Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Testing, testing.

I can hear you.

Thank you.

Bye.

Sarah, can we test your microphone?

Yes, testing, testing. Can you hear me?

Yes, thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, and welcome to the Planning Commissioner Meeting, July 14th, Tuesday, 630. I'd like to call the meeting to order. We'll start with the 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 Great. Thank you. We can get a roll call, please.

Commissioner Lorenz?

Here.

Commissioner Roden?

Here.

Commissioner Kovarubias? Here. Commissioner Kogler?

Here.

Commissioner Neal? Here. Commissioner Christensen? Chairperson Marlowe? Here. So the record will reflect that Christensen and Kovarubias are absent. Okay. Item D, staff. Introductions, please.

Marcy Reynoso and Jessica Ferguson, permit technicians.

Warren Frase, community development director.

Darren Nash, city planner.

Dante Peccanino, interim city engineer.

Katie Bannister, associate planner. Catherine Piotti, finance manager. Karen Jackson, IT.

Annie

Sarah Laughlin from Best Best and Krieger City Attorney's Office. And I also have today with me my colleague Jill Tremblay, also from Best Best and Krieger.

Great. Welcome. All right. Moving on to item E, general public comments regarding matters not on the agenda. Are there any comments from the public for items not on the agenda? Any callers?

No callers.

Great. Item F, any agenda items proposed to be tabled or rescheduled?

There are none.

Right on. Okay, moving on to item G, public hearings. Item 1, planning area I, vested tentative track map 3239 and master development plan PD 2504, staff presentation.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. This item is related to the Beachwood specific plan. Uh, this is area I and we're tonight we have before you the tentative track map along with the master development plan for that area. So the, the whole shape you see here is the Beachwood specific plan area. The area we're talking about tonight is the yellow boundary area. This is phase two of the specific plan known as area I. All of these areas up here except what's shown, actually all of these areas up here have been to the planning commission. Area I is the last one to go before the planning commission for a tentative map and development plan. What is not shown here is Area F. That is part of the specific plan. And that project, or once a project is proposed there, that will come to the Planning Commission. But at this point, the owner is not working on design that we're aware of. So we're looking for the Planning Commission to approve the Master Development Plan for Area I, along with the tentative track map. This tentative track map would create 180 lots. 156 of those lots would be for single family residential, one multifamily lot, and then the additional 23 lots would be for Detention basins, roads, there's a water booster station, so non-residential lots. And just to make a note, the public notice that went out had these numbers a little differently since that publication and dialing in the staff report with the applicants. This 180 lots with those residential lots is what is consistent with the specific plan. so the whole specific plan approves the total of 911 units so that's residential units this area i is proposing or would be 196 units in order to get to the 196 units there is transfers of 32 units into the area i so 16 units would come from area g which is the park. To the west there along Beachwood Drive is the park area. And then 16 units would come from areas D and E. So areas D and E are controlled and owned by the Erskines, which is the applicant for tonight for area I. So they've Their specific plan, their tentative map, their master development plan was approved for less than the number of units allotted for D&E. So they're transferring 16 over to Area I. And then as far as the park goes, that's a community park. However, there was 32 dwelling units that were allocated for Area G. 16 of those were in the Erskine's control. The other 16 were the Harrods, which transferred those into other planning areas, which has already been approved by the Planning Commission. The Master Development Plan, small to read, but this is the specific plan kind of outlining what the steps are to gain entitlement for this planning area. Tentative maps, civil engineering, road, sewer, water, all those things. are part of the tentative map, they're part of the master development plan. The Erskines are not the ones who plan to build homes here. They are getting this area ready for possibly the sale to others or maybe they decide to in the future build homes. But what we're looking at tonight is kind of the master development plan, the specific details on Homes, what they look like, colors, materials, fencing, those kind of things for the actual home sites is not what we're looking at tonight. The specific plan requires those details come back to the Planning Commission at a later date. At some point when there's a merchant builder to build the homes, they will come in, they will work with staff, they will have to look at the specific plan Determine what needs to be built there to comply with the specific plan and then submit to the city their plans Which we would then bring to the Planning Commission for those details This is a little different than the Olson South Chandler Specific plan where they had a lot of those details right up front so while the specific plan has the framework for the type of the type of building type and in some specifics We don't have those specific details for you tonight. And this is a flow chart, just kind of tell you where we're at. The specific plan's already been adopted. We're looking at the small lot. Tentative map is what we're looking at tonight. And we're looking at the development plan. That last box is indicating that the architecture and details of the homes come back to the Planning Commission. These are two SNPs, one's from the specific plan and one's from the proposed master development plan that we're looking at this evening. On the left side, kind of hard to see, you can see the yellow boundary, that's Area I. On the right side there is the master development plan that's being proposed tonight. In general, The outline of the shape, the roads are in, we've got Airport Road going up along the side. We've got what's now called Sunrise Ridge Road along the north and Creston Road to the south. So those areas are consistent with the specific plan. The interior streets have been changed a little bit and representatives from Rick Engineering will be here to get a little more specific on detailing of the reason for those modifications of the street the different designs but in general what's being proposed is what the specific plan was intended for this area we did we did issue an addendum earlier today that addendum there was some questions about some of the conditions of approval so that addendum was staff working with the applicant to take a look at the timing of the Creston Road improvements. So there were a few changes there that were made. And then some of the check boxes and the standard conditions of approval were incorrect. So we updated those to be correct. But those two items were part of the addendum that went out earlier today. So Travis from Rick Engineering is here and he has some presentation to go through some of the details with you. And then after his presentation, we can come back and talk about the options and questions for staff, anything like that. However, if you have any questions for staff, I'm available to answer.

Great. Thanks, Darren. Would the applicant like to come up?

All right. Good evening. Uh, I'm Travis Koch with Rick engineering. Um, so as Darren said, I'll kind of be presenting a little bit more of the specifics of the development plan and the tentative map. Um, some of this information might be a little bit repetitive, but, um, so just a quick outline, we'll kind of go over some of the stuff Darren already talked about. Uh, just overview. Um, we'll quickly go through kind of how we're the development plan is consistent with the specific plan. We'll touch on just a few little minor tweaks that Darren mentioned as well, like the road alignments, and then kind of future DRC and Planning Commission review items, and we'll kind of wrap that up. uh so as Darren mentioned you know all the this is the specific plan area 234 total acres most of the other planning areas have already been through planning commission and approved and we're kind of the one piece there in the middle the last I think piece was area J uh just to the east of us was approved back in 2023. So this is that process, same thing Darren had. So the specific plan approved back in 2020, the first kind of large lot tentative map was recorded in 2021. And then we had all the subsequent planning areas come through in their own tentative track maps, which is where we're at now. So from the master development plan or the specific plan, we're looking at area six here and a tiny little piece of area seven. But that's the area I that you've seen already in there. So this slide just kind of shows the areas. We've got areas I-1, I-2, and I-3. The zoning consistent with the general plan and the specific plan. And then kind of a quick little summary of each area. So area I-1 is your single family residential lots, a few park lots, passive park lots, private streets. We have three water quality basins, an open space amenity lot, and a couple of pedestrian access. SUB AREA I-2 IS DOWN IN KIND OF THE BROWN AREA OVER THERE. THAT'S OUR MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WILL BE A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. IT WOULD HAVE A WATER QUALITY BASIN, OPEN SPACE LOT, KIND OF THAT LINEAR PARK LOT THERE, AND CRESTON ROAD AND THEN A PORTION OF THAT STREET A GOING UP. Subarea I-3 is our mixed-use development. That was that other piece of Area 7 on the previous slide. It would also have water quality and the open space lot there and Creston Road as well. So I'll quickly go through just the consistencies with this tentative map with the specific plan, you know, density, number of dwelling units, the improvement standards, development standards, oak trees, landscaping, street trees, fencing, walls, all of that. I'll kind of quickly go through that. so this is that same side by side from the specific plan versus the tentative track map i included the little land use summary and consistency table there showing the number of units that darren kind of went through already you know we're taking 16 units from area g and another 16 from the previously approved d e and we get a total of 196 units So all of our roadways, streetscapes, multi-use pathways, pedestrian connections are all consistent with the specific plan. Development standards, individual lots, the setbacks, parking, open space, this whole table is all consistent with the specific plan and is in the MDP. Oak trees, we have the same number of oak trees that we're removing for the latest oak tree mitigation plan and removal permit. We're consistent with the MMRPs from the specific plan and including long-term maintenance. All of this information is also on the MVP as well and is basically consistent with the specific plan. Other areas where consistent is street planting, open space preservation and planting, water quality basin planting, front yard landscaping. Again, most of this information is in that MDP and is consistent with the specific plan. Fencing and walls, also consistent. Entry monuments. We have different walls out here. We've got community perimeter walls, interior privacy fences. We've got view fences around the basins, and then entry monuments as well. some of the minor changes that were made we did as darren mentioned we we had to realign some of the local roads just to get a little bit better efficiency out of the site which will show that we we we added a pedestrian connection to the amenity lot there are some slight changes to basin slopes and fencing from what was in the specific plan but is consistent with the other areas that have already been approved. There are additional development standards for ADUs, and then we also have an additional water booster station that was relocated from Area J. So here's kind of a view of what changed in terms of layout. So some of the roads were realigned. We added a cul-de-sac, that court D that's circled up there. It gives a little bit of a different look and feel for the site, but still fairly consistent. This was the pedestrian connection that we added to the amenity lot. which this amenity lot ties in with area J as well. So the changes in the basin design, I think the specific plan has four to one slopes and that proved to be a little bit difficult to get the volumes that were needed in other areas and this was no exception. So we have steepened those up to three to one and have included this tubular metal fencing as a view fence and for kind of safety purposes around the basins. ADUs was something that wasn't originally in the specific plan, so these development standards were added and defined, and this has been consistent through all the other planning areas as well. The water booster station was something that came up recently with some further analysis of which areas needed additional water pressure. And this was originally planned for Area J, and it was decided by all the owners and the city that this location would actually be more effective in both cost by... reducing the amount of piping needed to get to the booster station as well as being able to be constructed where the water needed to be. So we've kind of put it up in this corner up here. It actually is a better location in my opinion because it pulls it away from the basins as well and is in a similar spot that it was in area J. So we've got that now outlined in our MDP as well. This was a quick little schematic of what that booster station could look like. This is very similar in size and was kind of modeled after this booster station that was built up in the Vigneto development, Olsen Chandler. So this is not the final design, but more or less kind of a concept to show how that would possibly look like. SO FUTURE REVIEW ITEMS, THESE I THINK ARE WORD FOR WORD IN THE STAFF REPORT, BUT AS DARREN MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, AS FUTURE BUILDING PERMITS COME IN, PLANNING COMMISSION WILL NEED TO REVIEW ARCHITECTURE AND ALL THE THINGS THAT GO WITH THAT, UTILITY PLANS, FENCING, WALLS, LANDSCAPE. additional review would also be needed for landscape plans booster station site plan which is also outlined i think in that staff report so i think uh in conclusion we're we're kind of making a case here that we think everything is pretty well consistent with the specific plan and the other areas that have already been approved and so we are requesting approval of the development plan and the tentative bet

Great. Thank you so much. I'll bring it back to the commission for any questions or comments. Commissioner Roden?

Hi. I just want to get a clarification. The total number of units prior were 156, and it's increasing by 40. Is that correct? Proposed number.

We have 156. Do you remember what the original one was?

Might not read it. Oh, that's family residential lot. Single family is 156.

I believe it was 164, and then the 32 brings it to 196 is what the unit count ends up. But the main thing is to, the kind of the red box in the bottom is for everything to add up to the 9-11. That's what the max in the specific plan is.

Okay, so is there an increase in the amount of units or type of units? Not for the specific plan. And not for this change?

So there's an increase in area I from the 164 to the 196. Right.

But a different type.

They're the same. There's generally single family. There's 40 units in the two acres shown as that brown area I2. and that's just shown as for that's a requirement for the density to be the 40 units there gotcha so the the single family lots are what what got addition to and the adus are how many don't think they know i think what travis had indicated is that in case the master builder comes in and wants to include an adu option there's some development standards and site planning in the master development plan for that but at this time

there aren't any proposed specific adus but we know what type of area you could put adus on do you have an idea of what uh what kind of maximum you'd be looking at with adus

Well, the single family lots would be 156 lots. So technically, single family homes can have an ADU. So if every lot wanted an ADU, it's possible we could get up to 156.

And as far as sewer and water and everything else, that's taking that into consideration in the future development?

as much as possible. So I think when we worked on the Olsen South Chandler specific plan and saw those planning areas really starting to utilize ADUs as the utilities division, engineering started looking at that a little more. So as much as possible to get those sized appropriately. So definitely on the minds of those folks with those plans.

All right, thank you.

Great. Any other comments, questions, concerns? If not, we'll open it up to public comment. Is there anyone in the public that'd like to speak on this topic? Come up and state your name.

I have to say something.

Right, Warren? My name's Tom Erskine, I'm one of the applicants. I just want to tell you, this is a very complex, difficult project. And having a specific plan approved ahead of time was made a lot easier, but it was still very complex. And I just want to thank Warren. I have no concerns. We've worked everything out. I want to thank Warren for his help. And then, obviously, Darren guided us through at the last minute and made the timing of this project come today, which I need. And then, Dante, I want to thank him for his help. That's all I got.

Great. Thank you. Any other comments from the public? Any callers, Marcy?

No callers.

Great. I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for any additional comments or if someone would like to make a motion.

Okay.

Commissioner Roden? like to make a motion um i cannot read that very well approve uh vestive tentative trap map three oh it's different there three two nine four this is three two nine three oh that one says two nine three here so is it three two is it can we get some clarification

Is it 3293 or 3294, because it's conflicting here on the... We're looking here at the... 3239, okay, great.

Okay, let me back up.

3239 is the track map number. Okay.

That's different than what we have for the recommendation. Somebody else make the motion. I can't read that. And it's different than here's on the staff report.

It's got two resolutions. Let's do it as two motions just to keep it clean.

Commissioner Neill. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to move approval of vesting tentative map 2032-39. Is that the one?

Yes.

Okay. And plan development 25-04 by the following actions. First action, first motion. Approve draft resolution A, approving PD 2504, subject to site-specific conditions of approval.

Okay, I got first by Neal and second by Kogler. Can I get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Commissioner Roden? Aye. Chairperson Marlowe? Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Thanks for all the help. Okay, Commissioner Neal.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to make another motion. approved draft resolution B, approving vesting tentative map 3239, subject to site-specific conditions of approval.

I'll second that.

Okay. First by Neil, second by Lorenz. Can I get a roll call?

Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz?

Aye.

Commissioner Roden? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Chairperson Marlowe? Aye. Motion passes 5-0.

And just a request for all the old I's up here, if we could make it bold or a different font, that would be hugely appreciated.

Actually, we should probably consider tilting the screen back our direction slightly, but...

will take care of that in the next meeting sorry about that okay great things for oneself on that one uh... moving on to

hearing item two cannabis non-storefront retail and regulatory permit amendment to table 2132-1 and chapter 2160 of the pass rule those municipal code and table 5.3-1 staff presentation great well i know we were

hoping to not see this again so soon but here we are so the last time you guys reviewed this item was back in February and we're back with some additional amendments and we'll jump in so this is both a rezoning and a specific plan amendment now both to allow non-storefront retail businesses of both adult use cannabis and medicinal cannabis and it would also add a cannabis regulatory permit So there's a long history in California and Paso Robles for cannabis regulation. Jumping forward to last year, the council directed staff in August to bring an ordinance to permanently allow non-storefront retail cannabis businesses to also deliver adult use cannabis. So those amendments came to the Planning Commission in February, as I said. and you made recommendations to the council to allow adult use cannabis and also to consider allowing more than three businesses to have conditional use permits to have delivery offices. In preparation for going to council with those recommendations, staff identified, some issues of concern that really needed to be resolved and so we went to council for a study session back in may at that study session we asked the council for questions there was a resolution adopted in 2022 that named the cannabis businesses that could deliver adult use cannabis temporarily at that time Of the three that were named, two were no longer in business or have never operated in Paso Robles. So we needed guidance on what to do with that resolution. Council has directed staff to repeal, to bring a resolution to repeal that resolution. And so we will be bringing a resolution to council to repeal. I've said it three times now, that resolution 22-144 to eliminate the names of folks who can operate cannabis businesses. All cannabis businesses would be subject to approval of a conditional use permit and the cannabis regulatory permit that we'll discuss this evening. The second question we brought to council. was whether to eliminate the numeric cap on non-storefront retailers. When we brought the item to you back in February, Planning Commission thought that three was probably too few. In researching the topic, we talked to other communities in the county. Multiple jurisdictions like Atascadero don't have a cap on the number of non-storefront retailers. They have zero retailers. We don't think... that there is a huge demand and having a cap has created artificial competition for those permits so council agrees that there should be no numeric cap so the the amendments that are brought to you this evening for recommendation have no cap um the non-streferent retail businesses are a delivery office and um that we like i said there's not a huge demand for them we expect there'll be a few uh applications um and then we'll come to some sort of a you know a supply and demand level that that will satisfy the demand in our community the third question we brought to council was whether to establish a cannabis regulatory permit and the answer from council was yes i'll jump into the details of what exactly that regulatory permit is but it will provide another level of more frequent touches from the city for cannabis businesses. Previously, cannabis business only had to receive a conditional use permit and then a business license. And as long as they were paying their taxes and we weren't getting reports of crimes being committed, they were allowed to sort of operate with limited oversight. So the cannabis regulatory permit will provide some additional oversight going forward. the fourth question there are existing businesses that hold conditional use permits that are specific for medicinal cannabis deliveries and the question was do those businesses need to amend their cups and the answer was yes so once these changes are made the existing businesses and any new business would need to get a conditional use permit that would come back to the planning commission for review So because of that guidance, we did make some additional changes to the ordinance, and we're also providing a new chapter in Title V, which we'll look at this evening. So the first big change in the zoning amendments, and I wouldn't say big change, but there are definitions. that we should all be aware of. They make the discussion this evening very wordy. So adult use cannabis also has this commonly known as commercial cannabis or recreational cannabis. This is cannabis use that does not require a note from your doctor. It's just an adult decides they want to use cannabis and they do so. And then non-storefront retail or a non-storefront retailer is also known as a delivery office or a delivery business. This is a business that sells cannabis, but not from a physical storefront. You make a phone call, you place an order on the internet, and a delivery service comes to you and delivers cannabis to you. So it is not a storefront, but it is a retail business of cannabis. One of the things we neglected to do in the past with the cannabis item was we never had added it to the land use tables. There's a land use table both in the zoning ordinance and in the uptown town center specific plan. So some of the amendments that you're seeing this evening would add cannabis non-storefront retail just to the general land use table that everybody uses to understand what can be done in each zoning district. In the regular, in the non-uptown town center specific plan parts of the city, in the C3 zone, cannabis non-storefront retail would be conditionally allowed in your staff report. There's a similar table showing how we would amend the Uptown Town Center specific plan to allow cannabis non-storefront retail in the Riverside corridor. These are the zoning districts that we have always allowed cannabis to be allowed in, we've just never updated those land use tables. So we're making the zoning ordinance in the Uptown Town Center specific plan cleaner. As I said, the non-storefront retail cannabis businesses have been allowed in the Riverside Quarter, which is the lavender zone on the west side of town, and in the C3 zoning district, which is largely around Golden Hill and Highway 46 East. It includes the Lowe's Center, it includes Combine, and areas to the south of Union Road as well. We do have the existing conditional use permits for cannabis businesses. The medicinal cannabis businesses are located on Black Oak Drive. They're in the yellow and blue stars that just appeared on the screen. So jumping into the zoning amendments that are proposed, as we said, the main thrust is to conditionally allow non-storefront retail of both medicinal and adult use cannabis. We would no longer have that distinction. If someone wants to deliver both, they could do so. We are eliminating the proposed cap so there would be no cap on the number of retailers. As you saw previously, the amendment would limit on-site signage to no more than 20 square feet total of exterior signage. There would not be any highway-oriented signs allowed on the property and there would be no off-premise signs allowed for cannabis businesses within the city. Previously, there was a 600-foot separation required from schools and daycares and youth centers. As you saw previously, we would extend the 600-foot separation to also include both city and public parks. So cannabis businesses would not be able to be located within 600 feet of those as well. And then the next slide will show you a map of what that does to the areas where cannabis businesses could locate. But more importantly, also the other operational standards for cannabis would be moved into Title V. So there are standards that you saw in the previous iteration of the ordinance that no longer appear because they will be moved to Title V and will be part of the cannabis regulatory permit. As I said, here is the map. So these are the schools, public parks, daycare centers, youth centers that are known in the city. So within the red circles, you would have to be in a zone where either the Riverside Corridor or the C3 and at least 600 feet from all of these green areas. So the red circles show extra exclusionary areas for cannabis businesses. Jumping into, so when we receive an application for a conditional use permit, the Planning Commission will have to make findings to approve those conditional use permits. You would need to find that the use is likely to enhance and not to detract from the economic vitality of an area, that the conditional use permit addresses potential adverse impacts, that it does not result in an over-concentration of businesses in an area, and the extent of support or opposition in that neighborhood to the cannabis use. So those are the findings you would need to make the next time we see a conditional use permit for a cannabis business. So now jumping into the cannabis regulatory permit. The Planning Commission is familiar with conditional use permits. They are a land use entitlement. They address things like zoning compatibility, buffers from sensitive sites, traffic and noise. They are site specific and they run with the land. So if a cannabis business owner changes if the business changes hands or the places say the property changes hands that conditional use permit runs with the land we've actually seen situations in Paso Robles where we have an existing conditional use permit for a cannabis business that the property has sold and now we don't even know who these folks are that that hold a conditional use permit for a cannabis business and A conditional use permit is a one time approval and they are somewhat time consuming to revoke. So it leaves a gap in oversight. We haven't really had annual review or frequent oversight of the cannabis businesses in town. So the proposed cannabis regulatory permit, it adds operational standards, things like a security plan, background checks, and so forth that our police department will be making frequent Checks and making sure that the businesses and businesses are in compliance The regulatory permit will be specific to an operator any transfer would have to be approved by the city and we would go through all of the Oversight and background checks for any new owner as well It would allow ongoing monitoring and regulatory oversight and it would be simpler to revoke. It's not a land-use entitlement that An owner is vested in The cannabis regulatory permit requires us to add a new chapter to Title V. Title V is largely standards that belong to the police department. Really, the Planning Commission doesn't have to review amendments to Title V, but because we're removing standards from Title XXI, I would assume that you want to see where they're going to land so that we're not just eliminating standards for cannabis business. You know that they're actually going to be actually strengthen up a bit. So the cannabis regulatory permit, it would be required in addition to the CUP. Businesses all need a business license and cannabis businesses also pay a cannabis business tax. The regulatory permit outlines the application process, operational requirements, requires annual review, financial audits, and also gives a revocation process. And so that's all in the draft ordinance that is in front of you this evening. I've got multiple slides that go through a lot of the details. I don't think, I imagine that we're not really wanting to go through all those details. They're in the staff report that you read. But when someone applies, they're gonna need to provide extensive information, owners all the way down to individual people. Some of the cannabis businesses that exist have gotten quite large, lots of corporations with different layers of ownership. To get a cannabis regulatory permit, they will have to disclose all parties with financial interest. Those parties will receive background checks, and then the police department will be requiring security plans, robbery prevention plans, employee training plans, and so forth. There are a number of operational requirements, and I... that would be required to, the businesses will be required to comply with so that they can gain annual renewal. And so annually the businesses would need to apply for renewal of their permit. We would do new background checks and audit of the ownership. Not necessarily every year, but we would see an audit of the finances of the business and physical inspection of the premises by the police department. The planning division would do an exterior inspection to make sure signage and all of the landscaping and so forth are in compliance with the conditional use permit. There are a number of operational requirements. Again, I don't want to belabor, but contact information needs to be updated within 10 days to the city. Businesses need to have proper storage, track and trace systems. For security measures, they need to have measures that deter and prevent unauthorized access. They need to have adequate lighting, and they need to notify the police department within 24 hours of any criminal activity that occurs. They also need to keep legible, clear, and accurate books for seven years, and if the city needs to see them, they have to surrender those within 24 hours so that the city can look at the records if needed. Specifically for non-storefront retailers, which is the only type of business that Paso Robles is proposing to allow, no customers on the premises, limited hours for deliveries. When deliveries are being made, the delivery has to have a manifest so that an actual order has to be placed before a delivery driver leaves wherever the cannabis is being stored. The delivery vehicles will need to be registered with the police department so we know who is delivering cannabis in the community. All delivery vehicles will need a GPS tracker with data that is stored for 90 days. Drivers will need to wear visible company issued ID. We do have to allow deliveries from outside the city, but those businesses do have to pay cannabis taxes in the city of Paso Robles. So next steps, if the Planning Commission were to recommend approval of the ordinance, it would need to be considered by the City Council. That does take two readings, so the City Council will look at the ordinance twice, the first and second reading. Concurrently, we will be bringing a repeal of Resolution 22-144 that specifically names cannabis businesses. We also need to establish a fee for the cannabis regulatory permit, so these will be concurrent actions. Once the ordinance is in place, All the existing and any future cannabis businesses who want to operate non-storefront retail cannabis businesses will need either an amendment or a new CUP. Those will come back to the Planning Commission for consideration before any cannabis business is able to deliver adult use cannabis in Paso Robles. we will also be looking at applications for cannabis regulatory permits we will 30 days after the second reading we'll be able to take applications for that cannabis regulatory permit so this evening this action is not a not subject to the california environmental quality act because it doesn't qualify as a project and it doesn't result in either a direct physical change to the environment or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment, so the project is exempt from CEQA. There are findings that need to be made in order to approve a zoning amendment and a specific plan amendment, essentially that the amendments are consistent with the general plan and the applicable specific plan, that the amendments won't be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, and so forth. The plan, excuse me, the amendments provide adequate, in the Uptown Town Center specific plan, there are adequate public facilities available to serve development, and essentially what is being proposed is appropriate in our community. The Planning Commission, as always, has options. The first would be to adopt the draft resolution in front of you. That would recommend to the City Council that they adopt the draft ordinance to allow non-storefront retail. It would cost four actions. It would add a chapter 5.55, which is the cannabis regulatory permits chapter. It would amend the tables in the Uptown Town Center specific plan and the zoning ordinance. And it would amend chapter 21.60, which are the cannabis standards. you could provide an alternative recommendation if you wanted to make amendments to the proposed ordinance or resolution you could do so or you could refer the project back to staff for an additional analysis if you prefer staff is recommending that you adopt the draft resolution to recommend the City Council adopt the draft ordinance making those four actions and that concludes my report great Thank You Katie good job bringing it to the Commission for

Any questions or comments? Commissioner Neal?

I have a question, Katie. Can you go back to the financial portion? I think it was the audit piece.

Is it the record keeping or backward?

Yeah, this is it. Record keeping. Are we asking, I mean, so legible, clear, and accurate books, records, and documentation, is that enough? Um, should we, I mean, is there, do we want to have, do we need to have it audited by a CPA so it's easier for the city to review the books? Um, should they ask?

So we do have Catherine Piotti, who's the manager of our finance department. She can speak to it, but I think our understanding, we've spoken to other communities in the San Luis Obispo County who have cannabis programs, and our understanding is they're not seeing a huge amount of fraud and problems. So actually, Catherine's recommendation is that we do a full audit, and that would be done by a third-party external person every three years.

And then that says that in the agreement?

The way it is written, currently the ordinance would require an audit every year, and we can certainly discuss that. I believe Catherine's intent is to make the amendment to Title V that it would just be every three years.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Roden?

Just for my edification, yes. Actually, some of the questions I have were answered by the regulatory permit and application process with background checks and all those kind of things. The one aspect of the police being able to inspect the business, does that also apply to businesses outside of the jurisdiction of Paso Robles Police Department?

No, we would not have the ability through this ordinance. The Department of Cannabis Control and the local jurisdiction would have those rights.

So would they do the inspection?

Each community that has delivery offices within them sets their own standards. The Department of Cannabis Control has standards, so there is some uniformity, but each local jurisdiction has zoning authority and authority over businesses actually physically located in their jurisdiction.

do we need to somehow qualify that and make sure that businesses who operate here are inspected?

So state law does not allow us to prevent, if a cannabis business has a location somewhere outside of Paso Robles and they have a Department of Cannabis Control license and they are complying with whatever jurisdiction they're located in, we have to allow deliveries within our community. That is state law.

Okay, as long as they comply with other things that we've just set up here with background checks with all of those things, correct?

We would not be able to require those of a business located elsewhere.

Well, why couldn't all the businesses just be outside of Paso Robles and they wouldn't have to have any regulation?

Most jurisdictions have some sort of regulation, but that is the truth. They could be located somewhere else with no standards. There are minimum standards from the state. The Department of Cannabis Control has minimum standards.

Yeah, but we have different standards that we want in our own community. So I guess my question is, you said we don't have the ability to deny a license to someone who's outside of our city, but they don't have to comply with the same regulations that someone within the city would have to comply. Is that not correct?

That's true. We do have also Jill Tremblay, who's a cannabis expert with BBK, the city attorney's office. Jill, I don't know if you have any other information to add.

Hi, good morning, Chair and Commissioners. Jill Tremblay with Asbestos and Creeper. Thank you, Katie.

Jill, we're having a very hard time hearing you, or understanding you, I should say.

Okay.

Jill can we have you try again.

Yeah is that better.

Yes.

Okay. Good evening chair and commissioners Jill Tremblay with Best Best and Krieger. Thank you Katie. I think you covered it that the city has to allow outside operators outside of the jurisdiction to come in and deliver within the bounds of the city. It's true there's an extensive section of the Business and Professions Code and also the California Code of Regulations that lays out a lot of state law requirements for non-storefront retailers. They have to keep their cannabis product in certain locked spaces. There's a designated area of the premises that the cannabis has to be stored in. Of course, no customers can come into the premises of a non-storefront retailer. There's a lot of restrictions on the delivery drivers and the vehicles, the amount of product they can carry, et cetera. So there are a lot of state law requirements for these businesses. And if the city... recognizes that there are some issues with some of the outside operators, we can contact the Department of Cannabis Control and also the jurisdiction that this operator might be in to report the issue.

But under those regulations, do I take it there are no background checks, there are no law enforcement, local law enforcement that may be involved? or check with them with background or anything else if they're outside the city limits yeah we would have to look into the background check requirements of the jurisdiction that the business is located in well as as I understand it we don't have that ability if they're outside of Paso Robles we don't have that purview is right you might be misinformation we wouldn't be able to require them but we could find out if the jurisdiction has those requirements and could request records of the proposed regulatory permit those things that we listed that we could do for people who are in Paso Robles what of those can we not within that regulate within those regulations

So for a business operating outside, excuse me, a business located outside of Paso Robles that is making deliveries, we can require a business license and for them to pay their cannabis tax. They would have to comply with the Department of Cannabis Control standards and whatever local jurisdiction standards, but we can't require all the additional requests and requirements of the cannabis regulatory permit.

All right, that's a little uncomfortable for me personally.

I will say most of the, you know, just because of how long it takes to drive, you know, from other places to Paso Robles. Most of the deliveries coming into Paso Robles are from within San Luis Obispo County. And San Luis Obispo, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, they all have similar, I can't say that they're identical, but they do have similar requirements. They have an annual audit. I know Grover Beach and San Luis Obispo both do background checks and so forth. So I think the other jurisdictions are also doing their due diligence. I can't say it's identical to ours, but they are similar.

What about the county?

The county does not allow delivery offices to be located in the county. Okay. Let me double check. I have a table. Let me double check my memory. It's the last page. I didn't present it, but I feel like I might have misspoken. did misspeak the county does have seven i did not speak to the county about their their process but they do require annual review i don't know to the extent that they go but they do have annual review of their license holders their permit holders so you can effectively get a permit there with having a

dark background I don't know that I would imagine slow County is doing some sort of background checks I don't know I'm talking about Roy Grandy Pismo Beach

Rio Grande does not allow delivery offices currently, nor does Pismo Beach.

What about Atascadero?

Atascadero allows them. They do not have any offices located there. So the second column is whether or not it's an allowed use of a delivery office, and the quantity issued is that fourth column.

Gotcha. Well, I can see where we're going to possibly have some issues with that down the road. Whether we can cure that at this point or not may not be within our purview. One last question. On the boundary of 600 feet, you can't have delivery offices within those boundaries, but can you deliver within those boundaries?

Yes, you would be able to deliver.

You can deliver to the parks and to the schools or right outside of school.

Jill, could you answer that? I believe you have to go, do you have to go to a residence? I know you have to go to a third place. Could you answer that?

Yes, hi, sorry for the delay on that. Yes, it has to be delivered to a physical address that cannot be a public property. So no delivery to parks,

okay that that makes more sense then you can't just pull up somewhere and deliver it somebody says i'm at the park it's not like it's not like delivering food you can tell i have a lot of experience with this so you have to have a physical address and it has to be outside those areas okay thank you of course any other commissioners

I was just looking up some stuff why Commissioner Roden here was talking, and I just wanted to kind of following up on it just because it's in here. 2160.070, commercial cannabis delivery activity from outside the city. It says cannabis delivered, licensed by California, physically located out of the city. It may deliver cannabis into the city that they comply with Chapter 322, which is the cannabis business tax, Chapter 328. business license and subsection 555-140B delivery operations, which now goes back to the document that you guys put together, which states that someone from outside the city can deliver in the city, but they must adhere to the hours of delivery, customer pre-registration, delivery manifest, vehicle signage, register of delivery vehicles, They should have real-time GPS tracking devices on all vehicles for 90 days, compliant with state laws, driver requirements, permits, valid issue ID. So it seems like that language states that some of the things that we have in our code that they do have to follow. My question would be, A, is that based on what I'm hearing, it doesn't seem like we're actually allowed to do that. And then B, how do we enforce that if they're from outside the city?

just curious I just Jill I don't know if you're able to quickly look at that code section I'm not sure if that was an oversight in our review or if that is if we can actually require those so that sounded like

That sounded like a lot of the state law requirements.

And it very much will be that's just in our 55, you know, 555-140B. I just, we're saying, hey, we can't actually enforce them unless they're the state law and they're paying their tax and they have a business license. But we're actually saying we have our own section and they have to adhere to this section. If they are just the state law, then what's the point of referencing that, I guess? Or can we reference that? And I guess that's just more for staff to figure out because You know, you can't have it one way or the other. You know, you got to clarify. So that was just something I noticed while we were looking up. I'm not sure if that affects us taking a vote. We'll get to that in a second. I just had a couple things I wanted to ask. As far as 555 is concerned, where did all the language come from of this? Where did you guys get the language? Who decided that was the language?

Yeah, so BBK provided the first draft, and then there have been reviews by our police department, our finance department, and our planning department refining it and making sure it says what Paso Robles wants it to say. We've had a lot of input from the police department.

Great. And then I just think yearly renewal seems a little aggressive. If we're going to do a you know if every three year for an audit maybe the renewal of the permit lasts a little longer than a year that's just a personal opinion mind maybe even by yearly or ever you know the audit comes with the renewal and then with that renewal is that is the fee the same every year or is there not a fee structure established yet with the permit cost

We're working on the fee structure, but the renewal, there would be an initial cost, and then there would be a renewal fee that would be different than the initial application cost. I will say that our police department would like to be doing annual inspections. Our finance department feels like the financial part can be spread out a bit more, but unfortunately, Commander Lear, who has been working on the cannabis ordinance, was not able to join us this evening, but I know he would prefer to have his preferences at least annually.

Okay. And I only have one other comment on 555-160, suspension or revocation. Most of the things seem reasonable, but it says the city manager may revoke or suspend it. I'd make conducting a cannabis business in a manner that constitute a nuisance where the permittee has failed to comply with the reasonable conditions to abate that nuisance. Do we have specific language around what that nuisance would constitute in a cannabis business? Because it seems like gives a lot of latitude to one person to revoke it based on what their interpretation of a nuisance might be and i just not that i think that anyone would one person would abuse that i just i is there language in here that i know that they can appeal it but maybe some sort of language that if someone is going to get revoked that there's maybe more than one person that has to make that decision um beyond just the city manager i i think personally that's just because if someone has a Mededa, whatever. I'm not saying it's going to happen in this case, but it's one person deciding the fate of a business. I personally think that something more than that should be looked at.

Nuisance certainly has a legal definition. I'm sure BBK can define it for us, but you're right. There is some art to the term of what constitutes a nuisance.

So those were my comments. I don't know if any other commissioner have a comment now. If not, we'll open it up to public comment. Thank you, Katie. State your name, please.

Hi, Linda George.

3126 Spring Street. To echo your question, when I was campaigning in 2024, I know someone asked about the 600 feet. Yeah, they were taking big old bong hits out in their cars. And that was one of the reasons that I kind of started getting involved in this completely. And I think that that city manager policy has always been in the ordinances when I first read them. I agree that one person shouldn't have that ability to take something or a business away from somebody. The other thing is a question that I've been asked. When the deliveries come from out of the city, for instance, I've been told Megan's on the receipt, it says slow county tax. It doesn't delineate if some goes to Paso or to San Luis as they're delivering in here. I don't know how that, if that's actually been looked at yet. I actually, because the other thought I had was if Megan's opens, they are in SLO, and I know she's here, and then they open here in Paso Robles, are she going to be compelled to have to go through both processes? you know, be taxed in slow or any of these rules. The other question I have is I think that the applicant, I mean, I have to say bravo, you guys. I mean, I love policy. I love writing laws. I've been doing it since 2009. And since I started working on this ordinance, this is really good. This is really, really good because we didn't have enforcement in it at all. So my question would be that once they get reviewed, apply, and go through the background checks, my question is wouldn't they be able, the police department be able to pull over because then the CDL, the license plate would be on their application. So that I would hope that the police department would have some kind of mechanism with the track and trace to be able to know when they're coming in and who they are. So I'm just concerned about how we get taxes from another city coming in when they have to diligently pay the taxes to San Luis Obispo. I don't know. I didn't know what to say when I was asked. Because that's why I came here tonight. So I think it's great. I think it's a great policy. And I did speak with a couple more cannabis businesses. And there is another one, I think it's Golden Apple or something, and they want to have a storefront too. So what I'm telling people is that after this ordinance is happening, we have to wait like a year or two to make sure it works. But there is a real big push for people who do want to move here, even to deliver. So I just wanted to ask that question. If a delivery comes in from another city, has Paso get their taxes if the receipts only say one city? Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Say your name, please.

good evening my name is megan souza and i'm the owner operator of megan's organic market i own a storefront dispensary as well as have a permit for delivery out of san luis obispo and i would love to and look forward to establishing a delivery office here in the city of slow so that i can serve north county customers much more efficiently don't have to go over the grade. And I came tonight just to say that I'm generally supportive of all of these amendments. We are accustomed to adhering to these type of security and operational requirements and extensive disclosures and such. I only ask that this body recommend to staff and city council to continue moving this item along as speedily as possible. I'm very eager to open and start delivering that tax revenue to the city as soon as possible. Thank you very much.

Great. Thank you. Any other public comments? Okay. It looks like we have a caller.

Hello? Hi. Go ahead. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, thank you very much. Um, my name is Jan Albin and I have the only concern I have because all of my other questions have been answered. The concern I have is for the monitoring and the oversight of this program, because we had a delivery service here still, I believe they're still in business and they had, um, they were not compliant with the state, uh, with the franchise tax board. So they actually did not have a right to use a specific name. And when I saw their business license and I went to the city of Paso and I asked why they issued them a business license, the answer was, we're not a regulatory agency. All we do is issue the licenses. We don't check to see if they're actually entitled to it. So that bothered me and it bothers me to this day that we have agencies here that are not going to be worried about whether these folks comply or they don't. So that's my question is that who's going to do the monitoring? Who's going to regulate? Who's going to check? because if we're lax in one area, we're going to be lax in all of the others. So I'd like to know who's going to be in charge of making sure that these delivery companies, for instance, are compliant. Thank you very much.

Great, thank you. Any other public comments? Seeing none, any more callers?

No more callers.

I'd like to bring it back to the Planning Commission for any more follow-up comments.

Just to address Mrs. George's questions on the taxes to provide some clarification on that, the cannabis business tax that's adopted by each city, if a business is located in that city, they should only be reporting taxes based on their gross receipts delivered within that city. So if there's a business that delivers to multiple jurisdictions in the county, if they deliver to Paso, their taxes reported to Paso should only be based on their gross receipts made in Paso.

That's pretty common with most things, like in the construction industry. If I buy products in one spot or in another spot, I pay the taxes based off the city I purchased the product for the project.

Yeah. So that way there's no double taxation. We're not taxing them again on their gross receipts and families or things like that.

Okay, great. Thank you for that clarification. And then the caller had some questions about the business license. So caller's right. The business license is not regulatory. Business license is actually a misnomer. It's actually a business tax certificate. It's just to pay city taxes. It's only purpose. So it's confusing in terms of really what it does, but it does not regulate, unfortunately. That is the reason why we need regulatory permit if you really want to regulate a business you need something more than you know business tax certificate so the way it's set up is the police department and the finance department will be the leads on basically oversight and inspection there'll be protocols for regular and then they also reserve the right to inspect you know as needed at any time so if there's any complaints or concerns both police and finance can make inspections or audits as needed. Great. Thank you for that.

I think that answers the questions from the public. I just wanted to, does any commissioners have anything else they'd like to bring up?

Bring up no, but listening to the comments, I think since the police department was pretty adamant about wanting to keep that one-year inspection rate, I would agree with that. And as far as licensing and auditing, if you wanted to stretch that out to every two years, no. My pesticide license has to be renewed every two years and auditing so I would think that would would make sense as well Okay Thank You Commissioner Roden My final comment is I'm in favor with of it.

I think it's good to have regulation I just like the one the two things I'd like to see is Echoing Commissioner Roden is I think every year is maybe is a little more i'd like to see maybe you know every other year um obviously if that comp you know if they violate any rules or anything like that and then the other part was just looking into that section that um defers to outside um businesses having to follow that section just making sure that that's within compliance before we you know decide to well before it goes to city council so Those are my two comments at this time. Well, is this a one-part motion or a four-part motion?

This is a four-part motion. And Katie can kind of help us figure out where to attach some of your comments, because these are different sections. Some of this is in the zoning ordinance. Some is not in the zoning ordinance. You are, on all cases, just making recommendations to the council. and we'll communicate whatever your ideas, concerns. Ultimately, they'll have the final say on it, obviously. Great.

It is drafted as one resolution.

Oh, is it?

It is drafted as one resolution. It does four things, essentially, but it is one resolution.

So it's one resolution. Commissioner Neal?

I'd like to make a motion, but it's not going to let me. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to move we adopt draft resolution pc 26 dash number to follow to recommend the city council adopt ordinance number to follow ns to allow non-storefront retail cannabis business in the riverside corridor and commercial light industrial c3 zone zoning districts to be to establish a cannabis regulatory permit by adding, A, adding Paso Robles Municipal Code Chapter 5.55 cannabis regulation permits, B, amending Paso Robles Municipal Code Table 21.32-1, zoning district use regulations, easy for me to say, C, amending Paso Robles Municipal Code Chapter 21.60 cannabis and D, amending uptown town center specific plan table 5.3-1 allowed land use and permit requirements based on findings with a further recommendation to the council that they review the length of the permits. Second that.

First by Neal, second by Kogler. Any other comments? Just to clarify, I think that's the renewal process?

Yes.

And did you want to recommend, like, biannually? Yeah. Just to be specific? Sure.

I would be happy with twice every two years. Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Neal. Not that I sure understand what biannually is. Yeah, that's true. Every two years. Is it twice a year or every two years? So every two years.

Okay, if there's no other comments, we'll do a roll call.

Who was the second again? Kogler. Kogler? All right, Commissioner Neal? Aye. Commissioner Kogler? Aye. Commissioner Lorenz? Aye. Commissioner Roden?

Aye.

Chairperson Marlow? Aye. That passes 5-0.

Okay, great. Thanks for everyone's help on that. That's a complicated one. Moving on to H, discussion items. Seeing none, I, consent calendar. Does anyone have any comments or questions regarding the June 1, June 15, or June 23 review committee and planning commission notes?

I would like to make an edit to the June 23rd, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes. Okay. In the moved and seconded portion, it has Commissioner Christensen as the person that made the motion and me as seconding it. But in the text portion, And I know I do have a big mouth, but it has me making the motion and seconding the item. So I do have an ego and I do like to take control, but maybe that's a little much. So which item was it? It's item two.

Item number two. Okay.

And who made the motion? Christensen made the motion, and that is correct in the upper portion of it. It's just the text that says that it was moved by Neal and seconded by Neal.

So it was moved by Christensen, seconded by Neal. Seconded by Neal, yes. Item two on the 23rd. Yes. Got it. Great.

And with that, I'll move approval of the consent calendar.

Got a first by Neal.

Second.

Second by Roden. Roll call. Please.

Commissioner Neal. Aye. Commissioner Roden. Aye. Commissioner Lorenz. Aye. Commissioner Kogler.

Aye.

Chairperson Marlowe.

Aye.

That passes 5-0.

All right. Moving on to item J, other reports. Housing constraints and opportunity, HCOC and zoning code update reports.

Don't have a specific update right now. We are needing to schedule an HCOC meeting probably later this summer. We are looking at starting the process for retaining a consultant to start the housing element update, which is the regional housing needs allocation process. That's a state-mandated process. Last time, the HCOC was highly involved in that process, and we'll start talking about that framework-wise about the HCOC's role in the upcoming housing element update. Great. Thank you.

Commissioner Kogler. Oh, no.

Just for item two.

For item two, DRC committee rotation schedule.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have put out a note to my compatriots to the left of me that I had a conflict on the 20th. I don't remember the 27th anymore, but on the 20th. And two who are sitting next to each other graciously volunteered to fill that slot. So I'll let you fight between the chair and Commissioner Roden as to who shows up on the 20th. But thank you for doing so.

I mean, I could take the 20th if you'd like the 27th.

I'll probably show up.

Oh, you don't need the 27th.

I'll probably show up regardless.

well my friend you can have the 20th yep you're welcome and as we sorry um as we are not meeting on the 24th um if there who is on the august drcu rotation if i could make sure i'm not going to miss anything

No, but I might have it on this one.

Give me just a second. I can tell you.

August is Marlo, Roden, and Lorenz. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other... Oh, come on here. Let's see. Going back to... Well, now I'm way off.

Playing commissioners.

okay all right so okay planning commissioner comments to my left my right seeing none moving on to item l staff comments warren yes thank you mr chair

Couple quick updates. First, staffing update. Leslie Frazier, our city engineer, was recently promoted to public works director at the city. So Leslie's no longer with the community development department, so you won't see her at planning commission meetings, at least representing city engineering anymore. Dante is our interim city engineer, so he will be acting in that process while we go through a recruitment process. But for the time being, yeah, you'll see a lot more Dante on city engineering issues. And another thing going on, we've hired a consultant to perform an organizational assessment of all the community development operations. It's a company called Matrix. They kind of specialize in looking at community development departments kind of across the country, making recommendations about best practices, ways to optimize and make the process more efficient. They're right now doing outreach with different stakeholders, including developers, different people involved in the development process as possible. Some of the planning commissioners may be contacted as part of that. They're doing different surveys. Ultimately, they're going to provide a comprehensive report, kind of benchmarking where the department is and then making recommendations. So we'll share that information with the Planning Commission as that kind of moves along. So I just wanted you to know that was going on in case you got a survey or heard any chatter about that. Okay, Norma's Alley. So you'll recall the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council to establish an ad hoc to look at both short-term and long-term fixes for Norma's Alley. That was approved in the recent budget. So we're moving forward now with getting the ad hoc committee established. So I believe on the August... fourth council agenda. There'll be a council item there asking the council to appoint the ad hoc and get that process kicked off. So I think that's, you know, really good news on that front. And then if you've been over to the Lowe Center, you'll notice the Trader Joe's is moving along. We understand it's scheduled to open by the end of the month. So, you know, that's really exciting good news. So we're looking forward to that. Other big projects, the landing, Boy School project, I know. We continue to work on getting the development agreement and final conditions ready for Planning Commission. There is a lot of progress on there. We don't have an official date yet, but we are getting fairly close, I think, at this point. We also have the Hunter Ranch Resort, which is the, you know, lodging hotel units at the Hunter Ranch Golf Course. That's another one that's been in the works for, you know, seven, eight years now. That one's getting fairly close as well, so I expect that to be on your agenda in the fall. And then there's another lodging project up on Buena Vista. Looks like probably end of summer, that one might be on an agenda. So got three kind of big projects that are coming along, and then annexation of some parcels around the city-owned landfill out on 46 East. That went to DRC yesterday. We're getting that ready. That will probably be on your agenda toward the end of the summer as well. You'll be making a recommendation to council on that item. And that will conclude staff's report. Great.

Thank you, Warren. Okay. Last item, a motion for adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

So moved. Can I get a second?

I second.

Seconded by Mill. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Thank you.