 Okay, we'll go ahead and call to order tonight's 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 except Commissioner Okrepke. Great, thank you. Next we have approval of minutes. Our first set is our March 28th, 2019 draft minutes. Any comments or corrections? Those stand as printed. Next we have a very old set. September 14th, 2017. Any comments or corrections? And those are going to stand as printed also. Okay, next we're going to move on to public comments which is a time for any member of the public to address the commission on matters of interest to the commission that are not listed tonight as a public hearing. You don't have to have filled in any comments. I'm going to go ahead and open public comments and anyone wishing to speak could go to one of the microphones and I am not seeing anyone move so I'm going to go ahead and close the public comment period and move on to planning commissioners report. Commissioners, vice chair weeks. Last week there was a subdivision committee meeting. It was very short. But the project we looked at was a meeting between Riley and Humboldt. And the request was to divide the parcel to create two lots. And they had been two lots before until, can't remember when, that they, I know it's in here somewhere where they had split, in 08 I believe that they split the lots. Or that they combined the parts. Now it's going to be split with the parking lot on one lot and the rest of property on another. Any other commissioners report? I just have a brief one. At the last mayor's lunch he provided the board and commission chairs with this copy of it's not completely certified yet. But it's the council members goals that they're working on tier one, tier two. I did not make copies because I noticed that it was also part of the city's newsletter. It was printed in there so in the interest of saving paper and my sanity for copying I decided to let you know that. But you should take a look at this and for us to keep in mind as we're looking at projects we're looking at the priorities of the council. With that we'll move on to department reports. I have nothing to report but looking forward at our calendar we do not have any items for April 25th so we will cancel that meeting and look forward to our next meeting of May 9th. Okay, great. Next we'll move on to statements of abstention by commissioners. I will be abstaining from item 10.2 as my employer explored a business opportunity with one of the applicants businesses including a meeting in which I was involved. As a result I think it's prudent for me to abstain. There's no ongoing or future business relationship however. Okay, great. Thank you. Any other abstentions? Okay, great. Not seeing any. We have no study session or consent items this evening so we'll go ahead and move on to our first public hearing for tonight which is item 10.188 4th Street Apartments conditional use permit. It is an ex parte disclosure Commissioner Carter anything to disclose? I did visit the site but I haven't met with anyone. I also visit the site and have nothing further to disclose. I visited the site to disclose. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Peterson. I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose. I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose. What's that? We'll go ahead and move on to the staff presentation given by Kristinae Toomey, senior planner. Chair Cisco, members of the planning commission. Patrick Streeter with PED we will be looking at building height as one of the development standards that may change. We felt it would be prudent to have me give a little context statement about building heights in the downtown before I pass it off to Miss Toomey to speak specifically about this project. I just wanted to kind of introduce the concept of building skylines as they're typically perceived when people think of a downtown skyline. It's a very tall central business district tapering down and it gets smaller as you move away from that. And that's true for certain development, city development typically when it's the central business district is built around a green field or urban renewal where they've eliminated the previous downtown and constructed a new. Santa Rosa has a different development typology because of the preservation districts, the open spaces and the view corridors that were meant to be preserved. As we put the original downtown area specific plan in place it had a different view of how building heights would work in order to compliment those going from very tall in the center out to smaller you have peaks and valleys where the context of development is meant to eventually scale down to the smaller size. And so that came into play with the original building heights that were set for the different downtown districts specifically with CD10, CD7 and CD5. Where the envisions a peak for instance in the case of 4th street it would be a peak of CD7, 7 stories then scaling down to 5 stories and then down to the other neighborhoods that surround it. So that was taken into account the use permit for modification to building height does exist in the plan. So the plan already anticipated that there may be different constraints on developing a site that may require an alternative to that building height. And so it does allow for the individual project to exceed the height limit set in the plan as long as it goes through the process which involves scaling of building heights. It may differentiate between instead of being 7 stories to 5 stories to 3 stories it may be or I guess I'd say instead of being 70 feet to 50 feet you may see something like 75 feet to 55 feet to 35 feet or vice versa maybe for some reason that construction constraints don't allow buildings to go as tall. So while the silhouette of the skyline could change or could vary in the actual height the tone of it and the sense of the skyline actually how it relates to the surrounding neighborhoods would be the same based on going through this conditional use permit and going before this body that determines whether or not the context actually fits for the individual project. And so I just wanted to give that context the max building heights as part of this downtown station area update but we would likely keep that provision in place because there is always independent factors that apply on a project specific basis. And with that I'll turn it over to Ms. Tumians. Thank you chair now that Mr. Streeter set the stage the project is 8884 street and it is comprised of 8884 street and 891 3rd street on March 16, 2017 the zoning administrator approved the 8884 street apartment project file number CUP 16-070 to allow the construction of a 167,868 square foot seven-story mixed use building on an approximately 0.75 acre site and a total height of 95 feet to the roof and 140 feet to the top of the proposed blade tower at the front of the building is sort of an architectural element now the applicant is requesting to modify the project by eliminating the sub-train and parking level and allowing the project to exceed the height limit of the downtown commercial zoning district of 95 feet and allowing a total overall height of 112 feet to the 124.5 feet to the top of the blade tower here is the general location of the project site it sort of spans from fourth to third with a panhandle portion fronting onto 3rd street and the majority of the frontage fronting onto 4th street and it's very close to the corner of Brookwood and 4th here is a close-up aerial of the project site it's currently a vacant lot with some pavement the panhandle appears to show some surface level parking spaces defined so this project has gone through several iterations over the last 11 years beginning in 2008 in 2008 the applicant requested approval of a rezoning of a .59 acre site so the front portion fronting onto 4th street from CD5 which allows 5 stories to CD7 which allows 7 stories a conditional use permit investing tentative map for the purpose of constructing a 7 story mixed use building comprised of 52 condos 3 commercial condos a common area and on the 3rd street side the applicant proposed a residentially scaled 2-story building with office space above an interior parking garage and vehicular and pedestrian access were proposed both on 4th and 3rd street then in 2013 the applicant submitted a new project request and this time it was for a 6-story mixed use building comprised of 140 residential units and it would be restricted to lower income seniors with a about 5700 square foot health clinic and a parking garage on the lower floor the vehicular and pedestrian access to the building was provided via an upper garage entrance on 4th and a sub-training garage level with access on 3rd and the top portion of the panhandle was proposed to remain a surface lot then in 2016 the applicant submitted a new design review and minor use permit application this time for the 95 foot tall 107 unit 7-story mixed use building currently has entitlements today it was proposed a sub-train in parking the design review board approved preliminary design review for the design configuration at 95 feet and on the same day the zoning administrator approved a minor use permit for the approved project configuration at 95 feet and these are the entitlements as they stand today on February of this year the developer filed an application relating the sub-train in parking and allowing the project to exceed the height limit of the downtown commercial zoning district of 95 feet allowing a total overall height of 112 feet and pursuant to a code section 20-30.070 d2 height limit exceptions a structure within a commercial zoning district may exceed the height limit with a major conditional use permit here's the general plan designations for that area of the downtown you can see the front portion is a residential sorry retail and business service and the rest is the portion fronting on 3rd is office here's the current zoning configuration we have CD7 for the majority of the parcel fronting 4th street the panhandle portion is zoned CO for office commercial and CD7 allows for 7 stories and up to 95 feet with additional height exceptions allowed for towers and architectural elements so here you have is a exhibit showing the surrounding zoning the areas outlined in yellow show CD5 so the majority of the property is adjacent to other property zones CD5 which allows up to 5 stories and 55 feet the majority of the block on 3rd street is predominantly CO which allows up to 35 feet and is mostly developed with one and two story buildings the applicant proposes to modify the project by as I mentioned eliminating the sub training parking level and this would in order to keep the parking the way the enough parking and have a pedestrian friendly commercial storefront keep all the units the same density the applicant is requesting a total overall height 112 feet to the parapet the proposed change would result in an overall height increase of 17 feet this is the code section allowing height increased height limit with a conditional use permit and the project is designed to provide a large urban scale building on 4th street while maintaining a more modest scale approximately 34 to 35 foot tall building the older residences and businesses that front on to 3rd the project incorporates street level windows glass doors along 4th street frontage which help to provide a human scale for the building and provides space for utility mechanical equipment within the garage and the project while it does provide parking for the project it's concealed from view by the proposed retail space residential lobby and fitness room here we have a site plan for the proposed project you can see it has a 200 foot frontage along 4th and a approximately 50 foot frontage on 3rd now here are some elevation comparisons so the top image are side by sides of approved and proposed elevations for the north elevation as viewed straight on from 4th street and the bottom side by side elevations are the view from 3rd street and the red band shows the height differential between the two to give an idea of how much taller 17 feet will look here's an elevation comparison looking east and also a building section showing the subterranean parking being eliminated and the building being raised up again here the red bands show the height differential and the light blue shows the parking subterranean parking being altered the applicant has provided some renderings that were included as part of the late correspondence this is the view of 4th street sort of at an angle looking towards the corner of 4th and Brickwood you can see the tower elements that were mentioned the fins and the ground floor retail this is a rendering of the 3rd street and you can see the garage entrance and the walk up pedestrian entrance to the pool house and just a few minutes ago the applicant's architect provided a massing study of the general area and what you see in gray is what the max build out could be if all those properties developed what they could as tall as they could so the surrounding properties that are CD5 if they were at 55 feet as you move along towards the core headed towards downtown along 4th street you can see the heights increased to 7 stories or 95 feet and then as you get deeper into the core you can see the CD10 or the 10 story buildings so this is potentially what it could look like if all the properties developed to their maximum height and then the area would be the same so the next slide is a category exam from SIKWA section 15332 it's applied to infill development consistent with the general plan and zoning regulations it has some technical studies that were prepared that show that the project would not result any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality and the development department recommends the planning commission approve conditional use permit to allow the 888 4th street project to exceed the height limit of the downtown commercial CD zoning district of 95 feet allowing a total overall height of 112 feet for a previously approved 107 unit 7 story mix use building and the applicants design team is available if you have any questions as well staff miss tummions and probably aspects of which we're not touching and it's a very limited purview that we're going to be exploring here and so for the benefit of the public to understand what changes have happened because we did get a lot of correspondence from neighbors on 3rd street what was approved and what are we approving tonight if we do so what are we looking at and what's our purview and if you wouldn't mind I think it would be helpful to let us know what the findings are that we need to make to make this change sure so the the scope of your review is limited to the increased height and how how well that increased height would fit would be compatible with the surrounding downtown area and you would have to make six findings that are listed in the conditional use permit section the first one would be that it's applicable for the zoning district the proposed use is applicable the proposed increased height is allowed in that zoning district that the proposed increased height is consistent with the general plan which really envisions heights of five to ten stories and the general plan has a vision to direct high intensity and mixed use development in buildings up to ten stories in height in the downtown core and then the third finding would be how well the project is compatible with existing and future uses and so while you don't see a lot of seven-story buildings at all in Santa Rosa and the future uses in the future you could see taller buildings especially within the perimeter they could very well be five stories or more the next finding would be that the site is suitable for the type density intensity of the proposed increase in height again given that it was approved as seven stories that the residential density hasn't changed that the parking counts haven't changed it would staff believe it would still be physically suitable based on the type density and intensity of the proposed increase in height and that granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public health interest health safety convenience or welfare in the city would be injurious to persons property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located and given that this project was reviewed by several city departments and produced several studies regarding traffic parking and the project as conditioned should address any potential impacts the last finding would be how the project is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and as I stated in my presentation it qualifies for a class 32 exemption which allows for infill development given that the project also produced traffic study, noise study preliminary standard urban storm water mitigation plan a letter from regional water quality and the project would be approved regarding site contamination cleanup tree evaluation and construction impact assessment and climate action plan compliance the staff believes that the project would qualify for an exemption to CEQA so the Planning Commission would have to make those findings in order to approve the proposed increase in height the removal of the subterranean parking isn't something that we're doing by this resolution that's something that is occurring by right or as the part of the design review process we aren't approving the removal of the subterranean parking we're only approving the result which is the increase in height yes that's correct the increase in height is what's really up for discussion today this project would also be subject to design review after this action takes place okay I just want to make sure we all know what we're doing here okay anything you want to add to that Ms. Crawford maybe just to clarify for the public as well that those are the same findings that as you know you're always asked to make for a conditional use permit but this being a bit of a unique situation where it's just that you're not making any decisions about the use permit it's a bit like when you look at projects and an aspect of it was already approved by right and then you're coming in on a more limited component of the project that requires a use permit so I'd say it's rather akin to that but we're making the same findings as this is a conditional use permit but just limited to the increased height and you know we're working through this code section along with you and I think we've landed in the right spot okay great any other questions of staff before we move on to the applicant Commissioner Duggan I have one clarifying question so the revised project the blade element is 124.5 feet tall something like that and then the approved one was 140 feet tall your display shows that the blade is above the increased height I think it was like the first or second page of the staff report maybe you can clarify with the architect about the blade element the architectural element that sticks above the parapet okay thank you and yeah Commissioner Carter I have a similar question maybe posed differently I have a similar question I have a similar question I think the minor use permit approved by the zoning administrator was for the architectural elements that exceeded the 95 feet is that correct yes that's correct Commissioner Pearson I just have some sort of hand-holding questions so the circle background to the chair's question so this keeps the retail on fourth and it keeps the same height for the third street frontage and then it removes the subterranean parking and adds 17 feet the only thing I would add is that the third street frontage will increase slightly if you can see in the top side by side it will still be under the allowed height limit of 35 feet it will be built to the maximum height allowed in a CO district okay thank you at one point of clarification you had thrown in there that it would also affect the subterranean parking but you're not acting on that portion of the entitlement tonight okay anything else okay is the applicant here ready to make a presentation no you don't get to come down here anymore so good afternoon my name is Don Tomasi at TLCD Architecture in Santa Rosa and just to clarify there were some confusion this last week about who was the architect John Warden was the original architect and he's retired and we took over the project about 18 months ago and also Hugh Futrell was out of the country visiting his son this week and unfortunately was unable to attend this so basically as you've heard there was a building same number of parking same unit same unit sizes all of that but there is a height increase and we're asking for 17 additional feet a four street from 95 feet to 112 feet and just to clarify a third street we're asking for another three and a half feet which brings it just below the 35 foot height limit there so there is a three foot six inch height increased there and as we got pretty far into the project pretty far into the design development design phase actually it became apparent that the basement parking and the the mass slab together were going down 16 feet recording 16 feet of excavation and it was prohibitively expensive basically the project did not pencil out with that and so that is the reason for the request for the additional height so 16 feet deep and also by removing the subterranean parking near four street adjacent to commercial buildings which are right at the lot lines it solves a lot of shoring issues and concerns and expenses as well regarding compatibility in context of the project you've seen the volumetric sketch that we produced this afternoon I think it's pretty clear now that you can see it visually one thing I will add to is that the other direction to the east is the Salvation Army Towers which are twin 10 story buildings probably about 100 feet high I would estimate they're not shown in this they're literally two blocks to the east of this project so that's a part of the context as well even though they're not directly on four street so I will be happy to answer any questions of the applicant right now I don't see any okay thank you okay so this is a public hearing tonight I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing I do have one car and that is Nelson Lomelli and if you wouldn't mind going up to the microphone restating your name for the record and you have three minutes thank you Nelson Lomelli I'm a resident of Santa Rosa I live on to 2676 Cooper Drive and I want to say I support that you guys approving the height difference I think it makes sense it stays within the boundaries that you guys heard about for the district I also really appreciate the project I think it makes it brings a lot of much needed housing to the downtown area and to not approve it on this basis and not have it penciled out doesn't make any sense for this so I don't I think the project is still very much human scale it's something that I very much appreciate in a lot of the other cities that I go and visit so I would really love to see this come into my hometown and see it in Santa Rosa so I really really highly encourage you to approve the height variance that you that you're being requested okay thank you anyone else wishing to speak on this item go ahead that's fine you could fill it out and give it to us later but if you wouldn't mind stating your name for the record and you have three minutes hi my name is Denise Marquez I live at 893 3rd street Santa Rosa California we have a little house that's like right next to this and this project borders two sides of our lot and it pretty much is going to be like our house is kind of like a pit and I do have a couple of questions you know I don't want that the building there because it's just going to be really hard for us to even well I don't want to go into it can I ask a question about the parking situation if you can ask a question and I'll make sure it gets answered by staff yeah they're going above ground instead of below ground and the height limit is the same what's changing in that space certainly there must be some changes okay does that make sense if there's still 107 units and there's two levels of commercial space at the bottom then where is that space going okay anyone else wishing to speak on this item okay I'm not seeing anyone else rise so I'm going to go ahead and close public hearing and bring it back to staff to see if they can help Ms. Marquez understand what's changed sure so there is there isn't a change in the parking counts it's simply that the building is being raised 17 feet which would accommodate to above ground parking levels in addition to all the units that they proposed originally it's simply bringing the building up from the ground and incorporating the garage into the upper floors in order to maintain the unit count increased height would be required to maintain the parking the unit count and the commercial store front along 4th street so with the there were always two levels of parking one was subterranean and one was at ground level and what we're doing is bringing it up so there's still two levels of parking that's correct okay great any other questions of staff right now Vice Joe weeks I have a couple of questions on the massing study this would be based upon the current downtown area station plan so it could change if that changes is that correct so this is based on the current zoning districts that limit the stories and heights so for instance cd5 allows for a maximum of 5 stories and 55 feet in height cd7 which this property zoned the max would normally be 7 stories and 95 feet so it just shows what what the downtown could or 4th street could look like if all the buildings were built to the zoning maximum for the commercial downtown district zoning district like I guess but it could change it could go higher if the study if when the results of the downtown area plan as you heard from Mr. Streeter earlier we're currently looking at the updates to the downtown specific plan area it will extend out to Brookwood and at that time the heights may increase it's definitely something the city is talking a lot about is going up an increasing density we'll have to go through that plan process and analysis but it's certainly something people are talking about so this graphic could very well change to reflect increased heights along this area would that increase in the height being requested were there any new studies required like a shadow study or any other studies no staff did not require any additional studies than what were already done with the original project was there a shadow study done originally here the project I believe there's a shadow study done on the project plan packet thank you Mr. Duggan I'm trying to find the language I believe it was an attachment 15 the zoning administrator resolution there was language that referenced that the project is conditioned to address any potential impact to neighboring properties and I couldn't find where those conditions were so that's one question and also an exhibit A number 25 has requirements for the commercial space as far as I guess looking forward and thinking that there might be a restaurant in that space and having like a grease interceptor and that kind of thing and I'm just wondering if it requires exhaust hood and ventilation shafts to be able to put commercial kitchen space I didn't see that in exhibit A so those are my two questions so the resolution as it's currently written states that unless otherwise amended by this resolution to increase the height the approved conditions found in the resolutions for the use permit that approved the tower in its current configuration cp16-070 and cp6-025 shall remain in full force in effect so those conditions would still carry on with this resolution okay and those conditions are in exhibit A or where those conditions found the conditions were attached as part of the previous resolutions that are attachments to your packet okay questions could we put up the elevations again that show the differences in height now the the original use permit there was language approving 140 foot tower if that's the case these sections don't show that 140 foot tower I don't believe if the approved is at 95 140 foot tower if I may while we look that up the architectural tower is considered architectural feature and actually that's associated with the design review entitlement so the design review board reviews the tower element because it's not the unilateral height it's a architectural feature and so they evaluate it differently than the base of the building so I think that's a good question I have some questions for the applicant sure this would be great so I'm looking at attachment 5 the climate action plan compliance and one of the items is private bicycle facilities within the private garage I'm not sure we had the sort of granularity of the plans to see that but are those still planning to be included and then I'll turn to this will be attachment 6 the environmental noise assessment and on page 3 there's a number of recommendations for good neighbor proposals including using quiet air compressors creating a construction plan to identify the sort of noise sensitive facilities and also designating a disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise are those all planning to be utilized in the construction of this project including the disturbance coordinator? yes they are and if I can just clarify the air conditioning heating and ventilating air conditioning units HVAC units are on the roof so they're not down low there will be a disturbance and also the restaurant flew and so forth will go up through the roof as well as the garage ventilation flew and then my last set here relates to the traffic study on page 23 one of the pedestrian unfriendly aspects of projects like this are the driveways that come out at the street level there's recommendations in the traffic study to include left turn prohibitions as well as pedestrian warnings both signs and audible what if any plans are there right now for those to sort of allow pedestrians to safely cross the sidewalk in front of this project well I mean those are being provided both the visual and the audible warnings the openings to the parking garage are fairly wide so that they can see a car coming and so forth I'm not sure that answers your question that does answer the question thank you any other questions of the applicant okay before we bring it back to the commission I want to ask our city attorney if any of us are uncomfortable with what we have in front of us in order to make this evaluation of the height increase what are our options oh if you had particular suggestions or things you'd like to ask of the applicant you could ask if they could provide that or it would be within your purview to continue if you had a specific request in mind if there's some particular study that you would like to see otherwise you can approve or deny the request for the additional height if it were to be denied the project would be as approved at the existing height and entitlements okay great so any other questions before we bring it to the commission okay anybody willing to move the resolution for the purposes of discussion move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa approving a conditional use permit the current proposal for the street of the down town commercial zoning district located in 884th Street and 891 3rd Street APN numbers 009-061-022 and 009-061-050 file number CUP19-013 and wave for the reading second That was moved by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Collier. Vice Chair Week, do you want to start? Not really, but I will. Okay, that was an honest answer. I have to keep in mind that our purview is the height, that's it. And so there's, okay, I just have to keep that in mind. Please do. I won't get an editorial comment. So I think because of that, that that's our sole item that we can act upon tonight. I will be voting in favor of the project. Mr. Peterson. Building off of Vice Chair Week's comments, I think, again, it is important to emphasize that what we're dealing with with this conditional use permit is not the existence of the project itself. This is just that 17-foot difference between the 95 feet and the 112 feet that we're looking at now. However, with that in mind, this is the type of project. And I think the massing study, if I got the name of that correctly, is a good indication of sort of what we're really looking at when we are looking at these zoning decisions in this area. I think everyone here has been at the corner of Forth and Brookwood and seen the existing buildings. But when you see what could be there, it is very different. And I think that those kinds of differences are inherently kind of bring conflict with the surrounding uses. So we've got what potentially could be there and we've got what's there now. And I think it's understandable that the neighbors have concerns about the height, about being in a pit, about all the other things that come with the changes that are related to the district that it's owned as. But I've got to come back to the fact that we're really just dealing with the difference in height for this conditional use permit. We're not dealing with, again, the project itself. And so I know in the previous comments, we got some of the public comment about the subterranean parking and the issues with excavation. I think that bringing in the, again, though it's not in front of us, bringing the parking above ground will deal with some of those issues. And I think overall, this is the type of project in a broader view. This is the type of project in that stretch of 4th Street that would be fantastic, I think, for the overall quality of life for the neighborhood. I think we saw in public comment that there were concerns about transience and trash and break-ins that had been going on in the currently vacant lot. I think once you get more people, more foot traffic, more economic activity in a place like that, I think it can pay a lot of dividends for the quality of life, not to minimize the changes to the quality of life that are also going to happen with the project of this height. So with all of that in mind, I can make all the necessary findings that are in front of us for the height difference, but I am interested in hearing my fellow commissioners' thoughts on this project. All I was going to say, I agree with Commissioner Peterson, but since he didn't take us to the height exactly, I can make all the findings. The tension is between the small single-family homes on 3rd Street and putting something new and tall and big in this area, and we've talked about how we want to grow downtown and we want to increase housing, and it's a difficult call. And I think I have a little bit of heartburn over the way this process has happened, that some of the, I mean, because of the way our system is set up, the zoning administrator okayed the project that it would revert to if we don't accept the height change, and I think the people who don't come to City Hall, they don't follow the Planning Commission and City Council, they don't see how decisions are made and what documents we rely on feel like they haven't, that this is pulling a fast one because the developers want to build something and we're just going to say, okay. And because it might not be a project that you would want to have in your backyard, which I can totally understand, but just having the height difference, I can make the findings, so I'll be reluctantly voting for it. Okay, Commissioner Collier. I also agree with my fellow commissioners keeping mind our very specific purview of the fact that we're, our purview is limited to 17 feet or so. I can make all of the necessary findings and we'll be supporting this project. Mr. Carter. Yes, I think given our limited purview and the fact that a project of similar density and intensity has been previously approved for the site, that we can or I can make the findings before us today, I will note that the finding C says it would be compatible with existing and future land uses in the vicinity. Okay, I appreciate getting the massing. I can only say that when I was reading this, I was very concerned that we would be, we don't have in front of us a really great analysis visually of what that 17 feet means. You know, we've got renderings and little bars, but we don't have what we would typically be looking at, a real context, especially for Third Street, and we still don't. But I appreciate my commissioners' comments here, but I know for me, I'm like going, I, in order for me to feel good about the fact that we could actually make this analysis and make those findings, I would have liked a lot more analysis. I would have liked to see the comparison of the shadow studies. I would like to see a comparison of the heights in the greater context of the area. That being said, I do understand where we're heading, and this massing study helps. If I hadn't gotten this, I definitely would have just said I'm not willing to go forward without more documentation about what that 17 feet means. It doesn't sound like much, but it's up against these little houses, little sort of historic houses on Third Street, and I guess I really wanted to feel very, very clear and confident that I understood what that 17-foot difference means. So that was where I was coming from in thinking that maybe we would get more information. But definitely respect and hear the comments of where we're heading in downtown, and with that, I will go ahead and support that, the height difference. Madam Chair. Yes. I think because I heard a couple commissioners make reference to the land use as part of just the past entitlements, I wanted to make a clarification why at some point the project or a project on the site came before the commission in 2008 to get a conditional use permit. And that was because it was in concert with a tentative map. And so as you know, instead of going, sending part of the project to a zoning administrator and part of the project to a planning commission, we sometimes bundle them. And so that's what the case was back in 2008. We bundled those. And so the commission weighed in also on the use permit. But mixed use, residential is part of a mixed use project is a minor use permit. So when the project was reconfigured and they went forward and they didn't have a map, we followed the process. So that goes to the zoning administrator. It is a public process. It's not a seven member board, but it is a public process. There's notice and people have an opportunity to comment, participate. I just wanted to make that clarification that we didn't change the process. We're just, we're following it. Okay. Any other questions or comments before we vote? Okay. So that was moved by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Collier and your votes, please. And that, we need a redo. Okay. Your votes again, please. Now we're clear. Okay. And that passes with the six eyes, Commissioner Okrepke being absent. Okay. So with that, we'll move to item 10.2, the kind quality labs conditional use permit. I believe Commissioner Peterson needs to exit the chamber. We'll let him do that. And this is a ex parte disclosure. Commissioner Carter, anything to disclose? I did visit the site. I have nothing further to disclose. Okay. Commissioner Collier. I have nothing to disclose. Mr. Duggan. I have nothing to disclose. Yeah. I will get Vice Chair Week's disclosure when she returns. I also have visited the site with the applicant's representative. And with that, we'll go ahead and have, again, Kristin A. Tumians as our senior planner giving our presentation. Thank you, Chair Sisco. This is kind quality labs extraction facility. It's a major use permit proposed at 2753 Giffen Avenue. The proposed project is a cannabis manufacturing level 2 volatile type 7 within an existing 5,575 square foot industrial building, building 7, and 3 480 square foot flex modular units. The extraction, the volatile extraction would occur in those flex mod units and building 7 would be an accessory to support the extraction that would occur in those flex mod units. Also, the interior of building 7 will be devoted to non-volatile cannabis manufacturing, preparation, packaging, freezer space, and office use. And building 7 would serve as an accessory or as a companion to the flex mod units that are proposed just to the west of building 7. So Giffen Avenue is located along this southwest quadrant of Santa Rosa. Here's a little bit closer image of the current campus. It's a campus made up of several industrial buildings. Here's a little bit closer. So we're talking about building 7 with the red star in the bottom left. The property is zoned IL for light industrial and its general plan designation is general industry. It is surrounded on the west by business park and to the south by industrial. And a very small portion of the northeast corner is directly adjacent to some single-family residences. Here's a campus map of the project site. The area highlighted in the light blue is the applicant's proposed project area. So as you can see, it's a larger campus composed of several buildings with some shared parking. The dark red perimeter shows the existing security fencing that's in place to enclose several buildings that also include various cannabis and other industrial uses. What I have circled shows the gated access. The light blue sections show the visitor parking area. So the general public is not allowed to enter the fenced area, but there is a place for visitors to park. Here's a close-up of their project site area within the larger campus showing the flex mod units. There's sort of three of them clustered together along with a fenced enclosure along the west side of building 7. That would enclose the various equipment necessary for their use. This is a floor plan of building 7. It shows the breakdown of the square footages. So the non-volatile extraction that will occur that will occur inside building 7 is about 1,250 square feet. Volatile extraction would happen in the flex mod units directly to the west of building 7. The proposed project was reviewed with compliance to CEQA and qualifies for a class 1 categorical exemption, 15301E, in that it involves minor modifications to an existing facility with a negligible expansion of the existing reformer use, the flex mod units, and will not exceed 2,500 square feet. The proposed project has also been reviewed in compliance with a and qualifies for a class 3 categorical exemption of 15303C in that it permits the construction and location of a limited number of new small facilities or structures, installation of small new equipment facilities in small structures, and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made to the exterior of the structure. One thing I'd like to add is the applicant has proposed, the campus will be partially fenced and secured and will be closed to the general public in addition to control facility access. Their security plan includes campus-wide security, existing exterior lighting, and high-resolution cameras. All inventory will be tracked from point of delivery to distribution. In accordance with state law, all employees are subject to a background check. The facility, the manufacturing facility would be able to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week per our code, but transportation activities will take place primarily between normal business hours, 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., which are consistent with the zoning code. In addition, attachment nine is a odor mitigation plan prepared by Warner Mechanical Engineering that states that the way the project is designed, canvass odor would be detectable outside of the building. With that, the applicant's representative is here and staff is available for any questions. Any questions of staff right now? Vice Chair Weeks, would you mind giving your ex parte disclosure for the record? Sorry about that. I visited the site and have nothing to disclose. Okay, great. And our applicant is up and ready. Well, thank you commissioners and staff. Staff has done a very good job of presenting the nature of the project, and I'm available to answer any questions of the commission. Any questions of the applicant right now? Yeah, Vice Chair Weeks. In your proposal, talk about security, but there's no mention of security guard or you plan to have on-site security rather than the monitoring. Yeah, so the existing security on-site for the campus includes live security guards. There's a station at the gate immediately adjacent to this project. Current operating standards has a minimum of two security guards for the campus, one patrolling and one monitoring the gate and inflow and exit of folks. Thank you. And then another question is, where will deliveries be received? So the entire campus is gated. So folks will enter through the southeast gate on the site. Sorry, my mental compass was working there. And then we have a roll-up door on the north end of the building, which is where deliveries will receive. Because the campus itself is fully secured, we're able to handle deliveries from a vehicle on the exterior of the building into the facility. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay, thank you. Okay, this is a public hearing tonight. I'll open the public hearing. I don't have any cards or people left that I know of. Not seeing anyone rise to speak, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Any other questions of staff or the applicant? And anyone ready to move the resolution for purposes of discussion? 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 commercial cannabis manufacturing, level 2 volatile, located at 2753 Giffen Avenue, Building 7, APN 010-450-008, file number CUP18-035 and waive for the reading. And do I have a second? Second. Okay, so that was moved by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Vice Chair Weeks. Commissioner Duggan, you want to start? Sure. I think I can make all the findings. I'm in favor of the project or I'm going to vote for the project. I like that the mods are constructed for this use. I like the fenced and secured and closely general public nature of the campus. And I think it's going to be fine. So I'm in favor of the project. Mr. Collier. I can also make all the required findings to support this project. I do also appreciate the security aspect of the overall campus and yeah, I can make all the required findings. Okay, Commissioner Carter. No comments? Okay, and Commissioner Weeks. I also can make all the findings. I think it's a good location. It's very secure and the application contained a lot of good information. So thank you. And I also can make all the findings. It's perfect for location. That's wide zone that way. So good job. And with that it was moved by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Vice Chair Weeks and your votes please. And that passes with five ayes. Commissioner Ocrubkey being absent and Commissioner Peterson needing to abstain. And that concludes our meeting tonight. I'll go ahead and close the meeting and adjourn to what I believe will be our May meeting, correct? Okay.