 that will move to the approval of our November 14 draft minutes any comments or corrections on those those will stand as printed then next we'll move to public comments which is a time for any member of the public to come up and address the Commission on matters of interest to the Commission you have three minutes to speak and I would ask that you go to one of the microphones at the back I don't have any cards but you don't have to have filled out a card and this would be for items that are not listed tonight on our agenda as a public meeting and I am not seeing anyone move so I'm gonna go ahead and close public comments and move on to planning commissioners report any reports this evening no planning commissioners reports and then we'll move on to department reports I do not have any department report statements of abstention by commissioners I will be abstaining from item 10.1 as my employer had a business meeting with the applicant there's no existing business her personal relationship but I think it's prudent to abstain okay no other abstentions okay we have no study session tonight nor any consent items so with that we'll go ahead and move on to the first of our public hearings the first one and let Commissioner Peterson exit the chamber while I announce it is item 10.1 the given to flex mod conditional use permit it is an ex parte disclosure mr. Carter anything to disclose I did visit the site I have nothing further to disclose I should call you I drove by the site and have nothing further to disclose I have I have nothing to disclose I have nothing to disclose and I also have nothing new to disclose okay so with that we'll go ahead and move on to the staff presentation given by mr. Andrew Drupal good afternoon chair Cisco and members of the planning Commission today's project for review is the given to flex mod extraction facility it is a major conditional use permit proposed for site at 2715 given Avenue the application was submitted on July 18th the project was deemed complete on November 15th and project notification was distributed in advance of this meeting on November 27th so the project application proposed as a cannabis manufacturing of volatile manufacturing with type 7 license in a 480 square foot self-contained flex mod modular unit located adjacent to building to East at 2715 given Avenue building to East is one of the buildings in the given Avenue complex and planning Commission has previously reviewed and approved flex mod units I believe two units for building seven and those two units can be seen over here to the west of building seven on the far end of the given complex so it's located in Southwest Santa Rosa off of North North Point Parkway in the light industrial district and here we can see the project site the multiple buildings on site as well as building to right here and then finally here's a bird's-eye perspective of it this is building to East which consists of cannabis distribution and non-volatile manufacturing operations and then building to West which has cannabis cultivation and distribution uses in the community as well so this would complement the existing cannabis distribution manufacturing and cultivation uses and sit adjacent to building to the general plan is light industrial the light industry rather in the zoning is light industrial and this isn't allowed use within the light industrial zoning district subject to major conditional use permit approval here we can see an outline of the secured portion of the campus with these additional unsecured parking areas to the east and to the south primary access to the campus is via these gates located here and so the entirety of the campus is secured all of the buildings in addition to perimeter fencing I do have alarms on all points of access surveillance cameras as well as security guards on site and so the specific proposal is for the flex mod unit and this is the unit that would be installed located adjacent to building to it is about a 480 square foot unit it would be detached from the building although it is accessible via pedestrian walkway the unit would benefit from the security provided to the rest of the campus as well as alarms at point of entry surveillance cameras and it would have the ability to monitor and monitor all of the buildings in the campus as well and it would have the ability to monitor and monitor all of the buildings in the campus as well as the facility as well as its own order control system as well we have a blown up image of the flex mod unit it is a C1D1 unit and here we can see the project specifications demonstrating that it is a C1D1 unit specifically designed as an extraction unit for facility lighting and also the ventilation which ensures that there's not a buildup of volatile gases within the extraction unit itself and then we have alarms specific for the gas detection the project has been reviewed presented environmental california quality act or california environmental quality act excuse me qualifies for a class 3 exemption under section 15303 in that it is a construction and location of a single new small facility or structure on a site where only minor minor modifications are being made I did receive a public comments late last week I had a phone conversation with a property owner who lived in residential neighborhood to the north northeast of the city of downtown giffin giffin avenue facility she wanted to express concerns about the proposed use as proximity to residential neighborhood proximity to the school the volatile nature of the proposed use and then just the concentration of other cannabis uses in the area I reviewed those with their and informed her that there is no minimum distance from residential uses for the type 7 manufacturing use use, there is no required setback from school facilities and that the code does require through building and fire code proper conditioning of the facility for the specified use. And that the other cannabis uses, the cultivation distribution and non-manufacturing, or non-volatile and volatile manufacturing uses in the Giffen Avenue facility are either permitted by right or allowed with the required use permits and those applications have been reviewed and approved. With that planning staff had no other issues, Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission by resolution approve a major conditional use permit for commercial cannabis medicinal and adult use manufacturing level two, volatile use in a flex mod unit at 2715 Giffen Avenue and the applicant is available to answer any questions as his staff. Thank you. Okay. Any questions of staff right now? Okay. Not seeing. And is the applicant wishing to make a presentation? Up to you. Okay. Available for any questions if you have them. Okay. Okay. We may have some after the public hearing if we have any public that wants to speak. Okay. This is a public hearing tonight. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. I don't have any cards on this item and I don't believe we have any public wishing to speak on this item. So I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission. Any questions of the applicant or staff at this point? Okay. Is that would someone like to move the resolution for the purposes of discussion? I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for a commercial cannabis manufacturing level two, volatile use in a flex mod unit located at 2715 Giffen Avenue APN 010450-008 file number CUP18-035 and waive for the reading. Second. Okay. So that was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner O'Crepkey. Commissioner O'Crepkey, would you like to start? I think it was a great presentation and a job by staff and the applicant and I will be supporting the application. Okay. And Commissioner Duggan. I'm also in support of the application. I can make all the required findings. Commissioner Collier. I also would be supporting the application. I can also make all the required findings. And Commissioner Carter. I can make all the required findings and will be supporting staff's recommendation on this side. And I can make the required findings as well and will be supporting staff's recommendation on this. So with that it was again moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner O'Crepkey and our votes please. And I need some help. I'm not sure where I'm supposed to vote. What do I hit? Okay. For those of you who are watching us, this is a new system for us so we're a little rocky on it, me in particular. Okay. So that motion has passed with five ayes, Vice Chair Week's absent and Commissioner Peterson abstaining. And with that, that is our only resolution for this item and concludes the item. So we'll wait for Commissioner Peterson to rejoin us. And we'll be moving on to item 10.2, which is the green QILLC conditional use permit. It is an ex parte disclosure. Commissioner Carter, anything to disclose? I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Collier. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Peterson. I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Commissioner O'Crepkey. I visited the site and spoke to the applicant and have nothing further to disclose. And I have nothing to disclose. With that, we'll go ahead and move on to the staff presentation, given by Susie Murray. Good afternoon, Chair Siscoe and commissioners. The project before you is Green Key, a cannabis microbusiness proposed at 925 Piner Road. Requires a conditional use permit and it will occupy an existing 4,185 square foot commercial building. The microbusiness is comprised of a retail dispensary, which also includes on-site consumption and delivery service, excuse me, and will provide both medical and adult use products. They are also, they also have light manufacturing there and distribution, distribution is permitted by light manufacturing has a, they've already been issued a zoning clearance that was discussed in the staff report, thanks. They are hours of operation are proposed from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven days a week. So the project is located in the northwest quadrant of Santa Rosa on the north side of Piner and it's just east of Airway Drive. We received the application in April of 2018 and it was deemed complete the following June. In October, 2018, I went before the Cannabis Policy Subcommittee and was selected from a group. It was in an over-concentration area and it was the project that was selected to move forward. This last September, the applicant asked to add on-site consumption into the project. So the area, the site is located in an area designated by the general planned land use diagram as light industrial and is kind of smacked up in the middle of a light industrial area there and the zoning is consistent. It's, I'm sorry, the general planned land use designation is light industry and it's in a light industrial zoning district. Here's an aerial of the site as it stands today and the top photograph is the existing elevation and the bottom photograph is the proposed elevation. The parking requirement is 14 spaces. There are, I'm sorry, there are 11 on site but the parking ordinance has a provision that allows that an existing building that can have a deficit in the parking area up to 10 spaces or 25%. This is, there are three spaces short and 25% would have given them four spaces. So they have met their parking requirements. The floor plan, as you can see here, the areas in blue are the on-site consumption areas. The dispensary itself is the area located in green and the area designated for manufacturing is in brown. The area in red up in the upper right-hand corner of that graphic is, it's called a, we refer to it as a Sally Port but this came up today and I went in online and looked up the definition of Sally Port and it really doesn't refer much to cannabis dispensaries but it acts like a Sally Port for a cannabis dispensary in that it is an area where the vehicle can pull on in. It can be secured with a roll-up door and it's not, they can unload and load the vehicles whether it's for delivery or bringing product in. So the other thing is that there was a question raised by a commissioner yesterday about on-site consumption requirements. State law does have some, does guide us on some of the requirements and it says that we're a cannabis in consumption areas. It can only be people 21 years of age or older. It can also, it cannot be visible from anyone 20 years of age or younger, so anyone younger than 21 years. And you can't have the sale of alcohol or tobacco on site or the consumption of alcohol or tobacco on site either. I wanna point out that this city has a smoking ordinance that prohibits anybody from smoking on site and that's still the case. The applicant has agreed that they understand that and the project has been conditioned appropriately. There are six required findings for a conditional use permit, all of which have been met. The project complies with all applicable zoning code provisions. It's consistent with the general plan. Compatible, it's compatible with existing and future land uses and then it's surrounded by other commercial and light industrial uses. The site is suitable for the type density and intensity of the proposed cannabis micro business. It wouldn't constitute a nuisance and it has been found in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It complies through several categorical exemptions as well as streamlining measure. There are no unresolved issues. I did receive one comment from the public. It was a woman that was concerned about the concentration of cannabis facilities, not necessarily just retail, but cannabis facilities as a whole in the Northwest Quadrant and concerned that there was a higher concentration there than other areas of the city. We also received late correspondence from the applicant team today, which I forwarded to y'all and I hope with my response and I'm hoping that you had an opportunity to review that. But again, I think I've addressed one of the areas. The primary concern was the Sally Port. And again, there will be an area that is, that acts like a Sally Port at the facility. And with that, it's recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit for Green Key, a cannabis micro business to be located at 925 Piner Road. And I am, the applicant is here. They do have a presentation and I'm available for questions as well. Any, yeah, Commissioner Peterson. Just one question for staff before we get to the applicant's presentation. Have any of the other conditional use permits the commission has approved for on-site consumption open for business? Do we have any functioning on-site consumption dispensaries in the city? No, I don't think so. Thank you. Commissioner Kruppke, you had a question? Yeah, and if I miss it, I apologize. Sorry, I'm trying to go back and find it. In the diagram on page nine, there's no cultivation yet. The project's narrative says there will be cultivation. Did they get rid of that or is that not included? Or is that going to be covered by the applicant their presentation? I'm going to defer to the applicant on that. Okay. Any other questions of staff right now? Okay, so the, yes, Commissioner Carter. I'm sure it's in the record somewhere, but how many approved permits do we have in the Northwest Quadrant? Do you know off-head? Your question is just about dispensaries, is that right? Yes, for dispensaries. How many have we permitted in the Northwest Quadrant? The Northwest, I don't have that on hand. We have it on our website, so I can have it maybe following public comment. Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff? Okay, all right. So would our applicant like to make a presentation? Okay, thank you, Chair Sisco and members of the commission. My name is Erin Carlstrom. I appear this evening on behalf of, as the attorneys for the applicant, Green Chi. We're delighted to be in front of you this evening. Not least of all because this project in particular has been reviewed several times by the city. So we're delighted to be here finally for consideration of our CUP and recognition of everyone's time. I'll move quickly. Staff have already done an admirable job of orienting you to the site and you all have, of course, toured it. So you know the area we're speaking of. I'm stalling because my clicker's not working. Here we go. So we find as the city's cannabis ordinance develops that it's incredibly important to highlight for you your applicants that come from Sonoma County and Santa Rosa and who have experience doing business here with the city. I'm not sure where I need to aim this thing. Here we go. Will you click, please, Susie? Thank you very much. Jesse and Henry, please would you wave your hands and let the commissioners know these are your guys. Their credentials are laid out for you there. They're very excited as hometown folks to bring another fabulous, not cultivation, cannabis retail experience to the city. Oh, please click, Susie. Thank you. A bit of information for the commission's consideration about Green Cheese Commitment to our community, ideas for development and how they intend to approach the project as well as continuing to contribute to our community. Go ahead, Susie, please. Thank you. Some renderings for your consideration. One of the wonderful things about the opportunities that the cannabis ordinance and this project in particular bring to you is the opportunity to upgrade industrial buildings that maybe have seen better years. So here is another wonderful opportunity and some of the ideas that the project team are considering for their design, which of course will be subject to design review. Thank you. You've seen our new floor plan and to Commissioner O'Crepkey's question. As Susie highlighted, this project was originally submitted back in April of 2018. And so over the course of the last year and a half plans change, cultivation has been removed and we've added on-site consumption as that use has also been authorized by the city. Susie, again, I highlighted for you all the restrictions that will be in place for that on-site consumption. It is both, it is restricted to age. So of course, we're talking anyone over the age of 21 is eligible to participate, but it can't be visible from the right of way and it can't be visible from within the dispensary itself. So anyone under the age of 21 will not be able to see it from within the building. There we go. Just to give you an idea, of course, Piner is very busy, but parking and traffic are two of the elements really that both the cannabis subcommittee and the council as a whole in our appeal took into consideration when continuing to recommend this project. Better parking opportunities, easier flow of traffic. Please, Susie, thank you. Some of the organizations with which the principals and Green Chi have already been working and will continue to work as their project comes to fruition, you will see seated in front of your project applicants and representatives from Teamsters Local 665 who is here in support of the project and in recognition of the ongoing good faith discussions between the groups. Please go ahead. Just another opportunity for you to consider as projects like this are entitled and conditioned to require roadway improvements, this is an opportunity for a beautification overall in Santa Rosa. Go ahead. And that's it. We are, of course, available for any questions. Thank you for your time and your service. Any questions of the applicant? Yeah, Krisha Peterson. I just have a question. If you have, I may have missed it in your project narrative. Is there like a public liaison if the area neighbors have any concerns? Is there somebody that will be designated that they can speak with? That's why it's important to have local applicants. Thank you. Ms. Carlstrom, would you mind repeating what he said into the microphone so that we can make sure we've got captured? Yeah, thank you. Henry Huang, one of the applicant representatives indicated to Commissioner Peterson that he will be the community liaison for concerns from the neighborhood and from the public. Thanks for doing that. Any other questions? I have one, what is the purpose of the two on-site consumption areas, the one smaller and the one larger? Confused. I'm gonna yield the microphone to the project applicant himself. Hi, thank you. The purpose is we were gonna have maybe two different fields. Like one might be more of a lounge and another might be more of a diner field. Okay. Which one's which? The lounge would be the one, for now we're envisioning the lounge to be the area in the southeast corner of the building. The smaller one. The smaller one, yes. Okay, for those of us that are direction challenged. Okay, any other, yeah, Commissioner Krupke? My one question would be, what kind of, I know in your narrative and in your presentation you said that employees will be trained in spotting intoxication. However, as is evident in the location, the context maps, the only real residential area around this is the mobile home park next door. It's not really walkable. So what kind of safety aspects do you have to prevent people from as there is a zero tolerance for driving under the influence of cannabis to mitigate that or identify those that have consumed or prevent them from driving? Sure, it's a great question. And of course the safety of the public is paramount concern for all of my clients and all of our applicants. There are industry standard, standard operating procedures for identification of folks that are over intoxicated. That's actually one of the bright spots about having an on-site consumption area is people have the opportunity who maybe haven't been exposed to a particular type of medicine before to experience it in a safe environment. Both green cheese staff will be trained in those protocols to identify over intoxication. Unfortunately, there is always going to be an element of exposure and it does always fall to the individual to take responsibility for their actions. However, they will have very highly trained staff on-site and I imagine that as the city becomes more familiarized with what does an on-site consumption really mean, much of those concerns will be alleviated just as we've seen with all the other perceived impacts of the cannabis industry. Any other questions of the applicants? Okay. Well, thank you. Do you have anything you were gonna add? No, ma'am, thank you very much. Okay, great, thank you. This is a public hearing tonight. I'll open the public hearing. I don't have any cards from the public, but you're welcome to speak for three minutes. Awesome. Hi, I'm Clayton Taylor. I'm the representative from Teamsters Local 665. I just wanted to point out to Commissioner Krepke's question. Green cheese has been in conversations with us for our first ever state recognized cannabis apprenticeship program. One of the components of the training for retail workers for the apprenticeship program is training for recognizing intoxication with cannabis. It's new, so it's gonna be working through it. And I'd also like to point out that Green cheese has not only been working in good faith with the Teamsters Local 665, they've also been a great liaison to other employers in the industry to help us really start to work forward on creating a trained, qualified workforce. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Okay, I am not seeing anyone else move to the microphone, so I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission. Commissioner, any other questions of the applicant? Yes, Commissioner Duggan. To the question or the statement about recognizing intoxication, is there gonna be a whole protocol that's developed about if somebody is intoxicated, what steps the staff will take, like they call them an Uber, they call them a friend, or get them home safely somehow? I'm gonna go out on a limb and assert on behalf of my clients, yes. Luckily we do have the alcohol beverage industry as a great analog, and their experience will hold out here as well. Any other questions of the applicant? Any other questions of staff? Okay. Chair, I have a response to the earlier question about distribution of dispensaries. I don't have exact numbers. My vision and our, we do have a map on our website that illustrates the 35 applications that the city has received and is in some form or process or set of approval or set of status of operation. That website's srcity.org slash cannabis and it's on the application support page. But looking at the map, one thing that stands out is dispensaries are allowed in all four quadrants of the city and there's quite a bit of opportunity in terms of the six, seven eligible zoning districts in which an applicant can apply for a retail conditional use permit in each of these quadrants. And so as a result, we have received interest in all four quadrants. There are about 10 applications that the city has received in the northwest quadrant. There are about four in the southwest quadrant. There's about nine in the northeast quadrant and about eight in the southeast quadrant. That doesn't add up to exactly 35, I apologize, but some of the map is as of June and there was a couple of overlapping applications. So I didn't want to, I don't have any exact numbers, but it's plus or minus one or two is the margin. Any other questions? Okay. So would somebody like to move the resolution for the purposes of discussion? I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, making findings and determinations and improving a conditional use permit with a green T of 4185 square foot cannabis micro-business to be located at 925 Piner Road, file number CUP18-056 and wait for the reading. Second. Okay, so that was moved by commissioner Duggan, seconded by commissioner Calia. Commissioner Duggan, would you like to start? Sure, I'm pulling up the staff findings. I'm a little bit torn on this one just because it's our first on-site consumption application and it is not in, it's not. No, no, actually that question didn't come up. There was a different question about consumption. Has any, are any in operation? None are in operation. We have a couple pending and plan check right now because we have approved at least three or four by use permit by the planning commission for our on-site consumption. So this is at least the fourth one that I'm wearing. There's one on Cleveland, there's one on Mendocino, just on the top of my head. My memory's failing me, but so, so I am struggling with the on-site consumption component but I'll take your word on that we've approved them but otherwise I can make all the rest of the finding tonight actually be interested in hearing what my fellow commissioners think on the on-site consumption question. Okay. Commissioner Collier. I agree to serving so with the commissioner but it is interesting, it is a, it's an interesting dynamic with on-site consumption. I do think that we have precedent with, you know, with ABC and how bars are regulated and I think as we can see across the state this is where we are all going and I think the application was well put together and I can make all the required findings and we'll be supporting this project. Commissioner Carter. I can support staff's recommendation and I'll be voting to approve the project. Okay. Commissioner Peterson. So as has come up in these other on-site consumption conditional use permits, I share the concerns expressed by Commissioner Duggan about the appropriateness of on-site consumption for these types of dispensaries I think in a place like Santa Rosa, on a place like Heiner, I'm not sure that it's particularly pedestrian friendly so I think it's a reasonable inference that people will consume on-site and then likely get behind the wheel of a car. This has been true of the other conditional use permits. I'm not sure that there's a meaningful difference in my mind between the ones we've approved and this one. I think that it's one of those scenarios for me where I don't particularly think it's necessarily the best idea but it is something that was debated by the council, debated by the commission and was included in the cannabis ordinance and I'm not sure I can sync a conditional use permit on something that is clearly laid out as permissible in the code. I'm not sure I find such a threat to the health, safety or welfare of Santa Rosa by allowing on-site consumption such that I wouldn't be able to make the finding but again, with that in mind, I think there's probably a reasonable argument to be made for on-site consumption in maybe more appropriate areas but it's allowed in the code, there's bars down the street where you can consume on-site and get behind the wheel of a car and as much as I may not think it's a good idea, it is certainly permissible. So with that in mind, I think this is another good project. We've done, I don't know, a dozen or so of these and it certainly gets easier with the passage of time as we see these projects get integrated into neighborhoods and take the steps, work with the teamsters, work with the public to make sure that we're actually setting up an industry that provides good jobs, provides the type of neighborly behavior that we would expect. I do wanna address a couple of the points raised by one of the comments that the public submitted in writing which is when we see all the time the security I think as we've said in other hearings this is the counterintuitive example where something that appears to maybe be kind of an attractive nuisance can actually improve the security of the neighborhood by putting eyes out there, having the security cameras, having the security guard on-site, just getting people watching the neighborhood. So while I understand the public's concerns, that's not a concern from my perspective here. I like to see the local control. I know Santa Rosa is one of the few jurisdictions that is allowing these dispensaries to go in in California under the new law and I think it's nice to see that there are people running them, people profiting from them are actually members of the community and in this case, long-term members of the community with strong ties here. I also agree with another public comment that we should see more on the East side. It does feel like this quadrant is bearing a lot of the cannabis development and I think it should be more equitably distributed as was the goal of the cannabis ordinance. With all that out there, I can make all the required findings including the finding necessary for the parking reduction. Commissioner O'Cripke. Yeah, I hear some of the same concerns of my fellow commissioners. You know, I believe Commissioner Carter's question was how many dispensaries, I believe there's, in the Northwest quadrant, I believe there's five that have been approved and only one's operational. And the on-site consumption has concerned me especially with the removal of cultivation to add consumption. And I understand, you know, whether you say you can go down to the nutty or west side and have a drink, it's the same thing but there's an allowable amount of alcohol you can imbibe while it's still illegal whereas that's not the same as cannabis. You know, you go and you take a bite of brownie, you come out, you drive, you can get pulled over and that's it. Doesn't matter if you've had an entire pan of brownies or a bite. So that's a concern. However, we have approved these before and the thing that sticks in the back of my mind is that as was pointed out, none of these are operational so we have no empirical evidence. So any belief that I may have or any concern I may have is just based in speculation and I can't hold myself to or I can't apply those to my ability to make the required findings. So that all being said, I believe I can make all the required findings and then we'll be supporting the application. Okay. Well, I also can make all of the required findings. We have been approving these throughout the city but the one thing I hadn't really talked about till Ms. Carlstrom mentioned it was the opportunity for a new user, for lack of a better word to have the opportunity to try it under supervision and in a safe environment. That hadn't occurred to me. We're hearing lounges and kept it. But actually I think that actually is something that could be important for particularly the medical individuals that wanna try something and to have the opportunity to do that and to be supervised while they experience that. So and again, city council, we've put all of these policies in place and we don't have anything to compare to yet but they're in place. And I think this was a well done application and height as usual. It is getting easier for us to move through these with fewer questions because we can see that kind of what the protocols are and that they're well met. So I'll be supporting the application. Mr. Dunning, do you have anything else you wanna say? Well, I totally understand how it's like we don't have the same kind of regulation about bars and there are roadhouses that are out in the middle of nowhere that you have to drive to and you have to drive away from. And I think I've been swayed by my commissioners, my fellow commissioners discussion points so I will be supporting the project. Okay. So with that, the resolution was moved by commissioner Duggan. It was seconded by commissioner Kahlia and your votes please. And that passes with six eyes, twice-year weeks being absent. And I believe that's our only resolution and that concludes this item. Thank you. Do we need to take a break? You wanna just keep going with it? Okay, good. Then we will move on to item 10.3 which is Old Dominion Freight Planning Project. It is an ex parte disclosure. Commissioner Carter, anything to disclose? I did visit the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Kahlia. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Peterson. I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose. Commissioner Krepke. I have nothing to disclose. And I also visited the site and have no new information to disclose. And with that, we'll move to the staff presentation Mr. Ross. Thank you Chair Siscoe, members of the Commission. I'm Adam Ross City Planner on this project. The item before you today is the old Dominion Frate. It is a truck and freight terminal. The entitlements include a major design review. Go here. Kind of got ahead of myself. A minor use permit for the use. A major zoning variance for an increase in outdoor light pole height and a major design review by the designer review board. The project itself is a new trucking freight terminal on an undeveloped 8.45 acre parcel and includes one 17,695 square foot building with 34 loading docks. We have a 4% parking reduction also included with the use permit. That's a total of two spaces on this site and 224,901 square feet of new paving. It's estimated at 8 to 10 pickup and delivery trucks, truck trips per day and we have two line halls per day and the operations would be seven days a week staggered shifts most during normal business hours with some lighter shifts into the evening. Like I said, the entitlements are a minor use permit which has been elevated for your review today to include in the major zoning variance packet as well. The design review would be subsequently approved or approved and reviewed by the designer view board after the decision today. The project is in the southwest quadrant of the city. There's a type of this is not the right address. It's 2 9 6 0 .in Avenue. A bit of the project history. It goes back to 1999. The designer view board approved a similar project and a negative mitigated negative declaration with that project. It was two industrial buildings approximately 127,000 square feet in new building construction. In January 2016, the item came before the Planning Commission for a general plan land use designation amendment. So a general plan amendment from general industry to light industry which was recommended by the Commission to the City Council for adoption of the resolution. So that was used and I'll get into a little bit on the next couple slides but that was to bring into compliance with the existing zoning on the site and the surrounding light industry general plan land uses. In July of 2018, the Planning and Economic Development Department received the entitlement package as a project. A complete application with issues was sent out and in November of this year all issues were resolved on this project and a public hearing notice was sent out as required by City Code. Here's an aerial view of the project site. It's this undeveloped facility. This is a small parcel. Here's an existing industrial court there and then another one to the north of it. This is a it's like a dog training facility is what it is. A commercial use within the light industrial zoning district. Smart rail to the right on well I'm my right I'm sorry. East of the city. And then from there there is more commercial uses. So the general plan land use designation is light industry. It was changed to be more compatible with the with the existing zoning in addition to the surrounding land uses. The light industrial zoning was intended for areas appropriate for light industrial uses as well as commercial services that may be compatible with residential retail and or office uses. Residential uses may also be accommodated as part of work live projects. Here's the site plan and I have a couple on here to kind of go over but the site has an existing seasonal wetland and this project creates a buffer and it keeps it on site rather than eliminate it. There's also a smart rail it's a railroad spur that is remaining in place with this site with this development. So here would be the entrance this gray area is kind of a general flow of traffic through the site. Most would come in this way out this way on the southern portion southern entrance and exit on the northern entrance and the loading docks are surrounding the building the buildings here and parking in the front would be for those working there. Everything in the back is associated with the with the the tractor trailers and where that storage is that includes you know dismantling of their shipments and loading and unloading. Here's some elevations for reference so they have the pretty a nice industrial building associated with this area. Here's more elevations just to highlight the the the trailer doors. So it's a 4,472 square feet of office space and the 13,384 square feet of industrial space. So this is the industrial where the tractor trailers would connect to for unloading and loading and this is the office space closer to Dutton Avenue. Here's a landscape plan for reference you could also see the seasonal wetland right here and the landscape buffer around it. Again just to reiterate that landscape buffer and the the rail road spur right here in the back so that that'll play into the variance and the lighting requirements. So for this project we went through a pretty extensive exercise with their variance request originally the applicant applied for 40-foot light poles. City standards limit industrial areas for the outdoor lighting poles to be 16 feet and their determination was for safety. There's also a one candle foot amount of light required for all areas that are frequented by employees or visitors during night hours. So in order to comply with that with the 16-foot poles they would have to put them throughout the site and for the for the use at this site because of this limited space here where they would normally be able to access it while it would still be tight they're they're severely limited with this seasonal wetland and this spur so it kind of limits their it's the unique feature that limits their light poles. So there's also maneuverability exhibit showing kind of how the operation would work and where those light poles are if they were 16 feet and you can see kind of in the center there's really no possible way for them to to utilize the site as much as they would need to with these light poles within the interior. Additionally is the trucks are 14 feet at the top and with 16-foot light poles you're blocking all of that downcast light also associated with this. So what happened was they came in with 40 feet and staff was not comfortable with moving forward with 40 feet light poles because of the the great difference between what is allowed by code but so we asked them if they can lower to 30 which which they did and they show kind of where those go on the interior of the site as well to this is all to comply with safety for the the one-foot candle lighting required throughout the site and we both agreed that that wasn't something that we wanted to stray from which is that that lighting requirement for safety. So this is the proposed lighting plan with 16-foot light poles there's 12 12 I'm sorry 30-foot light poles there are 12 of them so there's one here here here around the site they all face inward and then the ones within the interior they're all shielded and downcast and facing within itself within the site itself there is also lighting on the building but that is allowed with the hyperpose based on that it's on the building. So this is what their maneuverability is like with the 30-foot light poles there's still some limits but it's it's more comparable to a city street light which is 25 feet tall so that's kind of the the logic there and again all the lighting is shielded and downcasted the residents nearby are approximately 550 feet between the Victoria Drive residents to the north and the light would not be facing the residential neighborhoods and then approximately 680 feet from Bourne Street residents to the west of the site. So here's an exhibit so here's the closest this is the Bourne Street residents area and here's the Victoria Drive residents up at the top and between those are existing commercial and industrial uses as well and then this was a representation of what they would need for 40-foot light poles there's only two in the center and the rest are remaining on the outside. All light poles in the front are 16 feet per city code standards. Some renderings of what that could potentially look like I this doesn't include landscaping and softening features but just for a just a it's just a standard light pole down-facing with that in this rendering. There are several findings for a major zoning variance special circumstances applicable to the property like I previously stated there's the seasonal wetland in the in the southwest corner of the lot and the railroad spur in the southeast portion of the lot which limits the allowable uses or allowable space on site. It's a non created non self-created hardship peculiar to the property does exist and again that goes back to the seasonal wetland and the heel spur and the zoning code itself which limits the light poles of 16 feet in granting the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. The constraints described here in with the constraints described here in a strict application of the zoning standards would deprive this property of the ability to present an efficient and functional site plan that will reasonably facilitate the intended truck or freight terminal use and be proportionately appropriate for the site and consistent with other developments nearby and granting the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and it would allow the relief from the zoning standard would allow the subject property operate their use and I just wanted to say one more thing is the property south of the site does have 30 foot light poles approximately 30 foot light poles throughout their parking throughout their parking structure I'm sorry parking facilities so there's some along .navenue and they're there within here with that that there's no record of a zoning variance for those 30 foot light poles but and no building permits for that either but it was built in 1981 in annexed in 85 so the assumption was that it was built legally at some point and that's why they remain there today and sequa the project includes a second addendum where the impacts were studied in the original 1999 project again in the 2016 addendum so this would be the second one where no circumstances under sequel guidelines section one five one six two were triggered and therefore no additional analysis is required there's no unresolved issues and no public comments were received with this notice of application and public hearing notices as well so recommendations to the planning and from the planning and economic development department to the planning commission to approve three resolutions for old Dominion freight project file number PRJ 18-043 so the recommendation is for the planning commission to adopt a second addendum for to the mitigated negative declaration for the Dutton Avenue industrial buildings located at 2960 Dutton Avenue and a res and another resolution approving a zoning variance for 30 foot light pole standards and then the final one would be for the conditional use permit again that's a minor but for the applicant's request or agreement to elevate it to you for your review instead of go to the zoning administrator after the your review tonight and that's it for my presentation I am available for any questions the applicant team is here to also I think give a little bit of more information for you and answer any other questions you may have Mr. Ross I just want to clarify one thing that for the findings for the variance it looks like in the staff presentation you listed the granting would not it's necessary for the preservation and enjoyment and did not include that the one that's the variance would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties so could you go over that finding just so when we make them we're making the right ones yes I apologize for that so the requirement would be the variance would not be it would not be a substantial detriment to adjacent properties and would not be in conflict with the purposes and intent of this zoning code the general plan any applicable specific plan or the public interest or welfare the relief of the zoning standards will allow the subject property operate the trucker freight terminal safely and sufficiently without becoming a burden of the surrounding properties to the site and more of a because the lighting would be directed inward it would not protrude on to surrounding properties also a variance is a case-by-case basis and a property owner with peculiar circumstances may also apply for variances should they have one and feel the need to pursue one okay any yeah commissioner Peterson I think that last discussion of the finding may answer this question but can you tell me sort of the underlying logic or reason for the 16-foot height limit is it light pollution is it a burden on other properties well the zoning code doesn't give us any specific direction on that so if we're just kind of thinking through somewhat logically I think you're on the right path it's a standard that's designed to probably keep the light pollution is concentrated on to the site as possible the zoning code does go a step further as does as does this proposal in terms of the downward shielding to ensure that light stays on site it's also probably to get the light the the foot candle requirement that staff is mentioning to make sure that you meet that requirement as well thank you yeah commissioner Carter yeah I didn't follow you said there were some existing 30-foot lights in the vicinity of the project yes the property directly south okay so the existing freight facility has 30-foot lights on it I don't know if it's a freight facility it is a an industrial use but yes the property directly adjacent south south on the same side of street yes correct you any other questions of staff okay the applicant ready to make a presentation great thank you can you hear me oh yeah you can okay my name is Sean Eaton I'm the architect for the project I also have here represented with me the contractor the electrical engineer and the and a representative from Old Dominion Freight Line themselves we're here to answer any questions and to make sure that you have all the information available to you I'll give you a little bit of history on where the 40-foot pole came from Old Dominion operates hundreds of facilities throughout the nation and there have been safety incidents in the past that have ended up in injury or even death and so Old Dominion takes it very seriously the safety for their employees that includes procedures and training for every single one of their employees whether they sit behind a desk or whether they drive a truck and when we go to design the sites we actually work with insurance companies on statistical data of what works best so for Old Dominion's kind of standard we do the 40 foot poles they're the semi truck trailers they're 14 foot tall you can see him driving along the freeway blocking your view when you're driving next to him well it does the same thing for light and we want to make sure that our drivers and our dock workers when they have to hook up a trailer or when they have to get out and check the rigs and do those things that there's adequate enough light that anybody else driving on the site can see him that case they all wear high vis gear so that any light that is available reflects off of them and keeps them safe we we definitely want to be a good neighbor we don't want to be an eyesore for the city we want to be that company that is part of the city that employs people from the city and that people enjoy to come to as far as Old Dominion is concerned we feel that among all of the freight carriers we're the Cadillac we take care of our employees the best so in our coming to Santa Rosa we worked with staff very closely because we want to make sure that we're taking care of the city as well taking care of our employees and that's why we've compromised our standard to come down to the 30-foot poles and we've done some pretty extensive research with staff included in all of this process to make sure that we could maintain those city stand maintain those safety standards as well as try and comply with your ordinance the best that we possibly can so we hope that staff would take this all into consideration and approve this variance any questions of the applicant right now okay thank you okay this is a public hearing tonight I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and I don't have any cards on this item and I am not seeing anyone move to the microphone so I'm gonna go ahead and close public hearing bring it back to the commission commissioners any other questions of the applicant or staff okay so with someone like to let's see move the first resolution for the purposes of discussion and I think what we'll do is we'll we'll go ahead and discuss the other items at the same time but let's make sure that we are specific in agreeing that the second addendum to the MND is appropriate so that's the first one okay I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa adopting a second addendum to the mitigated negative declaration for the Dutton Avenue industrial buildings located at 2960 Dutton Avenue assessors parcel number 043-134-051 file number PRG 18-043 and wait for the reading and do I have a second and I do second okay so that was moved by Commissioner Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Peterson and actually I think it would be better just to go specific because then we can be specific as to the findings of the variance so right now we're just discussing the second addendum to the MND Commissioner Duggan would you like to start on that? I have no questions or comments about the addendum to the mitigated MND I think it's appropriate and actually the building is smaller and I think I appreciate that the seasonal wetlands going to be maintained and there are no other impacts on the site so I'm in favor of it. Okay, Commissioner Coya. I agree with Commissioner Duggan I agree with the second addendum to the negative deck and I do appreciate keeping the seasonal wetlands in place. Commissioner Carter. Yeah and reviewing the environmental analysis it appears to be appropriate and then I can make all the necessary findings but I am curious as to how long and a mitigated negative declaration remains good for this one is 20 years old like I said the analysis seems down but just curious as to how long we could continue to use that document. So that's a great question. What happens is when they come in with an addendum and it analyzes the changes that have occurred from the original that that keeps it alive and in compliance with the original. So basically we look to see what the if there has been any circumstantial change and if not we can it is a baseline that you refer back to. And that accounts for the changes that Sequa that seemed to happen every year also and in reviewing the 20-year-old document. We do have to I mean we have to comply with the current statute but we have an opportunity to first rely on the existing benchmark and if it complies it's consistent and in addition the project can be found within the scope of the general plan. So oftentimes you'll see we'll have multiple references that helps reinforce the case it's not necessary to have multiple. I agree with my fellow commissioners I think the mitigated negative deck is appropriate and I can make the necessary findings. And Commissioner Krupke. I agree with my fellow commissioners and can make all the required findings for adopting adopting a second addendum to the negative deck. And I also can recommend as to the adequacy of the amendment to the MND. So with that that resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner Peterson and your votes and that passes with six eyes vice chair weeks being absent. Next is our variance resolution. I'll move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa approving a zoning variance for 30-foot light standards extending the amount allowed by City Code by 16 feet for the safe operation of a truck and freight terminal located at 2960 Dutton Avenue file number C being 18-03 and wait for the reading. I second. Okay so variance resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner Peterson. Commissioner Peterson would you like to speak to that? Sure you know the reason for my earlier question is to kind of see what are the underlying issues that we're dealing with and we're dealing with it. A variance of 14 feet for a light pole. In this case I think it based on the applicant's statements the staff's recommendations I think it appears entirely appropriate. The location is in an industrial area the neighbors have apparently 30-foot light poles you're not you're a significant distance away from any residential neighborhood based on the documentation in the file the lights themselves are designed to shoot downward to meet that one candle foot standard so I think that in this case I can make all the necessary findings for the variance. Commissioner Kripke. I agree with Commissioner Peterson and I appreciate the willingness of the applicant's work with the city on this and not necessarily go against their safety standards or compromise them but find a middle ground that works for everybody so I can make all the required findings to support the resolution. Commissioner Duggan. I can I can also all the required findings and support the their request for a variance at first when I saw that that was what in the staff report that they were going for I was a little bit skeptical on this big site but it makes total sense with you know the nature of their business so I'm in support of it. Commissioner Call you. I agree with my fellow commissioners I can make all the required findings to support the nature's variance I think safety is a number one priority for everyone and I think this will help with that. Commissioner Carter. I concur with the staff's recommendations and can make all the necessary findings for the variance on the light fixtures. And I can make the necessary findings as well for the variance that would be great to see this property usable and again I appreciate the applicants working with the city and trying to come to as Commissioner Crepe he said a good conclusion so I can also make those findings. So with that it was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner Pearson and your votes please and that passes with six eyes. Commissioner vice your weeks being absent. I have one final resolution which is our use permit. I'll make a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa approving a conditional use permit for old Dominion freight to operate a truck and freight terminal with a 4% parking reduction in a new 17,695 square foot industrial building on an 8.45 acre parcel located at 2960.navenue assessors parcel number 043-134-053 file number PRJ 18-043 to UP18-112 and wait for the reading. I second. That resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner Peterson. Commissioner Peterson any further comments on the parking reduction? No you know I always like to see a parking reduction and this is this is no different I can make all the required findings I think it's only appropriate for this project. Commissioner Kripke? I agree with Commissioner Peterson and I can make all the required findings to support staff's recommendation. Commissioner Duggan? I'm also in support of the resolution and I can make all the required findings. Commissioner Callia? I also in support of this resolution and can make all the required findings. Commissioner Carter? I support my fellow commissioners and think I can make all the required findings to approve the use permit. And I can make the required findings for the reduced parking as well. So with that the resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner Peterson and your votes please and that passes with six eyes vice chair weeks being absent and I believe that concludes this item and go ahead and conclude our meeting for tonight and adjourn to our January meeting. So thank you all.