Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Testing, testing. Sarah, can we test your microphone?

Yes, testing, testing. Can you hear me?

I can, thank you.

Great.

Testing, testing.

Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Planning Commission meeting of May 12th. Start by doing the Pledge of Allegiance. Warm roll call, please.

Commissioner Kovarubias? Here. Commissioner Lorenz?

Here.

Commissioner Roden? Here. Commissioner Christensen? Here. Commissioner Neal? Here. Commissioner Kogler?

Here.

Chairperson Marlowe? Here. All present. Great. All right, staff introductions, please.

Marcy Reynoso and Jessica Ferguson, permit technicians.

Warren Frase, community development director.

Darcy Delgado, associate planner.

They're a Nash city planner, and I brought my daughter Cassandra tonight. She was looking for something exciting to do.

All right, we'll make it real exciting.

Okay. And we have Karen Jackson in the back running the IT system.

Thanks, Karen. Okay. General public comments regarding matters not on the agenda. Marcy, are there any callers?

No callers.

Okay. Agenda items proposed to be tabled or rescheduled? There are none. All right. Moving on to public hearing discussion items. The first item is 2025 annual report on the implementation of the general plan. Staff presentation. Okay, great.

Testing. Okay, thank you. Darcy Delgado will be providing the staff presentation, and I really hope to fulfill Cassie's dreams of this being an exciting evening, so stay tuned. All right, so as you may recall from years past, the annual report is a requirement of the state that we report on the status of implementing the city's general plan. The status report is first considered by the Planning Commission and then forwarded to the City Council, ultimately making its way to the state. So tonight you are being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council. They are expected to get this report about June 2nd. And as I said, once City Council essentially blesses the report, we'll send that off to the state. And I will note that a portion of the report was previously sent to the state regarding our housing production. So that is something that is required every year by April 1st, a very hard deadline. And then we send the rest of the report after we make its way through the Planning Commission and City Council. So what is the general plan, in case you forgot? This is a state requirement. It's a document that sets our land use policies, and really it's just a blueprint for our city's future. Our zoning, capital improvement plan, building permits, they're all consistent with the general plan. And our general plan for Paso Robles has eight elements. So we have the land use, open space, conservation, housing, circulation, safety, noise, and then we have an optional element, so not mandatory, but we have parks and recreation element as well. So the general plan status report that we end up sending to the state is composed of really two parts. And the first part is the largest. It's the housing element report. That report is going to track all of the building permit activity for the reporting year. So we're looking at 2025. I realize we're like, halfway through 2026, but there is a lot of data to provide. So building permits that have been applied for and are in review or if they've been issued and are under construction or any building permits that are receiving a certificate of occupancy, all of that data is compiled into a spreadsheet and provided to the state. So I'm gonna give you a thumbnail version of it tonight. The second half of the general plan status report is the remainder of the general plan elements. We also, over the years, will report on any general plan amendments that have occurred as well as the housing development specifically in the Uptown Town Center specific plan. All right, so as part of this endeavor, and more particularly with the non-housing element report, all of the city departments were asked to contribute to this report and provide an update on the action items that were relevant to their department. So we have 240 policy action items that do not include the housing element. And then I've provided really a status update for the 2025 year of where we're at with each of those action items. It is kind of a moving target because sometimes something will get completed and then after five years you have to redo a study all over again and so it's a little bit of a moving target. But in general, I think the number that stands out is that 97% of our general plan policy action items are either complete, ongoing, or in process. which is a pretty good number. All right, so as I said, we do report on major general plan activities, so I wanted to show kind of some of the more notable updates that have occurred in recent years. So the land use element was updated with the Olson, South Chandler specific plan, the Beechwood specific plan, and the Gateway annexation back in 2020 and 2021. So again, at that time we reported the information. It kind of does carry forward. It's something we like to highlight because it doesn't happen very often. We updated the circulation element in 2019, as well as the noise element. And then the housing element update, which was in 2020, was really pivotal because it helped pave the way for our future zoning code update, which was completed in 2024. And one of the most notable programs that really came out of that housing element update has been fractional density, the ability to... for developers to have smaller units and get essentially double the number of units on their property if they do that, if they choose to build smaller units without having to do a density bonus. So with the housing production, I'm gonna go through some slides of really where is all this housing happening with the current cycle, which is our sixth cycle for our regional housing needs allocation that the state has provided us. Where's it all coming from? And so these may look familiar. Some of them are from past years and they're done. But it is a good reminder to show where all the housing production is coming from throughout the city. As I go through those slides, you'll see the different specific plan designated areas being called out. So of course, we have the Uptown Town Center specific plan on the west side. With our general plan, there is 989 infill units that were allocated there. We have the Borky River Oaks II area, which has 271 units. North Chandler Ranch, 879 units, South Chandler Ranch, 560 units, Olsen Ranch, 673 units, and then Beachwood, 911 units. this makes up the 4 300 housing units that will get us to our general plan build out of 44 000 for populations so um 43 000 or sorry 4 300 units is a big number and we've been kind of chipping away at it um so let's get to it um actually i didn't i forgot i had this slide this slide is kind of just showing the the prior slide where we're at with the different um the status of the specific plan areas so Um, everyone, if you've been out to the Olson area, you know, it's very much under construction. Um, Beachwood specific plan, uh, has been approved, but is not under construction. Um, and then I think the remainder of these are for the most part, uh, infill, except for North Chandler Ranch is, um, still needs a specific plan in an EIR. So that is not, there's no development occurring in the North Chandler Ranch area. All right, so moving on to the River Oaks 2 area. So again, lots of housing development continuing. It feels like a whole different section of the city if you've gone out there recently. A lot of units that are being reported in the last couple years are really coming from River Oaks 2, a good chunk of them, as well as the Olson South Chandler Ranch specific plan. So with this 2025 reporting year, most of the development has been single family, a good chunk of ADUs, I think 80% of our development for 2025 came from Olson or River Oaks, which is a pretty big deal. The other 20% were mostly infill on the west side, a little bit of other parts of the city on the east side. Um, we also, um, in the last, uh, couple years, we had, um, moved the Sunrise Villas, uh, apartments through the pipeline, and they were completed last year, so that's 69 affordable, um, housing units. Another reason that it's important to note the different housing that has been approved over the years is this all comes down to the different, um, income categories that were required to report to the state. So it's not just that we're providing X number of housing units, it's that we're providing and they're getting constructed housing that can be low, very low income, needs moderate, above moderate. So this was a project that met the needs for the low and very low. Also, we have the Olson Courtyard houses. So I don't believe there's any occupancy out there, but you can see on that bottom left-hand corner, the units are constructed. So that was 107 single-family units and 107 ADUs that will be contributing towards our six-cycle arena numbers. So 214 units total. As I said, Beachwood Specific Plan, it's been approved and there are plans that are in review, but at this point there's been no development for the Beachwood Specific Plan area. Another project that was approved, or sorry, already constructed and is occupied is the Riverwalk Terrace. This is another affordable project next to the JCPenney site. We also, last year, the Habitat for Humanity, nine low-income single-family residential units were completed. Again, I know that this was last year's numbers, but just kind of showing you the snapshot of what major housing projects we've been working on over the last few years. The Red Tail Apartments, that kind of feels like they've been around for a while now. That was 200 market-rate units. Red Tail also has a second project that was approved by the Planning Commission and is currently getting very close to having building permits and grading permits issued, so that would be 135 market rate apartments. More recently, the Planning Commission approved the Oak at Ardmore project, which is 154 Forestdale townhomes in the northeast portion of the city off of Ardmore and Union. And the Montage Condos, a 24-unit condominium project, which the Planning Commission approved, these have not yet moved on to the building permit stages, but as we move through this cycle in the next year or so, we'll see these transition from recently entitled to applying for building permits and moving on to eventually certificates of occupancy. All right, so... Overall, our housing production for the 2025 year has been broken down into a variety of different categories. So we'll start with the first one, which is certificates of occupancy. So in 2025, we had 284 units that received a CFO. There were 15 of those that were specifically built in the Uptown Town Center specific plan. That's something that the council wanted us to report on back in 2014, 2015, so we carry it forward each year. There were 168 units that were under construction in 2025. Keep in mind that doesn't mean there weren't more units under construction when we reported like last year. It's just that those probably got finaled. So again, it's kind of where it was at in that year. And so if it ended up getting finaled, it would not show up as under construction. There were 167 units that were in plan check for the year. Only four units that were entitled, but we had 194 units that an entitlement was applied for. The Oak at Ardmore project and the Montage condos were some of those units that were applied for last year but didn't get approved until more recently this year. All right, so all of these numbers eventually, why they're important and what I do with them is I am putting them into a nice table and sending it off to the state so that we can track where we're meeting our six-cycle arena allocation. These are our regional housing needs that the state has required that we provide land that has been zoned for to meet the different income levels. So ignore any... columns that are not allowing my font to fit the right way, but essentially we have the extremely low and very low income category, low, moderate, and above moderate. So you can see that for 2025, we had 168 units where the building permits were issued, and then you can see on the far right that for our total remaining RENA period that we still have 469 units to go, and you can see it broken down by the different income levels. I also like to show the Planning Commission the actual completed units because I think it's also a really good way to measure our progress. So in 2025, as I said before, we had 284 units that received our certificate of occupancy. And again, those are broken down by the different income levels. The state does not need this specific table. They're focused on what was issued. But again, this is really good to measure our progress for actually completed units that people are gonna be able to live in. With this table, you can see that we have 597 remaining units to go before we would reach our 1,446, which was our allocation number. All right, so here is a table that shows our 2025 construction trends. So I've said it before that last year we had 168 units that were permitted. Now, if you look at the middle in this chart, the middle arrow pointing down, that's about a 50% reduction from the prior year. Nearly all of these were single-family or ADUs, and as I said before, about 80% of those were coming from the Olson South Chandler Specific Plan or the River Oaks II subdivision. Also last year we had about 1,600 permits, which was pretty flat. There was no increase or decrease from the prior year, but we had a 66% jump in inspections from the prior reporting year. So we're really, really busy. There's a lot happening. And again, these numbers, each year they kind of move up and down depending on where the development community is at with their construction. And so I have, I think, two more slides. So we are also tracking our cumulative progress with our six cycle RHNA numbers. And so with this table, I know there's a lot of numbers going on, but I think the gist of it is with the permitted units, we are about 73% complete with our allocation, the six cycle allocation, with the number of units that have been permitted and issued. So it's up to the development community to then build those. And here's a graph that really shows that same information. And you can see where we're at with the 2025, so it's the, I'm not seeing where it goes, but essentially 2025 is the fifth column. So you can see where we're at compared to the total renal allocation. So we are getting there. We have until 2028 until, uh for this cycle for our arena allocation and then we're going to start into a seventh cycle so another housing element will be coming your way and we'll have a whole new allocation of units but we're still in cycle six we're just really at the tail end of it so i think in general what we're seeing is we're providing a lot of housing we're doing what you know what the state wants us to do a lot of this comes down to the development community actually executing and building housing and so there's a lot of factors that go into that with the economy with with costs and financing. So in general, I think that our target is to issue about 181 permits a year. And so we're on track. I think, oh, I have a summary of progress. So as I said before, 97% of our general plan policy actions are complete, ongoing, and in process. Those were the non-housing element items. With the housing element, we have the 1,446 residential units. 946 units have been constructed, so 65% complete. different than the 73% that have been permitted. So again, I like to provide both what's been permitted and what's been complete. You can see how many units received a certificate of occupancy, as well as those under construction, permits ready to issue or in, sorry, ready to pick up or in plan check. and then the entitlement stages. I think the entitlement stages, just keep in mind, that also kind of goes up and down depending on what's happening. We have a lot of single-family development that has already been entitled, and it's working its way through the development, the construction stages. With the entitlements, we are seeing more, you know, multifamily type of trends, and those are what we would like to see, I think, each year for the next reporting year, the numbers staying pretty steady and not dropping significantly low because of course we want to also provide multi-family housing so with that I believe that is all I have if you have any questions I am happy to answer them right Thank You Darcy are there any questions by my fellow commissioners thank you Darcy how how does the

the project out on LaNae that's been abandoned at this point from, well, I'd like an update, first of all. Second of all, how does it affect the RHNA numbers? And yeah, basically that's.

So I'll answer the second part and then I'll defer to Warren to answer the first part. As far as affecting RHNA numbers, so those have been issued and they've been constructed but not received a certificate of occupancy so they are reported as as have have been issued have they've been issued sorry so they are counted um now as far as the status of where it's at with with actually getting occupied have they all been completed though um i don't think they've all been completed there's still some construction happening but the ones that are there those have been counted because are any of those occupied no so

There's one street that's been finaled. It's this block here. So that's 25 units plus 25 ADUs. So those did receive certificates of occupancy before the project shut down. They did rent four of those units back around November. We're not sure right now the status of whether they're still rented or not, but there was 25 finaled. The remaining... 75 units or so are in various stages of construction. Some of them are just framed up, some of them are almost complete, but none of those have received final. Projects stopped construction we believe sometime late November, early December. It's currently not under construction. They lost their construction financing, the ownership group. We do check in with them regularly for updates. They've been resistant as of the last couple weeks to meet with the city again. So it doesn't appear that, it does not appear that the project's gonna restart construction any time in the near future.

So to those that are not finished, All those except for the ones that are finished with occupancy, do they still count in the RHNA numbers?

Yeah. I mean, the state is interested about us issuing permits and things starting construction. Everybody assumes once you issue permits, it will eventually be finished. And these will eventually be finished. It's just a matter of how long it's going to take to get to that point.

And what happens if you don't meet the goals that the state puts forward?

Well, So, the obligation of the city is to plan for and zone for your arena allocation, and then you have to take proactive steps to remove barriers or constraints, that's why we have the Housing Constraints Committee, so that there's no, so it's as easy as possible for private builders to build those units that are zoned for and reflected in the general plan. The city's not required to guarantee those happen. That's why we provide the annual report. The state's very interested in the progress. HCD staff is a lot more proactive than they've been in the past, so they've actually been quizzing us fairly regularly on these numbers here for clarity and that sort of thing. So there's no... penalties per se about not producing units but we do know that in you have to come back for recertification for the next cycle cycle 7 is coming up in 2 years. We do know that the HCD staff that you know involved in the review will be looking at you know how we do on this cycle and they may require you know more you know objective performance standards and that sort of thing if they don't believe the city you know did enough in the previous cycle. So really the risk is how difficult it's going to be to certify your next cycle. And you absolutely have to certify your housing element, which is a state decision. So that's really the risk point.

Okay, thank you.

Any other comments, questions? Okay, Commissioner Neal.

Um, first an editorial, um, I think we're doing better on our arena numbers than any other municipality in the county. So kudos to staff and the city for making this a more, um, an easier place to build than many of the other municipalities. But I do have a question. Um, as we approach the seventh cycle and it seemed that we are hitting our capacity on housing units. I know we still have some in the Uptown Central Plan that haven't, or Central, yeah, Uptown Specific Center Plan, sorry, that haven't been allocated. But I suspect the number that RENA is going to, that our RENA number is going to be applied is bigger than what we have. Will we have to increase the ceiling for population on this next move? And then will that kick, because our general plan is 23 years old, and it's a little long in the tooth. I know we've updated other elements, but will we need to up our population capacity to be able to meet the new RHNA numbers?

Those are all very good questions.

That's the slide I wanted to show.

So we received our preliminary reallocation numbers already from HCD last week. And you're right, they go up. It's about a 30% increase countywide. So our allocation this year is about 1500 units. We think we're gonna be around 22 or 2300 units in this next cycle. So we will have to show to HCD where we have sites zoned for that. Previously, in the previous cycle with infill and Olsen Chandler and Beachwood, we were able to demonstrate adequate sites for those 1400 units. We don't have adequate sites for another 2300 units currently zoned. North Chandler Ranch is probably where a good chunk of those need to be. That may require increasing the unit allocation or density for Chandler Ranch, which would then trigger a general plan amendment that potentially would have to increase the base population at build out. So that will be a major challenge with this next cycle. It's gonna be a major challenge. It'll probably force our hand on a couple of those issues, including North Chandler Ranch and the population build out number. Another exciting part of the next re-nest cycle is it includes a new category for affordable housing. under this table you know we have above moderate moderate low and then extremely low and very low income they're going to add another category below that which is acutely low and acutely low is people making 0 to 15 of area median income so it's basically people without any jobs or housing and that It looks like we'll be allocated probably 200 to 300 units that we'll have to plan for. We will be the test case for this new policy. So for whatever reason, SLOCOG, San Luis Obispo County, is at the very beginning of Cycle 7. This is a new rule just for Cycle 7. So our county will be the test case for rolling out this new housing category. We're not sure exactly what the state's going to be required for us to demonstrate that we can provide for 300 acutely low income units. So that will be a major challenge as well.

So the project adjacent to JCPenney is not acutely low? No, it was very low and low.

So acutely low is basically ECHO. That's what we're talking about.

Okay.

Commissioner Christensen.

Just a follow up on that, Warren. Are we the test case by choice? And whose choice?

It just, for whatever reason, San Luis Obispo County is at the beginning of the cycles. I'm not sure how many decades that goes back, but yes, we're at the beginning of the cycle. Last, in cycle six, it actually worked to our benefit because the HCD was fairly lenient at the beginning of cycle six and then became more restrictive as we moved into cycle six. So we'll see how cycle seven goes.

That's what I'm saying. Did we become the test case by choice, or who makes that decision?

No, it's all by state statute how this rolls out.

State, not the county?

Yeah, we have no say in it.

Okay, thank you.

Great. So on that same subject, Warren, so when you see folks like ECHO for the unhoused, do any of those units count towards any of this?

Well, they didn't in cycle six because acutely low wasn't a designated housing type. It wasn't even considered housing. Emergency shelters were separate from housing. So the state is making actually a fairly significant change to now identify emergency shelters as housing and put them under RHNA. So these are actually kind of foundational shifts that are happening in this next cycle.

And then the threshold that is set for low meet moderate, those are all by the state, correct, as far as how those tiers are driven? Yes. The percentages? Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Neal.

Commissioner Kovarubias brought up a great question. So if we didn't count ECHO in the last cycle, can we count it in the next cycle?

Well, if there's a way to count in the next, we will. So if you have any good ideas, that could earn you a gold star.

I mean, because the city of San Luis has some of the similar housing that was never counted. So I would think that it's probably just to try to get the numbers and understand where the numbers are. So it's worth a try.

Any other commissioners? Okay, opening it up for public comment. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to ask any questions? No? Okay, any callers?

There are no callers.

No callers. Okay, I'll bring it back to the commission for any more comments, or I would entertain a motion.

I'd be happy to make a motion. Okay. I recommend approval of the 2025 general plan annual report to the City Council and that the City Council direct staff to send the annual report to the state. Yeah, I get a second.

I'll second that.

Okay, I got first by Cobaruda, second by Commissioner Christensen. Can we get a roll call, please? Or any other comments before we take a vote?

Nope. Okay. Commissioner Kovarubias? Aye. Commissioner Christensen? Aye. Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Commissioner Roden? Aye. Chairperson Marlowe? Aye. Motion passes 7-0. Great. So this will be on the June, I believe, second council agenda.

Okay, thank you. Moving on to consent calendar. Are there any questions, comments, concerns regarding the April 6th, 13th, or 20th DRC committee minutes? If not, I, oh, Commissioner Neal.

I'd like to move approval of the consent calendar.

Okay. Can I get a second? Second. Okay, first by Neal and a second by Commissioner Roden. Okay. Roll call.

Commissioner Neal. Aye. Commissioner Roden.

Aye.

Commissioner Lorenz.

Aye.

Commissioner Kovarubias. Aye. Commissioner Christensen. Aye. Commissioner Kobler. Aye. Chairperson Marlowe. Aye. Motion passes 7-0.

Great. Madam Jay, other reports, the Housing Constraints and Opportunities Committee and the Zoning Code Update. Is there...

No reports there. We're looking to schedule a housing constraints committee meeting probably sometime in the next month or two. No updates or changes on zoning.

Great. Thank you. Okay. Item two, development review committee rotation schedule. Is there anyone with any?

I will not be here on June 29th for the DRC meeting if there is one held. nor the 6th of July. I don't think I'm on that schedule, though.

I can take the June one, if I'm not already on it. No, I'm already not on it. So I will fill in. What date was that?

June 29th.

June 29th. Okay, great.

I won't be here for July 6th.

Okay, so... June 29th, and then you weren't going to be here for July 6th, so neither Commissioner Roden or Christensen will be here.

Well, Roden is not on.

Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. All right. So Commissioner Christensen is unable to make that meeting. Anyone able to fill in? We got time. We got time, so...

Yes, thank you. Will we have a DRC meeting during state fair week?

We don't typically just cancel those outright, but... That being the case, I may need somebody to trade with me for July 20th.

Well, okay. We'll cross those.

I'll be around in later July after the 11th.

Well, we've got some time. We'll cross those bridges.

In that same vein, I'd probably have a conflict in September, but that could be right in a while.

Okay. I think we can have some time to figure that out. but I appreciate your being on top of it. So, okay, great. Moving on to item K, planning commissioner comments. Do any of my commissioners have any comments? Seeing none, Warren, any staff comments?

Yep, a couple updates. The boys' school is slowly moving forward. We're getting very close, I believe, on final conditions of approval and mitigation measures for the project. I do think that probably late summer might actually be a date where this might be ready for planning to consider, so be aware of that. We also have the Hunter Ranch Resort Project. That's the golf course out there on 46 East. The proposal is to add 400 lodging units out there Another project that's been around for a long time, but it's getting fairly close. Potentially it will be ready for planning commission late summer, early fall as well. Beachwood specific plan, Darcy talked about it, that's the 911 units down there on Meadowlark and Beachwood. That project is starting to actually make some real progress. It looks like there's some builders interested in picking up the initial phases. So that is a project. It was approved basically at the same time as the Olson project, but hasn't broken ground yet. It does look like probably in the next 12 months that one will break ground and start moving forward, which is good news. Council had a budget goal setting session last week. They had a special meeting on Wednesday. Two of the kind of general goal sections that probably are of interest to the Planning Commission is the spaceport licensing was identified as a high priority moving that forward. The workshop that you conducted with the Council, I think, was part of emphasizing the importance of that. So that is going to be a priority project under the next budget cycle. Also, just general housing production. The Council continues to be very interested in increasing the amount of housing available, especially more of the rental workforce level type housing to support economic development. Cannabis, the Planning Commission did make a recommendation to the City Council to update our cannabis ordinance to allow the existing or allow delivery offices which are limited to only delivering medical marijuana to also be able to deliver recreational or adult use marijuana. for cannabis. So you made that recommendation to the council. You also recommended they consider removing the cap of a maximum of three. So that's been reviewed by staff. We determined that there were still enough issues that we weren't ready for the council to make a final decision on your recommendation so they're going to hold a workshop next tuesday to talk about your recommendation and potentially give staff some direction to add some additional features to the ordinance before they bring it back for consideration one of the things is to add right now everybody's required to have a conditional use permit but that's not really that useful in terms of regulating how the business kind of operates, especially from the police department standpoint. So there's a possibility that we might be adding an additional what's called a regulatory permit, which is more of a licensing that's administered basically through other departments, including the police department. So that's kind of a major decision point as well. So it would probably be of interest just to listen in on the discussion during this workshop. don't believe it's gonna get kicked back to Planning Commission but that's a possibility as well so why don't you be aware of that Warren when is that it's part of the council meeting okay thank you and then landfill so the city owns and operates the landfill that's out on 46 East the landfill proper is actually part of the city so that's within city limits out there we also own a hundred acres along the frontage between the landfill and the highway So that's city-owned property, but not within city limits. So we want to annex that, bring that into the city so we basically have everything under our control out there. So that would be an annexation of those, what we call buffer parcels. So we've been working on that. That's getting ready to come through to Planning Commission to make a recommendation to Council. That will include a general plan amendment and zoning, since it's currently not within the city limits, we'll need to do that. So probably in the next month or two, you'll see that as well. it's detached so right now the landfill detached because it's like four miles away it'll stay detached yeah we're not going to annex 46. and that'll conclude staff's report okay great i had a question so we had voted to make the recommendation to go to city council and then city staff

just looked at it decided it wasn't good enough like I guess when we made that recommendation was it to recommendation that hey we wanted to go there but staff review it I was just curious like when we made the recommendation to move on to City Council. What did that review you processor was there something that we didn't review or that you the staff was concerned about what from our recommendation.

What you recommend it was on the ordinance changes that's that's all fine. I think You pointing out of the commission pointing out that that cap of 3 really needs to be reconsidered with one of the items that we realized needed discussion before we they just had to make a snap decision on that or not. And then that limit of 3 is actually tied back to a resolution that the Council passed in 2022. That may need to be repealed, but we We basically need council direction about whether they want to repeal this previous resolution. And then as we were going through all these other pieces, we also knew we had this regulatory permit question that's been floating around in the city attorney's office for the last four or five years that we should probably just get some direction on that while we're at it so that we come back. So we probably in retrospect didn't bring all the pieces that the planning commission needed, but at the same time there was other things that were just kind of hanging out there. So It's basically a comprehensive cleanup effort, but in terms of what the commission did, that piece was very solid. Okay, great.

Well, if there's no other comments.

One more follow-up question. The information that the council had at their disposal looked like it included an alley category also? Was that, am I correct in having seen that? Does that imply that Norma's Alley will advance?

Oh, I forgot that. Yes. Norma's Alley is included as a goal. So the commission's recommendation was to form the ad hoc and then identify short-term and long-term improvements. That was all included in the goal session. So that was an oversight. Thanks for reminding me.

Great. If there are no other comments, I will take a motion to adjourn. Second. Second. Moved. All in favor? Aye. Thanks.