Brisbane, California Planning Commission Meeting, 10 Nov 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Brisbane Planning Commission Regular Meeting 11-10-2022

Description

Meeting Agenda: https://www.brisbaneca.org/bc-pc/page/planning-commission-meeting-115

Commissioners: Funke, Gooding, Lau, Patel, and Sayasane

00:00:00 PREAMBLE, CALL TO ORDER
00:01:53 ROLL CALL
00:02:10 ADOPTION OF AGENDA
00:02:48 CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of draft meeting minutes of July 28, 2022
B. Approval of draft meeting minutes of August 11, 2022
C. Approval of draft meeting minutes of August 25, 2022
00:04:13 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Limited to a total of 15 minutes)
00:05:05 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
00:05:52 WORKSHOP
D. Overview and Discussion of New State Housing Laws
00:00:52 SB9 Overview
00:15:32 SB9 Council Questions/Discussion
00:28:36 SB478 Overview
00:30:00 SB478 Discussion
00:30:30 AB2011 and SB6 Overview
00:33:37 AB2011 and SB6 Discussion
00:35:10 Housing Element 2.A.7 Overview
00:36:34 ITEMS INITIATED BY STAFF
E. Staff update on 2022 California Building Code update and local “reach codes”
00:39:20 ITEMS INITIATED BY THE COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT

A

Or three two one.

B

Good afternoon, everyone, this virtual meeting is compliant with the Ralph m brown act as amended by California Assembly bill number 361, effective, September, 16 2021, providing for a public health emergency exception to the standard teleconference rules required by the brown Act.

B

The purpose of this is to provide a safe environment for the public staff and the planning Commissioners, while allowing for public participation.

B

The Planning Commission meeting is being broadcast on Comcast channel 27 and the city's YouTube channel at www.youtube.com backslash Brisbane CA. The agenda materials may be viewed online at www.brisbaneca.org backslash meetings.

B

All written comments submitted before 2 pm of the day of the meeting have already been provided to the commission and available for public inspection at the front lobby in City Hall and online at www.brispainca.org backsplash backslash meetings any written. Sorry any writings received after the agenda had been posted, but after 2 pm of the day of the meeting will be available online at the start of the meeting at www.brisbaneca.org backslash meetings, at which time the materials will be distributed to the commission.

B

For those who did who did not provide written comments, a Colin telephone number was provided on the agenda, which can be viewed online at www.brisbaneca.org backslash meetings. The phone number and instructions will also be provided during the meeting participants in the zoom webinar may make their comments through Zoom. Please note that Zoom participants will only be able to address the commission verbally I will announce time limits for public comment during the particular item staff. May we please have a roll call.

C

Commissioner funka aye commissioner Gooding hi commissioner Patel hi commissioner Saison here let the record show commissioner Lau is absence.

B

This time, I would ask for a motion to adopt the agenda.

D

B

Staff, may we conduct a Voice vote. How did we get a second.

C

I'll second, uh commissioner hi commissioner Gooding hi, commissioner Patel hi, commissioner Saison.

E

B

The motion passes with four eyes.

B

At this time we will entertain any members of the public or the Commissioners that would like to pull an item from the consent. Calendar staff will post the text and call number on the screen if you are participating by zoom, and you want to pull an item from the consent. Calendar, please raise your hand by pressing the raise hand button or by pressing star 9 on your phone. If you have called in staff, will start a timer for 30 seconds for members of the public to ask to pull an item.

B

While we are waiting for the time to pass, do any of the Commissioners. Would they like to remove an item from the consent calendar.

A

10 more seconds.

A

All right, 30 seconds has elapsed and no one has raised their hand.

B

Thank you at this time is there a motion to adopt the consent, calendar.

F

B

F

B

G

B

Steph, may we please have a voice, um a voice count. Commissioner, hi.

F

Commissioner, Gooding hi can we Sheriff's.

C

Towel hi, commissioner Saison hi.

B

The motion passes with four eyes: moving on to oral Communications.

B

um Oral oral comments on items not on the agenda can be called in by calling the teleconference number in the next one minute or made by participants in the zoom. Webinar staff will display the call-in number on the screen and any Zoom meeting participants should raise their hand to indicate this to staff that they would like to address the commission on items not on the agenda. Callers must press star nine to raise their hand.

B

Staff will set a timer for one minute.

B

I, don't believe we've received any written Communications for this particular meeting.

A

That's correct.

A

15 more seconds.

A

A

Has raised their hand thank.

B

You um there is no old business or new business on this agenda for today. So at this time, I would move on to the workshop and ask staff for the presentation on the overview and discussion of new state housing laws.

H

Absolutely good evening, chair and Commissioners, let me pull up my presentation.

H

Okay, great so tonight we're going to explore some new state housing laws that are either already effective or coming online shortly in 2023. That will impact our zoning regulations.

H

So, uh as commission is very familiar with in the past several years, the state has advanced many laws that impact our local control and discretion over residential projects. I think we've probably felt most keenly uh the changes to how we regulate accessory dwelling units, as well as residential design review procedures.

H

Earlier this year we just went through the objective development standards process, so tonight we're going to focus on these Five Laws, put up on the screen here, sb9, which is in effect currently sb478, which is also in effect and then prospectively, um two statutes that just passed and will be effective in July, for which staff is going to be bringing some uh ordinances forward to commissions um sb9, uh just as a broader overview.

H

It allows lot splits in single-family zones to be proposed in processed ministerially without any discretionary action, um and it allows those lot splits to occur where minimum lot sizes are not being met. For example, um it also would allow duplexes on single-family zoned Lots again ministerially um I provided an attachment to the memo that we can dive through a little bit. It has some really helpful imagery so I'm going to stop this and pull up that.

H

So this was attached to the memo. This was prepared by a bag, so basically sb9 the end result. If, if a property owner wanted to invoke all of the provisions of sb9, is that four units could be established where previously there was only we say one, but really anyone can have an Adu. So, let's just say two, um so the primary I think part of sb9.

H

That is interesting that we're going to discuss a little bit later tonight um is again this ability to split a lot without um resulting in lots that conform to our minimum lot size requirements in the R1 District. The minimum lot size is 5 000 square feet, our other single-family zoning District. The RBA has a 20 000 square foot lot size minimum.

H

There are many reasons why this sb9 um is not going to be as broadly applicable in the RBA, um and we can go into those in more detail, so we're really I think just focusing on the R1.

H

So, as you can see here, there's some different scenarios kind of Illustrated of if someone went were to invoke sb9 what development scenarios could result.

H

So again, this kind of ultimate scenario is you have one lot that is split into two and then developed with two two units, each so resulting in four units on the plot that used to be just single family.

H

There are a lot of qualifications and eligibility criteria for sb9, both for the lot split provisions and the duplex provisions for the lot split. The legislature wanted to make sure it wasn't used speculatively so like, for example, the uh a property owner may only split one time. One lot one time they are not eligible for lot splits on other adjacent properties, so it would not allow a property owner to sidestep our regular subdivision regulations. This really was intended to just be for kind of a one-time, only there's also a three-year residency requirement.

H

So if someone pursued a lot split, they would have to agree to reside on one of the lots for at least three years. So really this is kind of leading into the state's attempt to encourage and make it easier for infill development to occur in our in-established neighborhoods.

H

The city can also still require many of our regular, like subdivision requirements. um We have to allow, let me actually jump back to our this one.

H

We do have to allow a certain minimum size of units oops, sorry and that's kind of what we wanted to talk with you guys about tonight. There's a little bit of discretion that the city may be able to have in that.

H

um Okay, so if a property owner pursues a lot split under sb9, the city does have some discretion on limiting the size of the unit. We could not prohibit units or we'd have to allow at least 800 square feet for these units. On the on the new small Lots um for new construction, we would also be allowed to require at least four foot side and rear setbacks and we'd also be able to require one parking space per unit.

H

um So in thinking of implementing adopting an ordinance to implement sb9, we wanted to check in and see if there is any interest in kind of studying further whether the city would want to allow units larger than 800 square feet on newly subdivided Lots.

H

So when it comes to the actual size of the Lots, there is requirement in the law to subdivide the basically like, proportionally um and there's a minimum lot size of at least 1200 square feet um in Brisbane. We do have like many slots that are under 5 000 square feet.

H

Our original subdivision, as we kind of talked about during the housing element or the original subdivision map for the city had 2500 square foot, Lots were were not uncommon um so, and the city already has some allowance in the zoning ordinance for substandard lots to be developed with single-family homes, not duplexes.

H

um So we kind of wanted to just test the waters and see if the commission was interested in um studying whether you know potentially larger unit sizes could be allowed.

H

um One of the things I think staff identified at least I. Think of this in the memo, and that we're talking about tonight is whether ties to increased Park, like provision of more parking, might be um a feasible way to accommodate potentially more square footage.

H

um So at this point, I'll kind of open it up to to the commission and see if there's any interest in this there's. Some already like we had talked about during the housing element process studying um through program 2a5, uh studying zoning districts, where maybe overall reductions to minimum lot sizes. You know, rather than someone invoking through sb9 a lot split provision to have a smaller lot size that we would actually study reductions to the lot size in the zoning districts, the standards themselves.

H

So there is like a lot of um Synergy there um and relationship there and what we're asking you guys to think about tonight and I kind of set it up in the staff memo. We can.

H

We can think about this. We can adopt an ordinance that kind of just implements sb9, as is without really pushing the limit and and fold that kind of study into our future study that we've committed to in our housing element program.

H

That's totally feasible, um but if the commission was potentially interested in adopting an ordinance sooner um or through through our SBI implementing ordinance, that's something we could Advance a little bit as well.

H

So I'll stop there um and see what if there are any thoughts on on this.

E

Yeah, okay, so um so what you're saying is that a lot has to be if they split it has to be at least 800 square foot has to be 18 squared so, and we can require one parking space for that so producing. If we, if we allow the uh square footage to be larger, we can make uh require more parking uh that you know that they have to provide for more parking.

H

I I think that we have the ability to do that um in in the law. um The basically like in my mind, if we were interested in pursuing something like that, we would have kind of one track. That's like the sb9 track, no more than 800 square foot per new unit with one parking space per unit and then having a second track that is kind of a Brisbane. You know a special um allowance that we would create through an ordinance that would say: well, you could have a larger unit.

H

You would have to provide more parking, for example, or.

C

Whatever other.

H

Standards, you would want to tag to that.

E

Yeah I would be open to that, to you know, to give people the flexibility and and if they want a larger unit, to provide more parking. So I don't see how that you know hurts okay.

H

Is everyone how's everyone else feeling? Oh sorry, everyone has their hands up. uh I, don't know who I wanted. First.

B

I think, commissioner Gooding.

F

Yeah, thank you um I I note here in the in the you know: PowerPoint live for this. This is Max one parking place per unit on New, Lots and I. Don't know if that's a literal, uh you know per.

H

F

The the statute and I confess I have not gone and parse the statute, but but I would be I would be concerned if we allowed larger units than 800 square feet without having the capacity or the the ability to require more than one parking place, because what we're? What sb9 does to us really is severely increase the potential density of a neighborhood um and in some places in California in some places in San, Mateo County, um you know, but footprint is not a problem and space is not as big an issue but in downtown Brisbane.

F

It really is, and um so I would be interested in resolving at least either.

D

F

The statutory language or, or you know, advice of counsel whether we can require more parking I think we should I think if we really allow larger units um without having to provide parking spaces we're just throwing cars on streets that are already completely clogged and I. Think that's that's not.

D

F

H

Yeah and we wouldn't and I, don't know that we um would recommend like kind of same page, commissioner Gooding, like 800 square foot, units our code, so the parking code says uh for single-family homes and multi-family I believe if you are a one bedroom, that's no more than 900 square feet in floor area. Your parking requirement is one parking space. So that's a little bit larger than 800 square feet, obviously not not much, but um yeah. Certainly anything over 900 square feet would be totally out of line with our current parking code.

D

F

We can't require more than one parking space, because the statue doesn't let us then my take would be let's not allow units larger than 800, because they are much more likely to create households that have more than one car yeah.

F

G

B

um I was wondering: is there you know how we talked about previously? How there's like a first-time coverage of a lot? So a house can only be so big because so, if a lot is split and I guess the the minimum is 1200 square feet. Is that right for a lot under this provision?

B

um Would that still apply or do we have to get rid of that because it would not allow for if it doesn't allow for the split to include a house on it or a unit on it? Would we have to get rid of that law.

H

It wouldn't get rid of our law necessarily, but it would. We are precluded from applying any development standard that would not allow um in the case of new construction and.

A

H

Square foot unit of at least 800 square feet. So, okay, and it really depends too like if it's a lot with an existing house on it. For.

C

H

Say you have a 5 000 square foot lot with a house on it and they, the property owner, wants to split the property and they draw the property line such that approximately you know at least 40 percent of of the lot is now going to be a new lot. um You're and you're. Already we're already looking at then a situation where you're creating a non-conforming situation right, because that existing house is now on a much smaller property.

H

B

You do that is that, would that be allowed under response.

H

That would be allowed. Existing structures are allowed, um regardless of whether you know all of a sudden another non-conforming in regards to four area lock coverage because of a reduction of their lot size.

B

Well, I think that the Brisbane law should take that into consideration.

H

um In terms of well.

B

If there's going to be two different tracks, there's going to be the sp9 track, then, if we are also going to be studying, because I think commissioner sayasan had talked about also studying a parallel track. That would just be first being specific. I think we should consider maybe deviating from the sp9 so that we can preserve some of those.

H

Yeah qualities.

B

H

See what you mean: yeah, okay,.

G

H

G

Sense, the quality um uh the quality you're talking about is a existing structures on Lots. Small 1200 is that right, because they're unconforming is that the the deal.

B

No I think what so, what we're talking about I! Think sorry, were you asking me or were you asking Julia I was asking.

G

Asking you a chair Patel, actually, what is it that we're trying to hold on? Oh.

B

So so, if if we have a house that is on a 2 500 square foot lot and is currently conforming to the um the ratio of like property to land, so you know you can only have a house at certain amount of size based on your lot size.

B

If they split that in half they can make the entire house one lot. Let's say that, let's say it's: the square footage is 1200 square feet. They can make that entire lot, their house and then split off the back, and then we would have to allow at least an 800 square foot house on the back under sb9, but the front. The first house that was already there would be non-conforming under Brisbane law, but we still have to allow it.

G

I understand so that there they would still be, they would be uh uh compliant with the 1200 square foot locker, but the coverage would be more than than is allowed okay great um all right, and is that the basic thing is uh my general question up front was so the basic block size is 5000. You can split it into four I guess, but if you have a smaller, let's say like you're the example you can.

H

Only split it one time: your lot is five thousand three thousand or two thousand square feet in size. Only one time and.

G

What did it change his hands? Because that was another question? I had.

G

You know one owner.

H

So that once a lot has been split under this provision, there are no future splits. So that's one of the criteria is: has this lot? Was this lot created as a result of um an urban lot? Split? Is.

G

That something we might want to change I mean just I'm, just thinking on my computer. That sounds almost unreasonable, like if there's still rooms to split like 5 000 square foot lot is split into two times. Twenty five hundred and they're sold.

D

G

Why, wouldn't you be able to split those lots under sb9? Now they have new owners.

G

It's just one of the.

D

H

It's one of the provisions of of the statute and I think it was intended to prevent like serial subdivisions that flout City standards is intended to be a one-time situation.

G

um huh Okay, well, I mean that that's fine to me it doesn't. It just doesn't seem entirely logic to me. It's like because the intent like whether you split it up front into four. But if someone didn't have the foresight to do that, then they basically hand that down to fewer owners in perpetuity. It's like I'm, sorry.

B

G

Owned it once you.

B

Can't split it four times the first time you can only split one lot, one to two yeah.

H

B

D

H

Square foot is a it's basically saying the smallest lot that could be split is 2400 square feet. That's really what that's that 1200 square foot minimum is saying is if you own a lot, that's less than 2 400 square feet. You can't you can't do the lot splits.

D

H

Doesn't mean that now we're allowing 1200 square foot Lots just across the board, I.

G

See all right that was a good, clear.

H

Yeah, it's I, I, probably didn't do the best job explaining it tonight, so I would recommend that um take a closer look at the attachment to this staff memo um there's a really that graphic that we briefly touched on is is really good at um explaining all the kind of exclusions and stuff too I didn't spend a lot of time on.

H

Okay, sorry, no! No go on.

G

There was only one other thought that crossed my mind: I think it's probably beyond the Fairview of the Planning Commission, it's like I. Think probably the only thing that you can put in a statute is the number of parking spaces, like some kind of ratio. You know, but I I think.

G

Maybe the larger issues is the number of cars that are owned by the people living at a thing I mean you can still have someone living in an 800 square foot property, but having three cars but that's I know that's probably falls under the purview of another commission, not the Planning Commission right. The.

H

Car ownership, commission.

G

Yeah like well I mean we have a parking. Isn't there, someone there's.

H

No streets, yeah complete streets uh is studying um uh parking management.

C

Right now, yeah parking permit systems.

G

It should cost you if you want to own three cars, say you're living in a 800 foot apartment. But anyway you know, but thanks for clarifying the uh the last splitting requirement.

H

No no problem um so I think I have a pretty clear, then indication. It seems like we're interested in exploring potentially um allowing larger units on these these Lots, with the caveat that definitely we would need more parking to be required and looking at the potential for non-conforming conditions being created.

H

Okay, I think I think I got it me.

H

Okay, um jumping to sb478. This is already in effect, and this is a more just prescriptive law that we're just gonna have to amend our standards to conform to.

H

um So this applies to multi-family developments of three to ten units and it basically increases the allowable, far area ratio for such units, either 1.0 or 1.25, and the staff memo kind of explained far and gave you some examples of what Affairs would look like on different size, Lots in different districts.

H

um So it also uh prohibits us from applying minimum lot size requirements to multi-family dwellings, where they're, otherwise permitted so taken together. This could potentially in our R2 and R3 districts, result in um you know, potentially encouraging some more development. We don't really see them as moving the needle like super.

D

H

Because there are still challenges to developing um housing and we can still apply parking which um is always kind of what determines the allowable unit size or number of units, and we can apply objective standards which we've already adopted, so um we would be bringing forward an ordinance in 2023 where that would amend the maximum far just for those that particular number of units in the R2, R3 and cro2 and scr01 districts. The current standards for ferr would remain exactly the same for any size of development outside of that range.

H

um So unless there's any questions on that, this isn't really much a discussion item. Did anyone have any questions on this? One.

D

H

Okay, so here are the exciting new laws: um AB 2011 and sb6. They were just signed, this fall and they actually don't go into effect until July of 2023, which is uh not typical. So we have a bit more time to digest them, but basically, these two laws would allow a property owner to propose a residential development in commercial districts um based on the various um requirements in the statute. We're really looking at impacts in the ncro districts, the neighborhood commercial, so that's Brisbane, Village and downtown Brisbane and Sierra Point uh districts.

H

So there are differences between the two laws. um Ab 2011 projects must provide affordable housing uh in in different amounts. um It would be a ministerially reviewed project and exempt from sqla uh sb6 projects would uh don't have the same, affordable housing requirements in the statute. They would be subject to typical review procedures, um although of course there's other streamlining statutes that they could invoke in their application.

H

um So the real sticking point for these laws is that there are pretty strict prevailing wage requirements. So, in order for a project to be eligible, they have to commit to paying um prevailing wage and using skilled labor.

H

um Any project that would be invoked under these statutes would have to conform with objective design standards, and we have design standards like that. We adopted earlier this year, um so we anticipate bringing forward um an ordinance to implement this. That would, you know, potentially tweak, if necessary, the objective design standards we've already adopted, and we would have to um study separately, objective design standards for the ncro district. The council did opt to um not include the NCR District in the odds process, this spring um intending to do more special study of that neighborhood.

H

So um it is very timely uh with these laws coming down the pike in July of next year uh for us to to do just that. So in January of next year, we're probably going to have a work plan that we would be ready to share with you all, January or February, on adopting objective standards for the ncro district and then with an eye also to zero point.

H

If we need to tweak those at all, anticipating that, potentially someone may submit an application under these, um so I also attached to the staff memo handout from a bag that really details the requirements, eligibility and differences between these two State statutes, so I think that's a really good resource explains it really. Clearly, um if there's any questions on this I'm happy to try to answer them, but we are going to have a pretty extensive work program on this, so I'll be the last time we talked about it.

G

I, just maybe just naive question: uh we talked about ncro I'm, just wondering about and Sierra Point right those who would the two and what about like Crocker Park, it's a different zone. I'm sorry I should probably know.

H

That question all.

G

H

Industrial industrial land is not eligible and warehousing is included in that definition of industrial, um so that knocks out Crocker Park.

G

Okay and Sierra Point currently, is all all the biotech for the most part, so office.

H

And office and Retail, which are the land, uses that that would be potentially open to this, but you know at Sierra Point. We obviously have a lot of new development, very expensive development going in right now, there's not.

A

H

Ton of, and it's and the sites that are already developed are occupied. um I I don't see even though zero point technically meets the someone a property owner could apply. I would be I think we would be very surprised if that was the case um just do on due to the occupancy of and building activity already related to biotech out there.

H

Thank you um and another thing that ties into this. uh The city council added a program to our draft housing element. It's programmed to A7 that commits us to studying zoning amendments to existing commercial zoning districts at Sierra, Point and Crocker Park. So this would capture Crocker Park to either allow or require mixed-use development.

H

So again, we kind of have already in motion um some consideration of the same types of of proposals that are envisioned in these statutes and we'll be devoting future study to them.

H

So again, 2023 is going to be quite quite the year for us, um we're gonna be amending the zoning ordinance bringing forward. You know, probably additional workshops and study sessions to you all, with an eye to Spring and Summer of 2023. Certainly, we'd love to get the ab 2011 and sb6 stuff ironed out before July when it's effective, but um we'll see how that goes, and at this point, I'll stop my share and if there's any remaining kind of questions or conversation that you'd like uh please let me know. Otherwise we can move on.

H

All right, thank you.

B

Thank you, Julia for the presentation.

B

um Moving on to items initiated by staff, I believe that there is an item initiated by staff.

A

That's correct: um we have a informational memo attached to the agenda. It's regarding the 2022 California building code they're on a three-year cycle, uh so that the 2022 codes are going to be in effect on January 1 2023. So we need to amend title 15 of the Brazilian Municipal Code uh title 15. Is it's not something that uh the Planning Commission will review prior to the city council, but the city council will and that is scheduled to go next week.

A

There are some minor changes made uh Beyond, just amending it to adopt the new uh 2020 to uh building code. There's some reach codes that we are uh either excuse me re-adopting or eliminating, because the California building code is the latest one supersedes it the so. The three main ones that are related to energy use would be on-site energy generation. That's our requirement, our reach code, former reach code, to require solar panels on residential and non residential development. That was put into effect prior to this, the new code, which building code, which now requires it.

A

So it's no longer needed that will be repealed. The we have one for EV charging infrastructure. We are retaining that one re-adopting. It there's no need to change it, it's very effective and it's still requires uh a greater standard than what the building code would and then the last one we do have a reach code for building electrification. That's all new or excuse me. New construction buildings need to be all electric.

A

The we're going to re-adopt that reach code, we're just going to amend a different part of the California building code. Rather than amending the energy code. We're going to amend pal green, it's a little bit easier adoption process, but the standards are going to be largely the same. The only difference is we're eliminating some blanket exceptions for uh residences which allow some gas appliances and fireplaces and the blanket exception for uh life science.

A

The the only exception that really remains would be is you would have to explain why you're you can't feasibly um be all electric um otherwise or excuse me um um to get uh to be allowed to have a gas infrastructure, and even if you were to get that accepting you would still have to basically pre-wire the building, make sure you have adequate space for electrification in the future, and that would be uh that'd. Be it mostly for the the amendments to propose the for this latest building code cycle.

B

Thank you, Jeremiah. Are there any items that were initiated by the commission or what the.

C

Code, yes, they do have a couple other items that were on the agenda, but I just wanted to remind the commission. Okay, one is and I don't recall it. Last time we met whether or not the council had considered the housing element, the draft they did as Julia mentioned, they did make some minor modifications. It has been submitted to hcd for review. Do we expect to get the review completed um early January their hcd's deadline to response?

C

There are some unique procedurals um wrinkles that will necessitate us adopting the housing element in January, so we're going to go straight to the council with that once we have a CD's comments, um so anyway, that's a little bit different than we had originally envisioned. We thought we had about three to four more months uh of a grace period, but the state indicates we don't have a grace period to adopt that, so that will be accelerated um a couple other things one is I. Believe the city clerk reached out to you about ethics training.

C

You have an obligation as Commissioners to attend. I think is biannually. So um if you haven't heard from the city clerk, you might want to reach out to her they're scheduling it for December 1st Thursday night I, believe that would be joint with the city, council and I think park and rec commission is the other commission. That's obligated to do that as well.

C

um A couple other things next Wednesday night, the 16th is the mayor's state of the city. Talk that'll, be at City, Hall and I'm sure it'll be televised as well, I believe it's at 5 or 6 p.m. Next Wednesday and lastly, I want to let the commission know that the city council initiated a code Amendment to modify some of the animal testing regulations at SharePoint, which will require a zoning code Amendment, so we'll be moving that forward, you'll be seeing that, possibly as early as next month or early in the year next year.

C

So this one give you a heads up on that and that's all I had if any questions on those. Let me know.

E

I just wanted to follow up on what John said about the ethics training um I actually didn't mind. Yesterday online uh Ingrid sent me a link, so you can't make the December 1st The Exchange. You can do it. Solo unlock really easy foreign.

G

Was it fun I I in in the thing that went out is that it was very energetic and uh which has not been my ethics training, but maybe this one's really good.

E

Well, no, maybe it'd be more fun in a group setting, but I have uh plans on December 1st. So that's why I asked that Ingrid. If I could do something online and it was, it was easy. I got out of the way so you're in the same situation. You can do that too. Yeah.

G

Well, that's great! Thank you. That's that's a good! uh It's good good advice.

B

All right um are there any items initiated by the commission.

B

I, don't see any items um so at this time um for the adjournment there will be a cancellation of the regular meeting of November 24th uh 2022, and we will adjourn until our regular meeting of December. 8Th 2022.

B

see everyone next month too good.

D

Thanks everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Julia good.

C

Thanks everybody thank.

D

You thank you Julia.