 Chair Weeks, it does look like everyone that we are expecting tonight is here. I'm not sure if Commissioner Carter is able to hear us though. Hello. We can hear you. Thanks, Charles. Okay, thank you. Okay, we'll start in about two minutes. All right, Chair Weeks, staff is ready when you are. Okay, thank you. All right, I am going to call the March 25th meeting of the Planning Commission to Order and I'll read the following statements. Due to the provisions of the Governor's Executive Orders N-25-20 and N-29-20, which suspend certain requirements for the Brown Act and the Orders of the Health Officer of the County of Sonoma to Shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the Planning Commissioners will conduct today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and or practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen into the meeting as noted on the city's website and as also is noted on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak during item four, the public comment portion of the meeting, or during our public items will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. And now, Mr. Post, if you will call the roll please. Yes, let the record reflect that all commissioners are present, except Commissioner Calia. Thank you. We have approval of the minutes. They were attached from February 25th. Are there any amendments to the minutes? Okay, so then they will be approved. Now we're going to the public comment portion of the meeting. And we're going to open the public comment for any item that is not included on this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you are 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 viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so, and your microphone will be automatically muted at the end of that countdown. Mr. Host, do we have any public comments? Yes, we have a few raised hands. I do want to reiterate that if you wanted to speak on an item on the agenda, there'll be a time for that when the agenda item is called. Yes, so this is for items that is not on the agenda night. A couple of hands went down. We got one for with Kelly. Nope, all hands have been lowered. Okay, thank you. So wait just one second, a couple seconds more. See if there's anybody else. It doesn't look like there is. So then that will close the public comment portion. I would like to make a statement of our purpose as a planning commission. This is something new we're going to be doing at each meeting. So the purpose of the planning commission is as follows. The planning commission is charged with carrying out the 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 plan, holding public hearings, and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking special planning studies as needed. So this is the time now for any planning commissioners. If they have any comments they'd like to make, any comments? Okay, well I do. So just a reminder that your form 700s are due, and we also received an email regarding harassment training. So hopefully you've signed up for that. If I know some of you probably are participating in that in your other work lives. Earlier this month I attended the mayor's lunch with Board and Commission chairs, and Mayor Rogers talked about the goals that were established during the 2021 goal setting in February, and they're pretty much the same as those that those that were set in was August 2020 when they did their goal setting. And they are things such as COVID recovery, public safety reform, housing and homeless, and the economic and budget stability of the city. So that's it for me on that. And so now we'll go to department reports. And Mr. Rose, I think you have that item. Yes, thank you, Chair Weeks, Vice Chair Peterson, members of the commission. It's nice to see you all just to brief announcements. Tonight, Andrew Tripple will be presenting the project, the Brush Creek Road Appeal project. So due to that, I'll be the liaison throughout tonight's meeting. And then also Ashley Crocker is out tonight. So we're privileged to have Sue Gallagher with us. So she'll be the city attorney on tonight's meeting. And that's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Rose. Are there any abstentions by the commissioners? Okay, so seeing no abstentions. We don't have a study session and we don't have consent items. So we will go on to item 9.1. And as Mr. Rose said, Mr. Tripple will be presenting this item. This is a public hearing 1900 Brush Creek Appeal. And I'd also like to ask the planning commissioners for any ex parte disclosures on this item. So we'll start with Commissioner Carter. I did visit the site and I have nothing further to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Duggan. I visited the site and I'm also acquainted with Rose Zoya, who is the lawyer for the builder, as she is a part-time SPIN instructor at the YMCA. And I am a sometime member of her class, but I've had no contact with her outside of class. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. I have visited the site and I have nothing to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Krepke. I have nothing to disclose. Vice Chair Peterson. I visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. And I also visited the site and spoke briefly to a consultant for the property owner before the last planning commission meeting and nothing further to disclose. So Mr. Rose, if you would like, I'm sorry, Mr. Tripple, if you would like to go ahead and start your presentation. Hey, good afternoon, Planning Commissioners. If you would host, please let me know if my presentation is sharing. We can see it. Great, thank you. So this evening's report item is the 1900 Brush Creek Appeal. It is a continued item from February 25th, 2021. And the project location is 1900 Brush Creek Road. It's located in a low-density residential area of Brush Creek Road. So the issued description. As we can see in the site plan, there was an existing house with accessory structures. And an addition was made, a 12-5-30 addition was made to the existing house and a redwood tree was removed in order to construct that addition. Those actions were taken without benefit of a building permit or authorization for tree removal. So summary of the action appeal. The determination was made by building enforcement and building divisions that a building permit would be required in order to legalize construction of the addition as well as tree removal and that that building permit would require cleaning review. During review of the building permit, which we can see here is still currently in progress, the planning director determined that the proposed project complies with subject parcels, final map, and required building setbacks and approved the tree removal subject mitigation as required by the city's tree ordinance. I would like to note here also that when the building permit is issued, the building permit fee would be doubled because this is a building permit to legalize unpermitted construction. So the regulatory framework under which this building permit was reviewed by planning division includes Title 17 environmental protections of the city code, specifically Chapter 17-24 trees, which we refer to as our tree ordinance. And within that permit category two, tree alteration removal for relocation on property for proposed for development. Additionally, we included a review under Title 20, which is our zoning code, specifically 20-22.050, residential general development standards, and 20-28.050, the scenic road combining district, as well as the applicable final map, which is parcel map number 609 dated May 30, 2001. So some key dates during this project's evolution in 2020, and what brought us to this public hearings for a review by planning commission in February and then today in March. In early 2020, a code enforcement case was opened in response to a complaint. In March then COVID happened and that led to a shelter-in-place order and all city staff were directed to not come into the office. We spent several months moving into a work from home mode, but that did delay code enforcement action upon the complaint. Code enforcement was able to respond to that complaint and to other complaints commencing in August of 2020. And then in September of 2020, they issued a notice of violation for the unpermitted tree removal, as well as informed the property owner that a building permit would be required for legalization of the unpermitted construction. During the ensuing two months, the property owner did submit a building permit application. That was rejected due to complete or insufficient information. That was then resubmitted in December. On December 11th, building permit B20-6871 was opened. Planning staff provided a preliminary review of the building permit and made determinations, but did not final plan review of that building permit. To my knowledge, the complaint was informed of those planning director determinations. And on February or on December 14th, 2020, an appeal application was submitted followed by an amended appeal application on December 16th, 2020. So the grounds for the appeal on the appeal application dated December 14th. First was the lack of enforcement of final map building setbacks whereby property setback is being voided to enable an illegal build. And then that it allowed the planning director allowed removal of redwood heritage tree to enable an illegal build. Then the appeal application was amended and resubmitted as an amended appeal application dated December 16th, in which the grounds of appeal were reduced to one item being the zoning code violation, a home addition that was not within the building on below and removal of a heritage tree. I would note at this time that the appeal application and grounds for appeal were the only items submitted. There were no accompanying information with those applications submittals. So during the review of the building permit with regard to grounds for appeal number one in that the building setbacks on the final map were not enforced, a planning director, planning staff reviewed the project for zoning code compliance through review of the zoning code applicable setbacks. We determined that the front setback is established here across the frontage and in relationship to Brush Creek Road. The rear setback is established here with a 20-foot building setback. Then an interior side setback is established here. And then on this side of the project site, there is also an interior side setback of 10 feet that's established, except that there is a public access easement or public utility easement and access easement seen here as private roads and utility easement. And the zoning code would require that there is no development within an easement. So therefore, planning staff reviewed the addition to determine that the extent of the addition was located outside of the easement shown on the final map. So here we can see the parcel map number 609, which is one of the regulatory documents to which the project review is subject. Lot three is the subject parcel with lots two and lots one. This property was subdivided in 2000 timeframe and then subsequently developed over the two to three years following. Here is clearly shown the private road utility easement, public utility easement, public sewer easement, which also serves as a emergency vehicle access easement to allow access for fire trucks and such. Two lot one and lot two with a hammer head turn around located here. The parcel map also includes the supplemental information affecting sheet and I wanted to show the sheet in its entirety at this point and then zoom into one of the particular items of note. This says what we call the supplemental sheet or the local agency information sheet describes building setbacks and through application of state and local ordinance, as well as information provided on the supplemental information sheet, it was determined that these setbacks are not enforced and are not or rather not enforceable. For this reason, then planning staff turned to the setbacks required in the zoning code. So then we move on to the tree removal analysis. The tree that was located here adjacent to the existing house prior to the addition and that tree does meet the definition of a heritage tree and that it was a redwood tree of sufficient circumference circumference or diameter of breast height to be defined as a redwood tree. Therefore, the tree ordinance would regulate removal of the tree as well as mitigation requirement. During the review of the building permit, planning staff determined that in fact, the tree was removed, that it was removed as a removal as part of development. So it was a permit category two tree removal. The tree ordinance does allow removal of trees for the purposes of development provided that the tree removal is authorized and mitigated. From planning division's perspective, we view the removal of the tree as being part of the construction of the addition. Therefore, if the requirement is that a building permit be obtained to legalize construction of the addition, then that tree removal is incorporated into that building permit and evaluated as part of the project submitted for review. Planning director determination was to authorize removal of the tree and to require mitigation of the tree at a standard of replanting with two trees of at least 15 gallons in size for six inches or an increment thereof of the diameter of the tree removed or to make a payment of $100 per required tree for replanting to the city's tree fund or a combination thereof. Planning staff worked with the property owner to arrive at a tree mitigation requirement and that was presented to the as part of the the project as attachment five tree mitigation request. In terms of environmental review analysis, planning staff determined that the city's issuance of the building permit involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measures and is therefore a ministerial action that is not subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Therefore, planning's recommendation is that planning commission by resolution deny appeal of the planning director determinations made during planning review of building permit D20-6871 thus affirming the planning director determinations and allowing processing of the building permit application to resume. And I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Triple. Do you have any, does the commission have any questions of staff at this point before we hear from the property owner and the appellant? Any, a couple things I would just like to clarify is that we're really looking at this in three different ways or three different things. One is that the zoning code compliance and was that correctly applied was review of the tree removal as part of the building permit correctly applied and was mitigation for that tree removal correctly applied? Yes, Chair Weeks, that is correct. Thank you. So now if we could go to the applicant, the property owner's presentation and you'll have 10 minutes and please adhere to those time tables. So I'm not sure who is going to be speaking for the property owner. Good evening. It's not evening yet. Good afternoon. Can everyone hear me? This is Rose Zoya. I will be speaking for six or seven minutes or so and then Tony Cabrera has about three minutes. Okay. Thank you. I represent the homeowners, Amber and Daniel Lee Howe. Thank you so much for the opportunity to address the commission on this matter. First, we would like to thank all the staff who have been involved for the inordinate amount of time they have spent on this relatively minor project. One quick housekeeping issue. I just exchanged emails with Andrew regarding civil engineer Mike Robertson's October 2020 letter, which was redacted, the content of it redacted in the staff package. I just noticed this about an hour ago while I was reviewing the updated staff report. I spoke with Mr. Robertson, who is in some remote place in Arizona where he cannot access an affidavit. I sent him allowing release. So he did leave a message from his Gallagher and texted me as such. He said, just left voice message for city attorney that my letter can be released by the city as public information. You may be able to use this text to read to the PC. Nearly three years ago, the Lee House purchased their dream property on Brush Creek Road with a 1,836 square foot house to raise their young family. They wished to add a simple 300 square foot bedroom and bath to this modest home. In 2019, they consulted with experts, including some at the city and other experts, and we're assured the information shown on sheet four of the final parcel map does not govern, but that city code, the zoning code governs building envelope and setbacks. This was all, as Andrew said, during shelter in place. The Lee House had no prior experience with building home or seeking permits. As explained in my letter submitted yesterday and in his submission, Dan is not a general contractor and does not have a contractor's license. The Lee House were given misinformation by a neighbor who told Dan that they did not need a permit upfront, that the city was very busy and was not even issuing permits, and that they could build the addition according to code and obtain the permit afterwards. This seemed logical to the uninitiated. Once the addition was nearly complete, the complaint to code enforcement was submitted. Planning then determined the addition meets city requirements, and the Lee House submitted a comprehensive 65-page application adhering to the as-built process, paid the fees, and agreed to pay the in lieu mitigation fee of $2,600. The status of the addition at this time, at the time it was halted, left it partially complete and unusable. Among other things, the shower is not complete and the floor is not installed. Now we're at the point of this appeal. The addition, as we have heard, does comply with the zoning code. The tree removal ordinance was correctly applied, mitigation correctly applied, and Tony Cabrera will further address that issue. I do want to address one issue brought up in the late correspondence related to questions from the commission. The appellant asserted outside of the appeal and the applicant had not been privy to this claim that the addition and tree removal may have caused some root damage to an oak tree. I would submit that this is a private matter between the neighbors and not an issue on which to base a decision on this appeal. Finally, and not to belabor the point, I want to just quickly address what I found the distressing overall tone of appellant's attorney's 25-page letter submitted a few days ago. Contrary to Mr. Skelton's attempts to discredit the Lee House, they are honest homeowners who work hard in our community and surrounding counties. Amber is a nurse who has been on the front lines of this pandemic for over a year, and Daniel is a Napa County sheriff who has served four tours of duty in two wars and earned two corporal hearts for his service to this country. At the same time, they are raising two young children. They did not engage in some sort of premeditated scheme to get away with not following city codes. They were getting misinformation by a neighbor, reasonably relied on it, and erroneously and innocently acted thereupon. They are now paying dearly for that mistake. In his letter, Mr. Skelton also insults city staff. City staff have done an outstanding and meticulous job processing this matter, and as mentioned at the outset, spent an excessive amount of time on a bedroom addition. Finally, Mr. Skelton levels accusations, Tony Cabrera's way. Tony could speak for himself, but he has done his job as a consultant to the Lee House completely honorably and above board. To conclude, the Lee House are in agreement with and support staff's recommendation to deny the appeal so these people can finally complete their home. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Oya. Mr. Cabrera. Yes, good afternoon, Chair, Wicks and commissioners. I want to cover a few items contained in Mr. Skelton's letter that he submitted March 22nd, just three days ago. But first, I'd like to commend staff and thanks staff for their work and their efforts on this project. I'd like to commend them for their professionalism in which they worked through the process, and I'd like to thank them for being available and responsive during the process. And lastly, I'd like to thank them for their patience with me and all my questions. Regarding the trees and Mr. Skelton's letter, he refers to city code section 1724 title trees and specifically asked the commission to reflect on the declaration of the legislative intent and purpose of this code section, which is to protect trees. The code section goes on further to state recognizing an individual property's owner's right to utilize his or her land in a way that is otherwise allowed by law. The tree removal is allowed by law evidenced by the existing city policy procedures addressing tree removal and code section 172405 that is titled permit category two tree alteration removal and relocation. Regarding the front yard setbacks, Mr. Skelton references both the city code and the conditions of approval of the original subdivision dated June 21st, 2000. He specifically highlighted condition number three and one of his 275 exhibits he submitted along with the letter. The condition states the building setback shall be shown on the local agency sheet of the final map. Condition three goes on to state front setbacks or one-story structure shall be 50 feet from brush Creek Road and pavement. Mr. Skelton refers to code section regarding setbacks and specifically a measurement of setbacks. This code section he refers to states a required front setback shall be measured by the most restrictive of the following methods to the nearest point of the front of the building. It is obvious and unquestioned which is the front wall of the building. It's where the front door is. Regarding the information sheet on the map, Mr. Skelton makes several references to the subdivision map back and government code section 66434. That discusses additional information that may be contained on the final map. Mr. Skelton asserts that certain information is required to be on the map and on the information sheet. What he fails to note is the code section states a city or county may by ordinance require additional information. It goes on to state that the information shall be in the form of a separate document or an additional map sheet. Mr. Skelton states if the statement wasn't included on sheet four or four the map would have been rejected by the city engineer for failing to comply with the subdivision map back. Obviously the statement was included on the information sheet and the map did comply to the map back because the city engineer did sign and approve the map. The map was reported and properties have been sold based on that map. Lastly I must address Mr. Skelton's accusations of conflict of interest. He states that I am influencing and manipulating staff. This is insulting. This is insulting to staff. It is insulting to staff integrity and professionalism. Staff has done nothing but act and conduct themselves in a professional manner. The city is fortunate to have people of such integrity working for them. And just to be clear Andrew Triple the project planner was not employed by the city of Santa Rosa during my tenure. Thank you and I'm available for any questions. Thank you Mr. Cabrera. So now we will go to the appellant for their presentation and once again you have 10 minutes. Not sure who's speaking. Mr. Skelton are you speaking for the appellant? I am yes and may I ask staff to authorize share screen please. Thank you. Chair Weeks if we may have just a couple moments. We have not procedurally allowed for the applicants to do a share screen in the Zoom environment so if we can just have a couple moments to resolve this. Would you like to proceed with that? Just a five minute break. That would be great thank you. Okay five minute break everyone. Thank you. We'll be back at 4 36. Mr. Rose how are you coming? Chair Weeks we're ready to proceed and start your videos. Thank you. Okay so Mr. Skelton would you like to proceed as I mentioned you have 10 minutes and I'll give you a like a two minute warning when it's coming up on that time if that's okay. So Mr. Skelton this is one of the hosts. We're going to promote you to a panelist at which point you'll see the neon share screen square at the bottom and if you need any help from there let us know and if you can keep your video off to stay consistent with the applicant we'd appreciate it. Sir no problem. Commissioners are you able to see the image on the screen? Yes perfect. Just note that we're starting at 10 minutes now. Okay thank you commissioners my name is Chris Skelton and it's my pleasure to appear this evening or this afternoon on behalf of the appellant. So I want to make clear first of all my absolute respect and appreciation for the the applicants their service to the community to the country and I hope that's none of my comments or written materials take away from that. This is not a neighbor dispute this is not a popularity contest. One of the comments that was raised by one of the representatives is correct I do take issue with the process and the decision that staff rendered there is a process built in the municipal code to afford residents relief from those circumstances which is what the point of today's appeal really is. Again it's not an issue with one neighbor versus another but really focusing on staff's decision. So there are two aspects to this decision. First I want to touch on the heritage redwood tree removal the fact that there's insufficient mitigation that there were procedural deficiencies and then I'm going to segue into the unpermitted illegal home construction and the reason for starting with the the redwood tree removal is the decision there may influence an outcome for the second issue. This is the tree at issue it measures approximately 70 inches in diameter 55 feet tall. So Mr. Tripple on November 23rd in his email to the building official identified two different potential mitigation pathways. The first is mitigation with an approval rendering $2,600 mitigation fee. The second is mitigation or an in lieu fee without approval and somehow or another the decision landed that this tree removal heritage removal would fall within that first category of approval. Now that's inconsistent with a lot of the literature that's been published. Here from the late correspondence that staff rendered to the commissioners it specifically says the director reviewed the unpermitted tree removal meaning it was not previously approved prior to taking it out. It seems like that would fall into that second category. Again in that same literature it says the unpermitted tree removal is addressed in the enforcement classification. This article classifies unpermitted removal as a misdemeanor and provides a procedure for processing a violation. I believe that we should fall within that enforcement but the reason I share this context is it is consistently referred to as unpermitted and not approved. I want to walk through a timeline here just to provide a little bit of color and context. The tree was removed in October of 2019. September 1st of 2020 the building official informed the owner applicant or excuse me the appellant that a heritage tree removal is referred to the city attorney for permitting. You can see here in that email at the bottom it says the matter of a tree removal without approvals has been referred to our city attorney's office for input. Again as early as September staff was referring to this as a tree removal without approvals. Therefore we should not be in the first category we should fall at a minimum in the second category that was first identified. September 17th the city issued a notice of violation and provided a copy of the tree ordinance. Here is a copy of or an excerpt of that section. Importantly here it says the owner shall be denied for a period of two years from the date of the city's discovery any approval or permit which would otherwise might have been issued by the city for development or further improvements to the property. It's really important to understand the timing here the tree was removed six months before any building commenced. I cannot reconcile how this is being positioned as a tree removal in pursuit of development when no development plan was established at the time of permit of tree removal. Moving on September 18th the builder issued a statement to the city clarifying and justifying the removal. It says as specifically our initial concerns with the tree were root systems that were encroaching on the existing foundation as well as causing damage to the existing shingles. It goes on to identify it was recommended that we have the tree removed which was completed in October. Nowhere in the record has there been a submittal from a home inspection report at the time of purchase or a roof inspector or anyone like that that confirms these issues and I please don't take this the wrong way. I'm not calling the applicant a liar. I am simply asking that the city demand documentation to support what are inevitably self-serving contentions. September 22nd mark requests an arborist report and Andrew confirms that in a separate email. Those are requirements. Mark's email says submit an arborist report on the health of the tree. Andrew's letter goes on to say we need these things preferably by a certified arborist but at a minimum the company that removed the tree. I really can't accept tree data submitted by your husband this to the applicant. On the 24th an unknown undocumented letter was submitted claiming to be the arborist report. This as I'm sure the commission has seen and reviewed arborist reports this does not qualify. This was produced as part of the public records that we received. This is the exact same document no identifying information and but now instead of it being based on a brute intrusion it's posing a fire hazard so there the goalposts are shifting if you will. October 7th there's an email exchange between mark and the builder regarding this arborist report. Mark writes the paperwork submitted for the removal of the of the reguetry is incorrect. The report as to why the reguetry was removed must be on company letterhead meaning that the arborist hat that had removed the tree needs to have the report on his letterhead. This is the second request. So this the applicant responded I've had extensive contact with the arborist and owner and although he did write us a letter with your office's requested information he's not able to sign his name because he did not personally see the tree prior to it being cut. He said he's willing to talk to whomever regarding the situation but won't be able to sign for the provided information because it was his employee parenthetically and father that cut down the tree. I find this very confusing that the person who is writing the report did not see the tree yet the report is claiming that the tree presented a fire hazard. A fire hazard is an ANSI standard and that is I think nothing to take lightly so we want to make sure that qualified professionals are providing these opinions to residents in the in the community. Moving forward October 30th 2020 there's a letter from the engineer opining on the tree removal. It goes on to say that the gentleman that removed the tree felt that it posed a fire hazard and a safety for existing house and people who may be using the yard. I don't mean to get legalese on the commission this is called hearsay the engineer doesn't know this personally he's passing on information that appears to be regurgitated from the same unidentified source and now there's a third potential justification for the removal which is it provoked it presents a safety hazard for people using the yard. Moving on November 16th and November 23rd these are email communications within the city basically identifying that the tree removal has been approved. Andrew's email which copies the city attorney says when I talk to the complainant and explain the realistic approvals should I explain that when submitted the application will be approved and no moratorium will be set on the property for two years for the application. If she wishes to appeal can she do this to the director I'm anticipating a bit of a conversation. Mr. Skelton you have about two more minutes. Okay I'll hustle through the rest of this then. You can see by Andrew Triple's letter he says in the interim and he identifies he doesn't even have an arborist report specifying the tree in the imminent hazard but he's still going to approve the tree this is on November 23rd at a minimum at that point this should have been allowed to be appealed prior to submitting the building permit. So I've identified the various flaws notably though this was done before any building was contemplated there are four specific findings that need to be made under that separate condition no qualified arborist report has been produced or given to the city there's three varying justifications that seem to shift depending on the time and I want to go back to this building permit cannot be approved because of the enforcement under 1724 140 which requires and it does say shall it doesn't say may can could be it says shall be denied for a period of two years moving on this is about the building so I've exhaustively identified this but I want to run through the three major issues the parcel map the zoning standards and the building envelope I'm going to fast forward and skip through the conditions and highlight really the zoning code because this is an important sort of intersection so the zoning code defines front setback you heard from Mr. Cabrera that he wants to define front setback is where is your front door unfortunately that's not what the municipal code says municipal code says the front setback shall be across the narrow dimension of the lot staff has gone to great lengths to say that this this original parcel map was a moment in time we don't look at the parcel map anymore we look at the municipal code as it exists today so as we look at the municipal code today we need to take the language which says front setback is the narrow dimension of the lot on the original lot to the right of the screen you can see what it looked like pre subdivision on the left and you can see the narrow portion the lot is the portion of budding brush creep rope on the left can you please wrap up yeah absolutely I'll just highlight this point because I think this is really important and then I'll close on the left is the new resulting parcel for parcel for lot three you can see that the northern section at the top is the narrow portion of the lot on the right here I have a chart for you giving the lot lot dimensions the north dimension is by far the narrowest now you don't have to be a mathematician or a geometry specialist to understand that this is not a perfect rectangle if you wanted to extrapolate this out you could say well what's the aggregate linear footage between north and south and then east and west and you'll see north and south when aggregated are less than the east and west if you were to divide it by two you would get the average it would also be less and so no matter how you slice it the north side is really the front setback and and because of that the front setback is measured from the most restrictive area and that is defined by the edge of easement under the zoning code if we are if we are totally disregarding this the parcel map and I know that's the direction staff wants to go and we can accept that although I I disagree and I've outlined why but if we accept that as true then the the measurement for front setback is from that easement line and right now there's a three foot distance based on this new addition whereas the code requires 20 therefore you cannot make the finding that this addition complies with the development standard if you want to deny that this setback that this is the front setback and you want to use brush creek based on that subdivision map well then you need to accept all the conditions of the subdivision map you need to accept the building envelope and all those other conditions that I've outlined in my letter so with that I will close and I will just share that there are many other examples of subdivision maps parcel maps in and around this area where there are building envelopes that deviate from the development standards if you use google satellite and overlay it all of those properties were developed in reliance on those building setbacks and and development should continue like as such thank you mr. scale thank you very much um now we'll go back to the uh property owner for a five minute rebuttal uh amazoya is that you yes it is um I have just a couple minutes here and then um I'm I don't know if mr. cabrera has anything to add uh what I'd just like to say is the fact that the tree was removed a few months before the addition does not establish it has no relation to the development whether there were other concerns with the tree does not excuse me make it mutually exclusive from the construction of the addition we appreciate mr. skeleton backtracking on the x accusation leveled against the leahouse it remains that in his letter he did call mr. leahow duplicitous which means deceitful and the leahouse are far from that uh the hearsay comment hearsay is an evidentiary ruling that in my 30 years of doing this I have never seen enforced in an administrative hearing as explained in my recent letter um a moratorium doesn't make sense here the addition is built and is proceeding on an application for an as-built imposing a two-year moratorium would presumably require the demolition of the addition which is a penalty extremely out of proportion to the quote violation uh the addition remained empty for two years which is also a remedy that is out of proportion and realistically unworkable it further could lead to an un-maintained and potentially dilapidated structure attached to the original house if it had to be untouched in some basically we have heard nothing new outside of mr. skeletons letter uh staff has meticulously applied the development standards and concluded the addition complies and I would reiterate our request that the appeal be denied thank you for your time thank you um I think we'll um mr. skeleton sure weeks if I if I may I just wanted to say uh mr. skeleton did run a little long on his time so we can add that back to the applicant's presentation or their rebuttal so it would be an additional three minutes if they choose to use it and they're not obligated to of course for the appellant okay all right so uh miss zoya do you uh no thank you so much we appreciate that but we we have made our our position clear thank you thank you um okay so um now we'll um go to planning commissioners for any questions that you have of staff or of the um mr. rose can you come back on screen and guide me for a minute this would be a time when the commissioners could also ask the applicant as well as the appellant questions or is this the time when the commissioners would ask staff questions uh well you have options you can do that you can ask staff you could ask uh the appellant the applicant if you have questions you can also remember this is uh for public comment as well so you can public comment if you so choose um that might then inform further questions so it might be a way to hear the full testimony and then you can go into your question and answer period okay thank you i will go ahead and do that um so this is uh we'll go ahead now and open public comment on this item uh if you find my script just a moment okay so if you wish to make a comment via zoom please select the raise hand button and if you are dialing in via telephone please dial star nine to raise your hand and each speaker will have three minutes uh count on timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers please make sure to unmute yourself and you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of your three minutes mr. host do you have you see any raised hands it's time we only have the appellant raising their hand which is um not the appropriate time for them to speak no other members of the public are raising their hands at this time okay okay so uh we'll go ahead then and close the public comments and bring it back to the commission um and open up to the commission for questions and i believe commissioner duggin you had a question thank you yeah i've got a question i think for staff maybe mr. um oswald um the appellant um attorney mentioned a front set back and how it's supplied and how it's determined um so at the time of of the original parcel before subdivision the narrow part of the lot was um across brush creek and the existing house that was modified the lee house house that so that was the front setback when that house was built correct and so now they're saying it's the narrow part of the lot so it shifts to the north property line so the setbacks ever changed like that and or can you have two front setbacks or two sides that you know it like like how does that work um practically you have an existing house yeah i'll take kind of the first crack at this i'm gonna turn it over to andrew i think you can give a little bit more detail i also before i get into that though i wanted to mention you'll probably see some of the additional staff we have available tonight so jesse oswald our chief building official is here we also have gabe osburn he's the city's deputy director of engineering so he's here as well any questions come up related to the map and jesse as our chief building official is the director of our code enforcement team as well so just very quickly and as i mentioned i'll turn it to andrew for setbacks we're talking when we talk about the the narrowest property line i believe the section of the code refers refers to the narrowest street facing property line so there is a distinction there um so with that i'll let andrew um summarize the the measurement and how we determine the setbacks or the which property line is which great thank you mr rose a commissioner dug and so your question again was how were the setbacks established and then applied uh that before um the big lot was subdivided into three parcels the narrowest part of the lot was um the the front of the faces brush creek and then the front of the house faces brush creek and so now mr skelton is saying because the the parcel the subdivided into three the narrowest part of the lot faces north faces the private drive so that is the front setback i'm asking does the can the front setback change like that the house was existing it was appropriate that it was a front setback when it was one house facing brush creek and that was a narrow part of the lot and so as far as setbacks can they shift like that and what's appropriate sure great thank you that helps so when we began review of the application after determining that the building setbacks shown on the supplemental information sheet were not enforceable we then turned to the zoning code to establish the setbacks the setback section does indeed say that well let me go back the the zoning code would define the front lot line as being that lot line that separates the parcel from the public right of way it would define that the front lot or the lot frontage as that portion of the parcel that fronts the public right of way so we have there when we look at the parcel lines and we apply definitions to the parcel lines then we would have the front parcel line being that parcel line that is adjacent to brush creek road then the north and the south parcel lines being interior or side parcel lines and then the eastern parcel line being the rear parcel line then when we go over to the setback section the setback section interestingly says that the front setback is determined based upon the narrowest dimension of the lot which would seem contrary you would you would expect the zoning code to define the front setback based upon what it's defined the front property line to be and the lot frontage to be so it is interesting that the the zoning code says then that the frontage is determined based upon the narrowest portion of the lot however that section also allows the planning director to make a determination of the front lot line otherwise or the front setback otherwise I should say so for the purpose of applying the zoning code the required setbacks from the r1 15 zoning district we determined that because the the house space is brush creek road and because the brush creek road parcel line is the front parcel line and is defined as the lot frontage that the front setback is established as being the minimum of 20 feet from the brush creek road public right of way except that then when we apply the setback required through the scenic road combining district it would require a minimum of 50 feet setback from the edge of pay from the brush creek road so at the end then we did make the determination that the front setback is established as being that frontage along front along brush creek road then the north and south property lines would be subject to a 10 foot interior side setback and then the east property line would be subject to a 20 foot rear yard setback okay are there other questions for our staff or the uh I I do have a question um and it's regarding 17 uh point 24-140 about the tree removal and if you could kind of explain that to me about why that's not applicable sure so when in working with code enforcement and with buildings to to address how the code violations would be considered and what um code enforcement what the city would require for legalization or resolving of those code violations we did of course recognize that there was a tree removal that was not permitted and that there was unpermitted construction however the we made the determination or or we viewed the project as the tree would not have been removed had it not been for construction of the addition therefore the tree removal was part of proposed development and so when we reviewed then the building permit application uh it's standard for buildings and planning when tree removal is proposed for development and no other permit other than a building permit is required then we review the tree removal as part of the building permit application approve or deny and if if we approve the removal then we require mitigation as part of the building permit application and that was the approach that we took in this project as well thank you uh any other questions for staff okay seeing none um then oh i'm sorry sorry no no thank you thank you uh i'm just a little curious as to why there really was no arborist report and why the repeated requests for an arborist report were to ignore or not ignored but not complied with sure that's a great question commissioner holton and thank you for uh for asking that the to if if the purpose of removal of a tree was because that the tree's health was was damaged you know the tree was suffering and needed to be removed because it was dying then we might require an arborist report to corroborate that and and to support that request for removal if there was no other reason for removal if that's the stated reason in this particular instance um the reason for removal is is for development for the addition of the parcel and additionally then the property owner cited safety concerns related to the proximity of the tree to the house um i did request an arborist report um because i didn't know if they had consulted an arborist prior to removal of the tree when it was clear that they had not consulted an arborist that's when i responded and said well i need i need something i need a professional to provide me with data about the tree that was removed first of all so that if we do authorize the approval uh for the removal of the tree we can then mitigate it um and so mike robertson submitted a letter and this was the letter that roe zoe referred to as being redacted in her letter to plan and commission and in that letter uh mike robertson is a licensed professional and the letter was stamped and signed um uh using his uh professional certifications and in that letter he did fully describe the tree he described the proximity to the house and he described and reported on the safety concerns that both the tree removal company had as well as the property owners had so for that reason then i did accept mr robertson's letter as uh sufficient for a description of the tree and of the situation are we privy to any of that information from that report yes uh that report is available as attachment 12 to the meeting item i believe it's entitled uh tree mitigation letter okay or tree removal documentation rather okay thank you sure uh any other questions i'm sorry yes if i may uh chair weeks i did want to confirm i know um as zoe uh mentioned i did receive a voicemail um from um mr robertson uh who did authorize uh release of that information and so if the commission uh desires that can be read into the record um and i don't know if it's been if the attachment i have to pull up whether the attachment uh was not was unredacted i don't know uh madame city attorney the the attachment 12 was not redacted the redaction was done as part of i believe that it was attachment eight property owner correspondence okay thank you thank you vice chair peterson so there's a lot of words in front of us so i want to if i take a moment please please indulge me um so i want to kind of circle back to the specific grounds for the appeal that was filed so um on the this the heritage tree front uh the the app the appellant disagrees with planning economic developments determination uh that the tree would have been approved for removal in accordance with the tree ordinance so looking at the tree ordinance um does the planning director or whoever have the discretion in general so if this had been if they had filed for a bill increment does the planning director have discretion to authorize the removal of a heritage tree yes so i'll take that and the answer is yes uh i think that and thank you for for framing that uh vice chair peterson the action before the commission is an appeal of the director's determinations on a building permit uh mr triple just indicated uh that that he reviewed this uh he made some determinations and it's it is actually the director that makes the determination and in this case it was in consultation with a number of city staff so uh on all of these issues we've reached out and worked with the city attorney's office the engineering department the building department and so on but with regard to trees in particular the zoning code gives the responsibility and the authority to the director the director of planning to enforce a number of things obviously the general plan the zoning code and things of that nature but also adherence to and uh consistency with the tree ordinance which falls in chapter 17 so the zoning code is chapter 19 of the municipal code the tree ordinance is chapter 17 but this is where the zoning code gives the director discretion or authority to implement enforce ensure consistency with chapter 17 the tree ordinance and in this instance that's exactly what happened we evaluated it um and just to back up for one second there were a number of email references um they were tied to the timeline and as i'm sure you all can appreciate this type of a project evolves over time so as we consult with other staff as we gain more information uh we make our determinations based on the information we have available to us so as mr triple said we did rely on information from mr robertson we also relied on our own evaluation as well and so the conclusion was is that this came before planning as a building permit we've reviewed it as development and we cited that section in the tree ordinance that allows us to authorize that tree removal and then just to support further mr triples assertion that we felt that it wasn't necessary to go further with an evaluation the typical arborist report for the health of the tree because we knew why the tree was moved we're being removed you could assume the tree was healthy for sake of argument it was being removed to accommodate the development so that that was some of the thought process and how we reached the conclusions that we did and uh but my understanding please correct me if i'm wrong is again in in that that process the planning director uh is part of that discretion can say you know put a bunch of trees put fewer trees pay a mitigation you know into the tree funds that they're you know we're not dealing with a a you know one size fits all kind of um ordinance here that there there is some some play in back and forth and specifically what i'm thinking of um is is the letter that i think may have already referenced um about you know we mapped it out in 26 trees probably won't fit if they're redwoods on a lot this size and things like that you're absolutely correct that is the the practice that we take on permits of this nature and how we assess what's an appropriate replanting plan or in some instances payment of the in-loop fee and then um if i can keep going the uh sort of the the second ground for for the appeal um is a dispute about the building setback lines and sort of which controls and what role if any the the supplemental sheet um has in as part of the final map um so again in in reviewing this this is another sort of uh planning director kind of question that it's you know we've heard pretty extensive uh you know discussion of how setbacks are determined and where they fall and so so again that the the heart of the matter is what role the supplemental sheet plays in the final map and the conclusion that that planning reached was that it it is a reference but not the controlling document is that am i kind of hitting the mark here yeah you've got it and i think what's partly maybe a little bit confusing is that some of the terms that are being utilized so in the world of planning and development a building envelope and a building setback mean different things and where those building envelopes and or setback references occur mean different things and so as you've heard when a building envelope or setback for that matter is referenced on the supplemental sheet or the information sheet of a subdivision map then it's for reference purposes only it does not have title interest so in that case we refer to zoning we went through the analysis that mr. triple indicated in terms of figuring out which is the front and the side of the rear property line and we apply what the zoning district requires for setbacks and we also have gay bosburn as i mentioned if you'd like to have more discussion on the subdivision map act and how the supplemental sheet is to be evaluated we can go into more discussion about that as well all right well i'll i'll turn it over to fellow commissioners at least for now i may i may have some questions depending on what else comes out um are there any other uh questions for staff at this time so vice chair peterson do you want to take another crack sure so so again i guess this is kind of more of a procedural question than than sort of what i've been asking i guess so again we've got in front of us planning director's decision on two items that were appealed uh so as we're hearing this appeal and we're looking at this decision that was made by by the planning director we're more okay so correct me if i'm wrong we're trying to determine whether that complied with kind of the objective standards or the regulations that the city has in place for things like the building permit process or the heritage tree removal process uh is that correct that's correct so what's before you is the subject of the appeal and what's contained within the actual appeal itself and what that focuses on largely is whether or not the director appropriately applied setbacks and appropriately applied setbacks relative to a subdivision map and then did the director of planning appropriately apply uh proper tree permitting and associated mitigation on a building permit okay and so uh based on what i've heard then what i'm looking at from where i sit is we're we're not trying to decide whether something is good or whether something you know i don't know is is equitable what we're trying to figure out is was the process followed did those objective standards get put in place and did this particular project meet those objective standards very accurate summary a building permit came before us in planning we evaluated it we evaluated as i mentioned in considerable consultation with all of our partners and colleagues in different departments to the relevant departments throughout the city and we made the conclusions that we've indicated okay thank you okay so uh any other questions if not if somebody would like to uh um share weeks also if you had any questions of either the applicant or the appellant team you're welcome to present those as well at this time thank you mr rose where are there any questions of the applicant or the appellant okay seeing none then if somebody would like to make a motion uh i'll move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa denying an appeal and upholding planning and economic development directors terminations made during planning review of building permit application b20-6871 for modifications to the property located at 1900 brush creek road assessors parcel number 182-140-056 file number st 20-003 and wave for the reading thank you vice chair uh is there excuse me is there a second second okay thank you mr crepe key that was moved by vice chair peterson and second by uh commissioner crepe key so uh we'll any we'll go around and do further comments if you have those we'll start with vice chair peterson sure so my comments will be a little bit of a a retread of of sort of where my questions went um this is one of those things that um is sort of procedurally is a little interesting in that you know normally the the building permit process is is not before us um and so as as i review this you know looking at the specific grounds for the appeal that were filed by the appellants and the specific process that was followed um sort of taking them in turn i i think that's uh the the final map in this the setback issue has been um a very extensively briefed and i i find the conclusion of um the planning and economic development department to be uh compelling i i think that based on the standards that have been seen and that have been put in front of us on how these setbacks are determined um and whether or not the specific um you know building that is in existence is within those setbacks i i think that that is correct i i think that the process in a procedural sense um was was adequate and followed the the rules set forth by the city and you know the various state acts as they may apply so so i have i have no issue with the decision made by the planning director on that front uh and then on the the tree removal portion of it you know again going back to my question sort of procedurally it makes sense to me that the planning and economic development the planning director would determine that this was um a tree removal that made as part of a building permit um process may not have been in effect at the time of the removal but i'm not sure that i you know i don't i don't find that particularly relevant to the determination of what's in front of us um this is a discretionary kind of decision by the the planning director um and you know i just sort of frankly don't see a reason to treat it as anything other than um a tree removal as part of the the building permit i mean we we've had no evidence that for instance this tree removal was going to happen of the addition being uh created so again on the specific issue of the appeal whether or not the planning director's was uh decision was procedurally adequate and followed the objective standards i i agree with it um and and just so on the on those two grounds of the appeal i i support um the determinations made by the planning economic development department i would support the denial of the appeal of um those decisions and you know just as as kind of a general matter um i think we've heard a little bit about it but uh i understand um appellant's concern i understand that the arguments uh you know about equity and you know why have a building permit process if it doesn't get followed and nothing happens um as a result but um i i think that that's one not necessarily accurate i mean i think that you know making mistakes is is happens and the idea that um the punishment for the mistake would be anything having the building permit process um that you know i i don't know it seems hard it kind of hard for me to swallow that you know the mistake was identified the process has now been followed we've got the appeal in front of us that's the specific issue um and so as a general matter i i find just sort of the overall process um to have been adequate and i'll turn it over to my my fellow thank you vice chair peterson commissioner carter well it's hard to add anything more to the discussion um based on what we've heard today i i tend to agree that the uh application of of setbacks in this particular case do make sense as interpreted by staff um the removal of the redwood tree i think would have been approved as part of a development of application so that makes sense that the the difficulty is that it was done before the application process proceeded and i don't think the applicants made any points for themselves by recounting the problems of the tree on the existing structure but i i do accept staff's uh assessment that it would have been approved as part of the development proposal um and um we're looking at a minimal side guard setback on the addition but i believe it does meet those setbacks as as defined by staff and uh based on that how we'll be uh not supporting the appeal thank you commissioner dugin um i'm also going to um vote to deny the appeal um i don't have much to add except for the fact that the information that the um applicants or the builder zoning builder building owner has been given all along when they reached out with one of their representatives prior to this whole thing about would this addition be allowed has been consistent from the staff that um back way before that they started the whole process um and also the fact that they claim that they were going to apply for building permit all along and that with all the photo documentation one thing that confused me with all the documentation we were given was all the photos shown if you were trying to do a illegal build you probably wouldn't take all those photos showing the whole process to use later to to show um the city that you actually completed with code and it was strictly and done correctly uh so i am um in favor of denying the appeal thank you commissioner holton um thank you uh i can basically say commissioner carter pretty much wrapped up every sentiment that i wanted to express and i too will be denying the appeal however um i just wanted to say from my personal experience i have done a lot of tree removals and i also know that in doing so um it's a very impactful act to remove especially a heritage tree and so i'm a little concerned that maybe the punishment might not be what i feel it would typically be associated with something that i've personally experienced in the past in terms of removal of trees um but with all of that being said you know i i just wanted to say that i i think that i support the staff in their decision and especially in regard to the setback i 100 percent agree um i think that that definitely was at their discretion i just really had a problem with the tree being removed and all of the there was a lot of uh this gentleman recommended that it was okay and there was a lot of so with that being said i just remember what a friend of mine once told me and that is ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law and so just going forward just please keep in mind when making decisions to remove such an impactful you know part of our part of your land you know just be mindful and so i too will be uh voting to deny the repeal thank you thank you commissioner crepti yeah um most of my comments are just going to be um concise uh re um retellings of what has already been sold what has already been said um i agree with the application of the setbacks in this uh in this case um i do believe the process was filed accurately and uh within the uh the purview of the planning and development department um and uh i do believe that the the tree removal portion of this was auto also adequately followed i understand the the argument of if we have rules why do we why would we and it's okay to break them why do we even have rules and so you get it done the first time um you get it done right the first time i uh i guess be from experience that the individuals named in here um and participating including uh deputy director rose um mr oswald and mr osbert i've seen them personally in the rebuilds correct things that were done very very um improper and um force people to do things that were um to to comply so it's not that they have um some sort of uh power trip or whatever the accusation was to say that they have uh full autonomy discretion to do whatever they want in this specific scenario they're going to let this pass they actually follow the rules and i've seen it done personally um with my own with my own eyes so uh that being said i will support sat uh stats recommendation to deny the appeal thank you um i also will um support the determination made by the planning director and deny the appeal so uh mr meloni uh do you want to call roll definitely so we'll do this in alphabetical order starting with commissioner carter i believe that's a no to deny the appeal is that correct no no okay yes it's a yes yes yes yes yes to the staff's recommendation to deny the appeal thank you thank you commissioner carter commissioner dougan yes commissioner holden yes and commissioner callie is absent i mean to commissioner ocrippy yes vice chair peterson yes and chair weeks yes and so that passes excuse me with six eyes uh commissioner callie absent and i think we'll um go ahead and take ten minute break or you would you like longer um mr rose i think ten minutes is probably fine yes okay uh so we'll be back at uh five forty four folks ready to come back mr triple and mr rose is staff ready for us to continue charlie's we can't hear you oh you can't showing you're unmuted you might have to adjust your audio that's really strange because i can hear her yeah i can can you hear me now yes okay thank you i didn't touch anything honest okay so uh staff are we ready to uh go to our second item yes sorry we're promoting the uh okay thank you presenting planner right now thank you mr maloney do you need to um call roll again after the break no i think okay okay so if we're ready uh we'll go on to our second item of the evening which is item nine point two it's a public hearing conditional use permit alternatives east 2300 bethards drive suite a city file number prj 19-047 and this was continued from february 25th and um this is an exparte item so i will ask the commissioners um if they have anything to disclose uh commissioner carter i visited the site and have nothing further to disclose thank you commissioner dagon i visited the site and have nothing further to disclose thank you commissioner holton visited the site and have nothing further to disclose commissioner crepti i visited the site and have nothing further disclose thank you and vice chair peterson i also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose and i also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So I believe our presenter tonight is Mr. Ross. Yes, that is correct. Sorry. Nice to see Mr. Ross. You as well. Thank you so much, Chair Wicks. So I guess I will get started now. Yes. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen and start the presentation. Thank you. Can you see that? Yes. Okay, great. So thank you, Chair Wicks and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Adam Ross. I am a interim senior planner presenting on behalf of Susie Murray, the project planner for the Alternatives East Dispensary Project. Before you today, as you stated before, it was a continued item from the February 25th regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. It allowed staff time. It was continued due to a discrepancy in the noticing requirements for which staff was able to properly notice this public meeting, this public hearing pursuant to the required zoning code. The project includes, again, the Alternatives East project, which is a dispensary retail facility with delivery in approximately a 2,550 square foot tenant space of an existing 17,990 square foot building. The hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. seven days a week, as permitted in the cannabis dispensary requirements of the zoning code. There is no on-site consumption proposed with this project. The location is 2,300 Bethards Drive in Suite A that is in the southeast quadrant of the city of Santa Rosa within the Bennett Valley area. Here is an aerial view of the project. As you can see, it's on the corner of Yiluba Avenue and Bethards Drive. A bit of the project history. These are switched a little bit, but on December 5th, 2019, an application was submitted requesting the conditional use permit. On January 22nd, a neighborhood meeting was held to introduce the project, and on January 20th, 2020, the scope of that project was amended to exclude the on-site consumption area, which left it only with a retail dispensary with delivery. The general plan is office and the zoning is office commercial, CO, which does allow a cannabis dispensary by way of a major conditional use permit subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. Here is the site plan. As you can see on the north side of the property, which is on the as I'm looking at at the right side of the screen where my mouse is hovering over the parking lot, there is the main entrance facing Bethards Drive with an entrance to the common area of the building, and then you have a vendor entry and staff entry in the back that would come in for a secured product location. However, let me back up for a second. Here is a blown up version of that floor plan. As you see here is that entrance to Bethards from Bethards Drive and into the common area. There are two doors presented in the original floor plan. However, the Planning Commission gracefully pointed out the zoning code for the zoning code requirements for cannabis dispensary entrances be prominently displayed or I should say open or viewable from the public right away. With that, what happened was staff's interpretation was that this did meet the intent of the zoning code but as that was pointed out further analysis required a bit of discussion with the applicant and the applicant has presented a new floor plan which then shows the entrance directly on Bethards Drive. It would close out the existing entrance here to Suite A. So you have a little bit of reorganization of the interior for the check-in area so that it would meet that section of the zoning code which is 20-46.080D. There's also an elimination of a door into one of the office spaces for the Suite A. It was just unnecessary so that was removed. The operation plan would still remain the same where this is vendor access here. This is all limited access area so this is the only area allowed for the public or customers to go into. The trip generation shows that with the delivery supported by WTrans a traffic engineering firm would be 45 trips, peak hour trips, PM which is less than the 50 which is the threshold for a traffic impact study. Traffic engineering with the city reviewed the application packet in its entirety along with the traffic engineering trip generation analysis the focus traffic study provided as part of the application package and found it acceptable. The parking for a cannabis retail facility is one for one space for 250 square feet of retail space and the most common commercial office use in addition to that is one for 250 so it's very similar to what was already existing or previously existing at this site. So if you look at the building as a whole the requirement is 72 parking spaces based on full occupancy if you apply one space for 250 square feet of a 17,990 square foot building. The site was built out with a total of 63 parking spaces so overall the site exists with a deficit of nine parking spaces however under zoning code section 20-36.040C when a building's use changes to a new use without enlarging the space in which the use is located there shall be no additional parking requirement for the new use except that the new use shall comply with current ADA standards for parking provided that no that any deficiency in parking is no more than 10 spaces or a 25 percent overall reduction from standard parking requirements whichever is greater. In this case this application does comply with this section of the zoning code so you have 63 spaces it's a new use from a similar use and therefore no additional parking is required so with that the projects I should specify that the project is compliant with parking standards for the site. There have been a lot of public correspondence as you have seen in the application package including late correspondence as up to this afternoon. There are letters of support and emails and support as well as opposition to the project some of the opposition concerns are on site consumption that has been removed as part of the application proposal. The proximity to schools the nearest school is 1800 feet away and the closer and the requirements is 600 a 600 foot setback from K through 12 schools traffic impacts with that you know there is a traffic impact study provided by a licensed traffic engineering firm that indicates that the impacts would be minimal to the site they're a concern over parking deficit under code this project does comply with the required parking an increase in crime and concern over the business operator so again this is just a bit of what I've responded to it's less than 50 peak hour trips the closest school Z loop elementary was which is 1800 feet away from the project site and the project does not include on site consumption under the CEQA review of this project it's found to be in compliance with the California environmental quality act under section 15301 which involves minor modifications to an existing building section 15303 which involves a change in use of an existing building section 15332 15332 which is an exemption for infill development and 15183 which is consistent with the general plan with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission by resolution approve a conditional use permit to allow a cannabis retail facility with delivery service at 2300 Bethards Drive sweet a in santa rosa with the approval of the site plan submitted by the applicant today and I just wanted to reiterate that any conditions to highlight that are available to you as well that concludes staffs presentation I'm here for any questions you may have and the applicant has prepared a PowerPoint presentation for you as well thank you mr. Ross let me just ask a quick question with the change to the site plan would the resolution need to be amended let me just for hope I think Bill's going to answer that yeah I think just to make sure for accuracy in the record we should make a reference to that okay it can just at the if there's a motion we can give you that language it would just be by reference site plan dated received and we'll get a some kind of specific language ready for you great thank you very much okay so the applicant not sure who's going to be making the presentation for the applicant that would be Karen Kessler and I'm going to go ahead and share my screen and open up their presentation okay so you have 10 minutes thank you ladies and gentlemen of the planning commission and community my name is Karen Kessler director of alternatives and I'm so excited to tell you about our application for a second dispensary on the corner of bethards and Ylupa in Bennett valley looking at the first slide you can see from the corner it's a standard commercial office building about 17,000 square feet and we don't plan to make any changes to the outside so that it's consistent with the look in the field of this commercial corridor that it exists in right now there are eight tenants in the building and all of them support no there's no opposition by the tenants to have a neighbor as a dispensary on the next slide one of the concerns addressed was the neighborhood compatibility and we can see from this slide that it's a very intense commercial corridor that is compatible with a dispensary it contains other uses of retail areas such as ace hardware, Safeway, Dollar Tree, CVS is right across the street there are Pilates studios there's an MD wine and liquor there are many restaurants that hopefully are still hanging on sushi and pizza the great Italian restaurant right across the street there's a wonderful architect and dentistry offices and it's sandwiched between physical therapy centers there's a Pilates studio in one of them and it's there's a massage body working use in in another of them there's a gas station caddy corner with convenience store aspect so we believe that this dispensary is compatible with the uses around it on the next slide you see that the interior plan as it has been altered for front door purposes makes the front door visible from the street so that you have an entry point from two different angles both in the public right of way one of them is along the front of the building from the ADA parking spaces and the other is from public parking on Bethards and also from Yulupa up the stairs so you enter into a reception area that also screens people for their their ability to enter whether they're adult or medical patients with a valid california recommendation and they walk into a discrete well appointed store this is it that also contains education stations there are private consultation rooms there are well lit discreet security cameras all around and there is of course COVID-19 social distancing with masks required and frequent disinfecting the next slide shows that the general plan of the dispensary is to provide consistency we want to retain the neighborhood aesthetic we are discrete professional and attractive we're also consistent in that we of course only offer tested safe and affordable medical and adult use cannabis and we provide an oasis to customers for they for them to be inspired to learn and explore the benefits of cannabis on the next slide alternative dispensary has demonstrated its success in Santa Rosa we are a thriving dispensary in its 12th year we were one of the the first three dispensaries to be honored with a permit in the city of Santa Rosa and before that before rosalind was annexed we were honored to receive the county of Sonoma's permit this company is 100% woman owned and operated there are no outside investors and we reinvest all of our profits back into our business and into the community we have a proven track record of full state and local compliance we've mentored dozens of people who are passionate to learn about the cannabis industry many of whom are women and minorities we innovated the first recycling program for used packaging we hire locally and we give preference and support to local cultivators and family farmers manufacturers and distributors such an important point especially since the county is reconsidering its cultivation ordinance to expand allowable arable land for cannabis growers and when that happens they're going to need compliant outlets so that all the revenues that comes from their hard labor stays as much as possible within the city boundaries we are california track and trace and waymaster experts going to the next slide thank you yeah traffic uh right now at the at at our hearing we have cameron nye who is a principal at w trans to answer questions about the projected 45 new peak hour trips but we suspect that that's to be reduced by our delivery service currently we provide delivery to the entire county and with two cars that we can focus on the east side we can serve our customer base much faster and more efficiently and ecologically by having some part of the delivery service operate from the efforts odors will not escape the shop engineers have approved are accepted and best available industry specific technologies designed to effectively mitigate cannabis odors and we have james york on standby today to answer any questions about escaping odors but we have that under control crime dispensaries don't significantly impact violent crimes and property crimes actually decrease according to the iz a institute of labor economics and the rand corporation studies and these studies ascribe this reduction to increase foot traffic and eyes on the street even at extended hours and on our hours would comply of course with the local code opening at nine and and closing at nine p.m so it also ascribes this reduction in crime to increase security technology of course we'll have the state of the art uh technology and availability of tested safe cannabis without the stigma so people will come to us instead of looking for other sources for their cannabis needs there has been a myth that because we're a cash business that's a it attracts a criminal element but in fact we have conventional banking and checking and savings and we accept credit and debit cards uh because of our long-standing and very successful uh presence in the community for in our 12th year now so looking at the next slide uh about the applicant that's me uh i've been an attorney for 39 years and i'm a mother of two uh registered nurse and a teenager i'm a stage three cancer survivor and i've researched because of that the medicinal benefits of cannabis and devoted my career to learning about its properties and helping others i own a home in Montgomery village and commercial properties in Bennett valley and roseland my contributions to the community include and was a member of the roseland steering committee for annexation uh Santa Rosa metro chamber active member Sonoma county bar association the normal legal committee i've a feature speaker at the metro chambers young professionals network member of the society of cannabis clinicians and the jewish coalition for literacy in addition to that i'm OSHA certified and an approved state bar mediator and in closing i would first of all thank you so much for the opportunity to address you cannabis users are in every walk of life every socioeconomic group and every style of dress music color field and occupation we are in the mainstream and in every tributary reflecting our new neighborhood this shop will be clean discreet and attractive with no exterior cannabis signage and no consumption on the property we are aware of some neighbors concerns and i will be the community liaison available 24-7 to answer questions and discuss any concerns that they may have thank you so much and i look forward to this process all right i guess i better unmute myself are there any um questions for staff before we go to the public hearing okay so then um i would like to open the public hearing and 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 9 to raise your hand each speaker has three minutes countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and viewers please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown so uh mr host do we have anybody thank you chair weeks yes we have quite a few so i'm going to go ahead and change one moment first up we have elizabeth hudden can you hear me yes loud and clear thank you i'm a resident of benett valley i was distressed by the staff recommendation of approval of this application it would appear that recommendation reflects a checking of the boxes as opposed to any real consideration of the merits i trust the commission will drill down to seriously consider the defects with the application the applicant and the threatened harm to the neighborhood the proposed use is inconsistent and incompatible with the neighborhood and the current use of the property it is not similar this is a sleepy densely populated residential area where the building in question houses quiet offices the property of budza condominium complex with mixed residential uses in every direction directly across the street is a school bus stop according to the icma publication santa rosa intentionally directs cannabis businesses away from residential areas in large part due to the increased crime caused by these businesses this increased risk is well known by law enforcement the proposed dispensary is smack dab in the middle of a dense residential area noted for its safety this is a business that is so dangerous it requires armed guards and extensive security systems miss kissler's own dispensary was robbed this business imports criminal activity this proposal flies in the face of the city's commitment to the safety of its residents also inherent in this application is the huge danger resulting from increased traffic the applicant solicited a trip generation estimate w trans dated 216 21 estimating generation of 546 new trips daily faced with neighborhood outrage at these eye-popping numbers after a call from miss kissler just two weeks later the same experts estimate plummeted by 80 to 120 the given reason for this revision was allegedly different data claiming the first estimate was based on colorado data and the new number on north bay data this excuse implodes as the first report contained no reference to colorado and emphasized its reliance on santa rosa data no intelligent person can view these numbers as valid miss kissler insults this commission by presenting them this application has no credible evidence to support its claims as to traffic equally concerning is miss kissler's intended use of the location as a delivery hub she vehemently denies it will be a distribution center however this is a matter of semantics so why should we be concerned about miss kissler's representations judge jotton weller concluded she is not credible an assessment notably endorsed by the court of appeals her record in sinoma county of flouting the laws affirms this concern this same applicant offends this proceeding by buying public comments with one cent joints this is someone who when given an inch will take the proverbial mile and keep running her credibility infects every aspect if she gets her foot in the door there will be no holds barred and who will suffer we the residents of bent up valley we ask that you deny this application thank you thank you thanks next we have kelly and if you can please say your last name for the record hi my name is kelly carneggi i believe that the new alternatives east will be widely accepted by our community the new location will save east santa rosa customers time money and most importantly peace of mind many bennett valley community members use cannabis as a form of self-care and medication and want safe access to tested and reliable products alternatives offers discounts daily for seniors in order to service the elderly of santa rosa the new location will keep elders travel time to a minimum helping to ensure a safer neighborhood less driving time for customers means cleaner air for all of us and for the quality of the environment now more than ever is the time to stimulate our local economy by inviting new and successful businesses to open sales will help boost our economy and provide local jobs alternatives will raise so much in tax revenue and fees while keeping money circulating in our community alternatives is a complete fit for bennett valley because it's already has a lot of commercial area there anyways shops small alternatives is family and woman owned business and i and i support them fully in conclusion bennett valley community members use cannabis and deserve to have a safe and reliable way to obtain their products there's no reason cannabis users should be excluded from business in this area i ask that you approve this application thank you thank you kelly next we have christiana if you can please say your last name for the record a costa thank you you can go ahead hi so my name is christiana i highly support the opening of alternatives east and i deeply believe that bringing cannabis to a local community or several people of all legal ages use it it is not something to fear or doubt for any reason i personally fear for the people who have no access to local safe tested and legal cannabis to the medicine they absolutely need cannabis is used for so many different reasons cancer migraines eating disorders all things people in your your neighborhood neighborhood and community struggle with the cannabis industry comes with to bennett bennett valley with love they come with help and they come with safe safe information and they come with the heart to make people's access easier and safer to the medicine they absolutely need when it comes to our local community the opening alternatives east will bring in necessary income to our community it'll bring in jobs for our people and tax income for this desperately needed time alternatives is a discreet and tasteful shop they do not use exterior signage indicating the selling of cannabis or anything that would jeopardize or alter the look of our community alternatives has a grade a security system that i personally highly believe will help improve the safety of our community in that area and lastly i think it would be highly unfair to deprive our local community and neighbors access to the medicine needed for severe chronic medical conditions i do not believe it will change the character of our local neighborhood and i hope you guys can envision that as well thank you for your time today thank you okay next we have mhs guess three accounts so if you can please state your name for the record mhs guess do you have the ability to unmute yourself with this too thank you yes this is alan and vicki hardcastle and we are residents of bennett valley for over 35 years and we're joining our friends and neighbors in very strong opposition to this proposed retail dispensary located at 2300 bethards avenue you've heard from miss hutton who stated a lot of the reasons why this should be opposed and i would urge the commission to take a look at her written correspondence i commend the commissioners for having visited this site and it doesn't take long to see that this is a completely inappropriate and completely dissimilar use from every other tenant in that building this is not a similar use this is a business office that runs on an eight to five monday through friday schedule not a 12 hour a day seven day a week facility also the planning commission needs to look seriously at why a conditional use permit is being sought in an area where there is plenty of retail space as pointed out by the the applicant there are retail centers nearby those are appropriate places for a cannabis dispensary not this office professional building it doesn't take long to find those four lease signs throughout the city of santa rosa and in the nearby bennett valley area this is a bad idea in a bad location it's run by an operator with a questionable history other than a stellar history and we urge the planning commission to deny the conditional use permit we speak as concerned concerned citizens of bennett valley and by the way nobody offered us a one penny joint to show up and give our comments we thank you for your consideration thank you mr hard careful next we have tamera blasts can you hear me yes go ahead and start i'm ready um i want to thank everyone for their time and i'll try and be concise um i'm in the real estate field and as a local agent i actually really do understand the concerns of neighbors and local residents as i too initially shared some of those concerns uh no one wants to see their neighborhood go downhill their safety compromise or their home values go down um i've personally seen what bad decisions can do to a neighborhood i recently visited my daughter in portland where a very well-meaning proposition to allow additional dwelling units has caused neighborhoods to uh you know have unbelievable parking problems and homelessness and all kinds of other stuff but uh but i've personally also seen what i've been following alternative east and found that just the opposite has happened uh what was a kind of blighted little street has now been transformed into a more reputable area the building was done tastefully i've seen the clientele just come in and go out there's no loitering there's no lingering it seems like it's a legitimate and well-run business that's cleaned up the street and the surrounding businesses my reservation regarding consumption has been addressed which i was really strongly against that idea but also the notion i wanted to spell the customers will be somehow spilling into the nearby areas to linger and loiter and corrupt all passing children is just fear mongering um i think most of those concerns have already been addressed the cannabis is prepackaged pre-sealed it's discreet location and it really is not in a neighborhood it's in a commercial area a business with more foot traffic does bring more eyes and increased security which makes it safer as i've seen from the other location and dispensaries also i have to say should not be relegated to blighted areas where seniors don't have convenient and easy access there's a lot of oakmont residents who i know need a closer location with easier access and it's funny how much people will open up to you if you get them talking and i just remember a very very embarrassed neighbor who i saw going out of the the dispensary and because there's so much misinformation and you know false equivalency regarding the use of it but in general i think that this is a good well-run business oh sorry my time is running out but i think there's overwhelming support from the community and i also urge the commission to approve this measure there's a lot of people with ptsd who use cannabis all kinds of people using it for medicinal use it is not recreational use only and i think it's badly needed in our community thank you next we have lauren m if you can state your phone name for the record yes it's manus go ahead and start when you're ready yes i'm here because i feel very strongly that alternative should be allowed to open this location um i've personally been in a healthcare field working for five years with often with oncology you know cancer patients in particular and i see patients from all backgrounds it's really hard to see people in pain and suffering and so i think that there needs to be more access to all sorts of healthcare like alternative medicine and all kinds of neighborhoods that being the key for those in need i think is an advantage for patients to have closer access to the medicine they need and also um the last person um alluded to the fact that um you know elderly people might need that kind of medicine especially oncology type patients and it's harder for them to get away uh farther away to get their medicine um the suffering that's endured by these types of patients i think is minimized by the types of products that alternatives offers especially they do have an assortment of non-psychoactive cbd products that i'm aware of um which is used for pain in a very advantageous way um which is different than maybe a lot of the public would even know about um and i know the area and with my background in healthcare and the things i see i think it's very unreasonable for anyone to question that this new location should be approved but have that in question i think a lot of the people a few that i've already heard so far who are in opposition are prejudiced against the concept of marijuana in general i think that they have no basis in fact stating that there are serious violence risk concerns i think they have no studies on their side and i agree with the last person that said it's basically just fear mongering with no basis in fact i think that those who consider this medicine to be a necessity uh will be overjoyed and i think they're going to be thrilled that there's a nice new dispenser near them in the community and i don't see it being um something that goes against the look of the community or like the last person was talking about i don't think that it would drag down the community in any way i think the opposite next we have moira jinx hello thank you uh i am asking the commissioners to not approve this application as it has multiple defects as communicated by elizabeth hutton and a number of other people that i totally support i'm not sure if this uh group knows if the commissioners know that uh you should have received a petition of from hundreds of residents actually residents in the area i'm not sure if the people who spoke up about this are actually residents in bennett valley it wasn't clear because they didn't state that i'm a resident of bennett valley along with the other people who are opposed to this we submitted a petition that many hundreds signed it's a totally inappropriate location for this place it has zero neighborhood compatibility uh by the way this there's only one entrance and exit to this location and by the way we're talking about drugs uh you say medicine that's fine medicine is a drug these are drugs and nothing that has been recognized by the fda that actually cures anything but in any case that one entrance and exit is over a sidewalk that children are walking every day on their bicycles every day seniors walking across that sidewalk every day and i'm not sure even without consumption on site if you can really guarantee that the people that are users of thc which impairs your capability to use equipment or drive a car yet our authorities still don't have a way to uh test for that with a dui testing for alcohol are allowed to go in and out of this driveway all day and certainly the car trips are over the car trips that are reported here so that is simply a farce and uh this is a very you know generally unhealthy drug not approved at all by the fda and we're just jumping ahead here in santa rosa to try to promote the normalization of marijuana in front of our children's faces is uh sorry that's wrong and this is wrong and you really should place this elsewhere you can deliver it to any of the seniors that that need this stuff and want it you can deliver it from wherever so that's not really an issue thank you and i totally oppose this next we have sharon rogers and sharon if you can unmute yourself and then the time will start when you begin speaking hi can you hear me yes we can thank you thank you um i am calling i'm a medical patient of alternatives and i've gone there for quite some time in fact i i don't go anywhere else and um i i had fought cancer and with the help of alternatives and i won and i'm currently disabled and i travel from rincon valley to go to alternate alternatives currently to help myself and i i run into and i live in a senior community and i've often ran into other seniors in the store that i would not have expected as well but um i just need to really compelled to say that her team are they're professional are helpful they're knowledgeable um i personally feel so comfortable leaving coming in there you you i just am very comfortable there it's not a scary feeling whatsoever and they're very helpful so i would hope that um that this alternatives would be able to go to um the east side that would help a lot of folks thank you thank you sharon next we have diane copes hello can you hear me yes i'm clear thank you great um first off i'd like to start by saying that i am a bennett valley resident um nobody has offered me a joint for any price in order to make these comments um and in fact i'm not a user but i have a child who is of age um but struggles with severe anxiety and PTSD and is unable to go and make purchases on his own um so i have been um i have been using alternatives for a few years now and i have to say i'm consistently impressed by the professionalism the amount of information and knowledge that the staff is willing to share with me and um and and they will help me work to find exactly the right medication to best address what's going on with my son at any given point in time um i must say that i have never in any of my visits to alternative ever seen anyone using um in their parking lot around the building anything like that people take their they always offer you a bag for your product so that people do not see what you're carrying when you walk out of the store um i'm also impressed because they have accepted debit cards and credit cards so it is not a cash business um they are also wonderful in offering what i call a wisdom discount instead of the age discount um which is helpful when you're when you're doing this um on an ongoing basis for someone with ongoing problems um in terms of it not fitting into the neighborhood um directly across the street you've got cvs drugs restaurants the 7-11 store um catty corner across the street safeway md liquors people who operate all hours and um so just the fact that they're in this building that typically shuts down at five o'clock well that eliminates some of the parking problems in the evening hours because there's no competition for those spaces um i also agree that uh because of their security and the fact that you've got increased traffic um it makes the neighborhood safer the other thing i would say is that um when you talk about bringing a troublesome substance into the neighborhood there is an md wine and liquor store in the uh the safeway shopping center and i have in fact seen people drinking alcohol directly from hard liquor bottles uh not right in front of the store because they would stop it but but right around there and kids go in there to buy snacks um so it's not even an adults only store um alternatives has someone checking id on everybody who comes in and out making sure that you are of age and legally able to um to to purchase the product so i've just got to say i holy pull hard to please support this uh this alternative east um expansion thank you next we have bob if you can please give me your full name for the record oh hello this is an my name is an okay i am a resident of bennett valley the permit for 2300 bathard should be denied for the following reason number one it is unsuitable for a densely populated residential area it belongs in a retail commercial district kissler um described it as a commercial quarter here on bethards and yluba and um yes there are businesses here but i would not describe it as a commercial corridor i would describe santa rosa avenue as a commercial corridor number two the applicant has proved to be untrustworthy um over time on july 18 2010 in the press democrat quoting from an article it talks about the applicant's dispensary on santa rosa avenue quote one thing her shop outside santa rosa city limits doesn't have though is a legal license to operate from sonoma county authorities quote kissler has been operating without a permit they must cease operations immediately or begin applying for a costly permit that could make them legal moving head to the present time regulations regarding permit hearing signage notification um for the project um the the applicant erected only one sign purposely placed back from the street off to the side last month in contempt of the zoning code the applicant has clearly shown by her actions that she cannot be trusted by the city of santa rosa and the residents of santa rosa and this pattern of behavior continues from 2010 to the present furthermore she clearly did not have the well-being of her clients and residents of our area as a priority when her initial proposal included a smoking and vaping lounge on site allowing customers to intake thc containing marijuana products on her property then having them get into a motor vehicle and drive impaired in the neighborhood shows her abject disregard for the safety and well-being of the community of my community although her proposal for the lounge was denied by the planning department it showed her complete lack of care and concern for the neighborhood and surrounding areas her lack of credibility and continued disregard for the rules and regulations of the city and county require you to deny this permit thank you thanks we have scott candell okay can you hear me yes okay uh thank you for your time i appreciate it um i wanted to take my three minutes uh if i could just remind uh planning commission that no matter where you put a dispensary you're going to have people who are objecting to it and they're going to be objecting on moral grounds that is bad for kids and it's uh causes crime and all those things uh we as a society have been debating this for a while we ended up passing medical marijuana in 1996 25 years ago uh as a state agreeing that that the benefits outweighed the negatives in 2016 we passed it for recreational and the state left it up to the cities uh to decide if and how they wanted this santa rosa had robust debate uh and ended up deciding that it did want to allow dispensaries then it had robust debate about where those dispensaries should be placed uh and came up with their zoning ordinance uh which specifically allowed the zoning where it would be allowed specific distances that it had to be from schools and other sensitive uses um alternatives appears to be complying with everything that's been required of it uh when i was asked to change its layout to change the doors to comply it seems like it did um it seems like they've been doing everything right uh santa rosa has as made these requirements uh and i see no reason why it should be denied uh and thank you and the last hand we currently have raised is marisa if you can please give your full name for the record hello can you hear me yes we can hello my name is marisa westling and i just like to state that i approve this proposal for the new alternatives in vennett valley i have been an active medical cannabis user for nine years my entire family has their medical cannabis card little information my older sister has four diseases including complex regional pain syndrome and degenerate disc with nodules along the spine which left her paralyzed for almost two years also gastroparesis which is a stomach and lower intestine shutdown which when she has episodes leave her only nutrition source is a feeding tube my mother has three different active cancers and two autoimmune diseases my stepfather has multiple different spinal surgeries and so shoulder surgeries that has left him crippled i have chronic insomnia and PTSD we have all benefited from cannabis throughout the past 10 years we have all expanded our knowledge on cannabis and how it has truly benefited us certain products are only sold at certain locations and i have found my home with alternatives health collectives i have made the commute for over five years and willing to wait up to an hour and a half for their product an excellent service expanding their store would honestly save myself and many others in the community to get unnecessary medicine looking at the location on yulupa and bethards drive is a very perfect location knowing that there is no one younger than 21 is allowed to enter the building and alternatives does check for valid california ids upon entry is a huge relief as a neighbor also all the new security cameras inside and out of the building is a relief doing my research the delivery drivers must have proof of a clean driving record upon hiring the same as any other delivery service which is also a very big relief knowing that they're safe drivers in our community and finally in my experience i've seen more homeless in crime at the family restaurant i work at than at near any dispensaries as for crime any business someone believes has money is in danger recently thanksgiving 2020 i was attacked at gunpoint when leaving my work unfortunate people in hard times can make horrible mistakes but there is no difference from a dispensary to a family restaurant i would honestly benefit as a community member needing our medicine to get a more convenient location and product we can know to be tested and safe thank you and i approve thank you it looks like a few more hands in a moment next is listed as main if you can please give us your full name for the record i'm eric simons can you hear me yes i can't hear peter last name number two simons yes i live um creek side area and uh i just think that there's been many great things said so far um i work with logistics in the entertainment business and that must say that i look at the flow that they're talking about for increased traffic and if they're expanding to two locations i cannot see anything measurable within the community furthermore they're talking about having no signs available as well so i think this will be an invisible business to the community and it's a service that's provided throughout santa rosa my biggest concern is that we're looking at unequal application of where a dispenser can be there's other places in santa rosa they have similar situations the zoning for the area is commercial so therefore it's unequal application of having a dispensary in santa rosa to say you can't be here in yulipa benedale not only do i support them being there i think that they would be a great contributor to the community but the negative harms things that are being said against karen are are horrible because they do not reflect the business my sister my wife people that i know that depend on cbd cannot get it unless they go to a dispensary for oral application and that's for pain they do not um partake of thc or get high or anything like that and i go to alternatives because for my wife i can actually get the proper cbd that is helping her with her migraines and i think it's important to realize that the complexion of the business is multifaceted and also too i think that there's been so much thrown around against this business that's really to be honest with you not fair you know having witnessed that i think that we just should look at the fact it's another business it's commercially zoned and and they're doing nothing absolutely nothing that's going to be different than a similar location in other parts of santa rosa so it's benedale yulipa going to discriminate against things that are accepted in other parts of santa rosa i hope not thank you next we have let's say lake fear drive if you can please give your name for the record hi there my name is alex dootsy and i am a resident of benedale and i've been here for probably 25 years now i'm just weighing in i think that i i don't have an issue with medical marijuana or its uses but living here i thought i was very surprised to hear that this area is an intense commerce commerce corridor i have to disagree with that and i would like to try to compare that to the commerce corridor in roseland off sabastical road the other alternative place is i think that's it looks like it's not at all the same i do have an issue with the fact that there is a lot of foot traffic going back and forth uh around that area with kids from the bus when schools finally get back to normal um and i i just i don't think it's a really good fit for our community here and i think there's plenty of other retail space maybe closer to oakmont where they could open up shops so i would uh put my vote in to oppose this thank you very much a couple more hands if more rain is next if you can please give your last name for the record uh grafeld hi um i'm opposing this but uh you know it's it's been really hard listening to a lot of the people weighing in that that are basically saying that anyone that's opposed to it is a opposed to cannabis and that's really not the case i think the majority of people that live in benna valley are opposed to this based on the location um i think the city has a responsibility about where they're going to put these dispensaries and and to me this is office space um i found it intriguing that the person who who um owns the property um said so many things that were untrue i have walked through that facility and i've talked to just about every single um tenant that she has and they're all leaving including mike robertson who was part of the last um um presentation that you had about the tree and uh and the house lines um they're all leaving they've been there most of those people have been there for 20 plus years and they really want nothing to do with this but they also want nothing to do with this landlord this landlord has a history that goes i mean she has lawsuits and unpaid people the the people that have worked on that building since she's owned it have gone through and told so many of the residents in there um that she's not paying the bills that she hires unlicensed people and then she they have no recourse she doesn't pay them i mean i'm listening to stories that you have no idea the trail this lady leaves behind is a landlord and if you would just look at her property on the west side it's an embarrassment but as far as you know cannabis i have no problem with it um and put it somewhere else in benna valley but try to put it in somewhere where it's more appropriate this building is 10 feet from homes 10 feet there are people families living in those homes right behind there it is surrounded by apartments and homes this is an office space there's no retail on that side of the street at all it's quite a ways away but i think the city has a responsibility to put these dispensaries in places that are more trafficked where there's more um there's more exposures to people that are coming in and out and not sort of hidden away where you know a lot of other issues can come up but this is definitely a residential area and it's office space it's not retail um and i just think of a responsibility to be careful what could potentially happen in this area as far as she has had robberies in her other locations and that would be my biggest concern along with the students i was a teacher here for 30 years and i know all the children congregate on that corner they get picked up by buses so i oppose this um but not because it's a medical marijuana or cannabis or whatever um i that's not my issue it's the wrong location thank you we have another hand raised teresa brunei um thank you very much uh i am opposed to this application um and i'd like to thank everyone who has spoken here opposing and also the well-spoken elizabeth hutton of so many points for me um i believe a previous application would open the door for other unsavory villagers retailers and while tamera blast believes our area is not a neighborhood i would suggest to expand the commercial map so she can see the dense neighborhoods surrounding the location i'm also concerned about the private consultation room and what exactly would take place in there um that's all i have to say thank you so much you and share weeks with that we have no other hands raised share weeks you are muted at this time okay sorry i just saw another hand raised oh you're correct we have more thank you share weeks next we have spencer if you can please stay your name for the record and spencer if you have the ability to unmute yourself so if you can please thank you how about now we can hear you all clear all right sorry about that my name is spencer oldfield and i live in benna valley and i support alternatives east it's almost comical to think that having a dispensary like alternatives in our neighborhood will do anything but increase joy people leave alternatives with a good feeling knowing they got a good deal in great service people of all races genders and ages we all meet up together with a common interest and goal it's a small family that is that pitted me the mom and pop shop it's unlike a lot of other dispensaries in sonoma county i feel good spending my money there knowing i'm supporting the community please allow them to open a location in our loving neighborhood thank you so much thank you so it doesn't look like there are any other hands raised mr maloney is that correct correct there are no other hands raised at this time okay so with that i will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission um do you are there any uh questions that the commission has for a staff or the applicant uh vice chair peterson uh yes i i've got a couple for staff um i'll start with kind of the easy ones uh what's what's the standard for the odor uh portion of of cannabis retail yeah i can answer that um the standard is that it cannot uh it can't go outside of the walls so the application here would be that if they are in a building such as this with other tenants in common area it can't leave their suite okay great out outside of their suite and um in terms of sort of you know enforcement so conditional use permit has conditions of use um what's sort of the enforcement if the those conditions aren't met sure so say you have uh complaints about odor the there's a mechanism the first one that comes to mind is the code enforcement division of the city a file of say a tenant of the space or a neighbor walking by smells the odor uh they would make a file of a complaint with code enforcement they're obligated to check on that complaint and then what they find determines whether a case is open in pursuit further from that point or if they find no uh violation um okay great and in terms of the sort of location the zoning requirements of the uh of cannabis retail sales that's that's tied to the lot is that correct do you what the the use permit would run with the land is that is that what you're asking but so i mean that you know the lot is going to be zoned it's something and there's some other requirements about setback from schools and stuff but it's it's not sort of the area in general it's it's the lot it's itself that yes that would allow you know it needs to be you know in general industrial or light industrial whatever that is correct yes okay um i may have some more but let me turn it over to the there's the commission so i don't uh monopolize this time hey are there any other questions uh commissioner carter yeah could we briefly be shown where the deliveries uh delivery operations will function out of uh generally the route for bringing materials to the operation and delivering product from the operation yes uh give me one second and i will share my screen again and uh sort of as a follow on to uh vice chair peterson's question a use permit when approved uh is approved as submitted so in order to change any of the operations would it be necessary to modify the use permit so what should it be approved yes so say um say they wanted to expand the hours of operation at a later point in time that would require a return to the planning commission for review and approval or review and and yes planning commission's approval i think that's all i have for now this is that uh the floor plan as you requested um the one that was received today which is still the same as what was previously uh provided which so this comes in here this is where the vendor distribution and the delivery services would come in and out of so i'll go right here so as you see parking over here entry here into this common corridor an entry in the back this is the only entrance for this site as proposed with the door facing bethard's drive for members of the public customers entering the site i'm sorry you're muted mr uh commissioner carter and do we know if any of those spaces on the south side of the building are reserved for the delivery and operations of the facility that's a good question give me one second and one minute and i'll i'll verify that for you thank you if you have other questions or want to move on and and i'll just i'll look it up just for verification while we move forward thank you commissioner duggin i think did you have a question yeah i i had a couple of questions that were tied to um comments from the public okay and the two for staff are um to verify that he did indeed get a petition that one of the commenters brought up and then also um the the private office for consultation somebody asked what what would happen in that within that room and i guess that's more for the applicant to um respond to and then there was a question regarding the traffic study um and why did the numbers change and just an explanation of that okay i can jump in while adam i think he's researching the previous questions okay i think i think two of those might be most appropriate for the applicant their team with regard to the traffic study as well as um what activities will happen in the consultation room uh and then i think i deferred it adam so we might put this in the parking lot as well about the petition and we'll come back to you on that one okay can we promote the applicant to a participant to answer those questions good evening uh madam chair commissioners this is cameron nye um associate engineer with w trans and we prepared the trip generation estimate from the subject project and i can answer the question about why the trip numbers changed uh when this project was initiated about a year and a half ago the original estimate was based on national standard rates that were considered the best available data at the time the study was initiated since that time w trans has collected local data here in the city of san aroza sonoma county uh city of napa as well and we have developed new rates that are specific to the dispensaries that we see in our communities around here uh so so that's why the trip numbers changed as the report moved along into the final version thank you uh and then the other question excuse me for the applicant was uh the purpose of the private consultation office so if we could promote the applicant to a participant can the applicant please raise their hand we have quite a few members in the attendees oh sorry great thank you for the opportunity to respond the private consultation office is not for dispensing cannabis or for uh doing anything other than if someone has a private consideration that is personal to their own lives if they want to speak with one of our cannabis technicians or one of our bud tenders just about uh concerns that that they have uh it's just a just a private space it's just to allow for some private conversation right now at the dispensary for example a parent could walk in and talk about what some side effects may be to a certain kind of or ratio of cbd to thc and it's just a place to to talk with people but in addition to that we consider one of our most important goals is that to educate the community so for example we had uh Connor O'Neill come in and talk to our growers when the he's from the the water quality control board and he came in and he talked with it must have been 30 growers when the new regulations were being proposed and were being debated so we had an education center a consultation room as it were to allow people to get together and talk about application of of these regulations and speak to government officials about how they might apply we see some of these rooms to provide education centers for community groups that may not have otherwise a safe place to meet to talk about issues that are that are concerning to them like the new cultivation ordinance that's that's coming up but really it's just uh it's a room for people to to talk about issues that that concern them but there's no no cannabis is sold in the room and there isn't consumption there and it it really is just extra space to interface with with the community in a way that might be helpful to them thank you uh commissioner dug in did that answer your questions other than the petition we're still waiting on an answer about the petition correct yes thank you okay um commissioner holton uh yes i just had one question in regard to smell mitigation i was wondering how you were going to achieve that would it be through activated charcoal filters in your h-fax system or do you have a more kind of aggressive approach to mitigating the smell my concern is just due to close proximity of the neighborhood in chair weeks i think that question would be best yeah the applicant yeah sorry and the applicant actually had brought a specialist and that's probably more for the specialist exactly thank you and i was also wondering about carts per million as well like what would be the acceptable range so right if if james york is not here i can respond that the unit uh generates 3 3500 cfms and it's a combination of coir and charcoal okay it's considered a state of the art for commercial settings it has massive turnover yeah um the question what would your do you have developed p.m schedules currently as far as for because i know especially with far and activated charcoal you'll get um with residues like that can actually leave residues on the material and over time so i just want to make sure you guys have planning for uh adequate p.m schedule we do and we're not cultivating if if by p.m you mean um the preventative maintenance no no preventative maintenance sorry we all have so many acronyms in our industry right we're hoping the clones that come in are clean of all of that yeah no powder mold yeah no no thank you uh no we have uh the the uh the unit manufacturer requires a six-month turnaround of the filtration and we have scheduled that it will definitely invoke for that but we have multiple redundant systems including uh charcoal filters in each room and oh great i know and i know that uh james york who apparently had to leave i'm on i'm on the call actually oh i'm so sorry thank you uh we'll we'll talk about the redundant systems that we have please carry on oh yeah um i i just wanted to add that it it's a carbon system and we have seen them work with success at other cannabis facilities both um well i guess all retail shipping and handling as well as actually grow ops using the same technology and and in terms of preventative maintenance and you know one of the things that we usually recommend is is going outside and smelling for it because if you can't smell it outside other people can't smell it outside and and you know that would be part of a odor mitigation plan certainly but just due to the close proximity of the neighborhood you know you don't want your employees to have to go out every you know hour and a half or every day and be like hey right yeah so so what is do you have any idea as far as what is the local or the accepted rate of parts per million for smell mitigation i mean is there a i'm not sure if there's actually currently a statute in place so and there's there's no statute generally for parts per million i need these things especially because the organic compounds involved in odor are sometimes different and numerous yeah in the in the case of cannabis it tends to be the terpenes which i believe generate a majority of the odor and they can be smelled in in volumes as low as one ppm um but we do also see that the volume is going through the carbon systems are are generally low to begin with and then the carbon systems can control as high as 99 percent okay great and like karen said there they tend to have a lifespan of about six months and so right you're not going to go outside and test for smell every hour especially because your nose is not going to be very sensitive to cannabis odor if you were just working inside the facility exactly what we often say is that part of the part of the odor mitigation plan would be you know in the morning when you arrive at the facility you go to the carbon filters you stand there you smell because it's blowing air out of the facility into the parking lot and so you would then stand there smell see if there's anything and and then you you know you mark down nothing happened today and and like karen said you know you replace the the filters as described by the manufacturer or the first time you detect that odor so that's generally how it's done and the the regulations you were saying the statutes are nuisance statutes so it tends to be based on complaints and more than any any scientific quantitative value well and with that being said just due to the close proximity to a neighborhood it might be in your best interest to make sure that you're just strictly adhering to those preventative those require suggested preventative maintenance schedules yeah i would say you know as as allowed and per i guess which everyone comes first right so do what the manufacturer says but be vigilant as well yeah i again just you know you you are really in close proximity to you know residential so thank you mr york um so we're still waiting on um question on uh dedicated parking for delivery and the petition for mr ross so uh to answer about the parking delivery i was double checking to make sure i didn't miss it i had not seen that there was a dedicated delivery parking space in the application packet nor is it in the project description so i would say no unless the applicant has said otherwise as far as the petition in opposition from the of the application before you there was a lot submitted and if i did receive it there were there were hard copies that were scanned in provided to you so uh if i received it it should be in there i am going through the uh application packet to find that to to verify as well for you right now thank you um any other questions by the commission uh vice chair peterson uh so i've got i think these are for uh staff one one was uh a public comment that said uh they thought the noticing was inadequate um can you uh talk about the the sign that goes up when there's a conditional use permit and sort of the whether the standards were met yes uh so on the for the february 25th public hearing which for which this was originally scheduled and continued from the deficiency was missing one onsite sign so under the zoning code section 20-66 it defines what the notices should have on them where they should be located and the like when i did a site visit after receiving email saying there was a deficiency i did notice immediately that there was one missing the other section the other sign while it wasn't right in front of the entrance of the building it was still on the front side of the entrance in the landscaping so so as to my understanding the deficiency was only in that it was missing one sign on the yulupa i'm sorry yeah the yulu the yulupa avenue uh frontage but but overall the the required noticing is is a notice is a postcard mailing uh that goes out two weeks about two weeks before to allow for 10 days to prior to the to the public hearing to residences that owners and occupants of properties within a 600 foot buffer of the parcel lines of the given site of whatever the the public hearing item is as well as a notice in the press democrat providing more information we also and then the onsite signage in addition to that most things are posted on the city website for those who want to be notified for all city projects being noticed as they come up whether they're a notice of application or a notice of public hearing so it would have also been in that location as well thank you um i have a question um and this is just to verify uh for some of the public members that this the application um is referred out to various departments including the police department is that correct that is correct okay thank you um so let's see any other questions uh commissioner dagon yeah this is just another um clarification about uh one one of the commenters one in the public made a comment kind of indicating like his belief that this um application needs a conditional use permit because of its location its proposed location uh could you just describe how any cannabis delivery um any cannabis dispensary requires a conditional use permit yes absolutely uh you essentially said that is that any cannabis dispensary is required by approval of a conditional use permit some of those those areas that would allow it by conditional use permit under zoning would be commercial office which is this one uh commercial um general commercial uh light industrial as well i believe uh and some and some other mostly commercial there is if it was a residential residentially zoned property you could not submit a conditional use permit you would have to go through i mean it and it would have to be approved but um a rezoning so and and that's highly unlikely that that would happen it would in i shouldn't say it would never happen but they would if it was residentially zoned they would have to rezone it to commercial property as well yeah i think just to kind of summarize what adam was saying it's a it's a conditionally permitted use in this zoning district and so therefore this is the proper mechanism uh and just to touch back on the the noticing question um there was a deficiency that has been remedied and there are at this point no deficiencies in the zoning code the zoning code does allow for a noticing deficiency to occur and we can still go forward with hearings we've done that before the commission is familiar with that that is not the case there are no deficiencies with the noticing on this project thank you uh if there are no further questions if somebody would like to uh make a motion and we do need to have some language in the resolution i believe yes uh if if you were to adopt the these uh floor plan submitted today the resolution would be changed uh to state that if you give me just a minute i'll i'll let you know exactly where it would need to be uh located in that resolution thank you adam i can try jump in on this uh when the motion maker makes the motion it can read into the the record um if it's we'll just assume for a minute if it's a recommendation for approval it would be recommendation for approval read in the typical um introductory statement that you see and then just say including the amended site plan received march 25th 2021 okay thank you so would somebody like to make a motion commission degen i'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of san jose making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for alternatives east operate a cannabis retail facility with delivery surface within a 2449 square foot tenant space located at 2300 bethards drive suite a assessor's parcel number 147-061-015 file number prj19-047 including the amended site plan received um march 25th uh 2021 and wait for the regain thank you is there a second commissioner holton okay yes i'll second okay thank you so that was moved by commissioner degen second did by commissioner holton and um comments by the commission uh we'll start with commissioner okay okay all right thank you um so a few comments um on this um the first thing is that there's been a lot of uh claims made by some of the public commenters about this kind of business and what comes with it that just aren't found in the evidence that we've seen that we get presented um there's no evidence that a dispensary increases crime there is random crime but there's no more crime for dispensary that we've seen than say a random um 7-11 or i mean from my recollection there's been more bank robberies in soma county than dispensary robberies or cannabis business robberies in recent memory um also someone made the comment that uh delivery is just a cover for distribution no by code and ordinance delivery and distribution are two extremely different things with extremely different regulations um so that's not the case if they do distribute out of there that would violate uh violates um the conditional use permit and there would be repercussions for that um as far as you know the kids walking by and it doesn't fit the neighborhood and this and that um i grew up in benna valley i spent the first 21 years of my life in that area i went to strawberry school i know that area very well um there by my account just from uh the presentations we saw are about 11 10 or 11 businesses that serve alcohol in there um and the assertion that somebody who would have uh on-site consumption exposes some sort of character flaw by wanting that within their business even though that's not proposed is also inaccurate we do have consumption businesses approved in this city we also have um bars and restaurants that people consume alcohol and it is an incumbent upon business and the consumer to regulate themselves as to whether they get behind the wheel or not um as far as you know this is too close to a neighborhood this is too close to where people live i suggest you look up other areas that have cannabis businesses as they have um uh over on the west side and in the northwest and southwest businesses that share fence lines with homes and we have heard this discuss this and it is incumbent on the business to follow code and the order mitigation plans and safety and all that um so saying all of those things um i want to make it clear that we you know i i find myself saying this almost every two weeks uh or whenever we have a meeting we're not policymakers you say we're just checking boxes um and i we do have leeway we do have latitude and certain things and making these findings but if you want to call making findings and making sure that each applicant reaches this certain threshold checking boxes feel free to do so i disagree and i'm sure the other commissioners would disagree as well um but we we can't go off of this isn't good for the neighborhood if there's no factual evidence that it affects a nearby business or that it does increase crime and if those things do in fact happen we usually that usually get stopped and planned so um all those things being said um i can make the required findings to support the application i will say that the one thing that does concern me very much is the screenshot that was sent to us um basically offering um pre-roll joints for a discount for public comment um as someone who sits on this commission i can say that when i listen to somebody either when it was in person or now or we get some sort of email i want to believe that those people are speaking from the heart and speaking for something they truly believe that is either good or not good for their community and not being essentially bribed to speak on the behalf of a business with disingenuous intentions um that as i said is something that would be a policy issue and my preference and i can't use that in making my decision so therefore as i said i can make required findings and will be in support of the application thank you commissioner carter well i thought commissioner okrepke's summary was pretty darn good um as he mentioned we have seen similar applications we have heard similar arguments and we have not been presented um evidence to support some of those arguments against cannabis use and it's clearly the intention of the city in adopting a cannabis ordinance to have it widely distributed and available throughout all the neighborhoods in san arosa and we heard over and over again that the east and eastern sides of town are lacking in dispensaries and for those reasons i will be supporting the application thank you commissioner dadan yeah also a second commissioner carter's comments about commissioner okrepke's comments they were right on the ball um my only um reservations that i did have it's you know to the public who who don't usually attend our meetings or speak at these things and people who spoke um passionately against this dispensary um our purview is land use and we have to decide whether something um meets the requirements of the zoning code and the general plan and i can make all the um required findings my two reservations were the entrance direct entrance off of um one of the street frontages i was the commenter who asked about that and also whether odors could transmit throughout the building and i'm i'm satisfied with the answer that they won't or they shouldn't and if they do that they can be rectified and things will be changed and that won't happen on a regular basis so i'm in support of the project thank you commissioner holton uh i really don't think there's much more i could add on to what commissioner okrepke said i mean really he hit the nail on the head and thanks for taking the lead i appreciate that because you really just summed up everything i wanted to say um i'll just say i'm also in support of this project uh and uh if if it were me i'd be buying stock in basket robbins and that that's all i have to say thank you vice chair peterson sure so so you know my fellow commissioners have been very ably you know discussed the issue and and i share their feelings on this i you know i do want to take a moment to acknowledge that um you know this is an ordinance that's been in effect for a few years but it it still is change and i think change especially for something that is illegal at the federal level is is challenging but i so while i understand where uh you know the public is coming from um i think we also have to acknowledge the reality that's you know keeping it keeping cannabis marginalized or illegal wasn't working and the city deliberately made a decision after a lot of debate a lot of input from stakeholders including the police department um about how to construct the cannabis ordinance and just to emphasize the point that's already been made the the cannabis ordinance was designed to distribute retail cannabis facilities throughout the city um and if it was done deliberately uh you avoid inducing traffic you avoid you know certain areas having to bear the burden of kind of a red light district for cannabis um and the associated kind of stuff with that so the idea that you know Bennett Valley or this location isn't appropriate for for cannabis um that's not what the cannabis ordinance says the cannabis ordinance says if you meet these criteria you know it's the right zoning it's this far from schools it's you know this far from other cannabis dispensaries it's got you know minimal signage it's got odor control all that sort of stuff um you can you can put it there and so this meets the requirements of of the ordinance and you know i i think it's appropriate based on the the ordinance itself um and just as an aside you know my fellow commissioners have hit on this already but you know member of the public i think made a good point is Sonoma County is swimming in alcohol and this location has multiple bars liquor stores kids can see the liquor for sale in in the safeway across the street it's really hard for me in 2021 to draw a meaningful distinction between the dangers of alcohol the crime associated with alcohol the risk it poses to children to driving drunk and cannabis and so i think again the the ordinance was well debated it's decided to treat it you know basically the same as alcohol with even more restrictions and that includes things like you know increased security and things like that so with that in mind i can make all the required findings um necessary for this conditional use permit thank you and i also can make all the required findings um and as has been previously stated by my fellow commissioners we've been seeing these applications for a few years now and this was a good is a good application and i also like the fact that it is in a different part of town than we have seen a number of the dispensaries and as was stated also that that was the intent of the council when they crafted the ordinance was to disperse it throughout the community uh so um i am in support of this so uh with that uh was moved by commissioner dug in seconded by commissioner holton uh mr maloney do you want to call roll or take the vote yes thank you chair weeks commissioner carter i commissioner dug in i commissioner holton commissioner callie is epsom moving to commissioner ockwiki i vice chair peterson hi chair weeks hi so that concludes our business today um and um we are adjourned to the next schedule meeting of the planning commission which i believe is can you tell me the date uh april april eight okay april eight there you go thank you uh so with that if any unless anybody has anything else we'll adjourn for the evening thank you everybody