Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is 6 p.m. on May 19th. Welcome to the City of Riverbank Planning Commission meeting. Can we have a roll call, please?

Chair Michael Alterman?

Here.

Vice Chair John Dynan? Here. Commissioner Joan Stewart? Commissioner Natasha Basso? Here. Commissioner Tidy Zamora?

Here.

And in the audience, we have our alternate Armando Rodriguez and alternate Alex Rodriguez.

All right. There's any planning commission member or staff was a direct conflict of interest on any of the scheduled agenda items to be considered is to declare their conflict at this time. I have a conflict with item 6.1 and will recuse myself for that presentation and vote. All right, with no others. Moving on to public comments. I don't have the full role or full script here, but we'll open up for public comments. Right, for items not on the agenda.

Okay.

I've been living about two years in Crossroads West, and I'm just coming today with a concern about walking in from both Clarabelle and Oakdale Road for the new Costco. There's beautiful sidewalks down Clarabelle, and there's beautiful sidewalks on both sides of Oakdale. They're like 10 feet wide. They're great. I ride my bike. There's room for people walking. We tried once to walk in to Costco from Oakdale Road because we're close enough. If you don't buy a lot of stuff at Costco, you can buy one thing and walk home with it. And there doesn't appear to me to be from any sides there, like a way you can walk in. There's like a curvy, I think, traffic calming road that comes out into Oakdale Road. And then there's some other roads that come in off of Clarabelle. But at least on the Save Mart Target Center side, there is kind of a pathway you can walk safely in, at least to the big strip of all the big stores. Now, if you go from like Target to Red Robin, you're going to be wandering through the parking lot. But I guess that happens anywhere now. And I'm concerned also with the new apartments I realize are going to be going in there. Seems like to me there could be a lot of people walking, especially around there on a road that right now has no paved access to it. So people either be walking through the landscaping or walking in the road. And that road is really narrow and tight. I'm not a traffic... plan or but I believe it must be to keep people from speeding in and out of the place so it's tight it's curvy speed bumps and all that, but i'm wondering at this point, is there anything the city can do in terms of planning and working on. Like how to make that safer either adding a pathway wouldn't have to be a sidewalk, but some way, because there will be people wandering through that area. And I'm concerned with pedestrian safety in there, those kinds of things. And I realize the center's planned it's built, but I'm wondering if it's sometime things are revised and You know, you don't have to wait for a pedestrian accident or incident to actually do something with something that looks like to me is going to be a future obvious problem or danger because that center is only like halfway full now. It's already full of cars and I see people wandering around already. So I just wanted to bring that forward. I'm not sure you're the perfect place for it to land, but I thought I'd start here.

No, that we are definitely a avenue where you can bring that attention to city. We can't act upon that tonight, obviously, but I could direct you to our planning director here. Josh might have some information on that. He can get to you after this meeting or during normal business hours. I think you might have some information on that. So, cause I know that there is still more to be built out there. So I just, I don't know specifically what it is. I don't have the. Yeah.

And I didn't realize until we tried walking the one time I was like, this isn't good. Yeah.

Chair, if you don't mind, if I could just kind of add some context to this question, because this is a really good question that comes up from time to time from our residents. So just to clear or to provide some clarity. So, sir, we definitely know what you're describing, and we've seen that situation ourselves multiple times. One thing to keep in mind is the shopping center is sort of a puzzle that's being put together at this point. For example, some of the area they call Pad 1 and 2, which is the development along Freddie and Oakdale, those two buildings. So as part of that development, they will be installing a sidewalk from Oakdale Road. And then they install a crosswalk across that interior drive that would get you to basically where Skechers, TJ Maxx, those buildings are. And then there is some additional sidewalks that's going to go on the north side of that Freddie Lane. They're tied to the apartments. So when the apartments come in, that's going to be a trigger for those. Additionally, there's some interior sidewalks. One of the things our staff has been very focused on, like you mentioned in the original shopping center, there's no connectivity between like a Red Robin and Target. So we've been focused on providing a connectivity between each of the different users. So if you're at Costco, you could be able to walk to a particular business to have dinner. So that kind of thing is kind of underway. You may not see it for a time or until the shopping center is fully built out. But as each kind of area gets developed, there will be an accessory sidewalk that kind of plays into the bigger picture of the shopping center. And then to answer, I think, your original question, walking, so the legal access right now to Costco, it actually comes off Claribel Road because of the lack of sidewalks off of Oakdale Road. So there is one existing sidewalk that goes basically south from Costco, connects all the way to Claribel Road. That's like, of course, I've never tried that.

Yeah, that doesn't go anywhere.

And to further complicate things, the corner of Claribel and Oakdale, the shopping center, that's the responsibility of Stanislaus County as part of the North County Corridor Project. They will be completing that. So that's why it kind of looks unfinished. There's an asphalt sidewalk. It's just not in its final form yet. So hopefully that provides a little clarity on that.

I'm hopefully out that it'll eventually because that's my concern is, you know, it's great if you're in your car, but you know, you don't always want to drive from x to y, you might occasionally want to walk, you'd want to be as safe as you can be knowing that as a pedestrian, the cars, they're going to win whether they're right or wrong. So you always have to be aware of it can be hard to get through.

So thank you. Oh, great question, though. Thank you.

All right, do we have any more public comments? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close for public comments. Moving on to the consent calendar, we have three items. Posting the agenda for May 19th, 2026. Approval of the May 19th, 2026 agenda and the approval of March 31st, 2026 special planning commission meeting minutes. All right, names for consideration.

I make a motion that we accept the consent calendar as written.

I'll second.

Okay, roll call.

Chair Ottoman?

Yes.

Vice Chair John Dynan?

Yes.

Commissioner Stewart? Commissioner Abasso? Yes. And Commissioner Zamora?

Yes.

Approved 5-0.

All right, moving on to item 6.1, for which I will recuse myself. I believe we're passing to Vice Chair John Dynan. Thank you, Chair. Holler at me when I get back.

All right. Item 6.1, condition of approval amendment for vesting tentative subdivision map number 01-2025, parent department file number 25-0010, close parent, dash Meadowview resolution number 2026-005. The project is a request to amend condition of approval number 9, apply for vesting Tentative subdivision map number 01-2025 to allow a slope easement in lieu of a block retaining wall located at 4537 California Avenue at the northwest corner of the Snedeker Road and California Avenue intersection. APN 062-021-007. The project is exempt from secret for section 21159-21-007. parent alpha slash Juliet close parent exemption for qualified housing projects. We have a report from staff.

Yes, thank you. Good evening, members of the commission. Tonight we have the Meadowview subdivision, which you probably remember we saw last year. And this is a condition of approval modification from that vesting tentative map 01-2025. Just real briefly wanted to go over the request itself. So the applicants requested to modify condition of approval number nine. And this condition required a retaining wall along the rear property lines of lots 18 through 31. And so to look at the map that's kind of in the center of that rectangle, there's a slope easement against the property lines. Location is at 4537 California. The applicant is Carrie Pope. and ultimately staff is recommending adoption of Resolution 2026-005. This would recommend to the City Council approval of the condition of approval modification. Just to give you a little more context where this property is located, it's on the eastern side of town. The cross street is California Avenue in Snedeker, and it's located just adjacent to Riverbank High School. Just wanted to give a little bit of background also. As I mentioned, this item was seen at the Planning Commission last June. The original request was a rezone to a planned development zoning district and a tentative map that allowed the development of a 31-lot residential subdivision. Ultimately, after receiving Planning Commission recommendation for approval, it was heard at City Council in August of 2025 and received approvals. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Ultimately in discussing one of the conditions. HAB-Jacques Juilland, It became an issue, and this is condition number nine off the tentative map and again this is requiring a slope easement in the graphic or exhibit on the right hand side of the screen i've kind of highlighted the area that would be considered the slope easement area. HAB-Jacques Juilland, here's kind of just a visual idea of the difference between a slope easement and a retaining wall so again this kind of just shows. What the slope is may look like in lieu of a retaining wall. The actual condition of approval number nine was written in such a way that it stated a slope easement shall not be permitted along the rear property lines of lots eighteen through thirty one. In lieu of the slope easement, the applicant shall construct a block retaining wall along the shared property lines to retain grade differentials and ensure stability. The retaining wall shall be designed in accordance with the applicable building codes and city standards and shall be shown on the final grading and improvement plans subject to the review and approval of the city engineer and building official. So after the project was approved, I had some discussion with the applicant's engineer and the applicant himself. And one of the things we realized may have been overlooked by the city engineer at the time was that the city actually has a standard detail. I pulled it up here on the screen. So standard detail 901. This detail allows for the optional slope transition or slope easement area. So this is exactly what the applicant and their engineering firm is proposing. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I've kind of zoomed in on the area of the detail that addresses a slope easement and just wanted to mention there is a note on there about this slope transition being allowed PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Only if expressly permitted by the Jason property that doesn't necessarily come into play because this is a brand new subdivision where the idea is the same property is developing and then selling these lots PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So this kind of brought us to the modified condition. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And I'll just read through this real quickly. The modified condition would read the real property lines of lot 18 through 31 Shelby designed to address the grade differentials drainage. City Council Chambers, slope stability and long term maintenance to the satisfaction of the city engineer transition grading may be provided through either a retaining wall slope transition slope easement or combination thereof. City Council Chambers, Provided the design complies with that city standard detail 901 or any other applicable city standards and is approved by the city engineer. If a slope easement is approved, the easement shall be shown on the final map or recorded by separate instrument as determined by the city engineer and community development director. The easement shall include adequate rights and obligations for construction, access, inspection, maintenance, drainage, slope stability, and protection of the affected lots. So ultimately, in terms of the environmental determination, similar to the original approval, this requested condition of approval modification doesn't change the approved subdivision, doesn't change the density of it or what was previously approved. The original project, as I mentioned, was considered exempt under CEQA guidelines 21159.21. This is for qualified housing projects. The action of modifying this condition, it's just limited to that general area that I highlighted in yellow. This is the grading area of lots 18 through 31. So in effect, this modification doesn't create any new environmental impacts or concerns. And as such, is considered CEQA exempt. In terms of public notice, we sent out public notices to the surrounding property owners, everyone within 300 feet. These were sent out on May 6th. Similar, the Planning Commission hearing notice was published in the Riverbank News on May 6th. We also posted the notice at City Hall North, City Hall South, the Post Office, and the Library on May 6th. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, With that as a staffs recommendation is to adopt resolution 2026 dash 005 this was recommending to the city council, the approval of the modified condition of approval number nine. For vesting tentative subdivision map 01-2025, this is for the Meadowview subdivision and would allow a slope easement in lieu of a block retaining wall along the rear property lines of lots 18 through 31, subject to compliance with City of Riverbank Standard Detail 901. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Also wanted to point out the applicants here tonight, along with his engineering team, and they're available for questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Josh. Any questions from the commission?

Yeah. Can you tell me the benefits for allowing this change? Is there a benefit using the slope easement instead of the block wall?

I'm not sure I'm following that.

Why would we be doing the change?

PB, Harmon Zuckerman, Okay, so that's a great question why we're doing the change. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, I believe our previous city engineer just to overlook that detail which allows either option, you know, typically a developer, they look at the city standard detail and that kind of lays the groundwork or the rules of the development. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, In this particular case, there is no concern with doing a slope easement or retaining wall. So the condition is just an effect going back to what the city standards currently allow anyways. It was just the wording of that condition. The previous condition specifically said you cannot do a slope easement. Sure.

Questions from the commission? We'll open this up for public hearing.

City Council Chambers, Good evening planning Commission Vice Chair dine and carry Pope on the applicant, along with my engineer rick moment from benchmark engineering. City Council Chambers, And that was very well stated by josh I think that that that pretty well states what it was, I believe it was just overlooked by which is now the previous city engineer. And further, we wanted to be able to have the option to be able to do both, or to do either, I should say. The block walls have become extremely expensive. And the way that it was built, put forth in the drawings there, I think is a very good display of what could happen there so that we wanted to make these as affordable as possible and have that option. So I do believe it was just overlooked by them and by us after we started diving into the actual city ordinances that allowed what we're asking for tonight. So I'm available for any questions as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Further public comments? Hearing none, we'll close public comments and we will entertain a motion to approve item 6.1.

I make a motion that we approve resolution 2026-005. I'll second.

Can we get a vote? Call vote, please.

Vice Chair John Dynan?

Yes.

Commissioner Jon Stewart? Yes. Commissioner Natasa Basso? Yes. Commissioner Tidy Zamora?

Yes.

OK. It's approved 4-0.

Thank you, Janet. Chair Haldeman, if you can hear my voice, you may return.

Bye, Rick. Okay, moving on. Item number two, a conditional use permit, number 01-2026, the McCritchie Community Center Resolution 2026-006. The project is a request for a conditional use permit to allow the existing McCritchie Community Center to be rented out for events and to be able to serve alcoholic beverages during events located at 6600 3rd Street between Santa Fe and Stanislaus Street.

the project is exempt from sequa per section 15301 existing facilities good evening theresa mcdonald senior planner here to present the conditional use permit request for the mcritchie community center Right, as mentioned previously, this is a request for conditional use permit to allow the existing Community Center to be rented out for events and for those events to be able to serve alcoholic beverages. The intent is not for the site to be allowed to be served alcohol on a daily basis or to be sold for off site consumption essentially the intent is for the facility to be able to be rented out for baby showers or bridal showers for as residents, you know events of a similar nature. So the project site is located at 6600 3rd Street between Santa Fe and Stanislaus Street. It's improved with the 1700 square foot community center, landscaping and paved parking lot with 15 spaces. It has access on to Stanislaus Street via an existing alley located at the rear of the parking lot. It's surrounded by commercial uses to the north across the alley, residential uses to the east, commercial and residential uses to the south across Stanislaus Street, and commercial uses to the west. No specific issues have been identified as part of the project review the conditions of approval applied to the project require the applicant to follow the approved hours of operation. keep the site clean and orderly comply with all applicable city and state requirements for alcohol service and to operate the facility in a manner that avoids nuisance activity or impacts in nearby properties. The project site is designated as mixed use in the general plan, which is the primary category for Riverbank to accommodate neighborhood serving retail services, offices, and similar needs as described and planned for in the city's general plan. Goal land for policy land 3.5 of the land use element is to encourage the development and redevelopment of the downtown is a mixed use high activity area. And goal EDA of the economic development element is to support and expand upon downtown revitalization initiatives. Accordingly, staff believes the proposed use can be found consistent with the general plan as it supports an active downtown community use within the existing building and does not change the underlying mixed use character of the site. The project site is located within the city's downtown specific plan, or DTSP, and is zoned downtown core. The DTSP has specific parking standards, which requires a minimum of two spaces for every 1,000 square feet, and at 15 on-site spaces, the site exceeds the minimum required. In accordance with the DTSP, eating or drinking establishments serving alcoholic beverages and dance halls are permitted with a conditional use permit. In order to be approved, the use is required to adhere to specific performance standards and the Planning Commission is required to make the conditional use permit findings as listed in the staff report. Based on the project location, zoning, operational conditions, and the city's ability to review the permit, staff believes the proposed use can satisfy the required findings. Additionally, conditions of approval provide ongoing tools to address alcohol service, noise, parking, event operations, and compatibility with nearby uses. As such, staff believes the project can be found to be consistent with the downtown specific plan and the Riverbank Municipal Code. The project has been determined to be exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act per the existing facilities exemption. The Planning Commission hearing notice was public in the Riverbank News at City Hall and mailed to landowners within 300 feet of the project site on May 6, 2026. In addition, the applicant posted a notice of development permit application sign at the project site on May 4, 2026. To conclude, staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the project adopting resolution 2026-006, approving conditional use permit application number 01-2026. If the Planning Commission approves the project, the resolution provides an overview of the findings and actions required for project approval. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from?

I have a question. As far as alcohol goes, I might have missed it. You said they'll be able to rent it out to like for people for baby showers. Is it like they can bring their own alcohol and it's served on site or the property owner or, you know, the...

Yes, you're correct. So the housing authority themselves, they are not the entity that's going to be pursuing the alcohol license. It would be up to the individual or party that rents the facility to obtain any necessary alcohol license, or one might not even be required. For example, if they're hosting a private baby shower, not open to the public, not selling tickets, but serving alcohol, that's not being sold no abc license is required so it's up to whoever rents it to be able to obtain it which the housing authority verifies as part of the rental that they have obtained all necessary licenses that they have um security if like if there's going to be an event or alcohol or something of that nature where you know security would be beneficial perfect thank you from the

All right, as a public hearing, if there's any public comments on that, we'll open that up. All right, seeing none, we'll close public comment. Oh, we do have one. I spoke too soon. The number ending in 310808, please unmute. We're here for your question.

Hello.

Yes, can you hear us.

Yes, can you hear me.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah. Okay, can you hear me now.

Yes, there we go. Go ahead. Go ahead, please.

Hello.

Go ahead with your question.

Hello? Go ahead with your question.

I don't think she can hear. She's muted.

Hello?

Hello? We can hear you. Can you hear us?

Hello? Hello?

is she still on okay okay modern technology Okay, can you unmute again, please? Can you hear us on your end? All right, can you if you can hear us you can unmute otherwise we'll have to close for public comment. All right, well with that I think we will go ahead and close public comment then. bring it back to the Commission.

Do we have a motion? I make a motion that we approve resolution number 2026-006. Second.

Okay, roll call. Yep. Chair Alterman? Yes. Vice Chair Dynan? Yes. Commissioner Zamora?

Yes.

Commissioner Stewart? Commissioner Basso? Yes. Approve 5-0.

All right, moving on to new business item 7.1, general plan amendment 01-2025, the zoning ordinance amendment 01-2025, specific plan amendment 01-2025, rezone 02-2025, housing element adoption, land use element amendment, zoning ordinance amendments, and sixth cycle housing element implementation rezones.

Thank you, Chair, members of the Commission, David Niskanen, J.B. Anderson, Land Use Planning, Planning Consultant working on the City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element. This item may be familiar with you since we presented it to you last month, but we're back with direction that we received from Council, so we're providing an update on where we're at with the housing element and the changes that we made per the City Council's direction that we received. So just as a reminder, the item before you tonight includes the recommendation for the adoption of the six-cycle housing element, and then implementation actions, which include an amendment to the general plan land use element, zoning ordinance amendment related to buy-right uses, religious institutions, and updating the mixed-use zoning ordinance. Those things remain the same. That was presented last month to you. site-specific rezones and general plan amendment and specific plan amendments. That's where specifically we've made some changes. And then a specific plan amendment to the Crossroads Community Specific Plan. So just to provide some background, we presented the housing element in the associated actions, implementation actions to council on April 28th, following Planning Commission's recommendation that you voted on on March 31st. In that meeting essentially what occurred was that city council voted to remove rezone site number three that's the site the mid parcel on Brazil. From the housing element and what that triggered for us was a modification to the housing element document to physically remove the site, as well as recalculate the city's ability to meet the arena and. How we did that was we met with HCD staff on May 4th, a little correction in the staff report, since it said April 4th, it should say May 4th, to discuss some solutions. One solution would be to select another rezone site and move forward with notifying the property owner and going through that process. Another solution that we came up with with HCD's help was to update the density calculation and the way we... City Council Chambers, calculate the amount of units that we would get from hdr high density residential and mixed use sites. City Council Chambers, So previously presented to you last month was that we calculated the density at 20 dwelling units per acre for hdr and mixed use sites. City Council Chambers, Well, what we use what we did was we updated it to 28 dwelling units per acre so we just bumped up the density, which resulted in an increase in overall units that were able to capture for rena. That's a benefit for a couple of different reasons. One is we don't have to select another reason site. It makes up the difference in the units lost for arena. And then also, if on the bottom of the table in this arena table, you see that there's a larger buffer than what was previously represented and that is a key. part of housing element implementation over the eight year planning cycle, because if a site comes in or a development comes in on an HDR or mixed use property, and it's less than the number of units anticipated from the housing element, then we have that difference of unit, what was anticipated and what was actually being proposed. And now we can safely say that we can make up that difference in another part of the city, or we can absorb that with the buffer that we have. So I know 20 to 28 dwelling units per acre may seem a lot like a lot. And for the valley, it kind of is. A lot of developments are built out at like 20 dwellings per acre. But there is a strategy in going this route compared to the other ones. And this gave us the ability to bring it back to planning commission relatively quickly as opposed to the alternative, which is to select another site and go through a long kind of process. The good news is, is that we, you know, did that revision fairly quickly from Council's direction. We sent it out for a seven-day public review period, the actual document, from May 7th to May 14th, sent it back to the state on May 15th. And this week prior to planning Commission received a letter from a city, stating that we're we meet all statutory requirements and I believe that letter was printed out for you for for tonight. So presumably if the housing elements adopted by Council and we send it in for certification, the city will receive certification currently drafted. And that concludes my presentation it's a relatively short presentation compared to the last time i'm sure. But everything else remains the same as far as the code amendments, the amendment to the land use element. The other rezone sites that we're proposing still remain. The only difference is the removal of that one site. So tonight planning staff recommends the planning commission adopt three resolutions. One to recommend approval of the six cycle housing element. And to amend the latest element, as well as send the document to the state for certification, the second is to approval resolution to amend the code. In the sections described in the staff report and finally approval of a resolution recommending Council approve the site specific general plan amendments. and an ordinance for the specific plan amendment to the Crossroads Community Specific Plan and the site-specific rezones as detailed in the staff report and in the housing element document. And I'm available to answer any questions for you. And thank you.

All right. Do we have any questions from the commission? All right. This is a public hearing. If we have any public comments? Anyone online? All right, seeing no public comments, we'll close the public comment and bring it back for consideration.

Make a motion we approve item 7.1 and the three resolutions contained therein.

Second.

All right, roll call for that, please. Natasha.

Chair Alterman?

Yes.

Vice Chair Dynan?

Yes.

Commissioner Zamora? Yes. Commissioner Stewart? Yes. And Commissioner Basso? Yes. And it's approved 5-0.

Fantastic. Moving forward. Correspondence and county referrals, item 8.1, the Tivoli North Notice of Preparation.

Yeah, Chair, just wanted to go over a couple of items. The first one, as you mentioned, is the Tivoli North specific plan. And this is of importance to the city of Riverbank because this project will abut the Clarabelle Road to the south in between Oakdale and Roselle. So it's quite a large area. Um, in fact, the city of Modesto's NOP says that full build out the plans projected to include between 3,800 and 6,900 residential units. Um, uh, the reason I brought this up tonight is because I wanted to mention this NOP, um, it's a notice of preparation. They're getting ready to kick off the environmental impact report. And so they're soliciting comments or, um, areas to be studied within that environmental impact report. This comment period started on May 6 and it runs to June 5. There is also a virtual scoping meeting that's scheduled. If you go on the City of Modesto's website, there should be a Zoom link for tomorrow night at 5, I believe it's from 5 to 6 or 5 to 530. And there's additional details that can be found if anybody in the commission or anybody, any of our residents are interested in attending that virtual meeting. The other thing I wanted to point out, we did receive correspondence this week from the Riverbank Unified School District. They notified us that on May 5th, the school district adopted a resolution increasing their developer fees to a level one for new development within the district. What the implications of this are is that residential school impact fees increase from 517 to 538 per square foot. Commercial and industrial impact fees increase from 84 cents to 87 per square foot. And just a reminder, these fees are intended for new school district fees as the city has new developments. So that's kind of what they support. Lastly, I wanted to mention And I believe this was included in the commissioner's packet. We did receive a farmland working group newsletter addressed to the commissioners. This newsletter basically urges planning commissioners to pay close attention to the regional growth within this area of the county. They also mentioned that Modesto's 2050s general plan PB, Harmon Zuckerman, And and then lastly, they mentioned the Riverwalk project. So I just wanted to point that out because it was addressed to the commissioners. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, That that's all the comments and correspondence. I have. I did have one additional thing I wanted to add a next week or next month's meeting in June for planning commission. PB, Harmon Zuckerman, So far we have two items on the agenda. The first one is going to be Target, the store in Crossroads, is looking to amend their ABC license. So that will be a conditional use permit item. And then this was a project the commission approved, I think, back in 2024. It's the Lucky House Tiny Home Project. They're going to be coming in to ask for a time extension for additional time to kind of work on their project and get it to construction. That concludes all the correspondence. Thank you. All right, thank you.

Does that include item nine, staff comments as well? All right, so we've got item nine, Berwyn, done as well. And with that, we will adjourn our meeting. Thank you.