Planning Commission / Landmarks Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay we're it's now 635 p.m. August. Excuse me September 9th and we're starting the city of Fullerton planning commission meeting. Janet can you please call roll.

Commissioner Fleener here. Commissioner Tudor here Commissioner Wayne here and Chair Valadez and vice chair Diener Dino are absent and or delayed Okay, let's stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance

Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. OK, going to public comments.

Do we have any public comments? No hands raised online.

No none online. OK then let's close public comments. Let's go on to the consent calendar. Can we take a vote on the minutes.

I move to approve.

I'll second that. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner Wayne.

Aye.

Commissioner Tudor.

Yes. OK. Now let's go to the communication disclosure. Does anybody have anything to disclose. Okay. Then let's go on to the housing opportunity sites review. Can we see the presentation?

Absolutely. So good evening, honorable chair and commissioners, staff, And consultants conducted what we call the Housing Opportunity Sites Review. And I will pull up my PowerPoint if I can find where the heck it is. I'm sorry. The screen is different now. Oh my god, I can't find it. Ah. All right. So just as a reminder, the Housing Opportunities Site report was prepared in conjunction with staff through Placeworks Consulting Firm, which is a large firm that we've used in the past for different specialty projects. So the purpose of the study is fourfold. It's to expand housing opportunities. So we looked at sites that were not included in the housing element inventory. It focused on growth on infill locations. And the main focus was on sites in downtown near transit But include city on part parcels and privately owned properties including church properties Generally the sites are an acre or less in size We also evaluated barriers to housing production. The study looked at establishing clarity around zoning density and parking. And then lastly identified implementation roadmaps. So we looked at streamlining entitlement pathways utilizing recently adopted state laws. So the funding for the study is what we call the REAP 2.0 grant the regional early action planning grant. This funding was distributed through the Southern California Association of Governments, SCAG. And then we had assistance through the Orange County Association of Governments. So they kind of oversaw the disbursement of the funds and gave technical assistance. All the cities in Orange County had the ability to apply for this grant, and there was a lot of competition for a limited amount of funding. I personally submitted four applications and only one of the applications hit. And these funding, this funding source was actually set with tight parameters and tight deadlines. So we had to move pretty quickly on these. Is this project met housing element policies? So it met the three policies listed, policy action 3.3F. which was conduct outreach to religious institutions and provide technical assistance. And these are just summarized. There's more verbiage if you look at the actual document. It was an attachment to the report. Second was policy action three point seven Bravo which was to actively promote housing development sites and provide incentives and technical assistance to housing developers. And then lastly policy action three point seven Charlie acquire funds from local state and federal grant opportunities to support the development of affordable housing. So the first thing we did back in April was we conducted a religious sites workshop. What we did is we reached out to all the churches in town and we brought in some experts to conduct like a one hour workshop to talk about different funding sources and different types of grants that are available to build housing on church sites. So we had some good turnout. We were actually looking for churches that were to come forward and say, hey, we want housing built on our site. And at this particular event, that didn't really happen. But the person on the left of the screen, she works for National Core, and she provided examples of great projects that were done in other cities, like in Yorba Linda. Placentia Anaheim, and she was a huge wealth of knowledge, and it was really a great meeting for everybody that attended. So In evaluating the different sites, staff provided a list of sites that we thought were appropriate. Most of the sites are parking lots, but I'll just list them here. So the first site, which is the upper right quadrant, is the 799 Rolling Hills Drive. It's a vacant lot. It's next to an elementary school and the golf course. The second site was 1601 West Malvern Avenue. It's a church site. It's in the center of the screen. It's just to the east of Baston Shirey on the north side of the street. Third site was 2200 West Orange Storp Avenue. It's on the bottom left of the map. We have 125 West Chapman which is a city owned parking lot. We have 401 North Harbor Boulevard, which is the parking lot next to B of A on the western half of that site. Next site is 122 North Pomona Avenue. It's a parking structure by the transit center. We have 118 West Santa Fe Avenue, which is what's known as the SoCo. I'm sorry this is a parking lot in front of Spaghetti Factory. And then. No I'm sorry I got switched around the bottom one Spaghetti Factory parking lot and then 118 West Santa Fe is the SoCo parking structure. There we go. We got them straight now. So you see where they're distributed on the map the five the five cluster in the middle of the sites is pretty much the downtown area. So I'm going to go through the different sites so we The sites that are checked with a green check mark are the sites that actually scored the highest and moved forward with evaluation for potential development. And when I say potential development, this is pretty much an exercise of looking at what could be done. And it looked at all the different aspects of developing a site. Include the evaluation included market conditions development constraints parking requirements topography and the use of state law is appropriate for housing development and So the first site is 2200 West Orangethorpe Avenue the site is on Orangethorpe to if I can orient to the map the top of the screen is actually Orangethorpe and Then we've got the church in the middle of the screen and then we've got the park that wraps around to the east and to the north I'm tired to the south Then the proposed housing development is on the bottom of this. It's kind of in the bottom center of the screen with the white box This is what the site looks like when you're looking to the south from Ornstorp Avenue You can see the church on the left and then the open space the green space on the right of the screen And this is a rendering of what it could look like. You see the new development in the back, which would straddle a new parking lot. Parking would exist underneath that building, and then the park is actually to the rear of that building. So the proposal for this site was to build 36 affordable or senior housing units. The state law that would make this a feasible project is SB 4. The parking strategy for this site was to make sure that the church still had adequate parking and then provide parking for the units which would be underneath the building. And then the community benefit for this project was it adds affordable or senior homes with onsite services with direct access to Gilbert Park while preserving the church's visibility and ongoing operations. So the recommended next steps for this is to conduct outreach to the religious property owners and determine if they want to move forward with a similar type of project. And then we've actually got a proposal for the site from a developer. There's a gentleman who's doing a proposed housing development on the site. It's different than what's shown here, but it's in the initial review stages, so hopefully it moves forward at some point. All right. So our next site is 125 West Chapman. If I can orient it to this site plan, the street Chapman is at the bottom of the screen. And to the right is Harbor Boulevard. And to the rear of the site, or to the north side, is Fullerton Creek running through the channel. Here's what the site looks like looking from the street looking northward. You can see it's just a surface parking lot. And then here is a proposed rendering of what it could look like. Multi-story building. Parking would be underneath it. So the proposal includes 105 housing units. The city-owned site can support high-density, amenity-rich project. This site does not include retail, very little retail. The reason for that is the intent is not to build retail that's not going to get filled. And so there would not be a whole lot of retail on the street, but there's a little bit facing Chapman. The problem with this site is we have a parking agreement with the adjacent convention or meeting center. So the parking would have to be worked out. That's something that's one of the constraints we'd have to work through. All right. And then moving directly across the street is 401 North Harbor. So if I could orient you to the site plan. So the middle of the screen is the proposed development. To the right is the existing B of A bank building. So the proposal would be to build this residential development on the open parking lot. And this is what it looks like. You can see it's just a surface parking lot. And then here's what it could look like. Here's the proposed rendering of the building. So the proposal includes 65 housing units. It's within walking distance of the downtown plaza. To accommodate this project, there would be a requirement for a lot split. This project would include patios, a paseo, and active ground floor use, and would provide a tradition between downtown commercial and the nearby residential neighborhoods. So the recommended next steps for this are to engage the property owner to confirm interest, timing, and willingness to pursue redevelopment of the site. I actually had a conversation with the manager of the bank and per our discussion, what I was told is they have a lot of space that they don't need. So they're paying for this huge building. They only need a small portion of it. And they don't actually own the building. So they're a tenant of the property. So we'd have to actually reach out to that property owner and see if they're willing to do something like this.

Chris yeah, is it okay if I interrupt with a question or would you prefer wait sure go ahead I don't want to break it up too bad on this one in the previous one on and the parking spaces that looks like they're being considered being built on I Don't know about the one prior to this but this like that Bank of America parking lots always packed So is there was there consideration as part of this like where the parking would go or I?

You know, honestly, every time I've been out to that parking lot, it's empty. So are you talking like evenings or weekends or something?

Driving by at a school drop-off in the morning and pick up in the afternoon, so it would be about 8 o'clock and about 3 o'clock.

That's one thing we need to establish because I think a lot of people park in that lot and they're not towed. So I think people that. Oh yeah.

Yeah. And the apartments around there.

Yeah. I think people are utilizing a lot that are not actually using the bank.

I didn't know if the amount of parking used was considered or if it was like. We'll worry about that later. We just want to.

Yeah that's pretty. Yeah this is all conceptual. OK. Yeah. OK.

Thank you.

Mm hmm.

So this is privately owned like the other the previous site was city-owned property, but this one was owned by private company already So the next site we're gonna look at is 122 South Pomona Avenue This is the parking structure across the street from the depot and So if I could orient you to this, Santa Fe is at the bottom of the screen. Pomona is on the left side. The post office is on the north side to the top of the screen. Here's what the parking structure currently looks like I've gone through at different times of the day parking structures not fully utilized It's maybe half full at any time that I've been in there got people in there sleeping There's a lot of maintenance issues So The proposal for this site And this is what it could look like if the structure were to be removed and replaced with this project. Proposals for 100 housing units. It's a prime transit location. It's when the city owned property. The use of SB 79 would support the higher density and reduce parking. The size of the units would be what are called efficient sizes. They're smaller size. The idea is people would not need cars. They could use the buses or the trains and not have to own a car. And let's see here. The issue with this site is the cost of demolishing the parking structure. Based off our discussions with the consultants, it could cost up to a million dollars to demo that thing. Discussions with Public Works are that the structure is a maintenance issue. It's got a lot of problems Another issue is there's an easement that runs underneath the building that would have to be relocated So it's a possibility but there's thought of work that would have to happen at the city level to make it feasible And then lastly our last project is 118 West Santa Fe Avenue This is what's known as SoCo the SoCo parking structure and So you've got Santa Fe Avenue at the top of the screen and then if he goes directly across the street You've got heroes, and you've got Lagos Mexican restaurant and some other retail establishments Here's what it looks like looking to the south and then as you can see there's a lot of empty space in front of the building and there's that that kind of drop off with landscaping that's Been a maintenance issue a lot of people Hang out there. It's not not ideal And here's what it could look like. The proposal for this site would be 60 housing units. The use of SB 79 would make this a feasible project for higher densities, reduced parking. And we would leverage the use of the parking structure for parking for anybody that needs parking. This is a unique project, whereas the buildings do not have parking within them. So anybody that had to have a parking space, it would be done in the parking structure that's already existing. The idea is that for people that use this or that were to live in this site, they would use the transit center. They can take a train every day or take the bus. So there would be a possibility to not actually have to own a car. You could just live there and use public transit. There is some retail. So I can see there's a cafe that's included. Not a lot, but there is retail space.

I have a question about the retail space.

Sure.

I've noticed that in the building to the right. There's been an occupied space for a long time. I used to be a brewery You know with proposing retail spaces Beneath housing like I'm all for adding more retail spaces, but would The city look into also finding like I guess, uh, you know, offering the right kind of space for maybe what people are interested in, you know, as opposed to building a space that's really big and it's hard for somebody to come in and rent as opposed to building smaller spaces and increasing, you know, traffic of traffic in this area. And, um, I think this part of Fullerton definitely could use some more attention as opposed to the main downtown.

Absolutely. So that's actually a discussion I had with the consultants. I was asking for more retail space, and they're saying that based off of observations and historical review that if you build too much retail, it won't get filled. Just like the problem you mentioned down, is it Amplify? Is that the name of the? No, Malden Station. So Malden Station has all that retail space on the ground floor and it's not full. So they limited the amount of retail space, smaller spaces, so like a cafe and maybe a dry cleaner would be feasible here.

Yeah, perfect, something that's functional.

So this, like I said, this is all conceptual. It's based off of, we had different experts that did different pieces of it, the financial guy, the housing guy, the architect. So it was a collaboration of different experts that contributed to these projects.

So for 118, then in terms of parking, I mean, practically speaking, Are we basically proposing to possibly build housing without parking.

That's correct. So actually SB 79 allows it by right that you can build housing within a quarter mile of a transit center and not provide any parking.

So on a Saturday night when that parking structure is full. Potentially the residents would be able to park in their own neighborhood.

Well the top deck there's some reserved space on the top deck so that's something the city could we could do that we could identify spaces that would be for the tenants. So that's something that could be worked out. The idea is to not provide too much parking. A lot of people I'm hoping a lot of people would take advantage of the transit center and not have to actually store a car somewhere.

So does SB 79 basically alleviate the need for, is it one-to-one parking?

Zero parking.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, if you build a product. A lot of developers don't want to do that, but it's an option.

So basically you take away...

Can I just ask for some clarification? I'm sorry. I just want to ask for clarification on process. Because is it OK for us to be asking questions now? I know it is OK. Yeah, it's fine.

All right. So out of all the projects I just ran through, this one seemed to be the most feasible. It scored the highest out of the other four projects. We you know we we notice that so codes kind of you've got uses on one side of the street and the rest It's pretty dead. So this would try to engage and provide more vibrancy to that part of town Okay, can I ask a question?

Sure. I'm since we're asking questions. Yeah, I I have a little bit of a worry about the fact that all the public spaces that were chosen are potentially around areas that have parking issues. And I understand the reason to want to be near transit. But I guess I'm just wondering because not everybody who needs affordable housing is going to be able to live near transit necessarily. So why. I'm just wondering why 799 rolling hills was ruled out. I guess as one of the choices.

FRED PODESTA. Yeah. So it was actually it. It was ruled out because we were taking advantage of state laws that one. We're still going to move forward with something there. It just it didn't score high enough compared to these sites. So.

Is it because of not being near a transit corridor?

Yeah, it doesn't have the ability to take advantage of some of those state laws because it's so far from the bus lines and other things. So it scored OK, but it didn't score as well as these sites because of their proximity to the transit center.

Is there any thought, I know I haven't read every state law, but I do know that they encourage building their transit centers. And as a result, developers, if they build there, don't need as much parking. But being realistic about it. There will be people who drive. And there is some parking here, so that's a good thing about this one. But is there a concern that if all of these got built, is there any thought on what we do to make up for the lost parking?

So that's something we've been talking about is doing another parking utilization study for the downtown. It was done before in the past. And I forgot what year it was done. But that's something we need to probably update. I mean, we have the structures. We have, I don't even know the name, the one that's by the plaza and then the one by the Fullerton College. So we own that one. So we just have to look. It's something that we're going to look into studying. Okay. But, I mean, honestly, the units that were being proposed through these projects is kind of a drop in the bucket. You know, our arena is 13,000 units, and we've only had 2,000 units built to date. And the cycle ends in 2029, so we're not going to even scratch the surface of getting close to that 13,000 number.

So, okay, I'm sorry.

Well, no, go ahead.

So one of the things I was wondering about how this ties into arena, so let's say this is approved Nothing nothing happens automatically from this right? It's all just suggestions. Yeah, it's all conceptual So let's say nobody steps up and say okay. Let's go with this I Guess I'm wondering if we show that we have been doing our best to open up opportunities that aren't taken and Is that, do we still get penalized as much as if we just sat and done nothing?

No, we actually, so I'm going to, you know, when I submit my report next year, I'm going to show that we met these goals of the housing element. There's no penalty for not succeeding. It's just a penalty if you don't try. Okay. Does that make sense?

So is this going to help with showing that we tried? Right. Okay.

And so we're actually, you know, part of this report, you know, is we're going to meet with developers in the future and say, hey, we have these sites. Are you interested? And try to get that conversation started. And hopefully it turns into something. But we're just not getting a lot of takers right now. I'm going to show something else that was not part of the study. So we did have a property owner that approached the staff. So this is, I'm showing you, this is something that's not in the report. That's kind of a little extra freebie that we just had worked up. So property owner 200 North Harbor came forward and said, hey, what if I, You know, I've got this space, but what if I want to go up and add more units? What would it look like? So we were actually able to use the grant and pay for that. And so this was a conceptual drawing of what it could look like, you know, keeping the storefronts as they are facing Harbor Boulevard and then going vertical and adding some units. So it's just, you know, part of the exercise to show what could be, you know, I think it turned out okay.

Yeah, I have a question related to that then, because now I'm wondering, is this actually already in the HIAS area, which means he could do that, right? Or would you have to make it?

Yeah, this is not in the HIAS. This is, the downtown was not in the HIAS because it's a C3 zoning, which allows residential uses through a conditions permit. So this is an example of what was done in Riverside. They had a similar building that had this old facade, and they were able to keep the facade and then build above it, add more units. So it's just an example of what could be done.

Would this require rezoning?

No. It would have to come before you as a CEP, though. So I don't know if this gentleman's going to move forward with something like this, but if he did, it would come before you guys.

Is financing right now causing a problem with some of these things moving forward?

It's a huge problem right now.

Probably not going to get better soon, by the way.

Yeah. So Chris, I kind of had a follow-up question to that. Is the barrier to development, is the math not mathing? Or is it just, I mean, is that essentially what's stopping developers right now?

We have, I don't know, there's like four or five projects that were approved that are just not moving forward because it doesn't make sense financially. A couple of, well, let me see, one, two. Two housing projects, two warehouse projects. They're just sitting. It just doesn't make sense right now financially to move forward with them. So we're trying to kind of kick the tires and see if we can move forward in a different direction. That's why we did this whole study to bring developers and say, hey, look at these sites. Maybe this is something that'll work for you. So we did present this report to City Council on August 18th. And we did receive direction to move forward with some RFPs. We're gonna move forward with the Rolling Hills site again. That one was the most ready to go. And then we're probably gonna take the space in front of SoCo parking structure. Those are the top two projects that I think are the closest that are ready to go. And then hopefully we get some some interest from developers to move forward with the project.

I've got a question about the 799 one because they would not get the they would not get the reduced parking spots incentive.

That's correct.

How much is that a disincentive for anybody to put affordable housing there.

Well they can utilize the state density bonus law so that does reduce parking and gives them some other incentives depending on how many units they provide. So if you use if you look at the state density bonus law they have a there's a there's a parking ratio that's less than the standard ratio for a 100 percent market rate project.

Sorry, I was in here in the beginning, talking about the Fullerton College parking lot or the parking structure. Did you discuss that?

We did not. Reason, that one's a little more complicated because it's tied up with Fullerton College. There's an agreement in place for them to utilize the space.

But from what I heard, it's not in place anymore.

Yeah, it's ongoing discussions. So that was a little more messy, so we didn't touch that site.

What about target.

Target that's private property. We didn't touch that site either. So this concludes my presentation. You know it was like I said this was funded through the REAP 2.0 grant so the city didn't pay a dollar for it. I mean it was just my time and Sue's time. So hopefully we can get some interested takers and you know if if they do they'll be back in front of you guys for a public hearing. Either a parcel map or a CEP or something like that. And you know hopefully sooner rather than later.

I want to make sure I get this correct. Does anybody have any more questions? I do have one more question. Sure. And it ties back to RENA. I heard someone, I don't know how real this is, but I heard that they're developing the new RENA numbers for the new housing element.

That's correct. They just started last month.

And when would that come out?

I don't know when it's supposed to come out. I have to find I'll find out. But I know the discussion started like a couple of weeks ago.

So I guess I'm wondering I don't understand the ongoing process. So now if we get another one 28 right is that when we get it.

Right. And so yeah the new housing element we'll have to get that going and have it done by the end of 28.

Oh my gosh. So what happens we didn't meet our well we still have a year to get the other 11,000. So if we don't meet our numbers, does whatever they come up with get added onto those numbers, or do they completely redo it?

In the past that's what used to happen is they would roll the unmet need to the new arena. But I can't think of any cities that have met the arena for this cycle. So I mean just this is my personal opinion. I think they're going to just redo the whole thing. Because I remember when I worked in La Habra they had an unmet need of four units and they just rolled it into the into the next cycle. But um. Yeah, I don't know. It's a huge unknown for me right now.

All right. I just want to make sure we do things right here. We don't need to talk about public comment because there's nobody on the line, correct? I don't need to close public comment? OK. OK. Let me call for public comment. Anybody in chambers? OK. Anybody online? Speakers okay, I'm closing public comment Were there any other sites Chris that you would have wanted to add that we that we didn't I

Honestly, the process was so fast, we didn't have time to really spend a lot of time looking for sites. But there were a couple sites that I threw out there. But after discussions with the director, we took them out of the list. And I can't remember which sites they were. There were a couple sites, but I'm not going to name the names. I don't remember the addresses either way.

Were any of the housing developers like, oh my gosh, I'm blanking on. Were any of them specifically interested on any particular site?

Yeah, we had a lot of interest on the Rolling Hill site. We had three or four developers that were looking at that site. But we've not really shown this report to anybody at this time. I mean, it went to the city council, but we've not reached out to any of the developers. We plan to do that in the near future.

So we don't, other than rolling kills, are the RFPs going to be going on for all of them?

No, we're going to probably stick with one or two. We're not going to cast a wide net. We're just going to go with the ones that are most feasible.

And then what happens to the study after we've received and filed?

It's just gonna be a It's gonna be a reference material that we can provide to developers and say hey This is what's possible and honestly the information within this has a shelf life Maybe six twelve months at the most because a lot of stuff is based off current situation with you know economic situation and that type of thing So what might pencil out today might not pencil out in six or twelve months? So that's how quickly this stuff moves. I

So it could be that rolling hills is the only RFP that comes from it.

Possibly. Possibly. Okay. Yeah. I mean Director Thomas and I we do want to move forward with the SoCo parking site because that one had the highest potential we thought and based off the report. So that's probably the other one we're going to move forward with. And you mean doing this again in six months possibly No, because this was tied to funny that we don't have So the funding we've it's been spent it's done There's no more funding.

So do we think that have we heard anything back? I think you said we haven't heard back on the orange Thorpe one waiting to see if the church is wants to move forward. I

Yeah so that one's still moving forward. The developer and I forgot the gentleman's name he's still moving forward he's working with Senior Planner Lopez and so they've gone through a couple of different reviews. So that one seems like it's moving forward. He the same developer looked at the site on on Malvern but that one didn't go anywhere.

So actually I've got a I don't know if you know the answer to this but I'm thinking about it. Since this is a church and they would be using their land, did they have the possibility of getting any grants to help them with that?

There is there is funding available for that. Unfortunately I'm not as familiar. The the lady from National Corps she provide I didn't know I didn't include in this part of the report she provide a list of funding sources through SB 4 SB 4 is the main state law but there's some other things that that are more specific to developers that the city doesn't really work with.

Yeah.

I know that Grace was looking at doing something too. Are they still looking at doing something.

I'm not aware of that. You know we're just working with them on the parking lot but I'm not I'm not familiar with any housing projects.

Yeah because my recollection is that they were talking about doing something in their parking lot for retirees.

Yeah I'm not aware of that.

Any further questions. Okay anything on staff communications.

At this time As a well of a forecast actually you don't have anything for the next meeting So unless something happens in the next week, I'll have to cancel the next meeting We have a lot of things kind of like floating around out there, but they're just not ready for public hearing yet. I But we are taking a lot of step to city council in the next two months. So we're going to be heavy council, kind of light on the commission side right now. So if I don't have any items next week, I'm going to have to cancel the next planning commission meeting. OK. All right.

And then any more on the agenda forecast, things coming up?

For you guys, not so much. We're doing a lot of Mills Act applications right now, and we're closing out the five different historic preservation districts. We do have one historic district, and I forgot which one it is. Is it Skyline Park? I can't remember the name of it. We're probably going to move that forward pretty soon. So that one would probably be the next one in the chute. Lower Golden Hill. We still need to take that to council so that's that's going in October I believe.

What about the progress on the ADU plans.

Yeah, so we're still plan checking those. I think I mentioned last time, before we can actually release them, we have to have the city building plan checker review it and then the fire plan checker review it to make sure everything's technically correct. We don't want to issue, we don't want to give out these plans that there's going to be problems with it. So it's just taking a little bit longer than we expected, but we're very close to having those available.

Let's see by the end of the year or kind of definitely by the end of the year I'm hoping by the end of this month And any new businesses that are interested in our pure city.

Yeah, we're working with Dutch brothers right now Dutch brothers wants to build a site at the I don't know that I can't remember the name of the center. It's off of Commonwealth In Chapman, you know where it kind of comes together. You've got the It used to be the Jack's bicycle shop If you remember where that is, there's a round table pizza in the backside Dutch brothers wants to build a site there. So we're Reviewing their plans right now and then we have we have like three other coffee places that are going through different reviews right now and a place called Wurtz Coffee on Orangethorpe. We're talking to Tierra Mia on Harbor. And then, what was the fourth one? There's another coffee place, I can't remember the name of it.

And the other Dutch Brothers is in Placentia, or will be in Placentia.

Correct, right, yeah.

Right across the street from the farmer's market. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Okay. I close this meeting.