 Okay, I'm going to call to order a meeting of the city of Santa Rosa planning commission and ask for roll call Please let the record reflect that all commissioners are present except commissioner Duggan Okay, thank you next is item 3.1 the approval of our August 23rd 2018 minutes commissioners any corrections or comments? And those will stand as printed Next we move on to item for public comments If you're here wanting to speak on an issue of interest to the commission that's not noticed as a public hearing on the agenda This is an opportunity to make public comments Haven't been given any speaker cards, but you don't need to fill that a card to speak you could approach one of the podiums at the top of the chamber You would have three minutes to make your comments and I'm going to Open the public hearing and seeing nobody Approach the podium. I'm going to Close the public hearing Next is planning commissioners reports. I understand we have two of them Commissioner Cisco, would you give your report please? Yeah, I just wanted to let the commission know that this morning the waterways committee met We saw two items that had to do with fencing in the creek Setback one had to do with a gate at Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital The second one actually is an item that may come to us later It's a little subdivision on the corner of borrow a borrowment at an avenue We managed to take a field trip out to Rosalind Creek to get an idea of what will ultimately be the improvements to Rosalind Creek out there and some of the park improvements at some point. So As I visit Thank you, Commissioner Cisco and Commissioner Grana go your report please Yes, I have reports from two subdivision development Committees meetings the first was a four-agent item September 5th meeting item 1.1 979 70 Piner Road Ventures subdivision Proposed project proposed a minor subdivision to subdivide an existing one 1.65 acre parcel into two parcels The already developed site has two commercial structures each of which would be located on each resulting lot The action taken by unanimous vote including Aaron Hauster case planner Larry Lackey City engineer and myself the subdivision development committee approved the proposal including conditions of approval and Findings as listed on pages 6 and 7 of the staff report the second item from that meeting was 2031 Dennis Lane and It's Corolla a lot split and certificate of compliance this item was continued the public hearing was continued when it was understood that we needed to get further clarification on matters disclosed at the September 5th meeting so it was can initially continue to September 19th, and then the applicant asked for further continuance to be determined The third item of that meeting was 5190 New Wenga Rony Dell lot split This was a proposal included a parcel map waiver and subsequent certificate of compliance for a subdivision of a 1.5 acre parcel located at 51 90 New Wenga Avenue The subdivision will result in lot one containing 28,854 square feet And lot two containing 32,389 square feet They requested action Would legally recognize two parcels The action the subdivision development committee by unanimous vote And committee members for this one was Kristen a two me and planner Jesus McGee City engineer and myself unanimously approve the conditions of approval and the findings as One findings one through nine is indicated on pages seven and eight of the staff report and with the acceptance of modified conditions to seven ten twenty and twenty two With conditions twelve and fifteen Deleted as not necessary Then the final item for that meeting was the 2880 Franz Kafka Avenue residents at Taylor Mountain Subdivision committee consider an application for a parcel map waiver for the approved Residents at Taylor Mountain project the waiver the parcel mat and subsequent Certificate of compliance would create 93 airspace Airspace condominium units where the 93 multi-family units are approved and under construction No additional development or changes to the entitlement project were proposed Again the subdivision development committee consisting of Amy Nicholson senior planner Jesus McGee City engineer and myself In a meant unanimously approved the conditions of approval as listed on pages two through five of the staff report and findings as listed on pages six and seven of the staff report Then the final one came at the October 3rd Subdivision development committee and that is the 1950 finer road finer road commercial lot split The proposal Subdivision development committee received an application involving a parcel map waiver and subsequent certificate of compliance to subdivide an approximately 0.69 acre parcel into two commercial projects properties The subject site is improved land that includes two commercial structures current land or construction The subdivision development committee consisting of Susie Murray senior planner Larry Lackey city engineer and myself unanimously approved the project Including the conditions of approval Pages two through three of the staff report and the findings is listed on pages four and five Okay, thank you commissioner dr. Onika That's it for the planning commissioners reports, and now we will hear department reports All right, we have some exciting stuff to report today First I'd like to report on where we're at Starting our process for the downtown specific plan update We the city reviewed nine proposals and did select a consultant to help us with this effort The consultant selected was diet and bacha So they will be helping us through the process the environmental review as well as the public review public Engagement process to develop an update to our downtown plan We will be working with The city council on formulating our community engagement strategy, we're looking in December possibly December 18th for that that meeting We will be looking to do joint city council planning commission meetings to kick off that project that was a Main interest that staff had in terms of starting the project off in the right direction and getting concurrence on our scope and our What we would like out of that process, so we're looking at early 2019 Looking at some dates in January for what will work for a joint planning commission city council meeting We are also looking to get Early feedback from our design review board and cultural heritage board, so we'll be doing a joint meeting with them as well Let's see also kicking off in early 2019 will be the city's general plan update We're looking at different scales of scope for that project with every Different element of scope will be different times and costs and we'll want early feedback on how to approach the general plan update for the city And we'll be looking for again a joint Consideration by the planning commission and city council to embark on that journey In terms of things to look for for planning commissioners, we have some trainings coming up We have the Sonoma State University annual conference Which is a Saturday conference December 1st so if you're interested we can register through Secretary Mike Maloney, I think most of you have responded to that Still time if you're interested and you haven't signed up, please do and then I am looking At the March conference. It's a League of California City's conference. It's in Long Beach in 2019 It's March 6th and 9th if you want to look at your calendars. That's an opportunity. It's specific for planning commissioners This commission has gone over the years and it's been it's proven very helpful. They have different tracks for new commissioners and also a track for commissioners who are looking at emerging trends and issues That concludes my report Okay, thank you miss Hartman Next we will move on to statements of abstention by commissioners Commissioners is anybody abstaining from any of the items on the agenda tonight Okay, fantastic. We will move now to item number eight, which is a study session tonight's study session pertains to Retail adult use and medical cannabis uses in the city study session is not a public hearing. It's an opportunity to Educate the Commission and the public about matters relevant to the Commission and land use in the city With that we will begin the study session and the staff presentation is going to be by deputy director Hartman All right. Thank you. So I'm sitting here at this staff table by myself But actually we have other staff that are here available to help Where we have questions or comments or areas of discussion We have a lieutenant John Cregan from the police department here tonight we also have code enforcement officer Mark Maistrovich who's in the audience tonight. So I just want you to be aware that We do have when we have common questions. I tried to provide the staff so that you have The right staff to answer questions for so with that we'll get started Just as you've all been most of you have participated through The last couple of years of developing the city's cannabis ordinance We've embarked on implementation of that ordinance. It's been an in effect since January 19th But as you know, we've had some inner interim measures ahead of that, but new in 2018 We're a volatile manufacturing which we've had a study session on we've processed two of those applications through the planning Commission We have four others pending What I want to talk about tonight is the other new land uses that came with that comprehensive code and that includes retail Which we consider dispensaries and delivery and also micro business which can also include retail. So I'll talk about those two So as you know the way the city of Santa Rosa approached cannabis as a land use We looked at it that is within our community and that we had interest in finding a compliance path for it We actually have three existing cannabis dispensaries in our city There's One in Roseland that was annexed in when we annexed Roseland and we had two existing since 2005 We since since they were in operation though We didn't include any opportunity for additional dispensaries until this ordinance. So we'll talk about how we handled the initiating new applications with that process So we also look at this as a land use. It's no longer a criminal activity. It's a legal land use We need to figure out where to place it and under what circumstances will review it and Approve them and so the ordinance goes through those elements as well which Where is it appropriate to locate them? In commercial and industrial districts we'll go over that and then also Establishing standards that are specific to cannabis that address some obvious Concerns that residents and other commercial tenants might have as this land use enters our community So we've been diligent about updating the city's website on cannabis. This is srcity.org slash cannabis Honestly, this is all we know about cannabis land use. We try to put it on this website We try to keep it up to date. There's the FAQs. There's application support materials. There's flow charts tables If we try to speak to our residents through this website, you can sign up for updates to it You can connect with our cannabis policy subcommittee, which is comprised of three council members So if you want to stay informed and involved, this is how you do it. You connect with this website So let's talk about the two land uses that we are embarking on with this new ordinance One is we call it cannabis retail. It's also known as a dispensary But the definition for the city that specific It's a storefront type of facility and it may have delivery But it's emphasizes on a on a storefront that is like our other retail establishment There is a this is related to a type 10 state license There is one that's called a type 9 and that's the one that is delivery only without a required storefront City of Santa Rosa decided not to allow that type in the And so this is the only version of cannabis retail that we do allow in this form The only exception is we also allow for a micro business and this is It's primarily a cultivation base use a small cultivator. It has to be less than 10,000 square feet and Then in addition to that main cultivation base use it also can have under one license type with the state distribution land use manufacturing, but only the non-volatile kind And or cannabis retail. So when it has the retail Then we it goes through the same process as our as As this land use as well It goes through the most restrictive process So this is a table that illustrates How we've laid out all the land uses and in particular at the top you can see where the retail and dispensary and delivery land uses have Landed in our in our zoning code. We look at there the retailer is the only areas where the Where commercial districts are appropriate non Retail cannabis uses are all relegated to the industrial districts of the city so the difference with the major difference is that retail can go in either the industrial districts and Some selected commercial districts and I'll talk about which ones and and which which are not eligible Micro-business is listed down there sort of in the bottom middle under type 12 and Again, the process is dictated by whether or not it has retail. That's a major component So all cannabis businesses Regardless of type we have defined very specific minimum standards Obviously, they need a state and local license before they operate There's a number of building and fire permits and inspections that are required business tax certificate Dispensaries often sell out edibles and so required permit is a health snowman County health permit and Then proactively in our zoning code all cannabis businesses Must address security odor control To the point of having a certified plan lighting and noise and With setting specific standards under each of these categories Specific to retail so that those that list was for all cannabis businesses now specific to retail Again, we there's a distinction about where retail can go that non-retail count So all three industrial districts and then in the commercial Areas of the city We do allow for Cannabis retail to locate in office commercial neighborhood commercial general commercial and community shopping center there are three zoning districts where Cannabis retail was excluded That includes Commercial vehicle sales Downtown commercial and transit village mixed use another consideration in our ordinance is that there's a setback for a Cannabis retail facility whether it's micro business with retail or standard storefront dispensary type In either case the standard is 600 feet From parcel boundary to parcel boundary to a K to 12 school and that standard matches the state requirement We had a discussion this morning at the direction of the city council in response to some correspondence that we had received from the public concerned about setbacks to schools and cannabis businesses and Our session this morning we went through some education about Consistency with federal laws and state laws and local ordinance and how that all fits together and the issue that we were Discussing this morning is whether or not It was our 600-foot setback to schools was legitimate and consistent Given all those levels of legislation and federal law and we provided the references that that do support that and Probably one of the primary issues that we were Doing the research for was because one of the issues that was raised in the correspondence was that anything less than a thousand feet, which is analogous to Drug-free zone for a school that it would impact their their funding ability and it turns out that that's not the case and so we went over a list of References that that support that we don't feel that we that our setback at all has Impacts to their their ability to get federal funding Moving on another limiting factor for our cannabis retail in terms of where it can locate is Over-concentration, so I'll talk a little bit about how we've handled that It's 600 feet to another cannabis retail facility So the idea there was not to have them all in a row if I don't know if you've been to other jurisdictions That's one thing that was clearly not desired by our council When they're developing this policy a particular subcommittee is to have a whole block of or a whole neighborhood that had More than their fair share on the same commercial strip or industrial neighborhood, so There is a 600 foot gap that's required between facilities and then lastly It's just the use permit process so one of the sort of design principles of our ordinance is to treat Cannabis businesses and as a land use like any other industrial or commercial land use and not try to create Processes if we could help it that are any different than what we would do for another industry and so The use permit process that we follow for cannabis retail is the same as what you would for any other use permit There aren't different findings You don't have different meetings. You still go through if there's Residential residential uses or districts within 300 feet. You still have to have a neighborhood meeting You always will have a public hearing with the planning Commission And you'll always have an opportunity to appeal to the city council it is our highest level of land use consideration and The the council felt that this is an appropriate permit process for for this type of use One thing you notice that's not on this slide is there's no cap There's no limited number of permits for quadrant or per the city We wanted to move forward with this ordinance With these limiting factors and and to basically, you know start the process to see what this would be like to Have this use enter enter our community Moving on more specific requirements that are just for retail We have specific allowances for deliveries again. We only allow them if they have a public storefront Part of that was we wanted them to be part of the commercial neighborhood and not just the warehousing type of facility We wanted them to be an active Presence We do not allow drive-thrues. It's a thing we looked it up and some Jurisdictions did try that. There's a lot of challenges We do set the hours of operation by the zoning code. It's 9 a.m. To 9 p.m We do have minimum security protocols the minimum security protocols are specific to retail that are You know where the visibility of the entrance and the exits and Where where and how products are stored when the when the shop is closed and things like that and Then we also have a provision which not all jurisdictions have that allow retail and that's on-site consumption But to be frank, it's a challenge and we will have applicants who will attempt to work within the Balancing Act if you will between the city's smoking ordinance and the cannabis ordinance which allows for it and reconcile those sometimes conflicting ordinances to find their way to Be consistent with both and still provide on-site consumption and so we are working with applicants that are doing that But not only local Consistency with the smoking ordinance and the cannabis ordinance, but also at the state level because they have both and so it's quite Threading them the needle It's been very interesting and I think it's possible to to allow it But we'll we'll we'll work through it together when we have those kind of applications Okay, so I do want to spend a little bit of time on the Fact that as soon as we adopted this ordinance We came to the realization that we really needed to do something up front That maybe you is a one-time thing But we needed to address to the elephant in the room which was people had been waiting a couple years for this ordinance and So the pre applications were stacking up the interest was out there and we didn't have a cap But we had over concentration So we needed to address how are we going to take in multiple applications at the same time on the same day and the same week That might be tracking differently in terms of completeness or whatnot and so we asked the council to Pass an urgency amendment that allowed our department planning and economic development to Figure out a program publish it in advance and set an application process for retail. So we did that and We published this a couple months in advance of taking in applications. We set a two-week intake period We did allow for a lot of pre-application activities. They could come and meet with staff ask questions get Get familiar you do a Pre-application with staff or do their pre-application neighborhood meetings If they had design review, they could do concept design review And sort of get ready with the checklist that we provided for retail applicants then we took them in We went through a completeness review process. We basically batched them. They were all eligible to go through completeness Because they came in in the same two-week period and then we split them up and organize them if they were had any issue potential issue for over concentration or if they had no issues with that and they were would be what we'd consider non competitive or standalone and so Those that did not have potential for over concentration ended up continuing on in the youth permit process Which is referring out to city staff collecting issues that need to be resolved and ultimately getting to a point where perhaps There's conditions and getting ready for hearing the others were Organized into competitive process. So that's what we set up before the intake period and we were correct There was a lot of interest. We received 38 applications in two weeks And it was quite the chore to just even intake them and process them and figure out how we're going to do completeness review In a X, you know in a reasonably expeditious manner That's fair and equitable and keeps these on track. So one of the first things we did is we figured out How many did we have that were in competitive track and how many in non competitive? We had 16 that were in non competitive. They're the lower half there So those could be assigned to planners and process the 21 to the top there Well, one was disqualified untimely filing and then 21 were set to a competitive process And so back to that guide that we were able to produce a couple months in advance We established some merit criteria for which they would be sort of filtered through to find out which of those in that Competitive status would be able to move forward in the news permit process We also mapped them. We wanted to make sure we knew where they were and this is how we just identified which track they were in So this is how the competitive process has been going We have 21 in that track which represents seven Concentration areas the subcommittee reviews them They this is one concentration area. So you can see there's three in the general area They don't necessarily all overlap specifically, but they're in the general area. So we we look at them together in terms of a Area to resolve We've gone through We've gone through four concentration areas to date. We have three more to go through It's a quite time time intensive and But these are important decisions about whether they who gets to move forward into the public process. So this is generally how it works And again, these are not all applications that will be before you These are the ones that had to go through this competitive track So we look at them each one independently measured against the merit criteria Which is local and state compliance site management neighborhood compatibility and neighborhood enhancement And so each one is reviewed and this is it's it's literally what they were able to turn in based on that checklist Based on the quality and extent of responding to the criteria It's basically a snapshot in time of what they've turned in. It's not a continuous opportunity to supplement their application So it was the fairest way we could sort of set the stage everybody gets the same window of time you get the same Application materials and now it's how how did you respond to it? How detailed not that you will address it or that it shall be done or it is consistent But how are you demonstrating it? So that's how they were scored And then staff would recommend based on that scoring Which one should move forward obviously the highest score And it has different consequences. So like here's an example where with a scoring the highest it Caused applicant b to be within their 600 foot foot of influence. So they were voided It turns out then that c becomes non-competitive But these are consequences as this wasn't Element of consideration of what the consequences were we simply were individually rating them So staff would put that recommendation together But the subcommittee could evaluate staff's recommendation and anything new that Applicants wanted to provide them. They were open to new information So We're wrapping up here So all of them whether they went through the competitive process and were selected to move forward or right off the bat We're able to move forward. They're all coming before you. We're looking at about 25 hearings over the next five to six months What I want you to focus on as you move through these these hearings are all site specific, right? So these are Use permits that will run with the land They're based on what's presented to you in terms of project description in terms of the conditions that are proposed And they're in the resolutions we bring before you You can treat them each individually So they're not once principled on the next and they're all based on these six findings that you are quite comfortable with They're not different findings. So But they all need to be made to pass the To approve these these use permits now What we have found as we implementing our cannabis ordinance is People are discovering that there's commercial districts and industrial districts Next door around the corner behind their house And so a lot of this is education about That yes, the policy was putting these cannabis businesses and in commercial industrial districts, but They may be in your neighborhood So we'll be part of this education process together and we'll also consider The issues that come up that are site specific and project specific. So what I want one of the things I want to um highlight I guess as There's a couple of findings here like the first one compliance with sounding code. So that's meeting the minimum you've gone through it and you've Checked all those boxes and you're 600 feet from School and you're 600 feet from another and you met the security and the odor and all that that is one finding another is consistency with the general plan which as you know can sometimes be a balancing act between policies We'll work through that and then the others are More discretionary and so I think there'll be some Discussions that are heavy in these areas and So this one is a design location size and operating characteristics are compatible with existing and future land uses Another is physically suitable for the type density and intensity of the use being proposed Uh, another one is the granting the permit would not constitute a new sense Or be detrimental to public interest health safety and convenience welfare again. These are the same conditions you're used to But this is the basis of your of your action and then lastly of course Um, it's discretionary. So compliance with the environmental quality act So with that this is just a status update We we uh update the website as much as we can if we have confirmed hearing daves. We'll put them up Uh But you can see there's so quite a number headed your way And with that any questions commissioners any questions for staff at this time Okay I do have one, you know, it's interesting we we uh Took up the ordinance and included all the details obviously pertaining to cannabis land uses and it's interesting that with something that Lengthy and thorough and broad Sometimes you you can't foresee all of the issues and that's what you well, we did discuss the uh adjacency to neighborhoods and that was thoroughly considered at the time um I am looking it's interesting with the uh, just a stray observation that the on-site consumption Think it's still um is subject to parking requirements So i'm just thinking things through when the drive-through discussion was brought up. It had me thinking about that but Anyway, thank you very much for the Study session the presentation. I think it's valuable for us to be walked through and Reminded it of all of the considerations and work that went into developing the ordinance Okay, we're going to move to the next item on the agenda, which is our Consent items item nine And i'm going to ask deputy director hartman to read the consent agenda So I don't have the agenda in front of me The first resolution is resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa granting a one-year Extension of time for the middle rink and subdivision located at 117 middle rink and road Assessors parcel number 182560 031 file number prj 18 dash 021 extension 18 dash 018 extension 18 dash 019 Second item resolution two is resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa granting a one-year extension of time for the tentative map for the villas subdivision located at 1755 subaspal road and 1700 hampton way Assessors parcel numbers 125 071 014 125 031 022 010 311 028 file number extension 17 dash 071 okay commissioners any questions or comments on the consent items tonight Okay, I don't have any speaker cards on these issues. So I'm not going to Open a public hearing regarding any of the consent calendar Is any member of the commission willing to make a motion on the consent agenda To move items 9.1 and 9.2 on the consent calendar and waive for the reading of the text I'll go ahead and make that motion moving The two resolutions read by miss hartman waiting for the reading of the text Do I have a second? I'll second Okay, that motion was made by commissioner cisco and seconded by vice chair weeks commissioners your votes please that passes with six eyes commissioner dug and being absent and with that we will move to item 10.1 A public hearing on the flora terra conditional use permit 1825 empire industrial court suites a b and c For a cannabis micro business which includes cultivation distribution and a retail dispensary commissioners this is an expartate disclosure commissioner calia anything to disclose I visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose commissioner cisco I visited the site no new information Vice chair weeks I also visited the site and I have nothing to disclose commissioner granaga I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose And commissioner peterson I visited the site and have no new information to disclose And I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose And with that senior planner susie murray will be giving the staff presentation Good afternoon chair edmondson and members of the commission This is perfect timing after the study session The project before you is the flora terra cannabis micro business It requires a major conditional use permit because it does involve a dispensary and cultivation The micro business has the three uses kind of under one One umbrella the cultivation retail in this case with delivery service and distribution Worth while to point out that the distribution would be permitted by right in this area if if the other two users weren't coupled with it Here's an aerial view of the site It's adjacent to the smart rail tracks With a residential neighborhood above it it's it is within the The area that was affected by the the fires last year and you can see some Scraped lots above it and I believe they're starting construction out there The uh also to the west is a mobile home Or uh, yeah mobile home park and they um They too were affected by the fires and then to the south and to the east It's surrounded by uh similar uses Here's an aerial view of the site and you can see this is actually Quite typical of the site right now every time i've been out there There's been plenty of parking and I want to point that out while this this picture's up here Part of the reason for that is this entire building is vacant right now And the applicant i'll show you the floor plan in a little bit is is proposing to occupy about two thirds of that So just some of the the project history before they submitted their application They did have a neighborhood meeting and i'll talk about some of the comments that were raised at that meeting later in the presentation the Application was submitted and deemed to complete a couple of months later. This application was not in an area That have a high concentration of high concentration. So it was able to move forward through the process The the project was noticed as well All required noticing pursuant to the zoning code and some additional the notice of application was also sent That's more of a that's not a requirement, but we're doing it. We're treating it like a requirement right now so um The general plan land use for the the area is light industry And then to the north again, it's low density residential to the west. It's it's mobile home and To the east and the south. It's it's in the same light industry land use designation The zoning is consistent with with the general plan land use in all of those areas. It's a pd The site itself is in a pd district, which is a light industrial plan development and the again to the north it's a residential plan development and Not so Claire just touched on a lot of these in her presentation. So i'll just Retouch on them, but i'll make it short and sweet The operational standards the in terms of employment and their hiring practices. They will be doing background checks The applicant did submit an an odor mitigation plan which was Prepared by a mechanical engineer that was included in the the commissioner's packet lighting and noise the There are operational standards in both our zoning code and our our city code the noise ordinance the project has been required to comply with the noise ordinance And in this case they have a more restrictive Um noise level on the north and west property lines because they are adjacent to residential Um, this they have provided some details of their security plan That indicates that it will meet and it will have to meet the requirements of of zoning code section 2046 The delivery service they're proposing their hours of operation are 9 a.m to 9 p.m Um, and they are proposing delivery service during those hours They're parking they have they're required to have 14 parking spaces on site There are 47 available for that building and right now the building again is vacant But they'll be occupying like I said the for the front two-thirds of that building. So They're only required to have a third of the parking Good math So, uh proximity to schools. Um as you just heard the distance the required distance for the dispensary portion of this is 600 There are two schools north valley school and schaefer charter school that are located Both in both cases more than 1200 feet away and that's shown here you can see the project site is shown with a gold star and the two schools are shown in blue stars and I was hoping those would show up a little bit better on this screen, but they're they're Well over the limit This is um Kind of a radius a 600 foot radius of the site shown by the blue star and in both Of those images and then the the orange circle shows you the 600 foot radius so On the street in terms of concentration The only property that could have or the only yeah, the only two properties that could have another dispensary Would be those adjacent to coffee lane everything else on the street Is within that 600 foot radius of this building there are Five well, yeah five other cannabis uses either proposed or already approved on this street There are two cultivation facilities two manufacturing facilities And one distribution one of the manufacturing facilities is not approved yet It is it will be before you in a few weeks, but it is um in the process So I keep referring to that two thirds of the the building so that as you can see here separated from the residential use to the north um by the the back third of the building and separated from residential uses to the west It's the railroad tracks and a sound wall On the west side of the railroad tracks The the business is proposed to occupy The two suites or three suites, I guess adjacent to empire industrial their floor plan As shown here with the the purple outline. Sorry. I threw those lines on really quick Those the purple line Indicates the area of floor space that's designated for cultivation The red line is the area that's designated for distribution That side of the building also has a roll-up door sallyport And their their plan is for all pickups and deliveries that the van will or a van size vehicle We'll pull into the the sallyport the door will be closed and The the vehicle will be loaded or unloaded Oops, I forgot the dispensary the dispensary is Is in that that front elevation. I've got some photographs later in the presentation to show you and occupies a thousand square feet and That's and again, I keep driving home. They're going to be providing delivery services as well So just as a refresher the Aerial view of the buildings up in the left hand corner and the to the front Of the building is shown here from kind of two different perspectives looking from the west and looking From the whoops, I guess that's not it's looking to the north On the lower one, I guess yeah view looking north and view looking west Um The club the neighborhood meeting that was held back in april there were just there were a few comments raised The first two were kind of together people loitering and on-site consumption at this point. There's no proposal for on-site consumption With that it's kind of unlikely that people will be loitering Although if they were there will be trained security staff on site and those people will be asked to leave Security was another issue the outside of the the building will be lit. They have they'll maintained 24 hours surveillance footage For 90 days, I believe our ordinance calls for 60, but the state calls for 90 so they'll retain that surveillance video footage for that long And then I've already discussed noise and the over concentration issues I'll say again that there are there are other cannabis uses on that that street on the court But this is the only dispensary which is the only Concentration that we monitor or enforce Here are those those first of the three first findings Which were were made both in the staff report and in your resolution um The project I I'll go through these real quick is is it complies with all provisions of the zoning code and will be continued to Or will be required to continue to comply as they go through the building permit process It's consistent with the general plan. It's uh, it's within a zoning district that implements the light industry A general plan land use designation and it supports economic vitality and provides jobs and and whatnot The design and location Size and operating characteristics are also Are compatible with existing and future land uses like other manufacturing uses. They are required to the noise ordinance They have to comply with the noise ordinance They have they they have to contain all of the odors inside the building not outside the building and what have you It's physically suitable for the type density intensity of the use. They've got plenty of parking They've got a security system in place That will be implemented before the use is executed Granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance and Deferred to my staff report for that and as far as the Um In compliance with sequa it it was uh categorically exempt for several reasons and And also um consistent with the general plan and rezoning or in zoning So before I make my recommendation, I want to point out that there were two changes made to the resolution Which were posted a couple of days ago? um Condition number 12. I believe it was talked about working with the neighbors to design offence The main goal of that condition is actually to install offence on the north property line to separate the two uses So that was added to the beginning of that condition that the applicant shall install offence and they will work with the neighbors In terms of the design The second change that was made it was under uh 15 condition 15 a b and c b was for a um It was specifying the hours of operation for the retail It's redundant with the condition that Requires compliance with section or zoning code chapter 2046 For operational standards and to avoid confusion in the future should those operational Standards change they will be required to continue to comply comply with those operational standards So in other words if this if the allowable hours for the retail use were to get longer Or get reduced this business would be required to comply with what's in the zoning code So with that it's recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning Commission approve flora terra an adult use micro business comprised of cannabis cultivation Distribution and retail uses including delivery to be located at 1825 empire industrial courts suites a b and c And that concludes my presentation I'm available for questions and I know the applicant would also like to make a presentation Great. Thank you very much, uh susie commissioners any questions for staff before I ask the applicant to Make its presentation Commissioner sysco. Yeah, I just have a clarification miss murray on on the changes Do they already are they already embedded in the resolution that we have? I'm sorry. Are we the the changes that you were just describing are they already embedded in the resolution? We have on i-legislate or are we when we do the resolution? Are we supposed to reference that those changes are being made? They are already in there. They were posted a couple of days ago I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that great Commissioners any other questions at this time? okay, the applicant uh, it's here and wishing to make a presentation and actually, uh, this does give me an occasion to, uh Mention something that I should have mentioned earlier. It was very de minimis. So I didn't remember that it occurred but I was contacted by text message by, um, miss carlstrom the applicants representative She was holding herself out as willing to facilitate a site visit or answer any questions that I have about the project I acknowledged her offer, but I didn't uh have any further communications with her So I should have included that as an exparte disclosure and I obtained no new information in that communication Miss carlstrom, uh, if you want to begin your presentation, uh, please go ahead Thank you, mr. Chair and commission. My name is erin carlstrom senior counsel with dickens and peatman and bugarty It's my pleasure to make a presentation this afternoon on behalf of our clients flora terra Just before I begin a brief reminder that Both claire and miss murray Reminded you earlier today that while the process for reviewing cannabis retail is new This is the first project with retail elements before this body Cannabis retail as a land use in the city Is actually the aspect of the industry with which the city has the most experience as claire alluded to earlier There have been three retail sites operating within the city for more than a decade within the city So with that i'll move quickly to our presentation Please meet the team david alicia win guard are here with me today They are the principles of sonoma chow, uh, which is the corporate name for what will be flora terra david has extensive experience with businesses. He's the owner and operator of dw electric alicia a certified or excuse me registered nurse here in sonoma county and they are there two adorable children Your staff has done an admirable job reviewing the project for you, but just as a quick reminder Our building plans will be subject to review by your staff following issuance of the use permit We've meet we meet all the requirements for a type 12 micro business There will be secure limited access areas. This is per state regulation that require That the public be precluded from accessing certain aspects of this project the cultivation and distribution sites For example and within the retail component There will be additional secure access areas beyond which the public and beyond which Lower levels of staff will not be able to access There are additional Components placed on projects that contain a retail component like this one For example the the county of sonoma will require that we obtain a permit from the department of health services for the sale of edible products So just bringing that to your attention that we know it and we're going to do it Let's move on here we go Again your staff have done an admirable job highlighting the degree to which the project complies with santa rosa's general plan policies Including long-term long-term economic development And we can go into greater detail if you like it is contained within the staff report and within our project description But this project does represent an awesome opportunity to Continue contributing to the development of a strong job space here in santa rosa in addition to its consistency with both your land use and general plan policies security It is our expectation that this may pose the most interest to the commission Our security team is present with us this afternoon gentlemen. Would you wave? security So if any of those questions do come up. They are here. I will not go point by point through here Um, it was referenced that uh limited information on security plan has been produced You could imagine that that is for security reasons Um, we don't want a security plan being published to the public We don't want the bad guys to know where a vault may be We don't want everybody to know where all our biometrics are But here is a brief overview of what will be required both through your conditional use permit process and as a result of state regulations It's important to look at this project not just as a retail Use but also a cultivation use as you saw less than 10 000 square feet for cultivation but It's important to highlight to you the very novel sustainability measures that this project will implement Including the lighting that the applicants have chosen to implement As you can see there it results in significantly reduced usage as compared to traditional indoor cultivation techniques So to with water use and wastewater production This the so-called cho method results requires significantly less water than other traditional cultivation activities and Produces virtually no wastewater again Significant reduction of impacts to the city's infrastructure and to our environment Speaking of our environment The wing guards are of course cognizant of the neighborhood within which they will be operating and It is their deep desire to be productive Open members of the rebuilding coffee park neighborhood As a result of that you see some of the commitments that they have made With respect to financial support They have demonstrated to me at least their commitment to being a responsible neighbor as that community Seeks to rebuild and recover There are additional commitments as you see To supporting substance abuse and educational programming in our community As well as remaining an opportunity excuse me a a community resource To its surrounding neighbors And as a result of both your staff recommendation and the project's consistency with santa rosa's general plan of land use policies We would ask that you follow your staff's recommendation and grant an conditional use permit for floratera Thank you Okay, thank you very much Are there any questions at this time for staff before we open the public hearing from the commission vice chair weeks I was impressed in the project narrative where you talked about providing support to the rebuild of coffee park and substance abuse programs and I wondered how We can guarantee that commitment I'm not sure if that's a question for me or for staff I wasn't sure either I I as far as there is a way I I would say that the That's their intention They've put it in their their staff report. It has not been made a condition of approval That's their intention. We yeah, does that answer your question? Thank you any other questions from the commission at this time Okay This is a public hearing I don't have any comment cards on this item. You don't need to have filled out a comment card to speak If you wish to speak Please approach one of the podiums at the top of the room and state your name for the record and you'll have Up to three minutes to give your comments and with that I'm going to Open the public hearing and if you'll please state your name for the record. Yeah, my name is My name is Jeff O'Crupkey I'm the founder of an organization called coffee strong, which is a representative body of the residents who suffered losses during the tubs fire and The greater coffee park neighborhood The one thing I didn't want to say was I don't know how most cannabis Companies operate or how they interact with their surroundings. I just know how These individuals do they approached us as an organization asked to speak at one of our board meetings And in front of the entirety of the board as well as about 15 to 20 other volunteers. They basically just did a open Open floor kind of Conversation, what do you want to know? How can we be good neighbors? And from the beginning they've talked about giving back to the neighborhood about supporting it They've reached out to us on a regular basis How do we find individuals that live near where we're going to be so that we can contact them and let them know What's going on with different parts? They've been very proactive and very supportive and In my opinion, um, they would make a great name for coffee park Okay, thank you very much Yes, sir, please statement in for the record. I'm Todd towner and I live in that area up there my house survived the fire I had I listened to the presentation about the zoning and everything and it was all good I just want to really strongly encourage that on that little street There's already what five grow operations and this is just another one or is there four and this is another one That's quite a few on a small street And I would really there's some discretion there on how many of these places you open up on the street And I would encourage you to Maybe not open this one there Okay, thank you very much And ma'am if you'll state your name please My name is heather towner. I work Adjacent to this property. We share a property line I've worked for this company for over 10 years And we are all gravely concerned about the dispensary aspect of this project Sometimes we work late It gets dark um, I know there's going to be lighting but I think we all need to be a little realistic about the clientele that could be the type of people that will be Purchasing from this dispensary And uh, you know, I don't mean to demean anybody but that is just realistic. There's a cash aspect that is quite frightening because of the federal laws they aren't allowed to Deposited into the banks like normal businesses are so there's going to be a cash issue, which just invites crime And this frightens me as somebody that works there All the time and it changes the neighborhood from what it is and I'm a responsible person and I certainly saw the notice About this meeting which was posted on a large sign on the property But I never saw any notice about the neighborhood meeting That took place in april so maybe I missed it But maybe it wasn't advertised properly because I was not um of any knowledge of that meeting and I would have been there to State my dissatisfaction with this project with a dispensary being involved there is The same company is proposing another project Adjacent to this property sharing the property line without a dispensary But it's you know, you just begin to wonder are they going to be walking the product from one building to another? I mean, it's just it's too much for a street. That's only I don't know Quarter mile long or less and there's already five buildings on the on the street Involved in this This needs we need to slow down and take a look further look at this before we Pass this Thank you for your your time Thank you very much Is any other Person here wishing to make any statements under public comment or the public hearing, excuse me Okay, I'm not seeing anybody else approach the podiums. So I'm going to Close the public hearing I'm gonna bring it back to the commission and I think I'll start off just with a few questions for staff and the applicant as the case may be To follow up on some of those concerns that we just heard about and also on any other Questions that the commission is interested in Is staff or the applicant Could you just touch upon again the number of cannabis? Facilities that are permitted known to the city that are along that same Street that leads to the cul-de-sac If I could bring up my slide again, I would there are There are two I'm going to go off memory. I have two Approved cultivation Two or one one approved cultivation and one I'm you know what I need to find my notes If I may I'm not sure we'll have an accurate count. So I'm kind of concerned about um Trying to Identify exactly how many cannabis operations are either approved or pending on the street Because some will be permitted by right So we would have to do an inventory of our permit records to see how many are pending and approved on on empire industrial court Some uses like manufacturing distribution are permitted by right If they're not Abutting residential and so those that are some of these buildings are multiple suites. So the suites that are on the interior Closest to the street Would be permitted by right those that are abutting in a residential. So the Tenants that are to the north are sharing that property line. Those would be subject to a minor use permit or major use permit So I don't think we have the accurate inventory of that We don't have an over-concentration clause for Um non-retail. So that's not something that's in the staff report Okay, uh, thank you. That was uh, I think Related to the question I was about to ask and either for staff or the applicant Um, it's my understanding that the state the bureau of cannabis control regulations Have an over-concentration Uh section And I'm not uh Going to try to paraphrase it, but um It may be uh different or in excess, uh of the city's own regulation and something that the uh Licency would have to comply with in order to meet their license requirements with the state I don't know if you are prepared to Describe that and what protections it offers to neighbourhoods Certainly. Thank you chair Edmondson the regulations as promulgated by the legislature Do grant the bureau of cannabis control the authority the opportunity to determine that a part of the state is quote over-concentrated with either micro business or retail outlets As alluded to previously anyone participating in the commercial cannabis industry is required to have both local land use authority And a state license and so after we get our local land use authority assuming you Follow your staff's recommendation this afternoon The wing guards will then be subject to state licensure requirements And they will be subject to their review and oversight as well Such that at some point if the regulators came and said that part of santa rosa That's part of the state is over concentrated They would refuse to grant the state license or could refuse to state Grant the state license And that would be with regard to subsequent applicants assuming that This friend this is not necessarily in the scope of our review Although compliance with state laws is a requirement, but If it were the case that several applicants were to apply and be in the same census tract or whatever the state law provides Those subsequent state applicants would be restricted perhaps That's correct in similar fashion to the alcohol beverage industry Okay Thank you So there were concerns expressed about safety with regard to People coming and going the movement of cannabis goods on and off the premises And the presence of cash and the impact of federal money laundering and Other laws on the ability to move cash into the banking system And I have to admit that the cash aspect of cannabis operations is the most Significant one to me for most of the projects that I consider and it's also Probably one of the most closely guarded aspects of a security plan to the extent you can Share things with the public I would ask you to comment on security broadly and The cash aspect in particular Sure. Once again, thank you chair Edmondson My presentation is no longer up on the slides, but It's important we can we can give you or perhaps it is there it is Well done Susie Let's see. There we go So State regulations your local ordinance require a variety of security protocols Including exterior lighting that is motion sensor triggered of course downcast to avoid causing a nuisance to neighboring businesses or residences State law requires 24 7 security monitoring State law requires as I talked about previously limited access areas that Can only be accessed by high level members of the staff associated with the operation You see again Some of the a variety of the protocols that This particular project will implement including 35 high definition cameras Recordings from which are to be maintained in accordance with state law In for 90 days Employees enter only through through excuse me enter through an employee only door requiring key fob keypad or fob entry Customers are limited when we when we say the word customers is important to remember that these are only for the retail component There is a retail only entrance customers Have to be verified have to have age verification by staff before they will be allowed to enter deliveries As their staff reference will be conducted behind and with the use of the sallyport In order to add to security associated with the movement of product One of the elements that it's important to highlight is that this is a micro business Which means that the cultivation can occur on site which From a practical perspective means that Product that's cultivated can be sold at the deliver at this particular retail site but due to the Vagaries of state licensure they are required to have a distribution license so the movement of that product even within the confines of this building Must be governed and controlled through the track and trace program implemented by the state through the Sonoma chose distribution license Any product that is finding its way to the site? From third party vendors also will be delivered to the site from licensed state distributors who are governed by a plethora of state security regulations That I imagine we should not to take all evening to go into but we could With respect to cash You are correct that it is perhaps one of the largest issues facing the industry However, there are certain financial institutions that allow credit card transactions The applicant has relationships with those companies They are one of the lucky companies that has been able to secure and maintain a bank account So it's not as though cash will be stored in bags and dug out into the backyard It obviously with respect to How and where and when cash will be stored on site or moved off site you can appreciate We don't want to make that the subject of public record Except to say that this business this site represents a colossal investment on behalf of Sonoma Cho who have waited Close to a year for this evening's hearing And they are just as invested as the city is in making sure that their operations their employees their staff Are and their neighbors are safe including from issues presented by a casualty industry Okay, thank you. I have one question that uh, commissioner dug in Shared with me in principle. Um, and I just wanted a little bit more Comment on it. Although it it might not be relevant to the findings we have to make but Is there any possibility of The presence of the uses that are proposed Having any kind of effect on the ability of different businesses to Occupy the remaining Parts of the building if that question makes sense I don't want to answer on behalf of your staff But I'm not familiar with any regulations in Santa Rosa that would preclude citing a non cannabis business within the premise, but I might defer to your planners and City I don't think of any circumstance where a use that's permitted in the zoning district would be prohibited Or impacted by by that Okay and for staff we had a Comment about the neighborhood meeting and the adequacy of notice or the the nature of the notice that went out in connection with that so if you could discuss again the Lead up to that and how the city Conducts that process The noticing is the the zoning code requires public meetings be noticed to 300 feet from the property line To property owners within 300 feet of the property line Our standard practice is to go 400 feet So and I just verified I have the neighborhood meeting file here and I do have the mailing list But again, it would have gone to property owners. So if If yeah, if it's the landlord that may not have been shared Okay Um commissioners any other questions before I ask a member of the commission to move the resolution for purposes of discussion commissioner peterson uh, just one follow-up for the applicant looking at the uh project narrative on page six to go back to that Contribution of an amount up to five percent of its profits for the weekend Towards santa rosa's efforts to rebuild and maintain recreational facilities in the coffee park neighborhood can you give me Sort of a ballpark Guess as to what that figure is three figures four figures five figures and is it a Commitment to contribute in perpetuity Thank you for the opportunity commissioner peterson You you may have seen me looking to my applicant team for the answer to that question With respect to retail revenues in santa rosa as your staff artfully articulated for you earlier It's very volatile There are between 10 and 21 new retail sites coming online in santa rosa. So revenue projections are difficult Um, I the intent of the five percent figure was to demonstrate appreciable support As opposed to a one or a vague number or an unstated number I believe that it is the applicant's intent to be an ongoing contributing Neighbor to the coffee park rebuild But I don't I don't know that they can give you at this moment It's certainly not a three figure figure a three-digit figure Any other commissioner wishing to ask a question or comment at this time? Okay, uh, is anybody Uh Willing to move the resolution for purposes of discussion. We have one resolution on this item tonight I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa Approving a conditional use permit for flora terra to operate a cannabis micro business Including cultivation distribution and retail within an existing building located at 18 25 empire industrial court suites a b and c Assessors parcel number 015 dash 731 dash 0 0 8 file number c up 1 8 dash 0 5 1 and wait for the reading of the text Do I have a second I'll second Okay, then resolution was moved by uh commissioner cisco and seconded by vice chair weeks Commissioner cisco, would you like to begin? Sure. Um, I think we're again seeing a Very well presented project That certainly meets all of the findings Sounds like you're going to be a very very good neighbor and welcome to the coffee park area So I have no issues here. I think again, we've got a very solid project description presentation And I can meet all the findings on this commissioner calio I also agree with uh commissioner cisco. I Can make all the necessary findings and I appreciate you prioritizing the community benefit and being a good neighbor because I think that's incredibly important. Thank you Vice chair weeks Would you like to comment? I also will be supporting the project. Um as uh commissioner cisco said it's a great application and I really appreciate the fact that you reached out to the neighbors and I know they're going to hold your feet to those commitments. So that's great. Thank you commissioner dranagan Yes, I found this to be one of the better proposals Come before us And I really have no real questions in relationship to the proposal The only comment I would make is that I I certainly appreciate The applicant reaching out to the coffee park rebuild fund Irrespective what that number is. Uh, I think it's commendable and uh Speaks well of your organization commissioner peterson Um, well, I'd like to echo the comments from my fellow commissioners. I think it was a uh, a well put together Uh project I I also really appreciate when there's genuine public engagement with the surrounding community and We'll express my wish for that to continue As we go into this new world of cannabis micro businesses and Especially in areas where there's going to be or are A lot of other cannabis businesses even if they're not retail I think it's extremely important to engage with the the community around it and That engagement should be I would hope ongoing with that I would be able to make all necessary findings And uh, I agree with all the comments of my fellow commissioners. I don't see any kind of uh basis for believing that the findings aren't satisfied I think that a site like this that's appropriately fenced off and appropriately subject to a security plan Is a very appropriate site for this kind of use The points of ingress and egress are not going through neighborhoods in As extensive a fashion as a lot of other sites could And with regard to security I do think that These uses With the extensive security have a potential to make neighborhoods A little bit safer in some instances as compared to a dim unoccupied lot where God knows Could happen. So I do think that the presence of people who are regulated and Sort of in the the light in the in the light part of the economy so to speak Makes it likelier that Security threats are going to be neutralized or or people will be discouraged from making socially unproductive uses of You know nooks and crannies in the city Okay, with that the resolution was moved by commissioner sysco and seconded by vice chair weeks commissioners your votes, please And the resolution passes with six eyes commissioner dug and being absent Let's take type five type five minute break and reconvene okay, i'm going to ask everybody to gather themselves and we're going to resume The planning commission meeting we're going to move to item 10.2 a public hearing on Mar sr llc. It's a conditional use permit at 30 75 coffee lane For a volatile manufacturing cannabis commercial cannabis facility and distribution as well commissioners, this is an exparte disclosure commissioner calia anything to disclose I visited the site and nothing further to disclose And commissioner sysco It's not going okay. I visited the site also and nothing further to disclose Vice chair weeks I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose commissioner dronega I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose And commissioner peterson I visited the site and have no new information to disclose And I visited the site as well and have no new information to disclose And the staff presentation will be given by uh planner amy nicolson Thank you chair edmondson members of the commission the item before you is a conditional use permit for mar sr llc The use permit is to approve a commercial cannabis manufacturing use which is level two or volatile manufacturing And cannabis distribution within a 3036 square foot tenant space within an existing 6072 square foot industrial building The proposed hours of operation Are 8 a.m. To 10 p.m. Seven days a week and there is no access to the general public proposed and approximately eight employees would work each shift The project site is located in northwest santa rosa just east of the smart rail line And As you can see from this graphic the site and surrounding area are entirely developed The project site is approximately 0.53 acres and includes one building with two tenant spaces Fronting coffee lane in addition to a large shed shed structure Which is separated from the industrial building by a paved parking area One access is provided to the site from coffee lane The land uses to the northwest and south of the site are a mix of commercial and industrial uses And there are residential uses located Approximately 110 feet east of the site separated by coffee lane The application for a conditional use permit for both volatile manufacturing and distribution was submitted to the planning and economic development department in may of this year Following that submittal a notice of application was mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the site And in september of this year a neighborhood meeting for the proposed project was held There were no neighbors that attended that meeting The project site is designated Light industry under the city's general plan and staff has found that the proposal implements a variety of the general plans Goals and policies related to land use and economic vitality The site is zoned light industrial which implements the land use designation and The proposed volatile manufacturing use in addition to distribution use Are allowed within the light industrial zoning district upon approval of a conditional use permit And that's just a point of clarification the volatile manufacturing requires the major use permit and the Distribution requires a minor use permit based on the residential uses that are budding However, it makes sense to combine them as the planning commission can act on both This is the site plan and as you can see there is kind of the yellow shaded portion That is the tenants base proposed for these uses There is a security fence proposed which does not currently exist And this fence would connect to the existing Fence which is located on the property line and connect to the building This fence would be closed during loading and unloading of cannabis products and The parking area Currently does not show the number of spaces on this site plan But there they are proposing to have a total of 15 parking spaces The use based on the mix of manufacturing and distribution areas Requires a total of six parking spaces which are available And in addition there are About four parking spaces available Abutting the project site on coffee lane Here are some photographs of the site currently so the top photograph is the building as viewed from coffee lane The tenant space is the one on the right side And the bottom left photograph shows The corner of that building and the driveway which provides access to both tenant spaces And then the photograph on the bottom right shows the roll-up door Which is shown here And then a proposed door for egress purposes This is the proposed floor plan so to orient you this is coffee lane up here and the roll-up door Uh, so as a point of clarification the roll-up door would allow a vehicle to pull in but not pull in entirely So it is not a secure sally port The areas shaded in this green color are For parking calculation purposes were calculated at the distribution level as they support Just distribution or both and the blue area shows the area where the Manufacturing would be happening including these four labs here And the yellow areas are support or employee use In order to approve this conditional use permit the planning commission must make each of the findings one Is that the use is allowed within the applicable zoning district? The two uses are allowed upon approval of a major use permit for the volatile Manufacturing and a minor use permit for the distribution use within the light industrial zoning district Subject to each of the requirements in the city's cannabis ordinance In addition the proposed use is consistent with the general plan land use designation and a number of general plan goals and policies The design location size and operating characteristics of the proposed activity Have been found compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity In that the site is surrounded by a number of industrial and commercial type uses Does have a thorough security plan provided in a secure site during loading and unloading operations And when the business is not within operation The site has been found suitable For the type density and intensity of the use being proposed and that it is an existing Building that has been used for industrial purposes Access is currently available off of coffee lane and all necessary utilities are in existence Further staff has found that granting the permit would not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public interest safety or welfare in that The proposal is consistent with each of the requirements listed in the zoning code For both general cannabis operations and manufacturing There is a certified odor mitigation plan in addition to a security plan And the requirements that they comply with necessary building and fire permits prior to occupancy The project has been found In compliance with the california environmental quality act and qualifies for a class one exemption In that the use Yeah, it would would permit A use within an existing facility minor alterations to the building are proposed and it has been found to be a negligible expansion of use in that Volatile manufacturing does occur within industrial areas And this area has been historically used for industrial purposes So as previously mentioned the project application Was noticed to neighbors within 400 feet of the site. There was one letter received and that has been included in your packet The comments were related to separating volatile uses from highly populated areas and the need for standards to be put in place Following the notice of public hearing A similar comment letter was received and that has also been included for your review And there are no unresolved staff issues remaining with this project So the planning and economic development department recommends that the planning commission approve By resolution a conditional use permit for commercial cannabis manufacturing level two Volatile and cannabis distribution in an existing tenant space at 30 75 coffee lane And I'm available for any questions and the applicant team is also available to answer any questions as well Thank you very much commissioners any questions at this time for staff? Yes, commissioner siscoe Yeah, miss nicolson. Do you know of any of the Other projects that we've approved for either for cultivation or for manufacturing that do not have a secure sallyport I did look into other volatile manufacturing use permits that were approved and both of those did include a secure sallyport I wasn't able to look through each of the cultivation Permits, but I did find one that was approved without a sallyport and that was located over off of coffee lane as well just I believe I don't have the address, but it's it was a little bit north of this site And that was approved in november of last year Thanks commissioners any questions I have one Which would have been uh better to have uh put to the put to staff earlier in all likelihood, but uh the project Let's see attachment three the project description page five Which I'll comment is a quite thorough narrative, but there's a section called separation of license types And it contains a discussion about a particular section of the code 20-46.050 sub d And I I wonder staff Had no unresolved issues, but this was a piece of material that came in rather late And I'm just wondering if there's been any consideration given to the argument that's here about How we might interpret that code section specifically Ordnance seems to call for clear separation between license types unless otherwise authorized by local and state law And the comment here is That state law Has no prohibition on The particular way of allocating space that this project proposes But The word and is a little bit tripping me up on that analysis We think perhaps State law might Speak to the issue and local law not I'm not going to speculate as to the interpretation, but I just wanted to Put it out there that I'm a little curious about that particular issue Chair Edmondson, you referenced the word and and I'm wondering if you can direct staff to where you see that exact language Yes, it's page five in the separation of license types section of attachment three And it is quoting the code and it is The fifth line from the bottom Toward the right can you repeat your question? Yeah, my question is whether the code whether it's the opinion of staff that the code Whether it does or doesn't require authorization of A project with multiple license types that are not separated by clear space um In circumstances Is it required that it be authorized by local and state law? Or is there another interpretation? Or does yeah, or is a local law silent on it? So I think it's an immediate opinion about that at all I can speak to the intent of the language for the local ordinance. Um, and maybe ashley can help me with the Reconciliation reconciliation with the state law, but The intent of this was it was there was a lack of clarity of what If we would allow for multiple land uses on the in one in one building or on one site And we provided the statement that the city of santa rosa Allows for multiple land uses on a site and multiple land uses in a building Um, we use the term clear separation as opposed to physical separation because really it's subject to the building code in terms of Occupancies and separations and things but in terms of land uses the intent of this was to speak to it's okay to have multiple Land uses and corresponding license types But so long as it's not out of compliance with state requirements. So um state the state law may have more specific implications and one of the things that we Um don't want though locally is overlapping of square footage. So we're not going to have overlapping land uses. So The distribution is outlined in the floor plan. We Document in the floor plan We identify how many square feet of that land uses parkings calculated based on that land use type. So And we might even process them differently one might be permitted by right one might need a minor use permit they come in together like They uh, they often do we couple them up at the more restrictive permit path and take them through it together So that's that's the local that's the intent of the local language Yeah, that's uh, very helpful. Ashley city attorney crocker if you have anything to add And I think I think claire got it. What my understanding of your question and the and The placement of the word and so are you asking whether there is any other? Local law that authorizes or whether or not that was just really relying upon state I don't know of any other local. I think claire explained kind of the intent of why that was put in there The my my question about the word and I suppose is mooted a little bit if clear separation is met by the particular way this project operates. I wasn't sure if that did or didn't mean The type of separation that we do see in this project So it's that's opinion that it does and I understand that explanation. Okay. Okay Is the applicant here and wishing to make a presentation before we Open the public hearing and if uh, you are please state your name and And make your comments Are we on my name is brian elliott. I'm with cana code compliance. So we prepared the application Um, we have with us today or robert blay is the applicant We have the building owner and we have the architect jim henderson is here as well We want to thank staff for Doing just a tremendous job on the staff report and working with our consultation team as we got to this point Um, I think you know that we have represented a few clients with What is called volatile manufacturing and I I always like to clarify that I think that's a A misreference to this type of manufacturing As you saw in your presentation We could have an auto body shop here repair shop many other Types of activities in an industrial area that would allow for flammable gas or flammable liquid Uses I think the fire code is the strength here Is a retired fire chief. I would never support a project. It didn't Um Completely abide by the strength of the building and the fire code Um, and this project shall With that, we're really here to answer any questions that the commission has. Thank you Commissioners any questions right now for the applicant Best for weeks Can you tell me if you're going to have security personnel on site The initial plan does not call for that that really depends on the level of activity that the business that generates We were not opposed to it, but the initial plan is we have a very secure building with cameras an individual coded Access we're not open to the public. We don't have any retail visitors We're not going to have a sign announcing who we are or what we do So initially the answer is we do not anticipate security personnel Thank you Commissioner cisco Yeah, could you tell me what thought was given to creating an actual sallyport versus The configuration you're now using Well, I think one of the There's certainly a space limitation in this building and I think that was one of the criteria It's not actually a requirement in the state Regulations for sallyport I think the rear Configuration of this structure now that we have a gated entrance and exit Really provides adequate security again The security that it has to be monitored by What is required by the state for the security cameras and the security monitoring is pretty significant more than most industrial areas and That's the primary reason Was just maximizing the floor area for the distribution area But you do have room to make a sallyport I'm sorry. You do have room to make The sallyport if that were a condition, we certainly do have room We could make some modifications to create a sallyport with that comes another added detail that Is in the mechanical code So an additional mechanical system would have to be designed for something that's considered an s occupancy But we we certainly have the space. It was a matter of whether it was actually A necessity given the orientation of the building to the street and then the secure fencing Any other questions at this time? Okay This is a public hearing I have no cards on this item, but you don't need to have filled out a card to speak If you wish to speak if you would approach one of the podiums at the top of the room and State your name for the record. You'll have up to three minutes And see the gentleman up there, sir If you would state your name and give us your comments please. Sure. My name is Dale Dawkins. I'm the property owner I just wanted to say that I've worked with these folks for I don't know nine months ten months And they've been extremely professional Good group to work with I think they're going to be upgrading the building adding fire sprinklers making other modifications to the building that I think will Increase the quality of the building and and make it a much more productive building for the long haul This building is pretty tired and it could definitely use a new facelift. So I appreciate their Skill and professionalism working with them. Thanks Thank you Is anybody else here wishing to make any statements on public comment? Okay, I am not seeing anybody else Go to the podium. I'm going to close the public hearing Does any commissioner have any questions for staff before I ask A commissioner to move a resolution Okay, would any commissioner move a resolution for purposes of discussion? I can take it off your hands I move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of san aroza making findings and determinations in approving a conditional use permit For mar sr llc Located at 3075 coffee lane assessors parcel number 015-370-035 File number c up 18-089 and wait for the reading seconded Okay The resolution was moved by commissioner peterson seconded by seconded by commissioner roniga. I suppose I should probably move a resolution at some point while i'm on the commission. So you boldly went Vice chair weeks, would you like to start? I am going to support the project I do have some concerns about not having a salary port as I think commissioner sisco does but Regardless of that, I'm going to support the project Commissioner roniga yes All seems in order it's a very astute proposal and staff report Um the proposal meets all the requirements the light industrial zoning requirements My continuing concerns about such activities remain unabated in regards to proximity to residential zones Those concerns are mitigated somewhat given coffee lane buffers Uh a differing residential light industrial buffers Yeah, the residential light industrial zoning requirements Having said that I do support the project Um, I would like the city council cannabis subcommittee to continue to consider Uh the lengthening of distances between such activities such as cannabis growth production and dispensary facilities and residential zones I heard in the previous Commentary that there is The possibility of some consideration when you have Maybe not lengthening but When you have light industrial budding the The residential such as fences and so on and so forth and Additionally, lengthening of lengthening the distances on public and private schools as well I know I'm Probably still at the losing end of this but I'll continue Commissioner Peterson for me the The volatile cannabis manufacturing is is getting In some ways a little bit. I'm getting more comfortable as it becomes a little bit more routine Um, especially when we're looking at, you know, the state and local requirements that it'd be a closed loop system um when we look at You know the public comments on Fire danger and other hazards related to it um with that in mind I Agree with commissioner granaga in a in a sense but When it comes to the other industrial uses that are available to This site including things potentially like furniture refinishing and manufacturing um A dry cleaning plant things like that. I think this is uh, frankly a higher and better use and that if we're looking at at buffer zones for industrial use between such uses and Residential neighborhoods. I think those buffers should account for the other types of Volatile materials that are are being used in these industrial areas and then The you know final thought for me is that you know if there needs to be a secured sallyport I'm sure that its need will be made apparent whether or not we included as part of this process so um I could make all necessary findings to support this project Commissioner call you I share a lot of the uh same concerns that commissioner peterson kind of brought up, but I also can Make the necessary findings to approve the conditional use permit commissioner sysco Yeah, I'm unable to make the findings on this project without the inclusion of the sallyport um I think as we've been approving well both the cultivation and then certainly the volatile ones You know we've had applications come in with these sallyports that are extremely secure and we kept telling them you you set the bar You're the gold standard And you know we want other applicants to be following that gold standard I think the sallyport becomes It's a promise to the neighborhood that it's the absolute most secure Exit and entry distribution of items as can be possible a gate is not secure enough for me And and so in that instance I'm not willing to support the project without a condition to include a fully enclosed sallyport Which they can do so to me we're we're starting to downgrade our Commitments to the neighborhoods on security of these things and I'm I'm certainly in favor of these kinds of uses. I live adjacent to an industrial area And as was said earlier on an earlier item when these uh, these projects have been coming in It actually adds to the security of the neighborhood And I know I've got a couple coming into my neighborhood and I'm that's part of what I'm looking forward to is that it's increased security And I think this one falls short without the sallyport. I really do so I'm not willing to approve it without that condition. So I don't know if other commissioners might be willing to take that up But that's my main issue with this project is that it's not secure enough In my opinion for me to make finding e that it isn't going to create a nuisance or a problem for the adjacent neighborhood and there are residences around here, so I'm concerned about the security not necessarily the word volatile in this instance In light of those comments, I'd like to open it up for the opportunity to discuss that after I give my initial comments Um Don't share the those misgivings um in this instance The city is is free to go beyond what the state considers an adequate security plan for a cannabis land use that's not determinative of Our authority to figure out whether the findings can be made um, but it I'm I'm Influenced in my belief about these things by the fact that there are existing Cannabis facilities that don't have that particular attribute So And also, you know, we're directed to Take safety into consideration. It's the highest duty that the city owes to the residents of the city And it's explicitly a finding that we have to make under the code Um, but but again, I look at things in context and I'm trying to Consider what I think the probabilities are of the creation of an unsafe condition In comparison to the other kinds of things that we allow to happen in the city and it's just considered a matter of routine um speed limits Um utilities that crisscross the city that are Aging and prone to You know catastrophic situations through no fault of the city but Back to the the project before us I think it is Very thorough. I was Impressed by the staff report. I was impressed by the materials I thought it was a very Interesting point that I hadn't thought of before about the the tenant improvements that are made to Buildings that might be aging and the the added safety that comes from An operation that has very demanding Standards for its physical layout So I can make the finding It doesn't mean that I am unwilling to Join in a condition regarding a saliport if that's the desire of the commission after Um the opportunity to discuss it further, but I am Prepared to vote in favor of the project without any such condition So with that, uh, does any commissioner have any further comments? commissioner dr. Onigo I would be interested in exploring that condition. Um, I'm not certain of how it would be worded and would it be a amendment then to To our action If the commission desires, I believe it would either be commissioner Peterson who made the original motion could make a motion to amend or Somebody could offer a friendly amendment To the resolution to add a condition of approval requiring the applicant to Create a Include thank you a saliport in the project Description plan layout in the area that was already indicated for the roll-up door It would be a larger space for the saliport I will make that much shorter if you want to if anyone wants to make a friendly amendment I would say to add a to add a saliport So I could make a friendly amendment and then Commissioner Peterson and chronica and take it up and decide whether to include it Correct if you make the friendly amendment They would both have to approve and at that point that would become the motion on the floor Okay, I'd like to Ask the applicant What is your Stance on the possibility of this condition If you just comment on that how You know, what are your feelings about whether you'd be accepting of such a condition the manner in which the condition should be Framed And how onerous the condition would be for your proposed operation Thank you very much I think that We need to be clear on the fact that this is a very small distribution area That already has a really well hidden Access door on the backside of the building Behind a secure fence now That does not mean we're opposed. I've already spoken with the architect. This could this could happen But it significantly impacts the planning budget and it has never been Perceived as a requirement in this particular application and very much like Retail operators don't have saliports and move product in and out all the time. This would be a very limited Activity in a very small space the predominant spaces manufacturing Happy to continue having the discussion, but I I don't think we can ignore that the The cosmetic Instructional and fire and fire alarm system improvements that are going to go into this building will be my clients Burden and this simply will add to that that is not currently budgeted city attorney Crocker if you could please do me the favor of walking me through Were there a friendly amendment for instance made to add a condition pertaining to the saliport? How the commission would Take up the resolution as modified. Would it be a vote? On the resolution and if that vote were Unsuccessful for any reason would it be a vote on the resolution as presented? I apologize for needing this instruction. I just want to Handle this properly Okay, so if somebody were to make a friendly amendment and then the two commissioners that made the motion and second would agree Then that would be the motion before you would be to approve the resolution with an added condition of approval to require a saliport And that would be what would be before you for a vote If that did not pass then we could make a new motion to return to the original resolution or if there were some other Condition or or something that you would like to propose So to be clear the the vote that would be taken would be on the amendment by itself or would be on the resolution Following a friendly amendment it would be on the resolution as amended to include a condition of approval for the saliport Though i'm not sure that I heard from the applicant If they are agreeable to this condition can they clarify We're going to do whatever is required by the city. I think the point was We certainly would agree to the condition. I just want to make sure That when we look at the totality of the square footage of this building and the amount of investment That there is initially That this is not a requirement It is certainly something we're willing to do to move this forward But it's not a requirement and we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars just To put in the fire sprinkler system and the alarm system And I don't think that this particular Component of the application Really has any sort of security risk We have other examples where these don't have saliports and And the other thing I would mention is just I would really appreciate if we wouldn't use the term saliport Because there's code implications in the building code Of what a saliport is versus a secured vehicle storage area so But You know, you know the willingness where we've been Good players and participants through this entire process. I just hope we all look at The amount of investment that this client is making at this point So is there someone that's wishing to make a friendly amendment at this point? I'll make a friendly amendment that we amend the resolution to include A secured vehicle access otherwise described in the past is this saliport. However, we can get it done Um If I may offer some suggestion language based on what I'm hearing We just drafted this the project shall be modified to include a secure area for delivery vehicles Okay, I'm good with that Interior to the building interior to the building and school And that would need to be seconded by commissioner Peterson and granaga as the makers in second of the original motion And just to be clear this is seconding the friendly amendment To then go to the vote on the overall resolution Correct. The friendly amendment revises the resolution to approve the project with the modification of adding the condition of approval for the secure vehicle area and if you're not If there are no seconds then the original motion for the original resolution with no conditioned stands So commissioner sysco has proposed a friendly amendment if there's no Second to that if you will then we revert back to the original motion made by commissioner Peterson and seconded by commissioner granaga I mean for the sake of debate. I Could go I I can make the second Well, there's I mean there's no there's no requirement to it's it's Yeah, you don't you don't have to It's changing then the motion before you so If you'd like to stick with the original motion then if there's no second to the friendly amendment When we proceed with any Follow-up discussion and a vote on the original motion I just want to make a couple more comments. I mean I realize there's expense involved, but I I believe that we've been setting a precedent all along I believe we had another facility that we conditioned for a sallyport for these same issues And even though it's not listed as a requirement. I think we've been Saying this is the gold standard come forward with this and I'm troubled that we might start to back off of that particularly To me it just adds a level of security particularly for residential adjacent to it that I'm not seeing in this project and that would be the only reason I would vote against it I just think that that that's an important component of Of these projects Can I break in if the commission were to Make the amendment and then the resolution before the commission would have the Condition that you described and the vote on the resolution were to fail Would the commission be able to Ask for a motion to be made to take a vote on the resolution without that condition Then you would make a new motion to approve the resolution The original resolution without we would remake the motion For the resolution with as originally drafted though tip. I mean typically if you're going It's generally not a good practice to second a New motion if you don't have an intent to support that motion So the friendly amendment is out if someone were to The original motion makers have to second that and so I just put that out there that that's generally not the practice to Second and support a motion only to vote against it And what we could do as opposed to the friendly amendment is I could just make a motion to consider that The commission could each of the commissioners could vote and whether they're for that inclusion or not in for that inclusion As opposed to the friendly amendment pathway So you would make a motion to amend Where'd I go? Oh So you would make a motion to amend and then look for a second Right and that's going to that's another would be in favor Correct. It's an alternate commissioners Peterson and groanica making that Correct. So if you make a motion to amend and you get a second On that it can take the original motion off the table and now you have before you the revised motion similar effect rather to the friendly amendment but You could go ahead and make that Would that not put two motions on the floor? I think it's probably better to stick with the friendly amendment. Okay Well, if you don't mind. I don't mind. I just would like it to be simpler. So yeah, yeah, well, I'm frankly interested in hearing from Any other comments from other commissioners commissioner calio Listening to commissioner sesco. I can understand kind of the precedent that we've set with other With other projects in the past and having safety as the forefront and all the decisions that we make I Also, I would be supportive of making this condition to approval that you suggested Does any other commissioner have a comment on the subject at this time? Uh, it does sound like there's interest on the commission I remain of the same opinion that I had before I I'm persuaded by the staff's recommendation. I would be prepared to follow it But we do have the friendly amendment that has been put to commissioner peterson if there's no further input from staff or And I'd like to clarify just to get back to commissioner cisco's if if the if your preferred intent is to go ahead and make a motion To see if you have a second for that motion You may also go ahead and proceed that way if it does get a second Then we can vote and we would vote in reverse order the original motion still remains Underneath if you will so then you would just vote in reverse order. So the amended Motion would get the first vote. So commissioner cisco would make a motion to amend with the new condition And if that gets a second that could have Discussion and then a vote if that vote is approved then that Stands if it fails then it reverts back to the underlying motion, which is the Approval of the resolution without the condition Is so if that may be a preferred way to proceed Usually the friendly amendment is a bit easier, but in this situation it may not be Thank you. I think that was very helpful Commissioner cisco. Yeah, so I will withdraw my first motion for the friendly amendment and just make a motion to amend the resolution to include The language that we previously stated second Okay, that motion to move the resolution as amended Was made by commissioner cisco and seconded by commissioner calia Any further discussion before I ask for your votes commissioner granaga Yes, I I support the the amendment now and I realize there may be a cost And these things but uh, there's also a benefit To the building to the to the structure as well, and I don't think you can I'll lose sight of that as well. And so I think it's uh A worthy amendment Any further comment commissioner Peterson Well, I think commissioner cisco makes an excellent point. It's it's just that in this specific context I just don't see the Specific need In terms of security. I think the applicant has put forward a We'll put together a plan including A security plan with cameras And in compliance with the the state law, I think to me it's it's More than adequate for the type of use when we're not talking about Sort of a a retail a lot of coming and going And the the fact that there is a a fenced off rear entrance In my mind Would satisfy the the findings I'd like to ask a question of the applicant at this time Obviously, we have all the plans and I just would want to hear it from you because it'll be easier for me to Understand more quickly How visible again is the this point of entry from the Street, it's not there's no visibility from the street so the people who In theory it could be more people but in in on a daily basis the people who would Come to understand that there's no secured vehicle entrance would be only those people who had gotten access to the property By going through the secured gate. Is that correct? For the most part yes, sir What can you describe wise for the most part? Well, there is a there is a body shop next door So they have limited you guys talking to the mic. Please I'm sorry I'm sorry. There's a there's a body shop Located next door with that has some limited visibility to the back of the building, but it's That's the only Non-tenant who could see the see the building Okay, thank you if I may I just you know, we we had a situation when uh, kennecraft on Circadian was both allowed to have a distribution and manufacturing In a very similar situation with the secured gate area behind and they didn't have a Secured vehicle storage area for vehicles depart And that operated in that configuration for Certainly over a year Without any incident. I mean it is just absolutely not visible. There's no public access and it's not visible from the street Thank you commissioners Are there any further comments before I ask for your vote on the motion by commissioner cisco seconded by commissioner collia to move the excuse me to approve the resolution as amended as I stated the Motion was made by commissioner cisco seconded by commissioner collia your votes, please that It's gonna fail Okay, uh, let's revote The commissioners your votes, please Assistant city attorney. Do you have a comment? Sorry? What did it says three three so it fails correct correct? So that was back to the original so Okay, I just wanted to I didn't hear that said out loud. So I just I didn't have time to read the numbers there Okay, so these the amended motion failed so now the Motion that is before the body is the motion that was made by commissioner Peterson seconded by commissioner granaga Which is to move the resolution as originally proposed by staff with no additions or modifications Great. Thank you very much. Um, thank you commissioners any further discussion before I ask for your votes on the The motion to approve the resolution as described just now by the assistant city attorney Okay, uh commissioners your votes your votes, please that passes with five eyes Commissioner cisco voting no and commissioner dug in being absent and that concludes that item Thank you very much. Thank you And let's take a very brief a couple of minutes to reset before we move on to uh item 10.3 okay, let's uh recon Let's wait several seconds and reconvene at that point up top is the real chair of the commission I think the machine and I are ready Okay Now we will consider item 10.3 Uh, which is uh, which was continued to this meeting The density bonus ordinance update and let's begin with the staff presentation by senior planner gustavson Thank you very much This is a continued hearing on the density bonus update on july 26th of this year This matter became came before the commission And after the public testimony and deliberation by the commission staff was directed to go Back and and take a look at and and seek to respond to the comments and questions that came up at that meeting Tonight's presentation focuses on changes to the ordinance We also have materials from that meeting of the 26th. If you wish to review Aspects of the ordinance including the calculation of the supplemental density eligibility points or any other issue But the presentation tonight will focus on how we responded to comments and questions that came up on them In the meeting on the july 22nd Just a quick brief or a brief overview is this ordinance update Is intended to do two things first to comply with state law including A very recent change that we called to your attention By memo that was sent out earlier today of new Uh legislation That revised or amended the state density bonus law that was adopted on september 29th of this year It also proposes a supplemental density program, which will be the focus of tonight's presentation So there were a number of provisions of of the density bonus Ordinance update that were discussed and supported and i want to just review those quickly first The the commission agreed that Updating the ordinance to be consistent with state law Was an appropriate goal and that the ordinance as was presented would accomplish that And that the general idea and um and framework for the supplemental density program Was a supportable um approach to help to incentivize Additional residential development in the city um furthermore part of that supplemental density program we had this idea of Adjustable density or tiered densities above the state 35 density bonus That would reflect places where it's more appropriate to go higher than this to the state density bonus at the 60 80 and 100 percent level the um other issue that was supported But qualified was the idea that projects that That are coming forward as a supplemental density bonus housing development That it should be reviewed by the zoning administrator provided that There are neighborhood meetings and that the design review board will have opportunity to comment at a concept review plan We talked about the specifics in the ordinance one most notable was the idea of The current ordinance requires that affordable housing be developed at the same time and be dispersed throughout the project One concept that was discussed and agreed was to allow some flexibility On the affordable unit dispersion requirement in cases where it can be shown That it would be financially necessary or supportable In order to make that project affordable or cost effective Cost feasible however the idea of concurrent affordable housing development with market rate units was very much held as an important principle by the commission that should be continued Then More globally um thinking about where supplemental density would be most appropriate Uh, it was concluded or I believe broad consensus was supplemental densities should be promoted where We have infrastructure and services or transportation available to support density And then another concern that came out with increased density Um that might be developed adjacent to our preservation districts is how do we help to ensure to protect those historic resources the quality also of those residential neighborhoods another land use related issue is um the density bonus law at the state level provides for concessions or reductions in parking requirements And given higher intensity development in areas and near residential neighborhoods um There could be the potential for spillover impacts on street parking public parking on the street in those areas A question was raised was this enough was a supplemental density bonus and the The the the schedule at which density is awarded by the Affordability percentage was that uh really enough of an incentive to induce development here and then uh, finally There was a comment regarding sequa. There was a concern that the provided a negative declaration at that time may not really uh adequately quantify I say qualify here in this slide, but it meant quantify potential community impacts So with those Comments those questions The direction of the commission was to go back and take a look at the ordinance and respond to them And i'm the next series of slides Will go through the the big issues that we we saw and and how the ordinance was was revised first and foremost We looked at how uh extensive the supplemental density bonus area should be and we um pulled it back down to the two Priority development areas that correspond with the downtown stationary a plan and the north santa rosa stationary plan these two areas Have the infrastructure already planned for housing that can accommodate in the most intense development And as this exhibit here shows really focuses development intensity where I think the community would expect it not be surprised by it And you can see how much it's contracted or pulled back from the original proposal That dash line delineates the six pda's that um are in the city And how it's been pulled back to two of those six pda's The other issue was how do we help to ensure preservation districts are not adversely impact by Intense more intense development And and so we What we sought to do was to clarify that this ordinance does not permit supplemental density within the preservation areas except where a site might be uh designated by the general plan for Development under the transit village mixed use transit village residential and the The retail business services land use designations these three designations occur in the um in the downtown area Well, I take that back the the the um The the historic districts the preservation districts are concentrated in the downtown area And that's indicated by this exhibit by the dashed red lines that are showing up very well, but are um Like a west end neighborhood st. Rose neighborhood cherry Street neighborhood and there's some others and so this revision or what we've clarified in the ordinance is that while projects housing development projects which include four or more than four Dwelling units Can benefit from a state density bonus. They would not be eligible for supplemental density bonus except Where we have those three land use designations encroaching in into the preservation districts So here are the districts highlighted And wow and we zoomed into That worked well Areas where the land use designations those higher intensity land use designations Would permit the supplemental density bonus in the preservation district. So you do see that they um We would have for instance the Deturk winery village project There by 9th street Would be continue to be eligible for supplemental density, but there would not be any other properties Further west in the western neighborhood that could avail themselves of the supplemental density you can see also I want to use a pointer here This will work better. Okay this this edge right here where We have a historic district And it would it would not Encroach the supplemental densities would not encroach upon this historic district, but these Properties here on the west side of santa rosa avenue would Be eligible And I just wanted to point out that there are a couple properties here in the saint rose Preservation district that would be eligible for supplemental density, but otherwise The interior and the edges would not the other Technique or tool that is was was Is being introduced with this revision revised ordinance is to place a cap on the medium low residential density designation while this does not presently occur within the downtown railroad station Specific plan area or in the north santa rosa station area um This designation does occur throughout those Pda corridors and elsewhere in the city They tend to be clustered close to this the lower density residential areas where Increased densities should this program be expanded in the future This would be a tool in place with the ordinance that would help to ensure that Uh supplemental density would be held at 65 60 it would never be allowed to go higher otherwise There are a number of these medium low residential areas that would Be eligible for 80 or 100 density because they are within half mile of transit facilities and schools So what we've done with this is basically taken that proximity Density bonus increase off the table for that one land use designation to help to ensure the intensities Are appropriate for a nearby low density residential neighborhood But again i'll underscore here. We don't have that situation in the current boundary of the um Of the supplemental density area This is reflected in the code By a table 3.10 or 3.10 um You might recognize this from the previous ordinance. It's just been modified to implement this provision This part of the ordinance also establishes the in clarifies the prohibition on supplemental densities within the preservation areas Except for those three or three higher intensity land use designations Finally, there was a I would characterize it as a technical correction that we Are proposing with ordinance We did have a public comment that came in in recent days regarding a specific aspect of the density bonus that's State law provides for waivers and reductions of development standards and Those waivers and reductions are subject to a single finding The city must grant those unless we can determine A waiver or reduction of a development standard would impact health safety the environment or Historic resources our ordinance had written that in addition We we could deny A waiver or reduction if it did not Provide a cost reduction and affordable housing that is not a part of state law So we are suggesting that section 21 30 no 20 21 30 100 g of the ordinance Strike that last sentence That that had that incorrect provision But we replace it with the one that's underlined there that underscores a state requirement that That that applicants need to provide the city with reasonable information so we can do The analysis to determine that these waivers and reductions are appropriate. So That's that's a recommended change To the ordinance which is not in the packet that you received that was distributed last week I do have A markup version of the ordinance in your packet there that I hand handed out That that you can act on tonight So with the change in the ordinance we took a look at the environmental review In response to the comments regarding quantifying community impacts and we we Not surprisingly found that by reducing the supplemental density bonus area from From the six prior priority development areas down to two We we've reduced the scope of potential impacts The project description in the negative declaration was revised reflect that change and then by by Limiting the supplemental density bonus to those station areas We have prior EIRs that have analyzed the type of residential development the intensification of of Uses in the downtown area that Corresponds to the type of development that would occur with supplemental density program implementation so This allowed us to I'll say tier but rely on or stand on The prior analysis and we found that the aspects or the development impacts associated with this project very much closely matched the general plan Analysis that was done on on alternatives the general plan EIR included An analysis of what is called the downtown corridor alternative which said If we kept the city population build out at Maximum of approximately 230,000 people But we focus housing development downtown rather than allowing it to spread out into the lower density residential areas What would that look like in terms of impacts and it found that in In all cases with exception of one The impacts would be the same as or less than the adopted general plan in terms of The impacts associated with increased development. So things like traffic greenhouse gas emissions noise are the principal impacts So it determined this Downtown corridor analysis or alternative was really the environmentally superior alternative So what we're promoting here is is a um a type of development that In many cases will actually improve a potential impact of of development downtown Or reduce I should say the one instance where the Supplemental density bonus might I should say the the one instance where the downtown EIR downtown Corridor alternatives analysis found that there might be an increase impact is on displacement of residents At that time in 2009 The analysis looked at the consequences of increased development In that area and it found that there would be underutilized sites Potentially residential units that would be displaced by higher intensity uses and those residents would be displaced from the area This environmental analysis conclude that that impact did not occur because we do have in place Requirements under state law that dispersion that that new development needs to Provide essentially the way I characterize it as first rider refusal for existing residents of of um You know a lower income Categories An opportunity to Stay on on the site to buy into or to be a part of a future housing development or or have their relocation costs Handled so that same impact on dispersion That was assessed in 2009 would not be the case today. It would be less than significant Um, and that is a requirement of this density bonus update as it is a part of the state's density bonus law um Finally projects that are discretionary That may go forward and require a secret review. They would have project level analysis and finally Because we determined that the midi the negative declaration continued to be Applicable here and that there were no substantial changes as a result of the revised ordinance to the analysis under the negative declaration The negative declaration did not Need to be recirculated according to state law In this time frame that we were reviewing the ordinance and revising it We continue to receive calls from developers interested how their projects might be impacted by it Um, in particular, mr. Derringer asked How is the jerk winery? village project might Either be in or be able to be eligible for the supplemental density bonus project and and how He might be able to incorporate community benefits in its so otherwise. We really didn't get any comments from neighbors On this mainly the development community We did receive in the last couple days four letters including in your packet Three that are from well all four From mr. Derringer from the green belt alliance miss sonja taylor and also a gentleman Mr. Johnson, I believe who? also supported the project the The comment we received A couple days ago that alerted us to the need to correct section 21 30 100 g That letter is there for your Review which really triggered our Need to make that correction or alert us to to to me to that need so In addition to changing that that particular section to confirm with state law I have provided revised resolutions one for the sequa Action and the second for the recommendation on the zoning text amendment to Implement or to adopt this density bonus ordinance update those changes are Changes to to make sure that we include the 2018 state density bonus amendments So those are listed and memorialized and secondly, I added a recital or a whereas which memorializes that tonight we are Revealing this update or this revision and and that you will be taking action on it So I have a clean version of this of tonight if you should act on it. There's a there are resolutions to to use Next I have two slides that outline a decision path that We use last time there are some additional decisions now That have come up as a result of some questions or comments and speaking with members of the commission of the commission We can go through that now if you'd like or if you if now would be the appropriate time if you have specific questions about the ordinance And which I can bring up Uh prior slides that we reviewed at the meeting july 26th And we can talk about technical details or specifics about the proposed provisions Okay, thanks very much I'm happy to hear from anybody who has any thoughts about the the best way to proceed through this I think that it would probably be appropriate to Ask the commission to ask kind of general questions of staff at this time to orient the commission to a more substantive discussion then to um conduct the public hearing and then to Bring it back for addressing public concerns and for the commission to discuss the ordinance as a whole Does anybody have any um Comment about that course of action or alternatives Any questions from the commissioners for staff at this time? That's your weeks. I have um Definition question the addition of the full of the students housing and There's not a definition of full-time student or a reference to that Like in state law and I wondered if what that was and if it should be somehow referenced We do have a definition of student housing that we're Adding to the revised ordinance. Um I don't know if I'll turn to the law, Nevada if there's a state law um Criteria that defines a full-time student how many units they take or how many hours a week they attend class or maybe yeah, so That's a matter. We would have to resolve if that's a material issue going forward I mean we we we could we could define it um in the same way that A school would define in terms of student Credits per quarter or you know units I know the federal government has a definition of full-time student. Okay, so somehow that could be incorporated I think that would make it a little more clear that it is You know for somebody who is a full-time student not somebody taking You know one class or whatever Okay, thank you. We could certainly add that Can I uh tag on to that? Yes, uh, Commissioner Brownigan Yeah, that was one of the questions I had listed here too is how's a full-time student defined and I believe In your present a not in presentation with the materials that we reviewed There's reference to Cal Grant A and B and It'd be wise obviously to further research it, but I think you're going to find it's 12 units Continuously enrolled um It's unlikely that it's higher put it that way and especially Cal Grant applies to lower income students I'm speaking from the jc Perspective or whatever I happen to like that Inclusion of the student and student housing If I could just ask one or two A little more specific questions related to them, but they're probably pretty quick Okay I think that Just in the interests of the public Getting an opportunity to speak sooner rather than later We'll continue with this discussion and then maybe save more specific subject matters for after the public hearing, but please feel free to go ahead So that's a yes. Yes, it is. It's a long yes I'll try to be quick and Maybe the answers aren't here tonight, but our student orient and housing density bonuses available to both on and off campus Properties or public and private in the material that We received I think it's just it is available on and off School property, but it does have to be a hundred percent student housing And for the bonus the blend of affordable or Qualified income students the expectation I would have at least is that the developer would be a private developer on the public side school site and If possible, they should be incentivized and I would think the college would go along with that in most cases I'll stop there for Mr. Siscoe Yeah, I just want to get a clarification on What's on page 23 of 31 of your new resolution under l standard conditions of approval number two Um I'm just concerned how this reads That's the part that bothers me. Um If the number of eligibility points achieved by the completed project is less than required And then it goes on to apply a percentage of The project money to be applied to the housing trust. How would they not be achieved? and Is this qualifier that they could then pay money into the housing trust somewhat of an incentive not to achieve them I'm just worried about that Yes, so um We had a discussion about this particular issue and and our um You know recognize that um We really first and foremost want to make sure housing gets built and way l2 is written would suggest that The affordable housing that is Used in a project to earn eligibility points Might be uh, there might be a buyout for that Under this provision. They're they're it's it's not limited to community benefits as as the first Sentence in that subsection is this section that would appear to apply to both housing and community Benefits that are part of a project. So um I do understand and we have megan vassinger here who Could comment more about the housing Agreement that accompanies any supplemental density bonus But that housing agreement would be established prior to issuance for building permits so in timing perspective um This l2 provision would allow A developer potentially to buy out of something at the time of certificate of occupancy after um, they've made a commitment to build a certain number of housing units. So I think there's Not an explicit Link in this language that might need to be made. So one option is to state explicitly Hear that this l2 provision is limited to community benefits And um The other is I mean and and so What that would allow would be for instance a developer who After going through the construction process gets to the end of the the line And determines that public space Is no longer feasible financially they would rather buy their way out this provision would allow that so But only for community benefits now The poll there's a policy question or concern that um, I would raise about an expectation of a project Who which has received eligibility points to move forward on a supplemental density bonus project Promising to build let's say a public park or plaza and then at the end of the game It's not there. It's it's it's it's not, you know eliminated so another alternative would be to eliminate this buyout provision and and simply Leave the first sentence of l2 and I've prepared a draft amendment that we can look at Which would essentially establish That they need to confirm that all the eligibility all the Benefits have been provided at the end of the construction cycle and not provide a way A backdoor way to buy out The developer will always have the option to come back and seek approval for a revised project And could return to the planning commissioner or whoever the review authority is To to seek to reconfigure their project. Okay Great. Thanks Any other questions at this time for staff? I just have a quick one Were there any changes that were made specifically to Reduce the concessions that would be or you know, whatever terminology applies Reduce the concessions That are available when it comes to parking requirements. No, okay Okay, this is a public hearing I do have one card on this You don't need to have filled out a card to speak and With that Open the public hearing And I have one card as I said and that is from terry shore And terry, uh, I'm sure you have three minutes. Oh, thank you very much Good evening chair Edmondson planning commissioners planning staff and members of the public. Yes, my name is terry shore I am the regional director for the north bay for green belt alliance And we did submit a late letter in full support of the proposed revisions to the housing Density bonus ordinance in particular. We really appreciate the work that staff and the consultants did To address our concerns regarding sequa and narrowing the supplemental bonus Program to the two station areas the downtown station area plan and the North Santa Rosa station area plan Not only is it environmentally superior to the previous proposal, but it also reduces both fire risk and flood risk Which is reflected in the revised neg deck because we're putting people In the urban core close to services So we're actually very excited about the revised ordinance green belt alliance is happy to Support this all the way to the city council And to get other support from our allies To go forward so that we can build a more sustainable and thriving downtown in santa rosa And of course any of the additional Um Changes that you might need tonight to tweak it and make it a little better It sounds I think we're totally on board with that as well So thank you very much for your patience and for responding to our our multi page comments. So, uh, thank you Hey, thank you And sir if you would begin by stating the name for the record please Yeah Jose martinez 615 Howard street santa rosa I have a question about the These increases that, you know, they're proposing to add to the The ordinances They have that Goals of using infrastructure existing Infrastructures, you know relating to like transportation So on but are there any studies that really back up for example that people work in downtown or or or that In other words, I mean How do we know that really? The housing would be for people who Who um work there who work in downtown Yeah, I guess that's that's my question it These these these find these studies for from the planners. Do they do they have these figures or something these Surveys do we know Not to interrupt you sir. I'm happy to ask staff to address your question When when you've concluded your comments any other things you'd like to say Yeah, that's the question Okay Thank you very much. Is anybody else here and wishing to Speak during the public hearing and if you'll please state your name for the record, ma'am Hi, my name is daisy piste line. I'm with Sonoma county conservation action We're here Generally in support of this policy We think that putting development close to The core of our urban areas is wise and that it is where development should go And we're pleased to see that the city is taking steps to encourage more dense and walkable development Some minor provisions that we think are important Um, I was having a little trouble following it in the presentation by staff But it looked like there was a last-minute change made so that you will no longer require developers To actually prove that it's financially infeasible to distribute the affordable housing throughout a development I think that's problematic Developers often use this as a reason to create inequality in their developments When in fact there are many social studies that show that People who live in affordable housing incredibly benefit by being in a more distributed income level kind of Neighborhood and development. So I would urge you to reconsider striking that from the measure Um, and asking that developers actually show that there's An inability to do this because they may claim that without it being true without that Um, also some of the community benefits that are included in this provision It's incredibly important to guarantee that the community will in fact benefit from them The public open space provision as we have seen in some places, san francisco is a great example Where it's documented again and again the inclusion of what is quote public open space in private developments Usually doesn't end up actually being accessed by the public because it's made incredibly difficult to find and it's not well signed It's not obvious and the public doesn't know it exists So ensuring that the public open spaces are indeed public are easily accessible by the public are 24 hour accessible by the public And are obvious to the public is incredibly important um, also thinking about Some of the other public benefits for which these provisions are going to be given such as like the childcare ensuring that it indeed Helps support those low-income people who will be living in these developments and that there aren't any restrictions put in place That would make it more difficult or That they wouldn't know that they have the option to access that child care Perhaps a lower rate is important And then Beyond that I think we're glad to see that this is being focused where there is indeed environmental review already done I was part of the station area plan campaign a decade ago And glad to see the city is continuing to move this forward when development is indeed possible. So thank you Okay, thank you very much As any other member of the public here wishing to make any comments I'm not seeing anybody else approach the podium. I'm going to Close the public hearing and try to ask staff to walk us through some of those specific concerns from the public I suppose I'll just go on over sorter roughly A few comments just now about the community benefits and How open-ended they are generally so we have the Childcare community benefit And well, I suppose I'll just ask a broader question with the the child care provision Is there a built-in protection or an interpretation that would preclude any of those negative effects that were Just discussed about possible unfair treatment Based along income levels So monitoring of child care Enrollment to ensure the blend of Lower-income children children from lower-income households are in fact a part of the program is a An implementation or a monitoring concern a developer My We really don't have an in in our code a specific mechanism Which which we can use they are licensed state facilities I think we need to look into how We might work with those licensing agencies Whether they're county or state To get some reporting on under compliance with that provision There is The requirement that the percentage of children Be I believe equal to or greater than the percentage of affordable housing units as a share of the units in the entire complex Yes, so to fall out of compliance with that condition would run afoul of the In the future actually it's a good question. What would the consequence be down the road the density bonus would have been approved But it would be a co-enforcement violation of some sort to fall below that standard Yes, and and I don't know if there's been experience how this kind of violation might be or non-compliance is addressed in other jurisdictions It would be new here. I don't know Milan. Do you have any? Yes, so there's a couple of things worth mentioning with the child care facility density bonus This isn't associated with the community benefits for the supplemental program. This is the state law state program taken verbatim There haven't been modifications for the local ordinance As far as compliance, it would be a code issue and it would be pursued in that manner there is also somewhat unique Facet to the way that child care bonuses applied and that it's a square foot trade-off. So the equivalent square footage to the Child care facility is provided so it doesn't necessarily translate into a unit It translates potentially into a slightly larger space. It could be utilized throughout the proposed development But regardless of the fact it would be something that the applicants would benefit from and The city would have the authority to pursue it if it wasn't being followed through Okay, thank you. There was a concern brought up about the potential change to the Restrictions on not distributing the affordable units throughout a project And it was I think tied to these late changes that we see and Reflected in the revised ordinance and included in the attachment Let's see the late correspondence and ordinance changes Is there anything in the revised draft or in that language That affects the distribution obligations what what was proposed in the ordinance originally excuse me was the Discretion based on demonstrating financial need to to Have a relief from the dispersal requirement That That has continued to be proposed here And I might add it doesn't mean that the the affordable units are Pushed off the project site to another location. They might be in a separate building on that site We heard from developers last year when we were out of community workshops that financing for blended market rate affordable rate Buildings is is difficult and for many they've had to seek you know separation that where they build The affordable units in one structure finances separately from the market rate units so this was a Not a not a it's not a desire to push the affordable units off the project site but as a means for of financing separation on the on the same site Was there any change made to the type of evidence or degree of evidence that would need to be shown to justify that kind of carve out okay We had a question about downtown and whether the city planning staff Had done any studies or knew of any studies that Support the idea that downtown housing would support people who work downtown Not sure whether there's any specific study about that but To the extent that We can describe where the jobs are located in the city and the kinds of housing that people have been Asking about and the level of public support you might be hearing for Locating housing downtown. Maybe you could just briefly comment on that The city has prepared studies in the past and we're working on one now that does an economic analysis on demand for various types of housing And those studies are available for review. I'm not prepared to comment or I haven't prepared to comment on their findings But they do look at different types of housing development including Multi-family single-family detached attached And those studies would I think be informative for somebody interested in How downtown housing might have demand or not? Okay, thank you Commissioners I think I'd like to open it up to any questions that we would ask of staff before we begin any kind of colloquy about Our feelings about the resolution excuse me the ordinance Does any commissioner have any questions for staff? Let me check my notes then It seems like There are a handful of provisions that have to do with the period of time where the affordability covenant would burden the property It might be 55 in every instance, but it's in a few different places. The phrasing is not consistent For instance in the Student housing section that was added I don't believe it was directly congruent with state law. I think that state law provides that it Must be a minimum of 55 years whereas our resolution says it shall be 55 years or some sort of mandatory language like that I certainly wouldn't want to stop anybody from doing more or make them think that that's all they can do In the unlikely event that we have an incredibly generous um project applicant when it comes to deed restrictions I want to just ask We still have the provision in here and I understand there's political support for it where the city council will be reviewing the You know efficacy and impacts of this ordinance five years from the data implementation And one of the directives in the code, which is let's see. I think it's 20-31-070 That the result of that is that the commission or excuse me the council will decide whether to continue with the ordinance or not. Is there any other Zoning matter that you guys can or that staff can Point me to that has a similar way of dealing with an issue Yes, the limited light industrial district Which is actually in the downtown stationary specific plan area for the Maxwell court area Includes a very similar provision. In fact, we utilize some of the language from that for this And then more recently with the resilient city development measures. There was a provision in there for Three years for that particular ordinance I just I should have mentioned in the previous subject That I believe the specialized housing projects affordability term as well as is not presented as a minimum term but I just want to Ask again. Is there any restriction on making these affordability covenant terms perpetual? As a matter of law and then as a matter of Policy, what would be the the drawbacks of that and why was it decided that that shouldn't be the way to go? Good evening. I'm Megan vassinger housing and community services manager I'll defer to the city attorney on a matter of law in terms of the term of affordability But just for consistency the housing authority loans require a 55 year regulatory period That is consistent with the regulations provided by the california tax credit allocation committee for tax credit Applications as well as the california debt limit allocation committee, which is bonding for property So a lot of times projects will couple those housing authority loans tax credits and bonds So it is beneficial to have consistency in the affordability terms But locally our housing allocation plan as well as the adu ordinance is a 30 year term So We're the term to be perpetual it would Make the underwriting of those benefits tax credits and the like would make it Either non-compliant or harder because the loans would be considered A greater credit risk or something. I'm not prepared to answer that question, but I think consistency may be an issue Okay I want to just discuss the community benefits as well and the percentage of points that can be earned by providing these Community benefits and the types of things that are treated as community community benefits and table 312 And I'd like to pull up the Okay, so the types of community benefits are public open space and we did hear a public comment about the Loose definition perhaps I do see that it looks like a defined term here, but Maybe if it is a defined term I could be informed of the definition Uh, so we have public open space. We have Historic or landmark preservation. We have infrastructure and capital improvements. We have family size rental units, and we have innovative community benefits To my reading of it Four of the five of these categories don't provide any certain benefits that have anything to do with the quality of life or the financial situation of people who are rent burdened or struggling to meet their housing Needs in an affordable way The public open space. I mean All of these things would benefit the public generally, but in no way did any of them really seem like they would Be any specific help to the people who The state wants to benefit by creating density bonus laws, and I know that there's legal space to do something like this, but That's the first observation and Second one is that it's you can get up to 40 percent of the eligibility points from these things and Which is awfully high. It's practically 50 50. We could almost call this community benefits ordinance if it's 40 percent And then in particular the innovative community benefit Community benefit, I mean I just Am very uncomfortable with the complete open-endedness of that I see it as a way for a developer to approach the council with something that is politically Salient and for the council to determine that it's an innovative community benefit without regard to Benefiting people who need affordable housing So I think we discussed in the last meeting the reason for these included in the ordinance Which was to make projects more feasible by adding flexibility for developers and decreasing the financial burden That would apply from affordable housing Is that is that a basic? Explanation for why they're in there I think that's a fair characterization that Um this this is This is a not one shoe fits all sizes. It allows for An opportunity to reflect conditions or site circumstances recognizing that Development settings vary tremendously throughout this area of the city And there may be a unique aspect to a site that really points towards a community benefit such as an open space or an infrastructure improvement and Just in terms of the changes Besides the state law required changes were Were any changes made that increase the Mandate to create affordable housing Or were any changes made that make the provision of affordable housing That we could expect them to increase versus the draft of the ordinance that we saw in the last meeting Um I'll comment and I'll allow my colleagues to comment as well on that issue, but really We didn't for instance change the rate or schedule for Affordable units to generate eligibility points towards concessions. So that remains the same We we tried to strive for clarity in the ordinance for instance on protection of preservation areas And I think that clarity Indirectly helps the development community to move forward on this because they connect with Better sense of certainty as to outcome And allow others to comment Yeah Since the last your last reading of this ordinance there weren't any adjustments that accelerated the rate Uh of requirement for affordable units or the level of affordability that was initially Considered. So what you're seeing is what you saw previously I would add only that the The density bonus tool is meant to by its design to be an incentive mechanism Rather than in comparison to for example an inclusionary ordinance, which is the required amount of Affordable units that you would be needed to provide so In structuring it as an incentive program The city spent some time considering what would actually function well As an incentive to get the private market to contribute to this cause and this need And so that's where we receive the input that some of this Some of these alternative measures like community benefits were Valuable and leveraging and getting to an end goal that might not otherwise be achieved We also did surveys of other communities to understand how they had gone beyond State density bonus law to understand what additional incentives work and don't work And there was considerable support for this mechanism of allowing the flexibility to be there So I can give you a practical example With the open space provision this is taken from other jurisdictions If a property owner and a developer of a market rate project had two properties, there was an instance of Using the open space provision to improve A site that was otherwise difficult to develop and not what would not have been cost effective As part of a density bonus application for a different project And so through the process of completing one project and receiving the density bonus They were able to improve a second project and make it viable for housing And thereby contribute more to housing. So I think you do not see additional requirements that would spur Affordable housing beyond what you saw previously, but the structure of the ordinance was meant to Maximize within reasonable bounds the incentive that would Engage the private market in What is it relatively costly and difficult to achieve? Projects in the onsite development of units Okay, thank you one last question. It's about the medium low density general plan land use designation and the The reduction if I'm not mistaken in the maximum achievable supplemental density bonus when it is within Close proximity to transit and schools. Is it right in schools correct? And the comment was made that it has no Application to any of the areas that are subject to the revised Ordinance the station areas that it simply Doesn't come into play at this time with regard to those and it's done with an eye to future areas That might come into the scope of the density bonus ordinance Yes, I might add there It's conceivable a land use Change could occur within the study area Which might bring a property to this land use that you know to the medium low residential designation But you're correct currently the land uses within The supplemental density area Do not include the low density medium low density residential Can I ask why it was decided that it was necessary at this time to make that change instead of when the Zones get expanded and people have an opportunity to comment on it when it's actually Going to have an impact on them Yeah, well again the general plan amendment process could get a site within the supplemental density area Into this land use designation and this cap Would be a tool to help to ensure that it Would minimize potential impacts to a surrounding residential area and we're hopeful that This framework for supplemental density or for density bonus generally in the city Will be a tool that can be used city-wide and as we gain experience with it and see How the development community begins to work with this regulation it It may be modified we we can anticipate with potentially with the downtown Area plan update that is or specific plan update that's occurring that that boundary may shift To the west from its current location to extend out to brookwood from downtown to capture That residential area and so we we could see an instance like that where Having this provision in place which is currently dormant in a sense May be activated if those boundary changes occur Okay, there's a statement in the staff report on page 10 that Applies to this provision and it says quote this provision will help protect the single family residential character of the west end neighborhood Was that neighborhood particularly Considered in context of this revision That was authored with the intention to provide an example Not not to be a sole case Okay commissioners any other questions for staff Maybe I'd like to move a resolution for the purposes of discussion. We do have two resolutions. The first is on the sequa document the second is on the ordinance as modified by the late changes and As I understand it, we have a clean draft of it on which to vote that incorporates. Yes. Yeah I think it would be appropriate to give all of our comments after the first resolution and then the second one We can proceed to a vote right away Okay, as any commissioner wanting to make a motion on the first resolution I'll go ahead and move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of senor roza recommending to city council adoption Of a negative declaration for zoning code text amendment to amend zoning code chapter 20 dash 31 Density bonus and other developer incentives to be consistent with updates to california government code section 65915 State density bonus law and to extend state law with a supplemental density bonus of up to 100 Within the boundaries of the downtown station area specific plan in the north station area Santa rosa station specific plan file number re z one eight dash zero zero four and way further reading of the text Do I have a second second Okay, the resolution was moved by commissioner sysco seconded by vice chair weeks commissioner sysco, would you like to start sure? I'm pleased with the result of the changes I think that The changes respond to the concerns of the green belt lines certainly of the neighborhoods I think it's in keeping with what we're trying to do in santa rosa, which is aim our development in the Areas where the best the infrastructure can best support it So I think limiting it to the two station area plans was very appropriate. I'm glad to see the language that protects the preservation districts I'm glad that victoria lane is protected by having had the rosaline area removed from it so overall i'm very happy with The changes and the result to go to council just with the with the one Concern and maybe suggestion that we just eliminate that number two to me. It just sounds too tempting of an out and I know we're always concerned about how You know and again like you said the developer can't come forward if he's looking like things are changing And then we have the opportunity to actually Make a decision on it as opposed to they just get the out at the end and they're in their own way So that's really the only Concern that I have in this. I hear some maybe cleanup language from other commissioners, which I would certainly support commissioner polio I agree with a lot of the comments that commissioner sisco just made. Um, I I understand that this is an experiment with the supplemental side of it And I think it's important that we have that we are starting with the two Station areas and then we have the ability it's scalable So if it does what we want to go to all the pda's we have that ability later down the road and I agree with I think that we should just cut out the l2 on page 23 Um Regarding that because the developer does have the opportunity to come back and Revisit that if that is an issue of the at the end of cycle Questioner weeks I appreciate the fact that you heard us last time and made some changes and clarified some of the issues I like the fact that Um Some of the historic neighborhoods are protected I think that that was a great addition as well as the fact of concentrating The density where I think senator oza wants it to be concentrated Um, so I am supportive of Uh, the changes. Thank you Commissioner groeninga Pretty much concur with the previous comments. I think uh This is a good resolution In a couple of ways here and I really have no further Questions or comments at this time other than what I Would wish to see is more public comment coming in from Such groups as the raro square um Raro square association whatever it may be For example there, but uh, I'm perfectly fine with this Mr. Peterson, I appreciate the Tremendous amount of work that that staff has put into this. It's a very complex issue Um as reflected by the the complexity and the the resolutions themselves um However, I'm concerned that We're at a time where we we need really radical solutions to The housing crisis and what's going on. We've got um thousands of of homeless citizens we've got a huge percentage of the um city Is rent burdened? A third are severely rent burdened And I'm I'm just afraid that While I understand sort of their the reasons for the directions That this resolution went that it really doesn't Go far enough to to actually get Where we need to go Along those same lines, I would like to see a little bit more more teeth in this Whether it's A really robust Sort of evidentiary showing for the developer That they can't financially justify having dispersed affordable units Whether it's a signage requirement for public open space if they're going to you know rely on that to Get eligibility points I just I want I want to see more for The people that this is designed for And I I think Maybe we're at a point where this is as far as things can go now. Maybe we can revisit it in in the future, but I'm inclined to to go as far as we can now And and really push it to address the very serious Issues that we're we're dealing with in this city And I won't I'll do my best not to belabor the the clear feelings I have That were obvious in the previous questions that I was asking I do think that this ordinance is a step that will Somewhat improve things. I understand the symbiotic relationship between inclusionary and the density bonus I actually think that the limitation of the area of to the station area Makes sense. I was concerned about the effects it would have on roseland in particular and I was prepared to support that kind of change I think the preservation district change makes sense although We can question What exactly we're preserving sometimes But I I agree completely with commissioner peterson. I think There's clearly support for the ordinance. So I'm going to register My um disappointment with what I think is a missed opportunity Based on good intentions based on a lot of effort and research I don't understand why we're letting these units revert to market rate ever We just saw a study today that we're about to see the expiration Of a ton of 30 year affordable restricted units in the state I mean it doesn't seem like it's ever going to come but evidently These problems are here to stay because nobody's willing to Turn over the market based model That intrinsically fails to deliver affordable housing. It's not capable of doing it In the way that we've set up land use and the way that we've set up the financial system and the way that we've set up The amount of money that people make in the economy just can't be done What really is necessary is a very stringent inclusionary ordinance And I know that it is going to cause capital flight And at some point there's got to be a reckoning with these issues This is very much a You know holding your finger over the leak in the boat type situation So I want to go on record as think as saying that I just don't think it's going to be anything close to what we need If my vote were necessary to pass it I might think differently, but I'm going to vote against it I do think that I would appreciate a cleanup on the 55 year language even though it's it's a You know, it's a footnote I don't like the fact that the city council gets to take another peek at it I think that the language in there is is disfavorable to the ordinance being strengthened I think it clearly indicates that they should consider getting rid of the ordinance I just don't think it's appropriate I don't think that the medium-low thing is is appropriate either I think that the reference to the west end neighborhood was kind of a Freudian slip of some sort to political considerations And I also think that one reason I would want this to be quite a bit stronger Is because the city council is going to get to completely do whatever it wants and I would like to send them something strong that expresses belief that We should put teeth in this thing and Just a couple of footnotes so I don't neglect to say them I think the community benefits thing is just wildly wildly misguided So I would drop the percentage far below 40. I would I would get rid of all of them except the family size housing and commissioner sysco Has the observation about the The offset when the eligibility points fall After approval and I was originally quite persuaded by that but I'm thinking through how I think it might play out and knowing that they would only come from The is that and if this is the way it's currently drafted that they would only come In a short fall from the community benefits it wouldn't be It wouldn't be the case that they're allowed to have a reduction in the points that are derived from affordable housing the 60 percent To respond you're correct because the affordable housing agreement would be set in place Prior to the issuance of the building permit okay, so Now that I am Aware of that. I think that I would support it and the reason why is that I would be perfectly happy to see an innovative community benefit or a Historic landmark community benefit replaced with money into the affordable housing fund that I would Actually hope that all 40 percent of the eligibility points go away So that we could get more money for affordable housing, so I wouldn't support that change I did hear support though, so The commission might want to consider making that change or any other changes So before I ask for your votes just ask anybody else has any further comment or any suggestions for revisions And then if I just may if if it were the desire of the commission to Address that provision l2 it would be that we would ask for a friendly amendment to To add that I don't know if there's anyone wishing to make a friendly amendment to revise section with the next Motion though right now. We're just on the negative definition discussing. Yes. Okay. Thank you patty. Yeah next one. I'll be ready okay But we could take the temperature since Commissioner call you and I are in support of that I can take before I make that next motion We vote on this one just take the temperature how people are feeling about eliminating that provision This is specifically the l2. Yeah They can let's proceed down the line. Commissioner Peterson, please Yes, if I may interrupt. I put on the screen or on the monitor there Two options the top one. I believe Kessat chair syscos or members syscos Idea Simply eliminating any provision for paying out or buying out of eligibility points. Okay, but it does Remain that the Applicant must certify they actually provided what they promised which is an important component of that so eliminate the Language Okay, okay Just you can see the the one below Goes to chair edmondson's point that Community benefits could be bought out Okay, so option one is no after the fact buy out Okay, if the commission is comfortable with the comparison between those two options, I would ask that you Convey your feeling about whether you support neither or support one or the other and I'll ask that you describe them as options a and b Anytime you're ready commissioner Peterson I'm sorry. I need somebody to just sort of walk me through a the implication of a again The option a simply requires the developer to report to the city. They fulfilled the community benefits the or all of the Provided all of the affordable units and community benefits that they Committed to with the supplemental density bonus approval So it's it's a it's a check-in at the end to confirm They did what they promised to do and they were and what happens if they didn't Then they have to go back and do the work to provide it or the project would have to go back for revision to the review authority You have to be a modified project. I mean so based on that description. I mean I'm inclined for option a And I suppose any commissioner is ready to comment. Um, I'll I'll be happy to hear from and recognize I'll interject without ending the discussion. I'm in favor of b I won't be voting in support. So We can do this again further All right, I'm just trying to get an early temperature reading here before I read that motion So that we wouldn't have to do a friendly amendment or I wouldn't have to do a separate motion that we all vote on but So we would ask for a motion for the resolution as modified to reflect The option that is the preference of the commission which appears to be option a Well, why don't we go ahead with the vote on the first finish the first resolution on the negative mitigating negative declaration And then we can proceed further comments before I ask for your votes I need clarification on what we're voting on this voting on a negative declaration right now I'm sorry. Just the negative declaration The negative declaration Commissioners your votes, please that passes with six i's commissioner dug in being absent Would anybody like to move The second resolution I'm going to include The the modification now and see what happens. Okay Move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of santa rosa recommending to city council approval of an ordinance to amend Zoting code chapter 20 dash 31 density bonus and other developer incentives To be consistent with updates to california government code section 65915 state density bonus law and to extend state law with a supplemental density bonus of up to 100 Within the boundaries of the downtown station area specific plan and the north station area the north santa rosa station specific plan file Number re z one eight dash zero zero four including the modification of option a regarding Page 23 of the resolution l 23 dash two and way for the reading of the text second okay, the Modified was moved by commissioner sisco and seconded by commissioner graniga and if there's no further discussion commissioners your votes, please that passes with five i's Commissioner admins and voting no chair admins and voting no and commissioner dug in being absent And that concludes our business and we're adjourned Thank you