 Chair Weeks, it's 4.30, if you'd like to call the meeting to order. Great, thank you very much. With that, I will call the January 11th, 2024 meeting of the Planning Commission to order. And can you please take roll? Thank you, Chair Weeks. Commissioner Carter? Here. Commissioner Sisko? Here. Commissioner Peterson? Here. Commissioner Holton? Here. Vice Chair Dugan? Here. Chair Weeks? Here. I'll let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Sanders, who is absent today. Thank you. So with that, we'll go on to Item 2, Approval of Minutes. There are two sets of minutes, one set from October 26th and one from December 14th. Are there any changes or corrections? Okay, then seeing none. Those would be approved as submitted. So if you are in the chambers and want to make a comment on Item 2, Approval of the Minutes, please make your way to the podium. And we'll go on to Public Comment section. So we're now taking public comments on Item 3, which is non-agenda matters. This is a time when any person may address the commission on matters not listed on the agenda. Excuse me, can we please have, can you mute the microphone up there? So, thank you. So this is a time when any person may address the commission on matters not listed on this agenda, but which are within the subject manager's jurisdiction of the commission. So if you are wanting to make comments on non-agenda matters, please make your way to the podium on either the, what's that, the north or the south, whatever. East. Thank you, Dwayne. I need all the help I can get. Hello, my name is Dwayne DeWitt and I'm from Roseland on the west side of Santa Rosa. And I offered to let these ladies speak first, I want you to know, but they didn't want to take that chivalry. Anyway, I'm here to speak with you because there's really important matters involving what we might call, at least in my area, overpopulation for the existing infrastructure. Some people call that exceeding carrying capacity, and that is what is happening over in southwest Santa Rosa. The roads are packed. It's a dilemma because whenever you come and speak with governmental agencies about the issues that are needed to be dealt with, we're told, well, we don't have the funds for that. They plead poverty, but then you'll see that they turn around and do something that might not be needed, such as putting in dividers on Santa Rosa Avenue. That's worked really good at Santa Rosa Avenue for 80 years without dividers. It looks more like a make-work project than something that was actually needed, and that money could have been used to put in curbs, gutters, and sidewalks throughout neighborhoods on the west side that don't have them. The city was given funds from the American Rescue Plan Act by the federal government, and those funds could have been used to help us over there have sidewalks to walk on. Yet the kids don't get them, and they're going back to school now, and some of the most dangerous roads that you could imagine. The city of Santa Rosa Avenue is a speedway. We call it a raceway, and it's this type of thing where many folks feel you're not paying attention. I believe some of you may, and I hope in all your deliberations in this new year, you take into account those who are already here, not just those who will come to Santa Rosa. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anybody else who would like to make a comment on non-agenda matters? Okay, with that, we'll close that public comment period and move on to commission business. So I'm going to read our statement of purpose as I do every meeting. The Planning Commission is charged with carrying out the California Planning and Zoning Laws within the city of Santa Rosa. Duties include implementing of plans, ordinances, and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing, and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public hearings, and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking special planning studies as needed. And with that, we'll move on to commissioner reports. Are there any reports? Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I'd just like to note I need to leave tonight by 7 p.m. So if you see me leaving at 7 p.m., it's not because of anything anybody did or said. Just I need to be on my way. Great. Thank you. Any other? Okay. So with that, if you are in the chambers and want to make comments on the commissioner reports, please make your way to the podium on the east and west side. Now that I know my geographical directions, I don't see anybody. So we'll move on to department report. Yes. Thank you, chair weeks and members of the commission. I have a couple of things here for you. I would like to first start out by wishing our chair a very happy birthday. And thank you for spending your special day with us here this evening. Always my pleasure. A couple of quick announcements. One, if you haven't seen it already, as everybody knows, we have been without a director for a little while. And as of yesterday, our new director has been appointed and that is Gabe Osburn. He has been serving in the acting role since our previous director left and has been doing a fantastic job. We're all very excited to have him continue on in the role permanently. He's been with the city for a very long time and knows our jurisdiction inside and out. So I think he's going to be a welcome addition to our department and will help lead us into the future. So we're very excited. Also, I want to welcome Crystal Camp, who is our new recording secretary. As you all know, Lonnie Buckite, who was a previous secretary for this board, had left us to go to another jurisdiction. We were very sorry to see her go, but we're very excited to have Crystal here with us now. And then also, another quick announcement. Amy Nicholson, supervising planner for Advanced Planning, has been on maternity leave for a couple weeks now, and I'm excited to announce that she has had her baby. And so she's got a baby boy, and both Amy and Dorian are doing quite well. So I just wanted to share that with you. On a work note, just a quick update for the commission at this last Tuesday's City Council meeting. The council did adopt a professional services agreement with Forleaf, which is a planning firm who will be helping us to develop and prepare a specific plan for the South Santa Rosa area. It would be a specific plan and an EIR to look at the land use, circulation and infrastructure in that area. It's a very large area that we're going to be analyzing about 1,900 acres, about 1,400 of which is unincorporated. So we will be partnering with the county on this. And so it's going to be a two-year long process. Various iterations will be before the commission for consideration as we move through that process. But I just wanted to let you know that that contract was approved this last Tuesday. And so we will be moving forward in the next couple of weeks with getting that project underway. And then finally, as you may or may not be aware, we are working on an update to our development services fees, which is our permitting fees, building engineering and planning entitlement fees. And we've got a draft study that has been prepared. We're going to be doing a public meeting for that draft fee study on Monday, January 22nd at 5.30 here in the council chambers. It is a public opportunity to take a look at what's been developed and the steps moving forward with that. So I just want to make that quick announcement. That's all I have. I have a question on the meeting on the 22nd. Is that going to also be recorded so people can watch it later? I believe that it will be. I will double check. But yes, I believe that it will be available for folks to watch via Zoom. We are not taking public comment via Zoom, so folks will need to come to the chambers for that. But I believe that it will be recorded and we'll verify that. Great. Thank you. Any questions to staff? Okay, so are there any comments on the department report? Not seeing anybody move. We will go ahead and move on to statement of abstentions. Are there any abstentions tonight? Okay. And we have no consent items and we have no report items. And our first scheduled item is a public hearing Verizon wireless telecommunication tower conditional use permit 244 Colgan Avenue, PRJ 23-009. And this is an exparte disclosure. So if we could start with Commissioner Carter. I have visited the site on this item and have nothing further to disclose. I have also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. Mr. Chair. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Mr. Siscoe. I also have visited the site and have no other disclosures. Commissioner Holton. I've also visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, Ms. Hartman. Thank you and happy birthday again, Chair Weeks. I am presenting the application for the Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 244 Colgan Avenue. A major design review and major conditional use permit are needed to allow a new 69 foot tall monopine pole and supporting ground equipment enclosed by a seven foot and two inch tall chain link fence and barbed wire. This is an aerial view of the project site. You'll see here that there is a motel establishment to the left or west of the site. There is a shopping center such as Costco and other retail businesses to the south. And there is an industrial, I believe, automotive business directly to the right of the parcel. And then across the way, there's some various retail but also some residential parcels north of the site. Excuse me, can you please not interrupt the staff while she's doing her presentation? Thank you. This is a closer aerial view of the site. And I just kind of wanted to give a little timeline of this application. It came in in July and then it was deemed complete by staff in October. And on November 17th, the applicant accepted a tolling agreement from city staff that would extend the review timeframe and shot clock of this project to January 15th of 2024. And a notice of application was distributed also on November 17th. And on December 1st, a notice of planning commission public hearing was distributed. On December 8th, a notice of design review of public hearing was distributed. On December 4th, or my bad, December 14th, in order to allow time to address concerns raised by the community, the applicant requested that the planning commission continue the public hearing to a date certain of January 11th. And because of this, this item was continued. And also on December 14th, the applicant then accepted a new tolling agreement that would extend the review timeframe and shot clock of this project to February 2nd of 2024 in order to allow both hearings be rescheduled to a date in January. This project is zoned as light industrial and the general plan land use designation is light industry. The light industrial zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for some light industrial uses as well as commercial service uses and activities that may not be compatible with residential retail or office uses. This zoning district is consistent with the light industry land use classification. And the surrounding zoning districts include some general commercial, some low and medium density residential plan development and light industrial. Commercial telecommunications facilities are permitted to be constructed on industrially zoned parcels subject to conditional use permit and design review approval and shall comply with the zoning code section 20-44-060. This is the applicant's proposed site plan. And as you can see here, the telecommunications tower is proposed to be on the southeastern corner of the parcel. The subject parcel is 1.45 acres and the existing use of the site is an automotive repair shop. The telecommunications facility is proposed to be located behind that existing building which shields the equipment from Street View. And pursuant to zoning code chapter 20-44, all major commercial telecommunication facilities, sorry, that's a mouthful, shall be located at least 75 feet from any habitable structure. And this tower was measured by both staff and the applicant and it was found that this proposed tower will be more than 100 feet away from any habitable structure to be more specific. It is approximately 230 feet away from the motel that is next door. And it's approximately 321 feet away from the apartment complex that's directly across the way. This is just a closer view of the facility. And the equipment is proposed to be enclosed by the chain link and barbed wire fence, which again is going to be a little over seven feet tall. These are the proposed elevations. And this is a photo simulation of how the tower will be viewed from the west along Colgan Avenue coming from Santa Rosa Avenue. The tower will have foliage, sorry, foliage, so that it may look more or resemble more of a tree, which will kind of blend in more with, as you can see that there are some existing trees on the parcels next door. This photo simulation is how the tower will be viewed from the east along Colgan Avenue coming from Petaluma Hill Road. And this is the applicant's coverage map. I will be deferring to the applicant today during their presentation to kind of go over more about their findings for the coverage map. So there were comments received by staff and just kind of the summarization to just fit onto one slide was main, a lot of the comments were regarding the noticing as well as the concern of the construction noise of the tower as well as the location and the risk of exposure to radiation. And a lot of these comments were responded to further by staff in the staff report. And the applicant again is also here to respond to some of these comments as well. I also wanted to provide some responses to some questions that were received from a commissioner. So I'm just gonna read or read out their questions. Do we ever place these towers in residential neighborhoods and the responses no pursuant to zoning code section two zero dash four four dot oh zero sorry zero six zero. All major commercial telecommunications facilities shall be located at least 75 feet away from capital structures in which I've already have explained that the structure is proposed to be more than 75 feet away from any habitable structure. What are the concerns about these towers in residential neighborhoods? And the response is city staff is not aware of why telecommunication towers cannot be placed on a residentially zoned property or why they cannot be closer than 75 feet from a habitable structure. The next question is displacing the tower across the street from residential mitigate the concerns and the responses the proposed location complies with the zoning code section regarding telecom towers which establishes the minimum distances from a habitable structure. And the next question is, is there a demonstrable gap in Verizon service that this tower will remedy? And there is the RF justification attachment that was provided with the agenda. And again, the applicant will be able to discuss this further. And regarding the noticing, the application was submitted in July and staff mailed a notice of application on November 17th section two zero dash five zero dot zero five zero of the zoning code states that all applications requiring a public hearing shall be noticed by mail to real property owners and occupants located in whole or in part within a radius of 600 feet from the boundaries of the subject assessor's parcels within 45 days of application submittal. So this was not the application, the notice application was not noticed within those 45 days, but it was indeed noticed. And staff is aware of this, but a defect or a failure in the notice procedure shall not affect the jurisdiction or authority of a review authority to take action on a matter unless otherwise provided by law applicable to and binding upon a charter city. With regard to the font size on the mail notice which was a concern, staff did send out another notice in the beginning of January, which had a larger font size and allowing only the necessary information to be included. So these are the findings that must be made in order to, oh, I'm sorry, I have one, I knew I had one more thing to add to that. City staff would like to add the following language to the project's resolution, which I'll state as here, whereas on December 14th, 2023, the city and the applicant entered into an amended tolling agreement that would extend the review timeframe and shot clock of this project from January 15th, 2024 to February 2nd, 2024 to allow this project to be rescheduled for the two required public hearings. And staff would also like to request to correct a typo that was within the staff report, which called out the fence height being six feet tall and just changing that to reflect the height of seven and two inches, seven feet and two inches tall. Back to the findings. The proposed use is allowed within the light industrial zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the zoning code and the city code and that the project complies with application requirements and development standards as set forth in city code chapters 20-24 and 20-44. The proposed telecommunications tower is consistent with the general plan land use designation of light industry and that this designation is intended for areas for manufacturing and distribution activities with potential for creating nuisances along with accessory offices and retailing and installation of the proposed facility implements a variety of overarching general plan goals by creating a functional place for those who live and work within the city. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed activity would be compatible with the existing and future land uses into vicinity in that the base of the cell tower and all related equipment will be screened from public view behind an existing building to minimize visual impacts as much as possible. And the proposed height of the tower is necessary to maintain adequate height function while allowing for future collocation on the site. The site is physically suitable for the type, density and intensity of use being proposed including access, utilities and the absence of physical constraints in that the existing site is both developed and surrounded by existing industrial and commercial development with adequate access to the proposed use and once in operation the facility does not require frequent visits by employees thus not intensifying the use of the site. Granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be interest or detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare or material injuries to persons, property or improvements and that the vicinity in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located and that the project included an EME report prepared by Waterford Consultants which was received on July 26, 2023 and concluded that the proposed placement of the telecommunications tower at the subject site will not result in exposure of the public to excessive levels of radio frequency energy as defined in the FCC rules and regulations. Pursuant to secret guidelines section 15303, the cellular tower and related equipment qualify for a class three categorical exemption which exempts the construction of new small structures and that the telecommunication towers are considered small structures that are similar to this project, no exceptions to the exemption supply and there is no reasonable possibility that the activity will have the significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances and pursuant to secret guidelines section 15183, the proposed use is eligible for a streamlining measure as it is consistent with the general plan 2035 for which an environmental impact report was certified by council in 2009. The planning and economic development department recommends the planning commission approve by resolution a conditional use permit for the telecommunications facility located at 244 Colgan Avenue. This is my contact information if you have any questions and again the applicant is also doing a brief presentation and is also here for any questions as well. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and hear from the applicant now and then after that we'll bring it back to the commission for questions of either staff or the applicant. So thank you. Is this thing testing? Yeah. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present this project on behalf of Verizon Wireless. My name is Aaron Delao. I'm with centerline communications. I also have with me today a couple of subject matter experts. I've got David Wittkowski who is an RF engineer from Oku Solutions. He can speak to any questions that you may have about exposure and the exposure limits. We also have attending virtually Pablo Sanchez who is a Verizon's RF engineer. He's can speak to the need of the network and the objectives for this site. I have a quick little presentation I'd like to go through a lot of the information you've already seen. So I'll go through that very quickly but there's a little context I'd like to add here. Suzanne if you could pull up my presentation and just go directly to page two. Yeah, there we go. What I'd like to notice here is that the capacity issue in Verizon's network was detected in 2020 and we've been working to find a solution ever since. To do that we need to find a location that will solve the need of the network. We need to find a landlord that's willing and that he owns a parcel that's zoned in a way that will allow the wireless facility. This took some time but we feel that we've done that here. Next slide. The planner already viewed the design but I just wanted to point out that we do have space for a future co-locator on the tower as required by the ordinance. Next slide. And we've already seen the zoning map so we can go to the next slide. This is the actual, go ahead and pack up a little bit. Yeah, there we go. This is the zoning map that Suzanne showed you as well. We have commercial uses to the south and to the west and industrial uses to the east and the public right away at Colgan Avenue. We positioned the site as far back from Colgan Avenue as possible to screen it from view. Go ahead and go to the next slides. And these are the photo sims you've already seen although this may be a little bit larger photos. Let's go to the next one. And there's the monopine similar height to the surrounding pine on the adjacent parcel. Next slide. And we've seen these views. Let's go to the next one. And that's how we hid from view as well as possible by positioning it behind the existing buildings. Let's go ahead and go to the next slide. So this is kind of a zoomed in view of the objective. The sites surrounding the proposed site called Yolanda Avenue and they're in the middle that are surrounded by the red dashes. Those are sites that they're congested. They are currently running well over the capacity that they're designed to handle. There's just too much traffic here. This can lead to network unreliability and which can lead to a user not being able to access the network. The proposed site will mitigate that issue resulting in a more reliable network within that area. Let me go to the next slide. And as the planner mentioned, we had a predictive study done by Waterford consultants. The prediction at full capacity was 11.8% of the FCC exposure limit at the ground level. There we go. So this is some of the alternative sites that we investigated. Starting off to the south of the proposed site, can see the red squares there. These were properties that were originally looked at. They all turned out to be too far south to meet the objective of Verizon's engineer and the needs of the network. So we drifted more north towards the need area. In the Costco shopping center there, there's some rooftops that are very low and also adjacent to residential uses. And we had a willing landlord in the industrial parcel. So we moved to that site as it was just what was needed for the network. These are, this is a list of some of the additional candidates that were looked at and then discarded and why. So to summarize, the proposed site is co-locatable as required by the city ordinance. The site parcel is zoned for light industrial which allows for wireless use. We've utilized the stealth design and situated the installation to minimize the visual impact in the best way possible. As the planner states in her report, the installation complies with all the applicable provisions of the zoning code and the city code. And it's consistent with the general plan. And finally, the installation or the project is in compliance with CEQA and qualifies for a class three exemption. We'll go to the next slide. So in conclusion, we just like to state that the proposed facility is needed to ensure reliable service and for the public safety of the community. Our project complies with all the city requirements. Therefore, we ask that the commission affirm planning staffs recommendation for approval. And I'd like to thank you for your time and consideration. Again, we're here to answer any questions you may have. I'd also like to reserve a little time to answer any questions that may arise after the public comment. Thank you very much. Thank you. So we'll bring it back to the commission. Are there questions of staff first? We'll take steady questions of staff. Any questions of the applicant? Commissioner Holton. I just had one brief question regarding the testing hours for the generator. I do understand that I'm under the assumption the generator is only for emergency backup. Is that correct? That's correct. Great. So under that assumption, knowing that you'll have to be doing frequent testing scenarios monthly, typically. And you will be having to occasionally be doing refuelings and things of that nature with the average decibel level of generators running at about 80 to 90 decibels. Is that going to impact any of the local residents in terms of hours of operation that those testing will be conducted? Or that's pretty much all I have. Yeah, the testing is to make sure that the equipment is running properly, circulate oil through that type of thing. The decibel level that it emits is probably not any louder than any of the surrounding of what's going on on that parcel plus the roadway and the other things. And of course we can schedule it for a time that is... Yeah, that was my main concern is the hours of operation. I've had people that, especially a lot of the testing companies want to conduct their tests early so they can move off to other candidates later and so they'll conduct their testing at six a.m. And while that might be adequate for an area or located in a real remote kind of area, an area where we might not have a high amount of traffic, even in that high traffic area at six a.m. or something like that. So I just wanted to ensure that towel testing will be conducted during normal business hours. Sure thing. Great, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay, so with that, we are going to open the public hearing on this item. Before we do that though, we're going to set a couple of ground rules. We're, because of the number of speaker cards I have, it's going to be two minutes per speaker. If you decide to say something and somebody before you has already said it, there's not a need to repeat it, just raise your hand. And I will call your names in the order that I have them here. So if you could make your way to both podiums and kind of line up, so that there's not a lot of time wasted for everybody as you're trying to make your way to the podium. So with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. And the first speaker is Carmen Gonzalez, followed by Tom Laporta. Thank you, commissioner. I am ejecting to this project, the first threshold hasn't been met about a gap in coverage. This proposed project would actually sit within a cluster of four cell towers directly next to several housing areas. The safe emissions also hasn't been established either because based on its own report in attachment six, it exceeds the general population limit on top of which this is the floor, not a ceiling. This tower allows for co-location. That means they could stack up extra antennas and there's no anticipation of testing or limits as to how many they could put on and there's no oversight of this board that would take place. So this is a floor, not a ceiling, and co-location would add for additional emissions. The mitigation, I think placement for something this size typically rests on a mountaintop away from inhabitants and this isn't the case. Verizon has also stated that it's actually doing this to expand its coverage for a new housing development. The new housing developments are taking place on Koana Springs. The only reason they're not there is because it would drop the property values by 20% and no developer in his right mind would accept a cell tower. But yet they're coming to an area that has a vulnerable population, low income seniors, working families. I believe that this board is concerned with equity and on that basis as well, it should be rejected. The noise from the generator is also well taken too. We can't sleep and there's no promises that they're gonna abide by that and make sure they don't do it at night. 69 foot tower exceeds the character of the neighborhood. We don't live in a forest of conifers. I would end with a quote from Christopher Hitchens, never be a spectator of unfairness. This is unfair and I hope you reject it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Please, please can we refrain from clapping? Thank you. So the next is Tom Laporta followed by Mary Edith Dahl. Hi. I'm a retired nurse and electronics technician and I just wanted to say that, you know, our neurons have a resting potential of 70 millivolts, which is not very much voltage. And I would like to ask Mr. Witkowski, the RF expert, how the cell tower emanations affect the voltage gated calcium channels in our body. That's all. Thank you. Mary Edith Dahl followed by Kim Schroeder. Hello. I am Mary Dahl. I've come today to share my personal testimony as to why the permit for the 68 foot telecommunications tower at 244 Colgan Avenue should not be granted. In 2017, I was notified that a single cell tower was going up on the PG&E pole just 42 feet from my home. I fought to stop it to no avail. The city council of 2017 was led to believe that there was no known health effects associated with the tower. Verizon Nexus suppressed the real truth as to the health effects of RFR. I am living proof of the effects of RFR has on humans. Five and a half years later, I'm still fighting, not just for me, but for the fine folks trying to stop this permit for the macro tower in their area. July 18, 2018, Verizon Nexus invaded my home when the cell tower was turned on. They took up residency in my home without my permission, nor paying rent. They were still and are extremely negative to all my correspondence with them. Who gave them the right to be judge and jury and sentencing me to a life of great suffering without a fair trial? No one has the right to take away another person's quality of life from them. I tried to cope 24 seven with most nasty flu-like symptoms, heart palpitations, extreme pain, nausea, dizziness, et cetera. Using my safe and sound pro two meter, I've recorded hundreds of readings of RFR levels invading my home and yards. I can no longer use 85% of my home due to levels ranging from 5,000 to 35,000 microwatts per meter square. Thank you. Kim Schroeder followed by Richard Boyd. Hello planning commissioners, my name is Kim Schroeder. For the document I emailed you this morning, in 1996, the FCC sent the human exposure safety limits for wireless radio frequency radiation, RFR, largely based on three small studies done in the 70s and 80s with only 12 rats and 11 monkeys combined. They exposed the animals to 40 to 60 minutes of RFR. That's it. No study of non-thermal chronic exposure to RFR, even through today. And the FCC has ignored a federal court order over two years now. The court found the FCC ignored numerous doctors, scientists, all about their 30 year old limit being out of date. They're ignoring the harms of the environment and more. If the FCC limits are credible, why did Sprint agree to shut down a cell tower in 2019 on an elementary school campus in Ripon, California after several new cases of childhood cancer in students? And Sprint claimed three tests showed the tower was operating at 100 times below the federal limit. So 100 times below the federal limit, yet Sprint was pressured by parents to shut it down due to the cancer cases. If the FCC limits are credible, why did the California firefighters successfully lobby to get their fire stations carved out of state laws in 2017 that would have forced cell towers onto fire stations? Why does my friend Mary here need to sleep in a large Faraday cage due to the extreme levels of RFR in her home? Where's the transparency by the FCC and telecom companies? Where's the proof of gap of coverage by Verizon? Why aren't they proving it and only stating this? Verizon service is strong in this neighborhood. They don't want it. Thank you. Richard Boyd followed by Alex Crone. I'm Richard Boyd, a retired physics professor. I have serious concerns about the ability of the engineering expert of Verizon hired to present its case for approval of the Colgan Avenue Macro Tower to give you an objective assessment of the safety margins on the FCC maximum permissible exposure MPE limits. Those limits for RF radiation established by the FCC are based on thermal effects only. If the radiation raises the temperature of flesh, less than 1 degree centigrade in 30 minutes, it's considered safe. The very definition invites disaster for someone who has to endure that level 24-7. There are 1,800 peer-reviewed scientific papers compiled in the most recent bio-initiative report that prove biological harm from RF radiation exposure at levels vastly lower than the FCC's MPE limits. I have special expertise for evaluating scientific research as a result of being an active researcher myself and also having managed the astrophysics portfolio at the National Science Foundation for four years. When I evaluate scientific papers, I first look to see who funded the research. If one of the federal agencies, NSF, DOE, or NIH, the work should be taken seriously since those grantees must only acknowledge the funder's support. However, if the results of industry-funded research disagree with the party line of that entity, they will never be published without modification to suit the funder's objectives. Thus such papers can't be believed, wastebasket. This criterion also applies to industry-funded oral presentations, wastebasket. Thank you. Thank you. Alex Crone followed by, and I'm sorry if I mispronounced the last name of the next person, Paul Andre Shabrock. OK, so Alex Crone first. Yes, thank you. Alex Crone, I'm born and raised in Santa Rosa. I work here full-time. I'm raising two young children, and I really, genuinely do care about this area. I want to make a couple points here tonight. First of all, Verizon again sends an engineer to talk about the health effects of RF radiation. Is that just not ludicrous? Why not send someone who's actually a medical professional or a biophysicist or having an engineer talk about the health effects? Mayor Schwedhelm, back in 2018 or 2019, I forget which one, during a study session for small cells, Verizon brought an engineer, and he kindly asked them, next time, can you bring a health medical professional? So, dear God, please ask Mr. Witkowski here on the letter he wrote to you saying that it was safe. He said, quote, RF exposure and the level at which medical science can accurately measure an effect on the human body. He needs to explain that sentence and let us know what that measurable effect was and what science was used to get there. We deserve to hear from him. And he went on to say, 100% of the SEC safety guidelines is still below that measurable effect. What is that exact measurable effect, sir? And then how do you extrapolate mathematically and scientifically a short-term 30-minute exposure to a long-term exposure that will be the case in this cell tower? And how do you delineate between a baby sleeping 230 feet away versus an adult? The FCC is the most captured agency. The members are ex-Verizon lawyers and all they wanna do is proliferate their technology. So, their safety standards, if you believe them, you're a sucker, it's not scientific. This RF radiation, it's a man-made, it's not like the sun, it's not natural radiation. It has a polarization to the wave, so it interacts with our ions. It interacts with our polar molecules. It's like driving your car, listening to the radio under a high-voltage power line. You get interference and it's making us dumb. It's making us anxious. It's causing us sleep problems. The colored maps, there's no data on those. They're not proving anything. Looks like my daughter painted that thing. Give me a break. And your general plan should have something to do with environmental impact of this in terms of spraying electricity in the air. It's not an efficient way to produce video in internet access, which is what they're trying to do. It's not about drop calls. Thank you. Can you hear me? My name is Paul Andre Shabrak. I'm an urban and environmental planner. I have extensive experience dealing with land use issues relating to wireless tech technology. I urge you to deny this project. They are solid and defensible findings of fact that we have prepared in a letter to you to support these findings. I'm just gonna hit the highlights, but I would hope that you would refer to the letters that we submitted to you. The first is that there is absolute failure to provide a reliable gap in service. The Verizon already has 40 small, both 40 cell towers and small cell antenna in San Santa Rosa. The Verizon tower on Coana Springs is located only a quarter mile away. What you have there, their gap in service is a little bit like asking your barber if you need a haircut. You can't rely on that. What you need is dropped calls and that was not provided. There's also the issue of safety. There is no fall zone and does not comply. The fall zone is an area where the tower would fall. And this does also, does not comply with the national electrical code and other applicable city codes in terms of the electrical component of this. And the last is opposed cell towers really not in compliance with the intent of the residential zone. Although the zoning on the site is, it's so close to residential area that it violates the intent of that particular zoning district. But in conclusion, denying the cell tower is just a first step. What the broader problem is that what you need is a robust telecommunications ordinance protected of the health and safety and the property values to the maximum extent allowed by federal law. And this is why we're here now. There's no co-covision. Thank you. Your time is up, sir, thank you. Sydney Cox, followed by Jennifer Laporta. Hi, my name is Sydney Cox. I was safe tech for Santa Rosa. I'll be brief. I just want to cover three things. Coverage gaps, the Santa Rosa General Plan and the Colgan Creek watershed. Coverage gaps. I question the assertion that Verizon needs to remedy a coverage gap as depicted in the modeling maps they submitted showing trellis overlays. On the ground testing around the site with a phone that has Verizon coverage shows three and four bars. Here is a map from the city showing all the small cell deployments as of May 2023. You can see Verizon has 40 small cells, almost twice as many as AT&T. And the macro towers within the city limits total 15 with another 10 outside the city, but near proximity. That totals 65 Verizon wireless facilities. Again, I ask, where is the proof of gap in service? Contrary to what you're being told, talk and text is all that's required for emergency calls. In fact, according to NCT 911, I quote, your old cell phone collecting dust in your kitchen drawer can still call 911 as long as it can be charged and turned on. Did you know the FCC, Federal Communication Commission, their laws require wireless service providers to connect all 911 calls to public safety answering points regardless of cell phone age or service plan? Verizon won't tell you that. We already know about the San Jose General Plan. Thank you. Thank you. Jennifer Laporta followed by Melody Stewart. You do not have to rubber stance this project. You have the power to control the cancerous spread of cell phone towers, pun intended. Within the last 10 years, the public's exposure to wireless radiation has increased by an estimated quintillion times. That's a one with 18 zeros. This is the biggest full scale biomedical experiment ever done on earth solely to benefit big telecom like Verizon. We are waiting for the FCC to change their mission guidelines after they lost a court challenge in 2021 over their guidelines based on outdated science and unrealistic parameters. The US has some of the highest allowable EMF emission standards in the world. Just like big tobacco, big telecom has some doubt over their toxic products that are later shown to be harmful to our health. Where is the precautionary principle? Keep in mind the FCC is not a health, safety or environmental agency, yet they are allowed to set emission standards and they're run by industry insiders. I am known to the city's, to the city creek department as a volunteer creek steward for Colgan Creek, this creek for the past eight years. I personally removed 52 bags of garbage from the creek bed last season. Passionate about wildlife in this creek. Who speaks for them? Believe me, the creek is polluted enough. This macro tower will emit both big and small particles of plastic into the creek, which ultimately flows into the ocean. Okay, and these animals will eat the plastic and it will block their GI tracks and trick them into thinking they don't need to eat leading to starvation. Thus it's imperative to reduce the use of plastic. We received the planning commission staff response that says this project quote, that project has been conditioned to require continued maintenance of the proposed monopine. This is vague enough to be meaningless. Thank you. How exactly will Verizon workers retrieve microplastics from the creek? It's ridiculous. Thank you. Melody Stewart, followed by Michelle DeLuca. Melody Stewart, I'm 80 years old and I live right across the street from where this cell tower is planned. I'm not in a good position to be moving at this point in my life. And I feel I haven't really had any choice in the matter. This was kind of all set up and then we kind of heard of it a bit late. I'm also speaking for another friend in the community, Annie Acker. And I guess I just have questions. Is anyone looking at the noise pollution effects of those of us who are living across from this tower? And all of the pollution and noise that's gonna come from well digging up the streets and creating all the different sidewalks and underground digging, those noise from this tower and I think it's gonna be pretty consistent. I don't know how long this is gonna take. So I would love it if the commissions could actually say in writing that this is safe and in some way demonstrate that. Vintage Park 147 Colgan Avenue has also fire engines and ambulances that need to be coming quickly when called through our gates. They don't need to have to maneuver through all kinds of new construction. We really need to have consideration not only for babies, but those of us on the other end of the spectrum. We need to have a safe environment. We need to be thought of as worthwhile and we need the community support consideration and the planning commission. Please don't bring this tower. Thank you. Thank you. Michelle DeLuca followed by Jeannie White. Five minutes, five, three minutes at the first meeting and two minutes today. That's the amount of time allowed to protest a potential and serious health risk for the elders like myself at Vintage Park Senior Housing who live way less than 500 feet from this proposed tower as do families with babies and children in their apartments and their homes. Neither did we receive sufficient notice to be able to research and compose our responses. How much time did Verizon have to make and defend its proposal? More than five minutes I would imagine. Their motivation, greed, profit. It behooves them to ignore the risk to the people. Our motivation, our safety, our health, and for some of us perhaps are very survival. Cell tower radiation has been studied for decades. Unsafe effects have been documented when towers were built near residences. Headaches, memory problems, concentration difficulties, fatigue, tremors, dizziness, tinnitus, skin disorders, blood pressure variability, depression, sleep problems, and cancer mortality. Industry-funded scientific groups casually dismiss these just as similar studies on tobacco exposure were long dismissed. In the best scenario, the true scientific facts have yet to be determined and settled. I don't wanna risk it. We don't want to risk it. We do not wanna be the guinea pigs of Verizon. Cities all over this country forbid cell tower construction within 500 feet of homes and schools. In California, Calabasas, Davis, Westlake Village, Sassoon City, Temecula, Petaluma folks, and all of Contra Costa County. Santa Rosa should join that list. Thank you. Sonoma safe, sonoma strong. Thank you. Jeannie White, followed by Vincent Hurst. Radiation with pregnant women and babies is a very, very scary thing. This is a science experiment. This is ridiculous. This is gonna be around families that are very limited financially. You put these things up where people have very few choices of where they can live. They are paying less rent. This is the exact same kind of behavior that went on in Richmond and cities all over the United States with polluted water, with polluted from oil companies, all these things that have damaged so many people over time. And now you're gonna turn us seniors and pregnant women and children into a science experiment. It's ridiculous. It's wrong and it's evil. It's just, I don't even know what to say about it. Radiation is not a joke. This is a very serious thing. We all know that. How many of the people that run Verizon would risk their children, their grandchildren, their pregnant wives near a tower? I just don't think that money, once again, shouldn't trump human beings. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Vincent Hurst, followed by Lorenda Atwood. Hi, Vincent Hurst, I'm a radio technician by trade. I senior radio tech for the county of Sonoma. I build, maintain all the radio equipment for the sheriff department and all the related other agencies, Fire, EMS, and so on. I'm in the radio industry all the time. I climb towers, I'm right up against antennas. There is no danger here. But I really wanna speak to is the need for radio is public safety. The data that you get from radio is how you get data to mobile devices to the fire trucks, the ambulances. It's how people call in and call for help. Anything to improve radio coverage is all about public safety, in my view. It's good for everyone. Besides everybody wanting to have a great signal on their phone, I mean, that's all well and good. But if you wanna have public safety come to your aid, you need coverage for your phone. They need coverage so that they get the call themselves. That's all I need to add. Thank you. Thank you. Lorenda Atwood followed by Martha Glazer. Hi, my name is Lorenda Atwood. I live directly across the street from 244 in the senior community. I heard when you were talking earlier, you said detrimental, injurious. And what we have is we have the late notice to our people to prepare and no notice whatsoever to the people that shop at Costco. And that is 1,500 people a day, minimum times seven days a week. That's 10,500 people at a conservative estimate each week. And we know that damage and exposure are cumulative. And that the women that are there with their children and their babies do not know, and Costco apparently did not know. And there's been absolutely no outreach to these people that are going through there and these children in their formative developmental stages and the reproductive organs of childbearing of women. It's criminal, it's legal and it's criminal. I say stop. And who are they buying that you guys just ignore it? Thank you. Thank you. Martha Glazer. Hi, I came with many different aspects to talk about, but I wanna say one thing. I'm really proud to be with the people that I've been working with on this matter for six years or seven years now. And I don't know because people are modest. You have just heard from, and some people have identified themselves. I'm in the junior college faculty pool and I teach now younger children. You've just heard from a city planner, architect. You have just heard from a physicist. You have just heard from a nurse. You have just heard from a physical therapist. You have just heard from an environmental studies scholar and you have heard from other researchers, educators, teachers, people who are passionate about helping the world and helping our county be as safe and healthy as possible. I've lived here for 30 years. My parents have lived in Santa Rosa and I spent a lot of time here raising my children. I'm aware that there's a cancer cluster in Santa, in Sebastopol in the Petaluma Avenue Housing. It's a housing unit that is in the crosshairs of a cell tower on the hospital next door, the tower on the public library and the tower by the movie theater all within blocks of the apartments, way less than 500 feet. Unfortunately, we're not able to learn more about this because there's been no epidemiological study. There's no a willingness of the industry or of our council to follow up and find out why are there so many people who have gotten cancer in this particular area? There's so many things I could address. One issue is that the, I understand that the FCC guidelines that are the Bible that's being gone through. Thank you. Thank you. For 30 minutes only for 30 minutes instead of talking about 24 seven. Thank you. Are there any other, those are all the cards I have. Are there, is there anybody else who would like to make a comment during this public comment? Okay, then please, if you do, please go to the podium and state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Hillary Sullivan and I live in Bedford Street and I didn't see any pictures from what Bedford Street's going to see our side. There's a creek that runs right behind where that facility is going to go. It's a lovely creek. They're trying to make it nature. It's going to be part of the walkway that walks all the way up to Taylor Mountain. And there's a park our children play just right behind there in Bedford Street which is very close. And also all the homeless people, they're living on that creek. I know because I talk to them every day and they're not living more less than three, are they're living less than 300 feet to this facility. They're right underneath it. Just you have to walk down there every day and you'll see them. So I'm not quite sure why it was allowed to be honest. But anyway, that was my input because I live there. This is what I see every day. Also generators, interesting. We get generator from the trucks that used to park behind Costco. Kept us awake all night. You're nodding your head so you probably heard of complaints. I'm sure people were complaining because you can't sleep. Didn't think of generators smart. You thought of the generators, I didn't. But it did keep people awake, including myself. And I live at the back of the house. Anyway, thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other, anybody else? Would like to make public comment on this? Okay, with that, I will go ahead and close the public comment on this item and bring it back to the commission for questions. Are there any questions? Yes. Either questions for the applicant or for staff. So. I was asking, can we have the applicant respond to what was brought up during the public testimony? Yes, why don't you go ahead and end that question. All right. The questions I heard was the gap in coverage proof if you could talk about that some more. Also that your tower will be set up for co-location and is that gonna add emissions? If somebody, another provider comes and co-locates on the tower. Let's see. And one question I had was when we are considering this as a monopine to look like the surrounding trees. Is that something that the city requested or did the applicant want to present it as a tree? Could it just be a bare cell phone tower in this location so we don't have the microplastic problem? I am not entirely sure because I was not the project planner at the early stages of this application. The applicant may be able to answer that. Yeah, we can let the applicant respond to that but generally speaking staff does make recommendations for aesthetic purposes for these towers. If it's in an industrial area, it may not need it but given the surroundings, it may have been something that staff recommended but the applicant should be able to respond. Thank you. Is this on? Okay, sorry about that. If you mentioned a bunch of questions could you start off with the first one because I can't remember all of them. The question pertaining to the gap in coverage proof, it's like I noticed on the slides that were prepared that showed the coverage then and the existing coverage and the future coverage, the maps look the same. So it didn't show any gap on that particular exhibit. This hearing is on Zoom is correct because I do have Verizon's RF engineer, Pablo Sanchez and he is attending virtually and he can answer to these questions. I don't believe we can allow that, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. The city is not allowing Zoom participants at this time. Oh boy, okay, then I will answer as best I can. If you wanna pull up the maps that were included in the application package, Suzanne, could you do that? Yes, we're working on getting out now. Okay. And then the other question was regarding whether, if you recall the history of the monopine versus just a regular cell tower. Yeah, well, while we're doing that, it's pretty seldom that we propose sites that aren't stealthed in some ways. Most ordinances require some kind of stealthing, some kind of camouflaging and being as there were some trees nearby, it wasn't a fully industrialized area. A tree pole seemed like a good way to stealth this tower. The tree poles look pretty good these days and some of them I think a lot of people don't know that they are cell towers. Is that the map you wanted? If you, yeah, okay, so the trellis area with the hatches around the proposed site there is the area that this site will help offload traffic. If you click through to the next one, I think, okay, and these are showing the different types of signals that will be emanating from the site. I'm looking for the one with the red circles, okay? I think maybe, Suzanne, if you go back to my presentation, it's the one that probably shows the best as far as layman's terms goes. You wanna speak to this? Okay. Good evening, commissioners. My name's Yvonne Pinto. I'm with Verizon and I'm with municipal engagement team. What we're talking about here is capacity. The sites that are in the area currently are fully exhausted. And what happens when that occurs is you can't get a call in like the gentleman who mentioned about emergency services. You may have four bars, but all of a sudden the call isn't coming in. And it's not. Please don't interrupt. And can you speak a little closer to the microphone? Yes, absolutely. Is this better? Yes. So right now the sites that are in the area are exhausted. This site is going to pick up the capacity that is needed to maintain emergency services in this area. Specifically, as I mentioned, when a site's exhausted, you might be in the area, you might see three bars, four bars on your phone and think, okay, I can receive phone calls or I can send out phone calls. And then someone might text you saying, hey, did you get my message? And it might come in half an hour later. That's because maybe there's a special event and maybe there's just so many people in the area. And that's what we've got here. There are so many people in this commercial area on a regular basis, the 10,000 plus at the Costco that in order to have emergency services be effective for the senior living center across the way and the people in the area visiting the commercial areas, we need to add this site so that there is no drop in emergency services or calls of that nature. I hope, you know, I realize I'm not an RF engineer, but that is from speaking with him, that is why we're putting this site in the area. Okay, and the last question that I heard from the public was regarding the co-location capability and how that, would that add to emissions if you co-located somebody else's antenna? That comes into this, let's say they put in an application with the planning commission. They will have to adhere to the same FCC emissions and the rad center or the area available on the monopine will comply with, that's why we are building it up as high as we are, the 69 feet, to allow a second co-locator to come in and be in compliance with the FCC emissions. Does that help answer that question? Yes, thank you. I have a question too that I wanted to follow up with on one of the public comments and that had to do with how long what would the construction take of the monopine? I actually do not have, normally it can take, well, first of all, we obviously have to have zoning approval first and building permit. Normally we're talking about three months for total construction. Chair Weeks, thank you. Sorry, I would just like to add that we are proposing a condition of approval that would limit the construction hours to be from seven a.m. to seven p.m. Monday through Friday and eight a.m. to six p.m. on Saturdays and no construction will be permitted on Sunday or on holidays. Great, thank you. I wanted to add, I know there was a question about generators. The generators are cycled only once a month and we can limit them to the time in which they cycle. It does not have to be in nighttime hours as you're experiencing with the Costco. Thank you. Are there other questions at this time? Excuse me, the public comment period's over. Any other comments, any other questions from the commission at this point? Chair Weeks. Yes. If there are no questions, I just wanted to address, I think virtually all of the commenters were speaking to the RF emissions and FCC regulations. And I know that it was presented in the packet, but I did just want to note that the federal government does preempt the city's authority to regulate RF emissions or deny an application based on concerns regarding RF emissions. And I thought I would just read to you all the actual language. No state or local government may regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the federal communications commission's regulations concerning such emissions. So. Can you please stop speaking, please? I'm addressing the comments regarding the RF emissions and I just wanted to alert you all to that. And I know it was also in the materials, but thank you. Thank you, Ms. Crocker. Okay, other questions, comments right now from the commission. Okay, so with that, if I could ask somebody to make a motion, Commissioner Holton. I'd like to make a motion for resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for the construction of a 69 foot tall telecommunications tower and associated ground equipment located at 244 Colgan Avenue, APN044-011-053 file number PRJ23-009 in a way for the reading. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Siscoe? I'll second, but I also think it would be helpful if Ms. Harsman clarified we were supposed to advance the shot clock date. Is that in the resolution itself and correct the height of the fence? Just so that we're clear that we are including what her earlier comments were. Sorry, one moment. It was the 24th. The resolution it was to add, one, two, three, four, five. After the fifth, whereas additional language, that you would you like to read that, thank you. Yes, sorry. Whereas on December 14th, 2023, the city and the applicant entered into an amended tolling agreement that would extend the review timeframe and shot clock of this project from January 15th, 2024 to February 2nd, 2024 to allow this project to be rescheduled for the two required public hearings. So I might call in and. And then in the staff report, it would be to correct a typo that states in the staff report, it states that the fence is six feet tall and just correcting it so that it's seven foot, two inches tall. And also in our resolution under the first whereas, it describes it as six foot tall fence. So do you want to correct it there too? Yes, please. Second. Thank you. So we'll go ahead and get comments. So let's go ahead and start with Vice Chair Deccan. Okay. This is obviously difficult. But the planning commission is charged with doing the planning laws as Chair Weeks read at the beginning of the meeting. And as far as our zoning code goes and as far as our general plan goes, this project meets all the requirements that we have put forth so far. So I can make all the required findings. And I personally have had an occasion where I was trying to summon help for somebody who had fallen and could not get a self signal and took quite a while to get help. And I know having that capability in town is a good thing. So I'm in favor of the project. Commissioner Siscoe. I just echo what Commissioner Duggan said. I can also make all of the findings. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. Okay. So first off and foremost, let's face it. I understand. We are all afraid of the esoteric. I understand that. I totally get that 100%. However, just to let you know, the American Cancer Society has conducted a myriad of studies as well as a myriad of other independent and individual associations, organizations, nonprofits even, have all conducted their own RF studies for emissions and they have all determined the same inconclusive result. There are currently, there is currently absolutely no proof whatsoever that RF commissions cause cancer. Now the only reason why I did, or other health concerns, now the only reason why I did so much background into this is because early on in my time at the Planning Commission, one of the first things we overheard was another concern to another cell tower that was being erected. And I was just like you folks. I was adamantly, I am like, wait a minute, big business isn't just gonna come in and do some stuff where you got kids battling cancer under telephone wires. This isn't gonna happen again, right? I'm with you guys, I get it. But guess what? I went and did the research. I actually watched and read the science. You can say whatever you want, you can nod your heads, you can do whatever you want, but let me tell you something. The studies are there. Go find me a study that shows that it proves some kind of health problem. Find me something. Please, no back and forth here. So go ahead and you can go ahead and email them to me personally. You email me these studies that you find from reputable sources that show that RF emissions cause health issues. Please, I implore you. Please, please do. Go against the American Cancer Society and theirs. The bigger concern here to health, to public health safety is the capacity issue. The issue of drop calls. That's the bigger issue here. That's the bigger health and safety concern. Another health and safety concern that I have, and I'm really glad you brought this up, you're right. The microplastics are scary in the creek and that's not maybe the most appropriate place to do this stealthing. I think maybe we should maybe even kind of revisit that or rethink about that whole ideology. But all in all, and the generator, I understand that too. And the applicant totally gets it. The applicant is gonna address it. The applicant is gonna make good on their word. I'm sure of that. And I can say that now. So that's really all I have to say. You know, I get it. I totally understand. I am also not about big, and let's face it. There's a lot that's not fair in the world and there's a lot that's not that seems to, in our own public view or in our own view of things, it seems to be discriminating and it seems to be picking on the little guy with no money and no opportunity to go move to another neighborhood or relocate. I get that. I do. But guess what? This is not the hill to die on. There's bigger hills to fight. There's bigger wars to go into with politics and politicians. So with all of that being said, you know, I'm gonna be in support of this project and I implore you, please send me your studies that you have from reputable sources that show that RF emissions cause health issues. Please stop. Show it to me. I do, but show me a reputable source. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. Commis- Commissioner- Please stop. We're gonna, should we take a break? Okay, we're gonna take a five minute break and then come back, back to order. And if you, we're gonna bring the meeting back to order now. And if you can please, if you are done, if you can please leave the chamber or refrain from speaking, bam. Chair Weeks, if we're back in session, we can go ahead and continue with the vote. Okay, thank you. So we'll go ahead, Commissioner Peterson, go ahead. Just taking a moment. Okay. Well, I think a lot of the public has left, but I do wanna thank the members of the public that came out. I don't think that this is an easy discussion to have. I don't think this is an easy topic. I think there is obviously a lot of conflicting information out there. But we are all here, the public, us up here, because we care about the city. We're taking time out of our day, volunteering our time. I promise you that I am not bought by anyone here. Certainly not big wireless. I'm here because I care about this city. And I wanna be mindful of what my role is up here and that's to deal with land use discussions. This is not a policy-setting body. We're not elected officials. We're not here deciding the different statutes and ordinances of the city. And so our hands are tied in a lot of ways when it comes to this. And so for a complicated issue like this where there's very passionate people who feel very strongly about it, it's not easy when we heard from the assistant city attorney that we're preempted. The federal law trumps what we can do here as a city and looking at our specific role as the Planning Commission, the resolution we're looking at, the findings we need to make, it's pretty narrow. From what I've seen here, it's the project seems to meet the requirements, the findings that we would need to make. Again, we're constrained. We can only vote yes or no. There's a limited set of options. And when I see a project like this, that I reviewed the materials or reviewed what the public sent us and I can make all the required findings. That doesn't mean I like the project. That doesn't mean I think it's the best project. But I have an obligation as a commissioner up here to do what's right, follow the law, and that this is where it's led me. So again, it's not that I like the project, but these are my options, yes or no. And I think if there's a larger discussion to be had about becoming like Petaluma or Calabasas and banning new cell towers in the city, that's a worthwhile discussion to have, but that's not the role of this commission. That's the role of the city council. So again, with that in mind, I will be able to make all the required findings. Thank you, Commissioner Carter. I don't feel like I can really add anything beyond what Commissioner Peterson so put so well. We do have a limited role here. I do understand that there's sentiment in the community to look at different policies and addressing these kinds of uses. And as Commissioner Peterson said, we don't make policy decisions on these kinds of items. We do that at other times through the general plan and the zoning ordinance and usually with the help of the council. So we're not here to make new policy. I can make all the required findings, but I would ask for a little clarification on the third finding that the design location and size and operating characteristics are acceptable when it's still as yet to go to the DRB. It needs design review. So I mean, I can make that finding on the condition that the DRB doesn't change the project significantly. So I can make the necessary findings. I urge the community to work with policy makers at the city, state and federal level to address their concerns about RF facilities. But given what we've got, I can make the required findings and I'll be supporting the project. Thank you. And I also am gonna be supporting the project and can make all the required findings. It's always a pleasure to go after commissioner Peterson because he's so succinct in how he phrases things. And I also, as commissioner Carter said, encourage the public maybe to look at bringing this up before the council at some point in time if that is truly their desire. So with that, we'll go ahead and ask for a vote that was moved by commissioner Holton, seconded by commissioner Cisco. Thank you, chair weeks. Do we have commissioner Carter? Aye. Commissioner Cisco? Aye. Commissioner Peterson? Aye. Commissioner Holton? Aye. Vice chair Dugan? Aye. Chair Weeks? Aye. So that passes with six eyes, commissioner Sanders being absent. And with that, unless staff needs a quick break to change seats. Okay. We'll take about a five minute break while we. I don't know that we need five minutes. Okay. Yeah. Just a moment. We won't take five minutes. Unless the commissioner wants to take five minutes. It'll just take us a moment. Okay. Okay. Okay. So we'll move on to item 9.2, public hearing, senior community care facilities, zoning code, text amendment, planning project citywide, PRJ 23-016. And it is an exparte item. So we'll go ahead and start with commissioner Holton. Visit at the site and I have nothing further to disclose. I have no disclosures. I have no disclosures. I have nothing to disclose. No disclosures. I visited the site and also spoke to the applicant, but nothing further to disclose. So with that, Ms. Tumions. Thank you, chair weeks and happy birthday. Thank you, members of the planning commission. My name is Christine Tumions and I'm a senior planner. And this is the senior community care facility, zoning code, text amendment. It's a citywide ordinance update. And the purpose of this zoning text amendment is to amend the city code section 20-42060 to exempt senior care facilities from spacing and over concentration requirements for community care facilities. And also to amend city code section 20-70.020 to modify the definition of community care facility to allow palliative care and end-of-life medical treatments for senior care specifically. A bit of project history. The applicant submitted an application for a zoning code text amendment and minor use permit for a senior memory care facility to be located at 6575 Oakmont Drive on August 3rd. Petting the outcome of tonight and council actions on the zoning code text amendment, the minor use permit will be considered by the zoning administrator sometime in February. City code section 20-42.060 requires that all community care facilities that serve seven or more clients be located no closer than 300 feet from another facility. Over concentration arises when two or more community care facilities are proposed within a thousand feet from each other and may trigger additional conditions to mitigate potential impacts. Over concentration and spacing requirement applies to all community care facilities including senior care. The California Health and Safety Code which is enforced by Department of Social Services aims to prevent over concentration of residential facilities that impair the integrity of residential neighborhoods and defines over concentration as quote residential facilities that are 300 feet or less apart. Based on local needs and conditions, however, the Department of Social Services may approve less than 300 feet with the approval of the City or County where they're located. And California Health and Safety Code section 1520.5F states that foster family homes and residential facilities for the elderly shall not be considered in determining the over concentration of residential facilities and license applications for those facilities shall not be denied on the basis of over concentration. And so amending this city code section to exempt senior care facilities would be consistent with the California Health and Safety Code. City code section 20-70.020 which is where you'll find the definition for a community care facility limits them to only non-medical care. Because senior care facilities are unique, often they include palliative or end-of-life care. The recommendation includes a request to modify the definition to include this type of care for this specific use senior care facilities. And these are the required findings for a text amendment that's included in the staff report and the resolution. And the proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with CEQA because of the proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the city's general plan. The project relies on the general plan environmental impact report and is consistent with CEQA section 15183. The proposed zoning text amendment is exempt from CEQA. The Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission by Resolution recommend that this council adopt a zoning text amendment to amend Title 20 of the city code section 20-42.060 community care and healthcare facilities to exempt senior care facilities from the community care facility spacing requirement and over concentration limitation. And also section 20-70.020 definitions of specialized terms and phrases to modify the definition of community care facility to allow palliative care and end-of-life medical treatments for senior care facilities. For those watching at home and those in the audience, this is my contact information in case you have any questions or comments, please email me or call my desk number. Thank you, that concludes staff presentation. Staff is available for comments or questions. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation for this item? I see them rising and going to the podium. Is, am I alive? I don't, it's okay. You should be able to raise the podium a little bit. I haven't done it from this side before. And please state your name for the record. Chair Weeks, I'm Peter Stanley. I'm a principal with Archeologics, we're planning and architectural firm. And we don't have a formal presentation, but I just wanted to let you know that we're here to answer any questions. The other point that I, Kristine's staff report sort of covered all the bases, but we thought we'd maybe elaborate a little bit since this is a city-wide text amendment, we thought we'd bring forth this project of ours that sort of shows the unintended consequences when there is a sort of a generalized prohibition in the city. And so this project that we're bringing forward to you today, which is a memory care facility in Oakmont. And the reason this came up as a text amendment need was because right next door to us is independent living. So Oakmont Gardens, that is an independent living facility, but does not provide memory care, it seems antithetical to what we do for a sort of a medical model is to prohibit the sort of possibility of even aging in place with having an independent living with right next door having memory care in a senior community. So the text amendment, although city-wide, it does sort of bring up this idea of how we have to make these clusters actually work together. This prohibition isn't better for the community, it's actually detrimental to a good healthcare model. So we wanted to bring this project forward so that you could see sort of firsthand the real life implications sometimes of zoning code, text amendment, text and why the amendment is in place. And I also just wanted you to hear from Dr. Calra himself so he can talk to you about his vision for what this memory care facility could be like and why this is not only important, but it's actually a good model for how we can look at medical care in the city. I'm not as tall, so we have to make some adjustments. Good evening, everybody. My name's Raj Calra, and I'd also like to introduce my wife here who's here to support our project, Nisha Calra. We'd like to thank the planning department for all the work they've done and really got us here today, especially Kristen A. and Susie who have been professional throughout this process and been very responsive. So we appreciate you for that. The staff report is certainly thorough and has all the information we'd like to convey in our application, so we don't really want to go through that again in the interest of time. However, we are very pleased with the recommendation they've provided as well as the support we've obtained from Oakmont as a community, as well as the community of Santa Rosa as a whole. I'm a board-certified physician in physical medicine and rehab, in pain medicine, in lifestyle medicine, and recently obesity medicine, and I've been the chief of pain medicine at Kaiser Permanente for the last 14 years. My wife is a board-certified general dentist and also a diplomat in lifestyle medicine, and she's ran her own dental practice for the last several years as well. We got involved in senior living because my mom developed a very malignant form of oral cancer in 2020. I'm proud to say that today, both my parents are seniors, my dad's 86 and my mom's 83, and they're the best of health that I've seen in the last several years. But back in 2020, our future was a little unclear, and so my wife and I decided to start looking at some care options. We looked at options like home care, independent living, assisted living, memory care, and we quickly realized that most of these options weren't something we'd consider for our parents. And as a couple in healthcare, we looked at each other and said we can do better. We can do better for our community, we can do better for our family, and we can do better for our friends. My wife and I believe that seniors can maintain and even improve their quality of life. Even in their old age, when they're provided a safe environment, optimal care, rehabilitation, and the love and support of their community. And this is why we wanna create high quality, MD owned and operated memory care home for the seniors of Oakmont and Santa Rosa. We wanna build a facility where the seniors and their families rest assured that we provide the highest level of compassion, care, and comfort while seniors continue to thrive and preserve their dignity. At this time, if you're a resident of Oakmont and you develop dementia and require higher levels of care, you're actually forced to leave the community and go to the closest memory care home, which is approximately three to four miles away. This level of separation and displacement of the senior actually causes a decline in their physical, mental, and emotional health, not only for the displaced senior, but also for the family left behind. We find this to be a huge disservice to the community and to the residents of Santa Rosa. And therefore, we would like to help them age in place, stay near their loved ones, and help them thrive during their most vulnerable years. We asked the Planning Commission today to support and approve our text amendment and use permit to move this project forward. Thank you all for this opportunity to present to you today. We are open to questions as they may arise. And again, thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions for staff or the applicant from the commission? Commissioner Siscoe? Yeah, I just want to clarify for the applicant's benefit that we aren't approving a use permit today. We're only looking at the text amendment. So I appreciate all the information, but when you're asking us to do that, that's not what we're doing today. Any other questions or comments? Okay, so with that, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you want to make a comment, please go to the podium. Seeing no one, I will go ahead and close the public comment period on this item and bring it back to the commission. And if somebody would like to make a motion, commissioner Duggan, our vice chair, Duggan? I just want to affirm that the resolution, there's only one resolution, but it incorporates the amended text. Yes, that's correct. Okay, all right. I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, recommending to the city council the adoption of a zoning code text amendment to title 20 of the Santa Rosa city code, section 20-42.060, community care and health care facilities to exempt senior care facilities from the community care facility over concentration limitation and spacing requirement, and section 20-70.020, glossary, to modify the definition of community care facility to allow palliative care and end-of-life medical treatment. File number PRJ 23-016 and waive for the reading. Thank you, is there a second? Thank you, commissioner Carter. So we'll go ahead and do comments. So let's go ahead and start with commissioner Holton. Everything looks pretty well put together. Great job by the staff and I'll be in support of making the change. Thank you, commissioner Siscoe. Yeah, I really see this as sort of a housekeeping measure to bring it into alignment with what the state code allows and it certainly is for the betterment of the community. And so I can make all of the required findings. Thank you, vice chair Duggan. I too can make all the required findings and until this came forward, I didn't realize that we couldn't have the situation with the memory care so close to independent living. Because I personally know some couples where one of the couple required memory care and the other has to drive to visit them because they can't live adjacent to each other. So I think having this kind of model is much healthier for everybody. So I can make all the required findings. Thank you, commissioner Peterson. Like my fellow commissioners, I think this is a good housekeeping item that brings us in line with state law. I think the general plan says it best, senior citizens are valuable, economic, social and political contributors to our society, often with the unique set of needs and perspectives. And I think this helps further that plan so I can make all the required findings. Thank you, commissioner Carter. Yeah, I don't have a lot to add. I think the item was presented clearly and succinctly and I can make the required findings and I'll be supporting the item. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings on this. I think it will be a good addition to what we already have. So with that, it was moved by Vice-Chair Duggan, seconded by commissioner Carter and if we could do a vote. Thank you, chair weeks, commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Cisco. Aye. Commissioner Peterson. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. And let me also add that I can make all the required findings. Vice-Chair Duggan. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with six eyes, commissioner Sanders absent today. And so with that, we'll go ahead and adjourn the planning commission meeting unless there are any other issues. Okay, so with that, the January 11th, 2024 meeting of the planning commission is adjourned. Thank you.