 you indicate that the that you anticipate distribution activities to take place primarily between 9 and 5 p.m. is that pretty set in stone set in stone and we definitely will not be going on outside of those range but we also don't anticipate to be operating from 9 to 5 all the time so thank you any other questions before I move on to the public hearing okay thanks for that this is a public hearing tonight I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing I don't have any cards on this item and if you want to speak and I see somebody doing it great if you'll just step up to the microphone give your name first and you have three minutes well I don't need three minutes my name is Andrew Cameron I'm a local Santa Rosa resident live in the JC neighborhood I've had the pleasure of meeting the soda extract gentlemen for quite some time now we're very mature they're very thoughtful and engaging that's about all I have to say about them it's it's been quite impressive to watch them go through this process very patiently and diligently I have no association with it at all I'm just a local renewable energy developer in full support of soda extracts being approved thank you thank you anyone else wishing to speak yeah three minutes yes good afternoon council and staff thank you very much my name is Michael Sinatra I'm vice president with Vantro insurance brokerage I'm one of the two producers in our van can division which specifically specializes in cannabis insurance and I wanted to say that both Travis and Malcolm have reached out to me and they are working with me to make sure that they are in full compliance with all insurance that's needed for this project and they're working with me on establishing that so they're very responsible and want to be responsible citizens I highly request that you approve the project thank you thank you anyone else wishing to speak on this item not seeing anyone rise I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to commission any other questions of the applicants any other questions yeah commissioner Carter yeah first of all I wanted to say that this use in this location seemed to be very well-suited and I anticipated it was this type of area that the ordinance anticipated putting these types of uses in I also noticed that the the general operation there as a number of tenants and it's pretty busy during the day and I just wanted some assurance that the landlord has been in contact with the neighboring businesses and the support is generally there for both the new activity and the increased security programs that'll be present thank you any response to that in terms of having contacted the neighboring businesses yes I can answer to that great so yes we've been in contact with the landlord all of the businesses around us are very happy with the situation we've had a number of the auto mechanic in one of the next buildings over to the east they're very excited about having cannabis use business on site to hopefully decrease the level of activity around there at night as well as the other businesses directly in the building next to us fire safety supply Kiwi glass and the carpet upholstery company are all very excited to have us there as well and as we are not anticipating to be increasing significantly the load of traffic to the site I hope hope that answers the concern it does thank you any other questions of the applicant while he's up there any other questions of staff okay so let's bring it back to the commission and if someone would like to read the resolution for purposes of discussion I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for commercial cannabis manufacturing level 2 volatile located at 468 Yolanda suite 203 building 200 APN number 044 091-066 file number CUP 18-167 and way for the reading and do I have a second I'll second okay so that was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Vice-Chair weeks commissioner Duggan would you like to start yeah as mentioned by Commissioner Carter I think it's this kind of use in this location is a good match I'm I'm impressed by the fact that all three founders are chemical engineers my father-in-law is a chemical engineer and I know how thorough and thoughtful and careful he is with all things and I think that's a great match with somebody who's going to be doing this kind of manufacturing so I can make all the required findings and I'm in support of the project I also can make all the required findings and we'll be supporting this project I agree with my fellow commissioners this is a the ideal location for this use and it looks like it's going to be a great great use for that facility I don't have any further comments but I think the use is appropriate and I can make the findings great vice-chair weeks I will be supporting the project and as previously stated the location is good I appreciate the outreach you've done both to the neighbors as well as the other businesses good luck commissioner Pearson I'm not I don't have a huge amount to add I think the project narrative was was comprehensive which I always like to see I think in particular the fact that the applicant is incorporated as a benefit corporation will have an effect on on the way the business is run it is sorry a California specific corporate entity that will require them to take into account all the stakeholders that may be affected by the business in light of that I think that when we see something like this and when we get public feedback that that is negative we did get public comments that were against this project I think those are completely understandable I think when you've got residential uses abutting an industrial use it doesn't matter how appropriate the zoning may be there is there is a tension there and I think especially when it comes to the the word volatile and volatile processing I think a lot of people's hackles get raised I think the applicant has benefited greatly from the other items we've seen of volatile processing the study session that staff put on I think you know as this still relatively new legal industry matures we're gonna see people maybe get more comfortable with it especially if the industry does things like public outreach being a good neighbor and addressing the concerns as as the industry matures I think my fellow commissioners are absolutely right I think we've seen it with other projects that the complaints part of the complaints from the public were that general quality of life stuff completely unrelated to cannabis entirely related to trespassing homelessness issues kind of low level property crime I think having a business like this in that area with 24-hour surveillance with people on site 24 hours a day can have you know maybe paradoxically the effect of making that area safer I mean if people are out if eyes are on it it becomes a lot harder to break into empty cars and climb over fences and so so with all that I think it's a it's a good project I think it the zoning is it's appropriate for the zoning district I can make all the necessary findings nothing further to add I can make all the required findings will be in support of the project and I also can make the required findings and have nothing further to add so with that resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by vice chair weeks and your votes please and that passes with seven eyes and I believe that concludes that item why don't we take just a few minutes break before we move on to the next okay so I'm gonna go ahead and call the meeting back to order and we're going to move on to item 10.2 which is the Grenville Road Homes it is an ex parte disclosure Commissioner Carter anything to disclose only that I visited the site okay I visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose I visited the site nothing further to disclose and I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose and with that again Christiane Tumian senior planner will give the staff presentation thank you chair Cisco this item is Grenville Road Homes small lot subdivision the the project proposes to subdivide a one acre parcel until 12 residential small lots construct 12 attached single family homes which will include three attached accessory dwelling units the required actions will be to rezone from our 20 which is a rural residential zoning district to our 318 which is a multifamily zoning district it will require a conditional use permit for a small lot subdivision and also a tentative parcel map as far as the project history on July 11th 2018 a pre-application neighborhood meeting was held on December 20th 2018 applicants submitted the project application on April 1st of this year at staff determined the application was complete and on mace at the time of writing this staff report preparing this presentation this project is tentatively scheduled for preliminary design review before the designer view board on May 16th this is an aerial view of the project site it's located north of Grenville Road between Marlowe and Ridley Avenue outlined in blue the site is currently developed with a single-family home north of the project the zoning is our 40 single family residents and it's developed with a farmhouse and orchard south it's zoned r16 and a plan development zoning district for the development of single family detached and single-family attached units east the project is zoned our our 20 and is it developed with a private meeting facility known as the redwood forest friends and meeting house and west the zoning is our 20 developed with a single-family dwelling and here we see a general plan and zoning map that shows that the parcels a general plan designation is medium residential the zoning is our our 20 the project as proposed will provide 12 a single-family attached units and three with three attached ad use providing a diverse housing type and price range the project is consistent with the general plan designation of medium density residential in that the designation allows a residential density of 8 to 18 dwelling units per acre and the project proposes single-family attached unit type at 12 units per acre and while the general plan requires residential development at midpoint or higher of the density range it allows exceptions where topography parcel configuration heritage trees historic preservation or utility constraints make the midpoint impossible to achieve and while the midpoint density for this parcel is 13 dwelling units per acre the proposed project density of 12 units per acre allows for the construction of a diverse housing type while also accommodating for fire emergency access along the newly created elson drive elson way and other along with other utility constraints that come with building single-family attached units here is the proposed tentative map elson way is anticipated to be a future through street and the city engineering department has required that it be stubbed so that it could be expanded in the future or extended in the future this is a site plan it's a little bit easier to read but you can see the single-family attached units on the lots the attached ad use there are two on the corner and one on the center center cluster of single-family attached units you can see it's attached to the side of I can't really lot lot 9 these are some colored elevations of the proposed three-story single-family attached units the elevation at the top shows what it would look like with the attached ad you on lot 7 and 8 I think the elevation below is elevation showing the units without an attached accessory dwelling unit this is a rear elevation of that same unit with the attached accessory dwelling unit one with the proposed fencing and one without the project qualifies for a class 32 exemption per section 15332 infill development projects the project also qualifies for a seco exemption pursuant to section 15183 I for which no additional environmental reviews required when rezoning for general plan consistency as of writing this staff report and preparing this presentation staff received two comments from neighboring property owners one to the east and one to the west the one to the west or to the east is a redwood forest friends meeting house and they have concerns with any potential noise from the future inhabitants of the proposed project they also had concerns about the status of sidewalks along the frontage of the subject property and concerns with any potential overflow parking onto their property the existing ambient noise from gernville road is actually louder than the anticipated anticipated noise from 12 single family attached dwelling units the project proposes to incorporate a wooden sound fence to antenna attenuate noise in the rear yards of future residents closest to gernville road as far as sidewalks a gernville road will be dedicated and improved as a boulevard along the entire frontage with with public sidewalks and the proposed project provides sufficient parking per per unit as required by the code so staff doesn't anticipate any potential parking issues the second neighbor to the west as a single family resident and he was concerned with how the proposed fence would be constructed and where it would be constructed and how that would impact his property and his dog the project will have a fence separating the private rear yards of future residents and this neighbor and the fence will be built 100% on the developer's property with that the planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission recommended the council approval of a request to rezone to the r318 zoning district approve a conditional use permit for a small lot subdivision and approve the gernville road homes tentative map and staff is available for questions and the applicant is also applicant representative is also available any questions of staff right now so what the applicant like to give a presentation you have to go up we have a new method here so thank you honorable commissioners this seems rather strange I'm supposed to be down and you're supposed to be up down at me it's strange for us to I'm very free land this property has been in my family for about 70 years and it's actually I grew up in that house it used to be a little house on a little backcountry road a mile out of town and of course I was looking at new homes in Santa Rosa today and it took me several miles to get to the edge of town so the Santa Rosa has changed and grown I'm fifth generation Sonoma County I graduated Santa Rosa High School and Sonoma Sonoma State SRJC owned a real estate office here on 4th Street what I'm really saying is I'm a local guy but in that some time around 97 I decided I wanted to do more than I had done you might recognize some projects I did here before because I built subdivisions one was saddle saddle brook up in Larkfield and other one was Royal Oaks on West Steel Lane that almost backs up to this project I've always thought that my projects were a step above other builders and other developers and it's not that it's that we put a little lot of thought into what people want I have a background in real estate sales and marketing and it gave me that feel and we've tried to incorporate that into this subdivision and I went out of town to gain a lot of experience on trying to get more dense projects the most popular one was the condominiums a candlestick point where this kind of a little backwood Santa Rosa boy found himself meeting with the likes of our present governor and Willie Brown and all those two people putting together a project that other people couldn't get together in 10 years my architect on that project happened to be the architect for the tallest building in the world at the time that was Taipei 101 you know it was really heady stuff for like to say a backwood Santa Rosa boy who graduated Monroe Elementary School so I brought that kind of energy back into this project we've been working on this project specifically trying to develop the land planet architecture for over a year and a half now and it was about getting something that we thought would be very well accepted by the millennials young families but still affordable for them and it ended up with these small lots and the design that we have my father I can still remember farming on the back land because he loved his vegetables when he wasn't fly fishing and and traveling his name was Elson therein comes the name for the project and if you have any other questions of me I'd be glad to answer them but my engineer Dennis rather popular guy here in town can really do the engineering questions is there anything I could answer right now anything you want to ask right now or wait till after the public hearing okay great we'll go ahead and have the public hearing we may need you to come back up after that and answer questions thank you commissioners okay okay so this is a public hearing tonight I'm gonna head and open the public hearing I don't have any cards on this item anyone wishes to speak they can head to one of the microphones and I'm not seeing anyone move so I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission commissioners any questions of the applicant commissioner Peterson I think this one's pretty straightforward just a clarification for me in the development advisory committee the construction hours we're looking at page three here no construction is occurring on Sunday is that correct okay and I had a question about the defense on the east side I know there's a question from the public regarding whether it would extend the length of the property line or just the portion that that bordered the redwood friends property can you tell me a little bit about them you do have to go back up I'm sorry we won't be able to hear you some of us need the exercise it'll be a six-foot fence minimum the whole length and then for those parts of it it'll be solid of course wood and then for the parts of it that are near Gernville Road and need some sound attenuation that will be eight feet and that's to block the Gernville Road noise I think the the request from the public was eight feet the entire length is that something you've considered is that a possibility well we'd rather not I'm thinking of the new residents there and when you put an eight-foot fence in your backyard they're not big backyards and it starts to feel like a barrier has more to do with the texture and feel than it does the height of the fence or any possible cost so so aesthetically I think that that wouldn't be the best for the residents but if it's the will of the commission it's something we could live with all right thank you any other vice chair weeks actually I have a question of staff yeah any other questions of the applicant before we have him sit down yeah vice chair mr. Duggan yeah just this is related to the same comment from the the neighboring parcel and they asked about like passive heating and cooling and and how much attic insulation and it is that going to be factored into your your building we did respond to I guess to our planner Christine a that will of course meet all of our title 24 requirements being that it's a tall their taller buildings they will get that natural ventilation that grew up without there and we didn't really need anything I mean I grew up there and you just open the window so I hadn't thought of anything more than that but the houses will have windows east and west that'll flow the ventilation I think that'll be more than adequate I kind of like the design thank you any other questions of the applicant okay so vice chair we have a question of staff in calculating the density it appears that ad use are not taken into consideration and I just wanted to clarify that that's right ad use are not counted towards the density and then the other question is you talk about Elson way eventually going through do you have any idea where that is in the calendar we have a representative Gabe Osborne here from engineering who could be able to answer that question good evening chair assistant Cisco and members of the Commission I will actually ask Chris today to navigate to I believe a third slide that shows vicinity map it may be a little easier to have a visual when we talk about circulation what we're looking at is there was a overall circulation plan that was generated as part of the Revello subdivision which is very similar to the proposal today it's a bit west which would be left on that map closer to Marlowe Road adjacent to the pawn shop and the circulation anytime you have properties that have direct connections on arterials which Guerneville Road is the intent is to circulate them away from those direct connections and get them through a signalized intersection in this particular situation that would be Ridley Avenue so we also have the Marlowe Commons development that is actually on the northwest corner of the Marlowe and Guerneville intersection that was approved approximately a year ago and is going through construction drawings now that development will be proposing an intersection on Marlowe Road that is approximately 700 feet from Guerneville to the north so we're looking at an alignment of west to east connection that likely will fall in the rectangular parcel that's just to the north of this site now as far as when that goes that will likely be development driven so it will be the responsibility of that property owner through the development proposal to build that connection point and that will work its way to to Riley Avenue so that's why we have two stub streets in both the Revello development and this to eventually with future development of that area give the individuals living in that area a safe route of travel through a signalized intersection to get out to Guerneville Road any other questions of staff sorry Commissioner Carter I'm sorry tell me your name again I'm embarrassed I do apologize my name is Gabe Osborne I'm the deputy director of development services there Osborne thank you is it the city's practice to for instance to complete the sidewalks on Guerneville Road to wait for the development of all the properties along that frontage to add the sidewalks or is there ever an instance where we would consider extending the sidewalks I look at the two recent residential developments and see the propensity or the possibility for improved pedestrian connections to the commercial properties to the west excellent question under normal circumstances the development of the sidewalk is the property owners responsibility it's the requirement under the city code there are certain circumstances were to benefit overall pedestrian circulation the city can cover that cost through a capital project and in this particular situation there is an overlapping project for that side of Guerneville Road the timing has been unknown we've been working with the development about how we can coordinate we don't want to remove what they put in to build what we need to build our vice versa and then there's right-of-way dedication discussions that are happening along with that so the most common situation is to see that sidewalk development driven but there are situations safe routes to schools and other situations where we can actually focus through capital projects to close those connection points thank you any other questions of staff okay not seeing any so with that would somebody like to read the first resolution which is the rezoning resolution for purposes of discussion and what we'll do is go ahead and discuss the whole project and figure out how we fix it as we go but we'll start with the resolution for rezoning I move the resolution of the Planning Commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending to City Council rezoning of property located at 1665 Guerneville Road assessors parcel number 036-101-010 to the R-3-18 multifamily residential zoning district file number PRJ 18-089 and wave for the reading and I'll second okay so that was moved by Commissioner Peterson seconded by Commissioner Duggan Commissioner Peterson why don't you start this one sure I think that from visiting the site and seeing the other sort of similar development that the name escapes me now right right down the street I think that this area is is in transition I think you know we've seen other proposed developments up there and I know a lot more density is is going to be coming that way and I think because we're in a sort of transition time it's a little strange for the the neighbouring residents but I think with the grocery store with restaurants other services around there I think it's an appropriate area to to improve density and get these types of developments out there where I think the design is well thought out I think the addition of the ADUs is a great add-on for for the homeowners the you know the stub street what may come down the road I think is a little bit up in the air but in terms of the overall project I think what we're seeing from the public that lives there is is not so much in opposition to the project but from what I could tell from the public correspondence is a desire for sort of good neighbours I think that you know with construction not being on Sunday I think hopefully the the congregation that's right there will continue to be able to worship in silence I think once the units go in I mean it's it's a different story but my experience living in Santa Rosa is that not a whole lot people are out and about it you know 10 or 11 a.m. on a Sunday but on this specific issue of the the fence I think the applicant's response was was very useful I think it you know you don't want the the backyard to feel like a prison yard that you can escape especially with a small lot I think you know maybe ideally it would be higher but I'm not prepared to condition the project on an increased fence height although I'm open to hearing from my my fellow commissioners before I make a final decision on that specific issue but overall I think the the rezoning is appropriate for the area and while we haven't moved the other resolutions I think the conditional use permit and tentative map are also appropriate and I could make all the necessary findings I agree with a lot of what commissioner Peterson said this is an area that's in transition the development just down the street from it like he pointed out very similar in size and structures to what's going on here the 80s are great addition either for supplemental income or for multi-generational housing and I think it fits the area well there are there are some issues that the surrounding residents have but I don't think that would prevent me from being able to support the project because I can make other records of findings okay vice-chair weeks I'm also supportive of the project I think it's an excellent location a lot of services around there and I like having the ad use would have liked it to see a little more dense but nevertheless I think it's appropriate for that piece of property I'm also in support of the project I can make all the necessary findings and I don't have very much else to add to what my fellow commissioners have said I also can make all the required findings and we'll be supporting this project I appreciate the diverse housing type with the with the attached single family homes and I think this is a great location for it and commissioner Carter I also can make the necessary findings to support the project and I do believe that as my fellow commissioners have pointed out that this is an emerging neighborhood where this type of housing is appropriate and I also can make the findings definitely appreciate the ad use since you've been here forever and own that property I'm sure you'll continue to be a good neighbor and I appreciate the fact that that you'll do that I remember when we did the general plan amendment to increase the density on this corner I think it's a very appropriate corner to have increased density and it is a little you know it's a transitional time so it's a little bumpy but hopefully there will be more interest in continuing development and getting those connections made so again thanks to staff for clarifying how we're going to ultimately create the vision that we want for that corner of the section of town so I'm also can make the findings and I'm for the project so without the rezoning resolution think Patty was moved by Commissioner Peterson seconded by Commissioner Duggan and your votes please next we have our additional use permit resolution would like to move that I'll move the resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for Gernvill Road Homes a 12 parcel small lot subdivision located at 1665 Gernvill Road assessors parcel number 036-101-010 file number PRJ 18-089 and wave further reading and all second that was also moved by Commissioner Peterson seconded by Commissioner Duggan any other comments or discussion on the conditional use permit okay your votes please and that passes with seven eyes and last but not least the tentative map I'll move the resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa approving the Gernvill Road Homes tentative map located at 1665 Gernvill Road assessors parcel number 1 3 6-101-010 file number PRJ 18-089 and wave further reading all second okay again moved by Commissioner Peterson seconded by Commissioner Duggan any other discussion on that not seeing any your votes please and that passes with seven eyes and I believe that concludes our business for May no we have one more meeting in May so we'll adjourn to our next meeting in May