Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening. This is Chair Justin Kulie and I would like to call this regular meeting of the planning commission to order. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. So before we call a roll, I'd like to announce that Vice Chair Hton and I have been appointed by the council to an additional four-year term. Congratulations. And would Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks please call roll. Commissioner Flores here. Commissioner Jorgensson here. Commissioner Khan here. Commissioner Munoz Morris is absent at this time. Commissioner Taly here. Vice Chair Hton, I'm here. Chair Kulie here. All right. The next item on the agenda is election of chair and vice chair. And it's hard to believe it's already been a year. So, as required by the planning commission bylaws, we will hold the annual election of chair and vice chair to a one-year term. Do I have any nominations for the position of chair? I see a light on. I'd like to nominate David Hton as the chair for this coming year. I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Hton, will the deputy city clerk Actually, any discussion? Okay, the deputy city clerk please call a roll. Commissioner Jorgensson here. Commissioner Khan. Yes. Yes. I should said yes. Commissioner Flores. Yes. Uh

Commissioner Tally, yes. And Vice Chair Hton, why not? Chair Kulie, yes. That motion passes. All right. Congratulations. Thanks. I'll do one more thing. Uh do I have any nominations for the position of vice chair? Looks like me. Yeah, go for it. Must be the white hair. I'd like to nominate Eric Tolley for um vice chair. And I'm kind of also paying attention to the seniority and how this works here. I think that's always a pretty good smart solution. And I'm assuming Commissioner Tully is willing to serve as vice chair. All right. I don't think anyone asked him for being nominated. I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second for Commissioner Tolley as vice chair. Will the deputy city clerk please call the role of the motion? Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Tully, yes. Vice Chair Hton, yes. Chair Kulie, yes. Congratulations. All right. And just I'm assuming we want to take a little break to uh reshuffle. Is that correct? Uh just before we do, I just wanted to thank my fellow commissioners and city staff. It's been a real pleasure and thank you for all your assistance. Nice job. Yeah. Yeah. Nice job. There's some little white mic ID card at the side of your mic. Just pull it out, take it to your new spot. Don't Okay. Yes. Do you go to the end or do you stay

here? I guess you stay here. Here we go. You're back. Uh oh. Okay, everybody good? All right, next item on the agenda, public comment for items not on the agenda. So, at this time, we will hear any public comment for items not on tonight's agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and if action is uh by the commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. Deputy Clerk, do we have any public comment on non-aggenda items? No. Chair, I haven't received any request to speak. If there's anyone in the audience that would like to speak at this time, let me know. Okay, seeing none. And let's uh recognize that Commissioner Moses Mars has arrived. Nice to see you. Thank you. Noted. Okay, we're on to the consent part of the agenda. consent calendar items consisting of matters deemed routine and non-controversial by staff. Um there are typically acted upon with one vote. However, if a member of the commission wishes to pull an item for individual consideration, please say so. Now, I actually would like to pull the abandonment of the rightway. So, I think that's worth a little bit of discussion. So, not extensive, but um I think it's the first time I've ever done that. So, um that's my request. Is that all I have to do? Just say that. Okay. Yeah. And we'll take a a separate vote for the minutes and then we'll come back and consider the next item. Okay. Okay. So, uh public comment is accepted for all items. Uh Deputy Cook, do we

have any comment on consent items? No, chair. I haven't received any. Okay. So, now if item B4B is pulled right, Colin just So, now we have a vote on the minutes. Right. Okay. Uh are there any other uh well we're not so the cons the minutes are in the consent right? So are there any other comments from commissioners on the consent items? Okay. Do we have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda with the pulled item? I'll um make that motion. I'll second it. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Will uh deputy clerk please call the role on this motion. Thank you chair. And just to clarify, we're only approving the minutes at this point. We'll come back and reconsider uh the next item separately. Sounds good. So, Commissioner Khan, yes. Commissioner Munoz Morris, yes. Commissioner Flores, I'll stay as I wasn't there. Okay, thank you. Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Vice Chair Tully, yes. Commissioner Kulie, yes. And Chair Hton, yes. And that motion passes. So item 4B, that's what we're going to tackle next. Is that right? And I'll I'll read this public hearing piece first. So any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to the considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city of St. Louis Abyispo at or prior to the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes. So, at this point, we'll go on to item

4B, which is the request to abandon the 10- foot public right of way between 1998, 1998, and 2006 St. Louis Drive in the R1 zone and STAB0759-2024. So the recommendation before us is to adopt a draft for resolution finding that the abandonment of the 10-ft public ride ofway between those those houses is in conformity with the general plan and recommend that the city council approve the abandonment by adopting a resolution of vacation. So that's the introduction to this topic and I'll just tee it off by um saying I've I've been over to the spot. I've looked at the map. I've looked at Google Earth. gone over the bridge that connects behind the Monday club to that neighborhood. And I'm just loathed to to let go of any public rightway uh because I I understand that there's some limitations on this on what could be done. I think that there these uh pathways that connect our neighborhoods and make it easier for pedestrians and bicycles to um not have to drive from point A to point B and go all the long way around are really crucial. All of our new developments have a lot of this kind of element in there. And there's another I have I have a question for staff too because there's another rightway that is down the road. See if I can get this right. Um, I had it on Google Earth. It's it's about uh two or three blocks to the uh west and there's another one shown on um on in the detailed map. So, I'm I'm asking what is the status of that one? Is that also likely to come up for abandonment? And is there any possibility of connecting that right away and turning it into something that might connect to back over towards

Monterey Street towards the the commercial area there and in general I just want to comment that the our creek is I think an underutilized resource in our city and anything that we can do to increase the access to it and the appreciation and celebration of it is going to be a good thing. And so for those reasons, I I really would not like to see this right away abandoned, nor the other one. So, um, and then a follow-up question, are there other rightaway opportunities out there? We don't have to go too deep on that. So, um, so I have a question for staff there. And, um, what what can we say about that? I guess I'm directing it here. Yeah. So, your first question was kind of is there any are there any other similar public roads in the neighborhood? I think you might be referring to the row between 1395 and 1401 Casadero in that neighborhood. Is that correct? It's not necessarily going to the creek uh but rather is on the other side of that neighborhood. There's also another one um between um and actually that rideway connects to that adult school. The one I'm looking at is um if comes up against El Centro off of St. Louis Drive. So, um it's it's it's shown on this this map that's part of the package. And so, it's this one right here. And it goes also to the creek from St. Louis Drive. Is it between 1890 and 1900 St. Louis Drive? This map does not have street addresses. It's between um it's between lots eight and nine on the subdivision. Okay. I would imagine it's the 1890 and 1900 St. Louis Drive. Does that sound right? Okay, that does sound right. I

kind of did take a broad look at that neighborhood and see if there were saw if there was any other similar public roads. Um, and like I said, we identified 1395 and 1401 Casadero. Um, which like I mentioned does connect to that adult school next to that neighborhood and to my knowledge is currently being used as utilized as a waste collection um area for that school. So I would imagine that public row um is not up for you know consideration for some type of abandonment in the near future. If it were it would have to go through I would imagine it would go through a more intense or not intense but thorough abandonment process um being the general vacation process under the California streets and highway code. Um it would involve more public hearings um two items at council. Um, as far as the 18 I'm sorry, yeah, the 1890 and 1900 St. Louis Drive, um, that's shown on that very old map from 1947. Um, that one was actually abandoned by resolution in 1999. Um, it's probably the most similar to this, the current one from, you know, today's staff report between 1998 and 2006. Um, they both connected to the creek or connect to the creek back there. Um, and like I said, that was abandoned uh by resolution in 1999 by the planning commission. So you're talking about this one has it's on this map, this old map, but you're saying it's already been abandoned. Yes. Correct. Okay. Okay. So there's no other rightways that go through from St. Louis Drive to the creek that might possibly connect to this subject 10 foot rightway. That's correct. And is there any possibility of a um a rightaway or a path or any kind of public access along the creek that would possibly connect to this 10-ft strip that's under consideration tonight? Uh not to my knowledge. Um I do know that the general plan does talk a lot about connectivity to the St. Louis Bispo Creek. It is a natural resource here in the city that a

lot of people do use and enjoy. Um, specifically though, the general plan does require connectivity to the creek in the downtown area. So, what we're looking at tonight is um not considered a downtown area. So, there are really no um we're not really looking at any connectivity there in this residential neighborhood. Okay. And there's no evidence of historical use of this rightway. There's not I actually I went over there recently and tried to find I didn't see that there was a path or or anything. It doesn't look like anybody walks through there, right? Um, I mean, it was dedicated in 1947 for uses such as, uh, boating, hunting, fishing. Um, I don't believe that it's been used that way in a very long time. Um, the requirements for a summary vacation, such as what we're looking at tonight, are that the public row or street or whatever we're looking at, specifically a row or rightway tonight, um, have not been used for five consecutive years preceding the abandonment request. Um, and that's go that's been confirmed with the city biologist, utilities, um, etc. And instead of five years, it's probably more like 50 years, right? I would imagine. So, yes. Okay. And is there anything requiring us to abandon this or what's the what's triggered this u this effort to do this? Yeah. So, there's nothing really requiring the city to abandon this rideway. Um, this abandonment application was submitted in concurrence with a lot line adjustment application. Um, so an application to go ahead and adjust that lot line between the two 1998 and 2006 St. Louis Drive. And what we're looking at if we do proceed with this abandonment and a possible lot line adjustment, which is, you know, currently in review status, um, is possibly the lot line adjustment bringing these building setbacks, side setbacks into more conformity because as they are now, they are not conforming. Um, for a one-story house in a residential uh neighborhood under 10t tall, the setback requirement is 5T. So,

the potential lot line adjustment that we're looking at will bring the these buildings into comp compliance with the setback requirements where they currently are not. All right. So, each of the two neighboring houses would get an extra 5t of uh actual property. Yeah. So essentially when an abandonment is is done like this, the lot line will by default go into the middle into the center. So yes, five feet each will go to either side. Um however, once the lot line adjustment is considered um and possibly processed, we're looking at uh the lot line conforming to what we call an existing structure. um meaning the five foot or the five sorry five foot talls from a different project a fence there between these two neighbor um these two houses such that the lot line is going to better conform with what we call existing structures which is something that the municipal code um does uh spell out. Okay. So this is not an easement. This is actually city property right now. Yes, that's correct. Okay. And I mean, the houses aren't going anywhere. They're not going to move. I mean, there's a lot of non-conforming stuff out there. I I I'll stop talking for a minute and just see if there's any discussion from my um fellow commissioners here. And just I saw in the staffer board, it says that the city has not utilized the public way, but from your comments a moment ago, it seems like there's no evidence that anyone else is using it at all either. Right. We don't have any evidence that there's a lot of uh foot traffic or anything else on it. That's correct. No, no evidence that there has been any use um for the intended activities such as hunting and fishing and swimming. Um we did also confirm with the utilities uh PG&E um AT&T, Spectrum, SoCal Gas. Um those were all list on the initial um survey map. Uh we did confirm that they do not uh have any

use for that public row before we uh brought this item to tonight. Um the engineering supervising um civil engineer is here tonight if you had further questions about that specifically but we did staff did confirm with those companies. Thank you. Any other comments folks? I have a question of staff. Um Commissioner Hton mentioned the bridge that goes across. So this is not in close proximity to the bridge and No, it's like two blocks. Yeah. So the that bridge will still be an open access and people do use that. Okay, quick question. Is it actually a right of like is it actually a clear right of way currently? I didn't go out to the neighborhood, but the satellite images that I can pull up show like vehicles parked there and at the street level there's like some trees or vegetation. So, could it even be used for for access? right now. Um there are uh as the Republic Rideway currently is, there are currently trees um and fences in that, you know, throughout the the way. Um, so you know, if there was if there were um, you know, an interested individual that would like to go back there for its intended purposes, uh, I would imagine it'd be, you know, pretty difficult to get back there considering the existing landscape and the existing structures. Okay. Um, maybe one final quick question. Uh given that we're giving each of these neighbors, we would be giving each of these neighbors about 800 plus square feet of new property, does that impose any sort of fiscal impact on them for tax purposes or any other in any other way or is it just kind of like an administrative just kind of paperwork essentially or do we get paid for that? Uh well, there is an application fee for a street abandonment to be processed.

So, the answer is yes. As far as tax implications go, I'm not too sure about um individual property owners and the tax implications there. In my day job, I work for the county tax collectors. So, I can tell you that they will probably be reassessed. And yes, any other comments from this side? You should ask for public comment. I went out and visited the site and I'm looking at it on Google Earth right now and for the earlier comments I agree there would be substantial amount of work to have to be done in order to create a path for the public to walk up a 10-ft path at this time and then if you kept on going you had a bridge across St. Creek. It would go to the property that's the motel in. Um I don't know what the status of that project that we've reviewed a couple times, but that's where it would go is over to that property. So I certainly agree that we want to have as much access to the creek as possible, but I think in this day and age, in this time, this one would be fairly difficult to do. Um, you'd have to get some money put aside and create a pair path and build a bridge and then negotiate with a property over on the motel end to get some sort of access onto their property. So, I think it'd be a tall order. I mean, I'm not that it can't be done. I think if you know the public will was there, you could do it, but you'd be spending substantial amount of money purchasing property, building bridges to do it. Yeah. So, I'll respond to that. The motel in is something we saw what about a year ago? Yeah. And there was development plan for that. It had a number of small houses and um and um that I think we approved that uh a couple times. Yeah. So something's going to happen over there at some point. And I would say that whatever items are in the 10-ft rideway right now would be viewed as an encroachment, right? And so from the city's perspective, and that's

really who we represent here, um it is our property and um I'm in I'm really in favor of of keeping it for some future use, even by a future generation if that's what it takes. And um I'm understand this lot line and kind of cleaning up this business. But really what's being asked by the the two houses is to just take back um take five feet from uh each of them from the city for what we what's been designated for future public use or at any time. So um that's that's kind of where I come down on this. Uh I'm not really in favor of it. And I guess what I would maybe suggest um is there a possibility of converting this to an easement from a from actual fe simple ownership. Um I'm going to defer to Tyler Corey on this one, the deputy director of community development. There there would be a possibility of of converting it to an easement. Um, but I think as was mentioned that city staff has looked at this and has no no purpose to keep an easement there. There's no reason for this for the city to access this uh access the creek through these through this way. And so that's been identified as as not not a need at this time and it hasn't been. So, but it's possible. Uhhuh. Okay. And so we're talking about the city using this right of way in the last 5 years. And the implication would be we went back there with a chainsaw to clear out the creek or something like that. But then when I heard the original uh concept of this was for hunting, fishing, which really is public access, right? And so when we say city access, I think it includes the public, too. So So here's what I'm going to to say

about this. And maybe we table this for a future um to talk about it more and bring it back. Um was it and can I ask for public comment? Is there any public comment on this? Do we have one other point to make? So looking at the staff recommendation, we're actually called upon to do two things here. One is to find whether it is in conformity with the general plan and secondly if we would recommend that the city council it. Do you see any indication that it's not in conformity with the general plan? Yeah, I do. Yeah, because the general plan um um requires or or encourages us to maintain public access and interconnectivity and pedestrian access and um the the creek is a is a really a um a feature that I think that we want to protect and protect access to it as much as we can. Yes. So a couple maybe two quick questions if I first one are fishing and hunting currently allowed in the creek. No, they are not. Okay. So that use is mute is a mute point essentially at this at this point. Okay. Second one maybe more question for you uh Mr. here given that I'm I'm going by rough calculations looking at a satellite image, but about 600 ft south of where uh you know this this little strip that we're looking at there's the Andrews Bridge where you can access the creek and about another 600t north of this point the neighborhood essentially ends cannot develop any further. So you would have access there would that not be sufficient access to the creek for future uh uses? So, I don't know if I'm qualified to judge if that's sufficient access. You know, one of my markers for this sort of thing, I lived in Boulder, Colorado for many years. The creek is a huge feature of the downtown there. And it there's a path that goes all the way along and

every cross street pretty much accesses the creek path. There's bridges galore. It's a it's a totally public place and it's it's just it's hailed nationally as a treasure. Um, we have a little we have our downtown section that um is is is great and we've got small efforts underway to kind of expand that access and and the new stretch right along by the tennis courts at the high school was just kind of redone there and so the creeks visible there. So, I I don't see much upside for the city in in abandoning this property. And um and I don't really see that much upside for the residents. I know they're they're the ones who initiated this probably and their tax bill is likely to go up a little bit. Um, and if it's um, so that's I I'm I'm kind of just putting my feet down and and to try to hang on to property that we that the city owns. You actually just made me think of one other question because there really might not be Oh, actually I'm I'm struggling to understand the benefit to the to the two property owners as well. So what what would be the benefit for them like what were the reasons I guess behind their their request and I see we have so can we have public comment comment on this without a card and doing the whole thing? Yeah certainly please just announce your name for the record. Yes land surveys and we represent the client. I'm sorry to you got to speak right into the mic. Oh you can probably hear me. No it's for the TV. Oh, okay. Okay. Can you hear it? Is the red light on? Okay. Okay. I'm Carrie Morgansson with MBS Land Surveys and we represent the client on this

project and I I hear your concerns about the public access and the creek back there. Um the reality is it hasn't been used in 88 years. But I would request that rather than make a recommendation for denial, you table it, continue the project, and give myself and staff maybe a little more time to look at whether or not there really is any viability for access through there and a potential um creek. I'm not sure just what the zoning is behind the property. I'm not sure if the city already has easements back in here. I mean, there's there's a lot of information we could look up and maybe provide to you that would make your decision easier either way. Zoning on the other side is CTS, which is commercial uh tourist and what's CTS? Service, right? So, it's basically commercially zoned. I don't know if that has a bearing on whether or not we could connect to it. So, um, so that's your, uh, rather than denial, you're requesting, uh, tableabling to have more time to discuss and review, etc. Okay, that's we can we can consider that. And, um, Commissioner Flores, do you have a comment? One question first. The green band, is that a different is that a different zoning line on page two of the staff? Yeah, thanks for that. Yes, that that green band corresponds to the San Bispo Creek. Um, and it is essentially um zoned conservation space. So, who owns it? Is it owned by the city or is it part of the properties that are adjacent?

I'm not sure. I'll defin You see the property lines on the map. So, it most of it is owned by the homeowners. But a question was raised whether there's an easement. So I'm curious about that. So the city does not have an easement over St. Louis Creek. Um it is just zoned conservation and open space. Um and just to reiterate, city staff has reviewed this application thoroughly with all affected potentially departments and uh the city staff has no reason to um want to keep this in in city ownership control at this time. there's no benefit at this time to the city and there hasn't been since I think it was initially offered and accepted. Um so that that review has been completed and so we would not need any more time to come back with the same recommendation. Okay. I have a question for staff. Um, could you could you explain again the what the the trigger for this which was a lot line adjustment and who applied for it and the purpose of the lot line adjustment? Yeah, absolutely. And I believe I have a couple slides that might um lay this out more clearly. So, I'm just going to go ahead and share those um so we can kind of talk about this in more um detail. While that's getting pulled up, I'll respond to the hunting and fishing comment. Um, and uh I think those were representative uh ideas of public access basically. U these days it might not be hunting and fishing. It might be reflection, meditation, walking along the creek, hearing the burbling, etc. I was purely curious more than

anything because Good point though. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, I've uh pulled up some slides regarding this item. Um, you know, we've already referred to this uh zoning map image that shows where this 10- foot wide public way uh is located. This is kind of an aerial view of the location. As you could see, there's I mean the area is surrounded by trees even to in the creek area. So it'd be um you know pretty difficult to get back there uh from a point of view of a member of the community. And right here now what we're looking at is obviously this is the 10-ft way that is looking to be vacated. Um as you can see the structures uh shown here are not meeting the required setback side setback requirements for an R1 do um got it. Thank you. Um here on the dot the dotted the dotted line um kind of between here is uh labeled fence on wall. So this is what qualifies as what we call an existing improvement. Um and what the property owners are looking to do is to so this blue line represents what the lot line is going to default to um at the time of abandonment. And what the property owners are looking to do is to kind of adjust the lot line between their properties such that it follows this existing improvement here. So we're looking at something like this such that it largely follows the fence here. There is a requirement for in the municipal code um chapter 16 that a lot line must be perpendicular to a street. So for that reason it's going perpendicular to the street instead of exactly following that fence there which wouldn't be quite perpendicular. Here's another option of what that might look like. So right here

in the red line you can see we're following the existing fence here. And here's another option of what this may look like. Um there is a requirement for um lot lines to be in straight lines. Um so that's why you know we're looking to um complete this in that manner such that each of the lines are um straight instead of you know exactly following the fence. Okay. Thank you for that. That's mighty helpful. And so, uh, it was a private property owner that submitted the lot line adjustment for this. That's correct. And I I believe it is with the intent to just bring those properties into conformance with these side setback requirements because as it is as as it currently stands, I mean, we are looking at, you know, existing buildings that are less than 5T away from the current lot line. So really what we're looking at if we're looking at what benefit is added is we're looking into coming more into conformance with those requirements. And so the lot line adjustment would not be able to go through unless this was vacated, right? That's correct. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. So, sorry. Are they currently then legal non-conforming? Is that the status of the property? So, if they wanted to do any site improvements, they might be prevented from doing so until they bring it up to conformity currently. Is that right? That's my understanding. Yes. Okay. So, this would basically address that. Correct. Gotcha. Thank you. I mean, I will say that that sort of condition of non-conformance happens all over this town. Uh, I have a zero lot line garage. It's right on this property line and my I'm on Lincoln Street and there's um pretty much all the way down the street. It's uh the the there's walls right on the property line. So, um, all right. We've taken a fair amount of time on this, and I don't want to,

um, get too down into the weeds, and I'm inclined to, uh, to take the suggestion of tableabling this, and I understand your position, uh, the staff's position that you've looked at this, and you've got your point of view. And, um, my point of view is that it's it's really worth our consideration to let this go or not. And so I would uh move that we table this until a future time. Can I make a comment before we take a vote on that? I did just given that many of the concerns brought up have to do with access to the creek. Um I think it's worth noting and keeping in mind that even if the public did have access through that rightway, the creek is regulated like um our municipal code prohibits, you know, travel off path. It prohibits travel in areas that are close to the public and our creek and riparian areas are otherwise protected. So just because this public ride rightway remains open does not mean that people would have access that um that may be contemplated. So how does that apply to the downtown where we got kids splashing around in the pools and we've got paths right along the creek left and right. So that um there is you know path or travel allowed on paths and in areas that aren't closed. But if there's not designated paths if it's not open to the public, the riperian area is protected against access. Okay. Um a path could be constructed at some future time. Um I see heads shaking. So there's there's no plan to build a path along St. Louis Creek behind these homes. It's not contemplated. It's not in any future planning efforts. Um, so that's not a part of any future, you know, capital improvement program. Uh, it's not it's not in our general plan. Okay. Plus, the city would have to acquire an easement for people to use the creek area, right? Have that this time.

Yeah. I was just going to say that I'm not in favor of tableabling this. I am inclined to support staff's recommendation. We've heard from staff that they're even if we said uh continue this, bring it back later, they're not going to have any other information. They're not going to change their recommendation, it sounds like. And it does sound like this would allow um the non-conforming status to be cured for these two properties. So, when we're ready for motions, I would move to adopt staff's recommendation. Okay. Um we've discussed this quite a bit. We have a motion to um approve the staff recommendation on this poll item 4B. Do we have a second? Wait, do we have do we actually have a formal motion? Because I heard you speak about tableabling and I wasn't sure if you were making a motion and then I heard you speak in favor of one, but I didn't hear you make one either. I didn't make a motion. I stated my opinion that I was in favor of tableabling. So, I didn't actually I don't want to cut off discussion, but once it's once it's once it seems like uh discussion is winding down, I will be making that motion. I have not yet. Oh, okay. I thought you did. Okay. I'm sorry about that. And is it can is it okay to do kind of a straw poll and see where people are on this? Is that allowed? Way that we would do that is you would make your motion. We take the vote. If it passes, then you know that's the result of the action. If it fails, then we consider other motions. Okay. Well, I'll go ahead and move that we table this until future time. Continue. It's my first time doing this. So, continue on. Sounds like Okay. Do we have a second? Okay. Without a second, that motion fails. Okay. Do we have any other motions? Then I will move to adopt staff's recommendation. And I will second that just because I wanted to say the adoption of the vacation because it sounds like the funnest thing we can do. So, I just wanted to say vacation. It just sounded fun. Second. So, we have a motion, a

second. Do we have disc further discussion on this item? I'd like to say one or two things if I can. Okay. First, I had one more question. Your your thing's off now. It's on. First, I had u one quick question of staff. Uh, was the natural resources manager consulted about this as part of the staff review of all of this? Just to check. Uh, yes, they were. Okay. And secondly, um, just to make a point or two here, uh, when I read about this, I started out with about the same view that you had, Sher Hton. Um, in fact, I even started thinking a little bit, well, gee, if a hotel or two had a a way to use that path over a bridge through there and into the neighborhood, it' be a great quiet bikeway route into town. It's not quite the same as trying to be right next to the freeway and kind of go up the hill and around on Monterey Street there. Uh but the more I thought about it, um I thought about uh how complicated it is to build a bridge and the kind of easements you need for all of the superructure that would be probably much larger than the creek itself, the damage maybe to the creek, the creek and all of that. It sort of added to my sense that um that there's probably some pretty good reasons that staff are not ready to support this because my first notion really was, you know, this is open space. We need every little bit of pedestrian access that we can possibly have. So, I definitely started that way. But the more I thought about it, it sounded like um honestly it's kind of a bridge to nowhere project. I just feel like it's it's it there's just no practical way and even if one hotel had it is that you know is the Apple in going to run their bicycle

path and ask for proc you know some access through the uh the new motel if that ever gets done and that somehow we have a new uh bridge there and so I think um my mind going back to Commissioner Flores's point is that we have a really good access one and um that needs to be protected and maybe that's what we've got for that neighborhood. So I kind of backed away from it at some point. So that's why otherwise I would have been the second on your on your your your uh motion. So that's my comment. So at this point I'll probably vote in favor of this motion. Any other discussion? I'd like to say I went down the same path you went down thinking about it. I certainly appreciate your thoughts on this because it was kind of my thoughts too is boy it'd be a shame to give up to it but I agree that it's it's a hard road to ho and um so I'll be voting in favor of the motion also other comments I have closing comment commissioner Flores as much as I don't like to reward a homeowner that went ahead and built things on property that wasn't theirs and now granting them conforming status is it there doesn't you know hearing from staff there doesn't seem to be any purpose that's going to develop from this there's no easement along the creek that would facilitate it so I think it is and there's no no one from the audience in protest of this I think we should go ahead and improve it staff recommended okay before we have a vote I'll just close out by um you know when I think about this uh I'm really thinking generation down the And once property is is is uh forfeited or abandoned then we can never get it back uh except through adverse action. And um yeah it would be a bridge to nowhere

except we don't even have a bridge. So I mean I hear what you guys are all saying it's it's low probability anything could happen here but if it's not but it's not zero and who knows what this all looks like 25 30 50 years from now and it could be something then. So that's why I'm not in support of of doing this, but it is time for a vote. So uh unless there's more discussion, I'll ask the deputy clerk to call roll on the vote for the motion on the table. All right, seeing no further discussion. Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Munoz Morris, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. Vice Chair Tully, yes. Chair Hton. No. And that motion passes. Okay. Thank you for indulging in that discussion. And uh I will comment too, I think that that this topic probably didn't belong on the consent calendar um in the first place. I think that there's some substance to it. So um but uh we were able were able to handle that and we did. So thank you for everybody's comments. Okay. So next item, public hearing item before us is now review proposed text amendments to the municipal code section 1786080 cannabis of title 17 zoning regulations. And before staff begins their presentation, do any commissioners need to report exparte discussions of contact with anyone who has provided you with information not on the record? Seeing none, uh would cannabis business coordinator Ivana Gomez please present the report. Okay. Good evening uh members of the planning commission. As you can probably tell by our discussion so far, I'm recovering from a bit of a sickness. So if you see me reaching for some halls or some tea,

uh bear with me. I'm going to do the best I can here. Okay. So, sorry, got ahead of myself. Um, tonight I'll be presenting a review of text amendments to section 17.8680 of the municipal code, also known as the cannabis zoning regulations. The recommendation before you tonight, it's okay. Thank you. The recommendation before you tonight is to adopt a resolution that recommends that the city council introduce and approve an ordinance that amends section 17.8680 of the municipal code to clarify specific land use and operational requirements for commercial cannabis activity. The planning commission's role tonight is to review the proposed amendments for consistency with the general plan and state law and to provide a recommendation to the city council. So, here's a summary of the proposed amendments tonight. Um, the first first we're going to look into some clarifying language for land use requirements for retail storefront operations, specifically regarding the buffer requirements or distance requirements from these types of cannabis businesses. Second, we're going to discuss some repetitive language um and kind of go over where that might occur in um the cannabis zoning regulations. And third, we're going to go over some clarifying language to the operational requirements for micro business operations. The proposed text amendments are scheduled to be heard before the city council as part of the annual cannabis program update scheduled for later this spring. Um the annual update is something that uh the Canvas program has done every year since its inception um at the request of council and it really just serves as an opportunity every year for staff to present uh recommendations to the council that

refine our administrative and operational processes. Uh the proposed amendments to land use requirements and micro business requirements are essentially cleanup items. So nothing is changing rather the updates are intended to provide uh greater clarity on what's already existing regulation. Okay, as I stated before the first amendment is intended to clarify um buffer requirements for retail storefronts. So I want to begin by kind of going over what are buffers, when were they adopted, and how do they relate to what we call cannabis business overlay zones. So buffers, these are like I said distance requirements. Um they were adopted in May of 2018, which is really when this program was first being designed. Um and like I said, they apply only to retail storefronts. And the reason this is is because retail storefronts are the only publicly accessible u cannabis business. Um and they are as follows. Uh 1,000 ft from schools and public parks, 600 ft from licensed daycare centers, and 300 ft from residentially zoned areas within cannabis business overlay zones. So, what are cannabis business overlay zones? Well, they were adopted um in September of 2018, so a few months after the buffers were considered. Um they are nine designated areas in the city where can all cannabis businesses may operate subject to zoning. Um and they're shown clearly on the city's zoning map. Um as I stated, they are they do account for these buffers and they also account for local conditions such as major roads or arterial streets and railroads. Um, so essentially these cannabis business overlay zones were created based on these pre-established buffers. So what council did was, you know, consider what these buffer requirements are and create these zones um that are largely away from these what we call sensitive

uses. So what we're looking at tonight um are some proposed amendments to clarify what these requirements are. um the proposed amendments or I'm sorry, this language occurs a few times within the cannabis zoning regulations. Um and so what we're proposing is to clarify that the 1,000 ft buffer from schools and public parks/public playgrounds um withholds whether that's located within or outside of a cannabis business overlay zone. Uh 600 ft from licensed daycarees whether located within or outside a cannabis business overlay zone. and 300 feet from residentially zoned areas that occur within a cannabis business overlay zone. Um staff is also recommending adding specific language to section 178680 that clarifies that a new adjacent land use does not affect the continuation of an existing use that was issued a use permit under the standards of the cannabis regulations. So in other words, um let's say a cannabis retail storefront was issued a use permit. they went through the operator pro permit process, got a use permit, um you know, and three months later down the road, a daycare pops up and it's within 600 ft of that location. What we're saying is that the um existence of that new daycare is not going to affect the continuation of a retail storefront that was issued a license um under the conditions and the requirements of our municipal code as it's adopted. Okay, moving away from um land use requirements and into some of that repetitive verbiage. Um so staff is proposing an amendment to uh section 178680E5B. Um the term CBZ overlay is referred to as CAN overlay in this specific subsection. Um both of these terms are interchangeable. They mean the same thing. They refer to the same zoning designation. So what staff is proposing is just to replace CAN overlay

with CBZ overlay. so that it is consistent with the adopted zoning map and with throughout other areas in the zoning regulations. Okay, moving on to another repetitive verbiage statement. Uh we're looking at uh section 17868A. This is the purpose statement of the cannabis zoning regulations. It really just states the intent and the purpose of these regulations. Uh what staff is proposing is to remove the specific controlled substances act or CSA classification of cannabis from this purpose statement. Um this is because we're looking to avoid having to update this section whenever the federal government changes that classification. Um as many of you might be aware um you know the federal government has been talking and discussing um possibly descheduling um or rescheduling cannabis. Um, and so what we're looking to do is just remove that specific schedule one designation from the purpose statement while still reinforcing that the provisions of the cannabis zoning regulations are not intended to affect or alter federal law in any way. Moving on to operational requirements for micro businesses. So micro businesses are essentially cannabis operations that engage in at least three of the following uh cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and retail sale, whether that's by storefront or by delivery. And this all occurs under one roof, clearly delineated and clearly separated. Uh while it's worth noting we do not currently have or the city does not currently have a micro business um right now um it is important to add some clarifying language here because um in 2023 uh the city council adopted ordinance 1725 which expanded retail storefront hours. So what used to be 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. is now 7:00 a.m.

uh to 9:00 p.m. And it also updated age restrictions. So now um individuals aged 18 18 through 20 with a uh valid uh medical recommendation may access um retail storefronts uh and purchase cannabis. Um however these amendments were not applied to the micro business subsection of these regulations for micro businesses engaged in retail. Um micro businesses with retail sale are required to follow the same rules as any other retailer. um I'm sorry, with any other cannabis retailer. Um that is reinforced in our own municipal code as well as in the Department of Cannabis control uh cannabis regulations. Um so what we're looking to do is to uh propose an amendment that aligns our micro business regulations with the retail storefronts for hours and age restriction requirements um specifically around signage requirements. Okay. And so uh with that uh that is the conclusion of my uh presentation and I am open to discussion and questions. Thank you. Okay, let's uh you have questions for staff Commissioner Tolley and then we'll go to Commissioner Kohley. Um okay, so I read through the staff report. I understand everything that you're I get it. It's a common sense um uh update. Uh but how can you tell me how the appeal this will affect the appeal that's currently out for that mic for that said micro business for that retail dispensary that we approved a couple months ago. Yeah. So this will have really no effect on the appeal actually what we're doing is just clarifying language. Um what the appeal how the app appeal relates to this the recommendations tonight is that it really brought to staff's attention that there was a need for clarifying

language. Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Culie. Yeah. Just a couple of things. Um on the clarification point, I found the citations to uh council intent to be persuasive. So, you know, I'm in support of that. Just had a question about the micro business aspect of this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't micro businesses and I'm assuming you're um your amendments here are just meant to be comprehensive, but don't micro businesses require cultivation as part of them? Am I wrong or right about that? And if so, is there anywhere in the CBZs that is appropriate for cultivation as well as other business types? Um so micro businesses are just required to um have three of those commercial cannabis activities under one roof. So there are micro businesses that might be manufacturing, distribution, and retail sale. Um, as far as is there any appropriate areas for cultivation to be conducted in one of these cannabis business overlay zones, there is. I mean, there are that's kind of why the zones were created was for any cannabis business. So that's kind of what's confusing about it is that any cannabis business must be located within one of these zones. But retail storefronts are further subject to buffer requirements. Um, of course there are zoning requirements for cultivation. So, not every area or every parcel within a cannabis business overlay zone is going to be appropriate for cultivation. That's helpful. Thank you. Other questions of staff? Commissioner Moses Morris. Um, just a quick thought. Nothing really objectionable about the presentation that seems pretty straightforward. So, u, thank you for that. But I was just wondering um I don't know if there would be retail operations or considered something else but in looking at the evolution of cannabis if somebody wanted to like open up I don't know like a cannabis cocktail bar. Uh is there any consumption on site that's allowed for any of these

establishments in any form? So cocktails not allowed. No uh concurrent alcohol and cannabis use. However, I I get where you're going with this. Um, currently as our code is written, um, the city of St. Louis Bispo does not allow consumption lounges, which is what we kind of what the state kind of refers to as a coffee shop type of cannabis, coffee/cannabis type shop. Um, however, there was legislation passed um this this uh year that does allow uh for consumption lounges. Specifically, it allows uh retailers and micro businesses to prepare and sell non-cannabis food and beverages um and host live entertainment in designated consumption areas provided that local jurisdictions authorize these um specific activities. So, um currently our municipal code does not allow consumption on site and so um yeah and Okay, thank you for that. And that legislation, it sounds like it also would not allow consumption on site of cannabis products. It would allow food and beverages that are non cannabis products. Is that correct? So, I I misspoke there. So, um consumption lounges have been allowed for maybe a couple years now. They exist all over the place, largely in like LA area. Um there has always been um consumption of cannabis products allowed on site, but what we're looking at this year is legislation that allows for the additional sale of non-cannabis beverage um and food items as well as um entertainment or ticket sales for things like musical entertainment. So what we're looking at is really the possibility to allow retailers to broaden the horizon of what's possible for u making sales at their facility. And when you said consumption on site is already allowed. I'm guessing you're saying elsewhere because we don't have any consumption lounges or however we're Okay. Correct. Under state law, California state law. Okay. Gotcha. All

right. Sounds like it might be coming up in future future cycles then. Thank you. I just have a question. if you could pull up the slide that showed the you added the language of with um whether it's not outside the overlay zones because the residential doesn't have that same clause it says within. So with my understanding of that, if there was a residence located outside the zone but within 300 ft, that would be okay. And if so, why the purpose in the change of language on that third clause from the first two? Yeah. So what you said about um if a residentially zoned area was outside of a cannabis business overlay zone um but 300 ft away, that would be okay. Um the reason why we're coming forward with this amendment not not quite a change as this is how this has been the buffer requirements have been interpreted since the inception of the program and implemented. Um the reason really being that that was adopted in 2018 is that if every if we if the city required a 300t buffer from every residentially zoned area in the city, there would be very very limited space for a cannabis business to um est be established. Um when we're looking at schools, public parks, daycare centers, we're looking at, you know, children specific um sensitive land uses, um it would be nearly impossible for us to require that cannabis businesses are located 300 ft from every residentially zoned area in the city. Um, as far as why we're coming forward with these amendments, um, staff did significant research into the staff reports from, uh, 2018 when this program was really first being designed and implemented. Um, and it is very very clear that this was the intent, um, the legislative intent in those staff reports. Um, it's

also what is adopted on our uh, current city zoning map as well. So why even have the 300 set back within the zoning area for residential? Uh that's a good question. I not I don't have a answer for that but so I'll try. So just to kind of recap I think when these buffer zones were originally established they looked at locations that may that are separated by natural barriers. So, Broad Street, natural barrier, railroad tracks, natural barriers. Um, those are the features that kind of got us to where these buffer zones, the outline of some of these buffer zones. Um, so to to your question or point of if somebody lived across Broad Street and they're within 300 ft, um, that's been accepted as okay based on these buffer zones being adopted as as shown. Um, there are buffer zones within these cannabis overlay zones for residential uses because what we were concerned about was that you could have a cannabis retail store across the street, a residential street from a residence. So, this at least provides those residences some separation from a retail cannabis retail store within within the uh overlay or even right next door. Right. Or even right next door. I'd just like to reaffirm what um Tyler has just mentioned. Um that is mentioned in the staff reports from 2018 as well. And like I said in my previous slide, these buffer requirements and cannabis business overlay zones were created based on um you know considering what we call um major barriers. So the railroad, Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, Hagera Street, uh major roads like that that

also provide a significant barrier to other residentially zoned areas. But at the north end of your slides, there is just a single street there that is not a substantial barrier. It's a little side street. I don't know what which one it is. I guess the property across the street is not zoned. It's CR. No, there's RSF there, too. So let's see what page Flores may I ask what slide you might be referring to. I am on page there's no page numbers on this. Is that figure one? Yeah. Yeah. Figure one of item 5A. Yeah. Page 27 of the packet. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So I see Broad Street's a definite divider and the railroad tracks are definite divider. But what about that little street at the north? And there is looks like there's SF zoning there. So that would be Roundhouse. I believe the PFH zoned area is where the fire department one is or fire station one is located. And you're specifically asking about which parcels? The parcel just outside the border there to the north of the border. The one in red. Yeah. a little strip in red on the top or two strips. One is CR one, the other one is or CRSF. Is that what it is? Well, that's that's zone to commercial retail with special focus. Is that the Ace Hardware? Okay. Miners uh Stallworks and uh then an apartment complex in the CS zoned area as well as miners. So CR, that's going to be where Stallworks um construction company is located. Um and then the CS just north of that is where we have some apartments I believe and some and miners Ace Hardware. Yes. Yeah.

So there are a lot of apartments. So there there is a lot of residential zoned that is closer than 300 ft now is what you're saying. And that would be allowed. Okay. Well, actually the when we refer to residentially zoned areas, we're referring to R1 through R4 zoned areas, which is essentially what we call a base zone. Um, if we're look when we're looking at, you know, mixed use or um, you know, a commercial zone that has happens to have apartments, that is not what these regulations are considering. What they're considering is that base zone, which uh is what the R1 through R4. So something mixed use or something that just simply has um apartment complexes or residential homes would not uh be considered to be residentially zoned area. So it's about the zoning, not about this the use. That's correct. See, so we're looking at these zones too on the zoning map and the only R zones I see at all are on the Broad Street section. There's this R3 SPD um that is in the kind of the orange hatch. It's in a 300 ft uh red hatch, too. And there is, you know, there's new structures going up there that definitely are residential, but that's within the zone. So, I mean, the with this this business about the 300 foot residential within the zone, it seems like there's almost no place where that even applies. So, we're kind of kind of back to why do we even have it? But we're not here to rewrite it necessarily. We're here to clean it up. So, is there anything you can say to to like put that to to bed for us? Uh, well, the reason you see that the striped red line is because um the zoning map does have that 300 foot buffer of residential zones um in that legend. And the reason we're looking at South Broad Street tonight really is because this is one of the only areas in the city where a cannabis business overlay is. This is one of the only

cannabis business overlay zones where residentially zoned areas occur. I see. Um there used to be another one by the airport and it has since been reszoned to commercial service. Um so this not that no longer appears on the map. So that's why the legend of zones on our adopted zoning map only refers to the 300 foot buffer area of residential zones within the south broad because that is really the only area in the city. So, you know, I think we could say that in 2018, you know, staff did a very good job of finding zones that are largely away from residentially zoned areas, but as Tyler mentioned, where that does occur, we are still requiring a 300 foot buffer. Um, and again, this is residentially zoned areas. So, R1 through R4 zoned um parcels. Okay. And the airport thing came before us what, a year ago or something? Because I remember we we didn't we change the address that well that let's not let's let that be. So, the crosshatch that we have on the screen right there, that's covering that R3 and that's the 300 foot um exclusion for the R3 um zones that are within that cannabis overlay. Is that right? That's correct. So, we are looking at about half of the uh cannabis business overlay zone that's for use. Um there is a little bit of it that's um south of that uh buffer that is uh zoned M. So that wouldn't be appropriate for a retail storefront though. So that's the only place where we have any kind of our zoning within a cannabis overlay. That's correct. Okay. So we do need it. We need it for that spot right there, right? Yes. Okay. Uh Commissioner Tullley. Okay. Real quick, this slide that we're looking at, it looks like there's two cannabis overlay districts side by side. Uh is that right? On the right side, we got the manufacturing MPD. M PD is that a natural barrier like why isn't the Okay, so that's why so that's a great great question. There's there's

a grade change there. Okay. Um and then there's access changes there. So the the uh manufacturing area takes access off of Orchet whereas this is more of an integrated neighborhood. In this other area, but there is a significant grade change there. So they aren't really connected and they're a different So we consider that. Yeah. There's a retaining wall all along that strip right there. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Other questions? I have a few myself, but and I'll just tell you guys I ask a lot of questions at these things. And you still put me here. But uh I my intent is to like always let you guys have all your questions and I'll back clean up. So just letting you know that. Okay. Um, so this business about a daycare pops up. Let's see. So if we have a a cannabis retail and then a daycare pops up near within the 600 foot uh right, that's okay. If if the daycare wants to come up second after the cannabis, is that okay? But if it's in the other order, then it's not okay. Is that the way that this works? That's correct. Yes. Okay, great. And then you had a slide on that said 18 plus with valid ID, but you said with valid medical ID, right? So the I'm assuming that the text is is uses the word medical. Is that right? Yeah. And I do have a slide that shows the exact um text that we're looking at. So right here is the micro business development standards, just a couple of them. And these are the ones that we're looking at tonight. So we changed the hours of retail sale. And then we're looking at this type of language. So, oddly enough, actually the um the age requirements are mentioned in a different section of this municipal code and it's kind of a coverall catchall for all commercial cannabis activity. What we're looking at tonight is specifically um adding this type of

language that clarifies what the signage requirement for micro businesses with the retail storefront are. Um as far as the uh medical recommendation, that language is here. Um, essentially you not only need a valid ID, you also need a med medical recommendation from a physician if you are between the ages of 18 and 20 to access. Okay, that's what I thought. But when you when you had the slide, it said 18 plus with a valid ID and it didn't say the word medical then. Okay, but you've we've got it in the um actual ordinance that is under consideration. Okay. And then this micro business thing that applies only to cannabis. Is that right? There's no micro or is there a micro business? Um does that apply to any other kind of business? Um no. What we're looking at tonight is the cannabis zoning regulation. So um that there's to my knowledge not another micro business definition. Um if there were, we're like I said, we're specifically looking at chapter 7 section 178680 which is the cannabis regulations which defines micro business as a commercial cannabis activity. Okay, fair enough. Would a brewery with a tap room kind of be a micro they're doing production, distribution and retail or sales. So, so micro business is only referred to in the cannabis section of the code and it's in alignment with a state definition of a micro business. Yeah. So, we're always trying to track with the state. Speaking of that, so I think that we addressed this before, but the state now allows uh consumption lounges or coffee shops. If anybody's been to Amsterdam and we know what that is all about. So, but we don't but we could. Is that the way that stands right now if we um that would be a council level thing and m municipal code change? That would absolutely absolutely be a council level change. I imagine it would come to you all at the planning commission first. Um as like I said, as we currently are have our admin

municipal code adopted, we do not allow for on-site consumption specifically. So, there are a few places in the municipal code, I would imagine, including chapter 9.10, which is the general cannabis regulations, and section 178680, which is the cannabis zoning regulations. That would have to be evaluated to um allow a cannabis retailer to engage in that type of activity. We'd also probably be looking at an amendment to their existing use permit. I love how well you know all these regulations. Thank you for this. This is really uh so if if a consumption lounge I mean the path that would likely happen here would be an applicant comes to the town to the city and says we want to open one of these things and so that would then precipitate a consideration of revision to the municipal code which would first come to us for a review and recommendation to council. Is that what would happen almost? um we wouldn't really be looking at an outside applicant. I think what we'd be looking at is an existing retailer um as the applicant in this case uh because you must have a established cannabis retail storefront in order to um to go to pop up a consumption lounge. Exactly. So we're not looking at, you know, somebody applying for a consumption lounge. We're looking at an existing retailer applying for consumption. Um, if we ever were to open, you know, an application period for cannabis retail storefronts, I think, and we had already adopted consumption lounge verbiage in our in our municipal code, we would probably have some type of application process that um asks that upfront. what are you planning to engage in in your you know at your location and that way the evaluation of that conditional use permit application would consider all things retail storefront if there's delivery this is something that you guys reviewed I think last year um as well as if they're looking to do consumption lounges um I think for existing

retailers that have already got a use permit that doesn't consider consumption um they would have to go through like an amendment so that's what we're and then okay an amendment to our municipal We'd have to amend the municipal code first, but then existing retailers um in the city would have to amend their existing conditional use permit to allow consumption. Well, that's kind of where I was going with that because uh and has there been any expression of interest amongst the re we have two right now, two retailers. Has there been any expression of interest in developing a consumption cafe? There's definitely been questions and inquiries um verbally, but no formal interest has been um submitted. And so then my next thought was, well, if that is likely to happen, is it worth addressing that in this cleanup? But you probably not tonight, right? I mean, um, so we'll we'll let that we'll let that be, I suppose, until, uh, there's an interest and a need to consider it. So, okay. And my last question was about um this 1,600 ft arcs that includes outside this the cannabis overlay zones. Do those currently carve out any parts of the existing cannabis zones because of those radi? I'm sorry, could you repeat the question? So the the thousand ft from schools and the 600 foot from daycare with the existing schools and daycare do any of those arcs of,600 ft touch any of the CB uh overlay zones? No. Okay. Not right now. Um like I said, I think in 2018 staff did an excellent job of finding areas that are away from these types of sensitive uses. So, what you're looking at right now on this slide is a map of where existing schools are. And that includes preschools, elementary, junior high, and high schools. As you can see, there's pretty

much one, I believe that's Hawthorne Elementary that just kind of goes into that cannabis overlay. And I'm and PF is not even um an eligible zoning um that's the fire station district for Uhhuh. um for cannabis businesses. So, that's the answer I was expecting to hear. So, that's great. Uh-huh. And we have the same thing here with licensed daycarees. So that's shown in yellow. Orange is u the same thing, the residentially zoned areas. But as you can see, these licensed daycarees are pretty much largely away. I know we're only looking at one cannabis business overlay out of nine. But um this is really just to demonstrate that that's why these zones were chosen. And then we had the construction underway of the natural healing center or whatever it was right there on Broad Street and then it that fell apart for whatever reason. But was would that still was that location? Um I'm kind of speculating now, so I'll just let that go. Forget it. Okay. Uh is there any further discussion or are we ready to entertain a motion? I second. Any further discussion before we have a roll call vote? Okay. Hearing none, deputy clerk, could you please call roll on the motion that is before us? Thank you, chair. And I just want to clarify for the record that there's no public attending at this point. So, no public comment. I forgot to say that because that's on my little thing here. Um, I'm going to go ahead and say it. Do we have any public comment on this item, Deputy Clerk? No, chair. We do not. Okay, great. I'll get better at this. Okay. So, rocky start, Mr. Chair. What? So, you're off to a rocky start. Oh, jeez. Going off the script already. Okay. Uh, time for a vote. Let's go. So, the motion was made by Vice Chair Tully. How do you vote? Uh, yes. Commissioner Munoz Morris, yes. Commissioner Kulie, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes.

Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Commissioner Khan, yes. And Chair Hton, yes. And that motion passes. Okay. Well done. All right. We're near the end here. And I want to say something that I forgot to say when I first moved to this seat. I wanted to thank uh Chair Kulie. Nice job for the last year of running the meetings and really appreciate the attention to detail and the very even-handed way you did uh this over the last year. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, would Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey please provide us with an update of the staff uh staff update and agenda forecast? Great. Thank you, Chair. Uh our next uh regularly scheduled meeting is um April 23rd and that will be cancelled due to lack of items. So no meeting um on the 23rd and then looking into May we have a meeting on 514 and one on 528. Um, so we have a few re-reviews that are coming back of fraternities and so it'll be fraternity month here at the planning commission in May for for violations of existing use permits. I believe the three that we have are of the older use permit type from going back to the 80s. So these uh you know we're working through those and we'll be bringing those forward for consideration. Okay. So I don't have uh you know exact fraternity or dates yet but it's looking like we're reserving those couple meetings in May for that. Um one other thing that's looking like it's moving on the 514 agenda is um just our general plan conformity of the city's capital improvement program. And that's just a

part of uh formality. It's a part of the city's financial plan and it requires um a motion and an approval here from conformity review of the planning commission. And then on the 28th we also have a presentation from uh Kalpali uh planning students looking at the upper Monterey area. So they're doing some work there looking at you know land use types and connectivity um different you know improvements that could be made to to street streetcapes and uses. So they are working on that project and we'll be presenting that their conclusions to the planning commission. No doubt I'll be asking for a creek path and bridges. Right. All possible. All possible. Oh yeah. Okay. All right. Is that it for you? That's it for me. Okay. Thanks. All right. So, the April 23rd meeting will be cancelled. The next regular meeting is scheduled for May 14th, right at 2025 at 6 o'clock p.m. in Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, St. Louis Bispo. And I finally get to hit this thing. We are adjourned.