 Okay, by my clock, I see it's 430. So we'll go ahead and get started. I'd like to call the January 26th, 2023 meeting at the Center of Planning Commission to order. And I read the following statements due to the provisions of the governor's executive orders N-25-20 and N-29-20, which has been certain requirements for the Brown Act and the order of the health officer of the County of Sonoma to Shelter in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19. Planning commissioners will be conducting today's meeting in a virtual setting using Zoom webinar. Commissioners and staff are participating from remote locations and or are practicing appropriate social distancing. Members of the public may view and listen to the meeting as noted on the city's website and as noted on the agenda. Members of the public wishing to speak during item three, public comment period, or during our public hearing item tonight, we'll be able to do so by raising their hand and it'll be given the ability to address the commission. So with that, we have roll call, please. Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present. Thank you. Item two approval of minutes, we don't have any minutes today. So we'll move on to the public comment portion. We are now taking public comments on item three, non-agended matters. This is a time when any person may address the commission on matters not listed on the agenda but within or within the scope and subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. If you wish to make a public comment, you can do so by selecting the raise your hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen. If you're calling in, please press star nine. I don't see any hands raised. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. So with that, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing or a public comment portion and bring it back to the commission. So we'll go on to item four, planning commissioners report 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, folding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps and undertaking any special planning studies as needed. So with that, 4.2, any committee reports? Commissioner Carter. I did have a waterways advisory meeting this morning, the first in many months. It was a relatively small item, security fence along the Piner Creek maintenance road and recreational trail, which we recommended for approval. I also reported that I'm going to be doing the subdivision committee. So I don't know if I'll be continuing on the waterways advisory committee, but perhaps the chair can show some list among this. Thank you. Any other committee reports? We only have those two, don't we? So I'll move on to commissioner reports. And so with that, a follow up on commissioner Carter, I am appointing commissioner Carter to the subdivision committee. And at the next meeting, I will be making an appointment to waterways. Also, I wanted to report out that as planning commission representative to the quarterly Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital neighborhood meetings, we had a meeting on Monday and I was pleased to see that council member staff whose district Memorial Hospital was in attendance. So those meetings, as I said, are quarterly. So with that, any other commissioner reports? Okay. So then we'll move on to department reports. Yes. Thank you chair, we send members of the planning commission. Good afternoon, Jessica Jones, deputy director for planning. So I do have a couple items for you all. The first is to let you know, and an email was sent out to the commission earlier today, that all of our boards and commissions here at the city will be going back to in-person meetings starting the 1st of March. So just like the city council has been holding in-person meetings with the option for the community to continue to participate, both in-person and via Zoom, but with all of the council members and staff present, that is what all of our boards and commissions will be going to starting at the beginning of March. So that will be for your first meeting in March, which I think perhaps is March 9th. Yeah, March 9th will be that first meeting. And so both the commission and staff, as well as any members of the public, will be back in our council chambers at City Hall. But again, with continued option for the folks at home to participate via Zoom if they want to. And then I also wanted to let the commission know, and again, an email went out earlier this morning regarding this, that the Purevita minor use permit item that the planning commission reviewed on December 8th. At that meeting, the commission had a draft resolution of approval before them, but a motion to adopt that resolution failed. And so staff was going to be going back to prepare a resolution of denial for the planning commission's consideration. But we did receive a written request from the applicant to withdraw their minor use permit application and that request was received on December 30th. So with that withdrawal, the minor use permit is no longer in play, so we will not be bringing back a resolution for the commission. And then the final thing is just to let you know that it looks like we will not be having a planning commission meeting on February 9th. Looks like we don't have any items for that meeting, but we will be having a meeting, second meeting in February on February 23rd. And that is all that I have for today. Thank you. Okay, so we'll move on to statement of abstentions. Are there any abstentions by commission? Okay, and then item seven, Consent items, which we have none today. So we'll move on to item 8.1, public hearing, the 2023 to 2031 housing element, Winter General Plan Amendment, and Supervising Plan or Lion will lead us off. All right, good afternoon. Let me share my screen. All right, is everyone seeing my screen okay? Good afternoon, my name's Amy Lyle. I serve as the Supervising Planner for our Advanced Planning Team, which is our long range planning team. So I'll be presenting today with two co-presenters. Also joining me will be our Equity and Public Health Planner, Beatrice Guerra-Una, and then our consultant from PlaceWorks, Cynthia Walsh. So we'll be trying to break up this presentation because it's a little bit lengthy. And so as far as the agenda, we're gonna go over tonight. Some of this will be a little bit of review for you all because we've had a couple of study sessions on the subject before, but I wanted to make sure to give some more information and review for other community members that might be watching. Tonight we are hoping for a recommendation on our draft housing element, which is part of our general plan. And it's also our general plan amendment winter package. We don't have any other items within that package, so it really is just the housing element tonight. And for tonight, we will go through what requirements are in place for housing elements. I'll include a little bit of a discussion on RENA, which is our Regional Housing Needs Allocation. We'll talk about the actual housing element that's before you and give you a review. And then we'll talk about the process from this point forward and where we've been and then what our staff recommendation is. I will say that the housing element is a very large document. We do have a website dedicated to this project and it does have a few different versions of the housing element. So I'll try to walk through how to access that and where you can find all our previous comment letters that have been submitted as well and are reviewed by the state. And so that will be our landing place for this project as it continues in the process. All right, so we'll start with a little bit of review on what the housing element is and how the deadlines are a little bit different from some of the other policy documents we work on. So it is one of the required elements of our general plan and unlike some of the other elements, we are required to update the housing element every eight years. So what is before you is considered cycle six. So it'll cover a period of time of the end of this month through January 31st, 2031. So that's the planning period of which we're looking at for the life of this document. And so if this document is adopted, it will be part of our existing general plan that has been in effect for quite a while. So this was part of our comprehensive general plan update because of this timeline and requirement to have it adopted by the end of this month, it was pulled out of our comprehensive update so we can move it along on a faster track. We're obviously not gonna meet the adoption deadline of January 31st. There's actually a secondary deadline of it having to be certified by Housing and Community Development Department, HCD. And so technically it has to be certified by January 31st. So that is another layer of review which we will talk about a little bit later. And we can also talk about the implications of having not having a certified housing element by the end of this month that there are questions about that. So there are a lot of state requirements as to what's in the housing element along with this timeline. So that it is a mix of a various, lots of different things. And that's why this is one of the more technical and larger elements of the general plan. So as far as the contents of what we have, it has a lot of different chapters. It covers a lot of different material. And I will say housing is really one of the biggest issues that we have to deal with here locally. And one of the biggest concerns that we've heard vocalized from many members of our community throughout our general plan process and pretty much any other policy process that we've worked through. And this is one very high level piece of the puzzle when it comes to creating solutions for housing. So this is setting up the policies and programs and implementing state law. But of course there takes many other things to go along with this to really make sure that we're working through the issues to create more housing and that we have the right amount of housing, the types and the right locations. So the housing element has all of these different chapters. So we're going to touch on each one of these and we won't get into too much of the detail because a lot of this is very data-driven. But the major piece of this for review are the goals, policies and programs. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Beatrice to talk about the outreach efforts that we've undertaken up to this point. Thank you. Good evening planning commission. My name is Beatrice Guerrero and I work for the advanced planning team and most of my work is focused on the general plan update, specifically community engagement as well as bringing an equity and health perspective to the general plan update, particularly talking about our housing element, public outreach and community engagement. We have the basic requirements that the state is asking us for in terms of the housing element. However, we did not only address what the state was requiring, we did a lot of additional work for us to get this information to our community. We did service provider interviews through our consultant team from November to June, 2022. Our city council and planning commission study sessions first in November, 2021, as well as May and June of 2022. We had a community workshop on March, 2022, which was actually an online community workshop. Then we had a five other community workshops that were done also remotely. We had an online community survey from February to April, 2022. This online community service and survey had around 500 people responding. We had the survey both in English and Spanish and for us, it was relevant to know that 42% of the respondents were renters. We had a fair amount of women responding to the survey. 72% of our respondents were women. And we had a very large diversity in terms of people of color responding to the survey. 15% of the community who responded to the survey was Latino or Hispanic. 3% of all the community was Native American or identified as Native American. 2% of the community identified as Asian and 2% of the community identified as Black. So I'm just bringing these numbers to the conversation because one of the requirements that the state has is to get to as many community members as we can prioritize in communities that have not been taken into account on planning processes. And an additional thing that I wanna mention is two of the youngest community groups have very full outreach in this term. We had only 2% of the community responding with ages under 24. So we know this is a group that we need to focus more in terms of outreach. However, we got a fair amount of information from this survey. And I also wanna add that 14% of the respondents in this survey were Spanish speakers as well as 2% of the people who responded to survey actually used sign language. So we have people with disabilities also participating. I wanna say that we also participated periodically on the Napa Sonoma Collaborative Equity Working Group meetings as well as we have been implemented the Santa Rosa Forward Community in Boulder strategy that does not only include the housing element engagement but it includes all the engagement that is being done in terms of the general plan update and all the alternatives and preferred alternative that we have been working on in the latest step of the housing of a general plan update. If we can go to the next slide please. Additional steps that were done by our planning team in terms of the public outreach where as Amy was mentioning before creating a specific website for our housing element. This was not re-clarified by the state but it's a suggestion that is provided by HCD that we did this. We also have this page available in Spanish as well as most of our documents. We created a bilingual social media campaign together with our community engagement team and our communications team. We also did bilingual pop-ups on equity priority communities or the ones who are not familiar with what we mean when we say pop-ups is we come out with tables and chairs and we do surveys in communities that are actually both low income and majority communities of color. So that's what we mean when we say equity priority communities and we were very focused on reaching out to the community because we know these are the groups that usually don't come to our planning meetings or our workshops so we were very mindful of providing these opportunities for people who usually don't participate on public meetings. And additionally to this, we added more channels of communication for people to be able to participate in the way that they prefer. We had an AletsConnect platform active for people to be able to review the document as well as participate and collaborate on creating additional comments on this platform. We opened the channel of text messages and plus messages. This is a very recent addition to our channels of communication but we have been trying to spread the word to get more people participating with this waste. We also had specific meetings with housing focused nonprofits and organizations to provide more information and cluster collaboration, particularly focused on outreach to mention some of the organizations that have been attending our meetings and collaborating with us. There is Generation Housing and AAACP which stands for National Association for the Advancement of Public Policy People, Disability Services and Legal Center, FH and AMC for Housing at the Fates of Northern California and Jun Bin Lo as well as just in my back there at San Rosa. So these organizations have been meeting with us the last time on December, 2022 to help us with the outreach as well as hearing their concerns about specifically the housing element. We also created after the meeting with the organizations a bilingual housing element summary. We know this is a 400 pages document that is not accessible to every resident in our city. So we decided that we would try to do a brief of this document which is under 50 pages and it's available on our website, both in English and Spanish. So with this, I'm gonna wrap up what we did with the public outreach and I'll let Amy talk about the reading. Thank you. Thank you so much, Beatrice. So now we're gonna switch gears a little bit and get back to some of the technical pieces of the housing element. And one of those is RENA, which is an acronym that we commonly hear as it relates to housing. And that's our regional housing needs allocation. And this is essentially the amount of units that we need to plan for in the next eight years. And so this process starts a couple years prior to the housing element deadline and it starts with the state telling each region how much that region needs to plan for. So we're in the Association of Bay Area Governments, nine county region. And so there was a methodology committee formed with representatives from the nine counties and our staff did participate in that. And they had to form a methodology to distribute that amount of housing units throughout the region. So that happened over about a, feels like a maybe year and a half or so. And ultimately we were assigned 4,685 units. And then those units are broken down into different types of income ranges. So not only do we have to produce that number of units and plan for them, we need to do so in a way where we are recognizing the need for very low income, low income, moderate and even above moderate. So in the general, this is just kind of a nuts and bolts of how we end up with that number. So there's also a lot of question about how we rank as far as how much do we need to produce within the county as a whole. And as you may remember our study session the last time we talked with you, I believe the last time was actually, well we had a joint study session with the council and then we came to you separately. And one of the questions we asked was if we wanted to consider taking some of the rena numbers from the county. And that ultimately was, we did not receive direction to do that as part of the housing element, but that was one of the major questions that we had looked at in developing this housing element. So this housing element is looking at planning for 4,685 units. We are very lucky that we, in order to achieve this, we do not have to rezone any properties. So this housing element will be able to be accomplished as a general plan amendment. There are no properties being rezoned, but we'll talk about which properties are identified to be able to meet this school specifically. And then one of the other questions we get a lot is how have we performed in past housing element cycles? It's probably well known that we have been through a lot here in Sonoma County when it comes to fire recovery with loss of housing but also just economic issues with the pandemic and then of course a recession. So there's been a lot of challenges, especially in this last fifth cycle. And so we don't have our numbers for 2022 yet. We're actually getting those numbers now. So this only reflects what has occurred up until 2021. So one of the biggest issues is that the hardest units to be able to produce are those in the low income and very low income ranges. And that's usually most challenges by most jurisdictions but we have not been able to meet arena for some of the previous cycles due to that reason but also just economic reasons as well. As I noted, the housing element is not a cure-all for the housing crisis and we aren't able to control the market or the development activity. We can do as much as possible and we have to be able to incentivize and streamline development and we are employing as many tools as possible to be able to help with this housing situation. So that was the fifth cycle. And here's a quick look at the third and fourth cycles. So really going back to 1999 and looking at these eight year increments as far as what was actually produced. So I won't get into this too much but I'm happy to answer questions on this. But at this point, we're gonna get into the chapters of the housing element. So I wanted to stop here and see if there are questions on anything that we've covered thus far and then we can get back to the rest of the presentation. Are there any questions for our staff at this point? Vice Chair Peterson. Just very briefly, since you mentioned it, what are the penalties for missing the deadline? Yes, good question. So we are not alone. This particular cycle has been challenging because although we knew the deadline to have adopted and certified housing element, state law changed while we were in the midst of writing the element. So there's been a number of different changes that increased a lot of the timelines required, increased a lot of the requirements that need to be within the housing element that created a lot of more studies that needed to be completed within the time. So since they may know, but I think one or two within the whole Bay Area region might be on time, but it is very, very few and far between. So we were the 14th to submit our housing element to HCD for review. So we're in a good spot as far as timeline, but we are certainly not gonna meet that deadline. So the ramifications of not having a certified housing element by the end of this month really comes down to funding. So we are not eligible for grants that may come up during this gap period of time. And it's been interesting because a lot of the funding opportunities that require a certified housing element have shifted to say, will you have a certified housing element by the time of funding or the award happening? Because there are so many jurisdictions in California that have not had a certified housing element by their regional due date. The other piece of that is that this will trigger some other state laws that will create opportunities for additional by right housing. So that is a possibility that could occur as well. So if there are developments that are ready to submit and move through the process, they may have a faster streamlined opportunity to be able to for approval. Cynthia, is there anything else I'm forgetting? The only one would be lawsuits. That would be the last one. But thus far, we haven't had anyone, you know, we're moving in the right direction so everyone can see that we are working towards a certified housing element. Ashley, do you wanna weigh in? I just wanted to offer one more thing regarding the housing. This is something many of you may have heard about. It's gotten a lot of press lately. It's called the Builders Remedy. So it's really, if you've got a certain amount of affordable housing, as Amy said, it's essentially a by right project approval, even if the project doesn't comply with your general plan and zoning standards. So this is one of the consequences. Some jurisdictions are looking at that as a positive. I don't know, but it's definitely an interesting one. So I just wanted to expand on that because I know a lot of people are throwing around that term Builders Remedy and I just wanted to address it. That's it. I wanted to add just one additional thing in relationship to that. We did meet with all the housing organizations to get their support in terms of outreach, but we also wanted to hear from them in case any of them were interested on presenting a lawsuit or a complaint or anything. So we wanted to address our community. We know there's organizations that are just doing the lawsuits for money and we wanted to make sure that at least in our community, we had everyone on board in terms of knowing what they needed in terms of policies and considering the requirements that they wanted from us to have more accessible involvement on the housing element. Any other questions at this time? Okay. All right, we will carry on. So I'm gonna walk through each chapter, or we will walk through each chapter of the housing element. So one of the first chapters is the housing needs assessment and this includes a lot of data. So it's really looking at the demographics and I will note that it's a snapshot in time. So there has been a lot of need to update various little parts of it because this was written, let's see, June was our first draft of this. So there has been a lot of things that have been added or updated since then. So we'll do our best to keep up to date with the data in here, but it really is a snapshot in time of mid 2022 of what was occurring. And so it does take a deep dive into the demographics. This is a great place to really get familiar with our landscape for housing and it talks a lot about the job housing balance, the characteristics of the type of housing that we have in the city and then the special needs groups that we have, what type of housing is at risk and really sets the landscape for the policy piece of the housing element. And so I just wanted to highlight some of the data and I will note that Beatrice prepared a housing element summary, which provides a great summary of this and all the other chapters as well. If you wanted a quick view of this dense document. So 4% of the units were overcrowded. This is based on census data. We know that this is an undercount and that there are most likely a lot more overcrowding and there's a larger problem associated with this. But again, this is based on the data that we had available. 62% of households have families and 46% of households are renters, which is a very large percentage. And you'll also note in the housing element there's a lot of comparisons with Santa Rosa versus the county or Santa Rosa county and state, which is very helpful. So I thought some of the interesting demographics as far as our demographics as part of population is that we in Sonoma County have 63.2% let's see, versus 26% as far as Hispanic population. And then between, again on the overcrowding, again on the overcrowding, between 20, let's see, between 2019 to 2020, there was an increase in the amount of overcrowding. I'm gonna have to go back and look at that number because that does not look right, but I'll check on that and change that slide. So anyways, there's a lot of data there that we hope you've had a chance to review. And with that, I'm gonna turn this over to Beatrice to talk to you about the fair housing assessment. Thank you, Amy. In relationship to the fair housing assessment, Assembly Bill 686 required every housing element starting on January, 2021 to have a fair housing assessment, meaning have just a review of the variables and the characteristics that are relevant to understand the barriers that our communities are facing to fair housing. In particular, there's a few variables that are analyzed on our fair housing assessment. One of them is diversity, and with this, we're talking about racial diversity as well as household income, rates of poverty, rates of overcrowding and overpayment, family status and rates of disability. And in this graphic, we're just showing the differences of the human development index, which is an index that includes all the basic variables to analyze quality of life, one of them being housing. And as you can see from 2014 to 2021, we have differences in almost every recent ethnicity, increasing in terms of, sorry, in terms of white population and Sonoma in general, which is great news, as well as the Latino community. However, we have to highlight that for the Black community as well as for the Asian community, this human development index has been going down, and one of the main reasons related to this is housing. So that's why we brought this graphic to the conversation, and we can go to the next slide, please, Amy. And we chose this other graphic from our housing element to bring some conversation about racial diversity and housing in the city. And as you probably know, the highest racial and income diversity in our city is found on the city's lower resource areas, as well as the southwest of Santa Rosa. Our Highway 101 serves as a physical barrier separating the city into distinct areas which are east and west, and the east side is less diverse and home to the city's more affluent households as well. And the west side reflects more diversity, both in terms of race and ethnicity, as well as income. So this is a picture of our current state. And we also want to mention that Santa Rosa's communities of color are fostered in South and Southwestern Santa Rosa, primarily in mixed commercial residential areas, south of the state, Route 12, and east of the Stony Point grade road. And I'm just mentioning this for us to understand it. The zoning that we have in the city actually just lets us provide housing for some particular groups. And as we know in terms of this analysis, some of the non-white population have a hard time finding housing on other locations that are not the places where we have mixed eases or zoning that is not single residents. So that's basically what we wanted to show. And if we want to go deeper into the fair housing assessment, we can definitely talk more about it, but we wanted to just show this couple of slides to have more details on the general conclusions that we got from the fair housing assessment. And I'm gonna let Amy talk about the housing site analysis. Thank you, Beatrice. So the next section is on the housing site analysis. And this is really looking at that Rina number and how we're actually identifying the sites and how they're distributed throughout the city. So there's a lot of state law that governs how we choose the sites, how we make sure that those sites are broken down into those different income categories and that they are viable for that type of development. So it is a lot to navigate and we're really appreciative of our consultant team helping us through this. So, and the other piece of this is because our first draft was out in June, we've had to change these maps a number of times because we have projects in the pipeline. So we have some under construction, we have some approved, some pending. And so if you look in the housing element, there is a detailed list of these sites, but they have shifted and are obviously not real-time and may shift again prior to adoption. So this is a snapshot of the approved and pending project capacity. So we are able to count those projects that had issued building permits after July of 2022. So we are looking at the projects that are under construction that were issued previously and those that are pending that we can anticipate coming online and that those are approved and they're not commenced with building permits or construction yet. So we did have to do a deep dive into understanding of the approved projects, which ones we're actually planning to move forward and what their status is. Because a lot of times once something's approved, we won't actually know until a building permit is applied for if they're able to gather the financing or get the construction lined up within the timeframe. And so looking at the capacity to meet Rina, this is one of the maps. I will note that we are breaking out the downtown specific plan from the rest of the city. And we talked a little bit about this during previous study sessions, but the downtown area, as most of you know, because you sat on this commission when we did the downtown plan, we do not have density. We have FAR floor area ratio. And so it's very challenging to explain that to HCD with certainty that something would develop in a certain way with a certain number of units. So we wanted to take a very conservative approach with the downtown area and really had to look at those sites differently. So this map shows all the sites within our inventory that are outside of the downtown. And they are broken out into the income category. So the purple are the above moderate, blue moderate and green lower. And I will also give you the caveat that this isn't necessarily how our city will develop. It is showing that we have adequate sites to meet our arena. So we are, as you know, in the midst of a general plan update that is looking out to 2050. So that planning effort, having a longer vision and a longer viewpoint is looking at a different growth pattern. This is an eight year snapshot showing that we have adequate sites that doesn't mean that these sites will all develop or that these are the only sites that could develop for these income levels. So it is a little bit of a tricky thing to explain when it comes to what meets state law but then what may actually happen on the ground. And then looking at the downtown area, again, we took a very conservative approach. As you may remember, we estimated capacity downtown to be around 7,000 units. So for purposes of this housing element and for this eight year picture snapshot in time, we're looking at sites that will encompass about 1,300 units. And so that is a little bit of a difference from the downtown plan. And then another piece of our sites inventory is our ability to project how many accessory dwelling units will be created. And we've really invested heavily in streamlining ADU's and have really benefited from this within the city thus far. And so we do have policies continuing in the housing element to encourage and streamline ADU's. We've been working with the Napa Sonoma ADU Center on a lot of their stock plans and we'll be continuing to work with them. So this shows a very conservative expectation of how many ADU's we will likely see in the coming years. And as I noted, we've made changes since that first draft. So this is just providing a little bit of a synopsis why. So we're really, we had a lot of conversations with HCD on what the sites, which sites were adequate, what more data did they need to show that sites downtown would be able to be developed. We had to provide them some information on our pending projects to show what densities our projects were coming in as. We also updated the list of projects to make sure we were capturing those that are under construction and that we were not counting projects that had building permits that had been issued previous to July of last year. So another chapter within the housing element is looking at housing constraints. So again, this is a policy document. It is high level, but we do our best to identify what other barriers might exist. So this chapter really talks about what are the limitations? What are, what may also be necessary to help facilitate housing? And that could be in government or outside government. And then also we noted the continuing conversation on energy conservation and a lot of those changes that impact our housing housing. And then there's also a chapter evaluating our existing housing element that we hope to supersede. And so it's looking at all of the programs that are in place now and how effective they are and how we progress. So this does include the information I showed you on RENA, how well did we perform during the previous cycle and really making sure that we have looked to see if there are things that we need to put in place in order to achieve more units or achieve our program goals. And with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Cynthia to talk about our policies and programs. Great, thanks Amy. Good evening, Cynthia Walsh with PlaceWorks. So once the majority of the housing element, all of the slides that Amy has just walked through are completed, then we look to developing housing goals and policies and programs for you to move forward with over the next eight years. And the next slide we're gonna walk through a few of those programs. So the programs are the actual action items of the housing element. And looking at the actions the city will take to address the identified needs. So as a part of the housing element update we identify housing needs, needs of special needs groups. And then we formulate programs based off of those identified needs. So for the sixth cycle housing element which does stand over 2023 to 2031, we do have 42 actions. There are seven that are continuing without modifications. So they were in your current housing element and we're moving them forward. There are 19 programs that we have modified. This could be we change the timing on it or we added a few additional implementation measures under that same program. And then we have 16 new programs. And this is typically to address state law or to address additional needs that were identified as a part of this process. Next slide. So these next few slides are just going to be a few lists of what the programs are. So these are our seven continuing programs. We have our adequate sites, opportunity for development areas, continuing the Santa Rosa Housing Trust Fund, continuing to look for housing for large households to build community acceptance, real property tax transfer and to continue participation in the mortgage credit certificate program. Next slide. And now we jump into the modified programs. So like I mentioned, we may have the city may have had a previous ADU program, accessory dwelling unit program, but now we have included additional ways of promoting that program. Or as Amy mentioned, the different steps the city is already in the process of taking. So we've elaborated on what was in your past housing and modified them to move them forward. So continuing with housing rehab and code enforcement activities, continuing preservation of at-risk housing. At-risk housing is housing that has the potential for converting from affordable to market rate over the next 10 years, looking at your inclusionary housing program and then continuing to support affordable housing and funding for affordable housing. Next slide. A few more of the modified programs. So expanding on housing for persons with disabilities, farm workers, persons experiencing homelessness, looking at extremely low income households and how we can help assist with those. And an extremely low income household is a household earning less than 30% or 30% or less of the median income. Senior households, their housing services. So most likely we had a program in the previous housing element that touched on a few of the fair housing issues, but it's definitely been increased with the new requirement of AD 686. Tenant protection, eviction prevention measures, section eight, housing choice voucher program, continuing the application streamlining and compliance with SB 35, which is new for this cycle, and then continuing energy efficiency in housing. Next slide. And then to look at the new programs. So as I mentioned, new programs are going to be based off of state law for example, program H2, this has to do with the sites inventory. So when we need to have additional programs to help show how the city is going to facilitate the development of housing, we include different programs. So we have a lot consolidation and small site program. Small sites are sites that are smaller than a half of an acre and HDD likes to see additional commitment from the city when you are relying on smaller sites. We also are looking at innovative housing options. We are aiming for a pro housing designation. Sites identified in previous cycles. This is also a new state law in order to be able to use sites from previous housing elements. There are different requirements that must now apply to those sites. A large site development and subdivision and how the city will assist with that. Completing a housing condition survey and this is to ensure you really understand the rehab needs of the community and then aiming a focus in those identified areas. The mobile home park rent control, affordable housing tracking and essential housing bond financing program. Next slide. And then a few more of our continued, our new programs. So you can see both action age 30 and 31. These are new programs based off of their housing. So anti-displacement strategies and place-based revitalization strategies. Also looking at a community land trust program. There are zoning code amendments to comply with new state law. So that is action 35. Zoning, sorry, revised parking standards, looking at ensuring that those are not a constraint to housing design review findings, revising some of those findings to again ensure that this is not a discretionary process. And then water and wastewater priority for lower income developments. Next slide. And I think this is where I'm gonna hand it back over to Amy. Yeah, thank you, Cynthia. So we just have a few more slides. So I think I'll break for questions just after these next few slides. But as far as the milestones that we've been through, so we did release a draft of the housing element back in June. And that is when we did come to your commission and to the city council for study sessions just to review the draft with you. And we did receive a lot of public comments during that timeframe. So we did make amendments and updates to the housing element. And that allowed us to go ahead and submit it to HCD for a required 90 day review. And we were able to have an informal discussion with them and be able to revise that housing element before the final due date of November 1st. So there was a little bit of a back and forth there, which is you can track on our website within the draft that's annotated. But we ultimately received that letter from HCD, which is included in your package tonight. And that includes all of their findings and their requests for how we need to change the housing element. So that has been our effort since receiving that letter is making sure that we are responding in total to all of those concerns expressed by HCD. And then we did release a revised draft in December and we've made a few revisions since then. So that most up to date housing element is what's before you tonight. And the reason we did change it a couple more times is because we did have additional outreach. So we continued to talk with the community. We did receive some information from our tribal consultation. So we wanted to make sure to encompass as much as we could to bring this before you to move forward with this final adoption process. And so as far as next steps, we are hoping to move forward to the city council with your recommendation tonight. And so that will be on February 14th. And then we will submit it back to HCD. And on this round, they will have a 60 day period of time to review. There are a couple of different ways that jurisdictions work with this timeline. One is they would just resubmit the draft housing element prior to adoption to HCD. HCD would review it and provide a conditional certification. Then we would have come to you with adoption. Because of the amount of comments from HCD and our ability to, we felt confident that we were able to take care of most of the comments from HCD. We felt confident moving this forward for adoption and then submitting to HCD. So we hope that this will expedite the process a little bit and that HCD will know that they are the last step for us having a certified housing element and will help us facilitate a faster certification. So we are asking the city council within their resolution to allow staff to make minor revisions. So if HCD does find something that is minor and we can correct, that we won't have to move it through a full adoption process one more time. So it is a little bit tricky. We're not used to having a state agency having to certify our work. We like our local ability to govern our own policy but this is a very interesting and intricate process. And so we hope that we will have a certified housing element sometime between February and April. So whenever HCD is planning to act. So as part of your package tonight, we do have an addendum. So this is the environmental document that we are recommending in order to adopt the housing element. And this is basically a review of the housing element in relation to our existing general plan environmental impact report. So that is the functional CEQA document that we are recommending for you tonight. And those findings have been drafted for you within the resolution. And so therefore it's our recommendation tonight that you hold a public hearing, provide comments and approve a resolution recommending that council adopt the housing element. So I'll stop there for any questions that you have. Thank you, Amy. Are there any questions of staff at this time before I go ahead and open the public comment period? I think if Ms. Crocker could you direct me just briefly. What I'd like to do is take the public comments first and then bring it back to the commission for other comments. Does that be okay? Yeah, this will be opening the public hearing to be clear and then you can take public comment. Typically though, if there are more substantive questions that the commissioners have, now is the time when you may also ask those it can also inform some of the public comment. Or if you can just at this time, open the public hearing, take comments and then the commission can ask questions thereafter and we would ask for a motion to move the resolution prior to discussion and a vote. Okay, thank you. Then I think what I'll do is go ahead and get the questions from the commission now. I have a variety of questions but I don't wanna hug the limelight. So are there any questions from my fellow commissioners of staff at this time? We'll start with Commissioner Duggan and then Vice Chair Peterson. Okay, hi Amy. I sent out an email last night with some questions and the first one was any response to the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California letter and what is staff's response to the comments that they had in their letter? Yes, thank you so much. That's one thing I did not note is that we do have late correspondence that has been included in the package, one of which is that letter that you mentioned. And so we have been reviewing that and I'd actually like be traced if you're able to respond to that question. Absolutely, Amy. We have reviewed this specific letter with the housing team because we consider it was not only planning jurisdiction but also housing. And we agreed to adjust some of the requirements that this letter has specifically, talking about the, let me just go back to it, to including education related to the source of income discrimination, which is one of the requests and include that on program H36. That's specific to that part. And in relationship to the part requested about housing registry as well as just cause eviction, rent stabilization, all those comments have to be reviewed with them in our next meeting. And we also were considering including council in this conversation particularly because all of these proposals were included and created through city council in a specific ordinance on August, 2016. However, this ordinances were sent to referendum and voted against. So this is something that we can include without council's response. So we would be very eager to do this. It's just not under our capacity to do it without council's guidance. So we definitely want to have this discussion. We just want to have this discussion with council's direction. And I don't know if there's any additional comments from you on this part, but we'd be happy to include it if necessary. I might add to that this organization and also any others and members of public will be invited to submit comments to the council in advance of their goal setting. So this will be the time that council will prioritize and set its goals for the next year. And so many of these requests were quite substantive and would require a lot of community outreach and ordinance work and as Beatrice mentioned, we've gone through that before. So that's another process that's going on almost concurrently with this and people will be invited to submit comments there as well. Okay. And I've got a couple other little detailed questions that relate to the document. On page 437, it notes that the wait list for housing voucher is over 7,900 families and typical wait is seven to 10 years. And my question was, is that typical of other cities in California of similar population and what if anything is being done to assist those on the wait list and is that included in any of the new programs? Yes. Thank you for sending that question in advance. We actually weren't able to get a response to that within the timeframe. So we'll have to get back to you on that because that's a question for our vouchers team at the housing authority. So that's something we can get back to you with. Okay. And then do you have any, I don't just read through my email questions or do you have any other responses to anything else I included? We did go through your questions. Some of them were technical fixes and we appreciate that keen review. Let's see. I'm not sure if you have any particular ones that you would like a response to. Let's see. Just, well, I guess there's just two more. So table 4.5, 4-5 on page 475. One of the contributing factors noted is lack of availability of rentals accepting the housing choice vouchers in moderate and high resource areas in the city. And can you expand on how the identified meaningful actions in the same table will improve this? And is it through working directly with rental owners or through the development of new rental units or a combination of things? Yeah, that was a great question. And it really is a combination of things. So we do have that program that Beatrice was just talking about that came up in the last comment letter that we discussed. I think it's H36, that program, really is trying to address that contributing factor as far as the ability to have more vouchers available in high resource areas. But it really does take a variety of different efforts. So some of those efforts are already underway with our housing authority team. And some of that is simply creating more educational opportunities and making sure that property owners are aware. And then the last one I'll ask is relates to the planning fees that were noted in the tables on 6-33. And as I said, if I understand it correctly, developing a six-lot subdivision would pay the subdivision fees and then additional fees for each unit if they built like a six-house subdivision. And how does that compare to other places in the Bay Area? And is that an impediment for people building in Santa Rosa if they can build cheaper in other Bay Area cities? I'm gonna ask Deputy Director Jones to answer that one. Yes, thank you Commissioner Duggan. So yes, the fees that you're seeing on page 6-33 for a subdivision, the subdivision fees that are identified there would be required to be paid. And those are the entitlement fees. So it's the fee for the processing of the subdivision entitlement through the process which includes city review, review by the Planning Commission and such in addition to public hearing fees and environmental fees. And then the fees that you see down below that for a single family dwelling unit, those are the permitting fees. So building permit fee, plan checking fees, demand fees for water and sewer and those types of things. And so that would be placed on each of those units. How will they relate to other fees through in other jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area or the county? I don't have a specific answer to that. Other than to say the city is actually in the process of working on an update to our fees right now, a full fee study to see how our fees are not only in relation to other jurisdictions but into the work that city staff has to do and are we charging the correct fees? So we'll actually have more information on that in the coming months as we are doing some comparisons with other jurisdictions. Okay, thank you. That's all I got. And I just wanted to say for Commissioner Duggan or any of the other commissioners, to the extent that you have comments that are typos, grammatical clarifications, it's fine, we can take those. But if you do have others, please do raise them here. So for the benefit of the public and the other commissioners. So thank you for raising those. And if you had others on your list, please do. That's what we're here for to hear from you. But as far as typos and small things, we can go ahead and correct those at the staff level. Thank you. Do you have anything else, Commissioner Duggan? Oops. Where'd you go? Sorry, wrong button. Sorry, no, I just had like typos and small things, like, you know, like I always do. So those are on my email, but nothing's substantive. Thank you. And Vice Chair Peterson. I think these are kind of a question, comment. Hi, Brids. So I think they may be a little more substantive than can be answered right away, but on table five, three of the approved projects, I just did some math and, you know, 10% or about 198 of the above market units are older than 10 years and some are 26 years old. So I'm just wondering, is there a feasibility, a realistic criteria for including that in our approved projects? Cynthia, would you be able to help me answer that one? Yeah, definitely. That's a really good question. So in that table, as a part of our revisions in table five, three, you can see that there's a percent of project assumed. And we are just basing that off of if there is current interest in moving the project forward or if it may be a little bit slower than the rest. So you can see that there's a 40% realistic development potential for the projects that haven't quite moved forward for a while and then there's 100% for the ones that are ready to go. So that's how that was more adjusted that way. Yeah, I mean, I guess my question is should they even be included? But I take the point and I'll move on to the next one which is I guess I find the ADU policy a little confusing and maybe some numbers could help out again, understood that I'm kind of jumping you here. But I think ADUs are up to 1200 square feet which is I think a reasonable size unit. But part of the strategy with the ADUs, particularly putting them in areas of high resource areas and getting more access to better schools to me would imply that families are gonna be living in ADUs or at least single parents, somebody with a kid. And I guess I'm wondering about the realistic nature of that as a strategy to address that if ADUs are small and more likely to be filled by single people or possibly couples. I mean, that's the scenario in my neighborhood. The ADUs are not lived in by families. And so I guess I'm wondering the extension of that is whether rezoning for these high areas of high affluence. It is actually more reasonable understanding that we're pretty far down the crack. But if you have any thoughts on that now certainly I'm interested here. Cynthia, would you be able to take that? Sure, I think it's more of a goal. Obviously we can't tell you who's going to live in the ADUs. We can't tell you how large the ADUs are going to be when they develop. But I think it's the goal of the city to try to promote that. And so as through our programs in the housing element and as the planning period moves on we will work towards achieving that. And monitoring the affordability is also a very hard thing to do with ADUs. And that's something that you need to do on your annual progress report each year. So it'll be interesting to see how the state expects jurisdictions to actually monitor because you can't go door to door and say how much are you renting your unit for? So it is going to be interesting on how to actually monitor the affordability. I guess my concern is that we're protecting affluent areas from development. Yeah, I see that concern. And I think also it's important to note that this isn't necessarily the way things will develop. So our general plan update we are looking at development patterns on a different way. We're looking at priority development areas. We're looking at proximity to transit. But we're also looking at some of what was discovered through our fair housing analysis of where are low income populations? Where are those high resource areas? And how do we provide more equity as far as where properties could be rezoned? How do we incentivize more affordable units in those high resource areas? So that we are taking a deeper dive on as part of that update, which will result in potential land use changes and zoning changes. But this housing element is really just showing that we have capacity at these various income levels. And the ADU piece is part of that. But yes, we have the same concerns when you see the dispersal of the units on the map. But we are also working on other policies that will complement the need to really make sure that there's more diversity and opportunity in all areas of the city. Thank you. Chair Peterson, Vice Chair Peterson, I would like to add to that that in the preferred alternative, the areas of change that we identify on the east side of the city also for the land use element that would be addressed with a general plan update are including areas of change. Incensus tracks where we don't have wild land urban interface because that's another additional issue that we have on the east side that we can't increase development in areas where we think it's gonna be challenging for people to be able to live and to develop additional units. So we are aware of this. We are just thinking about this in a longer term than the eight-year cycle. That's why we're including that on our land use element, not only on the housing element. The housing element has to be followed before it, but we are looking at areas of change through this for general plan update development. Yes, thank you. Any other questions of staff at this point? Commissioner Carter. Yeah, I wanna take us all the way back to the needs assessment and ask if we're, are we comfortable with the A-bag projections? I noted that in 2020 and 2021, we had reductions yet we're still working off of an A-bag projection of a 9% increase by 2025. Are we entirely comfortable with that? Yes, I noticed that comment of yours and it is a little hard to understand how the projections will realize that 9%. I think we all looked at that, but we're also balancing not just the A-bag projections, but Department of Finance, which are usually a little more conservative. A-bag, I think they have updated most recently as part of the Housing Methodology Committee when they created the RENA. So I think it might have been a little bit of a mix of anticipating jurisdictions having these high amounts of RENA and needing to develop. So A-bag usually has a little bit higher projection than Department of Finance. So it may not be a full 9%, but obviously the last few years have been a pandemic and there has been an outflow of population in the Bay Area. So we actually might see an increase in population due to that as people move north. So it is a very hard calculus to figure out, but we did use those projections as we were required to, but we, for the general plan update, have balanced the A-bag projections with Department of Finance as well. Does that help you at all? Thank you. Okay. Any other questions at this point? Okay, then I'll go. I had sent, I believe it was Monday, variety of questions and comments. So if I could just go through those. So the first question had to do with the funding sources listed on 3-39. And I wondered if the Renewal Enterprise District should be mentioned as a funding source. So do you want me just to ask these questions and then you answer them all at once or how would you like to do it, Amy? One by one would be great. Okay, so that's my first question. Yeah, so the Renewal Enterprise District because we don't have city control over that funding mechanism, it could be noted, but that is a separate system. So we do have a program, a new program within the housing element that recognizes joint power authorities or JPAs. And that program was specifically created to recognize the red without naming the red. But all of our, we've been working with a collaborative team with Sonoma County and Napa jurisdictions. So our Sonoma County jurisdictions, we are all putting that same program in to recognize the impact that the red has and other potential JPAs that could be created with that same method or charge. So we did not want to name Renewal Enterprise District specifically because they are gonna be changing their funding methodology as they move forward. Okay, thank you. The second question had to do on the homeless services chart. And I wondered if the safe parking program that MSCN should be reflected somewhere in there. And if it is and I didn't see it, I apologize. No, you're correct. It was not in there and that was a program that was developed last year. And so it was after we released that first draft. So we can certainly add that as a something that's happening right now that may continue. Yeah, and it probably a number of my questions or comments have to do with things that occurred after the first draft. Yes, so if you'd like me to note that the point in time count that the patient did come out after the draft. So we will encompass that. And then the Carrot Toss Village did open after our draft was released. So you'll revise what you have before it's sent off to the state. Yeah. Reflecting those, then for example, the new point in time count from 22. Yes, from 21. Yes, or 22. 22, yeah. What year? 23. It was 22. I know that's happening tomorrow, I think. Right, yeah, it's not that, not that one. Yeah. Can you just go ahead and address those changes, Planner Wild, that you're suggesting will be forwarded on in the next draft to HCD? You mean the rest of us here, what are those? Yes. So there's the point in time survey, just noting that the 2022 results and making sure that those are encompassed in the analysis for the, in the housing element and then the safe parking program, the city initiated safe parking program. And, am I missing a third one? The Carrot Toss Village. Yes, and Carrot Toss Village, so for our homeless services. So adding to that chart. And then I'll also note that we will review the chart on page three dash 34. Chair Weeks noted that the Apple Valley Lane project developed by Burbank Housing was not listed. So we will check into that and make sure that we are not missing any of the projects or housing units that should be identified on that table. Yeah, I believe the ones that are there, the ones that are just, even though it's titled Apple Valley Lane Papago Court, I believe that number is just the ones on Papago Court, but that would be, yeah, those should be added. Then on the top of page four dash 71, I think it should be Eastern rather than Western, unless I have, okay. You're correct on that. And there's also, you had a question on page eight dash six, about site seven. Yes. So we talked to Cynthia about that. We were able to find it on the map. So it's Cynthia, I think it was like the upper left-hand corner of the map. It's kind of it down in the middle, but top left above the downtown, it is a green dot. Okay. If that helps you. Yeah. Do you know what the coordinates are of it? Like what streets it's on? Let me see if I can pull it up. Okay. While you're looking for that, another question I had was on page 8.8, the term older is used. And I wondered if is that 50 year, houses that are 50 years or older, what's the definition of older? Yeah, that's a great question. So Cynthia, the question is related to their housing rehab program. And what we define as the survey of older neighborhoods. I thought I remembered there's a 30 or 50 year threshold, but do you remember what that is? So we left that word in there more because it is vague. So it's kind of up to you what you want to determine as far as the neighborhoods that you would like to identify, but housing in need of rehab is typically anything that's 30 years or older. So who is the body that would identify the age? The city staff would identify the neighborhoods that should be identified. Okay. Could you find site seven? I'm sorry, I'm jumping around on you. Not yet, give me one minute. Okay, sorry. And then my last question I believe is the new program H-40 about changing design review board. And I wondered if you could give some examples as to how it could be changed or revised. So I'm gonna interrupt Cynthia to help me answer that one as well. But that one really is looking at new standards for development. And so Cynthia might be able to provide some context of what that would entail. I apologize, did you say eight dash eight? It was eight dash 30, page H dash 30 was program H-40. And it was how DRB could be changed or revised. Let's see. I was curious as to some examples. We would need to, I would need to go back and look at what the findings specifically are. But I believe that this was included based off of our comments from HCD that they believe that some of the design review findings may be a constraint to development. So looking at your process and your findings to ensure that that is not a constraint. Got it. I think this also related to our resilient city development measures which expedite housing related to the design review board and knowing that that ordinance is going to sunset at the end of this year, HCD asked us to prepare a program to make sure that we have that consideration of extending that streamlining opportunity. But that also might come with design standards or something that may be in place of that, of the larger process that we would have without that streamlining program. And then one final question that wasn't on my list, but that I thought of when Commissioner Duggan was talking about section eight housing is, I know the city and the county at towards the end of last calendar year started a housing heroes program. And I wondered if maybe that could be mentioned somewhere in the, in the discussion about landlords not taking section eight housing. We can certainly do that. Okay. So that was the questions I had. Karen, just to give Cynthia a little bit more time to find whatever we need. I just wanted to address the common in relationship to explanation of House and Arosa 724. Oh, yes. Thank you. And in relationship to that, we've got information from the development review team and just wanted to bring an additional explanation and we certainly can add it to the housing element. But the House and Arosa initiative is a local early action planning grant funded project that is going to facilitate the prediction of housing throughout the city. And the project is including the development of an online map that provides information for users about the feasibility of development at a parcel and the permitting status as well as specific details of the proposed projects. And in real time to provide metrics related to housing production and letting us use the software implementation and improvements. So this lip grant is going to be providing the funding for this project and this would be completed on September 2023. And I just wanted to bring that information to this meeting, but also additional information can be provided by planner Maki who was the manager of this project. Great, thank you. I did see that there and I forgot to ask that. And it does that related to the housing dashboard that you're doing now. And I know you've gone out with surveys to the community about what people would like to see. So that's all somewhat tied in. Yes. Great, thank you. Would you like me to share my screen or just give you street names? You could just give me street names. Okay, so it looks like it's Fulton and Piner. Okay, okay. And it is on the map, I just couldn't see it. Thank you. That's okay. Okay, thank you for indulging me with my questions. Any other questions before I go ahead and open the public hearing? Okay, so with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item. If you wish to make a comment via Zoom, please select the raised hand button. If you're dialing in via telephone, please dial star nine to raise your hand. You will have three minutes and you see the countdown timer there. Please make sure to unmute yourself when you're invited to do so and your microphone will be muted at the end of that countdown. And I see we have one hand raised. Yes, Callum Weeks. I'm sending you a prompt to speak. Please state your name for the record. Good evening, Chair Weeks, Commissioners and staff. My name is Callum Weeks and I'm the Polish Director for Generation Housing. I wanna begin by thanking everyone who has participated in this once in eight years process. Where that be as an elected and appointed like yourselves, the consultants, staff or members of the community, thank you for shaping this important policy and planning document. We wanna really actually, especially thanks staff, specifically for listening to our request to show the changes in red line versions, which not all jurisdictions have agreed to or delivered in a timely manner. We also wanna express appreciation for the city producing a more digestible summary of the housing element. So for the most part, we're pleased with this final product from the commitment to attaining the pros and designation and doing so in a manner that makes them competitive among the growing number of jurisdictions securing this designation to reforming parking standards city wide and robust manner that helps us achieve our shared vision for a more transit oriented and sustainable future. Still in our letter dated October 28th, 2022 we made the following policy request that we think are simple changes that would have a significant impact. We recommend that the city extend its ADU fee structure to multifamily units of the same size. And we recommended that the city adopt County of Sonoma's residential unit equivalency definition. San Rosa makes a reasonable prediction that ADU production and permitting will increase in the sixth cycle. This prediction is likely to hold because ADU production is supported by policies that incentivize ADUs. If we extended those same fee structures to multifamily units, it's not inconceivable to conclude that we would see a similar result with this housing type. So we're disappointed to not see these recommendations including the final draft. And of course, we will continue to advocate the council lever and potentially soon we have those broader policy conversations. And as we work towards really executing these programs and policies outlined in this document, we would encourage both the leaders of our community and the staff to be intentional about maintaining an equity-focused approach. We need to build with an eye to the future, now repeat the same mistakes that have resulted in the city as we discussed that it's fragmented into quadrants by racing class. That's not equity, that's not sustainable, and that's not the solution to ensuring the long-term vitality of this community. We can and we must create conditions where all have the same ability to achieve their version of the American dream, however that looks to them. With that out, I would just like to thank you all for your service and then once again, thank you to the staff and everyone who's engaged in this process. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your day. Thank you. If there's anybody else who'd like to speak on this item. Chair Weeks, I don't see any other hands raised at this time. Okay, thank you. So with that, I'll go ahead and close this public hearing and could you address the question of, I'm not sure, probably Amy regarding the ABUB structure that Mr. Weeks asked? Yes, we are actually, as Jessica mentioned, currently engaged in a peace study. So that's something that we will be exploring. And so we have incorporated as many comments as possible from generation housing and appreciate all their work and making sure that we're consistent also with the other jurisdictions. Great, so that will be included in that study as it goes forward. It'll be a consideration, yes. That's right, yes. Okay, so with that, we have one resolution on this item. If somebody would like to move the resolution then we can commence discussion. Commissioner Sisko. Yes, I can go ahead and move a resolution on the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa making findings and determinations and recommending that the city council, number one, adopt the addendum to the general plan EIR and number two, adopt a general plan amendment to update the housing element of the general plan for the period of 2023 to 2031. Affirm really further fair housing compliance with state housing element law and number three, authorized staff to submit the adopted housing element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Certification and wait for the reading of the text. Thank you. Is there a second on this? Commissioner Carter, thank you. So that was moved by Commissioner Sisko and seconded by Commissioner Carter. So we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Carter on comments. Finding my comments if you'll give me a second. Of course. Pretty soon we're not gonna have to worry about that pesky mute button. Right. Yeah, in general, as has been mentioned, this is a dense topic and I'm glad we have a housing and community services department to help us with this because it's a lot for planning to take on but I wanna congratulate the long range planning staff and the consultant team on pulling together a document of this nature in the time frame that they did with the amount of input that's necessary. In general, I'm supportive of it. I hope to see more dependence of our proposed higher density in the downtown and station area specific plan but I understand why we need to sort of continue on the path that's been established for identifying housing sites and densities and if there's some middle ground we could find where we could get more of our sites and numbers through higher density in town housing, I would like to see that. I also appreciate the focus on equity in this although it probably increased the effort considerably. I think it's necessary as the gentleman who made his comments in the public hearing said that we continue on in this direction to counteract the years of pushing things in the other direction. So I really appreciate that part of the plan. I think there's a few things we can clarify. When we talk about vacant units there's a large number of other vacant units that aren't clearly identified. I'm wondering if those are related to vacation rentals or not. I think there could be more discussion over how rentals over fair market are related to overpayment on pages 317 and 319. I'd like to see those aspects more positively tied together in the statement of the plans and programs. And I think where we're talking about adding units to provide further more numbers for the lower income units, we should try and associate time frames with those. I understand that it's for the life of the plan that these numbers are shown, but if we had some way of indicating a phasing or how we anticipate our units to come online which I know is easy to say and hard to do. I think it would be helpful to have something of that nature in the plan. And I think that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you. So we'll go to Commissioner Siscoe. I'm like Commissioner Carter's use of the word dense. I mean, this is such a complex set of statistics. It just does not cease to amaze me how the staff pulls this off. And I too appreciate all of the public outreach and putting all of these statistics together and you're first on the mind. I just hope we can, yeah, I'm for it, so. Okay, and you can make the required findings. I can, yeah, I just got back on, I think I can. So I'm in favor. Commissioner Dagen. Try to keep both on. Yeah, it's a very impressive document. As I said in my email to Amy and Jessica and I like the inclusion of the housing needs assessment and the fair housing assessment. I don't think that's been included in any previous iteration of the housing elements. And just also it's even more impressive hearing what you said tonight that a lot of these things requirements changed as you were drafting the document and how you've got your hands around all of the changes and brought this to us in a timely fashion is very impressive. I don't have any other additional comments. I second what Commissioner Carter said specifically about the density for downtown in the stationary area that'd be great if a lot of our new development happened there and it looks like some housing is going forward like on Ross and Mendocino avenues and I think that's gonna be great. And otherwise I can make all the required findings and move this on to council. Great. And Mr. Holton. I can also make all the required findings and I'd like to thank staff for all their hard work on this project. They've really, really done a bang up job and especially I know updating a lot of this stuff is gonna get tough. I am rather concerned though with the lack of... I don't wanna say outside the box thinking but there needs to be definitely some more headway gained in terms of finding more creative solutions to entice builders and folks to go ahead and look into trying to get to where we need to be with our production of low income housing especially as mortgage terms increasing tax revenues I mean, we're gonna have, we just have so many different things we're gonna be running into in the upcoming year especially with interest rates continuing to climb and the housing market itself not really cooling off. So we're gonna, I just really think that we really, really need to start really coming up with some super creative solutions to look into producing and providing more incentives for builders to produce more low income housing. So with all that being said I am in support of the project I think you guys just did a great job. Thank you for your amazing presentation. Thanks to Placeworks, thanks to, especially I really, really would like to definitely thank Calum Weeks from Generation Housing for all that insight. That was a great call. Thank you so much. And yeah, and that's it. I'm in support of this project. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Chair Peterson. Let me add my voice to that. I think this is a huge, dense, tremendous piece of work. And I think it's easy when you get a slider to do on something that represents months of work and planning. And it really is a lot of effort. And I really do commend staff frankly for being able to do it but also to do it with the level of outreach and focus on equity that they've achieved. You heard my comments about some of the stuff that I have concerns about. I continue to have concerns about those things but I think Santa Rosa in general has been very aggressive in trying to think creatively and lure people and do the downtown station area specific plan and get the public input on how we want the city to look in terms of density and changes. And I think you can look at California and the housing problem is not just one city. It's not just one planning department. There's clearly only so much that a city of 180,000 can do on its own but I'm hopeful that as things like this housing element, SB9 and our planning department being closer to fully staffed can get some real movement, get people out of the situation that they're in, rent and burdens, substandard housing, all that sort of thing. So with that, I can make all the required findings and would recommend that city council adopt it. Thank you. Thank you. And I'd like to circle back to commissioner Carter and can you make all the required findings? Yes, I can. Thank you. And I also can make all the required findings on this. I do wanna throw my cat in the ring and supporting staff on this. Guys did a fabulous job and it's amazing how you were able to keep updating things. So that's fabulous. I usually am in a lot of these situations, a little disappointed there's not more public interest tonight but maybe that will be different at council and thank you very much to the public who were here. So with that, I guess we'll go ahead and call for the vote that was moved by commissioner Cisco and seconded by commissioner Carter. Commissioner Carter? Aye. Commissioner Cisco? Aye. Commissioner Duggan? Aye. Commissioner Holton? Aye. Vice Chair Peterson? Aye. Chair Weeks? Aye. So that passes with six eyes, one vacancy and the staff, do you have what you need from us for tonight? Yes, thank you so much. Okay. So with that, I'll go ahead and adjourn the meeting to our next regularly scheduled, no to our meeting is the second meeting in February it sounds like. So thank you all. The second meeting in February is gonna be our last meeting on Zoom. Is that correct? That's correct. I will look forward to meeting you all in person. Have a good one.