 chair weeks it's 430 if you'd like to call the meeting to order okay thank you so with that I will go ahead and call the April 11th 2024 meeting of the Centers of Planning Commission to order and if you could please call roll thank you chair Commissioner Carter your Commissioner Cisco your Commissioner Sanders your Commissioner Peterson Commissioner Peterson he's not going to be here today his absent yes Commissioner Holton here vice chair Duggan here chair weeks here let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Peterson thank you so item 2 is approval of minutes we have draft minutes for March 28th 2024 are there any changes to the minutes okay seeing none do we have any public comments on the minutes on the minutes yeah that's okay so if we do please go to one of the podiums not seeing anybody rise for this item go we'll go ahead and approve the minutes as they stand and now we move on to item 3 public comments we're now taking public comments on item 3 none agenda matters this is the time when any person may address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda but which are within our subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission and so with that we'll go ahead and start with Mr. DeWitt okay there you go let's get it in sight here is the microphone on yes hello my name is Duane DeWitt I'm from Roseland I wanted to thank you folks you volunteers for what you do wanted to tell you about this event we're having on Burbank Avenue at what we call the Roseland neighborhood it's a area that's been preserved by the Sonoma County Open Space District and donated to the city of Santa Rosa there is a neighborhood there that we've been working to keep as natural as possible for over 20 years this April 20th Earth Day that Saturday we're going to be out there like we've been out there for over 20 years cleaning up the area doing good things we'd like to invite you to come there especially because trees are really important for all the goals that the city has said they want to do for climate adaptation resiliency and sustainability and every other buzzword you can think of basically trees are right front and center for what can help us with pollution we have the highest rate of childhood asthma in Roseland we have a high rate of adult diseases that are related to what's called particulate diesel matter and other pollutants that come from driving in the area unfortunately what's been happening is even more developments going in there relying upon old traffic studies and not looking at what the cumulative effects are of what happens when you folks do what you do so with that in mind traffic on Burbank Avenue because there's an elementary school there now is packed many times of the day did you remember that Burbank Avenue was actually given a scenic road designation in the past that marsha vastu pray when she was on the city council work to make sure that we had that scenic road designation but unfortunately some planners in the city's departments of planning they don't look at that as if it's important and they've allowed numerous trees to be cut down along Burbank Avenue especially big old redwoods which are the best carbon sequestering sequestering trees that are available unfortunately this has happened in a place called Burbank Avenue Apartments and that housing is going in right now and no one's been looking at the cumulative effects of what's happening over in Roseland with all this extra housing being pushed in there and no one really taking account with current traffic impacts current cumulative impacts being studied you folks could change that by saying that's what needs to be done and get that on somebody's agenda Burbank Avenue Apartments may even be bamboozling you folks because they came forward saying they were going to put in affordable housing first and foremost that's how they got some of their funding that's what they said they were going to do they're building now but nothing affordable is going in yet and those apartments may never come to pass that happened at Bellevue Ranch 30 years ago so please keep that in mind as we in Roseland will keep it in mind hope to see you on Saturday the 20th of April for our Earth Day 10 in the morning real Earth Day out in nature thank you mr. DeWitt anybody else on agenda non-agenda matters these are public comments for items that are not on the agenda seeing no one else rise I'll go ahead and close the public comment and item four is our statement of purpose the Planning Commission is charged with carrying out the California Planning and Zoning Laws in the City of Santa Rosa duties include implementing of plans ordinances and policies relating to land use matters assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plan holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code zoning map general plan tentative subdivision map and undertaking special planning studies as needed and so with that will go to 4.2 commission reports are there any commissioner reports I would like to mention that the center as a merit awards are now taking applications for the 2024 merit awards and so if you go on the city's website you can find all the information there so are there any comments on commissioner reports seeing no one going to the podium for that we'll go ahead and move on to department report thank you chair weeks members of the commission Jessica Jones deputy director of planning I do have a few items for you tonight or this afternoon first just wanted to let you all know that at the council meeting this week the city council accepted a report for the South Santa Rosa specific plan community great engagement strategy and that really outlines the engagement that the city will be doing over the next two year period as we look at developing a specific plan in South Santa Rosa so this is really the kind of the kickoff to the project and we'll be getting more deeply into the community engagement itself coming in the next several months which leads me to one of our first options for engagement as mentioned earlier we've got Earth Day coming up another event that is happening here in Santa Rosa is the Earth Day event at courthouse square and that is from noon to 4 p.m. on April 20th which is a Saturday so we will be having a booth for kind of general policy work throughout the city and in particular we're going to be focusing on our greenhouse gas emission strategy or reduction strategy process that we're currently working on right now we're also going to be having information on the South Santa Rosa specific plan and then we also will have folks from our transportation and public works department they're talking about the active transportation plan so it'll be a good opportunity to get more information on some of the policy work that's happening here in the city as it relates to Earth Day and then I wanted to mention that the Cal Ed conference is happening currently right now in Santa Rosa which has been really exciting it's a multi-day conference it's going on right now it's the California Association for local economic development so we've got lots of folks here that have been walking around downtown hopefully spending some money working on our economic development but also learning about what we've done here in Santa Rosa so our mayor and our city manager opened up that conference earlier this week we had a couple tours today which I was a part of one of we did a tour of our downtown talking about what we're doing for economic development and housing in our downtown and then there was also a tour of the Roseland area so that's been very exciting and then just a quick note that we will not be having a planning commission meeting on April 25th so your next meeting will be the first meeting in May that's all I have thank you if someone was interested in being on the community group for South Santa Rosa how would they go about applying for that yes so it is the engagement advisory committee and so we will be working on developing an outreach effort to get folks to participate in that process we're going to be looking for about 10 to 15 people to participate and really the focus of that advisory committee is to help assist us with our outreach to the community and so that will be happening over the kind of this next month or so to bring that committee together and so we will be there will be information up on our website soon and we will be reaching out to local community members working through our office of engagement here to help with that process as well as the county and getting into the community and folks who live there to reach out to find folks to participate in that and we're looking for people who live work and and play in that area thank you so are there any excuse me are there any comments on department report if so please make your way to the podium Mr. DeWitt yes miss my name is Dwayne DeWitt I'm from Roseland which is in Southwest Santa Rosa the South Santa Rosa specific plan really needs to focus on something called authentic community engagement I didn't make that term up was put together by the Department of Land Reclamation and Brownfields at the United States Environmental Protection Agency it has a specific definition in which it talks about making sure that people who live in areas have a voice in the type of decisions that are made for what's going on because if you're not at the table frequently you're just on the menu and you lose out with that in mind the open government task force started 10 years ago here in Santa Rosa and it talked about the idea that we would do more to involve the people more in the decision-making process especially for public policy decision-making process the dilemma is though that the way the bureaucracy is structured it actually keeps folks from participating as well as they could and exchanging information when they're on these types of specific plan organizations I myself served on the Roseland specifics but it was called Roseland Sebastopol Road specific plan 2016 and unfortunately the staff used the Brown Act to actually kind of disempower us they said because of the Brown Act people couldn't talk about different things and couldn't be as involved as they should have been it was very sad because it almost made us a mushroom committee we were kept in the dark we were fertilized and we were only brought out to see the light to cut us up into something they'd already cooked up that's not the way these things should be these things especially for an area South Santa Rosa that's been disadvantaged and underserved for many decades should be allowing the people and the local residents throughout the southern the southern part of Santa Rosa not just Santa Rosa Avenue but on the west side to where we use all the services over on Santa Rosa Avenue we go down Bellevue Avenue we go down Moreland so you need to open up this committee and make it stronger and you need to let the citizens also be on what's called the technical advisory committee because that tack is actually where the real decisions start coming from and they put everything in place before the regular citizens committee gets to participate once again if you're not at the table you're on the menu so I would really like to have you folks stand up to these people as they put together the committee and say you want authentic community engagement and then last but not least it was just mentioned for this local economic development these folks were over in the Roseland area and yet nobody I know in Roseland knew anything about it and there's newspapers there's ways you could have let people in Roseland know about this happening and had Roseland people there to talk about what's going on instead of just the usual suspects former county employees that run the metote food court stuff like that let the real people be in the real decision making for not just Roseland but South Santa Rosa thank you for your time thank you so with that unless there are any other comments on daff reports we'll go ahead and go to the presentation and this is the presentation of the FEMA flood risk mapping project and when you get to the table if you could please introduce yourselves that would be great thank you but we do have Jimmy Bliss acting chief building official Flannery banks from stormwater and creeks and Elise Miller from community intergovernmental relations something right thank you go ahead thank you chair weeks and thank you commission members to have it for having us here my name is Flannery banks I'm the assistant engineer with stormwater and creeks I handle the city's storm drain infrastructure asset management and I'm gonna let my teammates introduce themselves I am Jimmy bliss I am the acting chief building official and I am also the floodplain administrator which pertains to this particular presentation police Miller communications coordinator for Santa Rosa water and I'm part of the citywide communications and intergovernmental relations team again thank you all for having us here today we're here to speak to you all on a topic that has great relevancy to our community's resiliency and climate adaptation as well as community planning we're here to discuss FEMA's flood risk mapping project for the Santa Rosa Creek watershed the federal emergency management agency or FEMA is responsible for mapping our country's flood risk and for helping communities develop strategies for improving resiliency FEMA's identified the Santa Rosa Creek watershed as due for a mapping update today we'll provide you an overview of this project including what it is as well as project benefits and impacts we'll also go over FEMA's project timeline thank you we'll also go over FEMA's project timeline and how our teams are working together to ensure comprehensive public outreach all right now everyone else can follow along I'm gonna start by explaining what the foundation of this project is what flood mapping is get you guys some situational awareness on what we're talking about simply put it's FEMA's maps that show it what is flood risk mapping it is FEMA's maps that show areas that have a high likelihood of flooding more specifically FEMA uses modeling data to identify flood hazard areas that have a 1% annual chance of flooding also known as the 100 year flood it's a common misunderstanding to think that it is a once in 100 year risk statistically of occurring that is an incorrect interpretation any given year it has a 1% chance of occurring so that statistic resets every year so I just want to clarify that on some terminology that's relevant to what we're discussing today flood mapping creates a series of statistical lines that identify flood risk on a parcel by parcel basis within any particular watershed these areas are designated as special flood hazard areas also known as SFHAs is an acronym you'll often run into when discussing this topic in this case FEMA's developing maps for the Santa Rosa Creek watershed you can see the boundaries on this slide of the watershed and the boundaries are mapped in purple and what's shown in gray is the city's current jurisdictional area the analysis included Santa Rosa Creek and all of its key tributaries which encompass most of the city of Santa Rosa as well as portions of the unincorporated Sonoma County so why is it important in order for city the city and property owners to make decisions on how to best mitigate risk we need to know what the risk actually is mapping areas of high risk for flooding can help property owners make decisions about things like land use purchasing appropriate insurance to mitigate losses in a flood event and helping identify capital improvement projects to better protect our community so why is this happening now flood risk changes over time as new and better data becomes available when new flood risks or better data are identified FEMA will start the process for updating flood maps there's no set timeline for revising flood maps and revisions typically occur when more accurate engineering data or studies becomes available through a FEMA funded re-study or when communities make new or improved information available to FEMA and with that I'm going to pass the mic over to Jimmy so some of the impacts that this has on our community is in these special flood hazard areas there and there are certain properties that are subject to more stringent building material and elevation so in these areas there's a requirement for new construction to be at or above that base flood level typically one to three feet and in doing so that helps to mitigate some of the risk and in addition to that many of these areas are subject to added insurance requirements so any federally backed mortgages or building construction loans and things like that are required to have that extra flood insurance and typically other insurance and agencies that are not feather federal excuse me federally backed are also going to jump on that bandwagon as for staff workload if there are an increased number of properties that are in these new special flood hazard zones we would have to increase some of our staff sign but we're already responsible for enforcing that at the moment we just historically have had smaller zones that we have been responsible for some of the the benefits as finally was talking about is we can better assess the risk involved with building on certain properties and in addition to that for our overall resiliency as a city we can plan better the flood areas in ways that we can develop strategies to minimize the risk building new bridges and culverts and things to better control where that flood area is and focus our our efforts in the best way possible so the slide shows the rough timeline that FEMA has given the city for their processes flood risk mapping is a multi-step multi-year process it's not a very fast process and it includes FEMA coordinating with local officials technical staff and members of the public Jimmy and I are going to walk you through each one of these steps in FEMA's process it's important to note that throughout the process the city will need to communicate with a large number of stakeholders as well as including FEMA local officials regional partners and our impacted community members to help our community navigate FEMA's project a comprehensive outreach plan was also developed by our teams which Elise will go over at the end of this this discussion right now we are in the discovery process FEMA has formally kicked this off and they actively have consultants working on this project now and they're actually coming to the close of the discovery process during the discovery phase FEMA gathers local flood data and institutional knowledge from local agencies they do this in close coordination with the community to prioritize future mapping risk assessment or mitigation planning assistance the city of Santa Rosa Sonoma water and the county of Sonoma have been working closely with FEMA to provide them the data from the local study which was called the Santa Rosa Creek flood study that was recently completed FEMA will use the data from our local study as well as their own data in their analysis as they move into the analysis and mapping phase which is their second phase FEMA will use the information they gather during discovery along with their own data to develop preliminary flood maps for the Santa Rosa Creek watershed FEMA won't just use the city's flood study they will do their own analysis independent of any local jurisdictional authority to determine the extents of the flood plain the analysis and mapping phase is estimated to take about a year to complete with a projected timeline of February 2025 Jimmy what's the release the preliminary flood laps we're thinking around summer 2025 there will be a 90 day public appeal period and in this period the public has an opportunity to submit technical data this is not a very commonly accessible thing for most of the public because it does involve heavy engineering and technical data on what is involved with it so it's not just something that the public can come in and say hey I don't like this it's they have to have technical data to show that it's not going to work out for this reason or that the maps are incorrect for their specific parcel the we are going to host a bunch of community meetings in order to help let everybody know that this is happening kind of get out in front of it and let them be involved as much as possible so that they it's not bright-sided when they come in to do their billing permit and like oh by the way you have to do all this extra stuff so we are going to do as best we can to make that outreach possible and then once that 90 day period is over and they go back and they do any revisions that they need to we're thinking around spring 2026 that they'll have a letter of final determination and they'll let us know when that permanent map is going to be available anytime after that the community still has the opportunity to change that so if they get that engineering data after the map has already been published they can submit through the letter of map amendment process to make it possible to change things on their specific properties as needed and that's about it all right so given the potential impacts to Santa Rosa it was really important that we developed a strategic communications plan so the communications and intergovernmental relations team my colleagues and I worked very closely with the planning and economic development team as well as the water team to develop a strategic plan and so we really need to look at who our partners were obviously FEMA is a big part of this and we need to help disseminate that information to our community members but we're also working with Sonoma water and the county of Sonoma so making sure there's excellent lines of communication between all of their partners so that we can provide that timely and accurate communication and then we really need to look at so who is this going to impact so right now we're really in that phase where we're just trying to provide some general awareness about this project so no one's surprised when the maps come out we want people to know where they can find that information and so once we have an idea of what those preliminary maps look like and who we need to target then we'll do that targeted outreach to those property owners and developers that are in those impacted areas and then obviously we wanted to create some education and outreach materials for awareness so we're trying to drive everyone to our website we set up a website srcd.org forward slash FEMA flood mapping and that's our catch all for all the information we'll provide all the project updates there project overview timeline there's FAQs and then there's contact information for FEMA for a planning department for a water staff just really trying to connect the dots for people that want to find more information because this is a long process we're learning through this process and it's going to evolve over time so we want to make sure we can connect people to information and then on top of that we're doing a lot of internal communication so providing talking points to our staff so they're all aware of this process and they can direct people to information and then attending various community meetings so we've been to the City Council the Board of Public Utilities we're happy to be here today to present to you Community Advisory Board and a number of other groups just to provide general information about what's happening with this process and then we want to create opportunities for our community to stay informed so on our website we you can actually sign up for an e newsletter and we'll be pushing out updates so if you're particularly interested in this project and you want those regular updates when we're going to have future meetings when additional resources are available if we're updating the timeline we'll push information out using that newsletter and then we'll also use our existing City Connections newsletter that has a broad reach but definitely trying to target people that this is impacting and then you know we'll be getting out in the community once we have an idea of what the impacts of this project are we'll have in-person meetings as well as virtual meetings to make sure that our community members have all of those FEMA resources that they need and so this final slide it's just resources that are currently available it's got FEMA's contact information and then of course our website for the project which is srcity.org forward slash FEMA flood mapping and you can provide a lot of information on there and then you also go there to sign up for that email notification that I mentioned oh and they didn't want to say we do have a brochure for the project it's in English and Spanish there are some up top if anybody wants to grab one but this is just again driving people to the website where they can find more information I have plenty of these available if anybody wants more and that's the end of our presentation and happy to take any questions thank you very much are there any questions from the Commission of Staff Commissioner Sanders thank you for the presentation just curious I know Jimmy you said the idea is to get this information out so that and it just paraphrasing what you said so the developer comes they want to get this information out so that's a good idea so if you have a full permit there's not a big surprise that there's new standards building standards how does that work for an existing property an existing homeowner exit exit I mean I know that that kind of refers more to commercial but what about residential who now find themselves needing to scramble and can they mitigate is their process for a homeowner to mitigate yeah so it's interesting for the potential for expanding some of these zones in this new study right so there are going to be potentially some locations that were built even with an existing residents on it at a time when that that was not in the special flood hazard area and so some of that is grandfathered in there are a lot of intricacies in the code for existing buildings for the most part if you already have something in in existence anything over 50% so a significant remodel would need to comply with the new standards additions any new construction would have to comply with the new versions of the code and historically we've had a setbacks and planning things like that from creeks that have made it so that much of this we're hoping is still going to be outside of the actual area where they would need to brace the floor elevation above what was already existing but there is the potential that they would have to have multi-storied or stepped areas from existing to new and we'll walk everybody through that at time of permits the middle and things like that we'll go through with the the designers and things like that we have pre-application meetings available if people need to come in and find out more we're all available to the public it we have appointments from 8 so 12 every day so and hopefully resources for those folks right yes yes we'll have to be expensive yeah we're developing handouts and stuff that we'll put out in there are meetings that we're having with the community in general and we'll have those available at the front counter for people that come in over time thank you along that lines just to add the letter of map revision process is always open with FEMA so even if any particular property owner developer can't meet that 90-day period there's still a variety of different options through FEMA's letter of map provisions that property owners can pursue in perpetuity but that those generally do require like involvement with land surveyors or civil engineers questions commissioner or vice-chair Duncan yeah just I might have missed this part of the presentation but is there a current map that people are not currently available currently aware of potentially that could show their house or their business in a flood area yes so we are currently responsible for enforcing that historically we have not had very many areas in Santa Rosa that have been affected by that it's pretty close to most of the creeks and most of those areas haven't had to do any extra structural anything raised their elevations on what they're planning but potentially because they're changing things we don't know yet they haven't presented what it's actually going to be but we'll work through the with the community on how that works from the whole team from the local effort to add on to that because I was the project manager for the local effort those are live on the website that's it's very important to note that's not necessarily what FEMA will delineate they weed out lower inundation amounts so if a property is showing one inch of inundation that's not generally going to get mapped in through the FEMA process so it is important to note if you refer to any of the information from the local study effort that's our pure engineering data and it should not be misconstrued that everything shown on that will be in FEMA's floodplain but those are active those two reports are actively available currently on the website in regard to the 90-day appeal process he stated that FEMA would make accommodations one of those accommodations would that happen to be extensions beyond that 90 days and the reason I ask is that very often especially with retaining engineering department I mean they're booked out for six seven eight months down the road so they'd be pretty much impossible even if they had the means to hire these engineers to be able to make it under that 90-day period FEMA's mandated to have the 90-day period there has been circumstances when there's significant community engagement that they've extended it they are not required to and I would encourage community members to not count on it but it has occurred any other questions okay I will now open the public comment period on this item if you have a question or if you have a comment on this specific item please go to one of the podiums at the top you'll have three minutes and a countdown clock will be activated hi my name is Kim I'm actually here for another topic but being that you brought this one up I was a home owner first thing that would pop into my mind is what about homeowners insurance if that would change in your home suddenly is now in an area that's in a flood pain as we know getting fire insurance in Sonoma County is a big problem I already have a property where I'm using you know the alternative it's really not that great so but in Santa Rosa I would like to know what might happen if any help with insurance or you know what kind of influence does FEMA have over insurance companies thank you thank you if you would like to a contact staff with that question I'm sure that they could direct you in the appropriate fashion Mr. DeWitt hello Dwayne DeWitt I'm from Roseland I wanted to thank the staff for the presentation I especially like the name Flannery Banks who works in stormwater that's so appropriate um basically she's come out to visit Roseland Creek also and I believe that the staff should make a little effort to try to include Colgan Creek and Roseland Creek in the possibilities for the mapping and the research essentially FEMA's got enough money that they could do that and it's not to try to put anything on to the extra workload of our local staff it's because we know that Roseland Creek floods sometimes and we know that Colgan Creek starts over in eastern Santa Rosa and then the boundary of this watershed doesn't take it into account all the way out to the southwest where it does roll and where the city has invested if I'm correct at least five million dollars in the repair of the change of that riparian corridor along Colgan Creek so please look into that and then thank you once again for the opportunity to talk about this hoping that no one will have increased insurance costs and if there are any of that nature that perhaps the federal government and its American Rescue Plan Act funding could find ways to help those homeowners thank you thank you any other comments on this item okay so with that I'll close this public comment period any final questions from the Commission okay so thank you very much for your presentation okay so with that we will move on to item eight there are consent items there are no consent items there are no report items so we will move on to item ten point one this is a public hearing conditional use permit for a new telecommunication tower at 2715 Giffen Avenue file number CUP 23-004 this is continued from the March 28th 2024 meeting it is an ex parte item so we'll start with Commissioner Sanders I visit the site have nothing to report Commissioner Carter I also visit the site and have nothing further to report thank you Vice-Chair Duggan I visited the site and have nothing further to report Commissioner Cisco I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose and Commissioner Holton I've also visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose and I also visited the site and have nothing further to report so with that Ms. Murray I'm just getting myself situated here good afternoon Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission the project before you this afternoon is a telecommunications facility proposed at 2715 Giffen Avenue and the Southwest Quadrant the project the required entitlements include a major design review and a major conditional use permit and the conditional use permit is before the Commission today which needs to be acted upon before design review can go forward the project proposes to construct an 85 foot tall monopine tower to help wireless telecommunications facility and then the supporting ground equipment will be enclosed the project site here's I'm giving you a couple neighborhood context maps here it's highlighted in blue let's see whoa go back right there the purple the purple star kind of approximate is the approximate location of where the tower is proposed those the gold stars all show schools local or nearby schools let's see we receive some public comments which I'll get into a little bit more later but to address one of them Stevens Elementary School and Cook Middle School so from property line to property line the closest school is Stevens Elementary and that's 1100 feet but from structure to structure tower to structure it's about 2,000 feet Cook Cook Middle School up it's the next closest it's to the north that one is 1400 approximately 1400 feet from property line to property line and over 2500 from structure to structure and so zooming in a little bit more on the neighborhood context here you can see that the property is actually adjacent to a residential neighborhood in the southeast portion of the property I'm sorry northeast portion of the property but again the structure is is I think it's let me cheat notes it is a thousand it's over a thousand feet away the zoning code requires that it be 75 feet away from habitable structures and then zooming in even more again that's where the structure is zooming in a little bit more here the area where it's proposed is in the circle this the property I want to point out the properties almost 12 acres this is a very large property the east-west property line is about a thousand feet so just food for thought there and then zooming in even more you can see that there are several trees I believe all of these are redwood trees kind of right in the vicinity of the of the proposed pole or monopine so the project's got some history we saw the first application come in in January of 2023 and then companion application wasn't submitted until November of 2023 we had to get some extensions to the tolling agreement and and we which we've we've gotten and the tolling agreement let me explain that I'm sorry it's it's we hear it all the time what that does is it extends the shot clock the shot clock is the the compressed amount of time that city staff have to review these types of projects so I believe it's a hundred I'm not going to quote it but we had to get an extension it's state law and is it state or federal I think it's federal law it's federal law that it that we compressed that time and then to get an extension we have to the city and the applicant have to agree on that so on March 28th the Planning Commission was scheduled to have a hearing on this item and the item was continued to today we did do in response to some neighbor comments the Republic comments that were received at the meeting we did send out another notice of public hearing this was sent out in both English and Spanish the general plan land use designation is general industry the zoning is light industrial which is not is not consistent with the general plan land use designation however in both light industrial and general industrial the the zoning district that would be consistent the same application requirements are a major conditional use permit and design review zooming in here on the site a little bit you can see you know there's the their site plan is the the full site and at the the areas down again in the lower left-hand corner but I want to bring show you this kind of blown up this is again where the equipment will be and you can see with the aerial that I showed you with the trees the trees will be kind of buffering the view from both the east and the west and there is where the proposed tower is here again this is a camouflage tower there's been there was a public comment that I'd like to address here about the distance between towers if it's a camouflage tower there's you can't put two uncamouflaged towers within two miles of each other but if they're camouflaged you can this is a camouflage tower and there are there is another uncamouflaged one within two miles but that's it doesn't it doesn't this is fine okay here are some photo simulations on the left the image shows you know that's today and then the superimposed image of the tree on the right and this is coming from I think it's looking south no it's looking looking west from Giffin and Lombardi and here it's looking north from Mariner and North Point here's some coverage maps the top the top left is the existing conditions the one to the right the top right is the proposed coverage with the 85 foot pole and then below it are images with coverage mapping for 55 65 and 75 feet and I'll defer to the applicant for any questions pertaining to this slide we have received several public comments and I I I want to first say we appreciate public comments because this is how we you know we we get it done we we get those public comments a lot with telecommunications towers and other types of uses and it's those comments eventually will you know perhaps effect change but for now I'm going to address those in addition to the ones up on the screen well I guess I'm going to defer to the applicant for exposure to radiation we do have a RF engineer on on zoom that can is qualified to answer those types of questions the city's ordinance states that the telecommunication tower can't be placed within two miles of an existing tower and again that has to do with the camouflage and uncamouflaged this is camouflaged the pros proposed project fails to address size seismic safety seismic safety and I've asked mr. Bliss to stay here just in case you have any questions about that but we address seismic safety like any other new new structure through the building permit process they are required to address it so that's the building permits required for this the noticing font is not large enough and there was no Spanish translation I address that as well we've we the notice that was sent out what I didn't say in addition to it being in Spanish and English the font size was increased to 12 oops wait a minute I have then my notes there were more comments received we received an email late last night when we got it this morning I just want to summarize it was how is the tight tower necessary for public safety I'm going to say it's not exclusively public safety it's also everyday use but I think that those maps the service maps coverage maps speak for improving the the coverage again I'm going to defer to the applicant to give you specifics on that noticing beyond 600 feet why didn't we consider doing more noticing did we notice the school board and Sutter medical well the zoning code requires 600 feet we also ran the required notice in the press Democrat we posted signs at the site and we didn't specifically send a referral to the school board or Sutter hospital but I will say that Kaiser hospital was within 600 feet and they did receive one we generally don't send those referrals that I'm aware of I've been doing this for a while to to those other areas you know school the school board in the hospitals but let's see medical effects from RF exposure and I'm deferring all things RF to the engineer there was a question about the proximity to the elementary school our Stevens elementary and Caesar Chavez language Academy which is I believe within the Cook Middle School campus so again those were well over a thousand feet away tower to tower or structure to structure tower to structure the addition of future antennas and and what will the impacts be of co-location well new antennas have a process an entitlement process of their own and we will review that when when those applications come in somebody I'm not sure which comment base suggested it annual testing can Santa Rosa require it it's not required in our zoning code to do that it would require a text amendment somebody could put forth the text amendment if they wanted to and affect that change in the future and then I address seismic okay I talked about that already so then there is the required findings which you all are very familiar with I was drafted in the resolution staff felt that those findings could be met there are many of our uses in Santa Rosa have their very specific sections of the zoning code telecommunications is one of those and there were there are some other required findings that are kind of buried in in there those were also the staff felt that those findings could be made as well as they were drafted in the draft resolution and and then sequa or the California Environmental Quality Act the the project was reviewed in compliance with the Environmental Quality Act and was found to be exempt categorically exempt because it's it qualifies as a new smaller structure and also statutorily exempt because it is compliant it's in compliance with the general plan for which an EIR was certified by council so there I go again all things radio frequency I'm deferring to the applicant the the application materials met the zoning code requirements for the report of the reporting and yes so with that planning and economic development department recommends that the planning Commission approve by resolution a condition of approval or a condition conditional use permit for a new telecommunications facility located at 2715 Giffin I also want to say that I'm pinch hitting for Suzanne Hartman city planner who's the project planner and put in a lot of effort on this so I don't want to take credit for that if anybody has any questions about that her contact information is up on the screen now and I'm available for questions the applicant does have a presentation and all RF questions go to them thank you miss Crocker thank you thank you miss Murray I just wanted to follow up on something that Susie said regarding the annual monitoring she's very correct that we don't have that requirement in our code but I wanted to just follow up on that that as we've discussed the FCC is responsible for establishing the RF emissions exposure guidelines but they are also responsible for enforcing the ongoing compliance so if the city were to try to impose periodic RF compliance or reporting obligations or annual monitoring that would be subject to challenge as an unlawful supplemental regulation so I wanted to add some context to that and in addition as she also noted that we will be deferring to the RF engineer and I wanted to point out that pursuant to our code that the applicant for the telecom facility is responsible for demonstrating that proposed facility will comply with the FCC regulations so we are following our code and that's also consistent with the FCC guidelines itself so thank you thank you miss Jones yes thank you chair weeks just one extra thing to add on my part as well Susie mentioned distance require distances between the proposed structure in schools which was a concern that was brought up by member of the community but one thing to note while there is a distance requirement between the facility and habitable structures which is 75 feet there is no distance requirement in our code for distance between the facility and a school thank you are there any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant commissioner sanders thank you for the presentation you mentioned that there's the distance between structure and structure and property line and property line which of course gonna be two different things what does the code say about that what does the code specify is distance are they using property line or they using structure structure the own for habitable structure it's 75 feet structure to structure thank you any other questions of staff at this time okay so with that I will go ahead with the applicant presentation and if you could introduce yourself for the record that'd be great thank you absolutely we're working up higher there we go I'll hide behind the podium good evening chair weeks and members of the commission my name is Mike McLaughlin I'm the retired fire chief of Cosumnes Fire in Sacramento County and I'm here tonight representing the Western Fire Chiefs Association as the applicant in in this particular project I'm joining me this evening is Carol Kinchlow with Tower Engineering Professionals who's the named as the applicant to the application itself and then joining us by zoom are Sam Goudinho and Margie Pauly with Public Safety Tower Company which is a company would be constructing the proposed tower as well as David Cotton who is our engineer for radiation working for the Waterford Consultants Group and he'll be available to answer any questions you may have next slide please I'd like to start by talking about why we're here and what the project is and so first net and the reason I'm standing here and presenting to you is basically because of first net it was identified post 9-11 with a 9-11 Commission that not only in Manhattan and around the Pentagon were systems completely saturated but as our world completely shifted and changed wireless networks and communications networks nationwide became saturated making it very difficult for 911 calls to receive making it difficult if not impossible for first responders to communicate with one another and one of the action items of the 9-11 Commission was to create a dedicated public safety network in 2012 the United States Congress created first net to do the adoption of the middle-class tax relief and job creations act to create it did two things first it created the first net authority within the U.S. Department of Commerce and to it dedicated band 14 of the cellular spectrum specifically for and exclusively for the use of public safety and so there's many bands within within the cellular spectrum if you have AT&T or Verizon you may be operating off of many different bands but in this particular case this if you will this radio channel or this spectrum within this channel can only be accessed by having special SIM cards and you need to be a first responder to be able to have that access and so that's really an important piece so that now first responders will have a dedicated broadband platform to be able to communicate not only verbally but be able to send data and be able to use the modern tools available to be more effective and efficient in emergency response and the things necessary therefore the reason the western fire chiefs is involved as our executive director was one of the western fire chiefs has been involved in advocating for this dedicated communications platform for you for decades and our executive director was one of the initial members of the first net authority board of directors that ultimately brought this project to fruition in in 2017 the first net authority issued a contract a first of its kind public private partnership with AT&T for a 25 year contract to build out the first net system to maintain it and operate it for a 25 year period the work that's been done on this is the easy stuff was done first net or AT&T updated its existing infrastructure to be first net capable the next step was co-locating on existing facilities where AT&T didn't exist to provide that first net AT&T piece and now we're in the difficult phase of trying to fill the gaps in coverage that don't have any existing towers and don't have any existing coverage next slide please as I mentioned the partnerships an important one I'm here I work for the western fire chiefs association I don't work for AT&T I don't work for first net I don't work for public safety tower company I'm here to advocate on behalf of public safety to be able to get the coverage that's necessary so our first responders can have the coverage we need and it's not only the coverage for first responders to be able to communicate with each other but it's also so that the residents in our communities have the ability to reach 911 and we have the ability as responders to be able to push important information out on the right of the screen is a resolution by the California fire chiefs association you know solidifying its support of helping to build out the first net coverage within the state of California which as you can imagine with a topography we have in our great state is a very difficult challenge next slide please as we move in and start discussing the project itself as was presented that there's certain things that we needed to prove and to demonstrate one of which is that our project we need to identify all potential alternatives and co-locate with somebody else if at all possible the image on the bottom right hand side is a conglomeration of the three major providers T mobile Verizon and AT&T in this case green is good and black is bad green is good coverage indoors and outdoors black coverage is basically no coverage indoor or outdoors so there's a tremendous island right within this industrial park area that has no coverage really whatsoever by any of the three providers which I will touch more later provides a great opportunity for co-location and fewer structures going forward we also identified that that the only existing towers within one mile of the the proposed location are the three at the top of the screen eat one of which is a basically it's what's called a microcell on a power pole for lack of better words one is in a foe steeple on a church that doesn't have any room for co-location and the third is a large mono pole structure that would be up in the far right corner of that picture but that that tower is completely full without any capacity being able to add but still the issue would exist that the signals only transmit so far we would still have a coverage issue even if those co-location was an option on those next slide please also part of our work was doing alternative site analysis we contacted and worked with a number reached out to a number of property owners in and around the area in the center of what we call the search ring the area that we're trying to provide the coverage for which you can see on on the slide is the the green icon is the proposed location and then there are six other property locations to where we had constructive conversations with property owners and each of those locations didn't work out for one reason or another but we're generally all within the same industrial park area next slide please and height obviously is is of a major concern or question with with building any of these structures and the the city's zoning code requires that the that the tower should be as small as possible and the minimum height necessary without compromising the coverage that we're trying to achieve in this particular case we are asking for would it be the total of an 85 foot tower it's an 80 foot steel tower with with five foot of branch at the top with a lightning rod tied into it with the center of the radio of the first set of intent is being at about 75 feet and then being able to have the ability for co-locating other providers in in subordinate positions on that same tower to be able to provide the overall coverage the importance of being able to have co-location is that it's great at first responders can communicate with each other but if the citizens don't have the ability to have a cell signal to create and contact for 911 or to be able to receive emergency notifications you know that's the problem on the other side we know that 70% of all homes in the United States no longer have why landline phones and 87% of the 911 calls received in the state of California in 2021 came from wireless devices so this is something that is here something that is real and our goal here is really try to you know bridge the coverage gaps so that we can make sure that emergency information is known this project in terms of the height itself is very similar to the project that was recently put through and approved by the city council after an appeal process it was a few miles away it was a 69 foot tower but what's being asked for here is identical the difference between the two towers is that the tallest building that potentially interfered with the lower antennas at the other location was a were about 30 feet in height and immediately adjacent to within this industrial park we have some buildings as high as 45 feet so the only difference is having the ability for those antennas to clear the the major obstacles that are immediately adjacent to the to the signal again we're not asking for one foot more than we need right I'm asking for six inches more than what we need we're asking for what we need in order to be able to find coverage to this area next slide please this slide was previously shown I'm just a touch on what it is that the orange basically means you have good coverage inside and outside of structures yellow is you have good coverage inside of structures I'm sorry good coverage outside of structures and decent coverage or some coverage inside of structures blue is you have coverage outside but almost no coverage inside and then gray is there's really not any signal at all and so very central area that we're working to address is right in the middle of that gray area next slide please one one of the things that we were asked to do is to provide information from three different elevation levels this being at 75 feet as you can see it basically covers and touches on the different coverage areas in and around it the gray areas ultimately go away and replaced with with orange or yellow something that that I want to be important to point out at this and I know I'm running very close on time is the upper left corner of of the the coverage of the proposed tower you can see there's almost a pie shape out of it and next slide please as we move through the slides and then again next slide please as you can see as we move and the tower moves the radio signal moves from 75 to 65 to 75 that becomes more pronounced and what that is is a shadow of the 45 foot tall building that's immediately next to it so ultimately like light it ultimately casts a shadow you know with radio waves and ultimately that building will ultimately cast a shadow which impairs it which which really is necessitates the height that we're we're asking for and and as you can see as the tower gets lower the coverage is about 25% less than it would be if the tower 25% taller which would ultimately necessitate more towers over time to provide complete coverage which is something that we myself included are trying to prevent next slide please so we're respectfully requesting your approval of the CUP 23004 85 foot monopine wireless communication facility it's the height that's needed in order to be able to provide the coverage and then it will ultimately provide co-location capability going forward has been discussed that this project is in compliance with the City of Santa Rosa zoning code and you know and as a dad as a retired fire chief and somebody in the fire service for me this project is really in an ideal location it's in the middle of an industrial location it's a thousand 1200 feet from from schools from residences and there's not many places in any of our communities where all of those things can the checkbox can be checked and say that they're true is there truly an ideal ideal location well that's up to you know judgment bigger but in terms of the parameters that we have to work with this is really really a pretty sound location that would provide for the opportunity for co-location as well and with that I'm sorry for being a bit over but I'll happy be happy to answer any questions you may have thank you before we open the public comment or public hearing on this are there any questions of the applicant with that I should I can yeah I have just one question about slide six the height and co-location slide so your antennas are going to be the ones at the 76 foot height and then the others are just potential future build out for co-located equipment by other carriers yes that would be correct okay thank you and those those co-locators as was mentioned by staff will ultimately come back for the individual approval for each at you know set of different antenna arrays any other questions Mr. Sanders thank you for the presentation there's we get a lot of emails coming in as you can imagine can you address some of the health concerns as you know them to be absolutely I think the best for us would be is on our zoom call is we have David cotton with us with Waterford consultants and this is his absolute field of expertise and so he'd be the one that would be able to weigh in I'd give you the firehouse answer which may be close to true but I want to make sure you get the the full truth in the presentation so mr. Cotton good evening now I am with Waterford consultants I I'm based out of running California and the the maximum level of RF exposure on the ground is 10% of the general public limit and that is down usually it's down right at the base where all the equipment is as we get further away from the site that that number drops off considerably it usually when I've taken when I've just taken measurements other sites it's usually were all less than 1% especially if you start going out toward anywhere any of the residential areas you get far enough away from a tower it's a two less 1% it's in my equipment that's kind of in what I call the ground or the or the noise floor so it's very hard to distinguish whether it's heard from the tower or it's coming from other RF sources it's it's very the signals once it gets out to the extremities of the site are significantly small thank you any other quick thank you so before we go to public comment I do have a question for staff and I just want to clarify what our role is and our role is that we're taking action on the conditional use permit based upon the findings that are laid out in the zoning code is that correct yes we're really yes you can the based on those findings if you can make them you can approve it if you can't make them you don't have to approve it but you can't deny it based on RF related issues thank you any other comment from staff before we go ahead and open the public hearing okay so with that I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this if you are if you wish to make comment please make your way to the podium you will have three minutes for your comments and I think you can all see the timer up there on the screen and if you could please state your name for the record and there's a button on the podium to lower it that might be helpful thank you does this have RF yes so if you could please state your name for the record my name is Kim Kelly I live probably the closest of any home to the proposed site one question I have it's the RF exposure is based on a 30-minute limit is that correct I want to know if it's cumulative right out in front of my home I also have a high voltage power line from PG&E so when you do your numbers are they will they be looking at the cumulative effect of the new tower plus the PG&E line right in front of my house does the city have any responsibility to consider that that's my question I just thought of while I was listening to all this I'll go ahead and just read what I wrote out when I had some time to think about this aesthetically there's nothing real looking about a fake tree it will be a nice or as we looked west towards the sunset 80 feet is taller than most buildings in Santa Rosa I don't know how tall the redwood trees are that you're saying are going to be masking in on either side but I don't know are they or does anybody know if they're more than 80 feet it is only I'm not really sure how you can anyway I'm going to continue the seismic safety issue was mine that was discussed the coverage of the new cell tower I have a rise on wireless and my cell phone works just fine in my house when I'm right there in that black zone that they were talking about so I want to know about any interference to my current reception radio TV or AT&T well it's not going to be helping other coverage right away it sounds like do we have any timeline and can we let the people in the area know what that would be for the other services responsibility to the neighborhoods AT&T and I think it's given Avenue property LLC that owns the land they don't live near the proposed site but they could do something nice for the neighborhood they could take responsibility for what's happening on the property that they do own they could keep the high-speed cars from doing donuts on their property disturbing the neighbors burning rubber and screeching tires at all hours the police say it's private property when they call them so they can do pretty little to catch the people to begin with what we need are for them to put some barriers up like like speed bumps or chains or something to close off the parking lots to keep the cars out of their after after hours to mitigate us having to deal with a very tall unsightly tower left coast wholesale marijuana supplier I believe is also leasing property from them and I've asked them to they could do something and basically we just get ignored they do stand and make an incredible profit off of AT&T from the amount of money they're probably going to have to AT&T is probably going to be paying them to lease their property so it would make the neighborhood a little bit better if they're going to impose us on us because I'm pretty sure we're going to be getting this tower I want to know about the noise generator from the generator that's supposed to be enclosed how awful will it run how big is it and thank you thank you it's my three minutes okay okay anybody else would like to make a comment okay please state your name for the record if you choose to do so my name is Roberta Valdez and I also live probably the closest residents were the last house on Giffen Avenue property values after our towers plate is placed property tax rates should be discounted in neighborhoods with cell towers there was no proof that the non eye anizing radiation is 100 percent safe until research is done to prove it is AT&T contributing to this research there was no proof the cell tower radiation is 100 percent safe and there is no risk living closer to these towers have all other options to the cell towers been considered fire services want better reception during major emergencies how about satellite service instead SOS on iPhones satellite phones AT&T will make lots of money so they want cell phones used how much money will Santa Rosa make for each authorized tower there is a school nearby maybe AT&T and Giffen Avenue property LC can give some needed items to it lunch program computers emergency preparedness packs some sort of medications should be made for neighborhoods to tolerate such imposing invasive and possibly risky structures finally my personal feelings is someone who bought my property to enjoy the space on my land as my sanctuary in the city to garden and raise a few chickens and live outside my peace of mind will be reduced knowing that towers looming over our neighborhood how much time is too much outside now the exposure limit submitted is based on a 30 minute exposure I'm in my garden we're in our garden for hours at a time if I want to protect myself from the sun's rays while gardening I can put on sunscreen and I can wear a hat to protect myself from the radiation coming from the tower what can I do we're a lead apron while gardening the radiation coming from the tower this is a non-ionizing radiation but it's still radiation we can't see it but it's still there and there aren't enough answers to know a hundred percent that it is safe distance reduces the risk so how far away is far enough with this huge cell tower who can tell us just because everyone is using it or doing it doesn't make it safe reminds me of cigarettes and roundup bring back old landlines they are safer thank you very much and by the way that notice didn't come out in Spanish I didn't we did not receive it in Spanish and we walked around our whole neighborhood and nobody received it in Spanish is there any other public comment on this item if so please make your way to the podium and state your name for the record if you choose to do so hi my name is Sydney Cox I'm with the EMF safety network and Safe Tech for Santa Rosa every time we hear our hands are tied we can't deny a tower on the basis of environmental or health effects if the RFR is under FCC limits the FCC limits are the maximal permissible exposure or MPE the MPE must not exceed 1 million microwatts I'm sorry 1 milliwatt per centimeter squared for 30 minutes which translates to 10 million microwatts per meter squared if you have an RF meter like I do and many of us do this value translation is important if you don't then this is the most important thing to know the MPE is time dependent it's the rate at which energy is being transmitted into the environment multiplied by the time six minutes for occupational exposure 30 minutes for general population allowable power is what's being calculated depending on time exposure according to the basic FCC formula the longer the time the lower the allowable power exposure must be this makes sense but what doesn't make sense is the fact that the FCC doesn't have power exposures for times longer than 30 minutes and why is that for instance on a nice sunny day you can only be out for a certain amount of time say an hour or you get a sunburn the longer you're exposed the more sun you're going to get the more harm there are many other examples showing damage that is time dependent the longer the exposure the more harm it seems highly reasonable then that in fact it's very important to ask AT&T what's the MPE the maximum permissible exposure if some if some general population person is exposed longer than 30 minutes like 2 hours 8 hours 24 hours what is the MPE at 100 feet 200 feet 300 feet 500 feet what what should the emitted power density be for these longer times and at varying distances how can that be measured how can we know please provide this evidence let's ask the questions and require the evidence and I just want to say something about the unlawful supplemental regulations for regular monitoring yearly monitoring that is not true we're in touch with some very powerful attorneys we're going to bring this to their attention and we're going to get their comments on this and besides this is a bit of a snow job this application is misleading 9-1-1 calls go to any carrier you can Google this and find this in multiple sites any carrier not just AT&T this claim is being required for the general public this emergency calls they're saying it's it's needed it's not there are plenty of towers in Santa Rosa more than any other city in Sonoma County thank you thank you anybody else would like to make comment mr. DeWitt yes thank you hello my name is Dwayne DeWitt I'm from Roseland if you remember in the slides you saw there was a photo an aerial that showed part of the Santa Rosa Naval Auxiliary Air Station that's where my father was stationed during the Korean War I have first-hand knowledge of this area friends live on Giffen Avenue and as a youth I was an emergency medical technician first responder and then later in life working in hospitals I do believe most of what was said today by the applicant is very helpful and that this site might be needed I don't know if it has to come specifically just from AT&T or any other specific organization but the proposal they've put forward makes a lot of sense when you think about this they use the maps to show that the coverage is not there in the area for the first responders as you know fire station number 10 is nearby and basically what's of real importance here is that we're gonna have even more people in our community in the future we might have even more problems also some people say that the four seasons in California are drought earthquake fire and flood and so with that in mind we always need to be ready for these types of situations and not look back in hindsight and say well we should have and we could have I can understand the challenges put forward by the opponents to this project and I in no way mean to detract from any of that I've been very concerned about radio frequency problems also some antennas were put and some transmitters were put on telephone poles in our area right near where I live so one of the things that's most important here though is that this is about first net and that is something that has proven to be effective and helpful throughout communities where it operates we should be one of those communities where it operates in the future and that this tower would be one of those ways in which this helps so I should also close by saying I do not work for any of these folks I don't get any money from any of these folks I'm just a guy who lives in the neighborhood and knows about the needs and hopes that we will not have to have more emergency help but this would be something that would be in what's up there's a planner word for it oh it's our toolbox yeah that's that word they use all the time thank you kindly for your help thank you anybody else wishing to speak please state your name for the record my name is Jennifer La Porta I have a background in environmental health if you want some extra emergency response help how about widening the roads where you're doing this extensive housing development to build out Bellevue is a single lane Dutton Meadows is a single lane Herne is a single lane south of I mean west of Dutton etc. Stony Point is I mean two lanes it's not wide enough listen at the start of many an end of the world movie is a scientist with a warning the warning is ignored resulting in chaos and destruction in this case we're talking about a brewing public health crisis these chambers have been attended by many people who already already suffer from electro sensitivity and they are frustrated I know you cannot make a decision on health effects why is that because there's a gag order this is a gag order against saying the truth okay and doing what's what makes sense they don't want you to know about the negative effects or how the MPEs are based on erroneous assumptions as per the 2022 article from Environmental Health Journal titled scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC exposure limit determinations for radio frequency radiation I emailed you this article a few days ago the FCC was successfully sued in 21 and told to update their outdated MPEs they have not yet complied meanwhile there's been an explosion in construction of toxic towers calling yourself public safety towers is or welly and talk these are toxic towers okay waterford consultants so you just listen to they work for telecom they work for telecom and they're saying that the there's only 10% of the MPE under the tower and that it goes to 1% of the MPE the further you get away they they're not even telling you about the plume effect people there's a plume effect it looks like this okay it increases you can ask Sydney she's done measurements all over town proving the plume effect how it's greater if you get a certain distance away okay listen the plastic pine needles will degrade and fall off the tower over time resulting in environmental contamination the Russian Riverkeeper already wrote you a letter telling you this is a big problem no more need no need for more microplastic in our environment listen the planning department is complicit in rubber stamping projects they recommend you approve this before hearing before hearing any public comment this shows prejudice in favor of tell you thank you and develop a cozy relationship you while we're told to stand 20 feet over you where we thank you I contact any other public comment on this item seeing no one going to the podium go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission any questions comments before we before I ask someone to make a motion on the resolution Vice Chair Duggan can we ask the gentleman who's on zoom I assume he's still listening sure if he has any response to the the questions in the comments about the exposure limits yes what if you can refresh refresh remember what exactly in terms of exposure limits are are you asking about I'm just trying there was just a lot of stuff there specifically the plume effect and also if the limits are based on 30 minute exposure and what what is the limit for further longer times right the exposures the reason why they use 30 minutes because that's the time they are measured it's not necessarily because we're talking about only 30 minute exposure it's when when we do the measure when we were when we're doing what I call not just a general public but the the workplace we'll look at the six minutes or the six minute exposure because during that time period in places where the radio frequency is a bit higher it's also more intense and the reason the 30 minutes averaging is done so we can get extra more data it's it's not just it's not just measured over spaces measured over time and one of the things that with non-ionizing it is the primary issues that any of them are thermal effects and once you step what what once it in most in most of I'm just gonna I'm just trying to put myself together here when you're in an area which is below 100% of the general public the body is able to deal with any of the additional exposure in a sensing and is able to regulate anything when you start getting above 100% then we then we start thinking a little bit more about the time and what people tend to look at when they're looking at exposure they think that once you get past this guard I use I use the analogy of a cliff let's just say you're at the edge of the Grand Canyon if you step over you're gonna fall down the barriers are actually I would say 20 feet behind where the cliff is because there's because the FCC also in setting these regulations up set it up for other environmental factors such as heat and various other things that you cannot accommodate for so there's a safety factor built in especially to the general public level about 50 fold so the the plume effect I have what I know about radio and I've been with I've been working with radio since my days in the military in the late 80s RF usually drops off at a what we call one over our square the more in other words you double the distance it goes down another 25% it will go down 25% so any plume effect is going to be very much hidden in what I would call the noise floor it's not anything noticeable but I've ever seen where I've been out I have measured hundreds of sites that I've never seen anything of the sort thank you any other questions at this point man I just wanted to add something on that because there were a number of questions and thank you for raising that commissioner dug in as to the FCC RF limits but I just wanted to to remind the Commission that that what they're talking about there is taking issue with the FCC formulas or methodologies and as we've said it's the FCC that's responsible for setting the nationwide guidelines and that the city is preempted from formulating additional guidelines so they have set the methodology and we have to work within the boundaries of what they have set so we cannot deny the telecom based on RF if the project complies with the FCC regulations the evidence that we have in the record before us as submitted by an expert in the field has said that this project complies with the FCC regulations so I just wanted to bring it back to that point which has to do with you know the chair asks at the opening to kind of set our parameters in our purview as your Commission is always great at doing so I wanted to acknowledge all of these comments but also acknowledge the position that the city is in under the federal preemption laws so thank you thank you I do have the applicant is something I actually brought up at our last cellular tower proposal and that is a concern that was brought up by one of the public and that states concerns regarding hours of testing of monthly and annual testing for your generator operations to ensure that that would you as the applicant be willing to make a statement that those testing hours would only occur during normal business hours and not at 2 3 in the morning or you know anything like that I've just experienced this in the past where you have generators that are in close proximity to residential locations and a lot of times companies that come out to do a lot of the maintenance and the monthly testing they don't really always take into consideration the local residents and their need for sleep so that's basically all I'd like to say it and so yes the typically the maintenance everything will take place within normal working hours within the city's ordinances for noise and those types of things the only type of work that I could foresee that would occur off those hours if an emergency repair was needed if there was an emergency outage it would truly need to be an emergency wouldn't be a routine type of outage otherwise it would be all stuff done normal during normal business hours wonderful thank you what while you're there I have a question there was a question on the timeline what is the timeline for the construction if it is approved so so following hopefully your approval this evening we would go into the design review process with the city and which would ultimately lead us and start down the path toward going through the formal submittals and building and permitting process which is in the process where the seismic aspects of the project and that type of thing would be reviewed and approved and so the goal on this is really to move as quickly as feasible right so you know a matter of working through the permitting process you know the long the longest part of the journey is getting really to this point and so you know the hope would be is this tower would be you know functional you know the first part of 2025 thank you you're welcome any other questions before I ask somebody to read the resolution somebody like to do that commissioner Holton I'd like to make a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for a new wireless telecommunications facility located at 2715 Giffen Avenue file number CUP 23-004 and a way for the reading second is there a second second second okay so that was moved by commissioner Holton seconded by commissioner Cisco we'll go ahead and start with comments with commissioner Holton the only thing I really have to say is I understand the importance of need for first for the first responders I really do and I understand that a lot of people's understanding of what the situation is is a little different than what the reality of it is there gets times where cellular towers get overloaded with a number of people like you were explaining during especially the emergency situations I've had other examples and talked to people recently about this a lot because of what's you know because of how intense some of these conversations have got so I actually reached out to some friends of mine that are first responders and asked their opinion on it and they stated to me that the problem is is that during high peak seasons in really high concentration areas for example like Costco and you've got Christmas shopping going on and you've got every other store over there filled to the gills those towers are fully overloaded at that point in time and they had actually stated to me that somebody had had a heart attack in Costco during the holiday season lap or it was the previous year they weren't allowed to actually they couldn't get through to 911 because the whole entire circuit was overloaded the tower was overloaded there were too many people on the tower so I just want people to understand that it's not a batter a matter of I can get great cell phone reception at my house okay great on any given day I'm sure you can but when the towers are overloaded and when they're at maximum capacity and that can easily happen with a just a myriad of factors so just understand that it's not about just being able to place a daily call or just ease of access for that but all that aside I just want to say that I fully support the first responders this is my last planning commission meeting you'll be happy to know I've really enjoyed serving the public I've done so exclusively without any financial reimbursement from any companies like AT&T or any cell companies Verizon any of that stuff I do this all on my own time I volunteer my own time I don't get paid for any of this I do this 100% as public service so please know that when you make accusations that somebody's on Verizon's payroll or somebody's payroll people can really take offense to that and it really hurts them so just please know that what I do and what I've done for the past three and a half years has been exclusively to public service I have not received a dime I haven't even received gas money for half of the places that I go to so I just want you to know that there are people that really care about our community there are people that really want the best for our community so please please please understand that what this thing is is this thing is to improve the public safety this is not about some money grab this is about improving public safety so thank you oh and I'll be in support of this project and I can make all the required findings thank you commissioners this go I'm also in support of the project and can make all the required findings vice-chair Duggan I'm also in support of the project and can make all the required findings Commissioner Carter I think the applicant has put together a project that complies with the regulations that we have before us to evaluate such projects and I can support it and make all the necessary findings thank you Commissioner Sanders so I was at that same fire table in my former career having those same somewhat informed conversations so I feel you with that one you know it this project checks the boxes and I'm glad that the chair brought it back by asking the question what is it that's actually in front of us what is it that we're supposed to be making a determination about and that's really important so you know the the short story is I can make all the required findings based on the boxes that we need to check the big the boxes that we're expected to check as planning commissioners it's not a legislative body right so what we do is we determine whether or not it's legal or not is it in the right zoning area or is it not I'm looking at what you just sent is right here on my computer I've been reading it the whole time and I don't disagree I don't I don't know that it's I don't know that I disagree or agree that's not what I do I have no idea what the right scientific methodology is but that's not what's before us it checks the boxes but I would say that maybe the boxes are old the FCC started there I wrote it down the limits for maximum permissible exposure were done in 1996 that's what we're working with the city zoning code around this was written in 1997 and readopted in 2004 so as we are you know things are progressing right we're not going back to cable TV smartphones didn't exist when these requirements were written they didn't exist when the zoning ordinance was written they exist now and so maybe as we move forward I will be supporting the project with the caveat that we probably should start thinking about re re-invigorating these boxes that we're checking because maybe those boxes are old maybe it's time that we take a second look to make sure that the decisions that we're making are the decisions that we as a community want me for us so with that yeah but I'm supporting the project so I don't know if you want to thank me or not but that's that's where I stand thank you and I will also be supporting the project and making and we'll be able to make all the required findings so with that it was moved by Commissioner Holton seconded by commissioner Cisco if we could have the votes please thank you chair weeks commissioner Carter I commissioner Cisco I commissioner Sanders I commissioner Holton I vice chair Duggan I chair weeks I so that passes with six eyes commissioner Peterson absent tonight and please note this action is final and less an appeal is filed with the city clerk's office within 10 calendar days of today's decision pursuant to zoning code section 20 dash 62.030 thank you and we'll take about a couple minute break while people change seats okay back to your seats okay thanks for that little break so this is item 10.2 it's a public hearing that meadow subdivision time extension it's an exempt project one year time extension request 2650 2666 and 2684 that meadow and 1112 and 1200 extension 23 dash 0009 this is an exparte item so we'll start with commissioner Sanders I have nothing further to disclose commissioner Carter I have visited the site and I have nothing further to disclose vice chair Duggan I have nothing to disclose commissioner Cisco I have nothing to disclose and commissioner Holton I've also visited the site and I have nothing to disclose and I visited the site and have nothing to disclose so with that miss two means thank you chair weeks and members of the planning commission my name is christine two means I'm a senior planner and the item before you is the Dutton Metis subdivision time extension just to give you a brief project description this on December 9th 2021 the planning commission approved Dutton Metis subdivision it was approved to subdivide 18.56 acres into 137 residential small lots and construct detached housing they're requesting a one-year time extension which would allow them additional time to record their final map which I hear is imminent and that would bring their expiration date to December 9th 2024 this is the approved a tentative map showing the small lot subdivision configuration here is aerial view of the project site it's several parcels us that front along Dutton Meadow and Herne Avenue oh there go so the the yellow bordered project site area it is recommended by planning an economic development that the planning commission approved a one-year time extension for the Dutton Meadow tentative map extending the expiration date to December 9 2024 the applicant representative is here if you have any questions and staff is available for any questions or comments thank you thank you are there any questions from staff before I open the public hearing on this so with that I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item if you are in the council chambers and like to make a comment please go to the podium and we'll start with mr. DeWitt hello my name is Dwayne DeWitt I'm from Roseland I live on Herne Avenue I go by this place all the time 30 years ago this plan first came forward and no one's mentioned that it was in the Southwest Area plan of 1994 I do not believe that you should approve another extension unless you do like mr. Saunders just mentioned a moment ago with the other item look back at how long ago the traffic studies were done we have a real problem with traffic right now on Herne Avenue and it's only worsening that woman was here earlier I've never met her but she mentioned Dutton Meadow I mean these are really serious problems we're facing out there with the continued cumulative impact of all of these housing units coming in and remember almost every unit comes and they don't have just one car you folks might say oh we got this parking space situation they come in with two and three cars per household hopefully you'll remember there was a development put out there by Burbank housing we call it the stockade it's three story buildings out in the middle of the field and that place is packed with cars all the time tiny narrow roads and you basically looked at it like well we need the housing it's time to get past that excuse all right right now there's enough housing to go around we've reached the number of replacement units from the fire seven years ago the Tubbs fire which has been the big excuse for everything like build build build now you need to look at this in the future in terms of what the impacts are for our community the Herne Avenue that's called an interchange has been talked about for 25 years I was on a committee with miss Cisco 24 years ago we were talking about these things then so we know we're not going to get our traffic issues addressed unless we get some new reports that tell us what the true traffic impacts are right now the baseline in this day and age not from the past from as far as I can find out from the people in transportation and public works we haven't had a recent traffic study along Herne Avenue or Dutton Meadow or Burbank or Dutton or West the other streets that are all impacted all the time so I know that me saying just hold this up might be considered a problem but I'm asking you to look at it like okay we can do more for that community where we're building so many housing units hundreds upon hundreds have already come in hundreds upon hundreds more are being planned we're the ones that have to live it so please perhaps just give this what do they call that a continuation a continuance until you can come back with a valid current traffic study for all of those areas around where this will impact Herne Avenue thank you thank you are there any other comments if you could please give your name for the record that would be great I plan and commissioners my name is Robin Miller I'm with Tremark Homes and project applicant I've been working on this project for nearly seven years of its 23 year life first application I believe started in 2005 the acquisition and the prepaving of it started back in 2001 so it's been a long time to get here one thing I wanted to point out to the planning commissioners this as I see some familiar faces still on the commission the T map was approved December 9th 2021 the processing of the site improvement plans and tentative map have been processed and submitted reviewed for the past two years in earnest no delays between comments and recent metals just as of February 29th 2024 was the first time we actually got staff approval of the site improvement plans and final maps so there has been no delay in pursuing this project the other thing I want to point out is that the application for extension of the tentative map occurred three months prior to the T map exploration date is taken six months to get to this point now so I just want to make those points that the applicant has not been amiss or aloof in pursuing this project this is the time it has taken staff to get us to this point so appreciate the extension and due to the fact that the applicant had made this application for an extension in December and it's taken or the expiration date was in December I'd love to get more time since it's already cutting me down by the three months of the expiration to get to this point which and the application was submitted back on I believe it was September 15th or 14th thank you and I'm here for any questions or comments about the current project should you have in thank you thank you any other comments on this item okay seeing none I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission any questions of the applicant or staff on this okay would somebody like to make a motion for the resolution as chair Duggan I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa granting a one-year extension of time for the Dutton meadows subdivision located at 2650 2666 2684 Dutton meadows 1112 and 1200 Herne Avenue assessors parcel numbers 043-071-007-0022-023 and 043-191-016-024 file number extension 23-0008 and ext 23-0009 and wave for the reading thank you is there a second thank you so that was moved by vice chair Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Carter so we'll start with Commissioner Sanders seems pretty straightforward to me I can make all the findings and we'll support the extension thank you Commissioner Carter yeah I think it's pretty straightforward I will point out that I think when this project first came to us we couldn't approve it so it wasn't all of the city's slowness in processing the project but I will support the resolution to extend the use permit and I can make all the required findings thank you first your Deccan I can make all the required findings and I want to thank the applicant for giving us his viewpoint and remember you from years ago and the project and also like that's we've pointed out many times here like our road design and road building process is not perfect at the city and this project is going to give some of much needed extension for stony point and hopefully long-term that's going to relieve some of the traffic and I know that they've just started they just did the groundbreaking for the Herne Avenue over crossing finally we've only heard about that for the last over many years I've been on the commission so that you know it's going to be worse initially and it should get better so I take Mr. Dewitt's comments to heart as well but I can make all the required findings thank you Commissioner Cisco I can also make all the required findings and we'll be in favor of the project thank you and Commissioner Holton I can also make the required findings and I'll also be in support of this project and I will also make all the required fun can make all the required findings and be supportive of the project so with that it was moved by Vice Chair Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Carter if we could have the role please or the vote rather thank you Commissioner Carter I Commissioner Cisco I Commissioner Sanders I Commissioner Peterson is absent Commissioner Holton I Vice Chair Duggan I chair weeks I so that passes with six eyes Commissioner Peterson absent and please note that this action is final unless an appeal is filed with the city clerk's office within 10 calendar days of today's decision pursuant to zoning code section 20 dash 62 point zero three zero thank you and with that we'll move on to item 10.3 this this is 10.3 public hearing John poll annexation pre-zoning it's an exempt project annexation pre-zoning 5817 highway 12 a and x 23 dash 001 and Ms. two means again oh I'm sorry thank you we need need Ex parte thank you takes the village to help me so this is an ex parte item Commissioner Sanders I have visited the site and I have nothing to disclose. Thank you Commissioner Carter. I've also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Vice Chair Duggan I have visited the site and had nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Cisco I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Commissioner Holton I have nothing to disclose. And I also visited the site and have nothing to disclose. So now Ms. Tumians. Thank you again Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission. This is the John Paul annexation pre-zoning at 5817 Highway 12. The property is located at 5817 Highway 12 and is currently unincorporated and adjacent to properties within the city's limits. It is currently developed. I've been informed it's actually two single-family dwellings on 3.18 acres. The applicant representative informed me recently that one of the single-family dwellings was converted to an accessory structure due to requirements from the county and I don't have any further information. But it's developed with two single-family dwellings and accessory structures. The purpose of the annexation is to obtain city utilities to serve the existing development on site. No no new development or construction is proposed at this time. Here's the proposed project site. It's right outside of the city limits near Los Alamos Road north of Oakmont area. In brief project history the application was submitted in September in November the notice of application was mailed to neighboring property owners within 600 feet and tenants within 600 feet. It is within the city urban growth boundary. General plan designation is very low residential. The proposal is to pre-zone it to RR which is rural residential and is the implementing zoning district of very low density residential general plan land use designation. And staff is also recommending the addition of two overlay districts the SR scenic road combining district because of its location along highway 12. From Calistoga road to Oakmont is designated a scenic road and the scenic road combining district will require that any future development adhere to additional development standards. And then the RC resilient city combining district the purpose of the RC combining district is intended to facilitate the reconstruction and resilience of areas impacted by the tubs nuns and glass fires which this property was. And the project was found to comply with CEQA pursuant to guidelines sections 15183 because the proposed zoning district is compatible with the general plan designation. There are no outstanding issues and staff received some interest from the neighboring property owners or tenants. They were concerned about any future development but after learning there was no development proposed. I didn't hear from them after the notice went out for this meeting. And with that it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission by resolution recommend that the city council prezone the property located at 5817 highway 12 consistent with the general plan land use designation. And here is my contact information if anyone has any questions about this project. Should this project be approved the next step would be the city council deciding whether to introduce an ordinance to adopt the prezoning. Staff is available for any comments or questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions from staff? Commissioner Carter. Yeah I'm sorry if I missed this in the staff report but under the rural residential zoning how many units could there be built on 3.11 acres? So the density is limited by the general plan designation which is very low and it has a range of 0.2 to 2 dwelling units per acre. Any other questions? Okay so with that I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If there's anybody interested in making public comment please go to the podium and state your name for the record and you will have three minutes. Chair Weeks. Commissioner Steve Sharp representing the property owner today. I'm a planner. I'm sorry we can't hear you can you maybe raise the podium or put the microphone a little closer to you. Can you hear me? Yes thank you. Steve Sharp I'm a planner representing the property owner John Poole today. This is the first step in the annexation process and LAFCO requires that it's prezone. Your recommendation goes to the city council and it goes into the LAFCO process. There's no development proposed on this property at this time. We'll be evaluating future potential development which would allow a maximum of about six dwellings on the property. However there's a number of constraints that go along and those need to be evaluated as well. We've read your staff report the documents that support that including the resolution and we recommend that that you also support that I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you. Any case seeing nobody else rise I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. If any further questions would somebody like to enter the resolution? Sure. Commissioner Sanders. I recommend that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Santa Rosa recommending that the city council prezone the property located at 5817 Highway 12 to the rural residential scenic road resilient city RR-20-SR-RC zoning district. Assessors parcel number 031-090-041 file number ANX23-001 and we 3D. Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. So that was moved by Commissioner Sanders seconded by Commissioner Carter. We'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Holton. One last time. Again I just like to let everyone know that I really appreciated my time here. Thank you staff for all of your support throughout this and thank you to all my fellow commissioners for helping me throughout this entire process everything from my acclamation to my departure. So thank you so much especially thank you chair weeks for your leadership and for especially fostering a lot of discussions with me early on where I was very very green at this so thank you very much. I can make all the required findings to support this. I will be in support of this annexation and and again thank you very much. Thank you and thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I too am in support of this annexation and can make all the required findings. Vice-chair Duggan. I can make all the required findings in support of the pre-zoning for the annexation and I want to thank Commissioner Holton for always being so positive and upbeat and has it really been three and a half years but I'm in support of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Carter. I can make all the required findings for the annexation and pre-zoning and I will be supporting the annexation. Commissioner Sanders. I also can make all the required findings and we'll support the rezoning and Commissioner Holton. We didn't get a chance really to chop it up like I would like to with all of our with all of our commissioners but I really appreciate your time here. Thank you so much. Well before I leave the main land here we'll have to all get together because now we can actually well I can get together with each one of you individually correct. That's right. I need time pal. And I also can make all the required findings and we'll be supporting this item so with that if we could have the vote. Commissioner Carter. I. Commissioner Cisco. I. Commissioner Sanders. I. Commissioner Holton. I. Vice Chair Duggan. I. Chair Weeks. I. So that passes with six eyes and Commissioner Peterson absent and I do want to publicly thank Commissioner Holton. Thanks Jeff for your service these last what three and a half years. Wow time flies. Anyway thank you very much for your dedication and I wish you all the best in your new venture. Thank you. That's meeting adjourned. Sorry. Meeting adjourned.