Public Meetings - Santa Rosa, California

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission met virtually on June 24, 2021, from 4:00 PM to 6:09 PM, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting included two public hearings: a conditional use permit for a new telecommunications tower and a hearing on the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a senior housing expansion. The commission also received committee reports and a department update. Chair Karen Weeks presided, with Commissioners Julian Peterson (Vice Chair), Charles Carter, Vicki Duggan, Jeffrey Holton, and Akash Kalia present. Commissioner Jeff Okrepkie was absent. Consent Calendar - None. Public Comments & Testimony - On the Spring Lake Village Draft EIR (Item 9.2), three members of the public spoke: - Dr. Pedro Avila, a resident adjacent to the project site, expressed concern about the dangerous intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road, citing frequent collisions and high speeds. He urged the commission to request a collision report and noted that even 80 additional daily trips could worsen the risk. - Edward Sherman, a nearby resident, argued that the wildfire danger is understated because the site is surrounded by higher hazard zones, despite the map designation. He recounted three evacuations in five years and opposed increasing population density in a low-density area. He also noted that his wife was injured in a crash at the same intersection. - Mindy Penguell, a Melita Road resident, supported the wildfire concerns and added that the area lacks water for new housing. She emphasized that the project should not be considered in isolation from other nearby developments, such as the El Noca project, which could add hundreds of residents. Discussion Items 9.1 Public Hearing: Crown Castle Relocation Project (CUP20-074) - Staff Presentation: Planner Adam Ross presented a proposal for a new 83-foot monopine telecommunications tower at 1236 Cleveland Avenue, replacing an existing facility at 1500 Armory Drive (corrected from 135 Ridgway Ave). The project includes a 24 ft x 37 ft (888 sq ft) fenced equipment area, a diesel generator, and is eligible for a CEQA Class 3 Categorical Exemption (Class 3 for small structures). The site is zoned General Commercial (CG) and is within the North Santa Rosa Station Area Specific Plan. The tower would improve AT&T and Verizon coverage and allow future co-location. The applicant, Crown Castle, presented briefly, emphasizing the need for reliable wireless service and the safety of the facility. - Commissioner Inquiries: Commissioners visited the site and had no ex parte disclosures. They asked about the distance to the nearest single-family homes (closest at 98 feet) and discussed long-term maintenance of the monopine (painting, structural integrity). The commission requested that the Design Review Board (scheduled for July 1, 2021) include a condition requiring a maintenance agreement. - Public Comments: None. - Vote: Motion to approve Resolution No. 12060 (Conditional Use Permit) carried 6-0 (Commissioner Okrepkie absent). 9.2 Public Hearing: Spring Lake Village East Grove Draft EIR (MJP14-012) - Staff and Consultant Presentation: Senior Planner Amy Nicholson and consultant Brian Baccarini (GHD) presented the Draft EIR for a 7.28-acre off-site expansion of Spring Lake Village, proposing 32 independent senior living units (64 residents) in a mix of duplex cottages and a two-story villa, plus a community building, parking, and off-site pedestrian/bicycle improvements. The project requires a rezone to Planned Development (PD 308), conditional use permit, hillside development permit, and design review. The Draft EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts on cultural and tribal cultural resources. The environmentally superior build alternative (Alternative 2) reduces the footprint by retaining two existing residences, using a three-story villa (18 units) and seven cottages (14 units), and reducing ground disturbance, thereby reducing cultural resource impacts to a less-than-significant level. The public review period runs through July 15, 2021, and approximately 20 written comments had been received to date. - Public Comments: Three speakers (detailed above) raised concerns about traffic safety, wildfire risk, evacuation, water supply, and cumulative impacts. - Commissioner Comments: The commission provided extensive feedback on the Draft EIR, including: - Wildfire: The EIR should include a dedicated wildfire section and use updated hazard maps (current maps from 2009 may be outdated). Evacuation planning for the project should be detailed, including coordination with the Spring Lake Village emergency plan and the Santa Rosa Fire Department. - Traffic: The traffic study uses collision data from 2011-2016, which may not reflect recent conditions. The intersection of Highway 12 and Los Alamos Road is a known safety concern. The commission requested updated data and analysis of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) rather than reliance on Level of Service (LOS). - Water: The water usage estimate of 288 gallons per day per household was questioned given the extreme drought. The backup generator’s fuel supply and runtime should be clarified. - Cultural Resources: The significant and unavoidable impact on cultural and tribal resources was a major concern. Commissioners asked for more specificity on mitigation measures (e.g., on-site archaeologist, construction monitoring, tribal consultation protocols) and who at the city would determine feasibility of avoidance. - Alternatives: Several commissioners expressed interest in Alternative 2 (environmentally superior), but some wanted to see a feasibility analysis before stating a preference. The assistant city attorney noted that the environmentally superior alternative does not automatically become the project; the city council could adopt a statement of overriding considerations. - Data Freshness: Commissioners noted that the EIR process began in 2017, but staff confirmed that technical studies were updated in 2020. However, some data (e.g., fire maps, collision data) should be refreshed. - No Vote: The hearing was solely to receive comments on the Draft EIR. Staff will prepare responses and bring a Final EIR to the commission at a future meeting for a recommendation to the city council. Key Outcomes - Crown Castle Relocation Project: Approved unanimously (6-0). The commission directed staff to request that the Design Review Board add a condition requiring a maintenance agreement for the monopine structure. - Spring Lake Village East Grove Draft EIR: The public hearing was closed. The commission will submit written comments; staff and the EIR consultant will address all comments in the Final EIR. The commission will hold a future hearing on the Final EIR and project entitlements, at which time they may take action (e.g., recommend certification to the city council).

This virtual meeting of the Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board was called to order at 2:32 p.m. and adjourned at 3:35 p.m. The main agenda item was a study session on the update of the Santa Rosa General Plan (Santa Rosa Forward), during which board members provided input on a draft Vision Statement to guide the 25-year planning process. Consent Calendar - Approved the draft minutes from June 2, 2021, as submitted. Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were made. Committee Business - Statement of Purpose: Chair Meuser read the board’s purpose regarding historic preservation standards. - Board Member Reports: Board members Boren, Fennell, and Praetzellis reported upcoming meetings with applicants for projects (SMART station condominium project and a project by Peter Stanley). - Staff Report: Susie Murray, CHB Staff Liaison, noted that the next meeting will include an update on the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan and reminded members about Brown Act training and the upcoming review of board rules and regulations (targeted for July 7). Discussion Items - Study Session – Santa Rosa General Plan Update and Input on Santa Rosa Forward Vision Statement: Senior Planner Andy Gustavson presented an overview of the 3-year Santa Rosa Forward project, which will produce a General Plan with a 25-year horizon. He described community outreach efforts, including over 1,300 respondents to a mapping survey and 10 district-based workshops (including some in Spanish) held in May 2021. The draft Vision Statement emphasizes principles such as inclusion, equity, health, safety, lifelong learning, cultural diversity, sustainability, and connectivity. Gustavson noted that a $600,000 Kaiser grant will support a focus on healthy neighborhoods. Board members offered the following comments: - Board Member Praetzellis: Expressed enthusiasm for the vision’s emphasis on inclusion and equity, but raised concern that the city’s cultural heritage survey is outdated (last updated 30 years ago) and asked how it will inform the General Plan’s environmental review. Gustavson and Murray confirmed that a cultural resources survey update is underway and will be brought to the board in the coming weeks. - Board Member Boren: Supported the concept of neighborhood-level shopping and services to reduce travel, and suggested improving the aesthetic of corridors like Santa Rosa Avenue. - Board Member Praetzellis (continued): Highlighted the value of neighborhood-focused events and equitable education, cautioning that the ranking of vision statements in workshops might be misleading due to overlapping categories. - Chair Meuser: Noted that the draft Vision Statement lacks explicit reference to historic resources, recommending that language be added to address historic neighborhoods and resource protection. He also mentioned opportunities in the recently annexed Roseland area and the need to resolve conflicts between downtown station area plans and historic districts. - Vice Chair Fennell: Praised the city’s neighborhood grant programs and community events, but identified homelessness as a critical issue impacting neighborhoods and home values, calling for more effective city solutions. - Gustavson thanked the board for feedback, stating that the input will be used to revise the Vision Statement, which will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at a joint study session on July 20, 2021. He encouraged board members to complete the online questionnaire to augment their comments. Key Outcomes - The board provided substantive input on the draft Vision Statement, with a strong consensus that historic resource preservation should be more prominently reflected in the vision. - Planning staff will incorporate this feedback into the final Vision Statement for the July 20 joint study session. - Board members were invited to submit additional comments via the online survey. - Upcoming board meetings will include a review of board rules and regulations (targeted July 7) and an update on the cultural resources survey.

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission met virtually on June 10, 2021, to consider a modification of a final map, review capital improvement projects, and hear a controversial supportive housing project. The meeting was streamed online due to COVID-19 restrictions. Commissioner Akash Kalia was absent. Public Comments & Testimony - During the initial public comment period, which was later reopened after the continuance of item 9.3, several residents spoke regarding the Hearn Veterans Village project. Speakers expressed strong opposition to the proposed development, citing inconsistencies with zoning, environmental impacts, and density. Speakers included Rena Radich, Lennie Moore, Ann Hopkin, Rebecca Davis (attorney for West Hern residents for rural integrity), Clark Lewis, Dr. Johanna Greenberg, and Susan Kirks (representing Madrone Audubon Society). They argued the project violated the city's general plan and a prior good faith agreement regarding the rural heritage of the West Hearn Avenue neighborhood. Many speakers indicated support for a smaller-scale veterans housing project but opposed the current proposal. Discussion Items 1. Item 9.1 - Summerfield Hills No. 8 Final Map Modification: A request to reduce the front setback for two lots (5494 and 5530 Newanga Avenue) from 40 feet to 20 feet to match the zoning district and allow for potential ADU construction. The applicant, Alice Curtis, and neighbor Stephanie Nakuzi spoke in favor, citing aging-in-place needs and consistency with the neighborhood. Staff recommended approval. No public comments in opposition were received. 2. Item 9.2 - Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review: Staff presented 16 new projects for consistency with the General Plan. Projects included water and sewer infrastructure upgrades, recycled water improvements, biosolids management, and two pedestrian/bicycle projects (a SMART pathway crossing signal at 3rd Street and sidewalk gaps on Corby Avenue). Staff recommended approval. No public comments. 3. Item 9.3 - Hearn Veterans Village (Continuance): The item was initially on the agenda for a public hearing on a tentative map and mitigated negative declaration for a supportive housing development at 2149 W Hearn Avenue. Staff requested a continuance to a date uncertain due to numerous late public comments. The commission unanimously voted to continue the item. The public was then allowed to comment on the now-off-agenda item during the public comment period. Many speakers opposed the project as proposed. Key Outcomes - Item 9.1 (MOD21-001): The Planning Commission unanimously approved Resolution No. 12058, modifying the Summerfield Hills No. 8 Final Map to reduce the front setback to 20 feet. (Vote: 6-0, with Commissioner Kalia absent.) - Item 9.2 (CIP Consistency): The Planning Commission unanimously approved Resolution No. 12059, finding the 16 new CIP projects consistent with the 2035 General Plan. (Vote: 6-0.) - Item 9.3 (MIN21-001): The Planning Commission unanimously approved a motion to continue the Hearn Veterans Village public hearing to a date uncertain, with staff to re-notice the item. (Vote: 6-0.) The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p.m.

The Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board met virtually on June 2, 2021, at 2:30 PM to review a landmark alteration permit and a concept review. The board approved the porch and foundation repair at 659 Pine Street with a 4-0 vote, after managing a temporary lack of quorum through a straw poll process. The meeting also included a concept review for a bathroom/laundry room remodel at 212 Earle Street, which received favorable feedback but no formal action. Consent Calendar - The meeting minutes for May 19, 2021 were approved without discussion. Public Comments & Testimony - The public comment period was opened but no members of the public raised hands to speak; the period was closed. Discussion Items - Concept Review - 212 Earle Street (LMA21-007): Staff presented a concept review for an interior bathroom and laundry room remodel (124 sf), including replacing two bedroom windows for egress and removing one laundry room window. The project is in the Roseland area, not a formal historic district. Board members praised the owners' efforts but noted the T1-11 siding on the rear elevation as a future improvement. No formal action was taken. - Public Hearing - 659 Pine Street (LMA20-012): Staff presented a landmark alteration permit for porch and foundation repair, exterior siding restoration, window replacement, and construction of an ADU. Because three board members had to abstain due to close proximity to the property, a straw poll was used to select one of them to stay, achieving quorum. The board discussed materials, including fiberglass windows and stone veneer, and approved the project. Key Outcomes - Approval: The board approved the landmark alteration permit for 659 Pine Street (LMA20-012) with a 4-0 vote. The motion was made by Board Member Borin, seconded by Board Member Huang. All present board members confirmed they could make the required findings. - No Action: The concept review for 212 Earle Street (LMA21-007) was informational; no vote was taken. - Quorum Process: Due to multiple abstentions, the board used a straw poll to select Board Member Wong to remain, allowing the hearing to proceed.

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission convened virtually on May 27, 2021 at 4:00 PM. The meeting included a study session on the 2020 General Plan Annual Review, a public hearing to approve the Stonebridge Subdivision (105 units), and a public hearing to review the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Elnoka Continuing Care Retirement Community (676 units). The commission received public comments and deliberated on each item. Study Session – 2020 General Plan Annual Review - City Planner Shari Meads presented an overview of progress made in 2020 toward achieving General Plan goals, covering housing, economic development, transportation, public safety, parks, water, wastewater, open space, climate action, historic preservation, and youth/family services. - In 2020, building permits were issued for 625 residential units (251 single-family, 309 multifamily, 65 ADUs). Of those, 38 units were for very low-income, 49 for low-income, 25 for moderate-income, and 513 above moderate-income (market rate). - Growth Management: 732 Reserve A allotments and 174 Reserve B allotments were used; the ordinance sunset at end of 2020. - Inclusionary Housing fees collected in 2020 totaled $1.2 million, a 57% decrease from 2019. - Police: 246,000 calls for service, with median response times of 6 min 44 sec (Priority 1), 11 min 8 sec (Priority 2), and 20 min 57 sec (Priority 3). - Fire: 26,409 calls, 61.1% medical; $6.5 million in fire loss (excluding Glass Fire). - Water: 2020 usage was 18,000 acre-feet; total supply available is 31,500 acre-feet/year. - Creek Stewardship: 6,500 residents participated; 42 volunteer cleanups on 11 creeks. - Public comment: Duane DeWitt argued that 30 years of inclusionary policies have failed to produce sufficient affordable housing and questioned water supply for new hookups during drought. - Commissioners discussed police call disposition and drought impacts; staff committed to follow-up. - The commission voted 6–0–1 (Commissioner Carter absent) to forward the report to City Council. Note: Meeting minutes record a 6–1 vote with Commissioner Carter voting no, but the transcript confirms he was absent throughout the meeting. Public Comments & Testimony On Stonebridge Subdivision (Item 9.1): No members of the public provided comments. On Elnoka CCRC EIR (Item 9.2): Twelve speakers addressed the commission, raising concerns about: - Fire evacuation safety and traffic congestion on Highway 12, especially during wildfires (citing 2017 and 2020 fires). - Aesthetics and visual impacts on Annadel State Park. - Inadequate analysis of wildfire hazards in the DEIR. - Inconsistencies in bicycle trail classifications (class I vs. class II) and the missing trail connection from Channel Drive to the Sonoma Valley Trail through the property. - Removal of 439 trees (including 409 protected trees) conflicting with climate action goals. - Traffic data based on outdated 2012–2016 assumptions. - Density, noise, and construction impacts. - Questions about post-1850 historical resources and quarry/railroad remnants. - Need for better evacuation planning for elderly residents. Discussion Items Stonebridge Subdivision (2220 Fulton Road – PRJ19-049) - Project: 105 lots (95 single-family detached, 10 attached duet units affordable to moderate-income households) on 14.6 acres; 14-acre habitat preserve (Burke's Goldfields). Required approvals: Mitigated Negative Declaration, Conditional Use Permit, and Tentative Map. - Applicant (David Jacobson, Peter Hellman) and Housing Land Trust of Sonoma County (Dev Getches) presented the inclusionary housing component; the 10 duet units will be price-restricted in perpetuity via the land trust. - Staff recommended approval with conditions, including an amendment to Condition of Approval 11 allowing two additional duet lots if needed for inclusionary compliance. - Commissioners praised the project for infill design, on-site affordable housing, habitat preservation, neighborhood connectivity, and drought-tolerant landscaping. - Each resolution adopted 6–0–1 (Commissioner Carter absent). The minutes vary: for the MND resolution they record a 6–1 vote with Carter voting no, but the transcript and Chair’s statement confirm Carter was absent and did not vote. Elnoka Continuing Care Retirement Community EIR (PRJ17-040) - Draft EIR released for 45-day public review (April 30 – June 15, 2021); the hearing was solely to receive comments on the adequacy of the EIR, no action taken. - Consultant Mary Bean presented DEIR findings: significant unavoidable impact on aesthetics; all other impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. - Proposed mitigation includes traffic signal at project entrance, widening of Sonoma Highway, construction of Sonoma Valley Trail segment, evacuation plan, tree preservation, tier-4 construction equipment, and more. - Four alternatives analyzed: No Project, General Plan Buildout, Reduced Density (460 units), and Reconfigured Site Plan. - Commissioners asked detailed technical questions on wildfire maps (using 2008 data), traffic assumptions, trail consistency with city/county plans, biological resource protections, construction windows, greenhouse gas monitoring, and consistency with the city's climate emergency declaration. - No vote was taken; staff and consultants will compile all comments and prepare responses for the Final EIR. Key Outcomes - The 2020 General Plan Annual Review report was forwarded to City Council by a vote of 6–0–1 (Commissioner Carter absent; minutes conflict showing a 6–1 vote). - Stonebridge Subdivision was approved: Resolution 12055 (MND & MMRP), Resolution 12056 (CUP as amended), and Resolution 12057 (Tentative Map) each passed 6–0–1. - The Elnoka CCRC DEIR public comment period remains open until June 15, 2021. The Final EIR will be presented to the Planning Commission for certification at a future meeting.

The Santa Rosa Cultural Heritage Board met virtually on May 19, 2021, at 3:38 p.m. (due to a delayed start) and adjourned at 4:32 p.m. The meeting included board member introductions, election of a Vice Chair, recognition of outgoing board member Mark DeBacker, and two continued public hearings. Due to recusals and absences, both hearings were continued to future dates. Board Business - Statement of Purpose – Chair Brian Meuser read the board's purpose regarding landmark alteration standards. - Board Member Introductions – Each member introduced themselves: Henry Huang (attorney, CPA, realtor, Chicago background, interest in Frank Lloyd Wright), Maria Praetzellis (archivist, grew up in West End neighborhood, emphasis on balancing preservation with affordable housing), Cappie Garrett (interior architect/designer, long-time preservation advocate, author of San Francisco historic buildings book, on/off board for multiple terms), Bonnie Boren (artist/teacher, interest in historic neighborhoods, new member), Laura Fennell (real estate broker, second term, lives in Burbank Gardens, focus on property owner education), Brian Meuser (chair, first term, restored historic homes in Cherry Street and Burbank Gardens). Stephen Gale was absent. - Recognition of Outgoing Board Member Mark DeBacker – Chair Meuser acknowledged DeBacker's 12 years of service. Board members and staff thanked him for his expertise and passion. He advised the board to use the Secretary of Interior standards and noted increasing pressure from infill development in historic districts. - Election of Vice Chair – Laura Fennell was nominated by Cappie Garrett, seconded by Bonnie Boren. The vote was 6-0-1 (Gale absent), and Fennell was elected Vice Chair. Department Reports - Staff Liaison Susie Murray reported that the next meeting is scheduled for June 2, 2021, at 2:30 p.m. She announced upcoming training sessions: a Brown Act training (likely June 2) and a Downtown Station Area Plan training (late June/early July). She welcomed new members and thanked returning members. Statements of Abstention - Item 7.1 (Turréy Garage Replacement): Chair Meuser recused due to property proximity and conflict of interest (owner is his Cal Green inspector). - Item 7.2 (Porch and Foundation Repair, 659 Pine St): Vice Chair Fennell, board member Huang, and Chair Meuser all recused due to proximity of their residences to the project (within 500 feet). This left only four available members (Boren, Fennell recused, Garrett, Huang recused, Praetzellis) – insufficient for a quorum. Staff explained the rule of necessity could allow a conflicted member to participate via random selection, but because board member Gale was absent, the rule could not be applied, forcing a continuance. Scheduled Items (Public Hearings) - 7.1 – Turréy Garage Replacement, 664 Charles St (LMA20-013) – Continued from April 7, 2021. The applicant requested a continuance to a date uncertain. Motion by board member Garrett, seconded by Praetzellis to continue; passed 5-0-1 (Meuser recused, Gale absent). The item will be re-noticed before returning. - 7.2 – Porch and Foundation Repair, 659 Pine St (LMA20-012) – Continued from April 21, 2021. Due to lack of quorum (only 4 members available after recusals and Gale absent), the item was automatically continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on June 2, 2021. No vote was taken. Key Outcomes - Vice Chair elected: Laura Fennell (6-0-1). - Item 7.1 continued to a date uncertain (5-0-1), with new public notice required. - Item 7.2 continued to June 2, 2021, due to lack of quorum. - Board recognized Mark DeBacker for 12 years of service. - Next regular meeting: June 2, 2021, at 2:30 p.m.

[The Santa Rosa Planning Commission met virtually on May 13, 2021, at 4:05 p.m. and adjourned at 5:05 p.m. Commissioners present: Chair Karen Weeks, Vice Chair Julian Peterson, Commissioners Charles Carter, Vicki Duggan, Jeffrey Holton, Jeff Okrepkie, and Akash Kalia. The meeting included two public hearings for cannabis facility conditional use permits. Both were approved after staff presentations, applicant presentations, and commissioner discussions. No public comments were received on either item.] Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public spoke during the public comment period or during either public hearing. Discussion Items 9.1 - Sunstone Advisors, Inc. - Conditional Use Permit (CUP18-070) - 330 Yolanda Ave. - Staff planner Monet Sheikhali presented the proposal for a 5,893 sq ft cannabis facility within a new 8,441 sq ft building on two parcels at 330-358 Yolanda Ave. Uses include cannabis retail (dispensary) with delivery and on-site consumption (4,279 sq ft), cultivation (469 sq ft), manufacturing Level 1 non-volatile (889 sq ft), and distribution (256 sq ft). Hours of operation: dispensary 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.; other uses 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The project site was rezoned from commercial to light industrial via a 2020 General Plan amendment. - A late-written public comment opposed the project due to traffic concerns on the Heron Avenue overpass, citing potential worsening with other planned projects. - Applicant Alicia Rose Kelly presented a vision for a "winery-like" educational cannabis experience, highlighting 20 years of wine industry experience and 6 years in cannabis. She described a guided tasting model ending with CBD to ensure sobriety. - Traffic engineer Barry Bergman (WTrans) explained that a supplemental traffic study showed no significant impact after including three additional nearby projects. The intersection of Yolanda and Piner/Plum Hill Road remained acceptable. - Commissioner Peterson expressed skepticism about traffic findings given planned housing developments but accepted the study. He noted that over-concentration provisions in the ordinance only apply to retail dispensaries, not other cannabis uses, but the area has a high concentration of cannabis businesses. - Commissioner Carter asked about a 2,280 sq ft vacant portion of the building; applicant said it may host a lifestyle market in the future. Staff clarified that any new use would require evaluation for a possible permit amendment. 9.2 - Stony Point Wellness - Conditional Use Permit (CUP20-066) - 411 Stony Point Rd. - Staff planner Adam Ross presented the proposal for a medicinal and adult-use retail cannabis dispensary and delivery service in an existing 2,270 sq ft tenant space within the Stony Point Shopping Center. No exterior modifications proposed. Hours: 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. daily. The site is zoned CG (general commercial), not within 600 ft of any school, and has adequate parking (381 spaces on site, requirement 379). - A pre-application neighborhood meeting had six attendees, all in support. One email in opposition was received. The project qualifies for Class 1 and Class 3 CEQA categorical exemptions. - Applicant Eric Eust (Santa Rosa native, civil engineering background) stated the location fits the city's cannabis framework, is near major retail and transit, and provides regulated products. He emphasized that the shopping center is active but not fully occupied for parking. - Commissioner Carter expressed skepticism about parking based on personal experience (Wednesday mornings), and urged promotion of alternative transportation. Commissioner Duggan noted the area near the proposed suite was less crowded. Commissioner Holton raised concerns about traffic entering/exiting the shopping center from Stony Point Road, citing frequent near-accidents. Commissioner Kalia agreed parking can be tight but meets code. Key Outcomes - Item 9.1 (Sunstone Advisors): Motion by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Kalia, to approve Resolution No. 12053 approving Conditional Use Permit CUP18-070. Passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Okrepkie abstained due to potential financial bias; he left the meeting at 4:15 p.m. and returned for item 9.2). Commissioners found all required findings, with some noting traffic and concentration concerns but accepting staff analysis. - Item 9.2 (Stony Point Wellness): Motion by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Holton, to approve Resolution No. 12054 approving Conditional Use Permit CUP20-066. Passed 7-0. Commissioners found all required findings, with advisory comments on parking and traffic access.

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission held a virtual regular meeting on April 8, 2021, from 4:00 p.m. to 5:54 p.m. The primary action was a public hearing to consider the Santa Rosa Farm Group Cannabis Cultivation Facility at 800 Yolanda Avenue, resulting in unanimous approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and a Major Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with a 48-month term. Consent Calendar - None. Public Comments & Testimony - Jan Vazquez: Opposed the project, arguing the design review was not noticed, the MND was incomplete due to segmentation (leaving two-fifths of the lot undeveloped), and the 55-foot (five-story equivalent) building is out of character with the area. Urged continuance until design review was included. - Reesha Ruel: Opposed, citing the 55-foot height as inappropriate next to homes (no other building of that height nearby), concern over saturation of cannabis businesses along Yolanda Avenue, and that the applicant was from out of town. - Megan Sweeley: Opposed, stating the project is too large for abutting a residential neighborhood, noted saturation of cannabis businesses, called the 55-foot height (five stories) inappropriate for a 24-hour facility next to homes, and raised that Spanish-speaking neighbors were not properly noticed due to lack of translation. - Linda Metesh: Opposed, echoed concerns about height (55 feet inappropriate), building finish causing light pollution, and the emergency vehicle driveway potentially being used by trucks. Discussion Items - Department Report (Amy Lyle): Provided an update on long-range planning projects: a new equity and public health planner hired, a Missing Middle Housing Ordinance (grant-funded, 2-year process), a historic resources survey for downtown station area, a multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan, a future Mendocino Avenue specific plan, and the General Plan update (adoption late 2022/early 2023) including a new Housing Element based on RHNA numbers. A joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting is planned for June. - Public Hearing – Santa Rosa Farm Group Cannabis Facility (Item 9.1): - Presenting Planner Andrew Trippel: Described the project: a ±116,700 sq ft, three-story, 55-foot-tall industrial building for cannabis cultivation (86,050 sq ft), manufacturing Level 1/2 (21,505 sq ft), distribution (8,070 sq ft), and testing lab (1,085 sq ft) on a 5.5-acre site. Requires lot coverage approval (53% coverage) and a 40% parking reduction (85 spaces proposed). Staff recommended approval of the MND and CUP, with a standard 24-month term. - Applicant Team (Aaron Carlstrom, Jim Pugh): Requested a 48-month entitlement term due to pandemic-induced delays, noting the project has been in preparation since 2017 and that the code allows longer terms. Emphasized the project avoids grassland areas, brings 105+ jobs, tax revenue, and complies with all city codes. - Commissioner Questions & Deliberation: - Commissioners discussed design review process (land use approval tonight, final design review later by the Design Review Board, with public notice). - Staff clarified that over-concentration policy only applies to retail dispensaries, not cultivation; the height (55 ft) is allowed by the Light Industrial zoning district; and the MND was comprehensive and not segmented. - Vice Chair Peterson noted that breweries/winery production are permitted by right in the same zone, reinforcing that the project meets code. - Commissioners expressed sympathy for neighbor concerns but found the project consistent with zoning and able to make all required findings. - Friendly amendments adopted: struck portion of MND whereas statement; struck “the approved” from CUP whereas statement; amended Condition 5 to a 48-month validity period. Key Outcomes - Motion 1 (MND Resolution): Vice Chair Peterson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kalia, to adopt Resolution No. 12051 approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as amended. Passed 7-0 (all commissioners yes). - Motion 2 (CUP Resolution): Vice Chair Peterson moved, seconded by Commissioner Kalia, to approve the Major Conditional Use Permit and parking reduction for the cannabis facility, as amended (48-month term). Passed 7-0. - The commission also approved the March 25, 2021 minutes as amended. - The meeting adjourned at 5:54 p.m.

The Santa Rosa Planning Commission held a regular meeting on March 25, 2021, at 4:00 PM via Zoom. Commissioners present: Chair Karen Weeks, Vice Chair Julian Peterson, Commissioners Charles Carter, Vicki Duggan, Jeffrey Holton, and Jeff Okrepkie (6). Commissioner Akash Kalia was absent. The meeting included two major items continued from February 25, 2021: a report item on an appeal regarding property at 1900 Brush Creek Road and a public hearing on a conditional use permit for Alternatives East, a proposed cannabis retail facility. Consent Calendar - None. Public Comments & Testimony - General Public Comments: No speakers. - 1900 Brush Creek Appeal (Item 9.1): The public comment period was opened and closed with no speakers from the public. - Alternatives East Cannabis Use Permit (Item 9.2): Fourteen members of the public spoke. Seven expressed support, citing benefits for medical patients, convenience, and the applicant's track record. Seven opposed, raising concerns about neighborhood compatibility, traffic, odor, safety, and the applicant's credibility. Discussion Items 9.1 1900 Brush Creek Appeal – Continued from February 25, 2021 - Background: Appeal of Planning Director determinations on compliance with the final map, building setbacks, and tree removal (heritage redwood) for a 1,253 sq ft addition built without permits at 1900 Brush Creek Road. - Presenting Planner: Andrew Trippel presented staff analysis, concluding the addition meets zoning setbacks and the tree removal was authorized as part of development, requiring mitigation (replanting or in-lieu fee). - Applicant (Property Owner): Representatives Rose Zoya and Tony Cabrera argued the addition conforms to code, the tree removal was necessary for development, and mitigation was correctly applied. They stressed the homeowners’ good faith and requested denial of the appeal. - Appellant (Neighbor): Attorney Chris Skelton contended the building does not comply with front setback requirements (should be measured from the narrowest lot dimension) and that the tree removal was improperly handled, lacking proper arborist documentation and subject to a two-year permit moratorium. - Commission Deliberation: Commissioners questioned staff on setback interpretation and tree ordinance enforcement. Staff clarified the front setback is based on the public right-of-way (Brush Creek Road) and the tree removal was evaluated as part of the building permit for development, not subject to an enforcement moratorium. The commission found the Planning Director’s determinations reasonable and consistent with objective standards. 9.2 Alternatives East Conditional Use Permit – Continued from February 25, 2021 - Proposal: Operate a 2,549 sq ft (amended to 2,449 sq ft) cannabis retail facility with delivery in an existing office building at 2300 Bethards Drive, Suite A. Hours: 9 AM – 9 PM, 7 days a week. No on-site consumption. - Presenting Planner: Adam Ross presented, noting a noticing deficiency was corrected from the previous meeting. The project complies with zoning, setbacks (1,800 ft from nearest school), parking, and odor mitigation requirements. An amended site plan relocates the main entrance to face Bethards Drive for better visibility. - Applicant (Alternatives East): Owner Karen Kissler described the business as a woman-owned, community-focused dispensary with 12 years of operation. She emphasized security, odor control, traffic estimates (45 peak trips), and offered to be a community liaison. - Commission Deliberation: Questions focused on odor mitigation (carbon filtration, six-month checkups), private consultation room use (education, not consumption), traffic study changes (updated with local data), and noticing adequacy (deficiency cured). Commissioners acknowledged public concerns but found the project met all objective criteria under the city’s cannabis ordinance, which intentionally distributes dispensaries citywide. Key Outcomes - Item 9.1 – 1900 Brush Creek Appeal: Motion by Vice Chair Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Okrepkie, to adopt Resolution No. 12049 denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Director’s determinations. Passed 6-0 (Commissioner Kalia absent). Staff recommendation upheld; building permit processing may resume. - Item 9.2 – Alternatives East Conditional Use Permit: Motion by Commissioner Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Holton, to adopt Resolution No. 12050 approving the conditional use permit with the amended site plan received March 25, 2021. Passed 6-0 (Commissioner Kalia absent). The permit allows cannabis retail and delivery at the site. - Other: Minutes of February 25, 2021, were approved as submitted. The meeting adjourned at 7:31 PM to the next scheduled meeting on April 8, 2021.