Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I know Yeah, pretty good. over there over here.

Sorry. Congratulations.

All right. Sorry. Recording in progress.

Good evening. My name is Eric Taly, vice chair of the planning commission. I would like to call this regular meeting of the planning commission to order. Uh would you please join me and stand for the pledge of allegiance? with city clerk. Uh Terresa Burrington, please call roll. Commissioner Munoz Morris here. Commissioner Flores here. Commissioner Jorgensson here.

Vice Chair Tolley here. At this time, we will hear any public comment for items not on tonight's agenda. Uh items raised are generally referred to staff and if action by the commission is necessary may be scheduled for a future meeting. City clerk, do we have any public comment? No, we do not.

Okay. The consent um the consent calendar items consist of matters deemed routine and non-controversial by staff and are typically acted upon with one vote. However, if a member of the commission wishes to pull an item for individual consideration, please say so now. City clerk, do we have any comments on the consent items? No, we do not. Before we vote, do any commissioners have any comments on the consent agenda? Do I have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda? Motion.

I'll second the motion. Uh, Madame Clerk, would you please call roll? Commissioner Munos Morris? Yes. Commissioner Flores? Yes. Commissioner Jorgensson? Yes. Vice Chair Tally.

Yes. Okay. Moving right along. Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to consideration. Only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city of St. Louis Abyspo at or prior to the public hearing. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes. Uh the first hearing item, item 4A, is the public hearing item before us is a review to request is a review a request to modify an existing conditional use permit to add delivery services to a cannabis retail storefront operation located at 280 Hyera Street. would I would like to ask each commissioner for the exparte of contact with anyone who has provided information to commissioners not on the record so that information may be used as part of the decision-making process. No. All right. Very good. Uh would cannabis business cor coordinator Ivana Gomez please reent the report?

Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Tolley. Um, hi everyone. Good evening. My name is Ivana Gomez. I'm the cannabis business coordinator. Um, and tonight I'll be presenting a request to modify an existing conditional use permit to add delivery services to a cannabis retail storefront operation. The recommendation today is to approve the request based on updated findings and subject to revised conditions of approval. The planning commission may review the proposed modification to conditional use permit number use 0550209 for consistency with the general plan and zoning regulations and adopt a resolution to amend the use permit in accordance with the request. The applicant Megan's Organic Market is one of two existing cannabis retail storefronts in the city. Uh the site is located at 280 Haggera Street in a retail commercial zone. It's also located in a mixeduse overlay zone as well as in the mid Hegera cannabis business overlay zone. So in November of 2019, Megan's organic market was granted its first conditional use permit. And in August of 2020, uh Megan's began operating in St. Louis Abyispo. So they've actually just reached their 5-year mark. Um, in October 1st of 2024, the city council adopted ordinance number 1740, uh, which allowed retail storefronts to amend their conditional use permits to add delivery services. So, in June 5th of 2025, Megan's applied to amend their conditional use permit consistent with the adopted zoning regulations. So, here's a look at what ordinance 1740 amended. Uh it amended table 2-1 within the city zoning regulations to really just provide a pathway for existing retail storefronts to um add delivery services to their operation. Uh prior to this, the city did not allow retail storefronts to deliver. So it was

necessary to create some type of pathway for our existing operators to do so. Um under state law, retail storefronts are entitled to deliver um by default. So a little bit about the delivery vehicles. Um the applicant is proposing to add one to two unmarked electric delivery vehicles to their operation. Um and so what that means is that these vehicles will essentially be unmarked. There will be no marking or any type of indication on the exterior of the vehicle that would indicate that the delivery vehicles associated with Megan's organic market or cannabis delivery for that matter. Um that is a state requirement. Um, an additional two full-time employees of at least 21 years of age um would be hired to support this service. Uh, vehicles would be equipped with GPS devices owned by Megan's Organic Market as well as cameras that would be continuously recording during deliveries. Um, and lastly with fully enclosed and secure compartments for cannabis goods storage during those deliveries. Delivery vehicles are proposed to be stored on site in the existing secure delivery bay. So there are no physical changes um to the site being proposed. So a little bit about the delivery services in general. So um upon you know a delivery receipt or an online order uh cannabis goods would be then loaded inside of the secure delivery bay. So to your right you kind of have a a portion of the site plan. So um limited access intake office is connected to that secure delivery bay which is where vehicles would be kind of out loaded and unloaded. Um an inventory ledger with you know the entire delivery order including SKUs, quantity item numbers that would accompany the driver as well as a log of all stops being made during that delivery. Um other than delivery stops, employees can only make stops for rest, fuel and maintenance. Um, at the time of delivery, the

identity and age of a customer is confirmed via photo ID. And that's before any type of goods would be passed along to any customer. Um, and actually prior to that, um, typically during an online order, a customer would also provide a picture of their photo ID as kind of a prevetting prior to that. Any undelivered cannabis goods would be unloaded and returned to inventory inside of that secure delivery bay. Um, so undelivered cannabis goods could be, you know, maybe the customer didn't have any cash on hand or enough cash on hand, maybe they rejected the the order, maybe they changed their mind. Any of that would be uh returned to inventory the same day. That is also a state requirement.

Uh, delivery hours are proposed to be from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. And that is consistent with the existing retail storefront hours uh that um San Losispo has. So, as far as new conditions of approval, there are several associated with the request. Um, conditions number 10 and 11 are kind of just reiterating state law. Um, so delivery employee requirements, employees must be 21 years of age, employed directly by the lency, and always carry a valid uh photo ID. Uh, condition number 11 just states that um deliveries cannot be made to schools, daycarees, or publicly owned land. Uh conditions number nine and 12 are really just to further ensure public safety through retaining camera footage of deliveries um and kind of just making sure that these vehicles are part of what can be audited or reviewed during our quarterly compliance inspections of operators. Conditions seven and eight are related directly to the delivery vehicles themselves. So, um, vehicle parking. The secure locked delivery bay will be where vehicles will be parked during business hours and just for general long-term storage. Um, one delivery vehicle can be parked overnight in the business area. The applicant does have an excess of five parking spots. Uh as far as number of vehicles, what this condition 8 sets is that the you know the max number of vehicles for this request can be two and anything additional would be subject to the community development director approval instead of you know coming to the planning commission to add maybe one more vehicle. So, Megan's Organic Market currently holds a valid operator permit, use permit, and state license, which authorizes it to provide delivery services under state law. Uh, the proposal complies with the city's cannabis and zoning regulations, and STO staff is recommending that the planning

commission adopt a resolution to modify use permit use 0550 2019 to add delivery services to this operation. That concludes my presentation and I welcome any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Gomez. I actually have a question. Uh, is the existing fac So, there's a bay that the delivery vehicle is in. So, it's an in uh interior bay that the it's like a garage, like a carport that the car drives into. Is that already existing or do they have to build?

Yeah, so that would be existing. That bay also serves as kind of the intake area for licensed distributors to drop off product. So, it is secure. It's locked. It's already existing. Cool. All right. Thanks.

Can I jump in and ask a Okay, great. Um, can we go back to um the maybe the previous slide on condition number nine, I believe it is, for the camera. Are we talking about a dash cam facing outward or are we talking about cameras facing inward into the the vehicle as well? So I will the applicant is actually here so I will actually have them answer that question. I would assume that it would be recording inside of the vehicle. This was part of their proposal in their application um and is actually not a state law requirement. So I'll go ahead and invite the applicant to um answer that question for you.

Okay. So some of these conditions were basically brought forward by the applicant as as kind of just extra measures to ensure safety and security of delivery etc. Yeah, particularly condition number nine was uh proposed by the applicant in their application to add delivery services. Um, again, a couple of them are state law and condition number eight is really just to further reinforce that the city would be, you know, authorized to audit and review those delivery vehicles during what we do quarterly compliance inspections.

Gotcha. Okay. And then the other one, maybe it's just a misunderstanding on my part, but I know that there the the proposals for two delivery vehicles, but somewhere I read one vehicle can stay in the business parked in the business area. So, does that mean the second vehicle has to be parked off premises overnight or did I misunderstand that? Yeah. Um I think it might be the previous slide. I don't know if it's on this one, but No, it is condition number seven. Oh, sorry. There it is.

No worries. So, um, what this condition is saying that, yeah, only one delivery vehicle may park overnight in the business parking area. Um, that's really just to ensure that there's adequate customer parking. Um, you know, for customers and EV vehicles being that these are electric vehicles. Um, for the most part, what we're looking for is for these vehicles to be, you know, parked in the secure delivery bay so that there's adequate customer parking. Oh, I see. So, they still have the space in the delivery bay for overnight. So, it's this is more intended for them to not make use of the parking space for customers on a regular basis, so to speak. That Yeah, that's exactly right. Gotcha. Thank you.

I have one more question, Miss Gomez. Uh, so by default, uh, is this going to allow two delivery vehicles by default? And then they would have to come in and ask for additional not Megan's per se, but like any additional any future um cannabis stores that go in, they're entitled to have two max and then a third or more by director approval. Did I get that right? Uh you got that correct for this um particular case. Okay.

Um the two vehicle limit is what was proposed in the application and so therefore that's what we're kind of setting it at at this point. Um there's a you know there's a possibility that applicants in the future could apply for delivery and and ask for three vehicles. Okay. So it's not like a standardized number of Okay. Got it. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? I had one quick question. So the site is um on Hyera at an intersection that may be the most interesting intersection in the whole state

with it needs a Yeah. needs a roundabout. Uh I I assume that um transportation staff etc. don't have any concern about more cars using that uh that entrance and exit. It just uh there's two diagonal roads and there's uh lots of waiting and when people choose also to walk across then that adds some additional waiting and once in a while uh you see cars turn right against the red light just because they got tired of waiting or weren't sure they they'd lost their turn or something. It's a confusing intersection in its own way. Uh but there's no issues that have been uh raised by staff around any signage changes or anything for that intersection.

Yeah. Yeah, that's correct. Transportation did review the request. Um they did not have any concerns over that. I think if anything um you know offering delivery would actually reduce traffic coming into and out of the um the location. Thank you. Okay. If there's no more questions for staff, does the applicant have a presentation? No. I don't see anyone clamoring for the podium. So, um is there any public comment, Madame Clerk?

No, there's not. Okay. And commissioners, any other questions before we call for a vote? Doesn't sound like it. Okay. Do I have a motion for a second? And a second. I'll move to approve the conditional use permit modification as presented. I'll second. Madame Clerk, can you uh call for a roll? Commissioner Flores? Yes. Commissioner Jorgensson? Yes. Commissioner Munos Morris? Yes. Vice Chair Tony?

Yes. All right, that passes. Thank you guys. Appreciate it. Uh the business item before us next is to review and approve a draft response to the recommendation number six of the grand jury report round and round with town and gown. Would deputy community director Tyler Corey please report present your report? That's a long title. Deputy community director. Deputy community development director. Got it. All right. Well, thank you, Vice Chair Tolley and members of the commission. It's been a while since I've sat in this chair. Um, I'm here with uh Timmy Twe, community development director, and we're just going to present an overview of our response to the uh grand jury report. And I think Timmy's going to kick it off and then I'll kind of go over some of the details of the of our specific response.

Thank you, Tyler. Good evening. Timmy Twe, director of community development. I don't know that I've ever sat in this chair in this capacity and gotten to present to you all. So, thank you for having me. The item before you is the response to a one of the recommendations from the grand jury report that has been assigned to the planning commission for response. The recommendation is that you review and approve the draft response to recommendation six of the grand jury report round and round with town and gown. For some background, in 2024, the grand jury convened to review town gown issues specifically related to fraternity and sorority uh operations in the city of St. Louis Bispo. And on June 23rd, 2025, the grand jury submitted a report to the city with their findings and recommendations. And these findings and recommendations require response from the city council, the city manager, and the planning commission to be responded to by September 19th, 2025. This report that uh was received includes seven recommendations. They are all in an attachment to your staff report. And specifically, the planning commission was asked to respond to recommendation six, which is what we're talking about this evening. The city is required to have one of four specific responses to each of the recommendations. Um either that the recommendation has been implemented, it's not yet been implemented but will be in the future, it requires further analysis, or it will not be implemented. And so before I hand it over to Tyler, I will just cover the recommendation um in question. So recommendation number six um that requires response from the planning commission was that the slow city manager and planning commission should move toward adopting more uniform conditions for cups and enforcement of existing requirements due to the time

span in which these cups were approved. The requirements are inconsistent. The city should consider using future cup violations to determine if it is appropriate to revise these conditions to make them more relevant for today's environment. This may require consideration of additional code enforcement staff or alternative work schedules. And now I will hand it over to Tyler who will further explain the draft uh response that has been provided to you in your packet.

All right. Thanks Timmy. This is just kind of the overview of the commission's purview which Timmy covered which is to provide a response one of the four responses to the presiding judge. Um and this needs to happen by September 19th. And in terms of what the city's response recommendation is, the draft response is that the um that it has been implemented and and that's been implemented to the extent practical and appropriate from the city's perspective. Uh in terms of the specifics um addressing each of the kind of components of uh of the recommendation, back in 2018, the city did complete a comprehensive update to the zoning regulations. It also included a close look and update to the um chapter that governs the fraternity and sority land uses. This is where we did look at applying uniform conditions, looking at best practices and um basically updating our review process for uh for new applications as well as existing. Um second component kind of discussed a little bit about does the city enforce cups. The answer is is yes. Um the planning commission is well aware that since over the last year or so we've seen I think five of these um one new one and four re-reviews. And so this was an opportunity for the city to apply the updated code that we had from 2018, refresh some of the existing that uh use permits that needed um some updating and re-review as well as um there were others that just did were revoked. So that was kind of the outcome of of those uh re-reviews over the last four years or excuse me over the last year. um code enforcement in general, it's it's basically a complaint based um program that we have. Um this is consistent with how we review

complaints not just for fraternity and sorority land use um maybe noise or other CU violations, but other activities across the city, whether any municipal code violation would be basically um responded to on a complaint basis. other components of our response. Um, basic I wanted to touch on the fact that uh the community members aren't charged for staff time or resources to review complaints. I think that was brought up uh in the in the report. Um we field those complaints. We collaborate with the police department and then we um do a field visit and issue a citation or um or confirm whether a violation has occurred. So, um, but I did want to highlight that because that was a point in the, uh, in the report about cost. Um, in terms of like the impact to our code enforcement team, the, um, the complaints roughly estimated at about six and a half% or so of of total calls and total complaints that we're uh, required to follow up on. um current staffing levels that the city has, we just don't have the ability to do proactive code enforcement um given the volume of um of requests and and and calls that we have for followup. Um there are certain instances where the city does go out and um code enforcement does uh conduct some proactive um schedules terms of or proactive u enforcement for activities that they're aware of. One of them obviously would be Rush. Others were this the St. Friday's uh event issue. So those are much lar that St. Friday is obviously a much larger issue with had um more of a a police focus, but there are um certain events that they do scale up for and do work out of normal work schedules. Um, in terms of what's happening next,

the city council is going to be having a meeting to discuss recommendation one, two, four, and five of the um of the report. And that's happening on September 16th. And so that's the next opportunity for the public to u provide comments and um discuss this at the with the city council. And then we're back to the recommendation was um for the planning commission to review and approve the draft response. So then we could forward it on um as we're required to. And that concludes the presentation. Thank you, Mr. Corey. Um planning commissioners, any questions for staff? I'm seeing none. Okay. Uh Madame Clerk, do we have any public comment on this item?

No, we do not. Very good. All right. Any discussion? Um, oh yes.

I just had one question. In some of the letters that we got, they mentioned the I don't remember the AB5, whatever, and there was criticism that the report was not showing the addresses of the fraternities and sororities. And I went online to Calpal's site and I saw all the addresses listed today. So was that a change? Thank you for that question. So there are and John Mezipza, code enforcement supervisor is here. He knows much more about this than I do, but I'm going to attempt to answer. He will jump up if I'm incorrect. So, as far as I understand, the university does provide a list of the houses that the fraternities and sororities have registered with the university. One of the concerns and complaints we've heard from the community is that Calpali also has a party registration process whereby they used to provide addresses when a party was registered which helped us confirm whether or not a fraternity or sorority party was happening at a location that was not a cup fraternity or sorority. uh in the last year or so, the addresses for those parties have not been listed. So that's I believe the addresses that maybe members of the public are commenting on in those comment letters that are different than they used to be a year or so ago. Sorry, I might have a followup to that because as I read it, I my understanding was that no addresses were included on their website and it just said it was changed to St. Louis Abyspo, but it sounds like we're now saying it's only the party addresses that aren't being listed, but others are. I'm I'm a bit confused. I'm sorry.

Hi, I'm John Menzip. I'm the code enforcement supervisor. Yeah, I'll give you a shot on this question. But um essentially when you go annually the C cowpoly is supposed to produce a report coding compliance with AB I forget what the actual Senate bill was called but it's 524 um which includes a number of things they have to report on. One of which is all of the locations that they recognize work where uh fraternities are located. Um and essentially that list of addresses mirrors what we have on file for conditional use permits. Um but then in addition to that uh any uh sanctioned events are supposed to be registered with Calpaly and uh they are supposed to report on any of those events that occur. Uh when they initially put out the first report uh the addresses at where these events occurred were listed out. Uh but then they made an interpretation uh to basically say we no longer have to list these actual locations. We're just going to list the the events that have occurred per fraternity or sorority that that had an event. So the address the addresses where events have occurred are not being provided on those on those reports. [Music]

Gotcha. Thank you for that clarification. I might just throw a quick curveball since you stepped up so bravely and ask so I mean it sounds like in the recommendation they're talking about an increase in staffing to address some of these concerns. Would would that actually address these concerns in your opinion? Because it seems I mean I understand that the need for more enforcement I guess of these violations, but it just seems like one of many things that need to happen, right?

Yeah. I don't necess, you know, I wouldn't be able to say for sure if we added a staff member if it wouldn't be able to address the concerns directly or even better than we're handling them now. But um when you when we think about what um what what's difficult about enforcing these isn't necessarily that we don't have a staff member to go do it, but it's the information we have to collect. We have to verify that um a sanctioned event occurred at these locations. And when you think about it, these locations are um not just fraternities, they're also residences. Um and they're afforded the right to do certain things at their residences. They can have parties, they can have people over, they can they can make noise and it would just be in violation of the noise ordinance. But we have to be able to connect uh an event that occurred with a fraternity um something that a fraternity put on which is becoming more and more difficult. Uh they aren't advertising them as much as we they used to in the past. They used to put them on Instagram or Facebook. I don't think they use Facebook anymore, but Instagram and other places. Um, and we would be able to say, oh, the location that this event occurred is advertised. That's the direct connection to the fraternity. That's not happening as much anymore. Um, they also uh when we go and knock and ask. We'll just say, "Oh, no. We just had friends over," which we don't have a way to verify further if that occurred. Now, they are required to report their sanctioned events to Calpali. And if we were able to have that list from Calpali of the locations of where those events occurred, it would be an easier connection, but that's not able to happen right now.

And is that something that can be required? I mean, I know that one of the letters that we received, there was mention of like suing Kalpali essentially into compliance. And I'm not saying we need to go that far, but is there a path forward to maybe get that information or have Capoli be a more proactive neighbor in this in regard?

That's a great question. One thing that we've tried to highlight throughout this process is that this is not an issue that is there's one party that has the solution. I think that the the town gown issues obviously will require Calpali to come to the table, the city to come to the table, landlords to come to the table, renters, students. It's going to take everyone to address this. And so we have been working proactively with Calpali to be really frank and honest with them about the things that we need to be able to enforce our codes and regulations. And so, you know, John has done some work in requesting these addresses and wasn't successful up until now. Um, but they're, you know, we're having ongoing discussions with them about the concerns of publishing these, but the importance of these addresses for us to be able to enforce our codes, and it's likely something that we will continue to look into how we can obtain these addresses.

Thank you. Regarding the addresses and when are they published if it's only once a year, it doesn't seem that would be that helpful because you're going back maybe a year to put an event with a fraternity authority.

Exactly. The reports publish annually um but would include every event that occurred over the year that was registered with the Calpali. So we would be retroactively applying the violations that we found and say, "Oh, you did have an event. you were acting as a fr a a fraternity at this location and that's in violation of our land use uh code. So it it it doesn't address it in the moment. Um but it is a way to keep them uh accountable if if we can identify them

and not all assorting fraternities have a house. So many of them Yeah. are out just at different locations. And of course some of the larger fraternities that have houses also have events offsite. Um, it'd be really good if proactively, I guess, the shortage of fraternities, don't they have to advise Calpali in advance of their events? It'd be really nice if it could be shared with the city then. Okay. Thank you.

And we've to that comment question, we we again that's one of the things we're working with Calpaly on. So, you know, we've asked them at least if they're going to have students register parties to have a disclaimer on that registration that says this registration with Calpaly is not an indication that you are in compliance with city zoning codes. You must go check if this is a location that this party can have. You know, so we're working on things that um if we can't get that information in real time, at least we are trying to address some of the confusion that students may have over thinking, I registered my party, why am I getting in trouble for having this party in this location if I've told Kalpali. So there are other things we're working on. You know, some of this is education and John's team has done a lot to proactively go meet with the fraternities and sororities and campus staff on just educating as much as we possibly can because it's going to take both education and enforcement again to address this issue as well.

Can I ask like roughly how many students now attend Calpali every year? Like is it in like 18,000 15,000? Do you know roughly in the 20s? And what capacity of housing do that what percentage of those students could be housed on campus? That's a great question. I don't know off the top of my head, but uh they're working on first and second years having onampus housing.

Yeah. And they've they've built quite a bit since since I was there many many years ago. But I'd be I'd be curious to know just how many students by necessity, you know, live in our communities. I say plural, not just San Louisis, but of course they live in other places too, but predominantly here. Um just I was just curious. Thank you.

I actually have an answer from our so 21,000 students and about 8,500 housed on campus. Okay. So, in the 40some percent. Okay. Thank you for that. Any other questions or comments? Good. Okay. I'll be glad to make a motion. Okay. You sure? Do we have a motion? And we have a second to adopt staff recommendation number. We should choose one of the four, right? That's what we're tasked with.

Well, the recommendation is is to um approve the draft response to recommendation number six. Okay.

I'd like to comment a little bit in in making that motion. Um I kind of read the response. I think the I think it's this is very well written and I think will move us forward but I think I also see that it um I think hopefully successfully sends some signals to Kalpali that um this is a big problem and needs um their undivided attention as well and that we got to come up with a common solution. So, I'm kind of hoping this is in fact um it appears to me to be a really good way to kind of open up and invite some real work and discussion. So, I I don't think it's going to answer every single question that anyone has written in about or that we've had since we've been in a sense on the front line in this board to uh review these uh these uh conditional use permits and um and in fact rejected some. So, um, I'm trying to be hopeful about this. That's the reason I I want to support this motion.

I I would add to your comments, too, that to me this this whole matter kind of makes it makes it clear in my mind the need for finding a Greek row or kind of addressing more more headones this issue because I don't think it's going anywhere. And yeah, yeah, there's only so much we can proactively do, but I know we can't just like bulldoze over a neighborhood and establish that, but it would be great to see again, you know, maybe working with Cal Polal to see if we can identify something there. So,

so we have a second or I'm sorry, we have a motion. Do I have a second? Oh, I'll I'll second. Sorry. Yes. Madame Clerk, you want to call roll. Commissioner Jorgensson, yes. Commissioner Munos Morris, yes. Commissioner Flores, yes. Vice Chair, yes. All right. Um, Mr. Corey, since you're already there, do you want to give us an update for our next for our forecast?

Absolutely. Uh, next regularly scheduled meeting of the planning commission is September 10th and currently we do not have any items. So that's likely to be cancelled um or very highly likely to be cancelled. The next meeting, second meeting in September is on the 24th and currently we do have one item um there's an amendment we're looking at to the zoning regulations in terms of its applicability. Um, specifically the city has some projects that uh are are basically in in terms of height potentially exceeding some of our standards where um these features are for safety purposes. And so we're looking at an amendment that would address that issue, allowing the city, as an example, a parking structure, um some safety fencing around the top of the structure that wouldn't require an amendment um to their entitlement to have it built. So that that's kind of where we're at with the applicability section. So we'll bring that back um hopefully on the 24th. Then from there would be a recommendation to the city council uh on that amendment. And so we will um we will look at that on that date. And then looking out even into October, the first um the first meeting in October, currently no items. Um and then out at the second meeting, we do have a couple items. Um we're looking at a general plan amendment for water and wastewater element. And we're also looking at bringing our historic um historic preservation ordinance for an update and looking forward to a recommendation from uh the planning commission to city council on that. And this also includes our historic context statement. So haven't done the update for quite a while. It's been uh part of our major city work program and we're excited to bring that forward. It's it'll be going through its review process at the CHC prior to coming to

the planning commission. So you'll have the benefit also of um seeing that recommendation and review.

That is the 22nd. Yeah. And that concludes the forecast. Thank you, Mr. Corey. Okay. Well, our next regular meeting of the planning commission is scheduled uh technically scheduled still for September 10th at 6 p.m. at the council chambers, city hall in St. Louis Bispo. That concludes our meeting today. Thank you. Recording stopped.