 We'll call our meeting to order. Welcome everyone to the city council meeting of October 16th, 2018. We had no study session today to start off. So Ms. Gilmez, will you call, announce the roll please. Let the record show that all council members are present with the exception of council member Olivares. Thank you. Again, no closed sessions today, no study session. We do have a proclamation to start off the meeting for domestic violence awareness month. Is Madeline here? Yes, she is. Hi, Madeline. Julie Combs will read the proclamation. Come on down. Do you have people who want to join you down here? Okay, wonderful. Whereas the city of Santa Rosa recognizes that domestic violence affects one in four families in our local community, and that the crime of domestic violence violates an individual's privacy, dignity, and security based on the systemic use of emotional, physical, sexual, psychological, and economic control or abuse. And whereas the YWCA Sonoma County is a community-based, not-for-profit organization affiliated with the YWCA USA, the YWCA Sonoma County embodies its mission to empower, educate, and advocate for domestic violence survivors and their children who find they are unsafe in their own homes. YWCA Sonoma County operates our community's only confidential safe house shelter, the only 24-7 domestic violence crisis hotline, and the only therapeutic preschool serving one of our most vulnerable populations, children ages three to five years old. And whereas domestic violence is a serious crime that affects people of all races, sexes, ages, sexual orientation, and income levels. Stopping the cycle of criminal assault within the home requires a coordinated effort between the criminal justice system and the agencies that provide services to victims, primarily reliant on the strong resolve and the immense courage of survivors. And whereas only an informed community effort will put an end to the cycle of domestic violence, members of our community are encouraged to participate in YWCA's scheduled events and programs to support their mission to eliminate domestic violence in Sonoma County through awareness, education, and empowerment. Now, therefore be it resolved that Chris Corsi, mayor of the city of Santa Rosa on behalf of the entire city council does proclaim October 2018 as domestic violence awareness month. Oh, you're gonna hold my microphone for me? I'm gonna hear the mic. Okay, thank you so much. Well, on behalf of the board of directors, the staff, the volunteers, and certainly the clients in the care of the YWCA, thank you very, very much for proclaiming October domestic violence awareness month where the city of Santa Rosa is concerned. It means a great deal to us. I'm also very grateful to be here again to thank you for your financial support of our shelter and helping us add beds to our confidential safe house shelter. Thank you. And thanks to the world. To us, we can't do what we do without support like yours. Many of my team members are here today and I'd like to pause and ask them to stand and be recognized to each and every one of you. There they are. I know you're here. Thank you sincerely for honoring YWCA. We were voted one of the best places to work by the North Bay Business Journal. There's no small feat for a non-profit, so thank you so much for that. And for everything that you do every day to keep families safe from harm. We're also so pleased to be flanked by the ranks of the Santa Rosa Police Department. Why don't you all give us a shout out? Hi, Hank. Nice to see you guys. As we all know, our community endured lost trauma and despair as well as we all continue to grapple with the impact of last year's October wildfires. We have all been touched. The devastating loss of life as well as both homes and businesses is so prevalent that the numbers, as you know, are staggering. Evacuation, both mandatory and voluntary, impacted the lives of all of our community members. And through one, and through it all, one thing remains very clear to YWCA. All of us are vulnerable. All of us are vulnerable to circumstances beyond reason, which can change our lives in an instant. The sense of heightened anxiety during the unpredictable path of the fires left us fatigued and all of you as well as we waited of news of containment. And in many ways, I want you to know that we believe that the fire crisis mirrors the characteristics of ongoing trauma that families affected by domestic violence know very, very well. Fleeing one's home to escape harm and leaving behind precious belongings is accompanied by the same profound uncertainty of what lies ahead. And for victims of domestic violence locally, that threat of evacuation is not an isolated occurrence. It is a way of life. So Julie was kind enough to share all of the ways that YWCA is helping to end domestic violence through our shelter, our crisis hotline, our advocacy, our preschool, our therapy program. And we're just so grateful again to be honored by you and Julie's comments also indicated that we have a few events going on in October. And I call your attention to this very colorful calendar tonight. Please join us at Beebees. We're keeping it local right here on Third Street and they're doing a dine and donate for us. We're also at Willoughby's, also keeping it local on Third Street here. Every day in October, they're sharing their proceeds for sales with us, particularly on Thursday nights. I've been trying to get a date there with my friend, Ronit. I just can't get on her calendar. I'm gonna get in trouble for that, I'm sure. And then next Thursday, the 25th, I call your attention to the back of our calendar. This is an extraordinarily important and impactful film that YWCA is premiering at the summer field in partnership with Mary's Pizza. It's called Power and Control. It's about domestic violence in America. I'm proud to have law enforcement appear on a panel, along with the experts from our programs here at YWCA. Thank you so much. We've been here since 1975. We're gonna be here as long as you need us to help keep families safe from harm. Thank you. Thank you, Madeline. Thanks for all you do and thanks to your staff for being here as well. I have a card on this, Peter Trineff. Our workers. And so, thank you to Madeline now that the thing is on. So domestic violence, behold the pale horse. All things be connected as a matter of course. Does the political have anything in common with the moral? True history be a mystery, easily altered. I trust great spirit as I hear it and traditions shared as oral. Just what is necessary for activists against violence? Is it to be truly united for the system of users? Banker rule has maintained us as the full by illusion spiritual deception to keep us divided. There's people that want to see, don't want to see violence against the earth, the animals, children, women, or anyone. Truly useful to us all as we unite to the freedom strike call. Be to clearly and loudly review the success and duration of every major boycott and general strike in this here nation, then make it a point to publicly and loudly to seriously ask, why oh why since 1969 have we denied ourselves this wonderfully remedial task? The great wooly here, Carpenter Sage, is noted in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Mormonism, and many others. And they all have a different sway as to the truth of things. Zionists wield the sword of Jesus as American taxpayers pay this wielding for us to the spiritual truth that blows the lid off corruption's roof remains hidden among worldly religions that call for us to pray for God to appease us. Meanwhile, 40% of American university tuition's go to US and Israeli militaries. The war pumping oil so to the slaughterhouse maintains all these calamities and insanities. And as we do unto the least of me has always been a reference to the animals be clear to see. Laying down the sword commanded by the living Lord be the 40 day strike that has already with the hotel workers begun. Ceases all abuse while uniting all into one. The power of those against the abuse needs to be united. I am Peter, I am King of Masterpiece Theater commanding the iron rod of God, the earth to quake, commanding all powerful rainbow spirit women warriors, this corrupt system to shake and bake every way by spirit as you truly hear it. I say goddess, goddess be arisen, busting the chains of this illusionary prison, being fierce all obstacles to pierce. As you've been given towards the promised lands living, now be done. Amen, amen, ah-ho. Thank you, Mr. Chernef. Moving on. Staff Briefings, Mr. McGlynn. Yes, we have a series of staff briefings on fire recovery and rebuild update. And I'm gonna start with Jennifer Burke from Santa Rosa Water. Good afternoon, Mayor Corsi and members of the council. I'm very happy to be front of you this evening to let you know that last Thursday, the water department in conjunction with our state regulators, the division of drinking water, was able to lift the water quality advisory in the Fountain Grove area. So it's really good news and we have been trying to get that information out in a number of different ways. We completed all of the testing needed per our plan and we were able to inform the residents in the surviving homes. They each received a door tag with the information. All 352 properties received a letter. We put the information out through our various websites, social media and other channels. And the good news is we've actually seen over 10,000 emails were distributed with over 3,700 we know were opened. And we've gotten a number of impressions on our website. We have also gotten a number of impressions on our various social media channels and we had coverage by the press democrat, the Bay City News, we were on KSRO, KQED, KCBS, Radio, ABC7 and KPIX News. So we've really been trying to get the information out to make sure everyone knows and the community is well informed that the water quality advisory has been lifted and the contamination has been resolved in that area. In front of you this evening, you should have also received a four page brochure that we're also putting out in is at various locations where people can get more information. Going forward, we're gonna continue to monitor our very robust monitoring program over the next year. And that data will continue to be shared with our regulators as well as shared with the public on a new map that we have on our website so folks can get real time data and information. So happy to answer any questions but just wanted to come before the council and share the good news with you all. Thank you and congratulations. Thank you. Good work. Questions council? Thank you. Thank you. Next up will be David Gouin. Thank you. Just have a quick update on the rebuild. We hit a milestone this week. As of Monday we issued 1000 rebuild permits. So those are permits out of this office. So within a year 1000 permits for the rebuild of individual single family homes with the addition of another 270 that are going through the review process right now that's close to 1300 in the rebuild process at this time. Two of the things that we've noticed with those numbers as more people start to occupy their homes we're starting to hear more concerns about dust and noise and specifically early construction noise. And so that's something that we're working with the neighborhoods we're working with those that are doing the rebuilding the contractors. We're also talking with the neighborhoods that are currently living in the neighborhood to try to understand what we can do to help facilitate conversations, work with the contractors to address that issue. So that's something we're aware of. We know that's gonna increase as more and more people start to occupy the area. So we'll be working with them on that. The other big thing that's come up that we'll be working on over the next few months is stormwater management. So as the rains come we'll be looking at managing our stormwater permit which means inspections. So typically we have a certain number of inspectors for the number of construction projects currently active in the city. Well that number has increased by the numbers I just told you which are fairly substantial which means we have to staff up through our consultant to add additional inspectors out in the field to make sure that the water quality is maintained throughout the winter season. So those are the two big issues that we're facing right now during the reconstruction efforts and we'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you Mr. Yewn. Any questions? Thank you. And lastly we have Megan Bassinger representing from Housing and Community Services. Good afternoon. I'm gonna be providing you with an update on the mobile home parks and units that were destroyed in the fire. As you may recall there were three parks that were impacted by the fire. The first is Cottingtown Mobile Home Park which is located at Piner and Cleveland. 11 of 117 units were destroyed. As of last week there were seven owners that were planning to return to the park and four have relocated to other areas. The park is in the process of upgrading the infrastructure for those destroyed mobile home park spaces which includes driveways, pads, electrical water sewer connections. The second park is the Orchard Mobile Home Park. 63 of 233 units were destroyed. 35 residents have decided not to return to the park. So 28 will be returning. Four of the units have been replaced and are waiting for final inspections from the California Department of Housing and Community Development which oversees mobile homes. And 24 are in the process of being replaced. And the park hopes to have those completed by the end of 2018. And finally Journey's End which was 161 unit park. As you are aware 44 units remain. 33 of those were owner-occupied and 11 were owned by the park. Burbank Housing continues to work with those residents as well as their non-profit provider, Su Chi. Burbank is working through the redevelopment process for the site and is remaining in constant contact with those impacted residents. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Questions, Council. Mr. Schwidel. Thanks, Megan. Do we have a date for the Orchard Park the first time someone's gonna be moving in? I had a resident call me and said that has that already happened or is one planned? There was a ceremony last week. I can find out the exact date that they're targeting for occupancy. That'd be helpful, thank you. Other questions, Ms. Combs. Thank you. Can you give us some more information regarding the 44? Well, actually specifically the 33 owner-occupied site journeys and I understand Burbank is working to help them find temporary shelter. I assume they found that. Are we looking with them for a new park location or are we looking that they will go into non-manufactured home park settings? Burbank is currently pursuing several options. One of the options that was previously presented to you is an interim solution which is an additional mobile home park of approximately 35 units. They are in conversations with the county and as of last week are waiting for the county to issue a release for a request for proposals for the fairground site. So the timing of that is unknown at this time but that is one of the solutions that is out there for displaced residents. Also if Burbank is to proceed with the redevelopment of the fairgrounds property, we have the journeys end site as a multifamily development. 162 units would be targeted to seniors and those would be affordable to households that are low income and the former residents of journeys end would have the first right of recusal for those units. Thank you. So if I understand correctly, we're waiting for the county to issue something. The information I was given is a request for proposals for reuse of some of the fairgrounds property and the county is in the process of developing that. Okay, so it hasn't been issued there in development. That is my understanding. Thank you. Ms. Bejingler, I understand that the mobile homes at journeys end that didn't burn, their owners might be better off if those units were condemned rather than the state that they are now, which is not occupied but not condemned. There was some suggestion that that determination could be made by the governor's office. Do we know any more information about that? Either you or Ms. Gallagher. We are, we have been exploring that but I have not heard any updates from the governor's office. All right. Has the question been asked and we're waiting for an answer is that? My understanding is that Burbank has been exploring that option but I don't know the current status. I can check and get back to you. Thank you. Yes. Since we are also talking about HCD's involvement in the processes, a while back, there was a conversation briefly about whether or not the city would consider taking over the inspection of manufactured home parks. It's my understanding the city can request to do that from HCD. Is that conversation moving forward or being revisited at all? I don't think we can look at where that conversation is but I don't actually don't think this fits under this description. This is about recovery, recovery process but we hear you and we will, I will ask the city attorney. Since we are waiting on HCD's final approval for an inspection, I thought I could slide it. I understand. Thank you. Other questions? Mr. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Madam city attorney, what I thought I heard you say is that Burbank was reaching out to the governor's office to try to get that response. Is that correct? Or have we reached out? It's my understanding that Burbank has but I am not certain of that so I'll need to check and get back to you on where that effort is and who is leading that effort. Okay, I would be more comfortable no disrespect to Burbank but I would be more comfortable if we reached out as well since it is this entity that's generating that question for the governor's office and perhaps a letter from the mayor might be appropriate if we need. Thank you. I'll be glad to do that. Any other questions? Thank you. Let me find out if we're done with staff yet. Does that conclude your report? That concludes the report. Thank you. Mr. DeWitt. Thank you, sir. My name is Duane DeWitt. I'm from Roseland and it's been close to 24, 25 years ago. I worked very diligently with some other Santa Rosa residents to help save Journey's End from a proposed project to put in a Home Depot store. I want to thank you for all your efforts and I am very glad that you've had this report today. I hope you saw the nice newspaper story that Mr. Chris Smith wrote chronically in one of the people there at Journey's End. I've talked with others and it's really important I believe that you folks take the lead in getting information and actually do more asking questions of the residents. Some have told me that Burbank housing is not as, I guess the term might be approachable or forthright about some of the activities and that those individual homeowners really feel at a disadvantage, almost at a loss as if it's being played like hey, the deal's already done, you just go our way or hit the highway. I believe that's a really almost insulting approach to many of these elderly people who've been through some very traumatic times. I would hope that you folks could be the advocates for those residents and those taxpayers and help them find a way to perhaps stay on site as long as it will take Burbank to do their project, perhaps do a mobile homeowner's project where they own the piece of land that they're on. Those have been done before and it shouldn't seem to be that much of a problem to cut out that portion that they're already on, make it a separate mobile home park with the entrance in the back that's there between them and the Kaiser Hospital site. So some creative and innovative approaches right now could really end that misery that well over 40 people have been going through and it would be something to really put a feather in your cap to show that you tried to help the least among us, the most disadvantaged rather than just those folks that were battling with how to replace a million dollar home somewhere up on a hillside. So thank you for your time. Mr. Chernef. Good afternoon again. Regarding the fire and rebuilding update, it appears we remain seriously spiritually in arrears, refusing to use loving gears even after you are all clearly shown by indisputable evidence and warnings provided by seers. Yes, even still the masses are maintaining serving lawyers and bankers, the slaughterhouse wars, the internet Silicon Valley corporate stores. The iron rod of God is now set to visit California once more. Now coming to a theater near you, truly true, be the greatest shakes to smash this corporate store of war. The 40 day freedom strike has already begun. All children of creator who be called as liberator unite now as one to strengthen this action as an almighty faction. As I am Peter, I am the brother with the keys and this prophetic 40 day strike will put the world to its knees. All true hearts now commanded, be now commanded this strike to embrace till every knee has been to earth remanded and every animal and child has a smile on their face. I say welcome home Leonard Peltier and the US Constitution to attain the promised desire the warriors went higher via spiritual resolution. Regarding bar association lawyers, the more they talk, the less they say. All those parents and grandparents abused and denied by legal aid and the system made from their children to be divided and afraid now came forward with those of every legitimate cause to almighty applause. For these Californians incited, cried the system now be indicted as we full blast embrace the hotel striking this corrupted system into forever submission. This upcoming full moon be our high noon truly, truly a most beautiful tune. Warriors of the air force upon almighty's horse commanded you be for all to see lose your artillery freeze framing Mammon's entire economy. Every facet, every asset will be shut down till they shut down the entire west coast till all this corruption in DC is toast and the animals are free the slaughterhouse be no more. And we begin talking about beautiful gardens and we take care of the homeless and we do it by spiritual force led by those upon almighty's horse. I say it, I command it, it is done, it is so. Moving on, Mr. City Manager, do you have a report tonight? Yes, a couple items. On Wednesday, October 10th, the city of Santa Rosa received two of the Press Democrats Best of Sonoma County Awards. Bennett Valley Golf Course was named as the best golf course in Sonoma County for the sixth year in a row and Howard Park was once again honored as the best place for a child's birthday party. Two staff members from the Recreation and Parks Department attended the awards ceremony held at Luther Burbank Center for the Arts. Jeff Tibbets, Recreation Supervisor at Howard Park accepted the award for best birthday party in Christie Bufo, Marketing and Outreach Coordinator accepted on behalf of the Bennett Valley Golf Course. City Clerk's has asked me to inform everyone that on October 12th, the Sonoma County Registrar of Artors notified the clerk's office that 192 voters were not included as part of the Council District Two boundary. Those voters will be receiving a district boundary change letter from the Sonoma County Register of Voters Office notifying them that their polling place or ballot type has changed. Voters can also find out if their polling place or ballot type has changed by visiting vote.sonoma-county.org and selecting voter information lookup. Voters can also call 707-565-6800. Voters also may go to the city's website at srcity.org for more information. News, an additional announcement, community meetings on emergency communications. City staff will hold a community meeting tomorrow night to provide an opportunity for public input on emergency notifications and fire detection camera systems. The meeting is scheduled from 5.30 to 7 at Finley Community Center. During these meetings, staff will provide an overview of the current tools in place to notify residents during an emergency. Assist residents with signing up for SoCo Alerts and Nixle, the city's existing alert notification tools that require subscriptions and discuss various new tools the city is considering to expand our abilities to monitor fires and notify the public during an emergency. Staff will receive input from residents on the options and answer all the questions. This will be the first of four planned community meetings so the public will have additional opportunities to participate. Additional dates are as follows, October 25th at Binkley Elementary School in Rincon Valley, November 7th at Roseland Accelerated Middle School in Roseland, November 14th at Oakmont Village Burger Center in Oakmont. Each meeting will cover the same topics. One of the meetings will be recorded in place on the city website at srcity.org so that those that are unable to attend can use the presentation and submit input online. Additional outreach will be done to notify the public once the recording of the meeting is posted. And that concludes my briefing. Thank you. Are the other three meetings all at the same time, 5.30? I believe that they are, but I'll verify that and report out in a little bit. Okay, thank you. Ms. City Attorney, do you have any report tonight? I do not have any report, but I did wanna just follow up a little bit on the error in the ballots that were mailed to 192 of our voters. I didn't wanna assure the council and the public that the registrar of voters has provided those voters with the corrected ballots, corrected voting information and is following up and appears to have a very solid system and process in place to ensure that people have their full ability to vote on the proper ballot. Thank you, part of the brave new world of district elections. I neglected to mention earlier that on the consent calendar, item 12.1 has been pulled and we'll take that up at another, at a later date, the Measure O report. Moving on, any statements of abstention tonight? Mr. Tibbets. Need to abstain for the minutes from the two council meetings as well as the special meeting. Thank you. And I'll be abstaining from the July 17th minutes. Anything else there? On to mayors and council members reports. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's been a busy couple of weeks. I really wanted to start with just a thank you to all of my colleagues who came out for the one year remembrance event that was held in the square and also anybody who came in participated by drawing a chalk square. There were quite a few moving moments for me in watching that, both in ours and then the following night in the Coffee Park candlelight vigil that was held as well. So just a quick thank you. I had a chance a few Fridays ago to strap my stuff with Council Member Oliver's for the Catwalk for a Cure event for Sutter Health and then took that dancing right on in to last week a couple of big meetings. Our first open government task force reboot meeting where this council will end up seeing quite a substantial work product, I think from us, the long-term finance committee where we talked about the potential for a city bank and then the groundwater sustainability agency meeting filling in for Council Member Sweathelm some pretty big shoes as the vice chair of that committee. We will be having a conversation or it's recommended we have a conversation related to how to vote. Should the vote be taken on that entity to waive repayment of the fees that we as a city have put in to fund the first two years of the GSA. And as the council might remember, every member entity paid the same amount. So we would be having a conversation about whether Santa Rosa with our economic issues and Katadi and other jurisdictions where that amount means a lot more to their budget were to waive those fees entirely in the repayment or whether to extend when they would be repaid back to us. And we at some point will need to give direction to Council Member Sweathelm as our representative on the board in that regard. Finally, following up on the footsteps of the city manager's report, I have sort of a request more of, I don't think we need to agendize something but I would ask that in our next fire recovery and rebuild update that we do receive an update on PG&E's first foray into possible de-energization and how they handled that, who was notified and what we should expect in the future around that topic as well. Absolutely, I mean, I think the only thing I would add is that we're in the process of, there's an after action scheduled for next week. So it'll probably be the week thereafter but absolutely we'll be happy to provide an update. I appreciate that, thank you so much. And can I just, since I'm speaking already, can I just give the times for the other meetings? Just not to interrupt you, but the meeting on October 25th at Benkley Elementary School is 530-7. The November 7th at Roseland Accelerated Middle School is 530-7. The number 14th meeting at Oakmont Village Burger Center is one to 230. Thank you so much. And then finally, Mr. Bear, I don't think it needs to be this entity, but I think obviously a lot of us have seen the news articles about Sears closing and I think that it is a high time for whatever subcommittee you think is appropriate to have a conversation about how we attract a grocery store into our downtown, whether it's at that site or another one. And so I don't know if a downtown committee or anybody else would be more appropriate but rather than agendizing it for us, I just make a request that the appropriate entity have that conversation. Thank you. Mr. Schwedhelm. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, every time we have two weeks between meetings, a lot of things going on. So I do also want to acknowledge Vice Mayor Rogers' efforts with the Remembers and Vents, starting from scratch and talking to a lot of members of the community, what's the right way to remember that tragic event. And the two that I attended both in Courthouse Square, it just seemed right and then the one in Coffee Strong where neighbors, friends and the whole community came together, they both just seemed right. So thank you Vice Mayor Rogers for your efforts on that. I also wanted to acknowledge Grand Fondo came to town for the first time rather than finishing and staying, starting to finish in Finley, participating that, let's see, for the eighth year in Rosa Marshall. It was great again seeing downtown Santa Rosa full of people celebrating a wonderful weekend. We also had a violence prevention partnership meeting. I had a nice presentation from Courthouse Technical Education of Sonoma County and hearing ways that they are partnering with all of our local schools with Courthouse Technical Training. So it's great that they are now active participants with our partnership. Our next meeting is our joint operations and policy team meeting on December 12th. It's open to everyone at Finley Center. And if you're interested in hearing what some of the impacts of Measure O are, some people have actually used the programs. We'll be hearing some report outs on that. So December 12th, it starts, probably not too many other conflicting meetings, 7.30 in the morning. Sir, you're all invited to attend that. Also, the reason I couldn't go to the ground on our meeting, I went to the California Cities Violence Prevention Network meeting in San Jose. It was an opportunity for a variety of different key stakeholders who have involved in violence prevention from across the state to present, to attend these different things that they are doing in their communities. We talked about regionalization, immigration enforcement impacts. And one program that I was really interested in now to have LA was a restorative justice program where the Los Angeles Police Department defers rather the citations rather than go to juvenile probation, goes directly to restorative justice program there. It's been very successful diverting some of the kids rather than going to juvenile hall, you bring them into these programs. So we'll be learning more about those in the coming weeks, but it's very beneficial. And I did attend another water meeting that was hosted by the Farm Bureau. And this was presented by the Farm Bureau, but the keynote speaker was David Rabbit from the Board of Supervisors. And he talked about some of the issues going on in the Petaluma Valley Plain. Because again, as Vice Mayor Rogers mentioned, Santa Rosa Plain's a little bit different in both the Sonoma Valley Plain and the Petaluma Plain. They've got typically one municipality, either the city of Sonoma or the city of Petaluma, the water agency in the county. We, I think, have five or six different municipalities in addition to RCDs plus the Water District, plus the Board of Supervisors. So a little bit more challenging, but it was very helpful for me to hear what the other basins are dealing with and how we're moving forward together on this. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Combs. Thank you. I think, again, two weeks makes for a long list. Many of us attended the Fall Economic Breakfast and heard a report on the economic outlook from the, I think, the same economist they brought for 15 years now. So that's always of interest. I did have a little difficulty when he stood in front of a graph of flat wages and said specifically that that he didn't believe the graph that wages had remained stagnant. But other than that, it was a fairly illuminating presentation. I had the good fortune of attending the Walk and Bike to School event at the Hidden Valley School. This is a school that was significantly affected by the fires and it was really good to see the parents and meet the kids who were, again, walking and biking as much as possible to school. They had made it possible for those kids who were being driven to school because they are still not housed near the school to participate by running in the playground area. We had the RCP meeting, the regional planning committee meeting in San Francisco along with continuing discussions of the committee to house the Bay Area CASA. One of the key points that is coming out of those is that as I have mentioned before, there is a 17-part compact that is being promoted through the committee to house the Bay Area. That 17-part compact is moving forward. And I am seeking as the regional representative from cities to know what it is that we as cities need, what it is that we need as a community in order to make it possible for the compact to move forward. How are we going to survive it moving forward if it has implications for us, what those are and what we can do to accommodate it. And in that vein, attended the mayors and council members meeting and provided the information on the committee to house the Bay Area's compact and asked the mayors and council members' association to also provide feedback. We had a fantastic event at Medtronic and Habitat. Medtronic is building habitat cottages with habitat on their property. It's a pretty remarkable set of construction units. I think probably well covered with the paper. It's been all housing always. So shortly after that meeting, there was a locally organized meeting with a talk on housing for all where they emphasized various solutions, particularly for very low and low income and homeless folks looking I think at tiny homes and at our need to provide housing alternatives or possibly safe parking alternatives on public land. Let me see the open government meeting you already reported on. And just as a side note, I recommend that folks double check their registration to vote. I received a phone call today from the registrar's office that somehow they had found, they had a form that indicated that I had relocated to Lake County and they wanted to ask me about that. So I would highly recommend that folks double check their registration just to make sure that their registration is showing up accurately in the records. Thank you. Thank you. Any other reports tonight? All right. Move on to the minutes with the abstentions by myself and Councilman Tibbets noted. Are there any corrections or additions to the minutes submitted? We'll accept those as submitted. And move on to the consent items. As I said earlier, item 12.1 will be moved to a future agenda. And Mr. McGlenn. Item 12.2 resolution fiscal year 2018-19 agreement with legal aid of Sonoma County. Item 12.3 resolution approval amendment number one to the memorandum of understanding between the city of Santa Rosa and unit five, Santa Rosa Police Officers Association represented by the Santa Rosa Police Officers Association effective July 11th, 2017 through June 30th, 2019. Thank you. Any questions on consent? I have some cards here. Mr. DeWitt, measure O will come at a future date. Ronit, remove it off on the legal aid item. Thank you for approving the contract. I just wanted to say my thanks and I also wanted to let the council know that because of this funding, you're actually also helping us do our disaster work. There's been a tremendous amount of collaboration between our disaster team and our housing team in the area, particularly of price gouging. So while this is a housing contract, you're also supporting relief efforts. Thank you very much. Mr. Chernef, 12.2. Yeah, thank you. I just, I don't know if you heard but Mr. DeWitt asked to be put onto this one also because of his card, even though he had originally put something else on. So I hope you'll address that. So regarding legal aid, I am certain that there's some good people there that are trying to do the right thing, but the bottom line is it's not really happening very well because number one is a multi-billion dollar program that keeps an illusion in place. And that illusion includes that this country is under two sets of laws before we get to American jurisprudence. The first one is papal law, which explains why the abusing priests always get away with it and just get moved around and this is a fact. And then we're also under martial law, which anybody that would just take a look at the 1947 National Security Act would know very simply that we are under martial law. That's the entire premise of the 1947 National Security Act. So after that, we have the appearance of American jurisprudence. And the US Constitution, the most important one of all has been relegated to television shows with lawyers and music. That's shameful. And so it is that the 40 day strike of which I've spoken about that's already begun that needs to be united by all these other groups. I mean, if the homeless only knew that the 40 day strike would release the US Constitution and law enforcement would there be serving the Constitution for the first time ever and thereby serving the people and not the corporation, that'd be such a powerful thing. Same thing with the climate change people. If only they knew. Same thing with the vegan warriors. If only they knew. Such a powerful thing, the US Constitution. There's only four things you can do wrong. Kill someone, hurt someone, steal something or break something. But instead, we get the Bar Association getting wealthy urinating on the Constitution all these years with neighborhoods full of libraries with codes and measures and statutes. They're not laws. They're not the US Constitution. It is time for the 40 day strike to be strengthened to put the US Constitution to be the law of the land primarily first time ever for it's never been for the bill of rights to be placed where they belong because they've never been and the founding fathers truly did have wisdom and spiritual sight and I'm sure that they prayed that one day the people would arise free of all compromise shut down the God this nation's been serving which is the God of greed called Mammon that maintains every version of Satan's backgammon and opens the promised land by this almighty command as I have given it so it be so. Mr. Witt, did you have something on something other than 12.1? Yes, sir. And it's not about a 40 day strike. I'll be very brief. My comments about 12.1 also lead to 12.2. I am hoping that you folks would begin to explore the possibility of looking at the language of measure O and how the operation of the violence prevention partnership could be utilized to help fund things such as the legal aid activities. After the presentation today about domestic violence, you can see that there's these links there and I believe especially if you may have difficulty getting more tax revenues in the future, you should try to link in to revenue streams you've already established pointing out how they do help with violence prevention and legal aid helps with that also. Thank you for your time. And that's all the cards I have on this, Mr. Rogers. Thank you. I will move items 12.1, or excuse me, 12.2 and 12.3. Wait for the reading of the text. Second. Your votes. That passes with six eyes. Mr. Oliveris being absent for the remainder of the meeting. It's before five o'clock. We'll move on to item 14.1, Mr. McGlynn. Item 14.1, report authorization of purchase option agreement with the California Public Finance Authority for 1020 Jennings Avenue, support for CalPFAS issuance of tax exempt bonds for acquisition of 1020 Jennings Avenue and appropriation of any surplus cash received from the project into fund 2282 for affordable housing purposes, Megan Vassender, Housing and Community Services Manager presenting. Good evening, Mayor Corsi and members of council. Before you is the authorization of a purchase option agreement with California Public Finance Authority for the acquisition of 1020 Jennings Avenue. Ah, okay, there we go. CalPFA as California Public Finance Authority is known in conjunction with catalyst housing is in the process of acquiring a market rate multifamily rental complex. CalPFA is requesting that the city enter into a purchase option agreement. And if approved by the council, the council will be able to exercise the agreement between the year 16 and 35 of CalPFA's ownership of the project. As you may recall, this council approved joining CalPFA on September 5th and is now an additional member of the organization. CalPFA is a statewide joint powers authority that issues bonds for public benefits. The proposed project is to acquire a property that will increase the supply of middle income housing. So these would be households between 80 and 120% of area median income known as the missing middle. So those that are not traditionally assisted by housing programs. The purchase option agreement would allow the city if they choose so to exercise a purchase option agreement after year 15. And the city can continue to consider this through the term of the ownership. The benefits of approving the purchase option agreement would be that it increases the supply of housing that is affordable to middle income households. Again, as I mentioned, those that are not traditionally assisted through the programs and policies that we currently have in place. Those that are addressed in the city's housing action plan and these are households that provide essential services to the residents of Santa Rosa. The surplus cash, if any, generated from the project could be returned to the city and put into affordable housing funds. These are funds that are generally administered by the housing authority through a notice of funding availability and are used to assist projects that provide affordability restrictions for other housing projects. It is recommended by the Department of Housing and Community Services that the council by resolution authorize the director of housing and community services to execute purchase option agreement between the city of Santa Rosa and the California Public Finance Authority for the acquisition of 1020 Jennings Avenue. That they support Cal PFA's issuance of tax exempt bonds for the acquisition of the property and that if during the term of ownership, any surplus cash is generated and received by the city that it's appropriate to fund 2282 to be used for future affordable housing programs. I'd also like to note that similar programs are being considered by the city of Santa Barbara, the county of Sonoma, Marin County. So this is a concept that is getting traction throughout the state to address the missing middle or middle income households that are in desperate need of assistance. Jordan Moss from Catalyst Housing as well as representatives of Cal PFA are here if you have any questions and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Questions, Councilman, Mr. Tibbets. Thank you, Mayor. Megan, I think this is great. I love that it focuses on the 80 to 120% AMI level. I'll look forward to supporting it, but I was hoping you could help me understand fundamentally how this process works. Does Cal PFA issue tax exempt bonds, use rent payments to pay it back and then the city has the option to purchase it at year 16? With our money? Okay. So Cal PFA will be the owner of the property. They'll be issuing the bonds to acquire the property. Okay, thank you. Mr. Schwedhelm. Thanks for this presentation, Megan. The one that I couldn't see or find an exhibit A in the staff report and I was wondering how many units are at 1020 Jennings Avenue? There are in excess of 380 units. At just 1020. Amen. That is great. Thank you. Ms. Combs. So I have two questions. Thank you very much for bringing this forward. I think it's pretty exciting. We've been talking about the three P's of housing, protecting tenants, preserving existing affordability and producing housing. So this one fits really neatly in the preservation of existing affordability for folks. So with that in mind, what is going to happen to the existing residents? Do all the existing residents meet the criteria to continue to live there or will anyone have to move? The existing residents will not be displaced when acquisition is closed. Based on information that has been provided by Cal PFA and Catalyst Housing, many of these residents are already overburdened by their rent payments. So they are paying well over 30%. And the city currently has a renter population that has about 49% of our renters are overburdened by rent. So this certainly addresses some of our housing priorities. Fantastic. Thank you. 380 units preserved is a wonderful thing. At the year 16, if the city is not in a position to acquire the property, does this level of affordability continue with it or what happens? There will be a regulatory agreement that is in place and administered by Cal PFA for the duration of the project, the duration of their ownership. So we have the option to purchase the property, but the affordability will remain in place. The affordability remains even if the city chooses not to purchase. That is my understanding of Jordan. If I'm incorrect, can assist me in a moment? On the assumption that there is no assistance, I'm assuming that it is okay. Thank you very much. This is really exciting and I'm looking forward to supporting. Is this considered affordable housing now? The property is currently market rate housing. Okay. So this is creating additional affordable housing. We're referring to this as middle income housing, but it will provide the ability to guarantee affordability for households. It provides them with less impacts of market rate fluctuations than they would be experiencing if it was a traditional market rate complex. Okay. There wasn't a map, or at least I didn't see a map. On Google Earth, it's hard to tell if this is separate from the Annadel complex. Is it separate from that? No, it is not. It is the Annadel complex. Thank you. The property is currently in escrow, so it's not a confirmed transaction at this point. They are vetting the process and CalPFA is doing their due diligence on the property. Okay, thanks. And these units will be managed through our housing authority? No, this will be a separate transaction that is owned and operated by CalPFA. They have their own compliance team that will be administering the regulatory agreement. So the city will not be involved in the direct compliance of this property. All right, and this was in the staff report, but I don't think it was explicitly stated here. This has no cost to the city, no fiscal impact. That is correct. Thank you. Any other questions? I do have a card on this, Ann Seely. Ann, do you want to speak on this? Thank you. I'm sorry. I don't have it, Mr. DeWitt, but go ahead. Dwayne DeWitt from Roseland. Three quick questions. Is there a cost to the city taxpayers? No. Are there liabilities? I just asked that question. Well, I just need to finish up. And what is the income to the city that comes from this? What's the benefit besides saying, well, we're saving some market-rate houses? Thank you for your time. And I believe the benefit is that we secure affordable housing in 380 units. That is correct. Thank you. Ms. Combs, you have this item. I do, and I'm gonna follow up if I may. My understanding is that the technical definition of affordable is up to 120% AM area median income. So these are up to 120% area median income. Is that correct? 80 to 120? That is correct. So they're still within the technical definition of affordable housing? Correct. Using that definition, yes. Okay, so we are moving things from being market-rate to restricted to be affordable. Correct, and it's a population that's outside of our traditionally assisted. Right, usually we do very low or low. This is a group that has traditionally been as protected as we could use. So thank you again for bringing this forward and I move the resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa, authorizing the Director of Housing and Community Services to enter into a purchase option agreement with the California Public Finance Authority for 1020 Jennings Avenue, supporting Cal PFA's issuance of tax exempt bonds for acquisition of 1020 Jennings Avenue, and appropriating any surplus cash received from the project into fund 2282 for affordable housing purposes and way further reading of the text. Second. Council your votes. That has five ayes with Mr. Rogers stepped away from the dais and Mr. Oliver is absent. Thank you. We'll back up to our public comment period on items that are not on the agenda tonight. Ms. Sealy was out, but your card is for her. Thank you. It'll be followed by Dwayne DeWitt. And Sealy, Chair of Concerned Citizens for Santa Rosa, an organization created in 1986. The organization I chair, Concerned Citizens for Santa Rosa has endorsed measures, three measures on the ballot for November 6th. First measure M, the parks measure, deserves the support of the whole county. The two city measures, measures N and O, deserve the support of Santa Rosa residents and we hope that you will join all of us in supporting that. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sealy. Dwayne DeWitt, followed by Peter Chernef. Hello, my name is Dwayne DeWitt and my comments are of appreciation and gratitude to the council. But first, these comments are in honor of Jack Osborne, a World War II veteran and Bill Pasente, plus Andres Gomez Garcia. Mr. Garcia is the son of Brian and Paola McAndrew of Santa Rosa, who's just completed an intensive eight week program in military discipline and training, Air Force core values, basic warfare principles and skills and has become an airman in the United States Air Force. And I congratulate him, though I've never met him. I bring him up because it's people like him that give us the opportunity to have this forum and talk with each other. I come here because I have a sense of distress over how you have been verbally abused and harangued recently by some people who don't seem to understand the term decorum or civility. Come to those meetings when these foul mouth, profane, vulgar people come in here and essentially insult you to no end. I don't believe it should be tolerated. I have been here in the past when a person was a bit abusive and the city was able to get a restraining order against that person and keep that person from coming back and disrupting these proceedings. I believe something like this needs to occur. I've served my country because I believe we should all have the freedom of speech, but by the same token, that doesn't mean anybody should have the right to come here and insult people they don't really know and do it in such a vulgar and profane manner. It's just stunning. And I really appreciate that you folks have been patient and tolerant. And I think that the police have been very tolerant also in this situation because I know guys that I hang out with at the veterans meetings I go to, they wouldn't put up with that for a second. Somebody get like that. It's like, no, we're showing you the door in more ways than you ever thought possible. So I'm just hoping that you folks will perhaps look into that possibility that those people who come here to deliberately disrupt and insult you and use the most profane and just vulgar stuff that they say would know that there are people who support your actions. Should you choose to not let them come in here and be such rude and insulting people? I'll be carrying this message to the Vietnam Veterans of America meeting tonight to let them know that we spoke up. Thank you for your time. Peter Turnett followed by Donovan Toledo. Almost every time I agree with Dennis Tuwitt and I agree with him most of the way except sometimes a disruption and an eruption is necessary to wake people up and have a loud voice so that they understand the nature of their true choice. But at the same time, I will say in supporting on behalf of the Santa Rosa City Council to those that would complain and whine to them to solve things, it is not in their capacity to fix problems of a group of people in a state which is the most powerful state in the world that continues to serve two masters. It just doesn't work that way. And they like to call things a revolution. Well, if you've ever seen a dog chasing its tail, that's a revolution. It might be fun for a while, but it doesn't get much done. But when Alexander the Great responded to the Gordian not riddle, he responded fantastically by resolution, slicing it through the middle, problem solved. In the spirit realm, first things are first. And truly by spirit, I hope they hear it. I mean, Martin Luther King saw the promised land. That means we're all homeless. And who goes to their servant to solve their problems? We have the ability to solve these problems. Right now, people talking about voting. When it comes to the governors and the presidential votes, your votes have never counted. They, well, I'm sorry, they were counted before they were cast. They make no difference. But the real vote is to put the body on the line with a general strike. That's true power, that's true love. How many people are protesting somewhat legitimate things in the state of California just in the last week? Fracking, climate change, kids in cages, war, religion, politics, animal rights, geoengineering, standing rock, Flint water, immigrants, cam trails, IRS and the Fed, rents and mortgages, the homeless. It goes on and on. They're all divided, and yet they're all being assailed and assaulted by the same system. All right, those people in the system must be very smart to have you all divided thinking that you're doing something important in your little corner in the middle of nowhere. It's time to report to the Oakland Port and shut it down. The power of the strike I've shared for 27 years as the world is now walking, a true trial of tears has begun with the hotel workers strike. They are also being assaulted by the same system, which means you each have at least probably five to 10 reasons to join them. And so be it commanded from on high and that highness is in your heart. It's time to respond, the time is now to start. It is done, I said. Thank you, Donovan Toledo. He'll be followed by Steve Bertelbaugh. I'm here to talk about how to put speed bumps where I live because, so I live near Rincon Valley, Sequoia. It's near a shopping center in Safeway and there's this road I forgot it's called. Well, I wanna like testify how we should put speed bumps here because there's always signs I say speed limit 25, but I see people going like 50, sometimes not really 60, but I've seen people going 60. And yeah, but we just drive at 25 because we know that like it's safe to drive like at the speed limit, not go over. Thank you, Donovan. Good job. Steve Bertelbaugh, followed by Anne Sealy. I think you've already spoken. Thank you, Mayor Corsi and members. As most of you know, I've spent the last couple of weeks thinking about a railroad crossing that's close to the property that you just dealt with a few minutes ago. I wanted to, I know you'll be dealing with this on your agenda next week, but I wanted to give a little bit of background that you could think about between now and then. How many of you have been to San Clemente to use the beach down there? It's between the ocean and railroad tracks. And in the late 90s, a number of people that were walking on those tracks to get to the beach became casualties of the railroad. So the city worked out a plan to put a pathway next to that railroad track and put in about five additional crossings so that people could get from the land side to the beach. Will it be an SF railway went ballistic? Railways had the attitude that the only good pedestrian, the only good grade crossing is one that doesn't exist. And they made no distinction between pedestrian crossings and vehicular crossings. The city dug in its heels. It persevered 10 years later. Those five new crossings are there. So what I'm suggesting is that Smart is going through a phase right now. They're going to realize eventually that a pedestrian crossing is not to be feared. It keeps people safe, hang in, show that you're not going to be ridden, rough shied by the railroad on this one. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bertelbaugh. Anita Lafellette, followed by Sam E. Good afternoon. I want to first say, take a word, a few minutes of silent time for those that were homeless, that have died on our streets. Ms. Lafellette, please, if you have comments to make to the council. A minute of silence. These people are still dying on our streets. And one of them was Alamondo last year. Do you remember him? Probably not. But the other day I was over at the mission and I was talking to a man in a wheelchair who had a broken leg in three places and he couldn't stay out on the street anymore because it was too hard to get around on a wheelchair. So I was going to do an APS report on him and I took him over to a render center but they wouldn't take him because he had no proof of residency. He can't be left on the street and these are the kind of people that are because they lose their housing. For the past few months, all the RVs and motor homes that people have found to live in, just because they have registration issues, excuse my tone of voice, but it's hard for me to fathom why a policeman would care where they parked them. Our streets are not that vulnerable. Where they were parking was blocking the leaf collector. I couldn't understand it. But in fact, they're not welcome even though they're much better than those expensive tiny homes that you're building for eight veterans behind on Russell Avenue. So I do, yeah. I think we ought to take a minute of silence. For those who are, in fact, I heard from the living room, there were three women who died last month and have their names. I haven't made a tombstone of them yet. People without housing die. People without housing struggle. And for a few people who found RVs, you should be more compassionate. I'm ashamed of our city. I'm ashamed to say that I live in California because of what we do to those who are in poverty. Thank you for your tolerance. Thank you. Sam E followed by Hans Hofer. My name is Sam. I was gonna fall on what Donovan said. I live on Walnut Court in, okay. And I was, whenever I'm outside playing, I always hear cars coming down the street and they're going really fast. And there's a stop sign at the front of my street, but they always seem to go a little faster. And I don't think it's very safe. So it's something that should be dealt with, I think. Thank you. While it's not. Thank you, Sam. Sorry. It's not traditional, but it's difficult to follow up with the two young men. Can we have a staff member? We're gonna do that, Ms. Combs. Hans Hofer followed by Victoria Garnes. Hello, I'm one of those RV dwellers. I'm just curious is how much money does city have spent the last three times they sent to sweep down there? First time was 18 police officers. One of them brandishing an automatic weapon on his motorcycle for a reason I don't know, but I'm just really curious as to how much that costs in comparison to maybe finding this place to have an RV park. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Victoria Garnes. I disagree with Hans because he has a lot more to say. Victoria Garnes, homeless action. Can I put this down? I can't see. Anyway. I'm here today to let the city council know that there has been an increase in hostility and acted out hostility against the homeless, especially since the evacuation of Corporate Center Parkway. Because a lot of us are still in trailers, we're still in RVs, or people are living in their cars and there's nowhere for anybody to go. So out of concern for following the law, people did leave Corporate Center Parkway in a respectful manner and now it's all cleaned up. But nothing has been done to address the housing needs of those residents of the RV park that was out there. A lot of people went to Sam Jones. Most of them were 10 people in tents because those folks in RVs, that was the whole reason they went to RVs because they're disabled or have other issues that don't allow them to be warehoused in shelters such as at Sam Jones. I don't wanna talk it down, but there are a lot of problems there, especially transportation. There's no, they no longer take people to the homeless service center in the morning and pick them up in the afternoon. You have to stay out there if you can't walk the distance to the bus stop. Anyway, yeah, just general complaining here about housing first that we are embarking upon another winter with everybody still out in the street, except for those that are at Sam Jones. I'm sorry, I have to go back because I wanted to tell you that Hans was run over, was run off the street by a driver when he was leaving his RV and he's got a skin need to prove it. But also a woman who testified here for many days and was very, very sympathetic story, Kathy Winston, had her rear window broken out with a baseball bat at Finley Park because with her car it's obvious that she's homeless. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Giannis. That concludes our first general public comment period. We'll move on to your public hearing tonight, item 15.1, Mr. Rogers. Really fast, Mr. Mayor and Mr. City Manager, if we could get somebody from Transportation Public Works to talk to Donald and Sam about the traffic studies and how we determine where to put speed bumps and really just get some information from them. I'd appreciate that. Again, we may take down the information and need to follow up with those folks. I mean, I don't necessarily have those staff on call in the room right now, so. That's fine, so long as somebody gets back to them. Item 15.1, Public Hearing, Appeal of Planning Commission Decision for NT Ventures, a Commercial Cannabis Adult Use and Medicinal Volatile Manufacturing and Distribution Facility, proposed within 3,869 square feet of existing 4,874 square foot industrial building, Suite B, on a 2.09 acre developed industrial park site located at 444 Yolanda Avenue, Suite B, Santa Rosa, California, 95404, Assessments, Parcels, 044-091-065, file number CUP-18-008, Claire Hartman, presenting. Thank you, yes. I'd like to introduce this item. This is an appeal hearing on a specific application, but before we get to the specifics of this application, just sort of set the stage for how this application has come before us. In 2016, the city council took some leadership and prioritized the development of a comprehensive cannabis policy for Santa Rosa, with the idea that commercial cannabis in particular would be led to appropriate zoning districts and areas in our city and to be permissive in terms of providing a permit compliance path so to legalize the cannabis business community. So the general approach to the city's cannabis ordinance was to locate and process commercial cannabis uses as the same as possible as their non-cannabis counterparts. There are exceptions because cannabis is a valuable product and there's other nuances to cannabis in terms of relationship to state law. So there are exceptions, but that was the general approach to our city's ordinance. The comprehensive ordinance went into effect earlier this year in January, so we're 10 months in. It does allow for all aspects of the industry, so anywhere from cultivation to lab work, distribution, manufacturing, and retail. But new this year, we had some interim ordinances that allowed a lot of those uses through other measures, but new with the comprehensive ordinance was retail and also volatile manufacturing, which is the subject before you tonight. So there's two types of manufacturing uses. One was light manufacturing or non-volatile cannabis, and that was allowed prior to the adoption of the comprehensive ordinance. And the second is what's before you tonight, which is what we call volatile or level two cannabis manufacturing. So using the same protocol when the city was preparing and adopting and vetting its comprehensive ordinance, we looked to the land use code and saw where was its non-cannabis counterpart allowed and under what permit authority. So we looked at general manufacturing medium, except what we found was general manufacturing medium only required a minor use permit in the light industrial district. We made an exception with volatile and we elevated that process for cannabis, the cannabis version of that type of land use to major use permit. And part of that was just vetted out through the discussion and outreach and adoption process that in this case, maybe not treat it the very same, but elevate the public process for volatile. It's a new land use for Santa Rosa. So major use permits, as you know, require a public hearing always with the Planning Commission and they are the review authority and the appeal body then becomes the city council. Minor use permit on the other hand is actionable by the zoning administrator includes a public notice and the appeal body is the commission. So in addition, one of the other exceptions that carries throughout our cannabis ordinance is we have a specific section in our zoning code, chapter 2046. It requires a number of things that non-cannabis businesses need to adhere to, one of which is dual licensing, you need a state license. Another is that you, we have specific standards for addressing security, odor, because that's specific to cannabis, lighting and noise attenuation with the idea that they're addressing the specifics of this product type, but not at the expense of surrounding property owners or surrounding tenants. In addition, specific now to ratcheting it down further into the ordinance specific requirements for manufacturers and that includes pre, post and annual inspections of operations and equipment. So we did make some exceptions for the cannabis version of this level of manufacturing. I just wanna just understand how we got there where we ended up. Bill Rose, our supervising planner, he's had the benefit of implementing our ordinance. And so he's gonna talk quickly about what's come in across the counter with regards to this type of use. Thank you, Claire. So the cannabis ordinance went in effect in January of this year. To date, the city has processed six cannabis volatile manufacturing use permits, three are located in the Northwest quadrant of the city, two in the Southwest and one in the Southeast. The Planning Commission held a study session in May and that was prior to consideration of any of these applications. There are currently four pending applications, two of which have been approved and one of those is here before you tonight on appeal. So the council I'm sure has noticed the staff report, the written staff report was quite detailed. In the interest of time, we're gonna make every effort tonight to make the oral presentation as efficient and concise as possible, saving the more detailed responses for the question and answer period of the discussion. In addition to the planning staff at the table, we also have representatives from the fire and police department. We have Scott Moon, Fire Marshal and Lieutenant John Snetsinger and we will all be available to answer questions later on. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Kristin Aitumian, Senior Planner. Thank you, Mayor, members of the City Council, Kristin Aitumian's. The project being appealed this evening is for a commercial cannabis medicinal and adult use manufacturing level two volatile use within a 3,869 square foot tenant space of an existing 4,874 square foot building. The appellant cited 11 grounds for appeal and to summarize their grounds for appeal, they question the planning commission's consideration of general plan policies concerning cannabis uses, setback considerations for cannabis uses, near residential uses, general safety of volatile cannabis manufacturing and distribution, the ability for Yolanda Avenue to handle increased traffic and the general compatibility of industrial uses near residential. This is a brief project history for the project. It was submitted on January 19th, 2018. Staff held a neighborhood meeting on March 14th, 2018. Planning commission approved the major conditional use permit on July 26th, 2018 and on August 3rd, staff received appeal filed by a neighboring property owner. So the project location is in the southeast quadrant of the city. The proposed project is located on the south side of Yolanda Avenue in a predominantly industrialized area spanning the distance between Santa Rosa Avenue to the west and Petaluma Hill Road to the east. The general plan land use designation for the subject parcel and adjacent properties to the north, east and west is light industry. The zoning is IL or light industrial and the subject parcel is immediately adjacent to the Harvest Park neighborhood which is a plan development composed of single family residential neighborhood to the south and you can see that in the hatched area south of the project site. The project site is a 2.09 acre parcel. It was developed in 2009 with three metal buildings surrounded by shared parking. The applicant has requested to locate within a tenant space in building B which is highlighted with the red arrow and it's located at the southwest corner of the parcel. These are the, this is a picture of the building they're proposing to locate in. The remainder of the building will be vacant but could house any number of uses allowed in the IL or light industrial zoning district. There are no major modifications proposed to the exterior of the building other than 88 upgrades. And the parking area will be secured with a chain link fence and rolling gate highlighted in the light blue color that you see on the slide. And the tenant space is the dark gray shaded area located at the top left corner of your screen. Here's a floor plan of the proposed project. It will include approximately 1500 square feet of volatile manufacturing type seven, 730 square feet of warehousing on the first floor and 444 square feet of shipping and distribution. And while I mentioned there are no exterior changes they are proposing a new mezzanine within their tenant space. And that will house 1,520 square feet which will be used for dry storage and equipment storage. And the facility will not be open to the general public. While the building footprint is 30 feet away from the property line to the nearest residential property to the south, per the floor plan the volatile manufacturing process will occur in a room within the tenant space nearly 60 feet away. In addition to controlled facility access the security plan includes door sensors, window sensors, motion detectors, exterior lighting and high resolution cameras. The operator will also contract with the security service provider to provide 24 hour security for the facility. And just to reiterate slightly what Claire just mentioned the city requires that the volatile manufacturing process occur in a closed loop system. What that entails is a closed loop vacuum system where no solvents are exposed to the air. That system has to be approved by certified and approved by a third party testing agency or licensed professional engineer and approved for that intended use. Also the city will require recertification of that equipment on an annual basis and would require inspections by the city fire department. As the project's conditioned it will address any potential nuisances such as lighting odor, security, parking and noise. The project qualifies for a class one exemption under CEQA guidelines section 15301 in that it is the permitting and minor alteration of existing private structure involving no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. And since they're not proposing any major exterior alterations they're pretty negligible. They will result in, they will not result in any significant impacts. So as I mentioned earlier there are 11 grounds for appeal. The concerns predominantly surround how the proposed use will be compatible with the neighborhood directly to the south. Concerns with the cannabis policy and there are no setback requirements for these types of uses with any other use. There are concerns with proximity to the project to parks and schools and residential uses. Concerns that the general plan does not specifically address cannabis specifically. Concerns that the volatile extraction methods are not proven safe. Concerns with the overall volatile extraction process. Concerns with security. Overall security, security of the materials that are brought in and taken out of the facility. Again, transportation. Concerns with odor noise, dust, pesticides, bugs, et cetera. The other concern is any potential cultivation which the applicant is not proposing at this time and how it is or is not compatible with surrounding residential uses. They also cited that they're not aware of any similar municipalities in California that allow this type of use in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. And they're citing other similar municipalities nearby that have stricter requirements for volatile cannabis manufacturing. Grounds for appeal 10. Sites concerns about Yolanda Avenue not being conducive to an increase in manufacturing businesses. And the last concern was with noise. More detailed responses to each of these grounds for appeal are detailed extensively in the staff report. Staff is available for comment. We have various staff from fire, police, engineering and traffic to be able to answer questions. And at this moment, I'd like to take a moment to offer an apology to the appellants of the Earned Shaws while preparing the record for city council. I inadvertently included a copy of their personal check used to pay for the appeal fee. As part of the appeal statement attachment to the initial publication of the packet once notified of my error, the attachment was rescinded and updated immediately and I take full responsibility. And you blew regret my oversight when preparing the record for you tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Tumions. If the council's good with this, we're gonna go through this before we get to questions. We'll listen to the chair of the, or the vice chair of the planning commission. We'll listen to the appellants' presentation and we'll listen to the applicant's presentation before we go to questions from the council. I believe that this agenda schedule has been distributed to the appellant and the applicant. The vice chair of the planning commission has three minutes. The appellant has five minutes and the applicant has five minutes. And I'm telling you up front, gonna hold you that time. And so make sure you get everything that you want within the first five minutes because that will be your time. So we'll start with Ms. Weeks. Better push on. Thank you, Mayor Corsi, members of the council. I won't take three minutes. I'm here on behalf of the planning commission. On July 26th, we reviewed the request from the applicant for the conditional use permit. At that time, there were five members present. One member was absent and one member abstained. At that time, we found on a four-to-one vote that the proposal was consistent with Santa Rosa's comprehensive cannabis ordinance. As indicated by the vote, it was not unanimous that loan dissenter had concerns regarding the adjacency of the project to the neighborhood and that it potentially could be a nuisance. However, the majority of the commission agreed that the applicant had demonstrated that the project was consistent with the Santa Rosa ordinance and policy and therefore it was approved by the commission. Thank you. We'll move on to the appellant. Is that Mr. Earnshaw? Welcome, Mr. Earnshaw. How do you move this up? If I have it set back to five minutes, please. Thank you. Honorable Mayor Corsi, distinguished city council members, city manager, city attorney. My name is Matt Earnshaw, and on behalf of the Residences of Harvest Park, a single family residential neighborhood constructed in early 2000s. An appeal to CUP 1808 was submitted to city council by myself and my wife Shelly on August 3rd, 2018. I believe that we have a compelling case or argument and I would therefore respectfully request, Honorable Mayor, the forbearance of your time and the council's time for a period of 10 minutes for initial statements. So we let you know beforehand, five minutes. There's plenty of time in the public hearing that your neighbors and other people who are involved in this can speak as well. You have five minutes. Thank you. The grounds for the Harvest Park appeal stems from three primary items. Number one, the health, safety, peace, happiness, liberty and welfare of the City of Santa Rosa residents. Specifically, the residents of Harvest Park is being threatened by the proposed use and as such is inconsistent with section 1D and section 20.46-100A and B of the City of Santa Rosa cannabis ordinance. The second item, the City of Santa Rosa cannabis ordinance is inconsistent with ordinances and other municipalities in that the City allows for full discretion of setbacks to manufacturing, including level two type seven volatile extraction, commercial distribution and marijuana products, inventory, testing and research. Let me rephrase that. It's up to you guys through the CUP part process and under appeal to the City Council to determine whether or not there are any setbacks to this type of usage. What I'm telling you is I haven't found another municipality that's similar to this. And I have plenty of examples that I sent to you of other ones that are different, including examples that were cited by in your own staff report. Number three, cities planning preparation of the CUP permanent appeal documents does not adequately address parking concerns, pesticide remediation, location of infilling of solvent tanks, safety plan details, hours of operation, emergency hood operation, adjacent property uses and same building, potential setback issues that we mentioned above, nor has a documentation adequately addressed residential concerns related to safety, residents interpretation of the general plan and the ordinance in light of item number one, and as it related to our compatibility to our neighborhood. As a neighborhood group and in accordance with our appeal and documentation that's submitted as part of the record, we are asking the city council to number one, deny the CUP permit 18-008 as it directly affects our health, safety, peace, happiness, liberty and welfare of us, our children and our grandchildren. Revise number two, revise the city cannabis ordinance to include minimum setbacks to residential school, daycare facilities and city parks for volatile extraction, distribution, including but not limited non-real retail enterprises. Number three, revise city cannabis ordinance to include minimum setbacks and density between existing proposed uses that are similar to CUP 18-008. In other words, revise it so that residents don't have to come talk to you every time they wanna appeal decision like this, like other municipalities have done. Expand the notification requirements to the entirety of the adjacent residential area, including multifamily residential, which is there's apartment complex within 170 feet of this. So I had a lot of different points. I've spent a fair amount of time researching this. I reached out to you at the very beginning to discuss these sorts of things. Our primary concern is that we don't feel safe. And a lot of people will talk about this in the future, but just to briefly go through this, I got one minute. Exhibit A, we'll talk about that. Humboldt County Ordinance, Santa Cruz Ordinance and LA County Ordinances are mentioned in the staff report as places where volatile extraction has been permitted. That's all it says. Humboldt County has a thousand foot set back to residential for volatile extraction. Santa Cruz County, it's so complicated you can't even figure it out, but volatile extractions and heavy industrial. It cites places that have similar paint manufacturing, dyes, things like that, things that are away from the public. It cites it, it's in fine print. You have to go through the documentation. LA County banned that until recently, and their setbacks are, again, someplace outside of, if you look at the areas that are approved, they are not within the general populace of residential. I'm not a zoning person, I'm not an attorney, but any casual readings suggest that this ordinance is flawed on that level. I'd ask you to get in for another five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Earnshaw. And I wanna assure you we received your background materials, and I can't speak for everyone, but I did read them. We're gonna go to the applicant for five minutes. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Erin Carlstrom, Senior Council with Dickinson Peepman and Fogarty Attorneys for the applicant. We've previously submitted a 10-page point-by-point response to the appellant's claims, which I trust met your desk, and you have reviewed. We won't go into it in depth this evening. Additionally, I wanna make sure that you are aware we provided additional communication with respect to other communities that have permitted volatile manufacturing with no residential setbacks, those should be before you. In the interest of time, I will simply state to you that California case law is very clear that the council and the city must apply the law as it exists today to this project. The Santa Rosa Ordinance complies with state law and is an appropriate exercise of its police powers, the application and the project itself comply with both state law and your ordinance. We would thus ask you to respect the determination of your staff and the Planning Commission and deny the appeal. And with that, I'll turn it over to Alex Rowland, CEO of New Tropic Ventures. Mr. Mayor, City Council, thanks for the time tonight. So I'm gonna run through a very quick kind of presentation as to what this facility's gonna look like. I think part of the problem here is I think there's a lot of misconceptions as to what this building actually does and what goes on in this building. And all these concerns about the danger I think are actually not really warranted. We've got the rest of my team here. I won't go through each one in detail. You'll actually see quite a few pictures as we kind of leaf through this presentation. This is not, these pictures are actually not stock photography or something. These are actually pictures of a facility that Todd designed in Denver, Colorado and ran for a number of years. This is the kind of facility we're looking to build. This is essentially an FDA compliant facility. It's highly safe. It's heavily regulated by the states and heavily regulated by the locality. It's open to inspection at any point in time. This is not a facility I think you're gonna look at once it's complete and see any sort of danger. Safety and security. Again, this is a tried and true industrial process. It's been around for decades. This is not a dangerous process as I think the Plenty Commission detailed. This is the type of use that if it wasn't related to cannabis would not have even gone through this public hearing process. So in addition to both the certification and systems around managing the solvents using this closed loop extraction system, we have quite a bit of work into making sure the actual physical security of the space is up to snuff. If you look specifically also, there's a whole bunch of other things we've done specifically around making sure that the space is not susceptible to any sort of leakage of solvent into the air. There's a lot of work we've done, specifically around odor mitigation. There's gotta be a dozen different engineers we've been working with on this project to make sure it's fully compliant with state and local regulations. So I think again, once you'd see this facility fully complete, I think a lot of your concerns would be dismissed. The other thing I think you just wanna bring up, I think we've made a heavy investment in this community. My business partner Nelson Becerra has actually moved up to Santa Rosa, specifically to head up this project. We've got other local residents already working with us right now. And I think we're actually the first cannabis company I believe to actually start to engage with the teamsters to look at actually supplying local labor and organized labor specifically to this facility. We're committed to making sure that people at work in this facility have access to livable wage. We're committed to making sure that happens. This is also gonna be, I think, a very profitable project for the city. We're looking at a total gross proceeds of somewhere up to $250 million a year, which results in a substantial tax when fall to the city. I believe the tax rate right now for manufacturing is 1%. So I believe this can be a substantial benefit. And that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you. We'll go on to the public hearing. And before we do this is a, it is a public hearing on an appeal and we need to reveal any ex parte communication that has taken place around this. None of me that I haven't received this evening so far. Okay. Mr. Tibbetts. Thank you, mayor. I had the chance to speak with who I believe is Matt with the phone not long ago. And I also took a tour of the facility from Ms. Carlstrom. I also have taken a tour of the facility, had conversations with some of the staff, had conversations with the appellant and viewed the neighborhood and had a conversation with the planning commissioner. I've had a tour of the facility. I drove through the neighborhood and I spoke with my planning commissioner who I believe was absent for the conversation. So I had a chance to tour the facility, drive through the neighborhood, speak with both the applicant as well as the team service representative and received emails from the appellant. No new information was given. And I also toured the site. I walked to the neighborhood. I've had email correspondence with various neighbors and reviewed the information that has been part of the public packet. With that, we will open the public hearing. This is your chance to make a case either side. Each person will have three minutes and I'm gonna hold you to that. We've got quite a few speakers here and we will start with Shelly Earnshaw. She'll be followed by Matt Earnshaw. It is a public hearing and I will officially open the public hearing. Thank you. Thank you, council. I would like to start off by saying apology accepted, Ms. Tumians. It was a hassle. We had to go down to the bank and redo everything. But I would like to bring up today. I'd like to highlight the grounds of appeal item number three in which we state in accordance with ordinance 2017025, section 1D, which talks about proposed zoning amendments and use and concludes with the proposed zoning changes will result in land uses and residentially, commercially and industrial zone areas that are compatible with existing and future uses and will not be detrimental to the public interest, health safety, convenience or welfare of the city. First of all, this is not an existing land use nor was it ever a future land use. It's a misleading statement in the report that states, I don't know who submitted the statement, that this location is surrounded by similar businesses. There's nobody along that corridor that's using volatile extraction. Also, 180 degrees is residential. This is not an existing nor was it a future intended land use. Secondly, I would like to say that it is detrimental to our public interest, health safety of the residents. If you're here from Harvest Park, could you please stand or raise your hand? This is a small fraction of the signatures we got. It's a small fraction of the people we could even communicate with. Small fraction. Thank you. You can be seated. When I went around door-to-door, I talked with people that voted for the legalization of cannabis for both recreational and medicinal purposes. I spoke with people that were adamantly against it. I spoke with users. I spoke with growers. I spoke with everybody. There was one thing we all shared. It does not belong this close to our home. The fact that there's no setbacks to residents with this type or to another related business like this business could go in in the next building. There's no setbacks to other retails. There's no setbacks to schools, parks, nothing. This scares us. I didn't walk around scaring people. I went to their door. I said what was happening. They said, I want to sign this. This is not okay. I want to highlight, first of all, the attorney cited a number of counties again. It's all in the exhibits. But one of them was LA County and I just want to read in section 015 their purpose and intent in their ordinance. The purpose of this article is to stem the negative impacts and secondary effects associated with cannabis related activities in the city, including but not limited to those documented in case law and the legislative histories of cannabis regulations in the city, including but not limited to neighborhood disruption and intimidation caused in part by increased transient visitors, exposure of school-aged children. Thank you, Mr. Earnshof. Matt Earnshof. And he'll be followed by Risha Ruel. Okay, so what she's saying is that LA City changed their ordinance away from what they had previously because of transience, increase in crime, it's all documented in their ordinance and their new ordinance for setbacks in LA City. What I like to do is go through the actual agenda item that was prepared by city staff and go through a couple of comments real quickly. What we don't have a security plan. We have no idea what the security plan is. As part of the neighborhood meeting, the applicant stated, do you want somebody with a gun or do you not want somebody with a gun? That was the question. We're 30 feet away from a six-foot wooden fence. Are you serious? We don't want anybody with a gun. Would you rather us call the police if something happens? The fact that there's a security concern, that's why other municipalities have a different process. And processes like this, I really do appreciate the CUP. I appreciate that there's a chance to appeal. We didn't think it was gonna get through zoning just based upon what have you. But that building right there that you see, it's on the southwest corner of that building. It is literally, you guys toured the tour of that. And by the way, I would have liked to have been invited to tour the facility. I would have been good for communication. Going through this document, it cites a parking, five parking spots. It cites in here. The traffic plan that was prepared by a licensed engineer, PhD says 16 parking spots. That needs to get rectified. Oh, I got a minute, 20. What else in here? The says in here, no solvents are exposed and the open air remain contained within a closed-loop system. Denver's own requirement for volatile extraction says that some gets released to the air every time they open it up. I don't know what's gonna happen with the hood. There's a hood that's a volatile extraction that all the stuff is closed in. Something catastrophic happens. Gunshot into the tank. Guy hits a valve. Something happens. It off-gasses to the roof. What is it? Butane. Butane's 2.48 in specific gravity. It's heavier than air. It'll off-gas right into our neighborhood. That's why there's a setback. Transients, crime, exit routes through our neighborhood. There's two ways in and two ways out. One's through our neighborhood. You guys, this is really simple. I'm sorry, none of you would live there. None of you would accept this. You'd be right here with me talking the way I'm talking. And as a city council, that's what, you gotta protect us as residents. It's really, really important. In our safety, we feel a little bit on edge about it. Or a lot on edge, depending upon what part of that area you're living in. But as a whole, we stand together that this is wrong. We're not anti-cannabis, but we are anti-this project. Thank you. Risha Ruhl, followed by James Bergman. Hi, Risha Ruhl, also property owner in Harvest Park Community. I'm also very opposed to this project. I came to the original hearing and one of the biggest concerns I had was, it's a closed loop, they keep telling us it's used for other manufacturing process. But when we ask for the other manufacturing processes, what are the setbacks? Silence, radio silence. When we tell them our safety concerns of, hey, we're totally for cannabis in our community, but we're concerned with the safety. The planning commission took at least 15 to 20 minutes grappling over how they could quell some of our safety concerns, and the only solution they came up with was, okay, well, behind that one property, let's go ahead and put an eight-foot fence. Then they realized all the issues of, it's a long property line, multiple property owners between the businesses and the residents. That's not a sufficient solution, and it was abandoned. Then we have the issue of the company came and talked to us afterwards, saying, hey, we really wanna work with you. I appreciated that. I appreciated the fact that they came and talked to us. But when I said, hey, what do you do? You have all these great things. You have all of these safety mechanisms coming in and out, and when somebody follows you in, what do you do? Well, our standard operating procedure is, if we were held up, we were gonna go ahead and give them anything that they asked for. Right, and then what? So they know your standard operating procedure is you're gonna give them whatever they want. You're handling cash. You're handling the materials that they want, the goods that you're producing that they would like to use on the aftermarket. Awesome, where are they gonna go? Are they gonna go back out the front door? No, they're gonna go over that six-foot fence into our neighborhood. The other concern I have that Matt brought up is the lack of notice to our neighborhood. You guys might not be aware, but there are currently eight applications. The entire block, the southern side of Yolanda, has applications for cannabis-related uses. I contacted a real estate attorney and a real estate agent and asked, if I choose to list my property, do I now have to disclose this? Every one of them said yes. When I asked the real estate agent, are you seeing decreased values for these properties that are backing up to cannabis residents? They said yes. Is that fair to us? So here we have safety concerns. Now I have to disclose that there's cannabis applications pending or approved behind my residence and I could potentially have a lowered home value. I don't think that's fair. I don't think that's looking out for our citizens. One of the things that you guys were talking about in that purchase of the property for earlier this evening was the three-please piece, I believe was mentioned. Yeah, this doesn't fit into the three-piece and it's really starting to deviate from what the city is looking at. We need housing. We need to be able to stay in our homes and a lot of us, if we wanted to move, we wouldn't be able to. Thank you. James Bergman followed by Tom Woods. Good evening, city council and mayor. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. I urge the council to grant this appeal and to revoke the major conditional use permit that it granted in July. I'd like to read from an article regarding some of the violent crime that happens around marijuana distribution. This is an article from the press democrat from February of 2018 just earlier this year. The title of the article is for Santa Rosa home invasion suspects arraigned on murder charges. It's an article from February of 2018 from the press democrat, which talks about on one day there were two home invasions that seemed to be related and that also were apparently, according to the article, marijuana related. I'll just read a little bit of the article. Four men were arraigned on murder and other charges Tuesday and a pair of Santa Rosa home invasion robberies that left one man dead and another shot and wounded. The crimes appear to involve suspects looking to steal marijuana and cash, authorities said. These home invasions happened at a place called Melcone Lane, M-E-L-C-O-N, which is not that far from the proposed site on Yolanda Avenue and on Fulton Road and they happened a few hours apart. The crimes that were alleged are murder, robbery, burglary, kidnapping and false imprisonment. The family of the person who was killed said that he was shot 10 times. This is a recurring set of facts that I've read since I've lived in Sonoma County in 16 years. The article goes on to talk about some other incidents. Let me just finish up with the quotes here. The apparently pot-related killing in this time was the latest in Sonoma County over the past five years. In 2013, three men were shot and killed execution style in a Forestville marijuana deal gone bad. Two people were then shot and killed in Sebastopol in 2016 during another pot heist. So this is a recurring pattern regarding marijuana distribution. There are people who try to locate quantities of marijuana in this county and who wanna get their hands on it and will not stop at whatever's between them and getting quantities of marijuana. I would like the city council to revoke this permit. I'm not against marijuana businesses. I'm against this project. There are no setbacks as everybody else has said. There are no setbacks. It's right next to a residential neighborhood. Things like this are likely to happen and I really don't wanna see this happen again right this close to a residential neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you, Tom Woods, followed by Megan Sweeley. Thank you. My name is Tom Woods. I'm a business agent with Teamsters Local 665 and a resident of Santa Rosa. Teamsters 665 is encouraging you to deny this appeal. We are partnered with NT Ventures working to create good jobs in Santa Rosa and this project is going to create good jobs. This project is going to create living wage jobs, jobs that have benefits and we're moving what used to be a black industry out into the public, like a black market thing out into real life that's with dignity. We need jobs, right? Yeah, that's it. It's good jobs for Santa Rosa. Thank you. Megan Sweeley, followed by Maria Garcia. Good evening, Mayor Corsi, members of the Council, City Attorney Gallagher. I am a resident also of Summer Creek Drive in Harvest Park and while I am not opposed to the cannabis businesses and the law that have passed, I am opposed to this business being in my backyard and around my child. You can see here in the audience, there's just this very small fraction of the children that are in that live along Summer Creek on any given weekend day, which you apparently walked our neighborhood, maybe not on a weekend. There's at least 30 children out playing basketball, soccer, riding bikes. There's a community park, city park in our neighborhood. I'm speaking as a mother and a daughter whose 84-year-old mother also resides in her home. We don't want this in our backyard. It's dangerous. There's no studies to show what the chemicals will do to our children. There's no known facts that this won't explode, set our wooden fences on fire, and that's a huge liability. And again, as Risha pointed out, I too talk to my real estate agent. We do have to disclose this. We are very much a blue collar working-class neighborhood. Two families working. Many of us are also government employees. And for us to get up and relocate, these are our homes so we want to raise our kids. And again, with no setbacks, it just doesn't belong next to a residential. There's other areas of Santa Rosa that will not be as impacted with children and families. Thank you very much. Thank you. Maria Garcia, followed by Scott Schrickengast. Good evening, council members. My name is Maria Garcia. I am a lead organizer for North Bay Jobs with Justice. It's a labor community coalition comprised of 20 unions and community-based organizations. So Jobs with Justice supports the approval of a conditional use permit for anti-ventures for a proposed cannabis manufacturing and distribution facility. Jobs with Justice strongly supports the creation of new jobs in the city that pay a living wage, provide comprehensive benefits, and respect workers' rights to organize a union. Anti-ventures has indicated that they will cooperate with Teamsters Local 665, who will organize the workers at this cannabis facility. The company has also committed to hiring local workers and are quickly negotiating their first contract. Both the company and the union agree that these new jobs will pay family-supporting wages and include comprehensive medical and other benefits. This will be the first union cannabis manufacturing and distribution facility in the county, and it can help to establish high labor standards for the emerging industry. Despite the recovery in Sonoma County and the city of Santa Rosa, we are experiencing a crisis of low-wage employment. In 2018, according to UC Berkeley Labor Center, more than 30% of the workers in the county earn less than $14 an hour. In 2017, according to the California Budget and Policy Project, a self-sufficiency living wage for two parents, each working full-time to provide to support a family with two children is $23 an hour. You have to be making $23 an hour to be able to sustain yourself in this county. That's just to cover the basic expenses without relying on public assistance. Also, 30% of the households in the county are working poor and receive less than $50,000 a year. These new jobs created by anti-ventures will directly address this crisis of low-wage employment and total hourly compensation will enable anti-ventures employees to live in the community where they work and raise a family in this high-cost region. So North Bay Jobs for Justice urges the council to approve a conditional use permit for this facility. Thank you. Thank you, Scott. Shrekengast, followed by Roman. Mr. Mayor, thank you for the pronunciation of my name. It was very good. City Council members. I wasn't prepared to speak this evening in anti-ventures. I found some things rather ironic as I stood here and listened to this and the folks that brought this appeal, I didn't know anything about this. But what I find kind of interesting is that we're talking about setback 30 feet. I'm no engineer, but I gotta think it's between me and this table right down below me. That's probably a good 30 feet. Do you want that that close to you? I also found it intriguing that anti-ventures, their folks and their attorneys have indicated that it follows the Santa Rosa ordinances, rules, whatever all those things were that she eloquently put. It fits the rules that Santa Rosa has now. That doesn't mean, that's the whole reason why we have government, is that when something is wrong or something needs to be addressed, we find ways to make sense. And that might mean something as simple as changing the ordinance. Nobody's really against what you're offering. Nobody's against having jobs, increased wages. What we are against is this setback. What we are against is that it's near this neighborhood. What we'd like to see is another alternative to this specific site that keeps the jobs, it keeps the revenue, it doesn't hurt property values. And it's a move that can be made. You can move. You're gonna ask how many other families to move because of the inconveniences and the potential concerns that exist within the community. The other thing that I just found a little bit ironic was, I know it's the misuse of the word, but ordinance, a butane tank where an accident occurs, blows up, it becomes an ordinance, right? A bulletin ordinance. I don't want one of them at me. I don't want a butane tank at me either. So I just simply asked the city of Santa Rosa to reconsider the rules that are on the books, back off the mic for a little while, and consider appealing it and seeing if there's a better option. Everybody can win here. This does not have to be NT versus this neighborhood. We can live together just under different circumstances. Let's find a way to make it happen. Thank you. Thank you. Roman Hubelek, followed by Anna Nunez. Thank you. I'm here standing here with my wife, Lisa, and we live on Summer Creek Drive. Our home is one of those homes that's actually neighboring with the proposed property for the commercial cannabis business. And what separates us from the location is only six foot-long fence or tall fence, and there's no other security if some crime was committed on that location. People don't go over to fence. They just go right through it, right through our house. So, but we all know that this cannabis business requires explosive gases as a butane propane, and we all cannot deny that they are good gas deadly explosions. This both business, like I said, attracts also dangerous criminal activity. And to being so close to our homes, it will create many anxieties and change pretty much our lifestyle. I hope you understand that the setbacks are important and not harming it. And the dangerous nature of process of manufacturing, cultivating, and distribution of cannabis are obviously worries us and maybe our worry about our security and, like I said, quality of life. It shouldn't matter what the experts say, how safe it is. Nothing is 100% safe. Accident will happen. And with the proximity of the business to our house particularly, it would be very dangerous to us. I strongly urge you need to set the setbacks. They need to be implemented. And you may not or must not approve this business doing on that location because it shouldn't be happening in any residential area. I believe it's your responsibility and to protect the residents of the city. Thank you. Thank you. Ana Nunez followed by Jamina Ortiz. Thank you. I've lived in this neighborhood now for 10 years. I was a first-time home buyer. I am a teacher in this community and I've lived in Sonoma County my whole life. I feel that I agree with everything that my neighbors have said. We are a community. We support each other. We are working taxpayers. We do everything that we need to make our community safe and respectful of our everyone. And I really, really, really hope that you would take in our considerations. Picture yourself living in this house. Do you want your kids possibly running by a gangster or whoever going by with a gun in their hand? Do you want your kids near that? Do you want gun shops going on? Oh yeah, there's a security guard there. What's he gonna do? His fires could go our direction. Is that fair to me? Who I've paid my tax dollars for over 10 years now to have bullets going through my window because you wanted business to be in a certain place? I'm not against this business. But can you please put it in a different part of Santa Rosa? Santa Rosa can still make its money. Santa Rosa can still give jobs. But please keep our community safe. It's not fair to us who have worked every single day of our lives to own a home in Sonoma County. Do you know how hard it is? I'm a teacher. I had to work my tail off to get where I'm at today. And here now, you're affecting my life. You're affecting my job. I mean, you're affecting my home value. You're affecting my safety. You're affecting the community that we support each other. Do you want to live in that? Yes, the person that moved to Sonoma County that owns the business. He had stayed here, he lives in Santa Rosa. He lives in Fountain Grove. He does not live in our community. This is not affecting him personally. When I asked about the gunshots, the same thing. Well, what are you gonna do? Well, what do you want? Do you want someone to be there? We already have people that roam our streets. We don't need to give them a reason to come through our neighborhood and jump the fences to try to steal something to make more money. We already live near communities that are searching for ways to make money. We don't need them to come into our community. So please, please, will you take in consideration the community? We work our tails off to have our homes be the way they are and to keep the community safe. We're homeowners. This is not a rental community. Majority of us are homeowners in this community. So please, take in consideration. I'm sorry for being emotional, but this is my life. Yes, I understand the Santa Rosa needs to make money. Yes, I understand there needs to be jobs, but can you put it out in the field where there's no other place to be? Maybe make a whole section in the county that is meant for these type of businesses. So that way they're all protected. They can support each other and they can work together and our community stays safe. So please, do not let this project be put in our backyards. Thank you. Thank you. Jamina Ortiz. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, City Council. I just wanna remind everybody that as a grandmother and a grandmother to many of the children that I consider my children in our neighborhood, we have a real neighborhood where children play outside, where the neighbors know each other, where we protect each other, which is quite unheard of nowadays. I mean, we've grown away from that being as it was so many years ago where we're just a nucleus of family. We get together every Easter. We have a big potluck party and we all protect each other. We are not here to try to eliminate jobs. We know that Senator Rosa needs jobs and we know that people need to work and aspire to be better. But the city is vast and there's many, many properties even as you drive that are empty and vacant and they could be more suited to building this type of facility to develop a business that doesn't need to affect our community. It's getting very scary because we're gonna be seeing patrol cars going through, things that our children are not used to seeing at all. They're used to living safely, playing outside, knowing they're all being taken care of and we take care of each other. So we appreciate you looking at this again and seeing if you can find a better option so that everybody wins. It's supposed to be a win-win situation that this situation we're losing. Thank you very much. Thank you. Sherry Goley. I'm Sherry Goley. I'm a homeowner in the Harvest Park subdivision as well. I live on Summer Creek. My house backs up to not directly behind but a few houses down. I'm a concerned resident. I'm concerned for the safety of my children. I'm concerned with the crime it might bring and I'm concerned with the value coming down of my home. My home is my investment. It took us a lot of hard work and saving to get this home. Like everyone has said here, we are a strong community. Our children are outside playing. They're not the ones inside playing video games. You come through our neighborhood and you see them outside playing basketball. You see them at the park playing. You know where your child is at because you see their bike at our neighbor's house. There's families. There's children. We don't want this in our backyard. I'm not against cannabis. I'm not against this project but I am against it in my backyard. I am not against jobs. I know we need them and I know the city and the county need money. Again, let's find another location for it. This is too close to a residential neighborhood and I'm really concerned with the safety. Thank you. Thank you. Peter Cherneff, followed by Eileen Veal. Let's consider taking this to a higher level, a bigger picture. King said that if one man's wrongfully incarcerated, so are we all. And believe me, there's a lot of people in prison that are absolutely innocent. Leonard Pelletier, 43 years down. Greenbury Dr. Jeffrey McDonald, 46 years down. And many others. And so, here we are, bona fide slaves to a corrupted system ruled by usurious bankers and their minions of lawyers all in subservience to the Fed and the IRS. And because we work so hard, we have to work so hard because we keep giving our money away to the Fed and IRS which are absolutely unlawful. And then we end up pointing fingers and fighting each other about symptomologies. And since we got some of these young children here, I believe they're probably very smart. And they all know who the Peanuts Gang are. And the Peanuts Gang, all 55 years, had something in common by intent by Charles Schultz with Jesus, Gandhi, Einstein, Cesar Chavez, Dolores who were at the Credit Scott King and many others. They were all vegans. And the reason is, is because in the eyes of almighty, murder includes the animals. And that's 14 million a day that we have terminated in the slaughterhouse. One of the gentlemen talked about gases and his concern for gases. I'm wondering why you would remain mute to the chemtrails that fall upon us all 24-7. So when else said we need to stand together, we do, to strike an insane system into submission instead of fighting each other over symptomologies. Under the Constitution, growing tomatoes, potatoes, hamper cannabis be lawful. It's the bar association that's delivered this insanity quite awful. Having us divided over all kinds of things. Jerry Brown and the Bar Association have shredded this industry. As lawyers now take 60% of every dollar, they care not who does holler as long as you remain silently subservient to their controlling insanity. Does every smoker, joker, and midnight toker have true cause, their numbers to join together and come forth from the east, west, south and north? They do, for I will not be tied down by illusion and bar lawyer intrusion. By the power and authority of each heart and spirit and strength and love, we need to now, we now come together to strengthen the freedom strike. Because this is all about the same system doing this to all of us. Whether it's the homeless, the higher rents, all these things are all connected to the very same system. And to those who think that are struggling as to my point, this moment still, over 164,000 prisoners are doing 1.5 million years for smoking a joint. Thank you. Aileen Veal. My name's Aileen. Thank you. I'm 16 years old, and I'm here standing with my mother. I'm the daughter of immigrants. My dad is working. He's not here because he wakes up at 4.15 in the morning to do what he can to give us a life that we have. They have worked very hard. They, and hearing this and hearing everyone's statements just kind of elaborates on how it's gonna affect everyone's life. Here in this, we see all these kids, they're like my brothers and sisters. We play outside every weekend. And I, we're happy. We don't have any worries yet. But with hearing this, it's gonna change. My mom's afraid to stand up here because she can't speak the language. She can't speak English, but she's doing what she can to put in her word and to state that this is not what we want. And I just would like for you guys to keep in consideration everyone's statements and just kind of think about what it's gonna do to all our lives. We have been living on summer creek drive for 14 years. And this, we're just, we don't agree with this. We're not against the marijuana business, but we are against it being this close to homes. Thank you. Thank you, Eileen. Well done. That's all the cards I have. Is there anyone else who wants to address the council on this issue? Seeing no one rise, I'll close the public hearing. Sorry. Please use the microphone and let us know who you are, please. My name is Elmer Gonzalez. I live just a block away from that on Park Creek. I wanna say on the petition that we passed around, we had 83 signatures from our neighborhood. One thing that I do wanna mention, everybody's talked about families and kids. And every Easter, I'm just gonna use this as an example and I don't know if we're gonna be able to see this. You can't. There's 25 kids that in our neighborhood, every Easter we do an Easter egg hunt. All the families are out. People that don't have kids are out there helping. Having this place right close to our backyard, we're gonna be very nervous to do what we wanna do. Not against the business. There's other places it can go. It's right in our backyards. Don't need it there. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else, please give us your name, please. Good evening. My name's Samantha Gassadis. I'm also a resident of Summer Creek Drive. I live a few houses down from where the proposed site will be. Thank you for listening. I ultimately want to say that I appreciate what the business can bring to the city. I was one of the very lucky people that didn't have anything happen with their homes a year ago and I've seen a lot of suffering when nursed and I take care of a lot of those people. But I do wanna say that it's also important to take into consideration the fact that these businesses can thrive away from residential homes. I am not against the marijuana business. It's a kind of a reiteration but I want you to know on my behalf how important it is to me and our community also that this is moved away from our home. Thank you. Thank you. One more time. Anyone else? All right. Close the public hearing. At this point, the applicant can make a three-minute rebuttal. The question is, do you guys see a refrigerator a hundred times more dangerous than that? Thank you, Mr. Trenuff. Ms. Carlstrom. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Thank you again for the opportunity to rebut just in brief to sum up, as I stated previously, California law is very settled on this issue that the city must take the project and regulate it according to the ordinance as it exists today. I'm going to invite Brian Elliott, one of our fire consultants, to speak to the safety of the, excuse me, we're gonna invite Todd Christian to speak about the safety of the system that's proposed for this site. And Brian Elliott will talk about the overall safety of the use of volatile substances that currently exist in the Yolanda neighborhood. Just real quickly, the building you see to the east and there's another building to the west, this is an industrial area that's been in existence for years before the housing development was there. Many of these sites are already using volatile substances or flammable gases and other flammable liquids that are far greater than the butane that's being proposed. So I just wanted to point that out and that the engineering that's gonna be in this facility is second to none for safety and compliance. Thank you. My name is Todd Christian. I did want to reiterate, I do appreciate their concerns for the safety of the project. We are trying to go above and beyond the placement of where the extraction is as far away as we can from the neighborhood. We are gonna place it inside of a C1D1, a class one division one, also inside of a class one division two. These I believe is going above and beyond where all the regulations state. It is a completely closed looped, third party peer reviewed engineer system. Butane tanks aren't new to distillation systems, extraction systems being placed outside. It will be, as we've mentioned multiple times, completely peer reviewed, third party reviewed by mechanical engineers to ensure the safety of the system. Just one quick closing thing also. Just to make it clear, this is not a retail location in which it's gonna be cash on the premises. So there'd be no reason effectively to rob this location. I understand what you're saying about potentially wanting to steal the product. But that is not, A, there's security on the premises and B, the idea of going in and then you're talking about very heavy stuff wanting to somehow jump over the fence to go to the neighborhood. I think it's just deeply, deeply unlikely. And the last thing I just say, this is also not something in which we can simply say, okay, well we've heard that from the neighbors and we're gonna just go ahead and pick up and find out the building somewhere else. That we're a million dollars into this project at this point in time. We've done this based upon following the very specific guidance to the city as to what we can do and we've invested heavily to make that happen. We are not Walmart. We don't, we can't just feel like, okay, let's go drop that million dollars and move somewhere else. It's just not quite that simple. Thank you. Thank you. Bring it back to the council for questions. Who would like to start? Mr. Sawyer. Thank you, Mayor. And I'm not sure who wants to address this question, but we've heard a lot this evening about safety and security. It was mentioned by one of the neighbors, the home invasion issue. And I think what we have seen is the majority of crime that has happened around and the murders indeed in addition to the home invasion were, it was illegal activities and illegal operations. Not the kind of operation that's being proposed this evening, but I was concerned about the issue of setbacks as well. And I had a meeting with staff and we talked about that and why, given the extraordinary requirements that this business is being asked to satisfy, my concerns were lessened. But I am curious if someone can, I know there's no 100% guarantee that at any point in any point in our lives that we're something unfortunate might happen. Even a firehouse can burn down under the right circumstances and we have learned that. But why is it, are there any additional or what extraordinary precautions being taken on this site? You mentioned C1D1, I don't know what that is. So if someone could articulate for me the depth of the secure, of the safety measures that are being not necessarily even required. If they are required, I'd like to hear that. But what are those safety measures that are being put into place to protect not only the employees and the business itself, but second, in addition to that, the neighbors. I just want a little more clarity about that. Code compliance is what we do and we have 80 clients right now in the state of California. And this industry is getting more scrutiny than any other industry for manufacturing. Sir, could you keep your comments to answering the question? Certainly. I'm saying it, telling us what a C1D1 or D2 room means. Correct. These C1D1 spaces are class one division one spaces and they're designed with ventilation systems to keep any potential spill or hazard mediated below the explosive limit or the flammable limit of the gas. They're very successful. The engineering is always third party reviewed. The systems are running in multiple states to the nation. I haven't seen one butane reactor have anything fail. Thank you. All right, follow up. Well, I think I would like to follow up with one of our staff members. Some of them code compliance here that can speak to the C1D1, the level of safety that's being either required or provided through this process. Thank you, Mr. Moon. And it was a very extensive staff report but it still left me with a few questions. Good evening, council. In regard to your question, the class one division one is intended to provide an environment to where your electrical is intrinsically safe to the exposure of flammable type vapors or a flammable type environment that could become explosive. So lights, which is outlets, motors for refrigerators or pumps, they're all designed to meet a specific criteria that enables them to be in an environment that becomes potentially explosive. And there's different levels. The class one division one being the most stringent. So the most potential for a hazard to exist within that environment is more strongly regulated with regard to the testing of the appliances and the equipment within that area. As you move your way out, there's specific foot dimensions that you travel away from the potential ignition source or explosion potential environment and you reduce that hazard and that becomes class one division two. So there's different testing criteria that must be met through national standards and that's how that classification is defined and the specific equipment within that area. Was the fire department directly involved in the design and has the fire department, I'm not sure have reviewed the engineering specs and are comfortable with the safety precautions that have been put into place or that are planned to put into place? For this particular site, we have not seen that report yet, but there is a requirement as part of their permit process to provide us with a third party engineering review of their entire design. So their business model would be broken down by a third party professional engineer and we'll have the opportunity to review that document at that time. Thank you, sir. No more questions at this time. Thank you. I'm gonna start down at the end. Do you have anything, Mr. Tibbets? Mr. Sweatham. Just for, Scott, in your research and what the Santa Rosa Fire Department knows about other communities that are going through the same process that we have, have there been any other issues with closed loop systems? And if so, what has, what have been those consequences? The incidents that we have come across through training, seminars, have all been associated with non-permitted type of situations. Permitted installations that we have seen have not been maintained properly and there have been no accountability with respect to annual follow-up or third party reporting for verification and compliance. So in short, any that do follow the obligations that we've been hearing in the annual inspection, do we know of any issues that have occurred in between inspections? Not to my knowledge. And what about when we live in earthquake weather? How does the C1D1 with the volatile chemical, what impact might that have on any of this? That's a no. We don't know what kind of seismic activity we're going to encounter. The professional engineer would evaluate all aspects of the design. So I would assume that they would take that into consideration as part of their review and approval prior to installation. Thank you. Mr. Tavitz, we'll go back to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One question I have for you, Mr. Moon, while you're here is, are the standards that we've applied to cannabis facilities, are they equal to what we would apply to say any heavy manufacturing company? And I bring that up because when I took a tour of the facility, it struck me that there was, seemed like a lot of care and consideration went into the development of the facility to ensure safety. And I'm recalling back to when I was 18 and I was a welder in an industrial zone part of town. We didn't, we had oxygen acetylene, acetone, all kinds of stuff just in an open container, but locked. I mean, there was no closed HVAC system that I'm aware of. So is cannabis, is the ordinance holding cannabis businesses to a higher standard? I would say yes, it is. Ms. Gomes. Thank you, and I appreciate your forebearance. I have quite a few questions. And I wanna appreciate the well-organized neighborhood that has come out to speak to us. Actually enjoy your dog park and have had people sort of check me out there because they didn't know who I was. And I just want you to know I do appreciate it. And I clean up after my dog. I would like to sort of side comment to staff. We have a general plan update coming up. And I think one of the lessons here is to make sure that we involve neighbors well in advance in a way that folks can understand as we are moving general plan materials forward. Because I think it's really hard if you get a notice that there's a general plan going on. And another, if you get a notice that there's going to be something in your backyard. Those feel really different notices. So forgive me for that diversion, but I think we need to be really clear as we move that forward. I heard, and I'm asking staff, I heard two different sets of statements that I wanna clarify. I heard there isn't anything similar or volatile on Yolanda. And I heard that there is similar volatiles on Yolanda. Do we have any information about what else is a similar product or existing volatiles that are on Yolanda? Hazardous materials along Yolanda? Do we know yes or no if there are any? And I'm happy to have it from any staff who wants to speak to it. I'm not aware of any specific locations. I know that the site, the general Yolanda district is industrial zone. So we know that those uses are allowed. Harkening back to high school days as Mr. Tempest did, I worked in a body shop on Yolanda Avenue. So they have historically existed. We know they're allowed by the zoning, by the general plan. The specifics I don't have off the top of my head. We could get those. Okay. Getting them in the future doesn't help on this particular decision tonight. I had the impression that we inspected not just at the initial time of building, but throughout time for industrial sites. Does our fire department inspect industrial sites over time? And how frequently and are we inspecting along Yolanda? We do a number of different inspections with businesses within our community. On an annual basis, the fire department inspects operations that obtain fire code permits. If you recall, we came to council for the last code adoption. And during that code adoption, we had incorporated four permits specific to the cannabis industry. And those permits we felt would be important for us to have involvement with these instances, being new to our community and not really having a good solid foundation within our area of how this business operates. So we have incorporated those operational permits for annual inspection. We also have specific hazardous materials, regulatory authority as the coupa for the city. So businesses that store, use, dispense, or generate waste specific to certain threshold amounts. We do regulate those businesses within our community. They are inspected on a three year or triennial basis. And we would also be looking at all aspects of this type of industry during those inspections. Thank you. I had the impression that the applicant was stating that they were going to exceed some of the requirements that would normally be in place for the use of the butane. Is the applicant planning to, or proposing that they will exceed any of the requirements with regard to the C1, C2, whatever stuff? Is that in excess of what we would normally require? I have not seen plans or specifications related to their operation at this point. Is it appropriate, and perhaps this is to the city attorney, is it appropriate at this time that we ask that any excess of what our regulations would be that are being presented to us tonight be a part of the conditions of the permitting? Yes, to the extent that the applicant identifies any additional precautions or safety measures as part of their application or as part of their presentation tonight, yes, you may include those as conditions of the permit. And I would, yes, I need to ask the planning department, has the applicant provided enough information so we understand whether or not they are offering any conditions for their permit application that would be in excess of the safety regulations that we would normally provide, request. And I'm talking specifically about hazardous materials. I had the impression, I heard that they were exceeding, and so I wanna make sure that if they are exceeding that that is a part of our conditional. We're not aware of any provisions that exceed our requirements, but perhaps that's something the applicants can specify. May I ask the applicants, is that allowed? If I may, is there anything to your knowledge that is in excess of what we would normally require for safety handling of hazardous materials? That's our knowledge. Oh, I see what you're saying. I thought I heard you say otherwise. I understand the question better yet. No, we're actually, the build out of the C1D1 contaminating it is an excess of what the city requires. Yes. Okay, so the build out of the C1D1 containment is in excess. Correct. I would expect to see that as a condition of the permit is if it goes forward tonight. If I may ask you, Mr. Moon, have we had in the last two years in a manufacturing setting any explosions, releases, incidents with regard to a similar level of hazardous material in manufacturing? Not necessarily cannabis, but any manufacturing in our city, roughly. I appreciate that I did not ask you this in advance. We have had a couple of incidents related to non permitted or approved cannabis extraction. I'm talking about, and not specific to cannabis in any manufacturing in our city that is permitted and regulated and inspected. Have we had any incidents? Yes, we have. And what was the outcome of those incidents, roughly? With respect to damage or injury? Yeah. We had a significant- With respect to damage and injury and adjacent properties. We had a significant incident at Keysight back in, I believe it was 2011. And that resulted as part of them not following their procedures at the time related to their semiconductor manufacturing process on site that resulted in significant damage to the structure as well as injury to one of their employees. Okay. And how big was that? I mean, what kind of area are we talking about? It was within a portion of a two-story structure that damaged probably guesstimate 1,000 square feet. Okay. Thank you. I had asked staff in advance if they would provide me the setback information, both the setback distance to the building itself and the setback distances to the room where the volatile area will be. And I would hope that you can help me with that. Yes, thank you. The building itself is set back 30 feet from the property line. And the area where the manufacturing will occur is set back 60 feet from the property line. Okay. How long has this area been zoned light industrial? I don't mean when the building was built, but about how long was it, is this area been zoned light industrial? We don't have that information. Okay, was it built? I thought I heard the building was built around 09. Is that correct? Yes, the three buildings on the site were constructed in 2009. Okay. Roughly when was the Summer Creek develop, the drive development constructed roughly? Is it before or after? I'll get the PD. Thank you. I'll let staff to tell me. 2000. I didn't, it was before the building was built, but was it before it was zoned in light industrial? So we may have that information in the staff report if you'd indulge us a moment. Please. Thank you. I appreciate your forbearance. The PD was the PD. The PD has been from 2000. PD says to go. Yeah. Why don't you continue with your questions and we'll see if we can get. While they're looking it up. I can respond to that actually. So the zoning is plan development, our plan developments as they are numbered, that indicates the year. So PD 00 indicates roughly 2000. So in about 2000. Okay. And what was the date for Summer Creek? That's 2000. That's the date for, I'm sorry. I was misunderstanding whether you are telling me about the light industrial zoning level or not. I missed looking at the check. I apologize to anyone whose private information was made public on behalf, I appreciate that accidents happen. Roughly, what does it cost to do an appeal like this for homeowner? $9. Thank you. Can you clarify the security systems that have been agreed upon? Are these part of the conditional use permit? And I'm talking about security like a guard or alarm systems, windows, et cetera. Staff reviewed a security plan, but we would defer to the applicant to answer site specific questions. I just would like a rundown of the security onsite that's planned. And I would like clarification as to whether that's part of this permitting process. Is it a condition of the permitting? Council Member Combs, a security plan was submitted with the initial conditional use permit application. Typically your staff does not disclose those to the public because you can imagine the positioning and locations of security cameras, security doors, biometric entrance access codes. Our items we'd like the public not to be aware of. We have some additional responses to your question with respect to the areas by which we have exceeded state and local safety and security protocols. Brian Elliott and Todd Christian have quick responses with respect to the use of the C1D1 CFM and Chapter 38 of Santa Rosa Fire Code. Before you go there, let me follow this thought, which is I just want to make sure that whatever is submitted with regard to security, how does the public know that that's adequate or not if they can't see it? How do we make a judgment as to the adequacy of security if we can't see it? So at the building permit stage, that's typically when we receive all of our detailed construction drawings, structural drawings, and any other data that would go along with the systems involved, those will be reviewed by all of the city departments, including planning staff, building staff, engineering and fire department staff. At the use permit stage or design review at the planning entitlement stage, we typically don't see those detailed plan sets. And as was indicated in this instance, the security plans, we do have some separation from public review for the reasons indicated. So that separation is lost when we get to the building department stage? Again, at what point does the public get to review the safety systems? At least in general, what is a sufficient safety system and how do we make that decision if we can't see the plans? The specifics of the safety plan for any facility is not made public because it would give people too much information in terms of if they wanted to go at the facility. We certainly don't wanna know exactly where everything is, but I would wonder how I can know that there is an alarm at the windows or most of the windows or all of the windows. Those specifics would be obviously revealed in the safety plan that is reviewed by staff. Again, planning staff, building staff, engineering. Okay, so, but those fire and aren't conditioned upon this decision, can we make those plans conditional upon this permit? What is required under our code is that I don't recall the exact language in terms of the adequacy of the safety plan, but that is built into the code that will not move forward without an adequate safety plan that has been reviewed by the various departments. And perhaps I see. Safety seems to be a major concern of the neighborhood, so I'm just trying to get a sense of how do we judge as a council member. Right, and it is difficult. The professionals do review it and review it for adequacy, but again, due to safety concerns, we don't want to release the plan itself to the public, but I don't know if... If I may, before we speak with our police representative, just in terms of the compliance with what's proposed as part of this project and also consistency or compliance of our standard conditions. So we have minimum standard conditions, which are only for cannabis businesses. They're not for their sister counterparts. And they were specifically drafted in concert with our interdepartmental team, including police. With minimums like alarm security systems, video surveillance, the locations in general, where those should be, how many frequent, how much are we storing the material, the visibility of the entryways and exitways. Just to give you some examples of the specific they have to do. And those are physical and those can be seen on the plans and those have been shown on the plans in general throughout this process. Now anything above that is part of there. And they have some things that are a little bit more detailed than that. And those are part of their project narrative, which is conditioned in reflection of the permit that they're obtaining. It's this project on this site. So they're site-specific permits and it's reflective of the exhibits that they submit. So that's the assurance that this is kind of going together on this site. And then in terms of a follow-through through plan check, police department does require the alarm permit and they process that and get the information that they need to monitor that. And then building division monitors the proper installation of the components of their security system. So I have two requests and one is that if what they have provided exceeds what we would normally be asking for, I would like to make sure that those items that they are recommending in excess are part of the conditions. And the other question is that sounds like a lot of the built environment pieces, but foot patrol, having a car drive by, I don't know what else has been suggested. Are those included in that discussion? And I would consider that a kind of maintenance item, something that has to be ongoing that's not part of the built environment. My understanding was some of those were suggested and I'm wondering, are they here too? They are, if they are part of their written narrative that you have in your packet. So that is the proposal that's before you, is that narrative and those supplemental exhibits. We're not prepared to itemize the difference between the minimum versus the exceeding, but that proposal is what's getting attached to this use permit should you move forward. Okay. Can I follow up with a question that may be about security, but it's not about the security plan. So wouldn't be revealing any secrets here. On my site visit, I was told that there will be personnel on this property 24 hours a day. Is that part of the conditions of the permit? Yes, so the applicant proposed 24-hour security for the facility, it's part of their narrative for how they will operate their proposed business. It's also, my understanding is it's a state requirement as well as part of their state cannabis license. Thank you, but I think 24-hour security can mean many things to many different people. It may be a camera to, I don't know what it is. What we're being told is that we can't know what this specific security is. I'm wondering if this is a 24-hour operation. It's a patrol, it's a physical patrol person. And will there be people working at this building 24 hours a day? That's what we were told on our site visit. So based on the zoning and because it's not open to the general public, they could potentially work beyond midnight, beyond normal working hours in a retail or office setting. That's not part of the conditions of the permit, though, to require it to be a 24-hour operation, staffed 24 hours. It could be staffed 24 hours based on not only the zoning, but the fact that it's not open to the general public. Could be, I'm just wondering if you're answering my question, is it required by the permit? So not unless you require it specifically. So if you really want that assurance, that specifically you would attach that to this permit as a condition of approval in concert with the applicant proposing that. Otherwise, what you are looking at is adopting a permit that's in compliance with our minimum performance standards, which includes the presence of surveillance cameras. It does not include, just to be very clear, does not include on-site security. Applicants can provide that. It sounds like they provide some additional details, maybe not to the extent of having a 24-7 on-site. So you have the minimum standards, video surveillance. You have the applicant's proposal who's trying to get this use permit, so they may propose in their narrative and their supportive exhibits additional accesses to that. But if you really want to be specific, you really should itemize and direct that these are the conditions that you need to find, make the findings for this use permit in this site. And the applicant is here, you can work with the applicant in terms of what they can offer to satisfy that interest of yours. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. No, thank you. You're clarifying my questions. And I know we had a representative come down. I wanted to give you the opportunity to say, okay, I thought he had something he specifically, you caught it, okay, thank you. And I interrupted you in the course of your answer to me. So if you want to finish your answer to me. Thank you, Council Member Combs. As I identified previously, we have some additional areas by which this project, as we have proposed it, exceed both state and local security requirements. So I'll invite both Brian Elliott and Todd Christian to address that issue. Is this both safety and security? This is regarding fire safety. The Chapter 38 of the California Fire Code has been designed specifically for the cannabis industry or plant extraction. That already exceeds normal fire code requirements and this project will exceed Chapter 38. So the safety features are gonna be built in this project. We'll exceed the plant extraction requirements by the state. Do we have that list of the ways that, I mean, can you provide that list to staff so that when we say that we might like that to be a condition of your permit, we have that list? We can. It has to do with CFM's amount of air that's gonna move that's based upon what's required and what we'll provide is greater than what's required. Thank you. And did you wanna address the security excess? I just wanna get it on the record, whatever's gonna be there. Yeah. Right, and we certainly appreciate the discussion. The city of Santa Rosa has established minimum protocols for security that you've outlined in your ordinance, each of which were addressed in our project narrative. The narrative also addresses the mechanisms by which we will exceed those requirements, including the use of on-site personnel, biometric access controls. The state has additional established protocols for security of the facility and of the product and it's important to remember that as well, with which the project of course will comply as it goes through its state licensing. But with respect to the overall safety of the building, it's important to recall that the implementation of the C1D1 room is itself within a C1D2 room. And neither of those are required under either state or local regulations. We appreciate that and we'll make a note that we would like to have that. Thank you. I think I'm trying to get clarification because I thought I heard that there would be at least intermittent foot patrol while there was 24-7 visual monitoring of the site. Was that a correct hearing? Did I hear that correctly? Yeah, it is our intention right now as long as there's personnel on-site that there'd be some security presence, yes. Okay, I have, I will listen to recommendations of my colleagues with regard to whether or not we want 24-7 personnel on-site working or whether limitations on the hours of operation are appropriate because of possibilities of noise at night. So that I will listen to my colleagues' comments about that. I heard something about cash processes and that there would not be a need for cash on-site. I am concerned that it's not, I mean, how difficult is it, it may be in fact difficult to have there be no cash on-site or no large amounts of cash on-site. Are there cash processes submitted with this application? The use permit does not address or prohibit cash on the site. I thought I heard the applicant suggest that they would keep cash on-site to a minimum. Can we ask them to clarify what that meant so that we can be sure to include it in the conditions of permitting? In terms of? The business, the mechanisms that you're talking about. So in terms of how we manage cash and transactions on-site, the intention is to, as you said, keep a minimum amount of cash on the property. It's not in our security interest to do so. Again, this is not a retail location. The intention is not to be doing multiple transactions on-site. I can't say that it will never be cash on-site. There's a standard operating procedure that we will be putting in place and also evolving over time to manage that. Our hope is that ultimately we don't have to deal in cash at all. But again, it is not our intention. We're not building a vault on-site. It is not our intention to have any cash on-site other than that's absolutely necessary and for the shortest possible time. That's what he said. So can we ask that cash be removed from the site overnight? Did it go somewhere else? Is that something we can legally ask that at the end of the business day they remove cash from the site? Yes, that would be a legal requirement. Okay. There's enough nexus to the safety of the facility. I'm interested in doing that, particularly if they're not going to operate 24-7, that there be no cash at the end of the business day on-site. I heard in the public comments a question about notices to the neighbors. Can you explain to me the process that we used as a planning department with regard to notifications? Yes, the standard noticing procedure is noticing the code requires everyone within 300 feet. We notice everyone within 400 feet to capture any potential mapping errors in our software. We also require a sign to be posted on the project site and we also post an ad or a ad in the newspaper of the press Democrat to notify the neighbors of the upcoming hearing. Okay. Can I follow up on that? There was a suggestion that there are apartments within 170 feet of this that receive no notification. Can you confirm or deny that? The city code requires that we notify all neighboring property owners within 300 feet. So tenants may not get a notice. The apartment property owner received a notification. That's right. Just as a quick follow-up, so the way we address passerbys or people who frequent that area in addition to renters is with the blue public hearing sign. And that's on Yolanda, correct? It's on the street front, isn't it? Yes. While not appropriate for this conversation, I would appreciate noting that we need to do something so renters know things are happening around them. I've heard that there are conversations with regard to living wage, which I thought was like $23 to $25 an hour. And I saw in the presentation a $15 an hour wage and I heard that there are conversations going on with unions. Is this something that we can make a condition of the permit that there be a living wage higher than average minimum wage? Or, I mean, we're hearing these are going to be good paying jobs. This is one of the benefits that we're being told is a community-wide benefit. Is it a condition of the use permit and can we make it a condition of use permit? We do not normally make wages a condition of a conditional use permit. I think it's, we have not in the past, I think it's a little bit of a difficult issue. If the applicant wants to propose that and accepts that as a condition, then you could include that as a condition. But I would be hesitant absent the applicant's consent to do that. Has the applicant an interest either in establishing that they are paying a living wage or the union is a condition of their permit? Council Member Combs, as you've identified, living wage does carry legal weight. So we have not proposed the legal definition of living wage with this project. In the interest of demonstrating NT Ventures commitment to the city of Santa Rosa, they have gone well above and beyond what state and local regulations would require by proactively reaching out to contract with Teamsters Local 665. They are committed to that relationship. They would be the first cannabis business in the state to contract directly and proactively and affirmatively with an organized labor union. So that commitment remains firm. My understanding is that contract, though, cannot be finalized unless and until this permit is granted. Because as you can imagine with no permit, there are no jobs. I understand. And thank you. So within our ability to have that as a condition, I would be interested understanding that this is a catch-22 cycle of, I mean, if they're saying that one of their community benefits is going to be the excellent jobs that they're providing that... Yes, but I document that. I did not hear a consent to include that as a condition. And the other element that I would point out is that a conditional use permit, of course, runs with the land. So while this operator may be very amenable to working with unions, working, you know, offering a particular wage, it becomes a little more difficult. Again, if one might not be the same line of work. Yes. Again, if we have a clear agreement from the applicant to include a condition, there is a way to do that. But absent that, again, I'm hesitant to find an appropriate nexus. I heard a commitment to hiring locally as well. And I wondered how that was being defined. Another great question, Council Member Combs, in concert with Teamsters Local 665 NT Ventures will be entering into a contract to hire members in consult with Teamsters from amongst their membership and to organize the ultimate employees of NT Ventures. Thank you. And I just wanna check with the city attorney. I also heard the applicant indicate that we had to follow the ordinance as it exists. Do we have any option for using our best judgment? The ordinance sets the parameters. I would point out in the ordinance and in our zoning code, there are elements that give you discretion in determining the appropriateness of the use in the neighborhood. In terms of the specifics, for example, you would not be able to impose a particular setback that is not in the ordinance. But in terms of determining compatibility with the neighborhood and the more general provision of not detrimental to the list of words, but not detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood and to the health and safety, those are where you have some discretion. But again, as to the specific requirements are in the code, those are what your parameters are. Again, absent a commitment otherwise from the applicant. I didn't hear a commitment from the applicant, clearly in terms of how they are defining local. And I didn't hear a commitment from the applicant with regard to any guarantee with regard to level of wages. Is the 60 foot setback to the room with the volatile area that is in the drawings? Is that viewed as a commitment or if they make a decision to change the arrangement of the layout? Since it is in their plan, you are welcome to have that as a condition of the permit. And I do have the language here. I apologize for not having it memorized is that it would not constitute a nuisance or be injurious or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare or materially injurious to persons property or improvements in the vicinity. So that is where you have some discretion to evaluate the specifics of the project in a specific location. Thank you. And I hope that before we wrap up the voting, we can hear the list of things that are included as conditions of the permit so that before we make our decision, we know what's included and what isn't included. Are you asking that the conditions be read to us? I'm asking that staff, I mean, I just went through and discussed a set of things that I expressed myself as if I were to move forward, I would think they would be conditions of the permit. And I just want to make sure that we understand that if we're moving this forward. Okay. I mean, there are quite a few conditions. Yeah. You didn't mention them all, but. And I suspect other council members will have some. Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have slightly fewer questions. So I just want to be really clear in my understanding of something that was said, taking aside the fact that this is cannabis, would this use the distillation utilizing a volatile chemical like butane have been allowed in this building for a different venture, whether I heard lavender extraction and coffee beans, whatever have you, would that have been allowed with a minor use permit? Yes. So I also heard that there is a review period on the conditional use permit pre, post, and then annual. Can you discuss with me, should this go forward tonight? Obviously there would be review, post installation, I assume pre-operation. And then yearly, would it be the zoning administrator or the planning commission that would look at the major use permit and have to, I don't want to say re-approve, but review any violations and whether or not they needed to pull the permit. Can you walk us through that a little bit? And I'm sorry if what I said was misunderstood. We, for cannabis manufacturing, specific to cannabis manufacturing, we in the zoning code, thanks to the fire department's consultation with the preparation of the ordinance, we do require pre-inspection of the site, post installation of the equipment and annual site inspections. Plus, as a fair Marshall Moon stated, in addition, there's a recurring inspection for the hazardous waste. There is no renewal process for cannabis conditional use permits. They are the same kind of, they're the same kind of use permits. We don't have a different kind for cannabis. So it's the same six findings you have to make to grant a use permit, just like any other use permit they run with the land. They are attached to the specific proposal and exhibits and the conditions that are listed in your draft resolution. All right, let me ask my question a different way. Should the council move forward with whatever conditions are layered on with the major conditional use permit? And should there be a violation or should there be some form of an incident, safety hazard, whatever have you? What is the remedy for the council? What is the remedy for the neighborhood? So as a land use entitlement with a number of conditions associated with it and plans that are approved with that use permit, the applicant is obligated to comply with those conditions. They're obligated to operate as they have indicated in the project description, which is what the council would be approving in total. If they don't, then there's a potential for a code enforcement action. Typically when we have code enforcement, that department reaches out to the operator, the owner, the applicant, works with them to see if they can achieve voluntary compliance. If they don't, then there's an administrative review process that can go forward. It can ultimately end in rescinding that use permit. There can be penalties and fines so on and so forth. So for example, if the hypothetical that has been talked about a couple of times, somebody comes and robs the facility, jumps over the fence, runs out of the neighborhood through somebody's backyard. If we actually see that happen, is there a remedy for us to come back and say, you know what, the safety measures were not adequate and then either pull the permit or require additional conditions on safety? I think at the outset, that would be probably a criminal investigation if it gets down to obviously a review of the conditions of approval. We'd have to evaluate whether compliance or non-compliance occurred with the conditions. If they did not, then in fact, the things that I mentioned could happen, rescind the use permit penalties and so on. And sorry, I don't mean to drill down too much further into this, but if the conditions were satisfied and there was an incident like that that happened, would there be any remedy for the council to look at it and say, we didn't put sufficient conditions on it? There could, but that discussion would happen absent and separate from this specific land use entitlement in this project. It's a policy discussion for the council. So my understanding is that there's one other facility similar to this that's been permitted so far in Santa Rosa. Have there been any safety issues with that facility so far? I'm sorry, I'm not even aware if they are under operation. We're only 10 months into this ordinance and it was approved a couple of months ago, so I don't know if they're in operation. It was mentioned that this facility could potentially have folks on site 24-7. Obviously, we see other examples in the community where there is an industrial use that abuts a neighborhood that is also having issues surrounding noise and hours of operation. I have no problem with employees working within the building, but are there standard, and I assume that our noise ordinance would apply, but are there standard times for delivery, the noise that could be coming from a truck that is dropping off product while the neighbors are trying to sleep? Yeah, so basically the noise ordinance does exactly as you described, it sets standards, decibel, maximums, and they're set two different times of the day. Okay, so for example, we have the maximum decibels that could happen. Obviously, the further away from a facility, the more likely the sound will diffuse and it'll come across at a lower level. For the homes that are right there, being closer, there still is that maximum limit for the decibels that could be heard from that home. Is that correct? That's correct, every land use based on time of day has a decibel maximum. Great, regardless of if there's a setback or not. It's measured at the property line, the residential property line. Which we've heard is about 30 feet, 35 feet. So it's still measured at the property line, even if it was 500 feet. But even at 30 feet, it will be measured at the property line. Great. All right, thank you very much. Just to follow up on that. Do we, are we able to limit delivery and pick up hours through the CUP? Yes, those are conditions that the council could impose. Thank you. I have a few questions of my own and a couple that were brought up by speakers. When we were going through the general cannabis ordinance looking at land uses and zoning, were setbacks discussed at all in that conversation other than for retail? Yes, setbacks were probably 90% of our conversations across 20 sub committee meetings and the public outreach setbacks came up quite a bit. I think throughout that process, there was an emphasis on not penalizing cannabis from legalizing becoming a legitimate business. So the deference through the process and ultimately the adoption of ordinance landed on if we don't have a setback for non-cannabis counterparts, then let's not impose that on the cannabis version. We made an exception because cannabis retail dispensaries are unique and so that is the only land use, cannabis land use that has a setback to sensitive receptor. I'm definitely not a reliable memory all the time, but I don't recall talking about setbacks for these types of uses. When we discussed the ordinance at the council level, I know we did for retail, but was that part of the discussion at the council level? It was, some public comments came in about wanting over-concentration rules and setback rules for all cannabis businesses. And as we implement this ordinance, we continue to hear that as a perspective on our cannabis policy. However, that issue was vetted through the process and ultimately it was recommended by the subcommittee and then by the planning commission not to have additional setbacks for non-retail cannabis businesses. So on the over-concentration issue, do we know how many applications for cannabis businesses are in process on Yolanda Avenue? We don't have statistics at hand for how many are in the Yolanda Avenue for non-retail. We happen to know there's five pending that are cannabis retail that are going through an over-concentration review by the subcommittee. Five retail on Yolanda? So that does have the over-concentration clause. And so as a result, the council's cannabis subcommittee will be looking at those applications to see which of those could move forward. But we don't have a statistic on how many non-cannabis businesses are in this complex. I'm sorry, non-retail. Non-retail. Do we have a process for deciding at what point saturation is happening for non-retail? Yeah, so part of our cannabis program is monitoring. So we had allocated one position, economic development, to help with that. We do produce a biannual report that monitors industrial land supply, how many businesses have come in, how many are pending, how many are approved, and what type. Vacancy rates. So we are monitoring, we are producing those reports, and we present that it's on our website for everyone to look at so we can monitor it. So we'll produce another one in December. And the cannabis subcommittee is our, we work through those types of issues and we present that directly to them. But that report's available to everyone. Is that city-wide, or does it actually drill down to say how many applications are on Yolanda Avenue? The economic monitoring port permit activity report is city-wide. I do have a concern about that. It being city-wide, because it doesn't really tell the whole story. There could be five applications or 10 applications or 15 on Yolanda Avenue and not elsewhere. It wouldn't come across in that city-wide report as a heavy concentration. And if I may, we don't, as Ms. Hartman mentioned, we don't have a over-concentration provision for non-retail cannabis operations. And that issue of whether we want to or not is not part of the subject. Not part of this discussion. We should make that part of a future discussion. Very good. And I think that I was concerned about that when we first took up this issue. Mr. Mayor, if I may follow up. Director Gulen reminded me, we actually list every address in that report. So we don't map it. We didn't have the resources to map it, but we literally list the address of every application that we've received, whether they're pending or approved. So you can see by address, how many are on that list for Yolanda Avenue. The overall statistic though, is how much of the city-wide industrial or available properties are being used for cannabis. Is that correct? Part of the issue is we have industrial land throughout the city. So we have a number of business certificates filed and applications. And we're in. I'll get to the city attorney. I was going to say, if we could, yeah. Well, we'll schedule that for another time. Thank you. Do we know, how much of the city-wide industrial or available properties are being used for Yolanda Avenue? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Do we know, does staff know if anywhere in the state is volatile manufacturing of cannabis is adjacent to residential, exists adjacent to residential property? I don't have that information. Could this property be used for cultivation under this conditional use permit? No, this conditional use permit proposal does not include cultivation. So they would have to go through another CUP process to be able to do that. It wouldn't be a major one, right? Well, there's two thresholds for cultivation in terms of permit process. So one is if it's less than 5,000 square feet of cultivation, then it's a minor use permit. And if it's greater than that, it's a major use permit. Okay. There was some discussion about whether our ordinance is consistent with ordinances and other municipalities. Is there any requirement that our ordinances be consistent with other municipalities ordinances? No, there's no requirement that we be consistent as we're going through the ordinance preparation process. We did some research on what other communities were wrestling with in terms of their own policies just to learn lessons learned. The state allows the city's local jurisdictions explicit permission to adopt their own or different setbacks with the state as a default. All right. There was some discussion earlier about the review of the conditional use permit before, after, annually. Can we make review shorter, a shorter period of time, or can we do a review based on complaints from neighbors? How does that work? If you mean do a review of the use permit year after operation, we have at times, accepted a condition to attach to the permit where you do a report out or check, and actually Bill Rose has some experience doing that, so let's let him. Yeah, basically we can do exactly as Claire said. If the council pleases, they could include a condition of approval for an annual by annual review, and we can report findings. And if we determine their satisfaction of that use permit, if it's still being complied with. So that is definitely a condition that the council could impose. And if the council in one of those periodic reviews decides that the applicant isn't living up to the conditions, what are our available remedies? I think it would go back to what I've said earlier. Staff would provide feedback, analysis, and evaluation. And if we found that there was non-compliance, we would give that recommendation to the council and give the options at that time. Okay. That's all the questions I have at this point. Is there any, yeah, Mr. Schwedemann. Thank you. I apologize for not asking earlier. I was keeping with the fire. I do have some safety questions since we have a Lieutenant here. Lieutenant, as we've heard today, we don't have any other manufacturing, so we don't have another facility similar to this one, but we do have other cannabis-related dispensaries in our community. Correct? Yes, we do. How many do we have? All Parkish. We have three. I'm not sure. Can you help out on that? Three. Three, thank you. I thought it was warm to that. Do you know how long they've been in our community? A number of years, the medical dispensaries. And so obviously it's a safe assumption there's product inside each of those dispensaries open to the public. Correct? So how does the product get into the dispensary? I'm not sure what their procedures are. But somehow deliveries have to be made. Somebody delivers it. Okay, and then based on just that, and I know it's not just the product that they're making, but I would make the assumption that the product that this company is looking at producing is contained currently in some of our dispensaries, the oil. I would assume so. Yes, I've never actually been inside one. So based on those three dispensaries, what have been the public safety concerns to the neighborhoods or what impacts of those three cannabis-related industries been on the neighborhoods or this community or the Santa Rosa Police Department? So we've had a number of crimes associated with some of the dispensaries. I don't know about impacts to the neighborhood because I don't believe any of them directly back up to residential. But we have had break-ins in the middle of the night, burglaries, that type of thing. So some of the concerns we've heard from the neighbors are the safety concerns of having this type of facility in the neighborhood. Someone fleeing from a robbery, gunshots being fired. Have we experienced anything that you've heard today occur with the existing establishments in our city? I'm not aware of any of the licensed businesses. Most of the crimes that we've had have dealt with unlawful grows, things like that. Not licensed facilities. I think we heard the same thing from our fire marshal. The issues have been with those unlicensed, not the licensed facilities. That's correct. And from a police department perspective, what, if any, research have you done or the department done with what's the experience in Colorado or other communities? I imagine there have been some law enforcement discussions about what are we seeing in the ways of people coming from back east as some other speakers have mentioned that it's not legal elsewhere in the country. What are some of those trends that we have learned about and are the things that we can proactively do to try to mitigate some of those safety concerns? Yeah, I don't know if we can predict that sort of crime from happening. It's well known that cannabis is legal to grow in California. So the product is here. It's also well known that cannabis products hold a high market value, much higher market value in other states. And in my opinion, and in most law enforcement opinion, that is why people come here from out of state to take those products. It's, frankly, it's easier to take them than it is to produce them. And so with your experience, have been those folks who are visiting our state for this product, have they been with licensed establishments or individuals whether legal or illegal establishments? It's been illegal establishments, residential, that sort of thing. All right, thank you. Any other questions, Mr. Tibbets? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Lieutenant Snetsiger, in your opinion, is cash the main motivation for, for example, the issues we saw at the retail cannabis facilities or is it more product based? My understanding is it's cash. I don't think it matters to the criminal to be honest with you. If they go there and they find cash, they leave with cash. If they go there and find product, they're gonna leave with product. And if it's both, they're leaving with both. Okay, thanks. Further questions? Mr. Sawyer has this item and he is away from the dais right now. We're gonna wait for him to come back. Well, while we wait, may I ask for a summary of what you, as staff may have heard. If we were interested in moving this forward. I think Mr. Sawyer needs to hear that if he wants to include it in his motion. I will wait. You're on. So we'll begin this for discussion's sake. I'll introduce a resolution of the Council of the City of Santa Rosa denying an appeal and approving a conditional use permit for commercial cannabis manufacturing level two volatile, 0444 Yolanda Avenue, suite BAPN 044-091-065 file number CUP 18-0081 wait for the reading. Second. Thank you. So Mr. Sawyer, there was a number of, I don't know whether there are additions or just clarifications of the conditions of the use permit. Were you taking notes on those? We were taking notes. I didn't hear specific conditions. I heard a number of topics that came up repeatedly. They had to do with just a moment ago review annual or annual review of the use permit cash handling procedures, additional security measures. There was some talk about wages. And those are the notes that I took. Ms. Combs. My understanding is that we have a 60 foot setback to the room where hazardous material volatiles are being stored and I would prefer it stay at the 60 foot rather than be rearranged to the 30 foot. We had a conversation involving as a condition no cash on site at close of business and I appreciate that that's only half the problem. We had a condition regarding exceeding the safety standards for hazmat as described and I will leave staff to be more specific about what was described. I don't have that complete list. We had discussed 24-7 monitored security and my recollection was that there was supplementary in-person security when employees were on site. I'm not sure if I heard additional random overnight checks. If they could clarify whether or not there were additional random overnight checks. Why don't you go through all these and then we'll let... And then I heard a possible conversation coming forward about limitations of hours of exterior noise, for example, delivery trucks. That's the list I heard. And let me be clear. I think folks who live adjacent to a property have every right to request mitigations. And I hope that we can implement some of the mitigations as we move forward. I consider this list as a way of mitigating some of the concerns. So let me make a suggestion. Can I ask for a friendly amendment? Sure, you can ask. So I would like the conditions to include that there is a Class 1 Division 1 facility within a Class 1 Division 2 facility within the building. As described, I just want to make it a condition. There was discussion that Chapter 38 is exceeded. I don't think any specifics were given to us on that, but is that described in this application and can it be made part of the conditions? Unless there is a specific description of what those measures are that exceed that chapter, there would be no way to enforce. We wouldn't know what we would be getting in that condition, but if those elements are described in the application or in the plans, those could be enforced. And do we know at this point if they are described? No, they are not described specifically. Okay. Maybe we can require that we get those described. Okay. Is Chapter 38 a lengthy chapter? How are we going to do this tonight if that is not a lengthy chapter? It is a fairly specific requirement. I'm going to recommend something so that we get a chance to look at the plan. So why don't we compile the list of things that are concerned? I'm going to go through the document, pull those items out, read them back to the council so that we can get an idea of what actually were we think or don't think. I'm very concerned about a revolving conversation without consulting the plan. If we can get the list, staff will take a break, staff will pull from the document. That gives the applicant a time to comment on staff's questions. I'm going to go through these, Mr. Rogers, and I'll come back to you. The 60-foot setback for the actual extraction room be part of the conditions at deliveries and what's the opposite of deliveries? I'm getting tired here. Deliveries in their opposite directions and transport for hours. We see things like that. Thank you. There's no cash in the close-up business that we review the permit in six months. I'm not sure how the council was feeling about having a 24-hour I'll throw that one out there, too. The physical clarification, go ahead. Actually, I was just going to ask for clarification on that last point. What I heard was they have employees on site 24. So my question would be, is that security on site 24 hours? I am a little troubled by requiring that they be operating or have operational employees on site 24 hours a day. Again, I'm having a little hard time seeing the nexus for the safety of the community to have an actual operation going. Certainly a safety presence. I'm willing to make it a security 24-7 human being. I think that the applicant said that there would be a security component if there were people on site. I don't know whether there's a difference there or not, but if that makes you more comfortable, I'm willing to say 24-hour human being security. I just have a concern about compelling a business to operate during certain hours versus allowing them to. Are you suggesting that they need to have someone there all night overnight? When I heard 24-hour security, my question was, was that a human being? And I'm suggesting that we require that as part of the permit. I'm going to go to Mr. Rogers first. Mr. Mayor, my question is really about the Chapter 38. Given that none of us know what Chapter 38 says, none of us can speak to the adequacy of Chapter 38. So the condition of requiring them to exceed Chapter 38 seems like it's just a pat on the back, that then we're saying we're asking for more from them than what is the state law, which I understand is great, but I'd need to understand better from staff before we require them to exceed a code that I don't know that any of us actually understand what the code is. I'd need to understand the value as well. So for me, it all hinges back to the initial statement about safety within the neighborhood if there's adequate safety or not, whether they exceed this or not, whether they have on-site personnel or not, I want to make sure that we're able to review based on that benchmark of was the neighborhood safe. And so all these additional conditions, I'm okay with us discussing them, but for me, that's really the issue, and I think we're getting bogged down a little bit into discussions that I don't personally have the expertise to say whether or not we need to have them exceed that if that's the adequacy. Understood. I don't think that any of these are asking for anything that the applicant didn't say that they were doing. I just want these to be part of the condition so we make sure that what they say they're offering is actually required. To be clear, I'm completely fine with that. If what they're saying that they are doing, we hold them accountable to that. Yeah. Mr. Mayor, if I may, staff shares the same concerns that council member Rogers just indicated to be able to write that condition, then to be able to enforce that condition would be very difficult if it were as general as has been stated. So I think that what staff is hearing is the general consensus. There's an interest in understanding if that chapter 38 can be exceeded, but it needs to be specific. So if the council pleases, we can take that direction back as we adjourn and discuss that and present something more specifically to the council. That's fine with this council member. Go ahead, Mr. Rogers. And I apologize. And I do want to make sure that the delivery and transport hours, I'd suggest that probably a more reasonable approach is 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., which I think is consistent with other uses, but if staff could make a recommendation around that as well. But I do think that that's an important component of this. And when we talk about impacts on the neighborhood. Tibbets. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So what I think is happening here is really similar to the discussion that I brought to the council about a year ago relating to the cultivation facility on Maxwell Court. Something came forward. It was consistent with the requirements of the city's ordinance. And even though there were a lot of concerned neighbors with that particular project, we moved it forward for fear of doing anything ex post facto, which is what I think that this body should try to avoid. We did go back and we looked at setback requirements for cultivation facilities. And I actually know it wasn't setback. So I think we decided cultivation was not to be allowed in light industrial, which is what this is. Limited light industrial. It was specific to Maxwell Court. I always do that. But for me, when I look at this particular project, the C1 D1 being within C1 D2, it's held to a greater standard than similar uses. The annual fire inspection that's required by the fire department. The limited cash on hand. And also the fact that when I took the tour, I was told that everything, deliveries, processing would all happen behind a closed saligate. It wouldn't even be visible to the public. And I really thought, you know, I was actually going into to that project. I think a little bit of a bias towards maybe this is a little bit close to a residential neighborhood. But when I saw the work that went in and the thought that went into the project, I felt a lot better. But what I will say is, just as we're discussing these particular issues, I'm fine with requiring C1 D1 within C1 D2. I think the 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. by Council Member Rogers is a good idea. 60 foot setbacks, or at least where they would store the volatile setbacks of C1 D1 is a good idea as well. On-site security personnel, I think is always a good idea, but I think everybody should remember that their only job is to just really just observe and report. That's it. And so there's also tremendous cost burdens associated with hiring. A security officer starts at about $40 an hour in my experience. So I would maybe suggest that we require it at night if we're going to do it when facility's not in use. I think that would probably be the greatest opportunity for crime. On the issue of being able to review the permit, I actually do think that that is a worthwhile idea. But I do think that one year, two years, three years is too short of a period of time. I think we need to take into consideration the fact that this business, between probably a multi-year commercial lease for this facility on top of what has got to be a staggering tenant improvement cost of going into that facility should be guaranteed more time than a few years, just from a business perspective. So I'd encourage us all to take those points into consideration as we discuss this further. But I also applaud the council for having this in-depth of a discussion because I think we are doing our jobs. This comes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to clarify that what I'm interested in is making sure that we have guest conditions what the applicant has presented to us. The applicant has presented to us and additional protocols going above and beyond and listed some items. And we need to clarify what those items mean. This going above and beyond included background checks, security entrants and delivery points, security inventory, security training for employees, safety committee with weekly and monthly training and reviews. That's in their application to us as above and beyond. I would expect that we would make that part of their application. They've also listed community benefits and the community benefits they've listed, if I understand correctly, they have stepped back from. So I want to make sure that we're clear on that. I mean, I do have a concern about the depth of which we're diving in to regulate. I don't know if this is going to be for this business, if it's going to be for all businesses. I'm really in this enterprise. I have staffing concerns about the ability to meet it. I do have a concern even about how we're going to define community safety if we come back to review. Communities can change, dynamics can change. What is going to be the measuring point to that? I'm beginning to get a little concerned about what the conditions and how we're going to be able to enforce those conditions. So again, I'm laying it out to the council. I'm having more questions as we get deeper into this conversation than I'm being able to provide you some discreet answers about how we're going to be able to manage that. If this is going to be... I know we're talking about one property, but I'm starting to have concerns about future conversations. So I just put that out there. I hear what you're saying, councilmember. I'm going to push back a little bit because I am not asking for anything the applicant has not said. But again, that's what I'm trying to get an idea from. I'm trying to be clear about whether or not we're... I'm hearing a variety of different... And so I thought... That's why I'm trying to get a little clarity, councilmembers. I'm trying to understand what... Even as we caucus and we go away, what the exercise is. If that's the exercise, that's one thing. If we start to get into community safety measures, I want to know how we're developing those and what council's got expectations so that we can address those moving into the consideration. So I'm hearing one thing and then I'm hearing an array of other things. So I'm trying to get some consensus from the council on what we're caucusing about. I guess that's what I'm asking for. Can we hold them to what they are offering? Can we make their proposals... So that's what we prepared. We step away. We'll look at that. We'll report out on those issues. And then we can see if we come to some satisfactory. Is that something we can adjourn on and report to you all? Are you comfortable with that? How long of a break are we looking at here? 15 minutes. Mr. Schwedhelm. Sorry, just one more question. It strikes me when in this chamber we've had other community conversations about this issues, not specifically the cannabis, but when the land use has changed, specifically the SOI Dream Center, could we put a contingency, would it be possible for that where they had a neighborhood council that we said we will meet with the neighbors? So if issues develop, they don't have to come to council. Can we put that, I guess from the city attorney, can that be a condition that we impose or would that be something that the operator would have to voluntarily do? We could include it as a condition only if the operator consented to that and offered that up. So we would be looking for the applicant to hear that offer, thank you. Any other suggestions before we take a break? Mr. Soyer. Thank you, Mayor. This has to do, it's a minor thing, but it has to do with the no cash on site after business hours. I think that would be a very difficult thing to monitor. I'm not even sure, I've never heard a council regulate a business to say that they can't have cash on the premises after closing. I don't know how you would deal with that. It might even actually be more of a security issue carrying cash out of the business to take it to their car. I mean, they're not going to have Loomis coming in at 10 o'clock or 11 o'clock at night. I think it's a, it may be a feel good ask so that the cash is not around, but this doesn't sound like a cash business and I think it's just kind of, I think it would tend just to muddy the water as opposed to actually create a safety issue in the, excuse me. Folks, please. In the middle of the night. So I'm not sure how we would monitor that unless they had Loomis coming and I don't even know how much cash we're talking about. I would, You're not helping your cause here, sir. If I may, I would suggest that when we we caucus and we come back that among the things that we present are not just what the condition might be, but how enforceable is it that we're going to be able to confirm that we're satisfied legally, we can impose that condition and include all of that when we come when we come back, because I think there are going to be some enforcement issues on some of the other items as well. Okay. Thank you. If I may ask with regard to enforcement issues, I'm aware that we have other entities that agree to enforce it. I think it's really obvious how we as a city would enforce it, but that we sometimes say, we'll pick this up by checking your records at the annual or every three-year review of your records. We don't always specifically enforce detail by detail item by item. So when you come back with the questions we're going to talk about, how we might manage to monitor. Well, but in fairness, I will say I'm not necessarily prepared to discuss full staffing models to meet those needs. We can do a little bit of that, but there are larger ramifications to some of those decisions. And I don't know how we fully... I'm committed to do it to some degree, but it's not going to be a full analysis on what a condition causes us to do as an organization in response to that condition. All right, we'll recess for 15 minutes. Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order. Who's leading off here? I'm looking around the table and they're looking at me, so it's looking like I'm going to try this. If you saw my scribble here, just bear with me. So we discussed a number of the items that we heard. We put language together best we could. We also conferred with the applicants. What we think is their understanding of these. What we recommend is once we get some specific language, a read back, and then ultimate confirmation from the applicant if they're okay with these. So I'm just going to go point by point. And I don't have the specific language. I'm going to kind of put it out and hopefully my colleagues here will put some specific condition language together while I state these. So the first one was the idea of a C1D1 within a C1D2 facility. The applicants indicated a concern with regard to precedent. However, they have indicated tonight they are willing to, to every extent possible, include that facility in this particular proposal. The council should note that that makes it challenging to enforce once it's out of the council's hands tonight. If then the burden comes back to staff. I'm going to ask, I'm going to ask, let's let Bill go through this and then we can ask questions. So as I mentioned, the applicants indicated concern obviously for precedent. However, this condition would be attached to this specific use permit for this proposal. The other thing that the council should remember on this is that type of detail comes at the building permit stage and based on other building permit codes, fire codes, as you start to layer those on to understand if we can absolutely do that, we don't know that at this point. And that's not an uncommon thing as the building permit plans come together. There could be other constraints that make that not feasible. So the applicant has intended, as I said, to make every possible effort to have that, but they want to keep the language, like I mentioned, every extent possible or to the extent feasible. And I'm just going to go through these and then we can have a further discussion. With regard to chapter 38 of the fire code, I'm going to come back to that in a moment. The applicant has sent me an email that I need to pull up and I will read to the council what they're willing to adhere to. It's specifics. It has to do with CFM, I believe cubic feet per minute. So I will read that into the record just momentarily. The next one has to do with the 60-foot setback for the extraction room as a condition of approval. This would be for volatile storage. Again, they will make every effort. And this goes back to the idea that once the building permit plans get developed, there may be other constraints within the building itself or because of the building and our fire codes that make it technically impossible. They are okay with the limitation on deliveries, pick up drop-off of 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., nothing past 8 p.m., nothing before 7 a.m. The no cash after close of business, they indicated they did not want to do that. That is something that staff finds problematic as well. As far as the ongoing review, the proposal is to do a 12-month staff review to ensure that the project is in compliance with the conditions of approval. That can be memorialized through a zoning clearance. That is something that we've done in the past. So it would be a staff-level review. It's not reopening the use permit. It's not another public hearing. So, Mr. Rose, through the mayor, if I may? Let's make sure he's finished. I've only got two more left, so I'll try to go quickly here. Regarding the onsite security, the applicants have a concern about disclosing their full security plan for obvious reasons. So they would prefer not to make that a condition of approval. There are, as I understand, state requirements for 24-hour monitoring, and that could be a condition of approval. So, we're going to have to make sure that the application is in compliance with the requirements. So, it almost goes without saying, but we can put a finer point on that by including it as a condition. And then the last item was the community council and the applicants. We had a very brief discussion. They were okay with that. I would encourage the council to have a specific discussion with the applicants as to what they're willing to do and how that actually takes shape. Okay, thank you. Questions? Ms. Combs, you jumped in first. I will. Mr. Timmons. Thank you. It was just quick. The 12-month zoning clearance, they were okay with that? They were okay with that, yes. Other questions? Ms. Combs? I'm trying to understand how we do if every effort is made. I mean, I heard there was enforcement questions and that strikes me as a pretty big enforcement question is what does it mean to have every effort made? How my daddy used to say to me that an oral contract was as good as the paper it was written on. And what I have here actually is written commitment to do certain things in this form that I am now hearing rollback and that makes me exceedingly nervous. And I have to say I was actually pretty excited about the prospect of good jobs in an industry that is what I like to call a bright color industry. The manufacturing piece of this is the piece that I want in our community. But I'm hearing a rollback in extraction will occur within a class 1 division run room that is itself house within a class 1 division 2 room. I'm hearing that being rolled back. I want to understand if it is in fact being rolled back and how we would enforce whether or not every effort was made. If I may respond just a suggestion as to some of these items where there's the comma to the extent feasible it could be to the extent feasible pursuant to building code or fire code. It could be specific reasons why they can't be complied with and that's something that we look into as well routinely. So if another ruler regulation interfered with this implementation I would understand. But if the feasibility has to do with for example finances I'm sure I'm as clear on where that line of it's too costly is. So I don't have a problem if it has to do with the fire department says you can't do it. That's fine. But otherwise I'm not happy with the flexibility. How do we do that? Can you clarify? I was going to suggest some things. I'm not going to do that. I would encourage which I hesitate to do without having to first run it by staff but I'll do that anyway. Would be that the requirement is that they shall do this and to the extent except to the extent of the only adjustments that can be made are adjustments that are needed in order to comply with codes and I think we can draft that language. That's exactly the point that I was trying to make. Is the same true then for the 60 foot setback? It's at the council's pleasure. I'm asking if we can make that the same. We can make that. We can have that language in that nice southern way when I'm working. Yes, that would be possible to have that language parallel for both C1D1, C1D2 and the 60 foot setback. Any other questions? Mr. Sawyer, I'm going to ask you to restate your motion. So I'll reintroduce the resolution of the council, the city Santa Rosa denying an appeal and approving a conditional use permit for commercial cannabis manufacturing level 2. Located at 444 Yolanda Avenue, Suite B, APN 044-091-065 file number CUP18-0081 and wave further reading. Mr. Rogers. I'm sorry, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Rose, you said you were going to get back to the Chapter 38 conversation and read us an email. Yes, indeed. I'll do that right now. So this is from Brian Elliott. He was forwarded to me. It says the CFM cubic feet per minute airflow of 1.5 CFM exhaust and make-up air exceeds the Chapter 38 and National Fire Protection Association requirement by 50%. The standard is 1 CFM per square foot. We will create 1.5 CFM per square foot. Can you interpret a little bit for the council what that actually in effect means? I cannot, but we can. 50 CFM is what is in most bathrooms. You're just looking at the airflow from that space, so you're removing more air rapidly from that space. That's where you're exceeding what Chapter 38 calls for. And does that make it less flammable? Yes. So there's less likely to have an accident than by, it sounds like 50%. The airflow is 50%. I'm going to say it backwards, but that's correct. Thank you. For clarification, how do I add the C1D1, C1D2 language as presented by staff and the 60-foot setback from the volatile storage? It's not just storage, it's the volatile process. I understand that it's actually the volatile process and not the storage. It's just the processing. Where that room is is to be 60 feet as was stated by staff from the property line. So those would be added to your emotion? Yes. These two pieces. They're also. I thought that was part of the C1D1, C1D2, the CFM. Is that correct? That's the Chapter 3. If you'd like, I can read through these and if you agree, you can just ask staff to indicate and I'll try to summarize these and go quickly. If I could really fast, Mr. Rose, not to get too far into the weeds, but the 60 feet from the wall, is that an actual measurement or was that a generic number that was thrown out and should the resolution end up reading to exceed 60 feet of that building as is available in the building code. I just don't want us to get caught where we say 60 feet, it actually is 59 feet is the only thing that's plausible and then the applicant doesn't know how to move forward on that. Is there a way we can word that better? That's what we're proposing is that it's at least 60 feet from the property line except as may be required to meet building code requirements. Perfect, thank you. I'll go through these. So C1D1 facilities within a C1D2 facility shall be required within the building to the extent possible subject to all relevant building and or fire code regulations. Or except to the extent required to meet building code requirements and I'm presuming not just building code but building electrical fire all of those life safety codes. And that's a little different than saying comma to the extent possible, comma what you said not what you said. We'll strike to the extent possible, we'll keep the language as the city attorney indicated. For number two this is the project shall comply with chapter 38 of the California fire code except with regard to the cubic air flow of 1.5 cubic feet per minute exhaust and make up air which would exceed it by 50%. That can be specific, it doesn't have to have any other... Can we just say exceed by 50% in case the code changes? Exhaust and make up air? That would work. I would check in with the applicant because if the codes are changed so that the codes are 150% of what they are currently I'm not hearing from the applicant that they're going to want to go another 50%. But if we make the ordinance 50 to extent beyond the code by 50% as opposed to putting the actual it would become a moving target. It could potentially become a moving target. And just at that point once we finish this read out then I would recommend a read back back to the applicant or make sure that they can indeed comply with these as we understand them. The next one is the 60 foot setback from the property line for the extraction room shall be required except for subject to compliance with all life safety codes. The deliveries pick up and drop off shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Planning and economic development staff shall conduct a 12 month review of the project for compliance. Excuse me. My understanding was that was a two part that was deliveries and delivery and out go. I said pick up and drop off. So the next item is within 12 months staff will conduct planning and economic development staff will conduct a review of the conditional use permit to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval. The zoning clearance shall be issued to memorialize compliance. Look to staff to help me on this one is the community council we haven't fully evaluated heard from the applicant what they're willing to do they did indicate a willingness to do it but I don't know what the specifics would be. And then lastly with regard to the on-site security as I mentioned the applicants indicated they did not want to specify and require a person on site. They will be in compliance with the state mandate that there is 24 hour monitoring. Do you want to make that your motion? Excuse me. Thank you. Mr. Rogers. Thank you Mr. Mayor. For the conversation about the community council would it be so simple as to suggest to the applicant something like biannual meetings that are open to every neighbor within the neighborhood to address concerns? And I apologize. I wasn't on council when we did the community the community council I don't know why Mr. Schwedhelm looks like he wants to help with this. What I would suggest I don't think council needs to get in the middle of this I think there's an interest to the business and neighbors to actually work together but we have two separate parties let them work on a plan whether it be I have no idea what the capacity is what the interest is from the neighbors so let them decide and maybe come back here somewhere in this conditional use permit where we can give the okay but my intent is this needs to be an ongoing conversation that if issues do develop doesn't need to be resolved here at council between the business they want to be a good neighbor which I heard somewhere in the presentation the neighbors that have some concerns about this let them work it out and if there are some concerns that's when come back to council no I'm sorry sir let us have a discussion first How about this the applicant team can designate they can conduct a neighborhood meeting and city staff can attend be part of that neighborhood meeting it's much like the neighborhood meetings that we do I'm sure staff did the SAI neighborhood because some of those same concerns in that project were raised so I think it's had a successful resolution of the neighborhood and the business and the one thing we might also recommend is that that meeting occur post occupancy and perhaps at a time that gives time for this use to actually operate so maybe in 12 months post occupancy so everybody has a chance to see how the operation is going 12 months seems like a long time just saying two points of clarification is it just they appoint a liaison which would be ongoing and a one time meeting six months after so not an ongoing meeting and then the director just raised a question about requiring that that meeting include city staff maybe just an invitation to city staff so that so we require neighborhood meetings on projects pre application neighborhood meetings the city council could just require us to conduct a city facilitated neighborhood meeting and work with the applicants to have a representative at that meeting it would be held at city hall it would be facilitated by city staff we do these frequently Mr. Sawyer thank you mayor could we also get the results of that neighborhood meeting back to the council does that create a a onerous without having to do the major staff report just a conditional report on the satisfactory whether the neighbors are pleased with the project six to nine to 12 months hence I'm not sure if they did that with the dream center and that wouldn't necessarily be a condition of approval is in my opinion hearing is I think we need to have a meeting before we would have the report back on the condition so that the meeting needs to happen prior to the formal meeting staff can lead it into that conversation but that would be a condition of getting to that formal review process which would meet your concern about having the report back we could do that that leads to having it happen before the 12 months because it's leading into that formal report back about compliance thank you further questions I am hoping that we can also put on a future as a future discussion a revisiting of the setbacks to residential and as well as the conversation about whether or not we're interested in looking at concentration of particular businesses within the scope of either cannabis or a number of other whether you want to do that broadly or narrowly let me know I think we have members of the subcommittee here I think they're going to get into those conversations so I would suggest that you raise that with the subcommittee members so that they can start moving that conversation forward and the chair is not here but we do have a discussion that we've already agendized around schools I think we can take it back to the chair and let him know that this additional component is I'm not completely clear yet on the community meeting my understanding is that in addition to SAI I think Catholic Charities has a fairly frequent meeting with the neighbors to see how things are going that that's not always staffed I had thought that was the direction we were going is that not what we're are we talking about having a one-time meeting to see how it's going well again I think you all can direct I'm concerned about I'm expecting to facilitate ongoing meetings I don't think facilitate the Catholic Charities those are happening outside of the other conversation what I'm really hoping for is that they have a big meal together with the hot dog cook off and have conversations and socialize and get to know each other that may be wishful thinking but I'm not really thinking the formal staff get together with the community conversation and be neighbors we've got a motion we don't have a second Council Member Sawyer can you repeat or maybe staff what the contingencies are here I think I heard what was read and I'm for it but I just want to verify before I reissue my second I can you want to do it Bill I can do it in very specific terms I'm sorry I didn't hear the last part of that question can you just run through Council Member Sawyer made a motion what we're adding to the conditional use permit as part of his new amended motion I'll go as quickly as possible here C1 D1 facilities will be located within the C1 D2 facilities within the building subject to compliance with applicable life safety codes then we have to do the C1 D2 project shall be in compliance with chapter 38 of the California fire code except it will exceed the CFM requirements for exhaust and make up air by 50% we corrected that so what we should be giving is except that the airflow shall be and we're going to give the number over time, they don't have to keep being 50% over. The airflow will be 1.5 CFM for exhaust and make-up air. The project, the extraction room shall be located 60 feet from the property line, subject to compliance with applicable life safety codes. Deliveries, including pickup and drop-off, will be limited to between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. Planning and economic development staff will conduct a review of the conditional use permit 12 months from the date of occupancy for compliance with the conditions of approval. If the project complies with the conditions of approval, zoning clearance will be issued. The project will comply with the mandated security requirements for 24-hour monitoring. And with regard to the community council, I don't know if that was fully resolved yet. So the public meeting prior to facilitated by the staff prior to the earlier items. Yeah, so if I'm hearing it correctly, there will be a city-facilitated neighborhood meeting prior to the annual review of the compliance with the conditional use permit. We were talking about establishing an ongoing neighborhood meeting that the staff is not engaged with. So again, I'm not sure how to monitor that long-term and what the requirements are going to be. We do a lot of things that are complaint-based. I hear that that's your desire. Is that your motion? I'm not looking for annual meetings with the community unless it is the desire of the applicant and the appellants. So I'm going to jump in in second. Councilman Sawyer's motion with everything that you just listed. Mr. Rose, and I just want to say I think that this process, although lengthly, has been very deliberative and thoughtful. And, you know, it's tough to say we've got this ordinance. And oh, by the way, here's these additional things, but it is a conditional use process. So I hope that this helps get us in the right direction. We have a motion and a second. Are there any final comments? I'm going to make one. I'm being one of the members of the subcommittee. I understand the concerns of the neighbors and it's actually, it's fear. And I understand that fear. I had the same concerns when I first heard about the close proximity of this particular business to neighbors, but I also had the opportunity to speak with staff and to hear of the safeguards that were being put into place by the applicant. And being first is very, very difficult. Not only to be a neighborhood that is first affected by an applicant's, the application of a business. And it's very difficult on the business as well, being the first one before a body and before neighbors because there are lots of unknowns. And until we have more time to pass between the legalization of cannabis for recreational use after it was legalized from medicinal, until there's a lot of time that has passed and fear is replaced with knowledge and experience, these conversations will be painful. And I think that it is, the council has done its best tonight, although you did not get that 600 foot setback that you were looking for as yet. I think that we are trying the best that we can to try to mitigate the fears of the neighbors. And it is my expectation and my hope that these concerns will dissipate over time when the actual, when the business is actually in production and working and there are no problems and the situations that you are concerned about do not come to pass. That's my expectation. It was always our hope on the subcommittee that this particular business model be treated not unlike a distillery or a wine producer or any other business that is an industry that they be treated with the same kind of requirements as other businesses because that's the fair thing to do. And what is unusual about this is we have had a product that has been illegal in the United States technically for many, many decades and that has now changed. The landscape has changed. The profile of the business has changed and we are trying to slog through as the community changes because this is what was voted on by the people. So it is painful, it is difficult and I'm hoping that it will be easier in the future. Any other comments? I'm not going to repeat everything, but John I think you really hit a lot of the same points and struggles that I've had. My evolution just with this whole cannabis industry from when I started my law enforcement career but as you mentioned the people have spoken and I think our subcommittee in this community I think he's done an excellent job in dealing with a very difficult situation. What is the right answer? Because we all have different variances of how we're going to predict the future. I think I heard earlier today three of these facilities are in my backyard in Northwest Santa Rosa. I back up to the light industrial area. I know it's coming, I'm not happy about it and so just to echo what you said we're trying to do our best here and try to put the safeguards in there because safety is our biggest concern and I have a level of confidence in these providers and the producers that it's going to be safest in everyone's best interest for this to work out and I'm hoping we're going to be able to accomplish that. Mr. Mayor if I may the applicants have indicated that they can accept all of the conditions that were added to the resolution. Okay. Great. You know we had a conversation at the beginning of the meeting tonight about mistakes that have been made in the district election notification process and how we're struggling with that new thing. We're obviously struggling with this new industry as well. I I in a lot of ways I regret that the struggle has to play out in such a public fashion and we're obviously trying to figure things out as we go along but that's part of being transparent and part of the public process so you get to see the sausage being made. My problem here is that the applicants came in making a lot of promises and they're going to try and live up to some and others just went off the table when we indicated that we wanted to make them part of the conditions of this and that makes me very uncomfortable when things are put up there as being benefits of this project being cognizant of the neighborhoods such as having 24-hour human security such as not having cash on the premises and the community benefit of living wage that those things are pulled back when we want to memorialize them in the permit so I'm going to be a no vote on this and with that your vote's council and that passes five to one. Thank you very much for your patience. I do have one card I have more than one card for final public comment. Is Andrew Schmitz still here? Go ahead. Three minutes? I actually came by so she's compelled to come by here. I'll have a thank you to the city council. Can you raise that? I'm nervous here. It's my first time from Mike in a long time. Council men and women, I'd like to sincerely thank you for what you do for the homeless community. I am homeless and I utilize the service you provide here. I'm outside looking in. I'm from Florida and people don't know what they have here. I just want to say you're doing a great job that you're doing an excellent job. My hometown does not provide these things. What led me out here is my father lives in Forestville he's a homeowner and loves his county. I fell in love with Santa Rosa and if you're anything about this country in Florida, in this part of the country it's a different world and I've had more healing more counseling I see my life becoming whole because of this community I want to thank the people here in law enforcement the fire department Can I interrupt you for just one minute? We still have a meeting going on here could you take your conversations outside please? I'll see I decided to make a home here as an adult to go back to school out here and I've been through so much in my life to make a simple short, I'm a bisexual male which is hard, I could never have stayed in my hometown without putting a bullet in my mouth I could never be free with that and this is how it powers me, I want to thank what y'all have done in Bethan's community for a while like when y'all took off the ship made yourselves open for people where they could be still used and come in I thought it was amazing, I'm surprised that you didn't go in there that's how much y'all have worked hard and don't understand why people don't go in there I just want to say thank you I'm one of the people that I'm grateful for what the city does I see myself going to college I'm an IT guy from Florida I see I make a great career out here this opportunity and I'm very nervous and I want to say thank you I came here off the hip and with off my heart, nothing written down and it's one thing, maybe it's for this I like to back something up this late as the night we're at the Renna Center Renna Center's been a refuge for me well I see that it's a refuge for a lot of people you don't realize it's the county it's the only place you can go with at middle of the night if you say you came off the 101 from the city and got lost their mind at the bar and ended up going there it's my game of ride if they're not from here, they can't get in you have to have an ID from this county they have to have that and I just want to back her up I've seen women get turned away that needed to be there that night because of the streets and it's the only place in this county to go you know, the night for anything like that I just think this should be open door policy for whoever shows up at the door because that's the people who want help they're like asking for help and that's just an ID especially if you're not from here, it's hard so if somebody comes to this city and they have nowhere to go but they go there it's the only option they have and they can't get in to give them a safe place especially if they're in the streets we're talking about women I've seen this a lot of women out there that get hurt I'm a protector, I'm a family man anyway, I'll stop there I just want to thank you very much thank you and good luck to you Nicole Vanucci no, Nicole Bob Hanson has gone also with that, we are adjourned