 Okay, we'll be ready to go in about one minute at 430, everyone. Okay, I think we'll start the meeting. So with that, I'd like to call to order the December 14th special meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. And I'd like to read the following statement due to the provisions of the government, a governor's executive orders and dash 25 dash 20. And in dash 29 dash 20, which suspends certain requirements of the Brown Act and the order of the health officer of the County of Sonoma to shelter in place 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, members of the public wishing to speak during item for public comment or during our public hearing items today, I'm sorry, we don't have public comment portion. So anybody who'd like to speak during our public hearing items will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. So with that, could we please have roll call with the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the. Exception of commissioner Duggan, commissioner Houlton and commissioner O'Cruppie. Thank you. So that will go on to item 2.1 statement of purpose. The planning commission is charged with carrying out California planning and zoning laws in the city of Santa Rosa duties include implementing of plans ordinances and policies relating to land use matters. Assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public meetings and act, you know, pose changes to the zoning code zoning map general plan tentative subdivision maps and undertaking special planning studies as needed. So with that, we'll move on to item 3 statement of abstentions. Are there any abstentions on the two items tonight? Okay, good. Seeing none, move on to item 4. Which is our first schedule item is item 4.1. It's a public hearing KBH group LLC. It's a secret exempt project conditional use permit 3043 Wilgen Corp. CUP 22-029. It is an expert K item. So we'll go ahead and start with commissioner Carter. I have nothing to disclose on this item. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I have nothing to disclose on the item either. Vice chair Peterson. I also have nothing to disclose. And I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, we'll move on to project planner Shukali. Thank you chair weeks. Good afternoon members of the planning commission. I will start my presentation by starting to share my screen. So as you mentioned, this is my conditional use permit. For KBH group LLC located at Wilgen Court. The applicant is proposing to operate a commercial cannabis cultivation type 3A facility within an existing 19,627 square foot industrial building. Hours of operation would be 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And the image below shows the vacant building that is proposed to be used for this project. And here is a neighborhood context map. The project site is located in the southwest quadrant. The site is zoned light industrial consistent with the job and land use designation and is located in an area primarily developed with industrial uses and auto dealerships. The northern parcel is currently operates with various cannabis uses, including manufacturing and distribution. And the southern parcel has been approved recently for another cultivation use, which is similar to this project. It was similar to this project. Actually, it was approved. And here is a brief summary of the project history. The neighbor meeting was held in April of this year and no one from the public attended the meeting. The application was submitted in June and in July of this year, the application was deemed complete. And here is the site for the existing building. The minimum number of the parking spaces for the proposed project is 20 and the project site provides 39 parking spaces, including one ADA space and three bicycle parking spaces. And here is the floor plan. The existing building footprint is 19,627 square feet and will consist of nine grow rooms, a mother room, a flower room, loading room and a dry room and an office and security and some other rooms. Also, the applicant is proposing to add a 12,166 square foot second tier rack within the shell of the building. The second tier rack would include nine flower rooms and one mother room. Here on the top, you can see the cross section of the building that shows the proposed cultivation facility with movable racks that I mentioned they will add another on top. And below are two pictures of the existing vacate building as it stands today. No exterior changes are being proposed to the building at this time and the building will be upgraded where necessary to meet ADA compliance and site improvements will include ADA compliance parking lot and restricting existing parking spaces. And as you may know, there are some general operational requirements for commercial cannabis facilities, including other mitigation plan, security plan, lighting, noise and transportation and delivery plan. So the applicant has provided a certified order medication plan that shows compliance with the city's cannabis order standards and also a detailed security plan has been provided that explains the operation of security cameras and alarm systems for the site. The applicant has also indicated that no new lights will be added to the existing exterior lighting system that's currently the site has and all operation work will be inside the building, including the transportation of cannabis, which will take place within an enclosed area with a roll-out door. And the project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and staff has determined that the project qualifies for two categorical exemptions, class one and class 32. Staff did not receive any public comments or questions also regarding the proposed project and with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission by resolution approve a conditional use permit to allow 19,627th square feet of commercial cannabis cultivation for the property located at 3043 Molchan Court. And that was my presentation and I'm available to answer a question. The applicant is James Lee and he might have a brief verbal presentation tonight. If you don't have any questions, that was my staff presentation. Thank you. Are there any questions for the planner on this item? Okay, so Mr. Lee, do you have comments you'd like to make to us before we open the public hearing on this? Hello, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, sorry. I have no comments, but I've worked with several cities and our planner has been tremendously helpful in helping through this process. So I appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay, then with that, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing and via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes. On time, we will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown time. Do we have any hands raised at this moment? I do not see any. Yes, I do not see any either. Okay, so with that, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. There's one item, excuse me, one resolution on this item. So if someone would like to move that resolution, we can thank you, Commissioner Cisco. Yeah, 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 a commercial cannabis cultivation type 3a use within the 19,627 square foot existing building located at 3043 William Court, APN 043-220-005 file number CUP 22-029 and wave for the reading of the text. Thank you. And is there a second vice chair Peterson second. Thank you. Yeah, I'll second. Thank you. Okay. Is that where you're raising your hand? I was, but I didn't know if you were going to get a commissioner car. So with that, we'll go ahead and start with comments with commissioner Carter. Once again, a pretty straightforward package. As a planner Sicalia said we've approved similar operations very near this so I don't have any comments or questions and I think I can make the findings necessary to approve the resolution. Thank you. And Commissioner Cisco. Yes, I also can make the findings. It's again, it's another complete package. We're getting pretty used to seeing very complete packages so no issues, no questions and I can make the finding. Thank you. Vice chair Peterson. I can also make all the required findings and as an aside, I'm glad to hear that our planner was living up to her sterling reputation. Great. And I also can make all the required findings and I really have nothing further to say. It's a complete package. It's a good location for it. And thank you, Mr. Collie. So with that, if we could go ahead and call for the boat. Commissioner Carter. Hi. Commissioner Cisco. Hi. Vice chair Peterson. Hi. Chair Weiss. Hi. So that passes with four eyes three. Absences. Commissioner Holton. Commissioner Duggan and I'm not sure how to categorize now. Council member O'Crepkie. So thank you and we'll move on. Actually, let me read the statement about an appeal. Please note that this action is final unless an appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of today's action. The time limit will extend to the following business day of the last day falls on a day that the city is closed for more information on how to submit an appeal form. Please contact a project planner. So with that, we'll move on to item 4.2. We'll move on to item 4.2. We'll move on to item 4.2. Another public hearing. Stonebridge duet homes. The negative declaration previously adopted at 6611 Stonebridge Road PRJ 21-022. This is an exparte item. So we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Carter. I have visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. The site. I also had a conversation with Peter Stanley of archeologics because my understanding was that archeologic had been meeting with a number of Oakmont citizens. Looking at the commercial site. I'm looking for some changes for the general plan update. An interest in developing a nice commercial core with mixed use housing. So I wanted to hear more about that from Mr. Stanley and was able to get that information. And with that, I have nothing else to disclose. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson. I visited the site and have a thing further to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, we will go ahead with planner Wixen on this. Yeah. Thank you chair weeks. My name is Mike Wixen. I'm a contract planner with the city of Santa Rosa. And this is my item. So without further ado, I'll jump into the PowerPoint presentation. And the project before you is referred to as the stone bridge do at home. So it's tentative map and a conditional use permit. It also consists of a design review permit, but that will be considered later after following this hearing by the design review board. And so if we can go to the next slide, please. Project is located at stone bridge road 6611 stone bridge road to be precise at the at the north corner, but also that you might consider at the northeast corner of the intersection of stone bridge road and Oakmont drive. And you can see the land uses around it with the slide that to the east and northeast. There are existing homes. And those are detached single family homes small lot. And then to the north is an existing auto repair use further west on Oakmont drive are also attached single family homes. And then to the south, excuse me, to the south that at the intersection of stone bridge and Oakmont, some existing commercial uses their service commercial uses to the area. And then there's a an empty lot actually to empty lots to the south southeast of the project site across stone bridge road. You can go to the next slide, please. And this is the general plan land use designation the yellow being low density residential obviously predominant in this area. And then there's some commercial land uses in the red service and that's actually designated retail and business services. And then there are also some retail medium density residential land uses, which are the striped kind of an ochre color to the north and south, and then also a little bit to the east, the ochre colors to the east, which is the medium density residential. So that gives you an idea of the land uses in the area and for the project site. Again, the project site is retail and business services uses. And if you go to the next slide, please, the zoning classification for the site is general commercial and it's resilient city. There's also a small sliver of the site that has a an R one single family residential assignment. And that's a point that out as we get into the excuse me, we get into the project slide showing the layout of the project site. But basically that small sliver of zoning that's R one is in the backyards of what are proposed as lots five and six. And so there's no actual construction occurring within that zoned area. If you go to the next slide, please, the site you can see with the star there is located outside of a wild land urban interface area. So it's for building code purposes. There's no special construction standards that are required having been located or designated within a wild land urban interface area. You go to the next slide, please. And then this slide just indicates that the project site is outside of a high fire severity zone, according to the maps that are maintained by Cal Fire. And you can see the kind of the gray area in between sandwiched in between the orange and yellow. Obviously, you can see the project site, but that gray area are areas within the city that are outside also of the high fire severity zone that are in the Oakmont village area. If you can go to the next slide, please. The project site was part of an earlier subdivision back in about 2014, which was actually approved back in 2008 or so. And you can see with the star on the kind of the lower left corner there of the subdivision, it was part of the meadows at Oakmont subdivision. That star indicates the project or the lot that was created that is now the subject of this project for the duets at Oakmont. And so I wanted to make sure that you could see that this was part of a larger project at the time. There was a mitigated negative declaration and initial study prepared for this project at the time as well and adopted by the Planning Commission. And I'll explain that a little bit more in detail. But if we can go to the next slide, please. This is just an aerial image that again, the yellow shows the area that was part of the Oakmont, I'm sorry, the meadows at Oakmont subdivision at the time. And with the aerial photo, you can see how the area or this project has developed since the map was recorded. This site is currently vacant and then the site across the street to the south. There are two lots there actually. Those are also vacant at this time. If you go to the next slide, please. So on May 16th, I just wanted to back up a second here. I wanted to give a little project history to the overall site here and how we've come to where we're at today. May 16th, 2006, the City Council approved a negative declaration and a general plan amendment. A rezone for the project, what was referred to as the meadows. That was that subdivision that I had shown you earlier. And that then created the current general plan land use and the current zoning that you have on the project site at this time. On January 10th, 2008, the Planning Commission then approved a mitigated negative declaration and a tentative map and conditional use permit for the project referred to as the meadows at Oakmont. And again, that created 36 single family lots. That created one multi-family lot and then also two commercial lots of which one of those is this current project site. In January 2021, there was a pre-application meeting helping staff and the applicant to review the current project you're looking at. On January 26th, 2021, there was a neighborhood meeting help for the project. There were no comments provided neighborhood meeting, although a later letter was received from the Oakmont Village Association, which is attached to your report. And it gives their nod to the project. On October 31st, 2021, the applications were then accepted as complete for the current project. And then, I'm sorry, the applications were submitted in October 31st and then the applications were complete on September 30th, 2022. And so that brings us to today. I can go to the next slide, please. And here's the layout of the project itself north at the top of the page south at the bottom of the page. And you can see the project is creating a total of six units, six lots. The units are two, there's, there are three buildings and each of those three buildings has a duet setup or arrangement within each building. And because each building will then be subdivided for later sale, these are referred to as duet homes. Again, it's essentially six units, six lots. The attached housing is part of the project description in that the duets are attached to each other. The project site will be accessed by a driveway off of Stonebridge Road. That driveway is about 20 feet wide. That's also the primary location for all the utilities that will be providing services to the buildings themselves or the homes. You can see that the landscaping is being proposed also around the project site, the perimeter of the road frontages. The road frontages will maintain the existing landscaping that is there plus add a little bit more to it. That landscaping is consistent with other projects up and down Oakmont as well and also with projects along Stonebridge. If you can go to the next slide, please. Here are the floor plans for each of the duet buildings. There are essentially two floor plans. The homes themselves or the units are essentially about 1670 square feet, give or take depending on which unit you might be looking at. They will be one car garage. There will be three bedroom units with two two baths and the parking will be provided within the garage one space within each garage. One tandem space behind each garage in the driveway. And then there will be additional parking on street. I believe it's a total of seven parking spaces on street as well. So the parking that is being provided meets all the requirements for the necessary parking spaces for the zoning code purposes. If you can go to the next slide, please. And then this is just a elevation of the buildings. Again, the design review board will be looking specifically at the design of the buildings themselves. But just want to give the commission a feel for what it is the project is and how it's being proposed at this point. It's essentially one story. Again, it's three bedroom, two bath, one car garage with the tandem parking on site. And the buildings themselves will also have a small little porch out in front. It's very similar to a lot of the small lot projects that have also been approved by the city throughout the city. This is actually there's actually a quick evaluation of the project against the small lot development standards that are included in the so the zoning code. However, this project need not meet all the requirements are actually any of the requirements of the small lot design standards. But it's a good benchmark for the commission to have and for the public to have just as a way to understand what the project is providing. And what they're doing and the similarities between this project and other small projects that are in the city. So if we can go to the next slide please. Here's just the roof plan. Again, it's a single family or one story project. It means the height limits of the zoning code as well going on to the next slide please. As I mentioned earlier there was a mitigated negative declaration adopted for the meadows project. And within that negative declaration there were mitigation measures for archaeology for noise and toxic hazards. All of those mitigation measures were applied in the previous project and they will be continued over as well to this project as conditions of approval. So you'll find that those are included in the conditions for this particular project. Staff is recommending that the planning commission find this project exempt from CEQA for any further study. So there are three different classifications or categories that we are recommending that commission find this exempt as a project. First is as an infill exemption for class 32 project. The next one. Go to the next slide please. The next type is a CEQA guidelines 15183 and basically it's saying that the project is consistent with the development density established by the existing zoning. The community plan and the general policies for which an EIR was certified. Since there was an EIR certified for the general plan. This project also fits into this category of an exemption. And then finally the last exemption category that we're recommending as a class 32 since section 15332 projects less than five acres. It's consistent with the zoning and general plan substantially surrounded by urban uses. The site is not a habitat for rare endangered or protected species. There's no significant effects but from the project for water and air quality and all utilities are available to the project site. And if you can go to the next slide please. This is the conclusion but I wanted to just step back for a second just to indicate that the project is consistent with all the zoning code requirements for the general commercial zone. It's all the setback requirements all the lock coverage requirements all the height building height requirements so and all the parking requirements. So the project is consistent as it's been proposed with the zoning code. The zoning code requires a conditional use permit for attached single family housing in this particular zoning category. The staff can submitted that the findings for the conditional use permit that are necessary have been presented in the staff report staff has recommended approval of the project in the way that the conditional use permit findings can all be made affirmatively. The project does not present any kind of an issue with staff. We're recommending approval of the conditional use permit as a use with six units on point seven five acres at a density of eight basically it's a density of eight units per acre which is very similar to other small developments in this area and then also throughout the city. Then secondly the project includes the tentative map and we've also included the findings necessary for the tentative map in the staff report. And again staff is recommending that the commission approve the tentative subdivision map all the all the findings can be made affirmatively. Again the project is consistent with the zoning code. It's consistent with the general plan as well that the service commercial land use actually has a policy in it that discusses a mention specifically that attached single family housing should be considered in this particular land use. So with that that wraps up the presentation that I had. I saw that the applicants were online and available to answer questions as well so I saw that they're in the audience. And if you have any particular questions of me. I'm here to answer those so that wraps up my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of Planner Wixon. Mr. Cisco. I actually have quite a few for Mr. Wixon that would you like me to ask them now or wait until after the public hearing. Why don't we wait until after the public hearing. And in the meantime. Are there. Does he have Mr. Wixon does he have a presentation or is he or she just available to answer questions. They do not have a presentation. They're available to answer questions. OK. So let's go ahead and do the public hearing and then if there are questions as well for the applicant at that time we can do that if that's OK with folks. So with that. I will now open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment via zoom please select the raise hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker will have three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. So with that I do not see any hands raised. Is that correct. That is correct. We do have a hand raised from a caller caller one three three five. I'm going to give you permissions to speak. You can press star six to unmute yourself and please state your name for the record caller one three three five. I just sent you a prompt to unmute yourself. Please press star six. Yes. Can you hear me. Yes we can. Yes. This is Peter Schmidt. I'm the president of the Homeland Association for the Meadows of Oakland which is the subdivision or development that is just immediately adjacent to this project. I recall participating in a conference like this about a year and a half ago where the subject of drainage from this lot came up. I'm curious as to how the developer has addressed that issue. And also if there if it can be disclosed during this meeting any time frames for for beginning the project. I think those are the only questions I have at the moment. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who'd like to make comments. Chair weeks I don't see any other hands raised. Okay. Thank you. So with that we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission and before we start with the questions from the commission. Let's cover the questions that the caller asked. So drainage and timelines. Thank you. So the timelines I believe the applicant is anxious to get going if they're here. So I think they could answer that directly if you wanted to ask them that directly. But they're as anxious to get going as anybody. So I think they're looking at trying to get the improvement plans approved and then on to the building permits and things going by spring. As far as the drainage on the site there are multiple small basins that are shown on the landscape plan. And if we can pull up the power point again and go to the site plan. Hey Mike and commissioners this is Tim Massey. Can you guys hear me. Yes we can. Oh excellent. Okay. So I also and my name is Tim Massey. Pleasure to meet everyone of the applicant. And also on the phone we have Dustin and our civil consultants who are very knowledgeable about how the drainage would work. So if you could allow them in I'm sure they would tell you all you all you want to know about drainage. Well let's see if we can get Mr. Wicks to address that question and if we still have more questions on it we can refer to them. Okay. Yeah. So it would be a slide 10. And it's part of the project description. Basically you can see the tentative map and site plan and the landscaping and in front of lot four behind lot four behind I believe also lot three. And then also I believe on lot six. And I think lot two as well. There are small little basins that are proposed on the on the project site to collect the stormwater runoff. The project has also submitted a hydrology and hydraulic study that's been reviewed by the engineering development services division. And it's been accepted by them at this point. So there do not appear to be any issues related to the numbers they were using and how they're planning to address the runoff and drainage for the site. There is existing drainage connections through the site as well or into the site proposed. So there is existing lines running along Oakmont and Stonebridge I believe that will be used to connect up for drainage. I know that the engineers a lot more familiar with the specifics of the drainage as well so there may be other specific items that they may wish to address. Thank you. I think what I'll do now is have questions from the commission because we might end up having to go back to the applicant and the engineer at that point and ask more questions. So with that, Commissioner Cisco you had a variety of questions. I do. And I think these are mostly for Mr. Wixen. Mr. Wixen did you consider handling this via a general plan amendment and rezoning and if you didn't why not. So no the zoning currently allows for attached multifamily housing or I'm sorry single family housing. So it's very clear in the zoning code in tape I think it's table to say there's a table there that lists the uses that are permitted and permitted by right as well as by use permit. So attached single family housing is permitted by conditional use permit. So there's really no need for rezoning at that point. So if you look at the general plan and let me step back. The zoning code allows up to 30 30 units per acre for attached and multifamily housing according to the development standards. So then if you look to the general plan the general plan actually has a policy statement written in it that encourages the development of attached and multifamily housing. So that also fits the land use category that's proposed here. So you see a policy encouraging it in the general plan as well as we know that it's housing and that the city is trying to find places for housing as much as they can. And that it's been declared as an emergency statewide for trying to provide additional housing. So you see it in the zoning code that it's permitted by conditional use permit. And so with those both in place there was really no need for a general plan amendment or a zone code amendment. Well this project completely takes over a whole site of general commercial retail and services. It's my interpretation of all of the policies that you just gave us would be that those would be allowed by conditional use permit. But we would be coming in with a larger project that actually was a commercial project. So that that's not your take on those policies. No I didn't see anything nor am I aware of any policies in the general plan or in the zoning code that require like say a mixed use development or a higher density or intensity to be proposed. So it's a maximum density in the zoning code not not a required minimum density. And if I could chair weeks and Commissioner Cisco I might be able to help a little bit. Jessica Jones deputy director planning. So we do at the as Mike planner Wixens stated the general plan does have a policy that allows residential development in the retail and business services designation and does not require it to be a mixed use type of development. Residential on its own is allowed. And also with the zoning on the same way we do have a star that we have on our general plan land use diagram that identifies locations in the city where community and neighborhood centers are anticipated to be located. And with those in those areas. We have interpreted in the past that land does need to be set aside ensure to be set aside for commercial space. So you know if we've got a an area of land that is designated retail and business services and we've got residential uses that want to come in. We have the city has approved those in the past. But with leaving at least enough area to be developed in the future with that commercial center that's required by the general plan. In this instance there is not that star there. So staff's interpretation is that you know retail is not required to be there certainly obviously is allowed in that retail and business services section. But as is residential and it is not required to be mixed use. So hopefully that helps a little bit. It does. It also sort of leads into my next question. I think most of us were on this commission this was I don't know a year or two ago where actually that's exactly what we were looking at in Kiwana Springs was removing the community shopping center. And a great deal of analysis was provided it was a general plan amendment that that particular area was not going to be able to be developed for a community shopping center and that there were sufficient areas around it. What I'm hearing you say is that kind of analysis would only apply to those starred areas and an analysis here of what's the actual impact of eliminating any possibility of retail or commercial services on this particular site would not be required. So it's correct. Okay. Okay. And this is not an affordable project. Correct. Correct. Okay. And then last but not least. This is a project the way it's designed it backs on to Oakmont Drive. It's a back on treatment into the entryway of Oakmont itself. And I understand that the design review board is going to be looking at this after our approval. If we approve this tentative map with the way that it's laid out with the back on treatment design review will have no opportunity to make adjustments or make some sort of statement as to whether or not that actually fits with our design guidelines. Is that correct. They're just going to be looking at the architecture. That's my understanding. Yes. Yes. That is correct with the approval of the conditional use permit and the tentative map we're, you know, setting in the site plan itself. So the what the design review board will be looking at is the architecture as you mentioned in the landscaping. All I got. Hey, I see the applicant has their hand raised maybe they can address also some of the questions. Hi. I'm Dustin Maxim. I'm a project manager with civil design and I've been working closely with the applicant. I just wanted to address a few of the items mentioned. And that is that we've done quite a bit of outreach with the neighbors and they've all been supportive of the project. They were supportive during the neighborhood meeting as well. The Oakmont Village Association reviewed and approved the project and at the time they were fully supportive of it. We've also done design review with the Oakmont Village architectural committee placement of the homes, port styles, the colors and the landscaping were all discussed in detail with them. Originally, the project was going to go to zoning administrator for design review, but that is a sense change because we're a hair over on the square footage. So that's why we're doing a follow up design review in January. Let's see. As for the back on landscaping, I would say that the intent there is to continue what has been done further to the north on Oakmont Drive. Some of that landscaping was installed with the prior subdivision. And so we're going to keep the trees where we can and supplement the rest, trying to continue that look and improve it where we can. So I just want to kind of add that to the conversation as we're talking about this. Thank you. Are there any other questions from the commissioner from the commission of either the applicant or staff? Okay, then seeing none. As previously mentioned, this has two resolutions if somebody could move the first resolution. Commissioner Carter had his hand raised. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. I didn't see that. Commissioner Cisco. Just a follow on question to Commissioner Cisco. So with the use permit and while I suppose, if there's only remains commercial, could the property in theory be redeveloped in the future for commercial. But I imagine that subdivision map might include that action somehow. On the road. So, yes, I mean, if the site is subdivided and developed, could it be demolished and, you know, lots merged and created something different if the site remains retail business services? I suppose the answer is yes, you know. Once it's constructed, it'll probably be some time before we would see a redevelopment of that site. But as long as the site remains commercial, the commercial uses would be allowed. Okay. Any other questions? Here are weeks. If I could, I just wanted to point it out also that there are two revised resolutions that were set out or attached. And I just want to be sure that you saw those. Thank you. Yes, I believe those were sent to us earlier today. So with somebody like to read the first resolution, the first revised resolution, Vice Chair Peterson. I'd like to move the resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for the Stonebridge Duet Homes, a six-unit attached single-family residential subdivision located at 6611 Stonebridge Road, APN 016-860-037, phone number PRJ21-032, and wait for the meeting. Thank you. And is there a second? Commissioner Carter. So that was moved by Vice Chair Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Carter. And we'll go ahead and talk about the project as a whole and we'll start with Commissioner Carter. Yes. You know, it seems pretty apparent that the project use for retail is fairly desirable here and they seem to have made the necessary preparations to allow that use through the use permit and I think I can make the necessary findings for both the use permit and the subdivision map and we'll be supporting the project. Thank you. And Commissioner Siscoe. Well, I apologize in advance if I'm going to be a little long. I'll give a little backdrop to how I began to think about this. Last week we were looking at the the project at Skyhawk and notwithstanding anything that happened with the actual project in front of us, noting that the general plan of residential overlay zoning of general commercial, not consistent. One of the reasons why I went back and looked at our 2005 minutes because I because I was there, I wanted to see if we'd had some sort of a discussion about just that the awkwardness of that method and we didn't that I could see in the in the notes. But, you know, after our meeting, I was giving a lot of thought to that. And again, taking into consideration Vice Chair Peterson's comments about sort of the tension of definitions that are in the general plan, the expectations that come from the community, and just the awkwardness of having a land use and zoning that are inconsistent. So I just sort of made a promise to myself that I was going to really pay attention to that in the future. If I hadn't in 2005 that I was going to really pay attention to that. And then this comes this project, which is, you know, an underlying land use and zoning that are retail and we're taking over the entire site with housing. And I get that, you know, the city is saying that that is consistent with our policies and our general plan. It's just very troubling to me that there isn't some, and I get that it's not required that there isn't some analysis happening here as to what we might be giving up in the future in order to to put in this housing. You know, and maybe the analysis is it isn't really necessary because no one's come forward with a development project for a commercial there. But it just it just troubles me that that if those policies exist and that's the interpretation that isn't necessarily interpretation I would get. I would I would think that housing would come in with a greater project if it's going to take over the entire site. And in this case, it is. I think, you know, we all want housing. And I think that's the the tension that that I'm feeling is, okay, do because we have this need for housing, do I just sort of forget all of this awkwardness what happens 20 years down the road when, you know, again, perhaps somebody comes in and goes, this would be a great place to do a downtown little core for Oakmont or whatever the proposal would be. And it's built out with housing, which, you know, we've all seen you don't take out housing once it's in. So I'm just troubled by this method not having enough analysis, even though it's not required, I apparently. And again, if it was a really great project, I might not be feeling this way. But I'm also troubled by the project itself that it's basically six units of market rate housing. And it's backing on just do a back on treatment to Oakmont Drive, which is the entrance to Oakmont. And I don't think that's in keeping with our design guidelines or our desired design guidelines. So I'm troubled about locking that in. And so for all those reasons, I'm going to not be able to make the findings for this project. And I'll be voting now. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair Weeks. I think Mr. Siscoe has raised a lot of, you know, interesting, sometimes challenging points. For me, the way I can sort of square the circle of the tension that she raised between these different elements of city planning process, you know, looking at the site, there is still space for commercial, you know, this isn't a complete removal of that option at the entrance to this neighborhood. And also, there's no neighborhood opposition. And I think that's, you know, a key distinction, which is that the different parts of the planning, the general plan, the zoning, I think needs to maintain a level of flexibility to meet city and neighborhood needs. I heard an explanation from city staff that I think was persuasive to me as to how they interpret this. And if the neighborhood is okay with it, we've still got design review for maybe not the layout of the tentative map itself, but, you know, improvements, if necessary, to the entrance to Oakmont is still there. So if there's a commercial need, there's still a lot there. And the neighborhood seems okay with it. So if those two is kind of a way to resolve the tension for me, I can make all the required findings for the condition use permit and the tentative map. Thank you. So I am going to be supporting the project and I can make the required findings, but I do have a couple comments. I would have liked to have seen higher density on the site, if that would have been possible. And also, with respect to the commercial, there is a commercial site that's Kitty Corner to this project that I know it's been part of some of the discussion of Oakmont 2040 or 2050, whatever they're calling it. So there is still possibility for commercial in that area. And I think one of the things I'd like maybe for staff to take away from this is that even if studies aren't required, it might be a good idea to do them. Your analysis would help us as a commission to formulate our decisions. So anyway, so with that, that was moved by Vice Chair Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Carter. Could we call for the vote, please? Commissioner Carter. Yes. Yes, I I Vice Chair Peterson. Hi. Chair Weeks. Hi. So that motion fails, I believe, because we don't have a, no, we have a quorum, but it's never mind. Sorry. That motion passes. That motion passes. Sorry. I was, anyway, I don't know what I was thinking. So it passes with three eyes, one no, and three absences. So sorry about that. So then we have the second resolution for the tentative map that somebody like to enter that. Commissioner Peterson. I'd like to move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, proving a tentative map for the Stonebridge due at home subdivision to subdivide a 0.75-acre parcel into six lots located at 6611 Stonebridge Road, APN 016-860-037 file number PRJ21-022 and waive for the reading. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Carter. Okay, so that was moved by Vice Chair Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Carter. We could have the vote. Sorry, I forgot to unmute myself. Commissioner Carter. Hi. Commissioner Cisco. No. Vice Chair Peterson. Hi. And Chair Weeks. Hi. So that passes with three eyes, one no, and three absences. Could somebody mute themselves, please? Anyway, could you please note this action is final unless an appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of today's action. The time limit will extend to the following business day of the last day falls on a day that the city has closed and for more information on how to submit an appeal form, please contact the project planner. So with that, we'll go ahead and adjourn this meeting of planning commission and we will see you all in 2023.