 Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I think I saw something in the time. Crystal, are we ready to go? Okay, okay, everyone, I would like to call the meeting of March 28th, 2024 Planning Commission to order and if we could please call the roll. Thank you, Chair Weeks. Commissioner Carter. Here. Commissioner Cisco. Here. Commissioner Sanders. Here. Commissioner Peterson. Here. Commissioner Holton. Here. Vice Chair Dugan. Here. Chair Weeks. Here. Let the record reflect that all of our commissioners are present. Great, thank you. And before we start, I did want to mention that we will be reordering the agenda and moving item 9.2 before 9.1 and we will be taking action on that at that time, but it is due to the fact that that item is being continued until the April 11th, 2024 meeting. So with that, we have the minutes from February 22nd. Any changes, corrections? Okay, so with that, they will be approved. Do we have any public comments on the minutes? Seeing no one going towards the agenda, I mean, seeing no one going towards the podium, we don't have any public comments, so they will stand as approved. With that, we'll be going to the public comment on non-agenda matters. This is a time when you can address the commission on matters, not on the agenda today. If you choose to do so, please go to one of the podiums and state your name for the record if you so choose. Seeing no one going towards the podium, I'll go ahead and close the public comment period. And going into commission business, our statement of purpose, the Planning Commission is charged with carrying out the California Planning and Zoning Laws in the city of Santa Rosa. Duties include implementing of plans, ordinances, and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plan, holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking special planning studies as needed. With that, we'll move on to Item 4.2, Commissioner Reports. A few of us were fortunate enough to go down to Long Beach a couple of weeks ago to the League of California City's Planning Commission Conference. And just to note, next year, that conference will be here in Santa Rosa, so hopefully a lot more of us can attend. So with that, any comments, Commissioner Sanders? Yeah, I did attend the League of Cities Planning Commissioner Conference, and it was really good. Being a new commissioner, I always look forward to it, because I'm always learning something new with one of the sessions being how an idea, how a project goes from an idea through the planning process to a shovel in the ground, really enlightening, you know? I think everybody should do that if you're a nerd like me and, you know, like that kind of thing. Also, I attended this morning a Waterways Advisory Committee meeting where we talked about a couple of items that are actually going to be coming back to us on April 11th. But the Santa Rosa Transportation and Public Works Department, they're conducting an update of the 2018 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. It's going to be renamed the Active Transportation Plan, and that move is to, you know, because, you know, we don't all active transportation is not just walking and bicycling. I mean, there are people in wheelchairs, and I would assume, you know, many other ways of actively getting themselves from point A to point B. So we talked a little bit about that today, and then also FEMA is updating the water flood maps for the Santa Rosa Creek watershed. And, you know, those changes will be on the website, the city website. I think it's srcity.org for slash floodmaps.com. And you can get to that information and see if you're actually in the Santa Rosa Creek area, because it may have an impact on insurance rates and all that kind of stuff. So it's something to keep track of. Thank you. Any other comments from any commissioners? I do have a couple of other things. One is that on Tuesday, the council heard the appeal to the cell phone tower on Colgan Avenue, and they supported Planning Commission's action and denied the appeal. And I think that's all for me. So we'll go ahead and move on to the vice chair election. So this is the time when we, every year, we appoint vice chair. And so Commissioner Duggan's been the vice chair for the past year. Does anybody, would anybody like to make a motion to nominate a vice chair? Commissioner Sisko. Yes, I'd like to nominate current vice chair, Duggan, to continue as vice chair. And do you accept? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Okay, so that was moved by Commissioner Sisko and seconded by Commissioner Sanders. Can we have a vote? Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Sisko. Aye. Commissioner Sanders. Aye. Commissioner Peterson. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. Vice Chair Duggan. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with seven ayes. And I realized I didn't call for the public comment period on commissioner reports or on this item. So if anybody has any public comments on either the commissioner reports item or the vice chair election, go to one of the podiums. Seeing no one headed that way, I'll go ahead and close those. Excuse me. And we'll move on to item 4.4, which is, I'm sorry, item 5, which is the department report. Yes, thank you. Chair Weeks, members of the commission, Jessica Jones, Deputy Director of Planning. First, congratulations to Vice Chair Duggan for your reappointment. And just following on what Chair Weeks had mentioned at the City Council meeting at this last week, we did have the Verizon item, which, as mentioned, the commission, excuse me, the council did uphold the commission's decision and deny the appeal. At that meeting, we also had the wayfinding sign ordinance item, which the commission heard a while back. And that was approved by the council unanimously. So we will be moving forward with that ordinance. We'll have a second reading at the next council meeting. And it will be effective a month later. And then finally, Commissioner Holton has, unfortunately, submitted a letter of resignation from the commission. We are very sad to see you go. We have been extremely appreciative of your time and your work here on the commission. But we're excited for your new adventures. With that, I did want to mention we will be recruiting to fill that position and as you all know, the Planning Commission is an extremely important part of our city process. So it's very important for us to have a full commission. And we've got a lot of really challenging and exciting items coming before you in this next year. So we are looking to get a new commissioner here as soon as we can. So I did want to mention for anybody who's watching or here in the chambers that we are accepting applications now for Planning Commission. And if anybody is interested in that, they can go to the city's website, which is srcity.org. You click on government and then boards, commissions and committees. And then apply online for a board or commission. And if anybody has any questions about that process, they can reach out to me or anyone on city staff and we can help them get there. And that's all I have. Thank you. So with that, I'll go ahead and open the public comment period on staff report, on department report. Is there anybody wanting to make comment on that? Go to the podium, seeing no one. I will go ahead and close that. So we'll go ahead and move to statement of abstentions. Are there any abstentions? And we have no consent items and no report items. And as I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, we are rescheduling the, I'm sorry, we are re-numbering the agenda. And item 9.2 is now 9.1, as staff has requested a continuance of this item to a date certain, which is April 11th, 2024. Do you have anything you'd like to say about that? Yes, staff had requested this to be continued in order to just provide some more documentation for essentially applicants, better preparation for the April 11th meeting. So, great. Thank you. And if I could, just so anybody who's watching for clarity, the item that we're talking about 9.2 is public hearing for conditionally used permit for a new telecommunication tower at 2715 Giffen Avenue. Thank you. So to continue it, do we need to make a motion and act on it? Thank you, yes. If you could please ask for a motion to continue to date certain a second and then take a vote, that would be great. Okay, thank you. Would somebody like to make a motion? Yes, I'll make the motion to continue the item to a date certain. Right, and I'll second. Who was the second? Thank you. Can I just clarify that that was to date certain of April 11th, 2024? Sorry, yes, for date certain, what she said. Thank you. So, and we do have one speaker card, which after we take the vote, we'll go ahead and have that speaker. So if we could go ahead, is that okay, Ms. Crocker, to do it in that order? Or do you want to do the speaker now? I would go ahead and ask for, you can ask for a public comment now and then we could take the vote on the continuance. Okay, so we do have one speaker card, Jennifer LaPorte. If you'd like to go to one of the podiums and state your name for the record, that would be great. And you will have three minutes. Three minutes, wow. Okay, my name is Jennifer LaPorta. Can you hear me? I'm an environmental health scientist with 25 years of employment and a degree in environmental health. So I object to this macro tower. It conflicts with your own zoning ordinance because your zoning ordinance says you cannot have, you need two miles in between macro towers. And the nearest macro tower is 1.1 mile away, which is, they moved our item up, Cindy, which is on Hampton Road. I'll give you the address. It's 1594 Hampton Road. I found this on AntennaSearch.com and it's listed to Hoosier Towers LLC. The other reason to object to this tower, it is 1,400 feet to the Rosalind Creek. And only 400 feet to the nearest residence on Campbell Drive. And the corner of Lombardi Lane. So what we have here, I understand you don't make policy in this chamber, but you need to know the background here that we're talking about 40 small cells and 25 macro towers already in Santa Rosa. And it is a looming public health crisis. Each one of these towers are public health nuisances. And look up Reipen, R-I-P-O-N, California, and see what happened there with the cell phone tower. Where there was a cancer cluster, it was built out of school. On the school grounds, there was a cancer cluster. And they turned that tower off, I'm not sure if they actually took it down. But that happened there, and then look up SB 649. California passed SB 649 in 2017. I already emailed you guys, I don't know if you read the emails. But this was to protect firefighters, okay? Because they found that firefighters were suffering neurological symptoms. Headache, insomnia, brain fog, getting lost in the same town that they grew up in. Sometimes for getting protocol in routine medical procedures, mood swings, infertility, etc. This was substantiated by a SPECT S-P-E-C-T brain imaging study in 2004. On firefighters in California who had lived in the shadow of a tower for over five years, the study conducted by Gunnar Hoyser, MD, PhD. Okay, if we care enough about firefighters' health, what about the rest of us? We don't consent to beginning pigs in this massive health experiment on our health and lives. Thank you very much, I see my time is up. Thank you, and as I mentioned, this item is being continued after a vote until April 11th, 2024, and you will have a chance to speak on the item at that time. But if you do wish to make a comment now, please make your way to one of the podiums and state your name for the record. But as I said, you will also have time on April 11th to make comments. So if you'd like to speak, please state your name for the record. Hi, my name is Sydney Cox, and boy, did I have trouble putting coins in the meter. Anyway, hi. It's nice to be back here. I just wanted to mention, I made copies of the postcard that was sent to the Colgan Avenue people. I know this is not about that. But the postcard, there was complaints about the font being really little, and I measured it, and it's six point font. So my suggestion would be sending out these postcards to the neighbors would be good, maybe in an envelope and also in Spanish. I made copies for everybody, you might not have seen this, so I've got a copy for everyone just to see how small the font was. That was a big complaint because people couldn't read the font, unless you have a magnifying glass. So that's the first thing, I have one for everybody. And then the second thing is, I just want to say that I did send you an email, which is probably too late, you probably didn't get it. But I wanted to share some studies with you, because I think the last time we were here some of you didn't know about the studies. I found a really good, easy website that has a number of studies, and they're just mentioned with links where you can click on the links. And I just also want to say that it's really hard to care about this issue, unless you've had a family member or yourself affected by it. And I didn't expect this to be what I'm doing in my golden years. I would much rather be doing something else, but for some reason the universe has brought me to this place. And you know, it's because I had family member affected, my son. He developed inflammation on the right side of his face. This was about 10 years ago, and it was really sad because he was about to go to law school, and I was really scared. And it was inflammation as I was swollen, and his temple was swollen, and they wanted to do a CT scan, but he said that was too much radiation for his poor 25-year-old body. And I'm not a religious person, but I prayed and prayed. And luckily he's okay today, but I worry about him every day. And then I had a really dear friend who died of a glioblastoma to her brain. And at that point I had to meter one of those radio frequency meters, and I was very annoying everyone because I would take it with me, and I would take readings, and I would show people, look what your microwave does, look what your phone does. Anyway, but you know, my friend up in Reading, she lived in a mobile home that was metal, and when you have something that's metal, it acts like a Faraday cage. So whatever kind of frequency that comes off of her phone, she had cordless phones and her cell phone, it bounces around. So she had a... So anyway, I just wanted to share those things. That's how I came to where I am now, and thank you for your time. Thank you. And if anybody else want to speak on this item, which as I mentioned, we will be continuing until April 11th, 2024. If so, please make your way to the podium at this time. Hi, my name is Kim Kelly. I live in the Giffen Avenue area. My questions are probably the same everybody else has. The effects... First of all, who does this help? Who does it hurt? The effects on our health, depending on how close you live to it. The effects on our property value, if you have one close to you. I just want to hear all the pros and cons about that, and I guess mainly the health issues are my biggest concern. Thank you. I was hoping to hear information for you today. So, I'm sorry. I was hoping to get information. I have those questions hopefully answered today or in the future and some of the documentation you'll be sending us. If you have questions, please go ahead and email them to the staff if you haven't already. Okay. Well, I just want to say that I do have a lot of questions and I will be keeping an eye on it closely, because I do live very close to this new tower. I'm not opposed to the way it looks. I'm opposed to the functions and the effects of it. Thank you for your time. Thank you. So with that, I see no one else going towards the podium. For this comment, we'll go ahead and close the public comment on this item and bring it back to the commission. That item to continue, item 9.2 to April 11th, was moved by Commissioner Sanders and seconded by Commissioner Holton. So with that, if we could have the vote, please. Commissioner Carter. Aye. Commissioner Siskel. Aye. Commissioner Sanders. Aye. Commissioner Peterson. Aye. Commissioner Holton. Aye. Vice Chair Dugan. Aye. Chair Weeks. Aye. So that passes with seven ayes and the item will be continued, as I've said, to April 11th, 2024. So with that, we'll go back to our first item on the agenda, 9.1. It is a public hearing Oakmont Village Association Plan Development Text Amendment to modify the language of the existing policy statements, REZ 23-002. This is not an ex parte item. So we'll go ahead and I think planner Walski, if you would like to go ahead and start. Yes, just a moment while I get my screen share ready. Yeah, I think we can all see it now. We're good. OK, good afternoon, Chair and Planning Commission members. My name is Sheila Walski. I'm with the Planning and Economic Development Division. The agenda item before you today is the REZ zone application to amend plan development PD 63001. Plan development, also known as PD zoning, has been approved throughout the city in various locations and subdivisions. Zoning code section 20-26.060f allows plan developments to be amended with a REZ zone application. This particular REZ zone application seeks to maintain the PD zoning designation and amend the plan development policy statement and maps. Plan development zoning can allow for distinct land use permitting and development standards through the plan development policy statement. The impetus for this particular application is that this policy statement requires a city use permit application for all new uses, including accessory uses. A use permit application can be both an expensive and lengthy process and particularly onerous for uses which are compatible with the parcel's general plan land use designation, in which would otherwise be permitted by right. The applicants are requesting this amendment to reduce financial and regulatory barriers for compatible uses. This slide depicts the boundaries of plan development PD 63001, which is highlighted in yellow. All properties are located in the Oakmont senior living community. And this PD includes most but not all of Oakmont. This slide is the project history. To note, the January 26 meeting at Oakmont's Berger Center was well attended. There were approximately 100 Oakmont residents in attendance. Based on comments received and a showing of hands, it appeared that the vast majority of attendees were in support of the proposed amendments and no one spoke in opposition. These next two slides outline the proposed amendments to the plan development. This first slide deals with amendments to the policy statement. First, the bulk of Oakmont, for the bulk of Oakmont, land use permitting and development standards would default to a property's implementing zoning district based on the property's general planned land use designation. The majority of properties in Oakmont have a general planned land use designation of low or very low density residential. This amendment would allow planning staff to review applications based on the zoning code's residential land use permitting table. In practice, this could mean that a home-based business that meets the city's zoning code requirements for a home occupation, for instance, a web-based business operating from home, could be allowed without the need for a use permit application. For the commercial properties located in this PD, staff would also be able to review new uses in the context of the city's zoning code commercial land use and permitting table. This amendment could allow for the transition of business uses from a bank to pharmacy to medical office to restaurant uses without the need for a use permit application. As further examples, a large grocery store would continue to require a conditional use permit, and a cannabis manufacturing facility would not be permitted, all consistent with the city's zoning code. The second amendment deals with the types of uses that would be allowed by right on parcels with a general planned land use designation of parks and recreation. This section of the amended policy statement defines the types of outdoor recreational uses that would be allowed by right to include sport courts, community gardens, and dog parks. The purpose of this is to allow compatible outdoor recreation activities on properties designated parks and recreation without the requirement of a use permit. These uses are defined because the implementing zoning district, which is open space recreational, or OSR, is actually fairly limiting for recreation uses. And this is most likely because most parks and recreation designated parcels are government owned and not subject to use permit requirements. All other outdoor recreation uses are, excuse me, all these outdoor recreation uses are consistent with the general plan policies and goals for parks and recreation designated parcels. For these parks and recreation designated parcels, most development standards would default to the implementing zoning district standards. Some of which include maximum height and lock coverage. The proposed policy statement defines 15 foot front, side, and rear setbacks. And we're being specifically prescriptive about the setbacks because the OSR zoning district requires setbacks be established by use permit. The policy statement calls out that outdoor lighting is not permitted unless it is reviewed and approved through the city's applicable permitting process. And the fourth bullet point for these parks and recreation land use parcels is that by right outdoor recreational uses shall not exceed 10,000 square feet except where conversion is proposed on existing development of the same footprint. The amended policy statement also provides a note that design review is required for all new structures and exterior modifications to existing structures where required by the city's zoning code. This slide covers the map amendments that are proposed to the plan development. The image at the top is the existing boundary map from 1963. As you can see it's outdated and doesn't reflect the build out of Oakmont. The proposed boundary map bottom left in blue exhibit A provides more clarity including parcel lines as well as depicting the areas of Oakmont that are excluded from this particular PD zoning district. Please note there are no other changes proposed to the existing boundary. The map depicted lower right exhibit B reflects the parcels with the general planned land use designation of parks and recreation. For the general plan analysis the majority of properties in this plan development have a general planned land use designation of low density or very low density residential. This plan development also includes parcels with general planned land use designations of parks and recreation, retail medium density residential, retail and business services, public institutional and office. This amendment would not change the general planned land use designations of any property. This slide lists some of the general plan goals and policies that are implemented by this proposed amendment and these primarily address recreational goals and policies as well as economic vitality and economic development goals and policies achieved with these amendments. In particular I'd like to highlight PSFA and PSFA one which deal with the goals of providing recreational facilities for all sectors of the community including specific age groups. Based on a review of the above goals and policies it is staff's position that the proposed rezoning to amend this plan development is consistent with the general plan goals and policies. Additionally the amendments would provide a more streamlined path for development of parks and recreation facilities on parcels designated parks and recreation consistent with the general plan. The zoning code implements the general plan and as such amending the policy statement to create a document that provides a framework to evaluate uses based on the general plan creates this policy statement that is more consistent with the general plan. In terms of zoning code amendment findings the city zoning code provides direction on amending plan developments in zoning code chapter 20-64 one of which is to hear the matter before the planning commission and council as a public hearing item. Further there are certain findings that must be made and which are listed on this slide. For the first finding the proposed amendments would provide for compatible outdoor recreational land uses on parcels with a general plan land use designation of parks and recreation without the requirement of a use permit application. This implements general plan goals PSFA one and PSFA and PSFA 17 which encouraged the provision of recreational facilities. The amendments also support general plan goals LULJ, EVA and EVB seven which encourage a positive and vital business community and business attraction. For commercial and office zone parcels in this plan development the amendments would remove the requirement for use permit application for new compatible uses attracting new commercial and office land uses. Further the amendments would rely on the city zoning code to establish land use permitting requirements for parcels consistent with the general plan land use designation. Future development projects in this plan development would continue to be subject to public interest, health, safety, convenience and welfare findings consistent with the zoning code and general plan land use designation. Two for the CEQA finding we'll review this one on the following slide it has its own dedicated slide and for the third finding the project is internally consistent with the other applicable provisions of the zoning code in that the project creates a plan development policy statement that is more internally consistent with the city's zoning code for development standards and permitting requirements. For the outdoor recreational uses the proposed uses are consistent with the city's general plan. The project has been reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA section 21083 and CEQA guidelines sections 15183 provide that if a proposed development project is consistent with the general plan and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan environmental review shall be limited to the effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project in which we're not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report. The proposed project has been found to be consistent with the Santa Rosa General Plan. Review of the project has revealed no significant environmental impacts which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project in which we're not addressed in the general plan EIR nor is there any new information that shows that any environmental impacts will be more significant than as described in that EIR. Any future developments subject to discretionary entitlement will require CEQA compliance. In anticipation of any facilities being constructed in the future they would likely be exempt under the CEQA guidelines section exemptions listed below on this slide. It is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission by resolution recommend that the city council adopt text amendments to the plan development policy statement for the Oakmont plan development PD 63001 to include updated maps, default to the city zoning code for land use permitting requirements consistent with the associated general plan land use designation, establish uses and setbacks compatible with the parks and recreation general planned land use designation. And if the planning commission chooses to recommend to the council these amendments this afternoon this item will be heard by the council at a future public hearing. Here is my contact information and I am available for any questions and the applicants are in the audience as well if there are any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation to make or just available for questions? They don't have a presentation. Great. So before I go ahead and open the public hearing on this are there any questions of staff? I have one. If you could go back to slide or page five, number three, we have note that design review shall apply to new structures and exterior modifications to existing structures. What types of, what would be required by the zoning code? See, which slide? Oh, I'm sorry, slide five. Oh, number three. And I'm sorry, I should have asked you that earlier. That's okay. It's really dependent on the level of improvements. The zoning code has a table of when design review is applied. Essentially single family dwellings are exempt. So something that's on a parks and recreation parcel if it's very minor, it could potentially be over the counter. If it's something that's, do you recall, Susie, that up to 10,000 square feet would be zoning administrator level and over that we're talking about design review board. Thank you. And is it not scheduled yet for the council depending upon our action today? That is correct. Thank you. So with that, any questions? Okay, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing on this. We do have some cards, but you don't need to have filled out a card. So if you are in the chamber and wish to make a comment, please make your way to the podium. You'll have three minutes for comment and a countdown timer will alert you. We have cards from Larry Burns, Richard Hirsch and Margaret Newman. My name's Margaret Newman. I'm a resident of Oakmont Village. And I just like to say I support the proposed update to the plan development document. Thank you. Larry Burns. I just wanted to support the recommendation that has been made. That's it. Thank you. And Richard Hirsch. I also want to support the recommendations that have been made. Thank you. And if you could state your name for the record, if you choose to do so. Yes, my name is Iris Harrell and I'm on the Oakmont Village Association Board along with Jeff Newman, setting the audience. And we worked on this together. I wanted to thank the planning department for helping on technical questions. And we are really just wanting to bring Oakmont into the 21st century. It was developed in 1963. And there are planners here who are 30 years old, have never been to Oakmont and we'd like the maps to be accurate. Thank you. Any other comments on this item from the public? Okay, seeing nobody else, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the commission. Any other questions? Okay, so with that, if somebody could make a motion on this. I can do it. Thank you, Chair, or Commissioner Siscoe. Resolution of the planning, I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, recommending to the city council, adoption of a text amendment to the Oakmont plan development, PD 63-001 policy statement, including modifications to one, updated maps to default to the city's zoning code for land use permitting requirements, consistent with the general plan land use designation and three, establish compatible uses with the parks and recreation land use designation, file number REZ 23-002 and way further reading of the text. I'll second. Thank you. So that, so we'll go ahead and do some, do comments and we'll start with Commissioner Holton. This one's pretty straightforward and I agree with most of the folks in attendance here. It's time to get into the new millennium and allow you folks to go ahead and take care of a lot of business that could be expedited and not waste a lot of public resources time. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. Have a great day. Commissioner Siscoe. Yeah, this is a very efficient method to update the planned PD as opposed to eliminating it and rezoning all the parcels to get them consistent with the zoning code. So like the approach, I think it's completely appropriate to go ahead and do this for the reason stated and also really want to compliment planner Wolski. What a great presentation, very clear and very thorough. So very good job. And I can make all of the findings. Mr. Duggan. I too can make all the required findings and I think this is a wonderful use of the city's staff time because I'm old enough to remember when pickleball needed a use permit. And I think that that was not at the time. I remember we were all kind of confused like why are we talking about this here? So I think this is fine and I can make all the required findings and support. Thank you. Mr. Peterson. I think my fellow commissioners have ably commented on this so I can make all the required findings and I'm in favor of the project. Thank you. Commissioner Carter. Yeah, I too have nothing further to add other than to say good job everybody and let's get on with it. Thank you and commissioner. I can make the required findings. Thank you. Commissioner Sanders. I also can make the required findings and I like that you said that we're under 30. I like that. Which one? But yes, I'll be supporting. Thank you. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings and I think this is very efficient and I do echo commissioner Cisco. Ms. Walski did a really good clear job. Thank you. So with that, it was moved by commissioner Cisco, seconded by vice chair Duggan. We could go ahead and get a vote. Thank you, chair weeks. Commissioner Carter. I. Commissioner Cisco. I. Commissioner Sanders. I. Commissioner Peterson. I. Commissioner Holton. I can also make all the required findings and I thank you. Thank you. Vice chair Duggan. I. Chair Weeks. I. So that passes with seven eyes and please note that this action is final unless an appeal is filed with the city clerk's office within 10 calendar days of today's decision pursuant to zoning code section 20-62.030 and unless there's anything else from staff for today, we'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting until our next regularly scheduled meeting in April. Thank you.