 Okay. I think I have us at 430 if that's right for everybody. Okay, afternoon all so with that, I'd like to call to order the July 14th, 2022 meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission to order and before I start, I'll read the following statement. We've been reading for a couple of years now due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders and dash 25 dash 20 and end dash 29 dash 20, which is spend 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. Planning commissioners are conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using zoom webinar commissioners and staff are distance are participating from remote locations and are practicing. Appropriate social distancing members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on this agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak during item for the public comment period or during our public hearing items will be able to do so by raising their hand and will be given the ability to address the commission. So with that, could we go ahead and call roll please. Absolutely. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception with the exception of commissioner. Great. Thank you. Next item item two approval of minutes we have one set of minutes from the June 23rd meeting any changes corrections additions. Okay, seeing none those stand as approved. Item three is our public comment item. So with that, I'll now open the public comment period for any item that's not included in this meeting's agenda. If you wish to make a comment via zoom. Please like the raise hand button if you are dialing in via telephone please down star nine to raise your hand each speaker will be given three minutes. A countdown timer is showing on the screen for your convenience and the convenience of the viewers please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. And once again this is for items that are not on the agenda tonight. So with that. Do we. Ms Montoya do we have anybody. I'm seeing this time. So with that I will go ahead and close this public comment period and bring it back to the commission. So item four is planning commissioners report and our statement of purpose is that we are charged with carrying out the California planning and zoning laws. Planning and zoning laws of the city of Santa Rosa. Duties include implementing of plans ordinances and policies relating to land use matters assisting and writing and implementing the general plan and area plans. Holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code zoning map general plan tentative subdivision maps and undertaking any special planning studies as needed. So with that we'll move on to item four point two. Any sub any waterways advisory committee report. Commissioner Carter. Thank you. And commissioner. Let's see. And any subdivision reports. Okay so with that I will go ahead in. Into commissioner reports item four point three. Any commissioner reports tonight or this afternoon. Commissioner Cisco. Not a report really I just wanted to encourage the commission members if you haven't already done so to take a drive down Sebastopol road and see all of our amazing new murals. You know starting from all of street there's several brand new ones that are really really lovely up to that and then and there's more beyond that too but those are particularly lovely so. Great thank you and they are they're really it's really cool. So any other commissioner reports. Okay. So then we'll go into department reports. Yes. Hello good afternoon. I want to take this moment to thank one of our ministry of secretaries that is our secretary tonight Michelle Montoya. She's supported by Lonnie I want to take a few words to really thank Michelle. She's moving into a new position with the department she's going to take one of our lead admin secretary positions. And it really helped the department at a lead administrative level she supports the director now. And she has been instrumental in training all of our admin staff. So actually this is going to be the last commission meeting that she leads we're moving another one of our great secretaries into the position to support the commission but Michelle has done a phenomenal job responding to all the changes that we've had to do to stand these up effectively through COVID and I just really appreciate what she's put into it and she's taught many other admins across the spectrum how to do this and do it well. So thank you to Michelle for your service particularly supporting this fun commission but it's been challenging to make this work in the way that she has done it so thank you to Michelle and it looks like we may our next meeting may be canceled we I don't think we have any items for July 28 but when we start back up in August will introduce Eileen she'll be our new Eileen Cleary. She will be our new main admin support for this commission and she's excellent too so you're going to be in great hands either way. Is that all Ms. Hartman. Yes. Okay. End of my report. Thank you. Thank you and yes indeed I'll echo that for Michelle. We'll miss you and sorry. I mean, I'm glad for you but sorry for us. So, thank you. So with that. Are there any abstentions by commissioners tonight. Okay. And so we don't have any consent items. So we'll move right into item 8.1. This is a public hearing summer 2022 general plan amendment package. Brush Creek minor subdivision it's a mitigated negative declaration planning project at 2210 and 2200 brush Creek road and zero Bridgewood Road. So we'll go ahead and start with commissioner Carter. I did visit the site again. That's all I have to disclose. Thank you. And commissioner Cisco. I have no disclosures today. Commissioner Duggan. I did revisit the site and have nothing else to disclose. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I have nothing to disclose. Vice chair Peterson. I have nothing to disclose. Thank you. And I also revisited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that, I believe deputy director Jones is going to be doing the presentation tonight. Yes. Thank you so much. Let me get my screen shared here. Get into presentation mode. All right. Are you seeing my screen? Okay. Excellent. Thank you. All right. Good afternoon. Chair Weed. Some members of the commission as stated. I am Jessica Jones. I am the deputy director. Place of senior planner. Christina to me and who is currently out on leave. Welcoming her new baby. Which we're very excited about. So the item up for you is the brush Creek minor subdivision general plan amendment pre zoning and tentative map project for the properties located at 2210 and 2200 brush Creek road and zero Bridgewood Road. Which are currently within an unincorporated County Island. So the project includes a minor tentative map. Which would subdivide the property at 2210 brush Creek road into four single family residential lots. And one remainder parcel. And that portion of the project because it is a minor subdivision will be reviewed by the subdivision committee at a later date. As I was pointing out a little bit more detail in our next slide. The planning commission and as you will. I'm sure remember the planning commission has already reviewed and recommended approval on the requested general plan amendment for 2210 brush Creek. Which included a request to change the land use designation from very low. Density residential to low density residential. So the item that is before the commission this afternoon is the pre zoning for future annexation of 2210 and 2200 brush Creek. And zero Bridgewood Drive. So now I'd like to spend a little bit of time going over the project history and why we are bringing this item back to the planning commission this afternoon. So as noted here, the neighborhood has a very low density residential area. So the neighborhood has a very low density residential area. So as noted here, the neighborhood meeting for this project was held in November of 2018. And the project was formally submitted in May of 2020. The initial project included a request for a general plan amendment and pre zoning along with the minor subdivision map for the property at 2210 brush Creek only. It didn't include the other two parcels. The local tribes were notified of that project for general project review under assembly bill 52 in June of 2020. And then notified again for the general plan amendment under Senate bill 18 in January 2020. The waterways advisory committee reviewed the project to provide comments in May of 2021. And the initial study and mitigated negative declaration, which is the required document for this project was posted in July of 2021. On November 18th of 21, the planning commission adopted resolutions recommending that the city council adopt the mitigated negative declaration, approve the general plan amendment, and adopt the an ordinance pre zoning the site, which would have been allowed the property to be annexed into the city. Prior to bringing the item to city council for consideration, the city was notified by the federated Indians of great range area that they wanted to review the project in more detail. So they did that. And then on May 5th of 22, great range area notified the city that they wanted additional language added to the mitigated negative declaration, requiring a tribal monitor to be located on site during ground disturbance. And that language was added to the mitigated negative declaration document. Subsequently on May 13th, 2022, just prior to the city council's review of this item, the city was contacted by staff from the Sonoma local agency formation commission, also known as Lafco, which is the agency that processes annexations, that the remaining two parcels that make up that unincorporated county island would also need to be annexed into the city, which meant that they would need to be pre zoned by the city, consistent with the city's general plan land use designation for those sites. As a result, the city staff needed to update the initial study and mitigated negative declaration that was prepared to include pre zoning for those remaining two parcels. And this was done and reposted on July 1st of this year. Then the project also needed to be brought back to the planning commission. So the commission could take action on the number one on the updated mitigated negative declaration. And then also on the requested pre zoning for those two additional sites. No further action is needed to be taken by the planning commission on the general plan amendment because it only applies to the 2210 brush creek road and the commission already took action on that. And the other two parcels are not requesting a general plan amendment. So this slide is showing the project location which is located in the northwest, excuse me, northeast quadrant of the city. And it's located here where this red star is off of brush creek. So this is the up close aerial view of the project site. As you can see, it's showing the three parcels that I mentioned. So this is where the project site is located. And this is where the project site is located. And this parcel on the northern portion of the site adjacent to Lyric Lane is 2210 brush creek. And the property here on the southwest corner is 2200 brush creek. And then this long parcel here on the southern side is the zero bridgewood drive. And this is where the project site is located. So this is where the project site is located. So this is where the project site is located. General plan land use and zoning map for the area. And as you can see, all three parcels are currently designated for very low density residential, which allows a development of 0.2 to two units per acre. So this slide here is showing the proposed, the property at 2210 brush creek is requesting a general plan amendment from the very low density residential at 0.2 to two units per acre, to low density residential at two to eight units per acre. And again, that was what the commission has already taken action on. And then the pre zoning is requested for this site to the R one, six single family residential zoning district, which is consistent with that proposed low density residential designation. For the properties at 2200 brush creek and zero bridgewood, their existing general plan as mentioned is the very low density residential. And again, they are not proposing a change to their general plan land use designation. So the, the requested pre zoning for those two sites is our 20, which is rural residential, which is consistent with the very low density residential land use designation. So we did receive some comments on this site prior to the last planning commission consideration, as well as one prior to the current planning commission meeting. The, the previous comments that were received generally were related to the proposed subdivision, which again, we'll be going before the subdivision committee at a later date, but they related to potential traffic impacts and elimination of open space in this area. City staff did reach out to the traffic division who stated that the project at, which again would be adding four new single family residential lots would not generate an amount of traffic that would impact the level of service in this area. And then with regard to the open space, this area as mentioned is designated for residential use. So it is not currently designated for open space. Beyond that, any necessary public and onsite improvements will be determined at the time the tentative map is brought before the subdivision committee. The comment that was received prior to this planning commission meeting was an email from a representative of the property located at 2200 brush Creek. They had some questions about annexation of the site into the city and what that meant. And in particular, they were under the impression that they would be required to hook up to city sewer and water with the annexation and they were concerned about that cost. And then they also had some questions about city fees and taxes that may be associated with now being part of the city of Santa Rosa. So I did explain to them that hookups to city sewer and water with annexation are not required. Once part of the city, they would have the ability to hook up to city sewer and water if they chose to, but they are not required to do so. And then I also provided them with some minimal fees that would be associated with being a part of the city of Santa Rosa. And once that information was provided, I did not hear back from them. Okay. So with regard to the California environmental quality act or sequa, as mentioned, the project was reviewed and a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project, which an update of which is back before you this afternoon. That document identified potentially significant impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural resources and geology and soils. Those impacts have been mitigated to a less than significant level through the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures that are in that document. And with that, it is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Planning Commission by two resolutions. One recommend that the council adopt a mitigated negative declaration and mitigated mitigation monitoring and reporting program. And then two, that the commission recommends that the council prezone of the properties located at 2200, 2210 Brush Creek Road and Zero Bridgewood drive consistent with the general plan land use designations for those sites. So with that, I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you. Are there any questions of Deputy Director Jones? Commissioner Duggan. Yeah, I'm curious about the property of 2200 Brush Creek. They had questions and you've satisfied them apparently, but if they had wanted not to be pre-zoned and Lafko was the one who initiated this, would that just keep the whole project from moving forward or what would happen in that case? That's an excellent question. So no, actually, we had a lot of communication with Lafko staff about this as it was moving forward to council. And part of the reason why we are coming back to you to add in these additional two parcels is because the property at 2210 Brush Creek Road, which is the main applicant the one that initiated all of this. They own more than 50% of the land value in this County Island. And what that means is that for Lafko purposes, when we've got more than 50% of the land value wanting to annex into a jurisdiction, the remaining parcels cannot protest in annexation. And Lafko is very much interested in eliminating County Islands within jurisdictions. Santa Rosa has the most islands within Sonoma County. State law does not allow the creation of new County Islands. And so, you know, with that, again, Lafko is really pushing to try to eliminate County Islands. So where we can do that, that is their direction. So at this point, moving forward with this annexation bringing in these other two parcels because 2210 Brush Creek has that more than 50% land value. 2200 Brush Creek and Zero Bridgewood would not be able to protest the annexation at the Lafko stage. Thank you. Any other questions of staff at this time? Okay. So with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand feature. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. Each speaker will have three minutes. If you want to make a comment on this item, please make a comment via Zoom. If you don't have a countdown timer will appear on the screen for your convenience. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're asked to do so. And your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown time. So are there. Ms. Montoya, I don't see any. That's correct. I'm not seeing any hands at this time. So with that, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this and bring it back to the commissioner for the commission. This item has two resolutions. So if we could have somebody move the first resolution, then we can start the discussion on the project as a whole. That would be great. So commissioner Cisco. Oh, yeah. I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending that the city council adopt a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa. So we have a resolution and mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the brush creek minor subdivision located at 2210 2200 brush creek road and zero bridge would drive. So there's parcel numbers 182-050-004-005 and that's 014 file number 182-050-004-005. I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa. And I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa. Thank you. And is there a second? I'll second. Okay. Commissioner Holton. So that was moved by commissioner Cisco seconded by commissioner Holton. So with that, we'll go ahead and have discussion on this item, and then we'll go ahead and have a discussion on the resolution of the adoption of the mitigated negative door declaration. Are we acting? Are we commenting on other? We're not coming on other resolutions at this time, correct? If we could talk about the project as a whole, but then if you have specific comments on the second resolution, we could probably wait for that unless Miss Crocker, would like to speak on this. I think that would be great. I think that would be great. If you could advise me differently. No, that would be perfectly appropriate. Okay. Thank you. Then I'm generally in support of this and the other resolutions before the planning commission and we'll be recommending approval of the project. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. I think this was pretty well vetted the last time that we saw it before these other things were added. I think that would be great. I think that would be great. I think that would be great. I think that would make the findings to find the mitigated negative declaration adequate and make the findings for the pre-zoning when that comes forward. Thank you. Commissioner Duggan. Yes. I was in favor of the previous project in November and I think that this makes sense. It's sort of a housekeeping item from Lafkoe to reduce created another county island. I think that would be great. Thank you. Thank you. The deck is only stronger, especially having a tribal monitor added. So I'm in favor of the project and can make all the required findings. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. I can also echo Commissioner Duggan's and Commissioner Cisco sentiment. This was a really well put together plan the first time we reviewed it. So I can go ahead and support and make all the required findings. Thank you. And Vice Chair Peterson. I agree with all the comments from my fellow commissioners and can make all the required findings for the mitigated negative declaration and the pre-zoning. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings. As was stated, we reviewed this in great detail previously and I think it makes sense to try and eliminate county islands if we can. So I am in support of this and can make all these findings. So with that, we'll go ahead and vote on this first resolution that was moved by Commissioner Cisco and seconded by Commissioner Holton. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Carter. I. Commissioner Cisco. I. Commissioner Duggan. I. Commissioner Holton. I. Vice Chair Peterson. I. And Chair Weeks. So that passes with six I's one absence. And the second resolution if somebody would like to appreciate that. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I'll move the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending that the city council prezone the property located at 2200 Rush Creek Road into the R16 single family residential zoning district assessors parcel number 182-050-004 and prezone the properties located at 2200 Rush Creek Road and zero Bridgewood Drive into the RR 20 rural residential zoning district assessors parcel numbers 182-050-005 and 014 file number PRJ20-008 and wave for the reading of the text. Thank you. And is there a second? Second. Thank you. Commissioner Holton. So that was moved by Commissioner Cisco seconded by Commissioner Holton. Let's start with Commissioner Carter. Once again, this is a repeat of something we've seen before and it's fairly clear in its explanation and I can make all the necessary findings to support the resolution. Thank you. Commissioner Cisco. And I too can make all of the required findings for the prezoning resolution. Commissioner Duggan. I too can make all the required findings for the prezoning. Commissioner Holton. I can also support the resolutions for the prezoning and make all the required findings and I'll be in support. Thank you. And Vice Chair Peterson. I can also make all the required findings for this resolution. And I also can make all the required findings. So with that if we could have a vote please. Commissioner Carter. I. Commissioner Cisco. I. Commissioner Duggan. I. Commissioner Holton. I. Vice Chair Peterson. I. And Chair Weeks. I. So that passes with six I's with one absence and thank you. And then we'll move on to item 8.2. This is a public hearing a zoning code text amendment to prohibit new gas stations and to prohibit expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure for existing gas stations. So with that I believe Ms Meads is going to lead us off. Oh, my screen is already sharing. You don't have to look at me. You don't have to look at me for very long. That works for me. Good evening Chair Weeks, Vice Chair Peterson and members of the Planning Commission. I am before you tonight to discuss the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure for existing city gas stations. I'm sharing me senior planner and I am ready for the next slide. Please give us one second. We're trying course. I appreciate you doing this. So this slide provides a little bit of a background in terms of how we got to the point that we're at tonight and I'm not sure how familiar with this board probably very well. So the CPA is the Regional Climate Protection Agency and it was formed in 2009 to coordinate countywide climate protection efforts among Sonoma County's nine incorporated cities and some special districts and multiple agencies. They are a special district themselves governed by a 12 member board of directors supervisors and council members from each of the nine cities. RCPA passed a resolution climate emergency declaration in September of which are climate emergency declaration in January of 2020. RCPA also passed adopted what's called a climate mitigation strategy in March of 2021 and that strategy included different efforts that emergency response that local agencies could take in order to help with the climate crisis that we're experiencing. There are 13 countywide strategies and one of the strategies is decarbonization and that involves transitioning away from all fossil fuels and the city's proposed gas station ban tonight supports that decarbonization initiative and this is a subject that's been before the climate action subcommittee prior to the dates that are shown on this slide and in fact it should be the dates on here should be February of 2022 is the last time and prior to that it was I believe May of 2021 but the public has brought this issue forward to the climate action subcommittee for some time realizing that with the impacts that fossil fuel has on climate that we need to do whatever we can to get away from burning fossil fuels which contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Next slide please. So this slide shows that there are 44 gas stations currently operating within the city of Santa Rosa and 41 of which are located in areas that have been determined to be populated with people the highest percentage of people of color and the highest percentage of people in poverty and some of those overlap. So in this map the highest the top quartile of people in poverty is illustrated in yellow and people the highest quartile of people of color is illustrated in blue. The green areas are equity priority communities which overlap that means it's the highest quartile of people in poverty and people of color. So as you can see by this map most of the gas stations within Santa Rosa are either within one of these communities or certainly right adjacent to very close to and this is an equity environmental justice issue because we know gas stations create all kinds of air quality issues, respiratory issues that contribute to asthma, cancer leaks from pumps and or underground tanks can impact the soil groundwater, surface water runoff they really impact public health and so what we're trying to do with this ordinance is to support the public health of all of our citizens. Next slide please. So now we'll talk about the proposed ordinance itself. Currently the zoning code allows gas stations in most commercial zones and most industrial zones with a conditional use permit and the proposed ordinance would prohibit new gas stations in all zoning districts. We would just take the land use table and where it says CUP we're just going to put a line through it that would show it's not a permitted use and we're creating an entirely new section underneath within the non-conforming uses section of the zoning code just for gas stations and it would allow them to remain as a non-conforming use and the section gives indications for when modifications would be allowed and that would be for as it's written environmental and safety issues and I have some additional language which I show on the next slide which we're hoping to add in to the proposed ordinance but the idea is to allow modifications that will not expand fossil fuel infrastructure but that keep gas stations safe and operating as they are now. We also rename service station as vehicle services and remove the 500 separation requirement language that was required because that was really thinking about gas stations. We didn't want to have any new ones that were so close to other ones whereas service stations which are more auto repair type of uses they don't need that same separation requirement then we did some updates to the definitions to make sure that things are very clear in the code and provide a new definition for a zero emission vehicle which this ordinance addresses. Next slide please. This is what we were hoping to make the minor change that you guys have seen in your ordinance this is part of the section that goes under the non conforming uses section we would like to see additional language added that says or as required for compliance with state or federal law and we think that what we have now referencing environmental and safety issues being allowed for modification probably covers everything but just in case we're missing anything with that we would like to include this language for your consideration. Next slide please. As you probably are aware there are two gas station projects that have been in the works with the city for a while and we have written the ordinance and staff recommends that these projects continue to be allowed to be processed and heard by the appropriate review authority and that's consistent with other policies in the zoning code which deal with how to approach projects when there are zoning code changes. Next slide please. This project has been reviewed for compliance with CEQA and it was determined to be qualified for a class 7 and 8 exemption. Next slide please. I do want to mention that we did receive in addition to what all you guys received as late correspondence already for additional emails today in support of the ordinance so I wanted to make you guys aware of that. With that the Climate Action Subcommittee and the Planning and Economic Development Department recommend that the Planning Commission by resolution recommend to City Council approval of zoning code text amendments to prohibit new gas stations and the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure for existing gas stations including upon your deliberation discussion the additional language noted in the prior slide and I'm here to answer any questions if you happen. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff before I open the public hearing portion? Commissioner Siscoe. Yeah, Ms. Mies, we've received a lot of late correspondence and one of the ones I think it's the Congas one that was sent over to you all was basically a direct rebuttal and the first suggestions and do you have any responses to as to what they wrote and are requesting so there were two I think you might be talking about Costco submitted a email with suggested language and then Congas was and the first suggestion from Costco was to provide membership based stations to allow additional dispensers at membership based fueling stations and I don't think staff is in support of that but we would very much be interested in hearing the planning commission's opinion on that because the way you know Costco is correct that allowing additional dispensers and we do have language prepared in case you want to go that way could reduce vehicle queuing and idling at stations so that's a that's a good one for discussion then there was a suggestion to modify the non-conforming use of section to allow for the reconstruction of existing gas stations in cases of damage destruction or natural disaster staff is definitely in support of that and we do have some language if planning commission feels that that would be something they would like to consider is that the language you just gave us no it's different the language that I provided it simply just expands that any modifications would be okay for environmental safety reasons and anything else that the federal law requires for a gas station to remain in compliance so we wanted to just add that in case we're missing something we had specified certain things that would be allowed and we're recommending striking that language just so that we can make sure that we're allowing existing gas stations to remain compliant with federal and state law the reconstruction of existing gas stations if this is something after discussion planning commission is interested in I've worked with Ashley Crocker assistant city attorney and we have some language that we could recommend it's if we get there and then Costco also made a recommendation to allow for an existing gas station to be relocated with the same number of dispensers to improve site circulation or safety and I think that's a good planning commission decision again I can shift over to Amy Lyle or Claire if they have a particular way to go on this one the problem with allowing a gas station to relocate as Congress responds correctly it's just moving the toxic environmental impacts to potentially another spot on the site so it doesn't really go with what we're trying to do here then there's the included provision that allows for additional dispensers to be installed at existing gas stations with the installation of new vehicle infrastructure at a one-to-one ratio and staff would not be in support of that the planning commission did want to allow existing gas stations to add additional dispensers we would definitely recommend requiring something more in the line of at least a three-to-one ratio and the evaluation of solar infrastructure to be used on the site as well okay great I just wanted to hear what staff's response was to those letters before we did the public hearing we might be hearing more from the public on that as well so thank you are there any other questions of Ms Meads before okay I do have one clarification question and I so if a gas tank fails in 15 years say can it be replaced no so there is a time limit as to when that's not entirely true if it is a gas tank an underground storage tank that fails it can be replaced it cannot be extended because that would be considered something as a safety and an environmental thing they would have to clean up the toxins around it but they would be allowed to replace the tank they just could not expand it so there's no time limit to it we didn't include a sunset but that is definitely something we could entertain okay great thank you so if there's no other questions of staff at the moment I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this item if you wish to make a comment via zoom please select the raised hand feature if you are dialing in via telephone please dial star 9 to raise your hand as previously stated each speaker has 3 minutes you see the countdown timer there please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown time so with that we have a number of hands raised so Ms. Montoya I'll leave it up to you thank you first we have Alexa Alexa you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your full name for the record please yes hello my name is Alexa Forester good evening chair weeks and vice chair Peterson and commissioners and thank you Ms. Neid for that excellent presentation I'm here to express my strong endorsement for the proposed ordinance to prohibit new gas stations within Santa Rosa I live in Santa Rosa with my husband in the Montgomery village area I've never had to wait for a gas pump at one of the three stations nearest my house I also have two sons age 11 and 14 and they are understandably concerned about climate change and whether Santa Rosa will be a hospitable place for them to live when they are my age in 2050 when they express these concerns I say that there are city leaders working hard to do things like prohibit new gas stations because they care about their futures and science and so I hope you will back me up tonight on this portrait of your leadership that I've painted for my kids I also want to add that I was made aware of the letter that Costco submitted asking for four modifications to the ordinance one of these that the stations be allowed to rebuild a pump if it's damaged in an accident or natural disaster it seems reasonable with the proper constraints but the others appear to involve to me what seem pretty shameless attempts to create a Costco specific loopholes to the ordinance and that might even give them a competitive advantage over other currently operating gas stations and they don't in any way help the city advance any of its climate or sustainability goals so I hope the commission will set those suggestions aside and stick with the text of the ordinance brought to you by city staff thank you for your time thank you Ms. Forrester okay next we have Woody Woody you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your name for the record sure I just did that can you hear me yes we can hear you go ahead good great thanks my name good evening chair weeks and commissioners my name is Woody Hastings I'm a coordinator of the coalition opposing gas stations or congas thank you for the opportunity to speak I urge the commission to approve the resolution before you to have Santa Rosa cease to accept and process permit applications for new gas stations and of additional gas or diesel fueling pumps at existing stations that is the core of it and that is what congas suggest should remain in whatever you transmit to the city council congas supports Santa Rosa in its many efforts to improve walking, biking public transit, electric vehicle charging infrastructure expansion and other innovative mobility options like the micro mobility scooter program you're piloting but we see all of these as proactive things that should be pursued in other arenas our longstanding advice is to not complicate the measure by making allowances in this action for other fuels like biofuels or hydrogen each comes with its own complexities and controversies and requires far more due diligence and scrutiny than what should come in a conversation about prohibiting new gas stations congas recommends that you remove the recently added mentions of biogas, hydrogen, and electric vehicle charging any of these might be good but they should be addressed more thoroughly in a separate conversation congas's motivation for Wani Sanoma County and its cities to stop permitting new gas stations are the climate crisis in the longstanding social and environmental harm that results from every point along the way in petroleum production from the point of extraction to transportation, storage, refining and end use and more often than not it is low income communities and communities of color that bear the brunt of these harmful impacts California in the world in fact is on a trajectory away from the fossil fuels toward a clean energy economy a first step in ensuring the transition over the next 20 or so years is to stop expanding the fossil fuel infrastructure that will soon become obsolete gasoline sales in California have been roughly flat over the past 10 years with the rise of practical affordable of electric vehicles and the sharp rising gasoline prices there's no reason to believe that gasoline sales will increase in fact the high likelihood is that they will decrease year over year so new new gas stations in the 2020s don't make sense even from a business perspective once again please approve the resolution thank you thank you Mr. Hastings next we have Jeffrey Jeffrey you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your full name for the record my greetings my name is Jeffrey DeVore Smith and I I'm speaking in strong support of the resolution to ban the construction of new fuel stations I say fuel because that includes diesel and bio and gasoline in my work I own a bicycle shop in railroad square in San Rosa I've owned it now for 10 years this is my 11th year in business I've been promoting the use of bicycles as sustainable transportation as a replacement for the vehicle for 10 years I've done this because of the existential crisis we face with climate change I don't need to believe with that issue we all know it's real I need more gas stations to further dig us into the hole that we find ourselves in in fact I would love to see more bike shops than filling stations in the city of San Rosa I would call your attention to the country of Holland those of you who have ever been to Holland would know those who haven't been you should go and understand the bicycle infrastructure and the way their communities are designed to be a low carbon footprint and and then I know we're not going to get into the other sources of fuel and transportation but we need a lot more level 3 charging stations for electric vehicles electric cars and let's think about that instead of more gas stations and lastly I think this action is taken by the city council with your recommendation would send a very strong signal to the community of San Rosa that climate change is real it's an existential crisis and we really need to act locally to deal with it thank you very much and thank you for your leadership next we have John you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your name for the record thank you good evening chair weeks chair pierce and commissioners I'm a director with Costco wholesale Costco has been an active member in Santa Rosa community since 1986 when we opened here with our company's 41st warehouse our business model is based on providing our members with high quality products and services at fair prices we're also known to be a great community partner by offering good paying jobs with excellent benefits in fact we currently have over 390 employees there in Santa Rosa we are also known as an industry leader by building our gas stations with the latest state-of-the-art technology and with environmental protection and monitoring systems beyond what is typically required by the regulating agencies we opened our Santa Rosa gas station in 1997 which was one of our first 11 fueling facilities since those early days our fuels become one of our most popular products sought by our members and due to that popularity we've learned to refine our design which includes more dispensers additional queuing space which provides a better experience for our members in response to that experience we've been actively exploring expanding relocating, reconfiguring to name a few of our our fueling facility there in Santa Rosa over a number of years primarily to improve the site circulation for various reasons we haven't been able to accomplish that goal yet but we continue to pursue those improvements when opportunities present themselves while we do support the city's efforts to reduce greenhouse gases and a plan for future development we do urge the city to provide codified flexibility to meet the needs of existing gas stations to continue to serve the needs of the community in a safe and efficient manner it's clear that transitions in demand do take time and the allowance for ongoing improvements to existing infrastructure is critical as noted we have provided a letter to the commission with suggestion changes to allow for this flexibility and we respectfully request that the commission incorporate the revisions in any recommendations made to the council again greatly appreciate your time and your thoughtful consideration thank you thank you next we have Kate Kate you should have a prompt allowing me to unmute and if you could please start stating your full name for the record thank you my name is Kate Steen and I live in Santa Rosa the zoning amendments as drafted accomplished the goal of ending the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure in Santa Rosa I object to the modifications proposed by Costco I was recently involved in the effort to block Costco's proposal to add a gas mega station to its warehouse in Nevada the location is in a flood plain surrounded by highly sensitive wetlands that could be irreparably contaminated by an event such as a flood or an earthquake that damaged the pipes connecting the underground storage tanks to the dispensers this is one of the largest generators of sales tax for the city of Nevada Costco let it be known that if they did not get their mega station they would not renew their lease on the Nevada warehouse this put enormous pressure on the city council to allow the project to go forward despite the environmental risks Costco's last minute letter to this planning commission contains a similar implied threat in first paragraph the ordinance could preclude Costco's ability to maintain the viability of its operations within the Santa Rosa community the assertion that the company is proposing modifications quote in an effort to support the city's climate action goals is an insult to the commission's intelligence their only goal is to clear the path to expanding the current gas station or to develop a new one elsewhere in the city Costco's letter talks about providing fuel as an essential service to its members this is not about providing an essential service to its existing members Costco's model is to undercut existing local gas stations by offering below market gas prices in order to draw in new members who will pay membership fees and shop in their warehouses permitting new dispensers in exchange for EV charging stations is nonsensical the goal of the amendments is to stop the expansion of the fossil fuel infrastructure the EV charging network can be expanded rapidly without resorting to this purpose-defeating trade-off so I urge you to adopt the to pass the amendments without modifications and thank you very much for your service as commissioners next we have Jenny Jenny you should have a prompt I need to unmute and if you could please start by stating your name for the record good evening planning commission and thank you for hearing this important issue my name is Jenny and I'm the co-coordinator of the coalition opposing new gas stations along with Woody Hastings I've been involved since the beginning of 2019 I would urge you to keep this as simple and focused as possible on the primary objectives of prohibiting new gas stations and the expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure at existing ones the point is that we should not be prolonging dependency on fossil fuels into the future or burdening future generations with obsolete and polluting infrastructure basically congas has written two letters one on July the 13th and then another on the 14th in response to Costco's requests for the changes which we have mostly opposed except for anything to do with increasing environmental and public safety standards I did notice though that a few new elements have also correct into the redlining in attachment 3 and 4 and exhibit A under modifications to sorry code text amendments gas station modifications and for the first time biogas and hydrogen were mentioned I think this should be deleted because these are very complicated controversial issues that require far more due diligence than just inserting a couple of extra sentences at the last minute the ordinance and the resolution the suggested resolution as it stood before the redlining was simple and focused on the primary objectives of prohibiting new gas stations and the expansion of existing fossil fuel infrastructure so under item C I'm all for EV charging but this is not the place to address EV charging under item D the issues around biogas and hydrogen should be dropped and in item E abandoned gas stations I think there should be more emphasis on the gas station owner taking on the full responsibility for the cleanup of any and all abandoned sites that's it I think thank you very much for considering this this evening great thank you next we have Sharon Sharon you should have a prompt allowing you to tell me if you could please say your name for the record hello my name is actually Sarah Jones I have the wrong name on my my zoom in any case I am here to support the resolution to ban new gas stations I think that it's really important to tackle climate change by reducing the amount of gas I would like to speak to the fact that electric vehicles are reliable efficient way to get around and they are working I owned three electric cars the first electric car that we built back in 2006 probably wouldn't be correct for the general public but the new bolt I have works great I've taken it all the way to the Grand Canyon I just got back from a trip to North Gas Cage National Monument I fully believe that electric cars are the way of the future and that gas stations and more new gas stations are not needed in our community polluting new areas just does not make any sense at the current rate at which electrification is happening our community needs more bicycles more electric charging stations we do not need more gas stations thank you very much thank you next we have Kevin Kevin you should have a prompt allowing you to mute if you can please start by stating your name for the record greetings commissioners planners citizens of Santa Rosa and advocates of a regenerative thriving future for all human beings my name is Kevin Anderson as a Santa Rosa resident partner community organizer and youth mentor I'm here speaking out for what is right we must preserve and protect the habitats and ecosystems we all depend on if our intention is to leave a better place for our children then we must ban future gas stations here in Santa Rosa if our intention is to have healthy safe and fun neighborhoods and we must reimagine our auto-centric built environment here in Santa Rosa and throughout Santa Rosa if our intention is to have roads that are safe for all safe for vulnerable populations like children seniors and the disabled then phasing out new gas stations must happen I'd like each of you to imagine including you Costco wholesale John what your local community could look like without loud fast dangerous cars what would it be like if your children could safely walk like anywhere what would it be like if your children your grandparents could buy locally sourced food global issues begin at the local level this is the agency we all have I urge you to take it tonight and please approve the resolution thank you thank you next we have Chris and Tom you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute if you could please start by stating your name for the record can you hear me we can go ahead hi my name is Chris Thompson and I live here at Oakmont and good afternoon commissioners if we have as a community agreed we're in a climate emergency we need to help get earth out of the emergency room out of the emergency room we all know that because of climate change planet earth our mother is like a patient burning up with fever and whose prognosis is death building more gas stations is only contributing to the critical condition of our patient we must reverse this trend and cool earth down and get her out of the ER fortunately like so many of our world's problems this is something we in our community do have control over we must stop all new gas stations and gas station infrastructure including both construction and expansion of such thank you so much for your time and your good work and I'm Tom Amato and I'm speaking with my wife Chris I totally support what she said and we totally support the proposal to accept the streamline recommendation that con gas is put in front of you in addition to that I would just say that I'm actually glad today that I'm not a Costco member because I'm pretty irritated that they're trying to get around the resolution by both planning to expand what they're doing and pollute another site so please do not give Costco its way it's trying to other cut up other local businesses that's not good the other thing I would say is we live in Oakmont and we have no trouble getting the gas stations we need no more gas stations again thank you for your attention tonight and we hope you support con gas resolution thank you thank you next we have Jean Jean you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your name for the record yes good good evening members of the planning chair weeks and members of the planning commission Jean Kapolchak I represent one of the two gas stations that were referenced in your staff report that are complete and ready for process I request that you support staff in their recommendation that these projects be allowed to move forward as mentioned by staff this is not a change standard city processing so we are I ask that that recommendation by staff that these projects be allowed to move forward be supported thank you very much thank you next we have Jennifer Jennifer you should have a prompt allowing you to unmute and if you could please start by stating your name for the record hi my name is Jennifer La Porta and I support the streamline ordinance as per congas I don't think it should have anything to do with the biogas or hydrogen or types of fuel yes we are in a climate emergency this should have been done decades ago really to stop the expansion of fossil fuel facilities including the two facilities you are presently considering giving the okay on and I agree there should be more bicycles and more charging stations and way less gas stations and I don't like what Costco is doing trying to strong arm the cities into expansion I am also glad I'm not a Costco member for that reason you need to keep the ordinance simple pass the ordinance without the modifications to Costco you know yeah it's true gas sales will decrease between the price of oil and people working from home we are working from home we don't need so many gas stations so I guess that's basically all I have to say yeah thank you thank you I don't see any other hands raised do you Ms. Montoya that's correct Cherie there are no other hands so with that I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission and I have a couple questions for Ms. Meads if I could start off the question about the biogas and hydrogen comments that were added that I believe was Ms. Blaker mentioned can you talk a little bit about when that was added and why it was added and I believe what they're talking about is congas has a model ordinance that they recommend and what they're referring to is the fact that we added our own language that would include hydrogen and biogas and that was in an effort to expand the ability of fueling zero emission vehicles and hydrogen and biogas are non-fossil fuel related so that's where we added that several other jurisdictions have that as part of their ordinance but we're open to whatever the planning commissioners would like us to do so it wasn't that it was just recently added no it's been a part of what we have brought forward from day one that's what was published and everything yes so would somebody like to enter the resolution and we can start discussion on this item or how would you all like to do this we'll start with Vice Chair Peterson I actually have a question for staff Miss Crocker help me I think you can go ahead you can go ahead and ask the question and then also I just wanted to remind for whoever goes ahead with moving the resolution if you were amenable to the change provided by misneeds it would be as modified to reflect the revision allowing modifications pursuant to state and federal law so my question was also related to the hydrogen and biogas which is are there any existing hydrogen or biogas fuel pumps in Santa Rosa as far as I know there are none now unless possibly actually that Recology does something with biogas however we have had several inquiries to the planning department about installing hydrogen pumps existing gas stations and how would I mean you don't have to go into detail but if you wanted to do that what how would that happen now I wanted to set up a hydrogen fueling station so the the way it's written now it would have to be an existing gas station and it would require a minor use permit okay so there's no separate ordinance right now for hydrogen or biogas we do not have a land use that says hydrogen fuel station or biogas fuel station at this point no these would just be allowable modifications to an existing gas station with minor use permit review okay thank you sorry commissioner Cisco is so is there anything that would preclude Costco from purchasing an existing gas station site and renaming it for their customers no I mean they could they could have offsite stuff as opposed to expanding or purchasing and starting something new correct the conversations I had with Costco were that they wanted to improve the station on San Rosa Avenue because of the queuing issues that occur there that is not part of the ordinance that it was one of their suggested modifications to the ordinance but there's absolutely nothing that would preclude them from purchasing any gas station within the city the same modification restrictions would apply there absolutely yeah but great thank you other questions of Ms Meads before I ask somebody to read the resolution we can start talking about that commissioner Cisco yeah Ms Meads were you going to suggest some other additional language beyond what you put in there or that was only if we decided to go a particular way that's correct the only language that staff recommends was the addition of the okay great thanks so would somebody like to read the resolution and we can commissioner Dagan thank you I'll move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending to the city council adoption of zoning code amendments to title 20 of the Santa Rosa city code to prohibit new gas station land uses and to prohibit expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure for existing gas station land uses while REZ 22-001 with the language as amended and the staff presentation thank you and is there a second commissioner Carter okay so that was moved by commissioner Dagan seconded by commissioner Carter and if we could go around and maybe have some comments and if we want to add anything or clarify any issues we can do that now so we'll start with commissioner Carter well I feel like the climate action subcommittee and staff have done a pretty thorough job in researching this matter and bringing this ordinance forward I'm generally not in support of any suggested changes that have come through the discussion today I think what staff has proposed and what Miss Mead presented today makes sense to me as a planning commissioner and I'll be able to make the findings and support the resolution as originally proposed by the staff with the modifications suggested in the presentation commissioner Cisco I agree with commissioner Carter that the committee has put forward a very thorough ordinance I think that all of the findings and find it acceptable with the suggested change in language by Miss Mead so I'm glad we're doing this commissioner Dagan I too can make all the required findings the only addition I might entertain would be the one about supporting if gas stations are damaged and I remember there was one that was severely damaged in the tub and we have a provision that they could rebuild to the same number of fueling stations and be back in business I think that's a positive but other than that I'm totally in favor of this and I agree with all the comments that have been made thank you so let me ask Miss Crocker should commissioner Dagan make a friendly amendment to the resolution or how would we work that or Miss Meads when are the other above help me I did actually through the chair draft some language that would apply to that situation and I can read that now if you would like why don't you do that now and then we can circle back around with everybody perfect so it would require a modification to item one where it is limited to certain things so what we would change is that it would say a minor use permit shall be required for any modifications to existing gas stations and fossil fuel infrastructure or in the case of restoration after involuntary damage or destruction as outlined in subsection F below and then I created a subsection F that reads a gas station that is involuntary damaged or destroyed by accident e.g. fire explosion etc or natural disaster earthquake wildfire etc may be reconstructed, repaired, restored and used as before with no expansion in capacity so thank you Miss Crocker how would we handle this you can either continue with your discussion taking feedback from the commissioners or Commissioner Duggan at this point wants to make a suggested friendly amendment you can do that and then we would need the consent of well she made the motion of the motion in the second so it may be easier to just continue to take comments it's really up to you you can kind of take a straw poll and see and then propose a friendly amendment but thank you Miss Meads for reading the language so that everyone is aware of what's on the table great so let's go ahead and finish our comments and then you can walk me through the next steps Ashley if you don't mind so Commissioner Duggan did you have other comments no that's all thank you Commissioner Holton and just to be clear Commissioner Duggan's comments were related to item E the owner responsibility for cleanup or was that for the damage upon a natural disaster if it's something's damaged that you can restore it to how it was previously yeah it gets a little confusing with all these additional items and I think that we really kind of need to do our best make our best effort to kind of move these items off onto a separate agenda item I mean it doesn't really I don't really see the correlation so I'm kind of having a hard time with that but I'm definitely in support of the approval of the zoning code text amendments and the additional verbiage I'm also in support of the project as a whole but I also do want I've heard a lot of people voicing this echoing concern or belief that cars are really that much better just folks do your homework EV cars are not the best solution they still burn coal and the particulates emitted from the rubber from the vehicles cause also a tremendous amount of pollution they're just changing over from an EV or from an ice car or internal combustion engine to a hybrid vehicle or an electric vehicle isn't going to be the end all be all solution and just a quick recommendation to Costco if you're looking for a very inefficient way to fix your queuing issue on Santa Rosa Avenue you can go ahead and flip your entire entry to the exit and the exit to the entry and that's going to improve your queuing situation tremendously I know from personal experience I fuel there frequently and I know exactly the mess that you're dealing with you could also compromise some of your parking spots to be able to help out with that as well so just throwing that out there but yeah I'm in support of the project thank you so we'll go to Vice Chair Peterson well thank you Chair Weeks so I think from my perspective we've got this resolution that's come about as the result of a lot of process and debate from RCPA the city council my preference for all this is to keep it clean and so I don't support the proposed exceptions I think if we're trying to make a change that's commensurate with the scale of what we're facing you know I think we need to stick with the plan which is to ban new gas stations there will still be you know 40 plus gas stations in the city alone I don't think that we're facing a crisis of fuel availability in that sense I would support the recommendation we heard from the public to remove the hydrogen and biogas provisions I think it is a more complicated issue I don't think it's sort of a one to one kind of switch out gas get hydrogen I think that's a complicated enough issue that's worthy for debate including what the hydrogen and other biogas fuel sources are derived from if we're keeping things in line with climate change focused policy so I would support you know let's keep it clean let's say no new gas stations I also would not support the natural disaster provision I mean I think with maybe the exception of an earthquake it's a sign that it's in the wrong spot we heard from the public about building a gas station on a flood plane you know I'm not sure we want to set up a provision that says hey you can consistently build things in poorly thought out places have them flood rebuild them so with that I would support the resolution as written minus the biogas and hydrogen provision and I may need to turn to council here if there's a straw poll on that or I might be flying solo thank you Vice Chair Peterson so I am in support of the what staff is recommending I would like to add that natural disaster I think I guess I see that as similar to replacing gas tanks that fail for a certain reason I I'm not sure I don't know enough about biogas and hydrogen whether that should be included or not the fact that it had been included during all the the discussions up to this point with the climate action subcommittee and the public makes me think we should leave it as we should include that but other than adding the natural disaster I wouldn't recommend adding anything else as was being recommended by representative from Costco through the chair I just want to clarify that the language regarding hydrogen and biogas was not specifically mentioned at climate action subcommittee meetings it was just as we were drafting our ordinance and looking at other jurisdictions and considering how to increase zero mission fuel that was not discussed at all Amy Nicholson I believe is on the call and can maybe help me out here actually I just got a message no it was not okay great thank you so Commissioner Cisco and then we'll go to Miss Crocker just a question wouldn't it be I mean I get this prohibits new gas stations when we have non-conforming uses and they burn down we have they have the right to rebuild exactly as they were would that not necessarily also be true of this without us having to add in this other natural disaster language I think because the regular section that deals with that only calls for a building permit and we were requiring a minor use permit for anything related to a gas station rebuild remodel re anything that's why we kind of encapsulated it within that section that we created specific to gas stations but yeah I I'm going to defer to to someone else to clarify but I'm pretty sure that yes they would have that right anyways unless we specifically prohibited it for gas stations that's like that's what would make sense I mean if you have a loss it's a loss so anyway what do you think Miss Crocker for having some discussions here I'm just a moment I'm just trying to pull up the code and I'm not sure if Jessica wants to jump on while I'm looking for that there she is look at that yes good afternoon chair weeks and members of the commission Jessica Jones deputy director for planning Ashley's going to perhaps pull up the questions but as I recall the code to read that section of the code regarding non conforming and destroyed structures of non conforming it's destroyed by an act of God you know fire or earthquake or things of that nature that as I understand it would apply here even if we didn't include that specific language and I think if the commission is wanting to move into the direction of of requiring those you know if a gas station is destroyed by a natural disaster that it not be rebuilt we would need to include that specific language so that the our existing section of our code would not apply I don't know actually if you agree with that if you found that section of the code very much I'm having trouble with the search engine here so it sounds like Jessica that it's really kind of a moot point well yes and no so I found the section and there are parameters so I can read it if you all would like it's non conforming structures and involuntary damage non conforming status shall terminate if a non conforming structure is involuntary damaged or destroyed by accident or natural disaster provided the structure may be repaired only in the following manner damage up to 50% of market value may be reconstructed repair restored and used as before provided the restoration is initiated within 12 months damage to 50% or more of market value shall not be reconstructed repaired or restored except in conformity but the applicable requirements of the subject zoning district so wait Sherry too I'm looking at 20-61050 exemptions for destroyed oh that's I'm sorry that's what I was thinking of yeah I'm at 030 section B so I think that this section would apply regardless of whether the commission includes language that Planner Meads identified so if the commission wants to not have this section applied then we would need to include language to that effect okay or if you want them to be able to rebuild to whether it's 50% or 75% market value damage that would have to be specified as well correct otherwise if we do nothing it would be a default to this existing language and they wouldn't get any additional benefit but if there was a earthquake and it was destroyed they could rebuild not a 50% right if it was if it needs the provisions of this section of our code I guess I'm more comfortable with just leaving our code as it is and not doing anything more to this that's my comfort level okay thank you Vice Chair Peterson just to jump in on that issue I think silence is great on this I don't know why in a climate crisis related ordinance we would create a special carve out to make life easier for gas stations that we are banning the new construction of right okay great thank you Commissioner Duggan yeah I'm okay leaving out specific language about this because there is a code section that does have some applicability to it okay and I also am with that all that clarification so with that should we do a strong pull how do you how should we handle this Ms. Crocker well at this point you have a resolution on the floor as amended for the simple addition of reference to state and federal law it looked to me like Vice Chair Peterson may be interested in making a friendly amendment and if so you could do that and that would become the motion on the floor you would take a vote on that if it passed that would be the motion and if it did not pass then it would default to the resolution that was read in the original motion and then you would vote on that Mr. Peterson I think you were interested in the biogas and hydrogen I think yes yes and so Council correct me if I get this wrong but I'd like to offer a friendly amendment to the resolution that would strike section the new section 1D related to the hydrogen fuel cell and biogas 1D yes okay great so I don't have my Rosenberg's rules with me I'm sorry then the original motion in second okay so Commissioner Duggan made the she asked to accept the friendly amendment if I recall is that correct yeah okay can I ask Vice Chair Peterson for clarification there was also a comment on the zero emission vehicles so there was DNC that people commented on so you're only interested in striking D correct okay but not C correct okay sure I will accept that okay and help me with who made the second I think it was Commissioner Carter okay do you accept that or does he have to accept that Ashley yes okay sorry Commissioner Carter do you accept the friendly amendment I do with the same provisos that Commissioner Duggan made so with that that then would be the resolution that we have on the table right now um with the friendly amendment with the changes made by Vice Chair Peterson and that is what we would go ahead and vote on correct there's a vote on the resolution as amended by Sherry during her presentation and as amended by the friendly amendment proposed by Vice Chair Peterson and agreed to by Commissioner Duggan and Carter okay okay so with that um anything else that we need to do before we call for the vote no okay so thank you so Ms. Montoya will you yes thank you Commissioner Carter I Commissioner Cisco I Commissioner Duggan I Commissioner Holton I Vice Chair Peterson I and Chair Weeks I so that passes with six I's one absence and Ms. Crocker Ms. Maids do we need to do anything else on this no okay so then um Ms. Clarify I want to make sure that Michelle got everything that she needed on that I believe I did thank you great thank you so um with that unless Ms. Hartman or Ms. Jones have anything um for us nope that's it great then uh good work everybody and um I will go ahead and adjourn the meeting until our next regularly scheduled meeting thank you all