Assent Commissioner Sitzko here.

Commissioner Horton.

Here.

Commissioner Parter is also absent.

Commissioner Sanders.

Present.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Here.

Chair Weeks.

Here.

Let the record reflect that all commissioners are present with the exception of Commissioner Carter and Commissioner Pardon.

Thank you.

The second item is remote participation, which we have none.

Third item, approval of minutes.

We have one set of minutes from May 28th.

Are there any changes to that to those minutes?

Can you please wait a moment?

Thank you.

Are there any changes to the minutes corrections?

Okay, then with that.

If you are in the chambers and wish to make public comment on the minutes, please make your way to the podium, state your name for the record, and you'll have three minutes for your comment.

Good afternoon to the board.

I happen to look over the uh minutes and I wasn't on them.

And uh I remember uh you know what I spoke about uh and at the minutes, and I don't really want to give it all away today because there was something that I said there that was related to uh what was what was uh on the minutes, but uh but it I I was ignored.

I just don't seem to have gotten on the minutes.

Um I'm quite sure I was there because I spoke about the topic, so just that usually it says something, you know, and if they don't say what you talked about, because often they do, it depends on which board or which meeting you're at, then they will say something like you oppose the project or you objected to the project or something like that.

But I wasn't on it, so that's what I object to.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay, so with that, um the minutes will stand approved as submitted.

Um, and now we move on to public comments.

Um, we're now taking public comments.

This is on non-agenda matters, and this is time when any people, any person in the audience may address the commission on matters within the purview of the commission, but are not on the agenda.

And if you're in the chambers, please make your way to one of the podiums and you'll have three minutes and you'll see the countdown timer.

Go ahead, Ms.

Carmen.

Thank you.

Janice Carmen here, and we'll start over.

Uh I um I wanted to say that um I was um present at a meeting, and that the meeting turned into mayhem uh before the meeting uh ended, and a person at the meeting, this is a city of uh Santa Rosa meeting, was uh attempting to make an allowance for a lack of parking by having the people agree that they would have any visitors calling ahead of time, and I tried to keep my feet on the ground and before.

Ms.

Carmen, I believe the c the item you're speaking on is on the agenda tonight, so and like you have it.

But this isn't on the agenda because it had been adjourned.

The meeting had been adjourned, and this was happening after the meeting, and I'm reporting on it.

Okay, excuse me, please, but the item.

I believe you are speaking on is on the agenda tonight.

So if you could please hold your comment till then, okay.

Well that's interesting.

Okay, so I'm going to go to another topic, and that is that when Diana uh had uh Terry Saunders who sits before you now uh appointed to your planning commission from district four.

He lives on McDonald Avenue, and uh we live in district three.

Diana was in charge, and now she's more of a lame duck since she can't go to meetings, she can't, she's been stripped of all of her meetings, she's been stripped of her commissions, and uh Terry is still on the planning uh commission, and I just want to bring the public's attention to this that Rincan Valley has a lot of problems.

Your problem is just one of them at the moment.

There are a lot of building projects that have been approved or are in various status east of Melita Road, and it's very serious right now, and people are very concerned about many issues, and we don't get heard.

There are some meetings that you can go to and you get heard, but not necessarily design review, planning commission.

Uh, there's some others that are doing well right now.

But I just want to say that it's really unfair that we have no representation when we have someone from district four and a lame duck that is the district uh city council member for city of Santa Rosa District Three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments on non-agenda items?

Okay, so with that, we'll close the public comment period.

Um 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 implementation of plans, ordinances, and policies relating to land use matters, assisting in writing and implementing the general plan and area plan, holding public hearings and acting on proposed changes to the zoning code, zoning map, general plan, tentative subdivision maps, and undertaking special planning studies as needed.

And before we proceed, I'd like to briefly go over the Brown Act meeting procedures.

As each item is introduced, the public will have an opportunity to speak during the public comment or public hearing portion of that item.

Each speaker may comment once per item for up to three minutes.

During the public comment period, the commissioners do not engage in back and forth discussion with the speakers.

After everyone who wishes to speak has had an opportunity to do so, I will close the public comment period for that item.

Once public comment is closed, there will be there will not be another opportunity for comments or questions from the public on that same same item.

Any further discussion or deliberation will be limited to the commissioners, staff, and the project applicants.

Also, Santa Rosa has a commitment to a safe and respectful environment, and all participants are expected to adhere to this.

So with that, uh Commissioner Reports.

Are there any commissioner reports?

Okay, and uh we have nothing on that under other, so we'll move to uh department report.

Ms.

Jones.

Yes, thank you, Chair Weeks, members of the commission.

I'm Jessica Jones, Deputy Director of Planning.

Um, just one brief uh acknowledgement.

Um we have with us today um uh chief assistant city attorney, Autumn Luna.

Um, to welcome her to our first planning commission meeting.

So, as I think mentioned at the last meeting, um Ashley Crocker is now our city attorney, and so she will be providing assistance to the city council.

So um, at least for uh the near future, um we will have Autumn here to um help us with any legal matters.

So I just wanted to welcome her to our first meeting.

Thank you, and welcome, Autumn.

Are there any public comments on what Ms.

Jones just said?

Okay, seeing none.

Uh we have Ms.

Carmen, do you have a comment on what Ms.

Jones just said?

Of course I do.

I met Autumn from the day she started.

I think are very close to it, and I totally approve of the audience on him being the current attorney.

Plus, I talked with Stricker uh previously, and Stricker was very pleased to have Autumn join and become a city attorney.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, with that, we'll move on to statement of abstentions or recusal.

Commissioner Sanders.

Yes, I will uh due to a personal relationship with um the applicant on our second item.

I don't have the agenda item in front of me.

Um the MD market.

I'm not sure what was that 11 to you.

I will uh recuse and uh not participate in decision meeting on that item.

Thank you.

And that was 11.1.

Thank you, Chair.

Any other comments?

Okay, huh?

Oh, I'm sorry, you're right.

Thank you.

Takes a village.

Um, okay.

So with that, we'll move on to presentations.

We have none, no consent items, no report items.

The first item is 11.1.

It is a public hearing.

FAM assisted living, planning record 631 Benjamin's Road, PLN 25-0206, and it is an exporte item, so we'll start with Commissioner Horton.

Thank you.

I have met with the applicant and visited the site, and I have nothing further to disclose.

Thank you, Commissioner Sanders.

I also have met with the applicant and I visited the site several times and have nothing additional to add or disclose.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sisko.

I have visited this site and also met with the applicant and have nothing new to disclose.

And commission or vice chair Duggan.

I've also visited the site and met with the applicant and have nothing additional to disclose.

And I also uh met with the applicant and the representative and visited the site and have nothing further to disclose.

So with that, we'll go ahead and hear the presentation.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Weeks and members of the commission.

This is the FAM assisted living appeal file number PLN 250206.

This is the appeal of the zoning administrators' approval of a minor conditional use permit for a 15-bed community care facility in a proposed single-family rehabilitation residence.

This will be licensed by the state as a residential care facility facility for the elderly, and this no rehabilitation mental health treatment or skilled nursing care will be provided.

This project is located in Rincon Valley in the northeast area of Santa Rosa.

The site is on the east side of Benjamin's Road, and it's surrounded by rural residential single family homes.

Alright, I'm gonna briefly summarize the project history.

On October 25th, 2024, the SB9 parcel map was recorded.

This created two new parcels.

And recently, the parcel, the project site was assigned 631 as its address.

So that's the front parcel is 631 and the rear parcel is now 635 Benjamin's Road.

On July 31st, the minor use permit application was submitted for a 15-bed community care facility, and then on December 18th, the zoning administrator approved a minor use permit at a public hearing for which an appeal was received, and that brings us to today's project.

The project's site is general plan very low density residential, and its zoning is rural residential RR 40.

And that brings us to the grounds for appeal.

Kind of on the numbers here that you see at the top of the screen.

So the first ground for appeal states that the project failed to meet zoning variance hardship criteria.

Staff's response is that the minor use permit did not require or receive a zoning variance.

So hardship findings do not apply.

Instead, the project was evaluated based on standard use permit findings, including consistency with the general plan and zoning code, compatibility, site suitability, public health and this was related to required SB9 frontage improvements.

However, and the California Environmental Quality council denied that in November of 2025.

So therefore, frontage improvements are a requirement for this project, and that includes installation of a sidewalk along the front property among uh curve, a couple other things as well.

Um the second ground for appeal states that the minor use permit approval grants a special privilege.

So staff's response is that the minor use permit does not grant special privilege.

Community care facilities are considered residential uses under both state and federal law, as well as the city's general plan and zoning code.

Under the zoning code, facilities with seven or more residents are allowed in all residential zones with the approval of a minor conditional use permit.

And this approval does not rezone or allow any prohibited uses.

Finally, the project has been conditioned to comply with all applicable development standards.

Oops, sorry, I moved to the next slide.

Okay, so the third ground raises neighborhood compatibility and public welfare concerns.

Staff's response is that the project was reviewed by planning, traffic, engineering, building, and fire, and it meets all applicable city standards, including parking, access, frontage improvements, utilities, drainage, noise, and operations.

And there are no impacts or code inconsistencies that were identified during these review to support denial.

The fire department also confirmed compliance with access and safety standards, and the project will be required to install fire sprinklers.

This slide continues.

This was a quite a long section of a ground for appeal, so I'm gonna bear with me.

So traffic review also found no traffic, no significant traffic impacts, no study was required, and that there was no site distance issues.

The project is conditioned to provide frontage improvements, including roadway widening, sidewalk, and on-street parking.

And then finally, the five on-site parking spaces meet the zoning code requirements for a community care facility, and the proposed operations, including 24-hour care, limited staffing, scheduled visitation, and routine deliveries are consistent with the residential care use and subject to city conditions and state requirements.

As noted earlier, community care facilities are considered a residential use and are therefore compatible within residential neighborhoods.

The fourth ground concerns the use of the rear parcel for site operations, and this rear parcel was the one uh created through the SB9 lot split.

Staff's response is that the minor use permit approval does not involve the rear parcel and it only applies to operations on the front parcel at 631 Benjamin's Road.

Additionally, the project has been conditioned to ensure that all parking, circulation, deliveries, and operational capacity are met on the front parcel for the community care.

And finally, the SB9 lot split is not before the Planning Commission as part of this appeal, as it was a ministerial by-right approval that did not require discussion discretionary review or a public hearing.

Okay, finally, the fifth ground states that the project approval lacked sufficient findings under government code 65906.

Staff's response is that Section 65906 is a state law that applies specifically to zoning variances, and as noted in previous slides, this project does not require and was not approved for any zoning code variances.

The minor use permit approval was instead based on compliance with applicable zoning and building code standards for a community care facility with seven or more residents.

All right.

So since this project was notified on November 14th, 2025, staff received questions and comments on care type, scale, traffic, improvements, fire, as well as the SB9 lot split, and these issues have been addressed in the staff report and in this presentation.

So this project was reviewed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and it qualifies for exemption under Section 15303 and 15183.

Therefore, it is recommended by the zoning administrator and the planning and economic development department that the Planning Commission by resolution deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the zoning administrator approving a minor conditional use permit to allow a 15-bed community care facility for the property located at 631 Benjamin's Road.

Staff is here to answer any questions.

We also have zoning administrator McKay, Connor McKay, Mike Johnson, who's our assistant fire marshal, as well as Dan Hennessy, our director of transit and public works available for questions.

And this concludes my presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of staff at this time?

Okay, so with that, the appellant.

If they are in the audience, you will have 10 minutes for your comment.

If you could go up to one of the podiums, and state your name for the record.

And like I mentioned, you will have 10 minutes.

I'm just here to uh state some facts and laws.

A fundamental doctrine of California.

Can you get a little closer to the microphone or a fundamental doctrine of California Administrative and Land Use Law?

An entitlement obtained through fraud or perjury is void from its inception.

While the minor use permit and Senate Bill 9 lot split are legally distinct mechanisms and zoning entitlements generally run with the land, a local government cannot legally process or grant an MUP for a parcel whose very existence was secured through perjury and fraud.

Fraud voids the SB9 entitlement, the City of Santa Rosa planning or arguing that lot 2, 631 Benjamin's Road was created ministerially under California Government Code 66411.

However, a mandatory prerequisite for an urban lot split under 66411.7, the applicant must sign an affidavit stating that they intend to occupy one of the units as their principal resident residence for a minimum of three years from final approval, which was October of 2024.

In California, it is a foundational principle that fraud voids everything it touches.

The owner, Kim Pham, committed perjury by signing the owner occupancy affidavit while never intending to occupy, and in fact never has occupied the original residence on lot 1 635 Benjamin's Road.

The statutory prerequisite was never legally met.

Because the ministerial approval was induced by criminal fraud, perjury under Penal Code 118, the creation of lot two is void from its beginning.

The city cannot recognize a land use right or parcel boundary that exists purely as a byproduct of a fraudulent filing.

An urban lot split, government code 66411.7 is not a permanent unassailable right.

It is a conditional statutory privilege.

The three-year owner occupancy affidavit is a mandatory statutory condition precedent.

Because the applicant failed to fulfill the residency requirement from day one, the condition precedent was breached.

Therefore, the underlying parcel, lot two, is currently an illegal lot split subdivision.

An MUP cannot overlie an illegal parcel.

The proposed residential care facility for the elderly RFCE must be reviewed independently under the city's zoning code because land use entitlements run with the land.

The rule of law, an application for a land use entitlement like an MUP, requires a legally recognized validly subdivided underlying parcel.

The MUP cannot be decoupled from the SB9 lot split because the physical land area designated for the RFCE only exists due to the fraudulent map act filing.

Running with the land does not cure fraud.

The City of Santa Rosa and the FAMS are attempting to use the doctrine that zoning runs with the property, not the owner, to shield the current project from the owner who has perjured herself.

The doctrine that land use entitlements run with the land applies to validly created properties and honestly obtained permits.

The owner's failure to occupy the property is not a technical footnote.

It is a failure of a mandatory statutory condition precedent required by the state of California to unlock the ministerial process.

The city retains the police power and administrative authority to enforce the SB9 laws and the compliance of those laws.

Under California Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD guidelines, local municipalities, as is the City of Santa Rosa, and are the exclusive frontline trustees responsible for enforcing SB9 owner occupancy compliance.

The City of Santa Rosa has failed to enforce the non-compliance of the SB9 laws, specifically the perjured signing of the owner occupancy affidavit.

SB9 Urban Lot Split Law.

The owner occupied signed affidavit is a specific requirement for the urban lot split path.

It mandates that the applicant sign a legal document promising to live in one of the homes on the property as their principal residence for at least three years after the finalization of the lot split, October of 2024.

The primary goal is to empower individual homeowners, not massive corporations, or real estate investment companies like the FAMS have.

From buying up neighborhoods, splitting lots, and splitting them simply for profit.

It ensures that properties are not purchased purely for large-scale speculative development, helping to preserve the fabric of residential neighborhoods.

Signing the affidavit is not just a formality.

Violating it can lead to severe legal consequences, including charges of felony perjury.

The Planning Commission cannot legally grant a minor use permit, MUP, for a commercial residential facility, RFCE on a lot that has an active, uncured violation of the very state housing law that allows its creation.

If the city allows this product to proceed and denies our appeal, you are rewarding the non-compliant owners for violating and breaking state law.

This is just a reminder to the city attorney.

If the city approves an MUP on an illegally subdivided lot, despite having active knowledge of the fraud, the city faces direct exposure for failing to uphold its mandatory duties under state housing law.

Uphold our appeal and deny the MUP.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the appellant?

Okay, so then now we go to the applicant.

You will have 10 minutes also.

Thank you, Chair Weeks and members of the planning commission.

My name is Peter Stanley.

I'm a principal at Archaeologics.

We are an architecture and land use planning firm here in Santa Rosa.

We're gonna start out by having the fam speak to the commission.

They'd like to speak to the commission.

My comments afterwards are going to be directed towards the appeal.

The SB9 is not on the table.

That's what we were told.

We were not going to address that today.

That's up to the city attorney, I would assume.

But the appeal that the Giles submitted has five points, none of which are SB9.

So I'm gonna ask Kim Pham and then Hal Fam to speak, and then I'll come in and speak briefly about some of the technology.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Kim Pham, and thank you for taking the time to hear our project tonight.

My husband Hal and I are a local Sonoma County family raising our two young children in this community.

I work in affordable housing and community development finance, and my husband is a firefighter and EMT with the City of San Jose.

He will also serve as the general contractor for this project.

We're both licensed RCFE administrators and will be directly involved in building and operating this home.

This project is deeply personal to us.

Through both of our professional experience and our family's involvement in senior care, we have seen firsthand the growing need for quality care options for seniors.

We believe seniors deserve the opportunity to receive quality care in a residential setting where they can maintain their dignity, remain part of a community, and continue to feel at home.

That is exactly what we're trying to create.

We also recognize that Sonoma County is facing a growing shortage of housing and care options for seniors.

As our population ages, the need for quality residential care continues to grow.

We believe projects like this can help address that need while allowing seniors to remain in the communities they call home.

Our residents will be people's parents, grandparents, spouses, and loved ones who need support, compassion, and quality care.

In addition to our administrator license, close family members have spent many years working as caregivers, hospice professionals, and senior living leaders.

Those experiences have helped shape our vision for what this home can be.

We're a family-owned small business.

There are no outside investors behind this project.

Howe and I have personally invested our own savings, time and resource into it, and we'll be directly involved in building, owning, and operating this home.

Over the past two years, we have worked closely with city staff and our professional team to create a project that complies with the city's requirements while helping address a growing community need.

At its heart, this project is about creating a safe, beautiful, and compassionate home where seniors can age with dignity and families can have a peace of mind.

We respectfully ask for your support and for denial of the appeal.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Halifam.

I grew up here in Santa Rosa and graduated from Montgomery High School.

As a firefighter and EMT, I have spent more than 25 years in public service, including six seasons with the California Department of Forestry, now known as Calfire, and nearly 20 years with the City of San Jose Fire Department.

Over the years, I have responded to many calls involving seniors who are living in homes that were no longer safe for their needs.

I've seen how difficult the situations can be for both seniors and their families.

And I've seen firsthand how important quality care and appropriate housing can be.

Kim and I are building this project ourselves.

Community needs more quality housing and care options for seniors.

I will serve as a general contractor, and together we will directly we will be directly involved in operating the home.

This is not something we are building and walking away from.

It is something we hope to take pride in and be responsible for many years to come.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

I had a plan to address the appellants presentation tonight, but since the appellant decided to completely ignore the five issues that are on their appeal, all I will say is that from the standpoint of land use policy in the city of Santa Rosa, this project meets all zoning development criteria design.

It meets setback requirements, it meets height requirements.

The appellant in their appeal to the city stated a lot of things that were just subjective.

They were not facts.

For instance, it's too big.

Well, that's why we have a zoning code that has development standards.

This project meets all the development standards and all of the design guidelines of this district.

The reality is anybody in this along Benjamin's Road or anybody who lives in that district could build the exact same facility, or they could build a 6,800 square foot home.

The ITE, the Institute of Traffic Engineering Manual, is the Bible for how traffic impacts are applied to different land use categories.

The reality is that single family homes have a higher impact in neighborhoods than RCFEs, and that's because residents of RCFEs don't own cars.

There are three off-site employees that will come into this project.

That's three people arriving in the morning, three people leaving in the evening.

That is hardly a traffic impact of the district.

Anybody who has a four-bedroom home on that site with two kids who have a license are gonna provide more traffic impact to that district than this facility will.

That deliveries would happen out in the street or on adjacent properties is just false.

The fire department has already weighed in on their access.

This building and this project would have to go through the building department and get a building permit, and it would have to meet all the fire codes, building codes, and zoning codes for this district, which it will.

And in fact, I would say that this will probably be one of the safest properties in that entire district.

So what we're asking of the commission tonight is to uphold the planning, the general plan, uphold the zoning code, uphold the zoning administrators' approval, and follow the recommendation from planning and economic development and deny this appeal.

This project meets all the requirements.

It is a good project and it needs to move forward.

We thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of the applicant before I open the public hearing?

Okay, so with that, I will go ahead and open the public hearing on this item.

Uh the public uh comments will be timed at two minutes.

Uh and we will use both podiums.

So if you have an interest in making a public comment, I now open the public comment period and make your way to one of the podiums.

Please state your name for the record.

And as I said, you'll have two minutes.

Each podium has a button on the side that either raises it or lowers it.

You have to be rather uncomfortably close to the microphone to be heard.

So we'll go ahead and start with this gentleman over here.

Thank you very much.

My name is Marty McCormick.

Uh I am here to support the project, and I applaud your approval.

I've known Howe Fam for 25 years, and remind this group that he's a wrestling champion from Montgomery High School.

Okay.

I've raised seven sons in this community, and I'm proud to call Howe to be one of my own sons.

He's a man of integrity.

He's put his life on the line for other people.

He was raised to respect his elders, and now he's following in his brother's footsteps to provide care for a growing senior population.

We need this.

And her care facility is in a neighborhood.

And what she does every day is get in her wheelchair and visit the young folks and the animals, and she's part of that neighborhood.

I hear some of these, I read some of these comments, and folks would rather have our seniors pushed off into some other facility away from the neighborhood.

This does not impact property values, it enhances a neighborhood.

We need people like this integrating in this neighborhood.

And I gotta tell you, the fams have worked very hard.

No one ever gave them a penny.

I was there to represent them on their first home, and all they do is work, and they work hard.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we'll go to this podium.

Is it on the are you looking for the button?

Yeah.

It's on the side.

Sorry.

Uh not that way.

The side towards the door, sorry.

No.

It's not right.

Is it can you hear me?

Okay, sorry.

Sorry about that.

Okay.

Um, my name is Lindsay Lawson, and I live at 641 Benjamin's Road, so directly next door.

My family and I have lived directly next door for over 12 years.

The zoning administrator approved the project for five Spark parking spaces to be available with one of the spots labeled as designated as a visitor spot.

The applicants have in their proposal that they will have a total of two to three caregivers and an administrator.

They also mentioned a cook on site throughout the work week.

This will take up three to four of these spots for much of the time.

By state law, it's required that the handicapped parking space is well.

This means there will be no available extra parking spaces for any other vehicles, including the ones that they say will be delivering all the necessary items, which will be at the same exact hours.

The zoning administrator then asked added in a condition of the approval for the parking spaces that only one visitor may park on site at any time by appointment.

This is against California state law as according to California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 85072, that any resident may have their right to have a loved one come visit at any waking hour.

Under the Article 2.5 resident bills of rights in the California Health and Safety Code under Chapter 3.2.

Residential care facilities for elderly is states that on line 24 to consent to have relatives and other individuals of residents choosing their visit during reasonable hours privately without prior notice.

This means the facility can suggest to the residents that the family member would have to visit by appointment.

However, families are observing their own personal rights to visit their family member at any given time, and there won't be enough additional spaces.

The fams also mentioned in the last meeting that they would not have residents share rooms and they have uh would not have couples in the same room.

However, under the same chapter 3.2 I mentioned on line 19, it states the residents have the right to share a room.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Okay, if we could go to the greetings, everyone.

My name is Fred Seidel.

I'm a local resident living at 620 Benjamin's Court.

I request that the minor conditional use permit be denied for the FAM assisted living project at 631 Benjamins Road.

The FAMS are non-resident real estate investors who are ineligible for the SB9 Urban Lot Split and the ministerial review process for the proposed facility.

Specifically, uh the applicant for the SB9 Urban Lot Split was NORCAL property solutions LLC, of which Kim Pham is a managing member for the statement of information filed with the California Secretary of State.

Its type of business is quote real estate investments, end quote.

And Kim FAM's address is listed as in Ronard Park.

Although there was a primary residence on the original property, the fams never lived there.

Instead, records show they rented it to others for a year and in and it remained vacant for the remainder, according to neighbor observations.

The push for a 15-bed facility evidently was to maximize the investment return, whereas a six-bed facility would not require an MUP and would be a better fit for the neighborhood, in my opinion.

So the FAMS are non-resident real estate investors.

The proposed facility does not qualify for ministerial review processes if FAMS are not in compliance with the SB 9 eligibility requirements.

I note the perjury in California is a felony punishable by prison time andor a hefty fine.

I'm not advocating for either.

Instead, I think the neighborhood would be tolerant of this project if we were scaled back to six beds.

In conclusion, I urge the planning commission to deny the MUP and even reverse the SB9 lot split.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Okay.

My name is Mel Fagoni, and I really feel there is a definite need for residential care facility in Santa Rosa.

And I have personally known the FAM family for over 20 years and feel this would be an excellent uh use.

I'm speaking from firsthand experience.

As my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer at the age of 90.

The hospital ombudsman gave me between 24 to 48 hours to remove him from the hospital.

I searched convalescent hospitals in Santa Rosa and was told there was a waiting list anywhere from six months to a year.

There was no there waste place for me really to go.

I contacted my doctor who told me to look for a residential care facility.

I live in Bennett Valley and have lived there for 56 years, and was pleased to discover there was a residential care home, Stella's Residential Care Community Care Home, licensed by the state of California at 25 26 Takafar Drive, which was two blocks from my home.

The home had eight residents where my father received individual care, which he, in my estimation, would not have had at a convalescent hospital.

As far as noise and traffic issues, we experienced none.

There's also there was also a primary school about a block away on Takava, and there did not appear to be any problem with parents dropping off their children or picking them up after school.

I think this would be an excellent use of the property and would probably take as much care of people as Stella's residential care facility did for my father.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead, the other podium, please.

Greetings again, Janice Carmen here.

Three people to a room were supposed to be allowed.

I want to say I have a lot of experience with uh nursing homes, which they used to be called in the old days before they became assisted living.

Actually, I had a very close family member that was in assisted living, two of them.

Uh, and this is a long time ago, at least 20 years ago.

Uh I'm very familiar with it.

And uh have medical family as well.

And three people in a residential room, it's too many.

Just think of yourself.

You know, remember college when it was all fun and everybody knew everybody's business, they were in your face, you're having a good time and drinking and eating or smoking pot or whatever you were doing.

But it's not like that today, but especially when you're getting older, fewer people drink, fewer people have, you know, other things going on.

I can also testify uh personally to the fact that as you age, you need more services, not fewer, you need more.

And they said that they weren't going to be anything other than you know, just regular care.

So that means you're screening people, or maybe they're going for more money or whatever, and actually doing indiscriminate things behind the lines to get more money in, and it costs a lot of money to do assisted living a lot.

So the um people that are aging, uh, I had neighbors, and she lived to be 103, and he was younger, but uh they were having the fire department come at not even at the end.

This was like seven or eight years before either one of them had problems.

Um, once a week, and there was a time when the fire department was thinking about charging the taxpayers to have the fire engine come.

Probably Terry could tell you about this because he lives in Santa Rosa.

But uh anyway, uh that's an issue because, and I'm just thinking of this tonight.

There are a lot of people that come to take care of these people, and it's not just the uh fire department, it's people to cut your toenails, people to do your hair, people that you do a lot of things.

Thank you.

So that would need more.

Thank you.

Uh next comment.

Hello?

Okay, you can hear me.

Yes.

Uh, my name is Sherman Wong.

I live right on the corner where everybody comes and goes.

Um, on Benjamin's Road.

The road is terrible.

Um, traffic is terrible.

How can the commission or the city say that they're not going to take a survey on it?

I was um picking weeds, and I just kind of scribbled it here, not on my phone, but I have um, let's see, I started at 1041, ended at 1052.

94 cars came by, and that's on a non-school day.

Now the school itself, there's 300 kids that go there.

So on a normal work day, let's say if I caught them at oh nine in the morning, there's gonna be about three times as much.

But the traffic is horrendous.

I do agree with having assisted living because I'm gonna be there soon.

Um, but 15 is a lot, and I don't think they can do justice with a lot of uh people there.

You know, a few is better, but.

And then we love our community, it's a cool place to live.

Thank you.

Thank you, and put it this podium.

Yes, uh, my name is Chin Win.

I'm a chaplain for the Vietnamese uh Catholic community in Santa Rosa.

Uh I have known how for more than almost 30 years uh in Santa Rosa, and I had the privilege to uh conduct the marriage and baptize the children uh here in Santa Rosa.

I can only speak uh on behalf of them uh because they both uh honest people, they are a faithful people.

Uh not only that, but uh they are very generous uh to the church, but also uh to the community.

So I can certainly uh uh advocate uh uh for them as the uh individuals.

I just wanted to add about the um elderly care.

I volunteer, I help out at Springlake Village, and those who know the place, uh those who uh attended uh uh Springlake Village, they are well financial, uh they have financial security, so they're always there.

Uh they're there because they have the support, financial support, and they have full care there.

Uh and then I have my mom who's in late 80s.

I'm lucky that um I have two sisters uh at home taking care of her, but there are many people in between.

Uh, they don't have the family to take care of, or they don't have the financial security to take care of.

And so I'm glad that when I heard that they are opening the uh assistant living, and I'm happy for them.

And I can guarantee that uh they are not doing this not only because of financial gain.

Uh I know that they will dedicate their life to uh serve the people, uh, the quality of life and and dignity of life.

Uh I would let my mom uh in the care in a minute, so uh I just wanted to say that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name's Mike Faria, I live at 640 Benjamin's Road, Caddy Corner to the proposed site.

First of all, I want to state that the neighborhood are is not NIMBY's, not in my backyard.

We have no problem with the initial plan of six beds.

If it was kept to be six beds, we would not be here.

In the past, we have asked for a traffic study, and it seemed that everything was fine.

Yesterday at 12 noon, they put up a traffic monitor for our street, which is kind of funny because there's no school and most people are on vacation, so we will not be having that much traffic due to the fact that these things are closed.

Along with that, we also have one of the schools that are going to be closed, and the school around our corner off of Benjamin's Road on Canyon is gonna be getting I think 91 more students, a hundred more students, which will add to the small street.

I know you the committee has seen our street, and it is tiny.

Um there's not a lot of room to back in, turn around bigger trucks, so it's if it was brought back down to six, we would be absolutely happy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Yeah, my name is Rich Gardner, 648, Benjamin's Road, and uh been a developer, uh contractor uh all my life, and I've done many projects here in Santa Rosa, and a lot of people spoke about the honor of the applicant and the honesty of the applicant.

Yet the applicant misled the two neighbors that are joined that property by saying that it was gonna be a single family development only at the beginning, and then they said it's gonna be a six-room assisted living, which was fine.

We were still okay with that.

We had no problem with that.

In fact, I may be in one of those things soon.

I, you know, I'm at that age, but uh when we speak about the honor and the honesty of the people, yet they deceive the people that are directly next door.

I have to question the speakers that actually were saying that, and you should too.

Now, this has changed from a six bed to a 15 bed, and the traffic that's gonna come with that will be significant.

Whether they say it's not, it will be.

They have deliveries, they have people coming in to care for them.

They, you know, they have visitors, uh, the people, you know, it's gonna be busy down there.

I don't care what they say.

Yeah, and I'm all for the six-bedroom if they were willing to compromise and change that.

Otherwise, uh, gonna go down to the mat with the rest of them and uh until this thing gets resolved properly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name's Edborn of Coursey.

I've known Hal since he was Herbert Slater, wrestling for Coach Fidelity.

I was fortunate to coach him with my sons at Montgomery High School.

He's a hard-working ethical individual.

I've also been at his home twice this year uh with his family gatherings.

He's truly a family person.

He and his wife have values that I uh hold dear.

I like to give an example.

I live uh I live close to the other gentleman who has residential homes and school near them.

It's no issue for us.

We have I have a mother-in-law who's 96 years old.

We've been able to take care of her.

She's a half mile away from us.

One of my sons stayed with her every Friday night.

We took turns.

She got to the point where she needed 24-7 care.

So she's at today a care facility that takes better care of her and good care that we couldn't provide.

At the same time, her home, which is three-bedroom, two bath, was being occupied by one person.

It's now going to be available for potentially a family.

So I see two advantages to care facility.

First, we're an aging population, and second, we need a housing.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay.

If you do choose to speak, if you could start making your way to the podium.

Hi, my name is Ann Fam.

I have worked in assisted living for over 15 years as a caregiver and med tech in facilities ranging from 50 to 100 residents in the Bay Area.

I want to share what I've actually seen working senior care.

I'm here because I've actually done this job.

For 15 years, families handed me their home moms, dads, and trusted me to take care of them.

There's one resident I'll never forget.

She would get dressed up, sit by the front door, and tell me, my son is picking me up today.

He never came.

This happened over and over again.

I started realizing this wasn't unusual.

Families often don't show up the way people imagine.

Most came during holidays, and even then, not all at once or at all.

Some came on Tuesdays, others might pick up their parent for a couple of hours and bring them back later that day.

This home has 15 residents, smaller than any facility I've worked at.

What you're picturing with the overflow of family visiting, sadly, that's not the reality.

The 911 calls, I want to address because that was my job too.

I was the one who had to make the calls in facilities with 100 residents.

I might make a 9-1 call every few months.

This home has 15 residents mean caregivers have time to notice when something is wrong before it becomes an emergency.

These are somebody's parents, somebody's grandparents.

Many can't really get around anymore, and many feel forgotten, even by their own children.

I've had residents look at me and tell me I was the closest thing to family they had left.

Sometimes you were the last face they saw before passing.

That's why places like this matter.

I respectfully ask you to deny this appeal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay, with that, I'll go ahead and close the public comment period and bring it back to the commission.

So let's go ahead and see if we have questions.

I have a few, but if somebody wants to start, any questions or any comments that they may have.

I'll start.

Can we explain the um curious about the service traffic on a typical day?

I know that that's um been an issue or concern that there's gonna be a lot of traffic coming in and out of the uh facility.

Is there anyone who can speak to that?

Yes, we have got uh deputy director Dan Hennessy here from our traffic engineering who will speak to that.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, uh Commission members.

Um the estimates for um uh the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation manual are the best national resource that we have, but better than that is localized uh data from providers in the area or our local data.

Um especially at scales that are either quite small or quite large, that data tends to struggle with uh adapting based on the averages that we have.

What we know from both um other providers in the area and from those national averages is that the description of the operation is far more important than using other sites to compare.

So when the um uh applicant says that they're anticipating, you know, a few staff members coming and going, um, when you hear from others that the um the visitation of um member of community members living at this facility is is quite low.

I'm inclined to believe them.

And based on the numbers that we have that would support that, whether it's one-to-one or not, the trip generation from this facility would never reach a level to um create an impact by any qualitative or objective measure that we would have.

And so um, if there was a food truck delivery van or whatever vehicle they would use, it'd be the same vehicle if there were six people that live there or 15 people.

That's right.

So having 15 people doesn't constitute an extra van trip.

That's right.

Is that fair to say?

Yeah, I think the variables that would change the um trips would either be increased staff or increased visitation, and based on the um statements that we've heard and from what the operator potential operators or other operators have said is that those numbers are quite low and should be able to be absorbed by the site.

And I would assume that would be the same for laundry and um other sort of six or six people there or fifteen, it's gonna be the same.

I would imagine so.

I, you know, I'm not a care operator, but it doesn't strike me that that would change the level of trip generation.

Great, thank you.

I have another question I see.

Not for Mr.

Hennessey, thank you, Mr.

Hense.

I appreciate it.

Let's leave Dan there.

Are there any other questions of uh Mr.

Hennessy?

Okay, you are excused.

So go ahead.

I see fire in the house.

You're the next contestant.

Come on down.

And I guess while you're coming down, my question is about uh ingress, egress, potential target hazard.

Um evacuating people in an emergency.

Do you see any um things that we should be concerned about?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

Um Mike Johnson, assistant farm marshal, San Rosa Fire Department.

As for the evacuation plans under the Health and Safety Code, and as well as Title 22, the facility is required to have an evacuation plan that we will review and hopefully approve.

Um on the bigger scheme, is that also part of the question?

Yes, okay.

Okay.

Typically since 2017, we've had a major update in evacuation plans.

You may have heard this in previous meetings, but we have early notification, we have a flush plan.

Benjamin has two exit routes right there to Montecito and Middle Rinken.

And do you see any extra challenge if there were six residents as opposed to 15 residents?

If you needed to evacuate the actual facility, no, we will again review their evacuation plan.

So that'll take that into consideration.

And you don't have a problem or any thought process about being able to fit a rig, an engine truck, and to address a fire.

Um you can get down the easement.

Okay, there's no sort of uh consideration.

No, no, it's it's really no different than if any uh just a single family home was there.

Um this home will have fire sprinklers, so uh those are upwards of 98% effective.

So if a home was there that did not have sprinklers, you would actually see more emergency response vehicles there in order to fight that fire.

Typically, when there's a fire sprinkler system present, then we often cancel after the first unit is due because they are arrives because they notice the fire sprinkler system is put it out.

So then it's just clean up at that point.

So it it you know, any other residential neighborhood, you're gonna end up seeing more rigs, um, more units on scene because there's so many homes right now without fire sprinklers.

So you're gonna end up, you know, on any residential street with again with homes without fire sprinklers, you're gonna have numerous units there, and we block streets all the time.

But in this case, there's a less chance of us having to do that because it's gonna have fire sprinklers.

Thank you.

That's my all my questions for I have one more question, but not for fire.

Any questions for fire?

You're excused.

Thank you.

And my last question is about parking.

Someone mentioned um the issues with is there enough parking to um supply parking for the employees of the facility and their guests.

Um, can someone explain why we have the number of parking that we have for this project?

All right, thank you.

So the zoning code for a community care facility requires um one parking space for every three beds.

So in this case, that would be five on-site parking spaces, which this um development is it can meet.

Um additionally, there'll be two on you know on street parking spaces in front, and so it meets the zoning code standards, um, and has adequate parking per per the city's codes.

For the city's code, thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

Commissioner Sisko.

Um, yeah, one of the uh speakers brought up the legality of making a requirement that visitors make appointments.

Do you know anything about that?

Maybe the city attorney could speak to that.

Pardon me, thank you, uh, Commissioner Sisko for that for that question.

Uh I think in this context, to try to manage uh the parking that uh having visitors, you know, make appointments call ahead to uh to have that managed is appropriate.

Uh if the commissioners decide that uh they prefer not to have that as one of the conditions, we could take it out, but but I think it's an appropriate way to to manage any parking issues.

Yeah, I'm just concerned about the legality of that, and if that weren't a requirement, we still have sufficient parking.

Yeah, I have no uh nothing to suggest that it's true that it's illegal to require uh require people to make appointments.

Okay, yeah, but if they if they didn't the five spaces is sufficient under our zoning code for just okay, that's the main thing.

Yes, thank you.

I think that is more of a question for the planners, but I'm hearing I'm I'm hearing that yes, indeed, it is sufficient.

Any other questions?

Okay, so with that, um, go ahead and if a commissioner would like to read the resolution.

I can read that.

I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city.

If I can, I'm so sorry to interrupt.

Um we also have opportunity for rebuttal.

Oh, yeah.

You're right.

I'm sorry, that is in my script.

And so it the rebuttal quest, the rebuttal is um from the applicant only.

Uh so uh the applicant.

He didn't understand what I said about the fire engine.

Please sit down.

Thank you.

Um for clarification, Chair Weeks, it's uh both the appellant and the applicant.

And the applicant, right?

So the appellant and the applicant.

Uh so does does the applicant have any rebuttal from any of the comments?

If so, please make your way to the podium.

If okay, that nobody's rising.

So does the appellant have a rebuttal to any of the comments or concluding comments?

Okay, we he is the applicant or the appellant, so thank you, Mr.

Giles.

Giles, and thank you, Ms.

Jones, for whoever reminded me, thank you.

I just want to comment again about the SB9 lot split.

It seems like none of you want to address that, but it is the basis for um you cannot split that property, you cannot sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury and then not follow through.

The owners have not lived there.

In fact, they've been allowed to rent that property out.

So we emailed Hannah the plan at the planning department in December asking about the SB 9.

And in January, she said she had talked to the owners and they weren't living there because of renovations, but they would be moving in in a couple of weeks.

That was in January.

Okay, um, and that email, those emails are part of public record.

Um, but in the meantime, they've been allowed to rent the house out.

So if it was livable, it was livable for them, and they're the ones that are supposed to be living in it.

Um instead, they have profited almost $50,000 in rent.

This is exactly why Senate Bill 9 was put into effect was to keep real estate investors from coming in, splitting these residential properties, and simply profiting.

Just food for thought, y'all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so with that, we'll bring it back to the commission and Ms.

Cisco.

I move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa denying an appeal and upholding the decision of the zoning administrator approving a minor conditional use permit to allow a 15-bed community care facility for the property located at six three one Benjamins Road, Santa Rosa, APN one eight three- two four zero-four zero file number PLN 25-zero two zero six and way for the reading of the text.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay, so that was moved by Commissioner Cisco and seconded by Vice Chair Duggan.

So we'll go ahead and start with Commissioner Sisko.

Um I think uh planning has put forth all of the the reasons for us to deny the appeal.

I can make all of the findings on that, and um I'll be upholding uh the decision of the zoning administrator.

Thank you.

Um I have nothing else to add, but I will be um voting to deny the appeal.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sanders.

I also have nothing to add, and we'll um uphold the um the denial of appeal.

Thank you, Commissioner Horton.

I have nothing else to add, and I'll also vote to deny the appeal.

I can make all the required findings in the resolution of denial.

Thank you.

And I also can make all the required findings and deny the appeal.

And would like to thank uh Ms.

Michelson for a very thorough staff report that laid everything out.

So with that, if we could have a vote, please.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Carter is absent.

Commissioner Sisko?

Aye.

Commissioner Horton.

Aye.

Commissioner Bardo is also absent.

Commissioner Sanders?

Aye.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Aye.

Chair Weeks.

Aye.

That resolution passes with five eyes.

Thank you.

And we'll take a few minute break while uh Commissioner Sanders leaves us.

So where do we have to do the appeal?

I know I thought that's a very good one.

Okay, if everybody is ready.

So this is the second item tonight, 11.2.

It's a public hearing MD Market Conditional Use Permit.

1995 Sebastopol Road PLN 25-0495.

And it is an ex parte item and Commissioner Horton.

I have met with the applicant and visited the site, and I have nothing further to disclose.

Thank you, Vice Chair, Vice Chair Duggan.

I visited the site and had a Zoom meeting with the applicant.

And have nothing further to disclose.

Thank you, Commissioner Sisko.

I visited the site and I have nothing new to disclose.

And I also visited the site and had a Zoom meeting with the applicant and nothing further to disclose.

So with that, Ms.

Wolski.

Yes, if you give me just a moment, I'll get the PowerPoint up.

Thank you.

Okay, good evening, Chair Weeks and members of the Commission.

My name is Sheila Walski.

I'm a planner with the planning and economic development department.

And I'll be presenting on item 11.2 MD Market.

Here's some highlights from the project.

The applicant is requesting a major conditional use permit to allow alcoholic beverage sales for off-site consumption and also for approval of extended hours of operation from 6 a.m.

to 12 a.m.

seven days a week.

This market is neighborhood serving retail and it's proposed to be within an existing commercial building.

If you're familiar with the area of Sebastopol Road and Stony Point Road, this is the corner property that used to house the O'Reilly's Auto Parts store, and that's been several years vacant now.

The extent of the improvements includes minor interior improvements to accommodate a different type of retail setup than the auto sales.

And should this project be approved, um the applicant would close their current MD market that's about 80 feet away on Sebastopol Road and transfer their alcohol license from that location to this location.

Okay, to get us oriented, again, this is the former O'Reilly's building at Sebastopol Road and Stony Point Road.

It's located in the Roseland area, Sebastopol Road specific plan area.

And as you can see, it's surrounded by other commercial uses.

And a little closer view is um again the property is highlighted in blue, and I've kind of highlighted uh some of the businesses, some of the commercial businesses that surround this location.

The general plan, land use designation is retail and business services, and the zoning district is general commercial.

This slide shows you the project history.

This takes us from application to tonight's public hearing meeting.

One of the uh requests, the applicant requests is for extended hours.

There is no separate section of the zoning code for extended hours.

It's really just anything that's after 11 p.m.

until 6 a.m.

So the applicant is asking for one hour each day of extended hours of operation.

There is, however, criteria for reviewing alcoholic beverage sales.

First is a public convenience or necessity, because this market would be selling many everyday items.

We could find that to be convenient and perhaps necessary.

There would be bread, milk, cereal, some over the counter medications, things like that.

The crime rate in the reporting district in the surrounding areas.

I've included in the staff report an attachment that has this police beat, the most current police beat newsletter for police beat five, in which this property is located as well as surrounding police beat areas.

Alcohol license concentration is another review criteria.

However, the alcoholic beverage control indicated that they would not be seeking a formal public convenience or necessity because of the transfer of license from one location to another, that that would not result in any net increase in licenses.

Alcohol related calls for service.

Police gave us some information for the last two years, and within 1,000 feet of this location, there were 37 alcohol related calls.

They do not attribute that to this specific location or any other.

Again, this was reviewed by the police department, and they provided comments that they did not have any comments or concerns with this type of business opening in this location.

That concludes my report.

Police department was not able to spare anyone for this meeting tonight, but I'm here.

Should you have any questions?

And the applicant, Herman Dillon, representing MD Market is also here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any questions of Ms.

Wolsky?

Mr.

Dillon, do you have a presentation?

I'm not sure if you have any presentation or not, but I want to make sure to give you the opportunity.

I don't have a presentation.

But if you guys would like, I can speak.

If not, I know you guys have had a long day.

It's totally up to you.

We can't hear you, sorry.

I don't have a formal presentation.

But I mean if you guys would like, I'm here for any sort of questions.

Okay.

Are there any questions of the applicant?

Vice Chair.

So the current store on Sebastian Road, the operating hours of that are 6 a.m.

till 2 a.m.

Is that correct?

Uh it's 6 a.m.

to 12 a.m.

with the exception of sat Friday and Saturday, where it stays open till 2 a.m.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Commissioner Sisko.

I actually need to amend my ex parte disclosure.

Um that uh while I didn't meet with the applicant, I did have a question that I emailed to Mr.

Dillon, and I'll just ask it publicly now.

Um, what are the plans for the current building?

Uh the current building uh meaning the current MD market, right?

Yes.

So we would once we switch everything over.

If this project is approved, we would close down that site, and our plans, our future plans for that entire site is to redevelop it into a multifamily mixed choose project.

Great, thank you.

So I think that did constitute new information.

So thank you.

Okay, so thank you.

So with that, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing.

If you have any comments on this item, please make your way to the podium.

See no one rise, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Would somebody like to enter this resolution?

I will move a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Santa Rosa, making findings and determinations and approving a major conditional use permit for alcoholic beverage sales for off-site consumption and extended hours of operation, 6 a.m.

to 12 a.m.

seven days per week, located at 1995 Sebastopol Road, file number PLN25-0495 and wave for the reading.

Thank you.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay, so that was moved by Vice Chair Duggan and seconded by Commissioner Sisko.

So Vice Chair.

I can make all the required findings, especially just knowing that it's a transfer of a license from one location across the street to the other.

Um I think the new buildings that uh improvement on the old building, I didn't go into the old one, but um it's larger and more um windows in a better location, a good parking lot, and so I can make all the required findings in and in a favor of the resolution.

Thank you, Commissioner Sisko.

I also can make all of the required findings, and I really want to thank staff again for providing us all of the police information and crime statistics and the method that you're using, definitely makes our job much easier.

So I appreciate the effort to do that.

And uh like uh Vice Chair Duggan, I just see it's just moving a current business and to a better building and uh opening up the opportunity for housing on Sebastian Road.

So I'm all for it.

I can make all of the required findings.

Thank you, Commissioner Horton.

I can also make all the required findings.

I am very supportive of the project.

I would just align with the comments that were already made.

Thanks.

And I also can make all the required findings and we'll be supporting the project.

So with that, it was moved by Vice Chair Duggan, seconded by Commissioner Sisko.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Carter is absent.

Commissioner Siskel.

Aye.

Commissioner uh Horton.

Aye.

Commissioner Pardo is also absent, and Commissioner Sanders abstained from this vote.

Vice Chair Duggan.

Aye.

Chair Weeks?

Aye.

That resolution passes with four ayes, with Commissioner Sanders abstaining.

Thank you.

Uh and hold on, I have one more thing to say.

I can turn the page.

Uh please note that.