 So, I think we'll be ready to go in about a minute if everybody can turn their cameras on. That'd be great. It states that the host has disabled my video. There we go. There you are. Yeah, the host had disabled my video for some reason. No worries. I was like, I don't mind being in the dark. Okay. Mr. Maloney, Ms. Buckhead, are we ready to go? Yes, Chair Weeks. We are ready to go. Thank you. Okay. So, with that, I will call to order the March 24, 2022 meeting of centers of planning commission. And read our typical statement. Due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders and dash 25 dash 20 and end dash 29 dash 20, which has been certain requirements for the Brown act and the order of the health officer of the county of Sonoma to shelter in place to minimize the spread. To minimize the spread of COVID-19, the planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting. Using zoom webinar commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and are practicing appropriate social distancing members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. So, with that, could we have roll call please? Let the record reflect all commissioners are present. Thank you. So we don't have any minutes to approve tonight. And so we'll go right into our public comment section. I'm going to open the public comment period now for any item that is not included on this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make a comment via zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand and each speaker will have three minutes. Countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers and please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. So, do we have any members of the public who would like to speak? On items that are not on the agenda tonight. Thank you very much. So with that, I'll go ahead and close the public comment period. And we'll move into item four. Planning commissioners report. So our purpose as a planning commission is that we are charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws in the city of Santa Rosa and duties include implementing a form of plans or intensive and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code zoning map general plan tentative subdivision maps and undertaking special planning studies as needed. So that will move into four point to any subdivision or waterway advisory committee reports. Okay, seeing none. We'll go we'll move in then to commissioner reports. Are there any commissioner reports tonight? Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I just wanted to report that I went to San Ramon last week with the League of California cities planning. Planning commissioners Academy. And I went with two of our staffers, which was a great fun. And I think we're going to be able to do that. I think we're going to be able to do that. I think we're going to be able to do that. And that's why I'm here with the League of California cities planning a cat planning commissioner's Academy. And I went with two of our staffers, which was great fun. I sent you all an email with links to the session session materials and I urge you all to look at them when you've got a chance. the recent and pending legislation for housing laws in California and how they're liable to impact our work here. So that was fairly interesting and some of them seem to not be thought of being as much of an impact as we thought they would be. So I urge you to look at that information and I urge you to go next time you have the opportunity. Thank you. Before you meet yourself were there any was there anything that especially stood out as a highlight for you? There was a closing session was a wonderful speaker from Berkeley on the topic of social justice and diversion and inclusivity and he got us all riled up on all sorts of good topics and he was very informative Berkeley Brown and I urge you all to seek him out and see if you can hear him speak someplace because he has just good information about it's not just enough to invite people you have to have to you know get them involved. So that's what we're looking forward to. Is his name on the website? It should be yeah. Okay great thank you very much. Any other comments by commissioners? Okay seeing none we'll go ahead and move to department reports. Ms. Jones? Yes thank you chair weeks members of the commission it's great to see everybody this afternoon. I do have just a couple of items to go over with you. First is I wanted to follow up with an email I sent to the commission last week just reiterating that we will be having a change in the staff liaison to the Planning Commission effective April 1st. So rather than seeing me at least for the short term we will be welcoming back Claire Hartman who is our newly appointed director of planning and economic development and she is also still serving in the capacity of a deputy director for our planning division. So Claire as all of you will recall was the staff liaison to the Planning Commission for quite some time and so she will be she's excited to rejoin your group so and I will be now serving a staff liaison to our design review board. And then just I think you all have probably been notified that we've got a planning commission excuse me our planning commission meeting for April 14th has been canceled and it looks like we will likely be canceling the next planning commission meeting on the 24th. We'll confirm with you later but we are doing upgrades technology upgrades to the council chambers which is making holding meetings during the month of April difficult so we're doing our best to not schedule meetings for that month but we'll again we'll confirm on that second meeting in April as we get closer. And then the final item for you guys tonight is I believe an email went out to you already but just to reiterate that we will be having a joint planning commission and city council meeting on May 24th. This is regarding the general plan update and so it is on a council meeting night. I believe the plan is for the commission to zoom into that meeting but we'll give you more details as we get closer. And that's all I have. Great. Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Jones? Thank you for taking such good care of us these past few months. No problem. So with that we'll go ahead and move to item six statement of abstentions. Are there any abstentions tonight on the three items? Okay. Seeing none. We don't have any consent items. So we'll move right into our schedule items tonight. So our first item is 8.1. The public hearing for totally wine and more. It's a CEQA exempt project. Conditional use permit at 2705 Santa Rosa Avenue number B, CUP 21-076. This is an exparte item so we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Carter. I did visit the site but nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I visited the site and I have no new information to disclose. Thanks. Commissioner Duggan. I have nothing to disclose. Commissioner Holton. I've also visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Krepke. I have nothing to disclose. And Vice Chair Peterson. I also have nothing to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that I believe Mr. McKay is going to be our presenter tonight. Great. Thank you Chair Weeks and members of the Commission. Anybody see my screen? Yes. Great. Thank you. Yeah. So my name is Carter McKay City Planner and I'm happy to be here this afternoon to present the total wine and more conditional use permit request located at 2705 Santa Rosa Avenue. This is a conditional use permit request that would allow the sale of beer, wine and distilled spirits for offsite consumption, including tasting and education areas within the store and wine classes with seating for 20 to 30 people. The proposed hours of operation would be 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily. The project site is located in the southeast quadrant of the city of Santa Rosa along Highway 101 in the former Toys R Us space. The general plan land use designation is retail and business services with a zoning district of general commercial, which requires the approval of a major conditional use permit for the alcoholic beverage sales land use. A bit of project history. So this project application was submitted in September of 2021. And in March, on March 14th, 2022, this public hearing was noticed. Here we have a site plan that shows the overall commercial shopping district located shopping center located at 2705 Santa Rosa Avenue. As you can see, the total wine occupies a little over half of the former Toys R Us space, which is shared with Planet Fitness. This slide shows the floor plan of the total wine and more. The entrance and exit are on the right side of the slide and the Wine Education Center with seating for 20 to 30 people is located on the top left of the slide. Here we have a crime density map. As you can see, the project is down here to the south and the project is not located within 1000 feet of any school. We have not received any public correspondence regarding this item. Oops. And the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA, and staff has determined that the project qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption under Section 15301 for existing facilities in that the proposed project consists of the operation of an existing private structure involving negligible or no expansion of use. The project also qualifies for a Class 32 categorical exemption under Section 15332 for infill development in that less than significant traffic impacts would occur, as demonstrated in the traffic memo. And the site does not have any value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The resolution and PowerPoint that were included with the item packet also included the Class 315303 exemption for CEQA for conversion of small structures. However, this is incorrect because this exemption only applies to commercial spaces up to 10,000 square feet. So part of staff's recommendation is to approve a resolution that removes this exemption from the language. With that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends the Planning Commission, by resolution, approve a conditional use permit to allow the sale of alcohol for offsite consumption with onsite tasting and wine classes in the existing commercial building located at 2705 Santa Rosa Avenue as amended to remove the Class 315303 exemption from the CEQA Environmental Analysis. And the applicant is available to respond to any questions you may have about the project, but does not have any presentation that they would like to make. And staff is available to answer any questions as well. Thank you, Mr. McKay. And that was the Class 3 exemption 15323. 15303 for a conversion of small structures. Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. McKay at this time? Are there any questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing? We can go back to Mr. McKay and the applicant after if we hear anything from the public. Okay, so then with that, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment, please select the raise hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine. You will have three minutes. There will be a countdown timer for your convenience. And please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. Are there any, Ms. McKay, do we have anybody? Chair Weeks, there are no hands raised at this time. Okay, then with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Any other questions, any questions any of you may have or would somebody like to enter the resolution? Thank you, Commissioner Siscoe. And to make it bigger on my screen so I can see. Okay, with that, I will move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit to allow the sale of alcohol for offsite consumption with on-site tasting and. You froze for a minute, or did I freeze? Everybody's frozen on my end, okay. I think you're back, so let's start over if we could. Okay, move the resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit to allow the sale of alcohol for offsite consumption with on-site tasting and wine classes from the existing commercial building located at 2705 Santa Rosa Avenue, APN number 043-102-017, file number PRJ21-019, CUP 21-067, PCN 21-001, and modify letter F to remove the reference to the Class III, Section 15303 exemption and wait for the reading of the text. Thank you. Is there a second? Thank you, Commissioner. Let's start with Commissioner Carter. This appears to be a very straightforward application. It was clear both in the submittal materials and in class staff's presentation. I can make all of the necessary findings and approve the resolution as modified. Thank you, Commissioner Sisko. As can I, all of the things that Commissioner Carter stated, I can make the approved findings. Great, thank you. Then we move on to Commissioner Duggan. I can also make all the required findings and the resolution as modified by Commissioner Sisko, and I'm in favor of the project. Thanks, Commissioner Holton. I can also make all the required findings. In addition, I approve the resolution as modified. Commissioner Ocrapki. I can make all the required findings, including being able to approve the resolution as modified, and I will be in favor of the application. Thank you, and Vice Chair Peterson. I can also make all the required findings in the modified resolution. Thank you, and I also can make all the required findings in the modified resolution, and it will be nice to see something in that space that's been empty for a long time. With that, the resolution was introduced by Commissioner Sisko, seconded by Commissioner Duggan. If we could call the roll, please, or call for the vote, rather. Commissioner Carter. I. Commissioner Sisko. I. Commissioner Duggan. I. Commissioner Holton. I. Commissioner Ocrapki. I. Vice Chair Peterson. I. Chair Weeks. I. So that passes with seven ayes. Thank you. So then we'll go ahead and move on to item 8.2. This is another public hearing of AT&T telecommunication facility. It's a CEQA exempt project, conditional use permit, at 2400 Bluebell Drive, CUP 21-064, and it is an exparte item. So we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Carter. I did visit the site and have no further information to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Sisko. I visited the site. I was able to watch the recently submitted videos from the public, and I have no new information to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan. I also visited the site and watched the recently submitted videos from the public, and have no further information to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I've also visited the site, and I've also reviewed the videos submitted by the public. Commissioner Ocrapki. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thanks. Vice Chair Peterson. I watched the videos submitted by the public, and have no additional information to disclose. Thank you. I also visited the site and watched the videos today that were submitted by the public, and nothing further to disclose. So with that, Ms. Chumans, you want to lead us off? Thank you, Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission. This is a proposed AT&T telecommunication facility at 2400 Bluebell Drive, and the project includes a major designer view and major conditional use permit to allow a new 60-foot tall wireless communication facility and supporting equipment shelter and backup generator located at 2400 Bluebell Drive. Project site is located in the northwest quadrant of the city. More specifically, it backs up to the smart rail line, a little bit of Piner Creek, and it's in a predominantly industrial area to the north, south, and west, and sorry, east and to the west, a predominantly residential area on the other side of the smart rail. The proposed project site is towards the rear of the subject property, which is developed with an industrial-type building. Just to give you a summary of the project history, a pre-application neighborhood meeting was held on July 19, 2021. There was low attendance, but there was a virtual meeting over Zoom. There was low attendance, but there were concerns raised about how the tower could negatively affect neighboring residents' health. The majority of the concerns were with potential radiation emitting from the site. On September 10, 2021, the use permit was submitted to Planning and Economic Development Department. On September 17, 2021, a notice of applications was mailed to residents within 600 feet of the project site. On December 16, 2021, planning staff presented the project to the Waterways Advisory Committee so that they may advise the Commission and the Designer View Board as to whether the proposed project is consistent with the applicable Citywide Creek Master Plan. On January 12, 2022, the Designer View application was submitted to the Planning and Economic Development Department. Shortly after, on January 26, 2022, the project was being complete. Here's the zoning and general plan designation for the site. As you can see, the north, east, and south, but it's a predominantly industrial area. You can see Pioneer Creek touching the corner of the property to the rear. It's a channelized waterway or flood control. To the west, across from the smart rail, you can see the residential, probably residential area. Major telecommunication facilities are allowed in general industrial with a major use permit and major design review. The proposal meets all development standards of the zoning code, including setbacks and height. It complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning code. Here's a site plan showing the entire site. You can see it's developed with a rectangular industrial building and some perimeter parking, and the cell tower is proposed towards the rear of the site backing up to Pioneer Creek. Here is a more zoomed in site plan showing the lease area, which would include a generator or a backup generator in case of emergencies, in case of power outage. Here is elevations of the proposed facility, which would be 60 feet tall. Here are some photo renderings of the project site showing existing and proposed. What it would look like from Bluebell. The building with the yellow stripe is what's currently developed on the site. Here's a more straight on view of the existing building site and cell tower. The applicant provided the current service coverage area showing sort of a hole where there is limited coverage in the center of that image. With the proposed cell tower, the new tower would provide significant improvement in coverage in the area. The project was found to be in compliance with CEQA pursuant to section 15303. The project qualifies for a class 3 exemption, which exempts the construction of new small structures, and that telecommunication towers are considered small structures that are similar to this project. At the time of writing the staff report and preparing this packet, staff received one comment from the public, and since then we've received several more since this morning. All of the comments were relating to concerns with potential radiation emitted from the site. You received most of the late correspondence in the last communication from the recording secretary. There was one that didn't make or there was two additional comments that didn't make or deadline. One had a similar concern with potential radiation, and the other were the videos that you mentioned in the beginning of the meeting. The comment that you did receive suggests that the applicant consider an alternate site that already has an existing cell tower, and there's general concerns of the proximity of this tower to residential units of the West. The previous slide showed the highlighted the lack of telecommunication signal coverage in the general vicinity, and the applicant did submit a electromagnetic energy exposure report, prepared by OSC Engineering, which concluded that the proposed placement of the tower at the subject site will not result in exposure to the public to excessive levels of radio frequency as defined in the FCC rules and regulations. Oops, sorry, going backwards. With that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission approved by resolution a conditional use permit to allow a telecommunications facility located at 2400 Bluebell Drive, the applicant, Mr. Johnson, is available to answer questions specific to the project, and staff is on hand if you have additional questions. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Chumians. Does the applicant have a presentation? I didn't quite catch that. No, he doesn't have a separate presentation. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of Ms. Chumians or of the applicant before I open the public hearing? Okay, seeing nobody. I will go ahead and open the public hearing with this item. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Countdown timer, as you can see on the screen, will be there for your use. And please make sure to unmute yourself when asked to by the recording secretary and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. So with that, are there any, it looks like there are a couple of people who are... Yes, Chair Weeks, I do see a couple hands raised. We're going to start with caller 4211. I'm going to give you a prompt to speak. So go ahead and accept that prompt, and then please state your name for the record. Good afternoon. Can everyone hear me? Yes. Perfect. This is Tom Johnson. I'm the applicant on this project. Would you... Is this an opportune time for what I question and answer presentation, or do you want to go to public first? The public first, unless you have a specific presentation you'd like to make. I will await for questions in republes. Okay. Thank you. So it's... I think there was another hand raised, I believe. Yes. Sydney, I'm going to send you a prompt. Please accept that prompt and state your name for the record. Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you. And I have sent this in, and I apologize if it's a repeat for some of you who have read this. But anyway, my name is Sydney Cox, and I'm with SafeTech for Santa Rosa. And SafeTech for Santa Rosa is strongly opposed to the installation of this AT&T cell tower at 2400 Bluebell Drive. We can appreciate the difficult position you have regarding the placement of these large unsightly facilities that radiate enormous amounts of radio frequency radiation. And we understand the pressure you have from industry and even property owners who want to host these sites and receive substantial revenue from them. Add to the mix the outdated FCC guidelines that are used to justify these installations and you have a complicated situation. And radio frequency radiation isn't something you can see or smell, so it's hard for most people to understand that if they're in harm's way, living and working near the towers, we get it. However, did you know that 11,000 pages of scientific reports were submitted to the federal court by the Environmental Health Trust, who successfully sued the FCC last August 2021 for their outdated safety guidelines? So make no mistake about it, RFR is dangerous and harmful. The FCC has based their 1996 guidelines, which are still in effect, on thermal heating, a one degree temperature rise for six minutes and 30 minutes of exposure. That's it. What about the RFR coming from these towers 24-7? The National Toxicology Program conducted a 24-7 exposure experiment at levels far below thermal heating and found a range of harmful effects including heart abnormalities and cancers. The FDA authorized the study because they wanted to find out the potential risks from RFR radiation. The mechanisms by which the body is dysregulated by RFR is now well understood and proven. And the EME exposure report that was submitted with the paperwork for this permit contains a number of misleading theoretical predictions including a computer simulated analysis that does not appear to be applicable. On page 14 it states, quote, this report shall not be used as a determination as to what is safe or unsafe on a given site, unquote. There is no information on what the actual RFR distribution will be. So how can you make an informed decision on the potential danger of this tower? RFR levels coming from this tower can be up to a thousand times higher than what is recommended by building biologists as safe levels for long term exposure. The bottom line, this tower needs to be installed away from apartments, single family homes and businesses where people spend most of their day. Customers are also at risk. This includes children who spend many hours each week at a nearby gymnastics center as well as a sports and fitness center. Thank you, Ms. Cox. Thank you. Are there any other comments? Chair Weeks, I see no other hands raised at this time. Thank you. So with that I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission. Are there any questions of staff or the applicants? If you can do it, I'd like to have Mr. Johnson address some of the things that Ms. Cox brought up and particularly since there was this reference to pluming in the videos if he could tackle that and explain that for us and well just explain for us and I understand why this site was considered not harmful but could Mr. Johnson also give a reason why it's the best site given the alternative sites. That would be helpful to me and I think helpful to the public. Thank you, Commissioner Sistro. Mr. Johnson, if you can please raise your hand for the device you would like to speak on. We have you as a member of the public hearing. Thank you. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this project. I just want to I guess kind of educate and reiterate some of the vital components of legislature and what can be heard and what can be taken into consideration for the Planning Commission review and I assume that the city attorney would also weigh in on this as well. Health discussions, perception of E&E, those items in that regard cannot be taken into consideration as part of a Planning Commission review and approval. The only thing that can be taken into consideration is aesthetics that's under federal law but with that I will address the component to what was brought to the attention of the commission. The facility as presented in the OSC report does meet the FCC limits at a ground level standard. So at ground level if you were standing at the tower base it's at 15% of the applicable 100% threshold limit so well within the standards that the FCC set. I did view the video as well and I'm not here to say one way or the other what the validity behind that little mechanism that was measuring has, does or the relevance behind it. The site selection process is very complex when we are deploying new facilities within cities, counties, everywhere. One of the factors obviously is you know how do we get into an area that is predominantly covered by single family residential and still get the service capabilities that all residents are looking for. Everyone's looking to utilize, get rid of their landlines and utilize their wireless phones for their day-to-day use, for their streaming, for their whatever they're going to do on their phones. The only way you can do that is to have infrastructure. The facility here we looked at several locations to the north and east because that's predominantly where you are finding the commercial opportunities. The problem there is we started to get too close to another existing facility so it was redundant and overlapping coverage. We looked at a co-location opportunity which is about two-tenths of a mile away from here on an existing tower but that because of the height limit restrictions within the city the tower's rule is not viable because it's already at a height limit capacity and in order to meet the coverage objectives obviously you need to be able to see in essence what the coverage is trying to achieve. For this instance that tower is at 60 feet. Current carrier at that location has their antennas and that's 55 to 60 foot range. We have to keep separation distance between the two. We would be in the low 40s range which on a tower that like this one in particular is it structurally could not accommodate the additional load so we had multiple factors on that existing co-location. The primary objective to this site is the single family residential that is to the west and to the north. That is where the coverage objective is weak and trying to fulfill that in-house with that intact cover at all. I missed something please. Thank you Mr. Johnson. Commissioner Siscoe did you have did he cover the information you wanted? He did but he also made reference to maybe our city attorney weighing in on what restrictions we're under again for the public's benefit. Thank you. Mr. Burke can you make comments on that? Good afternoon everyone. I'm Jeff Burke in the city attorney's office so it's my understanding that the applicants engineer has certified that the tower is within FCC health limits and that based on FCC regulations then that health issues cannot be addressed by locals and it really is more about aesthetics and other things within the within the city's purview so that is my understanding. Thank you. Are there any questions any other questions of Mr. Johnson, Ms. Tumians or Mr. Burke? Commissioner Holton. I'm not sure that I just didn't find this anywhere on any of the paperwork just I was curious about what the level of microwatts per meter are that are emitted from that antenna. Mr. Johnson yeah are you able to answer that Mr. Johnson? I'm looking to see if it's in the report. I didn't see. So if you look if you look at page 12 of the emissions report with nickel data and I think 12 and 15 are going to be. Are you able to find that to answer Commissioner Holton's questions? I would not be able to identify that. Okay. Okay. Any other questions from the Commissioner Carter? I believe this may be for the city attorney. There is a finding that we have to make that granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest health safety convenience or welfare etc. Can you clarify on that and what our limitations are on that finding and by what standards we can make that finding? So I appreciate that question and I think I'm going to have to defer to staff on that because my understanding was that if it's been certified by an engineer that all the requirements have been met and Commissioner Holton raised an issue and I'm not sure if that's one of the requirements and it's not part of the certification. So I'm interested in hearing what staff's response to that is. Yeah one of the reasons I was asking is that just to kind of clue everyone in into where I was getting at with the microwatts per meter is that I can tell it I mean I didn't have the ability to measure exactly how far it was from the adjacent department complex but it looks to be less than a quarter mile and I believe that that's what they indicate is the safe distance for only 100 microwatts per meter. So I just wanted to get an indication of what the actual microwatts per meter was to do due diligence to ensure the safety of the public. Thank you. Ms. Chumians can you or can you help us with this? So staff did rely on the certified report, electromagnetic energy report stating that the exposure would not result in excessive levels. What's challenging is it's that page 12 it references microwatts per square centimeter instead of meter. So I'm not sure how that translates. Okay I'm not sure how that translates as far as microwatts per meter versus centimeter. So Mr. Johnson can you help us with this or perhaps I don't know if there's any other any other resource we can go to to get this answer? Yeah I mean the best thing that I can go back to is you know we've provided the report that says that it's compliant with the FCC standards and as Ms. Chumians noted it is per centimeter squared and that's how it's measured. It is not measured by meter. So at the base of the tower standing right under it you're at 15% of the FCC standard. Mr. Burke? So giving a little more thought to Commissioner Carter's issue I think he's referring to paragraph E on page two of the resolution and I think that if the commissioners wanted to approve this project then you'd have to find that based on the engineer's report that this is safe. But if you find the engineer's report valid you can't independently say you know you think there's still a health concern. If the engineer has certified that it's within FCC requirements that takes the health issue off the table. So I think that's how you come to the conclusion. If you believe the report then you can be comfortable in making that finding. Thank you. Commissioner Carter do you have something else you'd like to follow up on with this? No that answers my question. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other, Commissioner Holton did you just want to make sure you got your questions answered? Yeah I'm sitting here with my calculator trying to convert the microwatts from but thank you and legal thank you very much for that reply that pretty much sums it up. Thank you. Thank you. Are there other questions from the commission? Then if somebody would like to enter the resolution. Commissioner Deggan. 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 AT&T telecommunication facility project which includes construction of a 60 foot tall monopole telecommunication facility and associated equipment shelter located at 2400 Bluebell Drive APN 015-370-045 file number PRJ21-029CUP21-064 and wait for the reading. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Sisko. Second. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and and comments from Commissioner Carter will start. Trouble getting my mic on there. Am I still visible? Yes you are. Okay great. Yeah I think this is not dissimilar to other cell towers that we viewed and we do have to rely on the FCC standards for safety compliance on this issue and given what we've heard from staff and the city attorney I believe I can make all the required findings to approve the use permit and I'll be supporting the application. Thank you and then we'll go to Commissioner Sisko. Yes I don't have any further issues or questions on this and I can make the required findings and I'll be voting yes. Thank you. Commissioner Deggan. I too can make the required findings and I'll be supporting the application and I thank Commissioner Carter and Sisko for their questions and Commissioner Holton to clarify some of the issues so thank you. Commissioner Holton. Also based on the current FCC regulations and based on the existing engineering report I can also make all the required findings and I'll be in support of the project. Thank you and Commissioner Krapke. I can make all the required findings and I'll be in support of the application. Thanks Vice Chair Peterson. So based on the record we've got and the feedback we've heard from staff in the applicant I can make all the required findings I think for the public that's concerned about this sort of thing you know the role of the planning commission is is land use and so when we say we can make the required findings I don't think any of us are saying this is the best thing or we all we love it or anything like that but merely based on the record that we're presented with in this public hearing the requirements that we need to find have been met. I think if there's concerns about safety this is in it is not the appropriate level to to discuss I mean I know some jurisdictions have have regulated these I think at the very least this would be a city wide or county wide ideally you know the federal government is going to weigh in because it is an FCC issue. So again just just for the public that's sort of you know where I'm coming from based on the record all the requirements are met and I will be voting in favor. Thank you and I also can make the required findings and based on as previously stated based upon FCC regulations and the engineers report and the comments by assistant city attorney Burke I can make the findings and we'll be supporting this project. So with that it was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner Cisco and if you could call for the vote please. Commissioner Carter. Hi. Commissioner Cisco. Hi. Commissioner Duggan. Hi. Commissioner Holton. Hi. Commissioner Okrepke. Hi. Vice Chair Peterson. Hi. Chair Weeks. Hi. So that passes with seven eyes and I just want to confirm with staff that if they need a break or anything but before the next item or if we're good to go. I think we're good to go. Okay. Thank you Jessica. So with that we'll move on to our third item tonight item 8.3 is another public hearing for the flora Terra project it's a sequel exempt project conditional use permit 1226 4th Street conditional use permit 21-061 and this is an ex parte item so any disclosures Commissioner Carter. Yes I did visit the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Cisco. Very familiar with the site and I have no new information to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan. I have nothing to disclose. Thanks Commissioner Holton. I've also visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Okrepke. I visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. And Vice Chair Peterson. I also visited the site and have nothing new to disclose. Thank you and I also visited the site and I'm familiar with the location and have nothing further to disclose. So with that we'll go on to Ms. Murray. Nice to see you tonight. It's nice to be here tonight. Let's see. Was I successful? Can you see my screen? We can. Seriously it's only taken a couple years here. Anyways good afternoon. One moment. Excuse me. I'm sorry go ahead Mike. Yeah I didn't want to burst your bubble but we are in the wrong room. We want to do the presentation. I didn't hear that. It's in the PowerPoints in the wrong view if you can put us in the presentation mode we can see. Oh okay I'm sorry. Got it. Better. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Good to go. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry about that. No gosh no worries. Like I said maybe I need just one more year. I'll get this. Anyways good afternoon Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission. The project before you this afternoon is a proposal for the Flora Terra dispensary located at 1226 Fourth Street. The project requires a conditional use permit and it's to operate a 1,140 square foot dispensary. They will be providing medical and adult use products and there will be no delivery service and they're not proposing any on-site consumption area. This is the building as it stands today. I was out there today and the only exterior changes they're proposing may be some touch-up paint on the outside and possibly a window or two just to be updated but they'll know that when they get in. I'd like to mention at this point that I actually I walked around or I walked I drove around I drove around the neighborhood behind this because staff has received a few complaints about some flyers that were distributed and it was the public hearing notice. I drove around the neighborhood I parked I got out of the car I picked up several notices unfortunately somebody had left their recycle can out so they got recycled and it was a little disheartening to see my name on the project with all these flyers all over the neighborhood. What I'd like to point out though is that I don't know who did it but I know who didn't do it and this is not the way the city notifies neighbors of public hearings nor is it the way the applicant notified neighbors of the public hearing so I'm not sure who to give credit to but I know who not to give it to. So this here is the site plan and off to the right is is four street and up on top of course is Stanford and so the the the dispensary is kind of front-loaded there onto the corner and then the parking is around the rear of the building and yeah that's what I can say about the site plan. I guess I can't say one other thing it takes access off Stanford Street. There's also street parking along San Aurora four street. So the general plan land use designation is retail and business services and the the zoning is general commercial which is consistent with that that general plan land use designation. The project application was originally submitted back in July of 2021 last year and the following month we held a neighborhood meeting a well-attended neighborhood meeting and then on November 5th a notice of application was mailed around and going back to those notices in the neighborhood I believe the same thing happened during the neighborhood meeting which again was was a little disheartening. So here is the proposed floor plan of the dispensary the entrance up at the top which is along four street and then the dispensary right below it. There's a break room restroom and storage in the back of the building that the public will not have access to. Here's an aerial view of the site and again it's it's it's a it's a very nice neighborhood behind it I want to compliment the people back there that's it was nice driving through there today. Just to give a little bit of context to the surrounding uses you have across four street you have office commercial and then of course all along four street really it's office and commercial. There are residential residential uses behind the mcdonald district is behind the commercial on the other side of the street and of course residential to the south and to the to the east. The closest dispensaries there was some concerns raised about proximity to other dispensaries and concentration and this is something that we hear quite a bit that the closest the closest two dispensaries are spark over on north datten and mercy wellness on santa rosa avenue right down near petaluma hill road. I also want to point out I did receive an inquiry from a commissioner asking about other types of convenience stores or grocery stores nearby the site and I'm just going to use my cursor here I hope you can see it. There are a couple of gas stations that have convenience stores I drove by those today I didn't go into the stores although I didn't see any advertisements for beer or wine I did see sodas and cigarettes so I wanted to point that out and then the next closest thing really is when we get closer closer to town where we pick up with more you know retail uses in restaurants and what have you other than that right around there there's there are a couple of donut shops I stopped in at one today and there are a lot of personal services tax hair stylist etc so there was also some concern about proximity to schools and parks so the circle in the center identifies the location of the the store um oopsie too many arrows and stars there the red stars identify the schools that are closest the nearest being around 1500 1600 square feet and then the blue green stars denote the um the nearby parks and the nearest one is about 1600 square feet we'll say in round numbers so we did as I said we had a well attended neighborhood meeting and I also received quite a bit of email you should have received some late correspondence today that included more email I'm just going to go down and try to address what I haven't already addressed here so will there be cannabis owners outside the dispensary the applicants submitted with their project materials an odor mitigation plan that was stamped by a mechanical engineer which is a requirement that will also be required the full plan will be required with their building permits submittal and we this is it's the gold star I think for the industry it's a charcoal mini charcoal charcoal filtration uh system so um let's see will traffic increase in nearby neighborhoods including access from neighborhood streets to archery or access to neighborhood streets from arterial streets the there was a traffic report provided with the project and and what that traffic study said is that in comparison to the previous restaurant use they're anticipating one additional peak AM peak hour trip and 16 peak pm trip so this the given the size of the dispensary no further traffic study was required and then how will this affect students attending nearby schools well on their way to school it won't be open yet schools open before nine AM on the way home from schools I and children are not allowed in the in the business and people that come out of the business are not allowed to loiter around the business so I would say that that in my my opinion is not a concern but that's up to you I'll leave that up to you um let's see what about customers that exhibit bad behavior and potential impacts on nearby parks one of the um what one of the exhibits that I I added to the um late correspondence was the calls for the existing business that these these this business operator owns in Santa Rosa and to the best of my knowledge and I could be wrong on this but I think there if they're not the only one there's certainly one of the first that will open a second store in Santa Rosa there are others who have other stores elsewhere but I think they're the first one to be a small chain um and they I contacted the police department based on this this this concern to to talk to the police department about how the existing business is operating one of the attachments that I I I uploaded was um police calls uh at their existing business and what the I had a conversation with um someone from the police department that explained they're really this is this is a business that's in very good standing those police calls they've had out of all the police calls that they've had they're not necessarily tied to this address but people use the address when they call the police department um what the the general the final is this a company that's in good standing and the police department said absolutely yes so I wanted to point that out there there have been several police calls for the neighborhood there have been four reports done domestic dispute one there was a false alarm and uh there was a stolen abandoned car and and something else but none of them related to the actual use of the cannabis dispensary um will changes to the buildings be be compatible with the neighborhood again I think I already mentioned that there are are no exterior changes other than making updating the paint job and possibly replacing windows if need be let's see will the hours of operation impact nearby residential uses the hours of operation are proposed at at not from nine to nine which is allowed by the the uh a zoning code um a restaurant use could also be open until nine in fact they can be open until 11 there are uh given the size of this this um building I don't anticipate a whole lot of traffic after hours um or after after the dinner hour but you know they have four parking spaces and and that I think the only noise that residential uses would hear would be the opening and closing of car doors um how would this affect the nearby residential neighborhood it's a commercial use it's been the neighborhood has been next to uh other commercial uses I would expect the impacts to be similar um will there be guns kept on site I got an absolutely not from the the applicant that was the response and with additional secure will additional security be provided for the surrounding neighborhood I didn't include the applicant's um security plan in my presentation because I know that they are going to go into that in some depth in theirs and I'm going to defer to them to answer this uh and so next slide um with that no issues were raised as part of staff's review um there are six required findings for uh uh cannabis dispensaries or for any conditional use permit for that matter um which the findings were made um or staff staff concluded that findings could be made um in the draft resolution I there are the other three a lot of words there so and then in terms of the the final finding the environmental quality act the project has been found exempt with several provisions of the sequel guidelines because it's the change of use of an existing structure it qualifies as infill development and it's also consistent with the general plan so with that it's recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission by resolution approve a conditional use permit for flora terra to operate a 1140 square foot cannabis retail facility at 1226 4th street and for members of the public who can't see the screen because you've called in my name again is susie murray I can be reached at 707-543-4348 and my phone number is I'm sorry my email is smurry at srcity.org and that concludes my presentation and I know that the applicant has one that they would like to share with you thank you mrs murray um are there any questions of mrs murray before we hear from the applicant okay so then with that if uh uh the applicant could be promoted and we can hear from them and you're gonna have to give me just a sec because I just accidentally closed their presentation so now I have to relocate it oh the joys of zoom I know I was getting a feedback or a problem with having too many things open so I shut everything well anyways I'm gonna mute myself and bring up the applicant's presentation and turn it over to alisha and Dave wing wing thank you susie okay so I think we're there we go wonderful well thank you all for my sorry um so we would like to thank everybody for being here this evening um thank you to the planning commission and our local community um my name is alisha wingard and I'm joined here this evening by with my husband David to discuss the expansion of flora terra to a second location at 1226 4th street um so just a little bit about us susie if you could queue up to that next slide again zoom is fun um so Dave and I have been operating flora terra in santa rosa since 2019 we are a licensed cannabis cultivation distribution and retail business with the challenges of being new business owners and navigating regulations in an industry that's in its infancy in the middle of a pandemic the last few years have been quite the challenge but we are thrilled to be here today to discuss this new project um a little bit about us we are santa rosa residents and parents so we understand the concerns that are coming from you know people that are voicing concerns about children in the neighborhood um david is our ceo and he is all too familiar with running businesses uh specifically startups prior to flora terra he had his own company dw electric where he is a licensed solar and electrical contractor um i'm flora terra's coo with over 15 years into business development operational support and customer service i'm also a registered nurse with a deep understanding of medical cannabis um on our next slide we'll discuss the project so our project this proposed location is located in the building that was the beloved beloved brunos restaurant on four street so while we're saddened to see this business close it has opened the door for our growth um our business our business plans meet the operational requirements for local and state licensed cannabis dispensary and our design aesthetic will be similar to that of our existing location shown here we pride ourselves on being a cannabis fatigue this project is not only consistent with the city's general plan for economic development it meets the land use designation and therefore should qualify for approval i now realize that you know there's quite a bit of opposition but the opposition does seem to be reflective of negative connotations towards the industry that has had a bad rap for decades due to legality so cannabis is legal now it's legal in the state and the city of san rosa has welcomed this industry so for that we thank you and we really look forward to our continued growth within the city on our next slide we will discuss the security measures um so security is something that we take very seriously all of our customers will enter through the front of the building where each person has their age verified by trained staff we also use a computerized identification scanner that will not only detect fakes but it will also flag expired IDs and underaged patrons it's something we take seriously in addition to that we have the you know guidebook of every ID for every state in our country so we can verify and we have turned people away for not only expired IDs but also questioning that arizona license that we've seen so and we will have our employees coming and going from the rear entrance and this is only opening with an assigned key card that is managed by the company and it's on a timed setting so they're here for their shift only in addition to that we'll have security staff present during all business hours and actually any time when employees are present one of the things that susie asked me to touch on was if we will be able to provide security for the neighborhood and in short that answer really is no we are legally obligated to have a security guard present at all times during operational hours that is a department of cannabis control regulation so if we were to lend our guard out to the neighborhood it would take him away him or her away from our site so it's it's just not something that we can do unfortunately but our building will be equipped with high definition cameras throughout the entire facility both inside and out all of the security footage is maintained for 90 days that is a department of cannabis control regulation and the footage will be made available to the city or the police department or any of their designees this has happened on numerous occasions as susie mentioned the police department has been dispatched to our facility not just for us but sometimes for our neighbors or for people that are just on our property we've had two situations one being a domestic violence dispute that was witnessed by in our parking lot not our patrons but in our parking lot witnessed by one of our employees and she called 911 they were immediately out here we were able to provide footage another incident was again in the neighbor's parking lot someone hit a fire hydrant and ran away we were able to provide footage and identify the driver of the vehicle so it has come in handy our alarm system will be professionally installed and maintained by first alarm they're the company that we currently contract with and we can attest to the responsiveness of their dispatch team we have gotten several three o'clock in the morning calls for motion detection because a fan blew a piece of paper down the hall so they're very responsive as some of you have seen we're talking about these police calls one of these things was a false alarm from the panic button so one of our employees that inadvertently pressed the button and san rosa police department came in very strong and then had a little chuckle when they realized that it was a false alarm but the response time was great and we were able to you know recoup from that and they weren't they weren't upset with us but so we're not a nuisance we are good neighbors and we do provide a beneficial service to our community in regards to shipping and receiving our plan for this facility is to utilize our distribution license at our current location and self-distribute all cannabis products and supplies to that facility the reason we're doing this is to limit the number of trips that will be made to the facility for business purposes allowing us to control all timings of all deliveries and keeping that parking lot clear and free for customers one of the things that's not listed on here and isn't necessarily security but i'll bring up is the concern regarding traffic traffic implications and parking so we did a focused traffic study with w-trans and they're saying that the project is anticipated to result in a less than significant transportation impact in addition to that we will install bicycle parking and promote alternative methods of transportation to and from our facility not just from our customers but also from our staff on the next slide we'd like to talk about our community impact so there's some obvious impacts to the community that our project brings such as local tax revenue and jobs so we provide jobs at our existing location we employ 15 people approximately 15 people in our retail department all of our employees are Sonoma County residents most of which live right here in san rosa with this new location we anticipate hiring between six and ten employees and two additional guards will utilize our existing location to onboard and train new staff prior to opening which allows us to avoid hiccups that are experienced when opening a new business and we experienced a lot of those two and a half years ago so hopefully we won't have those again and our starting wage for an entry level position at floretera is $18 an hour after 90 days and then the tax revenue generated tax revenue is three percent on all cannabis purchases for recreational cannabis and that revenue goes directly to the city of san rosa some other ways that we impact our community is by working with the california community colleges we have a collaboration with the ccc we offered tours to college professors and faculty and speak on panels with educators throughout the state so it takes operators like us to open the door and volunteer our time to see things to make change happen the goal of this program is to figure out a way to offer services at the jc level within our community to help support the cannabis industry so this project has been near and dear to me and i look forward to continue assisting with that effort in addition to that we've made donations to community fundraisers for fire victims in 2019 and 2020 there were a couple of fundraisers hosted one with dom chi designs and the other through moonlight brew co where we had done donations to specific families in addition to that we've done donations to local schools as well as hosting food and toy drives and raising money for the redwood empire food bank so we look forward to more opportunities and events to get involved with our community now that cova restrictions are being lifted on the next slide i want to highlight our customer demographics we serve a wide variety of customers and the data that we gathered is from january of this year through march 15th and as you can see 63.5 percent of our customers are over the age of 30 so there's been a lot of discussion about marketing to children or the potential negative impacts that we as a business may have on this neighborhood but at the end of the day we are serving people that are over the age of 21 or have a legal recommendation for medical cannabis the majority of our customers as you can see are over the age of 30 lastly i was just pulling up this next photo to show you our existing location i know i just showed this in a previous slide but we built floretera with one goal in mind and that was to bring an elevated experience to the community that we serve by creating an inviting space to purchase legal cannabis we consider ourselves a wine country chic cannabis boutique we hire well-spoken smart talented people who have an immense amount of knowledge about the products that we carry and they pride themselves in their ability to make effective recommendations to the community we are here for you san rosa and we look forward to servicing the community in another part of the city to the community that's present in our meeting today if you have any questions or concerns on this next slide is our email addresses and we are happy to answer any questions or comments or concerns that you may have outside of this this meeting we also invite you to come visit our existing locations you can see what we're all about and learn a little bit about us that is really all that i have at this time i'd like to thank the city council or i'd like to thank the planning commission and the staff for everything susie thank you for your presentation and we look forward to hopefully opening up another business in san rosa thank you miss win guard um before i open the public hearing are there any questions of the applicant okay seeing none um i will go ahead and um open the public hearing on this item if you wish to make a comment via zoom please select the raised hand feature if you're dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand and each speaker will have three minutes and as you see there's a countdown timer there for your convenience and that of the viewers please make sure to unmute yourself when you are invited to do so and your tele your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown so with that um i see we have one hand raised so uh miss buck height you can yes daniel garcia um can you please state your name for the record i did just send you a prompt um yes hi my my name is daniel garcia i am a san rosa resident also um i am the ins uh the insurance broker for the existing flora terra business over here near uh coffee park i am a father of two grown up here in sunoma county in san rosa specifically and um what i just wanted to say is just in terms of um a community benefit um it it's it's one where i believe this business comes with a lot of benefit not just in terms of jobs but um even what i've seen in my business because i do a lot of cannabis business insurance is that when these operators come in and davin elisha are shining examples of this they raise the value of the building and the neighborhoods that they're in just if nothing else with their uh efforts into uh bringing their building you know up to code um and uh repainting and so forth um they they add value to the building that they're in which also uh you know arising tideless all boats so um their neighborhood will benefit from the increased value on their building on top of that um one one of the things i've always said is insurance carriers are the best prognosticators of risk uh and what i can tell you right now is that we have all five of the major carriers uh in the in a cannabis insurance space lined up uh to ensure this new location and they have all expressed interest i've had calls with each and every one of them on the location and the size and the scope of the business um they've looked at the security plans and that this is a shining example of exactly what the state of california had in mind when it when they legalized cannabis in the state um it is a safe product but setting that aside it's safe for the communities that that they run businesses in um and that has been shown the statistics support that um and and not only that but um davin elisha are just that they run an amazing business is clean it you wouldn't notice know that it was a cannabis dispensary if you if you weren't looking for it um i i just couldn't recommend them anymore to be another to open up another business here in santa rosa and benefit us all in doing so um so with that being said i thank you for your time and i look forward to seeing this new location open thank you mr garcia next speaker uh mr brantley i am sending you a prompt um please state your name for the record hi can you hear me yes yes richard brantley and um i live in the neighborhood just back on fair oats my family does and um i believe my biggest concern um as i walk by there today there's there's two parking spots there and a handicap spot and um the goodwill is there we have great overflow from the goodwill parking in the neighborhood and kids are constantly playing on that street because it's the most wide open street to play the flag football riding your bikes all that um and i know when brunos was there there was a lot of overflow um but brunos was only open in the later part of the day so we have great overflow from goodwill um i'm just quite concerned that there's going to be great overflow from from this business going in as well so i'd like you to address that again please thank you mr brantley is there anybody else who would like to speak on this item chair weeks i don't see any other hands raised at this time great thank you very much uh so with that i will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission um and actually if we could have uh either mrs murray or the applicant address the issue of the parking so we have the city has set a parking standard for cannabis retail uses and it requires uh one space for every 250 square feet of dispensary um which in this case would be five spaces the city could also allows uh reoccupancy of a or a change of use without requiring additional parking if it's within uh you know if it's not a reduction of 10 spaces or 25 percent and this is not but in addition to this there's also street parking available and all the streets here are public streets so um it's it's really a first come first serve basis i think um so in terms of the you know the parking or the traffic study was done the traffic study also included a parking analysis and they also concluded that this was adequate but it was based on the city's based on the city's regulations for retail uses and cannabis retail uses specifically great thank you uh commissioner krapke yeah susie can you just confirm for me if a restaurant wanted to go in there tomorrow um would there be any review by us or any other body for regards to traffic or um parking um not the level of review here uh they would that's a use that's permitted by right although when they can come into community development we do verify the number of parking spaces and if the parking spaces are not adequate for that use and they don't need that that within the 25 percent or 10 percent or 10 unit or 10 space reduction they would have to go through a minor conditional use permit process for parking reduction so in theory if someone had the exact same setup as baruno's it was there and want to be open seven seven a.m to 10 p.m they could just go right in yes thank you um any questions for the applicant or mrs murray uh before i asked somebody to read the resolution okay uh would somebody like to um put the resolution on the table commissioner syska thank you hopefully i will breeze up but um i move i move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for floratera a 1140 square foot cannabis retail facility providing medical and adult use cannabis products located at 1226 4th street file number c up 21-061 and wait for the reading of the text thank you uh commissioner krepke second thank you uh so with that um okay so that uh commissioner carter well i think we've been presented with a fairly uh complete uh proposal here and the application seems to be in order and uh the supporting materials necessary to support our making the required flat findings are in place i will say that um as we approve these types of uses and existing under parked um commercial space on the edge of neighborhoods i'm always looking for some uh initiative on the applicant for reducing car traffic to the site and i and i hope these applicants are are really focused on that as they've indicated in their presentation it's a walkable neighborhood and anything they could do to encourage foot traffic our use of public transit would be appreciated uh but as other commissioners have pointed out a similarly uh traffic producing commercial use to go in here with no further approvals and no additional parking so i can make all of the necessary findings and i'll be supporting this application thank you uh commissioner sisco i can also make all of the uh required findings and we'll be supporting this uh item thanks uh commissioner degen i can also make the required findings and in support of the resolution commissioner holton i can also make all the required findings and i'll be supportive of this project thanks uh commissioner krepke yeah i i just wanted to say that uh you know i i asked that question of uh of planamary just to kind of emphasize a point of regardless of use some could just go in there tomorrow and it would be the same issues um so um i i do agree with some of the public comment that was had earlier uh from mr garcia about the we've had this without a revitalizing of existing buildings and neighborhoods and the one thing that i'm actually uh excited about the application way is that it's an existing business um local business that's opening a secondary location it's not one that has to find financing and then you know get up and running if they're already up and running business because we have approved others uh other dispensaries in the past that are still sitting vacant for whichever reasons so um because this is an operating inside truly believe that this is going to be one that's going to be able to get up and running quickly and help the uh the community as well as uh to be honest the tax revenue for san rosa so um with that i could make all the required findings and will be in support of the application thank you and vice chair peterson uh well so i'll have a little more extensive comments i think than my my fellow commissioners so you know we didn't get a lot of public comments tonight but we did get a lot of written public comments and i think um you know i want to address some of some of the issues that were raised in those uh planar murray discuss some of them but to go back a step sort of the 30 000 foot view of the city's cannabis ordinance is to disperse these dispensaries throughout the city we've seen a number of them in different parts of the city in the years uh since the the ordinance was approved and since recreational use was legalized in the state um the point of the of doing that is to you know equally share the burden you know we don't want to end up with this you know sort of red light cannabis district uh we want to avoid inducing traffic and you know we want to make it to the traffic point uh easy to walk to it right so if you've got a neighborhood dispensary you're not driving across town you're not jamming up the freeway or west college or anything like that to get to the dispensary so um this is really part of the overall plan and and i think it slots well into the city's goals and and what the point of the ordinance is um i think you know we've we've discussed the safety and crime issue i think having more eyes out there will make it safer um we've got security where there is none now or weren't was none now um you know the odor standard is is very strict you can't be able to detect it from outside the building so you know the neighborhood should hopefully not notice anything other than here's the storefronts with uh some updated paints and so it's also hard i think too when we've in the same meeting approved at an alcohol store for on-site consumption to treat cannabis any differently you know especially brunos which served alcohol before i mean this is really uh to me a change in in kind of type but not a change in kind this isn't a real different use than anything else the city has has seen in this kind of thing or that tolerates other places i mean they sell alcohol it's safe way right kids are seeing that when they go grocery shopping so um a bit of a journey but the the long sort of it is i can make all the required findings i think this is an appropriate use um and i think the applicant uh you know has has a good presentation and i i hope they stick to it i do commend the applicant on the living wage part of it although i would nitpick a little bit that the mit living wage calculator says it's actually 1950 an hour or not 16 for snow accounting so uh not a land use issue so out of out of my purview but with that i can make all the required findings uh thank you by sheriff peterson uh i also can make all the required findings and we'll be supporting the project i think it's an excellent location for uh the dispensary um the applicant has proven themselves um in their other location and as uh been previously stated a lot of the comments we heard not tonight but in the written comments are things we hear every time a dispensary goes into a neighborhood um and um also uh uh i wanted to um you know just mention that recreational cannabis was overwhelmingly supported by the voters in san aroza and sonoma county um and that i also did want to mention to the neighbors out there that if parking becomes an issue you can always go to the city parking department and have a petition for a neighborhood parking district um we've seen that in some other um uh dispensary so anyway so with that um as i said i'll be supporting the project um that was moved by uh commissioner sisco and seconded by commissioner crepeki so if we could uh call for the vote please commissioner carter i commissioner sisco hi commissioner dougan hi commissioner holton hi commissioner o crepeki hi vice chair peterson hi chair weeks hi so that passes with seven eyes um and that's our final item for tonight unless miss jones has anything she'd like to mention to us um don't see her coming on so with that um i will go ahead and adjourn uh the meeting uh of march 24th and uh perhaps we'll see each other in April if not may so good night everybody thank you