 Hi this is Carol Dugas checking in. Thank you Carol, we can hear you. Thank you. Hey Mike this is Rob Sprinkel. Hey Rob, thank you, we can hear you loud and clear. So Mike, are we good to start our videos and line up the panel? Yes, if commissioners can please turn their video cameras on, we'll be ready to go when our staff is ready when the commission is. Great. Okay. Okay. With that, I'm going to go ahead and call to order tonight's meeting of the city of Santa Rosa planning commission. And I'll begin by reading this statement. Due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders in dash two five dash two zero and in dash two nine dash two zero, which suspend 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 or 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 or during our public hearing items will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address commission. That I will ask for roll call please. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present. With that, we will move to the approval of our minutes of our November 12 2020 meeting any comments or corrections on those not seeing any. So those will go ahead and stand as printed. Next, we're going to move on to public comments, which is a time for any member of the public to address the commission on matters of interest to the commission that are not listed tonight as a public hearing agenda item. So, if you are interested in speaking, you will be able to push the raise hand button. If you're participating by zoom webinar. If you're calling in by telephone you would hit star nine and you'll be recognized by our host and given three minutes to speak. With that, I'll go ahead and open public comments and check with a host and recording secretary to see if there's anybody waiting to speak. Just go at this time no one is raising their hands. Okay. Yeah, I'll go ahead and close the public comment period and bring it back to our panel and ask for planning commissioners report any reports by planning commissioners tonight. Not seeing any that we'll move on to department reports, any department reports tonight. Hey, good afternoon chair Cisco and members of the planning commission. Our department report this evening has three items the first item is report on end of your small group meetings that were held in December 2020 with planning commissioners. We do want to thank you for your time and input during those meetings it was very useful. We do want to acknowledge and support comments that the board's actions reflect their respect for one another and for the process. We do feel that this is integral to a well functioning commission and I think that we as well as so many others do see that and appreciate it so thank you. We do also want to acknowledge and support comments about the importance of being prepared for public reviews. And again we thank you for for the amount of time that you put into reading the sometimes lengthy meeting items and documents that are provided and doing that well in advance, providing questions to staff for clarification and such. Finally, we do want to in response to other comments indicated that we will be convening an interdepartmental roundtable to consider the cannabis program and based upon that convening identify recommendations for the cannabis subcommittee to consider in the early part of 2021. So as after we convene that roundtable and make those recommendations to the cannabis subcommittee will report back to you on what those recommendations are. And finally, we do want to reiterate our commitment to each of you that we do value your time and that will demonstrate that to you in part by organizing full meeting agendas to the greatest extent possible. And and of course that is oftentimes contingent upon project schedules and such but we did want to note that to you. And finally, I and others will be working with staff to implement recommendations for facilitating access to project information, as well as to regulatory and policy references that we make in the staff report and other documents that you get as part of your meeting item. So that's those are the comments that we want to make regarding small group meetings. And again, we thank you for your time and thoughtful input during those meetings. The next item is the downtown plan follow up in fall of 2020. You did review the downtown plan update, as well as zoning code amendments and and provided input on design guidelines. The final adopted downtown plan is available online at SR city.org in the planning department reports section. The zoning code amendments are available online in the online zoning code. They haven't been incorporated into the online zoning code yet that's part of a lengthier process. But they are they are the city council ordinances are linked. You go to the individual sections of the zoning code. And then the design guidelines that were adopted are available online as well in the design guidelines section of the website at SR city.org. Then briefly we'll look forward to upcoming planning commission meetings. We do want to let you know that the January 28 2021 planning commission meeting will be canceled. The notice of cancellation will be circulated following this meeting. And we do anticipate holding meetings in February 2021. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. But otherwise that does conclude the department's report. Yes, Vice Chair weeks. Andrew, I just wanted to thank you and Chair Cisco for holding those small group meetings. I thought they were very helpful. It was a nice informal way to actually get to know other commissioners a little bit better and really have some in depth conversation about why we're here. So, thank you so much to the two of you for doing that. It was a pleasure. Thank you. Any other questions. Okay. Yeah, I think tonight's agenda items qualify as the heavy reading that we are inclined to do so. Thanks for thanking us for that. Okay. With that I'll move on to statements of extension by commissioners any extensions tonight. Okay, that's good. We have no study session. And with that, I'll move on to the consent agenda. We have something to say about that. Yes, thank you chair Cisco on a can this evening's consent agenda we do have one item item 9.1, which is a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa. We're recommending the planning commission rules and regulations, modifying section to organization subsection or section three executive secretary and section six meetings, as well as section seven quorum. I'm planning staff would like to recommend to the chair, a continuation of this consent meeting item or further review by staff. We would like to present it on the agenda at the next planning commission meeting. Okay, so, and that meeting is likely to be February 11, given the cancellation of the 28. That's correct. So let's consider that. Continue to February 11, that's an item. Great. Thank you chair Cisco. Thank you. All right, so with that we're going to move to our public hearings tonight. Our first one is item 10.1 which is a public hearing for the good onward incorporated cannabis facility. And it is an export a disclosure and. Commissioner crepey any disclosures. I have nothing to disclose. Mr. Dougan. Visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Mr. Call yeah. I also visit the site and have nothing further to discuss. Mr. Peterson. I visited the site and have no new information to disclose. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. I also visited the site and have no further information to disclose. And I visited the site as well and have no new information to disclose. So with that we'll go ahead and move on to our staff presentation, which will be done by Connor McKay. Thank you chair Cisco and members of the commission. We'll be presenting the good onward Inc cannabis facility project located at 3192 juniper road. So the proposed project is a commercial cannabis project which includes on site cannabis uses, including manufacturing levels one and two that'd be non volatile and volatile manufacturing commercial cultivation of 5,001 square feet or more and distribution land uses . The project required entitlements and actions for the proposed project include the adoption of a mitigated negative declaration and approval of conditional use permit, which would both be acted upon by this planning commission today. Subject to these actions, the design review board would provide design review at a later date. The project site is located in the southwest quadrant of the city of Santa Rosa at a site that is currently developed in operating as a construction storage area and staging yard. The surrounding land uses of the project site include industrial to the north and the east and there's a single residential unit to the south and across juniper avenue to the west there is a single residential unit as well. The area to the west of juniper avenue is located in county jurisdiction and is outside the city's urban growth boundary and sphere of influence. In October of 2018 the project applications were submitted. July 31 2020 the initial study mitigated negative declaration or ISM and D was circulated for a 30 day public review period. The project site is designated general industry by the general plan land use diagram and I have included some applicable general plan goals related to land use and livability and economic vitality on this slide as well. The site is located in the general industrial zoning district which requires minor conditional use permit approval for cannabis manufacturing level one and canvas distribution land uses when proposed adjacent to a residential use. And requires a major conditional use permit approval for commercial cultivation of 5001 square feet or greater and cannabis manufacturing level two which is volatile. As condition the project would comply with the city of Santa Rosa's noise ordinance. Now discuss that more later on the presentation. Here we have the proposed site design. The proposed newly constructed new constructed warehouse is identified as building F. The project also includes the construction of an onsite bio retention basin on the top right of the screen and an additional access point from juniper avenue on the top left of the screen to access the warehouse. We received some the juniper avenue is also proposed to be widened as a proposal as a result of the proposed project. And we received some questions about this so I'd like to address them now. The juniper avenue is indeed a city street, and it is proposed to be widened to 20 feet as part of the project. And this construction would occur during phase one of the project's construction. This widening would conform with the city street standard and would improve the quality of the roadway and increase its lifespan. Future improvements to juniper avenue would be triggered by redevelopment of a budding parcels. The project is requesting a parking reduction of 32.5%. To approve a parking reduction, the review authority must first determine that there are special circumstances that apply to the proposed project that would generate a reduced parking demand than what is outlined by the zoning code. And that the proposed parking spaces would be adequate for the safe, efficient and convenient operation of the use. Special circumstances that apply to this project are that the project would consist of a maximum of 10 employees on site at any one time upon full project build out. Additionally, site access would be locked and secured at all times and the facility would be closed to the public. Therefore, the provision of 29 parking spaces is anticipated to be adequate for the use. And this conclusion is supported by the findings of WTrans parking analysis, which is contained in their focus traffic study attached as attachment seven in your packet. The city of Santa Rosa has established general operating requirements for cannabis land uses, including security, odor, lighting and noise. The applicant has provided a security plan that satisfies the Bureau of Cannabis Control Regulations. It describes access controls on external and internal doors with some requiring two level verification for entry. The project also includes secured storage and waste areas and all cannabis and related byproducts would not be visible or accessible to the public. The applicant has also provided a certified odor mitigation plan which outlines the measures to reduce odor impacts, including the installation of carbon filters and establishment of staff processes and training. All external lighting would be installed and operated in accordance to the city's outdoor lighting ordinance. The applicant is not proposing any outdoor mechanical equipment other than standard HVAC equipment typical for industrial and commercial development. Here we have the required findings for a conditional use permit. So the general industry general plan land use designation and general industrial zoning district both allow for cannabis uses. The project required compliance with security, odor control, noise and outdoor lighting requirements would minimize potential conflicts with surrounding land uses. Additionally, the project includes the widening of Juniper Avenue to allow for two-way traffic as I previously discussed. Additionally, the proposed cannabis uses would exist in an existing and proposed industrial buildings at the site of a construction storage and staging yard. As such, all utilities are present that the proposed project would require. Finally, the number of parking spaces proposed is anticipated to be sufficient for the safe, convenient, inefficient operation of the use. Sorry, I forgot to mention the parking reduction. Any proposed re-teneting of the project would be required to comply with the standard parking requirements outlined by the zoning code. Sorry, I forgot to mention that in the parking slide. Finally, an ISM&D was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, which identifies potentially significant impacts and introduces mitigation measures to reduce the impacts below a level of significance. Staff has reviewed the project in compliance with all applicable standards and regulations, including regulations mitigating potentially significant impacts related to odor and noise for neighboring residential uses. As such, there are no issues unresolved. The ISM&D circulated for a 30-day period beginning on July 31, 2020. We received three comments during this period of time. One from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, which was providing guidance for implementation of two mitigation measures for biological resources. And one comment from the Regional Water Quality Control Board stating that a new certification would be needed for Clean Water Act section 401. We received one public comment during this period, which was expressing opposition to the project due to concerns of traffic impacts, odor impacts, and proximity to schools. WTRANS has prepared a focus traffic study, which indicates less than significant impacts to traffic with mitigation. And as I discussed, the project has included an odor mitigation plan that outlines standards and practices to reduce odor emissions. And the City of Santa Rosa does not have a standard for non-retail cannabis uses and their proximity to schools. However, the nearest school is located over 700 feet from the project site and is not anticipated to experience significant nuisance as a result of the proposed project. So we had a neighborhood meeting in January of 2019 and I apologize. We actually had three attendees at this neighborhood meeting and they shared their concerns about cannabis in general due to the potential for crime to be brought into the neighborhood. These attendees were offered a tour of the site to learn more about the safety and security mechanisms proposed as part of the project, but they declined the offer to meet with the applicant at a later date. With that, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the Planning Commission, by two resolutions, adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve a conditional use permit to allow the proposed cannabis uses to operate at 3192 Juniper Avenue. And I believe we have Steve Arago who would like to make a quick note about the project and following the applicant, Tim Shannon. And staff is available for available for any questions as well. Great. Thank you, Mr. McKay. Commissioners, any just quick clarifying questions for Mr. McKay before we move on to our applicant presentation. And I can't see our panel yet so I'm assuming that there's there's no questions right now. Okay, great. Alright, so with that we'll move on to the applicant. Mr. Arago, I think you're first. Can you hear me? We can. Okay, good because I guess I'm not on camera, but so I'll just speak. A little blob with a green square around you. That might be a good look for me today. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the planning commission. My name is Stephen Arago. I'm an entitlement planner and landscape architect, representing Tim Shannon on the project before you today. In addition to myself, there are other project team members and attendance today and they include Tim Shannon will speak after me. He's president of Shannon Mason reconstruction. Taya Clown Burt, who is the project manager for the project. He's also here. And then Peter Stanley, president of archeologics, the architect, our architectural firm on the project is here as well. Eric Wade project engineer for BKF civil engineers is also here, as well as Cameron Nye, the traffic engineer for W trans. All our team members are here to answer any questions you might have and if you have questions about the site landscaping, I can answer those as well. But for us, the process on the project began back in the summer of 2018, when we prepared and then presented preliminary plans to city staff of at various from various departments at our pre application meeting and I believe that meeting was held in August of 2018. Following that meeting our team went to work on resolving the issues that were that came out of that initial meeting. And after feeling that we had addressed the issues that came up. We again made our initial submittal that Connor pointed out in October of that fall for our initial use permit application submittal. Over the next year or so we worked with staff to resolve any new issues that arose, as well as we refined our plans to the point where our application was finally deemed complete by staff in January 2020, just roughly about a year ago. And since that time, in addition to resolving things we have as, as everyone has experienced unforeseen delays due to a number of things, including the King Cade fire the power safety shut out us shutdowns that not only affected our team but the city in general. It's not my county, the North Bay, it affected everyone and of course, our last year has been really messed up by the pandemic that we are all experiencing otherwise we'd be meeting in person. And I only mentioned it because our team is really happy to finally be able to present our project to you. It's been a long time and we've worked with staff quite a bit, you know and as I said we've worked through all the issues with staff as they rose. Our team has reviewed the staff report, the resolutions to condition of approval and have no issues with them. We thought they did a very good job and enjoyed working with them. And we obviously support staffs recommendation for approval of the conditional use permit for the project and pending that we art design team would really like to get going on the building department plans. So with that, again, our teams here dance for any questions including myself but I would like to then turn it over to Tim Shannon so he he could say a few words to you. Thank you. Sorry, we were muted planning commission and staff can you hear me. It could be a little louder work it's a little safe. I'll speak up a little bit. Right, thank you. Thank you we've been waiting for this for a long time. Happy this finally came around and Peter and Eric and Steve everybody. Hello, glad you're attending as well. So I just want to take a brief moment to let you know a little bit about my background. I've been a Sonoma County resident since 1985. Three children born and raised here, all still living here in the county I have five grandchildren. And one of my daughters actually lives on the property here at the Unifer Avenue with two of my grandchildren in the residence of the property where we purchased it. So I am a contractor here locally my office is actually right on Standish Avenue we employ 50 people here in the county. I've been in business here for now about 18 years. I'm very excited for this development we've been waiting and working hard on this with my whole team diligently for three and a half four years now. Nevertheless, I had a good standing with all my neighbors and I plan on running a large portion of this operation hands on a couple of my family members are going to be involved in it. We're excited to get this thing going and move it forward as briskly as we can after we get permits. So with that being said, yeah, I'm just very excited to we're getting another step closer and excited to start the development phase of this, which once again I probably will be doing 40 to 50% of the development of it through my own company. I will be on site on a daily basis overseeing everything that happens and me and tail my project manager will be available daily and hourly for any questions that ever may arise on a daily basis. If you have any questions you'd like to talk to me about or information please feel free to speak. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Shannon. Commissioner of any questions of the applicant right now before we go to the public hearing. Yeah, Mr. Pearson. Just quickly. Can you tell me a little bit more about the distribution part of the project and what what that'll kind of look like in the revised project plan says it will require two or three vehicles and just wondering sort of the typical day. What does that look like for the distribution side. I'm going to let tail my project manager chime in on that. I'm obviously more of a building into this I am being educated a lot over the last four or five years but as far as the technical questions from the day to day operations all that tail chime in on that if you don't mind. Hi, we're just allocating what seemed like a safe number for the business it's still like over a year away that we would get to operate you know with having to do all the work in the state and everything in place. So, like, if everything goes as planned, those three vehicles would be, you know, go out in the morning make deliveries, maybe come back once in the day to pick more up and do another set of deliveries ideally, you know, have them working. Is that answer your question. Yeah, we just, yeah, we're all the vehicles making deliveries if we're being successful. Right, I'm trying to get a sense I mean is it constant coming and going or is it, you know, more like what you said, you know, the vehicle goes out comes back maybe once. Ideally, we would, if the person can load up everything and just be out for a day and make their deliveries for a day that would probably is the most optimal use of the person's time. They would come back for multiple deliveries let's say like a new order came in that we were able to fill for the person the same day like oh come back pick this up as a new customer will get it to them. But I guess outside of that I wouldn't imagine it would just be a they would do their their round for the day without needing to come come back and forth multiple times. I envision just a normal sized van delivering it's not like we'd be taking big box trucks out of the property. I mean these are small amounts of products so it's it's would be like a standard sized van and probably would not even be necessary to return for second deliveries. I'm under the pretense that whatever is loaded on that van and being delivered to multiple locations throughout the area would probably take the route to probably take all day to do the route before returning. It's different than a cannabis dispensary delivery service where they would be going you know coming in going much because it's doesn't fall under that side and not that type of traffic. Thank you. Anything else of the applicant right now. Okay. Thank you. We may have questions after the public hearing. So with that I am going to open our public hearing which is a time for the public to comment on this item. If they choose if you are on zoom you would hit your raise hand feature. If you're dialing in by phone you would hit star nine and you will be recognized by the host and given three minutes to speak. So with that I will check with our host to see if there's anybody in the queue waiting to speak. Thanks chair Cisco. At this time no one is raising their hands. We do have 28 attendees and as I said that somebody rose their hand one second. Okay, great. Your name is David Proctor if you can state your name for the record and go ahead and speak when ready. Mr. Proctor we've given you the ability to unmute but you have to select unmute and you can start speaking when ready. Excuse me. I'm David Proctor my address when I purchased my home 35 years ago was 32 97 juniper. Since then, the county in their vision has changed my address to 524 Oasis. This occurred after Oasis Drive was permitted to connect with my driveway. My house didn't move. In any case, I am very concerned that there is a view of almost a blind bifurcation between the center line of juniper Avenue, in which we can suggest that this is this use is consistent with commercial zoning. That permits this one in fact the other side of the road is entirely residential children and adults regularly walk up and down this road. The rest of the area to the west is residential in nature of zoning two and a half acres or more. It is a situation where even expanding the width of the road to 20 feet without curbs and gutters would still increase traffic impacts with pedestrians. This is also a flood area and this juniper Avenue floods regularly and less significant drainage is improved putting more heartscape down on this site and putting more drainage without it being able to go somewhere seems to be developing an issue that will not be resolved simply by the content of this plan. Not only is there a school within I guess they said 700 feet it practically backs up to the site. But that there is also a school office down juniper Avenue further. I have grave concerns that this will substantially impact the residential character and the safety of the residents in this residential area. That's all. Great. Thank you, Mr. Crofter. Thank you. At this time, no one else is raising their hand. Okay. Let's give that just a couple seconds here. And if there's still no one I'm going to go ahead and close our public hearing. Mr. Orago or Mr. Shannon, typically we give the applicant an opportunity to comment on whatever the concerns are from the public. I think Mr. Crofter's concerns may need to mostly be addressed by staff. But if you'd like to respond to his concerns first, that would be great. This is Tim speaking. Hello. Everybody heard me. Okay. This is Tim. Yeah, you're a little faint again. Okay. So one of Mr. Proctor's issues was he was concerned about foot traffic. Well, if he knew a little bit more about the plan, he would see that there is actually curb and gutter and storm water as part of the street frontage improvements, which will accommodate any foot traffic well beyond what is accommodating right right now, which is none. The street is also being widened by five feet and not to mention my daughter, my grandchildren walk up and down that road. So I would be equally concerned with that. And certainly this sidewalk and storm weather that's part of the street frontage improvements is going to accommodate any foot traffic because from here north to to Bellevue from the south corner of my property to Bellevue. On top of the water issue he was discussing, there is a four foot in diameter storm water drain pipe that runs down the middle of Juniper Avenue south all the way down to the other end and all storm water coming off from this property is planned and being plumped right into the storm water sewer drainage. It's actually going to be draining considerably better now when we're done with the improvements than it is currently because a lot of the ditches are not currently tied into the storm water drain that is existing there on the corner of my property for that very purpose. That's all I have. Maybe you could also speak to some of the of how you're handling your security so safety concerns by the public can be addressed. Well, security. You know as requested the city Santa Rosa requested we put up a solid eight foot high masonry wall in front of the property which we've done with non see through gates at the same height that eight feet. From the street at the landscaping and curve and gutter is going to put it it's going to be very attractive. Not to mention we will have there's going to be cameras on property. One of the gate entrances and the balance the cameras will be, I believe in included in the property so that you will not be able to see them from the outside but everything is secure within the property in the building itself that is being constructed is a solid masonry construction with metal doors on it. And it's not like there's going to be stockpiles of Luke here that people would be knowing about or even wanting to attempt to come through and get their hands on it for lack of a better word but I'm not sure if we have full time security in the in the design. That might be something I have to go back and review but my daughter and children have no plans on leaving this property right away so security is always a concern of mine. We've had no problems here since I've owned the property in the last five years. No homeless problems, no theft problems. No free to trust passing problems. I don't foresee. I don't see any problems at all coming from a security standpoint with the with the new building going to play. Okay, and then I think Mr McKay if you could speak to just how the zoning is laid out there on Juniper Drive the where where that area is headed in terms of commercial zoning or manufacturing type of thing. I'm really quick chair Cisco if all the applicants can please mute themselves reading a lot of echo so if you're not speaking you can please mute staff as well. Hi chair Cisco can you repeat or further clarify your question for me please. Yeah Mr proper started with his concern about just how the zoning is there that you know he's he lives in a residence and and then there's commercial zoning so if you could just sort of explain the lay out there of the land use and zoning expectations for that area. Right so the general planned land use designation on the east side of juniper is all designated as general industry. And these parcels are also designated as general industrial or they're located in the general industrial zoning district. And I do understand that on the opposite side of Juniper Avenue there are general planned land use designations and so county zoning designations for residential uses. And I believe that as conditioned and as as mitigated the project does reduce potential new nuisances and conflicts with those neighboring residential uses. Okay great thanks for that. Okay so with that I'm going to bring it back to the commissioners for questions. Any questions of the applicant. Yeah, Mr. Peterson. Oh sorry this isn't for the applicant this is for staff. If this is the appropriate time. I can wait. Well let's go ahead we'll start with the questions and then if there are questions for the applicant will do that looks. You know I'm shaking the cobwebs off our December off. So if you could remind me that just the standard for odor in cannabis manufacturing and sort of enforcement mechanisms. So what is what is the standard for how much odor there can be when you're manufacturing cannabis and what happens if there's an issue. And that's for you Mr. McKay. So the standard for cannabis odors is that cannabis odor should not be detectable detectable outside the building. So can't smell it at all does not smell like cannabis outside the building. That is correct. And if there's an issue. This is a code enforcement issue. Yes. Okay. Thank you Mr. McKay. Not seeing any any other questions of Mr. Orogo or Mr. Shannon. Okay. Not seeing any. Great. So with that. We'll go ahead and bring it back to the commission for discussion. The first resolution for which is for the initial study mitigated negative declaration. Mr. Peterson. I move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa adopting a mitigated negative declaration for the good onward Inc. This facility located at 3192 Juniper Road Assessors parcel number 134-072-004 file number PRJ18-082 and wave further reading. Yeah, I need a second. Okay. So that was moved by Commissioner Peterson. Seconded by Vice Chair Weeks. Let's go ahead and do as we do typically discuss the whole project at this time. Make sure that you indicate whether you find the initial study and then be to be adequate and then, you know, continue with your comments. So, Christian Peterson, how about if you do this, you do this well. Sure. I'll do my best. So, you know, this has been a few years now that Santa Rosa has legalized the sort of production distribution retail sale of cannabis. So, while we're in sort of the swing of things in a sense, I think each project brings up the sort of tensions that are that are present with these types of land use issues. One of those, I think inherent to any of this, whether it was cannabis or not, is the, you know, the location of a industrial general zoning districts that above essentially residential zones. I think that's that's kind of an inherent tension. We see it all over the city, regardless of the projects again, cannabis or not. And I think it's understandable that the residents in the area or have some some concerns and trepidation about having a new or different use the budding their property that in mind. I mean, it's been operating as a masonry storage facility for a while. So, you know, sitting here, what I'm seeing on that particular issue is really just kind of a different use. You know, there's, there's going to be the existing site buildings use. There's going to be a new warehouse. There's going to be some distribution it from what the applicant said it doesn't sound like probably a huge difference in terms of road traffic from what the masonry site was. I think the concerns about we heard from the public about crime. You know, we hear them for every cannabis project and I think counterintuitively maybe one of the things that comes along with these projects is a greater level of security because you've got those eyes out there. They've built the wall, you know, driving visiting the site certainly felt like a kind of fortress so it that that masonry wall I think on its own probably just hers a lot of stuff and you know that the security cameras people just being there, I think will will help deal with kind of the crime concerns. So, I asked the question about the odor I think you can the standard is is not so it shouldn't smell like pot it's not from what I can tell from the project plans is this isn't a, you know, and I have a bunch of signage that says hey here's pot come, come break in. And so I think for the purposes of this project the road improvements are definitely necessary and I think would be adequate for what what is being proposed, we've heard from the applicant about the drainage improvements that are going to I think, you know, in terms of the overall project I think that the concerns from the public are completely valid I completely understand. I think that this is just the kind of project that with applicant that's been operating in the county for for a while. And, you know, I think has an investment in doing the project right in a way that we don't necessarily see with sort of out of county applicants so on the narrow issue of the mitigated negative declaration I think it's adequate, I would be able to make all the findings because my general sense of this this project is that I think it's appropriate for the use I think that the proposed setup for the project is is good and will be able to address the concerns that have been raised by the public. Thank you. Commissioner Carter. What I'm in general agreement with Commissioner Peterson and which is why you like to lead him off. Project, our experiences has shown us in approving these kinds of projects that they often do improve conditions around them because of the heavily regulated nature of the projects both by the city and the state. And I do think with a little bit of hesitancy that the improvements to juniper or juniper Avenue will benefit all of the users of juniper Avenue I you know, a full size, fully developed city street would be better but we know there are limitations there. And in this case I certainly believe that I can make the findings of for approving the MND. And in this case I think it did a good job of highlighting what the potential impacts were and how they were to be addressed through the element of the project so I can make the necessary findings, both on the MND and the use permit. Great, thank you. Michelle Krepke. Yeah, I don't think there's much more to add after those two. My two fellow commissioners went there pretty thorough their review and I agree with just about everything they've said, especially that the, the idea that it will bring crime is actually not supported. Evidence evidenced by criminal activity reported by the police has actually become more secure, you know, the, the lighting the cameras everything, plus the improvements that are going in will help make that street more secure so I can support the initial study. And then also will be support of the project. Commissioner Duggan. I'm also in support of the project. I think I had nothing else to add to what my fellow commissioners have said already. I think the mitigated negative declaration is adequate and I can make all the findings for the CUP. Great. Thank you for your question. Call you. I also felt I also echo my fellow commissioners I can make their required findings both for the project as a whole and for the mitigated neck deck. And I agree, you know, with the street improvements and the, the amount of security that's on site this heavily regulated use. I can support the required findings. I have nothing further to add for my fellow commissioners. I can, the MND is adequate and I can make all the findings for the conditional use permit and nothing further. Right. And I too am in agreement that I can make the findings with the initial study MND. I think it's been well spoken to by fellow commissioners. And so I will be in favor of this project and can also make the findings for the conditional use permit. So with that, with the, the resolution for the mitigated negative declaration that was moved by commissioner Peterson. It was seconded by vice chair weeks. And with our recording secretary like to take our votes. Yes. And sure Cisco wanted you to be advised that I am having some technical issues with our minute maker today. That I'm working with the clerk's office. So I'm going to be doing a lot of this by hand. So it might be a little bit slower since we, many of the items have multiple resolutions. I just wanted you to be aware that it might take me a second. So with that, starting with commissioner Carter. I, I commissioner Dougan. I, commissioner Colleen. I, commissioner Krebke. I, commissioner Peterson. I, vice chair weeks. I chair Cisco. And so that passes with seven eyes. And with that, let's move on to our conditional use permit resolution. Somebody like to move that. I move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for good onward Inc. Cannabis facility located at 3192 Juniper Avenue file number PRJ 18-082 and wait for the reading. Second. And was moved by commissioner Peterson, seconded by commissioner weeks. Any other discussion on the conditional use permit. Okay. Not seeing any. Mr. Maloney want to take our votes. Commissioner Carter. I, commissioner Dougan. I, commissioner Calia. I, commissioner Krebke. I, commissioner Peterson. I, commissioner Wiches. I, chair Cisco. I, and that passes with seven eyes. And I believe that concludes this item. And just want to check with staff and commissioners if we need to take a break for this setup of the next item, or are we good to go just. Yes, I just go we would like to take a break. What would you suggest, like five minutes, 10 minutes? Five minutes is fine. Thank you. OK. So commissioners, let's go ahead and agree to just reconvene at 5 o'clock. That's exactly a little longer than five minutes, but that's good. OK. We'll reconvene. And Mike, are you about ready for us to? We are good. Coming back. And I just want to check with staff. Are we ready to go forward now? Yes, we are. We are. OK. Great. All right. So reopen our meeting. And we're going to continue on to item number 10.2, which is our second public hearing for the In-N-Out Burger. And it is an ex-partee disclosure. Commissioner Weisscher-Wietz, please start with the ex-partee. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Mr. Peterson. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Mr. Collier. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Mr. Duggan. I visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Mr. Carter. I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. I visited the site and then I have kind of a fluky thing to disclose. I noticed on the six o'clock news last night that there was just an item stating that last door had done their survey. I guess they do a survey every year of really valued employers, a really highly rated employers rating system. And in and out burger was number three. And not knowing what last door was, I kind of looked it up. I didn't want to research too deeply, but apparently they do a very wide range of businesses in search throughout the nation, sometimes in other countries of businesses and their 21 rating for in and out burger was number three. So just that I saw that. With that, we will go ahead and move on to the staff presentation, which will be done by our presenting planner, Susie Burry. Hello, all. Can you hear me? We can. Hey, that's one down. Now let's see if I can't share my screen. Can you see my screen? Not yet. Hey, Susie, can you tilt your monitor as well? We can only see your forehead. That's by design, Mike. There you go. I can't see anything because I have my slideshow up and I thought, okay, it's always a challenge, folks. Okay, now can you see my screen? We can, it's kind of a small version. I'm gonna put it on, there we go. All right, we got it, yay. Okay, sorry about the rough start there, folks. That's nothing out of the usual for me. So good evening, Chair Siscoe, Vice Chair Weeks and members of the Planning Commission. The project before you this evening is the In-N-Out Burger Restaurant, proposed at 2532 Santa Rosa Avenue. The restaurant would provide counterordering and drive-through services. And if the conditional use permit is also requesting extended hours of operation from 10 a.m. until 1.30 a.m. in the morning. In addition, deliveries would be made to the site between 1.30 a.m. and 9 a.m. and those deliveries would be made from In-N-Out, In-N-Out's own fleet, their trucks delivering supplies. The entitlements include a mitigated negative declaration which the Planning Commission will be acting on, a conditional use permit which the Planning Commission will also be acting on and then design review, which given the size of the structure, less than 10,000 square feet, will be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator. So I'm gonna take this opportunity, April 5th, 2018, to try and clear up some of the confusion with regard to the relationship to the In-N-Out Burger and the approved housing development to the East, a 252-unit apartment complex. When the projects first came in, they were joined by the property and by their CEQA analysis. When we did the concept design review, both projects went before the design review board for their comments. Shortly after that, the projects were split apart as was the CEQA analysis. So some of those CEQA reports, some of those technical studies, do reference both projects, but there were separate mitigated negative decorations prepared for both. So tonight, the mitigated negative declaration before the Planning Commission is only for the In-N-Out Burger. And we have consultants available that can answer all of your questions, I'm sure. So that's when we were first introduced to this project, it was in April of 2018. Moving forward, some key we had on November 4th, there was a well-attended neighborhood meeting. I was at that meeting and nobody seemed particularly concerned about the project. People seemed generally supportive of it. A notice of application was mailed out in February of 2019 after we received the project applications. And the mitigated negative declaration was circulated for public review in early November. And we did receive some comments and I'll talk about them a little bit later, but we made our response to comments on December 14th. So here's the project site. And what's important to note here is the outline in the yellow, which is the In-N-Out Burger site. The Yolanda apartment site is off to the left or to the east here. And what's real important to note is that we have had, since this aerial was taken, we've had a lot line adjustment approved, which realigns these two parcels. So the Yolanda apartment parcel is much, it occupies the east side of those two parcels. And the project site has that, what's outlined in yellow here. And that gives them the access to Yolanda for access to the In-N-Out restaurant. And just so that you understand the context, neighborhood context here, I put up there's directly to the northeast of the site is residential. It's a mobile home park. The two units that are closest to the In-N-Out are about 15 feet away from the drive aisle of the In-N-Out project. Adjacent to Santa Rosa Avenue directly above the site or to the north is a commercial site. We'll talk a little bit more about that when we get into some of the public comments received. And then it's commercial pretty much to the south and then on the south side of Yolanda. And again, there's that approved residential development. And I'm gonna talk a little bit more about that in this presentation as well. So just the basics, the general plan land use designation is retail and business services. So here you can see the configuration of the two parcels before the lot line adjustment. The lines are not showing yet in GIS. So I couldn't get you an updated graphic, I apologize. The zoning is general commercial and that is consistent with the retail and business services land use designation. So here are some of the general plan policies, goals and policies that were mentioned in the staff report. And I think I added another one in here and an extra one for you. But I wanna start out with the economic vitality. This definitely puts our higher density retail uses along Santa Rosa Avenue, which I think is where we want them. It provides a range of commercial services to the people of Santa Rosa employment opportunities as well as attracting people from around the city. There's been some question about sound walls. This is a CMU wall, but it doesn't just serve as a sound wall that's proposed in this project. Well, the city likes in residential neighborhoods and whatnot, we like to stay away from sound walls. There are applications where they make sense. And we'll talk a little bit more about that one as well, but in this situation, I think that that's the case. Then there is LUL, land use and livability, one of the goals that speaks to auto oriented and drive through establishments, but these really focus on mixed use zoning districts. So in this case, we're not in a mixed use zoning districts. It's the general commercial zoning district, which is commercial, although you could do a mixed use development in here. So that's why it was added into the staff report, but there is no prohibition of drive through establishments in this location. So I wanted to be very clear on that. In terms of the zoning code, the project is before the planning commission because a drive through use requires a conditional use permit in the CG zoning district. If it didn't have the drive through and we're requesting just the extended hours of operation, it would only require a minor conditional use permit. So I wanted to be clear on that as well. The project was reviewed in terms of its parking. They exceed, significantly exceed their parking requirements from, I think they require right around the 50 mark and they have 73 onsite spaces. The project is conditioned, complies with the noise ordinance, meets all development standards and still requires design review. And the design review will also consider the CMU wall. So there are six required findings for conditional use permits. And as drafted in the resolution, staff finds that all six findings can be met. Here is the very busy civil site plan. And for the sake of conversation, well, in here you can see, I put in North Arrow, so North is off to the left here. And so Santa Rosa Avenue is at the bottom of the site plan and Yolanda is off to the right. You can see here where there's a driveway with a pedestrian path of travel, actually on both sides of the driveway, coming from Yolanda. And then there's also the access point from Santa Rosa Avenue. But for the sake of discussion, I think that the landscape plan is a nicer view. It's clearer to me. So I did receive a question about access from the proposed residential development to the east, which is in this case at the top. And there is access. There's not only a pathway for the project to the north, but there's also an access point right where the arrow is showing here, the red arrow. This here is the revised Yolanda apartment site plan. And just to give you some, this is immediately to the east of the In-N-Out Burger. The question about the access point is answered again on this site plan. I'll be at a little cockeyed. Purple lines are the walkways that are proposed as part of a recently received revised site plan. A notice is going out to neighbors within 600 feet of that property. That notice is being mailed tomorrow. The timing was just perfect on this. I received a request a few weeks ago from a new developer after a recent sale of the property. A new developer has asked for some design changes to that site plan. So in terms of the gate, that red arrow that I showed you on the previous slide aligns here. So I also wanted to put up on the screen so you could see it all together. This is what was the approved Yolanda apartment site plan. In the approved, oh, you know what? I wanna go back to the previous one. I missed something. Building number three is the closest building to the In-N-Out Burger project. The distance between the property line and the edge of that building, the western elevation of that building is about 85 feet. The approved project, the distance was about eight feet. They had two units that were to studio apartments that were right over a carport there. So the revised site plan pulls the units away from the property line. So during staff's review, there were issues that came up. Traffic and concurrent development in the area was considered, noise impacts and neighboring residential uses was considered, and also odor impacts for neighboring residential uses. Through conditions of approval and mitigation measures, there are no unresolved issues. And again, here, this is a real good opportunity to look at the project site and proximity to those, the mobile home park, but it's also an opportunity to look at proximity to other drive-through restaurant. And in this case, that start as where McDonald's is, and they are open, their drive-through is open 24 hours. There are two other restaurants nearby that I could see and I have to apologize. I had to depend on GIS and the internet. And so I saw Applebee's and Starbucks. Starbucks closes at 9 p.m. They have a drive-through service. Applebee's, as far as I can tell, does not have a drive-through service. So in terms of environmental review, an initial study was prepared and together with mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring program were circulated for a period of 30 days on November 4th, which I mentioned previously, we did receive comments both from the applicant and outside agencies. Those comments were included in the comments, either in late correspondence or in just public correspondence, along with some others, some other public comments. Also included in the late correspondence was staff's official response to both the Department of Toxic Substances Control and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Some of the public comments that we received was I received a caller that was hoping that In-N-Out would add a second drive aisle during the COVID crisis, so pandemic. And there was a question about the impacts on affordable housing, because apparently this site, once upon a time, many months ago, had been designated for affordable housing. It has not had that designation for the last 10 plus years. It is not considered in our general plan inventory of potential affordable housing sites. So then the impacts of the site design on neighboring commercial uses, there were a couple of emails letters received from pertaining to the property to the north, the, I think it's mattress firm store. And originally that on the site plan, when the CMU wall was proposed, it was an eight foot wall going up to the front of the drive aisle, separating the drive aisle from neighboring uses, commercial and residential to the north. In response to those comments, the wall, the CMU wall was dropped to three feet on the portion of the CMU wall that's adjacent to mattress firm. And then I have received a couple of phone calls from the same individual who is very, very supportive of a new restaurant in the area. And she's very excited about it being open. So that concludes my presentation with this. It's recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission approved the in and out burger project to construct and operate a restaurant with counterordering drive-through services and extended hours of operation by adopting the mitigated negative declaration and approving the conditional use permit. My contact for people that can't see the screen that are calling in, my name again is Susie Murray. My telephone number is 543-4348 and that's in the 707 area code. And my email address is SMURAY at SRCity.org. And that concludes my presentation. Sorry for the previous false alarm. Great, thank you, Ms. Murray, appreciate that. I know that the applicant would also like to make a presentation. And Patty and Mike, I'll be able to control that from here. Commissioner, is any quick clarifying questions of Ms. Murray before we move on to the applicant presentation? It's okay with me if you just call out. If I don't hear anything, I'm just gonna assume that we can move on to the applicant. Okay, so let's just go ahead and move on to our applicant. I have to share my screen again, folks, I think. Sorry. That's all right, you're doing great. Yeah, that was done. Okay. You're already sharing, Susie, we can see what you're doing to make it. There we go. Thank you, Mike. Has Jim Lockington been elevated? And can anyone hear me? We can hear you. Wonderful. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission. Hi, Susie, other city staff and members of the Santa Rosa community participating in this meeting remotely. My name is Jim Lockington. I am in and out burgers manager of new store development and I am very pleased and grateful to be given this opportunity to provide project information and to advocate for approval of our proposed second restaurant in the city of Santa Rosa. Our first store in Santa Rosa was opened on October 28, 2010 and it's located on the other end of town at 2131 County Center Drive. It is store number 249 in our chain, 249. Before going into any details of the proposed new restaurant, I would like to share some background and in and out history with you if I could. Susie, next slide, please. In and Out Burger is a privately owned family business founded in 1948 by Harry Snyder and his wife Esther. Harry was a World War II veteran and he used his GI bill money to open a modest 10 foot by 10 foot hamburger restaurant in Baldwin Park, California. What was at that time a game changing innovation but one we take for granted today were the drive aisles on both sides of the restaurant with two way ordering speakers. In and Out celebrates its 73rd year of operation this year. We now operate 361 locations in California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, Oregon and Texas. And late last year, we entered our seventh state Colorado with stores in Aurora and Colorado Springs. The company is solely owned and led by the granddaughter of the founders, Lindsey Snyder. We are careful and deliberate about our growth which growth is undertaken at a very, very modest pace. We do not franchise, all of our restaurants are company owned, operated and maintained. Next slide please. On the back of my business card is the company's mission statement which is now displayed free on the screen and it reads, in and out burgers exists for the purpose of one, providing the freshest, highest quality food and services for a profit and a spotless sparkling environment whereby the customers are most important asset. Two, providing a team oriented atmosphere whereby goal setting and communications exist and to provide excellent training and development for all our associates. And three, assisting all communities in our marketplace to become stronger, better and safer places to live. At the bottom of my paycheck as well as the paycheck of every in and out associate from a brand new entry level store associate to the highest level executives are two things. First, there's a listing of the currently available volunteer opportunities for our charitable foundations or other community service events. And second is the statement, remember this paycheck was made possible by the customer. The example of in and out's commitment to element number three of our mission statement include holiday food drives conducted at all of our restaurant corporate support office locations, yearly blood drives at all of our corporate support office locations and most importantly, ongoing fundraising at all the restaurant locations throughout the year and several yearly corporate fundraising events to support our two charitable foundations. Next slide please Susie. These foundations include the in and out foundation which was started by Esther Snyder in 1984 with a focus on helping abused children and the slave to nothing foundation which was established in 2016 by our owner Lindsay and which focuses on funding organizations that provide services and assistance to members of the communities we operate in for victims of human trafficking or substance abuse. These foundations each employed dozens of individuals to carry out their missions. In and out underwrites every expense to ensure that all donations whether generated from internal associate donations, customer donations or our numerous vendor and corporate partner donors go directly to worthy recipients. We also offer local school support and student recognition programs. More information about all of these is available at in and out.com. Specific examples of city of Santa Rosa corporate giving and foundation support are displayed on the current slide. As you can see corporate donations to Santa Rosa schools, other organizations and first responders include in kind donations of in and out branded merchandise requested by various organizations for their fundraisers, providing packages of in and out swag to high schools for their grad nights, meals to first responders and a huge number of youth recognition awards provided to local schools. These youth recognition awards are a certificate good for any combo meal at any in and out restaurant with a blank space for a teacher or administrator to fill in a student's name and to gift them as an acknowledgement of good citizenship or scholarly achievement. These are available and provided to all local schools at the request of the principal. As you can see the donations from both in and out foundations are significant and they're made directly to local support organizations whose missions match the foundation's mission. It's worth noting that this level of community give back is representative of how we operate in all of the communities we serve. Also worth noting is that all uniformed law enforcement are given a 50% discount on their orders at the register. I would be remiss if I did not mention in and out's commitment to continue operating during the pandemic while taking every measure to prevent the spread of COVID-19. First off, we take the pandemic very seriously. Given the impact that it has had on sit down restaurants and the availability of freshly prepared food to all communities, our drive-throughs are providing an absolutely essential service to the communities we operate in, namely hot, fresh, made-to-order food to go. At the corporate level, an enormous percentage of our associates have been given the opportunity and equipment to work safely from home. I, for example, work in a small satellite office that houses our real estate development, construction and property management teams. There are usually about 30 people working in that office. Currently, there are four to six working there each day. Out of that group, we have seven development teams support associates who report directly to me three architectural designers and four development project managers. All seven are presently working safely from home. In the restaurant locations, aggressive measures are being taken to protect associate and customer health and to continually educate store associates as public health guidance evolves. We are infamous for having a clean and sanitary kitchen and dining room and for our friendly, clean and hygienic store associates. But our response to COVID is an extreme enhancement of those. I won't bore you with a lot of the details, but these measures generally include the following. One is enhanced sanitation of the restaurants. Our dining rooms in California are generally closed, but our order counters remain open for walk-in customers to order and take food out and our restaurants remain open to the public. We have physical barriers in place of the order counter to limit contact between associates and customers and surfaces that associates and customers contact or sanitize continually throughout the day. Strict protocols are in place that meter exceed local and state health guidance for workplace exclusions. Exclusions from work include associates who contract COVID or have come into contact at work or at home with anyone that has COVID is suspected of having COVID or has had potential contact with COVID. We have our own internal team of contact tracers to ensure aggressive and appropriate exclusions. One could assume reasonably that aggressive exclusions could lead to loss of income for our hourly associates or that the fear of such loss might be a disincentive for an associate to follow required protocols, leading them to come to work when they're sick or after a potential exposure to someone with COVID. In-and-outs owner Lindsay has personally taken steps to ensure neither of these situations are likely to occur. Twice since the pandemic began, she's directed the sick pay banks of every associate in the company. That's over 25,000 people. He replenished to a full 80 hours. And just last week, she directed additional steps to ensure that associates who are excluded from work due to illness or as a precautionary exclusion receive extended sick pay benefits to help them maintain their normal income. Susie, if you could queue up the next slide, please. And then the next one, please. In-and-out is very, very proud of the development proposal that has brought up you tonight for a decision. And we believe our new location will benefit the Santa Rosa community in a number of important ways, as noted on the current slide. These include tax revenue, addition to the city's tax base through development of currently vacant land. New jobs, as the chair mentioned, in-and-out is a highly regarded employer. We were recently ranked by Glassdoor as the number one best restaurant company in the country to work for and the third best employer of any type to work for in the United States. We pay the highest hourly wages of any employer in the quick service restaurant category. New jobs created will of course include entry-level restaurant jobs, but will also include more skilled and higher paying restaurant jobs, along with added opportunities to enter store management and move to corporate support positions. The community's youth will learn the value of and be rewarded for hard work, and some may even begin a lifelong career within and out. Additional benefits include new public improvements that will be installed at in-and-outs expense along the Santa Rosa Avenue frontage. These include addition of new street trees, which are sorely missing and needed along Santa Rosa Avenue, new landscaping, addition of a concrete pad for city bus stop shelter and new ADA compliant sidewalks. New public improvements will also be installed at in-and-outs expense along the Yolanda Avenue frontage. These will include dedication of currently private property to the city with new curbing gutter, new roadway to the center of Yolanda, including a dedicated center two-way left turn lane, new sidewalks, a bike path, all of which are sorely needed on Yolanda. The entire site will be newly landscaped for the water conserving irrigation design and state-of-the-art stormwater quality improvements. And of course, if approved, there will be a brand new, family-friendly, well-lit, safe, and well-maintained 3,867 square foot in-and-out burger restaurant with an attached outdoor patio to serve the community. Next slide, please. The proposed new restaurant is exceptionally located to serve the city of Santa Rosa community at the opposite end of town from our current location. The new location is purposely intended to help draw business from our existing Santa Rosa location, specifically to help reduce some of the volume which that existing store experiences at peak types. We believe this will very effectively improve the customer and neighborhood experience at the existing store. As you can see from the site plan slide that's up on the screen now, the site's well plan provides excellent circulation with no dead-end drive or parking aisles, easy access to both Santa Rosa and Yolanda avenues, ample parking with 73 spaces, and a dedicated drive-through queue that holds 30 cars. The restaurant building is set back 43 feet from Santa Rosa Avenue. That is 43, excuse me, that is 43 feet more than the city minimum required setback of zero feet. At a neighborhood meeting conducted about two years ago, we received a request from our mattress store neighbor to move our building back due to their concern that our building would block view of their retail building from potential customers traveling on Santa Rosa Avenue. We discussed that with their representative, the gentleman, Tom Jackson, of the advertising and advised them that we were unable to accommodate that request. And with all due respect, we do not believe that our proposed building will significantly diminish the visibility of customers to theirs. Out of respect for the commission's time, I will defer going into any more detail on that subject unless it's desired at a later time in the presentation. The project has been independently analyzed for environmental impact by the city-selected, directed, but applicant-funded environmental consultant. This consultant prepared a mitigated negative declaration in compliance with CEQA. City staff carefully reviewed the proposed project in the MND and recommends that the planning commission approved the project. In and out is in complete agreement with the staff report recommendations and its proposed resolutions. We agree with and will abide by the conditions of approval and the MND's mitigation monitoring plan. We respectfully ask that you approve the project and the resolutions drafted by staff. Before I conclude my remarks, I'd like to preempt a question that the commission or the public might have in regard to the adequacy of our drive-through queue at this site. The 30-car dedicated drive-through queue is carefully studied in the traffic analysis within the MND using real-world survey data from actual in and out drive restaurants. That analysis concluded that the queue provided will be more than adequate. Well, playing devil's advocate, what if it isn't? What happens if the queue exceeds 30 cars for some reason at some time? For example, perhaps when the restaurant first opens and there might temporarily be additional community excitement and interest. A honeymoon period, if you will. To answer that question, I'll use a succession of slides to explain how in and out manages our drive-through queues in general and how we will specifically manage this queue. The current displayed slide shows our proposed site plan. Susie, if you advance to the next slide, we will see cars lining up in the drive-through from car one at the pickup window to car three at the pay window to car eight at the menu board. Our standard company practice is to place the menu board and two-way order speakers at car number eight in the queue. There's also standard operating procedure that once there are eight cars queued up in the drive-through, outdoor associates or deploy to take orders using handheld wireless order tablets. This transmits orders into the kitchen before the menu board and getting orders into the kitchen quicker speeds the output at the pickup window. So now we have a queue that has reached the menu board at car number eight. How do associates and management know that the queue has reached that point? Awareness of the queue reaching the menu board is provided by multiple outdoor cameras that view the entire length of the drive-through. Fun fact, every new in and out restaurant has between three and six outdoor cameras viewing the drive-through and the parking lot. In addition, there are in excess of 20 cameras inside every store. Live video of the drive-through queue cameras is displayed on strategically placed monitors for viewing by the associates at the pay window, the pickup window, the grills, and the manager's office. Management and all associates know the drill when the queue grows to eight cars and reaches the menu board. Susie, if you advance to the next slide, please. This shows cars filling the queue from car nine to car 19. And you can see the smiling avatars indicating the outdoor associates taking orders with the handheld tablets. If we advance to the next slide, Susie, here we see an associate deploying to the keep clear area between cars 19 and 20 to help keep that drive-out clear and to direct any cars that might enter from Yolanda to continue into the site and circle back to join the end of the drive-through queue. The dedicated queue can grow from car 20 to 30 with no impact to circulation or parking on site. Traffic analysis indicates that a 30 car queue is unlikely, but if that dedicated queue does fill up, what will be done to ensure that it does not extend off the site in Santa Rosa Avenue? We go to the next slide, please. This shows that 10 more cars, cars 31 to 41, can queue up alongside cars 20 to 30. Once this occurs, the associates at each end of that drive-out will direct cars away from that drive-out and into the open and clear adjacent drive-out. Customer cars that are parked in those stalls adjacent to the queue will be assisted by associates to back out safely, and those stalls will be temporarily not used other than by store associates when there is an overstacked condition. Next slide, Susie. This next slide shows that 10 more cars, 42 to 52, can queue up alongside cars 31 to 41. Again, if any customer cars need to back out of the adjacent stalls, associates will control the queue and assist them with leave. Execution of this plan B, if you will, allows up to 52 cars to be in the drive-through queue while keeping 50-plus parking stalls available on site, maintaining free on-site circulation, and keeping both the Santa Rosa and Yolanda Driveways open and clear. Next slide, please. So this concludes my remarks. Thank you so much for your patience and attention I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Now or as they come up later, as we deliberate on the project. In addition to the city's M&D consultant and their sub-consultants who are here, I think they're available to respond to your questions. Chris Karikian of Meridian Consultants is available to discuss the supplemental noise study, which is attachment 10 to the staff packet as he is the author of that supplemental noise study. In and out hopes that you approve our development proposal so that we can attend our service to your community. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lockington. Fishners, any quick clarifying questions as Mr. Lockington before we move to the public hearing? Yeah, this is Commissioner Krepia, I have something. Great, great, go for it. So I was looking at the traffic report and basically there's some things that I have questions on. So it's a three-year-old study for the Yolanda-San Rosa Ave area from 2017. And then you also have a study on other in and outs, but those are from Santa Clara County and not Rotor Park or County Circle or County Center, excuse me, or Petaluma. Can you kind of enlighten me as why those were chosen as opposed to the ones that are more local? Yeah, thank you, Commissioner. You know, I really can't give you in-depth answers to that. In and out was not super, super closely involved with the traffic report. The original residential developer who did the apartment project came and went. And I know there's a new developer that is moving the project forward, but it was a traffic analysis done for both projects. And I think the reason that there was a passage of time as explained to us by Susie, because of the fires a few years back, the city has prioritized residential development in their pipeline as opposed to commercial. So we sort of took a back seat to some of the other residential to replace your housing stock. And we totally understand and appreciate that and we're happy that we're finally in front of decision makers and excited to perhaps move forward. But I don't recall what the thought process was for selecting the comparable sites. It's very possible that the other Santa Rosa site was not picked simply because it would be a little odd to pick that site, use that data when we know that a store being put in four miles away as the crow flies is going to reduce some of that volume. So, but I would have to defer to the WTrans people for really any technical questioning on the traffic study commission. If I have some more questions regarding this to with staff, you might have asked, I was not sure, Cisco. Why don't we go ahead and do the public hearing and then I'll come back to you because I think that the traffic study is going to be a series of questions. And so I'll start with you after we do the public hearing and see if there's anything to add to the questions that some of us may already have, if that's okay. That's fine. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So this is a public hearing tonight. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing. If you wish to speak on this item and you're coming in by Zoom, if you'll push your raise hand feature, if you're dialing in, you would dial star nine and the host will recognize you and would have three minutes. Wanna check with the host here in a minute and see if we have anybody wishing to speak. Thanks, Chair Cisco. At this time, no one is raising their hands. Okay. Give it about a couple more seconds and still no one. Correct. We have about eight members of the public present. They're watching. Okay. All right. But now I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back to Mr. Oakretty. I think just ask your questions. We'll figure out if it's a staff answer or an applicant answer as you go. All right. Thank you. Yeah. So yeah, I don't know if staff has any of those answers that I asked before, if they were a part of that process or anything like that. But Ms. Murray, when reviewing this and making a recommendation, including with the traffic where other businesses under construction specifically or approved specifically, I'm talking about the sonic that's going down. It's being constructed about a block and a half away, which has drive through as well as in our last meeting though I think you were the project planner for is the Yolanda industrial project, which is right across the street from that secondary access on the Yolanda at like 326. Were those taken into account and considered when reviewing this? Chair Sisco appears we're having a technical difficulty if we can take a short recess. Okay. Let's take a break. Why don't we get come back, say what, about 10, 15 minutes? I think five will be fine. Five is fine. Okay. So we'll reconvene at about 5.52. Okay, great. We're back. And I believe the question on the table was for you, Ms. Murray, I'm sure I'll correct these questions about other businesses. If you need them to repeat it, you might let them know. If you could please repeat the question, that would be very helpful. Thank you. Yeah, sure, no problems. So specifically it was going back to, I don't know if you had any contact with the people at WTRANS about this study. If you knew any answers, I just asked the applicant about why those were chosen or anything like that. That was just kind of ancillary and seeing it and following up on that part. But the main question was when reviewing this project where the other uses around it, other applicants and permits around it considered, including the Sonic burger going in about a block away that has drive through and drive in as well. And then the 326 Yolanda project, the Yolanda industrial project, which is going to ramp up its uses considerably, which is literally right across the street from that secondary entrance on Yolanda where the left hand turn late needs to be put in. So I think I'm actually going to defer to Nancy Adams who was the traffic engineer on this and she, if we can find her and give her elevator. Nancy has permission to speak, just needs to unmute. So, you know, I'll have to go back and check all the different development proposals that Dailene included Whitlock from WTRANS in the analysis. I do know that you did have a couple of questions about the age of the study. And I really, you know, Dailene Whitlock can certainly weigh in on this as well. But, you know, actually the counts back in 2017 were a lot higher because of the, it was pre-fire and pre-pandemic. So it's actually a more worst case scenario, if you will, in terms of just traffic conditions out there. So, and I think your other question was about whether or not, why they didn't use the local in and out in their analysis. And I would defer that to Ms. Whitlock from WTRANS as well. So I have a study here in front of me and I'll look back at their development that they included. But in the meantime, Dailene may want to weigh in on that one as well or in those other questions. Can we elevate Dailene? I know she's on. Dailene is already unmuted. She just needs to speak. Good evening. This is Dailene Whitlock with WTRANS in Santa Rosa. I wasn't sure if it was my turn or not. We did prepare this study. It started obviously quite a while ago and we used the best data that was available at that time. I don't believe that the project on the south side of Yolanda had been proposed yet. However, we did look at future conditions, which would be model derived volumes that would include all of the development that might be anticipated in the area. So while we might not have had specific projects, we would have been looking at it assuming that the area would be relatively fully developed. As far as what rates we used for the in and out, when we started this project, it just so happened we were working on some other in and out projects in the Bay Area and we had data from in and outs other locations that we had already collected. So we used data rather than collecting any new data. It was available and it was similarly sized stores. So, and we also were looking at stores that were, the ones that we looked at actually weren't as near other existing in and outs as this one is. And so we felt like those would be a good approximation of what the trip generation would be for this site. Hopefully that answers your question, Commissioner. Just to clarify, so the selection of the stores to the restaurants to study were for convenience and not necessarily like population, like density or anything like that. They're actually in denser populated areas. I believe one is in Campbell. I was just looking real quick. One is in Mountain View and one's in two are Mountain View and one was in Union City. So they were in areas that are relatively densely occupied. So it would be expected to have a fairly high traffic volume. They were also on arterial streets that carry a high volume past the site and similar size. But actually both of, or all three of those were located further from any other existing in and outs than this one would be. So Chair Cisco, if there are other questions about traffic, I'm more than happy to answer them while I'm here. You're on mute. Yes, I know, I don't have. I didn't, I don't know that I have any questions to answer right now. So I was trained not to cause noise. Chair Cisco. Oh, Chair Cisco, you're muted. Sorry, just so all staffs and applicants know we have a lot of people on this call. So I am muting anybody if they're not muting themselves. So just make sure everybody checks. Sorry about that, thank you. Good to know. I wanted to check with Commissioner O'Cruppy. Do you have any other questions right now? Can we, I know that the advocate asked or the applicant stated they were not able to put to alter their setbacks, but didn't give any reasoning. What is the reasoning behind that? This is Susie. I don't know that they said they couldn't alter their setbacks. It just said they didn't need to alter their setbacks. In the commercial zoning district, there's a seven and a half foot setback if they're adjacent to residential and at that in the front of the site, they are not. Right, but in the applicant's presentation, he said that it would not work with their plan. So I was asking why it would not work with their plan to set it back so that they could be, could help out their neighbors. I'll defer to Mr. Lockington. Can y'all hear me now? We can. Sure. So Commissioner O'Cruppy, I do have some information. I can provide you to respond to the concern of our neighbors. With all due respect, we don't think their concern is valid. The in and out building is set back 43 feet more than the minimum city requirement of zero. Moving it further back would have the undesirable consequence of reducing the capacity to our drive-through queue. It would eliminate parking stalls and it would negatively impact current onsite circulation. It's worth noting that from the intersection of Yolanda and Santa Rosa, specifically from the northbound Santa Rosa left turn pocket, our proposed building location does not block the view to the mattress building because the existing retail building next to us between us and the McDonald's property, that building impedes the view of the mattress building due to its length and its very small setback from Santa Rosa. Won't only has to spend a short amount of time on the road or on Google maps to confirm this. Also worth noting is the mattress store building benefits from a monument sign that sits directly on Santa Rosa and this sign is visible in both directions traveled from Santa Rosa Avenue. Further, there's an existing six-foot tall chain link fence with solid screening on the property line between the mattress store and the land proposed for development as the in and out. That fence runs almost to the Santa Rosa sidewalk. The in and out development proposal will remove this fence and replace it with a three-foot block wall from the Santa Rosa property line back to a point near the in and out building. This alone will significantly improve the existing site line to the mattress building from the view of Northbound Santa Rosa traffic. And finally, if we moved our building back further than the proposed 43-foot setback and then the mattress store property was redeveloped at some point where the building set at the minimum required setback of zero or even something a little bit more than that, in and out would then be in a significantly worse position than the mattress store presently is in or if the in and out building is developed next to them. So for that reason, we don't think the facts here support any contention that the in and out building sighted at a 43-foot setback will negatively impact views for the mattress building. All right, thank you. That's all the questions I have, Chair. Are there questions? Questions? Mr. Peterson. So let me preface this. I have a traffic specific question and I have some other questions, but I don't know if we're gonna break them off into two topic areas. So please let me know, Chair, what you'd like to do. I don't know how to do this in an easy way. I think we're just gonna ask your questions and then Michael figure out who to unmute. Got it. So this is kind of a, I guess, a mix for staff and maybe applicant. The final MND, I'm looking at page 98, so the Yolanda Avenue, Petaluma Hill Road, baseline conditions go below level of service D to level E and F. And it sort of concludes on the next page, 99 there, that that doesn't really matter because there's gonna be the farmers laying extension. So I guess the question is sort of when is the farmers laying extension anticipated to go in? And how do we handle this conclusion in the MND? It is an impact that doesn't appear to be mitigated by the project. So if you could kind of walk me through that. Hi, I'm gonna try and field these questions. So I'm gonna start, that's a big one. I'm gonna start with our staff and I think I am going to ask Nancy to go ahead and respond and then as far as the MND is concerned, if we have more questions in there, I'll defer to the secret consultant team. So your question about farmers laying extension, that's probably the $64,000 question. When is that gonna get built? And I honestly, it's a project that's been in our capital improvement program for many years and it's just the prioritization of that project doesn't have a timeline. It is still and remains in our general plan as part of our circulation component. So I can't say when that will get built, I can say that we are evaluating the general plan right now, we're in that process of updating it. So there may be more on that project as that general plan update process continues. So I don't really have much more on farmers laying extension and if Daylene who participated in the MND wants to talk about the operations of that intersection as part of her analysis, I would defer that to her. Just a reminder, the hosts are not gonna unmute you if you have the opportunity to mute them. Please, please. So I think Ms. Woodlock, we're waiting for you to unmute. Sorry, I was having computer issues. I was trying to get to this traffic study so I could respond to the question and then I got lost completely. So the question about the baseline operation has to do with the intersection of Yolanda and Petaluma Hill, which would be expected to operate at level service E with all the additional projects that were under the short-term scenario at that point in time. One of those projects, as I recall, or a couple of those projects had to do with the Kiwana Springs Apartments and the Kiwana Meadow Project. And the intersection of Petaluma Hill and Yolanda is already, I believe, conditioned and this might be back to Nancy, but the project that was going in on the northeast corner of that intersection, as well as the southeast corner, both of those projects were conditioned to widen Petaluma Hill Road and provide improvements and improve the signalization, add churn lanes, add bike lanes. So I believe that between the time we wrote this traffic study and now there are projects in place, development projects in place that will take care of that and bring it back down to level of service D operation. Yeah, this is Nancy. Thank you for the reminder. There are, as D. Linney mentioned, we've got a couple of developments that we have conditioned to make some improvements to that intersection, just to add some additional capacity at that intersection, which is why we're having, why this report was showing that it wasn't operating at a level service that was acceptable. So those are in starting and working, being in the works as we speak now. So yeah, so I would just tag on to what D. Linney said. Anything else, Commissioner Peterson? I will, but I'll pass the bits on for now for any other commissioners while I get organized. Any other questions from commissioners? Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I've got a couple of questions. I think they're mostly site related though. So this is from Ms. Marie. Is there also a CNU wall on the southbound, southboundary of the project site and does that step back similarly to the one on the northboundary? That's question number one. And then also are there sidewalks on the Yolanda access driveway? So I can answer the second of those and I'm going to defer to the applicant on the first one. There is a pedestrian path travel on the Yolanda pathway. It's clear as mud on the site plan because there's so much information on there on the civil plan. I can, if you can access your plans, you can see it, I think. I couldn't tell from the plans. They were full of information. Yes, I know. I know it's a busy, busy plan. I'm sure that Mr. Lockington can confirm that and he can also talk about the CNU wall. Yes, am I live now? Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Duggan. Yes, there is a CNU wall. We like to call them good neighbor walls between us and the commercial development to the south. And similar to between us and the mattress retail building, there is a step down of that wall of three foot within the setback that that building has. And it looks like the building has about a 16 foot setback, the one that's south of us. And that's the same dimension of the CNU wall, three foot step down. And it'll go back up to a taller wall after that. Okay. So that geometry should, this should not do anything negative to that building in terms of views. Okay, thank you. And I bet the other two are on site circulation. And I think maybe Mr. Lockington can answer at least one of these. So is there any signage or anything at the driveway from Yolanda that tells those people that they can't just access the drive through straightaway? That there are stop sign or some reason, something posted so they can't just keep going into the drive through aisle. And also when it is like the worst case shown on your plan was what 52 cars and you had associates out in the parking lot directing traffic, are all those people all trained to do that specific job? You don't just send anybody out from the restaurant to somebody who's got a lot of training from the company to make sure that they're safe out there. Yes, commissioner. The people that are deployed outside have extensive experience in helping to manage the lot. They at nighttime they're deployed with safety dust that light up. So safety is very important in and out. And right now there's no signage plan along Yolanda because if the queue is not reached the 19th car yet it's simply just a free entry. But if you have the queue exceeding past the 19th car and we need to give people a little help to queue up at the 20th car spot as well as help to keep that little key intersection clear. So I like to, I like signage. We have our own signage shop here at In-N-Out. If we can do something internally we'll create a division for it. And I'm constantly at store openings asking our sign people, hey can we get a sign to do this and a sign to do that? And sign people are the most jaded people on the planet. They say, nobody looks at signs. And I tell them, you're the sign guy but we're certainly open to that. And operationally we'll do whatever it takes to make things move smoothly and efficiently. But right now there's no signage plan other than to keep clear striping that you might be able to see on that business. Okay, all right, thank you. That's all I've got. Okay, I have a couple of, any other commissioners want to ask something before I ask mine? Okay, so to tag off Suzie and you can direct this either Mr. Lockington or whoever. It's sort of a combination question about the traffic circulation on the site. It looks like there is no anticipation that people would begin to queue up along that Yolanda entrance. And so I'm wondering why not? Seems a little counterintuitive that the 50th car could actually be coming from Yolanda. And so what analysis is made of that possibility? I get that you wanna do some traffic control on the site and I guess protect this striped area where there could be potentially pedestrians coming in. So I guess I'd like to hear a little bit more about how if you have people coming in from Yolanda queuing up, people queuing up along this edge here, how that's gonna be managed. And also if there's a double line and even if there's a single line it might be operationally difficult to get back to the Yolanda driveway what you wanna do is take your food circle around get back onto Yolanda via that pathway. And my hunch is that a lot of people might come out to Santa Rosa Avenue, go right and go down Kiwana Springs Road to get back to Petaloma Hill Road. So what kind of analysis has there been of those sort of three spots in terms of protecting the pedestrians, making sure that if there's conflicts in who can come in and who can come out and what's the potential impact to Kiwana Springs. Hi, so this is Susie and I am going to defer to Mr. Lockington to talk about the queuing from Yolanda. And then I'd like to ask Nancy to jump in about some of the circulation issues off-site. On-site circulation, I'm gonna think about that. Yeah, I think Jim or Mr. Lockington can also respond to those. I can also seek other help if you need city staff. And then finally back to Dane-Lean to let everybody kind of weigh in on that. So Nancy? Yeah, so I'll take the, I know there was an exhibit that Susie showed that had a little of the arrow there was a making that pedestrian connection right there where that drive. And so I texted Rob, he's a traffic engineer and said, oh, that seems like an odd place to have pedestrians crossing right there with that drive, that access point off of Yolanda. And he agreed and I think there's something we would need to look at because what we don't want, we wanna have a sideline for pedestrians as they come out and make that a crossing or something that enhances the visibility of pedestrians at that point and reduces any potential conflicts with vehicles coming in as they make a order. So that's something that kind of raised a flag for me when I saw that during Susie's presentation. So, and then I think I'll defer to the applicant or Dailene about their queue and how and what they analyzed in terms of other options. I do know that Santa Rosa Avenue and Yolanda, there is a permitted left turn there. So, if you're coming from a southbound direction, you can do a left turn at that intersection. So that's permitted. And we do have the center two a left turn lane that could maybe address a queue length off of if it gets into Yolanda. So I'll stop there and let the experts who actually did the analysis chime in. I'd like to, I kind of skipped over Mr. Lockington and I think he's probably the expert on the queuing here. So let's, Jim, if you can respond to the commission. Yes, thanks, thank you, Susie. So when Susie in her presentation earlier referred to the pedestrian connection, I scratched my head, never seen that before. We are not proposing it. I don't think it's necessarily a good idea and certainly not a good idea at that location. So maybe it was something that came out of the planning and moving forward from their approvals to working drawings on the apartment complex next door. But there is presently no pedestrian connection contemplated in our design there or elsewhere. We're open to what works for our neighbors and for the city but it's not really on the table in the current proposal. So hopefully that helps clear that up. As far as conflicts between people entering off Yolanda and if the queue is full to the 19th or 20th car, that is the purpose of the outdoor associate at that location to help make sure that's clear so people can enter and exit. And if people are queuing in the 20th plus cars that they're given their priority in line and that someone entering the site is directed to go join the back of the line. And I'll defer to WTrans for offsite circulation questions. Mr. Lockington, Suzy, can we, I'm getting a request that we just take a bit of a break for a minute so that staff can have a conference. So I won't forget my questions but let's take, it looks like they want about a 10 minute break. So let's be prepared commissioners to come back about 6.30-ish. Okay, thanks. Okay, we're coming back a couple more and we're good to go. Great. So I guess to pick up where we left off, Mr. Lockington was talking about the pedestrian connection and I had a couple of questions on the table which I'd be happy to repeat if we need to, Ms. Murray. Actually, I'd like to chime in on the pedestrian connection. I think I've created some confusion. So as I said, there was just a recent real estate transaction and new developer has come into the approved project to the East. They were, they have a pedestrian path where a path of travel on their property, they have proposed to put an access gate. That has not been reviewed at all by city staff or in and out burgers. So that is, that's not, I guess I should clarify that that's not a slam dunk but right now there is one proposed there and we will look at that internally. So I think that statement should probably clear it up a little bit. Okay, that's good to know. And then back to, I was talking about the potential of the stacking along the entrance to Yolanda. And again, Mr. Lockington said that if there's no queue, there's no sign to stop. I guess I just wondering again about conflicts if I'm just kind of coming directly in from Yolanda, I might not be able to see that there's another car coming in that's gonna turn to the left to join the queue. So I'm just, I'm worried about conflicts there. I'd like to see that addressed. And then also addressing what the potential impact might be to, I guess, Kiwana Springs, if those that wanna return to Petaluma Hill Road can't really navigate that, that getting through that queue to get back to Yolanda that way might take a right hand turn on Santa Rosa Avenue, go to Kiwana Springs, take a right to get to Petaluma Hill Road. So I'm gonna say that as far as the queuing on Yolanda Avenue or from the Yolanda entrance, I do understand what Mr. Lockington was saying is that he's, people will be coming in from both access points. So the queuing there, staff will be out there in and out, burger staff will be out there, you know, motioning and directing traffic, if you will. Wanna make sure that the people coming in from Yolanda don't cut in front of those people coming off Santa Rosa Avenue. So there's a real clear path of travel coming from Yolanda, turning west, heading through the parking lot and then looping back and getting into the queue. And in and out, staff will be there monitoring that. So that's the Yolanda queue, I think. And then as far as the traffic impacts on Kiwana, I'm actually gonna defer to Rob and let him do some fielding of questions and assigning people for the traffic impacts. Okay. Good evening, Chair Siscoe. This is Rob Sprinkle, City Senator Rosa and the rest of the Council, our Q and A commissioner members. So the Qwana Springs, I mean, that is absolutely a direction that people can use instead of using the Yolanda as an exit. But as Mr. Lockett and Nancy mentioned, Yolanda Avenue does have a two-way left turn lane that we're requiring be installed to allow both for the egressing and in-desk of traffic at that location to help facilitate that turning movement. The amount of traffic that is projected to go to Petalup, Petaluma Hill Road is not very significant. We're looking at approximately during the PM peak time, around 10 trips in total to that direction. So we're really not looking at a large impact even if they were to detour over to Qwana Springs that would impact that roadway. Does that answer your question? It does. Thank you. And again, the traffic management would be both ways that whoever is the In-N-Out Burger employee that's managing the Q past eight cars would also be helping those that wanna get back to the Yolanda, get through that Q back to the conflict, navigate that conflict of that Q back to get to the Yolanda. Correct. My understanding is that the associate at that location would be keeping that clear area clear for all traffic so that it doesn't become any congestion at that location and that they would be managing the Q from both Yolanda entry and from the Santa Rosa Avenue side entry. Okay. Great, thanks. Mr. Peterson, you said you might have more questions. Yeah, so I do. So going back to the MND, I'm looking at the greenhouse gas section of it and try as I might, I can't really make heads or tails of the operational GHD emissions section. I'm not clear, I guess. Basically walk me through the conclusion that it's less than significant with the city's climate action plan for the actual operation of the restaurant. I'm not concerned with the construction. I am going to call in our consultant team to respond to the greenhouse gas. Hi, good evening. This is Olivia Urban, principal environmental planner with M Group and I authored the initial study as a third party independent review for the city. The city, as you all are aware, has a qualified climate action plan, has the climate, sorry, the checklist that following that checklist ensures that GHGs are not exceeded. And so we did do the consistency with that checklist and you can see how that is played out in the initial study mitigated net deck. So I'm trying to get there now so I can talk through some of those features. It is also the checklist itself is also an attachment and then to reinforce those and to ensure that staff is making sure that every single one of those things is implemented. We have another mitigation tacked on there to revisit that at the final stage to make sure that all of those features have been implemented. So that's sort of a high-level summary. What more would you like to focus on commission? Sure, so I'll try and make an actual question here. So in the intro, page 58, it goes through the different state and local laws and ordinances that were passed. So for instance, Santa Rosa City declared a climate emergency and established a 2030 carbon neutrality goal. We go on to table seven on page 63 that goes through the project, GHD emissions in metric tons. And that doesn't seem to go anywhere. So I guess my question is, what does the checklist have to do with table seven and how I'm missing a connection between the state laws, the local laws, the emissions that are agreed in the MND to be emitted by operations and a mitigation of those. So I guess if that makes it a little bit clearer. Oh gosh, okay, so that's a lot. That is, there's a lot of moving parts here. There's a lot of land use changes in the sustainable community strategy and a lot of efforts by state and local and additional changes through legislation with imposing restrictions on emissions from gas and whatnot. So all of these plans kind of come together to work towards the state's goals of achieving that net carbon reduction and that greenhouse gas target. So the city of Santa Rosa has a set of policies on projects that are under your control and your jurisdiction and what you've committed to is embodied within this climate action plan that you have adopted and the climate checklist. And so demonstrating compliance with that checklist is meeting the objective that you have set for your local city. And so that is what the regulations are today. Certainly there's an opportunity to go beyond that moving forward, but that's sort of the context within which we're working. You don't like that response? Well, I'm not sure it's an issue with you or the MND as much as it is just, there seems to be a connection between the data and the checklist that's missing. And it may be inherent to the structure of the MND and that sort of thing. For instance, I don't understand what water meters have to do with GHG emissions. But that's again, nothing to do with you or anything else. So I'll table that one for now. And if anybody else is inspired to try and clarify, please let me know. I'll help you out on this if I can. Commissioner Peters. Sorry to interrupt. If I could offer this additional thing. So the table seven is just disclosure. So that's just for informational purposes. You're not missing a connection between the checklist in terms of a numerical quantification. That quantification for the checklist was done as part of the climate action plan. And it said, look, we can achieve all of these targeted reductions by doing these, by implementing these mandatory measures and these voluntary measures. And so just by simply conforming with those mandatory measures, there's this expectation that that would achieve the reductions that were identified in the climate action plan. So I don't think you're missing anything. There are kind of two different pieces of information. So hopefully that helps to clarify. And I can add on just a little bit. Thank you. This is Ashley Crocker. And just to reiterate that, the climate action plan to go through its own Sequa review and the checklist was included as a part of that review to show that if you complied with all of the measures identified in the checklist, that would go towards ensuring that the impacts would be less than significant. We are going to be updating the climate action plan with our general plan update process, but it is a valid current and qualified plan. And under the Sequa guidelines, compliance with the qualified plan is in the current state of the law, rather the preferred threshold. And there was some litigation out of the Supreme Court a few years back, actually stating that compliance with the qualified climate action plan serves as the best metric, I think, for determining whether or not impacts from GHGs are significant or not. So the city has its qualified climate action plan and that is our significance threshold. And in all of our GHG analysis, you'll see this analysis comparing the project to her checklist. I don't know if that helps anymore, but a little more context perhaps. I mean, yes, it definitely, the context certainly helps. It seems increasingly clear that there's just kind of a gap, I guess, between GHG emissions and the checklist. I understand that I appreciate the comment on the technical compliance, I think that that does help. I've got some noise related questions unless again, happy to pass the baton if people are itching to talk about GHG emissions while we're on that topic. Anybody dying to talk about GHG emissions? No, I had a feeling we might not before I finished with music. So this is just kind of an incongruity. So the city of Santa Rosa's, so I'm looking at page 83 of the MND. So the city of Santa Rosa's most restrictive nighttime residential thresholds for noise is 50 decibels. Per the MND, but the supplemental noise study on page one says that mobile home use is normally acceptable in areas of 50 to 60 decibels. And then goes on to sort of deal with some kind of higher than 50 decibel analysis. So I'm wondering sort of as we're looking at these attachments, what number am I supposed to use here? I understand the conclusion that the MND reached. It's just, I guess, which do I rely on? I think I'm gonna jump in here. So our noise ordinance, it separates single family, multifamily, commercial and industrial. So technically I'm gonna look this up really quick on my internet, but I think that the, ah, it's so close to being open here, noise. So all the multifamily is, when it's adjacent to multifamily from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., it should be 50 decibels. And from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., 50 decibels. It should not exceed because there is a commercial use that is adjacent to the residential use, multifamily. We would assume the more restrictive of 50 decibels during those nighttime hours. And so in evaluating the noise, so for instance, again, in the supplemental noise study, table one, which is on page four, has car doors that are opening and closing between 67 and 70 decibels. And if the MND is saying, I guess, is it an average? I mean, if you have these one-offs, you're gonna have spikes, right? The garbage gets taken out, the car doors open. Are they dealing with the average decibel ambient noise and do those kinds of spikes above that 50 decibel level matter? I think that the study that is causing questions is the supplemental study. And so I'm gonna defer to the gentleman that prepared that study. However, I will say that our noise studies do look at an average and not the spikes. We did consider the spikes in some of the conditioning for the project and the flow of traffic for the nighttime deliveries. Hello, Chris Karikian here, Principal and Director of Air Quality and Acoustics with Meridian Consultants. We prepared the supplemental analyses for related to noise, specifically related to car doors closing, opening and closing. And truck delivery doors, given that since delivery will be taking place late at night, we wanted to provide data and analyses as to what that would look like. So you are correct in the sense of there are exterior limits for the nighttime period of 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. For the effort of looking at land use compatibility for purposes of the supplemental analysis, we went ahead and provided an average between that nighttime period of what those noise levels would look like in the event it occurred 100% of the time. So those noise levels that you're seeing regarding the car door at 67, just for clarity of the supplemental noise analysis, that data essentially is saying that if all the car doors in that parking lot opened and closed at the same time, it would be 67. And so looking at a land use compatibility where the conditionally acceptable level is 70 for the uses adjacent to the site, then it's compatible in that aspect of it. When you're looking at, probably should have been clear additional language in the study, but when you're looking at the exterior noise level of that 50 on that single occurrence, it would be below that 50. So as far as looking at a land use compatibility and assuming the worst case that that noise was occurring continuously at the same time, which is not possible if our all car doors and we know it open and close, that that noise level would still be with an acceptable noise limits. I think you're gonna need to unmute. Yeah, there you go. Okay, I think I think I've got a better understanding of that. I have questions for the applicant, but again, I don't need to monopolize. So if anybody else has noise questions, I'm happy to. Questions while we have, okay, okay, okay, go on. All right, so just kind of the easy question is, you know, why these hours of operation? You know, what good happens after midnight it would justify staying open till 1.30am on weekends and 1am during the week. I think I'll defer to Mr. Lockington on that. Hello, am I, am I back? You are. I'm back. Okay, too much time may have gone by for this joke to not fall flat, but Commissioner Peterson, you look way too young to ask that question. So yeah, valid question. Those are our standard operating hours. You know, early in the evolution of the business when there was only a couple of stores, including the Baldwin Park Store, Harry Snyder, you know, had kind of standard operating hours like, you know, noon to eight. And there was a big manufacturing facility nearby and somebody said, you know, there's swing shifts at that manufacturing facility. You know, there's people going home at 10 in the morning. Why don't you open a little earlier and you might pick up that business. So that led to the company, you know, standardizing their operating opening hours at 10 to 10.30. And the customers that we get after 10 or 11 midnight or one, you know, it's a varied set of customers. You know, not everyone has nine to five jobs. There's a lot of people that work odd hours and we like to be over there to provide, you know, that customer with a hot meal. First responders, police, you know, we try to lure them away with those long hours from the donut shops. So we get the presence of the law enforcement officers there, but you know, it's really to just, it's really there to serve the entire community. And we do a good job. I think of keeping the peace on our premises. They're well lit, well maintained, a lot of people. Our atmosphere is family friendly at, you know, 2 p.m. in the afternoon as well as at midnight. Sure. So along those same lines, delivery hours right now at least proposed for 1.30 a.m. to 9 a.m. You know, I'll put my cards on the table. I think this is a little bit different than say the McDonald's, at least as it is currently standing with no shared border with that and housing. So, you know, how is it possible to make those hours a little bit more neighbor friendly? So let's say, you know, it stays open till 1.30 but deliveries only happen after 8 a.m. I mean, is that kind of an achievable thing from the corporation's perspective? Yeah, well, it is in some cases. It's hard for me to predict the ability of the company to do that. You know, the way that we provision, we provision every one to two days. You've probably seen the fleet of super shiny, sparkly, well-maintained semi-truck and trailers that are on the roads, on the highways. During the day, those are generally the trucks coming back from their deliveries back to the distribution centers. So, those trucks are idle in the, you know, midday and afternoon. The drivers show up late afternoon, early evening, and they work with the pickers in the distribution center to load the trucks. Our distribution center for this site would be in Laefrop, which I think is about two and a half hour drive away. So, you know, the logistics are this, the truck gets loaded up with the orders from the store. They drive out to the store, they pull in, they open up the gate, and then they take the materials into the back door with their talent check. We don't get a lot of complaints about that operation, because it's not really noise. In this case, we have a delivery plan that makes sure that the semi is never gonna have to back up and have back up alarms. And I think we show that in the supplemental noise report, you can see the route. You know, we do have some stores where because of actual issues, complaints, whatever, that we do have a limited window of say, seven to nine a.m. I would prefer not to be conditioned with something like that here, but we could be conditioned, I think it would be open to a condition that says if there are complaints, we'll work with the neighbors and try to move that delivery window around. But it's not something we get a lot of complaints from, even where we are immediately adjacent to residential, which we do have within the company's portfolio. And building off of that, then, you know, it sounds like you've got a well-trained workforce, you've got a good sign manufacturing operation. We're kind of freezing up. Commissioner Peterson, deal with any noise complaints. I'm sorry, commissioner. Oh, am I back? Yeah, yeah, you keep freezing up a little bit here. So we need the question. Sure. Can you hear me? Is this coming through? It's coming through. So, how are the employees trained, if at all, to deal with, you know, noise complaints, people rolling up with loud stereos or, you know, issues? You're muted again. For this, I'll pass. I think I got the majority of the question. Would you like me to hazard a response? Yeah. So, yeah, we always want to be a good neighbor. And, you know, in some situations where we have adjacencies, we do create additional signage, you know, please turn down your car radios, you know, no loud noises, et cetera. And the associates that end up being the outdoor associates, especially during the evening peaks and into the evening, you know, they get very attuned to the needs of the neighborhood. So, all I can say, you know, in a specific response is we're concerned about that, just as you are, you know, there's limits to how you can control some people, but we do ask people to leave when they're being a neighborly. Anything else, Commissioner Peterson? No. Okay. Any other questions from commissioners about anything? Not seeing any. Oh, Commissioner Carter. Yeah, this may be a closing statement, more than a question, but I'll give it a try. In and out has presented a lot of evidence that they're good corporate citizens and they want to do the right thing. And I believe, I mean, I've seen their operations managed and they do work to make themselves fit into the neighborhood. But the inherent difficulty here is that the, it survives only because it's a dry then. And so, all of the effects of this project are from vehicles coming to and from the site. I'm interested to hear how, in and out might, and it looks like we have a fairly robust population, residential population within a mile of this. I'd like to hear what, if anything, that the corporation does to encourage pedestrian bicycle access to its facilities and to work away from the drive-in model that's inherent in their business plan. Am I audible now? You are. Great. So in normal non-COVID times, our business breaks down typically, and this is, you know, every store is different, but if you averaged out our business, our business breaks down to about 50-50 between dine-in and drive-through. COVID, you know, everything's off the table with COVID because, you know, the issues with the pandemic. But we do provide a number of things that could assist with I think the concerns you're expressing. We do have bike racks. We do have a path of travel to the sidewalk connection on Santa Rosa. We are providing the city and easement in a concrete pad for the bus stop along Santa Rosa. And, you know, we also have, I believe, four electric vehicle stalls. And I think current code would have us put two electric vehicle charging stations there and pre-wire for two more down the road as, you know, the vehicle fleet sort of demands that. So, you know, those are areas where I think we're responsive to your question. Nothing else? Okay. Any other questions, commissioners? Okay, so with that, let's move on to our discussion and we would begin by somebody reading the MND resolution for purposes of discussion. Would someone like to do that? That's for sure, Deggan. I'll move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the city of Santa Rosa, adopting a mitigated negative declaration, including a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the In-N-Out Burger restaurant located at 2532 Santa Rosa Avenue, assessor's parcel numbers 044-041-010 and 044-071-002 file number PRJ18-086 and wait for the reading. And we have a second. Commissioner Carter is seconding that. So that was moved by commissioner Deggan, seconded by commissioner Carter. Again, as we open our discussion, if you'd speak to the adequacy of the initial study MND as well as the project, that would be great. So, Commissioner Carter, how about if we start with you? In general, I feel that the SQL analysis and conclusions and recommendations are adequate for the project. We're only speaking to the MND resolution right now, correct? Yeah, well, you can speak to the whole project, but definitely to the adequacy of the MND, yeah. Yeah, I guess my bottom line is I feel the SQL analysis and the MND are adequate. A lot of things right on the borderline that we wish could be reduced even more, but I believe it's adequate and properly prepared and I will support the mitigated negative declaration. Okay. You want to hold off comments about the project generally when we get to the conditional use permit? Is that your preference? No, I'm generally in support of the use for the project. Okay, I want to make sure. Okay. Vice Chair Weeks. I am generally in support of the project. I think, as Commissioner Carter said, the MND is adequate. I'm really troubled by the traffic study though. I'm troubled by the age of it and the fact that it included the housing as well as the in and out burger. And I would hope in the future we could have updated traffic studies that aren't so old when it comes to us that are actually more specific to the project that we're looking at. So that's my comment. Commissioner Peterson, I'm getting a note that we're going to need to redo the resolution to reflect a different AP number. So I guess I would check with Ms. Crocker, should we redo that now, do a different reading now or can we do that later? What's our best method to get this corrected? It would probably be best to just read it now and then go through your comments rather than going through them all and then coming back. You know, just to be clear that we're commenting on this resolution with the correct APN. How about if Commissioner Duggan, you reread the heading of the resolution and when you get to the AP numbers, don't read them, let staff tell you what the correct APN number is that needs to be corrected because I'm having an easy time with the texting, so. Okay. Chair Siscoe, I can go ahead and give you that APN number now so that you can just read that in, Commissioner Duggan. Okay. And tell me which one it is, the first or the second one? It will be for both resolutions. So the resolution should make reference only to APN 044-041-010. Okay, so we're omitting the other APN number. Correct. Okay, that makes sense. Okay, so I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa adopting a mitigated negative declaration including a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the In-N-Out Burger restaurant located at 2532 Santa Rosa Avenue, assessor's parcel number 044-041-010, file number PRJ18-086 and waive for the reading. And Commissioner Carter, you're seconding again. I will second again. Great, okay, so the corrected mitigated negative declaration resolution was moved by Commissioner Duggan. Seconded by Commissioner Carter. Referred from both Commissioner Carter and Vice Chair Weeks. Commissioner Peterson, how about you? Sure, so, as to the adequacy of the CEQA and the MND, you know, it is maybe obvious, you know, the greenhouse gas emissions portion of it for me like, I understand that this is not a criticism or any indictment of the consultants or staff, but it strains, you know, credibility for me to look at a restaurant that's predominantly drive-through that is 60% more drive-through demand than other fast food restaurants. It's gonna generate 3,630 new trips per day. And it is in compliance with the Climate Action Plan and we're gonna get to zero. This isn't, you know, the repurposing of an existing drive-through. This is a new drive-through. So on that front, I think the conclusions of the MND are, I guess, correct and inadequate, but it really, the common sense kind of conclusion to me doesn't exist in there. So, but I will accept the conclusion. The, like my fellow commissioners, I think on the MND front, the traffic portion is weak. I think there's, especially as it comes to the Yolanda Avenue, Petaluma Hill Road intersection, you know, the MND itself says it's gonna blow up the level of service that's mitigated, but it's mitigated by stuff that's pretty big assumptions. I mean, yes, that development will potentially, eventually it, you know, widen, signalize better than intersection, but it doesn't exist now. You know, the farmer's lane extension may exist. It doesn't exist now. I don't know, you know, when it will. So it's getting over the less than significant, pretty, not very strongly to my mind. Same with the age, you know, a lot has changed. There's a lot of other developments that's going in there that wasn't three years ago and there's development that isn't going in that was three years ago. And finally, just on the traffic aspect of it, it just doesn't jive with my real world experience of driving through that intersection, driving on Yolanda. You know, the number of times that there's been almost rear ends, you know, making, if you're southbound on Santa Rosa, making a left turn onto Yolanda, the number of people who will stack up trying to make a left turn when they're going eastbound on Yolanda to get into that McDonald's that, you know, that area is just a mess as is, especially at rush hour. And it's really hard to me to envision that anything's gonna, you know, be unaffected by a drive-thru intensive restaurant. So that being said, I mean, I appreciate the comments about, you know, making it pedestrian friendly. That whole area is so hostile to pedestrians as is, you know, I would hope that it is pedestrian friendly, but I think that's a systemic kind of fix that we're looking at when people are going 45 miles an hour on a, you know, four lane with the turn lane road. In general, you know, this is where I'd be interested to hear from my fellow commissioners, you know, this is a tough call in terms of meeting the findings for me of the conditional use permit because of the traffic, because of the nature of the development, because of the area in which it's situated right next to housing. You know, I think the noise is probably a real issue. So, you know, the public feedback that the planer got was positive and I don't want to minimize that. You know, I don't live in that mobile home park. I don't live in that area. So I do put a lot of weight on what the people in the area of the neighborhood meeting are saying about it. I am interested at the very least in some potential new conditions in the CUP that Mr. Lockington referenced at least as it relates to delivery hours. You know, if the people who live there 24 hours a day are going to be dealing with the noise, lights, GHGs, if there is an issue at least restricting delivery hours so that there's some peace and quiet between, you know, 1 or 1.30 a.m. and 7 a.m. But again, I'd like to hear from my fellow commissioners. This is just one of those projects. It just reminds me of, you know, Windsor giving up on the natural gas ban that, you know, we're looking at the climate action plan. We're looking at these goals and it just doesn't seem to be going the right direction, even if there may be technical compliance with, you know, things like the MND. Mr. Duggan. Well, I don't want to restate everything that Mr. Peterson has said especially, but I have shared concerns about with the mitigated negative declaration that have been mentioned already. I do think though, as far as it is sort of a, not the most optimal mix of uses here with the mobile home park going to be so close, but I do think in some ways the sound walls of this proposed project are actually going to mitigate the noise away from the mobile home from what's there now. Because right now there's an empty field and a chain link fence as far as I can remember going by the site. So I think in some ways the sound wall is actually going to give them a little bit less of, you know, the loud traffic noise coming from Santa Rosa Avenue. So I think that that's a positive thing. I know that Patty, Cisco and I were both on the commission when the first in and out burger in Santa Rosa was entitled. And I know we had a long discussion about the drive-through and the neighborhood and the neighbors. And I know it's been, you know, they've had some trials and tribulations there, but I know that one of the conditions was that they had these associates come out in the parking lot once the queue got to the certain number of cars to take orders. And every time I drive by there on the highway and you're elevated, you can see those people out there taking the orders of the queues long. So I know that in and out is a good neighbor. They try to work with the information they get from the surroundings. If somebody's got a noise complaint, I think they'll take it seriously and try to work with that. I do kind of have objections to putting something in a conditional use permit saying that if they get a noise complaint they'll restrict their deliveries to these hours because it could be one super sensitive person who's a renter who lives there, complains and then moves and then nobody else has a problem. And yet the corporation in and out is going around trying to, you know, restrict their truck access to certain confined hours because of a sound complaint from one sensitive individual, if that makes sense. So I'm supportive of the project. One thing I'm not crazy about drive-throughs. We all know this from every other drive-through that's come by us. One thing I kind of take more comfort in nowadays. Now that I now have two more modern cars in my personal fleet, they both cut off if you're idling after a certain short amount of time. Both of my cars will, the engines will stop at a stoplight. So I think that's kind of mitigated against some of the greenhouse gases that are from the tailpipes of these cars in the drive-through, but I am in support of the project. The Cheryl Krupke. Yeah, I share the same concerns. I'm uneasy about the MND and like Commissioner Peterson said, I guess I can find an adequate base on the evidence that we're given, but it doesn't necessarily pass the smell test. My biggest concern, like Vice Chair Weeks pointed out, is the traffic study. It's old. We're talking about, it includes something that we're not even considering right now in the residential portion of it. We're talking about a business whose business model is 60% drive-through. And as Commissioner Peterson pointed out, considerably more usage of the drive-through than most other drive-through restaurants. And the traffic study is old and incomplete in my opinion, especially since on, at the last meeting, while I had to recuse myself, but you all approved a general plan amendment and a rezoning for the Yolanda property right across the street from that entrance, which even if they did take into account all the possible development that could happen, that's now changed, right? Because the zoning and the general plan amendment took place. So it doesn't even take that into consideration. And I don't know how exactly that study works, but I mean, if you look at what the property is and what they intend, it's gonna significantly intensify what's there because they're tearing down buildings and building new ones, instead of just building onto vacant land. So I'm very hesitant to support the project because of that. I'm on the fence. I mean, I have nothing against in and out, I have nothing against like drive-through specifically, but if I can't be presented up to date and accurate evidence to make a decision, I can't make a decision. And that's where I'm kind of sitting right now. Wish to call you. Thank you. I can make the necessary findings and find the mitigated neck deck adequately. I understand and I share a lot of the concerns of my fellow commissioners. One thing that I do have a kind of comment around is around, obviously around the dated aspect of the traffic study, but from what I, my understanding was of it was that the traffic study at the time it was made and submitted was in date, yet it was of an appropriate date, yet the fact that it's taken so long to come in front of the commission, that is what's caused this traffic study to be out of date. So if that understanding is correct, I have a hard time putting that onus on the applicant when really the onus is on us, the city, or not processing this application in an entirely manner, if that assumption is correct. I do agree with Commissioner Duggan. I do think that the CMU wall will mitigate the significant amount of the noise that could arise from this development. And as someone who drives down Center Rose Avenue every single day, I definitely agree that having this site activated would add a significant amount of value to this area and not only to the neighboring properties, but also just in the employment opportunities for that area. I'm trying to go to the cones ahead of what the project specifically. I'll leave it at that for now. Then I will be supporting the project. Thank you. Okay. Well, I definitely had a lot of concerns in terms of the traffic study like others. And obviously my questions were about circulation on the site. If I just take a look at the traffic study issue and the age of it, and the consultant did say this, that the 2017 counts would probably be considerably higher than if we said, let's go back and do another traffic study and it's the time of COVID with lockdowns or power shutoffs, et cetera. So I think I'm not as concerned about the age because of the delay really kind of wasn't their fault. But I also think that we're probably in better standing in really understanding what the traffic flow might actually be than if we, said let's do a new traffic study and we're in the midst of COVID lockdown. So that's how I'm looking at that. It's always counterintuitive to put anything, any new use on San Jose Avenue. It's just like, how are you gonna get around? And that's certainly the first thing I thought about with this project. But the main thing that I'm considering is the economic vitality potential of this project. This is obviously, it's a good business. It's a survivable business in these very weird times, whether we like the drive-through aspect or not, we've got lines of cars trying to pick up food from Redwood food bank, et cetera. It's just the times are very, very difficult for any business. And this would be one that would be survivable. Those employees would survive. It would definitely add to our general fund in terms of a vital business that could survive what this particular episode in San Jose history is about. So that's the thing I'm mostly looking at is that value. I agree with Commissioner Duggan. I think the sound wall is gonna protect the neighbors. I think this business model is gonna protect the neighbors. I think that's the thing that I'm seeing is that they have a strong value system about being a good neighbor and adding to the community with donations, et cetera, that there's a long list of ways that they could add to the city. I think the interesting thing as well, because Commissioner Duggan and I were a part of the In-N-Out Burger out off of Steele Lane and all of the concerns that came up with that, it does make sense to me that having one kind of in the middle of the owner park one and the Steele Lane one is probably going to offset some of the worst case scenario we saw with 50 cars. So I think that that makes sense to me. I definitely think there needs to be a traffic navigator out there. And I don't know that I would support a pedestrian connection to the housing that crossing there would be, I think extremely difficult to manage, but so I am in support of the project. I can find the MND adequate and I just think that the value that this business could bring to us is very, very high. And it's concerning with the greenhouse gas, things of how many cars are in line for shots or whatever. It's like, I don't know, when you get to our climate action plan update, I think there's going to be a lot to discuss what's the reality of what we're doing in our cars in a pandemic versus what the ideal is and how do we deal with our climate issues? I think it's going to be very complicated. So with that, Commissioner Peterson, would you like to say anything else? I appreciate the perspective from my fellow commissioners and certainly helps. Again, my difficulty is just those assumptions in the traffic study. And again, the greenhouse gases, I get it, but it really, really strains credibility here. So I'm having a hard time getting to where I need to be to make the findings. Okay. And if I may, Chair Siscoe, this is Ashley Crocker. I just wanted to address a couple comments regarding the adequacy of the mitigated negative declaration. And I wanted to point out some of this discussion has been about the level of service analysis. And that analysis was provided for informational purposes and for operational standards. And I just wanted to remind the commission that the level of service analysis is no longer required by CEQA. In fact, we are now bound by the vehicle miles traveled analysis. And this project was screened out of the VMT analysis due to its proximity to San Rosa Avenue. So just in terms of speaking from legal adequacy of the document, I wanted to address that the level of service would not be a reason to find the document legally inadequate as we do rely on VMT. And then similarly, I understand the GHG concerns and I just will reiterate what I said before in that compliance with the checklist and the certified climate action plan is legal standard in the state of the law today. And that is what methodology was applied here in this mitigated negative declaration. So I just want to put that out there and completely respect your opinions, but I wanted to clarify that on the record. Thank you. Here, Cisco, this is Bill Rose. And if I may just add a couple of thoughts here. I think as Miss Crocker just said, what we believe we've provided is a legally compliant CEQA document. And I know that sometimes that might still lead a little bit to be desired. And it's absolutely the commission's prerogative to act accordingly, but that is the staff position. I want to just make one other note. In addition to that, we look at all of the different policies, relevant policies in the general plan. And there's certainly an economic vitality component to this project. And so that was a central component to the staff analysis. So again, the commission certainly has a prerogative to move forward accordingly with what you feel is appropriate, but that was a key consideration with staff as well. And hence the recommendation that we concluded with. So I just wanted to add that. Okay, thank you. Mr. O'Crufkey, do you have anything else you'd like to say? I think just based off of the curriculum my other commissioners have said, as well as the comments from Miss Crocker and Miss Rose. It'll be, I can uneasily support the project. It's not a home run for me, but I think I could find, I can make the necessary findings to support the project. Okay. All right. Anything else, Commissioner Peterson, before we take the vote? Yeah, just to clarify, I appreciate the feedback from Deputy Director Rose and Council Crocker. So let me refine my comments here. So I will accept the GHG as a section as adequate, looking at page 93 of the final MND. Is it SSEPU guidelines within one half mile of an existing major transit stop? It's within a quarter mile, means that it is less than a significant transportation impact, even though for all the sort of induced demand traffic issues that we've already discussed, I will accept that as adequate. Okay, great. So with that, the MND resolution as corrected was moved by Commissioner Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Carter. And Mr. Maloney, you wanna take our votes? He has one moment. Sure. This is for the first resolution, I'm gonna get a negative declaration. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Calia. Aye. Commissioner Krepke. Aye. Commissioner Peterson. Aye. Vice Chair Weeks. Aye. Chair Siscoe. Aye. And so that resolution passes with seven ayes. And next we move to our conditional use permit resolution, it will also need to be corrected with the APN number. Commissioner Duggan, would you like to do that again since you're an expert at it now? Why not, yes. I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and approving a conditional use permit for the construction and operation of a restaurant with counterordering, drive-through service and extended hours of operation located at 2532 Santa Rosa Avenue and 325 Yolanda Avenue, assessor's parcel number 044-041-010, file number PRJ18-086 and wait for the reading. Okay, and the second, Commissioner Calia. Okay, so the conditional use permit was moved as corrected by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Calia. Any other discussion? Okay, then Mr. Maloney, would you take our vote? This is for the conditional use permit, Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Duggan. Aye. Commissioner Calia. Aye. Commissioner Krepke. Aye. Commissioner Peterson. Aye. Vice Chair Weeks. Aye. And Chair Siscoe. Aye. And so the conditional use permit resolution also passes with seven ayes. And I believe that concludes this item and we can adjourn our meeting to our February 11th meeting. So I'll close the meeting. And thanks everybody and see you soon. Okay, bye. Thank you.