Okay, I'm going to call to order a meeting of the city of Santa Rosa Planning Commission and ask for a roll call, please Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present Okay, next we move to item 3 approval of our October 25th 2018 Meeting minutes commissioners any corrections or comments on those minutes? Okay, seeing none. Those are going to stand as printed Next we move to item 4 which is public comments. It's a time for anybody who's here and wishes to speak on a matter of interest to the commission to do so if you're here wishing to speak on One of the other items that's on the agenda if it's noticed as a public hearing you'll have an opportunity during that item, but You're of course free to speak now on matters that are not on the agenda so if you speak you'll have three minutes and I'm going to Open the public hearing if you want to speak please approach the podiums at the top of the room And I'm not seeing anybody approach, so I'm going to Close public comment and Move to item 5 planning commissioners reports commissioners anything to report today Commissioner Cisco Yeah, I just want to let you know that this morning the waterways advisory committee had a meeting We were able to hear Another update on the bike and pedestrian master plan and particularly how it relates to our Creek master plan Draft plans now online and seeking public comment through December 20th we're told that Staff is targeting February 14th for coming before us and then With accompanying general plan amendments and then hopefully in March going before City Council We also looked at a project on Hopper apartment complex that had been lost in the fire and replacing units there design issue bringing it before us as to whether or not to Have encroachment in the 30-foot setback. It had been existing pre-fire and The applicant was looking at design options and as to whether or not we would you know go ahead and grant that Permission the applicant Was very responsive to feedback and is going to be looking at rearranging some of the parking To open up the the creek area and get and get most of everything out of the 30-foot setback so very Very cooperative applicant and a good meeting. It's not something that will come in front of us Thank you any other reports from the Commission Okay, let's move on to item 6 department reports All right. Thank you So let's see a couple of things look forward to this weekend on Saturday. I know I think all of you have Registered for this opportunity at Sonoma State University's annual planning commissioners Seminar and it's always a great opportunity to learn about current events and land use planning and Environmental review process and so looking forward to see you seeing all of you there at Sonoma State this Saturday And then looking forward to our upcoming commissioning calendars. We are still and we're trying to manage the busy schedules up ahead of us with As many as 25 public hearings just related to cannabis dispensaries alone So we're I'm doing my best to manage the agenda so they're more even this is an unusual Agenda tonight. We had some noticing area error. So kind of combined to two agendas in one They shouldn't be this long. We should be able to manage them and have reasonable lengths of time for forthcoming agendas, but looking ahead we have three dispensaries scheduled for December 13th meeting and then looking into January we'll have three to four For each of the forthcoming meetings through probably March We will have other non cannabis items, but for right now, that's what I'm tracking because there's so many to schedule and then also looking at our upcoming council items that you might already know about but of general interest to planning commission We have on December On December 18th Will they city council will be looking at our density bonus ordinance, which the commission weighed in on And if should one of our items fall through tonight the resilient city ordinance, they would also take a look at that Uh, and then in January 8th There's a number of items and one of which is a joint city council planning commission study session, and that's the downtown specific plan update scoping session we'd like to Discussion right up front from our process. It will be a fast-paced process So right up front we would like to hear from the city council and planning commission on the scope of that downtown update We'll also be doing a joint session with the chb cultural heritage board and design review board We'd like to hear from them as well as a kickoff That will probably Be in january our Planning commission city council joint session will be on january 8th In addition and following that study session will be a session for city council only, but it will be on our general plan update We're looking at different options And looking at trying to get a general direction from our council in terms of Are we looking at doing a compliance only general plan update or something much more comprehensive and variations in between If we need to do something more comprehensive We will need to know what types of grant opportunities we need to look for to support that type of project In addition there'll be a couple of report items on january 8th one will be On the downtown specific plan update the community engagement strategy piece So that's where it's a report item presented to the city council to get their specific direction on the engagement piece of our downtown update and then also related To our downtown opportunities a discussion on public private partnership opportunities So I know all of those types of things are of interest to you. That's why I want to let you know And that's that's that's what I have to report Thank you very much. I want to thank staff for setting up the planning commissioners conference Done it before it's a ton of fun really educational This year if we get there at 8 15 we get to rummage through a bunch of books about california land use and planning And I will be there bright and early to collect my my nerdy loot So thanks very much looking forward to it Okay, let's move to item seven statements of abstention by commissioners commissioners Is anybody abstaining tonight from any item? I have a statement of abstention. I'm abstaining from item 10.3 the marriott residents in item My law firm that employs me represents certain of the applicants. I've had nothing to do with Actual work on this project in any way, but it is certainly a conflict of interest and for that reason I'm abstaining from any consideration of that item Okay tonight. We don't have any study sessions or consent items. So we're going to move to item 10 public hearing and Specifically item 10.1 one-time automatic 12 month tentative map extension rezoning And Giving the staff presentation is Amy Nicholson Thank you chair Edmondson members of the commission the item before you is a zoning code text amendment To chapter 2016 of the city code entitled resilient city development measures The proposed amendment would allow for a one-time automatic 12 month extension To be applied to all tentative maps and their associated entitlements that Had not expired as of october 9th 2017, which is the day after the fires and this text amendment was drafted in an effort to help address the housing needs citywide following the fires And as a result of some of the challenges people have been experiencing due to the shortage of labor and materials and also professional services Just a little background in october of 2016 the council accepted a housing action plan To address the ongoing unmet housing needs and in june of 2017 the council set priorities One of which was implementing that comprehensive housing strategy In october of 2017 the fires damaged or destroyed Approximately 3 000 residential units and 100 commercial structures within the city And a local emergency proclamation was Declared and the resilient city Combining district was created at that time In december of 2017 the council had a study session Regarding what could be done and the resilient city Development measures ordinance was adopted in april and may of the following year to address many of those concerns The proposed text amendment is brief and this is not the language itself But it's just a summary of what it is. So the first part as previously mentioned Would allow for an automatic 12 month extension for any tentative subdivision maps Vesting tentative subdivision maps and tentative parcel maps, which Were in effect on october 9th of 2017 It would automatically extend those maps by one year and any associated entitlement Including like a hillside development permit or conditional use permit for a small lot subdivision This automatic extension would apply to a total of 36 subdivisions within the city, which represent 1 227 housing units And just to clarify the extension would not increase the total amount of extensions currently allowed under the city code So our city code allows five and this would just be one of those five extensions This is a graphic of the subdivisions Which could benefit from this extension and as you can see they're scattered around the city They're located in each of the four quadrants 34 of the subdivisions are residential and to our commercial and and that Spreadsheet is set as an attachment in your package The zoning code text amendment was noticed in the press democrat and a notice was also emailed to the community advisory board and was posted at city hall Adoption of the proposed ordinance has been found exempt from the california environmental quality act pursuant to two sections 15061 b3 the common sense exemption And that's where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the activity May have a significant effect on the environment And this determination has been made based on the fact that sequa review has been completed for each of these maps and Each project would be reviewed to ensure that that it still falls within that scope And in addition the project is consistent with sequa guideline section 15183 In that the text amendment is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning The tentative maps implement the general plan and this ordinance would not allow for any additional uses or densities So with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission by resolution recommend to the city council adoption of an ordinance amending city code chapter 2016 Resilient city development measures to add a one-time automatic 12 month extension for tentative maps and associated entitlements valid on october 9th 2017 And we're happy to answer any questions Okay, thanks very much I think we'll hold off on any questions you might have until after the public hearing unless any commissioner disagrees Okay, this is a public hearing I don't have any cards on this item, but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak If anybody's here wishing to make any comments on This item after I open the hearing if you'd please approach the podium at the top of the room Either of them state your name for the record and you'll have three minutes to speak I'm going to Open the public hearing and I'm not seeing anybody approach. So I will Close the public hearing And bring it back to the commission for any questions of staff commissioners any questions about this item Best your weeks Amy if we approve this tonight, when would it go to council? The plan is to go to council on december 18th. Thank you. Other questions for staff um, I just have one verification For the city attorney The resolution was tweaked a little bit over the last day or two with the language on page three A or is that correct as I'm not sure about that and just wanted to clarify because That's a correct language Okay, okay. Well, there's no further questions. We have one resolution Is any commissioner wanting to move the resolution? I'll go ahead and move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa recommending to the city council approval of an ordinance amending zoning code chapter 20-16 Resilient city development measures to add a one-time automatic 12 months 10 map extension To address housing and economic development needs within the city following the tubs and nuns fires of october 2017 File number re z 18-012 and waive for the reading of the text I'll second Okay, the resolution was moved by commissioner sisco and seconded by commissioner duggin Commissioners who votes please that passes with seven eyes and that concludes item 10.1 And we're going to move to item 10.2 panera bread and cafe conditional use permit for 885 hopper avenue This is an ex parte disclosure commissioner peterson anything to disclose I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose Mr. Rodigan I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose Best your weeks. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose commissioner sisco I visited the site have no new information commissioner duggin I visited the site and have no new information and Commissioner Collier. I also visited the site and have no further information. And I visited the site and I have no further information. And the staff presentation is going to be given by Adam Ross. Thank you Chair Edmondson and members of the Commission. My name is Adam Ross. I'm with the Planning and Economic Development Department. I'm a city planner here in the city of Santa Rosa. The project before you is a Panera bread cafe with drive-through including a 25% parking reduction. They're the proposed hours of operation of 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Sundays. The required parking is 60 spaces with the proposed 45 spaces for this project. The drive-through includes seven stacking spaces as well. And the project itself used to be the Applebee's before it was burned down in the 2017 fires. Project site is within a existing commercial area next to Highway 101 at 885 Hopper Avenue. Here's an aerial view on this one. It shows the existing as is now where it was burned down. The former Applebee's right here was McDonald's with the drive-through and an attached gas station. Here was an Arby's with drive-through as well and a Taco Bell. The Taco Bell is standing. I don't know if they are in operation currently. The Coles is in operation and they had minimal damage from the fire. On July 17th, 2018, a pre-application meeting was held with city staff. The project was then formally submitted on August 7th for the conditional use permit. And on August 14th, the notice of application was distributed to property owners within 400 feet of the site. And on September 26th, a notice of complete application was sent to the applicant. The general plan land use designation is Retail and Business Services, which is intended to accommodate retail and service enterprises and offices and restaurants. The zoning for this project is CG-RC, which is general commercial within the Resilience City overlay. The Resilience City overlay is for properties affected by the fires. Normally, this project without a drive-through is permitted by right use for cafes, restaurants, and similar to this one. But because it has a drive-through, a conditional use permit is required for this project. Here's an image of the previous layout of the Applebee's, where on the next slide we'll see the similar circulation for the site. The lost parking is kind of in this area right here on the east side of the building, as well as the north side, which now accommodates the drive-through. So here's the drive-through. It's a little hard to see, so I apologize. But this has a capacity of seven stacking spaces. The circulation is essentially the same minus the new drive-through for the site. Here's just a floor plan for reference, entrance, some outdoor patio seating, and the general layout of the new Panera bread. Here's the proposed landscape plans. I wanted to point out the screening for the drive-through. It's a bright and tight plant. On the next slide I'll show you what it looks like, but it's used for screening, commonly used for screening and security hedges, if you will. There's about a three-foot elevation here for this landscaped area, and here right along here is the exit off the highway 101. And so this is the bright and tight. So they proposed to put in 37 of these plants along the outside of the drive-through, so right along this way. And just some proposed elevations for your reference. Here's the front of the site. Here's the south side, I believe, of the site. And then this side would be where the cars are against it as they go through the drive-through facility. And again, here's the window on the north side of the building. Staff received one phone call from a manager at Coles. She was concerned with debris left, not just on this site, but on other parts of the site. But since then, the applicant has done all the necessary cleaning and debris removal, including the necessary permits, and was given approval to move forward with this entitlement by the chief building inspector in the city of Santa Rosa. This project qualifies for a class II categorical exemption under secret guidelines 15302, and that the project involves replacement of a commercial structure of substantially the same size, purpose, and capacity on the same site as the structure being replaced. And a class 32 categorical exemption as an infill development because the site is under five acres surrounded by urban use, supported by a traffic study, as it does not create injurious anything negative with this project that wasn't already there before. With that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that Planning Commission approve Resolution CUP 18-120 to allow Panera Bread Cafe with drive-through and a 25% parking reduction within the Resilience City Overlay District, located at 885 Hopper Avenue in Santa Rosa. Okay. Thanks very much. Thank you. Is any commissioner object to moving directly to the public hearing? Okay. I do have one card on the site. It is from Mr. Yulberg, who is the representative of the applicant. He says that he's available to answer any questions from the commission. So otherwise, I think I'm just going to open the public hearing and we can call Mr. Yulberg if we have questions that are relevant. So this is a public hearing. Any member of the public who's here wishing to speak on this item, please approach the podiums at the top of the room and you'll have three minutes to speak. And with that, I'm going to open the public hearing. And I'm not seeing anybody approach, so I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for any questions for staff. Commissioner, is there any questions for staff? Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I'm interested in slide 18 that says the project qualifies for a class two exemption because the previous restaurant didn't have a drive-through, correct? That is correct. So why wouldn't we need to do some more questions? So I'm going to go to the next slide. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I'm up here. I'm looking forward to having three different exemptions applied to it. This exemption does apply at least to portions of the project, arguably to the entirety of the project, but in any event we have also identified the class 32 so each of them applies to that it does comply with CEQA. So does that answer the question? Sort of. Yeah, I'm just concerned. I'm just wondering why we don't need to explore the effect of the moving and stationary and idling cars on a site when we didn't have that condition before saying that this project is substantially the same. Well, again, if, you know, if that's not a comfortable finding and I'm going to pull up the exact language of the class 2, but the class 32 independently applies and that one can stand on its own and all of the substantial evidence in support of that has been provided in the staff report and the theory being on these that the legislature has categorically determined that certain types of projects are per se exempt from any additional review outside the scope of the very narrow set of resource areas identified in that exemption. I'm going to look at that language and Mr. Ross has something to add. My addition was more for the class 32 exemption in that there was a focus traffic study included with the submittal which determined that there was no it determined that it would be less significant use than what was previously there before than the Applebee's. Thank you. Thank you. Madam, what's happening on the other sites there that were burned? I don't know that question. Thank you. I have a question just about the traffic study. There are some conclusions in the traffic study. I think just one of the conclusions is about the adequacy of the parking as a discussion of the fact that the queuing capacity and the fact that there's a drive-through makes the reduction appropriate. I think that I follow that analysis and there's also some about the stopping site distance. Stopping site being for motorists who are driving by and see the sign and think that they want to go into the parking lot whether they have enough time driving at the speed limit to safely make that decision and I assume it's based on some kind of objective standard but I'm not sure that I noticed it in the traffic study. Maybe just if you could give any comment elaborating on that. So the city traffic engineer who worked on this project provided comments. He couldn't be here today because of the traffic and the lack of traffic and adequate stopping site distance. That was what you were getting at, correct? So his words were the line of sight to the east was a concern due to preexisting sign monuments that may have blocked the line of sight. The westbound speed was not obstructed. The corner sight distance showed that there are no obstructions and that the line of sight to the west was not obstructed either. And in addition to that there was something about the relevant consideration under one or more findings for this project where the site was operating as an Applebee's and no reported traffic. So I think that's why it was briefly discussed. And if that I hope that answered your question, but if not please. Yeah, I think it did. That was great. Thank you. Commissioner, any further questions for staff for the applicant representative? I wanted to just follow up with Commissioner Duggan on that question. Thank you. Thank you. The next slide here is that the class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. Then there are four examples that the examples are including but not limited to. So we felt that it fit within that exemption, but also felt that it fit within the class 32. So either or both will suffice for the sequel review of this project. Okay, thank you. Okay, we have one resolution on this item. Is any commissioner wanting to make a motion moving a conditional use permit and parking reduction for the Panera bread with drive-through located at 885 Hopper Avenue, APN 148-150-034 file number CUP18-120 and waive for the reading of the next. Second. Okay, the resolution was moved by Commissioner Ciskev and seconded by Commissioner Veronica. Commissioner, any comments or comments? I just want to briefly mention again with regard to drive-throughs. I'm in support of the project. There's no basis in the record for me to think that I can't make the findings and I can make the findings and drive-throughs are completely permitted under the code in the manner that the code discusses, but if we're going to have a pedestrian friendly city and consistent with our climate action and we're seeing the devastation of having an auto-centric society and I think that trying to have it both ways is not going to work and we're going to have to make some more decisive changes to make the city more livable and less of a malignancy on the environment, but the law is the law and I have to support the project on that basis. Okay, the resolution was moved by Commissioner Cisco and seconded by Commissioner Veronica. And that passes with 7 ayes. That concludes item 10.2. I'm going to leave the chamber and Vice Chair Weeks will take over chairing item 10.3. You've got me knowing you're ready. I'm ready. This is item 10.3. The residents in by Marriott and it will be presented by Gary Broad. This is an ex parte item so commissioners, Commissioner Collia. I visited the site and have nothing to disclose. I visited the site and have nothing to disclose. I also visited the site and no information to disclose. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Mr. Broad. Thank you. I'm Gary Broad. I'm a contract planner working for planning and economic development. We also have Amy Nicholson with us this afternoon as this project was handled by Amy and has been segwayed is being segwayed to me as Amy moves into handling advanced planning work for the project. I'm going to leave the chamber to finance some assumptions on this project would be really balancing advanced planning work for the city. Additionally, tonight we have staff members Larry Lacki from engineering and Ian Harding available to answer questions from the commission. This application is submitted to allow the construction and operation of a 4 story The plan is to provide a total of 2,000 square feet of building footage including a fitness facility and a swimming pool and outdoor swimming pool. The parking lot would provide 416 on-site parking spaces and the planning commission this afternoon is being asked to consider the conditional use permit and hillside development permit for this application and if approved the project would subsequently go before the final design review approval. The project is located at 3558 round barn circle which is accessed off a round barn boulevard and it's just east of old redwood highway. You can see an aerial here of the site. The project is the last of six lots on round barn circle to be developed. It has been modified through construction of a flat pad and also a filling activity that previously occurred on the site as part of subdivision development. That development occurred back in April of 1990 when the Fountain Grove Executive Center improvement plans were approved which led to the design review board considering the design review of the project under ground utilities, frontage improvements and mass grading. Two years ago in September of 2016 the city staff had a pre-application meeting with the applicant team for this project. The design review board consider the concept design review in October of 2016 and the applicant had a pre-application meeting with modifications and additional material for their consideration and a formal application was submitted to planning and economic development on June 9th of 2017 for hillside development and use permit approval. The project site is zoned plan development as part of the original development. It's actually plan development resilient city. The general plan designation is retail and business services. General plan policies and goals apply to the project site which relate both to land use in terms of providing commercial services for people who live and work in Santa Rosa and also economic vitality including to pursue expansion of the number of hotel rooms and conference facilities in order to attract more meetings and conventions to the city aggressively promote the city to the visitor and convention markets. Additional general plan policies relate to urban design and to open space and conservation. As mentioned the project is zoned PD which harkens back to the plan development PD72-001-RC which is part of the original Fountain Grove Ranch policy statement. The PD designates the area as a highway tourist office commercial area. The site additionally has the resilient city combining district and the actual site to the city. The project is subject to environmental review under CEQA. The staff has reviewed the application and determined that it is in place. The project is subject to environmental review under CEQA. The staff has reviewed the application and determined that it is in compliance with CEQA and would qualify for a class 32 exemption under CEQA guidelines 15332. It meets the infill exemption criteria in that it's consistent with the general plan designation and with general plan policies and it also meets applicable zoning regulations. Additionally the project is within the city limits. It's on a 4.6 acre site which is below the 5 acre threshold and it is substantially surrounded by development and urban uses. There was a biotic study done for the site which identified that it has the potential for nesting birds and bats but there was no habitat for endangered rear or threatened species identified in the project. The project has been required to perform surveys and necessary exclusion zones prior to the commencement of any onsite construction activity. The project was also reviewed and additionally determined to not result in any significant effects related to traffic noise, air quality or water quality as required in order to ensure that the site does not result in any significant effect on the environment due to any unusual circumstances and this determination considers the previous grading of the property. The fact that the development is primarily being located on the flatter portions of the site and that is sustainably associated with the site. The project has been designed and that is sustainably surrounded by development. Additionally pursuant to CEQA guideline section 15183, the project is consistent with the city's general plan and zoning and as previously mentioned this envisions commercial development under the retail and business services designation. Here is a site plan for the 114 guest houses. The project is designed and designed and additionally it shows the 116 parking spaces provided in the parking areas to the south and east of the hotel structure. This is a section through the hotel. You can see that as previously mentioned the hotel is up to 1. You can see in the both section 1 and section 2 that the hotel is three stories in the frontage where it's facing round barn circle and that it's reaches or provides a fourth story only in the western most portion which corresponds with the topography beginning to drop off further portions of the site closer to a round barn circle. These are some renderings of the hotel provided by the applicant and again in the upper left you see a rendering showing the hotel from round barn circle and you see three stories and then in the lower level and on the in the upper right you see the hotel rendered as you would see it from points to point. You can see in the upper left you see the old redwood highway or highway 101 and you can see that it has the additional story and reaches four stories in height. The city has received a substantial amount of public input on this project with much of it coming in within the city. The city has received a substantial change to the views of existing development directly across the project site on round barn circle and the planning commission has received letters expressing concern related to the change in view from private property across the street from the project site. The city has received a significant change to the view from private property and those that have been done from major vantage points including highway 101 and this is as required in chapter 20-32 of the zoning code and as discussed in the design review guidelines and the compatibility of the proposed development with the existing area has been discussed in the round barn circle that additionally as has been discussed based on topography the hotel is only four stories from that single vantage point as you look to it from the west along old redwood highway or highway 101 and that with the exception of the shed roofs development fronting red I'm sorry fronting round barn circle is consistent with the view from private property across the roadway at St. Joseph's looking back at a rendered view of the hotel. Additional concerns have been expressed regarding the number of parking spaces. The project is required to provide one parking space space for the property. The project is required to provide one parking space per room or a total of 114 parking spaces and it provides 116 parking spaces slightly above the number required under the city's zoning ordinance. This parking requirement of one space per room does consider parking demand necessary for the entire use not just for the guest rooms and as such it considers parking for employees and other employees. This is a significant concern that we have in the hotel. The width of the private road has been raised as an issue for medical patients in surrounding buildings and for the safety of personnel to navigate. However the plans have been reviewed by both the city engineering department traffic and fire department. The project is required to provide one parking space for the property. The project as far as its adequacy with respect to roadway access. General plan policy UDH3 prohibits grading on slopes of greater than 25 percent. The policy does direct that review of development plans are consistent with this general plan is the city's interpretation of the policy that it is to protect natural slopes that exceed a 25 percent which contain natural features related to that zoning code section 2032-0 to OB prohibits development on slopes greater than 25 percent which is identified as having significant natural landforms or visually sensitive hillside topography and alterations by the review authority determined to be minor maybe approved over previously constructed slopes and this property does have slopes that exceed 25 percent however they were previously modified by the review authority and through filling as part of the prior improvement plans for the subdivision and therefore staff believes that because the site does not have natural slopes and because they are not visually because they are not natural that the proposed development on this property is consistent with this general plan policy and this is a slope analysis which shows the different contours of the property and shows the breakdown on slopes as far as we're slopes are from 0 to 10 percent 10 to 25 and the darkest slopes are over 25 percent and you can see that generally the proposed areas for development are the flatter portions of the site with slopes of under 25 percent staff recommends that the planning commission approve the conditional use permit and hillside development plans for the residents in by Marriott based on or and adopt the resolutions and findings and conditions in the planning commission packet and I'd be happy to answer any questions related to the project and as I mentioned we have staff here both from engineering and from fire as well I think if the commission will agree we can hear from the applicant now and then ask questions after so applicant if you could please state your name for the record Good evening Madam Chair and Commission Don Cape with Thoralsen Hospitality so we're happy to be here tonight to share our work and vision with the project as staff has indicated it's been quite some time since we initiated the Marriott Hotel I think it's an easy enough understanding that the room demand is undersupplied in Santa Rosa and the Highway 101 corridor we've been kind of adopted in the concept of the recent tragedies that have gone on and having multiple hotel rooms in the north and east bay that we currently own and manage have seen that firsthand from Roseville to Sacramento all the way down into properties we have in Newark so we're experiencing that across the board too so we understand for the additional rooms one thing we're excited to bring forward is the residence by Marriott is kind of the hallmark of the Marriott product and it's kind of the Cadillac and the limited service brand so we're fortunate to be able to do that we also if you recall have a Hampton Inn by Hilton going in in conjunction with the Sutter Hospital Building over on the other side of the 101 we look at the co-tenancy and the locations of these hotels we take them pretty carefully into consideration we are Marriott's largest franchisee we've built owned, operated and managed over 400 hotels in our 10 year and it's one individual family company and so we are very cognizant of in the hotel industry the guest satisfaction and all of that goes into careful planning and site location and market consideration so as everyone knows when they spend any time anywhere whether it's eating or dining or patronizing anything that the information that's regurgitated within 24 hours on social media is very imminent so we take that very carefully we have some of the highest guest satisfaction scores in Marriott worldwide we're going to be honored in an award next month in San Diego at the owner's conference for the center point award of excellence as well as developer of the year for Marriott so we're very cognizant of what we do and we take that we take that very seriously in the siting of this project as I said we've been working on this project for a little over two years and it's an interesting location and it's kind of the last lot in this business park and working with our consultants we've come up with what we believe is a cleverly hidden project nestled into the hillside as it relates to what's available left in this 101 corridor to site a residence in hotel worked with Adobe engineering and design seller architect and Don McNair landscape architect and really we sat down with the design concept design review and said here's what we're trying to accomplish here's the amenities of the product that we're trying to create and here's what we're required to do for brand standards and so we spent we spent several months working through carefully orchestrated concept plans and really designed details to be able to bring that to the designer view for evaluation they had great feedback we got feedback from fire safety traffic and the format that City of Santa Rosa has where you're able to go sit down and do these charrettes is really it's a wonderful thing a lot of cities haven't yet adopted that so I do commend the process it's really wonderful because it allows everybody to collaborate in the context of the challenges when it comes to developing projects so we took a lot of the feedback we went back to the drawing board we worked with a lot of the suggestions that are made available through staff reports in the history of that on how best to to enhance what we're trying to accomplish as I said we own operate and manage so we don't build these things and sell them and walk away so they're legacy assets so we want to make sure that we do the best of our ability and so taking that feedback from design review going back and coming up with multiple iterations with our team of professionals to go back through design review and again welcome their input concept reactions to what we're trying to accomplish it was fairly well received what we were trying to accomplish we ended up getting a couple more suggestions which we then incorporated into our program and feel that they would be proud of what we were we were kind of instructed to follow the theme and the passion and so as it relates to the property itself we look at these things in a land use cohabitation perspective and say as the guest comes and goes how are they going to experience that as they come into the property next to property and so as we look at and we know from our experience we tend to try to keep our room size down some other companies like to push the room count up we like to keep our room size kind of small and appropriate and so what we know from our experience across the board is the parking requirement for hotels is typically about 80% of the room counts so for example 100 room hotel you really only need 80 or so dedicated parking spaces but for those seasonal periods where you have high demand we make sure that we typically try to follow a one to one rule and if we can add a couple more here and there we do but what's involved here recently in the last few years with ride sharing programs it's really taught us all how to relook at some of the aspects of this so we're really comfortable with that because of our planning we're still allowing for that should conditions change with ride sharing in the future we want to be able to stay at that ratio that we know works well for our guests and so we are and we're happy to answer any follow-up questions thank you I think we'll open the public hearing then have questions after that so I do have some cards you need to have filled out a card to speak under the public hearing so I'm going to open the public hearing and I'll start with sharing right here and I'm sorry oh thank you and you have three minutes once you get started huh oh the timer's not working Joe I'll get my letter good evening Vice Chair Wicks and members of just a second okay my name is Sharon Wright and I'm here representing the Board of Trustees for Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital and you have a difficult project before you today and it's complex and I apologize for not reaching most of you earlier we only got word of the Planning Commission meeting earlier today but I have a letter from our CEO I'd like to read to you and put on the record on behalf of the Providence St. Joseph Health we'd like to add our previous comments to the proposed Marriott residents on Round Barn Drive as stated previously our health system provides cancer treatment to patients directly across the street from the proposed hotel development we are now opposed to this project due to the clear impacts that we have impacts we receive from the developer and the unwillingness to amend the project to mitigate impacts to our cancer center patients we've reached out to the developer of the Marriott residents and since the date of our last letter to this commission the renderings that were received confirm that the project would not only completely obstruct the view of our cancer and infusion therapy patients the developer also stated their unwillingness or inability to amend the project in any way when we had also offered to provide comments to the developer to our stakeholders particularly concerned about this impact none were provided in short no mitigations were offered and the rationale and no rationale was provided we had hoped an alternative would at least be considered again we recognize and appreciate the importance of economic development especially new hotels in our city our mission at Providence St. Joseph health is to all of those in need of care especially care that has such a vital impact on patient's lives such as cancer treatment we feel it is our responsibility to safeguard some of our most vulnerable constituents in Santa Rosa providing comfort for our patients and their families who often struggle emotionally during this critical stage of life cannot be understated we thank you for your consideration of our vulnerable population and sharing our concerns on this project and the couple of seconds I have left I just want to add a personal note if any and many of you have been touched by cancer I certainly have my husband passed away of pancreatic cancer and we spent many many hours at this center and to tell you that it didn't have an impact on his quality of life when we were able to get infusions there would be an understatement we talked about the impacts on the environment and the life of the cancer center is imperative and it's critical to the healing and the administration of the drugs I know that there's there's a lot of things you can do and there's also there's things the right thing to do and I hope you will consider our request and the impact on our vulnerable community thank you Harry Richardson it doesn't start until I start talking yeah I'm Harry Richardson I come to you as a part owner of the building but I also come to you as someone who helped develop the building practice in it as a cancer chemotherapist for years but I really come as a patient advocate we sent you a lot of information to talk about what happens to patients in that building but it's a major problem in my mind when we moved in there we were the first building to be built in that subdivision we raised our building up three feet so that we would be over the proposed height limitations for the development in front of us in spite of the fact that this development is supposed to be three stories in front it actually is much taller than that when you take in the parapet design the ones that are holding up the Marriott logos in 2000 we came to the planning commission complaining about the same problem that the building that had been proposed for across the street was too tall it limited the patients view out of the cancer center windows and the planning commission in 2000 turned down that project that was a three story project but it was turned down because the limit the limits on the on the views so you've also received two letters today I think today they were posted this afternoon about the fact that this project in fact does require CEQA evaluation because of many things I'll leave that to you to read those limits when you look at the size of this project this is the 20,000 square foot project the largest building up there right now is 60,000 square feet the district clinic is 48,000 square feet our building is 24,000 square feet so this is by large the biggest building up there it exceeds the original proposed square footage by about 50,000 feet when you add them all together the parking is inadequate we think it'll be a problem 180 employees when they open up, they pack the street round barn circle I sent you a Google map of round barn circles showing the street congestion fire is here we go again it's right in the throat of the fire the part that burned out and the last thing I would say is let's stick to precedent we built our building based on the requirements at that time we built it specifically to be able to see over the building across the street and when you look out our window we took balloons up there and raised them up to the height of the proposed building and it will definitely block off that view so I'm here because in the future I wanted to say when they said how did you let that happen I could say we tried thank you Mr. Richardson Sarah Keck good evening commission my name is Dr. Sarah Keck I'm a medical oncologist and I practice I see patients and I treat patients at the St. Joseph Cancer Center across from the proposed site I'm here representing the six medical oncologists the three radiation oncologists and numerous patients and staff treating cancer and easing people's suffering is more than just the medicine in the IV bag that we give them we work hard to create a healing environment with caring staff and with a cancer center that's comfortable and calming the beautiful vista I wish you all could see this the beautiful vista that the patients and family members look out upon over hours of their infusion provides a feeling of all connection with nature and it really heals the spirit and calms the spirit numerous times I've had patients comment that that was really the best the only good thing in their treatment was looking out of this beautiful view patients who have transferred their care from other places remarked what a unique feature this is of the cancer center and I really just want to point out who we are in the community we are the largest cancer center along the coast between San Francisco and Portland and we serve so many patients in the community and I'm sure that a lot of you have some personal experience no family and friends who have received care with us and we are a cancer center that's really part of the community we treat everyone who comes to us regardless of their ability to pay we treat everyone with dignity and respect we really give back to the community we've been there for a long time and we're going to be there for a long time and there are hundreds and hundreds of patients again many who you probably have some contact with who have found healing in our cancer center and there's no doubt in my mind that this project will impact patient care negatively so I just I really want you to consider these hundreds and hundreds of patients who can't be here to speak who feel strongly that their care will be impacted by this thank you very much thank you Dr. Keck Terry Shore good evening vice chair weeks, planning commissioners city staff and members of the public my name is Terry Shore I'm the regional director for the North Bay for Greenbelt Alliance we're an organization that works to protect the Greenbelt and also encourage the right development in the right places I did submit a detailed letter and I will hit the high points in my three minutes Greenbelt Alliance urges you to delay any decision on granting the conditional use permit or the hillside development permit until a number of additional concerns are addressed related primarily to fire risk this residence in is a new development proposed for the burned area of Fountain Grove there are a number of other new developments and rebuild developments in this burned area so we believe that both the fire risk and prevention for this project and a cumulative look at all the projects in this area and fire risk and prevention needs to seriously be addressed number two is we believe part of that should be addressed through CEQA so we do need additional CEQA analysis for fire risk as well as vehicle miles traveled water and a number of other issues we also believe that you need to re-examine it's compliance with the climate action plan there are a number of related plans that this project is dependent on that need to be updated before you move forward with this and other projects I mean the overall Fountain Grove plan I believe is 1981 and the park plan the business park plan dates back to 1990 we also believe that this particular project will it's cited that it will have benefits due to housing I mean sorry due to new jobs however there's no housing associated with this and this will generate a number of new low pain service jobs that will exacerbate the housing crisis so we believe that needs to be addressed you may be aware that right now Marriott is being picketed and targeted by a union campaign for workers who are not being adequately paid we also believe that you need to do additional consultation with the county of Sonoma because this project is right on the edge of the UGB on county lands where there is a luxury resort and winery event center not winery but event center plan and also to consult with Caltrans and I did submit a letter to you from Caltrans related to the project right next door is proposed and I don't know if the folks from St. Joseph are aware of this but there's a project proposed in that open area thank you next speaker J. Jackson if you could go up to the podium I'm sorry he wants to speak on a different hearing matter he didn't write it on the card I'm here for the next agenda items next item sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry I'll put it next door to me Jerry Bern thank you good afternoon Madam Vice Chair and commissioners my name is Jerry Bernhout I'm a local environmental attorney I'm here on behalf of California River Watch I was the lead attorney in the case that overturned the county's climate action plan for failing to account for greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle miles traveled as Terry just mentioned in the course of tourism and wine distribution specifically these are emissions categorized as ICLEI global protocol for communities scope 3 cross boundary emissions in common language what this means is that projects like this are going to generate enormous greenhouse gas emissions by people coming from all over the planet and it's the height of irony that a project like this is being proposed in exactly a burned out area and we all know these fires are being caused largely due to climate change and we're trying to move through a project on a categorical exemption without even any kind of adequate sequel review so I have not had the opportunity to carefully review the file I'm very skeptical that this project actually qualifies for a categorical exemption I see as a prime subject for litigation and I will be submitting further comments Thank you Next card Tom Conlon Thank you Vice Chair, commissioners members of the public Tom Conlon here today as an individual from Sonoma Valley I about a year ago in December we were looking over the city climate action plan and realized that the city was failing to implement the first measure which was compliance with the Cal Green tier one energy efficiency standards as your general plan was modified to to address my belief is that this particular project will have significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts the use of your CEQA streamlining checklist will be on its face insufficient if that matter is brought before more than the people in this room so I would encourage you to rethink that part of the project in particular obviously for many other reasons raised here building on that hillside without looking at cumulative costs just it's a bad time to even think about such a thing so I encourage you to address the failure of your existing climate action plans implementation and address that before you move forward with a conditional use permit and a hillside use permit on this project thank you does anybody else want to speak under public hearings can you state your name for the record my name is David Lawrence so good evening to vice chairman weeks and the commission so I'm a employee in the found growth area so I would just like to submit that there's a significant lack of opportunity for the business traveler in Santa Rosa in particular in northern Santa Rosa so in our business we have a lot of folks that travel from out of town and it can be quite ineffective and inefficient cost prohibitive now in particular after the fires as a result of a lack of lack of rooms here in Santa Rosa and I would also say there was a discussion earlier about economic vitality in the plan and certainly to me this project would offer a lot to that I know for me in particular having a place where we can have more conferences more seminars more client events would do a lot for our business so I just wanted to share my opinion and would welcome your consideration this project as I do believe would help the city of Santa Rosa thank you thank you is there anyone else before I close the public hearing okay I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission I have made some notes on some of the questions so please fellow commissioners chime in if I've missed something first what are the issues through a number of the speakers was regarding that and that what is being provided the CEQA exemptions are not adequate and that's a proper term so there's that to assess the fire risk and prevention and cumulative look at all the projects in the fire area look at vehicle miles traveled climate action plan that should be consulted county of Sonoma should be consulted regarding urban growth boundaries as well as Caltrans and that the climate action plan checklist is insufficient so did I thank you there was also a question about the adequacy of the water supply for firefighting I'd like to also hear from the applicant about what unwillingness there was in working with the cancer center across the street I think that was a complaint that the applicant could address as to what kind of communication there was or wasn't thank you anybody else have anything that I missed thank you so how do you want what we're going to do is we're going to start with fire and the water supply to support fire commissioners my name is Ian Hardidge I'm the assistant fire marshal here in Santa Rosa I'm here to answer any questions you may have I've heard too so far fire flow and fire risk and it sounded like we want to start with the fire flow or water supply the state adopted minimum fire flow requirements for all buildings new and existing and here locally we have amended those to be more restrictive than the state minimums project of this size would at base code require a little over 4000 gallons a minute at 20 psi the code would allow us to drop that all the way down by 75% bringing it under 1100 gpm requirement that's the type of construction the square footage and the fire protection locally here we've retarded that reduction to 50% so we are already being more restrictive on this project with the minimum fire flow requirement which is right around 2100 gallons a minute required and we have over 2500 up there so it meets and exceeds minimum fire flow requirements as far as fire risk that's a pretty broad subject but as far as evaluating this project the fire department is required to evaluate it based on building standards adopted by the state and local requirements and ordinances we have found this project to meet and or exceed all building standards are there any other specific questions would you like me to address? do commissioners have any questions I don't know what happened at the hilton and the cotton grove during the fire for evacuation but I imagine evacuating a transient population who doesn't maybe understand the risk involved of being at that particular location you know you pull up the highway to take a hotel room and you don't necessarily know that there have been historical fires in the area and you might be at risk on any particular night in the state in a hotel and the evacuation of the people who don't know the area well thankfully this location is relatively close to a freeway that's going to be the direction people come into this and that's typically the route people use to evacuate in I would say the orientation of the street layout in this area is pretty straightforward you've got pretty much two ways to go back to the freeway or up into the hills and then knowing visitor to our location I'm pretty sure I'm not going to evacuate into the hills so I don't see there to be any evacuation concerns here there's two ways out there's two ways out you know primary ways out and then there's some hundred combinations of various routes that you can take from fountain grove to get to other places and then there's the residential area and then there's the residential back to Mendocino back to the freeway evacuation for residents or visitors from this area this area is pretty transient based on the types of facilities you have in there I'm unaware of any confusion that people have on a normal street I'm not sure if this is yours or Mr. Lackey's but could you comment on this is a private street the hotel is accessing could you comment on how the fire department determined that it isn't too narrow or that it meets standards the minimum standard for fire department access is 20 foot unobstructed width and the road section there allows for that 20 feet of emergency vehicle access the assumption that's used that we're going to travel pretty much down the center of that roadway in an emergency situation it has the ability to have vehicles back up out of our way so that we can get in or for us to momentarily pull over as they pass so we can continue pass them that's all built into the 20 foot width we're on site because of the height of this building exceeding 30 feet there are some aerial access requirements we are designing to bring in our aerial access truck the area access requirement is to one side of the building through mitigation measures due to the hillside development we have access to two sides of the building with our aerial access some of the other things that we mitigated due to the site constraints was a widened path behind the building that does a couple things for us it provides a natural fire break but it also allows us to set up our ground ladders to facilitate rescues from the lower levels primarily because we have access to the upper levels from above thank you any other questions okay thank you alright and then moving on to broader response to some of the comments that came up during public public comment is in terms of the CEQA findings of the class 32 exemption so I just want to point out that we have listed the findings and the justification for the exemption in our staff report as well as in the draft resolution so in the staff report it's pages 10 and 11 and with that actually Crocker is going to walk us through some of the specific findings that were made to support that exemption okay thank you I wanted to start just by saying also that as with the last project this project it has been determined that there are two exemptions that apply the class 32 that we're speaking of and has been at issue in the comments and also the exemption under 15183 for projects that are consistent with the general plan for funding determination I also just wanted to note there are some comments suggesting that the project does not comply with CEQA and I want to just clarify that a project that qualifies for an exemption does comply with CEQA as I mentioned the last time I mean the legislature has specifically looked at certain statutory exemptions as well as categories of projects that are eligible for categorical exemptions and if a project fits within that that exemption, it does comply with CEQA. So the notion that somehow it's not complying, I just wanted to clarify that for the commission. For the class 32 exemption, Gary had walked us through that pretty clearly. And as Claire mentioned, it is in the staff report. There are very specific requirements for the class 32 exemption. It has a little bit more detail than some of the other categorical exemptions. And just to remind you, if the project's consistent with the general plan, it's within city limits on a project site less than five acres, has no value as habitat for endangered or threatened species, would not result in any significant effects to traffic noise, air quality, or water quality. And the site is adequately served by all required utilities and public services. If a project fits within that category and satisfies those requirements for the class 32, it is exempt unless any of the exceptions to the exemptions apply. There are no additional requirements to look at additional resources, such as impacts to views or hazards or other impacts that are not identified in that specific list in the class 32 exemption. And in fact, as was noted, the impacts to private views are not considered to be impacts under CEQA. And that is whether or not it's an exemption or even an EIR, the courts have held that the CEQA is focused on impacts to aesthetics as in public views and not to protect the private views of certain individuals or groups. And then I wanted to note also that there was some, in the letters that were submitted, there was some confusion as to kind of the level of review that this kind of a determination is subjected to. And it was indicated in one of the letters that it's very easy to trigger the requirement for an EIR and it just requires a fair argument. And this is getting a little into the weeds, but I just wanted to clarify here that the agency's determination that an exemption applies is subject to a very differential standard of review, the substantial evidence standard. So it is not akin to a situation where you're looking at a negative declaration and just somebody's, sometimes an opinion or they call it the battle of the experts can trigger a higher level of review. When the agency determines there's an exemption, it is reviewed very differentially to that agency. And again, here, the staff report and the resolution contain the substantial evidence supporting the exemption, including a traffic study and a biological study. And then lastly, I just wanted to touch on the, there was some reference to the climate action plan and also to a vehicle miles traveled. And as I mentioned, first of all, I can be back up on that, sorry. The climate action plan is a valid plan that has been adopted and approved by the city. The project is consistent with the climate action plan has been shown in the materials that are provided by staff. So I wanted to clarify that. And also there is no requirement to analyze vehicle miles traveled. That is something that is being, there has been some direction from the state and the city will be working on that as a future project. There's no current requirement or even a metric for that matter to analyze vehicle miles traveled. And I'm happy to answer any other questions. Any questions for Ms. Crocker? Mr. Crocker? I sort of have a question. I'm trying to formulate it in my head and on the fly. But we heard from Ms. Shore about the pending county project. And I only have seen that in her documentate, in her letter that was submitted, but not in the staff report. And was that considered at all as far as cumulative impacts? Are you referring to the county's event center? Yeah, the county event center that's just north of this project right at the urban growth boundary. I don't know if that was in the traffic study, but I also just want to clarify again for the purposes of the exemptions. It's a different analysis than we're used to seeing where you have your cumulative analysis, et cetera. If you're looking at some of the exceptions to the exemption for the cumulative impact exemption, that applies only where the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time is significant. So it's a different test. And I'm waiting if they're taking a look at whether or not that project was included in the traffic study, I'm not sure. It was not the traffic engineering group uses their SCTA modeling to make certain assumptions as to development for the area. And so they didn't call out specific projects in the traffic study. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for Ms. Crocker at this time? Then the other question had to do, I think the applicant, if they could talk about how you've reached out and talk to the cancer center folks about the design. That was the question that I believe Commissioner Sisco asked. Correct, again, Don Cape with Tharles and hospitality. We were actually introduced to Rochelle Sillsby, who's the Commit Government Affairs Director for the St. Joseph Group. It was, I believe if it was in September, actually it was the day before my birthday. So now I remember it was September 18th and I spoke to, was able to connect with Rochelle Sillsby. We spent about a half hour, 45 minutes on the phone speaking for the first time. And I do understand that there was, we had been requested to provide a photo simulation independent of our exchange of information that had subsequently been provided to Ms. Sillsby because we were able to articulate a little bit about that. And so we socialized regarding who we were, how long we'd been working on the project. She had questions with respect to the design review. And so in that brief period of time, we tried to express the work that we had put into, pushing this project down into the whole. We evaluated the profile, the lower profile of the other existing offices in the park. We're lower in elevation, native ground to ceiling, roof line, than the other office buildings in the park, just by virtue of the function of the hotel floor plate. And so as we evaluated that and we were able to review the photo simulation that we provided staff that eventually was provided to Ms. Sillsby, from our, you know, we evaluated that vantage point. And so we socialized over that on the phone together. And I shared with her the design requirements based on the grade and the hotel and the function and everything. And I said, you know, as much as we would like to change things, it's, you know, it's got, you know, over 1500 hours worth of design work to get to the point where we were through the design review concept portion of that. It had all of that feedback. So functionally changing or moving at five feet this way or that way. It had kind of shifted to the point where it was kind of locked down in any meaningful fashion. And so, you know, as it looks from the vantage point across the street, we're actually lower roof line than the roof line of the building across the street in which they own. And so, you know, we really had taken all that into consideration throughout the past two and a half years where the work and through the design professionals and the feedback with designer view.  One comment that I wanted to make with a fire brought up is, you know, logically looking at what situations occur during an event. Car gets stalled in the street.  One thing I did recognize that we have, we have two driveway accesses off of round bar down and back up. So, in the event of emergency service requirement, there would be that throughput for fire trucks or other people to get through our actual property and back up in a round bar and if that would ever happen. Any other questions for Mr. Cape? Commissioner Greniga. You partially answered a question that's been on my mind regarding taking alternative looks, modeling the site. But has any of that been shared with the design review board? And will it be when you next go there? Great question. And as it relates to the design review board, we started with our concept plan with them back in 2016 and through those charrettes. And they're a pretty rigid group as far as what they expect to see from site lines, from treatments, from architectural mobility to wall movement and visualization. And as it relates to the site, if you look right there at that corner, maybe we can go to the rendering and it would show that, show that, yeah. So that, it's on that corner. There's one more rendering and I think that shows that corner right there, be after those. It's not in the PowerPoint, it's just included as an attempt. So if you would go, Amy, just go back one more to that one. So if you can see, here's round barn and there's the trees and then we're gonna have landscaping trees all the way along here. So if you look at our roof line, we're really, we have one level above street grade. And as it relates to the downhill side, we've got a step down in our slab right here to allow us to take advantage of the hillside and the contour. And if you wanna jump then to that renderings, real quick like, so this is actually coming off of round barn up here and then coming down around and we're 12 or so feet below the street here and then this is entering into the lobby. And then if you walk through the lobby, we've designed this to where you can come out through the back of the lobby and have a terrace here and then have the pool and then there's rooms here on the lower level. But on this one corner, staff, really the design review commission, they wanted some element there that was significant. And so we actually turned these into suites and they have balconies and it would be on that corner right there. We worked with them quite extensively. We spent several hours in these meetings with them and then took it back to them for second information. We made their suggested changes. They talked about changing the paint scheme and different things and ways to really take your eye off of this face and kind of let it blend into the hillside through colors and elements and different features. And actually architects here, he can speak more to that if desired. But so that after the second iteration of design review, then we went back again and made those changes and then we're, I guess, luckily enough to be here for our other hotel application and we're able to socialize with them a little bit about what we had changed and we got the nod that that was the direction they wanted us to be in. So we felt comfortable that the collaboration that had been taking place over the last two years and the two and a half meetings that we had with the design review commission and staff had gotten what they expected to see. Mr. Ducan? Yeah, so I'm not an architect. I don't plan on being one. But the shed roof portion seemed to be about 15 feet, almost 15 feet higher than the allowable height limit. Has there been any consideration to bring those down in heights to make them closer to the 35 foot limit? We are 48 feet on the plan. We did. And if you look at the nominal heights of the roof, it's pretty consistent about what that is. And the coming working through that with the designer view, we looked, we had different schemes of how that would look and through the feedback that they thought that would benefit this and its appearance and visualization from the experts. That's kind of where this ended up with these roof, these corner parapet elements on these buildings. So it was really a collaborative effort with the direction we were taking from the designer view commission and that was the evolution of that. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, so if there's no other questions, I'd ask a member of the commission to introduce the resolution. Okay, I will move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa approving a hillside development permit for the residence in by Marriott, located at 3558 Round Barn Circle, assessor's parcel numbers 173-020-008, file number PRJ17-045, and waiver for the reading of the text. And I'll second. So first by Commissioner Siscoe, second by Commissioner Duggan, any discussion? Commissioner Peterson? Yes, I mean, I think that this is a tough project. We obviously need the hotel space, but for me, the thing I'm not seeing is sort of reasonable attempts to grapple with the wildfire danger that I think California is facing and will continue to face. I mean, maybe if you came before us pre-campfire, pre-Wolsey fire, this would be an easier call, but without seeing a real substantial analysis of what an evacuation would look like, what we anticipate the roads to look like, the traffic study itself and the executive summary says that the existing intersection is basically abysmal and has an above average rate of collisions. We get another Tubbs fire in the middle of the night, out-of-town visitors evacuating. I think it's tough for me to approve something like this in this area, especially with seeing the number of deaths in the campfire of people who were attempting to evacuate. So I'm reserving my final vote and would be interested in hearing from my fellow commissioners if there's any additional comments. Thank you. Commissioner Groniga. I certainly understand the need to have more lodging available in Sonoma County and in Santa Rosa. And had it not been for the fire, I'd perhaps be taking a look at this project much differently. I think it needs a lot of work still and a lot of thought as to its siting on the site and perhaps reconfiguration of the design. That's not my business, that's design review, so I'll leave it at that. But I think you can come to some possible better solutions than what is being presented. What is being presented is not a bad design, but it's from my perspective the wrong location. Additionally, whether it's this project and or any other new projects coming down in the future, I think we, the city needs to address the traffic issues, especially as pointed out by the traffic consultant for the project, those delayed times, that intersection by Centennial and Old Redwood Highway is horrific and it's only gonna get worse. In addition, I'm quite familiar with the Cancer Center site as well as the Vista Hospital or Health Clinic and pre-fire parking issues up there are horrendous. The other part, though it may not go direct to the findings here, but I do take, I think we do need to take into consideration the quality of life and those folks who are in the Infusion Center there at the Cancer thing, we can meet all the standards, code and so on by reconfiguring the project, but I think we need to be sensitive to those folks and the cancer center staff and clientele. I'll be voting no. Thank you, Commissioner Siscoe. Well, this is a very difficult project and I hear my fellow commissioners, we all have images of our own fire and now Paradise Fire and how difficult it was to get out, so I think that's just really in our minds and a very emotional images. We have projects coming forward that are assessed by our fire department. With those awarenesses, we may not have a particular protocol established where that's evident that they're checking off those boxes, but that's what our fire department does and they have the same images in mind that we do. So in terms of it being assessed properly, I mean, I think that the applicant has come in in good faith prior to our fires, trying to meet our applicable plans and codes and I think they're successful. I don't think there are CEQA issues. Definitely think that the ongoing fire assessments are going to be fluid. We have an existing climate action plan. This particular project meets the criteria of the one that we have that's existing. Those plans are also gonna be fluid where we update those all the time, but one of the things our city council did after the fire was established, this resilient city zoning district, overlay district, they didn't put a moratorium on new building. They said we want to rebuild and we want to move forward. So that's definitely in my mind that here's a project that finishes off a piece, a parcel that's remained vacant up there and makes a significant investment in Santa Rosa, a needed investment in Santa Rosa. I think the businesses need those kinds of hotel rooms. We lost a lot of hotel rooms. I also think that hotel rooms are important for families that are visiting individuals or taking care of individuals that might be getting treatment right up there also. It's really, really difficult to hear the loss of the view that the cancer survivors, I hope, have enjoyed there. It's a private view. It sounds like you were attentive to raising balloons as to when you made your own design that you'd be able to see over it. So I think care was taken to ensure that as that area developed, you would continue to enjoy how that was established. But it doesn't look like that's what's going to happen. I do hear that a lot of care was taken to try to minimize the height. I'm having a little trouble myself reconciling the shed roofs. If it's a 35-foot height limit, how do we get two shed roofs that are 15 feet higher or so? So I'm having a little bit trouble just with that nature of the design and how does that impact the cancer center? Given what I have in front of me, given where we are in Santa Rosa, given that this was a special overlay district, this is something that I think can respond to that and respond to the needs of Santa Rosa, I'll be voting yes on the project. Thank you, Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I don't want to restate everything that's been said because I've definitely am in agreement with everything that's been said so far. But, and I feel like it's naive to think that this parcel will never be developed. It should be developed. It's part of the original development plan. And if this was an office building coming forward, I would be all in favor of it because an office building is not occupied 24 hours a day. I have a real hard time putting visitors to the community who might not know the layout of the street, who might be woken in the middle of the night with a fire emergency and ensuing confusion. I mean, we've heard about what happens with people who know the area trying to evacuate in a fire situation, getting lost, getting killed in their cars. And I have a real hard time putting that population in beds up the hill here in this zone. So basically it comes down to I cannot support the project. Commissioner Collier. I appreciate the comments from my fellow commissioners. Specifically, Commissioner Siscoe, I agree with a lot of the points that you made. I agree that we should be listening to the subject matter experts, such as the fire department who's making these determinations. I completely agree about the shed roof. I hope there's some kind of middle ground that we can reach there. And I'm still kind of not 100% sure where I'm going with that. I am going to be supporting the project. I'm not going to reiterate what Commissioner Siscoe said. I believe that the applicant is providing a good project and that the, as she stated, the information that we have before us complies with all of the current codes. So with that, the... Do we want to hear any more? Because I know Commissioner Peterson was withholding his vote. And I assume Commissioner Collier was too. Do you want to say anything more about anything? So we know what you're going to do before we see you do it. Well, while I appreciate the comments from my fellow commissioners, I just, I think, along with Commissioner Duggan, I have a real hard time with this project, people in bed in this area. Okay, so the resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sisco and seconded by Commissioner Duggan. And this is the resolution on the conditional use permit. No, hillside development permit. I'm sorry? It was the hillside development. We still have to do the conditional use permit. Thank you. Okay, so this was the resolution on the hillside development permit. So Commissioner Siscoe made the motion and it was seconded by Commissioner Duggan. And if you could vote, please. That doesn't look right. Okay, so. Start over. Start over. Okay, now if you could please vote. Okay, so it passes with four ayes. Commissioner Collia, Duggan, Siscoe, and myself voting yes. And Commissioner Peterson and Veronica voting no. And Chair Edmondson abstaining. Now we would introduce, if somebody would introduce the conditional use permit. I'll move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for the residents and by Marriott. Located at 3558 Round Barn Circle APN 173-00008 File number PRJ17-045 and wait for the reading of the text. Okay, so that motion was made by Commissioner Sisco and seconded by Commissioner Gronika. And if you would please vote. Okay, so that was, it was a tie vote. Ms. Crocker. Yes, with a tie vote with one abstaining, then that motion fails. So anything we need to do further on this item? So just to be clear, the first motion was with respect to the hillside development ordinance, okay? And that passed four, two, and one abstention. Yes. And then the second motion was to in favor of the project passing the conditional use permit. And it was three, three with one abstention. So three in favor and three opposed means it's an effective denial because it doesn't move the motion forward. Thank you. I think we'll take about a five minute break before we go to the next item. Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna call the meeting back to order and give everybody just a few seconds to settle in and wrap up conversations and then we'll get started. Okay, let's move on to item 10.4, a public hearing, the be kind conditional use permit for 1128 Sonoma Avenue. Commissioners, this is an ex parte disclosure commissioner Calia anything to disclose? I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. I have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Zezka. I toured the site with the applicant's representative and have nothing new to disclose. That's your weeks. I visited the site with the applicant's representative and the property owner and have nothing further to disclose. I visited the site and am familiar with the site through the years, but I have not met with the representatives, thus I have nothing further to disclose. I visited the site and met with the applicant's representative and the property owner and have nothing new to disclose. I visited the site, I exchanged emails with the applicant's representative, but they were just about scheduling and I did not take a tour of the site or discuss the project. With that, the staff presentation is going to be delivered by Emanuel Ursu. Thank you, Chair Edmondson, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Emanuel Ursu. I'm a consultant planner here in the Planning Department, the city of Santa Rosa. This evening I'm going to give my presentation, break it up into a few sections. First I want to have a brief overview of the cannabis ordinance. This is one of the first applications we're processing under this new ordinance. I thought it would be good to have a brief overview of that ordinance. Then I'll briefly describe the project, provide a brief summary of some of the public comments that we've received, review the CEQA status, the California Environmental Quality Act status for the project, and present staff's recommendation. So the cannabis ordinance divides in two broad categories, personal use and commercial cannabis businesses. The proposed application is one of the categories under the commercial cannabis businesses. It's a retail dispensary and delivery business. This ordinance that it is being processed under went into effect at the beginning of this year, this calendar year. Cannabis retail facility is a facility where medical or adults, cannabis is, products are offered either individually or in combination for retail sale and deliveries is allowed from a storefront facility that also has a storefront operation. These are licensed by the state as a type 10 license. The ordinance is, the cannabis ordinance establishes certain districts and other parameters within which these types of businesses are required to operate and they are subject to a discretionary conditional use permit application, which is a qualitative review process that you will be evaluating this evening. Here are some of the standards that apply. They're allowed in commercial and industrial districts. This is in the office commercial district. There are setbacks required from schools. These are schools licensed to provide instruction to students from kindergarten through grade 12. They're not allowed to be within 600 feet of another cannabis retail facility. As I mentioned, they're subject to a conditional use permit. Furthermore, deliveries are allowed, but only from a storefront facility. Drive-throughs are not permitted. The maximum hours of operation allowed under the ordinance are from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. There are long litany of security provisions that are required by the ordinance and on-site consumption is allowed subject to use permit approval. This project does not include a request for on-site consumption. The use permit standards, the conditional use permit standards, there are a total of six of them. They apply to all conditionally permitted uses in the city. The general idea is to find that a project as proposed or with conditions of approval is consistent with the immediate surroundings as complies with the local regulations, the general plan, the zoning ordinance. It will be compatible with future land uses as well as existing land uses. It's physically suitable for the site in terms of the type of use that's being proposed, the density at which it's being used, and the intensity of the use would not constitute a nuisance to surrounding properties, would not be detrimental to the public interest, health safety convenience, welfare, or materially injurious to persons or property or improvements in the area, and that it's in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Those are all discretionary qualitative standards that you will be basing your decision on this evening. As part of our evaluation at the staff level, we've gone through to ensure that it complies with the quantitative standards, the setback requirements. It's in the proper zoning district that it's allowed, has the minimum security requirements that are listed in the code and so on. So as I stated, this project is a conditional use permit application for retail dispensary with delivery. The facility is in existing approximately 2,300 square foot building. There will be some minor interior modifications necessary mostly to accommodate ADA requirements. Bathrooms will be enlarged to meet ADA circulation requirements and access requirements. The retail component consists of about 635 square feet, and then the delivery is in the back corner of the facility in about 180 square feet. The rest of the facility is support functions for the retail and delivery operations. This application was submitted in April of this year. There was a neighborhood meeting held in May. The application was reviewed for completeness and ultimately deemed complete in June. And we are now here at this hearing this evening to consider the project. The project is located east of the downtown in a commercial office district. It's surrounded on three sides by residential uses. The general plan designation on the site is for office, as is the property across the street and the property to the immediate west or to the right as you're viewing it from the street. That property that is to the west of the subject site is zoned office. Office district does allow residential uses in a mixed use configuration. It currently has, is developed with residential use. And then the property to the east, to the left as you're viewing it from the street, to the right on the screen, is residential property. As are the properties behind this subject site, they are also residential property in the residential, medium density residential district or designation. This is the zoning map of this area. The zoning is consistent with the general plan with commercial office and residential uses surrounding this property. This is the site plan. The street is on the left side of this exhibit. That kind of semi circular feature at the front is a landscape planter. The retail area would be in the front of the building in this area here. The delivery is in the back corner in this area here. The rest of this facility is support functions. These are the two bathrooms that would be remodeled to meet ADA requirements. There are parking spaces. This is all parking back here. This is an unused portion of the site. The zoning complies with the minimum requirements of the code. It's one space for every 250 square feet that's required. That would yield a requirement for nine spaces. Nine spaces are provided on site. Here's a little more detailed close-up of the floor plan. Again, this is the retail sales floor area. There will be demolition of some of this existing reception area and then the two bathroom facilities that would be remodeled. I believe some interior partitions here may also be removed. Other than that, there really is very minimal physical change to the interior of the building and virtually none to the exterior. As I mentioned, the hours of operation allowed by the code are from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. That is what the applicant has requested. Staff is recommending that during the week, so Sunday evening through Thursday evening, those hours be slightly reduced at the tail end. With the closing at 7 p.m. rather than 9 p.m., there are several residences that are very close to the subject property. And for that reason, we felt for compatibility purposes, the retail component should close at 7 p.m. Deliveries would be permitted until 9 p.m. And that is what the applicant has requested. In meetings with neighbors, there have been issues brought up, concerns brought up, probably really falling into kind of three broad categories. In addition to the concerns raised by neighbors, we did receive and many pieces of correspondence in favor of the application. Those pieces of correspondence, most of those came in after the application or the staff report was prepared. And so I did not reflect them in the staff report, but I do want to acknowledge that we received about 20 total pieces of correspondence. About a third of those were in favor of the project, or excuse me, opposed to the project and about two thirds of those were in favor of the project. The folks that spoke in favor of the project, I think kind of fall into two categories, business owners and the immediate vicinity. And either future employees or current or future employers of the business or folks that generally support the applicant. And then neighbors in opposition to the project were primarily neighbors surrounding the project site or parents of students at the Santa Rosa French American Academy, which is just the Charter School that's just down the street. The schools within the vicinity of the project, they're none within 600 feet. That measurement is from exterior boundaries of one property to the exterior boundaries of the school property. The circle on this map shows the 600 foot extent from the exterior boundaries of the subject property. The Santa Rosa French American Charter School is at, in this location, and then there are two other schools that are well outside the 600 foot radius. This is about 675 feet property line to property line between the project site and the closest school. Building to building, it's probably about another, I think about another 15 or 20 feet beyond that. This is an aerial view of the project site, the building. Access is along a private drive or road that serves residences south of the project site. This to the east is a separate parcel. My understanding is it's under the same, currently under the same ownership as the subject property. These parking spaces are for the residential units on the property to the east. This is the adjoining residential property to the west. This property is zoned office commercial, however, it is currently used as multifamily residential. These are the parking spaces that would be available, including these three in this location for the dispensary. This is a view of the front of the building. One of the requirements is that the front door be visible from the street. This shows the building from the outside. There would be virtually no change to the appearance of the structure. There may be some security lighting that would need to be installed, but that would be really the only change from the street view, from the road perspective. This is a view looking from south of the project site. This is the residential on the east side. This is the dispensary proposed dispensary building, the dispensary parking lot, and then the residential buildings to the west. Again, you would see no change here, with the exception of some security lighting that would need to be installed. One of the recommendations that we're provided is to address this condition where the use of these parking spaces in the evening would, I think, have the potential to impact residences, particularly in this building, with headlights, noise, and so on. And for that reason, we're recommending a fence be installed along a segment of the property line to screen the parking lot from the residential uses on the adjacent property. And that is also the reason why we are recommending the 7 p.m. closing time. Work nights, if you will, Sunday night through Thursday night. We've spoken with the applicant about both of these conditions and they're amenable to them, although they would probably prefer not to have them, but I think they could live with them. So this again summarizes the two points I just raised regarding the hours of operation and the screening of the parking lot. We've reviewed the application for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, found it to be categorically exempt, and it qualifies for several categories of exemption as listed on this slide and described in detail in the staff report. If there are any questions regarding the exemptions, we'd be happy to answer those. And so with that, we recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project with the conditions of approval that are included in the draft resolution and are attached to the report. Thank you, and that concludes my report. Okay, thanks very much. Commissioners, any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? Maybe just questions for clarification or more technical stuff. Otherwise, I'd like to hear from the public or the applicant or both of them before we... Okay, Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, just one clarification item. I think it was a piece of correspondence. Somebody indicated that the Cannabis Subcommittee, I don't know what they're called these days, was maybe going to reconsider the distance requirement, the setback from schools. And I'm just wondering if that happened and if they changed their recommendation. I can speak to that. So, recently it's the Council's Cannabis Policy Subcommittee. We're asked to discuss the setbacks to school requirement and some other issues related to cannabis industry, land use and schools. And the subcommittee did... They were refreshed on the background of how the process went for developing the setbacks to... And the considerations of setbacks to schools and other sensitive uses and how the process ultimately ended up with a 600-foot setback to the K-12 school for retail. So they were refreshed on the process. They made no motion to amend the ordinance or to return the issue back to the City Council. Commissioner, is there any other questions right now? Before I open the public hearing, I'll invite the applicant to make some remarks if you'd like. And if you do, please state your name for the record. Thank you, Chair Edmonds and members of the commission. My name's Nick Casten with Golden State Government Relations and I'm the applicant's representative. We concur with staff's recommendation and review. This has been a very good and thorough process. At the original neighbourhood meeting, there were a number of comments and concerns that came forward. Several of them were actually considering existing conditions for the neighbourhood, including a transient issue in the adjacent park and some traffic issues around the churn. After that hearing, we also had some good communications with the Public Safety Department and found out that they were already working on some of those issues. And through that back and forth, with the neighbours adjacent to the property, we've actually worked out a patrol path for our security guard to help address the transient issues should it come back again, because there's a creek issue back there. And with the addition of our security cameras and the addition of our open presence and active involvement there, we hope to actually improve the neighbourhood conditions from what we heard about in that original meeting and discovered through our communications with the city. Also addressing neighbourhood compatibility, coming out of that is the fact that we're going to need some access for folks on the east side out of the 38 applications that were submitted to the city. Only five of them were east of the Santa Rosa Mendocino border. One of them has already withdrawn from Oakmont. So you're looking at about one of the four potential dispensary locations on the east side of Santa Rosa. This is important from what you could see from the letters that you received for access of the patients immediately in the surrounding neighbourhood for the doctors to be able to refer folks to our dispensary and build that relationship with us, as well as evident for the residences and neighbours who may wish to come and walk there, may wish to not have to drive all the way across town or outside of their neighbourhoods to access this permittable retail use within this neighbourhood. I think another aspect of this is the quality of the applicant's security efforts. As you can see from the letter from Peter Rumble with the Chamber of Commerce, who had recently toured the existing facilities that North Cal Cannabis, which is the parent company for Be Kind has, they have a sterling reputation and a really good grasp on how to manage security around these operations. They currently operate a dispensary out of the Bay Area and understand how to make this work with a neighbourhood and they're going to be bringing that to this location. We've reached out and worked with even those who may be opposed today and are going to keep that line of communication open. Anything that comes up that once opened will be addressed and there'll be a community liaison position available to take that with the phone number available to anyone who has concerns around there. Lastly, I just want to reference the importance of General Plan Policy EVB-4, which is the policy that calls for us to increase strategies for Santa Rosa to Santa Rosa businesses. This is a vertically integrated cannabis company in the city of Santa Rosa. As you can see from many of the green shirts here today, we have supporters both from our patients and customers, as well as from the employees that benefit from this complete and closed loop business activity in this city. I think it's very important that we recognize that economic connection means we have more dollars, more higher wage jobs, more of this industry succeeding by enabling the producers and creators that we've already approved to also be able to hire and sell their products in the same community that they're producing and selling it. With that, I'm available for any questions. I have asked that not everyone speaks in public comment, but we will have a few commenters in support to help augment my comments here today. Okay, thanks very much. Commissioner, is there any questions for the applicant's representative before we move to the public hearing? Okay, this is a public hearing. Anybody here wishing to speak on this matter is invited to go to one of the podiums at the top of the room. I have a handful of cards, people who intend to speak on this item, but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak. Anybody who speaks will have three minutes after you begin your remarks and ask that you state your name for the record. Also, I should mention, because we have a big crowd here, that if you hear a speaker say something that you agree with during or at the end of their remarks, you're free to raise your hand. It's a way to silently demonstrate your support. And then if you happen to hear speakers who echo the comments that you would make, you're at liberty to make comments, but also can consider whether the speakers have expressed your opinions adequately. So with that, I'm going to open the public hearing, and I'm gonna start with the cards in front of me. And the first one is J. Jackson. And J. Jackson will be followed by David Marcus. Oh, great, thank you. Hi, my name's James Jackson. I live at 1122 Sonoma Apartments, right next door. There are eight people that live in those apartments. We have never been contacted by these people or anyone else, by mail, by person. We've never been asked about this. The first that we knew about this was the blue sign up front. I am speaking for the eight people, five adults and three children that live there. We think this is a terrible idea. And basically for one reason, parking, traffic, and safety. The driveway, if someone could put up the site map, I can show you where we live. There you go. Back a bit. Oh, that's good enough. The building in front. The red roof building there is 1122 Proper. Just above that is 1122 Apartments. Those are four apartments. The only area in the eight neighborhood, we're completely surrounding that building. We're all residential.  Children also play in the parking lot where this dispensary is supposed to be going. Coming down that little driveway where I live, we get two or three cars an hour now lost. And it's not a place that's safe to drive in or pull out. We have children there. We have people colliding with the walls, with the carports, running over children's toys. Also, there is a back door to the building right there, which is on our driveway. That's where most of the entry and exit to the building take place, because it's not really safe to walk down the street. By the way, that's not a private street. That is a public street, Glenwood Court. I don't have much time. So let me just bring up one other thing. The map showing the school misses part of the school. Across Doyle Park from the school is a parking lot owned by the school, the school property. They got an exemption to cut down a wonderful fig tree there. That is within that 600 foot limit. Part of the school property, the property line, is on this side of Doyle Park, just behind the pharmacy building there. I can pretty much assure you that will be within 600 feet and that is school property. I welcome these people. I know the be kind people. They're very good people. I welcome their business. I think they're wonderful for the neighborhood. I just think this is a terrible spot. The Creekwood Plaza, a couple hundred yards away. Large parking area, lots of buildings. I know there are places open there because there are signs looking for rentals. Places with access to major streets in two direction and lots of parking. That would be an appropriate place. 1128 is not. I think that it will be very, very dangerous. I don't see how they can address the security concerns of people getting lost coming down our driveway. We have one old person who is bedridden. We're constantly having ambulances of people coming in. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is David Marcus, followed by Jacqueline Marcus. Chair Edmondson and committee, thank you very much for giving this opportunity. I obviously am going to have a different opinion. I'm in support of this project. To avoid me from rambling, I'm just going to read if you don't mind. And I have three main issues. And the first is that as a doctor, I've been following the story of medical cannabis for years. I think that most of us would choose a naturally occurring plant-based product over traditional medicines given a choice. And at this time there are over 20 human diseases and conditions and symptoms that cannabis has been proven already to treat as or more effectively than traditional medicines and treatments. And this is without the long list of side effects and addictive potential, particularly of narcotics. So I think this is a big growing and important field in medicine. Secondly, I've worked in this neighborhood for 30 years. So I've been in the 1128 office for 19 years. And then 11 years before that I was right across the street where Sorioma and Sonoma meet. So I know this area. I've gone there six days a week for the last 30 years. And it remains my belief contrary to Jackson that this is an ideal location for a cannabis pharmacy or dispensary. The building itself is discreet. It's unique. It has ample parking. And it's located right on beautiful wide Sonoma Avenue amongst many doctor's offices including doctors and dentists and chiropractors, et cetera. It is a medical district. It is home to Memorial Hospital, the surgery center, Doctors Park, Tuttle's Pharmacy, and many medical offices. To me it seems like a perfectly appropriate place for a medical and recreational cannabis dispensary. A hundred or more patients probably drive by every day on their way home from their doctor's office right by that office. And I can't think of a more convenient spot for so many patients to be able to find product should they need to. In addition, as Nick said, also all of the people who live east of the Freeway and Medicino Avenue, this is a really convenient place for them too, in my opinion. And lastly, and probably most importantly, is how do we choose be kind to be the neighbor here? It was a very important job tonight. We've been there for a long time and we still have property there. So it's important. And we had five different companies courting us to open the cannabis business there. And although be kind did not offer us the best financial offer, the decision was an easy one for us. The owners of be kind are just wonderful people. If you don't know them, they are. They're local. They have existing successful businesses here already in Santa Rosa. They are well liked and respected by the city, as well as the business community and their business neighbors. Some of them live here. Their kids go to school here and they care about what happens in Santa Rosa, as well as in our little community there. And I believe that they have already proven that. They told me that the success of a business like a marriage is about relationships. Give them a chance. Thank you. Next is Jacqueline Marcus and followed by Felicia Acomazzo. Thank you very much. My husband and I have owned the property for over 15 years. We have been adjacent to the building at 1128 for over 15 years. And we love the neighborhood and the street Glenwood Court. And we especially value our tenants. There are seven homes on that street that I'm talking about adjacent that are on our property there. And we have a long list of potential tenants because it's one of the few places in the world where there are affordable housing in Santa Rosa and the rent has hardly been raised since 2003. When we were first approached by potential dispensary companies we had some concerns about how it would impact our neighbors and tenants and ourselves. And we did not take this decision lightly. We knew the traffic wouldn't be any more than our already very busy medical practice. And there was more than enough parking that the property was already bordering a large medical complex on one side, more medical offices and businesses all around. So we didn't feel that a small dispensary would be out of place for the neighborhood. We also had questions about security and we realized that with our discussions with BeKind that the security system cameras, security personnel will actually improve the security of our neighbors and our tenants. We also had communications with our tenants and those were the exact concerns of our tenants. And when the tenants expressed this concern BeKind actually offered to meet with the tenants and discuss any issues they had and he wanted to learn what they were. This showed me that we were right about BeKind and the responsiveness and they want to be good neighbors. And I think that every time there's some change, there always seems to be some fear because people don't know what's going to happen and we don't know what it will be as more cannabis businesses come to Santa Rosa. It could be really good. We need business now and we need funding for schools and other services. But for those of you who don't know, I was at a school board meeting with the organizers of the French Charter School down the street was petitioning to take over the Doyle Park elementary school. I was at many of those school board meetings and it was quite an uproar every time. Not everyone was happy with that change, quite the opposite. In fact we lost a tenant and her little girl because she didn't want to go to school when Doyle Park converted to the French Charter School. I'm already getting choked up because I felt bad for them. And they eventually ended up leaving Santa Rosa. I'm hoping we can give be kind the same chance and to show they can be valuable to our city. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Felicia Acomazzo My name is Felicia Acomazzo I am a Santa Rosa resident and I also am assisting two other retail dispensary applications here in the city and actually I have a clarification request for staff and attorney and possibly the planning commission. I'm specifically referring to item agenda 10.4 Attachment number 7, the trip generation study. W. Tranz had prepared this report on April 23rd and on page 2 specifically on table 1 it's under proposed and my question is the trip generation report from W. Tranz is based upon two standards the marijuana dispensary standard for the retail floor and the general light industrial standard for storage, office and receiving areas of the business. Does the city accept this report? Thank you. Next is Monica Pantinas followed by Diana Perkins. Hello. I'm an employee of Be Kind. I have been employed with the company for about a year and a half now and I couldn't ask for better employees. I changed careers after 30 years and decided to try something new and they have welcomed me with open arms. They treat their employees like family. They're very committed to the community. I can't say enough good things about them and I'm happy to have the opportunity to grow with their company. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Diana Perkins followed by Mark Perry and I might have a question for Mr. Perry about a note here on his card but now next is Ms. Perkins. My name is Diana Perkins I'm the post-cultivation manager for NorCal Cannabis Company since starting at our Santa Rosa facility I've hired over 30 talented and ambitious young people many you see here today. We've had great success in our work what stands out the most are the relationships that we've built and the impact we've had on each other and the community we're also fortunate to be a part of. The expansion and growth of this company translates directly into opportunity and the ability to empower individuals while building an organization with a collective consciousness based on family relationships. I'm sure it's here today or not statement enough. I'd like to emphasize to anyone in opposition of this project that our mission is to serve the greater good and to be kind. Thank you. Thank you very much. I have a card here it says Mark Perry and then there's a note that says give three to Michelle I don't know whether that's three minutes. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Michelle Gervais. I'm here representing the French American Charter School. I'm a mom of two and I think Mark gave me his time because he saw maybe our plan strategy might fail but in any case you'll see I came alone today. We scheduled a school fundraiser for our kids who are raising money for a new playground and really wanted to trust the process after meeting with the Santa Rosa City Council and talking about the bigger policy of the school setback which since has been discussed I think will be a study session coming forth to you actually to the council and the city school boards but in any case so I'm here trusting the process and representing you in this democratic system of coming before you. I will say the one sad the chanted among kids was cannabis cash over kids. That's the feeling right now and so with that in mind we decided to downplay the emotion and focus on the facts. I was asked to come because I past president if you care about the truth of the school history I'm happy to share that another time but at this point I'm serving as a parent representative for the site advisory board and we have many future customers in our parent base over 500 kids and we're I like the name I think it's a business that will be here and successful in Santa Rosa. It is barely over the 600 feet setback you can see the playground at Doyle Park where kids go is within that 600 feet I know it's not for some reason protected by the setback in our policy as it is in other communities there are some of the reasons for our opposition we understand that the city has been working on the cannabis policy for many months and also that it's hard for us to be showing up late in discussion unfortunately city school districts and parents have not been involved in any of this specifically our school was not aware of this application at all until concerned neighbors alerted us to it late in the process just as school is breaking for summer candidly it never occurred to us that we would need to be guarding against a dispensary within a thousand foot setback of a drug free zone where the manufacturer possession use and sale of controlled substances is banned and bears a stiffer penalty city planning staff and the applicant have all been very helpful in answering questions and we appreciate some of the applicant's business decisions in protection of the neighbor neighbors such as no tasting on site we also are relieved to learn of some protections the state mandates such as not promoting cannabis use on signage and while we strongly believe that the city's policy for school setback should be a thousand feet we again are focusing on the findings as we are encouraged to do through this discretionary process of a youth permit thank you for Mark's time I'll continue just with the facts so there are there are two policies that we note in the letter to you the one is that the design I'm sorry to ask you to pause there for a couple of reasons the city clerk would like you just to repeat your name for the record to help him pick that up sorry Michelle Gervais thank you and I have a question for the city attorney is it considered proper to give your time to speaker who's already had three minutes to speak I believe that we don't typically do that but it can be at the discretion of the chair okay because it wasn't necessarily clear a few would take no more than 60 seconds to wrap up the most important points and we did have all the correspondence and we have the correspondence that you brought here today thank you thank you all and you're welcome for not bringing 500 parents so the design location size and operating characteristics of the proposed activity should be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity that's one of the conditions which we don't believe is met we have students that walk by there often unaccompanied by an adult on their way to school it is in the school neighborhood and we have kids that stand out all along the quarter waiting for pick up if you've been through there the traffic is horrendous we see traffic increasing with the Sodiomi one way change because of the memorial hospital I could go on about that condition it doesn't get covered in the same way that we think it should have been but in any case there are a lot of kids out and about on that street and it's not an adult activity we don't think belongs in their face and secondly granting the permit would not you have to show that granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest health safety convenience or welfare or materials injurious to persons property and improvements in the vicinity I've noted here what nuisance means we think there are clear examples of what nuisance could be that you will see as we do that you do value kids over cannabis thank you thank you that's all the cards I have on this matter but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak if anybody else is wishing to speak during the public hearing if you please approach one of the podiums at the back and state your name for the record not seeing any other people approach so I'm going to close the public hearing bring it back to the commission and I think there are some issues that the public identified so I'll just introduce a few of them myself and then ask fellow commissioners to jump in first we had a couple of comments about the outreach this could be a question for the applicant and staff there were neighbors property who described not having had any notice of this until the posted sign and then also representatives and people affiliated with the charter school who also expressed surprise and that they hadn't gotten any notice so if we could just have a discussion about what the notice process is for this kind of land use application and then perhaps the applicant's representative would comment on the applicant's outreach efforts if you would like to so Ms. Hartman I'll just summarize our noticing process which this was complied with so for this use permit it required a pre-application neighborhood meeting and that neighborhood meeting the way we currently notice those is through a 300 foot mailing list so a 300 foot radius and that's per the code so the noticing complied with that we do not do the on-site signs for neighborhood meetings but something we are looking into in the future not specific to cannabis just general for noticing to get a broader audience at the neighborhood meeting level so that's the application neighborhood meeting notice once the application is in we also did a notice of application that's also currently a 300 foot mailing notice and that goes these mailing notices per code go to property owners so not to tenants not to parents of students of a school but it goes to the school in addition involves the on-site sign which does the method that pass or buys visiting in the area or tenants commercial or residential are noticed and that's 10 days before the hearing and in addition an additional mailing notice so those are the required notices up to this point and in addition to that is on their own they can do additional noticing or additional networking with the neighborhood okay thanks very much if you're wishing to describe anything please feel free about the outreach efforts to neighbors yeah I just say I'd say it's raining outside the neighborhood part of the outreach was the official process that kicked this off in that meeting we did hear from a number of neighbors many of whom we did follow-up communications with and are either not here today or in the one or two cases there's actually a couple of support letters from them additionally at that meeting we did hear from some parents from the french-american charter school we do I believe have at least one letter of support in from a parent of the school that you should have received earlier today it was a very a lot of our outreach was reactionary to the folks that were reaching out to us because we did have very direct communication with the vast majority of the neighbors on the property because of the consistent ownership of those so we worked pretty extensively with the neighbors that are on the same court as us to make sure that our operation improved their conditions spent a significant amount of time around the transient issues which haven't come up here today and I think that's a large part because of that outreach and work it was an existing issue of significant concern in the neighborhood meeting and we believe that we came to a really collaborative solution with them outreach can never be 100% perfect we did attempt to reach out to the new property owner at the next door parcel that that ownership had changed recently so the relationship that has existed there before between our property owner and that property owner wasn't able to achieve that on a voluntary basis it's one of the reasons that we ask the fence condition to include the opportunity for us to be able to collaborate on how that fence will be designed with them because that wasn't as easy to do as it could have been had the previous long-standing owner still been the owner of that property and I think that's a really important part of the approach we intend to take going forward we don't view this type of neighborhood outreach as a process just for this meeting but as an important part of being a collaborative neighbor and we want to be successful in this neighborhood and that's going to involve ongoing communication with everyone whether it's the schools the businesses or the neighbors that you've heard from today Commissioner Gronigan I've probably asked this question before Claire but when we do go when we know we have a school within 600, 700, whatever nearby say do we make any effort to notice the school itself and the PTA or whatever parent organization is involved at a school like that we do notice the school they are property owners so the notice goes out to the school we don't do any specific noticing through the school but through school ownership and their own representation is so parents would be I guess involved through the PTA but no the city doesn't extend noticing beyond ownership of the property do we notice the school district the board the school district typically our applications are school districts are part of our referral process so we can check in the file and see if the school districts were referred the application it's a typical process because there can be a commenting agency we don't typically get comments from the schools so we regularly refer applications to them another category of comments is the setback and we've touched upon this a handful of times just want to go over it a little bit more and please correct anything that I say that's imprecise or incorrect California state law has the 600 foot setback meaning that no political subdivision like a city could pass a law where retail cannabis would be closer than 600 feet of a K-12 school more or less we had a comment about the drug free zone and the thousand foot setback requirement that stated under that policy and then of course we have the city code where we adopted a 600 foot setback and we also in the course of developing that policy had only extensive discussions about the school setback distance but also about sites that abutted residential districts and how we were going to address that in the policy so that's kind of a shotgun discussion of the setback stuff but maybe if we could start with the drug free thousand foot setback and what role that plays if any in our consideration and then the state and local issues and a little discussion of our process when we looked at the entire policy a few months ago okay there's a lot to cover there because we spent a couple of years developing our comprehensive ordinance so there was quite a bit of discussion as you can imagine over setbacks for all cannabis businesses frankly and what the setback should be to other uses whether it's residential or schools or daycare centers or treatment centers or parks and so it was always part of the conversation going through the process and as we were going through the process the states laws were emerging and changing and sometimes they would be more restrictive and other times they'd provide areas of liberty for a local jurisdiction to weigh in and so with respect specifically to setbacks there is a section of the current state law which was in effect at the time that we were developing the final stages of our ordinance it does allow for different setbacks there is the state does provide a default setback and it's for any cannabis use and it's I believe it's actually 600 or 1000 but the default setback from the state is for any cannabis business use and to a number of 600 feet and to schools K-12 schools and other uses I think it's daycare centers or youth centers but then it also says that the city has a right to establish different radius requirements than what is provided by in this section is the business and professions code section 26054 subsection B and because it was important that the city of Santa Rosa was choosing a less restrictive route and only applying a 600 setback to a K-12 school for only retail we asserted this right to be different than the state's default in our zoning code so that's in the front end of our comprehensive ordinance is asserting as a local jurisdiction the right to be less restrictive than the state in terms of in terms of the I'm sorry what was the drug there was the residential abutting issue but also the public issue and then the drug free zone i