 Welcome, Chair Meeks. Good afternoon, Raul. Check. Welcome, Commissioner Holton. Thank you for checking your camera and mic. Great, thank you. Welcome, Commissioner Duggan. If you can check your mic and camera for us, please. Testing, testing. Oh, great. We can see and hear you. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Welcome, Commissioner Carter. If you can check your camera and mic for us, please. If you can check your mic and camera, please. Testing. Great. Thank you. Hi, Chair Meeks. This is Patty, the host. Looks like we have all commissioners ready. So we'll be ready at four o'clock when you are. Okay. Patty, is everything ready? We are ready to go. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, Commissioner O'Cripke. If you could check your mic and camera, please. Testing. Great. Thank you. Hi, Chair Meeks. I was going to say, there's not seven of us, but there's not seven of us, is there? So, okay. Okay. I would like to call to order. The July 22nd, 2021 meeting of the Centers of Planning Commission. Before we start, I'd like to read the following statements. Due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders and 25-20 and in 29-20, which is the span certain requirements of the Brown Act and the order of the health officer of the County of Sonoma to shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19, the planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and are practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak during item four, public comment period or during our public hearings, we'll be able to do so by raising their hand and we'll be given the ability to address the commission. So with that, Madam Post, I'd like to ask you for roll call. Okay. Let's go ahead and do a roll call. We'll start out with Commissioner Okrepke. Here. Commissioner Holton. Here. Commissioner Dugan. Here. Commissioner Carter. Here. Commissioner Peterson and Chair Weeks. Here. Let the record show that all commissioners are present. Thank you. And that voice you hear is Stephen Brown, who's going to be sitting in today for Mike Maloney. Thank you. So with that, item two, steady session, we don't have a steady session. Item three, we do have three sets of minutes, June 10th, June 24th and July 8th. Are there any changes or corrections or additions? Okay. Okay. All shaking heads, no. Those minutes will stand as approved. Item four is a public comment period. We'll now open the public comment for any item not included in this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you are dialing via telephone, please make sure that you have the time to raise your hand. Each speaker will have three minutes and a countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of the countdown. Mr. Brown, do we see anybody? We have their hands up. Chair Weeks, I do not see anything at this point. Thank you very much. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public comment period. Then we'll move on to item five. And 5.1 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. We will include implementing of plans, ordinances, and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plans, holding public hearings, and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking of special planning studies as needed. So item 5.2 is committee reports. And Mr. Carter, do you have any report on this Waterways Advisory Committee? Not today. Thank you. And then item 5.3 is commissioner report. Does any commissioners have anything they would like to report? Okay. I have a few things. First of all, we will be welcoming back Patty Cisco to the planning commission. For those of you who don't know that. So we're excited to have her back. She will be stepping into the vacancy that was created when commissioner Colley left. And so she will be with us at our next meeting. On the 14th of this month, there was the mayor's lunch with the public board chairs and Charles was there. And then on the 14th of this month, commissioner Carter was there representing Waterways Advisory Committee. The mayor talked about that the city now has a hot EOC and they did a tour of that. That they also that the council the night before it reviewed PG&E and the ARPA money, the recovery funds, and how they were going to allocate those. And then on the 14th of July, there was a two city council appeals or two appeals to city council of actions that we took. The first one was the methods dispensary and that was upheld. And then the other item was the tree. Removal on brush Creek Road. The council upheld the appeal as to the limited issue of the tree removal and increase the mitigation fee. And then on the 14th of July, the council approved the removal of that tree to $5,200. And the council did state that they did not disagree with staff or the planning commission determinations as both act as consistently with our codes, but they did feel that a greater fee for the removal of that tree was appropriate. Also, I would like to appoint commissioner or crepe key to the commission. And then on to sad poignant notes. I'd like to announce that Patty will be retiring on August 2nd. She started with the city in 1994 and I realize Patty that we've known each other. We know each other last century. So we've known each other for a long time. So you've known each other a long time and you'll be sorely missed your great asset to the city. And then on another very sad note for us, probably not for him, is that interim deputy director Bill Rose will be leaving the city going to the private sector. Bill started in 2007 with the city. And we wish both of you much luck and success and happiness in your future endeavors. And thank you for all that you have done for our community. We're very grateful. Vice chair Peterson, would you like to say any, a few words? Yes, yes, I would. Thank you. I think for both Patty and Bill, for the public that may only tune into one of these, if at all, a year. There's a tremendous amount of work that goes on behind the scenes. And both, both of them have been instrumental in keeping this planning commission running as smoothly as it has. And I think it's also important. You know, to note that they've been doing that in the context, especially the past few years of kind of ongoing crises, whether it's fires or budgets, really challenging new, you know, ordinances like the cannabis ordinance. And so I think it's, it is a, a real, you know, sort of mixed feeling I have about, you know, their transitions to the next stages, but, you know, it's really been a pleasure working with, with both of you. And I really want to emphasize to the public that, you know, it's really been a pleasure working with, with both of you. And I really want to emphasize to the public that there really is just a ton of work that goes on behind the scenes that, that gets distilled into these, you know, hour, two hour, three hour meetings. And both of them are really instrumental in that. So I wish you the best. Enjoy the retirement. But, you know, I am sorry to see you go. You're here. Anybody else like to say, make any statements? Commissioner Deggan. There goes my mail man. I dropped a lot of noise. Yeah, I'm sorry to see Mr. Rose go. I've been here just slightly longer than you have. I was appointed at the end of 2006. So you've been here for most of my planning commission time. So I wish you well in the private sector. And for Patty, I know that you're an amateur musician like I am. So hopefully you'll have more time to practice and play. And I hope to see you sometime in the future. You know, playing something. So thank you both for your service. Any other comments? Okay. Well, thank you both. Bill and Patty. Do you want to say anything or. I couldn't open up my microphone fast enough. I'll say just thank you, chair weeks. Thank you everyone for your kind words. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. It's true. I've been here for a while. It becomes like a family for anyone that's worked anywhere for a long time, you know that, but certainly with everything we go through, which are some challenging, but really exciting things you really, you feel that you come to rely on one another. And I can say not only just for me, but I think for all of the staff, we really rely on you. We enjoy working with you. You make this job meaningful. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So I wish Patty were here. Patty was on my interview panel in 2007 when I first came here. And so long standing relationships. I value all of them and, and wish you all the best. And so I'm going to tonight, actually I'm going to step back and Andrew's going to take it over. He's been doing a wonderful job. So you're going to be in great hands with all of the staff. So thank you all for everything. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You've been right there with me from the very beginning. I want to really honor you and your service. It's been outstanding. So thank you. Patty as well. Patty, do you want to say anything? You don't have to, but just, I want to give you the opportunity if you would like to say anything. Trying a lot. I can't say much. I'm sorry. This is a huge part of my life. And I'm thankful I got to work at the city. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for so long. Thank you. Thank you so much. Patty and Bill. Okay. So there are next item is item six department reports. And I believe that's Mr. Triple. Yes. Good afternoon, chair weeks and planning commissioners. Thank you all so much for your thoughtful comments. With the announcements of Patty and Bill's departures, we'll definitely miss them. And we'll strive to continue forward with the same spirit and intent that they gave us and showed us. So thank you for that. And also thank you for your time on Tuesday. I believe you had the joint session with city council for the general plan review. And we greatly appreciate the time that you gave to that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And a note to subdivision committee chair. The senior admin assistant. Kimberly. Hopwood is the staff person for the subdivision committee chair. So after this evening's appointment we'll be reaching out to you and, and helping you get oriented to that committee and, and get ready for a meeting that we'll have in August. Thank you. Thank you for that. We don't have any other department reports. We look forward to this evening's meeting. And thank you chair weeks. Thank you. So item seven is statement of abstentions. Are there. Do any commissioners need to abstain from any items on today's meeting. Commissioner cupcake. Yeah, I'm going to be from item 9.2 because it's a recent middle of a previous application that I had to. Abstain from before. Thank you. Vice chair Peterson. I will also be abstaining from item 9.2. My employer. Export a potential business opportunity with a company owned by one of the applicants several years ago. And there's no existing relationship, but I previously was not hearing this item. So I will stick with that. Thank you. Are there any other abstentions? Okay. So then a consent items, which we have none. And then item nine scheduled items. And what I would like to do is reorder. The scheduled items so that. 9.2. The item that vice chair Peterson and commissioner Krebke. Have to abstain from is at the end of the meeting. So we'll move 9.2 to 9.4. And then item four up one. So with that. We'll start 9.1. It is a public hearing or in residence Tubbs fire rebuild request for setback variants. Present project zoning code variants. Three five two three coffee meadow place. ZV two zero dash zero zero three. I have nothing further to disclose. We will start with Commissioner Carter. I did visit the site. I have nothing further to disclose. I visited the site and have no additional information to disclose. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. With that, we will start with Susie Murray, our senior planner. Hello. Good afternoon. Chair Weeks, members of the planning commission. The project before you. This afternoon is the reverse project before you. I'm trying to share my screen and I think I didn't do it. So bear with me. I'm always the one that's challenged at this. Okay. Ding ding round two. Here we go. Okay. Can you see it? No, you had it for a minute. I never know which screen to choose. I've got about a dozen of them down here. Okay. Can you see the slides not in slide presentation? Yes. We can. Okay. Now are you in. Oh, now we are. Yay. So let me back it up. Hello again. The project before you is the Warren residence rebuild. And this is a proposal to reconstruct a home. At 35. 23 coffee place in coffee park. This is a two story house. What they're requesting is. To allow encroachment into the. Required 10 foot second sort story. Side yard setback on both sides of the structure. And this is allowed through the approval of his owning variants. As I said, the home is located smack dab in the middle of coffee park. And the image on the top is current. Conditions. And you can see the property is outlined in with a blue rectangle. And you can see that most of the homes. Much of the area is redeveloped. Thank goodness. And the, on the bottom, you can see, you know, what the conditions were post fire. They. Let me get to the next slide here. Just kind of the history of the home. It was originally constructed. Back in the 1980s. I was destroyed in the fire. Storm of 19 or 2017. And the applicant after working with their design professionals coming up with a home that they fell into. Constructive concrete. Learned that they could not. That there was a 10 foot second story setback. We tried to get around that. And we're not successful and finally ended up with them submitting a variance application in September. Last year. So here is. What I am going to say. I think is a very cool elevator. Of a concrete home that goes. Vertical vertical planes on both. Both side yards. On the five foot setback line. If they were to construct or narrow the home and bring it into the 10 foot setback line. This wouldn't require a zoning variance. But it would shave off a lot of square footage in their home. So the home is located in an area. It's located in an area. It's designated for low density residential. On the land use diagram. And it's. It's within a PD. A plan development zoning district. Specifically plan development. 0184. Planning commission must make five findings prior to approving. The variance. And I think that. There are. The first one special circus circumstances are applicable to the property. What's it. What's very. Special. Special about, I wouldn't say special in a good way. But they were one of a very small portion of the single family dwellings or the residential dwellings in the city that was. Destroyed by the fires. So they really found themselves in a. Non self-created hardship. And how this. The necessity or why this is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of the property rights. It's because there are several homes within, within this exact plan development. Community that go vertical on both sides. The one directly across the street from them. Goes vertical. Both on, on the five foot setback line. So we're not quite sure how that happened, but it did. And, and if you drive around, I want to show my next graphic. My next graphic here, this shows you the plan development. 0184. The entire, almost all of coffee park is a plan development communities, but the zoning code is very specific and says it has to be in the exact. Same. Development. Or zoning district. So in this case, my interpretation of that is PD 0184. And this outlines that the boundary of that district. And then we're going to move on to the next slide. My next graphic here, this shows you the plan development. And then we're going to move on to the next slide. And this outlines that the boundary of that district. And the green stars show other homes that are built with the same sort of construction as a, as you can see, there are two, two homes, right? On coffee meadow place. That the do it. So. I will tell you honestly that when I first saw this request, I had every inclination to. I would say that it's not a building permit, but I know what the zoning code says. So the applicant agreed to submit the, the zoning variance and it's before you today. So the project has been reviewed in compliance. With the California environmental quality act and qualifies for several exemptions. First and foremost, it's a replacement of a red residents that was destroyed during a disaster. And it's a replacement of a red residents that was destroyed. And it's a replacement of a red residents that was destroyed during a disaster. And there was no issues discovered as a result of staff's review of the project. And I, I, this is a typo. When I say there are no comments that have been received to date. There was actually one comment. And that was while I was doing the site visit. And I was with the property owner, Mr. Franklin. And one of his neighbors pulled up. And it was very clear that there was a lot of, they wanted them back. And so there was a lot of, a lot of, a lot of discussion about what was being proposed. So with that, it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission make the necessary findings. For and approve a zoning variance for the warren. Residents rebuild it. 2523. Coffee Meadow place. And for those of you who can't see the screen. My name is Susie Murray. And my telephone number is seven. And my email address is S. M. U. R. A. Y. S. R. City. Or if you have any questions about the project, please feel free to contact me. And that concludes my presentation. The applicant is the applicants are available if you have questions, but they did not have a presentation. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you, Ms. Murray. Are there any questions of the applicant? Mr. Krepke. I have questions for staff. Okay. Okay. So I'm just a little, I'm a little confused and looking for clarity here. I thought under the resilient city ordinance. That was passed in the subsequent ordinances that setbacks were going to be rolled back to what they were when they were originally built. So if your house was built in 1984 and you had a five foot setback for the second story, then that's what it was going to be rolled back to. So you'd have a five foot setback on the second story then. And so I'm wondering why this one is needed in a variance when houses on the same street have the same issue and they weren't needed. I'm just a little unclear as to why that is. I know it was there. It's clear as mud. I'm going to try and clarify that for you. So what the, what chapter 2016, what the measures did was they said, if you were building the exact same house, you could go ahead and do that. How it was constructed. If you weren't building the exact same house, you could go, you could rely on the or default to the, the development standards provided in the policy statement for the, the PD district or you could. code that would have been for the district that would be most likely the implementing zoning district, which is in this case, it would have been R16. In neither the original construction or the zoning code or the policy statement, none of those were five feet, built on the five foot setback line and allowed no setback or stepback on the second story. So it's the second story that's the issue and it's red tape, but this is the second one that I'm aware of that's had to go through this process. And it's because we require that stepping in for both the policy and the policy statement for the plan development, that's how the original home was built and the zoning code. And I will say too that the resilient city measures are very flexible because they allowed people who lost their homes to mix and match. They could take the front yard setback from the policy statement and the side yard setback from the zoning code and really maximize it and make it as good as possible for them. But unfortunately, nothing allows that relief from the second story setback here. So that's the reason for the variance. Any other questions for staff or the applicant before we go to the public hearing? Commissioner Carter. This is a follow-on to Commissioner O'Crypte's question. Would approving this variance have implications for other homes in the Coffee Park redevelopment area? I don't think it would have negative implications. I think if somebody else wanted to do something like this, we could look at it with the same lens as this one. But none of the existing construction projects come under this condition here. No, no, we wouldn't revisit any, it's just new projects going forward. We wouldn't revisit any of those. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Tripple, do you have something you'd like to add? Yes, Chair Wicks, we have to address an emergency with the recording secretary. So we could take a brief, maybe five minute break so that we can reconfigure staffing. Sure, thank you. Okay, Chair Wicks and planning commissioners, if you can hear me, we've had little emergency and this is Patty, I'm gonna take over as recording secretary and we'll go ahead and we can continue the meeting. I think we're ready to continue this meeting. Great, thank you, Patty. Do you need to retake role or anything? No, it was just a recess and that's how it'll show in the minutes. Okay. And so our host will go ahead and stop sharing a slide now. Great, thank you. Okay, so with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker will have three minutes. Accountant Timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. So with that, Madam host, do we have any raised hands? Thank you. Okay, with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Are there any comments, any additional comments or would somebody like to read the resolution into the record, Commissioner Krepke? Yeah. I'll make a motion to approve a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, approving a zoning variance for an encroachment into the required 10-foot second story setback of for construction of Warren residence located at 3523 Coffee Metal Place, file number ZV20-003, and wait for the reading of the text. Thank you. Is there a second, or Vice Chair Peterson second? I'll second. Thank you. So with that, any Commissioner Carter, any comments you'd like to make on this item and are you able to make the findings? I'll be able to make the findings with the staff's analysis and be supporting the project and have no further comments. Thank you. Commissioner Deggan. I too can make all the five findings that are required and I'm glad we can get this passed for the family and what struck me when I drove by the site was how narrow the lot is and if they lost five feet on each side, it would make a really small upstairs. So I'm very happy to allow them to build a house without the site setbacks. So I am in favor of the project. Great, thank you. Commissioner Holton. I can also make the required findings for the zoning variants and I'll be in support of this project. Thank you. Commissioner Crepke. Yeah, I can make all the required findings and let's get these folks back on. Vice Chair Peterson. I can also make all the required findings. I think this is an appropriate use of a variance. This is very kind of common sense seeming situation coming up on the fourth anniversary. I hope that this can get them back home soon. Thank you. And I also can make all the five findings and I'm really glad to see another home going up in Coffee Park. Can't believe it's been as long as it has, so thank you. With that, if you would please, that was a motion was moved by Commissioner Crepke, seconded by Vice Chair Peterson and if you could call roll please. Just one moment, Chair, she'll be calling roll shortly. Okay, sorry about that. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. Commissioner Crepke. Aye. Vice Chair Peterson. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with six ayes and one soon to be filled vacancy. Thank you. So with that, we'll move on to our new item, 9.2. It is a public hearing, EGIRT Resone, Resoning Map Amendment, 1434 Peterson Lane, R-E-Z 21-001 and it is an exparte disclosures. So we'll start with you, Commissioner Carter. Yes, I visited the site and have no additional information to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Duggan. I have nothing to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. I visited the site and have nothing to disclose. Thank you, Commissioner Crepke. I have nothing to disclose. Thank you and Vice Chair Peterson. I visited the site and have no additional information to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, we'll go to Ms. Chumans who will be doing the report on this item. Thank you, Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission. So this item is for a proposed rezoning at 1434 Peterson Lane. And the request is to rezone a residential lot from R19 to R16 to allow for a future two lot minor subdivision and the development of a single family residence on each lot. Both the R19 and R16 zoning designations are consistent with the general plan designation of low density residential. The R19 denotes a minimum lot sizes of 9,000 square feet approximately and R16 denotes minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet. So here's the subject parcel. As you can see, quite a hodgepodge of different densities around it. There's a sort of a small lot subdivision across the street. It's surrounded on two sides by a key lot. And just north of the key lot, we have an R16 neighborhood developed along Sagebrush Lane and Centering Drive. Here's a close-up aerial of the subject property. It appears to be developed with an accessory development unit, but not much else. And there's several trees on the property. And as you can see, the key lot that I mentioned circles of property on two sides. And south of the property appears to be R19 and R20, but north and west of the side is R16. Here's a general plan and zoning map. As you can see, as I mentioned, the key lot that surrounds it is R19, as is the subject property. Properties to the north are R16, as are the properties to the west and further east. And then everything south until you get to the creek is R20. Here's a conceptual site plan of what the property owner is into, how they're looking to develop the property. So it would be developed into two single-family residential lots. And they are proposing ADUs as well. And pursuant to Seco Guidelines section 15183, I know additional environmental review is required when rezoning for general plan consistency. And as I mentioned earlier, the R1 zoning district where it's whether it's R19 or R16 are both still consistent with the general plan designation of low-density residential. And with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission by resolution recommend that council adopt an ordinance to rezone the property at 1434 Pearson Lane from R19 to R16 single-family zoning district. Here's my contact information for those calling in. My name is Christine Tumians. Email is KTOOMINS at src.org. And my phone number, a work number is 707-543-4690. And I'm available for questions, if you have any. Thank you, Mr. Tumians. Are there any questions for staff before we go to the public comment period of public hearing? Okay, seeing none, I will go ahead and open. I apologize, Chairwoman, there was one other item. There was late correspondence that came in early this morning that wasn't shared with the commission because it was past our deadline, but it's a neighboring property owner and they are concerned with that the proposed configuration that the property owner wants to develop would limit on-street parking. And they're concerned with the potential lack of on-street parking should this property develop. And they're also concerned with speeding cars going around Sage Rush Drive that intersects Peterson Lane. And that late correspondence was submitted by Robert and Cindy Tancretto. I hope I pronounced that correctly. And they're located at 1402 Peterson Lane. Thank you. Are there any questions, any of Vice Chair Peterson? Just a quick clarifying, building off that late correspondence, would this, the houses being built for the proposed houses for this, should it pass? Are they subject to design review? No, single family residential is not subject to design review, only attached residential. Thank you. Okay, so with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. Account on timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers. And please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. So Madam Post, do we have any, Buddy who would, I see one raised hand, I believe? Yes, if you could give me just one moment to pull the timer up. Okay, I just wanna confirm that you can see the timer on your screen. Okay, great. So we do have a hand raised. Barbara, just one second. Barbara, you should have a prompt allowing yourself to unmute and you can begin when the timer starts. And if you could please state your name for the record. Yes, it's William Van Aslen, live at 1414 Peterson Lane, which is directly south of the property that you're talking about now. I have a couple of really concerns about it, especially one about the parking. You're gonna put two, four bedroom homes on those lots. You're gonna have to have at least eight spots to park. There's not that many available. The parking overflows to everybody else's yard. Right now I'm having serious trouble with my neighbor. He parks in my land or front of my property constantly. You know, I don't have a front yard anymore. All I do is have an overflow parking lot for my neighbor's cars. You've got to look at that. I'm not too happy with having a four bedroom or a two story house overlooking our place. You know, that makes me uncomfortable. I wish the setback was a little bit further. Traffic's bad, especially on that intersection road that was brought up earlier on your discussion. Glad to see some of your people looked at the property anyway. How can you put two homes like that, those size homes in such a small, small lot? I mean, there's no yard at all. There's nothing but the house. It's compacted enough out here anyway. I guess that's about all the issues I have. Thank you. Are there anybody else wishing to speak during this public hearing? I can't see anything. I don't see anybody else raising their hand. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Ms. Chumans, can you address the parking issue? And also if you could tell me, what kind of approval process the two units would have to go through? So as the property sits now, there's nothing stopping someone from building a two-story home on the property as it exists with the minimum setbacks, with two stories or bedrooms. So there's nothing stopping someone from building a house like that today on the lot. What the request is this evening is a rezoning. The rezoning would allow for smaller lots. And this action wouldn't necessarily approve any development. What would happen next if the rezoning is approved, the applicant can request either a tentative map or a parcel map waiver to divide the lot into two. And then it would be ministerial building permits to construct two single-family homes on each, or one single-family home on each lot. And ADUs would also be a ministerial building permit. The development would be subject to setback requirements found in the R16 zoning district, as well as height requirements. Parking is also governed in that chapter. They would be required to have covered spaces and parking for guests. ADUs, however, are not necessarily required to have parking, but those are just standard zoning development requirements in a single-family residential zoning district. Thank you. Any other questions from staff at this time? Commissioner Carter. And can you clarify again with the parcel map exemption or what the action would be for the parcel map exemption or subdivision, would that be ministerial or by zoning administrator? So the parcel map waiver, there would have to be a request from the subdivision committee to waive the requirement for a parcel map. And that would be a public hearing process. So the neighbors would receive a notice before that action occurs. Another thing to note is the lot is over 12,000 square feet, about 12,800 plus square feet. Dividing it in half would result in lots that are just over 6,000 square feet. And that would be consistent with the requested zoning district of R-16. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Okay, with that, would somebody like to introduce a resolution? Vice Chair Peterson. I'd like to introduce the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, recommending to the city council rezoning of a property located at 1434 Peterson Lane to the R-1-6, Single Family Residential Zoning District, Assessors' Parcel Number 036-730-023, file number REZ21-001, and waive further reading. Thank you. Excuse me, is there a second? Commissioner Krepke, seconds. Okay, with that, we'll go ahead and take comments from the commission. Commissioner Carter. In visiting the property and exploring the neighborhood, appears to me that there's other development very nearby at similar densities. And we understand that for the R-1 zoning, there's on-site parking required for the residential units, perhaps not for the ADUs. And that should be addressed as the further development comes along. So with that, I think I can make all the necessary findings to make the recommendation to the city council on this project. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan. I too can make all the findings and I'm in favor of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I can also make the required findings and I'm in support of this project. Thanks. Commissioner Krepke. I can make all the required findings and we'll be in support of this project. Thank you. And our vice chair, Peterson. I can make all the required findings. I'd like to spend just a little bit of time since we do have the public here. And we've gotten a written comment that was also opposed to it. So just to back up, chair introduced the purpose of the planning commission at the beginning. And I think it's worth revisiting which is this is really just a land use decision. This is not a value judgment on whether any proposed development is good or not. What we're talking about and what my fellow commissioners are referencing when they say they can make the findings is looking at the resolution. You have to find that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan. It's not detrimental to public interest health safety. Communions are welfare. It's in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It's internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the zoning code. And the site is physically suitable for the zoning. So I mean, I think it sounds a little technical. Again, I just want to emphasize that it's not a value judgment on a particular project that proposed, tentative map kind of lay out that they I think had been seen by the public. It's really just has to do is this an appropriate action to take for this land use? So in my view, based on the findings we have to make it's consistent with the neighborhood across the street to the north is the exact same zoning district. I don't think there's any danger to the health safety and welfare. I think it's exempt from CEQA. I think it's internally consistent as Ms. Tumion's pointed out, you could build by right a two-story house right now on the lot. And I think a 6,000 square foot lot is appropriate for a single family house, which is what you'd end up with two of in this case. So with that, I know it's a little long-winded but I can make all the required findings and we'll be voting in favor of the resolution. Thank you Vice Chair Peterson. I think that was very helpful. I think sometimes we forget to do those kind of thorough explanations. So thank you. I also can make all the required findings and we'll be supporting the project. So with that, that was moved by Vice Chair Peterson seconded by Commissioner Krapke and if we could call the roll. There we go. Commissioner Carter. I'm in now. Sorry about that, Chair Weeks. No problem. I just had a long struggle with getting kicked out of Zoom twice and then having to reboot a laptop. We lost our recording secretary tonight due to an emergency and so we had a bit of a quick change over of laptops, computers and sitting stations. Well, you guys are doing a great job behind the scenes. I can't imagine what you're going through so. So here we go. One, two, three, four, five. So we still have six board members, correct? Yes, yes we do. So I'm gonna go backwards alphabetically and then Vice Chair Chair. So board member or excuse me, Commissioner Krapke. Commissioner Holton. Hi. Commissioner Dugan. Hi. Commissioner Carter. Hi. Vice Chair Peterson. Hi. Chair Weeks. Hi. So that passes with six eyes. So are we good to go on the next item or is there a need for a break by staff? The recording secretary and host would like just a little break so we can gather ourselves. Okay. So five minutes, 10 minutes. Five minutes is good. Okay, so it's five o'clock on the nose according to my time and so we'll be back at five o' five. Thank you. Madam Hoster, are we ready to go or do you need a few more minutes? Chair Weeks. Yes. The recording secretary and the host are working with IT to resolve the issues. Okay. I think we'll need a few more minutes. Okay, thank you. Chair Weeks staff as they're completing a reboot and we'll be up and running again shortly. Okay, Chair Weeks and commissioners, I think we have both laptops up and running and we're gonna move carefully so nothing else happens. Okay. I think we're ready. Okay, great. So we will wait for Commissioner Carter. Great. Okay. So with that, we will go ahead and do the next item, 9.3, which is a public hearing, City of Santa Rosa, 1225 Fulton Road Resoning Exempt Project and it's a rezoning map amendment, R-E-Z-2-0-0-0-4 and it is an ex parte disclosure. So, Commissioner Carter. Yes, I did visit the site and have no further information disclosed. Commissioner Deggan. I visited the site and have no new information. Thank you, Commissioner Houlton. I also visited the site and have nothing further than disclosed. Thank you, Commissioner Krepke. Visited the site and have nothing further disclosed. Thank you, Vice Chair Peterson. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, Ms. Chumans, could you lead us off? Thank you, Chair Weeks. I'm a member of the commission. This is a rezoning for 1225 Fulton Road. It is a city initiated rezoning from PD plan development to RR rural residential to allow a permanent child daycare facility to occupy a former private meeting facility that used to be a church. No new construction is proposed on the site and the proposed rezoning would align with the general plan designation. This is the subject parcel. It's currently developed with a former church facility that has a child daycare facility operating under a temporary use permit. There is a planned sewer lift facility as well on the site. There are no plans to change that future development. The property will remain under city ownership and as far as the city is aware, we plan on continuing with the sewer lift station on the site. Here's a close-up aerial of the subject property. As you can see, it's developed with a robust parking lot and there is a traffic signal allowing ingress and egress onto the property. This is the general plan and zoning designation. As you can see, it's zoned PD. And the PD is very restrictive. It actually was designed for the residential units to the north and it only allowed the residential units on a church. So it was very restrictive and rezoning would be necessary to allow for the child daycare facility to continue on a permanent basis. This is a photo of the site. That is the building and the traffic signal that I mentioned. And pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15183. I know additional environmental reviews required when rezoning for general plan consistency. And I would like to mention I received two email correspondences from neighbors in support of the project. So they're happy to see a child daycare facility at that location. And the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission by resolution recommend that the council adopt an ordinance to rezone the property located at 1225 Fulton Road from the PD-0318 Land Development Zoning District to the RR Rural Residential Zoning District. Jill Scott is also available. She's a city real property manager working with the city and she can speak to the sewer lift station if you have further questions about that. This is my contact information. My email address is KTOMINS at SRCity.org. Work phone number is 77-543-4692. The staff is available for questions. Thank you, Ms. Chameans. Do any of the commissioners have questions of staff before I open the public hearing? Okay, seeing none. I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raise hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker has three minutes and a countdown timer will appear for your convenience as well as for the viewers convenience. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. Do we have any hands raised on this item? Chair Weeks, let's see. So far, no hands raised. So if anybody would like to speak, if you raise your hand, we can give you permission to unmute. Thank you. And it looks like we have 13 people on the attendee side. Okay, so not seeing any hands raised. Okay, so then I will go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Just somebody, would somebody like to enter the resolution into the record? Commissioner Duggan. I will move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, recommending to city council rezoning of a property located at 1225 Fulton Road to the RR Rural Residential Zoning District, assessor's parcel number 034-460-032, file number REZ-20-004, and wait for the reading of the text. Thank you. Is there a second? Commissioner Holtz in seconds. Thank you. So any comments, we'll go, we'll start with Commissioner Carter. This appears to be a pretty straightforward rezoning to me. I do need a little clarification on what happens after the rezoning. I believe I read it needs a minor use permit and that's not a planning commission action, I'm assuming or if you could just let us know, Christina, what our next actions might be, that would be helpful. Thank you. In order to make that child daycare facility permanent, they would require a minor use permit and the zoning administrator would review that request. And do you know if there are plans to seek a permanent use permit for the operation? There's nothing on file yet. The temporary use permit gives them a certain number of years to operate on a temporary basis and that also allows them to not pay certain development fees. There's a certain benefit of operating another temporary use permit for now. So we're just looking at the rezoning then. Thank you. That's correct. Thank you, Commissioner Carter. Commissioner Duggan. I can make all the required findings and we'll vote in favor. Thank you, Commissioner Holton. I can also make all the required findings to rezone from PD-0318 to RR. Thank you. I was curious. Do you know when the temporary permit expires? The current operating permit that the daycare is using? I can look that up. Yeah, no. I don't have that on my fingertips, but I can look that up. No worries. Thank you. Commissioner Krepke. Yeah, I can make all the required findings and I'm generally in favor of anything that provides more childcare to our city. So I will be supporting this project or this rezoning. Thank you. And Vice Chair Peterson. I can also make all the required findings. I think this is a very reasonable rezoning and I echo Commissioner Krepke's point about the need for childcare. Thank you. And I also can make the required findings and thank you for clarifying the lift station issue because that was a question I had had. And yes, and I totally agree with the need for more childcare. So with that, it was moved by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Holton, if you would like to call the roll. Okay. Commissioner Krepke. I... Commissioner Holton. I... Commissioner Duggan. I... Commissioner Carter. I... Vice Chair Peterson. I... And Chair Weeks. I... So that passes with six I's and we'll move on to our next item and say good night to Vice Chair Peterson and Commissioner Krepke until next time. Thank you. So are we good to go, staff, for the next item? Yes, we are, Chair. We'll be welcoming Interim Senior Planner Ross to the meeting and we'll just give him a moment to get set up. Okay, thank you. I'm all set whenever you are. Okay, nice to see you, Mr. Ross. You too, thank you. So our new item 9.4, public hearing, green pen dispensary. That project, it's a conditional use permit at 349 and 353 College Avenue, DUP 18-080 and it is an exparte item. So we'll start with you, Commissioner Carter. I didn't visit the site. I live within a half mile of the site and have no further information to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Duggan. I also visited the site and have no additional information. Thank you, Commissioner. I too visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you. And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, Mr. Ross, if you'd like to take us through this item. So if it freezes, please let me know that's been happening lately, but hopefully no more technical difficulties. So thank you, Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Adam Ross, Project Planner for the Green Pen Dispensary Project tonight. It includes a major conditional use permit for a cannabis retail facility, otherwise known and referred to as a dispensary, located at 349 and 353 College. As previously stated, Green Pen LLC is a dispensary, proposes to operate a cannabis retail facility with delivery within an existing 2,943 square foot building and a 25% parking reduction is included with the application. 1,772 square feet are dedicated for the retail space. 338 square feet will be for storage while the remainder is for office employee administration and delivery operations. Hours of operation are from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven days a week. No on-site consumption is proposed. And just in case I forgot, there is delivery as part of this application. And as part of the project, a circulation plan has been provided, which includes a new parking lot area in the rear of 349 College and the removal of a planner box at the front of 349 College to accommodate the circulation proposed for the project. And is that removal of the planner box and the new parking lot area in the rear of 349 College is subject to approval of a minor landmark alteration permit? Mr. Roth, that slide, you're still on slide one and it hasn't advanced. Is it on slide two now? No, and I don't know if that's part of the glitch. Yeah, I don't know why that happens. Give me one minute, hopefully. What if the... If not, we do have it on our iPads. Is that the second slide? No. One second. Is it the second slide now? Yes, it is. Okay, so I'll just start from here again. As previously stated, Greenpen LLC, the dispensary proposes to operate a cannabis retail facility with delivery within an existing 2,943-square-foot building. And the project also includes a 25% parking reduction or three spaces. 1,772 square feet are dedicated to the retail space. 338 square feet will be for storage, while the remainder is for office use, employee administration, delivery operations. Hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., seven days a week. And there is no on-site consumption proposed. The circulation plan has been provided for this project, which includes a new parking lot in the rear of 349 College and an entrance from Glen Street only. No exit onto Glen Street and an exit of a right turn only onto College Avenue. The change for the parking lot and removal of a planner box on the side of 349 College is subject to approval of a minor landmark alteration permit. Is it on the third slide now? Yes. Distributor deliveries are limited and conditioned, which limits them between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. daily and all other deliveries, such as FedEx and office supplies, are to be no earlier than 8 a.m. daily. The project is located within the northeast quadrant of the city. The star denotes the approximate location. Here's an aerial image, which outlines 349 and 353 College. 349 and a half was destroyed by a fire and has since been demolished. And that's where the parking lot is going to be here. The general plan is retail and business service and the zoning district is CGH, which is general commercial and historic combining district, which is due to its location within the Ridgeway Preservation District. The proposed use is allowed within the applicable zoning district and complies with all applicable provisions of the zoning code and the city code in that the proposed retail dispensary and delivery use would occupy an existing building within this specified zoning district, and which is allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit with the planning commission. And other than that, everything else complies. So there is some project history here. In April of 2018, the original conditional use permit application was submitted. There was a neighborhood meeting held prior to that. In June of 2018, the application was deemed complete. March of 2019, the planning commission meeting was held for the original project proposal and it was continued to a date uncertain. And then it was brought back to the planning commission on, in September of 2019, it was denied based on a two-to-vote. So two yes, two no, there were two abstentions and one absence. An appeal was filed promptly by the applicant in September of 2019. In December of 2020, the applicant withdrew their appeal after ongoing discussions with staff and their modifications to their original proposal. On January 27th of this year, a revised project was submitted to the Planning and Economic Development Department. And on February 5th, the notice was sent out to owners and occupants within 600 feet of the project site. A neighborhood, another neighborhood meeting was held for the revised project and staff issues were sent to the applicant. Those were responded to and it has since been deemed complete. It is now here before you. Here's the revised project site plan, which includes entrance from Glen Street only and an updated, and then this will be updated. It'll be moved over and updated to city standards. It will be a right turn exit only onto College Avenue. There are nine spaces proposed for the cannabis dispensary use. There's currently two existing spaces for the small office building located at 349 College. Those will remain to, well, they'll be moved over, but that number will not change. And again, it only has two parking spaces. Those will remain. There are nine parking spaces proposed throughout that comply with all city development standards for parking space size and drive aisle widths and backup distances. Here's a floor plan, which shows the interior space of the entrance, the interior space and entrance, which is visible from the public right of way. Here are renderings of the existing site showing neutral colors as requested by the neighborhood preservation district neighborhood, sorry, the Ridgway Preservation District Neighborhood Association. It is noted as condition of approval number 19 on the draft resolution before you tonight. Here's another rendering for your reference. This entrance will not be used as, this existing door will not be used as an entrance. It'll be an emergency exit only. Here you have a slide showing the site's proximity to local schools, which includes St. Lutheran School, which is approximately 1,200 feet away, Ridgway High School approximately 1,400 feet away, and Santa Rosa High School approximately 1,600 feet away, as well as Santa Rosa Charter School for the arts, approximately 1,700 feet away, and Abraxas Charter School approximately 1,700 feet away, which is well outside the minimum 600 foot rate set back from K through 12 schools. This slide is just for reference. This was built quite a while ago, this building, and back then parking standards were different. So it has since become legal non-conforming since that time. So any use going in here, if it were to stay the same, would have a parking deficiency. There was a focused traffic study included with several iterations, but the latest one is July 1st, 2021, which is included in the packet for you tonight. It indicates that the proposed project would generate two fewer AM peak hour trips and 43 more PM peak hour trips from the previous use, the previous retail use, and per the city standard guidelines for the preparation of traffic impact analysis, and operational analysis is not required. This was reviewed by the city's Traffic Engineering Division and deemed accessible, acceptable. Additionally, the study, the focus traffic study concluded that the updated circulation, which includes a one-way entrance to the site from Glen Street and a right turn, one way exit onto College Avenue improves the overall circulation of the site and limits increased traffic onto Glen Street, which was previously a big concern by the neighborhood. And as well, the project, there was a VMT analysis done as part of the focus traffic study for which this retail location was screens out of VMT criteria and therefore is expected to have a less and significant impact on vehicle miles traveled, otherwise known as VMT. The proposed cannabis use in a 2,943 square foot building requires 12 parking spaces. And additionally, a small legal non-conforming office building that would remain on 349 College currently has two on-site parking spaces, which will be dedicated for that use. As such, the total parking required is 14 spaces, 12 spaces for the cannabis dispensary and two for the existing legal non-conforming building at 349 College. The revised project proposes a total of 11 parking spaces, nine of which of those parking spaces are for the proposed use. So this is an image that shows that. So overall, there is a deficiency of 25% parking deficiency for the proposed use. The applicant is proposing several demand management strategies which are also included in the focus traffic study, which restricts all nine parking spaces to 30 minute parking intervals and requiring employees to park offsite as a mechanism to support the parking reduction. The revised project would provide, however, sorry, let me slow down, however, the revised project would provide three additional parking spaces and the needed parking reduction would be within the 25% threshold, otherwise allowed by the code and by right for on a normal basis. However, planning staff suggests that these parking management strategies may be excessive and may create potential future issues in that they're difficult for the city to enforce. Therefore, staff recommends that no more than 50% of the nine spaces be restricted to 30 minute parking intervals. This would allow more flexible use of onsite parking spaces and still ensure that parking turnover occurs. Additionally, the project conditions have been modified to encourage employee parking at offsite locations that are not on public streets adjacent to the project. If the Planning Commission agrees with these recommendations and if it finds that other project characteristics and public transportation alternatives sufficiently reduce the demand for parking, then it may wish to consider modifying the resolution finding C and condition of approval number 15. Section 20-36.050C1B allows the review authority to reduce the amount of parking space by parking demand, the amount of parking required by any amount for a project that requires a conditional use permit after making the following findings. As you see here, which is due to special circumstances associated with the operation of the use at its location, the proposal will generate a parking demand different from the standards specified in the zoning code. And the number of parking spaces approved will be sufficient for its safe, convenient and efficient operation of the use. In response to that, the focus traffic study prepared was prepared by a licensed engineer dated July 1st, 2021. It concluded that the parking supply is adequate for the proposed use because the availability of delivery services reduces the parking demand. The site location is accessible by alternative modes of transportation, including pedestrian, bicycle and transit services that will reduce the vehicular traffic to the site. And the hours of operation would allow customer access during a 12 hour period as opposed to a regular eight to nine hour period. These special circumstances associated with the operation of the use at this location would generate a parking demand different from parking ratio requirements and nine parking spaces as proposed would be sufficient for the safe, convenient and efficient operation of the use. For reference, here's the existing parking lot. This may have already been removed, this gate, which is covering up to existing parking spaces. Some of the public comments received during the neighborhood meeting have been for support for the project. Some other ones that are included in the agenda pack that tonight are a concern for increased crime, a concern for alleged increased crime, a concern for alleged increased traffic and a concern about the proximity to the schools. There was also an email received by a member of the public tonight, which reiterates those same concerns and asked that the Planning Commission reconsider the proposal and allow and promote something other than a cannabis dispensary at this site. The project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act under a Class I categorical exemption in that the project is an existing private structure involving a negligible expansion of its use and also qualifies for a Class III categorical exemption in that the project involves a change in use where only minor modifications are made to the exterior of the structure. And with that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission approve the resolution to allow cannabis retail dispensary at 353 College Avenue with offsite parking located at 349 College Avenue with a 25% parking reduction pursuant to zoning code section 20-36.050 C1B. Again, my name is Adam Ross in terms senior planner, the project planner for this proposed project. My email is A-R-O-S-S at s-r-c-i-t-y.org and my phone number is also 707-543-4705. The applicant does not have a PowerPoint presentation but has prepared an introduction and small presentation for the Planning Commission tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ross. Are there any questions of Mr. Ross before we hear from the applicant? Commissioner Carter. Just a quick question about the site and floor plan. Can you tell us where the main entry will be under this current proposal? Can you review that one more time? Yes, I can. Would you like me to use an image or just explain it? If you can do it with a slide, that'd be great. Thank you. Sure. One second. Mr. Ross, you're muted. Of course I am. The entrance is in the back of the building here and it is visible from the public right of way and there is a door here that is not to be used essentially because the updates to make it ADA compliant in the front would severely impact the usability of the usability of the site or the building, I should say. So entrance in the back visible from the public right of way. Okay, so it's where it was shown in the first iteration of the project. Can you also point out while the slide is up where the handicap parking would be? It'd be right here. It is the ADA space is included, I believe in one of the site plans of the project, but as previously proposed, it was right here because they have adequate room to provide the necessary space. So it's not shown, but it is here and that is a requirement for any project essentially. Thank you. And yes, to answer you, the entrance is the same as previously brought before the planning commission in the past. Thank you. I have one question and that is when you were talking about 50% of the nine spaces, is that four spaces or five spaces? I'm sorry, can you repeat that one? You talked about that 50% of the nine spaces would be 30 minutes, I believe. So is that four spaces or five spaces? We could do five, I think that's fine. Roundup, if it's in the zoning code, if it's a 0.5, you'd round up. If it's a 0.4, we could round down. Okay, thank you. Any other questions before we hear from the applicants? Commissioner Holton. Yeah, I just had one question about the, so the front door or the door that's closest to College Avenue, that door is in fact, a fire door, correct? That's what it's gonna be used for. Is it a fire door or an emergency exit? Yes, I believe so, but I'll let the applicant specify. So just to clarify, I also noted that they stated something about doing delivery in the need to have deliveries from the street that they would, I just wanna ensure the deliveries are occurring through that back door, through that exit, fire exit or safety or emergency exit door. Oh, yeah, I'll let the applicant respond, but to my knowledge, there is delivery would go out the same door as the entrance, which is not uncommon. Okay, that's good. I'm sorry, Mr. Ross, I do have one other question. It looked like that fire had provided information in August of 2018. Did this project go back out for referral to all the departments with the revisions? Yes. Okay, thank you. So unless there's other questions, Mr. Ross will go ahead and hear from the applicant. If you could raise your hand, and then our host can enable your speaking privileges. Thank you very much. Can everyone hear me? Yes, we can. Hello, Chair Weeks, Commissioner Carter, Commissioner Duggin, Commissioner Holton. I hope you're all doing well. My name is Brian Dombrowski. I wanna thank you all for looking at this project again. I was fortunate enough to have Dennis and his group reach out to me after you saw them last. So this is the first for myself as well as Commissioner Holton. So staff has always did an outstanding job presenting the project. So thank you, Adam, and the rest of the staff for everything you do. You guys are amazing. I read all the reports, watched all the videos a dozen times, and I believe you made it crystal clear what this group had to do to be able to move this project forward. I watched this team along with your amazing staff and several key members of the community work together and really create a safer environment with easier access for the patients. Tours were given of operational cannabis businesses. People were educated on the reality of the cannabis industry and that community was truly engaged. Parking will be added, direct access to College Avenue will be added, and the building will be painted so it's no longer neon green. I believe that this project is an asset to the direct community and the city is still in the rows and now. And yes, that door that's on College Avenue will absolutely only be used in the case of an emergency. We're gonna keep everything to the little space where it's not just seen by the mass public. With all that said, I wanna turn this over to who you probably really wanna hear from, Dennis Hunter, and then he'll turn over to WTrans, but hopefully they'll clear up any possible questions. And that's all I have if Dennis can step up. Hello, can you guys hear me? Yes, we can. Good afternoon, my name is Dennis Hunter. Thank you for your time today. As Brian stated, I hope you do see all the improvements and efforts that we made to address your concerns. I know parking was a major concern and we're open to putting the 30 minute parking limits on there to really get people in and out and not have it congested and things like that. And I know WTrans will more adequately speak to this here in a little bit. Also, now there was obstruction concerns with the planner box on the main College Avenue and we will definitely be applying for a minor landmark alterations permit after the 10 day of jail period. We've been engaged with our neighbors as well at several meetings with Shay, Kissel, circuit riders, the non-profit across the street who previously had concerns about the cannabis dispensary. I took Shay to the other dispensary that we did, Cannadale. Mr. Hunter, you're muted now. Okay, sorry. I'm not sure where we left off there, but I know circuit riders, Shay Kissel spoke last time, had concerns about proximity to the non-profit. So I met with him, I gave him a tour of our other dispensary at Cannadale that's over by Trail House and just to have him tour through that and show him how the security checks people in and just showed him how it looked and how we kind of operated and I think that put his concerns at bay and I think there may be someone from circuit riders that may be able to speak to that. Also, the neighbor behind us had concerns about the fence being too low and kind of looking on to the parking lot. So we met with her and we agreed to build a new fence to her liking and address her concerns as well. She had concerns about some of the loitering. That's him. What was that? The feedback is really bad. Sorry. Oh, now it's stopped. Okay, sorry. So I met with the neighbor behind us. I think we just stuck, but about building a new fence for her to kind of address her concerns of looking down onto the parking lot there. She also had mentioned the loitering that was going on there. So we moved some staff over to the site just to do some emails and things like that for the last few months. And she had wrote us an email saying that it was so much the improvement was so much better and she appreciated that. So I think really having an active business there is really gonna change a lot of the neighbor's concerns about just the loitering into a vacant space. I also, you know, the parking and traffic and things. And I just wanna say, you guys remember the Cannadale dispensary hearing and there was just so much concern about the parking and right behind Trailhouse. And, you know, we've been open now for four months and it's worked really well with Trailhouse. We've been able to really figure out the parking lot and the traffic has been great. And I'm not sure if Glenn was able to come on and speak the owner of Trailhouse, but we've really been able to work really well and make that parking lot work good with Cannadale and Trailhouse in that. And so I just wanna say we'll have the same mindfulness of operating this one as we have there and try to work with the neighbors and if there are concerns, listen to them and try to correct them. So thank you guys for taking the time and looking at this project and I appreciate what you guys are doing. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Hunter. Is there anybody else from the applicant team who would like to speak before we go to the public comment period? Yes, can you guys hear me? Yes. Can you please identify yourself? Absolutely. My name is Cameron Nye. I'm an engineer with WTrans and we have prepared focus traffic study for the project and have been working with the applicant and getting the project to its current state. So Adam did a wonderful job with the presentation earlier and actually stole most of my talking points. So I'm gonna keep it brief and just hit on a few items here. First I wanna say that the project would be expected to result in fewer than 50 new peak hour trips and less than 250 daily trips. So under the city's standard guidance for the preparation of traffic impact studies only to focus analysis is required. Not a full traffic impact study which gets into an operational analysis and other elements. Second, I wanna say that VMT as most of us know now has replaced level of service for evaluating transportation impacts under CEQA. And because the project is less than 10,000 square feet in size, it screens out as a less than significant impact under the local serving retail clause. I also wanna say that we've been working with the applicant and revising this project and our traffic study did include a few recommendations. One of those was a one-way circulation pattern for the site. That's with an entrance on Glen Street and an exit on College Avenue. And that was largely because at the previous hearing there was some concerns from residents on Glen Street regarding vehicles exiting the site and traveling through their neighborhood unnecessarily. So this way, all traffic has to exit on College Avenue and would minimize any impacts of the Glen neighborhood. One of our other suggestions was a right turn only at the Glen Street or at the College Avenue exit. And that's to minimize impacts with any interference to the Glen Street intersection as well. So in terms of parking, although the project is asking for a 25% parking reduction, it's important to note that the project's actually gonna increase the existing supply by three spaces. So as Adam mentioned, any project that comes in here is really gonna have an issue with parking. So currently there's eight spaces provided on site between the dispensary and the neighboring office use and the project would increase that by three up to 11. So some of the reasons that we've supported a 25% parking reduction is the presence of street parking in the vicinity on Glen Street and College. The fact that employees would be parking off site. And because the applicants proposing to provide 12 bicycle parking spaces on site, which is way more than is required, something else here, which is really important to note is the fact that the office use and the dispensary would have a complimentary parking demand. What that means is a dispensary would experience its peak parking demand in the evenings and on weekends, whereas the office use would experience its peak during work hours on a typical weekday. So they're complimentary in nature. One of the other things I wanted to touch on and this came up out of a request from a commissioner at a previous hearing. And that was a concern for additional pedestrian crossings at the overhead flasher on College Avenue with Glen Street. And so we ran a micro simulation and we were able to estimate that about one second of delay would be added to vehicles during peak hours due to the additional pedestrian crossings, which really is imperceptible. So that's it for me. Thank you very much. And I'll be around to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Any questions from the consultant team or applicant team before we go to public comment period? Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I have two questions for Mr. Nye. You just mentioned about the looking at the crossing at College and Glen Street and how it's only gonna result in one second delay to cars. What about safety of pedestrians? If we put more pedestrians in that crossing, that's one question. And the second question is the existing parking lot behind the building, the closest spot to Glen Street. Is that a person parked in that spot? Are they gonna be able to back out without going into Glen Street or going across the sidewalk and perhaps having a negative interaction with the pedestrian? Yeah, so with regards to your first question, we did do a site visit and sight lines to and from the existing crosswalk on College Avenue are adequate. We also did observe some pedestrian crossings at that location and we observed a high compliance rate. So I think, you know, it would be safe to say that safety would be expected to continue operating acceptably, being that there is an overhead flasher in that location. With regards to your second question, we also ran an auto turn analysis and modeled on site circulation from all of the parking spaces. And we found that all parking spaces would be allowed to back out and exit onto College Avenue acceptably. And that includes the parking spot that's closest to Glen Street that they won't have to infringe on the sidewalk or the street to get out of the parking spot. The on-street parking spot? No, it's on site, but it's closest to the North East corner of the building. Okay, yes, I'm pulling up the micro simulation here. And yes, that would be adequate. There is space to back up straight and then turn around and head the other direction. Okay, thank you. No problem. Commissioner Carter, did you have a question for the applicant team? Yes, it's an add-on to Commissioner Duggan's question for Mr. Nye. When you looked at the, the delays that might be caused by additional pedestrian traffic at the Glen College Crosswalk, was that taking into account customers arriving by foot or only the staff that would be coming from off-site as added pedestrian traffic? That would be both. We've made some assumptions about employees as well as customers. Obviously it's impossible to know exactly what that is going on. It's possible to know exactly what that is going to generate in terms of pedestrian trips, but we did make some assumptions and the average delay to a motorist traveling on College Avenue during the peak hours would be about one second. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant team before we go to public hearing? Okay, so with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're a dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes. A countdown timer will appear for the convenience of the speaker and the viewers, and please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. Your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. So if we have anybody who is, wants to speak on this item. Sure, weeks. So far, no raised hands. Thank you. So if anybody would like to speak if you raise your hand. Okay. Okay, thank you. So with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission. Any further questions for staff or the applicant before somebody reads the resolution into the record? Commissioner Carter. This question may just be a product of my bad memory, but I thought in the previous proposal, one of the mechanisms for encouraging staff to park offsite was going to be the provision of permits in one of the city's garages. Is there any applicant still considering that? Or is there any consideration from staff to strengthen? I think it's condition 14 that talks about encouraging staff to park offsite. Hello, this is Brian again, Richard Carter. Absolutely. We are willing to do what is needed. I believe we actually spoke about doing a stipend for folks that will be parking offsite on the garages and stuff. Yes, we are 100% ready to step up and make sure that staff has adequate parking offsite. So to follow up on that. So if you look at item 14, it says a reservation covenant for offsite parking shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permits. So which garage will that be in? Or has that been determined yet? And Mr. Ross, can you step in? Yeah, so. The. The reservation for covenant is for the property at 349 college. So, because they would be purchasing the property next door. It'd be a reservation for covenant. And then if they sold it, they'd have to record that covenant with the new owner. Staff. They would have to record that. So I do believe that. Felt that the. Proposal. Still can meet all the requirements for a parking reduction. And to encourage employees to park offsite. Mostly because it's it'd be, it'd be very difficult for the city to enforce that. So, But staff felt it was a bit extreme and kind of out of out in the future could present a problem of enforcement. And the nature of the timeframe for employees the park on site is different from customers customers are typically there less time, you know 30 minutes or less in general without any sort of restrictions. Thank you. Any other questions. So, the issue of the 50% of the parking and staff's recommendation in the staff reports. If we do that we would need to add language into the resolution. I believe. So, let's go ahead and if somebody could enter the resolution into the record then we can talk about the addition of that language. Is that the way it should be handled. Mr triple. So, the condition number 15 is the condition that requires that the four on site parking spaces and five off site parking spaces be signed to limit parking to 30 minutes. So what you would want to do is modify condition 15 to require that no more than 50% of the nine parking spaces. So that would be assigned to limit parking to 30 minutes. Thank you. And is that the only area in the resolution that would need to be revised. Yes, at this point in time, if, if the commission chooses it could modify condition 20. So, I think that that condition is would encourage employee off site parking should the commission choose that could strengthen that condition to require it. Thank you. Would someone like to read the resolution. Commissioner Duggan. Thank you. So the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for green pen dispensary a cannabis retail dispensary with delivery in an existing 2943 square foot building, including a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjacent property and a 25% parking reduction located at 353 college Avenue and 349 College Avenue. So the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, making findings and approving a conditional use permit for green pen dispensary a cannabis retail dispensary with delivery in an existing 2943 square foot building, including a ground wagon, which for condition number 15, requiring no more than 50% of parking spots to be signed for 30 minute parking and way further reading. Thank you. Is there a second. Commissioner Carter seconds. Okay, so Commissioner Carter, you would like to lead our discussion. I'm certainly glad that the applicant was able to provide additional site area for parking, which was the key problem. I'm going to go along with staff's recommendation that it's not necessary to be too specific about how they'll encourage the off-site parking for the staff and not propose any changes to those conditions. So with that said, I can make all of the necessary findings and we'll be supporting the application. Thank you. Commissioner Deggan? I, too, second Commissioner Carter's comments. I think it's a much stronger project. I think we got lucky that the building next door burned down and made this possible, but I think it's going to improve that site as well as this site. It's going to help with the traffic flow, so I can make all the required findings and I understand how it would be impossible to enforce requiring the employees to park off-site, so I won't ask for any additional language on that part of it. So I'm in favor of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Holton? I can also make all the required findings. However, unlike my fellow commissioners, I would actually like to have a requirement regarding condition 20 that there are at least more specifics regarding the employee stipend and that that stipend will indeed cover the entire cost of the off-site employee parking. So are you? Oh, and I am also in support of the project. Sorry. So are you making a friendly amendment to the resolution to include that? Correct. Okay. Now I will need some help from staff on how to work this. Does Commissioner Duggan, who made the first, need to accept it, and Commissioner Carter, who made the second, need to accept it? Sure, wait, yes. Friendly amendment can be made by any commissioner, and then the proposed friendly amendment gets accepted or not by the first and second. Okay, so then we'll bring that back to Commissioner Duggan. Do you accept that friendly amendment? Can Commissioner Holton restate it? Because I don't see anything requiring stipend in number 20. So he actually, the petitioner actually made a statement during this meeting that they were talking about providing an employee stipend for parking off-site. And then we had asked about specifics, and then there weren't really any specifics. So I would just actually like to get that clarified. And I was referencing condition 20 due to the advice of Mr. Triple with the recommendation that we had an option to make a requirement for an amendment to that. So your amendment would be along the lines of requiring the applicant to provide a stipend for off-site parking? Correct, for employees. That would cover the entire cost of the off... I've actually been in a similar situation where I had an employer provide off-site parking, and unfortunately that stipend never covered the actual cost of the off-site parking when I was working in San Francisco. And so I was still coming out of pocket quite a significant amount, and I just want to ensure that that doesn't occur in the future. So you're talking, just so I'm clear, Commissioner Holton, that item 20 would be modified to include a stipend that would cover the total amount of any off-site parking? Correct. For employees? Right. Yeah. I would be in favor of that if it was only, if the owner only had to reimburse employees, like they didn't have to provide... Yeah, no, 100%. It would be providing, the employees would need to provide receipts from the parking garage, and they could actually be reimbursed through that stipend up to a set amount. Or, I mean, I don't want to get to, more than anything, actually initially, all I was requesting is just for more specifics regarding his statement about providing an employee stipend, because he had made reference to that in this meeting, but there were no specifics, and he wouldn't ask for specifics he had none. So again, I'd just like to have specifics in regard to that. Does Mr. Tripple have suggested language that we could have? Please, thank you. So, Chair, we've been reviewing a Commissioner Holm's proposal, and it does seem that, of course, these conditions would run with the land for as long as the conditional use permit is valid. So it is important to keep it in mind that it would be minding on any future uses, and perhaps a future use, it would be a less intensive use of the space. So there is that to consider. Considering that, maybe I'll go ahead and retract my statement, because I had no idea that it went for the life of the property. So I can definitely be a little bit more. But if the owner does intend on providing an employee stipend, it would just please be mindful of the cost of some of your employees that aren't really making absorbent salaries. So are you withdrawing your friendly amendment? Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and withdraw my friendly amendment. I'll go ahead and make all the required findings, and I'll be in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. That's okay. No problem. Okay, and I also am in support of the project and can make all the required findings, and I really am pleased to see how this project has evolved from when we first saw it. And I think it's really a good resolution and working with the neighbors on something like the color of the exterior of the building, I think really shows a good neighbor policy. And I hope it will be a good addition to the neighborhood. So with that, if we could call roll, it was moved by Commissioner Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Carter. Okay, roll, call, vote. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Ulta. Aye. And Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with four ayes, two abstentions, with two abstentions and one vacancy. So with that, unless staff has anything else that they would like to bring before us. No, Chair Weeks. Staff doesn't have any additional information. So we thank you for your service this evening, and appreciate your patience throughout the meeting. I do have one question. Will we be having a meeting, the first meeting in August, do you believe? Do you know yet? I can tell you in one second, it looks like our next meeting will be August 12th. Okay, thank you. And we do have several items for that meeting. Okay, and that will be the meeting where Commissioner Cisco will be seated. Correct. So when Mr. Maloney returns, we'll act swiftly to bring her back on as the appointee, and get her situated for the meeting. Great, thank you. So with that, the meetings adjourned, and everybody have a good evening.