Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Testing testing one two Testing testing Testing.

All right, good evening and welcome to the Tuesday, February 10th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. I'd like to bring this meeting to order and start with our Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call, please. Commissioner Connolly? Here. Commissioner Roden?

Here.

Commissioner Marlowe? Present. Commissioner Christensen?

Here.

Commissioner Neal? Here. Commissioner Kogler?

Here.

Chairperson Kovarubias? Here. All present.

Thank you. Staff introductions, please.

Marcy Reynoso and Jessica Ferguson, permit technicians.

Warren Frase, community development director.

Piper Smith, assistant planner.

Dante Pecannino, senior development review engineer.

Leslie Frazier, city engineer. Darcy Delgado, associate planner.

City attorney.

Katie Bannister, associate planner.

Ricky Lear, commander, Paso Robles Police Department.

Darren Nash, planner. Karen in IT.

Michael, can you introduce yourself again?

Yes. Michael Irvin, office of city attorney.

Okay, thank you for that. Are there any general public comments regarding matters not on the agenda? Looking in the audience, seeing none. Marcy, any callers?

No callers.

Okay. Moving on then, are there any agenda items proposed to be tabled or rescheduled?

Yes, sir. Item G1, the amendment to the signed ordinance, there was a technical error in the version that was given to the Planning Commission that we need to correct. So we're asking you to continue that. We'll re-notice that to a future agenda. So if I could get a vote to continue, that would be helpful.

Okay. I will then take a motion to continue item G1.

I'd like to make a motion to continue item G1 to a future planning motion.

So moved by Commissioner Marlowe. I get a seconded by Commissioner Neal. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Marlowe. Aye. Commissioner Neal. Aye. Commissioner Kogler.

Aye.

Commissioner Christensen.

Aye.

Commissioner Roden.

Aye.

Commissioner Connolly. Aye. Chairperson Kovarubias. Aye. Motion passes.

OK. If there are no other items to be tabled or rescheduled, then we will move on to the public hearing portion. So we're gonna begin with item G2, the Ravine Water Park Conditional Use Permit Amendment. Staff presentation, please.

Good evening, commissioners. I'll be presenting the Ravine Water Park Amendment to their CUP. Thank you. To their water park for a new recreational pool area at 2301 Airport Road. This is entitlement record P250124, Amendment 2502. So this is located at 2301 Airport Road in the C2 PD overlay zones, that's highway commercial with the plan development overlay. It is in the CS, commercial service general plan designation, and the airport land use safety zone three and five. To the right is the overall site plan with the star showing roughly where that new recreational pool area is located. And on the left is a view from Highway 46. The new recreational pool area will be located behind those water slides not visible from the 46. A little bit of background, CUP00-020 and PD00-23 was approved April 13th, 2004 for a water park. On the right, you can see the original site plan showing the footprint of the overall park that was approved with quite a few water amenities as well as some various amenities such as batting cages, golf carts, et cetera, food services, And then the amendment 2502 was recently reviewed by Development Review Committee on January 12th, 2026. Taking a closer look at the site plan, on the left you have the footprint of the entire water park with a red square over the new recreational area. So in the center you can see the new pool as well as a hot tub, and then surrounding it with the dotted squares are new permanent cabanas. Some things to note here, this portion of the site is currently occupied by the public when in operation as a path through to a mini golf site with a cabana, so that will be demolished. Some other things to note, the cabanas on the right side of the plan, those are conditioned to not be permitted until we get a certified arborist report to ensure that construction within the critical root zone of those oak trees is protected and ensures the safety and maintenance of those trees. And then, sorry, one other thing to note, the structure on the bottom of that kind of close-up plan, that is an existing base for a water slide as well as an existing kind of bar and taqueria area. So looking at CEQA, CUP0020 PD00023 was approved with a mitigated negative declaration with initial study that analyzed kit foxes, traffic, air quality, And with that, within kind of the nine-acre portion of the entire 15-acre parcel, this amendment does occur within that nine-acre predeserved area of the site, and it does not increase any environmental impacts to those already analyzed, while also kind of maintaining the character of the site and the existing use. Therefore, pursuant to Guidelines 15.162, it does not require any additional CEQA and environmental review than that done in the original Mitigated Negative Declaration. Looking at conditions for the amendment, some different categories. We, on the existing landscape, on the existing parking lot, we propose that the applicant provide some new landscaping just to revitalize the site a little bit as visible from Airport Road with kind of consistent one crape myrtle tree and six hawthorn shrubs in each existing planter space. This is existing irrigation, so it shall be maintained kind of through the longevity of this site. For the oak trees, as discussed before, when the cabanas located within that critical root zone do get submitted for, it is expected to be accompanied with a certified arborist report to ensure the protection of those trees, as well as during construction of the entire footprint of that new recreation area. It is conditioned to protect and have adequate protection measures just around those trees in general. No construction material, no storage, no drainage of... liquids beneath them, et cetera. And then looking at engineering, did review the project for drainage and storm water, as well as flood control due to the proximity of the Waira Wairo. And that is given it's an amendment in addition to all outstanding and ongoing conditions originally proposed in that CUP 020 and the PD, as well as within that MND. So Planning Commission does have a couple options tonight that I will outline before handing it off to the applicant to give a brief presentation and go into a little bit more technical detail. To approve the project by adopting draft resolution PC26XXX, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. approving the project with modifications by amending and adopting draft resolution bc26 refer the project back to drc or staff for additional analysis or to deny the project by adopting findings of denial staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt the draft resolution 26-xx approving development plan amendment um amendment amd25 Sorry, 25-02, it shouldn't be X's, my apologies, to allow construction of a recreation pool at the Ravine Water Park based on the findings and subjects to the conditions of approval. I will now hand it off to the applicant to give a brief presentation.

Good evening, Chairperson Covarrubias and Commissioners. My name is Ian McCarville. I'm a land use consultant at Kirk Consulting. And tonight I'll be sharing a brief presentation on the proposed Ravine Water Park conditional use permit amendment. First, just as some background, the Ravine Water Park was approved in July 2004 and officially opened in 2007. Since that time, the facility has offered a wide range of water-based amenities, including slides, a wave pool, a lazy river, and dedicated children's play area. In addition, the park provides cabana rentals and food and beverage services and seasonal entertainment such as live music and outdoor games. Over the years, the Ravine Waterpark has continued to evolve with the addition of new rides and amenities, establishing itself as a well-known summertime destination for both local residents and visitors. To continue that evolution and offer fresh experiences to guests, The applicant is proposing a new recreational pool and spa area, along with additional on-site enhancements. In recent years, attendance has experienced a modest year-over-year decline, a trend that is consistent with other long-term operating and maturing parks. The proposed improvements are intended to reinvigorate the overall park experience, encourage repeat visitation, and attract renewed interest from both returning guests and new visitors. Improvements are proposed within a previously disturbed area in the northern portion of the site. Existing conditions include a maintained lawn bordered by DG and concrete walkways, a covered gathering area, outdoor bar, and ornamental landscaping. This project includes a new 50,000-gallon pool, which is approximately 1,800 square feet in area and has a maximum depth of 4 feet, and a 4,000-gallon spa that's approximately 150 square feet and has a maximum depth of 3.5 feet. 13 cabanas are proposed along the perimeter, and as Piper mentioned, we do have five cabanas that are located within the critical root zone of two oak trees. Those cabanas will not be installed until we submit a certified arborist report confirming that the construction of those cabanas will not impact those oak trees. Ultimately, the project will disturb just 0.2 acres and remove approximately 410 square feet of existing lawn. Pool area will be accessible to all guests, but will be designated as a splash-free zone to provide a higher-end guest experience. Additionally, as Piper noted, as a part of this project, we do have a condition of approval to install parking lot landscaping, and that landscaping has been installed as of today. The following slides are just showing some renderings of the project area. So this view highlights two of the new planters where we're going to have two existing palm trees transplanted into on the north side of the site. We also have the existing bar in the background and the proposed cabanas. Here is a similar view, just zoomed out a bit more. You can see the back of the slide and the bar in a greater view. This is looking the opposite direction where we have the additional cabanas and more of the flat work around the pool and spa. And then lastly, just a top-down view of the project area. Ultimately, the project is consistent with the original intent and scope of the approved conditional use permit. is located within a previously disturbed area and within the original entitlement boundary and represents only a modest and thoughtful expansion of the existing aquatic recreation amenities. Additionally, we have received and reviewed public comments submitted ahead of this hearing and have provided written responses to Piper. We would be happy to address any and all of them if the commission is interested. Otherwise, I would respectfully request adoption of the staff recommendation and approve this project. Thank you and we are available for any questions.

Okay, Ian, thank you very much. If you just want to stand by, we'll see if there's any questions from the commissioners. Okay, we'll bring it first to the commissioners for any questions for staff and or the applicant. Looking to my left, Commissioner Roden.

I was at the DRC meeting when this came before us, And I'm sure you're aware since that time we've received a couple of letters from neighbors concerned about some issues. I just don't know whether they are truly issues. So I'd like to get more information from staff and from you if at all possible. And also if this would indeed have a negative influence on the proposed bridge expansion out there. or if it's beyond that area. But what I'm referring to with the letter was that originally the permit, you won't be able to build within 100 feet of the Weral Weral. And the river bottom crossing, was there approval for that and from whom? And concerns of an increase in traffic. How many visitors do you have per day during the summer season?

You know, I'm not too sure off the top of my hand, but we do have the applicant here, and that would probably be something one of them could answer.

Okay. And then the last question would be the discharge of any sort of, whether it's just plain water or effluent of any kind, into the wearer-wearer.

Yeah, so I can answer that one. So there is an existing storm drain that's present on the site. It existed there prior to the development of the original ravine water park. It does discharge storm water. It's permitted to do so with the initial application. As a part of this application, we are not tying into it. We're percolating into the pool by a bubbler system, which essentially sheets out flow in a slower rate, allows it to percolate into the ground. If in the future we would ever want to tie into that existing culvert, we would need to get a permit with the regional water board. But right now we're not proposing to do so.

But you do have the ability to discharge from that?

Yes, it's existing, and it was there beforehand, and the park does discharge to it currently. There was also a comment about just other discharge. I think there was a comment about environmental health coming out. They did come out in summer of last year, inspect the site, and there was no discharge of that claim.

Thank you. Then the building within 100 feet and how many people actually visit during the summer?

Hi, my name is Damian Mavis. I'm one of the applicants. As far as summertime attendance, like a really big day for us is 2,500 to 3,000 people. So that's maximum. And like Ian had said, the point of this is is our attendance has been just modestly eroding over the past few years. And this is just in an effort to boost that attendance. And if we got back to the attendance we experienced several years ago, we'd be quite happy. So we don't see this as increasing over baseline attendance that we've... Do you have sufficient parking for that 2,500? Oh yes, for sure. We have two different parking lots. We have the paved parking lot that's kind of at the upper right-hand corner, and then we have an overflow parking on the other side of the highway that's accessible via a boardwalk that goes under the highway.

And was that boardwalk permitted as well?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, through Caltrans as well.

Caltrans?

Yes. Then you had a question about the bridge, potentially?

The footbridge? Yes. goes across I think there's another parking on the same side as the ravine but it's across the where where oh and there's a footbridge that's been built there yes this was authorized to be installed by the regional water port and there's an email on file with the city authorizing that in 2007

Just to expand, there was a temporary use permit authorized in 2007 to allow one year of temporary parking. My assumption, looking back in the files, it was to accommodate for the occupancy while the permitted parking lot across the 46th was being kind of developed and constructed and thoroughly thought out. And so that TUP to utilize the parking lot across Paso Robles Street sorry, Paso Robles Boulevard, should no longer be in use. However, that footbridge to go across did get permitted by the, got approved by the fishing game and the water quality control board, and there was no conditions found in that one-year temporary use permit to require the removal of that bridge after that temporary use permit expired.

But it's only for one year, and that one year has passed?

Yes, in 2007 to 2008.

So nobody's supposed to be using it?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay. And then the building within 100 feet of the Woro Woro. Is that a valid point or?

we would have to look at the exact distance between the new cabanas and the we're aware Oh just from looking at it visually and having staff review it it did look in line with the existing buildings of the site kind of going from that um what would that be South Southwest up and then determining what that exact distance is from the cabanas

Hi, Commissioner Roden. Leslie Frazier, city engineer. I can also speak from an engineering perspective, that the project would be required to meet FEMA requirements prior to any grading permit. So we would also be evaluating any work within the floodplain. They would be meeting FEMA requirements.

But are there buildings within 100 feet of the where-a-where-a?

I believe this is just for a pool, right? No permanent structures.

You bet.

Hey, Brett, can you do me a favor? Yep. Testing. Yeah. It might be easier...

I'll just say that we were required by the state to fence in underneath our slide towers when we got them approved say your name I'm Brett Butterfield, and I've been out there since the very beginning, so at the ravine. So I did call the city when I did this, asked about fencing, if there was any rules, but we just made our fences facades. So if you look under the slides we had approved on our last project, DOSH asked us to close that in so kids couldn't get underneath there. I have pictures showing some of those, and then there's pictures showing the backside. It's just four by four posts and plywood, and all we did was try to make that look like a little beach town instead of just a solid wood fence.

I just want to make sure that I understand none of what has been built is within 100 feet of the Wero Wero, is that correct?

The slides have got to prove they are.

Pardon?

The big slides, they are. And so are some restrooms. Now, restrooms were built year one. They were approved. No buildings have been.

Everything that's been built, regardless of whether there was a caveat that said you can't build, it's been approved by the city. 100%. 100%.

Is that it? The only thing I know that looks like buildings is the facades.

Could I get confirmation on that statement? That everything that's been built there has been approved?

Yes, we believe the city has permitted everything that's there to date.

Okay. I think that's it. Thank you.

Okay, before we move on, Commissioner Christensen?

I just wanted to have full disclosure. I was contacted by a couple concerned citizens in regards to this topic before this meeting, so I wanted to put that out there as ex parte. Also, I recommended to them that they actually email in to the Planning Commission as the best process to facilitate their concerns. So I want to make sure that that was on record.

Okay. Thank you for that. And I will also reiterate that I was contacted by the same individual, I believe, Um, again, just wanting to express some concerns. And so, um, I recommended the same thing that they go ahead and provide the information and email it to all the commissioners, which they did. So I'll make that note as well. All right. Bringing it back then to the commissioners looking for more comments or questions. Yes, sir.

Thank you, chair. Um, I noticed one of the concerns was a, uh, rapidly decaying area, um, along airport road, the road itself disintegrating. I guess from staff, when does the threshold of improvements require deficiencies in existing facilities to be upgraded?

So typically when projects are built, they're required to do frontage improvements. When this project was approved 20 years ago, minimal frontage improvements were required at that time, which is the existing condition. Currently, Airport Road is in a deteriorated condition, but that's a maintenance issue. So the condition of the pavement actually is the city's responsibility. So we do require projects to improve frontages once they're improved, maintenance. So the current condition of the road is actually the city's responsibility.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Marlowe.

Yeah, I just wanted to, you had said that attendance has been declining, and this is kind of a way to reinvigorate that. So your best years compared to now, I just, is the intent to just get it back to where it was? So from a, just to understand from a traffic and parking and all that stuff, you're not going to end up having more. You're just trying to get back to where you were.

exactly that that's our plan okay yeah that's kind of what i figured so probably no no chance of having more people than have already been supported by the parking and the infrastructure of the previous years right right our post-covid years we had really really high attendance compared to how it is now and compared to before that so those would be kind of our high points and it would be surprising to get back to that level Okay, that's all I had.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Christensen?

I just had a question maybe for the applicant. So you're saying $2,500 to $3,000, but your capacity for the park is not something you're talking about exceeding at any one time. Just for clarification, right? What's the capacity of the park? Do you remember roughly? But I guess the reason I'm asking that is I'm just trying to make it clear that you're not asking to exceed the capacity. You're just saying you want to increase the amount of usership, but the capacity of the park is going to stay the same.

Yeah, the capacity, like this year, we didn't hit any of the numbers Damien said. That was perfect storm back before COVID, right? COVID knocked the wind out of us, and then it's dropped a little since then. You know, there's a few other things that come into play. School year has shortened by two weeks on the time we've been here. We're just trying to stay relevant and stay here. The numbers we were at, you know, before right now, we're fine. We're fine. It's our 20th year. We're still here trying to expand it and make it better. So that formula works. But when you're seeing little declines, that scares me. I mean, that just, we're just trying to be out in front of that and think about how can we just keep offering something better to keep our place alive and fresh.

Sure. And I appreciate that. I just was trying to clarify from the numbers you gave earlier that that doesn't mean you're trying to increase the capacity allowed at one time. So that's all I wanted to ask.

I could count how many times on one hand we hit like those numbers.

Right. Okay. Thank you. Um, I think that's all of my questions right now.

Okay. So I got a question. When does Passerole's Boulevard become a factor? So I believe the ravine needs to use that street to access its boardwalk, if I understand correctly. The maintenance on that road, basically it's down to just dirt now. There's no asphalt. on that road anymore pretty much. Whose responsibility is it to maintain that road, improve that road? Where does that liability lie? And I guess that's a question for staff first.

So Paso Robles Boulevard is an old city street. It is currently basically a gravel road for most of the distance. We don't have any plans currently to pave it. my understanding that the ravine doesn't really utilize it anymore since they built their other parking lot south of 46, and maybe they can explain kind of that secondary parking lot and how much they actually are using Paso Robles Boulevard currently. Yeah, I'd appreciate any feedback on that.

Yeah. So that parking lot was used temporarily, but since the construction of the overflow parking lot along union road and the establishment of the boardwalk under the highway, it doesn't get used anymore. And I think, you know, maybe recently it was used like once and recently would be years ago.

Okay. So the challenge and first and foremost, I liked the project. I have no problems with the added addition. I think it'll be a great enhancement. Um, My concern is that the neighbors in that area are complaining that, in particular, things like Paso Robles Boulevard is in poor shape and it does get utilized. People do park on it before it goes to the overflow. Question for, I guess, the applicant, do you guys monitor the parking on any given day there to ensure that people actually aren't parking on it? Or I guess a question for the staff is, Are people allowed to park on Paso Robles Boulevard? I'd assume it's not a no parking street because it's a city street. It's not a private road. So I'm just wanting to make sure it's clear on what the expectation is.

Yeah, I first think maybe we're getting confused, Rob, a little bit on the boardwalk. What we call the boardwalk is under 46, right? Then we have the walkway we used to have off Pass Robles Boulevard. When we got approved by the city for our parking lot south of 46 there, right, which we're using today, we quit using Pass Robles Boulevard. city said we want to shut that down I said I'd still like to have that for deliveries or I hate to just give it up I have access with my approved boardwalk with my approved walkway to that road I don't I don't need it now the walkway there is six foot wide it's in 12 foot sections our guys can carry it out in pieces but I did use it twice for both events you might know but for people to come bring stuff in walk their stuff across and set up for an event. We don't use it at all. Only the RV park over there, which I don't even believe is a permitted use, uses that road. I've graded that road forever, but we don't use it anymore. I used it two days last year. Our site is weedy. You look at the gates, you look at it all. We have not used that. So if somebody... I think if that road comes back to life and we need to contribute and we can make that good and get our little temporary pathway back, fine. If we never use that again, we're fine. We've moved on to Union Road. Our system works good. It's approved. So we don't need that. And no, we don't use that road. I used that twice last year. It's used every day by the RV park. Got it.

Okay.

I appreciate that. I'm familiar with the guy complaining because he's done this at our last couple events with mostly the same complaints.

Right. But before Commissioner Christians asks this question, my question to, I guess, staff then is, are people allowed to park on that road in general? Is it a no parking restricted parking area or not?

It's a public street. There are no parking restrictions on there. But this is a use that is subject to special regulation. So the commission does have discretion to impose special rules on this project in terms of its use of that road. But for the general public, there's no restrictions on parking on that street. Okay.

Because I think that's one of the challenges that I'm hearing is that obviously people want to park as close as they can, right? And so that's the next best thing other than the parking that's directly adjacent before you go to the overflow. So, and I don't know how many cars could squeeze in there, but I would assume that they do during the summer months when it's peaked, is what I understand. So, Warren, if I'm understanding, we could implement some type of condition where who would be responsible for monitoring that parking and ensuring that public is not parking there? Is that enforceable? Is that even something we can do?

And so the planning commission could put specific conditions on this project about their use of Paso Robles Boulevard. If those become conditions of approval, then city staff, which is, you know, everybody from community development through the police department would be, you know, responsible for enforcing that. So I think it's just a question of whether the commission feels it's necessary to impose any conditions, but you do have that discretion. Okay, I appreciate that clarity.

Commissioner Christensen, do you have a question? Yes, thank you.

Can I just say one thing on that? Oh, go ahead. That gate was never unlocked. I'm sorry? That gate was never unlocked during our open hours. I only let people use that to carry stuff in for two events. But even if they park there, they're not closer. I don't know where they're going to walk. I think somewhere around our perimeter across the river. They've got to get to open gates. That gate was never one time unlocked during our season to the public. Just so you know, we don't use that gate.

Okay. Appreciate that, Brett. Thank you.

Thank you. One follow-up question, Mr. Butterfield, if you have just a second. I had driven down around there, and you referred to an RV park. You were talking about the RVs that are parked down the way, right in the field, that area there. That's not an RV park, right? I mean, that I know of.

There's been RVs there for years. I've heard lots about it.

Okay, but that's on a private property separate from your location as well? Yeah, that's on a private property. Right, okay. I just wanted to clarify that for the record. Thank you. I appreciate that.

Appreciate that. And so the other question I had, and I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. Commissioner Roden addressed it. I saw pictures of buildings and things that look like they are close to the river, riverbed. We're saying that everything that's there has been permitted and it's well within the guidance of what was permitted and allowed. Nothing more has been improved towards infringing unpermitted near the riverbed. Is that what I'm understanding? If I look at some pictures that were provided, it looks like they're well within 100 feet and we're saying that there's not. I just want to make sure there's clarity so that we understand what the current situation is.

So I'm not, staff isn't saying that there might not be something within 100 feet of whatever that boundary is. What we're saying is everything on the site is an existing condition that we believe at some point was permitted by the city.

Okay. Thank you for that, Warren. Commissioner Roden?

I think It was brought up about Airport Road, and Warren, you said that it was city streets, so we're responsible for it. What differentiates a city street's responsibility for repair or upgrades versus not, i.e. Theater Drive? And also, when I built... duplex we had to improve the alley so why are some city streets it's necessary to improve those by the businesses or the owner and others are not

So the first question is, what's a city street versus, say, a private street? So city streets are streets that have been accepted by the city council. So most streets throughout town are city-accepted streets. There are some private streets throughout town that have public access, but the city does not maintain those. In terms of improvements, When development is proposed on private property, there's rules within the municipal code of when you're required to improve your frontage. So your frontage is basically everything to the center line of the street. So it can be paving, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, street trees, all those things are frontage improvements potentially. So there's a valuation trigger. So a very small minor project, like an addition to a house, is exempt from a frontage improvement. A whole new structure that would be subject to doing full frontage improvements. In this case here, like I said, this was all permitted 20 years ago or so, so I'm not sure what the decision was, Whatever they did was what the city required them to do, because it's been completed at this point. So there is a question now with this project, this pool, whether that should trigger additional frontage improvements. We did review that internally at staff. Because this is a fairly small project with a large frontage, and airport road is subject to a lot of ongoing studies. We don't actually know what the design for this road should be at this point. A lot of it will be subject to other proposed development projects and Caltrans encroachment permits that are still kind of in a conceptual level. The decision was made at the staff level that rather than requiring a small frontage improvement that would basically have Marginal value that it would be better just to collect the impact fees and use those impact fees for the larger fix for this area Okay Looking around seeing no other comments by commissioners.

Thank you commissioners I'm going to close this part of it and open it up to the general public So if the public would like to make any comments regarding this matter please step up to the podium state your name ask your question and Seeing none in the audience. Okay. Marcy, any callers?

No, no callers.

No callers. All right. I will then close the public portion of this, bring it back to the commission for further comments, questions, and or emotion. Yes, sir, Commissioner Connolly.

Yeah, I just want to clarify the recommendation. I heard that the second part of the resolution the staff recommends adopting regarding the development plan amendment is AMD25-02 instead of XX. That is correct. So if we make a motion regarding this, it should have that correction.

Yes, that is correct. It's Amendment 25-02. Thank you.

Any other questions, comments? I'll entertain a motion. Commissioner Neal.

I was on DRC when this came through, and to my opinion, it was such a de minimis addition to this whole facility that I didn't think it warranted much of anything other than approval. I think it'll be a nice addition. and so I will be supportive of it tonight. Commissioner Christensen?

I'd like to move to approve this item. I'd like to move to approve the draft resolution PC-26, approving the development plan and amendment AMB-25 to allow construction of the recreation pool area at the Ravine Water Park, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval, including the correction that Commissioner Connolly requested.

I'll second. We've got a first by Commissioner Christensen. We've got a second by Commissioner Roden. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Roden.

Aye.

Commissioner Connolly. Aye. Commissioner Marlowe. Aye. Commissioner Kogler.

Aye.

Commissioner Neal. Aye. Chairperson Kovarubias. Aye. Motion passes 7-0.

Thank you. Before we move on, I have an emergency that I have to go take care of, so I'm going to have to cut out.

So the record will reflect that Commissioner Marlowe left the meeting after item two.

Okay, we'll move on then to item number three, development plan for 24 residential units. Staff presentation, please.

Thank you, Chairperson Covarrubias.

No, that's coming up.

Thank you. So the project is located at 420 Creston Road. So this is on Creston as you're climbing from River Road towards the east. The Planning Commission reviewed and approved a project back in 2020 for this site, and that included 20 residential units. So this is a new project on the same site, and it includes 24 residential units that would be subdivided into condominiums. project includes a development plan for the residential project which does include an affordable housing density bonus it includes a site plan modification to allow a fence that's taller than three feet in the front setback and then it also includes an oak tree removal permit the oak tree removal permit means that the City Council ultimately will have to decide so tonight the Planning Commission will be making a recommendation on the project for the City Council So as I said, this is on Creston Road. The project is in the R2 zoning district. The R2 is a low-density, multifamily zoning district. I will point out that there is kind of an oak woodland and seasonal creek down at the southern edge of the property. A number of design considerations and many of the conditions and so forth refer to that oak woodland and that seasonal creek. The project really does a good job of avoiding impacts to that intact, you know, kind of wild... It's not truly a wildlife corridor, but it does have the ability to have some limited habitat value, whereas the other oak trees on this site really are sparse and affected by drought. So as I said, the project is 24 dwelling units. Each unit is a four-bedroom condominium. They are organized into 12 duplex buildings. So zooming in, I already said that there's an R2 zoning. The site is 4.3 acres in size. The zoning code has language about areas that are not developable and areas that are. So non-developable areas have slopes over 35% or have intact oak woodlands. And so this project, a certain amount of the, about a quarter of the site is excluded from development. So about three acres on the site are actually developable. In that developable area, the average slope is just under 10%. And in the table below, you can see that in the R2 zoning district, oh, in the purple line there is kind of where there's a slope break. So the site is pretty flat from Crested Road to the purple line, and then it really starts to slope down towards that seasonal creek. So in the R2 zoning district, when you've got an average slope of between 5% and 10%, you can place 6.5 density units per acre. So for this site, 20 units are what our local zoning ordinance would allow. As you know, the project is 24 units, and the way that the applicant gets to 24 is that they are including an affordable housing density bonus. So state law and our local ordinance, we've adopted portions of the state law into our local ordinance that we're required to adopt, allows that if a project de-restricts a certain percentage of units for low-income households, they are entitled to density bonuses and then certain concessions from development standards that would make the project more affordable to build. So for a 20-unit project, the applicant has proposed to deed restrict one unit, which is 5% of the project, to a very low-income household for 55 years. That does entitle the applicant to a density bonus of four dwelling units, so we go from 20 to 24, and they also are entitled to one concession. The applicant has requested a concession to not build an onsite playground for a project of this size, our zoning ordinance would typically require an on-site playground to be built for the the residences residents to to utilize and there's that purple line where the grade break is um so the proposed project 24 dwelling units 12 duplex buildings and as i've already said they're four bedroom units and they do have attached two car garages attached to each structure The project does include a tentative track map to create airspace condos, so there would be one lot, and then the applicant would be filing with the Department of Real Estate to have airspace condos, so each tenant space could be sold separately from the others. So jumping in to parking, you can see in the site plan there, like I said, there are covered parking spaces for each unit. The required parking for units of this size is two parking spaces per dwelling unit, which would be 48 parking spaces. And then the code also requires guest parking at a rate of one parking space for every five dwelling units. So that would be five parking spaces in this case. So 53 parking spaces are required. The applicant has provided a site plan that provides 61 parking spaces, 48 of those of course would be in the garages, and then there would be 13 uncovered parking spaces and a shared parking area there at the kind of southwest corner of the project. I do have a number of slides about the elevations. The applicant also has a presentation, so I'm gonna go through these relatively quickly, just to give you a flavor of what the proposed architecture, a mix of both vertical and horizontal siding, nicely sized overhangs for the eaves, as well as window trim. The windows are proposed to be recessed from the adjacent wall, so we'll get some nice shading and some nice dimension. The elevation we're looking at here is only for the first two buildings. Those first two buildings do include front doors that will face Creston Road. This was a discussion that we had at the DRC for those of you who served at the time. The requirement in our code is that buildings that face streets need to have porches and a pedestrian entry, and so the applicant has provided the two buildings closest to Creston Road will have pedestrian porch entries. Here are the colors and materials, white buildings for the most part, but also some painted gray siding as well. So this is the mix of materials. Some of the buildings will have a veneer brick and some will have stone. And then we'll see as I flip through quickly. actually those those slides are going to come in a moment but we'll see the different variation that the buildings have but they are largely the same there's just variation in materials and a few of the treatments we did the Planning Commission made recommendations and the City Council Council adopted objective design standards a few years ago so now multifamily projects have to provide these objective standards The project has to meet all tier one. They have to meet one tier two, two tier three, and one tier four strategy. There is a discussion in the staff report, and we can certainly jump in if there's any question about the project meeting its objective design standards, but they do, in staff's opinion, meet those standards. That's on the table there to the right is where we get to the number of strategies that are required. So now here are the elevations. So these are the front elevations for accepting buildings one and two. So those buildings face Creston Road. The rest of the buildings, as you drive through the driveway, you are going to see the garages, and then the porches are tucked around the side. We'll see those in the side elevation. The front doors are on the sides of the building on left and right. And you can see off to the right, these are all the same buildings with just minor differences, projections or recesses in the building, but very similar. There's two different floor plans, building type one and building type two, but they're also pretty similar. Four bedrooms on the second floor. The first floor has the kind of shared dining and living spaces, and then of course the two-car garage there at the bottom. This is building two, very similar. Building type two, I should say. The project is required to provide open space. The zoning ordinance has a fairly complicated calculation of how open space gets provided, but the summary is that they have to provide 250 square feet of private open space, if that's the only open space that is provided, and the applicant does provide private yards for each unit. As I said earlier, the applicant is asking for a concession for the playground, for a project with 11 to 25 units the zoning ordinance would typically require a playground amenity with at least three pieces of equipment and so the project does not include that playground amenity each building excuse me each unit does have its own private yard and there are conditions of approval that would require pedestrian access to the back area of the lot it is relatively steep it's not a formal area for recreation but it certainly provides an area where kids could potentially run around and have some open space experience. As I said, the project does include a site plan modification to allow a fence slightly taller than what is permitted. The red lines on the site plan are the cedar fence you see at the top. The top right image is the fence that would be around each of the private yards. And then in the front, there would be just over three feet. But what's typically allowed in the front yard is a three foot fence. Proposed is a 42 inch high horizontal fence. between buildings one and two and Creston Road. Quick look at the landscape plan. There are trees and shrubs. The landscape plan is showing what would be proposed in the shared open spaces. There is more landscaping towards the front of the project at Creston Road, but the additional shared areas also have landscaping. The green circles that you see are oak tree replacements. A number of them are proposed at the rear of the lot in that kind of open space area. And then we do also have oak trees scattered throughout the project to make... to work towards the oak tree mitigation required for the project here's a detail of the landscape um and you know i'm going to go back one to point out when the previous project came through the planning commission we did have a neighbor to the north of the project lives out a dirt driveway just to the excuse me that would be to the east and and they were concerned about new new folks moving in and destroying their privacy so you see at the eastern property line there is a privacy hedge In the landscape plant selections, there are oleanders shown there. So obviously, oleanders can get big and do a good job of screening and providing. Right now, those folks, even though they live close to Creston Road, have quite a bit of privacy. So the project would provide similar privacy with that landscaping. This is the detail of the front. It shows us where the street trees are proposed and some of the landscape materials. Top right in the landscape materials is that oleander I mentioned. I don't have much to say about the solid waste enclosure, except that every time I don't have a slide, oh, I get questions if I provided that slide. There are two solid waste enclosures. They're pretty nondescript. They've got split-face block and a metal roof. They'll get the job done, but they are not overly ornate, but not too close to Creston Road, so they won't be very visible from off-site. jumping into oak trees now there are ten oak trees proposed for removal the previous project had a nine of these trees were previously approved for removal by the City Council at the time tree number six which is that really large circle there at the bottom is was going to be maintained. Unfortunately, this tree was damaged quite a bit by the 2020 river fire. I don't know how many folks remember during COVID, there was a fire that broke out in the river and then headed up Creston Road, actually burned the building. Actually, in the bottom left corner, there's a white block and it says it's not a part of this project. A house right there was burned, you know, completely destroyed. So tree six was also damaged. I've got some images. So all of the trees on the site that are at the upper part are proposed for removal. None are in particularly good condition. A lot of drought stress. We'll look at some images. So these trees are along Creston Road. They're actually going to be in the way for the driveway. And then if any sidewalk improvements are required, not sure the quality of that sidewalk there. These trees are gonna be in the way of those improvements. Trees four and five, one grew in a fence that was between the house that burned down and a house that was demolished a few years ago. And tree five, also a lot of drought stress, not a specimen tree by any means. Trees 7 to 10, they are towards the rear of the lot. Potentially would have been candidates for being saved, but the site is rather large, but not that much of the site can be used. As I said, only about 75% of the site is developable. These trees really made it impossible to get to max density, and they also have drought stress as well. Finally, tree number six, this is the tree that the previous project had retained. We went to visit because we didn't know the status, and from approaching the tree from the south, we couldn't understand why the tree was gonna be removed. It looked beautiful, really lush, new growth, but when we walked around to the other side, there's quite a bit of fire scarring, and then some pruning had to occur so that anyone under the tree wouldn't be in danger of falling limbs. And so there's just sucker growth all up and down the limb. So unfortunately, this really just isn't a tree that should be saved at this point. Unfortunate, because it was quite a lovely tree. The Oak Tree Preservation Ordinance, there's some standards that the City Council ultimately will have to review. And one of the main reasons that you can remove trees is to allow reasonable use of the property. And the applicant is maintaining all of the oak trees at the rear of the property Those are a more consistent, more maintainable oak woodland and will not suffer any impacts from this project. So now jumping into findings, there as always are quite a few. The development plan findings are largely about finding that the project is consistent with all of our plans, our general plan, our zoning ordinance, any applicable specific plan, which in this case there are not any applicable specific plans. Essentially, you're finding that the project is compatible with Paso Robles and that it's safe for the neighborhood. you are making a modification. The modification findings are really about making sure that we aren't approving any exceptions to our code that we couldn't find some alternative way to accomplish what the applicant would like to accomplish without having impacts on neighbors. In this case, we're going from a 36-inch tall fence to a 42-inch tall fence, so it's a relatively minor request. And the The analysis indicates that the modification will not impair site distance of vehicles entering or leaving the site. As I said, the oak tree removal, there are considerations. The condition of the oak trees is part of the consideration, whether or not there's reasonable use of the property if the oaks are allowed to stay. The topography of the land and how the tree removals will impact erosion and surface water flow. And then you're meant to consider how many trees are on the site. And if we remove these trees, does it leave other trees on the property then of course good forestry practices are also to be taken into consideration finally there is oh and i didn't put them on there but you also are making findings related to the track map and making sure that the uh that the map uh is consistent with our subdivision ordinance and um again consistent with our general plan and uh other other standards that we have in the city The project is exempt from CEQA as a class 32 categorical exemption. That's an exemption that's available for infill development. An infill development to be eligible has to be on a site less than five acres in size. It has to be substantially surrounded by other urban development. It can't have any impacts on things like traffic or I should say vehicle miles traveled on our infrastructure and so forth. So there is a notice of exemption that's included in the draft resolution explaining why this project meets the requirements for a class 32 exemption. So staff is recommending Planning Commission make that finding. there are a number of conditions on this project the first few that are really substantive have to do with the affordability the conditions would require agreements be recorded and signed and recorded related to that density bonus and we'd have an agreement to make sure that you know in in exchange for the for the city providing the density bonus and the concession the applicant will perform and provide that affordable unit there are some design requirements that the affordable unit has to be the same size as the market rate units has to be of comparable quality and the affordable unit also if it's if the other units on the on the property are for sale the affordable unit would also need to be a for sale unit condition number 15 said that the affordable unit has to receive occupancy as the tenth unit the reason for that timing is that once you have 11 units on a site that the playground would be required and so this would ensure that the applicant doesn't receive units beyond we don't have that affordable unit record the deed restrictions are recorded we would no longer give that density bonus and so anyway that that's the reason for that timing is because of the playground requirement There are some requirements for what should go into the CC&Rs. They would include ongoing access for all of the residents in the project to be able to go into that open space area at the rear, consistent fencing and an ongoing basis. The fences in the front of the project, between buildings one and two, and the sidewalk need to stay at that low level, and then the maintenance of all the landscaping on the site. The HOA will be responsible for the landscaping outside of the private yards. We've gone over many of these. Again, that pedestrian walkway, timing for planting of street trees and shade trees in the parking area. Of course, the applicant will need to complete oak tree mitigation. Conditions 26 to 28 were related to the objective design standards, making sure we gave the eaves of the size that was promised and trim and so forth. And then condition 29 requires a pedestrian walkway, a sidewalk, from the sidewalk of Creston Road to the front doors of buildings one and two. Screening required, curb around the driveway and parking areas, and then condition number 32, the previous project that went to city council a few years ago, when staff brought the resolution, there was a requirement that the existing utilities running along Creston Road would be undergrounded. The City Council actually waived that requirement with the previous project. Staff is not recommending anything in contradiction to what the City Council has already approved on this site, the oak tree removals that were previously approved, and the undergrounding of the utilities. There is a condition of approval number 32 that I copied and pasted from the previous approval that would require this project to install conduit only so that in the future, if there is some other undergrounding effort, it would be simpler to run the utilities underground. And then the applicant would not be able to protest any future formation of an undergrounding district should one happen to be formed. So that is a condition that is a holdover from the previous project. I believe that is the last condition I'm going to mention. So as always, the Planning Commission does have options. The first would be to recommend that the City Council approve the project by adopting the draft resolution. If the Planning Commission would like to make modifications to the conditions of approval or anything else in the resolution, you could do so, and then still recommend approval to the City Council. If you feel you need more information, you could refer the project back to the DRC or to staff and we could bring it back to you with some additional information. Or you could deny the project by adopting findings of denial. Staff is recommending that you approve the project So you'd be approving Development Plan 2407, the site plan modification, the oak tree removal permit, and the tentative track map by adopting the draft resolution. And that would be based on all the findings we've discussed and subject to the conditions of approval. And I believe that concludes staff's report.

Thank you for that. You mentioned the applicant. Did the applicant have a presentation they wanted to provide?

They do.

Okay.

All right, can everybody hear me?

Yep.

All right, good evening. My name is Rebecca Newman. I'm with ARIS Studio Architects, and I'm representing the applicant. First, I'd just like to thank Chairperson Covarrubias and commissioners for the opportunity to present tonight, and thank you to Katie and staff. We've worked for the better part, worked together with staff for the better part of a year to bring this project forward, to you this evening, and I think we've come a long way. Now, I do have to apologize in advance for a lot of duplicate slides. Katie covered pretty much everything, and it's a pretty straightforward project, so I'm gonna try to move through efficiently, not to waste anybody's time. And of course, I'm available for questions at the end. And I do wanna say that we have read through the conditions of approval, And I do have a couple of requests to amend a few of the conditions that I'll touch at the end. All right. So we are proposing 24 two-story townhomes. There are 12 duplex buildings. Each townhome is approximately 2,000 square feet, four bedrooms with two and a half baths. Each have attached two car garages, and the site together has surface guest parking and spacious private yards. One of the elements that we worked really closely with staff on, and I think we really came to a good solution, was the pedestrian-facing architecture along Creston Road. And this included providing those covered front porches off of Creston, the low fences and walkways from Creston Road. And this really helped to bring more thought and care to the project and making it more of a pedestrian experience. So you can see here the snips on the right there. We have those front porches that Katie showed us and then I also have a little plan view there, so you can see the depth of those, they're covered, they have like a little privacy screen between them, and then our 42 inch high horizontal fence. I would like to point out that in the slide, and this was mentioned at DRC, our six foot fences that are around the rest of the yards, those would also be horizontal slots to match. I think the slide showed it as one of our original concepts, which was the vertical dog-eared. And same slide you saw earlier. We've got the layout for the townhomes. We have two different floor plans. The only difference between them is just the orientation of the bedrooms on the second floor. Both versions are four-bedroom units, but depending on where the views are, the master switches to be over the garage. And, again, 2,000 square feet of living space, four bedrooms, two and a half bath, two-car garage, and an open living room concept. This is just one of the elevation schemes. Each building type has two elevation schemes along with two different... material types so within the 12 buildings there's quite a bit of variation in the project and the architecture is more of like a farmhouse craftsman style we do have the recess windows with the decorative trim large eaves with decorative corbels a variety of materials and then we have added some additional articulation at the street facing elevations which was done in response to some comments that we received at the DRC Here's the slide for our materials. We have both the horizontal siding and a board and batten vertical siding. There's two color palettes. Both are very complementary to each other. And then we also have a stone base, which can either be brick or like a river stone. As discussed, we are proposing the removal of 10 existing oak trees the majority of which are in poor very poor condition and in we are replacing those with 29 replacement oak trees that will be distributed throughout the site and irrigated and Katie mentioned it and it's worth mentioning again that at the very south end of the site and This slide doesn't show the whole extent, but there is a very large wooded area that will remain untouched and as conditioned, it will be available for the residents to go and enjoy. And that's the end of the presentation. I did just want to touch real quickly on a couple of our requests for the adjustments in the conditions. Condition number 52, and I'm sorry, I don't have that to pull up. I have the verbiage here. So I had mentioned that we've worked really closely with staff. Oh, there we go. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah, that's the perfect slide. And we understand, like we've had a traffic study done, and one of the results of the traffic study was just making sure that there's adequate site distance for people coming in and leaving the site to be able to make those safe maneuvers and so as a part of the conditions we fully acknowledge that we will need to have that design vetted approved prior to the issuance of any permits the requests that i'm making this evening it's the It's in the third line. It says, the public improvements for site distance shall be fully constructed prior to building permit issuance. The request that I'm making is that the public improvements for site distance be approved versus being constructed prior to building permit issuance. Reasoning for this is I believe that if we had to build the public improvements before getting permit issuance, it would ultimately extend the construction timeline, and then there are times when the public improvements are done towards the end so they're not damaged. So I don't know how the construction sequencing is going to go, but that's the request that I'm making this evening, is that we just have the approval before being able to pull our permits. And the second one is on the same slide. This condition reads that the applicant shall design and construct continuous, safe, and ADA compliant pedestrian circulation within the site, including clearly defined pedestrian pathways connecting buildings, parking areas, open spaces, and site access points. We will certainly provide safe pedestrian circulation within the site, however, This project is not required to be ADA compliant in terms of the, for the building code. So, and it would also, you know, it could be impractical on the site to be able to provide those accessible paths to the public way. So, because this project is not required to comply with the California Building Code, Chapter 11A, we would like to omit that language. just the ADA compliant and continuous. We are providing sidewalks. They don't all connect. We can go back to the site plan, but those are the modifications that I'm requesting. And that's really it.

Thank you, Rebecca. Okay, you might want to stay close just in case. All right, we'll bring it to the commissioners for questions, comments. Looking over here. Go ahead, Mr. Conley.

Just curious, I guess, first to staff, one of the concessions is the playground be omitted as a requirement as one of the concessions. And so I guess just as a matter of questioning on that, when does a concession become critical or non-critical? I'm sure there's other concessions that could be considered. I know this is a fairly minor concession. It's also a minor cost, three pieces of equipment. So that's kind of introducing the question. And then a second question would be where would be the nearest playground for someone to play if they don't have a playground here?

Sure, so the project is relatively near Centennial Park. Obviously, they would be walking. It's a trek. I think there were some distances given to schools in the resolution, but I don't know the number exactly. So probably Centennial Park and then Downtown Park are probably gonna be the closest. This is near the Salinas River, the trail along the river. But you're correct, there aren't playgrounds immediately adjacent to the project. As to concessions associated with the affordable density bonus, we do have a member of the legal staff online, Michael, with BBK, but I will tell you what I know about affordable housing density bonuses is the courts have been very differential to the applicant and not to the city. so that if an applicant requests a concession, it would be the onus of determining that it doesn't meet the requirements of state law is on the city to determine, and it is a high bar.

I just don't know if there's a way to measure how critical a concession is versus, I mean, when does a concession be so critical that it's not considered anymore? I'm not saying this is that case, but is there a way to evaluate them?

Michael, do you want to, please?

Yes, of course. Hi. I can help answer that question. It's essentially a threshold question rather than a critical question. It basically is whether the applicant reaches the threshold of the number of units that are set aside for affordability. And if they meet that threshold, then there are certain number of concessions. You know, it increases the greater the proportion, the greater the percentage of units that are set aside for affordability. In this case, the applicant has set aside 5% for very low income households. And so under state law, they are entitled to one incentive or concession for project and all second staff in that state law defers to the applicant in requesting the concession.

Okay, thank you. As a follow-up to that, I noticed some of the area you've mentioned, there's a nice wooded area, open space area. It's, I think, less than 10%. The cost of providing a playground and three equipment in that area would not be significant, I would guess, but I don't want to belabor the point, but... If you're given a concession, it must be a cost savings to the applicant, and it doesn't seem like providing three pieces of equipment in a little small area would be that costly. So I don't know if you or our applicant can respond to that.

Much of the back of the lot, the part that's undevelopable, has a slope over 35%. So in order to put a formal path down there, you've got to get a sidewalk that... that meets grades and then you've gotta create some sort of pad that would allow that. So I think there's a lot more construction costs involved.

Okay, there is cost, okay. As just a, I guess a curiosity question, on tree number four, which side of the property line is that? Would that be the applicant's responsibility or the other property owner's responsibility for that on the fence?

So that was a question, and the arborist report calls for four and five to be removed. The applicant will have to get permission from the neighbor. I believe the trees are on the property line, or they might even be over. So in order to remove those trees, they would need permission from the neighbor.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Connolly. Commissioner Roden?

Yeah, just a couple of questions. I noticed with a couple of letters... they were referencing living on Farrow Lane and Elm Court. Elm Court is across the street. Farrow Lane is up the road just a little bit. Can you even see this project from Farrow Lane?

So I've got Farrow Lane labeled there. It's not a cul-de-sac, but it's a loop road to the east of the project. So there is a small dirt driveway between the project and Farrell Lane, but it's the next street to the east.

All right. I think they brought up a couple of things, or they both brought up traffic. We just installed two stoplights there on Creston Road up from where this project is. Are there going to be some issues with having 24 four-bedroom units with traffic coming out on to Creston Road of people wanting to turn left and go ahead.

We've got our city engineering team here and I'd rather they...

Regarding traffic, the applicant did provide a traffic study by their traffic engineer. The traffic study was also reviewed by the city's traffic consultant as well. The traffic study analyzed average daily trips. It also took into consideration a.m. and p.m. peak hour trips as well as vehicle miles traveled. Collision history was also considered in the traffic report as well. And our city traffic consultant concurred with the consultant's traffic engineer that there were no thresholds that would be required for that. I didn't know if the applicant had additional information to share about the specifics. Or Dante, did you have additional information to share about the specifics? Go ahead.

Commissioner Roden, I'd just say that we have a two-way left turn lane there, so any folks needing to make a left turn, they're able to get into that middle lane and then merge into traffic safely. And then additionally, if people are coming westbound on Creston, they could get in that left turn pocket, get out of the way, and make their left into the project site. So we aren't imposing any restrictions on left turns here because we have that two-way left turn lane. And the only kind of traffic outcome was the site distance was kind of a little poor, but could be fixed along the right of way, which led to that condition 52. That was part of the project, so yeah.

And one last question. I think the applicant... You okay? The applicant talked about there were no ADA requirements. Are you referencing handicap spaces for parking?

Because of the project type where these are duplexes, they are not covered under the Chapter 11A of the California Building Code, and so we are not required to provide any accessible guest parking spaces.

and there are no accessibility requirements on the site. I appreciate the extra parking that you've put in there, but personally I'd feel better with at least a couple of handicapped spaces if that could be arranged because that's kind of difficult. But I don't know if that opens up other things that you have to do and that you don't have to do any of them if you don't have the parking places, so.

it would open up a little bit of a can of worms.

Yeah, ADA parking is ultimately a civil rights issue, and if it doesn't apply to a site, the city's not in a position to require that. So we would, I think, agree with the architect that we don't want to add a condition that doesn't apply to a site legally.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Roden.

Commissioner Gogler?

Thank you, Chair. I have a question that's kind of similar to Mr. Connolly's. It was on my list as well. I want to approach it from a different angle. I certainly understand the density that the city has no ability to really comment negatively on the 24 units. And I've learned, I think, by listening to the city attorney, that there's not much discretion, perhaps, on the incentives also. So attacking it from the other side, I'm going to ask the applicant, did you consider any other incentives or would you consider any other incentives? Because A project of this nature with four bedroom units just really is screaming for some play area for the children to be present.

Certainly. And our goal was to provide large backyards. And so we've seen, you know, several instances where a playground that's a part of a development is not used as much as having your own backyard. And so we put the time and the design was concentrated around having the larger backyards. Really.

So the answer would be no other incentives were considered in lieu of the playground?

That's correct. I mean the planning requirements for a project of this size was to have the playground, and so we did look at options for being able to include the playground. It significantly impacted the size of the yards, but as well as the density at which we could actually provide the housing.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Neal?

I have a question for staff. I was wondering on the deed-restricted very low-income Is there a restriction in the deed that allows or requires the HOA fee and or condo fee to be indexed in any way? Because sometimes that could make something less affordable in the future.

I believe the calculation for how much can be charged does include those kinds of things. Michael, I'd be very happy if you could chime in, but I believe it does get factored in into how much can be charged.

Yes, I would second that. That's my understanding as well.

Answer your question, Mr. Neal?

I would have preferred a more definitive answer, but if there's potentially a way that we could address that, that the deed-restricted unit has a cap on its... escalation for its HOA fee or something of that nature, it would be nice to see that, to keep that house affordable in the future.

So the county public, sorry, everyone was cheering for me all of a sudden. The county publishes the rates at which it could be charged for housing, and I've never been involved with calculating how that all goes, but there are The fine print includes the cost of utilities, HOA fees. Those kinds of things do get factored in as a part of how the county determines how much can be charged in comparison to how large the unit is, how large the household is, how much income the household makes.

So we typically approve low or very low income as apartments or rentals. at which that is addressed. But I just want to make sure that in the future we don't make this less affordable by having a larger condo or HOA fee. That's it for me.

Thank you, Commissioner Neal. Commissioner Christensen.

Thank you. I was hoping to get a clarification, and this is going to factor in, in my opinion, too. affordability financially. Are we classifying them as condos or are we gonna be classifying them as townhomes? Because I've heard both terms tossed around and I wanna get a clarification on that.

Yeah, so I would say that townhouse is sort of an architectural term of, you know, a term of art. Like, that's just, you know, how they look, what it looks like. Legally, these would be condominiums. There's a condo map involved, a tentative track map that will allow the applicant to, you know, to put condo airspace units over these lots and sell them individually.

Okay. And I understand that it's a condo map, but you understand my clarification. For example, Sierra Bonita is not, you know, those are duplex. We keep referring back to duplexes. And those are similar duplex style townhouses. The reason I bring that up is because for financing, it's very important clarification for ownership. And that brings me to the next question to the applicant. Is there an intention to sell these Or is there an intent to rent these? And this is, I'm happy that we're getting some more housing, especially with four bedrooms. I think that's sorely needed. Hopefully they're gonna be at a price point that makes that affordable, not just for the low income, but overall. Can you answer to that a little bit?

Yes, these are for sale.

I'm sorry?

They're for sale.

So they will be for sale? Okay, all right, that's promising. Again, I think it's important on how we classify those because I'll tell you right now, just noting a classification as a condo, even though it's a condo project, can change the way the financeability is on that property. So I just want to make sure that's understood. So thank you, and I appreciate that.

Thank you, Commissioner Christensen. Just looking over my questions, it looks like most have been answered except one maybe. So looking at this picture here, Rebecca, this is for you. I understand that it's about a 35-degree slope heading down towards the riverbed down there. The access down to that area, is it only limited to those units that are going to be facing or backing against that, or is there going to be paths that will lead all the way through that area?

there is a path um i'm sorry um the units that kind of are at the the angle there thank you katie so there is a access path there that uh as conditioned will be available for the residents to go into this area okay and there is nothing that's going to restrict them access to any part of that sloped area down at the bottom yeah um per the conditions that would be correct

Okay, okay, let me make sure I had my other question. Commissioner Kogler.

Thank you, one more quick question. We talked about, it was pointed out by the applicant that they're seeking a modification of conditions 52 and 53 when we get to that point. I'm just curious from an engineering perspective on 52, the request to take out fully constructed and make it fully approved. Seemingly we've answered the question on 53 because it's a civil rights issue.

So for condition 52, this is more of a timing issue. The city's traffic consultant has indicated there is a site distance issue at the location of the proposed driveway, the applicant, the owner, they agree with that. So we agree there's a site distance issue that needs to be remedied. This is really a discrepancy about the timing of when that improvement needs to be made. The condition was written and it's my recommendation that the site distance is remedied at the time of building permit issuance. So the improvement needs to be made so the proposed driveway is safe. I understand the applicant's concern of timing of construction. However, city staff has already met out on site with engineers and we've provided the information that's needed. You know, once the project meets all the planning and entitlement requirements, they are encouraged to submit the public improvement plan. to construct those improvements. We think that they can be constructed well before building permit issuance, whereas my concern is if we allow building permit issuance, the improvement hasn't been constructed, owners buy the condo or town homes, they're ready to move in and the improvement hasn't been constructed, therefore we have an unsafe driveway. it won't be safe, the site distance can't be met, and staff will really be pushed to issue that certificate of occupancy in an unsafe condition. So I propose and I recommend that we leave the condition as written, that the improvement's constructed by building permit issuance.

Thank you for the clarification.

Commissioner Neal?

This is for you again, sorry. If we were to tie it to a CFO for the first unit, Wouldn't that do the same thing?

Again, many times staff is very much pushed in those situations to continue to extend it. So our preference and our recommendation is that we tie it to building permit issuance.

Thank you, Commissioner Earl. Any other questions, comments?

Okay, we're going to bring it then to the public. If the public has any questions or comments, please state your name.

I just have a couple questions. Your name, please. Linda George, 3126 Spring Street. The ADA issue, if that is a civil rights issue, then when would one approach that? Let's say somebody moves there, lives there, becomes disabled, in a wheelchair, needs handicapped parking. Is that then a city issue, or is it just with the company? My second question that I'm confused about now is if these are for sale, then how do they get the density bonus for a low-income unit? Is that a rental? And if that is going to be for sale also, then my follow-up question would be, would it be at a lower rate of sale compared to the normal rate. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the audience? Okay. Closing the public portion out here. Marcy, any callers?

No callers.

Okay. We'll go ahead and close the public portion, but we will address Mrs. George's questions. Warren, any or

Yeah, in terms of when ADA requires, because this is civil rights, it goes back to definition. Public accommodations is the trigger for providing access to the public. So commercial buildings, public buildings, these are considered public accommodations. They have to be fully accessible to all disabled individuals. Multifamily projects, apartments of certain sizes qualify also. Single family is exempt from it. It's not a public accommodation. accommodation it's private and therefore this doesn't isn't a trigger now there's a threshold you know between single family and apartments where it kicks in these duplex like condos fall more are considered basically you know attached single family therefore not a public accommodation therefore not subject to ada and then ada then you know California has its own disability guidelines that are built into our building code, but they basically follow ADA, and that's how we get to the determination project by project, whether it's going to be required to be accessible to the public or not. So this one, not required. Not required, okay.

Thank you for that clarification, and then there was one other comment regarding the low density bonus.

Yeah, so affordability, Density bonus can apply to both a rental project or a for sale project. San Luis Obispo County publishes the threshold for both monthly rentals for affordable for different categories as well as maximum sales prices. So there's a table. So both a rental project and a single family project can qualify as affordable for density bonus. So because this is a for sale product, when it is sold and the deed restriction will require that it be sold for the price, you know, at that time as published by San Luis Obispo County, there'll also be a deed restriction that resale and future buyers for, I believe it's usually a 30 year term. It may be longer based on the state requirements, all those additional sale points also have to follow those same standards at the time of sale. Got it.

Okay, thank you for that. Okay, we'll bring it back to the commission for any other comments, questions, a motion. Before we do that, I did have a clarification question real fast that I just thought of. So this project, and I guess this can be for staff, is a for sale project. Are there any restrictions or is it even feasible to restrict an investor from coming in and purchasing a number of these units for intent to rent? Is there any way that that is, I know it's happening already, so I'm just curious, does that pose a problem or a challenge or does that change anything as far as the scope of the project? There's nothing limiting an investor from coming in and buying a couple of these units, turning them around and renting them. Is that accurate? That's correct, and the city has no policy direction to restrict something like that. We have no legality method of restricting anything. My concern is that that is a possibility, and then there goes the affordable aspect of it, because now the rent... No.

Okay. So there's only, I think, the single unit that's affordable. So whoever buys it has to qualify under the income categories. So an investor wouldn't qualify. But if that person buys it and then decides to rent it, they can only rent it for that maximum rental. So that deed-restricted affordable unit, no matter what you do, can only sell or rent... under those affordable categories. All the rest of the units are all market rate. They can be purchased by whoever, and they can be rented or sold for whatever the market will bear, basically.

Okay. Okay. Any other questions, comments, or I will take a motion.

Mr. Chairman, if we could get a visual assist right there. There we go. I would move that staff recommend that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve Development Plan 2407, Site Plan Modification 2509, Oak Tree Removal Permit 2504, and Tentative Track Map 3254 by adopting Draft Resolution PC26-Numbers to be inserted based on findings subject to conditions of approval. And furthermore, that in Exhibit A under Item Number 5, 53, the words and ADA compliant be struck from that condition so that we read applicant shall design and construct continuous safe pedestrian circulation within the project site. Well said.

I'll second that. We've got a first by Commissioner Kogler. I'm sorry, a first by Commissioner, yes, Kogler, and a second by Commissioner Connolly. Roll call, please. Oh, do we have a question?

Yeah, I would just like to propose amendment to adjust the site distance and planned driveway to change that to prior to the first certificate of occupancy, if that is acceptable to the motion maker and seconder.

Mr. Kogler?

have to ponder that a little bit more truthfully i think in this particular case i'm going to go with the city engineer's recommendation and leave that language in place a point of discussion on that i think that there could be a condition where prior to the water or the utilities being activated that this condition could be met the site distance could be this condition number 52 could be delayed to a point that would make utilities not available unless that site distance is provided and i don't know if that's the same thing that joel's asking but i would think the city would have a certain control of at least the water and would not be able to if the condition of site distance were not made for the driveways, would withhold approval of utilities being approved until site distance is met. I don't know if that's a possible condition, but it would seem that the applicant has a concern about concrete being damaged or facilities being damaged and the order of work that things are being done, that maybe this delayed condition should be considered. So just a point of discussion that maybe Commissioner Neal has a point that we should delay to accommodate construction without damage to the facilities that would allow for that site distance.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Koebler?

I guess I'm going to ask the city engineer once again to provide a little backup comment. It sounds like there were a lot of eyes on the site, and it sounds like there was perhaps more concern than typical for the site distance situation, so I'm curious, would the withholding of the requirement, rather, that the utilities be fully in place be a trigger, or would an occupancy permit, as you talked about, I think, before be a trigger, or leave it where it is? Could you please opine on those three options?

staff's recommendation is still to hold it to building permit issuance also keep in mind that there will be could possibly be construction equipment as well using the driveway so there's a curvature in the road at Creston Road that is quite concerning we spent several months with the city's traffic consultant evaluating the site distance almost to the point that we felt that The driveway may have to be restricted to left turn in, you know, restrict the left turn lanes. We felt that the site distance was an adequate compromise to provide the adequate site distance to allow full access of the driveway. But this was quite a concern throughout the entitlement process.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would leave my motion as is.

As is. Commissioner Christensen, is there a question?

Yeah, I appreciate the staff's comments on that, and I would agree with Kogler. I would accept it the way that it currently is.

Okay, so we've got a motion still unchanged. Commissioner Connolly, any change?

I will accept that, that it remain the same conditions.

Okay, then we have a motion, and we have a seconded. Commissioner Connolly, Commissioner Kogler. Roll call.

Commissioner Kogler.

Aye.

Commissioner Connolly? Aye. Commissioner Roden?

Aye.

Commissioner Neal?

Aye.

Commissioner Christensen?

Aye.

Chairperson Kovarubias? Aye. Motion passes 6-0.

Okay, moving on to item number four, zoning amendment to allow commercial cannabis delivery offices. Katie, staff report.

Thank you again, Chairperson Kovarubias. So as the title of the item indicates, this is a zoning amendment to the zoning code, which passed Robles Municipal Code Chapter 21.60, which is titled Cannabis. So currently in the city, actually... Cannabis regulation has a long history. The largest changes in California started in about 2016 when Prop 64 legalized adult use marijuana. At that time, the personal use of marijuana was legalized and any commercial use was basically sent back to the cities under zoning. So each city could decide for itself. Do you want to allow delivery offices? Do you want to have dispensaries? Do you want to allow cultivation in your community? And so cannabis became a zoning issue in 2016. There's an even longer list of steps that the city has taken up to this point in the staff report, but culminating last August, the city council directed staff to bring an ordinance to allow existing medical cannabis delivery businesses to deliver adult use cannabis as well. One of the changes that has happened in this 10 years essentially is that the state now allows, if a cannabis delivery office or a non-storefront cannabis business is located in a different city, they can make deliveries into Paso Robles. So if there's a delivery office in Atascadero or San Luis Obispo or in King City, and that delivery office is able to deliver cannabis, commercial or adult use cannabis, they can come make deliveries in Paso Robles. The delivery offices that are currently located in Paso Robles are only permitted to deliver medicinal marijuana to cannabis. And so there's a disparity between the folks who have local businesses compared to those who have a physical location outside of the city drive into the city to make deliveries. So the council directed last August that an ordinance be brought to allow our existing delivery businesses to also deliver adult-use cannabis. Currently, our cannabis regulations allow those delivery offices to be located in the Riverside Corridor, which is the lavender area along Riverside Drive. and then in the commercial light industrial zoning district, which is the C3 zone, primarily located around the intersection of Golden Hill and Highway 46 East. So these are the two areas where it's been possible to get a CUP for a medicinal delivery office. The Planning Commission has approved two CUPs for cannabis delivery offices over the years, the Yellow Star and the Blue Star, where we have existing cannabis businesses. The first was issued to Dubs, that Orange Star. They were the first CUP issued. And then a business at the Blue Star was Kinfolk Holistics. They've never, as far as I'm aware, opened their doors, but they do have a conditional use permit at those two locations. This map was included in your staff report. It also shows the same zoning districts, the C3 and the RSC zoning districts, but it also maps out what are quote-unquote sensitive properties. They include schools, daycares, and parks. And then the red line around those is a 600-foot buffer. And as we jump in, we'll see that the standards include that buffer. And so in addition to the zoning districts, you also can't place one of these delivery offices within any of those red circles. Oh, and I forgot I have a zoom in. Because you can only go into the Riverside Quarter and the C3, this just gives you a closer look. I probably should have put this as one of the first slides, because I think, you know, I've referred to adult use cannabis in multiple ways already in this report. Sometimes adult use cannabis is referred to as recreational cannabis or commercial cannabis, and it is in contrast to medicinal cannabis, so medicinal cannabis has to, the patient accessing medicinal cannabis has to have a physician's recommendation, whereas adult-use cannabis is more recreational, but the official term is adult-use cannabis, as it's used in the proposed amendment to the zoning code. In addition, another important definition is the non-storefront retail. retail or non-storefront retailer these are these delivery offices it is not a dispensary that's not what's being considered this evening you don't go to this business to make a purchase you call the business or make an online order and the order is delivered to a different location typically at your home so those are two very important definitions to consider as we have our discussion this evening The zoning amendment, there are a lot of track changes in the amendment. They are largely to change definitions, to change the order of how the ordinance reads, but the substantive changes, the first would be the main one, which is to allow up to three non-storefront retail businesses these delivery offices that would allow deliveries of both medicinal and adult-use cannabis. So both medicinal and recreational cannabis, those conditional-use permits could allow both or either. Of course, conditional-use permits are under the purview of the Planning Commission, so if we received additional applications in the future, those would come to the Planning Commission for approval. the zoning amendment also would include a 600 foot separation we saw the map of properties that would be impacted today there is a separation requirement to schools and daycare centers and youth centers this would add that separation requirement to public parks and and city-owned parks. The planning staff is recommending additional limitations on signage. The proposed amendments would restrict on-site signage to no more than 20 square feet for all signs that are proposed on the site. It would also preclude the use of any highway-oriented sign or off-premise sign like a billboard or any other off off-premise sign. So the delivery office could have some limited on-site signage. The language does also allow the planning commission through the approval of the conditional use permit to put additional restrictions on signage. The police department requested an amendment that would allow them right of entry. The Department of Cannabis Control has extensive rights of entry to cannabis-related businesses, and this amendment would allow our police department that same access. I believe it's without warrant. And then, as I said, there are a number of definition changes, terms, references to state law, reorganizations, but the first four bullets really are the substantive changes that are for your consideration this evening. The project is not considered a project. The application is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act. The city attorney has provided us language. A project per CEQA is an activity that has the potential to result in direct physical change to the environment or has a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment. This amendment in itself is not a project. It will not result in physical changes and any future project that included new construction would be subject to CEQA and we would analyze any new building that is proposed for some future cannabis business. And a project also excludes organizational or administrative activities of governments that do not result in direct or indirect physical changes. Essentially, if an application does not cause physical changes to the environment, it's not a project as defined by CEQA. So this project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. limited findings have to be made by the the City Council and I should say this is of course the City Council has to act so again the Planning Commission is making a recommendation for these amendments the City Council ultimately in the the resolution that's in front of the Planning Commission this evening requires you to find that the amendments are consistent with the general plan and with the uptown town center specific plan and that the amendments would not be detrimental to the public interest health safety convenience or welfare of the community and finally that the amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of this zoning code staff is recommending that the Planning Commission can make these findings and ultimately make a recommendation to the City Council typically if the Planning Commission recommends denial of an application The application doesn't continue on unless it is appealed. In this case, the City Council has requested this amendment, so they are very interested in your recommendation, but staff will continue this on to the City Council, whether you recommend approval or denial. your recommendation would also come along with the report. So, of course, you have options. The first would be to recommend the City Council adopt the ordinance as it is proposed that would change Chapter 21 of the Paso Robles Municipal Code and would allow up to three non-storefront retail cannabis businesses, so those delivery offices that would deliver both adult use and medicinal cannabis, Those would continue to be allowed in the Riverside Corridor and the C3 districts. You could make amendments to the draft ordinance and still recommend approval. You could refer the project back to staff if you need additional information, or you can provide an alternative recommendation to the City Council. Staff is recommending that you approve the proposed amendments to the ordinance, which would allow, as I've said before, up to three non-storefront retail cannabis businesses in our city. And that concludes my report.

Katie, thank you. Okay, let's start off with then some questions or comments. Any questions or comments over here? Let's start with Commissioner Roden.

Okay, thank you. A couple of questions. Can the separation of the 600 feet, can that be increased?

My understanding is yes, the city could require a larger separation. And Michael with BBK, please feel free to correct me.

I would... I will defer to my colleague, Jill Tremblay, who's also on the call to answer all cannabis ordinance-related questions.

Jill, is it accurate that we could adopt a larger setback requirement from parks and schools more than is what is currently proposed?

Yes. Hi. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners, Jill Tremblay, Beth Best, and Krieger. Yes, that is correct. Cities can can increase the distance, the radius, and can also decrease. Some cities have made findings to decrease that 600 foot radius.

I had a little difficulty understanding that. I heard the yes, it can be increased, but what was the last part?

We also have the ability, if we make specific findings, to decrease the separation if we wanted a smaller...

I see. Deliveries can occur within those red circles that we have, that's 600 feet separation, can't they?

That is correct.

What if, let's say somebody opens a new daycare on those areas that are open right now, does that limit, does that then become a new area that a business would have to close because they're within 600 feet or whatever the separation area is?

No, the existing business would be vested if you move towards the nuisance that is on the person who moved to the daycare. No additional delivery offices could be approved there.

Okay. I don't like the stuff, but unfortunately we're dealing with a situation where it's allowed and others are profiting outside of our local area and deferring, not reporting a lot from what I understood during the council meeting. There were people who were selling that were not reporting. This at least hopefully would change some of that. 600 feet is not very far. I would hope that we could increase that a little bit more. and I look to my other commissioners to possibly gain a little bit more information.

Thank you, Commissioner Roden. Commissioner Christensen?

Thank you, Chair. Just as a curiosity, clarification question, where did the three conditional use permits number come from?

That was it, so when council, so back up. Five or so years ago, the council directed staff when we brought an emergency ordinance that allowed the existing cannabis delivery offices that had existing CUPs for for delivery offices, they were given a one year window to allow deliveries of adult use cannabis. And so there's some history of these businesses had a short period when they could do that. It was a one year window and that did expire, I believe in 2023. At the time, the council had expressed an intent to make it permanent to do some more analysis and to potentially come up with what they call a cannabis framework to explore the idea of other commercial activities also being allowed. There have been some changes in the city over that period of time. There's been, you know, we had a change of mayor, a change of city manager, and so there's been some speed bumps along the way. And so that one year just wasn't enough time for us to get this amendment, the permanent amendment, to allow the adult-use cannabis deliveries.

Thank you.

Commissioner Conley?

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just a point of clarification. With regard to the sensitive properties and the 600-foot buffer. My understanding is that if you have a RSC or a C3 zoned commercial property within that zone, then the business would not be able to get a license. Is that what that buffer is for?

Yes, if the buffer overlays and is contiguous with the colored, the pink and mauve, I don't know what color to call that. If the buffer is within the RSC or the C3 zone, you still would not be able to get a CUP in those buffers.

Okay, and that's based on the 600-foot buffer. If it's decreased or increased, that would either increase the number that are allowed if we decrease it or... make less property available if we increase the buffer?

It would not change the number of CUPs available, but it would limit or expand the amount of, like you said, properties that could apply.

Potential for it. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. I got a question. So just for clarity, Katie, the original request is for $3,000. Three businesses, three delivery businesses to be allowed, but a fourth, fifth, and onward could apply as an exception. Is that accurate?

No. The ordinance, as it's written, would limit the number of CUPs available to non-storefront retail businesses, whether they deliver medicinal or adult use. The total number would be three.

That would be three. End of story. Nobody else could apply.

As written, as proposed.

Okay. I just want to clarify that right of entry. I understand what it means, but is it when it comes to this type of business, the right of entry would allow our law enforcement to enter for any reason?

So the way that the amendment is written is that it mirrors the rights, it actually references the rights that are given to the Department of Cannabis Control in state law. I read that piece of state law once. It is expansive, it allows the Department of Cannabis to enter the businesses without warning they can they can enter vehicles they can look at the books it was extensive i am by no means an expert on that section of the state law okay maybe we could have bbk weigh in on that jill can you uh elaborate on that at all hello yes definitely and that was an accurate a portrayal of this um

regulation for the right of access. It gives the department, and so in this case, the police department, full and immediate access to inspect, investigate, audit, review, including entering the premises, testing vehicles, equipment, products, copying materials, books, records, no prior notice, is required. Inspections have to occur when the licensee is operating or as agreed. Uh, so yeah, that's, um, it is very expensive.

Okay. Thank you for that clarification. My final question is, so we issue three CUPS they start the delivery service, under no circumstance would they then be able to become or sell as a retail component, correct? It's strictly 100% delivery.

So the proposed amendment would only allow these non-storefront retail businesses. The City Council has indicated that they want staff to come back with a cannabis framework that involves a lot more public outreach, making sure that they understand exactly what the community wants, and a lot more consideration. So it is possible that at some future date, the City Council will direct staff to bring an amendment that would allow dispensaries, but that is not on the table today.

Okay. All righty. Katie, thank you very much for all that. Oh, Commissioner Connolly, another question?

Well, you raised a follow-up question that I just thought of, and with regard to the magic number being three, and I understand there's one already approved, if I'm not mistaken, but what happens if all three of them are in the C3 zone or all three are in the RSC zone? Is there any way that these proposed locations are reviewed for proximity and fairness to the vicinities that are in the city as to spread them out, as not to be clustered together?

So the existing CUPs are both located on Black Oak Drive and they are relatively concentrated. The Dubs CUP allows for two tenant spaces and so when there was the one year window, two of those CUPs were for the tenants within the building that is owned by the Dubs business. The third CUP was for the Kinfolk location that's kind of catty-corner. So the way the ordinance is drafted would require, for any new CUP, would require the Planning Commission to look at those concentration issues. However, we do, you know, the existing CUPs are currently relatively, I mean, obviously they're very close together.

Thank you. Commissioner Roden?

Working off of Commissioner Conley's, can you restrict the area rather than having buffer zone around areas, can you restrict the area where these three can exist?

Like a separation from each other?

No, I mean in one area, one specific area. Instead of, right now they could be located on Union Road or Walnut within residential areas, right?

Currently, these are the two zoning districts where you could apply for a CUP for a medicinal delivery office. The ordinance is written to continue to allow those zoning districts, but yes, the city doesn't. We could restrict further the area that are eligible to apply for a new CUP.

Well, that might be a city council thing, but I just wondered.

Okay. Commissioner Kogler?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So understanding, Katie, is there have been two permits issued. One's operational. There's one yet to go. There are no restrictions, though, on the amount of out-of-community non-storefronts that can deliver to Paso Robles. Is that correct?

That's correct. If a business has followed the rules of a different jurisdiction, followed all the state rules, anybody can come and deliver within the bounds of Paso Robles.

Does that generally hold true for our neighboring communities, too? Can these businesses in this community go into others?

That is a statewide regulation.

Thank you. Sorry, Katie clarification. I understand it's three CUPs that can be issued. Does it matter if the, if the business is owned by one person, all three, or do they have to be three individual owners? What happens if one buys out the other? Now you have the same owner has two or three different locations.

So CUP's conditional use permits are basically a grant of a land use right. They're tied to the land and they go with the land. So there wouldn't potentially if, they were approved on different properties owned by different people, but at some point they became owned by the same individual, there isn't anything I think legally to prevent that from happening, because they're CUPs, they're property rights, they can be bought and sold.

Okay, so they can be bought or sold regardless if it's the same owner or individual owners, It's three CUPs, three locations.

Currently, so the reason we have three CUPs in the ordinance is because council adopted a resolution a couple years ago limiting the number of delivery offices to three. Two of those were located at the yellow star. One was located at the blue star. There's some problems with that resolution. So as we go, as this recommendation moves toward council, that existing resolution that identifies what happens within the yellow and blue star potentially could be replaced by this code. And at that point, then we would get direction in terms of how those three CUPs would be identified, distributed, and located.

Okay, so it is not our, the Planning Commission's stance at this point to determine any of that, finalize any of that at this point, correct?

Well, you're being asked to make a recommendation on everything before you in this ordinance, so that part of it is this coordination potential three conditional use permits. So you have discretion to recommend a different number or endorse this number. So you are making a recommendation. The council is going to ultimately make the decision they see fit. But the commission can make recommendations on any of these items to the council. So if you want to recommend the council consider different standards for any of those, you're definitely, that's what we're asking you to do.

Okay. Appreciate that. Okay, we're going to go ahead and move this to the public portion of it. So we'll open it up to public comment. If you'd like to make a comment, please state your name. Come on up. Good. How are you, sir? Go ahead and turn your mic on for us. There's a little button right in front of you. There you go. Cool.

Yeah, my name's Lonnie Price. I just want to make a formal introduction. I represent one of the three licenses that has been issued here in the Paso Robles area. Um, it had been in operation under the CUP for quite some time, uh, before one of the owners passed away. And so now we're currently in a situation where we're trying to figure out where's the next location going to be and waiting for approval for that. I have quite a few emails with Katie Bannister already and, um, a couple of people in the planning, uh, city planning, uh, department. And, uh, yeah, so just kind of wanted to introduce myself and, you know, see where we can go with this.

Okay. Thank you.

Oh, and additionally, um, in, in response to what Rodan was saying, I know you don't like, really like the stuff, but what you guys are doing here, what you guys are voting for is for the ability for the city of Casa Robles to allow safe tested and, you know, stringently tested by the DCC standard product within your guys' city limits. People are going to obtain cannabis in some way or another, and I think it's important that you guys are, you know, allowing for the ability for patients to be able to get it that's safe and, you know, it's fully tested, so. I applaud the Planning Commission for putting this forward, and I think you guys are on the right track here.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. I'm so sorry.

I'll walk right into you. I guess no one else is talking. Linda George, 3126 Spring Street. I think that this is still incomplete. I've spoken with the public in general. They think three is not enough. I spent the weekend calling all the local deliveries, Megan's, Golden Natural, just looked up weed maps and delivery, and there may be some people here I'm unsure. And the reason why I did that is because I know that you've seen some tail-end emails, but the halls, dubs, filed a restraining order against me because I was talking about their bad business practices. We're talking about extensive tax liens. I have not yet from the city been given evidence that they've paid their taxes with their dubs business or anything else like that. So I turned that restraining order into an anti-slap motion. Ms. Roden was there and they lost. Because the judge said the taxes were irrelevant, but their business practices are relevant. I have a video of Ernest Hall delivering. He's a felon. He cannot deliver. So what I'm doing is I'm here to say that three is not enough. It should be more. Because you've got to look at the people who have the CUP now. The city has not provided me evidence that they're doing anything within the law. The minute this council approved this, they sent out a text to everybody. We're delivering recreational. So they've been delivering recreational. even before now. So I would like to see more businesses being able to apply, maybe a lottery of some sort. What happens when one does fail, you guys decide. Enforcement has always been an issue in previous council meetings. So it would be really good to see more. At least five is what people have said to me. And reputable companies. I still haven't gotten a tax breakdown of who paid taxes. At the last city council meeting, one of the vendors said, I paid the $60,000. Well, that's all we got last year. So what did the dubs pay? So I am here to urge you to pull their CUP and give it to legitimate business owners that deserve it. Thank you.

Go ahead and state your name.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Megan Souza, and I'm the owner and operator of Megan's Organic Market, which is a locally owned cannabis retail company that's been serving SLO County since 2013. We began as a Proposition 215 delivery service back in 2013, and we've since grown into licensed brick-and-mortar dispensaries in San Luis Obispo and Goleta. And I'm here tonight because we are excited to soon be able to offer delivery service to our North County customers. First from our San Luis Obispo storefront and pending city approval from a Paso Robles based delivery hub. We have entered into an agreement to lease a vacant unit at 1124 Black Oak Drive, where if the zoning amendment is adopted, we intend to operate a medical and adult use delivery service. We hope to serve our customers in North County and on the North Coast and generate significant tax revenue for the city of Paso Robles, as well as provide the ample community benefits that we're known for. Although we operate both medical and adult use licenses, it's important to know that the reality today is that very, very few people go through the process and the expense of getting a medical license. Many patients, especially seniors and people managing chronic conditions, now rely on the regulated adult use market for what is still for them medical use. That's why we call it adult use, not recreational, because adults are using it often for non-recreational uses. They just don't have a medical license. These folks are now relying on the adult use market, even though it is for them still medical use. And because of that shift, delivery has become truly essential as it assures people with mobility challenges, transportation barriers, and those living in the more rural North County areas. It allows them to access cannabis safely and legally. So thank you very much for your time and for your consideration of the zoning amendment tonight. We respectfully hope that you do approve.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Grace Hall. I'm the owner of Dubs Green Garden. I also own the building located at 1124 Black Oak Drive. Just for the record, my husband, Ernest Hall, is not a felon. Linda George's husband is a felon. Besides that, all I would like to say is I hope that you approve this amendment before you. And then I would just like a little clarification. In 2019, that's when we received our DCC license with the Department of Cannabis. And at that time, well, before that, we got a CUP that covered 1124 Black Oak. We have three legal units there. And at that time, the CUP stated that all three units could be rented out or leased out to Cannabis Delivery Service Medical at that time. Since that time, I've rented to two tenants, Leaf of Life back in 2020, and they were there about a year. And then I rented a unit to send it from, I believe it was 2021, until the untimely death of the owner of Send It. So I just want to know, with moving forward with this, with the three CUPs, I know I have a CUP that blankets the building that I own, but how does that work with prospective tenants? Because I've signed an agreement with Magus Market, who is ready to move forward into one of those units and open up. a cannabis delivery service there. So that's my only question to the commission. And thank you for your time.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Good evening. My name is Monica Thomas. I am a co owner of send it. that Grace Hall was just referring to, the untimely death of my dearest son and co-owner of Sendit in November 2024 through our non-storefront delivery service for a turmoil, as you can imagine. My son and I supported him, went through the arduous process of getting the license, the state license, to be a legal non-storefront delivery service in 2021. I never knew what an ordeal it was, and at the time, it was just important to me that he was licensed, that he wasn't gonna be in the black market. I felt it was safer for him, safer for the customers to know that they get a safe product. He operated his business and I supported on the paperwork end from 2021 to 2024 and under the CUP of Dobbs Garden, which is 1124 Black Oak Drive. The business was a loss the first two years. There was still a pandemic and it was medicinal only at first. but then recreational adult use was permitted in Paso and the revenues went up, customers demand is definitely there. My concern is currently in 2025, our business is now not operating We are the so-called second CUP under Dubs Garden. They own the building, so we had one of the units, but we closed down in April 2025. So, theoretically, we would like to continue my son's business because it's his legacy. He poured his heart and soul into it. It's not that I consume the product, I just want to honor his legacy and I would like to continue to send it in Paso. We still have a valid state license, a valid city license for Paso and also at Tascadero. But we're facing an uphill battle to find a location in those corridors that were demonstrated. It's very, very difficult to find an office for this non-storefront delivery service that doesn't have any impact on parking. It brings revenue and tax revenue to the city. It provides a safe, like, tested product to the public. And I'm just saying, if you were to increase the 600 feet, I almost would say there's zero location available. I mean, in my mind, I understand distance to schools and public parks, but there should also be an opportunity. Like the lady, she's not here anymore. She said she feels like nothing against Cubs Garden.

We're going to have to wrap it up, ma'am.

It's like a monopoly. It's very hard for another, even though we have an existing license, but to get the CD for a location is very difficult. Thank you. Yes, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thanks for listening.

Hi, my name is Deborah Scarborough. I'm a resident here at 1233 Olive Street. I am hoping that we can have Megan's here because I know that they're a very reputable and reasonable and responsible company. I'm a big fan of theirs, not because I use it a lot, but because my mom actually does And it would be really great for our city to have the income from these companies up here. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments in the audience? Seeing none. Marcy, any callers?

Yeah, just one moment. Caller, can you hear us?

Yes, I can hear you.

Go ahead, state your name.

My name is Michael Rivera. Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Okay. First of all, the evidence is becoming much more clear that cannabis is a product that is injuring people in many ways. Young people who brain you're still developing, older people who are seeing symptoms of psychosis and other issues emotionally, and just in the general public. I think that the staff had indicated that your job is to look at the health and safety needs of the city of Paso Robles. And I think that there needs to be a lot of thought given to the fact that there are lawsuits currently being filed related to cannabis in the country. And I think it's not going to be too long before you start seeing lawsuits happen in cities and counties in California. This is also disturbing because I think this is another step towards the possibility of storefronts. I think this is scaling in that direction and that's a bad idea. The location over there off Oak Street is where the homeless shelter is. There's a lot of transients there and there's a lot of other activity there. And I don't think that this would be a good thing to continue to scale this. I know Dubs is already there. However, I think that we really need to take a step back, send this back to the staff, have them research the fact that we have some potential issues coming that could make cannabis a real, well, it's just like the tobacco industry. People smoke tobacco thinking there was no harm, but they found that there was a lot of harm. And there was a lot of people who were financially held accountable for that. And I think cities and counties are going to be held accountable. So I would hope that for the future of this city, that you hold off on making any motions moving this forward. Take it back to the staff, do research on current liability and potential liability. and what that might mean to cities and counties. I feel sad for the woman whose son passed. I think that's horrible. I do appreciate people who are trying to do this legally and not through the black market, so I don't hold them...

Your time is up, sir.

I don't have anything... Okay, I have nothing against them, but I do hope that you'll consider my points.

Thank you. Marcy, any other callers? Yes.

Caller, can you hear us?

Hello? Yes, I can hear you. Am I on? Yes, go ahead. All right, thank you. My name is Jan Albin. I live in a senior community, and I will tell you that the majority of the senior community I live in partakes in cannabis. And I am in favor of all things cannabis and am waiting eagerly for the day that we have a dispensary here. As a matter of fact, today I was in St. Louis, and I stopped by Megan's Market to make my purchases. But my main point about calling is that I'm really confused about why we are limiting delivery services. We have dozens and dozens of companies that come up from all areas, as far away as Lompoc, as a matter of fact. And certainly a lot of them from San Luis and Morro Bay come up here to the North County to make their deliveries. So I'm wondering why we're letting those people come up here with absolutely no regulation of the number that can come up here and deliver, but we're regulating and we want to limit the number of people here in the North County who can deliver. And I don't understand that. Why would you allow everybody else in the world to come up here and make a delivery but restrict the people here in the North County. All of the money that people are spending here on delivery services go somewhere else. The revenue goes somewhere else. The taxes go somewhere else. The people who make those deliveries and make the money spend their money somewhere else. So I'm curious as to why we've limited this to only three delivery services. If I had choices, I would say open the door. What do you care how many delivery services you have? You will drive out the people who are coming from other areas and keep the money here in Paso Robles. So that's my opinion on that. And, again, I'm looking forward to the day when we have dispensaries and we don't have to worry so much about who's delivering where. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Marcy?

No other callers.

No other callers. Okay. Thank you. I see you stood up. Would you like to make a comment, ma'am? I don't mind. Go ahead and state your name.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for having me. My name is Jasmine Royce, and I appreciate your time and clarification on just one comment somebody else said. I'm an alternative healer. I work in a lot of hospice care and understand who people are concerned about this as a point of care and a consideration. Everything is dosed as the person accepting it. You would always do something in a consideration of your own form that you don't take anything or too much of anything. it's best to understand as a person that's available to give you the quantity or the amount of herbal remedies, you should also be mindful that they don't, restrict it to the person that's purchasing it. It's not a bad thing, but it's also accused that we are the ones that we're accountable if someone overdoses on something. Cannabis is not an option that you overdose on. It's pretty hard to ever have an OD on cannabis. But it's also a remedy for pain delivery, especially for women in menopause, for persons in cancer recovery, and anything that's a reign of pain and Insomnia is a different one. For a lot of people that suffer with insomnia, especially if you're in the menopausal cycle, that is a difficult speed for you to have those rest and recovery that you need so bad. I'm not saying that everyone needs to partake in anything you don't decide because it's your choice, but making it open for the community to have as an acceptance process that it's also, you know, a communion for nature and has a spiritual tactic for a long time in this community before we were here and also in Greek mythology as well. So cannabis is not a hard, crass drug that you would find on the street. Having license and registrations and also legal proximity is important to make sure that we're above board on every regard. So I advocate for you to be open to the idea of it and also words of advisement to make sure that you're open to the idea but also restrict it in your community that you feel safe and heard. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Okay, we're going to go ahead and close the public portion of that and move it back to the Commission for final questions, comments. Commissioner Roden.

Thank you, Chairman. I want to make it clear, whatever my personal feelings are has nothing to do with the decisions today. We're talking about following the law, regardless. Right now, there seems to be not an equal stay because others can still sell here. We're not talking about limiting. That's not our purview. whether it can or cannot exist. It exists. It's just how we exist in our own town. And it comes down to, for many people, do we allow the taxation to go elsewhere or do we collect it here? And that's kind of the bottom line of what we're talking about right now. As far as how many deliveries... I think we have three CUPs right now. I don't know that any of them are operating. But before we expand on that, I think that's a good starting point. And that's about it. Thank you.

Commissioner Connolly?

Thank you, Chair. Unfortunately, I've been involved with a close member of my family who had cancer and no longer with us, and I know there's an element out there with an aging population where they need some pain relief, and this is an alternative. They need something available to them, and this is the answer for some people. pain regulation and anxiety and other things. So I really think we need to support cannabis in a responsible way. And in so doing, we need to consider also potentially other vendors from outside the city limits not doing it in a responsible way. And so I really think that... The number three is a little arbitrary, and I would like to see that there be some type of balance between the zones that we're talking about, the C3 and the RSC, I believe it is, that there be maybe two for that one area and two for another so that it's balanced out. So I'm concerned about clustering them together so that whoever gets approval first and second and third may be from the same area and not spread out. So I would suggest that there be two in each of those zoning districts so that it keeps it from being spread out. But that's just me. And I think it's better that we consider that than have more vendors from outside the city limits coming in and taking up that demand. I don't know if there's some type of analysis based on use or need, but we have a growing aging population, and I think the need will increase, and therefore the need for non-storefront sales points may be considered to be increased as well, as well as the city benefiting from that.

Thank you, Commissioner Connolly. Commissioner Roden, you had a question?

I'm sorry. A quick question. If we allow deliveries here, can we limit those outside who are delivering to the same area? Or is that you don't have any control over that?

No, that's all granted by the state.

Gotcha.

Commissioner Kogler?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. All of us, I think, have various degrees of familiarity with the topic. I'm not an expert in this by any means. It appears that the council has benefit of at least eight meetings and a survey that have kind of gotten this process to where it is to date. Furthermore, the staff report indicates that council directed staff return with a framework and community outreach plan before going into the storefront issue. So I take it there will be a lot more dialogue in the community that will occur, or at least has the potential to occur. So I don't think I'm personally in a position to recommend any changes, whether it's three or whether it's 600 feet, but I think I personally would rather see the process play out. It's a starting point. It seems to be an appropriate starting point, and I certainly can understand the rationale for the home-based businesses, probably the wrong term to use, PASO-based businesses, when it comes to dispensing of this particular product.

Thank you, sir. Commissioner Neal?

I mostly agree with Commissioner Kovler, but I would like the, as a personal note, not part of my recommendation that the council consider additional businesses. And with that, I'd like to make a recommendation, if possible. Sure.

Before that is done, Commissioner Christensen?

Thank you, Commissioner Neal. Thank you, Chairperson Kovarubis. nature of this business i think is uh one that we've had a difficult time managing just in the sense of public opinion and where we've gotten to today i'm of the mindset i'm not so concerned of them being in a one particular area because it is a delivery service i think if we were talking about a a retail front i think we would be having a different conversation and i And I also would agree with my colleagues over here that that would probably be a very appropriate situation where we needed to spread that out. I understand what they're attempting to do here. They're trying to remain relevant in comparison to a lot of other businesses that are transitory in comparison to our own local businesses. It's not a product I use, but I'm not saying that. The businesses shouldn't be able to thrive in their own way. They're following the right guidelines, the right licensing. I'm really happy to see the police department right of entry. I'm sure that they would cooperate. I think we have such a nice community-driven department that there's going to be relationships built there, which will help this process move along and hopefully show the city council what it's capable of achieving. I am of a mindset that I would like to recommend to the city council and maybe it's not appropriate to make a change in this amendment, but personally I believe that we should have some other consideration of more than three units because I feel that we're creating an anti-competitive nature by allowing just three. As Commissioner Kovarov has brought up before, one single ownership could own all three and snuff out basically like an antitrust situation where no one else could ever compete. I feel that you know, managing the location of these spaces has also created just by nature of location and the surrounding areas and the way our city's laid out restrictions on where these types of uses are allowed. Being in real estate, I can tell you that It is a very restrictive environment for that. So that's an inherent restriction that I think is put on top of the use or the business use and in itself limits the amount of these available businesses. So hopefully maybe the city council can take that in consideration. Again, I'm not sure that changing the amendment tonight is maybe the easiest thing to do since we don't have full concession on that, but maybe adding a recommendation that the council may really assess a bigger number than number three. So that's it for me.

Thank you, Commissioner Christensen. Commissioner Neal?

I'd like to make a recommendation or two. I'd like to recommend the city council adopt an ordinance to amend 2160 of the pass rules municipal code to allow up to three non-storefront retail cannabis businesses in the RSC and C3 districts by adopting draft resolution PC26-XXX based on the findings as well as considering additional businesses.

We have a motion on the floor. We have a seconded by Commissioner Roden. Any further discussion?

Roll call, please. Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Roden? Aye. Commissioner Connolly? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Chairperson Kovarubias? Aye. Motion passes 6-0. So this is a recommendation that just goes on to council for final consideration. We'll be publishing notices of that hearing separately. So if you're interested or the public's interested in this item, there'll be public notice provided prior to the city council hearing. Thank you for that, Warren.

There is also a sign-up list on the city's website. You can sign up for cannabis updates if you'd like for us to send you an email for the next hearings.

Thank you, Katie. Okay, moving on to discussion items, consent calendar. I don't see anything on the consent calendar. Other reports, housing constraints and opportunities committee.

Yes, so the Housing Constraints Committee will be meeting this Thursday, 2 p.m. here in the Norse Room. The agenda for that meeting has been issued. One of the key issues will be a review of proposed changes to the city's cost recovery fees for development services. Those are the application fees for like CUPs, building permits, that sort of thing. That'll be on the agenda along with a number of other items. In terms of the fees, the HCOC will be making a recommendation for the city council to consider.

Okay. Thank you for that. DRC committee rotation schedule. Any concerns, changes, requests?

I will not be able to make the 23rd meeting, so if someone could sit in for me, that would be great. Okay.

There's a request for February 23rd. Anybody fill in? I'm already there. It's gonna look really fast for you. I'll fill in for you. Okay. Any final Planning Commissioner comments? Seeing none, staff comments?

Yes. So tomorrow night will be council special meeting to interview applicants for the three planning commission seats that are currently up. So, Marcy, you want to give us an update just kind of on that process as well as our reorganization dinner plans?

Sure. So, as you mentioned, tomorrow night is the interviews for not only Planning Commission, but there's other multiple advisory bodies that will have interviews as well. So the applicants have all received their time slots of what time they should be here. It is in the Live Oak room, which is just kind of across the way here at Centennial Park. We will have someone on staff to help guide and direct folks on where to go. So that is pretty much it for the interviews. The planning commission reorganization meeting is scheduled for March 1st. The agenda will go out shortly prior to that. We have booked the patina room at Cal Coast, which we've done there in the past, so I think we're all familiar. I am asking for RSVPs to be in by the end of the week. If anyone wants to bring a plus one, please feel free to contact me, and I can let you know the information. But we are getting closer to that, so looking forward to it.

And then the annual League of California Cities Planning Commission Academy, any updates on that?

I can send out, again, information on that. I know it's a little difficult when we have commissioners who are in and out, you know, as far as who's going to be on the commission, but I'm happy to send that out again and see if anyone else is interested and see if we can get you scheduled. The dates... I can put it, yeah, sorry I don't have it readily available, but I'll send that out tomorrow to everybody.

Thank you, Marcia. Okay, and then just kind of some updates on some other items going on. Your next meeting will be February 24th. It looks like we'll have Paso Robles Youth Arts Center, an expansion on the agenda. I believe the Allegretto Hotel Expansion and Conference Center is scheduled for that agenda as well. Sorry about that. There is another special joint session council planning commission airport commission meeting that will be March 4th. That is to discuss the spaceport and the council wants to get some feedback in terms of next steps. There's some significant financial commitments involved in that process. So they'll be seeking input on that as we move forward. And then let's see, we have potentially end of March, a subdivision townhouse project on Ardmore Road that's queuing up, so I think March 24th, that'll likely be on your agenda. The landing project, which is the boys' school project, that big general plan amendment, we are... Continuing to work with the applicant on getting the final conditions of approval and development agreement points settled. We're getting very close. Obviously the airport road issue, 46 East Access, is a very tricky issue, and that's kind of the final issue that we're working through right now. So we don't have a formal date for hearings yet, but I do expect... quarter two spring of this year we're going to finally get that on to an agenda so don't be surprised when it finally actually shows up as a project on your agenda and i think that'll conclude staff's report thank you warren okay if there are no other questions or comments then i will take a motion to adjourn so moved all in favor aye we are adjourned thank you Thank you.