 Chair weeks. We have about a minute left and we can start whenever you're ready Thank you So with that I will go ahead and call to order the May 11th 2023 meeting of the Santa Rosa Planning Commission Can we have roll call, please? Commissioner Carter here Commissioner Cisco here Commissioner Duggan here Commissioner Holton here Commissioner Sanders Vice Chair Peterson is absent chair weeks Here let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of vice chair Peterson Thank you, and I wanted to make a note that we will be reordering the agenda to take the item 9.2 The conditional use permit for the 7-eleven at 43 Middle rink and road first under the public hearings And that city staff at that time will be recommending that the item be continued to a date uncertain So with that we do not have Approval of we do not have any minutes So we'll move on to public comments. We're taking public comments on Item 3 non-agenda matters This is a time when any person may address the Commission on matters not listed on this agenda But which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee and I see mr. DeWitt up there, so Before you start mr. DeWitt, I did want to mention that if there are any In if there are any people on zoom that want to make a comment, please raise your hand If you're a dialing in via telephone, please dial star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 Unmute once called upon and we will do the zoom public comments after the in person So with that mr. DeWitt Hello, may I use the overhead projector, please? Hold on just one second. Okay Chair weeks. I'm gonna have to reach out to our IT team for this one. I'm not familiar with how to use the okay, we'll just go forward and I'll ask you folks to refer to page 115 of yesterday's Santa Rosa city budget discussions My name is Dwayne DeWitt. I'm from Roseland The planning and economic development department put forward some information That was Curious to me. Oh, there you go. Now you have it. So basically it said that 481 housing units last year and 83 affordable units were put in that comes to 18% of all the housing units last year Then it said the permits issued for last year and I was curious does that include those housing units mentioned in the line before and then it has the Granted land use approvals for housing units and It doesn't say a year for that specifically if that's for next year the fiscal year so I Just did a back of the envelope kind of approach here looking at these units that are mentioned here And this would show that Santa Rosa is getting 16.5% of the units that are here being affordable One of the dilemmas that we face in Santa Rosa Is there's a dearth of affordable? Residential rental units those aren't being built I'll rephrase that summer being built But not nearly enough for the need and that has always been the need since the housing authority was first formulated 60 years ago because we needed residential rentals and We're basically in this continuing approach of Funding a lot of money It's not just tens of millions maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars over the years Through the housing authority for housing vouchers for different situations, and we're not solving this problem of affordable residential rentals So I come to you pointing out that this is an important thing that you should make a priority in your discussions Next is a little bit off topic, but it's very important because over in Roseland I was on a committee where we talked about The Roseland Village shopping center being redeveloped in one acre of land to being set aside as a green space And then it's been downsized to point eight four acres of public space and Only two-thirds of that is green So these kinds of things happen in the permitting process and then the planning process But yesterday I was discussed there may be an overlay zone for Roseland in the future I hope you'll make Roseland as important in your views as Santa Rosa's Railroad Square Which used to be our skid row. Thank you for your time Thank you Anybody else? Can you please state your name for the record and you have three minutes? Good evening. My name is Rigo Gallardo and could you speak closer to the microphone, please? Okay? Thank you. My name is Rigo Gallardo Good evening Sharon members of the Planning Commission I'm a representative of the North Cal Carpenter's Union 751 I'm here this evening to speak on area labor standards ones that include a livable wage health care apprenticeship and local hire A livable wage with medical and retirement benefits that allows workers and their families to live in the community They work in this also means that those wages will be reinvested back into the local economic community As they spend their earnings and tax dollars will help fund local schools and government a Commitment to accredited apprenticeship programs to guarantee we will continue to have skilled and experienced workforce That is able to complete high quality projects in a safe and timely manner Health health care is vital in these COVID years and having health care for your family is a big necessity and Having health care as a construction worker where the risk of injury is a high is High as a must if workers get injured without health care. It is a burden for the taxpayers Being able to work where you live as a local hire allows you to spend more time With your family and being more involved in your community My question to you council members this Is what are we doing to implement these labor standards in your upcoming? Housing projects. Thank you Thank you. Are there any other any other comments in chamber Not seeing anyone is there anybody with hands raised on zoom Choe weeks there are no hands raised on zoom. Thank you So with that I will go ahead and close the public here the public comment on this and go into our planning commissioners report and we'll start off by reading the 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 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 With that we'll move on to 4.2 subdivision waterway committees. Do you have any reports? Okay, I've seen no reports then we'll move on to the vice chair nomination Julian Peterson who has been our vice chair has decided to step down from that role So I'm looking to see if there's anybody who's would nominate somebody Commissioner Cisco chair weeks. I'd like to nominate Commissioner Duggan as our new vice chair Is there a second? Thank you, and but will you accept I was gonna accept before the second yes Thank you, so with that Commissioner that motion is for Commissioner Duggan to step in as vice chair that was moved by Commissioner Cisco seconded by Commissioner Commissioner Sanders Can you go ahead and hold the vote? Commissioner Carter I Commissioner Cisco I Commissioner Duggan I Commissioner Holton I Commissioner Sanders I chair weeks I thank you very much and According to our rules you will take your seat officially at the next meeting Thank you So department reports. Oh, I'm sorry. Let me see are there any other commissioner reports, but you have anything Okay, then department report Thank You chair weeks members of the commission other than congratulating Vice chair so soon to be vice chair Duggan on the new appointment. I don't have anything to report Thank you Any abstentions today Okay, no abstentions We have no consent items and our first item is a Report item it is Appeal of bridgewood drive short-term rental permit denial 6241 bridgewood drive SVR 22 Dash 0 to 0. This is an exparte item So we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Holton I have nothing to disclose Commissioner Cisco. I have nothing to disclose Commissioner Cisco. I have nothing to disclose Commissioner Duggan. I visit the site and have no additional information Commissioner Carter I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose Commissioner Sanders. I have visited the site and have nothing further to disclose And I also have nothing to disclose so with that planner B. Sla Good afternoon chair weeks and members of the planning commission Let me just get can you speak a little closer to the microphone or pull it a little closer? Sorry is that better? Thank you, okay? The presentation before you today is for the appeal of a short-term rental permit denial For six sixty two forty one bridgewood drive and before we begin I would like to point out that it was recently noted that both the staff report and the Resolution state that this was noticed as a public hearing It was not noticed as a public hearing. This is a report item because a public hearing only needs to be held if The item being appealed was a public hearing or if the review authority deems it necessary So this is a report item and it was not noticed as a hearing Here is an aerial view of the neighborhood You can see the site is located on Bridgewood Drive off of Montecito Boulevard I'm some background on the project on March 6th 2022 an application for a non-hosted short-term rental was submitted For the property located at sixty two forty one Bridgewood Drive on March 30th, 2022 a code violation complaint was received for an unpermitted short-term rental and violation of the noise ordinance on April 12th, 2022 A city inspection was performed and on October 10th. This code enforcement case was closed on December 13th a second code violation complaint was received for an unpermitted short-term rental on December 28th A city inspection was performed and on January 3rd 2023 the court enforcement case was closed and On January 26th a code violation complaint was received for unpermitted short-term rental and this Case is still open today on January 3rd that should say 2023 A notice of denial was sent to the applicant and on January 4th The application was denied by the planning and economic development director due to the location Being within a thousand feet of another non-hosted short-term rental on January 13th, 2023 an appeal was filed by the applicant The appellant has provided the following grounds for appeal Number one is that the appellant is an operator in good standing Number two is that due to this operator in good standing status the thousand foot rule would not apply and Number three is that filing a permit after December 3rd, 2021. It does not affect the appellant's operator in good standing status The zoning code states that operators in good standing shall apply by December 3rd, 2021 And that new operators may not apply until after December 3rd, 2021 The appellant filed their application on March 6th, 2022 and therefore is considered a new operator The zoning code also states that after December 3rd, 2021 No non-hosted short-term rentals may be proposed within 1,000 feet from the property line of another existing or proposed non-hosted short-term rental This property is located approximately 870 feet from non-hosted short term from another non-hosted short-term rental at 2220 Fremont Drive, which was approved on October 28th, 2022 the zoning code states that for denial a Sorry, the zoning code states that a short-term rental permit may be denied if any one of the following findings can be made and Planning staff has found that the application is inconsistent with the requirements of the short-term rental ordinance Therefore, it is recommended by the planning and economic development department that the planning commission by resolution Deny the appeal of Kerry Ritchie and uphold that director's decision to deny a non-hosted short-term rental application for the property at 6241 Bridgewood Drive and for any questions or comments. This is my contact information. Thank you Thank you. Are there any questions for the planner before we hear from the appellant? Seeing none. I believe the appellant has a presentation okay, so Either one is good And you can raise the podium. There's a button on your right-hand side We're gonna need just one minute to get the appellant's Presentation up and running. Okay, and we'll need just a couple of minutes to get it loaded up There we go May I begin? Thank you. My name is Kerry Ritchie and I am here to present my position on my SCR permit that was denied at 6241 Bridgewood Drive But before I launch into my presentation, I do just want to respond to a couple of things that was just mentioned by the department the planning department There was a reference to several Complaints related to my property, and I want to assure you that I have never had an administrative citation upheld against my property and I Actually received a letter from the planning department that I can continue to run my str Property while my appeal is pending. So just want to make that clear So the question presented to you here today is whether the 1,000-foot radius rule enacted under the str Urgency ordinance should apply to my non-hosted str permit When the rule calls my permit to be denied in light of an investment property Located nearly three football fields away from my home Was granted an str permit even though it is Undisputed that I have been an operator in good standing and operating an str in the city since 2019 as I will explain here today the situation in hand at hand is not just a matter of technicalities But rather a matter of fundamental fairness There are at least four reasons Why the 1,000-foot rule radius rule should not be applied in this case To deny my str permit, which I will explain to you But first I want to provide some background information on the properties at issue And I also want to submit to you today that any decision today in no way Contradicts the str law that was voted on a couple of weeks ago I Just want to be clear that voting in my favor does not undermine or contradict that Law that you voted on here. We are under the str Urgency ordinance and it has meaningfully different definitions and rules than the permanent law Which I'll explain but first the properties Um, can you next slide please? My property is six to four one Bridgewood Drive the str that's within a thousand feet of my property is two to zero Fremont Drive as Shown on the slide if you were to walk to that property you would need to walk 0.3 miles well over four football fields to get there At about fifteen hundred feet You would need to travel down to major highways first want to see the Boulevard Then Mission Boulevard, and then you would eventually get there next slide If you measure the distance by the way the crow flies from the center of the property to the center of the other property They are six about 965 feet apart just 35 feet shy of a thousand feet apart from each other, which is about three football fields The planning apartment showed you a map where they measured from the closest property line of the two properties to exaggerate the distance But even then the properties are more than eight hundred and seventy feet apart So we're squabbling over a small portion of the thousand foot roll But let's take a closer look at two to two zero Fremont Drive It's an investment property purchased for the sole reason of becoming an SCR Isn't that what SCR ordinances are supposed to prevent? Investors scooping up properties and running them as a business instead of supplying homes to the constituents of Santa Rosa Can you next slide please? I'm show showing you information From Zillow regarding two to two zero Fremont. The property was listed for sale on January 2022 and it was closed on February 14th 2022 Next slide Just three days later on February 17th 2022 someone applied for an STR non-hosted permit in the name of Fremont wine country vacation home This sounds like an investment STR to me with no other purpose than to profit You can see that the contact person is named Tyler Peter Rossi Sorry, I butchered that but After I submitted this presentation I googled this name and found it attached to many STR listings She is a realtor who lives in the city of Sonoma From her realtors website it says quote since May 2016 Tyler has closed over 17 million four hundred and forty four thousand nine hundred and ninety nine dollars in real estate transactions With an average sale price of one point five million dollars Back-to-back in two thousand two thousand seventeen two thousand sixteen and seventeen She received company awards for the highest sale price of the year with W real estate. I Also found information about her on VRBO which states My husband PJ and I grew up in Sonoma County PJ and his family are in the wine industry We own Pedrona sell a mobile wine bottling and his family owns Pedrona sell a winery We love Sonoma and we love to be able to share our homes with others who come to visit just ask for recommendations for wineries and the restaurants And it also notes that she is living in Sonoma the city of Sonoma not County So if you go to the next slide For a moment, you'll see my Permit timeline, so I submitted my application on March 2nd 2022 about two weeks later and I have been and operating my str since 2019 undisputed I Purchased my property in 2018 when I worked in Santa Rosa. I worked at the well-known Law firm of Carl Mackey power and Ross just right across the way and When I left the firm to go back to San Francisco It did not make sense for me to sell my home at that time and I turned it into an str at that time It was completely legal. There were no rules against running your home as an str at that time and That's the way things have persisted Until the law and until now so But at any rate my permit was denied because it's in proximity to 2220 Fremont drive So actually one more slide about this property So I'm showing you now part of the Airbnb listing for this property And you can see that it is managed by a corporate professional management company called wine Country estate management. I Guess Tyler is too busy to run the Airbnb herself The company manages over 33 strs seven of which are located in Santa Rosa Next slide Next slide There they are Only the city knows whether or not all of these strs are owned by the same person and This is important as you know the permanent str rule that you just voted on Limits a person from owning only one non-hosted str So it's quite possible that these will we're owned by this are owned by the same people or at least one couple and That these strs will go away in the future and I'd be curious to know whether the planning department has done any Inquiry into this considering they've had my presentation over the last couple of weeks Now that you understand the backdrop of the facts of my particular case Let's look at the specific reasons specific rules on the the specific language on the 1,000 rule Radius and why it doesn't apply So the first reason is that under the str urgency ordinance It is undisputed that I was an operator in good standing and the 1,000 radius rule does not apply to operators in good standing That's undisputed Um Can I show it next slide, please? So what I'm showing you here is the definition of the operator in good standing from the str Urgency ordinance redlined against the definition of the new law The definitions are different under the str urgency ordinance At issue here, I am an operator in good standing Under the definition of the new law, I am not Under the old law There was no requirement that the permit application must be submitted by December 3rd 2021 to continue your operation in good operator in good standing status But you can see from the so that part is struck out and you can see the new language They've actually included that in as part of the definition So if you read what's crossed out this what's crossed out was in In place when I submit in my application, which is people who are The operators who So I have been registered so we've been registered for and receiving a TOT number since before October 7th 2021 and they've prided proof of operation for the short term rental during that period and I don't think anyone disputes that that's the case in my case, you know that that I was an operator in good standing in operating an str before October 2021 Now the rule says that you had to submit a permit application prior to December 3rd 2021 Which has to have been subsequently approved. So they're different. This is why the situation here doesn't affect the law that you passed a few weeks ago a couple of weeks ago and Under my definition I'm an operator in good standing regardless of when the application was actually submitted So yeah and being an operator in good standing is very important because under the emergency ordinance that 1000-foot rule does not apply The best thing the planning department can do or has done is point to in the law their position That the operator in good standing should file their application by December 3rd 2021 Like I said, it's not part of the definition The law does not say if you don't file by 2020 December 3rd 2021. You're gonna lose that status Or that's gonna be revoked or nothing. It's completely silence silent and The California Court of Appeals has already ruled that governments cannot govern by silence in the str context Specifically in the str context and probably other contexts as well So but that's exactly what the what the planning department is asking you to do here The government cannot implement important changes by silent in direction people versus venus sweets and In other words, the government cannot go from allowing str and to take that right away without an explicit direction Silence does not equal prohibition second reason Relatedly the 1000-foot rule applies to new operators and I'm not a new operator under the str urgence ordinance Next slide Again, you can see here what I'm showing you is Difference between what it means to be a new operator under the old law versus the new law so the new law is simply Mutually exclusive from being an operate operating good standing under the old law It says that you have not registered on or before October 27th 2021 to pay tot tax and BIA assessments, which we know that's not the case here because I was paying those and so therefore I'm not Considered a new operator either and the new operator is the only one that's subject to the 1000-foot rule And you can see the completely crossed out number three is What it used to say, which is what the planning department just quoted to you But that section is relating to a new operator and and I'm not well I don't fit the definition of a new operator my property doesn't So third implicit in the planning department's decision is that I am no longer an operator and good standing It was recognized by the city that anyone had a property right to use their property as an str prior to the enactment of the str urgence ordinance and the city recognized that I was an operator in good standing This amounts to a property right that was taken for me without due proper process During the permitting process. I was never given the opportunity to be heard or state my case If I were given the opportunity like I am now I would have explained to them all of the facts that I have already told you about 2 2 2 0 Fremont property I would have pointed out all of the flaws Related to the 2 2 2 0 Fremont property that does not justify that property having a permit over me It is simply not fair and it entirely contradicts The policies and the purpose of the str urgency ordinance this case represents form over substance in an overreach of local authorities to blindly apply laws Over any substance whatsoever for example The owner of 2 2 2 0 Fremont appears to own may own more than one property Which is not allowed under the new ordinance. I would have asked the planning department to figure that out 2 2 2 is not compliant with other laws that are in the ordinance if you go to a couple slides Next slide So I touched that the owners can't own more than one the next line Here we are. So here's a picture of their property from Airbnb and if you look there their their fire pit rules That you all just upheld two weeks ago They're not in compliance that that umbrella is not 10 feet away. There are the fire pit is beside combustible Bark you're not allowed to be within 10 feet of combustible of education including but not limited to bark and Their chairs are made out of tree stumps And you can't be 10 feet with overhanging trees here. They have an overhanging umbrella They also must be fire pits must also have 12 inches high of complete completely encircling the fire container which they do not have Next slide This listing is also a non-compliant without door lighting All exterior lighting shall be adequately shielded from adjacent properties to minimize light pollution As you can see these slides are strong extremely high and can be seen from neighboring Properties, so this they're not in compliance here. I don't know if the department's done anything about that And then finally The fourth reason next slide Even if the 1,000 foot rule could conceivably apply here It should not be enforced Because it is arbitrary It is not now narrowly tailored to advance the policies that led to the enactment of the str Urgency ordinance we can all agree that the planning department does not have unfettered discretion to pass emergency Laws without oversight and proper procedures. We know this law was enacted without oversight And without the approval of the department or of the commission When you use an emergency power the planning department must show that there is some Congruency between the choices that they've made and the policies that they are trying to advance This is wholly missing in my case We know this case is this rule is arbitrary and not narrowly tailored To the policies because what can 1,000 feet do? Across two highways what can that accomplish? That 900 feet or 850 feet can't accomplish. I mean we're really is it three football fields away or two and a half football fields away I mean, it's completely arbitrary The str ordinance was passed and acted to respond to a housing shortage Okay, that's not advanced by the 1,000 foot rule in my case because I already owned my property and was allowed to str It's supposed to keep people from purchasing and scooping up properties off the market Which is exactly what 2220 Fremont Drive did yet they are rewarded with a permit The str or urgency ordinance is to prevent noise. Okay. Well, the law has quiet hours and the quiet hours need to be Observed and that obviates the need for properties to be an entire thousand feet away from each other And why a thousand feet it appears to be plucked out of thin air? Also, my property is an entirely different neighborhood separated by a major highway from 2220 Fremont My str has no impact whatsoever on anything that goes on in their neighborhood It makes no sense to enforce this rule in this case and as members of the Commission You have the authority to overrule the planning department And some I submit to you that you should not apply the 1,000 foot radius rule under the str Urgency ordinance to my application. Thank you Thank you. Are there any questions of the appellant at this time? Thank you So with that I will go ahead and open the public comment period on this item Are there any persons in attendance who wish to make a public comment? If so, please step to the podium and state your name for the record You will have three minutes if you wish to make a comment via zoom Please raise your hand if you are dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand And stars six to unmute once called upon Not seeing anybody going to the podium. Is there anybody on zoom? Eric Frazier, I'm going to send you a prompt to unmute yourself. Please state your name for the record afternoon chair weeks and commissioners, this is Eric Frazier My address is truth in tourism at gmail.com Carrie did a great job of presenting in defense of her own personal property The defects that came from such a rash Irresponsible and illegal urgency ordinance as I mentioned in my comments this I think is the only second time that the Commission has Heard a substantive presentation about short-term rentals That's truly unfortunate because it was totally half-baked It's some sort of scheme. I guess I don't know as a researcher that just wants to look at facts I'm caught up in all sorts of intrigue over what the implications are granting competitive advantage or Quite frankly, I got into this argument because I was concerned about spaces that were unused Just sitting idle and then the fires hit and I saw how important was to activate unused spaces and These booking platforms were a great way for people to get involved in that for a variety of different reasons mostly because of the plethora of second homes, but also because the lifestyles of people here lead to all sorts of different types of Living situations where they're here in town for a period and then they're out of town and so on and so forth people property owners have a right to control their property and Kerry did a great job of presenting the defects. I Unfortunately, she also had to attack another property. Whatever And looking at the ads for that property certainly are problematic There is a very You know anti-STR Process and a very willing code enforcement staff to take up the battlefront lines in the in the war against us TRs and so it certainly would be then that if there was anything a substance to the complaints against Kerry's property that they would have Resolved in a administrative citation and they didn't so the listing of that is certainly Prejudicial and just sort of underscores the lengths that staff will go to to obfuscate the issues about strs in our community At the end of the day, though We know that operating strs that are non-hosted that are doing a professionally full time Constitution less than one third of one percent of our housing stock But it's demonstrated where strs usher in personally calm positive economic factors as well as those in the community For all those reasons and more you must grant this appellate the right to have her application You should refund the sixty four hundred dollars that she was Extorted in order to engage this process, which should be a public hearing. I feel you should give her an Apology, but that's not sort of weird. It's not your fault that the city council Blinded by ideology acting on their own behalf politically Enacted upon all our property owners in Santa Rosa this half baked scheme of the str urgency ordinance. Thank you very much Thank you, are there any other comments via zoom Chair weeks there are no other hands raised. Thank you So with that I will close the public comment and bring it back to the commission Do you have any questions before I ask somebody to read the resolution? Commissioner Cisco I do I would like to hear From staff and maybe from Miss Crocker What were the notifications? Given to when the urgency ordinance was put out and when the one that This appellate was supposed to apply for what kind of notifications were given out since she's sort of relying on that It's was done in a silent manner. So if you could explain How are all of the str? Operators if they were notified Thank you Commissioner Cisco for that question. I'm Gonna rely on some other staff in our office that worked on this short-term mental ordinance The way I understand it is that a letter was sent to all Owners that were paying to T after the ordinance was passed to let them know that they needed to apply And there were also notices that were put in the press Democrat Okay, and then What kind of notification if any was there if they? Failed to apply by this certain date that kicked them out of operator in good standing over to new operator some explanation as to How they may have been made aware of that Give me just one moment here so what What I'm hearing is that? It was just just the information that was provided in the ordinance is what the notice provided And there wasn't anything else Hold on just a moment So the letter provided the information and a link to the ordinance itself Okay, so that information was in so the ordinance was available Yes, I link and also was published in the that is correct in the press Democrat. Yes, okay, and then Maybe these are for you miss Crocker We've got a lot of sort of legal premises that the appellant threw out Like what would constitute silence. I'm hearing how the notifications were made kind of what's your take on the silence and also there is An assertion made that the city is Creating a taking of this person's property Can you give us some background on that? Okay The first one was silence, I mean I Would assert that 2048 040 b1 specifically states that you shall submit an application to be an operator in good standing So I think that shall is shall and so you must do it and the time was missed in this instance Regarding a taking There is actually very recent and relevant case law on on that very issue and the court of appeals have held that Property owners don't really have a like a vested right to operate their property as a short-term rental and That short-term rental prohibitions including complete bans do not constitute taking because they do leave property owners with several economically viable uses of their land and the court went on to cite things like they can continue to live in their homes rent their homes for more than 30 days or sell their homes and In one that happened in Pacific Grove the court said that the intrusion into the property owners bundle of ownership rights Was minimal and far outweighed by the public interest in enhancing and maintaining residential character So there have been a number of cases addressing due process and takings claims all related to The passing of short-term rental ordinances in this case I Think we have to take a step back even in that they're This isn't a hearing to Revoke any permit. So there was no permit actually Issued so in many of these cases, you know, they actually even were going further where a permit was issued And then subsequently a city enacted a ban or a lottery or was taking away Permit rights and even that was upheld and no constitutional violations in those cases But here I just wanted to be clear that there was no permit issued There was no operator in good standing permit or status issued what the city had said is those who were operating Could continue to operate while they got their materials together to submit the application on or before December 3rd When that application is not submitted then they are not granted any Permit if you will so this is just a denial of a permit application. This is not a revocation Did that get all of your questions it did Thank you, and then again Our role tonight is simply to determine if that application for the permit was filed in accordance with our particular ordinances and We're not in In any kind of role of assessing what might have been a better operator than another You know that that's not really what we're about tonight. That's correct. Okay And in addition Some of the comments about whether or not the thousand foot rule is Appropriate would be something that would be Properly raised in the context of the ordinance itself, and I did also want to clarify us to some of the comments We've heard this before but alluding to the fact that the urgency ordinance is somehow a temporary ordinance or not a real ordinance and That the proposed amendments that you all voted on at your prior meeting will be the real permanent ordinance The urgency ordinance is the city's ordinance It was enacted under urgency measures, which is fall under different state law But it's not a temporary ordinance and the proposed amendments that you voted on and are forwarded to the city council They will hear it on June 6th Those are just proposed amendments to the existing ordinance and You know the council may or may not move forward with the Ordinance as amendments as you all sent up to them. They may make other changes. We don't know So the law in effect right now is the current ordinance that was adopted by urgency measures and was subsequently also amended So I just wanted to clarify that there's no temporary Ordinance at issue. Thank you Any other questions commissioner dug in so When and if the council acts on what we voted on last meeting if they change it in any way and make it more lenient and Strike some of the provisions There's nothing to prohibit miss Ritchie from applying for a new permit correct and or if somebody in Investigates the 2220 Fremont's drive property and decides that that they they are not in compliance with the ordinance of you know one individual person hold it, you know owning the house and using it as non-hosted rental that she could still Apply for it under a new operator For a permit is that correct? Yes, the only caveat to that is it because the current ordinance has a cap of 198 for non-hosted short-term rentals within the city the city is currently not accepting new Applications for non-hosted so if the commission votes tonight to uphold the denial And their permit is denied at this time The city would not be able to accept a new application However, if the commission or excuse me if the council Makes a change to that cap Or the city sees a drop in the number of non-hosted short-term rentals from one reason or another And there is an opening of non-hosted permits And then the city will have a process for reopening out new applications for non-hosted And then yes, she would be able to apply at that time Any other question commissioner Sanders? I guess as a clarification she would be able to apply but not as an operator in good standing That is correct Can you explain? Speaking of operator and good standing There's a couple of dates in here that are kind of interesting and just for my clarity Operating good saying I'm reading from the text operating good standing is defined as a short-term rental operator registered on or before October 27th To pay the city's TOT BIA it goes on to say Also for those who were not registered for TOT in BIA assessment before October 7th 21 Can you explain the significance of those two dates? Yes, thank you for that question commissioner so the October 7th to 2021 date was the day that our revenue division provided staff with a list of existing short-term rental owners who are already paying to T and BIA prior to the council's action in October on the Existing ordinance that we have today at that time The council wanted to give those who had been operating But didn't know that they needed to register for to T and BIA Some additional time to do that in order to be able to take advantage of this And so they added in a two-week period for those operators to register, which is that October 27th date Thank you, and then a little further down It says about the zoning co-operators and good standing shall submit a short-term rental Permit application for existing short-term rentals accompanied by the short-term rental permit application fee To the planning and economic development within 51 days The effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter the 51 days is what does that represent? Great spirit. What is that? So I'm not a hundred percent sure where the 51 days specifically came from but it was part of the council's action They wanted to provide time for Folks who had been operating and you know met that definition of operator and good standing to get an application in in order to maintain that and then Is it kind of a cut-off date when then we would look forward and Applicants after that time would then need to comply with the constant the 1,000 foot concentration that the council put into place Thank you any other questions Okay So with that if someone would read the resolution Mr.. Sysco show it so go ahead and read the resolution, but I want to check with staff about making some corrections Planner B. So we'll go over the suggested changes to the resolution. Okay, great. Thank you Yes, you'll see in the whereas statements the original resolution stated the Planning Commission held a Duly noticed public hearing. This was a public meeting and it was not noticed And again all comments made at the public hearing. It should say public meeting So those revisions have been added and that is the resolution before you and so just to be clear for the record so on the draft resolution that you have before you it's the The third whereas from the bottom on page one and so we want to strike the word Duly noticed in that finding and also Straight or replace hearing with meeting and then the next whereas Replace the word hearing with meeting So just in those two spots That's correct And we don't need to reference that it was held as a report item when we're just saying that it's it was a public meeting That's correct. Okay. Okay So with that, I'll move a resolution of the Planning Commission of the city of Santa Rosa Denying an appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning and Economic Development Director to deny a non-hosted short-term rental permit located at 6241 Bridgewood Drive assessor's parcel number 182 dash 060 dash 033 file number SVR 22 dash 020 Amending our third whereas down which We need to strike that it was a duly noticed public hearing and replace it hearing with meeting and similarly Wherever the next one was oh Yeah, the next one down all comments made at the public meeting With those amendments and way for the reading of the text Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Thank you. So that was moved by Commissioner Cisco seconded by Commissioner Holton And we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Duggan No pressure. I can understand both both sides of this and It's a real hard call, but I do think that she this Richie was given as much Notice as anybody else who'd been an operator and good standing prior to that date and did not Apply in time and got bumped out So I'm going to vote to uphold the appeal Thank You Commissioner Deny the appeal. Sorry. Thank you, Commissioner Carter Yeah, I'm feeling similarly to Commissioner Duggan I do believe that the appellant had Proper notification We do use setbacks all the time in our zoning codes and we apply them by similar standards So I don't and I don't see any exceptions in either the existing ordinance or the proposed ordinance to the thousand-foot rule and I think it's duly Inniated in the the tax of both ordinances And for those reasons I will support the Denial Thank You Commissioner Sanders Yeah, this is tough because no one wants to say no, you know, I mean It's not why we're here But I'm sort of reminded of when we had the short-term Rental ordinance on the 27th and someone was in the gallery and they were saying that they you know, they didn't understand why they were Considered a non-hosted short-term rental when they lived right next door and They you know their argument was I can hear everything that goes on But you know at a certain point you've got to draw a line of distinction because the analogy goes Well the next person will I live right behind them? I live only a block away. I only live So, you know, I mentioned that to say that you know These are part of the growing pains of trying to put order on something that had no order at all and it it's Unfortunate that someone who has been operating, you know your short-term rental since I think May of 2019 But there was there was time, you know, there were Notifications it wasn't done in silence and it's just part of those growing pains and it pains me to have to say that I will be upholding the denial but You have to you know When putting form You know, sometimes it hurts, so I'm sorry to say Mr. Holton I believe that really the my fellow commissioners pretty much clarified My stance as well, and you know, I believe that adequate notice was provided Unfortunately somebody else happened to get in Six days before you and that's very unfortunate And Regarding their situation and what they're currently how they're currently operating I Understand your concern. I really do and I think commissioner Duggan hit it right on the head in that That's not really in our purview and that's not really what we're here to discuss That's we're Literally looking at the str itself. So with that being said I too will also be in In support of denying this appeal Thank You commissioner Cisco Yeah, I don't have anything more to add Hmm. It's an uncomfortable situation, but I'm gonna be denying the appeal Thank you, and I also will be denying the appeal. Our role is really very narrow It's around the thousand foot issue and as previously said notice was given To str operators. So with that It was moved by Commissioner Cisco seconded by commissioner Holton, and if we could have the vote, please Commissioner Carter I Commissioner Cisco I Commissioner Duggan I Commissioner Holton I Commissioner Sanders I chair weeks I So that passes with six eyes one Absent with commissioner Peterson being absent Thank you, and with that we'll move on to the public hearing items tonight So what I'd like to do is reorder the public hearing items and have Item 9.2 be moved up to 9.1 and I Think plan or two means is going to make some comments related to that Thank you. Thank you chair weeks and members of the planning commission My name is Chris Nate to me and I'm the project planner for this item City staff respectfully recommends that the planning commission continued continue this item to a date uncertain This would allow additional time to collect information in response to Written correspondence that staff received in the last few days from the public If continued to a future a planning commission meeting date And you notice will be mailed For the rescheduled meeting identifying the date time and location for the meeting Thank you Thank you. So to do this we will need to have a motion And a vote by the Commission So is there someone who would move the motion to continue to a date uncertain? Commissioner Duggan I'll make a motion to move the item Recall at 9.1 of the public hearing for 711 conditional use permit to a date uncertain Thank You second second. Thank you. So that was moved by Commissioner Duggan seconded by Commissioner Cisco If we could have a vote, please Commissioner Carter I Commissioner Cisco I Commissioner Duggan I Commissioner Holton I Commissioner Sanders I Chair weeks I so that passes with six eyes and one absence Vice Chair Peterson, yes, he's still vice chair for the rest of the meeting absent so with that we'll move on to 9.1 Public hearing extension request Montecito Town Homes It is a CEQA exempt project tentative map time extension request at zero Montecito Boulevard ext 22-003 and once again we have planner B's law Chair weeks. Do we need to do an exparte? Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you Yes, this is an exparte item. So we'll start with Commissioner Holton. I Have nothing to disclose Mr.. Cisco. I have nothing to disclose Missioner, okay visited the site and have no additional information Commissioner Carter I've also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you Commissioner Sanders I have visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. Thank you And I also visited the site and have nothing further to disclose. So with that planner B's law Hello again chair weeks and members of the planning Commission The project before you is a time extension request for the Montecito Town Homes at zero Montecito Boulevard some project history on November 29th 2018 the Planning Commission approved the Montecito Town Homes Small lot subdivision that would subdivide the half acre lot into eight residential lots with attached housing a Conditional use permit and tentative map were approved and were automatically extended to May 29th 2022 through Assembly Bill 1561 The application before the Planning Commission is for a one-year time extension, which would extend expiration to May 29th 2023 Here is the approved tentative map from 2018 and Here is an aerial view of the site Before I could include my presentation I would like to point out that the resolution and staff report have been revised the original staff report and resolution cited the sequel findings of the approved entitlement in 2018 The revised staff report and resolution before you clarify that the extension itself is exempt pursuant to sequel guidelines at 15 153 3 2 as well Therefore it is recommended by the Planning and Economic Development Department that the Planning Commission Approve a one-year time extension for the Montecito Town Homes tentative map extending the expiration date to May 29th 2023 and For any questions, this is my contact information. The applicant is also available via zoom for any questions. Thank you And I'd just like to clarify that the documents were revised and uploaded so the proper language is in Your documents online, so we won't need to make any proposed amendments before taking a motion. Thank you Thank you So any questions for staff at this time Commissioner Carter Can we safely assume that the applicant is ready to submit the final map since there's only a few days between now and the expiration of the extension Yes, I just spoke to the applicant. They are working with engineering staff and They will be submitting the my lars ASAP They're I believe they're meeting with one of our engineers tomorrow and They also have a Additional extension application ready to go just in case any issues come up with that submittal within the next few days Any other questions of staff? Any questions of the applicant? Okay, so with that this item has So I will open the public hearing On this item if there any people in attendance who wish to make a public comment, please step toward the podium You'll have three minutes. I don't see anybody If you are on zoom Please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone dial star nine to raise your hand and star six to unmute once called upon Are there any zoom hands raised? Chair weeks there are no hands raised on zoom. Thank you So with that I will go ahead and close the public hearing on this item and bring it back to the Commission So this has one resolution if somebody would like to Move that commissioner Holton. Thank you I'll go ahead and move a resolution of the planning commission of the city Santa Rosa Granting a one-year extension of time for the Montecito townhomes small lot subdivision located at zero Montecito Avenue file number extension 22 dash zero zero zero three and await for the reading Thank you second. I'll second. Thank you. So that was moved by commissioner Holton seconded by commissioner Duggan So let's go ahead and start at the other end of the dais This time with commissioner Sanders I don't really have much to say other than I'll be supporting the Resolution thank you commissioner Carter. I Assume the city liked the project when it was approved originally looks like the right kind of project for the neighborhood and Extension seems straightforward. I'll be supporting the resolution. Thank you commissioner Duggan. I am in support of the resolution commissioner Cisco I'm also in support of the resolution and can make the required findings for approval Thank you and commissioner Holton or keep this short and sweet the opposite of myself I'll be in support of this project and I can make all the required findings and I also am supporting this Resolution and can make all the required findings so with that if we could have a vote that was Moved by commissioner Holton and seconded by commissioner Doug Commissioner Carter I Commissioner Cisco I Commissioner Duggan I Commissioner Holton I Commissioner Sanders I chair weeks I So that passes with six eyes with vice chair Peterson being absent Please note this action is final unless an appeal is filed within 10 calendar days of today's action The time limit will extend to the following business day if the last day falls on a day that the city has closed For information on how to submit an appeal form. Please contact the project planner So with that we'll go on to item 9.3 and if we could take Well People get situated that would be great. Thank you So are we ready to go folks? Do you think? Amy and crew, okay? Okay so This item is a public hearing housing legislation zoning code text amendment and I'm not sure If who which which of you will be doing the Presentation so if you whoever it is if you could please introduce yourself, that would be great Absolutely. Good evening chair weeks and members of the Commission My name is Amy Lyle. I'm supervising planner for our advanced planning team, and I'm just going to be introducing this item tonight So on our team is Nancy Waltering She's a new senior planner on her team that's serving in a limited term position She's a wealth of information and has been a longtime local planner so we're really happy to have her on the team and Her focus is actually working on a lot of our housing legislation so she did complete the art our housing report that goes to housing and community development and As soon as this project is completed. She'll be working on our missing middle ordinance. So you'll be seeing Nancy again But for this evening This is related to housing legislation so our planning team one of our roles is to monitor what comes out of the legislature every year and The 2022 year included quite a bit of legislation. So this package which Nancy will go over includes really a lot of the implementation that's necessary to stay consistent with state law and Making sure that we have a lot of clarity on how it is to be implemented So along with Nancy, we also have Luke Linden Bush on the zoom this evening He's a housing policy planner with our housing collaborative So his team supports Sonoma and Napa jurisdictions and and a lot of things related to housing Significantly our housing element work that just completed But he is also a point person and very knowledgeable on our state legislation And has been working on a regional level on a lot of the mapping that's associated with some of the legislation So if there are questions, we have him as well So with that I'll turn it over to Nancy Thank you Thank You Amy and thank you for the introduction. I really appreciate being here and now working for the city Chair weeks and members of the planning Commission We're all aware of the severity of housing the shortage in housing in general and particularly affordable housing It affects our city. It affects our wider region and it affects our state as a result over the past seven to eight years The state has mandated extensive Changes to state housing law to remove barriers and to create more opportunity to build housing So tonight as Amy mentioned, I'll be reviewing the most recent changes that were approved as part of the 2022 legislative session The focus of this session was on reducing parking requirements We all know that parking can be very expensive to build and can make projects very expensive Extending certain provisions of the density bonus ordinance to new areas of the city increasing housing on underutilized Commercial land such as some of the malls and existing strip commercial areas and Extending opportunities to build housing on land owned by educational agencies So what are these changes mean? These laws make it easier and less expensive to build housing They promote housing close to public transit and in parts of the city that are more accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists such that they generate fewer vehicle trips Promoting housing in these areas areas that are closer to urban centers and transit also reduces the generation of greenhouse gases You're very familiar with the steps the city has taken during this last five to seven year period to address housing but I do want to mention that there were changes in our Accessory dwelling unit ordinance that we all refer to as our ADU ordinance that were part of the 2022 Legislative session these went before counsel as an urgency Ordinance because it went into effect January 1st and because our code our eight our ordinance had been voided And so there there was a it was important to get that approved right away In spite of all these efforts in housing the state projects a need for 2.5 million new homes during the next eight-year planning cycle with one million needed for lower-income households And just this week as many of you likely read generation housing a local housing advocacy Organization released a report indicating that Sonoma County has a shortage right now of 38,000 units and by The end of the decade will need another 20,000 for a total of 58,000 units, so we've made a lot of progress, but there is a lot more work to do So at this point I'd like to go through the changes in the state housing laws that result from this session The first two as I mentioned relate to parking requirements Assembly bill 2097 prohibits jurisdictions from requiring any parking for Housing commercial religious and other institutions and other types of development that are located within a half mile of public transit And that's defined as a half mile from major Transit stop and this could be a rail station. This could be a bus station. This can be where two major routes cross But basically where service is approximately every 15 minutes during commute periods The staff recommendation is that the code be revised to reflect this change as required by law The second bill relating to parking requirements as assembly bill 2244 It pertains specifically to religious institutions for existing Institutions that propose what's referred to as religious institution affiliated housing They're only required to provide 50% of The existing required spaces so that they can use that the that remainder of space to construct housing and for proposed Religious facilities that also propose affiliated housing They are only required to provide half of what would normally be required and as mentioned earlier If they're in it within a half mile of a major transit stop, they're not required to provide any parking except for spaces with EV chargers and spaces that are accessible to people with disabilities This doesn't mean they can't build extra parking if they want to build some extra parking They can but that's their prerogative the staff Recommendation is that the code be revised to reflect this change as required by law The next two laws relate to the density bonus laws Assembly bill 682 clarifies that shared housing buildings such as co-housing projects That provide affordable housing are eligible to receive density bonuses This law also clarifies that the city cannot require any minimum unit size or bedroom requirements as they are Established in the health and safety code the staff recommendation is that the code be revised to reflect this change as required by law Another bill related to density bonus is Assembly bill 2334 The existing condition right now is that projects that are a hundred percent Affordable that are located within a half mile of a major transit stop are entitled to an additional three stories or 33 feet over what's allowed in the general plan assembly bill 2334 extends this provision this Ability to build an additional three stories or 33 feet above existing limitations To a hundred percent affordable projects located within what are referred to and you'll be hearing a lot about these very low vehicle travel areas and It's it also provides these same projects with unlimited density now very low vehicle travel areas will end up covering and About half of Santa Rosa to perhaps two-thirds of Santa Rosa So a lot of Santa Rosa will be within these areas and they're characterized by Generating about 15 percent fewer vehicle trips than is the regional average And we are working with Luke Lindembusch and we're so appreciative of his assistance He has already started mapping these areas. So we will be developing maps for them And I also want to define a hundred percent affordable That means 80% of the units are Affordable to very low and low income groups and no more than 20 to moderate income groups Assembly bill 2334 also clarified that where there are discrepancies between the general plan Land use map and the zoning code that the greater of the two densities prevails The staff recommendation is that the code be revised to reflect this change as required by law We are also using this opportunity to correct Some inconsistencies with the current zone density bonus law The city received a letter from the state housing and community development department about inconsistencies the the largest one related to The maximum density bonus which in our code was 35% and the state had raised it to 50 So we have made changes to all our tables to reflect those changes So our recommendation is to amend the code as required by law I'd also like to look at the supplemental density bonus ordinance and that is Santa Rosa's own ordinance that it developed to Enable projects within the two downtown specific plan areas to increase the density above 50 actually reaching a hundred percent Maximum density bonus and Staff is recommending that the timeline be extended from the existing sunset date of January 24th actually the timeline that the sunset date be removed to provide applicants with flexibility on an ongoing basis To use the supplemental density bonus ordinance We have also we have a clarifying table that just shows how the two density Bonuses the state and the city are used together and we've also clarified in table five dash one the review authority That the director takes action and makes a decision on density bonus projects and the zoning administrator makes decisions for the Supplemental density bonus projects. They do require a minor use permit and they can be appealed to the planning commission The staff recommendation is to amend the code these particular ones are not state-manded They are recommended by by staff. I'll take a breath. These are a lot of as you can kind of absorb these The most the two most significant changes of this legislative session this package have to do with two new laws that provide pathways for developing residential land on Commercial properties the first is assembly bill 2011 and it establishes a by-right process which refers to using and complying with objective standards Rather than going through a discretionary review process for projects that comply with various specifications including labor Standards size where they can be located and they are sequel exempt processes The second pathway through Senate bill 6 is to is a is a process that does require a Discretionary process it is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA and it has a whole another set of specifications But it has some similar labor requirements as I know people had mentioned earlier tonight about the importance of Meeting basic labor standards So the staff recommendation for both of these is to incorporate the laws by reference so that we would Refer to state law to implement it and we're still in the process of evaluating how best to implement them So we will be developing guidelines and we will be developing handouts and other materials that we would provide At the planning counter and also on the city's website And finally the last bill tonight is assembly bill 2295 It allows residential development on parcels owned by educational agencies For projects that meet specified criteria So they're again using Objective standards objective zoning objective design standards objective subdivision standards and if the projects meet these standards They are approved by right the staff recommendation is that the code be revised to reflect this change these changes as required by law So these are the state mandates along with the revision to our supplementary our supplementary bonus ordinance That we have compiled into a single zoning code text amendment You have the required findings as you can see before you in your packet And I am on the screen in front of you that are required and also the findings required Under the California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA and the project is except from CEQA It is therefore recommended that the planning and it is recommended by the planning and economic development department That's the planning Commission by motion Adopt a resolution recommending the city council amend city code chapter 2031 and identified sections and add chapter 2033 to bring the zoning code into compliance with state legislation as required by state law Thank you, and we're happy to answer any questions and again We thank Luke for for being on the line to assist us as issues Questions come up and I'd like to also mention that we included a series of revisions To the staff report we included some clarifying information in our supplementary supplemental density bonus That shows that projects in eligible land uses within a half mile of a transit stop Have a maximum supplemental density bonus of 45 percent and this would be added to the state bonus The projects in land uses and within a half mile to a school facility in eligible Projects in an eligible land use and within a half mile to a school facility have a maximum supplemental Density of 45 instead of 30 that was previously noted Projects in an eligible land use within a half mile of a major transit stop and a half mile to a school facility Have a maximum supplemental density of 65 percent. However with the state bonus of 50 cannot exceed a hundred percent We also clarified as I mentioned in the presentation that the authority for making land use decisions for the density bonus is the director and the the authority for Making some decisions for the supplemental density bonus is the administrative is only administrator and they may be appealed to the Planning Commission We made the same changes in the red line we included See We included two different items in the red line one was to clarify That projects that are a hundred percent affordable right now are eligible for the three additional stories as we discussed and that Projects in the very low vehicle travel areas are eligible for both They can have three additional stories and they can have unlimited density. So the implications of that are fairly large The it is now required We also added to the definition of major transit stop to include major transit stops included in an applicable regional transportation plan and The same the same change was made in the PowerPoint presentation regarding the hundred percent affordable projects So with those changes we are happy to answer any questions And again, I would clarify that all those changes have been made in the materials that were uploaded and are in your package Thank you. Thank you. Are there any questions of staff at this time commissioner Cisco? I'm hearing that we're in the process of developing maps to Indicate where the low vehicle travel areas are When that is completed where are those maps going to live are they going to be part of the zoning code? Are they going to be in the general plan or any involved in our downtown? Plans, you know right now we do have some maps online And there it's not exact because there's some different information was used But they're the screening maps for vehicle miles traveled and it's it's somewhat close as we compared The maps and so in the future we will have them on our own site and our own website But they will be online So if I'm a developer, I would I would have it easily Accessible, but it's not cemented into code or the general plan and with any of our implementing information on the website We would we would provide information on where those maps are and I would guess that at times It might be a bit in flux change Over time. Hopefully it would get lower over time every year. There have been a lot of changes So I would assume that might be the case. Okay. Thank you Any other questions Okay, so with that I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item If there's any person in attendance who wish who wishes to make a public comment, please go to one of the podiums You'll have three minutes And if you are out there and zoom land Please raise your hand if you're dialing in via telephone Please dial star nine to raise your hand and star six and mute once called upon Not seeing anybody go to the podiums. Is there anybody on zoom? Chair weeks there are no hands raised on zoom. Okay. Thank you. So with that, I will close the public Hearing on this item and bring it back to the Commission There is one resolution on this item if someone would like to move that first resolution then we can start Commissioner Holton. Thank you I'd like to move a resolution of the planning Commission of the city of Santa Rosa recommending city council approval of the zoning code text amendments to the city code chapter 20 31 and sections 20 36 dash 0 4 0 20 dash 50 dash 0 2 0 20 dash 70 dot 0 2 0 and adding chapter 20 dash 33 pertaining to housing consistent with state law and wait for the reading Thank you. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you. That was moved by Commissioner Holton seconded by Commissioner Cisco Let's go ahead and start with Commissioner Cisco. I mean these are mandated changes I think it's been thoroughly presented and clearly presented so I appreciate Staff's work on this and I'll be able to make the findings and support the resolution Thank you Commissioner Holton You can also make all the required findings and support the resolution and I'd like to welcome you to the team. Thank you very much wonderful job Commissioner Duggan I Can also make all the required findings and thank staff for all your hard work and getting all this stuff kind of sorted out and implemented into the code and Thank you for the presentation and Commissioner Carter I Yeah, and the state continues to do its job well And it creates a cottage industry for local planning agencies And we appreciate the hard work I will be supporting the Resolution and I can make all the required findings. Thank you and Commissioner Sanders I particularly love the idea that you guys are recommending that we follow the law So that that is really great. Thank you. If you weren't here, there's no telling what we may have done So I can make all the necessary findings and I will support the resolution And I also can make all the required findings and thank you for your thorough presentation So with that that was moved by Commissioner Holton seconded by Commissioner Cisco Commissioner Carter Hi Commissioner Cisco I Commissioner Duggan I Commissioner Holton I Commissioner Sanders I Chair weeks I So that passes with six eyes one absence vice chair Peterson being absence absent and That unless staff has anything else that concludes our meeting till our next regularly scheduled planning Commission meeting Thank you everyone