counterparts. And they were specifically drafted in concert with our interdepartmental team, including police. With minimums like alarm security systems, video surveillance, the locations in general, where those should be, how many frequent, how much are we storing the material, the visibility of the entryways and exitways. Just to give you some examples of the specific they have to do. And those are physical and those can be seen on the plans and those have been shown on the plans in general throughout this process. Now anything above that is part of there. And they have some things that are a little bit more detailed than that. And those are part of their project narrative, which is conditioned in reflection of the permit that they're obtaining. It's this project on this site. So they're site-specific permits and it's reflective of the exhibits that they submit. So that's the assurance that this is kind of going together on this site. And then in terms of a follow-through through plan check, police department does require the alarm permit and they process that and get the information that they need to monitor that. And then building division monitors the proper installation of the components of their security system. So I have two requests and one is that if what they have provided exceeds what we would normally be asking for, I would like to make sure that those items that they are recommending in excess are part of the conditions. And the other question is that sounds like a lot of the built environment pieces, but foot patrol, having a car drive by, I don't know what else has been suggested. Are those included in that discussion? And I would consider that a kind of maintenance item, something that has to be ongoing that's not part of the built environment. My understanding was some of those were suggested and I'm wondering, are they here too? They are, if they are part of their written narrative that you have in your packet. So that is the proposal that's before you, is that narrative and those supplemental exhibits. We're not prepared to itemize the difference between the minimum versus the exceeding, but that proposal is what's getting attached to this use permit should you move forward. Okay. Can I follow up with a question that may be about security, but it's not about the security plan. So wouldn't be revealing any secrets here. On my site visit, I was told that there will be personnel on this property 24 hours a day. Is that part of the conditions of the permit? Yes, so the applicant proposed 24-hour security for the facility, it's part of their narrative for how they will operate their proposed business. It's also, my understanding is it's a state requirement as well as part of their state cannabis license. Thank you, but I think 24-hour security can mean many things to many different people. It may be a camera to, I don't know what it is. What we're being told is that we can't know what this specific security is. I'm wondering if this is a 24-hour operation. It's a patrol, it's a physical patrol person. And will there be people working at this building 24 hours a day? That's what we were told on our site visit. So based on the zoning and because it's not open to the general public, they could potentially work beyond midnight, beyond normal working hours in a retail or office setting. That's not part of the conditions of the permit, though, to require it to be a 24-hour operation, staffed 24 hours. It could be staffed 24 hours based on not only the zoning, but the fact that it's not open to the general public. Could be, I'm just wondering if you're answering my question, is it required by the permit? So not unless you require it specifically. So if you really want that assurance, that specifically you would attach that to this permit as a condition of approval in concert with the applicant proposing that. Otherwise, what you are looking at is adopting a permit that's in compliance with our minimum performance standards, which includes the presence of surveillance cameras. It does not include, just to be very clear, does not include on-site security. Applicants can provide that. It sounds like they provide some additional details, maybe not to the extent of having a 24-7 on-site. So you have the minimum standards, video surveillance. You have the applicant's proposal who's trying to get this use permit, so they may propose in their narrative and their supportive exhibits additional accesses to that. But if you really want to be specific, you really should itemize and direct that these are the conditions that you need to find, make the findings for this use permit in this site. And the applicant is here, you can work with the applicant in terms of what they can offer to satisfy that interest of yours. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. No, thank you. You're clarifying my questions. And I know we had a representative come down. I wanted to give you the opportunity to say, okay, I thought he had something he specifically, you caught it, okay, thank you. And I interrupted you in the course of your answer to me. So if you want to finish your answer to me. Thank you, Council Member Combs. As I identified previously, we have some additional areas by which this project, as we have proposed it, exceed both state and local security requirements. So I'll invite both Brian Elliott and Todd Christian to address that issue. Is this both safety and security? This is regarding fire safety. The Chapter 38 of the California Fire Code has been designed specifically for the cannabis industry or plant extraction. That already exceeds normal fire code requirements and this project will exceed Chapter 38. So the safety features are gonna be built in this project. We'll exceed the plant extraction requirements by the state. Do we have that list of the ways that, I mean, can you provide that list to staff so that when we say that we might like that to be a condition of your permit, we have that list? We can. It has to do with CFM's amount of air that's gonna move that's based upon what's required and what we'll provide is greater than what's required. Thank you. And did you wanna address the security excess? I just wanna get it on the record, whatever's gonna be there. Yeah. Right, and we certainly appreciate the discussion. The city of Santa Rosa has established minimum protocols for security that you've outlined in your ordinance, each of which were addressed in our project narrative. The narrative also addresses the mechanisms by which we will exceed those requirements, including the use of on-site personnel, biometric access controls. The state has additional established protocols for security of the facility and of the product and it's important to remember that as well, with which the project of course will comply as it goes through its state licensing. But with respect to the overall safety of the building, it's important to recall that the implementation of the C1D1 room is itself within a C1D2 room. And neither of those are required under either state or local regulations. We appreciate that and we'll make a note that we would like to have that. Thank you. I think I'm trying to get clarification because I thought I heard that there would be at least intermittent foot patrol while there was 24-7 visual monitoring of the site. Was that a correct hearing? Did I hear that correctly? Yeah, it is our intention right now as long as there's personnel on-site that there'd be some security presence, yes. Okay, I have, I will listen to recommendations of my colleagues with regard to whether or not we want 24-7 personnel on-site working or whether limitations on the hours of operation are appropriate because of possibilities of noise at night. So that I will listen to my colleagues' comments about that. I heard something about cash processes and that there would not be a need for cash on-site. I am concerned that it's not, I mean, how difficult is it, it may be in fact difficult to have there be no cash on-site or no large amounts of cash on-site. Are there cash processes submitted with this application? The use permit does not address or prohibit cash on the site. I thought I heard the applicant suggest that they would keep cash on-site to a minimum. Can we ask them to clarify what that meant so that we can be sure to include it in the conditions of permitting? In terms of? The business, the mechanisms that you're talking about. So in terms of how we manage cash and transactions on-site, the intention is to, as you said, keep a minimum amount of cash on the property. It's not in our security interest to do so. Again, this is not a retail location. The intention is not to be doing multiple transactions on-site. I can't say that it will never be cash on-site. There's a standard operating procedure that we will be putting in place and also evolving over time to manage that. Our hope is that ultimately we don't have to deal in cash at all. But again, it is not our intention. We're not building a vault on-site. It is not our intention to have any cash on-site other than that's absolutely necessary and for the shortest possible time. That's what he said. So can we ask that cash be removed from the site overnight? Did it go somewhere else? Is that something we can legally ask that at the end of the business day they remove cash from the site? Yes, that would be a legal requirement. Okay. There's enough nexus to the safety of the facility. I'm interested in doing that, particularly if they're not going to operate 24-7, that there be no cash at the end of the business day on-site. I heard in the public comments a question about notices to the neighbors. Can you explain to me the process that we used as a planning department with regard to notifications? Yes, the standard noticing procedure is noticing the code requires everyone within 300 feet. We notice everyone within 400 feet to capture any potential mapping errors in our software. We also require a sign to be posted on the project site and we also post an ad or a ad in the newspaper of the press Democrat to notify the neighbors of the upcoming hearing. Okay. Can I follow up on that? There was a suggestion that there are apartments within 170 feet of this that receive no notification. Can you confirm or deny that? The city code requires that we notify all neighboring property owners within 300 feet. So tenants may not get a notice. The apartment property owner received a notification. That's right. Just as a quick follow-up, so the way we address passerbys or people who frequent that area in addition to renters is with the blue public hearing sign. And that's on Yolanda, correct? It's on the street front, isn't it? Yes. While not appropriate for this conversation, I would appreciate noting that we need to do something so renters know things are happening around them. I've heard that there are conversations with regard to living wage, which I thought was like $23 to $25 an hour. And I saw in the presentation a $15 an hour wage and I heard that there are conversations going on with unions. Is this something that we can make a condition of the permit that there be a living wage higher than average minimum wage? Or, I mean, we're hearing these are going to be good paying jobs. This is one of the benefits that we're being told is a community-wide benefit. Is it a condition of the use permit and can we make it a condition of use permit? We do not normally make wages a condition of a conditional use permit. I think it's, we have not in the past, I think it's a little bit of a difficult issue. If the applicant wants to propose that and accepts that as a condition, then you could include that as a condition. But I would be hesitant absent the applicant's consent to do that. Has the applicant an interest either in establishing that they are paying a living wage or the union is a condition of their permit? Council Member Combs, as you've identified, living wage does carry legal weight. So we have not proposed the legal definition of living wage with this project. In the interest of demonstrating NT Ventures commitment to the city of Santa Rosa, they have gone well above and beyond what state and local regulations would require by proactively reaching out to contract with Teamsters Local 665. They are committed to that relationship. They would be the first cannabis business in the state to contract directly and proactively and affirmatively with an organized labor union. So that commitment remains firm. My understanding is that contract, though, cannot be finalized unless and until this permit is granted. Because as you can imagine with no permit, there are no jobs. I understand. And thank you. So within our ability to have that as a condition, I would be interested understanding that this is a catch-22 cycle of, I mean, if they're saying that one of their community benefits is going to be the excellent jobs that they're providing that... Yes, but I document that. I did not hear a consent to include that as a condition. And the other element that I would point out is that a conditional use permit, of course, runs with the land. So while this operator may be very amenable to working with unions, working, you know, offering a particular wage, it becomes a little more difficult. Again, if one might not be the same line of work. Yes. Again, if we have a clear agreement from the applicant to include a condition, there is a way to do that. But absent that, again, I'm hesitant to find an appropriate nexus. I heard a commitment to hiring locally as well. And I wondered how that was being defined. Another great question, Council Member Combs, in concert with Teamsters Local 665 NT Ventures will be entering into a contract to hire members in consult with Teamsters from amongst their membership and to organize the ultimate employees of NT Ventures. Thank you. And I just wanna check with the city attorney. I also heard the applicant indicate that we had to follow the ordinance as it exists. Do we have any option for using our best judgment? The ordinance sets the parameters. I would point out in the ordinance and in our zoning code, there are elements that give you discretion in determining the appropriateness of the use in the neighborhood. In terms of the specifics, for example, you would not be able to impose a particular setback that is not in the ordinance. But in terms of determining compatibility with the neighborhood and the more general provision of not detrimental to the list of words, but not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and to the health and safety, those are where you have some discretion. But again, as to the specific requirements are in the code, those are what your parameters are. Again, absent a commitment otherwise from the applicant. I didn't hear a commitment from the applicant, clearly in terms of how they are defining local. And I didn't hear a commitment from the applicant with regard to any guarantee with regard to level of wages. Is the 60 foot setback to the room with the volatile area that is in the drawings? Is that viewed as a commitment or if they make a decision to change the arrangement of the layout? Since it is in their plan, you are welcome to have that as a condition of the permit. And I do have the language here. I apologize for not having it memorized is that it would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare or materially injurious to persons property or improvements in the vicinity. So that is where you have some discretion to evaluate the specifics of the project in a specific location. Thank you. And I hope that before we wrap up the voting, we can hear the list of things that are included as conditions of the permit so that before we make our decision, we know what's included and what isn't included. Are you asking that the conditions be read to us? I'm asking that staff, I mean, I just went through and discussed a set of things that I expressed myself as if I were to move forward, I would think they would be conditions of the permit. And I just want to make sure that we understand that if we're moving this forward. Okay. I mean, there are quite a few conditions. Yeah. You didn't mention them all, but. And I suspect other council members will have some. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have slightly fewer questions. So I just want to be really clear in my understanding of something that was said, taking aside the fact that this is cannabis, would this use the distillation utilizing a volatile chemical like butane have been allowed in this building for a different venture, whether I heard lavender extraction and coffee beans, whatever have you, would that have been allowed with a minor use permit? Yes. So I also heard that there is a review period on the conditional use permit pre, post, and then annual. Can you discuss with me, should this go forward tonight? Obviously there would be review, post installation, I assume pre-operation. And then yearly, would it be the zoning administrator or the planning commission that would look at the major use permit and have to, I don't want to say re-approve, but review any violations and whether or not they needed to pull the permit. Can you walk us through that a little bit? And I'm sorry if what I said was misunderstood. We, for cannabis manufacturing, specific to cannabis manufacturing, we in the zoning code, thanks to the fire department's consultation with the preparation of the ordinance, we do require pre-inspection of the site, post installation of the equipment and annual site inspections. Plus, as a fair Marshall Moon stated, in addition, there's a recurring inspection for the hazardous waste. There is no renewal process for cannabis conditional use permits. They are the same kind of, they're the same kind of use permits. We don't have a different kind for cannabis. So it's the same six findings you have to make to grant a use permit, just like any other use permit they run with the land. They are attached to the specific proposal and exhibits and the conditions that are listed in your draft resolution. All right, let me ask my question a different way. Should the council move forward with whatever conditions are layered on with the major conditional use permit? And should there be a violation or should there be some form of an incident, safety hazard, whatever have you? What is the remedy for the council? What is the remedy for the neighborhood? So as a land use entitlement with a number of conditions associated with it and plans that are approved with that use permit, the applicant is obligated to comply with those conditions. They're obligated to operate as they have indicated in the project description, which is what the council would be approving in total. If they don't, then there's a potential for a code enforcement action. Typically when we have code enforcement, that department reaches out to the operator, the owner, the applicant, works with them to see if they can achieve voluntary compliance. If they don't, then there's an administrative review process that can go forward. It can ultimately end in rescinding that use permit. There can be penalties and fines so on and so forth. So for example, if the hypothetical that has been talked about a couple of times, somebody comes and robs the facility, jumps over the fence, runs out of the neighborhood through somebody's backyard. If we actually see that happen, is there a remedy for us to come back and say, you know what, the safety measures were not adequate and then either pull the permit or require additional conditions on safety? I think at the outset, that would be probably a criminal investigation if it gets down to obviously a review of the conditions of approval. We'd have to evaluate whether compliance or non-compliance occurred with the conditions. If they did not, then in fact, the things that I mentioned could happen, rescind the use permit penalties and so on. And sorry, I don't mean to drill down too much further into this, but if the conditions were satisfied and there was an incident like that that happened, would there be any remedy for the council to look at it and say, we didn't put sufficient conditions on it? There could, but that discussion would happen absent and separate from this specific land use entitlement in this project. It's a policy discussion for the council. So my understanding is that there's one other facility similar to this that's been permitted so far in Santa Rosa. Have there been any safety issues with that facility so far? I'm sorry, I'm not even aware if they are under operation. We're only 10 months into this ordinance and it was approved a couple of months ago, so I don't know if they're in operation. It was mentioned that this facility could potentially have folks on site 24-7. Obviously, we see other examples in the community where there is an industrial use that abuts a neighborhood that is also having issues surrounding noise and hours of operation. I have no problem with employees working within the building, but are there standard, and I assume that our noise ordinance would apply, but are there standard times for delivery, the noise that could be coming from a truck that is dropping off product while the neighbors are trying to sleep? Yeah, so basically the noise ordinance does exactly as you described, it sets standards, decibel, maximums, and they're set two different times of the day. Okay, so for example, we have the maximum decibels that could happen. Obviously, the further away from a facility, the more likely the sound will diffuse and it'll come across at a lower level. For the homes that are right there, being closer, there still is that maximum limit for the decibels that could be heard from that home. Is that correct? That's correct, every land use based on time of day has a decibel maximum. Great, regardless of if there's a setback or not. It's measured at the property line, the residential property line. Which we've heard is about 30 feet, 35 feet. So it's still measured at the property line, even if it was 500 feet. But even at 30 feet, it will be measured at the property line. Great. All right, thank you very much. Just to follow up on that. Do we, are we able to limit delivery and pick up hours through the CUP? Yes, those are conditions that the council could impose. Thank you. I have a few questions of my own and a couple that were brought up by speakers. When we were going through the general cannabis ordinance looking at land uses and zoning, were setbacks discussed at all in that conversation other than for retail? Yes, setbacks were probably 90% of our conversations across 20 sub committee meetings and the public outreach setbacks came up quite a bit. I think throughout that process, there was an emphasis on not penalizing cannabis from legalizing becoming a legitimate business. So the deference through the process and ultimately the adoption of ordinance landed on if we don't have a setback for non-cannabis counterparts, then let's not impose that on the cannabis version. We made an exception because cannabis retail dispensaries are unique and so that is the only land use, cannabis land use that has a setback to sensitive receptor. I'm definitely not a reliable memory all the time, but I don't recall talking about setbacks for these types of uses. When we discussed the ordinance at the council level, I know we did for retail, but was that part of the discussion at the council level? It was, some public comments came in about wanting over-concentration rules and setback rules for all cannabis businesses. And as we implement this ordinance, we continue to hear that as a perspective on our cannabis policy. However, that issue was vetted through the process and ultimately it was recommended by the subcommittee and then by the planning commission not to have additional setbacks for non-retail cannabis businesses. So on the over-concentration issue, do we know how many applications for cannabis businesses are in process on Yolanda Avenue? We don't have statistics at hand for how many are in the Yolanda Avenue for non-retail. We happen to know there's five pending that are cannabis retail that are going through an over-concentration review by the subcommittee. Five retail on Yolanda? So that does have the over-concentration clause. And so as a result, the council's cannabis subcommittee will be looking at those applications to see which of those could move forward. But we don't have a statistic on how many non-cannabis businesses are in this complex. I'm sorry, non-retail. Non-retail. Do we have a process for deciding at what point saturation is happening for non-retail? Yeah, so part of our cannabis program is monitoring. So we had allocated one position, economic development, to help with that. We do produce a biannual report that monitors industrial land supply, how many businesses have come in, how many are pending, how many are approved, and what type. Vacancy rates. So we are monitoring, we are producing those reports, and we present that it's on our website for everyone to look at so we can monitor it. So we'll produce another one in December. And the cannabis subcommittee is our, we work through those types of issues and we present that directly to them. But that report's available to everyone. Is that city-wide, or does it actually drill down to say how many applications are on Yolanda Avenue? The economic monitoring port permit activity report is city-wide. I do have a concern about that. It being city-wide, because it doesn't really tell the whole story. There could be five applications or 10 applications or 15 on Yolanda Avenue and not elsewhere. It wouldn't come across in that city-wide report as a heavy concentration. And if I may, we don't, as Ms. Hartman mentioned, we don't have a over-concentration provision for non-retail cannabis operations. And that issue of whether we want to or not is not part of the subject. Not part of this discussion. We should make that part of a future discussion. Very good. And I think that I was concerned about that when we first took up this issue. Mr. Mayor, if I may follow up. Director Gulen reminded me, we actually list every address in that report. So we don't map it. We didn't have the resources to map it, but we literally list the address of every application that we've received, whether they're pending or approved. So you can see by address, how many are on that list for Yolanda Avenue. The overall statistic though, is how much of the city-wide industrial or available properties are being used for cannabis. Is that correct? Part of the issue is we have industrial land throughout the city. So we have a number of business certificates filed and applications. And we're in. I'll get to the city attorney. I was going to say, if we could, yeah. Well, we'll schedule that for another time. Thank you. Do we know, how much of the city-wide industrial or available properties are being used for Yolanda Avenue? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Do we know, does staff know if anywhere in the state is volatile manufacturing of cannabis is adjacent to residential, exists adjacent to residential property? I don't have that information. Could this property be used for cultivation under this conditional use permit? No, this conditional use permit proposal does not include cultivation. So they would have to go through another CUP process to be able to do that. It wouldn't be a major one, right? Well, there's two thresholds for cultivation in terms of permit process. So one is if it's less than 5,000 square feet of cultivation, then it's a minor use permit. And if it's greater than that, it's a major use permit. Okay. There was some discussion about whether our ordinance is consistent with ordinances and other municipalities. Is there any requirement that our ordinances be consistent with other municipalities ordinances? No, there's no requirement that we be consistent as we're going through the ordinance preparation process. We did some research on what other communities were wrestling with in terms of their own policies just to learn lessons learned. The state allows the city's local jurisdictions explicit permission to adopt their own or different setbacks with the state as a default. All right. There was some discussion earlier about the review of the conditional use permit before, after, annually. Can we make review shorter, a shorter period of time, or can we do a review based on complaints from neighbors? How does that work? If you mean do a review of the use permit year after operation, we have at times, accepted a condition to attach to the permit where you do a report out or check, and actually Bill Rose has some experience doing that, so let's let him. Yeah, basically we can do exactly as Claire said. If the council pleases, they could include a condition of approval for an annual by annual review, and we can report findings. And if we determine their satisfaction of that use permit, if it's still being complied with. So that is definitely a condition that the council could impose. And if the council in one of those periodic reviews decides that the applicant isn't living up to the conditions, what are our available remedies? I think it would go back to what I've said earlier. Staff would provide feedback, analysis, and evaluation. And if we found that there was non-compliance, we would give that recommendation to the council and give the options at that time. Okay. That's all the questions I have at this point. Is there any, yeah, Mr. Schwedemann. Thank you. I apologize for not asking earlier. I was keeping with the fire. I do have some safety questions since we have a Lieutenant here. Lieutenant, as we've heard today, we don't have any other manufacturing, so we don't have another facility similar to this one, but we do have other cannabis-related dispensaries in our community. Correct? Yes, we do. How many do we have? All Parkish. We have three. I'm not sure. Can you help out on that? Three. Three, thank you. I thought it was warm to that. Do you know how long they've been in our community? A number of years, the medical dispensaries. And so obviously it's a safe assumption there's product inside each of those dispensaries open to the public. Correct? So how does the product get into the dispensary? I'm not sure what their procedures are. But somehow deliveries have to be made. Somebody delivers it. Okay, and then based on just that, and I know it's not just the product that they're making, but I would make the assumption that the product that this company is looking at producing is contained currently in some of our dispensaries, the oil. I would assume so. Yes, I've never actually been inside one. So based on those three dispensaries, what have been the public safety concerns to the neighborhoods or what impacts of those three cannabis-related industries been on the neighborhoods or this community or the Santa Rosa Police Department? So we've had a number of crimes associated with some of the dispensaries. I don't know about impacts to the neighborhood because I don't believe any of them directly back up to residential. But we have had break-ins in the middle of the night, burglaries, that type of thing. So some of the concerns we've heard from the neighbors are the safety concerns of having this type of facility in the neighborhood. Someone fleeing from a robbery, gunshots being fired. Have we experienced anything that you've heard today occur with the existing establishments in our city? I'm not aware of any of the licensed businesses. Most of the crimes that we've had have dealt with unlawful grows, things like that. Not licensed facilities. I think we heard the same thing from our fire marshal. The issues have been with those unlicensed, not the licensed facilities. That's correct. And from a police department perspective, what, if any, research have you done or the department done with what's the experience in Colorado or other communities? I imagine there have been some law enforcement discussions about what are we seeing in the ways of people coming from back east as some other speakers have mentioned that it's not legal elsewhere in the country. What are some of those trends that we have learned about and are the things that we can proactively do to try to mitigate some of those safety concerns? Yeah, I don't know if we can predict that sort of crime from happening. It's well known that cannabis is legal to grow in California. So the product is here. It's also well known that cannabis products hold a high market value, much higher market value in other states. And in my opinion, and in most law enforcement opinion, that is why people come here from out of state to take those products. It's, frankly, it's easier to take them than it is to produce them. And so with your experience, have been those folks who are visiting our state for this product, have they been with licensed establishments or individuals whether legal or illegal establishments? It's been illegal establishments, residential, that sort of thing. All right, thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Tibbets? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Lieutenant Snetsiger, in your opinion, is cash the main motivation for, for example, the issues we saw at the retail cannabis facilities or is it more product based? My understanding is it's cash. I don't think it matters to the criminal to be honest with you. If they go there and they find cash, they leave with cash.  And if it's both, they're leaving with both. Okay, thanks. Further questions? Mr. Sawyer has this item and he is away from the dais right now. We're gonna wait for him to come back. Well, while we wait, may I ask for a summary of what you, as staff may have heard. If we were interested in moving this forward. I think Mr. Sawyer needs to hear that if he wants to include it in his motion. I will wait. You're on. So we'll begin this for discussion's sake. I'll introduce a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa denying an appeal and approving a conditional use permit for commercial cannabis manufacturing level two volatile, 0444 Yolanda Avenue, suite BAPN 044-091-065 file number CUP 18-0081 wait for the reading. Second. Thank you. So Mr. Sawyer, there was a number of, I don't know whether there are additions or just clarifications of the conditions of the use permit. Were you taking notes on those? We were taking notes. I didn't hear specific conditions. I heard a number of topics that came up repeatedly. They had to do with just a moment ago review annual or annual review of the use permit cash handling procedures, additional security measures. There was some talk about wages. And those are the notes that I took. Ms. Combs. My understanding is that we have a 60 foot setback to the room where hazardous material volatiles are being stored and I would prefer it stay at the 60 foot rather than be rearranged to the 30 foot. We had a conversation involving as a condition no cash on site at close of business and I appreciate that that's only half the problem. We had a condition regarding exceeding the safety standards for hazmat as described and I will leave staff to be more specific about what was described. I don't have that complete list. We had discussed 24-7 monitored security and my recollection was that there was supplementary in-person security when employees were on site. I'm not sure if I heard additional random overnight checks. If they could clarify whether or not there were additional random overnight checks. Why don't you go through all these and then we'll let... And then I heard a possible conversation coming forward about limitations of hours of exterior noise, for example, delivery trucks. That's the list I heard. And let me be clear. I think folks who live adjacent to a property have every right to request mitigations. And I hope that we can implement some of the mitigations as we move forward. I consider this list as a way of mitigating some of the concerns. So let me make a suggestion. Can I ask for a friendly amendment? Sure, you can ask. So I would like the conditions to include that there is a Class 1 Division 1 facility within a Class 1 Division 2 facility within the building. As described, I just want to make it a condition. There was discussion that Chapter 38 is exceeded. I don't think any specifics were given to us on that, but is that described in this application and can it be made part of the conditions? Unless there is a specific description of what those measures are that exceed that chapter, there would be no way to enforce. We wouldn't know what we would be getting in that condition, but if those elements are described in the application or in the plans, those could be enforced. And do we know at this point if they are described? No, they are not described specifically. Okay. Maybe we can require that we get those described. Okay. Is Chapter 38 a lengthy chapter? How are we going to do this tonight if that is not a lengthy chapter? It is a fairly specific requirement. I'm going to recommend something so that we get a chance to look at the plan. So why don't we compile the list of things that are concerned? I'm going to go through the document, pull those items out, read them back to the council so that we can get an idea of what actually were we think or don't think. I'm very concerned about a revolving conversation without consulting the plan. If we can get the list, staff will take a break, staff will pull from the document. That gives the applicant a time to comment on staff's questions. I'm going to go through these, Mr. Rogers, and I'll come back to you. The 60-foot setback for the actual extraction room be part of the conditions at deliveries and what's the opposite of deliveries? I'm getting tired here. Deliveries in their opposite directions and transport for hours. We see things like that. Thank you. There's no cash in the close-up business that we review the permit in six months. I'm not sure how the council was feeling about having a 24-hour I'll throw that one out there, too. The physical clarification, go ahead. Actually, I was just going to ask for clarification on that last point. What I heard was they have employees on site 24. So my question would be, is that security on site 24 hours? I am a little troubled by requiring that they be operating or have operational employees on site 24 hours a day. Again, I'm having a little hard time seeing the nexus for the safety of the community to have an actual operation going. Certainly a safety presence. I'm willing to make it a security 24-7 human being. I think that the applicant said that there would be a security component if there were people on site. I don't know whether there's a difference there or not, but if that makes you more comfortable, I'm willing to say 24-hour human being security. I just have a concern about compelling a business to operate during certain hours versus allowing them to. Are you suggesting that they need to have someone there all night overnight? When I heard 24-hour security, my question was, was that a human being? And I'm suggesting that we require that as part of the permit. I'm going to go to Mr. Rogers first. Mr. Mayor, my question is really about the Chapter 38. Given that none of us know what Chapter 38 says, none of us can speak to the adequacy of Chapter 38. So the condition of requiring them to exceed Chapter 38 seems like it's just a pat on the back, that then we're saying we're asking for more from them than what is the state law, which I understand is great, but I'd need to understand better from staff before we require them to exceed a code that I don't know that any of us actually understand what the code is. I'd need to understand the value as well. So for me, it all hinges back to the initial statement about safety within the neighborhood if there's adequate safety or not, whether they exceed this or not, whether they have on-site personnel or not, I want to make sure that we're able to review based on that benchmark of was the neighborhood safe. And so all these additional conditions, I'm okay with us discussing them, but for me, that's really the issue, and I think we're getting bogged down a little bit into discussions that I don't personally have the expertise to say whether or not we need to have them exceed that if that's the adequacy. Understood. I don't think that any of these are asking for anything that the applicant didn't say that they were doing. I just want these to be part of the condition so we make sure that what they say they're offering is actually required. To be clear, I'm completely fine with that. If what they're saying that they are doing, we hold them accountable to that. Yeah. Mr. Mayor, if I may, staff shares the same concerns that council member Rogers just indicated to be able to write that condition, then to be able to enforce that condition would be very difficult if it were as general as has been stated. So I think that what staff is hearing is the general consensus. There's an interest in understanding if that chapter 38 can be exceeded, but it needs to be specific. So if the council pleases, we can take that direction back as we adjourn and discuss that and present something more specifically to the council. That's fine with this council member. Go ahead, Mr. Rogers. And I apologize. And I do want to make sure that the delivery and transport hours, I'd suggest that probably a more reasonable approach is 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., which I think is consistent with other uses, but if staff could make a recommendation around that as well. But I do think that that's an important component of this. And when we talk about impacts on the neighborhood. Tibbets. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So what I think is happening here is really similar to the discussion that I brought to the council about a year ago relating to the cultivation facility on Maxwell Court. Something came forward. It was consistent with the requirements of the city's ordinance. And even though there were a lot of concerned neighbors with that particular project, we moved it forward for fear of doing anything ex post facto, which is what I think that this body should try to avoid. We did go back and we looked at setback requirements for cultivation facilities. And I actually know it wasn't setback. So I think we decided cultivation was not to be allowed in light industrial, which is what this is. Limited light industrial. It was specific to Maxwell Court. I always do that. But for me, when I look at this particular project, the C1 D1 being within C1 D2, it's held to a greater standard than similar uses.  The limited cash on hand. And also the fact that when I took the tour, I was told that everything, deliveries, processing would all happen behind a closed saligate. It wouldn't even be visible to the public. And I really thought, you know, I was actually going into to that project. I think a little bit of a bias towards maybe this is a little bit close to a residential neighborhood. But when I saw the work that went in and the thought that went into the project, I felt a lot better. But what I will say is, just as we're discussing these particular issues, I'm fine with requiring C1 D1 within C1 D2. I think the 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. by Council Member Rogers is a good idea. 60 foot setbacks, or at least where they would store the volatile setbacks of C1 D1 is a good idea as well. On-site security personnel, I think is always a good idea, but I think everybody should remember that their only job is to just really just observe and report. That's it. And so there's also tremendous cost burdens associated with hiring. A security officer starts at about $40 an hour in my experience. So I would maybe suggest that we require it at night if we're going to do it when facility's not in use. I think that would probably be the greatest opportunity for crime. On the issue of being able to review the permit, I actually do think that that is a worthwhile idea. But I do think that one year, two years, three years is too short of a period of time. I think we need to take into consideration the fact that this business, between probably a multi-year commercial lease for this facility on top of what has got to be a staggering tenant improvement cost of going into that facility should be guaranteed more time than a few years, just from a business perspective. So I'd encourage us all to take those points into consideration as we discuss this further. But I also applaud the council for having this in-depth of a discussion because I think we are doing our jobs. This comes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to clarify that what I'm interested in is making sure that we have guest conditions what the applicant has presented to us. The applicant has presented to us and additional protocols going above and beyond and listed some items. And we need to clarify what those items mean. This going above and beyond included background checks, security entrants and delivery points, security inventory, security training for employees, safety committee with weekly and monthly training and reviews. That's in their application to us as above and beyond. I would expect that we would make that part of their application. They've also listed community benefits and the community benefits they've listed, if I understand correctly, they have stepped back from. So I want to make sure that we're clear on that. I mean, I do have a concern about the depth of which we're diving in to regulate. I don't know if this is going to be for this business, if it's going to be for all businesses. I'm really in this enterprise. I have staffing concerns about the ability to meet it. I do have a concern even about how we're going to define community safety if we come back to review. Communities can change, dynamics can change. What is going to be the measuring point to that? I'm beginning to get a little concerned about what the conditions and how we're going to be able to enforce those conditions. So again, I'm laying it out to the council. I'm having more questions as we get deeper into this conversation than I'm being able to provide you some discreet answers about how we're going to be able to manage that. If this is going to be... I know we're talking about one property, but I'm starting to have concerns about future conversations. So I just put that out there. I hear what you're saying, councilmember. I'm going to push back a little bit because I am not asking for anything the applicant has not said. But again, that's what I'm trying to get an idea from. I'm trying to be clear about whether or not we're... I'm hearing a variety of different... And so I thought... That's why I'm trying to get a little clarity, councilmembers. I'm trying to understand what... Even as we caucus and we go away, what the exercise is. If that's the exercise, that's one thing. If we start to get into community safety measures, I want to know how we're developing those and what council's got expectations so that we can address those moving into the consideration. So I'm hearing one thing and then I'm hearing an array of other things. So I'm trying to get some consensus from the council on what we're caucusing about. I guess that's what I'm asking for. Can we hold them to what they are offering? Can we make their proposals... So that's what we prepared. We step away. We'll look at that. We'll report out on those issues. And then we can see if we come to some satisfactory. Is that something we can adjourn on and report to you all? Are you comfortable with that? How long of a break are we looking at here? 15 minutes. Mr. Schwedhelm. Sorry, just one more question. It strikes me when in this chamber we've had other community conversations about this issues, not specifically the cannabis, but when the land use has changed, specifically the SOI Dream Center, could we put a contingency, would it be possible for that where they had a neighborhood council that we said we will meet with the neighbors? So if issues develop, they don't have to come to council. Can we put that, I guess from the city attorney, can that be a condition that we impose or would that be something that the operator would have to voluntarily do? We could include it as a condition only if the operator consented to that and offered that up. So we would be looking for the applicant to hear that offer, thank you. Any other suggestions before we take a break? Mr. Soyer. Thank you, Mayor. This has to do, it's a minor thing, but it has to do with the no cash on site after business hours. I think that would be a very difficult thing to monitor. I'm not even sure, I've never heard a council regulate a business to say that they can't have cash on the premises after closing. I don't know how you would deal with that. It might even actually be more of a security issue carrying cash out of the business to take it to their car. I mean, they're not going to have Loomis coming in at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night. I think it's a, it may be a feel good ask so that the cash is not around, but this doesn't sound like a cash business and I think it's just kind of, I think it would tend just to muddy the water as opposed to actually create a safety issue in the, excuse me. Folks, please. In the middle of the night. So I'm not sure how we would monitor that unless they had Loomis coming and I don't even know how much cash we're talking about. I would, You're not helping your cause here, sir. If I may, I would suggest that when we we caucus and we come back that among the things that we present are not just what the condition might be, but how enforceable is it that we're going to be able to confirm that we're satisfied legally, we can impose that condition and include all of that when we come when we come back, because I think there are going to be some enforcement issues on some of the other items as well. Okay. Thank you. If I may ask with regard to enforcement issues, I'm aware that we have other entities that agree to enforce it. I think it's really obvious how we as a city would enforce it, but that we sometimes say, we'll pick this up by checking your records at the annual or every three-year review of your records. We don't always specifically enforce detail by detail item by item. So when you come back with the questions we're going to talk about, how we might manage to monitor. Well, but in fairness, I will say I'm not necessarily prepared to discuss full staffing models to meet those needs. We can do a little bit of that, but there are larger ramifications to some of those decisions. And I don't know how we fully... I'm committed to do it to some degree, but it's not going to be a full analysis on what a condition causes us to do as an organization in response to that condition. All right, we'll recess for 15 minutes. Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order. Who's leading off here? I'm looking around the table and they're looking at me, so it's looking like I'm going to try this. If you saw my scribble here, just bear with me. So we discussed a number of the items that we heard. We put language together best we could. We also conferred with the applicants. What we think is their understanding of these. What we recommend is once we get some specific language, a read back, and then ultimate confirmation from the applicant if they're okay with these. So I'm just going to go point by point. And I don't have the specific language. I'm going to kind of put it out and hopefully my colleagues here will put some specific condition language together while I state these. So the first one was the idea of a C1D1 within a C1D2 facility. The applicants indicated a concern with regard to precedent. However, they have indicated tonight they are willing to, to every extent possible, include that facility in this particular proposal. The council should note that that makes it challenging to enforce once it's out of the council's hands tonight. If then the burden comes back to staff. I'm going to ask, I'm going to ask, let's let Bill go through this and then we can ask questions. So as I mentioned, the applicants indicated concern obviously for precedent. However, this condition would be attached to this specific use permit for this proposal. The other thing that the council should remember on this is that type of detail comes at the building permit stage and based on other building permit codes, fire codes, as you start to layer those on to understand if we can absolutely do that, we don't know that at this point. And that's not an uncommon thing as the building permit plans come together. There could be other constraints that make that not feasible. So the applicant has intended, as I said, to make every possible effort to have that, but they want to keep the language, like I mentioned, every extent possible or to the extent feasible. And I'm just going to go through these and then we can have a further discussion. With regard to chapter 38 of the fire code, I'm going to come back to that in a moment. The applicant has sent me an email that I need to pull up and I will read to the council what they're willing to adhere to. It's specifics. It has to do with CFM, I believe cubic feet per minute. So I will read that into the record just momentarily. The next one has to do with the 60-foot setback for the extraction room as a condition of approval. This would be for volatile storage. Again, they will make every effort. And this goes back to the idea that once the building permit plans get developed, there may be other constraints within the building itself or because of the building and our fire codes that make it technically impossible. They are okay with the limitation on deliveries, pick up drop-off of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., nothing past 8 p.m., nothing before 7 a.m. The no cash after close of business, they indicated they did not want to do that. That is something that staff finds problematic as well. As far as the ongoing review, the proposal is to do a 12-month staff review to ensure that the project is in compliance with the conditions of approval. That can be memorialized through a zoning clearance. That is something that we've done in the past. So it would be a staff-level review. It's not reopening the use permit. It's not another public hearing. So, Mr. Rose, through the mayor, if I may? Let's make sure he's finished. I've only got two more left, so I'll try to go quickly here. Regarding the onsite security, the applicants have a concern about disclosing their full security plan for obvious reasons. So they would prefer not to make that a condition of approval. There are, as I understand, state requirements for 24-hour monitoring, and that could be a condition of approval. So, we're going to have to make sure that the application is in compliance with the requirements. So, it almost goes without saying, but we can put a finer point on that by including it as a condition. And then the last item was the community council and the applicants. We had a very brief discussion. They were okay with that. I would encourage the council to have a specific discussion with the applicants as to what they're willing to do and how that actually takes shape. Okay, thank you. Questions? Ms. Combs, you jumped in first. I will. Mr. Timmons. Thank you. It was just quick. The 12-month zoning clearance, they were okay with that? They were okay with that, yes. Other questions? Ms. Combs? I'm trying to understand how we do if every effort is made. I mean, I heard there was enforcement questions and that strikes me as a pretty big enforcement question is what does it mean to have every effort made? How my daddy used to say to me that an oral contract was as good as the paper it was written on. And what I have here actually is written commitment to do certain things in this form that I am now hearing rollback and that makes me exceedingly nervous. And I have to say I was actually pretty excited about the prospect of good jobs in an industry that is what I like to call a bright color industry.   I'm hearing that being rolled back. I want to understand if it is in fact being rolled back and how we would enforce whether or not every effort was made. If I may respond just a suggestion as to some of these items where there's the comma to the extent feasible it could be to the extent feasible pursuant to building code or fire code. It could be specific reasons why they can't be complied with and that's something that we look into as well routinely. So if another ruler regulation interfered with this implementation I would understand. But if the feasibility has to do with for example finances I'm sure I'm as clear on where that line of it's too costly is. So I don't have a problem if it has to do with the fire department says you can't do it. That's fine. But otherwise I'm not happy with the flexibility. How do we do that? Can you clarify? I was going to suggest some things. I'm not going to do that. I would encourage which I hesitate to do without having to first run it by staff but I'll do that anyway. Would be that the requirement is that they shall do this and to the extent except to the extent of the only adjustments that can be made are adjustments that are needed in order to comply with codes and I think we can draft that language. That's exactly the point that I was trying to make. Is the same true then for the 60 foot setback? It's at the council's pleasure. I'm asking if we can make that the same. We can make that. We can have that language in that nice southern way when I'm working. Yes, that would be possible to have that language parallel for both C1D1, C1D2 and the 60 foot setback. Any other questions? Mr. Sawyer, I'm going to ask you to restate your motion. So I'll reintroduce the resolution of the council, the city Santa Rosa denying an appeal and approving a conditional use permit for commercial cannabis manufacturing level 2. Located at 444 Yolanda Avenue, Suite B, APN 044-091-065 file number CUP18-0081 and wave further reading. Mr. Rogers. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Rose, you said you were going to get back to the Chapter 38 conversation and read us an email. Yes, indeed. I'll do that right now. So this is from Brian Elliott. He was forwarded to me. It says the CFM cubic feet per minute airflow of 1.5 CFM exhaust and make-up air exceeds the Chapter 38 and National Fire Protection Association requirement by 50%. The standard is 1 CFM per square foot. We will create 1.5 CFM per square foot. Can you interpret a little bit for the council what that actually in effect means? I cannot, but we can. 50 CFM is what is in most bathrooms. You're just looking at the airflow from that space, so you're removing more air rapidly from that space. That's where you're exceeding what Chapter 38 calls for. And does that make it less flammable? Yes. So there's less likely to have an accident than by, it sounds like 50%. The airflow is 50%. I'm going to say it backwards, but that's correct. Thank you. For clarification, how do I add the C1D1, C1D2 language as presented by staff and the 60-foot setback from the volatile storage? It's not just storage, it's the volatile process. I understand that it's actually the volatile process and not the storage. It's just the processing. Where that room is is to be 60 feet as was stated by staff from the property line. So those would be added to your emotion? Yes. These two pieces. They're also. I thought that was part of the C1D1, C1D2, the CFM. Is that correct? That's the Chapter 3. If you'd like, I can read through these and if you agree, you can just ask staff to indicate and I'll try to summarize these and go quickly. If I could really fast, Mr. Rose, not to get too far into the weeds, but the 60 feet from the wall, is that an actual measurement or was that a generic number that was thrown out and should the resolution end up reading to exceed 60 feet of that building as is available in the building code. I just don't want us to get caught where we say 60 feet, it actually is 59 feet is the only thing that's plausible and then the applicant doesn't know how to move forward on that. Is there a way we can word that better? That's what we're proposing is that it's at least 60 feet from the property line except as may be required to meet building code requirements. Perfect, thank you. I'll go through these. So C1D1 facilities within a C1D2 facility shall be required within the building to the extent possible subject to all relevant building and or fire code regulations. Or except to the extent required to meet building code requirements and I'm presuming not just building code but building electrical fire all of those life safety codes. And that's a little different than saying comma to the extent possible, comma what you said not what you said. We'll strike to the extent possible, we'll keep the language as the city attorney indicated. For number two this is the project shall comply with chapter 38 of the California fire code except with regard to the cubic air flow of 1.5 cubic feet per minute exhaust and make up air which would exceed it by 50%. That can be specific, it doesn't have to have any other... Can we just say exceed by 50% in case the code changes? Exhaust and make up air? That would work. I would check in with the applicant because if the codes are changed so that the codes are 150% of what they are currently I'm not hearing from the applicant that they're going to want to go another 50%. But if we make the ordinance 50 to extent beyond the code by 50% as opposed to putting the actual it would become a moving target. It could potentially become a moving target. And just at that point once we finish this read out then I would recommend a read back back to the applicant or make sure that they can indeed comply with these as we understand them. The next one is the 60 foot setback from the property line for the extraction room shall be required except for subject to compliance with all life safety codes. The deliveries pick up and drop off shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Planning and economic development staff shall conduct a 12 month review of the project for compliance. Excuse me. My understanding was that was a two part that was deliveries and delivery and out go. I said pick up and drop off. So the next item is within 12 months staff will conduct planning and economic development staff will conduct a review of the conditional use permit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. The zoning clearance shall be issued to memorialize compliance. Look to staff to help me on this one is the community council we haven't fully evaluated heard from the applicant what they're willing to do they did indicate a willingness to do it but I don't know what the specifics would be. And then lastly with regard to the on-site security as I mentioned the applicants indicated they did not want to specify and require a person on site. They will be in compliance with the state mandate that there is 24 hour monitoring. Do you want to make that your motion? Excuse me. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Thank you Mr. Mayor. For the conversation about the community council would it be so simple as to suggest to the applicant something like biannual meetings that are open to every neighbor within the neighborhood to address concerns? And I apologize. I wasn't on council when we did the community the community council I don't know why Mr. Schwedhelm looks like he wants to help with this. What I would suggest I don't think council needs to get in the middle of this I think there's an interest to the business and neighbors to actually work together but we have two separate parties let them work on a plan whether it be I have no idea what the capacity is what the interest is from the neighbors so let them decide and maybe come back here somewhere in this conditional use permit where we can give the okay but my intent is this needs to be an ongoing conversation that if issues do develop doesn't need to be resolved here at council between the business they want to be a good neighbor which I heard somewhere in the presentation the neighbors that have some concerns about this let them work it out and if there are some concerns that's when come back to council no I'm sorry sir let us have a discussion first How about this the applicant team can designate they can conduct a neighborhood meeting and city staff can attend be part of that neighborhood meeting it's much like the neighborhood meetings that we do I'm sure staff did the SAI neighborhood because some of those same concerns in that project were raised so I think it's had a successful resolution of the neighborhood and the business and the one thing we might also recommend is that that meeting occur post occupancy and perhaps at a time that gives time for this use to actually operate so maybe in 12 months post occupancy so everybody has a chance to see how the operation is going 12 months seems like a long time just saying two points of clarification is it just they appoint a liaison which would be ongoing and a one time meeting six months after so not an ongoing meeting and then the director just raised a question about requiring that that meeting include city staff maybe just an invitation to city staff so that so we require neighborhood meetings on projects pre application neighborhood meetings the city council could just require us to conduct a city facilitated neighborhood meeting and work with the applicants to have a representative at that meeting it would be held at city hall it would be facilitated by city staff we do these frequently Mr. Sawyer thank you mayor could we also get the results of that neighborhood meeting back to the council does that create a a onerous without having to do the major staff report just a conditional report on the satisfactory whether the neighbors are pleased with the project six to nine to 12 months hence I'm not sure if they did that with the dream center and that wouldn't necessarily be a condition of approval is in my opinion hearing is I think we need to have a meeting before we would have the report back on the condition so that the meeting needs to happen prior to the formal meeting staff can lead it into that conversation but that would be a condition of getting to that formal review process which would meet your concern about having the report back we could do that that leads to having it happen before the 12 months because it's leading into that formal report back about compliance thank you further questions I am hoping that we can also put on a future as a future discussion a revisiting of the setbacks to residential and as well as the conversation about whether or not we're interested in looking at concentration of particular businesses within the scope of either cannabis or a number of other whether you want to do that broadly or narrowly let me know I think we have members of the subcommittee here I think they're going to get into those conversations so I would suggest that you raise that with the subcommittee members so that they can start moving that conversation forward and the chair is not here but we do have a discussion that we've already agendized around schools I think we can take it back to the chair and let him know that this additional component is I'm not completely clear yet on the community meeting my understanding is that in addition to SAI I think Catholic Charities has a fairly frequent meeting with the neighbors to see how things are going that that's not always staffed I had thought that was the direction we were going is that not what we're are we talking about having a one-time meeting to see how it's going well again I think you all can direct I'm concerned about I'm expecting to facilitate ongoing meetings I don't think facilitate the Catholic Charities those are happening outside of the other conversation what I'm really hoping for is that they have a big meal together with the hot dog cook off and have conversations and socialize and get to know each other that may be wishful thinking but I'm not really thinking the formal staff get together with the community conversation and be neighbors we've got a motion we don't have a second Council Member Sawyer can you repeat or maybe staff what the contingencies are here I think I heard what was read and I'm for it but I just want to verify before I reissue my second I can you want to do it Bill I can do it in very specific terms I'm sorry I didn't hear the last part of that question can you just run through Council Member Sawyer made a motion what we're adding to the conditional use permit as part of his new amended motion I'll go as quickly as possible here C1 D1 facilities will be located within the C1 D2 facilities within the building subject to compliance with applicable life safety codes then we have to do the C1 D2 project shall be in compliance with chapter 38 of the California fire code except it will exceed the CFM requirements for exhaust and make up air by 50% we corrected that so what we should be giving is except that the airflow shall be and we're going to give the number over time, they don't have to keep being 50% over. The airflow will be 1.5 CFM for exhaust and make-up air. The project, the extraction room shall be located 60 feet from the property line, subject to compliance with applicable life safety codes. Deliveries, including pickup and drop-off, will be limited to between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Planning and economic development staff will conduct a review of the conditional use permit 12 months from the date of occupancy for compliance with the conditions of approval. If the project complies with the conditions of approval, zoning clearance will be issued. The project will comply with the mandated security requirements for 24-hour monitoring. And with regard to the community council, I don't know if that was fully resolved yet. So the public meeting prior to facilitated by the staff prior to the earlier items. Yeah, so if I'm hearing it correctly, there will be a city-facilitated neighborhood meeting prior to the annual review of the compliance with the conditional use permit. We were talking about establishing an ongoing neighborhood meeting that the staff is not engaged with. So again, I'm not sure how to monitor that long-term and what the requirements are going to be. We do a lot of things that are complaint-based. I hear that that's your desire. Is that your motion? I'm not looking for annual meetings with the community unless it is the desire of the applicant and the appellants. So I'm going to jump in in second. Councilman Sawyer's motion with everything that you just listed. Mr. Rose, and I just want to say I think that this process, although lengthly, has been very deliberative and thoughtful. And, you know, it's tough to say we've got this ordinance. And oh, by the way, here's these additional things, but it is a conditional use process. So I hope that this helps get us in the right direction. We have a motion and a second. Are there any final comments? I'm going to make one. I'm being one of the members of the subcommittee. I understand the concerns of the neighbors and it's actually, it's fear. And I understand that fear. I had the same concerns when I first heard about the close proximity of this particular business to neighbors, but I also had the opportunity to speak with staff and to hear of the safeguards that were being put into place by the applicant. And being first is very, very difficult. Not only to be a neighborhood that is first affected by an applicant's, the application of a business. And it's very difficult on the business as well, being the first one before a body and before neighbors because there are lots of unknowns. And until we have more time to pass between the legalization of cannabis for recreational use after it was legalized from medicinal, until there's a lot of time that has passed and fear is replaced with knowledge and experience, these conversations will be painful. And I think that it is, the council has done its best tonight, although you did not get that 600 foot setback that you were looking for as yet. I think that we are trying the best that we can to try to mitigate the fears of the neighbors. And it is my expectation and my hope that these concerns will dissipate over time when the actual, when the business is actually in production and working and there are no problems and the situations that you are concerned about do not come to pass. That's my expectation. It was always our hope on the subcommittee that this particular business model be treated not unlike a distillery or a wine producer or any other business that is an industry that they be treated with the same kind of requirements as other businesses because that's the fair thing to do. And what is unusual about this is we have had a product that has been illegal in the United States technically for many, many decades and that has now changed. The landscape has changed. The profile of the business has changed and we are trying to slog through as the community changes because this is what was voted on by the people. So it is painful, it is difficult and I'm hoping that it will be easier in the future. Any other comments? I'm not going to repeat everything, but John I think you really hit a lot of the same points and struggles that I've had. My evolution just with this whole cannabis industry from when I started my law enforcement career but as you mentioned the people have spoken and I think our subcommittee in this community I think he's done an excellent job in dealing with a very difficult situation. What is the right answer? Because we all have different variances of how we're going to predict the future. I think I heard earlier today three of these facilities are in my backyard in Northwest Santa Rosa. I back up to the light industrial area. I know it's coming, I'm not happy about it and so just to echo what you said we're trying to do our best here and try to put the safeguards in there because safety is our biggest concern and I have a level of confidence in these providers and the producers that it's going to be safest in everyone's best interest for this to work out and I'm hoping we're going to be able to accomplish that. Mr. Mayor if I may the applicants have indicated that they can accept all of the conditions that were added to the resolution. Okay. Great. You know we had a conversation at the beginning of the meeting tonight about mistakes that have been made in the district election notification process and how we're struggling with that new thing. We're obviously struggling with this new industry as well. I I in a lot of ways I regret that the struggle has to play out in such a public fashion and we're obviously trying to figure things out as we go along but that's part of being transparent and part of the public process so you get to see the sausage being made. My problem here is that the applicants came in making a lot of promises and they're going to try and live up to some and others just went off the table when we indicated that we wanted to make them part of the conditions of this and that makes me very uncomfortable when things are put up there as being benefits of this project being cognizant of the neighborhoods such as having 24-hour human security such as not having cash on the premises and the community benefit of living wage that those things are pulled back when we want to memorialize them in the permit so I'm going to be a no vote on this and with that your vote's council and that passes five to one. Thank you very much for your patience. I do have one card I have more than one card for final public comment. Is Andrew Schmitz still here? Go ahead. Three minutes? I actually came by so she's compelled to come by here. I'll have a thank you to the city council. Can you raise that? I'm nervous here. It's my first time from Mike in a long time. Council men and women, I'd like to sincerely thank you for what you do for the homeless community. I am homeless and I utilize the service you provide here. I'm outside looking in. I'm from Florida and people don't know what they have here. I just want to say you're doing a great job that you're doing an excellent job. My hometown does not provide these things. What led me out here is my father lives in Forestville he's a homeowner and loves his county. I fell in love with Santa Rosa and if you're anything about this country in Florida, in this part of the country it's a different world and I've had more healing more counseling I see my life becoming whole because of this community I want to thank the people here in law enforcement the fire department Can I interrupt you for just one minute? We still have a meeting going on here could you take your conversations outside please? I'll see I decided to make a home here as an adult to go back to school out here and I've been through so much in my life to make a simple short, I'm a bisexual male which is hard, I could never have stayed in my hometown without putting a bullet in my mouth I could never be free with that and this is how it powers me, I want to thank what y'all have done in Bethan's community for a while like when y'all took off the ship made yourselves open for people where they could be still used and come in I thought it was amazing, I'm surprised that you didn't go in there that's how much y'all have worked hard and don't understand why people don't go in there I just want to say thank you I'm one of the people that I'm grateful for what the city does I see myself going to college I'm an IT guy from Florida I see I make a great career out here this opportunity and I'm very nervous and I want to say thank you I came here off the hip and with off my heart, nothing written down and it's one thing, maybe it's for this I like to back something up this late as the night we're at the Renna Center Renna Center's been a refuge for me well I see that it's a refuge for a lot of people you don't realize it's the county it's the only place you can go with at middle of the night if you say you came off the 101 from the city and got lost their mind at the bar and ended up going there it's my game of ride if they're not from here, they can't get in you have to have an ID from this county they have to have that and I just want to back her up I've seen women get turned away that needed to be there that night because of the streets and it's the only place in this county to go you know, the night for anything like that I just think this should be open door policy for whoever shows up at the door because that's the people who want help they're like asking for help and that's just an ID especially if you're not from here, it's hard so if somebody comes to this city and they have nowhere to go but they go there it's the only option they have and they can't get in to give them a safe place especially if they're in the streets we're talking about women I've seen this a lot of women out there that get hurt I'm a protector, I'm a family man anyway, I'll stop there I just want to thank you very much thank you and good luck to you Nicole Vanucci no, Nicole Bob Hanson has gone also with that, we are adjourned