Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

At the draft minutes for the June 25th, 2026 zoning administrator meeting, we are now taking public comments on those draft minutes of the June 25th meeting. If you're attending in person and would like to make a comment on the draft minutes, please approach one of the podiums at this time. Okay, seeing none, I will close the public comment and approve those minutes as submitted. Moving on to non-agenda public comment, we are now taking public comments on item three, non-agenda matters. This is the time when any person may address matters not listed on the agenda, but which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the zoning administrator. If you are attending in person and would wish to make a non-agenda public comment, please approach the podium at this time. okay seeing none i will close the non-gender public comment and move on to the zoning administrator statement of purpose the zoning administrator is appointed by the planning and economic development director and has the responsibility and authority to conduct public meetings and hearings and to act on applications for minor or reduced review authority projects or entitlements a determination or decision by the zoning administrator may be appealed to the design review and preservation board planning commission or city council as applicable to the decision All actions taken by the zoning administrator may be appealed within 10 calendar days. If the final day of the appeal period falls on a non-business day, the appeal period will be extended to the next business day. There are no zoning administrator reports, nor are there any consent items, so we'll move on to our first scheduled item, which is a public hearing for a wireless facility modification i have no exparte disclosures to disclose on this item may we have a staff report please

Good morning, the project in front of you today is Rooftop Wireless Facility Modifications, Cross Structure Replacement, and Antenna Screening, located at 2323 Montgomery Drive. And the project in front of you today is for a modern design review because the use was already approved with Conditional Use Permit 96-0035. So we're only reviewing the design of the proposed project, not the use because it has already been approved. And this is a modern design review for modifications to an existing wireless telecommunications facility, which includes removal of an existing rooftop crawl structure containing three antennas, installation of a new screen rooftop antenna structure containing six antennas, resulting in a net increase of three antennas, including six remote radio units, and associated ground level equipment modifications screened by the existing wall, which is painted to match the existing building. and the associated ground level equipment modification screen is screened by an existing wall. And I would like to note that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prevents local jurisdictions from enforcing any regulations that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of interstate or intrastate telecommunication services. Local jurisdictions cannot outright deny facilities based on radio frequency emissions if the FCC has already deemed them safe. Here's the aerial image of the proposed location at 2323 Montgomery Drive, indicated by the purple star. And this is located in the northwestern quadrant of the city. No, eastern quadrant of the city, I apologize. Here's an aerial image of the neighborhood context, and this proposed location is adjacent to Highway 12 and near the Flamingo Hotel in Montgomery Village. The zoning line use destination is public institutional, which is consistent with the general plan line use destination of public institutional. And here is a picture of the existing conditions indicated by the yellow arrow which points to the cross structure which contains the three antennas that are existing. And here is a picture of the proposed improvements again indicated by the yellow arrow which is the box that will be painted the same color as the building. This project has been found in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and it is categorically exempt pursuant to SECA guidelines section 15301, because this is an existing facility, and SECA guidelines section 15303, because this is new construction of a small structure. A request for public hearing has been received for this project, and I would also like to note that the agenda was posted with the incorrect project plans, which is now, and that has been amended, and now the correct project plans are posted. Staff has identified no unresolved issues that will preclude action. And the staff also finds that all required design findings can be met and the applicant has reviewed and accepted the conditions of approval. The Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the zoning administrator approve a resolution for a monitor design review to allow modifications to an existing wireless telecommunications facility, including replacement rooftop antenna screenings for non-antennae, resulting in a net increase of six antennas and associated ground-level equipment modifications at 2323 Montgomery Drive. My contact information is at the bottom left of the screen, should you have any questions.

Great, thank you. Is the applicant present and do they wish to make any comments? Okay, they're not present. With that, let's go do public comment. If you'd like to make a public comment on this item, please approach the podium at this time. You'll see a timer appear on the screen and please wait for the recording secretary to give you the go ahead prior to your comment. Thank you.

Hi, do I have three minutes?

Yes, you will see a timer appear on the screen and please wait for the recording secretary to give it the go ahead prior to your comment. Thank you.

Just one moment. Okay, hi, okay, I'm starting. My name is Sydney Cox. I'm the co-director of the EMF Safety Network. And the reason why I'm here is I understand this is an eligible facility request, which is usually ministerial and an automatic approval. But this is an opportunity for us to express our concerns about this project, basically because it's doubling, more than doubling, perhaps tripling the amount of radio frequency radiation that's gonna be emitted as well as the size. So I know it's already been approved for a smaller facility, but we have deep concerns about this. First of all, 3% of the population is very reactive to this type of radiation. And I'm just kind of here to explain that. We could go on and on about the effects of this. But basically, my concern is that there's going to be no sign warning people of the type of radiation that's coming off of this project. And I did bring a poster. It's hard to see, it's a big formula. And this is the FCC guidelines formula. I don't know if you can see it. I made copies and I can give them, I can hand them out to you, that talks about what a limit of the FCC guidelines are. And you're supposed to include all sources of radio frequency radiation, including the small cell that's across the street from the church, and any RFR that is being generated from inside, Wi-Fi routers. This formula includes the sum of all these things and then it's very complicated and I can't really explain it, but I did bring a printout that explains it in more depth. So, my God, there's so many things to say and I know my time is running out. What to do? Well, I think the very least that can happen is that there should be a sign on the site because people who have implanted medical devices might react to this and it could change their medical devices so it could be life threatening. And I'm just here to sort of put this on the public record and to warn the zoning administration here and also to warn the applicant. And I did reach out to them and I know it seems that they're not interested in, or maybe they don't even understand how complicated this is. I made copies of the maps showing the radio frequency radiation that could be emitted. And it could be anywhere from 5% to 100%. At ground level, 100% is 10 million microwatts per meter squared, which is a unit of measurement that is very dangerous. So that's about it. I know my time is up. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, I just wanted to say, who do I give this to? Who do I give information to?

You may leave it there for now on the podium.

Thank you.

My name is Richard Boyd. Can you hear me?

One moment, sir.

My name is Richard Boyd. I'm a retired physics professor, so I know a lot about radiation. And one of the things that you learn quickly is that this stuff is cumulative. That is, if you work in a radiation laboratory, as I did for a number of years, they check the amount of radiation you're getting. each month. And if you get too much for that month, you can't work the following month. There's also a yearly limit. This is sad for human beings because there are some organisms that can correct for radiation effects. And unfortunately, we missed out on that possibility. There are a couple of details that do not always appear in these proposals. When they say that the expected radiation levels from what they're adding are between 5 and 100% of the FCC limit, As the previous speaker pointed out, that may or may not include the small cell that is nearby to this. It often also does not include reflection from the ground, which can increase the estimates typically by 50% to a factor of four. So those should be included always. And when you're evaluating these things, you should ask, about ground reflection. And of course, in these upgrade proposals, they should also include the radiation from the stuff that they're upgrading. And it's not always clear that that's what's done. And thank you for your efforts on this.

Thank you. Is there anybody else in person that would like to make a comment on this item? Okay, I'll close the public comment then. Yeah, I appreciate the folks for attending the meeting today. As the planner mentioned, we are limited in our review of this project by the design. The use has been approved and is required to be operated pursuant to all applicable local, state and federal regulations. I think the photo simulations make it pretty clear that it just looks like a very minor extension of the existing building due to the material and the color of the proposed screening. And I don't have any concerns with the conditions of approval and I too can make all the findings as drafted by staff in the draft resolution for approval. So with that, I will approve this project. Please note that this approval is final unless an appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of today's decision. For this item, that date is Monday, July 20th, 2026. Thank you. Moving on to our second item, a public meeting for a community care facility located at 170 Sotoyomi Street. I, again, have no ex parte disclosure on this item, so can we please have a staff report?

Good morning, Zoning Administrator McKay. My name is Sheila Wolski, and I'm the project planner for the project that's before you now. Tara, is it not showing? Okay, so for the project that's before you now, which is conversion of existing office building to a residential care facility for the elderly. Under the zoning code, this use is classified as a community care facility, and if there are seven clients or more, a minor conditional use permit is required. This project proposes 15 client or resident beds One bed for overnight staff. And then in terms of operating characteristics, there would be two daytime staff members and one overnight staff member. And the applicant is proposing visitor hours between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. every day. Here is a look at the neighborhood. As you can see, this is on Sotoyomi Street between Montgomery Drive and Sonoma Avenue, very close to a multifamily medical office and a memorial hospital. The general plan and zoning, general plan is office and zoning is commercial office. And as I mentioned, in this particular zoning district, this type of use requires a minor conditional use permit. Here are little closer views of the property. The one on top is the aerial view, and you can see the existing building as well as on the street view, which is just a little bit different perspective. There are no proposed changes to the facade, no expansion of building footprint, so it will look much the same if this use is approved today. This slide shows you the floor plan of the community care facility. You can see an activity room, dining room, and the beds that they're proposing. Parking requirements, I'll go through the slide although there is a correction. It's one parking stall per three beds and it's 16 beds. There's existing 21 stalls and the applicant is proposing to remove one of the existing parking stalls to create a van accessible parking space. And actually, when I was going through the PowerPoint today, I realized that the requirement is only five parking spaces. The zoning ordinance allows you to round down to the nearest whole number when the number of parking spaces is between 0.1 and 0.5. So this was 5.3. and so only five parking stalls would be required. And I should mention, even with 20, this proposed use has well in excess of the required parking. This project is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15301, existing facilities, and that's because this project would convert an existing building with minor interior improvements and no building expansion. There are no resolved issues as a result of staff review. The applicant has reviewed and accepted all the conditions of approval. Staff has determined that all required findings can be made. And a correction to this slide is that one public comment was received that was from the California Defense I forgot their name, but California Housing Defense Fund or California Housing Defense League. It's an advocacy group that promotes housing projects throughout the state of California, and they specifically advocated for the approval of this project. So with that said, the Planning and Economic Development Department recommends that the zoning administrator, by resolution, approve a minor conditional use permit to allow a typo 16-bed community care facility at 170 Sotoyomi Street. My contact information is on this slide, and the prospective operator, Savannah Arroyo, is here in the audience should you have any questions. Thank you.

Great, thank you. Would the applicant like to make any comments at this time? Okay, thank you. With that, we'll open the public comment. If you're attending in person wishing to make a public comment on this item, please approach the podium at this time. Seeing no one, I'll close the public comment. Yeah, I think this is a great project. I think it's a great location. I think there's a lot of great services around the area that will allow people that um are living here to experience a good quality of life and um a lot of like medical needs that i think are very compatible and suitable for this type of use i think we're seeing a lot of office spaces become vacant and i think that it's a great opportunity to leverage that trajectory and develop those office suites with something that was such in short supply nationwide and also particularly in Santa Rosa. There's a lot of parking, which is great. You don't see that a lot with a lot of these projects that I've looked at in the recent past, and that can be kind of a sticky situation, but this is obviously not the case here as the planner Wolski described in her presentation. And then also I'm moved by the Cal HDF letter reminding our reminding the city of its responsibility to be supportive of these types of projects. And with that, I don't have any proposed conditions of approval, and I approve the project. Thank you. Please note this action is final unless an appeal is filed with the Planning and Economic Development Department within 10 calendar days of today's decision. For this item, that date is Monday, July 20th, 2026. And that concludes our business for this meeting. So the meeting is now adjourned. Thank you.